jaentators think it was Caiaplias. He alone is called by John " tlie higli priest," that same year in which Jesus was crucified. Some few think it was "Annas," because Jolm says Jesus was brought to him. (Ver. 13.) This at first sight seems the plain meaning of the narrative, and is confirmed by verse 24. Yet this theory is open to the serious objection, tliat it makes John call Annas the high priest, and that it makes John omit alto- gether our Lord's examination before Caiaphas and the Sanhe- drim. Yot notwithstanding all these difficulties, I own to the opinion that this is the true view of the history. Augustine, Chrysostom, Casaubon, Ferus, Besser, Stier, Alford, and Ellicott maintain this view, but most of the commentators do not. We must remember that "Annas " is distinctly called " the High Priest " in Acts iv. 6, and this probably before the year of the crucifixion had completely run out. Even in David's time Zadok and Ahimelech are called " the priests " (2 Sam. viii. 17), as if both were high priests.
(&) What was the examination recorded in this verse ? It seems to be one entirely passed over by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. They only record what took place before Caiaphas, which, on the other hand, is a part of the history passed over by John. It seems a kind of preliminary inquiry, intended to prepare the case for the Sanhedrim. In spite, therefore of the common opinion, I decidedly hold the theory, thai the examina- tion here related is only described by John. It seems more- over to have been an examination conducted by Annas only, and quite of a separate character from that which took place at " day-break " before tlie whole Sanhedrim. This at any rate seems to my mind by far the most reasonable account of the passage, and the difficalties in the way of any other interpre- tation appear to me insuperable.
Ellicott remarks, " It only requires the simple and reasonable supposition that Annas and Caiaphas occupied one common official residence, to unite their testimony, and to remove many of the difficulties with which this portion of the sacred nar- rative is specially marked. Be this as it may, we can scarcely doubt, from the clear statement in St. John's Gospel, that a preliminary examination of an inquisitorial nature, in which our Lord was questioned, perhaps conversationally, about His followers and His teaching, and which the brutal conduct of one attendant present seems to show was private and informal, took place in the palace of Annas. There, too, it would seem, we must place the three denials of St. Peter."
20. — [Jesus answered 1dm, e^c] This verse contains a calm, digni- fied statement from our Lord, of the general course of His ministry. He had done nothing in a clandestine or underhand way. He had always spoken openly " to the world," and not confined His teaching to any one class. He had always taught publicly in synagogues, and in the temple where the Jews re-
0.36 EXPOSITOE"i: THOUGHTS.
sorted. He had said nothing privately and secretly, as if He had any cause to be ashamed of it.
The verse is mainly remarkable for the strong light it throws on our Lord's habit of teaching throughout the three years of His ministry. It shows that He was eminently a public teacher, — kept back no part of His message from any class of the popu- lation,— and proclaimed it with equal boldness in every place. There was nothing whatever of reserve about His Gospel. This is His own account, and we therefore know that it is correct. " I have spoken in the most public manner, and taught in the most public places, and done nothing in a corner."
Calvin remarks, " When Jesus says that He spoke nothing in secret, this refers to the substance of His doctrine, which- was always the same, though the form of teaching it was various."
We should observe that our Lord did not refuse to use the synagogue and the temple on account of the corruption of the Jewish Church ! Four times we read in St. John of our Lord being at Jerusalem at the feasts (John ii. 13, v. l,vii. 14, x. 22), and each time speaking in the temple.
21. — [Why askest thou Me, etc.] This verse is a remonstrance against the gross injustice of Annas's line of examination. Our Lord appeals to him whether it is reasonable, and just, and fair to call upon a prisoner to criminate himself, and to supply evidence which may be used against himself. " Why dost thou, the judge, ask information of Me, the prisoner, about my disciples and my doctrine ? Ask rather of those who have heard Me teach and preach, what I have said to them. These know well, and can tell you what things Ihave said."
Cyril thinks there may be a reference here to those servants of the priest, who were sent on a former occasion to take Jesus, and returned, saying, " Never man spake like this Man." (John vii. 46.)
The boldness and dignity of our Lord's reply to Annas in this verse are very noteworthy. They are an example to all Chris- tians of the courageous and unflinching tone which an innocent defendant may j ustly adopt before the bar of an unrighteous judge. " The righteous is bold as a lion."
The wide difference between the language of our Lord here, and that which He uses before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrim, as recorded in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, is very remarkable. It affords strong additional evidence that we are reading an ac- count of an examination of a more private kind before Annas, quite distinct from that which took place before Caiaphas. The careful reader of the other three Gospels cannot fail to observe that not a word of all this is recorded in them.
Bengel and Stier tliink that the expression, " these," points to the people there in the court, hearing and standing by.