61 And said, This fellow said," I am able to destroying God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the temple of God, and to build it in three days. 62 And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? What is it which these witness against thee? 63 But a Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the liv z John 2: 19-21..........a chap. 27: 12, 14; Isa. 53: 7, the Son of God. d 64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said; nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. b 1 Sam. 14: 26, 28; 1 Kings 22: 16....c chap. 16: 16; John 1: 34........d Dan. 7: 13 ; John 1: 51; 1 Thess. 4: 16; Rev. 1: 7....e Ps. 110: 1; Acts 7:55. he had veiled his meaning in parables, which revealed the truth to honest inquirers, but hid it from his foes. "Probably no two witnesses could be found out of the ranks of the disciples who had ever heard out of his own lips an avowal of his Messiahship." (Andrew's Life of Christ, p. 501.) In John 4: 26 and 9: 37, the declaration of his Messiahship was made to docile believers if not to actual followers. 61. I am able to destroy the Temple of God, etc. Observe in reference to this charge, (1) that Christ had not said so, he had said (John 2:19) that the Jews would destroy the temple, which he would restore; (2) that they understood, at least partially, that he had referred to his own body (Matt. 27: 40, 63); (3) that in their testimony these false-witnesses did not agree Mark 14:53) ; the nature of their discrepancy is, perhaps, indicated by the variations in the testimony as reported by Matthew and Mark; (4) even if he had used the words attributed to him they would have formed no ground for a deathsentence. The charge illustrates the growth of calumny. "False evidence takes up some truth; and a great calumny can often be made by no great change of words."-(Bengel.) Observe, too, that Scripture imputes falsehood to those who pervert the truth as well as to those who invent a lie. 62, 63. And the high-priest arose. Angered by the failure of the prosecution and by the stinging rebuke of Christ's silence. By that silence he eloquently condemned the preju- | dice of the court and declared his own conviction of the uselessness of defending himself before it. -Jesus held his peace. The best answer to wilful calumny is ordinarily silence.-I adjure thee by the living God. An ordinary formula An ordinary formula of administering an oath. (See Gen. 24: 3, Jahn's Bib. | "I lay down my life; no man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself" (John 10: 17, 18.)—The Messiah, the Son of God. These phrases are not used by the high-priest as synonymous. In Luke's account they are represented as embodied in two questions (Luke 22: 67, 70). The O. T. prophets indicate that the Messiah was to be in a peculiar sense the Son of God (Psalm 2: 7; 45: 6, 7; Isaiah 7:14; 9:6; Micah 5:2). But it is clear from Jewish Rabbinical writings, from the treatment accorded to Jesus, and from the ready facility with which false Christs were at this time and a little later received by the Jews, that they did not generally believe that their Messiah would be other than a great prophet and a king, coming to achieve victory for the nation. The demand of the high-priest here is, therefore, twofold. He asks: Dost thou claim to be the Messiah? Dost thou claim to be the Son of God? To both questions Christ replies, using language singularly explicit in defining the sense in which he claims to be the Son of God. The language of the succeeding verse utterly forbids our interpreting this phrase when applied to Christ as parallel to its use when applied to ourselves, e. g., 1 John 3 : 1. 64. Thou hast said. A Jewish form of affirmation equivalent to "I am (Mark 14: 62). It is found also in ordinary Greek ; e. g., "Thou thyself, said he, sayest this, Oh Socrates" (Xenophon's Memorabilia, Book III.) A simple assent to the question in the case of the Jewish oath sufficed (see Numb. 5: 22). Christ, however, adds a solemn declaration of his future coming as a divine Judge. -Nevertheless. Rather, more than that (Äîè1), i. e., not only am I the Messiah and the Son of God, but I shall come hereafter to judge the world.— Hereafter. Hereafter. Literally henceforth, i. l., from this time forward, including also, the far future. The time of Christ's humiliation draws to its Archæology.) By this act, therefore, the high-priest | end, and with his resurrection commences his era put Christ under oath to testify concerning concerning his own claim and character. The high-priest's action was illegal, since by Rabbinical laws the accused could not be condemned on his own confession. Comparing Luke's account (22: 67-71) it appears that Christ first protested against the illegality, that his protest was overborne by a clamorous demand from all the members of the court, and that to this demand Christ acceded by giving the testimony recorded in the following Thus he literally fulfilled his declaration, verse. of glory and power, consummated at the judgment-day (1 Cor. 15: 24–28).—The Son of Man. A common appellation of the Messiah, borrowed by Christ from Daniel and used by him to designate himself (see Matt. 10: 23, note).—On the right hand of power. Equivalent to "power of God" (Luke 22: 69). "The Hebrews often called God, Power."-(Bengel.) Comp. Psalm 110: 1. -And coming in the clouds of heaven. For judgment (Matt. 25 : 31; John 5: 27). Observe the contrast in this verse between the present and 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: 6), 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). Of 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?" 67, 68. Buffeted him. The original (zolaqla) signifies to strike with the fist.Smote him with the palms of their hands. The original (¿αлiç∞) signifies in Scripture usage (¿aní¿w) 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 madness. 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 : Matthew 26 : 69–75. And Peter sat without in the hall, and a maid came to him, saying, "Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee." But he denied before them all, saying, "I know not what thou sayest." And when he had gone out into the porch, Another damsel saw him, and saith to those who were there, "This one also was with Jesus the Nazarene." And again he denied with an oath, "I do not know the man." 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. FIRST DENIAL. Mark 14: 66–72. And as Peter was down in the hall, there cometh one of the maids of the high-priest; and when she saw Peter warming him- | self, she locked upon him and said, "Thou also wast with Jesus the Nazarene.' But he denied, saying, "I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest." And he went out into the porch, and the cock crew. SECOND And a maid saw him, and began to say to those standing by, "This is one of them." But he again denied it. Luke 22: 54–62. And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were set down together, Peter sat down among them. But a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire, and earnestly looked upon him, and said, "This man was also with him." And he denied, saying, Woman, I know him not." DENIAL. And after a short time another (masculine gender) saw him, and said, "Thou art also of them." And Peter said, "Man, I am not." THIRD DENIAL. 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 manuscripts). 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 John 18: 15-27. Another disciple, who was known to the highpriest (probably John), came into the hall, leaving Peter at the gate without. He spoke to the maid who kept the gate, and she admitted Peter. And she saith to him, "Art not thou also one of this man's disciples?" He saith, “I am not." And the servants and officers, having made a fire of coals because it was cold, stood there warming themselves, and Peter was with them, standing and warming himself. They said, therefore, to him, "Art not thou also one of his disciples?" He denied it, and said, "I am not." 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 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. h Mark 14: 66, etc.; Luke 22: 55, etc.; John 18: 16, etc. 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 | the entrance. The courtyard was very generally 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 17). In the larger palaces this servant sat in a porter's lodge at 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, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly. i verse 34 ; Luke 22: 31-34. "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. tion. (2.) His sin. Observe its development. First was the self-confidence which despised Christ's warning (ver. 35); 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 pierced 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 1:16. 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 He who arrest. (2.) Peter here and elsewhere. was the first to confess Christ the Son of God, was the first to deny him (comp. Matt. 16 : 16). But His |