and led him to Annas first, for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. Now it was Caiaphas who advised the Jews that it was expedient that one man should perish for the people. Simon Peter followed Jesus, as did another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the high priest, and entered in with Jesus into the court of the high priest; but Peter was standing at the door outside. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to her who kept the door, and brought in Peter. Then the maid who kept the door said to Peter, “Are you also one of this man’s disciples?” He said, “I am not.”
Now the servants and the officers were standing there, having made a fire of coals, for it was cold. They were warming themselves. Peter was with them, standing and warming himself.
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain On vv13, 14, 15, 17, 18 13. And led him away to Annas first. The…
13. And led him away to Annas first. The other Evangelists omit this circumstance, because it does not greatly affect the substance of the narrative; for nothing was done there that was worthy of being recorded. Perhaps the convenience of the place induced them to imprison Christ in the house of Annas, till the high priest assembled the council.
The high priest of that year. He does not mean that the office of the high priesthood was annual, as many have falsely imagined, but that Caiaphas was high priest at that time, which appears plainly from Josephus. By the injunction of the Law, this honor was perpetual, and ended only at the death of him who held it; but ambition and intestine broils gave occasion to the Roman governors to dethrone one high priest and put another in his room, at their own pleasure, either for money or for favor. Thus Vitellius deposed Caiaphas, and appointed Jonathan, the son of Annas, to be his successor.
John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv13, 15 Christ is brought before an earthly high Priest to…
Christ is brought before an earthly high Priest to be condemned for our blasphemies, that we might be acquitted of the everlasting high Priest himself.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv13–18 13 And led him away to Annas first; for…
13 And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.
Ver. 13. And led him away to Annas first] Who would not go to bed (late though it were) till he had seen Christ brought bound before him, and then cried out, likely, as Hannibal did, when he saw a pit full of man’s blood, O formosum spectaculum! Oh beautiful sight! So Stephen Gardiner would not sit down to dinner till the news came of the good bishops burnt at Oxford. Then he came out rejoicing, and saying to the Duke of Norfolk, Now let us go to dinner; but it was the last that ever he eat for it. "Shall they escape by iniquity?" No, "in anger cast them down, O God," Psa 56:7.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv13–18 That his son in law Caiaphas was the high…
That his son in law Caiaphas was the high priest that year; which we had also before, Joh 11:51, where we discoursed more largely about the disorder of the Jews, in that most corrupt time, when that place was bestowed without regard to the family of Aaron, and bought and sold, or conferred at the will of their conquerors. See Poole on "Joh 11:51".
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
William Burkitt 1703 · Public Domain On v15 All the four evangelists give us an account of…
All the four evangelists give us an account of Peter’s fall in denying his Master.
And therein we have observable, 1. The sin itself which he fell into, the denial of Christ, and this backed with an oath; he sware that he knew not the man.
Read full note →
Lord! how may the slavish fear of suffering drive the holiest and best of me to commit the foulest and worst of sins!
Observe, 2. The occasion of his fall.
1. His presumptuous confidence of his own strength and standing: Though all men forsake thee, yet will not I.
Lord! to presume upon ourselves, is the ready way to provoke thee to leave us to ourselves. If ever we stand in the day of trial, ’tis the fear of falling must enable us to stand; we soon fall, if we believe it impossible to fall.
2. His being in bad company, amongst Christ’s enemies: Peter had better have been acold by himself alone, than warming himself at a fire which was compassed in with the blasphemies of the soldiers, where his conscience, though not seared, was yet made hard.
Observe, 3. The reiteration or repetition of this sin: he denied Christ again and again; he denied him first with a lie, then with an oath and curse.
O, how dangerous is it not to resist the beginnings of sin! If we yield to one temptation, Satan will assault us with more and stronger.
Observe, 4. The heinous and aggravating circumstances of Peter’s sin.
1. From the character of his person; a disciple, an apostle, a chief apostle, yet he denies Christ.
2. From the person whom he denies: his Master, his Saviour.
3. The time when he denied him: soon after Christ had washed his feet; yea, soon after he had received the sacrament from Christ’s own hand.
How unreasonable then is their objection against coming to the Lord’s table, that some who go to it dishonour Christ as soon as they come from it!
Such examples ought not to discourage us from coming to the ordinance, but should excite and increase our watchfulness after we have been there, that out after-deportment may be suitable to the solemnity of a sacramental table.
William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On v13 We have here an account of Christ's arraignment before…
We have here an account of Christ's arraignment before the high priest, and some circumstances that occurred therein which were omitted by the other evangelists; and Peter's denying him, which the other evangelists had given the story of entire by itself, is interwoven with the other passages. The crime laid to his charge having relation to religion, the judges of the spiritual court took it to fall directly under their cognizance. Both Jews and Gentiles seized him, and so both Jews and Gentiles tried and condemned him, for he died for the sins of both. Let us go over the story in order.
I. Having seized him, they led him away to Annas first, before they brought him to the court that was sat, expecting him, in the house of Caiaphas, Joh 18:13. 1. They led him away, led him in triumph, as a trophy of their victory; led him as a lamb to the slaughter, and they led him through the sheep-gate spoken of Neh 3:1. For through that they went from the mount of Olives into Jerusalem. They hurried him away with violence, as if he had been the worst and vilest of malefactors. We had been led away of our own impetuous lusts, and led captive by Satan at his will, and, that we might be rescued, Christ was led away, led captive by Satan's agents and instruments. 2. They led him away to their masters that sent them. It was now about midnight, and one would think they should have put him in ward (Lev 24:12), should have led him to some prison, till it was a proper time to call a court; but he is hurried away immediately, not to the justices of peace, to be committed, but to the judges to be condemned; so extremely violent was the prosecution, partly because they feared a rescue, which they would thus not only leave no time for, but give a terror to; partly because they greedily thirsted after Christ's blood, as the eagle that hasteth to the prey. 3. They led him to Annas first. Probably his house lay in the way, and was convenient for them to call at to refresh themselves, and, as some think, to be paid for their service. I suppose Annas was old and infirm, and could not be present in council with the rest at that time of night, and yet earnestly desired to see the prey. To gratify him therefore with the assurance of their success, that the old man might sleep the better, and to receive his blessing for it, they produce their prisoner before him. It is sad to see those that are old and sickly, when they cannot commit sin as formerly, taking pleasure in those that do. Dr. Lightfoot thinks Annas was not present, because he had to attend early that morning in the temple, to examine the sacrifices which were that day to be offered, whether they were without blemish; if so, there was a significancy in it, that Christ, the great sacrifice, was presented to him, and sent away bound, as approved and ready for the altar. 4. This Annas was father-in-law to Caiaphas the high priest; this kindred by marriage between them comes in as a reason either why Caiaphas ordered that this piece of respect should be done to Annas, to favour him with the first sight of the prisoner, or why Annas was willing to countenance Caiaphas in a matter his heart was so much upon. Note, Acquaintance and alliance with wicked people are a great confirmation to many in their wicked ways.
Read full note →
II. Annas did not long detain them, being as willing as any of them to have the prosecution pushed on, and therefore sent him bound to Caiaphas, to his house, which was appointed for the rendezvous of the sanhedrim upon this occasion, or to the usual place in the temple where the high priest kept his court; this is mentioned, Joh 18:24. But our translators intimate in the margin that it should come in here, and, accordingly, read it there, Annas had sent him. Observe here,
1. The power of Caiaphas intimated (Joh 18:13). He was high priest that same year. The high priest's commission was during life; but there were now such frequent changes, by the Simoniacal artifices of aspiring men with the government, that it was become almost an annual office, a presage of its final period approaching; while they were undermining one another. God was overturning them all, that he might come whose right it was. Caiaphas was high priest that same year when Messiah was to be cut off, which intimates, (1.) That when a bad thing was to be done by a high priest, according to the foreknowledge of God, Providence so ordered it that a bad man should be in the chair to do it. (2.) That, when God would make it to appear what corruption there was in the heart of a bad man, he put him into a place of power, where he had temptation and opportunity to exert it. It was the ruin of Caiaphas that he was high priest that year, and so became a ringleader in the putting of Christ to death. Many a man's advancement has lost him his reputation, and he had not been dishonoured if he had not been preferred.
2. The malice of Caiaphas, which is intimated (Joh 18:14) by the repeating of what he had said some time before, that, right or wrong, guilty or innocent, it was expedient that one man should die for the people, which refers to the story Joh 11:50. This comes in here to show, (1.) What a bad man he was; this was that Caiaphas that governed himself and the church by rules of policy, in defiance of the rules of equity. (2.) What ill usage Christ was likely to meet with in his court, when his case was adjudged before it was heard, and they were already resolved what to do with him; he must die; so that his trial was a jest. Thus the enemies of Christ's gospel are resolved, true or false, to run it down. (3.) It is a testimony to the innocency of our Lord Jesus, from the mouth of one of his worst enemies, who owned that he fell a sacrifice to the public good, and that it was not just he should die, but expedient only.
3. The concurrence of Annas in the prosecution of Christ. He made himself a partaker in guilt, (1.) With the captain and officers, that without law or mercy had bound him; for he approved it by continuing him bound when he should have loosed him, he not being convicted of any crime, nor having attempted an escape. If we do not what we can to undo what others have ill done, we are accessaries ex post facto - after the fact. It was more excusable in the rude soldiers to bind him than in Annas, who should have known better, to continue him bound. (2.) With the chief priest and council that condemned him, and prosecuted him to death. This Annas was not present with them, yet thus he wished them good speed, and became a partaker of their evil deeds.
III. In the house of Caiaphas, Simon Peter began to deny his Master, Joh 18:15-18.
1. It was with much ado that Peter got into the hall where the court was sitting, an account of which we have Joh 18:15, Joh 18:16. Here we may observe,
(1.) Peter's kindness to Christ, which (though it proved no kindness) appeared in two things: - [1.] That he followed Jesus when he was led away; though at first he fled with the rest, yet afterwards he took heart a little, and followed at some distance, calling to mind the promises he had made to adhere to him, whatever it should cost him. Those that had followed Christ in the midst of his honours, and shared with him in those honours, when the people cried Hosanna to him, ought to have followed him now in the midst of his reproaches, and to have shared with him in these. Those that truly love and value Christ will follow him all weathers and all ways. [2.] When he could not get in where Jesus was in the midst of his enemies, he stood at the door without, willing to be as near him as he could, and waiting for an opportunity to get nearer. Thus when we meet with opposition in following Christ we must show our good-will. But yet this kindness of Peter's was no kindness, because he had not strength and courage enough to persevere in it, and so, as it proved, he did but run himself into a snare: and even his following Christ, considering all things, was to be blamed, because Christ, who knew him better than he knew himself, had expressly told him (Joh 13:36), Whither I go thou canst not follow me now, and had told him again and again that he would deny him; and he had lately had experience of his own weakness in forsaking him. Note, We must take heed of tempting God by running upon difficulties beyond our strength, and venturing too far in a way of suffering. If our call be clear to expose ourselves, we may hope that God will enable us to honour him; but, if it be not, we may fear that God will leave us to shame ourselves.
(2.) The other disciple's kindness to Peter, which yet, as it proved, was no kindness neither. St. John several times in this gospel speaking of himself as another disciple, many interpreters have been led by this to fancy that this other disciple here was John; and many conjectures they have how he should come to be known to the high-priest; propter generis nobilitatem - being of superior birth, saith Jerome, Epitaph. Marcel., as if he were a better gentleman born than his brother James, when they were both the sons of Zebedee the fisherman; some will tell you that he had sold his estate to the high priest, others that he supplied his family with fish, both which are very improbable. But I see no reason to think that this other disciple was John, or one of the twelve; other sheep Christ had, which were not of the fold; and this might be, as the Syriac read it, unus ex discipulis aliis - one of those other disciples that believe in Christ, but resided at Jerusalem, and kept their places there; perhaps Joseph of Arimathea, or Nicodemus, known to the high priest, but not known to him to be disciples of Christ. Note, As there are many who seem disciples and are not so, so there are many who are disciples and seem not so. There are good people hid in courts, even in Nero's, as well as hid in crowds. We must not conclude a man to be no friend to Christ merely because he has acquaintance and conversation with those that were his known enemies. Now, [1.] This other disciple, whoever he was, showed a respect to Peter, in introducing him, not only to gratify his curiosity and affection, but to give him an opportunity of being serviceable to his Master upon his trial, if there were occasion. Those that have a real kindness for Christ and his ways, though their temper may be reserved and their circumstances may lead them to be cautious and retired, yet, if their faith be sincere, they will discover, when they are called to it, which way their inclination lies, by being ready to do a professed disciple a good turn. Peter perhaps had formerly introduced this disciple into conversation with Christ, and now he requites his kindness, and is not ashamed to own him, though, it should seem, he had at this time but a poor downcast appearance. [2.] But this kindness proved no kindness, nay a great diskindness; by letting him into the high priest's hall, he let him into temptation, and the consequence was bad. Note, The courtesies of our friends often prove a snare to us, through a misguided affection.
2. Peter, having got in, was immediately assaulted with the temptation, and foiled by it, Joh 18:17. Observe here,
(1.) How slight the attack was. It was but a silly maid, of so small account that she was set to keep the door, that challenged him, and she only asked him carelessly, Art not thou one of this man's disciples? probably suspecting it by his sheepish look, and coming in timorously. We should many a time better maintain a good cause if we had a good heart on it, and could put a good face on it. Peter would have had some reason to take the alarm if Malchus had set upon him, and had said, "This is he that cut off my ear, and I will have his head for it;" but when a maid only asked him, Art not thou one of them? he might without danger have answered, And what if I am? Suppose the servants had ridiculed him, and insulted over him, upon it, those can bear but little for Christ that cannot bear this; this is but running with the footmen.
(2.) How speedy the surrender was. Without taking time to recollect himself, he suddenly answered, I am not. If he had had the boldness of the lion, he would have said, "It is my honour that I am so;" or, if he had had the wisdom of the serpent, he would have kept silence at this time, for it was an evil time. But, all his care being for his own safety, he thought he could not secure this but by a peremptory denial: I am not; he not only denies it, but even disdains it, and scorns her words.
(3.) Yet he goes further into the temptation: And the servants and officers stood there, and Peter with them Joh 18:18.
[1.] See how the servants made much of themselves; the night being cold, they made a fire in the hall, not for their masters (they were so eager in persecuting Christ that they forgot cold), but for themselves to refresh themselves. They cared not what became of Christ; all their care was to sit and warm themselves, Amo 6:6.
[2.] See how Peter herded himself with them, and made one among them. He sat and warmed himself. First, It was a fault bad enough that he did not attend his Master, and appear for him at the upper end of the hall, where he was now under examination. He might have been a witness for him, and have confronted the false witnesses that swore against him, if his Master had called him; at least, he might have been a witness to him, might have taken an exact notice of what passed, that he might relate it to the other disciples, who could none of them get in to hear the trial; he might have learned by his Master's example how to carry himself when it should come to his turn to suffer thus; yet neither his conscience nor his curiosity could bring him into the court, but he sits by, as if, like Gallio, he cared for none of these things. And yet at the same time we have reason to think his heart was as full of grief and concern as it could hold, but he had not the courage to own it. Lord, lead us not into temptation. Secondly, It was much worse that he joined himself with those that were his Master's enemies: He stood with them, and warmed himself; this was a poor excuse for joining with them. A little thing will draw those into bad company that will be drawn to it by the love of a good fire. If Peter's zeal for his Master had not frozen, but had continued in the heat it seemed to be of but a few hours before, he had not had occasion to warm himself now. Peter was much to be blamed, 1. Because he associated with these wicked men, and kept company with them. Doubtless they were diverting themselves with this night's expedition, scoffing at Christ, at what he had said, at what he had done, and triumphing in their victory over him; and what sort of entertainment would this give to Peter? If he said as they said, or by silence gave consent, he involved himself in sin; if not, he exposed himself to danger. If Peter had not so much courage as to appear publicly for his Master, yet he might have had so much devotion as to retire into a corner, and weep in secret for his Master's sufferings, and his own sin in forsaking him; if he could not have done good, he might have kept out of the way of doing hurt. It is better to abscond than appear to no purpose, or bad purpose. 2. Because he desired to be thought one of them, that he might not be suspected to be a disciple of Christ. Is this Peter? What a contradiction is this to the prayer of every good man, Gather not my soul with sinners! Saul among the prophets is not so absurd as David among the Philistines. Those that deprecate the lot of the scornful hereafter should dread the seat of the scornful now. It is ill warming ourselves with those with whom we are in danger of burning ourselves, Psa 141:4.
IV. Peter, Christ's friend, having begun to deny him, the high priest, his enemy, begins to accuse him, or rather urges him to accuse himself, Joh 18:19-21. It should seem, the first attempt was to prove him a seducer, and a teacher of false doctrine, which this evangelist relates; and, when they failed in the proof of this, then they charged him with blasphemy, which is related by the other evangelists, and therefore omitted here. Observe,
1. The articles or heads upon which Christ was examined (Joh 18:19): concerning his disciples and his doctrine. Observe,
(1.) The irregularity of the process; it was against all law and equity. They seize him as a criminal, and now that he is their prisoner they have nothing to lay to his charge; no libel, no prosecutor; but the judge himself must be the prosecutor, and the prisoner himself the witness, and, against all reason and justice, he is put on to be his own accuser.
(2.) The intention. The high priest then (oun - therefore, which seems to refer to Joh 18:14), because he had resolved that Christ must be sacrificed to their private malice under colour of the public good, examined him upon those interrogatories which would touch his life. He examined him, [1.] Concerning his disciples, that he might charge him with sedition, and represent him as dangerous to the Roman government, as well as to the Jewish church. He asked him who were his disciples - what number they were - of what country - what were their names and characters, insinuating that his scholars were designed for soldiers, and would in time become a formidable body. Some think his question concerning his disciples was, "What is now become of them all? Where are they? Why do they not appear?" upbraiding him with their cowardice in deserting him, and thus adding to the affliction of it. There was something significant in this, that Christ's calling and owning his disciples was the first thing laid to his charge, for it was for their sakes that he sanctified himself and suffered. [2.] Concerning his doctrine, that they might charge him with heresy, and bring him under the penalty of the law against false prophets, Deu 13:9, Deu 13:10. This was a matter properly cognizable in that court (Deu 17:12), therefore a prophet could not perish but at Jerusalem, where that court sat. They could not prove any false doctrine upon him; but they hoped to extort something from him which they might distort to his prejudice, and to make him an offender for some word or other, Isa 29:21. They said nothing to him concerning his miracles, by which he had done so much good, and proved his doctrine beyond contradiction, because of these they were sure they could take no hold. Thus the adversaries of Christ while they are industriously quarrelling with his truth, willfully shut their eyes against the evidences of it, and take no notice of them.
2. The appeal Christ made, in answer to these interrogatories. (1.) As to his disciples, he said nothing, because it was an impertinent question; if his doctrine was sound and good, his having disciples to whom to communicate it was no more than what was practised and allowed by their own doctors. If Caiaphas, in asking him concerning his disciples, designed to ensnare them, and bring them into trouble, it was in kindness to them that Christ said nothing of them, for he had said, Let these go their way. If he meant to upbraid him with their cowardice, no wonder that he said nothing, for
Rudet haec opprobria nobis,
Et dici potuisse, et non potuisse refelli -
Shame attaches when charges are exhibited that cannot be refuted:
he would say nothing to condemn them, and could say nothing to justify them. (2.) As to his doctrine, he said nothing in particular, but in general referred himself to those that heard him, being not only made manifest to God, but made manifest also in their consciences, Joh 18:20, Joh 18:21.
[1.] He tacitly charges his judges with illegal proceedings. He does not indeed speak evil of the rulers of the people, nor say now to these princes, You are wicked; but he appeals to the settled rules of their own court, whether they dealt fairly by him. Do you indeed judge righteously? Psa 58:1. So here, Why ask you me? Which implies two absurdities in judgment: First, "Why ask you me now concerning my doctrine, when you have already condemned it?" They had made an order of court for excommunicating all that owned him (Joh 9:22), had issued out a proclamation for apprehending him; and now they come to ask what his doctrine is! Thus was he condemned, as his doctrine and cause commonly are, unheard. Secondly, "Why ask you me? Must I accuse myself, when you have no evidence against me?"
[2.] He insists upon his fair and open dealing with them in the publication of his doctrine, and justifies himself with this. The crime which the sanhedrim by the law was to enquire after was the clandestine spreading of dangerous doctrines, enticing secretly, Deu 13:6. As to this, therefore, Christ clears himself very fully. First, As to the manner of his preaching. He spoke openly, parrēsia - with freedom and plainness of speech; he did not deliver things ambiguously, as Apollo did his oracles. Those that would undermine the truth, and spread corrupt notions, seek to accomplish their purpose by sly insinuation, putting queries, starting difficulties, and asserting nothing; but Christ explained himself fully, with, Verily, verily, I say unto you; his reproofs were free and bold, and his testimonies express against the corruptions of the age. Secondly, As to the persons he preached to: He spoke to the world, to all that had ears to hear, and were willing to hear him, high or low, learned or unlearned, Jew or Gentile, friend or foe. His doctrine feared not the censure of a mixed multitude; nor did he grudge the knowledge of it to any (as the masters of some rare invention commonly do), but freely communicated it, as the sun does his beams. Thirdly, As to the places he preached in. When he was in the country, he preached ordinarily in the synagogues - the places of meeting for worship, and on the sabbath-day - the time of meeting; when he came up to Jerusalem, he preached the same doctrine in the temple at the time of the solemn feasts, when the Jews from all parts assembled there; and though he often preached in private houses, and on mountains, and by the sea-side, to show that his word and worship were not to be confined to temples and synagogues, yet what he preached in private was the very same with what he delivered publicly. Note, The doctrine of Christ, purely and plainly preached, needs not be ashamed to appear in the most numerous assembly, for it carries its own strength and beauty along with it. What Christ's faithful ministers say they would be willing all the world should hear. Wisdom cries in the places of concourse, Pro 1:21; Pro 8:3; Pro 9:3. Fourthly, As to the doctrine itself. He said nothing in secret contrary to what he said in public, but only by way of repetition and explication: In secret have I said nothing; as if he had been either suspicious of the truth of it, or conscious of any ill design in it. He sought no corners, for he feared no colours, nor said any thing that he needed to be ashamed of; what he did speak in private to his disciples he ordered them to proclaim on the house-tops, Mat 10:27. God saith of himself (Isa 45:19), I have not spoken in secret; his commandment is not hidden, Deu 30:11. And the righteousness of faith speaks in like manner, Rom 10:6. Veritas nihil metuit nisi abscondi - truth fears nothing but concealment. - Tertullian.
[3.] He appeals to those that had heard him, and desires that they might be examined what doctrine he had preached, and whether it had that dangerous tendency that was surmised: "Ask those that heard me what I said unto them; some of them may be in court, or may be sent for out of their beds." He means not his friends and followers, who might be presumed to speak in his favour, but, Ask any impartial hearer; ask your own officers. Some think he pointed to them, when he said, Behold, they know what I said, referring to the report which they had made of his preaching (Joh 7:46), Never man spoke like this man. Nay, you may ask some upon the bench; for it is probable that some of them had heard him, and had been put to silence by him. Note, The doctrine of Christ may safely appeal to all that know it, and has so much right and reason on its side that those who will judge impartially cannot but witness to it.
V. While the judges were examining him, the servants that stood by were abusing him, Joh 18:22, Joh 18:23.
1. It was a base affront which one of the officers gave him; though he spoke with so much calmness and convincing evidence, this insolent fellow struck him with the palm of his hand, probably on the side of his head or face, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? as if he had behaved himself rudely to the court.
(1.) He struck him, edōke rhapisma - he gave him a blow. Some think it signifies a blow with a rod or wand, from rhabdos, or with the staff which was the badge of his office. Now the scripture was fulfilled (Isa 50:6), I gave my cheeks, eis rhapismata (so the Septuagint) to blows, the word here used. And Mic 5:1, They shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek; and the type answered (Job 16:10), They have smitten me upon the cheek reproachfully. It was unjust to strike one that neither said nor did amiss; it was insolent for a mean servant to strike one that was confessedly a person of account; it was cowardly to strike one that had his hands tied; and barbarous to strike a prisoner at the bar. Here was a breach of the peace in the face of the court, and yet the judges countenanced it. Confusion of face was our due; but Christ here took it to himself: "Upon me be the curse, the shame."
(2.) He checked him in a haughty imperious manner: Answerest thou the high priest so? As if the blessed Jesus were not good enough to speak to his master, or not wise enough to know how to speak to him, but, like a rude and ignorant prisoner, must be controlled by the jailor, and taught how to behave. Some of the ancients suggest that this officer was Malchus, who owed to Christ the healing of his ear, and the saving of his head, and yet made him this ill return. But, whoever it was, it was done to please the high priest, and to curry favour with him; for what he said implied a jealousy for the dignity of the high priest. Wicked rulers will not want wicked servants, who will help forward the affliction of those whom their masters persecute. There was a successor of this high priest that commanded the bystanders to smite Paul thus on the mouth, Act 23:2. Some think this officer took himself to be affronted by Christ's appeal to those about him concerning his doctrine, as if he would have vouched him to be a witness; and perhaps he was one of those officers that had spoken honourably of him (Joh 7:46), and, lest he should now be thought a secret friend to him, he thus appears a bitter enemy.
2. Christ bore this affront with wonderful meekness and patience (Joh 18:23): "If I have spoken evil, in what I have now said, bear witness of the evil. Observe it to the court, and let them judge of it, who are the proper judges; but if well, and as it did become me, why smitest thou me?" Christ could have answered him with a miracle of wrath, could have struck him dumb or dead, or have withered the hand that was lifted up against him. But this was the day of his patience and suffering, and he answered him with the meekness of wisdom, to teach us not to avenge ourselves, not to render railing for railing, but with the innocency of the dove to bear injuries, even when with the wisdom of the serpent, as our Saviour, we show the injustice of them, and appeal to the magistrate concerning them. Christ did not here turn the other cheek, by which it appears that that rule, Mat 5:39, is not to be understood literally; a man may possibly turn the other cheek, and yet have his heart full of malice; but, comparing Christ's precept with his pattern, we learn, (1.) That in such cases we must not be our own avengers, nor judges in our own cause. We must rather receive than give the second blow, which makes the quarrel; we are allowed to defend ourselves, but not to avenge ourselves: the magistrate (if it be necessary for the preserving of the public peace, and the restraining and terrifying of evil-doers) is to be the avenger, Rom 13:4. (2.) Our resentment of injuries done us must always be rational, and never passionate; such Christ's here was; when he suffered, he reasoned, but threatened not. He fairly expostulated with him that did him the injury, and so may we. (3.) When we are called out to suffering, we must accommodate ourselves to the inconveniences of a suffering state, with patience, and by one indignity done us be prepared to receive another, and to make the best of it.
VI. While the servants were thus abusing him, Peter was proceeding to deny him, Joh 18:25-27. It is a sad story, and none of the least of Christ's sufferings.
1. He repeated the sin the second time, Joh 18:25. While he was warming himself with the servants, as one of them, they asked him, Art not thou one of his disciples? What dost thou here among us? He, perhaps, hearing that Christ was examined about his disciples, and fearing he should be seized, or at least smitten, as his Master was, if he should own it, flatly denied it, and said, I am not.
(1.) It was his great folly to thrust himself into the temptation, by continuing in the company of those that were unsuitable for him, and that he had nothing to do with. He staid to warm himself; but those that warm themselves with evil doers grow cold towards good people and good things, and those that are fond of the devil's fire-side are in danger of the devil's fire. Peter might have stood by his Master at the bar, and have warmed himself better than here, at the fire of his Master's love, which many waters could not quench, Sol 8:6, Sol 8:7. He might there have warmed himself with zeal for his Master, and indignation at his persecutors; but he chose rather to warm with them than to warm against them. But how could one (one disciple) be warm alone? Ecc 4:11.
(2.) It was his great unhappiness that he was again assaulted by the temptation; and no other could be expected, for this was a place, this an hour, of temptation. When the judge asked Christ about his disciples, probably the servants took the hint, and challenged Peter for one of them, "Answer to thy name." See here, [1.] The subtlety of the tempter in running down one whom he saw falling, and mustering a greater force against him; not a maid now, but all the servants. Note, Yielding to one temptation invites another, and perhaps a stronger. Satan redoubles his attacks when we give ground. [2.] The danger of bad company. We commonly study to approve ourselves to those with whom we choose to associate; we value ourselves upon their good word and covet to stand right in their opinion. As we choose our people we choose our praise, and govern ourselves accordingly; we are therefore concerned to make the first choice well, and not to mingle with those whom we cannot please without displeasing God.
(3.) It was his great weakness, nay, it was his great wickedness, to yield to the temptation, and to say, I am not one of his disciples, as one ashamed of that which was his honour, and afraid of suffering for it, which would have been yet more his honour. See how the fear of man brings a snare. When Christ was admired, and caressed, and treated with respect, Peter pleased himself, and perhaps prided himself, in this, that he was a disciple of Christ, and so put in for a share in the honours done to his Master. Thus many who seem fond of the reputation of religion when it is in fashion are ashamed of the reproach of it; but we must take it for better and worse.
2. He repeated the sin the third time, Joh 18:26, Joh 18:27. Here he was attacked by one of the servants, who was kinsman to Malchus, who, when he heard Peter deny himself to be a disciple of Christ, gave him the lie with great assurance: "Did not I see thee in the garden with him? Witness my kinsman's ear." Peter then denied again, as if he knew nothing of Christ, nothing of the garden, nothing of all this matter.
(1.) This third assault of the temptation was more close than the former: before his relation to Christ was only suspected, here it is proved upon him by one that saw him with Jesus, and saw him draw his sword in his defence. Note, Those who by sin think to help themselves out of trouble do but entangle and embarrass themselves the more. Dare to be brave, for truth will out. A bird of the air may perhaps tell the matter which we seek to conceal with a lie. Notice is taken of this servant's being akin to Malchus, because this circumstan
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv13–18 And led him away to Annas first,.... Who is…
And led him away to Annas first,.... Who is elsewhere mentioned with Caiaphas as an high priest also, Luk 3:2. He was the "sagan" of the high priest; he and Caiaphas seem to have had the high priesthood alternately; and either now, because his house lay first in the way, or rather, because he was a man of age, learning, and experience, as these men usually were, that they might supply the deficiencies of the high priests, who were sometimes very weak and unlearned men (k); therefore they first lead him to him, to have his advice how to proceed, and to take him along with them to his son-in-law, where the great council was convened, and that he might use his interest and authority, in taking proper measures, in order to put Jesus to death; and especially they led him to him, for the reason here assigned;
for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas; so that he was, it is very probable, the older man: and being related to him, had an interest in him; and to whom such a sight was equally pleasing as to the high priest himself, or any of the council:
Read full note →
which was the high priest that same year; for the high priesthood was not for life, but was often changed, being bought and sold for money; See Gill on Luk 3:2; so that this clause is very properly added, though Caiaphas held it longer, or, at least, had it more years than one; for Caiaphas was high priest when John began to preach, Luk 3:2; but he now succeeded Simeon ben Camhith, who was priest the year before; as was Eleazar the son of Ananus, the year before that; and before him Ishmael ben Phabi, who were all three successively put into the priesthood by Valerius Gratus, the Roman governor; as was also Caiaphas this year, and whose name was Joseph.
(k) Misn. Yoma, c. 1. sect. 3, 6.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv13, 17 Annas had been high priest before his son-in-law Caiaphas.…
Annas had been high priest before his son-in-law Caiaphas. And though he had for some time resigned that office, yet they paid so much regard to his age and experience, that they brought Christ to Annas first. But we do not read of any thing remarkable which passed at the house of Annas; for, which reason, his being carried thither is omitted by the other evangelists. Matt. xxvi, 57; Mark xiv, 53; Luke xxii, 54.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv13, 14, 15, 17, 18 Verse 13. To Annas] This man must have had…
Verse 13. To Annas] This man must have had great authority in his nation:
1. Because he had been a long time high priest;
Read full note →
2. Because he had no less than five sons who successively enjoyed the dignity of the high priesthood; and,
3. Because his son-in-law Caiaphas was at this time in possession of that office. It is likely that Annas was chief of the Sanhedrin, and that it was to him in that office that Christ was first brought. Some think that Annas was still high priest, and that Caiaphas was only his deputy, though he did the principal part of the business, and that it as because of this that he is called high priest. But see the notes on Mt 2:4, and Lu 3:2.
That same year.] The office was now no longer during life as formerly. See Clarke on Joh 11:49.
What is related in the 24th verse, Joh 18:24, Now Annas had sent him bound to Caiaphas, comes properly in after the 13th verse. Joh 18:13 One of the Vienna MSS. adds this verse here; the later Syriac has it in the margin, and St. Cyril in the text. See the margin.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On v15 Joh 18:15-17. Simon Peter followed — See note on…
Joh 18:15-17. Simon Peter followed — See note on Mat 26:58; Luk 22:54-62; and so did another disciple — Generally supposed to have been John himself, it being the manner of this evangelist to speak of himself in the third person. Grotius however, is of opinion, that the disciple intended was not one of the twelve, but rather an inhabitant of Jerusalem; possibly, the person at whose house our Lord ate the passover. Whitby likewise thinks it was not John. “These authors found their opinion on this circumstance, that the twelve being Galileans, and men of mean station, could not any of them be so well acquainted in the high-priest’s family, as to procure admission for a friend at a time when there was so much ado there. Nevertheless the common opinion may still be adhered to. For though John was a Galilean, and a person in a mean station, there is neither impossibility nor improbability in the notion, that he might have had a relation, friend, or acquaintance in the station of a servant at the high- priest’s, who might not only give him admittance, but, at his desire, admit Peter also. Further, when we consider that John was to write a history of Christ’s life, it will appear extremely proper that, in the course of providence, he should have an opportunity afforded him of being an eye- witness of our Lord’s trial before the council.” — Macknight. That disciple was known unto the high-priest, and therefore was admitted into the palace, without any objection or impediment. But Peter stood at the door without — Having no interest or acquaintance in the high-priest’s house. Then went out that other disciple — Namely, out of the inner room, into which Jesus had been carried in order to his examination; and spake unto her that kept the door — Desiring her to open it, and admit Peter, whom he brought in. Then saith the damsel unto Peter, Art not thou also — As well as the other; one of this man’s disciples — Of Peter’s sundry denials of Christ, and of the manner in which the accounts given thereof by the different evangelists may be reconciled, see the notes on Mat 26:69-75; Mar 14:66-72; Luk 22:54-62.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv13–15 To Annas first - Probably his house was nearest…
To Annas first - Probably his house was nearest to them, and he had great authority and influence in the Jewish nation. He had been himself a long time high priest; he had had five sons who had successively enjoyed the office of high priest, and that office was now filled by his son-in-law. It was of importance, therefore, to obtain his sanction and counsel in their work of evil.
That same year - Joh 11:49.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv13, 15, 17 Some are of opinion that Annas and Caiphas both…
Some are of opinion that Annas and Caiphas both dwelt in the same house. (Bible de Vence)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv13–18 And led him away--"In that hour," says Matthew (Mat…
And led him away--"In that hour," says Matthew (Mat 26:55-56), and probably now, on the way to judgment, when the crowds were pressing upon Him, "said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief, with swords and staves, for to take Me"--expressive of the indignity which He felt to be thus done to Him--"I sat daily with you in the temple, and ye laid no hold on Me. But this" (adds Luk 22:53) "is your hour and the power of darkness." Matthew continues--"But all this was done that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook Him and fled" (Mat 26:56) --thus fulfilling His prediction (Mar 14:27; Joh 16:32).
JESUS BEFORE ANNAS AND CAIAPHAS--FALL OF PETER. (Joh 18:13-27)
Read full note →
And led him away to Annas first--(See on Luk 3:2, and Mat 26:57). (Also see on Mar 14:53.)
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv13, 14, 15, 16, 18 § 133.—JESUS BEFORE ANNAS AND CAIAPHAS, AND THRICE DENIED…
§ 133.—JESUS BEFORE ANNAS AND CAIAPHAS, AND THRICE DENIED BY PETER, Joh_18:13-27.
Mat_26:57-75; Mar_14:53-72; Luk_22:54-62.
Read full note →
13. To Annas first—This Annas is mentioned in Luk_3:2 as being high priest, together with Caiaphas, at the opening of John the Baptist’s ministry, his name occupying the prior place to that of his colleague. He is pronounced by Josephus as the most fortunate man of his time in Judea; for he was high priest himself for fourteen years, having been so appointed by Cyrenius as far back as the taxing mentioned by Luke before our Saviour’s birth; and he had four sons who filled that office, besides his son-in-law Caiaphas. His venerable age, his great abilities, his ancient title to the priesthood, rendered him perhaps the most important Jew in the capital.
The people, animated by a strong national feeling, doubtless regarded him as the permanent high priest. Both Herod and the Romans had capriciously changed the high priest, so that it had almost become an annual office. It is probable that he was the prime mover in the crucifixion of Jesus, and that in this, as in many other measures, Caiaphas was but the organ of his decisions.
High Priest that same year—In apparent contrast with Annas, who was popularly held as the permanent rightful high priest.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv13–18 13. to Annas first] Whether Annas was ‘chief’ of…
13. to Annas first] Whether Annas was ‘chief’ of the priests (2Ki_25:18), or president, or vice-president, of the Sanhedrin, we have no information. Certainly he was one of the most influential members of the hierarchy, as is shewn by his securing the high-priesthood for no less than five of his sons as well as for his son-in-law Caiaphas, after he had been deposed himself. He held office a.d. 7–14, his son Eleazar a.d. 16, Joseph Caiaphas a.d. 18–36; after him four sons of Annas held the office, the last of whom, another Annas (a.d. 62), put to death S. James, the first bishop of Jerusalem. The high-priests at this time were often mere nominees of the civil power, and were changed with a rapidity which must have scandalised serious Jews. There were probably five or six deposed high-priests in the Sanhedrin which tried our Lord (see on Luk_3:2). Other forms of the name Annas are Ananias, Ananus, and Hanan.
for he was father-in-law] And therefore Caiaphas would be sure to respect the results of a preliminary examination conducted by him. Possibly the chief priests thought that Annas was a safer man than Caiaphas, and the father-in-law having taken the lead which they wanted the high-priest would be compelled to follow. This examination before Annas is given us by S. John only, who tacitly corrects the impression that the examination before Caiaphas was the only one.
Read full note →
that same year] Omit ‘same’ and see on Joh_11:49. Comp. Joh_20:19 and Mar_4:35, where ‘same’ is improperly inserted, as here.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv13, 15, 16, 17, 18 (13, 14) And led him away to Annas first.—Comp.…
(13, 14) And led him away to Annas first.—Comp. for account of Annas Note on Luk_3:2, and Act_4:6. This trial before Annas was probably a preliminary investigation, distinct from the formal trial before Caiaphas, narrated in the earlier Gospels. (Comp. Joh_18:19; Joh_18:24.)
For he was father in law to Caiaphas.—The personal relationship between Annas and Caiaphas had led to a closeness of connection in official duties, which makes it difficult, with our partial knowledge of the circumstances, to trace the position taken by each in the trial of our Lord. This remark of St. John’s suggests that Annas may have occupied part of the high priest’s palace. He had been high priest. He is called high priest in the following year (Act_4:6). His age would have given him authority in the Sanhedrin, which Caiaphas himself is not likely to have questioned, and he may have been President of the Sanhedrin or Father of the Beth Din (House of Judgment), Whether officially, or personally, or both, he was, from the Jewish point of view, a person whose counsel and influence were of the utmost importance, and to him they bring Jesus for this doctrinal investigation (Joh_18:19); while it is necessary that He should be sent to the legal high priest for official trial in the presence of the Sanhedrin (Joh_18:24), before being handed over to the civil power (Joh_18:28). It does not follow that the high priest (Caiaphas) was not present at this investigation; but it was altogether of an informal character.
Read full note →
Which was the high priest that same year.—On this clause, and the whole of the following verse, comp. Notes on Joh_11:49-52. The prophecy is quoted now that its fulfilment is close at hand, and that the act of Caiaphas is about to lead to it.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv15–18 Now. After the first dispersion of all the disciples,…
Now. After the first dispersion of all the disciples, two of them gathered up their courage. Simon Peter was following Jesus "afar off" (say all the synoptists), "even up to" ewv , the court of the high priest" (say Matthew and Mark). The account of Matthew implies that, having come up to the door, he went esw , and sat down to see the end; he does not say how he was admitted, though, by the use of the two prepositions, he implies there was a cause. And also another disciple: but that disciple was known to the high priest, and therefore to the officials, and went fix with Jesus into (eiv thn , right within) the court of the high priest; for he was well known to be, and from the first did not pretend to be anything else than, one of the disciples of Jesus. From the known habit of the evangelist in other places, the vast majority of commentators at once conclude (see Introduction, p. 54) that the writer designates himself by this reference. Godet and Watkins are disposed to question it, and imagine that it may have been the author"s brother James. With the absence of the article before allov , the matter is left in doubt. But by this supposition much of the justification is lost, which the writer of the Gospel quietly supplies, touching his own ability to describe what otherwise would never have entered into the evangelic narrative. The supposition we have made above, that Annas and Caiaphas occupied the same palace, or different portions of the same edifice, solves the chief difficulty. Annas held his preliminary unofficial inquiry in his department of the building. The difficult question arises whether Annas was assisted or not by the reigning "high priest" in conducting this examination (see Ver. 19).
Vers. 15-18, 25-27. The three denials of Peter.
Read full note →
After all the disciples had fled, some, like John and Peter, returned to the scene of our Lord"s last trials. This fact must be remembered to Peter"s credit.
I THE HISTORICAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF PETER"S FALL.
1. The first circumstance was his introduction into the court of the high priest by John. This brought him into dangerous association with Christ"s enemies.
2. The second was his recognition by those who had seen him in the garden at the time of our Lords arrest.
3. The third was his Galilaean accent.
4. The fourth was the injury he had done with the sword to Malchus. There was thus a combination of fear and presumption in his presence among Christ"s enemies.
II PETER"S FALL The denial of Christ was:
1. A serious crime, regarded by itself and its repetition, and in the light of the warning that preceded it, and the oaths and the curses that followed it. It was a crime full of ingratitude, cowardice, and lies.
2. Mark the peculiarity of this crime.
(1) Consider it in the light of Peter"s calling.
(a) He was an apostle, a chosen "fisher of men.
(b) He was admitted to the closest intimacy with our blessed Lord, and honored with his deepest confidence and affection. He might well say, To whom shall we go but unto thee? Thou hast the words of eternal life.
(2) Consider Peter"s crime in the light of his circumstances, and his transgression is somewhat extenuated.
(a) He had passed the previous night in watching. He was nervous and excited from the want of sleep, as well as from the prospect of losing the best of Masters.
(b) He was deserted by the other apostles, who were scattered everywhere. Peter"s courage was of that character that rises when the danger is to be encountered with surrounding circumstances of sympathy.
(c) The personal help of Jesus was, besides, now suddenly withdrawn.
(d) His attack upon Malchus weakened his courage. When a man does a wrong thing or takes up a wrong position, he is from that moment a weaker man.
(e) He did not yet comprehend the necessity of Christ"s death. "Far be it from thee." He was not, therefore, himself in a position to die.
(3) Consider Peter"s crime in the light of his character, and it is easily explained. He was
(a) confident and zealous, but
(b) wanting in firmness and resolution. His character was a curious mixture of courage and fear.
III PETER ROUSED FROM THE SLUMBER OF HIS CONSCIENCE. The crowing of the cock, and our Lord"s look, awakened him to his true state. The look had a penetrative force in his soul.
1. It was a look of lasting remembrance. "Did I not tell thee that thou wouldst deny me?
2. It was a look of inward sorrow. "Is this thy sympathy f or thy Friend?
3. It was a look of blessed consolation. "I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not.
4. It was a look that, perhaps, gave a timely hint to the apostle to depart at once from the scene of danger.
IV THE EFFECTS OF PETER"S FALL.
1. He went out, and wept bitterly.
a. Solitude was the only resource after such a crisis.
b. The flow of penitential tears, so honoring to Jesus, would be refreshing to the apostle.
2. His fall made him humble and sympathizing and consolatory in his relations with the Church. His Epistles contain traces of the effects of his fall and his restoration.
Vers. 15-17. Ardent affection and timorous falsehood.
The inconsistency of which human nature is capable is proverbial. In the conduct of Peter we have a very striking instance of this characteristic quality of man. In Peter we have extremes meeting. None of Christ"s disciples showed a quicker and clearer appreciation of the Master"s claims; none showed a more fervent attachment to the Master himself. Yet, strange to say, Peter was conspicuous above the rest for his faint-heartedness in the time of trial and of danger. The two dispositions are equally apparent upon occasion of the incident recorded in this passage.
I ARDENT AFFECTION. The sincerity and strength of Peter"s love for Jesus cannot be questioned.
1. It was this which had impelled him to draw the sword in his Master"s defense.
2. It was this which impelled him to follow Jesus when his colleagues and companions had fled.
3. It was this which urged him to accompany John without having the guarantee of safety which John possessed.
4. It was this which led him to dare the risk attaching to the neighborhood of the court and high priest"s dwelling. No motive save the pure motive of affection could have induced Peter to act as he did.
II TIMOROUS FALSEHOOD.
1. This was apparently upon a slight occasion and inappreciable danger. The charge brought by a maid who kept the door was enough to throw off his guard the boldest and chief of the apostles.
2. It was in contrast with his previous confessions. None of the twelve had been more forward to apprehend and to acknowledge the claims of Jesus to Messiahship and to Divinity than had Peter.
3. It was a poor recompense for the distinguishing favor which had been shown to Peter in common with two other of the twelve. He who had been on the mount and in the garden with Jesus now denied him.
4. It was the occasion of bitter remorse and true repentance on the part of the offender against conscience and against Christ.
5. It became a recollection, which in his after-ministry stimulated Peter to watchfulness and to prayer.
LESSON. The narrative is a warning against relying too much upon religious feeling. Peter felt deeply and warmly towards Christ; yet he fell. Many Christians think that they are secure because the gospel touches their emotions. The counsel of Jesus himself must not be forgotten: "Watch and pray, lest ye enter into temptation! T.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
B. W. Johnson 1891 · Public Domain On v15 15–27. For the trial of Jesus before Caiaphas and…
15–27. For the trial of Jesus before Caiaphas and the denial of Peter, see notes on Matt. 26:57–75. Compare Mark 14:53–72; Luke 22:54–71.
B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.
William B. Godbey 1900 · Public Domain On v13 Mat 26:57-75; Mar 14:53-72; Luk 22:54-62;Joh 18:13-27. “And they…
ARRAIGNMENT OF JESUS AND DENIAL OF PETER
Mat 26:57-75; Mar 14:53-72; Luk 22:54-62;Joh 18:13-27. “And they led Him first to Annas; for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year.” It is said that there was a controversy between the Jews and Romans in reference to the high-priesthood, the latter favoring Annas and the former Caiaphas. I visited the house of Caiaphas and the judgment-hall during both my tours in Jerusalem. The presumption is, the tribunal of Annas was in the same house, as it is very large. N.B. — All the houses in Jerusalem are stone.
Read full note →
Hence their durability.
“And Caiaphas was the one counseling the Jews that it is profitable for one man to die for the people.” This is an example in which God, at least momentarily, imparted the gift of prophecy to an unconverted man, his official position giving him a prominence highly conducive to the efficacy of his prophecy.
“And Simon Peter and another disciple followed Jesus. And that disciple was known to the high priest, and entered with Jesus into the judgment-hall of the high priest.” You see here, John is speaking of himself, as he never calls his own name. Gnostos, “known,” is claimed also to convey the idea of kinship. From considerations, doubtless, of this character, Caiaphas permitted him to go along with them by the side of Jesus, the soldiers mistaking him for a Jewish priest, because of the robe with which it is said he was invested, having procured it at the house of Rabbi Amos, a friend of Jesus. Such was the affright of the other nine that they kept hidden away at a distance, Peter leaving them, and venturing to follow along with the crowd after Jesus; while, as you see, John remained with him unmolested, and of course not recognized except by Caiaphas, or he would have gotten into the same trouble which overtook Peter.
“And Peter stood at the door without. Then the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, came out, and spoke to the porter, and led in Peter. And the servants and officers having made a fire because it was cold, were standing round it, and warming themselves.” They have no chimneys to the houses in Jerusalem; but as this was April 13th, about 2 A.M., it was quite chilly, and they built a fire in the open court of the great quadrangular building, and were warming round it, while Jesus stood at the tribunal of Caiaphas in the judgment-hall.
“And Peter was standing with them warming. Then the damsel porter says to Peter, Art thou not one of the disciples of this Man? He says, I am not. And Simon Peter was standing warming; then they said, Art thou not of His disciples? He denied, and said, I am not.” Mar 14:68-70 : “And he went out into the portico, and the cock crew. And the damsel seeing him again, began to speak to those standing by, This man is one of them. And he denied it.” Joh 18:26-27 : “One of the servants of the chief priest, being a kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, says, Did I not see thee with Him in the garden? Then Peter again denied, and immediately the cock crew.” Now, see that you get this whole matter clear in reference to Peter’s denial. Remember, the building is a large quadrangular, with an open court in the center, roofless. Here, while Peter is warming by the fire, the damsel doorkeeper identifies and interrogates him. He positively denies that he is one of the disciples of the Man then on trial in the contiguous judgment- hall. Then Peter goes away from the fire, and is standing in the portico leading from the open court into the judgment-hall. There the same damsel porter again recognizes and interviews him, certifying that he is one of that Man’s disciples. Again Peter denies, with an oath (doubtless of affirmation). Now, after a few minutes, while Peter is still in the portico, the kinsman of Malchus, whose ear Peter had cut off with a sword, accuses him, very positively identifying him obviously.
Mat 26:74. “Then he began to anathematize and swear, I know not the Man. And immediately the cock crew.” The E. V. “curse and swear” is very likely to mislead the reader into the conclusion that Peter indulged in blasphemy and profanity, which is unwarranted in the original, which simply conveys the idea that he anathematized; i.e., confirmed his statement by invoking an anathema on himself, and used an oath of affirmation. The idea that he cursed and swore, after the manner of wicked people, indulging in blasphemy and profanity, is not sustained by the Greek. You must remember, however, that Jesus condemns all sorts of swearing, except the oath of affirmation administered by persons in authority, as you see He Himself responded when under oath administered by Caiaphas. Of course, Peter was guilty of falsification in a very aggravated form, augmenting it by the invocation of an anathema and by the oath of affirmation, in all probability using some trivial oath, like swearing by the temple. The solution of the matter is, Peter felt that his life was in danger, more especially when accused the third time by the kinsman of a man whose ear he had cut off. Peter’s courage was all right till Jesus made Him put up the sword and let His enemies alone; then a reaction took place, intensified by these accusations, so that he gave way to fear, and acted foolishly and wickedly, denying his Lord and confirming his denial by an oath.
Luk 22:60-62. “And immediately, he still speaking, the cock crew.” And the Lord, turning, looked on Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He said to him, Before the cock crows, thou shalt deny Me thrice. And having gone out, he wept bitterly.” Mar 14:72 : “And having gone out, he continued to weep.” The third denial was there in the portico, where the people were standing aside a little, when Jesus, turning His head, looked on him so impressively as to remind him of everything He had told him about the three denials, simultaneously breaking his heart, and inundating him with gushing penitential tears, so that he rushes out of the crowd, and, as Mark says, “continued to weep,” Mark and Luke adding their testimony that he wept bitterly. Precipitation was Peter’s great and prominent infirmity, and when manipulated by Satan a terrible stumbling- block as in the above case, when, giving way to fear, he denied his Lord; not, as E. V. would lead you to infer, indulging in blasphemous oaths, horrific to think of and especially on the part of an apostle, yet not only certifying that he knew Him not, but even confirming his repudiation by solemn imprecations and an oath of affirmation. But when sanctified by the Holy Ghost, this thunderbolt impetuosity became a mighty enginery, pre- eminently qualifying him for the apostolical seniority and leadership with which the Holy Spirit honored him on the day of Pentecost as well as subsequently. We may recognize this fact, somewhat in his favor, that he followed on, manifesting a desire to help his Lord if possible, while the other nine fled away, seeking places of safety. We are no apologists for Peter’s cowardly repudiation of his Lord, even under these trying circumstances; yet we do believe that the popular verdict against him, as a rule, is more condemnatory than he deserves. His unworthy conduct, however, demonstrates the crying necessity of the second work of grace. After his Pentecostal baptism, we see him serving as apostolical speaker, facing the combined authorities of Church and State, preaching all day, and spending the ensuing night in jail. From that notable hour, on Sunday morning, when the Holy Ghost and fire descended on them from heaven, till he was nailed to the cross on the Campus Martius in Rome, he was never known to flicker an iota, amid the combined antagonism of earth and hell. He truly lived a hero and died a martyr.
William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Alexander MacLaren 1905 · Public Domain On v15 Joh 18:15 - Joh 18:27.
John
JESUS BEFORE CAIAPHAS
Read full note →
Joh 18:15 - Joh 18:27.
The last verses of the preceding passage belong properly to this one, for they tell us that Jesus was ‘first’ brought before Annas, a fact which we owe to John only. Annas himself and his five sons held the high-priesthood in succession. To the sons has to be added Caiaphas, who, as we learn from John only, was Annas’ son-in-law, and so one of the family party. That Jesus should have been taken to him, though he held no office at the time, shows who pulled the strings in the Sanhedrim. The reference to Caiaphas in Joh 18:14 seems intended to suggest what sort of a trial might be expected, presided over by such a man. But Joh 18:15 tells us that Jesus entered in, accompanied by ‘another disciple,’ ‘to the court,’ not, as we should have expected, of Annas, but ‘of the high priest,’ who, by the testimony of Joh 18:13, can be no one but Caiaphas. How came that about? Apparently, because Annas had apartments in the high-priest’s official residence. As he obviously exercised the influence through his sons and son-in-law, who successively held the office, it was very natural that he should be a fixture in the palace.
What John’s connection was with this veteran intriguer {assuming that John was that ‘other disciple’} we do not know. Probably it was some family bond that united two such antipathetic natures. At all events, the Apostle’s acquaintance with the judge so far condoned his discipleship to the criminal, that the doors of the audience chamber were open to him, though he was known as ‘one of them.’
So he and poor Peter were parted, and the latter left shivering outside in the grey of the morning. John had not missed him at first, for he would be too much absorbed in watching Jesus to have thoughts to spare for Peter, and would conclude that he was following him; but, when he did miss him, like a brave man he ran the risk of being observed, and went for him. The sharp-witted porteress, whose business it was to judge applicants for entrance by a quick glance, at once inferred that Peter ‘also’ was one of this man’s disciples. Her ‘also’ shows that she knew John to be one; and her ‘this man’ shows that either she did not know Jesus’ name, or thought Him too far beneath her to be named by her! The time during which Peter had been left outside alone, repenting now of, and alarmed for what might happen to him on account of, his ill-aimed blow at Malchus, and feeling the nipping cold, had taken all his courage out of him. The one thing he wished was to slip in unnoticed, and so the first denial came to his lips as rashly as many another word had come in old days. He does not seem to have remained with John, who probably went up to the upper end of the hall, where the examination was going on, while Peter, not having the entree and very much terrified as well as miserable, stayed at the lower end, where the understrappers were making themselves comfortable round a charcoal fire, and paying no attention to the proceedings at the other end. He seemed to be as indifferent as they were, and to be intent only on getting himself warmed. But what surges of emotion would be tossing in his heart, which yet he was trying to hide under the mask of being an unconcerned spectator, like the others!
The examination of our Lord was conducted by ‘the high priest,’ by which title John must mean Caiaphas, as he has just emphatically noted that he then filled the office. But how is that to be reconciled with the statement that Jesus was taken to Annas? Apparently by supposing that, though Annas was present, Caiaphas was spokesman. But did not a formal trial before Caiaphas follow, and does not John tell us {Joh 18:24} that, after the first examination, Annas sent Jesus bound to Caiaphas? Yes. And are these things compatible with this account of an examination conducted by the latter? Yes, if we remember that flagrant wresting of justice marked the whole proceedings. The condemnation of Jesus was a judicial murder, in which the highest court of the Jews ‘decreed iniquity by a law’; and it was of a piece with all the rest that he, who was to pose as an impartial judge presently, should, in the spirit of a partisan, conduct this preliminary inquiry. Observe that no sentence was pronounced in the case at this stage. This was not a court at all. What was it? An attempt to entrap the prisoner into admissions which might be used against Him in the court to be held presently. The rulers had Jesus in their hands, and they did not know what to do with Him now that they had Him. They were at a loss to know what His indictment was to be. To kill Him was the only thing on which they had made up their minds; the pretext had yet to be found, and so they tried to get Him to say something which would serve their purpose.
‘The high priest therefore asked Jesus of His disciples, and of His teaching’! If they did not know about either, why had they arrested Him? Cunning outwits itself, and falls into the pit it digs for the innocent. Jesus passed by the question as to His disciples unnoticed, and by His calm answer as to His teaching showed that He saw the snare. He reduced Caiaphas and Annas to perpetrating plain injustice, or to letting Him go free. Elementary fair play to a prisoner prescribes that he should be accused of some crime by some one, and not that he should furnish his judges with materials for his own indictment. ‘Why askest thou Me? ask them that have heard Me,’ is unanswerable, except by such an answer as the officious ‘servant’ gave-a blow and a violent speech. But Christ’s words reach far beyond the momentary purpose; they contain a wide truth. His teaching loves the daylight. There are no muttered oracles, no whispered secrets for the initiated, no double voice, one for the multitude, and another for the adepts. All is above-board, and all is spoken ‘openly to the world.’ Christianity has no cliques or coteries, nothing sectional, nothing reserved. It is for mankind, for all mankind, all for mankind. True, there are depths in it; true, the secrets which Jesus can only speak to loving ears in secret are His sweetest words, but they are ‘spoken in the ear’ that they may be ‘proclaimed on the housetops.’
The high-priest is silent, for there was nothing that he could say to so undeniable a demand, and he had no witnesses ready. How many since his day have treated Jesus as he treated Him-condemned Him or rejected Him without reason, and then looked about for reasons to justify their attitude, or even sought to make Him condemn Himself!
An unjust judge breeds insolent underlings, and if everything else fails, blows and foul words cover defeat, and treat calm assertion of right as impertinence to high-placed officials. Caiaphas degraded his own dignity more than any words of a prisoner could degrade it.
Our Lord’s answer ‘reviled not again.’ It is meek in majesty and majestic in meekness. Patient endurance is not forbidden to remonstrate with insolent injustice, if only its remonstrance bears no heat of personal anger in it. But Jesus was not so much vindicating His words to Caiaphas in saying, ‘If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil,’ as reiterating the challenge for ‘witnesses.’ He brands the injustice of Caiaphas, while meekly rebuking the brutality of his servant. Master and man were alike in smiting Him for words of which they could not prove the evil.
There was obviously nothing to be gained by further examination. No crime had been alleged, much less established; therefore Jesus ought to have been let go. But Annas treated Him as a criminal, and handed Him over ‘bound,’ to be formally tried before the man who had just been foiled in his attempt to play the inquisitor. What a hideous mockery of legal procedure! How well the pair, father-in-law and son-in-law, understood each other! What a confession of a foregone conclusion, evidence or no evidence, in shackling Jesus as a malefactor! And it was all done in the name of religion! and perhaps the couple of priests did not know that they were hypocrites, but really thought that they were ‘doing God service.’
John’s account of Peter’s denials rises to a climax of peril and of keenness of suspicion. The unnamed persons who put the second question must have had their suspicions roused by something in his manner as he stood by the glinting fire, perhaps by agitation too great to be concealed. The third question was put by a more dangerous person still, who not only recognised Peter’s features as the firelight fitfully showed them, but had a personal ground of hostility in his relationship to Malchus.
John lovingly spares telling of the oaths and curses accompanying the denials, but dares not spare the narration of the fact. It has too precious lessons of humility, of self-distrust, of the possibility of genuine love being overborne by sudden and strong temptation, to be omitted. And the sequel of the denials has yet more precious teaching, which has brought balm to many a contrite heart, conscious of having been untrue to its deepest love. For the sound of the cock-crow, and the look from the Lord as He was led away bound past the place where Peter stood, brought him back to himself, and brought tears to his eyes, which were sweet as well as bitter. On the resurrection morning the risen Lord sent the message of forgiveness and special love to the broken-hearted Apostle, when He said, ‘Go, tell My disciples and Peter,’ and on that day there was an interview of which Paul knew {1Co 15:5}, but the details of which were apparently communicated by the Apostle to none of his brethren. The denier who weeps is taken to Christ’s heart, and in sacred secrecy has His forgiveness freely given, though, before he can be restored to his public office, he must, by his threefold public avowal of love, efface his threefold denial. We may say, ‘Thou knowest that I love thee,’ even if we have said, ‘I know Him not,’ and come nearer to Jesus, by reason of the experience of His pardoning love, than we were before we fell.
Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. W. McGarvey 1914 · Public Domain On v15 J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [CXXVII. Peter Thrice…
J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [CXXVII. Peter Thrice Denies the Lord].
CXXVII. PETER THRICE DENIES THE LORD. (Court of the high priest's residence. Friday before and about dawn.) aMATT. XXVI. 58, 69-75; bMARK XIV. 54, 66-72; cLUKE XXII. 54-62; dJOHN XVIII. 15-18, 25-27.
Read full note →
a58 But d15 And Simon Peter followed Jesus [leaving Jesus in the palace of the high priest, we now turn back to the garden of Gethsemane at the time when Jesus left it under arrest, that we may follow the course of Simon Peter in his threefold denial of the Master], and i so did another disciple. [This other disciple was evidently the apostle John, who thus speaks of himself impersonally.] Now that disciple was known unto the high priest, and entered in with Jesus into the court of the high priest [John's acquaintanceship appears to have been with the household as well as with the high priest personally, for we find that it is used as a permit at the doorway. It is likely that the high priest knew John rather in a business way-- Act_4:13]; b54 And Peter had followed him afar off, aunto the court of the high priest, d16 but Peter was standing at the door without. So the other disciple, who was known unto the high priest, went out and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter. beven within, into the court of the high priest [For courts of houses see Act_12:13. John would have shown a truer kindness to Peter had he let him stay out]; d17 The maid therefore that kept the door saith unto Peter, Art thou also one of this man's disciples? He saith, I am not. aand [Peter] entered in [The doorkeeper evidently recognized John as a disciple, and was therefore suspicious of Peter. The cowardly "I am not" of Peter is a sad contrast to the strong "I am he" of Jesus], [700] d18 Now the servants and the officers were standing there, having made a fire of coals; for it was cold; and they were warming themselves: and Peter also was with them [they were gathered around a little smokeless charcoal fire], c55 And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the court, and had sat down together, Peter asat with the officers, cin the midst of them. ato see the end. [Though his faith in Christ was shaken, he still loved him enough to see what would become of him.] band he was sitting with the officers, and warming himself in the light of the fire. c56 And a69 Now bas dSimon Peter awas sitting dstanding awithout bbeneath in the court, there cometh acame unto him, ca certain bone of the maids of the high priest; 67 and seeing Peter cas he sat in the light of the fire, bwarming himself, she looked cand looking stedfastly upon him, said, bsaith, asaying, Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilaean. bthe Nazarene, even Jesus. cThis man also was with him. a70 But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest. bI neither know, nor understand what thou sayest: cWoman, I know him not. dThey said therefore unto him, Art thou also one of his disciples? He denied, and said, I am not. band he went out into the porch; and the cock crew. a71 And when he was gone out into the porch, cafter a little while another saw him, and said, Thou also art one of them. But Peter said, Man, I am not. b69 And aanother bthe maid saw him, and began again to say asaith unto them that were there, bthat stood by, This is one of them. aThis man also was with Jesus of Nazareth. b70 But a72 And again he denied bit. awith an oath, I know not the man. [Peter's second denial was of a quadruple nature. He denied to four different parties, but in such quick succession that the event is regarded as one.] 73 And after a little cafter the space of about one hour another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a [701] truth this man also was with him; for he is a Galilaean. 60 But Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. bAgain they that stood by acame and said to Peter, Of a truth thou also art one of them; bfor thou art a Galilaean. afor thy speech maketh thee known. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew. d26 One of the servants of the high priest, being a kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him? b70 But d27 Peter therefore denied again: a74 Then began he to curse and to swear, I know not the bthis aman. bof whom ye speak. 72 And straightway cimmediately, while he yet spake, bthe second time the cock crew. [Exasperated by the repeated accusations, Peter loses his temper and begins to emphasize his denial by profanity. Desire to make good his denial is now supreme in his thoughts and the Lord whom he denies is all but forgotten.] c61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered bAnd Peter called to mind the word, cof the Lord, awhich Jesus had said, bhow that he said unto him, aBefore the cock crow, btwice, cthis thou shalt deny me thrice. 62 And he went out, bAnd when he thought thereon, he wept. cbitterly. [When Peter remembered the loving tenderness of Jesus manifested when he foretold Peter's crime it formed a background against which the sin appeared in all its hideous enormity.]
[FFG 700-702]
J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On v15 Jesus Arraigned, and the Denial of Peter.
Jesus Arraigned, and the Denial of Peter.
The first denial:
Read full note →
v. 15. And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple; that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.
v. 16. But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.
v. 17. Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also one of this man’s disciples? He saith, I am not.
v. 18. And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals; for it was cold; and they warmed themselves.
And Peter stood with them, and warmed himself. As Jesus was led away from Gethsemane, all the disciples having left Him according to His prophecy, there were two of their number that stopped in their flight and turned to follow the captors of Jesus at a distance. One of these men was Simon Peter; the other is not mentioned by name, but it was very likely John himself, of whom there is other evidence that he was well acquainted with, the Temple, its appointments, its usages, and its officers. It is possible that John was related to Caiaphas. This fact gave him immediate access to the palace of the high priest. The entrance opened upon the court, around which the residence was built, and the word was often used to designate the entire palace. Though the high priest’s palace now officially belonged to Caiaphas, Hannas still had his apartments there. Peter, who was not known to the household, was not admitted to the court But John soon missed his companion, and, returning to the door, gave the janitress some assurance as to Peter’s character, and thus gained admission for him. But as Peter stepped into the circle of light shed by the fire, the doorkeeper had an opportunity to look at him closely. And, probably without any serious intention, she asked him the question: Are you also one of this man’s disciples? And smoothly and glibly the lie rolled from Peter’s lips I am not. The denial had been uttered so thoughtlessly that Peter’s conscience may have pricked him only a little, causing him to move back to some distance from the servants and guards that were assembled in the court. Nevertheless he did not leave. The fire which the house servants and the Sanhedrin ministers had kindled in the open section of the palace’s court was most pleasant on this cool spring night, and so Peter gradually edged up more closely, also for the purpose of finding out the trend of the remarks. Note: It is always foolish and often dangerous for a disciple of Christ to join the ranks of gossiping unbelievers. If one’s faith is challenged when engaged in the exercise of his duty, the defense may be swift and sure, but when one affiliates himself with his enemies, half the defense is taken away in advance.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv15, 17 Now that disciple was known to the high priest,…
Now that disciple was known to the high priest, and he entered with Jesus
You can translate this in an active form. AT: "Now the high priest knew that disciple so he was able to enter with Jesus" (See: Active or Passive)
Read full note →
So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest
You can translate this in an active form. AT: "So the other disciple, whom the high priest knew" (See: Active or Passive)
translationWords
Peter
Jesus
disciple
high priest
court
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv14–16 18:14 one man should die for the people: Caiaphas…
18:14 one man should die for the people: Caiaphas had previously made this political analysis (11:49-50). John points out the irony of this statement. Jesus’ death did not bring Israel political salvation—it brought spiritual salvation to all who believe.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.