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. The high priest therefore asked Jesus about his disciples and about his teaching. Jesus answered him, “I spoke openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues, and in the temple, where the Jews always meet. I said nothing in secret. Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me what I said to them. Behold, they know the things which I said.”
When he had said this, one of the officers standing by slapped Jesus with his hand, saying, “Do you answer the high priest like that?”
Jesus answered him, “If I have spoken evil, testify of the evil; but if well, why do you beat me?”
Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas, the high priest. Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said therefore to him, “You aren’t also one of his disciples, are you?” He denied it and said, “I am not.”
One of the servants of the high priest, being a relative of him whose ear Peter had cut off, said, “Didn’t I see you in the garden with him?”
Peter therefore denied it again, and immediately the rooster crowed.
They led Jesus therefore from Caiaphas into the Praetorium. It was early, and they themselves didn’t enter into the Praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover.
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain On vv13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28 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, 19, 25, 28 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 vv13–28 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, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28 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 vv15, 19, 22, 28 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 vv13, 28 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 vv13–28 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, 20, 21, 22, 24, 28 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, 19, 20, 22, 24, 27, 28 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 vv15, 19, 28 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, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28 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, 21, 24, 28 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 vv13–28 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, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28 § 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 vv13–28 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, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 (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, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28 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 vv15, 28 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.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On v28 Joh_18:28. Then led they Jesus, etc.—The Evangelist presupposes the…
EXPLANATORY AND CRITICAL NOTES
Joh_18:28. Then led they Jesus, etc.—The Evangelist presupposes the trial before the Sanhedrin, and its issue. Jesus had been condemned to death. But the Jews had no power to carry out a death sentence. They must prevail on the Roman governor, by fair means or foul, to do this for them. Hall of judgment.—Palace (πραιτώριον, prætorium), i.e. the Roman governor’s house, supposed to have been a palace built by Herod. They themselves, etc.—See Homiletic Note to Joh_13:1. How true this is to our Lord’s description of these men as “whited sepulchres” (Mat_23:27). They made clean the outside of cup and platter. Here they were afraid of an outward defilement which might pervent them participating in the passover feast. They recked nothing of the inward defilement of heart and conscience, which was evident in all these scenes. Justice, truth, righteousness, mercifulness, the weightier matters of the law, were to them as nothing.
Read full note →
Joh_18:29. Pilate then went out, etc.—In all this narrative of St. John the Synoptic account is presupposed. Pilate went out of his own palace to some convenient place where he might hold a colloquy with the Jews. He condescended so far to their prejudices. He demanded what accusation they brought against this man which would bring Him under the penalty of Roman law. For Pilate, like Gallio, would care nothing for merely religious questions (Act_18:12-17).
Joh_18:30. They answered … malefactor.—And this after His deeds of beneficence and His holy life! How far had these men yielded themselves to the power of evil!
Joh_18:31. Then said Pilate, etc.—I.e. they wished to judge, and merely permit Pilate to carry their judgment into effect. Not so, is Pilate’s answer. If this Man is judged by your tribunal, you can sentence Him according to your law and carry out the sentence. Very galling must it have been to those proud rulers thus to be reminded of the limitations of their power. But Pilate’s reply brought out their malice and envy in all its hatefulness. They had to shift their accusation from a religious to a political ground, and hypocritically to pretend that they were concerned for the majesty of the conquering Roman power (Luk_23:2).
Joh_18:32. That the saying of Jesus, etc.—He had prophesied this before it came to pass (Mar_10:33; Mat_26:2). Crucifixion was a Roman punishment. These wicked rulers thought that Jesus would thus be made a reproach both to Jews and Gentiles.
Joh_18:33. Art Thou the King of the Jews?—Pilate saw that there was something strange in this accusation. These rulers of the Jews would never have delivered up a popular leader who sought to free them from the Roman yoke; and the governor was to learn more of this King and His kingdom ere the trial was over. He saw that this charge of the Jewish Sanhedrin was a trumped-up one.
Joh_18:38. Pilate … went out again to the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in Him no fault.—This is a striking, testimony. It shows us Pilate at his best, as the Roman judge and governor, set to rule and administer justice impartially. It shows also the character of our Lord’s enemies. They knew well that there was no actual fault in Christ (Mat_26:60). It was their hatred of the truth, and the fear of losing position and influence, that made them cast aside all thought of righteousness, etc., in their treatment of Jesus. Jesus was innocent; His foes and judges admitted this. His death was not an expiation of any wrong in His life—it was an expiation for the sins of the world.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH—Joh_18:28-40
Chap. Joh_18:28 to Joh_19:22. Pilate.—Of all the strange and moving incidents in the scenes immediately preceding our Lord’s crucifixion, there is none perhaps more striking than that during which Pontius Pilate uttered these memorable words: “Behold the man!”
I. Pilate’s sincerity.—
1. They were not words of mockery or scorn; rather they were spoken with a sincere desire to influence men’s pity, and thus bring about the release of Jesus.
2. We must recognise the fact that all through those scenes of patient suffering of our Lord, Pilate was endeavouring to appease the blood-thirsty crowds, while at the same time keeping Jesus out of their grasp.
3. It is not because he was the guiltiest in this terrible transaction that his name has been handed down to execration in the creeds of Christendom. This was done merely as a record of the time of our Lord’s crucifixion.
II. His unrighteous, vacillating action.—
1. Yet with all allowance for human frailty, and remembering our Lord’s words to Pilate, “He that hath delivered Me unto thee hath the greater sin” (the Sanhedrin judged Christ on religious grounds, and they should have known better), still Pilate cannot be exonerated from complicity in this great crime. He acted the part of an unjust judge; for he declared Jesus to be innocent of any crime, and yet ordered His soldiers, at the cry of a furious mob, to lead the innocent to the basest malefactor’s death.
2. Pilate was an opportunist, a time-server; he was chained by the bonds of his own evil life and wicked deeds; so that when the hour of tria1 came he was not free to act on the side of right and truth. He had been an unjust and a cruel governor of Judæa, had made many enemies, and had already been accused of maladministration at the Imperial Court. There were continued revolts against his authority, especially as he had seriously offended the religious prejudices of the people. He knew many enemies were watching for some slip in his administration, so that they might procure his recall and punishment. Hence his vacillating conduct all through this trial.
3. He saw through the motives of Christ’s enemies, and rightly treated their quibbling accusation against Christ, about His claiming to be a king, with scorn. He eagerly seized the chance which the mention of Galilee in the Jews’ accusation gave him of getting rid of the whole matter (Luk_23:7). But when Herod in mockery sent back Jesus to him clothed in the white robe of a candidate for office, he was compelled to make up his mind one way or another.
4. His conscience was up in arms; the meek and patient bearing of Jesus, of whom he had no doubt heard, together with his hatred of the Jews, and distaste of being compelled to carry out their wishes, made him determined to release Christ. He promised to accede to the people so far; he would scourge Jesus, so as to disgrace Him and discredit any claims He might make. When this proposal was rejected, another was made—that Jesus should be delivered, or freed from custody, according to a custom prevailing then at the time of the passover. But the Jews, as if to show plainly to all men their malice, cried out for the release of one Barabbas, who had been condemned for that very crime of sedition of which they falsely accused Jesus.
5. The Jews saw their power; they knew that Pilate feared them, and his vacillating conduct at the beginning made them confident that they would prevail.
III. His great crime.—
1. Pilate therefore took his place on the judgment seat, on the tesselated pavement raised above the rest of the courtyard of the palace, or prætorium, and gave orders to the soldiers to scourge Jesus, as this was also a preliminary to crucifixion.
2. After the cruel mocking and scourging, Jesus was led forth to an elevated spot where all might see Him, and Pilate said, “Behold the man!” The governor hoped to save Jesus from crucifixion even yet. As he sat on the judgment seat, his wife, moved by a dream, sent to him, saying, “Have thou nothing to do with that just man” (Mat_27:19). Still more did he fear when the Jews accused Jesus of claiming to be the Son of God, and when Jesus Himself admitted the claim.
3. But the Jews had one more argument that proved too powerful for time-serving Pilate: “If thou let this man go, thou art not Cæsar’s friend.” The Roman sense of justice, hatred of the Jews, the clamourings of conscience, were swept away by the rising tide of self-interest. Pilate did what he called on others to do; he “beheld the man.” Pity, justice, the voice of God, all were in vain to keep the sin-shackled time-server from this great crime. Self in the other scale made the balance kick the beam.
IV. His miserable end.—
1. But even this great crime did not save him from the fate he dreaded. He was shortly after this accused of a cruel and unprovoked attack on the peaceful Samaritans, summoned to Rome, tried and exiled, and, like Judas, was finally laid in a suicide’s grave.
2. Want of true principle and a time-serving spirit will lead men to the commission of the greatest crimes, in the name and for the sake of policy. “What is truth?” said Pilate, meaning perhaps, What has that to do with acts of government or policy? Much every way, O unhappy Pilate! For righteousness and truth are eternal; and though the time-server may seem for the moment to prevail, yet it shall only serve to discover more fully in the end his utter confusion. Thou didst imagine that it was better, in order to prevent a riot, to offer up as a victim to popular hatred, uncondemned, nay, pronounced by thyself innocent, that poor, bleeding, thorn-crowned form. But thou wert in reality the victim—victim of thine own evil deeds and of abject fear of the people.
3. The seeming victim became the conqueror—the unjust judge became a despised exile; and the people who invoked on their heads the awful curse, “His blood be on us and on our children,” still wander homeless on earth, until they behold Christ as “the Lamb of God who beareth away the sin of the world.”
Joh_18:36. The true nature of Christ’s kingdom.—As the King of the kingdom of truth is from above, so is His kingdom. Although it extends to this world, and men here on earth may become members of it, yet it is not “of the earth, earthy.” Christ did not come to set up an empire which would extend itself by conquest, and usurp the government of secular kingdoms, although He sought to influence these indirectly by the establishment of His kingdom. His dominion is first inward, in order that it may at last be outward, and that finally “the kingdoms of the world” may become “the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ.” That Christ’s kingdom is not of this world is seen—
I. In the means used for its extension.—
1. As the Redeemer said to the vacillating Roman judge, “If My kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight.” Earthly kingdoms are extended mostly by conquest. The means used for their advancement are material. Armies and navies, secular and social laws, courts of justice, officers of justice, penalties and prisons, are among the many means employed for the external and internal order and safety of the kingdoms of earth.
2. And these in their place are not to be contemned or set aside. Righteous political and social government is to be hailed with joy. But none of these means in themselves can raise men nearer God. Rome had a wonderful code of laws, a noble political system, a far-reaching and powerful dominion. But these things made her corruption only more conspicuous and her fall more terrible.
3. Christ’s kingdom rests on principles of eternal truth. The aim and end of His dominion is not earthly glory, conquest, power; but the advance of spiritual and moral ends. And it must have been surprising to those among whom Jesus moved, and whose idea of kingdom and dominion did not rise above the empires and governments of time, to hear Christ’s claim, and then to look around for the means by which He sought to support it. It was this that alienated the Jews, who longed for conquest and earthly glory. It was this that staggered Pilate when the Saviour acknowledged that He was a king. Christ’s kingdom also is not of this world—
II. In the scope of its government.—
1. It is not restricted to earth and time, like the kingdoms of this world. Its laws do not fluctuate or change with changing times. They are ever the same—unalterable—as the expressions of truth and righteousness. It can and does exist alongside of various forms of earthly government; its spirit and principles may, indeed, enter into, inspire, and purify them all.
2. And that is so because it is the kingdom of the truth. It is set up in the hearts of men, putting an end to the reign of the spirit of lies, triumphing over the evil, evoking humility, faith, love, hope, purity, and every spiritual grace; in short, making men new creatures, in spirit and mind like to the King.
3. And thus the subjects of this kingdom are not bound to it by any merely external tie, which might at any time be broken, as in the case of subjects of an earthly kingdom. They are not forced against their will to serve this King, as are enslaved subjects of an earthly tyrant and of the prince of the power of the air. No; for in this kingdom truth prevails, and he who rebels against truth knows that he rebels against his higher nature. And the true subjects of this unworldly kingdom are willingly and joyfully submissive to its laws and rules, because its King rules in their hearts and lives. His love is their constraint, His service their joy. That Christ’s kingdom is not of this world is seen in the fact of—
III. Its universality and perpetuity.—
1. Less and less as the years pass is any earthly monarch likely to achieve universal dominion. And even when great empires have been builded up by mighty conquerors they have speedily been broken in pieces and have perished. The race of to-day treads on the ruins of the past. Beneath our feet are the ruined homes, shrines, palaces, of great peoples and kingdoms. It seemed in their day as if they were founded for ever, and now only their sculptured stones remain to show their glory and power. Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, and many another rise up in memory to tell us that their power and glory are in the dust.
2. And why could they not remain? They were not founded on truth, on eternal reality. The nation and government founded on righteousness alone can stand. And when nations and governments forget God, when peoples make their laws and conduct their negotiations without Him, when they decree that nations and governments have nothing to do with the maintenance and advancement of the kingdom of truth, then their end is near (Isa_60:12).
3. For Christ’s kingdom alone and those who subject themselves to Him are enduring. His kingdom alone will advance through all generations, and shall endure throughout eternity. And the Churches and kingdoms who submit to and honour its King shall also endure. Individual governments and ecclesiastical communities may rise and pass away. But amid all turmoil and change this all-embracing kingdom shall advance, gathering to itself faithful peoples and communities in its progress, until the kingdoms of the world shall become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ.
Joh_18:37. The King of the spiritual kingdom.—When Jesus stood before Pilate, the governor, seeking to elicit the facts as to the charge laid against our Lord by the Jews, sought especially to arrive at the truth regarding His alleged claim to be a king. This especially touched the honour of the Roman, and the peace of his government. Was this one of those numerous pretenders to religious and temporal leadership of the Jewish people who were ever and anon rising up and leading men after them? Had our Lord replied directly by “yes” or “no” to the Roman governor’s question, He would have left a false impression. Had He said simply, “Yes, I am a king,” Pilate would have considered the charge of the Jews justified. Had he said “No,” He would have left Pilate with a false idea as to His true nature and position. Therefore He replied that He was truly a king, but that His kingdom was not of this world.
I. Christ is truly a king by nature and descent.—
1. “Unto this end have I been born,” etc.; “I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world” (Joh_16:28; also Joh_10:36). His birth in time was a coming forth to fulfil an eternal divine purpose, and the fulfilment of this purpose rested on His essential nature as the Son of God. He was on earth in lowly guise as the Son of man; but He came into the world, because He existed before all worlds with the Father.
2. Nor did He come to the world to assume this dominion on His own authority. It was in complete accordance with the Father’s will that He came, so that it is also said that the Father sent Him. The sending and the coming are indeed, viewed from the heavenly standpoint, one divine act. But for this end, that the kingdom of heaven might be established, Christ became obedient to the Father. By this very obedience He put Himself into the true position from which He could conquer and reign over men, bringing them back to loyalty and obedience to the Father.
3. And because of this He hath been highly exalted (Php_2:9-10; Heb_5:8-9; Psa_2:6-8); and to Him has been given an everlasting dominion, a kingdom that shall know no end.
II. Christ is King of the spiritual kingdom because by His knowledge, wisdom, and power He is fitted to govern.—
1. Not even the wisest and best of men have been able to save the human race from evil and bring them back to allegiance to eternal Truth. We have only to look back on the history of our race to see how true this is. The race has wandered ever further from the truth. Wise kings have reigned, wise leaders have risen, even divinely inspired leaders. The divinely given law of Moses itself was but a preparatory and imperfect system, which was to pass away. How much more imperfect then the systems of a Zarathushtra, a Kong-fu-tze, a Plato! None had the knowledge, the wisdom, the power, to bring men under the dominion of Truth.
2. But Christ had all these. The eternal manifestation of eternal Truth, He knew what men needed. He alone could fully declare the mind of God, and reveal to men heavenly realities; testify to truth already revealed in law and prophecy; and, above all, manifest the reality of the Father’s love in His own person and work.
3. And He is King not only because He bore witness to the truth. His authority consisted not alone in the teaching of certain truths concerning man and God and eternal things, but because of His power to attract men to Himself, to transform them into His likeness, and thus make them true subjects of His eternal kingdom.
III. Christ’s kingship is a fact of history and experience.—
1. To Him is given universal dominion over all who are of the truth. We see before our eyes the ancient prophecies being daily fulfilled. From every land and nation, all peoples and tongues, they come to subject themselves to His kingly sway. All whose hearts are moved by the Spirit, who are attracted toward the truth, who seek truly to know and love God—all such hear Christ’s voice, and submit themselves to His mild and gracious authority.
2. And how rapid, comparatively speaking, has been the spread of His kingship when we remember that He is the King of truth, and that men by nature are opposed to Him. So all along the course there has been opposition from without and error from within to hinder His government. And He has conquered first, not the dreamy and superstitious races of the East, but the highest type of humanity in the West. And now His authority as the King of truth is not confined to a little band of disciples, but is more or less faithfully submitted to by more than one quarter of the population of the globe. And every day more and more men are bowing the knee in His name and confessing that He is Lord.
3. And individual experience confesses the blessed power of His reign. When He comes the darkness passes with the works of darkness; and love, peace, joy abound. The love of truth leads to freedom from error and sin. “He draws all men unto Him.” An invisible bond of fellowship unites to Him men of every clime and time, as joyful fellow-subjects of that King “whose kingdom ruleth over all.”
Joh_18:37. The King.—How does Jesus forward His kingdom?
I. Not by material force.—
1. Look at the history of those who have ruled in this way: the Cæsars, a Scylla, a Marius, a Tiberius, whose tenure of power was distinguished by the frightful turmoil of human passion, the flowing of rivers of blood, etc. There was nothing new or strange in all this. It is an epitome of the history of mankind.
2. It was not thus that God wished to forward His kingdom among men. He gave in a strange and unexpected manner His method in the form of a criminal nailed to a cross, conquering thus for Himself an empire of which no Cæsar ever dreamed.
3. At the foot of that cross men learned that there is in the world something more powerful than material force—it is mind; and something even more powerful than intellect—it is love. “I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto Me” (Joh_12:32).
II. Not by force of cleverness.—
1. The kings of material force must be put on one side. Christ is not among them. We look higher. Above force there is skill. You have seen the genius of cleverness contriving its fabrications in the shade, and preparing for a successful issue. With what patience it creates its resources. With what assurance it bids audacity supply what is lacking, diverting the imaginations of men until the hour when it feels itself strong enough to unveil its pretensions.
2. People admire this success. But on a nearer view some disquieting circumstances are brought to light. How many calculations, how many ruses and deceits are involved! Ask a clever man of the world what he thinks of one who would endeavour to succeed, whilst attending to the dictates of morality, in following the line of duty to the end without deviating, and you will see with what scorn he will dismiss this naïve innocence into the region of chimeras,
3. And yet Christ has founded a greater empire than all those who have used only their cleverness and skill; and when we examine His life no trace of this cleverness is found in it. This word is indeed incompatible with Christ’s character. When a critic, attempting to explain the marvellous dominion which Jesus exercised over His own, attributed to Him calculation, dissimulation, etc., the public conscience arose in dissent and gave an immense protest.
4. If any one wanted to proclaim a new doctrine, and gain the adherence of the intelligent people to it, he would not shut himself up in an obscure province like Galilee, or come with the most sublime teaching to the most ignorant, who did not comprehend the full beauty of it. At the beginning of His ministry a chief ruler of the sect of the Pharisees came to Jesus. Had He been desirous of gaining adherents, He would have endeavoured to treat him with caution, so that He might gain the Pharisees to His side. But we know how Jesus received Nicodemus. And to the people who came to Him with their Messianic dreams (Joh_6:15), and sought to make Him a king, He spoke in such fashion that they went back from Him, leaving only the twelve (Joh_6:66). Was this cleverness? But those disciples—did He not promise them speedy victory, thrones and kingdoms, etc.? Nay, He rather announced persecutions and trials awaiting them, etc. Was this cleverness? He spoke the truth to the people and to the Pharisees, denouncing the latter for their sins, etc. Was this cleverness? No; from the point of view of policy, all this was folly. It was not, then, by skill and cleverness that Christ attained to His dominion.
III. Not by intellectual force.—
1. This realm also has its kings, kings in poetry, philosophy, art, science—a Homer or Plato, a Raphael or Newton. Shall we place Christ in their ranks?
2. There are three classes of rulers in this domain, corresponding to the beautiful, the good, the true. To the desire of the beautiful the domain of art corresponds; to the desire of the true the domain of science; to the desire of the good the domain of morality. Each domain has its kings. In which shall we seek for Jesus?
3. Is it on the heights of Art? No, although Jesus has brought a new ideal to the imagination, and has revealed new beauty which had till then been unnoticed; and certainly art owes to Christianity some of its grandest inspirations. When the repentant sinner beats on his breast, when the Saviour of the world dies on the cross, is it the imagination only that is moved, or are you taken into another region—the region of holiness and love? Yes.
4. Is it in the field of science and its brilliant discoveries and researches, etc., that we shall place the Redeemer? Again, no. His teaching, it is true, is in accordance with the highest laws of the mind. And it is in Christian lands that science has advanced most. But here Christ did not seek to reign (Mat_11:25-26). His Gospel was not addressed especially to the wise men of this world. The force by which He draws men is not connected with human logic. He did not speak in syllogisms, or like a master of the schools. This has been made a reproach against Christianity by such philosophers as Lucian, Celsus, Porphyry. And supposing Christ had reigned in the realm of intelligence alone, would the wise have come around Him? And then what of the poor and unlearned? To the poor the Gospel was preached (Luk_4:18).
5. Above the intellectual is the moral. There is nothing higher. The moral order is the will of God. It is in this supreme order that Jesus is King—King by holiness, King by love, for these are the two poles of that world. Thus He said to Pilate, “I am a king; for this end was I born.” And He is not King here simply because He revealed to men a new ideal. Certainly He did this: all will accord that He gave new ideas concerning love to God and man. But this is not all. Nor did He merely enunciate some great moral verities. He was not merely the prophet of truth, but He was the Truth Himself—the incarnation of moral truth.
6. What Jesus desires is the dominion in men’s souls—a spiritual dominion, the most real and absolute. And it is He who lives and reigns from age to age. By His words and actions, His miracles, He showed His right to this authority which He claimed, and the love which He desired should be accorded to Him universally by His followers. And the beauty of His character, the power of His love displayed in His saving work, has drawn men to Him in the bonds of an affection which is more and more becoming worldwide.—Abridged from Eug. Bersier.
Joh_18:37-38. The scepticism of Pilate.—The lesson which we are to draw from this verse must depend upon the view we take of the spirit in which the words were spoken. Some of the best commentators conceive them to have been words of mockery, and such is the great Lord Bacon’s view. “ ‘What is truth?’ said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer.” In all deference to such authority, we cannot believe that this sentence was spoken in jest. In Pilate’s whole conduct there is no trace of such a tone. It betrays throughout much of uncertainty, nothing of lightness. He was cruelly tormented with the perplexity of efforts to save his prisoner. He risked his own reputation. He pronounced Him, almost with vehemence, to be innocent. He even felt awe, and was afraid of Him. In such a frame of mind mockery was impossible. Let us try to comprehend the character of the man who asked this question. His character will help us to judge the tone in which he asked. And his character, the character of his mind and life, are clear enough from the few things recorded of him. He first hears what the people have to say; then asks the opinion of the priests—then comes back to Jesus—goes again to the priests and people—lends his ear—listens to the ferocity on the one hand, and feels the beauty on the other, balancing between them; and then he becomes bewildered, as a man of the world is apt to do who has had no groundwork of religious education, and hears superficial discussions on religious matters, and superficial charges, and superficial slanders, till he knows not what to think. What could come out of such procedure? Nothing but that cheerlessness of soul to which certainty respecting anything and everything here on earth seems unattainable. This is the exact mental state which we call scepticism. Out of that mood, when he heard the enthusiast before him speak of a kingdom of the truth, there broke a sad, bitter, sarcastic, “What is truth?” Who knows anything about it? Another discoverer of the undiscoverable? Jesting Pilate! With Pilate the matter was beyond a jest.
1. The causes of Pilate’s scepticism.—
1. Indecision of character.—Here is a man knowing the right and doing the wrong, not willing to do an act of manifest injustice if he can avoid it, but hesitating to prevent it, for fear of a charge against himself—pitiably vacillating because his hands were tied by the consciousness of past guilt and personal danger. How could such a man be certain about anything?
2. Falseness to his own convictions.—Pilate had a conviction that Jesus was innocent. Instead of acting at once on that, he went and parleyed. He argued and debated till the practical force of the conviction was unsettled. Pilate was false to his conscience.
3. The taint of the worldly temper of his day.—Pilate had been a public man. He knew life, had mixed much with the world’s business and the world’s politics, had come across a multiplicity of opinions, and gained a smattering of them all. He knew how many philosophies and religions pretended to an exclusive possession of truth, and how the pretensions of each were overthrown by another. And his incredulity was but a specimen of the scepticism fashionable in his day. To such a character Jesus would not explain His truth. He gave no reply; He held His peace. God’s truth is too sacred to be expounded to superficial worldliness in its transient fit of earnestness.
4. That priestly bigotry which forbids inquiry and makes doubt a crime.—The priests of that day had much to answer for. The results of their priestcraft were twofold. The first result was seen in the fanaticism of the people who cried for blood; the second in the scepticism of Pilate.
II. The way appointed for discovering “what is truth.”—
1. I am not about to be guilty of the presumption of answering the question which Jesus did not answer. Some persons hearing the text might think it to be the duty of any man who took it as a text to preach upon to lay down what truth is.
2. The truth cannot be compressed into a sermon. The reply to Pilate’s question cannot be contained in any verbal form.
3. The truth is infinite as the firmament above you. In childhood both seem near and measurable; but with years they grow and grow, and seem further off, and further and grander, and deeper and vaster, as God Himself, till you smile to remember how you thought you could touch the sky, and blush to recollect the proud and self-sufficient way in which you used to talk of knowing or preaching “the truth.”
4. The truth is made up of principles: an inward life, not any mere formula of words. God’s character: spiritual worship; the divine life in the soul. How shall I put that into sentences ten or ten thousand? “The words which I speak unto you, they are truth, and they are life.”
5. The appointed ways to teach this truth. They are three:
(1) Independence. Let no man start as if independence savoured of presumption. No man cares for your health as you do; therefore you rely blindly upon none. No man has the keeping of your own soul, or cares for it as you do. For yourself, therefore, you inquire and think, and you refuse to delegate that work to bishop, priest, or Church. Call they that presumption?
(2) Humbleness. There are two kinds of temper contrary to this spirit. The first is a disputing, captious temper. The next is a hopeless spirit.
(3) Action. This was Christ’s rule: “If any man will do His will,” etc. A blessed rule; a plain and simple rule. Here we are in a world of mystery, where all is difficult and very much dark—where a hundred jarring creeds declare themselves to be the truth, and all are plausible. How shall a man decide? Let him do the right that lies before him: much is uncertain—some things at least are clear. Whatever else may be wrong, it must be right to be pure—to be just and tender, and merciful and honest. It must be right to love, and to deny oneself. Let him do the will of God, and he shall know.—F. W. Robertson.
Joh_18:39-40. Jesus rejected for Barabbas.—The sad scenes of this history follow each other with great rapidity. The apostle summarises the various incidents in these scenes with masterly force in his bold sermon to those Jews, after he and John in the name of Jesus had healed the lame man in the temple. It was the same, yet not the same Peter who had acted such an ignoble part in those very scenes. They delivered up Jesus, whom God had glorified; they denied the holy and just One before Pilate, who was more just than they (Joh_19:11), for he declared that Jesus was innocent and should be freed. But worse than all, they desired that a murderer should be granted unto them in place of the Holy One and the Just (Acts 3.). Here we consider their awful choice.
I. Pilate’s plan for the release of Jesus.—
1. The Roman governor was sore perplexed. Conscience, superstition, hatred of the Jews, a strange drawing toward this silent, dignified prisoner, made him long to wash his hands of the whole matter.
2. He had sent Jesus to Herod, thus thinking to get rid of the trouble; but now Jesus is returned for his judgment, and he must decide. He had almost made up his mind to brave those men who desired the death of Jesus for no fault, but to gratify their own envy and malignity.
3. But the governor bethought him of an expedient which should succeed. At this passover feast it was the custom to deliver up to the multitude one of the offenders against law whom they desired to see liberated. It was a symbolic reminder to the people of their own deliverance from Egyptian bondage. Pilate grasped at this expedient. He would offer the mob the choice between this meek, innocent, spotless man, and the greatest criminal who deservedly lay in a dungeon, one Jesus Barabbas (Mar_15:7). Surely, although the leaders might do otherwise, the body of the crowd would choose Jesus.
II. The Jews’ choice of Barabbas.—
1. Pilate was to learn that opportunism is neither the pleasantest nor safest policy. It is a two-edged weapon, and often wounds the hand that wields it.
2. He had made sure of the issue of his expedient, which would save him the trouble and unpopularity of having to refuse the request of those turbulent leaders of the people. But he was to learn how far they would descend in their hatred to this innocent sufferer, who had spoken the truth which so enraged those rulers. Thus his expedient failed, and the case was still laid on his conscience for decision.
3. But his attempt brought out the true feelings of those godless men. The chief priests moved the people that they should rather ask Barabbas (Mar_15:11). It may thus be gathered that had the people been left to themselves they would never have made this awful choice. But they were more subservient to their leaders than anxious for justice and truth. The worst kind of slavery this.
4. Well had Jesus told those leaders and their too subservient followers their origin and descent (Joh_8:44). And now they openly proved it before all the world by choosing one who had hitherto been one of the most conspicuous children of their evil father.
Lesson.—Let us not, however, too harshly condemn those men thus hurried away by passion. Peter did not when he said, “And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it,” etc. (Act_3:17). Do not men sometimes choose the evil? Before knowing Christ, did not even Christians perhaps company with those who were His enemies and children of the wicked one? Did they not delight more in them than in His service and the company of His people? And do not such who have now chosen Christ look back, with feelings of mingled sorrow and shame, to think that they so long rejected the Holy One and the Just, and companied so long with those who were children and servants of the prince of this world?
ILLUSTRATIONS
Joh_18:36. The true use of this life determined by its connexion with that to come.—You will never make a proper use of the life that now is until you regard it in connexion with that which is to come. Standing at the Saviour’s cross you will be able to take a right view of both worlds. You will see earth in all its littleness and tumult, and heaven in all its magnitude and peacefulness; and while rendering to the one the attention which its transient importance demands, you will reserve the fulness of your energy for the momentous claims of the other. I make no apology for asking whether you are making a kingdom of your politics, and whether you have begun at the true source of all genuine and permanent reformation. My firm conviction being that Christianity will adjust the relationships of individuals and consolidate the liberty of empires, my life is consecrated to its explanation and enforcement. When the heart is right with God, there will be little difficulty in arranging political details; but while the heart is swollen with passion, while selfishness holds out her greedy hand and party spirit rends the air with the clamorous cry, while pride looks disdainfully on the poor and rank draws its invidious boundaries, while capital is regardless of the true interests of labour and merit must give place to patronage, there can be no lasting reformation. We must strike the upas at its roots. If you, as political reformers, can amputate any of the deadly branches, you will indeed earn the gratitude of your race. Far be it from me to question the utility of your labour; but again I tell you, we must strike the upas at its root! Church of the living God, this is your business! It is for you to lift the axe and smite the deadly tree! You have a tremendous power which you can bring to bear, not only on the spiritual, but on the civil interests of man: every prayer you breathe may exert influence on the political destiny of the nation! I call upon you, therefore, to do your utmost in the propagation of the Christian faith; in the name of God, I forbid you to relax any spiritual effort. Toil on, and in due time there shall be but one kingdom and one King; He shall come, whose right is to reign—on His head shall the crown flourish. Freedom and peace shall unfurl their banners; brotherhood and charity shall wake their sweetest music; then shall a cry be heard, loud as the roar of the thunder, the rush of the whirlwind, and the anthem of the sea, Alleluia! The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our God and of His Christ.—Dr. Joseph Parker.
Joh_18:36. The majesty and sanctity of living for the invisible.—Oh that I could pour in upon the young the majesty and sanctity of living for the invisible—that is to say, for honour, and truth, and fidelity! Oh that I could make you feel how essentially brittle, how friable, how perishable, are all material sources of strength! God is the centre of life, and spiritual realities are the only things that will endure. Stone and iron, and silver and gold, and timber, and cities, and nations, and outward things are but pictures, painted soon to fade away; while truth and love, and fidelity, and purity shall last for ever and for ever.—H. W. Beecher.
Joh_18:37. Christ the promised spiritual king.—In the sublime vision of the prophet Daniel (chap. 7) a grand and striking prophetic picture is given of the conquering might and the glorious establishment of Christ’s kingdom. And it was because of their misunderstanding the spiritual drift and meaning of such prophecies, because they translated with gross literality those grand prophetic promises, that the Jewish people as a whole failed to realise the true greatness of the Saviour and rejected Him as their king. But with kingly dignity our Lord referred all those majestic prophetic visions to Himself and His kingdom. He claimed to be the king of a great spiritual dominion—a gathering-place for all the nations, to which they should come from north, south, east, and west. It was to be unlike the kingdoms of the world, represented as those are in the vision of the prophet by fierce beasts, which war with and destroy each other, which are therefore passing and temporary. His great and universal dominion has its origin in another sphere than that of earth. When the need of earth was greatest, when the groaning of enslaved humanity rose loud and woeful, then God came to judgment on the kingdoms of the world. And then, behold, one like the Son of man came on the clouds of heaven; and to Him from the Ancient of Days was given dominion and glory, and a kingdom that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him, etc. (Dan_7:14.) Such is the dominion Christ claims as His. It is not of this world. It is advanced by no material force. And its king come to men not in the guise of a conqueror, in regal, warlike splendour, but meek and lowly as the Son of man.
Joh_18:37. “For to me to live is Christ” the motto of Christ’s subjects.—You have seen a young man whose spirit yearns for the salvation of his race; he is educated and mentally strong; his home is a scene of happiness, parents and relatives hold him in highest regard; were he to employ his talents in his fatherland, they might ensure him competence, and perhaps renown; but he is determined to realise his convictions of duty; he is ready to sever the strong attachments which bind him to the land of his birth, and brave the innumerable perils which may beset his enterprise—forasmuch as his kingdom is not of this world. You find in such a youth an illustration of a principle already enunciated; he is not destitute of interest in the political progress of his nation, far less is he wanting in affection to those who gave him life—but he cannot make a kingdom of such considerations; he renders to them the attention due to their respective merits, but in his estimation there are claims whose importance is infinitely greater. His life-cry is, “For to me to live is Christ; everything must subordinate itself to Christ. Christ is the fairest among ten thousand, and altogether lovely; he redeemed me with His blood, and shall be served with undivided energy, for in serving Him I am most effectually promoting the well-being of all the objects of my love.”—Dr. Joseph Parker.
Joh_18:37. The future is Christ’s.—Think, then. Who in the past has been loved more than Jesus Christ? His disciples left all for Him—they had to choose; on the one side His love and the most terrible sacrifices, on the other earthly happiness and the most legitimate affections. Jesus has won them! Explain by what miracle this love has been enkindled after them among millions of men who have never seen Jesus Christ; for, do not deceive yourselves, this is the feeling which inspired in the Church of the first centuries that heroic devotion, that love, which was not extinguished by the most savage and atrocious persecution. And if you pass over those eighteen centuries, who to-day is loved more than Jesus Christ? who occupies in the affections of men so great a place? And for us who love Him, is Jesus simply an individual of the past, a beautiful and touching figure, of which history has preserved the remembrance for us? Is He not, on the contrary, the Being whom we consider the most living and present? Is the love of which He is the object an abstraction? and has it not, like the most loving affections, its sorrows and trials, its anguish in our falls, its joys in our rising again? Are we the objects of a fantastic hallucination when we feel His invisible presence, when the view of His holiness fills us with trouble in the midst of our wicked pleasures, when repentant and ashamed we go to weep upon His breast, when repulsed by the world we experience His consolations filling our souls? And if we were alone in the experience of this love! But have you thought on the matter? This love has shined to all parts of the world. We see ourselves in the presence of an inexplicable problem if He is not divine. We see, as I have said, men who have received from their likes an idolatrous attachment. Every people has its heroes. But He whom we have not seen is a man who in every country, at all times, and among races the most diverse, has been able to awaken in the depths of men’s hearts the same emotions and the same love. Is it not certain that the heroes of one race have often no renown among other races, because each of them possesses the exclusive type of his nationality? and gains his influence just from that cause that limits it at the same time? Endeavour to get men among our European races to admire the heroes, the demigods which the East adores, and even were it a possibility that their religion could be established, endeavour to make men love them. But Christ alone has had this marvellous power of making Himself beloved everywhere across time and space even. Every tongue raises to Him a song of love and adoration. Those divine emotions that fill my soul in listening to Him were felt by Origen and Augustine fifteen hundred years ago under an African sky; and to-day in his distant hut an Esquimaux of the polar regions, or a poor negro, shall experience them as I do. At this moment, on this Sabbath day, wherever the Church is gathered together, millions of hearts are moved at the name of Christ by the same feelings as you have; and if all those voices could make themselves heard, you would know in a measure the extent of His kingdom.… Gather together in thought all those whom this love has saved, ignorant and wise, great and small, of the world; children in whose innocent souls has been felt a mysterious attraction toward Jesus, and who in dying have gone to His arms—sinners who have fallen to the depth of the abyss, souls sorrowful and groaning. Behold athwart the centuries this cortege of worshippers who are increasing day by day, and, before this universal testimony of hearts who love Him, recognise Him for whom all hearts have been made. He said, “I am a King”; and see a redeemed humanity who reply to Him by proclaiming His kingdom. What royalty, what a domination, what an empire! To be loved in all the centuries, loved everywhere, loved even to the death, loved ever more deeply: behold the kingdom of Christ. And people ask us yet why we believe in His divinity! Oh, wise men of this world, who believe that His reign is ended, and who see in Him nothing but a master of the past who has been superseded—you who think that the criticism of the schools will do that which eighteen centuries of attack have not been able to do, and reduce the Gospel to powder! you know not how much Christ is loved, you know not what place He occupies in the heart of the world. Yes; in the Church of to-day, so feeble, so faithless and worldly, however, you do not know all that is seen to shine forth of devotion and heroism on the day when for confessing Jesus Christ all must be left behind, even life itself. I do not know what the future has in store for us. I do not know what those doctrines which this generation tolerates with a soft complaisance will bring forth, this materialism which denies freedom in God and responsibility in man, this insulting disdain of the unseen world, this proud confidence in the forces of humanity, this fanatic atheism which regards as hypocrisy or imbecility faith, prayer, the supernatural.… I know not if the Church will be called to go through a new baptism of suffering and persecution. At all events, it is not on the simple progress of toleration, nor on the native goodness of man, that I count to make such excesses impossible. I remember that no epoch, more so than the last century, preached the goodness of man and toleration; and I recall the fact also as to the way in which the century ended. But if the storm must come, let it come, let it come. For if it will remove from the Church all the unreal homage, all the false regard, which a generation who laughs in secret at the faith lavishes upon it, what will it matter? In this inevitable defection the world will learn at least how much Christ is loved; it will see all this that draws to Him faith, devotion, and hope; it will see that He is yet the King of souls, and that, to snatch Him from the love of the Church, it would be necessary to snatch away the heart of humanity. Lord, the future is Thine. The kingdom has been given to Thee, and Thy kingdom will come. But how shall it serve us to proclaim Thy kingdom if Thou hast not first triumphed in our hearts? Ah! let us submit them—these hearts worldly and rebellious—break down our resistance, our pride, our egoism; and reign at least over those whom Thou hast gained, who are waiting for those days in which we believe Thou wilt reign over a world at peace, and when all men shall bow the knee before Thee.—Translated from Eug. Bersier.
Joh_18:38. None are by nature “of the truth.”—The expression “every one that is of the truth” betokens an inward preparation for conversion which no one, however, experiences without the operation of “preventing grace.” No one is by nature of the truth; but all men, as the Scriptures say, are liars, since they love darkness rather than light, because the light reproves them for their sins and disturbs their repose; and because they press error to their bosoms and shut themselves up against the entrance of truth, which menaces their sensual pleasures with danger and urges them to a life of self-denial. Thus, as St. Paul once expressed it, they “hold the truth in unrighteousness.” But as soon as the Spirit, which, like the wind, bloweth where it listeth, gains room, the love of delusion gives way to the ardent desire to be freed from it, and studious self-deception to the willingness to “prove all things, and to hold fast that which is good.” Before the honest, serious inquiry after truth and peace the visionary forms of these false ideas vanish to which the poor soul had been previously attached. But when, by the operation of the Spirit of God, we have attained to this simplicity of heart, we become joined to those who are of the truth. Then, if the divine Teacher utters His voice, how does our inmost soul echo to the sound of His light and life-giving words! If He then says, “Come unto Me, ye that are weary and heavy laden,” how gladly do we accept the gracious invitation! If He then unveils His glory and beauty, how do our longing souls rush into His arms rejoicing! If He then displays the standard of His cross, how do we not hasten to it, to build tabernacles under its peaceful shadow!—F. W. Krummacher, “Suffering Saviour.”
Joh_18:39-40. Satan’s children.—Whence sprang the weeds in the history of our Lord’s passion? Whence the thistles even among the weeping willows and olive trees of Gethsemane? Whence the thorns on Golgotha? That the enemy had done. When the members of the Sanhedrin set up false witnesses, and made them assert that Jesus had arrogantly said He would destroy and build up the temple again; when on the declaration of Jesus that He was the Son of God and the judge of the world, they answered in hypocritical anger, “Now we have heard His blasphemy,” etc. (Mat_26:65); when they, the guardians of the law and the protectors of religion, were given a choice between Jesus and Barabbas, and when asked, Which of these two will ye have? urged the people to demand the release of the murderer and to slay the Lamb; when out of the poisoned spring of envy they drew the resolve to storm the vacillating governor with the cry, “Crucify, crucify!” and determined on the murder of the Righteous, invoking a mad curse upon their own heads.… “His blood be on us and on our children,” … were those who did this of the viper’s brood, Satan’s children, descendants of Cain?—their lips were lying, their hands were murderous.—Translated from Dr. R. Kögel.
The old saying that the voice of the people is the voice of God receives an instructive commentary in the vote for Barabbas and against Jesus. That was what a plebiscite for the discovery of the people’s favourite came to. What a reliable method of finding the best man universal suffrage, manipulated by wire-pullers like these priests, is! and how wise the people are who let it guide their judgments, or, still wiser, who fret their lives out in angling for its approval! Better be condemned with Jesus than adopted with Barabbas.—Dr. A. Maclaren.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
William B. Godbey 1900 · Public Domain On vv13, 19, 28 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.
F. W. Grant 1903 · Public Domain On v28 Section 3. (Joh 18:28-40; Joh 19:1-16.)
Section 3. (Joh 18:28-40; Joh 19:1-16.)
Hearts made manifest.
Read full note →
1. In the third section the Lord answers for Himself before Pilate; and this is proportionately much dwelt upon, and particulars given which we do not find elsewhere. It is evident that what we are shown is the searching out of the Roman’s conscience in the light of the Presence before which he stands. Judge and accused change places; and, hard as the governor may be -a man stained with many crimes, he yet compares favorably with Israel’s leaders, blinded and darkened with the light they have shut out. That Pilate shrank, though vainly, from what the insane fury of the Jews forced upon him is plain in all the Gospels; but John shows us the under-workings of a convicted soul, as no other does, and the Lord’s compassionate faithfulness towards the, miserable victim of his own self-treachery. Hearts are made manifest all through, and the Light shines upon all the clouds that would obscure it. Even the refusal of the people to take the matter into their own hands, when Pilate would put it in them, only works, as is noted, for the fulfilment of the word of Jesus. Crucifixion was not a Jewish punishment. The "hanging upon a tree" was with them after death, and not a mode of inflicting this: but with death all was ended for the Lord; and the rich man’s sepulchre begins His vindication.
2. Before Pilate the Lord answers at once, when He is questioned, that He is King of the Jews. But He asks, Is this his own question? -has he personal interest in it? Of Messiah he must have heard, and of all the hopes that were connected with it; more surely still, of a reign of righteousness and truth to replace the long oppression, and bring peace at last to a weary, if not sin-weary world. Was the intervention of God anything, -even an alarm perhaps, to one of the world’s rulers? But Pilate puts off the question as a mere Jewish one: let him look at how his own case stands as a man accused by his own people; what reason had they? The Lord answers him, but keeps His steady pressure upon the conscience, already uneasy, of the real criminal before Him the real Judge. He lets Pilate know that His Kingdom is not of this world, -has not its origin or nature from the world: else would, He not have been left, unarmed and without a struggle, to the merciless hands that had been laid upon Him. Had His followers, -out of all the crowds that had gathered round Him, -been organized into such a force as would be needed for the establishment of a kingdom such as Rome could fear or take into account? His Kingdom plainly was not like one of these.
But then He really was a King? the Roman questioned. And the Lord answers that indeed He is a King: that His birth and coming into the world (and here a gleam of His divine nature flashes out) was to bear witness to the truth. Truth, in a false and hollow world, to establish this was the purpose of His life and mission. By this would He establish also His kingdom over the hearts and minds-of men. Truth is one, decisive, imperial: he that would learn it must be subject" to it. And here Christ drops a word for the conscience of His hearer, "Every one who is of the truth heareth My voice."
Pilate answers like the sceptical Roman that he is, "What is truth?" Alas, their Pantheon of captured gods had had bitter fruit in their rough conquerors. They had learned to believe in gods no more, save in him who had over-topped them all, their emperor; and in him the farce was but too transparent. And yet here was
a word to get behind even such defences: for, if he knew not what was truth, he could know, at least, whether he was "of" it. And, if to be true were needful for such knowledge, was the lack of this, perhaps, what made truth appear such an unattainable thing?
3. Something, at least, makes Pilate uneasy; he stays for no answer, but goes off to the multitude, to declare that he can find no fault with Jesus. His business was, in that case, only to release Him; but he seeks compromise with his conscience, instead of yielding to it, and, in what seems to him a way of escape from a difficult situation, puts the whole matter into the people’s hands. Thus he makes it almost impossible to return to the path of righteousness from which he has departed, and proclaims himself openly as not of the truth.
But the people reveal themselves in a worse fashion still, and do what even a Pilate believes impossible. It is this impossibility upon which he reckons, only to find that he has shut for himself the door of escape which he had hoped to find. They immediately avail themselves of the opportunity to show their preference of a robber and murderer to their own glorious King. We have noticed elsewhere how strangely yet significantly this name Bar-Abbas, "son of the father," comes in here. It was the Son of the Father, just as that, -whom they were refusing now; but of what father was this lawless one the son? A shadow it is, surely, of their awful apostasy to come, when they will receive him who comes in his own name, true child of the rebel and "murderer from the beginning" of whom the Lord had warned some before, in words which had cut deep into those who heard them, that they were the spiritual children. The works of their father they were indeed now doing.
Pilate, now in their hands, gives up Jesus to be scourged; hoping, however, as it would seem, by this according to his former proposal (Luk 23:22), to appease the people, that he might then release Him. In every compromise of this sort he only and miserably fails. John does not dwell upon all this: he mentions the scourging, the crown of thorns, the mockery of the purple robe; but these very briefly. By all this, Pilate vainly endeavors to awaken sympathy in behalf of the One whom again, to his own condemnation, he declares to be without fault. We may be sure, from his known character, he would have gladly found what would have justified him in pursuing with good will the course upon which he was now being urged unwillingly. Yet he emphatically reiterates that he finds no fault in Him. Israel it is who hound Him to the death; crying out what death, -the most cruel and ignominious one, -they have chosen for Him. "Take ye Him and crucify Him," Pilate answers" for I find no fault in Him." Then they bring out their real accusation: "We have a law, and by our law He ought to die because He made Himself the Son of God." He must die, because He is what He is, and affirms it. He must die for the grace which has made Him become Man!
4. But Pilate is stricken again by such an accusation: for the legends of heathen superstition are revived at the suggestion, and he remembers, no doubt, that gods and sons of the gods had visited men, according to current beliefs, which he had perhaps too rashly discredited. Did He not carry Himself as if indeed divine? And there were other influences, as the dream of his wife, to make him tremble. He calls Him once more before him, and with an unaccustomed awe upon his spirit, asks Him, "Who art Thou?" He is not a weak man (save as the slave of his own lusts is weak); he is not easily moved to pity; nor is it pity now. He had mingled the blood of the Galileans with their sacrifices, and could have trampled these Jews down now remorselessly, had he not been in hands for the moment stronger than his own. So the Lord plainly and compassionately tells him now. He would have had no authority at all against Him, had it not been given him from above. God, (though moved in a way far different from men,) God had delivered Him up; and, alas! the Jew had found in this his opportunity, misconceive it as he might, to pour out the enmity of his heart upon the very One of whom all the ages prophesied, and whom he had been prepared by the voice of heaven’s messengers continuously uttered to expect. The Jew had then, indeed, a greater sin than Pilate’s: the actual traitor was but the representative of his nation then.
5. Pilate is shaken more than ever by the Lord’s words, and again seeks to release Him; but he is not master of himself, and cannot be of others. The Jews know the man, and know their opportunity, and bring to bear upon him an argument that makes him plastic in their hands at once. God is a possibility indeed, but Rome is a certainty, and nearer at hand. "If thou let this Man go," they cry, "thou art not Caesar’s friend; every one that maketh himself a king declareth against Caesar."
"Pilate’s playing with the situation," observes Lange, "is now past; now the situation plays with him. First he said -not asked, -What is truth? Now his frightened heart, to which the emperor’s favor is the supreme law of life, says, What is justice?" He takes his place on the judgment-seat, therefore, and with what seems something between a taunt and a faint, final plea, says to the Jews, "Behold your King!" But they are only stung to madness: "Away! away with Him!" they cry, "Crucify Him!" "Shall I crucify your King?" he asks again; and now they are made in divine government to pass upon themselves the judgment under which they have ever since been lying: the chief priests answer, "We have no king but Caesar."
It was not the verdict of the Jews alone, and they have not suffered alone. The whole world has been lying under the yoke which they have preferred to the easy yoke of Christ. They have often got very tired of Caesar, -true; and, as we see by their fitful movements every now and then, would fain be rid of him. They are always crying, "Give us better government;" but all they can do is, with doubtful betterment, to divide him up into many little Caesars; better, as they think, because weaker, and with divided interests, so that the balance of power may secure the even weights of justice. That is still an experiment, some think; but this chronic war is never peace, not can be; and the reason is, men have refused the Prince of peace. Modify it, rename it, disguise it, as you please, the reign of Caesar is the only alternative.
The struggle on Pilate’s part is ended; he consents to the people’s verdict; the Lord of life is adjudged to death, -to the death of the Cross.
F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Alexander MacLaren 1905 · Public Domain On vv15, 28 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 vv15, 24, 28 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.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On vv19–20 The high priest
The high priest
For the order of events on the day of the crucifixion, (See Scofield "Mat 26:57").
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On vv15, 19, 25, 28 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, 19, 22, 25, 28 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, 15, 16, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 28 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.