Peter, however, had he not so soon forgot his zealous attachment to
Jesus, as to leave him in such hands, without farther knowledge of his
fate; but as soon as he was satisfied that the pursuit of the disciples
was given up, he, in company with John, followed the band of officers
at safe distance, and ascertained whither they were carrying the
captive. After they had seen the train proceed to the palace of the
high priest, they proceeded directly to the same place. Here John,
being known to the high priest, and having friends in the family, went
boldly in, feeling secure by his friendship in that quarter, against
any danger in consequence of his connection with Jesus. Being known to
the servant girl who kept the door, as a friend of the family, he got
in without difficulty, and had also influence enough to get leave to
introduce Peter, as a friend of his who had some curiosity to see what
was going on. Peter, who had stood without the door waiting for the
result of John’s maneuver, was now brought into the palace, and walked
boldly into the hall where the examination of Jesus was going on,
hoping to escape entirely unnoticed by keeping in the dimly lighted
parts of the hall, by which he would be secure, at the same time that
he would the better see what was going on near the lights. Standing
thus out of the way in the back part of the room, he might have
witnessed the whole without incurring the notice of anybody. But the
servants and others, who had been out over the damp valley of the
Kedron after Jesus, feeling chilled with the walk, (for the long nights
of that season are in Jerusalem frequently in strong contrast with the
warmth of mid-day,) made up a good fire of coal in the back part of the
hall, where they stood looking on. Peter himself being, too, no doubt
thoroughly chilled with his long exposure to the cold night air, very
naturally and unreflectingly came forward to the fire, where he sat
down and warmed himself among the servants and soldiers. The bright
light of the coals shining directly on his anxious face, those who
stood by, noticing a stranger taking such interest in the proceedings,
began to scrutinize him more narrowly. At last, the servant girl
who had let him in at the door, with the inquisitive curiosity so
peculiarly strong in her sex, knowing that he had come in with John
as his particular acquaintance, and concluding that he was like him
associated with Jesus, boldly said to him, “Thou also art one of this
man’s disciples.” But Peter, like a true Galilean, as ready to lie
as to fight, thinking only of the danger of the recognition, at once
denied him, forgetting the lately offensive prediction, in his sudden
alarm. He said before them all, “Woman, I am not!――I know him not;
neither do I understand what thou sayest.” This bold and downright
denial silenced the forward impertinence of the girl, and for a time
may have quieted the suspicions of those around. Peter, however,
startled by this sudden attack, all at once perceived the danger into
which he had unthinkingly thrust himself, and drawing back from his
prominent station before the fire, which had made him so unfortunately
conspicuous, went out into the porch of the building, notwithstanding
the cold night air, preferring the discomfort of the exposure, to the
danger of his late position. As he walked there in the open air, he
heard the note of the cock sounding clear, through the stillness of
midnight, announcing the beginning of the third watch. The sound had a
sad import to him, and must have recalled to his mind some thought of
his master’s warning; but before it could have made much impression,
it was instantly banished altogether from his mind, by a new alarm
from the inquisitiveness of some of the retainers of the palace, who,
seeing a stranger lurking in a covert manner about the building at
that time of night, very naturally felt suspicious enough of him to
examine his appearance narrowly. Among those who came about him, was
another of those pert damsels who seem to have been very numerous and
forward about the house of the head of the Jewish faith. She, after
a satisfactory inspection of the suspicious person, very promptly
informed those that were there also about him, “This fellow also was
with Jesus of Nazareth.” Peter’s patience being at last worn out with
the pertinacious annoyances of these spiteful lasses, not only flatly
contradicted the positive assertion of the girl, but backed his words
with an oath, which seems to have had the decisive effect of hushing
his female accusers entirely, and he considered himself to have turned
off suspicion for a time so effectually, that, after cooling himself
sufficiently in the porch, being distracted with anxiety about the
probable fate of his beloved Master, he at last ventured again into
the great hall of the palace, where the examination of Jesus was still
going on. Here he remained a deeply interested spectator and auditor
for about an hour, without being disturbed, when some of the bystanders
who were not so much interested in the affair before them as to be
prevented by it from looking about them, had their attention again
drawn to the stranger who had been an object of such suspicion. There
were probably more than one that recognized the active and zealous
follower of the Nazarene, as Peter had been in such constant attendance
on him throughout his whole stay in Jerusalem. But no one seems to have
cared to provoke an irascible Galilean by an accusation which he might
resent in the characteristic manner of his countrymen; till another
of the servants of the high priest, a relation of Malchus, whose ear
Peter had cut off, after looking well at him, and being provoked at the
impudence of such a vagabond in thrusting himself into the home of the
very man whom he had so shockingly mutilated and so nearly murdered,
determined to bring the offender to punishment, and speaking to his
fellow-servants, he indignantly and confidently affirmed, “This fellow
also was with him, for he is a Galilean.” And turning to Peter, whom
he had seen in Gethsemane, when engaged at the time of the capture
of Jesus, he imperiously asked him, “Did I not see thee in the garden
with him?” And others, joining in the charge, said decidedly to him,
“Surely thou art one of them also: for thy very speech, thy accent,
unquestionably, betrays thee to be a Galilean.” Peter began at last to
see that his situation was growing quite desperate, and finding that
his distress about his Lord had brought him within a chance of the
same fate, determined to extricate himself by as unscrupulously using
his tongue in his own defense as he had before used his sword for his
Master. Besides, he had already told two flat lies within about three
hours, and it was not for a Galilean in such a pass to hesitate about
one more, even though seconded by a perjury. For he then began to curse
and to swear, saying, “Man, I know not what thou sayest.――I know not
the man of whom ye speak.” And immediately, while he was yet speaking,
the cock crew the second time. At that moment, the Lord turned and
looked upon Peter, and at the same sound the conscience-stricken
disciple turning towards his Lord, met that glance. And what a look!
He who cannot imagine it for himself, cannot conceive it from the ideal
picture of another; but its effect was sufficiently dramatic to impress
the least picturesque imagination. As the Lord turned and looked
upon him, Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said to
him, “Before the cock shall crow twice this night, thou shalt deny me
thrice.” And thinking thereon, he went out, and wept bitterly. Tears of
rebuked conceit,――of self-humbled pride, over fallen glory and sullied
honor,――flowed down his manly cheeks. Where was now the fiery spirit
once in word so ready to brave death, with all the low malice of base
foes, for the sake of Jesus? Where was that unshaken steadiness, that
dauntless energy that once won him from the lips of his Master, when
first his searching eye fell on him, the name of the ROCK,――that name
by which again he had been consecrated as the mighty foundation-ROCK of
the church of God? Was this the chief of the apostles?――the keeper of
the keys of the kingdom of heaven?――binding and loosing on earth what
should be bound or loosed in heaven? Where were the brave, high hopes
of earthly glory to be won under the warlike banners of his kingly
Master? Where was that Master and Lord? The hands of the rude were now
laid on him, in insult and abuse,――his glories broken and faded,――his
power vain for his own rescue from sufferings vastly greater than
those so often relieved by him in others,――his followers dispirited and
scattered,――disowning and casting out as evil the name they had so long
adored. The haughty lords of Judaism were now exulting in their cruel
victory, re-established in their dignity, and strengthened in their
tyranny by this long-wished triumph over their deadly foe. He wept for
bright hopes dimmed,――for crushed ambition,――but more than all, for
broken faith,――for trampled truth,――and for the three-fold and perjured
denial of his betrayed and forsaken Lord. Well might he weep――
“There’s bliss in tears,
When he who sheds them inly feels
Some lingering stain of early years
Effaced by every drop that steals.
The fruitless showers of worldly woe
Fall dark to earth and never rise;
But tears that from repentance flow,
In bright exhalement reach the skies.”
_The soldiers_, &c.――It has been supposed by some that this
armed force was a part of the Roman garrison which was always
kept in Castle Antonia, close by the temple; (see note on page
95;) but there is nothing in the expressions of either of the
evangelists which should lead us to think so; on the contrary,
their statement most distinctly specifies, that those concerned
in the arrest were from a totally different quarter. Matthew
(xxvi. 47) describes them as “a great throng, with swords and
staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people.” The
whole expression implies a sort of half-mob of low fellows,
servants and followers of the members of the Sanhedrim,
accompanying the ordinary temple-guard, which was a mere band of
Levite peace-officers under the priests, whose business it was
to keep order in the courts of the temple――a duty hardly more
honorable than that of a sweeper or “doorkeeper in the house
of the Lord,” from which office, indeed, it was probably not
distinct. These watchmen and porters, for they were no better,
were allowed by the Roman government of the city and kingdom,
a kind of contemptuous favor in bearing swords to defend from
profane intrusion their holy shrine, which Gentile soldiers
could not approach as guards, without violating the sanctity of
the place. Such a body as these men and their chance associates,
are therefore well and properly described by Matthew, as a
“throng with swords and clubs;” but what intelligent man would
ever have thought of characterizing in this way, a regular
detachment of the stately and well-armed legion which maintained
the dignity and power of the Roman governor of Judea? Mark (xiv.
43) uses precisely the same expression as Matthew, to describe
them: Luke (xxii. 52) represents Jesus as speaking to “the chief
priests and _captains of the temple_ and the elders, who had
come against him, saying, ‘Have you come out as against a thief,
with swords and clubs?’” John (xviii. 3) speaks of the band
as made up in part of the servants of “the chief priests and
Pharisees,” &c. So that the whole matter, unquestionably, was
managed and executed entirely by the Jews; and the progress of
the story shows that they did not call in the aid of the heathen
secular power, until the last bloody act required a consummation
which the ordinances of Rome forbade to the Jews, and then
only did they summon the aid of the governor’s military force.
Indeed, they were too careful in preserving their few peculiar
secular privileges still left, to give up the smallest power of
tyrannizing, permitted by their Roman lords.
_The long nights in contrast with the heat of the day._――It
should be remembered, that according to a just calculation,
these events happened in the month of March, when the air
of Palestine is uncomfortably cold. Conder, in his valuable
topographical compilation, says, “during the months of May,
June, July and August, the sky is for the most part cloudless;
but during the night, the earth is moistened with a copious dew.
Sultry days are not unfrequently succeeded by intensely cold
nights. To these sudden vicissitudes, references are made in
the Old Testament. Genesis xxxi. 40: Psalm cxxi. 6.” [Modern
Traveler, Palestine, p. 14.]
The cold season, (קור _Qor_,) immediately following the true
winter, (חרפ _Hhoreph_,) took in the latter part of the Hebrew
month Shebeth, the whole of Adar, and the former half of
Nisan; that is in modern divisions of time,――from the beginning
of February to the beginning of April, according to the
_Calendarium Palestinae_, in the Critica Biblica, Vol. III:
but according to Jahn, (Archaeologia Biblica § 21,) from the
_middle_ of February to the _middle_ of April, the two estimates
varying with the different views about the dates of the ancient
Hebrew months.
_Galilean, ready to lie as to fight._――This may strike some, as
rather too harsh a sentence to pass upon the general character
of a whole people, but I believe I am borne out in this seeming
abuse, by the steady testimony of most authorities to which
I can readily refer. Josephus, whom I have already quoted in
witness of their pugnacity, (on page 102,) seems to have been
so well pleased with this trait, and also with their “industry
and activity,” which he so highly commends in them, as well as
the richness of the natural resources of the country, all which
characteristics, both of the people and the region, he made so
highly available in their defense during the war with the Romans,
that he does not think it worth while to criticise their morals,
to which, indeed, the season of a bloody war gives a sort of
license, that made such defects less prominent, being apparently
rather characteristic of the times than the people. But there is
great abundance of condemnatory testimony, which shows that the
Galileans bore as bad a character among their neighbors, as my
severest remark could imply. Numerous passages in the gospels
and Acts show this so plainly, as to convey this general
impression against them very decidedly. Kuinoel (on Matthew ii.
23) speaks strongly of their proverbially low moral character.
“_All_ the Galileans were so despised by the dwellers of
Jerusalem and Judea, that when they wished to characterize a
man as a low and outcast wretch, they called him a Galilean.” On
other passages also, (as on John vii. 52, and Matthew iv. 17,)
he repeats this intellectual and moral condemnation in similar
terms. Beza and Grotius also, in commenting on these passages,
speak of Galilee as “contempta regio.” Rosenmueller also, (on
John vii. 52,) says “Nullus, aiunt, Galilaeus unquam a Deo
donatus est spiritu prophetico: _gens est Deo despecta_.” That
is, “It was a saying among them, that no Galilean was ever
indued with a spirit of prophecy: they are a people _despised by
God_.” I might quote at great length from many commentators to
the same effect, but these will serve as a specimen. It should
be remarked, however, that the Galileans, though they might be
worse than most Jews in their general character, were not very
peculiar in their neglect of truth; for from the time of Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob, to the present moment, the Asiatic races,
generally, have been infamous for falsehood, and there are many
modern travelers who are ready to testify that an Oriental,
generally, when asked an indifferent question, will tell a lie
at a venture, unless he sees some special personal advantage
likely to result to him from telling the truth.
Yet in minute legal observances, the Galileans were, for the
most part, much more rigid in interpreting and following the law
of Moses, than the inhabitants of Judea, as is abundantly shown
by Lightfoot in his numerous Talmudic quotations, (_Centuria
Chorographica_ chapter 86,) where the comparison is, on many
accounts, highly favorable to such of the Galileans as pretended
to observe and follow the Jewish law at all.
_Thy accent betrays thee._――Lightfoot is very rich in happy
illustrations of this passage, (Centuria Chorographica chapter
87.) He has drawn very largely here from the Talmudic writers,
who are quite amusing in the instances which they give of the
dialectic differences between the Galileans and the Judeans.
Several of the puns which they give, would not be accounted dull
even in modern times, and indeed, the Galilean brogue seems to
have been as well marked, and to have given occasion for nearly
as much wit as that of Ireland. The Galileans, thus marked by
dialect as well as by manners, held about the same place in the
estimation of the pure Judean race, as the modern Irish do among
those of Saxon-English tongue and blood; and we cannot better
conceive of the scorn excited in the refined Jews by the idea of
a Galilean prophet with his simple disciples, than by imagining
the sort of impression that would be made, by a raw Irishman
attempting the foundation of a new sect in London or Boston,
with a dozen rough and uneducated workmen for his preachers and
main supporters.
_The bright light of the fire shining on his face_, &c.――This
incident is taken from Luke xxii. 56, where the expression
in the common version is, “a certain maid saw him as he sat
by the _fire_.” But in the original Greek this last word is
φῶς, (_phos_,) which means “light,” and not “fire;” and it is
translated here in this peculiar manner, because it evidently
refers to the light of the _fire_, from its connection with the
preceding verse, where it is said that “Peter sat down among
them ‘before’ the _fire_ which they had kindled;” the word fire
in this passage being in the Greek πυρ, (_pur_,) which is never
translated otherwise. But the unusual translation of the word
φῶς, by “fire” in the other verse, though it gives a just idea
of Peter’s position, makes a common reader lose sight of the
prominent reason of his detection, which was, that the “_light_
of the fire” shone on his face.
In speaking of Peter’s fall and its attendant circumstances,
Lampius (in Gospel of John xviii. 17,) seems to be most
especially scandalized by the _means_ through which Peter’s ruin
was effected. “Sed ab _ancilla_ Cepham vinci, dedecus ejus auget.
Quanta inconstantia! Qui in armatos ordines paulo ante irruperat
nunc ad vocem levis mulierculae tremit. Si Adamo probrosum,
quod a femina conjuge seductus erat, non minus Petro, quod ab
ancilla.” That is, “But that Cephas should have been overcome by
a _girl_, increases his disgrace. How great the change! He who,
but a little before, had charged an armed host, now trembled at
the voice of a silly woman. If it was a shame to Adam, that he
had been seduced by his wife, it was no less so to Peter, that
he was by a girl.”
_The cock crew._――By this circumstance, the time of the denial
in all its parts is well ascertained. The first cock-crowing
after the first denial marked the hour of midnight, and the
second cock-crowing announced the first dawn of day. As Lampius
says, “Altera haec erat αλεκτροφῶνια, praenuncia lucis, non
tantum in terra, sed et in corde Petri, tenebris spississimis
obsepto, mox iterum oriturae.” “_This_ was the second
cock-crowing, the herald of light, soon to rise again, not only
on earth, but also in the heart of Peter, now overspread with
the thickest darkness.”
_And thinking thereon, he wept._――This expression is taken from
Mark xiv. 72, and accords with our common translation, though
very different from many others that have been proposed. The
word thus variously rendered, is in the original Greek, επιβαλων,
(_epibalon_,) and bears a great variety of definitions which can
be determined only by its connections, in the passages where it
occurs. Campbell says, “There are not many words in scripture
which have undergone more interpretations than this term;”
and truly the array of totally diverse renderings, each ably
supported by many of the most learned Biblical scholars that
ever lived, is truly appalling to the investigator. (1.) Those
who support the common English translation are Kypke, Wetstein,
Campbell and Bloomfield, and others quoted by the latter.
――(2.) Another translation which has been ably defended is,
“_he began_ to weep.” This is the expression in the common
German translation, (Martin Luther’s,) “ER HOB AN ZU WEINEN.”
It is also the version of the Vulgate, (“Coepit flere,”) the
Syriac, Gothic, Persian, and Armenian translations, as Kuinoel
and Heinsius observe, who also maintain this rendering.
――(3.) Another is, “_He proceeded_ to weep,” (“Addens flevit.”)
which is that of Grotius, LeClerc, Simon, Petavius and others.
――(4.) Another is, “_covering his head_, he wept.” This seems
to have begun with Theophylact, who has been followed by a great
number, among whom Salmasius, Wolf, Suicer, Macknight, and Krebs,
are the most prominent.――(5.) Another is, “_rushing out_, he
wept.” This is maintained by Beza, Rosenmueller, Schleusner,
Bretschneider and Wahl.――(6.) Another is, “_Having looked at
him_,” (Jesus,) “he wept.” This is the version of Hammond and
Palairet.――“Who shall decide when” so many “doctors disagree?”
I should feel safest in leaving the reader, as Parkhurst does,
to “consider and judge” for himself; but in defense of my own
rendering, I would simply observe, that the _common English
version_ is that which is most in accordance with the rules
of grammar, and is best supported by classic usage, while
the second and third are justly objected to by Bloomfield and
Campbell as ungrammatical, and unsupported by _truly_ parallel
passages, notwithstanding the array of classical quotations
by Bp. ♦Bloomfield and others; and the fourth and fifth equally
deserve rejection for the very tame and cold expression which
they make of it, the fourth also being ungrammatical like the
second and third. The sixth definition also may be rejected
on grammatical grounds, as well as for lack of authorities and
classic usage to support such an elliptical translation.――For
long and numerous discussions of all these points, see any or
every one of the writers whose names I have cited in this note.
♦ “Blomfield” replaced with “Bloomfield”