John 11:49-51

11:49 Then one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said, ¹  “You know nothing at all! 11:50 You do not realize ²  that it is more to your advantage to have one man ³  die for the people than for the whole nation to perish.” ⁴  11:51 (Now he did not say this on his own, ⁵  but because he was high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the Jewish nation, ⁶ 

John 18:13-14

18:13 They ⁷  brought him first to Annas, for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. ⁸  18:14 (Now it was Caiaphas who had advised ⁹  the Jewish leaders ¹⁰  that it was to their advantage that one man die for the people.) ¹¹ 

John 18:24

18:24 Then Annas sent him, still tied up, ¹²  to Caiaphas the high priest. ¹³ 

Acts 4:6

4:6 Annas the high priest was there, and Caiaphas, John, Alexander, and others who were members of the high priest’s family. ¹⁴ 

[11:49]  ¹ tn Grk “said to them.” The indirect object αὐτοῖς (autois) has not been translated for stylistic reasons.

[11:50]  ² tn Or “you are not considering.”

[11:50]  ³ tn Although it is possible to argue that ἄνθρωπος (anqrwpo") should be translated “person” here since it is not necessarily masculinity that is in view in Caiaphas’ statement, “man” was retained in the translation because in 11:47 “this man” (οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος, outo" Jo anqrwpo") has as its referent a specific individual, Jesus, and it was felt this connection should be maintained.

[11:50]  ⁴ sn In his own mind Caiaphas was no doubt giving voice to a common-sense statement of political expediency. Yet he was unconsciously echoing a saying of Jesus himself (cf. Mark 10:45). Caiaphas was right; the death of Jesus would save the nation from destruction. Yet Caiaphas could not suspect that Jesus would die, not in place of the political nation Israel, but on behalf of the true people of God; and he would save them, not from physical destruction, but from eternal destruction (cf. 3:16-17). The understanding of Caiaphas’ words in a sense that Caiaphas could not possibly have imagined at the time he uttered them serves as a clear example of the way in which the author understood that words and actions could be invested retrospectively with a meaning not consciously intended or understood by those present at the time.

[11:51]  ⁵ tn Grk “say this from himself.”

[11:51]  ⁶ tn The word “Jewish” is not in the Greek text, but is clearly implied by the context (so also NIV; TEV “the Jewish people”).

[18:13]  ⁷ tn Grk “up, and brought.” Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

[18:13]  ⁸ sn Jesus was taken first to Annas. Only the Gospel of John mentions this pretrial hearing before Annas, and that Annas was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who is said to be high priest in that year. Caiaphas is also mentioned as being high priest in John 11:49. But in 18:15, 16, 19, and 22 Annas is called high priest. Annas is also referred to as high priest by Luke in Acts 4:6. Many scholars have dismissed these references as mistakes on the part of both Luke and John, but as mentioned above, John 11:49 and 18:13 indicate that John knew that Caiaphas was high priest in the year that Jesus was crucified. This has led others to suggest that Annas and Caiaphas shared the high priesthood, but there is no historical evidence to support this view. Annas had been high priest from a.d. 6 to a.d. 15 when he was deposed by the Roman prefect Valerius Gratus (according to Josephus, Ant. 18.2.2 [18.34]). His five sons all eventually became high priests. The family was noted for its greed, wealth, and power. There are a number of ways the references in both Luke and John to Annas being high priest may be explained. Some Jews may have refused to recognize the changes in high priests effected by the Roman authorities, since according to the Torah the high priesthood was a lifetime office (Num 25:13). Another possibility is that it was simply customary to retain the title after a person had left the office as a courtesy, much as retired ambassadors are referred to as “Mr. Ambassador” or ex-presidents as “Mr. President.” Finally, the use of the title by Luke and John may simply be a reflection of the real power behind the high priesthood of the time: Although Annas no longer technically held the office, he may well have managed to control those relatives of his who did hold it from behind the scenes. In fact this seems most probable and would also explain why Jesus was brought to him immediately after his arrest for a sort of “pretrial hearing” before being sent on to the entire Sanhedrin.

[18:14]  ⁹ tn Or “counseled.”

[18:14]  ¹⁰ tn Grk “the Jews.” Here the phrase refers to the Jewish leaders, specifically members of the Sanhedrin (see John 11:49-50). See also the note on the phrase “Jewish leaders” in v. 12.

[18:14]  ¹¹ sn This is a parenthetical note by the author.

[18:24]  ¹² tn Or “still bound.”

[18:24]  ¹³ sn Where was Caiaphas the high priest located? Did he have a separate palace, or was he somewhere else with the Sanhedrin? Since Augustine (4th century) a number of scholars have proposed that Annas and Caiaphas resided in different wings of the same palace, which were bound together by a common courtyard through which Jesus would have been led as he was taken from Annas to Caiaphas. This seems a reasonable explanation, although there is no conclusive evidence.

[4:6]  ¹⁴ sn The high priest’s family. This family controlled the high priesthood as far back as a.d. 6. Annas, Caiaphas, and Alexander were all high priests at one time (though Alexander held that office after this event).