Chapter Eighteen

1–11. The Taking of Jesus Christ by soldiers. – 12–27. Christ before Annas and Caiaphas. – 28–40. Christ before Pilate.

John 18:1. After Jesus had said this, He went out with His disciples across the Kidron valley to a place where there was a garden, into which He and His disciples entered. The Evangelist depicts the history of the taking of Christ by soldiers and the trial over Him somewhat abbreviated in comparison with the synoptic Gospels, and in other cases more fully, pointing to some details omitted by the first evangelists of these events. Thus, he reports that after the completion of His farewell discourse with the disciples the Lord went out (from the upper room where the discourse took place) “across the Kidron valley,” which the synoptists do not mention. The Kidron was a small stream that flowed through a valley located between Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives. Its name in translation from Hebrew means “black, turbid.” The Evangelist calls it a winter torrent (χείμαρρος), that is, one that had water in it only when (in winter) it rained. The place where Christ went, the Evangelist calls a garden, without giving the name of this garden (in the synoptists—“Gethsemane”).

John 18:2. Now Judas, who betrayed Him, also knew the place, because Jesus often gathered there with His disciples. The Evangelist notes that this garden as a place where Christ usually stayed during His visits to Jerusalem was well known to Judas. Thus, the Lord clearly did not want to take any measures to protect Himself from possible attack by his enemies, led by Judas: He consciously and voluntarily gives Himself up to be captured by his enemies.

John 18:3. So Judas, having received a cohort of soldiers and some officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, came there with lanterns and torches and weapons. The members of the Sanhedrin apparently succeeded in convincing Pilate of the special danger represented by the movement raised by Christ, and the procurator (see the commentary to Matt 27:2) gave them a cohort (σπεῖρα) of soldiers (a part of a cohort), to which officers of the Sanhedrin were added. Although it was light from the moon, which was shining at that time in its full phase, nevertheless the soldiers took lanterns with them in order to examine the entire garden, all its corners.

John 18:4. Then Jesus, knowing all that was to happen to Him, came forward and asked them, “Whom are you looking for? John 18:5. They answered, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus said, “I am He.” Judas, who betrayed Him, was standing with them. Christ does not wait for them to find Him, but Himself comes forward to the soldiers from the somewhat secluded place where He was praying (cf. Luke 22:41). The calmness displayed by Christ at this time the Evangelist explains by the fact that the Lord knew beforehand all that would happen to Him.

John 18:6. When Jesus said to them, “I am He,” they drew back and fell to the ground. John 18:7. Then He asked them again, “Whom are you looking for?” And they said, “Jesus of Nazareth. John 18:8. Jesus answered, “I told you that I am He; so if you are looking for Me, let these men go. John 18:9. This was to fulfill the word that He had spoken: “Of those whom You gave Me, I have not lost a single one. When the soldiers and officers of the Sanhedrin standing near Christ heard from His own lips that before them stood Jesus of Nazareth, they became frightened, drew back, and fell to the ground. Probably they were most frightened and caused the panic—the officers, Jewish men, who, of course, remembered the stories of Christ’s miracles and who could fear that Christ would treat them as the prophet Elijah once treated the soldiers who came to seize him (2 Sam 1:10). John notes that Christ requires that the soldiers not touch His disciples: so the word spoken by Him was fulfilled in the high priestly prayer (John 17:12; cf. John 6:39). The reason Christ did not want the disciples to be taken together with Him was, of course, that they were to continue His work after Him, and they were not yet ready to endure suffering.

John 18:10. Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it, struck the high priest’s slave, and cut off his right ear. The slave’s name was Malchus. John 18:11. Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword back into its sheath. Am I not to drink the cup that the Father has given Me? Repeating here the account of the synoptists about the three denials of Peter, John adds that it was the apostle Peter who did this, and that the slave’s name was Malchus (this name is not Jewish but Arabic, and probably this slave was a pagan). Christ’s remark to the apostle Peter in its first half is similar to what is in the evangelist Matthew (Matt 26:52), but its second half, although it contains a thought similar to that expressed in Matt 26:54, should remind a person who knew about Christ’s prayer in Gethsemane precisely of what Christ said at that time (Luke 22:42).

John 18:12. So the soldiers, their commander, and the Jewish officers arrested Jesus and bound Him. John 18:13. First they took Him to Annas; for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was the high priest that year. John 18:14. It was Caiaphas who had advised the Jews that it would be advantageous if one man died for the people. The evangelist Luke says that Christ was led from Gethsemane “to the high priest’s house” (Luke 22:54), the evangelist Mark—“to the high priest” (Mark 14:53) and the evangelist Matthew—“to Caiaphas the high priest” (Matt 26:57). John provides more precise information here. Not directly to Caiaphas, not to the high priest was Christ led, but to the father-in-law of the then high priest Caiaphas, Annas (according to Hebrew pronunciation—Anan). Annas himself had been high priest from the 6th to the 15th year of the Christian era and enjoyed the respect of the Sanhedrin members and especially of Caiaphas, who had set aside a special room for him in the high priestly house. Before presenting Christ to the Sanhedrin for trial, Caiaphas began to interrogate Him in the room of Annas (as is evident from the particularly persistent mention by John that the high priest at that time was Caiaphas, he evidently has in mind that throughout the interrogation by the high priest in Annas’s quarters, he is referring to Caiaphas).

John 18:15. Simon Peter and another disciple followed Jesus. Since that disciple was known to the high priest, he went with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest, John 18:16. but Peter stood outside at the gate. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out, spoke to the woman who guarded the gate, and brought Peter in. John 18:17. The woman said to Peter, “You are not also one of this Man’s disciples, are you?” He said, “I am not. John 18:18. Now the slaves and the officers had made a charcoal fire because it was cold, and they were standing and warming themselves. Peter also stood with them and was warming himself. From Christ John’s thought passes to the apostle Peter, to his denial. The synoptists depict all three denials of Peter without breaks (only the evangelist Luke says that between the second and third denial an hour passed—Luke 22:59), but John says that the first occurred immediately after Peter’s entering the courtyard of the high priest, and the second and third—after the interrogation at Annas’s place, when Christ was led to Caiaphas. With Peter came another disciple; this was, according to the explanation of the Fathers and teachers of the Church (John Chrysostom, Theodoret, Cyril of Alexandria, Ephrem), John himself, who generally avoided naming himself. Zahn sees here the designation of the apostle James, brother of John, but the proofs which he brings here are not convincing. It was this disciple who brought the apostle Peter into the courtyard, being personally acquainted with the high priest. The gate keeper knew that John was a disciple of Christ, and therefore asked the apostle Peter: “Are you also not one of this Man’s disciples?” She is expressing here her surprise at the fact that another person was found who dared to go with his teacher into apparent danger. The apostle Peter gives a negative answer to the gatekeeper’s question without thinking, without attaching importance to the question of the handmaid. Then he approaches the fire to warm himself together with slaves and servants.

John 18:19. The high priest then questioned Jesus about His disciples and about His teaching. John 18:20. Jesus answered, “I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret. John 18:21. Why do you ask Me? Ask those who heard what I said to them; they know what I said. Caiaphas wants to conduct a preliminary interrogation of Christ, but Christ refuses to give him any explanations about His teaching: His entire activity passed completely openly to all. He did not gather people for any secret meetings (from this it can be concluded that the high priest wanted to give Christ’s activity a political character).

John 18:22. When He had said this, one of the officers standing nearby struck Jesus on the face, saying, “Is this how you answer the high priest? John 18:23. Jesus answered him, “If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong. But if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike Me? One of the officers accompanying Christ, wishing to please the high priest, struck Christ on the face. This was an extremely foul deed: striking a defendant was considered inadmissible even among barbarians. But here the prophecy of the prophet Micah was fulfilled: “the ruler of Israel will be struck on the cheek” (Mic 5:1). Christ, however, does not leave the servant’s absurd deed without an answer. From this it can be concluded that Christ’s commandment about non-resistance to evil (Matt 5:39) should not be understood as literally as some understand it: Christ demands that He be punished according to law, not by arbitrary action. And if John brings this demand of Christ, expressed only on the occasion of the blow struck at Christ, it is because he wants to point to the arbitrary action shown toward Christ by the Jewish authorities and by all unbelieving Jewry in general.

John 18:24. Then Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest. The Evangelist, by reporting that Annas sent Christ to Caiaphas, apparently presupposes that Caiaphas had not yet interrogated Christ. But the expression “to Caiaphas” means “to Caiaphas’s dwelling” (cf. the expression “to you” in 1 Tim 3:14, that is, to Ephesus or “through you” in 2 Cor 1:16, that is, through Corinth). And the addition “to the high priest” at the very end of the verse (according to the Greek text) indicates that now Christ was sent to Caiaphas for a formal trial.

John 18:25. Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They asked him, “You are not also one of His disciples, are you?” He denied it and said, “I am not. John 18:26. One of the slaves of the high priest, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, “Did I not see you in the garden with Him? John 18:27. Peter then denied it again; and at that moment the cock crowed. Peter, in the meantime, continued to stand by the fire in the yard (John probably followed Christ first to Annas and then to Caiaphas). There he is subjected to new danger. The slaves, seeing an unfamiliar man, naturally supposed that he was one of Christ’s disciples, and asked him about it. Peter, having already answered this question negatively once (to the gatekeeper) and fearing that if he now gave an affirmative answer, they would accuse him of contradicting himself and would draw undesirable conclusions about him, denies Christ a second time. Finally, when one of the servants asked Peter if he had not seen him in the garden with Christ—this was Malchus’s relative—Peter had no choice but again to confirm his denial. He could suppose on the basis of the very tone of the question that by the light of torches the servant had not clearly seen his face. John ends the account of Peter’s denial with a simple indication that immediately after Peter’s denial the rooster crowed. He reports this in order to show how precisely the prophecy of Christ about Peter’s denial was fulfilled (John 13:38). Other details of this event mentioned by the synoptists he omits as known to his readers.

John 18:28. Then they took Jesus from Caiaphas to Pilate’s headquarters. It was early in the morning. They themselves did not enter the headquarters, so as to avoid ritual uncleanness and be able to eat the Passover. John reports nothing about Christ’s trial at Caiaphas’s place; his readers were sufficiently familiar with this from the synoptists. He passes directly to depicting Christ’s trial before Pilate. It was morning, that is, day had already come (cf. Luke 22:66), approximately around 6 o’clock in the morning. Christ was taken to the headquarters, that is, to the former palace of Herod the Great, where the Roman procurators usually stayed when they came to Jerusalem. From this palace, located on the western side of the city, the so-called Tower of David has survived to the present day. The Evangelist notes that the Jews did not enter the headquarters, so as to avoid becoming unclean, but to keep themselves pure for the eating of the Passover. In the house of the pagan Pilate, of course, there were leavened breads, and the Jews were obliged, on the eve of Passover, namely on the 13th of Nisan, to remove all leavened bread from their homes (Bazhenov, p. 127) as not corresponding to the purity which the Jews were obliged to maintain during Passover. But what does the expression “so that he might eat the Passover” mean here? Had the Passover not yet been celebrated? From the Synoptic Gospels it is clear that Christ had already celebrated the Passover with His disciples (see Matt 26:17 and parallel passages). How could it happen that the Jews who brought Christ to Pilate had not yet celebrated the Passover? Interpreters give various answers to this question. Some (for example, Lambert, The Passover. – Journal of Theological Studies, 1903) claim that the Jews did not have a precisely established time for celebrating the Passover, and Christ celebrated the Passover at the usual time, whereas the representatives of Judaism, guided by more precise, in their opinion, calendar calculations, observed that year the Passover a day later than the common people. Professor Khvolson (The Last Paschal Supper of Jesus Christ. – Christian Reading 1875 and 1878) adds to this that Christ acted completely correctly in celebrating the Passover on the 13th of Nisan, because in the year of Jesus Christ’s death the 14th of Nisan fell on Friday, on which the Passover lamb could not be slain because of its coinciding with the Sabbath. Therefore the slaying of the Passover lamb was postponed for all Jews to the 13th, that is, to the evening of Thursday. But the law said that the Passover lamb was to be eaten before morning and only; the time of that morning was not specified, and Christ, like many other Jews, ate the lamb on the same day it was slain, namely the 13th, whereas the representatives of Judaism found it more correct to eat the lamb on the next day, that is, the evening of the 14th. Others (particularly Zahn in recent times) try to prove that in the verse in question there is no mention of eating the Passover lamb at all. The expression “eat the Passover” supposedly means the eating of a sacrifice that was offered on the next day of the Feast of Passover, the 15th (this is the so-called “Hagiga”), and the eating of unleavened bread (Kommentar 3. Evangelium des Johannes, p. 621 and ff.). Finally, many modern interpreters (for example, Loisy, Julicher, and others) believe that John intentionally departs here from the correct chronology of the Synoptics in order to convey the idea that our Passover lamb is Christ. According to the portrayal in his Gospel, Christ dies on the day and hour when, by the law, the Passover lamb was to be slain. Of the explanations given, the first seems most plausible, according to which some Jews celebrated the Passover in the year of Christ’s death on the 13th, and others on the 14th of Nisan. Accepting this explanation, confirmed by the calculations of such an expert in Jewish archaeology as Professor Khvolson, we understand perfectly why on the day after Christ ate the Passover the members of the Sanhedrin find it possible for themselves to conduct a trial and execution of Christ, why Simon of Cyrene is only just returning from work (Mark 15:21), women are preparing spices (Luke 23:56), Joseph of Arimathea finds where to buy a burial shroud (Mark 15:46). For many the festival had not yet begun, and various shops with goods were still open. The tradition of the Christian Church also confirms the plausibility of such an explanation. For example, Saint Clement of Alexandria directly says that the Lord celebrated the Passover on the 13th of Nisan, a day earlier than the legal time (Bazhenov, p. 126). And in the Christian churches of the East in ancient times – until the end of the second century – the Passover was celebrated on the 14th of Nisan, dedicating it to the commemoration of the day of Christ’s death and, consequently, believed that Christ celebrated the Passover on the 13th of Nisan. Finally, Jewish tradition also reports that Jesus was crucified on the eve of the Passover festival (ibid., p. 135) 42. Thus we can with sufficient basis say that John determines the chronological relations more precisely here than the Synoptics, according to which the matter appears as if Christ ate the Passover on the day on which all Jews ate it.

John 18:29. Pilate went out to them and said: What accusation do you bring against this man? Yielding to the prejudice of the Jews, Pilate went out to them from the palace and stopped on the platform of the stairs that led to the palace. Although, of course, he had already been informed about Christ at the time when the members of the Sanhedrin asked him for military soldiers to seize Jesus in the garden (the account of the evangelist Matthew testifies that Pilate knew about Christ, in the story of the dream of Pilate’s wife, Matt 27:19), nevertheless, Pilate, according to the custom of Roman judicial procedure, turns to the Jews with the requirement to precisely formulate their accusation against Christ.

John 18:30. They answered him: If this man were not a criminal, we would not have handed him over to you. The Jews, however, do not want Pilate to conduct a judicial investigation on his part in a matter that they have already decided. For him, in their opinion, it should be quite sufficient that they have condemned Christ as a criminal. What remains for Pilate is only to pronounce a sentence against Him, by virtue of which He should be executed.

John 18:31. Pilate said to them: Take him yourselves and judge him according to your law. The Jews said to him: It is not allowed for us to put anyone to death, – At first Pilate maintains his judicial dignity and refuses to do what the Jews are demanding of him, that is, to pass a sentence based on their mere condemnation. If the Jews – such is his thought – do not want to recognize his right to conduct a trial, then let them judge Christ themselves. The Jews then confess that they came to Pilate in order to obtain a death sentence for Christ, since they themselves had been deprived of the right to pass such sentences (If later they did nevertheless execute the deacon Stephen under Pontius Pilate, this was done illegally, at a time of popular disturbance, see Acts 7).

John 18:32. That the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spoke to indicate the kind of death he was going to die. The persistence which the Jews displayed in their demand that Pilate specifically pronounce sentence on Christ, and on the other hand, the weakness which Pilate later showed in his dealings with the Jews, were to serve in the fulfillment of Christ’s prediction about the manner of His death (John 7:32 and ff.). If Pilate had decisively refused to judge Christ, had insisted on his first decision (verse 31), then the angry Jews would have executed Christ themselves, but would simply have stoned Him to death as a blasphemer from their point of view, and through this Christ’s prophecy would not have been fulfilled that He would be lifted up from the earth – of course, on a cross (see the commentary on John 3:14). Only with the condemnation of Christ by a Roman court was crucifixion on the cross destined for Him.

John 18:33. Then Pilate entered the praetorium again and called Jesus and said to him: Are you the king of the Jews? It seems quite incomprehensible in the Gospel of John why Pilate, after calling Jesus into the praetorium, asks Him: “Are you the king of the Jews?” But from the Gospel of Luke we learn that this question was preceded by an accusation from the Jews that He was stirring up the people, calling Himself the king of the Jews (Luke 23:2). Pilate could not, of course, fail to remember in this that he himself had given soldiers to seize Jesus. Under the influence of Jewish slanders he might have come to the thought that in the form of a religious teacher in the person of Jesus there appeared an insurrectionist against Roman rule.

John 18:34. Jesus answered: Are you asking this on your own, or have others told you about me? Christ does not answer directly to Pilate’s question, but asks him a question in return. Let Pilate say what prompted him to ask Christ whether He is the king of the Jews. Depending on the clarification of the motive by which Pilate was guided in this case, Christ’s answer to him will also depend. It would be different, of course, to answer if the question was asked from the point of view of a Roman, and different if Pilate in this case is repeating the opinion of the Jews.

John 18:35. Pilate answered: Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me. What have you done? Pilate first of all denies any connection between his question and Jewish opinions about Christ as a king. For him personally there can be no question of whether the man before him is a king or not. This poor Jesus, a man having no signs of outward royal majesty, is certainly not a king! The thought of royal dignity in such a wretched man could come to mind only to a Jew infatuated with his own religious dreams. “Am I a Jew?” asks Pilate. This means that if he asked Christ the said question, then not on his own; he only repeated what he heard from the Jews. As procurator, he is obliged to examine the complaint against Christ which the Jews have brought to him. “What have you done?” That is, by what deeds have you given the Jews cause to accuse you of designs to attain royal power?

John 18:36. Jesus answered: My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my servants would be fighting for me, so that I would not be handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here. Christ answers Pilate that he, as a representative of Roman power, need not fear the power to which Christ claims rights. Christ’s kingdom or power is not from this world or not from here. It is of heavenly origin (cf. John 3:5) and must be established on earth not by the means by which earthly kingdoms are usually founded and established: Christ has no strong supporters who could produce a political upheaval in His favor. The very handing over of Christ to the Jews could not take place without strong resistance from His adherents, if He had them in sufficient number (“now” – evidently).

John 18:37. Pilate said to him: So you are a king? Jesus answered: You say that I am a king. For this I was born and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth; everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice. Pilate understood that Christ has no intention of appearing as a claimant to the Jewish throne. But at the same time he heard that Christ still does not renounce the idea that He is a King. Therefore he asks Christ “so you are a king” (better translated: “are you still a king”). Perhaps by this question Pilate wanted to let Christ understand that it would be better for Him not to insist on His claim to some unknown kingdom which does not belong to this world... Christ answers affirmatively: “You say” (cf. Christ’s answer to Judas at the Last Supper: “You have said it” – Matt 26:25) 43. In this Christ bases His affirmative answer by expressing His self-awareness: “because (thus it should be more correctly translated the particle ὅτι, translated in the Russian text as the conjunction “that”) I am a king.” But in order to better explain to Pilate the character of His kingdom, Christ now gives a positive description of the kingdom (earlier, in verse 36, only a negative definition of Christ’s kingdom was given). Christ was born, that is, “proceeded from the Father” (John 16:28) and came into the world, that is, appeared in the world not in order by ordinary earthly means to gain power over people, but in order to testify to the truth and through this proclamation of truth gain subjects for it 44. Such subjects can be found not only among the Jews, but among all nations: everyone who has not lost the striving for truth, consequently even the pagan Pilate, can understand Christ – the proclaimer of truth. Christ in this way offered here to Pilate a hand to direct him to the true path, inviting him to become acquainted with His teaching.

John 18:38. Pilate said to him: What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews and told them: I find no case against him. Pilate clearly belonged to those Romans who had already lost their faith in the existence of truth. He was a skeptically-minded, indifferent official who was accustomed to seeing everywhere only lies, insincerity, and a complete contempt for the demands of justice. In his time bribery and corruption reigned in Rome; everyone sought only to accumulate wealth for themselves, and gave no thought to the means employed. Philosophy justified this way of acting, asserting that there is nothing certain in the world: “only this is true,” Pliny said, “that nothing is true.” For this reason Pilate does not wish to hear anything about truth. “What is truth?” That is, truth is only a dream. Is it worth struggling for it, going to one’s death? And Pilate, not expecting an answer (for what could this, in his opinion, enthusiastic dreamer say to him?—Pilate reasoned), the procurator went out to the Jews and declared to them that he had found no grounds for subjecting Jesus to punishment.

John 18:39. Now you have a custom that I should release one person for you at Passover; do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews? What should Pilate have done now? Either demand from the Jews a more detailed report about Christ’s crimes, or take Jesus under his own protection. But both seemed to him inappropriate: the first because the Jews had clearly already said all they had to say against Jesus, and the second because of the danger of an uprising of the enraged Jews. Therefore Pilate chooses a middle course: let the Jews remain in their opinion about Jesus as a criminal, but let them also satisfy the procurator’s desire—let them forgive this criminal for the feast. For they have a custom to ask every year to release one of those condemned to death by the Roman authorities. Pilate now agrees to pardon Jesus, whom he here ironically calls the King of the Jews.

John 18:40. So they cried out again, “Not this man, but Barabbas!” Now Barabbas was a robber. But the Jews did not agree to such a compromise: they demanded that Pilate release another criminal—the robber Barabbas for the feast. John here transmits the events very briefly. He says that the demand for the release of Barabbas was already a second occurrence (“again”), and he does not mention this demand earlier. Evidently he did not wish to recount in detail what had already been transmitted by the Synoptists (Mark 15:6-15; Matt 27:15-26), but he could not say nothing about the Jews’ demand regarding Barabbas: this was needed for clarifying Pilate’s further conduct. * * * Zahn points to the fact, first, that the expression ἄλλος (other) stands without an article and therefore cannot denote John himself, who uses this expression with an article when speaking of himself (John 20:2). But against this proof one can point to many ancient manuscripts in which this word is placed with an article. Second, Zahn points to the fact that in the first chapter James is not named (John 1:37). But to this one can say that John himself is not named by name there. John includes this statement of Christ because pagans, and also Jews, sometimes referring to the Synoptic Gospels, told Christians that their Teacher preached only in an obscure corner of Palestine and announced his Messiahship only before uneducated Galileans. In the Gospel of John, Christ indeed always appears with his teachings before the people’s crowd. The farewell discourse, however, does not contain any teaching. Thus the attempt of the newest critics of the sacred text (especially Spitta) to rearrange verses 12-28 of the chapter being considered appears completely unnecessary. Besides, how can the critics explain the circumstance that among the Greeks, Latins, and Copts, instead of what they consider to be the most ancient and intelligible text (and Spitta considers the text he proposes to be such, where verses 9-23, 24, 14-18, 25-28 follow after verse 13), there appeared a text which presents certain obscurities? As for Zahn’s opinion, it cannot be accepted because the expression “eat the Passover” cannot mean anything other than the eating of the Passover lamb (cf. Schürer. Üb. φαγεῖν τὸ πάσχα). One also cannot agree with the assumptions of Loisy, Jülicher, and others, because it presents the possibility that John consciously altered the chronology accepted by the Synoptists to achieve his own special purposes. Moreover, such an alteration of the accepted chronology to prove the idea that Christ is our Lamb, sacrificed for us, was completely pointless, since by the time the Gospel of John appeared this idea had already been established in the Christian Church (see 1 Cor 5:7). The expression “you said it” as an assertion is used besides the above-mentioned verse 26 of Matthew’s Gospel in verse 64 of the same chapter. The truth which Christ has in mind here is divine, spiritual, saving truth (cf. John 1:17)—true knowledge of God and the revelation given by God to humans in Christ himself (cf. John 14:6).