1‐7. *Jesus retires to the Garden of Gethsemani, where, having
been betrayed by Judas, He freely delivers Himself up, after He
had first shown His almighty power, by casting His enemies to the
ground.*
8‐11. *He requests that the Apostles be allowed to depart
unmolested, and forbids Peter to defend Him with the sword.*
12‐14. *He is seized, bound, and led before Annas.*
15‐27. *He is led before Caiphas, followed by Peter and John, and
while being examined there, is thrice denied by Peter.*
28‐38. *He is led before Pilate, the Roman Governor, and examined
by him.*
39‐40. *Pilate attempts to release Jesus, but the crowd calls for
the release of Barabbas.*
1. Haec cum dixisset Iesus, 1. When Jesus had said these
egressus est cum discipulis things, he went forth with his
suis trans torrentem Cedron, disciples over the brook
ubi erat hortus in quem Cedron, where there was a
introivit ipse, et discipuli garden, into which he entered
eius. with his disciples.
1. Having finished His last discourses to the Apostles, and His prayer to
the Father, Jesus accompanied by the Apostles now proceeds towards Mount
Olivet (Matt xxvi. 36; Mark xiv. 32), crossing the brook of Cedron on His
way. As we stated already, we believe that the discourse (xv. 1‐xvi. 33)
and the prayer after the Last Supper were not spoken while Christ and the
Apostles passed along, but at some point of rest either outside the
Supper‐room or along the way. See above on xiv. 31. Nor are we to suppose
from the words of this verse, “He went forth,” that it was only now Christ
and the Apostles left the Supper‐room. As we remarked already, had Christ
and the Apostles not left the Supper‐room when He gave the word to do so
(xiv. 31), St. John would very probably have noted the fact, and added
some word of explanation. In the verse before us, then, there is not
question of going forth from the Supper‐room but of going forth from the
city. Comp. Matthew xxvi. 30, 36; Mark xiv. 26, 32.
*Over the brook Cedron.* Many authorities read “over the brook of the
cedars” (τῶν κέδρων). *Where there was a garden.* SS. Matthew and Mark say
that He came to “an enclosed piece of ground” (χωρίον), called Gethsemani.
“Gethsemani—גת, (gath) = a wine‐press, and שׂמן (shemen) = oil—was the
spot where the prediction of Isaias was fulfilled: ‘I have trodden the
wine press alone’ (Isaias lxviii. 3). A modern garden, enclosed by a wall,
in which are some old olive‐trees, said to date from the time of Christ,
is now pointed out as the Garden of Gethsemani. It is on the left bank of
the Kedron, about seven hundred and thirty feet from the east wall of the
city, and immediately south of the road, from St. Stephen’s Gate to the
summit of Olivet .... This garden is, there is little reason to doubt, the
spot alluded to by Eusebius, when he says (_O. S._, 2, pp. 248, 18) that
‘Gethsemane was at the foot of the Mount of Olives, and was then a place
of prayer for the faithful’ ” (Smith’s _B. D._, _sub voc_).
The Cedron is a small _winter‐flowing_ (χειμάῤῥον) stream, which passes
through the ravine below the eastern wall of Jerusalem, and separates the
Mount of Olives from the Temple mount. For mention of it in the Old
Testament see 3 Kings ii. 37; xv. 13; 4 Kings xxi. ii. 4; Jer. xxxi. 40.
St. John passes over the history of the prayer in the garden, of the
appearance of the angel to strengthen Christ, and of the sweat of blood,
because all this had been already recorded by the Synoptic Evangelists.
(Matt. xxvi. 38‐44; Mark xiv. 34‐40; Luke xxii. 40‐44.)
2. Sciebat autem et Iudas qui 2. And Judas also, who
tradebat eum, locum: quia betrayed him, knew the place:
frequenter Iesus convenerant because Jesus had often
illuc cum discipulis suis. resorted thither together with
his disciples.
2. *Who betrayed him.* In the original the present participle marks the
process of betrayal as going on. *Jesus had often resorted thither with
his disciples.* The original might be rendered more exactly “Jesus and
(with) his disciples often assembled there.” We know from St. Luke xxi.
37, that our Lord on the occasion of this last visit to Jerusalem was in
the habit of spending His nights on Mount Olivet, and the same Evangelist
tells us that, on this occasion after the Last Supper, “going out he went
according to his custom to the Mount of Olives” (Luke xxii. 39).
3. Iudas ergo cum accepisset 3. Judas therefore having
cohortem, et a pontificibus et received a band of soldiers,
pharisaeis ministros, venit and servants from the chief
illuc cum laternis, et priests and the Pharisees,
facibus, et armis. cometh thither with lanterns
and torches and weapons.
3. *A band of soldiers.* If “the band” here means a whole cohort, it was
the tenth part of a Roman legion, and contained about six hundred
infantry, with thirty cavalry. The words of this verse, as well as the
presence of the “tribune” (verse 12), who was the commander of a cohort,
justify the belief that a whole cohort was present on this occasion. Very
likely the authorities were afraid that a strongly‐supported attempt might
be made to save or rescue Christ from them. This large body of soldiers,
strengthened by servants or officers of the temple (ὑπηρέτας) who were
sent by the chief‐priests and Pharisees, came furnished with arms and
lights. As it was now full moon, this being the night of the 14th of the
lunar month Nisan, it might seem that the lights were unnecessary, but
probably the garden was considerably shaded by trees, and no doubt it was
feared that Jesus might try to hide in some dark nook or lurk beneath the
shrubs or trees.
4. Iesus itaque sciens omnia 4. Jesus therefore knowing all
quae ventura erant super eum, things that should come upon
processit, et dixit eis: Quem him, went forth, and said to
quaeritis? them: Whom seek ye?
4. Christ’s foreknowledge is pointed out, both to prove His Divinity, and
to show His readiness to suffer. For, though aware of the sufferings He
was to endure, He did not seek to escape from them. He who had before
withdrawn from His enemies (viii. 59; xii. 36, &c.), now that His hour was
come, _went forth_ (from the enclosure of the garden) to meet them.
We learn from St. Luke (xxii. 47) that Judas preceded the soldiers, and
gave the traitor’s kiss to Jesus, thus marking Him out as the person to be
arrested. We learn too from St. Matthew (xxvi. 50), that Jesus addressed
the traitor, even in this hour of infamy as His friend: “Friend, whereto
art thou come?” and from St. Luke (xxii. 48), that He addressed to him the
pathetic words: “Judas, dost thou betray the Son of Man with a kiss?”
After meekly receiving the kiss from the wretched Apostle, Jesus addressed
the crowd.
5. Responderunt ei: Iesum 5. They answered him: Jesus of
Nazarenum. Dicit eis Iesus: Nazareth. Jesus saith to them:
Ego sum. Stabat autem et Iudas I am he. And Judas also, who
qui tradebat eum, cum ipsis. betrayed him, stood with them.
6. Ut ergo dixit eis, Ego sum, 6. As soon therefore as he had
abierunt retrorsum, et said to them: I am he: they
ceciderunt in terram. went backward, and fell to the
ground.
5, 6. If our view is correct, that the traitor’s kiss had preceded
Christ’s question: “Whom seek ye?” then it would seem that the soldiers
were withheld by Divine power from at once rushing on Jesus; and in order
to visibly prove His power and His ability to escape from them if He
wished, they were stricken to the ground. This prostration of Christ’s
enemies cannot be explained on natural grounds.
7. Iterum ergo interrogavit 7. Again therefore he asked
eos: Quem quaeritis? Illi them: Whom seek ye? And they
autem dixerunt: Iesum said: Jesus of Nazareth.
Nazarenum.
8. Respondit Iesus: Dixi vobis 8. Jesus answered, I have told
quia ego sum: si ergo me you, that I am he. If
quaeritis, sinite hos abire. therefore you seek me, let
these go their way.
8. *Let these go their way.* The meaning obviously is, do not arrest or
molest these My disciples.
9. Ut impleretur sermo quem 9. That the word might be
dixit; Quia quos dedisti mihi, fulfilled, which he said: Of
non perdidi ex eis quemquam. them whom thou hast given me,
I have not lost any one.
9. The Evangelist sees in Christ’s care for the safety of the disciples on
this occasion a fulfilment of His words recorded in xvii. 12. It is true
those words as spoken seem to refer only to the time then past, but as
Christ then knew that He would continue to guard the Apostles from danger
during the few hours of His life that remained, He meant the words to
express His care for the Apostles up to the moment of His death, and
therefore on this occasion at Gethsemani. His present action was,
accordingly, one fulfilment of what is recorded in xvii. 12. We believe
that Christ’s care for the Apostles in the present instance regarded their
bodies as well as their souls. That it regarded their bodies, may be
fairly concluded from His words: “let these go their way;” and that it
regarded their souls is clear from the consideration that if arrested now
they would probably have fallen into sin by denying Him.
10. Simon ergo Petrus habens 10. Then Simon Peter having a
gladium eduxit eum: et sword, drew it; and struck the
percussit pontificis servum: servant of the high‐priest,
et abscidit auriculam eius and cut off his right ear. And
dexteram. Erat autem nomen the name of the servant was
servo Malchus. Malchus.
10. The Synoptic Evangelists merely say that _one_ of those who were with
Jesus struck the servant of the high‐priest, but St. John tells us that
this one was Peter. The Synoptists may have suppressed Peter’s name
through fear of inconvenient consequences to him, but now that the Prince
of the Apostles was dead, there was no further reason for such
concealment. We cannot say whether any other motive than a desire for
historic completeness prompted St. John to give, as he does, the servant’s
name as well as Peter’s.
11. Dixit ergo Iesus Petro: 11. Jesus therefore said to
Mitte gladium tuum in vaginam. Peter: Put up thy sword into
Calicem, quem dedit mihi the scabbard. The chalice
Pater, non bibam illum? which my Father hath given me,
shall I not drink it?
11. *Put up thy sword into the scabbard.* The words are given more fully
by St. Matt. (xxvi. 52, ff). *The chalice ... shall I not drink it?* In
Matt. xxvi. 39, we read that on this same night, and in Gethsemani, before
the arrival of Judas, Christ had prayed: “Father, if it be possible, let
this chalice pass from me;” but now, since it was not to pass, He accepts
it willingly.
12. Cohors ergo, et tribunus 12. Then the band and the
et ministri Iudaeorum tribune, and the servants of
comprehenderunt Iesum, et the Jews, took Jesus, and
ligaverunt eum: bound him:
12. The *tribune* was the commander of the cohort. χιλιάρχος, strictly
taken, means the commander of one thousand men. See above on verse 3.
13. Et adduxerunt eum ad Annam 13. And they led him away to
primum: erat enim socer Annas first, for he was
Caiphae, qui erat pontifex father‐in‐law to Caiphas, who
anni illius. was high‐priest of that year.
13. This journey to Annas is mentioned only by St. John. Annas, though not
the actual high‐priest, was the head of the Sanhedrim, and a man of great
authority among the Jews (see above on xi. 49), and so Jesus was brought
before him in the first instance.
14. Erat autem Caiphas, qui 14. Now Caiphas was he who had
consilium dederat Iudaeis: given the counsel to the Jews,
Quia expedit, unum hominem that it was expedient that one
mori pro populo. man should die for the people.
15. Sequebatur autem Iesum 15. And Simon Peter followed
Simon Petrus, et alias Jesus, and so did another
discipulus. Discipulus autem disciple. And that disciple
ille erat notus pontifici, et was known to the high‐priest,
introivit cum Iesu in atrium and went in with Jesus into
pontificis. the court of the high‐priest.
15. The other disciple was almost certainly our Evangelist himself (see
Introd. I. B. 2); and the fact that he was known to the high‐priest makes
it probable that he belonged to a family of some importance.
But who is the high‐priest into whose court Peter and John followed Jesus?
Is it Caiphas that is meant, or Annas? Some think the reference is to
Annas, who, it must be admitted, is called “high‐priest” by St. Luke (Luke
iii. 2; Acts iv. 6), and to whom it has just been stated, in verse 13,
that Jesus was led. But as our Evangelist has just stated in verse 13, as
he also does in xi. 49, that Caiphas was high‐priest for that year, we
prefer to hold that the “high‐priest” here referred to is not Annas, but
Caiphas. We hold, then, that what is recorded by St. John in this passage
(verses 15‐23) took place in the court of Caiphas, after Jesus had been
led thither from Annas, and that verse 24: “Annas (_had_) sent,” &c., is
added by St. John to guard the reader against supposing that what is
recorded in verses 15‐23 took place at the house of Annas. St. Cyril of
Alexandria, and a few Greek and Syrian MSS. read verse 24 between verses
13 and 14.
In this view the account of St. John harmonizes at once with the Synoptic
Gospels, which represent St. Peter’s first denial, recorded in verse 17
here, as taking place in the court of Caiphas.
Many commentators of note, such as Patrizzi among Catholics, and Alford
among Protestants, reconcile St. John’s account with that of the Synoptic
Evangelists in another way. They hold that the events recorded in verses
15‐23 took place when Jesus was brought before Annas; but as Caiphas and
Annas occupied an official residence in common, or as Annas was, perhaps,
the guest of Caiphas, his son‐in‐law, on this night of the Paschal Supper,
though it was _Annas_ who examined Christ, as recorded by St. John (verses
10‐23), yet it was to the court of Caiphas, or the common court attached
to the house of Annas and Caiphas, that Jesus entered (verse 15); and
there, too, St. Peter denied His Master for the first time. In any of the
above opinions, St. John agrees with the Synoptic Evangelists, that the
place of St. Peter’s first denial was the court of Caiphas: but in the
second opinion, the “high priest” of verse 19 is Annas, not Caiphas. See
Patriz., Liber ii. Adnot. clxxvii.
From St. Matthew (xxvi. 59) and St. Mark (xiv. 55) we learn that Caiphas
was not alone on this occasion. The whole Sanhedrim was present; but as
the case was an important one, this body had to meet again formally after
day‐dawn, to finally decide it. See below on verse 28.
16. Petrus autem stabat ad 16. But Peter stood at the
ostium foris. Exivit ergo door without. The other
discipulus alius qui erat disciple therefore who was
notus pontifici, et dixit known to the high‐priest, went
ostiariae: et introduxit out, and spoke to the
Petrum. portress, and brought in
Peter.
16. *But Peter stood* (was standing) *at the door without*. “An oriental
house is usually built round a quadrangular interior court; into which
there is a passage (sometimes arched) through the front part of the house,
closed next the street by a heavy folding gate, with a small wicket for
single persons, kept by a porter. In the text, the interior court, often
paved or flagged, and open to the sky, is the αὐλή, where the attendants
made a fire; and the passage, beneath the front of the house, from the
street to this court is the προαύλιον (Mark xiv. 68), or πυλών (Matt.
xxvi. 71). The place where Jesus stood before the high‐priest may have
been an open room or place of audience on the ground‐floor, raised
somewhat above the court (Mark xiv. 66) in the rear or on one side of the
court; such rooms, open in front, being customary” (Robinson, _Notes to
Harmony_).
17. Dicit ergo Petro ancilla 17. The maid therefore that
ostiaria: Numquid et tu ex was portress, saith to Peter:
discipulis es hominis istius? Art not thou also one of this
Dicit ille: Non sum. man’s disciples? He saith: I
am not.
17. It will be convenient to treat of the three denials by Peter (verses
17, 25‐27) together. Many Rationalist and Protestant commentators have
alleged that it is impossible to harmonize the different accounts of these
denials. We hope to show, however, that there is little difficulty in
harmonizing them.
To this end we would draw attention, with Dean Alford,(113) to the
following points:—
“In the first place, we are not bound to require accordance ... in the
_recognition_ of Peter _by different persons_. These may have been _many_
on _each occasion_ of denial, and independent narrators may have fixed on
different ones among them.”
“Secondly, no reader ... will require that the _actual words spoken by
Peter_ should in each case be _identically reported_.” In support of this
view, Alford refers to the remarks of St. Augustine on the words: “Domine,
salva nos, perimus” (Matt. viii. 25). “What matters it,” says St. Aug.,
referring to the different versions of the words given by the Evangelists,
“whether the disciples, in calling on the Lord, really used one or another
of those three expressions, or some other, not recorded by any of the
Evangelists, differing from all those that are recorded, but still giving
the sense, that those who called upon Him were perishing, and called on
Him to save them.”
“Thirdly, I do not see that we are obliged to limit the narrative to
_three sentences_ from Peter’s mouth, _and no more_. On _three occasions_
during the night he was _recognised_, on _three occasions he was a denier_
of his Lord: such a statement may well embrace _reiterated expressions of
recognition_, and _reiterated and importunate denials on each occasion_.”
“And those remarks being taken into account, I premise that all difficulty
is removed, the resulting inference being that the narratives are
_genuine, truthful accounts of facts underlying them all_.”
Similarly, Patrizzi:—“Considerare etiam juvat, ut ea difficultas quam
quidam in hac historia esse putant, quod alter Evangelista ait Petrum a
muliere, alter a viro, hic ab uno, ille a pluribus, fuisse interrogatum,
in specie quidem gravis, re tamen ipsa propemodum nulla sit; ex his enim
nihil aliud consequitur, nisi, non unum, sed plures, sive simul, sive
alium post alios, Petrum esse percontatos, hunc autem, nisi multis ac
repetitis interrogationibus adactum non respondisse, quod apprime veri
simile est, imo vix dubitandum de hoc foret, etiamsi ex evangeliis id
minime colligeretur” (Lib. ii. Adnot. clxxviii.) That the reader may apply
these principles, and convince himself as to their sufficiency, we quote
from Dr. Walsh’s _Harmony of the Gospel Narratives_, a tabulated statement
suggesting the chief points to be attended to in the four Gospel accounts.
1st Denial:
ST. MATTHEW.: There came to him _a maid servant_: “Thou also wast
with Jesus the Galilean.” “I know not what thou sayest.”
ST. MARK.: There cometh to him _one of the maid servants_: “Thou
also wast with Jesus of Nazareth.” “I neither know nor understand
what thou sayest.”
ST. LUKE.: There came a _certain maid servant_: “This man was also
with him.” “Woman, I know him not.”
ST. JOHN.: And _the maid that was portress_ said to Peter: “Art
not thou also one of this man’s disciples?” “I am not.”
2nd Denial:
ST. MATTHEW.: _As he went out_ to the vestibule, _another maid_
saw him, and she saith to them that were there: “This man also was
with Jesus of Nazareth.” He denied with an oath: “I do not know
the man.”
ST. MARK.: And _the maid servant_ seeing him, began to say to the
standers by: “This is one of them.” He denied again.
ST. LUKE.: And _another (Alius)_ says: “Thou also art one of
them.” “_O man_, I am not.”
ST. JOHN.: Peter was _standing and warming himself_; and they said
to him: “Art not thou also one of his disciples?” “I am not.”
3rd Denial:
ST. MATTHEW.: _They that stood by_ said: “Surely thou also art one
of them; for even thy speech doth discover thee.” He began to
curse and swear that he knew not the man.
ST. MARK.: _They that stood by_ said: “Surely thou art one of
them; for thou also art a Galilean.” He began to curse and swear,
saying: “I know not this man of whom you speak.”
ST. LUKE.: _Another man_ said: “Surely this man was with him, for
he is a Galilean.” “Man, I know not what thou sayest.”
ST. JOHN.: _One of the servants of the high priest_ saith: “Did I
not see thee in the garden with him?” Peter then denied again.
Thus, it is plain that there is no difficulty in regard to the _first_
denial, whether we suppose that St. Peter made use of the different
expressions attributed to him, or, as seems more probable in regard to
this first occasion, used only one expression, which is _substantially_
reported by the four Evangelists.
In regard to the _second_ denial it is to be noted—
(_a_) That according to SS. Matthew and Mark the maid does not address
herself to Peter, but to those who were around; so that there is no
difficulty when we learn from St. Luke that Peter was addressed by a man
(_alius_) on the occasion.
(_b_) St. Matthew, in the account of this denial, speaks of a _different_
maid from her who brought about the first denial. St. Mark seems to speak
of the _same_ maid, for he has ἡ παιδίσκη (xiv. 69), which would seem to
refer to _the_ maid already mentioned. There is nothing improbable,
however, in supposing that _two_ maids spoke to those around on the
occasion of the second denial.
(_c_) As to the _place_ of the second denial, St. John says that it
occurred while “Peter was standing and warming himself,” while St. Matthew
says it occurred “as he went out to the vestibule,” or more correctly,
according to the Greek, “after he _had gone_ out” (ἐξελθόντα) into the
vestibule. But again we may readily explain by saying that on this
occasion Peter was challenged in _both places_, and denied in both.
In regard to the _third_ denial, the reason given, in St. John, by the
high‐priest’s servant, for identifying Peter as a follower of Jesus, is
different from that given in the other Evangelists; but there is no
difficulty in supposing that several different reasons were given by
different persons.
18. Stabant autem servi et 18. Now the servants and
ministri ad prunas, quia ministers stood at a fire of
frigus erat, et calefaciebant coals, because it was cold,
se: erat autem cum eis et and warmed themselves. And
Petrus stans, et calefaciens with them was Peter also
se. standing, warming himself.
18. We are not to connect this verse with the preceding, as if it
indicated that Peter was _standing_ during the first denial. We know from
St. Matthew (xxvi. 69; Comp. Mark xiv. 54; Luke xxii. 55) that he was
_sitting_, and from St. Mark (xiv. 68) that after the first denial he went
out into the passage or vestibule (εἰς τὸ προαύλιον). Hence what St. John
says here is to be understood in reference to a time between the first and
second denial.
The Greek here is somewhat different from the Vulgate. It would be
rendered: “Now the servants and the officers were standing, having made a
fire of charcoal, for it was cold, and they were warming themselves,” &c.
The Roman soldiers had, doubtless, gone back to their quarters in the
castle of Antonia, close to the Temple; and hence we find mention here of
only the servants of the high‐priest and the Temple guards.
19. Pontifex ergo interrogavit 19. The high‐priest therefore
Iesum de discipulis suis, et asked Jesus of his disciples,
de doctrina eius. and of his doctrine.
19. Meantime, while Peter was denying Him in the court, Jesus was being
examined by the high‐priest in a room or hall of the house of Caiphas. See
above on verse 16. As we have said already, we believe that Caiphas is the
“high‐priest” here referred to; so that St. John here supplements the
account given by the Synoptic Evangelists of the preliminary trial, before
Caiphas (Matt, xxvi 59‐68; Mark xiv. 55‐65; Luke xxii. 54‐63). From the
other Evangelists we learn that many false witnesses now appeared against
Jesus; but the inquiry regarding His _disciples_ and _doctrine_ here
recorded by St. John is mentioned by no other Evangelist.
The inquiry regarding Christ’s disciples was probably intended to find out
whether He had collected these followers around Him with any seditious or
unlawful object; and that regarding His doctrine in the hope of convicting
Him from His own mouth of blasphemy. Later on in this trial, as we learn
from SS. Matt. and Mark, they did condemn Him of blasphemy, and judge Him
deserving of death.
20. Respondit ei Iesus: Ego 20. Jesus answered him: I have
palam locutus sum mundo: ego spoken openly to the world: I
semper docui in synagoga, et have always taught in the
in templo, quo omnes Iudaei synagogue, and in the temple,
conveniunt: et in occulto whither all the Jews resort;
locutus sum nihil. and in secret I have spoken
nothing.
20. Jesus makes no reply regarding His disciples, because it was
sufficiently plain that they followed Him from no unworthy motive, but for
sake of His doctrine and its fruits. Of His doctrine, therefore He speaks.
But since He, of all teachers (the twice‐repeated ἐγώ is in each instance
emphatic) had taught publicly, and nothing in private _that was different
from_ His public teaching (or the meaning may be, nothing that He tried to
hide), He refers his interrogator to those who had heard Him, as their
testimony ought naturally to be sought rather than His in a matter that so
intimately concerned Himself.
21. Quid me interrogas? 21. Why askest thou me? ask
interroga eos qui audierunt them who have heard what I
quid locutus sim ipsis? ecce have spoken unto them: behold
hi sciunt quae dixerim ego. they know what things I have
said.
21. *Behold they* (these, οὗτοι) *know what things I have said*. Some
think that Christ here referred, perhaps pointed, to the Priests and
Pharisees around him, or to the crowd in the court outside; for we know
from St. Luke (xxii. 61) that those outside in the court were visible from
the hall where Christ was being examined. It may be, however, that οὗτοι
refers simply to all and any who had at any time heard His doctrine.
22. Haec autem cum dixisset, 22. And when he had said these
unus assistens ministrorum things, one of the servants
dedit alapam Iesu, dicens: Sic standing by gave Jesus a blow,
respondes pontifici? saying: Answerest thou the
high‐priest so?
22. *A blow.* “Alapa” is a blow on the ear; but the Greek word (ῥάπισμα)
signifies any blow with the open hand or with a rod or stick. The blow was
given by one of the Temple guards.
23. Respondit ei Iesus: Si 23. Jesus answered him: If I
male locutus sum, testimonium have spoken evil, give
perhibe de malo: si autem testimony of the evil: but if
bene, quid me caedis? well, why strikest thou me?
23. *If I have spoken* (rather, spoke) *evil*. It is not clear whether the
reference is to the words just uttered in reply to the high‐priest (verse
21), or to the general teaching of Christ. The use of the aorist here,
just as in verses 20 and 21, is in favour of the latter view.
We have here an example of Christ’s meekness and patience in very trying
circumstances, a practical application of the words contained in Matt. v.
39.
24. Et misit eum Annas ligatum 24. And Annas sent him bound
ad Caipham pontificem. to Caiphas the high‐priest.
24. “Et” is not genuine; the true reading is ἀπέστειλεν οὖν αὐτόν, “Jesus,
therefore, had sent him,” &c.(114) We take it that this is added by St.
John to signify that Jesus _had been_ already sent to Caiphas before the
events recorded in verses 15‐23. “Misit” ought, then, to be “miserat,” a
sense which the Aorist ἀπέστειλεν admits. Compare, for this sense of the
aorist, John iv. 45, 46; xi. 30; xiii. 12; xix. 23.
25. Erat autem Simon Petrus 25. And Simon Peter was
stans, et calefaciens se. standing, and warming himself.
Dixerunt ergo ei: Numquid et They said therefore to him:
tu ex discipulis eius es? Art not thou also one of his
Negavit ille, et dixit: Non disciples? He denied it, and
sum. said: I am not.
26. Dicit ei unus ex servis 26. One of the servants of the
pontificis, cognatus eius, high‐priest (a kinsman to him
cuius abscidit Petrus whose ear Peter cut off) saith
auriculam: Nonne ego te vidi to him: Did I not see thee in
in horto cum illo? the garden with him?
25, 26. Here we have St. John’s account of Peter’s second and third
denial. See above on verse 17. We learn from St. Luke that the third
denial took place about an hour after the second.
27. Iterum ergo negavit 27. Again therefore Peter
Petrus: et statim gallus denied: and immediately the
cantavit. cock crew.
27. From St. Mark, who, being a disciple of St. Peter, generally records
more minutely the incidents connected with the Prince of the Apostles, we
learn that the cock crew after St. Peter’s _first_ denial, as well as
after the third. But, as we explained on xiii. 38, the second crowing,
which took place after the third denial, occurred at the time ordinarily
known as cockcrow, and to it St. John refers here.
28. Adducunt ergo Iesum a 28. Then they led Jesus from
Caipha in praetorium. Erat Caiphas to the governor’s
autem mane: et ipsi non hall. And it was morning: and
introierunt in praetorium, ut they went not into the hall,
non contaminarentur, sed ut that they might not be
manducarent pascha. defiled, but that they might
eat the pasch.
28. The Evangelist here passes over much that had already been recorded by
the Synoptic Evangelists. From them we learn that Christ, at this midnight
meeting before the Council, was accused by false witnesses, convicted of
blasphemy, and judged deserving of death (Matt. xxvi. 66; Mark xiv. 64).
Then he was apparently given over to the charge of the servants of the
high‐priest, was spat upon and struck with the closed fist (_colaphis_)
(Mat. xxvi. 67), and with the open hand or a stick (ῥαπίσμασιν); and,
being blindfolded, was mockingly asked to tell who it was that struck him.
Thus He remained, perhaps, till daybreak,(115) mocked and abused by the
servants; though some think that for a part of the time He was put into
prison.
Then when morning was come, the Synoptic Evangelists tell us that Jesus
was again brought before the Sanhedrim, which almost at once decided to
hand him over to Pilate for punishment. “From Luke (as also, he might have
added, from Matt. xxvii. 1; Mark xv. 1) we learn that the night council
had been dissolved and that early again, in the morning of the last day of
our Lord’s life, another more solemn assembly (rather the same assembly)
was summoned, at which all the chief‐priests and elders and scribes
assisted, the subject of discussion being urgent and most important. It
was, besides, a wise Jewish maxim that legal proceedings especially in
capital cases should be conducted in the light of day, and not in the
darkness of night” (M’Carthy on St. Matt. xxvii. 1).
It was after this morning council that Jesus was bound (Matt. xxvii. 2;
Mark xv. 1) and led before Pilate, as St. John here narrates. At this
point, when the Lord was brought before Pilate, and His death now seemed
certain, Judas, touched with remorse, but not with true repentance,
brought back the blood‐money to the priests, and flung it in the temple;
then in despair went and hanged himself (Matt. xxvii. 3‐5).
*Then they led Jesus.* The true reading is: “they lead Jesus therefore.”
That is to say, in accordance with their determination to put Christ to to
death, a determination of which we are informed by St. Matthew (xxvii. 1),
they bring Him before the representative of Roman authority to have the
sentence of death confirmed. See below on verse 29.
*And they went not into ** the hall* (rather, the governor’s residence,
πραιτώριον.) The Roman Governors ordinarily dwelt at Caesarea, on the sea
coast; but at the more important Jewish festivals they resided in
Jerusalem, for the purpose of preventing or repressing, if necessary, any
uprising of the Jewish people against Roman authority (Josephus, _Bell.
Jud._, ii. 14, 3). When in Jerusalem, they usually occupied the palace of
Herod the Great on Mount Sion. A tradition as old as the fourth century,
however, states that on this occasion Pilate was staying in the castle of
Antonia, beside the temple on Mount Moria.
*And it was morning* (πρωΐ). Just as a condemnation to death at night was
technically illegal according to Jewish law, so a Roman court could not be
held till after sunrise. It is likely that the sun was not long risen on
this morning till the Jews in their eagerness appeared with their prisoner
at the residence of Pilate. The term πρωΐ is, in fact, used in St. Mark
xiii. 35, for the fourth watch of the night.
*That they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the pasch.*
In our note on xiii. 1 we held that the Jews, as well as our Lord,
sacrificed the Paschal lamb on Thursday evening, and eat it that night;
and hence we hold that “the Pasch” here referred to, which on this Friday
morning was still to be eaten, was not the Paschal lamb. Had there been
question of the Paschal Supper proper, then such a defilement as that
contracted by entering the house of a Gentile would not have prevented the
Jews from partaking of the supper; for it would appear from Lev. xv. 5,
where there is question of a defilement apparently as serious as that
which would be contracted from entering the house of a Gentile, that such
defilement continued only “until the evening,” and, therefore, could not
be a hindrance to participation in the Paschal Supper, which was eaten
_after_ the evening, and when the next Jewish day had begun.(116)
There is question, then, of some of the other Paschal sacrifices which
were partaken of during the seven days of the Paschal feast (Deut. xvi. 2,
3; 2 Paral. xxx. 22), perhaps of the special sacrifice known as the
Chagigah (חגיגה).(117)
From such a sacrifice, eaten, as we learn from the Mishna in the note
below, not only at night, but also _during the day_, a defilement
contracted in the morning would exclude.
In view of the anxiety of the Jews to avoid the legal defilement incurred
by entering a house from which all leaven had not been removed, one cannot
help wondering, with St. Augustine, at their blind hypocrisy: “O impia et
stulta caecitas: habitaculo videlicet contaminarentur alieno, et non
contaminarentur scelere proprio!”
29. Exivit ergo Pilatus ad eos 29. Pilate therefore went out
foras, et dixit: Quam to them, and said: What
accusationem affertis adversus accusation bring you against
hominem hunc? this man?
30. Responderunt, et dixerunt 30. They answered and said to
ei: Si non esset hic him: If he were not a
malefactor, non tibi malefactor, we would not have
tradidissemus eum. delivered him up to thee.
31. Dixit ergo eis Pilatus: 31. Pilate therefore said to
Accipite eum vos, et secundum them: Take him you, and judge
legem vestram iudicate eum. him according to your law. The
Dixerunt ergo ei Iudaei: Nobis Jews therefore said to him: It
non licet interficere is not lawful for us to put
quemquam. any man to death.
29‐31. As they entered not, Pilate, now first mentioned by St. John, went
out to them and asked: *What accusation bring you against this man?* It is
very likely he had already learned something of the nature of the
accusation, either on the preceding night when the Roman soldiers were
required for Gethsemani, or just now before coming out of his house, but
he would naturally wish to have it made formally. They, having already
pronounced Jesus deserving of death, and having brought Him to Pilate
merely to have the sentence of death pronounced and executed without any
formality of trial, are indignant at the Roman’s question, and reply as in
verse 30: “If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up
to thee.” Pilate, wishing to shift from himself responsibility for
Christ’s death, bids the Jews to take Him, and judge Him according to
their own law. This they declined to do, alleging as a reason that the
Romans had taken away from the Jews the power to punish by death. This,
however, was merely an evasion, for they knew thoroughly that Pilate’s
permission in the present case was sufficient warrant for their action,
even if they put Jesus to death. But the motive of the Jewish leaders was
to make the responsibility for His death, in the eyes of the Jewish
people, rest upon the Romans.
32. Ut sermo Iesu impleretur 32. That the word of Jesus
quem dixit, significans qua might be fulfilled which he
morte esset moriturus. said, signifying what death he
should die.
32. *That the word of Jesus might be fulfilled.* The refusal of the Jews
to judge Jesus according to their own law came to pass, adds St. John,
that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, in which He had foretold that
He should die the death of the cross (John iii. 14; xii. 32‐34; Matt. xx.
19). Had He been punished according to Jewish law, having been judged a
blasphemer, He should have been stoned to death, according to Levit. xxiv.
14: “Bring forth the blasphemer without the camp, and let them that heard
him put their hands upon his head, and let all the people stone him.”
33. Introivit ergo iterum in 33. Pilate therefore went into
praetorium Pilatus, et vocavit the hall again, and called
Iesum, et dixit ei: Tu es rex Jesus, and said to him: Art
Iudaeorum? thou the king of the Jews?
33. It was probably at this point, after they had refused to judge Jesus
according to their own law, and when they saw that Pilate was not at once
proceeding to condemn Him, that the Jews brought forward those three
distinct charges against Him, which St. Luke records: “We have found this
man perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and
saying that He is Christ the king” (Luke xxiii. 2). Upon this, Pilate
returned into the house, had Jesus called in(118), and questioned Him on
the third count in the indictment just brought against Him. The pretension
of any Jew to be the King of Palestine was a point which, as questioning
the sovereignty of Rome, a Roman governor was bound to look to. Pilate,
therefore, asked Him: *Art thou the King of the Jews?* The words may mean
either, “Art thou He who has just now become notorious under this title?”
or, “Dost thou claim the title, as it is said?” The title itself would be
likely to arrest Pilate’s attention, whether he had heard it spoken of
before in connection with the entry into Jerusalem or only now from the
Jews. And further, he would rightly conclude that the title, when thus put
forward, would be fitted to call out any fanaticism which there might be
in a political enthusiast. In each of the four Gospels, the first words of
Pilate to Jesus are the same: “Art thou the King of the Jews?” (Matt.
xxvii. 11; Mark xv. 2; Luke xxiii. 3). “The form of the sentence (σὺ εἶ)
suggests a feeling of surprise in the questioner: ‘Art thou, poor, and
bound, and wearied, the the King of whom men have spoken?’ Comp. iv. 12.”
Westc. in _Speaker’s Commentary_.
34. Respondit Iesus: A 34. Jesus answered: Sayest
temetipso hoc dicis, an alii thou this thing of thyself, or
dixerunt tibi de me? have others told it thee of
me?
34. To Pilate’s question, Christ replies: Sayest thou this of thyself,
from thy own knowledge or suspicion of My having taken part in seditious
practices, or is it merely because of what others, through envy and
jealousy, have now told thee of Me? These words were, doubtless, intended
to remind Pilate that, although Governor of Judea during all the time of
Christ’s public life (Luke iii. 1), he had no reason from his own personal
knowledge to find fault with Jesus. Hence, he ought to suspect the charges
that had been made.
35. Respondit Pilatus: Numquid 35. Pilate answered: Am I a
ego Iudaeus sum? Gens tua et Jew? Thy own nation and the
pontifices tradiderunt te chief priests have delivered
mihi: quid fecisti? thee up to me: what hast thou
done?
35. Pilate impatiently replies, signifying that as he was not a Jew, he
might easily be ignorant of Christ’s guilt, while it would be well known
to Christ’s countrymen who now accused Him.
36. Respondit Iesus: Regnum 36. Jesus answered: My kingdom
meum non est de hoc mundo: si is not of this world. If my
ex hoc mundo esset regnum kingdom were of this world, my
meum, ministri mei utique servants would certainly
decertarent ut non traderer strive that I should not be
Iudaeis: Nunc autem regnum delivered to the Jews: but now
meum non est hinc. my kingdom is not from hence.
36. In response to Pilate’s question: “What hast thou done?” Jesus
proceeds to explain that His is not that mighty temporal kingdom for which
the Jews had hoped, and which the Romans might well fear; if it were, His
followers would surely have striven that He should not be delivered to the
Jews; but in truth it was not a temporal kingdom.
*My kingdom is not from hence*; _i.e._ is not _of this world_, not a
temporal kingdom. _In_ this world it was, and is; but _of_ this world it
is not. See xvii. 15, 16.
37. Dixit itaque et Pilatus: 37. Pilate therefore said to
Ergo rex es tu? Respondit him: Art thou a king then?
Iesus: Tu dicis quia rex sum Jesus answered: Thou sayest
ego. Ego in hoc natus sum, et that I am a king. For this was
ad hoc veni in mundum, ut I born, and for this came I
testimonium perhibeam into the world: that I should
veritati: omnis qui est ex give testimony to the truth.
veritate, audit vocem meam. Every one that is of the
truth, heareth my voice.
37. *Art thou a king then?* Pilate asked; to which Jesus replied: “Thou
sayest it” (Matt., Mark, Luke); or, as here, “Thou sayest that I am a
king,”(119) meaning thou sayest truly, what is the fact. That this is the
sense of the phrase, see Matt. xxvi. 64, and compare with Mark xiv. 61.
Then, having made this admission, Jesus at once proceeds to point out the
spiritual character of the kingdom which He had come to establish. That
kingdom is His Church, which was established, not amid the clash of arms
or din of battle, but by the preaching of the truth, and to which all
belong, whether Jew or Roman, who hear the truth.
38. Dicit et Pilatus: Quid est 38. Pilate saith to him: What
Veritas? Et cum hoc dixisset, is truth? And when he said
iterum exivit ad Iudaeos, et this he went out again to the
dicit eis: Ego nullam invenio Jews, and saith to them: I
in eo causam. find no cause in him.
38. At the mention of “the truth,” Pilate asks: *What is truth?* (ἀλήθεια,
without the article). The question was not asked for information, for
Pilate went out without waiting for an answer, but impatiently or
sneeringly, as if he said: “Yes, but what _is_ truth?” Then Pilate went
out again to the Jews, and told them that he could find in Jesus no reason
for condemning Him.
Then it was, probably, that as St. Luke tells us: “They were more earnest,
saying: He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Judea,
beginning from Galilee to this place” (Luke xxiii. 5). “Amid their
confused and passionate exclamation, the practised ear of Pilate caught
the name of ‘Galilee,’ and he understood that Galilee had been the chief
scene of the ministry of Jesus. Eager for a chance of dismissing a
business of which he was best pleased to be free, he proposed, by a
master‐stroke of astute policy, to get rid of an embarrassing prisoner, to
save himself from a disagreeable decision, and to do an unexpected
complaisancy to the unfriendly Galilean tetrarch, who, as usual, had come
to Jerusalem—nominally to keep the Passover, really to please his
subjects, and to enjoy the sensations and festivities offered at that
season by the densely‐crowded capital” (Farrar).
39. Est autem consuetudo 39. But you have a custom that
vobis, ut unum dimittam vobis I should release one unto you
in pascha: vultis ergo at the pasch: will you
dimittam vobis regem therefore that I release unto
Iudaeorum? you the king of the Jews?
40. Clamaverunt ergo rursum 40. Then cried they all again,
omnes dicentes: Non hunc, sed saying: Not this man, but
Barabbam. Erat autem Barabbas Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a
latro. robber.
39. Then, after Herod had examined and mocked Christ, he sent Him back to
Pilate (Luke xxiii. 8‐12); and now it was, after the return from Herod,
that Pilate thought of releasing Jesus, in accordance with his custom of
releasing a prisoner every year at the festival of the Pasch.
*Will you, therefore, that I release unto you the king of the Jews?* or as
St. Matt. has: “Whom will you that I release to you; Barabbas, or Jesus,
that is called Christ?” (Matt. xxvii. 17). Barabbas, as we learn from the
Synoptic Evangelists, was a “notorious prisoner,” “who was put in prison
with some seditious men, who, in the sedition, had committed murder.”
Pilate hoped, therefore, that the release of Jesus rather than of a
notorious criminal like Barabbas would be called for. But the people,
instigated by the chief‐priests and elders (Matt. xxvii. 20), blindly
called for the release of Barabbas.
*A robber.* (λῃιστής), one who appropriates the goods of another by open
violence, as opposed to the thief (κλέπτης), who takes what is not his
own, secretly and by fraud.
We have followed the view held by Patrizzi and the majority of
commentators, that Pilate on only _one occasion_, and after the return
from Herod, proposed our Lord to the Jews as the prisoner to be released.
Others, as Father Coleridge and Dr. Walsh, hold that on _two_ different
occasions, once before the journey to Herod, as recorded by St. John, and
once after, as recorded by the Synoptic Evangelists, Christ was proposed
by Pilate as the prisoner to be released. But we are not convinced by the
reasons urged in favour of this view. It is argued—(_a_) from the fact
that in St. John the question of releasing a prisoner is first mentioned
by Pilate, while in the Synoptic Evangelists the question of having a
prisoner released to them is first moved by the people. But we say, in
reply, that there is nothing in the Synoptic accounts which forbids us to
suppose that Pilate first mentioned the matter, as in St. John: “You have
a custom that I should release one unto you at the Pasch;” that then they
called upon him to observe the custom on that occasion, and that he
forthwith put before them the choice between Jesus and Barabbas. Certainly
St. Matt. (xxvii. 17) as well as St. John represents Pilate as the first
to refer to the matter.
(_b_) Father Coleridge argues also from the fact that Pilate, in St.
Matt., says to the Jews: “Whom will you that I release to you; Barabbas,
or Jesus, that is called Christ?” “That he mentions Barabbas along with
our Lord,” says Father Coleridge, “can only be explained by the fact that,
as St. John mentions, Barabbas had been already called for by the priests
and crowd, when Pilate had, for the first time, spoken of the custom.” But
it seems to us that the mention of Barabbas by Pilate is sufficiently
explained by the fact which St. Matthew himself had just mentioned in the
preceding verse, that Barabbas was a “notorious prisoner;” and hence his
name was more familiar to Pilate than the names of the other prisoners.
Moreover his well‐known guilt encouraged Pilate to hope that if the choice
lay between him and Jesus, the Jews would surely call for the release of
our Lord.
Before quitting this chapter, it may be well to point out the different
tribunals, before which, as we have seen, Jesus was led on this last night
and morning of His mortal life.
(1) First, then, He was led from Gethsemane before Annas.
(2) He was led before Caiphas.
(3) When day dawned, He was led before the Sanhedrim.
(4) He was led before Pilate.
(5) He was led before Herod Antipas.
(6) On His return from Herod, He was again led before Pilate.