Johannes 18:26 Kommentar

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.

One of the servants of the high priest,.... Hearing him so stiffly deny that he was a disciple of Jesus, when he had great reason to believe he was: being his kinsman, whose ear Peter cut off; a near relation of Malchus, to whom Peter had done this injury; and who was present at the same time, and no doubt took particular notice of him; and the more, because of what he had done to his kinsman: saith unto him, did not I see thee in the garden with him? as if he should have said, I saw thee with my own eyes along with Jesus, this very night in the garden, beyond Kidron, where he was apprehended, how canst thou deny it? and wilt thou stand in it so confidently, that thou art not one of his disciples?

Consider that when Peter sat outside, separated from Jesus while he was in the court of the high priest, he denied Jesus before everyone. And again a second time he denied him in the same way, not having gone outside the door but wanting to go out, yet still not having gone out. But also the third time, when those who stood by said, “Truly you are one of them” and he began to call a curse on himself and swore, “I do not know the man,” he was still not outside. And notice that all of his denials were made in the night and in the darkness before the coming of the day and the sign of day, that is, the rooster crowing, which wakes up those who are willing from their sleep. And I may say that if Peter had denied after the rooster crowed—when it might be said “the night is far spent, the day is at hand, let us walk honorably as in the day”—Peter would have deserved no excuse. But perhaps when anyone denies Jesus in such a way that the sin of denial may admit of healing, that person too appears to deny him before the rooster crows, since the Sun of righteousness has not yet been born to them, nor have they drawn near to his rising.

Then saith "the kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, (grieving at what had taken place,) Did I not see thee in the garden?" But neither did the garden bring him to remember what had taken place, nor the great affection which Jesus there had shown by those words, but all these from pressure of anxiety he banished from his mind. But why have the Evangelists with one accord written concerning him? Not as accusing the disciple, but as desiring to teach us, how great an evil it is not to commit all to God, but to trust to one's self. But do thou admire the tender care of his Master, who, though a prisoner and bound, took great forethought for His disciple, raising Peter up, when he was down, by His look, and launching him into a sea of tears.

(de Con. Evang. iii. 6) Here we find Peter not at the gate, but at the fire, when he denies the second time: so that he must have returned after he had gone out of doors, where Matthew says he was. He did not go out, and another damsel see him on the outside, but another damsel saw him as he was rising to go out, and remarked him, and told those who were by, i. e. those who were standing with her at the fire inside the hall, This fellow also was with Jesus of Nazareth. (Matt. 26:71, 72) He heard this outside, and returned, and swore, I do not know the man. Then John continues: They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of His disciples? which words we suppose to have been said to him when he had come back, and was standing at the fire. And this explanation is confirmed by the fact, that besides the other damsel mentioned by Matthew and Mark in the second denial, there was another person, mentioned by Luke, who also questioned him. So John uses the plural: They said therefore unto him. And then follows the third denial: One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with Him? That Matthew and Mark speak of the party who here question Peter in the plural number, whereas Luke mentions only one, and John also, adding that that one was the kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, is easily explained by supposing that Matthew and Mark used the plural number by a common form of speech for the singular; or that one who had observed him most strictly put the question first, and others followed it up, and pressed Peter with more.

But the evangelist, after saying that Annas sent Him bound unto Caiaphas, returns to the place of his narrative, where he had left Peter, in order to explain what had taken place in Annas' house in regard to his threefold denial. "But Peter was standing," he says, "and warming himself." He thus repeats what he had already stated before; and then adds what follows. "They said therefore unto him, Art thou also one of his disciples? He denied, and said, I am not." He had already denied once; this is the second time. And then, that the third denial might also be fulfilled, "one of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did I not see thee in the garden with him? Peter then denied again, and immediately the cock crew." Behold, the prediction of the Physician is fulfilled, the presumption of the sick man is brought to the light. For there is no performance of what the latter had asserted, "I will lay down my life for Thy sake;" but a performance of what the former had predicted, "Thou shall thrice deny me."

For just as iron, though naturally strong, cannot encounter without injury the harder kinds of stone if it is not strengthened in the forge, so a person’s soul may be buoyed up with unwavering enthusiasm for everything that is good. However, it can never be triumphant in the conflicts that come up unless it is first perfected by the grace of the Spirit of God. Even the disciples, therefore, themselves were frail at first. But when they had received the Spirit of Almighty God, they cast aside their native weakness and by communion with him attained to great boldness. It was expedient that the frailty of the saints should be recorded to the praise and glory of God, who changed their weakness into power, and like a strong tower, raised up their spirits, which were easily daunted even by slight dangers and at times were broken down by the mere apprehension of suffering. And that which happened to a single one, or a few of the saints, may afford us at the same time a lesson and a consolation. For we are taught through this example not to slacken in God’s service by inconsiderately dwelling on our own infirmities. We are, rather, to trust in him who is able to make all of us strong, and we are to boast in God’s miraculous works and favor shown to us who were beyond hope.

Mystically, by the first denial of Peter are denoted those who before our Lord's Passion denied that He was God, by the second, those who did so after His resurrection. So by the first crowing of the cock His resurrection is signified; by the second, the general resurrection at the end of the world. By the first damsel, who obliged Peter to deny, is denoted lust, by the second, carnal delight: by one or more servants, the devils who persuade men to deny Christ.

After this Peter returned so as to avoid seeming to be a follower of Christ and sat with the others. As he was sitting there, bystanders, who had heard it from the maid, questioned him again, as Matthew says (Mt 26:73). Or, one of the servants asked first, as John has here (v 26) and then other bystanders joined in. This was Peter's third denial. About this third denial, John says, One of the servants of the high priest, a kinsman of the man whose ear Peter had cut off. This person testified to what he had seen, Did I not see you in the garden with him? And so after an interval of an hour Peter again denied it, the third time. It is not important if other Evangelists say that the third question was asked by several persons, while John has it asked by one. For it is possible that this man, being more certain, asked first, and that incited the others to ask also. Those who were standing about said many things about this matter, and one Evangelist speaks of one of these, and another of something else. This happened because their main intention was not to note these details, but to show the statement Peter made and to show that what our Lord had said to Peter came true. Accordingly, all agree on what Peter said: "What the Lord speaks, that will I speak" (Num 24:13).

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.

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).

One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman, whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him--No doubt his relationship to Malchus drew attention to the man who smote him, and this enabled him to identify Peter. "Sad reprisals!" [BENGEL]. The other Evangelists make his detection to turn upon his dialect. "After a while ['about the space of one hour after' (Luk 22:59)] came unto him they that stood by and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them, for thy speech betrayeth thee" (Mat 26:73). "Thou art a Galilean, and thy speech agreeth thereto" (Mar 14:70; and so Luk 22:59). The Galilean dialect had a more Syrian cast than that of Judea. If Peter had held his peace, this peculiarity had not been observed; but hoping, probably, to put them off the scent by joining in the fireside talk, he only thus revealed himself.