Jesus Goes Before The High Priests.John 18:12–14,19–24.

Church History: 12Then the detachment of soldiers with its commander and the Jewish officials arrested Jesus. They bound him 13 and brought him first to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year. 14Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it would be good if one man died for the people.
19Meanwhile, the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching. 20"I have spoken openly to the world," Jesus replied. "I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret. 21Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said." 22When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby struck him in the face. "Is this the way you answer the high priest?" he demanded. 23"If I said something wrong," Jesus replied, "testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?" 24Then Annas sent him, still bound, to Caiaphas the high priest.

Annas must have had great authority in his nation. He had been a long time high priest and he had no less than five sons who successively enjoyed the dignity of the high priesthood. His son-in-law Caiaphas was at this time in possession of that office. It is likely that Annas was chief of the Sanhedrin, and that it was to him in that office that Christ was first brought. Some think that Annas was still high priest, and that Caiaphas was only his deputy, though he did the principal part of the business, and was because of this that he is called high priest.1
The high-priest asked Jesus of his disciples, to ascertain their number and power. The charge on which they wished to arraign him was that of sedition, or of rebellion against Caesar. To make that plausible, it was necessary to show that he had made so many disciples as to form a strong and dangerous faction; but, as they had no direct proof of that, the high-priest insidiously and improperly attempted to draw the Savior into a confession. Of this he was aware, and referred him to the proper source of evidence; his open, undisguised conduct before the world.
The object was doubtless to convict him of teaching sentiments that tended to subvert the Mosaic institutions, or that were treasonable against the Roman government. Either would have answered the design of the Jews, and they doubtless expected that he, an unarmed and despised Galilean, now completely in their power, would easily be drawn into confessions which art and malice could use to procure his condemnation.
If his doctrine had tended to excite sedition and tumult, if he had aimed to overthrow the government, he would have trained his friends in secret; he would have retired from public view, and would have laid his plans in private. This is the case with all who attempt to subvert existing establishments. Instead of that, he had proclaimed his views to all. He had done it in every place of public concourse, in the synagogue and in the temple. Here he speaks the language of one conscious of innocence and determined to insist on his rights. Jesus insisted on his rights, and reproved the high-priest for his unjust and illegal manner of extorting a confession from him. If he had done wrong, or taught erroneous and seditious doctrines, it was easy to prove it, and the course which he had a right to demand was that they should establish the charge by fair and incontrovertible evidence.
One of the officers struck Jesus. A prisoner, before he is condemned, is considered to be under the special protection of justice; no one has any one a right to touch him, according to the direction of the law. But it has been observed before that, if justice had been done to Christ, he could neither have suffered or died.1 Jesus could easily have revenged himself upon this officer; but, to teach us our duty, he only gently reproves him, and lets him know that he did not behave himself as one ought
to do in the face of a court of justice, where he had both a liberty and a present opportunity to have accused him, if he had
spoken ill; and if he had spoken well, there was no reason for his striking him.