Matthew 26:70

(de Cons. Ev. iii. 6.) Among the other insults offered to our Lord was the threefold denial of Peter, which the several Evangelists relate in different order. Luke puts Peter's trial first, and the ill usage of the Lord after that; Matthew and Mark reverse the order. (ubi sup.) We understand that having gone out after his first denial, the cock crowed the first time as Mark relates. (ubi sup.) The second denial was not outside the door, but after he had returned to the fire; for the second maid did not see him after he had gone out, but as he was going out; his getting up to go out drew her attention, and she said to them that were there, that is, to those that were standing round the fire in the hall, Tins fellow also was with Jesus of Nazareth. He who had gone out, haying heard this returned, that he might by denial vindicate himself. Or, as is more likely, he did not hear what was said of him as he went out, but it was after he came back that the maid, and the other man whom Luke mentions, said to him, And thou also art one of them. (ubi sup.) Let us now come to the third denial; And after a while came they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them, (Luke's words are, About the space of one hour after,) for thy speech bewrayeth thee. (Luke 22:59.) (Quæst. Ev. i. 45.) Also Peter thrice denied, because heretical error concerning Christ is limited to three kinds; they are in error respecting His divinity, His humanity, or both.

Or, By the first handmaid is understood the Synagogue of the Jews, which oft compelled the faithful to deny; by the second, the congregations of the Gentiles, who even persecuted the Christians; they that stood in the hall signify the ministers of divers heresies, who also compel men to deny the truth of Christ.

But Peter sat without. Here the denial of Peter is treated. Luke 22:55 reports in a different order, because he first sets forth the denial of Peter and then the mockery of Christ; but Matthew does the opposite. And there is no contradiction, because while …

What means this, that a handmaid is the first to tax him, when men would be more likely to recognise him, except that this sex might seem to sin somewhat in the Lord's death, that they might be redeemed by His passion? He denied before them all, because he was afraid to reveal himself; that he said, I know not, shows that he was not yet willing to die for the Saviour. In this denial of Peter we affirm that Christ is denied not only by him who denies that He is Christ, but who denies himself to be a Christian.

Observe, that he said the first time, I know not what thou sayest; the second time, He denied with an oath; the third time, He began to curse and to swear that he knew not the man. For to persevere in sinning increases sinfulness, and he who disregards light sins, falls into greater.

Now Peter sat without in the courtyard: and a servant girl came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee. But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest. And when he was gone out into the porch, another …

3 Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, 4 And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him. 5 But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people. The notice Christ gave his disciples of the near approach of his sufferings,

quarantine:scripture (2026-07-29) — scripture-overlap:81%@v3-5

But he denied before them all,....

But he denied before them all - So the evil principle gains ground. Before, he followed at a distance, now he denies; this is the second gradation in his fall.

These verses relate a remarkable and deeply instructive event: the apostle Peter’s denial of Christ. It is one of those events which indirectly prove the truth of the Bible. If the Gospel had been a mere invention of man, we should never have been told that one of its principal preachers was once so weak and erring as to deny his Master. The first thing that demands our notice is the full nature of the sin of which Peter was guilty. It was a great sin.

These verses relate a remarkable and deeply instructive event: the apostle Peter’s denial of Christ. It is one of those events which indirectly prove the truth of the Bible. If the Gospel had been a mere invention of man, we should never have been told that one of its principal preachers was once so weak and erring as to deny his Master. The first thing that demands our notice is the full nature of the sin of which Peter was guilty. It was a great sin. We see a man who had followed Christ for three years, and been forward in professing faith and love towards him—a man who had received boundless mercies and loving kindness and had been treated by Christ as a familiar friend. We see this man denying three times that he knows Jesus! This was bad. It was a sin committed under circumstances of great aggravation: Peter had been warned plainly of his danger and had heard the warning; he had just been receiving the bread and wine at our Lord’s hands, and declaring loudly that though he died with him, he would not deny him! This also was bad. It was a sin committed under apparently small provocation: two weak women made the remark that he was with Jesus. They that stood nearby say, “Surely thou art one of them”. No threat seems to have been used, no violence seems to have been done, but it was enough to overthrow Peter’s faith: he denies before all. He denies with an oath: he curses and swears. Truly it is a humbling picture! Let us mark this history, and store it up in our minds: it teaches us plainly that the best of saints are only men, and men encompassed with many infirmities. A man may be converted to God, have faith, hope and love towards Christ, and yet be overtaken in a fault, and have awful falls. It shows us the necessity of humility: so long as we are in the body, we are in danger. The flesh is weak, and the devil is active. We must never think, “I cannot fall.”

But he deeded before them all ... - He denied that he was a disciple; he denied that he knew Jesus; he denied (Mark) that he understood what was meant - that is, he did not see any reason why this question was asked. All this was palpable falsehood, and Peter must have known that it was such. This is remarkable, because Peter had just before been so confident. It is more remarkable, because the edge of the charge was taken off by the insinuation that “John” was known to be a disciple thou “also” wast with Jesus of Galilee.