John 18:26
Verse (Click for Chapter)
New International Version
One of the high priest's servants, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, challenged him, "Didn't I see you with him in the garden?"

New Living Translation
But one of the household slaves of the high priest, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, "Didn't I see you out there in the olive grove with Jesus?"

English Standard Version
One of the servants of the high priest, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, “Did I not see you in the garden with him?”

Berean Study Bible
One of the high priest's servants, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, "Didn't I see you with Him in the garden?"

Berean Literal Bible
One of the servants of the high priest, being kinsman of him whose ear Peter had cut off, says, "Did I not see you in the garden with Him?"

New American Standard Bible
One of the slaves of the high priest, being a relative of the one whose ear Peter cut off, said, "Did I not see you in the garden with Him?"

King James Bible
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?

Holman Christian Standard Bible
One of the high priest's slaves, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, said, "Didn't I see you with Him in the garden?"

International Standard Version
Then one of the high priest's servants, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, said, "I saw you in the garden with Jesus, didn't I?"

NET Bible
One of the high priest's slaves, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, said, "Did I not see you in the orchard with him?"

New Heart English Bible
One of the servants of the high priest, being a relative of him whose ear Peter had cut off, said, "Did I not see you in the garden with him?"

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And one of the servants of The High Priest, near kin of him whose ear Shimeon had cut off, said, “Did I not see you with him in the garden?”

GOD'S WORD® Translation
One of the chief priest's servants, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked him, "Didn't I see you with Jesus in the garden?"

New American Standard 1977
One of the slaves of the high priest, being a relative of the one whose ear Peter cut off, said, “Did I not see you in the garden with Him?”

Jubilee Bible 2000
One of the slaves of the high priest, kinsman of the one whose ear Peter had cut off, said, Did I not see thee in the garden with him?

King James 2000 Bible
One of the servants of the high priest, being the kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, said, Did not I see you in the garden with him?

American King James Version
One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, said, Did not I see you in the garden with him?

American Standard Version
One of the servants of the high priest, being a kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?

Douay-Rheims Bible
One of the servants of the high priest (a kinsman to him whose ear Peter cut off) saith to him: Did I not see thee in the garden with him?

Darby Bible Translation
One of the bondmen of the high priest, who was kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, says, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?

English Revised Version
One of the servants of the high priest, being a kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?

Webster's Bible Translation
One of the servants of the high priest (being the kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off) saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?

Weymouth New Testament
One of the High Priest's servants, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, said, "Did I not see you in the garden with him?"

World English Bible
One of the servants of the high priest, being a relative of him whose ear Peter had cut off, said, "Didn't I see you in the garden with him?"

Young's Literal Translation
One of the servants of the chief priest, being kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, saith, 'Did not I see thee in the garden with him?'
Study Bible
Peter's Second and Third Denials
25Simon Peter was still standing and warming himself. So they asked him, “Aren’t you also one of His disciples?” He denied it and said, “I am not.” 26One of the high priest’s servants, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, “Didn’t I see you with Him” in the garden? 27Peter denied it once more, and immediately a rooster crowed.…
Cross References
Matthew 26:73
After a little while, those standing nearby came up to Peter. "Surely you are one of them," they said, "for your accent gives you away."

Luke 22:58
A short time later, someone else saw him and said, "You also are one of them." But Peter said, "Man, I am not."

John 18:1
When Jesus had spoken these words, He went out with His disciples across the Kidron Valley, where they entered a garden.

John 18:10
Then Simon Peter drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.
Treasury of Scripture

One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, said, Did not I see you in the garden with him?

being.

John 18:10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's …

Did.

Proverbs 12:19 The lip of truth shall be established for ever: but a lying tongue …

Matthew 26:73 And after a while came to him they that stood by, and said to Peter, …

Mark 14:70,71 And he denied it again. And a little after, they that stood by said …

Luke 22:59,60 And about the space of one hour after another confidently affirmed, …

(26) One of the servants of the high priest.--Comp. Luke 22:59.

Did not I see thee in the garden with him?--This kinsman of Malchus, who had probably gone with him to the arrest, is not to be silenced by a simple denial. He asks emphatically, "Did not I see thee in the garden with Him?" He feels certain that he is not deceived. The probable interpretation of John 18:4 is that Jesus went forth out of the garden towards the band and the officers. If so, the moment when the kinsman saw Peter was previous to that of Malchus' wound. If the kinsman had witnessed this, he would almost certainly have charged Peter with it now.

Verses 26, 27. - Between the second and third denials some time elapsed. Thus according to Matthew and Mark "after a little while," according to Luke "about the space of one hour after," an effort was made to identify Peter by. some sign of his association with Jesus. All the synoptists re. present it as turning on his provincial, Galilaean, speech, but John gives a closer point of identification. There were thousands of Galilaeans in Jerusalem, and this was a feeble ground of proof, though it may have corroborated the suspicion of the maidens and others, that Peter was an accomplice of the hated Nazarene; but the charge came home in terrible earnest and verisimilitude as recorded by John. His account is far more lifelike, forcible, and circumstantial. The fourth evangelist says, One of the servants (doulw = n) of the high priest, being a kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, says, Did I not see thee in the garden with him? The historically attested fact gave the lie to Peter's previous assertions. Clearly he was seen and recognized and in imminent peril, and he is now more vehement than ever. Matthew and Mark tell, "tie began to curse and swear, saying, I do not know the Man." John, with less feeling of reproach, says, Peter therefore denied again. The intercessory prayer, the solemn warning, the agony in the garden, above all, the following of the sublime encouragements by this fearful failure, the ignominious binding and rude indignity offered to the Man who had claimed to be the Vicegerent and Image and Glory of the Father, combined to shatter Peter's courage, though it did not annihilate his faith (see Steinmeyer and Weiss). The Lord had prayed that his faith should not fail. He was sifted as wheat, but the apostle knew, even in the depths of his shame, that he was a poltroon and coward, and that the Lord was everything he said he was. But meanwhile he denied again, he kept up with his violence of language, his hypocritical denial of his own faith - and straightway the cock crew. Mark, who had made the prediction of our Lord cover a twofold cockcrowing, records the twofold fulfillment; John, who in John 13:38 had given the prediction "before the cock crow," here shows how Peter must have been reminded of his Lord's preternatural knowledge and forecast. So that, though John does not mention the repentance, he refers to the well-known occasion of it, and, moreover, shows more forcibly than either of the synoptists the extraordinary tenderness of the risen and reconciled Lord to his erring and cowardly disciple. Some extreme harmonists have spread out the fault of Peter into nine distinct acts of treachery; others have reduced them to seven or eight. M'Clellan, in a powerful note (p. 447), urges that there were "twice three," or six distinct denials. Matthew and Mark report three denials while the trial before Caiaphas was going on; these are, according to M'Clellan, entirely distinct from John's "first denial," which preceded even the lighting of the fire. Nor does he allow that Luke's first denial, "sitting at the fire," can coincide with John's "second denial," which must also have preceded that which Luke gives as the first, and that John's "third denial" is distinct again from Matthew's third, Mark's third, and Luke's third. Thus he makes John's account entirely supplementary to the synoptists. Peter may have used a variety of expressions on each occasion, and each challenge may have been accompanied by some features not especially noted as to posture or place, but the arrangement adopted in the text represents a threefold assault upon the apostle, which had three crises of intensity and terrible result. Taking Matthew and Mark as virtually identical, Luke's account as a separate tradition with reference to the second denial, and agreeing with Matthew and Mark in the third, and in his first with John's second, we have three denials once more following the prediction. John's account, whether distinct or not from the other two records, bears the same relation to our Lord's previous announcement that the synoptists' do to theirs, and shows that in no quarter was there a general belief in more than three virtual acts of apostasy. Mark alone mentions a twofold warning from the cock, one after the first denial, and on Peter's going out to the προαύλιον, or the enclosure, i.e. between the πυλών and the θύρα, and again after the third denial. M'Clellan and others find a threefold denial before each crowing of the cock. Certainly John has omitted the entire scene detailed by the synoptists in the hail of Caiaphas, viz. the calling of the witnesses; the lack of harmony in the false witnesses; the adjuration of Caiaphas; the wondrous confession of the persecuted and bound Sufferer; the verdict pronounced against him, on the part of all assembled, that he was guilty of death; the first cruel mockery; and the very early assembly of the entire Sanhedrin - all the chief priests (πάντες οἱ αρχιερείς) and. elders of the people (Matthew 27:1, 2; Mark 15:1, the chief priests, with the elders and scribes and all the Sanhedrin). The synoptists assure us that the object of this council - which was probably held in the celebrated chamber of the temple appropriated for the purpose - was to adopt the most suitable measures for immediately carrying their unanimous judgment into effect. As we shall see shortly, John is perfectly aware of such a measure having been taken (see not only Ver. 31, but John 11:47, etc.). Nevertheless, he passes on at once to the legal and civil trial before the Roman proprietor. This is not the place to discuss the twofold trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin. Derembourg, Farrar, and Westcott suppose that the first demands of the high priest, as to whether he was the Christ, as given by Matthew and Mark, were different from the scene described by Luke, where he claimed ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν to be seated on the right hand of the power of God, and suppose that this last was the occasion, when the verdict was given by the Sanhedrin in full session, not in the palace of the high priest, but in the "Gazith," or possibly in the "Booths of Hanan," on the Mount of Olives. Luke clearly discriminates between οϊκος τοῦ ἀρχιερέως (Luke 22:54), and the συνέδριον αὐτῶν of Ver. 66. 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? 26. 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' (Lu 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" (Mt 26:73). "Thou art a Galilean, and thy speech agreeth thereto" (Mr 14:70; and so Lu 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.18:13-27 Simon Peter denied his Master. The particulars have been noticed in the remarks on the other Gospels. The beginning of sin is as the letting forth of water. The sin of lying is a fruitful sin; one lie needs another to support it, and that another. If a call to expose ourselves to danger be clear, we may hope God will enable us to honour him; if it be not, we may fear that God will leave us to shame ourselves. They said nothing concerning the miracles of Jesus, by which he had done so much good, and which proved his doctrine. Thus the enemies of Christ, whilst they quarrel with his truth, wilfully shut their eyes against it. He appeals to those who heard him. The doctrine of Christ may safely appeal to all that know it, and those who judge in truth bear witness to it. Our resentment of injuries must never be passionate. He reasoned with the man that did him the injury, and so may we.
Jump to Previous
Bondmen Challenged Chief Cut Ear Garden High Kinsman Olive Peter Priest Priest's Relation Relative Servants Slaves
Jump to Next
Bondmen Challenged Chief Cut Ear Garden High Kinsman Olive Peter Priest Priest's Relation Relative Servants Slaves
Links
John 18:26 NIV
John 18:26 NLT
John 18:26 ESV
John 18:26 NASB
John 18:26 KJV

John 18:26 Biblia Paralela
John 18:26 Chinese Bible
John 18:26 French Bible
John 18:26 German Bible

Alphabetical: a being challenged cut Did Didn't ear garden grove had high him I in man not of off olive One Peter priest priest's relative said see servants slaves the whose with you

NT Gospels: John 18:26 One of the servants of the high (Jhn Jo Jn) Christian Bible Study Resources, Dictionary, Concordance and Search Tools
John 18:25
Top of Page
Top of Page