aphas only.[1250] No details
of the interview with Annas are of record; and the bringing of Jesus
before him at all was as truly irregular and illegal, according to
Hebrew law, as were all the subsequent proceedings of that night. Annas,
who was father-in-law to Caiaphas, had been deposed from the
high-priestly office over twenty years before; but throughout this
period he had exerted a potent influence in all the affairs of the
hierarchy.[1251] Caiaphas, as John is careful to remind us, "was he,
which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man
should die for the people."[1252]

At the palace of Caiaphas, the chief priests, scribes, and elders of the
people were assembled, in a meeting of the Sanhedrin, informal or
otherwise, all eagerly awaiting the result of the expedition led by
Judas. When Jesus, the object of their bitter hatred and their
predetermined victim, was brought in, a bound Prisoner, He was
immediately put upon trial in contravention of the law, both written and
traditional, of which those congregated rulers of the Jews professed to
be such zealous supporters. No legal hearing on a capital charge could
lawfully be held except in the appointed and official courtroom of the
Sanhedrin. From the account given in the fourth Gospel we infer that the
Prisoner was first subjected to an interrogative examination by the high
priest in person.[1253] That functionary, whether Annas or Caiaphas is a
matter of inference, inquired of Jesus concerning His disciples and His
doctrines. Such a preliminary inquiry was utterly unlawful; for the
Hebrew code provided that the accusing witnesses in any cause before the
court should define their charge against the accused, and that the
latter should be protected from any effort to make him testify against
himself. The Lord's reply should have been a sufficient protest to the
high priest against further illegal procedure. "Jesus answered him, I
spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the
temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said
nothing. Why askest thou me?--ask them which heard me, what I have said
unto them: behold, they know what I said." This was a lawful objection
against denying to a prisoner on trial his right to be confronted by his
accusers. It was received with open disdain; and one of the officers who
stood by, hoping perhaps to curry favor with his superiors, actually
struck Jesus a vicious blow,[1254]