Matthew 26:69

(69) Now Peter sat without in the palace.—Better, had sat down in the court. The word rendered “palace” here and in Mat_26:58, is strictly the court-yard or quadrangle round which a house was built. It may be well to bring together the order of the Apostle’s thrice-repeated denials.

(1) On his entry into the court-yard of the palace, in answer to the female slave who kept the door (Joh_18:17).

(2) As he sat by the fire warming himself, in answer (a) to another damsel (Mat_26:69) and (b) other by-standers (Joh_18:25; Luk_22:58), including (c) the kinsman of Malchus (Joh_18:26).

(3) About an hour later (Luk_22:59), after he had left the fire, as if to avoid the shower of questions, and had gone out into the porch, or gateway leading out of the court-yard, in answer (a) to one of the damsels who had spoken before (Mar_14:69; Mat_26:71), and again (b) to other by-standers (Luk_22:59; Mat_26:13; Mar_14:20).

There were thus three distinct occasions, but as the hasty words of denial rose to his lips, it is probable enough that they were repeated more than once on each occasion, and that several persons heard them.

As far as we can analyse the impulse which led to the denial, it was probably shame not less than fear. The feeling which had shown itself in the cry, “Be it far from thee, Lord,” when he first heard of his Master’s coming passion (Mat_16:22), came back upon him, and he shrank from the taunts and ridicule which were sure to fall upon the followers of One whom they had acknowledged as the Christ, and whose career was ending in apparent failure. It was against that feeling of shame that our Lord on that occasion had specially warned him (Mar_8:38). The element of fear also was, however, probably strong in Peter’s nature. (Comp. Gal_2:12.)

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat_26:69-75

Now Peter sat without in the palace.

The fall of Peter

One of the most melancholy instances of depravity ever committed. But a little while before so confident, seated at the table of the Lord, etc. Draw from it important practical uses.

I. The danger of self-confidence-Let him that thinketh, etc. Rely on God for strength.

II. The highest favours, the most exalted privileges, do not secure us from the danger of falling into sin.

III. When a man begins to sin his fall from one act to another is easy, perhaps almost certain. The downward road of crime is easy.

IV. True repentance is deep, thorough, bitter.

V. A look from Jesus-a look of mingled affection, pity, and reproof-produces bitter sorrow for sin. Him we injure by our crimes, etc.

VI. When we fall into temptation, let us seek the place of solitude, and pour out our sorrows before God.

VII. Real Christians may be suffered to go far astray. To show them their weakness, etc.

VIII. Yet though a Christian may be suffered to go astray, yet he who should, from this example of Peter, think he might lawfully do it, or who should resolve to do it, thinking that he might, like Peter, weep and repent, would give evidence that he knew nothing of the grace of God. (A. Barnes, D. D.)

Peters recovery

Let us lay to heart some of the most important lessons of this subject.

I. Let no Christian rely on his disposition or feeling for safety from falling.

II. Let no Christian rely upon his past conduct as a safeguard.

III. Let no Christian presume to trust in conscience to keep him right in the hour of danger.

IV. Learn to realize the bitter memory of good words which came too late. (F. Skerry.)

Peters repentance

I. Some of the reasons of St. Peters denial.

1. Fear.

2. Self-confidence.

II. The repentance of St. Peter The compassionatism of the Man of Sorrows. He looked upon Peter. Memory acts in cases of repentance. (W. D. Herwood.)

Peter and Judas

I. Peters sorrow arose from a sense of the guilt of his conduct, but Judas from a perception of the consequences of his conduct.

II. Peters sorrow was full of hope, but Judas was full of despair.

III. Peters sorrow drove him nearer to God, but Judas drove him further from God.

IV. Peters sorrow developed his Christian manhood, but Judas became an element of sharp retribution. Repent or perish. (J. W. Mays, M. A.)

The denying disciple

I. Who? Peter, the confessor of the Christ of God, etc.

II. Whom?

III. What?

IV. When?

V. Where?

VI. How? Three times, after being warned, through fear of a woman: etc. (Dr. Bonar.)

Skill required to keep up a lie

A Spanish proverb declares that for an honest man half his wits is enough, while the whole are too little for a knave; the ways, that is, as Archbishop Trench expounds the adage, of truth and uprightness, are so simple and plain, that a little wit is abundantly sufficient for those who walk in them; whereas the ways of falsehood and fraud are so perplexed and tangled, that sooner or later all the wit of the cleverest rogue will not preserve him from being entangled therein-a truth often wonderfully confirmed in the lives of evil men. (F. Jacox.)

Telling a lie a big task

He who tells a lie is not sensible how great a task he undertakes; for he must be forced to invent twenty more to maintain that one. (Dean Swift.)

Occasional relapse compatible with spiritual advance

As an illustration of this law in the kingdom of grace, consider the movement of the tide, when it is coming in. It is movement upon the whole. The water is sure to cover that dry beach in two or three hours time, and to float that stranded sea-weed; but it is not a movement without relapses. Each wave, I suppose, gains a little ground, but each wave falls back as soon as it has plashed upon the shore. Even so in the Christian life, there may be a forward movement on the whole, consistently with many relapses, though this assertion requires to be guarded by the observation that the relapses must be such as proceed from infirmity, and not from malice prepense. Deliberate, habitual sin cannot possibly consist with spiritual growth; but the shaking of a mans steadfastness by a sudden tornado of temptation (which was St. Peters case) may do so. The great question is whether, after each such fall, the will recovers its spring and elasticity, and makes a fresh start with new and more fervent prayers and resolve. Indeed the making many fresh starts after relapses of infirmity is a hopeful sign of growth. In order to any great attainment in spiritual life, there must be an indomitable resolve to try and try again, and still to begin anew amidst much failure and discouragement. On warm, dewy mornings in the spring, vegetation makes a shoot; and when we rise and throw open the window, we mark that the may is blossoming in the hedgerows. And those periods when a man can say, I lost myself sadly yesterday in temper or in talk, but I know that my crucified Lord took upon Him those sins and answered for them, and to-day I will earnestly strive against them in the strength of His Spirit invoked into my soul by earnest prayer; these are warm, dewy mornings of the soul, when the spiritual life within us sprouts and blossoms apace. (Dean Goulburn.)

The old nature reasserting itself

The old fisherman of Galilee, it would seem, in days gone by, had been a man who used strong language. Since He had been a disciple of Christ he had learned to control his language. Three years intercourse with Christ had done much for him, but it had not done all. The old man was still alive and strong. The new man was very weak in Peter just at this time. The old man had risen up against the new man. The old nature in Peter was fighting against the Christ that was within him; and if the Lord had not just at that worst moment turned and looked upon Peter, the issue might have been more disastrous than it was. Then Peter saw what he had done-he had been stabbing his Master to the very heart-driving a nail into His cross, and piercing Him with another spear! (H. Bonar, D. D.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 26:69-70. Now Peter, &c. — Our Lord’s trial in the high-priest’s palace, and Peter’s denying him, being contemporary events, either of them might be related first, as the historian might think most proper. Matthew and Mark describe the trial first, as being the principal fact, but Luke introduces it after Peter’s denials. John has preserved the exact natural order, for he begins with the first denial, because it happened immediately after Peter entered the palace; then gives the history of the trial, as the principal fact, and concludes with the subsequent denials. The apostles, no doubt, were in great consternation when their Master was apprehended, as appears from their forsaking him and fleeing. Some of them, however, recovering out of the panic that had seized them, followed the band at a distance, to see what the end would be. Of this number was Peter, and another disciple, whom John has mentioned without giving his name, and who, therefore, is generally supposed to have been John himself, it being his manner to speak of himself in the third person. See Joh 13:23; Joh 21:10. “Matthew and Mark seem to differ in the account which they give of the place where Peter first denied his Master. Matthew’s words are, Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, &c. Mark says, Mar 14:66, the denial happened as Peter was beneath in the palace. To reconcile this difference, some suppose that the high- priest’s palace was built so as to form a court; that the fire at which the servants sat was lighted in the court; and that Jesus was examined in the porch, called by Matthew πυλων, and by Mark προαυλιον. Accordingly they think persons in the court might be said to have been (εξω) without, in the palace, that is, without in respect of the covered buildings; and (κατω) beneath in the palace with respect to the porch, which was higher than the level of the court. But it appears from Joh 18:25, that Peter was with the servants at the fire when he denied his Master the third time; and from Luk 22:61, that Jesus looked upon Peter just as he was pronouncing the words of the third denial. Our Lord, therefore, and his disciple, were not, the one in the court and the other in the porch of the palace during his trial, but they were together in one room, Jesus with his judges at the upper end of it, and Peter with the servants at the fire in the other. According to this disposition, Peter might be said to have been without in the hall, that is, without in relation to the crowd of judges, witnesses, and soldiers around Jesus; but in relation to the place where the council sat, he was beneath in the hall, a way of speaking common even in our own language. Further, John says, Mat 26:18, that Peter, after the first denial, stood with the officers at the fire; whereas Matthew and Luke tell us, when he first denied his Master he sat by the fire. It seems, the maid’s words had put him into such confusion, that before he answered her he rose from the seat which the servants had given him on his first coming in.” — Macknight. According to John, the maid who attacked Peter, was the damsel who kept the door. It seems, after having admitted him, she followed him to the fire, and spoke to him in an angry tone, having been informed that it was he who had cut off her fellow-servant’s ear, see Joh 18:26. Thou also wast with Jesus — She meant when he was apprehended in the garden. This blunt attack threw Peter into such confusion, that he flatly denied his having any thing to do with Jesus, saying, I know not what thou sayest — I do not understand what thou meanest by speaking to me in this manner. Here we see that apostle, who had formerly acknowledged his Master to be the Messiah, who was honoured with the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and who had most confidently boasted of fortitude, and a firm attachment to him in the greatest dangers, proved a very coward upon trial.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL NOTES

Mat_26:71. Porch.—The dim, over-arched passage, leading outward from the area of the court to the entrance gate (Morison).

Mat_26:73. Thy speech bewrayeth thee.—Peter was discovered by his use of the Galilæan dialect. The Galilæans were unable to pronounce the gutturals distinctly, and they lisped, pronouncing sh like th. Perhaps Peter said, “I know not the ith,” instead of, “I know not the ish” (man) (Carr). To bewray, from the Anglo-Saxon wreian, to accuse, then, to point out, make evident,—the literal meaning of the Greek words (Bible Word-Book).

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Mat_26:69-75

Desertion.—Where were the followers of the Saviour during the time that He stood before the high priest, as described in the previous verses? As a rule they were wholly away from the scene. When He had seemed in their eyes to have forsaken Himself (Mat_26:51-54), they forsook Him as well (Mat_26:56). Only the Apostle John, as one known to the high priest (Joh_18:15), and the Apostle Peter, as introduced by him (ibid., Mat_26:16), were sufficiently near, in the outer court, to be witnesses of the scene. What befell this last-named Apostle, in consequence of his being there at this time, is the subject of the verses before us. Their contents may be regarded as describing to us, in the first place, a great opportunity; and in the second place, a sad misuse of it.

I. A great opportunity.—Had St. Peter so wished, here was an opening for him to stand up for Christ and confess Him. There was everything in the place where he was (as we say) to give him this “chance.” It was within sight of all that occurred (Luk_22:61). It was filled with those who looked on. Most of them were enemies of the Saviour. Here was the occasion, therefore, for His friends to speak for Him. Also, Peter’s position there was such as to call him specially to undertake this duty. He was a marked man in that place. He had been introduced there, to begin, as a stranger; a thing which would naturally attract attention to him, as well from the doorkeeper as from others. Also, he had been a prominent figure in the garden at the apprehension of Jesus, a procedure in which some of his present companions, the high priest’s servants, had taken their part. Probably, also, there would be something in his appearance, corresponding to the conflict of feelings then raging within him on account of his previous boldness (Joh_18:10) but later timidity (Mar_14:54), which would draw special attention to him. We know that there was something in the provincial character of his dialect which would do the same thing. And we can well understand that the position he took up, near the “fire” (Joh_18:18) would make doubly visible whatever of strangeness there was to be seen in his looks. All these things of themselves would be a kind of challenge to him to say who he was, and so, at least, acknowledge his Lord and Master. Lastly, there was not a little to be found in the man’s natural character which would itself be a qualification for, and so a stimulus to, this duty. When we remember what he had said previously (ch. Mat_16:16); as also what is said of him afterwards (Act_4:13); as also yet that he must have been in heart in all the time intervening what he was on the occasions referred to;—we shall see that there must have been (at least to one part of him) in his present circumstances, a great call to speak out. “Why do you not confess Jesus now? Why not do so, as you said that you would? Here is a fitting time for so doing! Here are those ready to listen to you, and wanting to know, in fact, who you are! Why not tell them at once, and have done with it?” So his heart, surely, would say then to itself. “Forward in other things, be forward, also, in this.”

II. A sad misuse.—A sad misuse, in the first place, in a negative way—letting the opportunity pass. Instead of dealing with that to which he was invited, the Apostle, at first, tried merely to get out of its way. He did so, partly, in words. Even when one who was present, by the language she employed, pressed the opportunity then before him home on his heart, this was all that he did. “Thou also,” she said to him—thou as well as this John whom we all know here so well (?)—“wast with Jesus of Nazareth.” To this question—for such it really was—he returns what is really no “answer” whatever. He merely professes to have no knowledge at all on the matter in hand (Mat_26:70). Also, he follows this word up by action of a similar purport; going out into the “porch” (Mat_26:71), as though he were one having other business just then requiring his presence. The whole signifies that he does not wish at present to commit himself on the subject. He desires at present to be merely neutral about it. He dare not say, Yea, but he will not say, Nay, at this stage of the proceedings; thus, in fact, in such circumstances, by not confessing, denying his Lord. A sadder misuse, in the next place, in a positive way. Having begun thus badly, in other words, he goes on to still worse. Questioned again by another one there, and finding, in consequence, that he cannot take refuge, as he had hoped, in avoiding the subject, he goes on now, in so many words, to deny all knowledge of Christ. “So far from belonging to Him”—so his words mean—“I do not know who He is.” This he says, too, “with an oath” (Mat_26:72). Lastly, “after a little,” when the effect of this solemnly uttered and distinct asseveration had somewhat worn off, as it were—and when some of those who had heard it, noting the peculiar dialect of the man who had made it, began, in consequence, to question the possibility of its truth—he is given a further and last opportunity of retracing his steps. “Surely, thou dost belong to the company of this Jesus; thy very speech proves that thou dost; why not confess it thyself?” So they in effect (Mat_26:73). He, on the other hand, thus driven to bay, becomes desperate in his denial. “Then began he to curse and to swear saying, I know not the Man.” What do the words mean? “To curse.” To curse whom? What for? How far? “To swear.” To swear by whom? By his Maker? In attestation of his falsehood? To ask attention to his crime? There is no need to inquire. What the words do show is that he has become utterly lost in his ever-growing iniquity, and has put the opportunity now given him to the worst use that he could.

1. How extreme is the weakness of man when left to himself!—Such is the first lesson which this memorable story has ever taught to the church. Here is the most eminent of the then disciples of Christ—apparently the first stone in His church (Mat_16:18)—the most forward ever and boldest of all—doing the very thing which he had thought wholly impossible a few moments before. It almost reads like a dream. The true Peter seems standing by, and watching a counterfeit one in his place. Who, after that, shall put trust in himself? Who shall say, after that, of any wickedness, that he may not be tempted to do it? Or, that the best of men may not be found in action what is most abhorrent to them in thought?

2. How supreme, on the other hand, is the strength of all who are true believers in Christ!—We do not see here the end of this Peter, or of the effect of grace on his heart. Even immediately, on the contrary, we see him brought to repent (Mat_26:75); and that by a look (Luk_22:61). Afterwards we find him opening the door of faith alike to Gentile (Act_15:7) and Jew (Act_2:36-41). Afterwards we find even the Apostle Paul speaking of Him as a “pillar” (Gal_2:9), as in the implied prediction of Christ (Luk_22:32). To so great height from so great depth did his faith bring him in time. And after just such fashion, therefore, may all those hope who have in them the same “seed” (1Pe_1:25; 1Jn_3:9). If there is nothing weaker, there is nothing stronger than a believer in Christ. If there is nothing he cannot do, there is nothing he cannot undo, by dependence on Him.

HOMILIES ON THE VERSES

Mat_26:69-75. Peter’s sin.—

I. The sin.

1. A lie.

2. An oath (perjury).

3. An anathema and curse.

II. The occasion of the sin.—

1. Peter followed Christ afar off, from fear and frailty.

2. He kept bad company.—With the enemies of Christ.

3. Presumptuous confidence.—In his own strength and standing.

III. The repetition of the sin.—If we yield to one temptation, Satan will assault us with more and stronger; progress from bare denial to perjury and thus to imprecation.

IV. The aggravating circumstances.—

1. The person thus falling.—A disciple, an Apostle, the chief Apostle, a special favourite with Christ.

2. The Person denied.—His Master, his Saviour and Redeemer, who just before had washed his feet and given him the sacrament.

3. The company of high priests, and scribes, and elders, and their servants, before whom Peter denied his Master.

4. The time of the denial.—But a few hours after the communion.

5. The smallness of the temptation.—A mere question of a servant girl, a door-keeper.—W. Burkitt.

Denial.—

I. The precursors of Peter’s fall.

1. Self-confidence.

2. Rashness.—Peter had cut off the ear of Malchus. Misplaced bravery is very often, as in this instance, the forerunner of cowardice. If by our folly we put ourselves in jeopardy, we are on the highway to falsehood in order to get ourselves out again.

3. Distance from the Lord.

II. The aggravations of these denials.—These were many.

1. Peter had been well warned of his danger.

2. The time at which they were uttered.—It was with Jesus Himself the hour and power of darkness.

3. The Lord had given him many special tokens of His regard.

4. The manner in which they were made.

III. The sequel of the denials.—“The Lord turned and looked upon Peter.” What a look that was! It was a mingling of reproof, of tenderness, and of entreaty. It reminded Peter of the warnings he had received, of the kindness he had so ungratefully met, and especially of the words of love which had been so recently addressed to him: “Simon, Simon! behold Satan,” etc. (Luk_22:31-32). He saw then what he had done, and in a moment the fountains of the great deep within him were broken up. He lived on that look till the Master met him after the resurrection; and the thought of that prayer kept him from falling into despair. Had it not been for these things, he, too, might have gone, like Judas, and hanged himself. Note one or two important inferences from this subject:

(1) Great prominence in Christ’s service does not keep us from peril.

(2) Our greatest danger does not always he where we are weakest, but is sometimes where we are usually strongest. Peter’s characteristic was honesty: yet he fell into deceit. Peter’s nature was courageous: yet here he manifests cowardice.

(3) If Peter’s fall is a warning against over-confidence, his restoration ought to be an antidote to all despair.—W. M. Taylor, D.D.

Mat_26:73. Speech betraying character.—“Thy speech bewrayeth thee.” Varieties of moral character, as well as country, are betrayed by speech:—

I. The babbling fool.

II. The censorious fault-finder.

III. The malicious slanderer.

IV. The oily flatterer.

V. The ingenious liar.

VI. The profane swearer.

VII. The timid apostate.

VIII. The bold confessor.—J. C. Gray.

Mat_26:74. Peter’s guilt.—His guilt was the more flagrant because the ordeal was not compressed into a short compass. The questions did not roll in upon him so quickly as to leave no time for reflection and recovery; on the contrary, they seem to have been spread over a space of an hour at the least; and yet he deliberately forced his soul thrice to the denial.—C. E. B. Reed, M.A.

Mat_26:75. Peter’s tears.—A man may be conscious of God’s forgiveness, as Peter was of the Saviour’s when He gave him that “look,” and still be unable to forgive himself; and as he remembers the past the floodgates are opened again and again. This was the case with Peter: the deed was done; it had been obliterated from the heart of Christ, but it pressed heavily upon his own; and the consciousness of having committed a base act blinded his eyes with tears. What had he done?

I. He had denied his Lord.—In doing so:—

1. He denied the greatest Teacher.—“Never man spake like this Man.”

2. He denied the kindest Friend.

3. He denied Him at a very critical period. He wept bitterly because of—

II. His likeness to the world.—

1. In his language.—“He began to curse and to swear.”

2. In his shame.

3. In his fear.—Cymro.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

SEVENTH SECTION

CHRIST AND PETER

26:69–75

(Mar_14:66-72; Luk_22:56-62; Joh_18:15-27)

69Now Peter sat [was sitting] without in the palace [court, αὐλῇ]103 and a damsel 70came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee [the Galilean].104But he denied before them105 all, saying, I know not what thou sayest. 71And when he was gone out into [going toward] the porch, another maid [ἄλλη] saw him, and said unto them106 that were there, This fellow [man, οὗτος] was also with Jesus of Nazareth [the 72Nazarene].107 And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man. 73And after a while came unto him they that stood by [they that stood by came], and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth [betrayeth, or discovereth, δῆλόν σε ποιεῖ] thee. 74Then began he to curse108 and to swear, saying,109 I know not [I do not know, οὐκ οἶδα, as in Mat_26:72] the man. And immediately the [a]110 cock crew. 75And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him [when he said],111Before the [a] cock crow, thou shalt [wilt] deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

On the manner and circumstances under which Peter gained access to the palace of the high-priest, see the Gospel of John.

Mat_26:69. Now Peter was sitting without.—“The expression ἔξω must be taken relatively to the interior of the house in which Jesus underwent examination. In Mat_26:58 the term ἔσ ω was used, because Peter is represented as going from the street into the court.” Meyer.

Mat_26:69. A damsel,—i. e., a female slave, as contradistinguished from the other mentioned in Mat_26:71. The former (who, according to Joh_18:17, “kept the door”) said: “Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilean;” the latter: “with Jesus the Nazarene.” Both maids had gathered their information by hearsay; but, although ignorant, they were malevolently disposed. Probably the statement was made in both cases in malicious banter, or light ridicule, as the charge evidently led to no further consequences.

Mat_26:70. He denied before them all.—Before the servants of the high-priest and the officials.—I know not what thou sayest.—A mode of expression which might be taken is denying the denial: I do not even understand what thou meanest. Of course this, however, implied a denial of the charge itself, although Meyer lays undue emphasis upon it when interpreting it: So far from having been with Him, I do not even know, etc.

Mat_26:71-72. And when he was going out into (toward) the porch.—After his first and indirect denial, Peter began to feel the painfulness of his situation, and wished to go away, or at any rate to be nearer the door, so as to secure a retreat. But in order to conceal his intention of leaving, he continued still for a short time in the porch. Accordingly, he went from the court or αὐλή, which enclosed the house, toward the porch. In our opinion, the δπυλών refers to the same as the προαύλιον in Mar_14:68 (which Meyer denies). It was then that, according to Mark, Peter denied Jesus a second time, after having risen from warming himself at the fire. “Another maid saw him (when going away), and (following him) said unto them that were there (probably the guard at the gate): This one was also with Jesus the Nazarene.” Then the second distinct denial ensued, confirmed by an oath, and by the contemptuous expression: “I do not know the man.” The circumstance that Peter made use of an oath is recorded by Matthew alone. The particle ὅτι probably refers to the confirmation by the oath.

Mat_26:73. And after a while, they that stood by came and said to Peter.—Primarily referring to those who had been at the gate. But the language of the text does not prevent our understanding it to mean, that in the interval a number of persons had come from the court and joined the group. In fact, according to Luke, a considerable interval had elapsed, before general attention had been called forth and fixed on Peter.—Surely thou also art one of them.—An oath against the oath of Peter.—For thy speech also betrayeth thee.—“Beside other circumstances, by which the maid recognized thee. The pronunciation, the dialect, ἡλαλία of the Galilæans was defective in the utterance of the gutturals, so that no distinction was perceptible between ה ,ע ,א. Besides, the Galilæns also pronounced the שׁ like ח.” De Wette. The pronunciation of the people of Galilee was uncouth and indistinct; hence they were not allowed to read aloud in the Jewish synagogues. The Talmudists relate a number of amusing anecdotes about the curious misunderstandings occasioned by the indistinctness of pronunciation in Galilee. See Friedlieb, p. 84.

Mat_26:74. Then began he.—He meets and out does the asseveration “Surely,” used by the servants, by beginning to invoke curses on himself and to swear.

Mat_26:74. And immediately a cock crew.—De Wette: “The statement in Mishna, Baba Kama vi. 7, that fowls were not allowed to be kept in Jerusalem, is probably incorrect. It is contrary to what is related in Hieros. Erubin, fol. 26, cp. 1; comp. Lightfoot ad v. 34.”—It was indeed contrary to the Levitical law of purity to keep fowls in Jerusalem, because these animals pick their food in dirt and mud, and might thus occasion the defilement of sacrifices and other dedicated offerings. But is it likely that the Roman soldiers in the castle of Antonia would care for such Jewish ordinances? And even with reference to the Jews, we read that the Sanhedrin had on one occasion ordered a cock to be stoned, because it had picked out the eyes of a little child, and thereby caused its death. (Sepp, Leben Jesu, iii. 475.)—Plinius observes that the second crowing of the cock (gallicinium) took place during the fourth watch of the night Friedlieb, p. 81.

Mat_26:75. Thou wilt thrice deny Me.—Bengel has, in his Gnomon, given the following satisfactory explanation of the fact, that the Gospels speak only of a threefold denial on the part of Peter: “Abnegatio ad plures plurium interrogations, facta uno paroxysmo, pro una numeratur.” By dint of that pressure of the letter at the expense of the import and spirit of history, which is so common with a certain school of critics (Leben Jesu, ii. 3, 1490), Strauss and Paulus have maintained that the Gospels record more than three denials on the part of Peter (Paulus speaks of eight distinct denials). But a closer inquiry shows that the three occasions are specially and separately enumerated in the Gospels:—

First denial.—Immediately on entering the palace, Joh_18:17, and on the charge of the maid who kept the door. According to Matthew (Mat_26:69), in the court; according to John and Mark, at the fire, where the servants warmed themselves; according to Luke, by the light of the fire.

Second denial.—According to John’s narrative, Peter was still standing by the fire and warming himself, probably with the design of covering a speedy retreat by assuming the appearance of unconcern. According to Matthew, he was now about to leave, when another maid attacked him, and people gathered around him in the porch. Luke reports one of these bystanders as already expressing the general feeling in the words: “Thou art also of them.”

Third denial.—Again Peter had tarried for some time in the porch. The false oath which he had taken had allayed the rising indignation of the people, when another fancied that he recognized him by his speech. Soon the servants declared that his speech betrayed him. Such a recognition would involve imminent peril of life. For, according to John, a relative of Malchus maintained that he had seen him in the garden with Jesus. Then Peter began to curse and swear, and immediately the cock crew (a second time), reminding and warning him. It appears that he had scarcely given any heed to the first crowing of the cock (Mark).

[On the different accounts of the threefold denial of Peter compare also the tables in the Greek and English Harmonies, Andrews’ Life of our Lord, p. 491 sqq., and the remarks of Alford on Mat_26:69-75; Mat_26:4 th ed. (p. 268 sqq.). These minor variations with essential coincidences prove the independence of the Evangelists and confirm the truth of their narrative. “Whether we can arrange them or not, being thoroughly persuaded of the holy truthfulness of the Evangelists, and of the divine guidance under which they wrote, our faith is in no way shaken by such discrepancies. We value them rather, as testimonies to independence: and are sure, that if for one moment we could be put in complete possession of all the details as they happened, each account would find its justification, and the reasons of all the variations would disappear. And this I firmly believe will one day be the case.” Alford (p. 269, in the 4th edition, where he corrects the errors of the corresponding note in the former edition).—P. S.]

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. This picture of the denial of the Lord as exhibited by the fall of that disciple who had been the first to confess Christ, has its peculiar and eternal import in the history of the Church. Hence we should study it: 1. In the source and antecedents of this denial; 2. in its various phases and stages; 3. in the repentance which followed, and which led to the only true and lasting spiritual confession.

2. The fall of Peter a significant type of the Romish Church.

3. The look of the Lord, recorded in the Gospel of Luke, in its historical and in its eternal, ideal import for the Church.

4. The deep sorrow and suffering of the Lord caused by the denial of Peter, in its lasting import for the Church.

5. Peter went out into the black night, but not as Judas into the darkness of despair. Weeping bitterly, he awaited the dawn of another and a better morning. The angel of mercy accompanied him on that heavy road to spiritual self-condemnation which issued in the death of his old man, more especially of his former pride and self-confidence. And thus it came that he really accompanied Christ unto death, though in a very different and much better sense than he had intended. His repentance had to be completed,—he had to obtain peace and reconciliation from the mouth of Christ Himself, before he could offer the requisite satisfaction for his guilt toward man by making such a grand confession as would efface and obliterate the offence of his grand denial. It deserves special notice, that this progress of repentance and conversion in the case of Peter may serve as the prototype of the economy of genuine grace; while this procedure was reversed in the case of Judas, who wished first to offer human satisfaction before those enemies whose guilt he had shared, but who failed, in that manner, to come to Christ.

[6. Wordsworth: “Even soon after he had received the Holy Communion Peter denied his Master. But he repented and was pardoned. Hence then we may confute the Novatians, who refuse to restore those who fall into grievous sin after Baptism and the Holy Communion. And St. Peter’s sin, and the sins of other saints, are written in Holy Scripture that we may not be high-minded, but fear; and that when we fall into sin we may repent. The grace given in the Holy Communion was improved by St. Peter into the means of godly repentance; but it was perverted by Judas to his own destruction. It was used as medicine by the one; and was abused into poison by the other.” But the presence of Judas at the institution of the Lord’s Supper is a matter of critical uncertainty (comp. John versus Luke) and of inherent improbability. The weight of patristic authority is in favor of his presence; but some of the best modern harmonists and commentators, as Meyer, Tischendorf, Robinson, Lichtenstein, Lange, Wieseler, Ellicott, and Andrews, deny it, and assume that the traitor left the paschal supper before the institution of the eucharist, for which in John’s narrative we can find no place for insertion prior to the departure of Judas.—P. S.]

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Internal connection between the denial of Peter and the condemnation and injuries which Christ suffered at the hands of His enemies.—The denial of a disciple the most poignant sorrow to the Lord in the midst of His confession.—The Faithful Witness and the unfaithful disciple.—The denial of Peter intervening between his former and his later confession, or different kinds of confession.—The causes of the denial of Peter: 1. Self-exaltation on account of his former confession; 2. a morbid desire after confession beyond the measure of the strength of his faith; 3. want of sufficient maturity for the confession in life and in deed.—The giddiness and the stumbling of Peter, before his actual fall: 1. He underrated and neglected the warnings of Jesus; 2. he exalted himself above his fellow-disciples; 3. he neglected the proper preparation by watching and prayer; 4. he voluntarily and presumptuously rushed into danger.—How it deserves special notice, in the fall of Peter, that he had

attempted to come forward as a witness for Christ with a conscience that was not void of blame and offence.—The sad after-history of the sword assault upon Malchus; or, how frequently times of fanatical defence of the faith are followed by seasons of open denial.—How it could come to pass that a poor maid, standing at the gate, could terrify into a denial him to whom the keys of the kingdom of heaven had been promised.—The triumph of the fear of man over that of God the source of denial.—He who tempts the Lord is on the way to deny Him.—The fatal boldness which rushes into the battle-field without having been sent: 1. Its portraiture as here presented: it wants a proper call, proper weapons, and proper spiritual courage. 2. Its fate: despondency, defeat, and the most imminent peril of soul.—How those who confess Jesus have to endure the most varied temptations to deny Him.—How the children of the world and the ministers of darkness combine, in the spirit of the evil one, to change our confession into a denial of Christ.—The unfailing mark of the disciples in their language and tone, also the indication of their fate: 1. It is to their highest spiritual benefit, if they are faithful; 2. or, again, to their shame and confusion, when they turn aside from the Lord.—The gradation of guilt in the denial of Peter: 1. Ambiguous evasion (a supposed unimportant falsehood); 2. distinct denial with a false oath: “I know not the man” (contemptuously); 3. awful abjuration, with solemn imprecations upon himself.—Every ban pronounced upon genuine Christians, an imprecation, in confirmation of the denial of Christ.—Peter did not wish to forsake the Lord, but he would fain have attempted to save both Jesus and himself by crafty policy.—In his view, everything formed part of this policy: the evasion, the false oath, and even the imprecations, were intended to carry out this plan.—How, as “the Faithful Witness,” the Lord has expiated even the denials of His honest disciples, into which they have fallen through weakness.—How the faithfulness of Christ alone restores the unfaithful servant from imminent judgment: 1. Only His faithfulness: (a) in His gracious warning; (b) in His look of compassion and love; (c) in giving that warning and rousing sign (the crowing of the cock); (d) in His readiness to restore again the fallen disciple. 2. Blessed effects of that faithfulness on the part of Jesus: “He went out, and wept bitterly.”—The warning tokens in nature, as accompanying the warning and rousing voice of the Spirit.—The repentance of Peter a constant call to repentance in the Church.—The marks of genuine repentance: 1. All the pride of self-righteousness ceases and is given up; 2. it is connected with a going out from the world; 3. it is characterized by a going forth with tears through night to light.—Bitter weeping, or a broken and contrite heart, the evidence of reconciling grace.—How the humiliation of the heart and the grace of our God always meet as eye to eye: 1. True humiliation and humility find no other resting-place than the loftiest height, even the grace of God; 2. the grace of God descends and rests only in the lowest depth, even the broken and contrite heart.—Divine grace transforming the fall of Peter, as formerly that of David, into the introduction to a genuine and thorough conversion.—Will the so-called Romish Peter ever go forth from the palace of the high-priest, where he has denied Jesus, to weep bitterly?

Starke:—Hedinger: Self-confidence and presumption bring sorrow.—Marginal Note by Luther: Peter may have thought that his untruth could not injure any person, while it might profit him and insure his safety, and hence that it was lawful, or at least a matter of small moment; but he soon experienced what consequences the commencement of sin entailed.—Canstein: The fear of death.—Zeisius: Observe how sin grows and increases when it is not resisted. Therefore, be very careful to resist it in its commencement.—To stumble is human, to rise again Christian, to persevere in sin is devilish.

Lisco:—The denial of Peter.—1. Its source, (a) Its more remote occasion: (aa) transgression of the injunction of Jesus, Joh_13:36; (bb) neglect of the admonition, Mat_26:41. (b) Its deeper ground: (aa) unbelief in the word of the Lord, Mat_26:36; (bb) confidence in the strength of his love to Jesus and in his own firmness of will; (cc) proud presumption in the midst of danger. 2. The denial itself, (a) Manifestation of his fear of man, thoughtless haste, and impotence. (b) Starting-point: a lie. (c) Gradual and increasing development: at first merely a denial, then a false oath, and at last imprecations upon himself. 3. The conversion, (a) The crowing of a cock and the look of Jesus awaken him to a sense of the real state of matters. (b) He perceives the truthfulness and faithfulness of Jesus, and his own weakness, (c) Godly sorrow and repentance.—Thus we also learn from this history, how a man may be restored after having sadly declined and fallen into grievous sin.

Heubner:—Peter was here in the midst of a multitude of the ungodly.—The disciples of Christ cannot be long hid when among the men of this world.—Isa_19:18 : the language of Canaan.—The more poignant our repentance, the more sweet and precious afterward the enjoyment of grace.—Wherein consisted the denial of Peter? 1. It was not a determined denial of the heart, nor a final or thorough renunciation of Jesus; 2. it was a concealment of his faith and allegiance, a denial of his discipleship.—Survey of the conduct of Peter: 1. It involved deep guilt; 2. grade of that guilt—(a) not a sin of malicious intent, (b) but of weakness.—In the sin of Peter, Jesus had to bear our human weaknesses.—Application: 1. The fall of Peter reminds us of the weakness of our own hearts, against which we must always be on our guard, despite our better feelings and aspirations; 2. a call to self-examination; 3. we must learn to place our whole confidence in the grace and intercession of Jesus. Hold fast your faith.

Braune:—Even down to the maid who guarded the gate, the servants of the high-priest were involved in the sin and injury committed against the Saviour.—Peter wished to do better than the other disciples, who all forsook Jesus and fled, but fell lower than they.—The world knows well how to remind us of such sword-cut, or how to avenge supposed or real injury.—These Jewish servants seem to have been proud of their pure pronunciation of the language; similarly, most of us try to shine and to outshine others.—After that, Peter also strengthened his brethren, as the Lord commanded him.—Godly sorrow worketh, etc.—From the Lord Jesus comes forgiveness of sin.

H. Müller:—Peter warms his hands and feet, while in the meantime, however, the heart freezes so far as the love of Jesus is concerned.—If a man for-sakes the way in which the Lord calls him to walk, and seems to slink into corners, etc, he is outside of God’s protection, and the devil has power over him—If thy foot offend thee, etc.—He who warms himself by the fire of the ungodly, will deny Christ along with the ungodly.—Ahlfeld:—He that walks in his own strength, will assuredly meet with a speedy fall.—Kapff:—Why did Peter recover from his fall, and not ?Judges 1. Because their sins differed; 2. because their repentance differed.

[Quesnel:—Every one carries in him the possibility of renouncing Christ.—There is nothing on which we can depend but the grace of God.—One temptation unresisted seldom fails of bringing on another and a third.—Peter joins perjury to infidelity. Let the example of an apostle make us tremble.—A small matter (a mean servant) makes us fall when God does not support us; a small matter (the crowing of a cock) raises us again, when His grace makes use of it.—P. S.]

[Burkitt:—The denial of Peter: 1. The sin: (a) a lie; (b) an oath (perjury); (c) an anathema and curse. 2. The occasion of it: (a) Peter followed Christ afar off, from fear and frailty; (b) he kept bad company with the enemies of Christ; (c) presumptuous confidence in his own strength and standing. 3. The repetition of the sin. If we yield to one temptation, Satan will assault us with more, and stronger: progress from bare denial to perjury and thus to imprecation. 4. The aggravating circumstances: (a) the person thus falling, a disciple, an apostle, the chief apostle, a special favorite of Christ; (b) the person denied, his Master, his Saviour and Redeemer, who just before had washed his feet and given him the sacrament; (c) the company of high-priests, and scribes, and elders, and their servants before whom Peter denied his Master; (d) the time of the denial, but a few hours after the communion; (e) the smallness of the temptation: a mere question of a servant girl, a door-keeper. Ah, Peter, how unlike thyself art thou at this time, not a rock, but a reed, a pillar blown down by a woman’s breath. O frail humanity, whose strength is weakness!—In most of the saints’ falls recorded in Scripture, either the first inciters or the accidental occasions were women. Adam, Lot, Sampson, David, Solomon, Peter. A weak creature may be a strong tempter.—The recovery and repentance of Peter: 1. Its suddenness. His sin was hasty and sudden under a violent passion of fear, contrary to his settled purpose, and hence much sooner repented of. 2. The means of his repentance: (a) the crowing of a cock; (b) Christ’s looking upon Peter with an eye of mercy and pity which melted his heart and dissolved it into tears; (c) Peter’s remembrance of Christ’s prediction with a close application of it to his conscience. The manner of his repentance: (a) it was secret, he went out (vere dolet qui sine teste dolet; solitariness is most agreeable to an afflicted spirit); (b) sincere, he wept bitterly; (c) lasting and abiding, showing its effect on the whole subsequent life of Peter. “History (tradition) reports, that ever after, when St. Peter heard the crowing of a cock, he fell upon his knees and mourned; others say, that he was wont to rise at midnight and spend the time in penitent devotion between cock-crowing and day-light. And the Papists, who love to turn everything into superstition, began that practice of setting a cock upon the top of towers, and steeples, and chimneys, to put the people in mind of this sin of Peter and his repentance by that signal.” (d) The repentance of peter was attended with an extraordinary zeal for the service as Christ to the end of his life.—P. S.]

[Similar reflections and improvements in Matthew Henry, Gill, Doddridge, A. Clarke, Th. Scott, and other practical English commentators. We add the last of the “Practical Observations” of Thomas Scott: “If any have fallen even in the most dreadful manner, let them think of Peter’s recovery and not despair; and let them recollect the words of Christ, as well as their own sins; that their tears, confessions, and humiliations may be mingled with hope. And let us all frequently remember oar past follies, and manifold instances of ingratitude; that we may learn watchfulness, humility, caution, and compassion for the tempted and fallen, by the experience of our own numerous mistakes, sins, and recoveries.”—P. S.]

Footnotes:

[103]Mat_26:69.—[The ἔξω, without, plainly shows that αὐλή; cannot mean here the palace itself, but the interior, quadrangular and open hall, or court-yard, to which there was a passage (sometimes arched) from the front part of the house, called πυλών or προαύλιον, Mat_26:71; Mar_14:68. See Crit. Note on Mat_26:3, p. 459. The place where the Saviour stood before Caiaphas was probably an audience-room on the ground-floor, in the rear or on the side of the court-yard.—P. S.]

[104]Mat_26:69.—[Literally after the Greek: τοῦ Γαλιλαίου, which, in the mouth of the enemies of Christ in Judæa, had a contemptuous meaning. So Julian the Apostate used to call Christ, and he is reported (although on insufficient authority) to have died with the exclamation: “Galilean, thou hast conquered!”—P. S.]

[105]Mat_26:70.—The αὐτῶν is doubtful, as many authorities are against it. Still the fact that it is more difficult, speaks in its favor, inasmuch as the αὐτοί are not mentioned. [The English Version italicizes it; it may as well be omitted, being superfluous.]

[106]Mat_26:71.—Αὐτοῖς ἐκεῖ [for τοῖς ἐκει] is best supported.

[107]Mat_26:71.—[Τοῦ Ναζωραίου has a similar contemptuous meaning as τοῦ Γαλιλαίου, Mat_26:69, and Nazarœans, as well as Galilœans became nicknames of the Christians.—P. S.]

[108]Mat_26:74.—[To curse is somewhat ambiguous for καταναθεματίζειν. The meaning is: he invoked curses on himself in confirmation of the truth of his assertion. Lange: Da fing er an mit Bannfluch (Verwünschung) und Eidsich zu verchwören.—P. S.]

[109]Mat_26:74.—[This interpolation should be omitted, since it “destroys the proper connection, and gives a false sense to the preceding words.” (Conant.)—P. S.]

[110]Mat_26:74.—[All the four Evangelists omit the definite article before ἀλέκτωρ for the reason stated in the note on Mat_26:34, p.478.—P. S.]

[111]Mat_26:75.—[Ἰησπῦ εἰρηκότος, quod dixerat, in the Vulgate and Syriac Version. To refer it to ῥήματος,, as in the English Version, would require τοῦ εἰρηκότος. The best authorities omit αὐτῷ, but Lange retains it.— P. S.]

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 26:69-75.

The Fall Of Peter

Found also in Mar 14:66-72 Luk 22:56-62; Joh 18:15-18, Joh 18:25-27.

Peter’s three denials of his Lord evidently occurred during the progress of the Jewish trial, which seems to have lasted two hours or more. (Luk 22:59) We see from John (compare above on Mat 26:58) that the first denial was made while Annas was questioning Jesus; and it is clear from comparing all the narratives that the second and third were made while Jesus still remained at the high priest’s house and Peter in the court, and probably during the trial by the informal meeting of the Sanhedrin. (Mat 26:57-68) Now Matthew and Mark do not record the examination by Annas; accordingly they only mention at the outset that Peter followed Jesus afar off and entered the high priest’s court, and then, after narrating the trial by the informal meeting, they describe Peter’s three denials. Luke does not give either the examination by Annas or the informal trial; accordingly, as soon as he brings Peter into the high priest’s court, he at once tells of the three denials. John has no account of the Jewish trial except the examination by Annas; so he gives the first denial in connection with the appearance of Jesus before Annas, and then, after narrating the interrogation and telling how Annas sent Jesus to Caiaphas, he speaks at once of the second and third denials. Thus the apparent dislocation of this narrative in the several Gospels is satisfactorily accounted for. Minute discrepancies as to the exact place and time of the different denials need not surprise us. The accounts are extremely brief, the numerous persons in the court were moving about and much excited, the questions addressed to Peter may in one case or another have been repeated by several persons, and the denial variously made to each of these (compare on ’began’ in Mat 26:74), while yet there were three distinct and separate denials, as indicated in each of the Gospels. It is not even necessary to suppose that they all give the three in the same order. To make out (McClellan and some others) five or six separate denials, and thereby harmonize the details, is to diverge from the Saviour’s express prediction, "thou shalt deny me thrice," and to disregard the stress laid by all four narratives upon three denials. Surely much more is lost than gained by such painful harmonizing.

FIRST DENIAL. Mat 26:69 f. Peter sat without in the palace, or court, viz., in the court of the high priest’s house; (Mat 26:58) ’without’ is said in contrast with the audience room in which Jesus was appearing before the authorities. Peter was not in this room, but out in the open air of the court; and this was ’beneath,’ on a lower level than the audience room. A damsel, viz., maid-servant; and literally,[1] ’one maid,’ as distinguished from ’another,’ in Mat 26:71. So, Mar 14:66, ’one of the maids of the high priest.’ Came unto him, as he sat in the court, beside the fire of charcoal; so Mark and Luke. John says that the maid, who was the doorkeeper, and who was induced by John to admit Peter, asked him the question; and this might seem in conflict with the other accounts. But John’s brief statement does not necessarily mean that she asked him at the moment of admitting him. She would very naturally close the door and return to the fire herself, and might then ask the question. With Jesus of Galilee, a very natural expression in the high priest’s servant, feeling everything at Jerusalem to he immeasurably superior to the provinces. Mark, B. U., ’with Jesus the Nazarene,’ and so Matt. in Mar 14:71, Rev. Ver. We have often seen that the Evangelists do not undertake in all cases to give the exact words spoken; we are concerned only with any such discrepancy of statement as might seem to impair credibility. I know not what thou sayest. So Mark; Luke ’I know him not’; in John she asks if he is one of this man’s disciples, and he answers ’I am not.’ There is here no substantial conflict.

[1] It is not certain that ’one’ ever becomes in New Testament a mere indefinite article; the most likely examples in Matthew are Mat 8:19, Mat 21:19, (Rev. Ver. margin). In the present passage the Latin versions and Gothic have ’one,’ Memph. ’a,’ Pesh. ambiguous. Rönsch holds that unus is sometimes a mere indefinite article; but many of his examples are clearly forced, and none of them (including this passage) seem conclusive.

We must remember Peter’s situation. Over-confidence in himself, notwithstanding the Master’s warning, (Mat 26:33-35) had led to lack of watchfulness; (Mat 26:40 f.) suddenly awaking, he committed a rash action, (Mat 26:51) which he might very reasonably fear would be avenged if he were discovered; so when suddenly asked, he was startled, frightened, and hastily denied. Then he was deeper in trouble than ever. We are not called to extenuate his conduct, but only to observe that it was psychologically not unnatural.

SECOND DENIAL. Mat 26:71 f. When he was gone out into the porch, the open gateway passing under the middle of one side of the house into the court; Mark calls it ’the forecourt.’[2] Luke gives at this point no note of place. John gives the second denial as made while Peter was standing and warming himself. Possibly the first and second denials are by him given in reverse order. Observe that he here says generally ’they said,’ while Matthew has ’another’ (feminine), Mark ’the maid,’ Luke ’another’ (masculine), i. e., another person. The terms of address and denial slightly differ as before.

[2] The statement in Com. text of Mark at this point, ’and the cock crew,’ is probably spurious, as it is wanting in à B L, one Evang., Memph., and one copy of the Old Latin, and might be very naturally placed on the margin here (and creep into the text), as explaining ’twice’ in Mar 14:30, Mar 14:72, and ’the second time’ in 72. See a very interesting discussion in Westcott Hort, App. sec. 323.

THIRD DENIAL. Mat 26:73 f. And after a while. Mark says ’a little after,’ while Luke says more definitely, ’about the space of one hour after.’ Came they that stood by, and said to Peter. So in effect Mark, but Luke says, ’another (person),’ and John, Rev. Ver. ’one of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman, whose ear Peter cut off,’ which would be a specially alarming fact, especially when he asked, "Did I not see thee in the garden with him?" Now we may either suppose that a question asked by one person was taken up and repeated by others, which would be very natural, or that the three denials are given in different order by the several Gospels. Matt. and Mark have (a) a maid in the court, (b) another maid in the court, (c) the bystanders, apparently in the court. Luke has (a) a maid as he sat by the fire, (b) another (person), place not indicated, (c) some other (person), place in the court, as indicated by Luk 22:60 f. John has (a) the maid that kept the door, (b) plural, apparently the persons with whom he was standing and warming himself, (Joh 18:18, Joh 18:25) (c) one of the servants of the high priest, place not indicated. It may be that John has mentioned the second denial first, because suggested then by his account of the admission of Peter, or on the other hand, that Matt. and Mark have changed the order. John’s (b) agrees as to the plural with the (c) of Matt. and Mark. The vague ’another person’ and ’some other person’ of Luke, treat the details as comparatively unimportant. We need not insist on any particular theory for exactly harmonizing the several statements. There is nothing in the group of details to weaken the credibility of the narratives, but their evident independence strengthens their credibility, as persons accustomed to compare the testimony of several witnesses will readily see; and we may be content to notice one or another possible mode of combining all the facts. In preaching or Sunday-school teaching, it would be better to pass lightly over the mere harmonizing of details, and dwell on the general facts which are the same in all the Gospels, and which yield lessons of so great importance.

This third denial was the most vehement of all. Peter had involved himself by the first in the apparent necessity, so sadly familiar to human observation and experience, of adhering to an initial falsehood. Now the bystanders insist and argue. Surely, of a truth, i. e., thou also art one of them. They are sure of it. For thy speech bewrayeth thee, literally, makes thee manifest (evident). The English word bewray meant primarily to accuse, and is of Teutonic origin. The entirely distinct word betray is connected with traitor, of French and Latin origin. (See Skeat.) Mark and Luke have ’for thou art,’ (Luke ’he is’) a Galilean.’ Mark would be more exactly ’for even thy speech,’ or ’for thy speech also,’ as in Mat 8:9. Perhaps (Plump.) his excitement and confusion made the local peculiarities of speech more marked.[1] Then began he (see on "Mat 11:20"), suggests that it was continued some time, as does the tense of the verbs ’to curse’ and ’to swear.’ This implies various expressions of denial, perhaps addressed to different persons (compare on Mat 26:69). He had already used an oath in the second denial. (Mat 26:72.) Cursing would, in such a case, be invoking a curse upon himself if he were speaking falsely, and so would be even stronger than an oath. The Jews were much given to a careless use of oaths (see on "Mat 5:33"), and it may be, as Alexander supposes, that Peter relapsed under the excitement into an early habit, which be had abandoned through the Saviour’s teaching. Alas! for human nature; the Word made flesh was rejected by the great mass of his own people, was betrayed by one of his own followers, and by the very leader of them was basely denied, again and again, with oaths and curses. See 1Co 10:12. And immediately, or straightway, the cock crew. Mark, Rev. Ver., and John Rev. Ver. ’straightway’: Luke ’immediately, while he yet spake.’ The Greek noun has no article; it does not mean some particular fowl, and our English article only denotes the well-known sign of coming day. Mark, ’a second time,’ compare above on Mat 26:34; see there also as to the Talmudic statement that barn-yard fowls were not allowed in Jerusalem. And Peter remembered. Luke prefixes "and the Lord turned and looked upon Peter." The Saviour may have been in the high priest’s audience chamber, either undergoing the informal trial, or kept there till the dawn should allow a formal session. This chamber might be open to the inner court: and the lights in the room, and the fire in the court, would make the pitying Master and the fallen disciple visible to each other. Otherwise we may suppose that the attendants were just then leading Jesus across the court. See Marks. Browning’s two sonnets, "The Look," and "The Meaning of the Look." And he went out, into the great entrance as before, or more probably, quite out of the building. At such a moment one would naturally long to be alone. And wept bitterly. So Luke; compare Isa 22:4.—Peter is seen no more in the history till after our Lord’s resurrection, but seems to have sojourned with his friend John. (Mat 20:2, Mat 20:10) Some of the early Latin hymns allude to a legend that through life he never heard a cock crow without weeping.

[1] Galilean peculiarities of speech are repeatedly mentioned in the Talmud. They consisted of (a) interchange of the gutturals Aleph aud Ayin, or Cheth and Ayin, which cannot be illustrated from our language; (b) Interchange of the palatals Koph and Qoph, a little like the negligent fashion in which some now pronounce quote, qota, quorum, as if written with a k; (c) interchange of s or sh and th, like our lisp, and the French change of our th to s or z; (d) difference of some vowel sounds, like English home, Scotch home, etc. Examples are given from the Talmud in Wetstein, Buxtorf, etc. As early as Jdg 12:6, the local change of shibboleth to sibboleth was marked and invariable.

Homiletical And Practical

Peter’s fall and rising again. (1) Steps downward. (a) Self-confidence, and loud professions, Mat 26:33; (b) Lack of watchfulness, Mat 26:40 f.; (c) Taken off his guard, he does a rash deed, Mat 26:51; (d) Alarmed, yet still self-confident, he takes a middle course and follows at a distance, Mat 26:58; (e) Courageous enough to venture into danger, though wanting courage to overcome it, Mat 26:58; (f). Suddenly asked, he denies; (g) Feeling bound by this denial, and frightened by the repeated inquiry, he denies again and again, with oaths and curses. Alas, alas! (2) Climbing upward, through God’s help. (a) The Lord had prayed for him, (Luk 22:32) and now looked upon him, (Luk 22:61) and he felt genuine grief and shame; (b) The risen Lord appeared to him alone, (Luk 24:34) a most touching occasion of confession and forgiveness; (c) The Lord afterwards delicately reminded him of his loud professions, and while no longer claiming superiority to others, he earnestly avowed his love, Joh 21:15 ff.; (d) Helped by the Pentecostal Spirit, he boldly confessed Christ before the Sanhedrin and the nation, Act 4:10.

Calvin: "The fall of Peter is a mirror of human infirmity, and a memorable example of God’s goodness and compassion. Peter acted inconsiderately in entering the high priest’s court. It was proper to follow the Master, but he had been warned of his coming defection, and he ought to have avoided the occasion. Often thus under the appearance of virtue do believers fling themselves into temptation. Conscious weakness should not hinder us from going whithersoever God calls us; but it ought to restrain rashness and stimulate to prayer."

Mat 26:69. Calvin: "He who has thrown away the fear of God, may tremble at the fall of a leaf... The more eminent one is, the more should he be careful; because he cannot fall from his high place without damaging others."

Mat 26:70. Weiss ("Life"): "When Peter vowed so confidently that he would go with his Master to death, he was thinking, no doubt, of a solemn testimony to him for whom he was ready to sacrifice everything. But a great deed of heroism is often easier than loyalty in small things."

Mat 26:74. Contrast Peter in his great confession, (Mat 16:16) wishing to stay on the Mount of Transfiguration, (Mat 17:4) and making grand promises only a few hours before this. (Mat 26:33)

Mat 26:75. (1) Seeing that Peter fell, let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall, 1Co 10:12. (2) Seeing that Peter was forgiven and became so useful, let him that knows he has fallen rise up in earnest repentance. Luther: "No article of the Creed is so hard to believe as this: I believe in the forgiveness of sins. But look at Peter. If I could paint a portrait of Peter. I would write on every hair of his head forgiveness of sins."

John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (American Baptist Publication Society, 1886) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

26:69-75 Peter’s denials fulfill Jesus’ prediction (26:34).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Mat 26:69. Μία παιδίσκη, one maid-servant) The temptation was not great, if you consider only the interrogatrix; far greater, if you consider all who were present. [She feared lest it might bring her into trouble, if she were to admit any one of our Lord’s followers, and on this ground she took Peter to task; the others took up the matter after her. None of them appear to have intended to bring Peter into danger. Careless worldlings frequently produce greater harm or advantage to the saints than they suppose or intend—B. G. V.]—ἦσθα, for the ordinary ἦς, thou wast. Thus also the LXX. in Psa 9:14.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat_26:69. Ἔξω] with reference to the interior of the particular building in which the trial of Jesus had been conducted. In Mat_26:58 ἔσω is used because in that instance Peter went from the street into the court-yard.

μία παιδίσκη] μία is here used in view of the ἄλλη of Mat_26:71 below. Comp. on Mat_8:19. Both of them may have seen (ἦσθα, ἦν) Peter among the followers of Jesus somewhere in Jerusalem, and may have preserved a distinct recollection of his appearance. παιδίσκη, in the sense of a female slave, corresponds exactly to our (German) Mädchen; see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 239.

καὶ σὺ ἦσθα, κ.τ.λ.] categorical accusation, as in Mat_26:71; Mat_26:73, and not a question (Klostermann).

τοῦ Γαλιλ.] which specific designation she may have heard applied to the Prisoner. The other slave (Mat_26:71) is still more specific, inasmuch as she calls Him ὁ Ναζωραῖος.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 26:69-75 . Peter’s denial (Mar 14:66-72 , Luk 22:54-62 ). The discrepancies of the four accounts here are perplexing but not surprising. It would be difficult for any one present in the confused throng gathered within the palace gate that night to tell exactly what happened. Peter himself, the hero of the tale, had probably only hazy recollections of some particulars, and might not always relate the incident in the same way. Harmonistic efforts are wasted time. Comparative exegesis may partly explain how one narrative, say Mt.’s, arose out of another, e.g. , Mk.’s (Weiss, Marcus-Evang.). But on the whole it is best to take each version by itself, as one way of telling a story, which in the main is accepted even by writers like Brandt as one of the certainties of the Passion history.

Mat 26:69 . ὁ δὲ Π .: δὲ resumes the Peter-episode introduced at Mat 26:58 . ἐκάθητο , was sitting, while the judicial proceedings were going on. αὐλῇ , here means the court, atrium ; the trial would take place in a chamber within the buildings surrounding the court. μία π ., one servant girl, to distinguish from another referred to in Mat 26:71 ( ἄλλη ). καὶ σὺ , you too, as if she had seen Jesus in company with His disciples, Peter one of them, recognisable again, perhaps during the last few days. Γαλιλαίου : He a Galilean; you, too, by your tongue.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

That is, without the place where the Bishop sat, but not without the house, for afterward he went from thence into the porch.

Peter by the wonderful providence of God appointed to be a witness of all these things, is prepared to the example of singular constancy, by the experience of his own incredulity.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Verse 69. A damsel came unto him] A maid servant, παιδισκη. See this translation vindicated by Kypke.

Thou also wast with Jesus] What a noble opportunity had Peter now to show his zeal for the insulted cause of truth, and his attachment to his Master. But, alas! he is shorn of his strength. Constables and maid servants are no company for an apostle, except when he is delivering to them the message of salvation. Evil communications corrupt good manners. Had Peter been in better company, he would not have had so foul a fall.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

69. in the palace] Rather, in the court. In Oriental houses the street door opens into an entrance hall or passage: this is the “porch” of Mat_26:71; beyond this is a central court open to the sky and surrounded by pillars. The reception rooms are usually on the ground floor, and are built round the central court. Probably the hall or room in which Jesus was being tried opened upon the court. Thus Jesus was able to look upon Peter.

69–75. The Denial of Peter

St Mar_14:66-72; Luk_22:55-62; Joh_18:15-18; Joh_18:25-27

The accounts differ slightly, and exactly in such a way as the evidence of honest witnesses might be expected to differ in describing the minor details (which at the time would appear unimportant) in a scene full of stir and momentous incidents. Discrepancies of this kind form the strongest argument for the independence of the different gospels. St Luke mentions that “the Lord turned and looked upon Peter.” St John states that the third question was put by a kinsman of Malchus.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But he denied before them all,.... Which was a very great aggravation of his sin; for, as it is to a man's commendation to profess a good profession of Christ before many witnesses, so it is to his disgrace, and is resented by Christ, to deny him before men: he did not deny that Christ was God, or the Son of God, or that he was come in the flesh, or that Jesus was the Christ, or that he was the only Saviour of sinners; but that he was with him, or one of his disciples,

saying, I know not what thou sayest: which was a very great falsehood; he knew the sense and import of her words; he denied that which was most true; he had been with him from the beginning, had heard all his discourses, and seen his miracles; he had been with him at particular times, and in particular places, when and where some others of the disciples were not admitted, as at the raising of Jairus's daughter, at the transfiguration in the mount, and in the garden, very lately; and yet, O base ingratitude! now denies that he had been with him; or that he knew what was meant by such an expression. He denied that he was a disciple of Christ, which was his greatest character, and highest glory; and this denial did not arise from any diffidence of his being one, or from a sense of his unworthiness to be one, but from the fear of man, which brought this snare upon him: and the more his weakness is discovered in it, that he should be intimidated by a servant maid into such a denial, who but a few hours before had confidently affirmed, that though he should die with Christ, he would not deny him; and who had so courageously drawn his sword in his master's cause, in the face of a band of soldiers, and a multitude of armed men with swords and staves. This was his first denial; a second follows.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

69 Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.

Ver. 69. And a damsel came unto him] A silly wench daunteth and dispiriteth this stout champion. Sic et Elias ille fulminator ad mulierculae (Iesabelis) minas trepidat, factus seipso imbecillior. (Bucholcer.) What poor things the best of us are, when left a little to ourselves, when our faith is in the wane! Regulus erat cum audebat omnium audacissimus: cum timebat, omnium timidissimus; sic et Petrus.

Thou also wast with Jesus] She was just of her master’s mind and making. We had need take heed where we set our children to service; for, like water on a table, they will be led any way with a wet finger; and as any liquid matter, they will conform to the vessel whereinto they are poured. Be sure to teach them God’s fear, and to pray, and then wherever they come to live, they shall do good, and find favour, as the captive children did in the court of Babylon, Dan 1:9, and as the Hebrew girl did in Naaman’s family; that great lord lighted his candle at his handmaid’s coal; so good a thing is it to acquaint our children with the works of God, with the praises of his prophets.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Now Peter sat without in the palace - Mark says the first denial took place while Peter was “beneath in the palace.” This “palace” was the large hall or court belonging to the residence of the high priest. The part of it where Jesus and the council were was “elevated,” probably above the rest for a tribunal. Peter was “beneath or in the “lower part” of the hall, with the servants at the fire. Yet, as Matthew says, he sat without in the palace - that is, out of the palace where they were trying Jesus - to wit, in the lower part of the hall with the servants: both narratives are therefore consistent.

And a damsel came unto him - John Joh 18:17 says that this damsel was one that kept the door.

Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee - Probably she suspected him from his being in company with John. This was in the early part of the trial of Jesus.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Peter sat without in the palace: i.e. in the open court below, where the servants had lighted a fire. There came to him a certain servant-maid, the portress, says St. John, xviii. 17. But he denied, saying: I know not what thou sayest. In St. Luke, I know him not: in St. John, I am not. The sense is the same; and Peter might use all these expressions. (Witham)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

PETER’S FIRST DENIAL.

The place, in the court at the fire.

69. Now Peter sat without in the palace — Or open court, He was without the apartment in which Jesus was examined. The Greek word here rendered palace, means the court or square yard enclosed by the building. Mark does not mention the making of the fire; but it is curious to note that he presupposes it by saying that Peter was warming himself when the damsel spoke to him. Mar_14:67.

Thou also — There is a similar fact in regard to this little word also. Matthew states nothing by which we are able to solve its meaning. Why also? But John tells us that he (John) had just introduced Peter to this damsel (who was the portress) and gained admittance for him. Also means, then, as well as John. We may add that the fact of John’s safety would seem to show that Peter was in little danger. Perhaps the only ground of fear was the fact that he had taken the sword and cut off the ear of the high priest’s servant. So that Peter’s extra bravery then is the cause of his extra cowardice now.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vers. 69-75. The three denials of St. Peter. (Mar_14:66-72 Luk 22:55-62Jo Luk_18:17, Luk_18:18, Luk_18:25-27)

There is much apparent discrepancy in the four accounts of Peter"s denials, both as regards the scene, the persons, and the words used. St. Matthew groups them all together in one view without special regard to time and place. The fact doubtless is this that Peter did not distinctly three times, in three separate utterances, deny Christ, but that on three occasions, and under different circumstances, and in many different words, he committed this sin. There are, as it were, three groups of questions and replies, and the evangelists have recorded such portions of these details as seemed good to them, or such as they were best acquainted with. Peter sat (was sitting) without in the palace ( th aulh). We have seen (ver. 48) that Peter was introduced by John into the open court round which the palace was built, and on one side of which was the chamber in which the examination of Jesus was going on. He was within the palace enclosure, but outside the principal apartment; hence he is said in the text to have been without. Admission to the courtyard was gained by a passage through the side of a house, which formed the vestibule or porch; this was closed towards the street by a heavy gate, having in it a small wicket for the use of visitors, kept by a porter or other servant. A damsel. This was the female porteress who kept the wicket by which Peter was admitted. She appears to have had some suspicion of him from the first, and to have followed him with her remarks from the gate, and to have continued them when he sat down with the servants at the fire kindled in the open court. Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee. She says, "Thou also" in reference to John, whom she had first admitted, and who seems to have been in no danger, though Peter had great fears for his own safety. Though the porteress probably had no personal knowledge of the apostle, yet scanning his features by the light of the fire, noting his perturbed aspect and his restless actions, and reflecting on his companionship with John, she conjectured that he was a disciple of Christ, and more than once hazarded the assertion with the view of eliciting a definite answer.

Vers. 69-75. St. Peter denying his Lord.

It says much for the veracity of the Gospel narratives that the evangelists have not shrunk from recording an incident which is to the shame of the chief of the apostles. And yet we may be sure that the charity which covers a multitude of sins would have buried this sad story in eternal oblivion if it had not been full of important lessons for all ages. These things are not written for Peter"s shame, but for our instruction. No doubt the first record of the story was derived from the confession of the penitent apostle"s own lips.

I IT IS POSSIBLE FOR ONE WHO LOVES CHRIST TO DENY HIM. In the case of Judas we have seen that knowledge does not prevent treason; here we see that love does not secure one against the weakness of denial. The disciple betrayed his great Teacher, the friend denied his beloved Saviour. The offences were utterly different. Yet St. Peter"s is distressing because it overcame the loyalty of love. The emotional and impetuous are in an especial danger of lulling before sudden temptations.

II SELF-CONFIDENCE INVITES TEMPTATION. We pray, "Lead us not into temptation." Yet St. Peter boldly walked into it. His love for his Master kept him near to Jesus. While almost all the rest of the disciples all but St. John had fled, Peter hung on to the outskirts of the procession as Jesus was carried off under arrest to Jerusalem. For this we admire him. He was braver than the apostles who had not a chance of denying their Lord, because they had escaped from the dangerous scenes. It is not just, therefore, to say that he wilfully put himself in the way of danger. But if his heart drew him near to Christ, his humility and self-distrust should have warned him to be on his guard. Our loyalty to Christ may call us into difficult places; but then we should recognize that they are difficult, and pray for grace that we may walk circumspectly in them.

III COURAGE IN EXCITING DANGERS IS OFTEN FOLLOWED BY COWARDICE UNDER QUIETER CIRCUMSTANCES. in the garden St. Peter was brave as aion, slashing at the high priest"s servant with his sword. In the palace courtyard he cowers before a waiting maid"s joke. It is a great man"s house, and St. Peter is an uncouth fisherman; Christ has been seized, and his cause is apparently lost; the watch is long, the night chill, the disciple weary. All these things tend to undermine courage. But it is among such circumstances that we most need to be on our guard. Then there is no excitement of the battle to sustain us. In the hour of depression our danger is great.

IV ONE FALL LEADS TO ANOTHER. If St. Peter can deny his Master once, it is not at all wonderful that he should deny him thrice. The descent to evil is an inclined plane, which grows steeper as we proceed along it. Therefore it is most needful to resist the tempter at his first onslaught. Like St. Peter, Christ was thrice attacked by the tempter. But unlike his servant, he worsted the foe at the first attack, and met him with the added strength of victory at the subsequent assaults.

V THE TRUE CHRISTIAN WILL REPENT OF HIS UNFAITHFULNESS. The crowing cock reminds St. Peter of his Master"s warning. Then his repentance is sudden and bitter. Christ"s servant cannot sin without suffering. But his tears are healing. Though he fall, he shall rise again. W.F.A.

Vers. 69-75. Peter"s denial of Jesus.

Describe the scene the arrangement of the palace, which admitted of Jesus in the judgment hall seeing what was passing in the court, the rooms being built round a court open to the sky. Describe also the three denials.

I SINS ARISE FROM UNSUSPECTED QUALITIES IN US. Peter, the bold, venturesome, straightforward disciple, fell by cowardice and lying; as Moses the meek by anger, and Solomon the wise by folly. Often our most flagrant transgressions arise from parts of our character we have not suspected. We have thought ourselves truthful and honest, and we are betrayed into prevarication and double dealing. We thought ourselves staunch friends, and have fallen into selfish and inconsiderate actions. We considered ourselves cool, almost phlegmatic, but some mastering combination of circumstances arrived, and we spoke the word or wrote the letter which has broken our life past mending.

II SIN MUST EXPRESS ITSELF IN ORDER TO ITS ERADICATION. These sins that so distress and perplex us disclose unthought of evils, and put us on our guard. Peter was to become a leader in the Church, but he would have misled the Church had he not had this self-confidence rooted out. His self-confidence is here allowed to betray him, to bring him to what is most fitted to destroy it, to shame and a sense of weakness.

III CRITICAL CONDITION OF THE SINNER THUS BETRAYED. All depends on the course we adopt when we are thus betrayed into unexpected sin. All men are so betrayed at one time or other; the difference arises in the manner in which we deal with ourselves after such sin. As John Morley has said, with characteristic wisdom, "The deepest part of us shows in the manner of accepting consequences." Can we accept the situation; can we humbly own that since evil has appeared in our life it must first have been in ourselves? "I did not think I was capable of such wickedness; but now I see what I am." Can we thus go out with Peter and weep bitterly? Thus to face the truth is the beginning of all good. Without this we can come to no good. We must start here, with a clear acknowledgment of our actual character. To blind ourselves to our true character is not to alter it.

IV DIFFICULTY OF THUS HUMBLING OURSELVES. We say to ourselves, "We have been deceived by circumstances into sin." Peter would say, "Why did not Jesus look at me before I sinned, and so prevent it? Why had I no inkling of the enormity of the sin till it was committed. My reputation is now gone. May I not as well go back to my fishing and renounce all these perplexing spiritualities?" But Peter was man enough to reject these fancies. He saw that he was a sinner, and that he must not run away from his sin, but face it and defeat it.

V PETER"S SPECIAL SIN WAS MORAL COWARDICE. A weakness rather than a sin, and yet it is probably as prolific of great crime as any of the more vigorous passions of our nature. The natures it is found in are often in other respects admirable sensitive, sympathetic, intelligent, inoffensive, kindly. The circumstances it is displayed in: man in business finds his expenditure exceeding his income, but is unable to bear the shame of frankly knowing his position and curtailing his expenses, and so, to keep up appearances, is led into dishonest practices; or a minister, finding his faith diverging from the Creed he has subscribed, is yet unable to proclaim this change of opinion, because he cannot face the public astonishment, the severe denunciation of one party, and the equally distasteful because ignorant and canting sympathy of the other; or a parent cannot bear to lose the good will of his child, and refrains from punishing him as he ought; or the schoolboy, afraid to be thought soft and unmanly, stands by and sees cruelty, or lying, or wickedness perpetrated without a word of manly rebuke. D.

Vers. 69-75. Sin in sequence.

From the trial of Jesus before the council the evangelist turns to the trial of Peter"s faith. How striking is the contrast! Jesus, forsaken of his friends, and unjustly condemned and cruelly treated by his enemies, betrays no sign of fear or resentment, while Peter, with his Master"s exalted example before him, shrinks from the slightest glance of recognition. The history of Peter"s fall remarkably illustrates the principle of sequence in sits. We are forcibly reminded

I THAT PRIDE COMETH BEFORE A FALL.

1. Some men are constitutionally self-reliant. Within proper limits, self-reliance is an admirable quality.

(1) It conduces to nobleness. For it saves men from the meanness of hanging on to their fellows.

(2) It inspires enterprise. Nothing can be accomplished that is not undertaken. The achievements of the strong are the astonishment of the weak.

(3) It is an element of greatness. The weak will submit to the strong. The feeble will serve the mighty. Where self-reliance is strong, other things being equal, there you have a leader of men.

2. But such are especially in danger of presumption.

(1) Self-assertion may be immoderate, ungenerous, and invidious. "Though all men forsake thee, yet will not I;" "I will never be offended;" "Even if I must die with thee, yet will I not deny thee" (see vers. 33-35).

(2) Excessive sell-confidence leads to the neglect of prayer. Peter"s sense of self-security blinded him to his need of Divine help. So he slept in the garden when he should have prayed. Even when exhorted by his Lord to pray, still he slept.

(3) It leads to rashness in action. Peter"s pride led him rashly to support his strong professions by volunteering the use of his sword. So was he as wanting in watchfulness as he was in prayer. He so looked in as to neglect to look up and look around.

(4) After proving his weakness by his shameful flight, his presumption still carried him after his Master into the place of trial, "to see the end." But he "followed at a distance," fearful of being discovered. This dallying with his fears increased them. His case is a standing warning to Christ"s disciples never without a call to run into dangers which they may not have strength to meet.

II THAT SIN MAKES OCCASION FOR SINNING.

1. One sin leads to another.

(1) Peter was found in questionable company. Having followed Jesus "afar off," he fell in with the "officers" of the high priest and of other enemies of his Master. "Evil communications corrupt good manners." Bad company leads to bad deeds. (see Psa_119:115) He was now in the arena of temptation.

(2) Here a maid came unto him, saying, "Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilaean." Here was a noble opportunity for Peter to have shown zeal for the Truth suffering under insolence. But he missed it and disgraced himself. It is a disgrace to miss an opportunity of doing right. It leads to the further disgrace of doing wrong.

(3) "He denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest." The strong man is thrown over by the breath of a maid. "A damsel," literally, one damsel. And probably wishing him no harm. But how great was the sin which sprang from so slight a cause! The publicity of this denial was an aggravation of the sin.

(4) The temptation was slight so far as the girl"s question went, but greater in regard to the bystanders. We all wield unconscious influence. They probably had no desire to imperil Peter. The careless ones of this world often do more harm or good to the saints than they imagine.

2. The progress of sin is accelerating.

(1) In the first instance, we find Peter giving the simple emphatic denial, his words being equivalent to "What thou sayest is utterly false". (cf. Luk_22:57) In how few words may one commit a grievous sin! (see Mat_12:24 Act_5:8) Peter now went into the porch, or portico (ver. 71), doubtless to secure himself from further observation, being now also ashamed of his weakness, if not of his sin. For the enormity of sin is hidden from the conscience by fear and carnal policy. No man gains strength to resist greater by complying with lesser evils.

(2) In the second instance, Peter added an oath to his denial. The damsel"s pride being now stirred by having the lie turned upon her, she appears to have confided her mortification or indignation to "another maid," with whom she followed Peter into the portico; In his hearing this second maid said, "This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth," upon which a man of the company laid the accusation directly against him. (cf. Mar_14:69 Luk_22:58) "And again he denied with an oath, I know not the Man." The liar, by the suspicion he naturally has, having forfeited his self respect, that his testimony is not credited, is induced to swear.

(3) In the third instance, Peter added cursing to swearing. Probably he had been addicted to swearing before he came under the influence of John the Baptist and of Christ. Old habits are readily revived. Between the second and third temptations an hour elapsed. But time spent without prayer brings no strength to the soul. The charge is now brought close home to him. It is generally preferred by "those that stood by," who marked his Galilaean accent. The rabbins say that the speech of the Galilaeans was broad and rustic. Some say it inclined to the Samaritan and Syriac, and that they did not pronounce gutturals well, and changed sh into th. Better would it have been for Peter had he held his tongue. But the kinsman of Malchus increased his terror by calling to his remembrance his act in cutting off the ear. (see Joh_18:26) His denial, therefore, becomes more vehement as the accusation proceeds. To curse is to imprecate Divine vengeance on himself if he spoke falsely, and the profanity of swearing added to this cursing is the language of passion and of the enemies of Christ. "None but the devil"s sayings need the devil"s proofs" (Henry).

(4) An apostle fallen! How great that fall! Lucifer in hell! In the fall of Peter we are admitted to a view of our own tendency to fall, and consequent need of watchfulness and prayer.

III THAT THE SEQUEL IS DESTRUCTION OR REPENTANCE.

1. In the case of Judas it was destruction (see succeeding homily).

2. In the case of Peter it was repentance.

(1) When he had the third time denied his Lord, "straightway the cock crew." During the long hours in which he waited in the palace, his memory and conscience slept until startled by "the cock"s shrill clarion." The words of Christ now rushed into his mind and pierced his heart, and made the crowing of the cock a very John the Baptist to the sinner. Note: The mercy of Christ comes sometimes at the cock crowing. Since Peter fell through fear of a maid, let us never think contemptibly of the feeblest tempter. Since he rose through the crowing of a cock, let us never think contemptibly of the humblest means of grace.

(2) When the cock crew, "the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter". (see Luk_22:61) Note here the kindness of Christ. Being in bonds, he could not, without a miracle, have gone to speak with Peter. Had he called to him, the disciple would have been discovered to the malice of his tempters. The glance is sufficient. Peter"s denial comes in as a part of Christ"s sufferings. Nothing more deeply grieves a genuine penitent than the reflection that he has grieved his Lord.

(3) Peter "went out," viz. from the scene of his temptation and humiliation, deeply sorrowing that he had ever entered into it, and that he might "mourn apart". (cf. Zec_12:11, Zec_12:12)

(4) He wept bitter tears of repentance for his presumptuous sin. Mark says, "When he thought thereon he wept". (Mar_14:72) Those who have sinned sweetly must weep bitterly, if not in penitence, in despair; for sin is bitterness itself. The more bitter the tears of repentance, the sweeter the delight of the regenerated life. His grief and weeping were of long duration. (see Mar_16:7) Tradition says he never heard a cock crow but it set him weeping.

(5) Peter afterwards confessed Christ openly, and made all the house of Israel know what he thought of him. He confessed him openly both in life and death with watchfulness and prayer. J.A.M.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The denial of Peter:

v. 69. Now Peter sat without in the palace; and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.

v. 70. But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest.

v. 71. And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth.

v. 72. And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the Man.

v. 73. And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech betrayeth thee.

v. 74. Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the Man. And immediately the cock crew.

v. 75. And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny Me thrice. And he went out and wept bitterly.

Peter had found a place in the entrance-hall of the palace, not far from the door of the room where the council was in session, and also near the circle of servants that were warming themselves by the fire in the court. Here one of the maid-servants that had seen him come in made the remark that he was one of the followers of the prisoner. Naturally the servants took the part of their masters against the Galilean, and had undoubtedly been discussing ways and means of removing all His followers. Peter, feeling the bristling in the circle against him, quickly made a denial, more in haste than in deliberate malice. Nevertheless his conscience must have bothered him some, for he now left the circle about the fire and walked back to the arched passageway that led into the court. And again he was accused of being a follower of that Jesus of Nazareth. This time the fear that was beginning to rise in his heart made him unduly emphatic; he confirmed his lie with an oath. But they watched him with suspicion, probably talking the matter over among themselves. And finally, after some time, those that were standing about in the court came up to him, speaking more emphatically. Surely he must be a member of the Nazarene’s band, for there was his Galilean dialect which betrayed him. Here Peter completely lost control of himself. With the most astonishing vehemence he added swearing to cursing in his denial of any and all connection with Jesus. The chances are that his very emphasis confirmed the servants in their supposition, which, however, they did not act upon. But the Lord had not forgotten His weak disciple. It was now the time of cock-crowing, and the lusty crowing of one of them at just this moment recalled to the mind of Peter the prophecy of Jesus concerning his threefold denial of Him. And going out, he wept in bitter repentance over his terrible sin. "Here we should learn, by the example of Peter, our own weakness, that we should not depend too firmly upon other people nor upon ourselves. For our hearts are so utterly weak and uncertain that they change every hour, as the Lord says, Joh 2:24-25. Who would have expected such instability and weakness in Peter? Who would believe that such a courageous man, who holds so firmly to his Lord, would deny Him so shamefully? Watch this example most carefully, in order to know thyself and other people well and to guard against arrogance. For if this could happen to Peter, what do you suppose will happen to us, that are not only much lower, but also much weaker? Therefore it will not do to be secure, but maintain thy fear of God and a very careful lookout on all sides."

Summary.The Jews complete their conspiracy, and Judas makes ready to betray his Lord, but Jesus accepts the anointing of Mary at Bethany, celebrates the Passover for the last time, institutes the Eucharist, suffers the agony of death in Gethsemane, is betrayed, taken captive, brought before Caiaphas for trial, sentenced, and Revelation led, while Peter denies his Lord three times.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

This last paragraph of the chapter gives us an account of the fall and rising of Peter, of his sin in denying Christ, and of his recovery by a speedy and severe repentance. Both must be considered distinctly.

First, As touching his sin and fall, there are four particulars observable, namely, the sin itself, the occasion of that sin, the reiteration and repetition of it, and the aggravating circumstances attending it.

Observe, 1. The sin itself, the denial of Christ, I know not the man; a manifest untruth: next he adds an oath to confirm that untruth; he swore that he knew not the man.

And, last of all, he wished an horrid curse and imprecation upon himself, that is, he wished himself excommunicated and cast out of the church, say some: he wished himself eternally separated from the presence of God, say others: he wished in effect that the devil might take him, if he were acquainted with Jesus. The inordinate love of life, and slavish fear of sufferings and death, may draw the best of men to commit the worst of sins.

Observe, 2. The occasions of this sin, and they were three: his following Christ afar off; his being in bad company, amongst Christ’s enemies; and his presumptuouss confidence of his own strength and standing.

1. His following of Christ afar off. To follow Christ is the work of faith, and fruit of love; but to follow him afar off, was the effect of fear and frailty. Woe unto us, when a temptation comes, if we be far off from Christ’s presence and assistance.

2. His being in wicked company among Christ’s enemies. O Peter, thou hadst better have been a-cold by thyself alone, than sitting by a fire encompassed with the blasphemies of the wicked: where thy conscience, though not seared, was yet made hard. The way to escape prevailing temptations to sin is to shun such places, and to avoid such companions, as in all probability will invite and draw us into sin.

3. Confidence of his own strength and standing was another occasion of Peter’s falling. Pride and presumptuous confidence have been ever the fore-runners and occasions of a fall.

O Lord! to presume upon ourselves is the ready way to provoke thee to leave us to ourselves: if ever we stand in the day of trial, it is the fear of falling must enable us to stand. Not only they who go forth in the strength of nature, but also they who go forth in the strength of inherent grace, may quickly fall from their own stedfastness.

Observe, 3. The reiteration and repetition of his sin. He denies him a first, a second, and a third time. He denies him first with a lie, then with an oath, and after all with an anathema and a curse. O how dangerous is it not to resist the first beginnings of sin! If we yield to one temptation, Satan will assault us with more and stronger. Peter proceeded from a bare denial, first to perjury, then to cursing and imprecation.

Observe, 4. The aggravating circumstances attending this sin of Peter, and they are these:

1. The character of the person thus falling: a disciple, an apostle, a chief apostle, a special favourite; who, with James and John, had the special honour to be with Christ upon mount Tabor; Peter, who had preached and prophesied in Christ’s name, cast out devils, and wrought miracles by Christ’s power, yet he denies him.

2.Consider the person whom he denies: his Master, his Saviour, and Redeemer; he that had washed Peter’s feet but a little before; that eat the passover with Peter, and gave the sacrament to Peter; yet this kind and condescending Saviour was denied by Peter.

3. Consider before whom he denies him: in the company and presence of the chief priests, scribes, and elders, and their servants, who rejoiced at it, and were hardened by it; that one disciple should sell him for money, and another disciple deny him through fear.

4. Consider the time when he denied him; verily it was but a few hours after he had received the sacrament of the Lord’s supper from Christ’s own hand. How unreasonable then is their objection against coming to the Lord’s table, because some that go to it dishonour Christ as soon as they come from it! Such examples must not discourage us from coming to the ordinance, but excite and increase our watchfulness after we have been there, to take heed that the future conduct of our lives be suited to the solemnity of a sacramental table.

5. Consider the smallness of his temptation to deny Christ; a damsel only put the question to him, Art thou not one of his disciples? If a band of armed soldiers had appeared to him, and affrighted him, had he been terrified by the high priest’s threatenings, bound and led away to judgment, sentenced to an ignominious, painful death, some excuse might have been made for him: but to disown his relation to Christ at the question of a maid-servant that kept the door only, the smallness of the temptation was an aggravation of the crime! "Ah, Peter, how unlike thyself art thou at this time? Not a rock, but a reed; a pillar blown down by a woman’s breath! o frail humanity, whose strength is weakness and infirmity!"

Observe here, That in most of the saints’ falls recorded in scripture, either the first enticers, or the accidental occasions, were women. Thus in Adam’s, Lot’s, Samson’s, David’s Solomon’s, and Peter’s. A weak creature may be a strong tempter; nothing is too impotent or useless for the devil’s service. It was a great aggravation of Peter’s sin, that the voice of a maid, a doorkeeper only, should be stronger to overcome him than his faith in Jesus to sustain him. But what shall we say? Small things are sufficient to cast us down, if God doth not hold us up: we sink under any burden, if he sustain us not, and yield to every temptation, if he leave us to ourselves. A temptation, if he leave us to ourselves. A damsel shall then make a disciple shrink, and a doorkeeper is enough to drive an apostle before her. And immediately the cock crew. And Peter remembered the words of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out and wept bitterly.

Here we have an account of St. Peter’s rising and recovery after his shameful fall, by a renewed act and exercise of repentance.

Where observe, The suddenness of his repentance, the means of his repentance, and the manner of it.

Observe, 1. The suddenness of his repentance: although his sin was great, yet his repentance was speedy and without delay.

From whence note, That sins committed by the surprisal of a sudden temptation, are much sooner repented of, than where the sin is presumptuous and deliberate sins; he continued a long time in them, and lived almost a twelve month without any solemn repentance of them. St. Peter’s sin was hasty and sudden, under a violent passion of fear, contrary to his settled purpose and resolution of constancy; and he takes the warning of the second crowing of the cock, and goes forth to express his repentance.

Observe, 2. The means of his repentance, which was twofold. Less principal, the crowing of the cock; more principal, Christ’s looking upon Peter, and Peter’s remembering the words of Christ.

1. The less principal means of St. Peter’s repentance, was the crowing of the cock: as the voice of the maid occasioned him to sin, so the voice of the cock occasioned him to repent.*

That God, who can work without means, doth sometimes work by weak and contemptible means, and when he pleases can open the mouth of a bird or beast for the for the conversion of a man. But why should our Saviour choose the crowing of a cock as a mean to bring St. Peter to repentance? There is ever some mystery in Christ’s instruments; the cock was a preacher to call Peter to repentance, there being something of emblem between the cock and a preacher. A true minister must have the wings of a cock to rouse up himself from security, and to awaken others to a sense of their duty. He must have the watchfulness of a cock, to be ever ready to discover and forewarn danger. He must have the voice of a cock, to cry aloud and tell Israel of their sin, and terrify the roaring lion, and make him tremble. In a word, he must observe the hours of the cock, to crow at all seasons of the night, to preach in season and out of season the glad tidings of salvation.

But, 2. The more principal means of St. Peter’s recovery, was, 1. Christ’s looking upon Peter. Christ first looks upon Peter with an eye of mercy, grace, and pity, before Peter looks upon his sin in order to repentance.

Here take notice of the greatness of Christ’s grace, of his wonderful love and mercy to his poor disciple. When our Saviour was upon his trial for his life, a time when our thoughts are wholly taken up about ourselves: even then did Christ find leisure to think upon Peter, remember to turn about, and give him a pitiful but piercing look; a look that melted his heart, and dissolved it into tears. We never begin to lament for sin, till we are first lamented by our Saviour. Jesus looked upon Peter. That is the first more principal means of Peter’s repentance.

The second is, Peter’s remembering the words of Christ, Before the cock crow twice thou shalt deny me thrice. This remembrance of Christ’s words was an applicative and feeling remembrance of them. He remembered the prediction of Christ, and applies it sensibly to himself.

Teaching us, That the efficacy of Christ’s word, in order to the bringing of a soul unto repentance, depends not upon the historical remembrance of it, but upon the close application of it to every man’s conscience. A sanctified remembrance of Christ’s words, and our own sins, is an excellent preparative to repentance.

Observe lastly, The manner of Peter’s repentance: it was secret, he went out; it was sincere, he wept bitterly; it was lasting and abiding all the days of his life, and attended with an extraordinary zeal and forwardness for the service of Christ to the end of his life.

1. It was secret, he went out; Vere dolet, qui sine teste dolet. he sought a place of retirement where he might mourn in secret; he cannot well be thought to dissemble his grief, who chooses no other witness but the omnipresent God. Solitariness is most agreeable to an afflicted spirit; and as St. Peter’s sorrow caused him to go forth, so might also his shame. Christ looked upon Peter, but how ashamed must Peter be to look upon Christ, considering that he so lately denied to have ever seen him!

2. His repentance was sincere, he wept bitterly; his grief was extraordinary, and his tears abundant. There is ever a weeping that follows sin; sin must cost the soul sorrow, either here or in hell; we must mourn awhile, or lament for ever. Doubtless, with Peter’s tears there was joined hearty confession of sin to God, and smart reflections upon himself after this manner: "Lord, what have I done? I that did once acknowledge my master to be Christ the Son of the living God, have since denied him with oaths, curses, and imprecations. I that promised to lay down my life for his sake, have yet disowned and denied him at the voice of a damsel. O what unfaithfulness, what weakness, what wretchedness! O that my head were waters, and mine eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep all my days for the fault of this one night!"

Blessed, indeed, are the tears of a converted revolter, and happy is the very misery of a mournful offender.

3. This holy man’s repentance was lasting and abiding; he had a lively sense and remembrance of this sin upon his soul all his life. Ecclesiastical history reports, that ever after, when St. Peter heard the crowing of a cock, he fell upon his knees and mourned; others say, that he was wont to rise at midnight, and spend the time in penitent devotion between cock-crowing and day-light. And the Papists, who love to turn every thing into superstition, began that practice of setting a cock upon the top of towers, and steeples, and chimneys, to put the people in mind of this sin of Peter, and his repentance, by that signal.

Lastly, St. Peter’s repentance was attended with an extraordinary zeal and forwardness for the service of Christ to the end of his life. He had an earnest love towards Christ, Thou that knowest all things, knowest that I love thee: and as an evidence of it, he fed Christ’s sheep; for, in the Acts of the Apostles, we read of his extraordinary diligence to spread the gospel, and his travels in order thereunto are computed to be nine hundred and fifty miles: and the wisdom of God thought fit that this apostle should preach the gospel to the Jews, as St. Paul did to the Gentiles; that as he had joined with the Jews in denying and disowning Christ, so he should endeavour to persuade them to join with him in repentance, as he had joined with them in their sin. His sin was in some respect like theirs, therefore he is sent to preach the gospel to them, and his diligence therein is an undoubted proof and evidence of his repentance.

Have any of us fallen with Peter, though not with a formal abjuring, yet by a practical denying of him, let us go forth and weep with him; let us be more vigilant nd watchful over ourselves for the time to come: let us express more extraordinary love unto and zeal for Christ, more diligence in his service, and more concernedness for his honour and glory. This would be an happy improvement of this example. The Lord grant it may have that blessed effect. Amen.

*Reynolds on St. Peter’s Fall.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

69. Now Peter sat without in the palace. While the preliminary examinations were being held before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrim, Peter and John entered the court of the palace. This court was an open square, enclosed by the palace which was built in a quadrangle all around it. From it doors and windows opened into the rooms built around it, so that Peter was “without the palace,” yet in the interior court, where he could see and hear through the open door the proceedings in the hall. Oriental houses are still built with this interior court. And a damsel came to him, saying. John speaks of her as the damsel that kept the door of the porch, or passage into the court. We are not told why she suspected him. He was at this time in the interior court, and is said by Luke to have been standing “among them” by the fire that had been kindled in the courtyard on account of the chilliness of the night.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

This begins the account of how Peter denies three times that he knows Jesus, as Jesus said he would do.

General Information:

These events happen at the same time as Jesus' trial before the religious leaders.

Now

This word is used here to mark a break in the main story line. Here Matthew starts to tell a new part of the story.

I do not know what you are talking about

Peter was able to understand what the servant girl was saying. He used these words to deny that he had been with Jesus.

translationWords

Peter

court

servant

Jesus

Galilee

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

69–75. THE DENIAL OF PETER

St Mar 14:66-72; Luk 22:54-62; Joh 18:15-18; Joh 18:25-27

The accounts differ slightly, and exactly in such a way as the evidence of honest witnesses might be expected to differ in describing the minor details (which at the time would appear unimportant) in a scene full of stir and momentous incidents. Discrepancies of this kind form the strongest argument for the independence of the different gospels. St Luke mentions that ‘the Lord turned and looked upon Peter.’ St John states that the third question was put by a kinsman of Malchus.

69. ἐν τῇ αὐλῇ. In the court. In Oriental houses the street door opens into an entrance hall or passage: this is the ‘porch’ (πυλῶνα) of Mat 26:71; beyond this is a central court (αὐλή) open to the sky and surrounded by pillars. The reception rooms are usually on the ground floor, and are built round the central court. Probably the hall or room in which Jesus was being tried opened upon the court. Thus Jesus was able to look upon Peter.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

69-75.] Our Lord is thrice denied by Peter. Mar 14:66-72.Luk 22:56-62Luk 22:56-62. Joh 18:17, 18, 25-27. This narrative furnishes one of the clearest instances of the entire independency of the four Gospels of one another. In it, they all differ, and, supposing the denial to have taken place thrice, and only thrice, cannot be literally harmonized. The following table may serve to shew what the agreements are, and what the differences:—

matthew.mark.luke.john.1st denial.Sitting in the hall without, is charged by a maid servant with having been with Jesus the Galilæan. ‘I know not what thou sayest.’Warming himself in the hall below,—&c. as Matt.—goes out into the vestibule—the cock crows. ‘I know not, neither understand what thou sayest.’Sitting πρὸς τὸ φῶς is recognized by the maid and charged—replies, ‘Woman, I know Him not.’Is recognized by the porteress on being introduced by the other disciple. ‘Art not thou also one of this man’s disciples?’ He saith, ‘I am not.’2nd denial.He has gone out into the porch—another maid sees him. ‘This man also was with Jesus of ’ He denies with an oath, ‘I do not know the man.’The same maid (possibly: but see note, p. 284, Col_1, line 34) sees him again, and says, ‘This man is of them.’ He denies again.Another (but a male servant) says: ‘Thou also art of them.’ Peter said, ‘Man, I am not.’Is standing and warming himself. They said to him, ‘Art not thou also of His disciples?’ He denied, and said, ‘I am not.’3rd denial.After a little while, the standers-by say, ‘Surely thou art of them; for thy dialect be-trayeth thee.’ He began to curse and to swear: ‘I know not the man.’As Matt. ‘Surely thou art of them: for thou art also a Galilæan.’After about an hour, another persisted saying, ‘Truly this man was with Him, for he is a Galilæan.’ Peter said, ‘Man, I know not what thou sayest.’One of the slaves of the High-priest, his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, says, ‘Did I not see thee in the garden with Him?’ Peter then denied again.Immediately the cock crew, and Peter remembered, &c.—and going out he wept bitterly.A second time the cock crew, and Peter remembered, &c.—and ἐπιβαλών he wept.Immediately while he was yet speaking the cock crew, and the Lord turned and looked on Peter, and Peter remembered, &c.—and going out he wept bitterly.Immediately the cock crew.On this table I would make the following remarks:—that generally,—(1) supposing the four accounts to be entirely independent of one another,—we are not bound to require accordance, nor would there in all probability be any such accordance, in the recognitions of Peter by different persons. These may have been many on each occasion of denial, and independent narrators may have fixed on different ones among them. (2) No reader who is not slavishly bound to the inspiration of the letter, will require that the actual words spoken by Peter should in each case be identically reported. See the admirable remarks of cited on ch. 8:25: and remember, that the substantive fact of a denial remains the same, whether οὐκ οἶδα τί λέγεις, οὐκ οἶδα αὐτόν, or οὐκ εἰμί are reported to have been Peter’s answer. (3) I do not see that we are obliged to limit the narrative to three sentences from Peter’s mouth, each expressing a denial, and no more. On three occasions during the night he was recognized,—on three occasions he was a denier of his Lord: such a statement may well embrace reiterated expressions of recognition, and reiterated and importunate denials, on each occasion. And these remarks being taken into account, I premise that all difficulty is removed from the synopsis above given: the only resulting inferences being, (a) that the narratives are genuine truthful accounts of facts underlying them all: and (b) that they are, and must be, absolutely and entirely independent of one another. For (1) the four accounts of the first denial are remarkably coincident. In all four, Peter was in the outer hall, where the fire was made (see on ver. 69): a maid servant (Matt., Mark, Luke),—the maid servant who kept the door (John) taxed him (in differing words in each, the comparison of which is very instructive) with being a disciple of Jesus: in all four he denies, again in differing words. I should be disposed to think this first recognition to have been but one, and the variations to be owing to the independence of the reports. (2) In the narratives of the second denial, our first preliminary remark is well exemplified. The same maid (Mark possibly: but not necessarily—perhaps, only the παιδίσκη in the προαύλιον)—another maid (Matt.), another (male) servant (Luke), the standers-by generally (John), charged him: again, in differing words. It seems he had retreated from the fire as if going to depart altogether (see note, ver. 69), and so attracted the attention both of the group at the fire and of the porteress. It would appear to me that for some reason, John was not so precisely informed of the details of this as of the other denials. The “going out” (Matt., Mark) is a superadded detail, of which the “standing and warming himself” (John) does not seem to be possessed. (3) On the third occasion, the standers-by recognize him as a Galilæan (simply, Mark (txt.), Luke: by his dialect, Matt., an interesting additional particular),—and a kinsman of Malchus crowns the charge by identifying him in a way which might have proved most perilous, had not Peter immediately withdrawn. This third time again, his denials are differently reported:—but here, which is most interesting, we have in Matt. and Mark’s “he began to curse and to swear” a very plain intimation, that he spoke not one sentence only, but a succession of vehement denials. It will be seen, that the main fallacy which pervaded the note in my first edition, was that of requiring the recognitions, and the recognizers, in each case, to have been identical in the four. Had they been thus identical, in a case of this kind, the four accounts must have sprung from a common source, or have been corrected to one another: whereas their present varieties and coincidences are most valuable as indications of truthful independence. What I wish to impress on the minds of my readers is, that in narratives which have sprung from such truthful independent accounts, they must be prepared sometimes (as e.g. in the details of the day of the Resurrection) for discrepancies which, at our distance, we cannot satisfactorily arrange: now and then we may, as in this instance, be able to do so with something like verisimilitude:—in some cases, not at all. But whether we can thus arrange them or not, being thoroughly persuaded of the holy truthfulness of the Evangelists, and of the divine guidance under which they wrote, our faith is in no way shaken by such discrepancies. We value them rather, as testimonies to independence: and are sure, that if for one moment we could be put in complete possession of all the details as they happened, each account would find its justification, and the reasons of all the variations would appear. And this I firmly believe will one day be the case. (See the narrative of Peter’s denials ably treated in an article on my former note, in the “Christian Observer” for Feb. 1853.)

69.] “An oriental house is usually built round a quadrangular interior court; into which there is a passage (sometimes arched) through the front part of the house, closed next the street by a heavy folding gate, with a small wicket for single persons, kept by a porter. In the text, the interior court, often paved or flagged, and open to the sky, is the αὐλή where the attendants made a fire; and the passage beneath the front of the house from the street to this court, is the προαύλιον or πυλών. The place where Jesus stood before the High-priest may have been an open room or place of audience on the ground-floor, in the rear or on one side of the court; such rooms, open in front, being customary.” Robinson, Notes to Harmony, p. 225.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

(M) 69. And Peter sat outside in the court; and there came to him a maid-servant, saying, And thou wast with Jesus the Galilean?] Mk. has: “And whilst Peter was below in the court, there cometh one of the maid-servants of the high priest; and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him, and saith, And thou wast with the Nazarene, Jesus?”—ἔξω] in the outer court. Mk. has κάτω.—ἐκάθητο (Lk. also has καθήμενον) refers back to v. 58.—προσῆλθεν] see on 4:3. Mt. avoids thus Mk.’s hist. pres.—Γαλιλαίου] for Mk.’s Ναζαρηνοῦ, which Mt. elsewhere omits, e.g. in 20:30 and 28:5.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

A damsel [μια παιδισκγη] . Lit., one damsel, because the writer has in mind a second one (ver. 71).

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.