Luk 3:2, Joh 1:18 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 2. Annas (a) and Caiaphas being high-priests . There was, properly speaking, but one high-priest of the Jews; yet the name of high-priest continued to be given to those who had been in that office, and especially when they still possessed some civil office after they had left the high-priesthood. In this case it appears that Caiaphas was high-priest, and Annas had been , but had been dismissed from the office. It is highly probable that he still held an office under the Romans, and was perhaps president of the Sanhedrim. He is mentioned before Caiaphas because he was father-in-law to Caiaphas, and probably was the eldest, and had been longest in office. Instances similar to this may be found in Josephus. There is one remark to be made here about the manner in which the gospels are written. They have every mark of openness and honesty. An impostor does not mention names, and times, and places particularly. If he did, it would be easy to ascertain that he was an impostor. But the sacred writers describe objects and men as if they were perfectly familiar with them. They never appear to be guarding themselves. They speak of things most minutely. If, therefore, they had been impostors, it would have been easy to detect them. If, for example, John did not begin to preach in the fifteenth year of Tiberius--if Philip was not tetrarch of Iturea--if Pontius Pilate was not governor of Judea, how easy would it have been to detect them in falsehood! Yet it was never done. Nay, we have evidence of that age, in Josephus, that these descriptions are strictly true; and, consequently, the gospels must have been written by men who were personally acquainted with what they wrote, who were not impostors, and who were honest men. If they were honest , then the Christian religion is true. (a)

Luke 3:2

Verse 2. Annas (a) and Caiaphas being high-priests. There was, properly speaking, but one high-priest of the Jews; yet the name of high-priest continued to be given to those who had been in that office, and especially when they still possessed some civil office after they had left the high-priesthood. In this case it appears that Caiaphas was high-priest, and Annas had been, but had been dismissed from the office. It is highly probable that he still held an office under the Romans, and was perhaps president of the Sanhedrim. He is mentioned before Caiaphas because he was father-in-law to Caiaphas, and probably was the eldest, and had been longest in office. Instances similar to this may be found in Josephus.

There is one remark to be made here about the manner in which the gospels are written. They have every mark of openness and honesty. An impostor does not mention names, and times, and places particularly. If he did, it would be easy to ascertain that he was an impostor. But the sacred writers describe objects and men as if they were perfectly familiar with them. They never appear to be guarding themselves. They speak of things most minutely. If, therefore, they had been impostors, it would have been easy to detect them. If, for example, John did not begin to preach in the fifteenth year of Tiberius--if Philip was not tetrarch of Iturea--if Pontius Pilate was not governor of Judea, how easy would it have been to detect them in falsehood! Yet it was never done. Nay, we have evidence of that age, in Josephus, that these descriptions are strictly true; and, consequently, the gospels must have been written by men who were personally acquainted with what they wrote, who were not impostors, and who were honest men. If they were honest, then the Christian religion is true.

(a) Jn 11:49,51, 18:13, Acts 4:6

John 1:18

Verse 18. No man hath seen God at any time. This declaration is probably made to show the superiority of the revelation of Jesus above that of any previous dispensation. It is said, therefore, that Jesus had an intimate knowledge of God, which neither Moses nor any of the ancient prophets had possessed. God is invisible; no human eyes have seen him; but Christ had a knowledge of God which might be expressed to our apprehension by saying that he saw him intimately and completely, and was therefore fitted to make a fuller manifestation of him. See Jn 5:37, 6:46, 1Jn 4:12, Ex 33:20, Jn 14:9. This passage is not meant to deny that men had witnessed manifestations of God, as when he appeared to Moses and the prophets (comp. Nu 12:8, Is 6:1-13); but it is meant that no one has seen the essence of God, or has fully known God. The prophets delivered what they heard God speak; Jesus what he knew of God as his equal, and as understanding fully his nature.

The only-begotten Son. Jn 1:14. This verse shows John's sense of the meaning of that phrase, as denoting an intimate and full knowledge of God.

In the bosom of the Father. This expression is taken from the custom among the Orientals of reclining at their meals. Mt 23:6. It denotes intimacy, friendship, affection. Here it means that Jesus had a knowledge of God such as one friend has of another-- knowledge of his character, designs, and nature which no other one possesses, and which renders him, therefore, qualified above all others to make him known.

Hath declared him. Hath fully revealed him or made him known. Comp. Heb 1:1,4. This verse proves that, Jesus had a knowledge of God above that which any of the ancient prophets had, and that the fullest revelations of his character are to be expected in the gospel. By his Word and Spirit he can enlighten and guide us, and lead us to the true knowledge of God; and there is no true and full knowledge of God which is not obtained through his Son. Comp. Jn 14:6, 1Jn 2:22,23.

(y) "No man hath seen" Ex 33:20, 1Timm 6:16 (z) "The only-begotten" 1Jn 4:9