Page images

11. Bále. See on v. 7. S. John alone gives the words about the cup: the Synoptists alone (Matt. xxvi. 39, &c.) give the prayer to which they obviously refer. Thus the two accounts confirm one another. Comp. ii. 19, xii. 8; and for the metaphor Ps. lxxv. 8, lx. 3 ; Job xxi. 20; Rev. xiv. 10, xvi. 19. S. Matthew gives another reason for sheathing; all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword' (xxvi. 52).

Any zeal is proper for religion but the zeal of the sword and the zeal of anger” (Jeremy Taylor). For où un interrogative comp. Ruth iii. 1; ου μη εύρω σοι ανάπαυσιν; See on iv. 48.

12—27. THE JEWISH OR ECCLESIASTICAL TRIALS. 12—27. Much space is given in all four Gospels to the Jewish and Roman trials, space apparently disproportionate to the brief account of the Crucifixion. But the two trials illustrate the two great elements of Christ's Messiahship. By the Sanhedrin He was condemned as claiming to be the Son of God, by Pilate as claiming to be the King of the Jews. The Crucifixion would be unintelligible if we did not clearly understand Who was crucified, and why.

12. η ουν σπ. . Therefore the band; because of S. Peter's violent attempt at rescue. The xuliapxos is the tribune of the Roman cohort. His presence with the detachment shews that the hierarchy had prepared the Romans for serious resistance. Peter's violence confirms these representations. Jesus the Nazarene is a dangerous character who incites His followers to rebellion; He must be secured and bound. And the incident in v. 6 would suggest great caution, as in dealing with a powerful magician.

13. προς "Ανναν πρώτον. The πρωτον shers that S. John is aware of the subsequent examination before Caiaphas given by the Synoptists. Whether Annas was chief of the priests (2 Kings xxy. 18), or president, or vice-president, of the Sanhedrin, we have no information. Certainly he was one of the most influential members of the hierarchy, as is shewn by his securing the high-priesthood for no less than five of his sons as well as for his son-in-law Caiaphas, after he had been deposed himself. He held office A.D. 7—14, his son Eleazar A.D. 16, Joseph Caiaphas A.D. 18–36; after Caiaphas four sons of Annas held the office, the last of whom, another Annas (A.D. 62), put to death S. James, the first bishop of Jerusalem. The high-priests at this time were often mere nominees of the civil power, and were changed with a rapidity which must have scandalized serious Jews. There were probably five or six deposed high-priests in the Sanhedrin which tried our Lord (see on xi. 49 and Luke iii. 2). Other forms of the name Annas are Ananias, Ananus, and Hanan.

riv yap trevd. And therefore Caiaphas would be sure to respect the results of a preliminary examination conducted by him. Possibly the chief priests thought that Annas was a safer man than Caiaphas. This examination before Annas is given us by S. John only, who tacitly corrects the impression that the examination before Caiaphas was the only one.

14. oyubépet. See on xi. 50–52. S. John intimates that a trial conducted under such auspices could have but one issue.

15. koloúben. Was following ; the descriptive imperfect. Some good authorities (13 C) insert ó before aklos, but the balance is decidedly against it. There is no very strong reason for rejecting the almost universal opinion that this állos uaontńs is S. John himself. It agrees with his habitual reserve about himself (i. 40, xiii. 23—25, xix. 26, xx. 2—8, xxi. 20-24); with his being often found with S. Peter (Luke xxii. 8; Acts iii. 1, iv. 13, viji. 14); and with his knowledge of the high-priest's servant's name (v. 10). Yet the opinion is not a certainty ; the facts just mentioned would fit his brother S. James almost equally well; and the fact of S. John's elsewhere designating himself as the μαθητής ον ηγάπα ο Ιησούς is slightly against the opinion. But on the other hand that designation would have no point here; the unnamed disciple is not receiving any mark of favour from Jesus. See Introduction, p. xxxiv.

YWOTÓS T. ápx. Comp. Luke ii. 44, xxiii. 49. The nature of the acquaintance is not explained: in connexion with it we may remember the tradition that S. John himself wore the high-priestly badge in later life; p. xvii. To ápx. is probably Caiaphas (vv. 13, 24): deposed high-priests were thus designated sometimes (Luke iii. 2; Acts iv. 6), but never by S. John. Possibly Annas lived in his son-in-law's official residence; but if not, there is nothing improbable in his conducting a preliminary examination there. The ajlý (x. 1, 16) is the court or open space in the centre or in front of the house (Luke xxii. 55) : Ew (v. 16) agrees better with an interior court.

16. eloTÝKel. Was standing ; descriptive imperfect, as in vv. 5, 15, 18. The details again indicate an eyewitness. Female doorkeepers were common among the Jews : LXX. in 2 Sam. iv. 6; Rhoda, Acts xii. 13; Josephus, Ant. vii. ii. 1.

17. un kal gú. Art thou also (shewing that she knew his companion to be a disciple), or, surely thou also art not. See on iv, 29 and comp. iv. 33, vi. 67, vii. 47, ix. 40; where, as here, the un anticipates a negative answer. S. Peter's denial is thus put into his mouth. Toúrou and the turn of the sentence are contemptuous; ix. 16, 24, xi. 47. S. John had hurried on to the room where Christ was being examined; as at the Cross (xix, 26) he kept close to his Master; and in neither case was molested. S. Peter, who followed afar off' (Luke xxii. 54) and that rather out of curiosity to see the end' (Matt. xxvi. 58) than out of love, encountered temptation and fell.

18. elotńk. Sè oi 8. Now the servants and the officers were standing .....and were warming themselves. The tribune (v. 12) has withdrawn his men, having completed the arrest. Only the officials of the Sanhedrin remain, joined now by the household servants of the high-priest. 'Ανθρακιά means charcoal in a brazier, προς το φως of which s. Peter stood and sat, pretending to be indifferent, but restlessly changing his posture (Luke xxii. 56): comp. xxi. 9; Ecclus. xi. 32. Cold nights in


April are exceptional but not uncommon in Palestine, and Jerusalem stands high.

Let' aútwv. Peter also is with the Lord's enemies, making himself comfortable in this night of cold. Otia pulvinar Satanae.

19. ó oův ápx. The oûv connects what follows with vv. 13, 14. Again we are in doubt as to who is meant by the high-priest (see on v. 15), but it will be safest to consider that Caiaphas is meant throughout. Neither hypothesis is free from difficulty. If the high-priest here is Caiaphas, the difficulty is to explain v. 24 (see note there). But we may suppose that while Annas is conducting the examination Caiaphas enters and takes part in it. It was hoped that some evidence might be obtained which would be of service in the formal trial that was to follow.

éyú. With strong emphasis. He answers no questions about His disciples, but bears the brunt alone. Moreover He seems to contrast His openness with the secrecy of His enemies : for παρρησία see on vii. 13, and for εν συναγωγή on vi. 59.

'I always taught in public places, where all the Jews come together. I am not the head of a secret society ; nor am I ashamed of My doctrine.' Comp. Matt. x. 27. Veritas nihil erubescit praeter abscondi (Tertullian).

21. Se ollTOL. As if implying that they were present and ought to be examined. Witnesses for the defence were heard first. Oůtou cannot mean S. Peter and S. John: S. Peter is still outside by the fire. For l'oe see on i. 29.

22. Pátioua. Elsewhere only xix. 3 and Mark xiv. 65. Literally, .a blow with a rod,' and dépels (v. 23) agrees with this. But pámloua is also used for “a blow with the open hand:' comp. panijelv, Matt. v. 39. In later Greek this meaning prevailed, perhaps exclusively. Christ's conduct here shews how Matt. V. 39 is to be understood : personal retaliation is forbidden, but not calm protest and rebuke.

23. ei k. Élálnoa. If I spake evil is perhaps better than If I have spoken evil. Like énánoa in v. 20 and citrov in v. 21, this seems to refer to Christ's teaching, about which He is being examined, rather than to His reply to the high-priest. For the construction comp. xiii. 14, xv. 20.

24. ameot. oủv. The oủv (see critical note) shews that the remark is not an afterthought. Because the preliminary examination before Annas produced a primâ facie case, but nothing conclusive, Annas therefore sent Him for formal trial to Caiaphas, who had apparently been present during the previous examination and had taken part in it (v. 19). Hence there is no need to discuss whether åréoteller may be equivalent to a pluperfect : comp. Matt. xxvi. 48, xiv. 3, 4.

Christ had been bound at His arrest (v. 12) to prevent escape. During the examination He would be unbound as possibly innocent. He is now bound again. Apparently He was unbound a second time before the Sanhedrin, and then bound afresh to be taken to Pilate (Matt. xxvii. 2).

25. The narrative is resumed from v. 18: But Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. Dramatic contrast: the Lord stands bound; His disciple stands and warms himself. A look of distress on his face, when his Master appears bound as a criminal, and perhaps with the mark of the blow (v. 22) on His face, provokes (oûv) the exclamation, Surely thou also art not one of His disciples : see on v. 17.

26. ouyyevús. How natural that an acquaintance of the highpriest (v. 15) known to his portress (v. 16) should know this fact also as well as Malchus' name (v. 10). This confirms the ordinary view that the other disciple' (v. 15) is the Evangelist himself. This third accusation and denial was, as S. Luke tell us, about an hour after the second; so that our Lord must have turned and looked upon Peter' either from a room looking into the court, or as He was being led to receive the formal sentence of the Sanhedrin after the trial before Caiaphas, not as He was being taken from Annas to Caiaphas. The dyú is emphatic; 'with my own eyes:' the man speaks with bitterness and assurance. Comp. dio xupišeto Néywv (Luke xxii. 59).

27. πάλιν ούν. . Again therefore, because he had denied before and yet another denial had become necessary. S. John, like S. Luke, omits the oaths and curses (Mark xiv. 71; Matt. xxvi. 73). We may believe that S. Peter himself through S. Mark was the first to include this aggravation of his guilt in the current tradition.

αλέκτωρ εφ. A cock crew, In none of the Gospels is there the definite article which our translation inserts. This was the second crowing (Mark xiv. 72). A difficulty has been made here because the Talmud says that fowls, which scratch in dunghills, are unclean. But (1) the Talmud is inconsistent on this point with itself; (2) not all Jews would be so scrupulous as to keep no fowls in Jerusalem; (3) certainly the Romans would care nothing about such scruples.

Just as the Evangelist implies (v. 11), without mentioning, the Agony in the garden, so he implies (xxi. 15), without mentioning, the repentance of S. Peter. The question has been raised, why he narrates S. Peter's fall, which had been thrice told already. There is no need to seek far-fetched explanations, as that“ there might be contained in it some great principle or prophetic history, and perhaps both: some great principle to be developed in the future history of the Church, or of S. Peter's Church.” Rather, it is part of S. John's own experience which falls naturally into the scope and plan of his Gospel, setting forth on the one side the Divinity of Christ, on the other the glorification of His manhood through suffering. Christ's foreknowledge of the fall of His chief Apostle (xiii. 38) illustrated both: it was evidence of His Divinity (comp, ii, 24, 25), and it intensified His suffering. S. John, therefore, gives both the prophecy and the fulfilment. It has been noticed that it is “S, Peter's friend S. John, who seems to mention most what may lessen the fault of his brother apostle;” that servants and officers were about him; that in the second case he was pressed by more than one; and that on the last occasion a kinsman of Malchus was among his accusers, which may greatly have increased Peter's terror. Moreover, this instance of human frailty in one so exalted (an instance

which the life of the great Exemplar Himself could not afford), is given us with fourfold emphasis, that none may presume and none despair.

On the difficulties connected with the four accounts of S. Peter's denials see Appendix B.

28–XIX. 16. THE ROMAN OR CIVIL TRIAL. As already stated, S. John omits both the examination before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin at an irregular time and place, at midnight and at 'the Booths' (Matt. xxvi. 57—68; Mark xiv. 53–65), and also the formal meeting of the Sanhedrin after daybreak in the proper place (Matt. xxvii. 1; Mark xv. 1; Luke xxii. 66—71), at which Jesus was sentenced to death. He proceeds to narrate what the Synoptists omit, the conference between Pilate and the Jews (vv. 28–32) and two private examinations of Jesus by Pilate (vv. 33–38 and xix. 8—11). Here also we seem to have the evidence of an eyewitness. We know that S. John followed his Lord into the high-priest's palace (v. 15), and stood by the Cross (xix. 26); it is therefore probable enough that he followed into the Procurator's court.

28. ayovou oův. They lead therefore (v. 3). S. John assumes that his readers know the result of Jesus being taken to Caiaphas (v. 24): He had been condemned to death; and now His enemies (there is no need to name them) take Him to the Roman governor to get the sentence executed.

árò . K. From the house of Caiaphas. Comp. Mark v. 35; Acts xvi. 40.

TÒ atpaltoploy. The palace, Pilate's house, the praetorium. Our translators have varied their rendering of it capriciously: Matt. xxvii. 17, “common hall,' with 'governor's house' in the margin ; Mark xv. 16, 'Praetorium;' John xviii. 33 and xix. 9, judgment-hall. Yet the meaning must be the same in all these passages. Comp. Acts xxiii. 35, judgment-hall;? Phil. i. 13, the palace. The meaning of praetorium varies according to the context. The word is of military origin; (1) “the general's tent' or 'head-quarters. Hence, in the provinces, (2) “the governor's residence,' the meaning in Acts xxiii, 35, in a sort of metaphorical sense, (3) a 'mansion' or 'palace' (Juvenal 1. 75): at Rome, (4) 'the praetorian guard,' the probable meaning in Phil. i. 13. Of these leading significations the second is probably right here and throughout the Gospels; the official residence of the Procurator. Where Pilate resided in Jerusalem is not quite certain. We know that 'Herod's Praetorium,' a magnificent building on the western hill of Jerusalem, was used by Roman governors somewhat later (Philo, Leg. ad Gaium, p. 1034). But it is perhaps more likely that Pilate occupied part of the fortress Antonia, on the supposed site of which a chamber with a column in it has recently been discovered, which it is thought may possibly be the scene of the scourging.

S. John's narrative alternates between the outside and inside of the Praetorium. Outside ; 28–32, 38—40, xix. 4—7, 12—16. Inside; 33-37, xix. 1-3, 8–11.

« PreviousContinue »