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.
And after about an hour had passed, another person insisted, saying: Truly this one also was with him, for he is a Galilean. It is not that the Galileans spoke a different language from the people of Jerusalem, who were both Hebrews, but because each province and region, having its own peculiarities, cannot avoid the local accent in speech. Hence in the Acts of the Apostles, when those on whom the Holy Spirit had descended spoke in the languages of all nations, among others who had gathered from different parts of the world, those who lived in Judea are recorded as having wondered and said: Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear each in our own language in which we were born?
Continue studying Luke 22:59 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 22:59 captures the climactic moment of Peter's third and final denial of Jesus, approximately an hour after his previous denials. A new accuser, with unwavering certainty, identifies Peter not only as an associate of Jesus but specifically as a Galilean, a detail confirmed by his distinctive accent. This verse powerfully illustrates the profound human weakness under pressure, the inescapable nature of truth, and the precise fulfillment of Jesus' earlier prophecy concerning Peter's betrayal.
Context
Literary Context
This verse is situated within the intensely dramatic narrative of Jesus' arrest, trial, and Peter's simultaneous denials. Immediately preceding Luke 22:59, Peter has already denied Jesus twice in the high priest's courtyard (see Luke 22:56-58). While Jesus is undergoing an illegal interrogation by the Sanhedrin, Peter is warming himself by a fire, attempting to blend in with the servants and guards. This third accusation, coming "about the space of one hour after" the second, carries greater weight as it is based on a specific and undeniable linguistic marker, leading directly into the rooster's crowing and Peter's bitter repentance in Luke 22:60-62.
Historical & Cultural Context
The setting is the courtyard of the high priest's palace in Jerusalem, likely during the Passover festival. At this time, Jerusalem would have been crowded with pilgrims from all over Judea and Galilee. People from different regions of ancient Israel often had distinct dialects or accents. Galileans, in particular, were known to have a unique speech pattern that distinguished them from Judeans, especially those from Jerusalem. This difference in accent was significant enough to be a reliable identifier, as also attested in Matthew 26:73. This linguistic detail underscores the historical authenticity of the Gospel account, as such regional nuances were common and recognizable in first-century Palestine.
Key Themes
Luke 22:59 contributes to several overarching themes within Luke's Gospel and the broader Passion narrative. Firstly, it powerfully highlights human weakness and frailty under pressure. Peter, who had earlier vowed unwavering loyalty and even willingness to die for Jesus (Luke 22:33), succumbs to fear and denies his Lord. Secondly, it emphasizes the fulfillment of prophecy, as Jesus had explicitly foretold Peter's threefold denial before the cock crowed (Luke 22:34). This precise fulfillment underscores Jesus' divine foreknowledge and sovereignty, even in the face of human failure. Lastly, the detail of the distinctive Galilean accent serves as a crucial identifier, linking Peter directly to Jesus and His disciples, most of whom hailed from Galilee, thereby confirming the accuser's "truth."
Exposition and Analysis
Key Word Analysis
This verb (G1340) means "to stout it through, i.e. asservate." It conveys a strong, unwavering assertion or declaration. The accuser was not merely suggesting or questioning, but boldly and definitively stating their conviction that Peter was associated with Jesus. This word highlights the increased certainty and conviction of the accusation compared to the previous ones, making Peter's denial all the more difficult to maintain.
This noun (G225) signifies "truth" or "verity." When the accuser says, "Of a truth this [fellow] also was with him," they are expressing their absolute conviction in the accuracy of their statement. It implies that the evidence (Peter's accent) was so compelling that the conclusion drawn was undeniable and factual in their eyes. This word underscores the objective reality of Peter's identity, even as he attempts to conceal it.
This adjective (G1057) refers to someone from Galilee or belonging to Galilee. This is the pivotal detail in the accusation, as Peter's regional accent served as irrefutable proof of his origin. For the accuser, identifying Peter as a Galilean was tantamount to identifying him as one of Jesus' inner circle, given that Jesus and most of His disciples were known to be from that region. This linguistic marker sealed Peter's fate in this moment of denial.
Verse Breakdown
"And about the space of one hour after"
This phrase indicates the passage of time between Peter's second and third denials. The delay suggests a period of relative calm or perhaps Peter's hope that the immediate danger had passed. However, it also builds dramatic tension, as the inevitable fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy draws nearer.
"another confidently affirmed, saying,"
This introduces a new accuser, whose conviction is notably stronger than the previous ones, as indicated by the Greek term for "confidently affirmed." This person's certainty is not based on mere suspicion but on a definitive observation, leading to a bold declaration.
"Of a truth this [fellow] also was with him:"
The accuser's statement is presented as an undeniable fact, emphasized by "Of a truth." The word "also" links Peter to Jesus' known followers, implying that his association was not merely incidental but a clear alignment with the condemned Nazarene.
"for he is a Galilaean."
This final clause provides the irrefutable evidence for the accusation. Peter's distinct Galilean accent, a regional marker, served as the definitive proof of his identity and, by extension, his connection to Jesus and His Galilean disciples. This detail makes Peter's denial unsustainable, as his very speech betrayed him.
Literary Devices
Luke 22:59 employs several potent literary devices. Foreshadowing and Prophecy Fulfillment are central, as the verse directly brings to pass Jesus' earlier prediction of Peter's threefold denial before the cock crowed (Luke 22:34). This precise fulfillment underscores the divine authority and foreknowledge of Christ. There is also a strong element of Dramatic Irony, as the reader is aware of Peter's true identity and his earlier boasts of loyalty, creating a poignant contrast with his current denials. The accuser's confident affirmation, based on Peter's accent, serves as a form of Characterization, revealing Peter's fear and the profound human capacity for weakness under duress. Furthermore, the detail of the "Galilaean" accent provides Verisimilitude, adding a layer of realism and historical authenticity to the narrative, as regional dialects were a known reality in first-century Palestine.
Theological and Thematic Connections
Luke 22:59 stands as a stark reminder of human frailty and the profound impact of fear, even on the most devoted followers of Christ. Peter, the rock upon whom Jesus would build His church, falters dramatically under pressure, fulfilling a prophecy that highlights not Peter's weakness alone, but Jesus' divine foreknowledge and control over all events. This moment underscores the critical theological truth that while human beings are capable of profound failure, God's sovereign plan will nonetheless unfold. It also subtly points to the idea that truth, even when suppressed or denied, eventually comes to light, whether through a distinctive accent or divine revelation.
Reflection and Application
Luke 22:59 offers a sobering yet ultimately hopeful mirror for our own lives. Peter's denial, rooted in fear and self-preservation, serves as a powerful reminder that even those with the strongest intentions can stumble when faced with intense pressure or the threat of persecution. It challenges us to honestly assess our own spiritual resolve and to recognize our inherent vulnerability without God's sustaining grace. This passage encourages us to cultivate a deep reliance on the Holy Spirit, rather than our own strength, so that we might stand firm in our faith, even when it is costly or unpopular. It also reminds us that our identity in Christ should be so deeply ingrained that it is evident in our words and actions, much like Peter's accent revealed his true origin. While Peter's failure is prominent here, it is crucial to remember that this is not the end of his story; his subsequent bitter weeping and eventual restoration by Jesus offer profound hope for all who falter, emphasizing God's boundless grace and capacity for forgiveness and renewal.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
Why was Peter's Galilean accent so significant?
Peter's Galilean accent was significant because it served as a clear, undeniable regional identifier. People from Galilee had a distinctive dialect or pronunciation that set them apart from Judeans, especially those in Jerusalem. Since Jesus and the majority of His disciples were known to be Galileans, this accent immediately linked Peter to Jesus' inner circle. In the tense atmosphere of Jesus' trial, being identified as a Galilean was tantamount to being identified as a follower of the condemned "King of the Jews," putting Peter in direct danger. This linguistic detail, also mentioned in Matthew 26:73, underscores the historical accuracy and realism of the biblical narrative.
Did Peter's denial mean he had lost his faith or was not truly a disciple?
While Peter's denial was a grave failure, it does not mean he had lost his faith or was not truly a disciple. His actions were a result of immense fear and human weakness, not a complete rejection of Jesus. The immediate aftermath, where Peter "went out, and wept bitterly" (Luke 22:62), demonstrates his deep remorse and brokenness. Furthermore, Jesus had explicitly prayed for Peter that his faith would not fail (Luke 22:32), and He later restored Peter to ministry (John 21:15-19). Peter's story is a powerful testament to God's grace and restoration, even after significant failure, and the enduring nature of true faith.
Christ-Centered Fulfillment
Peter's denial, particularly as detailed in Luke 22:59, finds its profound Christ-centered fulfillment not in Peter's failure, but in Jesus' perfect obedience and divine sovereignty. Even as Peter falters, Jesus remains steadfast, fulfilling His Father's will and His own prophetic words. Christ's foreknowledge of Peter's denial (Luke 22:34) demonstrates His deity and control over all circumstances, even the betrayal of His closest disciples. While Peter's "Galilean" identity links him to Jesus, it is Jesus' identity as the sinless Lamb of God, who came from Nazareth of Galilee (John 1:46), that is ultimately crucial for salvation. Peter's bitter weeping and subsequent restoration by the resurrected Christ (John 21:15-19) powerfully illustrate the redemptive grace of Jesus, who does not abandon His own, but forgives, restores, and empowers them for service. Thus, Peter's failure, far from being the end, becomes a poignant backdrop against which the boundless mercy and unfailing love of Christ shine all the more brightly, reminding us that our salvation rests not on our faithfulness, but on His.