John 18:19

18:13-27 Simon Peter denied his Master. The particulars have been noticed in the remarks on the other Gospels. The beginning of sin is as the letting forth of water. The sin of lying is a fruitful sin; one lie needs another to support it, and that another. If a call to expose ourselves to danger be clear, we may hope God will enable us to honour him; if it be not, we may fear that God will leave us to shame ourselves. They said nothing concerning the miracles of Jesus, by which he had done so much good, and which proved his doctrine. Thus the enemies of Christ, whilst they quarrel with his truth, wilfully shut their eyes against it. He appeals to those who heard him. The doctrine of Christ may safely appeal to all that know it, and those who judge in truth bear witness to it. Our resentment of injuries must never be passionate. He reasoned with the man that did him the injury, and so may we.

John 18:19-27 . The high-priest then asked Jesus — As he stood before him; of his disciples, and of his doctrine — What it was that he taught, and with what view he had gathered so many followers. In these questions there was a great deal of art. For, as the crime laid to our Lord’s charge was, that he set himself up for the Messiah, and deluded the people, they expected he would claim that dignity in their presence, and so, without further trouble, they would have condemned him on his own confession. But, to oblige a prisoner to confess what might take away his life, being an unjust method of procedure, Jesus complained of it with reason, and bade them prove what they laid to his charge, by witnesses. Jesus answered, I spake openly, &c. — What I have taught has been delivered in the most public manner. I ever taught in the synagogue — As I had opportunity; and in the temple, whither the Jews resort — In the greatest numbers; and in secret have I said nothing — Even to my most intimate friends, but what has been perfectly agreeable to the tenor of my public discourses. Why askest thou me — Whom thou wilt not believe? It was greatly to the honour of our Lord’s character, that all his actions were done in public, under the eye even of his enemies; because, had he been carrying on any imposture, the lovers of truth and goodness would thus have had abundant opportunities to have detected him.

With propriety, therefore, in this defence, he appealed to that part of his character; nevertheless, his answer was thought disrespectful. For, when he had spoken, one of the officers — Belonging to the court; struck Jesus, saying, Answerest thou the high- priest so? — With so little reverence? Jesus answered — With his usual mildness; If I have spoken evil — Any thing false or improper; bear witness of the evil — Show wherein it lies; but if well, why smitest thou me — Can reason be answered by blows? Or, can such a sober appeal to it deserve them? Thus Jesus became an example of his own precept, ( Matthew 5:44 ,) bearing the greatest injuries with a patience that could not be provoked. Now Annas had sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest — The evangelist mentions that Jesus was sent to the high-priest, because he had before said that he was sent first to Annas, the high-priest’s father-in-law. Moreover, he takes notice that he was sent bound, to show the inhumanity of the officer who struck him in that condition. Of what took place while Jesus stood before the high-priest, see the notes on Matthew 26:59-68 .

John 18:19 . Ὁ οὖν ἀρχιερεὺς ἠρώτησε … “The high priest then interrogated Jesus about His disciples and about His teaching,” apparently wishing to bring out on what terms He made disciples, whether as a simple Rabbi or as Messiah. But Jesus answered: Ἐγὼ παρρησίᾳ ἐλάλησα … οὐδέν . The high priest’s question was useless. Jesus had nothing to tell which He had not publicly and frequently proclaimed. Similarly Socrates replied to his judges (Plato, Apol. , 33), “If any one says that he has ever learned or heard anything from me in private which the world has not heard, be assured he says what is not true”. παρρησίᾳ “without reserve,” rückhaltslos , Holtzmann. τῷ κόσμῳ , “to everybody,” to all who cared to hear; cf. Socrates’ δημοσίᾳ . “I always taught in synagogue and in the temple”; the article dropped as we drop it in the phrase “in church”; “where,” i.e. , in both synagogue and temple, πάντες “all the Jews assemble”.

19-21. The high priest … asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine—probably to entrap Him into some statements which might be used against Him at the trial. From our Lord's answer it would seem that "His disciples" were understood to be some secret party. (Also see on [1895]Mr 14:54.)

Questions about sedition or rebellion belonged not to the judge of this court, but fell under the cognizance of the Roman governor, they being now a conquered people, and tributary to the Romans; who, though themselves heathens, granted the Jews their liberty as to religion, and courts in order there unto; as also a liberty of courts for civil causes: the high priest therefore saith nothing to Christ about his being a King, but only inquires of him about his doctrine. What particular questions he propounded to him we do not read; only in general he inquired about the doctrine he had preached, and the disciples he had sent out, which was one and the same cause, to see if he could bring him under the guilt of a false prophet; for that, and blasphemy, and idolatry, were three principal causes that fell under the cognizance of this court, as appeareth from Deu 13 .

John 18:19 . Διδαχῆς , doctrine ) The High Priest asks the question, just as if the doctrine of Jesus had crept in (spread gradually) in secret. So the world often wishes to make out of the truth a thing done in a corner. Jesus answers as to His doctrine: there was no need of His answering as to His disciples.

19 . The high priest then ] Rather, therefore ( John 18:3 ), connecting what follows with John 18:13-14 . Again we are in doubt as to who is meant by the high-priest (see on John 18:15 ), but it will be safest to consider that Caiaphas is meant throughout. Neither hypothesis is free from difficulty. If the high priest here is Caiaphas, the difficulty is to explain John 18:24 (see note there). But we may suppose that while Annas is conducting the examination Caiaphas enters and takes part in it. of his disciples , &c.] It was hoped that some evidence might be obtained which would be of service in the formal trial that was to follow.

(19) The high priest then asked Jesus. —Comp. Notes on John 18:15 . By the “high priest” is probably-meant Caiaphas, though this preliminary investigation was held before Annas, and in his house, or that part of the high priest’s palace occupied by him. Of his disciples, and of his doctrine.—This was the general subject of a series of questions. He asked, we may think, about the number of Christ’s followers; the aim they had in view; the principles which He had taught them. The object of the questions was apparently to find some technical evidence in Christ’s own words on which they may support the charges they are about to bring against Him in the legal trial before Caiaphas.

The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples - To ascertain their number and power. The charge on which they wished to arraign him was that of sedition, or of rebellion against Caesar. To make that plausible, it was necessary to show that he had made so many disciples as to form a strong and dangerous faction; but, as they had no direct proof of that, the high priest insidiously and improperly attempted to draw the Saviour into a confession. Of this he was aware, and referred him to the proper source of evidence - his open, undisguised conduct before the world. His doctrine - His teaching. The sentiments that he inculcated. The object was doubtless to convict him of teaching sentiments that tended to subvert the Mosaic institutions, or that were treasonable against the Roman government. Either would have answered the design of the Jews, and they doubtless expected that he - an unarmed and despised Galilean, now completely in their power - would easily be drawn into confessions which art and malice could use to procure his condemnation.