Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadChrist In His Suffering, Trial, and Crucified by Klaas Schilder: Schilder, Klaas - Vol 2 - Christ on Trial: 02. Chapter 2: Christ’s Apology Before Annas
TOPIC: Schilder, Klaas - Vol 2 - Christ on Trial (Other Topics in this Collection)
SUBJECT: 02. Chapter 2: Christ’s Apology Before Annas
Other Subjects in this Topic:
C H A P T E R T W O
Christ’s Apology Before Annas
The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine. Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou Me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said.
—Joh_18:21.
INTERPRETERS differ in their opinions of how we are to think of the historical sequence of events at the beginning of the trial of Christ. John informs us in the 19th verse of our chapter (Joh_18:19) that the high priest questioned Christ. Now some suppose that this is a reference to the same hearing that took place, according to the accounts of the other evangelists, before the Sanhedrin under the direction of Caiaphas. Obviously the Revised Version has regarded this interpretation a plausible one, for in spite of the fact that according to a simple rendering of the Greek text, Joh_18:24 should read, “Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas” the Revised Version has “Annas had sent him bound to Caiaphas.” Now it is plain that if this last translation is correct,[1] the report of the hearing before the high priest, which report immediately precedes this verse, is an account of the official hearing at the plenary session of the Sanhedrin, of which Caiaphas was the presiding officer.
[1] It is Identical with that of the King James Version.
This interpretation, which is supported by other arguments besides, is nevertheless objectionable for numerous reasons. We shall let it suffice to name only this one, that such an interpretation is possible only if one does some unwarranted manipulating of the text. Only then can this reconstruction of the chronological order of events, (think again of Joh_18:24, to which reference was made), be read into the text. Hence we prefer to agree with those who accord John the usual meaning, altering nothing, not even in the translation. We choose the interpretation which has it that the hearing spoken of in Joh_18:19-23 took place in the house of Annas, to which, as we observed, Christ was first brought. When we read in the 19th verse (Joh_18:19) that the high priest questioned Christ, we may believe that this high priest may very well have been Annas, inasmuch as he was the former bearer of that office, and was still functioning in that capacity in this instance. That consideration raises a second question, namely: Granted that Jesus was brought before Annas, who is the high priest that does the questioning recorded in the 19th verse? Annas himself? Or Caiaphas perhaps, who, being present, may have joined in the conversation? We shall not state which of the many interpretations of this point is preferable. The main issue involved in this matter inheres in the fact that, as is plainly the intent of the narrator, the hearing before Annas was of a preliminary character. It was designed to gather materials and to formulate specific charges for the plenary session of the Sanhedrin to come later. It is very likely, therefore, that both authorities, the father-in-law and the son-in-law, were present at this hearing.
Nor is it remarkable that this investigation makes it a point to probe into Christ’s doctrine and to ask about His disciples. As a matter of fact, even that is not quite true. The narrative tells us first of the inquiries about the disciples, and only then of the investigation into the doctrine of Christ. It is not impossible that design and purpose are concealed beneath this order of events as given in the account. For, from the point of view of the status of the family of the priest, less depended upon the message Christ proclaimed than upon His disciples, upon the influence of His words, the so-called “success” of His preaching. We know that people who flutter about at the periphery of the realm of truth obstinately insist upon confusing “blessing” with “success.” They have less respect for the principle of organic life which is illustrated by a seed which, falling into the ground, slowly unfolds itself, and gradually but surely evolves into a tree, than for the principle of mechanical things, illustrated by any structure representing a mere aggregation and juxtaposition of quantities. They fear a law which proceeds from an organic principle less than a myriad-faceted organization which clothes the multitudes of its disciples in the uniform of the voluntary enthusiasm of its Spirit or in the civilian’s garb of the guerilla warriors of truth. Their first concern is not about the profundity or the truth of a given view or principle, but about the number of its devotees or propagandists. If this is a large number, they speak of a “success,” but of the concept “blessing” in its unique Biblical sense they say not a word. Hence, when a person preaches some new doctrine, founds some new school of thought, and begins to get followers, and if it happens that this doctrine and school are unsympathetic to them, they will soon be asking how many followers there are. Only after that, if any time remains, will they investigate the substance of the doctrine which is being preached.
Irrespective of the ultimate purpose of our text, it is plain from the manner in which “the problem of the Nazarene” is raised for discussion in the conferences of the caste of priests that that method of approach is quite appropriate to the order of procedure indicated in the text. They first asked about the disciples, and only then devoted some attention to the doctrine of Jesus. Caiaphas himself said: Behold, the world is gone after him (Joh_12:19). And it is this same emphasis which moves them to act so relentlessly now.
They first ask Jesus about His disciples, yes. The first question officially put to Jesus concerned the number of His disciples. In contemporary parlance, we would say that Jesus was asked first of all about “the success of His organization.” It is apparent that the ruling dynasty of the priests, as well as the faction represented by the Sanhedrin, was of the opinion that Jesus intended to begin a movement, making His starting point a small nucleus. They were of the opinion also that He had already begun this. At least, they create the impression that He is gathering a group of disciples around Him, and that it is very difficult to say just how large His school of followers is. This insinuation suggests that Jesus is preaching a secret doctrine to an exclusive circle, or at least that He is preparing plans for a surreptitious conspiracy against the existing authorities.
Accordingly, the questions put to Jesus by Annas are themselves imputations of guilt. The atmosphere in which Jesus is received is one of antithesis and antipathy from the very start. But we should be proving ourselves short-sighted if we could not say more about the spirit of these questions than that. Perhaps the queries which Annas addresses to Him do represent a hidden animosity. However, we may not stare ourselves blind by looking at that fact solely. It may also be that Annas’ questions give expression to a kind of curiosity and to a typically human fear even though these particular motives were not openly expressed.
No, we must not begin by all too facilely casting stones at Annas; we must begin by seeing in him a man of like passions with us. Can we suppose that this old man, whose gray hairs are about to enter the grave without peace, is a greater deceiver than we? Dare we think that we would have spoken differently than this notable person of Jerusalem spoke?
Surely not. We may not take the tragic out of this tragedy by naming Caiaphas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod pure deceivers, men so very bad that it would be hard to find their equals in whole city blocks of respectable contemporary cities. Such an attitude would betray the fact that we have no real appreciation of the nature of the human soul, and of the nature of our own sin, which, together with Annas, dares to sit in judgment — upon Jesus.
In fact, every honest observer must pay Annas this tribute that in conducting the examination he proceeded authentically and in a manner which showed his familiarity with his times. Caiaphas had good reason to give the first word in this trial to this accomplished diplomat.
Annas asked Jesus whether He was secretly gathering a school of disciples around Him. And his question may be taken as an expression of that picture of the Messiah which was haunting the imaginations of the anemic minds of Jesus’ contemporaries. Whoever is familiar with that picture of the Messiah which the Jews of Jesus’ time preferred to conjure up before themselves — a picture clearly delineated in their writings — will know .that they were confidently looking forward to a messianic mystery. Their Christology — that is, their doctrine of the Messiah, or the Christ —contained a very interesting chapter which treated of the messianic secretiveness.
The fact is that the Jews living in this “fullness of time” wanted to taste the flavor of mystery and secretiveness in their Messiah. They may put many questions to the Messiah, but they had better know that they wish no answer to these unless that answer is given in a piquant way. The true Messiah — as they would have it— must be of unknown origin. The real messianic movement must get under way under cover. When Christ cometh no man knoweth whence He is (Joh_7:27). The attitude was very generally current that the Messiah would be enveloped in mystery for a while before He made His public appearance. One Jewish writer thought it possible that at the time in which he was writing the Messiah had already been born but was temporarily keeping Himself aloof. The supposition was, then, that during this period in which the Messiah was living but was still unrevealed, He Himself was not yet aware of the nature of His future work. This last would not become clear to Him and to others until later. In short, the burden of this writer’s message was that the great light might be breaking through at a time when nothing as yet pointed to its appearing.
Others supposed that the Messiah was intentionally holding Himself aloof because of the sins of the people. It was even thought possible that He was keeping Himself in hiding in Rome. Still others asserted that He would come from “the north.” In any case, however, He would when He made His appearance step forth out of a condition of seclusion and of mystery. This popular notion had its resemblances to that arbitrary interpretation of later theologians who concluded similarly on the basis of Isaiah 7. We read there that the Messiah would eat “butter (thick milk) and honey.” This these theologians interpreted as meaning that He would be found among the shepherds in the wilderness, far from the city. Culture, they said, would affect Him harmfully. You see, then, that many in Israel were looking forward to a concealed Messiah who would make His appearance suddenly in the nimbus of a paradoxical, wonder-working power. His appearing would be a mystery; there would be a careful underground preparation of armaments. Thereupon, the arsenals would suddenly be broken open.
No, do not cast stones at the aged Annas. Leave that to God. Is it impossible — a human soul is so unfathomably complicated, we know — that he unconsciously still reckoned with the possibility that Jesus was the Messiah? Do not reply that this possibility is barred by the fact that he bound Jesus. Think of Herod’s many secret visits to the Baptist — in prison. And is not Herod himself secretly harboring the suspicion that a dark mystery may be lurking beneath the manacled Jesus? Then why should not Annas feel just that? The human heart attempts to evade so much of what it cannot face outright. Ah, perhaps the mind of Annas is haunted by the thought that the miracle, the long-awaited miracle, may possibly emerge suddenly from this Nazarene.
Note that we are advisedly italicizing “perhaps.” For it may also be that this supposition ascribed to Annas is not correct at all. We cannot dissect his soul; God alone can do that. Moreover, just what have we to do with the secrets lurking in the soul of Annas? Our responsibility is simply to be honest in the matter, and to remember that, formally considered, the questions which Annas asks are in conformity with the tenor of the Jewish theology of his time. His conduct of the hearing directs it straight to the core of the messianic problem as the Jews of his day conceived of that problem. Viewing in this light, we are not much concerned to know whether some anxiety lurked in Annas’ soul underneath the allegations of guilt which this priestly aristocrat flung into the face of the bound “Galilean” from the provinces.
It is enough for us to know that the logic of the facts and nothing else induced this spiritual judge to demand that Jesus answer two questions. One of these concerns His doctrine. Is His doctrine a sealed book, or His teaching open and above-board? The second question refers to His disciples. Are these people of the street, these former cripples, these dismissed publicans and but lately civilized sinners, these untutored ones — are they really His disciples? Or has He some other school of followers?
In short: Jesus, who are you?
And Jesus rises to report on His messianic mystery. That mystery, He says, does indeed exist, but it is not what they think it is or can be.
Listen to the apology of Jesus Christ. He asserts that He has never done anything or taught anything in secret. He says He has always done His work in the full light of day. He has preached daily in the temple and the synagogues. Yes, in the temple, where the leaders of the people were ever present and where the censorship was strict. And in the synagogues, where the masses went in and out continuously, and where, no less than in the temple, the doors were never closed during the services. The temple was the place where broad principles were exposed; there the rabbis assigned chairs to those who proclaimed old and new doctrines and modes of thought. In the synagogues, however, new doctrines were not presented, but there new applications of current doctrines were discussed. In other words, Jesus states that He varied His methods of teaching sufficiently; and He adds that wherever He was He never turned His back to the community of the people. He says in effect: I have never wanted to found a secret cult; I have never been a prophet “of the desert” or of the “inner closet.” To form a nucleus designed to work its way forcibly into the existing body of the church, state, and community by way of introducing an alien element into these, bent on eventually destroying them, is a law quite incompatible with the kingdom of heaven. I have done nothing, Christ means to say, other than to set free and to cause those seeds to sprout which God Himself has planted in the field of Israel. I have not planted two kinds of seeds, he asserts; I have introduced no germinal properties alien to the body of the people, but have under the full light of the sun wanted to cause the seeds, which the God of truth long ago planted in Israel’s soil, to germinate. Hence secret doctrines and esoteric organizations are none of mine. I come not to break down but to fulfill.
You observe that Christ’s apology leads to this question: Just why are you examining me? You are asking, He says in effect, for that which you know very well already. In order to escape from the mercilessly searching condemnations which you have detected in my teaching, you act as though I used language designed to conceal my real purposes. You act as though you were perplexed about what is the real state of things; and as you ask me now to lift the veil for you, you present your petition in the guise of a prayer on the part of the uninformed. But that prayer is essentially a mask covering the enmity of the unwilling. Just why, indeed, are you interviewing me? So far was my preaching removed from secret and occult doctrine, that you may ask anyone who happens along and you will be able to get from him a “summary” of what I taught.
We must ask now what the meaning is of this dialogue being carried on between Christ and the high priest. We must ask what relationship exists between this apology and the whole history of the passion.
We believe we are touching on the real significance of this apology when we say that Jesus is here confessing His messianic office, and that He is confessing it precisely to those whose official life has wholly denied and completely outgrown its own messianic tendencies.
The office which was introduced into Israel at God’s behest has gradually been turning its back to the people and more and more been standing aloof from them. The common people are being despised. The priests feast upon those who bring sacrifices. Single individuals, when they see a suitable opportunity, climb to the top of the ranks over the backs of the masses. The spirit of Michal has entered into the colleges of the priests and into their secret societies. The timbrel of David has become a mere monogram on their stationery; David’s religious dance has lost its validity for bondmen and bondwomen.
Over against this delight in aristocratic isolation which tends to fix a gulf between the office and the people, Christ places His messianic obedience. The man of the street was never a stranger to Christ. He never acknowledges any antithesis between the official dignity inherent in Him and the people — those scurvy sheep who are in great need. It is true that His doctrine contains a mystery which no one can appropriate to himself except the man who is regenerated by the Spirit. But there is nothing avaricious about this secret. It has in it no jealousy at all except in the sense that God is jealous of the things which are God’s. Life is life and it can never be anything else, and because the doctrine of Christ is a living doctrine, only he who lives by virtue of the regenerating Spirit can accept that doctrine in his person and in the “hidden man of the heart.” In all other senses, however, Christ in the preaching of this life and in the offer of this living mystery never turned aside from the masses, from the many, from the communion. You must look for those who shut up the secret formulations of their subtilized theories among the Pharisees and Sadducees and also among the members of the priestly caste. These sealed up their choicest morsels lest some uninitiated ones should eat of and delight in them. Yes, they graciously kept their apothecary shops open for the “rabble” — until sundown, you understand, and never on Sundays. However, Jesus never made an intellectual doctrine of the life which He preached, and accordingly never confused death and life in His preaching. Unstintedly and unrestrictedly He spread His offer of doctrine and of life abroad. He did so with an “earnest calling” which proffered bread and medicine without stint. This His inquirers must have noticed, for they often criticized Him for keeping His shop open on the Sabbath day, and for delivering His bread on every day of the week.
Delivering His bread — yes, that is the word they wanted. They wanted a neutral term. They refused to say that He had given bread gratis; that would make it too obvious that their “delivering” had none of the connotation of “selling ” in it. But surely they could not have forgotten this. Again . . . why do they question Him? In this hearing the contrast between Christ and His judges is fully revealed. Christ tears all the slips of paper on which they have written their neutral terms into pieces. He puts that contrast emphatically; He uses unmistakable terminology. He says: “I spoke publicly; I always taught in the synagogue and in the temple where all the Jews are accustomed to gather; they who heard me know what I said.” The emphatic thrice-repeated use of the personal pronoun “I”[1] has in it the thrust of a criticism; for the judges of Jesus did not use a searchingly accurate diction. How much of what was in their heart did they actually proclaim to the world? All that they have in mind at present is designed to leave the people out in the cold. “Not on the feast day, not on the feast day” — that is their cry. They are perfectly willing to go through the regular routine of public worship the procedure and order of which everyone can learn by heart; and they are quite willing to carry out the regular schedule in the temple. But the important current issues, such as that of the eschatological preaching of the Nazarene, for instance, they prefer to discuss behind closed doors. A sombre secretivenes pervades their private discussion.
[1] The Greek text indicates this very clearly.
But Christ spoke His apology with forthrightness, and thus at the very beginning of His contact with the law made the good confession boldly. Observe what He does. He immediately places the issue of His office before this spiritual tribunal, for the institution of any office in Israel is messianic in its purpose. Hence a proper conception of the messianic problem was possible only on the basis of a true appreciation of what the concept of the office implied. In this respect also Christ proves to be the Obedient One, for He wants to keep the litigation which is confronting Him pure to the extent He Himself is active in it. In the day of the great judgment — and that day has arrived now — Annas must not be able to say to Jesus, “You used a language which was designed to conceal your thoughts from me; I have therefore good reasons for blaming you.” Instead, Christ comes to Annas, and asks him, “Do you not know the prescription? It is an old and tested one taken from your own pharmacy . . . unless, indeed, you have robbed your God of it.”
Even that, however, does not conclude Christ’s defense. His apology not only proclaims His intention to come to everyone with His word of revelation but also testifies to the power which resides in His word, enabling it actually to reach everyone. He said nothing in secret; that is the first emphasis. It refers to His intention, to His purpose, but that is not all. He adds something. Ask them which heard me, he says. That is the second emphasis. It refers not to His intention but to the effects.
If we were to use the language of the church, we would say that in this second emphasis Christ is touching on the problem of the manifest character of revelation.
Christ’s teaching may be foolishness and an offence to everyone who does not believe it, for life is always just that in relation to death, but it must be borne in mind that Christ also declared in His apology that He attained His purpose in His preaching. He preached not upon the basis of the law of seclusion but upon that of a will to communion. Christ spoke to the people of the street with affection, yes, but also with effect. Now Annas may adopt the pose which hints that the scroll on which Christ’s real purposes are written is so securely sealed that not even those who are learned in the Scriptures, not even the scribes, can have access to it. Annas may act as though an inquiry conducted among the people in an effort to find out the content of Jesus’ teaching would be futile, inasmuch as these untutored ones who after all, are not scribes, cannot possibly know what this Nazarene’s doctrine really is all about. But, over against this double injustice, Christ puts the pronouncement that He has taught nothing in secret, that on the contrary He has presented His instruction in terms intelligible to the masses and in a way which enabled them to grasp the central significance of it. For Christ faithfully acknowledged the essence of His messianic calling, even in the method He employed in His pedagogy. Just as in the incarnation He affiliated Himself with their human condition, so He allied Himself with the thought patterns of the people in the means He employed for His teaching. He made use of their concepts, their modes of argument, their “mind-sets” now, just as in the incarnation He allied Himself with flesh and blood, and graciously worked His way into all the modes of expression common to our human life. Surely, Christ’s pedagogy is an expression of the whole secret of the incarnation of the Word. Christ outspokenly testifies to the truth of this when He says to Annas: “Ask them which heard me: behold, they know what I said ” Whoever gives some thought to these words will admit that this epilogue which was pronounced at the end of His life is in full conformity with the prologue in which, as is stated in the first verse of the first chapter of the Gospel according to John, He is announced as the Word made flesh. Just as He Himself was, so Christ’s teaching was altogether divine, and was derived entirely from above, from another world; but again, just as He Himself was, so His teaching was also genuinely and entirely human; it used a language which was employed here below, and addressed its appeal to the needs of this world. The Word dwelt among us, and His own incarnation maintained the law of its being in reference to His messianic message also. For that reason Christ’s apology was lifted high on this day as a torch of judgment over the house of Annas and Caiaphas.
At this point we cannot but remember Isaiah 29. In that chapter the prophet speaks of the straying people and of the faithless leaders. Fundamentally both of these are at enmity with the prophet. They close their hearts to the message he brings. Hence, by way of judgment, they are struck blind. Because they were unwilling at first they are unable later on, to grasp the message which comes to them.
You ask what course that judgment will take? You wonder how it will be realized? As the prophet thinks about the effect of that judgment, he distinguishes two groups of people, each of which in its own manner is actually experiencing that judgment and is giving expression to the experience in words. These people — and it is this consideration which compels our thoughts in this direction — greatly resemble Annas and his questioning court of priests.
The first form in which the judgment pointed out by Isaiah overtakes these spirits is nicely delineated by means of a figure of speech. He refers to the scribes; that is, to people who know how to read, and are proud of the fact. But these say to Isaiah: “I cannot read, for the book in which the prophecy is written is sealed (Isa_29:11); hence it is no fault of mine if these words are hidden from me. If only they were accessible, I should understand them at once. It is not my understanding or my will which is at fault; it is because of its external character that I cannot appreciate the book. It is sealed.”
Mark how these children of death, these people who are struck down by the judgment of God, struggle hard to vindicate themselves. If they are condemned, they say, it is through no fault of their own, but is owing to the prophecy as it is, objectively. And the ground of their vindication is the very one which Annas dares to name against Jesus today. Annas is the first judge to give Jesus a hearing. Listen to Isaiah, and note this: Annas is the last of the learned among Israel, and the eldest of the people; and in the person of Jesus, a greater than Isaiah is here.
But the first thing Annas says is: Your look is sealed. If only you would be frank and outspoken, O Nazarene, the whole matter in all of its implications would be clear to me at once. I am learned in the Scriptures, but that means nothing to me until you remove the seals from your scroll. If only you would loosen the clasps of the book, I would quickly state the meaning of this matter. I can read, but you must break the seals.
Such, then, is the first charge. But the prophet Isaiah spoke of a second group. He tells us also that the book of the prophecy had been put into the hands of certain other people, and that it had been unsealed and opened before them. But these make the reply: “It is useless for you to give me the book, for I cannot read. I am not learned. I am willing to do it; I am not opposed to the book; nothing in my ethical practice would make me hesitate to absorb its content, but the one thing that hinders me is this inadequacy in my education. The thing that keeps me from the prophets and my soul from the Word is not animosity, but a difference of degree in intellectual attainment (Isa_29:12).”
In short, these people take the other way out. The first group denies the accessibility of the prophetic revelation. The second group simply remains untouched by a preaching which proclaims that prophecy is a power unto salvation. Isaiah may preach as loudly as he wishes that the Word of revelation is a hammer, a fire, a miracle in its potency. These people do not believe it. A person who because of temperament or intellectual capacity cannot “follow” such things, can hardly profit from such preaching. Now the plea of this second group also has its parallel in what Annas says to Jesus. What, Annas asks, could he possibly expect to find out by going to the masses who do not know the law? What could he expect to learn from the ignorant rabble? The people cannot read. In order to understand Jesus’ teaching one must be able to grasp such things. According to this logic, and it is the very same which will put Jesus to death after a while, the question is not one of life or death, of peace with God or enmity against Him, of flesh or spirit, of this world or the other. The only relevant consideration is whether one has the intellectual capacity to grasp Jesus’ teaching.
You see, therefore, that the case for the plaintiff against Jesus will begin by asserting that the doctrine of Christ is neither clear in its objective expression, nor effectual or miraculously influential for the person who hears it.
We have already suggested that this double charge really represents a twofold effort to escape from the divine judgment. Isaiah had said that a judgment of God would be effected in the form of a failure to understand the words of prophecy; but that judgment is not acknowledged as such by those who are included within it. They attempt to push the guilt—if indeed it can be called guilt under such circumstances—from their own shoulders and to place it upon those of God and prophecy.
Jesus had to take thought in replying to this charge which was flung at Him. He had to purge Himself of the blame entirely. For if He could not do so, He Himself would become the cause of the judgment which, according to Israel, was accruing to Israeli leaders in this moment.
Observe closely now. Christ opens His mouth to reply. He addresses His appeal in two directions. He speaks to Annas and says: I deliberately repudiate your criticism. At the same time He addresses God and says: For this tangible judgment of blindness and of hardening of heart, Lord, my God, I, the prophet whom Thou hast sent, am not responsible: Lord, do not let their hardening be charged to me as though I had known sin or had acted sinfully in my relationship to them.
You see, therefore, that Christ places a twofold repudiation over against the double charge they name against Him. In response to the first charge which had it that He certainly had sealed the book of His teaching He replied: I have kept nothing hid. My scroll is unclasped. True scholars of the Scriptures may never appeal to the secret character of my prophetic pedagogy, or to my love of seclusion as though these were the cause of their unbelief. If they do not know what I teach, it is because of their enmity that they do not know it. The natural man does not appropriate to himself the things belonging to the Spirit of God—and that is his lack.
Just so, over against the second charge, which had it that the simple must have reached a certain stage of intellectual development before they can appreciate what Jesus is doing, He mentions the fact that He counts His faithful disciples among “the poor,” the untaught, the blind, the deaf, in short, among the common folk. Faith is not a question of more or of less knowledge but of self-assertion or self-denial over against God. The appropriate question to ask is not “What do you know?” but “In what is your life rooted?” Do you draw your sustenance from the Spirit or from the flesh?
Thus Christ, in this closed session, and in the presence of the priestly caste which existed in this fullness of time, declares that He stands in communion with Isaiah and with Him who sent Isaiah. This is the “day” whose coming Isaiah had prophesied (Isa_29:18). This is the messianic day in which the deaf hear the words of Christ and in which the blind see Him. This is the day in which the meek (whose life instead of being intellectually broadened is ethically renewed) shall rejoice, and in which the needy, those who frankly ask and seek instead of haughtily asserting themselves, shall see the dawning of a new light (Isa_19:19). Thus Christ proves that He does indeed present a revelation which comes from above and which can be appropriated only by those who have been born again (regenerated “from above”); but Christ proves also that anyone who hungers and thirsts for the Word and who opens himself to the Word can meet his Messiah in righteousness. The questionings of Annas are present at all times and at all places. Inasmuch as they are an expression of enmity, they call the sin of an unregenerate heart the piteous inadequacy of an inferior mind. But Christ tears the mask from the lie. His words at once point out and fulfill the judgment.
And how should we escape from so great a condemnation? Alas, we are included in it. It is a disturbing thought that Christ at the very beginning of His conflict with the law at once fully maintained His genuine Messiahship, for it is because of this fact that the dialogue between Annas and Jesus has a bearing upon us. We who calmly read these things are being taken from the street by Christ Himself and are being placed in the presence of Annas. Remember now that Jesus Christ is at this very moment saying to Annas, “You may ask him, you may ask her, what I said.” Alas, in this Jesus goes so far as to dare to make His own death and life contingent upon the answer which we give to the question put to us by the tribunal of the world. The question being asked us is this one: What has Jesus in mind; what is His intention; what is the purport of His teaching?
No, do not reply that you beg to be excused from this matter. Simon Peter made the same request. But the very moment in which Jesus takes pride in the fact that the first hewer of wood and drawer of water who is casually snatched from the street is able to state the essence of Jesus’ teaching, one of His great ones, one who had been with Him upon the mountain, with Him in the room of the Passover, and with Him in Gethsemane, arises, and swears with an oath: “I know not the man; the Nazarene means nothing to me.” And this terrible culmination was the result in Simon Peter of the secret thought: I shall hold myself aloof from this matter.
Step out into the open now, son of man, whoever you are, you who are literally steeped in sermons, in calendar leaflets, in edifying books. Listen carefully, for this is the situation. Annas, i.e., Israel, i.e., the flesh, i.e., the natural world, is asking Christ this question: Who are you; what are you doing, what is the thrust of your preaching? And Christ pointing to you answers: Ask him. He can tell you if he wants to do so.
This is a very personal and a very perturbing issue, for it immediately involves us in the trial of Jesus. It involves us, together with all hewers of wood and drawers of water who have suffered the great misfortune (such is the language of the flesh) of having lived in Jerusalem. It is dangerous to live in Jerusalem, for to do so is to become involved in the great trial, in the great litigation.
Now cease looking for ways of escape. Do not, for instance, attempt to take this avenue out: Yes, I know, but I have not yet been thoroughly instructed; ask one of the older ones, one of the more seasoned Christians. No, do not attempt it. For Christ’s apology stands or falls with the truth that everyone, the unlearned also, even the unconverted, can grasp enough of the clear teaching of Jesus to make it impossible for him to plead ignorance of it. Never, no, never say in your heart: The book is sealed; or, I cannot read.
How vehement, how forceful the Christ is! They draw Him into court, and by His first sentence He draws you and me into that court also, and involves us in His trial. How oppressive this is. To have heard a sermon of Jesus is to have become implicated in His trial. And that means that we have been brought before the tribunal which must sit on and satisfactorily solve the one great world-litigation.
But that too is grace. Yes, He implicates you in His trial, but He does that because He has first made your case His own in the presence of God. If you serve as a document entered as evidence in His apology over against Annas, you may know what Christ said beforehand about that which He would repeat in the great day: namely, that it would not be because of Him if any are left outside of the communion of life in that last judgment.
Reply now, and tell Annas, and say to Caiaphas, and to the whole world, that in reference to Christ there is but one appropriate ate thing to do: to surrender and to be willing to believe. Thereupon we shall see a great schism, a thoroughgoing separation made. And this separation will not be effected by the acute insight of Annas but by the genuineness of Jesus. It will take place at the door of the tribunal as the people come in.
This will be the nature of that separation; by these tokens you can know it. Two persons came into the court of the Nazarene to pray. The one strode boldly in, lifted up his eyes to heaven, placed one hand over his heart, and with the other pointed to Jesus, saying, while Annas and Caiaphas nodded their approval: There[1] is the Nazarene. His book was sealed. I had no chance to bring my mind to bear upon it. His message simply did not reach me. Father, if it be that Thou didst speak through Him, forgive me, for I pray the prayer of an unwitting one.
[1] Iste: the accused, the alien, who does not belong with us, whom I do not recognize.
The other also came. Shamefacedly he crept into the corridor, fell to the ground, his eyes touching on the dust. Father, he groaned, here[2] is he who fulfilled the great mission. His scroll was unfurled; my eyes were opened; He taught me to read. Father, I believed; help Thou my unbelief. His giving and His preaching was mighty and conquering; but my guilt in taking it and in listening to it continues daily, and that is a great guilt.
[2] Hic: mine, the one I love.
Two men had prayed in the court of Christ Jesus. Behind the clouds the verdict was read. There the “prayer of the unwitting one” was named a declaration of war and an act of war on the part of “an unwilling one.” This petitioner was dragged from the entrance to the exalted tribunal, lest he defile the sanctuary. The angels, as they bound him, sang: “Thou dost allow no petitioner to stand.” And they sang that before God. They said: “Thou makest him to go forth from Thy presence if he is not one who prays; but none can stand in Thy corridors, O God.”
As for the other, he came from his house justified. The angel of the Lord conducted him into the inner sanctuary. This angel as he led him on sang before God: “Thou dost let no petitioner stand before Thee; blessed is he whom Thou beckonest to come to Thee.”
The clarity, the manifest character of the messianic revelation is the shibboleth in the titanic war between angels and devils. It is the mark of genuineness which characterizes the bread of life. It was the first thing upon which the Son, as the messenger of God, insisted. Without it He has no free passage among angels, for these will accept only one who cares for the poor. Hence the manifest character of the messianic revelation was, through the man Jesus Christ, the theodicy of God in the presence of Annas. Hence it naturally became the first term in the apology which Christ presented to the high priest.
One day He will let the words of that apology be accompanied in the clouds by the organ tones of the judgment. Ask them who heard me—I am one of them. Alas, this word breaks open the sources of God’s destructive, purifying winds. Mea res agitur; I have long ago lost sight of Annas. I hear Christ playing His mighty organ. He has drawn out all the stops. Ah, the overwhelming sublimity of that day.