The echo of his words had scarcely died out - their diastole had scarcely returned them with gurgling noise upon his conscience - when loud and shrill the second cock-crowing was heard. There was that in its harsh persistence of sound that also wakened his memory. He now remembered the words of warning prediction which the Lord had spoken. He looked up; and as he looked, he saw, how up there, just at that moment; the Lord turned round [5968] and looked upon him - yes, in all that assembly, upon Peter! His eyes spake His Words; nay, much more; they searched down to the innermost depths of Peter's heart, and broke them open. They had pierced through all self-delusion, false shame, and fear: they had reached the man, the disciple, the lover of Jesus. Forth they burst, the waters of conviction, of true shame, of heart-sorrow, of the agonies of self-condemnation; and, bitterly weeping, he rushed from under those suns that had melted the ice of death and burnt into his heart - out from that cursed place of betrayal by Israel, by its High Priest - and even by the representative Disciple.
Out he rushed into the night. Yet a night lit up by the stars of promise - chiefest among them this, that the Christ up there - the conquering Sufferer - had prayed for him. God grant us in the night of our conscious self-condemnation the same star-light of His Promises, the same assurance of the intercession of the Christ, that so, as Luther puts it, the particularness of the account of Peter's denial, as compared with the briefness of that of Christ's Passion, may carry to our hearts this lesson: The fruit and use of the sufferings of Christ is this, that in them we have the forgiveness of our sins.' __________________________________________________________________
[5885] St. John xviii. 14.
[5886] xi. 50.
[5887] Pes. 57 a.
[5888] No further reference whatever is made to the Roman guard.
[5889] We read (St. John xviii. 13):'For he was father-in-law to Caiaphas.'
[5890] St. John xviii. 15-18.
[5891] And hence also that of the two disciples following Christ.
[5892] ver. 24.
[5893] St. John xviii. 19-23.
[5894] In this argument we lay little stress on the designation, High-Priest,' which St. John (ver. 19) gives to the examiner of Christ, although it is noteworthy that he carefully distinguishes between Annas and Caiaphas, marking the latter as the High-Priest' (vv. 13, 24).
[5895] According to our argument, St. John xviii. 24 is an intercalated notice, referring to what had previously been recorded in vv. 15-23. To this two critical objections have been raised. It is argued, that as psteilen is in the aorist, not plu-perfect, the rendering must be, Annas sent,' not had sent Him.' But then it is admitted, that the aorist is occasionally used for the pluperfect. Secondly, it is insisted that, according to the better reading, on should be inserted after psteilen which Canon Westcott renders: Annas therefore sent Him.' But notwithstanding Canon Westcott's high authority, we must repeat the critical remark of Meyer, that there are important witnesses' against as well as for the insertion of on, while the insertion of other particles in other Codd. seems to imply that the insertion here of any particle was a later addition. On the other hand, what seem to me two irrefragable arguments are in favour of the retrospective application of ver. 24. First, the preceding reference to Peter's denial must be located in the house of Caiaphas. Secondly, if vv. 19-23 refer to an examination by Annas, then St. John has left us absolutely no account of anything that had passed before Caiaphas - which, in view of the narrative of the Synoptists, would seem incredible.
[5896] St. John xviii. 19-23.
[5897] Canon Westcott supposes that the Apostle himself was present in the audience chamber. But, although we readily admit that John went into the house, and was as near as possible to Christ, many reasons suggest themselves why we can scarcely imagine John to have been present, when Caiaphas inquired about the disciples and teaching of Jesus.