Jesus the Christ Part 66

JUDAS ISCARIOT.[1298]

When Judas Iscariot saw how terribly effective had been the outcome of his treachery, he became wildly remorseful. During Christ's trial before the Jewish authorities, with its a.s.sociated humiliation and cruelty, the traitor had seen the seriousness of his action; and when the unresisting Sufferer had been delivered up to the Romans, and the fatal consummation had become a certainty, the enormity of his crime filled Judas with nameless horror. Rushing into the presence of the chief priests and elders, while the final preparations for the crucifixion of the Lord were in progress, he implored the priestly rulers to take back the accursed wage they had paid him, crying in an agony of despair: "I have sinned, in that I have betrayed the innocent blood." He may have vaguely expected a word of sympathy from the conspirators in whose wickedly skilful hands he had been so ready and serviceable a tool; possibly he hoped that his avowal might stem the current of their malignancy, and that they would ask for a reversal of the sentence. But the rulers in Israel repulsed him with disgust. "What is that to us?" they sneered, "see thou to that." He had served their purpose; they had paid him his price; they wished never to look upon his face again; and pitilessly they flung him back into the haunted blackness of his maddened conscience. Still clutching the bag of silver, the all too real remembrancer of his frightful sin, he rushed into the temple, penetrating even to the precincts of priestly reservation, and dashed the silver pieces upon the floor of the sanctuary.[1299] Then, under the goading impulse of his master, the devil, to whom he had become a bond-slave, body and soul, he went out and hanged himself.

The chief priests gathered up the pieces of silver, and in sacrilegious scrupulosity, held a solemn council to determine what they should do with the "price of blood." As they deemed it unlawful to add the attainted coin to the sacred treasury, they bought with it a certain clay-yard, once the property of a potter, and the very place in which Judas had made of himself a suicide; this tract of ground they set apart as a burial place for aliens, strangers, and pagans. The body of Judas, the betrayer of the Christ, was probably the first to be there interred.

And that field was called "Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood."[1300]

NOTES TO CHAPTER 34.

1. Annas, and His Interview with Jesus.--"No figure is better known in contemporary Jewish history than that of Annas; no person deemed more fortunate or successful, but also none more generally execrated than the late high priest. He had held the pontificate for only six or seven years; but it was filled by not fewer than five of his sons, by his son-in-law Caiaphas, and by a grandson. And in those days it was, at least for one of Annas' disposition, much better to have been than to be high priest. He enjoyed all the dignity of the office, and all its influence also, since he was able to promote to it those most closely connected with him. And while they acted publicly, he really directed affairs, without either the responsibility or the restraints which the office imposed. His influence with the Romans he owed to the religious views which he professed, to his open partisanship of the foreigner, and to his enormous wealth.... We have seen what immense revenues the family of Annas must have derived from the Temple booths, and how nefarious and unpopular was the traffic. The names of those bold, licentious, unscrupulous, degenerate sons of Aaron were spoken with whispered curses. Without referring to Christ's interference with that Temple-traffic, which, if His authority had prevailed, would of course have been fatal to it, we can understand how ant.i.thetic in every respect a Messiah, and such a Messiah as Jesus, must have been to Annas.... No account is given of what pa.s.sed before Annas. Even the fact of Christ's being first brought to him is only mentioned in the fourth Gospel. As the disciples had all forsaken Him and fled, we can understand that they were in ignorance of what actually pa.s.sed, till they had again rallied, at least so far, that Peter and 'another disciple', evidently John, 'followed Him into the palace of the high priest'--that is, into the palace of Caiaphas, not of Annas. For as, according to the three synoptic Gospels, the palace of the high priest Caiaphas was the scene of Peter's denial, the account of it in the fourth Gospel must refer to the same locality, and not to the palace of Annas."--Edersheim, _Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah_; vol. 2, pp. 547-8.

2. Christ's Forbearance when Smitten.--That Jesus maintained His equanimity and submissiveness even under the provocation of a blow dealt by a brutish underling in the presence of the high priest, is confirmatory of our Lord's affirmation that He had "overcome the world"

(John 16:33). One cannot read the pa.s.sage without comparing, perhaps involuntarily, the divine submissiveness of Jesus on this occasion, with the wholly natural and human indignation of Paul under somewhat similar conditions at a later time (Acts 23:1-5). The high priest Ananias, displeased at Paul's remarks, ordered someone who stood by to smite him on the mouth. Paul broke forth in angry protest: "G.o.d shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?" Afterward he apologized, saying that he knew not that it was the high priest who had given the command that he be smitten. See _Articles of Faith_, xxiii, II, and Note 1 following the same lecture; and Farrar's _Life and Works of St. Paul_, pp. 539-540.

3. High Priests and Elders.--These t.i.tles as held by officials of the Jewish hierarchy in the time of Christ must not be confused with the same designations as applied to holders of the Higher or Melchizedek Priesthood. The high priest of the Jews was the presiding priest; he had to be of Aaronic descent to be a priest at all; he became high priest by Roman appointment. The elders, as the name indicates, were men of mature years and experience, who were appointed to act as magistrates in the towns, and as judges in the ecclesiastical tribunals, either in the Lesser Sanhedrins of the provinces, or in the Great Sanhedrin at Jerusalem. The term "elder" as commonly used among the Jews in the days of Jesus had no closer relation to eldership in the Melchizedek Priesthood than had the t.i.tle "scribe". The duties of Jewish high priests and elders combined both ecclesiastical and secular functions; indeed both offices had come to be in large measure political perquisites. See "Elder" in Smith's _Bible Dictionary_. From the departure of Moses to the coming of Christ, the organized theocracy of Israel was that of the Lesser or Aaronic Priesthood, comprizing the office of priest, which was confined to the lineage of Aaron, and the lesser offices of teacher and deacon, which were combined in the Levitical order. See "Orders and Offices in the Priesthood" by the author in _The Articles of Faith_, xi:13-24.

4. Illegalities of the Jewish Trial of Jesus.--Many volumes have been written on the so-called trial of Jesus. Only a brief summary of the princ.i.p.al items of fact and law can be incorporated here. For further consideration reference may be made to the following treatments: Edersheim, _Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah_; Andrews, _Life of Our Lord_; Dupin, _Jesus before Caiaphas and Pilate_; Mendelsohn, _Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews_; Salvador, _Inst.i.tutions of Moses_; Innes, _The Trial of Jesus Christ_; Maimonides, _Sanhedrin_; MM.

Lemann, _Jesus before the Sanhedrin_; Benny, _Criminal Code of the Jews_; and Walter M. Chandler, of the New York Bar, _The Trial of Jesus from a Lawyer's Standpoint_. The last named is a two volume work treating respectively, "The Hebrew Trial" and "The Roman Trial", and contains citations from the foregoing and other works.

Edersheim (vol. 2, pp. 556-8) contends that the night arraignment of Jesus in the house of Caiaphas was not a trial before the Sanhedrin, and notes the irregularities and illegalities of the procedure as proof that the Sanhedrin could not have done what was done that night. With ample citations in corroboration of the legal requirements specified, the author says: "But besides, the trial and sentence of Jesus in the palace of Caiaphas would have outraged every principle of Jewish criminal law and procedure. Such causes could only be tried, and capital sentence p.r.o.nounced, in the regular meeting-place of the Sanhedrin, not, as here, in the high priest's palace; no process, least of all such an one, might be begun in the night, nor even in the afternoon, although if the discussion had gone on all day, sentence might be p.r.o.nounced at night.

Again, no process could take place on Sabbaths or feast-days, or even on the eves of them, although this would not have nullified proceedings; and it might be argued on the other side, that a process against one who had seduced the people should preferably be carried on, and sentence executed, on public feast-days, for the warning of all. Lastly, in capital causes there was a very elaborate system of warning, and cautioning witnesses; while it may safely be affirmed that at a regular trial Jewish judges, however prejudiced, would not have acted as the Sanhedrists and Caiaphas did on this occasion.... But although Christ was not tried and sentenced in a formal meeting of the Sanhedrin, there can, alas! be no question that His condemnation and death were the work, if not of the Sanhedrin, yet of the Sanhedrists--of the whole body of them ('all the council') in the sense of expressing what was the judgment and purpose of all the supreme council and leaders of Israel, with only very few exceptions. We bear in mind that the resolution to sacrifice Christ had for some time been taken."

The purpose in quoting the foregoing is to show on acknowledged and eminent authority, some of the illegalities of the night trial of Jesus, which, as shown by the above, and by the scriptural record, was conducted by the high priest and "the council" or Sanhedrin, in admittedly irregular and unlawful manner. If the Sanhedrists tried and condemned, yet were not in session as the Sanhedrin, the enormity of the proceeding is, if possible, deeper and blacker than ever.

In Chandler's excellent work (vol. I, "The Hebrew Trial"), the record of fact in the case, and the Hebrew criminal law bearing thereon are exhaustively considered. Then follows an elaborate "Brief", in which the following points are set forth in order.

"_Point 1: The Arrest of Jesus was illegal_", since it was effected by night, and through the treachery of Judas, an accomplice, both of which features were expressly forbidden in the Jewish law of that day.

"_Point 2: The private examination of Jesus before Annas or Caiaphas was illegal_"; for (1) it was made by night; (2) the hearing of any cause by a 'sole judge' was expressly forbidden; (3) as quoted from Salvador, 'A principle perpetually reproduced in the Hebrew scriptures relates to the two conditions of publicity and liberty.'

"_Point 3: The indictment against Jesus was, in form, illegal._ 'The entire criminal procedure of the Mosaic code rests upon four rules: certainty in the indictment; publicity in the discussion; full freedom granted to the accused; and a.s.surance against all dangers or errors of testimony'--Salvador, p. 365. 'The Sanhedrin did not and could not originate charges; it only investigated those brought before it'--Edersheim, vol. I, p. 309. 'The evidence of the leading witnesses const.i.tuted the charge. There was no other charge; no more formal indictment. Until they spoke and spoke in the public a.s.sembly, the prisoner was scarcely an accused man,'--Innes, p. 41. 'The only prosecutors known to Talmudic criminal jurisprudence are the witnesses to the crime. Their duty is to bring the matter to the cognizance of the court, and to bear witness against the criminal. In capital cases they are the legal executioners also. Of an official accuser or prosecutor there is nowhere any trace in the laws of the ancient Hebrews.'-- Mendelsohn, p. 110.

"_Point 4: The proceedings of the Sanhedrin against Jesus were illegal because they were conducted at night._ 'Let a capital offense be tried during the day, but suspend it at night,'--Mishna, Sanhedrin 4:1.

'Criminal cases can be acted upon by the various courts during daytime only, by the Lesser Sanhedrions from the close of the morning service till noon, and by the Great Sanhedrion till evening.'--Mendelsohn, p.

112.

"_Point 5: The proceedings of the Sanhedrin against Jesus were illegal because the court convened before the offering of the morning sacrifice._ 'The Sanhedrin sat from the close of the morning sacrifice to the time of the evening sacrifice,'--Talmud, Jer. San. 1:19. 'No session of the court could take place before the offering of the morning sacrifice'.--MM. Lemann, p. 109. 'Since the morning sacrifice was offered at the dawn of day, it was hardly possible for the Sanhedrin to a.s.semble until the hour after that time,'--Mishna, Tamid, ch. 3.

"_Point 6: The proceedings against Jesus were illegal because they were conducted on the day preceding a Jewish Sabbath; also on the first day of unleavened bread and the eve of the Pa.s.sover._ 'They shall not judge on the eve of the Sabbath nor on that of any festival.'--Mishna, San.

4:1. 'No court of justice in Israel was permitted to hold sessions on the Sabbath or any of the seven Biblical holidays. In cases of capital crime, no trial could be commenced on Friday or the day previous to any holiday, because it was not lawful either to adjourn such cases longer than over night, or to continue them on the Sabbath or holiday.'--Rabbi Wise, 'Martyrdom of Jesus', p. 67.

"_Point 7: The trial of Jesus was illegal because it was concluded within one day._ 'A criminal case resulting in the acquittal of the accused may terminate the same day on which the trial began. But if a sentence of death is to be p.r.o.nounced, it cannot be concluded before the following day.'--Mishna, San. 4:1.

"_Point 8: The sentence of condemnation p.r.o.nounced against Jesus by the Sanhedrin was illegal because it was founded upon His uncorroborated confession._ 'We have it as a fundamental principle of our jurisprudence that no one can bring an accusation against himself. Should a man make confession of guilt before a legally const.i.tuted tribunal, such confession is not to be used against him unless properly attested by two other witnesses,'--Maimonides, 4:2. 'Not only is self-condemnation never extorted from the defendant by means of torture, but no attempt is ever made to lead him on to self-incrimination. Moreover, a voluntary confession on his part is not admitted in evidence, and therefore not competent to convict him, unless a legal number of witnesses minutely corroborate his self-accusation.'--Mendelsohn, p. 133.

"_Point 9: The condemnation of Jesus was illegal because the verdict of the Sanhedrin was unanimous._ 'A simultaneous and unanimous verdict of guilt rendered on the day of the trial has the effect of an acquittal.'--Mendelsohn, p. 141. 'If none of the judges defend the culprit, i.e., all p.r.o.nounce him guilty, having no defender in the court, the verdict of guilty was invalid and the sentence of death could not be executed.'--Rabbi Wise, 'Martyrdom of Jesus', p. 74.

"_Point 10: The proceedings against Jesus were illegal in that: (1) The sentence of condemnation was p.r.o.nounced in a place forbidden by law; (2) The high priest rent his clothes; (3) The balloting was irregular._ 'After leaving the hall Gazith no sentence of death can be pa.s.sed upon any one soever,'--Talmud, Bab. 'Of Idolatry' 1:8. 'A sentence of death can be p.r.o.nounced only so long as the Sanhedrin holds its sessions in the appointed place.'--Maimonides, 14. See further Levit. 21:10; compare 10:6. 'Let the judges each in his turn absolve or condemn.'--Mishna, San. 15:5. 'The members of the Sanhedrin were seated in the form of a semicircle, at the extremity of which a secretary was placed, whose business it was to record the votes. One of these secretaries recorded the votes in favor of the accused, the other those against him.'--Mishna, San. 4:3. 'In ordinary cases the judges voted according to seniority, the oldest commencing; in a capital case the reverse order was followed.'--Benny, p. 73.

"_Point 11: The members of the Great Sanhedrin were legally disqualified to try Jesus._ 'Nor must there be on the judicial bench either a relation or a particular friend, or an enemy of either the accused or of the accuser.'--Mendelsohn, p. 108. 'Nor under any circ.u.mstances was a man known to be at enmity with the accused person permitted to occupy a position among the judges.'--Benny, p. 37.

"_Point 12: The condemnation of Jesus was illegal because the merits of the defense were not considered._ 'Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently.'--Deut. 13:14. 'The judges shall weigh the matter in the sincerity of their conscience.'--Mishna, San. 4:5. 'The primary object of the Hebrew judicial system was to render the conviction of an innocent person impossible. All the ingenuity of the Jewish legists was directed to the attainment of this end.'--Benny, p.

56."

Chandler's masterly statements of fact and his arguments on each of the foregoing points are commended to the investigator. The author tersely avers: "The pages of human history present no stronger case of judicial murder than the trial and crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, for the simple reason that all forms of law were outraged and trampled under foot in the proceedings inst.i.tuted against Him." (p. 216.)

5. "His Blood be on us, and on Our Children."--Edersheim (vol. 2, p.

578) thus forcefully comments on the acknowledgment of responsibility for the death of Christ: "The Mishna tells us that, after the solemn washing of hands of the elders and their disclaimer of guilt, priests responded with this prayer: 'Forgive it to thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, O Lord, and lay not innocent blood upon thy people Israel.' But here, in answer to Pilate's words, came back that deep, hoa.r.s.e cry: 'His blood be upon us,' and--G.o.d help us!--'on our children.' Some thirty years later, and on that very spot, was judgment p.r.o.nounced against some of the best in Jerusalem; and among the 3,600 victims of the governor's fury, of whom not a few were scourged and crucified right over against the Pretorium, were many of the n.o.blest of the citizens of Jerusalem. (Josephus, Wars, xiv, chap. 8:9). A few years more, and hundreds of crosses bore Jewish mangled bodies within sight of Jerusalem. And still have these wanderers seemed to bear, from century to century, and from land to land, that burden of blood; and still does it seem to weigh 'on us and on our children'."

6. "We Have no King but Caesar."--"With this cry Judaism was, in the person of its representatives, guilty of denial of G.o.d, of blasphemy, of apostasy. It committed suicide; and ever since has its dead body been carried in show from land to land, and from century to century,--to be dead and to remain dead, till He come a second time, who is the resurrection and the life."--Edersheim, vol. 2, p. 581.

7. The Underlying Cause of Pilate's Surrender to the Jewish Demands.--Pilate knew what was right but lacked the moral courage to do it. He was afraid of the Jews, and more afraid of hostile influence at Rome. He was afraid of his conscience, but more afraid of losing his official position. It was the policy of Rome to be gracious and conciliatory in dealing with the religions and social customs of conquered nations. Pontius Pilate had violated this liberal policy from the early days of his procuratorship. In utter disregard of the Hebrew antipathy against images and heathen insignia, he had the legionaries enter Jerusalem at night, carrying their eagles and standards decorated with the effigy of the emperor. To the Jews this act was a defilement of the Holy City. In vast mult.i.tudes they gathered at Caesarea, and pet.i.tioned the procurator that the standards and other images be removed from Jerusalem. For five days the people demanded and Pilate refused. He threatened a general slaughter, and was amazed to see the people offer themselves as victims of the sword rather than relinquish their demands.

Pilate had to yield (Josephus, Ant. xviii, chap. 3:1; also Wars, ii, chap. 9:2, 3). Again he gave offense in forcibly appropriating the Corban, or sacred funds of the temple, to the construction of an aqueduct for supplying Jerusalem with water from the pools of Solomon.

Antic.i.p.ating the public protest of the people, he had caused Roman soldiers to disguise themselves as Jews; and with weapons concealed to mingle with the crowds. At a given signal these a.s.sa.s.sins plied their weapons and great numbers of defenceless Jews were killed or wounded (Josephus, Ant. xviii, chap. 3:2; and Wars, ii, chap. 9:3, 4). On another occasion, Pilate had grossly offended the people by setting up in his official residence at Jerusalem, shields that had been dedicated to Tiberius, and this "less for the honor of Tiberius than for the annoyance of the Jewish people." A pet.i.tion signed by the ecclesiastical officials of the nation, and by others of influence, including four Herodian princes, was sent to the emperor, who reprimanded Pilate and directed that the shields be removed from Jerusalem to Caesarea (Philo.

De Legatione ad Caium; sec. 38).

These outrages on national feeling, and many minor acts of violence, extortion and cruelty, the Jews held against the procurator. He realized that his tenure was insecure, and he dreaded exposure. Such wrongs had he wrought that when he would have done good, he was deterred through cowardly fear of the accusing past.

8. Judas Iscariot.--Today we speak of a traitor as a "Judas" or an "Iscariot". The man who made the combined name infamous has been for ages a subject of discussion among theologians and philosophers, and in later times the light of psychological a.n.a.lysis has been turned upon him. German philosophers were among the earliest to a.s.sert that the man had been judged in unrighteousness, and that his real character was of brighter tint than that in which it had been painted. Indeed some critics hold that of all the Twelve Judas was the one most thoroughly convinced of our Lord's divinity in the flesh; and these apologists attempt to explain the betrayal as a deliberate and well-intended move to force Jesus into a position of difficulty from which He could escape only by the exercize of His powers of G.o.dship, which, up to that time, He had never used in His own behalf.

We are not the invested judges of Judas nor of any other; but we are competent to frame and hold opinions as to the actions of any. In the light of the revealed word it appears that Judas Iscariot had given himself up to the cause of Satan while ostensibly serving the Christ in an exalted capacity. Such a surrender to evil powers could be accomplished only through sin. The nature and extent of the man's transgressions through the years are not told us. He had received the testimony that Jesus was the Son of G.o.d; and in the full light of that conviction he turned against his Lord, and betrayed Him to death. Modern revelation is no less explicit than ancient in declaring that the path of sin is that of spiritual darkness leading to certain destruction. If the man who is guilty of adultery, even in his heart only, shall, unless he repents, surely forfeit the companionship of the Spirit of G.o.d, and "shall deny the faith", and so the voice of G.o.d hath affirmed (see Doc.

and Cov. 63:16), we cannot doubt that any and all forms of deadly sin shall poison the soul and, if not forsaken through true repentance, shall bring that soul to condemnation. For his trained and skilful servants, Satan will provide opportunities of service commensurate with their evil ability. Whatever the opinion of modern critics as to the good character of Judas, we have the testimony of John, who for nearly three years had been in close companionship with him, that the man was a thief (12:6); and Jesus referred to him as a devil (6:70), and as "the son of perdition" (17:12). See in this connection Doc. and Cov.

76:41-48.

That the evil proclivities of Judas Iscariot were known to Christ is evidenced by the Lord's direct statement that among the Twelve was one who was a devil; (John 6:70; compare 13:27; Luke 22:3); and furthermore that this knowledge was His when the Twelve were selected is suggested by the words of Jesus: "I know whom I have chosen", coupled with the explanation that in the choice He had made would the scriptures be fulfilled. As the sacrificial death of the Lamb of G.o.d was foreknown and foretold so the circ.u.mstances of the betrayal were foreseen. It would be contrary to both the letter and spirit of the revealed word to say that the wretched Iscariot was in the least degree deprived of freedom or agency in the course he followed to so execrable an end. His was the opportunity and privilege common to the Twelve, to live in the light of the Lord's immediate presence, and to receive from the source divine the revelation of G.o.d's purposes. Judas Iscariot was no victim of circ.u.mstances, no insensate tool guided by a superhuman power, except as he by personal volition gave himself up to Satan, and accepted a wage in the devil's employ. Had Judas been true to the right, other means than his perfidy would have operated to bring the Lamb to the slaughter. His ordination to the apostleship placed him in possession of opportunity and privilege above that of the uncalled and unordained; and with such blessed possibility of achievement in the service of G.o.d came corresponding capability to fall. A trusted and exalted officer of the government can commit acts of treachery and treason such as are impossible to the citizen who has never learned the secrets of State.

Advancement implies increased accountability, even more literally so in the affairs of G.o.d's kingdom than in the inst.i.tutions of men.

There is an apparent discrepancy between the account of Judas Iscariot's death given by Matthew (27:3-10) and that in Acts (1:16-20). According to the first, Judas hanged himself; the second states that he fell headlong, "and all his bowels gushed out." If both records be accurate, the wretched man probably hanged himself, and afterward fell, possibly through the breaking of the cord or the branch to which it was attached.

Matthew says the Jewish rulers purchased the "field of blood"; the writer of the Acts quotes Peter as saying that Judas bought the field with the money he had received from the priests. As the ground was bought with the money that had belonged to Iscariot, and as this money had never been formally taken back by the temple officials, the field bought therewith belonged technically to the estate of Judas. The variations are of importance mainly as showing independence of authorship. The accounts agree in the essential feature, that Judas died a miserable suicide.

Concerning the fate of the "sons of perdition," the Lord has given a partial but awful account through a revelation dated February 16, 1832: "Thus saith the Lord, concerning all those who know my power, and have been made partakers thereof, and suffered themselves, through the power of the devil, to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my power--They are they who are the sons of perdition, of whom I say that it had been better for them never to have been born, For they are vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of G.o.d, with the devil and his angels in eternity; Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come, Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father--having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame. These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels, And the only ones on whom the second death shall have any power.... Wherefore, he saves all except them: they shall go away into everlasting punishment, which is endless punishment, which is eternal punishment, to reign with the devil and his angels in eternity, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched, which is their torment; And the end thereof, neither the place thereof, nor their torment, no man knows. Neither was it revealed, neither is, neither will be revealed unto man, except to them who are made partakers thereof: Nevertheless I, the Lord, show it by vision unto many, but straightway shut it up again: Wherefore the end, the width, the height, the depth, and the misery thereof, they understand not, neither any man except them who are ordained unto this condemnation."-- Doc. and Cov. 76:31-37, 44-48.

FOOTNOTES:

[1249] John 18:13, 24.

[1250] Matt. 26:57; Mark 14:53; Luke 22:54.

[1251] Note 1, end of chapter.

[1252] John 18:14; compare 11:49, 50.

[1253] John 18:19-23.

[1254] The common text of John 18:22, says that the man "struck Jesus with the palm of his hand," that is to say slapped Him; such an act added humiliating insult to violence; the marginal reading of the revised version is "with a rod." There is lack of agreement on this point in the early Mss.

[1255] Note 2, end of chapter.

[1256] Matt. 26:59-61; Mark 14:55-59.