John 18:15 Komentář

Hitherto this evangelist has recorded little of the history of Christ, only so far as was requisite to introduce his discourses; but now that the time drew nigh that Jesus must die he is very particular in relating the circumstances of his sufferings, and some which the others had omitted, especially his sayings. So far were his followers from being ashamed of his cross, or endeavouring to conceal it, that this was what, both by word and writing, they were most industrious to proclaim, and gloried in it. This chapter relates, I. How Christ was arrested in the garden and surrendered himself a prisoner (Joh 18:1-12). II. How he was abused in the high priest's court, and how Peter, in the meantime, denied him (Joh 18:13-27). III. How he was prosecuted before Pilate, and examined by him, and put in election with Barabbas for the favour of the people, and lost it (Joh 18:28-40).

When Jesus had spoken these words,.... Referring either to his discourses in Joh 14:1, in which he acquaints his disciples with his approaching death; comforts them under the sorrowful apprehension of his departure from them; gives them many excellent promises for their relief, and very wholesome advice how to conduct themselves; lets them know what should befall them, and that things, however distressing for the present, would have a joyful issue: or else to his prayer in the preceding chapter, in which he had been very importunate with his Father, both for himself and his disciples; or to both of these, which is highly probable: he went forth with his disciples over the brook Cedron; the same with "Kidron" in Sa2 15:23; and elsewhere: it had its name, not from cedars, for not cedars but olives chiefly grew upon the mount, which was near it; and besides the name is not Greek, but Hebrew, though the Arabic version renders it, "the brook" , "of Cedar": it had its name either from the darkness of the valley in which it ran, being between high mountains, and having gardens in it, and set with trees; or from the blackness of the water through the soil that ran into it, being a kind of a common sewer, into which the Jews cast everything that was unclean and defiling; see Ch2 29:16. Particularly there was a canal which led from the altar in the temple to it, by which the blood and soil of the sacrifices were carried into it (m). This brook was but about three feet over from bank to bank, and in the summer time was quite dry, and might be walked over dry shod; and is therefore by Josephus sometimes called the brook of Kidron (n), and sometimes the valley of Kidron (o): in this valley were corn fields; for hither the sanhedrim sent their messengers to reap the sheaf of the firstfruits, which always was to be brought from a place near to Jerusalem (p); and it is very likely that willows grew by the brook, from whence they might fetch their willow branches at the feast of tabernacles; for the Jews say (q), there is a place below Jerusalem called Motza, (in the Gemara it is said to be Klamia or Colonia,) whither they went down and gathered willow branches; it seems to be the valley of Kidron, which lay on the east of Jerusalem, between that and the Mount of Olives (r); it had fields and gardens adjoining to it; see Kg2 23:4. So we read of a garden here, into which Christ immediately went, when he passed over this brook. The blood, the filth and soil of it, which so discoloured the water, as to give it the name of the Black Brook, used to be sold to the gardeners to dung their gardens with (s). It was an emblem of this world, and the darkness and filthiness of it, and of the exercises and troubles of the people of God in it, which lie in the way to the heavenly paradise and Mount of Zion, through which Christ himself went, drinking "of the brook in the way", Psa 110:7; and through which also all his disciples and followers enter into the kingdom of heaven: it may also be a figure of the dark valley of the shadow of death, through which Christ and all his members pass to the heavenly glory. And I see not why this black and unclean brook may not be a representation of the pollutions and defilements of sin; which being laid on Christ when he passed over it, made him so heavy and sore amazed in the human nature, as to desire the cup might pass from him. Once more let it be observed, that it was the brook David passed over when he fled from his son Absalom; in this David was a type of Christ, as in other things: Absalom represented the people of the Jews, who rejected the Messiah, and rebelled against him; Ahithophel, Judas, who betrayed him; and the people that went with David over it, the disciples of our Lord; only there was this difference; there was a father fleeing from a son, here a son going to meet his father's wrath; David and his people wept when they went over this brook, but so did not Christ and his disciples; the sorrowful scene to them both began afterwards in the garden. This black brook and dark valley, and it being very late at night when it was passed over, all add to that dark dispensation, that hour of darkness, which now came upon our Lord; yet he went forth over it of his own accord, willingly and cheerfully; not being forced or compelled by any; and his disciples with him, not to be partners of his sufferings, but to be witnesses of them, and to receive some knowledge and instruction from what they should see and hear: where was a garden into which he entered; and his disciples: there were no orchards nor gardens within the city of Jerusalem, but rose gardens, which were from the times of the prophets (t); all others were without; and this was a very proper place for gardens, where so much dung was near at hand. Whether this garden belonged to one of Christ's friends, is not certain; but since he often resorted hither, no doubt it was with the leave, and by the consent of the proprietor of it. However, so it was, that as the first Adam's disobedience was committed in a garden, the second. Adam's obedience to death for sin, began here; and as the sentence of death, on account of sin, was passed in a garden, it began to be executed in one. (m) Misn. Middot, c. 3. sect. 2. Meila, c. 3. sect. 3. & Bartenora in ib. Maimon. & Bartenora in Misn. Zebachim, c. 8. 7. & Temura, c. 7. sect. 6. (n) Antiqu. l. 8. c. 1. sect. 5. (o) Ib. l. 9. c. 7. sect. 3. & de Bello Jud. l. 5. c. 4. sect. 2. & c. 6. sect. 1. (p) Misna Menachot, c. 10. sect. 2, 3. (q) Misna Succa, c. 4. sect. 5. (r) Jerom de locis Hebraicis, fol. 92. C. (s) Misn. Yoma, c. 5. sect 6. Maimon. Meila, c. 2. sect. 11. (t) T. Bab. Bava Kama, fol. 82. 2. Abot. R. Nathan, c. 35. Maimon. Beth Habbechira, c. 7. sect. 14. Moses Kotsensis Mitzvot Torn praecept. Aff. 164.

And Simon Peter followed Jesus,.... It is certain, he first fled with the rest, and forsook him, as they all did, notwithstanding his resolution to abide by him; however, he was very desirous to know what would become of Jesus, and what would be the issue of things; with this view he followed him, and not to deny him; though that was the consequence. Other evangelists say he followed him afar off, at a distance, Mat 26:58; which showed some fear; and yet to follow him at all discovered love and zeal. To follow Christ is a property of his sheep, and is highly commendable, especially to follow him in sufferings; a greater character a person cannot well have, than to be a follower of Jesus, in the exercise of grace, in the discharge of duty, and in bearing the cross; and yet it does not appear that Peter did well in following Christ now; for Christ had cautioned him of his over confidence, had hinted to him that he should deny him, and had dismissed him, and took his leave of him, and the rest, on whose discharge he insisted, when he was apprehended, Joh 18:8; And so did another disciple, and that disciple was known unto the high priest. This is thought to be the Apostle John, because he frequently speaks of himself, without mentioning his name; and these two, Peter and John, were generally together; and certain it is, that John was present at the cross at the time of Christ's crucifixion; and who is supposed to be known to the high priest, by carrying fish to his house, and selling it to him; so Nonnus says, he was known from his fishing trade: but it is not probable that he was known, or could be known by the high priest, so as to have any intimacy with him; nor is it likely that he, being a Galilaean, would venture in; he was discoverable by his speech, and would have been in equal danger with Peter; rather it was some one of the disciples of Christ, who had not openly professed him; one of the chief rulers that believed in him, but, for fear of the Pharisees, had not confessed him; it may be Nicodemus, or Joseph of Arimathea, or the man at whose house Christ had eaten the passover. In the Syriac version he is called one of the other disciples; not of the twelve, but others. However, through his knowledge of the high priest, he went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest; not Annas, but Caiaphas; for Christ was now brought from Annas's house to Caiaphas's, where the Scribes and elders were assembled together.

"And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple." Who is that other disciple? It is the writer himself. "And wherefore doth he not name himself? When he lay on the bosom of Jesus, he with reason concealed his name; but now why doth he this?" For the same reason, for here too he mentions a great good deed, that when all had started away, he followed. Therefore he conceals himself, and puts Peter before him. He was obliged to mention himself, that thou mightest understand that he narrates more exactly than the rest what took place in the hall, as having been himself within. But observe how he detracts from his own praise; for, lest any one should ask, "How, when all had retreated, did this man enter in farther than Simon?" he saith, that he "was known to the high priest." So that no one should wonder that he followed, or cry him up for his manliness. But the wonder was that matter of Peter, that being in such fear, he came even as far as the hall, when the others had retreated.

His coming thither was caused by love, his not entering within by distress and fear. For the Evangelist hath recorded these things, to clear a way for excusing his denial; with regard to himself, he doth not set it down as any great matter that he was known to the high priest, but since he had said that he alone with Jesus went in, lest thou shouldest suppose that the action proceeded from any exalted feelings, he puts also the cause.

"But Jesus was followed," he says, "by Simon Peter, and another disciple." Who that other disciple is, we cannot affirm with confidence, because it is left unnoticed here. But it is in this way that John usually refers to himself, with the addition, "whom Jesus loved." Perhaps, therefore, it is he also in the present case; but whoever it is, let us look at what follows. "And that disciple," he says, "was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest; but Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, who was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter. Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art thou also one of this man's disciples? He saith, I am not." Lo, the pillar of greatest strength has at a single breath of air trembled to its foundations. Where is now all that boldness of the promiser, and his overweening confidence in himself beforehand? What now of those words, when he said, "Why cannot I follow Thee now? I will lay down my life for Thy sake." Is this the way to follow the Master, to deny his own discipleship? is it thus that one's life is laid down for the Lord, when one is frightened at a maid-servant's voice, lest it should compel us to the sacrifice? But what wonder, if God foretold what was true, and man presumptuously imagined what was false? Assuredly in this denial of the Apostle Peter, which had now entered on its first stage, we ought to take notice that not only is Christ denied by one who says that He is not Christ, but by him also who, while really a Christian, himself denies that he is so. For the Lord said not to Peter, Thou shall deny that thou art my disciple; but, "Thou shall deny me." Him, therefore, he denied, when he denied that he was His disciple. And what else did such a form of denial imply, but that of his own Christianity?

The temptation of Peter, which took place during the time that the Lord was enduring these injuries, is not placed by all Evangelists in the same order. Matthew and Mark first narrate the injuries inflicted on the Lord and then this temptation of Peter. Luke first describes Peter’s temptation, and only after this does he record the reproaches borne by the Lord. John begins with Peter’s temptation but then introduces some verses that record what the Lord had to bear, appending the statement that the Lord was sent away from Annas to Caiaphas the high priest, and then at this point he resumes and sums up what he had been relating about Peter’s temptation in the house to which Jesus was first conducted. He then gives a full account of that incident and thereafter reverts to the succession of events that happened to the Lord, telling us how Jesus was brought to Caiaphas.

(de Con. Evang. iii. vi) The temptation of Peter, which took place in the midst of the contumelies offered to our Lord, is not placed by all in the same order. Matthew and Mark put the contumelies first, the temptation of Peter afterwards; Luke the temptation first, the contumelies after. John begins with the temptation: And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. (Tr. cxiii) Who that other disciple was we cannot hastily decide, as his name is not told us. John however is wont to signify himself by this expression, with the addition of, whom Jesus loved. Perhaps therefore he is the one.

Now that disciple was known unto the high priest, and entered in with Jesus into the court of the high priest. The Apostle shows great forethought in condescending to mention this fact, and does not scruple to enter into detail where it is profitable for us. For, as he was about to set down in order in his book what was done and said in the palace of the high priest, he was, as it were, compelled to show us how he was able to enter there with Christ; for, he says, he was known unto the high priest. He enters, therefore, without hindrance, his knowledge of the leader of the people----for he has not thought proper to say friendship----allowing him free entrance within the doors. In order, then, that he might convince us that he did not compile his account of what took place in the palace from information drawn from others, but that he himself saw and heard what passed, he has given us this most useful explanation of his knowledge of the high priest.

And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did the other disciple. While the other disciples, it seems, were panic-stricken, and fled from the present wrath of the murderers, Peter, who was always moved thereto by more fervent passion, clings to his love for Christ, and follows Him at the peril of his life, and watches the issue of events; the other disciple accompanying him, and, with like courage, sustaining a similar resolution. This was John, the truly pious writer of this Divine work. For he calls himself that other disciple, without giving himself a definite name, fearing to seem boastful, and abhorring the appearance of being better than the rest. For the crowning achievements of virtue, if manifested by any of the righteous, yet are never blazoned forth to the world by their own mouth. For it very ill beseems a man to win praise rather out of his own mouth than the conversation of other men. In the Book of Proverbs it is written: Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips.

He followed his Master out of devotion, though afar off, on account of fear.

Who was this other disciple? The very one who wrote about this, but he conceals himself out of humility. Since he wishes to highlight the virtue that he followed Jesus while the others fled, he therefore conceals himself and places Peter before himself. "Simon Peter followed Jesus," he says, then adds: "and another disciple." So, out of humility he conceals himself. And if he mentioned himself, he mentioned it so that we would know that he describes the events in the courtyard of the high priest in greater detail than the others, since he himself was inside the courtyard. Look again how he deflects praise from himself. Lest you, having heard that John went with Jesus, should think something great of him, he says that he "was known to the high priest." "I," he says, "entered together with Him not because I was supposedly more courageous than the others, but because I was known to the high priest."

2299 Now we see how the disciples joined Christ. First, how Peter and another disciple followed him; secondly, we see how they entered the place where Christ was; thirdly, how one denied him. 2300 In regard to the first he says, Simon Peter followed Jesus, because of his devotedness, but at a distance because of his fear, and so did another disciple, John, who out of humility does not mention himself. We can understand from this that the other disciples fled and abandoned Jesus, as Matthew says (26:56). 2301 In the mystical interpretation, these two disciples indicate the two ways of life in which Christ is followed: the active life, which is signified by Peter, and the contemplative life, signified by John. Those in the active life follow Christ by obedience, "My sheep hear my voice" (10:27). Those in the contemplative life follow Christ by knowledge and contemplation, "We will know and follow you" [Ps 4:3]. 2302 These two disciples followed Christ because they loved him more than the others did; and so they were the first to come to the tomb (20:2). And it was these two who came because they were united to each other by a stronger bond of love; and so they are frequently mentioned together in the Gospel and in the Acts, where we read that "They sent to them Peter and John" (Acts 8:14), and again that "Peter and John were going up to the temple at the hour of prayer" (Acts 3:1).

Jesus passes the brook Cedron, and goes to the garden of Gethsemane, Joh 18:1. Judas, having betrayed him, comes to the place with a troop of men to take him, Joh 18:2, Joh 18:3. Jesus addresses them, and they fall to the ground, Joh 18:4-6. He addresses them again, and Peter smites Malchus, Joh 18:7-11. They seize him and lead him away to Caiaphas, Joh 18:12-14. Peter follows to the palace of the high priest, Joh 18:15-18. The high priest questions Christ concerning his doctrine, and Jesus answers, and is smitten, Joh 18:19-23. Peter denies his Lord twice, Joh 18:24-27. Jesus is led to the judgment hall, and Pilate and the Jews converse about him, Joh 18:28-32. Pilate converses with Jesus, who informs him of the spiritual nature of his kingdom, Joh 18:33-37. Pilate returns to the Jews, and declares Christ to be innocent, Joh 18:38. He seeks to discharge him, and the Jews clamor for his condemnation, Joh 18:39, Joh 18:40.

And - another disciple - Not That other disciple, for the article is omitted by AD, two others; some editions; Syriac, Persic, Gothic, and Nonnus. So the Vulgate is to be understood. There are many conjectures who this disciple was: Jerome, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Nonnus, Lyra, Erasmus, Piscator, and others, say it was John. It is true John frequently mentions himself in the third person; but then he has always, whom Jesus loved, as in Joh 13:23; Joh 19:26; Joh 21:7, Joh 21:20, except in Joh 19:35, where he has plainly pointed out himself as writer of this Gospel; but, in the place before us, he has mentioned no circumstance by which that disciple may be known to be John. To this may be added that John being not only a Galilean, but a fisherman by trade, it is not likely that he should have been known to the high priest, as it is here said of that disciple who followed Jesus with Peter. See Bishop Pearce and Calmet. The conjecture of Grotius is the most likely: viz. that it was the person at whose house Jesus had supped. St. Augustin, Tract. 113, speaks like a man of sound sense: We should not decide hastily, says he, on a subject concerning which the Scripture is silent.

BETRAYAL AND APPREHENSION OF JESUS. (Joh 18:1-13) over the brook Kedron--a deep, dark ravine, to the northeast of Jerusalem, through which flowed this small storm brook or winter torrent, and which in summer is dried up. where was a garden--at the foot of the Mount of Olives, "called Gethsemane; that is, olive press (Mat 26:30, Mat 26:36).

Simon Peter followed Jesus--Natural though this was, and safe enough, had he only "watched and prayed that he enter not into temptation," as his Master bade him (Mat 26:41), it was, in his case, a fatal step. and . . . another disciple--Rather, "the other disciple"--our Evangelist himself, no doubt. known unto the high priest--(See on Joh 18:10). went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.