CHAPTER XVIII.

=Ch. 18:1-11.= THE BETRAYAL AND ARREST OF JESUS.--THE DIVINE MAJESTY OF OUR LORD EXEMPLIFIED.--Narrated by all the Evangelists: Matt. 26:47-56; Mark 14:43-52; Luke 22:47-53. As usual where the four Evangelists narrate the same events, John gives particulars omitted by the others--the falling back to the ground of the guard, and Christ’s interposition for the disciples (ver. 6-9)--and omits events recorded by the others--the conference between Jesus and Judas, and the traitor’s kiss (Matt. 26:49, 50; Mark 14:44, 45). That John wrote with the other accounts before him, and to supply their omissions, is the most reasonable explanation of these and like variations in their accounts. He does not describe the agony in Gethsemane, because he can add nothing to what is already told; he narrates of the arrest only what is not already known. Even in describing the attempted resistance to the arrest, this peculiarity is to be seen; for he alone of the Evangelists mentions the name of the disciple who drew the sword and of the servant who was wounded by it. The discrepancies in the four accounts of the arrest are such as we should expect in four individual accounts of a scene of such confusion. The probable order of events, as indicated by a comparison of the accounts, I have given in the notes on Matthew, which consult throughout. Here I treat only what is peculiar to John’s account.

1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his disciples over the brook Cedron,[657] where was a garden, into the which he entered, and his disciples.

[657] 2 Sam. 15:23.

=1. With his disciples.= That is, with the eleven. Judas was with the priests, consummating arrangements for the arrest of Jesus.--=Beyond the brook of the Cedars.= Or the _black torrent_, which is the meaning of the Hebrew, from which the Greek is derived. The word rendered _brook_ (χείμαῤῥος) indicates a winter torrent, flowing in the rainy season, but dry in summer. It flowed through a ravine to the east of Jerusalem, and between it and the Mount of Olives.--=Where was a garden.= Rather an orchard. The original signifies any place planted with herbs and trees. This was called Gethsemane, and was a customary resort of Christ and his disciples. See next verse; and compare Luke 22:39. On its location, see Matt. 26:36 and illustration there. On the agony in this garden, see notes on Matt. 26:36-46. It occurred between Christ’s entering the garden and the arrival of Judas and the guard.

2 And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples.

3 Judas[658] then, having received a band _of men_ and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.

[658] Matt. 26:47, etc.; Mark 14:43, etc; Luke 22:47, etc.

=2, 3. Judas then, having received the band, and, from the chief priests and Pharisees, temple officers= (ὑπηρέτης), =cometh thither=. The band was composed of Roman soldiers; the officers were temple police; the former were armed with swords, the latter with staves. Servants of the priests, and some of the priests themselves, accompanied the force. See Matt. 26:47, note; Luke 22:52.--=With lanterns and torches.= “The fact of its being full moon did not make the lights unnecessary, as in searching for a prisoner they might have to enter dark places.”--(_Alford._) They appear also to have had a fear of attempted flight or rescue. See Matt. 26:48, note. I doubt whether any definite distinction is intended between lanterns and torches. The annexed cuts give illustrations of two kinds of night torches used among the Romans. The one (_fax_), (_Rich._, p. 280) was made out of a piece of resinous wood, cut into a point and dipped in oil or pitch, or of inflammable materials enclosed in a tube. The other (_lampas_), (_Rich._, p. 365) was in the nature of a candlestick, with a handle beneath and a large disk above, to protect the hand from the drippings of the pitchy or resinous matter of which the torch consisted. This _lampa_ was carried by the youth of Athens in a peculiar race, in which the winner had to outstrip his competitors without extinguishing his light. The ancient Oriental lantern, like those still employed in Egypt (see Lane’s _Modern Egypt_), consisted of a wax cloth, strained over a sort of cylinder of iron rings and a top and bottom of perforated copper. Both the Roman torch and the Oriental lantern may have been used on this occasion.

[Illustration:

ROMAN TORCHES. ORIENTAL TORCH.]

4 Jesus therefore, knowing[659] all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?

[659] ch. 10:17, 18; Acts 2:28.

5 They answered him, Jesus of[660] Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am _he_. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.

[660] ch. 19:19; Matt. 2:23.

=4, 5. Jesus, therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him.= Not merely knowing that the guard had come to arrest him (Matt. 26:45), but with the full consciousness of all the agony of the morrow (Matt. 20:17-19; Luke 18:31-34). Of his own will he submits to the Passion (Matt. 26:53; John 10:18).--=Went forth.= Possibly from the shadow of the trees into the moonlight, or from the garden walls, or perhaps simply advanced to meet the guards. His object in so doing is indicated by ver. 8. He put himself between the guards and his disciples to prevent the arrest of the latter. Judas preceded the band (Luke 22:47), and Christ’s questions addressed to the apostate, and the traitor’s kiss (Matt. 26:49, 50; Luke 22:48), seem to have taken place before Christ spoke to the guard.--=Jesus the Nazarene.= Jesus, or Joshua--the names are the same--was a common one among the Jews, and the term “Nazarene” was a customary appellation, especially by his foes, to designate our Lord. Its tone, to the Judeans, was one of contempt (Matt. 2:23; John 19:19).--=And there stood Judas, he that betrayed him, with them.= If we suppose that Jesus hurried forth from the garden, before the three disciples were well awake, to the spot where the others had been sleeping, then, not improbably, John did not see the traitor’s kiss, but, arriving after, saw Judas standing with the guard, who had meanwhile come to the spot; thus he narrates only what he personally witnessed. His language, by its very simplicity, suggests to the imagination the contrast between Jesus and Judas, the betrayed and the betrayer.

6 As soon then as he had said unto them, I am _he_, they[661] went backward, and fell to the ground.

[661] Ps. 27:2; 40:14.

=6. They= (the guard) =went backward and fell to the ground=. That this states a literal fact will not be questioned by any who believe in the historical trustworthiness of the Gospel narratives. That it describes a miracle, that is, a sign of the superhuman character of Christ, is equally certain. Whether it is to be regarded as an effect produced by the _will_ of our Lord, or by the mere _majesty_ and _dignity_ of his mien, and his reply, is the only question which believers in the N. T. have to consider. I think the latter. The scene is interpreted, though not fully explained, by similar instances of moral power excited by noble over savage natures. History records several analogous cases, as when before Mark Antony, Marius, and Coligny, the murderers recoiled panic-stricken. So Avidius Cassius, “springing to the door of his tent in nightdress, quelled a mutinous army by his mere presence.”--(_Farrar._) Lange cites Matt. 28:4; Luke 4:30; John 7:44-46; 8:59; 10:39; Acts 5:5, 10, as partially parallel. The historical cases above referred to illustrate the _human_ power of a noble soul; this case differs from them in that it shows the _divine_ power of Him who not only spake as never man spake, but who carried in his person the evidence that he was in very deed the image of God and the brightness of his glory. This view is confirmed by the reflection that he came forth to meet the guard from an hour of sacred and solemn communion with God, of ecstasy unfathomable by us. “I regard it,” says Alford, “rather as a miracle _consequent upon_ that which Christ said and did, and the state of mind in which his enemies were, than as one in the strict sense _wrought_ by him; bearing, however, always in mind, that to Him nothing was unexpected or a _mere result_, but everything foreknown.” Thus interpreted it is a striking testimony, one of many, to the personal glory of Him who was ever full of “grace and truth,” and gives a solemn significance to such passages as Matt. 25:31; Rev. 1:7; 6:15-17. “If he did this when about to be judged, what shall he do when he shall sit in judgment? If he did this on the eve of death, what shall he do when reigning?”--(_Augustine._)

7 Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth.

8 Jesus answered, I have told you that I am _he_: if therefore ye seek me,[662] let these go their way:

[662] Isa. 53:6; Ephes. 5:25.

=7, 8.= I surmise that the attack on the guard followed their sudden terror. The disciples were eager to make it (Luke 22:49), though Peter was the only one who carried the will into action. Only one other disciple was armed (Luke 22:38). The request of Christ, “_Let these go their way_,” was interpreted by the disciples as a direction for them to flee, which they did. That there was anything cowardly or wrong in this flight is by no means clear. To sanction it, both Christ’s precept (Matt. 10:23) and his example (Luke 4:30; John 8:59; 10:39) might be quoted. Nothing would have been gained for Christ or his cause by the disciples subjecting themselves to arrest.

9 That the saying might be fulfilled which he spake,[663] Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.

[663] ch. 17:12.

=9. That the saying might be fulfilled.= The saying is quoted from Christ’s prayer, John 17:12. The present deliverance of the eleven from physical danger was not a final fulfillment of the saying, but was itself a historical prophecy of its further spiritual fulfillment, as God’s providential care of us in respect to present and temporal wants is a testimony of the love that provides even more abundantly for every spiritual want. See Matt. 2:15, note.

10 Then[664] Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus.

[664] Matt. 26:51; Mark 14:47; Luke 22:49, 50.

11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup[665] which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

[665] Matt. 20:22; 26:39, 42.

=10, 11.= Christ follows his rebuke of Peter by healing Malchus (Luke 22:51). John alone gives the name of either assailant or assailed. See for reason, note on Matt. 26:51. Compare Christ’s language here with Matthew’s report.--Observe that the evils brought upon us by wicked men are yet recognized here as given by God. The sufferings inflicted by Judas, Caiaphas, and Pilate, and rendered necessary by the sins of the world, are yet to Christ’s faith the cup which his Father hath given him.

* * * * *

=12-27.= THE PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF JESUS BEFORE CAIAPHAS, AND THE DENIALS BY PETER.--This examination, narrated by John, is distinctive from the trial reported by the Synoptists (Matt. 26:57-68; Mark 14:53-65; Luke 22:63-71). For a general consideration of the harmony of the Gospel narratives, and of their lessons, see notes on Matthew. If John is the other disciple referred to in verses 15, 16, he is the only one of the Evangelists who was an eye and ear witness of these events, and his order is presumptively the correct one. For reasons appearing partly in the notes on Matthew, partly in the notes below, I believe that Jesus was sent at once from Annas to Caiaphas, though the two may have occupied different apartments in the same palace; that the preliminary examination was conducted by Caiaphas; that while it proceeded Peter was in the adjoining courtyard, and there denied his Lord; that at its conclusion Jesus was conducted to the Sanhedrim, where the formal trial reported by the Synoptists took place; and that this trial is not described by John, perhaps because he was not present, and wrote only of the events which he personally witnessed.

12 Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him,

=12. Then the band * * * bound him.= John alone describes the binding. This it was, probably, which called forth the remonstrance and rebuke of Christ recorded in Matt. 26:55, 56; Luke 22:52, 53. “To apprehend and bind One, all gave their help: the cohort, the chiliarch, and the Jewish officers. This the Evangelist brings prominently forward, to show how deep the impression of that previous incident still was: only _by the help of all_ did they feel themselves secure. And thus it was ordered that the disciples might escape with the more safety.”--(_Luthardt._)

13 And led him away to Annas[666] first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.

[666] Luke 3:2.

14 Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel[667] to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.

[667] ch. 11:49, 50.

=13, 14. Annas first.= Annas was appointed High Priest of the Jews A. D. 7, but had been removed by the Roman Procurator several years previous, and Joseph Caiaphas, his son-in-law, had been appointed in his stead. In Luke 3:2 both are designated as high-priests, and in Acts 4:6; 23:2, the title is given to Annas. The probable explanation is that while Caiaphas held the office, he was really controlled by his father-in-law, who may have been regarded by the Jews as their true high-priest, notwithstanding his deposition by the Romans. He seems to have been one of that class of politicians who are willing that others should possess the honors and offices, provided they may wield the powers of the state.--=Caiaphas.= See Matt. 26:57, note.--=That same year.= The high-priest was originally appointed for life, but the office was now filled by appointees of the Roman government. There were no fewer than twenty-eight high-priests from the reign of Herod to the destruction of the temple by Titus. Of these, five besides Caiaphas were sons of Annas. It is possible that there is a delicate sarcasm in John’s incidental allusion to the transitoriness of the office. This, at least, seems to me better than to render the original (ενιατός) _era_ instead of _year_, though that is a possible translation, or to suppose, with Prof. Fisher, that John thus simply emphasizes the supreme importance which that year, of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus, had in his mind.--=Which gave counsel.= See John 11:49-51.

15 And[668] Simon Peter followed Jesus, and _so did_ another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.

[668] Matt. 26:58, etc.; Mark 14:54; Luke 22:54.

=15. Another disciple.= Who this other disciple was is not certainly known, though Alford says “there is no reason to doubt the universal persuasion that by this name John intends _himself_, and refers to the mention in ch. 13:23 of a disciple whom Jesus loved.” The notion that it was Judas Iscariot is refuted by the language of this verse. Judas did not follow Jesus, but accompanied the band; and that Peter should have entered the palace under the protection of Judas after the betrayal is incredible. Some manuscripts have the reading _the_ other disciple, which would identify him with John (ch. 20:2, 3, 4). But it seems more probable that the article was added by some copyist to give definiteness to the expression, than that it was subsequently omitted.--=Was known unto the high-priest.= How, we have no means of ascertaining. John 19:27 is, however, thought to indicate that the apostle John had a house in Jerusalem.--=Into the palace of the high-priest.= Since John describes Caiaphas as high-priest, this verse clearly indicates that Jesus was taken at once from Annas to Caiaphas. See on ver. 24.

16 But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.

17 Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also _one_ of this man’s disciples? He saith, I am not.

=16, 17.= See Matt. 26:69, note, and illustration there. The doorkeeper was not unfrequently a maid (Acts 12:13). The language here, Art not thou _also_ one of his disciples? indicates that John was known to her as a disciple, and that Peter’s first denial was uttered on entering, and for the purpose of gaining an entrance. Observe that it is not being in bad company, but fellowship in it, that is dangerous. Peter and John were both in the same company, but one concealed his discipleship, the other did not.

[Illustration: ANCIENT FIRE UTENSILS. 1, 2. Braziers. 3. Fire-hod. 4. Bellows. 5. Tongs.]

18 And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals; for it was cold: and they warmed themselves: and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself.

=18. The servants * * * had made a fire of coals.= Probably an open fire in a portable stove or brazier, in the open courtyard around which the Jewish house was customarily built. It is doubtful whether chimneys were known to the ancients; they were certainly very rare. Fires were built sometimes in a little brazier or chafing-dish, sometimes in a small portable stove or fireplace. The fire was always carried from one room to another in a fire-basket made of iron, with perforated sides, to create a draft of air. Bellows and tongs were also in use among them. The accompanying illustrations, taken from ancient bronzes and paintings, will give the reader an idea of these articles. Peter, by joining the group around the fire and concealing his true character, identified himself with the persecutors of Christ.

19 The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.

20 Jesus answered him, I spake[669] openly to the world. I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and[670] in secret have I said nothing.

[669] ch. 7:14, 26, 28; 8:2; Luke 4:15.

[670] Acts 26:26.

21 Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said.

=19-21. The high-priest then asked Jesus.= It was customary among the Jews to subject an accused person to an examination analogous to that practised at a later day in the Inquisition. Witnesses concealed behind a screen reduced his replies to writing. To such an examination, preliminary to his formal trial, Jesus Christ was now subjected.--=Of his disciples and of his doctrine.= The object of the first question was to get evidence against his adherents, the object of the second to get evidence against Jesus himself. To the first Jesus pays no attention; to the second he interposes a calm and dignified protest.--=I spoke openly.= Rather freely, boldly. The original (παῤῥησία) signifies literally _speaking out all_, that is, free-spokenness. Observe that boldness and frankness of utterance are essential qualifications of the true preacher.--=In secret have I said nothing.= Some truths he had reserved because they could not be understood (John 16:12, 25), and others which he had taught were not understood (Matt. 13:13; 1 Cor. 2:7, 8); but there were no mysteries in his religious teaching which he had sought to conceal and for which he was amenable.--=Ask them which heard me.= Not improbably some of the very officers so strangely affected by his preaching were present. If so, this appeal to their own subordinates would have incensed the priests, by making manifest their own injustice.

22 And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck[671] Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?

[671] Job 16:10; Jer. 20:2; Acts 23:2, 3.

23 Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but[672] if well, why smitest thou me?

[672] 1 Pet. 2:19-23.

=22, 23. With the palm of his hand.= Or _with a staff_; either meaning is admissible. Contrast with Christ’s calm rejoinder Paul’s response to similar maltreatment (Acts 23:3).--The commentators note in Christ’s course here his own interpretation of Matt. 5:39. “An angry man may turn in sullenness the other cheek visibly to the smiter; better is he who makes a true answer with mildness, and prepares his heart in peace to endure great sufferings.”--(_Augustine._) “Christ forbids self-defence with the hand, not with the tongue.”--(_Luther._) “Christ’s precept does not exclude the remonstrance against unjust oppression, provided it be done calmly and patiently.”--(_Alford._)

24 Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.

=24. Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas.= Some scholars (so Alford, Lange, and Meyer) render this verse, _Sent him bound_, and suppose that Jesus was sent from Annas to Caiaphas at this time; but Winer (p. 275, § 40, 5_a_) and Buttman (p. 200, § 137) show that the aorist is sometimes used for the pluperfect, as rendered by our English version, and that the sentence may be accordingly regarded grammatically as parenthetical. I believe (see ver. 15, note) that this is the true construction, and that the parenthesis is introduced at this place for the purpose of showing that Jesus was still bound when the indignity here described was inflicted upon him.

[Illustration: DENIALS OF PETER.]

25 And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also _one_ of his disciples? He denied _it_, and said, I am not.

26 One of the servants of the high priest, being _his_ kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?

27 Peter then denied again: and[673] immediately the cock crew.

[673] ch. 13:38; Matt. 26:74; Mark 14:72; Luke 22:60.

=25-27. Peter stood and warmed himself.= In apparent indifference to his Lord; concerned only for his comfort, and absorbed in his curiosity.-- =Did not I see thee?= This question was apparently put to Peter after he had retreated to the porch. It must be remembered that Peter’s danger was real and imminent; for his assault on Malchus had rendered him amenable to legal penalty. On the denial and its lessons, see notes on Matt. 26:69-75.

* * * * *

[Illustration: JESUS BEFORE PILATE.

“_Art thou the king of the Jews._”]

Ch. 18:28 to ch. 19:16. TRIAL OF JESUS BEFORE PILATE.--THE CONSCIENCE OF THE CEREMONIALIST (28).--JESUS A KING; HIS KINGDOM TRUTH; ITS DEFENCES NOT WORLDLY; IT CONQUERS ONLY THE WILLING (33-38).--IN CHRIST NO FAULT (38; ch. 19:4, 6).--THE WORLD CHOOSES BARABBAS AND REJECTS CHRIST (39, 40).--CROWNED SUFFERING (ch. 19:1-3).--BEHOLD THE MAN (5).--BEHOLD YOUR KING (14).--THE TESTIMONY OF THE JEWS TO THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST (7).--THE SILENCE OF JESUS (9).--THE END OF REJECTING CHRIST IS REJECTING GOD: WE HAVE NO KING BUT CÆSAR (15).--THE CRIME OF COWARDICE ILLUSTRATED BY PILATE.

This trial is reported also in Matt. 27:11-31; Mark 15:1-23; Luke 23:1-25. John’s account is the fullest, and has indications of being by an eye and ear witness; but he does not mention Pilate’s wife’s dream and Pilate’s washing of his hands in attestation of his innocence, recorded only by Matthew, nor the accusation preferred by the priests and the sending of Jesus to Herod, recorded only by Luke. For chronological order of events, see Matt. 27:11-31, Prel. Note. For a consideration of the character of Pilate, the reasons for his vacillating course, and the practical lessons to be drawn from it, see note below, ver. 16. The place of this trial I believe to have been the tower of Antonia; the reason for the trial is explained in ver. 31 (see note there).

28 Then[674] led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment; and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest[675] they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

[674] Matt. 27:2, etc.; Mark 15:1, etc.; Luke 23:1, etc.

[675] Acts 10:28.

29 Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?

=28, 29. Unto the hall of judgment.= Literally Prætorium--the name given among the Romans to the headquarters of the Roman military governor, wherever he happened to be; here it is the residence which Pilate occupied in Jerusalem. Whether that was the palace of King Herod, as Farrar and others have supposed, or the tower of Antonia, is uncertain; more probably the latter, which was at the time and long afterwards the citadel of Jerusalem, the headquarters of the army, and the residence of the Roman governors. It was built upon the same broad platform of solid rock upon which the temple stood, and so adjoined the walls of the latter that the Gentile camp seemed a part of the Jewish sanctuary. Four towers at its four corners gave it the appearance of a castle and the strength of a fortress. One of these towers looked down into the broad courts of the temple, and thus subjected all the gatherings there to the oversight of the hated heathen, while its gates, opening directly into those courts, rendered it easy, at a moment’s notice, to quell any disturbance which might occur there.--=And it was early.= The original (πρωΐᾳ) properly signifies the period between daybreak and sunrise (John 20:1), but it is also used in a more general sense to signify the early part of the forenoon (Matt. 21:18), and that must be its meaning here, for this trial before Pilate occurred certainly after the cock-crowing, and probably the formal trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrim and the subsequent deliberations of the Sanhedrim to secure the execution of the death-sentence intervened between the cock-crowing and their conducting Jesus to Pilate.--=Lest they should be defiled.= According to the Pharisaic ideas they could not enter a Gentile house without defilement, and this precluded their participation in the passover, which in such case must be postponed by those who were defiled (Numb. 9:6-11). A curious illustration of the fallibility of conscience is this superstition of the Pharisees, who feared defilement from entering the house of a heathen, but none from the endeavor to secure by fraud and violence the condemnation of their Lord.--=That they might eat the Passover.= Here not the paschal supper, but the festival which followed it, and which lasted for seven days. See Note on the Lord’s Supper, Matt. 26:30. The paschal supper itself I believe to have been observed the night before. An incidental confirmation of this opinion is afforded by Wieseler, quoted in Lange, who asserts that chronological calculations show that in the year 30, the 14th of Nisan, on the evening of which the supper proper took place, actually fell on a Thursday; and it is certain that the crucifixion of Christ occurred on Friday. If Wieseler is correct, the Lord’s Supper must have been the true paschal supper.--=Pilate went out unto them.= Pontius Pilate was the Roman procurator or resident governor of Judea at this time. On his authority, see Matt. 27:2, note; on his character, career, and course here, see note below, ch. 19:16. His going out to them was itself a concession.--=Against this man.= Probably he knew something of Jesus (Matt. 27:18, 19); for a guard had been furnished from his headquarters for the arrest of Jesus (John 18:3, note).

30 They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.

=30. They answered=, etc. It seems to have been their endeavor to secure the ratification of the death-sentence without any hearing, partly because they knew that the Roman governor would be indifferent to the charge of blasphemy (Acts 18:14-17), and partly because their pride revolted against submitting the decision of their court to the hated Gentile.

31 Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us[676] to put any man to death:

[676] Gen. 49:10; Ezek. 21:27.

=31. Then said Pilate, Take ye him and judge him. * * * It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.= It seems to have been the custom of the Romans to take into their own hands in conquered provinces the power of life and death, as one of the principal attributes of sovereignty. There is no good reason to doubt that this had been done in Palestine, and that the Sanhedrim had no longer power to execute the death-sentence. The execution of Stephen, though in a certain sense sanctioned by the Sanhedrim, was the act of a mob (Acts 7:57, 58). Pilate’s answer to the demand of the priests is ironical, a bitter reminder to them that they had no longer the power of sovereignty. Other interpretations, such as that they had no power to crucify, or none to execute on the feast-day, or none to punish crimes against the state, are both unnecessary and improbable.

32 That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake,[677] signifying what death he should die.

[677] Matt. 20:19; Luke 18:32, 33.

=32. That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, signifying=, etc. See ch. 12:32, 33; Matt. 20:18, 19, where Christ foretold his crucifixion. It was also hinted at in O. T. prophecy (Numb. 21:8, 9, with John 3:14; Ps. 22:16, 18; Isa. 53:8, 9). Death was inflicted under the Jewish law by stoning (Deut. 13:9, 10; 17:5-7). Calvin observes the indication in this that Christ’s death in all its particulars fulfills the eternal purpose of God. Comp. Acts 2:23.

33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?

=33. Then Pilate entered into the judgment-hall again.= Meantime the priests had framed and presented their accusation of sedition (Luke 23:2). This accusation may well have perplexed Pilate. Christ had claimed to be King; promulgated laws; organized in the heart of Cæsar’s province the germ of an imperishable kingdom; entered Jerusalem in triumph, hailed by the throng as King of the Jews; and his arrest had been forcibly resisted by one of his followers. These facts a wily priesthood could easily pervert and exaggerate so as to give color to their accusation. How unscrupulous they were is evident from a comparison of Luke 23:2 with ch. 20:22-25.--=And called Jesus.= For a private examination apart from the priests and the gathering mob.

34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?

35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own[678] nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?

[678] ch 19:11; Acts 3:13.

=34, 35. Jesus answered him=, etc.--This question is not asked for information as to the nature of the charge preferred against him and the character of his accusers, for evidently Jesus was present when they preferred it; nor as a means of ascertaining in what sense Pilate used the title _king_, whether in the Jewish sense, to signify the promised founder of the kingdom of heaven, or in a Roman sense, to signify a political kingdom antagonistic to Jewish authority. For he who knew what was in man, understood Pilate’s character and mind. It was the most forcible possible reply to the accusation. Who, he asks, has preferred this charge? The Jews. Pilate’s mind instantly grasps the conclusion. “If it had been preferred by a Roman centurion, it would have been worthy of examination. But when was it ever known that the Jewish priesthood complained of one who sought the political emancipation of the nation? None knew better than Pilate how uneasy were the people under the Roman yoke. The voices of the mob before the judgment-seat crying out for Jesus’ blood were unwitting witnesses of his innocence.”--(_Lyman Abbott’s Jesus of Nazareth._)--The reply had the desired effect. Pilate’s response, “Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me,” shows how quickly he filled out the argument which Christ by a question suggested to his mind.--=What hast thou done?= An honest question. He rejects the testimony of the priesthood to the sedition of the prisoner (Luke 23:2), and appeals to Jesus himself to explain their enmity.

36 Jesus[679] answered, My[680] kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

[679] 1 Tim. 6:13.

[680] ch. 6:15; Ps. 45:3, 6; Isa. 9:6, 7; Dan. 2:44; 7:14; Zech. 9:9; Luke 12:14; Rom. 14:17; Col. 1:13.

=36. Jesus answered.= Honest perplexity he would not refuse to answer. Contrast his silence before Caiaphas (Matt. 26:62), Herod (Luke 23:9), and later before Pilate himself (John 19:9).--=My kingdom is not of this world.= Its origin is not from the earth. The preposition _of_ (ἐκ) signifies the source or origin from which anything springs. Christ’s kingdom is _in_ the world and _over_ the world, but not _from_ the world nor maintained by worldly means.--=If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight.= Not angels, of which Pilate knew nothing; nor the twelve, of whom it is doubtful whether he knew anything. The argument was one which readily addressed itself to Pilate’s understanding. If Jesus were an earthly king, his followers would have defended him from arrest by his enemies and theirs. It is true Peter had done so (ver. 10), but he had been rebuked, and the wound he inflicted had been miraculously healed, so that the priesthood could not appeal to this resistance in support of their charge, except by misrepresenting it.--=That I should not be delivered to the Jews.= _Jews_ generally in John means the Judeans, the inhabitants of the southern province of Palestine, who were Christ’s especial opponents.--=But now is my kingdom not from hence.= _Now_ is not here a particle of time, but of connection. That is, the meaning is not, My kingdom is not _now_ of this world, as though its temporal power and glory was to come by and by, but, _Thus_ you see my kingdom is not, etc. The former meaning has been given to the word by some Roman Catholic commentators, to break the force of the declaration as a testimony against the temporal power of the Pope and the priesthood. For similar connective use of the particle (νῦν) _now_, see Acts 12:11; 22:16; 1 Cor. 14:6. Observe in this verse: (1) A distinct declaration of the supernatural origin and character of Christ’s kingdom. Christianity is not a development of _human thought_, but a gift to man _from God_. Comp. John 3:3; 8:23; 13:3; Rev. 21:2. (2) It is to be defended by spiritual, not by earthly or physical means. With the spirit of this declaration all attempts to maintain the church or its truth by civil enactment or the power of the sword are inconsistent. How little the spiritual nature of Christ’s kingdom was understood in the middle ages is indicated by the fact that even Calvin, on this passage, argues that kings and princes may “employ all the power they possess in defending the church and maintaining godliness.” (3) The strength and permanence of Christ’s kingdom as compared with kingdoms built up on or defended by might of arms. “Here he sheweth the weakness of kingship among us, that its strength lies in servants; but that which is above is sufficient for itself, needing nothing.”--(_Chrysostom._)

37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear[681] witness unto the truth. Every one[682] that is of the truth heareth my voice.

[681] Isa. 55:4; Rev. 1:5; 3:14.

[682] ch. 8:47; 1 John 4:6.

=37. Art thou then not a king?= Or perhaps, with a touch of irony, _Thou art then a king_. Either rendering is admissible (see _Winer_, p. 512).--=Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest= (truly); =for I am a king=. This is truer to the original than our English version. The first clause of the sentence, “_Thou sayest_,” is a common form of Jewish affirmation, and was not confined to the Jews (Matt. 26:64, note). The second clause gives emphasis to this affirmation, and the reason for it, _for I am a king_. Observe how the solemn testimony of Christ to his divine Messiahship before Caiaphas is here, in a different form, reiterated before Pilate.--=To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world.= The first clause does not necessarily imply a pre-existence, because, in a sense, every creature is born to fulfil a divine purpose; but the second clause would be tautological, a mere repetition of the first, if it did not indicate a coming into the world from a pre-existent state and for a particular purpose. And Pilate seems to have partially, at least, so understood it (ch. 19:9, note).--=Every one that is of the truth= (ἐκ τῆς ἀληθειάς). _Proceeding from the truth_; that is, who has so far come under the influence of truth, is so far born anew by the power of the truth on his own soul, as to be a sincere seeker after truth, and hence, in a deeper sense, so far under the influence of the Spirit of God, who is the Truth, as to be seeking to know Him who is the Truth incarnate in human life. Parallel to this declaration are John 6:45; 8:47. Observe, (1) Jesus Christ is not only a teacher, an example, and a Saviour, but a King; and we can accept him as a Saviour only as we accept him as our King (John 15:10; 1 John 3:22-24); (2) the object of his incarnation is to testify to the truth, which he does by his words, and yet more by incarnating the truth in living forms, perfectly in his own life, imperfectly in the lives of his followers; (3) they only hear (_receive_) him, in whom the spirit of truth-seeking already exists. Comp. Matt. 13:13-15.

38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault _at all_.

=38. What is truth?= This famous inquiry of Pilate is certainly not the inquiry of an honest seeker for truth (_Chrysostom_), for he does not even wait for an answer; nor apparently the disconsolate question of one who despaired of ever arriving at a standard of truth (_Olshausen_), for there is no evidence that he had ever sought to know the truth, either in philosophy or in religion; nor the scoffing question of one who believes that truth can never be found (_Alford_), and whose modern type is the positivist who believes that all creeds are false, and God, immortality, and the soul are unknowable, for there is nothing to indicate that such problems had any interest for him. It is rather asked, half in pity, half in contempt, the question of the practical man of the world, to whom this conception of a kingdom built on truth and maintained without army or exchequer seemed but the baseless phantom of a harmless religious enthusiast (_Ellicott_).

39 But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?

40 Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.

=39, 40.= It is apparently at this point in the trial that Pilate sends Jesus to Herod; on his return the demand is made by the people for the customary release of a prisoner (Mark 15:8), and in reply to this demand he makes the proposition, reported by all the Evangelists, to release Jesus.--On the character of Barabbas, see note on Matt. 27:15-18. On the contrast between Barabbas and Jesus, see Acts 3:14. The origin of the custom here referred to is not known. It is difficult to conceive why John should omit the sending of Jesus to Herod (Luke 23:5-7) and Pilate’s wife’s dream and Pilate’s washing of his hands (Matt. 27:20-25), unless he wrote with the other Gospels before him, and therefore omitted what they had sufficiently described.--=At the Passover.= Not necessarily on the day of the paschal feast, but during the Passover week.