John 18.12-14 KWL - 12 The mob, the chief, and Judean police
- then arrest Jesus and bind him.
- 13 They first bring Jesus to Annas,
- for he’s the father-in-law of Joseph bar Caiaphas,
- who’s head priest that year.
- 14 Bar Caiaphas is the one who recommended to the Judeans
- for one person to die, rather than all the people.
John 18.19-24 KWL - 19 The head priest then asks Jesus about his students,
- and about his instruction.
- 20 Jesus answers him, “I’ve freely spoken to the world.
- I always teach in synagogue and in temple,
- where all the Judeans come together.
- I never spoke in private.
- 21 Why do you ask me this?
- Ask those who’ve listened to what I speak to them.
- Look, they’ve known what I say.”
- 22 Once he says this, one of the police standing by
- gives Jesus a slap, saying, “This you answer the head priest?”
- 23 Jesus answers him, “If I speak evil, testify about the evil.
- If good, why beat me?”
- 24 So Annas sends Jesus away,
- having bound him for Bar Caiaphas the head priest.
In
Backstory time. Ever since
And once the Romans took Judea from the Herods, they did the same thing. Annas became the 11th appointed head priest since Herod took over. (He’s actually the ninth guy to hold the job. Some of the previous head priests had non-consecutive terms.) Annas was appointed by the Syrian legate Publius Sulpicius Quirinius in the year 6, and stayed in office till the year 15. He’s a descendant of King John Hyrcanus, so while he was still in the royal family, he wasn’t a contender for the throne.
Bible commentators aren’t always aware that Herod and the Romans kept swapping out head priests, and assume Annas was the hereditary head priest, like all the head priests before Herod’s time. So they aren’t so surprised when Annas’s five sons, son-in-law, and grandson become the head priest after him: Isn’t it supposed to be a hereditary job? And yeah, originally it was… but now it wasn’t, and hadn’t been for decades, and the fact Annas managed to keep his family in power for nearly sixty years is pretty darned impressive.
Annas’s successors include:
- Eleazar, his son (16-17
CE ) - Joseph bar Caiaphas, his son-in-law (18-36)
- Jonathan, his son (36-37)
- Theophilus, his son (37-41)
- Matthias, his son (43)
- Jonathan again (44)
- Annas 2, his son (63)
- Mattathias, his grandson (65-66)
He wasn’t the only guy with a political dynasty though. Four sons and a grandson of Boethus, another descendant of Aaron, were also head priest. Including Joazar bar Boethus, Annas’s direct predecessor.
The power behind the head priests.
Since Annas’s family kept holding the office of head priest, clearly Annas had a lot of influence in Judea. The Judeans certainly thought so. Not for nothing do two of the gospels treat Annas kinda like he’s still head priest. John straight-up calls him the head priest in verse 19 of today’s passage, and Luke also calls him the head priest when he’s nailing down the time John the baptist’s ministry began:
Luke 3.2 KJV - Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
The bible indicates there’s only one head priest (and currently it’s Jesus,
Even though the head priest wasn’t king anymore, he was still functionally Judea’s head of state. The Roman emperors were off in Rome having orgies, and the Roman procurators only worried about keeping down insurrections, so the actual running of Judea was left to his his nation’s freedoms, remain in power, and feather his nest.
If Jesus was Messiah, this was an utter threat to his power. So naturally Annas wanted to check out this reported Messiah for himself. After all, what if he was Messiah? What if he actually, suddenly called down 12 legions of angels
In the other gospels, Jesus largely stood there and kept his mouth shut while his accusers made a ruckus. In John, he was pretty talky.
John 18.20-21 KWL - 20 Jesus answers him, “I’ve freely spoken to the world.
- I always teach in synagogue and in temple,
- where all the Judeans come together.
- I never spoke in private.
- 21 Why do you ask me this?
- Ask those who’ve listened to what I speak to them.
- Look, they’ve known what I say.”
True, in John Jesus hadn’t taught anything in private, nor said anything he didn’t care to repeat publicly. But that’s not true in the other gospels. He didn’t care to interpret his parables publicly.
So Jesus did have private teachings, and if we compare this statement to the events of the other gospels, it looks like Jesus didn’t tell the truth. But since Jesus doesn’t lie, that can’t be what happened here.
We have to remember what Jesus was being accused of—and therefore what he was being questioned about, and the context of his answer. The Judeans believed he wasn’t Messiah, but pretending to be; he was a
In the absence of proper leadership in Judea, it left the head priest holding the buck. They worried about rebellions. They worried Jesus might lead yet another rebellion. They knew it was only a matter of time before the Romans had enough, sent in the troops,
John 11.48 KWL - If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
Don’t get the wrong idea; the head priests did this just as much (if not more) out of self-interest as national interest. Some of ’em actually did believe they were doing God’s work. But
Annas’s questions were very likely about whether Jesus led another rebellion. Which, Jesus wanted to make clear, was not at all what he taught. Never taught any such thing. He wasn’t there to plot against the Roman Empire, and overthrow it with swords and soldiers. He was there to overthrow it with grace and love. That’s what he openly taught. Taught it so plainly, it alienates those who prefer swords and soldiers. Heck, he taught it while they were arresting him!
In these teachings, the ones in question, everybody could confirm it’s precisely what Jesus taught. He didn’t have some secret revolutionary agenda which he only discussed in dark places. He boldly, openly proclaimed God’s kingdom. And less boldly, less openly, let slip he happened to be its Messiah/king. But everything he did wasn’t gonna bring down the Romans upon Judea. On the contrary: Rejecting Jesus as Messiah simply opened a bunch of spaces for various new fake Messiahs to rise up and run wild. And that was gonna trigger the Jewish War in less than 40 years.
As if Annas cared to hear it.
Jesus’s reply suggests a level of frustration on his part. Closed-mindedness always annoys him.
Still didn’t believe him though. The priests already had their minds made up: Jesus was a fake Messiah, and they needed to be rid of him. That’s why Annas’s underlings had no qualms about hitting him: He’s never gonna be exalted to a position where his name’s above every other name, and every knee in the cosmos bows to him. Ain’t gonna be no repercussions of giving him a slap.
Because the head priests already had their minds made up, it’s a lot of the reason Christians tend to call Jesus’s trial a show trial, kangaroo court, mockery, farce, hypocrisy, rigged: If the judges are already decided about the verdict before they ever hear testimony, what’s the point of any trial? They were just going through the motions to make everything appear proper. Annas’s behavior exposes what was really going on: Jesus was already judged, and doomed.
If Jesus had any questions about whether he’d get a fair hearing, Annas’s pre-trial interview answered them. No wonder he didn’t bother to speak up when he later stood before the senate: No point. He’d just suffer in silence, and await
