Luke 22:54-71

CRITICAL NOTES

Luke 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.

Luke 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.).

Luke 22:56. Sat by the fire.—Rather, “sat in the light [of the fire]” (R.V.).

Luke 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.

Luke 22:59. A Galilæan.—Recognised as such by his dialect.

Luke 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.

Luke 22:65. Blasphemously.—Rather, “reviling Him” (R.V.). The word “blasphemy” has changed its meaning; it formerly denoted “reviling” or “scurrility.”

Luke 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. Acts 22:5). The place of meeting is uncertain.

Luke 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.”

Luke 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 (Luke 22:69).

Luke 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.

Luke 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.— Luke 22:54

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 Luke 22:54

Luke 22:54. The Religious Process: Christ before the Sanhedrim.

I. The denial of Peter (Luke 22:54).

II. The ill-treatment of Jesus by the Jews (Luke 22:63).

III. The sentence of condemnation pronounced by the high priest (Luke 22:66).

Luke 22:54. 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.

Luke 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.

Luke 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.

Luke 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.

Luke 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.

Luke 22:59. “Confidently affirmed.”—The apostle is now overwhelmed by proof of the charge against him. As St. John tells us (Luke 18:26) it is a kinsman of Malchus who identifies him as having been in the garden with Christ.

Luke 22:60. 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.

Luke 22:60. “I know not.”—St. Luke omits reference to the “cursing and swearing” which accompanied this last denial (Matthew 26:74).

Luke 22:61. 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.

Luke 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.

Luke 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.

Luke 22:63. “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.

Luke 22:63. Christ here an Example to us in

(1) His patience;
(2) His innocence;
(3) His prudence;
(4) His holy boldness.

Luke 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 Luke 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.

Luke 22:67. 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.

Luke 22:67. “If I tell you,” etc.—They were neither fair-minded judges, whom He might convince of His innocence, nor disciples whom He might instruct.

Luke 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.

Luke 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.

Luke 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.