Now Caiphas was he who had given the counsel to the Jews: That it was expedient that one man should die for the people.
ην δε καιαφας ο συμβουλευσας τοις ιουδαιοις οτι συμφερει ενα ανθρωπον απολεσθαι υπερ του λαου
11 Church Fathers comment on this verse
Why did the Evangelist remind us again of this prophecy? In order to show that all this took place for our salvation, and that the greatness of this truth is such that even the enemies themselves foretold it.
Therefore, so that the hearer may not be troubled when he hears of the bonds, he recalls this prophecy. That is, His death was salvation for the whole world.
The Evangelist recalls the prophecy of Caiaphas (Jn 11:49-52) in order to show that this took place for the salvation of the world. This truth is so important that even the enemies themselves foretold it.
Therefore, so that you may not be troubled when you hear of the bonds, he reminds you of the prophecy. That is, both the bonds and the death were saving, and for this reason the Lord endured them.
Once the obstacles had been removed, Peter let the sword fall from his hand. Christ, as it were, gave Himself into the hands of the Jews, though He could have avoided suffering and easily escaped.
Then the soldiers with their commander, and the servants with them, were carried away by an unrestrained fury. They were inflamed, as it were, with an irresistible boldness.
They took the Lord, who had wholly surrendered Himself to them, and bound Him with cords. Yet He had come to us for this very purpose: to release us from the bonds of the devil and free us from the snares of sin.
They led Him "to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas." From this the thought arises that Annas was the originator and arranger of the crime against Christ. Probably the traitor, having sold himself, asked him for the crowd of servants and soldiers to seize Christ.
For this reason He is led to Annas first. Thus, both for the Jews and for us, what they are shown saying through the voice of the prophet proved true and was fulfilled: "Let us bind the righteous man, for he is useless to us" (Is 3:10).
Indeed, Christ was useless to the Jews, not because He was such in Himself, but because they were disposed toward love of sin and passion. To them He seemed to bring nothing excellent.
He introduced a righteousness beyond the law and set forth, without any covering, the true will of the God who loves goodness. The law did not proceed in this way. Through shadow and riddles, it indicated indirectly and only barely what could profit its hearers.
For those whose sight is diseased, the light of the sun is perhaps useless, since illness prevents it from benefiting them. To those in a sickly state, foods may seem wholly useless, though they can bring the health they desire.
So also Christ seemed useless to the Jews, though He was the cause of salvation, for salvation was not dear to them.
And they sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest. "Now Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was expedient that one man should die for the people."
Thus, through the craft of Annas and the wickedness of those hired for this purpose, the sacred and holy Sacrifice, that is, Christ, was caught. Having been taken in the nets, He is led to the author or director of the unrighteous slaughter.
This was Caiaphas, though he was crowned with the grace of the priesthood. As he had initiated the murder by word, so afterward he becomes the firstfruits of the crime itself.
For he receives Jesus bound. As though receiving some fruit of his counsel and impious designs, the wretched man carried out this most impious of all evils. For what can be more grievous than impiety against Christ?
Thus, through the betrayal of Judas, His persecutors seized the Lord and bound Him who loved us and gave Himself up for us (Eph 5:2). The Father did not spare Him, but gave Him up for us all (Rom 8:32).
Therefore Judas must not be thought worthy of praise because his betrayal proved useful. Rather, he deserved condemnation for his voluntary crime.
As the Evangelist John continues, they led Him first to Annas. He does not conceal the reason this was done, for Annas was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year.
This was the Caiaphas who advised the Jews that it was better for one man to die for the people.
Matthew, wishing to narrate this more briefly, rightly says that He was led to Caiaphas (cf. Mt 26:57). For He was first led to Annas precisely because Annas was the father-in-law of Caiaphas.
From this we should understand that Caiaphas himself had wished it so.
So that no one, hearing that Jesus Christ was bound, might be troubled, the Evangelist reminds him of the prophetic saying of Caiaphas. He shows that Jesus Christ was dying for the benefit of the people, that is, for the salvation of men, as Caiaphas had said.
Here there was no formal trial of Jesus. He was brought here only to gratify the curiosity of the old high priest. Annas soon sent Him to Caiaphas. Peter and John accompanied Jesus.
Here Jesus is questioned about His disciples and His teaching. But knowing the intention behind the question, and knowing that they had already resolved to condemn Him, Jesus answers that this question is unnecessary for Him.
They can learn His teaching from those who heard Him. For this, a servant strikes Him on the cheek. Is this a lawful conduct of trial?
Meanwhile they began looking for witnesses, but false ones. There were also two true witnesses present. Yet how little were they still able to bear witness concerning Jesus!
Having arrived in Jerusalem, the guards did not bring Jesus to the high priest Caiaphas. Caiaphas had already shown his hatred for the Galilean Prophet by saying in the Sanhedrin that it was better for one man to die than for the whole people to perish (Jn 11:49-52).
They did not bring Jesus to him, but to his father-in-law Annas, whom Josephus calls Ananus. He was a retired high priest, having held that rank for eleven years.
"It was Caiaphas," and so forth. The Evangelist mentions this involuntarily prophetic saying of Caiaphas (Jn 11:50 and following) in order to indicate, on the one hand, the beginning of its fulfillment.
On the other hand, he indicates what may be expected from the trial of the Lord under such a high priest. That is, there can be no righteous trial here. The matter has already been decided beforehand, and the trial will only be for show.
At first Christ was led to the high priest Annas, as the Evangelist John says, and only afterward to Caiaphas.
Annas was the father-in-law of Caiaphas and lived in retirement, taking no direct part in administration. Yet, out of respect, in matters of serious importance they turned to him first.
The high priests Annas and Caiaphas lived in a common courtyard, called the high-priestly court, adjoining the Temple court.
There, following Jesus Christ, the Apostles Peter and John also entered, because the latter was acquainted with the high priest Annas.
That which the malice of Hades had long desired was fulfilled. Jesus the Nazarene was in the hands of the Jewish authorities.
"And they bound Him and led Him first to Annas, for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. Now Caiaphas was the one who had given counsel that it was expedient for one man to die for the people" (Jn 11:50).
First of all, they brought the bound Christ to Annas, because he was the father-in-law of the man who had already pronounced the death sentence upon the Teacher of Nazareth.
This means that they wished to give pleasure and joy to one who, more than many others, had shared in the bloody designs against Christ Jesus. He was also a powerful figure in the Sanhedrin.
Annas, or Anan, had been high priest for eleven years. It meant little that, even after being removed from office, he still bore the name of high priest.
In that time of disorder in the Jewish Church, unlike her better times, there were many high priests. Thus St. Luke says: "Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the high-priestly family" (Acts 4:6).
But Anan enjoyed special respect and had influence over the course of government affairs. This was due to his connections and wealth, and also to his age and acquired skill in administration.
Although the Roman authority did not wish to leave the power of the high priest in the hands of one person for long, Anan knew how to keep that power in his family.
First he passed it to his son Eleazar, then to his son-in-law Caiaphas, and afterward to another son, Jonathan. Anan was a fortunate evildoer, a Sadducee in the full sense. In the prophet's words, he was a sinner a hundred years old (Is 65:20).
In its proper place (Jn 11:49-50), we spoke about the involuntary prophecy of Caiaphas. He said that the Lord Jesus laid down His life for the people and for the whole world.
There also, and in the introduction to John ch. 11, we spoke about the line of high priests in power during the earthly life of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Here we shall only recall that the old high priest Annas, or Hanan, as Flavius Josephus writes his name, was high priest only during the Lord's boyhood, from the seventh to the fourteenth year after the Nativity.
After him, his son Eleazar was high priest. After Eleazar came Annas's son-in-law, Joseph Caiaphas, who sat on the high-priestly seat from the fifteenth to the thirty-fifth year.
After Caiaphas, three sons of the old Annas served as high priests in turn. One of them, also named Annas or Hanan, caused the martyr's death of James, the brother of John (Acts 12:2).
On all the high priests beginning with the elder Hanan, see Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, book 8, chapters 3-7; book 20, chapter 8, in fine. See also lists of high priests in Dom Calmet's Dict. de la Bible, vol. 1, "Table chronologique," and in Smith's Dict. of the Bible.
The high priest Annas was domineering, cunning, treacherous, and highly influential. He undoubtedly remained the head of his powerful family party.
The power of the high priest was concentrated in the hands of this party and passed from one member to another.
Through members of his family, and by complaisance toward the Romans, he ruled Jerusalem and all the Jews despotically. He also held his whole family in his hands.
The Jews themselves hated that family. This is clear from the Talmud passage cited by Derenbourg, Pesachim 57a, where a curse is invoked on the house of Hanan and his brood of serpents.
Smith's Bibl. Dict., Annas, and Westcott in loco in the Speaker's Bible; Derenbourg, Essai sur l'histoire etc. de la Palestine, cited by Westcott. Let us also recall Mt 3:7, John the Baptist's words, "brood of vipers," addressed to Pharisees and Sadducees.
Therefore it was natural that they led the Lord "first," that is, before all else, to the head of the Sadducees and of the high-priestly party, who governed all the actions of his son-in-law Caiaphas.
It is very probable that Annas decided how to proceed further. There the sentence was likely traced out beforehand, only afterward being clothed by the Sanhedrin in legal form.
Passages read together with this verse.
Greek text, 15 words with lemma, transliteration and Strong’s number. Tap to expand.
THEOSIS