=Ch. 18:1-11.= THE BETRAYAL AND ARREST OF JESUS.--THE DIVINE MAJESTY
OF OUR LORD EXEMPLIFIED.--Narrated by all the Evangelists: Matt.
26:47-56; Mark 14:43-52; Luke 22:47-53. As usual where the four
Evangelists narrate the same events, John gives particulars omitted by
the others--the falling back to the ground of the guard, and Christ’s
interposition for the disciples (ver. 6-9)--and omits events recorded
by the others--the conference between Jesus and Judas, and the
traitor’s kiss (Matt. 26:49, 50; Mark 14:44, 45). That John wrote with
the other accounts before him, and to supply their omissions, is the
most reasonable explanation of these and like variations in their
accounts. He does not describe the agony in Gethsemane, because he can
add nothing to what is already told; he narrates of the arrest only
what is not already known. Even in describing the attempted resistance
to the arrest, this peculiarity is to be seen; for he alone of the
Evangelists mentions the name of the disciple who drew the sword and
of the servant who was wounded by it. The discrepancies in the four
accounts of the arrest are such as we should expect in four individual
accounts of a scene of such confusion. The probable order of events,
as indicated by a comparison of the accounts, I have given in the
notes on Matthew, which consult throughout. Here I treat only what is
peculiar to John’s account.
1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his
disciples over the brook Cedron,[657] where was a garden,
into the which he entered, and his disciples.
[657] 2 Sam. 15:23.
=1. With his disciples.= That is, with the eleven. Judas was with the
priests, consummating arrangements for the arrest of Jesus.--=Beyond
the brook of the Cedars.= Or the _black torrent_, which is the meaning
of the Hebrew, from which the Greek is derived. The word rendered
_brook_ (χείμαῤῥος) indicates a winter torrent, flowing in the rainy
season, but dry in summer. It flowed through a ravine to the east of
Jerusalem, and between it and the Mount of Olives.--=Where was a
garden.= Rather an orchard. The original signifies any place planted
with herbs and trees. This was called Gethsemane, and was a customary
resort of Christ and his disciples. See next verse; and compare Luke
22:39. On its location, see Matt. 26:36 and illustration there. On the
agony in this garden, see notes on Matt. 26:36-46. It occurred
between Christ’s entering the garden and the arrival of Judas and the
guard.
2 And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the place:
for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples.
3 Judas[658] then, having received a band _of men_ and
officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh
thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.
[658] Matt. 26:47, etc.; Mark 14:43, etc; Luke 22:47,
etc.
=2, 3. Judas then, having received the band, and, from the chief
priests and Pharisees, temple officers= (ὑπηρέτης), =cometh thither=.
The band was composed of Roman soldiers; the officers were temple
police; the former were armed with swords, the latter with staves.
Servants of the priests, and some of the priests themselves,
accompanied the force. See Matt. 26:47, note; Luke 22:52.--=With
lanterns and torches.= “The fact of its being full moon did not make
the lights unnecessary, as in searching for a prisoner they might have
to enter dark places.”--(_Alford._) They appear also to have had a
fear of attempted flight or rescue. See Matt. 26:48, note. I doubt
whether any definite distinction is intended between lanterns and
torches. The annexed cuts give illustrations of two kinds of night
torches used among the Romans. The one (_fax_), (_Rich._, p. 280) was
made out of a piece of resinous wood, cut into a point and dipped in
oil or pitch, or of inflammable materials enclosed in a tube. The
other (_lampas_), (_Rich._, p. 365) was in the nature of a
candlestick, with a handle beneath and a large disk above, to protect
the hand from the drippings of the pitchy or resinous matter of which
the torch consisted. This _lampa_ was carried by the youth of Athens
in a peculiar race, in which the winner had to outstrip his
competitors without extinguishing his light. The ancient Oriental
lantern, like those still employed in Egypt (see Lane’s _Modern
Egypt_), consisted of a wax cloth, strained over a sort of cylinder of
iron rings and a top and bottom of perforated copper. Both the Roman
torch and the Oriental lantern may have been used on this occasion.
[Illustration:
ROMAN TORCHES. ORIENTAL TORCH.]
4 Jesus therefore, knowing[659] all things that should come
upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?
[659] ch. 10:17, 18; Acts 2:28.
5 They answered him, Jesus of[660] Nazareth. Jesus saith
unto them, I am _he_. And Judas also, which betrayed him,
stood with them.
[660] ch. 19:19; Matt. 2:23.
=4, 5. Jesus, therefore, knowing all things that should come upon
him.= Not merely knowing that the guard had come to arrest him (Matt.
26:45), but with the full consciousness of all the agony of the morrow
(Matt. 20:17-19; Luke 18:31-34). Of his own will he submits to the
Passion (Matt. 26:53; John 10:18).--=Went forth.= Possibly from the
shadow of the trees into the moonlight, or from the garden walls, or
perhaps simply advanced to meet the guards. His object in so doing is
indicated by ver. 8. He put himself between the guards and his
disciples to prevent the arrest of the latter. Judas preceded the band
(Luke 22:47), and Christ’s questions addressed to the apostate, and
the traitor’s kiss (Matt. 26:49, 50; Luke 22:48), seem to have taken
place before Christ spoke to the guard.--=Jesus the Nazarene.= Jesus,
or Joshua--the names are the same--was a common one among the Jews,
and the term “Nazarene” was a customary appellation, especially by his
foes, to designate our Lord. Its tone, to the Judeans, was one of
contempt (Matt. 2:23; John 19:19).--=And there stood Judas, he that
betrayed him, with them.= If we suppose that Jesus hurried forth from
the garden, before the three disciples were well awake, to the spot
where the others had been sleeping, then, not improbably, John did not
see the traitor’s kiss, but, arriving after, saw Judas standing with
the guard, who had meanwhile come to the spot; thus he narrates only
what he personally witnessed. His language, by its very simplicity,
suggests to the imagination the contrast between Jesus and Judas, the
betrayed and the betrayer.
6 As soon then as he had said unto them, I am _he_,
they[661] went backward, and fell to the ground.
[661] Ps. 27:2; 40:14.
=6. They= (the guard) =went backward and fell to the ground=. That
this states a literal fact will not be questioned by any who believe
in the historical trustworthiness of the Gospel narratives. That it
describes a miracle, that is, a sign of the superhuman character of
Christ, is equally certain. Whether it is to be regarded as an effect
produced by the _will_ of our Lord, or by the mere _majesty_ and
_dignity_ of his mien, and his reply, is the only question which
believers in the N. T. have to consider. I think the latter. The scene
is interpreted, though not fully explained, by similar instances of
moral power excited by noble over savage natures. History records
several analogous cases, as when before Mark Antony, Marius, and
Coligny, the murderers recoiled panic-stricken. So Avidius Cassius,
“springing to the door of his tent in nightdress, quelled a mutinous
army by his mere presence.”--(_Farrar._) Lange cites Matt. 28:4; Luke
4:30; John 7:44-46; 8:59; 10:39; Acts 5:5, 10, as partially parallel.
The historical cases above referred to illustrate the _human_ power of
a noble soul; this case differs from them in that it shows the
_divine_ power of Him who not only spake as never man spake, but who
carried in his person the evidence that he was in very deed the image
of God and the brightness of his glory. This view is confirmed by the
reflection that he came forth to meet the guard from an hour of sacred
and solemn communion with God, of ecstasy unfathomable by us. “I
regard it,” says Alford, “rather as a miracle _consequent upon_ that
which Christ said and did, and the state of mind in which his enemies
were, than as one in the strict sense _wrought_ by him; bearing,
however, always in mind, that to Him nothing was unexpected or a _mere
result_, but everything foreknown.” Thus interpreted it is a striking
testimony, one of many, to the personal glory of Him who was ever full
of “grace and truth,” and gives a solemn significance to such passages
as Matt. 25:31; Rev. 1:7; 6:15-17. “If he did this when about to be
judged, what shall he do when he shall sit in judgment? If he did this
on the eve of death, what shall he do when reigning?”--(_Augustine._)
7 Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said,
Jesus of Nazareth.
8 Jesus answered, I have told you that I am _he_: if
therefore ye seek me,[662] let these go their way:
[662] Isa. 53:6; Ephes. 5:25.
=7, 8.= I surmise that the attack on the guard followed their sudden
terror. The disciples were eager to make it (Luke 22:49), though Peter
was the only one who carried the will into action. Only one other
disciple was armed (Luke 22:38). The request of Christ, “_Let these go
their way_,” was interpreted by the disciples as a direction for them
to flee, which they did. That there was anything cowardly or wrong in
this flight is by no means clear. To sanction it, both Christ’s
precept (Matt. 10:23) and his example (Luke 4:30; John 8:59; 10:39)
might be quoted. Nothing would have been gained for Christ or his
cause by the disciples subjecting themselves to arrest.
9 That the saying might be fulfilled which he spake,[663]
Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.
[663] ch. 17:12.
=9. That the saying might be fulfilled.= The saying is quoted from
Christ’s prayer, John 17:12. The present deliverance of the eleven
from physical danger was not a final fulfillment of the saying, but
was itself a historical prophecy of its further spiritual fulfillment,
as God’s providential care of us in respect to present and temporal
wants is a testimony of the love that provides even more abundantly
for every spiritual want. See Matt. 2:15, note.
10 Then[664] Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it, and
smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear.
The servant’s name was Malchus.
[664] Matt. 26:51; Mark 14:47; Luke 22:49, 50.
11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the
sheath: the cup[665] which my Father hath given me, shall I
not drink it?
[665] Matt. 20:22; 26:39, 42.
=10, 11.= Christ follows his rebuke of Peter by healing Malchus (Luke
22:51). John alone gives the name of either assailant or assailed. See
for reason, note on Matt. 26:51. Compare Christ’s language here with
Matthew’s report.--Observe that the evils brought upon us by wicked
men are yet recognized here as given by God. The sufferings inflicted
by Judas, Caiaphas, and Pilate, and rendered necessary by the sins of
the world, are yet to Christ’s faith the cup which his Father hath
given him.
* * * * *
=12-27.= THE PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF JESUS BEFORE CAIAPHAS, AND THE
DENIALS BY PETER.--This examination, narrated by John, is distinctive
from the trial reported by the Synoptists (Matt. 26:57-68; Mark
14:53-65; Luke 22:63-71). For a general consideration of the harmony
of the Gospel narratives, and of their lessons, see notes on Matthew.
If John is the other disciple referred to in verses 15, 16, he is the
only one of the Evangelists who was an eye and ear witness of these
events, and his order is presumptively the correct one. For reasons
appearing partly in the notes on Matthew, partly in the notes below, I
believe that Jesus was sent at once from Annas to Caiaphas, though the
two may have occupied different apartments in the same palace; that
the preliminary examination was conducted by Caiaphas; that while it
proceeded Peter was in the adjoining courtyard, and there denied his
Lord; that at its conclusion Jesus was conducted to the Sanhedrim,
where the formal trial reported by the Synoptists took place; and that
this trial is not described by John, perhaps because he was not
present, and wrote only of the events which he personally witnessed.
12 Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews
took Jesus, and bound him,
=12. Then the band * * * bound him.= John alone describes the binding.
This it was, probably, which called forth the remonstrance and rebuke
of Christ recorded in Matt. 26:55, 56; Luke 22:52, 53. “To apprehend
and bind One, all gave their help: the cohort, the chiliarch, and the
Jewish officers. This the Evangelist brings prominently forward, to
show how deep the impression of that previous incident still was: only
_by the help of all_ did they feel themselves secure. And thus
it was ordered that the disciples might escape with the more
safety.”--(_Luthardt._)
13 And led him away to Annas[666] first; for he was father
in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same
year.
[666] Luke 3:2.
14 Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel[667] to the
Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the
people.
[667] ch. 11:49, 50.
=13, 14. Annas first.= Annas was appointed High Priest of the Jews A.
D. 7, but had been removed by the Roman Procurator several years
previous, and Joseph Caiaphas, his son-in-law, had been appointed in
his stead. In Luke 3:2 both are designated as high-priests, and in
Acts 4:6; 23:2, the title is given to Annas. The probable explanation
is that while Caiaphas held the office, he was really controlled by
his father-in-law, who may have been regarded by the Jews as their
true high-priest, notwithstanding his deposition by the Romans. He
seems to have been one of that class of politicians who are willing
that others should possess the honors and offices, provided they may
wield the powers of the state.--=Caiaphas.= See Matt. 26:57,
note.--=That same year.= The high-priest was originally appointed for
life, but the office was now filled by appointees of the Roman
government. There were no fewer than twenty-eight high-priests from
the reign of Herod to the destruction of the temple by Titus. Of
these, five besides Caiaphas were sons of Annas. It is possible that
there is a delicate sarcasm in John’s incidental allusion to the
transitoriness of the office. This, at least, seems to me better than
to render the original (ενιατός) _era_ instead of _year_, though that
is a possible translation, or to suppose, with Prof. Fisher, that John
thus simply emphasizes the supreme importance which that year, of the
trial and crucifixion of Jesus, had in his mind.--=Which gave
counsel.= See John 11:49-51.
15 And[668] Simon Peter followed Jesus, and _so did_
another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high
priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high
priest.
[668] Matt. 26:58, etc.; Mark 14:54; Luke 22:54.
=15. Another disciple.= Who this other disciple was is not certainly
known, though Alford says “there is no reason to doubt the universal
persuasion that by this name John intends _himself_, and refers to the
mention in ch. 13:23 of a disciple whom Jesus loved.” The notion that
it was Judas Iscariot is refuted by the language of this verse. Judas
did not follow Jesus, but accompanied the band; and that Peter should
have entered the palace under the protection of Judas after the
betrayal is incredible. Some manuscripts have the reading _the_ other
disciple, which would identify him with John (ch. 20:2, 3, 4). But it
seems more probable that the article was added by some copyist to give
definiteness to the expression, than that it was subsequently
omitted.--=Was known unto the high-priest.= How, we have no means of
ascertaining. John 19:27 is, however, thought to indicate that the
apostle John had a house in Jerusalem.--=Into the palace of the
high-priest.= Since John describes Caiaphas as high-priest, this verse
clearly indicates that Jesus was taken at once from Annas to Caiaphas.
See on ver. 24.
16 But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that
other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and
spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.
17 Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art
not thou also _one_ of this man’s disciples? He saith, I am
not.
=16, 17.= See Matt. 26:69, note, and illustration there. The
doorkeeper was not unfrequently a maid (Acts 12:13). The language
here, Art not thou _also_ one of his disciples? indicates that John
was known to her as a disciple, and that Peter’s first denial was
uttered on entering, and for the purpose of gaining an entrance.
Observe that it is not being in bad company, but fellowship in it,
that is dangerous. Peter and John were both in the same company, but
one concealed his discipleship, the other did not.
[Illustration: ANCIENT FIRE UTENSILS.
1, 2. Braziers.
3. Fire-hod.
4. Bellows.
5. Tongs.]
18 And the servants and officers stood there, who had
made a fire of coals; for it was cold: and they warmed
themselves: and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself.
=18. The servants * * * had made a fire of coals.= Probably an open
fire in a portable stove or brazier, in the open courtyard around
which the Jewish house was customarily built. It is doubtful whether
chimneys were known to the ancients; they were certainly very rare.
Fires were built sometimes in a little brazier or chafing-dish,
sometimes in a small portable stove or fireplace. The fire was always
carried from one room to another in a fire-basket made of iron, with
perforated sides, to create a draft of air. Bellows and tongs were
also in use among them. The accompanying illustrations, taken from
ancient bronzes and paintings, will give the reader an idea of these
articles. Peter, by joining the group around the fire and concealing
his true character, identified himself with the persecutors of Christ.
19 The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and
of his doctrine.
20 Jesus answered him, I spake[669] openly to the world. I
ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither
the Jews always resort; and[670] in secret have I said
nothing.
[669] ch. 7:14, 26, 28; 8:2; Luke 4:15.
[670] Acts 26:26.
21 Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have
said unto them: behold, they know what I said.
=19-21. The high-priest then asked Jesus.= It was customary among the
Jews to subject an accused person to an examination analogous to
that practised at a later day in the Inquisition. Witnesses
concealed behind a screen reduced his replies to writing. To such an
examination, preliminary to his formal trial, Jesus Christ was now
subjected.--=Of his disciples and of his doctrine.= The object of the
first question was to get evidence against his adherents, the object
of the second to get evidence against Jesus himself. To the first
Jesus pays no attention; to the second he interposes a calm and
dignified protest.--=I spoke openly.= Rather freely, boldly. The
original (παῤῥησία) signifies literally _speaking out all_, that is,
free-spokenness. Observe that boldness and frankness of utterance are
essential qualifications of the true preacher.--=In secret have I said
nothing.= Some truths he had reserved because they could not be
understood (John 16:12, 25), and others which he had taught were not
understood (Matt. 13:13; 1 Cor. 2:7, 8); but there were no mysteries
in his religious teaching which he had sought to conceal and for which
he was amenable.--=Ask them which heard me.= Not improbably some of
the very officers so strangely affected by his preaching were present.
If so, this appeal to their own subordinates would have incensed the
priests, by making manifest their own injustice.
22 And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which
stood by struck[671] Jesus with the palm of his hand,
saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?
[671] Job 16:10; Jer. 20:2; Acts 23:2, 3.
23 Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness
of the evil: but[672] if well, why smitest thou me?
[672] 1 Pet. 2:19-23.
=22, 23. With the palm of his hand.= Or _with a staff_; either meaning
is admissible. Contrast with Christ’s calm rejoinder Paul’s response
to similar maltreatment (Acts 23:3).--The commentators note in
Christ’s course here his own interpretation of Matt. 5:39. “An angry
man may turn in sullenness the other cheek visibly to the smiter;
better is he who makes a true answer with mildness, and prepares his
heart in peace to endure great sufferings.”--(_Augustine._) “Christ
forbids self-defence with the hand, not with the tongue.”--(_Luther._)
“Christ’s precept does not exclude the remonstrance against unjust
oppression, provided it be done calmly and patiently.”--(_Alford._)
24 Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high
priest.
=24. Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas.= Some scholars (so
Alford, Lange, and Meyer) render this verse, _Sent him bound_, and
suppose that Jesus was sent from Annas to Caiaphas at this time; but
Winer (p. 275, § 40, 5_a_) and Buttman (p. 200, § 137) show that the
aorist is sometimes used for the pluperfect, as rendered by our
English version, and that the sentence may be accordingly regarded
grammatically as parenthetical. I believe (see ver. 15, note) that
this is the true construction, and that the parenthesis is introduced
at this place for the purpose of showing that Jesus was still bound
when the indignity here described was inflicted upon him.
[Illustration: DENIALS OF PETER.]
25 And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said
therefore unto him, Art not thou also _one_ of his
disciples? He denied _it_, and said, I am not.
26 One of the servants of the high priest, being _his_
kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee
in the garden with him?
27 Peter then denied again: and[673] immediately the cock
crew.
[673] ch. 13:38; Matt. 26:74; Mark 14:72; Luke 22:60.
=25-27. Peter stood and warmed himself.= In apparent indifference to
his Lord; concerned only for his comfort, and absorbed in his
curiosity.-- =Did not I see thee?= This question was apparently put to
Peter after he had retreated to the porch. It must be remembered that
Peter’s danger was real and imminent; for his assault on Malchus had
rendered him amenable to legal penalty. On the denial and its lessons,
see notes on Matt. 26:69-75.
* * * * *
[Illustration: JESUS BEFORE PILATE.
“_Art thou the king of the Jews._”]
Ch. 18:28 to ch. 19:16. TRIAL OF JESUS BEFORE PILATE.--THE CONSCIENCE
OF THE CEREMONIALIST (28).--JESUS A KING; HIS KINGDOM TRUTH; ITS
DEFENCES NOT WORLDLY; IT CONQUERS ONLY THE WILLING (33-38).--IN CHRIST
NO FAULT (38; ch. 19:4, 6).--THE WORLD CHOOSES BARABBAS AND REJECTS
CHRIST (39, 40).--CROWNED SUFFERING (ch. 19:1-3).--BEHOLD THE MAN
(5).--BEHOLD YOUR KING (14).--THE TESTIMONY OF THE JEWS TO THE
DIVINITY OF CHRIST (7).--THE SILENCE OF JESUS (9).--THE END OF
REJECTING CHRIST IS REJECTING GOD: WE HAVE NO KING BUT CÆSAR
(15).--THE CRIME OF COWARDICE ILLUSTRATED BY PILATE.
This trial is reported also in Matt. 27:11-31; Mark 15:1-23; Luke
23:1-25. John’s account is the fullest, and has indications of being
by an eye and ear witness; but he does not mention Pilate’s wife’s
dream and Pilate’s washing of his hands in attestation of his
innocence, recorded only by Matthew, nor the accusation preferred by
the priests and the sending of Jesus to Herod, recorded only by Luke.
For chronological order of events, see Matt. 27:11-31, Prel. Note. For
a consideration of the character of Pilate, the reasons for his
vacillating course, and the practical lessons to be drawn from it, see
note below, ver. 16. The place of this trial I believe to have been
the tower of Antonia; the reason for the trial is explained in ver. 31
(see note there).
28 Then[674] led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of
judgment; and it was early; and they themselves went not
into the judgment hall, lest[675] they should be defiled;
but that they might eat the passover.
[674] Matt. 27:2, etc.; Mark 15:1, etc.; Luke 23:1,
etc.
[675] Acts 10:28.
29 Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What
accusation bring ye against this man?
=28, 29. Unto the hall of judgment.= Literally Prætorium--the name
given among the Romans to the headquarters of the Roman military
governor, wherever he happened to be; here it is the residence which
Pilate occupied in Jerusalem. Whether that was the palace of King
Herod, as Farrar and others have supposed, or the tower of Antonia, is
uncertain; more probably the latter, which was at the time and long
afterwards the citadel of Jerusalem, the headquarters of the army, and
the residence of the Roman governors. It was built upon the same broad
platform of solid rock upon which the temple stood, and so adjoined
the walls of the latter that the Gentile camp seemed a part of the
Jewish sanctuary. Four towers at its four corners gave it the
appearance of a castle and the strength of a fortress. One of these
towers looked down into the broad courts of the temple, and thus
subjected all the gatherings there to the oversight of the hated
heathen, while its gates, opening directly into those courts, rendered
it easy, at a moment’s notice, to quell any disturbance which might
occur there.--=And it was early.= The original (πρωΐᾳ) properly
signifies the period between daybreak and sunrise (John 20:1), but it
is also used in a more general sense to signify the early part of the
forenoon (Matt. 21:18), and that must be its meaning here, for this
trial before Pilate occurred certainly after the cock-crowing, and
probably the formal trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrim and the
subsequent deliberations of the Sanhedrim to secure the execution of
the death-sentence intervened between the cock-crowing and their
conducting Jesus to Pilate.--=Lest they should be defiled.= According
to the Pharisaic ideas they could not enter a Gentile house without
defilement, and this precluded their participation in the passover,
which in such case must be postponed by those who were defiled (Numb.
9:6-11). A curious illustration of the fallibility of conscience is
this superstition of the Pharisees, who feared defilement from
entering the house of a heathen, but none from the endeavor to secure
by fraud and violence the condemnation of their Lord.--=That they
might eat the Passover.= Here not the paschal supper, but the festival
which followed it, and which lasted for seven days. See Note on the
Lord’s Supper, Matt. 26:30. The paschal supper itself I believe to
have been observed the night before. An incidental confirmation of
this opinion is afforded by Wieseler, quoted in Lange, who asserts
that chronological calculations show that in the year 30, the 14th of
Nisan, on the evening of which the supper proper took place, actually
fell on a Thursday; and it is certain that the crucifixion of Christ
occurred on Friday. If Wieseler is correct, the Lord’s Supper must
have been the true paschal supper.--=Pilate went out unto them.=
Pontius Pilate was the Roman procurator or resident governor of Judea
at this time. On his authority, see Matt. 27:2, note; on his
character, career, and course here, see note below, ch. 19:16. His
going out to them was itself a concession.--=Against this man.=
Probably he knew something of Jesus (Matt. 27:18, 19); for a guard had
been furnished from his headquarters for the arrest of Jesus (John
18:3, note).
30 They answered and said unto him, If he were not a
malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.
=30. They answered=, etc. It seems to have been their endeavor to
secure the ratification of the death-sentence without any hearing,
partly because they knew that the Roman governor would be indifferent
to the charge of blasphemy (Acts 18:14-17), and partly because their
pride revolted against submitting the decision of their court to the
hated Gentile.
31 Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him
according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It
is not lawful for us[676] to put any man to death:
[676] Gen. 49:10; Ezek. 21:27.
=31. Then said Pilate, Take ye him and judge him. * * * It is not
lawful for us to put any man to death.= It seems to have been the
custom of the Romans to take into their own hands in conquered
provinces the power of life and death, as one of the principal
attributes of sovereignty. There is no good reason to doubt that this
had been done in Palestine, and that the Sanhedrim had no longer power
to execute the death-sentence. The execution of Stephen, though in a
certain sense sanctioned by the Sanhedrim, was the act of a mob (Acts
7:57, 58). Pilate’s answer to the demand of the priests is ironical, a
bitter reminder to them that they had no longer the power of
sovereignty. Other interpretations, such as that they had no power to
crucify, or none to execute on the feast-day, or none to punish crimes
against the state, are both unnecessary and improbable.
32 That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he
spake,[677] signifying what death he should die.
[677] Matt. 20:19; Luke 18:32, 33.
=32. That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, signifying=, etc.
See ch. 12:32, 33; Matt. 20:18, 19, where Christ foretold his
crucifixion. It was also hinted at in O. T. prophecy (Numb. 21:8, 9,
with John 3:14; Ps. 22:16, 18; Isa. 53:8, 9). Death was inflicted
under the Jewish law by stoning (Deut. 13:9, 10; 17:5-7). Calvin
observes the indication in this that Christ’s death in all its
particulars fulfills the eternal purpose of God. Comp. Acts 2:23.
33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and
called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the
Jews?
=33. Then Pilate entered into the judgment-hall again.= Meantime the
priests had framed and presented their accusation of sedition (Luke
23:2). This accusation may well have perplexed Pilate. Christ had
claimed to be King; promulgated laws; organized in the heart of
Cæsar’s province the germ of an imperishable kingdom; entered
Jerusalem in triumph, hailed by the throng as King of the Jews; and
his arrest had been forcibly resisted by one of his followers. These
facts a wily priesthood could easily pervert and exaggerate so as to
give color to their accusation. How unscrupulous they were is evident
from a comparison of Luke 23:2 with ch. 20:22-25.--=And called Jesus.=
For a private examination apart from the priests and the gathering
mob.
34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself,
or did others tell it thee of me?
35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own[678] nation and
the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast
thou done?
[678] ch 19:11; Acts 3:13.
=34, 35. Jesus answered him=, etc.--This question is not asked for
information as to the nature of the charge preferred against him and
the character of his accusers, for evidently Jesus was present when
they preferred it; nor as a means of ascertaining in what sense Pilate
used the title _king_, whether in the Jewish sense, to signify the
promised founder of the kingdom of heaven, or in a Roman sense, to
signify a political kingdom antagonistic to Jewish authority. For he
who knew what was in man, understood Pilate’s character and mind. It
was the most forcible possible reply to the accusation. Who, he asks,
has preferred this charge? The Jews. Pilate’s mind instantly grasps
the conclusion. “If it had been preferred by a Roman centurion, it
would have been worthy of examination. But when was it ever known that
the Jewish priesthood complained of one who sought the political
emancipation of the nation? None knew better than Pilate how uneasy
were the people under the Roman yoke. The voices of the mob before the
judgment-seat crying out for Jesus’ blood were unwitting witnesses of
his innocence.”--(_Lyman Abbott’s Jesus of Nazareth._)--The reply had
the desired effect. Pilate’s response, “Am I a Jew? Thine own nation
and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me,” shows how quickly
he filled out the argument which Christ by a question suggested to his
mind.--=What hast thou done?= An honest question. He rejects the
testimony of the priesthood to the sedition of the prisoner (Luke
23:2), and appeals to Jesus himself to explain their enmity.
36 Jesus[679] answered, My[680] kingdom is not of this
world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my
servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews:
but now is my kingdom not from hence.
[679] 1 Tim. 6:13.
[680] ch. 6:15; Ps. 45:3, 6; Isa. 9:6, 7; Dan. 2:44;
7:14; Zech. 9:9; Luke 12:14; Rom. 14:17; Col. 1:13.
=36. Jesus answered.= Honest perplexity he would not refuse to answer.
Contrast his silence before Caiaphas (Matt. 26:62), Herod (Luke 23:9),
and later before Pilate himself (John 19:9).--=My kingdom is not of
this world.= Its origin is not from the earth. The preposition _of_
(ἐκ) signifies the source or origin from which anything springs.
Christ’s kingdom is _in_ the world and _over_ the world, but not
_from_ the world nor maintained by worldly means.--=If my kingdom were
of this world, then would my servants fight.= Not angels, of which
Pilate knew nothing; nor the twelve, of whom it is doubtful whether he
knew anything. The argument was one which readily addressed itself to
Pilate’s understanding. If Jesus were an earthly king, his followers
would have defended him from arrest by his enemies and theirs. It is
true Peter had done so (ver. 10), but he had been rebuked, and the
wound he inflicted had been miraculously healed, so that the
priesthood could not appeal to this resistance in support of their
charge, except by misrepresenting it.--=That I should not be delivered
to the Jews.= _Jews_ generally in John means the Judeans, the
inhabitants of the southern province of Palestine, who were Christ’s
especial opponents.--=But now is my kingdom not from hence.= _Now_
is not here a particle of time, but of connection. That is, the
meaning is not, My kingdom is not _now_ of this world, as though its
temporal power and glory was to come by and by, but, _Thus_ you see my
kingdom is not, etc. The former meaning has been given to the word by
some Roman Catholic commentators, to break the force of the
declaration as a testimony against the temporal power of the Pope and
the priesthood. For similar connective use of the particle (νῦν)
_now_, see Acts 12:11; 22:16; 1 Cor. 14:6. Observe in this verse: (1)
A distinct declaration of the supernatural origin and character of
Christ’s kingdom. Christianity is not a development of _human
thought_, but a gift to man _from God_. Comp. John 3:3; 8:23; 13:3;
Rev. 21:2. (2) It is to be defended by spiritual, not by earthly or
physical means. With the spirit of this declaration all attempts to
maintain the church or its truth by civil enactment or the power of
the sword are inconsistent. How little the spiritual nature of
Christ’s kingdom was understood in the middle ages is indicated by the
fact that even Calvin, on this passage, argues that kings and princes
may “employ all the power they possess in defending the church and
maintaining godliness.” (3) The strength and permanence of Christ’s
kingdom as compared with kingdoms built up on or defended by might of
arms. “Here he sheweth the weakness of kingship among us, that its
strength lies in servants; but that which is above is sufficient for
itself, needing nothing.”--(_Chrysostom._)
37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then?
Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end
was I born, and for this cause came I into the
world, that I should bear[681] witness unto the truth.
Every one[682] that is of the truth heareth my voice.
[681] Isa. 55:4; Rev. 1:5; 3:14.
[682] ch. 8:47; 1 John 4:6.
=37. Art thou then not a king?= Or perhaps, with a touch of irony,
_Thou art then a king_. Either rendering is admissible (see _Winer_,
p. 512).--=Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest= (truly); =for I am a
king=. This is truer to the original than our English version. The
first clause of the sentence, “_Thou sayest_,” is a common form of
Jewish affirmation, and was not confined to the Jews (Matt. 26:64,
note). The second clause gives emphasis to this affirmation, and the
reason for it, _for I am a king_. Observe how the solemn testimony of
Christ to his divine Messiahship before Caiaphas is here, in a
different form, reiterated before Pilate.--=To this end was I born,
and for this cause came I into the world.= The first clause does not
necessarily imply a pre-existence, because, in a sense, every creature
is born to fulfil a divine purpose; but the second clause would be
tautological, a mere repetition of the first, if it did not indicate a
coming into the world from a pre-existent state and for a particular
purpose. And Pilate seems to have partially, at least, so understood
it (ch. 19:9, note).--=Every one that is of the truth= (ἐκ τῆς
ἀληθειάς). _Proceeding from the truth_; that is, who has so far come
under the influence of truth, is so far born anew by the power of the
truth on his own soul, as to be a sincere seeker after truth, and
hence, in a deeper sense, so far under the influence of the Spirit of
God, who is the Truth, as to be seeking to know Him who is the Truth
incarnate in human life. Parallel to this declaration are John 6:45;
8:47. Observe, (1) Jesus Christ is not only a teacher, an example, and
a Saviour, but a King; and we can accept him as a Saviour only as we
accept him as our King (John 15:10; 1 John 3:22-24); (2) the object of
his incarnation is to testify to the truth, which he does by his
words, and yet more by incarnating the truth in living forms,
perfectly in his own life, imperfectly in the lives of his followers;
(3) they only hear (_receive_) him, in whom the spirit of
truth-seeking already exists. Comp. Matt. 13:13-15.
38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had
said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto
them, I find in him no fault _at all_.
=38. What is truth?= This famous inquiry of Pilate is certainly not
the inquiry of an honest seeker for truth (_Chrysostom_), for he does
not even wait for an answer; nor apparently the disconsolate question
of one who despaired of ever arriving at a standard of truth
(_Olshausen_), for there is no evidence that he had ever sought to
know the truth, either in philosophy or in religion; nor the scoffing
question of one who believes that truth can never be found (_Alford_),
and whose modern type is the positivist who believes that all creeds
are false, and God, immortality, and the soul are unknowable, for
there is nothing to indicate that such problems had any interest for
him. It is rather asked, half in pity, half in contempt, the question
of the practical man of the world, to whom this conception of a
kingdom built on truth and maintained without army or exchequer seemed
but the baseless phantom of a harmless religious enthusiast
(_Ellicott_).
39 But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one
at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you
the King of the Jews?
40 Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but
Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.
=39, 40.= It is apparently at this point in the trial that Pilate
sends Jesus to Herod; on his return the demand is made by the people
for the customary release of a prisoner (Mark 15:8), and in reply to
this demand he makes the proposition, reported by all the Evangelists,
to release Jesus.--On the character of Barabbas, see note on Matt.
27:15-18. On the contrast between Barabbas and Jesus, see Acts 3:14.
The origin of the custom here referred to is not known. It is
difficult to conceive why John should omit the sending of Jesus to
Herod (Luke 23:5-7) and Pilate’s wife’s dream and Pilate’s washing of
his hands (Matt. 27:20-25), unless he wrote with the other Gospels
before him, and therefore omitted what they had sufficiently
described.--=At the Passover.= Not necessarily on the day of the
paschal feast, but during the Passover week.