may be times wlien, in defence of truth and for tlie honor of justice, a Christian must firmly protest against violence, and publicly refuse to countenance it by tame submission.
Augustine observes, " Our Lord here showed that His^reat precepts of patience are to be put in practice, not by outward show of the body, but by preparedness of heart. Visibly to present the other cheek is no more than an angry man can do. How much better then that with mild answer he speak the truth, and with tranquil mind endure worse outrages."
24. — [JS'ow Annas had sent Rim.. .CaiapJias... priest] This verse undoubtedly contains a difficulty. Most commentators seem to think that it states a fact which ought to come in after the thirteenth verse ; and that the questioning and smiting of the last four verses took place before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrim, and not before Annas. Some think that up to this point John only describes what took place before Annas ; and that he en- tirely passes over all that took place before Caiaphas, as bein^ well known to his readers. The question is undoubtedly rath- er a puzzling one, and there is much to be said on both sides.
On the one hand, it seems curious that the examination of our Lord before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrim should be so com- pletely omitted by John in his Gospel, as it must be, if we take the high priest of the nineteenth verse to be Annas.
On the other hand, we cannot see why John should so care- fully mention our Lord being " led to Annas first," if after all Annas did not examine Him at all, and sent Him at once to Caiaphas.
If I must give an opinion, I must say that I agree with Stier, Ellicott, and Alford, and consider that this twenty-fourth verse describes our Lord's first appearance before Caiaphas, — that for some wise reason John entirely omits, and silently passes over, our Lord's examination before the Sanhedrim, — and that the ex- amination of the nineteenth and four following verses was a kind of private, preliminary examination before Annas, which •Matthew, Mark, and Luke entirely omit. My grounds for this conclusion are as follows : —
(a) The whole tone of John's narrative would make any or- dinary readerosuppose that Annas, and not Caiaphas, was the examiner and high priest of the nineteenth verse. The story reads straight on upon this theory ; while upon the other it io most awkward and seemingly contradictory, and the twenty- fourth verse seems to come in at the wrong place.
(&) The tone of the high priest's examination in John, is en- tirely dilferent from that of the other three Gospels, and so also are our Lord's answers.
(c) There is nothing uncommon in John omitting something