3 Cultures of Head Coverings

Introduction

Going to a Mennonite church for the past fifteen years, I knew about head coverings. Most of the women there, especially the older women, wore them every time they went to church. At first, head coverings struck me as strange because I never saw women in other Christian denominations wear any head coverings. The more I thought about it, though, I did know of a religious rule that stretched across all denominations. Ever since I could remember, church taught me, as a man, to take off my hat during prayer time. I became confused on why I had to uncover my head while women had to cover their head. I became even more confused upon a clear, straightforward reading of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. I wondered why most church denominations follow Paul’s command for men to keep their heads uncovered, but so few denominations, like the Mennonites, followed through on Paul’s command for the women to keep their heads covered.

When it comes to the issue of head coverings, to get the best interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, the cultural context of first headwear needs to be considered. Figuring out that culture does not come easily, though. Corinth began as a Greek city, became a Roman colony upon the Roman Empire conquering it, and the city also had a heavy Jewish population. The culture of Corinth is multifaceted; it cannot be contained to one culture. Therefore, in order to fully understand head coverings in Corinth, first must come an understanding of head wear from the Jewish perspective, the Greek perspective, and the Roman perspective.

The Jews and Head Coverings

No verse in the Old Testament commands women to wear head coverings, nor does any verse even hint that head coverings were a regular practice. This does not mean that women did not decorate their head at all. On the contrary, the Old Testament does record decorating the hair. For example, Isaiah 3:18-24 lists headbands, headdresses, turbans and veils as items the Lord will take away from the women’s heads. By the time of the New Testament, not much had changed in the Jewish stance on head coverings. Women felt no pressure to wear a head covering or a veil. This did not change for a few centuries after the New Testament, when Rabbis began interpreting an early rule from the Mishna that an uncovered head could lead to grounds for divorce. The same goes for men. The famous skull cap which modern-day Jews wear did not become a practice until centuries after Paul’s lifetime.

While Jewish people did not see it disgraceful to not wear a cloth head covering, the Jews saw it as disgraceful for women to wear their hair down. Most, if not all, women wore their hair up with the help of a hair net. Women with their hair down brought shame upon themselves. In Numbers 5:18, a priest would let down a woman’s hair to reveal her as an adulteress. Rabbinic laws does not allow women to let their hair flow loosely because the rabbis believed that men only had the right to free, loose hair. The punishment for any wife with loose hair would be divorce from her husband. Any man who loosed a woman’s hair in public had to pay a fine. The Jewish rabbis carefully made sure women wore their hair up. Therefore, in the first century Jewish mindset, a woman covering her head might simply be her hair up on her head.

The Greeks and Head Coverings

The Greeks did not use head coverings during worship. The concept of head coverings during worship was so foreign to them that they did not understand why other religions did require head coverings. The closest prohibition was the ban of face veils in the pagan temples, as well as any jewelry meant for the hair. Even outside the temple and religious worship, Greek art rarely depicts Greek women wearing any kind of head covering in public. When they do, it depicts them wearing hair nets in order to keep their hair up. The few examples are portraits of noblewomen on coins. Since the coins only depict women of high status wearing the head covering, the head covering in Greek culture might symbolize ruling power. The same goes for veils. Women rarely wore veils in public, too.

The Greeks also had cultural beliefs about hair, and women should wear their hair. At the temple of Dionysus in Corinth, the prophetesses would perform multiple duties, such as engage in sexual acts and prophesying. In all their duties, the prophetesses would always wear their hair down, free flowing. This free-flowing hair practice lies deep with the doctrine of the Dionysiac cult. Dionysus was the Greek god of grapes, vineyards and wine. Because of the alcoholic properties of wine, Dionysus became known as a god all about setting people free. Dionysus set his worshippers free from the daily grind of life. Dionysus set them free from sexual restraints that society put on them. Dionysus set them free from the male oppression brought on by their fathers and husbands. All this became symbolized by letting the hair down and flow freely, another act of freedom. Loose hair to the Dionysiac cult worshipper meant getting far away from social norms and reconnecting with nature. After all, Greek mythology stated that Dionysus always worked with his hair down. While the female worshippers of the Dionysiac cult found freedom in letting their hair down, some Greek men found this to be offensive.

The Romans and Head Coverings

Romans art visually helps Bible readers understand the Roman culture of head coverings. A statue of Caesar Augustus making a sacrifice shows Augustus wearing a part of his toga over his head when making a sacrifice. The head of Nero, which most likely came from a similar statue, also displays the toga over the head. Many marble statues of women have been recovered from the sites of ruins. In almost all of these statues, all the women have their hair pulled back, and none of them have their head covered. Not only does art show what people look like, but all the currency of the day also depicts what people looked like. A coin with the head of Augustus shows the head of Augustus with no head covering or any head gear for that matter. Livia, the wife of Augustus, has appeared on a couple different coins. On one coin, Livia has her hair back, pinned in a knot. On another coin, Livia wears a cloth covering over her head. Augustus’s successor, Nero, appears on coins during his reign. His coins display him wearing a laurel wreath around his head. Another Roman emperor, Emperor Hadrian, is also depicted wearing a laurel wreathe on a coin. These two emperors probably established the idea that laurel wreathes on the head as a sign of an emperor.

 

 

Head coverings were not foreign to the Romans at all. The most famous head gear of the Romans is the wreath they would wear around their head. Most commonly they were laurel wreathes, but they could also be made from celery, pine and olive trees. These crowns were given to royalty and military leaders. Winners of sports games would also receive these wreathes when they won. Occasionally they would be worn in religious rituals.

In the Roman culture, worshippers did wear head coverings. These head coverings were not separate pieces of cloth. The Roman worshippers would simply pull his or her toga over his or her head. Both men and women wore this head covering in worship. While this practice was custom in worship, no rule required worshippers to wear a head covering. The only time when worshippers of the Roman gods needed to wear head coverings were during special sacrifices. These sacrifices were rare, though. Only priests would perform these sacrifices, as well, possibly hinting that only religious leaders would need to cover their heads.

More often than head coverings, Roman art displays Roman women wearing their hair up on their heads. Women hairstyles ranged between braided up and tied up, but they are always up and never covered with a head covering. Sometimes women did wear head coverings. They had special head coverings for special events. For example, brides had a wedding head covering, which was a red veil. At the same time, special events like weddings and funerals would allow women to let their hair down in a socially acceptable fashion, usually with a head covering. Men, however, kept their head uncovered at all times, even through these special events.

Conclusion

 

Despite three different cultures living in Corinth all the people of Corinth probably shared similar views on head coverings because of the similar stances on head coverings between the Jews, Greeks and Romans. Neither Jews nor Greeks nor Romans had any rule, law or command in the political realm or the spiritual realm that required men or women to cover their heads. In all three societies, most men and women kept their heads uncovered, and those who did wear coverings on their head were few. In all three cultures, women wore their hair up as the cultural norm. On the flip side, all three cultures frowned upon women who wore their hair down in a free-flowing fashion. Women who did so could bring shame and embarrassed on themselves and anyone close to them.

With a better cultural understand of head coverings and hair styles in first century Corinth, a Christian can make a better interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and can better understand the message Paul attempted to get across to his readers. 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 could serve as another call from Paul to be counter culturally, just as Paul does in Romans 12:2. From this cultural study of head coverings and hairstyles, a Christian can safely conclude that when Paul calls for women to cover their heads, Paul calls for them to put their hair, or on the flip side, Paul speaks against worshipping with their hair down and free-flowing. Such worship the people of Corinth associated with worship of Dionysus. Worship of Dionysus included sexual revelry and liberal lifestyles. Therefore, by transitive property, women who wear their hair down got associated with sexual revelry and liberal lifestyles. Paul wanted the Christians or Corinth to display to the rest of Corinth that Jesus was nothing like Dionysus by living lifestyles completely different from the pagan worship of Dionysus. God would not tolerate such sin in worshipping him. The Christians in Corinth were to worship the Holy One in a holy manner during worship.

Today, Christians still debate how to interpret this passage. The literalists still want women to cover their heads, whether it is a skull cap or a bandana. If they really wanted to go literally, this cultural study would tell them to cover the woman’s head, the woman should wear her hair up, not apply cloth to the skull. Yet this literal interpretation still misses the point Paul tries to communicate with the Corinthian Christians and Christians around the world. This is where the literalist answer is not the best answer, but rather the contextual literalist answer is. Paul wants to Christians to live lives counter-cultural to the world, especially in worship. Paul doesn’t want Christians merely “Christianize” a pagan religion, but rather worship in a way that is set apart as holy to the Lord. In the first century Roman Empire, it looked like women wearing their hair up, but it wouldn’t look like that in twenty-first century. To accurately apply this passage, Christians would need to figure out a way to worship God that does not conform to every other religion, including atheism, but really set them apart as Christian. For starters, this could mean rejecting styles of worship that were borrowed from other religions. Simply adding the adjective “Christian” to eastern practices like yoga and meditation that empties the mind to find inner peace does not make them Christian. After rejecting foreign worship rituals, Christian can further set apart their worship by focusing on the doctrines that make Christianity unique to other religions and find out ways to live them out. For example, since Christians believe Jesus is God Incarnate, they could worship in ways that involve both the physical body, as well as mind and spirit. Since Christians believe in the resurrection, Christians should live out a lifestyle that has them focusing on and preparing for their second life. Since Christians believe they are co-heirs with Christ, Christians can practice it by taking care of the earth they will co-reign with Christ. By practicing Christianity in this way, instead of focusing on what men and women put on top of their heads at church, Christians can truly live out Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.

John 18: The Jewish People v. Jesus Christ

As always, let’s start with the setting of John 18. Jesus and his disciples crossed the Kidron Valley to go to the Mount of Olives, and on the Mount of Olives, Jesus prayed in a garden on the mountain, the Garden of Gethsemane. It will be on the Mount of Olives, possibly in the Garden of Gethsemane, where Jesus will meet up with Judas Iscariot to be betrayed. The setting is important because of the irony. If you remember my discussion about Judas Iscariot in John 13, I mentioned that the original context of the Psalm 41 passage foretelling of the Messiah’s betrayer, in its original context, was most likely talking about Ahithophel, David’s trustworthy and honorable companion, who also betrayed David. I did much comparison between Ahithophel and Judas. The setting here is another one. Ahithophel also betrayed David somewhere between the Kidron Valley and the Mount of Olives, most likely the Mount of Olives (see 2 Samuel 15:30-31). Judas would fulfill the role of betrayer perfectly again by choosing to betray Jesus on the Mount of Olives. The text tells the Judas Iscariot was well aware that Jesus and the disciples would be there because Jesus had often gone to the Mount of Olives with his disciples when he was in Jerusalem.

Judas Iscariot came well prepared to take on Jesus. First, he made sure he had the right crowd of people, consisting of both Jews and Romans. For the Jews, John records Judas Iscariot bringing chief priests and Pharisee officials. Mark adds that there were teachers of the law and elders there, too. As for the Romans, John tells us Judas Iscariot had a large amount of Roman soldiers. The NIV uses the term “detachment of soldiers,” but a better translation would be “a cohort of soldiers,” like the NASB uses, because a cohort is a legitimate measure of soldiers in the Roman army. In the Roman army, a cohort was a subdivision of a legion. A legion would be divided into ten parts, and a tenth of a legion is a cohort. Since a legion is about 6,000 soldiers, a cohort would be about 600 soldiers. You might be thinking this is kind of large for arresting one man, even overkill, but this was nothing new for the Romans. If the Romans thought arresting one man might be dangerous, they would take along several soldiers to make sure nothing went wrong. Even Paul was accompanied by 200 soldiers when he was transferred (see Acts 23:23). If the Jews had made it sound like Jesus was declaring himself to be the new king and starting an insurrection with his disciples, the Romans might have thought that arresting such a man might start and insurrection, so they had to be prepared. Not only were they prepared in numbers of people, but also in equipment. John says everyone was carrying torches, lanterns and weapons. Matthew and Mark are more specific on the weapons: swords and clubs.

Now it may seem Judas Iscariot laid the perfect trap, know where Jesus was, but that’s far from the truth. Jesus, being the all-knowing God, knew what was going to happen to him, as stated in John 18:4. It is almost like Jesus allowed himself to be trapped. Jesus asks the mob “Who is it you want?” The mob replies, “Jesus of Nazareth,” to which Jesus answered. “I am he.” Truthfully, the NIV added the “he” part. In the original Greek, Jesus simply says, “ego eimi” which simply translated is “I am.” Yes, “ego eimi” is the exact wording Jesus says for all the “I AM” statements. We already agreed Jesus used the “I AM” statements to reveal himself to be the Great I AM himself, Yahweh. Perhaps Jesus was presenting himself as God himself one last time. When the Jew asked for Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus answered “Yahweh.” Maybe that’s why the Jews fell back – the reaction of the true name of God, which was sacred to them. But then why did the Romans fall back? For that I will remind you of a story in chapter 7 of John. In John chapter 7, the chief priests and Pharisees have asked temple guards to arrest Jesus. These temple guards were most likely Roman. Yet they come back empty handed. Why didn’t they come back with Jesus? Their answer is simply, “No one ever spoke the way this man does.” There was something about Jesus. Simply the way he spoke blew people away.

Now, before we go on, I want to make a note about the irony that the Bible Knowledge Commentary pointed out for me. On one side, you have Judas Iscariot, chief priests, Pharisees, teachers of the law, elders, and 600 Roman soldiers, all armed with lanterns, torches, clubs and swords. On the other side, you have Jesus, completely unarmed, with all his disciples asleep (see Luke 22:45-46). Yet who is the one in charge? Jesus is. The crowd cowers when Jesus speaks. The Gospel of Matthew records Jesus making everyone aware that he could have called 12 legions (about 72,000!) angels down to rescue Him. When you see the Jews and the Romans alike, you almost think like they were aware of it, or they were almost even expecting Jesus to use his miraculous powers against them. Yet Jesus doesn’t, and that adds to the irony. The one with the authority in this seen submits to his arrest. He willingly gave Himself up, and He does it with class. Jesus pretty much tells the mob, “I’m the one you want, so let my disciples go.” This has been foreshadowed all throughout John. In John 6, while preaching to the Jews, Jesus says that the will of His Father is not lose any of the disciples. In John 10, when preaching about the Good Shepherd, Jesus declares that like the Good Shepherd, he would not lose a sheep, even it meant laying his life down for the sheep. And one last time in John 17, while Jesus is praying to the Father, he prays that he will not lose a disciple to the end. Prayer request answered.

Well, Simon Peter isn’t going without a fight. He remembers that he promised Jesus that He will fight for Jesus, even if it meant giving up his own life. Peter doesn’t want to become the denier that Jesus predicted him to be, so he takes his sword and chops off the ear of Malchus, the high priest’s servant. Notice the use of detail in the story. John gives the high priest’s servant a name. He also states it was the right ear cut off, aligning perfectly with Luke’s account. It really makes the story come alive.

Now I’ve seen movies, TV shows, even church plays, acting out the actions happening here, and neither of them really makes this scene action packed. You see Peter lunging at the servant, cutting off the ear, and nobody makes a move. They all watch. I kind of get a feeling that maybe a small scuffle or a small brawl broke out, for Jesus has to rebuke both sides. In John, Jesus disciplines Peter for not accepting God’s will for Jesus, but in Matthew, Jesus disciplines Peter for using a sword because (1) all who live by the sword die by the sword, (2) Jesus could have called down angels to help him if He needed help and (3) the Scriptures needed to be fulfilled. When the disciples see how Jesus reacted, they feel like Jesus has taken away their “fight,” and so they are left with “flight” and they flee the scene. (Note: For Jesus rebuking the mob, you’ll have to go to your Synoptic Gospels.) Jesus then turns to the mob and questions their method of arresting Jesus. Every day, Jesus was publicly and peacefully in Jerusalem. Why didn’t they quietly arrest him there? Why did they have to come in a large mob privately at night?

Now that Jesus is arrested, we begin with the trials of Jesus. For right now (this paragraph), I am going to speak in light of all 4 Gospels. From all 4 Gospels, Jesus undergoes 6 trials. 3 trials are with the Romans, and 3 trials are with the Jews. The first trial is before high priest Annas. The second trial is before high priest Caiaphas. The third trial is before the whole Sanhedrin, all 70 members. The fourth trial is before Pontius Pilate. The fifth trial is before Herod. The sixth trial is a re-trial before Pontius Pilate. In his Gospel, John does not tell about the third trial in front of the Sanhedrin or the fifth trial before Herod. John only mentions that Jesus had a trial with Caiaphas, but John does not go into detail about what happened there. This is a Bible study on John, so instead of bouncing back and forth between Gospels, we’re going just to read on the trials that John reported. But we can get a lot of what John has told us. It is widely believed that John did follow Jesus at a distance, from the Mount of Olives to Golgotha, maybe even watching in on all of the trials (John 18:15,16). And John is the only one to report on the trial before Annas the high priest. So let’s take a look at that trial.

But before we even get to that, we have to discuss the high priest in the 1st century AD. In all 4 Gospels, it will seem like there are 2 high priests. Luke seems to say it explicitly in Luke 3:2a, “during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas…” If you remember in the Old Testament, there was only 1 person who was the high priest. This 1 person was the 1 and only person who could enter Holy of Holies 1 time a year. As the title hints, he is the highest of all priests. So how is there 2 by the time of Jesus? Well, there are a few theories. The first one is probably the simplest. The one high priest got stepped down and retired, and the next high priest stepped up. The stepping down high priest would be Annas, and the stepping up high priest would be Caiaphas. There are 2 problems with this first theory. The first probably is the question: “When?” When did Annas step down and Caiaphas step up? Well, obviously, it has be sometime during the earthly life of Jesus. Some of the proponents of the first theory say it happened between the birth and infancy of Jesus and the start of the ministry of Jesus, when Jesus was an adult. Other proponents of the first theory will say it happened during the 3-4 year span of Christ’s ministry. Still, both sides can not pin down a certain day or week, or even a month. Why they can’t, well, that leads us to our second problem. The second problem of the first theory is: “Why?” Why would a high priest step down? In the Old Testament, the high priest served for his whole life, until the day he died. They did not retire. There was no such thing as being “too old” to be a high preist. So why would Annas retire or step down? After all, as we will see in John 18, Annas still has a pretty serious role among the priests. (The best way to explain this, is that it wouldn’t make sense for Pop Benedict XVI to step down or retire, but continue to work with the new pope.) The other theories try to explain the why.

Our second theory does explain both the “when” and the “why.” The “why” has to deal with the political situation with the Romans. When the Romans were in charge, they didn’t mind the local regions or the local people groups having their own leader. They would even let them have their own king! But when all was said and done, that “king” reported to the local governor, who reported to Caesar. The best example would be Herod. Herod was the “king of the Jews,” but he ultimately had to report the governor, Pontius Pilate. I put “king of the Jews” in quotes because not every Jew received Herod as their king, including the religious leaders. First of all, it didn’t help that Herod wasn’t full-blood Jew, but rather half-Jew and half-Roman. The Jews expected their king to be fully Jewish. Second, and probably most important, it wasn’t the Jews that picked Herod as king, but rather the Romans. The Romans didn’t mind the local people groups having a king…as long as that king met their expectations and their approval. Between these two reasons, most Jews saw Herod as puppet to the Romans, so many Jews did not accept him. But what does this have to do with the high priests? Well, the Romans knew that the high priest had a strong leadership role. But the Jews refused to allow the Romans to touch it. They pretty much said to the Romans, “Oh no. We’ll let you pick and choose our king, but you will not touch our high priest. Our high priest has always been a descendant of Aaron, and he always will be.” Well, the Romans weren’t too pleased with that. They didn’t want a person being high priest for too long, in fear that the high priest will gain too much power over time and try something risky, like trying to overthrow the Roman government. So around 15 A.D., the Romans said to Annas, “Alright you’ve been high priest for 9 years. Your time is up. Select another high priest or we will.” Annas, not wanting to cause any problems, reluctantly submitted to the Romans. He chose Caiaphas to be his replacement. While this second theory answers the “when” and “why,” it still has holes. First of all, not everyone agrees with exactly what I wrote above. Some will say that it was the Romans who chose Caiaphas, not Annas. Others will claim that while Caiaphas stepped up, it doesn’t necessarily mean Annas stepped. These people will suggest that Annas and Caiaphas alternated as the high priest every year. The Romans were okay with this because they believed no high priest could amass a lot of power in one year, and then get it back after a year of not being high priest. So there are disagreements within the theory. Also, the second theory doesn’t fully answer the question, “Why Caiaphas?” Annas has 5 sons. So why didn’t he choose a son but rather his son-in-law Caiaphas?

The third theory attempts to answer that. This theory focuses in on the religious parties of the Jewish religion: the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The Pharisees and Sadducees did sharply disagree on things, in both the political realm and the religious realm. According to the this theory, the Pharisees and Sadducees disagreed so sharply in the first century that they did not trust a high priest of the opposite party. So the Pharisees would not trust a Sadducee high priest and the Sadducees would not trust a Pharisee high priest. So the Pharisees chose a Pharisee high priest and the Sadducees would choose a Sadducee high priest. This would result in 2 high priests and this is why you have 2 high priests in the time of Jesus. Caiaphas is believed to be the Sadducee high priest and the Pharisee high priest is Annas. There are a couple problems with this theory. If on the Day of Atonement, only one man was to enter the Holy of Holies, which one would it be? Wouldn’t it be wrong for both of them to enter? Also, Annas and Caiaphas seem to be agreeing to well to be of opposite parties. Even over Jesus, the Pharisees and Sadducees disagreed about Jesus (see Luke 20:27-40).

If you made me pick between the 3 theories, I guess I would have to choose the second theory because it has the most scholars behind it, and it has the fewest objections. But I do believe all 3 theories show us something about Annas and Caiaphas. The biggest observation is Annas and Caiaphas are working together, almost as equals. If there is a hierarchy, it would be Annas over Caiaphas, as Annas sometimes seems to whisper into the ear of Caiaphas what decisions to make. The trial of Jesus would be a good example. Jesus has to first go in front of Annas. According to all 3 theories (or at least the first and second), Annas is not the high priest at the time, but rather Caiaphas is. But Jesus has to go to Annas so Annas can decide what Caiaphas should do. After all, Caiaphas does seem to follow suit with Annas.

Back to the text. When brought before Annas, Annas asks Jesus questions about His disciples and His teachings. These would be normal questions on the accusations of starting an insurrection. From the broader Gospel view of Christ’s trials, we know the trials Jesus faced were unfair and illegal (not up to legal standards), but there is a small proof of that in this text. In John 18:19, John records Annas asking question. According to Jewish tradition, the high priest was to act more like a judge, and less like a prosecuting attorney. Just as the judge is not allowed to ask the defendant questions, so the high priest was not allowed to ask defendant Jesus questions. Yet Jesus does not shy away from these questions. Jesus says to Annas that all His teaching has been public. So everything Annas heard is true, and there is nothing more to say. But defendant Jesus goes on to call witnesses for himself. He tells Annas that anyone who heard him will be able to testify everything that he has said. Perhaps Jesus was calling out Annas for setting up an improper trial. A proper trial would have real and honest witnesses, and they could attest that Jesus was innocent.

Well, one of the officials took that as Jesus sassing the high priest and that official struck Jesus in the face. Here we see another error in the trial. It was illegal to bring any kind of physical pain or harassment to a defendant who was still considered innocent. At this point (and throughout all of the trials), Jesus remains innocent. Jesus proceeds to call this official out, too. Jesus knows that the slap would only be necessary if He did something wrong. So he asks the official what he did wrong to deserve it. I can almost picture the official dumfounded because he knew Jesus did nothing wrong. Then Jesus continues to pressure for his witnesses to be brought for, even asking the official to be his witness.

From here, Annas has gotten all he needed. Annas probably was hoping for more out of his end of the trial, in order to give Caiaphas the decision he needs to make. All that happens, however, is Annas’s trial is put under question by Jesus. He’s not really getting anything, so Annas just moves him on to his “real-er” trial with Caiaphas. But I think at this point Annas has also declared Jesus guilty in his mind, even without proof or witnesses.

John doesn’t record either of the other Jewish trials. He doesn’t record the trial with Caiaphas, and he doesn’t record the trial in front of the Sanhedrin (most likely led by Caiaphas). Yet John is the only Gospel writer to write about the trial with Annas. Why would John mention the trial with Annas, and not the other trials? Although John may not necessarily be painting a picture of Jesus as God or the Christ, I do believe John is trying to look at the Jewish trials from another point of view, and it kind of goes back to what we see at Christ’s arrests. Remember how I pointed out the irony of Jesus, the one who seems to be in power and have control, ends up being the lowly, submissive one? Well, the trial at Annas portrays the same Jesus. Annas tries to question the teachings of Jesus, but Jesus ends up questioning Annas’s motives and his trial. Annas tries to make Jesus look guilty, but Jesus ends up proving His innocence. Annas attempts to win the trial, but Jesus ends up being the winner. John keeps on adding onto the irony that while Jesus is bound, he is the one in control. If in any way this shows Jesus is God, this is the proof. On the earth as a man, Jesus might be submissive and humbled, but in heavenly realm as God, Jesus is the king, judge and ruler over Annas, Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin.

I’m going to stop right there. Once again, I will remind you that while the text of the Scriptures are the inerrant, inspired revelation from God, the numbering of the chapters and verses are not. I believe it would have been better to end chapter 18 at verse 27 and began chapter 19 where John 18:28. Why? John 18:28 begins a new phase of the trials for Jesus. Jesus has gone through 3 Jewish trials, and all trials have found him guilty, even though they are unjust and illegal. Even though the Jews want to pass the death penalty, they cannot, for they need Roman permission to do so. So it’s up to the Romans to decide whether or not Jesus deserves death. Will they pass the same judgment? We’ll have to see in chapter 19, but I will pick up again in chapter 18.