Luke 3:2

Luk_3:2

Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests

Annas and Caiaphas

The way in which these two names occur in the New Testament has given some trouble to commentators.

They are found in St. Lukes Gospel, mentioned both together at the commencement of the preaching of John the Baptist, and are there called the high priests. St. Matthew, in the narrative of our Lords trial, speaks only of Caiaphas, and calls him the high priest. But St. John, who also mentions Caiaphas as the high priest, tells us that Jesus, after His arrest, was first brought to Annas, as if he were of chief importance, and then was sent by him to Caiaphas, Lastly, in the Acts, we have Annas called the high priest, and the name of Caiaphas mentioned at the same time, but no title is given to the latter. But we know from Josephus that Annas (Ananus), who was father-in-law to Caiaphas, was made high priest by Quirinus (Cyrenius), A.D. 7, and continued in that office for seven years, when he was deprived of it by Valerius Gratus, and was never chosen to be high priest afterwards. It is clear, however, that from the earliest times down to a date after the composition of the Acts of the Apostles, there were often circumstances under which two men were called high priests at the same time. That one who had once been high priest, but had ceased to be in office, would still be called high priest, is evident from that principle which is laid down in several places in the Talmud, that you may elevate in the matter of a sacred thing, or office, but you cannot bring down. As with us, once a bishop, always a bishop. We see, therefore, that when Annas had been high priest, it was not only likely that he would continue to be so called, but that, according to Jewish usage, he could be called nothing else. The age of Annas, and the influential position naturally occupied by one who had been acting high priest himself, whose son had twice held the same office, and who was father-in-law to the present high priest, are sufficient to warrant the action of the crowd in taking Christ to Annas first; while in the passage of the Acts, the mention of Annas at the head of the list, with the title of high priest, was nothing more than was due to his years and to the relationship in which he stood to Caiaphas, while the omission of the high priests title after the name of Caiaphas is no more a proof that he was not also high priest than the language of St. Marks Gospel, where it is said, Go your way, tell His disciples, and Peter, is evidence that Peter was not one of the disciples. (J. Rawson Lumby, D. D.)

The Word of God came unto John

An important statement

The events of the first verse, as compared with the events recorded in the second, are of the most trifling importance. In the first instance there is a list of govern mental personalities and districts, and in the second verse there is the solemn fact that the word of God came unto the forerunner of our Lord. This juxtaposition of events is remarkably suggestive as bearing upon what is current in our own day. The world has a large list of its own appointments, regulations, and authorities, which reads most imposingly: on the other hand there are single sentences bearing upon spiritual life and work which totally eclipse the pomp of royal nomenclature and dominion. Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, Herod, Philip, and Lysanias, are names which will perish from the roll of the highest factors of human history and service; but the name of John will be remembered and reverenced as the highest name known amongst men before the building up of the distinctive kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ. The word of God came unto John. This is a most remarkable expression, showing that John did not run before he was sent, and showing also that God knows where to find men when He wants them for any work in the world. John in the wilderness is nobody, but the word of God entering into this same John kindles him into a light that is seen afar. The true minister of God is charged with the word of Heaven. That which he speaks he speaks not of himself, he simply pronounces and proclaims with earnestness and persistency the truth which has been breathed into his own heart by the Spirit of God. The sword in the scabbard is a useless weapon, but when grasped by the hand of the trained soldier carries with it alike death and victory. It is, indeed, possible to have received the word of God as a commandment to go forth, and yet to have stifled the great conviction. There are men who are silent to-day in the Church, who, if faithful to their convictions, would be heard in loud protest against evil, and vehement proclamations as the apostles of Christian truth. -Grieve not the Spirit! Quench not the Spirit! We do not begin by quenching the Spirit; the deadly work begins by grieving the sacred presence. It is to be noted that John was in the wilderness when the word of God came unto him. Time spent in solitude is not misspent if the ear be bent towards God, and our love be listening for the coming of His word. (J. Parker, D. D.)

Teachings of the wilderness

Few Bible characters are so strangely fascinating to the devout reader as that of John the Baptist. In the wilderness God came to him; in the wilderness he was equipped for public service; from the wilderness he began his missionary work. This fact suggests three ideas of practical importance.

I. THE NATURE OF WILDERNESS LIFE.

1. Solitude.

2. Abstemiousness.

3. Privation.

II. THE LESSONS OF WILDERNESS LIFE. What John was taught in the wilderness gave him his regal manhood, viz., the high moral lessons of--

1. Self-denial.

2. Humility.

3. Courage for what is true and holy.

Separate from the world, his breast

Did deeply take and strongly keep

The print of heaven.

III. THE REASON OF GODS VISITATION IN THE WILDERNESS. The word was a call to active endeavour in the busy world. The wilderness had done its work, that is, had made John a fit person in the sight of God to be called to the important work of heralding the ministry of Christ. That same word of God is constantly coming to us all in all the great and little wildernesses of life. In all ages notable instances of such visitations have been recorded. Moses, Luther, Wordsworth, amongst the hills and vales of his native Westmoreland; Carlyle, who, in the wilderness of Craigenputtock, heard and obeyed a call to preach in his books repentance as the first and last need of his age. If we would be true to our higher nature we must cultivate the love of solitude.

Morn is the time to act, noon to endure,

But O! if thou wouldst keep thy spirit pure,

Turn from the beaten path by worldlings trod,

Go forth at eventide in heart to walk with God.

And if to solitude there be added suffering in our wilderness, let us despise it not. Though often dreary, it has its charms, its blessings. God may be found there. (J. McGavin Sloan.)

John in the wilderness

Wide as was the moral and spiritual difference between the two great prophets of the Jordan wilderness, and the wild ascetics of later times, it is for this very reason important to bear in mind the outward likeness which sets off this inward contrast. Travellers know well the startling appearance of the savage figures who, whether as Bedouins or Dervishes, still haunt the solitary places of the East, with a cloak--the usual striped Bedouin blanket--woven of camels hair thrown over the shoulders, and tied in front on the breast; naked except at the waist, round which is a girdle of skin, the hair flowing loose about the head. This was precisely the description of Elijah, whose last appearance had been on this very wilderness, before he finally vanished from the eyes of his disciple. This, too, was the aspect of his great representative, when he came, in the same place, dwelling, like the sons of the prophets, in a leafy covert, woven of the branches of the Jordan forest, preaching, in raiment of camels hair, with a leathern girdle round his loins, eating the locusts of the desert, and the wild honey or manna which dripped from the tamarisks of the desert region, or which distilled from the palm-groves of Jericho. To the same wilderness, probably that on the eastern side, Jesus is described as led up by the Spirit--up into the desert-hills whence Moses had seen the view of all the kingdom of Palestine--with the wild beasts which lurked in the bed of the Jordan, or in the caves of the hills, where John was baptising, beyond Jordan. (Dean Stanley.)

Johns life in the desert

A soul lost in the greatness of eternal truths, like that of John, may well have risen to an indifference to the comforts, or even ordinary wants of the body, otherwise almost impossible. We have no record of his daily life, but that of one who, in saintliness of spirit, trod in his steps, is still preserved. Saint Antony, in the deserts of Egypt, was wont to pass whole nights in prayer, and that not once, but often, to the astonishment of men. He ate once a day, after the setting of the sun; his food was bread with salt, his drink nothing but water. Flesh and wine he never tasted. When he slept, he was content with a rush mat, but mostly he lay on the bare ground. He would not anoint himself with oil, saying that it was more fit for young men to be earnest in subduing the body, than to seek things which softened it. Forgetting the past, he, daily, as if beginning afresh, took more pains to improve, saying over to himself, continually, the apostles words--Forgetting what is behind, stretching forth to what is before; and mindful, too, of Elijahs saying, the Lord liveth, before whom I stand--he said, himself, that the ascetic ought ever to be learning his own life from that of the great Elias, as from a mirror. The picture may not suit in some particulars, but as a glimpse of the mortified life of the desert, in its best aspect, it may serve to realize that of John, in the loneliness of the rough wilderness of Judaea. (Dr. C. Geikie.)

John in the wilderness

Here St. John the Baptist spent long years of solitary musing on the things of God, till his soul kindled into irresistible ardour, which drove him forth among men to plead with them to prepare for the coming of the Messiah. During the hot months it is a land of scorpions, lizards, and snakes, Be that his experience readily supplied him with a comparison for his wicked contemporaries, whom he denounced as a generation of vipers. Wild bees make their combs in the hollows of the limestone rocks; the aromatic thymes, mints, and other labiate plants, sprinkled over the face of the wilderness, furnishing them with honey, which is more plentiful in the wilderness of Judaea than in any other part of Palestine. They thus provided for him a main article of his diet, while in one wady or another, or in soma cleft, there was always water enough to quench his thirst. Locusts, the other article of his food, are never wanting in this region, and, indeed, are to this day eaten by the Arabs in the southeast of Judaea, the very district where John lived; by those of the Jordan valley, and by some tribes in Gilead. They stew them with butter, and travellers say--for I myself have never tasted them--that they are very like shrimps in flavour. (Dr. C. Geikie.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3:2 Annas and Caiaphas were the high priests: Annas was high priest AD 6–15 and was deposed by the Romans; his son-in-law Caiaphas was the current high priest (AD 18–36). Luke lists both names because Annas still wielded significant power behind the scenes (see John 18:13-14, 24; Acts 4:6). • a message from God came to John: John’s calling as a prophet was similar to that of the Old Testament prophets (see, e.g., Isa 6; Jer 1).

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

Luk 3:2. Ἐπὶ ἀρχιερέως, under the High priesthood of, etc.) The singular number; which does not however prevent Caiaphas being included: see Act 4:6. Just as in genealogies the usual Hebrew mode of expression is Sons in the plural number, even though only one son follows, viz. because often there are wont to be more than one: ex. gr. 1Ch 23:17, “The sons of Eliezer were Rehabiah—And Eliezer had none other Sons,” etc.: So here High Priest is said in the singular number, although two men, Annas and Caiaphas, are named: (It is owing to this that the Gothic Version reads ἀρχιέρεων, which is also printed in some editions), for there was bound to be but one High priest, and the very ears were averse from the plural number.[34]—[ῬΗΜΑ ΘΕΟῦ, the word of God) It was to this that the great effectiveness of John’s ministry was due.—V. g.]—ἐπὶ, upon John [Engl. Vers. not so well, unto John]) immediately and directly [not through the mediation and instrumentality of others]. The same phrase occurs LXX. Jer 1:1 [τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦ Θεοῦ ὃ ἐγένετο ἐπὶ Ἱερεμίαν, “The word of God which came upon Jeremiah.”]

[34] Rec. Text has ἐπʼ ἀρχιερέων with ac Vulg. But ABCDb have ἐπὶ ἀρχιερέως; and the canon, “Præstat ardua lectio procliviori,” favours the latter.—ED. and TRANSL.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Luk 3:2 . ἐπὶ ἀρχιερέως Ἄννα καὶ Καιάφα , under the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas. The use of the singular ἀρχιερέως in connection with two names is peculiar, whence doubtless the correction into the easier ἀρχιερέων (T. R.); and the combination of two men as holding the office at the same time, is likewise somewhat puzzling. As Caiaphas was the actual high priest at the time, one would have expected his name to have stood, if not alone, at least first = under Caiaphas, the actual high priest, and the ex-high priest, Annas, still an influential senior. One can only suppose that among the caste of high priests past and present (there had been three between Annas and Caiaphas) Annas was so outstanding that it came natural to name him first. Annas had been deposed arbitrarily by the Roman governor, and this may have increased his influence among his own people. His period of office was A.D. 7 14, that of Caiaphas A.D. 17 35. ἐγένετο ῥῆμα , etc., came the word of God to John; this the great spiritual event, so carefully dated, after the manner of the O. T. in narrating the beginning of the career of a Hebrew prophet ( vide, e.g. , Jer 1:1 ). But the date is common to the ministry of John and that of Jesus, who is supposed to have begun His work shortly after the Baptist. ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ . From next verse it may be gathered that the desert here means the whole valley of the Jordan, El-Ghor.

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

Josephus calleth him Ananus.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Annas and Caiaphas . . . high priests--the former, though deposed, retained much of his influence, and, probably, as sagan or deputy, exercised much of the power of the high priesthood along with Caiaphas (Joh 18:13; Act 4:6). Both Zadok and Abiathar acted as high priests in David's time (Sa2 15:35), and it seems to have become the fixed practice to have two (Kg2 25:18). (Also see on Mat 3:1.)

word of God came unto John--Such formulas, of course, are never used when speaking of Jesus, because the divine nature manifested itself in Him not at certain isolated moments of His life. He was the one everlasting manifestation of the Godhead--THE WORD [OLSHAUSEN].

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 2. Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests] Caiaphas was the son-in-law of Annas or Ananias, and it is supposed that they exercised the high priest's office by turns. It is likely that Annas only was considered as high priest; and that Caiaphas was what the Hebrews termed כהן משנה cohen mishneh, or סגן כהנים sagan cohanim, the high priest's deputy, or ruler of the temple. See Clarke on Mt 2:4, and See Clarke on Joh 18:13.

The facts which St. Luke mentions here tend much to confirm the truth of the evangelical history. Christianity differs widely from philosophic system; it is founded in the goodness and authority of God; and attested by historic facts. It differs also from popular tradition, which either has had no pure origin, or which is lost in unknown or fabulous antiquity. It differs also from pagan and Mohammedan revelations, which were fabricated in a corner, and had no witnesses. In the above verses we find the persons, the places, and the times marked with the utmost exactness. It was under the first Caesars that the preaching of the Gospel took place; and in their time, the facts on which the whole of Christianity is founded made their appearance: an age the most enlightened, and best known from the multitude of its historic records. It was in Judea, where every thing that professed to come from God was scrutinized with the most exact and unmerciful criticism. In writing the history of Christianity, the evangelists appeal to certain facts which were publicly transacted in such places, under the government and inspection of such and such persons, and in such particular times. A thousand persons could have confronted the falsehood, had it been one! These appeals are made - a challenge is offered to the Roman government, and to the Jewish rulers and people - a new religion has been introduced in such a place, at such a time - this has been accompanied with such and such facts and miracles! Who can disprove this? All are silent. None appears to offer even an objection. The cause of infidelity and irreligion is at stake! If these facts cannot be disproved, the religion of Christ must triumph. None appears because none could appear. Now let it be observed, that the persons of that time, only, could confute these things had they been false; they never attempted it; therefore these facts are absolute and incontrovertible truths: this conclusion is necessary. Shall a man then give up his faith in such attested facts as these, because, more than a thousand years after, an infidel creeps out, and ventures publicly to sneer at what his iniquitous soul hopes is not true!

The word of God came unto John] That is, the Holy Spirit that revealed to him this doctrine of salvation. This came upon him in the desert, where he was living in such a state of austerity as gave him full right to preach all the rigours of penitence to others. Thus we find that the first preachers, historians, and followers of the doctrines of the Gospel were men eminent for the austerity of their lives, the simplicity of their manners, and the sanctity of their conduct; they were authorized by God, and filled with the most precious gifts of his Spirit. And what are the apostles which the new philosophy sends us? Philosophers full of themselves, not guided by the love of truth or wisdom, but ever seeking their own glory; in constant hostility among themselves, because of their separate pretensions to particular discoveries, of the honour of which they would almost as soon lose life as be deprived. Who are they? Men of a mortified life and unblamable conversation? No - they are poets and poetasters; composers of romances, novels, intrigues, farces, comedies, &c., full of extravagance and impurity. They are pretended moralists that preach up pleasure and sensual gratification, and dissolve, as far as they can, the sacred and civil ties that unite and support society. They are men whose guilt is heightened by their assuming the sacred name of philosophers, and dignifying their impure system with a name at which Philosophy herself blushes and bleeds.

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

(2) Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests.—Strictly speaking, there could be only one high priest, and the office was filled at this time by Caiaphas. Annas had been appointed by the Roman Procurator Quirinus, A.D. 7. In A.D. 14, he had to give way to Ishmael, who was appointed by Gratus successor to Quirinus; then followed Eleazar and Simon, and then, in A.D. 25, Joseph Caiaphas, who had married the daughter of Annas (Joh_18:13). It was natural that this relationship should involve the restoration, as far as possible, of his old dignity, and either as the Nasi or President of the Sanhedrin, or as the Sagan or deputy of the high priest, he may have acted as a coadjutor, as in our Lord’s trial, and come to be spoken of as still high priest. Five of his sons, it may be noted, filled the Pontifical office in succession. In Act_4:6, he is named as distinctly the high priest. In St. John, as above, he shares the judicial authority with Caiaphas. St. Matthew and St. Mark do not name him.

Unto John the son of Zacharias.—This description of the Baptist is peculiar to St. Luke.

(2) As we go further back the names are all different till we come to Zerubbabel; and the list in St. Luke from Zerubbabel to Joseph contains twenty names, inclusive, while those in St. Matthew are only thirteen.

(2) The difference in the number of names presents no real difficulty. We have seen (Note on Mat_1:9) that St. Matthew omits three names in the list of kings in order to adapt it to the memoria technica of fourteen names in each group, and what he did in one case he may well have done in another for the same reason.

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

Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests,.... Some difficulty here arises, how these two could be both high priests; when according to the law of God, and the usages of the Jewish nation, there was to be, and was but one high priest at a time: many things are observed by writers, to solve this difficulty: some go this way; that though according to the divine institution, and the practice of former times, there was but one high priest at a time; yet now, through the corruption of the present age, there were two high priests; or at least, which officiated alternately in the same year: but of such a corruption, no instance can be given, even in those corrupt times; and as Maimonides says (a), there can be but "one high priest" , "in all the world"; and besides, is contrary to their canons, which were then in being, and still remain; one (b) of which runs thus, "they do not appoint two high priests at once". Others suppose, that these two annually performed the office of high priests by turns; that Caiaphas was high priest one year, and Annas another: it is true indeed, that through the corruption of those times, this office became venal, hence it is said in the Talmud (c),

"because they gave money for the priesthood, they changed it every twelve months.''

And which is more largely expressed by one of their commentators (d),

"because the high priests, who were under the second temple, after Simeon the just, gave money to minister in the high priest's office, and because they were wicked, they did not fill up their years, therefore they changed every year.''

But though it is certain, that there were frequent, and sometimes annual changes in the priesthood, hence it is said of Caiaphas, Joh 11:49 that he was "high priest the same year", yet it does not appear that he and Annas took it yearly by turns: for Caiaphas continued in that office some years, even till after the death of Christ: and besides, had this been the case, as one of them could be but high priest for the year being, both in one year as here, could not with propriety be said to be high priests. Others take another method, and suppose Caiaphas to be properly the high priest, as he certainly was; and Annas so called, because he had been one formerly, the same with Ananus, the son of Seth; who was put into the priesthood by Quirinius, in the room of Joazar, and was deposed by Valerius Gratus, and Ishmael ben Phabi was put into his room: but though there may be instances of persons being called high priests, who had been in that office, after they were removed from it, yet no reason can be given, why Annas should be peculiarly called so, when there were in all probability several alive, who had been in that office as well as he; as Joazar his predecessor, and Ishmael ben Phabi, who succeeded Joazar, and after him Eleazar, the son of Annas, and then Simeon ben Camhith; nor why he should be put in the annals of the high priests, in a year in which he was not one. It seems most likely therefore, that he was the "Sagan" of the priests, of which office mention is frequently made, in the Jewish writings (e); yea, we often read of Chanina, or Chananiah, or Ananias, perhaps the same with this Annas, who is called, , "the Sagan of the priests" (f). This officer was not a deputy high priest, or one that was substituted to officiate occasionally, in the room of the high priest, when any thing hindered him, or rendered him unfit for his office; as on the day of atonement, if the high priest contracted any pollution, they substituted another to minister (g); which was not the "Sagan", but another priest; and even such an one was called an high priest, as appears from the following story (h).

"It happened to Simeon ben Camhith (a predecessor of Caiaphas), that he went out to speak with the king, on the evening of the day of atonement, and the spittle was scattered from his mouth, upon his garments, and he was unclean; and his brother Judah went in, and ministered in his stead in the high priesthood; and their mother saw her "two sons", "high priests in one day".''

But the "Sagan" was not an officer pro tempore, or so much under the high priest, and one in his stead, as a ruler and governor over other priests. Maimonides says of him thus (i);

"they appoint one priest, who is to the high priest as a second to the king, and he is called "Sagan"; and he is called a ruler: and he stands at the right hand of the high priest continually; and this is an honour to him, and all the priests are under the hand of the Sagan.''

The account given of him in the Talmud (k) is this;

"in five things the "Sagan" ministers; the "Sagan" says to him, my lord, high priest, lift up thy right hand (i.e. when he took the lots out of the vessel for the goats, on the day of atonement (l); which should be slain); the "Sagan" is on his right hand, and the father of the sanhedrim on his left (i.e. when he went to the east of the court and the north of the altar (m), where were the two goats, and the vessel in which were the lots); the "Sagan" waved with the veils, or linen clothes; the "Sagan" held him by his right hand, and caused him to ascend (by the steps to the altar); and no man was appointed an high priest, before he was a "Sagan."''

Now these might be as Serojab and Zephaniah, the one chief priest, and the other second priest, Jer 52:24 where the Targum and Jarchi interpret the text, the "Sagan" of the priests. And this being an office of such dignity and authority, supposing Annas in it, though he was not "the" high priest, yet being the head of the other priests, he might be called one, and be joined with Caiaphas, and set before him; not only because he had been an high priest, but because he was his father-in-law:

the word of God came to John the son of Zachariah: a priest of the order of "Abia"; and of Elisabeth, a daughter of Aaron, and cousin of Mary, the mother of Jesus; as it had come formerly to the prophets, and particularly to Jeremiah, who was sanctified from the womb, as the Baptist was: he was blessed with a prophetic spirit, and with the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, and with a wonderful revelation of the Messiah, and of the Gospel dispensation; and was abundantly qualified for the work he was called to, and sent to perform: and this befell him

in the wilderness; that is, of Judea; where he had been brought up and lived, and from whence and where he came, preaching: he had lived a solitary life, and had not learnt his doctrine from men, but had his mission, ministry, and baptism, from heaven.

(a) In Misn. Menachot, c. 13. sect. 10. (b) T. Hieros. Sanhedrin, fol. 29. 1. Maimon. Hilch. Cele Hamikdash, c. 4. sect. 15. (c) T. Bab. Yorma, fol. 8. 2. (d) Bartenora in Misn. Yoma, c 1. sect. 1. (e) Targum in 2 Kings xxiii. 4. & xxv. 18. & in Jer. xx. 1. 3. & xxix. 26, & lii. 24. (f) Misn. Shekalim, c. 6. sect. 1. T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 8. 1. Juchasin, fol. 57. 1. (g) Misn. Yoma, c. 1. sect. 1. (h) T. Hieros. Yoma, fol. 38. 4. Megilla, fol. 72. 1. Horayot, fol. 47. 4. T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 47. 1. Bemidbar Rabba, sect. 2. fol. 180. 3. (i) Hilch. Cele Hamikdash, c. 4. sect. 16. (k) T. Hieros. Yoma, fol. 41. 1. (l) Misn. Yoma, c. 4. sect. 1. (m) Ib. c. 3. sect. 9.

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

2 Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.

Ver. 2. Annas and Caiaphas being high priests] By turns, Joh 11:49; Act 4:6, contrary to the old order. Throughout the whole Turkish territories, there is but one Mufta, or high priest, and he is the supreme judge and rectifier of all actions, as well civil as ecclesiastical.

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.

Annas and Caiaphas being highpriests - There was, properly speaking, but one high priest of the Jews; yet the name of high priest continued to be given to those who had been in that office, and especially when they still possessed some civil office after they had left the high priesthood. In this case it appears that “Caiapas” was high priest, and Annas “had been,” but had been dismissed from the office. It is highly probable that he still held an office under the Romans, and was perhaps president of the Sanhedrin. He is mentioned before Caiaphas because he was the father-in-law to Caiaphas, and probably was the eldest, and had been longest in office. Instances similar to this may be found in Josephus.

There is one remark to be made here about the manner in which the gospels are written. They have every mark of openness and honesty. An impostor does not mention names, and times, and places particularly. If he did, it would be easy to ascertain that he was an impostor. But the sacred writers describe objects and people as if they were perfectly familiar with them. They never appear to be “guarding” themselves. They speak of things most minutely. If, therefore, they had been impostors, it would have been easy to detect them. If, for example, John did not begin to preach in the 15th year of Tiberius - if Philip was “not” tetrarch of Iturea - if Pontius Pilate was not governor of Judea, how easy would it have been to detect them in falsehood! Yet it was never done. Nay, we have evidence of that age, in Josephus, that these descriptions are strictly true; and, consequently, the gospels must have been written by people who were personally acquainted with what they wrote, who were not impostors, and who were “honest” people. If they were “honest,” then the Christian religion is true.

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

Under the high priests, Annas and Caiphas. There was properly but one high priest at a time; and Caiphas had this office and title all the ten years that Pilate governed Judea. See Josephus, lib. xviii. Antiq. chap. iii. --- In these short notes I shall not pretend to examine the chronological difficulties, as to Christ’s birth, death, &c. (Witham)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

2. Annas and Caiaphas being high priests—There could, by the Mosaic law, be but one high priest at a time. See our note on Mat_26:3, in regard to the high priesthood and Caiaphas. In regard to Annas, see our note on Joh_18:13.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests. The older authorities read, "in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas." The mention of two high priests arises from the fact of the legitimate high priest, Annas, having been deposed some fifteen years previously by the action of the then Roman procurator, Valerius Gratus In spite of this official deposition, he still apparently continued to be regarded as the legitimate high priest by the great majority of his countrymen. His great position and claim to the pontifical office, as we shall see, was markedly recognized at the time of the state trial of our Lord. Since his deposition by the Roman government, four high priests had been promoted in succession to the office of chief pontiff. It appears that at this time and for a long series of years, this great and powerful man, although not daring publicly to defy the Roman authority by assuming the insignia of the high priest, filled the office of Nasi, or president of the Sanhedrin. The word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness. In the days of the above-mentioned rulers pagan and Jewish, civil and ecclesiastical came the summons to the son of Zacharias in his solitude in the wilderness. From childhood he had been designated for some great work, and he knew it; his whole early life had been a training for it; and at last the summons came. We are not told of its special form; it was doubtless a theophany, or a vision somewhat similar to the which revealed to Moses and Isaiah, to Jeremiah and Ezekiel, their special work, and the way in which that special work was to be done.

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

Annas being high priest, and Caiaphas - There could be but one high priest, strictly speaking, at once. Annas was the high priest at that time, and Caiaphas his sagan or deputy.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

2. In the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas. The Jews recognized but one high priest, who held his office for life, but Annas was removed from the office by the Roman governor, Pilate, and his son-in-law, Caiaphas, appointed in his place. Hence, both were called high priests at the same time. The word of God came unto John. He was called to begin his work.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

2. ἐπὶ ἀρχιερέως. אABCD. This is the more difficult reading, and possibly for that very reason it may have been altered into the less attested ἐπ’ ἀρχιερέων.

2. ἐπὶ ἀρχιερέως Ἅννα καὶ Καϊάφα. ‘In the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas,’ for the true reading is undoubtedly ἀρχιερέως (אABCDE, &c.). A similar expression occurs in Act 4:6. But here St Luke is charged (on grounds as untenable as in the former instances) with yet another mistake. Annas or Hanan the son of Seth had been High Priest from A.D. 7–14, and had therefore, by this time, been deposed for many years; and his son-in-law Joseph Caiaphas, the fourth High Priest since his deposition, had been appointed about A.D. 24. The order had been as follows:—

Annas or Ananus (Hanan), A.D. 7.

Ishmael Ben Phabi, A.D. 15.

Eleazar son of Annas, A.D. 15.

Simon son of Kamhith, A.D. 16.

Joseph Caiaphas, A.D. 24 or 25.

How then can Annas be called High Priest in A.D. 27? The answer is (i.) that by the Mosaic Law the High Priesthood was held for life (Num 35:25), and since Annas had only been deposed by the arbitrary caprice of the Roman procurator Valerius Gratus he would still be legally and religiously regarded as High Priest by the Jews (Num 35:25); (ii.) that he held in all probability the high office of Sagan haccohanim ‘deputy’ or ‘chief’ of the Priests (2Ki 25:18), or of Nasi ‘President of the Sanhedrin,’ or at least of the Ab Beth Dîn, who was second in the Sanhedrin; (iii.) that the nominal, official, High Priests of this time were mere puppets of the civil power, which appointed and deposed them at will in rapid succession, so that the title was used in a looser sense than in earlier days; (iv.) that Annas was personally a man whose age, wealth, and connexions gave him a preponderant influence. The real sacerdotal power was his. The High Priesthood was in fact at this time in the hands of a clique of some half-dozen Herodian, Sadducaean and alien families, whose ambition it was to bear the title for a time without facing the burden of the necessary duties. Hence any one who was unusually prominent among them would naturally bear the title of ‘High Priest’ in a popular way, especially in such a case as that of Hanan, who, besides having been High Priest, was a man of vast wealth and influence, so that five also of his sons, as well as his son-in-law, became High Priests after him. The language of St Luke and the Evangelists (Joh 11:49) is therefore in strict accordance with the facts of the case in attributing the High Priesthood at this epoch rather to a caste than to a person. Josephus (B. J. II. 20, § 4) who talks of “one of the High Priests” and the Talmud which speaks of “the sons of the High Priests” use the same sort of language. There had been no less than 28 of these phantom High Priests in 107 years (Jos. Antt. XX. 10, § 1), and there must have been at least five living High Priests and ex-High Priests at the Council that condemned our Lord. The Jews, even in the days of David, had been familiar with the sort of co-ordinate High Priesthood of Zadok and Abiathar. For the greed, rapacity and luxury of this degenerate hierarchy, see Life of Christ, II. 329, 330, 342.

ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ. Mainly, as appears from the next verse, the Arabah, the sunken valley north of the Dead Sea—el Ghôr—“the deepest and hottest chasm in the world” (Humboldt, Cosmos, I. 150), where the sirocco blows almost without intermission. “A more frightful desert it had hardly been our lot to behold” (Robinson, Researches, II. 121). See it described by Mr Grove in Smith’s Bibl. Dict. s.v. Arabah. The stern aspect and terrible associations of the spot had doubtless exercised their influence on the mind of John. See on Luk 1:80.

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.

2.] Annas (= Ananus, Jos. Antt. xviii. 2. 2) the high-priest, was deposed by Valerius Gratus (u.c. 779), and after several changes, Joseph or Caiaphas (Joseph. as above), his son-in-law (Joh 18:13), was made high-priest. It would appear from this verse (and the use of the singular, -εως, renders the inference more stringent. Cf. also St. Luke’s own phrase, Act 4:6) that Annas, as ex-high-priest, and possibly retaining in the view of the Jews the legitimate high-priesthood, was counted still as having the office: he certainly (Joh 18:13) exercised the power,—and had influence enough to procure the actual high-priesthood for five of his sons, after his own deposition, Jos. Antt. xx. 9. 1.

A substitute, or deputy to the high-priest (called by the Talmudists סְנַן כֹּהֲנַיָּא), appears to have been usual,—see 2Ki 25:18; and Annas would thus be able to evade the Roman appointment and keep the authority.

ῥῆμα θ.] See Joh 1:33.

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

2. ἐπὶ ἀρχιερέωσἍννα καὶ Καιάφα. Lk. now passes to the ecclesiastical rulers. The singular is probably not accidental, and certainly not ironical. “Under the high priest Annas-Caiaphas,” which means that between them they discharged the duties; or that each of them in different senses was regarded high priest, Annas de jure (Act 4:6) and Caiaphas de facto (Joh 11:49).

Annas had held office a.d. 7-14, when he had been deposed by Valerius Gratus, the predecessor of Pilate, who set up in succession Ismael, Eleazar (son of Annas), Simon, and Joseph surnamed Caiaphas, who held office a.d. 18-36, when he was deposed by Vitellius. Four more sons of Annas succeeded Caiaphas, the last of whom (another Annas) put to death James the “brother of the Lord” and the first bishop of Jerusalem. It is manifest that Annas retained very great influence, and sometimes acted as high priest. “Annas the high priest was there, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest” (Act 4:6). Perhaps, so far as it was safe to do so, he was encouraged to ignore the Roman appointments and to continue in office during the high priesthoods of his successors. This would be especially easy when his own son-in-law or son happened to be the Roman nominee.1 There were no less than twenty-eight high priests from the time of Herod the Great to the capture of Jerusalem by Titus (Jos. Ant. 20:10).

ἐγένετο ῥῆμα Θεοῦ ἐπὶ Ἰωάνην. It is clear from this that what Lk. is anxious to date with precision is not any event in the life of the Messiah, but the appearance of the new Prophet, who was to be the Messiah’s herald, and who was by some mistaken for the Messiah. John’s preaching and baptizing is an epoch with Lk. (Act 1:22, Act 10:37, Act 13:24). As distinct from ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, which means the Gospel message as a whole (see on 8:11), ῥῆμα Θεοῦ means some particular utterance (Mat 4:4; Comp. Luk 22:61). The phrase γίνεσθαι ῥῆμα Κυρίου (not Θεοῦ) is freq. in LXX (Gen 15:1; 1Sa 15:10; 2Sa 7:4; 1Ki 17:2, 1Ki 17:8, 1Ki 17:18:1, 1Ki 17:20:28, etc.); also γίνεσθαι λόγον Κυρίου (2Sa 24:11; 1Ki 6:11, 1Ki 12:22, 1Ki 13:20, 1Ki 14:1, etc.). It is the O.T. formula. to express Divine inspiration. In such cases the phrase is almost always followed by πρός: but in 1Ch 22:8 (?) and Jer 1:1 we have ἐπί. Jer 1:1 is a close parallel to this : τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦ Θεοῦ ὃ ἐγένετο ἐπὶ Ἰερεμίαν. The phrase occurs nowhere else in N.T.

Ἰωάνην τὸν Ζαχαρίου υἱόν. Lk. alone describes the Baptist thus. No other N.T. writer mentions Zacharias.—ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ. The one mentioned as his abode (1:80). Both AV. and RV. rather obscure this by using “deserts” in 1:80 and “wilderness” here. Mt. calls it “the wilderness of Judæa” (3:1). It is the Jeshimon of 1Sa 23:19. See D. B.2 art. “Arabah,” and Stanley, Sin. & Pal. p. 310.

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

Came [εγενετο] . Lit., arose, or came to pass. John. The Synoptists intrduce him under different titles. Here, the son of Zacharias; Matthew, the Baptist; Mark, the Baptizer.

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