John 18

-8 1 3 2 -9 1 0 0 0 0 13 96 -9 2 0 0 2 0 1 RVStyle2 7 StyleNameNormal textFontNameArialUnicode Size Standard StyleNameDefaultFontNameTahomaUnicode Size Standard StyleNameJumpFontNameTahomaStylefsUnderlineColorclBlue HoverColorclMaroonHoverEffects rvheUnderlineUnicode Jump Size Standard StyleNameHeading - Module name SizeDoubleFontNameTahomaColorclMaroonUnicode SizeStandard StyleName"Heading small - Module descriptionFontNameTahomaColorclMaroonUnicode Size Standard StyleNameHeading - LinkFontNameTahomaColorclNavy HoverColorclPurpleUnicode Jump Size Standard StyleNameDefaultFontNameTahomaStylefsUnderlineColorclBlueUnicode Jump Size Standard StyleNameDefaultFontNameTahomaColorclBlue HoverColorclMaroonNextStyleNoUnicode Jump Size -9 2 0 0 2 0 2 RVStyle2 jBiDiModervbdLeftToRightTabs StyleNameCentered Alignment rvaCenterTabsStandardTabs-9 2 0 0 2 0 4 RVStyle2 -9 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 31 2 8 0 0 CHAPTER XVIII) Outline of Chapters 18, 19) Theme: Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God) During His Private Ministry: Dying As A Substitute for His People) I. 18:1 11 The Arrest) II. 18:12 19:16 The Trial and The Denial) A. Before Annas (18:13 17), trial and denial) 1. Jesus is led before Annas (18:13, 14) ) 2. Peter s first denial (18:15 18) ) 3. Jesus is tried before Annas; is sent to Caiaphas (18:19 24) ) 4. Peter s second and third denial (18:25 27) ) B.

Before Pilate (18:28 19:16), trial) 1. Jesus is called an evil-doer. Pilate s first attempt to rid himself of responsibility with respect to Jesus: Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your own law (18:28 32) ) 2. Jesus kingship is examined. Pilate s second attempt to rid himself of responsibility: You have a custom that I release a man for you at the Passover (18:33 40) ) 3. Jesus is scourged.

Pilate s third attempt to evade the issue: in an endeavor to arouse the pity of the people he exclaims, Look! The man! (19:1 7) ) 4. After further attempts on the part of Pilate (to release Jesus if it could be done without discomfort to Pilate!), he succumbs to intimidation, and hands Jesus over to be crucified (19:8 16) ) III. 19:17 37 The Crucifixion) A. Jesus carrying the cross; nailed to a cross between two criminals (verses 17 and 18)) B. The dispute about the superscription (verses 19 22)) C. The division of the garments (verses 23 and 24)) D.

The word to Mary and to John (verses 25 27)) E. Jesus thirst; his death (verses 28 30)) F. The piercing of his side (verses 31 37)) IV. 19:38 42 The Entombment) ) 18:1 11) 18 1 When he had said these things, Jesus together with his disciples went out across the winter-brook Kedron, where was a garden, into which he went, he and his disciples. 2 Now also Judas, who was betraying him, knew this place; for Jesus often met��229�� there with his disciples. 3 So Judas took the cohort and some officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, and went there with torches and lanterns and weapons. 4 Then Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, came out and said to them, For whom are you looking? 5 They answered him, For Jesus, the Nazarene. He said to them, I am he. Now Judas also, the one who was betraying him, was standing (there) with them. 6 Then when he said to them, I am he, they lurched backward and fell to the ground. 7 So he again requested of them, For whom are you looking? And they said, For Jesus, the Nazarene. 8 Jesus answered, I told you that I am he.

Therefore, if you are looking for me, let these men go their way.��230�� 9 (This happened) in order that the word which he had spoken might be fulfilled, Of those whom thou hast given me, I have lost none. ) 10 Then Simon Peter, who had a short sword, drew it and struck the servant of the highpriest, and cut off his right ear. Now the servant s name was Malchus. 11 Jesus, however, said to Peter, Put the sword into the sheath. The cup which my Father has given me, shall I not drink it? ) ) 18:1. When he had said these things, Jesus together with his disciples went out across the winter-brook Kedron, where was a garden, into which he went, he and his disciples.) At the conclusion of the prayer Jesus and the little company of eleven left the house (see on 14:31). Proceeding in an easterly direction, they went out of the city (which is probably meant here in 18:1) across the winter-brook Kedron. The valley of the Kedron is located between Jerusalem s eastern wall and the Mount of Olives.

During the hot season the channel is dry. Only during the winter and even then only after a heavy shower does anything resembling a brook actually appear. Hence, it is called (literally) a winter flow-er (a stream which flows during the winter-season). The name Kedron itself (according to what is probably the best reading) means dark, turbid.) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=11.15.13|AUTODETECT|” It was here that devout king Asa had burned the abominable image which his wicked mother had set up 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=11.15.13|AUTODETECT|” I Kings 15:13) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=12.23.4|AUTODETECT|” ). At the command of another pious ruler, Josiah, idolatrous vessels had been burned in this vicinity 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=12.23.4|AUTODETECT|” II Kings 23:4) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=14.29.16|AUTODETECT|” ). And under King Hezekiah the Levites had carried to this valley the unclean things that had been left in the temple by the former administration 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=14.29.16|AUTODETECT|” II Chron. 29:16) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=14.30.14|AUTODETECT|” ; cf. ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=14.30.14|AUTODETECT|” 30:14) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=24.31.40|AUTODETECT|” ). This was the valley of the dead bodies and of the ashes 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=24.31.40|AUTODETECT|” Jer. 31:40) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 ).) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=10.15.23|AUTODETECT|” But the one outstanding event which had occurred here was David s passing over this same brook, while fleeing before his rebellious son Absolom 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=10.15.23|AUTODETECT|” II Sam. 15:23) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 ). Was he not, in this act of humiliation and suffering, a type of Christ?) 1 2 2 8 0 0 Now just east of this brook there was a garden which is elsewhere called Gethsemane (oil-press). It seems to have been a grove of olive-trees, furnished with a press for the purpose of squeezing oil from the fruit. It was at the foot of the Mount of Olives. The site which is pointed out to travelers today is slightly east of the bridge by which the road from the gate of St. Stephen crosses the Kedron.��231��) It must, however, be stressed that no one knows the exact location of the grove which Jesus entered that night. Something similar is true with respect to many of the sites where Jesus taught and performed his miracles.

The general vicinity is often rather well established; the exact place is another matter! Deeply rooted within the heart of many people is the desire to know the precise spot! Others are glad to satisfy this yearning, usually for a consideration. ) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.33|AUTODETECT|” The record of the agony which Jesus suffered in this garden is found in the other Gospels. John takes it for granted that the readers are not in need of any further information with respect to that subject. All he says is, & where was a garden, into which he went, he and his disciples. The leisurely addition of the words in italics serves to picture the scene and to show its pathos. While John is writing this, he vividly recalls what happened that night. He (and Peter and James) had seen more than some of the others 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.33|AUTODETECT|” Mark 14:33) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 ).) 1 1 2 8 0 0 2. Now also Judas, who was betraying him, knew this place; for Jesus often met there with his disciples.) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.21.37|AUTODETECT|” It must be considered within the realm of possibility 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.21.37|AUTODETECT|” Luke 21:37) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.39|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.39|AUTODETECT|” 22:39) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 ) that Jesus and his disciples had spent Tuesday-night and Wednesday-night in Gethsemane. Was there, perhaps, a grotto here or a small house, sleeping-quarters of some kind, and was the owner of the grove a follower of Jesus? Gethsemane was, in any event, a customary gathering-place (note the verb: met; literally: was gathered) for the Master and his disciples. It was a quiet place of prayer and probably of teaching.) 1 3 2 8 0 0 And Judas knew this! He had been there with Jesus. It was, therefore, relatively easy for him to lead a detachment of soldiers and a squad of temple-guards to the place where they could find Jesus. At this very moment Judas was on his way. The evangelist pictures this in vivid colors: Judas was betraying him. See on verse 3.) Not only did Judas know the place, but Jesus knew that Judas knew it!

Nevertheless (shall we not rather say, Because of that very fact ?), Jesus went there! The good shepherd is not going to be caught. No, he is going to lay down his life as a willing sacrifice (see on 10:11).��232��) 3. So Judas took the cohort and some officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, and went there with torches and lanterns and weapons.) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.27.62-40.27.66|AUTODETECT|” At the request of the Sanhedrin 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.27.62-40.27.66|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 27:62 66) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 ) a cohort had been secured, probably from the tower of Antonio. This fortress was situated at the north-west corner of the temple-area. It had been repaired and strengthened by Herod the Great. In this castle the Roman government kept a number of soldiers. During the Jewish festivals, when Jewish patriots streamed to Jerusalem in great numbers and enthusiasm ran high, the garrison was enlarged, in order to be ready for all emergencies (see Josephus, Antiquities XVIII, iv, 3).) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.27.62|AUTODETECT|” The exact number of soldiers in this detachment is not known. Though a cohort ordinarily consisted of six hundred men (the tenth of a legion), it would seem that the term is used in a less restricted sense here, as is often the case with respect to such terms (even today). At any rate the band must have been rather large. It seems well-nigh certain that permission for its use had been obtained from Pilate, the governor 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.27.62|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 27:62) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.27.18|AUTODETECT|” ). ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.27.18|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 27:18) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.27.19|AUTODETECT|” , ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.27.19|AUTODETECT|” 19) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 clearly proves that he knew about the case of Jesus before the accused was actually brought to him. The Synoptics make no mention of the soldiers in this connection.) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.52|AUTODETECT|” In addition to these soldiers there were temple-guards sent by the Sanhedrin, which counted among its members many chief priests the acting highpriest, ex-highpriests, and members of highpriestly families (but this is not certain; another interpretation of the term is given by A. Sizoo, Uit de Wereld v.h. N.T., pp. 70 72) and Pharisees. As the chief priests were mostly Sadducees (cf. on 1:24), the Pharisees are mentioned separately. According to ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.52|AUTODETECT|” Luke 22:52) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 there were also members of the Sanhedrin. Had they postponed the eating of the Passover-supper? See on 18:28.) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.25.1-40.25.3|AUTODETECT|” The soldiers and the policemen from the temple were fully armed. They were equipped with torches and with lanterns. With respect to the latter, think of the oil-fed lamps carried by the ten virgins of the well-known parable 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.25.1-40.25.3|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 25:1 3) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.47|AUTODETECT|” ). John mentions weapons. He refers probably to the swords carried by the soldiers, as well as to the cudgels in the hands of the policemen 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.47|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 26:47) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 ).) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.55|AUTODETECT|” Torches and lanterns & to search for the Light of the world! And it was full moon! Swords and cudgels & to subdue the Prince of peace! This was a cruel insult. It proved how thoroughly his mission had been misinterpreted. For the Man of Sorrows, the very sight of this band of ruffians, which considered him their quarry, meant indescribable suffering. They had come out against him as if he were a criminal, a robber for instance. This was agony. He felt the bitter insult, as is clear from the words he spoke 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.55|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 26:55) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.53|AUTODETECT|” ). He saw the approach of the power of darkness 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.53|AUTODETECT|” Luke 22:53) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 ).) 1 4 2 8 0 0 In describing what the soldiers did, how the guards treated him, in speaking about Judas, Peter, Caiaphas, Annas, Pilate, and others, the main purpose must ever be to show what each contributed to his suffering!) Judas took this detachment of soldiers and this posse of temple-police. The meaning is that he served as guide, for he was thoroughly acquainted with the object of the search and with the latter s familiar haunts. See on 13:27.) 4. Then Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, came out and said to them, For whom are you looking?) From the mind of Jesus nothing was hid. For this knowledge of Jesus see on 1:42, 47, 48; 2:24, 25; 5:6; 6:64; 13:1, 3; 21:17. The agony of Gethsemane (the prayer that the cup might be taken away, the bloody sweat, etc.) was past.

Now there is nothing but calm resolution, sublime majesty. So Jesus came out. Out of what? The answer is not given; hence, certainty is lacking. Some say out of the garden-gate ; out of the grotto ; or out of the house. To others (and we are inclined to agree with them) the meaning is out from among the trees in this grove ; that is, out of relative darkness he stepped into the light, into the open, striding forward until he stood right in front of the band.) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.49|AUTODETECT|” Just as he did this (or was it at some other juncture; but if so, when?), Judas performed that act which has caused all later generations to recoil with horror at the mere mention of his name. Embracing Jesus, he kissed him repeatedly, while he said, Hail, Rabbi! See ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.49|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 26:49) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 (the original). That was the pre-arranged sign. How mean, how devilish! For the foulest deed that was ever committed Judas selected the most sacred night (that of the Passover), the most sacred place (the sanctuary of the Master s devotions), and the most sacred symbol, a kiss! And also, how utterly ridiculous! As if Jesus would have failed to identify himself!) 1 9 2 8 0 0 Finished with Judas, Jesus demanded of the band (particularly, of its leaders): For whom are you looking? He was standing in full view of everyone. He was giving his soul as a ransom in exchange for many. The Master of winds and waves was also fully in control of the present situation.) 5. They answered him, For Jesus, the Nazarene. The answer was given by several (not only by the commander verse 12 ; the verb is plural).

It was probably stated in the exact language of the official order which the band had received from the authorities. Jesus, the man from Nazareth was to be the object of the search.��233��) He said to them, I am he. Unnecessary were all the kisses given by Judas! See on verse 4 (above). Here we see Jesus as the great Prophet, making himself known. In verse 6 we see him as the King of kings.

In verses 7 and 8, as the sympathetic Highpriest, who lovingly provides for his own. Now Judas also, the one who was betraying him, was standing (there) with them. Why does not John record the kissing-episode? Was it merely because he knew that the readers were already sufficiently acquainted with this, having read it in the Synoptics? Or was it also because he shuddered to dwell on this black deed? Yes, Judas, the treasurer (shall we say ex-treasurer?), the man in whom the others had put their trust, he too was now standing with the powers of the prince of darkness.

Hence, it is but natural to include also him in the event which is described in the next verse:) 6. Then when he said to them, I am he, they lurched backward and fell to the ground. What a spectacle is presented now! Suddenly (note the aorists), at the word of Jesus , the would-be captors lose their footing. They lurch backward and fall to the ground. The unexpectedness of Christ s behavior (the fact that of his own accord he strode forward), the manner in which he had taken the entire situation into his own hands, the majesty of his voice and of the look in his eyes, all this may have helped to produce the effect that is here pictured.

Nevertheless, these factors cannot account for it. Here is another sign (see on 2:11). Here is Christ Jesus, the King!) 7, 8. So he again requested of them, For whom are you looking? And they said, For Jesus, the Nazarene. Jesus answered, I told you that I am he.

Therefore, if you are looking for me, let these men go their way.) Note the striking contrast. Their most undignified behavior was followed by his very dignified question: he requested of them. See on 11:22. He interrogates these stricken warriors. The question was the same as before. And so was the answer.��234�� But now Jesus brings home the purpose of his inquiry.

Having twice compelled them to repeat their orders, he by the sound of their own voice and by the contents of their own answers, has impressed upon them the fact that Jesus, the Nazarene, he indeed, but also he alone, must be led away. If you are looking for me as, of course, you are then let these men (the disciples) go their way (or: withdraw themselves). The Highpriest lovingly protects his own.) 9. (This happened) in order that the word which he had spoken might be fulfilled, Of those whom thou hast given me, I have lost none.) At first glance, this passage seems very strange. The word which Jesus had spoken is found (in one form or another) in 6:39; 10:28; and 17:12. See on these passages. But in all of them it refers to that act of Jesus whereby he stands guard over the spiritual welfare of his own, keeping them, with a view to everlasting life in the mansions above.

How then can this saying be suddenly robbed of its precious import and seemingly degraded into a reference to the manner in which Jesus provided for the physical escape of his disciples?��235�� The only answer which satisfies us is the one given by Calvin, Luther, Stalker, Evans, Lenski, and others. It amounts to this: had the disciples at this time been captured by these soldiers and temple-guards, it would have been too severe a test for their faith. They were not ready for this extreme ordeal, this torture. Jesus knew this. Hence, he sees to it that they are not arrested.) Note also that here the same formula that the word & might be fulfilled is employed with respect to a saying of Jesus which elsewhere is used with reference to the inspired authors of the Old Testament. The legitimate inference is certainly this, that John regarded the sayings of Jesus as being, in their infallible character, on a par with those of the prophets of old.) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.51-40.26.54|AUTODETECT|” 10. In his pride and arrogance Peter chooses not to avail himself immediately of the opportunity for physical safety which Jesus had provided. We have here the over-confident Simon of 13:37; see on that passage. What John tells in the next few verses has its parallel in the Synoptics 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.51-40.26.54|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 26:51 54) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.47|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.47|AUTODETECT|” Mark 14:47) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.50|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.50|AUTODETECT|” Luke 22:50) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.51|AUTODETECT|” , ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.51|AUTODETECT|” 51) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 ). Then Simon Peter, who had a short sword, drew it and struck the servant of the highpriest, and cut off his right ear. Now the servant s name was Malchus.) 1 1 2 8 0 0 Although this incident is related in all four Gospels, only John mentions the names of the two persons who (in addition to Jesus himself) figure most prominently in it. When John published his Gospels, it was no longer possible to punish the assailant. Hence, his name, and also the name of the person assailed can now be mentioned.) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.47|AUTODETECT|” The assailant was Peter, who is mentioned here (and frequently in the Fourth Gospel) by his full name: Simon Peter. See on 1:40 42. Emboldened perhaps by the marvelous triumph of Jesus over the men who had come to capture him, greatly encouraged by the spectacle of these soldiers and policemen who just a moment ago lay sprawled all over the ground and by his own previous boast which he had to make good, Simon drew from its scabbard his short sword (��������).��236�� Was this a knife, with a blade five or six inches in length, for gutting fish (as some suggest), or perhaps one that had been used in connection with the Passover-meal? More probably it was actually a kind of dagger, the kind of weapon the soldiers also carried. It is hard to believe that in ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.47|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 26:47) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 the term would have one meaning (sword), and in 26:51 another meaning (knife).) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.38|AUTODETECT|” The armor of the disciples, here in the olive-grove, consisted of two of these swords 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.38|AUTODETECT|” Luke 22:38) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.49|AUTODETECT|” ). Naturally, Peter carried one of them! See on 13:9 and on 13:37. How could it have been different? The disciples had asked, Shall we smite with the sword? 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.49|AUTODETECT|” Luke 22:49) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 ). Impulsive Simon could not wait for the answer.) 1 3 2 8 0 0 Peter, then, having drawn this sword (for the verb see on 6:44), sprang at the (specially commissioned) servant of the highpriest, and probably because the servant quickly jumped to the side cut off his ear.��237�� Both John and Luke inform us that it was the right ear.) The servant s name was Malchus. Here is the touch of an eye-witness. The Fourth Gospel is full of such details. See Vol. I, pp. 18, 19. In this connection it must also be borne in mind that the author was acquainted with the highpriest (18:15). It is, therefore, not surprising that he also knows the name of his servant.) 11. Jesus, however, said to Peter, Put the sword into the sheath. The cup which the Father has given me, shall I not drink it?) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.51|AUTODETECT|” Luke (Doctor Luke, remember!) mentions the fact that Jesus touched the servant s ear and healed it 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.51|AUTODETECT|” Luke 22:51) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=24.47.6|AUTODETECT|” ). Jesus sharply reprimands his wilful disciple, and tells him to sheathe his sword 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=24.47.6|AUTODETECT|” Jer. 47:6) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 ). The reasons for this command may be summarized as follows:) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.39|AUTODETECT|” (1) The one given here, The cup which the Father has given me, shall I not drink it? The struggle in Gethsemane is over. Jesus no longer prays that the cup of most bitter suffering and eternal death on the cross may pass from him 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.39|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 26:39) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.54|AUTODETECT|” ). He is fully determined to drink it (that is, naturally, its contents). It is the cup which the Father (see on 1:14) has given him. Hence, the enemy must not be put to flight by means of the sword. The good shepherd must lay down his life. He must voluntarily offer himself. Simon s deed is at variance with this determination. Cf. also ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.54|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 26:54) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 .) 1 1 2 8 0 0 (2) Jesus must be able to say to Pilate: My kingship is not of this world. If my kingship were of this world, my attendants would have been fighting in order to keep me from being handed over to the Jews; but now my kingship does not spring from that source (18:36).) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.53|AUTODETECT|” (3) If it had been the wish of Jesus to defend himself, he had other means at his disposal, for example, more than twelve legions of angels 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.53|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 26:53) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 ). Peter s rash and awkward act was entirely unnecessary and uncalled for.) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.52|AUTODETECT|” (4) All they that take the sword will perish with the sword 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.52|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 26:52) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 ).) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.55|AUTODETECT|” Before Jesus surrenders himself to this band, he first avails himself of the opportunity to point out the cowardly character of this base onslaught upon him, far away from the public eye, and in the middle of the night. He also emphasizes that his surrender is according to plan. It was in order that the scriptures might be fulfilled 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.55|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 26:55) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.56|AUTODETECT|” , ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.56|AUTODETECT|” 56) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 ). Hence, this yielding was, in reality, no surrender at all. It was victory!) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.51|AUTODETECT|” As Jesus is being (or is about to be) taken and bound, the disciples scamper away. One of the Master s followers not one of the twelve , a man who had quickly thrown a linen cloth about himself, was seized. However, he left the linen cloth in the hand of his pursuer, and fled away naked. For these details see Matt. 25:56; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.51|AUTODETECT|” Mark. 14:51) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.52|AUTODETECT|” , ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.52|AUTODETECT|” 52) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 .) 1 8 2 8 0 0 Synthesis of 18:1 11) See the Outline on p. 374. The Son of God Dying as a Substitute for His People. The Arrest.) Having left the house, Jesus, in the company of eleven disciples crossed the Kedron. This reminds one of David s flight before Absolom, but there is this great difference: Jesus was in complete control of the situation. He was not fleeing. His entire procedure was voluntary. He knew that Judas would meet him there. So he went there!) The company of captors consisted of the following:) a. Judas, the guide) b. The military tribune (chiliarch)) c. The soldiers from the Tower of Antonia (probably in front)) d. The temple-police (behind the soldiers, perhaps)) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.52|AUTODETECT|” e. Chief priests and elders (members of the Sanhedrin, perhaps many of them). See ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.52|AUTODETECT|” Luke 22:52) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 . These probably held themselves somewhat in the background.) 1 13 2 8 0 0 Soldiers carried swords, police cudgels. There were torches and lanterns.) As prophet Jesus, stepping into the light, declared himself; as king he ruled, causing the band to fall to the ground; as priest he protected his own. When Peter showed by an act of rashness (cutting off the ear of the highpriest s servant) that he did not understand the nature of Christ s kingdom, Jesus by word and deed revealed its spiritual character.) Jesus then permitted himself to be seized and bound (see the next section).) ) 18:12 40) 12 Then the cohort and its commander��238�� and the officers of the Jews seized Jesus and bound him, 13 and they led him to Annas first; for he was father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was highpriest of that year. 14 Now Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was expedient that one man die for the people.) 15 Now Simon Peter was following Jesus, and so was another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the highpriest, and he entered with Jesus into the court of the highpriest. 16 But Peter was standing outside, in front of the gate. So the other disciple, the one known to the highpriest, stepped out and spoke to the girl who kept the gate, and brought Peter inside. 17 Then the girl who kept the gate said to Peter, You surely are not also one of this man s disciples, are you? He said, I am not. 18 Now the servants and the officers had made a charcoal fire because it was cold, and they were standing and warming themselves.

And there with them was also Peter, standing and warming himself.) 19 Then the highpriest questioned Jesus concerning his disciples and concerning his teaching. 20 Jesus answered him, I have spoken openly to the world. I always taught at synagogue and in the temple, where all the Jews are in the habit of congregating, and in secret I said nothing. 21 Why are you questioning me? Question those who heard what I said to them. Of course��239�� they know what I said. 22 Now when he had said these things, one of the officers who was standing by slapped Jesus in the face,��240�� saying, Is this the way you answer the highpriest? 23 Jesus answered him, If I spoke wrongly, testify with reference to the wrong, but if rightly, why do you strike me? ��241�� 24 Then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the highpriest.) 25 Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. So they said to him, You surely are not also one of his disciples, are you? He denied it and said, I am not. 26 One of the servants of the highpriest, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, said, Did I not see you in the garden with him? 27 Peter, however, again denied, and instantly, a rooster crowed.) 28 Then they led Jesus Christ from Caiaphas to the governor s residence.

It was early; and in order that they might not be defiled but might eat the Passover, they themselves did not enter the governor s residence. 29 Pilate then went out to them and said, What charge do you prefer against this man? 30 They answered and said to him, If this man were not an evil-doer, we would not have handed him over to you. ��242�� 31 Pilate said to them, Take him yourselves, and judge him in accordance with your own law. The Jews said to him, We have no right to execute anyone. 32 (This happened) in order that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled which he had spoken, signifying by what death he was about to die.) 33 Then Pilate again entered the governor s residence, and he summoned Jesus and said to him, Are you the king of the Jews? Jesus answered, Are you saying this of your own accord, or have others said it to you about me? 35 Pilate answered, Surely I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me. What have you done? 36 Jesus answered, My kingship is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my attendants would have been fighting��243�� in order to keep me from being handed over to the Jews;��244�� but now my kingship does not spring from that source. 37 Then Pilate said to him, So you are a king?

Jesus answered, You say that I am a king. For this purpose was I born, and for this purpose have I come into the world, in order that I might testify to the truth. Whoever is of the truth listens to my voice. 38 Pilate said, What is truth? And having said this, he went out to the Jews again, and said to them, No crime whatever do I find in him. 39 But you have a custom that��245�� I release a man for you at the Passover. So, do you wish that I release for you the king of the Jews? 40 Then they cried out once more, saying, Not this man but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.) ) 18:12.

Then the cohort and its commander and the officers of the Jews seized Jesus and bound him.) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=44.4.27|AUTODETECT|” Finally, the band of soldiers and temple-guards 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=44.4.27|AUTODETECT|” Acts 4:27) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=44.21.31-44.21.33|AUTODETECT|” ) goes into action. The man who in all likelihood was in command of the entire band (not only of the soldiers) is now mentioned for the first time. He was a chiliarch, literally: commander of a thousand ; but the term is used here in a secondary sense, to indicate the Roman military tribune who was the leader of the cohort 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=44.21.31-44.21.33|AUTODETECT|” Acts 21:31 33) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=44.21.37|AUTODETECT|” , ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=44.21.37|AUTODETECT|” 37) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=44.22.24-44.22.29|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=44.22.24-44.22.29|AUTODETECT|” 22:24 29) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=44.23.10|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=44.23.10|AUTODETECT|” 23:10) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=44.23.15|AUTODETECT|” , ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=44.23.15|AUTODETECT|” 15) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=44.23.17-44.23.19|AUTODETECT|” , ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=44.23.17-44.23.19|AUTODETECT|” 17 19) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=44.23.22|AUTODETECT|” , ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=44.23.22|AUTODETECT|” 22) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=44.24.7|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=44.24.7|AUTODETECT|” 24:7) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=44.24.22|AUTODETECT|” , ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=44.24.22|AUTODETECT|” 22) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=44.25.23|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=44.25.23|AUTODETECT|” 25:23) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.6.21|AUTODETECT|” ; see, however, also ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.6.21|AUTODETECT|” Mark 6:21) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=66.6.15|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=66.6.15|AUTODETECT|” Rev. 6:15) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=66.9.18|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=66.9.18|AUTODETECT|” 9:18) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 ).) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.55|AUTODETECT|” At his order some of the soldiers now seized Jesus. The verb employed is the technical term for making an official arrest 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.55|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 26:55) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.48|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.48|AUTODETECT|” Mark 14:48) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 ). In doing so, they actually took hold of him, and then bound him. He, the One who had come into the world to bring freedom, and apart from whom freedom is absolutely impossible (see on 8:31 36), was himself bound. He was bound, however, in order that we might be loosed from our sins.) 1 13 2 8 0 0 The fact that the cohort and its commander are mentioned first probably indicates that they took the leading part in this action of arresting and binding Jesus. This is also what we would have expected.) 13. And they led him to Annas first; for he was father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was highpriest of that year.) The soldiers and temple-police lead Jesus, bound, to Annas. The rather common opinion (also among commentators) is that Jesus was led to Annas for preliminary examination. However, no less an authority than Dr. F.

W. Grosheide, the author of one of the best works on the Fourth Gospel, is among those who challenge this conclusion. He presents his arguments in Kommentaar op het Nieuwe Testament, Vol. II, p. 449 (also p. 454, footnote 1). As he sees it, there was no such a thing as a preliminary hearing before Annas. The trial recorded in 18:19 23 took place before Caiaphas; it was not a preliminary examination before Annas.

This is also the position of A. Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus, the Messiah, Volume II, p. 548.) The most formidable argument in favor of this position is the one derived from a comparison between verses 13, 14 (together), and then 19:) And they led him to Annas first; for he was father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was highpriest of that year. Now Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was expedient that one man die for the people (verses 13, 14). What follows concerns Simon Peter, his first denial (verses 15 18). Verse 19 states:) Then the highpriest questioned Jesus concerning his disciples and concerning his teaching. Cf. also verses 15 and 16: the highpriest. ) Who, then was this highpriest by whom Jesus was examined?

The answer would certainly seem to be, Caiaphas, of course, for he is the only one who is distinctly called highpriest in the preceding verses. ) It is, therefore, not at all surprising that for this reason (and for other reasons, which are not as strong, as we see it), the theory that there was no preliminary hearing before Annas is favored by certain commentators.) When we, nevertheless, respectfully disagree, it is because we consider 18:24 to be an insuperable obstacle to its acceptance. (In passing, it should be remarked that there is no evidence at all to support the idea, held by some, that there has been a displacement of the text, either here at verse 24 which some place immediately after verse 14 or anywhere else in the chapter.)) Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the highpriest (before whom the trial recorded in verses 19 23 was held) was Caiaphas, what intelligible meaning can anyone ascribe to verse 24, which records what happened at the end of this trial? We read:) Then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the highpriest. Surely, a prisoner who has been standing in front of Caiaphas all through verses 19 23 cannot now be sent to Caiaphas! Verse 24, according to the clear meaning of the words, takes for granted that the trial of verses 19 23 has been before Annas, and that it is this Annas who now sends the prisoner to Caiaphas.) We do not see how it is possible to escape this conclusion. Yet, attempts are made to escape it. For example, there is the translation found in the A.V.: Now Annas had sent him bound to Caiaphas the highpriest.

It is true, of course, that in the original the aorist tense (sent) is used at times where we would employ the pluperfect (had sent), but in the present situation this is improbable, as will be explained in a footnote.��246��) This, however, still leaves us with the riddle of explaining how (in view of verses 13, 14) the highpriest to which verse 19 refers can be Annas? The solution is probably not too difficult. In the four New Testament references to Annas he is twice called highpriest, and this name is applied to him even though it was well-known to the inspired author that he was no longer the actual highpriest. Note:) 7 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.*?id=42.3.2|AUTODETECT|”

Luke 3:2) 1 1 -1 9 0 0

In the highpriesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John. ) 7 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.*?id=44.4.6|AUTODETECT|” Acts 4:6) 1 1 -1 9 0 0

And Annas, the highpriest was there, and Caiaphas & ) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=43.18.13|AUTODETECT|” The only other New Testament references to Annas are right in this chapter: ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=43.18.13|AUTODETECT|” John 18:13) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=43.18.24|AUTODETECT|” , ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=43.18.24|AUTODETECT|”

24. 1 1 -1 9 0 0 . John, who probably assumes that the readers have read the earlier Gospels (see Vol. I, pp. 31 33), takes for granted that they know that Annas was still called highpriest. His main thought, here in verse 13, is that the band led Jesus to Annas. The rest (in verse 13 and all of verse 14) is secondary. It is important, to be sure, but not of primary significance.

It simply gives the reason why Jesus was led before Annas, namely, because he was father-in-law to (stood in close connection with) the titular highpriest of that year. This is followed by a parenthetical remark about the son-in-law of Annas. The main idea is still that Jesus was brought to Annas first! Let not the reader begin to think that the trial about which he has read in the other Gospels, namely, the trial before Caiaphas, was the only one. No, first, says John, Jesus was brought before Annas! Hence, the reader has been led to expect that John will say something about this trial.

And he does in verses 19 23.) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.3.2|AUTODETECT|” Who was this Annas? The chief sources which one should read in order to form an opinion of the man are the following: ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.3.2|AUTODETECT|” Luke 3:2) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=44.4.6|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=44.4.6|AUTODETECT|” Acts 4:6) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=43.2.14-43.2.16|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=43.2.14-43.2.16|AUTODETECT|” John 2:14 16) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.21.12|AUTODETECT|” 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.21.12|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 21:12) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.21.13|AUTODETECT|” , ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.21.13|AUTODETECT|” 13) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 ); 18:13, 24; Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, XVIII, ii, 2; XX, ix, 1, 2; Talmud, Pes. 57a. Combining all of this information, one arrives at the following picture:) 1 19 2 8 0 0 Annas (or Ananus, as Josephus calls him; the name is from the Hebrew Hananiah, meaning Jehovah is gracious) had been appointed highpriest by Quirinius in the year 6 a.d., and was deposed by Valerius Gratus, about 15 a.d. Though deposed, he remained for a long time the ruling spirit of the Sanhedrin. He was the dominant member of the Jewish hierarchical machine. There have been somewhat similar machines since that day. It generally takes a clever manipulator to be the virtual head of one. Annas was just such a man.

Five sons (Eleazer, Jonathan, Theophilus, Matthias, and Ananus), one son-in-law (Caiaphas), and a grandson followed him in the highpriesthood. When Annas had been deposed, someone not of his family had succeeded him, but almost immediately afterward a son of Annas had been appointed. After another intermission, Annas son-in-law (Caiaphas) had been given the title. He was the highpriest now. Next the highpriesthood would go to a second son of Annas; then to a third; after still another brief intermission, to a fourth; and then after several others would have been tried out, to the fifth son. Thus, during the entire period of Christ s ministry and for a long time afterward, Annas was the man who was responsible, to a large extent, for the actions of the Jewish Sanhedrin.

Someone else might be the presiding officer of the Sanhedrin, Annas was the man to consult. One can imagine how, whenever a priest would come up with a plan or idea, and would broach it, another would immediately reply, Have you cleared this with Annas? ) He was very proud, exceedingly ambitious, and fabulously wealthy. His family was notorious for its greed. The main source of his wealth seems to have been a goodly share of the proceeds from the price of sacrificial animals, which were sold in the Court of the Gentiles. See on 2:14. By him the house of prayer had been turned into a den of robbers.

Even the Talmud declares: Woe to the family of Annas! Woe to the serpent-like hisses (probably the whisperings of Annas and the members of his family, seeking to bribe and influence the judges).) John adds that Annas was father-in-law of Caiaphas! And in character these two were twins. See on 11:49, 50 for a description of the character of Caiaphas. Hence, from Annas, Jesus could expect the same treatment as from his son-in-law. Let Annas get some preliminary evidence in the case of Jesus.

He will probably be able to give some good (?) advice to his son-in-law. Meanwhile, there will be an opportunity to gather the members of the Sanhedrin, as many as can be assembled at this hour of the night!) 14. Now Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was expedient that one man die for the people. The intent of this parenthetical remark is this: Caiaphas had been plotting Christ s death for a long time. His father-in-law, the real power behind the throne, would cooperate heartily. In fact, he may even have been the instigator.

With respect to Caiaphas see also on 11:49, 50.) Here the account leaves Jesus for a while, as he is brought before Annas, and returns to Peter (see on 13:36 38).) 15. Now Simon Peter was following Jesus, and so was another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the highpriest, and he entered with Jesus into the court of the highpriest.) The story of Peter s denial is told in all four Gospels. It is important to see how these various accounts, which differ in so many details but never clash, harmonize. One fact must be well understood: not only Matthew (26:34), and Mark (14:30), and Luke (22:34), but also John (13:38) definitely expects three denials. Hence, when it appears that John has nothing that corresponds with that denial which by the others is counted as the second one, we are led to conclude, either:) 1.

That he reports only on what he also considers the first and the third denials, and simply assumes that the readers (already acquainted with the account of the denials in the Synoptics) need no further information about the second denial; or,) 2. That he also reports on three denials, but counts differently, splitting up into two denials that which by the others is considered the third denial. In the latter case, what by the others is presented as the third denial is by John counted as the second and the third.) Something can be said in favor of either of these theories. The first is favored by Lenski.��247�� It may be correct. We simply do not know. Yet, if a choice must be made, we would feel inclined to favor the second of these alternatives, and this for the following reasons:) a.

John has recorded the fact that Jesus predicted three denials (13:38). Hence, he has caused the reader to expect that three denials will be described, in fulfilment of the prediction.) b. In this expectation the reader is not disappointed. Note how the Fourth Gospel reports on the denials:) He said, I am not (18:17).) He denied it and said, I am not (18:25).) Peter, however, again denied (18:27). This means, of course, that Peter again said, I am not, or something similar.) Will it not be natural, then, for the reader to see in these three not two nor four I am not -statements the fulfilment of the prediction with reference to the three denials?) Though admitting that the first theory may be the correct one, we shall, for the reasons given, proceed on the assumption that the second is right. As to the material, there is no clash here of any kind.

All the accounts (whether in John or in the Synoptics) are fully inspired and without error.) We suggest the following harmony:) First Denial:) 7 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.58|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 26:58) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.69|AUTODETECT|” , ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.69|AUTODETECT|” 69) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.70|AUTODETECT|” , ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.70|AUTODETECT|” 70) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.54|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.54|AUTODETECT|” Mark 14:54) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.66-41.14.68|AUTODETECT|” , ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.66-41.14.68|AUTODETECT|” 66 68) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.54-42.22.57|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.54-42.22.57|AUTODETECT|” Luke 22:54 57) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=43.18.15-43.18.18|AUTODETECT|” ; and ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=43.18.15-43.18.18|AUTODETECT|” John 18:15 18) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 .) 1 1 2 8 0 0 Second Denial (according to Matthew, Mark, Luke):) 7 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.71|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 26:71) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.72|AUTODETECT|” , ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.72|AUTODETECT|” 72) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.69|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.69|AUTODETECT|” Mark 14:69) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.70|AUTODETECT|” , ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.70|AUTODETECT|” 70) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.58|AUTODETECT|” a; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.58|AUTODETECT|” Luke 22:58) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 ; not in John) 1 1 2 8 0 0 Third Denial (according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke):) 7 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.73-40.26.75|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 26:73 75) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.70-41.14.72|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.70-41.14.72|AUTODETECT|” Mark 14:70b 72) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.59-42.22.62|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.59-42.22.62|AUTODETECT|” Luke 22:59 62) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=43.18.25|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.*?id=43.18.25|AUTODETECT|” John 18:25) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 (the second denial, as counted by John); 18:26, 27 (the third denial, as counted by John).) 1 7 2 8 0 0 When Jesus predicted that Peter was going to deny him three times, he surely did not mean that exactly three times (and no more) Simon would say, I know not the man, or something similar. There were, indeed, three separate situations in connection with which Peter was going to deny the Master, three and no more. But the last time, while several are speaking, one accuser, namely, a relative of Malchus, attracts special attention. Hence, the author of the Fourth Gospel singles him out for separate mention, thus dividing the third denial (of the other Gospels) into two denials.) The question may be asked, Why is it that John gives such a detailed account of the denials, though these had already been related by the earlier Gospel-writers? The answer is probably:) (1) His Gospel is going to contain an account of Peter s restoration. Hence, the reason for the necessity of this restoration must be fully recorded.

Besides, no one must be able to say, This Gospel covers up Peter s sin. ) (2) The beloved disciple probably felt that he himself was partly responsible for Peter s fall. It was he who brought Peter inside the courtyard! Being a very humble man, John wants his readers to know this, sothat the blame may not be placed entirely on Peter.) (3) Of all the apostles only John had returned with Peter to the highpriest s palace. Hence, he was able to supply certain details which the others had not furnished.) Though all the disciples had fled, two soon rallied, and began to follow the band which was leading Jesus to the highpriest s palace. Still fearful, Peter was following (imperfect tense) from a considerable distance (Matthew, Mark, Luke). With him was someone who is simply called another disciple.

That this unnamed person was no one else than the author of the Fourth Gospel we have tried to prove (Vol. I, pp. 3 31).) The other disciple (John) was known though not of necessity intimately to the highpriest. How it was that Annas (see on verse 13) hence, probably also his son-in-law knew John remains a mystery. Theories such as, that John was a distant relative, or that his father s firm delivered fish to the highpriest s palace (the view of Nonnus, an Egyptian scholar, about 400 a.d.) are nothing but guesses. It is important, nevertheless, to bear in mind the fact as such (that John was known to the highpriest). See also on 18:10.

This explains why, without difficulty, John who, having by this time regained courage, had shortened the distance between himself and the band entered with Jesus into the court of the highpriest.) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.*?id=40.26.69|AUTODETECT|”

It is not certain whether the term �P��, as here used (see also on 10:1, 16), indicates the entire palace (a meaning which, according to J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, op. cit., p. 92, lacks papyri support) or refers to the open courtyard around which the Oriental house or palace was built. It is, however, clear that at least in ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.*?id=40.26.69|AUTODETECT|”

Matt. 26:69) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.*?id=41.14.66|AUTODETECT|”

; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.*?id=41.14.66|AUTODETECT|”

Mark 14:66) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.*?id=42.22.55|AUTODETECT|”

; and ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.*?id=42.22.55|AUTODETECT|”

Luke 22:55) 1 1 -1 9 0 0

it must refer to the open courtyard.) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.*?id=40.26.57|AUTODETECT|”

But where was this courtyard? That it was in the house or palace of Caiaphas is clearly implied in ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.*?id=40.26.57|AUTODETECT|”

Matt. 26:57) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.*?id=40.26.59|AUTODETECT|”

, ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.*?id=40.26.59|AUTODETECT|”

59) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.*?id=43.18.13|AUTODETECT|”

. That it was, nevertheless, also in the palace occupied by Annas seems clear by comparing with this passage from Matthew, ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.*?id=43.18.13|AUTODETECT|”

John 18:13) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.*?id=43.18.15|AUTODETECT|”

, ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.*?id=43.18.15|AUTODETECT|”

15) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.*?id=43.18.24|AUTODETECT|”

, ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.*?id=43.18.24|AUTODETECT|”

24) 1 1 -1 9 0 0

. The reader should see this for himself, in order to appreciate the problem. Hence, we print the two references in parallel columns:) 7 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.*?id=40.26.57|AUTODETECT|”

Matt. 26:57) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.*?id=40.26.58|AUTODETECT|”

, ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.*?id=40.26.58|AUTODETECT|”

58) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.*?id=43.18.13|AUTODETECT|”

) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=43.18.13|AUTODETECT|” John 18:13) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=43.18.15|AUTODETECT|” , ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.*?id=43.18.15|AUTODETECT|”

15. 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=43.18.24|AUTODETECT|” , ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=43.18.24|AUTODETECT|”
16. 1 1 -1 9 0 0 : ) 1 5 2 8 0 0 And those who had seized Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the highpriest, where the scribes and the elders had assembled. But Peter followed him at a considerable distrance, to the court (or courtyard) of the highpriest & And they led him to Annas first; for he was father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was highpriest of that year & Now Simon Peter was following Jesus, and so was another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the highpriest, and he entered with Jesus into the court (or courtyard) of the highpriest & Then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the highpriest. ) ) ) Is it not very natural (cf. M. Dods, op. cit., p. 848) to assume that these two very close relatives (Annas and his son-in-law), who, besides, were kindred souls they were two of a kind! lived in the same palace? In spite of all the objections that have been urged against this view, we still believe it to be the most natural solution.

Probably one wing of the palace was occupied by Annas; another by Caiaphas. This is also the conclusion reached by A. Sizoo, Uit De Wereld van het Nieuwe Testament, pp. 81, 82. That in such a palace, occupied by the most important persons in all Judea, there would, indeed, be a room or hall big enough to accommodate a large assembly may be taken for granted. A prisoner could easily be sent from one wing to another, across the courtyard.) 16. But Peter was standing outside, in front of the gate.

So the other disciple, the one known to the highpriest, stepped out and spoke to the girl who kept the gate, and brought Peter inside.) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.*?id=41.14.66|AUTODETECT|”

It seems that Peter was not known either to the highpriest or to his servants. So, he is waiting outside, though John has already been admitted. What follows cannot be understood apart from a knowledge of the construction of an Oriental palace or house of the well-to-do. Such a house looks into its own interior; that is, its rooms are built around an open courtyard. An arched passage leads from the heavy outside door or (better) gate into this inner court. In this passage there is a place (in some houses a little room) for the gate-keeper. Sometimes, as also in the present instance, the court was lower than the rooms which ranged around it 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.*?id=41.14.66|AUTODETECT|”

Mark 14:66) 1 1 -1 9 0 0

Peter was beneath in the court ). It is not entirely impossible that the room to which Jesus had been led was a kind of gallery, from which what happened in the court could be seen and heard.��248�� This theory has its objections, however. One might ask, Would not the loud conversations of the men who stood in the open court-yard have been a cause of annoyance to the priests who conducted the trial? ) 1 3 2 8 0 0 When John had been admitted by the gate-keeper, he secured admission for Peter also. John spoke to the girl who kept the gate. Apparently, not only the highpriest but also his servants (this girl and Malchus) knew John and were known by him. Hence, they must have known that he was a follower of Jesus (see on verse 17). But it seems that in John s case there had been no strict enforcement of the rule mentioned in 9:22. Probably the Sanhedrin had relaxed somewhat, thinking, Once Jesus is out of the way, his disciples will no longer adhere to his teachings.

We know from the book of Acts that when this proved to be an erroneous assumption, the persecution was resumed with undiminished vigor.) John, in securing Peter s admittance, made a tragic error, as is shown by the verses which follow:) 17. Then the girl who kept the gate said to Peter, You surely are not also one of this man s disciples, are you? He said, I am not.) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.54|AUTODETECT|” What happened to John is not related. He probably crossed the courtyard and entered the room (or hearing hall) to which Jesus had been led. By this time the men who had taken Jesus into the palace of the highpriest and into the hearing hall had finished their task. For them (probably with a few exceptions, cf. 18:22) it was no longer necessary to remain in the immediate presence of the prisoner, in order to prevent his escape (as if this had ever been necessary!). Most of the soldiers had probably returned to the fortress of Antonia. As to the palace-servants and the temple-guards (policemen), these had by this time entered (or re-entered) the large courtyard, where, because it was cold, they had made a charcoal fire 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.54|AUTODETECT|” Mark 14:54) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.55|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.55|AUTODETECT|” Luke 22:55) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 ).) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.55|AUTODETECT|” Peter, having entered the passage-way which led from the gate into the courtyard, was ill at ease. It must be borne in mind that it was he who had struck the servant of the highpriest, cutting off his right ear! See on 18:10. It may have been for this reason that he did not dare to proceed as far as John. Or it may have been for other reasons. So he entered the courtyard, and sat down in the midst of the servants and officers 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.55|AUTODETECT|” Luke 22:55) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 ).) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.56|AUTODETECT|” It would seem that the very moment when Peter entered, the portress had her suspicions. The very fact that she had admitted him at the request of John seemed to indicate that Peter too must be a disciple of Jesus. His failure to enter the hearing hall with John, and the general uneasiness which characterized all his movements and which could be read on his countenance, confirmed her suspicions. So, about to be relieved by another gate-keeper, she stepped a little closer and fixed her eyes on Peter, studying him a long time 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.56|AUTODETECT|” Luke 22:56) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 ). Then, stepping right up to him and giving him that piercing look, she said, You surely are not also one of this man s disciples, are you? There must have been a bit of malice in her voice, as the very form of the question seems to indicate. The question was put in such a way that a negative answer was expected.��249�� But this is irony: she knew better. In her heart she was fully convinced that Peter was, indeed, a disciple of Jesus.) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.41|AUTODETECT|” Peter, shocked by the suddenness and the boldness of the question, to which he must give an immediate reply, is caught off guard. In spite of all his loud boasts of a few hours ago (see on 13:37), he is now thoroughly frightened. I am not, he blurts out. Had he failed to take to heart the admonition recorded in ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.41|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 26:41) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.38|AUTODETECT|” 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.38|AUTODETECT|” Mark 14:38) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 )?) 1 1 2 8 0 0 18. Now the servants and the officers had made a charcoal fire because it was cold, and they were standing and warming themselves. And there with them was also Peter, standing and warming himself.) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.69|AUTODETECT|” Most of this has been explained in connection with verse 17; see on that passage. See also on 18:13, footnote 245. It is true that ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.69|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 26:69) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.54|AUTODETECT|” 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.54|AUTODETECT|” Mark 14:54) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.55|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.55|AUTODETECT|” Luke 22:55) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.71|AUTODETECT|” ) pictures Peter as sitting with the officers, while John says that he was standing with them. This surely need not be a contradiction. Is it not reasonable to assume that after sitting down a little while, he had arisen? Perhaps, at the moment when the portress from her place in the archway was looking him over, he was sitting down; but when she started to address him, he man of action that he was had arisen. We may also safely assume that after the first denial he remained standing a while, looking for an avenue of escape. Then he started for the archway. What happened there (as counted by the Synoptics, the second denial) is related in ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.71|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 26:71) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.72|AUTODETECT|” , ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.72|AUTODETECT|” 72) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 and parallels. When John resumes the story of Peter s denial, he is back in the courtyard, standing and warming himself, just like before (see on 18:25).) 1 2 2 8 0 0 19. Then the highpriest questioned Jesus concerning his disciples and concerning his teaching. The highpriest here is probably Annas (see on verse 13). By combining the Gospel-accounts it becomes clear that Jesus had to undergo two trials. The first has been called the ecclesiastical; the second the civil.��250�� The first contained three stages, and so did the second. We may distinguish as follows:) 1. Ecclesiastical Trial) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=43.18.19-43.18.24|AUTODETECT|” a. Preliminary hearing before Annas, while Peter in the court of the highpriest denied the Master. For the hearing see ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=43.18.19-43.18.24|AUTODETECT|” John 18:19 24) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.58|AUTODETECT|” (the present paragraph); for this denial see 18:15 18. The second denial second, as the Synoptics count them is not recorded in the Fourth Gospel, but (as well as the first) must have occurred during Christ s trial before Annas. Between the first and the second denial a little while elapsed 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.58|AUTODETECT|” Luke 22:58) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.59|AUTODETECT|” ); between the second and the third (as the Synoptics count them), about an hour elapsed 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.59|AUTODETECT|” Luke 22:59) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 ).) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.53|AUTODETECT|” b. Trial before Caiaphas and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.53|AUTODETECT|” Mark 14:53) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.54|AUTODETECT|” ). It took place in the highpriest s house 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.54|AUTODETECT|” Luke 22:54) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.57-40.26.68|AUTODETECT|” ). This trial is recorded in ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.57-40.26.68|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 26:57 68) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.53-41.14.65|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.53-41.14.65|AUTODETECT|” Mark 14:53 65) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.54|AUTODETECT|” 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.54|AUTODETECT|” Luke 22:54) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.63|AUTODETECT|” , ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.63|AUTODETECT|” 63) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.64|AUTODETECT|” , ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.64|AUTODETECT|” 64) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.73-40.26.75|AUTODETECT|” ). During this trial what is regarded by the Synoptics as the third (by John as the second and the third) denial took place. The place was, as in the first denial, the court of the highpriest (as is clear by comparing 18:15, 18 with 18:25). For this denial see ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.73-40.26.75|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 26:73 75) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.70-41.14.72|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.70-41.14.72|AUTODETECT|” Mark 14:70b 72) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.59-42.22.62|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.59-42.22.62|AUTODETECT|” Luke 22:59 62) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=43.18.25|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=43.18.25|AUTODETECT|” John 18:25) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 (as John counts, the second denial); 18:26, 27 (as John counts, the third denial). This trial before Caiaphas and the members of the Sanhedrin over which he presided must have ended about (or shortly before) 3 A. M., Friday.) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.66|AUTODETECT|” c. Trial before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin (hence, the same body as b. above) just after day-break 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.66|AUTODETECT|” Luke 22:66) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.66-42.22.71|AUTODETECT|” ). It is recorded in ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.66-42.22.71|AUTODETECT|” Luke 22:66 71) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.27.1|AUTODETECT|” ; cf. ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.27.1|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 27:1) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.15.1|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.15.1|AUTODETECT|” Mark 15:1) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 .��251��) 1 2 2 8 0 0 2. Civil Trial) a. Trial before Pilate) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.23.6-42.23.12|AUTODETECT|” b. Jesus before Herod 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.23.6-42.23.12|AUTODETECT|” Luke 23:6 12) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 )) 1 7 2 8 0 0 c. Trial before Pilate resumed) In the Fourth Gospel the trial before Pilate is found in the section 18:28 19:16.) Returning now to the first stage of the trial before the Jews, to which stage we assign the name Preliminary Hearing before Annas, it must not escape our attention that John purposely jumps from the story of the denial to that of the trial, and then back again to the denial. He does this in order to show that in connection with both of these Jesus suffered intensely. He suffered by being denied. He suffered also by being tried, as if he were a criminal. Between the two (denial and trial) there was this contrast: while Peter denied, Jesus confessed the truth!) For the absolutely sinless One to be subjected to a trial conducted by sinful men was in itself a deep humiliation.

To be tried by such men, under such circumstances made it infinitely worse. Greedy, serpent-like, vindictive Annas (see on 18:13), rude, sly, hypocritical Caiaphas (see on 11:49, 50), crafty, superstitious, self-seeking Pilate (see on 18:29); and immoral, ambitious, superficial Herod Antipas; these were his judges!) In reality, the entire trial was a farce. It was a mis-trial. There was no intention at all of giving Jesus a fair hearing in order that it might be discovered, in strict conformity with the laws of evidence, whether or not the charges against him were just or unfounded. In the annals of jurisprudence no travesty of justice ever took place that was more shocking than this one. Moreover, in order to reach this conclusion it is not at all necessary to make a close study of all the technical points with reference to Jewish law of that day.

It has been emphasized by various authors that the trial of Jesus was illegal on several technical grounds, such as the following: a. No trial for life was allowed during the night. Yet, Jesus was tried and condemned during the hours of 1 3 A. M. Friday. b. The arrest of Jesus was effected as a result of a bribe, namely, the blood-money which Judas received. c.

Jesus was asked to incriminate himself. d. In cases of capital punishment, Jewish law did not permit the sentence to be pronounced until the day after the accused had been convicted.) Such and similar points of law have been mentioned again and again and used as arguments to prove the illegality of the entire procedure against Jesus of Nazareth. Attempts have also been made to refute them, one by one.��252��) But to any fair-minded individual it must be evident at once that all these technicalities are but so many details. They do not touch the heart of the matter. The main point is nothing less than this: it had been decided long ago that Jesus must be put to death (see on 11:49, 50). And the motive behind this decision was envy.

The Jewish leaders just could not take it that they were beginning to lose their hold upon the people and that Jesus of Nazareth had denounced and exposed them publicly. They were filled with rage because the new prophet had laid bare their hidden motives, and had called the temple-court from which they derived much of their profit a den of thieves. On the surface, the dignified chief priests, elders, and scribes might try to put on an act by the seeming imperviousness of their demeanor; underneath they were vengefully nettled, convulsively agitated. They were thirsting for blood!) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.59|AUTODETECT|” Hence, this is not a trial but a plot, and the entire plot is their own. They have devised it, and they see to it that it is carried out. Their officers take part in the arrest of Jesus. They themselves were present! They seek the witnesses false witnesses, of course! against Jesus, in order that they may put him to death 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.59|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 26:59) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.15.1|AUTODETECT|” ). They all condemn him as being deserving of death (Mark 4:64). They (by means of their underlings) bind him and lead him away 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.15.1|AUTODETECT|” Mark 15:1) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=43.18.28|AUTODETECT|” ). They deliver him to Pilate 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=43.18.28|AUTODETECT|” John 18:28) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.27.20|AUTODETECT|” ). Before Pilate they stir up the people to get Barabbas released in order that Jesus may be destroyed 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.27.20|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 27:20) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=43.19.12|AUTODETECT|” ). They intimidate Pilate, until at last the latter delivers Jesus up, to be crucified 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=43.19.12|AUTODETECT|” John 19:12) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=43.19.16|AUTODETECT|” , ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=43.19.16|AUTODETECT|” 16) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.15.31|AUTODETECT|” ). And even when he hangs upon the cross, they mock him, saying, He saved others, himself he cannot save 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.15.31|AUTODETECT|” Mark 15:31) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 ).) 1 7 2 8 0 0 Hence, this in reality is no trial at all. It is murder! Church History offers other sad examples of leaders who were cast out by judges who were filled with envy, and who themselves instigated the witnesses (false witnesses, of course!), in order that certain men whom they (the leaders) hated might be thrown out. The day of judgment will reveal some startling matters! But among all the travesties of justice, none even begins to compare with the one in which the heavenly Highpriest, Jesus Christ, stood before the earthly highpriests, Annas and Caiaphas. For the spotlessly Holy One to be arrayed before such wicked scoundrels, that was suffering!

And in the courtyard stood a man for whom he suffered all this. And that man Simon Peter was saying again and again that he had never heard of Jesus!) It is not at all surprising that Annas questioned Jesus first of all concerning his disciples, and then concerning his teaching. At least, the disciples are mentioned before the teaching. That is exactly what one can expect from Annas! He was far more interested in the success of Jesus how large was his following? than in the truthfulness or untruthfulness of that which he had been teaching. That is ever the way of the world.) 20, 21.

Jesus answered him, I have spoken openly to the world. I always taught at synagogue and in the temple, where all the Jews are in the habit of congregating, and in secret I said nothing. Why are you questioning me? Question those who heard what I said to them. Of course, they know what I said.) Though Annas had placed the emphasis where it did not belong, namely, on the outward success of Christ s ministry, Jesus says not a word about this. He places the emphasis where it does belong, namely, on the teaching; for if the teaching is right, the teacher has the right to gather disciples!) The words in verses 20, 21 which have been placed in italics are those which receive emphasis in the original.

At synagogue (especially in Galilee) and in the temple (located at Jerusalem, in Judea) Jesus has always taught openly. Even though his teaching had often been cast in the form of parables and paroimias (see on 16:25), nevertheless, he had kept back no central truth. His speaking had been open and non-secretive. Whoever wanted to listen, whether at synagogue or in the temple, was welcome. What a contrast between his open teaching and the strictly executive sessions and secret plottings of the Sanhedrin! For the meaning of the adverb openly see also on 7:26.

Jesus had spoken to the world (the general public; cf. the use of the word in 7:4 and in 14:22; and see Vol. I, p. 79, footnote 26, probably meaning 3). Of course, though attendance at the meetings in the court of the Gentiles of the temple was not entirely restricted to the Jews, yet Jesus is thinking especially of them; note: where all the Jews are in the habit of congregating. ) Jesus demands that information with reference to his teaching should be obtained from those who heard it. It is as if today someone under investigation would answer: I decline to be a witness against myself, and I demand that you produce honest witnesses as the law requires. ) 22. Now when he had said these things, one of the officers who was standing by slapped Jesus in the face, saying, Is this the way you answer the highpriest?) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=33.5.1|AUTODETECT|” While Jesus, as a prisoner, was standing with his hands bound before Annas, a certain miserable underling, who belonged to the temple-guards (see on 18:3), sought to exploit the situation for his own petty advantage. The man may have been dreaming about a promotion! So, he gave Jesus a blow in the face 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=33.5.1|AUTODETECT|” Mic. 5:1) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 ). As he did this he said in a tone of scornful rebuke, Is this the way you answer the highpriest? Had Jesus been an ordinary man, and had he been guilty of a crime, he would not have deserved such treatment. After all, even a guilty person has his rights. By Hebrew law he was not compelled to testify against himself. Here, however, is no ordinary man, but the Son of God, the real Highpriest. And he was not guilty, but completely innocent. He was more than merely innocent; he was holy. The underling had had ample opportunity to discover this. Hence, his deed was thoroughly despicable. He was the kind of man who, in a controversy, likes to get on the band-wagon. He has had his followers.) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=44.23.1-44.23.5|AUTODETECT|” 23. Jesus answered him, If I have spoken wrongly, testify with reference to the wrong, but if rightly, why do you strike me? One is especially impressed with the dignity and majesty of this reply. Had Jesus given an answer similar to that which Paul returned in a somewhat analogous situation 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=44.23.1-44.23.5|AUTODETECT|” Acts 23:1 5) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 ), no fault could have been found. The deed of the officer was completely unjustified. He had not even been ordered to strike Jesus. It is exactly as the Lord points out: if he had spoken wrongly, this should have been proved by adequate testimony. Now that he had spoken rightly, the blow in the face was all the more reprehensible.) 1 5 2 8 0 0 The verb which refers to the officer s base deed probably has the ordinary, colloquial sense: to beat or to strike (rather than to bruise or to flay.)��253��) 24. Then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the highpriest.) From the point of view of Annas the preliminary investigation had been unsuccessful. No incriminating evidence had been presented. The investigation had merely served the purpose of allowing time for the members of the Sanhedrin to hurry to the palace of the highpriest.) In complete consistency with the verses which precede, we now read that Annas sends Jesus, still bound, to Caiaphas; not, of course, to him as an individual but to him as president of the Sanhedrin, which by this time is ready to receive him. For further explanation of verse 24 and for comment on the problem which arises already in connection with verse 13, see on 18:13, especially footnote 245. For the place where this Sanhedrin-meeting was held see on 18:15.) 25.

Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. So they said to him, You surely are not also one of his disciples, are you?) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.*?id=40.26.72|AUTODETECT|” While Jesus was being tried before Caiaphas (see on 18:19), and proclaimed himself to be the Son of God, a declaration which was called blasphemy by those who heard it, and while he, as a result, was being subjected to insult and injury, his suffering was aggravated by Peter s wicked behavior. This was the third situation in connection with which Peter denied his Lord. The first was recorded in 18:15 18. John says nothing with reference to the second. According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, when the erring disciple had been ensnared in his first denial, he tried to get out of the building. He got as far as the arch-way.

Here both of the portresses the one who was going off duty and the one who had come to relieve her said to those who were standing around, This man was also with Jesus the Nazarene. He is one of them. At least one male-bystander chimed in, and addressing Peter directly, said, You also are one of them. This time Simon was beside himself with rage. He did something which he had not done during the first denial. With an oath 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.72|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 26:72) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 ) he denied, saying very forcefully, I do not know the man. ) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.73|AUTODETECT|” When John takes up the story again, Peter is back in the courtyard, standing and warming himself, just as before (during the first denial; see on 18:18). It seems that his attempt to escape from the palace had not succeeded. During the hour which had elapsed since the second denial the suspicion which had been aroused regarding him had probably spread. By this time everybody has heard about it. So they said to him & But who are meant by they? Evidently the servants and the officers, the men who were standing around the fire with Peter 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.73|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 26:73) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.70|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.70|AUTODETECT|” Mark 14:70) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 b).) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.73|AUTODETECT|” So, they said to him, You surely are not also one of his disciples, are you? Some grew even bolder, and confidently affirmed, Certainly, you are also one of them, for your brogue gives you away. You are a Galilean 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.73|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 26:73) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.70|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.70|AUTODETECT|” Mark 14:70) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 b). Some were talking to Peter (cf. the account in Matthew and the one in Mark); others were talking about him (cf. the account in Luke). This was enough to get anyone excited, especially a very excitable person like Simon!) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.60|AUTODETECT|” He denied it and said, I am not. Man, I don t know what you re talking about, said Peter to one of them 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.*?id=42.22.60|AUTODETECT|” Luke 22:60) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 ). He stood there invoking upon himself one curse after another. As the author of the Fourth Gospel counts, this was the second denial. See, however, on 18:15. How it must have grieved the Master, much more even than the hypocritical behavior of Caiaphas and the blows which he received from the guards.) 1 2 2 8 0 0 26, 27. One of the servants of the highpriest, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, said, Did I not see you in the garden with him? Peter, however, again denied, and instantly a rooster crowed.) The third denial (as John seems to count) was an outgrowth of the second. The two belong together, and pertain to the same situation, namely, to the time after Simon had returned from the archway and was again standing with the guards and servants, warming himself. The particular incident recorded now is found only in John s Gospel. It must be borne in mind that the beloved disciple was acquainted with the highpriest, and apparently also with his servant, whose very name he knew (Malchus), and with the portress (or portresses).

See on 18:10, 15, 16. So it is not surprising that he also knew a certain individual who happened to be a relative of Malchus. That relative had been in the garden during the arrest. He had seen what Peter had done to Malchus. At least, he was almost sure that it was Peter. Almost, but not quite sure.

So he said to Peter, Did I not see you in the garden with him (that is, with Jesus)? The question is put in such a form that an affirmative answer is expected. One might also render it, I saw you in the garden with him, did I not? ��254��) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.68|AUTODETECT|” Again Peter denied. At that very instant a rooster crowed. To be sure, there had been rooster-crowing once before, namely, after the first denial 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.68|AUTODETECT|” Mark 14:68) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.61|AUTODETECT|” ). Then, however, it had not registered. This time, however, it was different, for at this very moment Peter noticed that someone was looking into his eyes 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.61|AUTODETECT|” Luke 22:61) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.62|AUTODETECT|” ).��255�� That look, so full of pain and yet also so full of love, rang a bell in Peter s memory. Suddenly he recalled the words which Jesus had spoken in predicting the three denials (see on 13:38). He went out and wept as one would expect Peter to weep, bitterly, intensely 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.62|AUTODETECT|” Luke 22:62) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.72|AUTODETECT|” ). Full of deep feeling is also the way Mark puts it: And when he thought thereon he wept 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.72|AUTODETECT|” Mark 14:72) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 ).) 1 1 2 8 0 0 28. Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas to the governor s residence.) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.15.1|AUTODETECT|” From three o clock until day-break Jesus must have been held in imprisonment. Then, at that very early hour 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.15.1|AUTODETECT|” Mark 15:1) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 ) the Sanhedrin was convened. The intention was to rush Jesus off to Pilate, before the multitudes in Jerusalem would be aware of what was going on. Besides, everything must be over before sabbath! The dawn-session a few minutes sufficed! was probably held in order to give a semblance of legality to the corrupt proceedings that had marked the night-session. See on 18:19. It stands to reason that once the verdict of the Sanhedrin had been officially pronounced Jesus had to be taken to Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor. The Sanhedrin had the right to decree death, but did not have the right to execute such a decree. If it was to be carried out, the Romans must make that decision.) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.23.7|AUTODETECT|” At this point John resumes the story. He states that Jesus was led from Caiaphas (the president of the Sanhedrin) to the governor s residence. The language used in ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.23.7|AUTODETECT|” Luke 23:7) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.15.16|AUTODETECT|” makes it well-nigh impossible to believe that here in 18:28 Herod s palace is meant. John has in mind the fortress of Antonia, situated at the northwest corner of the temple-area. See on 18:3. Pilate had rooms in this fortress, in close proximity to the garrison, as is also indicated by ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.15.16|AUTODETECT|” Mark 15:16) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 . It was early. The earliness of the hour is emphasized. This should be borne in mind. If that is not done, 19:14 will present an insuperable difficulty. See on that passage. And in order that they might not be defiled but might eat the Passover they themselves did not enter the governor s residence.) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.11.39|AUTODETECT|” Rising at (or very soon after) dawn, and being ready for business at such an early hour, was not unusual in the ancient world, not even on the part of important officials, such as Pilate. At the gate of the Praetorium Jesus was handed over to the soldiers of the governor; for the venerable members of the Sanhedrin who were in the procession which delivered up their prisoner had religious scruples against entering the dwelling-place of a heathen! They did not desire to be defiled. They apparently regarded ceremonial defilement to be a much more serious matter than moral defilement. That was typical of them. Cf. ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.11.39|AUTODETECT|” Luke 11:39) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 . They wanted to be able to eat the Passover. ) 1 3 2 8 0 0 But how must we explain this last clause? We reject immediately any answer which would bring John into conflict with the Synoptics. See the discussion in connection with 13:1. There is no disturbing problem of any kind here. Here let me be very specific: a. The Fourth Gospel, in complete harmony with the Synoptics, teaches that on Thursday-evening Jesus partook of the Passover-supper with his disciples. b.

The Fourth Gospel, in complete harmony with the Synoptics, teaches that Jesus was crucified on (what we would call) the next day, that is, on Friday. So far many will agree. They will say, That does not touch the real issue. Hence, we now add: c. The Fourth Gospel, in complete harmony with the Synoptics, regards the day of Christ s crucifixion to be the fifteenth of Nisan!) It simply is not true that the Fourth Gospel defends the view that when Jesus was about to be crucified the Passover-Supper still had to be eaten by all the people or by a large section of the people. What does 18:28 actually state?

Only this: And in order that they might not be defiled but might eat the Passover they themselves did not enter the governor s residence. Who are those people that are referred to by the pronoun they? Everybody? All the Sadducees? Such things are simply read into the text. They are not there.

All the text says is that they, namely, the members of the Sanhedrin and their temple-police did not enter the governor s palace. If they had entered, they might have defiled themselves. How? By the vessels within that house? See on 4:9. By too close a contact with an idolator?

By contact with leaven? Or by contact with a dead body? We simply do not know, but surely in a pagan Praetorium there must have been ever so many possibilities for defilement, such as would make the worshipper ceremonially unclean sothat he would not be able to eat the Passover. ) But, again, just what does that last clause mean? Passover, to be sure, was over for practically everybody. But these Sanhedrists and their servants are afraid of entering the Praetorium, lest they become defiled; for in that case they would not be able to eat the Passover. There is here a little problem.

In explaining the meaning of eating the Passover one can go in either of two directions. Either of them is far better than the assumption of a contradiction. Such an assumption is not only doctrinally unsound but is in direct conflict with the entire setting in John which so clearly harmonizes with the setting in the Synoptics (as has been shown in connection with 13:1).) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=14.30.22|AUTODETECT|” The first conservative attempt at a solution is the one according to which the term Passover refers here to the entire seven-day feast, together with the festal offerings that were enjoyed in connection with it. The expression, that they might eat the Passover, would simply mean, that they might keep (or celebrate) the feast. In this connection such a passage as ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=14.30.22|AUTODETECT|” II Chron. 30:22) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=2.12.3-2.12.5|AUTODETECT|” 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=2.12.3-2.12.5|AUTODETECT|” Ex. 12:3 5) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 ) is often referred to. To eat the festival means, then, to keep it, eating its festive meals. The special reference here in 18:28, according to the advocates of this theory, is to the Chagigah (sacrificial meal) that was enjoyed on (what we would call) the day after the Passover Supper.) 1 2 2 8 0 0 Among the many arguments that are urged in favor of this theory are also these:) 1. It does not arbitrarily create a conflict between John and the Synoptics.) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.1|AUTODETECT|” 2. The term Passover elsewhere in John refers to the entire seven-day feast; if elsewhere, why not here? See also ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.1|AUTODETECT|” Luke 22:1) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 .) 1 7 2 8 0 0 3. This theory does justice to the statement about ceremonial defilement: in order that they might not be defiled. The Passover-meal proper was eaten in the evening. By evening the period of defilement would ordinarily have ended. Why then should the Sanhedrists hesitate to enter the Praetorium early in the morning, for fear of defilement, if they were thinking about eating the Passover-lamb? Those are the arguments.) A detailed defence of this theory may be found in the following sources:) A.

Edersheim, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 565 568.) R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., on 18:28.) And especially, N. Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, Grand Rapids, 1951, pp. 649 670.

This is, perhaps, the most recent, detailed defence.) Whatever one may think of this view, so much is clear at least that whatever be its merits, it commends itself as being at least more reasonable than the views which set up a conflict where there is no conflict. See Vol. I, pp. 16, 17.) The reader who studied that statement in Vol. I of this Commentary has noticed its guarded character. We purposely used the expression whatever be its merits, and more reasonable than & Though this interpretation is far better than those which assume a conflict, it has its drawbacks.) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.17|AUTODETECT|” The chief of these is that, after all, the expression to eat the Passover refers elsewhere in the Gospels to the eating of the Passover Supper with its Passover-lamb. See ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.17|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 26:17) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.12|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.12|AUTODETECT|” Mark 14:12) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.14|AUTODETECT|” , ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.14|AUTODETECT|” 14) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.8|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.8|AUTODETECT|” Luke 22:8) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.11|AUTODETECT|” , ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.11|AUTODETECT|” 11) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 , and 15. If it has that meaning everywhere else in the New Testament, why not here, in 18:28? Besides, we have very little information with respect to the Chagigah.) 1 1 2 8 0 0 Is there not an explanation of 18:28 that is more simple? We refer here to the theory which has been defended in a masterly manner by Dr. H. Mulder.��256��) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.53|AUTODETECT|” Briefly, according to Dr. Mulder, the text simply means that the members of the Sanhedrin had been so thoroughly pre-occupied with the arrest and trial of Jesus that they had not had time for their Passover-meal. Thursday-evening these men had been awaiting Judas. They did not know just when he would come. (Even Judas did not know in advance just where Jesus would keep the Last Supper with his disciples.) The Sanhedrists had to be ready. They also wanted to take part in the arrest, even though it be merely as spectators 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.53|AUTODETECT|” Luke 22:53) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=44.10.28|AUTODETECT|” ). Then there was the night-trial. All this took time, much time. Hence, they were convinced that in the interest of the one really important assignment, namely, to get rid of Jesus see on 11:50 all else, even the Passover Supper, could afford to wait. Hence, when very early in the morning they brought Jesus before Pilate, they had not yet partaken of the Passover-meal. They must not defile themselves by entering the house of a heathen. See ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=44.10.28|AUTODETECT|” Acts 10:28) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=44.11.3|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=44.11.3|AUTODETECT|” 11:3) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.11.39|AUTODETECT|” . Hence, these hypocrites who regard ceremonial defilement to be so much worse than moral defilement 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.11.39|AUTODETECT|” Luke 11:39) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 ) cannot enter the Praetorium. Once Jesus is actually hanging on the cross (mocked by them!), they can go home and eat the lamb!) 1 5 2 8 0 0 Objections will also be presented against this theory; for example, Must we really believe that these legalists would dare to postpone their Passover-supper? Would they dare to bring a curse upon themselves this night by engaging in all manner of activity which had nothing to do with the Passover Supper? After all, could they not have eaten the Passover first, and then have gone to the garden in order to join in the arrest of Jesus? ) As we said at the beginning, the problem has not been solved sothat all is now clear. The main point, however, is this: there is absolutely nothing here which even remotely suggests contradiction between John and the Synoptics.) 29, 30. Pilate then went out to them and said, What charge do you prefer against this man? They answered and said to him, If this man were not an evildoer, we would not have handed him over to you.) Pontius Pilate was the fifth governor of the southern half of Palestine.

See Vol. I, p. 180. He was governor in the sense of being procurator, ruling over an imperial province, and as such directly responsible to the emperor. Although he had been endowed with civil, criminal, and military jurisdiction, he was under the authority of the legate of Syria.) From the sources that have come down to us��257�� we may conclude that he was not a very tactful person. Once he caused soldiers who were under his command to bring with them ensigns with their images of the emperor. To the Jew this was sacrilege.

When he threatened with death those who had come to petition him for the removal of these idolatrous standards, they called his bluff, and he yielded. At another time he used the temple-treasure to pay for an aqueduct. When a crowd complained and rioted, he ordered his soldiers to club them into submission. The incident which finally led to his removal from office was his interference with a multitude of fanatics who, under the leadership of a false prophet, were at the point of ascending Mt. Gerizim in order to find the sacred vessels which, as they thought, Moses had hidden there. Pilate s cavalry attacked them, killing many of them.

Upon complaint by the Samaritans, Pilate was then removed from office. He started out for Rome in order to answer the charges that had been leveled against him. Before he reached Rome, the emperor (Tiberius) had died. An unconfirmed story, related by Eusebius, states that Pilate was forced to become his own slayer. ) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.13.1|AUTODETECT|” From the Gospels we gather that he was proud (see on 19:10); and cruel 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.13.1|AUTODETECT|” Luke 13:1) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.27.19|AUTODETECT|” ). He was probably just as superstitious as his wife 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.27.19|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 27:19) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 ). Above all, as all the accounts of the trial of Jesus before him indicate, he was a self-seeker, wishing to stand well with the emperor. He thoroughly hated the Jews who, as he saw it, were always causing him trouble upon trouble. That he was utterly devoid of any remnant of human sympathy and any sense of justice cannot be proved. In fact, there are passages which seem to point in the opposite direction. At any rate, though his guilt was great, it was not as great as that of Annas and Caiaphas (19:11).) 1 4 2 8 0 0 Comparing all the Gospel-accounts with reference to this trial, one gains the impression which is strengthened as the story proceeds that Pilate did everything in his power to get rid of this case. He had no love for the Jews; hence, hated to please them and to grant their request regarding Jesus. And on the other hand, deep down in his heart he was afraid of them and of the possibility that they might use their influence against him. Up to a point he was willing to do what justice demanded, especially if by doing so he could vex his enemies, the Jews. But only up to a point. When his position is threatened, he surrenders!) Jesus, then, was brought before this governor.

The latter, having probably been informed by the soldiers on guard-duty that a prisoner had been brought by a Sanhedrin-delegation which refused to enter the Praetorium, went out to them. Standing on a gallery or porch over the pavement in front of his residence (see on 19:13), he asked the Jewish rulers to present the indictment. What charge do you prefer against this man? said he. The question was, of course, entirely proper. The answer, however, was impudent. They replied, If this man were not an evil-doer, we would not have handed him over to you.

This was a broad hint. It meant, Governor, if you know what is good for you, stop asking such questions. You know very well that in nearly all matters we constitute the highest court in Israel. You should confirm our decision and do what we are about to ask you to do. ) 31. Pilate said to them, Take him yourselves, and judge him in accordance with your own law. The Jews said to him, We have no right to execute anyone.) Pilate was not yet aware of the fact that the Jewish leaders were determined on the death of Jesus.

Thinking that they intended to inflict a lesser punishment, he is at a loss to understand why they should bother him with this prisoner. And if they are not even willing to present an indictment, then he wants to have nothing to do with the case. So, when he now blurts out, Take him yourselves, and judge him in accordance with your own law, he does not imply that the prisoner has not even had a trial. No, what he means is: Dispose of the case yourselves. The verb used in the original has many shades of meaning (see on 3:17), and can certainly indicate (as it seems to do here), to adjudge, pass and execute sentence, condemn.) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=44.7.58|AUTODETECT|” That the Sanhedrists so understood it is clear from their reply: We have no right to execute anyone. By means of this answer they showed what kind of punishment they desired to inflict, nothing less than capital punishment. Though, under Roman law, they had the right to pass such a sentence, they did not have the right actually to put anyone to death. 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=44.7.58|AUTODETECT|” Acts 7:58) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 .) They also knew, of course, that if Pilate, the Roman, would yield to their wishes, Jesus would be crucified (not stoned or strangled); he would be lifted up from the earth (12:32; cf. 3:14). And that was exactly what they wanted. That was also exactly what for totally different reasons Jesus himself wanted! Hence, there follows:) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.20.19|AUTODETECT|” 32. (This happened) in order that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled which he had spoken, signifying by what death he was about to die. See on 3:14 and on 12:32. Cf. ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.20.19|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 20:19) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=5.21.23|AUTODETECT|” . Jesus, according to his own prophecy and in order (see Vol. I, p. 46) that it might be fulfilled, must die the death of an accursed one 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=5.21.23|AUTODETECT|” Deut. 21:23) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=48.3.13|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=48.3.13|AUTODETECT|” Gal. 3:13) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 ). Such was the plan of God for our salvation.) 1 1 2 8 0 0 33. Then Pilate re-entered the governor s residence, and he summoned Jesus and said to him, Are you the king of the Jews?) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.23.2|AUTODETECT|” At this point John seems to assume that the readers are acquainted with the earlier Gospels, particularly with the Gospel according to Luke. See Vol. I, pp. 31, 32. From ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.23.2|AUTODETECT|” Luke 23:2) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 it appears that when Pilate had refused to sentence Jesus without due process of law, and had by his refusal forced the Sanhedrists to present charges, they had presented three: 1. He perverts our nation. 2. He forbids us to pay tribute to the emperor. 3. He says that he himself is Christ a king.) 1 1 2 8 0 0 In reality the three charges were one. It amounted to saying: This man is a politically dangerous individual. He is guilty of high treason. Note also that they said that they had actually found this to be the true state of affairs. They had reached this conclusion upon due investigation!) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.27.19|AUTODETECT|” How grievously he, who is about to declare himself king in the realm of the truth (18:37), suffered here from the lie! What the Jewish authorities here declared was the very opposite of the truth. For proof see on 6:15 and on 12:14, 15. Pilate, moreover, was not fooled. He knew very well what was the real reason why the Jews had delivered Jesus to him 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.27.19|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 27:19) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 ).) 1 13 2 8 0 0 But, of course, the governor simply could not afford to ignore such charges, not with suspicious Tiberius in the saddle at Rome! So, re-entering the residence (that is, going back to the place from which he had come when the soldiers on guard had reported to him the arrival of the Jews and of their prisoner), he now summoned Jesus ordering his soldiers to take him out of the hands of the Jewish officers and to bring him inside , and said to him, Are you the king of the Jews (with all the emphasis on the pronoun).) There may have been a touch of ridicule in this question, ridicule not directed at Jesus but at those who had brought such charges against such a prisoner. It is as if Pilate is saying, as he looks intently upon this prisoner: Are you the king of the Jews? How utterly ridiculous such a charge! But at the same time, he asked the question, and it required an answer. However, before it could be answered, it would have to be explained.) 34.

Jesus answered, Are you saying this of your own accord, or have others said it to you about me? This question was altogether in place, for as asked by Pilate, neither a pure and simple Yes, nor a pure and simple No would have sufficed. Yes, would have been interpreted as meaning, Yes, I am, in a political sense, the king of the Jews. No, might have been construed as indicating, No, I am not the king of the Jews in any sense whatever. If Pilate s question is based merely upon what others (the Jewish leaders) have said, in their accusation, then, of course, the answer must be No. But if, apart from any charges that have been preferred against Jesus, Pilate, of his own accord is asking whether Jesus is, indeed, the king of the Jews, and if Jesus may be permitted to put his own meaning into this question (as he certainly does by implication in the parallel verse 37), then the answer will be, Yes, indeed!

Jesus is the real king of the real Jews. See on 18:37.) Is Pilate speaking like a carnally-minded Jew, who concentrates on nothing higher than an earthly kingdom? Or is he not speaking in that vein?) 35. Pilate answered, I surely am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me. What have you done?

With a gesture of disdain and in a tone of contempt Pilate brushes aside the suggestion that he might possibly have asked the question as a Jew would have asked it. I surely am not a Jew, am I? he asks. No, Pilate himself did not see a revolutionist in this meek-looking person standing before him. Not such a fool was the governor. But, so Pilate continues, the question Are you the king of the Jews? had to be asked because Your own nation, the people to which you belong, and specifically the chief priests (representing the entire Sanhedrin) have handed you over to me. It is they who have brought the charges.

What is your answer? What have you done? Although Pilate knew very well that envy (on the part of the Jewish leaders) was the power which had brought Jesus to his residence for judgment, he was not certain that this explained everything. Had the prisoner committed any crime at all? And if so, what was it?) Thus, the way was paved for Christ s explanation of the nature of his kingship:) 36. Jesus answered, My kingship is not of this world.

If my kingship were of this world, my attendants would have been fighting in order to keep me from being handed over to the Jews, but now my kingship does not spring from that source.) The question, What have you done? Jesus does not answer. Let Pilate enter into the charges that have been preferred against this prisoner. Anything in addition to this is surely out of order. ) In his answer, therefore, Jesus goes back to Pilate s question recorded in verse 33: Are you the king of the Jews? The way has been paved sothat all is now clear for the answer to this question. Pilate has indicated that not he but the Jewish nation and the Sanhedrin charged Jesus with political conspiracy.

It is now up to Jesus to explain the nature of his kingship.) The answer which Jesus gives is threefold:) First, he shows that he realizes that back of the question, Are you the king of the Jews? there lies another, still more fundamental, namely, Are you a king in any sense whatever? The answer to this question is implied in verse 36, for when Jesus now says, My kingship is not of this world, he implies, of course, that he is a king! The same answer is expressed in verse 37: You say that I am a king. ) Secondly, Jesus indicates what his kingship is not, namely, it is not of this world (verse 36).) Thirdly, he shows what his kingship is, namely, it is a kingship in the hearts and lives of all those who listen to the truth (verse 37).) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.1.33|AUTODETECT|” To begin with the first: My kingship, says Jesus, with emphasis on my. He is a king, then. That the term here means kingship, not kingdom, is clear from the fact that according to verse 37 it consists of Christ s rule in the hearts of those who obey him. We are dealing, therefore, with a spiritual-dominion concept. For the use of the word in that abstract sense see also ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.1.33|AUTODETECT|” Luke 1:33) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.29|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.29|AUTODETECT|” 22:29) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=66.12.10|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=66.12.10|AUTODETECT|” Rev. 12:10) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=19.103.19|AUTODETECT|” . The term in the sense of kingship, rule, has its root in the Old Testament 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=19.103.19|AUTODETECT|” Ps. 103:19) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=19.145.13|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=19.145.13|AUTODETECT|” 145:13) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=27.4.3|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=27.4.3|AUTODETECT|” Dan. 4:3) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=27.4.25|AUTODETECT|” , ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=27.4.25|AUTODETECT|” 25) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=19.22.28|AUTODETECT|” ; also a different word ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=19.22.28|AUTODETECT|” Ps. 22:28) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=31.1.21|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=31.1.21|AUTODETECT|” Obad. 21) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=13.29.11|AUTODETECT|” ; and again a different term in ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=13.29.11|AUTODETECT|” I Chron. 29:11) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 ).��258��) 1 4 2 8 0 0 However, here in 18:36, 37 it does not have reference to God s dominion (hence, also the dominion of the second person of the Trinity) over all his creatures, but distinctly to Christ s spiritual kingship in the hearts and lives of his followers.) Secondly, then, the kingship of Jesus is not like an earthly kingship. It does not spring from the earth: it was not given to him by any earthly power, and it is totally different in character. Thus, for example, it does not employ earthly means. If Christ s kingship had been earthly in origin and character, he would have had officers just like the Sanhedrin, for instance, which had its police-force, and just like Pilate, who had his Roman guards , and these would have been fighting, sothat he would not have been handed over to & here we probably expect the Romans, but Jesus says, the Jews! Far from trying to lead the Jews in a revolt against the Romans, Jesus considers these Jews his opponents. Have they not delivered him up to Pilate?

Had Christ s kingship been of an earthly kind, his attendants would have been fighting, under his own command, sothat in Gethsemane he would not have been handed over to the Jews and their wicked Sanhedrin! But instead of ordering them to fight in his defence, he had done the exact opposite (see on 18:10, 11).) 37. Then Pilate said to him, So you are a king? Jesus answered, You say that I am a king. For this purpose was I born, and for this purpose have I come into the world, in order that I might testify to the truth. Whoever is of the truth listens to my voice.) And now thirdly, what, then, is this kingship?

Pilate wants to know. Although the charge against Jesus, representing him as a seditionist, had not arisen in the heart of Pilate, nevertheless he cannot understand how a man can talk about his kingship, if he be not an earthly king. Pilate, therefore, wishes to know whether this prisoner is really a king.) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.27.11|AUTODETECT|” Jesus answers by saying, You say that I am a king. Cf. also ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.27.11|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 27:11) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.64|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.64|AUTODETECT|” 26:64) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.15.2|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.15.2|AUTODETECT|” Mark 15:2) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.23.3|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.23.3|AUTODETECT|” Luke 23:3) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 . In the present connection it is very clear that with this answer Jesus is not trying to remain non-committal. The reply cannot mean, That is what you are saying, but I have never said that. The immediately following context leaves room for only one interpretation, namely, that Jesus in replying, You say that I am a king, definitely meant that Pilate was correct in inferring that the prisoner possessed and claimed royal authority! Note what follows: For this purpose was I born, etc. Hence, the meaning is I am, indeed, a king; I was born for this very purpose. ) 1 5 2 8 0 0 The words, You say it (namely, that I am a king), should not sound strange to people who so often use the very similar expression, You said it! This, of course, means, Yes, indeed; it is even as you have just now affirmed. ) Jesus, however, was not a person who, as a result of certain circumstances say, the death of a predecessor, or the successful revolution of a people against its rulers had become a king. No, he was a born king; in fact, he was born for the very purpose of being a king! Born not only, as any other person might be born, but come into the world from another realm, namely, from heaven. From the ivory palaces of heaven he had descended into this sin-cursed world in order there to take upon himself his mediatorial task, his saving ministry. See on 1:9.) He came, moreover, in order to give competent testimony concerning that which he had himself heard from the Father respecting man s salvation.

For testimony and to testify see on 1:7, 8. For the idea that Jesus came to testify to the things which he had seen and heard while in the Father s presence see 3:11, 32; 8:28, 38; 12:49; 14:10; cf. also 17:8.) He had come, therefore, to testify to the truth with respect to man s salvation unto the glory of God. See on 14:6. He had come to destroy the realm of the lie (see on 8:44). Very significantly Jesus adds, Whoever is of the truth listens to my voice. This was, of course, an implied invitation that Pilate, too, might listen!

Now, every one, whether Jew or Gentile does not matter at all see also on 1:29; 3:16, 17; 4:42; 6:33, 51; 8:12; 9:5; 10:16; 11:52; 12:32 who owes his spiritual origin to him who is the truth, is eager to listen to this voice of the truth. For the verb to listen (not merely to hear) see on 10:3.) 38. Pilate said, What is truth? And having said this, he went out to the Jews again, and said to them, No crime whatever do I find in him.) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.19.7-40.19.9|AUTODETECT|” When Pilate hears this remark about the truth, he shrugs his shoulders. Skeptic that he is, this subject no longer holds any interest for him. It must be borne in mind, in this connection, that many leading Romans had by this time given up all the traditional pagan beliefs with respect to the gods. O surely, the gods might exist after all, and might take revenge if one should offend them. Hence, many of these people, including those of the family of Pilate 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.19.7-40.19.9|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 19:7 9) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.27.9|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.27.9|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 27:9) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 ), were filled with superstitious fears; but as to any settled conviction or deeply rooted faith with respect to God or basic realities it just did not exist for them.) 1 2 2 8 0 0 It is in that spirit of extreme skepticism and cynicism that Pilate blurts out: What is truth, not realizing that the answer was standing in front of him (see on 14:6).) Having said this, Pilate returns to the porch, and definitely tells the Jews the multitude is steadily increasing in front of the Praetorium , No crime whatever do I find in him. No crime, no cause of indictment! This man Jesus, who, as Pilate saw it, speculated in spiritual vagaries, was not a dangerous individual. From him the state had nothing to fear. Had the governor been an honest man, had he been willing to serve the cause of justice, he would at this juncture have released the prisoner. But Pilate was not such a man. For the character of Pilate see on 18:29, 30.) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.23.5-42.23.12|AUTODETECT|” When the Jews we think especially of the leaders, the Sanhedrists heard Pilate s verdict , they immediately accused Jesus of continuous sedition, which, so they claimed, had had its beginning in Galilee and had continued right into Jerusalem. The result was that Pilate who, of course, realized very well that he had full jurisdiction in this case, for according to the charge the attempted insurrection had continued to the very gates of Jerusalem! sent him to Herod. It was a polite gesture. At the same time (and this was uppermost in Pilate s mind), just in case Herod should be willing to adjudicate this matter, he (Pilate) would be rid of it. And to be rid of it was Pilate s yearning desire! The story of Jesus appearance before Herod is told in ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.23.5-42.23.12|AUTODETECT|” Luke 23:5 12) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.*?id=42.23.13-42.23.16|AUTODETECT|” . The trick failed. Herod returned the prisoner, arrayed in a mock-garment. So, Pilate again addresses the members of the Sanhedrin, telling them that neither he himself nor Herod has found a cause of indictment. But again he compromises. Superstitious fear, and perhaps a very small remnant of a sense of justice, keeps Pilate from sentencing Jesus to be crucified.

He is not ready for this & that is, not yet! On the other hand, fear of what the Jews might do to him if he should add one more offence to all the previous ones restrains him from releasing Jesus. Thus his wretched heart is being torn between these two fears. Hence, he now proposes to please the Jews by having Jesus scourged; and to placate the voice of his own conscience and the gods (if they existed!) by not issuing the order that the prisoner be crucified. See ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.23.13-42.23.16|AUTODETECT|” Luke 23:13 16) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 .) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.15.6-41.15.8|AUTODETECT|” The Jews, however, have other ideas. At this very juncture the multitude by this time a multitude has gathered! demands of Pilate that he do what he is in the habit of doing at Passover-time, namely, release a prisoner, whom they would (probably, as a symbol and reminder of the release of the ancestors from the prison-house of Egypt). See ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.15.6-41.15.8|AUTODETECT|” Mark 15:6 8) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 . And here the Fourth Gospel resumes the story:) 1 1 2 8 0 0 39. But you have a custom that I release a man for you at the Passover. Now do you wish that I release to you the king of the Jews?) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.27.15-40.27.18|AUTODETECT|” Pilate, for once, is most willing to grant the privilege demanded by the Jews. He sees in this another opportunity to get Jesus off his hands. So, on the nomination for release he places two candidates: Barabbas and Jesus. See ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.27.15-40.27.18|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 27:15 18) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 .) 1 1 2 8 0 0 This too was suffering for Jesus. By implication he was treated as one who had already been found guilty by the Roman government, functioning through Pilate. Yet Pilate had declared, only a moment ago, I myself do not find in him any cause of indictment & neither does Herod! The suffering which Jesus endured was intensified by the fact that he was placed on the nomination with, of all people, Barabbas! See on 18:40.) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.27.18|AUTODETECT|” It seems altogether probable that Pilate expected the multitude to choose Jesus. After all, the echoes of their hosanna s in honor of the prophet from Galilee had scarcely died. If five days ago the whole world applauded him and Pilate was not completely ignorant of this; cf. ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.27.18|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 27:18) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.15.9|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.15.9|AUTODETECT|” Mark 15:9) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.15.10|AUTODETECT|” , ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.15.10|AUTODETECT|” 10) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 , would they now turn against him? (It is not true that the Hosanna-shouters consisted exclusively of people from Galilee, and the crowds that exclaimed Crucify him! exclusively of Jerusalemites; see on ch. 12.) It is clear that the governor himself suggested that the people choose Jesus in preference to Barabbas. He said, Now do you wish that I release to you the king of the Jews? From the point of view of strategy that last phrase was a mistake. Even in his desperate attempt to escape his responsibility with respect to Jesus, Pilate still could not resist mingling a bit of mockery with his earnest appeal. This prisoner, bound, helpless (for so it seemed) & the king of the Jews, the only king the Jews had been able to produce, a king on whose destruction their own leaders were bent. How ridiculous!) 1 1 2 8 0 0 40. Then they cried out once more, saying, Not this man but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.27.19-40.27.21|AUTODETECT|” In order to understand the greatly abbreviated account as given in the Fourth Gospel, particularly the words of verse 40, it is necessary to consult ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.27.19-40.27.21|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 27:19 21) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.27.20|AUTODETECT|” . From this it appears that at this very critical moment a messenger arrived to inform Pilate about a dream which had caused intense suffering to his wife. While Pilate was busy with this message from his wife, the chief priests and the elders persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.*?id=40.27.20|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 27:20) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 ). Did these wretched leaders remind the people that by choosing Jesus they would be playing into the hands of their deadly enemy Pilate? Did they make much of the fact that just a moment ago Pilate had mocked them by calling Jesus the king of the Jews? Did they recount all the crimes which Pilate had previously committed against the Jewish nation? And did they intimidate those who at first were inclined to choose Jesus (cf. 7:13; 9:22; 19:38; 20:19)? At any rate, when Pilate reappears and asks the people for their decision, they cry, Release Barabbas.

They must have shouted this more than once. John probably assumes that the readers have learned about the first shout from the Synoptics (see Vol. I, pp. 31, 32), for he writes, They cried out once more. ) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.21.13|AUTODETECT|” What they roared was, Not this man but Barabbas. Barabbas meaning, son of the father, which probably indicates that he was the son of a rabbi was a notorious robber, a brigand 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.21.13|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 21:13) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.55|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.55|AUTODETECT|” 26:55) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.27.38|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.27.38|AUTODETECT|” 27:38) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.27.44|AUTODETECT|” , ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.27.44|AUTODETECT|” 44) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.11.17|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.11.17|AUTODETECT|” Mark 11:17) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.48|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.48|AUTODETECT|” 14:48) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.15.27|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.15.27|AUTODETECT|” 15:27) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.10.30|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.10.30|AUTODETECT|” Luke 10:30) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.10.36|AUTODETECT|” , ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.10.36|AUTODETECT|” 36) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.19.46|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.19.46|AUTODETECT|” 19:46) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.52|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.52|AUTODETECT|” 22:52) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=47.11.26|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=47.11.26|AUTODETECT|” II Cor. 11:26) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.23.19|AUTODETECT|” ). He was a man who for a certain insurrection made in the city and for murder had been imprisoned 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.23.19|AUTODETECT|” Luke 23:19) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 ). Him the people chose. And this choice, though entirely unjustified and wicked beyond words, was in accordance with the kind decree and providence of God. Barabbas must go free in order that Jesus may be crucified, his people saved, and God glorified!) 1 11 2 8 0 0 For Synthesis see pp. 422, 423.) ) ) 229 Literally, was gathered. ) 230 I D; see Vol. I; pp. 40, 41.) 231 See W.H.A.B., p. 100; also Viewmaster Travelogue, Reel Number 4001, Gethsemane to Calvary, Scene 1.) 232 Calvin has seen this point. His comment here is beautiful: Consilium Evangelistae praecipue spectandum est in loci indicatione: nam ostendere voluit Christum sponte ad mortem prodiisse. Venit in locum, quem Iudae familiariter notum sciebat. Quorsum id nisi ut sponte se offerat proditori et hostibus? Nec eum fallebat incogitantia, quum omnium quae instabant praescius esset.

Postea etiam subiicit Ioannes eum obviam progressum esse. Mortem ergo non coactus, sed ultro subiit, ut voluntarium esset sacrificium: nam sine obedientia nobis expiatio parta non esset (op. cit., p. 326).) 233 For the form of the term the Nazarene (in the original), and also for the historicity of Nazareth see W. F. Albright, The Names Nazareth and Nazoraean in JBL LXV (December, 1946), 397 401.) 234 The question has been asked, How is it to be explained that these men, who had just a moment ago received such a striking proof of Christ s infinite power, are bold enough to return the same answer as before? The answer has been given that this simply shows how hardened were their hearts. No doubt, there is truth in that solution.

But is it psychologically so strange that they repeated what they had just said? Must we not suppose that the shock produced by Christ s miracle for it was a miracle! was so great that for a little while their minds were dazed? In their bewilderment, almost the only thing which at the spur of the moment they could answer was that which they had uttered last. Besides, that phrase Jesus, the Nazarene had been embedded deeply in their consciousness, probably because of its prominent place in the official orders which they had received. Hence, it would occur first of all.) 235 When W. F.

Howard, The Interpreter s Bible, p. 758, does nothing more than to write that the statement found in 18:9 hardly does justice to the thought of 6:39 and 10:28, he is hardly doing justice to the statement.) 236 For a discussion of this term and its synonym (�������) see W. Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors, Grand Rapids, Mich., sixth edition, 1952, pp. 122, 126.) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.47|AUTODETECT|” 237 The diminutive used in the original has lost some of its original diminutive force. The resultant meaning, at least, is not the little lobe or lobule at the bottom of the ear, but the ear itself. For the same diminutive see ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=41.14.47|AUTODETECT|” Mark 14:47) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.51|AUTODETECT|” ; for another form see ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.51|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 26:51) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.51|AUTODETECT|” ; ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.51|AUTODETECT|” Luke 22:51) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 .) 1 14 2 8 0 0 238 Literally: and the chiliarch. ) 239 Literally, look! ) 240 Literally, gave Jesus a blow. ) 241 I D, I B; see Vol. I, pp. 40, 41.) 242 II C; see Vol. I, pp. 41, 42.) 243 Or: would fight. ) 244 II A; see Vol. I, p. 41.) 245 On 5�� see Vol. I, pp. 45, 53.) A.V. Authorized Version (King James)) 246) The original has ��������� �V� �P���.

The textual evidence is strong in favor of �V�. That would seem to deprive Edersheim s argument of some of its strength. Just what is the meaning of �V� here? Dr. J. R.

Mantey wrote his doctor s thesis on this conjunction: The Meaning of �V� in John s writings. He distinguishes four meanings: a. inferential (therefore, consequently); b. continuative (now, then); c. emphatic (to be sure, indeed, above all); and d. adversative (however). It is clear from the very context, that only a. and b. are possible here, and that of the two, b. is the most natural.) But even so, cannot the conjunction be taken in the sense of now (which is one of the continuative possibilities) followed by the past perfect, as if introducing a kind of parenthetical idea, a belated remark? Hence, could not the A.V. rendering be right after all? May not John have meant this: There is something which I have not yet made clear. Hence, I must state it now (cf.

Grosheide, op. cit., p. 457). But such belated remarks in the Fourth Gospel either lack a particle altogether, or have ��, as in the following: 1:38; 6:71; 11:2; 11:51; 18:2b; 18:10b; 18:14; 18:18 (four instances right here in chapter 18); cf. also 4:54.) Hence, the only reasonable translation, it would appear to us, is the one which is favored by the author of the doctoral thesis to which we referred a moment ago. Dr. Mantey offers the translation: Then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas, the highpriest. See also H. E.

Dana and J. R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, New York, 1950, p. 254. Similar is the translation found in R.S.V.; and also the one in the new Dutch version: Annas dan zond Hem geboeid naar Kajafas, den hogepriester. And the difference between this and the translation found in the A.R.V. is not great: Annas therefore sent him bound unto Caiaphas the highpriest. ) 247 See his Commentary, p. 1184.) 1 1 2 8 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.61|AUTODETECT|” 248 This is suggested by A. Sizoo, Uit De Wereld van het Nieuwe Testament, Kampen, (second edition) 1948, p. 82. He refers to ) 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=42.22.61|AUTODETECT|” Luke 22:61) 1 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.58|AUTODETECT|” , which indicates that Jesus, having heard the words of Peter s third denial, turned and looked at him. 7 1 -1 9 0 “tw://bible.?id=40.26.58|AUTODETECT|” Matt. 26:58) 1 1 -1 9 0 0 .) But it is possible that just at this moment Jesus was being led across the court-yard, and that for this reason he was able to hear (and look at) Peter.) 1 11 2 8 0 0 249 Lenski states that the question expects a positive answer, op. cit., p. 1173. But this in contrary to the rule which applies to cases in which the particle �� is used. C. B. Williams, The New Testament, A Translation in the Language of the People, Chicago, 1949, translates correctly. This is also in harmony with A.

T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Volume V, p. 287; F. W. Grosheide, op. cit., p. 453. The new Dutch version translates very neatly: Gij behoort toch ook niet tot de discipelen van dezen mens? ) 250 This is the terminology employed by several authors, among whom is J. Stalker, The Trial and Death of Jesus Christ, New York, 1894, p. 16.

Others: Tried by the Jews, Tried by the Gentiles ; or Before Caiaphas, Before Pilate. Objections can be advanced against each of these captions.) 251 The place where it was held is disputed. See S. Greydanus, Het Heilig Evangelie naar de Beschrijving van Lukas (in Kommentaar op het Nieuwe Testament), Amsterdam, 1941, Volume II, p. 1106.) 252 See in this connection J. J. Maclaren, Jesus Christ, Arrest and Trial of, in I.S.B.E., Vol.

III, pp. 1168 1673; W. Evans, From the Upper Room to the Empty Tomb, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1934, pp. 149 154; A. C. Bisek, The Trial of Jesus Christ, Chicago, 1925. The last-named author tries to refute the arguments which by others are used in order to prove the illegality of the trial.) 253 Cf. J.

H. Moulton and G. Milligan, op. cit., p. 142.) 254 Note: in the garden. This lends support to our explanation of 18:4. It shows that the arrest did not take place outside the garden-gate but inside. Those who have explained 18:4 as if it meant that Jesus went out of the gate to meet the band get into difficulty in explaining the present passage.) 255 How this was possible has been discussed in connection with 18:16; see specially footnote.) 256 H.

Mulder, GThT (1951). The articles of Dr. Mulder should be translated into English. I have not found a better defence of this particular view anywhere else.) 257 These sources are, first of all, The Gospels; then Philo, De Legationem ad Caium XXXVIII; Josephus, Antiquities XVIII, iii, iv; same author, The Jewish War II, ix; Tacitus, Annals XV, xliv; and Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, I, ix, x; II, ii, vii. See also G. A.

M�ller, Pontius Pilatus der f�nfte Prokurator von Jud�a, Stuttgart, 1888.) 258 On this entire subject see especially L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Mich., fourth edition, 1949, pp. 406 412, 569, 710, 713 716; G. Vos, The Teaching of Jesus concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church, N. Y., 1903, pp. 25 37; and H. Ridderbos, De Komst van het Koninkrijk, Kampen, 1950 (in the present connection especially p. 25).) )