TRV
See on the biblical-era map
Study This Verse
Public-domain commentary
Matthew Henry
From his Commentary on the Whole Bible. Henry comments on passages, not single verses — this entry covers Luke 22:54–62. His two-level outline is real structure in the source text, so it is rendered as structure.
We have here the melancholy story of Peter's denying his Master, at the time when he was arraigned before the high priest, and those that were of the cabal, that were ready to receive the prey, and to prepare the evidence for his arraignment, as soon as it was day, before the great sanhedrim, Luk 22:66. But notice is not taken here, as was in the other evangelists, of Christ's being now upon his examination before the high priest, only of his being brought into the high priest's house, Luk 22:54. But the manner of expression is observable. They took him, and led him, and brought him, which methinks is like that concerning Saul (Sa1 15:12): He is gone about, and passed on, and gone down; and intimates that, even when they had seized their prey, they were in confusion, and, for fear of the people, or rather struck with inward terror upon what they had seen and heard, they took him the furthest way about, or, rather, knew not which way they hurried him, such a hurry were they in in their own bosoms. Now observe,
I.Peter's falling.
1.It began in sneaking. He followed Christ when he was had away prisoner; this was well, and showed a concern for his Master. But he followed afar off, that he might be out of danger. He thought to trim the matter, to follow Christ, and so to satisfy his conscience, but to follow afar off, and so to save his reputation, and sleep in a whole skin.
2.It proceeded in keeping his distance still, and associating himself with the high priest's servants, when he should have been at his master's elbow. The servants kindled a fire in the midst of the hall and sat down together, to talk over their night-expedition. Probably Malchus was among them, and Peter sat down among them, as if he had been one of them, at least would be thought to be so. His fall itself was disclaiming all acquaintance with Christ, and relation to him, disowning him because he was now in distress and danger. He was charged by a sorry simple maid, that belonged to the house, with being a retainer to this Jesus, about whom there was now so much noise. She looked wistfully upon him as he at by the fire, only because he was a stranger, and one whom she had not seen before; and concluding that at this time of night there were no neuters there, and knowing him not to be any of the retinue of the high priest, she concludes him to be one of the retinue of this Jesus, or perhaps she had been some time or other looking about her in the temple, and had seen Jesus there and Peter with him, officious about him, and remembered him; and this man was with him, saith she. And Peter, as he had not the courage to own the charge, so he had not the wit and presence of mind to turn it off, as he might have done many ways, and therefore flatly and plainly denies it: Woman, I know him not. 4. His fall was repeated a second time (Luk 22:58): After a little while, before he had time to recollect himself, another saw him, and said, "Even thou art one of them, as slyly as thou sittest here among the high priest's servants." Not I, saith Peter; Man, I am not. And a third time, about the space of an hour after (for, saith the tempter, "When he is down, down with him; let us follow the blow, till we get him past recovery"), another confidently affirms, strenuously asserts it, "Of a truth this fellow also was with him, let him deny it if he can, for you may all perceive he is a Galilean." But he that has once told a lie is strongly tempted to persist in it; the beginning of that sin is as the letting forth of water. Peter now not only denies that he is a disciple of Christ, but that he knows any thing of him (Luk 22:60): "Man, I know not what thou sayest; I never heard of this Jesus."
II.Peter's getting up again.
See how happily he recovered himself, or, rather, the grace of God recovered him. See how it was brought about: -
1.The cock crew just as he was the third time denying that he knew Christ, and this startled him and put him upon thinking. Note, Small accidents may involve great consequences.
2.The Lord turned and looked upon him. This circumstance we had not in the other evangelists, but it is a very remarkable one. Christ is here called the Lord, for there was much of divine knowledge, power, and grace, appearing in this. Observe, Though Christ had now his back upon Peter, and was upon his trial (when, one would think, he had something else to mind), yet he knew all that Peter said. Note, Christ takes more notice of what we say and do than we think he does. When Peter disowned Christ, yet Christ did not disown him, though he might justly have cast him off, and never looked upon him more, but have denied him before his Father. It is well for us that Christ does not deal with us as we deal with him. Christ looked upon Peter, not doubting but that Peter would soon be aware of it; for he knew that, though he had denied him with his lips, yet his eye would still be towards him. Observe, Though Peter had now been guilty of a very great offence, and which was very provoking, yet Christ would not call to him, lest he should shame him or expose him; he only gave him a look which none but Peter would understand the meaning of, and it had a great deal in it. (1.) It was a convincing look. Peter said that he did not know Christ. Christ turned, and looked upon him, as if he should say, "Dost thou not know me, Peter? Look me in the face, and tell me so." (2.) It was a chiding look. We may suppose that he looked upon him and frowned, or some way signified his displeasure. Let us think with what an angry countenance Christ justly looks upon us when we have sinned. (3.) It was an expostulating upbraiding look: "What, Peter, art thou he that disownest me now, when thou shouldest come and witness for me? What thou a disciple? Thou that wast the most forward to confess me to be the Son of God, and didst solemnly promise thou wouldest never disown me?" (4.) It was a compassionate look; he looked upon him with tenderness. "Poor Peter, how weak is thine heart! How art thou fallen and undone if I do not help thee!" (5.) It was a directing look. Christ guided him with his eye, gave him a wink to go out from that sorry company, to retire, and bethink himself a little, and then he would soon see what he had to do. (6.) It was a significant look: it signified the conveying of grace to Peter's heart, to enable him to repent; the crowing of the cock would not have brought him to repentance without this look, nor will the external means without special efficacious grace. Power went along with this look, to change the heart of Peter, and to bring him to himself, to his right mind.
3.Peter remembered the words of the Lord. Note, The grace of God works in and by the word of God, brings that to mind, and sets that home upon the conscience, and so gives the soul a happy turn. Tolle et lege - Take it up, and read.
4.Then Peter went out, and wept bitterly. One look from Christ melted him into tears of godly sorrow for sin. The candle was newly put out, and then a little thing lighted it again. Christ looked upon the chief priests, and made no impression upon them as he did on Peter, who had the divine seed remaining in him to work upon. It was not the look from Christ, but the grace of God with it, that recovered Peter, and brought him to-rights.
Historical interpretation
Three Centuries of Reception
8 surviving comments on this verse. Each one is dated, so this reads as a timeline rather than a list.
Select a marker to jump to its quote. Markers stagger vertically where authors wrote within a few decades of each other.
(App. Serm. 79.) For to Peter were delivered the keys of the kingdom of heaven, to him were entrusted an innumerable multitude of people, who were wrapped up in sin. But Peter was somewhat too vehement, as the cutting off the car of the High Priest's servant betokens. If he then who was so stern and so severe had obtained the gift of not sinning, what pardon would he have given to the people committed to him? Therefore Divine Providence suffers him first to be holden of sin, that by the consciousness of his own fall he might soften his too harsh judgment towards sinners. When he wished to warm himself at the fire, a maid came to him, of whom it follows, But a certain maid beheld him, &c.
What does it mean that the first witness proclaims him, when men could certainly recognize him more; unless it seemed that this sex had sinned unto the death of the Lord, so that this sex might be redeemed through the passion of the Lord? And therefore, the woman receives the first mystery of the resurrection, and she keeps the commandments; in order to abolish the ancient error of transgression.
The wretched men understood not the mystery, nor had reverence unto an outpouring of compassion so merciful, that even His enemies He suffered not to be wounded. For it is said, Then look they him, &c. When we read of Jesus being holden, let us guard against thinking that He is holden with respect to His divine nature, and unwilling through weakness, for He is held captive and bound according to the truth of His bodily nature.
Rightly he followed afar off, soon about to deny, for he could never have denied if he had clung close to Christ. But herein must he be revered, that he forsook not our Lord, even though he was afraid. Fear is the effect of nature, solicitude of tender affection.
And by this time there was a fire burning in the house of the High Priest; as it follows, And when they had kindled a fire, &c. Peter came to warm himself, because his Lord being taken prisoner, the heart of his soul had been chilled in him.
What meaneth it, that a maid is the first to betray Peter, whereas surely men ought the more easily to have recognised him, save that that sex should be plainly implicated in our Lord's murder, in order that it might also be redeemed by His Passion? But Peter when discovered denies, for better that Peter should have denied, than our Lord's word should have failed. Hence it follows, And he denied, saying, Woman, I know him not.
Peter denied, because he promised rashly. He does not deny on the mount, nor in the temple, nor in his own house, but in the judgment-hall of the Jews. There he denies where Jesus was bound, where truth is not. And denying Him he says, I know him not. It were presumptuous to say that he knew Him whom the human mind can not grasp. For no one knoweth the Son but the Father. (Matt. 11:17). Again, a second time he denies Christ; for it follows, And after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou wert also one of them.
For he preferred to deny himself rather than Christ, or because he seemed to deny being of the company of Christ, he truly denied himself.
He is also asked a third time; for it follows, And about the space of one hour after, another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this fellow also was with him.
That is, I know not your blasphemies. But we make excuse for him. He did not excuse himself. For an involved answer is not sufficient for our confessing Jesus, but an open confession is required. And therefore Peter is not represented to have answered this deliberately, for he afterwards recollected himself, and wept.
Lastly, those whom Jesus looks upon weep for their sins. Hence it follows, And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said to him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly. Why did he weep? Because he sinned as man. I read of his tears, I do not read of his confession. Tears wash away an offence which it is shame to confess in words. The first and second time he denied and wept not, for as yet our Lord had not looked upon him. He denied the third time, Jesus looked upon him, and he wept bitterly. So then if thou wilt obtain pardon, wash away thy guilt in tears.
(Hom. 83. in Matt.) It is therefore said, to the house of the High Priest, that nothing whatever might be done without the consent of the chief of the Priests. For thither had they all assembled waiting for Christ. Now the great zeal of Peter is manifested in his not flying when he saw all the others doing so; for it follows, But Peter followed afar off.
(Hom. 83. in Joan.) Marvel now at the case of the Master, who though He was a prisoner, had exercised much forethought for His disciple, whom by a look He brought to Himself, and provoked to tears; for it follows, And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter.
But first He was led to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, as John says, then to Caiaphas, as Matthew says, but Mark and Luke do not give the name of the High Priest.
(ut sup.) What ails thee, Peter, thy voice is suddenly changed? That mouth full of faith and love, is turned to hatred and unbelief. Not yet awhile is the scourge applied, not yet the instruments of torture. Thy interrogator is no one of authority, who might cause alarm to the confessor. The mere voice of a woman asks the question, and she perhaps not about to divulge thy confession, nor yet a woman, but a door-keeper, a mean slave.
(de Con. Ev. lib. iii. c. 6.) And it is supposed that in the second denial he was addressed by two persons, namely, by the maid whom Matthew and Mark mention, and by another whom Luke speaks of. With respect then to what Luke here relates, And after a little while, &c. Peter had already gone out of the gate, and the cock had crowed the first time, as Mark says; and now he had returned, that, as John says, he might again deny standing by the fire. Of which denial it follows, And Peter said, Man, I am not.
(de Con. Ev. ut sup.) What Matthew and Mark call after a little while, Luke explains by saying, about the space of one hour after; but with regard to the space of time, John says nothing. Likewise when Matthew and Mark record not in the singular but in the plural number those who conversed with Peter, while Luke and John speak of one, we may easily suppose either that Matthew and Mark used the plural for the singular by a common form of speech, or that one person in particular addressed Peter, as being the one who had seen him, and that others trusting to his credit joined in pressing him. But now as to the words which Matthew asserts were said to Peter himself, Truly thou art one of them, for thy speech bewrayeth thee; as also those which to the same Peter John declared to have been said, Did not I see thee in the garden? whereas Mark and Luke state that they spoke to one another concerning Peter; we either believe that they held the right opinion who say that they were really addressed to Peter; (for what was said concerning him in his presence amounts to the same as if it had been said to him;) or that they were said in both ways, and that some of the Evangelists related them one way, some the other.
(ut sup.) The cock-crow we understand to have been after the third denial of Peter, as Mark has expressed it.
We do not say that the denial took place in order that Christ’s words might come true. We say rather that his object was to forewarn the disciple, inasmuch as what was about to happen did not escape Christ’s knowledge. The misfortune, therefore, happened to the disciple from the cowardice of human nature. Since Christ had not risen from the dead, he had not yet abolished death and wiped corruption away. The fear of undergoing death was something beyond human endurance.
When a certain servant girl saw him sitting in the light and looked closely at him, she said, "This man was also with him." Why is it that the servant girl is the first to betray him, when surely men could have recognized him more clearly, except that this gender also should appear to have sinned in the death of the Lord, and this gender should be redeemed by the Lord's passion? Therefore, a woman first received the mystery of the resurrection and kept the command, to abolish the old error of transgression.
Now the Chief Priest means Caiaphas, who according to John was High Priest that year.
But that when our Lord was going to His Passion, Peter followed afar off represents the Church about to follow indeed, that is, to imitate our Lord's Passion, but in a far different manner, for the Church suffers for herself, our Lord suffered for the Church.
In this denial then of Peter we affirm that not only is Christ denied by him who says that He is not Christ, but by him also, who, being a Christian, says he is not.
But he adds, For he is a Galilæan; not that the Galilæans spoke a different language from the inhabitants of Jerusalem, who indeed were Hebrews, but that each separate province and country having its own peculiarities could not avoid a vernacular tone of speech. It follows, And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest.
Holy Scripture is often wont to mark the character of certain events by the nature of the times in which they take place. Hence Peter who sinned at midnight repented at cock-crow; for it follows, And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew. The error he committed in the darkness of forgetfulness, he corrected by the remembrance of the true light.
This cock must, I think, be understood mystically as some great Teacher, who rouses the listless and sleepy, saying, Awake, ye righteous, and sin not.
For to look upon him is to have compassion, seeing that not only while penance is being practised, but that it may be practised, the mercy of God is necessary.
Continue studying Luke 22:56 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.
Read & Compare
BibleGatewayThis verse in more than 200 translations and 70 languages.
Bible.comThe YouVersion reader — hundreds of translations, reading plans, and highlights.
ESV.orgCrossway's official English Standard Version reader.
NET BibleThe NET translation with 60,000+ translators' notes on every rendering decision.
STEP BibleTyndale House's free study tool — original text, vocabulary, and scholarly resources.
BibliaLogos Bible Software's free web reader.
USCCBThe New American Bible (Revised Edition) with the U.S. bishops' study notes.
Commentaries
BibleHub CommentariesDozens of classic commentaries on this verse, gathered on one page.
StudyLightMore than 100 commentary sets — the largest collection on the web.
BibleRefPlain-English commentary on what this verse means, verse by verse.
Enduring WordDavid Guzik's free commentary on this chapter, widely used by Bible teachers.
Bible Study ToolsVerse commentary alongside Greek and Hebrew study aids.
Original Language & Research
- BibleHub InterlinearThe verse word by word — original language, transliteration, and English.
- BibleHub LexiconEvery word's original-language definition and Strong's entry.
Blue Letter BibleDeep-study tools — Strong's numbers, concordance, and word studies.
CNTR CollationThe earliest Greek manuscripts of this verse, collated letter by letter.
Sermons, Hymns & Audio
TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.
Summary
Luke 22:56 initiates the account of Peter's three denials of Jesus, a pivotal moment immediately following Jesus' arrest and transfer to the high priest's house. This verse captures the initial confrontation where a young servant girl identifies Peter as a companion of Jesus, setting in motion the fulfillment of Jesus' earlier prophecy and highlighting the intense pressure and fear that led to Peter's profound human frailty.
Context
Literary Context
This verse is situated within the broader passion narrative in Luke's Gospel, specifically following Jesus' arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane and His subsequent transfer to the high priest's house (Luke 22:54). Peter, having followed "at a distance," finds himself in the courtyard where Jesus is being interrogated by the Sanhedrin. The immediate verses, Luke 22:55 and Luke 22:57-62, detail the subsequent denials and Peter's bitter repentance. This scene is a direct fulfillment of Jesus' solemn prophecy to Peter at the Last Supper, recorded in Luke 22:34, emphasizing the divine orchestration of events even amidst human failure.
Historical & Cultural Context
The setting is the courtyard of the high priest's house in Jerusalem, likely at night, as indicated by the need for a fire for warmth (Luke 22:55). During trials, it was common for people, including servants and curious onlookers, to gather in the outer courtyards. The "maid" (Greek: paidiskē) would have been a young female servant, likely involved in household duties, and her presence in the courtyard was typical. Her social standing, while humble, does not diminish the profound impact of her accusation, which highlights the vulnerability of Peter in this public and tense environment. The cold night and the gathering around the fire create a seemingly mundane, yet highly charged, atmosphere where Peter's identity is exposed.
Key Themes
This verse powerfully contributes to several key themes within Luke's Gospel and the broader biblical narrative. Firstly, it underscores the theme of human frailty and fear, demonstrating how even a devoted disciple like Peter, who had earlier vowed loyalty and even drawn a sword (Luke 22:33 and Luke 22:50), succumbs to the pressure of a simple accusation. Secondly, it highlights the fulfillment of prophecy, as Jesus' foreknowledge of Peter's denial (Luke 22:34) is precisely realized, affirming divine sovereignty even in moments of human weakness. Lastly, the passage emphasizes the power of observation and recognition, as the maid's keen gaze and direct identification of Peter initiate a chain of events that exposes Peter's fear and the reality of his discipleship under duress.
Exposition and Analysis
Key Word Analysis
This word refers to a young girl, specifically a female slave or servant. In this context, it emphasizes the seemingly insignificant social status of the accuser, making Peter's fear and subsequent denial even more poignant. It highlights that the pressure came not from a powerful authority, but from a common household worker.
Derived from a primary verb meaning "to see" (literally or figuratively), and by implication, "to know." This term suggests that the maid did not merely glance at Peter but observed him with a degree of recognition or understanding, perhaps connecting him to the group arrested with Jesus. Her "seeing" implies a dawning realization of his identity.
This verb means "to fix one's gaze," "to stare intently," or "to scrutinize." It intensifies the meaning of "beheld," indicating that the maid's observation was not casual but deliberate and penetrating. She scrutinized Peter, confirming her initial suspicion, which then led to her direct accusation. This intense scrutiny placed Peter under immediate and uncomfortable pressure.
Verse Breakdown
"But a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire"
This clause sets the scene, introducing the protagonist of the accusation, a "certain maid" (implying one among many servants or onlookers), and her initial action of observing Peter. Peter's posture "by the fire" suggests he was seeking warmth and perhaps trying to blend in, but his presence was noted. The Greek particle "But" (G1161, dé) introduces a shift in focus from Jesus' trial to Peter's unfolding crisis.
"and earnestly looked upon him"
This phrase emphasizes the maid's focused and intense gaze. Her "earnest look" (G816, atenízō) indicates a deliberate scrutiny, not a casual glance. She was actively trying to identify him, perhaps having seen him previously with Jesus or recognizing him from the arrest scene. This intense observation is what truly puts Peter on the spot.
"and said, This man was also with him"
This is the direct accusation that triggers Peter's denial. The maid's statement is a clear identification, linking Peter to Jesus ("him"). The word "also" (G2532, kaí) suggests she recognized him as one of Jesus' known associates, perhaps having seen others arrested or knowing Jesus had a group of followers. Her simple, declarative statement carries immense weight, initiating the first of Peter's three denials.
Literary Devices
Luke employs several literary devices in this verse to heighten its dramatic impact and theological significance. Dramatic Tension is palpable, as the seemingly innocuous setting of people warming themselves by a fire becomes the stage for a critical confrontation. The maid's "earnest look" and direct accusation immediately raise the stakes for Peter, creating a sense of impending crisis. There is also significant Irony at play: Peter, who had just hours earlier declared his unwavering loyalty and willingness to die for Jesus (Luke 22:33), now falters under the simple gaze and question of a servant girl. This highlights the stark contrast between his bold declaration and his fearful response. Furthermore, the scene functions as Foreshadowing of Peter's deeper spiritual struggle and eventual restoration, while simultaneously fulfilling Jesus' earlier Prophecy (Luke 22:34), underscoring the divine foreknowledge and control over events.
Theological and Thematic Connections
Luke 22:56 serves as a profound theological statement on the nature of discipleship, human weakness, and divine sovereignty. It reveals that even the most zealous followers of Christ are susceptible to fear and failure, particularly when confronted with intense pressure. Peter's denial is not merely a personal failing but a vivid illustration of the universal human condition, highlighting the chasm between our intentions and our capabilities, especially when relying on our own strength. Yet, this moment of weakness is paradoxically woven into God's sovereign plan, fulfilling Jesus' prophecy and setting the stage for Peter's repentance and eventual restoration, which ultimately serves to magnify God's grace and Christ's perfect faithfulness. The passage reminds us that discipleship is not about flawless performance, but about enduring faith and reliance on Christ, even through moments of profound failure.
Reflection and Application
Luke 22:56 offers a sobering yet ultimately hopeful reflection for every believer. Peter's immediate and profound failure, triggered by the simple observation of a servant girl, serves as a powerful reminder of our own vulnerability to fear, peer pressure, and the temptation to compromise our faith when under duress. It challenges us to examine the depth of our commitment to Christ, not just in moments of spiritual fervor, but in the quiet, unobserved corners of our lives and when faced with unexpected challenges. This passage teaches us humility, urging us never to overestimate our own spiritual strength or underestimate the subtle ways the world can tempt us to deny our allegiance to Christ. Yet, Peter's story does not end in denial; it is a testament to God's boundless grace and the possibility of repentance and restoration, even after significant failure. It encourages us to cultivate a deeper reliance on the Holy Spirit, to remain vigilant in prayer, and to remember that true strength comes not from our own resolve, but from Christ's sustaining power.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
Why did Peter deny Jesus, especially after his earlier bold claims of loyalty?
Peter's denial in Luke 22:56 and subsequent verses is a complex interplay of human fear, self-reliance, and the overwhelming pressure of the moment. Despite his genuine love and loyalty for Jesus, expressed in his declaration to go to prison and even death (Luke 22:33), Peter had not yet fully grasped the nature of Jesus' kingdom or the spiritual battle at hand. His earlier attempt to defend Jesus with a sword (Luke 22:50) showed a reliance on physical strength rather than divine power. When confronted by a simple servant girl, the immediate threat of association with an arrested, condemned man, combined with the shock and confusion of the events unfolding, likely triggered a primal instinct for self-preservation. This moment highlights the difference between intellectual assent and the courage required to stand firm in the face of real danger, revealing Peter's human frailty and his need for the empowering work of the Holy Spirit, which he would later receive.
Christ-Centered Fulfillment
Luke 22:56, though depicting Peter's profound failure, ultimately points to the perfect faithfulness of Christ. Peter's denial underscores the reality of human weakness and the inability of even the most devoted disciple to perfectly uphold their commitment without divine aid. In stark contrast to Peter's fear-driven denial, Jesus, even in His own moment of intense suffering and trial, remained steadfast, never denying His identity or His mission. He perfectly fulfilled the will of the Father, enduring the accusations and suffering for the very sins, including Peter's, that humanity would commit. Furthermore, Jesus' foreknowledge of Peter's denial (Luke 22:34) and His subsequent gaze at Peter after the third denial (Luke 22:61) reveal His compassionate understanding and intercessory love for His disciples. This moment of human failure is ultimately swallowed up by Christ's perfect work on the cross, which provides forgiveness and restoration for all who stumble. Peter's eventual restoration, as seen in John 21:15-19, is a powerful testimony to the grace of the risen Christ, who does not abandon His own but mercifully restores them to service, transforming their weakness into a platform for His glory.