{"collection":"chr","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/chr/ecf/106/1060185.htm","path":"chr/ecf/106/1060185.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/106/1060185.htm","text":"Chapter VI.\u2014Of the Harmony Characterizing the Accounts Which These Evangelists Give of What Happened When the Lord Was Led Away to the House of the High Priest, as Also of the Occurrences Which Took Place Within the Said House After He Was Conducted There in the Nighttime, and in Particular of the Incident of Peter\u2019s Denial.\n19. In the line of Matthew\u2019s narrative we come next upon this statement: \u201cAnd they that laid hold on Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.\u201d 1288 We learn, however, from John that He was conducted first to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas. 1289 On the other hand, Mark and Luke omit all mention of the name of the high priest. 1290 Moreover [we find that] He was led away bound. For, as John informs us, there were at hand there, in the multitude, a tribune and a cohort, and the servants of the Jews. 1291 Then in Matthew we have these words: \u201cBut Peter followed Him afar off unto the high priest\u2019s palace, and went in and sat with the servants to see the end.\u201d 1292 To this passage in the narrative Mark makes this addition: \u201cAnd he warmed himself at the fire.\u201d 1293 Luke also makes a statement which amounts to the same, thus: \u201cPeter followed afar off: and when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were sat down together, Peter sat down among them.\u201d 1294 And John proceeds in these terms: \u201cAnd Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. That disciple (namely, that other) was known unto the high priest, and went in (as John also tells us) with Jesus into the palace of the high priest. But Peter (as the same John adds) stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.\u201d 1295 For the last fact we are thus indebted to John\u2019s narrative. And in this way we see how it came about that Peter also got inside, and was within the hall, as the other evangelists mention. 1296\n20. Then Matthew\u2019s report goes on thus: \u201cNow the chief priests and elders and all the council sought false witness against Jesus, to put Him to death, but found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none.\u201d 1297 Mark comes in here with the explanation, that \u201ctheir witness agreed not together.\u201d 1298 But, as Matthew continues, \u201cAt the last came two false witnesses, and said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.\u201d 1299 Mark states that there were also others who said, \u201cWe have heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. And therefore (as Mark also observes in the same passage) their witness did not agree together.\u201d 1300 Then Matthew gives us the following relation: \u201cAnd the high priest arose and said unto Him, Answerest thou nothing? What is it which these witness against thee? But Jesus held His peace. And the high priest answered and said unto Him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said.\u201d 1301 Mark reports the same passage in different terms, only he omits to mention the fact that the high priest adjured Him. He makes it plain, however, that the two expressions ascribed to Jesus as the reply to the high priest,\u2014namely, \u201cThou hast said,\u201d and, \u201cI am,\u201d 1302 \u2014really amount to the same. For, as the said Mark puts it, the narrative goes on thus: \u201cAnd Jesus said, I am; and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.\u201d 1303 This is just as Matthew also presents the passage, with the solitary exception that he does not say that Jesus replied in the phrase \u201cI am.\u201d Again, Matthew goes on further in this strain: \u201cThen the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? And they answered and said, He is guilty of death.\u201d 1304 Mark\u2019s version of this is entirely to the same effect. So Matthew continues, \u201cThen did they spit in His face, and buffeted Him, and others smote Him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?\u201d 1305 Mark reports these things in like manner. He also mentions a further fact, namely, that they covered His face. 1306 On these incidents we have likewise the testimony of Luke.\n21. These things the Lord is understood to have passed through on to the early morning in the high priest\u2019s house, to which He was first conducted, and in which Peter was also tempted. p. 186 With respect, however, to this temptation of Peter, which took place during the time that the Lord was enduring these injuries, the several evangelists do not present the same order in the recital of the circumstances. For Matthew and Mark first narrate the injuries offered to the Lord, and then this temptation of Peter. Luke, again, first describes Peter\u2019s temptation, and only after that the reproaches borne by the Lord; while John, on the other hand, first recounts part of Peter\u2019s temptation, then introduces some verses recording what the Lord had to bear, next appends a statement to the effect that the Lord was sent away thence (i.e. from Annas) to Caiaphas the high priest, and then at this point resumes and sums up the relation which he had commenced of Peter\u2019s temptation in the house to which he was first conducted, giving a full account of that incident, thereafter reverting to the succession of things befalling the Lord, and telling us how He was brought to Caiaphas. 1307\n22. Accordingly, Matthew proceeds as follows: \u201cNow Peter sat without in the palace; and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee. But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest. And as he went out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth. And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man. And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them, for thy speech bewrayeth thee. Then began he to curse and to swear, saying that he knew not the man. And immediately the cock crew.\u201d 1308 Such is Matthew\u2019s version. But we are also given to understand that after he had gone outside, and when he had now denied the Lord once, the first cock crew,\u2014a fact which Matthew does not specify, but which is intimated by Mark.\n23. But it was not when he was outside at the gate that he denied the Lord the second time. That took place after he had come back to the fire-place. There was no need, however, to mention the precise time at which he did thus return. Consequently Mark goes on with his narrative of the incident in these terms: \u201cAnd he went out into the porch, and the cock crew. And a maid saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by, This is one of them. And he denied it again.\u201d 1309 This is not the same maid, however, as the former one, but another, as Matthew tells us. Nay, we gather further that on the occasion of the second denial he was addressed by two parties, namely, by the maid who is mentioned by Matthew and Mark, and also by another person who is noticed by Luke. For Luke\u2019s account runs in this style: \u201cAnd Peter followed afar off. And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were sat down together, Peter sat down among them. But a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire, and earnestly looked upon him, and said, This man was also with him. And he denied Him, saying, Woman, I know Him not. And after a little while, another saw him, and said, \u201cThou art also of them.\u201d 1310 Now the clause, \u201cAnd after a little while,\u201d which Luke introduces, covers the period during which [we may suppose that] Peter went out and the first cock crew. By this time, however, he had come in again; and thus we can understand the consistency of John\u2019s narrative, which informs us that he denied the Lord the second time as he stood by the fire. For in his version of Peter\u2019s first denial, John not only says nothing about the first crowing of the cock (which holds good of the other evangelists, too, with the exception of Mark), but also leaves unnoticed the fact that it was as he sat by the fire that the maid recognised him. For all that John says there is this, \u201cThen saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also one of this man\u2019s disciples? He saith, I am not.\u201d 1311 Then he brings in the statement which he deemed it right to make on the subject of what took place with Jesus in that same house. His record of this is to the following effect: \u201cAnd the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals, for it was cold. And they warmed themselves; and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself.\u201d 1312 Here, therefore, we may suppose Peter to have gone out, and by this time to have come in again. For at first he was sitting by the fire; and after a space, as we gather, he had returned, and commenced to stand [by the hearth].\n24. It may be, however, that some one will say to us: Peter had not actually gone out as yet, but had only risen with the purpose of going out. This may be the allegation of one who is of opinion that the second interrogation and denial took place when Peter was outside at the door. Let us therefore look at what follows in John\u2019s narrative. It is to this effect: \u201cThe high priest then asked Jesus of His disciples, and of His doctrine. Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said. And when He had p. 187 thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me? And Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.\u201d 1313 This certainly shows us that Annas was high priest. For Jesus had not been sent to Caiaphas as yet, when the question was thus put to Him, \u201cAnswerest thou the high priest so?\u201d Mention is also made of Annas and Caiaphas as high priests by Luke at the beginning of his Gospel. 1314 After these statements, John reverts to the account which he had previously begun of Peter\u2019s denial. Thus he brings us back to the house in which the incidents took place which he has recorded, and from which Jesus was sent away to Caiaphas, to whom He was being conducted at the commencement of this scene, as Matthew has informed us. 1315 Moreover, it is in the way of a recapitulation that John records the matters regarding Peter which he has introduced at this point. Falling back upon his narration of that incident with the view of making up a complete account of the threefold denial, he proceeds thus: \u201cAnd Simon stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not.\u201d 1316 Here, therefore, we find that Peter\u2019s second denial occurred, not when he was at the door, but as he was standing by the fire. This, however, could not have been the case, had he not returned by this time after having gone outside. For it is not that by this second occasion he had actually gone out, and that the other maid who is referred to saw him there outside; but the matter is put as if it was on his going out that she saw him; or, in other words, it was when he rose to go out that she observed him, and said to those who were there,\u2014that is, to those who were gathered by the fire inside, within the court,\u2014\u201cThis fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth.\u201d Then we are to suppose that the man who had thus gone outside, on hearing this assertion, came in again, and swore to those who were now inimically disposed, \u201cI do not know the man.\u201d 1317 In like manner, Mark also says of this same maid, that \u201cshe began to say to them that stood by, This is one of them.\u201d 1318 For this damsel was speaking not to Peter, but to those who had remained there when he went out. At the same time, she spoke in such a manner that he heard her words; whereupon he came back and stood again by the fire, and met their words with a negative. Then we have the statement made by John in these terms: \u201cThey said, Art not thou also one of his disciples?\u201d We understand this question to have been addressed to him on his return as he stood there; and we also recognise the harmony in which this stands with the position that on this occasion Peter had to do not only with that other maid who is mentioned by Matthew and Mark in connection with this second denial, but also with that other person who is introduced by Luke. This is the reason why John uses the plural, \u201cThey said.\u201d The explanation then may be, that when the maid said to those who were with her in the court as he went out, \u201cThis is one of them,\u201d he heard her words and returned with the purpose of clearing himself, as it were, by a denial. Or, in accordance with the more probable theory, we may suppose that he did not catch what was said about him as he went out, and that on his return the maid and the other person who is introduced by Luke addressed him thus, \u201cArt not thou also one of his disciples?\u201d that he met them with a denial, \u201cand said, I am not;\u201d and further, that when this other person of whom Luke speaks insisted more pertinaciously, and said, \u201cSurely thou art one of them,\u201d Peter answered thus, \u201cMan, I am not.\u201d Still, when we compare together all the statements made by the several evangelists on this subject, we come clearly to the conclusion, that Peter\u2019s second denial took place, not when he was at the door, but when he was within, by the fire in the court. It becomes evident, therefore, that Matthew and Mark, who have told us how he went without, have left the fact of his return unnoticed simply with a view to brevity.\n25. Accordingly, let us next examine into the consistency of the evangelists so far as the third denial is concerned, which we have previously instanced in the statement given by Matthew only. Mark then goes on with his version in these terms: \u201cAnd a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them; for thou art a Galil\u00e6an. But he began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak. And immediately the second time the cock crew.\u201d 1319 Luke, again, continues his narrative, relating the same incident in this fashion: \u201cAnd about the space of one hour after, another confidently affirmed, Of a truth this fellow also was with him; for he is a Galil\u00e6an. And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately while he yet spake the cock crew.\u201d 1320 John follows with his account of Peter\u2019s third denial, which is thus p. 188 given: \u201cOne of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him? Peter then denied again; and immediately the cock crew.\u201d 1321 Now what precise period of time is meant under the phrase, \u201ca little after,\u201d which is employed by Matthew and Mark, is made clear by Luke, when he says, \u201cAnd about the space of one hour after.\u201d John, however, conveys no intimation of this space of time. Again, with respect to the circumstance that Matthew and Mark use the plural number instead of the singular, and speak of the persons who were engaged with Peter, while Luke mentions only a single individual, and John, too, specifies but one, particularizing him further as kinsman to him whose ear Peter cut off; we may easily explain it either by understanding Matthew and Mark to have adopted a familiar method of speech here in employing the plural number simply instead of the singular, or by supposing that one of the persons present\u2014one who knew Peter and had seen him\u2014took the lead in making the declaration, and that the rest, imitating his confidence, joined him in pressing the assertion upon Peter. If this is the case, then two of the evangelists have given the general statement, using simply the plural number; while the other two have preferred to particularize only the one special individual who played the chief part in the transaction. But, once more, Matthew affirms that the words, \u201cSurely thou also art one of them, for thy speech bewrayeth thee,\u201d were spoken to Peter himself. In like manner, John tells us that the question, \u201cDid not I see thee in the garden with him?\u201d was addressed directly to Peter. But Mark, on the other hand, gives us to understand that the sentence, \u201cSurely he is one of them, for he is also a Galil\u00e6an,\u201d was what those who stood by said to each other about Peter. And, in the same way, Luke indicates that the declaration uttered by the other person, who said, \u201cOf a truth, this fellow also was with him, for he is a Galil\u00e6an,\u201d was not addressed to Peter, but was made regarding Peter. These variations, however, may be explained either by understanding the evangelists, who speak of Peter as the person directly addressed, to have fairly reproduced the general sense, inasmuch as what was spoken about the man in his own presence was much the same as if it had been spoken immediately to him; or by supposing that both these methods of address were actually practised, and that the one has been noticed by the former evangelists, and the other by the latter. Moreover, we take the second cockcrowing to have occurred after the third denial, as Mark has expressly informed us.\n26. Matthew then proceeds with his narrative in these terms: \u201cAnd Peter remembered the word of Jesus which He had said unto him, Before the cock crow thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out and wept bitterly.\u201d 1322 Mark, again, gives it thus: \u201cAnd Peter called to mind the word that Jesus had said unto him, Before the cock crow twice thou shall deny me thrice. And he began to weep.\u201d 1323 Luke\u2019s version is as follows: \u201cAnd the Lord turned and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had said unto him, Before the cock crow thou shalt deny me thrice. And Peter went out and wept bitterly.\u201d 1324 John says nothing about Peter\u2019s recollection and weeping. Now, the statement made here by Luke, to the effect that \u201cthe Lord turned and looked upon Peter,\u201d is one which requires more careful consideration, with a view to its correct acceptance. For although there are also inner halls (or courts), so named, it was in the outer court (or hall) that Peter appeared on this occasion among the servants, who were warming themselves along with him at the fire. And it is not a credible supposition that Jesus was heard by the Jews in this place, so that we might also understand the look referred to to have been a look with the bodily eye. For Matthew presents us first with this narrative: \u201cThen did they spit in His face and buffeted Him; and others smote Him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, who is he that smote thee?\u201d 1325 And then he follows this up immediately with the paragraph about Peter: \u201cNow Peter sat without in the palace.\u201d 1326 He would not, however, have used this latter expression, had it not been the case that the things previously alluded to were done to the Lord inside the house. And, indeed, as we gather from Mark\u2019s version, these things took place not simply in the interior, but also in the upper parts of the house. For, after recording the said circumstances, Mark goes on thus: \u201cAnd as Peter was beneath in the palace.\u201d 1327 Thus, as Matthew\u2019s words, \u201cNow Peter sat without in the palace,\u201d show us that the things previously mentioned took place inside the house, so Mark\u2019s words, \u201cAnd as Peter was beneath in the palace,\u201d indicate that they were done not only in the interior, but in the upper parts of the house. But if this is the case, how could the Lord have looked on Peter with the actual glance of the bodily eye? These considerations bring p. 189 me to the conclusion, that the look in question was one cast upon Peter from Heaven, the effect of which was to bring up before his mind the number of times he had now denied [his Master], and the declaration which the Lord had made to him prophetically, and in this way (the Lord thus looking mercifully upon him 1328 ), to lead him to repent, and to weep salutary tears. The expression, therefore, will be a parallel to other modes of speech which we employ daily, as when we thus pray, \u201cLord, look upon me;\u201d or as when, in reference to one who has been delivered by the divine mercy from some danger or trouble, we say that the \u201cLord looked upon him.\u201d In the Scriptures, also, we find such words as these: \u201cLook upon me and hear me;\u201d 1329 and \u201cReturn, 1330 O Lord, and deliver my soul.\u201d 1331 And, according to my judgment, a similar view is to be taken of the expression adopted here, when it is said that \u201cthe Lord turned and looked upon Peter; and Peter remembered the word of the Lord.\u201d Finally, we have to notice how, while it is the more usual practice with the evangelists to employ the name \u201cJesus\u201d in preference to the word \u201cLord\u201d in their narratives, Luke has used the latter term exclusively in the said sentence, saying expressly, \u201cThe \u2018Lord\u2019 turned and looked upon Peter; and Peter remembered the word of the \u2018Lord:\u2019\u201d whereas Matthew and Mark have passed over this \u201clook\u201d in silence, and consequently have said that Peter remembered not the word of the \u201cLord,\u201d but the word of \u201cJesus.\u201d From this, therefore, we may gather that the \u201clook\u201d thus proceeding from Jesus was not one with the eyes of the human body, but a look cast from Heaven. 1332\nLuke 22:54, 55.\n185:1295 185:1296\n[It is implied here that the denials of Peter took place in the house of Annas, and also that Matthew and Mark, in their account of the night examination, refer to the same event described by John 18.19-23. The objection to this is found in the explicit statement of Matt. 26.57 in regard to Caiaphas.\u2014R.]\n185:1297 185:1298 185:1299 185:1300 185:1301 185:1302 185:1303 185:1304 185:1305 185:1306 186:1307\n[The evangelists indicate three distinct episodes of recognition and denial, but do not refer to the same facts in detail. This Augustin seems to apprehend.\u2014R.]\n186:1308 186:1309 186:1310 186:1311 186:1312 187:1313 187:1314 187:1315\nMatt. xxviii. 57. [See note on \u00a7 19. Augustin\u2019s Latin text in John xviii. 24, et misit eum, etc., agrees in tense with the Greek. The Authorized Version incorrectly renders, \u201cNow Annas had sent,\u201d etc. The Revised Version has, \u201cAnnas therefore sent,\u201d The theory of two distinct night examinations (before Annas first, and then before Caiphas) agrees best with the literal sense. Both may have occupied parts of the same house.\u2014R.]\n187:1316 187:1317 187:1318 187:1319 187:1320\nLuke 22:59, 60.\n188:1321\nJohn 18:26, 27.\n188:1322 188:1323\nMark xiv. 72: the words, \u201cwhen he thought thereon,\u201d being omitted. [There is nothing omitted. The difficult Greek term (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03ce\u03bd) is explained by \u201cwhen he thought thereon\u201d in the Authorized Version. Augustin\u2019s view is given in Revised Version margin, \u201cAnd he began to weep.\u201d\u2014R.]\n188:1324\nLuke 22:61, 62.\n188:1325 188:1326\nAtrio, court. [The Revised Version properly renders the terms referring to the \u201ccourt,\u201d etc. \u201cPalace\u201d (Authorized Version) is misleading.\u2014R.]\n188:1327 189:1328\nOr, regarding him, respiciente.\n189:1329 189:1330 189:1331 189:1332\n[This fanciful interpretation is unnecessary. The inner court of the large Jewish house, with rooms looking upon it, would allow place for all the incidents, without any departure from the simple historical sense.\u2014R.]","title":"Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VI: The Harmony of t...","type":"page"}