The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 2 — Section 372

Ver. 11.-ln Christ's reply there is no nBrr11tivo itself and on its goncml trnf,hful- mrr.Lion rondo of tho mimcle whioh followed, ness. Keim almost angrily dismisaos it, and 1md yet the narrative is incomplete without Stranss endeavoun to show that it is in- H. Something must h11ve rostmined the b11nd 11nd the high priest's own temple-watch from compatible with the synoptic n11rrativo; 11t onco 11rresting Peter, if not the entira while Renan, on the other hand, sees in it group. The oh11rncterietic touch, descriptive numorous lifelike touches and great circum- of our Lord's most Divine compassion, is in stantial valne. The prim& facie objection is itself vnlunblo, but it also accounts for the that John describes a preliminary exami- immunity of l'eter. The solemn rebnko of nation before Annas, whom he confounds Peter is full of Divine meaning, and is o.nothor link with the s7noptic narrnti ve of with the high priest, and ~aye nothing of the the 11gony. "Put up,' or more literally, judicia.l trial before the Sanhedrin under the Cast the 1 sword into its sheath (1<071.e&, is the presidency of Caiapha.a. Baur aud Strauss olnssical word; 6111<11 more generally used of supposed that the author did this in order to repository, receptacle, sepulchre, eto.); or exaggemte the guilt of the Jews by doubling into its hiding-place; bury it away (-r&,ror is used in Matthew). Matthew adds a memor- their unbelief, a.ud aggravating their offence able saying, but is silent as to the deep by m11.lring two high priests rather than one Divine reason of the submission of our Lord condemn their Messiah. In reply to this to his fate. The oup whioh the Father bath we have simply to say that John, though given me, shall I not drink it 1 This imagery he shows the animus of both these notorious recalls the Passion, through which we learn from the synoptists that our Lord had passed men, does not mention the judicial condem- into a Divine patience o.nd submission to nation pronounced by either (see Weiss, iii. the will of God (Matt. xx. 22 ; xxvi. 39). 334, Eng. trans.). The omission of the The use of this most remar k11ble phraseology sublime answer of our Lord to the chal- recalls th11t which John too had heard from lenge of Caiaphas and others (Matt. xx:vi. his lips in the sweat of his agony, ,and of 62, etc.; Luke xxii 67, etc.; l\,fark xiv. 68, which he and Peter were the principal wit- nesses. The supplementary character of 70) is surely profoundly contradictory to the Gospel, though by no means sufficient the supposed theological purpose of the to !Lecount for all the omissions and additions writer; and we can only account for it.3 of this narrative, yet docs explain very much. omission on the ground that the synoptic "Jesue is now of his own accord at the dis- tradition hnd made it widely known, and posal of his enemies; his words have put a stop to all further steps taken for his de- that that tradition still needed correc- fence" (Moulton). (See Introduction, pp. tion by the record of important supple- cvi., evil.) mentary matter. Some harmonists have Vere. 12-27.-(2) The preliminary exa- endeavoured to transpose ver. 2-l: into close mination before Annas, interwoven with. the proximity with ver. 13, or to give, o.s the weakness and treachery oJ Peter. This pas- Authorized Version does, a pluperfect mean- sage describes the first steps taken by the ing to ..,..frTELA• of ver. 2-l:, the effect of enemies of our Lord to conduct the exami- which is to make the two examinations vir- nation which was to issue in a judicial tually one, but one from which John lc11.vcs murder, and therefore to provide the basis out the most striking features. This is sup- on which the charge might be laid before posed to be necessitated by the vers. 19-23, Pilnte and that Roman court, which alone where the" high priest" is said to have in- could carry into execution the malicious con- terrogated Jesua. Moreover, the supposition clusion on which they had already resolved. of there being a considerable space in the city Moreover, this passage is interwoven with between the house of Annas o.nd the palace of the melancholy record of the fall of Peter. the high priest Cs.iaphas renders the harmony There are grave difficulties in the pass11ge, of the narratives touching the denials of which have led to harsh judgment on the Peter inextricably confused, seeing that, ac- cording to the synoptic narrative, they 1 The a-ou is not found in N, A, B, 0, D, occurred in the oourt of Caiaph.as, while in L and numerous other authorities, and is John they apparently were made in the n~t relld by Tregelles, Tisohendorf (8th court of .Anna,. This difficulty is entirely edit.)1 Westcott '\nd Hort, nnd R.T., though T.R., Griesb11oh, and Scholz retained it, with met by the natural suppositions arising out 11 69, and eeveral versions. of the relations of these two men. Annea  884 THE GOSPEL .ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN. [on. xvm. 1-40.