The Gospel According to St. John; commentaries on Hebrews and 1–3 John

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in

that every power and faculty, offered once for all, may in due course be effectually rendered to God (Rom. xii. i). It is not enough for the Christian to be " kept " (vv. n, 15); he must also advance.

through thy truth'] in the truth. The " truth," the sum of the Christian revelation, "the word of God," at once embodied in Christ and spoken by Him, is (as it were) the element into which the believer is introduced, and by which he is changed. The " truth " is not only a power within him by which he is moved; it is an atmosphere in which he lives. The end of the Truth is not wisdom, which is partial, but holiness, which is universal.

thy word] The exact form of the original (o Xoyoy 6 croj), "the word that is thine," emphasizes the fact that Christ's teaching was " not His own, but His that sent Him " (Vii. 1 6). And this teaching must not be limited to His spoken Word or to the written Word, but extended to every utterance of God in nature and history through the WORD.

The word of God is not only " true," but "truth," and has a transforming virtue. Comp. viii. 31. The phrase occurs in one of the Jewish prayers for the new year in a different connexion: "Purify our hearts to serve Thee in truth. Thou, O God, art Truth (Jerem. x. 10), and Thy word is Truth and standeth for ever."

18, 19. The sanctifying of the apostles is connected with two thoughts, firstly with that of their own work, and secondly with that of Christ's work for them. They needed the " sanctifying " which He Himself received (x. 36) in order that they might fulfil their office; and He made that sanctifying possible for

18. As (Even ai) thou hast sent (didst send) me...so have I also sent (did I also send) them...'] Comp. xx. ai (irfniru). The Lord appears to look upon the first mission of the apostles (Matt. x. 5; iMark vi. 7; Luke ix. a) as including their whole future work. Comp. iv. 38. After His departure they continue His work. Comp. i John ii. ao.

19. I sanctify (consecrate) myself... might (may) be sanctified (consecrated)] The work of the Lord is here presented under the aspect of absolute self-sacrifice. He shewed through His life how all that is human may be brought wholly into the service of God; and this He did by true personal determination, as perfectly man. The sacrifice of life (Hebr. x. 6 f.) was now to be consummated in death, whereby the last offering of self was made. The fruits of His victory are communicated to His disciples. By union with Him they also are " themselves sanctified in truth," through the Spirit whose mission followed on His completed work, and who enables each believer to appropriate what Christ has gained (xvi. 14). Christ does for Himself (cya> dytd- £&> ffiavTov) that which is done for the disciples (tra «<rtj> j/yiaoyxe'cot).

through the truth] in truth (eV d\r)0eia), truly, really, and not merely in name or externally (comp. iv. 33, note). The absence of the article distinguishes this phrase from that in v. 17 (in the truth). Comp. a John i; 3 John i; Col. i. 6; Matt. xxii. 16.

The prayer of the Lord is now extended from the Eleven to the Church, and through them to the world. There is to be a progress both in the breadth of unity, and in the apprehension of revelation. The unity of believers is the conviction of the world (ao — a 3); and believers advance in knowledge of the Son and of the Father (24—26). Christ Himself prays for all in all time.

20 — 23. The unity of the first disciples (v. n) is replaced by a larger unity (vv. 21, a3), which is regarded as influencing the world to faith (v. ai) and knowledge (v.iz).

20. for them also (which shall believe (which believe)] The final issue is gathered up in a present. The Church of the future is regarded as actually in existence (which believe [ru>v nurrfvovratv] and not which shall believe [TWJ/ 7rioTewo»T<Bi/, Vulg. qui credituri sunfy. The immediate success of the apostles carried with it that success which should be. Their "word" is the appointed means for the calling out of faith (Rom. x. 14 f.). This "word" is the " word " which they had received from Christ (v. 14), the interpretation as well as the assertion of the facts of Christ's life. In the arrangement of the original, by their word is closely connected with believe, so as to form a compound idea, which is followed by in me.

21. That they all...that they also...that the world...'] The great end is regarded in its growing extension. The simple and absolute idea of unity comes first (that a//... who now and hereafter believe); this is then definitely extended to the later generations of believers (that they also), and finally the effect on the world comes within the scope of the

thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

prayer. And the unity of believers is itself presented in a threefold form, as a unity of all, a unity similar to that of the Father and the Son, and a unity realised in the Father and the Son.

as (even as)...] The idea of the divine unity, which has been given generally before (v. n, and i). 22), is set out in detail in its correlative manifestation. Comp. x. 38, xiv. 10, n, 20. There is, so to speak, an interchange of the energy of the divine Life (Thou in me, and I in Thee), which finds a counterpart in the harmonious relations of the members of the Church. The true unity of believers, like the Unity of Persons in the Holy Trinity with which it is compared, is offered as something far more than a mere moral unity of purpose, feeling, affection; it is, in some mysterious mode which we cannot distinctly apprehend, a vital unity (Rom. xii. 5; Eph. iv. 4). In this sense it is the symbol of a higher type of life, in which each constituent being is a conscious element in the being of a vast whole. In "the life," and in "the life" only, each individual life is able to attain to its perfection. Such a conception, however imperfectly it may be grasped, meets many of the difficulties which beset the conception of an abiding continuance of our present individual separation.

may be...in us] Omit one. The omission of "one" emphasizes the thought of their unity. They who are " in God and Christ " necessarily find unity in that fellowship. God is the essential centre of unity.

in KJ] Not simply in Me or in Thee. Elsewhere the relation is definitely connected with the Son, vi. 56, xv. 4, 5; (i John iii. 24). It is through the Son that men are united with the Father (v. 23, / in them); and so they are said "to be in God and God in them" (i John iv. 13, 16, d 0e6s)-

It will be observed that the prayer for unity is offered up when the Lord is looking towards the widest extension of the faith; and the full significance of the prayer is made plainer if we bear in mind the religious differences (e.g. Jew and Gentile) of the apostolic age, and the struggles through which the Catholic Church strove towards its ultimate victory.

that the 'world...'] Two results in regard to the world are set forth by Christ. The first, that it may believe that thou hast sent (didst send) me, and the second, that it may know that thou hast sent (didst send) me, and hast loved (didst love) them as thou hast loved (lovedst) me (v. 23). The first has been already given as the mark of the disciples (v. 8, faith), and (in part) the second (v. 25, knowledge) has the same value. So also in xi. 42, the words used by the Lord at the raising of Lazarus are said to have been spoken for the sake of the multitude, that they may believe that thou didst send me. Such faith then as is here contemplated is at least the beginning of a true faith, and not a mere unwilling acknowledgment of the fact. In this connexion it must further be noticed that the verbs in vv. 21, 23 are both present (numvri, ytvaxTKr)) as contrasted with the aoristsin vv. 8, 25. Thus it appears that the end which is proposed as the last reward of earthly work is that described in general terms in i Cor. xv. 28; Phil. ii. 10, n. This end, as here regarded, is to be brought about by the spectacle of the unity of the disciples (comp. xiii. 35); and the same thought is expressed more fully in v. 23. The unity of disciples, therefore, while it springs out of a direct relation to Christ, must have some external expression that it may affect those without the Church.

the •world'] A comparison of Rom. xi. 25 ff. with this passage seems to indicate that the Lord looks forward to the time when " Israel " shall have become included in " the world," and at last prove the instrument of its conversion.

22. The mention of the office of future believers, to evoke faith in the world, leads to the mention of their endowment. In the former verse the Lord prayed for the disciples; He now declares what He has Himself done for them (eyw Se'Swcca). Hence the emphatic personal pronoun stands in the front of the sentence (i<aya>...). He communicated to them the glory which He had Himself received. The gift of this glory (like the prayer in v. 21) has regard to a threefold consequence: that they maybe one...that they may be perfected in one...that the world may know...

the glory which thou gavest (hast given)...] Comp. vv. 5, 24. This glory comes from the perfect apprehension of the Father as fulfilling His work of love (comp. v. 3). Viewed from another point of sight it is the revelation of the divine in man realised in and through Christ. So to know God as He accomplishes His will is to find all things transfigured; and as the Son of Man in His own Person experienced and shewed the Father's purpose, so He enabled His disciples to appropriate the that they may be made perfect in one; also, whom thou hast given me, and that the world may know that be with me where I am j that they thou hast sent me, and hast loved may behold my glory, which thou them, as thou hast loved me. hast given me: for thou lovedst truth which He made clear. Comp. xiii. 31, note. Such divine glory leads to the unity of all being. The fulness of this glory is to be made known hereafter in the Lord's presence; but meanwhile it is partially presented in the different manifestations of Christ's action in believers through the power and beauty and truth of the Christian life. But the idea of "the glory" cannot be limited to any one of these.

23. I In them...'] This clause, standing in apposition to that which precedes, explains the nature of the double unity of believers in themselves and with God. Christ in the body of believers is the ground of their unity; and the Father is in Him. The unity of believers is therefore like that of the divine Persons and with Them. The two members of the clause suggest the full parallel: / in them and they in me: I in Thee and Thou in me.

that they] The possession of the divine " glory " — the absolute harmony of life — furnishes the sure foundation for spiritual unity.

made perfect (perfected) in one~\ brought («tr) to a final unity in which they attain their completeness (reTeX«o>/i«'ot ei? Iv, Vulg. consummati in unum). For perfected see Phil. iii. iz; Hebr. ii. 10, v. 9, vii. 28, ix. 9, x. i, 14, xi. 40, xii. 23; i John ii. 5, iv. la, 17, 18. That which is completed at once on the divine side has to be gradually realised by man. So the essential unity is personally apprehended, and issues in the perfection of each believer as he fulfils his proper part.

and (omit) that the world may know... hast sent (didst send)...] not at once (-yvw), but by slow degrees (•yn/oxj-^). See v. ai, note. This knowledge (like the "belief" above) cannot be taken in any other general sense than that which is found in the other verses of the chapter (v. 8, &c.). It is the knowledge of grateful recognition and not of forced conviction.

hast loved ^lovedst) them, as... (lovedst) me~] The spiritual effect wrought in Christians, the visible manifestation of a power of love among them (comp. xiii. 35), is declared to be a sufficient proof of the divine mission of Him from whom it comes, and of the continuance in them of the divine working. This working is not however such as might have been anticipated. The life of believers shews the same contrasts of joy and apparent failure as the life of Christ. But those contrasts are no disparagement of the perfectness of the love of God towards them.

24 — 26. While believers overcome the world by their unity, they are themselves also to advance in the fulness of knowledge. This progress belongs in part to a higher order of being (v. 24); but it rests essentially on the knowledge of Christ as the interpreter of the Father (v. 25); and therefore is realised on earth as Christ makes Himself better known

24. The prospect of the completion of the work of believers leads directly to the thought of their bliss. In portraying this the Lord places side by side Him to whom, and the united body for whom, He speaks (irarijp, o Se'Swxay /zoi). He no longer " prays," but gives expression to His " will." / will that... For the use of the word (0eX«) by Christ, see ch. xxi. 22, 23; Matt. viii. 3, xxiii. 37, xxvi. 39 and parallels, xv. 32, (xx. 14); Luke xii. 49.

It is further interesting to contrast this expression of Christ's own will in behalf of His disciples with His submission to His Father's will in His prayer for Himself, Mark xiv. 36.

they... whom... ] that which... All believers regarded as one whole. See v. 2, note. The original runs literally: Father, as for that •which Thou hast given me, I will that... they also...

The will of Christ for His people includes two things, first that they may be where He is (xii. 26, xiv. 3), and so attain in the end to the sphere for the time unattainable by them (xiii. 36. Comp. vii. 34); and secondly, as dependent on this, that they may behold His glory. Each of these two issues contains an element not contained in the corresponding gifts already described. Presence with Christ, as involving personal fellowship with Him in the sphere of His glorified being, is more than a union effected by His presence with the Church. And the contemplation of His glory, in its whole extent, by those lifted beyond the limits of time, is more than the possession of that glory according to the measure of present human powers.

where I am... may behold] as sharing in the Lord's kingdom, 2 Tim. ii. 12. The scene of this vision is not defined. Under one aspect it may be placed at the Lord's "Presence." But no one special application exhausts the meaning of the words. Comp. i John iii. a; a Cor. iii. 18.

my glory, which thou hast given...] The me before the foundation of the 26 And I have declared unto

25 O righteous Father, the world it: that the love wherewith thou

hath not known thee: but I have hast loved me may be in them, and known thee, and these have known I in them, that thou hast sent me.

full expression (literally, the glory that is mine, which... See xv. 9, note) as compared with the glory which... (v. 22) is to be noticed. "The glory" is here regarded as belonging and answering to the very nature of the Son. Yet it is not simply the glory of the Word (v. 5), but the glory of the Incarnate Son (Phil. ii. 9). The "glory" of the Word, apart from the Incarnation, is not said in the language of the New Testament to be " given " to Him, though the Father is the " one fountain of Godhead." The " glory " here spoken of is the glory of a restored and consummated harmony of God and man, which is made the final object of the contemplation of believers, even as it is already potentially given to them for...'] because... The love of the Father for the Son belongs to the eternal order. This love when outwardly realised is seen as glory i»- the object of it. And since the Father's love continued unchanged towards the Incarnate Son, this love necessarily involved the fulfilment of His glory as the Redeemer and Perfecter of humanity. To be allowed to " behold " such glory is to be admitted to the contemplation of an inexhaustible object.

The words distinctly imply the personal preexistence of Christ. The thought of an eternal love active in the depths of divine Being presents, perhaps, as much as we can faintly apprehend of the doctrine of the essential Trinity.

25, 26. In these concluding verses the justification (if we may so speak) of the whole prayer is gathered up in a simple enumeration of the facts of the world's ignorance, Christ's knowledge, and the disciples' faith; and the substance of it in the twofold end, that the love of the Father for the Son, and the Son Himself, may be in the disciples, who henceforward represent Him.

25. righteous Father] The epithet (comp. •v. n, Holy Father) emphasizes the nature of the plea. It is to the righteousness of the Father that the Son appeals, and He had fitted them in part and would still more completely fit them to bear the vision of the divine beauty. Those for whom He speaks had in part proved their faith.

the world hath not known thee (knew Thee not): but I have known (knew) thee, and these have known (knew)...] In the original a conjunction (KCU) stands before "the world" which cannot easily be translated. It serves to co-ordinate the two main clauses, which bring out the contrast between the world and the disciples. The force of it is as if we were to say: "Two facts are equally true; it is true that the world knew Thee not; it is true that these knew that Thou didst send me." The first shewed that in the way of " nature " men had failed; the second that the Son had found partial welcome in the way of "grace " (comp. i Cor. i. ai).

but I have known (knew) thee"\ This clause comes parenthetically to prepare for the next. Even if the world failed to read the lesson which was offered to it, there was yet another channel by which the knowledge could be conveyed. The Son, as the eternal Word, had the knowledge, and He came to men, and as man realised the knowledge in human life, and found some at least who admitted His mission. Thus in virtue of the Incarnation that was at last gained by His disciples, which the world had not gained, even the true knowledge of the Father.

have known] knew. That which before (v. 8) had been described as a matter of faith, is now presented in its final acceptance as a matter of knowledge.

26. The revelation of the Father's name by Christ followed on the personal acknowledgment of His mission. This revelation, complete in one sense (7 made known; comp. xv. 15), is none the less continuous (7 will make known). It cannot be finished while the world lasts. The end of it is that the Father may regard the disciples in response to their growing faith even as He regarded the Son, and that they may feel His love (that the love wherewith thou loved at... in them; comp. Rom. v. 5). The possibility of such a consummation lies in the fact of the Presence of the Son Himself in them (7 in them).

I have declared... 'will declare it] I made known...and will make it known, henceforward by the Holy Spirit, whom Christ sent, xv. 26.

/ in them] The last word of the Lord's prayer corresponds with the last word of His discourses: 7 have overcome the world (xvi. 3 T). He is Himself the source of victory and

This last main division of the. Gospel falls naturally into four principal sections:

The last three sections, as will appear afterwards, require further subdivision.

1. In comparing the narrative of St John with the parallel narratives of the Synoptists, it must be observed generally that here, as everywhere, St John fixes the attention of the reader upon the ideas which the several events bring out and illustrate. The Passio and Resurrection are for him revelations of the Person of Christ. The objective fact is a " sign " of something which lies deeper. It is a superficial and inadequate treatment of his narrative to regard it as a historical supplement of the other narratives, or of the current oral narrative on which they were based. It does (it is true) become in part such a supplement, because it is a portrayal of the main spiritual aspects of the facts illustrated from the fulness of immediate knowledge, but the record is independent and complete in itself. It is a whole, and, like the rest of the Gospel, an interpretation of the inner meaning of the history which it contains.

Thus in the history of the Passion three thoughts among others rise into clear prominence:

The narrative in this sense becomes a commentary on earlier words which pointed to the end, (i) x. 17, 18. (2) xiii. i. (3) xiii. 31.

2. In several places the full meaning of St John's narrative is first obtained by the help of words or incidents preserved by the

3. The main incidents recorded by more than one of the other evangelists which are omitted by St John are:

John xvi. 32. The examination before the Sanhedrin at night; the false witness; the adjuration; the great

Confession (Matt., Mark). The mockery as prophet (Matt., Mark, Luke). The council at daybreak (Matt., Mark, Luke). The mockery after condemnation (Matt., Mark). The impressment of Simon (Matt, Mark, Luke). The reproaches of spectators (Matt., Mark,

The darkness (Matt., Mark, Luke). The cry from Ps. xxii. (Matt., Mark). The rending of the veil (Matt., Mark). The confession of the centurion (Matt., Mark,

The examination before Herod. The lamentation of the women. Three " words " from the cross (xxiii. 34, 43?

HEN Jesus had spoken these words, *he went forth with his disciples over the brook Cedron,

where was a garden, into the which he entered, and his disciples.

5. In the narrative of incidents recorded elsewhere St John constantly adds details, often minute and yet most significant; e.g.

6. In the midst of great differences of detail the Synoptists and St John offer many impressive resemblances as to the spirit and character of the proceedings; e.g.

(1) The activity of the " High Priests " (i.e. the Sadducaean hierarchy) as distinguished from the Pharisees.

(2) The course of the accusation: civil charge: religious charge: personal influence.

(3) The silence of the Lord in His public accusations, with the significant exception, Matt. xxvi. 64.

7. The succession of the main events recorded by the four Evangelists appears to have been as follows:

,, The conveyance to the high-pries fs house, probably adjoining "the Booths ofHanan" ^ a.m. The preliminary examination before

Annas in the presence ofCaiaphas. 3 a.m. The examination before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin at an irregular meeting at " the Booths."

5 a.m. The formal sentence of the Sanhedrin in their own proper place of meeting, Gazith or Beth Midrash (Luke xxii. 66); Matt, xxvii. i (trpmtas •vfvoufvrjs: comp. Mark xv. i; Luke xxii. 66, &s eylvtro ^ftfpa). The first examination before Pilate, at the palace. 5.30 a.m. The examination before Herod.

'the soldiers at the palace. 6.30 a.m. The sentence of Pilate (John xix. 14,

The substance of this section is peculiar to St John, though it presents many points of contact with the Synoptic narratives. The conflict which the other Evangelists record is here presupposed and regarded in its issues. The victory follows the battle. The Lord acts freely and with sovereign and protecting power towards His enemies and His disciples at the moment when He is given over for death.

he fiuent forth'] from the limits of the city (comp. i K. ii. 37), probably in the direction of the present St Stephen's Gate, by the same route as on other days when He went to the Mount of Olives (Luke xxi. 37, xxii. 39; Mark xi. 19; Matt. xxi. 17); but now Jerusalem was left. The Lord returned only to die there. In the parallel passages the same word (f'^X- 6fv) is used, according to the context, of the departure from the upper room (Luke xxii. 39; Matt. xxvi. 30; Mark xiv. 26).

the brook Cedron (Kidron)] See Additional Note. This detail is peculiar to St John. The parallel narratives have simply " went to the Mount of Olives." The exact description is probably introduced with a significant reference to the history of the flight of David from Absalom and Ahithophel (2 S. xv. 23; comp. ch. xiii. 18). The "brook" (^ei'/xappoy, compare Neh. ii. 15; i Mace. xii. 37), i.e. winter torrent or ravine (/HJ), Kidron, separating the Mount of Olives from the Temple-mount, is noticed several times in the Old Testament: i K. ii. 37, xv. 13; 2 K. xxiii. 4 ff.; a Chro. xxix. 16; Jer. xxxi. 40, and these passages mark the associations which would be called up by the mention of the name. For a description of the ravine and the " Wady " see ' Dictionary of the Bible,' j. v.

a garden] on the Mount of Olives (Luke xxii. 39). The name of the "small farm" (xa>plov) to which it belonged, Gethsemane, is given by St Matthew and St Mark (Matt. xxvi. 36, note; Mark xiv. 32). Josephus

him, knew the place: for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples.

3 b Judas then, having received a*Matt2& band of men and officers from the 47' chief priests and Pharisees, cometh

mentions that " gardens " (7rapaS«o-ot) were numerous in the suburbs of Jerusalem (' B. J.' VI. i. i. Comp. ch. xix. 41). There is nothing in the context to indicate the exact position of the garden. The traditional site, which may be the true one, dates from the time of Constantine, when " the faithful were eager to offer their prayers there" (Euseb. ' Onom.' j. «y.).

Commentators from Cyril downwards have drawn a parallel and contrast between the histories of the Fall and the Victory connected with the two "gardens," Eden and Gethsemane. But there is no indication in the Gospel that such a thought was in the mind of the Evangelist. Yet see Mark i. 13.

entered'] The garden would naturally be enclosed by a fence which secured the privacy of the retreat. Some time passed (Matt. xxvi. 40) between the entry into the garden and the arrival of Judas. In this interval the Agony took place, of which St John says nothing, though he implies a knowledge of the event in v. n. It is evident from xii. 47 that that incident is not alien from his narrative.

and his disciples] himself and his disciples. Judas was finally excluded from the divine company: xiii. 30.

2. Judas also knew the place] The withdrawal of the Lord from the city was not now (x. 40) for the purpose of escaping from the assaults of His enemies. The place to which He retired was well known. Judas, no less than the other apostles, was acquainted with the spot. Thus the words meet by anticipation the scoff of Celsus that the Lord " was taken while trying to hide Himself and to escape in the most disgraceful way" (Orig. ' c. Gels.' II. 9), as Origen justly argues (id. c. 10).

(which betrayed] The original (as in a;. 5, o TrapaSiSovs) marks the process of betrayal as going on, and not the single past act (o napa- Souf, Matt, xxvii. 3). Comp. xiii. u. Judas was already engaged in the execution of his plan.

ofttimes~\ Comp. Luke xxii. 39, (xxi. 37). The word can scarcely be limited to the present visit to Jerusalem. It is reasonable to suppose that the owner was an open or secret disciple of Christ. Comp. Matt. xxvi. 18.

resorted'] The exact force of the original is rather, " Jesus and (with) His disciples assembled (<TVI/T;X^) there." The idea appears to be that of a place of gathering, where the Lord's followers met Him for instruction, and not simply of a restingplace during the night. But it is possible that the spot was used for this latter purpose also during the present visit (Luke xxi. 37, •ju'Xtftro), and that Judas expected to find all sleeping at the time of his arrival. But the Lord's nights were now, as at the other crises of His life, times of prayer (Luke vi. 12 ix. a 8: comp. Luke v. 16).

3—8. A difficulty arises as to the reconciliation of the incidents described in this passage with the narrative of the betrayal in the Synoptists. In the Synoptists the arrest follows close upon the kiss of Judas, which St John does not mention (Matt. xxvi. 50; Mark xiv. 45 f., yet see Luke xxii. 48 ff.). It is very difficult to believe that the kiss either preceded -v. 4, or came after v. 8. Perhaps it is simplest to suppose that the unexpected appearance of the Lord outside the enclosure discomposed the plan of Judas, who had expected to find the whole party resting within the garden, and that for the moment he failed to give the appointed sign, and remained awestricken in the crowd (-v. 5). This being so, the event of v. 6 followed, and afterwards Judas, taking courage, came up to Christ (Matt. xxvi. 49 f.; Mark xiv. 45), who then repelled him (Luke xxii. 48) and again addressed the hesitating multitude.

Others suppose, with somewhat less probability, as it seems (but see Matt. xxvi. 49, note), that the kiss of Judas immediately preceded the first question, Whom seek ye? and that, touched by his Master's reproof (Luke xxii. 48), he fell back into the crowd. Either view presents an intelligible whole; but the phrase in v. 5 (was standing) is more appropriate to the attitude of one who hesitates to do that which he has purposed to do, than of one who has been already repulsed.

It may be added that, though St John does not mention the " sign " of Judas, yet he implies that he had undertaken to do more than guide the band to the place where Christ might be found, by noticing that he was with them after they had reached the spot (v. 5).

3. Judas then (therefore)...] using his knowledge for the furtherance of his design.

a band of men and officers from...] the band of soldiers and officers from... The force is clearly divided in the original into two main parts: (i) the band of soldiers, and (2) the "officers" (police) despatched by "the chief priests and Pharisees" (the Sanhedrin). The soldiers were part of the wellknown body of Roman soldiers stationed as a garrison in Antonia (comp. Matt, xxvii. 27; Mark xv. 16; Acts xxi. 31 f.; and also Jos. 'Ant.' XX. 4. 3? 'B. \: v. 5. 8> The original word (o-Trttpa) is used by Polybius things that should come upon him, Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I as the representative of the Latin manipulus (not cohort: see Polyb. XI. 23, with Schweighauser's note), consisting of about 200 men, the third part of a cohort. Whether the word is taken here in this technical sense (v. 12, note), or (as is more likely) in the larger sense of " cohort," which it appears to bear in the New Testament, it will naturally be understood that only a detachment of the whole body was present with their commander (jv. 12).

The "officers" (virrjpfTai) who came with "the band" were members of the templepolice, who were under the orders of the Sanhedrin. Comp. vii. 32, 45 ff.; Acts v.

In the Synoptists the whole company is described in general terms (Matt. xxvi. 47; Mark xiv. 43; Luke xxii. 47; comp. xxii. 52), and the soldiers are not distinctly mentioned. But it is difficult to suppose that the priests would have ventured on such an arrest as that of Christ without communicating with the Roman governor, or that Pilate would have found any difficulty in granting them a detachment of men for the purpose, especially at the feast-time. Moreover, Pilate's early appearance (v. 28) at the court, no less than the dream of his wife (Matt, xxvii. 19, that just man), implies some knowledge of the coming charge. Perhaps too it is not fanciful to see a reference to the soldiers in the turn of the phrase " twelve legions of angels" (Matt, xxvi. 53).

The special mention of the soldiers and of the watch fixes attention on the combination of Gentile and Jew in this first stage of the Passion as afterwards.

with lanterns and torches'] Although the party had the light of the Paschal full moon, they prepared themselves also against the possibility of concealment on the part of Him whom they sought. The other Evangelists do not notice the lights. The detail belongs to a vivid impression of the scene received by an eye-witness. The temple- watch, to whom the "officers" belonged, made their rounds with torches ('Middoth' I. 2, quoted by Lightfoot on Rev. xvi. 15; and in a most interesting note on Luke xxii. 4), and were, for the most part, not regularly armed (Jos. 'B. J.' IV. 4-6).

4. Jesus therefore...'] There was, so to speak, a divine necessity which ruled the Lord's movements. By Him all was foreseen: and He who had before withdrawn Himself

(viii. 59, xii. 36, v. 13, yi. 15), now that " His hour was come " anticipated the search for which His enemies had made provision, and went forth from the enclosure of the garden (opposed to entered, i>. i) to meet them (not simply from the innermost part of the garden or from the circle of the disciples: -v. 26 proves nothing against this view). The clause corresponds with the words in St Matthew (xxvi. 46) and St Mark (xiv. 42), " Rise, let us be going," which are followed by, "Behold he is at hand that betrayeth me."

that should come...] More exactly, all the tilings that were coming (navra ra fpxoufva). The Passion has already begun. Comp. xiii. i, note. It must further be noticed that the Passion is spoken of in relation to the divine order (the things that were coming), and not as sufferings to be borne, or evil prepared by enemies. Comp. i>. 1 1.

'went (or came) forth, and said]... and saith. According to the true reading the two acts are marked separately. Christ left the place in which He might have sought concealment; and then He addressed those who sought to take Him.

Whom seek ye?] The question (as in v. 8) is designed to shield the disciples, and at the same time to bring clearly before the mind of the assailants the purpose for which they had come, and who He was whom they sought. The words fall in completely with the circumstances. The Lord was not recognised in the uncertain light. The company who had come to apprehend Him naturally supposed that He would not Himself advance to meet them, but that the questioner must be some friend. The idea of early commentators, that they were miraculously blinded, finds no support in the narrative.

5. Jesus of Nazareth] The tinge of contempt (comp. Matt. ii. 23), which appears to lie in the title here, as borrowed from popular usage, is given better by the literal rendering, Jesus the Nazarene ('I. TOV Nafwpatoi/, as distinguished from 'I. TOV airb Nafaper, i. 45). Comp. xix. 19; Matt. xxvi. 71; Mark xiv. 67. The title is characteristic of the first stage of the preaching of the Gospel, when the reproach was turned into glory: Acts ii. 22, iii. 6, iv. 10, vi. 14, (xxii. 8, xxvi. 9). It was also used by disciples at an earlier date: Mark x. 47, xvi. 6; Luke xviii. 37, xxiv. 19. Comp. Mark i. 24; Luke iv. 34.

am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.

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

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

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

9 That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, c Of them ' chaPwhich thou gavest me have I lost none.

least they must have been significant, though, as they stand in the context, they simply reveal the Person sought, and not His nature. But the self-revelation of Christ tries to the uttermost and answers the thoughts which men have of Him.

And Judas...stood... ~\... was standing. The one figure is singled out, as it were, and regarded as he stands. Comp. i. 35, note. There is nothing in the text to support the view that Judas was paralysed and unable to recognise Jesus.

6. As soon then as he had said... (or, When therefore... wj o*i/)] Omit the had. The incident which follows is made to depend upon the Lord's words. It is vain to inquire whether the withdrawal and prostration of the band of men was due to "natural" or "supernatural" causes. On any view it was due to the effect which the presence of the Lord, in His serene majesty, had upon those who had come to take Him. Various circumstances may have contributed to the result. It may have been that Judas had led his company to expect some display of power. It may have been that he himself hoped for a decisive manifestation of Messiah in sovereignty now that the crisis had come. But the prostration seems to shew, at any rate, that the Lord purposed to declare openly to the disciples (comp. Matt. xxvi. 53), that it was of His own free choice that He gave Himself up. And this is the effect which the narrative is calculated to produce upon a reader. The Lord's assailants were overawed by Him in some way, and they fulfilled their commission only by His consent. Comp. vii. 46.

•went backward, and fell...] The whole action represents the effects of fear, awe, veneration, self-humiliation (Job i. 20), not of external force. Comp. Rev. i. 17. The exaggeration which describes the men as "falling backwards" is utterly alien from the solemn majesty of the scene.

7. Then asked he them again] Again therefore he asked them. This literal rendering of the original brings out the connexion more clearly than A. V. Those who had come to arrest the Lord hung back, and therefore He Himself again roused them to their work. The spirit of the Lord's words, thus addressed to the whole company, corresponds with that of the words addressed to Judas " Is it this for which thou art come?" (Matt, xxvi. 50, note).

Jesus of Nazareth] Even after Christ had made Himself known, His enemies only repeat the name which they had been taught, as if waiting for some further guidance.

8. I have told you...let these go] I told you... In the interval which had passed since the Lord came out from the garden alone (•v. 4), His disciples had gathered round Him (let these go), and for them He still intercedes. Their deliverance helped to place His own Passion in a clearer light. It was fitting that He should suffer alone, though afterwards others suffered for His sake. His death, in itself essentially unique, was separated outwardly from the death of His disciples. They were enabled to die because He had died first. Comp. Isai. Ixiii. 3.

9. That the saying (word}... <wh'ich thou gavest me have I lost...}...which thou hast given me I lost. The Evangelist sees in the care with which the Lord provided for the outward safety of His disciples, a fulfilment of His words, xvii. iz, which were spoken of the past, and which had also a wider spiritual application. But, at the same time, those words spoken in absolute knowledge looked to the end, and therefore included all the events of the Passion (comp. xvii. 4, note); and, further, the deliverance of the disciples from outward peril included the deliverance from a temptation which they would not at present (as appears from the history of St Peter) have been able to support. This special act of watchful protection was therefore one fulfilment, but neither the only nor the chief fulfilment, of what the Lord had said of His effective guardianship of those given to Him. The significant difference in the form of the words, as spoken and as referred to (I lost not one, as distinguished from not one perished), is to be noticed.

10. Then Simon Peter...] Simon Peter therefore.. foreseeing what was now about to happen (comp. xiii. 37). The Jews among the company seem to have been foremost m the arrest. The incident is described by all the Evangelists, but St John alone mentions the names of St Peter and Malchus. It is easy to see why these were not likely to be particu-

sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.

1 1 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath shall I not drink it?

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

larised in the original oral Gospel, while both were alive and at Jerusalem (see Matt. xxvi. 51; Mark xiv. 47, and notes). In St Matthew and St Mark the incident appears to be placed after "the multitude" had "laid their hands on Jesus and taken " ((Kparno-av) Him (Matt, xxvi. 50; Mark xiv. 46); and St Luke implies the same (xxii. 51). St John, on the other hand, appears to place the "binding" afterwards. If it be so, the two accounts are easily reconcileable. It was perfectly natural that the Lord should be first seized by some of the more eager of the crowd, and then afterwards bound by the Roman guard (v. la). St Peter's act fell in the brief space of confusion between these two events.

the high pries fs servant] or rather, the servant (SouXos) of the high-priest. The definite article (TOO rov apx- 8.) is preserved in all the Gospels. It is impossible to tell what position he held, or why the Evangelist records his name, which was not an uncommon one. The servant's prominent action evidently marked him out for St Peter's attack. And further it is difficult not to feel that the healing of the wound, recorded only by St Luke (xxii. 51), helps to explain the apostle's escape from arrest.

11. Then said Jesus...thy sivord~\ Jesus therefore said...the sword. The words are given more at length in St Matthew, xxvi. 5 a ff. The tone of the two records is identical, and the reference to the Scriptures, preserved only by St Matthew, serves to illustrate one side of the phrase " which my Father hath given me."

the cup...] This clause is peculiar to St J;ohn. The same image occurs in the Synoptists, Matt. xx. a a f. (note); Mark x. 38 f.; and in connexion with this scene, Matt. xxvi. 39 ff.; Mark xiv. 36; Luke xxii. 42. It seems impossible not to feel that the words include the answer to the prayer at the Agony, not recorded by St John (Matt. xxvi. 39, " O my Father...let this cup pass away "...), for now, after the prayer, that "cup" is spoken of as "the cup which my Father hath given me." The cup was not taken away, but given, and the Lord now shews that He had received it willingly. The image is found in several remarkable passages of the Old Testament: Ezek. xxiii. 31 ff.; Ps. Ixxv. 8, &c.

i. The ecclesiastical trial. Master and disciples, Jesus and the high-priest, Peter and the servants, xviii. ia — a 7.

The record of the examination before Annas is peculiar to the narrative of St John. The Evangelist appears to have been present at the inquiry (w. 15, 19). See Additional Note.

12. Then the band... and officers...] The band therefore (or, So the band).,, and the officers... Seeing that there was no longer any resistance. The enumeration — the band, the captain, the officers — is emphatic and impressive. A 11 combined to take the willing prisoner. In particular it will be observed that the action of the Roman guard is now noticed. They probably secured the Lord and delivered Him to the priest's servants "bound" (comp. v. 34). The "bonds" are not mentioned in the Synoptists till afterwards (Matt, xxvii. a, note; Mark xv. i); yet such a precaution is implied in their narrative. It was the policy of the priestly party to represent Christ as a dangerous enemy to public order; and perhaps they really feared a rescue by the "people" (Matt, xxvi. 5). Early Christian writers laid stress upon the "binding" as marking the parallel with Isaac (Gen. xxii. 9; Melito. ap. Routh, ' Rell. Sacr.' i. 133 f.).

The title of the "captain" in the original (xi\iapx*os) favours the view that " the band " Was a "cohort," and not a smaller body (" maniple"): comp. Acts xxi. 31. The word "chiliarch" was used as the equivalent of " tribune," the proper title of the commander of a "cohort;" and the other places in which a "band" (o-TTftpa) is spoken of in the New Testament suggest the same conclusion: Acts x. i, xxvii. i. The rendering of a-ntlpa in the Latin versions is uniformly cohort. The words "band" and "captain" may however be both used in a general and not in a technical sense for a detachment of soldiers and the officer in command of it. (Comp. Rev. vi. 15, xix. 1 8, and Suidas s. v. crnflpa.')

13. led htm (om. a<wqy) to Annas first\ Annas (or Hanan, Ananias, Ananus) is one of the most remarkable figures in the Jewish history of the time. His unexampled fortune was celebrated in that he himself and his five

\AndAr.- J113L> f°r he was father in law to Christ Caiaphas, which was the high priest \ound un- that same year. '

14 "'Now Caiaphas was he, which t%at, Save counsel to the Jews, that it er. 24. was expedient that one man should

that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.

1 6 But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other sons held the high-priesthood in succession. He was high-priest himself from A.D. 7 — 14 (Jos. 'Ant.' xviil. a. i f.); then, after a short time his son Eleazar held the office for a year; and after a year's interval, his son-in-law Joseph Caiaphas succeeded and held the office till A.D. 35— 6 (Jos. I.e.). Another son of Annas succeeded Caiaphas, and three other sons afterwards held the office, the last of whom, who bore his father's name, put to death James the brother of the Lord (Jos. 'Ant.' xx. 8. i). This mere record reveals the skilful intriguer who exercised through members of his family the headship of his party (comp. Luke Hi. a; Acts iv. 6). In the Talmud ('Pesach.1 573, quoted by Derenbourg, p. 131 n.) we find a curse on "the family of Hanan and their serpent-hissings" (comp. Matt. iii. 7). The relationship of Caiaphas to Annas is not mentioned by any writer except St John, and yet this relationship alone explains how Caiaphas was able to retain his office by the side of Annas and his sons.

The narrative of St John lends no support to the conjecture (which, however, may be true) that Annas held some high office at the time, as the presidency of the Sanhedrin, which gave him a constitutional right to take the lead in the inquiry. The reason given for the proceeding — his family connexion with Caiaphas— lays open alike the character of the man and the character of the trial. See Additional Note.

frst] This word conveys a tacit correction of the popular misunderstanding of the Synoptic narratives. The Lord was examined before Caiaphas (v. 24), but there was also a prior examination.

14. No=w Caiaphas <was he...] Ch. xi. 50. The clause appears to be added to shew presumptively what would be the selfish policy of a man who had chosen such a son. Annas exercised his power through those who were like him.

15. followed] The imperfect paints the action in progress. For the fact comp. Matt. xxvi. 58 and parallels. After the panic, in which all the disciples fled another disciple] not the other (o oXXoj). The reader cannot fail to identify the disciple with St John. Comp. xx. a.

known (yvaxTTos. Comp. Luke ii. 44, xxiii. 49)] No tradition (so far as it appears) has preserved the nature of the connexion; nor is it possible to draw any satisfactory conclusion from the fact that both St John (Polycr. ap. Euseb. ' H. E.' v. 24) and St James the Just, "the brother of the Lord" (Epiph. ' Haer.' LXXVIII. 14), are said to have worn the TreraXov or plate attached to the highpriest's mitre.

unto the high priest] It is very difficult to decide who is here spoken of under the title. Annas is called the high-priest in Acts iv. 6, while Caiaphas is named at the same time without any title; and so Josephus (' Antt.' xviil. 5. 3; comp. xviil. 3 (a), a) speaks of "Jonathan the son of Ananus (Annas) the high-priest" after the removal of Caiaphas. In Luk'e iii. a, Annas and Caiaphas bear the title together. It is therefore at least possible that Annas may be referred to. On the other hand, Caiaphas has just been described as "the high-priest" (v. 13), and is so called again in v. 24, where Annas also is mentioned. These facts make it difficult to suppose that the title is abruptly used, without any explanation, to describe Annas.

the palace (court, see Matt. xxvi. 58; Mark xiv. 54 and notes) of the high priest] i.e. of Caiaphas. It is quite reasonable to suppose that Annas still retained a lodging, in what appears to have been an official residence. In this case there is no discrepancy between St John and the Synoptists as to the scene of St Peter's denials (the residence of Caiaphas). Nor indeed would there be any difficulty in supposing that Annas presided at an examination in the house of Caiaphas, though he did not live there. St Luke (xxii. 54) says that the Lord was led "into the house of the high priest," without mentioning any name. By this form of expression the Evangelist perhaps wished to indicate that He was not brought at once officially before Caiaphas, though He was taken to his palace. The language of St Matthew suggests the same idea (Matt. xxvi. 57, "to Caiaphas...where...").

The idea that a change of scene from the house of Annas to the house of Caiaphas is

disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.

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

1 8 And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals; for it was cold: and they warmed themselves: and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself.

19 11 The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.

20 Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple,

marked in this verse is most unnatural. The narrative of the whole section (vv. 13 — 37) implies an identity of scene.

her that kept the door] Comp. Acts xii. 13.

17. Then saith the damsel..,"] The maid therefore... The acquaintance of St Peter with St John suggested the question. St John meanwhile (it must be supposed) had pressed on into the audience-chamber, so that St Peter was alone. St John, who remained closest to the Lord, was unmolested: St Peter, who mingled with the indifferent crowd, fell.

Art not thou also (Art thou...)...] as well as thy friend (John). The form of the question expresses surprise, and suggests a negative answer. See vi. 67, vii. 47, ix. 40. The contemptuous turn of the sentence, " one of the disciples of this man," corresponds with the same feeling. As the suggestion was made St Peter yielded to it. His answer both here and in v. 25 simply reflects the temper of his questioners.

18. And the servants and officers stood there, fwho had made...] Now the servants and the officers, having made...were standing... The Roman soldiers had now gone back, and the private servants of the high-priest (SoiXot), and the officers — the temple-police (virnperai) — alone remained.

afre of coals'] A charcoal fire. There was no bright flame, but a glow of light sufficient to shew the features of any one turned towards it, Luke xxii. 56 (irpbs TO <f>a>s).

for it <was cold] As a general rule, the nights in Palestine about Easter-time are said to be warm throughout. The cold on this occasion appears to be spoken of as unusual.

and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself] and Peter also was with* them, standing and warming himself. Comp. v. 35. The two main ideas are kept distinct. Peter had joined the company of the indifferent spectators; he was engaged in a trivial act. Such outward indifference often veils the deepest emotion.

19. The high priest then (therefore)...] i.e. probably Caiaphas. See v. 15, note. The narrative is connected with i>. 14. The Master is now contrasted with the disciple. It is probable that a better acquaintance with the history of the time would remove the difficulty which arises from Caiaphas taking the lead in the examination before Annas. Yet it is easy to imagine that arrangements may have been made for a private examination in the chamber of A nnas, at which Caiaphas was himself present, and in which he took part. At the close of this unofficial proceeding, Annas, the real leader in the whole action, sent Jesus to Caiaphas for a formal trial.

of his disciples... of his doctrine (teaching)] This preliminary examination was directed to the obtaining (if possible) of materials for the formal accusation which was to follow. With this view, it was natural to inquire into the class, the character, the number of the Lord's disciples, and into the general substance of His teaching.

20. The Lord leaves unnoticed the question as to His disciples (comp. v. 8), and fixes the attention of the questioner upon Himself alone. Hence an emphatic pronoun stands at the head of each clause. / (ey")? whatever others may have done with whom you wish to compare me, / have spoken openly... I (eyco) ever taught... So the Lord presents His teaching first as a completed whole (7 have spoken, xvi. 33), and then in its historic presentation (/ ever taught). The form of the sentence at the same time suggests a contrast between the openness of His conduct and the treachery which His enemies had employed.

to the (world] Comp. viii. 26. The teaching of the Lord was not addressed to any select group of followers, even if it was veiled in parables which required spiritual sympathy for their interpretation, Matt. xiii. 10 ff.

' course mean that the Lord's teaching was confined to these public places, but that at all times He used opportunities of speaking in

whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

2 1 Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said.

22 And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by

B Or, with struck Jesus ' with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?

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

24 /Now Annas had sent him 'Matt 26. bound unto Caiaphas the high priest. 57'

25 And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. ^They said there- lMatt a& fore unto him, Art not thou also one

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

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

the Jews always resort] According to the true reading, all the Jews resort (come together), and not a mere party or clique. The combination "always," "all" (jravroTt, •navTfi), is singularly emphatic. Christ was from first to last a universal teacher, and not the founder of a sect. In manner, time, place, audience, He sought absolute publicity.

in secret have I said~\ in secret I spake. The words simply exclude the purpose of concealment. What the disciples heard in the ear they were charged to proclaim on the housetops (Matt. x. 27).

21. Why askest...] The accusers are bound to establish their charge independently.

which heard me, what I ha-ve said... they know...} which have heard me, what I spake...these know... The tense (dicrjicoorar, not dicov&avTas) and the pronoun (ovroi) seem both to point directly to persons actually present or close at hand, who were able to speak with full knowledge if they pleased. Thus the Lord claims that the examination may proceed in due order by the calling of witnesses; and, according to the rule, the witnesses for the defence were called first (' Sanh.' f. 32. i; f. 40. i, quoted by Lightfoot, 'Hor. Hebr.,1 on i;. 15).

22. with...his hand'} Or, " with a rod." This latter sense suits perhaps better with the word used for "smiting" (Sc'pfts), though the sense given in the text appears to be more appropriate to the circumstances. Comp. xix. 3; Acts xxiii. 2 ff. This insult is to be distinguished from the corresponding acts mentioned, Matt. xxvi. 67; Luke xxii. 63, 64.

23. If I have spoken (rather, spake) evil...] The Lord addresses the servant as one who had heard Him, and as such He challenges him to bear just evidence as to His words, and not to use mere violence. The reference (as it appears) is not to the words just uttered (v. 21), but to the teaching of the Lord which was called in question (v. 20, 7 spake; v. ai, what I spake; v. 23, if I spake'). The old commentators saw in the calm rebuke a true interpretation of the precept, Matt. v. 39.

24. Now Annas had sent him... "\ Annas therefore sent him... The words cannot be rendered otherwise. See Additional Note. The private interrogation at which Caiaphas had assisted led to no decisive result. Annas therefore sent Jesus to the high-priest officially, but as one already stamped with a sign of condemnation (djr(<TT(L\fv, despatched; comp. note on xx. 21). During the inquiry the Lord would naturally be set free. This explains the notice that He was (again) "bound" before going to Caiaphas.

25. And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself} Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. Comp. v. 18.

They said therefore...] Since St Peter was evidently a stranger among them, attention was necessarily turned again to him, when the Lord was again brought into the court at the close of the private examination before Caiaphas, and so occasion was given for the second questioning. During this passage it would be easy for the Lord to turn and "look on Peter" (Luke xxii. 61), when He had already gone by near him.

Art not thou also...] Art thou;.. The form of question is the same as that in v. 17. Something no doubt in St Peter's manner, as the Lord was led by, betrayed his love. Whereupon followed the words of surprise: Can it be that thou also art one of His disciples? /

-62, being his kinsman (a kinsman of him)...] A detail which marks an exact knowledge of the household (v. 15).

in the garden} as one of His chosen disciples, who were gathered behind the Lord when He stood outside at the entrance facing the crowd (v. 4).

27. Peter then (therefore)...] He was already committed to the denial. St John, like St Luke, omits all the aggravations of St Peter's denials (Matt. xxvi. 70, 72, 74; Mark xiv. 71).

* Matt. 27. 28 ^ AThen led they Jesus from selves went not into the judgment!P.r, Caiaphas unto "the hall of judgment: hall, lest they should be defiled; but and it was early; * and they them- that they might eat the passover.

the cock crew] The indefinite form of the phrase (a cock crew) is far more expressive than A. V., which rather describes the time than the incident. The silence of the Evangelist, as to the repentance of St Peter, is illustrated by xxi. 15 ff., where the fact is presupposed. The episode of Peter's fall is given as the fulfilment of the Lord's word (xiii. 38), who knew to the last detail what he had to bear.

ii. The civil trial. The divine King and the Roman governor. The divine King and the apostate people, xviii. 28 — xix. 16.

The detailed account of the private examinations before Pilate (xviii. 33 — 37, xix. 8 — n) is peculiar to St John (comp. Matt, xxvii. ii ff. and parallels; i Tim. vi. 13). St John probably went within the palace. He would not be deterred by the scruple of the Jews (v. 28) under such circumstances, and there does not appear to have been any other obstacle to entrance. The apostle who had followed the Lord to the presence of the high-priest would not shrink from following Him to the presence of the governor.

It will be noticed that St John's narrative explains the language of Pilate to the Jews and to the Lord, which is abrupt and unprepared in the Synoptic narratives.

The narrative falls into several distinct sections corresponding to scenes without and within the Praetorium.

1. Without the Prsetorium. The Jews claim the execution of their sentence (xviii. 28—32).

5. Without the Praetorium. Second and third declarations of innocence. " Ecce homo," " Son of God" (4—7).

6. Within the Praetorium. The source of authority, and from this the measure of guilt (8-ii).

7. Without the Praetorium. Conviction overpowered: the King abjured: the last sentence (12 — 1 6).

i. "w. 28 — 32. Without the Prtetorium: Pilate and the Jews: the claim and the refusal.

and parallels) is implied, and also its necessary issue. The sentence was determined, but the Sanhedrin had no power to carry it out. The subject (they) is not exactly defined. The principal actors ("the chief priests and Pharisees," "the Jews") are everywhere present to the mind of the Evangelist. Comp. xix. 4.

hall of judgment] /£<? palace. The official residence (head-quarters) of the Roman governor (Trpmrwptoc). This was the technical sense of praetorium in the provinces (comp. Acts xxiii. 35). At Rome the usage of the word was different (comp. Lightfoot, ' Philippians,' pp. 97 ff.). The building occupied by Pilate is commonly supposed to have been the palace built by Herod on the western hill of Jerusalem. This was certainly occupied at a later time by the Roman governors (Philo, ' Leg. ad Cai.' 1034), but there is not any direct evidence, as far as appears, that it was occupied by Pilate, and on the whole it seems to be more probable (comp. xix. 13) that Pilate occupied quarters in Antonia, according to the traditional view. See the Additional Note on Matt, xxvii. 2.

it was early] Comp. Matt, xxvii. i parallels. The term (Trpon) is used technically for the fourth watch, 3 — 6 a.m. (Mark xiii. 35). A condemnation to death at night was technically illegal (Matt. /. c. note). An early meeting of the Sanhedrin appears to have been held to confirm the decision already made, and so to satisfy the form of law, which however was broken by the infliction and execution of the sentence on the day of trial. A Roman court could be held at any time after sunrise. On this occasion it was probably held as early as possible. Pilate, as we may suppose, had been prepared for the charge when application was made for the detachment of soldiers.

they themselves'] In contrast with the Lord, who was now probably committed again to the soldiers, and taken within the Praetorium lest they should be...; but that they might...'] that they might not £<?... tout might...

be defied] by entering a house from which all leaven had not been scrupulously removed. The praetorium was placed under the protection of tutelary deities (jdtol ol rov yytpoviKov irpai- Twpt'ov, 'Journal of Philology,' 1876, pp. 126 ff.; comp. Tac. 'Hist.' ill. 10), but such a dedication is out of the question at Jerusalem. Pilate had learnt by bitter experience with what fierceness the Jews resented every semblance of a violation of their religious feelings (Jos. 'Bel. Jud.' II, 9. 2. Comp. Philo, 'Leg. ad Cai.' § 38).

eat the passover] See note on Matt. xxvi.

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

3° They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.

31 Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews there-

fore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:

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

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

29. Pilate then (therefore)...jfl/W(salth)] Pilate is introduced quite abruptly, without any title or explanation, as one perfectly well known. Comp. Mark xv. i; Luke xxiii. i. In St Matthew he is commonly spoken of as "the governor" (Matt, xxvii. 2, note), a title not found in St John. The scrupulousness of Pilate needs some explanation (contrast Acts xxii. 24). The explanation is probably supplied by St Matthew (Matt, xxvii. 19) in the message of Pilate's wife, which at least indicates that the accusation of Jesus had made an impression upon her, and so probably in Pilate's household. There is a slight trace in the narrative of St Matthew (ch. xxvii. 19, note) of the informal manner in which the trial was in part conducted.

'went out] The best authorities add " without" («£&>). St John appears to emphasize the fact that Pilate " went forth without " his own prxtorium, as if it were symbolic of the whole proceeding.

What accusation} The words do not necessarily imply that Pilate was ignorant of the character of the charge (see v. 3). Pilate requires that the charge should be made formally.

30 f. The Jews were evidently unprepared for the governor's hesitation in such a case; and attempted to claim the fulfilment of their sentence without rendering account of the grounds on which it rested. Pilate met this affectation of independence by bidding them carry out their purpose to the end by their own authority: Pi/ate therefore said, Take him yourselves (v/my). On this they are forced to confess that nothing less than death will satisfy them, and this punishment they cannot inflict.

malefactor} Literally, doing evil (KUKOV Trotojj/), actively engaged in evil. The word in St Luke, xxiii. 32, is di

31. Take ye him...'] Take him yourselves... The words have a tinge of irony {yourselves, your law); and Pilate implicitly reminds the Jews of the limits within which their power of "judgment" was confined.

The Je-ius said (om. therefore)...] Pilate's words left them no alternative. They could not escape from revealing their purpose; and probably they now brought forward against

Christ the charge of treason (Luke xxiii. 2) in order to move Pilate the more easily (v. 34). It is not lawful...] See Additional Note.'

32. the saying (word) of Jesus...signifying iv hat death (by what manner of death)...] Ch. xii. 32 f. Comp. Matt. xx. 19. Crucifixion was not a Jewish punishment. The clause must not be interpreted to convey the idea that the J[ews wished a particular form of death to be inflicted, but that the circumstances of the case led to this issue.

l. w. 33 — 37. Within the Prxtorium: Pilate and Christ: the good confession and the light question.

33. Then Pilate...~\ Pilate therefore... The urgency of the Jews constrained him to make further inquiry.

called Jesus'] The Lord was already inside the court (v. 28); but Pilate summoned Him to his immediate presence (tcfxov^a-fv, comp. ix. 1 8, 24).

Art thou the King of the Jews?] The words may mean either "Art thou he who has just now become notorious under this title? " or, "Dost thou claim the title, as it is said?" The title itself would be likely to arrest Pilate's attention, whether he had heard it spoken of before in connexion with the entry into Jerusalem or only now from the Jews. And further, he would rightly conclude that the title, when thus put forward, would be fitted to call out any fanaticism which there might be in a political enthusiast. The full form which the accusation assumed is given in St Luke (xxiii. 2). See xix. 12. In each of the four Gospels the first words of Pilate to Jesus are the same: "Art thou the King of the Jews?" (Matt, xxvii. n; Mark xv. a; Luke xxiii. 3). The form of the sentence (on; e*...;) suggests a feeling of surprise in the questioner: "Art thou, poor, and bound, and wearied, the King of whom men have spoken?" Comp. iv. 12.

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

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

is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a

34 f. Sayest thou... tell it thee of me (or tell tbee of me)] The Lord's question is suited to lead Pilate to reflect on the nature of the charge which he had to judge. In this sense it is an appeal to his conscience. If he admits the alleged assumption of the title to be a crime, he must ask himself whether the title has any meaning for him? whether he desires to learn what further it may signify? or whether he has simply adopted a vague accusation, an ambiguous phrase, at random? Pilate's reply affirms his utter indifference to matters which only concerned (as he assumes) a despised people. " Am I a Jew? " Is it then possible for me to care for these things? Yet in the words which follow he implies that there is something strange in the case. The Jews were ready for the most part to favour any asserter of their national liberty. Now they had brought one called their King to be put to death. " Thine own nation" (TO fdvos TO o-w), and no Roman informer, " and the chief priests, the natural leaders of the people, delivered (om. have) thee unto me: what hast thou done? or, more exactly, what didst thou do," that is, to turn those who would naturally favour such as thee into relentless enemies?

36. Without directly replying to Pilate, the Lord indicates the real ground of the antagonism of the people and of the rulers to Himself, and at the same time explains how He is a King: " His kingdom was not of this world" (Kocrjaos). He would not make any concessions to the false patriotism of zealots (vi. 15), and yet He did claim a sovereignty, a sovereignty of which the spring and source was not of earth but of heaven. In both respects He was opposed to those who professed from different sides to represent the nation ("the Jews"). But as a spiritual King He was open to no accusation of hostility to the empire. His willing surrender was a sufficient proof that he had never contemplated violence.

My kingdom...my kingdom...my servants (uTTTjperat, officers, -w. 3, 12, &c.)] The possebsive pronoun is in each case emphasized: " the kingdom, the servants (i.e. disciples and apostles), who truly answer to me, to my nature and my will." Comp. xv. u, note, xii. 26. There is an obvious reference to the Jewish conceptions of a kingdom and to the Jewish "officers." The use of the word vtrr)pfTT)s (here only of Christians in the Gospels, comp. i Cor. iv. i; Acts xiii. 5) corresponds with the royal dignity which Christ assumes.

is not of this world... hence"] does not derive its origin or its support from earthly forces. Comp.viii. 23, xv. 19, xvii. 14, 16; i John ii. 16, iv. 5. At the same time Christ's kingdom is "in the world," even as His disciples are (xvii. u). This verse serves as a comment on Matt. ii. i ff., and brings out the full force of St Matthew's characteristic term "the kingdom of heaven." The solemnity of the rhythmical balance of the sentence in the original cannot but be felt: "My kingdom... not of this world... if of this world... my kingdom." The substitution of "hence" for "of this world" in the last clause appears to define the idea of the world by an immediate reference to the representatives of it close at hand.

the Jews'] The title occurs in the record of the Lord's words, iv. 22, xiii. 33, and above, v. 20 (comp. xi. 8). The colour of the word in these places is slightly different from that which it bears in the Evangelist's narrative. The simple idea of nationality prevails over that of religious antagonism.

37. Art thou a king then f] The particle (OVKOVV), which occurs here only in the New Testament, gives a tinge of irony to the words, which are half interrogative in form and half an exclamation: " So then, after all, thou art a king? " This scornful tone is further accentuated by the personal pronoun at the end ot the sentence: "thou, a helpless prisoner." Comp. v. 33, i. si, iv. 19, viii. 48.

Thou sayest...'] The Lord neither definitely accepts nor rejects the title. He leaves the claim

king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

as Pilate had put it forward. Pilate had quoted the words of others, and the Lord had made clear in what general sense they must be interpreted. He now signifies further the foundation and character of His sovereignty, and the right which He has to the allegiance of men.

that I am...] The translation Thou sayest (i.e. rightly), because I am... seems to be both unnatural as a rendering of the original phrase, and alien from the context.

To this end (ds rovro)... that («/a, in order that)] The first words (To this end) affirm generally the fact of the sovereignty which Christ exercised: He was born for the very purpose that He should reign; and the last (that I may) the special application of it: His reign was directed to the execution of a divine purpose. Comp. Acts ix. 21; Rom. xiv. 9; a Cor. ii. 9; i Pet. iii. 9, iv. 6; i John iii. 8.

<was I born...for this cause came /...] have I been born...to this end am I come into the world... The two phrases appear to correspond in part with the two in ch. xvi. 28, "1 came out from the Father, and am come into the world." The first marks the entrance upon a new form of being, the second defines the sphere of the Lord's mission (comp. ix. 39, note). Or again, the first marks the beginning of the earthly life, the second the preexistence with the Father. But as addressed to Pilate the words declared only the human birth (comp. Luke i. 35, TO yewmfifvov), though a deeper meaning lies beneath them. The emphatic pronoun at the head of the sentence (tytu ds TOVTO...), and the repeated clause to this end, fix attention upon the Speaker and His office. Christ not only affirms the fact of His kingship, but also bases the fact upon the essential law of His being. He places His own Person (eya>) in contrast with all other men, whether they disbelieve (as Pilate) or believe. And He describes His coming as permanent in its effects (f\r/\vdo) and not simply as a past historic fact (rfKdov).

bear witness unto the truth...'] Truth, absolute reality, is the realm of Christ. He marks out its boundaries; and every one who has a vital connexion with the Truth recognises His sway. He does not only "bear witness concerning the truth" (fiaprvptlv Trept, i. 7, 8, &c.), but "bears witness to, maintains, the truth" (paprvpt'tv nvi, iii. 26), as John had done in his place, v. 33. Comp. Acts x. 43, xv. 8, &c.; 3 John 12.

that is of the truth] who draws from the truth the inspiration of his life (comp. i John ii. 21, iii. 19). The phrase is parallel to "that is of God" (viii. 47, note). Comp.

also v. 36, iii. 31, viii. 23, xv. 19, xvii. 14; i John ii. 1 6, iii. 8 ff., and in a wider sense x. 16; Col. iv. ii. All who thus depend on that which is Christ's are His proper subjects. For the whole answer comp. i Tim. vi. 13. It is of great interest to compare this "confession" before Pilate with the corresponding "confession" before the high-priest, Matt. xxvi. 64. The one addressed to Jews is framed in the language of prophecy, the other addressed to a Roman appeals to the universal testimony of conscience. The one speaks of a future manifestation of glory, the other speaks of a present manifestation of truth. The one looks forward to the Return, the other looks backward to the Incarnation. It is obvious how completely they answer severally to the circumstances of the two occasions.

the truth] Compare Introd. p. xliv. Lightfoot on ch. vi. 27 quotes two remarkable passages which illustrate one idea of the word:

" When the great synagogue had been weeping, praying, and fasting, for a long time, a little roll fell from the firmament to them in which was written Truth. R. Chaniach saith, Hence learn that Truth is the seal of God." ('Sanh. Bab.' f. 64. i.) And again: " What is the seal of the holy blessed God? R. Bibai, in the name of R. Reuben, saith 'Truth' (DDK). But what is Truth? R.Bon saith, The living God and King eternal. Resh Lachish saith, X is the first letter of the alphabet, J3 the middle, and T\ the last: that is, I the Lord am the first... and beside me there is no God... and I am with the last" ('Sanh. Hieros.' f. 1 8).

The Lord's confession includes the fulfilment of the double hope. He is the King of the people of God, and the universal Saviour. Comp. iv. 25 ff., ix. 35 ff.

38. What is truth?'] The question of Pilate does not deal with absolute Truth— the Truth as one — of which the Lord had spoken (77 oXij&ta), but simply with truth in any particular case (aXijdfta). There is nothing of real reverence or seriousness in his words, still less of awe. He does not shape, even in passing thought, a subject for earnest inquiry, but half sadly, half cynically, implies that even in ordinary matters truth is unattainable. It was so evidently to his mind in the matter before him; but so much at least was plain to his Roman clearness of vision, that the prisoner accused by His countrymen was no political intriguer. He therefore impatiently breaks off the examination which had (as he fancied) shewn him enough to decide the case,

is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

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

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

that he may obtain the release of Jesus if possible. Corn, a Lapide gives an interesting series of answers to the question, "What is truth?" from classical and patristic writers. Though they have no direct connexion with Pilate's thought they will repay study.

3. "W. 38 — 40. Without the Prxtorium. The judgment of Pilate and the judgment of the Jews. The sentence, the offer, the demand, Jesus and Barabbas.

38 ff. And when...] The incident that follows is a complete revelation of a weak worldly character. Pilate addressed himself, as it seems, not to the leading accusers of Jesus (the high-priests and Pharisees), but to the crowd which had now gathered round them. He trusted that an expression of popular feeling would enable him to follow his own judgment without incurring any unpopularity. He saw that Jesus was evidently the victim of a party (Matt, xxvii. 18), and perhaps of a small party. Moreover the festival allowed him to effect his purpose without absolutely setting aside the sentence of the Sanhedrin. He suggests therefore that Jesus should be released according to the custom of the Passover. From the narrative of St Mark it appears that the demand for the fulfilment of this act of grace was first made by "the multitude" who had come up to the governor's house (di/a/3as, Mark xv. 8), and it is not unlikely that some at least of the people hoped in this way (like Pilate) to deliver Jesus. The name of a notorious criminal was coupled with that of Jesus (Matt, xxvii. 17), that the wish of the people might be expressed more decisively. When the choice was put to them there was for a time a division of feeling, or hesitation (Mark xv. u, note). At length the high-priests prevailed (comp. ch.

xix. 6), and Pilate was then overpowered by the popular cry, from which he had expected to obtain convenient support. He had no firmness to support him when his scheme had failed; and at last, by a strange irony, he was forced to release a man guilty of the very form of crime which the chief priests had tried to fasten upon Christ.

/ jind in him no fault at all] I fnd no charge (or crime) in him. The pronoun is emphatic here and xix. 6 (not in xix. 4), and contains an implied contrast between the partizanship of the priests and the calm judgment of the Roman governor.

39. at the passover] The custom is made more general in St Matthew (xxvii. 15) and StMark (xv. 6), "at feast time" (KOTO, (opmjv). Nothing is known of the origin of the custom, nor is it (as far as appears) noticed anywhere except in the Gospels. Comp. Matt, xxvii. 15, note.

the King of the Jews'] The title is probably used, as afterwards (xix. 15), to throw contempt on the pretensions of the Jewish leaders.

40. Then cried they all again...] They cried out therefore again with the loud cry which will make itself heard (e/cpavyacrai/). Comp. xi. 43, xii. 13, xix. 6, la, 15. The people, in spite of their late enthusiasm, were driven by their selfish hopes to prefer one who had at least defied the Roman power to their divine King.

again] The word is a singular mark of the brevity of St John's narrative, which assumes much as known. The previous demands of the people have not been noticed by him.

a robber] One of those outlaws who not unfrequently (Acts xxi. 38) covered their violence with a cloke of patriotism (comp. Luke xxiii. 19; Mark xv. 7; Matt, xxvii. 16, note). There is an impressive pathos in the brief clause. Comp. xiii. 30.

12—24. It is interesting to compare the narratives of the Lord's trial preserved by the Evangelists with the rules laid down in Jewish tradition for the conduct of such cases. It may be impossible to determine the antiquity of the contents of the Mishna, but the following brief summary of the contents of the Tract 'Sanhedrin,' so far as they bear upon the subject, will shew in what respects the proceedings as to the Lord agreed with and differed from what was received as law at a very early date.

Capital offences were tried by an assembly of twenty-three (ch. i § 4): a false prophet could be tried only by the great Sanhedrin, or assembly of seventy-one (ch. i § 5).

The witnesses were strictly and separately examined in all cases, and the agreement of two was held to be valid (ch. 3 § 6 • ch. 5 §§ i ff.).

In capital cases the witnesses were specially charged as to the momentous consequences of their testimony, and cautioned as to the peril of destroying life (ch. 4 § 5), and they were to say nothing by conjecture or hearsay.

The judges sat in a semicircle, the president being in the middle, so that all might be face to face (ch. 4 § 3)-

. In capital cases everything was so arranged as to give the accused the benefit of the doubt, and with this view the votes for acquittal were taken first (ch. 4 § i).

In civil cases the trial might be continued and decided by night; and a decision either way might be given on the day of trial. In capital cases the trial could take place only by day; and while an acquittal might be pronounced on the day of trial, a sentence of condemnation could not be given till the next day. Hence such cases could not be tried on the eve of a Sabbath or of a Feast (ch. 4 § i: comp. ch. 5 §5).

Even on the way to execution opportunity was given to the condemned, four or five times, if need were, to bring forward fresh pleas (ch. 6 § i); and at the last he was urged to confession, that he might not be lost hereafter (ch. 6 § a). A crier preceded the condemned, saying, "A. B. the son of A. B. goes forth to be stoned for such and such an offence: the witnesses are C. and D. If any one can prove his innocence, let him come forward and give his reasons" (ch. 6 § i).

In cases of blasphemy the witnesses were rigorously examined as to the exact language used by the accused. If their evidence was definite the judges stood and rent their garments (ch. 7 § c).

The blasphemer was to be stoned (ch. 7 § 4). After stoning he was to be hung upon a gibbet (ch. 6 § 4), and taken down before night (id.) and buried in a common grave provided for the purpose (ch. 6 § 5).

13. Derenbourg (' Essai sur 1'Histoire et la Geographic de la Palestine,' Paris,. 1867) has called attention (pp. 466 ff.) to a remarkable passage of the Talmud ('Jer. Taanith,' iv 8), which mentions that "on the Mount of Olives there were two cedars, under one of which were four booths (shops, nvwn) for the sale of objects legally pure. In one of these, pigeons enough were sold for the sacrifices of all Israel." He conjectures that these booths were [part of] "the famous booths of the sons of Hanan (Annas)," to which the Sanhedrin retired when it left the chamber "Gazith" (see Add. Note on v. 31). The identification seems to be very plausible, notwithstanding Keim's peremptory contradiction

(in. 35 », note). Yet see the note on Matt xxvii. i. But whether "the booths" were on the Mount of Olives or adjoining the temple, the place was the seat of the dominant faction of Annas, the centre of their hierarchical tyranny. The night meeting of members of the Sanhedrin favourable to their policy would therefore naturally be held there. The regular meeting in the morning of the whole body (Matt, xxvii. i) was, on the other hand (as it appears), held in the old place of assembly, " Gazith" (Matt, xxvii. 5, ptyas ev TW yaw). The language of St Luke points clearly to the difference of place of the two^ examinations (xxii. 66, dnrfyayov els TO (rvveSpiov avT<nv, as contrasted with xxii. 54, fls TOV OIKOV TOV apxifptas). Perhaps it will be felt that the record gams in solemnity if the Mount of Olives was the one scene of all the events of the night. Even the mention of Kidron by the secondary and popular name of the " ravine of the cedars " may contain an allusion to a scandal felt as a grievous burden at the time when the priests gained wealth from the sale of victims by the " two cedars." " The booths of the sons of Hanan," tradition adds, " were destroyed three years before the destruction of the temple" (Derenbourg, P. 468).

17, 18, 25—27. The differences in detail, which occur in the records of the threefold denial of the Lord by St Peter, offer a singularly instructive subject for study. The fact is one of the very few related at length by the four Evangelists, and it offers a crucial test for determining, in some aspects, the character of the narratives of the Gospels.

Matt xxvi. 34 ("before the cock crow thou shalt deny me thrice").

Mark xiv. 30 ("before the cock crow twice thou shalt deny me thrice").

Luke xxii. 34 ("the cock shall not crow this day until thou hast thrice denied that thou knowest me").

John xiii. 38 ("the cock shall not crow till thou hast denied me thrice").

In St Matthew and St Mark the prediction occurs atter the mention of the departure from the upper room; in St Luke and St John, during the account of the Supper. The particles of connexion in the first two Gospels ("then" [St Matthew], "and" [St Mark]) do not require, though they suggest, chronological sequence. There is no difficulty in supposing either that the record of the words has been transposed by St Matthew and St Mark, or that the prediction was repeated. Such repetitions belong naturally to a crisis of concentrated excitement.

Under these circumstances the question arises (i) Whether the four Evangelists relate the same three acts of denial; and then may have occurred at any time after entrance jq jB J* o, 3 into the court (Matt. xxvi. 58; Mark xiv. 54).

(Table B.) Here the records are much more £ g" *8 r=T of the former denial. <j-e and the fire in the court which was the scene S. J2

But it will be noticed that St Luke alone |5 1 tS J i! «-• &S and to whom personally St Peter replies. The § 85 O words of accusation recorded by St Matthew and St Mark are not addressed to St Peter at all, but spoken among the groups of servants, and St Mark implies a repeated denial (??'pi/elro). The words recorded by St John express apparently what was said by several. So also the denials recorded by St Matthew, St Mark, and St John, are not given as addressed to any particular person, as in the former case. They simply record the fact of denial.

(Table C.) Here again the narratives are complicated. There is no mention of place; but some time, "about an hour" (St Luke), has elapsed since the last denial. In St Matthew and St Mark the charge is addressed to St Peter by many ("they that stood by"). In St Luke the question and answer are both personal; in St John the question is direct, but no specific answer is recorded.

The charges in this case are all supported by some personal identification of St Peter.

If now we endeavour to realise the scene it will, I think, be clear that there were three crises, three acts of denial. The first was an isolated incident, and the others in part arose out of it. The portress made no remark when St John brought in his friend. It was not likely that she should do so. But afterwards, noticing him by the fire-light, she spoke directly to him. The slight differences in detail admit of easy explanation. St Peter's restlessness is evident throughout the scene.

After St Peter had made his denial and then withdrawn, the subject was not forgotten. The portress, when she saw him again, after some interval, on being called to the door, spoke of him to others. One and another accused him. Probably at the time he made no answer, but went away, and ventured to return to the fire. Here again a definite accusation was made and a denial followed; but the imperfect in St Mark seems to indicate that the denial was in some way repeated. The third incident is similar. Conversation had been going on. St Peter had joined in it. His dialect shewed his origin. One of the servants recognised him. Thereupon many brought the charge against him, and St Peter met his assailants at once with words fragmentarily preserved in the different narratives.

Briefly then, let the scene be realised, with all the excitement of the night trial and the universal gathering of servants and officers, and the separate details given by the different Evangelists will be found completely in harmony with the belief that there were three "denials," that is three acts of denial, of which the several writers have taken such features as seemed to be most significant for their purpose. Thus in the narrative of St John there is an evident climax in the succession of questioners: the portress, the bystanders generally, a man who claims direct knowledge.

19 — 24. The true reading in v. 24 (Annas therefore sent him..., d-rrecrTeiXf v ovv...) involves the consequence that the examination noticed in inj. 19 — 23 is not any part of the official examination before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin (Matt. xxvi. 57, 59 — 68; Mark xiv. 53, 55 — 65), but previous to it. The same sense is given by the simple aorist without the conjunction (Annas sent him...), though less sharply. The character of the examination itself leads to the same result. The examination in St John is evidently informal and private (comp. Matt. xxvi. 57, note). The Lord Himself is questioned, but there is no mention of witnesses (Matt. xxvi. 60 ff.), no adjuration, no sentence, no sign of any legal process. If v. 21 implies that others were present besides the retinue of the high-priest, they took no part in the proceedings (contrast Matt. xxvi. 66 ff.). On the other hand, if Annas was really the soul of the Sadducaean faction, nothing would be more natural than that he should provide for a preliminary interrogation which might decide the course to be taken in the Sanhedrin. There might still be opposition there. As it was, the accusers were in fact driven to seek evidence from the Lord's hearers, and to confess that it was inadequate for their purpose. Thus baffled, they called forth, under the most solemn circumstances, His great confession as Messiah. It may be added that some time necessarily elapsed between the arrest of the Lord and His appearance before the formal session of the Sanhedrin. This interval gave opportunity for the private examination. The details of the various examinations, which St John has preserved, all bear upon the universal aspect of Christ's work, its openness, self-justification, truthfulness, dependence upon the divine will. It will further be noticed that as St John alone gives the private examination before Annas, so also he alone gives the private examination before Pilate. He was probably present at both.

31. The words " It is not lawful for us to put any man to death" have been interpreted to mean that the Jews could not inflict a capital sentence at this particular time (the Passover), or in the particular manner which they desired (crucifixion). But there is nothing in the context to justify such a limitation of the sense. The whole action of Pilate (comp. xix. 10) shews that the question of life and death was legally in his hands alone; and the words must be taken as a simple and direct statement that the Jews could not put to death without the governor's authority. That this was so appears from the terms which describe the procurator's power (Jos. 'Antt.' xvm. i. i; compare also 'Antt.' xvi. 2. 4, and xvi. 6). There is also a remarkable tradition preserved in different forms in the Talmud, that the Sanhediin left their proper place of assembly, Gazith, and sat in Chanjuth (forty years before the destruction of the temple). Now it was forbidden to condemn to death except in Gazith (see 'Avoda Zara,' ed. Edzard, pp. 6 1 ff. and notes).

The passages quoted from the New Testament (John viii. 3, 59, vii. 26; Acts v. 33, vii. 57 f., xxi. 27 ff.; [Acts xii. 4]) to prove that the Jews could put to death, only shew that the Roman governors were not unwilling to tolerate exceptional acts of violence. Compare also Jos. ' B. J.' vi. 2. 4, and ' Antt.' xx. 9. i, where it appears that the execution of James the Just in the interval between the departure of one governor and the arrival of his successor was treated as a grave usurpation of power.

The question is discussed thoroughly and conclusively by Langen, in a paper in the 'Theol. Quartal-Schrift,' 1862, in. pp. 411 ff. Compare also the same writer's ' Die letzten Lebenst.' § 256.

1. The reading of this verse offers points of singular interest. The great majority both of ancient and later authorities give ^. TGJV Kitipav (KCBCLX, &c., most cursives, and Origen, Cyril Al., and Chrysostom) (i). Two representatives of a very ancient text (K*D) give rov Kf&pov (2). Some few copies, which generally represent a later text (AS, &c.), give rov KeSpai/ (3). The second and third readings may be grouped together, for both represent the Hebrew name Kidron, though in different forms (K.t8p6v or K«8pos — KtSpot, cedar, is feminine — and Ke- Sptov). The first, on the other hand, substitutes for the Hebrew name a significant Greek name (of the cedars) which is found also in the LXX. (2 S. xv. 23; i K. xv. 13). No one of the versions directly supports (i), but the Memphitic reads of the cedar tree, while the cedri of some old Latin copies is uncertain. The Thebaic and the JEthiopic give Kedros (masc.) (2). The Vulgate, Gothic, and Armenian, give Kedron (3).

At first sight it seems obvious to suggest that an original reading, rov K«8p«i/, gave rise to two corrections on the part of ignorant scribes, who altered either the article (TW KeSpai/) or the noun (roO KeSpoC), in what they supposed to be a false concord.

But the division of the authorities is most unfavourable to this view. It seems incredible that no one of the most ancient Greek texts should have preserved the true reading. On the other hand, the name Kidron was well known, and an alteration from rcoi/ Ke'Spwj/ to rov KeSpwj/ would appear as plausible to a scribe as to many modern scholars.

It must be added that the use of the name X- TUV Ke'Spaj' in the LXX. (i K. xv. 13, and as a various reading in 2 S. xv. 23; i K. iii. 37; 2 K. xxiii. 6, 12), supplies fair evidence that it was current; and the fact that the article is not added to the similar forms, Kio-o-eoj' (Kto-oSi') and 'ApixSi/, proves conclusively that the name was not an accidental corruption. In Josephus the name is always declined (jcfSpwi/, -wi/os).

Such a paronomasia as is involved in the change from Kidron to " of the cedars" is perfectly natural; and the fact that cedars were found on the Mount of Olives at the time (see Note on v. 13) gives additional likelihood to the change. It is indeed possible that the name of the Wady and of the Torrent (ji V|jp = the Black) was originally derived from the "dark" trees, and not from the "dark" water.

15. The best authorities (N*AB[D]) omit the article (aXXoy, not 6 aXAoj), which is not expressed in A. V.

24. An overwhelming preponderance of evidence (BC*LX ir 33, &c.) requires the insertion of therefore (oZv). This reading, which presents considerable difficulty at first sight, was variously corrected: first by substituting now (3<Q for therefore (N 69, &c.), and then by omitting the conjunction altogether (A and much later MSS.); and a few authorities insert the whole clause, Annas... Caiaphas, in -v. 13, with therefore or now.

4. xix. i — 3. Within the Prxtorium. The governor's punishment. The soldiers'1 mockery. CHAP. XIX. 1—3. The narrative of St John leaves no doubt that the "scourging" ((uao~riya>(T(v) was inflicted by Pilate as a punishment likely to satisfy the Jews. They had only just used the ominous word "crucify" (Luke xxiii ai), though they pointed to it from the first (xviii. 31). The governor therefore thought that as he had humoured them by the release of Barabbas they might be contented with the ignominy inflicted on the alleged pretender to royalty without insisting on His death. This is distinctly brought out in Luke xxiii. ^22 ("I will therefore chastise him jVaiSevo™], and let

THEN a Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him. 2 And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe,

3 And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands.

4 Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring

him go"). It is not however to be supposed that when Christ was condemned to be crucified the scourging was repeated. The passing references (0payeXX<u<ras) in St Matthew (xxvii. 26) and St Mark (xv. 15)— St Luke is silent, — though they would convey the impression that the scourging immediately preceded the crucifixion, according to the common, but not universal, custom, do not necessarily bear that meaning. There is therefore no real discrepancy between the accounts of the Synoptists and of St John. The accounts of the mockery by the soldiers are to be explained otherwise. From the narrative of St John it is evident that the Lord was insulted by the emblems of mock royalty before His condemnation. From the narrative of St Matthew it is no less evident that mockery of the same kind took place after His condemnation (Matt, xxvii. 31, and when... they took off... and led...). St Mark is less definite as to the time, and St Luke is silent altogether about the incident. In addition to this difference as to the time, there are also some minor differences in the details of the two narratives. St Matthew and St Mark both mention emphatically " the gathering of the whole band" (Matt, xxvii. 27; Mark xv. 16); both mention the insulting homage; St Matthew mentions and St Mark implies the reed-sceptre; the outrages described in St Matthew and St Mark are greater and more varied. In a word, the scene described by St Matthew and St Mark represents a more deliberate and systematic mockery than that described by St John. It is not perhaps difficult to imagine the whole course of the mockery. The conduct of Herod (Luke xxiii. u) probably suggested the idea of it. Pilate found it fall in with his own design to release Jesus as being too insignificant for serious treatment. The design failed. The crown and the robe were therefore removed; for it is not conceivable that any prisoner could be brought so disguised before a judge for sentence. But after the sentence was given, the men who had already entered into the spirit of the travesty made use of their opportunity to carry out the contemptuous exhibition more completely; and "the soldiers of the governor" invited "the whole band'' (Matt, xxvii. 27) to join them in their fierce sport. There does not appear to be anything artificial in this interpretation of the recorded facts or inconsistent with the character of the actors. St John (as in other places) gives that which explains the origin of the proceeding.

1. Then Pilate therefore...'] Pilate's last appeal to the Jews (xviii. 39) had failed, and he now endeavours to save the life of Christ by inflicting such a punishment as might move His enemies to pity. This was his punishment (Pilate took... and scourged... contrasted with v. 6, Take ye...and crucify...). Scourging was itself part of a capital sentence, but in this case it was inflicted arbitrarily by Pilate without any formal judgment.

For an account of the punishment see Matt. xxvii. 26, note. St Matthew (xxvii. 26) and St Mark (xv. 15) refer to the scourging simply as having taken place before the Lord was given over for execution. St Luke (xxiii. 22) records Pilate's offer to inflict the punishment without saying more. St John brings the two notices into union.