54<\/strong>. And Peter<\/em> ] Before the palace or within its outer porch appears to have been a large open square court, in which public business was transacted. Into it Peter and John ventured to follow (Joh 18:15<\/span>). The latter, as being acquainted with the high-priest, easily obtained admittance; Peter, at first rejected by the porteress, was suffered to enter at the request of his brother Apostle.<\/p>\n and warmed himself<\/em> ] The night was chilly, and in the centre of the court the servants of the high-priest had made a fire of charcoal, and there Peter, now admitted, was warming himself at the open hearth.<\/p>\n Mar 14:54<\/span><\/p>\n And Peter followed Him afar off.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Following afar off<\/strong><\/p>\n A young man, it is told, was for several months in a backsliding state, which manifested itself in the usual way,-of conformity to a fashionable and unholy course of life, and a neglect of the ordinances and institutions of the house of God. During this time he called on a deacon of the church, who was a watchmaker, and asked him to repair his watch. What is the difficulty with your watch? said he. It has lost time lately, said the young man. The deacon looked at him with a steady and significant eye, and said, Havent you lost time lately? These few words brought the backslider to repentance, to the church, and to duty.<\/p>\n Peters fall: its lessons<\/strong><\/p>\n I. <\/strong>Who followed Him afar off? Peter.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>Then seniority and leadership in the church are no guarantee against falling into sin. In the order of choice, Peter was the oldest of the apostles. He was also their recognized leader. Peter is the last man that should have followed afar off, both because of seniority and leadership, and the blighting influence that would naturally and inevitably result from his conduct. The power of leadership involves tremendous responsibility.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>Then a man may backslide while blessed with the most faithful and efficient gospel teaching. Peters experience shows that a man may sin shamefully while blessed with the most perfect gospel teaching.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>Then a man may backslide while blessed with the most affectionate pastoral care. Jesus foresaw his dangers; told him of the enemys purpose; warned him of this very fall, and in the true pastoral spirit bore him to God in prayer: I have prayed for thee. Surely no man was ever blessed with such pastoral solicitude and fidelity, and yet, in spite of it all, Peter fell.<\/p>\n 4. <\/strong>Then high professions of loyalty and love are not always to be relied upon. Peters assurances partook somewhat of the nature of boasting. Great natures never burden you with vows and assurances. They are the product and sign of a weak; unreliable character. Peter soon found out, however, that it is one thing to make vows in the heavenly atmosphere of the upper room, but quite another thing to pay those vows amid the provocation of Gethsemane, and the excitement of the judgment hall. I have heard of a little boat that carried such an immense whistle that it took all the steam to blow it; so, whenever it whistled it stopped running. Too many in our churches are like that little boat; the whistle of their profession is too big for their supply of steam. It takes all their energy to blow it, to tell of their attainments, and what wonders they are going to do. (T. Kelly<\/em>)<\/p>\n .<\/em><\/p>\n Following Christ afar off<\/strong><\/p>\n I.<\/strong> <\/em><\/strong>Let us inquire, in the outset, concerning the significance of this action of Simon.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>The facts are very simple. When Christ retrieved the folly which this impetuous disciple had committed, and healed the ear of Malchus, it does not appear that the magnanimity of the Master had any effect in mitigating the malignity of the mob. Simons stroke with his unusual weapon, instead of checking those belligerent people bearing swords and staves, came very near exasperating them. He simply put himself and his friends to flight, and then the crowd had it all their own way. It is a mournful record to read: They all forsook Him and fled. But now, after this sudden and useless panic, it appears that at least two of our Lords followers rallied their courage a little. They turned upon their flying footsteps, and started after the melancholy train. These were Peter and John. And the whole force of the dramatic incident we are studying is disclosed in the contrast of their behaviour. John ran with a will. As in the race afterwards for Christs sepulchre he easily distanced Peter (Joh 20:4<\/span>), so now he arrived first in the palace. Moreover, he soon showed how brave he was, and how much in earnest to retrieve his temporary defection he was, by urging his way directly through all obstacles into the very apartment where Jesus had been taken for trial; he went in with Jesus, but Peter stood at the door without (Joh 18:15-16<\/span>).<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>The meaning of all this is what makes it so important. One has no need of being deceived ever as to the exact commencement of any defection from Christ. Backsliding is earliest in the heart, then it shows itself in ones ways (Pro 14:14<\/span>). Absalom was a rebel while as yet he made no overt attack on his fathers throne. The younger son was a prodigal before he started for the far country. Peter was a renegade and a poltroon from the earliest instant in which, listless and halting, he had begun to follow Jesus only afar off. For an analysis of his experience would have disclosed three bad elements.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>There was petulance in it. Simons self-love was wounded when Jesus administered the somewhat extensive rebuke he had received (Mat 26:52-54<\/span>). He felt himself aggrieved. His defection began with sullenness. We cannot doubt that his countenance fell; he wore an injured expression.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>There was distrust in his experience. We have seen that there was some reason for all the disciples to apprehend violence, instantaneous and passionate. Peter was fully responsible for that. The immediate result of his rashness was danger rather than deliverance. But could not Jesus be relied upon for rescue? Was not John fully protected afterwards?<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>There was unbelief in his experience. This disciple evidently had become ashamed of his adhesion to Jesus as the Messiah. An omnipotent Son of God was in his estimation for the moment letting things go too far, when He suffered Himself to be apprehended by a rabble and maltreated in this way without a word. Perhaps Simon lost confidence in His cause. If the words of Matthew are to be taken literally (Mat 26:58<\/span>), this disciple did not follow Jesus, even afar off, so much from affection as from curiosity; he went into the palace not to see Jesus, but to see the end.<\/p>\n II. <\/strong>Let us go a step farther now, and inquire concerning the results of this behaviour of Peter.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>It took him away from Christs personal presence. There was always to this disciple a peculiar exhilaration and help in the companionship of his Divine Lord. Under the shining of His countenance he constantly grows humble, gentle, and affectionate. Just as Mercury, that feeblest of all the planets in our solar system, seems most brilliant when likeliest to disappear, because nearest the sun, so Simon actually appears at his best when he is the most outshone; and the moment he wanders, he wanes. Duty is to most of us what this personal leadership was to the disciples. If we follow our religious duties close up, they will bring us near Jesus.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>Again, this behaviour separated Peter from the sympathy of Jesus adherents. In union there is strength. Those disciples ought not to have allowed themselves to be scattered during the trials of that passover night. For together they would have helped each other very much. Now we do not know what became of any of them except John. If Peter had been sitting by Johns side he certainly would have been safer. He was easily influenced, and the beloved disciple soon recovered his courage and loyalty. Whenever professed Christians are seen to be falling away from each other by following the Master afar off, there is reason for alarm in reference to their spiritual interests. Only sin is solitary, and only guilt loves to live alone. Hence there is vast wisdom in the ancient counsel that believers should not forsake the assembling of themselves together, as the manner of some is (Heb 10:25<\/span>).<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>Moreover, this behaviour threw Peter hopelessly into the companionship of his enemies. Peter fell into bad company the instant he fell out of good.<\/p>\n III. <\/strong>It is time for us to inquire concerning the real cause of Simon Peters defection that night.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>It would not be enough to ascribe it just to a sudden fright of alarm.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>It was because his piety, at that period of his history, was fashioned more by feeling than by principle. Peters spirituality blew in a gusty sort of way because his theological groundwork was faulty. We remember more than one occasion when he deliberately interfered with our Lords communication of the doctrine of the atonement. As a master, a teacher, a leader, he loved Jesus personally; there he rested. Jesus away, he failed. Soft gales do not always waft to the heaven; they the rather often aid in an unperceived drift towards the open sea. Simon loved to have all things beautiful and serene. He was the man who grew ecstatic on the mount of transfiguration, and proposed that Jesus should stay there. His sensibilities were so shocked at the thought of the Saviours maltreatment, that he protested against the official act of sealing the covenant of redemption with blood. The words were characteristic: This shall not be unto Thee (Mat 16:22<\/span>). Now let it be remembered that for nobody is there any hope of standing firm under stress of opposition, if his piety has been nurtured only in tender hours of emotional enjoyment. Spiritual impulses will be dangerously irregular and intermittent unless they have the help of steady purpose underneath. Carpenters never cut ships knees from tropical palms. The grand doctrines of the cross must be wrought into the very fibre of ones soul, as the granite soil and the winter tempests of the mountains are wrought into the gnarls of the oak which the shipwright loves. That is to say, Christian character is reared out of a determinate wrestle with sin.<\/p>\n IV. <\/strong>Finally, let us inquire concerning the admonition which is suggested by this behaviour of Peter.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>How can this sin be repeated in our time? We follow Jesus afar off when we refuse to defend the doctrines of redemption before unbelievers who scoff at a blood atonement-when we allow the rules and institutions of the Christian Church to be derided or belittled in our hearing-when we neglect the ordinances of Gods house and refuse the fixed practice of family devotion-when we strain Christian liberty to see how much of indulgence in worldliness an unattacked church membership will bear. There is no difficulty whatever in modern experience in the way of repeating Peters wrong.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>It is a better question to ask, How can this sin of following Christ afar off be avoided in our time? John, and not Peter, is our pattern. The way to escape the taunts of maidservants in the hall is to go right up the steps into the presence of Jesus. It touches us to the heart to read the words which show how well Simon understood all his cowardice and folly long years afterwards (1Pe 5:6-10<\/span>). (C. S. Robinson, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n Verse 54. Peter followed<\/B><\/I>] On Peter’s denial, see Mt 26:57<\/span>, &c.<\/P> <\/P> At the fire.<\/B><\/I>] , literally, at the light<\/I>, i.e. a fire that cast considerable light, in consequence of which, the maid servant was the better able to distinguish him: see Mr 14:67<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n 54. And Peter followed him afar off,even into<\/B>or “from afar, even to the interior of.” <\/P> the palace of the highpriest<\/B>“An oriental house,” says ROBINSON,”is usually built around a quadrangular interior court; intowhich there is a passage (sometimes arched) through the front part ofthe house, closed next the street by a heavy folding gate, with asmaller wicket for single persons, kept by a porter. The interiorcourt, often paved or flagged, and open to the sky, is the hall,<\/I>which our translators have rendered ‘palace,’ where the attendantsmade a fire; and the passage beneath the front of the house, from thestreet to this court, is the porch.<\/I> The place where Jesusstood before the high priest may have been an open room, or place ofaudience on the ground floor, in the rear or on one side of thecourt; such rooms, open in front, being customary. It was close uponthe court, for Jesus heard all that was going on around the fire, andturned and looked upon Peter (Lu22:61<\/span>).” <\/P> and he sat with the servants,and warmed himself at the fire<\/B>The graphic details, hereomitted, are supplied in the other Gospels. Joh18:18<\/span>: <\/P> And the servants andofficers stood there<\/B><\/I> <\/B>that is, in the hall, withinthe quadrangle, open to the sky. <\/P> who had made a fire ofcoals<\/B><\/I> <\/B>or charcoal (in a brazier probably). <\/P> for it was cold<\/B><\/I><\/B>John alone of all the Evangelists mentions the material,<\/I>and the coldness<\/I> of the night, as WEBSTERand WILKINSON remark. Theelevated situation of Jerusalem, observes THOLUCK,renders it so cold about Easter as to make a watch fire at nightindispensable. <\/P> AndPeter stood with them and warmed himself<\/B><\/I> <\/B>“Hewent in,” says Matthew (Mt26:58<\/span>), “and sat with the servants to see the end.<\/I>“These two minute statements throw an interesting light on each other.His wishing to “see the end,” or issue of theseproceedings, was what led him into the palace, for he evidentlyfeared the worst. But once in, the serpent coil is drawn closer; itis a cold night, and why should not he take advantage of the fire aswell as others? Besides, in the talk of the crowd about theall-engrossing topic he may pick up something which he would like tohear. Poor Peter! But now, let us leave him warming himself at thefire, and listening to the hum of talk about this strange case bywhich the subordinate officials, passing to and fro and crowdingaround the fire in this open court, would while away the time; and,following what appears the order of the Evangelical Narrative, let usturn to Peter’s Lord. <\/P> JesusIs Interrogated by AnnasHis Dignified ReplyIs Treated withIndignity by One of the OfficialsHis Meek Rebuke<\/I>(Joh 18:19-23<\/span>). <\/P> Wehave seen that it is only the Fourth Evangelist who tells us that ourLord was sent to Annas first, overnight, until the Sanhedrim could begot together at earliest dawn. We have now, in the same Gospel, thedeeply instructive scene that passed during this non-officialinterview. <\/P> Joh18:19<\/span>: <\/P> Thehigh priest<\/B><\/I> <\/B>Annas. <\/P> thenasked Jesus of His disciples and of His doctrine<\/B><\/I> <\/B>probablyto entrap Him into some statements which might be used against Him atthe trial. From our Lord’s answer it would seem that “Hisdisciples” were understood to be some secret party. <\/P> Joh18:20<\/span>. <\/P> Jesusanswered him, I spake openly to the world<\/B><\/I><\/B>compare Joh7:4<\/span>. He speaks of His public teaching as now a past thingasnow all over. <\/P> Iever taught in the synagogue and in the temple, whither the Jews<\/B><\/I><\/B>always resort<\/B><\/I> <\/B>courting publicity, thoughwith sublime noiselessness. <\/P> andin secret have I said nothing<\/B><\/I><\/B>rather, “spake I nothing”;that is, nothing different from what He taught in public: all Hisprivate communications with the Twelve being but explanations anddevelopments of His public teaching. (Compare Isa 45:19<\/span>;Isa 48:16<\/span>). <\/P> Joh18:21<\/span>: <\/P> Whyaskest thou Me? ask them which heard Me what I have said to<\/B><\/I><\/B>them<\/B><\/I> <\/B>rather, “what I said untothem.” <\/P> behold,they know what I said<\/B><\/I> <\/B>From this mode of replying,it is evident that our Lord saw the attempt to draw Him intoself-crimination, and resented it by falling back upon the right ofevery accused party to have some charge laid against Him by competentwitnesses. <\/P> Joh18:22<\/span>: <\/P> Andwhen He had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by<\/B><\/I><\/B>struck Jesus with the palm of hishand, saying, Answerest Thou the<\/B><\/I><\/B>high priest so?<\/B><\/I><\/B>(see Isa50:6<\/span>). It would seem from Ac23:2<\/span> that this summary and undignified way of punishment what wasdeemed insolence in the accused had the sanction even of the highpriests themselves. <\/P> Joh18:23<\/span>: <\/P> Jesusanswered him, If I have spoken evil<\/B><\/I> <\/B>rather, “IfI spoke evil,” in reply to the high priest. <\/P> bearwitness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou Me?<\/B><\/I><\/B>He does not say “if not<\/I>evil,” as if His reply had been merely unobjectionable; but “ifwell,<\/I>“which seems to challenge something altogether fitting in theremonstrance. He had addressed to the high priest. From our Lord’sprocedure here, by the way, it is evident enough that His own preceptin the Sermon on the Mountthat when smitten on the one cheek weare to turn to the smiter the other also (Mt5:39<\/span>) is not to be taken to the letter. <\/P> AnnasSends Jesus to Caiaphas<\/I> (Joh18:24<\/span>). <\/P> Joh18:24<\/span>. <\/P> NowAnnas had sent Him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest<\/B><\/I><\/B>On the meaning of this verse thereis much diversity of opinion; and according as we understand it willbe the conclusion we come to, whether there was but onehearing<\/I> of our Lord before Annas andCaiaphas together, or whether, according to the view we have givenabove, there were two hearings<\/I>apreliminary and informal one before Annas, and a formal and officialone before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrim. If our translators have giventhe right sense of the verse, there was but one hearing beforeCaiaphas; and then Joh 18:24<\/span>is to be read as a parenthesis,<\/I>merely supplementing what was said in Joh18:13<\/span>. This is the view of CALVIN,BEZA,GROTIUS,BENGEL,DEWETTE,MEYER,LUCKE,THOLUCK.But there are decided objections to this view. First: We cannot butthink that the natural<\/I>sense of the whole passage, embracing Joh 18:13<\/span>;Joh 18:14<\/span>; Joh 18:19-24<\/span>,is that of a preliminary non-official hearing before “Annasfirst,” the particulars of which are accordingly recorded; andthen of a transference of our Lord from Annas to Caiaphas. Second: Onthe other view, it is not easy to see why the Evangelist should nothave inserted Joh 18:24<\/span>immediately after Joh 18:13<\/span>;or rather, how he could well have done otherwise. As it stands, it isnot only quite out of its proper place, but comes in mostperplexingly. Whereas, if we take it as a simple statement of fact,that after Annas had finished his interview with Jesus, as recordedin Joh 18:19-23<\/span>, hetransferred Him to Caiaphas to be formally tried, all is clear andnatural. Third: The pluperfect sense “had<\/I>sent” is in the translation only; the sense of the original wordbeing simply “sent.” And though there are cases where theaorist here used has the sense of an English pluperfect, this senseis not to be put upon it unless it be obvious and indisputable. Herethat is so far from being the case, that the pluperfect “hadsent” is rather an unwarrantable interpretation<\/I>than a simple translation<\/I>of the word; informing the reader that, accordingto the view of our translators,<\/I> ourLord “had been” sent to Caiaphas before<\/I>the interview just recorded by the Evangelist; whereas, if wetranslate the verse literally”Annas sent<\/I>Him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest”we get just theinformation we expect, that Annas, having merely “precognosced<\/I>“the prisoner, hoping to draw something out of Him, “sent Him toCaiaphas” to be formally tried before the proper tribunal. Thisis the view of CHRYSOSTOMand AUGUSTINEamong the Fathers; and of the moderns, of OLSHAUSEN,SCHLEIERMACHER,NEANDER,EBRARD,WIESELER,LANGE,LUTHARDT.This brings us back to the text of our second Gospel, and in it to <\/P> The Judicial Trial andCondemnation of the Lord Jesus by the Sanhedrim<\/I> (Mr14:55-64<\/span>). <\/P> But let the reader observe, thatthough this is introduced by the Evangelist before any of the denialsof Peter are recorded, we have given reasons for concluding thatprobably the first two denials<\/I> took place while our Lord waswith Annas, and the last only during the trial before the Sanhedrim.<\/P><\/p>\n And Peter followed him afar off<\/strong>,…. And did another disciple, perhaps John; Joh 18:15<\/span>, who having somewhat recovered themselves from their fright, turned back, and followed Jesus, and the company that led him away; keeping at some distance, that they might not be observed, and exposed to danger; and proceeded till they came to Jerusalem, and to the place where the sanhedrim were convened; and the other disciple went in along with Jesus; and Peter afterwards, by his means, got in:<\/p>\n even into the palace of the high priest<\/strong>; being let in by her that kept the door, at the motion of the other disciple<\/p>\n and he sat with the servants<\/strong>; as if he was one of them, and had no concern with Jesus:<\/p>\n and warmed himself at the fire<\/strong>; or “light”, as the Greek word signifies, and answers to the Hebrew word , by which both: light and fire are expressed; of which, take an instance or two, in the room of many g:<\/p>\n “a murderer that strikes, his neighbour with a stone, or with iron, and plunges him into water, or into , “fire”, so that he cannot get out, and dies, is guilty.”<\/p>\n Again h, a<\/p>\n “book which , “fire”, takes hold upon on one side, he puts, water on the other; and if it is quenched, it is quenched; if the “fire” takes hold on both sides, he opens it, and reads in it; and if it is quenched, it is quenched: a cloak which “fire” takes hold upon on one side, he puts water on the other side; and if it is quenched, it is quenched; if the “fire” takes hold on it on both sides, he takes, it and wraps himself in it, and if it is quenched, it is quenched.”<\/p>\n So we read i of , “the fire of hell”; and Ur of the Chaldees has its name from the fire, that was worshipped there, as a symbol of the sun: and fire was the , or “light”, created on the first day, Ge 1:3<\/span>;<\/p>\n [See comments on Mt 26:58]<\/span>.<\/p>\n g Misn. Sanhedrin, c 9. sect 1. h T. Hieros. Sabbat, fol. 15. 4. & T. Bab. Sabbat, fol. 120. 1. Vid. Misn. Avoda Zara, c. 5. sect. 12. i T. Bab. Chagiga, fol. 27. 1.<\/p>\n Peter had followed him afar off <\/B> (H <\/SPAN><\/span>). Here Mark uses the constative aorist (<\/SPAN><\/span>) where Mt 26:58<\/span>, and Lu 22:54<\/span> have the picturesque imperfect (<\/SPAN><\/span>), was following. Possibly Mark did not care to dwell on the picture of Peter furtively following at a distance, not bold enough to take an open stand with Christ as the Beloved Disciple did, and yet unable to remain away with the other disciples.<\/P> Was sitting with <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Periphrastic imperfect middle, picturing Peter making himself at home with the officers (<\/SPAN><\/span>), under rowers, literally, then servants of any kind. Joh 18:25<\/span> describes Peter as standing (<\/SPAN><\/span>). Probably he did now one, now the other, in his restless weary mood.<\/P> Warming himself in the light <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Direct middle. Fire has light as well as heat and it shone in Peter’s face. He was not hidden as much as he supposed he was. <\/P> <\/p>\n Palace [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Rather, court, as Rev., the quadrangle round which the chambers were built. See on Mt 26:3<\/span>. <\/P> Sat with [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. The verb With the participle denoting continuousness. What occurred after occurred while he was sitting. So Rev. Servants. Rev., officers. See on Mt 5:25<\/span>. <\/P> At the fire [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Fwv is never used of the fire itself, but of the light of the fire; and this is the point to which the evangelist directs attention : that the firelight, Shining on Peter’s face, Called forth the challenge of the maid (verse 66).<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “And Peter followed Him afar off,” <\/strong>(kai ho Petros apo makrothen ekolouthesen auto) ”And Peter followed Him from a distance,” a good safe distance, to avoid being arrested, Mat 27:58<\/span>; Luk 22:54<\/span>. John, another of the apostles was also there. Joh 18:16<\/span> indicates that he went out of the High Priest’s palace and brought Peter inside.<\/p>\n 2) “Even<\/strong> into the palace of the high priest:” <\/strong>(heos eso eis ten auten tou archiereos) “Until he was within the court of the high priest,” where Jesus was first led, before Annas and Caiphas, Joh 18:12-16<\/span>.<\/p>\n 3) “And he sat with<\/strong> the servants,” <\/strong>(kai en sughathemenos meta hupereton) “And he (Peter) was sitting with the attendants, the officers,” to “see the end,” or outcome, Mat 26:28<\/span>; Luk 22:55<\/span>.<\/p>\n 4) “And warmed himself at the fire.”<\/strong> (kai thermainomenos pros to phos) “And warming himself by the bright fire,” with the arresting officers, Joh 18:18<\/span>. The account of the setting for Peter’s denials of Jesus here begins, as he sat by the fire, in the cold, with sinners, according to Mark, and then the account is suspended by the account of the trial, and resumed Mar 14:66<\/span>. To sit with, stand with, or walk among sinners is not good, Psa 1:1-3<\/span>.<\/p>\n Peter was fearful of death, yet drawn by love for Jesus, and by natural curiosity to seek the end or outcome of the episode or event.<\/p>\n (54) Sat<\/strong> . . . and warmed himself.<\/strong>Better, was sitting and warming himself.<\/em><\/p>\n With the servants.<\/strong>Better, with the officers.<\/em><\/p>\n At the fire.<\/strong>Literally, at the light;<\/em> the word bringing out very vividly the effect of the glare of the charcoal fire on St. Peters face,<\/p>\n ‘ And Peter had followed him afar off, even within into the courtyard of the high priest, and he was sitting with officials and warming himself before the fire.’<\/p>\n Again we have a typically Marcan interweaving of events. Inside the house were representatives of the Sanhedrin. Out in the courtyard, around which the palace was built, was Peter. Bravely he had followed the arresting party at a distance, and with the help of another disciple who was seemingly related to the high priestly family, had actually been able to enter the courtyard of the high priest’s residence (Joh 18:15<\/span>). There he was sat before the open fire with officials from the residence, who clearly did not recognise him. There was no reason why they should. They would have had nothing to do with Jesus previously and were probably not of the arresting group. But the picture is of Peter at ease, compromising with Jesus’ enemies<\/p>\n 54 And Peter followed him afar off, even into the palace of the high priest: and he sat with the servants, and warmed himself at the fire. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 54. At the fire<\/strong> ] . At the light, or by the light, that is (say some), by the candle light (for that discovered him), referring ad lumen<\/em> to the light, to sedens.<\/em> to sitting. <\/p>\n 54.<\/strong> ] The usage of <\/strong> for a fire<\/em> is found in Xen. Cyr. vii. 5. 27, .<\/p>\n Mar 14:54<\/span> . : the story of Peter’s denial begins here, and, after being suspended by the account of the trial, is resumed at Mar 14:66<\/span> . , from afar ( redundant here as elsewhere), fearful, yet drawn on by love and curiosity. : a redundant but expressive combination, suggesting the idea of one stealthily feeling his way into the court of the palace, venturing further and further in, and gaining courage with each step ( Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n