John 18

John 18:1-3

Vv. 1-3. The arrival of the band. “After having said these things, Jesus went out with his disciples beyond the brook Cedron, where there was a garden, into which he entered as well as his disciples. 2. Now Judas, who betrayed him, also knew this place, because Jesus had often met there with his disciples. 3. Judas, then, having taken the cohort, with officers sent by the chief priests and Pharisees, comes thither with lanterns, torches and weapons.” The verb ἐξῆλθε, he went out, is ordinarily referred to the departure from the supper room See on John 14:31. In our view, this verb, being directly connected, as it is, with the limiting phrase πέραντοῦχειμάῤῥου, beyond the brook, designates a time farther removed, and signifies rather: “He went out from the city to pass across the brook.” This is acknowledged by de Wette, even though he holds, with so many others, that the discourses of chs. 13-17 were pronounced in the supper room. The received reading, which is that of the Vatican MS. and of most of the Mjj. and Mnn., and of Origen, is τῶνΚέδρων, and would signify “the brook of the cedars;” there would be evidently an error of John here, for the name Cedron comes from à (Kidron), black (black water). In Josephus also the name Κέδρων is a nominative singular (for example,χείμαῤῥοςΚεδρῶνος, Antiq. 8.1, 5). The reading of the Sinaitic and Cambridge MSS. is τοῦΚέδρου, of the cedar. It is evident that these two readings are the work of copyists, some of whom conformed the substantive to the article (by substituting Κέδρου for Κέδρων), others the article to the substantive (substituting τῶν for τοῦ), and that the true reading—apparently very improbable—is that of the Alexandrian MS. and of the Sangallensis, τοῦΚέδρων, which alone easily explains the two others. Westcott, in honor of the Vatican, maintains the reading τῶνΚέδρων, by appealing to a legend of the Jerusalem Talmud, according to which there were some cedars on the Mount of Olives;Tischendorf, out of regard for the Sinaitic MS., reads τοῦΚέδρου. Behold what prepossession can effect! The same variety of readings is found again in several MSS. of the Old Testament (LXX); see 2 Samuel 15:23 and 1 Kings 15:13. The brook Cedron has its source half a league to the north of Jerusalem, and falls into the Dead Sea at the southward after a course of six or seven leagues. It is ordinarily dry during nine months of the year; for more than twenty years, as we were told in Jerusalem, not a sign of water had been seen in it. Its bed is at the bottom of the valley of Jehoshaphat, between the temple hill and the Mount of Olives. After having passed the little bridge by which this dried-up bed is crossed, one finds on the right a plot of ground planted with ancient olive trees, which is asserted to be the garden of Gethsemane. There is no valid reason, whatever Keim may say, against the truth of this tradition. The word πολλάκις, often, in John 18:2, might apply only to the preceding days; but it is more probable that it refers also to the earlier sojourns of Jesus in Jerusalem.

This garden undoubtedly belonged to friends of Jesus. It ordinarily served as a place of meeting for the Lord and His disciples (συνήχθη, the aorist: he met with), when they returned from Jerusalem to the Mount of Olives and to Bethany, and wished to avoid passing all together through the streets of the city. Comp. Luke 21:37; Luke 22:39. The term σπεῖρα always designates, in the New Testament (Matthew 27:27, Acts 21:31), and in Josephus, the Roman legion or a part of the legion which occupied the citadel of Antonia, at the north-eastern angle of the temple. A detachment of Roman soldiers had seemed necessary to support the servants of the Sanhedrim. For Mark 14:2 proves that a rising in favor of Jesus was feared; and for this reason it had been necessary to ask for orders from the governor. This detachment was commanded by the tribune himself, thechiliarch, mentioned in John 18:12. The article ἡ, “the cohort,” designates the well-known cohort; and, if it seems to indicate the presence of this entire body of soldiers (600 men), we must find here either a popular expression or a manner of speaking which is justified by the presence of the commander-in-chief. The Synoptics do not speak of this escort. The message of Pilate’s wife, however, which is related by Matthew, proves that, since the preceding evening, the governor had been occupied with this matter; and this circumstance confirms the fact of the participation of the Roman soldiery in the arrest. Keim turns this narrative into ridicule, by speaking ironically of “half an army;” this wretched piece of pleasantry is quite gratuitous. Baumlein and others have contended against the application of the term σπεῖρα to the Roman garrison, and have thought that the question was only of the guard of the temple. But the constant meaning of this word does not allow this explanation. The ὑπηρέται, officers, are, as in John 7:32; John 7:45, the sergeants of the temple. They were the persons who had properly the task of arresting Jesus. The Roman cohort was only to give them aid in case of resistance. John 18:10 shows that servants belonging to the houses of the chief priests had also joined the band. The meaning of the words φανοί and λαμπάδες is questionable. The first seems to us rather to designate lanterns; the second, resin torches. All this apparatus: “Lanterns and torches and weapons” (the two καί, and, are to be noticed), by its very uselessness casts a kind of ridicule upon this scene. It is feared that Jesus may hide Himself, and yet He surrenders Himself voluntarily (John 18:4), or that He may defend Himself;…but what purpose would these weapons have served, if He had wished to make use of His power (John 18:6)?

John 18:4-9

Vv. 4-9. The meeting of Jesus with the band. “Jesus therefore, knowing all that which was to come upon him, went forth and says to them:Whom are you seeking for? 5. They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus says to them, I am he. Now Judas, who betrayed him, was also standing among them. 6. When therefore Jesus said to them, I am he, they went backward and fell to the ground. 7. Jesus asked them a second time, Whom are you seeking for? They said, Jesus of Nazareth. 8. Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he; if therefore you are seeking me, let these go their way; 9, that the word might be fulfilled which he had spoken: I have lost none of those whom thou hast given me.” In coming forward spontaneously and as the first to meet the band, Jesus has a purpose which the sequel will explain. He desires, by giving Himself up, to provide for the safety of His disciples. The word He went forth might mean: from the remote part of the garden or from the midst of His disciples; but it is more natural to understand: from the garden itself. He comes forward boldly even before the gate, while His disciples remain grouped behind Him in the garden; thus are the words of Joh 18:26 easily explained. The kiss of Judas, in the Synoptics, which is said to be incompatible with John’s account, is naturally placed at the moment when Jesus, coming forth from the garden, meets the band, and thus immediately before the question: Whom are you seeking?John alone does not mention this incident, and yet he is accused of personal animosity against Judas!— Jesus, after having experienced this last perfidy from His disciple, turns towards the band, addressing to them the question relative to their commission: He desires to have this distinctly stated, in order to shelter those who are not the object of it—that is, His disciples. The insertion of the remark relating to Judas, at the end of Joh 18:5, has been explained in different ways. Luthardt rightly says: “These words are placed between the declaration I am he and the effect produced by it, because they are designed to explain this effect.” The impression of fear produced on the witnesses by the words I am he, which were pronounced with majesty and seemed to fall as a threatening from heaven—this impression could have been felt by no one of those present so vividly as by the faithless disciple, who had so often heard this same word as the affirmation of the unique dignity of Jesus; and it was no doubt from him that the emotion was communicated to those who surrounded and followed him. The same moral ascendency to which the traders and money-changers in the temple had yielded, and which had many times arrested the multitude at the moment of stoning Him (comp. also Luke 4:30), causes the band suddenly to fall back, and this unexpected movement on the part of those who were foremost occasions the falling down of a certain number of those who are following them. There is no direct act of God’s omnipotence here overthrowing these persons, but it would be quite as much an error to see herein only an accidental effect. This result was desired on the part of Him who produced it. By thus making them feel His power, Jesus meant to show them that it would be dangerous for them to go beyond their commission, and thereby to secure the retreat of His disciples. We see how mistaken Weiss is in seeing in such a miracle only a miracle of display. Then, in a milder tone, which leads the officers to approach Him again, Jesus interrogates them a second time; and after He has again caused them distinctly to declare that it is He, and He alone, whom they have the commission to arrest, He surrenders Himself while stipulating for the liberty of all His disciples. Then it was that the beautiful image was fulfilled which Jesus had used, John 10:12 : The shepherd sees the wolf coming, and he does not flee, because he cares for the sheep. The question was not only of the preservation, but even of the salvation of the disciples. John felt this indeed, and this is what gives the explanation of the remark in John 18:9. The example of Peter, the most courageous one among them, shows that an arrest would have been, at that moment, for some of the apostles the signal for a deep fall, perhaps for an irreparable denial. And Jesus, who had said to the Father: “I have watched over those whom thou hast given me, and none of them is lost” (John 17:12), must fulfil to the end this serious task. All this causes Reuss to smile compassionately. He sees in the application which the author here makes of these words only a proof of his disposition to “indulge in double sense;” he even asks whether Jesus, in rendering an account to God of the care which He had had of His disciples, “would have hinted that He took care not to let them spend the following night in the guard-house.” For our own part, this quotation seems to us instructive. No one can suppose that John was ignorant of the spiritual sense of the words of Jesus in John 17:12 : “I have kept those whom thou hast given me, and no one of them is lost;” and yet he applies it here to a material fact, which undoubtedly pertained, though only indirectly, to the salvation of the disciples. Here is an example fitted to make us see the broad way in which we should treat the Scriptural quotations in general.

John 18:10-11

Vv. 10, 11. Peter’s attempt at defence. “Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high-priest’s servant and cut off his right ear.The servant was named Malchus. 11. Jesus therefore said to Peter, Put up the sword into the sheath; shall I not drink the cup which my Father has given me to drink?” Does not John allude to Peter’s natural character by designating him by his name Simon? Comp. John 21:15-17. Luke 22:38 proves that the apostles had, in fact, brought arms with them. This fact had been already related by the Synoptics; why does John mention it? He wishes, no doubt, to restore to it the precision which it had lost in the oral narration: the name of Peter had been omitted, and, very probably, intentionally; that of Malchus had been forgotten. The intention of depreciating Peter is again imputed to the author; but wherein? His action is certainly wanting neither in courage nor in faith nor in love. And Malchus? How can there be discovered in this name the least trace of a speculative, ideal or religious intention? Nevertheless, Keim asks: “If these names were known, how should Mark and Luke omit them?” As if what Luke and Mark were ignorant of might not have been known by another who was better informed! How can any one persuade himself that a serious Christian of the second century, writing at a distance from Palestine, at Alexandria, in Asia Minor, or at Rome, would have set up the claim of knowing the name of a servant of the high-priest’s house, and, besides, the part played by a relative of this servant (John 18:26)! Is such pitiable charlatanism compatible with the character of the author of the Fourth Gospel? The trifling detail: “the rightear,” is also found in Luke (Luke 22:50): this is, according to Strauss, a legendary amplification. To what a degree of puerility is not the evangelical narrative thus brought down! The act of Peter, while testifying of a powerful faith and of the sincerity of his declaration in John 13:37, was nevertheless compromising to his Master’s cause. Peter, by this act, had almost taken away from Jesus the right of saying to Pilate (John 18:36): “If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have fought for me.” The reply of Jesus has traced for the Church its line of conduct in times of persecution. It is that of passive resistance, which the Apocalypse calls (John 13:10) “the patience of the saints.” The image of the cup to designate the lot to be submitted to recalls the similar expression in Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane, in the Synoptics.— Luke alone mentions the miraculous healing of Malchus. This fact explains why Peter was not indicted for the crime of rebellion.

John 18:12-14

Vv. 12-14. “The cohort and the tribune and the officers of the Jews seized Jesus, therefore, and bound him, 13, and they led him first to Annas; for he was father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high-priest of that year. 14.Caiaphas was he who had given this counsel to the Jews: that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.” The word πρῶτον, first, contains a tacit correction of the Synoptics, according to which Jesus was leddirectly to the house of Caiaphas; comp. an altogether similar remark in John 3:24. It has been supposed that this in the first place, or first, alludes to the subsequent sending of Jesus to Pilate; but see on John 18:24; John 18:28. According to these verses, the understood secondly is certainly the sending to Caiaphas. Annas had himself been high-priest during the years 6-15 of our era, thus about fifteen years before this time. We see in Josephus that he was the influential man of the period. John, however, gives us to understand that the true reason why Jesus was led at this moment to his house was rather his relationship to Caiaphas, the high-priest. By virtue of this relationship, the two personages constituted, as it were, but a single one. Comp. the expression in Luke 3:2. On John 18:13-14, comp. John 11:50-51. By establishing the identity of this personage with the one mentioned in ch. 11, John would give us to understand what kind of justice Jesus had to expect on the part of a judge who had already expressed himself in this way.

John 18:15-18

Vv. 15-18. “Now Simon Peter followed Jesus, as well as another disciple, and that disciple was known to the high-priest, and he entered in with Jesus into the court of the high-priest. 16. And Peter was standing without at the door; the other disciple, who was known to the high-priest, went out therefore and spoke to her who kept the door, and brought in Peter. 17. The maid that kept the door, therefore, says to Peter, Art not thou also of this man’s disciples? Peter answers, I am not. 18. Now the servants and the officers were standing there, having made a fire of charcoal, because it was cold; and Peter was standing among them and warming himself.” While the Synoptics relate in a consecutive way the three denials of Peter, probably because in the oral preaching the narrative of this event formed an altogether peculiar little story, an ἀπομνημόνευμα, John separates the three acts of denial in the course of his narration, passing alternately from Peter to Jesus and from Jesus to Peter. This better articulated narrative certainly reproduces the true course of things, and nothing more clearly reveals in the author of our Gospel the witness of the facts, who through his own recollections exercised power over the received tradition. “The same superiority,” says Renan, rightly, “in the account of Peter’s denials. All is more circumstantial, better explained.” With the article ὁ, the, the term the other disciple could only be referred to the disciple whom Jesus loved, whose particular connection with Peter we have already ascertained in John 13:21; John 13:24. But this article is wanting in the Alexandrian documents and in the ancient Versions. Nothing, moreover, in the context justifies the use of the definite article. If we read, as we should, “an other disciple,” it may be John himself; this is the more common supposition. The periphrasis, however, of which he makes use in order to preserve his anonymous character is rather this: “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23, John 19:26). I formerly attempted to justify this change of expression by saying that “it was not the occasion for using a term of tenderness when the disciples had just abandoned their Master;” but this explanation is somewhat subtle. Did not John designate by this phrase some other disciple, his brother James, for example, whom he does not mention by nameanywhere in his whole Gospel, any more than he does himself or his mother? We do not know the relations which Zebedee and his sons may have had with the household of the high-priest. Perhaps the very profession of Zebedee had furnished the occasion for it. Thanks to these relations, this disciple had been able to enter within the priestly palace with the company, and soon he was able to gain admission for Peter, who had undoubtedly asked of him this service. But of what high-priest does John mean to speak when he says in John 18:15 : into the court of the high-priest (αὐλή, more probably here the interior court than the palace itself)? On the one hand, if the relation of ἠκολούθει,followed, John 18:15, to ἀπήγαγον, led him away, John 18:13, is considered, it seems that there can be no question except of the palace of Annas. On the other hand, according to John 18:13-14, how can we suppose that there can be a question of another high-priest than Caiaphas, who has just now expressly received the title? Undoubtedly, Annas is also called ἀρχιερεύς (Acts 4:6). Schurer has even shown that this title might be applied to all the members of the privileged families from which the high-priests were ordinarily taken. Nevertheless, this title has nowhere in our Gospel this broad sense, and it would be difficult indeed to believe that after having contrasted, as he has done in John 18:13, Caiaphas as “the high-priest of that year,” with Annas, his father-in-law, John would designate this latter person, a few lines farther on, simply by the title of high-priest.

How could the readers, who had never heard of Annas, have supposed that he also bore this title? It is, therefore, clearly the house of Caiaphas of which John means to speak, if he has not written in an unintelligible way.

But, in that case, it is asked how the relations which the disciple sustained to the high-priest Caiaphas and the members of his household could open to him the entrance into the abode of Annas, to whom Jesus was first led. There is but one solution to this question, which the narrative of John itself suggests, setting aside that of the Synoptics; it is that these two personages lived in the same palace. The bond of close relationship which united them explains this circumstance, and it is for this reason, undoubtedly, that John has so expressly noticed this particular. Meyer is wrong, therefore, in saying that the text does not offer the least indication in favor of this opinion. John’s account leads directly to it. The Hebrews very commonly had female doorkeepers (Josephus, Antiq. 7.2, 1; Acts 12:13; 2 Samuel 4:6, according to the text of the LXX). The καί, also (“Art not thou also”), shows that this woman already knew the unnamed disciple as one of the adherents of Jesus. The three denials of Peter, as Luthardt observes, have three distinct historical starting-points, which are more or less distributed among the four evangelists: 1. The introduction of Peter into the court by a friend, who was himself known as a disciple of Jesus; 2. The recollection which had been retained of Peter by those who had seen him at the time of the arrest of Jesus; 3. His Galilean dialect. To these external circumstances, which called forth his trial, was added an internal one which facilitated his fall: the recollection of the blow which he had struck, and which exposed him, more than all the rest, to the danger of being involved in the judgment of his Master. Fear therefore combined with presumption; and thus was the warning which Jesus had given him verified: “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.” The δοῦλοι, servants, John 18:18, designate the domestic servants attached to the priestly house; the ὑπηρέται, officers, are the official servants of the Sanhedrim, charged with the police duties of the temple. The last words of Joh 18:18 : Peter was standing with them and warming himself, are repeated literally in John 18:25. They are placed here, as a stepping-stone with a view to the approaching resumption of the story relating to Peter, after the appearance of Jesus in the house of Annas. Hence it follows: 1. That there is an absolute impossibility in the way of placing the last two denials in another locality than the first; and 2. That these last two denials took place, not after, but during the examination of Jesus. The verbs in the imperfect tense are picturesque, and signify that the situation described continues during the whole examination which is about to be related, so that, according to the narrative, the scene of Joh 18:25-26 (Peter) took place simultaneously with that of Joh 18:19-23 (Jesus).

John 18:19-21

Vv. 19-21. “The high-priest therefore asked Jesus concerning his disciples and his doctrine. 20. Jesus answered him: I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in open synagogue and in the temple, where all the Jews come together, and I have said nothing in secret. 21. Why askest thou me?Ask those who have heard me what I have said to them: behold, these know what I have said.” It is generally held that, as the examination took place in the house of Annas, it was he who directed the investigation. But this would imply that the high-priest of Joh 18:13-16 was Annas, which we have seen to be contrary to the natural meaning of John’s narrative. This session was a purely private one; it had its necessary place, as we have seen, in the course of the trial; the presence of the officer in John 18:22 implies the official character of the scene. The duty of presiding over it fell, therefore, to the high- priest officially. It has been supposed that Annas was exercising functions here in the character of Ab-beth-din (chief of the court of justice). But this dignity appertained to the high-priest himself (Schurer, p. 413).

Keim rightly says (certainly not to support the narrative of John): “If Caiaphas was truly the acting high-priest and, at the same time, the soul of the sudden onset which was proposed against Jesus, it belonged to him, and not to his father-in-law, to acquaint himself with the matter and to make a report to the Sanhedrim” (iii. p. 322). If it was otherwise, according to John, what purpose would the characterizing of Caiaphas, in John 18:13, have served? When, in John 18:22, the officer says to Jesus: Answerest thou the high-priest so? it is unnatural to think of another personage than the actual high-priest, the one who has just been expressly designated as such in John 18:13-14. Reuss brings forward in opposition to our view John 18:24, in which the high-priest must necessarily be anotherpersonage than the one who is called thus in John 18:19. At the first glance, this observation appears just. But if Jesus was led away to the house of Annas, it was quite naturally Annas who gave the order to conduct Him to the house of Caiaphas, while yet it would not follow from this fact that it was Annas himself who presided over the preliminary session. The question proposed to Jesus had as its design to draw from Him an answer suited to give a ground for His condemnation. For there was embarrassment felt respecting the course to be pursued in this matter, as the recourse to the false witnesses proves. What is asked of Jesus is not the names of His disciples, as if the question were of a list of accomplices; it is information as to the number of His partisans and the principles which serve them as a standard. Jesus, understanding that they were only seeking to wrest from Him an expression which might be turned to account against Him, simply appeals to the publicity of His teaching. He is not the head of a secret society, nor the propagator of principles which fear the light of day.— Συναγωγῇ, without an article (according to the true reading): in synagogal assembly; the word ἱερόν, temple, has the article, because this edifice is unique. When Jesus instructed His disciples in private, it was not for the purpose of telling them something different from what He declared in public.— The testimony of the ancient Versions decides in favor of the Alexandrian reading: “all the Jews;” not, the Jews from all parts or continually.

John 18:22-23

Vv. 22, 23. “When he had said this, one of the officers, who was at his side, struck him with a rod, saying, Answerest thou the high-priest so? 23. Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if I have spoken well, why dost thou smite me?” The answer of Jesus certainly contained a tacit rebuke intended for the one who thus interrogated Him. An officer who wished to court the favor of his chief takes occasion to remind Jesus of the respect due to the ruler of Israel. The word ῥάπισμα properly means: a blow with a rod. Undoubtedly in Matthew 5:39 the verb ῥαπίζειν is taken in the sense of striking in the face. The proper sense, however, is here the more natural one; comp. the term δέρειν, to flay, John 18:23. Μαρτυρεῖν: to prove by a regular giving of testimony. Jesus does not literally fulfil here His own precept, Matthew 5:39; but by this reply, full of dignity and gentleness, He endeavors to bring the man to himself, which is precisely the moral fulfilment of that precept.

John 18:24

Ver. 24. “Annas therefore sent him bound to Caiaphas, the high- priest.” This verse has always perplexed those who have held that at John 18:15 Jesus was led to the house of Caiaphas, and that the session which John has just described is the great session of the Sanhedrim, which is related by the Synoptics. This twofold error is what has occasioned the transposition of this verse in some documents to a place after John 18:13 (see the critical note on that verse). It is this likewise which has led some interpreters, such as Calvin, Lucke, Tholuck, de Wette, Langen, to take ἀπέστειλαν in the sense of the pluperfect, had sent. But when the aorist has the sense of the pluperfect, the context clearly indicates it. Precisely the contrary is here the case. Besides, the particle οὖν, therefore, if it is authentic, excludes this explanation, and it is even probable that this is precisely the reason which has made some reject it and others change it into δέ, now: “Now, Annas had sent….” By inserting this notice here, the evangelist simply wished, as by the πρῶτον, first, of John 18:13, to reserve a place expressly for the session in the house of Caiaphas, which was indeed otherwise important, and of which he does not give an account. Comp. John 18:1 (for the scene in Gethsemane) and John 18:5 (for the kiss of Judas). Lutteroth gives to this verse a sentimental cast. There is, according to him, a picture here; John means to say: Behold! This Jesus, thus struck by the officer, was standing there with His hands bound, in the condition in which Annas had [previously] sent Him to Caiaphas! But this sense has nothing in common with the simplicity and sobriety of the apostolic narrative; it implies, moreover, the pluperfect sense as here given to the aorist. Jesus had undoubtedly been unbound during the examination; after this scene, Annas causes Him to be bound again, in order to send Him to the house of Caiaphas. Probably He was unbound a second time during the session of the Sanhedrim. This explains why in Matthew 27:2 and Mark 15:1, He is bound anew at the time of leading Him away to Pilate.— To Caiaphas: in the part of the palace where Caiaphas lived, and where were the official apartments and the hall for the meetings of the Sanhedrim. This body had been called together in the interval; for all the members were in Jerusalem for the feast. The title of high-priest reminds us of the wholly official character of the session which was in preparation, as well as that of the place where it occurred.

John 18:25-27

Vv. 25-27. “And Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said therefore to him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied and said, I am not. 26. One of the servants of the high-priest, a kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, says to him, Did I not see thee in the garden with him? 27. Peter denied again; and immediately the cock crew.” As far as John 18:18, according to John, all has happened in the house of Annas; and as John 18:25 expressly places us again in the situation of Joh 18:18, it is evident that the following facts also occur at his house; it is the same court, the same fire, the same persons; so that those who, like Weiss, are unwilling to admit that Caiaphas and Annas lived in two different apartments of the same priestly palace, are obliged to hold that Matthew and Mark have made a mistake in placing the denial of Peter in the house of Caiaphas. As for ourselves, we have already stated the reasons which seem to us to support the contrary opinion. The sending of Jesus to Caiaphas, mentioned already in John 18:24, in reality followed the last denial (John 18:27). For the facts of Joh 18:25-27 took place simultaneously with John 18:19-23. This circumstance explains the incident, related by Luke, of the look which Jesus cast upon Peter (Luke 22:61). Jesus crossed the court to go from the apartments of Annas to those of Caiaphas (John 18:24). He heard at this moment the cock-crowing (John 18:27); and then it was that His eye met that of Peter. The epithet δεδεμένον, bound, makes us understand more fully the impression produced on the unfaithful disciple by the sight of his Master in this condition. The subject of εἶπον, they said (John 18:25), is indefinite. According to Matthew, it is a maid-servant who sees Peter approaching the gate to go forth from the court to the front of the house. According to Mark, it is the same maid-servant who had already troubled him in the first instance and who denounces him to the servants who were gathered about the fire. In Luke, it is indefinitely έτερος, another person. It is probable that the portress spoke of Peter to one of her companions, who denounced him to the assembled servants. From this group came forth instantly the question addressed to Peter. After the second denial, Peter seems to have played the bold part, and to have set himself to speak more freely with the persons present. But his Galilean accent was soon noticed, and attracted the more particular attention of a kinsman of Malchus, a fact which occasioned the third denial. John does not mention the imprecations which Matthew puts into Peter’s mouth. If, then, any one was animated by hostile feelings towards this disciple, it was the first evangelist, and not the author of our narrative. Though he does not speak of Peter’s repentance, the narrative of the scene in John 21:15 ff. evidently implies it. The story of the denial of Peter is, besides those of the multiplication of the loaves and of the entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem, the only one which is related at once by John and the Synoptics. There is no discourse here to be accounted for, as in ch. 6, and no series of events to be explained, as in ch. 12 John’s purpose, therefore, could only have been to reproduce in all their grievous reality the two simultaneous scenes of the appearance of the Master before the authorities and the disciple’s denial, which had formed the prelude of the Passion. In any case, we may discover here how the oral tradition related the facts with less of life and flexibility than is done by the pen of an eye-witness. The latter alone has reproduced the minutest articulations of the history; and it is not without reason that Renan speaks of “its varied and sharply defined points.”

John 18:28-19

II. The Trial before Pilate: 18:28-19:16.Had the Romans, in making Judea a province of the empire, taken away from the Jews the right of capital punishment? Our narrative affirms this positively by putting in the mouths of the latter the words (John 18:31): “It is not permitted us to put any one to death.” To this have been objected the execution of Stephen, Acts 7:57 ff., and the permission which Titus had granted the Jews to put foreigners, even Romans, to death who had invaded the inclosure of the temple court (Josephus, Antiq. 6.2, 4). But the first event was an extra-legal act of popular fury, and the permission given by Titus is quite an exceptional case. According to the Talmud, as according to John, the right of inflicting capital punishment belonged no longer to the Sanhedrim. And it was precisely at the time of the judgment of Jesus that this change took place, “forty years before the destruction of the temple.” Probably, in the time which followed the annexation, the governors desired to use moderation towards the conquered people.

But the despotic Pilate had reduced the Jews to the common law of the provinces. This was the reason which obliged the rulers to bring Jesus before this governor in order to obtain from him the confirmation and execution of the sentence which they had just pronounced. Pilate was from the year 26 procurator of Judea, under the order of the proconsul of Syria. He was deposed in 36 by Vitellius and sent to Rome, to be judged there for all the wrongs which he had committed. According to “Greek historians” (Euseb. John 2:7), he was put to death under Caligula. Such were the reasons which made the Jews hold a third session—that of the morning, which took place very early, no longer in the high-priest’s house, but in the vicinity of the temple, either in the famous hall paved with mosaic (lischkath haggazith), situated in the interior court at the south of the temple, or in the synagogue Beth midrasch, between the court of the women and the outer court (see Keim, III. p. 351). This is confirmed by Matthew (Matthew 27:1), Mark (Mark 16:1), and especially Luke (Luke 22:66 ff.) The last mentioned has preserved for us the most complete account of this session, perhaps mingling in it some particulars borrowed from the great session in the night, which he passes over in silence. In any case, the examination and the judgment of Jesus must have been repeated a second time, though summarily, and confirmed in this morning session, which was the only legal and plenary one (πάντες, all, Matt.). We must observe the expression of Matthew, ώστεθανατῶσαιαὐτόν, to put him to death, which indicates the seeking for ways and means to succeed in obtaining from Pilate the execution of the sentence, as well as the expression of Luke: “They led him into their assembly,” Luke 22:66, which can only refer to the passage from the house of Caiaphas (Luke 22:54) to one of the two meeting-halls near the temple, of which we have just spoken. The Jews ask Pilate to confirm their sentence without an examination (John 18:30). The latter refuses; this is the first phase of the negotiations: John 18:28-32. Then they set forth a political accusation: He made Himself a king. Pilate judges this accusation unfounded; then he makes two ineffectual attempts to deliver Jesus with the support of the people; this is the second phase: John 18:33 to John 19:6. The Jews then bring forward a religious charge: He made Himself Son of God. On hearing this accusation Pilate endeavors still more to deliver Jesus; this is the third phase: John 19:7-12 a.

At this moment, the Jews, seeing their prey ready to escape them, put aside all shame, and employ the odious expedient of personal intimidation to make the judge’s conscience yield. On this path they suffer themselves to be carried away even to the point of the denial of their dearest hope—that of the Messiah; they declare themselves vassals of Caesar; this is the fourth phase: John 19:12-16.

John 18:29-32

Vv. 29-32. “Pilate therefore went out to them and said, What accusation do you bring against this man? 30.They answered him, saying, If he were not an evil doer, we should not have delivered him to thee. 31. Pilate therefore said to them, Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law. Whereupon the Jews answered him, It is not permitted us to put any one to death; 32, that the word might be fulfilled which Jesus had spoken,signifying by what death he should die.” The ordinary residence of the governor was Caesarea; but he went to Jerusalem at the time of the feasts. Pilate was fond of displaying before the eyes of the people on these occasions the pomp of Roman majesty. Philo (Leg. ad Caium) represents him as a proud, obstinate, intractable man. Nevertheless, it is probable that the fanaticism of the Jews was also an important element in the contentions which they continually had with him. “All the acts of Pilate which are known to us,” says Renan, “show him to have been a good administrator.” This portrait is somewhat flattering; but it is partially confirmed by the picture which Josephus himself has drawn of his government, Antiq. John 18:2-4.— Οὖν, therefore: in consequence of the fact that the Jews were unwilling to enter into his palace. The answer of the Jews to Pilate (John 18:30) is skilful; it is dictated by two reasons: on the one hand, they endeavor to keep the largest possible share of their ancient autonomy, by continuing in the main the judges, and leaving to Pilate the part of executioner; and, on the other hand, they undoubtedly are also apprehensive of not succeeding before him with their political and religious grievances. The manoeuvre was well contrived. But Pilate understands them; he refuses the position which they wish to give him. He plays cautiously with them. Entering apparently into their thought, delighted at finding a means of relieving himself of the affair, he replies without hesitation: “Very good! Since you wish to be sole judges of the case, be so!

Take the accused and punish Him yourselves (ὑμεῖς, John 18:31), of course within the limits of your competency.” The Sanhedrim had, in fact, certain disciplinary rights, like that of excommunicating, scourging, etc. There was no need of Pilate in order to inflict these punishments; only this was not death. Some interpreters have thought that Pilate really authorized them to put Jesus to death, but with this understood reservation: “If you can and dare” (Hengstenberg). But this is to make Pilate say yes and no at the same time. John 19:6 proves nothing in favor of this meaning, as we shall see. This answer did not suit the Jews; for they wished that, at any cost, Jesus might be put to death. It forced them, therefore, to make confession of their dependence, at least in this regard (John 18:31). And this circumstance seems to the evangelist significant (John 18:32); for, if they had been their own masters, or had allowed themselves to be carried away, as afterwards in the murder of Stephen, to act as if they still were so, Jesus would have undergone the Jewish, and not the Roman punishment; He would have been stoned; this was the punishment of the false prophets, according to the Talmud (see Westcott). But He would not have been lifted up upon the cross, from which, by His calmness, His submission, His patience, His pardon, His love, He incessantly draws all men to Himself as He had announced beforehand (John 3:14, John 8:28, John 12:32); what a difference from the tumultuous punishment of stoning! Comp. also John 19:36-37. The second position taken by the Jews:

John 18:33-35

Vv. 33-35. “Pilate entered again therefore into the Praetorium, and he called Jesus and said to him, Art thou the king of the Jews? 34. Jesus answered him:Sayest thou this of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? 35. Pilate answered: Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee to me; what hast thou done?” John’s narrative evidently presents a gap here. There is nothing in what precedes to give a reason for the question of Pilate to Jesus: Art thou the king of the Jews? Such an inquiry implies, therefore, an expression on the part of the accusers which gives occasion for it. This supposition is changed into certainty when we compare the narrative of the Synoptics, particularly that of Luke. “We found him,” say the Jews on approaching Pilate, “troubling the nation, forbidding to pay tribute to Caesar, saying that he is the Christ, the King” (Luke 23:2). Luke, as well as Mark and Matthew, has omitted the whole first phase of the accusation, which has just been related by John. The Synoptics begin their narrative at the moment when the Jews come down again to their more humble part as accusers, and concede to Pilate his position as judge.

Hence it follows that John, after having supplied in what precedes that which the Synoptics had omitted, now implies as known to his readers the political accusation mentioned by them. We see how intimate and constant is the relation between his narrative and theirs. Keil concludes from the words he called Jesus, that up to this moment Jesus had remained outside. But see above. He called Him aside in the Praetorium itself, to a place where he could speak with Him alone. To his question, Pilate certainly expected a frank negative answer. But the position was not as simple as he imagined. There was a distinction to be made here, not to the thought of Pilate, but to that of Jesus. In the political sense of the term king of the Jews, the only one known to Pilate, Jesus might reject this title; but in the religious sense which every believing Jew gave to it and in which it was equivalent to Messiah, Jesus must accept it, whatever the consequences of this avowal might be. Jesus must know, then, whether this title, with regard to which Pilate was interrogating Him, was put forward by Pilate himself, or whether it had been put forward by the Jews in the conversation which he had just had with them. The objections of Meyer and Weiss (in his Commentary) against this explanation do not seem to me sufficient to shake it.

According to Meyer, Jesus asks of Pilate simply an explanation which He had the right to ask. But He nevertheless did it with some purpose. According to Weiss, Jesus wished to know whether He must now give an explanation respecting the Messianic idea! Finally, according to Tholuck, Luthardt, Keil, etc., He thereby called Pilate’s attention to the suspicious source of this accusation (others, the Jews). It would, in that case, have been more simple to answer by a No only; but, after this, the really affirmative answer of Jesus in John 18:36-37 would become an absurdity. These two verses are compatible with the question of Jesus only on our explanation, which is that of Olshausen, Neander, Ewald, and at present, it seems to me, ofWeiss himself (Life of Jesus, II. p. 563).

We must conclude from these words that Jesus had not Himself heard the accusation of the rulers, and consequently that He was already, as we have stated, John 18:28, in the Praetorium at the time when it was brought forward by them. Pilate, not understanding clearly what is the aim of this distinction, answers abruptly: “What have I to do with your Jewish subtleties?” There is profound contempt in the antithesis: ἐγώ…᾿Ιουδαῖος (I…a Jew?). Then, abandoning the Jewish jargon which he had allowed his accusers to impose on him for the moment, he interrogates Him as a frank and simple Roman: “Now then, to the point! By what fault hast thou brought upon thyself all that which is taking place at this moment?”

John 18:36-37

Vv. 36, 37. “Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have fought that I might not be delivered to the Jews. But now is my kingdom not from hence. 37. Thereupon Pilate said to him, Art thou a king, then? Jesus answered him, Thou sayest it; I am a king; I was born and am come into the world to bear witness to the truth.Whoever is of the truth hears my voice.” Jesus does not answer directly; but the answer appears from what He is about to say. He certainly possesses a kingship; this kingship, however, is not of a nature to disturb Pilate. The expression ἐκτοῦκόσμου, of this world, is not synonymous withἐντῷκόσμῳ, in this world. For the kingdom of Jesus is certainly realized and developed here on earth; but it does not have its origin from earth, from the human will and earthly force. Jesus gives as a proof of this the manner in which He has surrendered Himself to the Jews. His servants are that multitude of adherents who had surrounded Him on Palm-day, and not merely, as Lucke and Luthardt suppose, hypothetical beings: “the servants whom I should have in that case.” The meaning given by Bengel and Stier: the angels, could not have been even dimly seen by Pilate. The attempt has been made to give to νῦν, now, a temporal sense: “My kingdom is not now of this world, but it will be otherwise hereafter.” But, at the coming of the Lord, His kingdom will be no more of this world than it is to-day. Now must be taken, as often, in the logical sense: it contrasts the ever-present reality of the truth with the non-existence of error. Pilate certainly expected a simple denial. His answer expresses surprise. The meaning of the particle ουκουν, if it were accented οὔκουν, would be: certainly not. Pilate would say: “Thou art certainly not a king,” with or without an interrogation point. But the reply of Jesus: “Thou sayest it,” by which He appropriates to Himself the contents of Pilate’s words while reaffirming them for Himself, favors the accentuationοὐκοῦν, not…then. “It is, then, not false, the claim that is imputed to thee?” The affirmative formula employed by Jesus: Thou sayest it, is foreign to the classic Greek and even to the Old Testament, but it is very common with the Rabbis. Its meaning cannot be that which Reuss would give to it (Hist. ev ., p. 676): “It is thou who sayest that I am a king; as for me, I am come into the world to bear testimony,…” which would mean simply: I am not a king, but a preacher of the truth, a prophet. In this sense, a σύ, thou, in contrast with an ἐγώ, I, would have been absolutely necessary; and then, a but, to contrast the saying of Jesus with that of Pilate. Besides, the meaning of the formula:thou sayest it, is well known; comp. Matthew 26:64.— ῞Οτι might signify: seeing that: “Thou sayest it rightly, seeing that I really am such.” It is more natural, however, to explain this conjunction in the sense of that: “Thou sayest (it) well, that I am a king.” The importance of the idea makes Jesus feel the need of again formulating it expressly.— Hengstenbergseparates altogether from this declaration the following words, which he applies simply to the prophetic office of Jesus Christ. But it is very evident that Jesus means to explain by what follows the sense in which He is a king.

He comes to conquer the world, and for this end His only weapon is to bear witness to the truth; His people are recruited from all men who open themselves to the truth. The first of the two consecutive ἐγώ, I, which are read in the T. R., must be rejected. Jesus certainly did not say: “I am a king, I.” The two εἰςτοῦτο, for this, refer to the following ἴνα (that), contrary to the translation of Ostervald and Arnaud: “I was born for this (to be a king) and…”—“I was born” refers to the fact of birth which is common to Him with all men, while the words: “I am come into the world” set forth the special mission with a view to which He has appeared here on earth. It is His work as prophet which is the foundation of His kingly office. The truth, the revelation of God—this is the sceptre with which He bears sway over the earth. This mode of conquest which Jesus here unveils to Pilate is the opposite of that by which the Roman power was formed, and Lange brings out with much reason that, as John 12:25 contained the judgment of the Greek genius, this declaration of Jesus to Pilate contains the judgment of the Roman genius by the Gospel. The expression to be of the truth recalls to mind John 3:21, John 7:17, John 8:47, John 10:16, etc. It denotes the moral disposition to receive the truth and to put oneself under its holy power when it presents itself in living form in the person of Jesus Christ. By the word whoever, Jesus addressed no longer merely the conscience of the judge, but also that of the man, in Pilate (Hengstenberg).

John 18:38

Ver. 38. “Pilate says to him, What is truth? And after he had said this, he went out again to the Jews and says to them, As for me, I find no crime in him.” Pilate’s exclamation is neither the expression of a soul eager for the truth (the Fathers), nor that of a heart in despair, which has long sought it in vain (Olshausen). It is the profession of a frivolous scepticism, such as is often met with in the man of the world, and particularly in statesmen, who are quite indifferent in general to this class of questions; witness the manner in which Napoleon was accustomed to speak of ideologists! If Pilate had seriously sought for the truth, it would have been the moment to find it and lay hold of it. In any case, what he is now convinced of is that the person whom he has before him, whether He is a dreamer or a sage, is not a rival of Caesar. Thus with “that broad sentiment of justice and civil government which,” as Renan says, “the most ordinary Roman carried with him everywhere,” he declares to the Jews his conviction of the innocence of Jesus as to the political accusation raised against Him. After this, what was his duty? To discharge Jesus purely and simply. But, fearing to displease the Jews, who had well-founded reasons to accuse him to his superiors, he wishes to avoid taking a step which would make them his sworn enemies, and he has recourse to a series of expedients. The first is not related by John; it is the remitting of the affair to Herod, on account of the mention which had been made of the Galilean origin of Jesus in the accusation of the rulers (Luke 23:5); this scene is described by Luke 23:6-12; it is omitted by John as well known and not having led to any result. It was the appearance before Pilate which John was especially anxious to reproduce. In the declaration which, in John, closes John 18:38, are united the two expressions of Pilate related by Luke 23:4; Luke 23:14, which preceded and followed the sending of Jesus to Herod. The second expedient is that of which John gives an account very summarily in John 18:39-40, and which is related in detail by the Synoptics.

John 18:39-40

Vv. 39, 40. “But you have a custom that I should release unto you a prisoner at the Passover feast. Will you therefore that I release unto you the king of the Jews? 40. They all cried out therefore again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas! Now Barabbas was a robber.” In the very brief narrative of John with relation to this episode, it is Pilate who seems to take the initiative in the proposal made to the people, while, in the dramatic picture of Mark, it is the people who rush forward with loud cries and demand the liberation of a prisoner. Evidently there is a vacancy here in John like that which we have noticed between John 18:32 and John 18:33. It is easy to establish the harmony with Mark. The people take advantage of a favorable moment—perhaps of that when Jesus had been sent to Herod—to ask for what was always granted them. And on Jesus’ return, Pilate tries to give Him the benefit of this circumstance. The origin of the custom to which this scene refers is unknown. It has been supposed that, since this custom was connected with the Passover feast, it involved an allusion to the deliverance of the Jews from the captivity in Egypt. This is possible. In any case, it is proper to hold that it was something which remained from an ancient prerogative, which the people themselves exercised at the time of their national independence (see Hase). The words ἐντῷπάσχα, at the Passover, do not by any means contain, as Lange, Hengstenberg, etc., allege, the proof that the Paschal supper had been already celebrated. The 14th of Nisan already formed a part of the feast (see on John 13:1).

It is even more probable that the deliverance of the prisoner took place on the 14th than the 15th, in order that he might take part in the Paschal supper with the whole people. In making this proposal to the Jews, Pilate certainly counted on the sympathy of the people for Jesus, as it had manifested itself so strikingly on Palm-day. For Pilate knew perfectly that it was for envy that the rulers desired the death of Jesus (Matthew 27:18), and that the feeling of a portion of the people was opposite to theirs. In the designation king of the Jews irony prevails, as in John 18:14. Only the sarcasm is not addressed to Jesus, for whom Pilate from the beginning feels a sentiment of increasing respect, but to the Jews. Their king: this, then, is the only rival whom they will ever have to oppose to Caesar! But it is said in Mark 15:11, “the chief priests stirred up the people, that he should release Barabbas unto them.” The friends of Jesus remained silent, or their feeble voices were drowned by those of the rulers and their creatures. Some resolute agitators imposed their will on the multitude. Thus is the πάντες, all, of John explained, which answers to theπαμπληθεί of Luke, and which is no doubt wrongly omitted in the Alexandrian documents. For why should it have been added? Until this point in John’s narrative the Jews had not uttered any exclamations, and it surprises us to read the words, “All cried out again.” But it is otherwise in the narratives of Mark (Mark 15:8 : ἀναβοήσαςόὄχλος) and Luke (Luke 23:5; Luke 23:10 : “They were urgent saying…they vehemently accused him”). Here also the narrative of John fits perfectly into that of his predecessors. The word ληστής does not always mean robber, but sometimes a violent man in general. According to Mark and Luke, Barabbas had taken part in an insurrection in which a murder had been committed. Westcott justly observes that in these troublous times acts of violence were frequently committed under the mask of patriotism. The gravity of the choice made by the people is indicated by one of those brief clauses by which John characterizes an especially solemn moment. Comp. John 11:35, John 13:30. The name of the person who was proposed with Jesus for the choice of the people admits of two etymologies: Bar-abba, son of the father, or Bar-rabban, son of the Rabbin. In the first case, it should be written with only one r; in the second with two r’s. The first mode of writing the word is found in almost all the MSS.; it is also that of the Talmud, where this name occurs very frequently (Lightfoot, p. 489). But the term “son of the father” may mean two very different things; either: son of the father, God; or: son of the father, the Rabbin. This second meaning is more applicable to an ordinary name. That this incident should have been occasioned or skilfully taken advantage of by Pilate, to deliver Jesus in this way, was, in any case, so far as concerned him, a denial of justice.

For after the declaration of Joh 18:38, he should have released Him as innocent, and not as a malefactor liberated by way of grace. This first weakness was soon followed by another more serious one. We come to the third expedient which was tried by Pilate: the scourging of Jesus.