John 18 John 18:1–9 Judas betrayeth Jesus: the officers and soldiers at Christ’s word fall to the ground. John 18:10–11 Peter cutteth off Malchus’s ear. John 18:12–14 Jesus is led bound to Annas and Caiaphas. John 18:15–18 Peter denieth him.

Chapter Introduction Having so largely discoursed the history of our Saviour’s passion, See Poole on “Matt. 26:1”, and following verses to Matt. 26:71, See Poole on “Matt. 27:1”, and following verses to Matt.

We read that Christ, when he was at Jerusalem, was wont at night for privacy to retire to the mount of Olives, Luke 21:37, Luke 22:39 and it should seem that he was wont ordinarily to go to this garden, which made Judas know the particular place where he might find him.

The evangelist here passeth over all mentioned by the other evangelists about Judas’s going to the high priests, and contracting with them, and cometh to relate his coming to apprehend him with a band of men that he had obtained from the chief priests and Pharisees for that purpose.

This evangelist saith nothing of what the other evangelists mention, of the sign that Judas had given them, by which they should know him; nor of Judas’s kissing of him, or our Saviour’s reply to him. (John, all along his Gospel, mentions very little of what is recorded by the other evangelists).

They tell him, Jesus of Nazareth. Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea, Matt. 2:1; but his father and mother lived at Nazareth, a city of Galilee, Luke 2:4, Luke 2:39, where he lived with them, Luke 2:51; hence he was called Jesus of Nazareth, from the place where he lived, and most ordinarily…

For a further evidence to the world that Christ was the Son of the Everlasting Father, it pleased God in all the periods of his life to show forth by him some acts of the Divine power.

Our Saviour’s question, and their answer, are the same as before. They fell down, but they rose up again, and go on in their wicked purpose. This is the genius of all sinners; they may be under some convictions and terrors, but they get out of them, if God doth not concur by his Spirit, and…

But were those words of our Saviour, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none, to be understood as to a temporary losing, or of an eternal destruction? Some of the ancients were of opinion, that they were to be understood of a losing with reference to a spiritual and eternal state; but that…

It is thought that this action of Peter’s was before the apprehension of our Saviour, though after the discovery of it, as our evangelist reports it; because upon the apprehension of our Saviour, both Matt.

The other evangelists report this part of the history with many more circumstances; particularly our Saviour’s miraculous healing Malchus again; See Poole on “Matt. 26:51”, and following verses to Matt. 26:54. See Poole on “Mark 14:47”, and following verses to Mark 14:49.

As is usual for officers to do with ordinary malefactors which are great criminals; they put no difference between Christ and the most villanous thieves and murderers.

That his son in law Caiaphas was the high priest that year; which we had also before, John 11:51, where we discoursed more largely about the disorder of the Jews, in that most corrupt time, when that place was bestowed without regard to the family of Aaron, and bought and sold, or conferred at the…

Of his giving that counsel, and the wickedness of it, (though it proved an oracle beyond his intention), we discoursed before: See Poole on “John 11:51”.

When Christ was apprehended, the other evangelists tell us, all the disciples forsook him and fled; but it should seem that Peter, who all along the gospel history hath appeared more forward, and bold, and daring than any of the rest, came back; but who that other disciple was that went in with…

This further confirmeth the conjecture of those, who think that other disciple was none of the apostles, but a favourer of Christ, that lived in Jerusalem, and was of some repute either for estate or place; so as he had not only an acquaintance with the high priest, but also with his family; and…

This is Peter’s first denial of his Master; between which and his second denial (of which John saith nothing till he comes to John 18:26) the evangelist interposes many things not mentioned by the other evangelists.

Here is nothing in this verse which needeth any explication, unless any should ask how it could be cold weather at that time of the year, (about April 14), especially in a country where it now was the time of harvest? Which may easily be resolved.

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…

I spake openly to the world; to all sorts of men, my enemies as well as my friends. I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; the Jews for instruction do use to resort to the temple, which was in Jerusalem, and whither three times in the year all the males…

We are told by those that have written about the Jewish order in their courts of judgment, that their capital causes always began with the defensive part; and that it was lawful for any to speak for the defendants for a whole day together; (though they did not observe this in the cause of Christ);…

This lets us see in what indecent disorder the Jewish government was at this time, that an inferior officer dared to strike a supposed criminal, standing before the judgment seat, and defending himself by their own known rules and methods; for what had our Saviour said or done, more than making use…

Our Saviour could easily have revenged himself upon this officer; but, to teach us our duty, he only gently reproves him, and lets him know that he did not behave himself as one ought to do in the face of a court of justice, where he had both a liberty and a present opportunity to have accused him,…

These words are only to let us know, that these things were not done before Annas, but before Caiaphas the high priest, to whom (as to his proper judge) Annas had sent him bound, as he was at first brought to him.

This history of Peter’s denial of his Master the second time we have before met with, Matt. 26:71–72, Mark 14:69–70, Luke 22:58–59, with several circumstances not mentioned by John. See Poole on “Matt. 26:69”.

The chief priests having in their sanhedrim done with our Saviour’s case, and judged him worthy of death, as we read, Matt. 26:66, Mark 14:64; which two evangelists, with Luke, relate this history of Christ’s trial before the sanhedrim, with many more circumstances than John doth; they now lead him…

The Roman governor humours them in their superstition (the Romans having granted them the liberty of their religion): they scruple to go into the ordinary place of judgment; he goes out to them, and calls for their accusation of Christ, according to the ordinary and regular course of judgments.

They had in their sanhedrim before judged him guilty of blasphemy, Matt. 26:65, but this they durst not mention, lest Pilate should have rejected them, as being not concerned in questions of their law; they therefore only exclaimed against him in the general as a great malefactor, but of what kind…

Take ye him, and judge him according to your law; I will judge no man before myself first hear and judge of his crime; you have a law amongst yourselves, and a liberty to question and judge men upon it, proceed against him according to your law.

Christ had before this time told his disciples that he should die, and that by the death of the cross, as we read, Matt. 20:19. God by his providence ordereth things accordingly, to let us know that the Scripture might be fulfilled to every tittle.

Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, the ordinary place of judicature, from whence we read before he went out, in civility to the Jews, whose superstition (as we before heard) kept them from going there during the festival.

Our Saviour neither affirms nor denies: though we are bound, whenever we speak, to speak the truth, yet we are not bound at all times to speak the whole truth.

The sum of this is no more than that he did not devise this captious question, for he was no Jew, not concerned in nor regarding what they had in their books of the law and the prophets; but he was accused to him by those of his own nation, and he was desirous to find out the truth, and to know…

My kingdom is not of this world; that is, I cannot deny but that I am the King of the Jews, but not in the sense they take it, not such a king as they look for in their Messiah; my kingdom is spiritual, over the hearts and minds of men, not earthly and worldly.

Art thou a king then? Pilate seems to have spoken this rather in derision and mockery, than out of any desire to catch him in his words. Christ neither owneth himself to be a king, nor yet denieth it, but tells Pilate that he said so; and to this end he was born, and for this cause he came into the…

Pilate (as profane persons use to do) thought that our Saviour, speaking of truth, and a spiritual kingdom, did but cant, and therefore asking him what he meant by truth, he never stays for an answer, but goes out again to the Jews, whom he had left without the door of the judgment hall, and tells…

Whence this custom came is uncertain; most probably from the Romans, who in some honour of this great festival of the Jews, and in humour of them, granted them the life of any criminal whom they desired.

But such was the malice of his adversaries, that though Barabbas was one that had committed murder in an insurrection, yet they choose him rather than Christ. See Poole on “Matt. 27:15”, and following verses to Matt. 27:18.