Глава 18

1–11. The capture of Jesus Christ by the soldiers. – 12–27. Christ before Annas and Caiaphas. – 28–40. Christ before Pilate. John 18:1. Having said this, Jesus went out with His disciples beyond the brook Kedron, where there was a garden, into which He and His disciples entered. The evangelist depicts the story of the capture of Christ by the guards and the trial of Him, partly abbreviated in comparison with the Synoptic Gospels, and in other cases in more detail, pointing out some details of these events omitted from the first evangelists. Thus, he reports that at the end of His farewell conversation with the disciples, the Lord left (from the upper room where the conversation took place) “beyond the brook Phedron,” which the weather forecasters do not mention. Kedron was a small stream that flowed through a valley located between Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives. His name translated from Hebrew means “black, muddy.” The Evangelist calls it a winter stream (χείμαρρος), i.e. having water in them only when it rained (in winter). The evangelist calls the place where Christ went a garden, without giving the name of this garden (the weather forecasters say “Gethsemane”). John 18:2. Judas, His betrayer, also knew this place, because Jesus often gathered there with His disciples. The Evangelist notes that this garden, as a place where Christ usually stopped earlier when visiting Jerusalem, was well known to Judas. Thus, the Lord clearly does not want to take any measures to protect Him from a possible attack on Him by enemies led by Judas: He consciously and voluntarily allows Himself to be captured by enemies. John 18:3. So Judas, having taken a detachment of soldiers and ministers from the chief priests and Pharisees, comes there with lanterns and lamps and weapons. The members of the Sanhedrin apparently managed to convince Pilate of the special danger posed by the movement raised by Christ, and the procurator (see comments on Matthew 27:2) gave them a detachment (σπεῖρα) of soldiers (part of the cohort), which was joined by the ministers of the Sanhedrin. Although it was light from the moon, which was then shining in full, the soldiers took lamps with them in order to look out the whole garden, all its corners. John 18:4. Jesus, knowing everything that would happen to Him, went out and said to them: Whom are you looking for? John 18:5. They answered him: Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus said to them: It is I. And Judas, His betrayer, stood with them. Christ does not wait to be found, but Himself comes out to meet the soldiers from that somewhat secluded place where He performed His prayer (cf. Luke 22:41). The evangelist explains the calmness discovered by Christ by the fact that the Lord knew in advance everything that would happen to Him. John 18:6. And when he said to them, “It is I,” they stepped back and fell to the ground. John 18:7. Again he asked them: Who are you looking for? They said: Jesus of Nazareth. John 18:8. Jesus answered: I told you that it is I; So, if you are looking for Me, leave them, let them go, John 18:9. that the word spoken by Him might be fulfilled: Of those whom You gave Me, I have not destroyed any. When the soldiers and ministers of the Sanhedrin who were close to Christ heard from His own lips that Jesus of Nazareth was standing before them, they were frightened, recoiled back and fell to the ground. Probably the most frightened and caused a kind of panic were the servants - the Jews, who, of course, remembered the stories about the miracles of Christ and who could fear that Christ would do to them, as the prophet Elijah once did to the soldiers who came to arrest him (2 Kings 1:10). John notes at the same time that Christ demands that the soldiers do not touch His disciples: thus His word spoken in the high priestly prayer was fulfilled (John 17:12; cf. John 6:39). The reason why Christ did not want the disciples to be taken with Him was, of course, that they had to continue His work after Him, and they were not yet ready to endure suffering. John 18:10. Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it, and struck the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus. John 18:11. But Jesus said to Peter, Sheathe your sword; Shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me? Repeating here the story of the weather forecasters about cutting off the ear of the bishop's slave with a sword, John adds that it was the Apostle Peter who did this and that the slave's name was Malchus (the name is not Jewish, but Arabic, and probably this slave was a pagan). The first half of Christ’s remark to the Apostle Peter is similar to that of the Evangelist Matthew (Matthew 26:52), while the second half, although it contains a thought similar to the thought expressed in Matthew 26:54, however, to a person who knew about Christ’s prayer in Gethsemane, it should have reminded exactly what Christ said at that time (Luke 22:42). John 18:12. Then the soldiers and the captain and the officers of the Jews took Jesus and bound him, John 18:13. and they took Him first to Annas, for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. John 18:14. It was Caiaphas who advised the Jews that it was better for one man to die for the people. Evangelist Luke says that Christ was led from Gethsemane “to the house of the high priest” (Luke 22:54), Evangelist Mark – “to the high priest” (Mark 14:53) and Evangelist Matthew – “to Caiaphas the high priest” (Matthew 26:57). John gives more precise information here. They did not take Christ directly to Caiaphas, not to the high priest, but to the father-in-law of the then high priest Caiaphas, Anna (in Hebrew pronunciation - Anan). Anna himself was from the 6th to the 15th year A.D. high priest and was respected by the members of the Sanhedrin and especially by Caiaphas, who assigned him a special room in the high priest's house. Before presenting Christ to the court of the Sanhedrin, Caiaphas began to interrogate Him in the premises of Annas (as can be seen from John’s particularly persistent mention that Caiaphas was the high priest at that time; he continues to refer to the high priest who interrogated Christ from Annas as Caiaphas, obviously). John 18:15. Simon Peter and another disciple followed Jesus; This disciple was known to the high priest and entered with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest. John 18:16. And Peter stood outside the doors. Then another disciple, who was known to the high priest, came out and spoke to the doorkeeper and brought Peter in. John 18:17. Then the servant servant said to Peter: “Are you not one of this Man’s disciples?” He said no. John 18:18. Meanwhile, the slaves and servants, having lit a fire because it was cold, stood and warmed themselves. Peter also stood with them and warmed himself. From Christ, John’s thought passes to the Apostle Peter, to his renunciation. Forecasters depict all three of Peter's denials without intervals (only the Evangelist Luke reports that about an hour passed between the second and third denial - Luke 22:59), but John says that the first took place immediately upon the entry of the Apostle Peter into the courtyard of the high priest, and the second and third - after the end of the interrogation by Anna, when Christ was led to Caiaphas. Another disciple also entered with Peter; it was, according to the explanation of the fathers and teachers of the Church (John Chrysostom, Theodoret, Cyril of Alexandria, Ephraim), John himself, who generally avoided calling himself by name. Tsang sees here the designation of the Apostle James, the brother of John, but the evidence he cites here is unconvincing 38. Actually, it was this disciple who brought the Apostle Peter into the courtyard, being personally acquainted with the high priest. The gatekeeper knew that John was a disciple of Christ, and therefore asked the Apostle Peter: “Are you not one of this Man’s disciples?” Here she expresses her surprise that there was another person who decided to go into obvious danger with his teacher. The Apostle Peter thoughtlessly gives a negative answer to the doorkeeper’s question, without attaching importance to the slave’s question. Then he goes to the fire to warm himself with his slaves and servants. John 18:19. The high priest asked Jesus about His disciples and about His teaching. John 18:20. Jesus answered him: I have spoken openly to the world; I always taught in the synagogue and in the temple, where the Jews always meet, and I did not say anything secretly. John 18:21. Why are you asking Me? ask those who heard what I said to them; behold, they know that I have spoken. Caiaphas wants to make a preliminary interrogation of Christ, but Christ refuses to give him any explanations about His teaching: all His activities were completely open to everyone 39 . He did not gather the people for any secret meetings 40 (from here we can conclude that the high priest wanted to give the cause of Christ a political overtones). John 18:22. When He had said this, one of the servants standing close struck Jesus on the cheek, saying, “Is this the answer you give to the high priest?” John 18:23. Jesus answered him: If I said something bad, show me what is bad; What if it’s good that you beat Me? One of the ministers who accompanied Christ, wanting to please the high priest, struck Christ on the cheek. This was an extremely heinous act: beating a defendant was considered unacceptable even among barbarians. But here the prediction of the prophet Micah was fulfilled: “they will strike the judge of Israel on the cheek with a reed” (Micah 5:1). Christ, however, does not leave the servant’s absurd act unanswered. From this we can conclude that Christ’s commandment about non-resistance to evil (Matthew 5:39) cannot be understood as literally as some understand it: Christ demands that He be punished according to the law, and not arbitrarily. And if John cites this demand of Christ, expressed only regarding the blow dealt to Christ, then by this he wants to point out the arbitrariness shown towards Christ by the Jewish authorities and all unbelieving Judaism in general. John 18:24. Annas sent Him bound to the high priest Kaiaphas. The evangelist, reporting that Annas sent Christ to Caiaphas, apparently assumes that Caiaphas has not yet interrogated Christ. But the expression “to Caiaphas” means “to the dwelling of Caiaphas” (cf. the expression “to you” in 1 Tim. 3:14, i.e. to Ephesus or “through you” in 2 Cor. 1:16, i.e. through Corinth). And the addition to the “high priest” at the very end of the verse (according to the Greek text) indicates that Christ was now sent to Caiaphas for a formal trial 41 . John 18:25. Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. Then they said to him, “Aren’t you also one of His disciples?” He denied and said: no. John 18:26. One of the high priest's servants, a relative of the one whose ear Peter cut off, said: Didn't I see you with Him in the garden? John 18:27. Peter denied again; and immediately the rooster crowed. Peter, meanwhile, continued to stand in the courtyard by the fire (John probably followed Christ first to Annas and then to Caiaphas). Here he is exposed to new danger. The servants, seeing a man unfamiliar to them, naturally assumed that he was one of the disciples of Christ, and asked him about it. Peter, having already answered this question negatively once (to the gatekeeper) and fearing that if he now gives an affirmative answer, he will be caught contradicting himself and conclusions about him that are undesirable for him will be drawn from this, renounces Christ a second time. Finally, when one of the servants asked Peter if he had seen him in the garden with Christ - it was a relative of Malchus - Peter had no choice but to reaffirm his renunciation to save himself. He might have believed, from the very tone of the question, that in the light of the torches the servant had not seen his face clearly. John ends the story of Peter's denial by simply pointing out that immediately after Peter's denial a rooster crowed. He reports this in order to show how exactly Christ’s prophecy about Peter’s denial was fulfilled (John 13:38). He omits other details of this event, indicated by weather forecasters, as known to his readers. John 18:28. They took Jesus from Caiaphas to the praetorium. It was morning; and they did not enter the praetorium, so as not to be defiled, but so that they could eat the Passover. John does not report anything about the trial of Christ at Caiaphas; readers knew enough about this from the weather forecasters. He goes straight to the depiction of the trial of Christ by Pilate. It was morning, that is. Day has already arrived (cf. Luke 22:66), approximately around 6 o'clock in the morning. Christ was taken to the praetorium, i.e. to the former palace of Herod the Great, where 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 this day. The Evangelist notes at the same time that the Jews did not enter the praetorium, so as not to become defiled, but to keep themselves pure for eating the Passover. In the house of the pagan Pilate, of course, there was sour bread, and the Jews already on the eve of Passover, precisely the 13th of Nisan, were obliged to remove everything leavened from their houses (Bazhenov, p. 127) as not corresponding to the purity that the Jews were obliged to maintain during Passover. But what does the expression “so that you can eat Easter” mean here? Hasn't the Passover been celebrated yet? From the synoptic Gospels it is clearly clear that Christ and His disciples have already celebrated Passover (see Matthew 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 different answers to this question. Some (for example, Lambert, The Passover. - Journal of Theological Studies, 1903) argue that the Jews did not have a precisely established time for celebrating Passover, and Christ celebrated Passover at the usual time, while representatives of Judaism, guided by more accurate, in their opinion, calendar calculations, celebrated Passover that year a day later than the common people. Professor Khvolson (The Last Easter Supper of Jesus Christ. - Christian reading 1875 and 1878) adds to this that Christ acted absolutely correctly by celebrating the Passover on Nisan 13, because in the year of the death of Jesus Christ, Nisan 14 coincided with Friday, on which it was impossible to slaughter the Passover lamb due to its collision with Saturday. Therefore, the slaughter of the Passover lamb was moved for all Jews to the 13th, i.e. for Thursday evening. But the law said that the Passover lamb should be eaten until the morning and nothing more; the date of this morning was not indicated, and Christ, like many other Jews, ate the lamb on the same day on which this lamb was slain, precisely the 13th, while representatives of Judaism found it more correct to eat the lamb on the next day, i.e. 14th in the evening. Others (lately especially Tsang) are trying to prove that in the verse in question there is no talk of eating the Passover lamb. The expression “eating Passover” supposedly means eating the sacrifice that was offered on the next day of Passover, the 15th (this is the so-called “Chagigah”), and eating unleavened bread (Kommentar 3. Evangelium des Johannes, S. 621 et seq.). Finally, many of the newest interpreters (for example, Loisy, Jülicher, etc.) believe that John deliberately deviates here from the correct chronology of the Synoptics in order to convey the idea that our Easter lamb is Christ. According to the depiction of his Gospel, Christ dies on the day and hour when, according to the law, the Paschal lamb was slain. Of the above explanations, the most plausible seems to be the first, according to which some Jews celebrated Passover on the 13th in the year of Christ’s death, and others on the 14th of Nisan. Accepting this explanation, confirmed by the calculations of such an expert in Jewish archeology as Professor Khvolson, we fully understand why the day after Christ ate Passover, members of the Sanhedrin find it possible for themselves to organize the trial and execution of Christ, why Simon of Cyrene is just returning from work (Mark 15:21), the wives are preparing aromatics (Luke 23:56), Joseph of Arimathea finds where to buy the shroud (Mark 15:46). For many, the holiday had not yet begun, and various shops with goods were still open. The tradition of the Christian Church also confirms the plausibility of this explanation. For example, Saint Clement of Alexandria directly says that the Lord celebrated Easter on the 13th of Nisan, a day earlier than the legal date (Bazhenov, p. 126). And in the Christian churches of the East in ancient times - until the end of the second century - Easter was celebrated on the 14th of Nisan, devoting it to the remembrance of the day of Christ's death and, therefore, it was believed that Christ celebrated the Passover on the 13th of Nisan. Finally, Jewish tradition reports that Jesus was crucified on the eve of the Passover holiday (ibid., p. 135) 42. Thus, we can say with sufficient grounds that John defines the chronological relationships here more accurately than the weather forecasters, according to whom it appears as if Christ ate the Passover on the day on which all the Jews ate it. John 18:29. Pilate came out to them and said: What do you accuse this Man of? Condescending to the prejudice of the Jews, Pilate came out of the palace to them and stopped on the landing of the stairs that led to the palace. Although, of course, he had already been informed about Christ at the time when members of the Sanhedrin asked him for a military detachment to capture Christ in the garden (that Pilate knew about Christ is also evidenced by the story of the Evangelist Matthew about the dream of Pilate’s wife, Matthew 27:19), nevertheless, Pilate, according to the custom of Roman legal proceedings, turns to the Jews with the requirement to accurately formulate his accusation against Christ. John 18:30 . They answered him: If He had not been an evildoer, we would not have delivered Him to you. The Jews, however, do not want Pilate to carry out a trial for his part in a case that they have already decided. For him, in their opinion, it should already be quite enough that they condemned Christ as a villain. Pilate can only pronounce a sentence on Him, by virtue of which He must be executed. John 18:31. Pilate said to them: Take Him, and judge Him according to your law. The Jews said to him, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death,” At first, Pilate maintains his judicial dignity and refuses to do what the Jews demanded of him, i.e. pass a sentence on the basis of an unfounded conviction. If the Jews - such is his thought - do not want to recognize his right to judge, 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 were deprived of the right to pronounce such sentences (If they subsequently executed Archdeacon Stephen under Pontius Pilate, then this was done illegally, during a time of popular unrest, see Acts 7). John 18:32. that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which He spoke, indicating by what kind of death He would die. The persistence that the Jews showed in relation to their demand that it was Pilate who would pronounce judgment on Christ, and on the other hand, the weakness that Pilate further showed in relation to the Jews, should have served to fulfill Christ’s prediction about the manner of His death (John 7:32 et seq.). If Pilate had resolutely refused to judge Christ and had insisted on his first decision (verse 31), then the irritated Jews themselves would have executed Christ, but they would have simply stoned Him as a blasphemer from their point of view, and through this the prophecy of Christ would not have been fulfilled that He would be lifted up from the earth - of course, to the cross (see comments on John 3:14, 12:32). Only with the condemnation of Christ at the Roman trial did He face crucifixion. John 18:33. Then Pilate again entered the praetorium, and called Jesus, and said to Him: Are you the King of the Jews? According to the Evangelist John, it is rather incomprehensible why Pilate, having called Jesus to 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 the accusation of Christ by the Jews that He outraged the people by calling Himself the King of the Jews (Luke 23:2). Pilate, of course, could not help but remember that he himself had sent soldiers to capture Jesus. Under the influence of Jewish slander, he could come to the idea that, under the guise of a teacher of religion in the person of Jesus, a rebel of the people spoke out against Roman rule. John 18:34. Jesus answered him: Are you saying this on your own, or have others told you about Me? Christ does not directly answer Pilate’s question, but asks him Himself. Let Pilate say what prompted him to ask Christ whether He was the King of the Jews. The answer that Christ will give him will depend on finding out the motive that guided Pilate in this case. Otherwise, of course, one must answer if the question is proposed from the point of view of a Roman, otherwise if Pilate in this case repeats the opinion of the Jews. John 18:35. Pilate answered: Am I a Jew? Your people and the chief priests delivered You up 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 king is in front of him or not. This unfortunate Jesus, a man who has no signs of external royal greatness, is certainly not a king! The thought of the royal dignity of such an unfortunate person could only occur to a Jew carried away by his religious dreams. “Am I a Jew?” - asks Pilate. This means that if he asked Christ the above question, it was not on his own behalf; he repeated only what he had heard from the Jews. As a procurator, he is obliged to examine the complaint against Christ that the Jews brought to him. “What have you done?” Those. What actions did You give the Jews a reason to accuse You of plans to achieve royal power? John 18:36. Jesus answered: My kingdom is not of this world; If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would fight for Me, so that I would not be betrayed to the Jews; but now my kingdom is not from here. Christ answers Pilate that, as a representative of the Roman authorities, the power to which Christ claims His rights does not pose a threat. The kingdom or power of Christ is not of this world or 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 does not have strong supporters who could make a political revolution in His favor. The very extradition of Christ to the Jews could not have taken place without strong resistance from His followers, if He had such in sufficient numbers (“now” - obviously). John 18:37. Pilate said to Him: So are You a King? Jesus answered: You say that I am a King. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I came into the world, to testify to the truth; everyone who is of the truth listens to My voice. Pilate realized that Christ had no intention of acting as a contender for the Jewish throne. But at the same time, he heard that Christ still did not give up the idea that He was the King. That is why he asks Christ “so You are the King” (better translated: “Still You are the King”). Perhaps with this question Pilate wanted to make it clear to Christ that it would be better for Him not to insist on His claim to some unknown kingdom that does not belong to this world... Christ answers this in the affirmative: “you say” (cf. Christ’s answer to Judas at the Last Supper: “you said” - Matt. 26:25) 43. At the same time, Christ justifies His affirmative answer by the expression of His self-awareness: “for (it is more correct to translate the particle ὅτι standing here, translated in the Russian text by the conjunction “that”) I am the Tsar.” But in order to better explain to Pilate the nature of His Kingdom, Christ now gives a positive description of the Kingdom (previously, in verse 36, only a negative definition of the Kingdom of Christ was given). Christ was born, i.e. “came forth from the Father” (John 16:28) and came into the world, i.e. He appeared in the world not in order to acquire power over people through ordinary earthly means, but in order to testify to the truth and, by this preaching of the truth, to win followers for it 44. Such subjects can be found not only among the Jews, but also among all nations: anyone who has not lost the desire for the truth, therefore, the pagan Pilate, can understand Christ, the preacher of truth. Christ thus gave Pilate his hand here to guide him on the true path, inviting him to become acquainted with His teaching. John 18:38. Pilate said to Him: What is truth? And having said this, he again went out to the Jews and said to them: I find no guilt in Him. Pilate obviously belonged to those Romans who had already lost faith in the existence of truth. He was a skeptical official, indifferent to the truth, who was accustomed to seeing everywhere only lies, insincerity and complete contempt for the demands of justice. In his time, bribery and corruption reigned in Rome, everyone tried only to make a fortune for themselves, and did not consider the means. Philosophy justified this method of action, arguing that there is nothing certain in the world: “the only thing that is true,” said Pliny, “is that there is nothing certain.” Therefore, Pilate does not want to hear anything about the truth. "What is truth?" Those. the truth is only a dream. Is it worth fighting for it, going to death? And Pilate, without waiting for an answer (for what could this, in his opinion, enthusiastic dreamer answer him? - Pilate reasoned), the procurator went to the Jews and told them that he had not found any reason to subject Jesus to punishment. John 18:39. You have a custom that I give you one for Easter; Do you want me to release the King of the Jews to you? What should Pilate do now? Either demand from the Jews a more detailed report about the crimes of Christ, or take Jesus under their protection. But both seemed inappropriate to him: the first because the Jews, obviously, had already said everything they had to say against Jesus, and the second because of the danger of indignation by the irritated Jews. Therefore, Pilate chooses a middle path: let the Jews remain with their opinion about Jesus as a criminal, but at the same time let them satisfy the wishes of the procurator and let this criminal be forgiven for the holiday. After all, they have a custom every year to ask for the release of one of the criminals convicted by the Roman authorities for the sake of Easter. Pilate now agrees to have mercy on Jesus, whom he here ironically calls the King of the Jews. John 18:40 . Then they all shouted again, saying, “Not Him, but Barabbas.” 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 holiday. John here conveys the events very briefly. So he says that the demand for the release of Barabbas was already secondary (“again”), and earlier he himself did not mention this demand. Obviously, he did not want to convey in detail what had already been conveyed by the weather forecasters (Mark 15:6–15; Matt. 27:15–26), but he could not help but say something about the demands of the Jews regarding Barabbas: this was necessary to clarify Pilate’s further behavior. Tsang refers to the fact, firstly, that the expression ἄλλος (other) is without an article and, therefore, cannot denote John himself, who uses this expression with an article about himself (John 20:2). But against this evidence one can point to many ancient manuscripts in which this word is placed with an article. Secondly, Tsang points out that in the first chapter Jacob is not named (John 1:37, 41). But to this we can say that John himself is not named there. John cites this statement of Christ because the pagans, as well as the Jews, sometimes referring to the Synoptic Gospels, told Christians that their Teacher preached only in a little-known corner of Palestine and declared His Messiahship only to the uneducated Galileans. In the Gospel of John, Christ with His speeches, indeed, always appears before the crowd. The farewell conversation does not contain teaching. Thus, the attempt of the newest critics of the sacred text (especially Spitta) to place verses 12–28 of the chapter under consideration in their own way is completely unnecessary. Moreover, how can critics explain the fact that the Greeks, Latins and Copts, instead of a supposedly ancient and understandable text (and this is what Spitta considers the text he proposes, where after the 13th verse there are verses 9–23, 24, 14–18, 25–28) there appeared one that presents some ambiguities? As for Tsan's opinion, it cannot be accepted because the expression “eating the Passover” cannot mean anything other than eating the Passover lamb (cf. Schürer. Üb. φαγεῖν τὸ πάσχα). We also cannot agree with the assumption of Loisy, Jülicher and others, because it makes it possible for John to deliberately change the chronology accepted by the weather forecasters in order to achieve his special goals. Moreover, such a change in the accepted chronology to prove the idea that Christ is our Lamb, slain 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” as a statement is used in addition to the above verse of the 26th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew in the 64th verse of the same chapter. The truth that Christ has in mind here is divine, spiritual, saving truth (cf. John 1:17, 3:11, 32), true knowledge of God and revelation, which is given from God to people in Christ himself (cf. John 14:6). You might be interested in: