See the notes at Mat. 26:57-75.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

The whole history of Peters denial of his Master, and of his repentance. See Poole on “Mat 26:69“, and following verses to Mat 26:75, where we have opened what passages relating to it are in Mark or this evangelist.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

Then took they him, and led him,…. The band of soldiers, the captain, and the officers of the Jews, laid hold on Jesus, and bound him, Joh 18:12 and led him out of the garden; notwithstanding the miracle he had wrought, and the humanity he had shown in healing the servant’s ear; and notwithstanding his moving address to the chiefs of them; and indeed, this was a confirmation of his last words; for by this it appeared, that now was their time, and power was given to them, as the emissaries of Satan, to act against him:

and brought him into the high priest’s house; where the sanhedrim were assembled; but this was not in the temple where they used to sit: it is true, indeed, that the chamber in the temple, called the chamber “Parhedrin”, or “Palhedrin”, was, , “the dwelling house” of the high priest, seven days before the day of atonement k; and this was also called the “chamber of the counsellors” l; so that had the time of year agreed, it might have been thought that this was the place that Jesus was led to; but here the high priest did not usually dwell, and it is manifestly distinguished from his own house: for it is said m,

“seven days before the day of atonement, they separate, or remove the high priest, , “from his house”, to the chamber of “Palhedrin”;”

[See comments on Mt 26:3].

And Peter followed afar off;

[See comments on Mt 26:58].

k T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 10. 1. Maimon. Hilch, Mezuza, c. 6. sect. 6. l T. Bab, Yoma, fol. 8. 2. m Misna Yoma, c. 1. sect. 1.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

      54 Then took they him, and led him, and brought him into the high priest’s house. And Peter followed afar off.   55 And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were set down together, Peter sat down among them.   56 But a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire, and earnestly looked upon him, and said, This man was also with him.   57 And he denied him, saying, Woman, I know him not.   58 And after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou art also of them. And Peter said, Man, I am not.   59 And about the space of one hour after another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this fellow also was with him: for he is a Galilan.   60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.   61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.   62 And Peter went out, and wept bitterly.

      We have here the melancholy story of Peter’s denying his Master, at the time when he was arraigned before the high priest, and those that were of the cabal, that were ready to receive the prey, and to prepare the evidence for his arraignment, as soon as it was day, before the great sanhedrim, v. 66. But notice is not taken here, as was in the other evangelists, of Christ’s being now upon his examination before the high priest, only of his being brought into the high priest’s house, v. 54. But the manner of expression is observable. They took him, and led him, and brought him, which methinks is like that concerning Saul (1 Sam. xv. 12): He is gone about, and passed on, and gone down; and intimates that, even when they had seized their prey, they were in confusion, and, for fear of the people, or rather struck with inward terror upon what they had seen and heard, they took him the furthest way about, or, rather, knew not which way they hurried him, such a hurry were they in in their own bosoms. Now observe,

      I. Peter’s falling. 1. It began in sneaking. He followed Christ when he was had away prisoner; this was well, and showed a concern for his Master. But he followed afar off, that he might be out of danger. He thought to trim the matter, to follow Christ, and so to satisfy his conscience, but to follow afar off, and so to save his reputation, and sleep in a whole skin. 2. It proceeded in keeping his distance still, and associating himself with the high priest’s servants, when he should have been at his master’s elbow. The servants kindled a fire in the midst of the hall and sat down together, to talk over their night-expedition. Probably Malchus was among them, and Peter sat down among them, as if he had been one of them, at least would be thought to be so. His fall itself was disclaiming all acquaintance with Christ, and relation to him, disowning him because he was now in distress and danger. He was charged by a sorry simple maid, that belonged to the house, with being a retainer to this Jesus, about whom there was now so much noise. She looked wistfully upon him as he at by the fire, only because he was a stranger, and one whom she had not seen before; and concluding that at this time of night there were no neuters there, and knowing him not to be any of the retinue of the high priest, she concludes him to be one of the retinue of this Jesus, or perhaps she had been some time or other looking about her in the temple, and had seen Jesus there and Peter with him, officious about him, and remembered him; and this man was with him, saith she. And Peter, as he had not the courage to own the charge, so he had not the wit and presence of mind to turn it off, as he might have done many ways, and therefore flatly and plainly denies it: Woman, I know him not. 4. His fall was repeated a second time (v. 58): After a little while, before he had time to recollect himself, another saw him, and said, “Even thou art one of them, as slyly as thou sittest here among the high priest’s servants.” Not I, saith Peter; Man, I am not. And a third time, about the space of an hour after (for, saith the tempter, “When he is down, down with him; let us follow the blow, till we get him past recovery”), another confidently affirms, strenuously asserts it, “Of a truth this fellow also was with him, let him deny it if he can, for you may all perceive he is a Galilean.” But he that has once told a lie is strongly tempted to persist in it; the beginning of that sin is as the letting forth of water. Peter now not only denies that he is a disciple of Christ, but that he knows any thing of him (v. 60): “Man, I know not what thou sayest; I never heard of this Jesus.”

      II. Peter’s getting up again. See how happily he recovered himself, or, rather, the grace of God recovered him. See how it was brought about:–

      1. The cock crew just as he was the third time denying that he knew Christ, and this startled him and put him upon thinking. Note, Small accidents may involve great consequences.

      2. The Lord turned and looked upon him. This circumstance we had not in the other evangelists, but it is a very remarkable one. Christ is here called the Lord, for there was much of divine knowledge, power, and grace, appearing in this. Observe, Though Christ had now his back upon Peter, and was upon his trial (when, one would think, he had something else to mind), yet he knew all that Peter said. Note, Christ takes more notice of what we say and do than we think he does. When Peter disowned Christ, yet Christ did not disown him, though he might justly have cast him off, and never looked upon him more, but have denied him before his Father. It is well for us that Christ does not deal with us as we deal with him. Christ looked upon Peter, not doubting but that Peter would soon be aware of it; for he knew that, though he had denied him with his lips, yet his eye would still be towards him. Observe, Though Peter had now been guilty of a very great offence, and which was very provoking, yet Christ would not call to him, lest he should shame him or expose him; he only gave him a look which none but Peter would understand the meaning of, and it had a great deal in it. (1.) It was a convincing look. Peter said that he did not know Christ. Christ turned, and looked upon him, as if he should say, “Dost thou not know me, Peter? Look me in the face, and tell me so.” (2.) It was a chiding look. We may suppose that he looked upon him and frowned, or some way signified his displeasure. Let us think with what an angry countenance Christ justly looks upon us when we have sinned. (3.) It was an expostulating upbraiding look: “What, Peter, art thou he that disownest me now, when thou shouldest come and witness for me? What thou a disciple? Thou that wast the most forward to confess me to be the Son of God, and didst solemnly promise thou wouldest never disown me?” (4.) It was a compassionate look; he looked upon him with tenderness. “Poor Peter, how weak is thine heart! How art thou fallen and undone if I do not help thee!” (5.) It was a directing look. Christ guided him with his eye, gave him a wink to go out from that sorry company, to retire, and bethink himself a little, and then he would soon see what he had to do. (6.) It was a significant look: it signified the conveying of grace to Peter’s heart, to enable him to repent; the crowing of the cock would not have brought him to repentance without this look, nor will the external means without special efficacious grace. Power went along with this look, to change the heart of Peter, and to bring him to himself, to his right mind.

      3. Peter remembered the words of the Lord. Note, The grace of God works in and by the word of God, brings that to mind, and sets that home upon the conscience, and so gives the soul a happy turn. Tolle et lege–Take it up, and read.

      4. Then Peter went out, and wept bitterly. One look from Christ melted him into tears of godly sorrow for sin. The candle was newly put out, and then a little thing lighted it again. Christ looked upon the chief priests, and made no impression upon them as he did on Peter, who had the divine seed remaining in him to work upon. It was not the look from Christ, but the grace of God with it, that recovered Peter, and brought him to-rights.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

Into the high priest’s house ( ). Luke alone mentions “the house.” Though it is implied in Mark 14:53; Matt 26:57.

Followed (). Imperfect, was following, as Matt 26:58; John 18:15. Curiously Mr 14:54 has the aorist.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

1) “Then took they him, and led him,” (sullabontes de auton egagon) “Then when they had arrested him, they led him away,” as a sheep to the slaughter, Isa 53:7; Act 8:32; Mat 26:57. John tells of His first being bound and led to Annas, John 18-13.

2) “And brought him into the high priest’s house.” (kai esiegagon eis ten oikian tou archiereos) “And they led him (bound) into the residence of the high priest,” where Captains resided, Mar 14:53; Mat 26:57, “Where the scribes and the elders were assembled,” in a nighttime collusion with the arresting band, with “all the chief priests.”

3) “And Peter followed afar off.” (ho de Petros ekolouthei makrothen) “Then Peter followed afar off,” a distance away from them, to the palace, Mat 26:58; Mar 14:54. Caiaphas had already passed judgment on Jesus, before the arrest, that Jesus should die, to protect their religious order, rather than for all of them to die, without a job, Joh 11:49-50; Joh 18:14.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

CRITICAL NOTES

Luk. 22:54. Then took they Him.R.V., And they seized Him. The high priests house.I.e., the house of Caiaphas. St. John alone mentions a preliminary and perhaps informal examination in the house of Annas.

Luk. 22:55. Kindled a fire.The spring nights at Jerusalem, which is 2610 feet above the level of the sea, are often cold (Farrar). Hall.Rather, court (R.V.). Sat down among them.More literally, sat in the midst of them (R.V.).

Luk. 22:56. Sat by the fire.Rather, sat in the light [of the fire] (R.V.).

Luk. 22:58. Another.The gender of the original word is masculine. St. Matthew and St. Mark speak of this second accuser being a woman, or the same woman as first charged him with being a disciple of Jesus. The discrepancy, if any, is scarcely worth noticing. Man.A term of expostulation in the original, to which our version here exactly correspondsman being similarly used in English.

Luk. 22:59. A Galilan.Recognised as such by his dialect.

Luk. 22:61. The Lord turned.This was not during the trial, for Peter was then in the outside court, but as Jesus crossed the court on His way from the house of Caiaphas. St. Luke gives no account of the trial before Caiaphas.

Luk. 22:65. Blasphemously.Rather, reviling Him (R.V.). The word blasphemy has changed its meaning; it formerly denoted reviling or scurrility.

Luk. 22:66. As soon as it was day.The court of the Sanhedrim could only be held in the daytime; consequently all that was done in the presence of Caiaphas, when Christ was first tried, had to be repeated at the formal meeting. This accounts for the questions and replies recorded by St. Matthew and St. Mark, as spoken in the house of Caiaphas, being here set down as taking place in court. The elders of the people.Properly, the presbytery of the people, the body of eldersi.e., the Sanhedrim (cf. Act. 22:5). The place of meeting is uncertain.

Luk. 22:67. Art thou the Christ?Out of a claim to be the Messiah they wished to construct a charge of treason; as the Roman authorities, who alone had power of life and death, would not attach importance to a charge of blasphemy.

Luk. 22:68. If I also ask you.If I put questions to educe from your own mouths proofs of My innocence or of the validity of My claim to be Christ, ye will not answer Me or release Me. The words virtually mean, The trial is an unfair one, as I am not allowed to argue My case. Nevertheless, Christ judges that the time has come for an open statement of His claims (Luk. 22:69-70).

Luk. 22:69. Hereafter, etc.Rather, but from henceforth shall the Son of Man be seated at the right hand, etc. The cross, now so near at hand, will be the first step to the throne of glory.

Luk. 22:70. Ye say that I am.Or, Ye say it, because I am (R.V. margin). This is a Hebrew phrase, equivalent to, Your words are true.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Luk. 22:54-71

Denial, Mockery, and Condemnation of the Lord.In this section we have a further account of our Lords sufferings, and a revelation of mans sin. A trusted friend proves faithless, the underlings of the rulers brutally ridicule His prophetic claims, and their masters vote Him a blasphemer for asserting His divinity and Messiahship.

I. The failure of loyalty and love in Peters denials.The morning was cold and Peter, exhausted, sleepy, sad, and shivering, was glad to creep near the fire in the court-yard. Its light betrayed him to a womans sharp eye, and her gossiping tongue could not help blurting out her discovery. Curiosity, not malice, moved her, and there is no reason to suppose that any harm would have come to Peter if he had said, as he should have done, Yes, I am His disciple. The day for persecuting the servants was not yet come, but for the present it was Jesus only who was aimed at. No doubt cowardice had a share in the denials, but there was more than that in them. Peter was worn out with fatigue, excitement, and sorrow. He was always easily moved by surroundings, so now he could not resist the current of opinion, and dreaded being unlike even the menials among whom he sat. He was ashamed of his Master, and hid his colours, not so much for fear of bodily harm as of ridicule. May he not, too, have begun to doubt whether, after all, Jesus was what he had thought Him? Christ prayed that Peters faith should not fail, or be totally eclipsed, and that may indicate that the assault was made on his faith, and that it wavered, though it recovered steadfastness. The sight of Jesus bound, unresisting, and evidently at the mercy of the rulers, might well make a firmer faith stagger. We have not to steel ourselves to bear bodily harm if we confess Christ, but many of us have to run counter to a strong current flowing round us, and to be alone in the midst of unsympathising companions, ready to laugh and gibe; and some of us are tempted to waver in our convictions of Christs divinity, because He still seems to stand at the bar of the wise men and leaders of opinion, and to be treated by them as a pretender. It is a wretched thing to be persecuted out of ones Christianity by fire and sword, but it is worse to be laughed out of it, or lose it because we breathe an atmosphere of unbelief. Peter slipped away to the gateway, and there, apparently, was again attacked, first by the portress and then by others, which occasioned the second denial, while the third took place in the same spot about an hour afterwards. One sin makes many. The devils hounds hunt in packs. Consistency requires the denier to stick to his lie. If Peter had been less confident he would have been more safe. What business had he thrusting himself into the palace? Over-reliance on self leads us to put ourselves in the way of temptations it were wise to avoid. In the very flood-tide of Peters oaths the cock-crow is heard, and the half-finished denial sticks in his throat at the sound. At the same moment he sees Jesus led past him, and that look, so full of love, reproof, and pardon, brought him back to loyalty, and saved him from despair. The assurance of Christs knowledge of our sins against Him melts the heart when the assurance of His forgiveness and tender love comes with it. Then tears, which are wholly humble, but not wholly grief, flow. They do not wash away the sin, but they come from the assurance that Christs love, like a flood, has swept it away. They save from remorse, which has no healing in it.

II. The rude taunts of the servants.The mockery here comes from Jews, and is directed against Christs prophetic character, while the later jeers of the Roman soldiers made a jest of His kingship. Rude natures have to take rude ways of expression, and the vulgar mockery meant precisely the same as more polite and covert scorn means from more polished peoplenamely, rooted disbelief in Him. These mockers were contented to take their opinions on trust from priests and rabbis. How often, since then, have Christs servants been objects of popular odium at the suggestion of the same classes, and how often have the ignorant people been misled, by their trust in their teachers, to hate and persecute their true Master! Jesus is silent under all the mockery, but then, as now, He knows who strikes Him. He will speak one day, and His speech will be detection and condemnation. Then He was silent, as patiently enduring shame and spitting for our sakes. Now He is silent, as long-suffering and wooing us to repentance; but He keeps count and record of mens revilings, and the day comes when He whose eyes are as a flame of fire will say to every foe, I know thy works.

III. The formal rejection and condemnation by the council.The rulers question was put simply in order to obtain material for the condemnation already resolved on. Our Lords answer falls into two parts, in the first of which He declines to recognise the bona fides of His judges, and the competency of the tribunal, and in the second goes beyond their question, and claims participation in Divine glory and power. Jesus will not unfold His claims to those who only seek to hear them in order to reject, not to examine, them. Silence is His answer to ingrained prejudice masquerading as honest inquiry. Jesus will gladly speak with any who will be frank with Him, and let Him search their hearts; but He will not unfold His mission to such as will refuse to answer His questions. But, while He thus declines to submit Himself to that tribunal, He will not leave them without once more asserting an even higher dignity than that of Messiah. As a prisoner at their bar, He has nothing to say to them, but as their King and future Judge he has something. It was fitting that the representatives of Israel, however prejudiced, should hear at that supreme moment the full assertion of full deity. It was fitting that Israel should condemn itself, by treating that claim as blasphemy. It was fitting that Jesus should bring about His death by His twofold claimthat made to the Sanhedrim, of being the Son of God, and that before Pilate, of being the King of the Jews. The whole scene teaches us the voluntary character of Christs death. It carries our thoughts forward to the time when the criminal of that morning shall be the Judge, and the judges and we shall stand at His bar. If His claim to be Divine was true, do we worship Him? If false, what was He? It mirrors the principles on which He deals with men universally; He meets hypocritical pretences of seeking the truth about Him with silence, but He is ever ready to open His heart to the honest and docile spirits who are ready to accept His words, and glad to open their inmost secrets to Him.Maclaren.

SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON Luk. 22:54-71

Luk. 22:54-71. The Religious Process: Christ before the Sanhedrim.

I. The denial of Peter (Luk. 22:54-62).

II. The ill-treatment of Jesus by the Jews (Luk. 22:63-65).

III. The sentence of condemnation pronounced by the high priest (Luk. 22:66-71).

Luk. 22:54-60. Peters Fall.

I. He follows afar off.He will not altogether forsake Christ, and yet seeks to avoid danger by not keeping too near to Him.

II. He takes his place among the enemies of Christ, without avowing his discipleship.

III. His presence of mind fails him when danger arises.

IV. He persists in denying his Master, though time for recollection was given him, between each accusation of being one of His disciples.

Causes of Peters Fall.

I. Self-confidence.

II. Indecision.

III. Fear of man.

IV. False shame.

V. Evil company.

Luk. 22:54. Brought Him into the high priests house.The high priest unconsciously receives the sacrificial Victim who is to be offered for the sin of the world. Contrast the blindness and malice of the high priest with the clear consciousness of Jesus of the part He was to play in the great work of redemption, and with the meekness with which He submitted to His sufferings.

Followed afar off.It is scarcely possible to form a distinct image of the mood in which the impetuous disciple, impelled by curiosity, anxiety, and affection, ventures to enter the high-priestly palace.Van Oosterzee.

Afar off.Peter is the David of the New Testament. He did not fall into the same sins, but he fell, was penitent, was forgiven, was restored. His sin was faithlessness, failure in affection, ceasing to regard Christ as first and to follow Him closely to the last. His case illustrates a phase of disciple-lifehow one, under fear, may get out of the range of Christs influence, and, while continuing a dis-disciple, follow only afar off.

I. Peter followed afar off; still, he followed.Many had never followed Christ, or followed only to hate and harass Him.

II. He was too much influenced by the feelings and conduct of others.And so he thought a little distance from Christ was safer than perfect nearness. This is often the state of mind of those who begin deliberately to follow Christ at a distance. It is cowardice.

III. It was a sad episode in an otherwise devoted life.No need to excuse or exaggerate. It was very natural. Without all-mastering faith in Christ self-distrust is sure to betray us.

IV. The only remedy is to rise and follow again.To begin afresh, to come near, to keep near, at all hazards; to be ready for sacrifice, to be reliant on the look, the word, the hand, the help of our Master. All this will keep us near, and make us faithful.McColl.

Luk. 22:56. A certain maid.The women introduced on this occasion are the only women mentioned as taking part with the enemies of our Lord, and even they are not concerned in bringing about His condemnation, nor any further than to detect St. Peter. It is remarkable that no woman is mentioned, throughout, as speaking against our Lord in His life, or having a share in His death. On the contrary, He is anointed by a woman for His burial, women are the last at His grave, the first at His resurrection; to a woman He first appeared after His rising from the dead; women from Galilee ministered to His wants; women bewailed and lamented Him; a heathen woman interceded for His life with her husband, the governor: and, above all, of a woman He was born.Williams.

Luk. 22:57. I know Him not.No excuses can be found for Peters guilt, but it is only just to him to remember the very trying circumstances in which he stood.

I. His hopes had been overthrown; he saw his Master the sport of cruel foes.
II. He was subjected to special temptation by Satan.
III. He felt himself alone among enemiesone apostle had become a traitor, and the others had forsaken their Master.

Luk. 22:58. Another saw him.The longer he continues in the company of enemies of Christ the worse it is for himthe more frequent do the temptations to unfaithfulness become. Flight from temptation is often the only safe course.

Luk. 22:59. Confidently affirmed.The apostle is now overwhelmed by proof of the charge against him. As St. John tells us (Luk. 18:26) it is a kinsman of Malchus who identifies him as having been in the garden with Christ.

Luk. 22:60-62. Peters Repentance.

I. His conscience awoke when the crowing of the cock reminded him of Christs prophecy.

II. He was gently reproached and convicted of ingratitude and cowardice by the look of his Master.

III. He is filled with godly sorrow and penitence.

Luk. 22:60. I know not.St. Luke omits reference to the cursing and swearing which accompanied this last denial (Mat. 26:74).

Luk. 22:61-62. The Fall and The Rising.Such is the after-taste of sin. Such is the awakening from the sleep of the soul, to which the tempter has successfully presented one of his bright, seductive visions. It is an example of the process of temptation. Three things are to be noticed:

1. The sleep.
2. The dream.
3. The awakening.

I. The state of the soul before sin.A state of sleep, or of security. Not of safety, but of imagined safety. Peter was ignorant, rash, self-confident. Christian people are all liable to this state of fancied strength. It is our chief bane.

II. The state of the soul during the sin.The sort of disguise under which the offence comes. The temptation came suddenly and repeatedly. The apostles only impulse was that of self-preservation. What a picture of human nature! in our little timidities about the worlds opinion.

III. The state of the soul after the sin.Christs prayer did not prevent the fall, but it secured the rising. The look of Christ, full of pity, of sorrow, of tenderness, recalled the sinner to himself, and brought a flood of penitence. If we have sinned like him, may we, like him, bitterly lament our cowardice and ingratitude, and hasten back to Christs feet for forgiveness. Happy these whose shameful fall has been salutary. But to how many has there been no return from the downward course!Vaughan.

Peters Repentance, a Type of True Sorrow.

I. Peters sorrow did not arise from the fact that his guilt was known.

II. It was not simply the suffering of remorse.

III. It rose from the sense of Christs love.

IV. It was manifest in the conquest of self-trust.

V. It became the element of spiritual strength.Hull.

Luk. 22:61. The Lord turned and looked.O Saviour, couldst Thou find leisure, when Thou stoodest at the bar of that unjust and cruel judgment, amidst all that bloody rabble of enemies, in the sense of all their fury and the expectation of Thine own death, to listen unto this monitor of Peters repentance, and, upon the hearing of it, to cast back Thine eyes upon Thy denying, cursing, abjuring disciple? Oh mercy beyond measure, and beyond all the possibility of our admiration, to neglect Thyself for a sinner, to attend to the repentance of one, when Thou wert about to lay down Thy life for all!Hall.

The Saviours Look.What was expressed in that look of our blessed Saviour, thought of man cannot conceive, and words cannot utter. That it spoke of all that had passed in our Lords long intimacy with St. Peter, and especially of the conversation of that night, and that it derived a peculiar force and meaning from the indignities which our Lord was sufferingthat it implied something of this, we may well suppose; but what more we cannot tell. The conciseness and sublimity with which it is mentioned resembles the account in Genesis of His word being spoken, at which the world was created. Christ looked, and light filled the soul of Peter. The thought of his Lords Divinity, which he had believed, but had forgotten, now rushed afresh on his mind. In the darkness and silence of the night, his eyes were opened to all that had passed.Williams.

Luk. 22:62. Wept.The word means rather wept aloud than shed tears. He went out from the presence of men, and after this, in the whole history of the Passion we no longer discover the least trace of him.

Peter and Judas: a Contrast.

I. Consider their privileges.

II. Contrast their characters.

III. Contrast their sins.In their origin, their growth, their results.

IV. Contrast their repentance.W. Taylor.

Luk. 22:63-65. Mocked Him and smote Him.One is fain to pass hastily over the record of the brutality to which Jesus was exposed. Yet, in reading it, two thoughts strike us.

I. That the insults disgraced those who offered them, rather than Him who bore them.
II. That these servants followed their masters examplethe rancour which priests and elders cherished was thus manifested by their attendants in ruder, coarser ways. Sin ever tends to grosser and baser forms as it passes from mind to mind.

Luk. 22:63-71. Christ here an Example to us in

(1) His patience;
(2) His innocence;
(3) His prudence;
(4) His holy boldness.

Luk. 22:66. Art Thou the Christ?There was nothing in itself blasphemous in claiming to be the Christ. This claim, even if false, did not infringe upon the honour of God. If, then, the statements concerning His Messianic dignity, which Jesus made, assumed a blasphemous character in the opinion of the Jews, it was because the title Son of God, which He so often used of Himself, expressed a higher claim than that of Messiahship. Hence the question here asked is merely preparatory to that in Luk. 22:70 : Art Thou then the Son of God? It was only as the first claim was completed by the second that a capital charge against Jesus could be constructed.Godet.

Luk. 22:67-69. The Enemies of Christ are Not Fair Judges of His Claims.

I. They ask a question, but have their minds already made up against Him.
II. If confuted they do not admit the fact, but maintain a sullen silence.
III. Yet a convincing answer will they receive when they see Him on the throne of His power and appear at His tribunal.

Luk. 22:67-68. If I tell you, etc.They were neither fair-minded judges, whom He might convince of His innocence, nor disciples whom He might instruct.

Luk. 22:69. Sit on the right hand.The present, with all its ignominy, is contrasted with the glory of the future: now a prisoner, at the mercy of men; then to be supreme ruler of the universe.

Luk. 22:70. The Son of God.The Jews regarded the Messiah as Son of God in virtue of His theocratical office; but they are here face to face with the fact that Jesus claims the title as belonging to Him on other groundsthose of His essential Divinity.

Luk. 22:71. What further need?The ground on which Christ was condemned was His own claim to be the Son of God. Either His claim was well-founded, or the Jews were right in putting Him to death. To deny or to ignore His Divinity is to side with His murderers.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Butlers Comments

SECTION 5

Contrition (Luk. 22:54-65)

54 Then they seized him and led him away, bringing him into the high priests house. Peter followed at a distance; 55and when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and sat down together, Peter sat among them. 56Then a maid, seeing him as he sat in the light and gazing at him, said, This man also was with him. 57But he denied it, saying, Woman, I do not know him. 58And a little later some one else saw him and said, You also are one of them. But Peter said, Man, I am not. 59And after an interval of about an hour still another insisted, saying, Certainly this man also was with him; for he is a Galilean. 60But Peter said, Man, I do not know what you are saying. And immediately, while he was still speaking, the cock crowed. 61And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said to him, Before the cock crows today, you will deny me three times. 62And he went out and wept bitterly.

63 Now the men who were holding Jesus mocked him and beat him; 64they also blindfolded him and asked him, Prophesy! Who is it that struck you? 65And they spoke many other words against him, reviling him.

Luk. 22:54-65; Luk. 22:63-65 Abnegation: They first led Jesus bound to the palace (house) of the High Priest. There, according to Johns gospel (Joh. 18:13-18), Jesus was interrogated by Annas. Annas was father-in-law to Caiaphas who was the official high priest at that time. The house of Annas was the most powerful in all Judaism in that era and was detested by the common people. Annas was a Sadducee who had been appointed high priest in A.D. 7, but deposed by the Roman procurator Gratus in A.D. 14. He was able to get five of his sons appointed to the high priesthood, his son-in-law Caiaphas, and one of his grandsons. Annas was the real power behind the office-holder of the high priesthood.

Peter and another disciple (John, see Joh. 18:15-17) followed the mob and actually gained entrance into the courtyard of the palace of the high priest. These apostles were not cringing cowards. In fact, when a maid challenged Peters identity as he was about to enter the courtyard (Joh. 18:17), Peters reason for denying his relationship to Jesus may very well have been for the purpose of keeping himself incognito hoping to effect a physical rescue of Jesus should the opportunity avail itself. Both Peter and John were manifestly brave enough to sit right down with the soldiers who had just arrested Jesus!

Between the first challenge by the maid at the gate of the courtyard and the subsequent denials of Peter (Luk. 22:56-60), the gospel accounts document the details of Jesus trials before Annas and Caiaphas (cf. Joh. 18:13-24; Mat. 26:57-68; Mar. 14:53-64). We simply comment here that in both trials, the law of Moses and all the principles of human rights were violated in these kangaroo courts. Jesus was subjected to interrogation by Annas who was not officially authorized to assume such authority. He was interrogated at night and during a feast, which was illegal. Even the oral laws of Judaism (the Mishnah) stated that in capital cases (murder, treason, blasphemy) both trial and verdict must be reached in daytime. In all the interrogation by Annas there were no witnesses and no evidence presented. Even in Jewish law a man was presumed innocent until proven guilty by two or more witnesses and by evidence. When Jesus was taken before Caiaphas there were bribed witnesses testifying falsely against Him. They contradicted one another so blatantly the high priest had to resort to demanding that Jesus, the defendant, testify against Himself. By all the principles of proper jurisprudence, a mistrial should have been declared and Jesus released. Even Pilate, the Roman procurator, would later see through the hypocrisy and shame of the Jewish proceedings, finding no fault in Jesus (Joh. 18:38; Joh. 19:4).

Apparently Luke decided to tell of Peters anguish and contrition before finishing all the events prior to the moment Jesus looked at Peter. Matthew and Mark indicate that after Caiaphas had elicited a verdict of death from those gathered in his palace, some of the rabble, along with the guards began to spit on Jesus, and, having blindfolded Him, they struck Him, slapped Him and taunted Him, Prophesy to us, you Christ! Who was it that struck you? (Mat. 26:67-68; Mar. 14:65). Luke records this inhumane abuse in Luk. 22:63-64.

While this beastliness and mockery was going on, Peter was warming himself by the fire in the courtyard (cf. Mat. 26:69; Mar. 14:66-67). Luke says a maid saw Peter sitting in the light of the fire, Luk. 22:56. She looked at Peter and said for all to hear, This man also was with Him. Matthew and Mark say the maid called Jesus, the Galilean and the Nazarene. Peter denied (Gr. ernesato, disowned) saying he did not know Jesus. A little later, someone else saw Peter and recognized him as one of Jesus disciples, but Peter again denied being one of His followers. After about an hour, a third person said, Certainly this man (Peter) also was with him (Jesus); for he (Peter) is a Galilean. Matthew and Mark record that Peter began to invoke a curse on himself (Gr. katanathematizein, anathematize himself), and to promise vehemently (Gr. omnuein) or swear that he did not know this man Jesus of whom they spoke. Luke says Peter replied that he did not know what they were talking about. Peter did not use obscene and vulgar languagehe did lie and did so under self-imposed oath.

Luk. 22:61-62 Anguish: Immediately (Gr. parachrema, lit., with the matter or business itself,), in other words, at the same instant Peter made his third denial, the cock crowed. It was apparently the breaking of day (dawn) when this took place. The next notation of time is When morning came, or . . . as soon as it was morning (Mat. 27:1; Mar. 15:1) when they took Jesus before the Sanhedrin. Roosters crow at the first break of day which is quite some time before the sun rises. Jesus was taken before the Sanhedrin at sunrise on Friday morningnot before because the Sanhedrin could not legally meet to try capital cases before sunrise.

Why did Peter, who so often had stood with the Lord in the face of opposition and difficult circumstances, deny Him? Why do you and I deny Christ? (a) overconfidence in humanness; (b) disagreeing with Gods revealed plan; (c) ill-prepared for the suddenness and subtleness of temptation; (d) repulsed at the humbleness of His way. The only power available to keep from denying Christ is a faith and trust in Him which acknowledges that His revealed will is absolutely true and good regardless of what anyone else may say.

Luke alone records that the Lord turned and looked at Peter (Luk. 22:61). In one understanding and sad look, Jesus penetrated into the very soul of Peter, and Peter remembered! The look of Jesus revealed to Peter that he had let his Lord down and it broke Peters heart. This look revealed to Peter his overconfidence and self-will was so wrong and it caused him great shame. Mark uses the Greek word epibalon to describe Peters reaction. The KJV translates the word, . . . and when he thought thereon, he wept. The RSV translates the word . . . and he broke down and wept. The RSV is the better translation. The Greek word literally means, . . . throwing down, or down-cast. Peter wept bitterly (Gr. pikros, from a root word meaning, to cut, to prick, hence, sharp, pungentthe word is used in the LXX of a certain bitter herb). Out of this experience, Peter found himself out. This soul-searching look of Jesus saved Simon Peter and gave to the world the humble, spiritual giant of an apostle. Two men betrayed ChristJudas Iscariot and Simon Peter. Two were exposed to themselves; one killed himself, the other wept bitterly and repented. What constituted the difference? The fundamental essence so needful to character-change and spiritual growtha love for truth and trust in God instead of self. Peter longed for forgiveness; Judas did not. Would you like Jesus to look into your soul and change you? Then let His Word (read and preached), which is able to pierce to the division of soul and spirit, able to discern the thoughts and intentions of the heart (Heb. 4:11-13) search your soul. You may weep bitterly, but if you repent and seek forgiveness, He will give it.

Appleburys Comments

The Arrest of Jesus
Scripture

Luk. 22:54-65 And they seized him and led him, away, and brought him into the high priests house. But Peter followed afar off. 55 And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the court, and had sat down together, Peter sat in the midst of them. 56 And a certain maid seeing him as he sat in the light of the fire, and looking stedfastly upon him, said, This man also was with him. 57 But he denied, saying, Woman, I know him not. 58 And after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou also art one of them. But Peter said, Man, I am not. 59 And after the space of about one hour another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this man also was with him; for he is a Galilean. 60 But Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew. 61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how that he said unto him, Before the cock crow this day thou shalt deny me thrice. 62 And he went out, and wept bitterly.

63 And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and beat him. 64 And they blindfolded him, and asked him, saying, Prophesy: who is he that struck thee? 65 And many other things spake they against him, reviling him.

Comments

and brought him into the high priests house.He was taken before Annas first and then to Caiaphas. (Joh. 18:13-14).

but Peter followed afar off.He had boasted of his loyalty to Christ. He had actually taken his life in his hands when he took the sword to defend Jesus. But Jesus rebuked him for doing so and meekly submitted to arrest. Peters dream of the restoration of the kingdom with Jesus on the throne was over. But his lingering desire to see what was going to happen led him to follow at a distance and enter into the court where he sat down in the midst of those who were about to crucify his Lord. To the first one who said to him, This man was with Him, he answered, Woman I know Him not. A little later, another said, You are also one of them. But he said, Man, I am not. About an hour later, another one said, You really are one of them, for you are a Galilean. Peter answered, Man, I dont know what you are talking about.

and immediately while he yet spake, the cock crew.Just then the Lord turned and looked at Peter. He remembered that the Lord had said, Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times. What was the meaning of the look on the face of Jesus that caused Peter to go out weeping bitterly? Did it say, I told you so? Did it say, You ought to be ashamed? Or did it speak the message of love and forgiveness that made this once bold man repent of the awful thing he had done and determine that henceforth he would set the proper example before his brethren?

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(54-62) Then took they him.See Notes on Mat. 26:57-58; Mat. 26:69-75; Mar. 14:53-72. Peters following afar off may be noted as a feature common to the first three Gospels.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

133. PETER’S DENIAL OF CHRIST, Luk 22:54-62 .

See notes on Mat 26:58-75; Mar 14:53-72; Joh 18:13-27.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘And they seized him, and led him away, and brought him into the high priest’s house. But Peter followed afar off.’

So Jesus was arrested on the Mount of Olives and led away, and was brought to the house of the High Priest. The disciples meanwhile had scattered. Jesus had forbidden resistance and they wanted to avoid arrest. But Peter, determined not to let Jesus down, and so that he could prove his loyalty, did not go far, and when the arresting party moved off, he followed them at a distance (accompanied, we learn in Joh 18:15, by another disciple, which was probably John himself).

‘Peter followed afar off.’ It would not have been wise to do anything else, but Luke’s words may well be intended to include the thought that Peter’s heart was not as it should have been. They are a warning to his readers lest they too ‘follow afar off’.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Jesus Is Brought To The High Priest’s House Where Peter Denies Him Three Times (22:54-62).

Jesus’ actual arrest had been by the Temple guard, and He was now taken to the High Priest’s house, (which would have been a very large house built around a central courtyard), in order to prepare the case against Him. His being taken there demonstrates that the Romans (only mentioned by John) had only been present in case of trouble, although their presence would be necessary for an arrest of this nature, for they wanted to accuse Him of capital crimes. They wanted His sentence to be political.

Both Annas (the ‘retired’ High Priest, but still acknowledged by the people as High Priest. Scripturally High Priests were High Priests for life) and Caiaphas, his son-in-law, the current High Priest appointed by the Romans, would each have a suite of apartments there, for it was the family residence. The pattern that would now follow would be complicated, and it is quite clear that for any writer to seek to include all that happened would have unnecessarily used up valuable writing space that could be better used for other purposes, and would have meant needless repetition. For much of what went on during the night had to be repeated again before the full Sanhedrin, who had to be convinced that Jesus was getting a reasonably fair trial. Luke especially at this stage must have been conscious of running out of space, for there were limits as to how long a scroll could reasonably be, and how much could be recorded on it. And he chose therefore only to record brief but essential details of the official hearing. Possibly this was partly because he was aware of what Mark had already dealt with. Fortunately for the historian, however, Matthew and Mark were more concerned with the hearing before Caiaphas, and John, aware of the gaps, tells us about Annas, so that we can build up a fairly full picture.

The approaches of the writers actually brings out an interesting point from our point of view. Each of them selects from the material and describes three hearings. To each of them three would be seen as indicating to the readers the completeness of the what He underwent. More than three would simply be to overload the narrative.

The night, however, appears to have gone as follows:

First Jesus would be interviewed in private by a small group led by the wily old Annas, former High Priest and father-in-law of Caiaphas the present High Priest, so as to question him and work out what charges to lay against Him (Joh 18:13; Joh 18:19-24). Annas was both astute and experienced, and it was probably hoped that he would be able to get some damaging admissions from Him and work out some charges that could be successfully laid against Him before the Sanhedrin. He reveals something of what he was when he allowed Jesus to be smitten without protest. But in the end, recognising that he had failed to achieve his object, he then sent him to Caiaphas to see whether with the help of the influential people he had gathered they could either overawe Jesus, or in some way trip Him up.

While this preliminary hearing was going on an inner group of influential illwishers connected with the Sanhedrin were being gathered together by Caiaphas at his house in order to prepare for the trial in the morning, and if necessary, to iron out the case against Him. These would then examine Him further (Mar 14:53-65; Mat 26:57-68), and this would clarify in their own minds what tack they should take before the Sanhedrin in the morning. It was important that they build up a case which would stand examination. Thus they sought to discover reliable witnesses, and find a charge that would stick. All knew that legally no sentence of death could officially be passed at night. If the matter was to stand up to examination afterwards, the full Sanhedrin would have to be brought together in its official meeting place in the morning in order to pass sentence. But it was necessary for the case to be cut and dried before then so that once morning came there would be no delay.

When light did come there was then a meeting of the full official Sanhedrin (Luk 22:66-71; Mar 15:1; Mat 27:1) at their official meeting place. Only they could actually come to an official conclusion on a serious matter like the condemnation of a false prophet. And all knew that some of the members of the Sanhedrin might be difficult to convince. They were not all enemies of Jesus. So the case had to be as cast iron as the accusers could make it. Indeed we learn later that the vote was not unanimous (Luk 23:51).

Once their ‘verdict’ had been reached He would then be handed over to Pilate, because they wanted Him condemned by the Romans for a political crime so that they themselves would not become even more unpopular with the people. In the end Pilate was the only one who could sentence Him to death for political crimes. Luke also includes within this hearing the consultation before Herod. But that was in no sense a trial. Indeed the only real trial that resulted in the passing of a sentence was that before Pilate.

Unlike Mark and Matthew, Luke only deals with the final and most important Jewish tribunal. This was the one recognised by the Romans which passed the official verdict, and which would provide the basis of the charge brought before Pilate. And that particular hearing occurred after the incident that follows.

For meanwhile, along with another disciple, Peter had followed the arresting party and now found himself in the courtyard of the house warming himself at a fire while the first of the above examinations was going on. In one chiasmus (see the opening of Section 8) this passage parallels that of Jesus’ earlier warning to him about his denial, in another it parallels and contrasts with Judas’ betrayal. But it appears that Peter himself had temporarily forgotten Jesus’ warning in the face of the urgency of the situation in which he found himself. This account will highlight four things, firstly Peter’s own weaknesses, secondly the supreme courage, confidence, openness and strength of Jesus which is in stark contrast with them (He had steadfastly prayed and Peter had not), thirdly the amazing foresight of Jesus concerning what Peter would do, and fourthly the way in which God sometimes allows His own to fail, so that He might finally make them strong.

Analysis.

a They seized Him, and led Him away, and brought Him into the high priest’s house. But Peter followed afar off (Luk 22:54).

b And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the court, and had sat down together, Peter sat in the midst of them (Luk 22:55).

c And a certain maid seeing him as he sat in the light of the fire, and looking steadfastly at him, said, “This man also was with Him” (Luk 22:56).

d But he denied, saying, “Woman, I know Him not” (Luk 22:57).

c And after a little while another saw him, and said, “You also are one of them” (Luk 22:58 a).

d But Peter said, “Man, I am not” (Luk 22:58 b)’

c And after the space of about one hour another confidently affirmed, saying, “Of a truth this man also was with Him, for he is a Galilean” (Luk 22:59).

d But Peter said, “Man, I do not know what you are saying.” And immediately, while he yet spoke, the cock crew’ (Luk 22:60).

b And the Lord turned, and looked on Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had said to him, “Before the cock crow this day you will deny Me three times” (Luk 22:61).

a And he went out, and wept bitterly (Luk 22:62).

Note that in ‘a’ Peter followed afar off, and in the parallel he went out and wept bitterly. In ‘b’ he settled down together with Jesus’ enemies, and in the parallel Jesus turned and looked on Peter. In each of ‘c’ there comes an accusation, and in each ‘d’ we have Peter’s reply. These threesomes are the central part in the passage (The three questions and answers could thus be seen as one central item. The pattern is paralleled elsewhere in Scripture, see especially our commentary on Numbers 22-24 for examples).

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Christ before Caiaphas. The Denial of Peter.

The fall of Peter:

v. 54. Then took they Him, and led Him, and brought Him into the high priest’s house. And Peter followed afar off.

v. 55. And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were set down together, Peter sat down among them.

v. 56. But a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire, and earnestly looked upon him, and said, This man was also with Him.

v. 57. And he denied Him, saying, Woman, I know Him not.

v. 58. And after a little while another saw him and said, Thou art also of them. And Peter said, Man, I am not;

v. 59. And about the space of one hour after, another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this fellow also was with Him; for he is a Galilean.

v. 60. And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.

v. 61. And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny Me thrice.

v. 62. And Peter went out and wept bitterly.

There was little rest, and no sleep, in the palace of. the high priest that night. The departure of the band had caused great excitement throughout the household, and its victorious return caused all the servants to be worked up to the highest pitch. For the time being, all the adherents of the prisoner were in like condemnation. The servants had surrounded Jesus and thus taken Him captive, and then marched Him to the house of the high priest. Peter’s impulsive nature came to the front here: he must see what was going to happen. The servants had kindled a good fire in the midst of the court of the palace, one which supplied light as well as heat. Peter, having gained admission into the arched doorway, joined the servants about the fire, for the chill of the spring night was in the air. Here a maid saw him, as he was sitting toward the light. Fixing her eyes upon him very firmly to be sure she was making no mistake, she accused him of being a follower of Jesus. She made her accusation in the form of a statement to the other servants: Also this man was with Him. And Peter, taken by surprise, uttered the words before he really had time to consider them: I don’t know Him, woman. His conscience may have bothered him some after that, for he appears to have gone away from the fire for some time. But it was not long before he was attacked from different sides, not only the janitresses accusing him, but also one of the men: And thou also art of them, a member of that notorious band. Peter had denied being a follower of Jesus now he denies his discipleship, with greater emphasis. But the opposition was not quieted, for hardly had another hour gone by when still another man affirmed more strongly: In truth also this man was with Him, for he is a Galilean. And Peter again denied, pretending even ignorance of what the man was saying. So the threefold denial of the Lord had become a fact, according to the prophecy of the evening before. At this moment the cock crowed, and at the same time Jesus turned to look at Peter. This look of the Savior, whom he had so deeply grieved with his great sin, entered deeply into the heart of Peter. It was either that Jesus at this time was taken from the chambers of Hannas to those of his son-in-law, Caiaphas, or that the judgment-hall was on a level from which one could look down into the court. Now Peter recalled every word of his Master, and surely also the boastfulness with which he had answered Him. And he went out of the palace into the open and wept bitterly. That was sincere sorrow and repentance. Peter trusted in the Word of the Gospel, the promise of salvation which he had heard so often out of the mouth of his Teacher, and in the strength of that faith he found forgiveness.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Luk 22:54. And Peter followed afar off. His love to his Master was not extinguished, yet it was exceedingly weakened; he followed, but afar off: he was here beginning to stagger; he had said that he would follow Christ, and he persuades himself that he is fulfilling his promise by thus following him afar off. St. John informs us with his usual modesty, that another disciple followed Jesus, Joh 18:15 who appears to have been himself; whence we may infer, that Peter and John returned quickly after their flight, or else they could not have followed at some distance, and yet be so near as to be ready to go into Caiaphas’s house with him.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Luk 22:54-62 . See on Mat 26:57 f., Mat 26:69-75 ; Mar 14:53 f., Mar 14:66-72 . Jesus is led into the house of the high priest, in the court of which (Luk 22:61 ; Luk 22:63 ), according to Luke, who follows a diverging tradition, He is kept and subjected to mockery till daybreak (Luk 22:66 ), when the Sanhedrim comes together. According to Matthew and Mark, the Sanhedrim assemble immediately after the arrival of Jesus, and examine Him. The two narratives cannot be reconciled, but the preference is to be given to Luke in so far as he agrees with John. See below on . Moreover, Luke is not self-contradictory (in opposition to Strauss), as the chief priests and elders mentioned at Luk 22:52 are to be regarded only as individuals, and probably as deputed by the Sanhedrim.

.] As Luke did not regard Caiaphas (the general opinion), but Annas, as the officiating high priest (see on Luk 3:2 and Act 4:6 ), the latter is to be understood in this place. Comp.Bleek, Beitr . p. 39 ff., and Holtzmann. Luke, indeed, thus falls into a new variation from Matthew, but partially comes into harmony with John so far, that is, as the latter likewise represents Jesus as brought at first to Annas, and so far also as in Luke and in John the denials occur in the court of Annas . But of a trial before Annas (Joh 18:19 ff.) Luke has nothing, yet it finds its historical place naturally enough immediately after ., when the prisoner, as may be supposed, was announced. Wieseler also, Synopse , p. 405, comes to the result that Luk 22:54-65 belongs to what occurred in the house of Annas , but comes to it in another way. Comp. on Luk 3:2 .

Luk 22:55 . ] (see the critical remarks) after they had kindled around (Phalaris, Ep . v. p. 28), i.e. had set it in full blaze. The insertion of was not needful, Khner, ad Xen. Anab . i. 2. 17.

Luk 22:56 . ] after she had looked keenly upon him, Luk 4:20 , and very often in the Acts of the Apostles. See Jacobs, ad Anthol . VI. p. 259.

Luk 22:58 . ] A variation from Matthew and Mark. For Luke does not think of a maid; rather he distinguishes the interrogator here as masculine , by and , from the female questioner of Luk 22:56 f.; hence Ebrard (comp. Wetstein) is wrong in contenting himself with the indefinite sense, “ somebody else .”

Luk 22:59 . ] several, according to Matthew and Mark. As to the variations of the four Gospels in the account of the denials, see in general on Mat 26:75 , Remark.

Luk 22:61 . According to Luke, therefore, Jesus is still also in the court , and, down to Luk 22:66 , is kept there in custody (Luk 22:63 ). Certainly it is psychologically extremely improbable that Peter should have perpetrated the denials in the presence of Jesus, which, moreover, is contrary to the other Gospels. But a reconciliation of them with Luke is impossible; and, moreover, the assumption that Jesus looked upon Peter as He was led from Annas to Caiaphas and passed close by the disciple in the court (Joh 18:24 , so Olshausen, Schweizer, Ebrard), is inadmissible, as, according to John, it is already the second denial that occurs about the same time as this leading away of Jesus, but according to Luke, Luk 22:59 , there is an interval of about an hour between the second and third denial.

] What a holy power is in this silent glance, according to the narrative of Luke!

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

2. Caiaphas

a. Peters Denial (Luk 22:54-62)

(Parallel with Mat 26:69-75; Mar 14:66-72; Joh 18:15-18; and Joh 18:25-27)

54Then took they him, and led him, and brought him into the high priests house. And Peter followed afar off. 55And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the 56hall, and were set down together, Peter sat down among them. But [And] a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire, and earnestly looked upon him, and said, This man was also with him. 57And he denied him, saying, Woman,19 know him not. 58And after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou art also of them. And Peter said, Man, I am not. 59And about the space of one hour after another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this fellow also was with him; for he is a Galilean. 60And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew. 61And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow [to-day20], thou shalt deny me thrice. 62And Peter went out, and wept bitterly.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Luk 22:54. Into the high-priests house.As to the question which high-priest is here meant, we can give no other answer than Caiaphas. We must, therefore, regard his palace as the theatre of Peters denial. If our Lord, according to Joh 18:13, after His arrest appears to have spent a moment also in the house of Annas, it seems only to have been in order that this old man, who, although no longer active high-priest, yet still as ever possessed considerable influence, might enjoy the sight of the fettered Nazarene. That, according to Luke, the unnamed high-priest, this chief person in the history of the Passion, was no other than Annas himself (Meyer), we consider as incapable of proof. In Luk 3:2; Act 4:6, he is undoubtedly placed first as , but this may be explained from his former rank, his more advanced years, his continuing influence,even if not perchance also from his enjoying the supreme dignity alternately with Caiaphas. A disturbing element is without ground brought into the harmony of the narrative of the Passion when it is asserted that Luke here, entirely against the united Synoptical tradition, understood any other than Caiaphas. Besides, it at once appears that Luke passes over as well the particulars of the clerical trial, which Matthew and Mark give, as those also which John communicates; so that here also we can only learn the historical sequence of the facts by the comparison of the different accounts. We believe we may arrange these in the following manner: 1. The Leading Away first to Annas, then to Caiaphas. Inquiry in the house of this latter respecting Jesus disciples and doctrine, Joh 18:12-14 and Joh 18:19-24. 2. The beginning of Peters Denial, Mat 26:69-70; Mar 14:66-68; Luk 22:56-57; Joh 18:15 to Joh 18:3. The False Witnesses, the Adjuration, the Preliminary Condemnation of our Lord by the night session, Mat 26:59-66; Mar 14:55-64. 4. Adjournment of this precipitate session, Mocking of our Lord by the servants, Mat 26:67-68; Mar 14:65; Luk 22:63-65. During and partially before all this, 5. The second and third Denials of Peter take place. In the very moment when this third denial is made, at the second cock-crowing, our Lord is led across the inner court again to the hall of the high-priest, where the decisive final session is to be held, and finds thereby opportunity in passing to behold the fallen disciple with a look by which, 6. The repentance of Peter is effected. Finally follows, 7. The Morning Session, which Matthew and Mark only briefly touch On, but which Luke describes more at length, Mat 27:1; Mar 15:1; Luk 22:66-71; Luk 23:1, comp. Joh 18:28, immediately on which follows the Leading Away to Pilate. Luke now passes over all which His enemies in this night in the high-priestly palace undertake against the Saviour, and directs almost exclusively our attention to Peter. Here also in the way in which he describes his fall, his awakening and repentance, the penetrating view of the psychologist is not to be mistaken.

And Peter followed afar off.It is scarcely possible to form a distinct image of the mood in which the impetuous disciple, impelled by curiosity, disquiet, and affection, ventures to enter the high-priestly palace. From Joh 18:15 seq., we see how he finds entrance into it. In explaining and pronouncing upon his thrice-repeated denial, Bengels hint is to be borne in mind: Abnegatio ad plures plurium interrogationes, facta uno paroxysmo, pro una numerator, that we may not with Strauss and Paulus von Heidelberg, fall into the absurdity of assuming even eight denials.

Luk 22:55. And when they had kindled a fire.It is well known that the nights in Palestine, especially in the early year, are often very cold. [Particularly at Jerusalem, from its great elevation above the sea.C. C. S.] We cannot, therefore, be surprised that the servants are warming themselves in the open court, while Peter, assuming as well as he can the appearance of an indifferent observer, takes his place in the midst of them, in order to be able to be eye and ear witness in the immediate vicinity. The expression of Luke: (Tischendorf, following B. L.), gives us the very sight of the circle which is formed around the fire. According to the Synoptics, Peter sits; according to John alone, Luk 18:18, he stands by it. Without doubt, the account of the former is here the more exact, although at the same time we must bear in mind the restlessness and disquiet of Peter, which must have spontaneously impelled him not to sit still in one place, but now and then involuntarily to stand up. Joh 18:18, moreover, does not even speak of that which took place during, but what took place after, the first denial. This very disquiet of Peters demeanor may have helped to direct attention yet more upon him.

Luk 22:56. This man was also with Him.According to Luke, the maid says this about Peter to others. According to Matthew and Mark, she speaks directly to him; according to John, she speaks in the form of a question, not positively affirming;Apparently with maliciously mocking caprice, ignorant of the facts, yet hostilely disposed. Lange. According to Luke, she directs her look fixedly upon Peter, (favorite word of our Evangelist), the more sharply because she, as , Joh 18:16-17, well knows that he is a stranger, whom she has just admitted. The very unexpectedness of the assault demands an instantaneous repulse; and already Peter rejoices that he can preserve the guise of an external composure, and his answer is quick, cold, indefinite: Woman, I know Him not!See the more original form of his words in Matthew and Mark.

Luk 22:58. Another.The first cock-crowing, which Mark, Luk 22:68, alone mentions, immediately after the first denial, is not even noticed by Peter. He appears, meanwhile, to have succeeded in assuming so indifferent a demeanor that he at first is not further disturbed. The disquiet of his conscience, however, now impels him towards the door (Mat 26:71); unluckily he finds this shut. He does not venture to seek to have it opened, that he may not, elicit any unfavorable conjectures, and is therefore obliged to return to his former place. This very disquiet again excites suspicion; according to Luke, it is another servant, according to Mark, the same, according to Matthew, another maid who now puts the question. The last-named difference may, perhaps, be thus reconciled: that the door-keeper of the , into which Peter had entered, is meant. The maid begins, the follows, nay, several others (John) join in and make merry with his terror, while they ask: Art not thou one of His disciples? Man, I am not, says Peter, in the tone of a man who seeks as suddenly as possible to free himself of a troublesome questioner, and adds (Matthew) even an oath thereto. If we consider now that these accounts must have had Peter himself for their first source,a man, that is, who, by his very bewilderment, was not in condition to relate the event with diplomatic faithfulness, and in a stereotyped form; if we consider further, that in a circle of servants one word very easily calls forth another, and that when many place themselves over against a single one, several may have spoken at the same time,we shall then find in the minor diversities of the different accounts respecting matters of subordinate importance, rather an argument for than against the credibility of the Gospels.

Luk 22:59. And about the space of one hour after.So long, therefore, they now left the unhappy man in quiet. Attention had been diverted from the disciple and directed to the Master, whose process meanwhile had gone forward with terrific rapidity. The first denial should seem to have taken place almost at the same time at which Jesus appealed to the testimony of His disciples, Joh 18:19-23; the second while He was keeping silence before the false witnesses. Much of this may have been seen and heard by Peter, since from the court there was an unobstructed view into the open judgment-hall, separated only by a colonnade from the vestibule, but now he sees also how the Lord is adjured, how He is condemned. He sees Him at the conclusion of the sitting fall into the hands of the servants, who throng around Him, and begin the first united maltreatment. From afar Peter is eye-witness thereof, and sees that the Master takes all without opposition, and if now it fares thus with Him, what a fate will then come upon His disciples! This solitary hour has, therefore, yet more disheartened and bewildered Peter, instead of his having been able during it to come more to himself. Now they begin the third time to interrogate him, but find him less than ever prepared therefor. According to all the Synoptics, it is now Peters Galilean dialect that excites suspicion against him. Respecting the peculiarities of this dialect, and the misunderstandings often arising from it, see Friedlieb, 25, and Buxtorf, in his Lexicon Chald. et Talmud, p. 435 seq. The discomfiture of the apostle becomes at the same moment complete through the attack of one of the relatives of Malchus, Joh 18:26, and Peter now denies the third time, hurling out, according to Matthew and Mark, terrible curses and self-imprecations.

Luk 22:60. The cock crew.As respects the possibility of a cock-crowing in the capital, audible to Peter, it is plainly evident that it could not have been demanded of the Romans to avoid the keeping of animals which the Mosaic law had declared unclean. According to the Talmud, Jews of later times also had the custom at wedding celebrations of offering a cock and a hen for a present, as a symbol of the matrimonial blessing. As to the exact hour in which ordinarily in the Orient the gallicinium is heard, we find in Sepp, iii. p. 477, interesting accounts. Interpretations of the cock-crowing, in a figurative sense, which have been attempted in different ways, we may with confidence regard as exegetical curiosities.

Luk 22:61.And the Lord turned and looked upon Peter.According to De Wette and Meyer, this touching feature is on local grounds hardly probable, but if our representation before given is applicable, this objection falls away. However, De Wette allows it as possible that our Lord cast this look upon Peter while He was led to the hearing, Luk 22:66. If we now succeed in demonstrating that Luke, Luk 22:66-71, actually relates another hearing than Mat 26:59-66, then there is no longer anything to object to the internal probability of a feature of the narrative which is one of the sublimest of the whole history of the Passion.

And Peter remembered.According to Luke, therefore, Peters repentance is the result of the concurrence of two different influencesthe cock-crowing, and the look of Jesus. The of Matthew and Luke explains, moreover, in some measure, the of Mark, where we consider it as the simplest way to supply (Fritzsche). For other explanations see Lange on Mar 14:72.In his bitter sorrow Peter cannot bear the view of man. Veiled in the mantle cast around him, he suddenly precipitates himself out of doors and opens himself a way through the crowd, which no longer detains him. A testimony for the depth of his repentance and of his longing for solitude is found in the fact, that after this in the whole history of the Passion, we no longer discover the slightest trace of him.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The exactness and vividness with which all the Evangelists relate the deep fall and the heartfelt repentance of Peter, deserves to be named one of the most indubitable proofs of the credibility of the whole Evangelical history.
2. We cannot possibly be surprised at Peters denial, if we direct our view to his individuality, and to the pressure of the circumstances and the unexpectedness of the attack, and consider that after the first momentous step it was almost impossible to refrain from the second. Quite as unreasonable is it, however, to excuse Peter, as has been essayed on the rationalistic side by Paulus von Heidelberg, and on the Roman Catholic side by Sepp, iii. p. 481. Even if we take into account the might of darkness (Olshausen), in order therefrom to explain his deep fall, yet the denial remains as ever a moral guilt, which, as well in and of itself as by its repetition, by the warning that had preceded it, and the perjury that attended it, was terrible and deep. Showing as it does a union of unthankfulness, cowardice, and falsehood, the sin is still increased by the circumstances in which our Lord at that very time found Himself, and, therefore, undoubtedly contributed not a little to the augmentation of His inexpressible sorrow. Whoever is too eager to vindicate Peter, makes his repentance an exaggerated melancholy, and thereby actually declares that our Lord dealt with him afterwards almost too severely; on the other side we may undoubtedly, in mitigation of his guilt, point to the fact that he denied the Lord only with his mouth, but not with his heart, and sought to make good the error of a single night by a whole life of unwearied faithfulness.
3. The fall and repentance of Peter was one of the most powerful means by which he was trained into one of the most eminent of the apostles. A character like his would never have mounted so high if it had not fallen so low. Thus does the Lord make even the sins of His people contribute to their higher training, and (as continually appears a posteriori, without anything thereby of the guilt and moral responsibility of the sinner being taken away) not only the hardest blows of fate which strike us, but also the evil deeds which we can least excuse, but have sincerely wept over and repented of, must afterwards subserve our best good. Rom 8:28-30.

4. When Dogmatics describes the nature of a sincere conversion, it can least of all neglect to cast a look into the heart and life of Peterthe David of the New Covenant. While he thus deeply humbles himself, Peter becomes great; while afterwards one of the others , who was the greatest of the apostles, becomes in his own eyes so little, that he calls himself the least of the brethren, yea, absolutely nothing. 1Co 15:9; 2Co 12:11.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The union of courage and fear, energy and weakness, love and selfishness, in a Peters variable character.The heart is deceitful above all things, Jer 17:9-10.The experience of Peter in this night a proof of the truth of the two parables, Luk 14:28-33.Beware of the first step.How dangerous a hostile female influence can be for the disciple of the Lord.A ship without anchor or rudder is given a prey to the storms and waves.How much he ventures who throws himself with an unguarded heart into the midst of the enemies of the Lord.The precipitous path of sin the longer the worse.The Christian also is betrayed by his speech.The word of our Lord is literally fulfilled.True repentance impels us to seek solitude.Blessed are they that mourn, Mat 5:4.

Peters denial: 1. Remarkable in the Evangelical history; 2. in the history of the human heart; 3. in the history of the suffering and death of our Lord.How have we to judge of Peters conduct?Let us consider his transgression: 1. In the light of his vocation, and his guilt is unquestionable; 2. in the light of his character, and his conduct is intelligible; 3. in the light of the circumstances, and his transgression is mitigated; 4. in the light of conscience, and the sentence dies upon our guilty lips.Whoever thinks he stands, may well take heed that he does not fall, 1Co 10:12. Comp. Rom 11:20.The history of the Denial a part of the history of the Passion: 1. Peters denial an aggravation; 2. Peters repentance a mitigation of the suffering of our Lord.The preaching of the unfaithful disciple.Peter and Judas compared with one another in their repentance. Peter: 1. Sorrowful: 2. sorrowful with a godly sorrow; 3. sorrowful to salvation with repentance not to be repented of, 2Co 7:10; in Judas, the sorrow of the world, which worketh death.The history of Peters fall a revelation of the weakness of man; how weakness: 1. Brings man into danger; 2 hinders him from escaping from danger: 3. in the danger brings him to a fall.It is a precious thing to have the heart established, which is done through Christ.The look of our Lord, the expression: 1. Of an unforgettable reminderWhat have I said to thee? 2. of a heartfelt sorrowIs this thy compassion for thy friend? 3. of a blessed consolationI have prayed for thee; 4. of a timely intimationTo go at once from hence.The Lord turned and looked upon Peter. Hour of preparation for the Holy Communion in Passion Week.Peters tears: 1. Honorable for Jesus; 2. refreshing for Peter; 3. important for us.The bitter tears of Peter render not less honor to the Saviour than the rejected silver pieces of Judas.Peter our forerunner in the way of genuine penitence.The history in the text shows us: 1. A sleeper who quickly awakens; 2. a sinner who is graciously regarded; 3. a sorrower who is divinely afflicted: 4. a fallen one who is enabled again to rise.The noble harvest from the sowing of Peters tears: 1. For himself; 2. for the church; 3. for heaven.Striking expressions from Peters Epistles confirmed by the history of his fall and of his repentance, e.g., 1Pe 1:13; 1Pe 2:1; 1Pe 2:11; 1Pe 3:12; 1Pe 3:15; 1Pe 5:5; 1Pe 5:8, et alibi.

Starke:Nova Bibl. Tub.:Forgetfulness of the word of God, insincerity, bad company, presumption, bring grief of heart.Quesnel:The stronger trust one puts in himself and others, the more Gods strength removes from him.The least opportunity, a weak instrument may precipitate even a rock, if he without God will rest in security upon himself.Brentius:The cock-crowing should be for us a daily summons to repentance.J. Hall:Where sin abounded, there, nevertheless, grace much more abounds, Rom 5:20.Learn rightly to apply and preserve the gracious regards of God.No sin so great but may be blotted out.Arndt:The denial of Christ: 1. Its sin: 2. the repenting of it.F. W. Krummacher:Peters fall: 1. As to its inner causes; 2. as to its outward course.Peters tears.Couard:Simon Peter, the Apostle of our Lord. A look: 1. Upon the fallen; 2. upon the penitent Peter.Tholuck:Passion Week brings to view in Peter how great the wavering may be, even in a human heart that has already confessed itself to have found the words of eternal life with Jesus. Comp. Joh 6:67-69.J. Saurin:Nauv. Sermons, i. p. 121; Sur labngation de St. Pierre.An admirable representation of Peters denial, by the Dutch painter, Govert Schalken.

Footnotes:

[19]Luk 22:57. must, according to Tischendorf, [Tregelles, Alford,] be placed last, instead of first.

[20]Luk 22:61., which Tischendorf has received into the text, [also Meyer, Tregelles, Alford,] is supported by B., [Cod. Sin., K.,] M., L., X., and some Cursives.

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

54 Then took they him, and led him , and brought him into the high priest’s house. And Peter followed afar off.

Ver. 54. See Mat 26:57 .

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

54. ] Mat 26:57 . Mar 14:53 . Joh 18:13 . Our narrative leaves it undecided who this high-priest was , inasmuch as, ch. Luk 3:2 , Annas and Caiaphas are mentioned as high-priests. From John we find that it was Annas; who having questioned Jesus, sent Him bound to Caiaphas, before whom His trial took place. Luke omits this trial altogether or perhaps gives the substance of it in the account ( Luk 22:66-71 ) of the morning assembly of the Sanhedrim. See notes on Matt.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Luk 22:54-62 . Peter’s fall (Mat 26:57-58 ; Mat 26:69-75 , Mar 14:53-54 ; Mar 14:66-72 ). Lk. tells the sad story of Peter’s fall without interruption, and in as gentle a manner as possible, the cursing omitted, and the three acts of denial forming an anticlimax instead of a climax, as in parallels.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Luk 22:54 . , Peter followed. What the rest did is passed over in silence; flight left to be inferred.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Luke

IN THE HIGH PRIEST’S PALACE

Luk 22:54 – Luk 22:71 .

The present passage deals with three incidents, each of which may be regarded either as an element in our Lord’s sufferings or as a revelation of man’s sin. He is denied, mocked, and formally rejected and condemned. A trusted friend proves faithless, the underlings of the rulers brutally ridicule His prophetic claims, and their masters vote Him a blasphemer for assenting His divinity and Messiahship.

I. We have the failure of loyalty and love in Peter’s denials.

I may observe that Luke puts all Peter’s denials before the hearing by the council, from which it is clear that the latter was later than the hearing recorded by Matthew and John. The first denial probably took place in the great hall of the high priest’s official residence, at the upper end of which the prisoner was being examined, while the hangers-on huddled round the fire, idly waiting the event.

The morning air bit sharply, and Peter, exhausted, sleepy, sad, and shivering, was glad to creep near the blaze. Its glinting on his face betrayed him to a woman’s sharp eye, and her gossiping tongue could not help blurting out her discovery. Curiosity, not malice, moved her; and there is no reason to suppose that any harm would have come to Peter, if he had said, as he should have done, ‘Yes, I am His disciple.’ The day for persecuting the servants was not yet come, but for the present it was Jesus only who was aimed at.

No doubt, cowardice had a share in the denials, but there was more than that in them. Peter was worn out with fatigue, excitement, and sorrow. His susceptible nature would be strongly affected by the trying scenes of the last day, and all the springs of life would be low. He was always easily influenced by surroundings, and just as, at a later date, he was ‘carried away’ by the presence at Antioch of the Judaisers, and turned his back on the liberal principles which he had professed, so now he could not resist the current of opinion, and dreaded being unlike even the pack of menials among whom he sat. He was ashamed of his Master and hid his colours, not so much for fear of bodily harm as of ridicule. Was there not a deeper depth still in his denials, even the beginnings of doubt whether, after all, Jesus was what he had thought Him? Christ prayed that Peter’s ‘faith’ should not ‘fail’ or be totally eclipsed, and that may indicate that the assault was made on his ‘faith’ and that it wavered, though it recovered steadfastness.

If he had been as sure of Christ’s work and nature as when he made his great confession, he could not have denied Him. But the sight of Jesus bound, unresisting, and evidently at the mercy of the rulers, might well make a firmer faith stagger. We have not to steel ourselves to bear bodily harm if we confess Christ; but many of us have to run counter to a strong current flowing around us, and to be alone in the midst of unsympathising companions ready to laugh and gibe, and some of us are tempted to waver in our convictions of Christ’s divinity and redeeming power, because He still seems to stand at the bar of the wise men and leaders of opinion, and to be treated by them as a pretender. It is a wretched thing to be persecuted out of one’s Christianity in the old-fashioned fire and sword style; but it is worse to be laughed out of it or to lose it, because we breathe an atmosphere of unbelief. Let the doctors at the top of the hall and the lackeys round the fire who take their opinions from them say what they like, but let them not make us ashamed of Jesus.

Peter slipped away to the gateway, and there, apparently, was again attacked, first by the porteress and then by others, which occasioned the second denial, while the third took place in the same place, about an hour afterwards. One sin makes many. The devil’s hounds hunt in packs. Consistency requires the denier to stick to his lie. Once the tiniest wing tip is in the spider’s web, before long the whole body will be wrapped round by its filthy, sticky threads.

If Peter had been less confident, he would have been more safe. If he had said less about going to prison and death, he would have had more reserve fidelity for the time of trial. What business had he thrusting himself into the palace? Over-reliance on self leads us to put ourselves in the way of temptations which it were wiser to avoid. Had he forgotten Christ’s warnings? Apparently so. Christ predicts the fall that it may not happen, and if we listen to Him, we shall not fall.

The moment of recovery seems to have been while our Lord was passing from the earlier to the later examination before the rulers. In the very floodtide of Peter’s oaths, the shrill cock-crow is heard, and at the sound the half-finished denial sticks in his throat. At the same moment he sees Jesus led past him, and that look, so full of love, reproof, and pardon, brought him back to loyalty, and saved him from despair. The assurance of Christ’s knowledge of our sins against Him melts the heart, when the assurance of His forgiveness and tender love comes with it. Then tears, which are wholly humble but not wholly grief, flow. They do not wash away the sin, but they come from the assurance that Christ’s love, like a flood, has swept it away. They save from remorse, which has no healing in it.

II. We have the rude taunts of the servants.

The mockery here comes from Jews, and is directed against Christ’s prophetic character, while the later jeers of the Roman soldiers make a jest of His kingship. Each set lays hold of what seems to it most ludicrous in His pretensions, and these servants ape their masters on the judgment seat, in laughing to scorn this Galilean peasant who claimed to be the Teacher of them all. Rude natures have to take rude ways of expression, and the vulgar mockery meant precisely the same as more polite and covert scorn means from more polished people; namely, rooted disbelief in Him. These mockers were contented to take their opinions on trust from priests and rabbis. How often, since then, have Christ’s servants been objects of popular odium at the suggestion of the same classes, and how often have the ignorant people been misled by their trust in their teachers to hate and persecute their true Master!

Jesus is silent under all the mockery, but then, as now, He knows who strikes Him. His eyes are open behind the bandage, and see the lifted hands and mocking lips. He will speak one day, and His speech will be detection and condemnation. Then He was silent, as patiently enduring shame and spitting for our sakes. Now He is silent, as long-suffering and wooing us to repentance; but He keeps count and record of men’s revilings, and the day comes when He whose eyes are as a flame of fire will say to every foe, ‘I know thy works.’

III. We have the formal rejection and condemnation by the council.

The hearing recorded in verses 66 to 71 took place ‘as soon as it was day,’ and was apparently a more formal official ratification of the proceedings of the earlier examination described by Matthew and John. The ruler’s question was put simply in order to obtain material for the condemnation already resolved on. Our Lord’s answer falls into two parts, in the first of which He in effect declines to recognise the bona fides of His judges and the competency of the tribunal, and in the second goes beyond their question, and claims participation in divine glory and power. ‘If I tell you, ye will not believe’; therefore He will not tell them.

Jesus will not unfold His claims to those who only seek to hear them in order to reject, not to examine, them. Silence is His answer to ingrained prejudice masquerading as honest inquiry. It is ever so. There is small chance of truth at the goal if there be foregone conclusions or biased questions at the starting-point. ‘If I ask you, ye will not answer.’ They had taken refuge in judicious but self-condemning silence when He had asked them the origin of John’s mission and the meaning of the One Hundred and Tenth Psalm, and thereby showed that they were not seeking light. Jesus will gladly speak with any who will be frank with Him, and let Him search their hearts; but He will not unfold His mission to such as refuse to answer His questions. But while thus He declines to submit Himself to that tribunal, and in effect accuses them of obstinate blindness and a fixed conclusion to reject the claims which they were pretending to examine, He will not leave them without once more asserting an even higher dignity than that of Messiah. As a prisoner at their bar, He has nothing to say to them; but as their King and future Judge, He has something. They desire to find materials for sentence of death, and though He will not give these in the character of a criminal before His judges, He also desires that the sentence should pass, and He will declare His divine prerogatives and fall possession of divine power in the hearing of the highest court of the nation.

It was fitting that the representatives of Israel, however prejudiced, should hear at that supreme moment the full assertion of full deity. It was fitting that Israel should condemn itself, by treating that claim as blasphemy. It was fitting that Jesus should bring about His death by His twofold claim-that made to the Sanhedrim, of being the Son of God, and that before Pilate, of being the King of the Jews.

The whole scene teaches us the voluntary character of Christ’s Death, which is the direct result of this tremendous assertion. It carries our thoughts forward to the time when the criminal of that morning shall be the Judge, and the judges and we shall stand at His bar. It raises the solemn question, Did Jesus claim truly when He claimed divine power? If truly, do we worship Him? If falsely, what was He? It mirrors the principles on which He deals with men universally, answering ‘him that cometh, according to the multitude of his idols,’ and meeting hypocritical pretences of seeking the truth about Him with silence, but ever ready to open His heart and the witness to His claims to the honest and docile spirits who are ready to accept His words, and glad to open their inmost secrets to Him.

Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Luk 22:54-62

54Having arrested Him, they led Him away and brought Him to the house of the high priest; but Peter was following at a distance. 55After they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and had sat down together, Peter was sitting among them. 56And a servant-girl, seeing him as he sat in the firelight and looking intently at him, said, “This man was with Him too.” 57But he denied it, saying, “Woman, I do not know Him.” 58A little later, another saw him and said, “You are one of them too!” But Peter said, “Man, I am not!” 59After about an hour had passed, another man began to insist, saying, “Certainly this man also was with Him, for he is a Galilean too.” 60But Peter said, “Man, I do not know what you are talking about.” Immediately, while he was still speaking, a rooster crowed. 61The Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had told him, “Before a rooster crows today, you will deny Me three times.” 62And he went out and wept bitterly.

Luk 22:54 “they led Him away and brought Him to the house of the high priest” Possibly Annas and Caiaphas lived in one large home (cf. Mat 26:57-58; Joh 18:13; Joh 18:15; Joh 18:24). The order of trials seems to be (1) before Annas; (2) before Caiaphas; (3) before the entire Sanhedrin; (4) before Pilate; (5) before Herod; and (6) again before Pilate.

“but Peter was following at a distance” The Gethsemane arrest caused most of the disciples to flee in fear of arrest. However, John may have known people in the High Priest’s family, for apparently he was present at the trials before the Jewish leaders. Peter, too, did not completely desert Jesus, but followed at a distance. He could not stay with Jesus, but he could not leave either (cf. Mat 26:58; Mar 14:54).

Luk 22:55 “they had kindled a fire” This seems to refer to (1) the Temple Police or (2) servants of the high priests.

Luk 22:56 “a servant-girl” There is a great variety among the Gospels on the who and the when of Peter’s accusers. It is obvious that several around the fire recognized him and challenged him.

Luk 22:57 “I do not know Him” The interpretive key to this phrase is not the verb, but the Hebrew connotation of “know.” Peter is denying any personal relationship with Jesus of Nazareth.

Luk 22:58 Here Peter denies he was part of Jesus’ group of disciples.

Luk 22:59 “Certainly this man also was with Him, for he is a Galilean too” This refers to Peter’s accent. The pronouncement of gutturals in Aramaic was different between Jerusalem and Galilee. Peter denies even his accent!

Luk 22:61 “The Lord turned and looked at Peter” This was not done in anger, but in sorrow and compassion. Possibly Jesus was being moved from Annas’ chambers to Caiaphas’ chambers within the same house. This fulfilled Jesus’ prophecy in Luk 22:34. This starts Peter’s sorrowful repentance (cf. Luk 22:62; Mat 26:75)!

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

took = seized. Verses Luk 22:54-60. Compare Luk 26:57-75. Mar 14:53-72.

followed = was following.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

54.] Mat 26:57. Mar 14:53. Joh 18:13. Our narrative leaves it undecided who this high-priest was,-inasmuch as, ch. Luk 3:2, Annas and Caiaphas are mentioned as high-priests. From John we find that it was Annas; who having questioned Jesus, sent Him bound to Caiaphas, before whom His trial took place. Luke omits this trial altogether-or perhaps gives the substance of it in the account (Luk 22:66-71) of the morning assembly of the Sanhedrim. See notes on Matt.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Luk 22:54-56. Then took they him, and led him, and brought him into the high priests house. And Peter followed afar off. And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were set down together, Peter sat down among them.

But a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire,-The flickering light helped to reveal his features to this maid as he sat by the fire,

Luk 22:56-58. And earnestly looked upon him, and said, This man was also with him. And he denied him, saying, Woman, I know him not. And after a little while another saw him, and said Thou art also of them. And Peter said, Man, I am not.

Both Matthew and Mark say that it was a maid, and another maid who spoke to Peter; and now Luke mentions a man; but there is no reason why all three of them should not have united in bringing this charge. One maid began the accusation, and the others joined with her.

Luk 22:59-61. And about the space of one hour after another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this fellow also was with him: for he is a Galilaean. And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew. And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter.

The Saviour had been standing in the upper part of the room, which was probably roofed over, while Peter and the rest were down below in the courtyard, which was open to the sky, and therefore they needed a fire to warm them. Jesus had been standing before his judge; but on a sudden, as the cock crew, he turned, and looked upon Peter.

Luk 22:61. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

That cock crowing had come at the very moment Christ had foretold, for Peter had already denied his Master thrice.

Luk 22:62. And Peter went out, and wept bitterly.

Now hear what John has to say about this matter. He wrote after the other three Evangelists, and he generally supplies their deficiencies. He it is who tells us how Simon Peter got into the hall. (See Joh 18:15-18; Joh 18:25-27)

This exposition consisted of readings from Mat 26:31-35; Mat 26:57-58; Mat 26:69-75 Mar 14:53-54; Mar 14:66-72 Luk 22:54-62; and Joh 18:15-18; Joh 18:25-27.

Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible

Luk 22:54-62

8. PETER’S DENIAL

Luk 22:54-62

54 And they seized him, and led him away,-Parallel accounts of Peter’s denial are found in Mat 26:57-75; Mar 14:53-72 Joh 18:15-17. Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane and they “led him away.” He was “seized” and bound and brought “into the high priest’s house.” Literally it means that after seizing Jesus in the garden by ruthless force, they took him to the house of the high priest; we have no way to determine the hour of night that he arrived at the “house of the high priest.” It has been a matter of discussion as to who the high priest was. Some think that he was Caiaphas; others think that he was Annas. John relates that they led him first to Annas, and then “Annas therefore sent him bound unto .Caiaphas the high priest.” (John 18 24.) Annas had been high priest for several years and had been deposed by Roman authorities; he was still the legitimate high priest according to the law of Moses since the high priest was to serve during life. (Num 20:28; Num 35:25.) Jesus was examined in an informal way before Annas (Joh 18:12-14), and then, in order to have him officially tried and condemned in the eye of the Roman law, he sent him to Caiaphas. Peter is the only one mentioned here as following Jesus, and he followed him “afar off”; he was near enough to see what became of Jesus, but far enough away from him to be out of danger; he seemed to show more courage than any of the eleven except John.

55 And when they had kindled a fire-Luke does not mention an earlier examination or trial, but at once describes the conditions upon which Peter denied his Lord. The high priest’s palace was between the upper city and the temple; it was to this place that Peter followed “afar off,” while John went into the palace with Jesus and the guards, as he knew the high priest Peter lingered without, but John spoke to the maid at the door and Peter was admitted. (Joh 18:15-16.) The usual meeting place of the Sanhedrin was the “court,” or an apartment in one of the courts of the temple; some have described it as being at the southeast corner of the court of Israel. In cases of emergency, or in this case, where great secrecy was desired, it was at the house of the high priest, who generally presided over the court. The nights at Jerusalem at this season were frequently cold; John states that the fire was made because “it was cold.” (Joh 18:18.) John also states that Peter stood with them around the fire, but Luke says, they “sat down together, Peter sat in the midst of them.” There is no contradiction, since John could describe their standing around the fire at one time and Luke having in mind another time would describe them as sitting.

56, 57 And a certain maid seeing him-This maid appears to have been the one who let him in. (Joh 18:17.) Mark tells us that this maid was a servant of the high priest. (Mar 14:66.) John speaks of her as the one who kept the door of the porch; she seems to have observed Peter as he came in, and afterward, when he was seated with the servants of the high priest she recognized him; something about his appearance or manner excited her suspicion; again she thinks that she remembered seeing him with Jesus. She approached him and looked intently upon him and said: “This man was also with him.” Matthew and Mark both record that she told Peter that she recognized him as one of the disciples of Jesus, while John records that she asked Peter if he were not one of the disciples of Jesus. (Joh 18:17.) Peter very bluntly denied and said: “Woman, I know him not.” This was Peter’s first denial.

58 And after a little while another saw him,-This is Peter’s second denial. At this time a man identifies Peter. Matthew and Mark mention a maid who charged Peter with being one of the disciples of Jesus, while John says: “They said.” At this time Peter had gone from the light to the gate or entrance. (Mat 26:71.) It is easy to understand the harmony of all of the writers; that a maid, a man, and others of the crowd in the palace court joined in the charge almost simultaneously this would be a natural thing at such a time. Peter’s denial is emphatic: “Man, I am not.” Peter denies as though he was just one of the company who had come through curiosity to learn the cause of the excitement. This denial is stronger than the first, and is a step in advance of the first denial. At the first Peter was probably surprised and possibly somewhat confused; but now he had reflected somewhat and his denial is more emphatic. Possibly the number of those who accused him prompted him to make this denial more emphatic.

59, 60 And after the space of about one hour-Matthew says, “After a little while” (Mat 26:73), so also Mark (Mar 14:70); Matthew and Mark both state that “they that stood by” accused Peter of being one of the disciples of Jesus; but Luke says “another confidently affirmed” that Peter was with Jesus, “for he is a Galilaean.” John states that a servant who was a kinsman “of him whose ear Peter cut off” made the charge. (Joh 18:26.) This is the third charge made against Peter, and it was “about an hour” after the other charge; someone recognized that Peter was a Galilean; they said that his speech betrayed him. The peculiarities of the Galilean dialect are shown and example given by Peter; these help to identify Peter as one of the disciples. He could not hide his speech if he talked. This time Peter’s denial was still the more emphatic. He said: “Man, I know not what thou sayest.” He meant: “What are you talking about?” He claimed to be totally ignorant of the man and the matter. Peter not only denied and thus lied, but began to curse and to swear, saying: “I know not this man of whom ye speak.” (Mar 14:71.) Peter solemnly invoked curses on himself, taking solemn oaths in confirmation of his previous assertions that he did not know who the prisoner was.

61, 62 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter.-What a look of sorrow and pain it must have been! Who can reproduce or describe that look? Was it an angry, disdainful, indignant look? Was it a look of pity and regret? Jesus could not stretch forth his manacled hands to Peter and save him as he did when Peter was sinking while walking on the water, but he did give him a look of tender sympathy for his weakness and a look of love that saved Peter. Peter never forgot that look; it has its desired effect at this time on him, for it called to his mind what Jesus had said to him. How that look must have pierced the heart of Peter, when he remembered the terrible warning which Jesus had given him; he also remembered that he had stoutly affirmed that others might forsake him, but that he was willing to die for him. Peter rushed from the place “and wept bitterly.” He could stand no longer the look of Jesus, and he needed to get out and give expression to his sorrow. The bitterness of his penitence knew no relief until the assurance of forgiveness came.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

the Disciple Who Denied His Lord

Luk 22:54-62

Peter loved Christ truly, but miscalculated his strength. Be very careful not to adventure yourself into the midst of temptation. If God leads you thither, that is another matter. We do well to remember Psa 1:1-3. Let us beware of warming ourselves at the worlds fires. It was the firelight falling on his face that revealed Peter, and his brogue that betrayed him.

If, even at that hour, however, He had looked to God, a way of escape would have been found. He delivereth and rescueth, and worketh signs and wonders in heaven and in earth, Dan 6:27. But Peter sought to save himself from the results of his folly and sin; only to land deeper and deeper in the morass.

What a look that must have been, Luk 22:61! But, even now, when we sin, Christ looks at us from out of His holy heaven, with such mingled pity and love, that these constitute the worst torment. There is no need of literal fire to make hell. Disappointed love is hotter than coals of juniper.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

Peter’s Failure And Repentance — Luk 22:54-62

Then took they Him, and led Him, and brought Him into the high priests house. And Peter followed afar off. And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were set down together, Peter sat down among them. But a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire, and earnestly looked upon him, and said, This man was also with Him. And he denied Him, saying, Woman, I know Him not. And after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou art also of them. And Peter said, Man, I am not. And about the space of one hour after another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this fellow also was with Him: for he is a Galilean. And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew. And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny Me thrice. And Peter went out, and wept bitterly- Luk 22:54-62.

In relating these life-stories it is characteristic of Holy Scripture to give us, not only the evidence of the love and devotion, but also something of the mistakes and sins of the friends of God in the Old Testament, and the disciples of our Lord Jesus Christ in the New. The reason is, I believe, that God would have us learn how to avoid their failures as well as to imitate their virtues, and follow them as they followed Christ. We might think that it would have been best to have told us only the good things and to have covered their blunders, but then we would be likely to come to the conclusion that these servants of God and our Lord Jesus Christ in past centuries were quite different from us; that they were men superior to us, and they did not fail as we do. So we get the whole story. Many souls have been warned and helped by the account of Peters failure and, thank God, his repentance. The whole life of Peter as we learn it from our Bible is most interesting and instructive: this sturdy fisherman who, from the time he first met the Lord Jesus, lost his heart to Him. His first meeting with Jesus was on that occasion when, as we read in Joh 1:41, his own brother, Andrew, sought him out and brought him to the Lord after Andrew and John, the author of the fourth Gospel, had spent the afternoon with the Saviour. From that time on Peters heart was won for Christ, but he did not immediately leave all for Him; he was not called to do so. Afterward the Lord was preaching on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, and the crowd thronged Him. Jesus looked about, and there was Peters fishing-boat near the shore; the Lord asked for permission to enter it, and Peter gladly received Him. Jesus told him to thrust out a little from the land; and using Peters boat as a pulpit He taught the people. This was easy to do. Anyone who has been there will recall how the land along the shore rises upward, forming an amphitheater. The throng could have stood or sat on the ground and looked at the Lord as He preached the Word. Possibly the message did not really reach the heart of this man Simon; but afterward when the crowd dispersed, Jesus turned to him and said, Launch out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught (Luk 5:4). Peter was surprised at this, for the sun was shining; it was a most unlikely time for fishing, and he said, Master, we have toiled all the night and have taken nothing. Now the day was no time for fishing, but Peter said, At Thy word I will let down the net; and immediately they enclosed a great multitude of fish. You know the rest of the story. The interesting thing is this: when Peter saw the fish they had caught at that time of day he knew he was in the presence of the Creator ,of the fish, and he fell down at the feet of Jesus and said, Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord. And yet he took Him by the feet, as much as to say, While I know I am not fit for Your company, Lord, You shall not get away from me if I can help it. The Lord never turns away from a sinners confession. He spoke words of encouragement to Peter, assuring him of His confidence in him and saying, Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men (Luk 5:10). Jesus called Peter into full-time association with Himself; so he left the fishing business to become a fisher of men. Later on Peter made his great confession of faith: He asked His disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of Man am? And they said, Some say that Thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Answering for all the disciples, Peter replied with holy enthusiasm, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven (Mat 16:13-17). It is always a divine revelation when one is brought to know the Lord Jesus Christ in the true mystery of His Person. Then the Lord said, I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock (the rock of this confession) I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (Mat 16:18). I do not think Peter ever rose to a greater height in his experience while the Lord was with him on earth than at that time. But have you noticed that his backsliding began almost immediately afterward? We need to heed the important warning: Let him that thinketh he stand-eth take heed lest he fall (1Co 10:12). The Lord had just spoken of the wonderful revelation given to Peter and then went on to tell them of His approaching death on the cross, to be followed by His resurrection; and Peter, exalted undoubtedly by the abundance ,of the revelation, turned to the Lord and dared to say to Him, Be it far from Thee, Lord: this shall not be unto Thee (Mat 16:22). He was correcting, or attempting to correct Jesus for saying He was to be delivered to the Gentiles and be crucified. Peter declared that nothing like that should take place. The Lord immediately turned to him and said, Get thee behind Me, Satan: thou art an offence unto Me: for thou savorest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men (Mat 16:23). What a rebuke to be given to the prince of the apostles, and that so soon after he had made his great confession! Evidently he had become exalted by spiritual pride, and Satan led him to say that which, if acted upon, would mean that we would have been left without a Saviour and our sins unatoned for. It was only by going to the cross that the propitiation for sin could be made.

We do not read much concerning the experiences of Peter after that, but we do know that he never reached such a high spiritual point again. On the Mount of Transfiguration, when Jesus was speaking with Moses and Elias of His decease which He would accomplish at Jerusalem, Peter felt he must say something-though he knew not what to say- and so he blurted out, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if Thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for Thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is My Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him (Mat 17:4-5). As much as to say, Peter, do not put anybody on the level with My Son; He must have the pre-eminence in all things.

Scripture passes over the rest of Peters history until the night of our Lords betrayal. Then we see him with the rest of the disciples in the upper room. The Lord said, All ye shall be offended because of Me this night: for it is written, I will smite the Shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad (Mat 26:31). Self-confident, yet loving the Lord and meaning every word, but failing to realize his own weakness, Peter said, Although all shall be offended, yet will not I (Mar 14:29). I am ready to go with Thee, both into prison, and to death (Luk 22:33). He was to go both to prison and to death in after years for Christs sake, but he was not ready at this time. The Lord said to him, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest Me. And He who knew Peter so well, also said, But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

They went out to the garden of sorrow; and there Peter failed with the others: for the Lord took Peter, James, and John into the garden with Him. Ere He went a little farther to talk with His Father, He said to the three, Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak (Mat 26:41). And He went away and prayed, saying, O My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me: nevertheless not as I will, but as Thou wilt (Mat 26:39). And when He rose from His knees He found the three disciples sleeping for sorrow; it was the weakness of the flesh. Peter was asleep when he should have been alert, watching and praying. The Lord aroused them from their sleep and again bade them watch and pray; and He went away the second time, praying the same words, Not My will, but Thine be done. When He came the third time and found that Peter was still asleep, He said, Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners (Mat 26:45). Then came Judas and the rest, and Judas said, Hail, Master; and kissed Him. They came and took Jesus, and Peter became enraged. He was alert now, and he turned and drew his sword and cut off the ear of one of the servants of the high priest. The Lord said, Put up thy sword, and He healed the man. This was the energy of the flesh on Peters part. He, who before had been asleep when he should have been alert, was now roused up and active when he should have been passive and quiescent. They took Jesus away, and we are told that Peter followed afar off. This was a further evidence of his backslidden condition: instead of keeping close to Jesus and letting all see that he was identified with Him, he fell behind; his love would not let him leave entirely. Finally he reached the high priests house. There in the court a fire was burning, for it was a cold night; and Peter went in and sat with others around the fire. Again we see him drifting: in company with the ungodly while his Lord was on trial. A certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire, and earnestly looked upon him, and said, This man was also with him. And he denied Him, saying, Woman, I know Him not. And about the space of one hour after another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this fellow also was with Him: for he is a Galilean. And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. The more he opened his mouth the more he got into trouble. The Galileans had their own peculiar accent, so that the Judeans recognized Peter immediately as one from the northern province. His speech betrayed him. Evidently because he was overcome with fear, Peter began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the Man. And immediately the cock crew. The Saviours words came back to Peter as Jesus looked upon him. Peter had gone down, down, down, until he had denied all knowledge of Christ. But now, oh, how he wept as Jesus gazed sadly and reproachfully upon him! That was the beginning of the work of restoration. Repentance had commenced. If we follow the record we find that the Lord had a private interview with Peter after the resurrection. We are told that the women who arrived at the tomb early on the resurrection morning were instructed to Go your way, tell His disciples and Peter (Mar 16:7). I am sure Peter must have been greatly distressed during those three days and nights; he felt that he had lost all contact with Jesus. But the risen Lord acknowledged him as a disciple still. When the two Emmaus disciples returned to the Eleven, they said, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon (Luk 24:34). Undoubtedly Peter was fully restored at the time of the Lords private interview with him. His public restoration took place on the shores of Galilee shortly after, on that morning when the Saviour cooked Peters breakfast and served him and his fellow-disciples after they had toiled all night and again had caught nothing. Three times the Lord put the question to Peter: Lovest thou Me? Peter was grieved that Jesus asked him this question three times, but he had denied his Lord three times. Having restored him, the Lord said to Peter, Feed My lambs feed My sheep.

Oh, the infinite grace of our blessed Lord! We have failed Him, but He never has failed us. I can call upon all who believe and trust in Him to bear witness. God grant that as we face the difficulties of the coming days we will lean more completely upon Him; that we will faithfully acknowledge Christ, our blessed, risen Lord. Let us be careful not to trust in our own strength, but distrusting ourselves to rely wholly on Him, that we may ever be true to the trust committed to us!

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

Chapter 47

A Great Sinner And His Great Saviour

Because it is describe in great detail by God the Holy Spirit in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, it is obvious that Peters fall and his recovery by the Lord Jesus Christ is a matter of great importance, and one that we need to have repeatedly impressed upon our hearts and minds. May God the Holy Spirit be our Teacher as we go over the inspired history of this sad event. Here is the tremendously instructive record of a great sinner and his great Saviour.

The Bible is the inspired Word of God. Were it merely an uninspired book of religion written by men, the gospel writers would never have told us that Peter, one of the Lords apostles, denied his Master three times. What are we to learn from this sad, yet encouraging event in the life of Gods servant, the Apostle Peter?

Declining Steps

First, we should observe that Peters great fall was preceded by gradually declining steps. His great sin was preceded by lesser evils. The steps of his demise are clearly identified by the inspired historians, Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

First, Peter displayed terrible pride and self-confidence. Though all the other disciples might deny the Saviour, Peter boasted that he would never do so. He openly boasted that he was ready to go with the Lord Jesus both to prison and to death. Then, when the Lord Jesus told him to watch and pray, lest he enter into temptation, Peter was found sleeping. Third, Peter was vacillating and indecisive. When Judas, the chief priests, and soldiers came to arrest the Son of God, Peter immediately fought for his Master bravely. Then, he ran away. Then, he returned. Then, we see him following the Saviour; but Peter followed afar off. Next we see this man, who was the object of Gods everlasting love and boundless, immutable grace, mingling with his Saviours enemies. He went into the high priests house and sat down among his servants, warming himself by their fire, hoping to hide himself among them, hoping he would not be identified as one of the Lords disciples by his enemies. He sat among godless, reprobate men, committing the most wicked deeds ever performed by men, hearing the filth gushing from their hearts, as they cast accusation after accusation against the Lord of glory, and he wanted to be identified not as a follower of Christ, but as one of them! Finally, Peter was overwhelmed with fear and denied the Lord Jesus three times.

Let us beware of the little foxes that spoil the vine (Son 2:15). What a sweet and tender precept this is! How very needful! Foxes are used to represent the subtle, less open, less obvious sins and corruptions lurking in us, like those cunning creatures, hiding in silence, waiting to catch their prey.

Foxes also represent cunning, false prophets hiding themselves among Gods saints (Lam 5:18; Eze 13:4). Satan never more cunningly and, perhaps, never more effectively deceives men, than when he transforms himself into an angel of light and makes his ministers ministers of righteousness.

The vines the foxes would destroy are the Lords people, believers, having tender grapes. What is more tender than a tender conscience? What can be more easily wounded? Let us ever look to Christ, the Lord of the vineyard, for grace against these destructive enemies to our souls welfare. Let us ever be keenly aware of the fact that our greatest watchfulness and most fervent prayers, without his watchful eye and gracious protection, can never protect us from these shrewd, cunning foxes. Let us never cease to ask our Saviour to protect us from these foxes and destroy them before us. Robert Hawker wrote:

Lord, I would say, keep me from every enemy which doeth evil in thy sanctuary, and preserve alive, in flourishing circumstances, all those tender graces of thy Spirit bestowed upon me, that I may bring forth fruit to the praise of thy holy name, and may flourish and spread abroad as the cedar in Lebanon.

And let us never cease to give thanks for the sweet assurance that though the foxes would destroy the vine, if they could, they never shall, because the Lord Jesus himself keeps his vine!

Inward Corruption

Here is another thing we all prefer not to think about, but something we should constantly remember. None of us know what vile corruptions are hidden deep in our hearts and what horrible deeds we might commit in a moment, if the Lord did not keep us from acting according to what we are. Like you and me, Peter knew he was a sinner. He confessed it. Lord, depart from me. I am a sinful man. But like us, Peter had no idea how sinful he was. I am sure he never dreamed he could do the things he did in the high priests house that night.

You and I need to be constantly aware of this fact. There is no evil in the world that is not in us. And there is no evil thing we will not do in a heartbeat, if the Lord God leaves us to ourselves. Peter was a great man, a great Apostle, a great believer. He was faithful and courageous, a man who truly loved and trusted the Son of God; but he was just a man, a sinner saved by grace, nothing more.

Whether we know it or not, we carry within us a boundless capacity for evil. There is no enormity of sin into which we will not run, if we are not held from the evil that is in us by the hand of Gods omnipotent grace. When we read the falls of Noah, Lot, and Peter, we only read what would befall ourselves, if the Lord did not prevent it. Let us never presume. Let us never indulge in high thoughts about our own strength, or look down upon others who have fallen. May God the Holy Spirit graciously and constantly teach us to walk humbly with God.

No Effectual Means

Third, the story of Peters fall teaches us that no means of grace will effectually serve our souls, unless the means is made effectual by Gods Spirit. I would say nothing to minimize the use of outward means. God uses outward means. But the means are meaningless, without the blessing of God upon them and the work of his Spirit by them.

Not only is that true, but it is equally important for us to understand that no past experience will secure our souls from present evil. Peter was an apostle of Christ; yet, he fell. Peter had seen and performed great miracles; yet, he fell. Peter once walked on water to the Saviour; yet, he fell. Peter had seen the transfigured Christ; yet, he fell. Peter had just heard the greatest sermon ever preached (John 14-16); yet, he fell. Peter had been warned by the Master; yet, he fell. Peter heard the cock crow, reminding him of the Saviours warning; yet, he fell, persisting in his downward course.

Amid all these distinguishing mercies, and forewarned as he was by Christ, he not only denied Christ, but persisted in the denial, though the first crowing of the cock told him of his treachery. Still, he went on in his wickedness, fully aware of what he was doing! How often we hear the Word of God, or read it, hearing the very voice of God, as Peter did when he heard the crowing of the cock in the early hour of the morning, and totally ignore his voice. We will never heed it, except the Lord graciously causes us to hear it, as he caused Peter to hear the second crowing of the cock.

Peter was in the immediate presence of his Saviour; yet, he fell! No means of grace is a means of grace, without the workings of Gods grace upon us and in us. The only thing that distinguishes us from others is the distinguishing grace of our God. The only righteousness we have is Christ; and the only thing that keeps us is the grace of God.

Peters Recovery

What should we learn from Peters recovery? For one thing, we should learn that when we fall, we have no ability to recover ourselves. When Peter heard the rooster crow the first time, how alarmed he must have been. Yet, he went on to even greater wickedness. Even when he heard the second crowing, he was unaffected, until the Lord turned and looked upon Peter.

What a look that must have been! The Lord turned to Peter. Peter did not turn to the Lord. He looked upon Peter, not in anger and disgust, but in mercy, love, and grace. That look was a look of tenderness, compassion, and faithfulness. What a great, gloriously, indescribably great Saviour our dear Lord Jesus is! His love for us is great. His grace to us is great. His faithfulness is great. His forgiveness is great. His righteousness is great. His atonement is great. His keeping is great. And his restoration is great. Peter had gone back to his nets and boats, sure that he was reprobate; but the Lord Jesus would not let him go (Mar 16:7; Joh 21:15-17).

Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible

took: Our blessed Lord before his death passed another examination. One was before the Jewish Sanhedrim, whose proper province it was to try such as were accused as false prophets or blasphemers. This was a kind of ecclesiastical court. The other, with which the next chapter opens, was before Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea at that time; he principally took cognizance of criminal things, such especially as concerned the peace of the country, considered as part of the Roman empire. Mat 26:57, Mat 26:58, Mar 14:53, Mar 14:54, Joh 18:12-17, Joh 18:24

And Peter: Luk 22:33, Luk 22:34, 2Ch 32:31

Reciprocal: Psa 38:11 – afar off Mat 14:30 – when Mar 14:30 – before Luk 24:34 – hath Joh 18:15 – Simon Joh 18:17 – the damsel Act 4:3 – laid Gal 5:17 – so

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

5

See the comments at Mat 26:57-58.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

THE verses we have now read describe the fall of the apostle Peter.-It is a passage which is deeply humbling to the pride of man, but singularly instructive to true Christians. The fall of Peter has been a beacon to the Church, and has probably preserved myriads of souls from destruction.-It is a passage which supplies strong proof that the Bible is inspired and Christianity is from God. If the Christian religion had been the invention of uninspired men, its first historians would never have told us that one of the chiefest apostles denied his Master three times.

The story of Peter’s fall teaches us, firstly, how small and gradual are the steps by which men may go down into great sins.

The various steps in Peter’s fall are clearly marked out by the Gospel-writers. They ought always to be observed in reading this part of the apostle’s history. The first step was proud self-confidence. Though all men denied Christ, yet he never would! He was ready to go with Him both to prison and to death!-The second step was indolent neglect of prayer. When his Master told him to pray, lest he should enter into temptation, he gave way to drowsiness, and was found asleep.-The third step was vacillating indecision. When the enemies of Christ came upon Him, Peter first fought, then ran away, then turned again, and finally “followed afar off.”-The fourth step was mingling with bad company. He went into the high priest’s house and sat among the servants by the fire, trying to conceal his religion, and hearing and seeing all manner of evil.-The fifth and last step was the natural consequence of the preceding four. He was overwhelmed with fear when suddenly charged with being a disciple. The snare was round his neck. He could not escape. He plunged deeper into error than ever. He denied his blessed Master three times. The mischief, be it remembered, had been done before. The denial was only the disease coming to a head.

Let us beware of the beginnings of backsliding, however small. We never know what we may come to, if we once leave the king’s high-way. The professing Christian who begins to say of any sin or evil habit, “it is but a little one,” is in imminent danger. He is sowing seeds in his heart, which will one day spring up and bear bitter fruit. It is a homely saying, that “if men take care of the pence the pounds will take care of themselves.” We may borrow a good spiritual lesson from the saying. The Christian who keeps his heart diligently in little things shall be kept from great falls.

The story of Peter’s fall teaches us, secondly, how very far a believer may backslide.

In order to see this lesson clearly, the whole circumstances of Peter’s case ought to be fully weighed. He was a chosen apostle of Christ. He had enjoyed greater spiritual privileges than most men in the world. He had just received the Lord’s supper. He had just heard that wonderful discourse recorded in the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth chapters of John. He had been most plainly warned of his own danger. He had protested most loudly that he was ready for anything that might come upon him. And yet this very man denies his gracious Master, and that repeatedly and after intervals giving him space for reflection. He denies Him once, twice, and three times!

The best and highest saint is a poor weak creature, even at his best times. Whether he knows it or not, he carries within him an almost boundless capacity of wickedness, however fair and decent his outward conduct may seem. There is no enormity of sin into which he may not run, if he does not watch and pray, and if the grace of God does not hold him up. When we read the falls of Noah, Lot, and Peter, we only read what might possibly befall any of ourselves. Let us never presume. Let us never indulge in high thoughts about our own strength, or look down upon others. Whatever else we pray for, let us daily pray that we may “walk humbly with God.” (Mic 6:8.)

The story of Peter’s fall teaches us, thirdly, the infinite mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This is a lesson which is brought out most forcibly by a fact which is only recorded in Luke’s Gospel. We are told that when Peter denied Christ the third time, and the cock crew, “the Lord turned and looked upon Peter.” Those words are deeply touching! Surrounded by blood-thirsty and insulting enemies, in the full prospect of horrible outrages, an unjust trial, and a painful death, the Lord Jesus yet found time to think kindly of His poor erring disciple. Even then He would have Peter know, He did not forget him. Sorrowfully no doubt, but not angrily,-He “turned and looked upon Peter.” There was a deep meaning in that look. It was a sermon which Peter never forgot.

The love of Christ toward His people, is a deep well which has no bottom. Let us never measure it by comparison with any kind of love of man or woman. It exceeds all other love, as far as the sun exceeds the rushlight. There is about it a mine of compassion, and patience, and readiness to forgive sin, of whose riches we have but a faint conception. Let us not be afraid to trust that love, when we first feel our sins. Let us never be afraid to go on trusting it after we have once believed. No man need despair, however far he may have fallen, if he will only repent and turn to Christ. If the heart of Jesus was so gracious when He was a prisoner in the judgment hall, we surely need not think it is less gracious, when He sits in glory at the right hand of God.

The story of Peter’s fall teaches us, lastly, how bitter sin is to believers, when they have fallen into it and discovered their fall.

This is a lesson which stands out plainly on the face of the verses before us. We are told that when Peter remembered the warning he had received, and saw how far he had fallen, “he went out and wept bitterly.” He found out by experience the truth of Jeremiah’s words, “It is an evil thing and a bitter that thou hast forsaken the LORD.” (Jer 2:19.) He felt keenly the truth of Solomon’s saying, “The backslider in heart shall be filled with his own ways.” (Pro 14:14.) No doubt he could have said with Job, “I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” (Job 42:6.)

Sorrow like this, let us always remember, is an inseparable companion of true repentance. Here lies the grand distinction between “repentance unto salvation,” and unavailing remorse. Remorse can make a man miserable, like Judas Iscariot, but it can do no more. It does not lead him to God.-Repentance makes a man’s heart soft and his conscience tender, and shows itself in real turning to a Father in heaven. The falls of a graceless professor are falls from which there is no rising again. But the fall of a true saint always ends in deep contrition, self-abasement, and amendment of life.

Let us take heed, ere we leave this passage, that we always make a right use of Peter’s fall. Let us never make it an excuse for sin. Let us learn from his sad experience, to watch and pray, lest we fall into temptation. If we do fall, let us believe that there is hope for us as there was for him. But above all, let us remember, that if we fall as Peter fell, we must repent as Peter repented, or else we shall never be saved.

==================

Notes-

v55.-[Kindled a fire.] It must be remembered, that although the climate of Palestine is generally very warm, the nights about the Passover season, according to the testimony of all travellers, are intensely cold.

[The hall.] The Greek word so rendered is more frequently translated “palace.” Parkhurst thinks that here it means, “an open court inclosed by buildings,-a court-yard exposed to the open air.” In Rev 11:2, it is translated “court,” and can there bear no other sense.

[Sat down among them.] Let it be noted, that the Greek expression rendered “among” them, is the very same that in the former part of the verse is translated, “in the midst.”

v56.-[Sat by the fire.] It is a curious fact, that the Greek word here rendered “fire,” is a totally different word from the one rendered “fire,” in the preceding verse. Here it means literally, “the light.” The word is found sixty-nine times in the New Testament, and in sixty-seven places is translated “light.” The two exceptions when it is rendered “fire,” are the passage before us, and the parallel passage in Mark, describing the same transaction. (Mar 14:54.)

It is evident that the word was used intentionally by Luke, in order to show us, that it was “by the light of the fire” that Peter was recognized and charged with being a disciple. Had he kept in the background, and been content with a darker position, he might have escaped notice.

v59.-[He is a Galilaean.] It is clear from this expression that Peter had been talking and conversing with those among whom he was sitting. Had he been content to say nothing, and await silently the result of his Master’s trial, he might even now have escaped detection.

v61.-[Looked upon Peter.] Parkhurst says, that the Greek word rendered “looked,” signifies “to look with stedfastness and attention.”

Some have thought it strange that our Lord Jesus Christ should have been in a position where He could see Peter, and Peter could see Him, and also that He could hear Peter denying Him.

It is not at all necessary to reply to this, that our Lord had a miraculous knowledge of what Peter was saying, or that He was passing through the court-yard, or hall, where Peter was, at that time of the third denial and the cock-crowing.

It is most probable that our Lord was either in the same hall with Peter, or in a room opening out of it. There is no improbability in supposing that He was within sight and hearing of the apostle. Above all it must be remembered that the vehemence of Peter’s third denial, when he even cursed and swore, would most likely make him speak so loud that he might be easily heard at some distance. The crowing of the cock of course would be heard much further even than Peter’s voice.

Augustine, Stella, and others, go so far as to regard the whole transaction as an inward and spiritual one,-a turning of the Lord’s heart towards Peter, and a gracious looking of the Lord’s mind towards him. They consider that our Lord was not in the same room with Peter, and could not literally look at him. But this view seems most unsatisfactory. It is not the natural meaning of the words before us, and there is really no necessity for it in the nature of the event described.

Fuente: Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels

Luk 22:54. The high-priests home. Undoubtedly Caiaphas is meant, since the other Evangelists agree in making his house the scene of Peters denial.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

This paragraph of the chapter gives us an account of the fall and rising of Peter: of his sin in denying his Master, and of his recovery by repentance; both must be considered distinctly.

First, touching his sin and fall; there are four particulars observable relating thereunto; namely, the sin itself, the occasion of that sin, the reiteration and repetition of it, and the aggravating circumstances attending it.

Observe, 1. The sin itself, the denial of Christ Jesus his Lord and Master, I know not the man; and this backed with an oath, he sware that he knew him not. Lord, how may the slavish fear of suffering drive the holiest and best of men to commit the foulest and worst of sins!

Observe, 2. The occasions leading to this sin, and they were these:

1. His following Christ afar off. To follow Christ was the effect of Peter’s faith; but to follow him afar off at this time, was the fruit of fear, and the effect of frailty. Woe unto us when temptation comes, if we be far from Christ’s gracious presence and assistance.

2. His being in bad company, amongst Christ’s enemies: would we escape temptations to sin, we must then decline such company as would allure and draw us into sin. Peter had better have been acold by himself alone, than warming himself at a fire which was encompassed in with the blasphemies of the multitude; where his conscience, though not seared, was yet made hard.

Another grand occasion of Peter’s falling was, a presumptous confidence of his own strength and standing: Though all men forsake thee, yet will not I. Oh Lord, to presume upon ourselves, is the ready way to provoke thee to leave us to ourselves; if ever we stand in the day of trial, it is the fear of falling must enable us to stand. We soon fall, if we believe it impossible to fall.

Observe, 3. The reiteration and repetition of this sin, he denied Christ again and again; he denies him first with a lie, then with an oath, and next with a curse. Lord, how dangerous is it not to resist the first beginnings of sin! If we yield to one temptation, Satan will assault us with more and stronger. Peter proceeded from a denial to a lie; from a lie to an oath; from an oath to an imprecation or curse. It is our wisdom vigorously to resist sin at the beginning; for then we have most power, and sin has least.

Observe, 4. The heinous and aggravating circumstances of St. Peter’s sin; and they are these:

1. The character of his person; a disciple, an apostle, a chief apostle, a special favorite, who with James and John had the special honor to be with Christ at his transfiguration: yet he denies Christ.

2. The person whom he denies; his Master, his Saviour, and Redeemer. He, that in great humility had washed Peter’s feet, had eaten the passover with Peter, had given but just before the holy sacrament to Peter; yet is this kind and condescending Saviour denied by Peter.

3. Consider the persons before whom he denied Christ; the chief priest’s servants. Oh how surprising, and yet very pleasing was it to them, to see one disciple betray and sell his Master, and another disown and deny him!

4. Consider the time when he denied him; it was but a few hours after he had received the holy sacrament from Christ’s own hands. How unreasonable then is their objection against coming to the Lord’s table, that some who go to it dishonor Christ as soon as they come from it: such examples ought not to discourage us from coming to the ordinance, but should excite and increase our watchfulness, after we have been there, that our after deportment may be suitable to the solemnmity of a sacramental table.

Observe, 5. What a small temptation he lay under thus shamefully to deny his Lord and Master: a damsel only at first spake to him. Had a band of armed soldiers appeared to him, and apprehended him: had he been bound and led away to the judgment hall, and there threatened with the sentence of an ignominious death, some excuse might have been made better for him: but to disown his relation to Christ upon a word spoken by a sorry maid that kept the door; the smallness of the temptation was an high aggravation of the crime. Ah Peter: how little did thou answer thy name at this time! Thou art not now a rock, but a reed, a pillar blown down by a woman’s breath. Oh frail humanity, whose strength is weakness and infirmity.

Note here, that in most of the saints’ falls recorded in scripture, the first enticers to sin, or the accidental occasions of it, were women; witness (besides the first fall, that of Adam’s, where the woman was first in the transgression) the fall of Lot, Samson, David, Solomon, and Peter; these are sad instances of the truth of what I speak.

A weak creature may be a strong tempter; nothing is to impotent or useless for the devil’s service; it was a great aggravation of Peter’s sin, that the voice of a poor maid that kept the door should be of more force to overcome him, than his faith in Jesus to sustain him. But what shall we say? Small things are sufficient to cast us down, if God does not help us up: we sink under any burden, if God sustain us not; and yield to the least temptation, if he leaves us to ourselves; a damsel shall then make a disciple shrink, and a door-keeper shall be able to drive an apostle before her. This is the account, in short, of St. Peter’s fall, considered in itself, and with the circumstances relating to it.

Now follows his recovery and rising again by repentance; and here we have observable, the suddenness of St. Peter’s repentance, the means of his repentance, and the manner of his repentance.

Observe, 1. The suddenness of St. Peter’s repentance: as his sin was sad, so was his repentance speedy; sin committed by surprise, and through the prevalency of a temptation that suddenly assaults us, is much sooner repented of, than where the sin is presumptuous and deliberate. David’s murder and adultery lay almost twelve months, without any solemn repentance for them. St. Peter’s denial was hasty and sudden, under a violent pang and passion of fear, and he takes the warning of the cock’s crowing, to go forth speedily and weep for his transgressions.

Observe, 2. The means of his repentance, which was two-fold: the less principal means was the crowing of the cock: the more principal means were Christ’s looking upon Peter, and Peter remembering the words of Christ.

1. The less principal means of St. Peter’s rising and recovery by repentance, was the crowing of the cock: as the voice of the maid occasioned him to sin, so the voice of the cock occasioned him to reflect. That God who always can work without means, can ever, when he pleases, work by weak and contemptible means, and open the mouth of a bird or a beast for the conversion of a man. But why does our Lord make use of the crowing of a cock, as a means of bringing St. Peter to repentance? There is ever some mystery in Christ’s institutions and instruments; the cock was a preacher, to call St. Peter to his duty, there being something of emblem between a cock and a preacher; the preacher ought to have the wings of the cock, to rouse himself from drowsiness and security, and to awaken others to a sense of their duty; he must have the watchfulness of the cock, to be ever ready to discover and forewarn danger; he must have the voice of the cock, terrify the roaring lion of hell, and make him tremble, as they say the natural lion does; in a word, he must observe the hours of the cock, to crow at at all seasons; to preach the word in season and out of season.

Again, 2. The more principal means of St. Peter’s recovery were Christ’s looking upon Peter, and Peter’s remembering the words of Christ.

1. Christ’s looking upon Peter; our Saviour looked upon Peter, before either Peter looked upon our Saviour or upon himself. Oh wonderful act of love and grace towards this fallen disciple. Christ was now upon his trial for his life, (a time when our thoughts would have been wholly taken up about ourselves,) but even then did Christ find leisure to think upon Peter, to remember his disconsolate disciples, to turn himself about and give him a pitiful but piercing look, even a look that melted and dissolved him into tears. We never begin to lament our sins till we are first lamented by our Saviour; Jesus looked upon Peter, that was the first more principal means of his repentance.

But, 2. The other means was Peter’s remembering the words of the Lord, Before the cock crow thou shalt deny me. Now this remembrance was an applicative and feeling remembrance; he remembered the prediction of Christ, and applied it sensibly to himslf; teaching us, that the efficacy of Christ’s words, in order to sound repentance, depends not upon the historical remembrance of it, but upon the close application of it to everyman’s conscience.

Observe, 3. The manner of St. Peter’s repentance; it was secret, it was sincere, it was lasting, and abiding.

1. It was secret; he went out and wept; he sought a place of retirement, where he might mourn in secret; solitariness is most agreeable to an afflicted spirit; yet I must add, that as St. Peter’s sorrow, so probably his shame, might cause him to go forth and weep. Christ looked upon him, and how ashamed must he be to look upon Christ, seeing he had so lately denied that he had ever seen him!

2. St. Peter’s repentance was sincere; he wept bitterly: his grief was extraordinary, and his tears abundant; there is always a weeping that must follow sin; sin must cost the soul sorrow, either here or in hell; we must now either mourn awhile, or lament forever. Doubtless St. Peter’s tears were joined with hearty confessions of sin to God, and smart reflections on himself, after this manner: “Lord! What have I done? I a disciple, I an apostle, I that did so lately acknowledge my Master to be Christ the Lord, I that spoke with so much assurance, Though all men deny thee, yet will not I; I that promised to lay down my life for his sake; yet have I denied him, yet have I, with oaths and imprecations, disowned him, and this at the voice of a damsel, not at the sight of a drawn sword presented at my breast. Lord! What weakness, what wickedness, what unfaithfulness, have I been guilty of! Oh that my head were waters, and mine eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep all my days for the fault of this one night!” Thus may we suppose our lapsed apostle to have bemoaned himself; and happy was it for them, that he did so; for blessed are the tears of a converted revolter, and happy is the misery of a mourning offender.

Observe, 3. St. Peter’s repentance was not only secret and sincere, but lasting and abiding; he retained a very quick sense, and lively remembrance, of this sin, upon his mind all his life after.

Ecclesiastical history reports, that ever after, when St. Peter heard the crowing of the cock, he fell upon his knees and wept.

Others say, that he was wont to rise at midnight, and spent his time in prayer and humiliation, between cock-crowing and daylight: and the papists, who delight to turn every thing into folly and superstition, first began that practice of setting up, what we call weather-cocks upon towers and steeples, to put people in mind of St. Peter’s fall and repentance by that signal.

Lastly, St. Peter’s repentance was an extraordinary zeal and forwardness for the service of Christ to the end of his days. He had a burning love towards the holy Jesus ever after, which is now improved into a seraphic flame; Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee, says he himself, Joh 21:17 And as an evidence of it, he fed Christ’s sheep; for, in the Acts of the apostles, we read of his extraordinary diligence to spread the gospel, and his travels in order thereunto, are computed by some to be nine hundred and fifty miles.

To end all, have any of us fallen with Peter, though not with a formal abjuration, yet by a practical denying of him? Let us go forth and weep with him; let us be more vigilant and watchful over ourselves for the time to come; let us express more fervent love and zeal for Christ, more diligence in his service, more concernedness for his honor and glory: this would be an happy improvement of his example: God grant it may have that blessed effect!

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Luk 22:54-62. Then took they him, and brought him into the high-priests house See on Mat 26:57; and Mar 14:53; Mar 14:51. When they had kindled a fire, Peter sat down among them See the story of Peters three-fold denial of Christ elucidated at large in the notes on Mat 26:69-75; and Mar 14:66-72. Another saw him, and said Observe here, in order to reconcile the four evangelists, that divers persons concurred in charging Peter with belonging to Christ. 1st, The maid that let him in, afterward seeing him at the fire, first put the question to him, and then positively affirmed that he was with Christ. 2d, Another maid accused him to the standers by, and gave occasion to the man here mentioned to renew the charge against him, which caused the second denial. 3d, Others of the company took notice of his being a Galilean, and were seconded by the kinsman of Malchus, who affirmed he had seen him in the garden. And this drew on the third denial. And about an hour after So he did not recollect himself in all that time.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

2. The Judgment of Jesus: Luk 22:54 to Luk 23:25.

1 st. The Ecclesiastical Trial: Luk 22:54-71.

This account contains three things: (1) St. Peter’s denial (Luk 22:54-62); (2) The evil treatment practised by the Jews (Luk 22:63-65); (3) The sentence of death pronounced by the Sanhedrim (Luk 22:66-71).

Luke places the sitting of the Sanhedrim at which Jesus was condemned in the morning, when the day dawned (Luk 22:66). This morning sitting is also mentioned by Matthew (Mat 27:1, the morning was come) and Mark (Mar 15:1, straightway in the morning). But, according to those two evangelists, a previous sitting had taken place at the house of Caiaphas during the night, of which they give a detailed description (Mat 26:57-66; Mar 14:53-64). And this even, according to John, had been preceded by a preparatory sitting at the house of Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas. John does not relate either the second or the third sitting, though he expressly indicates the place of the latter by the , Luk 18:13, and the notice, Luk 18:24. This, then, is the order of events: Immediately on His arrest, between one and three o’clock, Jesus was led to the house of Annas, where a preliminary inquiry took place, intended to extract beforehand some saying which would serve as a text for His condemnation (Joh 18:19-23). This sitting having terminated without any positive result, had not been taken up by tradition, and was omitted by the Syn. But John relates it to complete the view of the trial of Jesus, and with regard to the account of Peter’s denial, which he wishes to restore to its true light. During this examination, the members of the Sanhedrim had been called together in haste, in as large numbers as possible, to the house of the high priest. The sitting of this body which followed was that at which Jesus was condemned to death for having declared Himself to be the Son of God. It must have taken place about three o’clock in the morning. Matthew (Mat 26:59 et seq.) and Mark (Mar 14:55 et seq.) have minutely described it. John has omitted it as sufficiently known through them. In the morning, at daybreak, the Sanhedrim assembled anew, this time in full muster, and in their official hall near the temple. This is the sitting described by Luke, and briefly indicated, as we have seen, by Matthew and Mark. Two things rendered it necessary: (1) According to a Rabbinical law, no sentence of death passed during the night was valid. To this formal reason there was probably added the circumstance that the sentence had not been passed in the official place. But especially (2) it was necessary to deliberate seriously on the ways and means by which to obtain from the Roman governor the confirmation and execution of their sentence. The whole negotiation with Pilate which follows shows that the thing was far from easy, and betrays on the part of the Jews, as we have seen in our Comment. sur l’vang. de Jean, a strategical plan completely marked out beforehand. It was no doubt at this morning sitting that the plan was discussed and adopted. Matthew also says, in speaking of this last sitting (Mat 27:1), that they took counsel , about the way of getting Him put to death. Then it was that Judas came to restore his money to the Sanhedrim in the temple ( , Mat 27:5).

Bleek admits only two sittings in all,the one preliminary, which was held at the house of Annas (John), and during which Peter’s denial took place; the other official, decisive, in which the whole Sanhedrim took part, related by the Syn., who erroneously connect Peter’s denial with it, and which is divided also erroneously by Matthew and Mark into two distinct sittings. Langen, on the contrary, with many commentators, identifies the examination before Annas (Joh 18:13; Joh 18:19-23) with the nocturnal sitting which is described in detail by Matthew and Mark. Against this explanation there are: 1. The entire difference between the matter of the two sittings: in John, a simple examination without judgment; in Matthew and Mark, the express pronouncing of a capital sentence; 2. Luk 22:24 of John, Annas sent Jesus bound to Caiaphas,a verse which, whatever may be made of it, implies two sittings, the one at the house of Annas, the other at the house of Caiaphas, in the same night. The opinion of Bleek would be more allowable. But we should be authorized in ascribing to the first two Syn. the serious confusion, and then the false division, which Bleek imputes to them, only if the two sittings of the night and morning could not be sufficiently accounted for. Now, we have just seen that it is quite otherwise. A minute particular which distinguishes them confirms their historical reality; in the night sitting there had been unanimity (Mar 14:64). Now, if Luke is not mistaken in declaring, Luk 23:51, that Joseph of Arimathea did not vote with the majority, we must conclude that he was not present at the night sitting at the house of Caiaphas, but that he took part only in that of the morning in the temple, which agrees with the fact that Matthew (Mat 27:1) expressly distinguishes the morning assembly as a plenary court, by the adjective , all. The two sittings are thus really distinct. Luke has mentioned only the last, that of the morning, perhaps because it was only the sentence pronounced then for the second time which had legal force, and which therefore was the only one mentioned by his sources.

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

CXXVII.

PETER THRICE DENIES THE LORD.

(Court of the high priest’s residence. Friday before and about dawn.)

aMATT. XXVI. 58, 69-75; bMARK XIV. 54, 66-72; cLUKE XXII. 54-62;

dJOHN XVIII. 15-18, 25-27.

a58 But {d15 And} Simon Peter followed Jesus [leaving Jesus in the palace of the high priest, we now turn back to the garden of Gethsemane at the time when Jesus left it under arrest, that we may follow the course of Simon Peter in his threefold denial of the Master], and so did another disciple. [This other disciple was evidently the apostle John, who thus speaks of himself impersonally.] Now that disciple was known unto the high priest, and entered in with Jesus into the court of the high priest [John’s acquaintanceship appears to have been with the household as well as with the high priest personally, for we find that it is used as a permit at the doorway. It is likely that the high priest knew John rather in a business way– Act 4:13]; b54 And Peter had followed him afar off, aunto the court of the high priest, d16 but Peter was standing at the door without. So the other disciple, who was known unto the high priest, went out and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter. beven within, into the court of the high priest [For courts of houses see Act 12:13. John would have shown a truer kindness to Peter had he let him stay out]; d17 The maid therefore that kept the door saith unto Peter, Art thou also one of this man’s disciples? He saith, I am not. aand [Peter] entered in [The doorkeeper evidently recognized John as a disciple, and was therefore suspicious of Peter. The cowardly “I am not” of Peter is a sad contrast to the strong “I am he” of Jesus], [700] d18 Now the servants and the officers were standing there, having made a fire of coals; for it was cold; and they were warming themselves: and Peter also was with them [they were gathered around a little smokeless charcoal fire], c55 And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the court, and had sat down together, Peter asat with the officers, cin the midst of them. ato see the end. [Though his faith in Christ was shaken, he still loved him enough to see what would become of him.] band he was sitting with the officers, and warming himself in the light of the fire. c56 And a69 Now bas dSimon Peter awas sitting {dstanding} awithout bbeneath in the court, there cometh {acame} unto him, ca certain bone of the maids of the high priest; 67 and seeing Peter cas he sat in the light of the fire, bwarming himself, she looked {cand looking} stedfastly upon him, said, {bsaith, asaying,} Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilaean. bthe Nazarene, even Jesus. cThis man also was with him. a70 But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest. bI neither know, nor understand what thou sayest: cWoman, I know him not. dThey said therefore unto him, Art thou also one of his disciples? He denied, and said, I am not. band he went out into the porch; and the cock crew. a71 And when he was gone out into the porch, cafter a little while another saw him, and said, Thou also art one of them. But Peter said, Man, I am not. b69 And aanother bthe maid saw him, and began again to say {asaith} unto them that were there, bthat stood by, This is one of them. aThis man also was with Jesus of Nazareth. b70 But {a72 And} again he denied bit. awith an oath, I know not the man. [Peter’s second denial was of a quadruple nature. He denied to four different parties, but in such quick succession that the event is regarded as one.] 73 And after a little cafter the space of about one hour another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a [701] truth this man also was with him; for he is a Galilaean. 60 But Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. bAgain they that stood by acame and said to Peter, Of a truth thou also art one of them; bfor thou art a Galilaean. afor thy speech maketh thee known. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew. d26 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? b70 But d27 Peter therefore denied again: a74 Then began he to curse and to swear, I know not the {bthis} aman. bof whom ye speak. 72 And straightway cimmediately, while he yet spake, bthe second time the cock crew. [Exasperated by the repeated accusations, Peter loses his temper and begins to emphasize his denial by profanity. Desire to make good his denial is now supreme in his thoughts and the Lord whom he denies is all but forgotten.] c61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered bAnd Peter called to mind the word, cof the Lord, awhich Jesus had said, bhow that he said unto him, aBefore the cock crow, btwice, cthis thou shalt deny me thrice. 62 And he went out, bAnd when he thought thereon, he wept. cbitterly. [When Peter remembered the loving tenderness of Jesus manifested when he foretold Peter’s crime it formed a background against which the sin appeared in all its hideous enormity.]

[FFG 700-702]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

ARRAIGNMENT OF JESUS AND DENIAL OF PETER

Mat 26:57-75; Mar 14:53-72; Luk 22:54-62;Joh 18:13-27. And they led Him first to Annas; for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. It is said that there was a controversy between the Jews and Romans in reference to the high-priesthood, the latter favoring Annas and the former Caiaphas. I visited the house of Caiaphas and the judgment-hall during both my tours in Jerusalem. The presumption is, the tribunal of Annas was in the same house, as it is very large. N.B. All the houses in Jerusalem are stone.

Hence their durability.

And Caiaphas was the one counseling the Jews that it is profitable for one man to die for the people. This is an example in which God, at least momentarily, imparted the gift of prophecy to an unconverted man, his official position giving him a prominence highly conducive to the efficacy of his prophecy.

And Simon Peter and another disciple followed Jesus. And that disciple was known to the high priest, and entered with Jesus into the judgment-hall of the high priest. You see here, John is speaking of himself, as he never calls his own name. Gnostos, known, is claimed also to convey the idea of kinship. From considerations, doubtless, of this character, Caiaphas permitted him to go along with them by the side of Jesus, the soldiers mistaking him for a Jewish priest, because of the robe with which it is said he was invested, having procured it at the house of Rabbi Amos, a friend of Jesus. Such was the affright of the other nine that they kept hidden away at a distance, Peter leaving them, and venturing to follow along with the crowd after Jesus; while, as you see, John remained with him unmolested, and of course not recognized except by Caiaphas, or he would have gotten into the same trouble which overtook Peter.

And Peter stood at the door without. Then the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, came out, and spoke to the porter, and led in Peter. And the servants and officers having made a fire because it was cold, were standing round it, and warming themselves. They have no chimneys to the houses in Jerusalem; but as this was April 13th, about 2 A.M., it was quite chilly, and they built a fire in the open court of the great quadrangular building, and were warming round it, while Jesus stood at the tribunal of Caiaphas in the judgment-hall.

And Peter was standing with them warming. Then the damsel porter says to Peter, Art thou not one of the disciples of this Man? He says, I am not. And Simon Peter was standing warming; then they said, Art thou not of His disciples? He denied, and said, I am not. Mar 14:68-70 : And he went out into the portico, and the cock crew. And the damsel seeing him again, began to speak to those standing by, This man is one of them. And he denied it. Joh 18:26-27 : One of the servants of the chief priest, being a kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, says, Did I not see thee with Him in the garden? Then Peter again denied, and immediately the cock crew. Now, see that you get this whole matter clear in reference to Peters denial. Remember, the building is a large quadrangular, with an open court in the center, roofless. Here, while Peter is warming by the fire, the damsel doorkeeper identifies and interrogates him. He positively denies that he is one of the disciples of the Man then on trial in the contiguous judgment- hall. Then Peter goes away from the fire, and is standing in the portico leading from the open court into the judgment-hall. There the same damsel porter again recognizes and interviews him, certifying that he is one of that Mans disciples. Again Peter denies, with an oath (doubtless of affirmation). Now, after a few minutes, while Peter is still in the portico, the kinsman of Malchus, whose ear Peter had cut off with a sword, accuses him, very positively identifying him obviously.

Mat 26:74. Then he began to anathematize and swear, I know not the Man. And immediately the cock crew. The E. V. curse and swear is very likely to mislead the reader into the conclusion that Peter indulged in blasphemy and profanity, which is unwarranted in the original, which simply conveys the idea that he anathematized; i.e., confirmed his statement by invoking an anathema on himself, and used an oath of affirmation. The idea that he cursed and swore, after the manner of wicked people, indulging in blasphemy and profanity, is not sustained by the Greek. You must remember, however, that Jesus condemns all sorts of swearing, except the oath of affirmation administered by persons in authority, as you see He Himself responded when under oath administered by Caiaphas. Of course, Peter was guilty of falsification in a very aggravated form, augmenting it by the invocation of an anathema and by the oath of affirmation, in all probability using some trivial oath, like swearing by the temple. The solution of the matter is, Peter felt that his life was in danger, more especially when accused the third time by the kinsman of a man whose ear he had cut off. Peters courage was all right till Jesus made Him put up the sword and let His enemies alone; then a reaction took place, intensified by these accusations, so that he gave way to fear, and acted foolishly and wickedly, denying his Lord and confirming his denial by an oath.

Luk 22:60-62. And immediately, he still speaking, the cock crew. And the Lord, turning, looked on Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He said to him, Before the cock crows, thou shalt deny Me thrice. And having gone out, he wept bitterly. Mar 14:72 : And having gone out, he continued to weep. The third denial was there in the portico, where the people were standing aside a little, when Jesus, turning His head, looked on him so impressively as to remind him of everything He had told him about the three denials, simultaneously breaking his heart, and inundating him with gushing penitential tears, so that he rushes out of the crowd, and, as Mark says, continued to weep, Mark and Luke adding their testimony that he wept bitterly. Precipitation was Peters great and prominent infirmity, and when manipulated by Satan a terrible stumbling- block as in the above case, when, giving way to fear, he denied his Lord; not, as E. V. would lead you to infer, indulging in blasphemous oaths, horrific to think of and especially on the part of an apostle, yet not only certifying that he knew Him not, but even confirming his repudiation by solemn imprecations and an oath of affirmation. But when sanctified by the Holy Ghost, this thunderbolt impetuosity became a mighty enginery, pre- eminently qualifying him for the apostolical seniority and leadership with which the Holy Spirit honored him on the day of Pentecost as well as subsequently. We may recognize this fact, somewhat in his favor, that he followed on, manifesting a desire to help his Lord if possible, while the other nine fled away, seeking places of safety. We are no apologists for Peters cowardly repudiation of his Lord, even under these trying circumstances; yet we do believe that the popular verdict against him, as a rule, is more condemnatory than he deserves. His unworthy conduct, however, demonstrates the crying necessity of the second work of grace. After his Pentecostal baptism, we see him serving as apostolical speaker, facing the combined authorities of Church and State, preaching all day, and spending the ensuing night in jail. From that notable hour, on Sunday morning, when the Holy Ghost and fire descended on them from heaven, till he was nailed to the cross on the Campus Martius in Rome, he was never known to flicker an iota, amid the combined antagonism of earth and hell. He truly lived a hero and died a martyr.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

22:54 Then took they him, and led [him], and brought him into the high priest’s house. {19} And Peter followed afar off.

(19) We have to behold in Peter an example both of the fragility of man’s nature, and the singular goodness of God towards his elect.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

1. Peter’s denial of Jesus 22:54-62 (cf. Matthew 26:69-75; Mark 14:66-72; John 18:15-18, 25-27)

Luke placed Peter’s denial ahead of Jesus’ trial before Caiaphas whereas Matthew and Mark intertwined these events. The effect in Luke is to focus the reader’s attention on Peter’s behavior immediately after Jesus’ prediction of his denial. Luke wanted his readers to see how Peter fell into temptation because he failed to pray. Luke stressed the fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s denial (Luk 22:31-34), Jesus’ continuing concern for Peter (Luk 22:61), and Peter’s weakness in contrast to Jesus’ strength. After Peter’s denial, Luke moved on to Jesus’ trials and concentrated on Him.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

This verse introduces Jesus’ trials and Peter’s denial. Even though Peter followed Jesus at a distance he at least followed Him. The only other disciple to do so was evidently John (Joh 18:15-16). Seemingly this house or palace was the dwelling in which both Annas and Caiaphas resided (cf. Mat 26:57-68; Mar 14:53-65).

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

E. The trials of Jesus 22:54-23:25

The following table identifies the aspects of Jesus’ two trials that each evangelist recorded.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)