See the notes at Mat 26:72-74.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

This history of Peters denial of his Master the second time we have before met with, Mat 26:71,72; Mr 14:69,70; Luk 22:58,59, with several circumstances not mentioned by John. See Poole on “Mat 26:69“.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

25. And Simon Peter was standing andwarming himself. They said therefore . . . Art thou not also one ofhis disciples?In Mt 26:71the second charge was made by “another maid, when he wasgone out into the porch,” who “saw him, and said unto themthat were there, This [fellow] was also with Jesus of Nazareth.”So also Mr 14:69. But in Lu22:58 it is said, “After a little while” (from the timeof the first denial), “another [man] saw him, and said,Thou art also of them.” Possibly it was thrown at him by morethan one; but these circumstantial variations only confirm the truthof the narrative.

He denied it, and said, I amnotin Mt 26:72, “Hedenied with an oath, I do not know the man.” This was THESECOND DENIAL.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself,…. This is repeated from Joh 18:18 to connect the history, and carry on the thread of the account of Peter’s denial of Christ, which is interrupted by inserting the examination of Christ before the high priest, which was made at the same time. Peter stood among, and continued with the servants and officers of the high priest, warming himself by a fire they had made, it being a cold night; and this proved of bad consequence to him. The company and conversation of wicked men should be abstained from; no good is got thereby; continuance among such is very dangerous; men are too often more concerned for their bodies than their souls; Satan baits his temptations for the fleshly and sensitive part; and that which is thought to be for good, is the occasion of hurt.

They said therefore unto him; the servants and officers, among whom he stood warming himself, having observed what the maid had said to him:

art thou not also one of his disciples? suspecting that he was, though he had denied it, and therefore press him to give a direct answer: they might observe his countenance to fall, when the maid put the question to him; there might be something in his dress, and especially in his speech, which increased the suspicion:

but he denied it, and said, I am not; a second time. This denial of his being a disciple of Christ, as before, did not arise from a sense of his unworthiness to be one; nor from diffidence and distrust of a right to such a character; but from the fear of men; and being ashamed of Christ, he denies that which was his great mercy, privilege, and glory.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Was standing and warming himself ( ). Two periphrastic imperfects precisely as in verse 18, vivid renewal of the picture drawn there. John alone gives the examination of Jesus by Annas (18:19-24) which he places between the first and the second denials by Peter. Each of the Four Gospels gives three denials, but it is not possible to make a clear parallel as probably several people joined in each time. This time there was an hour’s interval (Lu 22:59). The question and answer are almost identical with verse 17 and “put in a form which almost suggested that Peter should say ‘No'” (Bernard), a favourite device of the devil in making temptation attractive.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

1) “And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself.” (hen de Simon Petros hestos kai thermainomenos) “Then Simon Peter was standing and warming himself;” Here the account of that night resumes from Joh 18:18, as Peter continued warming himself by the fire, as His Lord was being tried within the court; Here he lingered, surrounded by temptation to which he yielded, against which he later warned, Psa 1:1; 1Pe 5:6-9; Jas 4:6-9.

2) “They said therefore unto him,” (eipon oun auto) “Then they said to him,” the servants and the officers of the court, the security guards about the Palace court, Joh 18:18.

3) “Art not thou also one of his disciples?” (me kai su ek ton matheton autou ei) “You are also out of or from among his disciples, aren’t you?” It was a simple, clear, honest question to this “man called Peter,” who had repeatedly sworn never to deny the Lord, and even to die for Him, Mat 26:33; Mat 26:35; Joh 13:36-38.

4) “He denied it, and said, I am not.” (ernesato ekeinos kai eipen ouk eimi) “That one (Peter) denied it and said, I am not,” thus ignoring the injunction of Jesus, “watch and pray that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak,” and how weak! Mat 26:41. Here it is clear that Peter not only denied the Lord personally but also denied being one of His disciples, His chosen witnesses, apostles, and church brethren, Joh 15:16; Joh 15:26-27.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

25. He denied it. How shocking the stupidity of Peter, who, after having denied his Master, not only has no feeling of repentance, but hardens himself by the very indulgence he takes in sinning! If each of them in his turn had asked him, he would not have hesitated to deny his Master a thousand times. Such is the manner in which Satan hurries along wretched men, after having degraded them. We must also attend to the circumstance which is related by the other Evangelists, (Mat 26:74; Mar 14:71,) that he began to curse and to swear, saying, that he did not know Christ. Thus it happens to many persons every day. At first, the fault will not be very great; next, it becomes habitual, and at length, after that conscience has been laid asleep, he who has accustomed himself to despise God will think nothing unlawful for him, but will dare to commit the greatest wickedness. There is nothing better for us, therefore, than to be early on our guard, that he who is tempted by Satan, while he is yet uncorrupted, may not allow himself the smallest indulgence.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(25) And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself.Better, And Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. (Comp. Joh. 18:18.) The words are repeated to draw attention to the fact that he was standing in the court at the time when Jesus was sent from Annas unto Caiaphas, that is, from one wing of the quadrangular building across the court to the other. In Luk. 22:61 it is said that the Lord turned and looked upon Peter.

Art not thou also one of his disciples?Comp. Note to Joh. 18:17.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

Peter’s second and third denial, Joh 18:25-27.

The position of this part of the narrative of Peter’s denials, which seems to be separated purposely from the first denial, confirms the supposition that the whole took place during the stay of Jesus in the hall of Annas. We may add, that the clear accordance of the narratives of these denials in the different Evangelists, which discloses itself amidst apparent discrepancies, forms a striking demonstration of the truth of the history. The discrepancies show intuitively that the narratives are perfectly artless and independent, while the ultimate agreement shows that the respective authors wrote from common fact.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said therefore to him, “Are you also one of his disciples?” He denied and said, “I am not.” One of the servants of the High Priest, who was a kinsman of the one whose ear Peter cut off, says, “Did I not see you in the garden with him?” Peter therefore denied again and immediately the cock crew.’

While Jesus was being dragged around bound, Peter, although apprehensive, was free and enjoying his freedom. But while the bound man showed Himself truly free by His replies, the free man showed himself a slave by his replies.

Twice again Peter denied that he was a disciple of Jesus and this was followed by cock crow as morning approached. The words of Jesus in Joh 13:38 had been fulfilled. John, who knew something of the High Priest’s household, identifies the final questioner specifically. It is thus clear that John witnessed at least a part of Peter’s humiliation.

‘I am not’. This is again the opposite of Jesus’ firm statement, “I am” (Joh 18:5-6).

There is nothing that we can say about Peter’s humiliation, except to say that it should be a warning to all about over-arrogance. How little Peter realised the weakness of his own human nature. How little we realise of ours. He who had been so brave, and had drawn his sword to fight, and had followed the arresting party at a distance, and had even entered the courtyard of the High Priest’s house, discovered that when tired and shaken and put under great unexpected pressure, he was weaker than he had realised. He had stretched himself too far. It demonstrates the intensity of his feelings at that moment. But happily he recovered to give hope to all that one failure is not necessarily the end.

And what a contrast with Judas. Peter left and wept bitterly, and was restored. In contrast Judas’ heart was set cold. He had deliberately set his mind against Jesus over a period of time, because it had never come home to him what Jesus had really come to do. And his tears, if there were tears, were tears of hopelessness, as he realised that what he had hoped for would never be, for his hopes were set in the wrong direction. There was much remorse but no repentance. It was different with Peter. He truly repented. The distinction is important.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Peter’s second and third denial:

v. 25. And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of His disciples? He denied it and said, I am not.

v. 26. One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with Him?

v. 27. Peter then denied again; and immediately the cock crew.

While the hearing was going on in the chambers of Hannas, Peter had remained in the circle of the servants and guards near the fire. That was foolhardiness, for he that willfully courts temptation and danger usually finds himself overwhelmed by the danger. The first time Peter had denied on account of the mocking question of the doorkeeper. Her suspicions had meanwhile been transmitted to the other servants, especially through the agency of a second janitress. A. number of them now turned to Peter with searching questions as to his connection with the prisoner in the hall. The specific accusation was that Peter was a disciple of Christ. Peter denied for the second time. But the suspicion continued. One remark led to another, the dialect of Peter came in for its measure of attention. Finally a kinsman of Malchus, the man whose ear Peter had cut off in the garden, told him pointblank that he had seen him with Jesus in the garden. Peter was driven into a corner and had no weapon left with which to defend himself He blasphemously reiterated his denial, -and then the time of cock-crowing came. He had entirely overheard the first signal of warning, but now was brought back to his senses. Note: The familiarity of the evangelist with affairs in the house of the high priest is indicated also in this section by his knowledge of relationships. Mark also: A repeated denial, such as that of Peter in this case, results in loss of faith. It may happen, under regrettable circumstances, that a person, being thrown into the company of scoffers, may deny his Lord by word or deed, and still retain his faith. But if such a denial is done repeatedly without heeding the warnings of conscience, then there is no chance for Christianity to remain in the heart. That was Peter’s condition at that moment; if he had died during the time of the third denial, he would have been lost. But the Lord had His disciple in mind and called him back to faith through a sincere repentance.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Joh 18:25-27 . When Jesus was sent to Caiaphas, Peter was still on the spot mentioned in Joh 18:18 , standing and warming himself. There follow his second and third denials , which, therefore, according to the brief and accurate narrative of John, who relates the denials generally with more precision, took place likewise in the court of Annas . The text gives no indication that Peter followed Jesus into the house of Caiaphas. Comp. Olshausen, Baur, Bleek. For the agreement of Luke with John in the locality of the denials, but not in the more minute determination of time, see on Luk 22:54-62 .

] Those standing there with him, Joh 18:18 .

The individual, Joh 18:26 , assails him with his own eye-witness.

] I, for my part.

] sc . . The slave outside the garden (for, see on Joh 18:4 ) has been able, over the fence or through the door of the garden, to see Peter in the garden with Jesus. When the blow with the sword was struck, he cannot (in the confusion of the seizure of Jesus) have had his eye upon him, otherwise he would have certainly reproached him with this act.

] a cock . See on Mat 26:74 . The contrition of Peter, John does not here relate in his concise account; but all the more thoughtfully and touchingly does this universally known psychological fact receive historical expression in the appendix, chap. 21. [217]

[217] Which, indeed (see Scholten, p. 382), is alleged to he a mistake of the appendix, the writer of which did not see through the (anti-Petrine) tendency of the Gospel.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

25 And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it , and said, I am not.

Ver. 25. He denied it, and said, I am not ] Take heed by this example, Patres nos instruunt tum docentes, tum labentes, saith Augustine. Seest thou such as Peter to make shipwreck? Look well to thy tackling. They that will not profess Christ (unless they repent with Peter, which Stephen Gardiner said at his death that he could not) shall be sorted with such in participation of plagues, as through excess of pain and defect of patience, gnaw their own tongues, Rev 16:10 .

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

25 27. ] Mat 26:71-74 .Mar 14:69-72Mar 14:69-72 .Luk 22:58-61Luk 22:58-61 : see note on Mat 26:69 .

Peter was in the court-yard of the house the .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Joh 18:25 resumes the narrative interrupted at Joh 18:18-19 , and resumes by repeating the statement that Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. While he did so the servants and officers, Joh 18:18 , who were round the fire said, “Are you also of His disciples?”

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Joh 18:25-27

25Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. So they said to him, “You are not also one of His disciples, are you?” He denied it, and said, “I am not.” 26One of the slaves of the high priest, being a relative of the one whose ear Peter cut off, said, “Did I not see you in the garden with Him?” 27Peter then denied it again, and immediately a rooster crowed.

Joh 18:26 “One of the slaves of the high priest, being a relative of the one whose ear Peter cut off, said” There is some discrepancy among the four Gospels as to who asked the questions of Peter.

1. in Mark, it is a maid who asked the first question (cf. Mar 14:69)

2. in Matthew it is another servant girl (cf. Mat 26:71)

3. in Luk 22:58 it is a man

4. in John a slave/servant of the High Priest

It is obvious from the historical setting that one person asked the question around the fire and the others joined in (cf. Joh 18:18).

Joh 18:26 “Did I not see you in the garden with Him” Unlike the first two questions in Joh 18:17; Joh 18:25, this grammatical form expects a “yes” answer.

Joh 18:27 “Peter then denied it again” We understand from Mar 14:71 and Mat 26:74 that Peter denied it by cursing and swearing.

“immediately a rooster crowed” The chronology of events from all four Gospels implies this occurred between 12:00 and 3:00 o’clock in the morning. The Jews did not allow chickens inside the city limits of Jerusalem so it must have been a Roman rooster.

Luk 22:61 asserts at this point that Jesus looked at Peter. It is assumed that Annas and Caiaphas lived in the same house and the guards were moving Jesus from His meeting with Annas to His meeting with Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin. It was in this movement when Jesus looked at Peter. This is all conjecture because we do not have enough historical information to be dogmatic about the sequence of events of these night trials.

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

stood, &c. = was standing, &c., as in Joh 18:18.

denied. Greek. arneomai. See note on Joh 13:38. See App-160.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

25-27.] Mat 26:71-74. Mar 14:69-72. Luk 22:58-61 :-see note on Mat 26:69.

Peter was in the court-yard of the house-the .

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Joh 18:25. ) thou also, who art here present, a stranger to us.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Joh 18:25

Joh 18:25

Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself.-Peter, chilled by standing without, now crowded himself up to the fire, kindled by the servants of the high priest and the officers of the court.

They said therefore unto him, Art thou also one of his disciples?-Either from his appearance or the fact that he was an acquaintance of John, those standing around the fire asked him the second time if he was not one of them. More than one seems to have joined in asking this question. It is. probable that a number had spoken of his being one of the disciples of Jesus and together approached him on the subject. Luk 22:58 says, After a little while another saw him, and said, Thou also art one of them. But Peter said, Man, I am not. John says they, implying more than one.

He denied, and said, I am not.-[He simply lied, which shows that poor weak human beings do not know in advance what course they will take under extreme test of their faith and loyalty. But the Lord knew, and told Peter in advance just what he would do and the time of doing it.]

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

Pilates Weak Evasion

Joh 18:25-32

It may be that while Peter was thus denying his Lord, Jesus was passing from Annas to Caiaphas, and in doing so cast on the stumbling disciple that look of mingled sorrow and love which broke his heart. John does not dwell on the trial before Caiaphas, because the other evangelists have already described it; but passes on to tell more minutely of the vacillation and weakness of Pilate. The Roman governor first sought to rid himself of the responsibility of deciding the ease. He refused to consider that it came within his jurisdiction, because it seemed connected with some religious dispute involving a technical knowledge which he did not possess. He suggested, therefore, that the Jewish leaders should deal with it under their own statutes. There was no apparent need for Roman law to interfere. When, however, the murderous intent of the high priests emerged, it became evident that their charges against Jesus were of a much more serious character, and Pilate was compelled to give his earnest attention to them. How little he realized the momentous issues to be decided that day!

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

stood: Joh 18:18, Mar 14:37, Mar 14:38, Mar 14:67, Luk 22:56

They: Mat 26:69, Mat 26:71, Mar 14:68-70, Luk 22:58

He: Gen 18:15, Pro 29:25, Gal 2:11-13

Reciprocal: Mat 14:30 – when Mat 26:58 – and went Mar 14:30 – before Mar 14:54 – and he Mar 14:69 – and began Luk 22:57 – he denied Joh 13:38 – The cock Joh 20:6 – General Joh 21:16 – the second Act 1:13 – Peter Act 7:24 – General

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

5

This was Peter’s second denial of Jesus.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Joh 18:25. And Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. The remarkable taking up again in these words of the fact already mentioned in Joh 18:18 cannot fail to arrest attention. As far as mere history is concerned, the words are unnecessary. Nor does there seem to be any explanation of their presence here but that they are designed to elucidate the idea of the scene about to be described. Peter is no longer only near the door; he is within the court. He is no longer only in the cold; he is warming himself at the charcoal fire. He is no longer only with John; he is along with the servants and officers of the Jews. Everything corresponds to that more determined, that double, denial of our Lord now to be described.

They said therefore unto him, Art thou also one of his disciples? He denied and said, I am not. We are not told who asked the question. The general pronoun they is used. In the narratives of the earlier Evangelists we find that, according to Mat 26:71, this denial was drawn forth by another maid; according to Mar 14:69 by the maid, probably the maid of the porch; according to Luk 22:58 by another man. In John we have what seems the solution of these apparent discrepancies. It was not one person only that thus spoke to Peter. The remark was made by many,in the excitement of the moment by many at the same time; and Peter (as is even implied in Mar 14:70) repeated his answer to one after another. The they thus suggests what was the true course of events. The second denial, as in Mat 26:72, was in boldness and recklessness an advance upon the first. At Joh 18:17 only the word saith is used; now denied and said.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Vv. 25-27. And Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said therefore to him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied and said, I am not. 26. One of the servants of the high-priest, a kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, says to him, Did I not see thee in the garden with him? 27. Peter denied again; and immediately the cock crew.

As far as Joh 18:18, according to John, all has happened in the house of Annas; and as Joh 18:25 expressly places us again in the situation of Joh 18:18, it is evident that the following facts also occur at his house; it is the same court, the same fire, the same persons; so that those who, like Weiss, are unwilling to admit that Caiaphas and Annas lived in two different apartments of the same priestly palace, are obliged to hold that Matthew and Mark have made a mistake in placing the denial of Peter in the house of Caiaphas. As for ourselves, we have already stated the reasons which seem to us to support the contrary opinion.

The sending of Jesus to Caiaphas, mentioned already in Joh 18:24, in reality followed the last denial (Joh 18:27). For the facts of Joh 18:25-27 took place simultaneously with Joh 18:19-23. This circumstance explains the incident, related by Luke, of the look which Jesus cast upon Peter (Luk 22:61). Jesus crossed the court to go from the apartments of Annas to those of Caiaphas (Joh 18:24). He heard at this moment the cock-crowing (Joh 18:27); and then it was that His eye met that of Peter. The epithet , bound, makes us understand more fully the impression produced on the unfaithful disciple by the sight of his Master in this condition.

The subject of , they said (Joh 18:25), is indefinite. According to Matthew, it is a maid-servant who sees Peter approaching the gate to go forth from the court to the front of the house. According to Mark, it is the same maid-servant who had already troubled him in the first instance and who denounces him to the servants who were gathered about the fire. In Luke, it is indefinitely , another person. It is probable that the portress spoke of Peter to one of her companions, who denounced him to the assembled servants. From this group came forth instantly the question addressed to Peter.

After the second denial, Peter seems to have played the bold part, and to have set himself to speak more freely with the persons present. But his Galilean accent was soon noticed, and attracted the more particular attention of a kinsman of Malchus, a fact which occasioned the third denial.

John does not mention the imprecations which Matthew puts into Peter’s mouth. If, then, any one was animated by hostile feelings towards this disciple, it was the first evangelist, and not the author of our narrative. Though he does not speak of Peter’s repentance, the narrative of the scene in Joh 21:15 ff. evidently implies it.

The story of the denial of Peter is, besides those of the multiplication of the loaves and of the entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem, the only one which is related at once by John and the Synoptics. There is no discourse here to be accounted for, as in ch. 6, and no series of events to be explained, as in ch. 12 John’s purpose, therefore, could only have been to reproduce in all their grievous reality the two simultaneous scenes of the appearance of the Master before the authorities and the disciple’s denial, which had formed the prelude of the Passion. In any case, we may discover here how the oral tradition related the facts with less of life and flexibility than is done by the pen of an eye-witness. The latter alone has reproduced the minutest articulations of the history; and it is not without reason that Renan speaks of its varied and sharply defined points.

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

18:25 {9} And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also [one] of his disciples? He denied [it], and said, I am not.

(9) After men have once fallen, they cannot only not lift themselves up by their own strength, but also they fall more and more into a worse condition, until they are raised up again by a new power from God.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

4. Peter’s second and third denials of Jesus 18:25-27 (cf. Matthew 26:71-75; Mark 14:69-72; Luke 22:58-62)

John took his readers back to the courtyard where Peter stood warming himself with the high priest’s servants and officers (Joh 18:18).

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Under pressure again, Peter denied for a second time that he was one of Jesus’ disciples as the "other disciple" was (cf. Mat 10:33; Luk 12:9). The person who voiced the question was another girl (Mat 26:71; Mar 14:69).

"John has constructed a dramatic contrast wherein Jesus stands up to his questioners and denies nothing, while Peter cowers before his questioners and denies everything." [Note: Brown, 2:842.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

XVIII. PETER’S DENIAL AND REPENTANCE.

“So the band and the chief captain, and the officers of the Jews, seized Jesus and bound Him, and led Him to Annas first; for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas, which was high priest that year. Now Caiaphas was he which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people. And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Now that disciple was known unto the high priest, and entered in with Jesus into the court of the high priest; but Peter was standing at the door without. So the other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, went out and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter. The maid therefore that kept the door saith unto Peter, Art thou also one of this man’s disciples? He saith, I am not. Now the servants and the officers were standing there, having made a fire of coals; for it was cold; and they were warming themselves: and Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself…. Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said therefore unto him, Art thou also one of His disciples? He denied, and said, I am not. One of the servants of the high priest, being a kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with Him? Peter therefore denied again: and straightway the cock crew.”– Joh 18:12-18, Joh 18:25-27.

The examination of Jesus immediately followed His arrest. He was first led to Annas, who at once sent Him to Caiaphas, the high priest, that he might carry out his policy of making one man a scapegoat for the nation.[22] To John the most memorable incident of this midnight hour was Peter’s denial of his Master. It happened on this wise. The high priest’s palace was built, like other large Oriental houses, round a quadrangular court, into which entrance was gained by a passage running from the street through the front part of the house. This passage or archway is called in the Gospels the “porch,” and was closed at the end next the street by a heavy folding gate with a wicket for single persons. This wicket was kept on this occasion by a maid. The interior court upon which this passage opened was paved or flagged and open to the sky, and as the night was cold the attendants had made a fire here. The rooms round the court, in one of which the examination of Jesus was proceeding, were open in front–separated, that is to say, from the court only by one or two pillars or arches and a railing, so that our Lord could see and even hear Peter.

When Jesus was led in bound to this palace, there entered with the crowd of soldiers and servants one at least of His disciples. He was in some way acquainted with the high priest, and presuming on this acquaintanceship followed to learn the fate of Jesus. He had seen Peter following at a distance, and after a little he goes to the gate-keeper and induces her to open to his friend. The maid seeing the familiar terms on which these two men were, and knowing that one of them was a disciple of Jesus, very naturally greets Peter with the exclamation, “Art not thou also one of this man’s disciples?” Peter, confused by being suddenly confronted with so many hostile faces, and remembering the blow he had struck in the garden, and that he was now in the place of all others where it was likely to be avenged, suddenly in a moment of infatuation, and doubtless to the dismay of his fellow-disciple, denies all knowledge of Jesus. Having once committed himself, the two other denials followed as matter of course.

Yet the third denial is more guilty than the first. Many persons are conscious that they have sometimes acted under what seems an infatuation. They do not plead this in excuse for the wrong they have done. They are quite aware that what has come out of them must have been in them, and that their acts, unaccountable as they seem, have definite roots in their character. Peter’s first denial was the result of surprise and infatuation. But an hour seems to have elapsed between the first and the third. He had time to think, time to remember his Lord’s warning, time to leave the place if he could do no better. But one of those reckless moods which overtake good-hearted children seems to have overtaken Peter, for at the end of the hour he is talking right round the whole circle at the fire, not in monosyllables and guarded voice, but in his own outspoken way, the most talkative of them all, until suddenly one whose ear was finer than the rest detected the Galilean accent, and says, “You need not deny you are one of this man’s disciples, for your speech betrays you.” Another, a kinsman of him whose ear Peter had cut off, strikes in and declares that he had seen him in the garden. Peter, driven to extremities, hides his Galilean accent under the strong oaths of the city, and with a volley of profane language asseverates that he has no knowledge of Jesus. At this moment the first examination of Jesus closes and He is led across the court: the first chill of dawn is felt in the air, a cock crows, and as Jesus passes He looks upon Peter; the look and the cock-crow together bring Peter to himself, and he hurries out and weeps bitterly.

The remarkable feature of this sin of Peter’s is that at first sight it seems so alien to his character. It was a lie; and he was unusually straightforward. It was a heartless and cruel lie, and he was a man full of emotion and affection. It was a cowardly lie, even more cowardly than common lies, and yet he was exceptionally bold. Peter himself was quite positive that this at least was a sin he would never commit. “Though all men should deny Thee, yet will not I.” Neither was this a baseless boast. He was not a mere braggart, whose words found no correspondence in his deeds. Far from it; he was a hardy, somewhat over-venturesome man, accustomed to the risks of a fisherman’s life, not afraid to fling himself into a stormy sea, or to face the overwhelming armed force that came to apprehend his Master, ready to fight for him single-handed, and quickly recovering from the panic which scattered his fellow-disciples. If any of his companions had been asked at what point of Peter’s character the vulnerable spot would be found, not one of them would have said, “He will fall through cowardice.” Besides, Peter had a few hours before been so emphatically warned against denying Christ that he might have been expected to stand firm this night at least.

Perhaps it was this very warning which betrayed Peter. When he struck the blow in the garden, he thought he had falsified his Lord’s prediction. And when he found himself the only one who had courage to follow to the palace, his besetting self-confidence returned and led him into circumstances for which he was too weak. He was equal to the test of his courage which he was expecting, but when another kind of test was applied in circumstances and from a quarter he had not anticipated his courage failed him utterly.

Peter probably thought he might be brought bound with his Master before the high priest, and had he been so he would probably have stood faithful. But the devil who was sifting him had a much finer sieve than that to run him through. He brought him to no formal trial, where he could gird himself for a special effort, but to an unobserved, casual questioning by a slave-girl. The whole trial was over before he knew he was being tried. So do our most real trials come; in a business transaction that turns up with others in the day’s work, in the few minutes’ talk or the evening’s intercourse with friends, it is discovered whether we are so truly Christ’s friends that we cannot forget Him or disguise that we are His. A word or two with a person he never saw before and would never see again brought the great trial of Peter’s life; and as unexpectedly shall we be tried. In these battles we must all encounter, we receive no formal challenge that gives us time to choose our ground and our weapons; but a sudden blow is dealt us, from which we can be saved only by habitually wearing a shirt of mail sufficient to turn it, and which we can carry into all companies.

Had Peter distrusted himself and seriously accepted his Lord’s warning, he would have gone with the rest; but ever thinking of himself as able to do more than other men, faithful where others were faithless, convinced where others hesitated, daring where others shrank, he once again thrust himself forward, and so fell. For this self-confidence, which might to a careless observer seem to underprop Peter’s courage, was to the eye of the Lord undermining it. And if Peter’s true bravery and promptitude were to serve the Church in days when fearless steadfastness would be above all other qualities needed, his courage must be sifted and the chaff of self-confidence thoroughly separated from it. In place of a courage which was sadly tainted with vanity and impulsiveness Peter must acquire a courage based upon recognition of his own weakness and his Lord’s strength. And it was this event which wrought this change in Peter’s character.

Frequently we learn by a very painful experience that our best qualities are tainted, and that actual disaster has entered our life from the very quarter we least suspected. We may be conscious that the deepest mark has been made on our life by a sin apparently as alien to our character as cowardice and lying were to the too venturesome and outspoken character of Peter. Possibly we once prided ourselves on our honesty, and felt happy in our upright character, plain-dealing, and direct speech; but to our dismay we have been betrayed into double-dealing, equivocation, evasive or even fraudulent conduct. Or the time was when we were proud of our friendships; it was frequently in our mind that, however unsatisfactory in other respects our character might be, we were at any rate faithful and helpful friends. Alas! events have proved that even in this particular we have failed, and have, through absorption in our own interests, acted inconsiderately and even cruelly to our friend, not even recognising at the time how his interests were suffering. Or we are by nature of a cool temperament, and judged ourselves safe at least from the faults of impulse and passion; yet the mastering combination of circumstances came, and we spoke the word, or wrote the letter, or did the deed which broke our life past mending.

Now, it was Peter’s salvation, and it will be ours, when overtaken in this unsuspected sin, to go out and weep bitterly. He did not frivolously count it an accident that could never occur again; he did not sullenly curse the circumstances that had betrayed and shamed him. He recognised that there was that in him which could render useless his best natural qualities, and that the sinfulness which could make his strongest natural defences brittle as an egg-shell must be serious indeed. He had no choice but to be humbled before the eye of the Lord. There was no need of words to explain and enforce his guilt: the eye can express what the tongue cannot utter. The finer, tenderer, deeper feelings are left to the eye to express. The clear cock-crow strikes home to his conscience, telling him that the very sin he had an hour or two ago judged impossible is now actually committed. That brief space his Lord had named as sufficient to test his fidelity is gone, and the sound that strikes the hour rings with condemnation. Nature goes on in her accustomed, inexorable, unsympathetic round; but he is a fallen man, convicted in his own conscience of empty vanity, of cowardice, of heartlessness. He who in his own eyes was so much better than the rest had fallen lower than all. In the look of Christ Peter sees the reproachful loving tenderness of a wounded spirit, and understands the dimensions of his sin. That he, the most intimate disciple, should have added to the bitterness of that hour, should not only have failed to help his Lord, but should actually at the crisis of His fate have added the bitterest drop to His cup, was humbling indeed. There was that in Christ’s look that made him feel the enormity of his guilt; there was that also that softened him and saved him from sullen despair.

And it is obvious that if we are to rise clear above the sin that has betrayed us we can do so only by as lowly a penitence. We are all alike in this: that we have fallen; we cannot any more with justice think highly of ourselves; we have sinned and are disgraced in our own eyes. In this, I say, we are all alike; that which makes the difference among us is, how we deal with ourselves and our circumstances in connection with our sin. It has been very well said by a keen observer of human nature that “men and women are often more fairly judged by the way in which they bear the burden of their own deeds, the fashion in which they carry themselves in their entanglements, than by the prime act which laid the burden on their lives and made the entanglement fast knotted. The deeper part of us shows in the manner of accepting consequences.” The reason of this is that, like Peter, we are often betrayed by a weakness; the part of our nature which is least able to face difficulty is assaulted by a combination of circumstances which may never again occur in our life. There was guilt, great guilt it may be, concerned in our fall, but it was not deliberate, wilful wickedness. But in our dealing with our sin and its consequences our whole nature is concerned and searched; the real bent and strength of our will is tried. We are therefore in a crisis, the crisis, of our life. Can we accept the situation? Can we humbly, frankly own that, since that evil has appeared in our life, it must have been, however unconsciously, in ourselves first? Can we with the genuine manliness and wisdom of a broken heart say to ourselves and to God, Yes, it is true I am the wretched, pitiful, bad-hearted creature that was capable of doing, and did that thing? I did not think that was my character; I did not think it was in me to sink so very low; but now I see what I am. Do we thus, like Peter, go out and weep bitterly?

Every one who has passed through a time such as this single night was to Peter knows the strain that is laid upon the soul, and how very hard it is to yield utterly. So much rises up in self-defence; so much strength is lost by the mere perplexity and confusion of the thing; so much is lost in the despondency that follows these sad revelations of our deep-seated evil. What is the use, we think, of striving, if even in the point in which I thought myself most secure I have fallen? What is the meaning of so perplexed and deceiving a warfare? Why was I exposed to so fatal an influence? So Peter, had he taken the wrong direction, might have resented the whole course of the temptation, and might have said, Why did Christ not warn me by His look before I sinned, instead of breaking me by it after? Why had I no inkling of the enormity of the sin before as I have after the sin? My reputation now is gone among the disciples; I may as well go back to my old obscure life and forget all about these perplexing scenes and strange spiritualities. But Peter, though he was cowed by a maid, was man enough and Christian enough to reject such falsities and subterfuges. It is true we did not see the enormity, never do see the enormity, of the sin until it is committed; but is it possible it can be otherwise? Is not this the way in which a blunt conscience is educated? Nothing seems so bad until it finds place in our own life and haunts us. Neither need we despond or sour because we are disgraced in our own eyes, or even in the eyes of others; for we are hereby summoned to build for ourselves a new and different reputation with God and our own consciences–a reputation founded on a basis of reality and not of seeming.

It may be worth while to note the characteristics and danger of that special form of weakness which Peter here exhibited. We commonly call it moral cowardice. It is originally a weakness rather than a positive sin, and yet it is probably as prolific of sin and even of great crime as any of the more definite and vigorous passions of our nature, such as hate, lust, avarice. It is that weakness which prompts a man to avoid difficulties, to escape everything rough and disagreeable, to yield to circumstances, and which above all makes him incapable of facing the reproach, contempt, or opposition of his fellow-men. It is often found in combination with much amiability of character. It is commonly found in persons who have some natural leanings to virtue, and who, if circumstances would only favour them, would prefer to lead, and would lead, at least an inoffensive and respectable, if not a very useful, noble, or heroic life. Finely strung natures that are very sensitive to all impressions from without, natures which thrill and vibrate in response to a touching tale or in sympathy with fine scenery or soft music, natures which are housed in bodies of delicate nervous temperament, are commonly keenly sensitive to the praise or blame of their fellows, and are therefore liable to moral cowardice, though by no means necessarily a prey to it.

The examples of its ill-effects are daily before our eyes. A man cannot bear the coolness of a friend or the contempt of a leader of opinion, and so he stifles his own independent judgment and goes with the majority. A minister of the Church finds his faith steadily diverging from that of the creed he has subscribed, but he cannot proclaim this change because he cannot make up his mind to be the subject of public astonishment and remark, of severe scrutiny on the one side and still more distasteful because ignorant and canting sympathy on the other. A man in business finds that his expenditure exceeds his income, but he is unable to face the shame of frankly lowering his position and curtailing his expenses, and so he is led into dishonest appearances; and from dishonest appearances to fraudulent methods of keeping them up the step, as we all know, is short. Or in trade a man knows that there are shameful, contemptible, and silly practices, and yet he has not moral courage to break through them. A parent cannot bear to risk the loss of his child’s good-will even for an hour, and so omits the chastisement he deserves. The schoolboy, fearing his parents’ look of disappointment, says he stands higher in his class than he does; or fearing to be thought soft and unmanly by his schoolfellows, sees cruelty or a cheat or some wickedness perpetrated without a word of honest anger or manly condemnation. All this is moral cowardice, the vice which brings us down to the low level which bold sinners set for us, or which at any rate sweeps the weak soul down to a thousand perils, and absolutely forbids the good there is in us from finding expression.

But of all the forms into which moral cowardice develops this of denying the Lord Jesus is the most iniquitous and disgraceful. One of the fashions of the day which is most rapidly extending and which many of us have opportunity to resist is the fashion of infidelity. Much of the strongest and best-trained intellect of the country ranges itself against Christianity–that is, against Christ. No doubt the men who have led this movement have adopted their opinions on conviction. They deny the authority of Scripture, the divinity of Christ, even the existence of a personal God, because by long years of painful thought they have been forced to such conclusions. Even the best of them cannot be acquitted of a contemptuous and bitter way of speaking of Christians, which would seem to indicate that they are not quite at ease in their belief. Still, we cannot but think that so far as any men can be quite unbiassed in their opinions, they are so; and we have no right to judge other men for their honestly formed opinions. The moral cowards of whom we speak are not these men, but their followers, persons who with no patience or capacity to understand their reasonings adopt their conclusions because they seem advanced and are peculiar. There are many persons of slender reading and no depth of earnestness who, without spending any serious effort on the formation of their religious belief, presume to disseminate unbelief and treat the Christian creed as an obsolete thing merely because part of the intellect of the day leans in that direction. Weakness and cowardice are the real spring of such persons’ apparent advance and new position regarding religion. They are ashamed to be reckoned among those who are thought to be behind the age. Ask them for a reason of their unbelief, and they are either unable to give you any, or else they repeat a time-worn objection which has been answered so often that men have wearied of the interminable task and let it pass unnoticed.

Such persons we aid and abet when we do either of two things: when we either cleave to what is old as unreasoningly as they take up with what is new, refusing to look for fresh light and better ways and acting as if we were already perfect; or when we yield to the current and adopt a hesitating way of speaking about matters of faith, when we cultivate a sceptical spirit and seem to connive at if we do not applaud the cold, irreligious sneer of ungodly men. Above all, we aid the cause of infidelity when in our own life we are ashamed to live godly, to act on higher principles than the current prudential maxims, when we hold our allegiance to Christ in abeyance to our fear of our associates, when we find no way of showing that Christ is our Lord and that we delight in opportunities of confessing Him. The confessing of Christ is a duty explicitly imposed on all those who expect that He will acknowledge them as His. It is a duty to which we might suppose every manly and generous instinct in us would eagerly respond, and yet we are often more ashamed of our connection with the loftiest and holiest of beings than of our own pitiful and sin-infected selves, and as little practically stimulated and actuated by a true gratitude to Him as if His death were the commonest boon and as if we were expecting and needing no help from Him in the time that is yet to come.[23]

FOOTNOTES:

[22] There is a difficulty in tracing the movements of Jesus at this point. John tells us He was led to Annas first, and at Joh 18:24 he says that Annas sent Him to Caiaphas. We should naturally conclude, therefore, that the preceding examination was conducted by Annas. But Caiaphas has been expressly indicated as chief priest, and it is by the chief priest and in the chief priest’s palace the examination is conducted. The name “chief priest” was not confined to the one actually in office, but was applied to all who had held the office, and might therefore be applied to Annas. Possibly the examination recorded Joh 18:19-23 was before him, and probably he was living with his son-in-law in the palace of the chief priest.

[23] Some of the ideas in this chapter were suggested by a sermon of Bishop Temple’s.

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary