The Prediction of Peter’s Denial (Luke 22:24-34)

One of the intriguing aspects of what took place in the last twenty-four hours of the life of Jesus is the interaction between him and Peter. Each of the Gospel writers mention some of the details and we shall mainly consider what Luke records about them. The point we need to notice is that temptation does not usually take place in a vacuum. Instead there are features connected to the time of Peter’s temptation that we should bear in mind.

But how are we to approach this solemn moment in the life of Peter? We dare not come with the spirit of pride and imagine that we would not do the same as he did. Instead we must come with a trembling heart, concerned that somehow we may find ourselves imitating his fall. So we have to learn how not to imitate it.

It would be possible to go back through Peter’s biography and trace various flaws that exhibited themselves in his character, such as his impetuosity, his determination to do things dramatically. But he did not deny Jesus on those occasions, even when he had to be rebuked by Jesus. Something happened on this evening, so we need to think about some details that may help us grasp why he did what he did.

The sinful conflict (vv. 24-27)

In verse 24, Luke mentions an unseemly disagreement between the disciples. There was a concern about which of them should be regarded as the greatest. It may have been that each thought they should be the greatest or maybe they were divided in support of two or three of them.

Two comments can be made about this concern. The first is that the disciples had already witnessed the incident when Jesus washed their feet, recorded in John 13. They had observed him give an example of serving one another, and therefore it was inappropriate for them to be concerned about which of them should be the greatest. Second, this desire was connected to a false understanding of what Jesus had been teaching about his coming kingdom. The disciples persisted in imagining that it would be a political kingdom, despite what Jesus had said about it, and therefore assumed that the norms of a political kingdom would apply.

I would say that it looks that throughout the evening Peter was trying to show that he was the most important, and he could have been encouraged in this idea by others. Of course, the norm in the Christian kingdom is service and not status. Because Peter had not imitated what Jesus had exhibited and because Peter had not grasped what the Word of God taught, he became a target of the devil.

The surprising commendation (vv. 28-29)

Despite the wrong focus that the disciples had, Jesus expressed his appreciation of the loyalty of the disciples during the years since he had called them to follow him. This is a reminder that commendation should be given even when other aspects of a relationship is wrong. Jesus did not use a blanket condemnation when he described their current spiritual state.

It is interesting how Jesus describes those three years when the disciples were with him. He says that the time was marked by ‘my trials’. He is not referring to the occasions when he appeared before Pilate and Herod because they had not yet taken place. Instead he is saying that the period in which the disciples were with him was marked by difficulties. No doubt, there was the trial of having to live in a sinful environment. There was also the trial of observing false disciples giving up on following him. And there was the trial experienced by Jesus when people rejected his message. Because he was a perfect man, Jesus would have responded emotionally as well as intellectually to those trials. We should not be surprised that he was described as the man of sorrows.

Nevertheless, he was glad that his eleven disciples had remained with him and announced that they would receive from him a kingdom far greater than any earthly kingdom. The life of this kingdom would be marked by fellowship with Jesus (at his table – such positions were only given to the ruler’s favourites). Sitting at a table having fellowship with the host is a common picture of heaven.

Their involvement in the kingdom would also be marked by status. Jesus indicates that they would have a specific role. Some suggest that Jesus means that his disciples would rule the church (the new Israel), yet it looks as if Jesus connects the fellowship and the reigning as far as when they happen is concerned. I see no reason why this could not be a special privilege given to the eleven during the Day of Judgement, that they will be identified with Jesus when he judges the tribes of Israel. Paul does say that believers will judge the world, and here Jesus may be describing the particular role that his eleven disciples would have. Although it will be a solemn occasion, it is also an incredible status, far grander than anything the disciples imagined as they discussed which of them would be the greatest.

The point to note here is the sovereignty of Jesus. He has the authority to decide what his kingdom will be like and what each person will do in it. How kind he was to them, especially since they were imagining great things for themselves! The kingdom he wants is one in which fellowship dominates, where the provision for the guests is provided by him, and where the roles are stipulated by him. Remember he is soon to be arrested, but he knows where he is going. He is on the road to receiving from his Father the real kingdom.

Peter’s denial was connected to him not listening to the wonderful commendation that Jesus gave concerning all his disciples. He did not single one of them out for special praise, although he was about to single Peter out because of special concern. Yet we should note that the example of Jesus, when washing their feet, and the teaching of Jesus about the world to come did not get Peter thinking correctly.

The startling communication (vv. 31-32)

Sometimes Jesus can switch topics rapidly. Here he moves from the glory of the future to the mess of the present. We might imagine that the recipients of future glory would be marked by dedication to their Master. Jesus reveals that sad things are going to take place, especially with Peter.

Jesus reminds his disciples that they were in the middle of a spiritual conflict of which they were totally unaware. Behind the scenes something unusual and terrible was being arranged. There are aspects to this that we have to accept because they are beyond our grasp of reality. Hugh Martin comments that here ‘we are taken up by this revelation to the very judgment-seat of God, and are made to see the matter of Peter’s confidence, and fall, and restoration, as it stands related to certain pleadings which are in progress before the face of the Eternal.’ He goes on to say that ‘the saved soul is an object of contest among the higher intelligences, and before the throne of God on high.’

The cases of Job and Peter

The Saviour reveals to the heirs of glory that a terrible experience is awaiting them. This experience was connected to a request made by the devil to God. Luke tells us that Jesus said that the devil had demanded what he was asking for. Of course, the demanding could indicate his complete lack of respect for God. We see something of that in the introduction to the Book of Job.

Yet there are differences between Job’s experiences and that of the disciples. For example, Job was not told that it was about to happen, whereas they were informed beforehand. Moreover, Job’s experience was prolonged whereas theirs was relatively short. And Job was living a life of trust in God whereas Peter here was marked by self-confidence.

The devil needs permission from God

Of course, we can deduce from the necessity of this strange request that the devil is limited in what he can do. He is subject to the sovereignty of God. That is one similarity between what happened to Job and what happened to Peter. On each occasion, the devil could only do what he did because God allowed it.

No doubt, we will wonder why God allows such things. The answer is found in his wisdom, but we should not assume that somehow his love has changed. It is obvious from the fact that Jesus prayed for Peter that he still loved his sinning apostle. When we find ourselves in difficult situations, whether the devil is involved or not, we should remind ourselves that the Lord knows the best way to take.

Why did the devil insist on attacking the apostles?

One reason would be that they were special servants of Jesus, and there is no doubt that the devil attacks them. Paul tells us that he was fully aware of Satan’s devices. A second reason would be that they were sinning servants, despite being special servants. Sin opens the door to fierce temptations and their outcomes, and ‘sifting’ graphically pictures it. The apostles are in for a very difficult time.

What did Jesus pray for?

Jesus knows what the devil does not know, which is that Peter will be the worst of the apostles as far as denial is concerned. So he gives to Peter two comforting words. What wonderful compassion shown by Jesus! First, he tells Peter that he is the special focus of intercession. We should observe that Jesus was concerned about the preservation of Peter’s faith. Maybe the devil imagined that his attack would destroy the faith of the apostles.  In any case, the Saviour had Peter’s long-term spiritual state in mind.

This focus on Peter’s long-term state is continued in the second matter that Jesus mentions. He informs Peter that although he will fall he will yet be restored. Peter would be recovered from his spiritual collapse and become engaged in the task that Jesus was training him for. In a strange way, this sad experience of Peter would enable him to comfort other weak believers. I suppose it is like a teacher who consoles a student who fails an exam by saying to him that in the past he had failed as well.

Peter does refer to the devil in his first letter: ‘Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world’ (1 Pet. 5:8-9). It is likely that he is telling his readers that they should avoid what he did when he was tempted – he was not sober-minded or watchful.

Yet we can see that this focus by Jesus on the longterm experience of Peter was a focus of love. Imagine in what way Jesus would have said this promise to his wayward disciple. There would be anticipation, there would be delight, there would be the pleasure of grace as he looked ahead a few days to when Peter would be restored and become a blessing to others.

The sinful confidence (vv. 33-34)

Peter responded to the prediction of Jesus with a very strong assertion of loyalty. The response mentioned by Luke is the first of two such assertions made by Peter. This one took place in the Upper Room and the second one, mentioned by Matthew and Mark, occurred after they had left the room and gone to the Mount of Olives. The first one seems to have been a private warning to Peter and the second one was stated to the group as a whole.

What can we say about Peter’s statements? First, he wanted to be with Jesus. Peter did not say that he would go to prison and death for Jesus. Instead he said that he would be with Jesus, no matter what would happen. This was a statement of loving desire, we can say. Better to suffer and die with Jesus than to live without Jesus. Yet he was disagreeing with the word of Jesus about what would happen.

Second, Peter indicated during the next response that he would remain loyal even if everyone else forsook Jesus. The other disciples said the same, so they all imagined that they would never deny Jesus. Yet they were disagreeing with the word of Jesus concerning the prediction of his sufferings by Zechariah and of his intention to go to Galilee.   

Third, there is no hint that Peter thought it would be wise to pray about the matter. We should not be surprised. True prayer and self-confidence do not go together in the spiritual life of a believer. There is a lesson to take from this. If we find ourselves doing something without prayer, we are then in the place where Peter was before he denied Jesus.

Peter was sincere, yet he made the mistake of assuming that sincerity was a sign of the presence of strength. As far as Peter was concerned, sincerity was an expression of self-confidence rather than of trust in Jesus. How do we know that was the case? Because he refused to acknowledge the authority and the accuracy of the word of Jesus. Moreover, although he has a love for Jesus, he was not at that moment depending on Jesus. Instead Peter was depending upon himself and his own strength. He was going to help Jesus rather than him receiving help from Jesus. And he was entering a fierce spiritual conflict without wearing any armour.

So what can we learn from this incident? First, there is the reality of the intention of the devil to bring God’s people down. He can try to do this in many ways. Second, there is the ongoing care and provision of the Saviour for his people’s faith. Third, there is the sad reality that a true believer can for a while confuse sincerity with an expression of faith in Jesus. Fourth, we should recognise that knowledge of our weakness is a blessing because it makes us go continually to the Lord for strength.