Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comJamieson Fausset Brown Commentary - Mark 14:54 - 14:54
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
And Peter followed him afar off, even into - or “from afar, even to the interior of.”
the palace of the high priest - “An oriental house,” says Robinson, “is usually built around a quadrangular interior court; into which there is a passage (sometimes arched) through the front part of the house, closed next the street by a heavy folding gate, with a smaller wicket for single persons, kept by a porter. The interior court, often paved or flagged, and open to the sky, is the hall, which our translators have rendered ‘palace,’ where the attendants made a fire; and the passage beneath the front of the house, from the street to this court, is the porch. The place where Jesus stood before the high priest may have been an open room, or place of audience on the ground floor, in the rear or on one side of the court; such rooms, open in front, being customary. It was close upon the court, for Jesus heard all that was going on around the fire, and turned and looked upon Peter (Luk 22:61).”
and he sat with the servants, and warmed himself at the fire - The graphic details, here omitted, are supplied in the other Gospels.
Joh 18:18 :
And the servants and officers stood there - that is, in the hall, within the quadrangle, open to the sky.
who had made a fire of coals - or charcoal (in a brazier probably).
for it was cold - John alone of all the Evangelists mentions the material, and the coldness of the night, as Webster and Wilkinson remark. The elevated situation of Jerusalem, observes Tholuck, renders it so cold about Easter as to make a watch fire at night indispensable.
And Peter stood with them and warmed himself - “He went in,” says Matthew (Mat 26:58), “and sat with the servants to see the end.” These two minute statements throw an interesting light on each other. His wishing to “see the end,” or issue of these proceedings, was what led him into the palace, for he evidently feared the worst. But once in, the serpent coil is drawn closer; it is a cold night, and why should not he take advantage of the fire as well as others? Besides, in the talk of the crowd about the all-engrossing topic he may pick up something which he would like to hear. Poor Peter! But now, let us leave him warming himself at the fire, and listening to the hum of talk about this strange case by which the subordinate officials, passing to and fro and crowding around the fire in this open court, would while away the time; and, following what appears the order of the Evangelical Narrative, let us turn to Peter’s Lord.
Jesus is interrogated by Annas - His dignified reply - Is treated with indignity by one of the officials - His meek rebuke (Joh 18:19-23).
We have seen that it is only the Fourth Evangelist who tells us that our Lord was sent to Annas first, overnight, until the Sanhedrim could be got together at earliest dawn. We have now, in the same Gospel, the deeply instructive scene that passed during this non-official interview.
Joh 18:19 :
The high priest - Annas.
then asked Jesus of His disciples and of His doctrine - probably to entrap Him into some statements which might be used against Him at the trial. From our Lord’s answer it would seem that “His disciples” were understood to be some secret party.
Joh 18:20.
Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world - compare Joh 7:4. He speaks of His public teaching as now a past thing - as now all over.
I ever taught in the synagogue and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort - courting publicity, though with sublime noiselessness.
and in secret have I said nothing - rather, “spake I nothing”; that is, nothing different from what He taught in public: all His private communications with the Twelve being but explanations and developments of His public teaching. (Compare Isa 45:19; Isa 48:16).
Joh 18:21 :
Why askest thou Me? ask them which heard Me what I have said to them - rather, “what I said unto them.”
behold, they know what I said - From this mode of replying, it is evident that our Lord saw the attempt to draw Him into self-crimination, and resented it by falling back upon the right of every accused party to have some charge laid against Him by competent witnesses.
Joh 18:22 :
And when He had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest Thou the high priest so? - (see Isa 50:6). It would seem from Act 23:2 that this summary and undignified way of punishment what was deemed insolence in the accused had the sanction even of the high priests themselves.
Joh 18:23 :
Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil - rather, “If I spoke evil,” in reply to the high priest.
bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou Me? - He does not say “if not evil,” as if His reply had been merely unobjectionable; but “if well,” which seems to challenge something altogether fitting in the remonstrance. He had addressed to the high priest. From our Lord’s procedure here, by the way, it is evident enough that His own precept in the Sermon on the Mount - that when smitten on the one cheek we are to turn to the smiter the other also (Mat 5:39) - is not to be taken to the letter.
Annas sends Jesus to Caiaphas (Joh 18:24).
Joh 18:24.
Now Annas had sent Him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest - On the meaning of this verse there is much diversity of opinion; and according as we understand it will be the conclusion we come to, whether there was but one hearing of our Lord before Annas and Caiaphas together, or whether, according to the view we have given above, there were two hearings - a preliminary and informal one before Annas, and a formal and official one before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrim. If our translators have given the right sense of the verse, there was but one hearing before Caiaphas; and then Joh 18:24 is to be read as a parenthesis, merely supplementing what was said in Joh 18:13. This is the view of Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Bengel, Deuteronomy Wette, Meyer, Lucke, Tholuck. But there are decided objections to this view. First: We cannot but think that the natural sense of the whole passage, embracing Joh 18:13, Joh 18:14, Joh 18:19-24, is that of a preliminary non-official hearing before “Annas first,” the particulars of which are accordingly recorded; and then of a transference of our Lord from Annas to Caiaphas. Second: On the other view, it is not easy to see why the Evangelist should not have inserted Joh 18:24 immediately after Joh 18:13; or rather, how he could well have done otherwise. As it stands, it is not only quite out of its proper place, but comes in most perplexingly. Whereas, if we take it as a simple statement of fact, that after Annas had finished his interview with Jesus, as recorded in Joh 18:19-23, he transferred Him to Caiaphas to be formally tried, all is clear and natural. Third: The pluperfect sense “had sent” is in the translation only; the sense of the original word being simply “sent.” And though there are cases where the aorist here used has the sense of an English pluperfect, this sense is not to be put upon it unless it be obvious and indisputable. Here that is so far from being the case, that the pluperfect “had sent” is rather an unwarrantable interpretation than a simple translation of the word; informing the reader that, according to the view of our translators, our Lord “had been” sent to Caiaphas before the interview just recorded by the Evangelist; whereas, if we translate the verse literally - “Annas sent Him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest” - we get just the information we expect, that Annas, having merely “precognosced” the prisoner, hoping to draw something out of Him, “sent Him to Caiaphas” to be formally tried before the proper tribunal. This is the view of Chrysostom and Augustine among the Fathers; and of the moderns, of Olshausen, Schleiermacher, Neander, Ebrard, Wieseler, Lange, Luthardt. This brings us back to the text of our second Gospel, and in it to