Luke

22:54-62

Culmination of Messiah's mission, 19:45-24:53

2. The meaning of Messiah's death, 22:1-23:25

v] Peter denies Jesus

Synopsis

Having secured Jesus, the arresting party head for the home of the high priest. Peter follows along at a distance, and is able to gain entry to the central courtyard. It is there that Peter is challenged three times, as to his association with Jesus, and three time he denies it. On the third occasion, a rooster crows, and Jesus turns and looks at Peter. Peter leaves in tears.

 
Teaching

Children of the kingdom, when disarmed of prayer, easily deny their Lord.

 
Issues

i] Context: See 22:1-6.

 

ii] Background: The trials of Jesus. Jesus' trial falls into two parts, ecclesiastical and civil, with the ecclesiastical trial itself in two parts.

The first ecclesiastical trial is both an informal and probably illegal meeting of representatives of the Sanhedrin gathered in the palace of the high priest. Probably still the residence of Annas, the former high priest, recognised as such by many of the people, but not by the Roman authorities. Caiaphas, the official high priest, is also obviously present, and both probably lead the questioning of Jesus. For it to be a formal meeting of the Sanhedrin, it would need to meet between sunrise and sunset, but this meeting was in the middle of the night. There is also an improper use of witnesses, reliance on self-incrimination and physical assault. By means of this sham inquisition, a charge of blasphemy is laid against Jesus.

Both Matthew and Mark provide a detailed account of the first informal interrogation of Jesus in the high priest's home. Luke, on the other hand, implies that the interrogation is taking place while Peter is in the courtyard, but he provides no details. Luke packages the account of the interrogation, charge and conviction into the formal early morning meeting of the Sanhedrin.

So, early in the morning the Sanhedrin meets to effectuate Jesus' ecclesiastical trial and conviction. The seventy-member Sanhedrin was a religio-political administrative authority with delegated powers from Rome. The meeting may have taken place in the temple precincts, although by this time it usually held its in-session meetings elsewhere in Jerusalem - some public building or other. Their task this particular morning is to confirm Jesus' charge of blasphemy. The problem facing the Sanhedrin is that it didn't have the authority to try a capital case. If they had the evidence for Jesus' desecration of the temple, then they could simply take him out and stone him to death (historically disputed!!), but on this issue, the witnesses do not agree. The authorities therefore have to depend on a civil trial with the trumped-up charge of treason.

The first part of the civil trial before the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, is held early morning. Pilate quickly realises that this a religious dispute, not civil, and that he is being used by the religious authorities to do their dirty work. So, Pilate sends Jesus on for Herod to judge the case, but Herod is too cunning to get involved in a religious dispute between the religious authorities and the people, so he claims that the matter is outside his jurisdiction. Jesus is returned to Palate, who, recognising that the problem is not going to go away, decides to placate the religious authorities with a charge of treason against Jesus, and sentences him to crucifixion.

 

iii] Structure: The denial of Peter:

The arrest of Jesus, v54;

Peter's first denial, v56-57;

Peter's second denial, v58;

Peter's third denial, v59-60;

Apostasy exposed, v61-62.

 

iv] Interpretation:

Both Judas and Peter are "sifted" by Satan, and by their actions, they become apostate - Judas from greed; Peter from fear. The description of Jesus looking at Peter, and then Peter leaving and weeping bitterly, says it all. It could be argued that Peter's sin is not that serious, given that he doesn't actually deny Jesus, but denies knowing him, although this is a bit like splitting straws. No, faced with this critical moment in history when the messiah, and those who follow him, are "numbered with the transgressors", Peter, like Judas, fails the test, not just once, but three times. He was simply unprepared for Satan's violent shaking.

From Luke's perspective, Peter's failure is ours. Peter not only represents the other disciples who have already gone into hiding and will not be seen for days, but he represents all believers flawed by their fears. Peter failed because he didn't take seriously the Lord's word of encouragement, "Pray that you will not fall into temptation (Satan's time of testing)." In this time of trial, a believer must arm themselves with prayer - prayerfully persevering in faith. It we fail to do so we too will find ourselves flawed by fear.

Of course, the story is yet to play out for both Judas and Peter - Judas will die at his own hand, while Peter will turn back and serve the brotherhood. The crucial element in Peter's restoration is grace, operative through Jesus' prayer that his faith may not fail. Of course, we may ask why Jesus didn't pray the same prayer for Judas, but, in a sense, he did, for his prayer was for all his disciples. Divine grace operates in the interplay between both the divine will and human will. Divine will is assured, but human will is fickle, none-the-less, Jesus knows the man; he knows Peter. Peter failed the test of faith, but in the depth of repentant sorrow, and by the grace of God, the slender thread of faith will lead to his restoration.

 

v] Synoptics :

See 3:1-20. The narrative of Jesus' interrogation at the home of the high priest, along with Peter's denial, is also found in Mark 14:53-72 and Matthew 26:57-27:1, and John 18:13-27. As noted above, unlike the other synoptists, Luke leaves the interrogation, charge and conviction of Jesus to the morning gathering of the Sanhedrin (Mk.15:1a), and instead, focuses on Peter's denial. So, in Luke we have the denial, Jesus assaulted, v63-65, and the trial, v66-71, whereas in Mark we have the trial, 14:55-64, Jesus assaulted, v65, the denial, v66-72, and the legal confirmation by the Sanhedrin, 15:1a. The account of these events in John is even more complicated, with Peter's denial dispersed within the flow of events; see John 18:12-27.

Fitzmyer takes the view that Luke's account is likely more historically reliable, given that the details of the informal interrogation of Jesus in the home of the high priest would not be publicly known, whereas the details of the meeting of the Sanhedrin would. As to the source of Luke's account, commentators are divided, with some suggesting that it is a redaction of Mark's account, or from his L source, or even his own free composition based on historical research.

Although we have sequencing issues, the gospel narratives are in general agreement when it comes to the denial of Peter. Interesting small differences appear, but they are of little consequence. So, for example: All four gospels have a slave girl challenging Peter on the first occasion, but in Matthew and Luke the second challenge comes from a man; Mark has the cock crowing a second time, while the other gospels have it crowing only once after the third denial (there is a variant text with "the second time" missing)".

 
Text - 22:54

The denial of Peter, v54-62: i] The arrest of Jesus, v54; The verb sullambanw, "to seize", in this context means "to arrest", an arrest that Jesus does not resist. Jesus is led away with Peter following makroqen, "at a distance, far off, from afar."

sullabanteV (sullambanw) aor. part. "seizing him" - [but/and] having seized [him they led away him and brought in him into the house of the chief priest]. Attendant circumstance participle expressing action accompanying the verb "to lead away". Note the idiomatic repetition of the prefix eiV from the verb "to bring in."

oJ de "-" - but/and he [peter was following at a distance]. Transitional, indicating a change in subject from Jesus to Peter. The use of the imperfect verb "to follow" is probably used to indicate background information.

 
v55

ii] Peter's first denial, v55-56. The house / villa of the high priest is obviously grand enough to have a central courtyard, with numerous servants at hand. Some of the arresting party and household servants are gathered about a fire in the courtyard warming themselves - John tells us that it was cold. Peter is sitting toward the light and so a servant girl is able to recognise him.

periayantwn (periaptw) aor. part. "when some there had kindled" - [but/and the arresting party] having kindled [a fire in middle of the courtyard and having sat down together, was sitting, peter middle of them]. The NIV treats this genitive participle, along with the genitive participle "having sat down together", as forming a genitive absolute construction, temporal. The problem is that the genitive subject has to be assumed. Some translations take "Peter" as the subject, with the genitive participles as adjectival, attributive, limiting the partitive genitive autwn, "of them"; "Peter followed at a distance and sat down among some people who had lit a fire in the courtyard and were sitting round it", Moffatt.

 
v56

Luke uses one of his favourite words to describe the action of the woman, atenizw, "to look intently", and has her make an indirect accusation, ou{toV, "this man", rather than "you".

idousa (oJraw) aor. part. "saw" - [but/and a certain servant girl] having seen [him]. Attendant circumstance participle expressing action accompanying the verb "to say"; "A certain servant girl saw him sitting ....... and said." Although anarthrous (without an article), some translators treat it as adjectival, attributive; "Then a maid who noticed him sitting by the fire", Berkeley.

kaqhmenon (kaqhmai) pres. part. "seated" - sitting [toward the fire]. The participle serves as the accusative complement of the direct object "him" standing in a double accusative construction and stating a fact about the object. The ESV treats it as adverbial, temporal, "as he sat in the light", although a nominative case would be expected if adverbial.

atenisasa (atenizw) aor. part. "she looked closely at" - [and] having looked intently at [him and said]. Attendant circumstance participle expressing action accompanying the verb "to say"; "took a long look at him and said", Moffatt. The dative pronoun autw/, "him", is a dative of direct object after the verb "to look intently at."

kai "-" - and. Possibly adjunctive, "also"; "This man too, was in his company", Cassirer.

sun + dat. "with [him]" - [this one was] with [him]. Expressing association / accompaniment.

 
v57

Peter denies his association with Jesus.

oJ de "but he" - but/and he [he denied it]. Transitional, indicating a change in subject from the woman to Peter.

legwn (legw) pres. part. "-" - saying, [woman, i do not know him]. Attendant circumstance participle expressing action accompanying the verb "to deny", semi-redundant, introducing direct speech. For an adverbial classification, modal, even possibly instrumental, "by saying", see legwn, 4:35. "But he denied it and said, ...."

 
v58

iii] Peter's second denial, v58. Mark has the same woman challenge Peter, Matthew has another woman, whereas Luke has eJteroV, "another person", masculine = "another man." Rather than Peter being sun, "with", Jesus, the challenge is that he is ex autwn, "from them" = one of Jesus' discipleship group.

meta + acc. "[a little] later" - [and] after [a short time]. Temporal use of the preposition.

idwn (oJraw) aor. part. "saw" - [another] having seen [him said]. Attendant circumstance participle expressing action accompanying the verb "to say."

su "you" - [and] you. Emphatic by position and use.

ex (ek) "one of [them]" - [you are] from [them]. Here the preposition serves as a partitive genitive, as NIV.

oJ de "-" - but/and he. Transitional, indicating a change in subject from the man to Peter.

anqrwpe (oV) voc. "Man" - man, [i am not]. The vocative here, as with "Woman", is used to give emphasis; "here having a connotation of reproach", TH.

 
v59

iv] Peter's third denial, v59-60. All the synoptists agree that it is a little later when Peter is challenged again, with Luke using a genitive absolute construction rather than a prepositional phrase. Mark and Matthew generalise the plural, whereas Luke specifies alloV tiV, "a certain other ", masculine, with John actually identifying him as a kinsman of Malchus, the servant whose ear Peter cut off. The identifying factor this time is Peter's accent, indicating that he is from Galilee.

diastashV (diisthmi) gen. aor. part. "later" - [and as = about one hour] having passed. The genitive participle and its genitive subject wJraV miaV, "one hour", forms a genitive absolute construction, temporal, "And after an interval of about an hour", ESV. Note that the comparative wJsei, which, when used with measures, expresses approximation.

legwn (legw) "[asserted]" - [a certain other was forcefully maintaining] saying. See legwn, v57.

ep (epi) + acc. "[certainly]" - upon [truth]. Here adverbial, introducing a prepositional phrase equivalent to an adverb of manner; "on the basis of truth" = "truly".

met (meta) + gen. "with" - [this one was] with [him]. Expressing association / accompaniment.

kai "-" - and = also. Here adjunctive.

gar "for" - because [he is a galilean]. Introducing a causal clause explaining why the man thinks that Peter is "with" Jesus.

 
v60

Luke makes no mention of Peter cursing and swearing, as in Matthew and Mark. In a Roman barracks, the end of the third watch (3am) is signalled by a trumpet. It is known as the "rooster's crow." This may be the intended sense of the received tradition here, but probably a literal sense is intended. A rooster crowing may imply dawn, around 5am (although I have owned roosters that have no sense of time!).

lalountoV (lalew) gen. pres. part. "just as he was speaking" - [but/and peter said, man, i do not know what you are saying, and immediately, he] speaking [still, a rooster crowed]. The genitive participle and its genitive subject autou, "he", forms a genitive absolute construction, temporal; "while he was still speaking", ESV.

 
v61

v] Apostasy exposed, v61-62. As the slave girl atenisasa, "looked intently" at Peter, so now Jesus enebleyen, "looked straight at the face" of Peter. This powerful image is only recorded in Luke and it is the type of information that can come from a personal testimony. The full realisation of what Peter has done drives him to tears.

strafeiV (strefw) aor. pas. part. "turned" - [and] having turned [the lord looked]. Attendant circumstance participle expressing action accompanying the verb "to look at."

tw/ Petrw/ (oV) dat. "Peter" - peter. Dative of direct object after the en prefix verb "to look at."

tou hrhmatoV (a atoV) gen. "the word" - [and peter was reminded of] the word. Genitive of direct object after the uJpo prefix verb "to remind."

tou kuriou (oV) gen. "the Lord" - of the lord. The genitive is adjectival, verbal, subjective, "the word spoken by the Lord", or possibly ablative, source / origin, "from the Lord."

wJV "-" - when [he said to him]. This temporal conjunction serves to introduce a temporal clause stating when "the word" was spoken by the Lord, namely, "when he had said to him ........"

oJti "-" - that [before a rooster crows today you will deny me three times]. Recitative, introducing a dependent statement of direct speech expressing what Jesus had actually said.

 
v62

"He went out and cried and cried and cried", Peterson.

exelqwn (exercomai) aor. part. "he went outside" - [and] having gone out [outside, he wept bitterly]. Attendant circumstance participle expressing action accompanying the verb "to weep." "Weep bitterly" is a common phrase used to express deep anguish / sorrow, so TH; "a response to defeat, failure, ruin and loss", Johnson.

 

Luke Introduction

Exegetical Commentaries

 

[Pumpkin Cottage]
lectionarystudies.com