This is the first page comparing Chapter 75 of Desire of Ages, with F. Farrar and W.Hanna's writings on the same events.
On this page we cover the First Trial of Jesus before Annas
Page two: Chapter 75, The Second Trial, before Caiaphas
Page three: Chapter 75, Peter at the Trial
Page four: Chapter 75, The Third Trial Before the Sanhedrin
Following I have simply placed the accounts of each writer, as they wrote the story. Similar words have been highlighted but the reader can compare and see not only the similarites but also the difference. Also Farrar devoted much more space to introducing us to the Sanhedrin then the other authors. Also both Farrar and Ellen White portray three trials before Christ is taken to Pilate, while W. Hanna portrays only two.
This study is still underway,
Frederic Farrar Publisher: A.L. Burt Company, NY
| William Hanna Publisher: The Religious Tract Society, Londan
| Ellen WhitePublisher: Pacific press Assc.
| KJV | Chapter LVIII | III. | Chapter 75 |
John 18.13 |
i. Accordingly, it was before Hanan that Jesus stood first as a prisoner at the tribunal (John xvii.13, 19-14). It is probable that he and his family had been originally summoned by Herod the Great from Alexandria, as supple supporters of a distasteful tyranny. The Jewish historian calls this Hanan the happiest man of his time, because he died at an advanced old age, and because both he and five of his sons in succession--not to mention his son-in-law-- had enjoyed the shadow of the High Priesthood; so that, in fact, or nearly half a century he had practically wielded the sacerdotal power. (Page 457) But to be admired by such a renegade as Josephus is a questionable advantage. in spite of his prosperity he seems to have left behind him but an evil name, and we know enough of his character, even from the most unsuspected sources, to recognize in him nothing better than an astute, tyrannous, worldly Sadducee, unvenerable for all his seventy years, full of a serpentine malice and meanness which utterly belied the meaning of his name, and engaged at this very moment in a dark, disorderly conspiracy, for which even a worse man would have had cause to blush. It was before this alien and intriguing hierarch that there began, at midnight, the first stage of that long and terrible trial (John xvii. 19-24) "And there was good reason why St. John should have preserved for us this phase of the trail, and preserved it apparently for the express reason that it had been omitted by the other Evangelists. It is not till after a lapse of years that people can always see clearly the prime mover in events with which they have been contemporary. At the time, the ostensible agent is the one usually regarded as most responsible, though he may be in reality a mere link in the official machinery. But if there were one man who was more guilty than any other of the death of Jesus, that man was Hanan. His advanced age, his preponderant dignity, his worldly position and influence, as one who stood on the best terms with the Herods and the procurators, gave an exceptional weight to his prerogative decision. The mere fact that he should have noticed Jesus at all showed that he attached to His teaching a political significance--showed that he was at least afraid lest Jesus should alienate the people yet more entirely from the pontifical clique than had ever been done by Shemaia or Abtalion. It is most remarkable, and, so far as I know, has scarcely ever been noticed, that, although the Pharisees undoubtedly were actuated by a burning hatred against Jesus, and were even so eager for His death as to be willing to cooperate with the aristocratic and priestly Sadducees--from whom they were ordinarily separated by every kind of difference, political, social and religious--yet, from the moment that the plot for His arrest and condemnation had been matured, the Pharisees took so little part in it that their name is not once directly mentioned in any event connected with the arrest, (458) the trial, the derisions and the crucifixion. The Pharisees, as such, disappear; the chief priests and elder take their place. It is, indeed, doubtful whether any of the more distinguished Pharisees were members of the degraded simulacrum of authority which in those bad days still arrogated to itself the title of a Sanhedrin. If we may believe not a few of the indications of the Talmud, that Sanhedrin was little better than a close, irreligious, unpatriotic confederacy of monopolizing and time-serving priest-- the Boothusim, the Kamhits, the Phabis, the family of Hanan, mostly of on-Palestinian origin--who were supported by the government, but detested by the people, and of whom this bad conspirator was the very life and soul. | But they could not act without their colleagues, nor pronounce any sentence which they might call upon the Roman Governonr at once to ratify and execute. Whilst the messengers, however, are despatched to summon them, and the members of the Sanhedrim are gathering, Annas may prepare the way by sounding Christ, in a far-off, unofficial, conversational manner, and may perhaps extract from his replies some good material upon which the court may afterward proceed. |
DA 698.03 Under the Roman rule the Sanhedrin could not execute the sentence of death. They could only examine a prisoner, and pass judgment, to be ratified by Roman authorities. It was therefore necessary to bring against Christ charges that would be regarded as criminal by the Romans. An accusation must also be found which would condemn Him in the eyes of the Jews. Not a few among the priests and rulers had been convicted by Christ's teaching, and only fear of excommunication prevented them from confessing Him. The priests well remembered the question of Nicodemus, "Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?" John 7:51. This question had for the time broken up the council, and thwarted their plans. Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus were not now to be summoned, but there were others who might dare to speak in favor of justice. The trial must be so conducted as to unite the members of the Sanhedrin against Christ. There were two charges which the priests desired to maintain. If Jesus could be proved a blasphemer, He would be condemned by the Jews. If convicted of sedition, it would secure His condemnation by the Romans.
From earlier pages in Desire of Ages, not from chapter 75
DA.538.003
So, as the priests, the rulers, and the elders gathered for consultation, it was their fixed determination to silence Him who did such marvelous works that all men wondered. Pharisees and Sadducees were more nearly united than ever before. Divided hitherto, they became one in their opposition to Christ.
DA.603.002
The Sadducees denied the existence of angels, the resurrection of the dead, and the doctrine of a future life, with its rewards and punishments. On all these points they differed with the Pharisees. Between the two parties the resurrection was especially a subject of controversy. The Pharisees had been firm believers in the resurrection, but in these discussions their views in regard to the future state became confused. Death became to them an inexplicable mystery. Their inability to meet the arguments of the Sadducees gave rise to continual irritation. The discussions between the two parties usually resulted in angry disputes, leaving them farther apart than before.
DA.604.001
In numbers the Sadducees fell far below their opponents, and they had not so strong a hold upon the common people; but many of them were wealthy, and they had the influence which wealth imparts. In their ranks were included most of the priests, and from among them the high priest was usually chosen. This was, however, with the express stipulation that their skeptical opinions should not be made prominent. On account of the numbers and popularity of the Pharisees, it was necessary for the Sadducees to concede outwardly to their doctrines when holding any priestly office; but the very fact that they were eligible to such office gave influence to their errors.
DA.604.002
The Sadducees rejected the teaching of Jesus; He was animated by a spirit which they would not acknowledge as manifesting itself thus; and His teaching in regard to God and the future life contradicted their theories. They believed in God as the only being superior to man; but they argued that an overruling providence and a divine foresight would deprive man of free moral agency, and degrade him to the position of a slave. It was their belief, that, having created man, God had left him to himself, independent of a higher influence. They held that man was free to control his own life and to shape the events of the world; that his destiny was in his own hands. They denied that the Spirit of God works through human efforts or natural means. Yet they still held that, through the proper employment of his natural powers, man could become elevated and enlightened; that by rigorous and austere exactions his life could be purified.
This question tells the judge how naked and bare that hypocritical heart of his lies to the inspection of his prisoner: “Why askest thou me?” Put that question, Annas, to thy heart, and let it answer thee, if it be not so deceitful as to hide its secrets from thine own eyes. “Why askest thou me?” Art thou really so ignorant as thou pretendest to be; thou, who hast had thy spies about me for well-nigh three years, tracking my footsteps, watching my actions, reporting my word s? “Why askest thou me? Dost thou really care to know as these questions of thine would seem to indicate? Then go, “ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said,” A boldness here, a touch of irony, a stroke of rebuke, which, perhaps, our Lord might not have used, had it been upon his seat and in his office as president of the Sanhedrim that the High Priest was speaking to him; had it not been for the mean advantage which he was trying to take of him; had it not been for the cloak of hypocrisy which, in trying to take that advantage, he had assumed. We shall see presently, at least, that our Lord’s tone and manner were somewhat different when his more formal trial came on. Christ’s sharp sententious answer to Annas protected him--and perhaps that was one of its chief purposes--from the repetition and prolongation of the annoyance. It seems to have silenced the High Priest. (479) He had made but little by that way of interrogating his prisoner, and he wisely gives it up. Whatever resentment he cherished at being checked and spoken to in such a manner, he refrained from any expression of it, biding the hour when all his bitter pent-up hatred of the Nazarene might find fitter and fuller vent.
But there was one of his officers who could not so restrain himself, who could not bear to see his master thus as he thought insulted, and who, in the heat of his indignation, struck Christ with the palm of his hand, --some forward official, who thought in this way to earn his master’s favour, but who only earned for himself the unenviable notoriety of having been the first to begin those acts of inhuman violence with which the trial and condemnation of Jesus were so largely and disgracefully interspersed. Others afterwards came forward to mock and jostle and blindfold, and to smite, to spit upon our Lord, to whom he answered nothing; but when that first stroke was inflicted, with the question, “Answerest thou the High Priest so?” Jesus did not receive it in silence. He answered the question by another: “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me? Best comment this on our Lord’s own precept; “If thy brother smite thee on the one cheek, turn to him the other also;” and a general key to all like scripture precepts, teaching us that the true observance of them lies not in the fulfilment of them as to the letter, but in the possession and exhibition of the spirit which they prescribe. How much easier would it be when smitten upon one cheek, to turn the other for a second stroke, then to be altogether like our Lord in temper and spirit under the infliction of the stroke! More difficult, also, than any silence, to imitate that gentle answer. The lips might be sealed, while the heart was burning with anger. But it was out of the depths of a perfect patience, a gentleness which nothing could irritate, that the saying came: “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?” “Think” says Chrysostom, “on him who said these words, on him to whom they were said, and on the reason why they were said, and these words will, with divine power, cast down all wrath which may rise within thy soul.”
DA.699.001
Christ read the priest's purpose as an open book. As if reading the inmost soul of His questioner, He denied that there was between Him and His followers any secret bond of union, or that He gathered them secretly and in the darkness to conceal His designs. He had no secrets in regard to His purposes or doctrines. "I spake openly to the world," He answered; "I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing."
DA.699.002
The Saviour contrasted His own manner of work with the methods of His accusers. For months they had hunted Him, striving to entrap Him and bring Him before a secret tribunal, where they might obtain by perjury what it was impossible to gain by fair means. Now they were carrying out their purpose. The midnight seizure by a mob, the mockery and abuse before He was condemned, or even accused, was their manner of work, not His. Their action was in violation of the law. Their own rules declared that every man should be treated as innocent until proved guilty. By their own rules the priests stood condemned.
DA.699.003
Turning upon His questioner, Jesus said, "Why askest thou Me?" Had not the priests and rulers sent spies to watch His movements, and report His every word? Had not these been present at every gathering of the people, and carried to the priests information of all His sayings and doings? "Ask them which heard Me, what I have said unto them," replied Jesus; "behold, they know what I said."
DA.700.001
Annas was silenced by the decision of the answer. Fearing that Christ would say something regarding his course of action that he would prefer to keep covered up, he said nothing more to Him at this time. One of his officers, filled with wrath as he saw Annas silenced, struck Jesus on the face, saying, "Answerest Thou the high priest so?"
DA.700.002 "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou Me?" He spoke no burning words of retaliation. His calm answer came from a heart sinless, patient, and gentle, that would not be provoked.
DA.700.003
Christ suffered keenly under abuse and insult. At the hands of the beings whom He had created, and for whom He was making an infinite sacrifice, He received every indignity. And He suffered in proportion to the perfection of His holiness and His hatred of sin. His trial by men who acted as fiends was to Him a perpetual sacrifice. To be surrounded by human beings under the control of Satan was revolting to Him. And He knew that in a moment, by the flashing forth of His divine power, He could lay His cruel tormentors in the dust. This made the trial the harder to bear.
DA.700.004
The Jews were looking for a Messiah to be revealed in outward show. They expected Him, by one flash of overmastering will, to change the current of men's thoughts, and force from them an acknowledgment of His supremacy. Thus, they believed, He was to secure His own exaltation, and gratify their ambitious hopes. Thus when Christ was treated with contempt, there came to Him a strong temptation to manifest His divine character. By a word, by a look, He could compel His persecutors to confess that He was Lord above kings and rulers, priests and temple. But it was His difficult task to keep to the position He had chosen as one with humanity.
DA.700.005
The angels of heaven witnessed every movement made against their loved Commander. They longed to deliver Christ. Under God the angels are all-powerful. On one occasion, in obedience to the command of Christ, they slew of the Assyrian army in one night one hundred and eighty-five thousand men. How easily could the angels, beholding the shameful scene of the trial of Christ, have testified their indignation by consuming the adversaries of God! But they were not commanded to do this. He who could have doomed His enemies to death bore with their cruelty. His love for His Father, and His pledge, made from the foundation of the world, to become the Sin Bearer, led Him to endure uncomplainingly the coarse treatment of those He came to save. It was a part of His mission to bear, in His humanity, all the taunts and abuse that men could heap upon Him. The only hope of humanity was in this submission of Christ to all that He could endure from the hands and hearts of men.
DA.703.001
Christ had said nothing that could give His accusers an advantage; yet He was bound, to signify that He was condemned. There must, however, be a pretense of justice. It was necessary that there should be the form of a legal trial. This the authorities were determined to hasten. They knew the regard in which Jesus was held by the people, and feared that if the arrest were noised abroad, a rescue would be attempted. Again, if the trial and execution were not brought about at once, there would be a week's delay on account of the celebration of the Passover. This might defeat their plans. In securing the condemnation of Jesus they depended largely upon the clamor of the mob, many of them the rabble of Jerusalem. Should there be a week's delay, the excitement would abate, and a reaction would be likely to set in. The better part of the people would be aroused in Christ's favor; many would come forward with testimony in His vindication, bringing to light the mighty works He had done. This would excite popular indignation against the Sanhedrin. Their proceedings would be condemned, and Jesus would be set free, to receive new homage from the multitudes. The priests and rulers therefore determined that before their purpose could become known, Jesus should be delivered into the hands of the Romans.
18.19 The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.
18.20 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.
18.21 Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said.
18.22 And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so
|
MATTHEW |
26.57 And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him 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.
|
LUKE |
22.54 Then took they him, and led him, and brought him into the high priest's house. And Peter followed afar off.
|
JOHN | 18:12 Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus and bound him, 18.13 And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year. 18.14 Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people. 18.19 The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine. 18.20 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. 18.21 Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said. 18.22 And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? 18.23 Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me? 18.24 Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest. |
Continue to Page Two, Chapter 75 of Desire of Ages, Dealing with the Trial Before Caiaphas