The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 2 — Section 377

aee thee In the garden with him 1 The hie- of intensity e.nd terrible re!IUlt. Tflking torloo.lly o.ttested fa.et gave tho lie to Peter'e Matthew •nd Mark as virtually identical, provious assertions. Olearly he WBS seen and Luke's account ns a •eparate tradition with recognized and in imminent peril, and ho is reference to the second denial, o.nd agreeing now rnoro vehement thnn ever. Matthew with Matthew and Mark in the third, rin,l and !\'fork tell, "Ho begnn to muse and swear, in his first with John's ser.-0nd, wo hn,vo Rayinu, I do not kuow the Mo.n." John, with three denfals once more following the pre- leas keling of reproach, snys, Peter there• diction. John's account, whether diatiuct fore denied again. 'fhe intercessory prayer, or not from the other two rccnrda, bear; the solemn warning, the ngony in the gnrden, the ea.me relation to onr Lord's prcvioua a.hove nil, the following of tho euLJim~ en- announcement that the synopliat• do to couragements by this fearful failurc,tho igno- theirs, and shows that in no quarter wo.s minious binding and rude indignity offered there a general belief in more than three vir- to tho Mo.n who had clo.imed to be the Vice- tual e.cts of apostasy. Mark alone mentions gerent and Image and Glory of the Father, n twofold warning from the cock, one after combined to shatter Pater's courage, though the first denial, and on Peter's going out to it diu not annihilate his faith (see Stein- the 1rpoa6>..,ov, or the enclosure, i.e. between meyer and Weiss). The Lord had prayed the 1rv>..o,11 and the 86pa, a.nu again after the that his faith should not fa.ii. He was sifted third denial. M'Clellan and others find a e.s wheat, but the apostle knew, even in the threefold denial before each crowing of the depths of his she.me, that he wa, a poltroon cock. e.nd coward, and the.t the Lord we.a everything he se.id he was. But meanwhile he denied Certainly John ha.a omitted the entire again. He kept up with his violence oflan- guage, hi~ hypocritical denial of his own scene detailed by the synoptists in the hall faith-and straightwe.y the oook orew. Mark, of Caiaphas, viz. the calling of the witnesses; who had made the prediction of our Lord the lo.ck of harmony in the false witnesses; cover e. twofold cockcrowing, records the the adjuration of Caiaphas; the wondrous twofold fulfilment; John, who in eh. xiii. 38 confession of the persecuted and bound Suf- had given the prediction "before the cook ferer; the verdict pronounced against him, crow," here shows how Peter must have been J'eminded of his Lord's preterno.tura.l know- on the part of all assembled, the.t he was ledge and forecast. So that, though John guilty of death; the first cruel mockery ; and does not mention the repentance, he refers the very early assembly of the entire San- to the well-known oooasion of it, and, more- hedrin-all the chief priests (TrCtVTes oi apx,- over, shows more forcibly than either of the epels) and elders of the people (Matt. xxvii. synopti.ts the extra.ordinary tenderness of the risen e.nd reconciled Lord to his erring 1, 2; Mark xv. 1, the chief priests, with and cowardly disciple. Some extreme bar- the elders e.nd scribes and all the Sanhe- monists ham spread out the fault of Peter drin). The synoptists assure llil that the into nine distinct acts of treachery ; others object of this conncil-which we.a probably have reduced them to seven or eight. held in the celebrated chamber of the temple M•Clello.n, in a powerful note (p. 447), urges that there were "twice three," or six distinct appropriated for the purpose-was to adopt denials. Matthew o.nd Mark report three the most suitable measures for immediately denials while the trio.I before Ce.iaphas was carrying their unanimous judgment into going on; these a.re, according to M'Clellan, efi'ect. Aa we shall see shortly, John is per- entirely distinct from John's "first denial," fectly awe.re of such a measure having been which preceded even the lighting of the fire. taken (see not only ver. 31, but eh. xi 47, Nor does he allow that Luke's first denial, "sitting e.t the fire,'' can coincide with eto.). Nevertheless, he passes ou at once to John's "second denial,'' which must also the legal and civil trial before the Rome.n have preceded that which Luke gives as proprietor. the first and tho.t John's "third denial" is This is not the place to disouss the two- distinct 'again from Mutthew's third, Mark's fold trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin. third, and Luke's third. Thus he makes John's account entirely supplementary to the Derembourg, Farrar, e.nd Westcott suppose synoptists. Peter may have used a variety that the first deme.nds of the high priest, as of expressions on eaoh occasion, and ea.oh to whether he was the Christ, as given by challenge may have been accompanied by Matthew and Mark, were different from the some features not especially noted as to pos- scene described by Luke, where he claimed ture or place, but the e.rrongement adopted in the text represents II threefold assault a1rl> -rov vu1• to be seated on the right h,rnd upon the apostle, which had three crises of the power of God, u.nd suppose that thim  390 TITE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN. [on. xvm. 1-4.0.