Movatterモバイル変換

John 18:3
Judas then, having received a bandof men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.

Matthew 26:57
And they that had laid hold on Jesus ledhim away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.

Mark 14:53
And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes.

the captain.

Acts 21:31,37
And as they went about to kill him, tidings came unto the chief captain of the band, that all Jerusalem was in an uproar…

Acts 22:24-28
The chief captain commanded him to be brought into the castle, and bade that he should be examined by scourging; that he might know wherefore they cried so against him…

Acts 23:10,17
And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them, commanded the soldiers to go down, and to take him by force from among them, and to bringhim into the castle…

bound.

Genesis 22:9
And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.

Genesis 40:3
And he put them in ward in the house of the captain of the guard, into the prison, the place where Josephwas bound.

Judges 16:21
But the Philistines took him, and put out his eyes, and brought him down to Gaza, and bound him with fetters of brass; and he did grind in the prison house.

with its commander
The commander, or "chiliarch," was a high-ranking officer, often in charge of a thousand soldiers. His involvement underscores the importance of the arrest and the Roman interest in maintaining order. This also highlights the collaboration between Roman and Jewish authorities, a common practice to manage local disturbances.

and the officers of the Jews
These officers were likely members of the Temple guard, responsible for maintaining order in the Temple precincts. Their involvement shows the Sanhedrin's active role in Jesus' arrest, fulfilling their plans to eliminate what they saw as a threat to their religious authority. This collaboration between Jewish leaders and Roman authorities is a recurring theme in the Passion narrative.

arrested Jesus
The arrest marks the beginning of Jesus' Passion, a fulfillment of His own predictions about His suffering and death (e.g.,Mark 8:31). It signifies the transition from His public ministry to His sacrificial role as the Lamb of God. This moment is pivotal in the narrative of redemption, as it sets in motion the events leading to the crucifixion.

and bound Him
Binding Jesus symbolizes the rejection and humiliation He faced, despite His innocence. It fulfills the prophecy ofIsaiah 53:7, where the suffering servant is led like a lamb to the slaughter. This act of binding also prefigures the spiritual bondage of sin that Jesus came to break through His death and resurrection.

• John marks a deliberate moment in time: after Jesus willingly stopped Peter’s swordplay and submitted to the Father’s plan (John 18:11).

• The timing fulfills Jesus’ earlier words: “This is your hour—and the dominion of darkness” (Luke 22:53).

• Nothing happens by accident; the Father’s sovereign timetable is right on schedule (John 13:1).

• A detachment of Roman troops—likely a sizable cohort—has been summoned (John 18:3).

• Their presence highlights the political weight behind the arrest; Rome’s authority stands ready to suppress any perceived uprising (Matthew 27:27).

• Yet even an armed military force cannot act apart from God’s purpose (Proverbs 21:30).

• A ranking officer (the chiliarch) accompanies the troops, underscoring Rome’s official sanction (Acts 21:31-32).

• His presence testifies that Jesus’ arrest is treated as a state matter, fulfilling the prediction that Gentiles would be involved in His suffering (Matthew 20:19).

• The commander’s authority, though real, is secondary to the greater authority of Christ, who had already declared, “No one takes My life from Me, but I lay it down of My own accord” (John 10:18).

• Temple guards—answerable to the chief priests and Pharisees—join the Roman force (John 7:32, 45-46).

• Religious leaders, determined to silence Jesus, collaborate with secular power (Psalm 2:2;Luke 22:52).

• Their involvement fulfills prophecy that He would be “despised and rejected by men” (Isaiah 53:3).

• The combined party seizes the sinless Son of God (Mark 14:46).

• Jesus allows Himself to be taken, demonstrating obedience “to the point of death” (Philippians 2:8).

• His arrest initiates the legal proceedings leading to the cross, where redemption will be accomplished (Isaiah 53:8;1 Peter 2:24).

• The binding signifies custody and condemnation (Mark 15:1).

• It foreshadows the Servant “led like a lamb to the slaughter” (Isaiah 53:7) and echoesPsalm 118:27: “Bind the sacrifice with cords to the horns of the altar.”

• Though physically restrained, Jesus remains spiritually sovereign, soon to break every chain through His resurrection (Revelation 1:18).

John 18:12 portrays the moment when earthly powers converge to arrest and bind Jesus, yet every detail unfolds under God’s sovereign plan. Roman soldiers, Jewish officers, and their commanders act freely, yet unwittingly serve the divine purpose foretold in Scripture. The binding of Jesus sets in motion the events that will secure our freedom, proving that even in apparent defeat, Christ reigns supreme.

Took Jesus, and bound him.--Comp. Notes onMatthew 26:50;Matthew 27:2. . . .

(2) Thepreliminary examination before Annas,interwoven with the weakness and treachery of Peter. This passage describes the first steps taken by the enemies of our Lord to conduct the examination which was to issue in a judicial murder, and therefore to provide the basis on which the charge might be laid before Pilate and that Roman court, which alone could carry into execution the malicious conclusion on which they had already resolved. Moreover, tiffs passage is interwoven with the melancholy record of the fall of Peter. There are grave difficulties in the passage, which have led to harsh judgment on the narrative itself and on its general truthful ness. Keim almost angrily dismisses it, and Strauss endeavors to show that it is incompatible with the synoptic narrative; while Renan, on the other hand, sees in it numerous lifelike touches and great circumstantial value. Theprima facie objection is that John describes a preliminary examination before Annas, whom he confounds with the high priest, and says nothing of the judicial trial before the Sanhedrin under the presidency of Caiaphas. Baur and Strauss supposed that the author did this in order to exaggerate the guilt of the Jews by doubling their unbelief, and aggravating their offence by makingtwo high priests rather than one condemn their Messiah. In reply to this we have simply to say that John, though he shows the animus of both these notorious men, does not mention the judicial condemnation pronounced by either (see Weiss, 3:334, Eng. trans.). The omission of the sublime answer of our Lord to the challenge of Caiaphas and others (Matthew 26:62, etc.;Luke 22:67, etc.;Mark 14:68, 70) is surely profoundly contradictory to the supposed theological purpose of the writer; and we can only account for its omission on the ground that the synoptic tradition had made it widely known, and thatthat tradition still needed correction by the record of important supplementary matter. Some harmonists have endeavored to transpose Ver. 24 into close proximity with Ver. 13, or to give, as the Authorized Version does, a pluperfect meaning toἀπέστειλε of Ver. 24, the effect of which is to make the two examinations virtually one, but one from which John leaves out the most striking features. This is supposed to be necessitated by the Vers. 19-23, where the "high priest" is said to have interrogated Jesus. Moreover, the supposition of there being a considerable space in the city between the house of Annas and the palace of the high priest Caiaphas renders the harmony of the narratives touching the denials of Peter inextricably confused, seeing that, according to the synoptic narrative, they occurred in the court ofCaiaphas, while in John they apparently were made in the court ofAnnas. This difficulty is entirely met by the natural suppositions arising out of the relations of these two men. Annas (Hanan, Ananias, Ananus) was a man of great capacity and exclusiveness, charged with fiery passions and bitter hatred of the Pharisaic party. He was appointed high priest in A.D. , by Quirinus, Governor of Syria; in A.D. he was compelled to retire in favor of his son Ishmael. After him followed Eleazar, and in A.D. Joseph Caiaphas, his son-in-law, was appointed, and this man held the office till A.D. . Three other sons of Annas held the like position, and it was during the high priesthood of one bearing his father's name (Ananus) that James the Just was cruelly murdered (Josephus, 'Ant.,' 20:08. 1). The influence of the old priest throughout the entire period covered by New Testament narrative was very great. Luke (Luke 3:2) speaks of Annas and Caiaphas as high priests, and Annas is again inActs 4:6 spoken of as high priest. John never speaks of him as "high priest," unless he must be held to do so in this passage. Our most thoughtful commentators differ on the point whether John does not so designate him (Ver. 19), adopting the well-known usage of Luke, which gave him the title of high priest. The evangelic narrative reveals, however, quite enough to explain that he may have been at the heart of the antagonism to Jesus, have aided Caiaphas with his suggestions, and consented to conduct a preliminary midnight investigation which would give at least a semblance of legal sanction to the condemnation, which, between them, they would be able to secure as soon as the day dawned. In tract 'Sanhedrin,' Mishna,John 4:1 and John 5:5, we learn that, though an acquittal of a prisoner or accused person might be pronounced on the day of trial, yet a capital sentence must be delayed till the following day. As this trial must be brought at once to a termination, such an investigation as that which John describes would furnish the necessary validity. Moreover, some hours must have elapsed before the Sanhedrim under the legal superintendence of Caiaphas, could have assembled. Now, the domestic relation of Annas and Caiaphas would make it highly probable that the hall of the Sanhedrin and the house of Annas were on different sides of the same great court of the palace, and that one court,αὐλή, sufficed for both. With these preliminaries, let us proceed with the narrative as given by John. The frivolous supposition of Thoma, that the author of this Gospel was playing upon the idea of the beast (Judas) and the false prophet, and on the fivebrothers of the rich man of Luke's parable, is allowed to disfigure this writer's treatment of the introduction of the part taken by Hanan, or Annas, in the Passion-tragedy.Verses 12-14. -Οϋν,Therefore -i.e. since no further resistance was made by Jesus -the band (orcohort), which here takes the lead,and the captain of it, and the officers of the Jews in association with each other,took Jesus, and bound him, as sign that he was their prisoner, and to prevent escape until he should be in safe keeping. It is probable that the binding process was repeated by Annas and again by Caiaphas (Ver. 24 andMatthew 27:2), implying that during judicial examination the cordage was taken off, and reimposed when the accused was sent from one court to another; or else that additional bonds were placed upon him, for the sake either of greater security or of inflicting indignity. Christ, by accepting the indignity publicly, yielded his holy will, confessing the supreme ordinance of the Father as to the method in which he would now glorify him.And they led (him)to Annas first. The mention of the word "first" shows that John discriminated between the two legal processes, the first being a preliminary examination of the accused, with the view of extracting from him some matter which should furnish the priests with definite charges, and to make a show of partial conformity with the customs of their own jurisprudence.He was father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that same year. John's reiteration of this statement (seeJohn 11:49 and note) shows that he was in no ignorance of the custom and principle of high-priestly succession, which the Romans had treated so arbitrarily. "That same year" was the awful year in which the Christ was sacrificed to the willful ignorance, malice, and unbelief of the Jews.Now Caiaphas was he who counseled the Jews that it was expedient that one man should diefor the people (seeJohn 11:50, 51); and while John leaves no doubt who is the virtual high priest, he calls attention to the fact that Jesus had no justice or mercy to expect from the decision of his judge, and also reminds his readers once more of the significance of every step in this tragedy.

Parallel Commentaries ...