John 18:12

Joh 18:12-13. Then the band, &c. — To whom Jesus, without any opposition, surrendered himself; took and bound him — Foolishly supposing, that he might attempt to make his escape. And led him away to Annas — Annas had been high-priest before his son-in-law Caiaphas. And though he had for some time resigned that office, yet they paid so much regard to his age and experience, that they brought Christ to him first. But we do not read of any thing remarkable which passed at the house of Annas, for which reason his being carried thither is omitted by the other evangelists.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Section 2. (Joh 18:12-27.)

The deceit of an enemy and the denial of a friend.

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; Joh 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.

With Peter’s denial we are sadly familiar, and John appears to add nothing to it; but he himself, though unnamed, surprises us with the quiet boldness of faith and love which carry him through untouched and unquestioned, where the apparently bolder disciple breaks down so helplessly. He is known to the high priest, and to the keeper of the gate, and known as a follower of Christ too, as her question to Peter shows, "Art thou also one of this man’s disciples?" Afterwards we shall find him in the same open way with the mother of Jesus at the cross, and obtaining a precious recognition, and a precious charge, from the dying Saviour: and through all he is untouched and unquestioned. Blessed it is to see him who speaks so of love an example of it: unquestioned by men, he is unquestioned also by the Lord: there is plainly no need of it; and happy is he who is in such a case. Let us seek for nearer acquaintance, and we shall be truer to Him; here is the soil in which faith rooting itself will grow vigorously. Let us get nearer to His heart, that we may be qualified to walk evenly and undisturbed through the world’s allurements and its threats alike, armed against each by the secrets learned there.

F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

18:12-14 Jesus was bound by the soldiers and returned to Jerusalem. • First they took him to Annas, who had been the high priest and remained highly influential (five of his sons also became high priests). Caiaphas, his son-in-law, was the official high priest at that time (see 18:24).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Joh_18:12-14. Οὖν] Since no further attempt at resistance dared be made. In the complete statement: the cohort and the tribune (ὁ χιλίαρχος τῆς σπείρης, Act_21:31), and the servants, any special design (Luthardt: the previous occurrence, Joh_18:6, had for its result that now all helped, in order to secure Him) is not to be supposed, since ἡ σπείρα, κ.τ.λ., is the subject not merely of συνέλαβον and ἔδησαν, but also of ἀπήγαγον. Tholucks remark, however, is erroneous: that the soldiers had now first again (?) united with the Jewish watch.

συνέλαβον, κ.τ.λ.] A non-essential variation from Mat_26:50, where the capture takes place before the attempt at defence made on Peters part. For ἔδησαν, see on Mat_27:2.

On Annas, see on Luk_3:1-2. To him, which circumstance the Synoptics pass over, Jesus was at first (πρῶτον) brought, before He was conducted to the actual high priest, Caiaphas (Joh_18:24). An extrajudicial preliminary examination had first to be gone through. And Annas had been selected for this purpose because he was father-in-law of the actual high priest (ἦν γὰρ πενθερὸς, κ.τ.λ.); thus they believed it to be most certain that he would act beforehand[209] for his son-in-law, who then had to conduct the proper judicial process in the Sanhedrin, with sufficient care for the object in view. Ewalds assumption (Gesch. Chr. p. 562), that Annas was at that time invested with the office of superior judicial examiner (דִּין אבי בית), does not correspond to the fundamental statement of John, which merely adduces the relation of father-in-law; and therefore, also, we are not to say with Wieseler and others (see also Lichtenstein, p. 418 f.), that Annas was president, Caiaphas vice-president of the Sanhedrin; or that the former still passed as the proper and legitimate high priest (Lange); or even that John conceived of an annual exchange of office between Annas and Caiaphas (Scholten; comp. on Joh_11:49). Quite arbitrarily, further, do others suppose: the house of Annas lay near to the gate (Augustine, Grotius, and many), or: Jesus was led, as in triumph, first to Annas (Chrysostom, Theophylact, and several others).

Joh_18:14 points back to Joh_11:50, on account of the prophetic nature of the saying, which had now come so near its fulfilment. Hence also the significant τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐκείνου is repeated.

[209] Comp. Steinmeyer, Leidensgesch. p. 115 f.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh 18:12 . Ἡ οὖν σπεῖρα … αὐτόν . The Roman soldiers, ἡ σπεῖρα , under the orders of their Chiliarch (Tribune, Colonel), abetted the officers of the Sanhedrim, ὑπηρέται τῶν Ἰουδαίων , in the apprehension of Jesus. As a matter of course and following the universal practice ἔδησαν αὐτόν , “they bound Him,” with His hands shackled behind His back.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

I. The Trial before the Sanhedrim: 18:12-27.

The following section contains the account of an appearance of Jesus in the house of Annas, the ex-high-priest, an account with which that of the denial of St. Peter is, as it were, interlaced. But this appearance is not mentioned in the Synoptics. On the other hand, they relate how Jesus was led from Gethsemane to the house of Caiaphas, where He appeared before the Sanhedrim and was condemned to death; and this solemn and decisive meeting is not mentioned by John.

Some think that there was in reality but one meeting, that of which the Synoptics give an account and which they place in the house of Caiaphas; whether, as Baur, Scholten, Keim, etc., they declare that the meeting in the house of Annas, related in our Gospel, is only an invention of its author, or, as some ancient writers, Calvin,Lucke, de Wette, Tholuck, Langen, Lutteroth, they think that there was only a momentary stay in the house of Annas, after which they went immediately (in Joh 18:15) to the house of Caiaphas, in which the appearance took place which is related by John Joh 18:19-23, an appearance which, in any case, must be regarded as identical with the scene of Jesus’ condemnation in the Synoptics. Neither the one nor the other of these opinions is admissible. In what interest would the author of the Fourth Gospel have invented this appearance in the house of Annas? It is answered: In order to present the Jews in a more odious light by making Jesus to be condemned by two of their high-priests in succession. But by relating the story in this way, the pseudo-John would not even make Jesus to be condemned by one high- priest, since the session in the house of Annas is a simple inquiry without a judgment, and the session of the Synoptics, where the judgment was really pronounced, is omitted! The second opinion comes into collision with Joh 18:24, which proves that it was only after the inquiry in the house of Annas that Jesus was sent to the house of Caiaphas (see on that verse). If the locality of the two scenes is different, their contents are none the less so; the first is a mere preliminary investigation, the second a judicial act in all due forms, the official pronouncing of the judgment. Besides, what purpose would this stay at the house of Annas have served, and why should John have mentioned it so expressly if nothing occurred there? Lutteroth supposes that it was regarded as suitable to inform Annas, in passing, of the success of the arrest. But would it have been worth while to mention such a detail?

As it was not possible to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion, either by denying the examination in the house of Annas or by confounding it with the session in the house of Caiaphas, Beyschlag has tried the opposite method; he thinks that the meeting in the house of Annas took place as John relates it, but that after this there was no other during the night, like that which is related by Matthew and Mark; that the latter is nothing else than that which, according to Luke, took place on the following morning (Luk 22:66-71); the first two Synoptics placed it in the course of the night, because they confounded it with the examination in the house of Annas, of which they do not speak. The reason alleged for this hypothesis is that, if the judgment had been given during the night, there would have been no need of a session on the following morning, such as that of which Luke gives an account. We shall discover the error of Beyschlag as to this last point. But what renders this view more suspicious is the gross error which is thus imputed to Mark and Matthew.

It does not seem to us that any question is to be raised as to the fact of two perfectly distinct night sessions, one of which took place in the house of Annas (John) and the other in that of Caiaphas (Matthew and Mark); this is acknowledged by most at the present day— Neander, Meyer, Weiss, Luthardt, Keil, Reuss, etc. The Synoptics omitted the first, either because they were ignorant of it, or because it did not occasion any important result. John, on his part, was not ignorant of the second, for he clearly alludes to it in the first of Joh 18:13, which implies as secondlythe appearance before Caiaphas (see on this word); then, in Joh 18:24, which expressly mentions as a subsequent fact the sending of Jesus to Caiaphas by Annas himself; finally, in Joh 18:28, where Jesus is led to Pilate, not from Annas’ house, but from that of Caiaphas. Thus John, if he does not give an account of the session in the house of Caiaphas, very exactly indicates its place, as he had done in Joh 18:1 with reference to the scene of Gethsemane. Moreover, what completes the proof that John cannot either have been ignorant of or have denied the judgment-scene in the house of Caiaphas, is the whole of the sequel in his own narrative. He represents to us the Sanhedrim as going to ask of Pilate the confirmation and execution of the death-sentence which they had pronounced (Joh 18:31, Joh 19:7; Joh 19:11; Joh 19:16). Now in the session in Annas’ house, of which John has given the description, no condemnation was pronounced. John’s narrative itself therefore implies a meeting of the Sanhedrim in the proper sense of the word, exercising its functions as a high-court of justice for the judgment of the accused, and consequently the entire meeting in the house of Caiaphas as Matthew and Mark describe it.

It will be asked what, in this case, was the purpose of the appearance in the house of Annas. It was, above all, to serve the purpose of drawing from the mouth of Jesus some compromising expression suited to furnish a reason for His condemnation; for there was embarrassment on this subject, as the summoning of the false witnesses in the Synoptics proves. Besides, the judicial customs required this formality. A capital sentence could be pronounced by the Sanhedrim only on the day which followed that on which the accused had appeared in court. In this case it was impossible to observe this rule fully, since the decision had been made to hasten the time; comp. Mar 14:2. But they must at least try to save appearances as far as possible, and to offer the semblance of a first preliminary meeting, before that at which the sentence should be pronounced. The Synoptics, as was in harmony with the nature of the oral tradition, preserved only the remembrance of that which was historically conspicuous; John, in comformity with his ordinary course of action, omits the solemn session which was sufficiently well known through the Synoptic narrative, and restored the part of the facts which was omitted by them—no doubt, not for the purpose of materially completing them, but that he might not suffer the radiance of the glory of Jesus to be lost, which had shone forth in the meeting held in the house of Annas. Luthardt and Weiss think that, if John has related the scene in the house of Annas, it is only with a view to Peter’s denial, which is connected with it, and which he wished to relate in order to show the fulfilment of the words of Jesus in Joh 13:38. But if the story of this appearance had had this purpose only, it would have been sufficient to indicate it, without describing the scene in all its details.

Hilgenfeld explains the omission in John of the scene of the condemnation of Jesus by the Sanhedrim, by reason of the fact that the Jewish Messiahship of Jesus had been very strongly emphasized there, a thing which was displeasing to the pseudo-John. But with the freedom which the author used in respect to the history (according to this school), there was nothing easier for him than to modify the account of this scene, for example, by making the sentence of Jesus bear only upon the affirmation of His dignity as Son of God, which was perfectly in accordance with the spirit of his work. Besides, if the idea of the Messianic office was so repugnant to him, why should he have called it to mind from the first and even in the last words of his Gospel (Joh 1:42-46 and Joh 20:31)? Keim, however, gets excited, and says: “Who is so blind...as to seek for truth in a narrative which—after having introduced the examination in the house of Annas as a fact of a decisive character—sets aside (ignorirt) in the most unpardonable way that which took place in the house of Caiaphas” (pp. 322, 323)! But what decisive result, then, did the meeting in Annas’ house have? The result, according to John himself, was nothing, to the great annoyance of the enemies who counted on discovering some complaint against Him for the great judicial session which was about to follow. As to the session in the house of Caiaphas, it is by no means set aside (ignorirt), as we have just seen, since John very correctly and repeatedly assigns to it its place (Joh 18:24).— Reuss, in his Histoire evangelique (p. 663), expresses himself thus: “John says nothing, and we will add, without falling into an error, knows nothing of the official examination and of the trial before the court, because all this takes place with closed doors.” We have proved, on the contrary, that John knows perfectly well the facts which he omits. How should he not have been aware of the judgment of Jesus by the Sanhedrim, if it were only through the oral tradition which passed into the Synoptics and through the Synoptics themselves, with which John was acquainted, as even Reuss himself now confesses. If, then, he did not relate this scene, it is because he did not wish to do so, and we know the reason why he did not. Though this fact may be contrary to the system of Reuss respecting the Fourth Gospel, it is nevertheless indisputable. As to Renan, with much more impartiality than the theologians, he is unsparing in his admiration of John’s narrative. “Our author alone,” he says, “represents Jesus as brought to the house of Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas. Josephus confirms the correctness of this account....This circumstance, of which the first two

Gospels give no hint, is a beam of light. How should a sectary, writing in Egypt or in Asia Minor, have known this?...It is a strong proof of the historical value of our Gospel” (pp. 522 and 407). In fact, the relationship of Annas and Caiaphas, which, as we shall see, is an important element in the explanation of the narrative, is a matter of information which John must have received at first hand, for Josephus himself does not mention this fact, although it is perfectly in accordance with his narrative.

ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.

Vv. 12-27. There are in this passage two great questions, one having reference to the examination of Jesus, and the other bearing upon Peter’s denials. On these two questions the following brief suggestions may be offered:

I. The examination of Jesus. That this was not the one an account of which is given by the Synoptic Gospels is rendered probable by the following considerations:

(a) The fact that it was in the house of Annas. Joh 18:24 cannot be satisfactorily explained except as indicating that Jesus was not sent to Caiaphas until after the examination here recorded.

(b) The character of the examination itself. It was not of a judicial character. Jesus was simply inquired of as to His disciples and His teaching, as if in a conversation or an informal inquiry. In the Synoptic account, on the other hand, witnesses are called, and the whole proceeding is like that of a court, with the high-priest presiding as a judge.

(c) If the two accounts are carefully compared, we find, in connection with what has been said under (b), that all the details are different in the two: the questions addressed to Jesus; His answers; the minor circumstances, and the persons participating in the scene. This is certainly the fact, with the possible exception that the high-priest who takes part in the two scenes was the same person, and that the blows inflicted upon Jesus by bystanders were given by the same persons. The latter supposition is neither necessary nor probable, for the language used by those who smote Him is not the same, nor to the same effect. As to the former supposition, see below.

(d) It is altogether improbable that if John was present at the judicial trial recorded in the Synoptics, he would have given an account of only a part of it, and would have omitted the most important part—namely, that which contained the final result and decision. On the other hand, if what John relates was a more informal and private inquiry in the house of Annas, which preceded the judicial examination, it is very easy to believe that John was not admitted to the latter, and that he gives the account of what he heard, and passes over what he did not hear.

The question as to whether the high-priest mentioned in Joh 18:15-23 is Annas or Caiaphas is one of some difficulty. It is evident that Caiaphas is spoken of in this chapter, and elsewhere in this Gospel, as the high-priest, and that Annas is not thus spoken of, unless in these verses. It is also evident that Caiaphas was the actual high-priest at the time, and that Annas was not. Moreover, the allusion to the high-priest in Joh 18:15, following immediately as it does upon Joh 18:13, where Caiaphas is declared to be the high-priest, is such that, in the case of ordinary words, there would be no doubt that the reference in the two verses was the same. It is to be observed, however, on the other hand, that Joh 18:24, when compared with Joh 18:13, seems to separate Annas and Caiaphas altogether, and to limit what is said between Joh 18:15 and Joh 18:24 to the house and presence of Annas. Godet, as also Riggenbach, Ebrard, Hofmann, and others, suppose that the two lived in the same palace. The only improbability in such a supposition is, that they were dignitaries of such high position; but this is removed, provided we regard them as occupying two palatial residences which were on opposite sides of a common interior court, and were thus, in reality, one great building surrounding the court. There would seem to be an improbability, however, that the actual high-priest himself, who was to preside at the trial, would have entered into such a conversation and inquiry just before the trial began. His judicial position and dignity might seem inconsistent with it. But that Annas should do so might well have been in the plan of the leaders. It might well be a part of the attempt to prepare for the trial by involving Jesus, if possible, in some difficulty or self- accusation. As Annas, therefore, is called high-priest by Luke, both in his Gospel and in the Acts, and as he had held the office and was unquestionably in a very exalted position in the public opinion, it is more probable that the title is given to him in the verses under consideration, and that he was the person who conducted this inquiry.

II. The denials of Peter. Joh 18:15-27.—In respect to these there are two points of inquiry:

1. As to the place where they occurred. That the first denial occurred in the court of the house of Annas is certain, if Jesus was not sent to the house of Caiaphas until Joh 18:24. But, if this was the fact respecting the first denial, the connection of Joh 18:25 with Joh 18:18 furnishes the strongest proof that the second and third denials also occurred in the same court. The opening words of Joh 18:25 evidently resume the closing ones of Joh 18:18, and the absence of any expressed subject for the verb εἶπον of Joh 18:25 can only be explained in a natural way by supposing that the subject is intended by the author to be the same persons as those who are mentioned in the 18th verse. We may believe, therefore, that all the denials took place in one and the same court; that this was the court of the house of Annas; and that the last of the three denials coincided in point of time with the moment when Jesus went forth from the house of Annas on His way to that of Caiaphas. If we now suppose that the house of Caiaphas stood on the opposite side of the same court, so that the latter belonged equally to the two houses, the accounts of all the Gospels, so far forth as the place of Peter’s denials is concerned, can be easily brought into harmony.

2. As to what was said by Peter, and as to those who addressed him.— That there were three denials, and three only, must be admitted as proved, beyond reasonable doubt, by the fact that Jesus predicted only three, and that each of the Gospels speaks of three only as having occurred. The attempt to escape the difficulties of the case by the supposition of two or three sets of denials, each consisting of two or more, is one which is contradictory to the impression produced by every one of the evangelists.

The most serious difficulties in the reconciling of the different narratives are, first: with respect to the persons, the fact that in the case of the second denial Mark represents the same person as speaking to Peter who had spoken to him in the first case, while the other Gospels represent that it was another person—another maid (Matthew), ἕτερος (Luke), the servants and officers (John). If the maid was actually another (and not, as Mark intimates, the same), and if she moved the servants, etc., to unite with her, the other three writers may be harmonized;— secondly: with respect to what was said to Peter, the fact that John states that the kinsman of Malchus, in the case of the third denial, said, Did I not see thee in the garden with him, while the other evangelists represent that the words (spoken, according to Matthew and Mark, by those who stood by, and, according to Luke, by another) were, Surely thou art one of them, for thou art a Galilean, and thy speech agreeth thereto, or words substantially like these. This may be easily explained, if we suppose that immediately upon the latter words, which came from several of the bystanders, this kinsman of Malchus pressed the matter home upon Peter by saying, Did I not see thee, etc.;— thirdly: with respect to the interval between the denials, the fact that Luke represents that there was about an hour between the second and third, while, if we are to suppose any interval of this sort as indicated by John, it is apparently between the first and second. The differences in regard to what Peter said are scarcely worthy of notice. There would seem to be no need, therefore, of supposing any such multiplying of the number of denials as has been imagined by some writers. With regard to the time previous to which the three denials were, according to the prediction of Christ, to take place, it is the same undoubtedly in all the Gospels, for Mark means by the words before the cock crows twice precisely what the other writers mean by before the cock crows —namely, the end of the watch called ἀλεκτοροφωνία.

Vv. 12-14. “The cohort and the tribune and the officers of the Jews seized Jesus, therefore, and bound him, 13, and they led him first to Annas; for he was father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high-priest of that year. 14.Caiaphas was he who had given this counsel to the Jews: that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.”

The word πρῶτον, first, contains a tacit correction of the Synoptics, according to which Jesus was leddirectly to the house of Caiaphas; comp. an altogether similar remark in Joh 3:24.

It has been supposed that this in the first place, or first, alludes to the subsequent sending of Jesus to Pilate; but see on Joh 18:24; Joh 18:28. According to these verses, the understood secondly is certainly the sending to Caiaphas.

Annas had himself been high-priest during the years 6-15 of our era, thus about fifteen years before this time. We see in Josephus that he was the influential man of the period. John, however, gives us to understand that the true reason why Jesus was led at this moment to his house was rather his relationship to Caiaphas, the high-priest. By virtue of this relationship, the two personages constituted, as it were, but a single one. Comp. the expression in Luk 3:2.

On Joh 18:13-14, comp. Joh 11:50-51. By establishing the identity of this personage with the one mentioned in ch. 11, John would give us to understand what kind of justice Jesus had to expect on the part of a judge who had already expressed himself in this way.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Then the band . . . took Jesus--but not till He had made them feel that "no man took His life from Him, but that He laid it down of Himself."

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 12. The captain] χιλιαρχος, The chiliarch, or chief over one thousand men-answering nearly to a colonel with us. See Clarke on Lu 22:4. He was probably the prefect or captain of the temple guard.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

12. Then the band of soldiers and the captain. It might be thought strange that Christ, who laid the soldiers prostrate on the ground by a single word, now allows himself to be taken; for if he intended at length to surrender to his enemies, what need was there for performing such a miracle? But the demonstration of divine power was advantageous in two respects; for, first, it serves to take away the offense, that we may not think that Christ yielded as if he had been overcome by weakness; and, secondly, it proves that in dying he was altogether voluntary. So far as it was useful, therefore, he asserted his power against his enemies; but when it was necessary to obey the Father, he restrained himself, that he might be offered as a sacrifice. But let us remember that the body of the Son of God was bound, that our souls might be loosed from the cords of sin and of Satan.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(12) Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews.—A stop should be placed after “captain.” The “band and the captain” were the Roman cohort (comp. Note on Joh_18:3) and their tribune (Chiliarch; comp. Mar_6:21). The “officers of the Jews” were, as before, the Temple servants (see above, Joh_18:3), and the apparitors of the Sanhedrin.

Took Jesus, and bound him.—Comp. Notes on Mat_26:50; Mat_27:2.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

12–27. The Jewish or Ecclesiastical Trial

12. Then the band, and the captain] Therefore (Joh_18:3) the band &c., because of this violent attempt at resistance. The captain or chiliarch is the tribune or chief officer of the Roman cohort. The representations of the hierarchy to the Romans are confirmed by S. Peter’s act: Jesus the Nazarene is a dangerous character who stirs up His followers to rebellion; He must be properly secured and bound. Perhaps also their falling to the ground on meeting Him impressed them with the, necessity of using the utmost caution, as with a powerful magician. The whole force is required to secure Him.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Which Judas received, and which came along with him, Joh 18:3. When Jesus had rebuked Peter, and healed the servant's ear, and showed such a willingness to surrender himself to them;

they took Jesus and bound him. This they did, partly for safety and security, he having several times escaped from them; and partly for contempt, and by way of reproach, using him as they would do the vilest of malefactors: and this was submitted to by Christ, that his people might be loosed from the cords of sin, be delivered from the captivity of Satan, and be freed from the bondage of the law; hereby the types of him were fulfilled, as the binding of Isaac, when his father was going to offer him up, and the binding of the sacrifice with cords to the horns of the altar: who that has read the ceremonies of the sheaf of the firstfruits, but must call them to mind, upon reading this account of the apprehension and binding of Christ, and leading him to the high priest? This sheaf was fetched from places the nearest to Jerusalem, particularly from the fields of Kidron: the manner was this (i):

"the messengers of the sanhedrim went out (from Jerusalem) on the evening of the feast day (the sixteenth of Nisan, and over the brook Kidron to the adjacent fields), and bound the standing corn in bundles, that it might be the easier reaped; and all the neighbouring cities gathered together there, that it might be reaped in great pomp; and when it was dark, one (of the reapers) says to them, is the sun set? they say, yes; and again, is the sun set? they say, yes: with this sickle (shall I reap?) they say, yes; again, with this sickle (shall I reap?) they say, yes; in this basket (shall I put it?) they say, yes; again, in this basket (shall I put it?) they say, yes; if on the sabbath day he says to them, is this sabbath day? they say, yes; again, is this sabbath day? they say, yes; (it was sabbath day this year;) Shall I reap? they say to him reap, shall I reap? they say to him reap; three times upon everything; then they reap it, and put it into the baskets, and, bring it to the court, where they dry it at the fire.''

Whoever reads this, will easily observe a likeness: the messengers of the great sanhedrim go to the fields of Kidron, in the evening, with their sickles and baskets; bind the standing corn; questions and answers pass between them and the people before they reap; and when they have done, they bring the sheaf in their basket to the court, to be dried at the fire. So the officers of the high priest, with others, pass over the brook Kidron, with lanterns, torches, and weapons; in the night go into a garden; there apprehend Jesus; questions and answers pass between them there; then they lay hold on him, bind him, and bring him to the high, priest.

(i) Misn. Menachot, c. 10. sect. 2, 3, 4.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

12 Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him,

Ver. 12. Took Jesus and bound him] This was done του λογου ησυχαζοντος, as Irenaeus hath it, while the Deity rested; for he could as easily have delivered himself as he did his disciples, but this sacrifice was to be bound with cords to the altar; he was pinioned and manacled, as a malefactor. So was not Abner; "his hands were not bound, nor his feet put into the fetters," 2Sa 3:34. But Christ was bound for our transgressions, he was "bruised for our iniquities." Paul, by his privilege, was freed from whipping; but we by Christ’s bondage, from those chains of darkness, 2Pe 2:4, σειραις ζοφου ταρταρωσας, from those scourges and scorpions in hell.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

See Mat 26:50.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

As is usual for officers to do with ordinary malefactors which are great criminals; they put no difference between Christ and the most villanous thieves and murderers. There are many conjectures why Christ was first led to Annas, whereas Caiaphas was the high priest that year, not Annas (as the next words tell us); but it is uncertain whether it was because his house was very near, and in the way to Caiaphas’s house, or that he lived in the same house with his son in law; or out of an honour and respect to him, being the high priest’s father, or to please the old man’s peevish eyes with such a sight, or by this means to draw Annas to the trial of Christ, or because he had had a more than ordinary hand about the apprehending him, or to take direction from him what to do: we cannot give a certain account why they used this method; we are only certain they did it, and that they did not carry him before him as high priest; for the next words tell us ...( see Joh 18:13).

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Vers. 12-27. (2) The preliminary examination before Annas, interwoven with the weakness and treachery of Peter. This passage describes the first steps taken by the enemies of our Lord to conduct the examination which was to issue in a judicial murder, and therefore to provide the basis on which the charge might be laid before Pilate and that Roman court, which alone could carry into execution the malicious conclusion on which they had already resolved. Moreover, tiffs passage is interwoven with the melancholy record of the fall of Peter. There are grave difficulties in the passage, which have led to harsh judgment on the narrative itself and on its general truthful ness. Keim almost angrily dismisses it, and Strauss endeavors to show that it is incompatible with the synoptic narrative; while Renan, on the other hand, sees in it numerous lifelike touches and great circumstantial value. The prima facie objection is that John describes a preliminary examination before Annas, whom he confounds with the high priest, and says nothing of the judicial trial before the Sanhedrin under the presidency of Caiaphas. Baur and Strauss supposed that the author did this in order to exaggerate the guilt of the Jews by doubling their unbelief, and aggravating their offence by making two high priests rather than one condemn their Messiah. In reply to this we have simply to say that John, though he shows the animus of both these notorious men, does not mention the judicial condemnation pronounced by either (see Weiss, 3:334, Eng. trans.). The omission of the sublime answer of our Lord to the challenge of Caiaphas and others (Mat_26:62,lu Mat 22:67, etc.; Mar_14:68, 70) is surely profoundly contradictory to the supposed theological purpose of the writer; and we can only account for its omission on the ground that the synoptic tradition had made it widely known, and that that tradition still needed correction by the record of important supplementary matter. Some harmonists have endeavored to transpose Ver. 24 into close proximity with Ver. 13, or to give, as the Authorized Version does, a pluperfect meaning to apesteile of Ver. 24, the effect of which is to make the two examinations virtually one, but one from which John leaves out the most striking features. This is supposed to be necessitated by the Vers. 19-23, where the "high priest" is said to have interrogated Jesus. Moreover, the supposition of there being a considerable space in the city between the house of Annas and the palace of the high priest Caiaphas renders the harmony of the narratives touching the denials of Peter inextricably confused, seeing that, according to the synoptic narrative, they occurred in the court of Caiaphas, while in John they apparently were made in the court of Annas. This difficulty is entirely met by the natural suppositions arising out of the relations of these two men. Annas (Hanan, Ananias, Ananus) was a man of great capacity and exclusiveness, charged with fiery passions and bitter hatred of the Pharisaic party. He was appointed high priest in A.D. 7, by Quirinus, Governor of Syria; in A.D. 14 he was compelled to retire in favor of his son Ishmael. After him followed Eleazar, and in A.D. 25 Joseph Caiaphas, his son-in-law, was appointed, and this man held the office till A.D. 37. Three other sons of Annas held the like position, and it was during the high priesthood of one bearing his father"s name (Ananus) that James the Just was cruelly murdered (Josephus, "Ant.," 20:8. 1). The influence of the old priest throughout the entire period covered by New Testament narrative was very great. Luke (Luk_3:2) speaks of Annas and Caiaphas as high priests, and Annas is again in Act_4:6 spoken of as high priest. John never speaks of him as "high priest," unless he must be held to do so in this passage. Our most thoughtful commentators differ on the point whether John does not so designate him (Ver. 19), adopting the well-known usage of Luke, which gave him the title of high priest. The evangelic narrative reveals, however, quite enough to explain that he may have been at the heart of the antagonism to Jesus, have aided Caiaphas with his suggestions, and consented to conduct a preliminary midnight investigation which would give at least a semblance of legal sanction to the condemnation, which, between them, they would be able to secure as soon as the day dawned. In tract "Sanhedrin," Mishna, Joh_4:1, Joh_5:5, we learn that,though an acquittal of a prisoner or accused person might be pronounced on the day of trial, yet a capital sentence must be delayed till the following day. As this trial must be brought at once to a termination, such an investigation as that which John describes would furnish the necessary validity. Moreover, some hours must have elapsed before the Sanhedrim under the legal superintendence of Caiaphas, could have assembled. Now, the domestic relation of Annas and Caiaphas would make it highly probable that the hall of the Sanhedrin and the house of Annas were on different sides of the same great court of the palace, and that one court, aulh , sufficed for both. With these preliminaries, let us proceed with the narrative as given by John. The frivolous supposition of Thoma, that the author of this Gospel was playing upon the idea of the beast (Judas) and the false prophet, and on the five brothers of the rich man of Luke"s parable, is allowed to disfigure this writer"s treatment of the introduction of the part taken by Hanan, or Annas, in the Passion-tragedy.

Vers. 12-14. Oun , Thereforei.e. since no further resistance was made by Jesusthe band (or cohort), which here takes the lead, and the captain of it, and the officers of the Jews in association with each other, took Jesus, and bound him, as sign that he was their prisoner, and to prevent escape until he should be in safe keeping. It is probable that the binding process was repeated by Annas and again by Caiaphas, (Ver. 24 Mat_27:2) implying that during judicial examination the cordage was taken off, and reimposed when the accused was sent from one court to another; or else that additional bonds were placed upon him, for the sake either of greater security or of inflicting indignity. Christ, by accepting the indignity publicly, yielded his holy will, confessing the supreme ordinance of the Father as to the method in which he would now glorify him. And they led (him) to Annas first. The mention of the word "first" shows that John discriminated between the two legal processes, the first being a preliminary examination of the accused, with the view of extracting from him some matter which should furnish the priests with definite charges, and to make a show of partial conformity with the customs of their own jurisprudence. He was father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that same year. John"s reiteration of this statement (Joh_11:49 and note) shows that he was in no ignorance of the custom and principle of high-priestly succession, which the Romans had treated so arbitrarily. "That same year" was the awful year in which the Christ was sacrificed to the willful ignorance, malice, and unbelief of the Jews. Now Caiaphas was he who counseled the Jews that it was expedient that one man should die for the people; (see Joh_11:50, Joh_11:51) and while John leaves no doubt who is the virtual high priest, he calls attention to the fact that Jesus had no justice or mercy to expect from the decision of his judge, and also reminds his readers once more of the significance of every step in this tragedy.

Vers. 12-24. Jesus before Annas and Caiaphas.

The ecclesiastical trial comes first. Owing to the relation between Annas and Caiaphas, they probably dwelt in the same house, and there may have been an informal trial by Annas before the acting high priest, Caiaphas, investigated the case of Jesus.

I THE INQUIRY OF CAIAPHAS. "The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.

1. The object was to extract from the tips of Jesus some answer that might become the ground of his condemnation.

2. The high priest was anxious to ascertain the number of Christ"s disciples and the principles of his teaching.

II THE ANSWER OF JESUS. "I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in open synagogue, and in the temple, whither all the Jews resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

1. He does not answer the inquiry concerning his disciples, whose safety he fears to compromise.

2. He protests the entire publicity of his teaching.

3. There was nothing secret or esoteric in his doctrine. He taught publicly what he taught secretly. The disciples were charged to proclaim on the housetops what they heard in the ear. (Mat_10:27)

4. He demands a formal trial, and the summoning of witnesses. "Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them.

III THE FIRST ACT OF VIOLENCE AND INSULT OFFERED TO THE SAVIOR. "And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?

1. Jesus had done nothing to justify this rude assault; for in his answer he was only using the liberty the Law allowed him. He was, as always, an innocent Sufferer.

2. Our Lord"s answer was a gentle reproof of public injustice. "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?

(1) He does not smite the officer dead by his power, but remonstrates against injury.

(2) Though he does not avenge the insult, he will vindicate his own conduct. We therefore infer

(a) that it is not wrong to defend our innocence or good name;

(b) that there is no inconsistency between our Lord"s action in this case and his counsel in the sermon on the mount: If they smite thee on one cheek, turn the other also." This condemns revenge, but does not silence us in the presence of wrong. Our Lord"s own practice, therefore, explains his precept. (Mat_5:39)

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Judas having made good his promise to the chief priests, and delivered Jesus a prisoner bound into their hands, those evening wolves no sooner seize the Lamb of God, but they thirst and long to suck his innocent blood; yet, lest it should look like a downright murder, they allow him a mock-trial, and abuse the law by perverting it to injustice and bloodshed. How impossible is it for the greatest innocence and virtue to protect from slander and false accusation! and no person can be so innocent or good, whom false witnesses may not condemn.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [CXXV. First Stage of Jewish Trial].

CXXV. FIRST STAGE OF JEWISH TRIAL. EXAMINATION BY ANNAS. (Friday before dawn.) dJOHN XVIII. 12-14, 19-23.

d12 So the band and the chief captain, and the officers of the Jews, seized Jesus and bound him, 13 and led him to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. [For confusion in the priesthood, etc., see Mat_13:10, Mat_13:11), but he did not do so for [694] the purposes of concealment ( Mat_10:27). Jesus was the light of the world; addressing his teachings to all flesh, he chose the most public places to utter them--places, however, dedicated to the worship of the true God. He who had said that heaven and earth would pass away, but that his word would not pass away, did not suffer his teaching to be held in contempt; he did not permit it to be made matter for cross examination. On the contrary, it was to be taken cognizance of among the things universally known and understood. The very officers who had arrested him could tell about it-- Joh_7:45, Joh_7:46.] 22 And when he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? 23 Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me? [Jesus was then under arrest, and as the trial had not yet opened there was ample time to add new matter to the charges against him. If, in addressing the high priest, he had just spoken words worthy of punishment, the officer who struck him should, instead, have preferred charges against him and had him punished in a legal manner. If the officer could not do this (and the point is that he could not), he was doubly wrong in striking him. Thus the Lord calmly rebuked the wrong-doer. Compare his conduct with that of Paul under somewhat similar circumstances ( Act_23:1-3). Jesus exemplified his teaching at Mat_5:39. "Christ," says Luther, "forbids self-defense with the hand, not with the tongue."] [695]

[FFG 694-695]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

General Information:

Verse 14 tells us background information about Caiaphas. (See: Background Information)

the Jews

Here "the Jews" is a synecdoche for the Jewish leaders who opposed Jesus. AT: "the Jewish leaders" (See: Synecdoche)

seized Jesus and tied him up

The soldiers tied Jesus' hands to prevent him from escaping. AT: "captured Jesus and tied him up to prevent him from escaping" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

translationWords

Jew

seize

Caiaphas

high priest

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

12–27. THE JEWISH OR ECCLESIASTICAL TRIALS

12–27. Much space is given in all four Gospels to the Jewish and Roman trials, space apparently disproportionate to the brief account of the Crucifixion. But the two trials illustrate the two great elements of Christ’s Messiahship. By the Sanhedrin He was condemned as claiming to be the Son of God, by Pilate as claiming to be the King of the Jews. The Crucifixion would be unintelligible if we did not clearly understand Who was crucified, and why.

12. ἡ οὖν σπ. Therefore the band; because of S. Peter’s violent attempt at rescue. The χιλίαρχος is the tribune of the Roman cohort. His presence with the detachment shews that the hierarchy had prepared the Romans for serious resistance. Peter’s violence confirms these representations. Jesus the Nazarene is a dangerous character who incites His followers to rebellion; He must be secured and bound. And the incident in Joh 18:6 would suggest great caution, as in dealing with a powerful magician.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

12-24.] Jesus before the Jewish High Priests.—Peculiar to John. See below.

12.] See Act 21:31 . The ὑπηρ. τ. Ἰ. were the officers sent by the Sanhedrim. Luthardt remarks: “He before whose aspect, and ἐγώ εἰμι, the whole band had been terrified and cast to the ground, now suffers himself to be taken, bound, and led away. This contrast the Evangelist has in mind here. To apprehend and bind One, all gave their help: the cohort, the chiliarch, and the Jewish officers. This the Evangelist brings prominently forward, to shew how deep the impression of that previous incident still was: only by the help of all did they feel themselves secure. And thus it was ordered, that the disciples might escape with the more safety.”

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

12. Jn. does not record explicitly that His disciples fled in fear after Jesus had been arrested (Mar 14:50, Mat 26:56), although he has told that Jesus earlier in the night had predicted that they would abandon Him (16:32). Jn. implies, however (see on v. 15), that Jesus was abandoned at this point by His friends.

The arrest was effected by the Roman soldiers (see on v. 3 for σπεῖρα), with their commanding officer (cf. Act 21:31 for χιλίαρχος), acting in co-operation with the Temple police (οἱ ὑπηρέται τῶν Ἰουδαίων). συνλαμβάνειν does not occur again in Jn., but it is the verb used by the Synoptists in this context.

καὶ ἔδησαν αὐτόν. That was a matter of course; probably His hands were fastened behind His back. The Synoptists do not mention this detail until a later point in the narrative (Mar 15:1, Mat 27:1; cf. v. 24). It was a patristic fancy that the binding of Jesus was foreshadowed in the binding of Isaac at the altar (Gen 22:9); see on 19:17 below.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The captain [χιλιαρχος] . See on Mr 6:21, and on centurion, Luk 7:2.

Took [συνελαβον] . Rev., better, seized. It is the technical word for arresting. Literally, took with them, of which there is a suggestion in the modern policeman's phrase, go along with me. Compare Luk 22:54.

13 - 18. Compare Mt 26:57, 58; 69 - 75; Mr 14:53, 54; 66 - 72; Luk 22:54 - 62.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.