2 in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness.
*Minor differences ignored. Grouped by changes, with first version listed as example.
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.
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 the note on Matthew 2:4, and on John 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 honor 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, etc., 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.
(a) Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
(a) Josephus calls him Ananus.
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, John 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, Jeremiah 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 Jeremiah. 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.
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 (John 18:13; Acts 4:6). Both Zadok and Abiathar acted as high priests in David's time (2-Samuel 15:35), and it seems to have become the fixed practice to have two (2-Kings 25:18). (Also see on Matthew 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].
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.
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.
*More commentary available at chapter level.