first to ask him: "Art thou also one of this man's disciples?" She knew the other "disciple," and that he was of the disciples of Jesus. As he knew Peter she inferred that Peter was also a disciple. So her question has a significance here, not apparent in the other accounts. It amounts to this: You are of this man's disciples (as my acquaintance is) are you not? Peter promptly replies, "I am not." It was a cowardly lie which it is useless to attempt to excuse.

18. servants.. officers. . a fire.. and Peter] The graphic picture in this verse tells the whole story of a weak, cowardly disciple, who has already denied his Master and become a companion of his enemies. The servants or "bondservants" and officers had been standing (it is the past perfect tense) implying that they had been doing so some time, having made a fire of charcoal, doubtless in a large brazier, after the Oriental custom, and placed it in the center of the court, for it was cold, as is still the case on some days at Jerusalem during the same season, Easter time. Peter was also among them literally, "And there also was Peter among them, standing and being warmed." He was seeking his personal comfort and safety, around the fire and in company with the enemies of Jesus instead of being in the company of the other "disciple," giving his sympathy with Jesus.

19. The high priest.. asked Jesus] John now leaves Peter standing by the fire, exposed to temptation, to relate what is happening to Jesus. He says the high priest asked Jesus. Who is meant here by the "high priest?" Is Caiaphas, who is named in v. 13, as "high priest that year," and who was appointed by the Romans? Or, is Annas who had been really high priest but displaced by Romans, but who was still regarded by the Jews as high priest? a fact known from Luke 3:2, and Acts 4:6. There are difficulties in either view. The last view is preferable unless it is supposed that Caiaphas was also present at this examination in the house of Annas. The view that Annas and Caiaphas had a residence in the same palace is accepted by Hengstenberg, Godet, Westcott, Ellicott, Milligan and Moulton, Ebrard, Lange, Plumptre, and Reynolds. That Annas is the person before whom this examination was held, or that two distinct hearings were had, one in the house of Annas and the other in the house of Caiaphas, is accepted by Augustine, Chrysostom, Stier, Wieseler, Alford, Meyer Ryle, Renan, Riddle, Steinmeyer, Neander, Keil, Reuss, Luthardt, Olshausen, Weiss, and Dwight in Godet's Commentary.

If this was Caiaphas, then after he had asked these questions, we must suppose that Annas made no examination, or none that is recorded, and yet after this examination made by Caiaphas, and because of it, Annas sent Jesus

bound to this same Caiaphas who had just closed the examination. See v. 24. For the Greek aorist cannot have the sense of the English pluperfect tense unless the context in some way indicates it. If this sense was intended, it would have been easy for John to have used the Greek past perfect. Moreover the particle ovv in v. 24 precludes the sense of the pluperfect.

The high priest informally asks Jesus concerning his disciples and his teaching, as if he taught one class of truths publicly and a different truth secretly, or as if he were totally ignorant of what Jesus had taught.

20. I have spoken openly] This implies that the questioner professed ignorance of the nature of the teaching of Jesus, and wanted to know about it, to decide whether it was objectionable or not. It also implies that his teaching was in secret and only to an initiated few. Jesus repels the charge in both of its implied senses. In public, in synagogues, even in the temple whither all Jews came, most of all the priests, Jesus had openly taught, and had taught nothing in secret, that is, nothing different from what he had taught openly. 21. ask them that.. heard me] This was the true and fair course, even if the ruler believed Jesus to be guilty. He ought not to be called upon to criminate himself. Moreover he must be proved guilty by two or three witnesses, for so the Mosaic law required, Deut. 17:6; 19: 15. This expresses

the willingness of Jesus to submit to a lawful and orderly examination and to have witnesses called to show the character of his teaching. There were multitudes that had heard him. Let them testify to his doctrine.

22. one struck Jesus] The officer appears to have regarded this answer of Jesus as disrespectful, perhaps as dictating the course for the examiner to pursue, and gave Jesus a blow either with the hand or with a rod. The Greek word is ambiguous, meaning either; but the Greek dépɛ "smitest" in v. 23 comes from a root meaning " to flog," and implies a severer stroke than a slap of the hand on the cheek or ear. This act also suggests an extrajudicial, or informal examination.

23. bear witness of the evil] Jesus temperately, but plainly rebukes the official attendant, by appealing to the common right of an accused person, to call for evidence, and not to be answered by violence, when he should be silenced by testimony setting forth his evil deeds, if he had been guilty of evil. If the accused had spoken кaλç "good" or "well," why should he be smitten?

COMMON VERSION.

20 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.

21 Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said.

22 And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of 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?

1 Gr. synagogue,

21

REVISED VERSION.

20 his disciples, and of his teaching. Jesus answered him, I have spoken openly to the world; I ever taught in 1synagogues, 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 22 know the things which I said. And when he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus 2 with his hand, saying, 23 Answerest thou the high priest so? Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest 2 Or, with a rod

24. Annas. . sent him bound unto Caiaphas] This verse is the pivotal one in this account. Upon its interpretation chiefly depends the decision whether the preceding verses describe an examination before Annas or

THIS DIAGRAM SHOWS HOW THE PALACE OF ANNAS AND CAIAPHAS MAY HAVE BEEN IN THE SAME GROUP OF BUILDINGS, AND ILLUSTRATES THE JEWISH TRIALS AND PETER'S DENIALS. before Caiaphas. If the pluperfect as in the Common Version is maintained, it favors the latter. If the past tense and "therefore" are held to be the true rendering as in the Revised Version, that favors an examination before Annas. Notice: 1. The textual reading on which the Revised Version is based is now accepted by the great majority of critical scholars. 2. Jesus was led to Annas first; and no record of his transfer to Caiaphas is made before v. 24, implying that it was not made until after this examination. 3. Comparing the accounts of the hearings given by the other evangelists with this, reveals marked differences easily explained on the supposition that this narrates one before Annas which is omitted by the others. 4. It is not very probable that John would narrate a comparatively unimportant part of a trial, where he was an eye-witness, and omit the most important portion, as we must conclude he has, if this is the same hearing before Caiaphas given by the synoptics. 5. The objection that if this is a hearing before Annas, John must apply the term high priest to Annas and Caiaphas, is less serious, since the title had been so used by Luke with whose writings John must have been familiar. 25. Peter Art thou of his disciples] In contrast with this

COMMON VERSION.

REVISED VERSION.

24 Now Annas had sent him bound unto 24 thou me? Annas therefore sent him bound Caiaphas the high priest.

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 de

scene before Annas, John puts the terrible fall of Peter. In the fore-court warming himself by the brazier of coals, Peter was seen by the servants, officers, and maids, and again questioned. He was uneasy, moving about; as the comparison of the several accounts indicate. Possibly he was asked the second time, soon after the high priest inquired of Jesus concerning his disciples, v. 19. But again Peter set upon by these several parties together, denied, saying, "I am not" of his disciples.

26. did I not see thee] The servants, officers, and maids appear to have allowed Peter to be undisturbed for a time after his second flat denial. Luke says the third denial was "after the space of about one hour," Luke 22:59. Whether they were otherwise busy, or this was at the time Jesus was sent from Annas to Caiaphas, the history does not state. John relates that the third time Peter was accused by a relative of Malchus (whose ear Peter cut off). This relative implies by his question that he was with the band of officers in the garden, and that he saw Peter there. Luke says “another confidently affirmed." Matthew and Mark say "they that stood by" accused Peter. All these would naturally take place in a crowd about a fire under such circumstances. John knowing the high priest's family, takes notice of the charge as made by a friend of Malchus, and fixes attention upon the assurance of a man that he saw Peter in the garden. The other evangelists fix attention upon the more general charge that Peter's speech betrayed him as a Galilæan.

27. denied again . . the cock crew] John mentions the third denial but omits to mention the vehemence of it, and the cursing attending it. An omission is not an error. He does note the cock-crowing to show how the words of Jesus, 13:38, were exactly fulfilled. It is fair to infer from this cock-crowing and the other incidents that the time of the third denial was about three o'clock in morning of Friday. John says nothing of the look of our Lord, or of the repentance of Peter, though the latter is implied in 21: 15-22. The inference from John's account of the three denials is, that at Peter's first denial he was just entering the court; at the second and third he was near the fire surrounded by Christ's foes. Another inference from John's account of the trial of Jesus before the high priest when compared with the accounts of the other evangelists is, that the dwellings of Annas and of Caiaphas may have been different portions of the same group of buildings, a great palace or group of palatial structures built upon opposite sides of one open court. See plan p. 288.

SUGGESTIVE APPLICATIONS.-1. Gratifying curiosity often exposes to great temptation. 2. The follower of Jesus may claim his right, and call for proofs when he is accused. 3. The "disciple" meant to be kind to Peter by

COMMON VERSION.

26 One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?

27 Peter then denied again; and immediately the cock crew.

REVISED VERSION.

26 nied, and said, I am not. One of the 1servants 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? 27 Peter therefore denied again: and straightway the cock crew.

1 Gr. bondservants,