TEXT [Commentary]

I. Peter’s three denials (26:69-75; cf. Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:55-62; John 18:25-27)

69 Meanwhile, Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. A servant girl came over and said to him, “You were one of those with Jesus the Galilean.”

70 But Peter denied it in front of everyone. “I don’t know what you’re talking about,” he said.

71 Later, out by the gate, another servant girl noticed him and said to those standing around, “This man was with Jesus of Nazareth.[*]”

72 Again Peter denied it, this time with an oath. “I don’t even know the man,” he said.

73 A little later some of the other bystanders came over to Peter and said, “You must be one of them; we can tell by your Galilean accent.”

74 Peter swore, “A curse on me if I’m lying—I don’t know the man!” And immediately the rooster crowed.

75 Suddenly, Jesus’ words flashed through Peter’s mind: “Before the rooster crows, you will deny three times that you even know me.” And he went away, weeping bitterly.

NOTES

26:69-70 The narrative now returns to Peter in the courtyard (26:58); it seems the reader is to view Peter’s “trial” as more or less synonymous with Jesus’ trial. As Jesus confesses, Peter denies. His three denials fulfill Jesus’ prophecy (26:31-35), yet they raise many questions as comparisons are made with the other Gospels (cf. Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:55-65; John 18:25-27).

You were one of those with Jesus the Galilean. As Peter sat outside the high priest’s residence, he was accosted by a servant girl who accused him of being with Jesus the Galilean (cf. Luke 23:6), but he denied this before the crowd in the courtyard.

26:71-72 This man was with Jesus of Nazareth. As Peter was leaving the courtyard, another servant girl told the bystanders that Peter had been with Jesus of Nazareth (cf. 2:23).

Again Peter denied it, this time with an oath. Evidently Peter was falsely invoking God in some fashion (5:33-37; 14:7, 9; 23:16-22). The three accusations increasingly involve the bystanders. The first is made to Peter by a servant girl, and Peter denies it in the presence of bystanders. Another servant girl makes the second accusation to the bystanders, and the third accusation comes from the bystanders themselves (26:73).

26:73-75 The bystanders, a group more formidable than a servant girl, now charge Peter with being an associate of Jesus.

we can tell by your Galilean accent. His Galilean accent had given him away (cf. Acts 4:13).

A curse on me if I’m lying—I don’t know the man! Peter was so upset that he punctuated his denial with vehement cursing and swearing, perhaps calling on God to curse him if he was lying. Davies and Allison (1997:548-549) argue plausibly that in a desperate attempt to prove he was not a disciple, Peter cursed Jesus.

immediately the rooster crowed. Suddenly, Jesus’ words flashed through Peter’s mind. At this third denial, a rooster crowed, and Peter was immediately and excruciatingly reminded of Jesus’ prediction that he would deny him three times before a rooster crowed (26:34).

deny three times that you even know me. Lit., “deny me three times.” Peter had claimed he would die before he denied Jesus, but he could not even respond truthfully to the question of a powerless servant girl. He wept bitterly as he went away, perhaps believing that the curse he had uttered would come upon him.

COMMENTARY [Text]

The Sanhedrin had mocked Jesus’ prophetic insight, but now Peter’s denials vindicate it. This passage clearly consists of three accusations that Peter was a follower of Jesus followed by three increasingly intense denials. It is striking that Peter was intimidated by a mere servant girl, and that his denials became increasingly punctuated with oaths and expletives (26:70, 72, 74). The denials became more emphatic as Peter moved further away from Jesus, from the courtyard (26:69) to the gateway (26:71) to his departure (26:74). The disciples who left all to follow Jesus had now deserted him (yet see John 18:15). One could easily sympathize with Peter denying the Lord once due to fear or embarrassment, but it is impossible to justify this threefold, increasingly vehement denial.

The Bible in many cases (e.g., Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon) presents it heroes “warts and all,” as the saying goes. Matthew’s Gospel is no exception, since he did not attempt to exclude the inconsistencies and failures of the disciples from his narrative. He did not even mention Jesus’ subsequent rehabilitation of Peter (cf. John 21:15ff), so the reader is left with yet another blunt testimony to the weakness of the disciples. This is tempered somewhat when one is reminded of the forgiveness mentioned in 12:32 and the promise that Jesus will later meet the disciples in Galilee (26:32; 28:7, 10, 16). Peter’s denial underlines the weakness of all the disciples (26:35), but it will not terminate their messianic mission if they are true to the resurrected Messiah and live by his power and presence (28:18-20).

It is instructive to compare Peter and Jesus. As Jesus confessed his divine, messianic identity before the supreme leader of Israel, Peter denied any knowledge of Jesus before a servant-girl (cf. 10:32-33; 1 Tim 6:13). Peter was immediately grief-stricken over his sin, but so was Judas (27:3). Therefore, it is also instructive to compare Peter and Judas. Judas betrayed the Lord, just as Jesus predicted. Afterwards he felt remorse, was rebuffed by the religious leaders, and committed suicide (27:1-10). Peter also denied the Lord, just as Jesus predicted. Afterwards he felt remorse, was restored by Jesus, and resumed his role as the leader of the disciples (26:32; 28:10, 18-20). How can such opposite results come from such similar actions? In the case of Peter, human weakness led to momentary failure, but the pattern of Peter’s life was one of discipleship. In all fairness to Peter, evidently he was the only disciple to follow Jesus to the High Priest’s courtyard (yet see John 18:15). Granted, he failed miserably there, but the others did not go at all. On the other hand, Judas’ remorse was not accompanied by deeds befitting true repentance.

In Matthew, Peter is first among the disciples of Jesus. He is singled out throughout the narrative as the representative disciple. He often speaks for the group (Turner 1989). His miserable failure in denying Jesus is a strong warning to all disciples. If Peter—of all people—could fall so low, so could anyone else. But if Peter—of all people—could be restored after falling so low, so could anyone else. All followers of Jesus should be horrified by Peter’s denials and thrilled by his restoration.

Summary and Transition. As the plot to execute Jesus progressed (26:3-5, 14-16, 47-56), Jesus prepared his disciples for the end of his ministry on earth (26:6-13, 17-29). They still did not fully understand what was coming, and the inner circle of disciples could not even stay awake with Jesus during his agonizing struggle in Gethsemane (26:31-46). Judas then betrayed the Lord to the Jewish religious leaders (26:47-56), who led Jesus away for “trial” by Caiaphas the high priest (26:57-68). During this time Peter denied the Lord three times, just as Jesus predicted (26:69-75; cf. 26:33-35).

The plot of Matthew 26 interweaves Jesus’ preparation of his disciples for his death and the Pharisees’ scheme to hasten that death. As the events of the chapter rapidly unfold, Jesus remains in control as he repeatedly predicts his death (26:2, 12, 21, 23-24, 28, 32, 45, 54) and the trials it will bring to his disciples (26:31-35). Even his struggle in Gethsemane does not take away from the theme of his control, since he is always obedient to the will of the Father (26:39, 42, 44). Another strong theme is the sovereignty of God, especially as it relates to the fulfillment of the Old Testament (26:24, 31, 54, 56, 64). Thus, it appears that the monstrous treachery of Judas and the evil machinations of the religious leaders are both culpable acts (26:24, 64) and divine necessities that graciously provide forgiveness of sins (26:28; cf. 1:21; 3:6; 20:28). The chapter is therefore a profound testimony that the sovereignty of God and the responsible agency of people are compatible biblical truths, even though we may only articulate these truths feebly.