might be fulfilled. Then all the h Mar.14.53,&c. Lu.22.54,&c. Jno.18.12.&c. wondrous works. Had he not seen His omnipotence? 56. But all this was done. Here again occurs this phraseology of the Evangelists, and especially of Matthew, who refers the Jews constantly to their own prophecies. There was a purpose in all this that the scriptures should be fulfilled. Gen. 3. 15. Ps. 22. 69. Isa. 53. Dan. 4. 24, 26. Zech. 13. 7. Luke expresses it," This is your hour, and the power of darkness." (22. 53.)- - Forsook Him. Then-àt this juncture-when He was actually seized, their alarm overpowered them. Natural sense was overcome, and faith failed. The effect was the same with all of them, and even this fulfilled His prediction, (26. 31,) and see Zech. 13. 7. Here an incident is related of a young man who followed Him, and was where the scribes and the elders were assembled. 58 But Peter followed him afar off, unto the high priest's palace, and went in, and sat with the servants, to see the end. seized by the guard, but escaped. (Mark 14. 51.) Christ should not be utterly without a follower, even in that extremity. No suffering was ever so awful as Christ's, even in the garden. We can only judge what it must have been beyond all our thought, by knowing what it was for the curse FOR SIN. "He was made sin for us "-i. e., He stood in the sinner's place. Those who continue to sin, after all that has been done for them, He will visit with heaviest retribution; and at the judgment He will utterly reject those who here reject Him. OBSERVE, Christ gave Himself up to death voluntarily. He was delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God; yet, by wicked hands He was crucified and slain (Acts 2. 23). § 144. JESUS BEFORE CAIAPHAS. PETER § 145. JESUS BEFORE CAIAPHAS AND THE Morning of SIXTH day-Jeru'lem. 57. Led Him away. Our Lord was in the garden, seized now by Judas' band. The mob gave no reason for seizing Him.--¶ Caiaphas. John states that they led Him to Annas first. This was out of compliment, for he had been high priest, and those who had held the office retained some of their authority, sat in council, &c. He may have been President of the Sanhedrim at this time. The house of Annas was also a stopping place, until the Sanhedrim should be assembled at the high priest's house. The business of the high priest was to sit in judgment with the Sanhedrim (the scribes and elders), and to exer 25-27 26.59-68 14.55-65 22.63-71 18.19-24 cise judicial authority. Deut. 17. 8, 9. Though the higher jurisdiction was now taken from the Jews, yet the form remained, and it was preliminary to a presentment before the Roman governor. Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas. (18. 24.) 58. Peter. His conduct is here noted, since he had so boldly and boastfully pledged himself for the worst. He followed Christ-for he really loved Him, and was anxious for the result; but his fears had overcome him, and sight was before faith, so that he followed "afar off." Christ has followers, but, oh! their usual distance from Him-their shameful distance-afraid of sacrifices for Him, even when He goes to sacrifice Himself for them-afraid of taking any burdens of His blessed cause, when He bore the burden of THEIR SINS! How little do they know that their happiness and safety lie in keeping near to Him. Palace (avan). This is rather the open square of the dwelling-the court which Eastern houses had in the centre (see Fig. ch. 9). John here notes the fact, that another disciple (which was he himself) also followed Christ, and went in with Jesus into the high priest's house. But Peter stood at the door without. Matthew states that the maid in the porch recognized Peter. But John shows us how this occurred. Peter had been noticed, doubtless, standing outside-and then John (who was known at the high priest's house) went out and spoke to the maid and brought in Peter. This undesigned coincidence is an incidental proof of the veracity of the Evangelists.-Blunt. 59. Though Matthew and Mark record Peter's denials, after Christ's condemnation, yet they occurred, doubtless, while the council was sitting in judgment. Luke mentions the denial first, and so does John. T False witness. The Sanhedrim sought testimony that could be urged against Him, not in the way of sheer fabrication, for such stood ready, but would not be admitted. They sought to have the show of right, though they had prejudged the case, and had resolved on putting Him to death. But the false witnesses did not agree in their testimony (Mark 14. 56). It is very difficult for two or three (which the law required) to agree in all particulars where the whole is false. Hence we see the strong proof of truth we have in the harmony of the four Evangelists. 60. Two false witnesses. The law required two witnesses to convict a man (Deut. 19. 15). 61. I am able to destroy. Here was Something which they could take hold of. He had spoken of His death and resurrection, and had said that the temple of His body which they should destroy, He would raise again in three days. This language they perverted to a declaration that He would destroy their temple, "the temple of God," &c. (Mark 14., 58). "But neither so did their witness agree together" (Mark 14. 59). Therefore this FIRST PLAN FAILED. This could have been proved a capital crime, if it had so been said, since it amounted to the claim of the power of working miracles. 62. The high priest arose. some by one, and some by another thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, m the Son of God. 64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter n shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath m c.1.6.16. Jno.1.34. n Da.7.13. Jno.1.51. 1Th. 4.16. Re.1.7. o Ps.110.1. Ac.7.55. and they understood it to mean an assertion of divinity and equality with the Father, as they declared at the time (John 10. 31). Now, if He would confess to such a claim, they would charge Him with blasphemy (Levit. 24. 16). If He would deny it, they could charge Him with deceiving the people. Comp. Luke 22. 67, 68. 64. Thou hast said. This is the same as to say-Yes, it is so. Caiaphas indeed had prophesied of a vicarious death for the people. "It is expedient for us that one man should die for the people." John 11. 50.¶ Nevertheless. Though you disbelieve it, yet you shall see! Wicked men have no idea of Christ as the Judge, or of their dismay at His final coming. He here boldly declared how that tribunal of the Almighty should confound all their judgments, and how He, though now under arrest, and bound, should be seen on the right hand of power, enthroned in majesty and might.-¶ Coming in the clouds. According to His predictions (Matt. 24. 30), referring prima 63. He held His peace. He made no reply, because the witnesses disagreed, and the whole matter was contradictory. The law required the concurrent testimony of two or three examined apart. See Numb. 35. 30. Deut. 17. 6. And He was not intent on a self-vindication against their malice. I adjure thee—that is, I demand of thee, upon thine oath-rily to His coming for their destrucby the living God. This was the usual form of administering an oath, and when the accused was thus sworn, it was called the oath of adjuration. See Numb. 5. 19, 21. Josh. 7. 19. Whether thou be the Christ—that is, the Messiah-" the Son of God"whom the Jews expected (Mark reads "the Son of the Blessed"). The Jews had stoned Him for this claim, tion, as a city and nation, and also threatening the great final judgment. 65. Rent his clothes. This was a customary expression of amazement or grief, though it was a mere form, as the rent was usually in the seam. The question now arises upon the justice of the trial and sentence according to the Jewish law. It is plain that they understood the title, Son of spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. God (vs. 63), as implying divinity, for so alone could it be blasphemy and worthy of death. Blasphemy was a capital crime, regarded by the Jews with peculiar horror. And if Christ had been a mere man, this claim would have been blasphemy, and the death-sentence would have been lawful (see John 10. 31-33). They who deny Christ's true and proper divinity make Him out a blasphemer, and join the Jew in His condemnation and death. The law of blasphemy, as it existed among the Jews, extended not only to the offence of impiously using the name of the Supreme Being, but to every usurpation of His authority, or arrogation by a created being of the honour and power belonging to Him alone. The crime was held in such horror that whoever heard it, was obliged to rend his garments; but not the high priest, except in very special cases. So the high priest's act was an open and exciting testimony to the multitude, of His being found guilty. BUT IT WAS NOT BLASPHEMY IN CHRIST, BECAUSE HE WAS GOD. 66 What think ye? They an swered and said, He is guilty of death.P 67 Then did they spit in his p Le.24,16. Jno.19.7. q Is.50.6. sident of Judea with capital jurisdic tion." (Greenleaf.) Thus far, however, the charge and condemnation was purely on Jewish grounds, in which a Roman could not be expected to sympathize. The God of the Jews, against whom the offence had been committed (as alleged), was neither respected nor recognized by the Romans. This will account for the new form under which the accusation is now made. They shifted the charges, and came before Pilate with a new specification, founded on Roman law, and from that moment, no farther allusion was made to the charge of blasphemy. (See ch. 27. 11.) "It was now a charge of high treason against the Roman State and Emperor, which was wholly within Pilate's cognizance, and which no officer of Tiberius would venture lightly to regard." This led to Pilate's arraignment of Christ. It should be remarked that trials were usually held in the morning, (Jer. 21. 12,) and by the later Jews it was held unlawful to try a capital cause in the night-or to issue a cause of this nature on the same day. This last point was entirely disregarded in the case of our Lord. Before noon He was crucified. To see the haste in this transaction, consider that the supper was on Thursday evening-at midnight He was arrested and led before the high priest and Sanhedrim 66. He is guilty of death. The usual form of giving sentence-i. e., He has incurred the penalty of death. (Levit. 24. 11-16.) The high priest, as presiding over the Council or Sanhedrim, called for their verdict. They gave it unanimously, guilty! The judgment was now passed in their own supreme court. The next step was to present the case to the Roman government, in whose hands was the power of capital punishment. The sceptre had departed from Judah, since the Shiloh had come. The 67. Spit in His face. This was a Jewish prejudice was most bitterly mark of the most utter contempt and roused against Him, on the most re- abhorrence. See Numb. 12. 14. Deut. ligious point-and now they had only 25. 9. By this time the utmost bitto bring the matter before the Roman terness of the people had been stirred authority, for their consent to His up against Christ.--¶ Buffeted— death. "Pilate was now Vice-Pre-cuffed Him with the fist-Mark adds, at six o'clock on Friday morning He was brought before Pilate-was crucified at nine o'clock-darkness reigned from twelve to three-and He was buried the same evening! face, and buffeted him, and others smote him with the palms of their hands, 68 Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, who is he that smote thee? 1 Or, rods. "and began to cover His face." Luke says, “blindfolded Him." And though Matthew does not mention these things, he says they challenged Him to prophesy who smote Him-which intimates that He was first blindfolded. This shows how the Evangelists undesignedly coincide in their statements, and thus prove their honest truth.-- Smote Him with the palms of their hands (errapisan, Gr.)—rapped or slapped Him. This was expressly predicted. (Isa 50. 6; 53.3, 7.) 68. This was a taunting challenge of His divinity-" Thou Christ." He would not confound them now, as He had it in His power to do. (See John 18. 19-23.) No such impious tests of His claims would He gratify. Luke adds, "Many other things blasphemously spake they against Him." They were the blasphemers, and not He. 69. The narrative now connects properly with verse 58. Our Lord was most shamefully treated-and He had prophesied at the supper that during that night, "before the cock crow," Peter should deny Him thrice (Matt. 26. 34). Mark and Luke have it," before the cock crow twice." The Jews in the time of our Lord divided the night into four periods, even, midnight, cock-crowing, and morning. But often it was reckoned from midnight to day-break, by three crowings of the cock—and of this period our Lord spake. Peter indeed believed it not, and all the disciples protested their steadfast adherence unto death. - Peter sat without. Mark has it, beneath. This was in the hall or open court of Caiaphas' house. An oriental house 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, usually male, sometimes female. (See Acts 12. 13.) In the text the interior court, often paved or flagged and open to the sky, is the avλn where the attendants made a fire, and the passage beneath the front of the house from the street to this court is the pavλov or Tv (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. (See Fig. ch. 9. vs. 2.) It was close upon the court, for Jesus heard all that was going on around the fire, and turned and looked upon Peter. Luke 22. 61. Peter's first denial took place in the middle of the court, on his being questioned by the female porter. Peter then, according to Matthew and Mark, retreats into the passage leading into the street (or porch), where he is again questioned, and makes his second denial. Luke and John do not specify the place. As to the person who now questioned him, Mark says the maid saw him again and began to question him (vs. 69). Matthew has it another maid (vs. 71). Luke writes another person or man (vs. 58), while John uses the indefinite form, "they said," which gives us a key to the fact that Peter was here at length questioned and charged by several. The third denial took place an hour after, probably near the fire, or at least within the court, where our Lord and Peter could see each other (Luke 22. 61). Though the denials are narrated together, it is to be remembered that during the intervals between them, and all along, |