Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 18:27
Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.
27. Peter then denied again ] Again therefore ( Joh 18:3) Peter denied; because he had denied before. S. John, like S. Luke, omits the oaths and curses (Mar 14:71; Mat 26:73). We may believe that S. Peter himself through S. Mark was the first to include this aggravation of his guilt in the current tradition.
the cock crew ] Rather, a cock crew. In none of the gospels is there the definite article which our translation inserts. This was the second crowing (Mar 14:72). A difficulty has been made here because the Talmud says that fowls, which scratch in dunghills, are unclean. But (1) the Talmud is inconsistent on this point with itself; (2) not all Jews would be so scrupulous as to keep no fowls in Jerusalem; (3) certainly the Romans would care nothing about such scruples.
Just as the Evangelist implies ( Joh 18:11), without mentioning, the Agony in the garden, so he implies (Joh 21:15), without mentioning, the repentance of S. Peter. The question has been raised, why he narrates S. Peter’s fall, which had been thrice told already. There is no need to seek far-fetched explanations, as that “there might be contained in it some great principle or prophetic history, and perhaps both: some great principle to be developed in the future history of the Church, or of S. Peter’s Church.” Rather, it is part of S. John’s own experience which falls naturally into the scope and plan of his Gospel, setting forth on the one side the Divinity of Christ, on the other the glorification of His manhood through suffering. Christ’s foreknowledge of the fall of His chief apostle (Joh 13:38) illustrated both: it was evidence of His Divinity (comp. Joh 2:24-25), and it intensified His suffering. S. John, therefore, gives both the prophecy and the fulfilment. It has been noticed that it is “S. Peter’s friend S. John, who seems to mention most what may lessen the fault of his brother apostle;” that servants and officers were about him; that in the second case he was pressed by more than one; and that on the last occasion a kinsman of Malchus was among his accusers, which may greatly have increased Peter’s terror. Moreover, this instance of human frailty in one so exalted (an instance which the life of the great Exemplar Himself could not afford), is given us with fourfold emphasis, that none may presume and none despair.
On the difficulties connected with the four accounts of S. Peter’s denials see Appendix B.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 27. And – the cock crew.] Peter denied our Lord three times: –
Peter’s first denial.
I. This took place, when he was without, or beneath, in the hall of Caiaphas’s house. He was not in the higher part where Christ stood before the high priest; but without that division of the hall, and in the lower part with the servants and officers, at the fire kindled in the midst of the hall, Joh 18:16; Joh 18:18; and the girl who kept the door had entered into the hall, where she charged Peter.
Peter’s second denial.
II. This was in a short time after the first, Lu 22:58. Having once denied his Master, he naturally retired from the place where his accuser was to the vestibule of the hall, Mt 26:71, and it was the time of the first cock-crowing, or soon after midnight. After remaining here a short time, perhaps an hour, another girl sees him, and says to them who were standing by in the vestibule, that he was one of them. Peter, to avoid this charge, withdraws into the hall, and warms himself. The girl, and those to whom she had spoken, follow him; the communication between the two places being immediate. Here a man enforces the charge of the girl, according to Luke; and others urge it, according to St. John; and Peter denies Jesus vehemently.
Peter’s third denial.
III. He was now in the hall, and also within sight of Jesus, though at such a distance from him that Jesus could not know what passed, but in a supernatural way. And, about an hour after his second denial, those who stood by founded a third charge against him, on his being a Galilean, which St. Luke says, Lu 22:59, one in particular strongly affirmed; and which, according to John, Joh 18:26, was supported by one of Malchus’s relations. This occasioned a more vehement denial than before, and immediately the cock crew the second time, which is eminently called . The first denial may have been between our twelve and one; and the second between our two and three.
At the time of the third denial, Lu 22:61 proves that Jesus was in the same room with Peter. We must farther observe that Matthew, Mt 26:57, lays the scene of Peter’s denials in the house of Caiaphas: whereas John, Joh 18:15-23, seems to intimate that these transactions took place in the house of Annas; but this difficulty arises from the injudicious insertion of the particle , therefore, in Joh 18:24, which should be omitted, on the authority of ADES, Mt. BH, many others; besides some versions, and some of the primitive fathers. Griesbach has left it out of the text. See Bishop Newcome’s Harm. notes, p. 48.
The time of Peter’s denials happened during the space of the third Roman watch, or that division of the night, between twelve and three, which is called , or cock-crowing, Mr 13:35. Concerning the nature and progress of Peter’s denial, see the notes on Mt 26:58; Mt 26:69-75.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
27. Peter then denied againBut,if the challenge of Malchus’ kinsman was made simultaneously withthis on account of his Galilean dialect, it was no simple denial; forMt 26:74 says, “Thenbegan he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man.”So Mr 14:71. This was THETHIRD DENIAL.
and immediately“whilehe yet spake” (Lu 22:60).
the cock crewAs Markis the only Evangelist who tells us that our Lord predicted that thecock should crow twice (Mr14:30), so he only mentions that it did crow twice (Mr14:72). The other Evangelists, who tell us merely that our Lordpredicted that “before the cock should crow he would deny Himthrice” (Mat 26:34; Luk 22:34;Joh 13:38), mention only oneactual crowing, which was Mark’s last. This is somethingaffecting in this Evangelistwho, according to the earliesttradition (confirmed by internal evidence), derived his materials solargely from Peter as to have been styled his “interpreter,“being the only one who gives both the sad prediction and itsstill sadder fulfilment in full. It seems to show that Peterhimself not only retained through all his after-life the most vividrecollection of the circumstances of his fall, but that he waswilling that others should know them too. The immediately subsequentacts are given in full only in Luke (Luk 22:61;Luk 22:62): “And the Lordturned and looked upon Peter,” from the hall of judgment to thecourt, in the way already explained. But who can tell what lightningflashes of wounded love and piercing reproach shot from that “look”through the eye of Peter into his heart! “And Peter rememberedthe word of the Lord, how He had said unto him, Before the cock crow,thou shalt deny Me thrice. And Peter went out and wept bitterly.”How different from the sequel of Judas’ act! Doubtless the hearts ofthe two men towards the Saviour were perfectly different from thefirst; and the treason of Judas was but the consummation of thewretched man’s resistance of the blaze of light in the midst of whichhe had lived for three years, while Peter’s denial was but amomentary obscuration of the heavenly light and love to his Masterwhich ruled his life. But the immediate cause of the revulsion, whichmade Peter “weep bitterly,” was, beyond all doubt, thisheart-piercing “look” which his Lord gave him. Andremembering the Saviour’s own words at the table, “Simon, Simon,Satan hath desired to have you that he may sift you as wheat, butI have prayed [rather, ‘I prayed’] for thee that thy faithfail not” (see on Lu 22:31,32), may we not say that this prayer fetched down all thatthere was in that ‘look’ to pierce and break the heart of. Peter,to keep it from despair, to work in it “repentance untosalvation not to be repented of,” and at length, under otherhealing touches, to “restore his soul?” (See on Mr16:7).
Joh18:28-40. JESUS BEFOREPILATE.
Note.OurEvangelist, having given the interview with Annas, omitted by theother Evangelists, here omits the trial and condemnation beforeCaiaphas, which the others had recorded. (See on Mr14:53-65). [The notes broken off there at Mr14:54 are here concluded]. Mr14:53-65:
Mr14:61:
Thehigh priest asked Him, Art Thou the Christ, the Son of theblessed?Matthew says the high priest putHim upon solemn oath, saying, “Iadjure Thee by the living God that Thou tell us whether Thou be theChrist, the Son of God” (Mt26:63). This rendered an answer by our Lord legally necessary (Le5:1). Accordingly, Mr 14:62:
Jesussaid, I am “Thouhast said” (Mt 26:64). InLuk 22:67; Luk 22:68,some other words are given, “If I tell you, ye will not believe;and if I also ask you, ye will not answer Me, nor let Me go.”This seems to have been uttered beforegiving His direct answer, as a calm remonstrance and dignifiedprotest against the prejudgment of His case and the unfairness oftheir mode of procedure.
andye shall see the Son of man, c.This concluding part of our Lord’s answer is given somewhat morefully by Matthew and Luke. “Nevertheless I say unto you,Hereafter [rather, ‘From henceforth’] shall ye see the Son of mansitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds ofheaven” (Mat 26:64 Luk 22:69).that is, I know the scorn with which ye are ready to meet such anavowal: To your eyes, which are but eyes of flesh, there stands atthis bar only a mortal like yourselves, and He at the mercy of theecclesiastical and civil authorities: “Nevertheless,“a day is coming when ye shall see another sight: Those eyes, whichnow gaze on Me with proud disdain, shall see this very prisoner atthe right hand of the Majesty on high, and coming in the clouds ofheaven: Then shall the judged One be revealed as the Judge, and Hisjudges in this chamber appear at His august tribunal; then shall theunrighteousjudges be impartiallyjudged; and while they are wishing that they had never been born, Hefor whom they now watch as their Victim shall be greeted with thehallelujahs of heaven, and the welcome of Him that sitteth upon thethrone! Mar 14:63; Mar 14:64:
Thenthe high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we anyfurther witnesses? Ye have heardthe blasphemy “ofhis own mouth” (Lu 22:71);an affectation of religious horror.
Whatthink ye? “Say, what verdict would yepronounce.”
Theyall condemned Him to be guilty of deathof a capital crime. (See Le24:16). Mr 14:65:
Andsome began to spit on Him “Thendid they spit in His face” (Mt26:67). See Isa 50:6.
Andto cover His face, and to buffet Him, and to say unto Him,Prophesy or, “divine,” “untous, Thou Christ, who is he that smote Thee?” The sarcasm instyling Him the Christ, and as such demanding of Him theperpetrator of the blows inflicted upon Him, was in them as infamousas to Him it was stinging.
andthe servants did strike him with the palms of their hands“And many other thingsblasphemously spake they against him” (Lu22:65). This general statement is important, as showing thatvirulent and varied as were the recordedaffronts put upon Him, they are but a smallspecimen of what He endured on thatblack occasion.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Peter then denied again,…. A third time, as the Ethiopic version renders it; and that, according to other evangelists, with cursing and swearing; for now he was more affrighted than before, lest should he be taken up, and it be proved upon him, that he was the person that cut off Malchus’s ear, he should be sentenced to a fine, or it may be some capital punishment. The fine for plucking a man’s ears, and which some understand of plucking them off, was four hundred “zuzim” s, or, pence; which, as they answer to Roman pence, amount to twelve pounds ten shillings; a sum of money Peter perhaps could not have raised, without great difficulty: and therefore, that it might be believed he was not a disciple of Christ, so not the man; he swears in a profane manner, and imprecates the judgments of God upon him:
and immediately the cock crew; the second time; which was a signal by which he might call to remembrance, what Christ had said to him; that before the cock crowed twice, he should deny him thrice,
Mr 14:72. It was now early in the morning, about three o’clock, or somewhat after.
s Misn. Bava Kama, c. 8, sect. 6. Vid. L’Empereur in ib.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The cock crew. The Greek has not the definite article. See on Mt 26:34. The use of the article would seem to mark the time, cock – crowing, rather than the incident.
28 – 38. Compare Mt 27:1, 2; 11 – 14; Mr 14:1 – 6; Luk 23:1 – 5.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Peter then denied again:” (palin oun ernesato Petros) “Then Peter denied again,” a third time, in the presence of the servants and officers who stood by the fire, a third time, as the Lord had warned him that he would, Mat 12:34; Mar 14:29-31.
2) “And immediately the cock crew.” (kai eutheos alektor ephonesen) “And immediately a cock sounded,” or crowed, as forewarned by Jesus and recounted by all four Gospel writers, Mat 26:74; Mar 14:72; Luk 22:60; Joh 13:18. After our Lord’s resurrection Peter cleared up this grave sin, by three times vowing his love for Jesus, with such sorrow and earnestness of soul that Jesus not only used him in the mighty messages at Pentecost and Cornelius’ house, but also used him to write two books of the New Testament, Joh 21:9; Joh 21:17; Act 2:10-11; 2Pe 1:1 to 2Pe 3:18.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
27. Immediately the coch crew. The Evangelist mentions the crowing of the coch, in order to inform us, that Peter was warned by God at the very time; and for this reason the other Evangelists tell us, that he then remembered the words of the Lord, (Mat 26:75; Mar 14:72,) though Luke relates that the mere crowing of the cock did not produce any effect on Peter, till Christ looked at him, (Luk 22:61.) Thus, when any person has once begun to fall through the suggestions of Satan, no voice, no sign, no warning, will bring him back, until the Lord himself cast his eyes upon him.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(27) And immediately the cock crew.Better, . . . a cock crew. (Comp. Mat. 26:74, and (on the whole question of the denial, Notes to Mat. 26:69-74.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Joh 18:27. And immediately the cock crew. See the note on Mat 26:73-74 and the Inferences on this chapter.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.
Ver. 27. Peter then denied again ] He that is fallen down one round of hell’s ladder, knows not where he shall stop or stay, till he come to the bottom. Sin is of an encroaching nature, medest and maidenly at first; but yield to it once, and there is no ho with it.
The cock crew ] And also Christ looked back upon him, as a piece of his suffering, with , What thou, my friend, Peter? Scipio had rather Hannibal should eat his heart with salt than Laelius give him a cross word.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Joh 18:27 . A cock crew, the dawn approaching, and the warning of Joh 13:38 was fulfilled. See on Joh 13:38 .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Peter, &c. = Again therefore Peter denied.
immediately. Greek. eutheos. See Joh 13:30.
the = a.
crew = crowed. The first of the two cock-crowings. See App-160. The word is pkoneo, to make a sound with the voice.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Joh 18:27. , crew) Concerning the repentance of Peter, John takes for granted those particulars which the other evangelists record. Add ch. Joh 20:2-3 [which presupposes his repentance].
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 18:27
Joh 18:27
Peter therefore denied again: and straightway the cock crew.-There have been questions raised about the cock-crowing and contradictions charged. There certainly was no effort made by the different writers to show exact agreement. Each told what occurred in his own way and in his own style and from his own standpoint. There are two periods of cock- crowing. The crowing at the latter hour is much more profuse than that at twelve oclock. Hence that at three oclock is the cock-crowing when only one is mentioned. When two are mentioned that at twelve oclock is the first cock-crowing; that at three, the second. Some of the writers speak of only one, that at three oclock; others of the two. The last denial of Peter occurred just before three oclock. Peter was a man of courage even to rashness, as his smiting off the ear of the servant of the high priest proved. When he cut off his ear he doubtless expected a resistance on the part of Jesus and his disciples. The healing of the servant, his enemy, and the reproof of Peter for using the sword discouraged and disheartened him, took from him his courage and left him despondent. He knew not what to do. He in common with the other disciples then fled. His courage was renewed sufficiently to return with John; but followed him afar off. (Mat 26:58). This is a dangerous position. John entered as a friend of Jesus. Peter in his fear after what had passed sought to pass as a stranger. The temptation came upon him much stronger than if he had at once declared himself the friend of Jesus. The man who declares himself as the friend of Jesus and walks closest to him finds fewer temptations to deny him and greater help to stand with him. Luke says that when the last denial was made, The Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. The reproving look was more than he could bear; he broke down and went out, wept bitterly. (Luk 22:61-62). [Following this, at dawn of day, Jesus was tried before the Sanhedrin, as recorded in Luk 22:66-71; and all attempts to prove him guilty of some crime or violation of the law had failed. In spite of false witnesses Jesus was called upon to answer, and upon his affirmation of divine majesty they condemned him to die as guilty of blasphemy. To carry the sentence into effect the sanction of the Roman governor was necessary. Therefore he is next sent to Pilate.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
and: Joh 13:38, Mat 26:34, Mat 26:74, Mat 26:75, Mar 14:30, Mar 14:68, Mar 14:71, Mar 14:72, Luk 22:34, Luk 22:60-62
Reciprocal: Mat 26:73 – Surely Mar 14:70 – a little Luk 22:57 – he denied Luk 22:59 – confidently Joh 21:17 – the third
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
7
This was the third time Peter denied his Lord. According to Luk 22:60-61, Jesus looked upon Peter at this time which reminded him of their conversation, and in remorse the apostle went out of the crowd and wept bitterly.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Joh 18:27. Again therefore Peter denied. Nothing is said of the adjurations mentioned by the first two Evangelists
And immediately the cock crew. All else recorded in the earlier Gospels is omitted.
We are now in a position to look back upon the whole narrative from Joh 18:12 to the present point, with the view of endeavouring to meet the difficulties presented when we compare it with the narratives of the first three Evangelists. As to those connected with the three denials of Peter, it seems unnecessary to add much to what has been already said on Joh 18:25. We may only notice that a use of the pronoun they exactly similar to its use in that verse meets us in Mat 26:73 and Mar 14:70 when compared with Luk 22:59 and Joh 18:26. In these passages the third denial is in question, and in the first two Evangelists it is drawn forth by them that stood by, in the last two by a single person. The solution depends upon the same principle as that of which we have spoken with regard to the second denial in John. Not one only but many of the eager and excited spectators would ask the question, and of that number Luke and John might easily single out the person peculiarly prominent. All three denials took place in the court of the high priests house, and within the range of both the light and the heat of the fire that had been kindled there,the first, immediately after Peter had been brought into the court; the second, when he had retired into the opening of the porch but was still within hearing of remarks made around the fire (Mat 26:71);[1] the third, when he was again more fully within the court.
[1] The first impression produced by this verse is that the word there in it relates to the interior of the porch. But it is absolutely impossible to think that many would be standing in such a place. They may have been around it, even within it, where it opened into the court: in its deeper recesses they certainly would not be. In this point of view great interest and importance attach to an alternative reading of Mat 26:71, which is very probably the true reading.not and saith unto them. There this fellow was with Jesus of Nazareth. but and saith unto them, There this fellow also was with Jesus of Nazareth.
From the denials of Peter we pass to the nature of the trial of Jesus here recorded and to the judge before whom it took place. Is the trial described by John the same as that of which an account is given us by Matthew (chap. Mat 26:57-68)? or is it a preliminary examination, having the nature of a precognition, and instituted for the purpose of laying a foundation for the more formal trial before the Sanhedrin? The impression produced by the narrative is that it was the latter; that it is a record of the proceedings taken before Annas first, and that at it therefore Annas presided. Yet two difficulties stand in the way of this interpretation,the first, that Caiaphas, not Annas, appears to be the high priest so repeatedly mentioned in Joh 18:15-22; the second, that in Matthews Gospel the first denial of Peter is related after the public trial is finished, while here, on the supposition of which we speak, it will be distinctly stated to have taken place before that trial began. As to the first of these, it is at least possible that Annas may be the high priest of Joh 18:15-22. Though he had been deposed by the Roman authorities, the office was, according to the provision of the Old Testament, for life; and a Jew like John might well speak of him as still the rightful possessor of the title (comp. Luk 3:2). But if this solution is not very probable, there is another which fairly meets the case. Annas and Caiaphas may have occupied apartments in the same house surrounding the court of our narrative. The structure of higher-class houses in Palestine, the relationship of the persons themselves, and the customs of the East, lead not unnaturally to such a view; and it was very early entertained. But if so, though Jesus was really taken to Annas, Caiaphas would in all probability be present at the examination; and, thus present, his more youthful years and the passionateness of his rage against Jesus would lead him to act the prominent part which is assigned to him. The second difficulty is still more easily met. We have to bear in mind the peculiar structure of the first Gospel, and the tendency of its author (of which we had a marked illustration in considering the supper at Bethany in chap. 12) to group his particulars according to their substance, rather than in strict chronological arrangement. Such may well be his object in chap. Mat 26:69-75, where the three denials are obviously brought into the closest proximity to each other. We seem even to be furnished with a hint to this effect by the words of Mat 26:69, Now Peter sat without in the porch. It is not at all likely that, at the close of the trial, amidst the confusion and bustle of the moment, and when the enemies of Jesus were hurrying Him away, after having so far accomplished their object, a person of Peters impetuous disposition would continue sitting in the porch. There is indeed another difficulty, connected with Joh 18:24 of our passage; where, after Caiaphas has taken the part of which we have spoken, Annas is said to have sent Jesus to him. This difficulty cannot be overcome by the rendering of the Authorised Version, had sent; and the particle connecting the verse with those preceding it is undoubtedly not now but therefore. Yet we may well suppose that the reference is to the public trial which was yet to take place before Caiaphas as high priest by law: in this capacity, and not in the more private one in which he had been acting at the investigation before Annas, he is now to have Jesus sent to him. If to these considerations we add the fact that we are ignorant of many of those details which would throw light upon the customs of the time, we shall, while not denying that some difficulty still remains, be able to rest with perfect confidence in the general faithfulness of the narrative.
One word more may be permitted in regard to the mode in which the three denials of Peter are presented to us by John. It will be observed that they are given in two groups, and that between the two there is advance; the effect is heightened as we proceed. Thus, in the first group there is only one denial: in the second there are two. The first takes place at a moment when Jesus has passed out of Peters sight: the second and third at a moment when Jesus is under Peters eye,bound, yet patient and submissive. The first is made when Peter is as yet with John: the second and third when he has associated himself with the enemies of Jesus. At the moment of the first Peter is in the cold; at that of the second and third he has seated himself at the fire of charcoal. The first is expressed by Peter saith: the second and third are much more emphatic, he denied and said, he denied again. So many particulars warrant the inference that here, as in various other passages of his Gospel, John sees the historical facts with which he deals presenting themselves in two pictures, both unfolding the same truth, but in a climactic form.