Who was Annas in the Bible?

High priest, appointed in A.D. 7 by Cyrenius, or Quirinus, governor of Syria. In the reign of Tiberius he was deposed, and was followed at short intervals by Ismael, Eleasar son of Ananus or Annas, Simon, and Joseph Caiaphas, son-in-law of Annas. Luke 3:2; John 18:13, 24; Acts 4:6. It is supposed that Annas was called high priest by courtesy, having once held the office: the Lord was taken to him first, perhaps as being the father-in-law of Caiaphas. Josephus relates that the five sons of Annas became high priests, and under the last, also named Annas, James the Lord's brother was martyred. Ant. xx. 9, 1.

Annas. — To Annas the Lord was first taken. Who he was Josephus has told. The son of Seth, he was appointed high priest by Cyrenius, A.D. 6, and was deposed by Valerius Gratus, A.D. 15. "Now," writes Josephus (Ant., XX. 9:1), "the report goes, that this elder Ananus [or Annas] proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and he had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests." From Scripture we learn that he was of the sect of the Sadducees (Acts 4:6, 5:17); and our Evangelist tells us that Joseph Caiaphas, the high priest at the time of the Lord's death, was his son-in-law. Probably being regarded as a man of some experience in judicial matters may account for this informal examination, before remitting the Lord to Caiaphas. And it may be the chief priests hoped, that Annas could extract some admission from the Lord, which might further His condemnation. But as he was not high priest, and therefore had no authority, the Lord did not enter into matters with him. Real jurisdiction in such a case he did not possess. "Why askest thou Me?" was the Lord's reply. "Ask them which heard Me, what I have said to them: behold, they know what I said" (21). Who could find fault with that? One of the officers, however, struck the Lord with the palm of his hand, saying, "Answerest Thou the high priest so?" An indignity this was wholly undeserved, but, we must add, not resented. A calm, dignified answer left nothing more to be said: "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou Me?" If the smiter had any sense of justice, he must have felt keenly this calm rebuke. The interview with Annas, of which John alone has made mention, now terminated. Annas could extract nothing from his prisoner to further His condemnation. He then sent Him bound to Caiaphas, as we should read (18:24). For any account of the examination before Caiaphas we must turn to Matthew and to Mark; whilst for the recital of the trial before the Sanhedrin we have an account, and the only one, in the Gospel of Luke (22:66-71). Matthew and Mark mention it, but give no details of it. To sum up the matter, Matthew it is and Mark who record the examination before Caiaphas, and they only. Luke it is who tells us of the legal condemnation by the Sanhedrin. And John, noticing not what the Synoptic Gospels record, acquaints his readers with the first attempted examination on that night which was undertaken by Annas. To understand what went on between the Lord's apprehension in the garden and His standing before Pilate, we must consult all four Evangelists; then we shall be informed.

70 "Annas." He was now "Sagan," or Deputy, although titular high priest (Acts 4:6), the designation applied to Caiaphas in John 18:13. Annas had been deposed by Valerius Gratus fifteen years earlier; but as far as the Jews were concerned his influence was but little diminished.

[16] The high-priestly dignity was conferred on different persons by the Roman government. Annas had been deposed, and Caiaphas, his son-in-law, appointed in his place. That Annas had authority morally, though not actually, the Lord's examination before him (John 18) indicates. He may therefore still have been called high priest (see Luke 3:2), as having once filled the pontifical office. Sure we are that Luke is writing of that which he had searched out. So if we cannot explain the reference here to Annas as high priest, it is because there is something with which we are unacquainted. Considering, too, how many things have been cleared up in our day previously unexplainable, it is wiser for us to confess our ignorance, and to wait for fuller light, than to charge the historian with ignorance, till we are quite sure that we are better informed than he was. Of John and Alexander nothing definite seems known. Lightfoot identifies the former with Rabbi Johanan Ben Zacocai. Grotius says he was known to rabbinical writers as "John the priest." Alexander has been identified by some as the brother of Philo Judæus. The names of the two defendants are household words, and their service is imperishably preserved in the inspired writings. The history of John and Alexander, well known at the time, has sunk into almost oblivion. Great ones of earth are often well-nigh forgotten, when servants of God of their day are remembered and had in honour.

They take Him to Annas, father in law to the high priest, Caiaphas. The Romans had made a practice of requiring a change in the high priesthood frequently, a totally unscriptural thing, Annas had been high priest at a previous time, and possibly the Jews still desired to give him this place, though they could not do so officially. In verses 19 and 22 he is even spoken of as the high priest, for the hearing before Annas continued till verse 24, which is properly translated, “Annas therefore sent Him bound unto Caiaphas.” Only John speaks of this hearing, and does not give any account of the hearing before Caiaphas, as do the other Gospels. It may have been that both of them were occupying the palace of the high priest. But it was Caiaphas who had urged the death of the Lord.

They bind Him who is bound already, the meek Lamb of sacrifice; and now we have a scene how different in the high priest's court. The questioning before Annas is only given by John; who on the other hand does not relate, though he implies, the trial before Caiaphas. As father-in-law of the latter, and one who had been at a former time, high priest himself, he may have been, as Lange suggests, regarded by the Jews as still the true one; his relationship to the present one giving him his opportunity also to affect a position which he could not openly take. The Romans set up one after another as it pleased them, — a thing rightly enough offensive to the upholders of the law, and which seems to appear as this in the remark twice made, that Caiaphas was the high priest for that year (ver. 13; John 11:49). The two seem to have occupied even the same house. Caiaphas, we are reminded, was the man who had given counsel to the Jews as to the expediency of one man dying for the people, which God overruled to be a prophecy of a Saviour, but which showed him as a judge prepared with his verdict. Arenas is as much allied to him in spirit as in flesh. His whole aim here is to ensnare the Lord with questions as to His disciples and His doctrine, for which Christ refers him to what He had taught everywhere with the greatest publicity. It was for His accusers to make their charges, and prove them against Him. To the one who smites Him for want of reverence for the high priest He only replies with a quiet remonstrance.

Annas is baffled, though not turned from his malignity, and sends Him bound to Caiaphas; of the trial before whom the evangelist takes no further notice. It was a trial scarcely in form, and, as we have seen, decided before it was commenced. It is left a blank, as in fact was that of Annas.

"The band therefore and the commander (chiliarch), and the officials of the Jews, took Jesus and bound Him and led (Him away) unto Annas first;328 for he was father-in-law of Caiaphas who was high-priest of that year.329 But it was Caiaphas who counselled the Jews that it was expedient (or, profitable) that one man should die† for the people. Now Simon Peter was following Jesus, and the‡ other disciple. And that disciple was known to the high-priest,330 and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high-priest, but Peter was standing at the door outside. The other disciple therefore, that was known to the high-priest, went out and spoke to the porteress and brought in Peter. The maid therefore, the porteress, saith to Peter, Art thou also of this man's disciples? He saith, I am not. But the bondmen and the officials were standing, having made a coal-fire because it was cold, and were warming themselves; and there was§ with them Peter standing and warming himself. The high-priest then asked Jesus about His disciples and about His doctrine. Jesus answered, I have openly spoken in the world, I always taught in (the)|| synagogue and in the temple, where all|| the Jews assemble, and in secret I spoke nothing: why askest thou Me? Ask those that have heard what I spoke to them: behold, these know what I said. But when He said these things, one of the officials as he stood by gave Jesus a slap on the face, saying, Thus answerest Thou the high-priest? Jesus answered him, If I spoke ill, testify of the ill; but if well, why smitest thou Me? Annas (therefore)¶ sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high-priest. Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said therefore to him, Art thou also of His disciples? He denied and said, I am not. One of the bondmen of the high-priest, being kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did I not see thee in the garden with Him? Peter therefore denied again, and immediately a cock crew." The oldest authorities omit. † The bulk of MSS. support ἀπόλεσθαι, "to perish" (Text. Rec.), but the best ἀποθανεῖν [Edd.]. ‡ The article is omitted by some of the best witnesses [ℵpmAB, so Tisch., W. and H., Weiss]. § ℵBCLX, several cursives; Theb. Memph. Syrr.pesch et hcl Arm. Æeth add "also" [as W. and H., Weiss, Blass], which the rest omit. || The article, added in Text. Rec., with many, is omitted by the best and most; also πάντοτε, "always," the more common reading (πάντοθεν, Elz.) is inferior to πάντες, "all." ¶ οὖν, Elz., with BCpmL, etc. [1. 33], δὲ ℵ, etc. Steph. omits, following most [ACcorr, etc.].

Our evangelist notices the fact that the band led off our Lord, not only to Caiaphas the high-priest, but before that to Annas, his father-in-law, who had preceded him in that office, but was succeeded by Caiaphas before his death. All things were out of course, and in nothing was this more evident than in the closing scenes of the Saviour. And therefore does the Gospel recall what was already recorded in John 11, where the highest religious office blended with the lowest expediency, and the prophetic Spirit wrought in the wicked high-priest, as of old in the unprincipled prophet of Pethor. As a rule the Holy Spirit actuated holy men for God's will and glory; but exceptionally He could and did use for that glory those whom Satan was employing to thwart it as much as possible. Nothing can be more striking in Caiaphas' case than the way in which his heartless sentiment is turned by grace into the expression of a great truth wholly outside his ken.

The first two verses of this chapter establish the precise time of the appearance of John the Baptist in his ministry, so that the reality of it cannot be disputed, and they indicate that this solemn call of Israel to repentance was at a time when wickedness was prospering in high places. Tiberius Caesar was notorious for his cruelty to the Jews, specially bitter toward them, though other religions meant nothing to him either. Pontius Pilate's administration was one of cruel injustice. Herod and his brother Philip were both characterized by moral depravity (Mt.14:3-4). Also there were two high priests -- Annas and Caiaphas -- in total opposition to the Word of God (v.2). They were appointed by the Romans, who chose those they favored most, in this case both Sadducees, those who refused the truth of resurrection and denied the existence of angels or spirits (Acts 23:8). This was the dark setting for the solemn message of John, his own nation being enmeshed in corruption!

The first errand of the King in His city is the temple. "And Jesus entered into the temple of God, and cast out all that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those that sold the doves. And He says to them, It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of robbers" (verses 12-13). This is the second time that the Lord acted in cleansing the temple. The first is recorded in the Gospel of John 2:13, 17, and it took place at the beginning of His ministry. There it is the zeal for God's house, but here He acts in all His Kingly authority. How great and awful must have been the defilement of God's temple in those days. Money changers were undoubtedly in the foreground, for money played then in the days of the Jewish apostasy as important a role as it does in the apostasy we witness about us. "We can picture to ourselves the scene around the table of an eastern money changer -- the weighing of the coins, deductions for loss of weight, arguing, disputing, bargaining, and we realize the terrible truthfulness of our Lord's charge that they had made the Father's house a mart and a place of traffic." (Edersheim: Life of Christ, Vol. I., 369.) And besides the money changers were those who bought and sold. All that which was required for the meat and drink offering was for sale by the Temple authorities. With the sale much speculation was connected; covetousness, as Jewish talmudical writings prove, was the ruling passion in this blasphemous traffic. And the most awful fact was that the priesthood, especially the High-priestly family earned riches from it. The Bazaars and the Temple markets were controlled and owned by the sons of Annas.

Annas, the ex-high-priest, soon high-priest again (for all was out of course), is very briefly introduced to mark how completely the Son of God was rejected. Before, Caiaphas was the interrogator while Peter denied his Master; and the tone is here no more different as compared with the other three Gospels than is always found. There is no solid ground for imagining the portress to have charged Peter immediately after entry. It was really at the fire, as in other Gospels. All is open and general in the account of John. And the second denial, so far from being a difficulty, we have seen to be the solution of the difficulties which hasty minds found in the Synoptists; as the third sheds an important light on Luke and indeed all the rest, in the keen asseveration of Malchus' kinsman, who with the rest might yet more alarm the guilty apostle's mind. Oh! the sad spectacle of Peter, and even John drawn by his own hand in the power of the Spirit, where Jesus stands alone in the majesty of grace and truth, immeasurably superior to all who presumed to judge Him, where His own who ought to have received Him are manifestly and immensely worse than the most hardened of Gentiles, and seal God's judgment on their infidel declaration that "We have no King but Caesar." Now which of the Evangelists has the function of bringing this out habitually? John, who here does so above all.