John 18:19Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

He did this with an evil intention. He thought Christ would speak clearly against the law and reject the law of Moses.

Then Christ would provoke against Himself the insolent tongue of the Jews. In the end, He would appear to be justly punished for fighting against God.

For opposition to the divine laws would indeed be equal to fighting against God, if any man were truly found to have done or said such a thing.

They treat Christ as still a mere man. They judge the Lord of the law worthy of just condemnation for transgressing the law.

They do not remember the saying: "It is impious to say to a king, 'You act lawlessly'" (Job 34:18).

He did this when He was alone with them, away from the crowd of others. For then He explained to them the parables that He told others while leaving them obscure.

What, then, does "I have said nothing in secret" mean? His words, "I have spoken openly to the world," should be understood as though He said, "Many have heard Me."

This very "openly" was, in one sense, open, and in another sense not open. It was open, because many heard.

On the other hand, it was not open, because many did not understand. And whatever He said separately to His disciples, He did not say secretly.

For who speaks secretly when speaking before such a multitude of people? It is written: "By the testimony of two witnesses, or by the testimony of three witnesses, a matter shall be established" (Deut 19:15).

How much more is this so if He spoke to a few what He wished to reveal to many through them.

The Lord Himself says to those few who were near Him: "What I tell you in the dark, speak in the light; and what you hear in the ear, preach on the housetops" (Mt 10:27).

Therefore the very thing that seemed to be spoken by Him in a hidden way was, in some sense, not spoken as a secret.

For He did not speak so that those to whom it was said should keep silence. Rather, He spoke so that it would be preached everywhere.

Thus something can be said openly and yet not openly, or secretly and yet not as a secret. For it is said: "so that seeing they may see and not perceive" (cf. Mk 4:12).

Why do they "see," if not because it is open and not secret? And again, why do these same people "not perceive," if not because it is not open, but hidden?

Yet the very thing that men heard and did not understand was such that it could not truly become grounds for accusing Him of a crime.

Whenever they questioned Him, trying to find something with which to accuse Him, He answered in such a way that all their traps were destroyed and their schemes frustrated.

For this reason He said: "Why do you ask Me? Ask those who have heard what I said to them; behold, they know what I said."

If the interrogation recorded in detail by John took place before Annas, then it was separated in both place and time from the later proceedings before Caiaphas. In that case it is more probable that the examination of witnesses and the condemnation before the younger official high priest took place somewhat later. It may have occurred either at night or even toward morning, and it had the form and order of a regular public proceeding. On the other hand, if Annas sent the Prisoner to Caiaphas without examining the case, and if the interrogation recorded in the Gospels was conducted by the latter, then the presentation of witnesses could have followed it immediately. The adjuration (Mt 26:63) and condemnation could have followed as well. In that case it is probable that a considerable interval followed all these events, before the informal nighttime condemnation was confirmed at a formal or open morning session of the council. But the main point concerning the high-priestly interrogation does not depend on the decision about who conducted it. In any case, the interrogation was entirely unlawful. In some countries, for example France, Scotland, and Russia, the accused is brought before an investigating magistrate and subjected to official questioning before being delivered to public trial. In other countries, including among the Jews, the matter was not conducted in this way. There the accused was exempt from every such personal interrogation until he was presented for the examination of the case before the assembly of his brethren. One principle constantly maintained in Jewish writings requires two conditions, publicity and freedom. Here the accused were not subjected to secret interrogations, in which even an innocent man, confused, might furnish deadly weapons against himself. This rule concerning the public character of interrogation seems to have arisen from Jewish principles regarding both judges and witnesses. 'Do not be a judge alone,' says one of the best-known maxims, 'for there is no sole Judge except the One.' Still more clearly, not only from the Mishnah but also from the Pentateuch, it is evident that one witness had no force. The 'two or three witnesses,' on whose testimony every case had to rest, had to give their testimony publicly (Deut 19:15-18). Their testimony formed the basis of every judicial proceeding. Until it had been given publicly against a man, he was considered before the court of the law not only innocent, but not even accused. This principle fully explains the answers of Jesus Christ to the high priest's midnight questions. The ecclesiastical dignitary, probably in a private session and certainly before witnesses had been summoned, asked Jesus about His disciples and His teaching. Dupin maintains that Annas was not a member of the court. His interference, he says, undoubtedly only increased the irregularity of the interrogation of the accused. This elderly former high priest, seeing the Prisoner, began the interrogation with malicious delight. First of all, he 'asked Jesus about His disciples and His teaching.'

Later he secured the same place for his son-in-law Joseph, called Caiaphas. Perhaps by this influence of his noble father-in-law, Caiaphas held the high-priestly office so long. Others before and after him replaced one another almost every year. After Caiaphas, four more sons of Annas bore the rank of high priest. Josephus speaks of this high priest Annas in this way: 'Of this elder Annas they say that he was the happiest of men, because he had five sons, each of whom served God in the rank of high priest, besides the fact that he himself held this dignity for a long time. Such happiness was granted to none of the high priests before him.' There is nothing surprising, then, if Annas, a rich, noble, and cunning Sadducee, removed long before from the high-priestly office, is still called high priest (Jn 18:19, 22). Nor is it surprising that he appears as the initiator of the judicial process against the Lord Jesus Christ. Earlier, in the year of the calling of John the Baptist (Lk 3:2), he is not only called high priest, but is placed before Caiaphas, who was then the official high priest. Further, in this same year of the death of Jesus Christ, we again see him ahead of the high priests Caiaphas, John, Alexander, and others of the high-priestly family (Acts 4:6). To explain this, there is no need to accept Hug's supposition, followed by Friedlieb, that Annas continued to be high priest under Caiaphas. According to that view, he merely alternated in performing the office with Caiaphas, by mutual agreement, according to years or feasts. History knows no such combination and alternation. The nobility and influence of Annas alone sufficiently explain his first place among the priests. Once the enemies of the Lord Jesus Christ had firmly resolved to put to death Him whom they considered dangerous to themselves, they wished to bring a criminal case against Him. By criminal procedure they intended, at all costs, to condemn Him to death. It is self-evident that this death sentence could be pronounced only by the highest judicial authority, which at that time was the so-called great Sanhedrin. Yet only the members of this supreme tribunal themselves and the higher priests were subject to the immediate judgment of the great Sanhedrin. The case of every other person first passed through the middle judicial authority, the small local Sanhedrin. The members of the latter, or its president, conducted a preliminary interrogation in the matter. On its basis they decided whether the case belonged to their local court or had to be transferred to the higher authority. Thus, if the enemies of the Lord Jesus Christ wished to stand on the ground of even merely formal legality, they could not immediately place Him before the judgment of the great Sanhedrin. They first had to arrange a private preliminary interrogation. This is why we see Jesus Christ first in the palace of the cunning Ananus, as the most convenient place for this preliminary inquiry. It is very possible that Annas, having been removed from the high-priestly office and not wishing to lose influence over affairs, occupied the post of president of the local Jerusalem Sanhedrin. Anyone would be mistaken who judged the criminal procedure of the ancient Jews by the form and order of such procedure in our modern courts. Among us, a criminal case may be initiated even apart from a complaint by injured parties or private persons. It may be initiated by the police or judicial authority itself. This did not exist among the ancient Jews. Whatever judicial proceedings mentioned in the Bible we take, none begins by the judicial authority itself. Thus the father and mother themselves bring their disobedient son to the city gates, to the place where the judgment of the elders was conducted in the earliest period of Jewish historical life. The judicial process begins directly with the public presentation of the parents' complaint (Deut 21:18-20). The trial of Susanna is initiated and begins with those two elders who falsely declare themselves witnesses of her crime (Dan 13:28-40). We see the same in the trial of Naboth (1 Kgs 21:13-14) and in other biblical proceedings, for example Jer 26:7-11. Thus an ancient Jewish criminal proceeding could be initiated only by the complaint of witnesses. They, and not the authorities, acted as accusers at the trial. This order of ordinary ancient Jewish judicial procedure leads us to expect a similar scene at the high priest Annas. Witnesses would come forward against the Lord Jesus Christ and declare His guilt. Yet we see nothing of the sort here. The chief priests had not expected such a swift fulfillment of their evil dreams. Caught unprepared by Judas's offer, they had not yet had time to find and prepare witnesses. Their absence, however, does not trouble the representative of justice. Probably hoping to find in the words of the Defendant Himself, if not a foundation, then at least some pretext for accusation, the high priest addresses Him directly. He asks Him his own questions about His teaching and His disciples (Jn 18:19).

Even the mere admission that Jesus had many disciples would have served Anan as a pretext for accusing Jesus of conspiracies and rebellion against civil authority.

The Lord saw Anan, even more deeply than Anan himself saw his own dark soul. He said not a word about the disciples. His love guarded them so carefully.

He answered about His teaching.