John 18:26

Joh 18:26. οὗ ἀπέκοψε, whose ear Peter cut off) Peter struck the man: accordingly it is by the man’s relative that Peter is attacked. A sad retaliation.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh 18:26 . Λέγει εἶς ἐκ τῶν δούλων … ὠτίον , “one of the servants of the high priest, who was a kinsman of him,” etc., “a detail which marks an exact knowledge of the household (Joh 18:15 ),” Westcott.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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--No doubt his relationship to Malchus drew attention to the man who smote him, and this enabled him to identify Peter. "Sad reprisals!" [BENGEL]. The other Evangelists make his detection to turn upon his dialect. "After a while ['about the space of one hour after' (Luk 22:59)] came unto him they that stood by and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them, for thy speech betrayeth thee" (Mat 26:73). "Thou art a Galilean, and thy speech agreeth thereto" (Mar 14:70; and so Luk 22:59). The Galilean dialect had a more Syrian cast than that of Judea. If Peter had held his peace, this peculiarity had not been observed; but hoping, probably, to put them off the scent by joining in the fireside talk, he only thus revealed himself.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

(26) One of the servants of the high priest.—Comp. Luk_22:59.

Did not I see thee in the garden with him?—This kinsman of Malchus, who had probably gone with him to the arrest, is not to be silenced by a simple denial. He asks emphatically, “Did not I see thee in the garden with Him?” He feels certain that he is not deceived. The probable interpretation of Joh_18:4 is that Jesus went forth out of the garden towards the band and the officers. If so, the moment when the kinsman saw Peter was previous to that of Malchus’ wound. If the kinsman had witnessed this, he would almost certainly have charged Peter with it now.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

26. his kinsman] A kinsman of him. How natural that an acquaintance of the high-priest (Joh_18:15) and known to his portress (Joh_18:16) should know this fact also as well as Malchus’ name (Joh_18:10). This confirms the ordinary view that the ‘other disciple’ (Joh_18:15) is the Evangelist himself. This third accusation and denial was, as S. Luke tells us, about an hour after the second; so that our Lord must have ‘turned and looked upon Peter’ either from a room looking into the court, or as He was being led to receive the formal sentence of the Sanhedrin after the trial before Caiaphas, not as He was being taken from Annas to Caiaphas.

Did not I see thee] ‘I’ is emphatic; ‘with my own eyes.’

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

One of the servants of the high priest,.... Hearing him so stiffly deny that he was a disciple of Jesus, when he had great reason to believe he was:

being his kinsman, whose ear Peter cut off; a near relation of Malchus, to whom Peter had done this injury; and who was present at the same time, and no doubt took particular notice of him; and the more, because of what he had done to his kinsman:

saith unto him, did not I see thee in the garden with him? as if he should have said, I saw thee with my own eyes along with Jesus, this very night in the garden, beyond Kidron, where he was apprehended, how canst thou deny it? and wilt thou stand in it so confidently, that thou art not one of his disciples?

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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?

Ver. 26. Whose ear Peter cut off] A great mercy it was that Peter had not then been hewed in a hundred pieces, by the ruffianly soldiers. But God had designed him to a further service. "My times are in thy hand," saith David. They were deceived, that swore to kill Paul by such an hour, Act 23:12.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vers. 26, 27. Between the second and third denials some time elapsed. Thus according to Matthew and Mark "after a little while," according to Luke "about the space of one hour after," an effort was made to identify Peter by. some sign of his association with Jesus. All the synoptists re. present it as turning on his provincial, Galilaean, speech, but John gives a closer point of identification. There were thousands of Galilaeans in Jerusalem, and this was a feeble ground of proof, though it may have corroborated the suspicion of the maidens and others, that Peter was an accomplice of the hated Nazarene; but the charge came home in terrible earnest and verisimilitude as recorded by John. His account is far more lifelike, forcible, and circumstantial. The fourth evangelist says, One of the servants of the high priest, being a kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, says, Did I not see thee in the garden with him? The historically attested fact gave the lie to Peter"s previous assertions. Clearly he was seen and recognized and in imminent peril, and he is now more vehement than ever. Matthew and Mark tell, "tie began to curse and swear, saying, I do not know the Man." John, with less feeling of reproach, says, Peter therefore denied again. The intercessory prayer, the solemn warning, the agony in the garden, above all, the following of the sublime encouragements by this fearful failure, the ignominious binding and rude indignity offered to the Man who had claimed to be the Vicegerent and Image and Glory of the Father, combined to shatter Peter"s courage, though it did not annihilate his faith (see Steinmeyer and Weiss). The Lord had prayed that his faith should not fail. He was sifted as wheat, but the apostle knew, even in the depths of his shame, that he was a poltroon and coward, and that the Lord was everything he said he was. But meanwhile he denied again, tie kept up with his violence of language, his hypocritical denial of his own faithand straightway the cock crew. Mark, who had made the prediction of our Lord cover a twofold cockcrowing, records the twofold fulfillment; John, who in Joh_13:38 had given the prediction "before the cock crow," here shows how Peter must have been reminded of his Lord"s preternatural knowledge and forecast. So that, though John does not mention the repentance, he refers to the well-known occasion of it, and, moreover, shows more forcibly than either of the synoptists the extraordinary tenderness of the risen and reconciled Lord to his erring and cowardly disciple. Some extreme harmonists have spread out the fault of Peter into nine distinct acts of treachery; others have reduced them to seven or eight. M"Clellan, in a powerful note (p. 447), urges that there were "twice three," or six distinct denials. Matthew and Mark report three denials while the trial before Caiaphas was going on; these are , according to M"Clellan, entirely distinct from John"s "first denial," which preceded even the lighting of the fire. Nor does he allow that Luke"s first denial, "sitting at the fire," can coincide with John"s "second denial," which must also have preceded that which Luke gives as the first, and that John"s "third denial" is distinct again from Matthew"s third, Mark"s third, and Luke"s third. Thus he makes John"s account entirely supplementary to the synoptists. Peter may have used a variety of expressions on each occasion, and each challenge may have been accompanied by some features not especially noted as to posture or place, but the arrangement adopted in the text represents a threefold assault upon the apostle, which had three crises of intensity and terrible result. Taking Matthew and Mark as virtually identical, Luke"s account as a separate tradition with reference to the second denial, and agreeing with Matthew and Mark in the third, and in his first with John"s second, we have three denials once more following the prediction. John"s account, whether distinct or not from the other two records, bears the same relation to our Lord"s previous announcement that the synoptists" do to theirs, and shows that in no quarter was there a general belief in more than three virtual acts of apostasy. Mark alone mentions a twofold warning from the cock, one after the first denial, and on Peter"s going out to the proaulion , or the enclosure, i.e. between the pulwn and the yura , and again after the third denial. M"Clellan and others find a threefold denial before each crowing of the cock.

Certainly John has omitted the entire scene detailed by the synoptists in the hail of Caiaphas, viz. the calling of the witnesses; the lack of harmony in the false witnesses; the adjuration of Caiaphas; the wondrous confession of the persecuted and bound Sufferer; the verdict pronounced against him, on the part of all assembled, that he was guilty of death; the first cruel mockery; and the very early assembly of the entire Sanhedrin all the chief priests (pantev oi arciereiv) and. elders of the people. (Mat_27:1, 2 Mar_15:1, the chief priests, with the elders and scribes and all the Sanhedrin) The synoptists assure us that the object of this council which was probably held in the celebrated chamber of the temple appropriated for the purpose was to adopt the most suitable measures for immediately carrying their unanimous judgment into effect. As we shall see shortly, John is perfectly aware of such a measure having been taken. (see not only Ver. 31, but Joh_11:47, etc.) Nevertheless, he passes on at once to the legal and civil trial before the Roman proprietor.

This is not the place to discuss the twofold trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin. Derembourg, Farrar, and Westcott suppose that the first demands of the high priest, as to whether he was the Christ, as given by Matthew and Mark, were different from the scene described by Luke, where he claimed apo tou nun to be seated on the right hand of the power of God, and suppose that this last was the occasion, when the verdict was given by the Sanhedrin in full session, not in the palace of the high priest, but in the "Gazith," or possibly in the "Booths of Hanan," on the Mount of Olives. Luke clearly discriminates between oikov tou arcierewv , (Luk_22:54) and the sunedrion autwn of Ver. 66.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

26. συγγενής. How natural that an acquaintance of the high-priest (Joh 18:15) known to his portress (Joh 18:16) should know this fact also as well as Malchus’ name (Joh 18:10). This confirms the ordinary view that the ‘other disciple’ (Joh 18:15) is the Evangelist himself. This third accusation and denial was, as S. Luke tell us, about an hour after the second; so that our Lord must have ‘turned and looked upon Peter’ either from a room looking into the court, or as He was being led to receive the formal sentence of the Sanhedrin after the trial before Caiaphas, not as He was being taken from Annas to Caiaphas. The ἐγώ is emphatic; ‘with my own eyes:’ the man speaks with bitterness and assurance. Comp. διισχυρίζετο λέγων (Luk 22:59).

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

26.] This was about an hour after the former,—Luke, ver. 59. Notice the emphatic ἐγώ: as we say, with my own eyes.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

26. The slaves of the high priest have been mentioned as present in the courtyard (v 18). One of them is here described as a kinsman of Malchus (v. 10), a remark which has been thought to imply some acquaintance with the high priest’s household (see on v. 16). The reason for the slave’s insistent identification, viz. that he had seen Peter with Jesus at Gethsemane, is not found elsewhere; the Synoptists telling that Peter was suspected because of his Galilæan accent. “Did not I see thee in the garden with Him?” ἐγώ is emphatic, “I, with my own eyes.” But the slave apparently was not able to satisfy the bystanders that he was right, for Peter’s denial was accepted. The temptation to say “No” was even greater this time than before, for the mention of the blow struck at Malchus suggests that Malchus’ kinsman suspected Peter of having been the assailant. Had Peter been arrested on this count, he would have been dealt with very severely. To be a “disciple” of Jesus was not a legal offence, although the confession of it might lead to trouble; but to have drawn a weapon and assaulted one of the high priest’s household was another matter.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.