turned back, and mixed with the multitude escorting our Lord, which he might easily do by night, and amidst the confusion of the whole event.
It is noteworthy that some think the houses of Caiaphas and Annas were adjacent, and that " the hall" was common to both of them. I am strongly disposed to think that this is a cor- rect view, and a remembrance of it may help us over several difficulties in the narrative of the four evangelists when com- pared.
16. — [But Peter stood...door without!] This seems to indicate that at first Peter stood outside the door of the palace, not dar- ing to go in. It is a little detail in the story of his fall which the three other Gospel-writers omit to mention. Again we see in him the mixture of good and bad feelings, cowardice and love contending for the mastery. Happy would it have been for him if he had stayed outside the door !
Rollock remarks that when Peter found the door shut, he ought not to have stood there, but gone away. " It was by God's providence the door was shut. He got a warning then to leave ofl', but would not. These impediments, cast in our way when we purpose to do a thing, should not be idly looked at but should make us carefully try the deed, whether it be law ful."
[Then went out that otlier...hrought in Peter.] Here we sei how Peter got inside the palace. It was through the mistaken, though well-meant, kindness of John. He must have seen through the door, when it occasionally opened, the well-known figure of his brother disciple, and with the best intentions got him admission. It is plain that John must have been well known to the household of the high priest, or else we should not be told that he had only to speak to the door-keeper, to get admission for Peter.
Let us mark what mistakes even the best believers make in dealing with their brethren. John thought it would be a kind and useful thing to bring Peter into the high priest's house. He was perfectly mistaken, and was unintentionally one link in the chain of causes which led to his fall. People may harm each other with the best intentions.
Quesnel remarks, " Men sometimes imagine they do a consid- erable piece of service to their friends who are clergymen, by introducing them to the great ; and thereby they undesignedly expose them to sin and eternal damnation."
17 — [Then saith... damsel. ..door. ..Peter.] Those who are best ac- quainted with Jewish customs say that it was a common prac- tice to employ women as door-keepers. Thus a damsel named Rlioda went to the gate, when Peter knocked at the door of Mary's house in Jerusalem, after hia miraculous escape from
JOHN, CHAP. xvni. 233
pri»:)n. (Acts xii. 13.) It is the same in large houses in Paria to this very day.
[Art not thou...l am not.] This was the first trial of Peter's faith and courage. A woman asks him a simple question. There is nothing to show that she does it in a threatening man- ner, as if she desires to harm him. But at once the Apostle's courage breaks down. He answers with a direct lie : " I am not." — How little we know our own hearts ! Twelve hours be- fore Peter would have told us this lie was impossible. " Is Thy servant a dog that he should do this thing ? " — Why this door-keeper shoiild have asked the question we know not. Perhaps Peter's dress and appearance, like a Galilean fisher- man of the very same stamp and style as John, made her guess that, like John, he was a disciple. — Perhaps Peter's manner and demeanor made her guess it. There may have been agita- tion, anxiety, fear in the apostle's countenance. — Perhaps the woman may have seen him in Jerusalem in company with Je- sus.— Perhaps the mere fact that John knew him, and asked her to admit him, made her assume that he was a friend of John, and like John a disciple of Christ. — Perhaps the Galile- ans were marked men, not often seen in high priests' houses, and known to be specially favorable to the cause of Jesus of Nazareth. — Any one of these solutions, or all, may be correct. In any case the woman only asked a simple question, and per- haps from no other motive than curiosity, and at once the great apostle falls into sin. How weak we are, when left to reap the consequence of self-confidence, and laziness, and neg- lect of prayer. Even an apostle, we see, could tell a cowardly lie.
Chrysostom observes, " What sayest thou, Peter ? Didst not thou declare but now, ' I will lay down my life for Thee ' ? What hath happened then that thou canst not endure the ques- tioning of a door-keeper ? Is it a soldier who questions thee ? Is it one of those who seized Him ? No ; it is a mean and ab- ject door-keeper. Nor is the questioning of a rough kind. She eaith not. Art thou a disciple of that cheat and corrupter, — but of that man ; which was the expression rather of pitying and relenting. But Peter could not bear any of these words. The expression * Art not thou also,' is used because John was al- ready within."
Augustine remarks, " Behold that most firm pillar of the Church, touched but by one breath of danger, trembles all over. Where is now that boldness of promising, — that confident vaunting of himself ? "
Brentius remarks how the impulsive, unstable character of the apostle Peter comes out here. One hour he draws his Bword against a whole multitude of armed men. Another hour he is frightened out of his Christian profession, and driven into lying by one woman.