16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.” (Romans 1:16–17 ESV)
Many Christians observe the anniversary of Martin Luther nailing his 95 Thesis on the church door of Wittenberg, Germany on October 31, 1517. 2024 marks the 507th anniversary of the event which sparked the Protestant Reformation.
We love our heroes. We follow our heroes. We are also devastated when our heroes show themselves to be all too human, just like us. We want them as perfect as the Lord Jesus Christ; but they never can be.
Martin Luther is one of my heroes. I grew up attending a Lutheran Church where I not only learned about Jesus, but also about Luther. Luther began to take on almost super human qualities in my mind. However, he was as flawed a man as me. Therefore, how are we to objectively evaluate the 16th century Protestant Reformation and Luther’s role in it?
Pastor Burk Parsons writes, “Ultimately, the Word of God was the hero of the Reformation, not Luther. The power was not in Martin Luther or John Calvin or any of the Reformers—the power was the gospel unto salvation for everyone who believes. The fuel and the fire of the Reformation was the Holy Spirit who brought revival and reformation not only in doctrine, but in worship, in the church, in the home, and in the hearts of all those He brought to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ—all for the glory of God to the end that the nations might know, love, and proclaim the name of our triune God Coram Deo, before His face forever.”
In light of this significant event in church history, I would encourage you to meditate upon the lyrics of the following hymn by Dr. R. C. Sproul. It is entitled Glory to the Holy One and is based upon Isaiah 6:1-7.
Seated on the heav’nly throne Above all mortal view The King supreme in glory sat Bathed in resplendent hue.
Refrain “Holy, Holy, Holy” Cried the seraph throng Glory to the Holy One Join in heaven’s song.
All around the mercy seat The heav’nly creatures sang Glory to our God on high Their poignant anthem rang.
Shielded eyes and covered feet The angels hovered high Glory shook the portal walls And smoke rose to the sky.
“Angel come now, purge my lips Make pure my soul anew Now I’ll rise and stand again In grace to go for you.”
May all of us in grace, go and serve the Lord. Have a blessed day in the Lord.
It was five hundred and seven years ago this week that Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Thesis on the Castle Church Door in Wittenberg, Germany, thus beginning the Protestant Reformation. The impasse which occurred between the Reformers of the 16th Century and the Roman Catholic Church remain in full force today. These issues are as critical now as they were then. What key takeaways from the Reformation would we be wise to apply to the context of Christianity in the 21st Century?
The first would be that the sole authority for the Christian is to be the Scriptures: Sola Scriptura. The Roman Catholic Church views Scripture as deferring to the church’s authority and traditions. This was not the view of Luther, Calvin, or the other Reformers. This was the foundational issue in the Protestant Reformation.
However, there are those within Evangelical Protestant churches who do not have the viewpoint that the Scriptures alone are our sole and primary authority in matters of faith and practice. Many believers opt for their own opinions and attitudes to shape their decisions, rather than obeying God’s Word. It is when these attitudes and opinions run contrary to the Scriptures, the Word of God is often set aside. This is not becoming the exception, but rather the norm.
For example, when a Christian is unhappy in their marriage, they may feel free to pursue and engage in an extra-marital affair. It doesn’t matter to them what the Bible says about adultery. They want to be happy and woe to the pastor who confronts them about their sin in accordance with Matthew 18:15-20 and Galatians 6:1-2.
Secondly, the commitment to objective truth instead of subjective experience is another lasting benefit from the Reformation. Martin Luther went from one religious experience to another; not only as a child, but also as a young adult. He constantly sought relief from his guilt over his sin by pursuing a religious experience. Whether it was promising to become a monk during a violent thunderstorm, constantly confessing his sins in the monastery, or traveling to Rome and climbing the so-called sacred stairs on his knees while reciting the rosary, his life prior to conversion to Christ was a search for the right experience where he would find peace with God.
However, Luther’s peace with God eventually came not from an emotional experience, but rather through the truth of the God’s Word specifically contained in Romans 1:16-17. On the basis of biblical truth, God credited Martin Luther with Christ’s righteousness, which resulted in Martin’s positional, personal and emotional peace with God (Romans 3:21-26; 5:1-5).
Today, many seek a subjective, religious experience for the sake of a subjective religious experience alone. Their desire for a religious “high” becomes the goal they pursue, rather than the pursuit of objective truth. This is not only true at youth conferences, but also at women’s and men’s conferences. It is also seen in regularly in churches. Few are the worship leaders, pastors and conference speakers who resist this pandering to the crowd for an emotional response. They’re out there, but they’re few and are far between. Style and experience is sought and preferred rather than substantive, objective truth.
Thirdly, there is the commitment to the doctrine of sola fide or faith alone. This is a short-handed slogan which summarizes the doctrines of grace alone and Christ alone within the specific context of the biblical gospel of salvation. For more churches than can be estimated, the gospel has become a self-help movement focused on personal peace and financial affluence. Your best life now, so to speak. It may be summarized by one church which has as its slogan, “Join us! Where it’s okay to not be okay.”
The Reformation is far from over. It continues on and is as critical today as it was in Martin Luther’s day when biblical truth was at stake regarding how a sinner becomes righteous before God.
There are those who teach and believe that Scripture plus the church is the believer’s authority. They teach grace plus human merit saves, and faith plus works is necessary to be made righteous. They also teach Christ’s righteousness, along with one’s own, is indispensable for salvation. Finally, they teach the glory of salvation is to be shared between God and man.
Today’s children of the Protestant Reformation hold that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in the person and work of Jesus Christ alone, to the glory of God alone based upon the teachings and truth of the Scriptures alone. May we continue to hold to these truths as tenaciously as did Martin Luther. It won’t be easy, but “Here we stand; we can do none other. God help us!”
The following article is from Pastor Douglass Wilson.
“A correspondent once asked C.S. Lewis why he was not a Roman Catholic. He did not answer in any detail, but there was an aspect of his response that would be surprising to many of us. “By the time I had really explained my objection to certain doctrines which differentiate you from us (and also in my opinion from the apostolic and even the medieval church), you would like me less” (Letters of C.S. Lewis, p. 406). Lewis was concerned that the Roman communion had departed from the practices and teachings of the early church, and even from those of the medieval church.”
“Lewis answered this question from a broad and deep understanding of the classical and medieval worlds. His answer was historically informed. The modern Roman church was not ancient enough for him, and not medieval enough. But modern evangelicals tend to “not be Roman Catholic” because we were led to Christ through the ministry of a parachurch group in 1988, and then subsequently joined a church founded in 1972. Thinking earlier than this is hard for us, shrouded as the subject is in the mists of antiquity. Then, when the poverty of this position becomes apparent, many American Protestants are tempted to consider the claims of those churches that are older than 1776. But more is involved than how far back we can go. After all, Cain was the oldest.”
In the realm of covenants, antiquity is not the only issue. Age is only a blessing if it is an aged covenant union. But union is not an automatic thing.
“Twenty centuries ago, the apostle Paul gave a solemn warning to the Gentiles who were streaming into the church. The Jews had been guilty of a covenantal presumption, and so, after their high-handed rejection of their Messiah, the Lord from heaven solemnly and with great severity removed them from the olive tree of the covenant (Rom. 11:16–25). God then began grafting the believing Gentiles in.
But in the midst of this process of ingrafting, Paul took care to warn them not to commit the same sin as the Jews. They were mere branches, after all, and not the root. They did not support the root, but rather the root supported them. No branch on the tree can ever consider itself the root. The only root is the root of Jesse, the Lord Jesus Christ. Any branch can be cut from Him, but the Lord Himself cannot be uprooted.”
“We do not consider carefully enough that these stern warnings were given by an apostle to the church at Rome. Rome was the capital of the empire when Paul wrote. He knew how temptations come to the sons of men. He knew that the growth of the church in Rome and the destruction of Jerusalem, site of the original “mother church,” would create the temptation for the Roman Gentiles to boast against the original branches. And so he said, “Boast not.” Be not high-minded, Paul said, but fear. Again, he told the church at Rome not to be high-minded but rather to fear. What were they to fear? The answer is plain—the Roman church was commanded to fear the prospect of removal from the olive tree of the covenant.”
“In the face of this, over the centuries, it has become a dogma in the church at Rome that while other churches can fall away, it cannot. Even if everyone else denies You, Peter said, I will not. In other words, a church that is expressly warned that it can be cut off maintains that it cannot be. It is as if a modern church, standing amid the ruins of ancient Ephesus, were to maintain as a point of doctrine that its lampstand was incapable of removal (Rev. 2:5).”
“On the night Jesus was betrayed, Peter stood out among the other disciples. Even if all the others denied the Lord, Peter claimed, he would not. He would stand firm. But Jesus corrected him personally. The one who thinks he stands must take heed lest he fall. The one who considers it a point of doctrine to reject the Lord’s solemn warnings as though they were temptations is falling into the great temptation.”
“Peter turned back from his sin in repentance. As a result of his disastrous denial of the Lord, Peter went out and wept bitterly. He learned not to boast in his own strength. His tenderness, humility, strength, and holiness are plainly seen in the two letters he left for the church of all ages. Those who consider themselves his heirs need to consider this pattern.”
“The confidence that flows from a Biblical understanding of election is never an a priori confidence. If anyone understood and taught the doctrine of predestination, Paul did. And yet, in humility, he acknowledged that he might become a castaway. Likewise, Peter learned not to make claims he could not fulfill.”
“Every Christian church in the world must acknowledge that it does not support the root, but that the root supports it. In this demeanor of humility, a church can never fall away. But when pride comes in, so does danger. Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord. This is the great and true legacy of Peter.”
The following article is by Dr. R. C. Sproul. Dr. Sproul (1939–2017) was founder of Ligonier Ministries, first minister of preaching and teaching at Saint Andrew’s Chapel in Sanford, Fla., first president of Reformation Bible College, and executive editor of Tabletalk magazine. His radio program, Renewing Your Mind, is still broadcast daily on hundreds of radio stations around the world and can also be heard online. He was author of more than one hundred books, including The Holiness of God, Chosen by God, and Everyone’s a Theologian. He was recognized throughout the world for his articulate defense of the inerrancy of Scripture and the need for God’s people to stand with conviction upon His Word.
“The Rock. The Big Fisherman. The Betrayer. Each of these sobriquets has been applied to Simon Peter. Will the real Simon Peter please stand up?”
“The names given to Peter all fit him in one way or another. Like all of us, Peter was a complex person; no one is truly one-dimensional. At different times and under different circumstances Peter behaved in different manners. At times he was timid and weak, cowering before accusers. At other times he was bold and heroic, standing up against those in positions of power.”
“Peter earned a reputation for being somewhat impetuous. John names the disciple (who is unnamed in the Synoptic Gospels) who cut off the right ear of the high priest’s servant, Malchus, during Jesus’ arrest in Gethsemane. It was Peter who took that precipitous and reckless action.”
“That same impetuosity appeared again when Jesus warned Peter that Satan would sift him as wheat. Peter answered proudly, “ ‘Lord, I am ready to go with You, both to prison and to death’ ” (Luke 22:33). In reality, Peter was not ready to join Jesus either in prison or in death. Instead, he fulfilled Jesus’ prediction that he would betray Him.”
“Having arrested Jesus, they led Him and brought Him into the high priest’s house. But Peter followed at a distance. Now when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the courtyard and sat down together, Peter sat among them. And a certain servant girl, seeing him as he sat by the fire, looked intently at him and said, ‘This man was also with Him.’ But he denied Him, saying, ‘Woman, I do not know Him.’ And after a little while another saw him and said, ‘You also are of them.’ But Peter said, ‘Man, I am not!’ Then after about an hour had passed, another confidently affirmed, saying, ‘Surely this fellow also was with Him, for he is a Galilean.’ But Peter said, ‘Man, I do not know what you are saying!’ ” (Luke 22:54–60a).”
“At this point, Matthew notes that Peter prefaced his third denial with curses and swearing. Luke then adds a poignant detail: “Immediately, while he was still speaking, the rooster crowed. And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. Then Peter remembered the word of the Lord … and went out and wept bitterly” (Luke 22:60b–62).”
“There is irony here. In the space of a little more than an hour, Peter fell under the careful scrutiny of two people. The first was a servant girl, who fixed her gaze intently upon him before accusing him of being one connected to Jesus. This provoked Peter’s first denial. Then, immediately following his third denial, Peter was the object of the gaze of Christ. It was a knowing stare. No words were exchanged; none needed to be. I doubt that any human being in all history was subjected to a more devastating look than the one Peter received from the soon-to-be-executed Jesus. It is no wonder that Peter went out and wept bitterly.”
“The inconsistency of Peter’s behavior may be seen not only in the contrast between this shameful denial and his subsequent fearless behavior before the authorities of this world, but also in his capacity for change in short intervals of time.”
“It was at Caesarea Philippi that Simon was given the name “Peter.” The change was made in direct response to his confession regarding the identity of Jesus. When Jesus asked His disciples, “ ‘Who do you say that I am?’ ” Simon replied, “ ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ ” Jesus then declared: “ ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church’ ” (Matt. 16:15–18a).”
“Simon was now called “Petros,” or “Rock.” Yet, presumably only moments later, Jesus gave him still another name. Jesus had just explained to Peter and the others that He had to go to Jerusalem to suffer and die. To this announcement Peter said, “ ‘Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!’ ” (v. 22).”
“Then came the new name: “ ‘Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men’ ” (v. 23).”
“From “Rock” to “Satan.” From benediction to rebuke. From praise to offense. All in a short space of time.”
“Peter’s volatility gradually gave way to rock-hard steadfast faith. After the Resurrection, after Pentecost, and with the memory of the transfigured Jesus still vivid in his mind, Peter became the pillar of the apostolic church in Jerusalem. His dramatic sermon on the Day of Pentecost was followed by the healing of the lame man by the gate Beautiful. When the lame man begged for alms, Peter said, “ ‘silver and gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk’ ” (Acts 3:6). The man departed walking, leaping, and praising God.”
“But not everyone was pleased about this episode. The authorities, troubled by apostles’ preaching of the Resurrection, had Peter and John cast into prison. Then, before the authorities (not a mere servant girl), Peter preached a courageous sermon, provoking even more hostility from them. They therefore commanded Peter and John to speak no more of Jesus. But the apostles replied: “ ‘Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard’ ” (Acts 4:19–20).”
“The authorities saw a different Peter … a transformed Peter. With characteristic understatement, Luke records: “Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and untrained men, they marveled. And they realized that they had been with Jesus” (v. 13).”
“Here is the crux of the matter, the key that unlocks the personality of Peter—he was a man who had been with Jesus.”
The following article is by Pastor Dr. Burk Parsons. Dr. Parsons is editor of Tabletalk magazine and senior pastor of Saint Andrew’s Chapel in Sanford, Fla. He is co-translator and coeditor of A Little Book on the Christian Life by John Calvin.
“Shame—we all feel it, or at least we should. We are all sinful, and our sin brings shame. Although shame has all but disappeared from our culture’s vocabulary and is largely ignored by many in the church, it exists nonetheless and must be recognized and reckoned with.”
“If we are honest with ourselves, and more importantly, honest with God, we cannot help but admit that we feel shame as a result of our sin. Whether we sin in private or in public—and whether we perhaps even pretend not to have it—shame is undeniably real. We feel shame because God in His grace created all human beings with the capacity to feel shame as a consequence of their sin.”
John Calvin wrote, “Only those who have learned well to be earnestly dissatisfied with themselves, and to be confounded with shame at their wretchedness truly understand the Christian gospel.”
“If we have never truly felt the shame of our sin, we have never truly repented of our sin. For it is only when we recognize what wretches we are that we are able to sing “Amazing Grace” and know what a sweet sound it truly is.”
“Even when we are young children—from the very first moment in our lives when we know we’ve done something wrong—we blush and hang our heads in shame. The question is not whether we feel shame, but what we do with our shame. Some try to hide their shame, some try to ignore it as long as possible, some grow callous and complacent toward their shame, and some wallow in their shame and live their lives in quiet desperation. However, as Christians, we have a place to go with our shame—the foot of the cross. We have a Redeemer who has taken our shame to the cross. So we sing, “Bearing shame and scoffing rude, in my place condemned he stood, sealed my pardon with his blood: Hallelujah, what a Savior.”
“Jesus Christ redeemed us not only from His wrath and hell in the future but from having to wallow in the mire of guilt and shame in the present. Jesus promised us not only eternal life in the future, but abundant life that begins in the present. Jesus lived and died not only for the guilt of our sin but for the shame of our sin. He endured the cross, despising its shame, so that we would not have to wallow in shame.”
“Our Lord calls us to bring our shame to Him, whereas Satan wants us to bear the constant weight of our shame and wallow in it for the rest of our lives. But if we live each day bearing the shame of yesterday, and we’re worried about the shame of tomorrow, we will never experience the joys of abundant life in Christ today. Therefore, let us lift our weary eyes from gazing upon our shame and fix our eyes of Christ, the author and finisher of our faith.”
“And Peter remembered the saying of Jesus, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly.” (Matthew 26:75 ESV)
The following article is from John Calvin’s Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Calvin provides biblical insight, not only regarding Peter’s denial of the Lord Jesus Christ but also the temptations all believers in Christ face.
“Peter’s fall, which is here related, is a bright mirror of our weakness. In his repentance, also, a striking instance of the goodness and mercy of God is held out to us. This narrative, therefore, which relates to a single individual, contains a doctrine which may be applied to the whole Church, and which indeed is highly useful, both to instruct those who are standing to cherish anxiety and fear, and to comfort those who have fallen, by holding out to them the hope of pardon.”
“First it ought to be observed, that Peter acted inconsiderately, when he entered into the hall of the high priest. It was his duty, no doubt, to follow his Master; but having been warned that he would revolt, he ought rather to have concealed himself in some corner, so as not to expose himself to an occasion of sinning. Thus it frequently happens that believers, under an appearance of virtue, throw themselves within the reach of temptation. It is therefore our duty to pray to the Lord to restrain and keep us by his Spirit, lest, going beyond our measure, we be immediately punished.”
“We ought also to pray, whenever we commence any undertaking, that he may not permit us to fail in the midst of our efforts, or at the beginning of the work, but may supply us with strength from heaven till the end. Conviction of our weakness ought not, indeed, to be a reason for indolence, to prevent us from going wherever God calls us; but it ought to restrain our rashness, that we may not attempt anything beyond our calling; and it ought also to stimulate us to prayer, that God, who has given us grace to begin well, may also continue to give us grace to persevere.”
“We ought also to observe, that almost in a single moment Peter thrice gave way; for this shows how unsteady we are, and how liable to fall, whenever Satan drives us. Certainly we shall never cease to fall, if the Lord do not stretch out his hand to uphold us.”
“When the rigor of the grace of Christ was extinguished in Peter, whoever might afterwards meet hit and interrogate him about Christ, he would have been ready to deny a hundred or a thousand times. Although, then, it was very base in him to fall thrice, yet the Lord spared him by restraining the tongues of enemies from making additional attacks upon him.”
“Thus, also, it is every day necessary for the Lord to bridle Satan, lest he overwhelm us with innumerable temptations; for though he does not cease to employ many instruments in assailing us, were it not that the Lord, paying regard to our weakness, restrains the violence of his rage, we would have to contend against a prodigious amount of temptations. In this respect, therefore, we ought to praise the mercy of the Lord, who does not permit our enemy to make advances against us, almost the hundredth part of what he would desire.”
73 After a little while the bystanders came up and said to Peter, “Certainly you too are one of them, for your accent betrays you.” 74 Then he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, “I do not know the man.” And immediately the rooster crowed. 75 And Peter remembered the saying of Jesus, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly.” (Matthew 26:73–75 (ESV)
70 But again he denied it. And after a little while the bystanders again said to Peter, “Certainly you are one of them, for you are a Galilean.” 71 But he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, “I do not know this man of whom you speak.” 72 And immediately the rooster crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, “Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times.” And he broke down and wept.” (Mark 14:70–72 (ESV)
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.” (Luke 22:59–62 (ESV)
26 One of the servants of the high priest, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, “Did I not see you in the garden with him?” 27 Peter again denied it, and at once a rooster crowed.” (John 18:26–27 (ESV)
Jesus had experienced two of His three religious trials. Simon Peter’s denial of Jesus also transpired in three trials, as Jesus predicted (Matt. 26:30-35). Therefore, it is wise to examine each denial in order of their occurrence. The purpose of this is not to just voyeuristically observe a historical event. Rather, it is also to identify the circumstances of this historical event and how it may apply in our own lives as believers in Christ.
Peter faced the testimony of three questioners like Jesus did (Caiaphas, two witnesses (Matt. 26:57–64, 69–74), but that is where the similarity ends. The Lord affirmed the truth throughout His hearing before the powerful and influential men. However, Peter denied the truth before weak and insignificant in that culture. Ultimately, Peter fulfilled Jesus’ prediction and denied the Lord three times. This was because Peter relied on his own power, not on the Spirit of God. Peter’s denial of Jesus became so intense Matthew recorded Peter “began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, ‘I do not know this man of whom you speak’.”
John Calvin says that any man “who is not supported by the hand of God, will instantly fall by a slight gale or the rustling of a falling leaf.”
“He must have said something like, “May God do this or that to me if it be true that I am or ever was a disciple of Jesus.” He stands there invoking upon himself one curse after another. And the louder this Galilean talks, the more, without realizing it, he is saying to all those standing around, “I’m a liar,” explains Dr. William Hendriksen.
Grammatically, all four Gospel accounts display cause and effect. This means a preceding cause will result in its corresponding effect. Peter’s third denial of knowing Jesus, the preceding cause, resulted in the prophesied effect, the rooster crowed twice. This event was not a coincidence but rather was within the providence, purposeful sovereignty, of God.
However, another effect played out in this scene. Matthew, Mark and Luke all recorded Peter’s bitter weeping. Bitterly (πικρῶς; pikros) means to be swallowed up with grief so great as to be in despair and agony. This is sorrow so nasty it causes the individual to give up (2 Cor. 2:7).
“When Peter hears the crowing of the rooster, and sees Jesus looking at him, with eyes so full of pain, yet also of pardon, his memory of Christ’s warning prediction (26:34) is suddenly awakened. How it came about that Peter is at last permitted to leave the palace is not stated. Can it have been because now the attention of all the underlings, and perhaps of everybody else, is fixed upon Jesus? However that may be, Peter goes out and weeps as only Peter can weep: bitterly, profusely, meaningfully, his heart being filled with genuine sorrow for what he has done,” states Dr. Hendriksen.
“Yet hope remains for Peter. Though he has sinned greatly, his tears (26:75) and later restoration (John 21:15–19) show a repentant heart. No matter the depth of our sin, while we draw breath it is never too late to return to the Lord. He mercifully forgives all, without exception, who mourn their transgressions,” concludes Dr. R. C. Sproul.
71 And when he went out to the entrance, another servant girl saw him, and she said to the bystanders, “This man was with Jesus of Nazareth.” 72 And again he denied it with an oath: “I do not know the man.” (Matthew 26:71–72 (ESV)
69 And the servant girl saw him and began again to say to the bystanders, “This man is one of them.” 70 But again he denied it.” (Mark 14:69–70a (ESV)
58 And a little later someone else saw him and said, “You also are one of them.” But Peter said, “Man, I am not.” (Luke 22:58 (ESV)
25 Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. So they said to him, “You also are not one of his disciples, are you?” He denied it and said, “I am not.” (John 18:25 (ESV)
Jesus had experienced two of His three religious trials. Simon Peter’s denial of Jesus also transpired in three trials, as Jesus predicted (Matt. 26:30-35). Therefore, it is wise to examine each denial in order of their occurrence. The purpose of this is not to just voyeuristically observe a historical event. Rather, it is also to identify the circumstances of this historical event and how it may apply in our own lives as believers in Christ.
Peter remains in the high priest’s courtyard. Fear gripped him and an initial denial of knowing Jesus proceeded from his lips. However, he did not leave. His loyalty to Jesus was displayed more by his bodily behavior than his lying words.
“It seems that in his frustration as a result of the first embarrassment, Peter tried to get out of the building. He had been in the roofless courtyard, among the palace servants and temple guards, warming himself by the fire (Mark 14:54), but now things are becoming “too hot” for him. He is probably afraid that at any moment an underling may grab him and make him a prisoner. Perhaps the thought occurs to him, “What will happen to me if they find out that I’m the man who slashed off the ear of Malchus?” So he must try to escape from the palace as quickly as possible,” explains Dr. William Hendriksen.
Luke recorded a little time had passed since Peter’s first denial (Luke 22:58a). Matthew stated Peter was now at the courtyard’s entrance (Matt. 26:71a). John wrote Peter was standing and warming himself, presumably by another fire (John 18:25a). The time reference and Peter’s behavior are not contradicted by the Gospel writers.
It was then a second servant girl approached Peter (Matt. 26:71b). Mark wrote she was the servant girl (Mark 14:69a). Initially, it may appear Mark was saying it was the same girl who previously approached Peter, but this not necessarily the case. There were many servant girls of the high priest (Mark 14:26). Luke said it was someone else and mentioned no particular gender (Luke 22:58a). John stated it was an unidentified group of people (bystanders, Matt. 26:71) who joined the servant girl’s inquiry (John 18:25a).
The servant girls said to the bystanders, “This man was with Jesus of Nazareth” (Matt. 26:71b), ““This man is one of them” (Mark 14:69b), “You also are one of them” (Luke 22:58b), and “You also are not one of his disciples, are you?” (John 18:25b).
“The portresses are unwilling to let him out. He gets no farther than the entranceway or vestibule which via the gate leads to the road. Several people are standing around. It would seem that the portress who is about to go off duty has already told the news about Peter to the girl who has come to relieve her. So both of these girls (cf. Matt. 26:71 and Mark 14:69) now say to those who are standing around, “This fellow was with Jesus the Nazarene.” The constant reference to “of Galilee,” “the Nazarene” may imply scorn, but this is by no means certain. See on Matt. 2:23 and also on John 1:46. At least one male bystander chimes in with what the girls are saying (Luke 22:58),” states Dr. Hendriksen.
In all four Gospel accounts, Peter denied knowing the Lord. “And again he denied it with an oath: “I do not know the man” (Matt. 26:72), “But again he denied it” (Mark 14:71a), ““Man, I am not” (Luke 22:58), and “I am not” (John 1 8:25).
“Note “the man,” as if Jesus were a complete stranger to him. This time Simon is beside himself with rage and frustration. He does something that he had not done during the first denial. With an oath he begins to deny his connection with Jesus. Forcefully he maintains, “I don’t know the man.” Christ’s oath (Matt. 26:63, 64) and Peter’s (Matt. 26:72, 74), what a contrast! The former confirms the truth; the latter sanctions the lie,” concludes Dr. Hendriksen.
His Word Today 