John · Chapter 18

V. 1. A garden-Probably belonging to one of his friends. He might retire to this private place, not only for the advantage of secret devotion, but also that the people might not be alarmed at his apprehension, nor attempt, in the first sallies of their zeal, to rescue him in a tumultuous manner. Kedron was (as the name signifies) a dark shady valley, on the east side of Jerusalem, between the city and the mount of Olives, through which a little brook ran, which took its name from it. It was this brook, which David, a type of Christ, went over with the people, weeping in his flight from Absalom. Matthew 26:30; Mark 14:26; Luke 22:39.

Verse 1. Over the brook Cedron] Having finished the prayer related in the preceding chapter, our Lord went straight to the garden of Gethsemane, Matthew 26:36, which was in the mount of Olives, eastward of Jerusalem. This mount was separated from the city by a very narrow valley, through the midst of which the brook Cedron ran: see 1 Macc. 12:37; Joseph. War, b. v. c. 2, s. 3. xii. 2. Cedron is a very small rivulet, about six or seven feet broad, nor is it constantly supplied with water, being dry all the year, except during the rains. It is mentioned in the Old Testament: 2 Samuel 15:23; 1 Kings 15:13; 2 Kings 23:4. And it appears the evangelist only mentions it here to call to remembrance what happened to David, when he was driven from Jerusalem by his son Absalom, and he and his followers obliged to pass the brook Cedron on foot: see 2 Samuel 15:23. All this was a very expressive figure of what happened now to this second David, by the treachery of one of his own disciples. This brook had its name probably from rdq Kadar, he was black; it being the place into which the blood of the sacrifices, and other filth of the city, ran. It was rather, says Lightfoot, the sink, or the common sewer, of the city, than a brook. Some copyists, mistaking kedrwn for Greek, have changed tou into twn, and thus have written twn kedrwn, of cedars, instead of tou kedrwn, the brook of Cedron: but this last is undoubtedly the genuine reading.

A garden] Gethsemane: see Clarke on “Matthew 26:36”. The Jewish grandees had their gardens and pleasure grounds without the city even in the mount of Olives. This is still a common custom among the Asiatics.

St. John mentions nothing of the agony in the garden; probably because he found it so amply related by all the other evangelists. As that account should come in here, the reader is desired to consult the notes on Matthew 26:36-47. See also Mark 14:30-36, and Luke 22:40-44.

13-27.

(3,) How he was prosecuted before Pilate, and examined by him concerning his kingly office, 28-37.

(4,) How the Jews preferred Barabbas, a murderous robber, to him, 38-40. NOTES ON CHAPTER 18.

Verses 1-3. When Jesus had spoken these words — Had delivered the discourse recorded above, and concluded his intercessory prayer; he went with his disciples over the brook Cedron — On the other side of which was a garden, known by the name of the garden of Gethsemane; (see notes on Matthew 26:36;) and probably belonging to one of his friends. He might retire to this private place, not only for the advantage of secret devotion, but also that the people might not be alarmed at his apprehension, nor attempt, in the first sallies of their zeal, to rescue him in a tumultuous manner. Cedron, or Kedron, was (as the name signifies) a dark, shady valley, on the east side of Jerusalem, between the city and the mount of Olives, through which a little brook ran, which took its name from it. It was this brook which David, a type of Christ, went over with his people, weeping, in his flight from Absalom. Judas, which betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus oft-times resorted thither, &c. — Namely, for the sake of retirement and devotion. Judas, having received a band of men — Greek, thn speiran, a cohort of Roman foot-soldiers, as the word signifies, and the title of its commander (ciliarcov, a chiliarch, answering to our colonel) implies; and officers — Some Jewish officers, sent for that purpose; from the chief priests and other Pharisees — Belonging to the sanhedrim, who were chiefly concerned in this affair; cometh thither with lanterns and torches, &c. — Which they brought with them, though it was now full moon, to discover him if he should endeavour to hide himself; and weapons — To use if they should meet with any opposition, which they foolishly imagined they might.

Verse 1. He went — over the brook Cedron. Cedron, or Kidron, was the name of the deep valley, as well as of the brook which ran through it, on the east between Jerusalem and the mount of Olives. It is mentioned also in 2 Saul. 15:23. 1 Kings 2:37. It had its name from kedrai, having cedar trees planted on each side. In the LXX, as well as here, it is always mentioned in the plural number. Jeremiah 31:40. This brook is here called Cheimarrhos, that is, a torrent flowing in winter, being dry in the drought of summer. It is almost singular that so great a city as Jerusalem could subsist without a constant river. But the Gihon was the fountain of life to the city, and the frequent subject of sacred song. Psalm 46:4. A garden, into which he entered, called Gethsemane. Matthew 21:36. Mark 14:32. This he did, that as the sin of the first Adam, which brought destruction upon his posterity, was committed in a garden, so that salutary passion of the second Adam, which was to rescue us from that destruction, might begin in the like place.

§ 132-3.—THE AGONY IN GETHSEMANE, AND THE BETRAYAL, 1-12.

1. He went forth—That is, as we understand it, from the supper-room on the eastern part of Mount Zion. As no other going forth is unequivocally indicated from the beginning of chapter xiii to this present clause, we are obliged to conclude that the discourse, stretching probably into midnight, was entirely uttered in the same room. The route now taken by Jesus to Gethsemane the reader will find described in our note on Matthew 26:36. The brook Cedron—The brook Cedron, Kedron, or Kidron, (the name being derived from a Hebrew word signifying turbid,) is a winter or rain torrent, formed by the waters occasionally running from the sides of Olivet and Moriah, into what is now called the Valley of Jehoshaphat. The ravine or valley takes its origin above a mile to the northwest of the city, and, deepening as it proceeds, makes an angular turn opposite the temple. Thence southeastwardly, it passes between Siloam and the city, and thence goes toward the Dead Sea through a deep and singularly wild gorge. During the summer season, in the absence of rains, the channel is perfectly dry, so that in reality its occasional turbid stream formed a sort of gutter for the eastern margin of the city. By a bridge over the ravine the traveller still passes from St. Stephen’s gate to Gethsemane.

V. 2. Mark 14:43; Luke 22:47.

Verse 2. Judas-knew the place] As many had come from different quarters to celebrate the passover at Jerusalem, it could not be an easy matter to find lodging in the city: Jesus therefore chose to pass the night in the garden with his disciples which, from this verse, and from Luke 22:39, we find was his frequent custom, though he often lodged in Bethany. But, as he had supped in the city this evening, Judas took it for granted that he had not gone to Bethany, and therefore was to be met with in the garden; and, having given this information to the priests, they gave him some soldiers and others that he might be the better enabled to seize and bring him away.

13-27.

(3,) How he was prosecuted before Pilate, and examined by him concerning his kingly office, 28-37.

(4,) How the Jews preferred Barabbas, a murderous robber, to him, 38-40. NOTES ON CHAPTER 18.

Verses 1-3. When Jesus had spoken these words — Had delivered the discourse recorded above, and concluded his intercessory prayer; he went with his disciples over the brook Cedron — On the other side of which was a garden, known by the name of the garden of Gethsemane; (see notes on Matthew 26:36;) and probably belonging to one of his friends. He might retire to this private place, not only for the advantage of secret devotion, but also that the people might not be alarmed at his apprehension, nor attempt, in the first sallies of their zeal, to rescue him in a tumultuous manner. Cedron, or Kedron, was (as the name signifies) a dark, shady valley, on the east side of Jerusalem, between the city and the mount of Olives, through which a little brook ran, which took its name from it. It was this brook which David, a type of Christ, went over with his people, weeping, in his flight from Absalom. Judas, which betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus oft-times resorted thither, &c. — Namely, for the sake of retirement and devotion. Judas, having received a band of men — Greek, thn speiran, a cohort of Roman foot-soldiers, as the word signifies, and the title of its commander (ciliarcov, a chiliarch, answering to our colonel) implies; and officers — Some Jewish officers, sent for that purpose; from the chief priests and other Pharisees — Belonging to the sanhedrim, who were chiefly concerned in this affair; cometh thither with lanterns and torches, &c. — Which they brought with them, though it was now full moon, to discover him if he should endeavour to hide himself; and weapons — To use if they should meet with any opposition, which they foolishly imagined they might.

2. Jesus ofttimes resorted thither—Where, beneath shadowing olive trees, he held discourse with his followers. Hence this is the place where Judas, whom we last saw departing from the supper-table, (xiii, 30,) was again to meet his Master. At this point, according to the other Evangelists, is to be inserted the narrative of the agony of Gethsemane. By a ruthless criticism, Strauss and others infer from the silence of John and the triumphant tone of the valedictory and prayer of the previous chapters, that the agony never took place. We apprehend that the answers are ample. Why should John insert what had been so fully given by his predecessors? And who cannot see that the sorrows of Gethsemane are truly preluded by the sad undertone, mentioned in our closing note to the last chapter, both of the valedictory and the prayer? Nor are we able to conceive how a scene so wonderful in its conception, so unparalleled and mysterious in its character, so surpassing any passage of classic antiquity, could have been framed without the basis of truth, either by the genius of the Evangelists or the mind of the early Christian Church. No truly Christian heart needs any defence of this passage from a criticism so utterly uncritical.

V. 3. A troop of soldiers-A cohort of Roman foot.

Verse 3. A band] thn speiran, The band or troop. Some think that the spira was the same as the Roman cohort, and was the tenth part of a legion, which consisted sometimes of 4200, and sometimes of 5000 foot. But Raphelius, on Matthew 27:27, has clearly proved, from Polybius, that the spira was no more than a tenth of the fourth part of a legion. And as the number of the legion was uncertain, and their divisions not at all equal, no person can tell how many the band or spira contained. See many curious particulars in Raphelius on this point, vol. i. p. 351, edit. 1747. This band was probably those Roman soldiers given by the governor for the defense of the temple; and the officers were those who belonged to the Sanhedrin.

With lanterns and torches] With these they had intended to search the corners and caverns, provided Christ had hidden himself; for they could not have needed them for any other purpose, it being now the fourteenth day of the moon’s age, in the month Nisan, and consequently she appeared full and bright. The weapons mentioned here were probably no other than clubs, staves, and instruments of that kind, as we may gather from Matthew 26:55; Mark 14:48; Luke 22:52. The swords mentioned by the other evangelists were probably those of the Roman soldiers; the clubs and staves belonged to the chief priest’s officers.

13-27.

(3,) How he was prosecuted before Pilate, and examined by him concerning his kingly office, 28-37.

(4,) How the Jews preferred Barabbas, a murderous robber, to him, 38-40. NOTES ON CHAPTER 18.

Verses 1-3. When Jesus had spoken these words — Had delivered the discourse recorded above, and concluded his intercessory prayer; he went with his disciples over the brook Cedron — On the other side of which was a garden, known by the name of the garden of Gethsemane; (see notes on Matthew 26:36;) and probably belonging to one of his friends. He might retire to this private place, not only for the advantage of secret devotion, but also that the people might not be alarmed at his apprehension, nor attempt, in the first sallies of their zeal, to rescue him in a tumultuous manner. Cedron, or Kedron, was (as the name signifies) a dark, shady valley, on the east side of Jerusalem, between the city and the mount of Olives, through which a little brook ran, which took its name from it. It was this brook which David, a type of Christ, went over with his people, weeping, in his flight from Absalom. Judas, which betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus oft-times resorted thither, &c. — Namely, for the sake of retirement and devotion. Judas, having received a band of men — Greek, thn speiran, a cohort of Roman foot-soldiers, as the word signifies, and the title of its commander (ciliarcov, a chiliarch, answering to our colonel) implies; and officers — Some Jewish officers, sent for that purpose; from the chief priests and other Pharisees — Belonging to the sanhedrim, who were chiefly concerned in this affair; cometh thither with lanterns and torches, &c. — Which they brought with them, though it was now full moon, to discover him if he should endeavour to hide himself; and weapons — To use if they should meet with any opposition, which they foolishly imagined they might.

Ver. 3. Judas then having received a band — and (peace) officers. The Greek speiran, rendered cohort by Montanus, should be a guard of soldiers, as it reads in many of the versions. The officers of the highpriest being with them, the force was strong. What a multitude, with Judas at their head! We use the word guard, because a cohort was nearly the tenth of a legion.

3. Judas… cometh—For the train and order of events of our Lord’s betrayal and arrest, consult our notes on § 132. Lanterns and torches—For though it was the full moon, yet his apprehenders knew that their victim might be concealed in the garden, in the houses, or in the clefts of the rocks. But to no such refuges, worthy of the guilty only, did it become the dignity of our Lord to resort.

Verse 4. Jesus knowing all things, &c.] He had gone through all his preaching, working of miracles, and passion, and had nothing to do now but to offer up himself on the cross; he therefore went forth to meet them, to deliver himself up to death.

Verses 4-11. Jesus, knowing all things that should come upon him — That is, knowing, not only in general, that he must suffer a variety of insults, tortures, and even death itself, but also all the particular circumstances of ignominy and horror that should attend his sufferings; went forth — Namely, after his repeated supplications to his heavenly Father, and his agony, as is related at large, Matthew 26:37-46; Mark 14:34-42; Luke 22:41-46; where see the notes; and said unto them — With the greatest composure of mind; Whom seek ye? — The appointed time of our Lord’s sufferings being come, he did not now, as formerly, avoid his enemies, but readily came forward, and gave them an opportunity of apprehending him, telling them, when they said they sought Jesus of Nazareth, I am he — Which expression he had no sooner uttered than the whole band went backward, and fell to the ground — By which exertion of his divine power he evidently showed them that they could not apprehend him without his consent. How amazing is it, that they should renew the assault after so sensible an experience both of his power and mercy! But probably the priests among them might persuade themselves and their attendants, that this also was done by Beelzebub, and that it was through the providence of God, not the indulgence of Jesus, that they received no further damage. See note on Matthew 26:47-50. If ye seek me, let these (my disciples) go — It was an eminent instance of his power over the spirits of men, that they so far obeyed his word as not to seize even Peter, when he had cut off the ear of Malchus. Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it — No other evangelist names the person that drew the sword, nor could they without exposing Peter to danger. But John, writing after his death, might do it without any such inconvenience. And smote the high-priest’s servant, &c. — See note on Matthew 26:51-54. Then said Jesus, Put up thy sword, &c. — For I will not have recourse to this or any other method of defence. The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? — You look only at second causes, and have but an imperfect view of things; but I consider all the sufferings I am now to meet, as under a divine direction and appointment, and therefore willingly acquiesce in what I know to be my heavenly Father’s will.

4. Knowing all… that should come—John leaves to the other Evangelists to describe the humiliations of the garden and of the Judas kiss, and seizes those points in which the foreknowledge and majesty of Jesus appear rising above the inflictions he suffered. It is the same upper tone of triumph as reigns through the previous discourses, heightened to sublimity by the recollection of the degradations which the previous Gospels disclose. John’s Gospel is therefore a supplement, not merely in external facts, but in grand views and sublime truths. Went forth—After the traitor’s kiss, the traitor himself retreats among the band that follow him, who stand in hesitation. Jesus steps forward in firm majesty to meet the men, who appear more like culprits to be arraigned than like officers coming to arrest him. Whom seek ye?—Not that he did not know whom they sought. Not that their leaders did not know him by the traitor’s signal. He speaks to make them confess their object, and then to show that they can attain it only by his actual permission. It is the word by which he commences the display of power exhibited in verse 6.

Verse 5. Jesus of Nazareth.] They did not say this till after Judas kissed Christ, which was the sign which he had agreed with the soldiers, &c., to give them, that they might know whom they were to seize: see Matthew 26:48. Though some harmonists place the kiss after what is spoken in the ninth verse.

Verses 4-11. Jesus, knowing all things that should come upon him — That is, knowing, not only in general, that he must suffer a variety of insults, tortures, and even death itself, but also all the particular circumstances of ignominy and horror that should attend his sufferings; went forth — Namely, after his repeated supplications to his heavenly Father, and his agony, as is related at large, Matthew 26:37-46; Mark 14:34-42; Luke 22:41-46; where see the notes; and said unto them — With the greatest composure of mind; Whom seek ye? — The appointed time of our Lord’s sufferings being come, he did not now, as formerly, avoid his enemies, but readily came forward, and gave them an opportunity of apprehending him, telling them, when they said they sought Jesus of Nazareth, I am he — Which expression he had no sooner uttered than the whole band went backward, and fell to the ground — By which exertion of his divine power he evidently showed them that they could not apprehend him without his consent. How amazing is it, that they should renew the assault after so sensible an experience both of his power and mercy! But probably the priests among them might persuade themselves and their attendants, that this also was done by Beelzebub, and that it was through the providence of God, not the indulgence of Jesus, that they received no further damage. See note on Matthew 26:47-50. If ye seek me, let these (my disciples) go — It was an eminent instance of his power over the spirits of men, that they so far obeyed his word as not to seize even Peter, when he had cut off the ear of Malchus. Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it — No other evangelist names the person that drew the sword, nor could they without exposing Peter to danger. But John, writing after his death, might do it without any such inconvenience. And smote the high-priest’s servant, &c. — See note on Matthew 26:51-54. Then said Jesus, Put up thy sword, &c. — For I will not have recourse to this or any other method of defence. The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? — You look only at second causes, and have but an imperfect view of things; but I consider all the sufferings I am now to meet, as under a divine direction and appointment, and therefore willingly acquiesce in what I know to be my heavenly Father’s will.

5. Jesus of Nazareth—They have not the spirit to rush forward and seize him without a word of parley. The drill serjeant, however, mechanically answers, according to the warrant, “Jesus of Nazareth.” The Lord has compelled them to utter that memorable name, the memento of their own guilt, the emblem of divine power. I am he—Let it be well identified, to even those ignorant of his person, who it is they seek, and by whose power they are prostrated. At the responsive word, I am he, they recoil and fall.

V. 6. As soon as he said, I am he, they went backward and fell to the ground-How amazing is it, that they should renew the assault, after so sensible an experience both of his power and mercy! But probably the priests among them might persuade themselves and their attendants, that this also was done by Beelzebub; and that it was through the providence of God, not the indulgence of Jesus, that they received no farther damage.

Verse 6. They went backward, and fell to the ground.] None of the other evangelists mentions this very important circumstance. Our Lord chose to give them this proof of his infinite power, that they might know that their power could not prevail against him if he chose to exert his might, seeing that the very breath of his mouth confounded, drove back, and struck them down to the earth. Thus by the blast of God they might have perished, and by the breath of his nostrils they might have been consumed: Job 4:9.

Verses 4-11. Jesus, knowing all things that should come upon him — That is, knowing, not only in general, that he must suffer a variety of insults, tortures, and even death itself, but also all the particular circumstances of ignominy and horror that should attend his sufferings; went forth — Namely, after his repeated supplications to his heavenly Father, and his agony, as is related at large, Matthew 26:37-46; Mark 14:34-42; Luke 22:41-46; where see the notes; and said unto them — With the greatest composure of mind; Whom seek ye? — The appointed time of our Lord’s sufferings being come, he did not now, as formerly, avoid his enemies, but readily came forward, and gave them an opportunity of apprehending him, telling them, when they said they sought Jesus of Nazareth, I am he — Which expression he had no sooner uttered than the whole band went backward, and fell to the ground — By which exertion of his divine power he evidently showed them that they could not apprehend him without his consent. How amazing is it, that they should renew the assault after so sensible an experience both of his power and mercy! But probably the priests among them might persuade themselves and their attendants, that this also was done by Beelzebub, and that it was through the providence of God, not the indulgence of Jesus, that they received no further damage. See note on Matthew 26:47-50. If ye seek me, let these (my disciples) go — It was an eminent instance of his power over the spirits of men, that they so far obeyed his word as not to seize even Peter, when he had cut off the ear of Malchus. Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it — No other evangelist names the person that drew the sword, nor could they without exposing Peter to danger. But John, writing after his death, might do it without any such inconvenience. And smote the high-priest’s servant, &c. — See note on Matthew 26:51-54. Then said Jesus, Put up thy sword, &c. — For I will not have recourse to this or any other method of defence. The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? — You look only at second causes, and have but an imperfect view of things; but I consider all the sufferings I am now to meet, as under a divine direction and appointment, and therefore willingly acquiesce in what I know to be my heavenly Father’s will.

Ver. 6. They went backward, and fell to the ground. Here we may observe, that it was not man’s power, but Christ’s own permission, which brought his sufferings upon him. How easily could he have delivered himself out of his enemies’ hands, who by a word could cause them to retrograde and fall to the ground. In speaking those words, Christ darted out a ray of his divinity, and this struck them down. He only said, I am he, and down they fell, the providence of God not suffering him to fall into their hands, without first giving them this further mark of his divine majesty and power. If there was so much majesty in the voice of Christ, in one of the lowest acts of his humiliation, what will the voice of his glorified person be to sinners, when he shall come as a judge to condemn the world.

Verse 6. Stood with them—Probably the first clear glance that John had caught of the traitor disclosed Judas standing in the crowd. He too, doubtless, feels the overthrow from the mighty name of “Jesus of Nazareth.”

6. Backward, and fell—Commentators, such as Stier, who explain this fall as merely a natural accident, resulting from the personal majesty of Jesus, (as the lictor was overawed who attempted to apprehend Caius Marius,) overlook the plain evidences of a purpose and will by Jesus to give this proof that his surrender is voluntary. He first prostrates them by a stroke of unseen power; then deliberately triumphs over their impotence; then secures the escape of his disciples; then yields his person to their hands. By this miracle he sustains his declaration to Peter, Matthew 26:53; and his avowal that he himself lays down his life, John 10:17, 18.

Verses 4-11. Jesus, knowing all things that should come upon him — That is, knowing, not only in general, that he must suffer a variety of insults, tortures, and even death itself, but also all the particular circumstances of ignominy and horror that should attend his sufferings; went forth — Namely, after his repeated supplications to his heavenly Father, and his agony, as is related at large, Matthew 26:37-46; Mark 14:34-42; Luke 22:41-46; where see the notes; and said unto them — With the greatest composure of mind; Whom seek ye? — The appointed time of our Lord’s sufferings being come, he did not now, as formerly, avoid his enemies, but readily came forward, and gave them an opportunity of apprehending him, telling them, when they said they sought Jesus of Nazareth, I am he — Which expression he had no sooner uttered than the whole band went backward, and fell to the ground — By which exertion of his divine power he evidently showed them that they could not apprehend him without his consent. How amazing is it, that they should renew the assault after so sensible an experience both of his power and mercy! But probably the priests among them might persuade themselves and their attendants, that this also was done by Beelzebub, and that it was through the providence of God, not the indulgence of Jesus, that they received no further damage. See note on Matthew 26:47-50. If ye seek me, let these (my disciples) go — It was an eminent instance of his power over the spirits of men, that they so far obeyed his word as not to seize even Peter, when he had cut off the ear of Malchus. Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it — No other evangelist names the person that drew the sword, nor could they without exposing Peter to danger. But John, writing after his death, might do it without any such inconvenience. And smote the high-priest’s servant, &c. — See note on Matthew 26:51-54. Then said Jesus, Put up thy sword, &c. — For I will not have recourse to this or any other method of defence. The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? — You look only at second causes, and have but an imperfect view of things; but I consider all the sufferings I am now to meet, as under a divine direction and appointment, and therefore willingly acquiesce in what I know to be my heavenly Father’s will.

7. Asked he them again—By a divine irony he pushes their impotence with the same question. Strange that such commentators as Alford and Stier suppose such a question and reply to be uttered and even repeated because the officers were ignorant which was Jesus. Surely they knew after the first I am he; and so they might also know before the first I am he, from the traitor’s kiss.

V. 8. If ye seek me, let these (my disciples) go-It was an eminent instance of his power over the spirits of men, that they so far obeyed this word, as not to seize even Peter, when he had cut off the ear of Malchus.

Verse 8. Let these go their way] These words are rather words of authority, than words of entreaty. I voluntarily give myself up to you, but you must not molest one of these my disciples. At your peril injure them. Let them go about their business. I have already given you a sufficient proof of my power: I will not exert it in my own behalf, for I will lay down my life for the sheep; but I will not permit you to injure the least of these. It was certainly the supreme power of Christ that kept the soldiers and the mob from destroying all the disciples present, when Peter had given them such provocation, in cutting off the ear of Malchus. There were probably no other disciples with Christ than Peter, James, and John, at this time. see Matthew 26:37; Mark 13:33.

Verses 4-11. Jesus, knowing all things that should come upon him — That is, knowing, not only in general, that he must suffer a variety of insults, tortures, and even death itself, but also all the particular circumstances of ignominy and horror that should attend his sufferings; went forth — Namely, after his repeated supplications to his heavenly Father, and his agony, as is related at large, Matthew 26:37-46; Mark 14:34-42; Luke 22:41-46; where see the notes; and said unto them — With the greatest composure of mind; Whom seek ye? — The appointed time of our Lord’s sufferings being come, he did not now, as formerly, avoid his enemies, but readily came forward, and gave them an opportunity of apprehending him, telling them, when they said they sought Jesus of Nazareth, I am he — Which expression he had no sooner uttered than the whole band went backward, and fell to the ground — By which exertion of his divine power he evidently showed them that they could not apprehend him without his consent. How amazing is it, that they should renew the assault after so sensible an experience both of his power and mercy! But probably the priests among them might persuade themselves and their attendants, that this also was done by Beelzebub, and that it was through the providence of God, not the indulgence of Jesus, that they received no further damage. See note on Matthew 26:47-50. If ye seek me, let these (my disciples) go — It was an eminent instance of his power over the spirits of men, that they so far obeyed his word as not to seize even Peter, when he had cut off the ear of Malchus. Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it — No other evangelist names the person that drew the sword, nor could they without exposing Peter to danger. But John, writing after his death, might do it without any such inconvenience. And smote the high-priest’s servant, &c. — See note on Matthew 26:51-54. Then said Jesus, Put up thy sword, &c. — For I will not have recourse to this or any other method of defence. The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? — You look only at second causes, and have but an imperfect view of things; but I consider all the sufferings I am now to meet, as under a divine direction and appointment, and therefore willingly acquiesce in what I know to be my heavenly Father’s will.

8. I have told you—An intimation to the armed crowd what playthings they might be in his hand. These—Pointing to the disciples; sacrificing himself, but saving others.

V. 9. John 17:12.

Verses 4-11. Jesus, knowing all things that should come upon him — That is, knowing, not only in general, that he must suffer a variety of insults, tortures, and even death itself, but also all the particular circumstances of ignominy and horror that should attend his sufferings; went forth — Namely, after his repeated supplications to his heavenly Father, and his agony, as is related at large, Matthew 26:37-46; Mark 14:34-42; Luke 22:41-46; where see the notes; and said unto them — With the greatest composure of mind; Whom seek ye? — The appointed time of our Lord’s sufferings being come, he did not now, as formerly, avoid his enemies, but readily came forward, and gave them an opportunity of apprehending him, telling them, when they said they sought Jesus of Nazareth, I am he — Which expression he had no sooner uttered than the whole band went backward, and fell to the ground — By which exertion of his divine power he evidently showed them that they could not apprehend him without his consent. How amazing is it, that they should renew the assault after so sensible an experience both of his power and mercy! But probably the priests among them might persuade themselves and their attendants, that this also was done by Beelzebub, and that it was through the providence of God, not the indulgence of Jesus, that they received no further damage. See note on Matthew 26:47-50. If ye seek me, let these (my disciples) go — It was an eminent instance of his power over the spirits of men, that they so far obeyed his word as not to seize even Peter, when he had cut off the ear of Malchus. Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it — No other evangelist names the person that drew the sword, nor could they without exposing Peter to danger. But John, writing after his death, might do it without any such inconvenience. And smote the high-priest’s servant, &c. — See note on Matthew 26:51-54. Then said Jesus, Put up thy sword, &c. — For I will not have recourse to this or any other method of defence. The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? — You look only at second causes, and have but an imperfect view of things; but I consider all the sufferings I am now to meet, as under a divine direction and appointment, and therefore willingly acquiesce in what I know to be my heavenly Father’s will.

9. The saying—See John 18:12. Rationalistic commentators have pronounced this a very mistaken pretence of a fulfilment of Christ’s words. Christ spoke, say they, of preservation from final perdition, but this was preservation from bodily harm. It is a poor reply to these objectors to say, “but the bodily was typical of the spiritual.” The true reply is this: Christ was bound on his part to keep his disciples, both in body and in soul, for their future ministry. They were to be immortal until their work was done. He had preserved them not only from apostacy but from temporal death, for the future mission before them. Judas, on the other hand, perished in body and soul, and so was completely “the son of perdition.” And so now Jesus provides for their present safety, in literal fulfilment of his claim, that he had kept all and lost none—save one.

V. 10. Then Simon Peter-No other evangelist names him. Nor could they safely. But St. John, writing after his death, might do it without any such inconvenience.

Verse 10. Having a sword] See Clarke’s note on “Luke 22:36”. Cut off his right ear.] He probably designed to have cloven his scull in two, but God turned it aside, and only permitted the ear to be taken off; and this he would not have suffered, but only that he might have the opportunity of giving them a most striking proof of his Divinity in working an astonishing miracle on the occasion: see the notes on Matthew 26:51-56.

The other three evangelists mention this transaction; but neither give the name of Peter nor of Malchus, probably because both persons were alive when they wrote; but it is likely both had been long dead before St. John published his history.

Verses 4-11. Jesus, knowing all things that should come upon him — That is, knowing, not only in general, that he must suffer a variety of insults, tortures, and even death itself, but also all the particular circumstances of ignominy and horror that should attend his sufferings; went forth — Namely, after his repeated supplications to his heavenly Father, and his agony, as is related at large, Matthew 26:37-46; Mark 14:34-42; Luke 22:41-46; where see the notes; and said unto them — With the greatest composure of mind; Whom seek ye? — The appointed time of our Lord’s sufferings being come, he did not now, as formerly, avoid his enemies, but readily came forward, and gave them an opportunity of apprehending him, telling them, when they said they sought Jesus of Nazareth, I am he — Which expression he had no sooner uttered than the whole band went backward, and fell to the ground — By which exertion of his divine power he evidently showed them that they could not apprehend him without his consent. How amazing is it, that they should renew the assault after so sensible an experience both of his power and mercy! But probably the priests among them might persuade themselves and their attendants, that this also was done by Beelzebub, and that it was through the providence of God, not the indulgence of Jesus, that they received no further damage. See note on Matthew 26:47-50. If ye seek me, let these (my disciples) go — It was an eminent instance of his power over the spirits of men, that they so far obeyed his word as not to seize even Peter, when he had cut off the ear of Malchus. Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it — No other evangelist names the person that drew the sword, nor could they without exposing Peter to danger. But John, writing after his death, might do it without any such inconvenience. And smote the high-priest’s servant, &c. — See note on Matthew 26:51-54. Then said Jesus, Put up thy sword, &c. — For I will not have recourse to this or any other method of defence. The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? — You look only at second causes, and have but an imperfect view of things; but I consider all the sufferings I am now to meet, as under a divine direction and appointment, and therefore willingly acquiesce in what I know to be my heavenly Father’s will.

Ver. 10. Then Simon Peter — smote the high-priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. It is probable that Malchus was more bold and officious than others in seizing and binding the Saviour. But this stroke might contribute towards the denial of his Master, by making him the more afraid of martyrdom.

10. Malchus—The Greek and Latin form of Malek, signifying King. John alone mentions his name. See note on Matthew 26:51.

Verse 11. The cup which my Father hath given me] The cup signifies, sometimes the lot of life, whether prosperous or adverse: here it signifies the final sufferings of Christ.

Verses 4-11. Jesus, knowing all things that should come upon him — That is, knowing, not only in general, that he must suffer a variety of insults, tortures, and even death itself, but also all the particular circumstances of ignominy and horror that should attend his sufferings; went forth — Namely, after his repeated supplications to his heavenly Father, and his agony, as is related at large, Matthew 26:37-46; Mark 14:34-42; Luke 22:41-46; where see the notes; and said unto them — With the greatest composure of mind; Whom seek ye? — The appointed time of our Lord’s sufferings being come, he did not now, as formerly, avoid his enemies, but readily came forward, and gave them an opportunity of apprehending him, telling them, when they said they sought Jesus of Nazareth, I am he — Which expression he had no sooner uttered than the whole band went backward, and fell to the ground — By which exertion of his divine power he evidently showed them that they could not apprehend him without his consent. How amazing is it, that they should renew the assault after so sensible an experience both of his power and mercy! But probably the priests among them might persuade themselves and their attendants, that this also was done by Beelzebub, and that it was through the providence of God, not the indulgence of Jesus, that they received no further damage. See note on Matthew 26:47-50. If ye seek me, let these (my disciples) go — It was an eminent instance of his power over the spirits of men, that they so far obeyed his word as not to seize even Peter, when he had cut off the ear of Malchus. Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it — No other evangelist names the person that drew the sword, nor could they without exposing Peter to danger. But John, writing after his death, might do it without any such inconvenience. And smote the high-priest’s servant, &c. — See note on Matthew 26:51-54. Then said Jesus, Put up thy sword, &c. — For I will not have recourse to this or any other method of defence. The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? — You look only at second causes, and have but an imperfect view of things; but I consider all the sufferings I am now to meet, as under a divine direction and appointment, and therefore willingly acquiesce in what I know to be my heavenly Father’s will.

§ 132-3.—THE AGONY IN GETHSEMANE, AND THE BETRAYAL, 1-12.

1. He went forth—That is, as we understand it, from the supper-room on the eastern part of Mount Zion. As no other going forth is unequivocally indicated from the beginning of chapter xiii to this present clause, we are obliged to conclude that the discourse, stretching probably into midnight, was entirely uttered in the same room. The route now taken by Jesus to Gethsemane the reader will find described in our note on Matthew 26:36. The brook Cedron—The brook Cedron, Kedron, or Kidron, (the name being derived from a Hebrew word signifying turbid,) is a winter or rain torrent, formed by the waters occasionally running from the sides of Olivet and Moriah, into what is now called the Valley of Jehoshaphat. The ravine or valley takes its origin above a mile to the northwest of the city, and, deepening as it proceeds, makes an angular turn opposite the temple. Thence southeastwardly, it passes between Siloam and the city, and thence goes toward the Dead Sea through a deep and singularly wild gorge. During the summer season, in the absence of rains, the channel is perfectly dry, so that in reality its occasional turbid stream formed a sort of gutter for the eastern margin of the city. By a bridge over the ravine the traveller still passes from St. Stephen’s gate to Gethsemane.

Verse 12. The captain] ciliarcov, The chiliarch, or chief over one thousand men-answering nearly to a colonel with us. See Clarke’s note on “Luke 22:4”. He was probably the prefect or captain of the temple guard.

Verses 12, 13. Then the band, &c. — To whom Jesus, without any opposition, surrendered himself; took and bound him — Foolishly supposing, that he might attempt to make his escape. And led him away to Annas — Annas had been high-priest before his son-in-law Caiaphas. And though he had for some time resigned that office, yet they paid so much regard to his age and experience, that they brought Christ to him first. But we do not read of any thing remarkable which passed at the house of Annas, for which reason his being carried thither is omitted by the other evangelists.

§ 132-3.—THE AGONY IN GETHSEMANE, AND THE BETRAYAL, 1-12.

1. He went forth—That is, as we understand it, from the supper-room on the eastern part of Mount Zion. As no other going forth is unequivocally indicated from the beginning of chapter xiii to this present clause, we are obliged to conclude that the discourse, stretching probably into midnight, was entirely uttered in the same room. The route now taken by Jesus to Gethsemane the reader will find described in our note on Matthew 26:36. The brook Cedron—The brook Cedron, Kedron, or Kidron, (the name being derived from a Hebrew word signifying turbid,) is a winter or rain torrent, formed by the waters occasionally running from the sides of Olivet and Moriah, into what is now called the Valley of Jehoshaphat. The ravine or valley takes its origin above a mile to the northwest of the city, and, deepening as it proceeds, makes an angular turn opposite the temple. Thence southeastwardly, it passes between Siloam and the city, and thence goes toward the Dead Sea through a deep and singularly wild gorge. During the summer season, in the absence of rains, the channel is perfectly dry, so that in reality its occasional turbid stream formed a sort of gutter for the eastern margin of the city. By a bridge over the ravine the traveller still passes from St. Stephen’s gate to Gethsemane.

V. 13. Annas had been high priest before his son-in-law Caiaphas. And though he had for some time resigned that office, yet they paid so much regard to his age and experience, that they brought Christ to Annas first. But we do not read of any thing remarkable which passed at the house of Annas; for, which reason, his being carried thither is omitted by the other evangelists. Matthew 26:57; Mark 14:53; Luke 22:54.

Verse 13. To Annas] This man must have had great authority in his nation: 1. Because he had been a long time high priest; 2. Because he had no less than five sons who successively enjoyed the dignity of the high priesthood; and, 3. Because his son-in-law Caiaphas was at this time in possession of that office. It is likely that Annas was chief of the Sanhedrin, and that it was to him in that office that Christ was first brought. Some think that Annas was still high priest, and that Caiaphas was only his deputy, though he did the principal part of the business, and that it as because of this that he is called high priest. But see the notes on Matthew 2:4, and Luke 3:2.

That same year.] The office was now no longer during life as formerly. See Clarke’s note on “John 11:49”.

What is related in the 24th verse, {John 18:24}, Now Annas had sent him bound to Caiaphas, comes properly in after the 13th verse. {John 18:13} One of the Vienna MSS. adds this verse here; the later Syriac has it in the margin, and St. Cyril in the text. See the margin.

Verses 12, 13. Then the band, &c. — To whom Jesus, without any opposition, surrendered himself; took and bound him — Foolishly supposing, that he might attempt to make his escape. And led him away to Annas — Annas had been high-priest before his son-in-law Caiaphas. And though he had for some time resigned that office, yet they paid so much regard to his age and experience, that they brought Christ to him first. But we do not read of any thing remarkable which passed at the house of Annas, for which reason his being carried thither is omitted by the other evangelists.

Ver. 13. They led him away to Annas first. But Caiaphas being named next, it would seem that nothing of moment occurred till they reached the hall where the council were assembled. They had sat up all night, and did not eat the paschaI lamb, till they had first killed the very paschal sacrifice.

§ 133.—JESUS BEFORE ANNAS AND CAIAPHAS, AND THRICE DENIED BY PETER, 13-27. Matthew 26:57-75; Mark 14:53-72; Luke 22:54-62.

13. To Annas first—This Annas is mentioned in Luke 3:2 as being high priest, together with Caiaphas, at the opening of John the Baptist’s ministry, his name occupying the prior place to that of his colleague. He is pronounced by Josephus as the most fortunate man of his time in Judea; for he was high priest himself for fourteen years, having been so appointed by Cyrenius as far back as the taxing mentioned by Luke before our Saviour’s birth; and he had four sons who filled that office, besides his son-in-law Caiaphas. His venerable age, his great abilities, his ancient title to the priesthood, rendered him perhaps the most important Jew in the capital. The people, animated by a strong national feeling, doubtless regarded him as the permanent high priest. Both Herod and the Romans had capriciously changed the high priest, so that it had almost become an annual office. It is probable that he was the prime mover in the crucifixion of Jesus, and that in this, as in many other measures, Caiaphas was but the organ of his decisions. High Priest that same year—In apparent contrast with Annas, who was popularly held as the permanent rightful high priest.

Verse 14. Caiaphas was he which gave counsel, &c.] Therefore he was an improper person to sit in judgment on Christ, whom he had prejudged and precondemned: see on John 11:50-52. But Christ must not be treated according to the rules of justice: if he had, he could not have been put to death.

14. Caiaphas… gave counsel—John here doubtless refers to the counsel of Caiaphas, to show that he was fully prepared to carry out whatever orders Annas might give for the destruction of Christ.

Peter’s first denial, 15-18. Compare notes on Matthew 26:69-75.

Verse 15. And-another disciple] Not THAT other disciple, for the article is omitted by AD, two others; some editions; Syriac, Persic, Gothic, and Nonnus. So the Vulgate is to be understood. There are many conjectures who this disciple was: Jerome, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Nonnus, Lyra, Erasmus, Piscator, and others, say it was John. It is true John frequently mentions himself in the third person; but then he has always, whom Jesus loved, as in John 13:23; 19:26; 21:7, 20, except in John 19:35, where he has plainly pointed out himself as writer of this Gospel; but, in the place before us, he has mentioned no circumstance by which that disciple may be known to be John. To this may be added that John being not only a Galilean, but a fisherman by trade, it is not likely that he should have been known to the high priest, as it is here said of that disciple who followed Jesus with Peter. See Bishop Pearce and Calmet. The conjecture of Grotius is the most likely: viz. that it was the person at whose house Jesus had supped. St. Augustin, Tract. 113, speaks like a man of sound sense: We should not decide hastily, says he, on a subject concerning which the Scripture is silent.

Verses 15-17. Simon Peter followed — See note on Matthew 26:58; Luke 22:54-62; and so did another disciple — Generally supposed to have been John himself, it being the manner of this evangelist to speak of himself in the third person. Grotius however, is of opinion, that the disciple intended was not one of the twelve, but rather an inhabitant of Jerusalem; possibly, the person at whose house our Lord ate the passover. Whitby likewise thinks it was not John. “These authors found their opinion on this circumstance, that the twelve being Galileans, and men of mean station, could not any of them be so well acquainted in the high-priest’s family, as to procure admission for a friend at a time when there was so much ado there. Nevertheless the common opinion may still be adhered to. For though John was a Galilean, and a person in a mean station, there is neither impossibility nor improbability in the notion, that he might have had a relation, friend, or acquaintance in the station of a servant at the high-priest’s, who might not only give him admittance, but, at his desire, admit Peter also. Further, when we consider that John was to write a history of Christ’s life, it will appear extremely proper that, in the course of providence, he should have an opportunity afforded him of being an eye-witness of our Lord’s trial before the council.” — Macknight. That disciple was known unto the high-priest, and therefore was admitted into the palace, without any objection or impediment. But Peter stood at the door without — Having no interest or acquaintance in the high-priest’s house. Then went out that other disciple — Namely, out of the inner room, into which Jesus had been carried in order to his examination; and spake unto her that kept the door — Desiring her to open it, and admit Peter, whom he brought in. Then saith the damsel unto Peter, Art not thou also — As well as the other; one of this man’s disciples — Of Peter’s sundry denials of Christ, and of the manner in which the accounts given thereof by the different evangelists may be reconciled, see the notes on Matthew 26:69-75; Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:54-62.

Ver. 15. That disciple — went in with Jesus into the palace, aulhn, hall of the highpriest. Matthew and Mark have “hall,” but Luke “house.” It is probable that the highpriest had his mansion house, and that our Saviour was arraigned in the usual court of justice, private houses being incompetent to contain the crowds which attend the courts.

15. Another disciple—Beyond all question John himself.

Verses 15-17. Simon Peter followed — See note on Matthew 26:58; Luke 22:54-62; and so did another disciple — Generally supposed to have been John himself, it being the manner of this evangelist to speak of himself in the third person. Grotius however, is of opinion, that the disciple intended was not one of the twelve, but rather an inhabitant of Jerusalem; possibly, the person at whose house our Lord ate the passover. Whitby likewise thinks it was not John. “These authors found their opinion on this circumstance, that the twelve being Galileans, and men of mean station, could not any of them be so well acquainted in the high-priest’s family, as to procure admission for a friend at a time when there was so much ado there. Nevertheless the common opinion may still be adhered to. For though John was a Galilean, and a person in a mean station, there is neither impossibility nor improbability in the notion, that he might have had a relation, friend, or acquaintance in the station of a servant at the high-priest’s, who might not only give him admittance, but, at his desire, admit Peter also. Further, when we consider that John was to write a history of Christ’s life, it will appear extremely proper that, in the course of providence, he should have an opportunity afforded him of being an eye-witness of our Lord’s trial before the council.” — Macknight. That disciple was known unto the high-priest, and therefore was admitted into the palace, without any objection or impediment. But Peter stood at the door without — Having no interest or acquaintance in the high-priest’s house. Then went out that other disciple — Namely, out of the inner room, into which Jesus had been carried in order to his examination; and spake unto her that kept the door — Desiring her to open it, and admit Peter, whom he brought in. Then saith the damsel unto Peter, Art not thou also — As well as the other; one of this man’s disciples — Of Peter’s sundry denials of Christ, and of the manner in which the accounts given thereof by the different evangelists may be reconciled, see the notes on Matthew 26:69-75; Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:54-62.

16. Her that kept the door—It is customary, even at the present day, in the East, for the doors of the wealthy to be superintended by a portress, who receives a fee for her services from the visitors.

V. 17. Art thou also-As well as the others, one of this man's disciples-She does not appear to have asked with any design to hurt him.

Verse 17. The damsel that kept the door] Cæzarius, a writer quoted by Calmet, says this portress was named Ballila. It is worthy of remark that women, especially old women, were employed by the ancients as porters. In 2 Samuel 4:6, both the Septuagint and Vulgate make a woman porter to Ishbosheth. ARISTOPHANES, in Vespis, v. 765, mentions them in the same office and calls them shkiv, Sekis, which seems to signify a common maid-servant:-

JOti thn quran anewzen h shkiv laqra.

And EURIPIDES, Troad. brings in Hecuba, complaining that she, who was wont to sit upon a throne, is now reduced to the miserable necessity of becoming a porter, or a nurse, in order to get a morsel of bread. And PLAUTUS, Curcul. Act. i. sc. 1, mentions an old woman who was keeper of the gate:-

Anus hic solet cubitare custos janitrix.

Why they, in preference to men, should be pitched upon for this office, I cannot conceive; but we find the usage was common in all ancient nations. See Clarke’s notes on “Matthew 26:69”.

Verses 15-17. Simon Peter followed — See note on Matthew 26:58; Luke 22:54-62; and so did another disciple — Generally supposed to have been John himself, it being the manner of this evangelist to speak of himself in the third person. Grotius however, is of opinion, that the disciple intended was not one of the twelve, but rather an inhabitant of Jerusalem; possibly, the person at whose house our Lord ate the passover. Whitby likewise thinks it was not John. “These authors found their opinion on this circumstance, that the twelve being Galileans, and men of mean station, could not any of them be so well acquainted in the high-priest’s family, as to procure admission for a friend at a time when there was so much ado there. Nevertheless the common opinion may still be adhered to. For though John was a Galilean, and a person in a mean station, there is neither impossibility nor improbability in the notion, that he might have had a relation, friend, or acquaintance in the station of a servant at the high-priest’s, who might not only give him admittance, but, at his desire, admit Peter also. Further, when we consider that John was to write a history of Christ’s life, it will appear extremely proper that, in the course of providence, he should have an opportunity afforded him of being an eye-witness of our Lord’s trial before the council.” — Macknight. That disciple was known unto the high-priest, and therefore was admitted into the palace, without any objection or impediment. But Peter stood at the door without — Having no interest or acquaintance in the high-priest’s house. Then went out that other disciple — Namely, out of the inner room, into which Jesus had been carried in order to his examination; and spake unto her that kept the door — Desiring her to open it, and admit Peter, whom he brought in. Then saith the damsel unto Peter, Art not thou also — As well as the other; one of this man’s disciples — Of Peter’s sundry denials of Christ, and of the manner in which the accounts given thereof by the different evangelists may be reconciled, see the notes on Matthew 26:69-75; Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:54-62.

§ 133.—JESUS BEFORE ANNAS AND CAIAPHAS, AND THRICE DENIED BY PETER, 13-27. Matthew 26:57-75; Mark 14:53-72; Luke 22:54-62.

13. To Annas first—This Annas is mentioned in Luke 3:2 as being high priest, together with Caiaphas, at the opening of John the Baptist’s ministry, his name occupying the prior place to that of his colleague. He is pronounced by Josephus as the most fortunate man of his time in Judea; for he was high priest himself for fourteen years, having been so appointed by Cyrenius as far back as the taxing mentioned by Luke before our Saviour’s birth; and he had four sons who filled that office, besides his son-in-law Caiaphas. His venerable age, his great abilities, his ancient title to the priesthood, rendered him perhaps the most important Jew in the capital. The people, animated by a strong national feeling, doubtless regarded him as the permanent high priest. Both Herod and the Romans had capriciously changed the high priest, so that it had almost become an annual office. It is probable that he was the prime mover in the crucifixion of Jesus, and that in this, as in many other measures, Caiaphas was but the organ of his decisions. High Priest that same year—In apparent contrast with Annas, who was popularly held as the permanent rightful high priest.

Verse 18. Servants and officers] These belonged to the chief priests, &c.; the Roman soldiers had probably been dismissed after having conducted Christ to Annas.

18. Made a fire of coals—The square court (Vol. i, pp. 121, 326) enclosed within the structure of an Eastern house, lying under the open air, is often paved, and furnishes the proper basis for a coal fire. It is not unfrequent that at the Passover period the weather is cold enough in Jerusalem to render a fire desirable.

Verse 19. Asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.] He probably asked him by what authority, or in virtue of what right, he collected disciples, formed a different sect, preached a new doctrine, and set himself up for a public reformer? As religion was interested in these things, the high priest was considered as being the proper judge. But all this, with what follows, was transacted by night, and this was contrary to established laws. For the Talmud states, Sanhed. c. iv. s. 1, that-“Criminal processes can neither commence not terminate, but during the course of the day. If the person be acquitted, the sentence may be pronounced during that day; but, if he be condemned, the sentence cannot be pronounced till the next day. But no kind of judgment is to be executed, either on the eve of the Sabbath, or the eve of any festival.” Nevertheless, to the lasting infamy of this people, Christ was judicially interrogated and condemned during the night; and on the night too of the passover, or, according to others, on the eve of that feast. Thus, as I have remarked before, all the forms of justice were insulted and outraged in the case of our Lord. In this his humiliation his judgment was taken away. See Acts 8:33.

Verses 19-27. The high-priest then asked Jesus — As he stood before him; of his disciples, and of his doctrine — What it was that he taught, and with what view he had gathered so many followers. In these questions there was a great deal of art. For, as the crime laid to our Lord’s charge was, that he set himself up for the Messiah, and deluded the people, they expected he would claim that dignity in their presence, and so, without further trouble, they would have condemned him on his own confession. But, to oblige a prisoner to confess what might take away his life, being an unjust method of procedure, Jesus complained of it with reason, and bade them prove what they laid to his charge, by witnesses. Jesus answered, I spake openly, &c. — What I have taught has been delivered in the most public manner. I ever taught in the synagogue — As I had opportunity; and in the temple, whither the Jews resort — In the greatest numbers; and in secret have I said nothing — Even to my most intimate friends, but what has been perfectly agreeable to the tenor of my public discourses. Why askest thou me — Whom thou wilt not believe? It was greatly to the honour of our Lord’s character, that all his actions were done in public, under the eye even of his enemies; because, had he been carrying on any imposture, the lovers of truth and goodness would thus have had abundant opportunities to have detected him. With propriety, therefore, in this defence, he appealed to that part of his character; nevertheless, his answer was thought disrespectful. For, when he had spoken, one of the officers — Belonging to the court; struck Jesus, saying, Answerest thou the high-priest so? — With so little reverence? Jesus answered — With his usual mildness; If I have spoken evil — Any thing false or improper; bear witness of the evil — Show wherein it lies; but if well, why smitest thou me — Can reason be answered by blows? Or, can such a sober appeal to it deserve them? Thus Jesus became an example of his own precept, (Matthew 5:44,) bearing the greatest injuries with a patience that could not be provoked. Now Annas had sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest — The evangelist mentions that Jesus was sent to the high-priest, because he had before said that he was sent first to Annas, the high-priest’s father-in-law. Moreover, he takes notice that he was sent bound, to show the inhumanity of the officer who struck him in that condition. Of what took place while Jesus stood before the high-priest, see the notes on Matthew 26:59-68.

19. The high priest—Which high priest? Annas or Caiaphas? It is clear that Jesus is not sent to Caiaphas until verse 24, upon which see our note. It is also clear that at verse 13 Jesus is led to the high priest Annas. It is also clear that this is a different examination from the one given by Matthew, as taking place before Caiaphas. We hold, therefore, decidedly with those who maintain that the high priest of this verse is Annas. That Matthew (Matthew 26:57) omits the leading to Annas, does not contradict the fact. But in fact the ancient opinion that both high priests had office in the same extended palace may be considered as solving the whole difficulty. Peter went to the house of the high priest; he denied Christ while Christ was before Annas; and Christ was sent from one part of the palace to the other, by Annas to Caiaphas. Asked Jesus—Before this venerable dignitary, who was high priest before the prisoner was born, the youthful Jesus presents himself in bonds. During his repeated visits to Jerusalem, his teachings in the streets and preaching in the temple, probably Jesus had never been recognized by either high priest; while Jesus probably had seen them both in the exercise of their public office. Yet his name, his teachings, his miracles, and his popularity could not have been unknown to either; for, in fact, the beloved disciple, John, (verse 15,) was known to the high priest. Annas was a Sadducee; a sect which, denying future punishment, endeavoured to deter from crime by severity of judgment in the present world. Before this haughty magistrate the Saviour stands, with little reason to expect mild dealing. Asked Jesus of his disciples… doctrine—The first thought of Annas is, Who are the disciples, the supporters, the party, of this insurgent. He doubtless had lately heard of their ushering Jesus, with triumphal procession and great popular commotion, into the capital. How strong a party can he rally? And what are their real doctrines, as by him explained, religious or political? Have they a powerful secret combination to destroy the temple, abolish the priesthood, and overthrow the state?

V. 20. I spake openly-As to the manner:

continually-As to the time:

in the synagogue and temple-As to the place. In secret have I said nothing-No point of doctrine which I have not taught in public.

Verse 20. I spake openly to the world] To every person in the land indiscriminately-to the people at large: the tw kosmw, here, is tantamount to the French tout le monde, all the world, i.e. every person within reach. This is another proof that St. John uses the term world to mean the Jewish people only; for it is certain our Lord did not preach to the Gentiles. The answer of our Lord, mentioned in this and the following verse, is such as became a person conscious of his own innocence, and confident in the righteousness of his cause. I have taught in the temple, in the synagogues, in all the principal cities, towns, and villages, and through all the country. I have had no secret school. You and your emissaries have watched me every where. No doctrine has ever proceeded from my lips, but what was agreeable to the righteousness of the law and the purity of God. My disciples, when they have taught, have taught in the same way, and had the same witnesses. Ask those who have attended our public ministrations, and hear whether they can prove that I or my disciples have preached any false doctrines, have ever troubled society, or disturbed the state. Attend to the ordinary course of justice, call witnesses, let them make their depositions, and then proceed to judge according to the evidence brought before you.

Verses 19-27. The high-priest then asked Jesus — As he stood before him; of his disciples, and of his doctrine — What it was that he taught, and with what view he had gathered so many followers. In these questions there was a great deal of art. For, as the crime laid to our Lord’s charge was, that he set himself up for the Messiah, and deluded the people, they expected he would claim that dignity in their presence, and so, without further trouble, they would have condemned him on his own confession. But, to oblige a prisoner to confess what might take away his life, being an unjust method of procedure, Jesus complained of it with reason, and bade them prove what they laid to his charge, by witnesses. Jesus answered, I spake openly, &c. — What I have taught has been delivered in the most public manner. I ever taught in the synagogue — As I had opportunity; and in the temple, whither the Jews resort — In the greatest numbers; and in secret have I said nothing — Even to my most intimate friends, but what has been perfectly agreeable to the tenor of my public discourses. Why askest thou me — Whom thou wilt not believe? It was greatly to the honour of our Lord’s character, that all his actions were done in public, under the eye even of his enemies; because, had he been carrying on any imposture, the lovers of truth and goodness would thus have had abundant opportunities to have detected him. With propriety, therefore, in this defence, he appealed to that part of his character; nevertheless, his answer was thought disrespectful. For, when he had spoken, one of the officers — Belonging to the court; struck Jesus, saying, Answerest thou the high-priest so? — With so little reverence? Jesus answered — With his usual mildness; If I have spoken evil — Any thing false or improper; bear witness of the evil — Show wherein it lies; but if well, why smitest thou me — Can reason be answered by blows? Or, can such a sober appeal to it deserve them? Thus Jesus became an example of his own precept, (Matthew 5:44,) bearing the greatest injuries with a patience that could not be provoked. Now Annas had sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest — The evangelist mentions that Jesus was sent to the high-priest, because he had before said that he was sent first to Annas, the high-priest’s father-in-law. Moreover, he takes notice that he was sent bound, to show the inhumanity of the officer who struck him in that condition. Of what took place while Jesus stood before the high-priest, see the notes on Matthew 26:59-68.

Ver. 20. I ever taught in the synagogue. Our Lord here clears himself from having any design to raise sedition against the government. When therefore he says, In secret have I said nothing, his meaning is not, that he never said any thing in private to his followers; but that the doctrine he taught at all times was for substance the same; and what that was there were great numbers of whom they might enquire, he having, as often as any opportunity offered, taught publicly in the temple and in the synagogues. It was more proper therefore to ask them who heard him, than to enquire of him who was the person accused, and so might not be believed in his own case. He did not go about to conceal any thing, which those who intend to raise sedition are wont to do; but what he said in private was the same that he spake in public.

We may hence learn, that it is not unusual for the best of doctrines to pass under the odious name and imputation of error and heresy. Christ’s own doctrine is here questioned. Also that ministers of Christ who have truth on their side, may and ought to speak boldly and openly. Truth blushes at nothing except at its being concealed.

This text also confutes those who say, Christ came not to Jerusalem, lest the Romans should suspect him of affecting a kingdom. For here he testifies that he “taught daily in the temple.” After his first miracle in Cana of Galilee, we find him going up to Jerusalem to keep the passover, where he abode at least eight days; and many, seeing the miracles that he did, believed on him: John 5:1. He went again to the feast, as mentioned in John 6:4; so that we have reason to believe he never declined that feast. He also went up to the feast of tabernacles, John 7:10, 14, and preached to the people in the temple, and wrought such wonders that the jews cried out, “When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these?” This feast being ended, he goes to the mount of Olives, and returns the next day to preach in the temple: John 8:1, 2. At the feast of dedication we find him again “walking in Solomon’s porch,” John 10:23, and there declaring himself to be the Son of God. In chap. 11. we find him at Bethany, only two miles distant from Jerusalem, where he raised Lazarus from the dead. From Bethany he goes to Jerusalem, the people going before him, and crying, “Hosanna to the Son of David:” chap. 12.

20. Jesus answered—Jesus, though before a magistrate, is not before a legitimate court, and so he might deny the jurisdiction and refuse to answer. He does answer, by at once refusing any specific account, and yet asserting his own openness and innocency. Openly… synagogue… temple—He has said nothing in his teachings which all the honest world might not hear. His preaching has been in the regular public sacred places, the synagogue and the temple. In secret… nothing—He has no conspiracy, no secret society. On the contrary, whatever confidential utterances he has made among his friends, his actual doctrines he would have all the world hear and receive.

V. 21. Why askest thou me-Whom thou wilt not believe?

Verses 19-27. The high-priest then asked Jesus — As he stood before him; of his disciples, and of his doctrine — What it was that he taught, and with what view he had gathered so many followers. In these questions there was a great deal of art. For, as the crime laid to our Lord’s charge was, that he set himself up for the Messiah, and deluded the people, they expected he would claim that dignity in their presence, and so, without further trouble, they would have condemned him on his own confession. But, to oblige a prisoner to confess what might take away his life, being an unjust method of procedure, Jesus complained of it with reason, and bade them prove what they laid to his charge, by witnesses. Jesus answered, I spake openly, &c. — What I have taught has been delivered in the most public manner. I ever taught in the synagogue — As I had opportunity; and in the temple, whither the Jews resort — In the greatest numbers; and in secret have I said nothing — Even to my most intimate friends, but what has been perfectly agreeable to the tenor of my public discourses. Why askest thou me — Whom thou wilt not believe? It was greatly to the honour of our Lord’s character, that all his actions were done in public, under the eye even of his enemies; because, had he been carrying on any imposture, the lovers of truth and goodness would thus have had abundant opportunities to have detected him. With propriety, therefore, in this defence, he appealed to that part of his character; nevertheless, his answer was thought disrespectful. For, when he had spoken, one of the officers — Belonging to the court; struck Jesus, saying, Answerest thou the high-priest so? — With so little reverence? Jesus answered — With his usual mildness; If I have spoken evil — Any thing false or improper; bear witness of the evil — Show wherein it lies; but if well, why smitest thou me — Can reason be answered by blows? Or, can such a sober appeal to it deserve them? Thus Jesus became an example of his own precept, (Matthew 5:44,) bearing the greatest injuries with a patience that could not be provoked. Now Annas had sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest — The evangelist mentions that Jesus was sent to the high-priest, because he had before said that he was sent first to Annas, the high-priest’s father-in-law. Moreover, he takes notice that he was sent bound, to show the inhumanity of the officer who struck him in that condition. Of what took place while Jesus stood before the high-priest, see the notes on Matthew 26:59-68.

21. Ask them which heard me—He hereby refuses, as is his right, to enter into any detail. Nay, he checks his inquisitor, in language of perfect respect as a venerable ruler, but with decided repulse as an illegitimate judge.

V. 22. Answerest thou the high priest so?-With so little reverence?

Verse 22. One of the officers-struck Jesus] This was an outrage to all justice: for a prisoner, before he is condemned, is ever considered to be under the especial protection of justice; nor has any one a right to touch him, but according to the direction of the law. But it has been observed before that, if justice had been done to Christ, he could neither have suffered nor died.

Verses 19-27. The high-priest then asked Jesus — As he stood before him; of his disciples, and of his doctrine — What it was that he taught, and with what view he had gathered so many followers. In these questions there was a great deal of art. For, as the crime laid to our Lord’s charge was, that he set himself up for the Messiah, and deluded the people, they expected he would claim that dignity in their presence, and so, without further trouble, they would have condemned him on his own confession. But, to oblige a prisoner to confess what might take away his life, being an unjust method of procedure, Jesus complained of it with reason, and bade them prove what they laid to his charge, by witnesses. Jesus answered, I spake openly, &c. — What I have taught has been delivered in the most public manner. I ever taught in the synagogue — As I had opportunity; and in the temple, whither the Jews resort — In the greatest numbers; and in secret have I said nothing — Even to my most intimate friends, but what has been perfectly agreeable to the tenor of my public discourses. Why askest thou me — Whom thou wilt not believe? It was greatly to the honour of our Lord’s character, that all his actions were done in public, under the eye even of his enemies; because, had he been carrying on any imposture, the lovers of truth and goodness would thus have had abundant opportunities to have detected him. With propriety, therefore, in this defence, he appealed to that part of his character; nevertheless, his answer was thought disrespectful. For, when he had spoken, one of the officers — Belonging to the court; struck Jesus, saying, Answerest thou the high-priest so? — With so little reverence? Jesus answered — With his usual mildness; If I have spoken evil — Any thing false or improper; bear witness of the evil — Show wherein it lies; but if well, why smitest thou me — Can reason be answered by blows? Or, can such a sober appeal to it deserve them? Thus Jesus became an example of his own precept, (Matthew 5:44,) bearing the greatest injuries with a patience that could not be provoked. Now Annas had sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest — The evangelist mentions that Jesus was sent to the high-priest, because he had before said that he was sent first to Annas, the high-priest’s father-in-law. Moreover, he takes notice that he was sent bound, to show the inhumanity of the officer who struck him in that condition. Of what took place while Jesus stood before the high-priest, see the notes on Matthew 26:59-68.

Ver. 22. One of the officers — struck Jesus with the palm of his hand. The word rhapisma has been differently interpreted, according to the divers significations put upon the verb rhapizo, from whence it is derived. Some will have it properly to mean a stroke, given either with a rod, a stick, or cudgel, because rhapis is by Hesychius rendered a rod or wand. But the old Greek and Latin lexicon renders it a box or stroke with the hand, agreeably to which it is understood by St. Augustine, Nonnus, Sedulius, Suidas, and Juvencus. — Some again make this distinction between coclaphus and rhapisma, that the former is given with the fist, and the latter with the flat or open hand; both which are expressed by Juvenal, where he says,

Nec pugnis cædere pectus

Te veto, nec plana faciem contundere palma.

By the former of which is meant what we call a blow on the breast, or box on the ear; and by the latter, a slap on the face.

But whichever of these indignities be understood here, it must be a complete fulfilment of the prophecies, where it is said, I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair. Isaiah 50:6. They shall smite the Judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek. Micah 5:1. They have smitten me upon the cheek reproachfully. Job 14:10. And he giveth his cheek to him that smiteth him. Lamentations 3:30. These very circumstances of the passion, Lactantius affirms to have been foretold by the Erythræan Sibyl. (Bp. Taylor.) For this reason also Christ chose to suffer this, that he might confound and humble the pride of man, and leave the proud an example of patience; which, if not imitated, will certainly condemn them.

22. One of the officers… struck Jesus—Flattering the high dignitary by a forward and unbidden avenging of his slighted dignity. In truth the very fact that Annas was not a regular official may have rendered his adherents and retainers more jealous for his honour and authority. With the palm—It is uncertain from the Greek whether the blow was with the hand or a staff.

Verses 19-27. The high-priest then asked Jesus — As he stood before him; of his disciples, and of his doctrine — What it was that he taught, and with what view he had gathered so many followers. In these questions there was a great deal of art. For, as the crime laid to our Lord’s charge was, that he set himself up for the Messiah, and deluded the people, they expected he would claim that dignity in their presence, and so, without further trouble, they would have condemned him on his own confession. But, to oblige a prisoner to confess what might take away his life, being an unjust method of procedure, Jesus complained of it with reason, and bade them prove what they laid to his charge, by witnesses. Jesus answered, I spake openly, &c. — What I have taught has been delivered in the most public manner. I ever taught in the synagogue — As I had opportunity; and in the temple, whither the Jews resort — In the greatest numbers; and in secret have I said nothing — Even to my most intimate friends, but what has been perfectly agreeable to the tenor of my public discourses. Why askest thou me — Whom thou wilt not believe? It was greatly to the honour of our Lord’s character, that all his actions were done in public, under the eye even of his enemies; because, had he been carrying on any imposture, the lovers of truth and goodness would thus have had abundant opportunities to have detected him. With propriety, therefore, in this defence, he appealed to that part of his character; nevertheless, his answer was thought disrespectful. For, when he had spoken, one of the officers — Belonging to the court; struck Jesus, saying, Answerest thou the high-priest so? — With so little reverence? Jesus answered — With his usual mildness; If I have spoken evil — Any thing false or improper; bear witness of the evil — Show wherein it lies; but if well, why smitest thou me — Can reason be answered by blows? Or, can such a sober appeal to it deserve them? Thus Jesus became an example of his own precept, (Matthew 5:44,) bearing the greatest injuries with a patience that could not be provoked. Now Annas had sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest — The evangelist mentions that Jesus was sent to the high-priest, because he had before said that he was sent first to Annas, the high-priest’s father-in-law. Moreover, he takes notice that he was sent bound, to show the inhumanity of the officer who struck him in that condition. Of what took place while Jesus stood before the high-priest, see the notes on Matthew 26:59-68.

23. Jesus answered him—Though a mere retainer, Jesus as a man addresses him as a man, in the language of universal justice and reason. If I am wrong, demonstrate that wrong; if right, withhold violence.

V. 24. Now Annas had sent him to Caiaphas-As is implied John 18:13.

Bound-Being still bound, John 18:12.

Verse 24. Now Annas had sent him, &c.] It has been observed before that the proper place of this verse is immediately after the 13th; and, if it be allowed to stand here, it should be read in a parenthesis, and considered as a recapitulation of what had been before done.

Verses 19-27. The high-priest then asked Jesus — As he stood before him; of his disciples, and of his doctrine — What it was that he taught, and with what view he had gathered so many followers. In these questions there was a great deal of art. For, as the crime laid to our Lord’s charge was, that he set himself up for the Messiah, and deluded the people, they expected he would claim that dignity in their presence, and so, without further trouble, they would have condemned him on his own confession. But, to oblige a prisoner to confess what might take away his life, being an unjust method of procedure, Jesus complained of it with reason, and bade them prove what they laid to his charge, by witnesses. Jesus answered, I spake openly, &c. — What I have taught has been delivered in the most public manner. I ever taught in the synagogue — As I had opportunity; and in the temple, whither the Jews resort — In the greatest numbers; and in secret have I said nothing — Even to my most intimate friends, but what has been perfectly agreeable to the tenor of my public discourses. Why askest thou me — Whom thou wilt not believe? It was greatly to the honour of our Lord’s character, that all his actions were done in public, under the eye even of his enemies; because, had he been carrying on any imposture, the lovers of truth and goodness would thus have had abundant opportunities to have detected him. With propriety, therefore, in this defence, he appealed to that part of his character; nevertheless, his answer was thought disrespectful. For, when he had spoken, one of the officers — Belonging to the court; struck Jesus, saying, Answerest thou the high-priest so? — With so little reverence? Jesus answered — With his usual mildness; If I have spoken evil — Any thing false or improper; bear witness of the evil — Show wherein it lies; but if well, why smitest thou me — Can reason be answered by blows? Or, can such a sober appeal to it deserve them? Thus Jesus became an example of his own precept, (Matthew 5:44,) bearing the greatest injuries with a patience that could not be provoked. Now Annas had sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest — The evangelist mentions that Jesus was sent to the high-priest, because he had before said that he was sent first to Annas, the high-priest’s father-in-law. Moreover, he takes notice that he was sent bound, to show the inhumanity of the officer who struck him in that condition. Of what took place while Jesus stood before the high-priest, see the notes on Matthew 26:59-68.

24. Annas had sent him—The pluperfect had sent, and the parentheses enclosing this verse, are supplied by our translators, to indicate that Jesus was sent by Annas immediately at the close of the 14th verse. Thereby the high priest of verse 19 is Caiaphas, and the examination which follows is before him. But the Greek for had sent is not pluperfect, and there are no good grounds for so rendering it. The plain reading of the Greek declares, that Annas now sent Jesus to Caiaphas at the close of this preliminary examination.

Peter’s second and third denial, 25-27.

The position of this part of the narrative of Peter’s denials, which seems to be separated purposely from the first denial, confirms the supposition that the whole took place during the stay of Jesus in the hall of Annas. We may add, that the clear accordance of the narratives of these denials in the different Evangelists, which discloses itself amidst apparent discrepancies, forms a striking demonstration of the truth of the history. The discrepancies show intuitively that the narratives are perfectly artless and independent, while the ultimate agreement shows that the respective authors wrote from common fact.

Verses 19-27. The high-priest then asked Jesus — As he stood before him; of his disciples, and of his doctrine — What it was that he taught, and with what view he had gathered so many followers. In these questions there was a great deal of art. For, as the crime laid to our Lord’s charge was, that he set himself up for the Messiah, and deluded the people, they expected he would claim that dignity in their presence, and so, without further trouble, they would have condemned him on his own confession. But, to oblige a prisoner to confess what might take away his life, being an unjust method of procedure, Jesus complained of it with reason, and bade them prove what they laid to his charge, by witnesses. Jesus answered, I spake openly, &c. — What I have taught has been delivered in the most public manner. I ever taught in the synagogue — As I had opportunity; and in the temple, whither the Jews resort — In the greatest numbers; and in secret have I said nothing — Even to my most intimate friends, but what has been perfectly agreeable to the tenor of my public discourses. Why askest thou me — Whom thou wilt not believe? It was greatly to the honour of our Lord’s character, that all his actions were done in public, under the eye even of his enemies; because, had he been carrying on any imposture, the lovers of truth and goodness would thus have had abundant opportunities to have detected him. With propriety, therefore, in this defence, he appealed to that part of his character; nevertheless, his answer was thought disrespectful. For, when he had spoken, one of the officers — Belonging to the court; struck Jesus, saying, Answerest thou the high-priest so? — With so little reverence? Jesus answered — With his usual mildness; If I have spoken evil — Any thing false or improper; bear witness of the evil — Show wherein it lies; but if well, why smitest thou me — Can reason be answered by blows? Or, can such a sober appeal to it deserve them? Thus Jesus became an example of his own precept, (Matthew 5:44,) bearing the greatest injuries with a patience that could not be provoked. Now Annas had sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest — The evangelist mentions that Jesus was sent to the high-priest, because he had before said that he was sent first to Annas, the high-priest’s father-in-law. Moreover, he takes notice that he was sent bound, to show the inhumanity of the officer who struck him in that condition. Of what took place while Jesus stood before the high-priest, see the notes on Matthew 26:59-68.

Ver. 25. Peter stood and warmed himself. The interesting case of this apostle is reserved to chap. 21. But we learn here, that Peter denied his Master in the house of Annas; and as John was the only disciple who never left Peter, we ought to follow his narration.

§ 133.—JESUS BEFORE ANNAS AND CAIAPHAS, AND THRICE DENIED BY PETER, 13-27. Matthew 26:57-75; Mark 14:53-72; Luke 22:54-62.

13. To Annas first—This Annas is mentioned in Luke 3:2 as being high priest, together with Caiaphas, at the opening of John the Baptist’s ministry, his name occupying the prior place to that of his colleague. He is pronounced by Josephus as the most fortunate man of his time in Judea; for he was high priest himself for fourteen years, having been so appointed by Cyrenius as far back as the taxing mentioned by Luke before our Saviour’s birth; and he had four sons who filled that office, besides his son-in-law Caiaphas. His venerable age, his great abilities, his ancient title to the priesthood, rendered him perhaps the most important Jew in the capital. The people, animated by a strong national feeling, doubtless regarded him as the permanent high priest. Both Herod and the Romans had capriciously changed the high priest, so that it had almost become an annual office. It is probable that he was the prime mover in the crucifixion of Jesus, and that in this, as in many other measures, Caiaphas was but the organ of his decisions. High Priest that same year—In apparent contrast with Annas, who was popularly held as the permanent rightful high priest.

Verses 19-27. The high-priest then asked Jesus — As he stood before him; of his disciples, and of his doctrine — What it was that he taught, and with what view he had gathered so many followers. In these questions there was a great deal of art. For, as the crime laid to our Lord’s charge was, that he set himself up for the Messiah, and deluded the people, they expected he would claim that dignity in their presence, and so, without further trouble, they would have condemned him on his own confession. But, to oblige a prisoner to confess what might take away his life, being an unjust method of procedure, Jesus complained of it with reason, and bade them prove what they laid to his charge, by witnesses. Jesus answered, I spake openly, &c. — What I have taught has been delivered in the most public manner. I ever taught in the synagogue — As I had opportunity; and in the temple, whither the Jews resort — In the greatest numbers; and in secret have I said nothing — Even to my most intimate friends, but what has been perfectly agreeable to the tenor of my public discourses. Why askest thou me — Whom thou wilt not believe? It was greatly to the honour of our Lord’s character, that all his actions were done in public, under the eye even of his enemies; because, had he been carrying on any imposture, the lovers of truth and goodness would thus have had abundant opportunities to have detected him. With propriety, therefore, in this defence, he appealed to that part of his character; nevertheless, his answer was thought disrespectful. For, when he had spoken, one of the officers — Belonging to the court; struck Jesus, saying, Answerest thou the high-priest so? — With so little reverence? Jesus answered — With his usual mildness; If I have spoken evil — Any thing false or improper; bear witness of the evil — Show wherein it lies; but if well, why smitest thou me — Can reason be answered by blows? Or, can such a sober appeal to it deserve them? Thus Jesus became an example of his own precept, (Matthew 5:44,) bearing the greatest injuries with a patience that could not be provoked. Now Annas had sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest — The evangelist mentions that Jesus was sent to the high-priest, because he had before said that he was sent first to Annas, the high-priest’s father-in-law. Moreover, he takes notice that he was sent bound, to show the inhumanity of the officer who struck him in that condition. Of what took place while Jesus stood before the high-priest, see the notes on Matthew 26:59-68.

§ 133.—JESUS BEFORE ANNAS AND CAIAPHAS, AND THRICE DENIED BY PETER, 13-27. Matthew 26:57-75; Mark 14:53-72; Luke 22:54-62.

13. To Annas first—This Annas is mentioned in Luke 3:2 as being high priest, together with Caiaphas, at the opening of John the Baptist’s ministry, his name occupying the prior place to that of his colleague. He is pronounced by Josephus as the most fortunate man of his time in Judea; for he was high priest himself for fourteen years, having been so appointed by Cyrenius as far back as the taxing mentioned by Luke before our Saviour’s birth; and he had four sons who filled that office, besides his son-in-law Caiaphas. His venerable age, his great abilities, his ancient title to the priesthood, rendered him perhaps the most important Jew in the capital. The people, animated by a strong national feeling, doubtless regarded him as the permanent high priest. Both Herod and the Romans had capriciously changed the high priest, so that it had almost become an annual office. It is probable that he was the prime mover in the crucifixion of Jesus, and that in this, as in many other measures, Caiaphas was but the organ of his decisions. High Priest that same year—In apparent contrast with Annas, who was popularly held as the permanent rightful high priest.

Verse 27. And-the cock crew.] Peter denied our Lord three times:- Peter’s first denial.

I. This took place, when he was without, or beneath, in the hall of Caiaphas’s house. He was not in the higher part where Christ stood before the high priest; but without that division of the hall, and in the lower part with the servants and officers, at the fire kindled in the midst of the hall, John 18:16, 18; and the girl who kept the door had entered into the hall, where she charged Peter.

Peter’s second denial.

II. This was in a short time after the first, Luke 22:58. Having once denied his Master, he naturally retired from the place where his accuser was to the vestibule of the hall, Matthew 26:71, and it was the time of the first cock-crowing, or soon after midnight. After remaining here a short time, perhaps an hour, another girl sees him, and says to them who were standing by in the vestibule, that he was one of them. Peter, to avoid this charge, withdraws into the hall, and warms himself. The girl, and those to whom she had spoken, follow him; the communication between the two places being immediate. Here a man enforces the charge of the girl, according to Luke; and others urge it, according to St. John; and Peter denies Jesus vehemently.

Peter’s third denial.

III. He was now in the hall, and also within sight of Jesus, though at such a distance from him that Jesus could not know what passed, but in a supernatural way. And, about an hour after his second denial, those who stood by founded a third charge against him, on his being a Galilean, which St. Luke says, Luke 22:59, one in particular strongly affirmed; and which, according to John, John 18:26, was supported by one of Malchus’s relations. This occasioned a more vehement denial than before, and immediately the cock crew the second time, which is eminently called alektorofwnia. The first denial may have been between our twelve and one; and the second between our two and three.

At the time of the third denial, Luke 22:61 proves that Jesus was in the same room with Peter. We must farther observe that Matthew, Matthew 26:57, lays the scene of Peter’s denials in the house of Caiaphas: whereas John, John 18:15-23, seems to intimate that these transactions took place in the house of Annas; but this difficulty arises from the injudicious insertion of the particle oun, therefore, in John 18:24, which should be omitted, on the authority of ADES, Mt. BH, many others; besides some versions, and some of the primitive fathers. Griesbach has left it out of the text. See Bishop Newcome’s Harm. notes, p. 48. The time of Peter’s denials happened during the space of the third Roman watch, or that division of the night, between twelve and three, which is called alektorofwnia, or cock-crowing, Mark 13:35. Concerning the nature and progress of Peter’s denial, see the notes on Matthew 26:58, 69-75.

Verses 19-27. The high-priest then asked Jesus — As he stood before him; of his disciples, and of his doctrine — What it was that he taught, and with what view he had gathered so many followers. In these questions there was a great deal of art. For, as the crime laid to our Lord’s charge was, that he set himself up for the Messiah, and deluded the people, they expected he would claim that dignity in their presence, and so, without further trouble, they would have condemned him on his own confession. But, to oblige a prisoner to confess what might take away his life, being an unjust method of procedure, Jesus complained of it with reason, and bade them prove what they laid to his charge, by witnesses. Jesus answered, I spake openly, &c. — What I have taught has been delivered in the most public manner. I ever taught in the synagogue — As I had opportunity; and in the temple, whither the Jews resort — In the greatest numbers; and in secret have I said nothing — Even to my most intimate friends, but what has been perfectly agreeable to the tenor of my public discourses. Why askest thou me — Whom thou wilt not believe? It was greatly to the honour of our Lord’s character, that all his actions were done in public, under the eye even of his enemies; because, had he been carrying on any imposture, the lovers of truth and goodness would thus have had abundant opportunities to have detected him. With propriety, therefore, in this defence, he appealed to that part of his character; nevertheless, his answer was thought disrespectful. For, when he had spoken, one of the officers — Belonging to the court; struck Jesus, saying, Answerest thou the high-priest so? — With so little reverence? Jesus answered — With his usual mildness; If I have spoken evil — Any thing false or improper; bear witness of the evil — Show wherein it lies; but if well, why smitest thou me — Can reason be answered by blows? Or, can such a sober appeal to it deserve them? Thus Jesus became an example of his own precept, (Matthew 5:44,) bearing the greatest injuries with a patience that could not be provoked. Now Annas had sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest — The evangelist mentions that Jesus was sent to the high-priest, because he had before said that he was sent first to Annas, the high-priest’s father-in-law. Moreover, he takes notice that he was sent bound, to show the inhumanity of the officer who struck him in that condition. Of what took place while Jesus stood before the high-priest, see the notes on Matthew 26:59-68.

§ 133.—JESUS BEFORE ANNAS AND CAIAPHAS, AND THRICE DENIED BY PETER, 13-27. Matthew 26:57-75; Mark 14:53-72; Luke 22:54-62.

13. To Annas first—This Annas is mentioned in Luke 3:2 as being high priest, together with Caiaphas, at the opening of John the Baptist’s ministry, his name occupying the prior place to that of his colleague. He is pronounced by Josephus as the most fortunate man of his time in Judea; for he was high priest himself for fourteen years, having been so appointed by Cyrenius as far back as the taxing mentioned by Luke before our Saviour’s birth; and he had four sons who filled that office, besides his son-in-law Caiaphas. His venerable age, his great abilities, his ancient title to the priesthood, rendered him perhaps the most important Jew in the capital. The people, animated by a strong national feeling, doubtless regarded him as the permanent high priest. Both Herod and the Romans had capriciously changed the high priest, so that it had almost become an annual office. It is probable that he was the prime mover in the crucifixion of Jesus, and that in this, as in many other measures, Caiaphas was but the organ of his decisions. High Priest that same year—In apparent contrast with Annas, who was popularly held as the permanent rightful high priest.

V. 28. They went not into the palace themselves, lest they should be defiled-By going into a house which was not purged from leaven, Deuteronomy 16:4. Matthew 27:2; Mark 15:1; Luke 23:1.

Verse 28. The hall of judgment] eiv to praitwriov, To the prætorium. This was the house where Pilate lodged; hence called in our margin, Pilate’s house. The prætorium is so called from being the dwelling-place of the prætor, or chief of the province. It was also the place where he held his court, and tried causes.

St. John has omitted all that passed in the house of Caiaphas-the accusations brought against Christ-the false witnesses-the insults which he received in the house of the high priest-and the assembling of the grand council, or Sanhedrin. These he found amply detailed by the other three evangelists; and for this reason it appears that he omitted them. John’s is properly a supplementary Gospel.

Lest they should be defiled] The Jews considered even the touch of a Gentile as a legal defilement; and therefore would not venture into the prætorium, for fear of contracting some impurity, which would have obliged them to separate themselves from all religious ordinances till the evening, Leviticus 15:10, 11, 19, 20.

That they might eat the passover.] Some maintain that to pasca here does not mean the paschal lamb, but the other sacrifices which were offered during the paschal solemnity-for this had been eaten the evening before; and that our Lord was crucified the day after the passover. Others have maintained that the paschal lamb is here meant; that this was the proper day for sacrificing it; that it was on the very hour in which it was offered that Christ expired on the cross; and that therefore our Lord did not eat the Paschal lamb this year, or that he ate it some hours before the common time. Bishop Pearce supposes that it was lawful for the Jews to eat the paschal lamb any time between the evening of Thursday and that of Friday. He conjectures too that this permission was necessary on account of the immense number of lambs which were to be killed for that purpose. When Cestius desired to know the number of the Jews, he asked the priests how he might accomplish his wish? They informed him that this might be known by the number of the lambs slain at the passover, as never less than ten partook of one lamb, though twenty might feast on it. On this mode of computation he found the lambs to be 256,500; eikosi pente muriadav hriqmhsan, prov de exakiscilia kai pentakosia. See Josephus, War, b. vi. c. 9. s. 3.

That Jesus ate a passover this last year of his life is sufficiently evident from Matthew 26:17-19; Mark 14:12-18; Luke 22:8-15; and that he ate this passover some hours before the ordinary time, and was himself slain at that hour in which the paschal lamb was ordered by the law to be sacrificed, is highly probable, if not absolutely certain. See Clarke’s note on “Matthew 26:20”, and at the conclusion of the chapter, where the subject, and the different opinions on it, are largely considered. See Clarke “Matthew 26:26”

Verse 28. Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment — To praitwrion, the pretorium, the governor’s palace. Properly speaking, the pretorium was that part of the palace where the soldiers kept guard, Mark 15:16; but in common language it was applied to the palace in general. The Jewish high-priests and elders sent Jesus hither that he might be tried by the Roman governor, Pilate, because they could not otherwise accomplish their purpose, the power of life and death being now taken out of their hands. And it was early — Although by this time it was broad daylight, yet it was early in the morning, and much sooner than the governor used to appear. It is therefore probable that he was called up on this extraordinary occasion; and they themselves went not into the judgment-hall — Or, into the palace, of which the judgment-hall was a part; lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the passover — Having purified themselves in order to eat the passover, they would not enter into the palace, which was the house of a heathen, for fear of contracting such defilement as might have rendered them incapable of eating the paschal-supper. They stood, therefore, before the palace, waiting for the governor, who on such occasions came out to them.

Ver. 28. Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas to the prætorium or hall of judgment, that is, to the bar of Cæsar, whom Pilate represented, Caiaphas and the council having delivered him up as worthy of death. It would seem they had a secret wish that Pilate should confirm their sentence without enquiry, and that Jesus might be crucified before the populace could know what was done, or have time to make a tumult. But Pilate, knowing their enmity, struggled against the sentence for nearly three hours, and with a pusillanimity quite unlike a Roman; so that it was not till noon that they saw him nailed to the cross.

28. From Caiaphas—For the examination before Caiaphas, compare our notes upon Matthew 26:57-68. The hall of judgment—The praetorium of Pilate, the procurator. For our account of Pilate, and the arraignment of Jesus before him, see our notes on Matthew 27:1-30. That they might eat the Passover—But, according to all the first three Evangelists, Jesus had eaten the paschal lamb the night before, namely, the evening closing Thursday. Were, then, these Jews yet to eat the paschal lamb upon the evening of the present day, namely, Friday? This has been a memorable difficulty among commentators for centuries. Sceptics have maintained that there is a contradiction between the first three Evangelists and John, inasmuch as the former represent the lamb as eaten on Thursday evening and he on Friday evening. To solve this difficulty, various theories have been proposed. Some have maintained that Jesus ate the lamb the evening before the Jews did generally; others have maintained that there were two Passover evenings allowed by the Jews themselves. The simplest and most satisfactory solution, however, is found in the different meanings of the word Passover. It no doubt did often signify simply the paschal lamb. But it also had a more extensive meaning, so as to include the entire festival of the Passover week. Such is the obvious meaning in John 2:13, 23; 6:4; 11:55; 12:1; 13:1. So also in 2 Chronicles 30:22: “They did eat the feast seven days, offering peace-offerings.” Now during the Passover week there was to be upon each day a burnt-offering, two young bullocks, one ram, and seven lambs; also a meat-offering, and one goat for a sin-offering. Unleavened bread was to be eaten through the week. There was also the chigagah, which was a festive thank-offering made by private individuals and families. To partake of these during any day of the festival was to keep or eat the Passover. That John did not disagree with the other Evangelists in holding the supper on the night of his betrayal to be the Passover, we have good historical proof. For his disciple Polycarp, in a discussion of the question occurring in his day, expressly declared that John himself celebrated the Easter Supper on the fourteenth of Nisan, the time of the Jewish Passover.

Verse 29. Pilate then went out] This was an act of condescension; but, as the Romans had confirmed to the Jews the free use of all their rites and ceremonies, the governor could not do less than comply with them in this matter. He went out to them, that they might not be obliged to come into the hall, and thus run the risk of being defiled.

Verses 29-32. Pilate then went out and said, What accusation bring ye against this man? — This was the most natural question imaginable for a judge to ask on such an occasion; nevertheless the priests thought themselves affronted by it. They answered, haughtily, If he were not a malefactor — Greek, kakopoiov, an evil-doer, a notorious offender; we would not have delivered him up unto thee — It seems they knew the governor’s sentiments concerning the prisoner, and understood his question as carrying an insinuation along with it, of their having brought one to be condemned against whom they could find no accusation. Then said Pilate, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law — By making this offer to them, the governor told them plainly, that in his opinion the crime which they laid to the prisoner’s charge was not of a capital nature; and that such punishment as they were permitted by Cesar to inflict, might be adequate to any misdemeanour Jesus was chargeable with. The Jews therefore said, It is not lawful for us — It is not allowed, you well know, by the government under which we are; to put any man to death — By which they signified, that the prisoner was guilty of a capital crime, that he deserved the highest punishment, and that none but the governor himself could give judgment in the cause. That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, &c. — That is, in consequence of this procedure of the Jews, there was an accomplishment of the divine counsels concerning the manner of our Lord’s death, of which Jesus had given frequent intimations in the course of his ministry. Signifying what death he should die — For crucifixion was not a Jewish, but a Roman punishment. So that had he not been condemned by the Roman governor, he could not have been crucified. Thus was the governor’s first attempt to save Jesus frustrated. He made four other efforts to the same purpose, but was equally unsuccessful in them all. This good effect, however, has flowed from them; they serve to testify how strongly Pilate was impressed with the conviction of our Lord’s innocence, and at the same time they show to what a height of malice and wickedness the Jewish great men were now risen.

29. Pilate then went out—Taking the diagram of a Jewish house in our commentary on Matthew (vol. 1:326) to represent Pilate’s pretorium, let us suppose that at the “street” there is a wide area in front of the palace where this multitude, headed by the priests, presents itself. Pilate, when thus called upon by the dignitaries of the nation, sustained by the people, promptly went out unto them, standing in the portico with the multitude before him. The conversation that ensues is so natural and so suitable to the respective parties as to contain proof of its own genuineness. Pilate’s first business is to call for the accusation.

Verse 30. If he were not a malefactor] So they did not wish to make Pilate the judge, but the executor of the sentence which they had already illegally passed.

Verses 29-32. Pilate then went out and said, What accusation bring ye against this man? — This was the most natural question imaginable for a judge to ask on such an occasion; nevertheless the priests thought themselves affronted by it. They answered, haughtily, If he were not a malefactor — Greek, kakopoiov, an evil-doer, a notorious offender; we would not have delivered him up unto thee — It seems they knew the governor’s sentiments concerning the prisoner, and understood his question as carrying an insinuation along with it, of their having brought one to be condemned against whom they could find no accusation. Then said Pilate, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law — By making this offer to them, the governor told them plainly, that in his opinion the crime which they laid to the prisoner’s charge was not of a capital nature; and that such punishment as they were permitted by Cesar to inflict, might be adequate to any misdemeanour Jesus was chargeable with. The Jews therefore said, It is not lawful for us — It is not allowed, you well know, by the government under which we are; to put any man to death — By which they signified, that the prisoner was guilty of a capital crime, that he deserved the highest punishment, and that none but the governor himself could give judgment in the cause. That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, &c. — That is, in consequence of this procedure of the Jews, there was an accomplishment of the divine counsels concerning the manner of our Lord’s death, of which Jesus had given frequent intimations in the course of his ministry. Signifying what death he should die — For crucifixion was not a Jewish, but a Roman punishment. So that had he not been condemned by the Roman governor, he could not have been crucified. Thus was the governor’s first attempt to save Jesus frustrated. He made four other efforts to the same purpose, but was equally unsuccessful in them all. This good effect, however, has flowed from them; they serve to testify how strongly Pilate was impressed with the conviction of our Lord’s innocence, and at the same time they show to what a height of malice and wickedness the Jewish great men were now risen.

30. If… not a malefactor—Uttered in a sarcastic tone, this reply would be of a very irritating character. Uttered, however, in a tone of courteous sauvity, it apologizes for troubling Pilate, assuring him that nothing but the fact that they had a malefactor could have brought them there. Their real purpose, under either meaning, is to precipitate Pilate into the slaying of Jesus. They first wished to do this, if possible, by making Pilate execute him in implicit compliance with their judgment. Or, failing in that, they will accuse Jesus of treason, and induce Pilate to condemn and crucify. And failing in that, they will boldly threaten Pilate himself, and compel him to execute whether he condemn or not. Pilate, after availing himself of every possible subterfuge, finally yields to their last master-stroke.

V. 31. It is not lawful for us to put any man to death-The power of inflicting capital punishment had been taken from them that very year. So the sceptre was departed from Judah, and transferred to the Romans.

Verse 31. It is not lawful for us to put any man to death] They might have judged Jesus according to their law, as Pilate bade them do; but they could only excommunicate or scourge him. They might have voted him worthy of death; but they could not put him to death, if any thing of a secular nature were charged against him. The power of life and death was in all probability taken from the Jews when Archelaus, king of Judea, was banished to Vienna, and Judea was made a Roman province; and this happened more than fifty years before the destruction of Jerusalem. But the Romans suffered Herod, mentioned Acts 12:1, &c., to exercise the power of life and death during his reign. See much on this point in Calmet and Pearce. After all, I think it probable that, though the power of life and death was taken away from the Jews, as far as it concerned affairs of state, yet it was continued to them in matters which were wholly of an ecclesiastical nature; and that they only applied thus to Pilate to persuade him that they were proceeding against Christ as an enemy of the state, and not as a transgressor of their own peculiar laws and customs. Hence, though they assert that he should die according to their law, because he made himself the Son of God, John 19:7, yet they lay peculiar stress on his being an enemy to the Roman government; and, when they found Pilate disposed to let him go, they asserted that if he did he was not Cæsar’s friend, John 18:12. It was this that intimidated Pilate, and induced him to give him up, that they might crucify him. How they came to lose this power is accounted for in a different manner by Dr. Lightfoot. His observations are very curious, and are subjoined to the end of this chapter. See Clarke “John 18:40”

Verses 29-32. Pilate then went out and said, What accusation bring ye against this man? — This was the most natural question imaginable for a judge to ask on such an occasion; nevertheless the priests thought themselves affronted by it. They answered, haughtily, If he were not a malefactor — Greek, kakopoiov, an evil-doer, a notorious offender; we would not have delivered him up unto thee — It seems they knew the governor’s sentiments concerning the prisoner, and understood his question as carrying an insinuation along with it, of their having brought one to be condemned against whom they could find no accusation. Then said Pilate, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law — By making this offer to them, the governor told them plainly, that in his opinion the crime which they laid to the prisoner’s charge was not of a capital nature; and that such punishment as they were permitted by Cesar to inflict, might be adequate to any misdemeanour Jesus was chargeable with. The Jews therefore said, It is not lawful for us — It is not allowed, you well know, by the government under which we are; to put any man to death — By which they signified, that the prisoner was guilty of a capital crime, that he deserved the highest punishment, and that none but the governor himself could give judgment in the cause. That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, &c. — That is, in consequence of this procedure of the Jews, there was an accomplishment of the divine counsels concerning the manner of our Lord’s death, of which Jesus had given frequent intimations in the course of his ministry. Signifying what death he should die — For crucifixion was not a Jewish, but a Roman punishment. So that had he not been condemned by the Roman governor, he could not have been crucified. Thus was the governor’s first attempt to save Jesus frustrated. He made four other efforts to the same purpose, but was equally unsuccessful in them all. This good effect, however, has flowed from them; they serve to testify how strongly Pilate was impressed with the conviction of our Lord’s innocence, and at the same time they show to what a height of malice and wickedness the Jewish great men were now risen.

V. 32. Signifying what death he should die-For crucifixion was not a Jewish, but a Roman punishment. So that had he not been condemned by the Roman governor, he could not have been crucified. John 3:14.

Verse 32. That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled] Or, thus the word was fulfilled. God permitted the Jews to lose the power of life and death, in the sense before stated, that according to the Roman laws, which punished sedition, &c., with the cross, Christ might be crucified, according to his own prediction: John 12:32; 3:14.

Verses 29-32. Pilate then went out and said, What accusation bring ye against this man? — This was the most natural question imaginable for a judge to ask on such an occasion; nevertheless the priests thought themselves affronted by it. They answered, haughtily, If he were not a malefactor — Greek, kakopoiov, an evil-doer, a notorious offender; we would not have delivered him up unto thee — It seems they knew the governor’s sentiments concerning the prisoner, and understood his question as carrying an insinuation along with it, of their having brought one to be condemned against whom they could find no accusation. Then said Pilate, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law — By making this offer to them, the governor told them plainly, that in his opinion the crime which they laid to the prisoner’s charge was not of a capital nature; and that such punishment as they were permitted by Cesar to inflict, might be adequate to any misdemeanour Jesus was chargeable with. The Jews therefore said, It is not lawful for us — It is not allowed, you well know, by the government under which we are; to put any man to death — By which they signified, that the prisoner was guilty of a capital crime, that he deserved the highest punishment, and that none but the governor himself could give judgment in the cause. That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, &c. — That is, in consequence of this procedure of the Jews, there was an accomplishment of the divine counsels concerning the manner of our Lord’s death, of which Jesus had given frequent intimations in the course of his ministry. Signifying what death he should die — For crucifixion was not a Jewish, but a Roman punishment. So that had he not been condemned by the Roman governor, he could not have been crucified. Thus was the governor’s first attempt to save Jesus frustrated. He made four other efforts to the same purpose, but was equally unsuccessful in them all. This good effect, however, has flowed from them; they serve to testify how strongly Pilate was impressed with the conviction of our Lord’s innocence, and at the same time they show to what a height of malice and wickedness the Jewish great men were now risen.

32. That… might be fulfilled—This singular fact of the loss by the Jewish nation of the right of inflicting death, brings about the great result foreseen and accepted in the divine plan, that Jesus should accept death from Gentile hands. Had the Jews inflicted death upon him on their charge of blasphemy, the method would have been by stoning; a death they came near inflicting upon him in a burst of passion, (John 8:58,) and did inflict upon Stephen.

Verse 33. Art thou the king of the Jews?] St. Luke says, expressly, Luke 23:2, that when the Jews brought him to Pilate they began to accuse him as a rebel, who said he was king of the Jews, and forbade the people to pay tribute to Cæsar. It was in consequence of this accusation that Pilate asked the question mentioned in the text.

Verses 33-40. Then Pilate entered into the judgment-hall again — See the note on Matthew 27:11. It seems, as the governor had heard an honourable report of Jesus, and observed in his silence, under the accusations brought against him, an air of meek majesty and greatness of spirit, rather than any consciousness of guilt, or any indication of a fierce contempt, he was willing to discourse with him more privately before he proceeded further. He therefore called Jesus, and said, Art thou the king of the Jews? — Dost thou really pretend to any right to govern them? Jesus answered, Sayest thou this thing of thyself? — Dost thou ask this question of thy own accord, because thou thinkest that I have affected regal power? or did others tell it thee of me? — Or dost thou ask it according to the information of the priests, affirming that I have acknowledged myself to be a king? No doubt Jesus knew what had happened; but he spake to the governor after this manner, because, being in the palace when the priests accused him, he had not heard what they said. Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? — Dost thou think that I am acquainted with the religious opinions, expectations, and disputes of the Jews? Thine own nation, &c., have delivered thee unto me — As a seditious person, one that assumes the title of a king: What hast thou done — To merit the charge of sedition? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world — Not a temporal, but a spiritual kingdom, which does not at all interfere with the dominion of Cesar, or of which any prince has reason to be jealous. If my kingdom were of this world — Were of an external or temporal nature; then would my servants fight — Or rather, would have fought, would have endeavoured to establish me on the throne by force of arms, and would have fought against the Jews when they came to apprehend me. But as I have done nothing of this, but readily put myself into their hands, it is evident my kingdom is not from hence — Nor to be erected here; and therefore I have been so far from arming my followers with secular weapons, that the guard who came to apprehend me know I forbade their making use of those they had. Pilate said, Art thou a king then? — Art thou a king, notwithstanding thy kingdom is not of this world? Jesus answered, Thou sayest I am a king — That is, according to the Hebrew idiom, It is as thou sayest: I am a king, but not of this world: even the appointed Head and Governor of the whole Israel of God; nor will I ever basely seek my safety by renouncing my claim to the most excellent majesty and extensive dominion. To this end was I born, &c. — Our Lord speaks of his human origin; his divine was above Pilate’s comprehension: yet it is intimated in the following words: For this cause came I into the world — Namely, from heaven; that I should bear witness unto the truth — That by explaining and proving the truth, I might impress it upon men’s consciences, and make them obedient to its laws. In this consisteth my kingdom, and all the lovers of truth obey me, and are my subjects. This is what Paul calls the good confession, which he tells Timothy, (1 Timothy 6:13,) Jesus witnessed before Pontius Pilate. And justly does the apostle term it so. For our Lord did not deny the truth to save his own life, but gave all his followers an example highly worthy of imitation. It is remarkable, that Christ’s assuming the title of king did not offend the governor in the least, though it was the principal crime laid to his charge. Probably the account which he gave of his kingdom and subjects, led Pilate to take him for some Stoic philosopher, who pleased himself with the chimerical royalty attributed by his sect to those they termed wise men. See Horace, Lib. I. Sat. 3. Accordingly he desired him to explain what he meant by truth. Pilate saith, What is truth? — That is, the truth to which thou referrest, and speakest of as thy business to attest. Or perhaps he meant, What signifies truth? Is that a thing worth hazarding thy life for? So he left him presently, to plead with the Jews for him; looking upon him, it is probable, as an innocent but weak man. He went out again unto the Jews, and saith — To those that were assembled about the judgment-hall, namely, chief priests and others: I find in him no fault at all — No opinion inconsistent with the good of society, neither any action or pretension criminal in the least degree. But ye have a custom that I should release unto you one at the passover — And I am ready now to oblige you in this affair. This, it seems, was said in consequence of the multitude desiring him to do as he had been wont to do at preceding passovers. See Mark 15:8-10. Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews? — It seems he hoped by this proposal to preserve the life of Jesus, of whose innocence he was fully convinced; and accordingly, that he might induce them to choose him, he proposed no other alternative than Barabbas, a robber and murderer. See note on Matthew 27:15-18, 20-22. Then cried they all again — Or, all at once, as some translate palin here, because it does not appear that the people had refused Jesus and asked Barabbas before this time. But indeed “that word is wanting in a considerable number of manuscripts, in the Complutensian edition, the Syriac, Coptic, Saxon, Arabic, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions. In many Latin manuscripts it is not found. Besides, it does not suit the preceding part of our Lord’s trial, as related by this evangelist, who makes no mention of their crying in this manner before.” — Campbell. Not this man — We will not have this man released; but Barabbas — A robber and murderer. And thus, when Pilate would have let him go, they denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto them, Acts 3:14. See note on Luke 23:18-25.

Ver. 33, 34. Art thou the king of the jews? Jesus postponed the direct answer by asking the governor what the jews had said when he went out to speak to them, and which the judge in point of honour and duty was bound to announce: Sayest thou this of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? On being asked the plain question, whether he were a king —

33. Entered into the judgment hall—While the multitude is in the front area, facing Pilate at his threshold, Jesus has been sent into the hall. Pilate was, therefore, alternately with Jesus within, and with the multitude without. Art thou—This question presupposes, as the other Evangelists state that Jesus had treasonably claimed to be a king. It is to be noted that Luke makes Jesus declare himself a king without explanation, and yet makes Pilate clear him of fault. His account alone would be liable to the charge brought by rationalistic commentators against it, of being mysterious. John, in the present chapter, interposes the explanation, by which it is shown that Jesus so defined his royalty as to exculpate him from all fault in the eyes of Pilate. Pilate asks the present question in a tone of the utmost seriousness, as if to learn both what Jesus claimed to be, and what he was.

Verse 34. Sayest thou this thing of thyself] That is, Is it because my enemies thus accuse me, or because thou hast any suspicion of me, that thou askest this question?

Verses 33-40. Then Pilate entered into the judgment-hall again — See the note on Matthew 27:11. It seems, as the governor had heard an honourable report of Jesus, and observed in his silence, under the accusations brought against him, an air of meek majesty and greatness of spirit, rather than any consciousness of guilt, or any indication of a fierce contempt, he was willing to discourse with him more privately before he proceeded further. He therefore called Jesus, and said, Art thou the king of the Jews? — Dost thou really pretend to any right to govern them? Jesus answered, Sayest thou this thing of thyself? — Dost thou ask this question of thy own accord, because thou thinkest that I have affected regal power? or did others tell it thee of me? — Or dost thou ask it according to the information of the priests, affirming that I have acknowledged myself to be a king? No doubt Jesus knew what had happened; but he spake to the governor after this manner, because, being in the palace when the priests accused him, he had not heard what they said. Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? — Dost thou think that I am acquainted with the religious opinions, expectations, and disputes of the Jews? Thine own nation, &c., have delivered thee unto me — As a seditious person, one that assumes the title of a king: What hast thou done — To merit the charge of sedition? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world — Not a temporal, but a spiritual kingdom, which does not at all interfere with the dominion of Cesar, or of which any prince has reason to be jealous. If my kingdom were of this world — Were of an external or temporal nature; then would my servants fight — Or rather, would have fought, would have endeavoured to establish me on the throne by force of arms, and would have fought against the Jews when they came to apprehend me. But as I have done nothing of this, but readily put myself into their hands, it is evident my kingdom is not from hence — Nor to be erected here; and therefore I have been so far from arming my followers with secular weapons, that the guard who came to apprehend me know I forbade their making use of those they had. Pilate said, Art thou a king then? — Art thou a king, notwithstanding thy kingdom is not of this world? Jesus answered, Thou sayest I am a king — That is, according to the Hebrew idiom, It is as thou sayest: I am a king, but not of this world: even the appointed Head and Governor of the whole Israel of God; nor will I ever basely seek my safety by renouncing my claim to the most excellent majesty and extensive dominion. To this end was I born, &c. — Our Lord speaks of his human origin; his divine was above Pilate’s comprehension: yet it is intimated in the following words: For this cause came I into the world — Namely, from heaven; that I should bear witness unto the truth — That by explaining and proving the truth, I might impress it upon men’s consciences, and make them obedient to its laws. In this consisteth my kingdom, and all the lovers of truth obey me, and are my subjects. This is what Paul calls the good confession, which he tells Timothy, (1 Timothy 6:13,) Jesus witnessed before Pontius Pilate. And justly does the apostle term it so. For our Lord did not deny the truth to save his own life, but gave all his followers an example highly worthy of imitation. It is remarkable, that Christ’s assuming the title of king did not offend the governor in the least, though it was the principal crime laid to his charge. Probably the account which he gave of his kingdom and subjects, led Pilate to take him for some Stoic philosopher, who pleased himself with the chimerical royalty attributed by his sect to those they termed wise men. See Horace, Lib. I. Sat. 3. Accordingly he desired him to explain what he meant by truth. Pilate saith, What is truth? — That is, the truth to which thou referrest, and speakest of as thy business to attest. Or perhaps he meant, What signifies truth? Is that a thing worth hazarding thy life for? So he left him presently, to plead with the Jews for him; looking upon him, it is probable, as an innocent but weak man. He went out again unto the Jews, and saith — To those that were assembled about the judgment-hall, namely, chief priests and others: I find in him no fault at all — No opinion inconsistent with the good of society, neither any action or pretension criminal in the least degree. But ye have a custom that I should release unto you one at the passover — And I am ready now to oblige you in this affair. This, it seems, was said in consequence of the multitude desiring him to do as he had been wont to do at preceding passovers. See Mark 15:8-10. Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews? — It seems he hoped by this proposal to preserve the life of Jesus, of whose innocence he was fully convinced; and accordingly, that he might induce them to choose him, he proposed no other alternative than Barabbas, a robber and murderer. See note on Matthew 27:15-18, 20-22. Then cried they all again — Or, all at once, as some translate palin here, because it does not appear that the people had refused Jesus and asked Barabbas before this time. But indeed “that word is wanting in a considerable number of manuscripts, in the Complutensian edition, the Syriac, Coptic, Saxon, Arabic, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions. In many Latin manuscripts it is not found. Besides, it does not suit the preceding part of our Lord’s trial, as related by this evangelist, who makes no mention of their crying in this manner before.” — Campbell. Not this man — We will not have this man released; but Barabbas — A robber and murderer. And thus, when Pilate would have let him go, they denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto them, Acts 3:14. See note on Luke 23:18-25.

Ver. 33, 34. Art thou the king of the jews? Jesus postponed the direct answer by asking the governor what the jews had said when he went out to speak to them, and which the judge in point of honour and duty was bound to announce: Sayest thou this of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? On being asked the plain question, whether he were a king —

34. Of thyself—Does Pilate ask the question after the royalty of Jesus in a Roman, or a Hebrew sense? If the former, then Jesus claims not to be a king: that is, a political king. If in the Hebrew sense, then he asks, “Are you the Messiah?” the Anointed Prince of the realm of holiness? then truly he is a king; a king of whom all earthly kings are but a shadow.

Verse 35. Am I a Jew?] That is, I am not a Jew, and cannot judge whether thou art what is called the Christ, the king of the Jews. It is thy own countrymen, and their spiritual rulers, who delivered thee up to me with the above accusation.

What hast thou done?] If thou dost not profess thyself king over this people, and an enemy to Cæsar, what is it that thou hast done, for which they desire thy condemnation?

Verses 33-40. Then Pilate entered into the judgment-hall again — See the note on Matthew 27:11. It seems, as the governor had heard an honourable report of Jesus, and observed in his silence, under the accusations brought against him, an air of meek majesty and greatness of spirit, rather than any consciousness of guilt, or any indication of a fierce contempt, he was willing to discourse with him more privately before he proceeded further. He therefore called Jesus, and said, Art thou the king of the Jews? — Dost thou really pretend to any right to govern them? Jesus answered, Sayest thou this thing of thyself? — Dost thou ask this question of thy own accord, because thou thinkest that I have affected regal power? or did others tell it thee of me? — Or dost thou ask it according to the information of the priests, affirming that I have acknowledged myself to be a king? No doubt Jesus knew what had happened; but he spake to the governor after this manner, because, being in the palace when the priests accused him, he had not heard what they said. Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? — Dost thou think that I am acquainted with the religious opinions, expectations, and disputes of the Jews? Thine own nation, &c., have delivered thee unto me — As a seditious person, one that assumes the title of a king: What hast thou done — To merit the charge of sedition? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world — Not a temporal, but a spiritual kingdom, which does not at all interfere with the dominion of Cesar, or of which any prince has reason to be jealous. If my kingdom were of this world — Were of an external or temporal nature; then would my servants fight — Or rather, would have fought, would have endeavoured to establish me on the throne by force of arms, and would have fought against the Jews when they came to apprehend me. But as I have done nothing of this, but readily put myself into their hands, it is evident my kingdom is not from hence — Nor to be erected here; and therefore I have been so far from arming my followers with secular weapons, that the guard who came to apprehend me know I forbade their making use of those they had. Pilate said, Art thou a king then? — Art thou a king, notwithstanding thy kingdom is not of this world? Jesus answered, Thou sayest I am a king — That is, according to the Hebrew idiom, It is as thou sayest: I am a king, but not of this world: even the appointed Head and Governor of the whole Israel of God; nor will I ever basely seek my safety by renouncing my claim to the most excellent majesty and extensive dominion. To this end was I born, &c. — Our Lord speaks of his human origin; his divine was above Pilate’s comprehension: yet it is intimated in the following words: For this cause came I into the world — Namely, from heaven; that I should bear witness unto the truth — That by explaining and proving the truth, I might impress it upon men’s consciences, and make them obedient to its laws. In this consisteth my kingdom, and all the lovers of truth obey me, and are my subjects. This is what Paul calls the good confession, which he tells Timothy, (1 Timothy 6:13,) Jesus witnessed before Pontius Pilate. And justly does the apostle term it so. For our Lord did not deny the truth to save his own life, but gave all his followers an example highly worthy of imitation. It is remarkable, that Christ’s assuming the title of king did not offend the governor in the least, though it was the principal crime laid to his charge. Probably the account which he gave of his kingdom and subjects, led Pilate to take him for some Stoic philosopher, who pleased himself with the chimerical royalty attributed by his sect to those they termed wise men. See Horace, Lib. I. Sat. 3. Accordingly he desired him to explain what he meant by truth. Pilate saith, What is truth? — That is, the truth to which thou referrest, and speakest of as thy business to attest. Or perhaps he meant, What signifies truth? Is that a thing worth hazarding thy life for? So he left him presently, to plead with the Jews for him; looking upon him, it is probable, as an innocent but weak man. He went out again unto the Jews, and saith — To those that were assembled about the judgment-hall, namely, chief priests and others: I find in him no fault at all — No opinion inconsistent with the good of society, neither any action or pretension criminal in the least degree. But ye have a custom that I should release unto you one at the passover — And I am ready now to oblige you in this affair. This, it seems, was said in consequence of the multitude desiring him to do as he had been wont to do at preceding passovers. See Mark 15:8-10. Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews? — It seems he hoped by this proposal to preserve the life of Jesus, of whose innocence he was fully convinced; and accordingly, that he might induce them to choose him, he proposed no other alternative than Barabbas, a robber and murderer. See note on Matthew 27:15-18, 20-22. Then cried they all again — Or, all at once, as some translate palin here, because it does not appear that the people had refused Jesus and asked Barabbas before this time. But indeed “that word is wanting in a considerable number of manuscripts, in the Complutensian edition, the Syriac, Coptic, Saxon, Arabic, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions. In many Latin manuscripts it is not found. Besides, it does not suit the preceding part of our Lord’s trial, as related by this evangelist, who makes no mention of their crying in this manner before.” — Campbell. Not this man — We will not have this man released; but Barabbas — A robber and murderer. And thus, when Pilate would have let him go, they denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto them, Acts 3:14. See note on Luke 23:18-25.

35. Am I a Jew?—Pilate replies in a tone of irritated pride at the suspicion that he makes any nice distinctions in a Jewish quarrel. Thine own nation— He has taken the case as he finds it, and cannot afford to meddle in Jewish niceties. What hast thou done?—Dismissing all talk of royalty, what are the facts? Pilate here acts in the same spirit with which Gallio (Acts 18:17) subsequently acted: the Roman spirit of evading the religious quarrels of the subjected people so long as their own political supremacy was secured.

V. 36. My kingdom is not of this world-Is not an external, but a spiritual kingdom; that I might not be delivered to the Jews-Which Pilate had already attempted to do, John 18:31, and afterward actually did, John 19:16.

Verse 36. My kingdom is not of this world] It is purely spiritual and Divine. If it had been of a secular nature, then my servants would have contended-they would have opposed force with force, as the kingdoms of this world do in their wars; but as my kingdom as not of this world, therefore no resistance has been made. Eusebius relates, Hist. Eccles. lib. iii. c. 20, that “The relatives of our Lord were brought before Domitian, and interrogated whether they were of the family of David; and what sort the kingdom of Christ was, and where it would appear? They answered, that this kingdom was neither of this world, nor of an earthly nature; that it was altogether heavenly and angelical; and that it would not take place till the end of the world.”

Verses 33-40. Then Pilate entered into the judgment-hall again — See the note on Matthew 27:11. It seems, as the governor had heard an honourable report of Jesus, and observed in his silence, under the accusations brought against him, an air of meek majesty and greatness of spirit, rather than any consciousness of guilt, or any indication of a fierce contempt, he was willing to discourse with him more privately before he proceeded further. He therefore called Jesus, and said, Art thou the king of the Jews? — Dost thou really pretend to any right to govern them? Jesus answered, Sayest thou this thing of thyself? — Dost thou ask this question of thy own accord, because thou thinkest that I have affected regal power? or did others tell it thee of me? — Or dost thou ask it according to the information of the priests, affirming that I have acknowledged myself to be a king? No doubt Jesus knew what had happened; but he spake to the governor after this manner, because, being in the palace when the priests accused him, he had not heard what they said. Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? — Dost thou think that I am acquainted with the religious opinions, expectations, and disputes of the Jews? Thine own nation, &c., have delivered thee unto me — As a seditious person, one that assumes the title of a king: What hast thou done — To merit the charge of sedition? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world — Not a temporal, but a spiritual kingdom, which does not at all interfere with the dominion of Cesar, or of which any prince has reason to be jealous. If my kingdom were of this world — Were of an external or temporal nature; then would my servants fight — Or rather, would have fought, would have endeavoured to establish me on the throne by force of arms, and would have fought against the Jews when they came to apprehend me. But as I have done nothing of this, but readily put myself into their hands, it is evident my kingdom is not from hence — Nor to be erected here; and therefore I have been so far from arming my followers with secular weapons, that the guard who came to apprehend me know I forbade their making use of those they had. Pilate said, Art thou a king then? — Art thou a king, notwithstanding thy kingdom is not of this world? Jesus answered, Thou sayest I am a king — That is, according to the Hebrew idiom, It is as thou sayest: I am a king, but not of this world: even the appointed Head and Governor of the whole Israel of God; nor will I ever basely seek my safety by renouncing my claim to the most excellent majesty and extensive dominion. To this end was I born, &c. — Our Lord speaks of his human origin; his divine was above Pilate’s comprehension: yet it is intimated in the following words: For this cause came I into the world — Namely, from heaven; that I should bear witness unto the truth — That by explaining and proving the truth, I might impress it upon men’s consciences, and make them obedient to its laws. In this consisteth my kingdom, and all the lovers of truth obey me, and are my subjects. This is what Paul calls the good confession, which he tells Timothy, (1 Timothy 6:13,) Jesus witnessed before Pontius Pilate. And justly does the apostle term it so. For our Lord did not deny the truth to save his own life, but gave all his followers an example highly worthy of imitation. It is remarkable, that Christ’s assuming the title of king did not offend the governor in the least, though it was the principal crime laid to his charge. Probably the account which he gave of his kingdom and subjects, led Pilate to take him for some Stoic philosopher, who pleased himself with the chimerical royalty attributed by his sect to those they termed wise men. See Horace, Lib. I. Sat. 3. Accordingly he desired him to explain what he meant by truth. Pilate saith, What is truth? — That is, the truth to which thou referrest, and speakest of as thy business to attest. Or perhaps he meant, What signifies truth? Is that a thing worth hazarding thy life for? So he left him presently, to plead with the Jews for him; looking upon him, it is probable, as an innocent but weak man. He went out again unto the Jews, and saith — To those that were assembled about the judgment-hall, namely, chief priests and others: I find in him no fault at all — No opinion inconsistent with the good of society, neither any action or pretension criminal in the least degree. But ye have a custom that I should release unto you one at the passover — And I am ready now to oblige you in this affair. This, it seems, was said in consequence of the multitude desiring him to do as he had been wont to do at preceding passovers. See Mark 15:8-10. Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews? — It seems he hoped by this proposal to preserve the life of Jesus, of whose innocence he was fully convinced; and accordingly, that he might induce them to choose him, he proposed no other alternative than Barabbas, a robber and murderer. See note on Matthew 27:15-18, 20-22. Then cried they all again — Or, all at once, as some translate palin here, because it does not appear that the people had refused Jesus and asked Barabbas before this time. But indeed “that word is wanting in a considerable number of manuscripts, in the Complutensian edition, the Syriac, Coptic, Saxon, Arabic, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions. In many Latin manuscripts it is not found. Besides, it does not suit the preceding part of our Lord’s trial, as related by this evangelist, who makes no mention of their crying in this manner before.” — Campbell. Not this man — We will not have this man released; but Barabbas — A robber and murderer. And thus, when Pilate would have let him go, they denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto them, Acts 3:14. See note on Luke 23:18-25.

Ver. 36. Jesus answered, my kingdom is not of this world. Mine is the kingdom promised by the prophets.

36. My kingdom—Jesus, in words, evades Pilate’s last question, and returns to the topic of his royalty; and yet in so doing he answers Pilate’s question, what he has done. He has performed the part of a heaven-sent king. Not of this world—My kingdom is not one of the political nations of the earth. It is not an organism like the Roman empire, founded upon physical force, sustained by military establishments, defended by fortifications and entrenched in capitals. Then would my servants fight— Alluding, doubtless, to the scene of his arrest, when he bade Peter put up his sword. Well would it have been if the pretended successors of St. Peter had kept the sword put up.

V. 37. Thou sayest-The truth.

To this end was I born-Speaking of his human origin: his Divine was above Pilate's comprehension. Yet it is intimated in the following words, I came into the world, that I might witness to the truth-Which was both declared to the Jews, and in the process of his passion to the princes of the Gentiles also.

Every one that is of the truth-That is, a lover of it, heareth my voice-A universal maxim. Every sincere lover of truth will hear him, so as to understand and practise what he saith.

Verse 37. Thou sayest] A common form of expression for, yes, it is so. I was born into the world that I might set up and maintain a spiritual government: but this government is established in and by truth. All that love truth, hear my voice and attend to the spiritual doctrines I preach. It is by truth alone that I influence the minds and govern the manners of my subjects.

Verses 33-40. Then Pilate entered into the judgment-hall again — See the note on Matthew 27:11. It seems, as the governor had heard an honourable report of Jesus, and observed in his silence, under the accusations brought against him, an air of meek majesty and greatness of spirit, rather than any consciousness of guilt, or any indication of a fierce contempt, he was willing to discourse with him more privately before he proceeded further. He therefore called Jesus, and said, Art thou the king of the Jews? — Dost thou really pretend to any right to govern them? Jesus answered, Sayest thou this thing of thyself? — Dost thou ask this question of thy own accord, because thou thinkest that I have affected regal power? or did others tell it thee of me? — Or dost thou ask it according to the information of the priests, affirming that I have acknowledged myself to be a king? No doubt Jesus knew what had happened; but he spake to the governor after this manner, because, being in the palace when the priests accused him, he had not heard what they said. Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? — Dost thou think that I am acquainted with the religious opinions, expectations, and disputes of the Jews? Thine own nation, &c., have delivered thee unto me — As a seditious person, one that assumes the title of a king: What hast thou done — To merit the charge of sedition? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world — Not a temporal, but a spiritual kingdom, which does not at all interfere with the dominion of Cesar, or of which any prince has reason to be jealous. If my kingdom were of this world — Were of an external or temporal nature; then would my servants fight — Or rather, would have fought, would have endeavoured to establish me on the throne by force of arms, and would have fought against the Jews when they came to apprehend me. But as I have done nothing of this, but readily put myself into their hands, it is evident my kingdom is not from hence — Nor to be erected here; and therefore I have been so far from arming my followers with secular weapons, that the guard who came to apprehend me know I forbade their making use of those they had. Pilate said, Art thou a king then? — Art thou a king, notwithstanding thy kingdom is not of this world? Jesus answered, Thou sayest I am a king — That is, according to the Hebrew idiom, It is as thou sayest: I am a king, but not of this world: even the appointed Head and Governor of the whole Israel of God; nor will I ever basely seek my safety by renouncing my claim to the most excellent majesty and extensive dominion. To this end was I born, &c. — Our Lord speaks of his human origin; his divine was above Pilate’s comprehension: yet it is intimated in the following words: For this cause came I into the world — Namely, from heaven; that I should bear witness unto the truth — That by explaining and proving the truth, I might impress it upon men’s consciences, and make them obedient to its laws. In this consisteth my kingdom, and all the lovers of truth obey me, and are my subjects. This is what Paul calls the good confession, which he tells Timothy, (1 Timothy 6:13,) Jesus witnessed before Pontius Pilate. And justly does the apostle term it so. For our Lord did not deny the truth to save his own life, but gave all his followers an example highly worthy of imitation. It is remarkable, that Christ’s assuming the title of king did not offend the governor in the least, though it was the principal crime laid to his charge. Probably the account which he gave of his kingdom and subjects, led Pilate to take him for some Stoic philosopher, who pleased himself with the chimerical royalty attributed by his sect to those they termed wise men. See Horace, Lib. I. Sat. 3. Accordingly he desired him to explain what he meant by truth. Pilate saith, What is truth? — That is, the truth to which thou referrest, and speakest of as thy business to attest. Or perhaps he meant, What signifies truth? Is that a thing worth hazarding thy life for? So he left him presently, to plead with the Jews for him; looking upon him, it is probable, as an innocent but weak man. He went out again unto the Jews, and saith — To those that were assembled about the judgment-hall, namely, chief priests and others: I find in him no fault at all — No opinion inconsistent with the good of society, neither any action or pretension criminal in the least degree. But ye have a custom that I should release unto you one at the passover — And I am ready now to oblige you in this affair. This, it seems, was said in consequence of the multitude desiring him to do as he had been wont to do at preceding passovers. See Mark 15:8-10. Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews? — It seems he hoped by this proposal to preserve the life of Jesus, of whose innocence he was fully convinced; and accordingly, that he might induce them to choose him, he proposed no other alternative than Barabbas, a robber and murderer. See note on Matthew 27:15-18, 20-22. Then cried they all again — Or, all at once, as some translate palin here, because it does not appear that the people had refused Jesus and asked Barabbas before this time. But indeed “that word is wanting in a considerable number of manuscripts, in the Complutensian edition, the Syriac, Coptic, Saxon, Arabic, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions. In many Latin manuscripts it is not found. Besides, it does not suit the preceding part of our Lord’s trial, as related by this evangelist, who makes no mention of their crying in this manner before.” — Campbell. Not this man — We will not have this man released; but Barabbas — A robber and murderer. And thus, when Pilate would have let him go, they denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto them, Acts 3:14. See note on Luke 23:18-25.

Ver. 37. Art thou a king then? Though this might be asked in derision, yet the Saviour gave a full reply. To this end was I born; to sit and reign at the Father’s right hand. Thus he witnessed a good confession before Pontius Pilate.

For this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. The very design of his incarnation was to publish righteousness, and preach the gospel of salvation. This was evident from his intercessory prayer for the apostles: Sanctify them through thy truth, thy word is truth. He declared the command he had received of the Father. Pilate asked, What is truth, but waited not for an answer. When hearers do this, we have but little hope of their conversion.

37. Was I born—Alluding to his human birth. Came I into the world— Alluding to his origin from God. Bear witness unto the truth—The truth that overlies all earthly and political truth; the truth verified by the highest intuitions of the human soul; the truth of God and eternal life. Bear witness—Confirm its reality as revealed in the Old Testament, and as written on the heart of man, both by reassertion and new revelation, demonstrated by miracle and by the perfection of my own character. Every one that is of the truth—Wherever there is a human spirit anxious to attain to the possession of truth and righteousness, let his eye be directed to me. Heareth my voice—Such an earnest, convicted inquirer will at once feel that my voice answers his inquiries. Wherever, in all lands and in all ages, there is a human soul that aspires to holiness, my voice will be to him a divine response; and thus my subjects are attracted to me from all the world by a secret power that has nothing to do with warlike force. And thus I am truly a Divine King, ruling in the realm of truth over countless millions of true-hearted subjects; and this kingdom, immaterial and invisible, pervades and overlies all other kingdoms. It exerts a mighty power over them, and, perhaps, will yet dissolve them all into one universal kingdom of truth. But for all this the Roman had but little ear. Such a kingdom for him is but a phantasm; and true, genuine imperial power is the only fact that is fact. Inasmuch as this kingdom of righteousness is over all, it condemns all wickedness, whether of individuals, of princes, of administrations, or of political parties. Sin is sin, and condemned by the laws of Christ’s kingdom, whether committed by a single man, by a government, or by a people. The Church and the ministry have indeed nothing to do with purely secular measures, involving no moral question. But whenever an administration or party adopts sin into its platform or its measures, it is none the less the duty of the Christian Church to “bear witness to the truth.”

V. 38. What is truth?-Said Pilate, a courtier; perhaps meaning what signifies truth? Is that a thing worth hazarding your life for? So he left him presently, to plead with the Jews for him, looking upon him as an innocent but weak man.

Verse 38. What is truth] Among the sages of that time there were many opinions concerning truth; and some had even supposed that it was a thing utterly out of the reach of men. Pilate perhaps might have asked the question in a mocking way; and his not staying to get an answer indicated that he either despaired of getting a satisfactory one, or that he was indifferent about it. This is the case with thousands: they appear desirous of knowing the truth, but have not patience to wait in a proper way to receive an answer to their question.

I find in him no fault] Having asked the above question, and being convinced of our Lord’s innocence, he went out to the Jews to testify his convictions and to deliver him, if possible, out of their hands.

Verses 33-40. Then Pilate entered into the judgment-hall again — See the note on Matthew 27:11. It seems, as the governor had heard an honourable report of Jesus, and observed in his silence, under the accusations brought against him, an air of meek majesty and greatness of spirit, rather than any consciousness of guilt, or any indication of a fierce contempt, he was willing to discourse with him more privately before he proceeded further. He therefore called Jesus, and said, Art thou the king of the Jews? — Dost thou really pretend to any right to govern them? Jesus answered, Sayest thou this thing of thyself? — Dost thou ask this question of thy own accord, because thou thinkest that I have affected regal power? or did others tell it thee of me? — Or dost thou ask it according to the information of the priests, affirming that I have acknowledged myself to be a king? No doubt Jesus knew what had happened; but he spake to the governor after this manner, because, being in the palace when the priests accused him, he had not heard what they said. Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? — Dost thou think that I am acquainted with the religious opinions, expectations, and disputes of the Jews? Thine own nation, &c., have delivered thee unto me — As a seditious person, one that assumes the title of a king: What hast thou done — To merit the charge of sedition? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world — Not a temporal, but a spiritual kingdom, which does not at all interfere with the dominion of Cesar, or of which any prince has reason to be jealous. If my kingdom were of this world — Were of an external or temporal nature; then would my servants fight — Or rather, would have fought, would have endeavoured to establish me on the throne by force of arms, and would have fought against the Jews when they came to apprehend me. But as I have done nothing of this, but readily put myself into their hands, it is evident my kingdom is not from hence — Nor to be erected here; and therefore I have been so far from arming my followers with secular weapons, that the guard who came to apprehend me know I forbade their making use of those they had. Pilate said, Art thou a king then? — Art thou a king, notwithstanding thy kingdom is not of this world? Jesus answered, Thou sayest I am a king — That is, according to the Hebrew idiom, It is as thou sayest: I am a king, but not of this world: even the appointed Head and Governor of the whole Israel of God; nor will I ever basely seek my safety by renouncing my claim to the most excellent majesty and extensive dominion. To this end was I born, &c. — Our Lord speaks of his human origin; his divine was above Pilate’s comprehension: yet it is intimated in the following words: For this cause came I into the world — Namely, from heaven; that I should bear witness unto the truth — That by explaining and proving the truth, I might impress it upon men’s consciences, and make them obedient to its laws. In this consisteth my kingdom, and all the lovers of truth obey me, and are my subjects. This is what Paul calls the good confession, which he tells Timothy, (1 Timothy 6:13,) Jesus witnessed before Pontius Pilate. And justly does the apostle term it so. For our Lord did not deny the truth to save his own life, but gave all his followers an example highly worthy of imitation. It is remarkable, that Christ’s assuming the title of king did not offend the governor in the least, though it was the principal crime laid to his charge. Probably the account which he gave of his kingdom and subjects, led Pilate to take him for some Stoic philosopher, who pleased himself with the chimerical royalty attributed by his sect to those they termed wise men. See Horace, Lib. I. Sat. 3. Accordingly he desired him to explain what he meant by truth. Pilate saith, What is truth? — That is, the truth to which thou referrest, and speakest of as thy business to attest. Or perhaps he meant, What signifies truth? Is that a thing worth hazarding thy life for? So he left him presently, to plead with the Jews for him; looking upon him, it is probable, as an innocent but weak man. He went out again unto the Jews, and saith — To those that were assembled about the judgment-hall, namely, chief priests and others: I find in him no fault at all — No opinion inconsistent with the good of society, neither any action or pretension criminal in the least degree. But ye have a custom that I should release unto you one at the passover — And I am ready now to oblige you in this affair. This, it seems, was said in consequence of the multitude desiring him to do as he had been wont to do at preceding passovers. See Mark 15:8-10. Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews? — It seems he hoped by this proposal to preserve the life of Jesus, of whose innocence he was fully convinced; and accordingly, that he might induce them to choose him, he proposed no other alternative than Barabbas, a robber and murderer. See note on Matthew 27:15-18, 20-22. Then cried they all again — Or, all at once, as some translate palin here, because it does not appear that the people had refused Jesus and asked Barabbas before this time. But indeed “that word is wanting in a considerable number of manuscripts, in the Complutensian edition, the Syriac, Coptic, Saxon, Arabic, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions. In many Latin manuscripts it is not found. Besides, it does not suit the preceding part of our Lord’s trial, as related by this evangelist, who makes no mention of their crying in this manner before.” — Campbell. Not this man — We will not have this man released; but Barabbas — A robber and murderer. And thus, when Pilate would have let him go, they denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto them, Acts 3:14. See note on Luke 23:18-25.

38. What is truth?—Pilate supposes that he had now applied a finisher. All the philosophy of the age in which he lived had decided that man could know but this: that nothing could be known. That higher truth is undiscoverable, that in fact there is no absolute truth, no difference between ultimate truth and falsehood, were the conclusion at which highest human thought had arrived. And what the philosophers thus taught, political and military men readily accepted. It was, therefore, readily and generally agreed that visible and tangible things, things of sense and of the present world, were all. Talk to such a man in high strain of philosophic, religious, or divine truth, and his reply is: “Bah! What is truth? I understand positive science; but as for your higher truth, it is a chimera.” He went out—He waited for no answer, because his very question was intended to deny the possibility of all answer. He is ready to return to the Jews with the full feeling that it would be a real murder to take the life of so harmless an abstractionist. He again takes his stand in front and pronounces his finding in him no fault. This announcement to the people drew forth murmurs of disapprobation, in which their utterance of the word Galilee (Luke 22:5) suggested to Pilate his first method of rescuing Jesus by sending him to Herod. After his return, the second expedient, his attempt to release Jesus instead of Barabbas, next occurs, as is related in the following verses and in the parallel sections of the other Evangelists.

Verse 39. But ye have a custom] Nothing relative to the origin or reason of this custom is known. Commentators have swam in an ocean of conjecture on this point. They have lost their labour, and made nothing out: see the notes on Matthew 27:15; Luke 23:17.

Verses 33-40. Then Pilate entered into the judgment-hall again — See the note on Matthew 27:11. It seems, as the governor had heard an honourable report of Jesus, and observed in his silence, under the accusations brought against him, an air of meek majesty and greatness of spirit, rather than any consciousness of guilt, or any indication of a fierce contempt, he was willing to discourse with him more privately before he proceeded further. He therefore called Jesus, and said, Art thou the king of the Jews? — Dost thou really pretend to any right to govern them? Jesus answered, Sayest thou this thing of thyself? — Dost thou ask this question of thy own accord, because thou thinkest that I have affected regal power? or did others tell it thee of me? — Or dost thou ask it according to the information of the priests, affirming that I have acknowledged myself to be a king? No doubt Jesus knew what had happened; but he spake to the governor after this manner, because, being in the palace when the priests accused him, he had not heard what they said. Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? — Dost thou think that I am acquainted with the religious opinions, expectations, and disputes of the Jews? Thine own nation, &c., have delivered thee unto me — As a seditious person, one that assumes the title of a king: What hast thou done — To merit the charge of sedition? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world — Not a temporal, but a spiritual kingdom, which does not at all interfere with the dominion of Cesar, or of which any prince has reason to be jealous. If my kingdom were of this world — Were of an external or temporal nature; then would my servants fight — Or rather, would have fought, would have endeavoured to establish me on the throne by force of arms, and would have fought against the Jews when they came to apprehend me. But as I have done nothing of this, but readily put myself into their hands, it is evident my kingdom is not from hence — Nor to be erected here; and therefore I have been so far from arming my followers with secular weapons, that the guard who came to apprehend me know I forbade their making use of those they had. Pilate said, Art thou a king then? — Art thou a king, notwithstanding thy kingdom is not of this world? Jesus answered, Thou sayest I am a king — That is, according to the Hebrew idiom, It is as thou sayest: I am a king, but not of this world: even the appointed Head and Governor of the whole Israel of God; nor will I ever basely seek my safety by renouncing my claim to the most excellent majesty and extensive dominion. To this end was I born, &c. — Our Lord speaks of his human origin; his divine was above Pilate’s comprehension: yet it is intimated in the following words: For this cause came I into the world — Namely, from heaven; that I should bear witness unto the truth — That by explaining and proving the truth, I might impress it upon men’s consciences, and make them obedient to its laws. In this consisteth my kingdom, and all the lovers of truth obey me, and are my subjects. This is what Paul calls the good confession, which he tells Timothy, (1 Timothy 6:13,) Jesus witnessed before Pontius Pilate. And justly does the apostle term it so. For our Lord did not deny the truth to save his own life, but gave all his followers an example highly worthy of imitation. It is remarkable, that Christ’s assuming the title of king did not offend the governor in the least, though it was the principal crime laid to his charge. Probably the account which he gave of his kingdom and subjects, led Pilate to take him for some Stoic philosopher, who pleased himself with the chimerical royalty attributed by his sect to those they termed wise men. See Horace, Lib. I. Sat. 3. Accordingly he desired him to explain what he meant by truth. Pilate saith, What is truth? — That is, the truth to which thou referrest, and speakest of as thy business to attest. Or perhaps he meant, What signifies truth? Is that a thing worth hazarding thy life for? So he left him presently, to plead with the Jews for him; looking upon him, it is probable, as an innocent but weak man. He went out again unto the Jews, and saith — To those that were assembled about the judgment-hall, namely, chief priests and others: I find in him no fault at all — No opinion inconsistent with the good of society, neither any action or pretension criminal in the least degree. But ye have a custom that I should release unto you one at the passover — And I am ready now to oblige you in this affair. This, it seems, was said in consequence of the multitude desiring him to do as he had been wont to do at preceding passovers. See Mark 15:8-10. Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews? — It seems he hoped by this proposal to preserve the life of Jesus, of whose innocence he was fully convinced; and accordingly, that he might induce them to choose him, he proposed no other alternative than Barabbas, a robber and murderer. See note on Matthew 27:15-18, 20-22. Then cried they all again — Or, all at once, as some translate palin here, because it does not appear that the people had refused Jesus and asked Barabbas before this time. But indeed “that word is wanting in a considerable number of manuscripts, in the Complutensian edition, the Syriac, Coptic, Saxon, Arabic, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions. In many Latin manuscripts it is not found. Besides, it does not suit the preceding part of our Lord’s trial, as related by this evangelist, who makes no mention of their crying in this manner before.” — Campbell. Not this man — We will not have this man released; but Barabbas — A robber and murderer. And thus, when Pilate would have let him go, they denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto them, Acts 3:14. See note on Luke 23:18-25.

Verse 40. Barabbas was a robber] See Matthew 27:16. The later Syriac has in the margin, arcilhsthv, a chief robber, a captain of banditti, and it is probable that this was the case. He was not only a person who lived by plunder, but shed the blood of many of those whom he and his gang robbed, and rose up against the Roman government, as we learn from Luke 23:19. There never existed a more perfidious, cruel, and murderous people than these Jews; and no wonder they preferred a murderer to the Prince of peace. Christ himself had said, If ye were of the world, the world would love its own. Like cleaves to like: hence we need not be surprised to find the vilest things still preferred to Christ, his kingdom, and his salvation.

1. IT is not easy to give the character of Pilate. From the manner of his conduct, we scarcely can tell when he is in jest or in earnest. He appears to have been fully convinced of the innocence of Christ; and that the Jews, through envy and malice, desired his destruction. On this ground he should have released him; but he was afraid to offend the Jews. He knew they were an uneasy, factious, and seditious people; and he was afraid to irritate them. Fiat justitia, ruat cælum! was no motto of his. For fear of the clamours of this bad people, he permitted all the forms and requisitions of justice to be outraged, and abandoned the most innocent Jesus to their rage and malice. In this case he knew what was truth, but did not follow its dictates; and he as hastily abandoned the author of it as he did the question he had asked concerning it. Pilate, it is true, was disposed to pity-the Jews were full of malice and cruelty. They both, however, joined in the murder of our Lord. The most that we can say for Pilate is, that he was disposed to justice, but was not inclined to hazard his comfort or safety in doing it. He was an easy, pliable man, who had no objection to do a right thing if it should cost him no trouble; but he felt no disposition to make any sacrifice, even in behalf of innocence, righteousness, and truth. In all the business Pilate showed that he was not a good man; and the Jews proved that they were of their father, the devil. See John 19:8.

2. As Dr. Lightfoot has entered into a regular examination of when and how the Jews lost the power of life and death in criminal cases, it may be necessary to lay before the reader a copious abstract of his researches on this subject, founded on John 18:31.

“It cannot be denied that all capital judgment, or sentence upon life, had been taken from the Jews for above forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem, as they oftentimes themselves confess. But how came this to pass? It is commonly received that the Romans, at this time the Jews’ lords and masters, had taken from all their courts a power and capacity of judging the capital matters. Let us superadd a few things here. Rabh Cahna saith, When R. Ismael bar Jose lay sick, they sent to him, saying, Pray, sir, tell us two or three things which thou didst once tell us in the name of thy Father. He saith to them, A hundred and fourscore years before the destruction of the temple, the wicked kingdom (the Roman empire) reigned over Israel, fourscore years before the destruction of the temple, they (the fathers of the Sanhedrin) determined about the uncleanness of the heathen land, and about glass vessels. Forty years before the destruction of the temple, the Sanhedrin removed and sat in the Taberne. What is the meaning of this tradition? Rabbi Isaac bar Abdimi saith, They did not judge judgments of mulcts. The gloss is, Those are the judgments about fining any that offered violence, that entice a maid, and the price of a servant. When, therefore, they did not sit in the room Gazith, they did not judge about these things, and so those judgments about mulcts or fines ceased. Avodoh Zarah. fol. 82. Here we have one part of their judiciary power lost; not taken away from them by the Romans, but falling of itself, as it were, out of the hands of the Sanhedrin. Nor did the Romans indeed take away their power of judging in capital matters; but they, by their own oscitancy, supine and unreasonable lenity, lost it themselves, for so the Gemara goes on: Rabh Hachman bar Isaac saith, Let him not say that they did not judge judgments of mulcts, for they did not judge capital judgments either. And whence comes this? When they saw that so many murders and homicides multiplied upon them that they could not well judge and call them to account, they said, It is better for us that we remove from place to place; for how can we otherwise (sitting here and not punishing them) not contract guilt upon ourselves?

“They thought themselves obliged to punish murderers while they sat in the room Gazith, for the place itself engaged them to it. They are the words of the Gemarists, upon which the gloss. The room Gazith was half of it within, and half of it without, the holy place. The reason of which was, that it was requisite that the council should sit near the Divine Majesty. Hence it is that they say, Whoever constitutes an unfit judge is as if he planted a grove by the altar of the Lord, as it is written, Judges and officers shalt thou make thee; and it follows presently after, Thou shalt not plant thee a grove near the altar of the Lord thy God, Deuteronomy 16:18, 21. They removed therefore from Gazith, and sat in the Taberne; now though the Taberne were upon the mountain of the temple, yet they did not sit so near the Divine Majesty there as they did when they sat in the room Gazith.

“Let us now in order put the whole matter together.

“I. The Sanhedrin were most stupidly and unreasonably remiss in their punishment of capital offenders; going upon this reason especially, that they counted it so horrible a thing to put an Israelite to death. Forsooth, he is of the seed of Abraham, of the blood and stock of Israel, and you must have a care how you touch such a one!

“R. Eliezer bar Simeon had laid hold on some thieves. R. Joshua bar Korchah sent to him, saying, O thou vinegar, the son of good wine! (i.e. O thou wicked son of a good father!) how long wilt thou deliver the people of God to the slaughter! He answered and said, I root the thorns out of the vineyard. To whom the other: Let the Lord of the vineyard come and root them out himself. Bava Meziah, fol. 83, 2. It is worth noting, that the very thieves of Israel are the people of God; and they must not be touched by any man, but referred to the judgment of God himself!

“When R. Ismael bar R. Jose was constituted a magistrate by the king, there happened some such thing to him; for Elias himself rebuked him, saying, How long wilt thou deliver over the people of God to slaughter! Ibid. fol. 64, 1. Hence that which we alleged elsewhere: The Sanhedrin that happens to sentence any one to death within the space of seven years, is termed a destroyer. R. Eliezer ben Azariah saith it is so, if they should but condemn one within seventy years. Maccoth, fol. 7, 1. “II. It is obvious to any one how this foolish remissness, and letting loose the reins of judgment, would soon increase the numbers of robbers, murderers, and all kinds of wickedness; and indeed they did so abundantly multiply that the Sanhedrin neither could nor durst, as it ought, call the criminals to account. The law slept, while wickedness was in the height of its revels; and punitive justice was so out of countenance that as to uncertain murders they made no search, and against certain ones they framed no judgement. Since the time that homicides multiplied, the beheading the heifer ceased. Sotoh, fol. 47, 1. And in the place before quoted in Avodah: When they saw the numbers of murderers so greatly increase that they could not sit in judgment upon them, they said, Let us remove, &c., fol. 8, 2. So in the case of adultery, which we also observed in our notes on John 8:3-11. Since the time that adultery so openly advanced, under the second temple, they left off trying the adultress by the bitter water, &c. Mainaon. in Sotoh, cap. 3.

“So that, we see, the liberty of judging in capital matters was no more taken from the Jews by the Romans than the beheading of the heifer, or the trial of the suspected wife by the bitter waters, was taken away by them, which no one will affirm. It is a tradition of R. Chaia, from the day wherein the temple was destroyed, though the Sanhedrin ceased, yet the four kinds of death (which were wont to be inflicted by the Sanhedrin) did not cease. For he that had deserved to be stoned to death, either fell off from some house, or some wild beast tore and devoured him. He that had deserved burning, either fell into some fire, or some serpent bit him. He that had deserved to be slain (i.e. with the sword) was either delivered into the hands of some heathen king, or was murdered by robbers. He that had deserved strangling, was either drowned in some river, or choked by a squinancy.

“This must be observed from the evangelists, that when they had Christ in examination in the palace of the high priest all night, in the morning the whole Sanhedrin met that they might pass sentence of death upon him. Where then was this that they met? Questionless in the room Gazith-at least if they adhered to their own rules and constitutions: Thither they betook themselves sometimes upon urgent necessity. The gloss before quoted excepts only the case of murder, with which, amongst all their false accusations, they never charged Christ.

“But, however, suppose it were granted that the great council met either in the Taberne, or some other place, (which yet agreed by no means with their own tradition,) did they deal truly, and as the matter really and indeed was, with Pilate, when they tell him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death? He had said to them, Take ye him and judge him according to your laws. We have indeed judged and condemned him, but we cannot put any one to death. Was this that they said in fact true? How came they then to stone the proto-martyr Stephen? How came they to stone Ben Sarda at Lydda? Hieros. Sanhed. fol. 25, 4. How came they to burn the priest’s daughter alive that was taken in adultery? Bab. Sanhed. fol. 52, 1, and 51,

1. It is probable that they had not put any one to death as yet, since the time that they had removed out of Gazith, and so might the easier persuade Pilate in that case. But their great design was to throw off the odium of Christ’s death from themselves; at least among the vulgar crowd; fearing them, if the council should have decreed his execution. They seek this evasion, therefore, which did not altogether want some colour and pretext of truth; and it succeeded according to what they desired. Divine Providence so ordering it as the evangelist intimates, John 18:32, That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake signifying what death he should die: that is, be crucified according to the custom of the Romans. While I am upon this thought, I cannot but reflect upon that passage, than which nothing is more worthy observation in the whole description of the Roman beast in the Revelation, Revelation 13:4. The dragon which gave power to the beast. We cannot say this of the Assyrian, Babylonish, or any other monarchy; for the Holy Scriptures do not say it. But reason dictates, and the event itself tells us, that there was something acted by the Roman empire in behalf of the dragon, which was not compatible with any other, that is, the putting of the Son of God to death. Which thing we must remember as often as we recite that article of our creed, ‘He suffered under Pontius Pilate,’ that is, was put to death by the Roman empire.”

ST. JOHN

Verses 33-40. Then Pilate entered into the judgment-hall again — See the note on Matthew 27:11. It seems, as the governor had heard an honourable report of Jesus, and observed in his silence, under the accusations brought against him, an air of meek majesty and greatness of spirit, rather than any consciousness of guilt, or any indication of a fierce contempt, he was willing to discourse with him more privately before he proceeded further. He therefore called Jesus, and said, Art thou the king of the Jews? — Dost thou really pretend to any right to govern them? Jesus answered, Sayest thou this thing of thyself? — Dost thou ask this question of thy own accord, because thou thinkest that I have affected regal power? or did others tell it thee of me? — Or dost thou ask it according to the information of the priests, affirming that I have acknowledged myself to be a king? No doubt Jesus knew what had happened; but he spake to the governor after this manner, because, being in the palace when the priests accused him, he had not heard what they said. Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? — Dost thou think that I am acquainted with the religious opinions, expectations, and disputes of the Jews? Thine own nation, &c., have delivered thee unto me — As a seditious person, one that assumes the title of a king: What hast thou done — To merit the charge of sedition? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world — Not a temporal, but a spiritual kingdom, which does not at all interfere with the dominion of Cesar, or of which any prince has reason to be jealous. If my kingdom were of this world — Were of an external or temporal nature; then would my servants fight — Or rather, would have fought, would have endeavoured to establish me on the throne by force of arms, and would have fought against the Jews when they came to apprehend me. But as I have done nothing of this, but readily put myself into their hands, it is evident my kingdom is not from hence — Nor to be erected here; and therefore I have been so far from arming my followers with secular weapons, that the guard who came to apprehend me know I forbade their making use of those they had. Pilate said, Art thou a king then? — Art thou a king, notwithstanding thy kingdom is not of this world? Jesus answered, Thou sayest I am a king — That is, according to the Hebrew idiom, It is as thou sayest: I am a king, but not of this world: even the appointed Head and Governor of the whole Israel of God; nor will I ever basely seek my safety by renouncing my claim to the most excellent majesty and extensive dominion. To this end was I born, &c. — Our Lord speaks of his human origin; his divine was above Pilate’s comprehension: yet it is intimated in the following words: For this cause came I into the world — Namely, from heaven; that I should bear witness unto the truth — That by explaining and proving the truth, I might impress it upon men’s consciences, and make them obedient to its laws. In this consisteth my kingdom, and all the lovers of truth obey me, and are my subjects. This is what Paul calls the good confession, which he tells Timothy, (1 Timothy 6:13,) Jesus witnessed before Pontius Pilate. And justly does the apostle term it so. For our Lord did not deny the truth to save his own life, but gave all his followers an example highly worthy of imitation. It is remarkable, that Christ’s assuming the title of king did not offend the governor in the least, though it was the principal crime laid to his charge. Probably the account which he gave of his kingdom and subjects, led Pilate to take him for some Stoic philosopher, who pleased himself with the chimerical royalty attributed by his sect to those they termed wise men. See Horace, Lib. I. Sat. 3. Accordingly he desired him to explain what he meant by truth. Pilate saith, What is truth? — That is, the truth to which thou referrest, and speakest of as thy business to attest. Or perhaps he meant, What signifies truth? Is that a thing worth hazarding thy life for? So he left him presently, to plead with the Jews for him; looking upon him, it is probable, as an innocent but weak man. He went out again unto the Jews, and saith — To those that were assembled about the judgment-hall, namely, chief priests and others: I find in him no fault at all — No opinion inconsistent with the good of society, neither any action or pretension criminal in the least degree. But ye have a custom that I should release unto you one at the passover — And I am ready now to oblige you in this affair. This, it seems, was said in consequence of the multitude desiring him to do as he had been wont to do at preceding passovers. See Mark 15:8-10. Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews? — It seems he hoped by this proposal to preserve the life of Jesus, of whose innocence he was fully convinced; and accordingly, that he might induce them to choose him, he proposed no other alternative than Barabbas, a robber and murderer. See note on Matthew 27:15-18, 20-22. Then cried they all again — Or, all at once, as some translate palin here, because it does not appear that the people had refused Jesus and asked Barabbas before this time. But indeed “that word is wanting in a considerable number of manuscripts, in the Complutensian edition, the Syriac, Coptic, Saxon, Arabic, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions. In many Latin manuscripts it is not found. Besides, it does not suit the preceding part of our Lord’s trial, as related by this evangelist, who makes no mention of their crying in this manner before.” — Campbell. Not this man — We will not have this man released; but Barabbas — A robber and murderer. And thus, when Pilate would have let him go, they denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto them, Acts 3:14. See note on Luke 23:18-25.

Ver. 40. Not this man, but Barabbas. “We compare and prefer Barabbas to Jesus Christ, whenever we choose to follow our own passions rather than the gospel; the spirit of the world rather than that of God; and the inclinations of the first Adam, a sinner, rather than those of the second, who is holiness itself. We abhor that which the jews did but once; and yet we do the same every day, without any remorse or concern, and even without considering what it is we are doing. The jews renounced Christ; but it was before they had received his Spirit, or were made members of his body. The ingratitude of a christian, who has tasted his heavenly gifts, and yet by his actions seems continually to cry out, we will not have Jesus Christ, that is, we will have none of his humility, his poverty, his mortifications, his cross, has nothing which comes near it.” — QUESNEL.