323 Verse 2.―We have here manifestly the comment of an eyewitness. All attempts to forge a weapon against such testimony must come to naught.
324 Verse 6.― “Went away backward” (cf. Ps. 40:14). These words, as others elsewhere, may well have been directed against the Gnostic theory (Iren., bk. 3.) that “the Christ” forsook “Jesus” in the hour of need.
325 Verses 7f. ―Deut. 22:6 here finds its spiritual counterpart. The Lord seems to say: “Take either Me or them; you cannot have both” (Govett). How Frederick Robertson’s unhappy words, “He drew too near to a whirling wheel,” etc., witness against a preacher whose utterances have been much in vogue! Conspicuous is the truth of substitution, assailed like so much else in the words of Christ Himself.
326 Verse 10.―The fourth Evangelist alone supplies the names. Cf. note above on verse 2.
327 Verse 11.― “The cup,” etc. Whilst these words are peculiar to John’s narrative, they afresh illustrate his way of subdued reference to Synoptic accounts. Cf. Matt. 26:39.
325 Verse 12.― “To Annas first.” How, in the light of the Synoptic account, could any but an eyewitness, the Evangelist himself, have recorded this without contradiction?
329 Verse 13.― “Who was high priest of that year.” See note on 11:49.
330 Verse 15.― “Known to the high priest.” Bleek and Ewald (“History of Israel,” vi., p. 118; “Johannine Writings,” i., p. 400) supposed that the Evangelist was related to the high-priestly family. This idea has been used by Delff for his theory that the writer had himself been a priest, as by Burkitt (p. 250) for the notion that he had been a Sadducee. Such fancies have been generated by a statement (in Eusebius) of Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus A.D. 190, that John of Ephesus wore a πέταλον―i.e., plate, coronet, or mitre (cf. Exod. 39:30). This may, however, have referred to one of the same name who, we know, was “of the kindred of the high priest” (Acts 4:6). Whilst Chrysostom and Cyril regard the disciple “known to the high priest” as the Evangelist, Augustine and others have questioned the identity. Bengel supposed Nicodemus to be meant; Zahn thinks, James. “The” before “other” is doubtful: it is not in אABD, the Syriac, and Memphitic. Anyhow, γνωστὸς must be distinguished from συγγενής (verse 26). If it be the Evangelist, any trade connection he may have had with the high priest would sufficiently explain the word here used.
331 Verse 19.― “The high priest.” Augustine, Chrysostom, Alford, Ellicott and Luthardt understand Annas (cf. verses 13, 24); but Zahn, as most, takes it of Caiaphas. See note on verse 24.
332 Verse 20.― “In secret I spoke nothing.” See Isa. 45:17-19, 48:12-18. It will be observed that the Lord is silent as to His disciples.
333 Verse 22.―The record of this is peculiar to John.
334 Verse 24.―Most commentators are of opinion that this should come in between verses 13 and 14, as in some Greek and Syriac manuscripts, and as it was read by Cyril of Alexandria; and that the questioning and smiting took place before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin. Some writers, however, suppose that John describes only the informal hearing before Annas, and accordingly passes over the trial by Caiaphas. Cf. Zahn, ad loc.
The verse comes twice in God. A. of the Syriac of Jerusalem lectionary, the first time after verse 13, and again after verse 23; this, of course, represents the work of harmonists. Luther’s Bible contains a marginal note by himself at the earlier verse that it “has been misplaced in turning the page, as often happens,” and at verse 24: “This verse ought to follow immediately after verse 14.” Verses 19-24 are absent from the Syrsin. See Mrs. Lewis’s remarks in Expositor, vol. xii., p. 519 (“Verses 18, 24, and 14 are really one”).
Cf. Blass, “Philology of the Gospels,” p. 59, on “blundering scribes.” In his text this last of recent editors has placed verse 24 between verses 13 and 14.
335 Verse 28 ff.―The seven stages in the trial before Pilate, according as it was conducted outside or inside the “prætorium,” are verses 28-32 of this chapter, outside; verses 33-37 inside; verses 38-40 outside; 19:1-3 inside; verses 4-7 outside; verses 8-11 inside; verses 12-16 outside (Westcott).
336 Verse 28.― “That they might eat the Passover.” The difficulty about the last Passover, already discussed in a note on Mark 14:12, and touched on here in connection with the opening words of chapter 13., is dealt with by the expositor in a long note on 19:14, where the view is taken that it was allowable to partake of the paschal meal within the twenty-four hours of the same technical day. And so Milligan, who supposes that the Jews’ celebration was interrupted. Cf. Bernard, pp. 49-54. It may have been to secure strict compliance with primitive usage that the rubric in the Talmudic treatise Zebbach (verse 2) was afterwards framed. Delitzsch (in Riehm) questions the explanation given by Dr. John Lightfoot, the beamed Rabbinic scholar of the seventeenth century, who says that the Evangelist here adopts the popular language―i.e., speaks of the Chagigah, or peace-offering (“Works,” ii. 670). Zahn, however, is of opinion that Lightfoot was probably right, and that the day here intended was the fifteenth of Nisan (“Introduction,” ii., p. 514; Exposition, p. 622 I.). The learned Erlangen professor remarks that φαγεῖν is used for celebration, and that the standing expression for the fourteenth day of Nisan was ποιεῖν. Cf. “This do in remembrance of Me”; Exod. 12:48; Num. 9:2; Deut. 16:1; Matt. 26:18; Heb. 11:38. Note that Num. 28:16-18 (as Lev.; see note on Mark) distinguishes between the paschal meal and “the Feast.” See, further, Khodadad, p. 20 f., and note 346 below (ad fin.).
337 Verse 32.― “It is not lawful for us,” etc. According to the Talmud, it was in the year immediately preceding this that the Romans had deprived the Jews of execution of capital punishment―i.e., exactly “forty years” before the Fall of Jerusalem.
338 Verse 37.― “King.” See Luke 23:2, and cf. 1 Tim. 6:13, the “good confession.”
“Of the truth”: cl. 1 John 3:19 and 4:6, 5:19. “Of God,” in the last references does not justify its being said that the terms are practically equivalent, as by Heitmüller (so Scott). See Exposition, p. 20.
339 Verse 38 ff.― “I find no fault in Him at all.” Cf. Exod. 12:5; Deut. 17:1; 1 Pet. 1:19.
339a One of the latest crazes is to drag in here the Feast of Purim, so that Barabbas should represent Mordecai, and the role of Haman be taken by our Lord (Frazer, “Golden Bough,” iii. 188-198). Even Benn hesitates to accept such a suggestion. Conjuring with the name of the Jewish anarchist cannot be a self-satisfying, to say nothing of a creditable, service to society, for either an authority on folklore or a writer of romance.