Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - John 18:1 - 18:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
The Arrest of Jesus in the Garden (18:1-11)
18:1. τῦαεπν As soon as the Prayer of Consecration was ended (see Introd., p. xx), Jesus and His disciples left the upper room, and went out, ἐῆθνperhaps implying (as was in fact the case) that they went outside the city.
σντῖ μθτῖ ατῦ sc. with the faithful Eleven (see on 2:2). This is one of the very rare occurrences of σνin Jn. (see on 12:2), and it is exchanged for μτ within a couple of lines, μτ τνμθτνατῦ(v. 2).
πρντῦχιάρυτῦΚδω. The Kedron gorge between Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives rarely has any water in it. It is called χίαρςby Josephus as well as in the LXX (Neh_2:15, Neh_2:1 Macc. 12:37), but it is nearly always dry, except after very heavy Rev_1 The modern name is Wā Sitti Maryam.
The majority of texts (אΘ give τνκδω; א have τῦκδο; and AΔc e f g q vg. give τῦκδω This last, despite the weakness of the MS. support, we take to be the true reading (as the Syriac vss. suggest), and that from which both the others have originated, owing to misunderstanding on the part of scribes. For κδω is the transliteration of the Hebrew קדרֹ, dark, the name as applied to a torrent being perhaps equivalent to our Blackwater. Josephus treats it as a declinable noun in the nom. case. Twice in the LXX (2Sa_15:23, 1Ki_15:13) we find τνκδω after χίαρς the word being taken as a gen. pl., and the rendering of the phrase being “the ravine (or torrent) of the cedar trees.” It is said that at the time cedars grew on the Mount of Olives, and some may have been as low as the wā at its base. But it is not likely that the ravine was called Kidron on that account. A Greek scribe, finding τῦκδω in his exemplar, would naturally take κδω as the gen. pl. of κδο, and would correct it either to τῦκδο or to τνκδω.2
The reading has been much discussed, because assuming τνκδω to have been the original reading, it has been argued that the evangelist was but ill acquainted with Hebrew names, if he supposed that Kidron meant “of the cedars.” But, as the LXX shows in the passages cited above, χίαρςτνκδω was treated as a correct rendering of נלקרן and it might have been adopted by Jn. as the title familiar to Greek ears. We hold, however, that it is not the original reading in this verse, so that the argument based on it is worthless.
ὅο ἦ κπς Jn. does not give the name Gethsemane,3 nor does Lk.; Mar_14:32, Mat_26:36 have χρο (i.e. a farm or small property) ο τ ὄοαΓθηαε. Jn. alone speaks of it as κπς i.e. it was one of the private gardens in the eastern outskirts of Jerusalem (cf. 19:41 for the garden of Joseph). The word κπςis common in the LXX, but in the N.T. is found only here, at v. 26, 19:41 (cf. 20:15), and Luk_13:19. For ἦ, see on 11:18.
εςὃ εσλε, the verb showing that it was an enclosed place. The site that is now shown was recognised as the Garden of the Agony in the fourth century at any rate, and it is quite possible that tradition accurately preserved its position from the beginning.
Jn. does not insert at this point any account of the Agony in Gethsemane, as the Synoptists do (Mar_14:32f., Mat_26:36f., Luk_22:39f.); but the allusion to “the cup which the Father gave” (v. 11, where see note) indicates that the omission was not due to ignorance. We have seen (on 12:27) that the prayer there recorded is virtually the prayer of anguish at Gethsemane.
It has been suggested, indeed, that the Prayer of the Agony, if it followed here, would be inconsistent with the Prayer of Consecration and Farewell that Jn. has just placed on record; so different are the sublime calm and dignity of c. 17 from the sadness and shrinking of “remove this cup from me—yet not what I will, but what Thou wilt” (Mar_14:36). But such a criticism would be at variance with the facts of human experience, in which the moments of greatest spiritual depression and trial often follow close on moods of the highest spiritual exaltation. And it may have been so with the Son of Man Himself.
2. ᾔε δ κὶἸύα. The garden was a favourite resort of Jesus and His disciples (πλάι σνχη and probably belonged to a friend. It is specially mentioned by Jn. that Judas knew the place. Jesus was not now trying to escape arrest (cf. 10:40), for Jn. is anxious to indicate that His surrender to His captors was voluntary. Jesus had told Judas to delay no longer the execution of his purpose (13:27), and He proceeded the same night to a place where Judas knew that He was accustomed to resort.
ὁπρδδὺ ατν the pres. tense indicating that Judas was then engaged in the business of the betrayal. Cf. 13:11.
τντπν Cf. Luk_22:40.
πλάι, only here in Jn. Jesus went to the garden, as His custom was (κτ τ ἔο, Luk_22:39), and probably not only on this last visit to Jerusalem. σνχηtells only that this was a place of habitual resort of Jesus and His disciples, but possibly they may have slept there occasionally. (Cf. Luk_21:37, τςδ νκα ἐεχμνςηλζτ εςτ ὄο τ κλύεο Ἐαῶ.) If this be so, the sleep of the apostles in the garden during the hour preceding the arrest was natural indeed, although they had been bidden to keep awake.
3. The Synoptists say nothing about soldiers taking part in the arrest of Jesus, and mention only the emissaries of the Sanhedrim (Mar_14:43, Luk_22:52 stating that members of the Sanhedrim were themselves in the crowd). Jn. mentions these latter (ἐ τνἀχεένκὶἐ τνΦρσίνὑηέα) in the same terms that he has done before when telling of a projected arrest (7:32, where see the note for the constitution and authority of the Sanhedrim); but he adds here that Judas had brought with him also a detachment of soldiers (τνσερν
Troops were always quartered in Fort Antonia, at festival seasons when the city was crowded, to be ready in case of a riot; and a representation from the Sanhedrim to the military authorities that soldiers might be needed to help the Temple guard (ὑηέα: cf. 7:32) would naturally have been acted on. Pilate, the procurator, seems to have known that something important was taking place that night, for he was ready at an early hour in the morning to hear the case (v. 28; cf. Mat_27:19, for the dream of Pilate’s wife). There is nothing improbable in Jn.’s statement that soldiers were present at the arrest.
The term σερ (if the soldiers were legionaries) was generally equivalent to the Latin cohors, which numbered 600 men. Polybius, indeed, uses it (xi. 23. 1) for manipulus, which is only one-third of a cohort. But here (if, as is probable, they were auxiliaries) and in the N.T. elsewhere (see esp. Act_21:31) it numbered 1000 men (240 horse and 760 foot), commanded by a chiliarch (cf. v. 12 below), a tribunus militum. It is not, however, to be supposed that Jn. means that the whole strength of the regiment (cf. Mar_15:16) was turned out to aid in the arrest of Jesus; the words λβντνσερνindicate no more than that Judas had got the help of “the cohort,” i.e. a detachment, with whom the commanding officer of the garrison came (v. 12), in view of possible developments.
Fam. 13 insert ὅη before τνσερν(probably from Mar_15:16), which shows that the scribe of the common exemplar thought that τνσερνwas not sufficiently definite.
κὶἐ τνἀχεένκὶἐ τνφρσίνὑηέα, i.e. officers of the Sanhedrim (see on 7:32 for ο ἀχ κὶο Φρς as indicating the Sanhedrim in its official capacity). For ὑηέα, cf. 18:12, 22, 19:6 and Mat_26:58; they were the Temple police, under the control of the Sanhedrim.
μτ φννκὶλμάω. It was the time of the Paschal full moon, but lights were brought, nevertheless, to search out the dark recesses of the garden, in case Jesus should attempt to hide Himself.
φνς(ἅ. λγ in N.T.) is a “link” or “torch,” made of strips of wood fastened together, and λμά is an ordinary torch-light, the word being used in later Greek for a lantern. Both were carried by Roman soldiers on duty; cf. Dion. Hal. xi. 5, ἐέρχνἅατςἐ τνσηῶ ἀρο, φνὺ ἔοτςκὶλμάα.1 Lights also were carried, when necessary, by the Temple guard; thus Lightfoot (on Luk_22:4) quotes: “The ruler of the mountain of the Temple takes his walks through every watch with torches lighted before him” (Middoth i. 2).
κὶὅλν The Temple guard was not always armed (Joseph. B.J., iv. 4. 6), but on this occasion they probably carried weapons as well as the soldiers. Mar_14:43 speaks of a crowd with swords and staves (ὄλςμτ μχιῶ κὶξλν who had been sent by the Sanhedrim.
4. Ἰσῦ ον א have δ for ον
εδς Cf. 13:1. Jn. is at every point careful to insist that Jesus foreknew the issues of His ministry, πνατ ἐχμν ἐʼατν “everything that was coming upon Him.”
ἐῆθν “went out,” sc. of the garden into which He had entered, εσλε (v. 1). The rec. text with אΘhas ἐεθνεπν but ἐῆθνκὶλγι(BC*D) is more in the style of Jn. (see on 1:50).
κὶλγιατῖ. He does not address Himself directly to Judas, but to those who had come, armed, to arrest Him, and He asks Τν ζτῖε Cf. 1:38, 20:15.
In the Synoptic narratives (Mar_14:45, Mat_26:49, Luk_22:47) Judas comes forward and identifies Jesus by a kiss, that is, by kissing His hand, the recognised salutation from a disciple to His Master (not by kissing His cheek, as Western painters have been accustomed to depict the act). Jn. does not mention this treacherous sign, and his omission to do so is a difficulty in the way of critics who think that Jn. displays special animus against Judas (see on 12:6). His reason for the omission is probably that he is laying stress throughout on the voluntariness of Jesus’ acceptance of arrest. Jesus does not wait to be identified by any one, for He at once announces who He is. Jn.’s narrative seems to suggest that He had not been recognised in the uncertain light, even after He came out of the garden and asked, “Whom seek ye?” Tatian places the kiss of Judas immediately before v. 4, i.e. before Jesus came out of the garden; and if it is sought to bring the evangelical narratives into exact correspondence, Tatian’s solution may be the right one.1
Jn. says (v. 5) that “Judas, who was in the act of delivering Him up” (ὁπρδδὺ ατν cf. 13:2), was standing (εσήε) with those who were making the arrest. Judas had done his part when he had guided the emissaries of the Sanhedrim to the place where Jesus was. The scene is described very vividly.
5. ἀερ ατ Ἰσῦ τνΝζρῖν “Jesus the Nazarene,” or “Jesus of Nazareth,” was the name by which He had been popularly known. The blind man was told that it was “Jesus of Nazareth” who was passing by (Mar_10:47, Luk_18:37). The man with the unclean devil addressed Him as “Thou Jesus of Nazareth” (Luk_4:34). The two disciples on the way to Emmaus spoke of Him thus (Luk_24:19). So did Peter in his sermon at Pentecost (Act_2:22). In Mk.’s account of the Resurrection, the young man at the sepulchre says to the women, “Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth” (Mar_16:6). After His arrest, He was familiarly described in this way by the maid in the court of the high priest (Mar_14:67, Mat_26:71). It is clear that the instructions given to those sent to apprehend Him were that they should take “Jesus of Nazareth.” They inquired for Him by the designation by which He was best known. See 19:19.
Jn.’s narrative indicates, as has been said above, that Jesus identified Himself voluntarily, by saying, “I am He,” in answer to the request for “Jesus of Nazareth.” And ἐώεμ in v. 5 may mean simply, “I am He of whom you are in search” (cf. 4:26, 9:9). The reading of B ἐώεμ Ἰσῦ must carry this meaning.
6. The words which follow, “they retired and fell to the ground,” then, imply no more than that the men who came to make the arrest (some of whom at least did not previously know Jesus even by sight) were so overcome by His moral ascendancy that they recoiled in fear. (For the Johannine ὡ ον see on 4:40.) On a previous occasion (7:44), when some wished to arrest Him, they had faltered and failed to do so. It may have been a similar shrinking which caused some now to recoil from their distasteful task, and in the confusion they, or some of the crowd, stumbled and fell. Indeed, ἔεα χμίmight be taken figuratively, as expressing discomfiture only. Thus in Psa_27:2, Isa_8:15, Jer_46:6, “stumbled and fell” means no more than that enemies were “overthrown”; and ἔεα χμίmight be rendered in colloquial English “were floored.”
There is no hint in the Synoptists of any hesitancy on the part of those sent to make the arrest. The phrases ἀῆθνεςτ ὀίω(cf. 6:66) and ἔεα χμί(χμίis only found again in the N.T. at 9:6) are peculiar to Jn. And it has been suggested (e.g. by W. Bauer) that Jn. means us to understand that ἐώεμ, as used by Jesus on this occasion, is the equivalent of the mysterious אניהּ, I (am) He, which is the self- designation of Yahweh in the prophetical books (cf. 8:58, 13:19 above, and Introd., pp. cxxvii ff.); and that so awful a claim overwhelmed with terror those who heard it made (cf. Dan_10:9, Rev_1:17). But this is too subtle a rendering of the Johannine narrative of the arrest. Cf. Rev_1:17.
In the Gospel of Peter, §5, where the darkness at the Crucifixion is described, we have πρήχνοδ πλο μτ λχω, νμζνε ὅινξἐτν [τνςδ] ἐέατ. This seems to be a reminiscence of Joh_18:3, Joh_18:6; cf. also Acta Thomœ §157.
7. The question and answer are repeated: “Whom seek ye? …Jesus the Nazarene.” This time, those who had come to arrest Him knew to whom they were speaking, but they were so much overawed that they could only repeat what they had said before.
The rec. has ατὺ ἐηώηε, with אΘ but AB2;CL give the more usual order ἐηώηε ατύ.
8. The reply is stern and authoritative. He repeats ἐώεμ (see on v. 5).
ε ονἐὲζτ κλ “If, then, it is I (emphatic) whom you seek, let these (sc. the Eleven) go their way,” or “go home,” for ὑάενhas a suggestion of this meaning (see on 7:33). His solicitude for His faithful disciples is characteristic of the Good Shepherd (cf. 10:12, and see on v. 19).
9. ἵαπηωῇὁλγςκλ For the phrase ἵαπη., introducing a saying of Jesus, see Introd., p. cxliii f. Another example is in v. 32. For Jn., the words of Jesus were possessed of authority, and inspired, like the language of the O.T., by foreknowledge of future events. The λγς or “saying” (see on 2:22), to which reference is here made is that of 17:12 loosely quoted. ὅιis recitantis, but it does not introduce the exact words previously ascribed to Jesus.
The comment of Jn. (ἵαπ. ὁλγςκλ would seem to limit the application of “I lost none of those whom thou gavest me” to the fact that the disciples were let go free when Jesus was arrested. Some at least of Jn.’s explanations of the words of Jesus are of doubtful accuracy (see on 2:19, 21); but it is hard to believe that he could have missed here the larger and more spiritual meaning of 17:12, which is already indicated at 6:39, 10:28.
οςδδκςμι οκἀώεαἐ ατνοδν. The close verbal parallel in 2 Ezr_2:26 is interesting: “servos quos tibi dedi, nemo ex eis interiet, ego enim eos requiram de numero tuo,” words which are addressed by God to the personified nation. Chapters 1. and 2. of 2 Esdras are Christian, and probably belong to the second century. The passage quoted above may be a reminiscence of Joh_18:3 or Joh_17:12 or Joh_6:37. See on 3:31 above for other parallels between 2 Esdras and Jn.
10. The incident of one of the Twelve attacking the high priest’s slave is in all the Gospels (Mar_14:47, Mat_26:51, Luk_22:50), although the names, Peter and Malchus, are given by Jn. only.
It appears from Luk_22:38, that the apostles had two swords or knives in their possession; and Lk. also tells that, when they understood that the salutation of Judas was the signal for the arrest of Jesus, they exclaimed, “Lord, shall we smite with the sword?” It would seem that Peter, always hasty and impulsive, struck a blow without waiting for permission from Jesus. He had been forward in declaring that he would give his life for his Master, if there was need (13:37). He did not generally carry a sword; ἔω μχια implies that he happened to have one with him at the time, presumably because he and others had learnt from what Jesus had said previously that their Master was in danger. It was unlawful to carry arms on a feast-day, and—although at such a crisis, an eager disciple like Peter would probably have had no scruple in breaking the law if the safety of his Master was at stake— the fact that two of the company had knives with them earlier in the evening tends to show that the Last Supper was not the Passover, and that the Johannine rather than the Synoptic tradition of the day of the Crucifixion is to be followed (see Introd., p. cvi f.).
Peter drew (see on 6:44 for ἑκεν the sword, κὶἔασντντῦἀχεέςδῦο, “and struck the high priest’s slave.” This man was one of the crowd which had gathered; he was not one of the Temple guard (ὑηέα, v. 3). There was something of a scuffle, and Peter hit out.
κὶἀέοε ατῦτ ὠάιντ δξό, “and cut off his right ear,” the blow missing the slave’s head, as he swerved to his left to avoid it. That it was the right ear is a detail only found in Lk. and Jn. ὠάιν the true reading here (א is the word used by Mk. (14:47); ὠίν of the rec. text (AC3DNΘ is the word in Mat_26:51 and in Luk_22:51.
We have here, without doubt, a tradition of an historical incident. If it be asked why Peter was not immediately arrested by the Temple guard or the soldiers who were standing by, the answer may be that it was not observed in the scuffle who had dealt the blow. The earlier Gospels do not disclose Peter’s name, although by the time that Jn. wrote, there would be no risk in giving it. Again, an injury to a slave would not excite much interest; had Peter struck one of the officials, it would have been a different matter. Lk. tells, indeed, that Jesus healed the wound (Luk_22:51), apparently suggesting that the ear had not been wholly severed from the man’s head.
ἦ δ ὄοατ δύῳΜλο. Here, again, is a detail that comes from first-hand knowledge. No evangelist has it except Jn. The name Malchus is found five times in Josephus, and probably goes back to the root מךor “king.” Cf. Neh_10:4.
11. Jesus forbids the use of arms in resisting His arrest. The Synoptists represent Him as expostulating against it, and especially against the violent way in which it was effected (Mar_14:48, Mat_26:55, Luk_22:52); but in Jn.’s narrative there is none of this. He moves voluntarily towards the predestined end.
Βλ τνμχια εςτνθκν “put back the sword into the sheath.” Mt., alone of the Synoptists, tells of this saying, which he gives in a more diffuse form: ἀότεό συτνμχια εςτντπνατς πνε γρο λβνε μχια ἐ μχίᾳἀοονα (Mat_26:52), the latter clause suggesting the hand of an editor. According to Jn., Jesus gave no reason for the quiet command, “Put up your sword.” See on v. 36 below.
After μχια the rec. adds συ(from Mat_26:52), but om. אΘ
θκ does not occur again in the N.T.
τ πτρο ὃδδκνμιὁπτρ ο μ πωατ; This recalls the prayer of Jesus at Gethsemane, as recorded by the Synoptists (Mar_14:36, Mat_26:39, Luk_22:42). See on v. 1 above and on 12:27.
ο μ πωατ is probably to be taken as an interrogative. Abbott, however (Diat. 934 f, 2232), prefers to take it as an exclamation, “I am, of course, not to drink it!” [sc. according to your desire], comparing ο μ πωof Mar_14:25, Mat_26:29, Luk_22:18. See on 6:37.
Jesus is Bound and Brought to the House of Annas (vv. 12-14)
12. Jn. does not record explicitly that His disciples fled in fear after Jesus had been arrested (Mar_14:50, Mat_26:56), although he has told that Jesus earlier in the night had predicted that they would abandon Him (16:32). Jn. implies, however (see on v. 15), that Jesus was abandoned at this point by His friends.
The arrest was effected by the Roman soldiers (see on v. 3 for σερ), with their commanding officer (cf. Act_21:31 for χλαχς acting in co-operation with the Temple police (ο ὑηέα τνἸυαω). σναβνι does not occur again in Jn., but it is the verb used by the Synoptists in this context.
κὶἔηα ατν That was a matter of course; probably His hands were fastened behind His back. The Synoptists do not mention this detail until a later point in the narrative (Mar_15:1, Mat_27:1; cf. v. 24). It was a patristic fancy that the binding of Jesus was foreshadowed in the binding of Isaac at the altar (Gen_22:9); see on 19:17 below.
13. ἤαο. So א (and Luk_22:54); the rec. has ἀήαο (with AC3LNΓ, as at Mar_14:53, Mat_26:57).
πὸ Ἄννπῶο. Annas was not, at this time, the high priest, but he had held the office before and was a personage of such influence that he was often called “high priest” in a loose way (cf. Luk_3:2, Act_4:6, and see on 7:32), although that great office was now held by his son-in-law Caiaphas (see on 11:49 above).1 It was to his house that Jesus was brought after His arrest, and there an informal and extra-judicial questioning of Him went on during the night hours (Mar_14:53f., Mat_26:57). Mk. does not give any name: he only says, “they led Jesus away to the high priest”; but Mt. inserts the name Caiaphas at this point, in which he seems to have been mistaken. Caiaphas presided at the formal meeting of the Sanhedrim (Mar_15:1, Mat_27:1, Luk_22:66, Joh_18:24), held the next morning as early as possible, when the sentence of death, already agreed on (Mar_14:64), was ratified, and submitted to Pilate, who alone had authority to order it to be carried out.
It was during the night, at the house of Annas (not the house of Caiaphas, or the formal place of meeting for the Sanhedrim, which could legally meet only by day), that the evidence, such as it was, was prepared, and that the Prisoner was treated with insult and contumely. Such irregular proceedings would not have been countenanced at a formal meeting of the Sanhedrim, but they were winked at in the courtyard of Annas’ private house, which was the scene of Peter’s denial and the reproachful look which Jesus bestowed on him (Luk_22:61). Probably some of the evidence as to blasphemy was repeated in due form at the official sitting of the Sanhedrim, at which Luke (who says nothing of the preliminary hearing before Annas) states that Jesus admitted His claim to be Messiah (Luk_22:70), in similar words to those which Mar_14:62, Mat_26:64 ascribe to Him at the earlier cross-examination.
Such seems to have been the course of events on the night of the arrest and the next morning; but it is not possible to reconcile precisely all the evangelical accounts.1 The narrative of Jn. seems at certain points (vv. 13, 19-23, 26) to be based on first-hand knowledge, to which the other evangelists had not access.
ἦ γρπνεὸ τῦΚϊφ. This piece of information is not given in the other Gospels, nor does the word πνεό occur again in the N.T.
ὃ ἦ ἀχεεςτῦἐιυο ἐενυ This is repeated from 11:49, 51. Caiaphas was the official high priest, and that a man of his principles should have held the position in that fateful year had grave and awful consequences. See on 11:49.
The Sinai Syriac places v. 24 at this point after v. 13. The marginal texts of the Jerusalem and Philoxenian Syriac also have here “Annas sent Jesus (bound) to Caiaphas,” although v. 24 is retained in its traditional place. Similarly the cursive 225 and Cyril Alex. add after πῶο, ἀέτιε ονατνὁἌνςδδμννπὸ Κϊφντνἀχεέ.
These additions or transpositions are due probably to a desire to bring Jn.’s narrative of the examinations of Jesus by the Jewish authorities into line with the narrative of the Synoptists, who say nothing of the part played by Annas. If v. 24 is moved to a point between v. 13 and v. 14, then all that happens takes place in the house of Caiaphas (as is explicitly said by Mt.), and Annas really does nothing, although Jesus in the Johannine narrative is brought to his house in the first instance.
But, if this were the original position of the words “Annas sent Him bound unto the high priest,” it is difficult to find a reason for their being moved by a scribe to their traditional place, after v. 23. See, further, Introd., p. xxvii.
14. The reference is to 11:50, the unconscious prophecy (as Jn. deems it) made by Caiaphas, which expressed his deliberate conviction that Jesus must be brought to His death. For ἀοαεν(אΘ the rec. here has ἀοέθι(with AC2N), which may be the original reading, corrected by scribes to bring the words into verbal correspondence with 11:50.
At 11:50 we had σμέε…ν εςἄθωο ἀοάῃ but here σμέε ἕαἄθωο ἀοαεν a more correct constr.
Peter’s First Denial of Jesus (vv. 15-18)
15. ἠοοθι a descriptive impf. The Synoptists say that Peter was following (ἀὸμκόε) at a safe distance (Mar_14:54, Mat_26:58, Luk_22:54), but they do not mention a companion.
ΣμνΠτο. Jn. likes to use the double name (see on 1:42) when Peter has been absent from the picture for some little time, but he generally relapses into the simple “Peter” as the story proceeds; see, e.g., 13:24, 36, 18:10, 11, 20:2, 3, 4 21:3, 7, 15, 17, 20, 21. Jn. never gives the short title “Peter” to this apostle at the beginning of an incident in which he is concerned. In the present passage we have Simon Peter (v. 15), followed by Peter (vv. 16, 17, 18); then there is an interval, and so when the courtyard scene is resumed, we have Simon Peter again (v. 25), followed by Peter (vv. 26, 27).
κὶἄλςμθτς So א The rec. has ὁἄλς(from v. 16) with אΓΘ thus identifying Peter’s companion here with “the Beloved Disciple.”
This “other disciple” was “known to the high priest,” and so was admitted into the courtyard or αλ of the house where Jesus had been brought. He was sufficiently well known to the portress, at any rate, to persuade her to admit his companion. It does not follow that he was a personal friend of Annas or of Caiaphas, or of the same social class, although this is possible. As Sanday put it: “The account of what happened to Peter might well seem to be told from the point of view of the servants’ hall.”1 The word γωτςas applied to persons is uncommon, as Abbott points out (Diat. x. ii. p. 351 f.), but it is to press it too far to interpret it here as meaning “a familiar friend,” with an allusion to Psa_55:13. Abbott adopts the curious view that the “other disciple” was Judas Iscariot, whose face would have been familiar to the portress, because of his previous visit or visits to the high priest in pursuance of his scheme of betrayal. But that Judas should wish to introduce Peter, or that Peter would have tolerated any advances from him or accepted his good offices, is difficult to believe.
The view most generally taken2 as to the personality of this ἄλςμθτςis that he was John the Beloved Disciple, whose reminiscences are behind the Gospel, and whose identity is veiled in some degree (see on 13:23; and cf. 1:27, 21:24). This agrees with the close association elsewhere of Peter and John (see Introd., p. xxxvi). Indeed, John the son of Zebedee had priestly connexions. His mother was Salome, the sister of the Virgin Mary (see pp. 73, 84 f., and note on 19:35); and Mary was a kinswoman (σγεί, Luk_1:36) of Elisabeth, who was “of the daughters of Aaron” (Luk_1:5). Hence John was connected with a priestly family on his mother’s side, and there is no improbability in his being “known to the high priest.”3
But the available evidence does not permit us securely to identify the ἄλςμθτς as Augustine saw (Tract. cxiii. 2), saying that it is not plain who he was. This unnamed disciple was probably some one of influence and social importance; if we were to guess, the names of Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathæ suggest themselves at once. There were disciples outside the circle of the Twelve, some of them men of rank, members of the Sanhedrim itself (see 12:42); and it is quite likely that Peter was known, by sight at least, to one of these who had attended at the house of Annas.1 It is probable that it is to this unnamed disciple (whether John or another) that the details given in vv. 19-23 about the private examination of Jesus at night by the high priest, and also perhaps about the private examination before Pilate (vv. 33 f.), are ultimately due. There are also traces of first-hand information in the statements that “it was cold” (v. 18), and that a kinsman of the slave Malchus identified Peter (v. 26).
εςτναλνκλ “into the courtyard.” All the evangelists represent this courtyard as the scene of Peter’s denial. He was not admitted even so far, until his unnamed friend intervened, but was standing outside at the door. See on 10:1 for αλ and θρ. The examination of Jesus was not conducted in the outer court where all the servants were, but in a chamber of the house of Annas. Mk. implies that this chamber was not on the ground floor, as he says that Peter was κτ ἐ τ αλ, “below, in the court” (Mar_14:66).
Additional Note on 18:15
Delff identified the ἄλςμθτςof v. 15 with the Beloved Disciple, whom he distinguished from John the son of Zebedee. In connexion with the remark that he was “known to the high priest,” Delff cited the statement of Polycrates (see Introd., p. l) that the Beloved Disciple wore the priestly frontlet; and inferred that he belonged to an aristocratic priestly family in Jerusalem, it being thus easy for him to obtain access to the high priest’s house.2 We have already treated the problem of the ἄλςμθτς
But a larger question is raised by the words of Polycrates, to which some reference may be made at this point. Polycrates says of the Beloved Disciple ἐεήηἱρὺ τ πτλνπφρκς an observation difficult to explain. This πτλνwas a golden plate attached in front to the turban or mitre of Aaron (Exo_28:36f., Exo_29:6, Exo_39:30f., Lev_8:9), and in later times was part of the official dress of the high priest (cf. Josephus, Antt. III. vii. 6).1
Similar statements are made about James the Just, and about Mar_2
Of James the Just, Epiphanius says: τ πτλνἐὶτςκφλςἐῆ ατ φρῖ (Hæ xxix. 4). He adds that his authority was the ὑονμτσο of former writers of repute; and Lawlor3 has shown that he is alluding to the ὑονμτ of Hegesippus. Hegesippus, as quoted by Eusebius (H.E. ii. 23), said that to James alone was it allowed to enter εςτ ἅι of the Temple, which he used to frequent in prayer for the people, and that his custom was to wear not woollen but linen garments.4 Epiphanius may be reproducing other words of Hegesippus when he tells (Hæ xxix. 4) that James exercised the priestly office according to the old priesthood (ἱρτύατ κτ τνπλίνἱρσνν but he is probably in error when he says that James alone was permitted to enter the Holy of Holies once a year, as the high priest did, δὰτ Νζρῖνατνενικὶμμχα τ ἱρσν (Hæ lxxviii. 13). He adds explicitly, ὁἸκβςδέεετ ἱρσν, and πτλνἐὶτςκφλςἐόεε
Of Mark, Valois quoted a legend as a note on Eus. H.E. v. 24, as follows: “beatum Marcum iuxta ritum carnalis sacrificii pontificalis apicis petalum in populo gestasse Iudaeorum …ex quo manifeste datur intelligi de stirpe eum Leuitica, imo pontificis Aaron sacrae successionis originem habuisse.”5 Mark was probably of Levite race (compare Act_4:36 with Col_4:10), and the Vulgate Preface to his Gospel speaks of him as “sacerdotium in Israhel agens,”6 so that it is quite possible that he was one of the Jewish priests who accepted Christ (Act_6:7; cf. Act_21:20).
The language of Polycrates, then, about John ἐεήηἱρὺ τ πτλνπφρκςis almost identical with what is told about James and Mark. If the πτλνwere worn by the high priest only on great occasions, it is impossible to suppose that John, James, or Mark ever wore it. But if it was (even occasionally) worn by the ordinary Jewish priest in N.T. times, Mark may have worn it. And if John and James were eligible for the priesthood, they too might have had the privilege. But while James and John were certainly akin to the priestly race on their mother’s side, the argument of Epiphanius to prove that James also was “mingled with the priesthood” by blood is not convincing. Yet we know so little of the insistence upon hereditary qualifications for the Jewish priesthood in the first century, that it is not easy to reject the explicit statements made about John and James as well as about Mar_1
Jerome, when discussing the statement of Polycrates about John, understands ἱρύ to mean a Christian priest, and translates: “qui supra pectus domini recubuit, et pontifex eius fuit, auream laminam in fronte portans” (de script. eccl. 45). This explanation will not apply to the parallel traditions about James and Mark, upon the Jewish character of whose priesthood stress is laid. It is conceivable (although improbable) that the Beloved Disciple might have been allowed by his Christian brethren to wear the insignia of a Jewish priest at Ephesus, where he was so greatly venerated. But neither James nor Mark would ever have been allowed such a distinction as Christian priests at Jerusalem while the Temple was yet standing. Further, it would be strange that Polycrates should call John a Christian ἱρύ, while studiously avoiding in his case the title ἐίκπς which he gives to others of repute.2 And, finally, that the mitre or πτλνshould have been used as an ornament of Christian bishops in the first century, but never heard of again until three centuries later at least, is highly improbable.
Others interpret the wearing of the πτλνby John and the others as metaphorical only.3 The dress of the high priest is used in Rev_2:17 as the symbol of the investment of the true Christian with the sacerdotal character; cf. Exo_28:31, Exo_28:36 with the “white stone” and the “new name” of Rev_2:17. This idea is worked out in detail by Origen (in Lev. Hom. vi.), who treats the πτλνas symbolic of the knowledge of divine things by all baptized persons; cf. Clem. Alex. Strom. v. 6. If we pursue this line of thought, we recall that engraved on the πτλνwere the words “Holy to Yahweh,” ἁίσακρο (Exo_28:36), and the command to Moses was ἁισι ατύ, ἵαἱρτύσνμι(Exo_28:41). The πτλν in short, was the symbol of consecration, which was the topic of Christ’s intercession for His apostles (Joh_17:2). John, James,1 and Mark were all ἡισέο (Joh_17:19); and the tradition of wearing the πτλνin their case might have grown out of a metaphorical statement as to their personal holiness. But this view does not explain why the πτλνsymbol should have been used only of John, James, and Mark among the saints of the apostolic age.
We are inclined to accept the tradition that James, John, and Mark literally wore the πτλν at least occasionally, in virtue of their service as Jewish priests. It is to be remembered that James, John, and Peter were the “pillars” of the Jerusalem Church (Gal_2:9); they were the heads of the conservative or Judaising party as contrasted with Paul. Of these, Peter was suspect by the more rigid Jews (Act_11:3). But his disciple Mark was under no such suspicion, for he had actually separated himself from Paul because of the latter’s liberal policy (Act_13:13, Act_15:37). John had, indeed, incurred the hostility of the Temple authorities in early days (Act_4:3, Act_4:13); but there is no later indication of opposition to him by them, or any trace of distrust of him by his fellow-disciples. James was thoroughly respected by all. James, John, and Mark were, then, the three Christian leaders who were most fully trusted by the conservatives at Jerusalem.2 While whole-hearted disciples of Jesus, they were Jews who were understood to have pride in their Jewish heritage. Provided that they were qualified for the priesthood, there would be nothing surprising in their occasional discharge of priestly offices; for by the first disciples the Christian faith was not regarded as inconsistent with Judaism. Thus the tradition that they had been privileged to wear the priestly πτλνis less improbable in their case than it would be in that of any other early leader of the Church of whom we have information.
16. For ἄλς fam. 13 have ἐενς ille occurs in some O.L. codices.
κὶεπντ θρρ, κὶεσγγντνΠτο, i.e., apparently, the friend spoke to the portress and brought Peter in; but the rendering “and she brought Peter in” is defensible.
The θρρςwas a maid-servant (πιίκ), as at Act_12:13 and 2Sa_4:6 (LXX), a custom which Moulton-Milligan illustrate from papyri.
17. μ κὶσ ἐ τνμθτνκλ The form of the question μ κὶ…shows that the portress expected a negative answer: “You are not another of His disciples, are you?” See on 6:67; and cf. v. 25. That is, she knew that the person who had already been admitted as γωτςτ ἀχεε was a disciple of Jesus, although not necessarily of the inner circle.
τῦἀθώο τύο, “of this person,” a contemptuous way of speaking.
According to the Johannine account, the first challenge to Peter and his first denial of his Master occurred as he was being admitted to the courtyard. The Synoptists put it later, after he had been admitted and was warming himself at the fire, when he was recognised by a slave girl who saw his face lit up by the flames (Luk_22:56). Mk. says that after Peter repudiated any knowledge of Jesus he went outside into the vestibule or porch (πούιν Mar_14:68; cf. εςτνπλν, Mat_26:71), and that the second interrogation of him (this time apparently by the maid who was portress) took place there.
18. The soldiers had now gone back to barracks, the Temple police (ὑηέα) being sufficient guard. The policemen and the slaves lit a fire in the courtyard, as it was a cold night. ὅιψχςἦ is a touch peculiar to Jn., and suggests that the story has come from one who was present, and who shivers as he recalls how cold it was in the open court. Jerusalem is 2400 feet above sea-level, and it is chilly at midnight in spring-time.1
ἀθαι occurs again in the N.T. only at 21:9 (cf. Ecclus. 11:32, 4 Macc. 9:20): it means “a heap of charcoal,” probably burnt in a brazier. True coal was not known in Palestine until the nineteenth century. Lk. mentions the lighting of a fire, using the words ἁάτνπρἐ μσ τςαλς and says that they were all sitting round it. Mk. says that Peter was warming himself in the light (θρανμνςπὸ τ φς Mar_14:54), i.e. leaning towards the dim flame of the fire. Mt. does not say anything about a fire in the courtyard.
For ἀθαινππικτςthe Vulgate has only ad prunas, several O.L. codices giving ad carbones. This is a rendering which, as Wordsworth-White point out, seems to represent a reading πὸ τνἀθαιν for which there is no Greek authority extant.
ὁΠτο μτ ατν So א the rec. giving the order of words as μτ ατνὁΠτ. Θomits Πτο. It was necessary for Peter to mingle with the slaves and the police in the courtyard; to have kept to himself would have made him an object of suspicion. The Synoptists represent him as sitting near the fire, with the others; Jn. alone says that he was standing, ἑτς
Jn. follows Mk. (14:54, 67) in telling that Peter was warming himself (θρανμνς and, like Mk., he tells it twice (see v. 25). Jn.’s narrative of Peter’s denials is interrupted by an account of the examination of Jesus which was taking place in the house of Annas (vv. 19-23). After the examination has been described, the story of Peter is resumed. Evidently it was while he was waiting in the outer court that he denied his Master fo