SECTION III. PETER AND JOHN
John xviii. 15-18.
Though all the disciples, without exception,
forsook Jesus at the moment of His apprehension, two of them soon recovered
their courage sufficiently to return from flight, and follow after their Master
as He was being led away to judgment. One of these was Simon Peter, ever
original both in good and in evil, who, we are told, followed Jesus "afar off
unto the high priest's palace, to see the end."[27.11] The other, according to
the general, and we think correct, opinion of interpreters, was John. He is
indeed not named, but merely described as another, or rather the other,
disciple; but as John himself is our informant, the fact is almost certain
evidence that he is the person alluded to. "The other disciple," who "was known
unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high
priest,"[27.12] is the well-known unnamed one who so often meets us in the
fourth Gospel. Had the man whose conduct was so outstanding been any other than
the evangelist, he would certainly not have remained nameless in a narrative so
minutely exact, that even the name of the servant whose ear Peter cut off is
not deemed too insignificant to be recorded.[27.13]
These two disciples, though very different in
character, seem to have had a friendship for each other. On various occasions
besides the present we find their names associated in a manner suggestive of a
special attachment. At the supper-table, when the announcement concerning the
traitor had been made, Peter gave the disciple whom Jesus loved a sign that he
should ask who it should be of whom He spake. Three times in the interval
between the resurrection and the ascension the two brethren were linked
together as companions. They ran together to the sepulchre on the resurrection
morning. They talked together confidentially concerning the stranger who
appeared at early dawn on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, when they were out
on their last fishing expedition, the disciple whom Jesus loved, on recognizing
the Risen One, saying unto Peter, "It is the Lord." They walked together
shortly after on the shore, following Jesus,--Peter by commandment, John by the
voluntary impulse of his own loving heart. An intimacy cemented by such sacred
associations was likely to be permanent, and we find the two disciples still
companions after they had entered on the duties of the apostleship. They went
up together into the temple at the hour of prayer; and, having got into trouble
through the healing of the lame man at the temple gate, they appeared together
before the ecclesiastical tribunal, to be tried by the very same men, Annas and
Caiaphas, who had sat in judgment upon their Lord, companions now at the bar,
as they had been before in the palace, of the high priest.
Such a friendship between the two disciples as
these facts point to, is by no means surprising. As belonging to the inner
circle of three whom Jesus honored with His confidence on special occasions,
they had opportunities for becoming intimate, and were placed in circumstances
tending to unite them in the closest bonds of spiritual brotherhood. And,
notwithstanding their characteristic differences, they were fitted to be
special friends. They were both men of marked originality and force of
character, and they would find in each other more sources of interest than in
the more commonplace members of the apostolic band. Their very peculiarities,
too, far from keeping them apart, would rather draw them together. They were so
constituted that each would find in the otter the complement of himself. Peter
was masculine, John was feminine, in temperament; Peter was the man of action,
John the man of thought and feeling; Peter's part was to be a leader and a
champion, John's was to cling, and trust, and be loved; Peter was the hero, and
John the admirer of heroism.
In their respective behavior at this crisis, the
two friends were at once like and unlike each other. They were like in this,
that they both manifested a generous solicitude about the fate of their Master.
While the rest retired altogether from the scene, they followed to see the end.
The common action proceeded in both probably from the same motives. What these
motives were we are not told, but it is not difficult to guess. A certain
influence may be assigned, in the first place, to natural activity of spirit.
It was not in the nature either of Peter or of John to be listless and passive
while such grave events were going on. They could not sit at home doing nothing
while their Lord was being tried, sentenced, and treated as a malefactor. If
they cannot prevent, they will at least witness, His last sufferings. The same
irrepressible energy of mind which, three days after, made these two disciples
run to see the empty grave, now impels them to turn their steps towards the
judgment-hall to witness the transactions there.
Besides activity of mind, we perceive in the
conduct of the two disciples a certain spirit of daring at work. We learn from
the Acts of the Apostles, that when Peter and John appeared before the council
in Jerusalem, the rulers were struck with their boldness. Their boldness then
was only what was to be expected from men who had behaved as they did at this
crisis. By that time, it is true, they had, in common with all their brethren,
experienced a great spiritual change; but yet we cannot fail to recognize the
identity of the characters. The apostles had but grown to such spiritual
manhood as they gave promise of in the days of their discipleship. For it was a
brave thing in them to follow, even at a distance, the band which had taken
Jesus a prisoner. The rudiments at least of the martyr character were in men
who could do that. Mere cowards would not have acted so. They would have
eagerly availed themselves of the virtual sanction given by Jesus to flight,
comforting their hearts with the thought that, in consulting for their safety,
they were but doing the duty enjoined on them.
But the conduct of the two brethren sprang, we
believe, mainly from their ardent love to Jesus. When the first paroxysm of
fear was past, solicitude for personal safety gave place to generous concern
about the fate of one whom they really loved more than life. The love of Christ
constrained them to think not of themselves, but of Him whose hour of sorrow
was come. First they slacken their pace, then they halt, then they look round;
and as they see the armed band nearing the city, they are cut to the heart, and
they say within themselves, "We cannot leave our dear Master in His time of
peril; we must see the issue of this painful business." And so with anguished
spirit they set out towards Jerusalem, Peter first, and John after him.
The two brethren, companions thus far, diverged
widely on arriving at the scene of trial and suffering. John clung to his
beloved Lord to the last. He was present, it would appear, at the various
examinations to which Jesus was subjected, and heard with his own ears the
judicial process of which he has given so interesting an account in his Gospel.
When the iniquitous sentence was executed, he was a spectator. He took his
stand by the foot of the cross, where he could see all, and not only be seen,
but even be spoken to, by his dying Master. There he saw, among other things,
the strange phenomenon of blood and water flowing from the spear-wound in the
Saviour's side, which he so carefully records in his narrative. There he heard
Christ's dying words, and among them those addressed to Mary of Nazareth and
himself: to her, "Woman, behold thy son;" to him, "Behold thy mother."
John was thus persistently faithful throughout.
And Peter, what of him? Alas! what need to tell the familiar story of his
deplorable weakness in the hall or inner court of the high priest's palace?
how, having obtained an entrance through the street door by the intercession of
his brother disciple, he first denied to the portress his connection with
Jesus; then repeated his denial to other parties, with the addition of a solemn
oath; then, irritated by the repetition of the charge, and perhaps by the
consciousness of guilt, a third time declared, not with a solemn oath, but with
the degrading accompaniment of profane swearing, "I know not the man;" then,
finally, hearing the cock crow, and catching Jesus' eye, and remembering the
words, "Before the cock crow thou shalt deny me thrice," went out to the street
and wept bitterly!
What became of Peter after this melancholy
exhibition we are not informed. In all probability he retired to his lodging,
humbled, dispirited, crushed, there to remain overwhelmed with grief and shame,
till he was roused from stupor by the stirring tidings of the resurrection
morn.
This difference in conduct between the two
disciples corresponded to a difference in their characters. Each acted
according to his nature. It is true, indeed, that the circumstances were not
the same for both parties, being favorable for one, unfavorable for the other.
John had the advantage of a friend at court, being somehow known to the high
priest. This circumstance gained him admission into the chamber of judgment,
and gave him security against all personal risk. Peter, on the other hand, not
only had no friends at court, but might not unnaturally fear the presence there
of personal foes. He had made himself obnoxious by his rash act in the garden,
and might be apprehensive of getting into trouble in consequence. That such
fears would not have been altogether groundless, we learn from the fact stated
by John, that one of the persons who charged Peter with being a disciple of
Jesus was a kinsman of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, and that he brought
his charge against the disciple in this form: "Did I not see thee in the garden
with Him?" It is therefore every way likely that the consciousness of having
committed an offence which might be resented, made Peter anxious to escape
identification as one of Christ's disciples. His unseasonable courage in the
garden helped to make him a coward in the palace-yard.
Making all due allowance for the effect of
circumstances, however, we think that the difference in the behavior of the two
disciples was mainly due to a difference in the men themselves. Though he had
been guilty of no imprudence in the garden, Peter, we fear, would have denied
Jesus in the hall; and, on the other hand, supposing John had been placed in
Peter's position, we do not believe that he would have committed Peter's sin.
Peter's disposition laid him open to temptation, while John's, on the other
hand, was a protection against temptation. Peter was frank and familiar, John
was dignified and reserved; Peter's tendency was to be on hail fellow-well-met
terms with everybody, John could keep his own place and make other people keep
theirs. It is easy to see what an important effect this distinction would have
on the conduct of parties placed in Peter's position. Suppose John in Peter's
place, and let us see how he might have acted. Certain persons about the court,
possessing neither authority nor influence, interrogate him about his
connection with Jesus. He is neither afraid nor ashamed to acknowledge his
Lord, but nevertheless he turns away and gives the interrogators no answer.
They have no right to question him. The spirit which prompts their questions is
one with which he has no sympathy, and he feels that it will serve no good
purpose to confess his discipleship to such people. Therefore, like his Master
when confronted with the false witnesses, he holds his peace, and withdraws
from company with which he has nothing in common, and for which he has no
respect.
To protect himself from inconvenient
interrogation by such dignified reserve, is beyond Peter's capacity. He cannot
keep people who are not fit company for him at their distance; he is too frank,
too familiar, too sensitive to public opinion, without respect to its quality.
If a servant-maid ask him a question about his relation to the Prisoner at the
bar, he cannot brush past her as if he heard her not. He must give her an
answer; and as he feels instinctively that the animus of the question is
against his Master, his answer must needs be a lie. Then, unwarned by this
encounter of the danger arising from too close contact with the hangers-on
about the palace, the foolish disciple must involve himself more inextricably
into the net, by mingling jauntily with the servants and officers gathered
around the fire which has been kindled on the pavement of the open court. Of
course he has no chance of escape here; he is like a poor fly caught in a
spider's web. If these men, with the insolent tone of court menials, charge him
with being a follower of the man whom their masters have now got into their
power, he can do nothing else than blunder out a mean, base denial. Poor Peter
is manifestly not equal to the situation. It would have been wiser in him to
have staid at home, restraining his curiosity to see the end. But he, like most
men, was to learn wisdom only by bitter experience.
The contrast we have drawn between the characters
of the two disciples suggests the thought, What a different thing growth in
grace may be for different Christians! Neither John nor Peter was mature as
yet, but immaturity showed itself in them in opposite ways. Peter's weakness
lay in the direction of indiscriminate cordiality. His tendency was to be
friends with everybody. John, on the other hand, was in no danger of being on
familiar terms with all and sundry. It was rather too easy for him to make a
difference between friends and foes. He could take a side, and keep it; he
could even hate with fanatical intensity, as well as love with beautiful
womanly devotion. Witness his proposal to call down fire from heaven to consume
the Samaritan villages! That was a proposal which Peter could not have made; it
was not in his nature to be so truculent against any human being. So far, his
good nature was a thing to be commended, if in other respects it laid him open
to temptation. The faults of the two brethren being so opposite, growth in
grace would naturally assume two opposite forms in their respective
experiences. In Peter it would take the form of concentration; in John, of
expansion. Peter would become less charitable; John would become more
charitable. Peter would advance from indiscriminate goodwill to a moral
decidedness which should distinguish between friends and foes, the Church and
the world; John's progress, on the other hand, would consist in ceasing to be a
bigot, and in becoming imbued with the genial, humane, sympathetic spirit of
his Lord. Peter, in his mature state, would care much less for the opinions and
feelings of men than he did at the present time; John, again, would care much
more.
We add a word on the question, Was it right or
was it wrong in these two disciples to follow their Lord to the place of
judgment? In our view it was neither right nor wrong in itself. It was right
for one who was able to do it without spiritual harm; wrong for one who had
reason to believe that, by doing it, he was exposing himself to harm. The
latter was Peter's case, as the former seems to have been John's. Peter had
been plainly warned of his weakness; and, had he laid the warning to heart, he
would have avoided the scene of temptation. By disregarding the warning, he
wilfully rushed into the tempter's arms, and of course he caught a fall. His
fall reads a lesson to all who, without seeking counsel of God or disregarding
counsel given, enter on undertakings beyond their strength.