Luke 3:2 - Coke's Commentary on the Holy Bible

Annas and Caiaphas being the high-priests— According to the institutions of the Jewish religion, there could be only one high-priest, properly so called, at a time; that minister being typical of the one Mediator between God and man. The most probable solution therefore of the difficulty in the text, is, that Annas was the high-priest, and Caiaphas his sagan, or deputy; to whom also the title of high-priest might, in an improper or secondary sense, be given. Aaron, the high-priest, left two sons, Eleazar and Ithamar; Eleazar, the eldest, obtained the sacerdotal tiara by birth-right; but under the judges it was translated from his family to that of his brother; for Eli, who was both high-priest and judge, is not mentioned among Eleazar's posterity; (see 1 Chronicles 6:4; 1 Chronicles 6:81.) So that he must have been of Ithamar's family, as indeed Josephus expressly affirms. Accordingly, Ahimelech, the father of that Abiathar (1 Samuel 22:20.) whose deposition by Solomon is declared to have been an accomplishment of the word of the Lord concerning the house of Eli, 1 Kings 2:26-27 and who, for that reason, must have been one of Eli's descendants, is said to have been of the stock of Ithamar, 1 Chronicles 24:3. But the high-priesthood passed from one family to the other more than once; either through the legal incapacity of him to whom it appertained by right of succession, or by the decree of the chief magistrates, who seem to have claimed the disposal of this dignity; for it was brought back to the family of Eleazar, in the person of Zadok, by Solomon, 1 Kings 2:27-35. In latter times, the high-priesthood was possessed by the Asmoneans, who were neither of the one family nor the other, but common priests of the course of Joarib. The dignity of the high-priesthood made him who enjoyed it, whether he was of the posterity of Eleazar or Ithamar, the first of the sacerdotal order; the head of the other family being second only, and next to him. It is supposed that the prophet Jeremiah speaks of both, when he mentions a chief-priest and a second priest, Jeremiah 52:24. In like manner, notwithstanding Abiathar, of the line of Ithamar, was deposed from the high-priesthood, he is honoured with the title which in those days was given to the high-priests, and set almost on an equality with his successor Zadok, of the line of Eleazar, 1 Kings 4:4.—and Zadok and Abiathar the priests. If therefore Caiaphas was the second priest, as is probable from his succeeding Annas, he might be called the high-priest in a less proper sense. Or, if Annas was removed, and Caiaphas succeeded him before the year expired, they might both properly be said to have been high-priests that year: but though Annas was deposed to make way for Caiaphas, he was restored to his dignity soon after our Lord's death, Acts 4:6. It should be observed, that those who once bore the office of high-priests always retained the title afterwards; and Annas having enjoyed it before Caiaphas, might for that reason have been honoured with the title. It has been suggested, that Annas represented Moses, as the nasi, prince, or head of the Sanhedrim; and Caiaphas Aaron, as the proper high-priest; and that they both continued in their office till the death of Christ. See John 18:13.