65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. 66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.

67 Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him and others smote him with the palms of their hands, 68 Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?

the future. They now sitting to judge him, he will then sit to judge them; they are now strong and he apparently weak, then he will sit on the right hand of power and they will call in vain on the mountains and rocks to hide them (Rev. 6:16). "As the Passion advances, its amazing contrasts grow in affecting interest. The Deliverer in bonds; the Judge attainted; the Prince of Glory scorned; the Holy One condemned for sin; the Son of God as a blasphemer; the Resurrection and the Life sentenced to die. The Eternal High-Priest is condemned by the high-priest of that year."-(Stier.) On the significance of Christ's testimony here to himself, see Prel. Note.

65. Then the high-priest rent his clothes. This was a common Jewish sign of grief. Of rending clothes at hearing blasphemy, see an illustration in 2 Kings 18: 37; 19: 1. Lightfoot quotes from the Rabbinical books the rule "when witnesses speak out the blasphemy which they heard, then all, hearing the blasphemy, are bound to rend their clothes." The rending of clothes was ordinarily forbidden to the highpriest (Lev. 10: ), but the prohibition probably applied only to private mourning. His act here may have been a natural expression of abhorrence at what he sincerely regarded as language of blasphemy. More probably it was a simulated and theatrical expression for the purpose of producing an effect upon the court.-He hath spoken blasphemy. By claiming to be the Son of God. On the nature of blasphemy under the Jewish law, see Prel. Note and ref. there.He is liable to death. The Jewish law made it a capital offence to turn the people away from allegiance to the true God (Deut. 13 : 1-5). this Christ was accused, and for this condemned to die (John 19: 7). In fact, however, the doctrine of the divinity of Christ has not weakened but strengthened the allegiance of the human race to the Father (John 14:6; Phil. 2:11). Quesnel's practical commentary on this sentence is noteworthy. "The Author of Life, and Life eternal itself, is then judged worthy of death; and can we complain after this of the injustice of human judgments as to ourselves?"

Of

67, 68. Buffeted him. The original (zoλapito) signifies to strike with the fist.Smote him with the palms of their hands. The original (pazio) signifies in Scripture usage to strike a flat blow with the back or the palm of

the hand, or with a staff. Comp. Matt. 5:39, where the verb is the same.-Saying, Prophesy unto us. They had first blindfolded him (Luke 22: 64). These indignities were inflicted, not by the members of the court, but by the servants (Mark 14:65; Luke 22: 64), who doubtless reflected in a meaner way the vindictive spirit of their masters. Luke represents them as preceding, Matthew and Mark as following, the sentence of the court. The former appears to me more probable. The blow struck by the officer of the high-priest, and narrated by John only (ch. 18: 22), is distinct from these indignities. Chrysostom notes the evident truthfulness of the Evangelical narratives, which conceal nothing of the apparent humiliation of their Lord. Such is not the nature of a myth. He eloquently portrays the indignity: "For what could be equal to this insolence? On that Face, which the sea, when it saw it, had reverenced, from which the sun, when it beheld it on the cross, turned away his rays, they did spit, and struck it with the palms of their hands, and smote upon the Head; giving full swing in every way to their own mad

Ch. 26 69-75. DENIALS OF OUR LORD BY PETER.

THE DANGER OF SELF-CONFIDENCE (Prov. 11 : 2).—THE GROWTH OF SIN ILLUSTRATED (James 1: 14, 15).-See THOUGHTS below.

PRELIMINARY NOTE.-The denial of our Lord by Peter is recorded by the four Evangelists, Mark 14 66-72; Luke 22: 54-62; John 18: 15-17, 25-27. I believe that they all occurred as indicated in John's account, during an informal examination of Jesus in the house of Caiaphas. For greater distinctness, the three Synoptists have described it disentangled from this contemporaneous examination. If this supposition be correct, it preceded the formal trial of Jesus by the Sanhedrim, as is indicated by Luke, though narrated subsequently by Matthew and Mark. The four accounts are varied in their details, and scholars are not agreed in respect to their true order. Any harmony is of necessity hypothetical, though I believe with Dean Alford that "if for one moment we could be put in possession of all the details as they happened, each account would find its justification, and the reasons of all the variations would appear." The following tabular statement will facilitate the student in comparing these four narratives:

And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, "Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech makes thee manifest." Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, "I know not the man." And immediately the cock crew. And Peter remembered the word of Jesus which said unto him, "Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice." And he went out and wept bitterly.

And a little while after they that stood by said again to Peter, "Surely thou art one of them; for thou art a Galilean" (and thy speech agreeth thereto is not in the best manu

scripts). And he began to curse and to swear, saying, "I know not this man of whom ye speak." And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the words that Jesus said unto him, "Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice." And rushing out, he wept.

If, as is probably the case, John is "that other disciple known to the high-priest" (John 18: 15, 16), he is the only one of the Evangelists who was an eye and ear witness, and this fact would render it probable that his order is the correct one; though it is not the one usually adopted by the harmonists. May he not have written it in part to correct accounts which were derived at secondhand? Following his account the facts would appear to be as follows: Jesus is led to the palace

And about the space | of one hour after, another (masculine gender) confidently affirmed, saying, "Of a truth this man also was with him; for he is a Galilean." And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest." And immediately, while he was yet speaking, the cock crew. And the Lord turned and looked at Peter, and Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, "Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice." And Peter went out and wept bitterly.

One of the servants of the high-priest (being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off) saith to him, "Did not I see thee in the garden with him?" Again, therefore, Peter denied. And immediately a cock crew.

of the high-priest Caiaphas, where he is subjected to a preliminary and informal examination while the Sanhedrim are assembling; Peter, whose resistance to the guard has rendered him legally liable to arrest and punishment, and who is the only one of the eleven who is SO (comp. John 18: 10 with ver. 26), is admitted to the courtyard of the palace (ver. 69, note) through the influence of John; as he enters, the portress asks him if he is not a disciple, and he denies it; he joins the group

69 Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.

70 But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest.

71 And when he was gone out into the porch, an

other maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth. 72 And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man.

73 And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth tree.

about the fire in the centre of the courtyard, is a second time interrogated and a second time denies; he then retreats again to the gateway, is again pressed with the charge, this time by a kinsman of Malchus, and repeats his denial more vehemently than before; just at this juncture Jesus is perhaps led out to trial, his look (Luke 22:61) and the crowing of the cock, recalls Peter to himself, and in the confusion incidental to the transference of the prisoner to the council-chamber, he makes good his escape. This order of events seems to me more natural than to suppose, as is ordinarily done, that Peter first denied his Lord in the courtyard, then retreated to the door and repeated his denial, and then returned again to the centre of the yard, courting anew danger and temptation. The order, however, is problematical; the main facts are not. These are, that Peter thrice denied his Lord, the last

time at cock crowing, followed his sin by repentance (not, however, mentioned by John), the circumstances exactly fulfilling our Lord's prophecy; and that he fell into his sin from a spirit of self-confidence, from a want of prayer and watching, and from a disregard of his Lord's warning. The variations in the narratives are such as we might expect from independent historians, but it is impossible to reconcile them with the hypothesis that the accounts were dictated by the Holy Spirit to the Evangelists as amanuenses. It is noticeable that Peter was questioned by a number (Mark 14: 70: John 18: :25), and Peter's denials were reiterated and vehement; the variations in the language, as reported by the Evangelists, may indicate either that they do not report the exact words used, or that different Evangelists report different phrases employed.

69. Peter was sitting without in the

courtyard. Of the high-priest's house (Mark 14:54). The denials could not, therefore, have taken place in the palace of Annas, unless Annas and Caiaphas occupied the same dwelling. An Oriental house is usually built around a quadrangular interior court into which there is a passage, sometimes arched, from the street, through the front part of the house; this is closed by a heavy folding gate with a smaller wicket for single persons. This entrance is tended by a a porter (answering to the French concierge) who in this case was a maid (John 18: 17). In the larger palaces this servant sat in a porter's lodge at

PLAN OF ORIENTAL HOUSE.

a, a. Doors. B. Porch. C. Harem. D, D. Other rooms. E, E. Galleries between court and rooms. F. Stairs.

the entrance. The courtyard was very generally paved or flagged, and was sometimes ornamented with beds of flowers and was open to the sky. The accompanying cut and plan illustrates this description. Peter entered through the arched gateway a, a, warmed himself at an open fire, kindled in the courtyard, in a portable stove (see John 18: 18, note), from which point he could probably see and partially overhear the preliminary examination of Jesus, taking place in one of the rooms D, D, which frequently open in front upon the courtyard.

70-74. I know not what thou sayest.

74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.

75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Betore the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

"A shuffling answer; he pretended he did not understand the charge, and knew not whom she meant by Jesus of Galilee, or what she meant by being with him."-(Matthew Henry.)-Gone out into the porch. The gateway or vestibule marked in the plan, B.-With an oath. Perhaps Peter the fisherman was a profane man, and in the time of temptation the old habit, long cast off, reasserted itself. That he possessed originally the vices common to a seafaring life is perhaps indicated by Luke 5: 8.-Thy speech bewrayeth thee. Makes thee manifest. The Galilean accent was peculiar; the Galileans could not pronounce accurately the gutturals. The kinsman of Malchus, whose ear Peter had cut off, joined his accusers at this time (John 18: 26). Evidently he was now beset by a throng whose suspicions could not be easily allayed. Comp. the four accounts of this last scene. -To curse and to swear. The first word indicates that he invoked imprecations upon himself if his denial were not true. The second word signifies an appeal to the Deity in attestation of his truth. Matthew Henry observes that "we have reason to suspect the truth of that which is backed by rash oaths and imprecations. None but the devil's sayings need the devil's proofs."-The cock crew. Mark relates that the cock crowed twice, vers. 68, 72; the others speak only of his crowing once. This accords also with their respective accounts of our Lord's prophecy. "The cock often crows about midnight or not long after; and again always about the third hour or daybreak. When, therefore, the cock crowing' is spoken of alone, this last is always meant. Hence the name cock crowing, for the third watch of the night, which ended at the third hour after midnight (Mark 13 35). Mark, therefore, here relates more definitely; the others more generally."(Robinson.) The O. T. does not mention the cock, and it is said, on the authority of the Rabbinical books, that no cock was allowed to be kept in Jerusalem. But (1) the Rabbinical books are very doubtful authority on such a matter. They state with tolerable accuracy the rules of the Jewish ritualists, but are poor authority for the practices of the Jewish people; and (2) the cock crowing might have been heard from the hillside outside the walls, over against Jerusalem.

75. Peter remembered the word of Jesus (ver. 34). He was called to himself by the crowing of the cock and by a look from Jesus (Luke 22: 61).

LESSONS FROM PETER'S DENIAL.-In studying the moral significance of this incident, observe, (1) Peter's temptation, (2) his sin, (3) his repentance. (1.) His temptation. He is ardent, impulsive, impetuous, but self-confident, knowing not his own weakness. He is forewarned by Christ, but is blind to his own danger. He follows his Master to the high-priest's palace, not drawn by love to serve his Lord, but by curiosity and perhaps bravado to see the end (ver. 58, note). Because he is self-confident, he does not watch and pray (ver. 40); because he does not watch and pray, he does not foresee the temptation; because he has not foreseen, he enters into temptation. (2.) His sin. Observe its development. First was the self-confidence which despised Christ's warning (ver. 25); next the spiritual sloth that permitted sleep while Christ prayed (vers. 40, 43, 45); next the false position in entering the high-priest's palace and joining the enemies of the Lord, concealing his discipleship; next his denial of his Lord-first an evasive answer, I know not what thou sayest; then a flat denial, I know not the man; finally perjury added to falsehood, Began he to curse and to swear. (3.) His repentance. His conscience was throughout uneasy; the crowing of a cock and the look of his Lord sufficed to recall the forgotten warning, and the recall of the Lord's warning piereed his heart. He "went out into the black night, but not, as Judas, into the darkness of despair. Weeping bitterly, he awaited the dawn of another and a better morning."-(Lange.) repentance he attested (a) by the bitterness of his tears; (b) by his humble submission to his Lord's subsequent rebuke (John 21: 15-17); (c) by his subsequent courage in confessing Christ in the face of threatened danger (Acts 4 : 8-12, 19); (d) by the thoroughness with which he learned the lesson of humility, as illustrated by his own subsequent epistles (see particularly 1 Pet. 1: 5, 17; 3: 15; 4: 12). And observe that Peter's sin, repentance, and pardon afford to the disciples of Christ a witness of how great is the forgiving kindness of the Lord, and how large his pardoning mercy, even to apostates. Comp. 1 Tim. 1: 16. Again, contrast (1) Peter and Jesus. Jesus, before the high-priest, with the sanctity of an oath, testifies to his divinity, and so surrenders himself to the cross; Peter, before the servants, adds an oath to his denial of the Lord, and so escapes arrest. (2.) Peter here and elsewhere. He who was the first to confess Christ the Son of God, was the first to deny him (comp. Matt. 16: 16). But

His

even then he rebuked Christ for prophesying his passion (Matt. 16: 22); no wonder that he now refused to share it. He who drew a sword to resist the guard (John 18: 10) lacked courage to resist his own fears. He was the most courageous and the most cowardly of the eleven. He who denied now never denied again, but learned well the needed lesson of courage and caution. See ref. above to Acts and 1 Peter. That the old weakness was not, however, at once and forever eradicated, see Gal. 2: 11, 12. (3.) Peter and Judas. Both looked for a temporal Messiah; both were disappointed by the revelation of a suffering Messiah; both disowned Him whom they had once followed. But Judas did so deliberately, Peter under a stress of unexpected temptation; one of his own will, the other despite the purpose of his better self; one sought refuge from remorse in death, the other from the burden of his sin in the forgiveness of his Lord.

Ch. 27: 1-10. JESUS IS LED TO PILATE-REMORSE AND DEATH OF JUDAS.-FALSE REPENTANCE: "A MAN MAY KNOW HIS SIN, CONCEIVE AN ABHORRENCE OF IT, REPENT OF IT, CONFESS IT, RESTORE HIS ILL-GOTTEN GOODS, RETIRE FROM THE OCCASION, AND YET BE A FALSE PENITENT, LIKE JUDAS."—(Quesnel.)-INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY; EVERY SOUL MUST SEE TO ITS OWN SIN. SATAN ENTICES US TO SIN, BUT DESERTS US WHEN WE HAVE FALLEN INTO IT.-THE REWARD OF APOSTASY (ver. 5 with Acts 1: 18).-THE HYPOCRITE'S CONSCIENCE LAWFUL TO PAY THE PRICE OF BLOOD: UNLAWFUL TO PUT IT INTO THE LORD'S TREASURY.-THE DEATH OF CHRIST PROVIDES A RESTING-PLACE FOR THE OUTCAST.-A MARVELLOUS PROPHECY, MARVELLOUSLY FULFILLED. THE PUNITIVE POWER OF CONSCIENCE

ILLUSTRATED.

The trial before Pilate is reported by the four Evangelists, most fully by John. See below, on ver. 11-31. The remorse and death of Judas are described only by Matthew; a different account is given by Peter in Acts 1: 18, 19. See below, on ver. 6-8.

1, 2. When the morning was come. "This was the time of saying their phylacteries, namely, from the first daylight to the third hour. But where was these men's religion to-day? Did you say your phylacteries this morning, my good fathers of the council, before you came to sit on the bench? "-(Lightfoot.)-All the chief priests and elders. Not literally all; one, at

The

least, was probably absent (Luke 23:51).—Took counsel to put him to death. That is, to execute the death-sentence already passed upon him. The language implies, not a formal trial (as Lange, James Morison, Alford, and others), but a private conference to devise means for the execution of the death-sentence. Jews had not the power under the Roman government of putting to death (John 18: 31, note), and a charge of blasphemy would be looked on with as much indifference by Pilate in Jerusalem as by Gallio in Achaia (Acts 18: 12-17). It was therefore necessary to present some other charge, and support it by some plausible evidence. The result of this conference was an accusation of sedition (Luke 23: 2).-Pontius Pilate the governor. The Roman provinces were of two kinds, Senatorial and Imperial. The latter were governed by military officers, who held their office and power at the pleasure of the Emperor. They looked after the taxes, paid the troops, preserved order, and administered a rude sort of justice; from their decisions there was ordinarily no appeal, except in the case of a Roman citizen. Judæa was an Imperial province; Pontius Pilate was its governor or procurator, and was directly amenable to the Emperor, Tiberius Cæsar, for his administration. On his character see notes on John (ch, 19: 16).

3, 4. Judas **** repented himself. There are two Greek words used in the N. T., both of which are rendered repent. They are not quite synonymous; the one (uɛravośw) signifies literally to know after, and hence indicates a change of mind or purpose (Matt. 3: 2, note); the other (Tauthoμa) signifies literally, to care after, and so to carry a burden of sorrow for the past. The latter is the word used here. The distinction is well stated by Trench: "He who has changed his mind about the past is in the way to change everything; he who has an after care may have little or nothing more than a selfish dread of the consequences of what he has done." This appears to have been the state of mind of Judas.-The thirty pieces of silver. Thirty shekels, i. e., $18 to $20. The fact that this was all that was returned indicates that it was all that was received; not merely, as some have supposed, earnest money paid down to bind the bargain (ch. 26: 16, note).-I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. This