Mat 26:58-75 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 58. Peter followed him afar off . By this he evinced two things: 1st. Real attachment to his Master; a desire to be near him, and to witness his trial. 2nd. Fear respecting his personal safety. He therefore kept so far off as to be out of danger, and yet so near as that he might witness the transactions respecting his Master. Perhaps he expected to be lost and unobserved in the crowd. Many, in this, Imitate Peter. They are afraid to follow the Saviour closely. They fear danger, ridicule, or persecution. They follow him --but it is at a great distance; so far that it is difficult to discern that they are in the train, and are his friends at all. Religion requires us to be near to Christ. We may measure our piety by our desire to be with him; to be like him; and by our willingness to follow him always--through trials, contempt, persecution, and death. John says, that another disciple went with Peter. By that other disciple is commonly supposed, as he did not mention his name, that he meant himself. He was acquainted with the high priest, and went immediately into the hall. Unto the High Priest's palace . The word rendered palace , means rather the hall , or middle court or area of his house. It was situated in the centre of the palace, and was commonly uncovered. . And went in . John informs us that he did not go immediately in. But the other disciple, being known to the high priest, went in first, while Peter remained at the gate , or entrance. The other disciple then went out, and brought in Peter. Matthew, Mark, and Luke have omitted this circumstance. John recorded it, probably, because they had omitted it, and because he was the "other disciple" concerned in it. Sat with the servants, to see the end . That is, the end of the trial; or to see how it would go with his Master. The other evangelists say, that he stood with the servants warming himself. John says; it being cold, they had made a fire of coals, and warmed themselves. It was then probably not far from midnight. The place where they were was uncovered; and travellers say, that though the days are warm in Judea at that season of the year, yet that the nights are often uncomfortably cold. This fire was made in the hall , (Luke:) The fire was not in a fireplace , as we commonly suppose, but was probably made of coals laid on the pavement. At this place and time was Peter's first denial of his Lord, as is recorded afterwards. See .

Matthew 26:58-75

Verse 58. Peter followed him afar off. By this he evinced two things:

1st. Real attachment to his Master; a desire to be near him, and to witness his trial.

2nd. Fear respecting his personal safety. He therefore kept so far off as to be out of danger, and yet so near as that he might witness the transactions respecting his Master. Perhaps he expected to be lost and unobserved in the crowd. Many, in this, Imitate Peter. They are afraid to follow the Saviour closely. They fear danger, ridicule, or persecution. They follow him--but it is at a great distance; so far that it is difficult to discern that they are in the train, and are his friends at all. Religion requires us to be near to Christ. We may measure our piety by our desire to be with him; to be like him; and by our willingness to follow him always--through trials, contempt, persecution, and death. John says, that another disciple went with Peter. By that other disciple is commonly supposed, as he did not mention his name, that he meant himself. He was acquainted with the high priest, and went immediately into the hall.

Unto the High Priest's palace. The word rendered palace, means rather the hall, or middle court or area of his house. It was situated in the centre of the palace, and was commonly uncovered. Mt 9:2.

And went in. John informs us that he did not go immediately in. But the other disciple, being known to the high priest, went in first, while Peter remained at the gate, or entrance. The other disciple then went out, and brought in Peter. Matthew, Mark, and Luke have omitted this circumstance. John recorded it, probably, because they had omitted it, and because he was the "other disciple" concerned in it.

Sat with the servants, to see the end. That is, the end of the trial; or to see how it would go with his Master. The other evangelists say, that he stood with the servants warming himself. John says; it being cold, they had made a fire of coals, and warmed themselves. It was then probably not far from midnight. The place where they were was uncovered; and travellers say, that though the days are warm in Judea at that season of the year, yet that the nights are often uncomfortably cold. This fire was made in the hall, (Luke:) The fire was not in a fireplace, as we commonly suppose, but was probably made of coals laid on the pavement. At this place and time was Peter's first denial of his Lord, as is recorded afterwards. See Mt 26:69. Verse 59. Mt 26:57 Verse 60. False witnesses. Witnesses that would accuse him of crime; of violation of the laws of the land or of God. We are not to suppose that they wished them to be false witnesses. They were indifferent, probably, whether they were true or false, if they could succeed in condemning him. The evangelist calls it false testimony, Before these witnesses were sought, we learn from Jn 18:19-23 that the high priest asked Jesus of his disciples, and his doctrine. Jesus replied, that he had taught openly in the temple, and in secret had said nothing; that is, he had no secret doctrines which he had not been willing openly to teach, and he referred them to those who had heard him. In a firm, dignified manner, he put himself on trial, and insisted on his rights. "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?" This conversation took place probably before the council was assembled, and during this time the denials by Peter occurred. Luke informs us, Lk 22:66 that the council came together as soon as it was day; that is, probably near the morning, or not far from break of day--after Peter had denied him, and gone out.

Found they none. That is, they found none on whose testimony they could with any show of reason convict him. The reason was, as Mark says, Mk 14:56 that "their witness agreed not together." They differed about facts, times, and circumstances, as all false witnesses do. Two witnesses were required by their law, and they did not dare to condemn him without conforming, in appearance at least, to the requirements of the law.

(a) "the last" Ps 27:12, 35:11 Verse 61. And said, This fellow said, etc. Mark has recorded this testimony differently. According to him, they said, "We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands." Probably both forms of giving in the testimony were used on the trial, and Matthew has recorded it as it was given at one time, and Mark at another; so that there is no contradiction. Mark adds, "But neither so did their witness agree together." That which they attempted to accuse him of, is what he had said respecting his body, and their destroying it. Jn 2:19, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." This he spoke of his body; they perverted it, endeavouring to show that he meant the temple at Jerusalem. They neither stated it as it was, nor did they state correctly its meaning: nor did they agree about the words used. It was, therefore, very little to their purpose.

(b) "I am able" Jn 2:19-21 Verses 62,63. Jesus held his peace. Was silent. He knew that the evidence did not even appear to amount to anything worth a reply. He knew that they were aware of that, and that feeling that, the high priest attempted to draw something from him, on which they could condemn him.

I adjure thee by the living God. I put thee upon thy oath before God. This was the usual form of putting an oath among the Jews. It implies, calling God to witness the truth of what was said. The law respecting witnesses also made it a violation of an oath to conceal any part of the truth; and though our Saviour might have felt that such a question, put in such a manner, was very improper, or was unlawful, yet he also knew that to be silent would be construed into a denial of his being the Christ. The question was probably put in anger. They had utterly failed in their proof. They had no way left to accomplish their purpose of condemning him, but to draw it from his own lips. This cunning question was therefore proposed. The difficulty of the question consisted in this: If he confessed that he was the Son of God, they stood ready to condemn him for blasphemy; if he denied it, they were prepared to condemn him for being an impostor, for deluding the people under the pretence of being the Messiah.

The living God. Jehovah is called the living God, in opposition to idols, which were without life. �

The Christ. The Messiah, the Anointed. Mt 1:1.

The Son of God. The Jews uniformly expected that the Messiah would be the Son of God. In their view it denoted also that he would be Divine, or equal to the Father, Jn 10:31-36. To claim that title was, therefore, in their view, blasphemy; and as they had determined beforehand, in their own minds, that he was not the Messiah, they were ready at once to accuse him of blasphemy. Verse 63. Mt 26:62

(e) "But Jesus" Isa 53:7, Mt 27:12,14 Verse 64. Thou hast said. This is a form of assenting or affirming. Thou hast said the truth; or, as Lk 22:70 has it, "Ye say that I am." This was not, however, said immediately. Before Jesus acknowledged himself to be the Messiah, he said to them, Lk 22:67-69 "If I tell you, ye will not believe: and if I also ask you" --i.e., propose the proofs of my mission, and require you to give your opinion of them--" ye will not answer me, nor let me go."

Nevertheless. This word should have been translated moreover, or furthermore. What follows is designed to explain and give confirmation to what he had said.

Sitting on the right hand of power. That is, of God, called here the Power; equivalent to the Mighty, or the Almighty. It denotes dignity and majesty; for, to sit at the right hand of a prince was the chief place of honour. Mt 20:21.

Coming in the clouds of heaven. See Barnes Mt 24, Mt 25. The meaning of this is, You shall see the sign from heaven which you have so often demanded; even the Messiah returning himself as the sign, with great glory, to destroy your city, and to judge the world.

(f) "shall ye" Dan 7:13, Jn 1:51, 1Thes 4:16, Rev 1:7 (g) "hand of power" Ps 110:1, Acts 7:55 Verse 65. Then the High Priest rent his clothes. The Jews were accustomed to rend their clothes, as a token of grief. This was done often as a matter of form, and consisted in tearing a particular part of the garment reserved for this purpose. It was not lawful for the high priest to rend his clothes, Lev 10:6, 21:10. By that was probably intended the robes of his priestly office. The garment which he now rent was probably his ordinary garment, or the garments which he wore as president of the sanhedrim--not those in which he officiated as high priest in the things of religion. This was done on this occasion to denote the great grief of the high priest, that so great a sin as blasphemy had been committed in his presence.

He hath spoken blasphemy. That is, he has, under oath, arrogated to himself what belongs to God. In claiming to be the Messiah; in asserting that he was the Son of God, and therefore equal in dignity with the Father; and that he would yet sit at His right hand--he has claimed what belongs to no man, and what is therefore an invasion of the Divine prerogative. If he had not been the Messiah, the charge would have been true. But the question was, whether he had not given evidence that he was the Messiah, and that therefore his claims were just. This point, the only proper point of inquiry, they never examined. They assumed that he was an impostor; and that point being assumed, everything like a pretension to being the Messiah was, in their view, proof that he deserved to die. Verse 66. What think ye? What is your opinion? What sentence do you pronounce? As president of the sanhedrim he demanded their judgment.

He is guilty of death. This was the form which was used when criminal was condemned to die. The meaning is, he is found guilty of a crime to which the law annexes death. This sentence was used before the Jews became subject to the Romans, when they had the power of inflicting death. After they were subject to the Romans, though the power of inflicting capital punishment was taken away, yet they retained the form, when they expressed their opinion of the guilt of an offender. The law under which they condemned him was that recorded in Lev 24:10-16, which sentenced him that was guilty of blasphemy to death by stoning. The chief priests, however, were unwilling to excite a popular tumult by stoning him, and they therefore consulted to deliver him to the Romans to be crucified, under the authority of the Roman name, and thus to prevent say excitement among the people.

(h) "death" Lev 24:16, Jn 19:7 Verse 67. They spit in his face. This, among the Jews, as among us, was significant of the highest contempt and insult, Nu 12:14; Isa 1:6, Job 30:10.

And buffeted him. That is, they struck him with their hands closed, or with the fist.

Others smote him with the palms of their hands. The word used in the original here means, literally to strike with rods. It also means, to strike the mouth with the open hand, as if to prevent a person's speaking, or to evince abhorrence of what he had spoken.

(i) "Then did" Isa 1:6 (1) "with the palms" or "rods" Verse 68. Saying, Prophesy unto us, etc. Mark informs us, that before they said this they had blindfolded him. Having prevented his seeing, they ridiculed his pretensions of being the Messiah. If he was the Christ, they supposed he could tell who smote him. As he bore it patiently, and did not answer, they doubtless supposed they had discovered another reason to think he was an impostor; The word prophesy does not mean only to foretell future events--although that is the proper meaning of the word; but also to declare anything that is unknown, or anything which cannot be known by natural knowledge, or without revelation. Luke adds, "And many other things blasphemously spake they against him." There is something very remarkable in this expression. They had charged him with blasphemy in claiming to be the Son of God. This charge they were not able to prove, But the evangelist fixes the charge of blasphemy on them, because he really was the Son of God, and they denied it. Verse 69. Now Peter sat without in the palace. Mark says, the first denial took place while Peter was "beneath in the palace." This palace was the large hall or court belonging to the residence of the high priest. The part of it where Jesus and the council were was elevated, probably, above the rest, for a tribunal. Peter was beneath, or in the lower part of the hall, with the servants, at the fire. Yet, as Matthew says, he sat without in the palace--i.e., out of the palace where they were trying Jesus--to wit, in the lower part of the hall with the servants--both narratives are therefore consistent.

And a damsel came unto him. Jn 18:17 says, that this damsel was one that kept the door.

Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee. Probably she suspected him from his being in company with John. This was in the early part of the trial of Jesus.

(k) "Now Peter" Mk 14:66, Lk 22:55, Jn 18:16 Verse 70. But he denied before them all, etc. He denied that he was a disciple; he denied that he knew Jesus; he denied (Mark) that he understood what was meant---i. e., he did not see any reason why this question was asked. All this was palpable falsehood; and Peter must have known that it was such. This is remarkable, because Peter had just before been so confident. It is more remarkable, because the edge of the charge was taken off by the insinuation that John was known to be a disciple--thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee. Verse 71. When he was gone out into the porch. The entrances or the small apartment between the outer door and the large hall in the centre of the building. See plan of a house, Mt 9:2. Peter was embarrassed and confused by the question; and to save his confusion attracting notice, he went away from the fire into the porch, where he expected to be unobserved. Yet in vain. By the very movement to avoid detection, he came into contact with another who knew him, and repeated the charge. How clearly does it prove that our Lord was omniscient, that all these things were foreseen!

Another maid saw him. Mark simply says that a maid saw him, From Luke, it would appear that a man spoke to him, Lk 22:58. The truth probably is, that both were done. When he first went out, a maid charged him with being a follower of Jesus. He was probably there a considerable time. To this charge he might have been silent, thinking, perhaps, that he was concealed, and there was no need of denying Jesus then. Yet it is very likely that the charge would he repeated. A man also might have repeated it; and Peter, irritated, provoked, perhaps thinking that he was in danger, then denied his Master the second time. This denial was in a stronger manner, and with an oath. While in the porch, Mark says, the cock crew; that is, the first crowing, or not far from midnight. Verse 73. And after a while. That is, about an hour after, (Luke.) Peter, by this time, had returned into the palace or hall, and stood warming himself by the fire, Jn 18:25.

Thy speech betrayeth thee. Your language makes it manifest that you are of his company. That is, as Mark adds, he was a Galilean; and in this way his speech betrayed him. It is probable that the Galileans were distinguished for some peculiarity of pronunciation, perhaps some peculiar rusticity or coarseness in their manner of speaking, that distinguished them from the refinement of the capital, Jerusalem. This charge, John says, Jn 18:26 was supported by the express affirmation of a kinsman of Malchus, the servant of the high priest, that he had seen him in the garden. Verse 74. Then began he to curse, etc. Peter was now irritated beyond endurance. He could no longer resist the evidence that he was known. It had been repeatedly charged on him. His language had betrayed him, and there was a positive witness who had seen him. He felt it necessary, therefore, to be still more decided; and he accordingly added to the sin of denying his Lord, the deep aggravation of profane cursing and swearing; affirming, what he must have known was false, that he knew not the man. Immediately then the cock crew; that is, the second crowing, or not far from three in the morning. Verse 75. And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, etc. Luke has mentioned a beautiful and touching circumstance omitted by the other evangelists, that when the cock crew "Jesus turned and looked upon Peter," and that then he remembered his words. They were in the same room--Jesus at the upper end of the hall, elevated for a tribunal, and Peter below with the servants; so that Jesus could look down upon Peter standing near the fire. By a tender and compassionate look--a single glance of his eye--the injured Saviour brought to remembrance all Peter's promises, his own predictions, and the great guilt of the disciple; he overwhelmed him with the remembrance of his sin, and pierced his heart through with many sorrows. The consciousness of deep and awful guilt rushed over Peter's soul; he flew from the palace, he went alone in the darkness of the night, and wept bitterly.

The fall of Peter is one of the most melancholy instances of depravity ever committed in our world. But a little while before so confident; seated at the table of the Lord; distinguished, throughout the ministry of Christ, with peculiar favours; cautioned against this very thing; yet so soon denying him, forgetting his promises; and profanely calling on God to witness what he knew to be false, that he did not know him! Had it been but once, it would have been awful guilt--guilt deeply piercing the Redeemer's soul in the day of trial; but it was three times repeated, and at last with profane cursing and swearing. Yet, while we weep over Peter's fall, and seek not to palliate his crime, we should draw from it important practical uses:

1st. The danger of self-confidence. "Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall." True Christian confidence is that which relies on God for strength, and feels safety only in the belief that He is able and willing to keep from temptation.

2nd. The highest favours, the most exalted privileges, do not secure us from the danger of falling into sin. Few men were ever so highly favoured as Peter; few ever so dreadfully departed from the Saviour, and brought so deep a scandal on religion.

3rd. When a man begins to sin, his fall from one act to another is easy--perhaps almost certain. At first Peter's sin was only simple denial; then it increased to more violent affirmation, and ended with open profaneness. So the downward road of crime is easy. When sin is once indulged, the way is open for a whole deluge of crime; nor is the course easily stayed till the soul is overwhelmed in awful guilt.

4th. True repentance is deep, thorough, bitter. Peter wept bitterly. It was sincere sorrow--sorrow proportioned to the nature of the offence he had committed.

5th. A look from Jesus--a look of mingled affection, pity, and reproof-- produces bitter sorrow for sin. Him we injure by our crimes, and his tender look, when we err, pierces the soul through with many sorrows, opens fountains of tears in the bosom, and leads us to weep with bitterness over our transgressions.

6th. When we sin--when we fall into temptation--let us retire from the world, seek the place of solitude, and pour out our sorrows before God. He will mark our groans; he will hear our sighs; he will pity his children; and he will receive them; like weeping Peter, to his arms again.

7th. Real Christians may be suffered to go far astray. To show them their weakness, to check self-confidence, and to produce dependence on Jesus Christ, they may be able to show how weak, and feeble, and rash they are. Peter was a real believer. Jesus had prayed for him that his faith should fail not, Lk 22:32. Jesus was always heard in his prayer, Jn 11:42. He was heard, therefore, then. Peter's faith did not fail; that is, his belief in Jesus, his real piety, his true attachment to Jesus. He knew, during the whole transaction, that Jesus was the Messiah, and that he himself was well acquainted with him. But he was suffered to declare that which he knew was not true. And in this consisted his sin. Yet,

8th. though a Christian may be suffered to go astray---may fall into sin--yet he who should, from this example of Peter, think he might lawfully do it, or who should resolve to do it, thinking that he might, like Peter, weep and repent, would give evidence that he knew nothing of the grace of God. He that resolves to sin under the expectation of repenting hereafter, cannot be a Christian.

It is worthy of further remark, that the fact that the fall of Peter is recorded by all the evangelists is high proof of their honesty. They were willing to tell the truth as it was; to conceal no fact, even if it made much against themselves; and to make mention of their own faults without attempting to appear to be better than they were. And it is worthy of special observation, that Mark has recorded this with all the circumstances of aggravation, perhaps even more so than the others. Yet, by the universal belief of antiquity, the Gospel of Mark was written under Peter's direction, and every part of it submitted to him for examination. Higher proof of the honesty and candour of the evangelists could not be demanded.

(l) "word of Jesus" Mt 26:34, Lk 22:31-34