Peter had followed him from a distance, until he came into the court of the high priest. He was sitting with the officers, and warming himself in the light of the fire. Now the chief priests and the whole council sought witnesses against Jesus to put him to death, and found none. For many gave false testimony against him, and their testimony didn’t agree with each other. Some stood up, and gave false testimony against him, saying, “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.’ ” Even so, their testimony didn’t agree.
Parallel Translations
-
Peter had followed him from a distance, until he came into the court of the high priest. He was sitting with the officers, and warming himself in the light of the fire.
Now the chief priests and the whole council sought witnesses against Jesus to put him to death, and found none.
For many gave false testimony against him, and their testimony didn’t agree with each other.
Some stood up, and gave false testimony against him, saying,
“We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.’ ”
Even so, their testimony didn’t agree.
-
And Peter folowed him a greate waye of even into the pallys of the hye preste and sat with the servauntes and warmed him sylfe at the fyre.
And the hye prestes and all the counsell sought for witnes agaynste Iesu to put him to death and founde noone.
Yet many bare falce witnes agaynste him but their witnes aggreed not to geder.
And ther aroose certayne and brought falce witnes agaynste him sayinge.
We herde him saye: I will destroye this temple made with hondes and with in thre dayes I will bylde another made with out hondes.
But their witnes agreed not to geder.
Show all 3 translations
-
And Peter folowed him afarre off, euen into the hall of the hie Priest, and sate with the seruants, and warmed himselfe at the fire.
And the hie Priests, and all the Councill sought for witnesse against Iesus, to put him to death, but found none.
For many bare false witnesse against him, but their witnesse agreed not together.
Then there arose certaine, and bare false witnesse against him, saying,
We hearde him say, I will destroy this Temple made with hands, and within three daies I will builde another, made without hands.
But their witnesse yet agreed not together.
Examined in Scripture Analysis
Contradictions (1)
Questions where the Bible appears to say two different things, with the passages on each side set together.
Cross-references (38)
- John 2:19 (v58) Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
- John 18:18 (v54) Now the servants and the officers were standing there, having made a fire of coals, for it was cold. They were warming themselves. Peter…
- 2 Corinthians 5:1 (v58) For we know that if the earthly house of our tent is dissolved, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal, in the…
- Hebrews 9:11 (v58) But Christ having come as a high priest of the coming good things, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands,…
- Mark 15:29 (vv57–58) Those who passed by blasphemed him, wagging their heads, and saying, “Ha! You who destroy the temple, and build it in three days,
Show all 37 cross-references
- Matthew 26:3 (v54) Then the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders of the people were gathered together in the court of the high priest, who was called…
- Matthew 26:60-61 (v57) and they found none. Even though many false witnesses came forward, they found none. But at last two false witnesses came forward, and…
- Acts 6:13-14 (v57) and set up false witnesses who said, “This man never stops speaking blasphemous words against this holy place and the law. For we have…
- Acts 7:48 (v58) However, the Most High doesn’t dwell in temples made with hands, as the prophet says,
- Hebrews 9:24 (v58) For Christ hasn’t entered into holy places made with hands, which are representations of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in…
- Daniel 2:34 (v58) You saw until a stone was cut out without hands, which struck the image on its feet that were of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces.
- Matthew 5:22 (v55) But I tell you that everyone who is angry with his brother without a cause will be in danger of the judgment. Whoever says to his brother,…
- Matthew 26:59-60 (v55) Now the chief priests, the elders, and the whole council sought false testimony against Jesus, that they might put him to death; and they…
- John 18:15-16 (v54) Simon Peter followed Jesus, as did another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the high priest, and entered in with Jesus into the…
- John 18:25 (v54) 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…
- Acts 24:1-13 (v55) After five days, the high priest, Ananias, came down with certain elders and an orator, one Tertullus. They informed the governor against…
- 1 Peter 3:16-18 (v55) having a good conscience. Thus, while you are spoken against as evildoers, they may be disappointed who curse your good way of life in…
- 1 Samuel 13:7 (v54) Now some of the Hebrews had gone over the Jordan to the land of Gad and Gilead; but as for Saul, he was yet in Gilgal, and all the people…
- 1 Kings 19:9 (v54) He came to a cave there, and camped there; and behold, Yahweh’s word came to him, and he said to him, “What are you doing here, Elijah?”
- 1 Kings 19:13 (v54) When Elijah heard it, he wrapped his face in his mantle, went out, and stood in the entrance of the cave. Behold, a voice came to him, and…
- 1 Kings 21:13 (v55) The two men, the wicked fellows, came in and sat before him. The wicked fellows testified against him, even against Naboth, in the presence…
- Psalms 27:12 (v55) Don’t deliver me over to the desire of my adversaries, for false witnesses have risen up against me, such as breathe out cruelty.
- Psalms 35:11 (v55) Unrighteous witnesses rise up. They ask me about things that I don’t know about.
- Jeremiah 26:8-9 (v57) When Jeremiah had finished speaking all that Yahweh had commanded him to speak to all the people, the priests and the prophets and all the…
- Jeremiah 26:18 (v57) “Micah the Morashtite prophesied in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah; and he spoke to all the people of Judah, saying, ‘Yahweh of Armies…
- Daniel 2:45 (v58) Because you saw that a stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the…
- Daniel 6:4 (v55) Then the presidents and the local governors sought to find occasion against Daniel as touching the kingdom; but they could find no occasion…
- Matthew 26:58 (v54) But Peter followed him from a distance, to the court of the high priest, and entered in and sat with the officers, to see the end.
- Matthew 27:40 (v57) and saying, “You who destroy the temple, and build it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross!”
- Mark 14:29-31 (v54) But Peter said to him, “Although all will be offended, yet I will not.” Jesus said to him, “Most certainly I tell you, that you today, even…
- Mark 14:38 (v54) Watch and pray, that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.”
- Mark 14:67-68 (v54) and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him, and said, “You were also with the Nazarene, Jesus!” But he denied it, saying, “I…
- Luke 22:44 (v54) Being in agony he prayed more earnestly. His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down on the ground.
- Luke 22:55-56 (v54) When they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard, and had sat down together, Peter sat among them. A certain servant girl saw…
- John 2:18-21 (v57) The Jews therefore answered him, “What sign do you show us, seeing that you do these things?” Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple,…
- Acts 6:11-13 (v55) Then they secretly induced men to say, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.” They stirred up the people, the…
- 1 Kings 21:10 (v55) Set two men, wicked fellows, before him, and let them testify against him, saying, ‘You cursed God and the king!’ Then carry him out, and…
37 distinct cross-references across this passage (38 total citations).
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this passage (17 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On v55 Christ, who was so innocent that he could not…
Christ, who was so innocent that he could not be oppressed, no not by false witnesses, is at the length, for confessing God to be his father, condemned of impiety before the high Priest: that we, who denied God and were indeed wicked, might be quit before God.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv54–56 54 And Peter followed him afar off, even into…
54 And Peter followed him afar off, even into the palace of the high priest: and he sat with the servants, and warmed himself at the fire.
Ver. 54. At the fire] προς το φως. At the light, or by the light, that is (say some), by the candle light (for that discovered him), referring ad lumen to the light, to sedens. to sitting.
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.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv54–59 And there arose certain,.... Two false witnesses, as in…
And there arose certain,.... Two false witnesses, as in Mat 26:60, who stood up in court; for witnesses were obliged to stand, whilst they gave in their testimony:
"says R. Bo, in the name of R. Hona, witnesses ought "to stand", whilst they bear witness; as it is said, Deu 19:17. "Both the men shall stand" (m), &c.''
Read full note →
And bare false witness against him, saying; as follows.
(m) T. Herios. Sanhedrin, fol. 21. 3. & Yoma, fol. 43. 2. Maimon. Hilch. Sanhedrin, c. 21. sect. 3.
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 vv55, 56, 58 All the council sought for witness and found none…
All the council sought for witness and found none - What an amazing proof of the overruling providence of God, considering both their authority, and the rewards they could offer, that no two consistent witnesses could be procured, to charge him with any gross crime. Matt. xxvi, 59.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On v54 Verse 54. Peter followed] On Peter's denial, see Mt…
Verse 54. Peter followed] On Peter's denial, see Mt 26:57, &c.
At the fire.] προς τ οφως, literally, at the light, i.e. a fire that cast considerable light, in consequence of which, the maid servant was the better able to distinguish him: see Mr 14:67.
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 v55 Mar 14:55-59. And all the council sought for witness…
Mar 14:55-59. And all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death — Which they were determined to do. They had seized him as a malefactor; and now they had him, they had no indictment to prefer against him, no crime to lay to his charge: but they sought for witnesses against him. They artfully sifted some by sly interrogatories, offered bribes to others to prevail on them to accuse him, and endeavoured by threats to compel other, to do it. The chief priests and elders were, by the law, intrusted with the prosecuting and punishing of false witnesses, Deu 19:16, yet they were now ringleaders in a crime that tended to the overthrow of all justice. Deplorable is the condition of a country, when those that should be the conservators of peace and equity are the corrupters of both! And found none — What an amazing proof of the overruling providence of God, considering both their authority, and the rewards they could offer, that no two consistent witnesses could be procured to charge him with any gross crime! Their witness, their evidences, agreed not together — So also the Vulgate, Convenientia testimonia non erant. But the Greek words, ισαι ουκ ησαν, which, literally rendered, are, were not equal, are understood by many to signify, Not equal to the charge of a capital crime. So Dr. Hammond; they did not accuse him of that upon which a sentence of death might be founded; no, not by the utmost stretch of their law. Dr. Campbell, who considers the phrase in the same light, renders it, Their testimonies were insufficient; observing, “On a doubtful point, where the words appear susceptible of either interpretation, we ought to be determined by the circumstances of the case. Now there is nothing in the whole narrative that insinuates the smallest discrepancy among the witnesses. On the contrary, in the gospels the testimony specified is mentioned as given by all the witnesses. The differences in Matthew and Mark, one saying, I will rebuild, another, I can rebuild; one adding, made with hands, another omitting it; not only are of no moment in themselves, but are manifestly differences in the reports of the evangelists, not in the testimony of the witnesses; nor are they greater than those which occur in most other facts related from memory. What therefore perplexed the pontiffs and the scribes was, that, admitting all that was attested, it did not amount to what could be accounted a capital crime. This made the high-priest think of extorting from our Lord’s mouth a confession which might supply the defect of evidence. This expedient succeeded to their wish; Jesus, though not outwitted by their subtlety, was no way disposed to decline suffering, and therefore readily supplied them with the pretext they wanted.” The same expression is used in the 59th verse. See the note on Mat 26:59-61. There arose certain, and bare false witness — There is no wickedness so black, no villany so horrid, but there may be found among mankind fit tools to be used in it: so miserably depraved and vitiated is human nature! Saying, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple, &c. — It is observable, that the words which they thus misrepresented were spoken by Christ at least three years before, (Joh 2:19.) Their going back so far to find matter for the charge was a glorious, though silent attestation, of the unexceptionable manner wherein he had behaved, through the whole course of his public ministry.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv55–57 Though the law prescribed there should be only one…
Though the law prescribed there should be only one high priest, yet at this time there were many, being appointed yearly by the Roman governor; and those are here called chief priests who had once been invested with the dignity of high priest, but were at that time out of office. (Theophylactus)
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).
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On v56 56. Agreed not together — The original Greek is…
56. Agreed not together — The original Greek is by many understood to mean that the witness or testimony was not adequate, that is, sufficient to make out a criminal case. As the variations between the testimonies do not seem to be essential, this is probably the true meaning.
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 vv54–59 54. And Peter] Before the palace or within its…
54. And Peter] Before the palace or within its outer porch appears to have been a large open square court, in which public business was transacted. Into it Peter and John ventured to follow (Joh_18:15). The latter, as being acquainted with the high-priest, easily obtained admittance; Peter, at first rejected by the porteress, was suffered to enter at the request of his brother Apostle.
and warmed himself] The night was chilly, and in the centre of the court the servants of the high-priest had made a fire of charcoal, and there Peter, now admitted, was warming himself at the open hearth.
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 vv54, 56, 57, 58, 59 (54) Sat . . . and warmed himself.—Better, was…
(54) Sat . . . and warmed himself.—Better, was sitting and warming himself.
With the servants.—Better, with the officers.
Read full note →
At the fire.—Literally, at the light; the word bringing out very vividly the effect of the glare of the charcoal fire on St. Peter’s face,
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 vv54–57 And Peter had followed him afar off, even within,…
And Peter had followed him afar off, even within, into the court (eiv thn) of the high priest. This court was the place where the guards and servants of the high priest were assembled. Our Lord was within, in a large room, being arraigned before the council. St. John informs us (Joh_18:15) that he himself, being known to the high priest, had gone in with Jesus into the court of the high priest; and that he had been the means of bringing in Peter, who had been standing outside at the door leading into the court. We now see Peter among the servants, crouching over the fire. The weather was cold, for it was early springtime; and it was now after midnight. Peter was warming himself in the light of the fire (pro fwv), and so his features were clearly seen in the glow of the brightly burning charcoal.
Vers. 54, 66-72. Peter denying Christ.
Read full note →
The seeming discrepancies of the accounts by the evangelists of Peter"s threefold denial are explained on the ground of their independency of one another, and their making prominent various portions of a lengthened and complex series of actions. "Three denials are mentioned by all the evangelists, and three occasions are distinguished; but on some of these there was more than one speaker, and probably more than one answer." This circumstance was
I AN EVIDENCE OF THE POWER OF EVIL IN GOOD MEN. This is the great lesson of the sins of the saints. There ought to be continual watchfulness, and living and walking in the Spirit.
1. It is not well to expose one"s self to temptation unless from the highest motives. Curiosity seems to have been the ruling principle in Peter"s mind. He was following the highest good, but not as perceiving it to be so, or truly desiring it a perilous state of things. There are many unworthy followings of Christ, which have the "greater condemnation." Duty and self-sacrifice will, on the other hand, carry men safely through the most terrible trials.
2. Low views of Christ"s character and office tend to unworthy conduct. The whole spiritual state of Peter was such as to expose him to the perpetration of the worst actions, and this arose from prevalence of false conceptions of Christ"s person and work. His attitude and occupation immediately beforehand ("afar off;" "warming himself") have been regarded by many as symbolical of his spiritual position with regard to his Master. Scepticism and mental confusion on religious subjects, if not corrected or neutralized by close fellowship with Christ, or loyalty to the highest truth one knows, have sad moral results. Peter was still clinging against hope to his idea of a worldly Messiah.
3. Evil words and actions, if once indulged in, are the more easily repeated and aggravated. He proceeds from an equivocation neither know nor understand what thou sayest to a stronger and more direct negative, and then to oaths and profanities.
II AN EVIDENCE OF THE NECESSITY AND POWER OF CHRIST"S ATONEMENT. Even good men like Peter, if left to themselves, will grievously err and sin. How are men in such a position to be recovered?
1. There must therefore be a saving principle outside, and independent of ourselves. It is by virtue of his completed sacrifice in spirit that Christ by a look recalls his fallen disciple, and thus shows:
2. The power of his Spirit to redeem. In connection with such a power over spirit and conscience the greatest sins may be made the turning-points of repentance. Memory was appealed to, and the outward signs predicted by the Savior served as a spiritual index or clock of conscience. The cockcrowing has also an element of hope in it; it marked the dawning of a new day of penitence and enlightenment. M.
Following afar off.
The story of Peter"s denial is not omitted by any of the evangelists. They were more anxious for truth than for reputation. They set before us the strongest disciple at his weakest moment without a word of wonder, of blame, or of excuse. Our text indicates the state of mind which led to his fall. He was just beginning his descent to the depths of shame. Because he "followed afar off" he found the door of the house shut against him, cutting him off from John and from his Lord. Outside, alone, in the dark, he became more despondent as he reflected that Jesus was in the power of his foes, and that any attempt at rescue had been rebuked by himself; so by the time John came out he had given up hope, and still stood afar off from his Lord, amidst his foes. Then and there occurred this moral tragedy in Church history. Let us consider
I SOME MOTIVES WHICH SHOULD HAVE INDUCED PETER TO FOLLOW CLOSELY.
1. The remembrance of his own professions. When Jesus had asked, "Will ye also go away?" Peter had made a noble response; and when an earnest warning had been uttered a few hours before this, he had exclaimed, "Though all shall be offended, yet will not I" He meant his promises, and to abide by them; but though the spirit was willing, the flesh was weak. The world is fair in expecting more from those who are professed followers of Christ. Flight is more disgraceful to a soldier in uniform than to a camp-follower.
2. Peter"s recognized leadership of his brethren was another reason for close following. The Lord indicated that Peter would be their leader from the first, and the disciples acquiesced in this, always making way for him to speak and act on their behalf. His responsibility was the heavier. If he had continued to watch, they would have done so; if he had followed closely, they might have rallied. The failure of one was the failure of all. Each one is responsible to God for the talent, position, or force of character which constitutes him a leader of men. To whom much is given, from him much is required.
3. The loneliness of the Lord ought to have appealed to Peter"s heroism and generosity. We can hardly understand holy, with his noble impulses, he could have left Jesus alone amongst his foes. Yet how often do Christians now fail to stand forth like men to rebuke wrong-doing at any risk! The fact that they alone represent their Lord amid evil companions, is an appeal to all that is chivalrous in them to speak.
4. The remembrance of Christ"s personal love to him might have drawn him nearer. Jesus had dealt gently and generously with Peter. He had chosen him, with two of his brethren, to see his glory on the Mount of Transfiguration, and to see something of his dire agony in the garden. He had been faithfully warned of danger, and assured of the intercession of his Lord. Yet all seemed forgotten, and he only "followed afar off." It is when we realize the words, "He loved me, and gave himself for me," that we can say," My soul followeth hard after God.
II SOME EXCUSES WHICH PETER MIGHT HAVE URGED FOR HIS CONDUCT.
1. It seemed as if he could do no good to his Lord. He had tried in his own way to defend him, but had been rebuked, and no other way seemed open. He forgot that, though his Master had refused the use of physical force, he would have gladly welcomed human sympathy. John had deeper insight. Amid the sea of hatred which surged around him, our Lord saw at least one face which expressed love and sympathy. Utilitarianism sometimes keeps us from beautiful and graceful acts, because we do not see immediate, practical good in them. We should probably not have poured out the spikenard as Mary did, but should have joined with those who asked, "To what purpose is this waste?" Let us never follow afar off because we do not see the practical advantage of walking closely with our Lord. Heaven"s best blessings are too subtle to be tabulated.
2. It seemed as if evil would befall himself if he stood close beside his Master. On entering the palace amongst this excited rabble, he might fear personal violence, especially if he were recognized as the assailant of Malchus. He wished, therefore, to conduct himself as one of the miscellaneous crowd. In doing so he put his soul in danger, instead of his body. "He that sayeth his life shall lose it," his Lord had said, and Peter learnt the meaning soon. This mingling of courage and cowardice puts many a man in danger. May God give us the whole-hearted fidelity which even Peter failed that night to show! A.R.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv54–55 And Peter followed Him afar off.
Mar_14:54
And Peter followed Him afar off.
Read full note →
Following afar off
A young man, it is told, was for several months in a backsliding state, which manifested itself in the usual way,-of conformity to a fashionable and unholy course of life, and a neglect of the ordinances and institutions of the house of God. During this time he called on a deacon of the church, who was a watchmaker, and asked him to repair his watch. What is the difficulty with your watch? said he. It has lost time lately, said the young man. The deacon looked at him with a steady and significant eye, and said, Havent you lost time lately? These few words brought the backslider to repentance, to the church, and to duty.
Peters fall: its lessons
I. Who followed Him afar off? Peter.
1. Then seniority and leadership in the church are no guarantee against falling into sin. In the order of choice, Peter was the oldest of the apostles. He was also their recognized leader. Peter is the last man that should have followed afar off, both because of seniority and leadership, and the blighting influence that would naturally and inevitably result from his conduct. The power of leadership involves tremendous responsibility.
2. Then a man may backslide while blessed with the most faithful and efficient gospel teaching. Peters experience shows that a man may sin shamefully while blessed with the most perfect gospel teaching.
3. Then a man may backslide while blessed with the most affectionate pastoral care. Jesus foresaw his dangers; told him of the enemys purpose; warned him of this very fall, and in the true pastoral spirit bore him to God in prayer: I have prayed for thee. Surely no man was ever blessed with such pastoral solicitude and fidelity, and yet, in spite of it all, Peter fell.
4. Then high professions of loyalty and love are not always to be relied upon. Peters assurances partook somewhat of the nature of boasting. Great natures never burden you with vows and assurances. They are the product and sign of a weak; unreliable character. Peter soon found out, however, that it is one thing to make vows in the heavenly atmosphere of the upper room, but quite another thing to pay those vows amid the provocation of Gethsemane, and the excitement of the judgment hall. I have heard of a little boat that carried such an immense whistle that it took all the steam to blow it; so, whenever it whistled it stopped running. Too many in our churches are like that little boat; the whistle of their profession is too big for their supply of steam. It takes all their energy to blow it, to tell of their attainments, and what wonders they are going to do. (T. Kelly)
.
Following Christ afar off
I. Let us inquire, in the outset, concerning the significance of this action of Simon.
1. The facts are very simple. When Christ retrieved the folly which this impetuous disciple had committed, and healed the ear of Malchus, it does not appear that the magnanimity of the Master had any effect in mitigating the malignity of the mob. Simons stroke with his unusual weapon, instead of checking those belligerent people bearing swords and staves, came very near exasperating them. He simply put himself and his friends to flight, and then the crowd had it all their own way. It is a mournful record to read: They all forsook Him and fled. But now, after this sudden and useless panic, it appears that at least two of our Lords followers rallied their courage a little. They turned upon their flying footsteps, and started after the melancholy train. These were Peter and John. And the whole force of the dramatic incident we are studying is disclosed in the contrast of their behaviour. John ran with a will. As in the race afterwards for Christs sepulchre he easily distanced Peter (Joh_20:4), so now he arrived first in the palace. Moreover, he soon showed how brave he was, and how much in earnest to retrieve his temporary defection he was, by urging his way directly through all obstacles into the very apartment where Jesus had been taken for trial; he went in with Jesus, but Peter stood at the door without (Joh_18:15-16).
2. The meaning of all this is what makes it so important. One has no need of being deceived ever as to the exact commencement of any defection from Christ. Backsliding is earliest in the heart, then it shows itself in ones ways (Pro_14:14). Absalom was a rebel while as yet he made no overt attack on his fathers throne. The younger son was a prodigal before he started for the far country. Peter was a renegade and a poltroon from the earliest instant in which, listless and halting, he had begun to follow Jesus only afar off. For an analysis of his experience would have disclosed three bad elements.
1. There was petulance in it. Simons self-love was wounded when Jesus administered the somewhat extensive rebuke he had received (Mat_26:52-54). He felt himself aggrieved. His defection began with sullenness. We cannot doubt that his countenance fell; he wore an injured expression.
2. There was distrust in his experience. We have seen that there was some reason for all the disciples to apprehend violence, instantaneous and passionate. Peter was fully responsible for that. The immediate result of his rashness was danger rather than deliverance. But could not Jesus be relied upon for rescue? Was not John fully protected afterwards?
3. There was unbelief in his experience. This disciple evidently had become ashamed of his adhesion to Jesus as the Messiah. An omnipotent Son of God was in his estimation for the moment letting things go too far, when He suffered Himself to be apprehended by a rabble and maltreated in this way without a word. Perhaps Simon lost confidence in His cause. If the words of Matthew are to be taken literally (Mat_26:58), this disciple did not follow Jesus, even afar off, so much from affection as from curiosity; he went into the palace not to see Jesus, but to see the end.
II. Let us go a step farther now, and inquire concerning the results of this behaviour of Peter.
1. It took him away from Christs personal presence. There was always to this disciple a peculiar exhilaration and help in the companionship of his Divine Lord. Under the shining of His countenance he constantly grows humble, gentle, and affectionate. Just as Mercury, that feeblest of all the planets in our solar system, seems most brilliant when likeliest to disappear, because nearest the sun, so Simon actually appears at his best when he is the most outshone; and the moment he wanders, he wanes. Duty is to most of us what this personal leadership was to the disciples. If we follow our religious duties close up, they will bring us near Jesus.
2. Again, this behaviour separated Peter from the sympathy of Jesus adherents. In union there is strength. Those disciples ought not to have allowed themselves to be scattered during the trials of that passover night. For together they would have helped each other very much. Now we do not know what became of any of them except John. If Peter had been sitting by Johns side he certainly would have been safer. He was easily influenced, and the beloved disciple soon recovered his courage and loyalty. Whenever professed Christians are seen to be falling away from each other by following the Master afar off, there is reason for alarm in reference to their spiritual interests. Only sin is solitary, and only guilt loves to live alone. Hence there is vast wisdom in the ancient counsel that believers should not forsake the assembling of themselves together, as the manner of some is (Heb_10:25).
3. Moreover, this behaviour threw Peter hopelessly into the companionship of his enemies. Peter fell into bad company the instant he fell out of good.
III. It is time for us to inquire concerning the real cause of Simon Peters defection that night.
1. It would not be enough to ascribe it just to a sudden fright of alarm.
2. It was because his piety, at that period of his history, was fashioned more by feeling than by principle. Peters spirituality blew in a gusty sort of way because his theological groundwork was faulty. We remember more than one occasion when he deliberately interfered with our Lords communication of the doctrine of the atonement. As a master, a teacher, a leader, he loved Jesus personally; there he rested. Jesus away, he failed. Soft gales do not always waft to the heaven; they the rather often aid in an unperceived drift towards the open sea. Simon loved to have all things beautiful and serene. He was the man who grew ecstatic on the mount of transfiguration, and proposed that Jesus should stay there. His sensibilities were so shocked at the thought of the Saviours maltreatment, that he protested against the official act of sealing the covenant of redemption with blood. The words were characteristic: This shall not be unto Thee (Mat_16:22). Now let it be remembered that for nobody is there any hope of standing firm under stress of opposition, if his piety has been nurtured only in tender hours of emotional enjoyment. Spiritual impulses will be dangerously irregular and intermittent unless they have the help of steady purpose underneath. Carpenters never cut ships knees from tropical palms. The grand doctrines of the cross must be wrought into the very fibre of ones soul, as the granite soil and the winter tempests of the mountains are wrought into the gnarls of the oak which the shipwright loves. That is to say, Christian character is reared out of a determinate wrestle with sin.
IV. Finally, let us inquire concerning the admonition which is suggested by this behaviour of Peter.
1. How can this sin be repeated in our time? We follow Jesus afar off when we refuse to defend the doctrines of redemption before unbelievers who scoff at a blood atonement-when we allow the rules and institutions of the Christian Church to be derided or belittled in our hearing-when we neglect the ordinances of Gods house and refuse the fixed practice of family devotion-when we strain Christian liberty to see how much of indulgence in worldliness an unattacked church membership will bear. There is no difficulty whatever in modern experience in the way of repeating Peters wrong.
2. It is a better question to ask, How can this sin of following Christ afar off be avoided in our time? John, and not Peter, is our pattern. The way to escape the taunts of maidservants in the hall is to go right up the steps into the presence of Jesus. It touches us to the heart to read the words which show how well Simon understood all his cowardice and folly long years afterwards (1Pe_5:6-10). (C. S. Robinson, D. D.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
William B. Godbey 1900 · Public Domain On v55 Mat 26:59-68; Mar 14:55-65; Luk 22:63-71;Joh 18:19-24. “Then the…
JESUS CONDEMNED BY THE SANHEDRIN
Mat 26:59-68; Mar 14:55-65; Luk 22:63-71;Joh 18:19-24. “Then the high priest asked Jesus concerning His disciples and teaching. Jesus responded to Him, I spoke boldly to the world. I always taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, where all the Jews come together, and I spoke nothing in secret. Why do you ask Me? Ask those who heard what I said to them; behold, they know the things which I said. He, speaking these things, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, Do you thus answer the high priest? Jesus responded to him, If I spoke wickedly, testify concerning the wickedness; but if truly, why do you smite Me? Then Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.” Evidently, Annas and Caiaphas had their tribunals in the same great quadrangular building standing on Mount Zion, and now visited by the thirty thousand pilgrims annually going to Jerusalem. Having first been arraigned at the tribunal of Annas, He is now, about day-dawn, led bound to the tribunal of Caiaphas. You see how the high priest endeavored to make Him confess, hoping to utilize His own testimony against Himself, as they had no witnesses to amount to anything, and thus condescended to a very cowardly stratagem, which even if he had succeeded, the law pronounces the weakest of all evidence. It was awfully barbaric for that officer to smite a prisoner in bonds. You see, Jesus vindicates Himself reminding the man of the criminal impropriety of this uncouth assault upon a defenseless prisoner illustrating the right of all His followers to vindicate themselves from false accusation, violence, and tyranny, and refuting the idea somewhat prevalent that we are never to advocate our rights and vindicate ourselves against the oppression of the wicked.
Read full note →
Luk 22:66. “And when it was day, the eldership of the people, the chief priests, and the scribes were assembled, and led Him into the Sanhedrin.” As they had been on His track, like bloodhounds, three years, eager to take, His life (but restrained by the fear of the people; and well they might be, because a bloody civil war would have broken out immediately), such is their fear of the people that they attack Him at midnight, aiming to secure the death-warrant and kill Him before day. In this they are disappointed and woefully disconcerted, being unable to convene the Sanhedrin till day dawn, though keeping couriers running at race-horse speed all night, (notifying and urging them up. The Sanhedrin was the highest court of the politico-ecclesiasticism, the successor of the eldership organized by Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, during their wilderness peregrinations.
Mar 14:55-59. “And the high priest and all the Sanhedrin continued to seek testimony against Jesus to put him to death, and they found none.” Matthew says “false testimony.” Of course, they preferred true testimony if they could get it; but as there was none, they were anxious to take any kind they could get. “For many continued to testify falsely against Him, and their testimonies were not equal,” i. e., they contradicted one another, which in law invalidates both, so that they are thrown out of court. “And certain ones, rising up, falsely testified against Him, saying, We heard Him saying, That I will destroy this temple, made with hands, and in three days I will build another, made without hands. Indeed their testimony was not equal;” i. e., they contradicted one another. Perhaps some of the witnesses gave it correctly; but you have only to look at Joh 2:19, “Destroy this temple, and I will build it in three days,” to see that the above witnesses were false, as they testified that He said, “I will destroy this temple, made with hands, and build another, made without hands.” By comparison, you see that these witnesses did not quote Him correctly, as their testimony would make it mean that great stone edifice standing on Mount Moriah; while He did not mean that at all, but the temple of His body. Why did He not correct them when so grossly misrepresenting Him? Because it would have done no good, as Satan was in them, and they were thirsting for His blood.
Mat 26:62-66. “The high priest, standing up, said to Him, Do You answer nothing? What are they witnessing against Thee? And Jesus was silent.” Under temptation, the better policy is, like Jesus, to keep silent. You should never speak while under severe provocation. “The high priest, responding, said to Him, I assure Thee by the living God, that Thou mayest tell us if Thou art the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus says to him, Thou sayest it.” That is an Oriental form of affirmation. Here, you see, Jesus answers while under oath of affirmation, administered by the high priest. Hence you see His indirect approval appertaining to the civil oath of affirmation. Paul (1Th 5:23) administers a solemn oath to the Thessalonian saints to read his letter to all the members of the Church.
“Moreover I say unto you, Hereafter you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven.” The first clause of this wonderful prophecy of our Lord was fulfilled when they saw Him rise from the dead and ascend up to heaven from Mount Olivet; while the second clause, “coming in the clouds of heaven,” will be fulfilled when Jesus shall ride down on a cloud and receive all the kingdoms of this world (Dan 7:9-14) and reign forever. In this wonderful sentence there is not so much as a comma, yet those two clauses are separated by many centuries, the former being verified in a few days, and the latter still pending.
“Then the high priest tore His robes, saying, That He blasphemed; what need of testimony have we yet? Behold, now , you have heard His blasphemy. What seems good to you? And they, responding, said, He is worthy of death.” Mark says this verdict was unanimous, So here you see the issue of His prosecution before the Sanhedrin They unanimously condemned Him to die for blasphemy, according to the law of Moses. (Lev 24:16.) Thus you see, good and just laws become vehicles of tyranny and persecution when in the hands of bad men, and are no guarantee of fight and justice when the devil is in the administrators. Jesus died under the verdict of Divine law, and so did all the martyrs, there being no trouble about the law; but Satan was in the preachers and ruling elders. So it is this day. Some of the brightest saints that walk beneath the skies, have been excommunicated, while drunkards, libertines, blasphemers, and thieves have been retained without impeachment. Such was the case in the days of Luther and Wesley, and always will be so when Diabolus gets into the clergy and official laity.
Luk 22:63-65. “And the men who had charge of Jesus began to mock Him, beating Him; and covering Him, continued to strike His face, and ask Him, saying, Prophesy, who is the one smiting thee? And blaspheming Him as to many other things, they continued to speak against Him.” The truth of it is, Jesus had no trial, it was a mockery; to their infinite shame, barbarically abusing Him while a prisoner in chains, which is revolting to the very idea of civil, not to say ecclesiastical administration. Nicodemus certifies that Jewish law never condemned a man till he met his accusers face to face, and had a fair and impartial trial. Festus, the Roman proconsul, makes the same statement in reference to imperial law. Hence, Jesus was mobbed and outlawed. But did He not come into the world to die? Most assuredly; and He would have died to redeem the world from sin, death, and hell if neither Judas nor Caiphas had ever been born. Yet that is no apology for the diabolical treason, perfidy, and murder which they committed, overtly, without excuse.
William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Alexander MacLaren 1905 · Public Domain On v55 Mar 14:55 - Mar 14:65.
Mark
THE CONDEMNATION WHICH CONDEMNS THE JUDGES
Read full note →
Mar 14:55 - Mar 14:65.
Mark brings out three stages in our Lord’s trial by the Jewish authorities-their vain attempts to find evidence against Him, which were met by His silence; His own majestic witness to Himself, which was met by a unanimous shriek of condemnation; and the rude mockery of the underlings. The other Evangelists, especially John, supply many illuminative details; but the essentials are here. It is only in criticising the Gospels that a summary and a fuller narrative are dealt with as contradictory. These three stages naturally divide this paragraph.
I. The judges with evil thoughts, the false witnesses, and the silent Christ {Mar 14:55}.
The criminal is condemned before He is tried. The judges have made up their minds before they sit, and the Sanhedrim is not a court of justice, but a slaughter-house, where murder is to be done under sanction of law. Mark, like Matthew, notes the unanimity of the ‘council,’ to which Joseph of Arimathea-the one swallow which does not make a summer-appears to have been the only exception; and he probably was absent, or, if present, was silent. He did ‘not consent’; but we are not told that he opposed. That ill-omened unanimity measures the nation’s sin. Flagrant injustice and corruption in high places is possible only when society as a whole is corrupt or indifferent to corruption. This prejudging of a case from hatred of the accused as a destroyer of sacred tradition, and this hunting for evidence to bolster up a foregone conclusion, are preeminently the vices of ecclesiastical tribunals and not of Jewish Sanhedrim or Papal Inquisition only. Where judges look for witnesses for the prosecution, plenty will be found, ready to curry favour by lies. The eagerness to find witnesses against Jesus is witness for Him, as showing that nothing in His life or teaching was sufficient to warrant their murderous purpose. His judges condemn themselves in seeking grounds to condemn Him, for they thereby show that their real motive was personal spite, or, as Caiaphas suggested, political expediency.
The single specimen of the worthless evidence given may be either a piece of misunderstanding or of malicious twisting of innocent words; nor can we decide whether the witnesses contradicted one another or each himself. The former is the more probable, as the fundamental principle of the Jewish law of evidence {‘two or three witnesses’} would, in that case, rule out the testimony. The saying which they garble meant the very opposite of what they made it mean. It represented Jesus as the restorer of that which Israel should destroy. It referred to His body which is the true Temple; but the symbolic temple ‘made with hands’ is so inseparably connected with the real, that the fate of the one determines that of the other. Strangely significant, therefore, is it, that the rulers heard again, though distorted, at that moment when they were on their trial, the far-reaching sentence, which might have taught them that in slaying Jesus they were throwing down the Temple and all which centred in it, and that by His resurrection, His own act, He would build up again a new polity, which yet was but the old transfigured, even ‘the Church, which is His body.’ His work destroys nothing but ‘the works of the devil.’ He is the restorer of the divine ordinances and gifts which men destroy, and His death and resurrection bring back in nobler form all the good things lost by sin, ‘the desolations of many generations.’ The history of all subsequent attacks on Christ is mirrored here. The foregone conclusion, the evidence sought as an after-thought to give a colourable pretext, the material found by twisting His teaching, the blindness which accuses Him of destroying what He restores, and fancies itself as preserving what it is destroying, have all reappeared over and over again.
Our Lord’s silence is not only that of meekness, ‘as a sheep before her shearers is dumb.’ It is the silence of innocence, and, if we may use the word concerning Him, of scorn. He will not defend Himself to such judges, nor stoop to repel evidence which they knew to be worthless. But there is also something very solemn and judicial in His locked lips. They had ever been ready to open in words of loving wisdom; but now they are fast closed, and this is the penalty for despising, that He ceases to speak. Deaf ears make a dumb Christ, What will happen when Jesus and His judges change places, as they will one day do? When He says to each, ‘Answerest thou nothing? What is it which these, thy sins, witness against thee?’ each will be silent with the consciousness of guilt and of just condemnation by His all-knowing justice.
II. Christ’s majestic witness to Himself received with a shriek of condemnation.
What a supreme moment that was when the head of the hierarchy put this question and received the unambiguous answer! The veriest impostor asserting Messiahship had a right to have his claims examined; but a howl of hypocritical horror is all which Christ’s evoke. The high priest knew well enough what Christ’s answer would be. Why, then, did he not begin by questioning Jesus, and do without the witnesses? Probably because the council wished to find some pretext for His condemnation without bringing up the real reason; for it looked ugly to condemn a man for claiming to be Messias, and to do it without examining His credentials. The failure, however, of the false witnesses compelled the council to ‘show their hands,’ and to hear and reject our Lord solemnly and, so to speak, officially, laying His assertion of dignity and office before them, as the tribunal charged with the duty of examining His proofs. The question is so definite as to imply a pretty full and accurate knowledge of our Lord’s teaching about Himself. It embraces two points-office and nature; for ‘the Christ’ and ‘the Son of the Blessed’ are not equivalents. The latter title points to our Lord’s declarations that He was the Son of God, and is an instance of the later Jewish superstition which avoided using the divine name. Loving faith delights in the name of the Lord. Dead formalism changes reverence into dread, and will not speak it.
Sham reverence, feigned ignorance, affected wish for information, the false show of judicial impartiality, and other lies and vices not a few, are condensed in the question; and the fact that the judge had to ask it and hear the answer, is an instance of a divine purpose working through evil men, and compelling reluctant lips to speak words the meaning and bearing of which they little know. Jesus could not leave such a challenge unanswered. Silence then would have been abandonment of His claims. It was fitting that the representatives of the nation should, at that decisive moment, hear Him declare Himself Messiah. It was not fitting that He should be condemned on any other ground. In that answer, and its reception by the council, the nation’s rejection of Jesus is, as it were, focused and compressed. This was the end of centuries of training by miracle, prophet and psalmist-the saddest instance in man’s long, sad history of his awful power to frustrate God’s patient educating! Our Lord’s majestic ‘I am,’ in one word answers both parts of the question, and then passes on, with strange calm and dignity, to point onwards to the time when the criminal will be the judge, and the judges will stand at His bar. ‘The Son of Man,’ His ordinary designation of Himself, implies His true manhood, and His representative character, as perfect man, or, to use modern language, the ‘realised ideal’ of humanity. In the present connection, its employment in the same sentence as His assertion that He is the Son of God goes deep into the mystery of His twofold nature, and declares that His manhood had a supernatural origin and wielded divine prerogatives. Accordingly there follows the explicit prediction of His assumption of the highest of these after His death. The Cross was as plain to Him as ever; but beyond it gleamed the crown and the throne. He anticipates ‘sitting on the right hand of power,’ which implies repose, enthronement, judicature, investiture with omnipotence, and administration of the universe. He anticipates ‘coming in the clouds of heaven,’ which distinctly claims to be the future Judge of the world. His hearers could scarcely fail to discern the reference to Daniel’s prophecy.
Was ever the irony of history more pungently exemplified than in an Annas and Caiaphas holding up hands of horror at the ‘blasphemies’ of Jesus? They rightly took His words to mean more than the claim of Messiahship as popularly understood. To say that He was the Christ was not ‘blasphemy,’ but a claim demanding examination; but to say that He, the Son of Man, was Son of God and supreme Judge was so, according to their canons. How unconsciously the exclamation, ‘What need we further witnesses?’ betrays the purpose for which the witnesses had been sought, as being simply His condemnation! They were ‘needed’ to compass His death, which the council now gleefully feels to be secured. So with precipitate unanimity they vote. And this was Israel’s welcome to their King, and the outcome of all their history! And it was the destruction of the national life. That howl of condemnation pronounced sentence on themselves and on the whole order of which they were the heads. The prisoner’s eyes alone saw then what we and all men may see now-the handwriting on the wall of the high priest’s palace: ‘Weighed in the balance, and found wanting.’
III. The savage mockers and the patient Christ {Mar 14:65}.
There is an evident antithesis between the ‘all’ of Mar 14:64 and the ‘some’ of Mar 14:65, which shows that the inflictors of the indignities were certain members of the council, whose fury carried them beyond all bounds of decency. The subsequent mention of the ‘servants’ confirms this, especially when we adopt the more accurate rendering of the Revised Version, ‘received Him with blows.’ Mark’s account, then, is this: that, as soon as the unanimous howl of condemnation had beep uttered, some of the ‘judges’{!} fell upon Jesus with spitting and clumsy ridicule and downright violence, and that afterwards He was handed over to the underlings, who were not slow to copy the example set them at the upper end of the hall.
It was not an ignorant mob who thus answered His claims, but the leaders and teachers-the crème de la crème of the nation. A wild beast lurks below the Pharisee’s long robes and phylacteries; and the more that men have changed a living belief in religion for a formal profession, the more fiercely antagonistic are they to every attempt to realise its precepts and hopes. The ‘religious’ men who mock Jesus in the name of traditional religion are by no means an extinct species. It is of little use to shudder at the blind cruelty of dead scribes and priests. Let us rather remember that the seeds of their sins are in us all, and take care to check their growth. What a volcano of hellish passion bursts out here! Spitting expresses disgust; blinding and asking for the names of the smiters is a clumsy attempt at wit and ridicule; buffeting is the last unrestrained form of hate and malice. The world has always paid its teachers and benefactors in such coin; but all other examples pale before this saddest, transcendent instance. Love is repaid by hate; a whole nation is blind to supreme and unspotted goodness; teachers steeped in ‘law and prophets’ cannot see Him of and for whom law and prophets witnessed and were, when He stands before them. The sin of sins is the failure to recognise Jesus for what He is. His person and claims are the touchstone which tries every beholder of what sort He is.
How wonderful the silent patience of Jesus! He withholds not His face ‘from shame and spitting.’ He gives ‘His back to the smiters.’ Meek endurance and passive submission are not all which we have to behold there. This is more than an uncomplaining martyr. This is the sacrifice for the world’s sin; and His bearing of all that men can inflict is more than heroism. It is redeeming love. His sad, loving eyes, wide open below their bandage, saw and pitied each rude smiter, even as He sees us all. They were and are eyes of infinite tenderness, ready to beam forgiveness; but they were and are the eyes of the Judge, who sees and repays His foes, as those who smite Him will one day find out.
Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. W. McGarvey 1914 · Public Domain On v54 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.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv55, 57 This word is used here to mark a shift…
Now
This word is used here to mark a shift in the story line as the author continues telling us about Jesus being put on trial.
Read full note →
they might put him to death
They were not the ones who would execute Jesus; rather, they would order someone else to do it. AT: "they might have Jesus executed" or "they might have someone execute Jesus" (See: Metonymy)
But they did not find any
They did not find testimony against Jesus with which they could convict him and have him put to death. AT: "But they did not find any testimony with which to convict him" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)
brought false testimony against him
Here speaking false testimony is described as if it were a physical object that someone can carry. AT: "accused him by speaking false testimony against him" (See: Metaphor)
their testimony did not agree
This can be written in positive form. "but their testimony contradicted each other"
translationWords
chief priests
council
seek
testimony
die
corrupt witness
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 v55 14:55-59 The trial took place before the entire high…
14:55-59 The trial took place before the entire high council (Greek Sanhedrin), which had seventy members and was led by the high priest. The Gospels portray a formal trial: There was a search for witnesses (14:55), eyewitness testimony (14:56-59), Jesus being placed under oath (Matt 26:63), Jesus being allowed to defend himself (Mark 14:60), the high priest tearing his robe (14:63), and the concluding verdict by the Sanhedrin (14:64). This does not mean that it was a fair trial—the decision to put Jesus to death had already been made. Evidence was not sought to determine the truth, but to obtain a guilty verdict and death sentence. • False witnesses giving false testimony misrepresented what Jesus said about the destruction and rebuilding of the Temple (see 15:29; John 2:19; Acts 6:14). Because the false witnesses contradicted each other, their testimony was unacceptable (Num 35:30; Deut 17:6; 19:15).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.