Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Luke 22:54 - 22:62
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
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)
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: ðåñéáøÜíôùí (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, ἀôåíïßóáóá áὐôῷ (favorite word of our Evangelist), the more sharply because she, as èõñùñüò , 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 ðñïáýëéïí , into which Peter had entered, is meant. The maid begins, the ἕôåñïò 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 ðéêñᾶò of Matthew and Luke explains, moreover, in some measure, the ἐðéâáëþí of Mark, where we consider it as the simplest way to supply ἱìÜôéïí (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.
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 ïἱ äïêïῦíôåò óôýëïé åῖ ̓ íáé , 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.
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:
Luk_22:57.— Ãýíáé must, according to Tischendorf, [Tregelles, Alford,] be placed last, instead of first.
Luk_22:61.— ÓÞìåñïí , which Tischendorf has received into the text, [also Meyer, Tregelles, Alford,] is supported by B., [Cod. Sin., K.,] M., L., X., and some Cursives.