E. Peter’s denials (22:54b–62)
E. Peter’s denials (22:54b–62)
Peter’s threefold denial of Jesus is recorded in all four Gospels. Some problems arise. For example, whereas the Synoptists record them all together, John interpolates an examination before Annas between the first and second. This, however, need mean no more than that the Synoptists complete the account once they have started it. Noone holds that the three denials must have followed one another immediately. There must have been intervals (cf. 58–59) and things would have happened during those intervals. Another problem is that, after the first occasion, different people are said to challenge Peter. In Mark the second denial appears to be elicited by a question from the same slave girl, in Matthew from a different slave girl, in Luke from a man and in John from a number of people. A little reflection shows that in such a situation a question once posed is likely to have been taken up by others round the fire. Different people telling about it would stress different participants in the drama.
54b–55. Plummer points out that all four Gospels devote more space to Jesus’ trial than they do to his crucifixion and the way they do it answers questions which bring out the meaning of the cross. ‘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.’ None of the disciples other than Peter is said to have followed Jesus, though John tells us of another who was known to the high priest and who got Peter into the courtyard, apparently that of Annas. Luke does not say how Peter came to be there. He simply pictures him in a group sitting round a fire in the middle of the courtyard.
56–57. All four Gospels agree that the first challenge came from a slave girl, John adding that she was the doorkeeper. She looked hard at Peter (gazing at him means ‘staring at him’; it indicates a close scrutiny). Then she said, This man also was with him. Such a comment from a little slave girl does not amount to a fearsome ordeal. We do not hear of any charges against the disciples, so there is no apparent reason why Peter should not have admitted it. But he was among the enemy, and fearful. He took the easy way out and said, I do not know him.
58. The second challenge came a little later. Luke does not particularize its source but simply refers to some one else. But the masculine gender of his pronoun and Man in Peter’s response shows that this time a man was involved. He goes beyond what the slave girl had said by affirming that Peter was one of them. Peter simply denied it.
59. The third challenge was more serious. It was made more confidently and Luke tells us that the man insisted on his point. His statement was not tentative. He begins with Certainly and brings up supporting evidence, he is a Galilean. This probably means that Peter’s accent gave him away. John says that this man was a relative of the slave whose ear Peter had cut off, which may have made him take a longer and harder look at Peter than did the others, both in the Garden and in the courtyard. At any rate his accusation is clear.
60. Equally clear is Peter’s repudiation. He addressed him as Man and denied all knowledge of what he was saying. Repudiation could scarcely go further, backed up, as Matthew and Mark tell us it was, with a string of oaths. And at this point the cock crowed.
61–62. We do not know where Jesus was at this moment. He may have been in a gallery overlooking the courtyard, or in a room looking out on to it, or even in it, perhaps passing through on his way from Annas to Caiaphas. At any rate he was in some place from where he could see Peter and he turned and looked at him. Only Luke mentions this, but apparently it was this look that awakened in Peter the memory of Jesus’ prophecy. Luke reminds his readers of what Jesus had said. They are to be in no doubt about it. The effect on Peter was shattering: he went out and wept bitterly.