Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 26:72
And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man.
Verse 72. And again he denied with an oath] This is a third gradation of his iniquity. He has told a lie, and he swears to support it. A liar has always some suspicion that his testimony is not credited, for he is conscious to his own falsity, and is therefore naturally led to support his assertions by oaths.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
And again he denied with an oath,…. He denied a second time, that he had ever been with Jesus, or was a disciple of his; and to put it out of all doubt, and an end to all dispute about it, and further charge of this kind, as he hoped, he annexed an oath to it: he swore by the God of truth; made a solemn appeal to the omniscient God, the searcher of hearts, that he was so far from being ever with Jesus of Nazareth, or a disciple of his, that, says he,
I do not know the man: meaning not only that he had no personal knowledge of him, or acquaintance with him; but that he had never seen the man in his life, nor did he know what manner of man he was. This, as it was a downright falsehood, it was what he had no need to have said; for there were multitudes that knew Christ in this sense, who never joined with him, or became his disciples. This was so much overdoing it, that it was much it had not given them a suspicion of him. Those that would excuse Peter’s sin, by supposing that he meant, that he knew Christ to be God, and did not know him as a mere man, have no foundation for such a supposition; and indeed, such an ambiguous expression, and mental reservation, is no other than dealing fallaciously. Peter knew Christ in every sense; he knew him spiritually, whom to know is life eternal: and he valued the knowledge of him above all things else: he knew him to be God, and the Son of God; he knew him as mediator, and the Saviour of lost sinners; he knew him as man, and had had personal intimacy and conversation with him of a long time, and yet now denies he knew him; and that with an oath, adding perjury to lying; and so it is, that one sin leads on to another. This instance of Peter’s shows the wickedness and deceitfulness of man’s heart; and what the best of men are, or would be, when left to themselves, and of God: they become like other men, even like the men of the world, whose mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
With an oath ( ). This time Peter added an oath, probably a former habit so common to the Jews at that time, and denied acquaintance with Jesus. He even refers to Jesus as “the man” ( ), an expression that could convey contempt, “the fellow.”
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
The man. As if he did not know Jesus ‘ name.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
72. And the second time he denied with an oath. It deserves attention, that Peter, after finding that he could not escape by a simple denial, doubles his crime by adding an oath; and a little after, when he is still more vehemently pressed, he proceeds even to cursing. Hence we infer that a sinner, after having once fallen, is always hurried on from bad to worse; so that those who begin with ordinary offenses afterwards rush headlong into the basest crimes, from which at first they would have recoiled with horror. And this is the just vengeance of God, after we have deprived ourselves of the assistance of the Holy Spirit, to allow Satan a violent exercise of power over us, that, having subdued and made us his slaves, he may drive us wherever he pleases. But this happens chiefly in a denial of the faith; for when a man, through fear of the cross, has turned aside from a pure profession of the gospel, if he perceive that his enemies are not yet satisfied, will proceed farther, and what he had not ventured fully to acknowledge he denies flatly with an oath, and without any ambiguity of words.
We ought also to observe, that almost in a single moment Peter thrice gave way; for this shows how unsteady we are, and how liable to fall, whenever Satan drives us. Certainly we shall never cease to fall, if the Lord do not stretch out his hand to uphold us. When the rigor of the grace of Christ was extinguished in Peter, whoever might afterwards meet hit and interrogate him about Christ, he would have been ready to deny a hundred or a thousand times. Although, then, it was very base in him to fall thrice, yet the Lord spared him by restraining the tongues of enemies from making additional attacks upon him. Thus, also, it is every day necessary for the Lord to bridle Satan, lest he overwhelm us with innumerable temptations; for though he does not cease to employ many instruments in assailing us, were it not that the Lord, paying regard to our weakness, restrains the violence of his rage, we would have to contend against a prodigious amount of temptations. In this respect, therefore, we ought to praise the mercy of the Lord, who does not permit our enemy to make advances against us, almost the hundredth part of what he would desire.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(72) With an oath.The downward step once taken, the disciples fall was fatally rapid. Forgetful of his Lords command forbidding any use of oaths in common speech (Mat. 5:34), he did not shrink from invoking the divine name, directly or indirectly, to attest his falsehood.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
‘And again he denied with an oath, “I do not know the man.” ’
This time Peter was more disturbed. It was bad enough being spotted by servant girls, but it was dangerous to be drawn to the attention of the men. So this time He denied that he knew Jesus with an oath. Here was a more vociferous denial than the previous one. And yet the truth is that if he was not willing to defend Jesus, and to confess Him, he should not have been there. The use of an oath reveals that because of his failure he is going deeper into disobedience. We are intended to see that if he had he been speaking the truth and had been confessing Jesus he would not have needed an oath. An oath indicated something which ‘came from evil’ (Mat 5:37).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 26:72. And again he denied with an oath To his denial he now added perjury. Jesus was so public a person, and so well known to thousands, not at all in his interest, that this additional falsehood, I do not know the man, was most unnecessary; andas it frequently happens, when people allow themselves to transgress the bounds of truth,it was more likely to entangle anddiscover him, than to clear him. Dr. Clarke conjectures, that Peter was suffered to fall fouler than any of the rest of the apostles, except Judas the traitor, and to make more remarkable mistakes in his conduct, that we might thus be cautioned against that extravagant regard which would afterwards be demanded to him and his pretended successors. How must these people, before whom Peter denied his Lord, be surprised, when they saw, as no doubt some of them did, this timorous disciple, within the compass of a few weeks, when he was brought with John before the council, not only maintaining the cause and honour of Jesus, but boldly charging the murder of this Prince of Life upon the chief men of the nation, and solemnly warning them of their guilt and danger in consequence of it! See Act 4:5-12. Perhaps when it is said there, Mat 26:13., that they took knowledge of Peter and John, that they had been with Jesus; the meaning may be, that some of them or their attendants remembered Peter and John, as the two persons who had followed Jesus thus far, when the rest had forsaken him. See Joh 18:15-18 and Doddridge.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 26:72 . Observe the climax in the terms of the threefold denial.
] is peculiar to Matthew, and is here used in the sense of an oath.
] the man (in question). Alas, such is the language, cold and distant, which Peter uses with reference to his Master! What a contrast to Mat 16:16 ! “Ecce, columna firmissima ad unius aurae impulsum tota contremuit,” Augustine.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
72 And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man.
Ver. 72. And again he denied with an oath ] This was fearful; and the worse, because his Master, whom he forswore, was now (even as Peter’s faith was) upon his trial, and might say, with wounded Caesar, What, thou, my son Brutus! Is this thy kindness to thy friend? Scipio had rather that Hannibal should eat his heart with salt than that Lelius do him the least discourtesy.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Mat 26:72 . : second denial, more emphatic, with an oath, and more direct: I know not the man ( .).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
the man. Not even His name.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Mat 26:72. , with an oath) Oaths do not seem to have been inconsistent with Peters former habits.- , the man) as if Peter did not even know the name of Jesus.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
with: Mat 5:34-36, Exo 20:7, Isa 48:1, Zec 5:3, Zec 5:4, Zec 8:17, Mal 3:5, Act 5:3, Act 5:4
I do not: Mat 26:74, Luk 22:34
Reciprocal: 1Sa 28:10 – sware 2Sa 11:6 – Send me Psa 22:11 – none to help Pro 30:9 – and take the name Mar 14:68 – he went Luk 22:58 – another Joh 21:16 – the second
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
6:72
Peter emphasized his denial this time with an oath.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 26:72. Denied with an oath. The oath is mentioned by Matthew alone, and was uttered to the maid in the porch.
I know not the man. From evasion to perjury, one sin leading to another. The expression is even somewhat contemptuous; Peter was now a stone of stumbling, not a rock.