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 Mark 14:66–72. His two-level outline is real structure in the source text, so it is rendered as structure.
We have here the story of Peter's denying Christ.
1.It began in keeping at a distance from him. Peter had followed afar off (Mar 14:54), and now was beneath in the palace, at the lower end of the hall. Those that are shy of Christ, are in a fair way to deny him, that are shy of attending on holy ordinances, shy of the communion of the faithful, and loth to be seen on the side of despised godliness.
2.It was occasioned by his associating with the high priest's servants, and sitting among them. They that think it dangerous to be in company with Christ's disciples, because thence they may be drawn in to suffer for him, will find it much more dangerous to be in company with his enemies, because there they may be drawn in to sin against him.
3.The temptation was, his being charged as a disciple of Christ; Thou also wert with Jesus of Nazareth, Mar 14:67. This is one of them (Mar 14:69), for thou art a Galilean, one may know that by thy speaking broad, Mar 14:70. It doth not appear that he was challenged upon it, or in danger of being prosecuted as a criminal for it, but only bantered upon it, and in danger of being ridiculed as a fool for it. While the chief priests were abusing the Master, the servants were abusing the disciples. Sometimes the cause of Christ seems to fall so much on the losing side, that every body has a stone to throw at it, and even the abjects gather themselves together against it. When Job was on the dunghill, he was had in derision of those that were the children of base men, Job 30:8. Yet, all things considered, the temptation could not be called formidable; it was only a maid that casually cast her eye upon him, and, for aught that appears, without design of giving him any trouble, said, Thou art one of them, to which he needed not to have made any reply, or might have said, "And if I be, I hope that is no treason."
4.The sin was very great; he denied Christ before men, at a time when he ought to have confessed and owned him, and to have appeared in court a witness for him. Christ had often given notice to his disciples of his own sufferings; yet, when they came, they were to Peter as great a surprise and terror as if he had never heard of them before. He had often told them that they must suffer for him, must take up their cross, and follow him; and yet Peter is so terribly afraid of suffering, upon the very first alarm of it, that he will lie and swear, and do any thing, to avoid it. When Christ was admired and flocked after, he could readily own him; but now that he is deserted, and despised, and run down, he is ashamed of him, and will own no relation to him.
5.His repentance was very speedy. He repeated his denial thrice, and the third was worst of all, for then he cursed and swore, to confirm his denial; and that the third blow, which, one would think, should have stunned him, and knocked him down, startled him, and roused him up. Then the cock crew the second time, which put him in mind of his Master's words, the warning he had given him, with that particular circumstance of the cock crowing twice; by recollecting that, he was made sensible of his sin and the aggravations of it; and when he thought thereon, he wept. Some observe that this evangelist, who wrote, as some have thought, by St. Peter's direction, speaks as fully of Peter's sin as any of them, but more briefly of his sorrow, which Peter, in modesty, would not have to be magnified, and because he thought he could never sorrow enough for great a sin. His repentance here is thus expressed, epibalōn eklaie, where something must be supplied. He added to weep, so some; making it a Hebraism; he wept, and the more he thought of it, the more he wept; he continued weeping; he flung out, and wept; burst out into tears; threw himself down, and wept; he covered his face, and wept, so some; cast his garment about his head, that he might not be seen to weep; he cast his eyes upon his Master, who turned, and looked upon him; so Dr. Hammond supplies it, and it is a probable conjecture. Or, as we understand it, fixing his mind upon it, he wept. It is not a transient thought of that which is humbling, that will suffice, but we must dwell upon it. Or, what if this word should mean his laying a load upon himself, throwing a confusion into his own face? he did as the publican that smote his breast, in sorrow for sin; and this amounts to his weeping bitterly.
Historical interpretation
Eight 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.
Peter when he had not the Spirit yielded and lost courage at the voice of a girl, though with the Spirit he was not afraid before princes and kings.
But in a mystical sense, the first maid means the wavering, the second, the assent, the third man is the act. This is the threefold denial which the remebrance of the word of the Lord washes away through tears. The cock then crows for us when some preacher up our hearts by repentance to compunction. We then begin to weep, when we are set on fire within by the spark of knowledge, and we go forth, when we cast out what we were within.
Mark writes these things, and through him Peter bears witness, for the whole of Mark is said to be a record of Peter’s teaching. Note how scrupulously the disciples refused to record those things that might have given the impression of their fame. Note how they handed down in writing numerous charges against themselves to unforgetting ages, and accusations of sins, which no one in later years would ever have known about unless hearing it from their own voice. By thus honestly reporting their own faults, it is reasonable to view them as relatively void of false speaking and egoism. This habit gives plain and clear proof of their truth-loving disposition. As for such critics who imagine they invented and lied, and try to slander them as deceivers, should they not to be regarded as absurd? Aren’t they thereby being convicted as friends of envy and malice, and foes of truth itself? For have they not taken those who have exhibited in their own words good proof of their integrity, and their straightforward and sincere character, and suggested that they are rascals and clever sophists who invent what never took place, and ascribe gratuitously to their own master what he never did? This is why I think it has been rightly said that “One must put complete confidence in the disciples of Jesus, or none at all.” And if we are to distrust them, we must also distrust all writers on the same principle, any who at any time have compiled, either in Greece or anywhere, lives and histories and records of persons of their own times, celebrating their noble achievements. Otherwise we would be considering it reasonable to believe others, and to disbelieve the evangelists only. And this would be clearly invidious. How could it be that these supposed liars would falsify the account of his death? What would be their motive in writing down deeds he never did? They candidly report his betrayal by one of his disciples, explicit accusations by dubious witnesses, insults and blows to his face, the scourging of his back, the crown of acanthus set on his head in a demeaning way, and finally his carrying of his own cross, and his being nailed to it! They report his hands and feet being pierced, his being given vinegar to drink, struck on the cheek with a reed, and reviled by those who looked upon him. Were these things and all else like them in the Gospels simply invented out of whole cloth by the disciples? Highly unlikely. Or must we doubt only the more glorious and lofty parts of the narrative? How could they do so and doubt these candid reports of ignominious actions? How could they reasonably support such an unreasonable conclusion—that the same witnesses spoke the truth and at the same time lied. That would be to predict contraries about the same people at the same time. How then are we to disprove their assertions? If it was their aim to deceive, and to adorn their master with false words, they would never have written these demeaning accounts of his pain and agony and that he was disturbed in spirit, that they themselves forsook him and fled, or that Peter the apostle and disciple who was chief of the apostles denied him three times, unless they had an extraordinarily high standard of truth-telling.
In this respect we most marvel at Mark, because not only did he refuse to hide Peter’s fault, but wrote the account of it in greater detail than the others. And it is for this very reason that he is called Peter’s disciple.
As holy David repented for his deadly crimes and still retained his kingship, so the blessed Peter earnestly repented, having denied the Lord, and shed such bitter tears, yet remained an apostle.
And here we must ask ourselves, why did almighty God permit the one he had placed over the whole church to be frightened by the voice of a maidservant, and even to deny Christ himself? This we know was a great dispensation of the divine mercy, so that he who was to be the shepherd of the church might learn through his own fall to have compassion on others. God therefore first shows him to himself, and then places him over others: to learn through his own weakness how to bear mercifully with the weakness of others.
And Peter remembered the word that Jesus had said to him: "Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times." And he began to weep. How harmful are the colloquies of the wicked? Peter himself among the faithless denied even knowing a man, whom among his fellow disciples he had already confessed to be the Son of God. But neither could he, held in the courtyard of Caiaphas, perform penitence. He went outside, as the other evangelists narrate, so that, secluded from the council of the ungodly, he might wash away the filth of his fearful denial with unrestrained weeping.
(upi. sup.) But what can be meant by his being first recognised by a woman, when men were more able to know him, if it be not that that sex might be seen to sin in the death of our Lord, and that sex be redeemed by His Passion? It goes on: But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest.
(ubi sup.) The other Evangelists do not mention this crowing of the cock; they do not however deny the fact, as also some pass over many other things in silence, which others relate. There follows: And a maid saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by, This is one of them
(ubi sup.) By this denial of Peter we learn, that not only he denies Christ, who says that He is not the Christ, but he also, who although he is a Christian, denies himself to be such. For the Lord did not say to Peter, Thou shalt deny thyself to be my disciple, but, Thou shalt deny me; he therefore denied Christ, when he said that he was not His disciple. There follows: And a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them, for thou art a Galilæan, and thy speech agreeth thereto. Not that the Galilæans spoke a different tongue from the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for they were both Hebrews, but that each province and region has its own peculiarities, and cannot avoid a vernacular pronunciation.
(ubi sup.) How hurtful is it to speak with the wicked. He denies before infidels that he knows the man, whom amongst the disciples, he had confessed to be God. But the Scripture is wont to point out a Sacrament of the causes of things, by the state of the time; thus Peter, who denied at midnight, repented at cock crow; wherefore it is added: And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word which Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he began to weep.
The Lord allowed this to happen to him by His providence, that is, lest he should be too much elated, and at the same time, that he might prove himself merciful to sinners, as knowing from himself the result of human weakness. There follows: And he went out into the porch; and the cock crew.
Therefore Peter was seized with fear, and for-getting the word of the Lord, which said, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess before my Father, (Matt. 30, 32) he denied our Lord; wherefore there follows: But he began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak.
For tears brought Peter by penitence to Christ. Confounded then be the Novatians, who say that he who sins after receiving baptism, is not received to the remission of his sin. For behold Peter, who had also received the Body and Blood of the Lord, is received by penitence; for the failings of saints are written, that if we fall by want of caution, we also may be able to run back through their example, and hope to be relieved by penitence.
Continue studying Mark 14:72 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
Mark 14:72 powerfully depicts the moment of Peter's profound realization of his failure to Jesus. Following his third denial, the sound of the second cock crow triggers Peter's memory of Jesus' specific prophecy regarding his betrayal. This immediate and painful recollection leads to an overwhelming wave of grief, culminating in Peter's bitter weeping, a raw expression of his deep remorse and conviction over his actions.
Context
Literary Context
Mark 14:72 is the climax of Peter's denial narrative, which immediately follows Jesus' arrest in Gethsemane and His illegal trial before the Sanhedrin. While Jesus endured false accusations and abuse inside the high priest's courtyard, Peter, having followed at a distance, found himself in the outer court. The preceding verses (Mark 14:66-71) detail three distinct confrontations where Peter, under increasing pressure and fear, vehemently denied any association with Jesus. This verse marks the precise fulfillment of Jesus' earlier prophecy to Peter in Mark 14:30, where He stated, "Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice." The sound of the second crow serves as the divine trigger, bringing Peter's betrayal into sharp, painful focus.
Historical & Cultural Context
The events unfold during the Jewish Passover, a time of heightened religious and political tension in Jerusalem. The "cock crow" (Latin: gallicinium) was not merely the sound of a rooster, but a recognized watch of the night, specifically the third watch, typically between midnight and 3 AM. This detail underscores the specific timing of Jesus' prophecy and its precise fulfillment. Peter's presence in the high priest's courtyard, a place of authority and judgment, put him in a precarious position, as association with a condemned man like Jesus could lead to arrest or worse. His denials, therefore, were a desperate attempt at self-preservation in a hostile environment, reflecting the immense social and political pressure of the moment.
Key Themes
This pivotal verse encapsulates several profound themes. It powerfully demonstrates the fulfillment of prophecy and Jesus' divine omniscience, showing that His words are certain and infallible, even concerning the weaknesses of His closest disciples. Peter's denial vividly illustrates human frailty and failure, even among those with the strongest intentions and zeal, highlighting the universal struggle against fear and the temptation to compromise one's faith under duress. Furthermore, Peter's subsequent weeping introduces the theme of conviction and repentance, portraying a genuine, heartfelt sorrow over sin that is a prerequisite for true spiritual restoration. This moment, though painful, is a crucial step in Peter's journey towards a deeper understanding of grace and his eventual restoration by Christ, as seen later in the Gospels.
Exposition and Analysis
Key Word Analysis
This adverb denotes sequence and repetition, specifically indicating the second instance of an event. In Mark 14:72, its precise usage ("the second time the cock crew") is critical, as it directly corresponds to the specific condition of Jesus' prophecy in Mark 14:30, emphasizing the exact and undeniable fulfillment of His words.
This verb signifies to remind or, in its reflexive sense as used here, to recollect or remember. It implies a sudden, forceful recall to memory, often of something previously forgotten or disregarded. Peter's recollection was not a casual thought but a powerful, overwhelming jolt of memory, bringing Jesus' prophecy into sharp, convicting focus.
This verb describes a loud, audible sobbing or wailing, indicative of profound grief, anguish, or lamentation. It is a stronger term than simply shedding tears, conveying the intense emotional distress and deep remorse Peter experienced. His weeping was a visceral, public outpouring of his brokenness and sorrow over his betrayal of Christ.
Verse Breakdown
"And the second time the cock crew."
This clause serves as the immediate, external trigger for Peter's internal realization. The sound of the rooster crowing for the second time precisely fulfills the condition Jesus had set for Peter's denials, marking the culmination of his threefold betrayal. It is a stark, undeniable signal that the prophecy has come to pass.
"And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice."
Here, the external trigger leads to an internal awakening. The sound causes Peter to suddenly and vividly recall the specific warning Jesus had given him earlier. This remembrance is not merely intellectual; it is deeply convicting, forcing him to confront the reality of his actions against the backdrop of Jesus' prophetic foresight and his own confident boasts.
"And when he thought thereon, he wept."
This final clause describes Peter's immediate and overwhelming emotional response to his realization. The phrase "when he thought thereon" (Greek: epibállō, G1911, meaning to throw upon, or reflect) indicates a deep, inward reflection on his failure. His subsequent "weeping" (Greek: klaíō, G2799) signifies not just tears, but a profound, bitter, and uncontrollable sorrow, indicative of deep remorse, regret, and a broken heart over his betrayal of his Lord.
Literary Devices
Mark 14:72 is rich with Irony and Symbolism. The profound irony lies in Peter's earlier fervent boast that he would never deny Jesus, even if it meant death (Mark 14:31), contrasted with his abject failure. The very man who pledged ultimate loyalty is revealed in his profound weakness. The Symbolism of the cock crow is central; it is not just an ordinary sound but a divinely appointed alarm clock, serving as an instrument of divine Conviction. It acts as a stark, undeniable reminder of Jesus' Prophecy and Peter's failure to live up to his own words. The entire scene is imbued with Pathos, evoking deep sympathy for Peter's emotional agony. His bitter weeping is a powerful display of human frailty, regret, and the beginning of a journey towards repentance, making the moment deeply relatable and emotionally resonant for the reader.
Theological and Thematic Connections
Mark 14:72 stands as a powerful testament to the tension between human weakness and divine sovereignty. Peter's dramatic failure, despite his fervent devotion and sincere intentions, underscores the universal truth of human frailty and the deceptive nature of self-confidence. It highlights that even the most zealous believers are susceptible to falling when relying on their own strength rather than God's. However, this moment is not merely about failure; it is a profound illustration of conviction, demonstrating that true repentance is marked by deep, heartfelt sorrow over sin, rather than mere regret for being caught. Peter's tears are the initial, painful steps on a journey towards a deeper understanding of grace and the transformative power of God's forgiveness, setting the stage for his eventual restoration and renewed commission.
Reflection and Application
Peter's bitter weeping in Mark 14:72 offers profound lessons for every believer. It serves as a stark reminder that even those closest to Christ are susceptible to profound failure when fear or self-preservation takes precedence over faithfulness. We are called to cultivate humility, recognizing that our strength is insufficient without God's sustaining grace. When we inevitably fall short, Peter's response models true repentance: not a superficial regret, but a deep, heart-wrenching sorrow over having grieved our Lord. This genuine conviction, leading to brokenness, is the necessary precursor to spiritual healing and restoration. Ultimately, Peter's story, beginning with this moment of despair, offers immense hope, demonstrating that God's grace is boundless, capable of forgiving, restoring, and repurposing even those who have profoundly stumbled. It encourages us to confront our own failures with honesty and to trust in the Lord's mercy for our renewal.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
Why was the "second" cock crow so significant?
The "second" cock crow was significant because it precisely fulfilled the specific prophecy Jesus had given Peter in Mark 14:30. Jesus had foretold, "Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice." The first crow might have been heard by Peter, but it was the second, final crow that served as the undeniable, divinely appointed trigger, confirming the exact timing and nature of Peter's betrayal. This detail underscores the meticulous accuracy of Jesus' prophetic word and deepens the impact of Peter's realization.
What does Peter's weeping signify about his state of mind?
Peter's weeping (Greek: klaíō, G2799) signifies profound grief, anguish, and deep remorse. It was not a quiet shedding of tears but a loud, uncontrollable sobbing, indicating a broken heart. This was not merely regret for being caught or for the consequences of his actions, but a deep, heartfelt sorrow over having betrayed and denied his Lord. It marked the beginning of true repentance, a turning point where he fully grasped the gravity of his sin and the pain he had inflicted upon Jesus, setting the stage for his eventual restoration by Christ, as seen in John 21:15-19.
Christ-Centered Fulfillment
Mark 14:72, though a moment of profound human failure, paradoxically highlights the perfect and unwavering faithfulness of Christ. Peter's denial, a stark display of human weakness, serves to magnify the strength and steadfastness of Jesus, who, even in His own suffering, maintained His integrity and fulfilled every prophecy concerning Himself. While Peter was denying Him, Jesus was perfectly fulfilling His mission, moving towards the cross as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. This scene also foreshadows the boundless grace of Christ; even as Peter was failing, Jesus had already prayed for him, as recorded in Luke 22:31-32, ensuring that Peter's faith would not fail completely. The bitter tears of Peter were not the end of his story but the painful prelude to his glorious restoration by the resurrected Christ, demonstrating that Jesus' atoning work on the cross covers even the most profound denials, offering forgiveness and a path to renewal for all who genuinely repent and turn to Him.