Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 26:58
But Peter followed him afar off unto the high priest’s palace, and went in, and sat with the servants, to see the end.
58. servants ] “Attendants,” “retinue.”
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Peter followed afar off – By this he evinced two things:
- Real attachment to his Master; a desire to be near him and to witness his trial.
- Fear respecting his personal safety. He therefore kept so far off as to be out of danger, and yet so near as that he might witness the transactions respecting his Master.
Perhaps he expected to be lost and unobserved in the crowd. Many, in this, imitate Peter. They are afraid to follow the Saviour closely. They fear danger, ridicule, or persecution. They follow him, but it is at a great distance – so far that it is difficult to discern that they are in the train, and are his friends at all. Religion requires us to be near to Christ. We may measure our piety by our desire to be with him, to be like him, and by our willingness to follow him always – through trials, contempt, persecution, and death. Compare the notes at Phi 3:10. John says that another disciple went with Peter. By that other disciple it is commonly supposed, as he did not mention his name, that he meant himself. He was acquainted with the high priest, and went immediately into the hall.
Unto the high priests palace – The word rendered palace means, rather, the hall, or middle court, or area of his house. It was situated in the center of the palace, and was commonly uncovered. See the notes and plan of a house in Mat 9:1-8.
And went in – John informs us that he did not go immediately in; but the ether disciple, being known to the high priest, went in first, while Peter remained at the gate or entrance. The other disciple then went out and brought in Peter. Matthew, Mark, and Luke have omitted this circumstance. John recorded it, probably, because they had omitted it, and because he was the other disciple concerned in it.
Sat with the servants to see the end – That is, the end of the trial, or to see how it would go with his Master. The other evangelists say that he stood with the servants warming himself. John says, it being cold, they had made a fire of coals and warmed themselves. It was then, probably, not far from midnight. The place where they were was uncovered; and travelers say that, though the days are warm in Judea at that season of the year, yet that the nights are often uncomfortably cold. This fire was made in the hall (Luke). The fire was not in a fireplace, as we commonly suppose, but was probably made of coals laid on the pavement. At this place and time was Peters first denial of his Lord, as is recorded afterward. See Mat 26:69.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 58. Peter followed him afar off] Poor Peter! this is the beginning of his dreadful fall. His fear kept him from joining the company, and publicly acknowledging his Lord; and his affection obliged him to follow at a distance that he might see the end.
And sat with the servants, to see the end.] When a man is weak in faith, and can as yet only follow Christ at a distance, he should avoid all dangerous places, and the company of those who are most likely to prove a snare to him. Had not Peter got to the high priest’s palace, and sat down with the servants, he would not thus have denied his Lord and Master.
Servants-officers, . Such as we term serjeants, constables, &c.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Mark adds, Mar 14:51, and warmed himself at the fire. Luke saith, Luk 22:51,55, Then took they him, and led him, and brought him into the high priests house. And Peter followed afar off: And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were set down together, Peter sat down among them. John gives us a more particular account how Peter came into the hall, Joh 18:15,16; And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest. But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter. Some think that this other disciple was John himself; but it is not probable that John and the high priest should be so well acquainted: it is more probably judged, that it was none of the twelve, but one who favoured Christ more secretly, some citizen of Jerusalem whom the high priest favoured, or at least knew by face, and had some respect for, and therefore he was admitted in, and he helped Peter in; who being come in, and a fire kindled in the hall, the rest of the company sat down and warmed themselves by the fire, Peter also sat down amongst them, being desirous to see the end.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
But Peter followed him afar off,…. The Ethiopic version adds, alone; and which seems to be the true case; for though there was another disciple who also followed Jesus, and is thought to be John, yet it looks as if they followed him separately, and not together; for the other disciple went into the palace with Jesus, but Peter not till afterwards, being espied by his fellow disciple standing without. These two it seems, having a little recovered themselves from the fright they had been put into, stopped and turned back, and followed after Jesus, to see what would be the issue of things. Peter’s following Christ, showed love to him; he was lothe to leave him, his bowels moved towards him, and he wanted to know how it would fare with him, and what would become of him; and yet keeping at a distance, following him afar off, betrayed fear, lest he should be observed, and taken up, and come into danger: however, he proceeded on his way in a slow pace, till he came
unto the high priest’s palace, and went in and sat with the servants, to see the end; of the matter, or business, as the Ethiopic and Persic versions add; to see how it would go with him, whether he would exert his divine power, and deliver himself out of their, hands, which he knew he was able to do, when he would again join him; or what punishment they would inflict upon him, whether they would scourge him, and then let him go; or whether they would sentence him to death; that so he might know how to provide for his own safety: all which was indulging curiosity, and the carnal reasonings of his mind; and it showed want of integrity at that time, and some degree of hypocrisy, in placing himself among the servants of the high priest, as if he was none of the followers of Jesus, but was of the same complexion and cast with them: he had got into bad company, and was in the way of temptation; and though he had no design in following Jesus, and in going into the high priest’s palace, and seating himself among the servants to deny his Lord, yet all this led on to it; for which reason these several circumstances are taken notice of, the account of which denial of his, is afterwards related.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
To see the end ( ). Peter rallied from the panic and followed afar off (), “more courageous than the rest and yet not courageous enough” (Bruce). John the Beloved Disciple went on into the room where Jesus was. The rest remained outside, but Peter “sat with the officers” to see and hear and hoping to escape notice.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
SECTION 70
JESUS IS DENIED BY PETER
(Parallels: Mar. 14:54; Mar. 14:66-72; Luk. 22:54-62; Joh. 18:15-18; Joh. 18:25-27)
TEXT: 26:58, 6975
58 But Peter followed him afar off, unto the court of the high priest, and entered in, and sat with the officers, to see the end.
69 Now Peter was sitting without in the court: and a maid came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilean. 70 But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest. 71 And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and saith unto them that were there, This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth. 72 And again he denied with an oath, I know not the man 73 And after a little while they that stood by came and said to Peter, Of a truth thou also are one of them; for thy speech maketh thee known. 74 Then began he to curse and to swear, I know not the man. And straightway the cock crew. 75 And Peter remembered the word which Jesus had said, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS
a.
Peter was introduced into the courtyard because another disciple was known to the high priest (Joh. 18:15 f.). Which disciple do you think could really be an acquaintance of Jesus archenemy and gain entrance for himself and Peter too without arousing suspicion?
b.
How could Peter be inside the palace of the high priest and yet be sitting outside, as Matthew affirms?
c.
On what principles may the supposed contradictions between the four Gospels accounts of Peters denials be resolved?
d.
Would you say that Peter was on trial as much as Jesus? What similarities between the two trials do you see? What differences?
e.
Do you think Peter really had to answer everyones questions, when none of them were authorized to quiz him so? On what principle? Should he not simply have kept people at their distance, held his tongue or brushed past them as if he had not heard?
f.
(1) How did Peters speech expose him as a disciple of Jesus?
(2) How did his many denials actually expose him too?
g.
Why did Peter now go out and weep bitterly?
h.
How would Jesus exhortation to watch and pray that you enter not into temptation have helped Peter avoid this debacle?
i.
Have you ever denied the Lord or your relationship to Him when people were trying to press you for a commitment? Did you ever do it by silence?
j.
Are there common things like the crow of a cock in our lives today that recall us to our duty?
PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY
Following Jesus at a safe distance, Simon Peter got as far as the courtyard of the high priests residence, and so did another disciple. However, because this latter was known to the high priest, he went on into the courtyard along with Jesus, while Peter halted outside at the door. So the disciple known to the high priest stepped out and spoke to the maid on duty at the door, and brought Peter right into the courtyard too.
Now the servants and other subordinates had kindled a charcoal fire in the center of the courtyard, because it was cold. They were standing round it, warming themselves. Peter too was standing with them, keeping himself warm. They sat down around it, so Peter, to see how it would end for Jesus, crouched down among them, warming himself at the fire.
While Peter was sitting downstairs in the courtyard, one of the servant girls of the high priestthe maidservant who kept the doorcame by and saw Peter warming himself as he sat turned toward the firelight. She came up close to him and, looking at him closely, declared, You are not another of this mans disciples too, are you? You too were with that Jesus, the Galilean from Nazareth!
But he denied it before them all, I am not. Lady, I do not know Him. I neither know nor understand what you are talking about! He arose and went out into the gateway, [and a cock crowed].
There another girl saw him and began telling the bystanders, This fellow is one of them. He was with Jesus of Nazareth. A little later someone else saw him standing there warming himself and challenged him, You are too one of his disciples!
He continued to deny it a second time, adding an oath, Man, I am not! I do not know the man!
About an hour later the bystanders went up to Peter and insisted, Unquestionably, you are too one of them, because you are a Galilean: your accent gives you away! One of the servants of the high priest, a relative of Malchus whose ear Peter had sliced off, spoke up, Did I not see you in the garden with Him?
Again Peter denied it, Man, I do not know what you are talking about! He began to call down curses on himself and to swear, I do not know this man you are talking about.
He had no sooner said this when the rooster crowed a second time. The Lord turned and looked searchingly at Peter. Then Peter remembered the prediction the Lord had made to him, Before the rooster crows twice today, you will disown me three times. He then went outside and broke down, weeping bitterly.
SUMMARY
Peter and John followed the arresting party as far as the high priests residence. John, because of his acquaintance with the high priest, gained admittance for himself and Peter too. Peter, however, because of his brogue, was recognized as a disciple of the Man now on trial, and so drew attention to himself. Various people tried to get him to admit his belonging to Jesus following, but he stedfastly denied all connection. At last, Peter heard the cock that Jesus had predicted. A heart-searching gaze from Jesus brought Peter to his senses, sending him out, shaken and penitent, to weep the bitter tears of the guilty.
NOTES
Many note discrepancies among the versions of this incident our Gospels furnish. However, Alford (I, 282ff.) rightly argued that simple differences are not a threat to faith but positive support for it, in that these
furnish one of the clearest instances of the entire independency of the four Gospels of one another . . . (1) supposing the four accounts to be entirely independent of one another, we are not bound to require accordance, nor would there in all probability be any such accordance, in the recognitions of Peter by different persons. These may have been many on each occasion of denial, and independent narrators may have fixed on different ones among them. (2) No reader . . . will require that the actual words spoken by Peter should in each case be identically reported . . . the substantive fact of a denial remains the same whether ouk oda t lgeis, ouk oda autn, or ouk eim are reported to have been Peters answer. (3) I do not see that we are obliged to limit the narrative to three sentences from Peters mouth, each expressing a denial, and no more. On three occasions during the night he was recognized,on three occasions he was a denier of his Lord: such a statement may well embrace reiterated expressions of recognition, and reiterated and importunate denials, on each occasion. . . . In narratives which have sprung from such truthful independent accounts, they [the readers] must be prepared sometimes (as e.g. in the details of the day of the Resurrection) for discrepancies which, at our distance, we cannot satisfactorily arrange: now and then we may, as in this instance, be able to do so with something like verisimilitude:in some cases, not at all. But whether we can thus arrange them or not, being thoroughly persuaded of the holy truthfulness of the Evangelists, and of the divine guidance under which they wrote, our faith is in no way shaken by such discrepancies. We value them rather, as testimonies to independence: and are sure, that if for one moment we could be put in complete possession of all the details as they happened, each account would find its justification, and the reasons of all the variations would appear.
The accusations and Peters negations are the sort of conversation that is real: not calm, neat and orderly, but ragged, repeated and bunched into successive rounds or groups of attacks and denials. Each probably said what our Gospels report, without the Evangelists believing that any one said neither more nor less than the brief phrases cited. The Evangelist that quotes more includes the report of him who cites less, while he who quotes less does not deny the fuller report. Some are talking about Peter, while others accuse him directly. Sometimes he answers the one; sometimes the others, each group of denials being considered one total event.
THE DOWNWARD, PROGRESSIVE ROAD OF SIN: PETER IN THE LIONS DEN
For a believer who unquestionably loves the Lord, Peters denials furnish us a New Testament case history of an unexcelled opportunity: to stand up for Christ in an unsympathetic environment. But it is highly instructive, being also the narration of what can go wrong for anyone. His strangeness to that environment turned everyones attention on him, thus giving him an audience. Could he not simply identify himself as one who sincerely loved Jesus, even though completely stunned that He had not fulfilled his expectations? Surely these palace servants could understand this and, at worst, scorn Peters folly, imprison him for a few days or, at best, even commiserate him who frankly admitted this. Then what went wrong?
THE BOLD IMPRUDENCE OF FERVENT LOVE
Mat. 26:58 But Peter followed him afar off, unto the court of the high priest, and entered in, and sat with the officers, to see the end. The PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY summarizes the sequence of events. (Cf. parallel Gospel texts.) The court of the high priest, see on Mat. 26:57; Mat. 26:69. In following afar off Peter shows a mixture of love for Jesus and fearfulness of being implicated too. So far from an informed, holy boldness, this attitude reflects his unbelief in Jesus doctrine of the cross and his perplexity at seeing Jesus defeated. The officers are the Temple police, not Roman soldiers who, no longer needed, would have returned to their quarters in the Castle Antonia. (See on Mat. 26:47.) When the other disciples forsook Jesus and fled, they kept going, Peter, at the risk of his personal safety, followed.
Why was Peter there? Earlier, Peter had shown the spirit of a fighter, capable of plotting a daring rescue. Meanwhile, however, he had been stunned to witness Jesus willingly led away as a lamb to the slaughter, strictly forbidding him to use the sword. All this notwithstanding, Peter was absolutely unwilling to desert Him. A less docile Judas could hope for divine intervention or some violent escape, but it is at least doubtful that Peter saw himself as a spy who must prudently retain his identity secret at all costs to reconnoiter and renew the struggle later. His stated purpose for being there was to see the end.
To see the end means that Peters denials occurred contemporaneously with Jesus hearings before Annas and Caiaphas. Sadly, while Jesus was courageously facing hate-filled accusations with masterful poise, Peter was shamefully cracking under hostile pressure. To see the end is not idle curiosity but ardent love for his dear friend Jesus and intense anxiety to learn the outcome of his trials. All the enemies challenges were unable to drive him out or break down his bold front and make him confess. At all costs he was determined to stay inside that palace and learn the trials outcome.
SATANS SIFTING OF SIMON
Mat. 26:69 Now Peter was sitting without in the court: and a maid came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilean. The court in question is not the hearing chamber where Jesus was being tried, but an open courtyard. Thus, Peter was sitting without in the court, because the high priests palace itself surrounded this central, open-air courtyard. So, he was both within the palace but also outside, i.e., not in one of its rooms. In reporting that Peter was below in the courtyard, (Mar. 14:66) suggests that the courtyard in the heart of the palace was on a lower level than the chamber where Jesus hearings were taking place. Because it was early morning in Jerusalems higher elevation in early spring, these rugged men felt the chill of the night air in the stone courtyard open to the sky and kindled a cheering fire while they waited the hearings outcome. While John calls it a charcoal fire (Joh. 18:18), during the process of burning more highly combustible material to ignite the charcoal, more light was given off by the fire. (Cf. Luk. 22:56, t phs.) That John pictured Peter as standing while the Synoptics record his sitting only more graphically depicts Peter as moving gradually into place, first standing then sitting near the fire.
Sitting means more than near the warmth of the fire. For Peters deliberately sitting among them implies the nonchalance of a man who, like them, is against the Nazarene and on the side of the high priest. Sitting also betrays his sense of false security. Unquestionably, concern for Jesus drew him here, but he was seriously blind to the high risk of being in this company so spiritually unprepared.
That a maid who kept the door (Joh. 18:17) and other servants were on duty in the high priests palace so late that night indicates the extraordinary events that were occurring. The girls would not only be involved in serving food but even keeping the door. (Cf. Josephus, Ant. VI, 2, 1; Act. 12:13.) The portress apparently did not ask Peter her embarrassing question immediately as he entered, but later when she too left the door area and approached the fire where she could see Peters face more clearly in the firelight (Mar. 14:66 f.; Luk. 22:56). That a person known to be a disciple (Joh. 18:15) recommended Peters entrance may have suggested Peters connections to her. Lenski (Matthew, 1070) suggests that she was moved by self-importance, wanting these men to realize that she knew something they did not know. Here they were talking about Jesus and about what had just taken place and yet did not know that right in their own midst sat one of Jesus own disciples.
Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilean. Because it was a known disciple who got Peter in, Thou also links Peter with discipleship. She insinuates a conclusion: You are not one of this mans disciples too, are you? (Joh. 18:17). For Peter, this maids inquisition is mitigated only in form, since her words expected a negative answer, a factor that facilitated his denial. However, she motivates her inquisitiveness by an incriminating, if yet unproven, observation: You too were with Jesus. Even so, there is yet no criticism implied in her oblique allusion to Johns discipleship. So, why should Peter be so anxious to deny his own? Hendriksen (John, 393) sees her as maliciously ironic, because in her heart she already knew the answer to her question. Whether malicious or not, beneath her words lurked a terrible threat to Peters security and he must answer.
1. VAGUE NEGATION
Mat. 26:70 But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest, stammering, I am not. Lady, I do not know Him. I neither know nor understand what you are talking about (Mar. 14:68; Luk. 22:57; Joh. 18:17)! Her unexpected disclosure, made in the presence of people (mprosthen pnton) among whom Peter considered himself relatively safe, caught him by surprise. In his panic his first impulse is self-preservation. He timidly denied even knowing Jesus, much less a follower. After faking complete ignorance and neutrality on the question, he eased away from the fire and walked to the forecourt or gateway, as if he had other business that required his presence elsewhere (Mar. 14:68).
Mark reports the crow of a cock here (Mar. 14:68). Although there are some manuscripts that do not contain this nor its later reference (Mar. 14:72, see A Textual Commentary, 115f.), however, if it really crowed at this point, it would seem that Peter did not hear it, else he would have been conscience-struck sooner. Mark is not merely indicating the time, but the fulfillment of Jesus word as he reported it (Mar. 14:30). See note on Mat. 26:74.
Mat. 26:71 And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and saith unto them that were there, This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth. About an hour before the third denial (Luk. 22:59), or about two oclock, Peter went out into the porch (tn pulna; cf. t proalion, Mar. 14:68), the gateway or arched passageway leading from the central courtyard to the street. Peter has no time to shake the fear brought on by the first challenge. Another maid: Matthew and Mark describe the second accuser as a girl, whereas Luke unquestionably mentions a different man (Luk. 22:58; hteras . . . nthrope). This apparent discrepancy may be resolved by seeing the crowd at Caiaphas palace as large. There are now at least two girls, the original portress (Mark has the article: he paidske, the girl mentioned before, Mar. 14:66) and one other (Matthew: lle). It is not clear whether the second denials occurred at the porch leading to the gate or at the fire. Perhaps the pressure began at the porch when the doormaid initiated this second attack by exposing Peter to another girl and a man standing around in the entranceway (Mar. 14:69). Peter, to avoid it, retreated back to the fire only to find himself the center of attention at the fire where the others took up the chase (Joh. 18:25). Thus, his return to the fire was not the dogged courage of love but the risky solution of the desperate.
This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth. Peter could not ignore the girls approach, because her accusations continued to splatter around among men. It is noteworthy that neither Matthew nor Mark affirm that Peter answered the maid directly, but merely report that he denied to the bystanders, and only Luke quotes Peter as addressing the man, without denying that the maid had instigated this second exposure. While several people accuse him, this second denial is made all at the same general time as the result of this psychological build-up of pressure from various points. Would not hasty departure in this uneasy situation now confirm their suspicions? Again, he must answer.
2. CLEAR DENIAL SUPPORTED BY A FALSE OATH
Mat. 26:72 And again he denied with an oath, I know not the man. (Note Marks imperfect tense: erneto; Luk. 22:58; Joh. 18:25.) He kept denying, evidence of a number of phrases not recorded. The tragedy when he lied (cf. Mat. 16:16; Joh. 6:68 f.) was worsened when he backed it up with an oath. This is perjury. Deeply shaken, Peter unnecessarily exaggerates, because many of Jesus enemies knew Him all too well, yet were not His disciples. How could anyone, so obviously Galilean as this Peter, live in Galilee, without at least knowing the man?! The man protests overmuch, if he is really indifferent to the Nazarene or about his own reputation. Further, what was Peter doing among the high priests servants, if he could not admit to them his reason for being there? His very denials give him away.
Mat. 26:73 And after a little while they that stood by came and said to Peter, Of a truth thou also art one of them; for thy speech maketh thee known. Luke (Luk. 22:59) notes the passage of time as about an hour later, a fact that gives more reality to this scene:
1.
It indicates how long it was taking the authorities to find an adequate basis upon which to establish a basis for the death sentence for Jesus. (See Joh. 18:19 ff.; John 26:59ff.)
2.
It lulled Peter into a false security that feared no more inquisitions.
3.
It gave bystanders time to mull over Peters strange nervousness and his regional dialect and uncover further proof of his falseness.
Just when Peter thought his ordeal over, some men who had been discussing Peter, confront him directly, Of a truth thou art one of them. Peters lying had not accomplished anything. Rather, now firmer than ever, this conviction of his true loyalties had a twofold basis:
1.
His dialectical pronunciation was typically Galilean, as opposed to the linguistic refinement of the cultured in the capital: Your accent gives you away! (Mar. 14:70; Luk. 22:59). Alford, (I, 285, citing Westein) noted that the Galileans could not pronounce the gutteral sounds properly and made other changes in Hebrew words.
2.
His face was virtually recognized by a relative of Malchus, the man whose ear Peter had sliced off: Did I not see you in the garden with Him? (Joh. 18:26). Not just embarrassing, this almost positive recognition is really dangerous.
3. LYING UNDER OATH AND SELF-CURSING
Mat. 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, I know not the man. And straightway the cock crew. Unable to escape the damning evidence of his own dialectthe more he said, the more he proved their point, and pressured by this dangerous witness to his sword-swinging in the garden, Peter felt he must now employ the most serious device conceivable to convince these unfriendly, suspicious hearers. In his frustration and desperation, he began vehemently to curse and to swear. Simon Peter was no profane man. His sense of the sacred must not be sullied by misconception on our part. He began to curse, i.e. to call Gods wrath down upon himself, if what he was saying were untrue; and to swear, i.e. invoke God as witness of the truthfulness of his affirmations. His sin lay not in the act of cursing or swearing, because as proven before (see notes on Mat. 26:63), neither is sin and both may be absolutely right and necessary. Hendriksen (Matthew, 936) rightly contrasts Christs oath (Mat. 26:63 F.) and Peters (Mat. 26:72; Mat. 26:74): the former confirms the truth; the latter sanctions the lie! So, his loss of the sacred, his sin, consisted in invoking Gods approval upon what he knew was not true.
I know not the man. Paradoxically, this is his first true statement. Had Peter truly known Jesus, he would not have worried about Jesus final destiny, because he would have believed His every prediction of victory as the unshakable word of God. Instead, in his frantic self-defense he has almost completely forgotten the Lord whose honor he would defend.
And straightway the cock crew about three oclock Friday morning. Jesus hearings continued through the night from his arrest apparently until this moment (Luk. 22:61).
WHOSE CHICKEN WAS THIS?
If it be objected that the Jews did not keep roosters in the city, let it be answered that this particular rooster belonged to foreigners over whom the Jewish rules could not claim obedience. Nor would Sadducees feel bound by unwritten traditions that, without Mosaic sanction, forbid such fowls in the City, Were not Annas and Caiaphas chiefest among the Sadducees (Act. 5:17)?
Further, the two cock-crowings cannot be explained as the sound of the Roman buccina sounding the changing of the guard, because, whereas the 3 a.m. blast of the trumpet might be called gallicinium or cock-crow, would the midnight trumpet also be termed thus? The two cock-crowings mentioned by Mark are only an hour or so apart (cf. Mar. 14:48; Mar. 14:72 with Luk. 22:58-60), hence not the sounding of the gallicinium which only occurred every three hours, i.e. at midnight and at 3 a.m. Peter heard a real rooster.
The Lords power over Peter
Mat. 26:75 And Peter remembered the word which Jesus had said, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly. (See notes on Mat. 26:34.) That cock crowing meant nothing to anyone but Peter. His minds eye vividly saw the earlier scene with his forgotten, rash promises and Jesus sad, strenuously discarded predictions. Did he also remember Jesus other word: He who denies me before men, him will I deny before my Father who is in heaven (Mat. 10:33)? He broke down not only because of the cockcrowing, but, just as significantly, because, at that moment, the Lord turned and looked straight at Peter (Luk. 22:61). Many see this moment as a transfer of Jesus from one chamber in the high priests palace to another where He would be held until the morning session. Therefore, while Peters attention was diverted by this new movement, Jesus could pause, turn and look meaningfully and understandably straight into his heart. Tolbert (Good News From Matthew, 231): This is the moment when grace can begin its workwhen a man is stripped of his arrogance and stands before God naked in his need.
Peter remembered the word which Jesus had said. Memory, that gift of God, pierced his self-deception, mistaken shame and terror, convincing and condemning him. It reminded him of Jesus love and broke his heart, leaving him ashamed, self-condemned and agonizing over his dishonoring the lord he loved. Here is the point of the Scriptures and the Lords Supper: to save us by vivid God-given reminders that can pierce our soul and bring us to repentance. (Cf. 2Pe. 1:12-15; 2Pe. 3:1.)
And he went out, and wept bitterly. While the others moved to their duties in the changed situation and Sanhedrinists went home for the night, Peter, blinded by tears, could stumble out the front gate together with them, hardly noticed. He went out, and wept bitterly, because he could no longer face himself. Unworthy even to be near Jesus, the perjured disciple has no further justification for being there. Where all the hostility of others could not tear him from his determination, one unspoken word, the eloquent, anguished look from the injured Master, broke him down completely. He is ashamed, because it has now dawned on him that he has just done that of which he believed himself completely incapable. He, Jesus privileged apostle and dear friend, had really done this to Him! (Cf. Psa. 55:12 ff.)
So why did Peter deny his relation to Jesus? Peters failure is not merely the product of a unique combination of elements in his character and temperament which exposed him to be tempted in precisely this way, as if these temptations were meaningful only to Peter or those of a personality like his. Rather, are not these elements characteristic of all of us at one time or another?
1.
Physically exhausted and shivering in the early-morning chill, Peters thoughts ran to creature comforts (cf. Mar. 14:54; Joh. 18:18), rather than to the nearness of temptation and the spiritual battle to be fought. (Cf. Mat. 26:41.) His resistance and presence of mind to meet challenges were worn down by the emotional drain of excitement and sorrow of the preceding day. So far from spiritual preparedness, he was hardly ready physically for this battle.
2.
Unjustified self-confidence: he presumptuously ignored warnings of this peril. A synonym of self-trust is faithlessness. He did not believe Christs predictions either of his own failure or of Christs victory without his own ill-conceived help. This amounts to rejection to Christs revelations whereinsofar they clashed with Peters views. Further, to arm himself against all trials he trusted his own emotional enthusiasm for Jesus, rather than an intelligent determination to do Gods revealed will at all costs.
3.
Rashness: he was deliberately sitting among Jesus enemies, self-exposed to the very temptation against which he had been warned. He certainly was not thinking of denying Christ, yet like us in an unguarded moment, he was simply not thinking, but plunged into ill-considered activity.
4.
The temptations unexpectedness: he was distracted because his gaze was directed toward the trials and Jesus. He was neither watching nor praying to avoid temptation when he was suddenly confronted with the challenge.
5.
Initial timidity that feared men rather than a holy boldness based on the fear of the Lord and a firm, correct knowledge of Gods will. He feared reprisals and cost to himself. His confidence, that when God decides a thing victory is guaranteed, was severely shattered when he saw Christ arrested like a common criminal without defending Himself. His earlier boldness was now replaced by a wary, instinctive self-protectiveness which tempts a person to resort to any means, even falsehood as a way of avoiding trouble.
6.
His sense of purpose and direction is damaged, for what could he actually do for Jesus here that would not be judged out of order by the Lord Himself? He wrongly assumed that serious temptations could be courageously met with swords, ignoring the subtler, more deadly trials of a servant-girls question. 7. Evil companions may also be a factor. Granted, they were unsympathetic to Christs cause, and their pressuring hurried him to sin. But the least they could have done was laugh at him in their unbelief or arrest him for a day or so; the most, let him keep his promise to die for Jesus. But they were the least significant element, because, looked at from the Lords point of view, these servants were only trying to get Peter to say what he really and deeply believed.
What Peter did after this moral break-down, the Gospel writers omit. Their last words leave him a humbled, brokenhearted man who must struggle with his lostness, overwhelmed with shame and grief, until thrilled by the stirring news of the resurrection morning, The Lord is risen!
What is our lesson? Without the grace of Christ, how strong is the bravest man? Peters humiliated self-confidence challenges the best of disciples among us: who would dare trust himself to believe that he could not do the most abominable deed (1Co. 10:11-13)? Further, the gravest threat may not always come from a Christians weak points, but from what he considers his strength. This Satan succeeds in twisting against the Christian himself. On the other hand, how great is the spiritual power of Gods grace and forgiveness in believers! Consider Peters restoration to become the great pillar of the Church. Peters grief had led to life through repentance, because he listened to the appeals of his own smitten conscience (2Co. 7:10). Judas fall, on the other hand, was a deliberate choice matured in harmony with his mentality. Peters was the accidental fall of a good man, a real disciple, truly touched by his sense of sin and of the Lords rightness. This explains his rapid rehabilitation as opposed to Judas suicide.
That Jesus could so accurately foresee the various forces that would produce Peters breakdown and even the timing proves even more remarkably His divine knowledge. That He foresaw it and let it happen anyway, points to the deep respect God has for the human will. He let this sincere but rash believer go wrong to reveal his weakness to him, break his overconfidence and teach him dependence on Himself. But He never ceased to intercede for Peter. The same Jesus who forewarned Peter and interceded before God for him, whose look restored Peters sense of guilt, later freely forgave and re-established him, offers us mercy and pleads our case before God, however deep our sin (Joh. 6:37; Rev. 22:17; Heb. 7:25). Should not this exalted concept of His graciousness stir our hearts to grateful worship?
We easily identify with the sins of the great Bible characters, such as David and Peter, but can we repent with them? With loyal hearts and deep devotion do we abhor sin and weep over it before God like they? Oh God, when I have debased your Name, played the fool and denied my discipleship, send me a Nathan, a rooster, anything, to call my wandering heart back to you! May I hear all the voices in Creation and in your Word that call me to repentance (Psalms 19 : Rom. 1:20)!
FACT QUESTIONS
1.
What elements led to Peters denials?
2.
Explain how Peter gained entrance to the courtyard of the high priest.
3.
Mark states that Peter was beneath in the palace, whereas Matthew affirms without in the palace. Harmonize these expressions.
4.
What was Peters motive(s) for being there?
5.
Why did Peter join the men seated there at the fire lit in the high priests courtyard? What time of year was it? Would it have been cold enough for a fire?
6.
Who first accused Peter?
7.
Who accused him the second time?
8.
How much time elapsed during Jesus trials and, consequently, Peters? About what time of night did the third denial occur?
9.
What clues demolished Peters anonymity in the eyes of the bystanders?
10.
What method(s) did Peter use to defend his assertions?
11.
Explain the proposition: Peter was not a profane man, just lying. In what sense did he curse and swear?
12.
How many cocks crowed that night? Prove your answer.
13.
What did Peter remember when he heard the cock crow?
14.
What elements do the Gospels furnish that permit us to discern time connections between the denials of Peter and the trials of Christ?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(58) Peter followed him afar off.We find from St. Johns narrative, here much the fullest, that it was through him that Peter found admission. He sat in the court with the servants (better, officers, as in Joh. 18:18) and the slaves, who, in the chill of the early dawn, had lighted a charcoal fire. Female slaves who acted as gate-keepers were passing to and fro. The cold night air had told on the disciple, and he too, weary and chilled, drew near the fire and warmed himself.
To see the end.There is something singularly suggestive in this account of Peters motive. It was, we may believe, more than a vague curiosity. There was something of sorrowful anxiety, of reverential sorrow, but there was no fervent devotion, no prayer for himself or his Master, only the fevered restlessness of uncertain expectation, and so all the natural instability of his character had free play, with nothing to control it.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
58. Followed him afar off Though, with the rest, Peter had fled, he was by no means contented to leave his Master without knowing his fate; hoping, perhaps, that he would yet by some unknown turn deliver himself. He follows him to the palace of the high priest, to know what will be the result.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘But Peter followed him at a distance, to the court of the high priest, and entered in, and sat with the officers, to see the end.’
Meanwhile Peter and another disciple (Joh 18:15) followed the arresting party at a distance, and entering the court of the High Priest’s palace, (the other disciple was known to those present and was actually able to enter the palace), Peter sat among the lower level officials who were gathered there, in order to discover what would happen to Jesus. Peter was clearly no coward, and had acted with typical impulsiveness.
Note the interesting parallel. On the one hand Jesus is being challenged before the Jewish leaders, on the other one of His followers is being challenged before the followers of the Jewish leaders, the One accomplishing His end of giving His last warning to the Jewish leaders and remaining unbowed, the other failing to achieve his end and ending up in flood of tears. It is being made clear that on this night of Satan’s seeming pre-eminence only Jesus came through satisfactorily, both here and in the Garden. The total and abject failure of the Apostles was an indication of what powers were at work against them that night.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
“But Peter followed him afar off unto the high priest’s palace, and went in, and sat with the servants, to see the end. (59) Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death; (60) But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses, (61) And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. (62) And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? (63) But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. (64) Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. (65) Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. (66) What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death. (67) Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands, (68) Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?”
The Holy Ghost, as if to stamp an everlasting reproach upon Caiaphas, hath pointed him out as awfully engaged in the office of High Priest, the year of Christ’s crucifixion. Jesus was led away to Annas, then to Caiaphas. And Caiaphas was he that gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people. Joh 18:14 . Right or wrong, this wretch determined the death of Christ. And the renting his cloaths in a seemingly holy indignation; was only covering over the malignity of his heart, by the horror he wished to express of blasphemy. But let not the Reader overlook the prophecies of this great transaction. Now was that scripture fulfilled, which Jesus spake by the spirit of prophecy, a thousand years before. The assembly of the wicked have inclosed me. Psa 22:16 . The Lord Christ answering to the adjuration of the High Priest is most blessed, and especially under the character of the Son of man!
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
58 But Peter followed him afar off unto the high priest’s palace, and went in, and sat with the servants, to see the end.
Ver. 58. But Peter followed ] First, he fled with the rest, and then, remembering his promise, followed afar off; but better he had kept him away, for he sat with the servants, so venturing upon the occasion of sin, which he should have studiously shunned; and merely out of curiosity to see the end and issue of Christ’s captivity. We many times tempt Satan to tempt us by our imprudence. Evil company is contagious, and sin more catching than the plague. Israel going down to Egypt brought a golden calf from thence; Jeroboam brought two. A man may pass through Ethiopia unchanged; but he cannot reside there, and not be discoloured.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
58. ] “ is a well-known pleonasm. itself is a late Greek word. See Lob. on Phryn. p. 93.” Meyer.
We have not here the more complete detail of Joh 18:15-19 . The is one and the same great building, in which both Annas and Caiaphas lived. This is evident from a comparison of the narratives of Peter’s denial: see below. The circumstance of a fire being lighted and the servants sitting round it, mentioned by the other three Evangelists, is here omitted.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 26:58 is the prelude to the story of Peter’s denial, hich is resumed at Mat 26:69 after the account of the trial. Similarly in Mk. Lk. gives the story without interruption. , from afar: Peter followed his Master, having after a while recovered from the general panic; more courageous than the rest, yet not courageous enough; just enough of the hero in him to bring him into the region of temptation. . . Cf. Mk., Mat 26:54 . , to see the end; a good Greek phrase. Motives: curiosity and honest interest in the fate of his loved Master. Jerome puts these alternatively: “vel amore discipuli vel humana curiositate”.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
afar off = from afar.
unto = even to.
in = within [the court].
servants = officers.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
58.] is a well-known pleonasm. itself is a late Greek word. See Lob. on Phryn. p. 93. Meyer.
We have not here the more complete detail of Joh 18:15-19. The is one and the same great building, in which both Annas and Caiaphas lived. This is evident from a comparison of the narratives of Peters denial: see below. The circumstance of a fire being lighted and the servants sitting round it, mentioned by the other three Evangelists, is here omitted.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 26:58. , afar off) With doubtful mind and the sense of danger midway between the spirit, displayed in Mat 26:51, and the fear evinced in Mat 26:70.-, …, sat, etc.) An unseasonable fellowship.[1158]
[1158] In the original, communitas non opportuna. There is an allusion in the word communitas to 1Co 15:33.-(I. B.)
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
and went: Joh 18:15, Joh 18:16, Joh 18:25
Reciprocal: Mat 26:3 – the palace Mat 26:69 – Peter Mat 26:70 – General Mar 14:54 – Peter Mar 14:66 – as Luk 22:54 – took Act 4:13 – they took
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
6:58
Peter’s curiosity prompted him to follow Jesus as they led him away to the officers. But he also began to show the cowardice which he afterward displayed in the court by following Jesus afar off. He wanted to be near enough to see what was going on but not so near as to be suspected of being connected with him in any way that might be embarrassing or endanger his own life and liberty.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 26:58. Peter followed afar off. Not out of curiosity, yet like a mere spectator. Such following leads to danger, not to victory.
Unto the court of the high priest. Not the palace (comp. Mat 26:3), but the area enclosed by the building (which may not have been a palace ). The entrance to this was through the porch (Mat 26:71; Mar 14:68). A fire was soon kindled in the court.
Entered in. John (Joh 18:15-16) tells that he himself, as an acquaintance of the high priest, went in, while Peter stood without; the former procured admission for the latter. The first denial occurred about this time (see next section).
And sat with the officers. Those who had been engaged in the capture (see Mat 26:47). He remained there for some time, from about midnight to cock crowing (three oclock).
To see the end. The fire was kindled in the courtyard of the house where Annas lived (according to John), and Mark and Luke, who tell of the examination before Caiaphas, refer to Peters warming himself there. Annas and Caiaphas therefore probably lived in the same house.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
CXXVII.
PETER THRICE DENIES THE LORD.
(Court of the high priest’s residence. Friday before and about dawn.)
aMATT. XXVI. 58, 69-75; bMARK XIV. 54, 66-72; cLUKE XXII. 54-62;
dJOHN XVIII. 15-18, 25-27.
a58 But {d15 And} Simon Peter followed Jesus [leaving Jesus in the palace of the high priest, we now turn back to the garden of Gethsemane at the time when Jesus left it under arrest, that we may follow the course of Simon Peter in his threefold denial of the Master], and so did another disciple. [This other disciple was evidently the apostle John, who thus speaks of himself impersonally.] Now that disciple was known unto the high priest, and entered in with Jesus into the court of the high priest [John’s acquaintanceship appears to have been with the household as well as with the high priest personally, for we find that it is used as a permit at the doorway. It is likely that the high priest knew John rather in a business way– Act 4:13]; b54 And Peter had followed him afar off, aunto the court of the high priest, d16 but Peter was standing at the door without. So the other disciple, who was known unto the high priest, went out and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter. beven within, into the court of the high priest [For courts of houses see Act 12:13. John would have shown a truer kindness to Peter had he let him stay out]; d17 The maid therefore that kept the door saith unto Peter, Art thou also one of this man’s disciples? He saith, I am not. aand [Peter] entered in [The doorkeeper evidently recognized John as a disciple, and was therefore suspicious of Peter. The cowardly “I am not” of Peter is a sad contrast to the strong “I am he” of Jesus], [700] d18 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 [they were gathered around a little smokeless charcoal fire], c55 And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the court, and had sat down together, Peter asat with the officers, cin the midst of them. ato see the end. [Though his faith in Christ was shaken, he still loved him enough to see what would become of him.] band he was sitting with the officers, and warming himself in the light of the fire. c56 And a69 Now bas dSimon Peter awas sitting {dstanding} awithout bbeneath in the court, there cometh {acame} unto him, ca certain bone of the maids of the high priest; 67 and seeing Peter cas he sat in the light of the fire, bwarming himself, she looked {cand looking} stedfastly upon him, said, {bsaith, asaying,} Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilaean. bthe Nazarene, even Jesus. cThis man also was with him. a70 But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest. bI neither know, nor understand what thou sayest: cWoman, I know him not. dThey said therefore unto him, Art thou also one of his disciples? He denied, and said, I am not. band he went out into the porch; and the cock crew. a71 And when he was gone out into the porch, cafter a little while another saw him, and said, Thou also art one of them. But Peter said, Man, I am not. b69 And aanother bthe maid saw him, and began again to say {asaith} unto them that were there, bthat stood by, This is one of them. aThis man also was with Jesus of Nazareth. b70 But {a72 And} again he denied bit. awith an oath, I know not the man. [Peter’s second denial was of a quadruple nature. He denied to four different parties, but in such quick succession that the event is regarded as one.] 73 And after a little cafter the space of about one hour another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a [701] truth this man also was with him; for he is a Galilaean. 60 But Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. bAgain they that stood by acame and said to Peter, Of a truth thou also art one of them; bfor thou art a Galilaean. afor thy speech maketh thee known. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew. d26 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? b70 But d27 Peter therefore denied again: a74 Then began he to curse and to swear, I know not the {bthis} aman. bof whom ye speak. 72 And straightway cimmediately, while he yet spake, bthe second time the cock crew. [Exasperated by the repeated accusations, Peter loses his temper and begins to emphasize his denial by profanity. Desire to make good his denial is now supreme in his thoughts and the Lord whom he denies is all but forgotten.] c61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered bAnd Peter called to mind the word, cof the Lord, awhich Jesus had said, bhow that he said unto him, aBefore the cock crow, btwice, cthis thou shalt deny me thrice. 62 And he went out, bAnd when he thought thereon, he wept. cbitterly. [When Peter remembered the loving tenderness of Jesus manifested when he foretold Peter’s crime it formed a background against which the sin appeared in all its hideous enormity.]
[FFG 700-702]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
26:58 But Peter followed him afar off unto the high priest’s {b} palace, and went in, and sat with the servants, to see the end.
(b) The word used here properly denotes an open large room in the front of a house, as we see in kings’ palaces and noblemen’s houses: we call it a court, for it is open to the air, and by the use of synecdoche, is understood to mean the house itself.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
All the disciples had fled and left Jesus (Mat 26:56; cf. Mar 14:54; Luk 22:54; Joh 18:15-18), but Peter followed at a safe distance as Jesus’ guards led Him across the Kidron Valley, into Jerusalem, and into the high priest’s house. This house contained an open courtyard in the middle, which was typical. Peter positioned himself inconspicuously, he thought, near a fire in the courtyard to observe what would happen (cf. Joh 18:15-16). A church now stands over the traditional site on Mt. Zion: the church of St. Peter in Gallicantu, or St. Peter at the Crowing of the Cock.