TRV
“Peter Denies Jesus”· Matthew 26:69–75
Translation
King James Version
¶ Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.
Complete Jewish Bible
Kefa was sitting outside in the courtyard when a servant girl came up to him. "You too were with Yeshua from the Galil," she said.
Berean Standard Bible
Meanwhile, Peter was sitting out in the courtyard, and a servant girl came up to him. “You also were with Jesus the Galilean,” she said.
American Standard Version
Now Peter was sitting without in the court: and a maid came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilæan.
World English Bible Messianic
Now Peter was sitting outside in the court, and a maid came to him, saying, “You were also with Yeshua, the Galilean!”
Geneva Bible (1599)
Peter sate without in the hall, and a maide came to him, saying, Thou also wast with Iesus of Galile:
Young's Literal Translation
And Peter without was sitting in the court, and there came near to him a certain maid, saying, `And thou wast with Jesus of Galilee!'
See on the biblical-era map
In the KJVVerse 24,124 of 31,102 · 77.6%
LawLawHistoryHistPoetryPoetProphetsProphNew TestamentNT
Study This Verse
Copy as
Historical interpretation
Six Centuries of Reception
13 surviving comments on this verse. Each one is dated, so this reads as a timeline rather than a list.
Ante-NicenePost-NiceneEarly Medieval
300400500600700800
Select a marker to jump to its quote. Markers stagger vertically where authors wrote within a few decades of each other.
Upon examining Peter’s denial, we note that “as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” For this reason, neither was it possible for Peter at the time to profess belief in Jesus nor was he to be criticized for not professing belief in him, since it is said to those who profess belief: “It is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.” We … since the Spirit of the Father has the power to speak in us and since it is in our power to “make room” in us for the Holy Spirit and not “for the devil,” if we should deny Christ, we would have no excuse.It may be that whoever is in the courtyard of Caiaphas “the high priest” cannot admit knowing the Lord Jesus unless he has gone outside his courtyard and has been brought outside of every teaching contrary to Jesus and outside of Jewish traditions handed down, not according to the Spirit of the Scriptures but according to the “commands and teachings of men.” Consider how Peter, seated outside at a distance from Jesus and in the high priest’s courtyard, denied Jesus before them all; and again, for the second time, going out to the porch and wishing to leave but not yet outside the gateway, he denied the Lord. Then, for the third time, “while the bystanders came and said, ‘Certainly you are also one of them,’ ” when “he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear ‘I do not know the man,’?” he was not yet outside. Furthermore, all the denials were made at night and in the darkness, before the break of dawn and the sign of the new day, that is, the crowing of the cock that bestirs the early risers. And if, by way of hypothesis, Peter had denied after the crowing of the cock, as was said, “The night is far gone, the day is at hand … let us conduct ourselves becomingly as in the day,” he would have had no excuse for his actions.
Perhaps all people when they deny Jesus … seemingly deny him before the crowing of the cock, when the sun of justice has not yet risen for them and its rising is not yet at hand. But if upon the rising of the sun for the soul “we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries.”
I believe that the first servant girl who caused Christ’s disciples to deny him stands for the synagogue of the Jews “according to the flesh,” who have frequently coerced the faithful to deny him. The second maidservant stands for the assembly of Gentiles, who also in persecuting Christians has forced them to deny the Lord. And third were the bystanders in the courtyard, who are ministers of the different heresies and who also compel others to deny the truth of Christ.
Or, By the first handmaid is understood the Synagogue of the Jews, which oft compelled the faithful to deny; by the second, the congregations of the Gentiles, who even persecuted the Christians; they that stood in the hall signify the ministers of divers heresies, who also compel men to deny the truth of Christ.
(in Luc. 22, 57.) I had rather that Peter deny, than that the Lord be made out false.
Oh strange and wonderful acts! When indeed he saw his master seized only, he was so fervent as both to draw his sword, and to cut off the man's ear; but when it was natural for him to be more indignant, and to be inflamed and to burn, hearing such revilings, then he becomes a denier. For who would not have been inflamed to madness by the things that were then doing? yet the disciple, overcome by fears, so far from showing indignation, even denies, and endures not the threat of a miserable and mean girl, and not once only, but a second and third time doth he deny Him; and in a short period, and not so much as before judges, for it was without for "when he had gone out into the porch," they asked him, and he did not even readily come to a sense of his fall. And this Luke saith, namely, that Christ looked on him showing that he not only denied Him, but was not even brought to remembrance from within, and this though the cock had crowed; but he needed a further remembrance from his master, and His look was to him instead of a voice; so exceedingly was he full of fear.
But Mark saith, that when he had once denied, then first the cock crew, but when thrice, then for the second time; for he declares more particularly the weakness of the disciple, and that he was utterly dead with fear; having learnt these things of his masters himself, for he was a follower of Peter. In which respect one would most marvel at him, that so far from hiding his teacher's faults, he declared it more distinctly than the rest, on this very account, that he was his disciple.
How then is what is said true, when Matthew affirms that Christ said, "Verily I say unto thee, that before the cock crow thou shalt deny me thrice;" and Mark declares after the third denial, that "The cock crew the second time?" Nay, most certainly is it both true and in harmony. For because at each crowing the cock is wont to crow both a third and a fourth time, Mark, to show that not even the sound checked him, and brought him to recollection saith this. So that both things are true. For before the cock had finished the one crowing, he had denied a third time. And not even when reminded of his sin by Christ did he dare to weep openly, lest he should be betrayed by his tears, but "he went out, and wept bitterly."
And he, who, when he saw his Master laid hands on, drew his sword and cut off the ear, now when he sees Him enduring such insults becomes a denier, and cannot withstand the taunts of a mean servant girl. A damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.
But not once, but twice and thrice did he deny within a short time.
To show that the sound did not keep him from denial, nor bring his promise to mind.
Peter sat without, that he might see the event, and not excite suspicion by any approach to Jesus.
And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man. I know that some out of a feeling of piety towards the Apostle Peter have interpreted this place to signify that Peter denied the Man and not the God, as though he meant, 'I do not know the Man, because I know the God.'x But the intelligent reader will see that this is trifling, for if he denied not, the Lord spoke falsely when He said, Thou shalt deny me thrice.
Not that Peter was of a different speech or nation, but a Hebrew as his accusers were; but every province and every district has its peculiarities, and he could not disguise his native pronunciation.
In another Gospel we read, that after Peter's denial and the cock-crow, the Saviour looked upon Peter, (Luke 22:61.) and by His look called forth those bitter tears; for it might not be that he on whom the Light of the world had looked should continue in the darkness of denial, wherefore, he went out, and wept bitterly. For he could not do penitence sitting in Caiaphas' hall, but went forth from the assembly of the wicked, that he might wash away in bitter tears the pollution of his timid denial.
“And again he denied it with an oath, ‘I do not know the man.’ ” I know that some people with a soft spot in their hearts for the apostle Peter have interpreted this passage to the effect that Peter did not deny God but man, and what he meant was “I do not know the man, because I know God.” The wise reader realizes how frivolous this interpretation is, for those who thus defend the apostle make the Lord guilty of a lie. If Peter did not deny him, then the Lord lied in saying, “Truly, I say to you, this very night, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.” Notice what he says: “You will deny me”—not “the man.”“Certainly you are also one of them, for your accent betrays you.” Not that Peter spoke a different language or belonged to a foreign nation … but since each province and region had their own characteristics and vernacular, one could not help having a certain sound to his speech. For instance, the Ephrathites in the book of Judges cannot pronounce the word synthema.
“Then he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear that he did not know the man. And immediately the cock crowed.” In the other Gospel we read that after Peter’s denial and the crowing of the cock, the Savior looked at Peter and, by his very gaze, aroused bitter tears in him. It could not be that Peter, on whom the light of the world had gazed, should remain in the darkness of denial.
(Verse 69.) But Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. He was sitting outside to see the outcome. And he did not come near Jesus, so that no suspicion would arise among the servants.
(Quæst. Ev. i. 44.) That, they did spit in his face, signifies those who reject His proffered grace. They likewise buffet Him who prefer their own honour to Him; and they smite Him on the face, who, blinded with unbelief, affirm that He is not yet come, disowning and rejecting His person.
(de Cons. Ev. iii. 6.) Among the other insults offered to our Lord was the threefold denial of Peter, which the several Evangelists relate in different order. Luke puts Peter's trial first, and the ill usage of the Lord after that; Matthew and Mark reverse the order.
(ubi sup.) We understand that having gone out after his first denial, the cock crowed the first time as Mark relates.
(ubi sup.) The second denial was not outside the door, but after he had returned to the fire; for the second maid did not see him after he had gone out, but as he was going out; his getting up to go out drew her attention, and she said to them that were there, that is, to those that were standing round the fire in the hall, Tins fellow also was with Jesus of Nazareth. He who had gone out, haying heard this returned, that he might by denial vindicate himself. Or, as is more likely, he did not hear what was said of him as he went out, but it was after he came back that the maid, and the other man whom Luke mentions, said to him, And thou also art one of them.
(ubi sup.) Let us now come to the third denial; And after a while came they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them, (Luke's words are, About the space of one hour after,) for thy speech bewrayeth thee. (Luke 22:59.)
(Quæst. Ev. i. 45.) Also Peter thrice denied, because heretical error concerning Christ is limited to three kinds; they are in error respecting His divinity, His humanity, or both.
(Serm. 60, 4.) For this reason it should seem he was permitted to waver, that the remedy of penitence might be exhibited in the head of the Church, and that none should dare to trust in his own strength, when even the blessed Peter could not escape the danger of frailty.
(Serm. 60. 4.) Blessed tears, O holy Apostle, which had the virtue of holy Baptism in washing off the sin of thy denial. The right hand of the Lord Jesus Christ was with thee to hold thee up before thou wast quite thrown down, and in the midst of thy perilous fall, thou receivedst strength to stand. The Rock quickly returned to its stability, recovering so great fortitude, that he who in Christ's passion had quailed, should endure his own subsequent suffering with fearlessness and constancy.
Observe how baneful are communications with evil men; they even drove Peter to deny the Lord whom he had before confessed to be the Son of God.
Spiritually; By Peter's denial before the cock-crow, are denoted those who before Christ's resurrection did not believe Him to be God, being perplexed by His death. In his denial after the first cock-crow, are denoted those who are in error concerning both Christ's natures, His human and divine. By the first handmaid is signified desire; by the second, carnal delight; by them that stood by, the dæmons; for by them men are led to a denial of Christ.
What means this, that a handmaid is the first to tax him, when men would be more likely to recognise him, except that this sex might seem to sin somewhat in the Lord's death, that they might be redeemed by His passion? He denied before them all, because he was afraid to reveal himself; that he said, I know not, shows that he was not yet willing to die for the Saviour.
In this denial of Peter we affirm that Christ is denied not only by him who denies that He is Christ, but who denies himself to be a Christian.
Observe, that he said the first time, I know not what thou sayest; the second time, He denied with an oath; the third time, He began to curse and to swear that he knew not the man. For to persevere in sinning increases sinfulness, and he who disregards light sins, falls into greater.
After the third denial comes the cock-crow; by which we may understand a Doctor of the Church who with chiding rouses the slumbering, saying, Awake, ye righteous, and sin not. (1 Cor. 15:14.) Thus Holy Scripture uses to denote the merit of divers cases by fixed periods, as Peter sinned at midnight and repented at cock-crow.
Source: Quotations drawn from early Church Fathers and historical Christian theologians (AD 100–1500). Some quotes address the surrounding passage context rather than this verse alone.
Copy as
Continue studying Matthew 26:69 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
Matthew 26:69 initiates the deeply poignant account of Peter's three denials of Jesus, fulfilling Christ's earlier prophecy. This verse meticulously sets the stage for Peter's initial public denial, placing him physically "without in the palace" and introducing the unexpected catalyst for his betrayal: a seemingly insignificant servant girl who directly links him to "Jesus of Galilee," thereby challenging his allegiance in a moment of intense pressure and fear.
Context
Literary Context
This verse immediately follows the dramatic arrest of Jesus in Gethsemane and His subsequent arraignment before Caiaphas, the high priest, and the Sanhedrin. Peter, despite his earlier bold declaration to die with Jesus, has followed "afar off" (Matthew 26:58), indicating a blend of loyalty and apprehension. His presence in the courtyard, among the servants and guards, positions him at the periphery of the unfolding legal proceedings, yet directly in the path of temptation. This scene is a direct fulfillment of Jesus' sobering prophecy to Peter earlier that night, recorded in Matthew 26:34, where He declared that Peter would deny Him three times before the rooster crowed. The narrative thus meticulously weaves together Peter's actions with divine foreknowledge, highlighting the unfolding of God's sovereign plan even amidst human failure.
Historical & Cultural Context
The setting is the courtyard of the high priest's residence, most likely Caiaphas's house, which served as the venue for Jesus' illegal night trial before the Sanhedrin. This was a semi-public space where servants, guards, and onlookers would gather, especially around a fire for warmth during the cool night. The "damsel" (Greek: paidiskē) who confronts Peter was a young female servant or slave, a person of low social standing. Her accusation, therefore, did not come from a formidable authority figure or a hostile mob, but from an unexpected and seemingly minor source, underscoring the subtle and pervasive nature of the pressure on Peter. The identification of Jesus as "Jesus of Galilee" carried specific cultural connotations; Galilee was often looked down upon by Judeans, and Galileans were known for their distinct accent, which would later be used to identify Peter (Matthew 26:73). This regional association could have been used to dismiss or even incriminate those connected to Jesus.
Key Themes
Matthew 26:69 profoundly contributes to several overarching themes within the Passion narrative and the Gospel of Matthew. Firstly, it powerfully illustrates Human Frailty and Fear. Despite Peter's fervent and sincere vow to never deny Jesus, even to the point of death, his fear of association and the potential consequences of being identified with the condemned Jesus lead him to falter. This highlights the universal human struggle with fear and the sobering reality of weakness even in devoted followers, echoing the disciples' earlier failure to stay awake and pray with Jesus in Gethsemane (Matthew 26:40-41). Secondly, the verse immediately begins the Fulfillment of Prophecy. Jesus' precise foretelling of Peter's denial, as recorded in Matthew 26:34, underscores Jesus' omniscience and the certainty of divine word, even concerning the failures of His closest disciples. Thirdly, it vividly portrays the Cost of Discipleship. Being identified with Jesus during His arrest and trial carried significant social and physical risks, including potential arrest, persecution, or even death. Peter's denial starkly reveals the immense pressure faced by those who chose to follow Christ, a theme Jesus Himself had often spoken about, such as in Matthew 10:38-39.
Exposition and Analysis
Key Word Analysis
This word, meaning "a piece of rock," is the name given to Simon by Jesus, signifying his foundational role in the early church. Here, the "rock" appears to crumble under pressure, creating a profound irony that underscores human weakness even in those called to great strength. His presence "without in the palace" emphasizes his physical proximity but spiritual distance in this moment of crisis.
Derived from a word meaning "to sit down," this term describes Peter's posture. It suggests a state of waiting, observing, or even resting, yet in this context, it highlights his vulnerability and passive position as events unfold around him. He is not actively participating in Jesus' defense but is rather a spectator, making him susceptible to the direct challenge that follows.
This feminine diminutive of pais (child/servant) refers specifically to a young girl, often a female servant or slave. The use of this term is highly significant, as it emphasizes the low social status and apparent insignificance of Peter's accuser. That Peter's first denial is prompted by such a person, rather than a powerful official or a threatening mob, heightens the sense of his fear and the unexpected nature of the temptation.
This term identifies Jesus as being "from Galilee." For Judeans, Galilee was often viewed with disdain, associated with a less refined culture and a distinct accent. By linking Peter to "Jesus of Galilee," the damsel not only identifies Peter's association with Jesus but also subtly implies a shared, potentially discreditable, regional origin, adding a layer of social pressure to the accusation.
Verse Breakdown
"Now Peter sat without in the palace"
This clause establishes Peter's physical location and immediate circumstances. He is "without" (Greek: exō), outside the inner chambers where Jesus' trial is taking place, yet "in the palace" (Greek: aulē), referring to the high priest's courtyard. This spatial arrangement places him in a liminal space – close enough to the action to be implicated, yet physically removed, perhaps seeking a measure of safety or anonymity. His "sitting" (Greek: káthēmai) suggests a posture of waiting or observation, but also one of vulnerability, as he is exposed to the casual interactions of the courtyard.
"and a damsel came unto him, saying"
This introduces the unexpected catalyst for Peter's first denial. The "damsel" (Greek: paidiskē), a young servant girl, is a figure of low social standing, making her direct confrontation of Peter particularly jarring. Her approach is direct and unhesitating, initiating the sequence of events that will expose Peter's fear. The phrase "came unto him" (Greek: prosérchomai) denotes a deliberate approach, highlighting the directness of the challenge Peter is about to face.
"Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee."
This is the direct accusation that precipitates Peter's denial. The "Thou also" immediately links Peter to Jesus, implying a shared association or discipleship. The identification of Jesus as "of Galilee" (Greek: Galilaîos) is a specific detail that not only identifies Jesus' origin but also subtly connects Peter to a region often viewed with contempt by Judean authorities, adding a layer of social and regional prejudice to the accusation. This simple statement is a profound test of Peter's loyalty, forcing him to either affirm or deny his relationship with his master.
Literary Devices
Matthew 26:69 employs several significant Literary Devices. Irony is prominent, as Peter, whose name means "rock" and who boldly declared his unwavering loyalty just hours before, is now seen "sitting without" and about to deny his Lord. The fact that his accuser is a humble "damsel" rather than a powerful figure adds a layer of situational irony, highlighting how seemingly insignificant sources can trigger profound spiritual tests. The verse also serves as a direct Fulfillment of Prophecy, as it marks the beginning of Jesus' precise foretelling of Peter's three denials. This immediate unfolding of prophecy underscores Jesus' divine knowledge and the certainty of His words. Furthermore, there is a stark Contrast between Peter's earlier fervent declarations of allegiance and his current fearful posture, setting the stage for his subsequent denials and emphasizing the chasm between human resolve and divine strength.
Theological and Thematic Connections
Matthew 26:69 serves as a stark reminder of the profound tension between human weakness and divine sovereignty. Peter's denial, though a personal failure, is simultaneously an integral part of God's redemptive plan, fulfilling prophecy and setting the stage for Peter's eventual repentance and restoration. It underscores that even the most devoted followers are susceptible to fear and temptation, particularly when faced with immense pressure. This moment highlights the necessity of divine grace and the danger of self-confidence, while also affirming that God's purposes will prevail despite human faltering. The vulnerability displayed by Peter is a universal human experience, offering a relatable portrait of faith under duress and the ever-present need for reliance on Christ rather than self.
Reflection and Application
Peter's initial denial in Matthew 26:69 offers a timeless and sobering lesson for believers across generations. It cautions against overconfidence in one's own spiritual strength, reminding us that even the most fervent declarations of loyalty can be tested and found wanting when confronted with fear or social pressure. Peter's failure underscores the vital importance of humility and constant reliance on God's sustaining grace, rather than personal resolve. Furthermore, this passage reveals that tests of faith do not always come from grand, overt challenges, but often from unexpected and seemingly minor sources, like a simple servant girl. It compels us to be vigilant in all circumstances, recognizing that our commitment to Christ can be challenged in the most mundane interactions. Ultimately, while this verse captures a moment of profound failure, it also sets the stage for God's incredible grace and Peter's eventual restoration, offering hope that our failures do not define us, but rather point us back to the boundless mercy of Christ.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
Why did Peter deny Jesus, despite his earlier fervent vows of loyalty?
Peter's denial stems primarily from a combination of fear and human weakness. Despite his genuine love and loyalty to Jesus, evidenced by his bold declaration in Matthew 26:33 and his attempt to defend Jesus in Gethsemane (John 18:10), the immediate danger of being identified with an arrested and condemned man proved overwhelming. He was likely afraid of arrest, torture, or even death, especially after seeing Jesus taken away. His self-confidence, though well-intentioned, was insufficient to withstand the intense pressure, highlighting the difference between sincere intention and the strength required for unwavering faithfulness in the face of mortal threats.
What is the significance of a "damsel" (a servant girl) being the one to accuse Peter?
The fact that Peter's first accuser is a "damsel" (Greek: paidiskē), a young female servant or slave, is highly significant. It underscores that the test of faith did not come from a powerful authority figure or a threatening mob, but from someone of low social status. This highlights the subtle and pervasive nature of temptation and pressure. It suggests that even seemingly insignificant challenges can expose deep-seated fears and weaknesses. Peter's fear was so profound that even a non-threatening inquiry from a servant girl was enough to make him compromise his allegiance, emphasizing the universal truth that our greatest tests may arise from unexpected, everyday interactions rather than grand, dramatic confrontations.
Christ-Centered Fulfillment
Peter's denial in Matthew 26:69, while a stark portrayal of human frailty, ultimately serves to magnify the perfect faithfulness and redemptive work of Jesus Christ. Peter's failure underscores the very reason Christ came: to be the perfectly obedient Son where humanity, even its most devoted, consistently falls short. Unlike Peter, who denied his Lord out of fear, Jesus steadfastly affirmed His identity and mission before His accusers, enduring the cross with unwavering resolve (Philippians 2:8). Furthermore, Peter's denial, though grievous, was not the final word. It was precisely because of Christ's intercession—His prayer for Peter that his faith would not fail (Luke 22:31-32)—and His subsequent resurrection and compassionate restoration of Peter (John 21:15-19) that Peter was able to repent and be transformed into the bold apostle who would later preach with power on Pentecost. Thus, Peter's failure and subsequent restoration brilliantly illustrate the core of the Gospel: that Christ's perfect righteousness covers our imperfections, His grace is greater than our sin, and His restorative love can transform even the most profound betrayals into testimonies of His unfailing mercy (Romans 5:8). Jesus is the faithful High Priest who sympathizes with our weaknesses, having been tempted in every way, yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15), offering not condemnation, but a path to forgiveness and renewed life.