Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 18:12

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 18:12” utilice nuestra app.

Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him,

12 27. The Jewish or Ecclesiastical Trial

12. Then the band, and the captain ] Therefore ( Joh 18:3) the band &c., because of this violent attempt at resistance. The captain or chiliarch is the tribune or chief officer of the Roman cohort. The representations of the hierarchy to the Romans are confirmed by S. Peter’s act: Jesus the Nazarene is a dangerous character who stirs up His followers to rebellion; He must be properly secured and bound. Perhaps also their falling to the ground on meeting Him impressed them with the, necessity of using the utmost caution, as with a powerful magician. The whole force is required to secure Him.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

See Mat 26:50.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 12. The captain] , The chiliarch, or chief over one thousand men-answering nearly to a colonel with us. See Clarke on Lu 22:4. He was probably the prefect or captain of the temple guard.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

As is usual for officers to do with ordinary malefactors which are great criminals; they put no difference between Christ and the most villanous thieves and murderers. There are many conjectures why Christ was first led to Annas, whereas Caiaphas was the high priest that year, not Annas (as the next words tell us); but it is uncertain whether it was because his house was very near, and in the way to Caiaphass house, or that he lived in the same house with his son in law; or out of an honour and respect to him, being the high priests father, or to please the old mans peevish eyes with such a sight, or by this means to draw Annas to the trial of Christ, or because he had had a more than ordinary hand about the apprehending him, or to take direction from him what to do: we cannot give a certain account why they used this method; we are only certain they did it, and that they did not carry him before him as high priest; for the next words tell us …( see Joh 18:13).

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

12. Then the band . . . tookJesusbut not till He had made them feel that “no man tookHis life from Him, but that He laid it down of Himself.”

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Ver. 12 Then the band, and the captain, and the officers of the Jews,…. Which Judas received, and which came along with him, Joh 18:3. When Jesus had rebuked Peter, and healed the servant’s ear, and showed such a willingness to surrender himself to them;

they took Jesus and bound him. This they did, partly for safety and security, he having several times escaped from them; and partly for contempt, and by way of reproach, using him as they would do the vilest of malefactors: and this was submitted to by Christ, that his people might be loosed from the cords of sin, be delivered from the captivity of Satan, and be freed from the bondage of the law; hereby the types of him were fulfilled, as the binding of Isaac, when his father was going to offer him up, and the binding of the sacrifice with cords to the horns of the altar: who that has read the ceremonies of the sheaf of the firstfruits, but must call them to mind, upon reading this account of the apprehension and binding of Christ, and leading him to the high priest? This sheaf was fetched from places the nearest to Jerusalem, particularly from the fields of Kidron: the manner was this i:

“the messengers of the sanhedrim went out (from Jerusalem) on the evening of the feast day (the sixteenth of Nisan, and over the brook Kidron to the adjacent fields), and bound the standing corn in bundles, that it might be the easier reaped; and all the neighbouring cities gathered together there, that it might be reaped in great pomp; and when it was dark, one (of the reapers) says to them, is the sun set? they say, yes; and again, is the sun set? they say, yes: with this sickle (shall I reap?) they say, yes; again, with this sickle (shall I reap?) they say, yes; in this basket (shall I put it?) they say, yes; again, in this basket (shall I put it?) they say, yes; if on the sabbath day he says to them, is this sabbath day? they say, yes; again, is this sabbath day? they say, yes; (it was sabbath day this year;) Shall I reap? they say to him reap, shall I reap? they say to him reap; three times upon everything; then they reap it, and put it into the baskets, and, bring it to the court, where they dry it at the fire.”

Whoever reads this, will easily observe a likeness: the messengers of the great sanhedrim go to the fields of Kidron, in the evening, with their sickles and baskets; bind the standing corn; questions and answers pass between them and the people before they reap; and when they have done, they bring the sheaf in their basket to the court, to be dried at the fire. So the officers of the high priest, with others, pass over the brook Kidron, with lanterns, torches, and weapons; in the night go into a garden; there apprehend Jesus; questions and answers pass between them there; then they lay hold on him, bind him, and bring him to the high, priest.

i Misn. Menachot, c. 10. sect. 2, 3, 4.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

The chief captain ( ). They actually had the Roman commander of the cohort along (cf. Ac 21:31), not mentioned before.

Seized (). Second aorist active of , old verb to grasp together, to arrest (technical word) in the Synoptics in this context (Mark 14:48; Matt 26:55), here alone in John.

Bound (). First aorist active indicative of , to bind. As a matter of course, with the hands behind his back, but with no warrant in law and with no charge against him.

To Annas first ( ). Ex-high priest and father-in-law (, old word, only here in N.T.) of Caiaphas the actual high priest. Then Jesus was subjected to a preliminary and superfluous inquiry by Annas (given only by John) while the Sanhedrin were gathering before Caiaphas. Bernard curiously thinks that the night trial actually took place here before Annas and only the early morning ratification was before Caiaphas. So he calmly says that “Matthew inserts the name Caiaphas at this point (the night trial) in which he seems to have been mistaken.” But why “mistaken”?

That year ( ). Genitive of time.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

The captain [] . See on Mr 6:21, and on centurion, Luk 7:2.

Took [] . Rev., better, seized. It is the technical word for arresting. Literally, took with them, of which there is a suggestion in the modern policeman’s phrase, go along with me. Compare Luk 22:54.

13 – 18. Compare Mt 26:57, 58; 69 – 75; Mr 14:53, 54; 66 – 72; Luk 22:54 – 62.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

JESUS BEFORE ANNAS AND CAIAPHAS V. 12-14

1) “Then the band,” (he oun speira) “Then the band,” who had come to arrest Jesus, the band of Roman soldiers stationed at Antonio’s castle in the city, Joh 18:3, Act 21:31-32; Act 21:34; Act 21:37; Act 22:24. Then when they were sure they had their man, they aided the officers of the Jewish Sanhedrin who arrested Jesus.

2) “And the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus,” (kai ho chiliarchos kai hoi huperetai ton loudaion sunelabon ton lesoun) “And the captain and the attendants of the Jews took hold on Jesus,” as if He were a capital criminal. Yes, it was the Levitical officers of the Jews, who were supposed to be holy men, who incited, agitated, and pressed for His death, 1Th 2:14-15.

3) “And bound him,” (kai edesan auton) “And they bound him,” shackled, tied or chained Him, mentioned by John only, a form of humiliation, that seems to have led Him to prison, a dungeon, in the late hours of that night, Isa 53:8; Act 8:32-33.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

12. Then the band of soldiers and the captain. It might be thought strange that Christ, who laid the soldiers prostrate on the ground by a single word, now allows himself to be taken; for if he intended at length to surrender to his enemies, what need was there for performing such a miracle? But the demonstration of divine power was advantageous in two respects; for, first, it serves to take away the offense, that we may not think that Christ yielded as if he had been overcome by weakness; and, secondly, it proves that in dying he was altogether voluntary. So far as it was useful, therefore, he asserted his power against his enemies; but when it was necessary to obey the Father, he restrained himself, that he might be offered as a sacrifice. But let us remember that the body of the Son of God was bound, that our souls might be loosed from the cords of sin and of Satan.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

TRIAL BY THE JEWISH AUTHORITIES

Text: .Joh. 18:12-27

So the band and the chief captain, and the officers of the Jews, seized Jesus and bound him,

and led him to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, who was high priest that year.

Now Caiaphas was he that gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.

And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Now that disciple was known unto the high priest, and entered in with Jesus into the court of the high priest;

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.

The maid therefore that kept the door saith unto Peter, Art thou also one of this mans disciples? He saith, I am not.

Now the servants and 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, standing and warming himself.

The high priest therefore asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his teaching.

Jesus answered him, I have spoken openly to the world; I ever taught in synagogues, and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and in secret spake I nothing.

Why askest thou me? ask them that have heard me, what I spake unto them: behold, these know the things which I said.

And when he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?

Jesus answered him, if I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?

Annas therefore sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.

Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said therefore unto him, Art thou also one of his disciples? He denied, and said, I am not.

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?

Peter therefore denied again: and straightway the cock crew.

Queries

Why did they take Jesus to Annas first?

Why did Peter gain entrance into the court of the high priests palace and then deny that he knew Jesus?

Why did Annas ask Jesus concerning His disciples and His teaching?

Paraphrase (Harmony)

So the band and the chief captain, and the officers of the Jews, seized Jesus and bound him, and led him to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. Now Caiaphas was he that gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.

And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Now that disciple was known unto the high priest, and entered in with Jesus into the court of the high priest; 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. The maid therefore that kept the door saith unto Peter, Art thou also one of this mans disciples? He saith, I am not. 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, standing and warming himself.
The high priest therefore asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his teaching. Jesus answered him, I have spoken openly to the world; I even taught in synagogues, and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and in secret spake I nothing. Why askest thou me? Ask them that have heard me, what I spake unto them: behold, these know the things which I said. And when he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me? Annas therefore sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.
And they that had taken Jesus led him away to the house of Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together. And Peter had followed him afar off, even within, into the court of the high priest; and sat with the officers to see the end. And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the court, and had sat down together, Peter sat in the midst of them, warming himself in the light of the fire.
Now the chief priests and the whole council sought false witness against Jesus, that they might put him to death; and they found it not, though many false witnesses came. For many bare false witness against him, and their witness agreed not together. But afterward came two, and said, 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, And not even so did their witness agree together. And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? What is it which these witness against thee? But he held his peace, and answered nothing.
And the high priest said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God. And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven. And the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, He hath spoken blasphemy: What further need have we of witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be worthy of death. And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and beat him. Then did they spit in his face and buffet him, cover his face. And some smote him with the palms of their hands, saying, prophesy unto us, thou Christ: who is he that struck thee? And the officers received him with blows of their hands. And many other things spake they against him, reviling him.
And as Peter was beneath in the court, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest; and seeing Peter warming himself, as he sat in the light of the fire, and looking steadfastly upon him, said, Thou also wast with the Nazarene, even Jesus. But he denied, before them all saying, woman I know him not I neither know, nor understand what thou sayest: and he went out into the porch, and the cock crew. 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? And the maid saw him, and began again to say to them that stood by, This is one of them. But he again denied it. And after a little while again they that stood by said to Peter, Of a truth thou art one of them; for thou art a Galilean, for thy speech maketh thee known. But he began to curse, and to swear, I know not this man of whom ye speak. and straightway the second time the cock crew. And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how that he said unto him, Before the cock crow twice this day thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.
Now when morning was come, all the chief priests and the elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death: and they led him away into their council, saying, If thou art the Christ, tell us. But he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: and if I ask you, ye will not answer. But from henceforth shall the Son of man be seated at the right hand of the power of God. And they all said, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. And they said, What further need have we of witness? for we ourselves have heard from his own mouth.
Then Judas, who betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, I have sinned in that I betrayed innocent blood. But they said, What is that to us? See thou to it. And he cast down the pieces of silver into the sanctuary, and departed; and he went away and hanged himself. And the chief priests took the pieces of silver, and said, It is not lawful to put them in the treasury, since it the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potters field to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was priced, whom certain of the children of Israel did price; and they gave them for the potters field, as the Lord appointed me.

Summary

By cruel and evil men Jesus is tried illegally, coerced, mocked, brutalized and condemned without proof or cause. The Jewish authorities had already condemned Him before trial. At the same trials, His most steadfast disciple denies Him.

Comment

Jesus is led first to the palace of the high priest which was probably in, or at least very near, the temple courts. Here He was subjected to a sort of preliminary questioning by Annas, father-in-law of the present high priest Caiaphas. Ever since the Romans had occupied Palestine the high priests no longer held office for life as the O.T. Law legislated. Jewish high priests were now appointed by the Romans as they saw fit. According to history Annas had been high priest and had ruled from 714 A.D. when he was deposed by the Roman procurator, Gratus, and Caiaphas, his son-in-law, was appointed and ruled from 1836 A.D. Five sons of Annas ruled as high priest during this final period of Jewish national life. Just why Jesus was taken to Annas first we do not know. Conjecturally speaking we would guess that it had something to do with the pride and vain glory of Annas himself that would cause him to demand Jesus be brought to him first. Perhaps Annas really pulled all the strings in the office and his son-in-law Caiaphas was merely the puppet high priest (cf. Luk. 3:2; Act. 4:6).

It seems highly probable that Annas and Caiaphas would both reside in the palace of the high priest. Therefore just as soon as Annas was through with his questioning they took Jesus immediately into the quarters of Caiaphas. From there He was taken into the council chambers of the Sanhedrin. The harmonized account of all the Jewish trials indicates that they all transpired in one place for Peter did not leave the same courtyard. The palace would be built on the same order as most expensive homes in Jerusalem, around an open court. The rooms were in the rectangle opening into the inside court. The hall leading from the front door to this court was called the porch. The gallery connecting these rooms surrounded the court and was a little higher than the court, although not like a second story.

John does not give us any information on the trial before Caiaphas and the one before the Sanhedrin. He supplies what the Synoptics do notthe questioning before Annas. John seems to be that other disciple of Joh. 18:16 and he was an eyewitness to the questioning by Annas. Some think this other disciple was not John but one who dwelt at Jerusalem and who, not being a Galilean, could enter the palace without suspicion. But John states that the other disciple was known to the high priest and his servants and was therefore allowed certain liberties others were not allowed. We might guess that John, being the son of a well-to-do fisherman, would have been patronized by the high priest. The authorities would want the influence of the well-to-do businessmen.

Hendriksen says of Annas that He was very proud, exceedingly ambitious, and fabulously wealthy. His family was notorious for its greed. The main source of his wealth seems to have been a goodly share of the proceeds from the price of sacrificial animals, which were sold in the Court of the Gentiles. By him the house of prayer had been turned into a den of robbers. Even the Talmud declares: Woe to the family of Annas! Woe to the serpent-like hisses! (probably the whisperings of Annas and the members of his family, seeking to bribe and influence the judges).

The reason that John makes the parenthetical notice concerning Caiaphas in Joh. 18:14 is because of the significance of his statement that it was expedient for one man to die for the whole nation (cf. our comments on Joh. 11:49-52). He had been planning the death of Christ for a long time and he and his father-in-law were two of a kind.

The discerning reader will notice right away the differences in reporting the denials of Peter in the Synoptics and in Johns gospel. There can be no doubt that all four writers expect three denials. Hendriksen offers the following solution to the differences in the four accounts: . . . he (John) also reports on three denials, but counts differently, splitting up into two denials that which by the others is considered the third denial. In the latter case, what by the others is presented as the third denial is by John counted as the second and the third. That would harmonize as follows:

1st denialMat. 26:69-70 Mar. 14:66-68 Luk. 22:56-57 Joh. 18:15-18

2nd denialMat. 26:71-72 Mar. 14:69-70 a Luk. 22:58 Joh. 18:25

3rd denialMat. 26:73-74 Mar. 14:70 b Mar. 14:72 Luk. 22:59-60 Joh. 18:26-27

R. C. Foster, in his syllabus on the Life of Christ, explains the challenges and denials in this way: The accounts are agreed as to the first challenge. Mark says the same maid gave the second; Matthew says another woman; Luke, a man; John, a group. Evidently when the portress saw Peter out in the hall leading to the front door, she left her post and challenged him again. Another maid joined her in it; then a man servant. Peter retreated before this attack to the campfire and there a whole group added their accusation to those of the three trailing him. The second and third denials represent a succession of attacks. Peter, assailed on all sides, repeatedly denied. Mark indicates this by the very graphic and exact imperfect tense, He kept on denying. In the third denial, Matthew and Mark say a group; Luke, another man; John, a kinsman of Malchushere again a succession of accusations and denials occurred.

Why was Peter in there? Why, after having entered, did He deny Jesus? We cannot be sure. It does not seem reasonable, however, to think of Peters denials as expressions of cowardice when he bravely entered, so to speak, the lions den. If Peter was a coward, why did he walk right into the midst of the arresting officers? And why, if he was a coward, did he not bolt and run when challenged the first timewhy did he stay on? We believe the exact opposite of cowardice may have moved Peter to get into the palace of the high priest to courageously spy out the possibilities of counter-attack. He may even have had ideas of fighting to free Jesus there in the palace. We must remember that Peter was a rough and rugged fisherman. He was used to danger of life and limb. His denials were probably to conceal his association with Jesus until he could spy out the information needed to carry out a rescue later or until an opportune time afforded itself when he could effect a rescue there in the courtyard. Whatever his reason for denying that he knew Jesus the denial was wrong. If he denied to gain information to use in a struggle of force later it was wrong for as Jesus told Pilate later, and had told Peter earlier, His kingdom was not one of carnal warfare. The sword was not to be used. Christ must suffer. He must drink the cup the Father had given Him. Remember that once before when Jesus told the impetuous Peter He must suffer and be killed, Peter boldly said he would fight to the death for his Master, It was then that Jesus called Peter, Satan, because Peter did not realize the nature of the Messiah or the Messianic kingdom. We believe the gospel records indicates these men would have fought to the death for the worldly type of Messiah and Messianic kingdom they had envisioned, but when they saw that their Master was submitting to humiliation and death like a sheep led to the slaughter, they had no other recourse but to go away in despondency. The transformation that came in the lives of the disciples after the resurrection of Christ is another story.
Now the trials of Jesus have been divided into two sections: (a) the ecclesiastical trialsbefore Annas; before Caiaphas and the elders; and before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin; and (b) the civil trialsbefore Pilate; before Herod; and back to Pilate.
John omits all but a brief notice of the two trials before Caiaphas and concerns himself with the preliminary questioning before Annas and the trials before Pilate. We shall comment only on the trials recorded by John.
There are many illegal aspects of the arrest and trial of Jesus Christ. We recommend for a more detailed study of the subject a book entitled The Trial of Jesus Christ, by Frank J. Powell, an English Magistrate, published by Eerdmans. For a devotional study of the arrest, trials and crucifixion we recommend a book entitled, The Trial and Death of Jesus Christ, by James Stalker, pub. Zondervan.
Jesus was tried illegally at night; His arrest came by bribery; He was forced to testify against Himself; He was sentenced the very same night which was illegal; He was coerced and beaten during the trial but the most atrocious part of the trial was the prejudice, bigotry and malice aforethought of the judges. As Hendriksen says, it was not a trial, but a plot to murder Jesus.

Annas (Joh. 18:19) asks Jesus concerning his disciples, and of his teaching. Exactly what Annas asked is not certain, but it appears that he wanted some preliminary confession that Jesus by his teaching and his disciples was inciting the public to treason. Annas could use such a confession when he takes the Nazarene before Pilate. After all, had not the Nazarene taught that He was King of the Jews and that He was about to establish a kingdom, His disciples taught the same thing.

There were times when Jesus taught His disciples privately but what He taught them then He had already taught publicly. He taught in the temple courts and in the synagogues. He taught in the streets and in the fields. He taught on the mountain sides and on the sea shores. There were always plenty of Pharisees or other authorities present when Jesus taught His doctrines of the kingdom and the Messiah. They could not trap Him this way. They were really wanting Him to incriminate Himself with some confession of wrong.
But Jesus turns the tables. He demands that they produce witnesses to testify. He has no secrets to conceal. These judges knew that they had no evidence to present against Him. The demand of Jesus that they bring witnesses to testify brings their lack of evidence into the open.
The Lord had no more than finished the words when one of the officers of the temple guard struck Him across the mouth with his open hand. Either this officer took it upon himself to strike the prisoner or he was encouraged by the high priest to do so. The real High Priest was scornfully rebuked with, Answerest thou the high priest so?

Jesus shows the utter disregard of His judges for fairness, legality, mercy or truth when He answers, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me? He demands again that valid testimony be brought into the trial and that He shall not be judged and coerced with violence before some evidence is heard. The authorities had no evidence. They were not interested in evidence anyway. They had already made up their minds to kill Him regardless of the evidence. They would later bribe witnesses to testify, but even the bribed witnesses could not agree in their testimony!
While Peter was in the midst of denying Jesus with oaths and curses he suddenly saw the eyes of his tormentors turned away from him toward the gallery of the palace. They were looking at Jesus, who was now being led, amidst blows and curses, across the courtyard to either Caiaphas quarters or a guard-room where He was to be kept for a few hours until a later questioning by the Sanhedrin. As Jesus stepped out of Annas quarters onto the gallery His ear had caught the oaths and curses of Peter and hurt deep in His heart He turned around in the direction of Peterat the same moment the cock crowed and Peter turnedand they looked one another full in the face. Soul looked into soul. What was in that look of the Master to the one who had denied Him? There may be a world in a look. A look may be more eloquent than a whole volume of words. It may reveal more than the lips can ever utter. One writer has commented that the following may have been in the look of the Master:

(a)

His look was a talisman dissolving the spell in which Peter was then held. Peter was so engrossed in his scheming to rescue Jesus that he needed to be brought to himself again.

(b)

The look of Christ was a mirror in which Peter saw himself. He saw what Christ thought of him. His past confessions and professions of courage and I will fight to the death with you came rushing back upon his mind,

(c)

It was a rescuing look. Had it been an angry look he saw on Christs face when their eyes met, Peters fate might have been the same as Judas. In that look of an instant Peter saw forgiveness and unutterable love.

We are not sure that Peter saw all this in that one look. But what he did see was enough to cause him to go out and weep bitterly. It may be that Peters compassion for Christ in His torture and humiliation had something to do with his bitter weeping. No doubt Peter read disappointment in the eyes of Jesus as He looked. No doubt Peter was ashamed of himself when Jesus looked at him. The same Word of God pierces our very souls today in the same manner if we will allow it to do so.

Between this section of the eighteenth chapter (Joh. 18:12-27) and the next section (Joh. 18:28-40) the trials before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin occur. John does not record these trials and when we take up our comments again at Joh. 18:28 it will be where Jesus is led before Pilate for the first time.

Quiz

Who was Annas and what sort of a person was he?

Who was Caiaphas and what sort of a person was he?

Where would these two have had their residence and what type of a residence would it be?

How was John able to get into the palace?

Why was Peter in the courtyard?

Name some ways in which the trials of Jesus are illegal?

Of what significance was the look Jesus gave to Peter?

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(12) Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews.A stop should be placed after captain. The band and the captain were the Roman cohort (comp. Note on Joh. 18:3) and their tribune (Chiliarch; comp. Mar. 6:21). The officers of the Jews were, as before, the Temple servants (see above, Joh. 18:3), and the apparitors of the Sanhedrin.

Took Jesus, and bound him.Comp. Notes on Mat. 26:50; Mat. 27:2.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

‘So the cohort and the Chiliarch and the officers of the Judaisers seized Jesus and bound him.’

The Roman soldiers now immediately stepped in. They had watched the chaos among the Temple police at Jesus’ approach and had now seen a sword drawn in anger. This was why they were there. So they arrested Him and bound Him. Peter’s resistance had not been good for Jesus and only Jesus’ words and actions had saved Peter from arrest.

John deliberately brings out the strength of the force that was required to seize Him, and shares the blame equally between the Jews and the Romans. The Chiliarch was a technical term meaning ‘leader of a thousand’ and was used of the Tribune who commanded the cohort. Thus he had come himself with a section of his cohort rather than send a deputy. Given that Jesus did not resist only two or three people would actually have needed to touch Him, but they did not take any chances, for they ‘bound him’ in spite of his non-resistance.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Joh 18:12. Then the band, &c. took Jesus See on Joh 18:3. There was a Roman guard and commanding officer, who attended near the temple during the great festivals, to prevent any sedition of the Jews; and these appear to be the band and captain here mentioned. See Act 21:32 and Luk 22:52. They bound our Lord; but they did not reflect, that it was not the cord which held him: his immense charity was by far a stronger band. He could have struck them all dead with as much ease as he had before thrown them on the ground. Nevertheless, he patiently submitted to this and to every other indignity which they put upon him; so meek was he under the greater injuries, so ready to suffer for human salvation!

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Joh 18:12-14 . ] Since no further attempt at resistance dared be made. In the complete statement: the cohort and the tribune ( , Act 21:31 ), and the servants , any special design (Luthardt: the previous occurrence, Joh 18:6 , had for its result that now all helped, in order to secure Him) is not to be supposed, since , . . ., is the subject not merely of and , but also of . Tholuck’s remark, however, is erroneous: that the soldiers had now first again (?) united with the Jewish watch.

, . . .] A non-essential variation from Mat 26:50 , where the capture takes place before the attempt at defence made on Peter’s part. For , see on Mat 27:2 .

On Annas , see on Luk 3:1-2 . To him, which circumstance the Synoptics pass over, Jesus was at first ( ) brought, before He was conducted to the actual high priest, Caiaphas (Joh 18:24 ). An extrajudicial preliminary examination had first to be gone through. And Annas had been selected for this purpose because he was father-in-law of the actual high priest ( , . . .); thus they believed it to be most certain that he would act beforehand [209] for his son-in-law, who then had to conduct the proper judicial process in the Sanhedrin, with sufficient care for the object in view. Ewald’s assumption ( Gesch. Chr . p. 562), that Annas was at that time invested with the office of superior judicial examiner ( ), does not correspond to the fundamental statement of John, which merely adduces the relation of father-in-law; and therefore, also, we are not to say with Wieseler and others (see also Lichtenstein, p. 418 f.), that Annas was president, Caiaphas vice-president of the Sanhedrin; or that the former still passed as the proper and legitimate high priest (Lange); or even that John conceived of an annual exchange of office between Annas and Caiaphas (Scholten; comp. on Joh 11:49 ). Quite arbitrarily, further, do others suppose: the house of Annas lay near to the gate (Augustine, Grotius, and many), or: Jesus was led, as in triumph , first to Annas (Chrysostom, Theophylact, and several others).

Joh 18:14 points back to Joh 11:50 , on account of the prophetic nature of the saying, which had now come so near its fulfilment. Hence also the significant is repeated.

[209] Comp. Steinmeyer, Leidensgesch . p. 115 f.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

12 Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him,

Ver. 12. Took Jesus and bound him ] This was done , as Irenaeus hath it, while the Deity rested; for he could as easily have delivered himself as he did his disciples, but this sacrifice was to be bound with cords to the altar; he was pinioned and manacled, as a malefactor. So was not Abner; “his hands were not bound, nor his feet put into the fetters,” 2Sa 3:34 . But Christ was bound for our transgressions, he was “bruised for our iniquities.” Paul, by his privilege, was freed from whipping; but we by Christ’s bondage, from those chains of darkness, 2Pe 2:4 , , from those scourges and scorpions in hell.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

12 24. ] Jesus before the Jewish High Priests . Peculiar to John . See below.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

12. ] See Act 21:31 alli [242] . The . . . were the officers sent by the Sanhedrim. Luthardt remarks: “He before whose aspect, and , the whole band had been terrified and cast to the ground, now suffers himself to be taken, bound, and led away. This contrast the Evangelist has in mind here. To apprehend and bind ONE, all gave their help: the cohort, the chiliarch, and the Jewish officers. This the Evangelist brings prominently forward, to shew how deep the impression of that previous incident still was: only by the help of all did they feel themselves secure. And thus it was ordered, that the disciples might escape with the more safety.”

[242] alli = some cursive mss.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Joh 18:12 . . The Roman soldiers, , under the orders of their Chiliarch (Tribune, Colonel), abetted the officers of the Sanhedrim, , in the apprehension of Jesus. As a matter of course and following the universal practice , “they bound Him,” with His hands shackled behind His back.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Joh 18:12-14

12So the Roman cohort and the commander and the officers of the Jews, arrested Jesus and bound Him, 13and led Him to Annas first; for he was father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. 14Now Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was expedient for one man to die on behalf of the people.

Joh 18:12

NASB”the Roman cohort and the commander”

NKJV”the detachment of troops and the captain”

NRSV”the soldiers, their officer”

TEV”the Roman soldiers with their commanding officer”

NJB”the cohort and its tribune”

The names of Roman military units are taken from the number of the full complement of troops involved.

1. cohort – refers to a unit of up to 600 men (cf. Joh 18:3)

2. the commander – is from the number 1,000 (chiliarch, i.e., Act 21:31; Act 22:24; Act 23:10; Act 24:7)

These titles say nothing about how large or small the military unit was that arrested Jesus. In Palestine #2 simply meant the leader of a small group of soldiers.

“bound Him” This does not imply they were especially afraid of Jesus, but it seems to have been the normal procedures (cf. Joh 18:24).

Joh 18:13 “led Him to Annas first” There is much discussion about the order of these trials before Annas and Caiaphas. The Synoptics never mention a meeting with Annas. Joh 18:24 seems to be a footnote in John, but it is an integral part of the Synoptic accounts of Jesus’ trials (cf. Mat 26:57; Mar 14:53).

In the OT the high priesthood was for life and each person had to be of the lineage of Aaron. However, the Romans had turned this office into a political plum, purchased by a Levitical family. The high priest controlled and operated the merchandising in the Court of the Women. Jesus’ cleansing of the Temple angered this family.

According to Flavius Josephus, Annas was the High Priest from A.D. 6-14. He was appointed by Quirinius, governor of Syria and removed by Valerius Gratus. His relatives (5 sons and 1 grandson) succeeded him. Caiaphas (A.D. 18-36), his son-in-law (cf. Joh 18:13), was his immediate successor. Annas was the real power behind the office. John depicts him as the first person to whom Jesus is taken (cf. Joh 18:13; Joh 18:19-22).

Joh 18:14 This is another editorial comment by John, as are Joh 18:15; Joh 18:18.

“Caiaphas ” John’s major concern with Caiaphas was that he had unknowingly prophesied about Jesus’ death (cf. Joh 11:50). He was Annas’ son-in-law and was High Priest from A.D. 18-36. See note at Joh 11:49.

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

captain. Greek. chiliarchos = commander of a thousand. One of the six tribunes attached to a legion. His presence shows the importance attached by the Romans to the arrest, the Jews having represented it as a case of dangerous sedition.

took: i.e. surrounded and seized. Compare Act 26:21.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

12-24.] Jesus before the Jewish High Priests.-Peculiar to John. See below.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

The passages, which we are about to read from three of the Evangelists, make up a continuous narrative of our Lords trial before the high priest. First, John gives us an account of our Saviours appearance before Annas, of which I need not say much, as I recently preached upon it.

Joh 18:12-14. Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him, and led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that came year. Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.

Joh 18:19-21. The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine. Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou me? Ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said.

What an admirable answer that was! Whatever he might have said about his doctrine, they would have twisted into a ground of accusation against him, so he simply said, Mine has been public teaching, open to all. I was not found in holes and corners, secretly fomenting sedition. I spoke in the streets; I spoke in the synagogue; I spoke in the temple; ask those who heard me to tell you what I said. What more convincing answer could he have given?

Joh 18:22-24. And when he had thus spoken, one of the officer, which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of His hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me. Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.

So there we see him standing, bound, before Caiaphas, the acting high priest for that year.

Now follow the narrative as given by Mark. (See Mar 14:53-65)

This exposition consisted of readings from Joh 18:12-14; Joh 18:19-26; Mar 14:53-65; and Luk 22:63-71; Luk 3:1.

Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible

Joh 18:12

So the band and the chief captain, and the officers of the Jews, seized Jesus-The captain here was the chiliarch or captain of a thousand men, corresponding to colonel in the army order in this country. It is not probable that all his command were present. How many is a matter of conjecture. Jesus desired to complete his work on earth and submitted to them.

and bound him,-How they bound him, we are not told. An ordinary method among the Romans was to bind the prisoner with a chain on one arm and to pass the other end of the chain around the body of a soldier. While they were binding him, the disciples all left him, and fled. (Mar 14:50). [They all had a hand in it, as though some mighty desperado were being captured, instead of a meek, unresisting sufferer.]

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

Fear Undermines Loyalty

Joh 18:12-18

Apparently a preliminary and private examination was held while the Sanhedrin was being hastily summoned. The other disciple was evidently John. It was a mistake for Peter to throw himself into such a vortex of trial. His foolhardiness and curiosity led him thither. While the Master was before one bar, Peter stood at another, but how egregiously he failed! In spite of his brave talk, he was swept off his feet-as we shall be, unless we have learned to avail ourselves of that power which is made perfect only in weakness. Peters fall was due to his self-confidence and lack of prayer. Those who are weak should beware of exposing themselves in places and company where they are liable to fail. Do not warm yourself at the worlds fires.

Three lessons emerge from Peters failure: (1) Let us not sleep through the precious moments which Heaven affords before each hour of trial, but use them for putting on the whole armor of God, that we may be able to stand in the evil day. (2) Let us not vaunt our own strength. We need more than resolution to sustain us in the hour of conflict. (3) Let us not cast ourselves down from the mountainside, unless absolutely sure that God bids us to do so. He will not otherwise give His angels charge to keep us.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

the band: Joh 18:3, Mat 26:57, Mar 14:53, Luk 22:54

the captain: Act 21:31, Act 21:37, Act 22:24-28, Act 23:10, Act 23:17-22

bound: Gen 22:9, Gen 40:3, Jdg 16:21, Psa 118:27, Mat 27:2, Mar 15:1

Reciprocal: Mat 21:39 – caught Mar 14:46 – General Act 4:3 – laid

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

It was at this point that the apostles fled from Jesus, which is shown in Mar 14:50. Binding Jesus was another unnecessary performance as far as actual security of the prisoner was concerned, for the conversation that had taken place immediately preceding it, showed that Jesus was not even protesting his arrest. But that was another routine act in connection with the services of an armed force of officers.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

In this part of John’s history of Christ’s sufferings, three wonderful things stand out upon the surface of the narrative. To these three let us confine our attention.

We should mark, for one thing, the amazing hardness of unconverted men. We see this in the conduct of the men by whom our Lord was taken prisoner. Some of them most probably were Roman soldiers, and some of them were Jewish servants of the priests and Pharisees. But in one respect they were all alike. Both parties saw our Lord’s divine power exhibited, when they “went backward, and fell to the ground.” Both saw a miracle, according to Luke’s Gospel, when Jesus touched the ear of Malchus and healed him. Yet both remained unmoved, cold, indifferent and insensible, as if they had seen nothing out of the common way. They went on coolly with their odious business; “They took Jesus, bound Him, and led Him away.”

The degree of hardness and insensibility of conscience to which men may attain, when they live twenty or thirty years without the slightest contact with religion, is something dreadful and appalling. God and the things of God seem to sink out of sight and disappear from the mind’s eye. The world and the things of the world seem to absorb the whole attention. In such cases we may well believe miracles would produce little or no effect, as in the case before us. The eye would gaze on them, like the eye of a beast looking at a romantic landscape, without any impression being made on the heart. He who thinks that seeing a miracle would convert him into a thorough Christian has got much to learn.

Let us not wonder if we see cases of hardness and unbelief in our own day and generation. Such cases will continually be found among those classes of mankind, who from their profession or position are completely cut off from means of grace. Twenty or thirty years of total irreligion, without the influence of Sunday, Bible, or Christian teaching, will make a man’s heart hard as the nether mill-stone. His conscience at last will seem dead, buried, and gone. He will appear past feeling. Painful as these cases are, we must not think them peculiar to our own times. They existed under Christ’s own eyes, and they will exist till Christ returns. The Church which allows any portion of a population to grow up in practical heathenism, must never be surprised to see a rank crop of practical infidelity.

We should mark, for another thing, the amazing condescension of our Lord Jesus Christ. We see the Son of God taken prisoner and led away bound like a malefactor,-arraigned before wicked and unjust judges,-insulted and treated with contempt. And yet this unresisting prisoner had only to will His deliverance, and He would at once have been free. He had only to command the confusion of His enemies, and they would at once have been confounded. Above all He was One who knew full well that Annas and Caiaphas, and all their companions, would one day stand before His judgment seat and receive an eternal sentence. He knew all these things, and yet condescended to be treated as a malefactor without resisting.

One thing at any rate is very clear. The love of Christ to sinners is “a love that passeth knowledge.” To suffer for those whom we love, and who are in some sense worthy of our affections, is suffering that we can understand. To submit to ill-treatment quietly, when we have no power to resist, is submission that is both graceful and wise. But to suffer voluntarily, when we have the power to prevent it, and to suffer for a world of unbelieving and ungodly sinners, unasked and unthanked,-this is a line of conduct which passes man’s understanding. Never let us forget that this is the peculiar beauty of Christ’s sufferings, when we read the wondrous story of His cross and passion. He was led away captive, and dragged before the High Priest’s bar, not because He could not help Himself, but because He had set His whole heart on saving sinners,-by bearing their sins, by being treated as a sinner, and by being punished in their stead. He was a willing prisoner, that we might be set free. He was willingly arraigned and condemned, that we might be absolved and declared innocent.-“He suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us unto God.”-“Though He was rich, yet for our sakes He became poor, that we through His poverty might be rich.”-“He was made sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.” (1Pe 3:18; 2Co 8:9; 2Co 5:21.) Surely if there is any doctrine of the Gospel which needs to be clearly known, it is the doctrine of Christ’s voluntary substitution. He suffered and died willingly and unresistingly, because He knew that He had come to be our substitute, and by substitution to purchase our salvation.

We should mark, lastly, the amazing degree of weakness that may be found in a real Christian. We see this exemplified in a most striking manner, in the conduct of the Apostle Peter. We see that famous disciple forsaking his Master, and acting like a coward,-running away when he ought to have stood by His side,-ashamed to own Him when he ought to have confessed Him,-and finally denying three times that He knew Him. And this takes place immediately after receiving the Lord’s Supper,-after hearing the most touching address and prayer that mortal ear ever heard-after the plainest possible warnings,-under the pressure of no very serious temptation. “Lord,” we may well say, “what is man that Thou art mindful of him?” “Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall.” (1Co 10:12.)

This fall of Peter is doubtless intended to be a lesson to the whole Church of Christ. It is recorded for our learning, that we be kept from like sorrowful overthrow. It is a beacon mercifully set up in Scripture, to prevent others making shipwreck. It shows us the danger of pride and self-confidence. If Peter had not been so sure that although all denied Christ, he never would, he would probably never have fallen.-It shows us the danger of laziness. If Peter had watched and prayed, when our Lord advised him to do so, he would have found grace to help him in the time of need.-It shows us, not least, the painful influence of the fear of man. Few are aware, perhaps, how much more they fear the face of man whom they can see, than the eye of God whom they cannot see. These things are written for our admonition. Let us remember Peter and be wise.

After all let us leave the passage with the comfortable reflection that we have a merciful and pitiful High Priest, who can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and will not break the bruised reed. Peter no doubt fell shamefully, and only rose again after heartfelt repentance and bitter tears. But he did rise again. He was not left to reap the consequence of his sin, and cast off for evermore. The same pitiful hand that saved him from drowning, when his faith failed him on the waters, was once more stretched out to raise him when he fell in the High Priest’s hall. Can we doubt that he rose a wiser and better man? If Peter’s fall has made Christians see more clearly their own great weakness and Christ’s great compassion, then Peter’s fall has not been recorded in vain.

==================

Notes-

v12.-[Then the band and the captain, etc.] This verse begins the story of our Lord when He was actually in the hands of His deadly enemies. For the first time in His earthly ministry we see Him not a free agent, but submitting to be a passive sufferer, and allowing His foes to work their will. The last miracle had been wrought in vain. Like a malefactor He is seized and put in chains.

The “captain” must mean the Roman officer who commanded the “band,” cohort, or detachment, which was sent to apprehend our Lord. The “officers” must mean the civil servants of the priest’s who accompanied them. The “binding” must mean the putting of chains or handcuffs on our Lord’s arms and wrists.

v13.-[And led Him away to Annas, etc.] This is a fact which is mentioned by no Gospel-writer except John. The explanation of it is probably something of this kind. In the time when our Lord Jesus was on earth, the office of the high priest among the Jews was filled up with the utmost disorder and irregularity. Instead of the high-priest being high priest for life, he was often elected for a year or two, and then deposed, and his office given to another. There were often living at one time several priests who had served the office of high priest, and then ceased to hold it, like sheriffs or mayors among ourselves. In the case before us, Annas appears, after ceasing to be high priest himself, to have lived in the same palace with his son-in-law Caiaphas, and to have assisted him as an assessor and adviser in the discharge of his duties, which from his age and official experience he would be well qualified to do. Remembering this, we may understand our Lord being “led away to Annas first,” and then passed on by him to Caiaphas. So intimate were the relations between the two, that in Luk 3:2 we are told that “Annas and Caiaphas were high-priests.” In Act 4:6, Annas is called “the high priest.” Yet it is very certain that Caiaphas was the acting high priest the year that our Lord was crucified. John distinctly asserts it.

The gross inconsistency of the Jews in making such ado about the law of Moses, while they permitted and tolerated such entire departures from its regulations about the high priest’s office, is a curious example of what blindness unconverted men may exhibit. As to there being two high priests at the same time, we must in fairness remember that even in holy David’s time “Zadok and Abiathar were the priests.” (2Sa 20:25.) The gross irregularity in our Lord’s time consisted in making the high priest’s office an annual one.

The object of the Jews in bringing our Lord before the high priest and in the Sanhedrim first, is very plain. They wished to convict him of heresy and blasphemy, and then after that to denounce him to the Romans.

Augustine thinks that Caiaphas arranged that our Lord should be taken to Annas first, because he was his father-in-law. He also thinks that these two held the office of high-priest, each in his turn, year by year. Calvin thinks that our Lord was only taken to Annas first, because his house happened to be convenient, till the high priest and council assembled. Cyril and Musculus think that Annas was the contriver and designer of all done against Christ.

Cyril here interposes the verse which in most Bibles comes in as twenty-fourth: “Annas at once sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.” Luther, Flacius, and Beza, incline to approve of this. But it is fair to say that there is great lack of authority for this change.

Many commentators think that Jesus was taken to Annas first, by way of exhibiting to that old “enemy of all righteousness” the triumphant success of the attempt to capture the prisoner, whom the Sanhedrim had agreed to slay. They think that he was just shown to Annas, and then passed on to Caiaphas. But I cannot think this probable. I hold, with Alford and Ellicott, that our Lord was examined by Annas.

Cornelius Lapide suggests that Annas was very likely the person with whom Judas bargained to betray our Lord for money; and that when the capture was effected, Judas brought the prisoner to the house of Annas, and remained there to claim his price, after Annas had seen Him. He observes with some acuteness that Judas does not appear after this in the history of the examination of our Lord.

Lightfoot quotes a Jewish writer, who says that “in the second temple, which only stood four hundred and twenty years, there were in that time more than three hundred high-priests!”

Henry remarks, “It was the ruin of Caiaphas that he was highpriest that year, and so became a ringleader in putting Christ to death. Many a man’s advancement has lost him his reputation; and he would not have been dishonoured if he had not been preferred and promoted.”

v14.-[Now Caiaphas was he, etc.] This verse contains one of John’s peculiar explanatory comments, and as such comes in parenthetically. It is as though he said, “Let us not forget that this was the very Caiaphas, who after the raising of Lazarus, had said publicly that it was expedient that one man should die for the people. Behold how he is made the unconscious instrument of bringing that saying to pass, though in a widely different sense from that which he intended!” Calvin compares him to Balaam.

Let us note how the great wicked men of this world-the Sennacheribs and Neros, and bloody Marys, and Napoleons-are used by God as His saws and axes and hammers to do His work and carry out the building of His Church, though they are not themselves in the least aware of it. Indeed Caiaphas helps forward the one great sacrifice for the sins of the world!

v15.-[And Simon Peter followed Jesus.] The first flight and running away of the disciples is passed over entirely by John. He simply mentions that Peter followed his Master, though at a distance, lovingly anxious to see what was done to Him, yet not bold enough to keep near Him like a disciple. Any one can see that the unhappy disciple was under the influence of very mixed feelings. Love made him ashamed to run away and hide himself. Cowardice made him afraid to show his colours, and stick by his Lord’s side. Hence he chose a middle course,-the worst, as it happened, that he could have followed. After being self-confident when he should have been humble, and sleeping when he ought to have been praying, he could not have done a more foolish thing than to flutter round the fire, and place himself within reach of temptation. It teaches the foolishness of man when his grace is weak. No prayer is more useful than the familiar one: “Lead us not into temptation.” Peter forgot it here.

[And so did another disciple.] This would be more literally rendered, “the other disciple.” The opinion of many commentators is, that this disciple was John. Precisely the same expression is used in four successive verses (Joh 20:2-4, and Joh 20:8), where John is clearly referred to. This is the view of Chrysostom, Cyril, Alford, Wordsworth, and Burgon.

Chrysostom and Cyril observe that it was John’s humility that made him conceal his name both here and elsewhere. Here he would not proclaim that he stood while Peter fell. Ferus suggests that the presence of a disciple is mentioned in order to show that John saw with his own eyes all that went on at our Lord’s examination.

[That disciple…known…priest.] How and in what manner this acquaintance originated we are not told, nor is there any clue to a knowledge of it. On the face of things it certainly seems strange that a humble Galilean fisherman, like John, should be personally known to Caiaphas! On the other hand we must not forget that every devout Jew went up to Jerusalem at the three great feasts; and on these occasions might easily become acquainted with the high priest; and the more likely to get acquainted, if a conscientious and godly man. Moreover we must remember that John was once a disciple of John the Baptist, and that there was a time when “Jerusalem and all Judea” attended on John’s ministry. Acquaintance might have been formed then. Some have thought that John’s calling as a fisherman might easily bring him into communication with the family of Caiaphas, when he visited Jerusalem on business. All these, it must be confessed, are only conjectures; and it is perhaps the safest to admit our ignorance. Enough for us to read that the high-priest knew John; but why and how we cannot tell.

Hengstenberg suggests an explanation, which is so singular that I think it best to give it in his own words: “The character of John leads to the obvious supposition that his acquaintance with the high priest rested on religious grounds. Searching for goodly pearls, John had earlier sought from the high priest what, after the intervening ministry of the Baptist, he found in Christ. With what eyes he had formerly regarded the position of high priest, is shown by the fact that though a disciple of Christ, he nevertheless assigned to the word of the high priest a prophetic significance. (Joh 11:51.) John, by his internally devout nature, had so attracted the good-will of the high priest, that he did not wholly cast him off even after he had gone over to the true High Priest. Nor had John entirely abandoned Caiaphas. Real love cannot be so easily rooted from the heart; and it is characteristic of John to retain a pious regard to earlier relations. In the love which hopeth all things, he might hope yet to win the high priest to Christ.” I make no comment on this extraordinary suggestion. I can not see the slightest warrant for it; but others, perhaps, who like the Athenians love new things, may see more in it than I can.

After all, it is only fair to remember that Augustine, Gerhard, Calovius, Lightfoot, Lampe, and many others, think it quite uncertain who this disciple, “known to the high priest,” was. Grotius and Poole think it may have been the master of the house where Jesus had the Lord’s Supper. Toletus thinks it was one of those to whom the garden belonged. Bengel thinks it was Nicodemus. One German commentator suggests that it was Judas Iscariot. Calvin thinks it most improbable that a proud high priest would have known so mean a person as a fisherman. Yet, singularly enough, Gualter and others lean strongly to the theory that John’s business as a fisherman may have made him acquainted with the high priest. It certainly is rather remarkable that when John was brought before Annas and Caiaphas shortly after, they do not appear to have known much of him, except that he was unlearned and ignorant, and had been with Jesus. (Act 4:13.) The question, “who it was,” is one which will probably never be settled.

[And went in with Jesus…Pilate…priest.] This sentence would seem to indicate that John went together with our Lord, either by His side, or in the crowd around Him, from the garden where He was taken, to the house of Annas and Caiaphas. We can hardly doubt that at first he fled, when we read, “All forsook Him and fled;” but we must suppose that he soon turned back, and mixed with the multitude escorting our Lord, which he might easily do by night, and amidst the confusion of the whole event.

It is noteworthy that some think the houses of Caiaphas and Annas were adjacent, and that “the hall” was common to both of them. I am strongly disposed to think that this is a correct view, and a remembrance of it may help us over several difficulties in the narrative of the four evangelists when compared.

v16.-[But Peter stood…door without.] This seems to indicate that at first Peter stood outside the door of the palace, not daring to go in. It is a little detail in the story of his fall which the three other Gospel-writers omit to mention. Again we see in him the mixture of good and bad feelings, cowardice and love contending for the mastery. Happy would it have been for him if he had stayed outside the door!

Rollock remarks that when Peter found the door shut, he ought not to have stood there, but gone away. “It was by God’s providence the door was shut. He got a warning then to leave off, but would not. These impediments, cast in our way when we purpose to do a thing, should not be idly looked at, but should make us carefully try the deed, whether it be lawful.”

[Then went out that other…brought in Peter.] Here we see how Peter got inside the palace. It was through the mistaken, though well-meant, kindness of John. He must have seen through the door, when it occasionally opened, the well-known figure of his brother disciple, and with the best intentions got him admission. It is plain that John must have been well known to the household of the high priest, or else we should not be told that he had only to speak to the door-keeper, to get admission for Peter.

Let us mark what mistakes even the best believers may make in dealing with their brethren. John thought it would be a kind and useful thing to bring Peter into the high priest’s house. He was perfectly mistaken, and was unintentionally one link in the chain of causes which led to his fall. People may harm each other with the best intentions.

Quesnel remarks, “Men sometimes imagine they do a considerable piece of service to their friends who are clergymen, by introducing them to the great; and thereby they undesignedly expose them to sin and eternal damnation.”

v17.-[Then saith…damsel…door…Peter.] Those who are best acquainted with Jewish customs say that it was a common practice to employ women as door-keepers. Thus a damsel named Rhoda went to the gate, when Peter knocked at the door of Mary’s house in Jerusalem, after his miraculous escape from prison. (Act 12:13.) It is the same in large houses in Paris to this very day.

[Art not thou…I am not.] This was the first trial of Peter’s faith and courage. A woman asks him a simple question. There is nothing to show that she does it in a threatening manner, as if she desires to harm him. But at once the Apostle’s courage breaks down. He answers with a direct lie: “I am not.”-How little we know our own hearts! Twelve hours before Peter would have told us this lie was impossible. “Is Thy servant a dog that he should do this thing?”-Why this door-keeper should have asked the question we know not. Perhaps Peter’s dress and appearance, like a Galilean fisherman of the very same stamp and style as John, made her guess that, like John, he was a disciple.-Perhaps Peter’s manner and demeanour made her guess it. There may have been agitation, anxiety, fear in the apostle’s countenance.-Perhaps the woman may have seen him in Jerusalem in company with Jesus.-Perhaps the mere fact that John knew him, and asked her to admit him, made her assume that he was a friend of John, and like John a disciple of Christ.-Perhaps the Galileans were marked men, not often seen in high priests’ houses, and known to be specially favourable to the cause of Jesus of Nazareth.-Any one of these solutions, or all, may be correct. In any case the woman only asked a simple question, and perhaps from no other motive than curiosity, and at once the great apostle falls into sin. How weak we are, when left to reap the consequence of self-confidence, and laziness, and neglect of prayer. Even an apostle, we see, could tell a cowardly lie.

Chrysostom observes, “What sayest thou, Peter? Didst not thou declare but now, ‘I will lay down my life for Thee’? What hath happened then that thou canst not endure the questioning of a door-keeper? Is it a soldier who questions thee? Is it one of those who seized Him? No: it is a mean and abject door-keeper. Nor is the questioning of a rough kind. She saith not, Art thou a disciple of that cheat and corrupter,-but of that man; which was the expression rather of pitying and relenting. But Peter could not bear any of these words. The expression ‘Art not thou also’ is used because John was already within.”

Augustine remarks, “Behold that most firm pillar of the Church, touched but by one breath of danger, trembles all over. Where is now that boldness of promising,-that confident vaunting of himself?”

Brentius remarks how the impulsive, unstable character of the apostle Peter comes out here. One hour he draws his sword against a whole multitude of armed men. Another hour he is frightened out of his Christian profession, and driven into lying by one woman.

v18.-[And…servants…officers…stood there.] This seems to indicate that when Peter entered the hall, he found the common servants, and the higher attendants of the high priest, standing round a fire. It is the plu-perfect tense, “they had stood,” or “had been standing there” some little time.

[Who had made…fire…coals…cold…themselves.] It is remarked by all travellers in Palestine, that the nights in that country about Easter time, are often so extremely cold that a fire is very acceptable. The servants and officers were in the act of warming themselves when Peter entered.

It is worth notice that the Greek word rendered “a fire of coals” is only used here and at Joh 21:9, in the marvelous account of Jesus appearing to the disciples at the sea of Galilee. Some have thought that the “fire of coals” on that latter occasion was purposely intended by our Lord to remind Peter of his fall.

[And Peter stood with them…himself.] The Greek words here would be more literally rendered and “there was among them Peter, standing and warming himself.” The tense is imperfect, and conveys the idea of continuous action for a little time. The apostle stood among the crowd of his Master’s enemies, and warmed himself like one of them, as if he had nothing to think of but his bodily comfort; while his beloved Master stood in a distant part of the hall, cold, and a prisoner. Who can doubt that Peter, in his miserable cowardice, wished to appear one of the party who hated his Master, and thought to conceal his real character by doing as they did? And who can doubt that while he warmed his hands he felt cold, wretched, and comfortless in his own soul! “The backslider in heart is filled with his own ways.” (Pro 14:14.)

How many do as others do, and go with the crowd, while they know inwardly they are wrong!

Cyril suggests that Peter wished to conceal his discipleship by warming himself, and trying to look comfortable among the high priest’s servants.

v19.-[The high-priest…asked…disciples…doctrine.] This verse describes the first judicial examination that our Lord underwent. He was questioned concerning “His disciples,”-that is, who they were, how many, what position they occupied, and what were their names. And concerning “His doctrine,”-that is, what were the principal points or truths of His creed, what were the peculiar things He called on man to believe. The object of this preliminary inquiry seems manifest. It was meant to elicit some admission from our Lord’s mouth, on which some formal charge of heresy and blasphemy before the Sanhedrim might be founded. There are two grave difficulties growing out of this verse both of which require consideration.

(a) Who was the “High Priest” in this verse? Most commentators think it was Caiaphas. He alone is called by John “the high priest,” that same year in which Jesus was crucified. Some few think it was “Annas,” because John says Jesus was brought to him. (Joh 18:13.) This at first sight seem the plain meaning of the narrative, and is confirmed by Joh 18:24. Yet this theory is open to the serious objection, that it makes John call Annas the high priest, and that it makes John omit altogether our Lord’s examination before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrim. Yet notwithstanding all these difficulties, I own to the opinion that this is the true view of the history. Augustine, Chrysostom, Casaubon, Ferus, Besser, Stier, Alford, and Ellicott maintain this view, but most of the commentators do not. We must remember that “Annas” is distinctly called “the High Priest” in Act 4:6, and this probably before the year of the crucifixion had completely run out. Even in David’s time Zadok and Ahimelech are called “the priests” (2Sa 8:17), as if both were high priests.

(b) What was the examination recorded in this verse? It seems to be one entirely passed over by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. They only record what took place before Caiaphas, which, on the other hand, is a part of the history passed over by John. It seems a kind of preliminary inquiry, intended to prepare the case for the Sanhedrim. In spite therefore of the common opinion, I decidedly hold the theory, that the examination here related is only described by John. It seems moreover to have been an examination conducted by Annas only, and quite of a separate character from that which took place at “day-break” before the whole Sanhedrim. This at any rate seems to my mind by far the most reasonable account of the passage, and the difficulties in the way of any other interpretation appear to me insuperable.

Ellicott remarks, “It only requires the simple and reasonable supposition that Annas and Caiaphas occupied one common official residence, to unite their testimony, and to remove many of the difficulties with which this portion of the sacred narrative is specially marked. Be this as it may, we can scarcely doubt, from the clear statement in John’s Gospel, that a preliminary examination, of an inquisitorial nature, in which our Lord was questioned, perhaps conversationally, about His followers and His teaching, and which the brutal conduct of one attendant present seems to show was private and informal, took place in the palace of Annas. There too, it would seem, we must place the three denials of Peter.”

v20.-[Jesus answered him, etc.] This verse contains a calm, dignified statement from our Lord, of the general course of His ministry. He had done nothing in a clandestine or underhand way. He had always spoken openly “to the world,” and not confined His teaching to any one class. He had always taught publicly in synagogues, and in the temple where the Jews resorted. He had said nothing privately and secretly, as if He had any cause to be ashamed of it.

The verse is mainly remarkable for the strong light it throws on our Lord’s habit of teaching throughout the three years of His ministry. It shows that He was eminently a public teacher,-kept back no part of His message from any class of the population,-and proclaimed it with equal boldness in every place. There was nothing whatever of reserve about His Gospel. This is His own account, and we therefore know that it is correct. “I have spoken in the most public manner, and taught in the most public places, and done nothing in a corner,”

Calvin remarks, “When Jesus says that He spoke nothing in secret, this refers to the substance of His doctrine, which was always the same, though the form of teaching it was various.”

We should observe that our Lord did not refuse to use the synagogue and the temple on account of the corruption of the Jewish Church! Four times we read in John of our Lord being at Jerusalem at the feasts (Joh 2:13, Joh 5:1, Joh 7:14, Joh 10:22), and each time speaking in the temple.

v21.-[Why askest thou Me, etc.] This verse is a remonstrance against the gross injustice of Annas’s line of examination. Our Lord appeals to him whether it is reasonable, and just, and fair to call upon a prisoner to criminate himself, and to supply evidence which may be used against himself. “Why dost thou, the judge, ask information of Me, the prisoner, about my disciples and my doctrine? Ask rather of those who have heard Me teach and preach, what I have said to them. These know well, and can tell you what things I have said.”

Cyril thinks there may be a reference here to those servants of the priest, who were sent on a former occasion to take Jesus, and returned, saying, “Never man spake like this Man.” (Joh 7:46.)

The boldness and dignity of our Lord’s reply to Annas in this verse are very noteworthy. They are an example to all Christians of the courageous and unflinching tone which an innocent defendant may justly adopt before the bar of an unrighteous judge. “The righteous is bold as a lion.”

The wide difference between the language of our Lord here, and that which He uses before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrim, as recorded in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, is very remarkable. It affords strong additional evidence that we are reading an account of an examination of a more private kind before Annas, quite distinct from that which took place before Caiaphas. The careful reader of the other three Gospels cannot fail to observe that not a word of all this is recorded in them.

Bengel and Stier think that the expression, “these,” points to the people there in the court, hearing and standing by.

v22.-[And when He had thus spoken, etc.] This verse mentions an event which John alone has recorded. One of the attendants standing by rudely interrupts our Lord by striking Him, and coarsely taxing Him with impertinence and disrespect in so speaking, as He had spoken, to the high-priest.

The Greek words literally rendered, mean “gave a blow on the face;” but whether with the palm of the hand, or with a stick, cannot be determined. The marginal reading renders it quite uncertain. Some see in the action a fulfillment of the prophecy, “They shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek.” (Mic 5:1.)

Stier remarks that this was the first blow which the holy body of Jesus received from the hands of sinners.

We may learn from this circumstance what a low, degraded, and disorderly condition the Jewish courts of Ecclesiastical law must have been in at this period, when such a thing as publicly striking a prisoner could take place, and when violence could be shown to a prisoner in a full court of justice for answering boldly for himself. It supplies strong evidence of the miserably fallen state of the whole Jewish nation, when such an act could be done under the very eyes of a judge. Nothing is a surer index of the real condition of a nation than the conduct of its courts of justice, and its just or unjust treatment of prisoners. The sceptre had clearly fallen from Judah, and rottenness was at the core of the nation, when the thing mentioned in this verse could happen. Our Lord’s assailant evidently held that a prisoner must never reply to his judge, however unjust or corrupt the judge might be.

Theophylact suggests that the man who struck our Lord was one who had heard our Lord preach, and was now anxious to free himself from the suspicion of being one of His friends.

There is a striking resemblance between the treatment our Lord received here, and the treatment which Latimer, Ridley, Rogers, and other English martyrs, received at their examination before the Popish bishops.

Hutcheson remarks, “Corrupt masters have generally corrupt servants.”

v23.-[Jesus answered him, etc.] Our Lord’s reply to him who smote is a calm and dignified reproof. “If I have spoken wickedly, bear witness in a just and orderly way becoming a court of law; but do not strike Me. If on the contrary I have spoken well, what reasonable cause canst thou allege for striking Me either here or out of court?”

Let us note that our Lord’s conduct at this point teaches that His maxim, “If anyone smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Mat 5:39), is a maxim which must be taken with reserve, and is not of unlimited application. There may be times when, in defense of truth and for the honour of justice, a Christian must firmly protest against violence, and publicly refuse to countenance it by tame submission.

Augustine observes, “Our Lord here showed that His great precepts of patience are to be put in practice, not by outward show of the body, but by preparedness of heart. Visibly to present the other cheek is no more than an angry man can do. How much better then that with mild answer he speak the truth, and with tranquil mind endure worse outrages.”

v24.-[Now Annas had sent Him…Caiaphas…priest.] This verse undoubtedly contains a difficulty. Most commentators seem to think that it states a fact which ought to come in after the thirteenth verse; and that the questioning and smiting of the last four verses took place before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrim, and not before Annas. Some think that up to this point John only describes what took place before Annas; and that he entirely passes over all that took place before Caiaphas, as being well known to his readers. The question is undoubtedly rather a puzzling one, and there is much to be said on both sides.

On the one hand, it seems curious that the examination of our Lord before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrim should be so completely omitted by John in his Gospel, as it must be, if we take the highpriest of the nineteenth verse to be Annas.

On the other hand, we cannot see why John should so carefully mention our Lord being “led to Annas first,” if after all Annas did not examine Him at all, and sent Him at once to Caiaphas.

If I must give an opinion, I must say that I agree with Stier, Ellicott, and Alford, and consider that this twenty-fourth verse describes our Lord’s first appearance before Caiaphas,-that for some wise reason John entirely omits, and silently passes over, our Lord’s examination before the Sanhedrim,-and that the examination of the nineteenth and four following verses was a kind of private, preliminary examination before Annas, which Matthew, Mark, and Luke entirely omit. My grounds for this conclusion are as follows:-

(a) The whole tone of John’s narrative would make any ordinary reader suppose that Annas, and not Caiaphas, was the examiner and high-priest of the nineteenth verse. The story reads straight on upon this theory; while upon the other it is most awkward and seemingly contradictory, and the twenty-fourth verse seems to come in at the wrong place.

(b) The tone of the high-priest’s examination in John, is entirely different from that of the other three Gospels, and so also are our Lord’s answers.

(c) There is nothing uncommon in John omitting something which is fully recorded in the other three Gospels. The institution of the Lord’s Supper is an example. His Gospel was eminently supplementary. Writing later than the others, he was specially inspired to dwell at great length on the examination of Jesus before Pilate the Gentile ruler, and to say comparatively little about the proceedings in the Jewish courts.

(d) Last, but not least, the Greek of the twenty-fourth verse cannot fairly and honestly bear the sense which our translators have put upon it. They have really strained the words to make the sense square with their evident interpretation. The word “sent” is not a pluperfect at all in the Greek! The verse literally translated is, “Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high-priest.” It is rather “did then send Him,” than “now had sent Him.” The natural sense that any ordinary reader would put on it is, that “Annas having asked our Lord about His disciples and His doctrine, and having found by His reply that he could make nothing of Him, did then send Him bound to Caiaphas.” As to what THEN took place before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrim John tells us NOTHING, and leaves us to learn it from Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Such are my reasons for the view which I adopt. If the reader does not think them valid, he must regard the twenty-fourth verse as one of John’s parenthetical explanations or comments, and carry the true place of the fact mentioned backwards to verse thirteenth; and must suppose that the examination of our Lord in the nineteenth and four following verses is the examination before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrim, and only another part of what Matthew, Mark, and Luke describe!-Not least, he must suppose that “did send” in the twenty-fourth verse, means “had sent” some time before!

Chrysostom says, “Annas questioned Jesus about His doctrine; and having heard Him, sent Him to Caiaphas; and he having in his turn questioned Him, and discovered nothing, sent Him to Pilate.”

v25.-[And Simon Peter stood…warmed himself.] This would be more literally rendered, “was standing and warming himself.” The expression seems to indicate, that all the time during which Annas was questioning and examining our Lord, Peter was standing by the fire in another part of the hall, and warming himself comfortably among the enemies of our Lord, like one of them. May not the light of the fire, as it burned up, have made Peter’s face and appearance more easily recognizable?

[They said…Art not thou…disciple?] Here comes Peter’s second trial. After a time, when the fire had burned up, and men could see better and felt more warm, they looked at Peter standing among them, and recognizing either by his dress and talk that he was a Galilean, or suspecting by his anxious manner that he was a friend of our Lord, they asked him plainly, “Art thou not one of this prisoner’s disciples?” We see what trials people bring on themselves by going where they ought not.

[He denied it…I am not.] A second time we find the unhappy Apostle telling a lie, and this time it is added emphatically, “he denied it.” The further a backslider goes, the worse he becomes. The first time he seems to have said quietly, “I am not.” The second time he flatly “denies.” Even an apostle can fall into being a liar!

Bloomfield suggests that Peter heard our Lord’s examination, and was terrified at hearing inquiry made about His disciples. This, he supposes, hastened his fall.

v26.-[One of the servants, etc., etc.] Here comes Peter’s last trial. Attention seems to have been roused by his strong denial, and eyes were fixed on him. And the one who had seen him in the garden, and marked him as a forward man among the disciples by his using the sword, presses home the painful question, “Did not I see thee?”

v27.-[Peter then denied again.] This denial, we know from the other Gospels, was more loud and emphatic than any, and was made with cursing and swearing! The further a man falls, the heavier his fall.

Calvin remarks on the course of a backslider, “At first the fault will not be very great; next, it becomes habitual; and at last, after the conscience has been laid asleep, he who has accustomed himself to despise God will think nothing unlawful, but will dare to commit the greatest wickedness.”

Henry remarks, “The sin of lying is a fruitful sin, and therefore exceeding sinful. One sin needs another to support it, and that needs another.”

[And immediately the cock crew.] There was nothing uncommon in this, of course. Every one knows that cocks crow at night. But the bird’s familiar crow no doubt sounded in Peter’s ear like a clap of thunder, because it awoke him to a sense of his sin and his fall.

It will be noted that for wise reasons John says nothing about Peter’s weeping, or about our Lord turning and looking at him, or about Peter going out. He seems to have left the hall when the cock crew, without any attempt being made to detain him. This too MAY have been the overruling work of his gracious Master.

As long as the world stands, Peter’s fall will be an instructive example of what even a great saint may come to if he neglects to work and pray,-of the mercy of Christ in restoring such a backslider,-and of the honesty of the Gospel writers in recording such a history.

Let it never be forgotten that Peter’s fall is one of those few facts which all four Gospel writers carefully record for our learning.

Fuente: Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels

Joh 18:12. The band of soldiers therefore, and the captain, and the officers of the Jews, took Jesus and bound him. The words addressed by Jesus to Peter lend boldness to His cowardly foes. They see that no further resistance is to be offered. A passive victim is before them; and they seize and bind Him.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Section 2. (Joh 18:12-27.)

The deceit of an enemy and the denial of a friend.

They bind Him who is bound already, the meek Lamb of sacrifice; and now we have a scene how different in the high priest’s court. The questioning before Annas is only given by John; who on the other hand does not relate, though he implies, the trial before Caiaphas. As father-in-law of the latter, and one who had been at a former time, high priest himself, he may have been, as Lange suggests, regarded by the Jews as still the true one; his relationship to the present one giving him his opportunity also to affect a position which he could not openly take. The Romans set up one after another as it pleased them, -a thing rightly enough offensive to the upholders of the law, and which seems to appear as this in the remark twice made, that Caiaphas was the high priest for that year (ver. 13; Joh 11:49). The two seem to have occupied even the same house. Caiaphas, we are reminded, was the man who had given counsel to the Jews as to the expediency of one man dying for the people, which God overruled to be a prophecy of a Saviour, but which showed him as a judge prepared with his verdict. Arenas is as much allied to him in spirit as in flesh. His whole aim here is to ensnare the Lord with questions as to His disciples and His doctrine, for which Christ refers him to what He had taught everywhere with the greatest publicity. It was for His accusers to make their charges, and prove them against Him. To the one who smites Him for want of reverence for the high priest He only replies with a quiet remonstrance.

Annas is baffled, though not turned from his malignity, and sends Him bound to Caiaphas; of the trial before whom the evangelist takes no further notice. It was a trial scarcely in form, and, as we have seen, decided before it was commenced. It is left a blank, as in fact was that of Annas.

With Peter’s denial we are sadly familiar, and John appears to add nothing to it; but he himself, though unnamed, surprises us with the quiet boldness of faith and love which carry him through untouched and unquestioned, where the apparently bolder disciple breaks down so helplessly. He is known to the high priest, and to the keeper of the gate, and known as a follower of Christ too, as her question to Peter shows, “Art thou also one of this man’s disciples?” Afterwards we shall find him in the same open way with the mother of Jesus at the cross, and obtaining a precious recognition, and a precious charge, from the dying Saviour: and through all he is untouched and unquestioned. Blessed it is to see him who speaks so of love an example of it: unquestioned by men, he is unquestioned also by the Lord: there is plainly no need of it; and happy is he who is in such a case. Let us seek for nearer acquaintance, and we shall be truer to Him; here is the soil in which faith rooting itself will grow vigorously. Let us get nearer to His heart, that we may be qualified to walk evenly and undisturbed through the world’s allurements and its threats alike, armed against each by the secrets learned there.

Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary

Judas having made good his promise to the chief priests, and delivered Jesus a prisoner bound into their hands, those evening wolves no sooner seize the Lamb of God, but they thirst and long to suck his innocent blood; yet, lest it should look like a downright murder, they allow him a mock-trial, and abuse the law by perverting it to injustice and bloodshed. How impossible is it for the greatest innocence and virtue to protect from slander and false accusation! and no person can be so innocent or good, whom false witnesses may not condemn.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Joh 18:12-13. Then the band, &c. To whom Jesus, without any opposition, surrendered himself; took and bound him Foolishly supposing, that he might attempt to make his escape. And led him away to Annas 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 him 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.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

I. The Trial before the Sanhedrim: 18:12-27.

The following section contains the account of an appearance of Jesus in the house of Annas, the ex-high-priest, an account with which that of the denial of St. Peter is, as it were, interlaced. But this appearance is not mentioned in the Synoptics. On the other hand, they relate how Jesus was led from Gethsemane to the house of Caiaphas, where He appeared before the Sanhedrim and was condemned to death; and this solemn and decisive meeting is not mentioned by John.

Some think that there was in reality but one meeting, that of which the Synoptics give an account and which they place in the house of Caiaphas; whether, as Baur, Scholten, Keim, etc., they declare that the meeting in the house of Annas, related in our Gospel, is only an invention of its author, or, as some ancient writers, Calvin,Lucke, de Wette, Tholuck, Langen, Lutteroth, they think that there was only a momentary stay in the house of Annas, after which they went immediately (in Joh 18:15) to the house of Caiaphas, in which the appearance took place which is related by John Joh 18:19-23, an appearance which, in any case, must be regarded as identical with the scene of Jesus’ condemnation in the Synoptics. Neither the one nor the other of these opinions is admissible. In what interest would the author of the Fourth Gospel have invented this appearance in the house of Annas? It is answered: In order to present the Jews in a more odious light by making Jesus to be condemned by two of their high-priests in succession. But by relating the story in this way, the pseudo-John would not even make Jesus to be condemned by one high- priest, since the session in the house of Annas is a simple inquiry without a judgment, and the session of the Synoptics, where the judgment was really pronounced, is omitted! The second opinion comes into collision with Joh 18:24, which proves that it was only after the inquiry in the house of Annas that Jesus was sent to the house of Caiaphas (see on that verse). If the locality of the two scenes is different, their contents are none the less so; the first is a mere preliminary investigation, the second a judicial act in all due forms, the official pronouncing of the judgment. Besides, what purpose would this stay at the house of Annas have served, and why should John have mentioned it so expressly if nothing occurred there? Lutteroth supposes that it was regarded as suitable to inform Annas, in passing, of the success of the arrest. But would it have been worth while to mention such a detail?

As it was not possible to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion, either by denying the examination in the house of Annas or by confounding it with the session in the house of Caiaphas, Beyschlag has tried the opposite method; he thinks that the meeting in the house of Annas took place as John relates it, but that after this there was no other during the night, like that which is related by Matthew and Mark; that the latter is nothing else than that which, according to Luke, took place on the following morning (Luk 22:66-71); the first two Synoptics placed it in the course of the night, because they confounded it with the examination in the house of Annas, of which they do not speak. The reason alleged for this hypothesis is that, if the judgment had been given during the night, there would have been no need of a session on the following morning, such as that of which Luke gives an account. We shall discover the error of Beyschlag as to this last point. But what renders this view more suspicious is the gross error which is thus imputed to Mark and Matthew.

It does not seem to us that any question is to be raised as to the fact of two perfectly distinct night sessions, one of which took place in the house of Annas (John) and the other in that of Caiaphas (Matthew and Mark); this is acknowledged by most at the present day Neander, Meyer, Weiss, Luthardt, Keil, Reuss, etc. The Synoptics omitted the first, either because they were ignorant of it, or because it did not occasion any important result. John, on his part, was not ignorant of the second, for he clearly alludes to it in the first of Joh 18:13, which implies as secondlythe appearance before Caiaphas (see on this word); then, in Joh 18:24, which expressly mentions as a subsequent fact the sending of Jesus to Caiaphas by Annas himself; finally, in Joh 18:28, where Jesus is led to Pilate, not from Annas’ house, but from that of Caiaphas. Thus John, if he does not give an account of the session in the house of Caiaphas, very exactly indicates its place, as he had done in Joh 18:1 with reference to the scene of Gethsemane. Moreover, what completes the proof that John cannot either have been ignorant of or have denied the judgment-scene in the house of Caiaphas, is the whole of the sequel in his own narrative. He represents to us the Sanhedrim as going to ask of Pilate the confirmation and execution of the death-sentence which they had pronounced (Joh 18:31, Joh 19:7; Joh 19:11; Joh 19:16). Now in the session in Annas’ house, of which John has given the description, no condemnation was pronounced. John’s narrative itself therefore implies a meeting of the Sanhedrim in the proper sense of the word, exercising its functions as a high-court of justice for the judgment of the accused, and consequently the entire meeting in the house of Caiaphas as Matthew and Mark describe it.

It will be asked what, in this case, was the purpose of the appearance in the house of Annas. It was, above all, to serve the purpose of drawing from the mouth of Jesus some compromising expression suited to furnish a reason for His condemnation; for there was embarrassment on this subject, as the summoning of the false witnesses in the Synoptics proves. Besides, the judicial customs required this formality. A capital sentence could be pronounced by the Sanhedrim only on the day which followed that on which the accused had appeared in court. In this case it was impossible to observe this rule fully, since the decision had been made to hasten the time; comp. Mar 14:2. But they must at least try to save appearances as far as possible, and to offer the semblance of a first preliminary meeting, before that at which the sentence should be pronounced. The Synoptics, as was in harmony with the nature of the oral tradition, preserved only the remembrance of that which was historically conspicuous; John, in comformity with his ordinary course of action, omits the solemn session which was sufficiently well known through the Synoptic narrative, and restored the part of the facts which was omitted by themno doubt, not for the purpose of materially completing them, but that he might not suffer the radiance of the glory of Jesus to be lost, which had shone forth in the meeting held in the house of Annas. Luthardt and Weiss think that, if John has related the scene in the house of Annas, it is only with a view to Peter’s denial, which is connected with it, and which he wished to relate in order to show the fulfilment of the words of Jesus in Joh 13:38. But if the story of this appearance had had this purpose only, it would have been sufficient to indicate it, without describing the scene in all its details.

Hilgenfeld explains the omission in John of the scene of the condemnation of Jesus by the Sanhedrim, by reason of the fact that the Jewish Messiahship of Jesus had been very strongly emphasized there, a thing which was displeasing to the pseudo-John. But with the freedom which the author used in respect to the history (according to this school), there was nothing easier for him than to modify the account of this scene, for example, by making the sentence of Jesus bear only upon the affirmation of His dignity as Son of God, which was perfectly in accordance with the spirit of his work. Besides, if the idea of the Messianic office was so repugnant to him, why should he have called it to mind from the first and even in the last words of his Gospel (Joh 1:42-46 and Joh 20:31)? Keim, however, gets excited, and says: Who is so blind…as to seek for truth in a narrative whichafter having introduced the examination in the house of Annas as a fact of a decisive charactersets aside (ignorirt) in the most unpardonable way that which took place in the house of Caiaphas (pp. 322, 323)! But what decisive result, then, did the meeting in Annas’ house have? The result, according to John himself, was nothing, to the great annoyance of the enemies who counted on discovering some complaint against Him for the great judicial session which was about to follow. As to the session in the house of Caiaphas, it is by no means set aside (ignorirt), as we have just seen, since John very correctly and repeatedly assigns to it its place (Joh 18:24). Reuss, in his Histoire evangelique (p. 663), expresses himself thus: John says nothing, and we will add, without falling into an error, knows nothing of the official examination and of the trial before the court, because all this takes place with closed doors. We have proved, on the contrary, that John knows perfectly well the facts which he omits. How should he not have been aware of the judgment of Jesus by the Sanhedrim, if it were only through the oral tradition which passed into the Synoptics and through the Synoptics themselves, with which John was acquainted, as even Reuss himself now confesses. If, then, he did not relate this scene, it is because he did not wish to do so, and we know the reason why he did not. Though this fact may be contrary to the system of Reuss respecting the Fourth Gospel, it is nevertheless indisputable. As to Renan, with much more impartiality than the theologians, he is unsparing in his admiration of John’s narrative. Our author alone, he says, represents Jesus as brought to the house of Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas. Josephus confirms the correctness of this account….This circumstance, of which the first two

Gospels give no hint, is a beam of light. How should a sectary, writing in Egypt or in Asia Minor, have known this?…It is a strong proof of the historical value of our Gospel (pp. 522 and 407). In fact, the relationship of Annas and Caiaphas, which, as we shall see, is an important element in the explanation of the narrative, is a matter of information which John must have received at first hand, for Josephus himself does not mention this fact, although it is perfectly in accordance with his narrative.

ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.

Vv. 12-27. There are in this passage two great questions, one having reference to the examination of Jesus, and the other bearing upon Peter’s denials. On these two questions the following brief suggestions may be offered:

I. The examination of Jesus. That this was not the one an account of which is given by the Synoptic Gospels is rendered probable by the following considerations:

(a) The fact that it was in the house of Annas. Joh 18:24 cannot be satisfactorily explained except as indicating that Jesus was not sent to Caiaphas until after the examination here recorded.

(b) The character of the examination itself. It was not of a judicial character. Jesus was simply inquired of as to His disciples and His teaching, as if in a conversation or an informal inquiry. In the Synoptic account, on the other hand, witnesses are called, and the whole proceeding is like that of a court, with the high-priest presiding as a judge.

(c) If the two accounts are carefully compared, we find, in connection with what has been said under (b), that all the details are different in the two: the questions addressed to Jesus; His answers; the minor circumstances, and the persons participating in the scene. This is certainly the fact, with the possible exception that the high-priest who takes part in the two scenes was the same person, and that the blows inflicted upon Jesus by bystanders were given by the same persons. The latter supposition is neither necessary nor probable, for the language used by those who smote Him is not the same, nor to the same effect. As to the former supposition, see below.

(d) It is altogether improbable that if John was present at the judicial trial recorded in the Synoptics, he would have given an account of only a part of it, and would have omitted the most important partnamely, that which contained the final result and decision. On the other hand, if what John relates was a more informal and private inquiry in the house of Annas, which preceded the judicial examination, it is very easy to believe that John was not admitted to the latter, and that he gives the account of what he heard, and passes over what he did not hear.

The question as to whether the high-priest mentioned in Joh 18:15-23 is Annas or Caiaphas is one of some difficulty. It is evident that Caiaphas is spoken of in this chapter, and elsewhere in this Gospel, as the high-priest, and that Annas is not thus spoken of, unless in these verses. It is also evident that Caiaphas was the actual high-priest at the time, and that Annas was not. Moreover, the allusion to the high-priest in Joh 18:15, following immediately as it does upon Joh 18:13, where Caiaphas is declared to be the high-priest, is such that, in the case of ordinary words, there would be no doubt that the reference in the two verses was the same. It is to be observed, however, on the other hand, that Joh 18:24, when compared with Joh 18:13, seems to separate Annas and Caiaphas altogether, and to limit what is said between Joh 18:15 and Joh 18:24 to the house and presence of Annas. Godet, as also Riggenbach, Ebrard, Hofmann, and others, suppose that the two lived in the same palace. The only improbability in such a supposition is, that they were dignitaries of such high position; but this is removed, provided we regard them as occupying two palatial residences which were on opposite sides of a common interior court, and were thus, in reality, one great building surrounding the court. There would seem to be an improbability, however, that the actual high-priest himself, who was to preside at the trial, would have entered into such a conversation and inquiry just before the trial began. His judicial position and dignity might seem inconsistent with it. But that Annas should do so might well have been in the plan of the leaders. It might well be a part of the attempt to prepare for the trial by involving Jesus, if possible, in some difficulty or self- accusation. As Annas, therefore, is called high-priest by Luke, both in his Gospel and in the Acts, and as he had held the office and was unquestionably in a very exalted position in the public opinion, it is more probable that the title is given to him in the verses under consideration, and that he was the person who conducted this inquiry.

II. The denials of Peter. Joh 18:15-27.In respect to these there are two points of inquiry:

1. As to the place where they occurred. That the first denial occurred in the court of the house of Annas is certain, if Jesus was not sent to the house of Caiaphas until Joh 18:24. But, if this was the fact respecting the first denial, the connection of Joh 18:25 with Joh 18:18 furnishes the strongest proof that the second and third denials also occurred in the same court. The opening words of Joh 18:25 evidently resume the closing ones of Joh 18:18, and the absence of any expressed subject for the verb of Joh 18:25 can only be explained in a natural way by supposing that the subject is intended by the author to be the same persons as those who are mentioned in the 18th verse. We may believe, therefore, that all the denials took place in one and the same court; that this was the court of the house of Annas; and that the last of the three denials coincided in point of time with the moment when Jesus went forth from the house of Annas on His way to that of Caiaphas. If we now suppose that the house of Caiaphas stood on the opposite side of the same court, so that the latter belonged equally to the two houses, the accounts of all the Gospels, so far forth as the place of Peter’s denials is concerned, can be easily brought into harmony.

2. As to what was said by Peter, and as to those who addressed him. That there were three denials, and three only, must be admitted as proved, beyond reasonable doubt, by the fact that Jesus predicted only three, and that each of the Gospels speaks of three only as having occurred. The attempt to escape the difficulties of the case by the supposition of two or three sets of denials, each consisting of two or more, is one which is contradictory to the impression produced by every one of the evangelists.

The most serious difficulties in the reconciling of the different narratives are, first: with respect to the persons, the fact that in the case of the second denial Mark represents the same person as speaking to Peter who had spoken to him in the first case, while the other Gospels represent that it was another personanother maid (Matthew), (Luke), the servants and officers (John). If the maid was actually another (and not, as Mark intimates, the same), and if she moved the servants, etc., to unite with her, the other three writers may be harmonized; secondly: with respect to what was said to Peter, the fact that John states that the kinsman of Malchus, in the case of the third denial, said, Did I not see thee in the garden with him, while the other evangelists represent that the words (spoken, according to Matthew and Mark, by those who stood by, and, according to Luke, by another) were, Surely thou art one of them, for thou art a Galilean, and thy speech agreeth thereto, or words substantially like these. This may be easily explained, if we suppose that immediately upon the latter words, which came from several of the bystanders, this kinsman of Malchus pressed the matter home upon Peter by saying, Did I not see thee, etc.; thirdly: with respect to the interval between the denials, the fact that Luke represents that there was about an hour between the second and third, while, if we are to suppose any interval of this sort as indicated by John, it is apparently between the first and second. The differences in regard to what Peter said are scarcely worthy of notice. There would seem to be no need, therefore, of supposing any such multiplying of the number of denials as has been imagined by some writers. With regard to the time previous to which the three denials were, according to the prediction of Christ, to take place, it is the same undoubtedly in all the Gospels, for Mark means by the words before the cock crows twice precisely what the other writers mean by before the cock crows namely, the end of the watch called .

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

CXXV.

FIRST STAGE OF JEWISH TRIAL.

EXAMINATION BY ANNAS.

(Friday before dawn.)

dJOHN XVIII. 12-14, 19-23.

d12 So the band and the chief captain, and the officers of the Jews, seized Jesus and bound him, 13 and led him to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. [For confusion in the priesthood, etc., see Mat 13:10, Mat 13:11), but he did not do so for [694] the purposes of concealment ( Mat 10:27). Jesus was the light of the world; addressing his teachings to all flesh, he chose the most public places to utter them–places, however, dedicated to the worship of the true God. He who had said that heaven and earth would pass away, but that his word would not pass away, did not suffer his teaching to be held in contempt; he did not permit it to be made matter for cross examination. On the contrary, it was to be taken cognizance of among the things universally known and understood. The very officers who had arrested him could tell about it– Joh 7:45, Joh 7:46.] 22 And when he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? 23 Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me? [Jesus was then under arrest, and as the trial had not yet opened there was ample time to add new matter to the charges against him. If, in addressing the high priest, he had just spoken words worthy of punishment, the officer who struck him should, instead, have preferred charges against him and had him punished in a legal manner. If the officer could not do this (and the point is that he could not), he was doubly wrong in striking him. Thus the Lord calmly rebuked the wrong-doer. Compare his conduct with that of Paul under somewhat similar circumstances ( Act 23:1-3). Jesus exemplified his teaching at Mat 5:39. “Christ,” says Luther, “forbids self-defense with the hand, not with the tongue.”] [695]

[FFG 694-695]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

Joh 18:12-27. The Preliminary Examination. Peters Denial.Jesus is brought to Annas, the father-in-law of the actual High Priest of that year (Joh 11:51). This preliminary stage, known only to our author, is not in itself improbable. Peter and another disciple, generally and naturally identified with the Beloved Disciple, follow. The latter has acquaintances in the household and gains admission at once. When he tries to gain the same for Peter, the portress is doubtful what to do, and asks Peter if he is a follower of the accused. Apparently his denial gains him admission, and he seeks obscurity among the crowd of servants. It must be noticed that this account of the first denial rises quite naturally out of the circumstances. In the Synoptic account it is unexplained. The High Priest (a term which is not confined to the actual holder of the chief office) examines Jesus as to His disciples and teaching, clearly with intent to extort evidence of sedition. Jesus answers that His teaching has always been open and public. Contrast Mar 14:49, where He addresses a similar remark to His captors. One of the attendants, thinking the answer insolent, strikes Jesus on the face. Again cf. Mar 14:65, where the buffeting is general. Failing to get the evidence he wants, Annas decides to send the prisoner on to Caiaphas, the ruling High Priest. Probably Jesus passes through the court, and the servants see, with the result that Peter is again questioned. His second denial is followed by a question which might prove serious, as it comes from a kinsman of his victim in the garden, who had seen him there. According to the Synoptists this third denial was accompanied by an oath. Again we find in the Johannine account satisfactory motives for the several incidents in the denial.

The proceedings before Caiaphas, recorded in the other gospels (Mt. and Mk.) are mentioned here but not described. This, and the difficulty of the mention of the high priest in Joh 18:19, were early recognised and led to a rearrangement in the Sinaitic Syriac, which presents the following order: Joh 18:12-13; Joh 18:24; Joh 18:14-15, Joh 18:19-23, Joh 18:16-18, Joh 18:25-27, thus getting the trial before Caiaphas as in the Synoptic account, and making the record of Peters denial continuous. But the reasons for the transpositions are obvious, and individual phrases in the version betray its secondary character (cf. Moffatt, INT, pp. 557f.). Except the silence of the other gospels there is nothing suspicious in the preliminary questioning by Annas, who had been High Priest, and is known to have exercised great influence during this period.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

B. Jesus’ religious trial 18:12-27

John is the only evangelist who recorded Jesus’ interrogation by Annas. It was preliminary to His appearance before Caiaphas and then before the Sanhedrin (Joh 18:24).

Jesus’ Religious Trial

	Matthew	Mark	Luke	John
Before Annas				Joh 18:12-14; Joh 18:19-24
Before Caiaphas	Mat 26:57-68	Mar 14:53-65	Luk 22:54; Luk 22:63-65
Before the Sanhedrin	Mat 27:1	Mar 15:1	Luk 22:66-71

Jesus’ Civil Trial

Before Pilate	Mat 27:2; Mat 27:11-14	Mar 15:1-5	Luk 23:1-5	Joh 18:28-38
Before Herod Antipas			Luk 23:6-12
Before Pilate	Mat 27:15-26	Mar 15:6-15	Luk 23:13-25	Joh 18:39 to Joh 19:16

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

1. The arrest of Jesus and the identification of the high priests 18:12-14

John began his account of Jesus’ trials with a brief description of His arrest and by identifying the chief religious leaders who examined Him.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

The commander (Gr. chiliarchos, cf. Act 22:24; Act 22:26-28; Act 23:17; Act 23:19; Act 23:22) in view was the officer in charge of the Roman soldiers. He was evidently the person with the most official authority on the scene. However the Jewish officers (i.e., temple police) also played a part in Jesus’ arrest. Perhaps John noted that they bound Jesus in view of Isaiah’s prophecy that Messiah’s enemies would lead Him as a lamb to the slaughter (Isa 53:7). Jesus’ disciples abandoned Him when His enemies took him into custody (cf. Mat 26:56; Mar 14:50).

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

XVIII. PETER’S DENIAL AND REPENTANCE.

“So the band and the chief captain, and the officers of the Jews, seized Jesus and bound Him, and led Him to Annas first; for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas, which was high priest that year. Now Caiaphas was he which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people. And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Now that disciple was known unto the high priest, and entered in with Jesus into the court of the high priest; but Peter was standing at the door without. So the other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, went out and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter. The maid therefore that kept the door saith unto Peter, Art thou also one of this man’s disciples? He saith, I am not. 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, standing and warming himself…. Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said therefore unto him, Art thou also one of His disciples? He denied, and said, I am not. 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? Peter therefore denied again: and straightway the cock crew.”– Joh 18:12-18, Joh 18:25-27.

The examination of Jesus immediately followed His arrest. He was first led to Annas, who at once sent Him to Caiaphas, the high priest, that he might carry out his policy of making one man a scapegoat for the nation.[22] To John the most memorable incident of this midnight hour was Peter’s denial of his Master. It happened on this wise. The high priest’s palace was built, like other large Oriental houses, round a quadrangular court, into which entrance was gained by a passage running from the street through the front part of the house. This passage or archway is called in the Gospels the “porch,” and was closed at the end next the street by a heavy folding gate with a wicket for single persons. This wicket was kept on this occasion by a maid. The interior court upon which this passage opened was paved or flagged and open to the sky, and as the night was cold the attendants had made a fire here. The rooms round the court, in one of which the examination of Jesus was proceeding, were open in front–separated, that is to say, from the court only by one or two pillars or arches and a railing, so that our Lord could see and even hear Peter.

When Jesus was led in bound to this palace, there entered with the crowd of soldiers and servants one at least of His disciples. He was in some way acquainted with the high priest, and presuming on this acquaintanceship followed to learn the fate of Jesus. He had seen Peter following at a distance, and after a little he goes to the gate-keeper and induces her to open to his friend. The maid seeing the familiar terms on which these two men were, and knowing that one of them was a disciple of Jesus, very naturally greets Peter with the exclamation, “Art not thou also one of this man’s disciples?” Peter, confused by being suddenly confronted with so many hostile faces, and remembering the blow he had struck in the garden, and that he was now in the place of all others where it was likely to be avenged, suddenly in a moment of infatuation, and doubtless to the dismay of his fellow-disciple, denies all knowledge of Jesus. Having once committed himself, the two other denials followed as matter of course.

Yet the third denial is more guilty than the first. Many persons are conscious that they have sometimes acted under what seems an infatuation. They do not plead this in excuse for the wrong they have done. They are quite aware that what has come out of them must have been in them, and that their acts, unaccountable as they seem, have definite roots in their character. Peter’s first denial was the result of surprise and infatuation. But an hour seems to have elapsed between the first and the third. He had time to think, time to remember his Lord’s warning, time to leave the place if he could do no better. But one of those reckless moods which overtake good-hearted children seems to have overtaken Peter, for at the end of the hour he is talking right round the whole circle at the fire, not in monosyllables and guarded voice, but in his own outspoken way, the most talkative of them all, until suddenly one whose ear was finer than the rest detected the Galilean accent, and says, “You need not deny you are one of this man’s disciples, for your speech betrays you.” Another, a kinsman of him whose ear Peter had cut off, strikes in and declares that he had seen him in the garden. Peter, driven to extremities, hides his Galilean accent under the strong oaths of the city, and with a volley of profane language asseverates that he has no knowledge of Jesus. At this moment the first examination of Jesus closes and He is led across the court: the first chill of dawn is felt in the air, a cock crows, and as Jesus passes He looks upon Peter; the look and the cock-crow together bring Peter to himself, and he hurries out and weeps bitterly.

The remarkable feature of this sin of Peter’s is that at first sight it seems so alien to his character. It was a lie; and he was unusually straightforward. It was a heartless and cruel lie, and he was a man full of emotion and affection. It was a cowardly lie, even more cowardly than common lies, and yet he was exceptionally bold. Peter himself was quite positive that this at least was a sin he would never commit. “Though all men should deny Thee, yet will not I.” Neither was this a baseless boast. He was not a mere braggart, whose words found no correspondence in his deeds. Far from it; he was a hardy, somewhat over-venturesome man, accustomed to the risks of a fisherman’s life, not afraid to fling himself into a stormy sea, or to face the overwhelming armed force that came to apprehend his Master, ready to fight for him single-handed, and quickly recovering from the panic which scattered his fellow-disciples. If any of his companions had been asked at what point of Peter’s character the vulnerable spot would be found, not one of them would have said, “He will fall through cowardice.” Besides, Peter had a few hours before been so emphatically warned against denying Christ that he might have been expected to stand firm this night at least.

Perhaps it was this very warning which betrayed Peter. When he struck the blow in the garden, he thought he had falsified his Lord’s prediction. And when he found himself the only one who had courage to follow to the palace, his besetting self-confidence returned and led him into circumstances for which he was too weak. He was equal to the test of his courage which he was expecting, but when another kind of test was applied in circumstances and from a quarter he had not anticipated his courage failed him utterly.

Peter probably thought he might be brought bound with his Master before the high priest, and had he been so he would probably have stood faithful. But the devil who was sifting him had a much finer sieve than that to run him through. He brought him to no formal trial, where he could gird himself for a special effort, but to an unobserved, casual questioning by a slave-girl. The whole trial was over before he knew he was being tried. So do our most real trials come; in a business transaction that turns up with others in the day’s work, in the few minutes’ talk or the evening’s intercourse with friends, it is discovered whether we are so truly Christ’s friends that we cannot forget Him or disguise that we are His. A word or two with a person he never saw before and would never see again brought the great trial of Peter’s life; and as unexpectedly shall we be tried. In these battles we must all encounter, we receive no formal challenge that gives us time to choose our ground and our weapons; but a sudden blow is dealt us, from which we can be saved only by habitually wearing a shirt of mail sufficient to turn it, and which we can carry into all companies.

Had Peter distrusted himself and seriously accepted his Lord’s warning, he would have gone with the rest; but ever thinking of himself as able to do more than other men, faithful where others were faithless, convinced where others hesitated, daring where others shrank, he once again thrust himself forward, and so fell. For this self-confidence, which might to a careless observer seem to underprop Peter’s courage, was to the eye of the Lord undermining it. And if Peter’s true bravery and promptitude were to serve the Church in days when fearless steadfastness would be above all other qualities needed, his courage must be sifted and the chaff of self-confidence thoroughly separated from it. In place of a courage which was sadly tainted with vanity and impulsiveness Peter must acquire a courage based upon recognition of his own weakness and his Lord’s strength. And it was this event which wrought this change in Peter’s character.

Frequently we learn by a very painful experience that our best qualities are tainted, and that actual disaster has entered our life from the very quarter we least suspected. We may be conscious that the deepest mark has been made on our life by a sin apparently as alien to our character as cowardice and lying were to the too venturesome and outspoken character of Peter. Possibly we once prided ourselves on our honesty, and felt happy in our upright character, plain-dealing, and direct speech; but to our dismay we have been betrayed into double-dealing, equivocation, evasive or even fraudulent conduct. Or the time was when we were proud of our friendships; it was frequently in our mind that, however unsatisfactory in other respects our character might be, we were at any rate faithful and helpful friends. Alas! events have proved that even in this particular we have failed, and have, through absorption in our own interests, acted inconsiderately and even cruelly to our friend, not even recognising at the time how his interests were suffering. Or we are by nature of a cool temperament, and judged ourselves safe at least from the faults of impulse and passion; yet the mastering combination of circumstances came, and we spoke the word, or wrote the letter, or did the deed which broke our life past mending.

Now, it was Peter’s salvation, and it will be ours, when overtaken in this unsuspected sin, to go out and weep bitterly. He did not frivolously count it an accident that could never occur again; he did not sullenly curse the circumstances that had betrayed and shamed him. He recognised that there was that in him which could render useless his best natural qualities, and that the sinfulness which could make his strongest natural defences brittle as an egg-shell must be serious indeed. He had no choice but to be humbled before the eye of the Lord. There was no need of words to explain and enforce his guilt: the eye can express what the tongue cannot utter. The finer, tenderer, deeper feelings are left to the eye to express. The clear cock-crow strikes home to his conscience, telling him that the very sin he had an hour or two ago judged impossible is now actually committed. That brief space his Lord had named as sufficient to test his fidelity is gone, and the sound that strikes the hour rings with condemnation. Nature goes on in her accustomed, inexorable, unsympathetic round; but he is a fallen man, convicted in his own conscience of empty vanity, of cowardice, of heartlessness. He who in his own eyes was so much better than the rest had fallen lower than all. In the look of Christ Peter sees the reproachful loving tenderness of a wounded spirit, and understands the dimensions of his sin. That he, the most intimate disciple, should have added to the bitterness of that hour, should not only have failed to help his Lord, but should actually at the crisis of His fate have added the bitterest drop to His cup, was humbling indeed. There was that in Christ’s look that made him feel the enormity of his guilt; there was that also that softened him and saved him from sullen despair.

And it is obvious that if we are to rise clear above the sin that has betrayed us we can do so only by as lowly a penitence. We are all alike in this: that we have fallen; we cannot any more with justice think highly of ourselves; we have sinned and are disgraced in our own eyes. In this, I say, we are all alike; that which makes the difference among us is, how we deal with ourselves and our circumstances in connection with our sin. It has been very well said by a keen observer of human nature that “men and women are often more fairly judged by the way in which they bear the burden of their own deeds, the fashion in which they carry themselves in their entanglements, than by the prime act which laid the burden on their lives and made the entanglement fast knotted. The deeper part of us shows in the manner of accepting consequences.” The reason of this is that, like Peter, we are often betrayed by a weakness; the part of our nature which is least able to face difficulty is assaulted by a combination of circumstances which may never again occur in our life. There was guilt, great guilt it may be, concerned in our fall, but it was not deliberate, wilful wickedness. But in our dealing with our sin and its consequences our whole nature is concerned and searched; the real bent and strength of our will is tried. We are therefore in a crisis, the crisis, of our life. Can we accept the situation? Can we humbly, frankly own that, since that evil has appeared in our life, it must have been, however unconsciously, in ourselves first? Can we with the genuine manliness and wisdom of a broken heart say to ourselves and to God, Yes, it is true I am the wretched, pitiful, bad-hearted creature that was capable of doing, and did that thing? I did not think that was my character; I did not think it was in me to sink so very low; but now I see what I am. Do we thus, like Peter, go out and weep bitterly?

Every one who has passed through a time such as this single night was to Peter knows the strain that is laid upon the soul, and how very hard it is to yield utterly. So much rises up in self-defence; so much strength is lost by the mere perplexity and confusion of the thing; so much is lost in the despondency that follows these sad revelations of our deep-seated evil. What is the use, we think, of striving, if even in the point in which I thought myself most secure I have fallen? What is the meaning of so perplexed and deceiving a warfare? Why was I exposed to so fatal an influence? So Peter, had he taken the wrong direction, might have resented the whole course of the temptation, and might have said, Why did Christ not warn me by His look before I sinned, instead of breaking me by it after? Why had I no inkling of the enormity of the sin before as I have after the sin? My reputation now is gone among the disciples; I may as well go back to my old obscure life and forget all about these perplexing scenes and strange spiritualities. But Peter, though he was cowed by a maid, was man enough and Christian enough to reject such falsities and subterfuges. It is true we did not see the enormity, never do see the enormity, of the sin until it is committed; but is it possible it can be otherwise? Is not this the way in which a blunt conscience is educated? Nothing seems so bad until it finds place in our own life and haunts us. Neither need we despond or sour because we are disgraced in our own eyes, or even in the eyes of others; for we are hereby summoned to build for ourselves a new and different reputation with God and our own consciences–a reputation founded on a basis of reality and not of seeming.

It may be worth while to note the characteristics and danger of that special form of weakness which Peter here exhibited. We commonly call it moral cowardice. It is originally a weakness rather than a positive sin, and yet it is probably as prolific of sin and even of great crime as any of the more definite and vigorous passions of our nature, such as hate, lust, avarice. It is that weakness which prompts a man to avoid difficulties, to escape everything rough and disagreeable, to yield to circumstances, and which above all makes him incapable of facing the reproach, contempt, or opposition of his fellow-men. It is often found in combination with much amiability of character. It is commonly found in persons who have some natural leanings to virtue, and who, if circumstances would only favour them, would prefer to lead, and would lead, at least an inoffensive and respectable, if not a very useful, noble, or heroic life. Finely strung natures that are very sensitive to all impressions from without, natures which thrill and vibrate in response to a touching tale or in sympathy with fine scenery or soft music, natures which are housed in bodies of delicate nervous temperament, are commonly keenly sensitive to the praise or blame of their fellows, and are therefore liable to moral cowardice, though by no means necessarily a prey to it.

The examples of its ill-effects are daily before our eyes. A man cannot bear the coolness of a friend or the contempt of a leader of opinion, and so he stifles his own independent judgment and goes with the majority. A minister of the Church finds his faith steadily diverging from that of the creed he has subscribed, but he cannot proclaim this change because he cannot make up his mind to be the subject of public astonishment and remark, of severe scrutiny on the one side and still more distasteful because ignorant and canting sympathy on the other. A man in business finds that his expenditure exceeds his income, but he is unable to face the shame of frankly lowering his position and curtailing his expenses, and so he is led into dishonest appearances; and from dishonest appearances to fraudulent methods of keeping them up the step, as we all know, is short. Or in trade a man knows that there are shameful, contemptible, and silly practices, and yet he has not moral courage to break through them. A parent cannot bear to risk the loss of his child’s good-will even for an hour, and so omits the chastisement he deserves. The schoolboy, fearing his parents’ look of disappointment, says he stands higher in his class than he does; or fearing to be thought soft and unmanly by his schoolfellows, sees cruelty or a cheat or some wickedness perpetrated without a word of honest anger or manly condemnation. All this is moral cowardice, the vice which brings us down to the low level which bold sinners set for us, or which at any rate sweeps the weak soul down to a thousand perils, and absolutely forbids the good there is in us from finding expression.

But of all the forms into which moral cowardice develops this of denying the Lord Jesus is the most iniquitous and disgraceful. One of the fashions of the day which is most rapidly extending and which many of us have opportunity to resist is the fashion of infidelity. Much of the strongest and best-trained intellect of the country ranges itself against Christianity–that is, against Christ. No doubt the men who have led this movement have adopted their opinions on conviction. They deny the authority of Scripture, the divinity of Christ, even the existence of a personal God, because by long years of painful thought they have been forced to such conclusions. Even the best of them cannot be acquitted of a contemptuous and bitter way of speaking of Christians, which would seem to indicate that they are not quite at ease in their belief. Still, we cannot but think that so far as any men can be quite unbiassed in their opinions, they are so; and we have no right to judge other men for their honestly formed opinions. The moral cowards of whom we speak are not these men, but their followers, persons who with no patience or capacity to understand their reasonings adopt their conclusions because they seem advanced and are peculiar. There are many persons of slender reading and no depth of earnestness who, without spending any serious effort on the formation of their religious belief, presume to disseminate unbelief and treat the Christian creed as an obsolete thing merely because part of the intellect of the day leans in that direction. Weakness and cowardice are the real spring of such persons’ apparent advance and new position regarding religion. They are ashamed to be reckoned among those who are thought to be behind the age. Ask them for a reason of their unbelief, and they are either unable to give you any, or else they repeat a time-worn objection which has been answered so often that men have wearied of the interminable task and let it pass unnoticed.

Such persons we aid and abet when we do either of two things: when we either cleave to what is old as unreasoningly as they take up with what is new, refusing to look for fresh light and better ways and acting as if we were already perfect; or when we yield to the current and adopt a hesitating way of speaking about matters of faith, when we cultivate a sceptical spirit and seem to connive at if we do not applaud the cold, irreligious sneer of ungodly men. Above all, we aid the cause of infidelity when in our own life we are ashamed to live godly, to act on higher principles than the current prudential maxims, when we hold our allegiance to Christ in abeyance to our fear of our associates, when we find no way of showing that Christ is our Lord and that we delight in opportunities of confessing Him. The confessing of Christ is a duty explicitly imposed on all those who expect that He will acknowledge them as His. It is a duty to which we might suppose every manly and generous instinct in us would eagerly respond, and yet we are often more ashamed of our connection with the loftiest and holiest of beings than of our own pitiful and sin-infected selves, and as little practically stimulated and actuated by a true gratitude to Him as if His death were the commonest boon and as if we were expecting and needing no help from Him in the time that is yet to come.[23]

FOOTNOTES:

[22] There is a difficulty in tracing the movements of Jesus at this point. John tells us He was led to Annas first, and at Joh 18:24 he says that Annas sent Him to Caiaphas. We should naturally conclude, therefore, that the preceding examination was conducted by Annas. But Caiaphas has been expressly indicated as chief priest, and it is by the chief priest and in the chief priest’s palace the examination is conducted. The name “chief priest” was not confined to the one actually in office, but was applied to all who had held the office, and might therefore be applied to Annas. Possibly the examination recorded Joh 18:19-23 was before him, and probably he was living with his son-in-law in the palace of the chief priest.

[23] Some of the ideas in this chapter were suggested by a sermon of Bishop Temple’s.

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles