The high priest therefore demanded of Jesus concerning his disciples and concerning his doctrine.
Jesus has just been arrested in the garden. Now, in the high priest's house, the questioning begins before anyone has laid a charge — and commentators read it as a hunt for evidence, not a weighing of it.
They took Jesus to Annas first, and then on to Caiaphas. So which of the two asked these questions? Writers have long disagreed:
"The high priest": Augustine, Chrysostom, Alford, Ellicott and Luthardt take this to mean Annas (compare verses 13, 24); but Zahn, like most, takes it to mean Caiaphas.
If it was Annas, one writer explains why he questioned Jesus first, and why the Lord told him so little:
John tells us that Joseph Caiaphas, the high priest at the time of the Lord's death, was Annas's son-in-law. Annas was probably seen as a man with some experience in legal matters. That may explain this informal questioning, before they handed the Lord over to Caiaphas. The chief priests may also have hoped that Annas could get some admission from the Lord which would help toward His condemnation. But he was not high priest, so he had no authority, and the Lord did not go into matters with him. He had no real legal power in such a case.
The high priest had no evidence, and his questions show what he was after:
The question about His disciples and His teaching was meant to get something incriminating from His own lips. They wanted a basis for the death sentence they had already decided to pronounce. The other Gospels tell us that they looked for witnesses against Him and found none. That is why, when He pointed them to the witness of His hearers, they were so irritated that they struck our Lord.
They had already settled the verdict, so this was no trial at all:
Verse 19 shows that the Jews had no charge to lay against the Lord. This was not a trial, but an inquisition in which they were seeking to find an accusation.
The two questions carried a hint about Jesus. His reply takes it apart:
Such questions implied that the Lord was a secret plotter against the authorities. The blessed Lord refuses that implication. He reminds the high priest that He spoke openly to the world, and taught openly in public places. In secret He had said nothing.
His answer also sets Him apart from the men questioning Him:
He wanted grounds against the Lord... The Lord points to His open and constant testimony, but not to shield Himself. Others, unlike Him, might keep private circles and secret teaching — not to mention the darker plans behind deeds that avoided all light of day.
The high priest asked about the disciples. By that hour they had all run:
His disciples! Was the high priest afraid of them? Where were they?... His disciples had scattered like frightened rabbits at the first sign of danger. They were gone. The one who had boasted most about his loyalty to his Master had come back only to deny Him with oaths and curses, beside the kitchen fire with the court servants. His disciples could give the high priest no trouble. But His teaching! Ah, that was different. That ambitious Sadducee, a Jew who had turned away from his own faith, might well have trembled at His teaching. It was the complete condemnation of his life and his ways, and he knew it.
after_note: DELETE
The Lord sent them to the people who had heard Him teach. Their own law said the same thing — a case starts with witnesses, not with the accused:
The law required two or three witnesses to satisfy the court that there was a case to try. Their statement was the beginning of every proceeding. Until someone gave it publicly against a man, the law held him to be not merely innocent but unaccused... The law of the Jews also said, "Our law condemns no one to death upon his own confession," and "it is a basic principle with us that no one can damage himself by what he says in judgment."
- Question. The high priest asks about disciples and teaching — not to learn, but to find a charge, since none existed.
- Cover. The two questions hint that Jesus was a secret plotter; His answer is that He never had a private message at all.
- Witnesses. He does not defend Himself. He points to the people who heard Him teach. Under their law, a case had to start with witnesses, not with the accused.
- Illegality. Their own law condemned no one on his own confession. The question itself broke that law.
- Reversal. The prisoner has nothing to hide. The examiner is the one who should tremble at His teaching.
Jesus answered him, I spoke openly to the world; I taught always in [the] synagogue and in the temple, where all the Jews come together, and in secret I have spoken nothing.
Jesus stands bound before the high priest, who questions Him about His followers and His teaching. He answers by pointing to a ministry carried out in broad daylight, with nothing to hide.
The high priest's opening question was not neutral. Asking about disciples and doctrine carried a suggestion, and the Lord refused it.
The high priest asks Him of His disciples and of His doctrine. Such questions implied that the Lord was a secret plotter against the authorities. The blessed Lord refuses that suggestion. He reminds the high priest that He spoke openly to the world, and taught openly in public places. In secret He had said nothing.
The court had no case, so it tried to build one from the prisoner's own mouth.
They asked about His disciples and His teaching to get something incriminating from His own lips. They wanted a basis for the death sentence they had already decided to pass. The other Gospels tell us that they looked for witnesses against Him and found none. That is why, when He pointed them to the witness of His hearers, they were so annoyed that they struck our Lord.
He referred them to His hearers instead of answering. Their own law shows why.
The law required two or three witnesses to satisfy the court that there was a case to try. Their statement began every proceeding. Until it was given in public against a man, the law counted him not merely innocent but unaccused. ... Further, the law of the Jews was: "Our law condemns no one to death on his own confession." And: "It is a basic principle with us that no one can harm himself by what he says in judgment."
John's account gives no answer from Jesus about His doctrine at all — only a redirection.
In what follows, it seems to me, Jesus takes hardly any notice of the high priest. He does not give an account of His teaching to him, but refers him to those who had heard Him: what He had spoken was in public. In the other Gospels, we do see Jesus reply when they asked Him who He was. But here the high priest's authority disappeared.
The effect is that the judge finds himself judged.
These plain words rebuked the high priest's obvious lack of judicial sense. They made him feel that he stood under the judgment of the Son of God, and not the other way round.
Jesus named two places, and the original wording marks a difference between them.
It was not to screen Himself that the Lord points to His open and constant testimony. Others, unlike Him, might build private circles and give secret instructions. Some even made darker plans that stirred up deeds which avoided all light of day. ... "In synagogue," without the article, for there were many; "in the temple," with the article, for there was but one.
Kelly's note on the phrase points back to Isaiah.
"In secret I spoke nothing." See Isaiah 45:17-19, Isaiah 48:12-18. Notice that the Lord says nothing about His disciples.
There, God says the same about His own speech.
Jehovah, the Creator, had not spoken in secret. He did not tell the descendants of Jacob to seek Him in vain. He speaks righteousness.
Kelly noticed what is missing from the answer. Mawson draws out the situation behind it.
His disciples had scattered like frightened rabbits at the first sign of danger. They were gone. The one who had boasted most about his loyalty to his Master had come back only to deny Him with oaths and curses among the court servants by the kitchen fire. His disciples could give the high priest no trouble, but His doctrine! Ah, that was different. At His teaching that ambitious Sadducee, a Jew who had turned from the faith, might well have trembled. It condemned his whole life and ways, and he knew it.
Openness marks Christianity itself, and Jesus told His followers to live the same way.
The glory of Christianity is AN OPEN BIBLE. ... Our Lord tells us that there is nothing secret that shall not be revealed, and instructed His disciples: "What I tell you in the dark, say in the light, and what you hear whispered, proclaim on the housetops." (Matthew 10:27)
- Open question. The high priest's question hinted that Jesus was a secret plotter. It aimed to draw one self-incriminating word to back a sentence already decided.
- Open answer. He pointed to the synagogues (many) and the temple (one), where He always taught in public. He refused to accuse Himself, as their own law required.
- Open record. He sent the court to those who had heard Him, the witnesses their law demanded. The judge found himself standing under the judgment of the Son of God.
- Open God. Isaiah says the same of God. He has not spoken in secret, and He does not send seekers away empty.
- Open command. Jesus said nothing about the disciples who had fled. What He practised, He commanded: say in the light what you hear in the dark.
Why demandest thou of me? Demand of those who have heard, what I have spoken to them; behold, they know what I have said.
Late at night, Annas questions Jesus about His followers and His teaching, and Jesus points him to the people who heard Him. Was this a trial at all, or a hunt for something to convict Him with?
The examiner asked about two things: disciples and teaching. Neither question was neutral:
The question about His disciples and teaching aimed to get something incriminating from His own lips. It would be the basis for the death sentence they had already decided to pronounce. The other Gospels tell us that they looked for witnesses against Him and found none. That is why they were so annoyed when He pointed them to the witness of His hearers that they struck our Lord.
Part of the force of "Why do you ask me?" lies in who was asking:
It may be that the chief priests hoped Annas could get some admission out of the Lord that would help toward His condemnation. But since he was not high priest, and therefore had no authority, the Lord did not go into the matter with him. He had no real jurisdiction in such a case. "Why do you ask Me?" was the Lord's reply. "Ask those who have heard Me what I said to them; they know what I said." Who could find fault with that?
Jewish law required witnesses to speak first. It also barred a conviction built on the prisoner's own words:
Then the law required two or three witnesses to satisfy the court that there was a case to try. "Their sworn statement was the beginning of every proceeding. Until it was given in public against a man, the law held him not merely innocent but unaccused." … Further, the law of the Jews was, "Our law condemns no one to death upon his own confession," and "it is a basic principle with us that no one can damage himself by what he says in judgment."
So when Jesus sends them to His hearers, He is not dodging. He is asking them to begin where the law says a trial begins.
The question hinted that His teaching was something private, kept for insiders. His answer points the other way:
It was not to shield Himself that the Lord points to His open and constant testimony. Others, unlike Him, might build private circles and give secret instructions. They might also have darker plans, leading to deeds that hid from daylight. … It was true and right, and no one could answer it. The only reply was a brutal insult from a Jewish underling who could support the high priest in no other way.
Notice what the Lord passes over. He says nothing about the disciples:
His disciples! Was the high priest afraid of them? Where were they? … His disciples could give the high priest no trouble. But His teaching! Ah, that was different. That ambitious Sadducee, who had abandoned the faith, might well have trembled at His teaching. It was the utter condemnation of his life and ways, and he knew it. But why did he ask Jesus about His teaching? He had already had testimony about it, and from his own officers. They had been sent to arrest Him on an earlier day, and came back without Him, saying, "No one ever spoke like this man!"
The answer reverses the positions in the room. The prisoner exposes His judge:
The Lord answers in perfect truth, and in a fitting way. He had spoken openly to the world, teaching in the synagogues and in the temple. He had nothing to hide. So there is no reason why He should be on the defensive, trying to explain His teaching to the high priest. Others had heard it. If a witness was needed, He Himself was not the one to give it. … The high priest is made to feel that he is standing before the tribunal of the Son of God, and not the other way round.
- Open. He taught in public — in the synagogue and in the temple, nothing in secret. Witnesses were there for anyone willing to look.
- Unaccused. Their own law held a man not merely innocent but unaccused until witnesses spoke. It condemned no one on his own confession. The question itself broke both rules.
- Trap. They had searched for witnesses against Him and found none. So they wanted words from His own lips to justify a sentence already decided.
- Silence. They ask about His disciples and His teaching. He answers only about the teaching. The scattered disciples were no threat; the teaching was.
- Reversal. No one could answer the reply, so an officer answered it with a blow. The examiner ends up standing before the tribunal of the One he thought he was examining.
But as he said these things, one of the officers who stood by gave a blow on the face to Jesus, saying, Answerest thou the high priest thus?
Jesus has just answered the high priest's questions by pointing to His public teaching. Anyone in the room could check what He taught. What comes next is not a reply but a hand across the face — and a rebuke for the way He answered.
The men whose job was to keep order in the court were the ones who broke it.
No one could answer the Lord's reply. But as so often happens when there is no answer to an argument, the opposer falls back on insult and abuse. So the officers, whose job was to keep order, strike the Lord. The Lord meets these insults with righteous and fearless dignity.
The man who struck Him was an underling, and his motive was to prop up his superior.
The only reply was a brutal insult from a Jewish underling who would in this way support the high priest, since he could do nothing else.
The officer's outrage was on behalf of legal dignity, yet the room he stood in was itself lawless.
But at once a gross violation of justice occurs in the court, under the eyes of the high priest, who does not even reprimand it. An officer struck the Lord with the palm of his hand. He was irritated that the Lord had seen the high priest's breach of judicial order.
The officer's phrase assumes a court with real authority. The man questioning Jesus at this point was Annas, and one writer explains why the Lord gave him so little.
The Lord was first taken to Annas... But since he was not high priest, and therefore had no authority, the Lord did not go into matters with him. He had no real jurisdiction in such a case... One of the officers, however, struck the Lord with the palm of his hand. This was an indignity wholly undeserved.
His answer pointed at what the court had skipped: witnesses.
The whole court must have felt the power and justice of that rebuke, despite its excitement over its own injustice and its success so far. One of them, an officer, lost his head completely and struck Jesus with the palm of his hand. The quiet answer to that blow underlined how illegal the proceedings were without witnesses.
That calm covered more than His own feelings.
They rebuked Him and struck Him for answering, though His answering was an entirely righteous act. His calm reply shows how perfectly He was master of every feeling and of the whole situation.
Paul faced almost the same scene before another council and answered differently. That difference is used to mark what is unique about Christ.
He could righteously vindicate Himself in everything. He could even reprove His accuser and say, "If what I said is wrong, bear witness about the wrong; but if what I said is right, why do you strike Me?" But even Paul, in such a case, had to take back his word, and say, "I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest."
Jesus told His followers to turn the other cheek. Under this blow He did not.
"If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Of course we must be careful to understand these principles. This is not the spirit of defiance, for there can be real pride in that. It is non-resistance to evil. Look at the dignity of the Lord Jesus when they struck Him. He did not turn the other cheek. We must seek to understand the principle of the thing.
Commentators connect this treatment to an old prophecy of Israel's rejected King.
The rejection of the judge of Israel caused their long history of trouble, ending in the great tribulation. It is the Messiah, our Lord. They despised Him, insulted Him, struck Him with a rod on the cheek. He is called the judge of Israel, because the judge held the highest official position in Israel. They regarded a blow on the cheek as the greatest disgrace.
- The blow exposed them. When they could not answer His words, they used violence instead.
- The blow was itself the crime. A court set on guarding the high priest's honour struck an untried prisoner. The high priest said nothing.
- The blow met a title without authority. Annas was not the high priest, so the Lord did not argue His case with him.
- The blow drew out perfection. He did not hit back and He did not stay silent. He asked for evidence, master of every feeling — where even Paul had to take back his words.
- The blow rejected their King. They struck Israel's own Judge on the cheek — the deepest disgrace their world knew — and the nation's long history of trouble follows from that rejection.
Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?
Jesus has just told the high priest to ask the people who heard Him teach in public. An officer answers with a blow to the face, and Jesus replies with a question that puts the court itself on trial.
The men whose job was to keep order in the court were the ones who broke it.
The high priest has only to ask those who had heard Him, and they would bear witness to His teaching. No one could answer the Lord's reply. But, as so often when an argument has no answer, the opponent falls back on insult and abuse. So the officers, whose job was to keep order, strike the Lord. The Lord meets these insults with righteous and fearless dignity.
He was struck without any charge, so He asks for the one thing a court must produce: evidence.
An officer struck the Lord with the palm of his hand. He was annoyed that the Lord had seen through the high priest's breach of court procedure. But evil could not draw from the Lord of glory any resentful, bitter response. Instead He asks: if He had spoken evil, let the officer bear witness of the evil, which is the only proper procedure in court. But if He had spoken well, why this violence? Again, only the Lord acts with the calm, judicial fairness of a righteous judge.
The blow came after a rebuke the court could not shake off.
The whole court must have felt the power and justice of that rebuke, despite its excitement at its own injustice and its success so far. The Lord's quiet answer to that blow showed that a hearing without witnesses was illegal.
He can safely ask for evidence, because there is none to find.
The reply of Jesus was conclusive. There was no evil to which any could bear witness: no one could convince Him of sin.
Paul later stood before a high priest who ordered him struck. Even he did not answer like his Master.
Brought before the Council, the apostle begins by declaring his innocence. "And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth." This was violence, certainly. But it came from Paul's own self-justification, not from testimony borne to Christ. Paul replies with an insult, calling the high priest a "whitewashed wall." The man had deserved it, true. But such an answer did not show the meekness of Christ. When he is reproved, Paul owns his fault.
Some argue from this verse that Jesus did not keep His own teaching about not resisting evil. What happened to Him later that night answers them.
Some people pare down and whittle away His words. They are not ashamed to argue that He did not mean them literally. Their reason: when He was struck on the face for His answer to the high priest, He protested calmly while bowing to the insult. Was this paying evil back in its own coin? On the contrary, it was One who committed no sin, and no deceit was found in His mouth. When He was reviled, He did not revile in return. When He suffered, He did not threaten. In fact He offered far more than the other cheek. They spat in His face, beat Him, and struck Him with their hands with the utmost contempt. No! the Lord yielded to wrong instead of resisting it; and such is the true calling of the Christian.
He did rebuke the officer — but only with a question, and He said nothing about the rest.
But the Lord Jesus put His justified rebuke in the form of a mere question, and bore all other abuses silently. … As Christians, God has delivered us out of this present evil world, as Galatians 1:4 says. So we are not called to seek justice for ourselves. Of course, we must not drop our duty toward others if the authorities ask for it (as a witness in court, for example).
- Witness asked. Jesus taught in the open, so He sent His judges to the people who heard Him. The evidence was there for the asking.
- Witness refused. The officer had no answer, so he gave a blow instead. Insult is where opposition goes when the argument runs out.
- Witness demanded. His reply asks the court to name the wrong and prove it. That court was striking a man it could not charge.
- Witness impossible. No one could produce any evil, because there was none. The challenge still stands unanswered.
- Witness followed. He protested, bowed to the insult, and yielded to wrong instead of resisting it. That is the calling of those who follow Him.
Annas [then] had sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.
The verse records one movement. Annas has finished with his prisoner and passes Him on, still tied, to Caiaphas, the high priest. It raises two questions. Why did they take Jesus to a man who no longer held the office? And how much of the earlier questioning belongs to Annas, not Caiaphas?
Annas was not the high priest, but he was the high priest's father-in-law. That tie, and his reputation for judging cases, help explain the private hearing before the Lord went on to Caiaphas.
He belonged to the Sadducees. John tells us that Joseph Caiaphas, the high priest at the time of the Lord's death, was his son-in-law. People probably saw Annas as a man with experience in legal cases, and that may explain this informal questioning before they handed the Lord over to Caiaphas. The chief priests may also have hoped that Annas could get some admission out of the Lord to help toward His condemnation. But he was not high priest, and so he had no authority. The Lord did not discuss things with him. He had no real jurisdiction in a case like this.
Annas got nothing out of Him, and the next court was no better.
Annas is baffled, though he has not given up his malice, and he sends Him bound to Caiaphas. John takes no further notice of that trial. It was hardly a trial in form, and it was decided before it began.
Commentators differ over where verse 24 belongs. Some read the hearing of verses 19–23 as Annas's, so that our verse closes it:
The hearing before Annas continued till verse 24. The right translation there is, "Annas then sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest." Only John reports this hearing. He gives no account of the hearing before Caiaphas, as the other Gospels do. It may be that both of them were occupying the palace of the high priest. But it was Caiaphas who had urged the death of the Lord.
Others take the verse as a parenthesis dropped in to prevent a wrong assumption — that the questioning was Caiaphas's all along:
Verse 24 is meant parenthetically, to correct the hasty assumption that the first general questioning was before Annas, to whom Christ was led first; whereas it really was before Caiaphas, to whom Annas sent Him "bound," though it may probably have been only across the same courtyard.
Others place that hearing before Caiaphas, and some manuscripts even moved the verse:
Most commentators think this verse should come between verses 13 and 14. Some Greek and Syriac manuscripts put it there, and Cyril of Alexandria read it that way. They hold that the questioning and the striking took place before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin. Other writers think John describes only the informal hearing before Annas, and so passes over the trial by Caiaphas.
The one detail John insists on is the rope. It was not strength that failed.
Only think of the blessed Lord being bound! They had bound Him before, and it seems they had untied that bond. Now they bind Him again. When they bound Samson, how easily he broke the cords! How much easier for our blessed Lord to do so! But no; the hour had come, and He was going to the cross to secure eternal salvation for you and me.
The next court had more than ropes waiting for Him.
They take Him, and bind Him fast. One Gospel says, "Annas then sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest." Annas mocks Him, and sends Him to his son-in-law, Caiaphas. There He is jeered at, mocked, spat on, and struck with rods... That is what man will do to Jesus, the Son of God... He bears it all in patient grace.
Two men shared the title in one night, and both wanted the same verdict. That is the state Israel's priesthood had reached.
Here, then, we see what the earthly priesthood is like according to the mind of God. It is not what the history of failing Israel shows. That history ends with two wicked men filling the place of high priest at the same time, plotting together to crucify their Messiah.
John sets the sending of Jesus and the denial of Peter side by side.
But the only one in this terrible scene who really loved and knew the Lord takes the lowest place of all. Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas, and Peter warmed himself while he denied his Lord; for the moment, he was morally one of them. Peter and Judas, apostles; Pilate and Herod, Gentile rulers; Annas and Caiaphas, high priests. Never was there such a company before.
- Bound — the ropes held Him because He allowed it. He could have snapped them as easily as Samson snapped his cords. But He was going to the cross.
- Bound to a man without authority — Annas was no longer high priest and had no real jurisdiction. So the Lord gave him nothing, and the hearing settled nothing.
- Bound to a verdict already fixed — Annas got nowhere, so he passed Him on to Caiaphas. That trial was decided before it began.
- Bound by a ruined priesthood — Israel's priesthood ends with two men in one office at once. They agreed on one thing: they wanted their Messiah dead.
- Bound while a friend denied Him — Jesus goes from court to court. Peter stands warming himself, and for that moment he belongs with the crowd, not with his Lord.
But Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said therefore to him, Art thou also of his disciples? He denied, and said, I am not.
Peter's second denial happens while the high priest questions the Lord indoors. John sets the two scenes side by side, and they raise a hard question: how does a man who loves Christ deny Him out loud?
The wording here points to several accusers at once, and Matthew's account fills in Peter's movements.
The second denial took place as Peter stood and warmed himself. It is clear that more than one person came at him at once, because the statement is, "So they said to him." Matthew leads us to judge that after the first denial Simon had moved away from the fire and gone to the porch, where another person saw him. It seems that many different enemies attacked the apostle and followed him about the court. The answers he gave to these attacks are much the same each time, though the wording varies.
Where Peter stood matters as much as what he said.
You well know the sad details that led up to his open denial of his Lord. He slept in the garden. He followed far behind. He sat down in the judgment hall to warm himself at a fire lit by Christ's enemies. Let us beware of fires, of warmth and comfort and pleasure, created by the enemies of the Lord Jesus. How many young Christians have forgotten this, and paid dearly for it. Peter identified himself with the world. He is now ashamed to identify himself with a rejected Master.
The denial did not begin at the fire.
The high priest presses on with his questions; Peter repeats his sin. He had slept when he should have watched and prayed. He had walked into the place of temptation instead of listening to the Lord's warning. ... Bad company corrupts good habits. Confessing Jesus in front of friends is very different from confessing Him in front of bloodthirsty enemies. Peter would not have failed like this before others if he had not already failed with his Master.
The scene shifts from the Master to the servant, and the contrast is the lesson.
The scene changes again. In sharp contrast to the Master, we see how the poor servant does when he is tested. The Lord stands bound before His enemies. Peter stands free among the Lord's enemies, warming himself. ... Like Peter, we have the flesh in us and the devil against us. We have to learn that nothing will keep us from denying the Lord under the stress of fear: no love for Him however real, no knowledge of Scripture however great, no good intentions however honest, no experiences however deep, no gift however great, not even the divine life we have. Only being kept near to the Lord, and strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, will hold us up.
Scripture records this failure rather than hiding it.
It is worth noting that this is one of the few episodes recorded by all four Gospel writers. God does not take pleasure in recording the sins of His saints. So we may be sure that this record carries warning and instruction that all saints in all ages badly need. Self-confidence is one of the most common and deep-seated tendencies of the flesh. If we do not judge it and refuse it, it always leads to disaster.
While Peter said "I am not," the Lord had already prayed for him.
May we remember, for our great comfort, that even before we slip, He has been pleading for us, as He pleaded for Peter. "I have prayed for you," said the loving One, "that your faith may not fail." He did not pray that Peter would not fall. He prayed that, after the fall, Peter's confidence would not give way and his faith would not fail. He pleads for us in the same way. That is how He holds us up, and how He restores us when we fall.
Peter's story does not end at the enemy's fire.
His fall happened while he was warming himself at the world's fire, among the servants of the high priest, who was completely hostile to his Master. Now he finds himself beside a fire his Lord had lit. There the Lord not only warms him but feeds him, and he sits among fellow servants as devoted to his Master as he is.
- Steps first. The denial was the end of a road — sleeping instead of praying, then walking into the place of temptation.
- Fire chosen. Peter got warm at a fire lit by his Master's enemies, and took his place among them as though he were one of them.
- Crowd pressing. "They said" points to several accusers at once, chasing him round the courtyard. The wrong fire brings the wrong questions.
- Contrast set. The Lord stands bound before His enemies; Peter stands free among them and denies Him. No love, gift, or experience keeps us standing except nearness to Christ.
- Fire restored. Christ prayed not that Peter would not fall, but that his faith would hold. Later He met Peter again at a fire He had lit Himself.
One of the bondmen of the high priest, who was kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, says, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?
This question comes from a man with a personal reason to remember Peter's face. He is a relative of the servant Peter wounded in the garden. The words are not a guess. An eyewitness has identified him. That raises the hardest question of the scene: how can a disciple who drew a sword for his Master now deny knowing Him?
The earlier challenges came from a servant girl and a group at the fire. This one came from a man who had watched the sword fall.
Yet one of the group said, "Didn't I see you in the garden with Him?" What a direct hit, and how deeply it must have cut! And who made it? Strangely enough, it was "his relative whose ear Peter cut off" (v. 26). His relative had seen the blow given, and now recognised the man who gave it. Here we have an eyewitness to Peter's mistaken zeal and murderous behaviour.
Peter thought the sword proved his devotion. It gave him away instead.
They said to Him, "Lord, shall we strike with the sword?" Without waiting for His reply, one of them struck the servant of the high priest. It was Peter who did it, and that was the very action that exposed him. … Possibly Peter thought he was very devoted, and that he was doing a fine thing. What we need is to get the word from the Lord.
By the time the question came, Peter's collapse was already prepared. Commentators trace it back to the garden — not to the sword, but to the sleeping.
The high priest continues his investigation; Peter repeats his sin. And no wonder. He had slept when he should have watched and prayed. He had walked into the place of temptation instead of heeding the Lord's warning. … Confessing Jesus among friends is very different from confessing Him before bloodthirsty enemies. Peter had to learn by painful experience what he was too unspiritual to grasp from the words of Christ. … Peter would not have failed like this before men if he had not first failed with his Master.
Peter had real love for Christ, years of teaching, and a place among the closest disciples. None of it held.
Like Peter, we have the flesh in us and the devil against us. And we have to learn what will not keep us from denying the Lord under the pressure of fear. No love for the Lord, however real. No knowledge of Scripture, however great. No good intentions, however honest. No experiences, however deep. No gift, however great. No divine life that we have. None of these will keep us — unless we are kept near to the Lord, and strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.
The eyewitness did not turn up by chance.
What fear of man, bringing a snare! What blinding power of the enemy, to involve a saint in direct and daring falsehood! And this to shame the One who was his life and salvation! But what is the heart not capable of when the Lord is not before it? But God took care that this dread of man, which dishonoured Him, should cover the guilty disciple with self-reproach and contempt and utter humiliation. It happened when an eyewitness could brand him before everyone with his repeated lying denial of his Master.
There was more to see in that garden than a sword blow.
But did the relative, so quick to incriminate Peter, as quickly tell of the healing touch of Jesus? Did he tell how the Master more than put the disciple's fault right, and did it swiftly, thoroughly and gently? This was the very Master whom Peter was now so heartlessly denying. We are not told.
All four Gospel writers record Peter's fall. That is deliberate.
God does not take pleasure in recording the sins of His saints. So we can be sure there is warning and instruction here that all saints in all ages badly need. Self-confidence is one of the commonest and most deep-seated tendencies of the flesh. If we do not judge it and refuse it, it always leads to disaster.
- Garden first. Peter slept when he should have prayed. The courtyard only showed what the garden had already produced.
- Garden returns. The sword blow he thought proved his devotion gave the one witness who could name him.
- Garden exposed. Kelly sees God's hand in sending an eyewitness. Fear of man ended in deep self-reproach, not in a lie left standing.
- Garden healed. The accuser reported a wound. He could also have reported a healed ear, for the Master Peter denied had already put his mistake right.
- Garden warning. Love, knowledge, gift and good intentions did not keep Peter. Only nearness to the Lord, and His grace, keeps us.
Peter denied therefore again, and immediately [the] cock crew.
Peter denies his Master a third time, and a rooster crows. That sound closes this Gospel's account of his fall, and it raises the question the writers press: how did a man who loved the Lord get here?
One writer sets the two scenes in the high priest's house side by side.
How painful the contrast — the Lord before the high priest, and the disciple warming himself with the slaves! More than one attacked him with the crucial question: "You also are not one of His disciples, are you?" Again the fear of man won: the one who truly believed in Him did not confess, but denied it and said, "I am not." And that was not all. A servant of the high priest spoke up, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off. He said, "Did I not see you in the garden with Him?" Peter again denied it, and at once a rooster crowed. What blinding power the enemy has, to draw a saint into direct and daring falsehood, and this to shame Him who was his life and salvation!
Peter did not collapse in one moment. His fall came in stages.
It is very dangerous for a Christian to sit down among the enemies of Christ. The fact that he does it proves that decline has set in and has gone a long way. In Peter's case the stages of decline are clear. First, boasting in his own strength. Second, sleeping when he should have been praying. Third, drawing his sword when he should have been bowing his head in meekness. Fourth, following at a distance. Fifth, making himself comfortable among the open enemies of Christ.
Another writer draws a rule for anyone serving the Lord.
Success in the Lord's work guarantees no security at all. If the Lord is using you in His service, you can be sure Satan is set on sifting you. So the only safe path is to keep as near to the Lord as we can. We must stay as far as possible from all that smells of the world, and from the heat given off at its "fire of coals."
There is a reason Peter's failure was written down at all.
God does not take pleasure in recording the sins of His saints. So we may be sure there is warning and instruction here, much needed by saints in every age. Self-confidence is one of the commonest and deepest tendencies of the flesh. If it is not judged and refused, it always leads to disaster.
Peter's problem was not that he loved Christ too little.
Like Peter, we have the flesh in us and the devil against us. And we have to learn this. No love for the Lord, however real, no knowledge of Scripture, however great, no good intentions, however honest, no experiences, however deep, no gift, however great, no divine life that we have, will keep us from denying the Lord under the pressure of fear — unless we are kept near to the Lord, and strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.
One writer names the one thing that turns a fallen believer around.
It is always the word of the Lord that produces real repentance, whether in a saint or a sinner. It is not human feeling, nor shame, nor the fear of being found out — it is the word that Jesus spoke, working within. The word of the Lord does two things: it convicts and it heals.
The timing of the sound carries its own message.
At the darkest hour, the crowing of the rooster announces the coming of morning. Peter's tears are the first signs of a new day for him.
This Gospel never mentions the Lord's look or Peter's weeping. One writer sees purpose in that, not a gap.
Notice what this Gospel leaves out. It does not give the Lord's earlier prayer for Peter, or His assurance that Peter would be restored. It does not give His turning and looking at Peter after that last denial, when Peter remembered the word of the Lord, went out and wept bitterly. Those are set down plainly in the one Gospel whose character they suit and sustain. Here everything turns on the Person of Christ as the one central object, not on the discovery of what man's heart is, or on the grace of the Lord.
Peter's restoration comes later, at another fire.
Peter fell while he was warming himself at the world's fire. He was in the company of the servants of the high priest, a man completely hostile to his Master. Now he finds himself at a fire his Lord had kindled, where the Lord both warms and feeds him. Three times Peter had been tested, and each time he denied his Lord more strongly. Three times now the Lord probes Peter's conscience and heart.
- Wrong fire. Peter's third denial comes where his decline was always heading — warm and comfortable among the enemies of Christ.
- Wrong confidence. Love, gift, knowledge and experience keep no one standing. Only staying near the Lord does.
- Right word. The word of the Lord — not shame or exposure — is what produces real repentance, and it both convicts and heals.
- Right timing. The sound comes at the darkest hour and announces morning; Peter's tears are the first light of it.
- Right fire. Peter fell at the world's fire. The Lord restored him at His own fire, asking three times where Peter had denied three times.
They lead therefore Jesus from Caiaphas to the praetorium; and it was early morn. And *they* entered not into the praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but eat the passover.
At daybreak, Israel's leaders march Jesus from the high priest's house to the Roman governor's door, and then stop outside. They will not go in: a Gentile building would make them unclean and cost them the Passover meal.
Older Bibles call the building they would not enter the judgment hall. The ESV calls it "the governor's headquarters."
The word is praetorium, as it is translated in Mark 15:16. It was the official residence of Pilate the governor in Jerusalem. John 18:28, 33; John 19:9; Acts 23:35... Other Bibles translate it 'common hall' in Matt. 27:27, and 'hall of judgement' in John 18:28.
Because the accusers stayed outside, the trial ran in two places at once, and the prisoner paid for it.
We are following the footsteps of our lowly suffering Lord from Gethsemane to Golgotha, as John records them. We must feel how the terrible hypocrisy of the Jews increased His sufferings and multiplied His sorrows. They would not enter the judgment hall, so that they would not be defiled and could eat the Passover. They kept their ceremonial law down to the last detail, and yet howled like unclean dogs for their prey. So the bewildered Pilate, hoping to find a way out, rushed the Lord Jesus in and out of the judgment hall again and again.
A man can be strict about a rule and still be blind to right and wrong.
What terrible blindness was theirs! They did not want to defile themselves, so that they could eat the Passover (v. 28). At that very moment they were handing over the true Passover Lamb to be sacrificed. Scruples are not conscience. We must not go against our scruples, if we have them, but conscience looks to God and to His word. Conscience did not stop the Jews from buying the blood of Jesus for thirty pieces of silver. But a scruple did stop them from putting the money Judas threw back into God's treasury in the temple, because it was the price of blood.
They kept clear of the building while sending an innocent man into it. Jesus had already told them where uncleanness starts.
They would not enter the judgment hall themselves, because their religion counted this a defiling thing. Yet they required the Lord Jesus to go in. They would stay outside and shout for the death of the innocent victim! They knew that eating the Passover allowed no outward defilement. But the Lord had told them that the evil coming out of their own hearts is what defiled them (Matt. 15:11). They had tried to avoid taking Him on the feast day (Matt. 26:5). But God had decreed that the Lord Jesus should be sacrificed on the day of the Passover. This was the day Judas found convenient to betray Him.
Their zeal never rested, and it was aimed at a death they did not understand.
Late and early they were at work, from one high priest to another, pushing on to the Roman governor. Bent on the blood of the Messiah, they would not enter the praetorium; they must not be defiled, since they would eat the Passover and had not yet done so (verse 28). They little thought that they were only bringing about the death of the true Passover Lamb. In guilty unbelief they were fulfilling what the law said, to their own destruction, whatever God's purpose in His death.
It is morning, yet the Passover meal is still ahead of them. One writer explains this by the scale of the feast.
Huge numbers gathered at the appointed place, Jerusalem, and there were only ten to twenty people to each lamb. So the number of Passover lambs must have been very great... The Passover also took a long time, so most of the night would pass before all had eaten it... So it appears they returned to finish the Passover by eating the lamb at the very hour they handed Jesus over to the Gentile power to be tried and killed.
Once Jesus crosses that threshold, the case leaves Jewish hands, and a second party is exposed.
The coming of Christ is the last and great test for man. It was seen when Jew and Gentile united in denying and rejecting the Lord. The one hated Him and shouted for His death; the other was indifferent, handing Him over to death while finding no fault in Him. What a scene! Jewish hatred and Gentile indifference combined, and Jesus, the Holy One, is led out to death. The Gentile was only a little less guilty than the Jew. Pilate washed his hands for nothing.
- Place — the praetorium was the Roman governor's official home in Jerusalem. Because the accusers would not enter it, Pilate ran the trial inside and out, moving the Lord back and forth.
- Scruple — a scruple fears breaking a rule; conscience looks to God and His word. The same men who bought blood with silver would not put that silver into the temple treasury.
- Defilement — they feared a doorway and missed the heart. Jesus had taught that what comes out of a man is what defiles him.
- Lamb — they guarded their right to eat the Passover while handing over the true Passover Lamb. They meant murder; God meant sacrifice.
- Verdict — Jewish hatred met Gentile indifference at that door. Pilate washed his hands, and it cleaned nothing.