\\ Jesus Taken to Annas

12 Then the detachment of soldiers with its commander and the Jewish officials arrested Jesus. They bound him 13 and brought him first to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year. 14 Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it would be good if one man died for the people.

The High Priest Questions Jesus

19 Meanwhile, the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching.20 “I have spoken openly to the world,” Jesus replied. “I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret. 21 Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said.” 22 When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby struck him in the face. “Is this the way you answer the high priest?” he demanded. 23 “If I said something wrong,” Jesus replied, “testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?” 24 Then Annas sent him, still bound, to Caiaphas the high priest.a [1] John 18:12-24 (NIV)

Is there such a thing as a “good” or “bad” Pharisee?  When it comes to the bad boys of NT scripture, I certainly think of them first. 

I would have to say, my mind tells me that there would have been few good things about being a Pharisee.  I suppose, compared to stereotypical Pharisaism, that some might have been better than others.  But really, being good or less Pharisaic would have made them a bad Pharisee. 

Conversely there were certain others who took Pharisaism to new depths of despicability.  Annas and Caiaphas, godfathers in law are too shady characters who emerge in the crucifixion story.  Actually they were Sadducees.  Different from the Pharisees in the following ways:

The Sadducees were in many ways less lenient than the Pharisees.  They were Judaistic fundamentalists.  The books of Moses were the only accepted scriptures for them and they took them literally without any attempt to further interpret them.

They were highly respected among their peers, and they were “bad” men.  They orchestrated and contrived the execution of the Son of God.  They were holy “hit men”.  And when it came to Pharisaism, they personified and defined it.  The badder they were the better they were.  That’s what makes a good Pharisee and an even better Sadducee.

Why would we take time to talk of the dastardly duo today?  Simply because that type of contrivance can imperceptibly become a part of us, like the dust that Christ would have us shake off our feet.

5 If people do not welcome you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave their town, as a testimony against them.”[2]

Annas was installed as high priest by Quirinius in a.d. 6, after the latter deposed Joazar. Annas held the post until a.d. 15, when he was deposed by Valerius Gratus. Annas’s family was wealthy and influential, and five of his sons, as well as his son-in-law Joseph Caiaphas, attained the office of high priest.[3]

Caiaphas, Joseph, son-in-law and eventual successor of Annas as high priest, attaining the position in a.d. 18 and holding it until he was deposed by Vitellius, Pontius Pilate’s successor, in the year 36-37. He was, therefore, high priest at the time of the trial of Jesus (Matt. 26:3, 57; John 18:13, 24).[4]

1.   They were politically appointed.

·         They were compromised by their connections.

According to Old Testament Law, the high priest was to serve until death. But when the Romans took over the nation of Israel, they made the high priesthood an appointed office. This way they could be certain of having a religious leader who would cooperate with their policies.  Next to the procurator, the High Priest was the most powerful and influential figure in the nation.

Annas served as high priest from a.d.6 to a.d. 15, and five of his sons, as well as Caiaphas his son-in-law succeeded him. Caiaphas was high priest from a.d. 18–36, but Annas was still a power behind the throne (see Luke 3:2). [5]

This political connection was vital to the High Priest.  A person can easily become addicted to power or position or a place of privilege.  Whenever something arises that threatens that addiction, there is an adverse reaction.  Jesus was no “new” problem.

Look with me back in John 11.

The Plot to Kill Jesus

45 Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, put their faith in him. 46 But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. 47 Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin. “What are we accomplishing?” they asked. “Here is this man performing many miraculous signs. 48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our placea and our nation.” 49 Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all! 50 You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.” 51 He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52 and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. 53 So from that day on they plotted to take his life. [6] John 11:45-53 (NIV)

Jesus was already on the “hit list”, an active threat to the spiritual aristocracy.  He was to be “managed” if they were to remain in good standing with the Romans.

His fate was a foregone conclusion as so many political decisions always are.  He wasn’t being dealt with in the interests of the nation but in other interests.

The church is more in danger from the “favor” that government grants it than it is from the freedoms that it restricts.  Governmental favor is given to corrupt and control, to create obligation.

And it’s not just systems that manipulate others through reward and punishment.  There are various sorts of relationships that can be favor based.

Do you have any influences in your life currently that cause you for a promise to minimize your faith.  Just be a little more discreet, there is something in it for you.

And what do you plan to do about it?  Stay where you are, earn a living, God will understand.

2.   They had personal agendas that were in conflict with Christ.

·         They were sold to their self-interests.

As I studied this week, I discovered a disappointing connection that I had never seen before.

It was the high priestly family that managed the “temple business.  They had a stake in the concession stands.  You remember the places where regular currency could be exchanged for temple currency and sacrifices could be purchased.  There was, after all a charge to set up business in the temple courts.

Annas and his sons had turned the court of the Gentiles into a place where foreign Jews could exchange money and purchase sacrifices. What had begun as a service and convenience for visitors from other lands soon turned into a lucrative business. The dealers charged exorbitant prices and no one could compete with them or oppose them.

The purpose of the court of the Gentiles in the temple was to give the “outcasts” an opportunity to enter the temple and learn from Israel about the true God. But the presence of this “religious market” turned many sensitive Gentiles away from the witness of Israel. The court of the Gentiles was used for mercenary business, not missionary business. [7]

Jesus had confronted this travesty early in his ministry(John 2:13–25).  Now, three years later, the temple was defiled again by the “religious business” of the leaders.

What is disappointing to me is that money was at the heart of this whole story.  It was the driving concern.  They called him a “blasphemer.”  Caiaphas the drama king tore his robes at Christ’s admission.  But the words didn’t crucify him.  His actions in the temple were the nails in his coffin.  He turned over one too many tables.

I wonder how many people object to the idea of church and Christianity for the same reasons.  We do our best not to talk too much about money around here.  If there were no financial implications from a person's religion there would be fewer theological questions.

The way that a person responds to finances however is a legitimate indicator of the depth of their relationship with God.  Wealth can come between a person and God.  Remember the story of the rich young ruler.

“He went away sad because he had great wealth.”

3.   There was a professional arrogance present in their contriving.

·         They were faulty by familiarity.

Because they were the religious authority they set aside the protocols that prohibited them.

As already mentioned, the Sanhedrin was composed of seventy-one members (seventy, with the high priest as president), but that did not mean that the full Council met on every occasion. In fact, a plenary session occurred only seldom, seeing that most matters were dealt with by smaller committees or councils. There were, of course, occasions when a full sitting was required, as, for instance, in cases of capital crimes and apostasy (heretical teachers, seducers, false prophets, rebel sons, etc.).

867        As far as the Sanhedrin’s judicial processes were concerned, there were certain regulations which under normal circumstances had to be strictly observed. Among the more important of these were the following: No trial could take place at night or on the Sabbath or during a festival. Every charge of apostasy had to be confirmed by the evidence of at least two witnesses. Evidence supporting an accusation had to agree materially in every minute detail. Women were not accepted as witnesses. After sentence had been passed, not even the withdrawal of evidence could alter the situation. A trial on a capital charge, where the verdict of guilty was reached, could not commence and conclude on the same day. On the other hand, the president of the court had the right (known as the law of the moment/circumstances) in exceptional cases to ignore the relevant regulations, in order to bring a serious offence to a speedy and radical conclusion. In how far all these stipulations were in force already in the time of Jesus and were complied with or not during his trial (cf. Mk 14:53–15:1par), is uncertain.[8]

Jesus was twice tried for the same crime.  Once before the Annas, power broker and then before his son-in-law Caiaphas, the current high priest.  Once this office had been a lifetime appointment by God’s design.  Now the high was frequently deposed when he lost favor with the Roman governor.

The high priest hastily assembled the Sanhedrin, composed of the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes (Mark 14:53). While the men were gathering, Caiaphas and his assistants were seeking for witnesses to testify against the prisoner. They had already determined that He was guilty, but they wanted to go through the motions of a legal trial. [9]

Both Annas and Caiaphas set aside normal protocols in the trial of Jesus.  Their obsessive propensities ignored so that they might exercise all haste to deal with Christ and not spoil the Sabbath of the Passover week.

Matthew 23:23-24 (NIV)

23 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. [10]

.

The danger of familiarity is that we begin to think that the rules no longer apply.  I have been absolutely astonished at the unkind spirits that are tolerated in people who have long been in the church.

We would never have allowed them in the early days of our conversion but it seems that people feel that they develop a right after a period of time to sins such as gossip or slander or envy or rage . . .  the lesser ones you know.

If the cause is good enough they even become proud of their arrogance.  They feel somehow that they have been sanctioned to speak the truth, in or rout of love ot deosn’t matter.

The high priests easily set aside their
‘persnicketty” ways to serve their interests. 

It’s true of everyone really who comes to a church.  Once we jump through the hops and we become more and more familiar with spiritual things, we are not impacted to the same degree as we once were.

No spiritual tradition has cautioned us against feeling the quiet self-confidence and self-respect that arise from living morally and being capable human beings. But in the current culture, pride is in, modesty is out. Aggressiveness is in, deference is out. Boastfulness is in, humility is out.  Competitiveness is in, self-sacrifice is out. These are not components of a peaceful, friendly, cooperative community.  From any perspective of classic wisdom, we are skating on very thin ice.

·         Bo Lozoff

We think that the preacher spends his time every week trying to put together messages for someone else.  We think because we have victory over the observable sins that we have it pretty much together.  So we forget that the unkind comments that we make about people behind their backs may not violate the 10 commandments but may violate the greatest commandment.

Pride is an inaccurate estimate of one’s self.  You can think too highly of yourself.  You can think too little of yourself.  It is to accept your estimate of yourself rather than God’s estimate of you.

Humility is an ability or a willingness to see yourself as God sees you, as He has created you, as He has gifted you.  This is absolutely necessary if we are to be able to see others in the same way.  A truly humble person is able to see the giftedness of others and appreciate it fully.

It is pride that causes us to discard the Word of God and it is pride that drives us to seek our own way rather than God’s.  Our improper perspective of ourselves imagines that we are god and that we know best and that our welfare is in our own hands.

I serve God out of love but I have never forgotten that He is God Almighty, Everlasting, the Lord of Heaven and the Lord of Earth and what He says, goes.  When I give input into people’s lives I pray that I am not a blind guide.  I try to listen to their lives and to offer God’s direction to them.  Gently.  Patiently.  I try to give it to them in such a way that they realize the freedom that God has already given them to reject it.  I have never believed that God has called me to force His will upon men to any greater degree than he does.  If people choose to live at odds with the will of God, that is up to them.  If God is not going to change that then neither can I.  I refuse to wrestle with people in these areas.

----

a  Or (Now Annas had sent him, still bound, to Caiaphas the high priest.)

[1]  The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

[2]The Holy Bible  : New International Version. 1996, c1984 (Lk 9:5). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

[3]Achtemeier, P. J., Harper & Row, P., & Society of Biblical Literature. (1985). Harper's Bible dictionary. Includes index. (1st ed.). San Francisco: Harper & Row.

[4]Achtemeier, P. J., Harper & Row, P., & Society of Biblical Literature. (1985). Harper's Bible dictionary. Includes index. (1st ed.). San Francisco: Harper & Row.

[5]Wiersbe, W. W. (1996, c1989). The Bible exposition commentary. "An exposition of the New Testament comprising the entire 'BE' series"--Jkt. (Mt 26:57). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

a  Or temple

[6]  The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

[7]Wiersbe, W. W. (1996, c1989). The Bible exposition commentary. "An exposition of the New Testament comprising the entire 'BE' series"--Jkt. (Mt 21:12). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

[8]du Toit, A. (1998). The New Testament Milieu. Halfway House: Orion.

[9]Wiersbe, W. W. (1996, c1989). The Bible exposition commentary. "An exposition of the New Testament comprising the entire 'BE' series"--Jkt. (Mt 26:57). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

[10]  The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.