Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 26:73
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.
73. thy speech bewrayeth thee ] Peter was discovered by his use of the Galilan dialect. The Galilans 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).
To bewray, from the Anglo-Saxon wreian, to accuse, then, to point out, make evident, the literal meaning of the Greek words.
“Here comes the queen, whose looks bewray her anger.”
Shaks. 3 Henry VI. 1. 1. ( Bible Word-Book.)
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And after a while – That is, about an hour after (Luke). Peter by this time had returned into the palace or hall, and stood warming himself by the fire, Joh 18:25.
Thy speech bewrayeth thee – Your language makes it manifest that you are of his company. That is, as Mark adds, he was a Galilean, and in this way his speech betrayed him. It is probable that the Galileans were distinguished for some peculiarity of pronunciation, perhaps some unique rusticity or coarseness in their manner of speaking, that distinguished them from the refinement of the capital, Jerusalem. This charge, John says Joh 18:26, was supported by the express affirmation of a kinsman of Malchus, the servant of the high priest, that he had seen him in the garden.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 73. Thy speech] Thy manner of speech, , that dialect of thine – his accent being different from that of Jerusalem. From various examples given by Lightfoot and Schoettgen, we find that the Galileans had a very corrupt pronunciation, frequently interchanging and , and so blending or dividing words as to render them unintelligible, or cause them to convey a contrary sense.
Bewrayeth thee.] , maketh thee manifest, from the Anglo-saxon [Anglo-Saxon], to accuse, betray; a word long since lost from our language.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Mark saith, Mar 14:70,71, And a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them: for thou art a Galilean, and thy speech agreeth thereto. But he began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak. Luke hath it, Luk 22:59,60, And about the space of one hour after another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this fellow also was with him: for he is a Galilean. And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew. One spake in the name of the rest that were gathered about Peter, and he charges Peter confidently; and he might well, for John saith, Joh 18:26, that this was one of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off. He said, Did not I see thee in the garden with him? Temptations always grow upon us in the company of wicked men. Here Peter adds to his lying, swearing and cursing; all confirming of what he had said in the denial of his Master; all in an exact fulfilling of what Christ had told Peter, Mat 26:34, though he was then difficult to believe it; to teach us all not to presume too far upon our own strength, but to pray that we be not led into temptation; while we stand, to take heed lest we fall; and in order to it, to avoid the society of wicked men, and places in which we probably may be tempted. To teach us also charity to lapsed brethren, and not too hastily to condemn our brethren for falling a second and a third time into the same sin; especially, while the same fit of temptation holdeth. It is added, And immediately the cock crew, that is, the second time; so saith Mark, Mar 14:72, who had mentioned the cocks first crowing, Mar 14:68, upon Peters first denial of his Master.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And after a while,…. Mark says, “a little after”,
Mr 14:70, and Luke observes, that it was “about the space of one hour after”, Lu 22:59: so that here was time to reflect upon what he had been saying, and to guard against another temptation, should he be attacked; but, alas! as yet he was unmindful of his Lord’s words, and persists in the denial of him, and that with greater aggravation, than at his first surprise: and indeed his temptation was now more violent: for there
came unto him they that stood by; the officers and servants of the high priest, his attendants that waited upon him, and who stood by the fire, where Peter was warming himself: before he was attacked by single maidservants, now by a body of men, and one of them the kinsman of the man whose ear he had cut off, and who challenged him, as having seen him in the garden: and another confidently affirmed, and swore to it, that he was with Jesus, and was a Galilean; and all of them agreed in this,
and said to Peter, surely thou also art one of them, for thy speech betrayeth thee: not his spiritual speech, for he had not been speaking in the language of a disciple of Christ, like one that had been with Jesus; nor his swearing neither, for this rather showed him to be one of them; but his country language, the brogue of his speech, the Galilean dialect which he spoke: for in Mark it is said, “thou art a Galilean, and thy speech agreeth thereunto”, Mr 14:70: for though the same language was spoken in Galilee as at Jerusalem, yet it was not so accurate and polite in Galilee, nor so well pronounced; words of different signification were confounded together. Hence the Talmudists say b, that
“the men of Judah, who were careful of their language, their law was confirmed in their hands; the men of Galilee, who were not careful of their language, their law was not confirmed in their hands–the men of Galilee, who do not attend to language, what is reported of them? a Galilean went and said to them, , they said to him foolish Galilean, , “Chamor” is to ride upon, or “Chamar” is to drink, or “Hamar” is for clothing, or “Immar” is for hiding for slaughter.”
By which instances it appears, that a Galilean pronounced “Chamor”, an ass, and “Chamar”, wine, and “Hamar”, wool, and “Immar”, a lamb, all one, and the same way, without any distinction; so that it was difficult to know which of these he meant. Many other instances of the like kind are given in the same place, which show the Galilean to be a more gross, barbarous, and impolite language, than what was spoken at Jerusalem; and Peter using this dialect, was known to be a Galilean: just as the Ephraimites were known by their pronouncing Shibboleth, Sibboleth.
b T. Bab. Erubin, fol. 53. 1, 2. Vid. Buxtorf. Lex. Talmud. in rad.
.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
They that stood by ( ). The talk about Peter continued. Luke (Lu 22:59) states that the little while was about an hour. The bystanders came up to Peter and bluntly assert that he was “of a truth” () one of the followers of Jesus for his speech betrayed him. Even the Revised Version retains “bewrayeth,” quaint old English for “betrayeth.” The Greek has it simply “makes thee evident” ( ). His dialect () clearly revealed that he was a Galilean. The Galileans had difficulty with the gutterals and Peter’s second denial had exposed him to the tormenting raillery of the loungers who continued to nag him.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
(73) Thy speech bewrayeth thee.The Galilean patois was probably stronger when he spoke under the influence of strong excitement. It was said to have, as its chief feature, a confused thick utterance of the guttural letters of the Hebrew alphabet, so that they could not be distinguished from each other, and the change of Sh into Th. The half-detection which the remark implied, perhaps, also, some sense of shame at the provincialism attracting notice, led to the more vehement denial that followed.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
PETER’S THIRD DENIAL.
The place, probably in the court after a while.
There is nothing to indicate clearly the time. But the morning was now approaching, for the cock soon crew.
73. After a while John says an hour. Thy speech bewrayeth thee Peter had ventured to utter some remark which brought out his Gallilean brogue, and the bystanders noticed him. Bewrayeth Detecteth.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And after a little while those who stood by came and said to Peter, “Of a truth you also are one of them, for your speech exposes you.” ’
Unfortunately for him by this time interest had been aroused and he was now under observation Thus one of the men approached him and pointed to his accent as demonstrating that he was a Galilaean, and therefore surely ‘one of them’. Peter had become an object of curiosity and he was basically saying, ‘The girl is right. You are one of them.’ Peter was by this time terrified. All thoughts of loyalty had gone. (It will, however, be noted that there is no indication of any real threat. It was probably mainly all in Peter’s mind).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 26:73-74. And after a while came, &c. The words of Malchus’s kinsman, (see Joh 18:26.) bringing to Peter’s remembrance what he had done to that slave, threw him into such a panic, that when those who stood by repeated the charge, he impudently denied it.When the servants at the fire heard Peter deny the charge which John has mentioned, they drew near, and supported the argument drawn from the accent with which he had pronounced his answer. We are told by the Jews that the Galileans had a clownish and uncouth way of speaking, for which they were ridiculed by the inhabitants of Judea; and as the Galileans were generally suspected of being disciples of Jesus, Peter’s having the Galilean accent is therefore urged as a strong presumption that he was one of the disciples of Jesus. Thus pressed on all sides, to give his lie the better colour, he profaned the name of God by swearing and wishing the bitterest curses on himself, (for such is the force of the original) if he was telling a falsehood. Perhaps he hoped by these acts of impiety to convince them effectually indeed, that he was not a disciple of the holy Jesus. All the evangelists agree, that the cock crew immediately after Peter pronounced the words of the third denial, which they themselves have related: but upon comparing the things said when this third attack was made, it appears that the speeches at least which St. John has recorded, did not come from the persons mentioned by the other evangelists; wherefore the third denial was occasioned by different attacks made in succession; unless the men spoke all at once, which is not very probable. It is more natural to think, that when Peter denied his Master to them who first attacked him, the others who stood by supported the charge with an argumentdrawn from his accent in speaking, which proved him to be a Galilean. However, as in either case the succession of his answers must have been very quick, the veracity of the evangelists remains unshaken, because thus the cock crew immediately after Peter pronounced the words which they have severally related. To this part of the history it has been objected, that the Jews, as their tradition goes, never kept any cocks within the walls of Jerusalem, and consequently that Peter could not hear them crow, while he was in the high-priest’s palace; but the objection maybe removed either by calling the tradition itself in question, because it contradicts the testimony of writers whose veracity is indubitable, and who could not but know the customs of the age in which they lived; and because many traditions of this kind were framed by the rabbis, with a view to magnify the sanctity of Jerusalem. Or, the objection may be removed by supposing, that the Romans who lived in the city, neglectingthe institutions of the Jews, might keep this kind of fowl about their houses, perhaps for their table, or for the auspices, a sort of divination to which they were peculiarly addicted. See Macknight.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 26:73 . The answer of Peter given at Mat 26:72 , and in the course of which his Galilaean dialect was recognised, gave occasion to those standing by (that they were exactly Sanhedrim officers, apparitores , Kuinoel, Paulus, does not necessarily follow from the use of ) to step up to Peter after a little while, and to corroborate ( ) the assertion of the maid-servant.
] of those who were along with Jesus, Mat 26:71 .
] for even , apart from circumstances by which thou hast been already identified.
] thy speech (see on Joh 8:43 ), namely, through the coarse provincial accent. The natives of Galilee were unable to distinguish especially the gutturals properly, pronounced the letter like a , etc. See Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 435, 2417; Lightfoot, Centur. Chorogr. p. 151 ff.; Wetstein on our passage; Keim, I. p. 310.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
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 bewrayeth thee.
Ver. 73. For thy speech bewrayeth thee ] Jacob must name himself Esau, with the voice of Jacob. The Ephraimite must lisp out his Shibboleth in despite of his heart or habit. Each countryman is known by his idiom or dialect. The fool saith to every one, that he is a fool, Ecc 10:3 , when the wise man’s tongue “talketh of judgment,” Psa 37:30 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
73. ] Wetstein (ad loc.) gives many examples of various provincial dialects of Hebrew. The Galilans could not pronounce properly the gutturals, confounding [180] , and ; and they used for .
[180] The CODEX SINAITICUS. Procured by Tischendorf, in 1859, from the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. The Codex Frederico-Augustanus (now at Leipsic), obtained in 1844 from the same monastery, is a portion of the same copy of the Greek Bible, the 148 leaves of which, containing the entire New Testament, the Ep. of Barnabas, parts of Hermas, and 199 more leaves of the Septuagint, have now been edited by the discoverer. A magnificent edition prepared at the expense of the Emperor of Russia appeared in January, 1863, and a smaller edition containing the N.T. &c., has been published by Dr. Tischendorf. The MS. has four columns on a page, and has been altered by several different correctors, one or more of whom Tischendorf considers to have lived in the sixth century. The work of the original scribe has been examined, not only by Tischendorf, but by Tregelles and other competent judges, and is by them assigned to the fourth century . The internal character of the text agrees with the external, as the student may judge for himself from the readings given in the digest. The principal correctors as distinguished by Tischendorf are: A, of the same age with the MS. itself, probably the corrector who revised the book, before it left the hands of the scribe, denoted therefore by us -corr 1 ; B (cited as 2 ), who in the first page of Matt. began inserting breathings, accents, &c., but did not carry out his design, and touched only a few later passages; C a (cited as 3a ) has corrected very largely throughout the book. Wherever in our digest a reading is cited as found in 1 , it is to be understood, if no further statement is given, that C a altered it to that which is found in our text; C b (cited as 3b ) lived about the same time as C a , i.e. some centuries later than the original scribe. These are all that we need notice here 6 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 26:73 . , loungers; seeing Peter’s confusion, and amusing themselves by tormenting him. , beyond doubt, you, too, are one of them; of the notorious gang. : They had heard him speak in his second denial, which so leads up to a third. Galilean speech was defective in pronouncing the gutturals, and making = .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
73. ] Wetstein (ad loc.) gives many examples of various provincial dialects of Hebrew. The Galilans could not pronounce properly the gutturals, confounding [180], and ; and they used for .
[180] The CODEX SINAITICUS. Procured by Tischendorf, in 1859, from the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. The Codex Frederico-Augustanus (now at Leipsic), obtained in 1844 from the same monastery, is a portion of the same copy of the Greek Bible, the 148 leaves of which, containing the entire New Testament, the Ep. of Barnabas, parts of Hermas, and 199 more leaves of the Septuagint, have now been edited by the discoverer. A magnificent edition prepared at the expense of the Emperor of Russia appeared in January, 1863, and a smaller edition containing the N.T. &c., has been published by Dr. Tischendorf. The MS. has four columns on a page, and has been altered by several different correctors, one or more of whom Tischendorf considers to have lived in the sixth century. The work of the original scribe has been examined, not only by Tischendorf, but by Tregelles and other competent judges, and is by them assigned to the fourth century. The internal character of the text agrees with the external, as the student may judge for himself from the readings given in the digest. The principal correctors as distinguished by Tischendorf are:-A, of the same age with the MS. itself, probably the corrector who revised the book, before it left the hands of the scribe, denoted therefore by us -corr1; B (cited as 2), who in the first page of Matt. began inserting breathings, accents, &c., but did not carry out his design, and touched only a few later passages; Ca (cited as 3a) has corrected very largely throughout the book. Wherever in our digest a reading is cited as found in 1, it is to be understood, if no further statement is given, that Ca altered it to that which is found in our text; Cb (cited as 3b) lived about the same time as Ca, i.e. some centuries later than the original scribe. These are all that we need notice here6.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 26:73. , thou art) The present tense. The temptation increases. Previously they had said , thou wast, Mat 26:69, in the imperfect.-, speech) i.e., manner of speaking, dialect. If Peter had remained silent, he would have been in less danger of discovery: by denying, which involved speaking, he increased the danger. Those men had, however, stronger proofs by which to convict Peter (see Mat 26:47; Mat 26:51); but the world generally employs the weakest arguments of all against the godly, especially in cases of misdirected zeal. Even as far back as the days of the Judges, tribes had peculiar dialects.[1165]
[1165] See Jdg 12:6, where the Ephraimites are discerned by the test of Shibboleth.-(I. B.)
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Surely: Luk 22:59, Luk 22:60, Joh 18:26, Joh 18:27
for: Jdg 12:6, Neh 13:24
Reciprocal: Jdg 18:3 – they knew Mar 14:70 – a little Joh 21:17 – the third Act 4:13 – they took
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
6:73
We are not told which person did the speaking this time, only that it was someone of the group standing near. The statement was made in an argumentative mood which shows they had heard his former denials (verse 70). Bewrayeth is the same as saying his speech “gave him away” or proved him to be what they were saying. Different communities and groups had their own dialects or brogues in their conversation. These people knew the dialect of Jesus and recognized that of Peter as being the same.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
THIRD DENIAL, followed by repentance; Mat 26:73-75.
Mat 26:73. And after a little while. An hour (Luke), so that the second cock-crowing followed immediately (Mat 26:74). Peter probably remained in the porch, as a less conspicuous place.
They that stood by. A very general recognition by those in the porch. The second denial had allayed the indignation, but the examination was about concluded, and there was more stir and excitement. The first man who recognized him, was probably the one mentioned by Luke; then the bystanders joined in: Surely thou also art one of them, as if to offset his oath (Mat 26:72): for even thy speech bewrayeth thee. The Galilean dialect was peculiar, not making a distinction between the guttural sounds, etc.; a ready means of detection. Peter may have talked, while in the porch, with assumed unconcern.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Mat 26:73-74. And after a while came they that stood by, &c. When the servants at the fire heard Peter deny the charge, which John has mentioned, they drew near and supported it by an argument drawn from the accent with which he had pronounced his answer: Surely thou art one of them, for thy speech bewrayeth thee. , thy manner of speech (meaning the Galilean dialect or pronunciation) maketh thee manifest Or, as Mark expresses it, Thou art a Galilean, and thy speech agreeth thereto. Peter, being thus pressed from different quarters, and having now quite lost the reins, the government of himself; in order to give his lie the better colour, he profaned the name of God by swearing, and wished the bitterest curses on himself if he was telling a falsehood. Perhaps he hoped by these acts of impiety to convince them effectually that he was not the disciple of the holy Jesus. And immediately the cock crew All the evangelists say, that the cock crew immediately after Peter pronounced the words of the third denial, which they themselves have related. But upon comparing the things said when this third attack was made, it appears that the speeches, at least which John has recorded, did not come from the persons mentioned by the other evangelists. Wherefore the third denial was occasioned by different attacks made in succession; unless the men spoke all at once, which is not very probable. It is more natural to think, that when Peter denied his Master to them who first attacked him, the others, who stood by, supported the charge, with an argument drawn from his dialect or pronunciation, which proved him to be a Galilean. However, as in either case the succession of his answers must have been very quick, the veracity of the evangelists remains unshaken, because thus the cock crew immediately after Peter pronounced the words which they have severally related. Thus through the mere fear of man, a principle from which have sprung many denials of Christ and his truth in different ages, Peter denied his Master three sundry times with many aggravating circumstances, forgetting the vehement protestations he had made a few hours before. He was permitted to fall in this manner to teach mankind several important lessons: as, 1st, That no dependance can be placed on any mere human strength, or on any resolutions man can form, without supernatural aid. 2d, That whatever a persons attainments may have been formerly, if once he give way to temptation, so as to commit known and actual sin, he frequently, perhaps it may be said commonly, proceeds from bad to worse, one sin naturally drawing on another; for which reason the very least appearance of evil ought always to be dreaded, and the greatest humility and self-diffidence maintained. 3d, The goodness wherewith Jesus treated his fallen apostle, teaches us that no sinner whatever needs to despair of mercy who truly repents.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Verse 73
Thy speech. They meant that his provincial dialect betrayed him to be a Galilean.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
A third person, one of the high priest’s servants who was a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off in Gethsemane (Joh 18:26), approached Peter with some bystanders about an hour later (Luk 22:59). They accusingly asked Peter again if he was not one of Jesus’ disciples since he was a Galilean. Galileans had an accent that set them off as distinctive. [Note: Hoehner, Herod Antipas, pp. 61-64; France, The Gospel . . ., p. 1033.] This shows how thoroughly residents of Jerusalem connected Jesus’ ministry with Galilee since it was the site of most of His activity. Most if not all of His disciples were Galileans. The one who may not have been was Judas Iscariot, if "Iscariot" refers to the town of Kerioth in Judah. Peter denied that he knew Jesus a third time using more oaths to confirm his testimony. He may even have cursed Jesus. [Note: France, The Gospel . . ., p. 1034.] Immediately a rooster crowed. Peter heard it and remembered Jesus’ prediction that he would deny Jesus before the cock crowed (Mat 26:34). Peter left the courtyard and wept bitterly over his cowardice and failure (cf. 2Co 7:10). This is Matthew’s last reference to Peter.
Matthew probably recorded this incident because it illustrates Jesus’ ability to foretell the future, a messianic characteristic. It also reveals the weakness of the disciples whom Jesus had taken such pains to prepare for His passion but without apparent success. Their concept of the Messiah and the kingdom was still largely that of most people in Israel then, though they had come to recognize Jesus as God. Only Jesus’ resurrection would clarify their understanding of His messiahship and kingdom program.
"The reader is invited to choose between two models of how the man of God behaves under pressure, the one who escapes death but with this spiritual reputation in tatters and the one who will be killed only to live again in triumph; so the reader is reminded that ’anyone who finds their life will lose it, and anyone who loses their life will find it’ (Mat 10:39; Mat 16:25)." [Note: Ibid., p. 1017.]