Luke 22:54

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, Luk 22:66. 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, Luk 22:54. But the manner of expression is observable. They took him, and led him, and brought him, which methinks is like that concerning Saul (Sa1 15:12): 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 (Luk 22:58): 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 (Luk 22:60): "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.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Luk 22:54-62. Then took they him, and brought him into the high-priest’s 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 Peter’s 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.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

§ 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.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL NOTES

Luk_22:54. Then took they Him.—R.V., “And they seized Him.” The high priest’s 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 corresponds—“man” being similarly used in English.

Luk_22:59. A Galilæan.—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 elders—i.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 Lord’s sufferings, and a revelation of man’s 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 Peter’s 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 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. 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 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. 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 Christ’s 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 one’s 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 devil’s 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 Peter’s 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 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. 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 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 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. 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. The formal rejection and condemnation by the council.—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 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 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. 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. Peter’s 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 Peter’s Fall.

I. Self-confidence.

II. Indecision.

III. Fear of man.

IV. False shame.

V. Evil company.

Luk_22:54. “Brought Him into the high priest’s 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-life—how one, under fear, may get out of the range of Christ’s 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 Peter’s 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 enemies—one 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 him—the 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. Peter’s Repentance.

I. His conscience awoke when the crowing of the cock reminded him of Christ’s 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 apostle’s only impulse was that of self-preservation. What a picture of human nature! in our little timidities about the world’s opinion.

III. The state of the soul after the sin.—Christ’s 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 Christ’s 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.

Peter’s Repentance, a Type of True Sorrow.—

I. Peter’s 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 Christ’s 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 Peter’s 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 Saviour’s 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 Lord’s 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 suffering—that 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 Lord’s 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’ example—the 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 grounds—those 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.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

2. Caiaphas

a. Peter’s 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 priest’s 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-priest’s 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 Peter’s 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 ἀρχιερεύς, 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 Peter’s 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, Bengel’s 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: περιαψάντων (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 Peter’s 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, ἀτενοίσασα αὐτῷ (favorite word of our Evangelist), the more sharply because she, as θυρωρός, 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 προαύλιον, into which Peter had entered, is meant. The maid begins, the ἕτερος 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 Peter’s 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, Peter’s repentance is the result of the concurrence of two different influences—the cock-crowing, and the look of Jesus. The πικρᾶς of Matthew and Luke explains, moreover, in some measure, the ἐπιβαλών of Mark, where we consider it as the simplest way to supply ἱμάτιον (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 Peter’s 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 Peter—the David of the New Covenant. While he thus deeply humbles himself, Peter becomes great; while afterwards one of the others οἱ δοκοῦντες στύλοι εῖ̓ναι, 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 Peter’s 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.

Peter’s 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 Peter’s 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. Peter’s denial an aggravation; 2. Peter’s 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 Peter’s 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 reminder—What have I said to thee? 2. of a heartfelt sorrow—Is this thy compassion for thy friend? 3. of a blessed consolation—I have prayed for thee; 4. of a timely intimation—To go at once from hence.—The Lord turned and looked upon Peter. Hour of preparation for the Holy Communion in Passion Week.—Peter’s 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 Peter’s tears: 1. For himself; 2. for the church; 3. for heaven.—Striking expressions from Peter’s 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 God’s 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:—Peter’s fall: 1. As to its inner causes; 2. as to its outward course.—Peter’s 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 l’abnégation de St. Pierre.—An admirable representation of Peter’s denial, by the Dutch painter, Govert Schalken.

Footnotes:

[19]Luk_22:57.—Γύναι must, according to Tischendorf, [Tregelles, Alford,] be placed last, instead of first.

[20]Luk_22:61.—Σήμερον, which Tischendorf has received into the text, [also Meyer, Tregelles, Alford,] is supported by B., [Cod. Sin., K.,] M., L., X., and some Cursives.

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 Peter’s 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 Man’s 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. Peter’s 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 Peter’s 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 Peter’s 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.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

22:54 The high priest’s home might have been the home of Caiaphas, the current high priest, or Annas, his father-in-law and a previous high priest (see study note on 3:2; John 18:12-14).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Luk_22:54-62. See on Mat_26:57 f., 6975; Mar_14:53 f., 6672. 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 τοῦ ἀρχιερ. 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.

τοῦ ἀρχιερ.] 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 εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ ἀρχιερ., 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. περιαψάντων] (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 αὐτῶν was not needful, Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 2. 17.

Luk_22:56. ἀτενίσασα] 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. ἕτερος] A variation from Matthew and Mark. For Luke does not think of a maid; rather he distinguishes the interrogator here as masculine, by ἕτερος and ἄνθρωπε, 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. ἄλλος τις] 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.

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

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

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

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 πρῶτον, 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’évang. 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 ὥστε θανατῶσαι αὐτόν, 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 (ἐν τῷ ναῷ, 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 πάντες, 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.

(1.) Luk 22:54-62. Peter’s Denial. — The account of the evangelists presents insoluble difficulties, if Annas and Caiaphas dwelt in different houses. Indeed, according to Matthew and Mark, who do not mention the examination before Annas, it is at the house of Caiaphas that the denial must have taken place; while according to John, who does not relate the sitting at the house of Caiaphas, it is at the house of Annas that this scene must have occurred. But is it impossible, or even improbable, that Annas and Caiaphas his son-in-law occupied the sacerdotal palace in common? Annas and Caiaphas, high priests, the one till the year 14, the other from the year 17, were so identified in popular opinion, that Luke (Luk 3:2) mentions them as exercising one and the same pontificate in common,—the one as titulary high priest, the other as high priest de facto. So Act 4:6: Annas the high priest and Caiaphas.But there is more than a possibility or a probability. There is a fact: in Joh 18:15, the entrance of Peter into the palace where the denial took place is explained on the ground that John was known to the high priest, a title which in this context (Luk 22:13; Luk 22:24) can designate no other than Caiaphas; and yet, according to Luk 22:12, it is the house of Annas which is in question. How are we to explain this account, if Annas and Caiaphas did not inhabit the same house? There is caution in the way in which Luke expresses himself: “They led Him into the high priest’s house;” he does not say, to the house of Caiaphas (Matthew), or to the presence of the high priest (Mark), but to the sacerdotal palace, where dwelt the two high priests closely united and related.

A covered gateway (πυλών) led from without into the court where the fire was lighted (αὐλή).

The first denial is related by John in a way to show that it took place during the appearance before Annas. Comp. the repetition Luk 18:18; Luk 18:25, which is indirectly intended to show that the denial was simultaneous with that first sitting. The other two denials being placed by John after the sitting, took place consequently between the appearance at the house of Annas and the sitting of the Sanhedrim at the house of Caiaphas.

After his first sin, Peter, humbled, and, as it were, afraid of himself, had withdrawn to the gateway (πυλών, Matthew), or to the outer court (προαύλιον, Mark), situated before the gateway. There, though more secluded, he is the object of petty persecution on the part of the porteress who had let him in (Mark), of another female servant (Matthew), of another individual (ἕτερος, Luke), of the bystanders in general (εἶπον, they said, John). The accusation began probably with the porteress, who knew his intimate connection with John; she betrayed him to another servant; and the latter pointed him out to the domestics. Finally, about an hour later (Luke), a kinsman of Malchus (John) recognises him, and engages him in a conversation. Peter’s answer makes him known as a Galilean, and consequently as a disciple of Jesus. And the third denial takes place; the cock crows (Matthew, Luke, John) for the second time (Mark). Then Peter, awaking as from a dream, at the moment when he lifts his head, meets the eye of Jesus (Luke). How could the Lord be there? It was the time when, after the examination before Annas, they were leading Him to the sitting of the Sanhedrim before Caiaphas. He was just crossing the court which divided the two sets of apartments; and this is what John means to express by introducing here the remark, Luk 18:24: “Now Annas had sent Him bound to Caiaphas.”

We can understand the profound effect produced upon the disciple by the sight of his Master bound, and the look which He gave him in passing. Mark omits this particular, Peter was not likely to relate it in his preaching. Mark merely says: ἐπιβαλὼν ἔκλαιε (the imperfect), hurrying forth, he wept, went on weeping without ceasing. The other Gospels simply use the aor. he wept. Then it was that he was preserved from despair and its consequences by the intercession of his Master: “I have prayed for thee...” The answer to the prayer of Jesus was given partly by this look,—a look of pardon as well as of rebuke, which raised the poor disciple, while breaking his heart with contrition. It was thereby that God sustained his faith, and prevented him from falling into a state similar to that of Judas.

We recognise in the three Syn. accounts the characteristic of traditional narrative in their combining the three denials in a single description; it was the ἀπομνημόνευμα, the recital, of the denial. John, as an eye-witness, has given the historical fact its natural divisions.

But notwithstanding their common type, each Syn. account has also its delicate shades and special features, rendering it impossible to derive it from the same written source as the other two. Matthew is the writer who best exhibits the gradation of the three denials (as in Gethsemane that of the three prayers of Jesus).

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

(54-62) Then took they him.—See Notes on Mat_26:57-58; Mat_26:69-75; Mar_14:53-72. Peter’s following “afar off” may be noted as a feature common to the first three Gospels.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

54-62. Peter’s Denial.

54. Then took they him] Rather, seizing Him.

and led him] with His hands bound, probably behind His back, Joh_18:12.

into the high priest’s house] The actual High Priest was Joseph Caiaphas (another form of Kephas), son-in-law of Annas (see on Luk_3:2). The trial of our Lord by the Jews was in three phases—(1) before Annas (Joh_18:12-18); (2) before Caiaphas (here and Mat_26:59-68; Mar_14:55-65); (3) before the entire Sanhedrin at dawn (Luk_22:66; Mat_27:1; Mar_15:1). Each trial might be regarded as supremely important. Annas, or Hanan son of Seth, was the most influential of the ex-High Priests, and may, as Sagan (Deputy) or Nasi (President), have virtually wielded the sacerdotal power. The result therefore of a trial before him would involve a fatal praejudicium, since the utmost reverence was paid to his age, wealth, power, and shrewdness.—The second trial was before the most important committee of the Sanhedrin, which might in one sense be called ‘the whole Sanhedrin’ (Mar_14:55), and though it could have no legal validity, being held at night, it served as a sort of anakrisis or preliminary enquiry, which left the final decision only formal.—The third trial was held at dawn before the entire Sanhedrin, and passed the final decree of condemnation against Jesus for blasphemy, which had been already pre-determined. The enmity of the priests may have partly arisen (as I have given reasons for believing in the Life of Christ, ii. 334) from the fact that the cleansing of the Temple involved an interference with their illicit gains. After the first trial—at which Jesus was first smitten— He was sent bound to Caiaphas, who perhaps lived in the same house. These three Jewish trials were illegal in almost every particular. The Sanhedrin was generally a merciful and cautious tribunal, but was now a mere dependent body entirely under the influence of the Sadducees, who were the most ruthless of Jewish sects.

Peter followed afar off] “to see the end,” Mat_26:58. It was a most unwise exposure of himself to temptation. His admission into the courtyard of the High Priest’s house was due to the influence of John, who was known to the High Priest, and spoke to the portress (Joh_18:15-16).

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall,.... It being cold in the night time, though it was at the passover, and the beginning of harvest, the servants and officers of the high priest made a fire in the middle of the hall, whilst Jesus was examining before the sanhedrim, at the other end of it:

and were sat down together; about it, as the Syriac version adds, to warm themselves:

Peter sat down among them; for the same purpose, and as if he was one of them; and which he might do, not only to warm himself, but to prevent his being taken notice of, and suspected; as he might have been, had he been loitering about.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

The whole history of Peter’s 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.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Vers. 54-62. The denial of Peter.

Then took they him, and led him, and brought him into the high priest"s house. And Peter followed afar off. There has been some discussion here on the question of harmonizing the separate accounts. There is, however, no real difficulty if the following historical details be borne in mind. The actual high priest at this juncture was Caiaphas, son-in-law to Annas, who was the legal high priest, but had been deposed by the Roman power some time before. Annas, however, although prevented by the Roman government from bearing the high priestly insignia, was apparently looked upon by the people as the rightful possessor of the dignity, and evidently exercised the chief authority in the Jewish councils. It seems that he and his son-in-law Caiaphas, the Roman nominee, occupied together the high priest"s palace. There were three trials of our Lord by the Jews:

(1) Before Annas. (Joh_18:12-18)

(2) Before Caiaphas and what has been termed a committee of the Sanhedrim. (Joh_18:24 Mat_26:59-68 Mar_14:55-65)

(3) Formally before the whole Sanhedrin at dawn. (Luk_22:66-71 Mat_27:1 Mar_15:1)

The thrice-repeated denial of Peter took place:

(1) On his first going in (he was admitted through the influence of John, who was known to the officials) to the court-yard of the high priest"s palace, in answer to the female servant who kept the door. (Joh_18:17)

(2) As he sat by the fire warming himself, in answer to another maid (Mat_26:69) and to other bystanders, (Joh_18:25 Luk_22:58) including the kinsman of Malchus. (Joh_18:26)

(3) About an hour later, (Luk_22:59) after he had left the fire to avoid the questioners, and had gone out into the porch or gateway leading into the court-yard, in answer to one of the maids who had spoken before, (Mar_14:69) and to other bystanders. (Luk_22:59 Mat_26:73 Mar_14:70)

Distant discipleship.

"Peter followed afar off.

1. In this we find something that was commendable. The impulsive and energetic Peter did not exhaust his zeal in that unfortunate sword-stroke of his; nor was it quenched by the rebuke of his Master. Though it was far from an ideal discipleship to "follow afar off," it was discipleship still. We do not read that the others did as much as that; they probably sought their own safety by complete retirement. Peter could not do that; his attachment to Christ did not allow him to disconnect himself any further than was involved in a distant following. But:

2. In this we find something that was incomplete. The disciple desired to be near enough to his Master to know what the end would be, but he wished to be far enough off to be secure from molestation. He took counsel of his fears, and was so far from the scene that he was showing no sympathy with his Friend, and was running no risk from his enemies. It is not at all unlikely that this timidity, from which he succeeded in partially and momentarily shaking himself, was the beginning and the explanation of his subsequent failure.

I GENUINE DISCIPLESHIP. this is found in following Christ.

1. Owning his claim as Lord and Leader of the soul; owning it by a willing and entire submission of our will to his will, a consecration or our life to his service, a perfect readiness of heart to say, "Lord, I will follow thee.

2. Endeavouring to walk even as he walked in reverence, in righteousness, in love.

3. Striving to live this Christian life not only after him, but unto him.

II DISTANT DISCIPLESHIP. We follow "afar off" when we are:

1. Lacking in devotion, lie who is only found irregularly and infrequently with God, in the attitude of praise and prayer, and in the act of studying his holy will, must be at a great distance from that "beloved Son" who spent so much time with his Father, and found so much strength in his conscious presence and loving sympathy.

2. Wanting in purity, lie whose spirit is much entangled with the cares, absorbed in the pursuits and prizes, hungering and thirsting for the pleasures of this world, and certainly he whose soul is to any considerable degree affected and tainted by the lower temptations of the flesh, is a long way behind the holy Savior; is far off from him who was "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sin," from him "in whose mouth no guile was found.

3. Failing in generous and practical kindness. He who is only sparingly offering his resources, spiritual or material, to the cause of human comfort and elevation, who is drawing the line of his service at the point of self-sacrifice, and declines to go across it, is surely a very distant follower of that gracious and generous Friend of man who suffered the very last and the very worst that he might redeem us from sin and restore us to truth, to holiness, to God. This distant discipleship is, in every aspect, to be deplored.

(1) It is unfaithfulness to ourselves. A departure from the position we took when we first "yielded ourselves unto God, as those alive from the dead.

(2) It is perilous to our own souls. That way failure lies; and failure here means utter and disastrous defeat; it means suffering and shame; it may even mean death.

(3) It is disappointing to our Divine Lord. He looks for a close following on our part; he wants us to be at his side, to be serving him with all our strength, to be like him in spirit and in character and in life.

And when he sees us "afar off," he is grieved with us instead of rejoicing in us.

(1) Let those who have been abiding in him, and there-fore following him closely, be watchful and prayerful that they do not "drift away" and lag behind;

(2) and let those who have to reproach themselves as distant disciples draw near to their Lord in renewed penitence and devotedness of spirit. C.

Vers. 54-71. Christ"s trials in the high priest"s palace.

The agony of Gethsemane is over, and our Lord has met his enemies in the calmness of real courage. He allows himself to be led to the palace of the high priest, and we have now to consider all the trials through which he passed there. The first of these is from Peter. Love to the Master keeps the disciple in the train of the procession, and even leads him to linger without until through John"s good offices he gets into the hall. But, alas! instead of keeping near the Master, he lingers near the fire which was kindled in the hall to keep the cold at bay. And here let us notice

I PETER"S TEMPTATION. (Vers. 54-60) It was identification with a lost cause. Here is Jesus down; no hope apparently lingers about him; he cannot now be saved. What use is there in further identifying himself with Jesus? Instead of responding boldly to the challenge and confessing Christ, he is tempted to deny him. And the denials are repeated, the last time with an oath. Peter"s distant view of his Master and of his cause leads him to the fatal conclusion that it is safest to cut the connection and deny that he has ever known him. It is, alas! the temptation of men still. In the blazing light of society, when worldliness seems so strong and comfortable, it is convenient to ignore the Master and his cause. Peter"s temptation is constantly repeated, and his fall has its counterpart continually in the cowardice of souls.

II PETER"S RECOVERY AND REPENTANCE. (Vers. 61, 62) The Master in warning him had given him a sign, that of the cock-crow. It acts as an alarum upon the dull ear of Peter. Along with this there comes the look ineffable of the loving Lord. The great heart is broken, and Peter passes out to weep bitterly. We have a great contrast between the sorrow of Peter and that of Judas. It is the sorrow of the world which worketh death in the one case; it is the sorrow which is godly and saving in the other. As Gerok, in an admirable discourse upon the subject, says,

(1) Peters sorrow proceeds upon his sin, Judas"s upon the consequences of his sin;

(2) Peter"s sorrow turns him from the world, Judas"s turns him towards the world; and

(3) Peter"s sorrow leads him to life, Judas"s leads him to death. Peter"s repentance was thus the consequence of his Master"s love, and the sign of his recovery. How sensible he must have been of the mighty wrong he had done the Master! Jesus knew when Peter slunk away out of the palace that he was safe in his bitter sorrow, and that he would come forth from it a better man. Our Lord"s trial through Peter"s faithlessness terminated when the disciple"s heart was broken.

III THE BUFFET-GAME. (Vers. 63-65) The heavy hours till morning must be spent, and so the soldiers determine to get some amusement out of their notable Prisoner. They make Jesus, consequently, the centre in what is now known as the buffet-game. Blindfolding him, they proceed to strike him, and call upon him to tell who has inflicted the blows. They are terrible liberties they thus take with the Son of God. But they are unable to irritate this meek and lowly Man. Their blows are lost upon his magnificent meekness. They must have been struck at the majestic carriage of the Prisoner under their brutal horse-play. Yet the blows of the soldiers were less a trial, we may be sure, than the faithlessness of the disciple. But we are surely taught how essentially degrading it is to manufacture mirth out of the humiliation of others! The soldiers never were so brutal as when they treated Jesus in the style they did.

IV HIS TRIAL BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN. (Vers. 66-71) In the morning the Jewish authorities assembled, and their line of examination was as to the nature of his Messiahship. As we have seen, it was not a Divine, but a military Messiah the Jews desired. To their question he replies first that they will not believe him if he answers them truthfully. They will only believe what they like. In other words, faith is largely a matter of the will as influenced by emotion. They were not prepared to accept truth and follow it to its consequences. After this preliminary, Jesus goes on to declare, "From henceforth shall the Son of man be seated at the right hand of the power of God" (Revised Version). That is to say, his Messiahship is to be a heavenly reign, not an earthly and temporal one. At once they saw in this a claim to Divine Sonship. Hence they challenge him upon the point, and get his manly reply that he is. On this ground they condemn him. It is plain, therefore, that this Divine Messiah was not what suited their fancy. It was not deliverance from such impalpable foes as sin and anxiety and suffering they desired, but from the Romans. They wanted a military leader a pasha; and when God gave them his Son as their heavenly King, they condemned him to an ignominious death. It is thus that men despise their greatest blessings, and do their best to put them out of the way. R.M.E.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Matt. xxvi, 57; Mark xiv, 53; John xviii, 12.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

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.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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!

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [CXXVI. Second Stage of Jewish Trial].

CXXVI. SECOND STAGE OF JEWISH TRIAL. JESUS CONDEMNED BY CAIAPHAS AND THE SANHEDRIN. (Palace of Caiaphas. Friday.) aMATT. XXVI. 57, 59-68; bMARK XIV. 53, 55-65; cLUKE XXII. 54, 63-65; dJOHN XVIII. 24.

d24 Annas therefore sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest. [Foiled in his attempted examination of Jesus, Annas sends him to trial.] band there come together with him all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes. a57 And they that had taken Jesus led him away to the house of Caiaphas the high priest, cand brought him into the high priest's house. awhere the scribes and the elders were gathered together. [It is very likely that Annas had apartments in the same palace with Caiaphas, and that from these apartments Jesus was led into some hall large enough to hold the Sanhedrin, which was now convened. But this was not its formal session as a court; it was more in the nature of a caucus, or committee of the whole.] b55 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought afalse witness against Jesus, bto athat they might put him to death; 60 and they found it not, though many false witnesses came. b56 For many bare false witness against him, and their witness agreed not together. aBut afterward came b57 And there stood up certain, atwo, band bare false witness against him, a61 and said, bsaying, aThis man said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. b58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands. 59 And not even so did their witness agree together. [What Jesus [696] had really said will be found at Joh_2:19-22. Though his words were misunderstood at that time, being applied, not to his body, but to Herod's temple, yet it is not unlikely that the Jewish rulers, hearing our Lord's prediction that he would rise from the dead after three days ( Mat_27:62, Mat_27:63), came to understand the import of his words. If so, the record itself shows the willingness of the Sanhedrin to receive false witnesses against Christ, for its judges received testimony which they knew to be utterly immaterial if rightly construed. The accounts of the two Evangelists, moreover, show how the witnesses failed to agree. A man could only be condemned on the testimony of two witnesses as to some fact or facts constituting a ground for condemnation-- Deu_17:6, Deu_19:15.] a62 And the high priest stood up, bin the midst, and asked Jesus, aand said unto him, bsaying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? a63 But Jesus held his peace. band answered nothing. [While the testimony then before the court might be used to show that Jesus was recklessly boastful, it was insufficient to justify a sentence of blasphemy. A threat to destroy the temple might be thus construed ( Jer_26:9-11, Act_6:13, Act_6:14); but a promise to rebuild the temple, if destroyed, was altogether different. The high priest, knowing this, sought to extort from Jesus some additional evidence. With great cunning and effrontery he assumes that the testimony is all that could be possibly desired, and demands of Jesus what he has to say in answer to it. But our Lord did not suffer himself to seem so easily deceived. He gave no explanation, since the future would explain his meaning, and speak the real truth to all who had ears to hear it.] aAnd bAgain the high priest asked him, and saith asaid unto him, bArt thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? aI adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God. [Seeing that Jesus was not to be lured into an answer, and well knowing his perfect frankness, Caiaphas resolved, in his desperation, to question Jesus plainly and [697] bluntly. His question is twofold: 1. Art thou Christ? 2. Art thou the Son of God? The latter of these would constitute blasphemy, and the former, by showing a boastful spirit, would tend to confirm the charge. Perhaps, too, Caiaphas anticipated the future, and foresaw how useful this claim to be the Messiah would prove when a hearing was had before Pilate ( Luk_23:2). Originally the Messiah was recognized as the Son of God ( Psa_2:7), but if the Jews had ever generally entertained such an idea, they had lost it before Jesus' day, The Messiah might of course be called the Son of God in that secondary sense in which Adam was thus called ( Joh_1:49, Luk_3:38). But Jesus had used the term in an entirely different sense, and his usage had been extremely offensive to the Jews ( Joh_5:17, Joh_5:18, Joh_10:30-39, Mat_22:41-46). Caiaphas evidently wished Jesus to answer this question in that new sense which the Lord had given to the words. Caiaphas had no legal right to ask either of these questions. No man can be compelled to testify against himself, but he knew the claims of Jesus, and realized that if Jesus repudiated them he would be shamed forever, and if he asserted them he could be charged with blasphemy. Taking advantage, therefore, of the situation, Caiaphas put the question with the usual formula of an oath, thus adding moral power to it, for, under ordinary circumstances, one was held guilty if he refused to answer when thus adjured ( Lev_5:1). When their own witnesses failed, these rulers called the "faithful witness"-- 1Ti_6:13, Rev_1:5.] b62 And Jesus said, asaith unto him, Thou hast said: bI am: and anevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on bwith the clouds of heaven. [Jesus freely confessed the truth which his church is called upon to confess. "Right hand of Power" was commonly understood to mean the right hand of God. By the words "nevertheless" and "henceforth" Jesus brings the present state of humiliation into contrast with his future state of glory. Hard as it might be for them to believe it, the day would come when he should [698] sit in judgment and they should stand on trial before him.] 63 And a65 Then the high priest rent his garments, bclothes, and saith, asaying, He hath spoken blasphemy: what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard the blasphemy: 66 what think ye? [Though Jesus had given the very answer which the high priest was longing to hear, yet he hypocritically pretends to be shocked at it, and rends his clothes and feigns horror. Evidently he feared the effect of the clear, calm answer of Jesus and sought to counteract its influence on his colleagues.] They answered and said, He is worthy of death. bAnd they all condemned him to be worthy of death. [This was not the final, formal sentence, but the mere determination of the council at the preliminary hearing.] c63 And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and beat him. b65 And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, a67 Then did they spit in his face and buffet him: c64 And they blindfolded him, aand some smote him with the palms of their hands, 68 saying, band [began] to say unto him,} aProphesy unto us, thou Christ: who is he that struck thee? band the officers received him with blows of their hands. c65 And many other things spake they against him, reviling him. [To spit in the face has been an insult in all ages and in all lands. See Num_12:14, Deu_25:9, Job_30:10. Jesus, having stood out for examination, is now given back to the officers to be led away into the council chamber. These officers received Jesus with many indignities. They seek to make his high claims contemptible, and to make it appear that instead of being divine he is hardly worthy to be regarded as human.] [699]

[FFG 696-699]

J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [CXXVII. Peter Thrice Denies the Lord].

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 i 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]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

54–62. The Denial of Peter is recorded here, in Matt. 26:69–75; Mark 14:66–72 and John 18:15–27. See notes on Matthew's account.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

led him away

"led Jesus away from the garden where they had arrested him"

into the high priest's house

"into the courtyard of the high priest's house"

they had kindled a fire

"some people had made a fire." The fire was to keep the people warm during the cool night. AT: "some people started a fire to keep warm"

the middle of the courtyard

This was the courtyard at the high priest's house. It had walls around it, but no roof.

in the midst of them

"together with them"

translationWords

seize

high priest

Peter

court

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

54–62. PETER’S DENIAL

54. συλλαβόντες δὲ αὐτόν. The word implies violence.

ἤγαγον. With His hands bound, probably behind His back, Joh 18:12.

εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν τοῦ ἀρχιερέως. The actual High Priest was Joseph Caiaphas (another form of Kephas), son-in-law of Annas (see on Luk 3:2). The trial of our Lord by the Jews was in three phases—(1) before Annas (Joh 18:12-18); (2) before Caiaphas (here and Mat 26:59-68; Mar 14:55-65); (3) before the entire Sanhedrin at dawn (Luk 22:66; Mat 27:1; Mar 15:1). Each trial might be regarded as supremely important. Annas, or Hanan son of Seth, was the most influential of the ex-High Priests, and may, as Sagan (Deputy) or Nasi (President), have virtually wielded the sacerdotal power. The result therefore of a trial before him would involve a fatal praejudicium, since the utmost reverence was paid to his age, wealth, power, and shrewdness.—The second trial was before the most important committee of the Sanhedrin, which might in one sense be called ‘the whole Sanhedrin’ (Mar 14:55), and though it could have no legal validity, being held at night, it served as a sort of ἀνάκρισις or preliminary inquiry, which left the final decision only formal.—The third trial was held at dawn before the entire Sanhedrin, and passed the final decree of condemnation against Jesus for blasphemy, which had been already predetermined. The enmity of the priests may have partly arisen (as I have given reasons for believing in the Life of Christ, II. 334) from the fact that the cleansing of the Temple involved an interference with their illicit gains. After the first trial—at which Jesus was first smitten—He was sent bound to Caiaphas, who perhaps lived in the same house. These three Jewish trials were illegal in almost every particular. The Sanhedrin was generally a merciful and cautious tribunal, but was now a mere dependent body entirely under the influence of the Sadducees, who were the most ruthless of Jewish sects.

ἠκολούθει μακρόθεν. “To see the end,” Mat 26:58. It was a most unwise exposure of himself to temptation. His admission into the courtyard of the High Priest’s house was due to the influence of John, who was known to the High Priest, and spoke to the portress (Joh 18:15-16).

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

54.] Mat 26:57. Mar 14:53. Joh 18:13. Our narrative leaves it undecided who this high-priest was,—inasmuch as, ch. 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 (vv. 66-71) of the morning assembly of the Sanhedrim. See notes on Matt.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

54-62. Peter’s Denials are recorded in detail by all four Elvangelists, who tell us that three denials were predicted (Mat 26:34; Mar 14:30; Luk 22:34; Joh 13:38), and record three denials (Mat 26:70, Mat 26:72, Mat 26:74; Mar 14:68, Mar 14:70, Mar 14:71; Luk 22:57, Luk 22:58, Luk 22:60; Joh 18:17, Joh 18:25, Joh 18:27). As already pointed out, Lk. and Jn. place the prediction during the supper, Mk. and Mt. on the road to the Mount of Olives, which is less likely to be correct, if (as is probable) the prediction was made only once.

As to the three denials, all four accounts are harmonious respecting the first, but differ greatly respecting the second and third. The first denial, provoked the accusation of the maid, seems to have led to a series of attacks upon S. Peter, which were mainly in two groups; and these were separated from one another by an interval, during which he was not much noticed. Each of the four narratives notices some features in these groups of attacks and denials: but it is unreasonable to suppose that they profess to give the exact words that were spoken in each case. See on 8:24 for Augustine’s remarks on the different words recorded by the three Synoptists as uttered during the storm on the lake. Alford on Mat 26:69, and Westcott in an additional note on Jn. 18., have tabulated the four narratives: see also Rushbrooke’s Synopticon, p. 114. With these helps the four can readily be compared clause by clause; and the independence of at least three of them soon becomes apparent. This independence results from truthfulness, and the variations will be a difficulty to those only who hold views of verbal inspiration which are contradicted by abundant phenomena both in O.T. and N.T. “St. Luke adds force to the episode by placing all three denials together. With St. John, however, dramatic propriety’s is sacrificed to chronological accuracy” (Lft. Biblical Essays, p. 191).

54. Συλλαβόντες . All four use this verb in connexion with the arrest of Jesus. It is freq. in Lk., especially of the capture of prisoners: Act 1:16, Act 12:3, Act 23:27, Act 26:21. Jn. tells us that they bound Him and took Him πρὸς Ἅνναν πρῶτον, i.e. before His being examined by Caiaphas, as recorded Mat 26:57-68 and Mar 14:53-65. Both these examinations were informal. They were held at night, and no sentence pronounced in a trial held at night was valid. Hence the necessity for a formal meeting of the Sanhedrin after daybreak, to confirm what had been previously decided. This third ecclesiastical trial is mentioned by all the Synoptists (ver. 66; Mat 27:1; Mar 15:1); whereas Jn. gives only the first (18:12), and shows that it was in connexion with it that Peter’s denials took place. Lk. can hardly be said to give either of the first two hearings. He says that Jesus was taken to the high priest’s house, and was there denied by Peter and ill-treated by His captors; and then he passes on to the formal assembly of the Sanhedrin; but there is no mention of any previous examination. With the help of the other narratives, however, we obtain an account of all three hearings. The space devoted by all four to these Jewish and Roman trials seems to be out of proportion to the brief accounts of the crucifixion. But they serve to bring out the meaning of the crucifixion by exhibiting the nature of the Messiahship of Jesus. Why was Jesus condemned to death by the Sanhedrin? Because He claimed to be the Son of God. Why was He condemned to death by Pilate? Because He claimed to be the King of the Jews.

ἤγαγον καὶ εἰσήγαγον. “They led Him (away) and brought Him.” The latter verb is a favourite with Lk. See on 2:27.

D Γ, Syr-Sin. some Old Lat. texts Vulg. Aeth. omit καὶ εἰσἡγαγον.

εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν τοῦ ἀρχιερέως. It is impossible to determine whether this means of Annas or of Caiaphas (comp. 3:2 and Act 4:6): but the narrative of Jn. (18:12-24) renders it highly probable that Annas and his son-in-law Caiaphas shared the same palace, occupying different parts of it. As Lk. records no examination of Christ before either of them, we do not know whether he connects Peter’s fall with the hearing before Annas (as Jn.), or with that before Caiaphas (as Mt. and Mk.). All that he tells us is that Jesus was kept a prisoner and insulted between the night arrest and the morning sitting of the Sanhedrin. Possibly his authorities told him no more. See Hastings, D.B. 1. p. 100.

ἠκολούθει μακρόθεν. This following at a distance is noted by all three. Quod sequitur, amoris est, quod e longo, timoris.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.