John 18:24

Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(24) Now Annas had sent him bound. . . .—Better, Annas therefore sent Him bound. . . . The reading is uncertain; some MSS. read “Therefore;” some read “Now;” some omit the word altogether. On the whole, the evidence is in favour of “therefore.” The tense is an aorist, and cannot properly have a pluperfect force. The rendering of the Authorised version is based upon the opinion that Jesus had before been sent to Caiaphas, and that all which followed from John 18:13 (see margin there) had taken place after the close of the investigation before Annas. This view is certainly more probable than that the words “high priest” should be used of Annas and Caiaphas indiscriminately (comp. Note on John 18:15), but both do violence to the ordinary meaning of language, and, if the interpretation which is adopted in these Notes is correct, neither is necessary.

Jesus was still “bound;” as He had been from John 18:12.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

18:13-27 Simon Peter denied his Master. The particulars have been noticed in the remarks on the other Gospels. The beginning of sin is as the letting forth of water. The sin of lying is a fruitful sin; one lie needs another to support it, and that another. If a call to expose ourselves to danger be clear, we may hope God will enable us to honour him; if it be not, we may fear that God will leave us to shame ourselves. They said nothing concerning the miracles of Jesus, by which he had done so much good, and which proved his doctrine. Thus the enemies of Christ, whilst they quarrel with his truth, wilfully shut their eyes against it. He appeals to those who heard him. The doctrine of Christ may safely appeal to all that know it, and those who judge in truth bear witness to it. Our resentment of injuries must never be passionate. He reasoned with the man that did him the injury, and so may we.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Compare John 18:13 with Matthew 26:57.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

24-27. Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas—Our translators so render the words, understanding that the foregoing interview took place before Caiaphas; Annas, declining to meddle with the case, having sent Him to Caiaphas at once. But the words here literally are, "Annas sent Him [not 'had sent Him'] to Caiaphas"—and the "now" being of doubtful authority. Thus read, the verse affords no evidence that He was sent to Caiaphas before the interview just recorded, but implies rather the contrary. We take this interview, then, with some of the ablest interpreters, to be a preliminary and non-official one with Annas, at an hour of the night when Caiaphas' Council could not convene; and one that ought not to be confounded with that solemn one recorded by the other Evangelists, when all were assembled and witnesses called. But the building in which both met with Jesus appears to have been the same, the room only being different, and the court, of course, in that case, one. (Also see on [1900]Mr 14:54.)

Matthew Poole's Commentary

These words are only to let us know, that these things were not done before Annas, but before Caiaphas the high priest, to whom (as to his proper judge) Annas had sent him bound, as he was at first brought to him.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Now Annas had sent him bound,.... As he found him, when the captain, band, and officers brought him to him; who having pleased himself with so agreeable a sight, and had asked him some few questions, and perhaps insulted him, sent him away in this manner,

unto Caiaphas the high priest: his son-in-law, as the more proper person to be examined before; and especially as the grand council was sitting at his house. This was done before Peter's first denial of Christ; which, it is plain, was in the palace of the high priest, and not in Annas's house; though there seems no reason on this account to place these words at the end of the 13th verse, as they are by some, since they manifestly refer to time past, and do not at all obscure or hinder the true order of the history, as standing here.

Geneva Study Bible

Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Meyer's NT Commentary

John 18:24. By the incident John 18:22-23, the conversation of Annas with Jesus was broken off, and the former now sent Him bound (as He was since John 18:12) to Caiaphas,—therefore now for the first time, not already before John 18:15. In order to place the scene of the denials in Caiaphas’ presence, it has been discovered, although John gives not the slightest indication of it, that Annas and Caiaphas inhabited one house with a court in common (Euth. Zigabenus, Casaubon, Ebrard, Lange, Lichtenstein, Riggenbach, Hengstenberg, Godet). In order, also, to assign the hearing of 19–21 to Caiaphas, some have taken critical liberties, and placed John 18:24 after John 18:14 (so Cyril, who, however, also reads it, consequently, a second time in the present passage, which Beza admits),[215] or have moved it up so as to follow John 18:13 (a few unimportant critical witnesses, approved by Rinck); some also have employed exegetical violence. John 18:24, that is, was regarded either as a supplemental historical statement in order to prevent misunderstanding; so Erasmus, Castalio, Calvin, Vatablus, Calovius, Cornelius a Lapide, Jansen, and several others, including Lücke, Tholuck, Krabbe, De Wette, Maier, Baeumlein; or the emphasis was laid on δεδεμένον, to which word Grotius ascribed a force explanatory of the following denial, but Bengel one explanatory of the previous maltreatment. These exegetic attempts coincide in this, that ἈΠΈΣΤΕΙΛΕΝ is understood in a pluperfect sense: miserat, and is regarded as supplying an omission.[216] The aorist, in order to adduce this as a supplemental addition, would rather be: Annas sent Him. But when the Aor. actually stands, making a supplemental statement, the context itself incontestably shows it (the pluperfect usage of the aorist in relative clauses, Kühner, II. p. 79; Winer, p. 258 [E. T. p. 343], is not relevant here), as in Matthew 14:3-4 (not Matthew 16:5; Matthew 26:48; Matthew 27:27, nor John 1:24; John 1:28; John 6:59). Here, however, this is altogether not the case (see rather the progress of the history, John 18:13; John 18:24; John 18:28), and it is only a harmonistic interest which has compelled the interpretation, which is least of all justified in the case of John. John had the pluperfect at command just as much as the aorist, and by the choice of the latter in the sense of the former he would, since the reader has nothing in the context to set him right, have expressed himself so as greatly to mislead, while he would have given, by the whole supplemental observations, the stamp of the greatest clumsiness to his narrative, which had flowed on from John 18:15 down to the present point. The expedients of Grotius and Bengel are, however, the more inappropriate, the more manifest it is that δεδεμένον simply looks back to John 18:12, ἜΔΗΣΟΝ ΑὐΤΌΝ. The sole historical sequence that is true to the words is given already by Chrysostom: ΕἾΤΑ, ΜΗΔῈ ΟὙΤῺς ΕὙΡΊΣΚΟΝΤΈς ΤΙ ΠΛΈΟΝ, ΠΈΜΠΟΥΣΙΝ ΑὐΤῸΝ ΔΕΔΕΜΈΝΟΝ ΠΡῸς ΚΑΙΆΦΑΝ.

[215] Comp. Luther, who, after ver. 14, comments: “Here should stand the 24th verse. It has been misplaced by the copyist in the turning over of the leaf, as frequently happens.”

[216] So also Brandes, Annas u. Pilat, p. 18 f., who adduces many unsuitable passages in proof.

Expositor's Greek Testament

John 18:24. As nothing was to be gained by continuing the examination, Jesus is handed on to Caiaphas, Ἀπέστειλεν … ἀρχιερέα.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

24. Now Annas had sent him bound] The received text, following important authorities, has no conjunction. The Sinaitic MS. and some minor authorities insert ‘now’ or ‘but’ (δέ). But an overwhelming amount of evidence, including the Vatican MS., gives S. John’s favourite particle, therefore (οὖν). Moreover the verb is aorist, not pluperfect. Annas therefore sent Him. It is not necessary to enquire whether the aorist may not virtually be pluperfect in meaning. Even if ‘now’ were genuine and the remark were an after-thought which ought to have preceded John 18:19, the aorist might still be rendered literally, as in Matthew 26:48 (‘gave them,’ not ‘had given them a sign’). Comp. Matthew 14:3-4.

But ‘therefore’ shews that the remark is not an after-thought. Because the results of the preliminary investigation before Annas were such (there was a primâ facie case, but nothing conclusive), ‘Annas therefore sent Him’ for formal trial to Caiaphas, who had apparently been present (see on John 18:19) during the previous interrogation and had taken part in it.

bound] He had been bound by the Roman soldiers and Jewish officials when He was arrested (John 18:12). This was to prevent escape or rescue. During the examination he would be set free as possibly innocent. After the examination He was bound again as presumably guilty, or as before to prevent escape.

Bengel's Gnomen

John 18:24. Ἀπέστειλεν, sent) One or two editions supply οὖν, or δὲ, or τέ. There is no need of doing so.[384] That Jesus had been led by Annas to Caiaphas, had been indicated by John, in John 18:15, by the verb συνεισῆλθε, and by the very appellation High Priest being so often repeated. But now he takes up again this very circumstance, and records it more expressly in conjunction with the mention of His being bound, in which state the Saviour [both ingenuously confessed the truth (Harm., p. 536), and] received a most undeserved blow. Sometimes in a narrative there is put something out of the regular order of time, which is connected with those circumstances that receive light from it: ch. John 5:9, John 9:14, John 11:30; Acts 4:22; Jeremiah 29:29, compared with what goes before and what follows. It was in one and the same palace of the High Priest, although in different parts of it, that Peter thrice denied Jesus [This explains the connection with John 18:25].—δεδεμένον, bound) John 18:12.

[384] BLXΔ, C corrected, ab, read the οὖν; and so Lachm.: c and Vulg. “et misit.” But A omits it: and so Tisch.—E. and T.

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 24. - The οϋν is quite in John's style, and the verse should read, Annas therefore sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest; i.e. to the full court of the Sanhedrin, under the presidency of Caiaphas, now got together for the judicial sifting and verdict. If John had intended a pluperfect sense to be given to the verb, why not use that tense? The relative clauses, where the aorist is used for the pluperfect, are not relevant here (Meyer). In other cases the context clearly reveals the occasion of such a sense (see Matthew 16:5; Matthew 26:48). John is not unaware of the momentous consequences of this act of Annas, seeing that he refers to them, nor of the fact of the accusation made by the false witnesses, nor of the judicial condemnation which followed Christ's own claim to be the Son of God. The subsequent narrative implies such condemnation (Vers. 29, 30, 35; John 19:11). The author of this narrative does not ignore the fact of the appearance before Caiaphas, nor the issue; but in consequence of the wide diffusion of the synoptic Gospels, he merely called attention to the facts which they had omitted so far as they bore directly on the human character of the Lord. The theological bias with which the evangelist is credited by some would be strangely subserved both by the omission of the scene before Caiaphas, and by the faithful record of this purely human and beautiful trait in the personal character of Jesus. The fact that the fourth evangelist should have recorded facts of which he was eye-witness, and omitted others which would have forcibly sustained his main thesis, is an invincible evidence of historicity. John 18:24

Vincent's Word Studies

Annas had sent (ἀπέστειλεν ὁ Ἄννας)

The best texts insert οὖν, therefore. The rendering of the aorist by the pluperfect here is inadmissible, and is a device to bring this examination of Jesus into harmony with that described in Matthew 26:56-68, and to escape the apparent inconsistency between the mention of the high-priest (Caiaphas) as conducting this examination and the statement of John 18:13, which implies that this was merely a preliminary examination before Annas. Render, Annas therefore sent him.

Bound

Probably He had been unbound during His examination.