Luke 22:54-62

(1.) Luke 22:54-62. Peter's Denial. The account of the evangelists presents insoluble difficulties, if Annas and Caiaphas dwelt in different houses. Indeed, according to Matthew and Mark, who do not mention the examination before Annas, it is at the house of Caiaphas that the denial must have taken place; while according to John, who does not relate the sitting at the house of Caiaphas, it is at the house of Annas that this scene must have occurred. But is it impossible, or even improbable, that Annas and Caiaphas his son-in-law occupied the sacerdotal palace in common? Annas and Caiaphas, high priests, the one till the year 14, the other from the year 17, were so identified in popular opinion, that Luke (Luke 3:2) mentions them as exercising one and the same pontificate in common, the one as titulary high priest, the other as high priest de facto. So Acts 4:6: Annas the high priest and Caiaphas. But there is more than a possibility or a probability. There is a fact: in John 18:15, the entrance of Peter into the palace where the denial took place is explained on the ground that John was known to the high priest, a title which in this context (Luke 22:13; Luke 22:24) can designate no other than Caiaphas; and yet, according to Luke 22:12, it is the house of Annas which is in question. How are we to explain this account, if Annas and Caiaphas did not inhabit the same house? There is caution in the way in which Luke expresses himself: “They led Him into the high priest's house; ” he does not say, to the house of Caiaphas (Matthew), or to the presence of the high priest (Mark), but to the sacerdotal palace, where dwelt the two high priests closely united and related.

A covered gateway (πυλών) led from without into the court where the fire was lighted (αὐλή).

The first denial is related by John in a way to show that it took place during the appearance before Annas. Comp. the repetition Luke 18:18; Luke 18:25, which is indirectly intended to show that the denial was simultaneous with that first sitting. The other two denials being placed by John after the sitting, took place consequently between the appearance at the house of Annas and the sitting of the Sanhedrim at the house of Caiaphas.

After his first sin, Peter, humbled, and, as it were, afraid of himself, had withdrawn to the gateway (πυλών, Matthew), or to the outer court (προαύλιον, Mark), situated before the gateway. There, though more secluded, he is the object of petty persecution on the part of the porteress who had let him in (Mark), of another female servant (Matthew), of another individual (ἕτερος, Luke), of the bystanders in general (εἶπον, they said, John). The accusation began probably with the porteress, who knew his intimate connection with John; she betrayed him to another servant; and the latter pointed him out to the domestics. Finally, about an hour later (Luke), a kinsman of Malchus (John) recognises him, and engages him in a conversation. Peter's answer makes him known as a Galilean, and consequently as a disciple of Jesus. And the third denial takes place; the cock crows (Matthew, Luke, John) for the second time (Mark). Then Peter, awaking as from a dream, at the moment when he lifts his head, meets the eye of Jesus (Luke). How could the Lord be there? It was the time when, after the examination before Annas, they were leading Him to the sitting of the Sanhedrim before Caiaphas. He was just crossing the court which divided the two sets of apartments; and this is what John means to express by introducing here the remark, Luke 18:24: “ Now Annas had sent Him bound to Caiaphas. ”

We can understand the profound effect produced upon the disciple by the sight of his Master bound, and the look which He gave him in passing. Mark omits this particular, Peter was not likely to relate it in his preaching. Mark merely says: ἐπιβαλὼν ἔκλαιε (the imperfect), hurrying forth, he wept, went on weeping without ceasing. The other Gospels simply use the aor. he wept. Then it was that he was preserved from despair and its consequences by the intercession of his Master: “ I have prayed for thee...” The answer to the prayer of Jesus was given partly by this look, a look of pardon as well as of rebuke, which raised the poor disciple, while breaking his heart with contrition. It was thereby that God sustained his faith, and prevented him from falling into a state similar to that of Judas.

We recognise in the three Syn. accounts the characteristic of traditional narrative in their combining the three denials in a single description; it was the ἀπομνημόνευμα, the recital, of the denial. John, as an eye-witness, has given the historical fact its natural divisions.

But notwithstanding their common type, each Syn. account has also its delicate shades and special features, rendering it impossible to derive it from the same written source as the other two. Matthew is the writer who best exhibits the gradation of the three denials (as in Gethsemane that of the three prayers of Jesus).