Jesus Can't Be Tricked
Introduction
He is being attacked:
He is attacking them:
BODY:
Their Panic-vv.1-2:
Although Jews regarded the high priesthood as a life-office, the Roman administration changed the holders at will. Ἅννας (Jn. 18:13, 24; Acts 4:6**) held office from AD 6 to his deposition by Gratus in AD 15 (SB II, 568–571). He was succeeded by his son Eleazar (AD 16–17) and then by his son-in-law Καϊάφας (AD 18–37; Mt. 26:3, 57; Jn. 11:49; 18:13f., 24, 28; Acts 4:6**; Jeremias, Jerusalem, 195 n. 153). Thereafter four more of his sons held the high priesthood (Jos. Ant. 20:198). Clearly Annas continued to possess considerable power behind the scenes (Jn. 18:13–27), a fact which explains why Luke names him here and also calls him the high priest in Acts 4:6: the retired priest kept his title (Jeremias, Jerusalem, 157f.). Luke thus recognises that there was in fact one high priest in office, but shows his consciousness of the powerful position of the retired high priest;
εὐαγγελιζομένου
For, there was no principle more firmly established by universal consent than that authoritative teaching required previous authorisation. Indeed, this logically followed from the principle of Rabbinism. All teaching must be authoritative, since it was traditional—approved by authority, and handed down from teacher to disciple. The highest honour of a scholar was, that he was like a well-plastered cistern, from which not a drop had leaked of what had been poured into it. The ultimate appeal in cases of discussion was always to some great authority, whether an individual Teacher or a Decree by the Sanhedrin. In this manner had the great Hillel first vindicated his claim to be the Teacher of his time and to decide the disputes then pending. And, to decide differently from authority, was either the mark of ignorant assumption or the outcome of daring rebellion, in either case to be visited with ‘the ban.’ And this was at least one aspect of the controversy as between the chief authorities and Jesus. No one would have thought of interfering with a mere Haggadist—a popular expositor, preacher, or teller of legends. But authoritatively to teach, required other warrant. In fact, there was regular ordination (Semikhah) to the office of Rabbi, Elder, and Judge, for the three functions were combined in one. According to the Mishnah, the ‘disciples’ sat before the Sanhedrin in three rows, the members of the Sanhedrin being recruited successively from the front-rank of the Scholars. At first the practice is said to have been for every Rabbi to accredit his own disciples. But afterwards this right was transferred to the Sanhedrin, with the proviso that this body might not ordain without the consent of its Chief, though the latter might do so without consent of the Sanhedrin.b But this privilege was afterwards withdrawn on account of abuses. Although we have not any description of the earliest mode of ordination, the very name—Semikhah—implies the imposition of hands. Again, in the oldest record, reaching up, no doubt, to the time of Christ, the presence of at least three ordained persons was required for ordination. At a later period, the presence of an ordained Rabbi, with the assessorship of two others, even if unordained, was deemed sufficient.d In the course of time certain formalities were added. The person to be ordained had to deliver a Discourse; hymns and poems were recited; the title ‘Rabbi’ was formally bestowed on the candidate, and authority given him to teach and to act as Judge [to bind and loose, to declare guilty or free]. Nay, there seem to have been even different orders, according to the authority bestowed on the person ordained. The formula in bestowing full orders was: ‘Let him teach; let him teach; let him judge; let him decide on questions of first-born; let him decide; let him judge!’ At one time it was held that ordination could only take place in the Holy Land. Those who went abroad took with them their ‘letters of orders.’2
At whatever periods some of these practices may have been introduced, it is at least certain that, at the time of our Lord, no one would have ventured authoritatively to teach without proper Rabbinic authorisation. The question, therefore, with which the Jewish authorities met Christ, while teaching, was one which had a very real meaning, and appealed to the habits and feelings of the people who listened to Jesus. Otherwise, also, it was cunningly framed. For, it did not merely challenge Him for teaching, but also asked for His authority in what He did; referring not only to His Work generally, but, perhaps, especially to what had happened on the previous day. They were not there to oppose Him; but, when a man did as He had done in the Temple, it was their duty to verify his credentials. Finally, the alternative question reported by St. Mark: ‘or’—if Thou hast not proper Rabbinic commission ‘ ‘who gave Thee this authority to do these things?’ seems clearly to point to their contention, that the power which Jesus wielded was delegated to Him by none other than Beelzebul.