18:19. A sudden transition from one scene to another was a common device of ancient literature to keep readers in suspense, which was considered, as in modern times, a sign of good writing

John does not claim that the "high priest" mentioned here was a hierarch recognized by Rome (see 18:13-24); like other New Testament writers and Josephus, John follows the common practice of calling all prominent members of the priestly aristocracy "high priests."

18:20. Although "the rabbis initiated only selected disciples into the most difficult aspects of doctrine (e.g., the doctrine of creation or God's chariot throne), they adhered to the rule that the law was supposed to teach openly, unlike the false prophets, who taught 'in secret.'

18:21. From what we know about Jewish law, investigators had no right to compel a person to testify against himself. But even if this law existed in the time of Jesus, the religious elite, supported by Rome and acting in the interests of the people, did not bother to enforce it.

18:22—24. Violence against a prisoner was undoubtedly contrary to Jewish law. This act shows how unscrupulous and indifferent the high priest Annas was to the requirements of Jewish legality; His interest in the case was motivated by political rather than legal considerations. This detail corresponds to the depiction of high priests preserved in the texts of other minorities in Judaism who were hostile to them ("Pharisees and Essenes"). Cm. Comment. to Mk. 14:1,43. Jesus did not violate the injunction of Exod. 22:28; cf. Acts. 23:3-5.

18:25—27. On the crowing of the rooster, see comment. by 13:38.

18:28-38a Jesus before Pilate

18:28. Roman officials began receiving visitors (especially their "clients") at dawn.

The priestly aristocracy, which ruled Judea under the auspices of the Romans, could obtain an audience with the governor at a moment's notice. Collective complaints to Pilate usually had the desired effect, since the prospect of rebellion frightened him most. The praetorium was located in the old palace of Herod the Great, where the Roman prefect stayed when he came from Caesarea to Jerusalem for the holidays. And he came specifically to ensure order during the holidays, when Jerusalem was flooded with crowds of pilgrims and a riot could break out at any moment.

The fact that the meticulously observant Jews (including the religious leaders) did not enter the palace so as not to be defiled and thus deprived of the opportunity to eat the Passover is in accordance with Jewish custom. But the possible contradiction of the other Gospels on this issue has led to serious controversy over the dating of the Passover described in this Gospel. According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus has already had the Passover meal with His disciples, whereas in John's the priests are not going to eat the Passover lamb until the next day.

Of the many explanations for this seeming contradiction, the following seem to be the most preferable: (1) Different religious groups used different calendars and did not celebrate Easter on the same day. The controversial determination of the beginning of the month (which was tied to the first appearance of the young moon in the sky) could also affect the timing of the Easter meal. Some scholars believe that Jesus' disciples celebrated the Passover a day earlier, and therefore their Passover lamb was not slain in the temple. (2) Either in John or in the writers of the other Gospels (but most likely in John) the Passover has a symbolic meaning (John emphasizes that Jesus is the Passover Lamb; cf. 19:14-36). Later Jewish tradition also reports that Jesus was crucified at Passover, but this information is based on an approximate date given in early tradition. Another hypothesis is that John uses the term "Passover" to refer to the Feast of Unleavened Bread immediately following it, and although it has become customary to combine these feasts, the expression "to eat the Passover" sounds very strange if it refers to the bread that was eaten at the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

18:29. It is known that Roman officials were indeed required to go out to the Jews out of respect for their religious feelings (for the reasons why the Jews could not enter the palace, see the comment on 18:28). Before Pilate could begin to consider the case, the suspect was to be formally charged. Roman law did not provide for the participation of a prosecutor (in the modern sense of the term) in court, and the accusation was brought by private individuals, although sometimes the interested parties hired experienced "rhetoricians" to participate in the judicial debates.

18:30—32. Pilate considers this case as a violation of religious law, which should be tried in a Jewish court if the accused does not deny that he is a Jew; this was Roman practice throughout the empire (see, e.g., Acts 18:14,15). In addition, Pilate was known for not interfering in the religious affairs of the Jews; if the situation did not get out of control, there was no need for it, as long as his "patron Sejanus enjoyed influence in Rome" (see comment. to 19:12).

Although scholars debate the issue, the Romans apparently did not grant Jewish courts the power to execute the death penalty, except in cases of pagan intrusion into the inner courtyard of the temple. These courts could carry out scourging and possibly rule that someone deserved to die, but it was illegal to execute without the sanction of the Romans. All other serious crimes were dealt with by the Romans, who executed persons accused of treason and who were not citizens not by stoning, but by crucifixion (in fulfillment of Jesus' words about His "ascension from the earth" - 12:32, 33). (Later rabbinical sources note that the right to execute the death sentence was taken away by the Jewish courts in 70 C.E. [according to other sources, about 30 C.E.].)