Mark 14:53

Mar_14:53

And they led Jesus away to the High Priest.

Christ before the priests

I. Give attention to the two high priests with whom the trial of Jesus began.

II. The midnight council of triers. For blind men to be fair critics of Turner, for bats to be fair critics of sunshine, for worms to be fair critics of the open air, would be more conceivable than the possibility of men like these being fair judges of Jesus! How could such sinners understand the Holy One of God? Besides their unfairness from natural unfitness, there was unfairness from the fact that they were desperate conspirators, plotting against His life.

III. How He was tried. (Charles Stanford, D. D.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mar 14:53-54. And they led Jesus away to the high-priest — To Annas first, who had been high-priest, and afterward to his son-in-law, Caiaphas, who then sustained the office. And with him were assembled all the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes — Or the chief persons of the sanhedrim, with their proper officers, convened by Caiaphas on this important occasion. And Peter followed him afar off — Though he had at first forsaken Christ, and shifted for himself, as the rest of his companions did, yet afterward he and John bethought themselves, and determined to return, that they might see what would become of him: even unto the palace of the high-priest — See on Mat 26:57. It appears, from the circumstance of Peter and John’s being ready to go into Caiaphas’s house with the band which conducted Jesus, that they had quickly recovered themselves after their flight.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

§ 133. — JESUS BEFORE ANNAS AND CAIAPHAS, Mar_14:53-72.

(See notes on Mat_26:57-75.)

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES

Mar_14:53. With him were assembled.—There come with him, or There come together unto him.

Mar_14:54. The palace.—The court of the palace. At the fire.—Beside the light of the fire.

Mar_14:58. Within three days.—After three days: διά. For similar construction see Mar_2:1; Act_24:17; Gal_2:1.

Mar_14:72. When he thought thereon.—A good rendering, if ἐπιβαλών means having cast his mind over the matter. But, as this verb is used not many verses back (Mar_14:46) of a physical action, it may be best to adopt Theophylact’s explanation—having cast his mantle over his head. So (of recent English scholars) Dean Blakesley, Prof. Evans, and Dr. F. Field—a remarkable consensus of independent judgment on a knotty point.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Mar_14:53-72

(PARALLELS: Mat_26:57-75; Luk_22:54-71; Joh_18:12-27.)

Jesus before the Sanhedrin.—The Reformer, who had detected and exposed the prevailing abuses of Jehovah’s law; the Prophet, who had sternly rebuked the inconsistencies, hypocrisies, and vices of the degenerate men who sat in Moses’ seat; the Son of David, who appeared as a mean carpenter’s son of despised Nazareth; the King of the Jews, who came only as a Prince of Peace, whose servants would not fight against Roman dominion; the Messiah, who had not been anointed with oil of their choosing,—this Jesus was now in their power.

I. The pretended trial.—

1. As the supreme court of judicature in Israel, the Sanhedrin sat in judgment upon Jesus. But the men who were here assembled as His judges had already conspired against Him as His foes, and had resolved to arraign Him before the Roman governor as His prosecutors. This was enough to stamp their proceedings with injustice. But in order to the complete justification of truth, and for the warning of future ages, their guilt must become more heinous and more evident.

2. They could not justify to their own people the arraignment of a Jew before a Roman tribunal, unless that Jew should first have been condemned and excommunicated by themselves as a breaker of the Mosaic law. Hence the necessity for this pretended trial.

3. It was hurried on with indecent haste, conducted in the dead of night, with the omission of many legal forms: false evidence had been prepared by the judges themselves. But as truth is always consistent, falsehood seldom or never, it pleased God to confute these perjured witnesses by their own words. At length the high priest, disconcerted by the palpable failure of his plot, and impatient to arrive at his foregone conclusion, resorts to the unusual and unjust expedient of convicting the Accused out of His own mouth (Mar_14:61-64).

II. The evil principle which moved the Sanhedrin: party-spirit.—

1. The Sanhedrin had lost the power of life and death; its ancient privileges, curtailed under the Asmonean and Edomite dynasties, had been further diminished by the Roman emperors; and with power and privilege the dignity and influence of its members was all but gone. For the recovery of this influence, that is to say, for their own selfish aggrandisement, and not for the honour of God and the good of their country, these counsellors caballed, combined, conspired—formed a party, and acted together as a party.

2. At one time they had looked with hope to Jesus. They would have been glad to use Him as an instrument against the hated Romans, and when He had served their turn to fling away the lowly Nazarene as a broken tool. But Jesus would not join them. Nay, more, He unveiled their abuses, unmasked their hypocrisies, confuted their pretexts, baffled their devices, rebuked their sins. Therefore they regarded Him as an enemy, and agreed together to destroy Him.

3. Then was waged the warfare of an unscrupulous and infuriated party against one obnoxious individual. Spies were employed to entangle Him in His talk; snares were set; calumnies were circulated. But from His armour of proof all their shafts fell harmless. At length the traitor Judas presents himself; the bribe is offered and accepted; hasty preparations are made; witnesses suborned; the arrest effected; the trial-scene performed under cover of night, with the cruel issue which had been predetermined and concerted.

III. Distinguish between two kinds of party-spirit.—

1. There is an unrighteous party-spirit, which, as Christians, we are bound to eschew.

(1) All party-spirit is by the nature of the case unrighteous which espouses the cause of evil and falsehood: all which is enlisted against the honour of God—against His eternal attributes, truth, justice, holiness—against the gospel or the Church.

(2) Party-spirit in a doubtful or even in a good cause is unrighteous when it proceeds from wrong motives, is exhibited a wrong spirit, or served by wrong means.

2. If we would be most effectually secured by the grace of God against the influence of unchristian party-spirit, it must be by the possession of that party-spirit which is according to righteousness and true holiness. We are born into a world of warfare, and have no choice but to take a part. He that is not with Christ is against Him: he that gathereth not with Him scattereth. Let His name be our war-cry, His Cross inscribed upon our banner. Let His holy ark be erected in our heart, and the Dagon of worldly party-spirit will bow down before it and be broken.—Prof. B. H. Kennedy.

Peter’s fall and recovery.—In the whole history of our Saviour’s last sufferings, perhaps there is not a more affecting incident than the denial of Christ by Peter. The natural simplicity with which the story is told, and the striking circumstances with which it abounds, make the deepest impression upon the heart, and raise a tide of the most mixed emotions.

1. The sincere professions of fidelity which Peter made to Jesus, the zeal which he discovered in His defence, and the attachment which he manifested in following Him to the palace of the high priest, are circumstances which present this apostle in an amiable light, and recommend him to our love.

2. The cowardice with which he deserted his Master in the garden when the natural means of defence were taken away, the baseness with which he afterwards denied Him, and the obstinacy with which he persisted in that denial, shew the man in a very different point of view, and fill our minds with the strongest indignation.

3. The conduct of our Saviour in forewarning him of his danger, in restoring him to a sense of his guilt, and in admitting him freely to mercy, gives us the most exalted conceptions of our Saviour’s goodness, and fills our souls with just admiration.

4. The speediness of Peter’s repentance, the deepness of his contrition, and the tears of sorrow which he sheds melt our souls into compassion, and lead us to forgive this unfortunate man.

I. The fall of St. Peter.—

1. It affords a melancholy instance of human infirmity. Never did man enjoy greater advantages or make fairer appearances than this disciple. Was it not most natural to think that his faith and zeal, his courage and resolution, would have supported his mind, and carried him through the most fiery trial? But, alas! in the hour of temptation all his principles and resolutions forsook him; this great apostle fell; and in his fall has left an awful lesson to mankind, even to the most eminent Christians, that it is not in man who walketh to direct his steps—that we are not sufficient of ourselves, but that our sufficiency is of God.

2. Confidence and presumption, even in the most confirmed Christians, are very unpromising signs of steadfastness in religion. This was the rock upon which Peter first split, when he made shipwreck of faith and of a good conscience. Trust in God is one thing, and trust in ourselves is another, and there will always be as much difference in the success which attends them as in the powers on which they are founded. If we proceed on a sense of our own weakness, and a reliance on the Divine aid, we shall continue unto the end. But if, like Peter, we set out in our own strength, like him we shall soon be offended, and turn back.

3. Natural courage and precipitate zeal will not supply the place of Christian fortitude, and carry a man through the trials of religion. When St. Peter was surrounded with swords and staves, he was nothing dismayed; his heart and his hand went together in the cause of God. But he who could fight for his Saviour had not fortitude to suffer with him when matters came to extremity. It is vain to promise yourselves a superiority under any temptations, unless you lay the right foundation, by imploring the aid of God’s Holy Spirit, whose province only it is to confirm the faithful unto the end.

4. The danger of exposing ourselves to temptations, when we are not called by the providence of God. It was no doubt a concern for his Master which induced Peter to follow Jesus to His trial, and to venture into that dangerous place. But from whatever motive he acted, it could not be matter of duty in the apostle to thrust himself into the company of wretches where his presence could be of no use to his Master, and where his virtue could scarcely come off unhurt. Nay, the prediction of our Blessed Saviour, that He should be denied by Peter that very night, ought to have been sufficient warning to him to have kept at the greatest distance from a place where he was in the most imminent danger of being drawn into that very sin which he had been warned against.

5. How naturally sin hardens the heart, stupefies the conscience, and involves men still deeper in guilt! First, by confidence and presumption, Peter indecently and expressly contradicted his Master, when Jesus foretold the flight of His disciples, and the denial of Him by Peter himself; next, when his Master was about to be apprehended, driven by an intemperate zeal, he was guilty of a most rash and imprudent action in cutting off the ear of the high-priest’s servant, which might have caused not only himself but all the rest of the disciples to have been put to death on the spot. Immediately after, when he saw Jesus seized and bound, like the rest of the timid disciples, by an act of cowardice and ingratitude, he forsook his Master and fled. As soon as he had recovered himself, he inconsiderately thrust himself into evil company, in which he was exposed to that very temptation which Christ had warned him against. This was the unhappy occasion of all his subsequent sin and sorrow. Here, disarmed by his fatal security, he was quite unprepared to meet any trial, and of course yielded to the first attack. Scarcely had Peter ended this act of baseness when, going out into the porch, he accidentally heard the cock crow, the very signal of his fall. Might he not now have recollected himself, and gathered resolution to retract his falsehood, and to give an honest testimony to the truth? But, alas! when a man has made one false step, it is not so easy a matter to recover himself. One sin naturally, nay, almost unavoidably, leads to another; one lie frequently requires another to support the falsehood. And in this case the principle of shame, which was before the guardian of innocence, now bars the way to repentance; for men blush to retract the falsehood they have asserted, or to own the baseness they have committed. A second time Peter is charged with being a follower of Jesus; a second time he denies his Master. But he does not even, as before, rest with simple assertions of falsehood. In order to remove every ground of suspicion, he confirms his denial with an oath, calling upon the God of truth to witness his falsehood. To complete the disgrace of this unfortunate man, a third and a more pointed attack is made upon him. Two strong presumptions are adduced against him—that his speech proved him to be a Galilean, and that he had been seen in the garden with Christ. Peter was now tempted to the last degree; and in order to testify his innocence by resentment of their suspicion, he not only by assertions and oaths, but by dreadful imprecations on himself, abjured his Blessed Lord. He began to curse and to swear, saying, “I know not the man.” To aggravate his guilt still more, these denials of Christ were all made in the presence of the other disciples, who had also followed the Master to the palace of the high priest, and who could not be strangers to Peter’s falsehood and baseness. Nay, the last and most shameful denial was made in the presence of Christ Himself, who must have been more painfully wounded by this perfidiousness of Peter than by all the indignities and insults of His enemies. Lord, what is man, that Thou art mindful of him; or the son of man, that Thou visitest him! What is our boasted strength but weakness! And when left to ourselves, how do our firmest principles and our best resolutions melt like snow before the sun!

II. The recovery of St. Peter.—

1. The necessity of Divine grace, in order to the restoration of fallen saints, as well as to the conversion of habitual sinners.

2. Though good men may accidentally fall, yet, upon a speedy and effectual repentance, they will be restored to the favour of God.

3. Although the restoration of Peter furnishes matter of consolation to good men who have been seduced into a fault, it affords no ground of hope to presumptuous offenders who live in the deliberate practice of sin. If Peter’s crime was great in its nature, it was neither premeditated nor of long continuance. It was not so much the act of the man as the effect of sudden and violent temptation which unhinged his mind and threw him into utter confusion. The moment his Saviour gave him the signal he was obedient to the heavenly call. As soon as he recovered the powers of reflexion, he bathed his soul in the tears of repentance, and from that time became the same faithful and affectionate apostle he had been before. But what is all this to deliberate transgressors who make bold with sin and presume upon the mercy of God?

4. Though good men may accidentally fall, they are more easily reclaimed than habitual sinners. Their minds, not being hardened by sin, are awakened by the gentlest calls of the Spirit; and the sense of virtue revives upon the first motions and suggestions of conscience.

5. The sins of the best men, into which they fall accidentally, are expiated with the strongest sense of sorrow and affliction. When men are truly concerned, they do not consider what they are to get by their tears, or what profit their sorrow will yield. The soul must vent its grief; and godly sorrow is as truly the natural expression of inward pain as worldly sorrow is, however much they differ in their causes and effects. When therefore we find ourselves truly affected with a sense of our sins, and in earnest lament our ingratitude and disobedience to God, we have the best indication that the spirit of religion is still alive within us, and that we are not given up to a reprobate mind.—A. Donnan.

OUTLINES AND COMMENTS ON THE VERSES

Mar_14:54. “A far off.”—This is a most unwelcome revelation of the apostle. We see him separated from the Saviour. He is following, but not so closely as to indicate his association with Jesus. The adherent is being lost in the apostate. The disciple is being degraded to the level of a deserter. Love is being chilled to lethargy. The ice of the coward is freezing the soul of the Rock-man. Every appeal to love and to fidelity which was made in silence by the utter desolation of the Christ, every incentive to steadfastness which arose from the memory of his ardent and unreserved pledges, and from the transcendent importance of consistency, was consigned to oblivion. His leaden feet moved slowly towards the palace of the high priest.—Dean Lefroy.

Mar_14:57-58. False witness through misapplication of words.—The words laid to His charge might have been, and probably were, literally such as He had used. But the falseness of the evidence lay in the misapplication of them. Jesus had spoken of the temple of His body; the witnesses gave in the evidence as if He meant the Jewish Temple of stone. Hence it was no doubt that their evidence could not be made to agree, because each false witness would probably enough add something more which might go to prove the criminal meaning of those words—that they were so spoken, namely, as to apply to the holy building at Jerusalem. Even so we Christians—and it is a serious and fearful consideration—may be quoting the words of Divine truth, the very language of our Lord, and yet be guilty of false evidence. When, like the Jewish witnesses, we first frame a position, and then seek for texts of Scripture to support it, and apply these only in reference to the view predetermined on, are we not doing even the same?—S. Hinds.

Mar_14:60. The patience of Christ.—Jesus astonishes and confounds His judge by His silence and patience. But there is a very great difference betwixt confounding and converting. It is no small humiliation and mortification to see ourselves deserted by those who are most obliged to defend us. How much greater is it then to see them at the head of our enemies! This is what Jesus Christ teaches us to bear without bitterness, animosity, or the least desire of revenge.—P. Quesnel.

Mar_14:62. Christ’s testimony to Himself.—Why did the Lord, when thus adjured, break His silence? Some have thought it was out of respect to the office of the high priest, as the representative of God and the spiritual ruler of the people; and if we can separate the office from the character of him who held it, no more fitting opportunity could have presented itself. For here was the head of the nation, considered as a theocracy, demanding of One whose credentials shewed that He came direct from God who He was. This was the first time that Jesus was face to face with the chief minister of His Father’s religion. It ought not to have been so. His claims ought long ago to have been investigated, as to whether He really fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah. But long ere this they had prejudged His case, and condemned Him. And now they sought not for the truth, but for that which might enable them to carry out their evil will against Him. He might, consequently, I think, if He had only looked to the motive of Caiaphas in putting such a question, have declined to answer. But the crisis had come. He must assert who He was, though He knew it would lead to His crucifixion.—M. F. Sadler.

Mar_14:63-64. The culpability of the Sanhedrin.—Some have been troubled with the thought that the judges of Jesus were conscientious. Was it not their duty, when any one came forward with Messianic pretensions, to judge whether or not his claim was just? And did they not honestly believe that Jesus was not what He professed to be? No doubt they did honestly believe so. We must ascend to a much earlier period to be able to judge their conduct accurately. It was when the claims of Jesus were first submitted to them that they went astray. He, being such as He was, could only have been welcomed and appreciated by expectant, receptive, holy minds. They were anything but that. They were totally incapable of understanding Him, and saw no beauty that they should desire Him. As He often told them Himself, being such as they were, they could not believe. The fault lay not so much in what they did as in what they were. Being in the wrong path, they went forward to the end. It may be said that they walked according to their light; but the light that was in them was darkness.—J. Stalker, D.D.

Mar_14:65. Christ dishonoured and suffering in His senses.—The image of the invisible God refuses not, for our sakes, to be dishonoured by the most unworthy treatment. All His senses suffer.

1. His sight, by their covering His face.

2. His hearing, by their blasphemies.

3. His smelling, by the nastiness of their spittle.

4. His feeling, by their buffeting Him, and the blows given by these servants.

5. His taste, by the blood which proceeded from these blows, etc. This is a dreadful motive of humiliation for the sinner, who seeks only to gratify his senses; and it is more so for the proud and revengeful person, who cannot bear the least injury, and is a mere idolater of his false honour.—P. Quesnel.

Mar_14:66-67. Peter discovered.—The place which the apostle occupied illustrates the reign of Providence in and over what we regard as trifles. He sat in such a position that either the glow of the fire or its light shone full upon his features. How often have we known of every arrangement being made to perfect some plan or scheme or purpose with the most studied care and the most anxious regard to design and to completeness, and yet all is undone by some simple trifle being omitted or disregarded as of no consequence whatever, and as being most unlikely to affect the issue the success of which commanded such attention, thought, and care! So here the golden glow of the fire or the flicker of the lightsome flame fell precisely upon the face of the one man in that group upon whom it was of the gravest consequence that it should not fall! And with his face thus illuminated and his very feature revealed, his affectation of indifference appeared to the maid to be the meanest dissimulation.—Dean Lefroy.

Mar_14:68-72. Constant falls.—At times perhaps, after reading the life of some holy man, we have ventured to think of stricter devotion and a closer walk with God; and then some ordinary temptation, some common fault, has brought us down from our dreams and shewn us what worms we are. We have gone forth in the morning relying on our steadfastness, and we have come home humbled and ashamed. We have felt sure that nothing could move us, and the merest opportunity was enough. We have risen perhaps from sinning, and abhorred ourselves, and been filled with disgust at our foolishness, and we have returned and sinned again. We have prayed against temptation, and we have run into it. At every Communion we vow ourselves Christ’s servants; at every Communion we have to repent of broken vows. We have knelt down and wept, and next week we have had to weep again. Our infirmity is miserable. We fall and fall again.—C. F. Secretan.

The temptation to deny Christ before men.—This is a common temptation. It is the first and earliest temptation of the young stepping out into the world. It is a boy’s temptation, when he first finds himself under a strange roof, and has to kneel down at night beneath the eye of a strange companion, and he feels uneasy, and half inclined to forego his accustomed prayers. It is the young man’s temptation, when he takes his place among his fellows, and too often finds himself, like Peter, surrounded by the enemies of his Lord—when he sees Jesus insulted, the holy name blasphemed, saintliness a byword, and the faith of his affection treated with mockery and contempt—when inquiring eyes are bent upon him to know how it is he does not echo their irreligious mirth. “Thou also art one of them. Thy speech betrayeth thee.” Then comes the trial of his constancy; then is it shewn what root he has in himself; then the eye of Jesus rests upon His young disciple, and good spirits watch what answer he will make to his blasphemers; then is the grace of God waiting too to help his infirmity, and enable that young Christian soldier to stand his ground with manfulness, and quietly but decisively declare himself for God and His truth against sin. “Yes, I am one of Jesus’ followers. I freely confess it. I care not who knows my mind. I believe in Christ. I make it my study to serve Him. I do scruple at an oath. I find no pleasure in the language of uncleanness. I am not used to talk so. I do not like such ways. I think them wrong. I hope I shall always think so.” And if you hardly find strength to speak out so boldly, and your heart fails you in your hour of trial, just when you should stand firm; if you feel inclined rather to laugh off the imputation of singularity, to disown the character of a disciple, and talk and jest with the rest,—oh! remember, “if we deny Christ, He will also deny us.”—Ibid.

Mar_14:71. Peter cursing and swearing.—This was no doubt the resurrection of an old fisherman’s habit, long since dead and buried. Peter was just the man likely to be a profane swearer in his youth—the headlong man of temper, who likes to say a thing with as much emphasis and exaggeration as possible. Old habits of sin are hard to kill. Till his dying day the man who has been a drunkard or a fornicator, a liar or a swearer, will have to keep watch and ward over the graveyard in which he has buried the past.

2. Yet there was a kind of method in the madness of Peter’s profanity. When he wanted to prove that he was none of Christ’s, he could not do better than take to cursing. It is one of the strongest testimonies to Jesus still that even those who do not believe in Him expect cleanness of speech and conduct from His followers, and are astonished if those who bear His name do things which when done by others are matters of course.—J. Stalker, D.D.

Mar_14:72. Thought leading to penitence.—

I. Peter alone.—Solitude is a test. It often shews the bent of a man’s mind. It is a critical time, and may issue in good or for evil. Satan watches for such occasions to war against the soul.

II. Peter thinking.—There is much thinking that is mere dissipation. Peter’s thought was earnest and practical. Such is necessary. Without it there can be no real life, progress, and achievement.

III. Peter thinking about his sin.—Such a subject is repulsive and painful. Sin in the abstract is so much more the sins of men, and especially of friends and kindred; but most of all our own sin. And yet thinking of our sins is right and necessary. We shall have to do it sooner or later; and it is infinitely better to do it in time than when too late.

IV. Peter thinking of his sin with penitential sorrow.—“He wept.” Tears not always true. There may be repentance without tears, and tears without repentance. But Peter was utterly sincere. His tears were the real expression of the grief and shame that wrung his heart. Shall we love what Peter so hated? Shall we indulge in ourselves what Peter found so bitter in its fruits?

V. Peter thinking of his sin with hope in Christ.—He “called to mind the word,” etc. But he would not stop here. Other words would be recalled, and especially that gracious word of promise and of hope (Luk_22:32). Besides, he could not but be conscious that the look of his Master indicated mercy more than judgment. That look pierced him through and through. It manifested not only knowledge and reproof and grief, but also love.—William Forsyth.

Peter’s case no exceptional one.—Cannot you remember in your own life brave resolutions and miserable fulfilments—promises which seemed easy to make, but which turned out so hard to keep? Cannot you remember what a picture you have sometimes drawn in your own mind of your intended resistance to temptation—how nobly and faithfully you imagined yourself, in your thoughts beforehand, sorely tried and proudly triumphing over the temptation? And cannot you remember, too, after the storm of temptation had passed over you, what a miserable shew you had actually made, how lightly you had been overcome, with what wretched weakness and stupidity and folly you had been provoked or terrified or enticed from your strong purposes of good? In the apostles we but see the reflexion of our own doings towards our Master.—Dean Church.

Recollection more needed than information.—Peter’s recollection of what he had formely heard was the occasion of his repentance. We do not sufficiently consider how much more we need recollection than information. We know a thousand things, but it is necessary that they should be kept alive in our hearts by a constant and vivid recollection. It is therefore extremely absurd and childish for people to say, “You tell me nothing but what I know.” I answer, “You forget many things, and therefore it is necessary that line should be upon line and precept upon precept.” Peter himself afterwards said in his epistles, “I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them.” We are prone to forget what we do know; whereas we should consider that whatever good thing we know is only so far good to us as it is remembered to purpose.—Richard Cecil.

Tears of contrition.—Who need be ashamed of tears wrung from him on his knees? Let sinners take shame rather for having no tears to flow, for repentance so moderate, for devotion so poor and low, for feelings so blunted by the habitude of sin, and hearts so dry and dead that they never want to relieve themselves by tears. We feel a little sorry, and think and look serious, and resolve to mend. We are not moved to weep. And yet a touching narrative will bring water into our eyes; our interest in a mere fictitious character will often moisten them. Shall our emotions of religion be so faint and feeble, our sense of sin so dull, as never to draw forth one tear? I am not for any affectation of religious feeling. I would make every allowance for a difference of temperament; but those of us, at least, who have wept for sorrow, how is it, I would ask, that we have never wept for sin?—C.F. Secretan.

Peter’s lifelong repentance.—Some say that, after his sad fall, he was ever and anon weeping, and that his face was even furrowed with continual tears. He had no sooner taken this poison but he vomited it up again, ere it got to the vitals; he had no sooner handled this serpent but he turned it into a rod, to scourge his soul with remorse for sinning against such clear light and strong love and sweet discoveries of the heart of Christ to him. Clement notes that Peter so repented that, all his life after, every night when he heard the cock crow, he would fall upon his knees, and, weeping bitterly, would beg pardon for his sins? Ah! Souls, you can easily sin as the saints; but can you repent with the saints? Many can sin with David and Peter who cannot repent with David and Peter, and so must perish for ever.—T. Brooks.

ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 14

Mar_14:61. Silence often more effective than speech.—” I have often repented having spoken, but I never have been sorry for having kept silent.” So said a friend in our hearing, and his words often are recalled to mind. There are occasions when duty bids a man speak, if he be a true man, a Christian man—when, unless he fling all fear of consequences to the winds, and utter words in behalf of truth, he will shew himself a coward. There are times, too, when it is his privilege to soothe anxiety and to comfort those in sorrow. Nevertheless, in spite of these and some other cases, silence frequently is wiser and no less effective than speech. Christ calmly and silently standing before the fuming high priest has been confessed through all the ages the nobler of the two. It falls to almost every one at times to encounter abuse. Bitter accusations are hurled at him, caused perhaps by misunderstandings. To listen in silence often is better evidence than anything else of the actual subjugation of one’s temper, and is the most effectual way of disarming an angry adversary.

Help from considering Christ’s endurance.—When Pollok the poet was a boy, he was of a passionate temper. Sometimes when offended, he allowed himself to fall into a rage, which was so violent that it was very painful to witness. About the age of fifteen a very striking change took place in his temper. This was observed for some time by his friends; and when at length he was questioned on the subject, his answer was, “While perusing the Gospels for myself, I was struck with the meekness and calm dignity of the Saviour under persecution, and I resolved henceforward to command my temper; and since that time, though I may feel anger, nothing ever puts me in a passion.”

Mar_14:62. Christ’s advent glorg.—Sometimes perhaps you have passed in the daytime through some public place where at night there was to be a magnificent exhibition of pyrotechnic art, and you have seen the figures that are to be lighted up as they stand ready for the exhibition. They are very plain and common-looking. You can see in the rude outlines the forms of men, the crown upon the kingly brow, and the jewels that flash from it; but there is no beauty and glory whatever about them. But wait till the eventide, till the sun goes down, and the master of ceremonies appears on the scene, and suddenly at the signal, perhaps of a trumpet-blast or a chorus of melody, the lights are turned on and a blaze of glory lights up the scene. Every figure stands out in radiant light, and the whole scene is illuminated, transfigured, and seems almost supernatural. So it will be when our Master appears, and these bodies of humiliation shall be lighted up with His brightness, and all the members shall shine with the beauty and majesty of their living Head, and He shall reveal all His glory in His heavenly bride.

Mar_14:66-71. Unguarded places most liable to attack.—A one-eyed doe used to graze near the sea, and always kept her blind eye next the water, as she thought her danger would only be from the land. But a poacher, when he discovered this, took a boat and shot her, and as she died the doe exclaimed, “O hard fate! that I should receive my death wound from that side whence I expected no ill, and be safe in that part where I looked for the most danger.”—Æsop.

Mar_14:72. God’s voice in common things.—In many ways and by many voices God pleads with us. There was a certain ungodly man who complained bitterly of the church-bell. He could neglect God’s service, he could in the insolence of wealth refuse to listen to God’s minister, but that bell as it rang forth day by day was echoed by his conscience and would not let him rest. God can make even a little bird preach a sermon for Him. Once a careless shepherd came down from the plains to waste in revelry and sin his hard-earned wages, and entered one of the cities of Australia. As he passed along the streets a wicker cage caught his eye, from which a captive lark, an English lark, brought across the ocean by some emigrant, was pouring forth its cheerful song; and at once by the magic power of association there came to his memory the old home far away, the village green, the grey church tower, the tender voice of his mother, the good advice of the kind old vicar, and by God’s help as he listened he paused, and then turned back determined to lead a better life.—George Macdonald, in his story of Robert Falconer, relates a well-authenticated incident of a notorious convict in one of our colonies having been led to reform his ways through going one day into a little church where the matting along the aisle happened to be of the same pattern as that in the church where he had worshipped with his mother when a boy. That old familiar matting recalled the memories of childhood, “the mysteries of the kingdom of innocence” which had long been hidden and overborne by the sins and sufferings of later years. It came to him like the crowing of the cock to Peter. It was the turning-point in his life. God has blessed the tick of the clock and the falling of a leaf to rouse in man’s breast a sense of responsibility. A thousand voices in nature call us to reflexion, but sometimes a simple incident in daily life has done so more effectually. The hard-hearted father who had listened to remonstrance and warning for many a year, was at last touched. He had heard most of the temperance orators of the day, but he continued the drink. One Sunday afternoon he took his little girl to the Sunday school, intending himself to go after more drink. At the door of the schoolhouse he put the child down from his arms, but observed that tears started into her eyes. “Why do you cry?” he asked. The little one sobbed out her answer, “Because you go to public-house, and frighten us when you come home.” It was enough. He never entered a public-house again. God can bless simple means to reach great ends.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

4. Christ betrayed to the Jews, in the Palace of the High Priest, and before the Ecclesiastical Court. The False Witnesses. The Truthful Witness, and His sublime Testimony. The Sentence of Death. Peter’s Denial. Mar_14:53-72

(Parallels: Mat_26:57-75; Luk_22:54-71; Joh_18:12-27.)

A. Mar_14:53-65

53     And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests, and the elders, and the scribes. 54And Peter followed him afar off, even into the palace of the high priest: and he sat with the servants, and warmed him self at the fire. 55And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus, to put him to death; and found none. 56For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together. 57And there arose certain, and bare false witness 58 against him, saying, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. 59But neither so did their witness agree together. 60And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? 61But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 63Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses? 64Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all con demned him to be guilty of death. 65And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants did strike 21 him with the palms of their hands.

B. Mar_14:66-72

66     And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest: 67And when she saw Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and said, And thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth. 68But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I 22 what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch; [and the cock 69 crew]. 23 And a [the] maid saw him again, and began to say 24 to them that stood by, This is one of them. 70And he denied it again. 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 agreeth thereto. 25 71But he began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this man of 72 whom ye speak. And 26 the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word 27 that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

See Matthew, and the parallel in Luke.—Mark gives the same account of the false witnesses as Matthew; but he is the only one who mentions the reason why the chief council obtained no false witness, viz.: the witnesses did not corroborate one another. Matthew selects two witnesses as testifying to Jesus’ statement respecting the destruction of the temple; Mark says, a few. Matthew had in mind the legal number which must be present; Mark, the smallness of the number. In Mark’s account, the false testimony is strongest on the point, “I will destroy this temple,” etc.; at the same time, he notices the contrast between the temple made with hands and that not made with hands. Again, he brings into view the conflicting nature of the testimony. Perhaps even in Matthew the divergent testimony is alluded to, under “I am able to destroy,” etc. According to Mark, the high priest comes forward into the midst. The silence is strongly marked. The adjuration of Jesus by the high priest is only implied in the remark, he interrogated Him. The testimony of Jesus is more strongly expressed than in Matthew, ἐγώ εἰμι. On the contrary, he does not report literally the sentence of death, as does Matthew. But, again, he gives us the distinct view of how the servants—probably the prison-warders—take Christ to lead Him to a place of safe custody till the next morning. Then he says that Peter was below in the entrance-hall (of the palace); and gives us, thus, to understand that the trial had taken place in an upper story, or at least in an elevated hall. The maid of the high priest calls Jesus, The Nazarene. The first statement of Peter is characteristically ambiguous. The first cock-crow is mentioned by Mark alone (according to the exact remembrance of Peter). The second attack, Mark again appears to place, contrary to Matthew, in the mouth of the same maid; but it is, without doubt, the portress of the προαύλιον that is meant. The ἕτερος here, alluded to by Luke, belongs to the bystanders, of whom Mark here informs us. The portress did not address Peter himself, but denounced him to those about: upon this, one of them laid hold of Peter. Of the second denial, Mark gives a shorter, and thus milder account, than Matthew; there is here no mention of the oath. Upon the second denial, immediately follows the second crowing of the cock. At the end, he marks, with a brief, forcible expression, ἐπιβαλὼν ἔκλαιε, the repentance of Peter.

Mar_14:53. And with him (αὐτῷ) were assembled.—Of course it is the high priest who is meant. The meaning given by Meyer is quite foreign to the passage: They come, that is, they meet Jesus there all at the same time. The words might, literally taken, bear this explanation; but the thought of their meeting there at the same time must have been expressed more precisely; not to mention, that according to Luke, several members of the Sanhedrim had joined themselves to the band, and had gone to meet the party. It was only because there was a council at the palace of the high priest that matters happened in this way, although, no doubt, the αὐτῷ which follows immediately must relate to Jesus.

Mar_14:54. At the fire, πρὸς τὸ φῶς.—It is an open hearth which lights and heats the hall at the same time, at which they warm themselves. The designation is employed to explain the circumstance, that Peter was recognized in the light of the fire.

Mar_14:56. Agreed not.—Two witnesses at least must agree, Deu_17:6; Deu_19:15. In the main, however, the witnesses must not contradict or another.

Mar_14:58. We heard Him say, I will destroy this temple.—The variations, as respects Matthew, constitute no difficulty in this passage; since, as is remarked by the Evangelist, the testimonies did not agree. In the contrast,—made with hands, made without hands,—we have probably one of the most false declarations. Meyer: From this it is evident that the one witness was not examined in the presence of the other. Let the conduct of the judges in the trial of Susanna be compared with this.

Mar_14:61. Of the Blessed.—The εὐλογητός, or הַבָּרוּךְ, in the absolute sense, is God. Undoubtedly this is a hypocritical expression of reverence in refraining from naming the name of God, intending to designate Christ’s declaration blasphemy of God, of the Blessed. “The Sanctus Benedictus of the Rabbis is well known (Schöttgen ad Romans 9, 5).” Meyer.

Mar_14:63. His clothes, τοὺς χιτῶνας.—Comp. Note on Mat_26:65. He tore all his clothing, except that which was next his body. Winer: Persons of respectability, and travellers, sometimes wore two articles of underclothing.

Mar_14:65. And some began.—Meyer: “The members of the Sanhedrim. The servants follow.” Rather the temple attendants, who were surrounding the Lord in the hall (see John and Luke): those who afterwards took Jesus into custody, under the designation of servants, are prison warders, as Mat_5:25; hence servants in a special sense. Mark presents the scene of the mocking, which is given by Luke in detail, under the one aspect of abuse, which is in this way thrown out into stronger relief; and Matthew gives a similar view.

Mar_14:66. Beneath.—This in opposition to the hall of trial, which was higher.

Mar_14:68. I know not; or, it is unknown to me, not understood.—The double force in οὐκ οῖ̓δα οὐδὲ, κ.τ.λ., is difficult to express. If we translate, “I know not,” this is too little; “I know Him not,” this is too much; “I recognize not,”—then we have a phrase too decidedly unconnected.—Into the porch, or, according to Matthew, the entrance-hall. It is the same idea.

Mar_14:69. And a [the] maid.—As soon as she noticed him. On the comparison between Matthew, and Luke, and Mark, consult the introductory remarks to this section. And began to say again.—As the other had begun. The first πάλιν relates a repetition of the denunciation to the bystanders, the second πάλιν to the second denial of Peter in the same circumstances; the third πάλιν implies that those around had already once laid hands upon Christ, and in this way substantiates the recital of Luke, Mar_14:58.

Mar_14:70. For thou art a Galilean.—Not meaning: As Jesus is also; but among the other proofs that thou art one of them, is this, that thou art a Galilean.

Mar_14:72. And Peter called to mind the word.—A similar important thought or self-recollection of Peter is related in Mar_11:21.

And when he thought thereon, he wept.—It is extremely difficult to bring out clearly what ἐπιβαλὼν ἔκλαιε imports. For the various explanations, compare Bretschneider’s Lexicon, De Wette, Meyer, etc. Many consider it as the Vulgate, cœpit flere; but this is not grammatically correct. Others, he went out hastily (analogous to the phrases in Matthew and Luke); others, he threw a covering over his head; or, he cast his eyes upon the Lord; or, he continued to weep; or, according to Ewald, he interrupted with his weeping the sound of the crowing (that is, answering with loud sobbing the crowing of the cock); or, he took notice of that sound, bethought himself of the matter. (De Wette: ̓Επιβαλών refers to the cock-crow; Meyer.). We find only three interpretations tenable: 1. He flung himself forth, that is, he involuntarily rushed out, as it were meeting the cock-crow as he hurried out, according to the narratives of Matthew and Luke 2. Referring the phrase to the word of Jesus: he threw himself into it, under the condemnation of this word (took it to heart), and wept. Or, 3. making the cock-crowing to be as it were Christ’s waking call; and there upon he threw himself out of the place (as though Christ had called him; Leben Jesu, iii. 334), and wept. First a rushing forth, as if he had an external goal to reach, then a bitter sinking down into himself and weeping. The turning-point between the carnal and spiritual mode of viewing the life. He hastened forth at the call; on the outside, he found the call went inwards and upwards, and he stopped and wept.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. Comp. Matthew.

2. Peter has not extenuated his own fault; for from him, through Mark, we are informed that the first crowing did not suffice to recall him to his duty, but a second was needed.

3. In the three words, καὶ ἐπιβαλὼν ἔκλαιε, we have given to us the perfect revolution in Peter’s view of the world. As he rushes forth upon the call, as though in his remorse he sought some object exterior to himself, his world-view (his opinion of the world) is still an external one; when he begins to weep, it becomes an inner view. His whole outer world has fallen in ruins; he has no longer an external object of pursuit; he has been thrown back into himself, and comes through his inner self to the Lord, who has now become to him a new Christ in the light of the Spirit. Judas could not attain to this change and revolution: he rushed out—to the associates of his guilt, the chief priests—and they gave him, in his despair, the final blow. In the case of Peter it was: “Against Thee, Thee only, have I sinned.”

4. The maid mentioned in this passage, and Herodias, are the only examples of female wickedness, or enmity on the part of woman to what was good, recorded in the Gospels.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

See the parallel passages in Matthew.—The true Shepherd betrayed by a faithless disciple at the tribunal of a false world: 1. By the treachery of the false one, He stands is the Faithful One at the Baruch 2. by the false judgment, He passes forth as the Faithful.—The false judgment passed by the world upon the Lord: 1. The false judges, who seek false witness against Him; 2. the false witnesses, who contradict one another; 3. the false judgment, which stamps the true praise of God as blasphemy, and represents blasphemy of God to be the judgment of God; 4. the false servants of God, who abuse and make a mock of the prisoner entrusted to their guardianship.—As the sun bursts through mist and clouds, so breaks Christ triumphantly through all the false obscurations of His honor (by false judges, witnesses, judgments, guards).—So does God’s truth, and work, break through all juggleries, deceits, and time-serving judgments, of sin and lying.—Christ’s true testimony and confession is the only star of salvation in the awful night of human destruction and judgment.—Self-contradiction, the everlasting self-judgment of Satan, of sin, and of Christ’s foes.—Christ the confessor, and Peter the denier (Christ was the divinely faithful friend to men, Judas the betrayer; Christ was He who held His ground, the disciples were the runaways).—The great and marvellous spiritual combat: 1. One strove against all, and yet for all; 2. He suffered as a lamb, yet conquered like a lion; 3. He is overcome, and yet He is the victor.—Contrast the powerful opponents of Christ and the weak opponents of Peter.—The difference between the Christ’s confession, and Peter’s Galilean dialect.—Mark how the chasm which bursts apart between Christ and His disciples unites them for ever: 1. The chasm which opens: Christ, the denied confessor; Peter, the positive denier. 2. Peter, now an actually humbled sinner; Christ, in the fullest sense, now his Saviour and Comforter.—The Lord’s great discourse in His deep silence.—Christ’s sublime silence at the world’s tribunal a prediction of His sublime speaking at the future judgment of the world.

Starke:—Quesnel:—Let the world say what it will, how entirely different are things to the eye of faith, from what they seem to the eye of the world! What is more distinguished than this assembly? There at the same time sanctity, rank, and wisdom appear to collect and unite together; and yet it is nothing but a company of murderers, and a godless assembly (except, indeed, that it possessed a historic right, which was destroyed at Christ’s crucifixion).—He who audaciously flings himself into danger, will soon find that he sinks continually deeper, till finally he cannot free himself.—Canstein:—It is dangerous to be in the company of the wicked.—Alas! how much injustice is found in law-processes and contentions!—Envy.—Nova Bibl. Tub.:—Is it not to be deplored that many strive in behalf of the stones of the temple, and yet pull down and destroy the temple of the living God!—Quesnel:—The greatest truths, when ill-understood, are often considered blasphemies, and furnish occasions for rage and tumult, Heb_12:3.—Keep silent (before the godless world’s accusations).—Reply (to those who exercise authority).—One may mislead many.—As is the shepherd, such are the sheep [said in reference to the high priest. But this is only partially applicable].—When the higher classes condemn Christ, those beneath them mock Him. This is the effect of evil example. Oh! what an account is to be rendered!—Sufferings generally come in troops.—Petrus:—Lies of necessity are not to be excused.—The cock which still crows, when we deny Jesus, is the conscience of each; ah, would that we heard its voice!—Bibl. Wirt.:—God uses every means to bring men to repentance.

Braune:—Death was pronounced upon Christ: in the sight of God, the haters of the divine love had no right so to act; it was merely the seeming appearance of right before the people.—We never hear that these false witnesses were punished.—The first Epistle of Peter shows how changed his views regarding suffering and the cross had become. This change of view dates from his repentance.—Brieger:—His sitting at the right hand of God they were soon to find to be true (the founding of the Church, the Apostles’ acts, the destruction of Jerusalem, etc.)—Jesus, although awaiting condemnation and death, subdued Satan in His people.—This we recognize in the repentance of Peter.—Gossner:—Before Pentecost, the disciples fled from death; after Pentecost, they rejoiced in death.—Bauer:—A fearful assembly.—On Mar_14:72. Alas! how lonely, how isolated, does sin leave us in the world!

Footnotes:

[21]Mar_14:65.—Instead of ἔβαλλον, A., B., C., Lachmann, Tischendorf read ἔλαβον, “they took him” (away from the hall of judgment, into custody, i.e.).]

[22]Mar_14:68.—We read, with Cod. A., &c., and the Recepta, οὐκ οἶδα, οὐδὲ ἐπίσταμαι. Certainly οὔτε, οὔτε is strongly attested by B., D., L., and is adopted by Tischendorf and Lachmann. We consider, however, this mode of expression too strong to be used in the circumstances. Matthew says, “I know not what thou sayest;” Luke, “I know Him not:” our reading, in what appears the original account, receives support from these two expressions.

[23]Mar_14:68.—Καὶ ἀλέκτωρ ἐφώνησε, wanting in B., L., Coptic, bracketed by Lachmann; probably interpolated from the parallel passage in Matthew.

[24][The Greek runs: “And the maid (that kept the porch, i.e.), seeing him, again began to say,” &c.]

[25]Mar_14:70.—Καὶ ἡ λαλια σου ὁμοιάζει, omitted in B., C., D., L., &c., and in the texts of Tischendorf and Lachmann. It is interpolated probably from Matthew.

[26][Mar_14:72.—Codd. B., D. have εὐθύς; A., C. have it not. Lachmann retains it; Tischendorf and Recepta reject it.]

[27]Mar_14:72.—Τὸ ῥῆμα ὡς, A., B., C., L., Δ., Lachmann, Tischendorf.

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

ARRAIGNMENT OF JESUS AND DENIAL OF PETER

Mat 26:57-75; Mar 14:53-72; Luk 22:54-62;Joh 18:13-27. “And they led Him first to Annas; for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year.” It is said that there was a controversy between the Jews and Romans in reference to the high-priesthood, the latter favoring Annas and the former Caiaphas. I visited the house of Caiaphas and the judgment-hall during both my tours in Jerusalem. The presumption is, the tribunal of Annas was in the same house, as it is very large. N.B. — All the houses in Jerusalem are stone.

Hence their durability.

“And Caiaphas was the one counseling the Jews that it is profitable for one man to die for the people.” This is an example in which God, at least momentarily, imparted the gift of prophecy to an unconverted man, his official position giving him a prominence highly conducive to the efficacy of his prophecy.

“And Simon Peter and another disciple followed Jesus. And that disciple was known to the high priest, and entered with Jesus into the judgment-hall of the high priest.” You see here, John is speaking of himself, as he never calls his own name. Gnostos, “known,” is claimed also to convey the idea of kinship. From considerations, doubtless, of this character, Caiaphas permitted him to go along with them by the side of Jesus, the soldiers mistaking him for a Jewish priest, because of the robe with which it is said he was invested, having procured it at the house of Rabbi Amos, a friend of Jesus. Such was the affright of the other nine that they kept hidden away at a distance, Peter leaving them, and venturing to follow along with the crowd after Jesus; while, as you see, John remained with him unmolested, and of course not recognized except by Caiaphas, or he would have gotten into the same trouble which overtook Peter.

“And Peter stood at the door without. Then the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, came out, and spoke to the porter, and led in Peter. And the servants and officers having made a fire because it was cold, were standing round it, and warming themselves.” They have no chimneys to the houses in Jerusalem; but as this was April 13th, about 2 A.M., it was quite chilly, and they built a fire in the open court of the great quadrangular building, and were warming round it, while Jesus stood at the tribunal of Caiaphas in the judgment-hall.

“And Peter was standing with them warming. Then the damsel porter says to Peter, Art thou not one of the disciples of this Man? He says, I am not. And Simon Peter was standing warming; then they said, Art thou not of His disciples? He denied, and said, I am not.” Mar 14:68-70 : “And he went out into the portico, and the cock crew. And the damsel seeing him again, began to speak to those standing by, This man is one of them. And he denied it.” Joh 18:26-27 : “One of the servants of the chief priest, being a kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, says, Did I not see thee with Him in the garden? Then Peter again denied, and immediately the cock crew.” Now, see that you get this whole matter clear in reference to Peter’s denial. Remember, the building is a large quadrangular, with an open court in the center, roofless. Here, while Peter is warming by the fire, the damsel doorkeeper identifies and interrogates him. He positively denies that he is one of the disciples of the Man then on trial in the contiguous judgment- hall. Then Peter goes away from the fire, and is standing in the portico leading from the open court into the judgment-hall. There the same damsel porter again recognizes and interviews him, certifying that he is one of that Man’s disciples. Again Peter denies, with an oath (doubtless of affirmation). Now, after a few minutes, while Peter is still in the portico, the kinsman of Malchus, whose ear Peter had cut off with a sword, accuses him, very positively identifying him obviously.

Mat 26:74. “Then he began to anathematize and swear, I know not the Man. And immediately the cock crew.” The E. V. “curse and swear” is very likely to mislead the reader into the conclusion that Peter indulged in blasphemy and profanity, which is unwarranted in the original, which simply conveys the idea that he anathematized; i.e., confirmed his statement by invoking an anathema on himself, and used an oath of affirmation. The idea that he cursed and swore, after the manner of wicked people, indulging in blasphemy and profanity, is not sustained by the Greek. You must remember, however, that Jesus condemns all sorts of swearing, except the oath of affirmation administered by persons in authority, as you see He Himself responded when under oath administered by Caiaphas. Of course, Peter was guilty of falsification in a very aggravated form, augmenting it by the invocation of an anathema and by the oath of affirmation, in all probability using some trivial oath, like swearing by the temple. The solution of the matter is, Peter felt that his life was in danger, more especially when accused the third time by the kinsman of a man whose ear he had cut off. Peter’s courage was all right till Jesus made Him put up the sword and let His enemies alone; then a reaction took place, intensified by these accusations, so that he gave way to fear, and acted foolishly and wickedly, denying his Lord and confirming his denial by an oath.

Luk 22:60-62. “And immediately, he still speaking, the cock crew.” And the Lord, turning, looked on Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He said to him, Before the cock crows, thou shalt deny Me thrice. And having gone out, he wept bitterly.” Mar 14:72 : “And having gone out, he continued to weep.” The third denial was there in the portico, where the people were standing aside a little, when Jesus, turning His head, looked on him so impressively as to remind him of everything He had told him about the three denials, simultaneously breaking his heart, and inundating him with gushing penitential tears, so that he rushes out of the crowd, and, as Mark says, “continued to weep,” Mark and Luke adding their testimony that he wept bitterly. Precipitation was Peter’s great and prominent infirmity, and when manipulated by Satan a terrible stumbling- block as in the above case, when, giving way to fear, he denied his Lord; not, as E. V. would lead you to infer, indulging in blasphemous oaths, horrific to think of and especially on the part of an apostle, yet not only certifying that he knew Him not, but even confirming his repudiation by solemn imprecations and an oath of affirmation. But when sanctified by the Holy Ghost, this thunderbolt impetuosity became a mighty enginery, pre- eminently qualifying him for the apostolical seniority and leadership with which the Holy Spirit honored him on the day of Pentecost as well as subsequently. We may recognize this fact, somewhat in his favor, that he followed on, manifesting a desire to help his Lord if possible, while the other nine fled away, seeking places of safety. We are no apologists for Peter’s cowardly repudiation of his Lord, even under these trying circumstances; yet we do believe that the popular verdict against him, as a rule, is more condemnatory than he deserves. His unworthy conduct, however, demonstrates the crying necessity of the second work of grace. After his Pentecostal baptism, we see him serving as apostolical speaker, facing the combined authorities of Church and State, preaching all day, and spending the ensuing night in jail. From that notable hour, on Sunday morning, when the Holy Ghost and fire descended on them from heaven, till he was nailed to the cross on the Campus Martius in Rome, he was never known to flicker an iota, amid the combined antagonism of earth and hell. He truly lived a hero and died a martyr.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Section 2. (Mar 14:53-72; Mar 15:1-15.)

The false condemnation.

The condemnation of the Lord - trial in any real sense there was not - was two-fold. Before the high priest and council it was upon the true charge, and the truth it was that was charged against Him. He was condemned on His own confession of the truth, that He was the Son of God. Before Pilate they change this accusation for another, that He claimed to be King of the Jews: this for the obvious reason that they can plead: "Whosoever maketh himself a, king speaketh against Caesar." These things naturally appear in all the Gospels, though with different emphasis and omissions as to particular details, according to the different line of truth in each. Matthew and Mark, as usual, come nearest together; John is the most distinct.

1. (1) The confession of the Master is set before us in evident contrast with the denial of the disciple. In every part of this scene man is exposed; consistent only in wickedness, unreliable and inconstant where truest in heart. His self-confidence is his weakness; his weakness, known and owned, his only strength. The Second Man stands alone amid a ruined world; most glorious in this utter desolation; all contradictions uniting to approve Him; all depths to place Him highest. The simple language of the evangelists, putting not an additional word even of emotion - not an irrepressible note of wonder or of praise, to the mere recital of His words, His deeds, His sufferings, is in fact the hush of the sanctuary of His presence, the only fit celebration of that unique glory with which nothing else must or can mingle.

Before the high priest the false witnesses are condemned by their contradiction of each other. They sought witnesses for the purpose that was in their hearts before. And are not those who bring such witness, commonly, if not constantly, of such a spirit? Do not they dare even to search Scripture to justify the condemnation they have determined on already? And yet how often are they obliged to put out of court their own witnesses! How little can they quote without misquoting. It was they who even now were seeking to destroy the temple of God, as His words had implied they would; and it was no other could replace this, but He would raise it up again. Still there was no agreement: and the high priest turns to Jesus, to make Him answer what had need of none, and thus make something of what was nothing. He is therefore silent.

But the direct question He will not fail to answer. "Art Thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One must be answered with no ambiguity at all. It will give them what they seek against Him; but it will give rest also to those that are true enquirers, and minister through the ages to the blessing of man. Yes, He is the Son of the Blessed, while He is the Son of man as well; and they shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.

(2) The denial of the disciple follows the confession of the Master. It speaks for itself, and needs here little comment. Each evangelist gives it: for there is need of such a lesson being well learned, as that honesty of heart, and true love to Christ, and zeal for Him, cannot save us from the most terrible falls, without that distrust of ourselves which brings in the power of God for us. Not only the sinner needs to be broken down before God, but the saint does. Human strength avails nothing on the path he is called to tread.

Mark alone notices the twofold crowing of the cock, the latter being at the general cock-crowing of which the other Gospels speak. The first fails to arouse Peter; so easily may the conscience become torpid through the power of sin. Only Luke notices the tender reproof of the Lord’s look, which followed the second: in fact those eyes had never been withdrawn from him; though the "look" was more than this: it was the divine recall of the wanderer to himself and to God.

2. (1) In the second part here, we have still a confession and a denial, though the latter of a very different kind to what we have just seen. The chief priests still charge Him with being what He truly is, although as a charge they make it falsely. He is the King of the Jews. To their further accusations He answers nothing, so that Pilate marvels: but He has no thought of saving Himself from what was before Him; had He purpose of this kind, He would have stood in no such fashion before His accusers. Mark almost leaves out Pilate: from his point of view he is but a mere circumstance.

(2) It is otherwise as to Barabbas, whose crimes are told out, as they are not in Matthew. He is seen as a chief of sinners, a rebel and a murderer, for whom the feast of redemption offers a possibility of release, but only, according to Pilate’s alternative, if Jesus is given up. Jesus becomes, as it were, the Substitute for the chief of sinners. To "release Barabbas" is "to destroy Jesus." Why? because He has done evil? the judge asks in vain; Where is it? Looking deeper than at the wicked wills of men, we may discern in the purpose of God that holy Sin-offering, the true passover, by which even a Barabbas may be delivered, not for good in him, for Barabbas shows none. Thus the gospel story is more completely unfolded. Barabbas is released: Jesus is given up.

F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CHAPTER 14:53-65 (Mar_14:53-65)

BEFORE CAIAPHAS

"And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and there come together with him all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes. And Peter had followed Him afar off, even within, into the court of the high priest; and he was sitting with the officers, and warming himself in the light of the fire. Now the chief priests and the whole council sought witness against Jesus to put Him to death; and found it not. For many bare false witness against Him, and their witness agreed not together. And there stood up certain, and bare false witness against Him, saying, We heard Him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands. And not even so did their witness agree together. And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest Thou nothing? what is it which these witness against Thee? But He held His peace and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked Him, and saith unto Him, Art Thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven. And the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What further need have we of witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned Him to be worthy of death. And some began to spit on Him, and to cover His face, and to buffet Him, and to say unto Him, Prophesy: and the officers received Him with blows of their hands" Mar_14:53-65 (R.V.)

WE have now to see the Judge of quick and dead taken from prison and judgment, the Preacher of liberty to the captives bound, and the Prince of Life killed. It is the most solemn page in earthly story; and as we read St. Mark's account, it will concern us less to reconcile his statements with those of the other three, than to see what is taught us by his especial manner of regarding it. For St. Mark is not writing a history but a Gospel, and his readers are Gentiles, for whom the details of Hebrew intrigue matter nothing, and the trial before a Galilean tetrarch would be only half intelligible.

St. John, who had been an eye-witness, knew that the private inquiry before Annas was vital, for there the decision was taken which subsequent and more formal assemblies did but ratify. He therefore, writing last, threw this ray of explanatory light over all that the others had related. St. Luke recorded in the Acts (Act_4:27) that the apostles recognized, in the consent of Romans and Jews, and of Herod and Pilate, what the Psalmist had long foretold, the rage of the heathen and the vain imagination of the peoples, and the conjunction of kings and rulers. His Gospel therefore lays stress upon the part played by all of these. And St. Matthew's readers could appreciate every fulfillment of prophecy, and every touch of local color. St. Mark offers to us the essential points: rejection and cruelty by His countrymen, rejection and cruelty over again by Rome, and the dignity, the elevation, the lofty silence and the dauntless testimony of his Lord. As we read, we are conscious of the weakness of His crafty foes, who are helpless and baffled, and have no resort except to abandon their charges and appeal to His own truthfulness to destroy Him.

He shows us first the informal assembly before Caiaphas, whither Annas sent Him with that sufficient sign of his own judgment, the binding of His hands, and the first buffet, inflicted by an officer, upon His holy face. It was not yet daylight, and a formal assembly of the Sanhedrin was impossible. But what passed now was so complete a rehearsal of the tragedy, that the regular meeting could be disposed of in a single verse.

There was confusion and distress among the conspirators. It was not their intention to have arrested Jesus on the feast day, at the risk of an uproar among the people. But He had driven them to do so by the expulsion of their spy, who, if they delayed longer, would be unable to guide their officers. And so they found themselves without evidence, and had to play the part of prosecutors when they ought to be impartial judges. There is something frightful in the spectacle of these chiefs of the religion of Jehovah suborning perjury as the way to murder; and it reminds us of the solemn truth, that no wickedness is so perfect and heartless as that upon which sacred influences have long been vainly operating, no corruption so hateful as that of a dead religion. Presently they would cause the name of God to be blasphemed among the heathen, by bribing the Roman guards to lie about the corpse. And the heart of Jesus was tried by the disgraceful spectacle of many false witnesses, found in turn and paraded against Him, but unable to agree upon any consistent charge, while yet the shameless proceedings were not discontinued. At the last stood up witnesses to pervert what He had spoken at the first cleansing of the temple, which the second cleansing had so lately recalled to mind. They represented Him as saying, "I am able to destroy this temple made with hands." -- or perhaps, "I will destroy" it, for their testimony varied on this grave point -- "and in three days I will build another made without hands." It was for blaspheming the Holy Place that Stephen died, and the charge was a grave one; but His words were impudently manipulated to justify it. There had been no proposal to substitute a different temple, and no mention of the temple made with hands. Nor had Jesus ever proposed to destroy anything. He had spoken of their destroying the Temple of His Body, and in the use they made of the prediction they fulfilled it.

As we read of these repeated failures before a tribunal so unjust, we are led to suppose that opposition must have sprung up to disconcert them; we remember the councilor of honorable estate, who had not consented to their counsel and deed, and we think, What if, even in that hour of evil, one voice was uplifted for righteousness? What if Joseph confessed Him in the conclave, like the penitent thief upon the cross?

And now the high priest, enraged and alarmed by imminent failure, rises in the midst, and in the face of all law cross-questions the prisoner, Answerest Thou nothing? What is it which these witness against Thee? But Jesus will not become their accomplice; He maintains the silence which contrasts so nobly with their excitement, which at once sees through their schemes and leaves them to fall asunder. And the urgency of the occasion, since hesitation now will give the city time to rise, drives them to a desperate expedient. Without discussion of His claims, without considering that some day there must be some Messiah, (else what is their faith and who are they?) they will treat it as blasphemous and a capital offense simply to claim that title. Caiaphas adjures Him by their common God to answer, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? So then they were not utterly ignorant of the higher nature of the Son of David: they remembered the words, Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee. But the only use they ever made of their knowledge was to heighten to the uttermost the Messianic dignity which they would make it death to claim. And the prisoner knew well the consequences of replying. But He had come into the world to bear witness to the truth, and this was the central truth of all. "And Jesus said, I am." Now Renan tells us that He was the greatest religious genius who ever lived, or probably ever shall live. Mill tells us that religion cannot be said to have made a bad choice in pitching on this Man as their ideal representative and guide of humanity. And Strauss thinks that we know enough of Him to assert that His consciousness was unclouded by the memory of any sin. Well then, if anything in the life of Jesus is beyond controversy, it is this, that the sinless Man, our ideal representative and guide, the greatest religious genius of the race, died for asserting upon oath that He was the Son of God. A good deal has been said lately, both wise and foolish, about Comparative Religion: is there anything to compare with this? Lunatics, with this example before their eyes, have conceived wild and dreadful infatuations. But these are the words of Him whose character had dominated nineteen centuries, and changed the history of the world. And they stand alone in the records of mankind.

As Jesus spoke the fatal words, as malice and hatred lighted the faces of His wicked judges with a base and ignoble joy, what was His own thought? We know it by the warning that He added. They supposed themselves judges and irresponsible, but there would yet be another tribunal, with justice of a far different kind, and there they should occupy another place. For all that was passing before His eyes, so false, hypocritical and murderous, there was no lasting victory, no impunity, no escape: "Ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven." Therefore His apostle Peter tells us that in this hour, when He was reviled and reviled not again, "He committed Himself to Him that judgeth righteously" (1Pe_2:23).

He had now quoted that great vision in which the prophet Daniel saw Him brought near unto the Ancient of Days, and invested with an everlasting dominion (Dan_7:13-14). But St. Matthew adds one memorable word. He did not warn them, and He was not Himself sustained, only by the mention of a far-off judgment: He said they should behold Him thus "henceforth." And that very day they saw the veil of their temple rent, felt the world convulsed, and remembered in their terror that He had foretold His own death and His resurrection, against which they had still to guard. And in the open sepulcher, and the supernatural vision told them by its keepers, in great and notable miracles wrought by the name of Jesus, in the desertion of a great multitude even of priests, and their own fear to be found fighting against God, in all this the rise of that new power was thenceforth plainly visible, which was presently to bury them and their children under the ruins of their temple and their palaces. But for the moment the high-priest was only relieved; and he proceeded, rending his clothes, to announce his judgment, before consulting the court, who had no further need of witnesses, and were quite content to become formally the accusers before themselves. The sentence of this irregular and informal court was now pronounced, to fit them for bearing part, at sunrise, in what should be an unbiased trial; and while they awaited the dawn Jesus was abandoned to the brutality of their servants, one of whom He had healed that very night. They spat on the Lord of Glory. They covered His face, an act which was the symbol of a death sentence (Est_7:8), and then they buffeted Him, and invited Him to prophesy who smote Him. And the officers "received Him" with blows.

What was the meaning of this outburst of savage cruelty of men whom Jesus had never wronged, and some of whose friends must have shared His superhuman gifts of love? Partly it was the instinct of low natures to trample on the fallen, and partly the result of partisanship. For these servants of the priests must have seen many evidences of the hate and dread with which their masters regarded Jesus. But there was doubtless another motive. Not without fear, we may be certain, had they gone forth to arrest at midnight the Personage of whom so many miraculous tales were universally believed. They must have remembered the captains of fifty whom Elijah consumed with fire. And in fact there was a moment when they all fell prostrate before His majestic presence. But now their terror was at an end: He was helpless in their hands; and they revenged their fears upon the Author of them.

Thus Jesus suffered shame to make us partakers of His glory; and the veil of death covered His head, that He might destroy the face of the covering cast over all peoples, and the veil that was spread over all nations. And even in this moment of bitterest outrage He remembered and rescued a soul in the extreme of jeopardy, for it was now that the Lord turned and looked upon Peter.

William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.

14:53-65 The story of Jesus’ trial follows immediately upon his arrest. Objections have been raised as to the historicity of the various accounts of Jesus’ trial, because of differences of detail from the rules found in the Mishnah tractate Mishnah Sanhedrin. However, (1) the Mishnah was written around AD 200, whereas the Gospel of Mark was written in the late 60s, over 130 years earlier; (2) the rules found in Mishnah Sanhedrin idealize what later rabbis thought should take place in such trials and do not necessarily describe what did in fact take place; (3) it is questionable whether the Sadducees leading the Sanhedrin would have followed the Pharisaic rules found in Mishnah Sanhedrin (see Acts 23:6-10); (4) the rules found in Mishnah Sanhedrin sometimes conflict with what the Jewish historian Josephus wrote; (5) existing laws of conduct were not necessarily followed—Jesus was being tried by a kangaroo court, in which the sentence was predetermined and only the charge for carrying it out was sought (Mark 14:55); (6) if we must choose between the trial accounts found in the Gospels and Mishnah Sanhedrin, there is no reason to choose the reliability of Mishnah Sanhedrin over that of the Gospels.

14:53-54 The leading priests, the elders, and the teachers of religious law were not synonymous with the “entire high council” (14:55; 15:1), or Sanhedrin, but they made up a large part of it. Peter followed Jesus into the high priest’s courtyard, where the Sanhedrin was meeting. The stage is set for Peter’s denial (14:66-72).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Mar 14:53. Συνέρχονται αὐτῷ, are assembled with him) By his edict.

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

Mar_14:53-54. See on Mat_26:57 f. Comp. Luk_22:54 f.

τρὸς τ. ἀρχιερ.] i.e. Caiaphas, not Annas, as appears from Matthew.

συνέρχονται αὐτῷ] is usually explained: they come together to Him (the high priest), in which case the dative is either taken as that of the direction (Fritzsche), or is made to depend upon συν: with him, i.e. at his house, they assemble. But always in the N. T. (Luk_23:55; Act_1:21; Act_9:39, al.), even in Joh_11:33, συνέρχεσθαί τινι means: to come with any one, una cum aliquo venire (comp. Winer, p. 193 [E. T. 269]); and αὐτῷ, in accordance with the following ἠκολούθησεν αὐτῷ, is most naturally to be referred to Jesus. Hence: and there came with Him all the chief priests,[169] i.e. at the same time, as Jesus is led in, there come also all the chief priests, etc., who, namely, had been bespoken for this time of the arranged arrest of the delinquent. This view of the meaning, far from being out of place, is quite in keeping with the vivid representation of Mark.

πρὸς τὸ φῶς] at the fire-light, Luk_22:56. See Raphel, Polyb. p. 151; Sturz, Lex. Xen. IV. p. 519 f. According to Baur, indeed, this is an expression unsuitably borrowed from Luke.

[169] Whither? is clearly shown from the context, namely, to the ἀρχιερεύς. This in opposition to Wieseler, Synops. p. 406.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mar 14:53-65 . Before Caiaphas (Mat 26:57-68 , Luk 22:54 ; Luk 22:66-71 ).

Mar 14:53 . συνέρχονται α . πάντες , etc.: again all the three orders of the Sanhedrists are named, who have been summoned to meet about the time the party sent to apprehend Jesus might be expected to arrive.

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

Matt. 26:57; Luke 32:54; John 18:24

The highest council was assembled, because Christ was accused as a blasphemer and a false prophet: for as for the other crime of treason, it was forged against him by the Priests, to enforce Pilate by that means to condemn him.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

We have here Christ's arraignment, trial, conviction, and condemnation, in the ecclesiastical court, before the great sanhedrim, of which the high priest was president, or judge of the court; the same Caiaphas that had lately adjudged it expedient he should be put to death, guilty or not guilty (Joh 11:50), and who therefore might justly be excepted against as partial.

I. Christ is hurried away to his house, his palace it is called, such state did he live in. And there, though, in the dead of the night, all the chief priests, and elders, and scribes, that were in the secret, were assembled, ready to receive the prey; so sure were they of it.

II. Peter followed at a distance, such a degree of cowardice was his late courage dwindled into, Mar 14:54. But when he came to the high priest's palace, he sneakingly went, and sat with the servants, that he might not be suspected to belong to Christ. The high priest's fire side was no proper place, nor his servants proper company, for Peter, but it was his entrance into a temptation.

III. Great diligence was used to procure, for love or money, false witnesses against Christ. They had seized him as a malefactor, and now they had him they had no indictment to prefer against him, no crime to lay to his charge, but they sought for witnesses against him; pumped some with ensnaring questions, offered bribes to others, if they would accuse him, and endeavored to frighten others, if they would not, Mar 14:55, Mar 14:56. The chief priests and elders were by the law entrusted with the prosecuting and punishing of false witnesses (Deu 19:16, Deu 19:17); yet those were now ringleaders in a crime that tends to overthrow of all justice. It is time to cry, Help, Lord, when the physicians of a land are its troublers, and those that should be the conservators of peace and equity, are the corrupters of both.

IV. He was at length charged with words spoken some years ago, which, as they were represented, seemed to threaten the temple, which they had made no better than an idol of (Mar 14:57, Mar 14:58); but the witnesses to this matter did not agree (Mar 14:59), for one swore that he said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days (so it is in Matthew); the other swore that he said, I will destroy this temple, that is made with hands, and within three days, I will build not it, but another made without hands; now these two differ much from each other; oude isē ēn hē marturia - their testimony was not sufficient, nor equal to the charge of a capital crime; so Dr. Hammond: they did not accuse him of that upon which a sentence of death might be founded, no not by the utmost stretch of their law.

V. He was urged to be his own accuser (Mar 14:60); The high priest stood up in a heat, and said, Answerest thou nothing? This he said under pretence of justice and fair dealing, but really with a design to ensnare him, that they might accuse him, Luk 11:53, Luk 11:54; Luk 20:20. We may well imagine with what an air of haughtiness and disdain this proud high priest brought our Lord Jesus to this question; "Come you, the prisoner at the bar, you hear what is sworn against you; what have you now to say for yourself?" Pleased to think that he seemed silent, who had so often silenced those that picked quarrels with him. Still Christ answered nothing, that he might set us an example, 1. Of patience under calumnies and false accusations; when we are reviled, let us not revile again, Pe1 2:23. And, 2. Of prudence, when a man shall be made an offender for a word (Isa 29:21), and our defence made our offence; it is an evil time indeed when the prudent shall keep silence (lest they make bad worse), and commit their cause to him that judgeth righteously. But,

VI. When he was asked whether he was the Christ, he confessed, and denied not, that he was, Mar 14:61, Mar 14:62. He asked, Art thou the Son of the Blessed? that is the Son of God? for, as Dr. Hammond observes, the Jews, when they named God, generally added, blessed for ever; and thence the Blessed is the title of God, a peculiar title, and applied to Christ, Rom 9:5. And for the proof of his being the Son of God, he binds them over to his second coming; "Ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power; that Son of man that now appears so mean and despicable, whom ye see and trample upon (Isa 53:2, Isa 53:3), you shall shortly see and tremble before." Now, one would think that such a word as this which our Lord Jesus seems to have spoken with a grandeur and majesty not agreeable to his present appearance (for through the thickest cloud of his humiliation some rays of glory were still darted forth), should have startled the court, and at least, in the opinion of some of them, should have amounted to a demurrer, or arrest of judgment, and that they should have stayed process till they had considered further of it; when Paul at the bar reasoned of the judgment to come, the judge trembled, and adjourned the trial, Act 24:25. But these chief priests were so miserably blinded with malice and rage, that, like the horse rushing into the battle, they mocked at fear, and were not affrighted, neither believed they that it was the sound of the trumpet, Job 39:22, Job 39:24. And see Job 15:25, Job 15:26.

VII. The high priest, upon this confession of his, convicted him as a blasphemer (Mar 14:63); He rent his clothes - chitōnas autou. Some think the word signifies his pontifical vestments, which, for the greater state, he had put on, though in the night, upon this occasion. As before, in his enmity to Christ, he said he knew not what (Joh 11:51, Joh 11:52), so now he did he knew not what. If Saul's rending Samuel's mantle was made to signify the rending of the kingdom from him (Sa1 15:27, Sa1 15:28), much more did Caiaphas's rending his own clothes signify the rending of the priesthood from him, as the rending of the veil, at Christ's death, signified the throwing of all open. Christ's clothes, even when he was crucified, were kept entire, and not rent: for when the Levitical priesthood was rent in pieces and done away, This Man, because he continues ever, has an unchangeable priesthood.

VIII. They agreed that he was a blasphemer, and, as such, was guilty of a capital crime, Mar 14:64. The question seemed to be put fairly, What think ye? But it was really prejudged, for the high priest had said, Ye have heard the blasphemy; he gave judgment first, who, as president of the court, ought to have voted last. So they all condemned him to be guilty of death; what friends he had in the great sanhedrim, did not appear, it is probable that they had not notice.

IX. They set themselves to abuse him, and, as the Philistines with Samson, to make sport with him, Mar 14:65. It should seem that some of the priests themselves that had condemned him, so far forgot the dignity, as well as duty, of their place, and the gravity which became them, that they helped their servants in playing the fool with a condemned prisoner. This they made their diversion, while they waited for the morning, to complete their villany. That night of observations (as the passover-night was called) they made a merry night of. If they did not think it below them to abuse Christ, shall we think any thing below us, by which we may do him honour?

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

(53-65) And they led Jesus away.—See Notes on Mat_26:57-66.

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

53–65. The Jewish Trial

53. And they led Jesus away] They bound Him first (Joh_18:12), and then conducted Him across the Kidron and up the road leading into the city.

to the high priest] This we know from St John was Caiaphas. But our Lord was first brought to the palace of Annas his father-in-law (Joh_18:13). This was either at the suggestion of some of the ruling powers, or in accordance with previous arrangement, that his “snake-like” astuteness as president of the Sanhedrim might help his less crafty son-in-law. The palace seems to have been jointly occupied by both as a common official residence, and thither, though it was deep midnight, the chief priests, elders, and scribes repaired.

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.

For many bare false witness against him,.... The word "false", is not expressed in the Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions: which only signify, that they bore witness against him, accused him of, and laid many things to his charge:

but their witness agreed not together; which showed it to be false, and so not to be admitted; for witnesses were to be as one in their testimony, or not to be received: the, rules concerning them with the Jews, are these (l);

"the tradition is, for ever let not their testimony be joined together, unless they both see, "as one": says R. Joshua ben Korcha, even one after another; and their testimony is not ratified in the council, until they both witness "as one".''

Though this is not much the sense of the passage here; it was not the falsehood of their testimony, which this council was unconcerned about, or the contradiction that was in it, which does not appear; but their testimonies were not, "equal", or answerable to the wishes of the council; they were not sufficient to prove a capital crime upon him, in order to, put him to death, which was what they wanted: they only respected some light and trivial matters, and did not amount to a charge of blasphemy, or sedition.

(l) T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 30. 1. Maimon. Hilch. Eduth, c. 4. sect. 1.

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

53 And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes.

Ver. 53. {See Trapp on "Mat 26:57"}

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.

See this fully explained in the notes at Mat. 26:57-75.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

This history of our Saviour’s examination before the high priest we had in Mat 26:57-68;

See Poole on "Mat 26:57", and following verses to Mat 26:68. It should seem the high priests and council were very eager upon this thing. This council seems to have sat up all night, for early in the morning they carried him (condemned by them) to Pilate, and before twelve they brought him out of the city to be crucified. These wretched hypocrites had but the evening before been taking the passover. It was now the feast of unleavened bread. This was now the first fruit of their thanksgiving to God, for bringing them out of the land of Egypt; besides that their keeping a court of judgment in a capital case on a holy day, or in the night, were things against all rules of order. But the rage of persecutors can be neither bounded by the laws of God or men. If the servants of God still be thus treated, they are in this more like Christ, who hath told them, that the disciple is not above his master. But see further in the notes on Matthew twenty-six.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

And they led Jesus away to the high priest. This high priest was Caiaphas. But we learn from St. John (Joh_18:13) that our Lord was first brought before Annas, the father-in-law of Caiphas. Annas and his five sons held the high priesthood in succession, Caiaphas, his son-in-law, stepping in between the first and the second son, and holding the office for twelve years. It is supposed that it was in the house of Annas that the price of the betrayal was paid to Judas. Annas, though not then high priest, must have had considerable influence in the counsels of the Sanhedrim; and this will probably explain the fact of our Lord having been first taken to him.

Vers. 53-65. The trial before Caiaphas.

Surely this is the most amazing scene in the long history of humanity! The Redeemer of mankind upon his trial; the Savior at the bar of those he came to save; there is in this something monstrous and almost incredible. But the case is even worse than this. The Lord and Judge of man stands at the tribunal of those who must one day appear before his judgment-seat. They judge him in time whom he must judge in eternity. It is a spectacle the most affecting and the most awful this earth has ever witnessed.

I THE TRIBUNAL. Jesus has already been led before the crafty and unrighteous Annas. He is now led into the presence of the high priest, the Caiaphas (son-in-law to Annas) who has declared that it was good that one man should perish for the people; which meant, that it was better that the innocent Jesus should die, rather than that the ruler"s influence with the people should be imperilled by the prevalence of the spiritual teaching of the Prophet of Nazareth. With Caiaphas are associated, first informally, and then in something like legal fashion, the chief priests, elders, and scribes. It appears that these are mainly of the Sadducees, of the party who aimed at political power. The tribunal before which Jesus is arraigned is composed of the Sanhedrim, so far as it may be said to exist at this time. It is observable, accordingly, that the accusers of Jesus are his judges. These are the men who sent down spies into Galilee, to lay in wait and tempt Jesus, and catch him in his speech. These are the men who instigated the cavillers who, in the public places of Jerusalem, opposed the teaching of the Lord with foolish questions, uncandid criticisms, unfounded calumnies. These are the men who, after the raising of Lazarus, plotted against the mighty One, and resolved that they would have his life. These are the men who themselves sent out the band that apprehended Jesus in the garden. He appears, therefore, at the bar of those who have watched and pursued him with eager malice, who have persecuted him with unscrupulous hatred, and who have now got him within their toils. Such was the court before which Jesus appeared. From a tribunal like this there was no prospect, no expectation, no possibility, of justice. This Jesus had long foreseen, and for the consequences Jesus was perfectly prepared.

II THE EVIDENCE. When the judges condescend to become the accusers, it is no wonder that they seek evidence against the accused. In such circumstances Jesus must be obviously, undeniably innocent, if no charge can be substantiated against him. False witnesses appear; but so flagrantly inconsistent are their unfounded accusations, that even such a court, so prejudiced, cannot condemn upon testimony so mutually destructive. At length, however, false witnesses stand up, who distort a memorable saying of Christ into what may be construed as a disparagement of the national temple which all Jews regard with pride. Jesus, speaking of the temple of his body, had said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will rear it again." This saying is misrepresented, and made to appear the utterance of an intention to destroy the sacred and noble edifice. Even so, however, the witnesses agree not. If this is the worst charge that can be brought against Jesus, and if even this cannot he substantiated; if no remembered words can be twisted so as to give some color for condemnation before a tribunal so constituted and so prejudiced; then this is certain, that the ministry of Jesus must have been discharged with amazing wisdom and discretion. At the same time, the sin of the Lord"s enemies appears the more enormous and the more inexcusable. Jesus was not condemned upon any evidence, any testimony, against him.

III THE APPEAL AND ADJURATION.

1. The president of the court, stung with disappointment, springs from his seat, indignant at the silence and calmness of the accused; and, with most unjudicial unfairness, interposes, and endeavors to provoke Jesus into language which may inculpate himself. But he is met with a dignified demeanor and with continued silence.

2. This effort being in vain, the high priest adjures the accused, and requires him to say whether or not he persists in the-claims which he has made in the course of his ministry to be the Messiah, and the Son of the Blessed. Let him say "No," and he is for ever discredited and powerless; let him say "Yes," and then his admission may be construed into a claim which may be represented to the Roman procurator as a treasonable assumption of royal power. The intention of the judge in this proceeding was evil; but an opportunity was thus given for the great Accused publicly to put himself right with the court and with the world.

IV THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND DECLARATION. Our Lord does not think it worth while to refute witnesses who have refuted themselves and one another. But now that the ruler of the people puts him upon his oath, and requires of him a plain answer to a plain question, Jesus breaks his silence.

1. He acknowledges what he has often asserted before, that no claim can be too high for him to make with truth. If he is to die and upon that he has resolved Jesus will die, witnessing to the truth and for the truth. He is the foretold Deliverer, the anointed King, the only Son of the Blessed and Eternal. This he will not conceal; from this avowal nought shall make him shrink.

2. He adds that his high position and glorious office shall be one day witnessed by his persecutors and judges, as well as by all mankind. There is true sublimity in such an avowal, made in such circumstances and before such an assembly. To the view of man Jesus is the culprit, powerless before the malice and the injustice of the mighty, and in danger of a cruel and violent death. But in truth the case is otherwise. He is the Divine King, the Divine Judge. His glory is concealed now, but it shall shine forth in due time and ere long. Men on earth shall bow in his Name, receive his laws, and place themselves beneath his protecting care. The world shall witness his majesty, and all nations shall be summoned to his bar, and heaven shall crown him "Lord of all." What striking harmony there is between this profession and expectation of Christ on the one hand, and on the other that wonderful statement of an apostle, "For the joy that was set before him, he endured the cross, despising the shame

V THE SENTENCE.

1. The avowal is treated as a confession. No witnesses are now needed. From his own mouth he is judged. The charge, which Jesus" own language is held to justify and substantiate, is one of blasphemy. And, if Christ were a mere man, this charge was just.

2. The whole court concurs in the judgment. The president is eager to condemn, but not more eager than his assessors. One mind moves them all-a mind of malice and hatred, a mind rejoicing in iniquity, grasping at the fulfillment of base hopes.

3. The sentence is death. It was a foregone conclusion. The destruction of Jesus had been resolved upon long since. Death for the Lord of life; death for the Benefactor of mankind; death for the innocent but willing Victim of human ferocity and human sin!

VI THE INSULTS. Again and again, in the course of that awful night, that awful morning, was the Lord of glory treated with derision, ignominy, and contempt. The record is almost too distressing to be read. We can read of the agony in the garden, of the anguish of the cross, but we scarcely know how to read of the treatment our Savior met with from our fellowmen, from those he came to save and bless. The spitting, the buffeting, the mockery, the blows, those will not bear to be thought upon. We may believe, we cannot realize, the record!

APPLICATION.

1. Here we behold sin at its height, raging and seemingly triumphant. Whether we look at the witnesses who maligned Jesus, the court which condemned him, or the officers who abused him, we are confronted with appalling proofs of the flagitiousness of human sin.

2. Here we behold innocence in its peerless perfection. No fault is found in Jesus. Even his demeanor, amidst all this injustice, is consummate moral beauty. His unruffled calm, his Divine dignity, his immovable patience, all command the profoundest reverence of our heart.

3. Here we behold a willing Sacrifice. Jesus is "obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." With these stripes we are healed. These are a part of the suffering Jesus bore for us. That we may be freed from condemnation, he is condemned; that we may live, he is delivered unto death.

4. A glorious example is here presented for our imitation. "Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that ye should follow in his steps... who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously.

Vers. 53-65. Jesus at the bar of Judaism.

I THE CHARACTER OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM.

1. Not in support of any clear and definite indictment.

2. Encouraged by a desire on the part of the judges to incriminate. "They sought witness." The death of the Prisoner a foregone conclusion.

3. The accusations unreliable and conflicting.

II HIS REPLY TO HIS ACCUSERS. Silence:

(1) Because of their character, and

(2) his own.

The impressive dignity of this attitude. He would not justify himself before an earthly tribunal.

III His ANSWER TO THE HIGH PRIEST"S QUESTION. He declared himself the Messiah and the Judge of all the earth. This was done out of respect to the representative character of the high priest, and in order to assure and inform faithful Jews.

IV HOW THIS WAS CONSTRUED. As blasphemy: either

(1) on the ground of imaginary, or feloniously represented, resemblance of the words, "I am," to Jehovah"s Name; or

(2) because the claim was a priori assumed to be false.

V HE WAS REJECTED AND DISHONORED BY THOSE HE CAME TO SAVE, OUT OF SHEER WANTONNESS AND UNBELIEF. M.

Vers. 53-65; ch. Mat_26:57-75 Luk 22:54-62Jo Luk 18:13-27The denial by Peter.

I THE CAUSES THAT LED TO PETER"S SIN

1. The first cause of Peter"s sin. The first cause, as we may infer from this very chapter, was self-confidence. Our Lord foretold the smiting of the Shepherd, as predicted long before in ancient prophecy of himself the good Shepherd, appropriating the title; and along with the smiting of the Shepherd, he foretold, as a consequence, the scattering of the sheep. Peter, yielding to the impulses of his own ardent and impetuous nature, repudiated the notion of desertion thus implied. He did so in a manner that involved an invidious comparison of himself with others, and an overweening opinion of his own strength of will and purpose of fidelity. "Although" (kai ei , equivalent to "even if," viz. a supposed case not likely to exist; ei kai read by Tregelles, equivalent to "although," viz. a case really existing) "all shall be offended, yet will not I," were his somewhat boastful or egotistical words. The smiting of the Shepherd may be a stumbling-block to others to all of them, but not to me; the others may fall ever it, yet will not I; the rest may act the cowardly, unmanly part indicated, breaking and scattering like feeble sheep soon as the wolf is seen to approach, but not I will prove myself the rock-man, and stand my ground in face of all danger, and in spite of all enemies. Thus Peter exalted himself at the expense of others; he also presumed too much on his own strength, and took too much credit for his own courage. Peter possessed physical courage, we have good reason to believe, but he lacked moral courage; nor do these two qualities always go hand in hand. There may be great physical courage with but little moral courage, and much moral courage where physical courage is defective. Peter was courageous enough or rash enough, some might be disposed to say to cut off the ear of a manservant of the high priest; but he was cowardly enough to quail before the glance of one of the maids of the high priest, tie had physical courage enough to do the deed of violence, but not moral courage enough to tell the truth to an inquisitive, intermeddling, though perhaps light-hearted, thoughtless girl. If we contrast the conduct and character of two comrade apostles, John and Peter, we shall find a confirmation of our view. As compared with Peter, John had less physical courage, for on a subsequent occasion, as we read, "Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulcher. So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulcher.... Yet went he not in. Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulcher." This is a very interesting and instructive statement. They both ran, in their eagerness and expectancy, to the rifled sepulcher; but John, being the younger and therefore swifter man, outran Peter, and reached the sepulcher before him. But there he paused; he had not the physical courage to enter that gloomy abode; a sudden awe arrested him. At length Peter came up, and as soon as he arrived at the place, without fear, or dread, or hesitancy, without stop, or stay, or a moment"s pause, he dashed in. "Then went in also that other disciple which came first to the sepulcher." On this occasion Peter proved himself the physically bold, courageous man; while John, though younger and stronger probably, was the physically timid and hesitating. The scene shifts to the palace of the high priest; and these two apostolic men change places. John is now the bold, courageous man morally so, for he "went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest; but Peter stood at the door without." John was known to the high priest, and known to him as a disciple of Jesus, and yet he went boldly into the palace, neither ashamed nor afraid to acknowledge his discipleship. Not only so, he spoke to the portress, and got Peter admitted. But now came Peter"s turn and time of weakness. Though John, a man of much less physical courage, had gone in boldly, and then gained admission for his companion, yet Peter, with far less moral courage, is frightened into sinful denial of his discipleship in the first instance by the brusque boldness of a somewhat pert maid. And yet, notwithstanding all this, a certain cause, or at least somewhat of an excuse, may be found for Peter"s moral cowardice, as com- pared with the moral courage of John at this juncture. Peter was conscious of a crime with which John had no complicity or connection a crime that might shape itself into a constructive charge of an attempt at rescue. He had cut off the ear of Malchus, and so he may have dreaded the consequence of that act, or the more serious charge of interfering with the officers in the discharge of their appointed duty, in order to prevent the capture of his Master. These considerations may have increased the apprehensions of Peter, and added to the supposed danger of his position. The fact of discipleship of itself did not involve peril of any kind, and so John breathed more freely and moved about at large in the palace of the high priest without dread of danger.

2. A second cause leading to Peter"s sin. A second cause leading to Peter"s in was unwatchfulness and neglect of prayer. When our Lord, in the Garden of Gethsemane, found the three disciples sleeping, he addressed himself specially to Peter, with the words, "Simon, sleepest thou? couldest not thou watch one hour?" and then he spake words of warning to all: "Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation." A curious incident, in a certain respect the converse of this, though generally over- looked, deserves well, we think, to be noticed in this connection. In the warning just referred to, our Lord passed from the particular to the general, from the singular to the plural from Simon to the associated apostles. In the warning recorded by St. Luke, (Luk_22:31, Luk_22:32) and which introduces the passage of that Gospel parallel to Mar_14:37, 38, of the Gospel before us, our Lord passes in reverse order from the plural to the singular from the whole of the apostles to Peter; thus: "The Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan asked or "demanded to have you, that he might sift you as wheat: but I made supplication for thee, that thy faith fail not," where it is remarkable that Satan"s demand comprehended all the apostles the rest as well as Peter, as seems clearly implied in the plural umav , while our Lord"s supplication embraced him in particular, as must be inferred from the singular sou . Just as Satan had demanded all the apostles, including Peter, so our Lord prayed for all the apostles, but for Peter in particular. It was not without reason that our Lord thus individualized in his supplication for Peter, for he it was that stood in greatest peril. The most confident of them all was the most imperilled of them all. Some, like Judas, were soon to be blown away, or had already been blown away, as chaff, and had been separated from the good grain; but the word "wheat" applied to the remainder had in it both comfort and encouragement, while the Savior"s great intercessory prayer was a guarantee of safety. The fact, moreover, that he prayed for Peter specially and individually, affords strong consolation to all the children of God in every age and clime. Not one of all is forgotten by him who ever lives to intercede; not one of all is forsaken by the all-prevailing Intercessor. No doubt some may be disposed to object, and say that after all, and notwithstanding all, Peter fell How is this reconcilable with the prevalence of the Savior"s prayer? He fell, but he rose again; he fell, and fell far but did not fall away; he fell sadly for a time, but he did not fall finally and for ever. And this is the very thing implied in the form of the word rendered "fail;" for it is not the simple verb, but ekleiph , or, according to the critical editors, ekliph , which signifies to fail out and out, utterly, or finally. Thus this utter and final failure was exactly the thing prevented by the Savior"s intercession. But, reverting to Peter"s want of watchfulness, we can find no hint nor indication of any kind in all this chapter, or in the parallel sections of the other Gospels, that would lead us to believe that Peter paid proper, or indeed any, attention to the warning of our Lord. We search in vain for proof that he watched against going into the place of temptation, or that he watched against the company where he might expect to be assailed with temptation. There is no evidence whatever that he either watched against the approach of temptation, or that he prayed for grace to resist the tempter or strength to overcome his temptations. He seems, in fact, to have had no idea whatever of the danger that was drawing near him so stealthily and so suddenly, and no suspicion of the snares which Satan was so subtly drawing round him; neither does he seem to have used the means which his Master had urged on him as necessary for safety and defense. He appears to have let the warning entirely slip, or for a time to have let it sink into oblivion. Accordingly, we find that, when years afterwards he called to mind his fearful neglect and its well-nigh fatal consequences, he addresses to others a most solemn warning, in words that echo his own mistakes, and the means he should have taken to avoid it; for in his First Epistle (1Pe_5:8) he writes, "Be sober, be watchful: your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.

3. A third cause of Peter"s sin. A third cause of Peter"s sin was his following Christ afar off. This, of course, refers literally to the fact that Peter followed our Lord at a distance, keeping considerably aloof. He followed him, but at a long interval between; he followed him, but not close or near at hand. Instead of walking side by side, or close behind him, he kept away and afar off. It was, doubtless, the fear of man that kept Peter at this distance; it was the fear of man that thus unnerved him; it was the fear of man that prevented him coming immediately after his Master, as he should have done. He wished to be near his Master, but his heart failed him. He wished, we are sure, to be with his Master, but he lacked moral courage to share the reproach of Jesus of Galilee. It was not the personal risk so much as the ridicule he shrank from. This physical distance was a sign of moral distance, and a symbol of the condition of others as well as Peter, when they follow Christ afar off. Peter"s duty was to have been at his Lord"s side, or close behind him, or in some way near at hand. So with ourselves. Instead of following Christ afar off, we are bound by privilege as well as duty to follow him closely; instead of following him afar off, we must follow him faithfully; instead of following him fitfully, we are to follow him fully; instead of following him sneakingly, we are to follow him fearlessly; instead of following him by constraint, we are to follow him freely and of a ready mind; instead of following him for a short space of time, we are to follow him all our life, and so always. From Peter"s disastrous fall and foul denial of his Master, we learn the important lesson of following Christ freely, fully, fearlessly, faithfully, and forever. Distance from Christ is real danger, nearness to him is true safety. Distance from the Sun of Righteousness is coldness, darkness, and spiritual death; nearness to him is love, light, and life. In Canticles the question is asked, "Who is this that cometh up from the wilderness, leaning upon her Beloved?" If this refer to the Church, as we are of opinion it does, it is a picture of her true attitude. The world is the wilderness through which the Christian is passing, and from which he is ascending to a better and promised land; while it is on the arm of Christ that he leans. Thus leaning on Christ, looking to Christ, and living by the faith of Christ, we journey safely from the wilderness of earth to the promised land of heaven. Away from his presence, away from his power, we are every moment in greatest peril; away from the range of his protection and the guidance of his providence, we expose ourselves to the temptations of the evil one, and speedily become his easy prey.

4. The fourth cause of Peter"s sin. The fourth cause of Peter"s sin was bad company. "He sat," we read, "with the servants" of the high priest, "and warmed himself at the fire." What was this but going into the company of his Master"s enemies? This was mixing, and without necessity, with the enemies of the Savior. He thus went with his eyes open into the place of peril, among the attendants of the high priest and the adversaries of his Lord and Master. Here there is every reason to believe he would hear little good of any kind spoken; while he would be sure to hear his Master"s name vilified, his character slandered, and his cause reproached. In all this contempt and reproach there is too much cause to believe Peter must for the time have concurred. Possibly he not only agreed with them, but acted as they did, the better to conceal his real connection with Christ. It is shocking even for a moment to suppose that Peter was so weak and so wicked, during the short space he consorted with such company, as to join them in reviling his Master. Suspecting him, as they did, of being Christ"s disciple, and finding him thus readily uniting with them in heaping scorn upon his Master, what must they have thought of that Master? What estimate could they form of either disciple or Teacher? Must they not have concluded that Christ"s discipleship was neither happy nor honorable? Must they not have inferred, and inferred with reason, that the disciple of such a Master was knave, or fool, or villain? When, on the other hand, we consider what Peter should have done and what he might have done at the time of his Master"s difficulty and danger, we almost blush for the name of disciple so degraded and disgraced! Had he been true to his confession of the Christ, had he been staunch in his adherence to his Master, he would either have kept out of the company which he knew consisted of his Master"s bitter enemies, or, if he found it necessary to stand by or sit among them, he would have defended him at whatever risk.

II THE AGGRAVATIONS OF PETER"S SIN.

1. Ingratitude. Peter had been on the most familiar terms with his Master, and had been highly favored by him. Of the chosen, he was one of the choicest; of the elected, he was one of the elite. With James and John he shared the Savior"s closest intimacy. Like them, he was with him on the Mount of Transfiguration, and was privileged to witness that wondrous scene and see that glorious sight. Like them, he was admitted to the solemnities of the death-chamber, and was present at the restoration to life of the daughter of Jairus. Like them, he had been invited to accompany his Lord in the Garden of Gethsemane, and to watch with him during the agony and bloody sweat. Still more, our Lord had commended his good confession of the Christ the Son of God, and traced it to heavenly revelation; he had bestowed on him the honorable surname of "Rock-man," in acknowledgment of his firmness and the foundation he should help to lay; besides, he had promised him a high position and also distinguished privileges in his kingdom. Peter had walked to him on the water, and been kept from sinking by his Master"s hand. Yet now, for all these special marks of friendship and favor that had been lavished on him, he shows himself utterly and basely ungrateful. He turned his back on his best and kindest Friend, denying all knowledge of him. Now, when a return of friendship was most needed, he not only failed to act the part of a friend in need, and reciprocate the kindness he had received, but actually consorted with his bitterest enemies.

2. Falsehood. When our Lord stood in most need of sympathy, Peter, as we have seen, stood aloof or ranged himself on the side of his enemies. When he might have given valuable testimony in favor of his Master, silence sealed his lips, and he refused to acknowledge him. Nor was this all; he falsified to the most fearful extent and in the foulest manner. He denied all or any knowledge of Jesus; he repeated the denial in the most positive way; he backed his repeated falsehood with an oath. When challenged the third time, he "began to curse and swear, saying, I know not the man." Surely one falsehood of the kind indicated would have been bad enough and wicked enough, but its repetition once, again, a third time, greatly aggravated the sin and augmented Peter"s guilt. The violence of language which was prompted by, and which gave expression to, his virulence of feeling is difficult to account for. There was fear of detection and imagined danger, but there must have been rage as well, to explain his violent and passionate language. Several of the bystanders recognize him; a kinsman of Malchus is there who had seen him in the garden; his Galilean dialect bewrays him; accusations crowd upon him; proofs multiply against him. Peter gets irritated, and completely loses his temper and self-control. At the supposed discrepancy, or at least difficulty, in Peter"s denial of his Master we can only glance. The place of the first denial was by the fire in the high priest"s hall, or quadrangular court under the open air (aulh), while that of the third is not specified. The place of the second was in the proaulion according to St. Mark, and the pulwna according to St. Matthew; while St. John tells us that he was standing and warming himself. Now, the fire was in the open court (aulh), the passage from this to the street was proaulion , and the portal or entrance door of this passage was pulwn . He had removed to a short distance from the fire, but not so far as to lose the influence of its heat or warmth. With respect to the persons, the first question that called forth his denial was put by the portress. On the occasion of the second denial the same maid addressed the bystanders, who echoed her words, so that several persons (male eterov) and (female allh) another maid different from the portress all (eipon , plural) assailed Peter with their inconvenient and unwelcome questions. In replying to or repelling these, Peter kept denying (hrneito , imperfect). At the third denial more of the bystanders (oi estwtev St. Matthew, and oi parestwtev of St. Mark), with some other different person (allov tiv of St. Luke) as ringleader, drew attention to his being a Galilean; while the relative of Malchus confirmed this by alleging that he had seen him in the garden. There is thus neither real difficulty nor discrepancy of any kind.

3. Profanity and perjury. By this time Peter is excited and enraged. Goaded to madness, he breaks out into language of shocking profaneness. The falsehood already repeated he backs by an imprecation. He also swears the lie, invoking the name of Jehovah and calling the omniscient One to witness his reiterated untruth, and thus lays foul perjury on his soul. He began, we read, to anathematize, that is to say, he used a formula of imprecation such as "God do so to me and more also," thus cursing himself if what he said was untrue; but, besides this, he employed the customary formula of an oath, invoking God as witness of his words, false as he knew them to be. Naturally impetuous and passionate, and in youth, or before his discipleship, perhaps addicted to profane swearing, he relapsed into his old sin in order to corroborate his statements and to force credence on the incredulous. One sin leads to another; one lie especially needs another to support it. The bystanders must have known little of Jesus" character and teaching, or Peter"s profanity of itself would have convinced them that he knew not that Teacher nothing, at least, of his spirit and doctrine. Could it be possible that Peter, in the madness of his rage and fear, meant by his profanity to leave this impression on his questioners, and that there was thus a method in his madness? At all events, he spoke as one who was a stranger to the fear of God and the ordinary dictates of religion, not to speak of discipleship to a Teacher who said, "Swear not at all... but let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay.

4. Other aggravating circumstances. There were several other circumstances of aggravation which we can only indicate, and may not dwell on, among them the following: The faithful and frequent warnings he had received, and had received so recently; his own vehement protestations of loyalty and fidelity to his Master that if all others should be offended he would not, that if be should die with him he would not deny him in any wise. There were also other considerations connected with the denial that greatly added to the sin: there were the circumstances and time our Lord being now deserted, delivered into the hands of cruel enemies, and dragged before inexorable judges; there were the persons to whom the denial was addressed, namely, servants and other humble officials, with little influence and less power, not magistrates or functionaries invested with authority; there were the flagrant breaches of Peter"s own positive and repeated promises. All are forgotten or falsified! Alas, what is man! At the strongest but weakness, and at the best but imperfection!

III PETER"S REPENTANCE.

1. Extenuating circumstances. We may just notice, very briefly, in connection with Peter"s repentance, certain extenuations of his sin. His sin, largely the outcome of his own impulsive nature, came on him with the suddenness and strength of an unexpected impulse. There had been no premeditation, no deliberate plan, and no deceitful design, as in the case of Judas. His plans and purposes had all been of the very opposite character; his determination and resolutions had all tended in the very contrary direction. He did not remain in his sin, nor ever afterwards repeat it. The sin was exceeding great and the guilt enormous, but it would have been still more so had he continued it, or persevered in it, or subsequently returned to it. Satan took him by surprise, as though asleep or off his guard; but once roused from the lethargy into which he had fallen, or brought back to the post which he had abandoned, he never again wandered from the path of duty or sank in sin.

2. How he was recalled to duty. Two circumstances were the means externally, or the occasions of reminding Peter of his sin and recalling him to duty. But, while all the evangelists record Peter"s sin, St. Mark alone records the second crowing of the cock, which was one of the two circumstances referred to; and St. Luke alone records our Lord"s look at Peter, saying, "And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter." The first crowing of the cock had passed unheeded. St. Mark, who gives us such an exact transcript of Peter"s fall and feelings, probably from Peter"s own lips, informs us that it was not till the second or regular morning cockcrow that Peter was brought to the recollection of his Lord"s warning and his own sin. It was then he awoke as from a troubled dream or terrible nightmare; while much about the same time our Lord, either from the open front of the chamber in which the trial bad been proceeding, or as he passed across the courtyard from the apartments of Annas to the palace of Caiaphas, turned towards Peter and looked him into repentance.

3. His repentance. The same evidence of repentance is found in the words, "He went out, and wept bitterly" (eklaie , he continued weeping aloud; not edakrue , he shed tears). The participle ( epibalwn) attached to this verb is variously rendered. The most usual and probable meaning assigned to it is that of our version," When he thought thereon," that is, cast (his mind) on it. Some explain it, "He began to weep," as in the margin of the Revised Version, as well as of the Authorized Version; others, "He flung his mantle over his head;" others, again, "He flung himself forth i.e. on the ground and wept." Further, it is understood by others in the sense of abundantly, that is, "He wept abundantly," also in the margin of Authorized Version; while a more interesting explanation, if well founded, is, "He cast his eyes on him and wept," as if Peter reciprocated his Lord"s look, and consequent compunction of soul vented itself, not in a transient outburst, but in a long-continued, copious flood of tears. Thus, while the Evangelist Luke records the look of Christ Peter, the Evangelist Mark, if this rendering be at all tenable, records the corresponding look of Peter on Christ; so that, when eye met eye, Peter was overpowered by strong emotion, and gave way to his deep grief by bitter (pikrwv , St. Matthew and St. Luke) weeping.

4. Real repentance distinguished from remorse. It is very important to distinguish true repentance from mere regret or remorse; while a contrast of the ease of Peter with that of Judas will materially help us to see and clearly comprehend the difference. Certain elements are common to both, and these we must eliminate before we can rightly distinguish them. On the part of Judas there was sorrow of the intensest kind remorse of the most distressing nature; there was the fullest and most ingenuously candid confession; there was also the strongest possible desire to make any and all the reparation that was possible. All these elements are found in true repentance; but as they are found also in the remorse of Judas, they are common alike to genuine repentance and mere remorse. The first material point of difference is that the sorrow of the true penitent is caused by the sight of sin in itself, apart altogether from its consequences; the sorrow of remorse is occasioned chiefly, if not entirely, by those consequences. Judas did rot foresee the terrible consequences of his sin; he little dreamt, perhaps, that it would lead to Jesus being evil entreated, condemned, and crucified. When he pocketed the reward of iniquity, he felt satisfied with the bargain and sure that the Master would find some way of escape. Had this been the case; had no ill consequences resulted from his treachery; had nothing beyond the arrest of Jesus taken place, and no worse results followed; Judas, there is reason to believe, would have felt neither sorrow nor shame at what he had done; nay, he would have had a feeling of satisfaction rather than a sense of sin. He would scarcely have shrunk from the society of the apostles; he would have been able to find some pretext or frame some excuse for all that had happened. But the consequences of his treachery the terrible consequences made all the difference. Greedy as Judas was, and mean as he was, and treacherous as he was, he was by no means a cruel man or a man of blood. When, however, contrary to his expectation, the most appalling consequences were certain to ensue; when a judicial murder and a cruel death awaited the Master whom he had betrayed; then Judas for the first time saw his sin in its consequences, and was overwhelmed with the sight. It was quite different with Peter. His sin, heinous as it was, did not produce any such fearful effects as the sin of Judas. His denial of his Master did not lead to his apprehension; it had nothing to do with his condemnation; it did not cause his death. Peter saw it not in any such consequences, but in its own baseness and sinfulness. He saw the iniquity of his sin as committed against his loving Lord, as a sin against truth and righteousness, as a sin against goodness and justice, as a sin by which he wronged conscience and hurt his own soul. The sight filled his heart with sorrow and shame, while his eyes brimmed over again and again with salt and bitter tears. The next point of difference is that the true penitent seeks mercy, but the subject of remorse sinks in despair. Of this also we have a striking illustration in Judas and Peter respectively. The former confessed his guilt, acknowledged the innocence of his Master and the injury he had done him; not only so, in self-abhorrence and loathing he flung back the price of blood. But all this sorrow and remorse fell short of repentance; true penitence was as far off as ever. He had no heart to pray; no heart to seek God"s face and favor free; no heart to sue for mercy. His heart was hardened, not softened, by sin; the blackness of despair enveloped him; blank ruin stared him in the face. Not so Peter: he sorrowed, but after a godly sort; instead of giving himself up to despair, he sought mercy. He was humbled, not hardened; the tears he shed washed his eyes, and his spiritual vision became clearer; he saw the blackness of his sin, but he saw also the benignity of the Savior. That look of his Master had pierced his heart with a feeling of his guilt, but brought withal a sense of Divine grace; he was fully alive to the misery of sin, as also to the mercy of the Savior. After the terrible storm which had swept across the horizon of his soul, the rainbow of hope remained upon the cloud, reflecting the sunshine of heaven on the tears of sorrow shed by the penitent. He saw his iniquity to be very great, yet he sued for pardon. He looked not away from, but to, the Savior whose heart his sin had pierced, and mourned in bitterness.

IV PRACTICAL LESSONS.

1. A picture. Our Lord and his apostles are often seen grouped together in a picture; the Gospels exhibit a moral picture of the group. this picture there is much dark shading; but this dark shading helps to bring out more clearly the bright and brilliant colors of the picture and to enhance its beauty. If there were no dark shading in it, it would represent angelic life in heaven rather than human life on earth; in that case, the very perfection of the figures would diminish its fitness for our warning or comfort. Good educed from evil. Peter, when restored (epistreqav), was better fitted to help others. His own weakness became by grace a source of strength to others. When he had turned again, and been restored (as those referred to in epestrafhte , 1Pe_2:25) to the Shepherd and Bishop of souls, he was better able from his own experience to keep other sheep from straying, or restore them from their wanderings.

2. A lesson never forgotten. The circumstances connected with Peter"s sin were so engraven on the tablet of his memory as never to be forgotten, as is evident from several passages of his Epistles and his speech as recorded in Acts. When he would warn men against one of those mistakes which caused his sin, he says, (1Pe_5:8) "Be vigilant," or "watchful" (Revised Version). When he charged the Jews with the foulest crime, he expresses that charge in words that echo his own dark deed: "Ye denied the Holy One and the Just;" "Ye denied him in the presence of Pilate," as we read in Peter"s speech. (Act_3:13, Act_3:14) When he pictured the highest state of spiritual prosperity, he describes it as freedom from falling: If ye do these things, ye shall never fall". (2Pe_1:10) His most solemn warning is, "Beware lest ye also... fall from your own steadfastness". (2Pe_3:17) The change that was effected in Peter after the descent of the Holy Spirit is wonderful, for in the early part of Acts we find him possessed of moral courage equal to his natural physical courage, and on all occasions acting a bold, manly, and courageous as well as prominent part. Whatever grace we need, we are thus encouraged to seek the Spirit to supply.

V THE OMITTED PORTIONS OF THIS CHAPTER.

1. For section vers. 51, 52, peculiar to St. Mark, see Introduction.

2. For section vers. 55-65, containing the account in part of the Jewish trial, see beginning of next chapter, where that trial is concluded. J.J.G.

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

Matt. xxvi, 57; Luke xxii, 54; John xviii, 12.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

And they led

See note on order of events on the day of the crucifixion, (See Scofield "Mat 26:57").

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The Trial before the High Priest.

The first part of the trial:

v. 53. And, they led Jesus away to the high priest; and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes.

v. 54. And Peter followed Him afar off, even into the palace of the high priest; and he sat with the servants, and warmed himself at the fire.

v. 55. And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put Him to death, and found none.

v. 56. For many bare false witness against Him, but their witness agreed not together.

v. 57. And there arose certain, and bare false witness against Him, saying,

v. 58. We heard Him say, I will destroy this Temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.

v. 59. But neither so dill their witness agree together.

As soon as: the band of servants, under the leadership of Judas, started out from Jerusalem, the chief priests had undoubtedly sent notice to all the members of the Sanhedrin for an extraordinary session to be held at once in the palace of the high priest of the year. It made no difference, in this case, that they were celebrating a great festival, most of them having hardly finished the paschal meal. Their glee over the probable early realization of their hopes put them in high good humor, in which they could afford to disregard the customs and traditions which they otherwise regarded more important than the works of love themselves. Though it must have been about the hour of midnight, the members of the council responded with great willingness. And so the palace of the high priest Caiaphas was the scene of a most peculiar proceeding, of a court session which is without equal in the history of the world. "This is surely terrible to hear, and yet should be considered with great seriousness that these two orders or estates, the priestly family and the kingly family, are here united against Christ. The fathers and forefathers of the high priests were Moses, Aaron, Levi, and these were the children and descendants of the former. And yet the children of these noted patriarchs have come to that point, that they willfully betray Christ and condemn Him to death. The fathers of the counselors had been Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, and these were the children and descendants of the former; and yet such noted people come to that point that they betray and sell their God who was promised to them! It surely would not be surprising if God would be so angry with both forms of government that neither priests nor temporal government would exist; for if these two estates persecute Christ, who then will protect Him on earth?"

Meanwhile curiosity had gotten the better of Peter. He had overcome his fear to that extent that he followed the party and his Master at a safe distance to the palace of the high priest. Having obtained permission, he entered through the arched doorway into the court of the house. The palace probably combined the features of Roman architecture with the style of Judea, being built around a court which was partly or entirely open to the sky. Here the servants had built a fire (whence the name atrium , which really means "blackened by smoke," for this part of the house), and were trying to drive away the chill of the spring night. Peter joined them about the fire and warmed himself. It is never a safe and advisable thing for a Christian to seek the company of the enemies of Christ, unless the work of his calling brings him into contact with them, perhaps even places him at the same work-table with them. In such a case great wisdom is required and that prudence which only the Word of God can teach. Here was a case of courting danger without call or reason.

The so-called session of court had begun when Peter came. It was probably only now and then that he could get a glimpse of the assembly hall where the council sat in session. From the beginning the trial was a blasphemous farce. For not only the high priests, but the entire Sanhedrin deliberately set about to find testimony against Christ in order that they might with some show of right condemn Him to die. But the record of Jesus had been so clean that not the slightest hint of real evidence against Him could be found, Joh 8:46. It was an exasperating situation. No matter how many witnesses were announced and even previously instructed, their testimony was not the same, it did not agree. Finally two men were found that garbled the story of Joh 2:19-21, declaring that Jesus had referred to the Temple built by Herod, the sanctuary of the Jews. And still their testimony was not the same; they did not agree on points that were essential to make their witness valid. The whole trial seemed doomed to hopeless disintegration.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [CXXVI. Second Stage of Jewish Trial].

CXXVI. SECOND STAGE OF JEWISH TRIAL. JESUS CONDEMNED BY CAIAPHAS AND THE SANHEDRIN. (Palace of Caiaphas. Friday.) aMATT. XXVI. 57, 59-68; bMARK XIV. 53, 55-65; cLUKE XXII. 54, 63-65; dJOHN XVIII. 24.

d24 Annas therefore sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest. [Foiled in his attempted examination of Jesus, Annas sends him to trial.] band there come together with him all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes. a57 And they that had taken Jesus led him away to the house of Caiaphas the high priest, cand brought him into the high priest's house. awhere the scribes and the elders were gathered together. [It is very likely that Annas had apartments in the same palace with Caiaphas, and that from these apartments Jesus was led into some hall large enough to hold the Sanhedrin, which was now convened. But this was not its formal session as a court; it was more in the nature of a caucus, or committee of the whole.] b55 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought afalse witness against Jesus, bto athat they might put him to death; 60 and they found it not, though many false witnesses came. b56 For many bare false witness against him, and their witness agreed not together. aBut afterward came b57 And there stood up certain, atwo, band bare false witness against him, a61 and said, bsaying, aThis man said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. b58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands. 59 And not even so did their witness agree together. [What Jesus [696] had really said will be found at Joh_2:19-22. Though his words were misunderstood at that time, being applied, not to his body, but to Herod's temple, yet it is not unlikely that the Jewish rulers, hearing our Lord's prediction that he would rise from the dead after three days ( Mat_27:62, Mat_27:63), came to understand the import of his words. If so, the record itself shows the willingness of the Sanhedrin to receive false witnesses against Christ, for its judges received testimony which they knew to be utterly immaterial if rightly construed. The accounts of the two Evangelists, moreover, show how the witnesses failed to agree. A man could only be condemned on the testimony of two witnesses as to some fact or facts constituting a ground for condemnation-- Deu_17:6, Deu_19:15.] a62 And the high priest stood up, bin the midst, and asked Jesus, aand said unto him, bsaying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? a63 But Jesus held his peace. band answered nothing. [While the testimony then before the court might be used to show that Jesus was recklessly boastful, it was insufficient to justify a sentence of blasphemy. A threat to destroy the temple might be thus construed ( Jer_26:9-11, Act_6:13, Act_6:14); but a promise to rebuild the temple, if destroyed, was altogether different. The high priest, knowing this, sought to extort from Jesus some additional evidence. With great cunning and effrontery he assumes that the testimony is all that could be possibly desired, and demands of Jesus what he has to say in answer to it. But our Lord did not suffer himself to seem so easily deceived. He gave no explanation, since the future would explain his meaning, and speak the real truth to all who had ears to hear it.] aAnd bAgain the high priest asked him, and saith asaid unto him, bArt thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? aI adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God. [Seeing that Jesus was not to be lured into an answer, and well knowing his perfect frankness, Caiaphas resolved, in his desperation, to question Jesus plainly and [697] bluntly. His question is twofold: 1. Art thou Christ? 2. Art thou the Son of God? The latter of these would constitute blasphemy, and the former, by showing a boastful spirit, would tend to confirm the charge. Perhaps, too, Caiaphas anticipated the future, and foresaw how useful this claim to be the Messiah would prove when a hearing was had before Pilate ( Luk_23:2). Originally the Messiah was recognized as the Son of God ( Psa_2:7), but if the Jews had ever generally entertained such an idea, they had lost it before Jesus' day, The Messiah might of course be called the Son of God in that secondary sense in which Adam was thus called ( Joh_1:49, Luk_3:38). But Jesus had used the term in an entirely different sense, and his usage had been extremely offensive to the Jews ( Joh_5:17, Joh_5:18, Joh_10:30-39, Mat_22:41-46). Caiaphas evidently wished Jesus to answer this question in that new sense which the Lord had given to the words. Caiaphas had no legal right to ask either of these questions. No man can be compelled to testify against himself, but he knew the claims of Jesus, and realized that if Jesus repudiated them he would be shamed forever, and if he asserted them he could be charged with blasphemy. Taking advantage, therefore, of the situation, Caiaphas put the question with the usual formula of an oath, thus adding moral power to it, for, under ordinary circumstances, one was held guilty if he refused to answer when thus adjured ( Lev_5:1). When their own witnesses failed, these rulers called the "faithful witness"-- 1Ti_6:13, Rev_1:5.] b62 And Jesus said, asaith unto him, Thou hast said: bI am: and anevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on bwith the clouds of heaven. [Jesus freely confessed the truth which his church is called upon to confess. "Right hand of Power" was commonly understood to mean the right hand of God. By the words "nevertheless" and "henceforth" Jesus brings the present state of humiliation into contrast with his future state of glory. Hard as it might be for them to believe it, the day would come when he should [698] sit in judgment and they should stand on trial before him.] 63 And a65 Then the high priest rent his garments, bclothes, and saith, asaying, He hath spoken blasphemy: what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard the blasphemy: 66 what think ye? [Though Jesus had given the very answer which the high priest was longing to hear, yet he hypocritically pretends to be shocked at it, and rends his clothes and feigns horror. Evidently he feared the effect of the clear, calm answer of Jesus and sought to counteract its influence on his colleagues.] They answered and said, He is worthy of death. bAnd they all condemned him to be worthy of death. [This was not the final, formal sentence, but the mere determination of the council at the preliminary hearing.] c63 And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and beat him. b65 And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, a67 Then did they spit in his face and buffet him: c64 And they blindfolded him, aand some smote him with the palms of their hands, 68 saying, band [began] to say unto him,} aProphesy unto us, thou Christ: who is he that struck thee? band the officers received him with blows of their hands. c65 And many other things spake they against him, reviling him. [To spit in the face has been an insult in all ages and in all lands. See Num_12:14, Deu_25:9, Job_30:10. Jesus, having stood out for examination, is now given back to the officers to be led away into the council chamber. These officers received Jesus with many indignities. They seek to make his high claims contemptible, and to make it appear that instead of being divine he is hardly worthy to be regarded as human.] [699]

[FFG 696-699]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

53–65. They led Jesus away to the high priest. For Trial of Christ, see notes on Matt. 26:57–68. Compare Luke 22:63–71; John 18:13–27. Mark's account corresponds very closely with Matthew's.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

After the crowd of the chief priests, scribes, and elders lead Jesus to the high priest, Peter watches nearby while some stand to give false testimony against Jesus.

There were gathered with him all the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes

This can be reordered so that it is easier to understand. "All of the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes had gathered there together"

Now

This word is used here to mark a shift in the story line as the author begins telling us about Peter.

as far as the courtyard of the high priest

As Peter followed Jesus, he stopped at the high priest's courtyard. This can be written clearly. AT: "and he went as far as the courtyard of the high priest" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

He sat among the guards

Peter sat with the guards who were working at the courtyard. AT: "He sat in the courtyard among the guards" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

translationWords

Jesus

high priest

elder

scribe

Peter

court

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

53–65. THE TRIAL BEFORE THE HIGH-PRIEST

Mat 26:57-68. Luk 22:63-71. Cf. Joh 18:12-14; Joh 18:19-24

53. πρὸς τὸν ἀρχιερέα. Caiaphas, as Mt. states. Neither Mk nor Mt. mentions Annas, and Mk never names Caiaphas, but presumably in Mk “the high-priest” always means Caiaphas. Jn says that they took Jesus to Annas first. He had been high-priest A.D. 7–14, and had been deposed by Valerius Gratus, Pilate’s predecessor. But probably some Jews regarded him as the true high-priest, although his son-in-law Caiaphas acted as high-priest A.D. 18–36. They seem to have lived together in the same palace. See on Joh 18:13.

συνέρχονται. The Sanhedrin, with its three component sections, is ready to meet at once; and the three sections are mentioned separately, as if to show how representative the assembly was, and how widely spread was the responsibility. Late as the hour is, the witnesses are ready also. All has been carefully prepared. The Synoptists distinguish two ecclesiastical trials, an informal one during the night, when the chief business was transacted, and a formal one by daylight to confirm the proceedings. Nothing done in the night was valid.

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.

53-65.] Hearing before Caiaphas. Mat 26:57-68. (Luk 22:54, Luk 22:63-65.) Joh 18:24. See throughout notes on Matt.

53. ἀρχιερέα] Caiaphas, de facto, and in the view of our narrator;—so Matt. and Luke: but Jesus was first taken before Annas, who was de jure the high-priest: see Joh 18:12-23. It is not easy to interpret συνέρχονται αὐτῷ. Meyer, relying on the fact that the dative after συνέρχεσθαι is always one of companionship, maintains that αὐτῷ refers to our Lord—‘there come with him.’ And so Winer, Exo_6, § 31. 5 ad fin. But surely this is very precarious. For 1) St. Mark uses this verb once only besides here, and then absolutely. And there could be no difficulty in taking it thus here and applying αὐτῷ to the High-priest as a dative of direction. And 2) could it be said of one whom they ἀπήγαγον, that he ἔρχεται to the High-priest? I venture therefore to prefer the usual construction of the words, ‘there come together to him.’ The E. V. has ‘with him were assembled;’ and so Winer in former editions of his Grammar.

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

53-65. Jesus is carried before the Sanhedrim, who examine him in regard to his standing before Jewish law. This is necessary in order to vindicate their procedure as a national tribunal. But in this examination, they proceed as a prosecuting body, seeking testimony by which they may put him to death, instead of sitting as judges on the question of his guilt. They found, however, only false witness, and that not self-consistent, to the effect that he had threatened to destroy the temple built with hands, and to build another in three days, without hands. The first part of this was the only one containing any offensive matter, and that was false. The high priest then questioned Jesus in regard to this testimony, and Jesus by his silence implied that there was nothing to answer. Then the high priest asks him directly if he is the Messiah, which is the real question at issue. Jesus sees in this a question which he has no desire to evade, the matter about which he wants no mistake nor doubt, especially before the highest tribunal, and he answers, I am. He prophesies also that they will see the Son of Man occupying the position of Divine vicegerent, and exercising his authority here on earth. This is taken as convicting him of blasphemy out of his own mouth, and he is condemned guilty of this capital crime. Then they begin to abuse him, spitting on him, and casting ridicule on his prophetic claims by vailing his face, and then after buffeting him, saying, Prophesy, who struck you. Meantime, while this sorry business is going on, Peter, not wishing to identify himself with his Master, and yet unwilling to remain ignorant of his fate, seats himself in the court with the under-officers of the Sanhedrim.

53. τὸν ἀρχιερέα—the high priest, who was ex-officio the president of the Sanhedrim. Mt. gives us the name of the high priest, viz. Caiaphas.1 J. tells us of a preliminary examination before Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, for which the Synoptics leave no room, and with which it is difficult to keep the consistency of John’s account.2 οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς κ. οἱ πρεσβύτεροι κ. οἱ γραμματεῖς—These were the three classes composing the Sanhedrim. This trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrim as the judicial body of the nation, was to ascertain his guilt under the law of the land. Probably, that would not be enough to procure his condemnation before the Roman procurator, who would not be likely to put him to death except for some offence against the imperial government. But they knew that they would not be justified before the nation for procuring his death, unless they could find him guilty of some capital sin against the Jewish law. This meeting of the Sanhedrim must have been arranged in expectation of Jesus’ arrest.

Omit αὐτῷ, to him, after συνέρχονται, gather, Tisch. (Treg. marg.) WH. א DLΔ 13, 64, 69, 124, 346, Latt. Memph.

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