John 18

19-21. The high priest . . . asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine--probably to entrap Him into some statements which might be used against Him at the trial. From our Lord's answer it would seem that "His disciples" were understood to be some secret party.

20. I spake--have spoken.
openly to the world--See John 7:4 .
I ever taught in the synagogues and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort--courting publicity, though with sublime noiselessness.
in secret have I said--spake I.
nothing--that is, nothing of any different nature; all His private communications with the Twelve being but explanations and developments of His public teaching. (Compare Isaiah 45:19 , 48:16 ).

21. Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me . . . they know what I . . . said--This seems to imply that He saw the attempt to draw Him into self-crimination, and resented it by falling back upon the right of every accused party to have some charge laid against Him by competent witnesses.

22. struck Jesus with the palm . . . Answerest Thou the high priest so--(See Isaiah 50:6 ; and compare Acts 23:2 ).

23. If I have spoken, &c.--"if I spoke" evil, in reply to the high
if well--He does not say "If not" evil, as if His reply were merely unobjectionable: "well" seems to challenge more than this as due to His remonstrance This shows that Matthew 5:39 is not to be taken to the letter.

24-27. Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas--Our translators so render the words, understanding that the foregoing interview took place before Caiaphas; Annas, declining to meddle with the case, having sent Him to Caiaphas at once. But the words here literally are, "Annas sent Him [not 'had sent Him'] to Caiaphas"--and the "now" being of doubtful authority. Thus read, the verse affords no evidence that He was sent to Caiaphas before the interview just recorded, but implies rather the contrary. We take this interview, then, with some of the ablest interpreters, to be a preliminary and non-official one with Annas, at an hour of the night when Caiaphas' Council could not convene; and one that ought not to be confounded with that solemn one recorded by the other Evangelists, when all were assembled and witnesses called. But the building in which both met with Jesus appears to have been the same, the room only being different, and the court, of course, in that case, one.

25. And Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said therefore . . . Art thou not also one of his disciples?--In Matthew 26:71 the second charge was made by "another maid, when he was gone out into the porch," who "saw him, and said unto them that were there, This [fellow] was also with Jesus of Nazareth." So also Mark 14:69 . But in Luke 22:58 it is said, "After a little while" (from the time of the first denial), "another [man] saw him, and said, Thou art also of them." Possibly it was thrown at him by more than one; but these circumstantial variations only confirm the truth of the narrative.
He denied it, and said, I am not--in Matthew 26:72 , "He denied with an oath, I do not know the man." This was THE SECOND DENIAL.

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--No doubt his relationship to Malchus drew attention to the man who smote him, and this enabled him to identify Peter. "Sad reprisals!" [BENGEL]. The other Evangelists make his detection to turn upon his dialect. "After a while ['about the space of one hour after' ( Luke 22:59 )] came unto him they that stood by and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them, for thy speech betrayeth thee" ( Matthew 26:73 ). "Thou art a Galilean, and thy speech agreeth thereto" ( Mark 14:70 ; and so Luke 22:59 ). The Galilean dialect had a more Syrian cast than that of Judea. If Peter had held his peace, this peculiarity had not been observed; but hoping, probably, to put them off the scent by joining in the fireside talk, he only thus revealed himself.

27. Peter then denied again--But, if the challenge of Malchus' kinsman was made simultaneously with this on account of his Galilean dialect, it was no simple denial; for Matthew 26:74 says, "Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man." So Mark 14:71 . This was THE THIRD DENIAL.
and immediately--"while he yet spake" ( Luke 22:60 ).
the cock crew--As Mark is the only Evangelist who tells us that our Lord predicted that the cock should crow twice ( Mark 14:30 ), so he only mentions that it did crow twice ( Mark 14:72 ). The other Evangelists, who tell us merely that our Lord predicted that "before the cock should crow he would deny Him thrice" ( Matthew 26:34 , Luke 22:34 , John 13:38 ), mention only one actual crowing, which was Mark's last. This is something affecting in this Evangelist--who, according to the earliest tradition (confirmed by internal evidence), derived his materials so largely from Peter as to have been styled his "interpreter," being the only one who gives both the sad prediction and its still sadder fulfilment in full. It seems to show that Peter himself not only retained through all his after-life the most vivid recollection of the circumstances of his fall, but that he was willing that others should know them too. The immediately subsequent acts are given in full only in Luke ( Luke 22:61 Luke 22:62 ): "And the Lord turned and looked upon Peter," from the hall of judgment to the court, in the way already explained. But who can tell what lightning flashes of wounded love and piercing reproach shot from that "look" through the eye of Peter into his heart! "And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny Me thrice. And Peter went out and wept bitterly." How different from the sequel of Judas' act! Doubtless the hearts of the two men towards the Saviour were perfectly different from the first; and the treason of Judas was but the consummation of the wretched man's resistance of the blaze of light in the midst of which he had lived for three years, while Peter's denial was but a momentary obscuration of the heavenly light and love to his Master which ruled his life. But the immediate cause of the revulsion, which made Peter "weep bitterly," was, beyond all doubt, this heart-piercing "look" which his Lord gave him. And remembering the Saviour's own words at the table, "Simon, Simon, Satan hath desired to have you that he may sift you as wheat, but I have prayed [rather, 'I prayed'] for thee that thy faith fail not" may we not say that this prayer fetched down all that there was in that 'look' to pierce and break the heart of. Peter, to keep it from despair, to work in it "repentance unto salvation not to be repented of," and at length, under other healing touches, to "restore his soul?"

John 18:28-40 . JESUS BEFORE PILATE.

Note.--Our Evangelist, having given the interview with Annas, omitted by the other Evangelists, here omits the trial and condemnation before Caiaphas, which the others had recorded. [The notes broken off there at Mark 14:54 are here concluded].

28. Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas to the hall of judgment--but not till "in the morning the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council against Him to put Him to death, and bound Him" ( Matthew 27:1 ; and word here rendered "hall of judgment" is from the Latin, and denotes "the palace of the governor of a Roman province."
they themselves went not into the judgment hall lest they should be defiled--by contact with ceremonially unclean Gentiles.
but that they might eat the passover--If this refer to the principal part of the festival, the eating of the lamb, the question is, how our Lord and His disciples came to eat it the night before; and, as it was an evening meal, how ceremonial defilement contracted in the morning would unfit them for partaking of it, as after six o'clock it was reckoned a new day. These are questions which have occasioned immense research and learned treatises. But as the usages of the Jews appear to have somewhat varied at different times, and our present knowledge of them is not sufficient to clear up all difficulties, they are among the not very important questions which probably will never be entirely solved.

29-32. Pilate went out to them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?--State your charge.

30. If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee--They were conscious they had no case of which Pilate could take cognizance, and therefore insinuate that they had already found Him worthy of death by their own law; but not having the power, under the Roman government, to carry their sentence into execution, they had come merely for his sanction.

32. That the saying . . . might be fulfilled which he spake, signifying what death he should die--that is, by crucifixion ( John 12:32 John 12:33 , Matthew 20:19 ); which being a Roman mode of execution, could only be carried into effect by order of the governor. (The Jewish mode in such cases as this was by stoning).

33-38. Pilate . . . called Jesus, and said . . . Art thou the King of the Jews?--In Luke 23:2 they charge our Lord before Pilate with "perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Cæsar, saying that He Himself is Christ a king." Perhaps this was what occasioned Pilate's question.

34. Jesus answered . . . Sayest thou this of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?--an important question for our Lord's case, to bring out whether the word "King" were meant in a political sense, with which Pilate had a right to deal, or whether he were merely put up to it by His accusers, who had no claims to charge Him but such as were of a purely religious nature, with which Pilate had nothing to do.

35. Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests delivered thee to me: What hast thou done?--that is, "Jewish questions I neither understand nor meddle with; but Thou art here on a charge which, though it seems only Jewish, may yet involve treasonable matter: As they state it, I cannot decide the point; tell me, then, what procedure of Thine has brought Thee into this position." In modern phrase, Pilate's object in this question was merely to determine the relevancy of the charge.

36. Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world--He does not say "not over," but "not of this world"--that is, in its origin and nature; therefore "no such kingdom as need give thee or thy master the least alarm."
if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews--"A very convincing argument; for if His servants did not fight to prevent their King from being delivered up to His enemies, much less would they use force for the establishment of His kingdom" [WEBSTER and WILKINSON].
but now--but the fact is.
is my kingdom not from hence--Our Lord only says whence His kingdom is not--first simply affirming it, next giving proof of it, then reaffirming it. This was all that Pilate had to do with. The positive nature of His kingdom He would not obtrude upon one who was as little able to comprehend it, as entitled officially to information about it. (It is worthy of notice that the "MY," which occurs four times in this one verse--thrice of His kingdom, and once of His servants--is put in the emphatic form).

37. Art thou a king then?--There was no sarcasm or disdain in this question (as THOLUCK, ALFORD, and others, allege), else our Lord's answer would have been different. Putting emphasis upon "thou," his question betrays a mixture of surprise and uneasiness, partly at the possibility of there being, after all, something dangerous under the claim, and partly from a certain awe which our Lord's demeanor probably struck into him.
Thou sayest that I am a king--It is even so.
To this end was I--"have I been."
born and for this cause came I--am I come.
into the world, that I may bear witness to the truth--His birth expresses His manhood; His coming into the world, His existence before assuming humanity: The truth, then, here affirmed, though Pilate would catch little of it, was that His Incarnation was expressly in order to the assumption of Royalty in our nature. Yet, instead of saying, He came to be a King, which is His meaning, He says He came to testify to the truth. Why this? Because, in such circumstances it required a noble courage not to flinch from His royal claims; and our Lord, conscious that He was putting forth that courage, gives a turn to His confession expressive of it. It is to this that Paul alludes, in those remarkable words to Timothy: "I charge thee before God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who, in the presence of Pontius Pilate, witnessed the good confession" ( 1 Timothy 6:13 ). This one act of our Lord's life, His courageous witness-bearing before the governor, was selected as an encouraging example of the fidelity which Timothy ought to display. As the Lord (says OLSHAUSEN beautifully) owned Himself the Son of God before the most exalted theocratic council, so He confessed His regal dignity in presence of the representative of the highest political authority on earth.
Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice--Our Lord here not only affirms that His word had in it a self-evidencing, self-recommending power, but gently insinuated the true secret of the growth and grandeur of His kingdom--as A KINGDOM OF TRUTH, in its highest sense, into which all souls who have learned to live and count all things but loss for the truth are, by a most heavenly attraction, drawn as into their proper element; THE KING of whom Jesus is, fetching them in and ruling them by His captivating power over their hearts.

38. Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?--that is, "Thou stirrest the question of questions, which the thoughtful of every age have asked, but never man yet answered."
And when he had said this--as if, by putting such a question, he was getting into interminable and unseasonable inquiries, when this business demanded rather prompt action.
he went out again unto the Jews--thus missing a noble opportunity for himself, and giving utterance to that consciousness of the want of all intellectual and moral certainty, which was the feeling of every thoughtful mind at that time. "The only certainty," says the elder PLINY, "is that nothing is certain, nor more miserable than man, nor more proud. The fearful laxity of morals at that time must doubtless be traced in a great degree to this skepticism. The revelation of the eternal truth alone was able to breathe new life into ruined human nature, and that in the apprehension of complete redemption" [OLSHAUSEN].
and saith unto them--in the hearing of our Lord, who had been brought forth.
I find in him no fault--no crime. This so exasperated "the chief priests and elders" that, afraid of losing their prey, they poured forth a volley of charges against Him, as appears from Luke 23:4 Luke 23:5 : on Pilate's affirming His innocence, "they were the more fierce, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place." They see no hope of getting Pilate's sanction to His death unless they can fasten upon Him a charge of conspiracy against the government; and as Galilee was noted for its turbulence ( Luke 13:1 , Acts 5:37 ), and our Lord's ministry lay chiefly there, they artfully introduce it to give color to their charge. "And the chief priests accused Him of many things, but He answered nothing ( Mark 15:3 ). Then said Pilate unto Him, Hearest Thou not how many things they witness against Thee? And He answered him to never a word, insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly" ( Matthew 27:13 Matthew 27:14 ). bethinks himself of the expedient of sending Him to Herod, in the hope of thereby further shaking off responsibility in the case. See Mark 15:6 , and perplexity of Pilate, who, "calling together the chief priests, rulers, and people," tells them plainly that not one of their charges against "this man" had been made good, while even Herod, to whose jurisdiction he more naturally belonged, had done nothing to Him: He "will therefore chastise and release him" ( Luke 23:13-16 ).

39. But ye have a custom that I should release one unto you at the passover, the choice of Christ to suffer, by which Barabbas was set free, see the sixteenth chapter of Leviticus, particularly Leviticus 16:5-10 , where the subject is the sin offering on the great day of atonement" [KRAFFT in LUTHARDT].