The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 107

no sooner grasps the meaning, as he thinks, than he gives his Lord some further sua- gesti?ns: "_Not my feet only, but also !IlY bands an~ my bead." There is the same hurry and 1mpuls1veness, the se.me blunderrng forward rnto rebuke and fresh light. After thi~, Peter, irrepressible as ever, suggests to the beloved disciple to inquire who was the traitor, and thus he would again forestall his Lord. We have the same shatie of charncter once more, hinted in the eager inquiry, " Whither goest thou?" and "Why cannot I follow thee now ? " "I will lay down my life for thy sake" (eh.xiii. 36-38). The eager acts of the night or the Passion are preserved in the Fourth Gospel, and they reveal the need, both or reproor and miracle, to obviate evil consequences (eh. xviii. 10, 11). The unnamed disciple who bad smitten the servant of the high priest is declared by John to be none other than Simon Peter. This is given with no intent to humble Peter, but rather to exalt his courage. The features of the temptation ancl the fall of Peter are abundantly explained (eh. xviii. 15-18, 25-27). The haste of Peter to rush into the sepulchre is specially noted in the Fourth Gospel, and the most characteristic of all these scenes completes John's portraiture. Peter distinguishes himself (eh. xxi. 7, etc.) by the special desire to plunge into the sea to reach bis Lord, and to draw the net to shore. When interrogated by the Lord as to the intensity of his personal love, Peter at length shows impatience as well as grief (see ver. 17). He would, even in his last word, give the Lord some advice as to the revelations it would be wise for him to make. Such a unique combination of tendencies and methods as are presented by the New Testament generally must represent an historical character of great indi- viduality. The Fourth Gospel, in all its references to Peter, though for the most part involving a separate group of occurrences, is in minute and impressive harmony with the synoptic and Pauline portraiture. In no case are these utterances and acts of Peter more than silhouettes of bis Personality, hut the dullest student of analogy cannot fail to feel the identity of the character. Nor are the Tiibingen writers or Renan altogether just when they endeavour to draw from the references to Peter an animus against him on the part of the author of the Fourth Gospel. On the contrary, these references are more sympathetic by far than the records of corresponding scenes in the synoptic narrative. (d) The characters of Caiaphas and Pilate are drawn with tolerable clearness in the synoptists, although they scarcely do more than bring them into the searching light of the Divine presence of the Lord Jesus. Luke tells us (iii. 1, 2) that the one was priest and the other was the Roman representative (h•p.011,,1fo11Tos) in Judaia, and we are reminded also by Luke of Pilate's hatred of the religion of the people over whom he ruled, as well as his cruelty to Galilaians who bad properly belonged to the hegemony or Herod Antipas (Luke xiii. 1). Caiaphas in the synoptic narrative is the president of the court before which Jesus ie tried, and we discern hie hatred of his Victim, bis anxiety to secure even valueless testimony against Jesus, rather than none at all; and to obtain, moreover, a kind of testimony which would not turn the hearts of the excitable Pharisaic party to take his side. His eagerness to condemn, to call forth an answer which should, according to his understanding and exposition of the Law incriminate Jesus; and the impetuous haste with which be fastened a charge of blasphemy on the Lord, are among the most tragic features of the trial. Caiaphas knew that the Messiah wBS "the Son of the Blessed" (Matt. xxvi. 63 ; Mark xiv. 61) and "the Son of God." Yet the one thing that in his judgment and that of his court was a capital offence was the calm claim on the part of Jesus to be all that was involved in this great Name, It was the confessio:n of the Lord himself that constituted the gravamen of the charge. The charge, however, which the priests brought before Pilate was that Jesm, was stirring up the people, and forbidding them to pay tribute to Cresar, and was making himself a King (Luke xxiii. 2). Thus Caiapbas was bending bis own feigned loyalty to Roman power into the instrument of his theological hatred, into the tool of his jealousy towards a spiritual power which he could not rival and bad not the power to extinguish. So pertinacious was the priestly clique, that when Pilate sent the mysterious Prisoner to Herod, anxious to be rid of so troublesome a case, the rabble of priests rushed after him to Herod's court, and "vigorously accused him ( ,~.,.6vws ""-'T11'Y•poii11Tu )" (Luke xxiii.11). The Barabbas incident Is (Marlt xv. 11) clearly the low ,llld unscrupulous scheme of the Caiaphas party (ol U Apx.. peis &.vfrwr~,, TOIi 6x.\~v).  cxviii INTRODUCTION TO