Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible

See also Mark 14:1-11; Luke 22:1-6; John 12:1-7.

Sought opportunity to betray him - Luke adds, “in the absence of the multitude.” This was the chief difficulty - to deliver him into the hands of the priests so as not to have it known by the people, or so as not to excite tumult.

The “opportunity” which he sought, therefore, was one in which the multitude would not see him, or could not rescue the Saviour.

To betray him - The word “betray” commonly means to deliver into the hands of an enemy by treachery or breach of trust; to do it while friendship or faithfulness is “professed.” All this took place in the case of Judas. But the word in the original does not necessarily imply this. It means simply to “deliver up,” or to give into their hands. He sought opportunity “how he might deliver him up to them,” agreeably to the contract.

They made ready the passover - That is, they procured a lamb, multitudes of which were kept for sale in the temple; they had it killed and flayed by the priests, and the blood poured by the altar; they roasted the lamb, and prepared the bitter herbs, the sauce, and the unleavened bread.

This was done, it seems, while our Lord was absent, by the two disciples.

When the even was come - The lamb was killed “between the evenings,” Exodus 12:6 (Hebrew) - that is between three o’clock, p. m., and nine in the evening. The Jews reckoned two evenings - one from three o’clock p. m. to sunset, the other from sunset to the close of the first watch in the night, or nine o’clock p. m. The paschal supper was commonly eaten after the setting of the sun, and often in the night, Exodus 12:8.

He sat down - At first the supper was eaten standing, with their loins girded and their staff in their hand, denoting the haste with which they were about to flee from Egypt. Afterward, however, they introduced the practice, it seems, of partaking of this as they did of their ordinary meals. The original word is, “he reclined” - that is, he placed himself on the couch in a reclining posture, in the usual manner in which they partook of their meals. See the notes at Matthew 23:6. While reclining there at the supper, the disciples had a dispute which should be the greatest. See the notes at Luke 22:24-30. At this time, also, before the institution of the Lord’s supper, Jesus washed the feet of his disciples, to teach them humility. See the notes at John 13:1-20.

The Son of man, goeth - That is, the Messiah - the Christ. See the notes at Matthew 8:20.

Goeth - Dies, or will die. The Hebrews often spoke in this manner of death, Psalms 39:13; Genesis 15:2.

As it is written of him - That is, as it is “written” or prophesied of him in the Old Testament. Compare Psalms 41:9 with John 13:18. See also Daniel 9:26-27; Isaiah 53:4-9. Luke Luke 22:22 says, “as it was determined.” In the Greek, as it was “marked out by a boundary” - that is, in the divine purpose. It was the previous intention of God to give him up to die for sin, or it could not have been certainly predicted. It is also declared to have been by his “determinate counsel and foreknowledge.” See the notes at Acts 2:23.

Woe unto that man ... - The crime is great and awful, and he will be punished accordingly. He states the greatness of his misery or “woe” in the phrase following.

It had been good ... - That is, it would have been better for him if he had not been born; or it would be better now for him if he was to be as “if” he had not been born, or if he was annihilated. This was a proverbial mode of speaking among the Jews in frequent use. In relation to Judas, it proves the following things:

1.That the crime which he was about to commit was exceedingly great;

2.That the misery or punishment due to it would certainly come upon him;

3.That he would certainly deserve that misery, or it would not have been threatened or inflicted; and,

4.That his punishment would be eternal.

If there should be any period when the sufferings of Judas should end, and he be restored and raised to heaven, the blessings of that “happiness without end” would infinitely overbalance all the sufferings he could endure in a limited time, and consequently it would not be true that it would have been better for him not to have been born. Existence, to him, would, on the whole, be an infinite blessing. This passage proves further that, in relation to one wicked man, the sufferings of hell will be eternal. If of one, then it is equally certain and proper that all the wicked will perish forever.

If it be asked how this crime of Judas could be so great, or could be a crime at all, when it was determined beforehand that the Saviour should be betrayed and die in this manner, it may be answered:

1. That the crime was what it was “in itself,” apart from any determination of God. It was a violation of all the duties he owed to God and to the Lord Jesus - awful ingratitude, detestable covetousness, and most base treachery. As such it deserved to be punished.

2. The previous purpose of God did not force Judas to do this. In it he acted freely. He did just what his wicked heart prompted him to do.

3. A previous knowledge of a thing, or a previous purpose to permit a thing, does not alter its “nature,” or cause it to be a different thing from what it is.

4. God, who is the best judge of the nature of crime, holds all that was done in crucifying the Saviour, though it was by his determinate counsel and foreknowledge, “to be by wicked hands,” Acts 2:23. This punishment of Judas proves, also, that sinners cannot take shelter for their sins in the decrees of God, or plead them as an excuse. God will punish crimes for what they “are in themselves.” His own deep and inscrutable purposes in regard to human actions will not change “the nature” of those actions, or screen the sinner from the punishment which he deserves.

Thou hast said - That is, thou hast said the truth. It is so. Thou art the man. Compare Matthew 26:64 with Mark 14:62.

And when they had sung a hymn - The Passover was observed by the Jews by singing or “chanting” Ps. 113–118. These they divided into two parts. They sung Ps. 113–114 during the observance of the Passover, and the others at the close. There can be no doubt that our Saviour, and the apostles also, used the same psalms in their observance of the Passover. The word rendered “sung a hymn” is a participle, literally meaning “hymning” - not confined to a single hymn, but admitting many.

Mount of Olives - See the notes at Matthew 20:1.

Will I not deny thee - Will not deny my connection with thee, or that I knew thee.

“All” the disciples said the same thing, and all fled at the approach of danger, “forsaking” their Master and Friend, and practically denying that they knew him, Matthew 26:56.

Sleep on now and take your rest - Most interpreters have supposed that this should be translated as a question rattler than a command,

“Do you sleep now and take your rest? Is this a time, amid so much danger and so many enemies. to give yourselves to sleep?” This construction is strongly countenanced by Luke 22:46, where the expression. Why sleep ye? evidently refers to the same point of time. There is no doubt that the Greek will bear this construction, and in this way the apparent inconsistency will be removed between this command “to sleep,” and that in the next verse, “to rise” and be going. Others suppose that, his agony being over, and the necessity of watching with him being now past, he kindly permitted them to seek repose until they should be roused by the coming of the traitor; that while they slept Jesus continued still awake; that some considerable time elapsed between what was spoken here and in the next verse; and that Jesus suffered them to sleep until he saw Judas coming, and then aroused them. This is the most probable opinion. Others have supposed that he spoke this in irony: “Sleep on now, if you can; take rest, if possible, in such dangers and at such a time.” But this supposition is unworthy the Saviour and the occasion. Mark adds, “It is enough.” That is, sufficient time has been given to sleep. It is time to arise and be going.

The hour is at hand - The “time” when the Son of man is to be betrayed is near.

Sinners - Judas, the Roman soldiers, and the Jews.

Rise, let us be going - That is, probably, “with them.” Let us go wheresoever they shall lead us. The time when “I must die” is come. It is no longer proper to attempt an escape, and no more time can be given to repose.

The trial of our Lord before the council, and the denial of Peter happening at the same time, might be related one before the other, according to the evangelists’ pleasure.

Accordingly, Matthew and Mark relate the “trial” first, and Peter’s denial afterward; Luke mentions the denial first, and John has probably observed the natural order. The parallel places are recorded in Mark 14:53-72; Luke 22:54-71; and John 18:13-27.

To Caiaphas - John says that they led him first to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas. This was done, probably as a mark of respect, he having been high priest, and perhaps distinguished for prudence, and capable of “advising” his son-in-law in a difficult case. The Saviour was “detained” there. probably, until the chief priests and elders were assembled.

The high priest - Note, Matthew 26:3. John says he was high priest for that year. Annas had been high priest some years before. In the time of our Saviour the office was frequently changed by the civil ruler. This Caiaphas had prophesied that it was expedient that one should die for the people. See the notes at John 11:49-50.

The scribes and elders - The men composing the great council of the nation, or Sanhedrin, Matthew 5:22. It is not probable that they could be immediately assembled, and some part of the transaction respecting the denial of Peter probably took place while they were collecting.

Peter followed afar off - By this he evinced two things:

1. Real attachment to his Master; a desire to be near him and to witness his trial.
2. 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. Compare the notes at Philippians 3:10. John says that another disciple went with Peter. By that other disciple it 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 center of the palace, and was commonly uncovered. See the notes and plan of a house in Matthew 9:1-8.

And went in - John informs us that he did not go immediately in; but the ether 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 travelers 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 afterward. See Matthew 26:69.

False witness - That is, they sought for witnesses who 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 John John 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 the high priest 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?” John 18:23. This conversation took place, probably, before the council was assembled, and during this time the denials by Peter occurred. Luke informs us Luke 22:66 that the council came together as soon as it was day; that is, probably, near the morning, or not far from the break of day - after Peter had denied him and gone out.

Found none - That is, they found none on whose testimony they could with any show of reason convict him. The reason was, as Mark says Mark 14:56, that “their witnesses 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.

And said, This fellow said ... - 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 witnesses agree together.” That which they “attempted” to accuse him of is what he had said respecting his body and their destroying it, John 2:19; “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” This he spoke of his body; they perverted it, endeavoring 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.

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 auger. 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, and for deluding the people under the pretence of being the Messiah.

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

The Christ - The Messiah, the Anointed. See the notes at Matthew 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, John 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.

Thou hast said - This is a form of assenting or affirming. Thou hast said the truth; or, as Luke Luke 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 Luke 22:67-68, “If I tell you ye will not believe, and if I also ask you” - that is, 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 honor. See the notes at Matthew 20:21.

Coming in the clouds of heaven - See the notes at Matthew 24:0; Matthew 25:0. 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.

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 rip his clothes, Leviticus 10:6; Leviticus 21:10. By that was probably intended the robes of his priestly office. The garment which he now tore was probably his ordinary garment, or the garments which he wore as president of the Sanhedrin - 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 asserting that he is 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.

What think ye? - What is your opinion? What sentence do you pronounce? As President of the Sanhedrin he demanded their judgment.

He is guilty of death - This was the form which was used when a criminal was condemned to die. The meaning is, he is 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 Leviticus 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 any excitement among the people.

Then did they spit in his face - This, among the Jews, as among us, was significant of the highest contempt and insult, Numbers 12:14; Isaiah 50:6; 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.

Saying, Prophesy unto us ... - 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 that 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 spoke 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.

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 - that is, 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 - John John 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.

But he deeded before them all ... - He denied that he was a disciple; he denied that he knew Jesus; he denied (Mark) that he understood what was meant - that is, 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.

When he was gone out into the porch - The “entrance,” or the small apartment between the outer door and the large hall in the center of the building. See plan of a house, Notes, Matthew 9:1-8. Peter was embarrassed and confused by the question, and to save his confusion from 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, Luke 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 be 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.

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, John 18:25.

Thy speech bewrayeth 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 unique rusticity or coarseness in their manner of speaking, that distinguished them from the refinement of the capital, Jerusalem. This charge, John says John 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.

Then began he to curse ... - 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.

And Peter remembered the word of Jesus ... - 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 where he might be 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 special favors; 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 only 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:

1. The danger of self-confidence. “He that thinketh he standeth should take heed lest he fall” 1 Corinthians 10:12. 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.

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

3. 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 until the soul is overwhelmed in awful guilt.

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

5. A look from Jesus - a look of mingled affection, pity, and reproof - produces bitter sorrow for sin. We injure Him 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.

6. 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 behold our tears; and he will receive us to his arms again.

7. 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 permitted 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,” Luke 22:32. Jesus was always heard in his prayer, John 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 the Saviour. 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,

8. Though a Christian may be suffered to go astray - may fall into sin - yet he who should, from this example of Peter, think that 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 “honestly.” 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 candor of the evangelists could not be demanded.