« السابقةمتابعة »
all the disciples forsook him and fled. After the disciples were fied. John xviii. 12. Then the band, and the captain, and officer's of the Jews (utingstal tu Indaiw, the servants of the priests, &c.) took Jesus, and bound him. However, it was not the corů that held him; his immense charity was by far a stronger band. He could have stricken 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 pleased to put on him; so meek was he under the greatest injuries. John xviii. 13. And led him away. Mark xiv. 51. And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him. 52. And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked. Perhaps this was the proprietor of the garden, who being awakened with the noise, came out with the linen cloth in which he had been lying, cast around his naked body, and having a respect for Jesus, followed him, forgetting the dress he was in. John xviii. 13. And led him away to Anna; first for he was father-in-law. 10 Cniaphas, which was the high-priest that same year. ) - Annas having himself discharged the office of high-priest, was a person of distinguished character, which, together with his relation to the high-priest, made him worthy of the respect they now put upon him. But he refused singly to medgle in the affair. They car. ried Jesus away therefore to Caiaphas, at whose palace the chielpriests, elders, and scribes, were assembled, having staid there all night, waiting to see the issue of their stratagem. Matt. xxvi. 57. And they that laid hold on Jesus, led him oway to Caiaphas the high-priest, (Luke, the high-priest's house.) Mark xiv. 53. And with him were assembled all the chief priests, and the elders, and the Scribes. Sohn xvii. 14. Now Caiaphas was he which pave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people. (See on John xi. 50. $ 100.) This Caiaphas was he who advised the counsel to put Jesus to death, though innocent, for the safety of the nation. He seems to have enjoyed the sacerdotal dignity during the whole course of Pilate's govern. ment in Judea; for he was advanced by Valerius Gratus, Pilate's predecessor, and was divested of it by Vitellius, governor of Syria, after he deposed Pilate from his procuratorship. 6 CXXXVI. Peter denies his Master. Matt. xxvi. 58. xxvi. 69,
75. Mark xiv. 54. xiv. 667–72. Luke xxii. 55,--65. John xviii. 15,--18. xviii. 25,--27.
Our Lord's trial in the high-priest's palace, and Peter's denying him, being contemporary events, might be related the one before the other, according to the historian's pleasure. Matthew and Mark describe the trial first, because it is the principal fact; but Luke brings it in after the denials. John has preserved the
exact natural order here, for he begins with the first denial, because it happened immediately after Peter entered the palace, then gives the history of the trial, as the principal fact; and concludes with the subsequent denials. But though this be the natural order, I have, in explaining this passage of the history, fol. lowed Luke, because by viewing the denials together, the reader can form a better notion of them. .
The apostles no doubt were in great consternation when their Master was apprehended, as appears from their forsaking him and fleeing. Some of them, however, recovering out of the panic that had seized them, followed the band at a distance, to see what the end would be. Of this number was Peter, and another disciple whom John has mentioned without giving his name, and who therefore is generally supposed to have been John himself it being the manner of this evangelist to speak of himself in the third person. See chap. xiii. 23. xxi. 20. This disciple, whoever he was, being acquainted at the high-priest's, got admittance first for himself, then for Peter who had come along with him. John xviii. 15. And Simon Peter followed Jesus, (Matt. Mark, afor off, even unto the high-priest's palace) and so did another disciple. That disciple was known unto the high-priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high-priest. - 16. But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple which was known unto the high-priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.- Luke xxii. 55. And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were set down together, Peter sat down among them. Matt. xxvi. 58. Sat (Mark, and warmed himself at the fire) with the servants to see the end. But the maid who kept the door, concluding that Peter was a disciple also, followed him after a little to the fire, and looking earnestly at him, charged him with being a disciple of Jesus. Mark xiv. 66. * And as Peter was beneath (Matt. avithout) in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high-priest. 67. And when she saw Peter warming himself, she looked upon him (Luke, earnestly). John tells us, that the maid who attacked Peter was the damsel who kept the door. It seems after hay. ing admitted him, she followed him to the fire, and spake to him in an angry tone; having been informed that it was he who had cut off her fellow-seryant's ear, verse 26. John xviii. 17. Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thout also one of this man's disciples? Matt. xxvi. 69. Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee. She meant when he was apprehended. This blunt attack threw Peter into such confusion, that he flatly denied his having any thing to do with Jesus. John xviii. 17. He saith, I am not : Matt. xxvi. 70. He denied before them all: Luke xxii. 27. Saying, Woman, I know him not. Moreover, he added, as Mark informs us, xiv. 68. I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest: I do not understand any reason for your asking such a question. The apostle who had formerly acknowledged his Master to be Messiah, who was honoured with the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and who had most confidently bragged of fortitude and firm attachment to him in the greatest
* Grotius is of opinion, that the disciple above mentioned was none of the twelve, but rather an inhabitant of Jerusalem ; possibly the person at whose house our Lord ate the passover. Whitby likewise thinks it was not John. These authors found their opinion on this circumstance: that the twelve being Galileans, and men of mean station, could, not any of them be so well acquainted in the high-priest's family, as 10 procure acha mission for a friend at a time when there was such ado there. Lampe therefore has delivered it as his opinion, that the disciple who brought in Peier was Judas. Nevertheless, the common opinion may still be adhed to. For though Jolin was a Galilean, and a person in mean station, there is neither impossibility nor improbability in the notion, that he may have had a relation, friend, or acquaintance, in the station of a servant at the high-priest's, who might not only give him admittance, but at his desire admit Peter also. Farther, when we consider that John was to write an history of Christ's life, it will appear extremely proper, that in the course of providence he should have an opportunity afforded him of being an eyewitness of our Lord's trial before the council,
dangers, • Mark 65. And as Peter aas beneath, &c.) Matthew and Mark seem to differ in the account which they give of the place where Peter first der nied his Master. Matthew's words are, xxvi. 69. “Now Peter sat without in the palace, and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee ;" namely, when he was apprehended. Mark says this denial happened, xiv. 66. “ As Peter was beneath in the palace." To reconcile this difference, Lamy supposes that the high-priest's palace was built so as to form a court; that the fire at which the servants sat was lighted in the court; and that Jesus was examined in the vestibule, or porch, called by Matthew Fuhay, and by Mark spotuhlov. According to these suppositions, he thinks persons in the court might be said to have been (eğw) without in the palace; that is, without, in respect of the covered buildings; and (xatw) beneath in the palace, with respect to the porch or vestibule, which was higher than the level of the court. But it appears from John xvi. 25. that Peter was with the servants at the fire, when he denied his Master' the third time; and from Luke xxii. 61. that Jesus looked upon Peter just as he was pronouncing the words of the third denial. Our Lord, therefore, and his disciple, were not the one in the court and the other in the vestibule of the palace during his trial, as Lamy supposes, but they were together in one room, Jesus with his judges at the upper end of it, and Peter with the seryauts at the fire in the other. ACcording to this disposition, Peter might be said to have been without in the hall, that is, without, in relation to the croud of judges, witnesses, and soldiers around Jesus ; but in relation to the place where the council sat, he was beneath in the hail; a way of speaking common even in our own language. Farther, John, ver. 18. says that Peter, after the first denial, stood with the oficers at the fire; whereas Matthew and Luke tells us, when he first denied his Master he sat by the fire. It seems the maid's words had put him into such confusion, that before he answered her, he arose from the seat which the servants had given him on his first (omag in.
dangers, proved an arrant coward upon trial. His cowardice was altogether inexcuseable, as the enemy who had attacked him was one of the weaker sex; and though she seemed to say, that she knew he had wounded Malchus, yet as Jesus had healed him, and the mid insinuated that John too was known to be Christ's disciple, Peter ought to have behaved with more resolution. Art thou not also one of this man's disciples? Art thou not one of them as well as he who stands there beside thee? The truth is, equivocation, mental reservation, and such like base arts, are below the dignity and courage of reasonable creatures; but downright lying, such as Peter was guilty of on this occasion, is abominable, and can only be accounted for by the panic which had seized him. John xviii. 18. And the servants and officers (és egne sa so osngslei} stood there, who had made a fire (for it was cold and they wirmed themselves, and Peter stood with them and warmed himself. After Peter had thus denied his Master, he stood a little while at the fire.
And now fearing that his inward perturbation did appear in his countenance, he went out into the porch ; but he could as little be concealed there. Mark xiv. 68. And he went out inte the porch; (see Antiquities, Disc. iv. p. 134.) and the cock crew; namely, for the first time. 69. * And a maid (Matt. angther maid) saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by, This is one of them. Matt. xxvi. 72. And again he denied with an oa:h, I do not know the man; adding perjury to lying. The maid having left Peter, he was accosted by a man who af. firmed that he was one of Jesus's disciples; but he denied as before. Luke xxii. 58. And after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou art also of them. And Peter said, Man, I am not.
After Peter had been thus attacked without doors, he thonght proper to return and mix with the crowd at the fire. John xvii. 25. And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. From this circumstance it is plain, that John is now about to speak of the third denial; and chat Peter growing cold had left the porch, where Matthew and Mark tells us the second denial happened, and was come again into the hall to warm himself at the fire. This is confirmed likewise by Luke, verses 61, 62. and by Matthew, in the end of verse 75. John xviii. 25. And they said therefore unto him, Art thou not also one of his disciples? He de
* Mark 69. A meid saw him, &c.) Matthew and Mark say it was a woman that attacked Peier in the porch, Luke says it was a man. And Grotius, to reconcile the evangelists, has shewed that the Greek word av.999mos, signifies both man and woman, as homo does in the Latin. But without having recourse to this criticism, it is naiural and easy to suppose, that the apostle was accosted in the porch both by a woman and a pan, the foriner mentioned by Matthew and Mark, and the latter by Luke.
nied it, and said, I am not. 26. One of the servants of the highpriest (being his kinsman whose' ear Peter had cut off ) saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him? 27. Peter then denied again, and iminediately the cock crew. The words of Malchus' kinsman bringing to Peter's remembrance what he had done to that slave, threw him into such a panic, that when those who stood by repeated the charge, he impudently denied it. Mark xiv. 70. And a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them; for thou art a Galilean, and thy speech agrerth thereto, (Matt. bewrayeth thee). Luke xxii. 59.
And about the space of an hour after, ansther confidently afirmed, saying, Of a truth this fellow also was one of them, for he is a Galileon. When the servants at the fire heard Peter deny the charge which John has mentioned, they drew near, and supported it by an argument drawn from the accent with which he had pronounced his answer. Only the person of whom Luke speaks, did not address Peter as the person of whom Mark speaks had done; but after listening a while to Peter's accent, he directed his discourse to the people around, confirming what they had said a while before. Peter being thus pressed on all sides, to give his lie the better colour, he profaned the name of God by swearing, and wished the bitterest curses on himself if he was telling a falsea hood. Perhaps he hoped by these acts of impiety, to convince them effectually that he was not the disciple of the holy Jesus. Mark xiv. 71. But he began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man of whom ye speak. 72. And (Luke, immediately while he yet spake) the second time the cock crew *. Thus
• Mark 72. The cock crew.) All thé evangelists say that the cock crew immediately after Peter pronounced the words of the third denial which they themselves have related. But upon comparing the things said when this third attack was made, it appears that the speeches at least which John hath recorded, did not come from the persons mentioned by the other evangelists. Wherefore the third denial was occasioned by different ai. tacks made in succession, as they are placed in this Harmony; unless the men spoke all at once, which is not very probable. It is more natural to think, that when Peter denied his Master to them who first attacked him, the others who stood by supported the charge, with an argument drawn from his accent in speaking, which proved him to be a Galilean. However, as in either case the succession of his answers must have been very quick, the veracity of the evangelists remaineth unshaken, because thus the cock crew immediately after Peter pronounced the words which they have severally related.
To this part of the history it has been objected, that the Jews, as their tiadition goes, never kept any cocks within the walls of Jerusalem, and consequently, that Peter could not hear them crow while he was in the high-priest's palace. But the objection may be removed, either by calling the tradition itself in question, because it contradicts the testimony of writers whose veracity is indubitable, and who could not but know the customs of the age in which they lived ; also because many traditions of this kind were framed by.the Rabbis, with a view to magnify the sanctity