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.
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.
But he denied him, saying, "Woman, I do not know him." Some, out of affection for the apostle Peter, interpret this passage as if he had rightly said that he did not know him whom the human mind cannot comprehend, for no one knows the Son except the Father (Matt. XI). Again, when questioned, he said, "Man, I am not," preferring to deny himself rather than Christ. But even when asked a third time, with the words, "Man, I do not know what you are saying," he signified that he rejected and cursed their sacriligeous acts, that is, condemning them by rejecting and execrating them. But this interpretation is frivolous, as both the Lord, who predicted with truthful assertion that Peter would deny him three times, and Peter himself, who revealed through his subsequent tears that he had spoken not out of premeditation but out of weakness, make clear.
Continue studying Luke 22:57 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 22:57 records the poignant moment of Peter's first denial of Jesus, fulfilling a prophecy Jesus had made just hours earlier. As Jesus faced an informal interrogation inside the high priest's house, Peter, warming himself by a fire in the courtyard, was confronted by a servant girl who identified him as an associate of Jesus. In a moment of fear and self-preservation, Peter vehemently disavowed any knowledge of Jesus, setting in motion the painful sequence of his three denials before the rooster crowed.
Context
Literary Context
This verse is situated within the intensely dramatic narrative of Jesus' passion week in Luke's Gospel. Immediately preceding it, Jesus has been arrested in Gethsemane (Luke 22:47-53), and His disciples, including Peter, have scattered. Peter, however, follows "at a distance" (Luke 22:54) to the high priest's courtyard. This scene directly follows the Sanhedrin's initial, hurried "trial" of Jesus (Luke 22:54-55), providing a stark contrast between Jesus' steadfastness and Peter's faltering faith. The subsequent verses (Luke 22:58-62) detail Peter's two further denials, culminating in the rooster's crow and Peter's bitter weeping, directly after Jesus turns and looks at him.
Historical & Cultural Context
The setting is the courtyard of the high priest's house, likely a large, open space where servants and guards would gather, especially at night. The presence of a fire suggests the chill of a Jerusalem night. Peter, a Galilean, would have been conspicuous among the Jerusalemites, making his accent or appearance potentially identifiable. The accusation comes from a "servant girl" (παιδίσκη, paidiskē), highlighting that Peter's denial was not under direct threat from Roman or Jewish authorities but from a seemingly insignificant individual. This underscores the intense social pressure and fear of association with someone condemned as a criminal, especially given the volatile political climate under Roman occupation and the Jewish leadership's animosity toward Jesus.
Key Themes
Luke 22:57 contributes significantly to several overarching themes. It powerfully illustrates Human Weakness and Frailty, showing that even a devoted disciple like Peter, who had earlier vowed loyalty unto death (Luke 22:33), can succumb to fear and deny Christ. This verse also marks the immediate Fulfillment of Prophecy, as Jesus had explicitly foretold Peter's three denials before the rooster crowed (Luke 22:34). Furthermore, it highlights the theme of Denial of Christ, serving as a stark warning about the consequences of prioritizing self-preservation over allegiance to Jesus, a theme echoed in Jesus' own teachings about confessing or denying Him before others (Luke 12:8-9).
Exposition and Analysis
Key Word Analysis
This verb signifies to contradict, disavow, reject, or abnegate. Peter's denial is not merely a lack of acknowledgment but an active disassociation, a strong repudiation of any connection to Jesus. It conveys a decisive and complete renunciation of his relationship with the accused.
While "Woman" might sound harsh in English, the Greek term here is a common and often respectful address. It is the same term Jesus uses for His mother (e.g., John 2:4). In this context, it serves as a direct address to the servant girl, perhaps indicating a tone of dismissiveness or even a strained attempt at politeness in his denial.
This verb, used in the perfect tense here, means "to know" in the sense of having perceived or understood, implying a settled knowledge or acquaintance. Peter's statement "I know him not" is a definitive declaration that he has no personal acquaintance or relationship with Jesus, a direct lie aimed at severing any perceived link.
Verse Breakdown
"And he denied him,"
This opening clause immediately establishes Peter's action. The conjunction "And" (G1161, dé) connects this action directly to the preceding events, highlighting the rapid unfolding of Peter's failure. The denial is directed specifically at Jesus ("him"), even though the accusation came from the servant girl, signifying a rejection of his Lord.
"saying, Woman,"
Peter's verbal response begins with an address to the servant girl. His choice of "Woman" (G1135, gynḗ) is a direct, albeit not necessarily disrespectful, way of addressing his accuser as he prepares to issue his denial. It sets the stage for his emphatic repudiation.
"I know him not."
This is the core of Peter's denial. The absolute negative "not" (G3756, ou) combined with "know" (G1492, eídō) forms a categorical and unequivocal statement of non-recognition. Peter is not merely saying he doesn't recognize Jesus' face, but that he has no relationship, no acquaintance, and no association with Him. This is a complete and total disavowal.
Literary Devices
Luke's account of Peter's denial is rich with literary devices that amplify its dramatic and theological impact. Foreshadowing is prominent, as this verse directly fulfills Jesus' earlier prophecy to Peter in Luke 22:34, creating a sense of tragic inevitability. There is profound Irony in Peter's immediate and forceful denial, given his earlier bold declaration of loyalty and willingness to die for Jesus (Luke 22:33). The contrast between Peter's confident boast and his fearful capitulation underscores the theme of human frailty. Furthermore, the scene builds Dramatic Tension as the reader anticipates the fulfillment of the prophecy, knowing Peter's fate, while Peter himself is caught in a moment of intense pressure. The simple, direct language of Peter's denial adds to its stark and impactful nature.
Theological and Thematic Connections
Luke 22:57 serves as a profound theological lesson on the nature of discipleship, human fallibility, and divine sovereignty. Peter's denial, though a grave sin, reveals the deep-seated fear and self-preservation instincts that can overwhelm even the most zealous followers of Christ in moments of extreme pressure. It underscores the biblical truth that human strength and resolve are insufficient without divine empowerment, reminding believers of the constant need for humility and reliance on God's grace. The immediate fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy also powerfully affirms God's foreknowledge and the certainty of His word, even in the face of human failure. This event, far from being a mere historical detail, becomes a timeless illustration of the spiritual battle against fear and the temptation to deny one's faith for personal safety.
Reflection and Application
Peter's denial in Luke 22:57 offers a sobering yet ultimately hopeful reflection for believers today. It reminds us that even those closest to Jesus are susceptible to profound failures when confronted with fear, social pressure, or the threat of suffering. This account calls us to a deep humility, recognizing that our own strength and commitment are fragile without constant reliance on God's sustaining grace. It challenges us to examine our own lives: where might we subtly deny Christ, not necessarily with explicit words, but through our silence in the face of injustice, our compromise of biblical values for social acceptance, or our failure to live out our faith boldly in a hostile world? Peter's failure is not the end of his story, but a pivotal moment that sets the stage for his repentance and restoration, offering immense hope that God's grace is greater than our gravest failures, always extended to those who genuinely turn back to Him.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
Why did Peter deny Jesus, despite his earlier bold declarations?
Peter's denial stemmed primarily from fear and self-preservation in a moment of extreme pressure. He had followed Jesus "at a distance" (Luke 22:54), indicating a mixture of loyalty and caution. When directly confronted and identified as being with Jesus, who was clearly being condemned, Peter's natural human instinct for survival overrode his spiritual commitment. His earlier bold declarations (Luke 22:33) reflected his genuine love and zeal for Jesus, but he had not yet fully grasped the depth of his own human weakness or the spiritual battle he was facing. Jesus had warned him, "Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat" (Luke 22:31), indicating a spiritual attack that Peter was not yet equipped to withstand in his own strength.
Christ-Centered Fulfillment
Peter's denial in Luke 22:57 is a stark reminder of human frailty, yet it profoundly magnifies the steadfast grace and perfect work of Christ. While Peter denies knowing his Lord, Jesus, at that very moment, is perfectly fulfilling His mission, enduring false accusations and unjust condemnation without denying His identity or His Father's will. Jesus' intercession for Peter, "I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail" (Luke 22:32), underscores that Peter's eventual restoration was not due to his own strength, but to Christ's ongoing advocacy. The Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29), perfectly bore the shame and consequences of all human denials, including Peter's. Peter's bitter weeping after the rooster crowed (Luke 22:62) points to the conviction of the Holy Spirit, a gift secured by Christ's atoning work. Ultimately, Peter's failure and subsequent restoration, orchestrated by the risen Christ (John 21:15-19), beautifully illustrate the triumph of Christ's grace over human sin, demonstrating His power to forgive, restore, and commission even those who have failed Him most grievously.