Luke 22:54 - 62
54 Then they seized him and led him away, bringing him into the high priest's house, and Peter was following at a distance. 55 And when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and sat down together, Peter sat down among them. 56 Then a servant girl, seeing him as he sat in the light and looking closely at him, said, “This man also was with him.” 57 But he denied it, saying, “Woman, I do not know him.” 58 And a little later someone else saw him and said, “You also are one of them.” But Peter said, “Man, I am not.” 59 And after an interval of about an hour still another insisted, saying, “Certainly this man also was with him, for he too is a Galilean.” 60 But Peter said, “Man, I do not know what you are talking about.” And immediately, while he was still speaking, the rooster crowed. 61 And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the saying of the Lord, how he had said to him, “Before the rooster crows today, you will deny me three times.” 62 And he went out and wept bitterly.
Questions:
ReplyDelete1. Why did Peter decide to rest by the fire?
2. Why did Peter deny that he knew him?
3. Did Peter have some sort of plan? Why abandon it now?
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2019/03/mark-1466-72-66-while-peter-was-below.html?view=flipcard says:
ReplyDeleteWhat can we make of this? Here are a couple of things to meditate on:
1. Peter was the representative of all the disciples. He did not act on his own, but only where the others lacked the courage to. Peter’s short impassioned speech in 14:31 was backed by the rest. All affirmed they wouldn’t leave; all were prophesied to fall away. Therefore, we are not to think that Peter was somehow the weak link, but rather the strong one. As much as the disciples looked up to Jesus, they also followed Peter’s lead.
2. The issue is also not how weak or strong Peter was, but how weak we all must be. Those disciples who fell away witnessed all of the miracles of the Lord, heard his words, heard him pray, watched him eat, laughed with him; these were the people who still turned on him when he needed them most. Who among us things we are stronger, more fit, or more capable? Do not think that you can escape such a fate. Pride comes before the fall.
3. We should also take note of how the Lord accomplished Peter’s denial. Not through the point of a sword, the lick of a flame, the dull thud of a club, the rabble of the mob. But rather through the simple and innocent questions of a young servant. Peter, the leader of the disciples, closest to the Lord, who would fight for him to the death, is undone by the queries of a young woman. How important a lesson this must have been for Peter! So sure that he could hold on through anything, but blown away by one small whisper. It was, likely, a lesson Peter never forgot, a humiliation that haunted him till his dying, martyred breath. A humiliation on earth that saved him from humiliation before the throne.
Oh, that we all might be so humiliated!
ReplyDeletehttps://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2019/03/mark-1466-72-66-while-peter-was-below.html?view=flipcard continued:
Abiding Principles and Practical Applications
1. "The things we least anticipate are our falls," observes Alfred Eldersheim.
2. The beginning of Peter's sin of denying Jesus began when he disagreed with the Lord. Peter thought he was better than the other disciples. Peter was intent on showing that he was superior to all the rest of the disciples. Peter would have had a different outcome if he would have repented of his arrogance and obeyed Jesus' warning.
3. Peter is usually the one we immediately think of denying Jesus, but all of the disciples fled. "We have no reason to believe that any of the ten did formally deny their Lord, though they all left Him and fled, Peter and John presently returning (Mat. 26:56)"
4. God uses the prophetic warning of Jesus, the look of Jesus in the night and the crowing of a rooster to bring Peter back to repentance.
5. Carefully note the difference in Peter's denial and that of Judas. One repented, the other hanged himself in bitter remorse. Both denied Him, but only one repented.
6. Luke 22:31-32 gives us insight into the restoration of Peter. "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers" (Luke 22:31-32). The Lord stored up in Peter mind words which would be used in the days to come. After Jesus was raised from the dead the angel in the empty tomb told the women to "go tell His disciples and Peter, 'He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He said to you'" (Mark 16:7). Be sure and tell Peter! Be sure and tell the disciple who denied Him. Luke also tells us the resurrected Jesus has a personal interview with Peter. "The Lord has really risen, and has appeared to Simon" (Luke 24:34). The apostle Paul speaking of the resurrection of Jesus said that Christ "appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the twelve," and over five hundred saw Him on one occasion (1 Cor. 15:5-6). In a post-resurrection appearance Christ challenged Peter to love the brethren and to feed the sheep (John 21:1-23). Galilee was the home of the disciples and where Jesus had called them as disciples.
7. Even though Jesus warned the disciples they would deny Him, He gave them the reassuring promise that He would be raised from the dead and meet them in Galilee. None of them appropriated that promise.
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2019/03/mark-1466-72-66-while-peter-was-below.html?view=flipcard continued:
ReplyDeletethe writers of Scripture choose incidents that belong together and put them side by side. Mark has done that here so that we might see the contrast. Here is a band of priests who hate Jesus. Their hearts are filled with venom and anger and jealousy and bitterness against Him. And all of it comes spilling out in the spitting and buffeting that follow the verdict. Contrasted to this is a man who loves Jesus with all his heart and is determined to defend Him to the end. And yet, in the moment of crisis, he fails Jesus. He denies that he even knows Him.
Why does Mark put these two situations side by side? He does it so that we might understand that both of them manifest the same thing; both show the undependability of human nature--the flesh, as the Bible calls it. These priests were men of the flesh, men who lived according to the ways of the world, men who were seeking for status and prestige and position. Jesus was a threat to their position and awakened their hatred and their anger, which they expressed in this terrible accusation and mockery and violence. That is the flesh at work. Everybody recognizes that hatred and anger and vehemence are wrong. But what Mark wants us to see is that the love of Peter was no better. It too was depending on the flesh, on human abilities and human resources, to carry him through. In the hour of crisis, it was no more effective than the hatred of the priests. Love and loyalty and faithfulness mean nothing when they rest on the shaky foundation of the determination of a human will.
The most hopeful note here is the tears of Peter. The priests didn't weep. But Peter, when he denied his Lord, threw himself down and wept. Failure is never the end of the story. Peter's tears speak of another day that is yet to come when the Lord will deliver him and restore him, having learned a sobering and salutary lesson.
Father, there will come times when I will be confronted with failure. I will find myself, like Peter, doing the very thing I didn't want to do, denying the Lord who bought me. Help me to understand that I must not count upon the power of the flesh to accomplish Your work.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/22-54.htm says:
ReplyDeleteThe morning air bit sharply, and Peter, exhausted, sleepy, sad, and shivering, was glad to creep near the blaze. Its glinting on his face 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. His susceptible nature would be strongly affected by the trying scenes of the last day, and all the springs of life would be low.
https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-22-commentary says:
ReplyDeleteThe date is April 7th, 30 A.D., the 15th of Nisan, and it is past midnight. Arnold Fruchtenbaum comments that "The reason that the religious leaders of Israel had rejected Jesus was His repudiation of the Oral Law, the “traditions of men,” the Mishnah, which had been added on to the Torah. It is therefore ironic that during the process that is about to unfold, the Jewish leadership will break over 22 of their own laws found in the Sanhedrin Tractate in the Mishnah during the trial and death of the Messiah."
Annas served as high priest for the years A.D. 7–14 until he was deposed from the office by the Roman governor. Although Annas was not the high priest as far as the Romans were concerned, he was still the high priest to the Jews. By Jewish law, the high priest held his office for life. Even though he was deposed, Annas continued to be in control even though he was succeeded by four of his sons, and then by his son-in-law Caiaphas.
---
Caiaphas, Annas’ son-in law served as high priest from A.D. 25–36. According to Luke 22:54, the second religious trial was held in Caiaphas’ home. Caiaphas, like Annas, violated the law which said that Sanhedrin trials could only be held in the Hall of Judgment of the Temple Compound and not in the privacy of one’s home (in public, not in secret).
Questions and findings:
ReplyDelete1. Why did Peter decide to rest by the fire?
Commentators suggest two likely things: He was cold and he was trying to blend in with the crowd. Standing off by himself may have drawn attention to himself.
2. Why did Peter deny that he knew him?
3. Did Peter have some sort of plan? Why abandon it now?
It's possible that Peter was looking to make a rescue somehow. If he lets himself get caught, the jig will be up - so Peter may have been rationalizing. Also, he was exhausted, cold and hadn't prayed. He was at his weakest and not up to taking a stand.