Acts 4:6

and Annas the high priest was there, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest.

'ANNAS THE HIGH PRIEST'-That is, the legal high priest according to family succession. Although the Romans had replaced him in A.D. 15, he still retained among the Jewish people the prestige, influence and title (Luke 3:2). 'Though he was no longer recognized by the Romans as high priest and not allowed to officiate in the temple, he still kept the presidency of the Sanhedrin.' (Reese p. 175)

Barclay notes, 'In the great days the High Priesthood had been hereditary and it had been for life; but in the Roman times the office of High Priest was the subject of intrigue, bribery and corruption and High Priests rose and fell so that between 37 B.C. and 67 A.D. there were no fewer than 28 High Priests. But even after. High Priest had been deposed he often remained the power behind the throne. Second, although the High Priesthood has ceased to be hereditary it was still the prerogative of. very few families. Of the 28 High Priests already mentioned all but. came from. priestly families..' (pp. 35-36)

'CAIAPHAS'-The son-in-law of Annas (John 18:13), who had advised the Jewish rulers to put an end to Jesus (Acts 18:14; Acts 11:49-51). He was appointed to office in A.D. 18 and will be removed during the passover season in A.D. 36. Thus we know that Acts chapter. happens prior to A.D. 36.

'JOHN AND ALEXANDER'-apparently two prominent members of the chief-priestly families. Since Luke mentions these two individuals, they must have been prominent individuals in Jewish circles. Some suggest, 'that these were the members of the family of the high priest whose ancestors had lately enjoyed the high priesthood.' (Boles p. 5) Bruce notes, that John may refer to the Jonathan, son of Annas who became High Priest in A.D. 36.

'AND AS MANY AS WERE OF THE KINDRED OF THE HIGH PRIEST'-'and all the High Priest's relations' (TCNT); 'other members of the High Priest's family' (Wey). 'This might have included some ex-high priests (there were three in office between Annas' high priesthood, and that of Caiaphas).' (Reese p. 176)

Point to Note:

'the chief-priestly, Sadducean element in its membership was specially well represented..Only. few weeks (?) had passed since they had both taken. hand in the condemnation of Jesus (John 18:13). Their hope that they had got rid of Him was but short-lived: it looked as if they were going to have even more trouble on His account than they had had before His crucifixion.' (Bruce p. 98)

'memories of the trial of Jesus must have flooded the apostles' minds. Was history to repeat itself? They could hardly have expected justice from that court, which had listened to false witnesses and unjustly condemned their Lord. Were they to suffer the same fate? Would they too be handed over to the Romans and crucified?' (Stott p. 96)