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.
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. 39:3030And they made the plate of the holy crown of pure gold, and wrote upon it a writing, like to the engravings of a signet, HOLINESS TO THE LORD. (Exodus 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 4:66And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem. (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 14:1212And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover? (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. 12:4848And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. (Exodus 12:48); Num. 9:22Let the children of Israel also keep the passover at his appointed season. (Numbers 9:2); Deut. 16:11Observe the month of Abib, and keep the passover unto the Lord thy God: for in the month of Abib the Lord thy God brought thee forth out of Egypt by night. (Deuteronomy 16:1); Matt. 26:1818And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples. (Matthew 26:18); Heb. 11:3838(Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. (Hebrews 11:38). Note that Num. 28:16-1816And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the Lord. 17And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast: seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten. 18In the first day shall be an holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile work therein: (Numbers 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.
“Of the truth”: cl. 1 John 3:1919And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him. (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.
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.