Peter Denies Jesus
PETER DENIES JESUS
LUKE 22:54-71
Jesus knew Peter, but Peter didn’t know himself.
Luke consistently spares the apostles, whenever it was possible to do so. Matthew and John were themselves of the number of the Twelve, and Mark wrote under Peter’s direction. Luke showed fine feeling in his understandable reserve. Here he omits Peter’s outburst of bad language.
Peter perhaps should not have been there, though it was natural enough that he should follow. Besides, John, his closest personal friend, had access to the high priest’s house, and tells very naturally the story how Peter came to be there (John 18:15-18). He should not have sought comfort at the fire of God’s foes. It is well to estimate carefully the nature and impact of temptation, to know the weaknesses and capacities of our own personality, and to avoid localities, situations and all company which is likely to try the spirit or the flesh beyond the point of possible resistance. There is no disgrace in evading temptation. Luke is reaching the length of narrative which a maximum-sized papyrus roll could conveniently contain. He had material such as the story of the Emmaus walk which could not be abbreviated without loss. Hence a certain sketchiness and telescoping of narrative in such sections as this, a device visible enough in the Acts, Luke’s second “treatise.”
In 22:69 the Lord is again speaking in the accepted forms of apocalyptic language. The reference is to the resurrection. The “glorifying” of the Son of Man began with the crucifixion (John 13:31). The phrase “Son of Man” was a recognized Messianic title (Daniel 7:13) and was so taken by those who heard. Hence the direct question of 22:70. Mark renders the same reply: “I am.” This is indication enough that the formula of 22:70 is one of assent. See also Acts 2:33-35; Romans 8:34; Hebrews 1:3-4; 1 Peter 3:22; Revelation 3:21; 12:5. It is important to understand how, and in what sense, the Sanhedrin took Christ’s words. Western minds are prone to literalism and to logical statement. The East spoke in imagery with greater ease. The important point is that the Jewish leaders clearly understood that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah.
Notes 22:63-71: Luke tells of five trials of Jesus; comparison of this first one with Mark 14:53-64 suggests that the Sanhedrin met with Annas to draw up their charges against Jesus, and then (as they were not supposed to meet by night) the morning’s business was a mere formality. Even so, the proceedings were irregular. Witnesses for the defense should have been summoned first and solemnly adjured to speak from knowledge; the meeting should not have been held on a feast day; sentences of condemnation should have been held over for twenty-four hours. 22:69 would recall Psalm 110:1.