and they led him away to Annas first; for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas, who was high priest that year.
Soldiers tie Jesus up and take Him first to Annas, a man who no longer held the office of high priest, though his son-in-law Caiaphas did. John stops to explain the family link and to remind us who Caiaphas was: the man whose verdict was ready before the questioning began.
Moments earlier His enemies had fallen to the ground in front of Him. Now He lets them tie Him up. Writers trace this to a choice, not a defeat.
If it had been the Father's will for the Lord to free Himself from His enemies, there would have been no need for the sword. He could have walked away when His enemies fell to the ground. Earlier in His ministry, when wicked men wanted to throw Him off the edge of the hill, He calmly walked through the middle of them and went on His way. But now He has reached the end of His path, and the hour has come for the great work of the cross. So, in submission to the Father's will, He lets Himself be tied up and led away by men who are Satan's tools. Yet God uses them to carry out the plan He had settled and known beforehand.
John mentions the ropes twice. One writer says what really held Him.
John records twice that He was bound: the Word who made the worlds, now flesh, tied with ropes! That is how they hoped to hold Him fast. Their ropes did not hold Him, but other bonds did, ones their eyes could not see.
This first hearing was not a real trial. Annas held no office, and that shapes how the Lord answers him.
Annas was made high priest in A.D. 6 and removed from the office in A.D. 15. The historian Josephus writes that he had five sons who all served as high priest, and that he himself had held the honour a long time, which had never happened to any other high priest. He may have been seen as a man with some experience in legal matters, and that may explain this informal questioning before they sent the Lord on to Caiaphas. The chief priests may also have hoped that Annas could get some admission out of the Lord that would help to condemn Him. But he was not the high priest, so he had no authority, and the Lord did not go into matters with him. In a case like this he had no real legal power.
The phrase is odd. Someone else was now deciding who held Israel's highest religious office.
The high priest was no longer chosen for life. The office was held at the whim of the Romans, as the historian Josephus records. Valerius Gratus removed Annas, then appointed Eleazar and Simon one after the other, and each of them held the office for only one year.
That detail is not filler. It shows how far the nation's leaders had fallen.
The breakdown of their whole moral order is plain as well: "high priest that year." Who ever heard of such a thing? But they were wrapped up in their own selfishness, taking power to themselves. That was where they stood, and Christ rejected! So the only question was what was convenient; right and wrong never came into it.
Why bring up Caiaphas before the trial has even begun?
We are reminded that Caiaphas was the man who had advised the Jews that it was to their advantage for one man to die for the people. God overruled those words and made them a prophecy of a Saviour. They also showed him to be a judge with his verdict ready in advance.
A corrupt court could not shut God out. He spoke through the very men who wanted Jesus dead.
Everything was out of order, and nowhere was this clearer than in the closing scenes of the Saviour's life. That is why the Gospel recalls what was already recorded in John 11. There the highest religious office was mixed with the lowest self-interest, and the Spirit of prophecy worked in the wicked high priest, as He had long before in the corrupt prophet of Pethor. As a rule the Holy Spirit moved holy men to do God's will and show His glory. But at times He could use, and did use, for that same glory the very men Satan was using to oppose it as much as they could.
- Bound. The ropes were real, but they held only because He chose the Father's will. He had already shown He could walk free.
- Detoured. Annas gets the first hearing as a relative, not as a judge. He has no authority, so the Lord gives him no real answer.
- Dated. Rome handed out the high priesthood a year at a time. God's order was gone from the office that now judged Christ.
- Decided. Caiaphas had given his verdict before the trial. What suited the leaders had replaced right and wrong.
- Overruled. God took the words of a wicked judge and made them announce the death that saves. The plot against Christ became the prophecy of Christ.
But it was Caiaphas who counselled the Jews that it was better that one man should perish for the people.
John pauses to name the man Jesus was taken to. Caiaphas had already told the council that one man should die for the people. It was cold political advice. God turned it into a prophecy its speaker never meant.
The Lord let them tie Him up. Why did He not stop them, when He had the power to? One writer answers from the Father's will, and finds the same hand behind the words of Caiaphas.
Had it been the Father's will for the Lord to free Himself from His enemies, there would have been no need to use the sword. He could quietly have walked away when His enemies fell to the ground... But now He has reached the end of His path, and the hour has come for the great work of the cross. So He bows to the Father's will. He lets them bind Him and lead Him away. They are the tools of Satan, yet God uses them to carry out the plan He had settled and foreknown. In the same way the Spirit of God uses Caiaphas, a wicked man, to foretell a great truth: "one Man should die for the people".
John's note also tells us what kind of court Jesus was walking into.
We are reminded that Caiaphas was the man who had advised the Jews that it was to their advantage for one man to die for the people. God overruled those words to make them a prophecy of a Saviour. But they showed Caiaphas as a judge who already had his verdict ready.
Caiaphas had a reason for wanting Jesus dead, and it was not justice.
Caiaphas throws aside every claim to righteousness and acts only on what is useful. Whatever Jesus might have done, and whatever people might think of Him, Caiaphas argues that it is better for Him to die than for the whole nation to perish. With Caiaphas, as too often with the politicians of this world, the question is not what is right but what is expedient, or "profitable". This man is ready to crucify a just Man to preserve, if he can, the position of a guilty nation.
What Caiaphas feared and what John saw were two different things.
Caiaphas only thought of calming Roman jealousy by putting the Lord to death. John saw in the words a prediction of the Lord as the sin offering, meeting the claims of a holy God for the godly remnant of the nation... Caiaphas considered the Roman power, and feared its wrath. John thought of divine judgment, and of God's provision to escape it by the substitute of His choice.
Everything turns on one small word: for. Kelly weighs the Greek behind it. He quotes an older translation, which reads "for the nation".
"For the nation." This means substitution. Not "on behalf of," but "instead of." Our Lord died as Saviour or Redeemer of Israel, as well as of the Church. He was "stricken for the transgression of My people."
The same sentence had two speakers behind it, and two very different meanings.
In the heart of Caiaphas it was a sentiment with no principle in it. In the mind of the Spirit it was not only most holy; it expressed the foundation of God's righteousness in Christ. His death is the basis of Israel's future hope, and of the actual gathering of God's scattered children, the Church.
John's own comment reached past Israel to people outside it.
God's thoughts reached out beyond the limits of the nation, and took in Gentiles within the divine purpose. For by His death Christ was to gather together into one the children of God who were scattered abroad.
Yet God could not gather them while their sins remained.
No doubt this purpose of gathering His children into one also involved another truth of the greatest importance. There could be no such gathering on God's part without a righteous removal of their sins. So propitiation is implied here, even though these words do not state it. Atonement must come first, before a blessing like the gathering together of the scattered children of God.
- Bound — the ropes held a willing Prisoner. He could have walked free, but the hour for the cross had come.
- Prejudged — the judge Jesus was led to had already announced the verdict before the trial began.
- Expedient — Caiaphas asked what would pay, not what was right. He would kill a just Man to protect a guilty nation.
- Instead of — Christ did not simply die on their behalf. He died in their place.
- Gathered — God meant far more than the speaker did. That one death would gather His scattered children into one, and atonement had to come first.