Third section the judgment upon the church itself second picture of judgment

Footnotes:

FN#91 - Matthew 26:58.—[Comp. Crit. Note 3 on Matthew 26:3, p459, on the true meaning of αὐλή.—P. S.]

FN#103 - Lachmann and Alford omit it, but Tischendorf retains, and Meyer defends it.—P. S.]

FN#93 - Matthew 26:60.—The second οὐχ εῦ̓ρον is omitted in B, C, and Origen. Comp. Meyer on the probability of an insertion and the manner of its origin. [The text. rec., which is supported by the majority of MSS, reads: καὶ πολλῶν ψευδομαρτύρων προσελθόν των, οὐχ εῦ̔ρον, but Griesbach and the critical editors omit καί before πολλῶν, and οὐχ εῦ̔ρον, or at least the last two words, on the authority of three Alexandrine uncials (B, C, L.), to which must now be added also Cod. Sinait, and the Vulgate (cum multi falsi testes accessissent) and later versions. Dr. Conant, following this reading, renders: though many false witnesses came. Lachmann, however, while he omits καί, retains οὐχ εῦ̔ρον in brackets. So Lange in his German Version. The case is hardly clear and important enough to justify us to disturb the Authorized English Version.—P. S.]

FN#94 - Matthew 26:61.—[In the original simply οῦ̔τον, which the English Version generally renders: this; in some cases: this man. Fellow is too disrespectful in modern English, especially if applied to Christ, and should be omitted here, Matthew 26:71; Matthew 12:24.—P. S.]

FN#95 - Matthew 26:63.—[Lange, and all the German Versions: Schwieg stille. This is all the Greek ἐσιώπα expresses, while to hold one’s peace seems to imply the suppression of feeling or emotion. Silence is often better than speech, and in this case was the best answer.—P. S.]

FN#96 - Matthew 26:63.—B, C, and other MSS, and some translations (Vulgata) omit the ἀποκριθείς, probably on account of the difficulty of its meaning in its connection with the previous silence.

FN#97 - Matthew 26:66.—[Or: “worthy to die,” Tyndale, Cranmer, Cheke, Genevan, Bishops’; or: “he deserves to die,” Campbell; or: “he is deserving of death,” Scrivener. The rendering of ἔνοχος θανάτου in the Authorized Version is borrowed from Wiclif, Coverdale, and the Rhemish N. T, and retained by Conant and the revised Version of the Am. Bible Union, but it is hardly justifiable now after the old Saxon sense of guilt (=debt) has become obsolete. In the same antiquated sense guilty is used Mark 14:64; 1 Corinthians 11:27.—P. S.]

FN#98 - Matthew 26:67.—[The words: with the palms of their hands, should be omitted as not necessarily implied in ἐῤ ῥάπισαν, which means to strike with a stick as well as with the hand. Hesychius derives ῥαπίζειν from ῥάβδος. The margin of the Authorized Version reads: Or, rods, following the Genevan Version and Beza (“le frappait de leur verges).” So also Bengel, Meyer, Ewald, and Lange. This is preferable here, since οἱ δέ, and others, introduces a new kind of abuse differing from buffeting, and since Mark (14:65) ascribes the ῥαπίζειν to the servants. But the word is better left indefinite. Older English Versions add: on the face. So Lange: schlugen ihm in’s Angesicht. See Exeg. Notes.—P. S.]

FN#99 - The entrance to this enclosed area, or court-yard, was through the porch, πυλών, Matthew 26:71, or προαύλιον, Mark 14:68. Comp. Crit Note on Matthew 26:3. p459.—P. S.]

FN#100 - So also Alford: “There shall be a sign of the truth of what I say, over and above this confession of mine.”—P. S.]

FN#101 - The Edinb. ed. omits the last sentence, and turns Saurin, the well-known French Reformed pulpit orator who died at the Hague in1730, Into Saurin is, as if he were some old Latin divine.—P. S.]

FN#102 - Comp. the Crit. Note No8, p490,—P. S.]

Verses 69-75

SEVENTH SECTION

CHRIST AND PETER

26:69–75

( Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:56-62; John 18:15-27)

69Now Peter sat [was sitting] without in the palace [court, αὐλῇ]^[FN103] and a damsel 70 came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee [the Galilean].^[FN104]But he denied before them^[FN105] all, saying, I know not what thou sayest 71 And when he was gone out into [going toward] the porch, another maid [ἄλλη] saw him, and said unto them^[FN106] that were there, This fellow , οὗτος] was also with Jesus of Nazareth [the 72 Nazarene].^[FN107] And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the Prayer of Manasseh 73And after a while came unto him they that stood by [they that stood by came], and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth [betrayeth, or discovereth, δῆλόν σε ποιεῖ] thee 74 Then began he to curse^[FN108] and to swear, saying,^[FN109] I know not [I do not know, οὐκ οἶδα, as in Matthew 26:72] the man. And immediately the [a]^[FN110] cock crew 75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him [when he said],^[FN111]Before the [a] cock crow, thou shalt [wilt] deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

On the manner and circumstances under which Peter gained access to the palace of the high-priest, see the Gospel of John.

Matthew 26:69. Now Peter was sitting without.—“The expression ἔξω must be taken relatively to the interior of the house in which Jesus underwent examination. In Matthew 26:58 the term ἔσ ω was used, because Peter is represented as going from the street into the court.” Meyer.

Matthew 26:69. A damsel,—i. e., a female slave, as contradistinguished from the other mentioned in Matthew 26:71. The former (who, according to John 18:17, “kept the door”) said: “Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilean;” the latter: “with Jesus the Nazarene.” Both maids had gathered their information by hearsay; but, although ignorant, they were malevolently disposed. Probably the statement was made in both cases in malicious banter, or light ridicule, as the charge evidently led to no further consequences.

Matthew 26:70. He denied before them all.—Before the servants of the high-priest and the officials.—I know not what thou sayest.—A mode of expression which might be taken is denying the denial: I do not even understand what thou meanest. Of course this, however, implied a denial of the charge itself, although Meyer lays undue emphasis upon it when interpreting it: So far from having been with Him, I do not even know, etc.

Matthew 26:71-72. And when he was going out into (toward) the porch.—After his first and indirect denial, Peter began to feel the painfulness of his situation, and wished to go away, or at any rate to be nearer the door, so as to secure a retreat. But in order to conceal his intention of leaving, he continued still for a short time in the porch. Accordingly, he went from the court or αὐλή, which enclosed the house, toward the porch. In our opinion, the δπυλών refers to the same as the προαύλιον in Mark 14:68 (which Meyer denies). It was then that, according to Mark, Peter denied Jesus a second time, after having risen from warming himself at the fire. “Another maid saw him (when going away), and (following him) said unto them that were there (probably the guard at the gate): This one was also with Jesus the Nazarene.” Then the second distinct denial ensued, confirmed by an oath, and by the contemptuous expression: “I do not know the man.” The circumstance that Peter made use of an oath is recorded by Matthew alone. The particle ὅτι probably refers to the confirmation by the oath.

Matthew 26:73. And after a while, they that stood by came and said to Peter.—Primarily referring to those who had been at the gate. But the language of the text does not prevent our understanding it to mean, that in the interval a number of persons had come from the court and joined the group. In fact, according to Luke, a considerable interval had elapsed, before general attention had been called forth and fixed on Peter.—Surely thou also art one of them.—An oath against the oath of Peter.—For thy speech also betrayeth thee.—“Beside other circumstances, by which the maid recognized thee. The pronunciation, the dialect, ἡλαλία of the Galilæans was defective in the utterance of the gutturals, so that no distinction was perceptible between ה,ע,א. Besides, the Galilæns also pronounced the שׁ like ח.” De Wette. The pronunciation of the people of Galilee was uncouth and indistinct; hence they were not allowed to read aloud in the Jewish synagogues. The Talmudists relate a number of amusing anecdotes about the curious misunderstandings occasioned by the indistinctness of pronunciation in Galilee. See Friedlieb, p84.

Matthew 26:74. Then began he.—He meets and out does the asseveration “Surely,” used by the servants, by beginning to invoke curses on himself and to swear.

Matthew 26:74. And immediately a cock crew.—De Wette: “The statement in Mishna, Baba Kama vi7, that fowls were not allowed to be kept in Jerusalem, is probably incorrect. It is contrary to what is related in Hieros. Erubin, fol26, cp1; comp. Lightfoot ad v. 34.”—It was indeed contrary to the Levitical law of purity to keep fowls in Jerusalem, because these animals pick their food in dirt and mud, and might thus occasion the defilement of sacrifices and other dedicated offerings. But is it likely that the Roman soldiers in the castle of Antonia would care for such Jewish ordinances? And even with reference to the Jews, we read that the Sanhedrin had on one occasion ordered a cock to be stoned, because it had picked out the eyes of a little child, and thereby caused its death. (Sepp, Leben Jesu, iii475.)—Plinius observes that the second crowing of the cock (gallicinium) took place during the fourth watch of the night Friedlieb, p81.

Matthew 26:75. Thou wilt thrice deny Me.—Bengel has, in his Gnomon, given the following satisfactory explanation of the fact, that the Gospels speak only of a threefold denial on the part of Peter: “Abnegatio ad plures plurium interrogations, facta uno paroxysmo, pro una numeratur.” By dint of that pressure of the letter at the expense of the import and spirit of history, which is so common with a certain school of critics (Leben Jesu, ii3, 1490), Strauss and Paulus have maintained that the Gospels record more than three denials on the part of Peter (Paulus speaks of eight distinct denials). But a closer inquiry shows that the three occasions are specially and separately enumerated in the Gospels:—

First denial.—Immediately on entering the palace, John 18:17, and on the charge of the maid who kept the door. According to Matthew ( Matthew 26:69), in the court; according to John and Mark, at the fire, where the servants warmed themselves; according to Luke, by the light of the fire.

Second denial.—According to John’s narrative, Peter was still standing by the fire and warming himself, probably with the design of covering a speedy retreat by assuming the appearance of unconcern. According to Matthew, he was now about to leave, when another maid attacked him, and people gathered around him in the porch. Luke reports one of these bystanders as already expressing the general feeling in the words: “Thou art also of them.”

Third denial.—Again Peter had tarried for some time in the porch. The false oath which he had taken had allayed the rising indignation of the people, when another fancied that he recognized him by his speech. Soon the servants declared that his speech betrayed him. Such a recognition would involve imminent peril of life. For, according to John, a relative of Malchus maintained that he had seen him in the garden with Jesus. Then Peter began to curse and swear, and immediately the cock crew (a second time), reminding and warning him. It appears that he had scarcely given any heed to the first crowing of the cock (Mark).

[On the different accounts of the threefold denial of Peter compare also the tables in the Greek and English Harmonies, Andrews’ Life of our Lord, p 491 sqq, and the remarks of Alford on Matthew 26:69-75; Matthew 26:4 th ed. (p268 sqq.). These minor variations with essential coincidences prove the independence of the Evangelists and confirm the truth of their narrative. “Whether we can 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 disappear. And this I firmly believe will one day be the case.” Alford (p269, in the 4 th edition, where he corrects the errors of the corresponding note in the former edition).—P. S.]

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. This picture of the denial of the Lord as exhibited by the fall of that disciple who had been the first to confess Christ, has its peculiar and eternal import in the history of the Church. Hence we should study it: 1. In the source and antecedents of this denial; 2. in its various phases and stages; 3. in the repentance which followed, and which led to the only true and lasting spiritual confession.

2. The fall of Peter a significant type of the Romish Church.

3. The look of the Lord, recorded in the Gospel of Luke, in its historical and in its eternal, ideal import for the Church.

4. The deep sorrow and suffering of the Lord caused by the denial of Peter, in its lasting import for the Church.

5. Peter went out into the black night, but not as Judas into the darkness of despair. Weeping bitterly, he awaited the dawn of another and a better morning. The angel of mercy accompanied him on that heavy road to spiritual self-condemnation which issued in the death of his old Prayer of Manasseh, more especially of his former pride and self-confidence. And thus it came that he really accompanied Christ unto death, though in a very different and much better sense than he had intended. His repentance had to be completed,—he had to obtain peace and reconciliation from the mouth of Christ Himself, before he could offer the requisite satisfaction for his guilt toward man by making such a grand confession as would efface and obliterate the offence of his grand denial. It deserves special notice, that this progress of repentance and conversion in the case of Peter may serve as the prototype of the economy of genuine grace; while this procedure was reversed in the case of Judas, who wished first to offer human satisfaction before those enemies whose guilt he had shared, but who failed, in that manner, to come to Christ.

6. Wordsworth: “Even soon after he had received the Holy Communion Peter denied his Master. But he repented and was pardoned. Hence then we may confute the Novatians, who refuse to restore those who fall into grievous sin after Baptism and the Holy Communion. And St. Peter’s sin, and the sins of other saints, are written in Holy Scripture that we may not be high-minded, but fear; and that when we fall into sin we may repent. The grace given in the Holy Communion was improved by St. Peter into the means of godly repentance; but it was perverted by Judas to his own destruction. It was used as medicine by the one; and was abused into poison by the other.” But the presence of Judas at the institution of the Lord’s Supper is a matter of critical uncertainty (comp. John versus Luke) and of inherent improbability. The weight of patristic authority is in favor of his presence; but some of the best modern harmonists and commentators, as Meyer, Tischendorf, Robinson, Lichtenstein, Lange, Wieseler, Ellicott, and Andrews, deny it, and assume that the traitor left the paschal supper before the institution of the eucharist, for which in John’s narrative we can find no place for insertion prior to the departure of Judas.—P. S.]

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Internal connection between the denial of Peter and the condemnation and injuries which Christ suffered at the hands of His enemies.—The denial of a disciple the most poignant sorrow to the Lord in the midst of His confession.—The Faithful Witness and the unfaithful disciple.—The denial of Peter intervening between his former and his later confession, or different kinds of confession.—The causes of the denial of Peter: 1. Self-exaltation on account of his former confession; 2. a morbid desire after confession beyond the measure of the strength of his faith; 3. want of sufficient maturity for the confession in life and in deed.—The giddiness and the stumbling of Peter, before his actual fall: 1. He underrated and neglected the warnings of Jesus; 2. he exalted himself above his fellow-disciples; 3. he neglected the proper preparation by watching and prayer; 4. he voluntarily and presumptuously rushed into danger.—How it deserves special notice, in the fall of Peter, that he had

attempted to come forward as a witness for Christ with a conscience that was not void of blame and offence.—The sad after-history of the sword assault upon Malchus; or, how frequently times of fanatical defence of the faith are followed by seasons of open denial.—How it could come to pass that a poor maid, standing at the gate, could terrify into a denial him to whom the keys of the kingdom of heaven had been promised.—The triumph of the fear of man over that of God the source of denial.—He who tempts the Lord is on the way to deny Him.—The fatal boldness which rushes into the battle-field without having been sent: 1. Its portraiture as here presented: it wants a proper call, proper weapons, and proper spiritual courage2. Its fate: despondency, defeat, and the most imminent peril of soul.—How those who confess Jesus have to endure the most varied temptations to deny Him.—How the children of the world and the ministers of darkness combine, in the spirit of the evil one, to change our confession into a denial of Christ.—The unfailing mark of the disciples in their language and tone, also the indication of their fate: 1. It is to their highest spiritual benefit, if they are faithful; 2. or, again, to their shame and confusion, when they turn aside from the Lord.—The gradation of guilt in the denial of Peter: 1. Ambiguous evasion (a supposed unimportant falsehood); 2. distinct denial with a false oath: “I know not the man” (contemptuously); 3. awful abjuration, with solemn imprecations upon himself.—Every ban pronounced upon genuine Christians, an imprecation, in confirmation of the denial of Christ.—Peter did not wish to forsake the Lord, but he would fain have attempted to save both Jesus and himself by crafty policy.—In his view, everything formed part of this policy: the evasion, the false oath, and even the imprecations, were intended to carry out this plan.—How, as “the Faithful Witness,” the Lord has expiated even the denials of His honest disciples, into which they have fallen through weakness.—How the faithfulness of Christ alone restores the unfaithful servant from imminent judgment: 1. Only His faithfulness: (a) in His gracious warning; (b) in His look of compassion and love; (c) in giving that warning and rousing sign (the crowing of the cock); (d) in His readiness to restore again the fallen disciple2. Blessed effects of that faithfulness on the part of Jesus: “He went out, and wept bitterly.”—The warning tokens in nature, as accompanying the warning and rousing voice of the Spirit.—The repentance of Peter a constant call to repentance in the Church.—The marks of genuine repentance: 1. All the pride of self-righteousness ceases and is given up; 2. it is connected with a going out from the world; 3. it is characterized by a going forth with tears through night to light.—Bitter weeping, or a broken and contrite heart, the evidence of reconciling grace.—How the humiliation of the heart and the grace of our God always meet as eye to eye: 1. True humiliation and humility find no other resting-place than the loftiest height, even the grace of God; 2. the grace of God descends and rests only in the lowest depth, even the broken and contrite heart.—Divine grace transforming the fall of Peter, as formerly that of David, into the introduction to a genuine and thorough conversion.—Will the Song of Solomon -called Romish Peter ever go forth from the palace of the high-priest, where he has denied Jesus, to weep bitterly?

Starke:—Hedinger: Self-confidence and presumption bring sorrow.—Marginal Note by Luther: Peter may have thought that his untruth could not injure any person, while it might profit him and insure his safety, and hence that it was lawful, or at least a matter of small moment; but he soon experienced what consequences the commencement of sin entailed.—Canstein: The fear of death.—Zeisius: Observe how sin grows and increases when it is not resisted. Therefore, be very careful to resist it in its commencement.—To stumble is human, to rise again Christian, to persevere in sin is devilish.

Lisco:—The denial of Peter.—1. Its source, (a) Its more remote occasion: (aa) transgression of the injunction of Jesus, John 13:36; (bb) neglect of the admonition, Matthew 26:41. (b) Its deeper ground: (aa) unbelief in the word of the Lord, Matthew 26:36; (bb) confidence in the strength of his love to Jesus and in his own firmness of will; (cc) proud presumption in the midst of danger2. The denial itself, (a) Manifestation of his fear of Prayer of Manasseh, thoughtless haste, and impotence. (b) Starting-point: a lie. (c) Gradual and increasing development: at first merely a denial, then a false oath, and at last imprecations upon himself3. The conversion, (a) The crowing of a cock and the look of Jesus awaken him to a sense of the real state of matters. (b) He perceives the truthfulness and faithfulness of Jesus, and his own weakness, (c) Godly sorrow and repentance.—Thus we also learn from this history, how a man may be restored after having sadly declined and fallen into grievous sin.

Heubner:—Peter was here in the midst of a multitude of the ungodly.—The disciples of Christ cannot be long hid when among the men of this world.— Isaiah 19:18 : the language of Canaan.—The more poignant our repentance, the more sweet and precious afterward the enjoyment of grace.—Wherein consisted the denial of Peter? 1. It was not a determined denial of the heart, nor a final or thorough renunciation of Jesus; 2. it was a concealment of his faith and allegiance, a denial of his discipleship.—Survey of the conduct of Peter: 1. It involved deep guilt; 2. grade of that guilt—(a) not a sin of malicious intent, (b) but of weakness.—In the sin of Peter, Jesus had to bear our human weaknesses.—Application: 1. The fall of Peter reminds us of the weakness of our own hearts, against which we must always be on our guard, despite our better feelings and aspirations; 2. a call to self-examination; 3. we must learn to place our whole confidence in the grace and intercession of Jesus. Hold fast your faith.

Braune:—Even down to the maid who guarded the gate, the servants of the high-priest were involved in the sin and injury committed against the Saviour.—Peter wished to do better than the other disciples, who all forsook Jesus and fled, but fell lower than they.—The world knows well how to remind us of such sword-cut, or how to avenge supposed or real injury.—These Jewish servants seem to have been proud of their pure pronunciation of the language; similarly, most of us try to shine and to outshine others.—After that, Peter also strengthened his brethren, as the Lord commanded him.—Godly sorrow worketh, etc.—From the Lord Jesus comes forgiveness of sin.

H. Müller:—Peter warms his hands and feet, while in the meantime, however, the heart freezes so far as the love of Jesus is concerned.—If a man for-sakes the way in which the Lord calls him to walk, and seems to slink into corners, etc, he is outside of God’s protection, and the devil has power over him—If thy foot offend thee, etc.—He who warms himself by the fire of the ungodly, will deny Christ along with the ungodly.—Ahlfeld:—He that walks in his own strength, will assuredly meet with a speedy fall.—Kapff:—Why did Peter recover from his fall, and not Judges 1. Because their sins differed; 2. because their repentance differed.

[Quesnel:—Every one carries in him the possibility of renouncing Christ.—There is nothing on which we can depend but the grace of God.—One temptation unresisted seldom fails of bringing on another and a third.—Peter joins perjury to infidelity. Let the example of an apostle make us tremble.—A small matter (a mean servant) makes us fall when God does not support us; a small matter (the crowing of a cock) raises us again, when His grace makes use of it.—P. S.]

[Burkitt:—The denial of Peter: 1. The sin: (a) a lie; (b) an oath (perjury); (c) an anathema and curse2. The occasion of it: (a) Peter followed Christ afar off, from fear and frailty; (b) he kept bad company with the enemies of Christ; (c) presumptuous confidence in his own strength and standing3. The repetition of the sin. If we yield to one temptation, Satan will assault us with more, and stronger: progress from bare denial to perjury and thus to imprecation4. The aggravating circumstances: (a) the person thus falling, a disciple, an apostle, the chief apostle, a special favorite of Christ; (b) the person denied, his Master, his Saviour and Redeemer, who just before had washed his feet and given him the sacrament; (c) the company of high-priests, and scribes, and elders, and their servants before whom Peter denied his Master; (d) the time of the denial, but a few hours after the communion; (e) the smallness of the temptation: a mere question of a servant girl, a door-keeper. Ah, Peter, how unlike thyself art thou at this time, not a rock, but a reed, a pillar blown down by a woman’s breath. O frail humanity, whose strength is weakness!—In most of the saints’ falls recorded in Scripture, either the first inciters or the accidental occasions were women. Adam, Lot, Sampson, David, Song of Solomon, Peter. A weak creature may be a strong tempter.—The recovery and repentance of Peter: 1. Its suddenness. His sin was hasty and sudden under a violent passion of fear, contrary to his settled purpose, and hence much sooner repented of2. The means of his repentance: (a) the crowing of a cock; (b) Christ’s looking upon Peter with an eye of mercy and pity which melted his heart and dissolved it into tears; (c) Peter’s remembrance of Christ’s prediction with a close application of it to his conscience. The manner of his repentance: (a) it was secret, he went out (vere dolet qui sine teste dolet; solitariness is most agreeable to an afflicted spirit); (b) sincere, he wept bitterly; (c) lasting and abiding, showing its effect on the whole subsequent life of Peter. “History (tradition) reports, that ever after, when St. Peter heard the crowing of a cock, he fell upon his knees and mourned; others say, that he was wont to rise at midnight and spend the time in penitent devotion between cock-crowing and day-light. And the Papists, who love to turn everything into superstition, began that practice of setting a cock upon the top of towers, and steeples, and chimneys, to put the people in mind of this sin of Peter and his repentance by that signal.” (d) The repentance of peter was attended with an extraordinary zeal for the service as Christ to the end of his life.—P. S.]

[Similar reflections and improvements in Matthew Henry, Gill, Doddridge, A. Clarke, Th. Scott, and other practical English commentators. We add the last of the “Practical Observations” of Thomas Scott: “If any have fallen even in the most dreadful manner, let them think of Peter’s recovery and not despair; and let them recollect the words of Christ, as well as their own sins; that their tears, confessions, and humiliations may be mingled with hope. And let us all frequently remember oar past follies, and manifold instances of ingratitude; that we may learn watchfulness, humility, caution, and compassion for the tempted and fallen, by the experience of our own numerous mistakes, sins, and recoveries.”—P. S.]