TRV
“Peter Denies Jesus”· Matthew 26:69–75
Translation
Complete Jewish Bible
But he denied it in front of everyone -- "I don't know what you're talking about!"
Berean Standard Bible
But he denied it before them all: “I do not know what you are talking about.”
World English Bible Messianic
But he denied it before them all, saying, “I don’t know what you are talking about.”
Young's Literal Translation
And he denied before all, saying, `I have not known what thou sayest.'
See also
See on the biblical-era map
In the KJVVerse 24,125 of 31,102 · 77.6%
LawLawHistoryHistPoetryPoetProphetsProphNew TestamentNT
Study This Verse
Copy as
Historical interpretation
Six Centuries of Reception
12 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.
(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 26:70 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 26:70 records the first of Peter's three denials of Jesus, a pivotal moment occurring in the high priest Caiaphas's courtyard. Accused by a servant girl of being with Jesus, Peter publicly and emphatically disavowed any knowledge of what she was talking about, a direct contradiction to his earlier fervent pledge of loyalty and a somber fulfillment of Jesus's earlier prophecy. This initial denial sets the stage for his deeper fall, highlighting the profound impact of fear and human frailty under intense pressure.
Context
Literary Context
This verse is situated within the dramatic narrative of Jesus's arrest and illegal trial, immediately following His capture in the Garden of Gethsemane. After Jesus is led to the house of Caiaphas, the high priest, Peter, along with "another disciple" (likely John, though unstated in Matthew), follows at a distance, driven by a mixture of concern and fear, as described in Matthew 26:58. While Jesus endures false accusations and abuse inside, Peter seeks warmth by a fire in the courtyard. It is in this vulnerable setting that a servant girl identifies him, initiating the sequence of denials that Jesus had foretold. The narrative contrasts Jesus's steadfast endurance of suffering with Peter's immediate capitulation to fear.
Historical & Cultural Context
The events unfold during the Jewish Passover, a time of heightened religious and political tension in Jerusalem under Roman occupation. The Jewish authorities, particularly the Sanhedrin, were eager to neutralize Jesus, whom they perceived as a threat to their religious and social order. An accusation of association with a condemned individual, especially one accused of blasphemy or sedition, could easily lead to arrest, trial, and severe punishment. The courtyard of the high priest's house was a semi-public space where servants, guards, and curious onlookers would gather. For Peter, a Galilean, his accent would have made him conspicuous in Jerusalem, further increasing his vulnerability to identification. The atmosphere was one of palpable danger for anyone openly associated with Jesus, making Peter's denial a desperate act of self-preservation in a hostile environment.
Key Themes
Peter's denial in Matthew 26:70 contributes significantly to several major themes within Matthew's Gospel and the broader biblical narrative. Firstly, it starkly illustrates human weakness and the power of fear, contrasting sharply with Peter's earlier bold declaration of unwavering loyalty to Jesus, even unto death, as recorded in Matthew 26:33. Secondly, it serves as a powerful instance of the fulfillment of prophecy, directly validating Jesus's precise foretelling of Peter's triple denial before the cock crowed, as stated in Matthew 26:34. This highlights God's sovereignty and foreknowledge over human actions. Thirdly, the nature of Peter's denial—an evasive "I know not what thou sayest"—introduces the theme of disassociation and subtle betrayal, which escalates in his subsequent, more explicit denials in Matthew 26:72 and Matthew 26:74.
Exposition and Analysis
Key Word Analysis
This verb signifies "to contradict, disavow, reject, abnegate." Peter's action is not merely a passive failure but an active, verbal renunciation of his association with Jesus. It implies a conscious act of repudiation, a turning away from a previously acknowledged relationship.
Derived from "in" and "towards," this preposition means "in front of" in terms of place or presence. The phrase "before them all" emphasizes the public nature of Peter's denial. It was not a private thought or a whispered word, but a declaration made openly, in the sight and hearing of others, amplifying the shame and the gravity of his repudiation.
This primary verb, used here in the perfect tense, means "to see (literally or figuratively)" and by implication, "to know." When Peter says, "I know not," he is not merely claiming ignorance of the servant girl's statement but disavowing any knowledge of the underlying truth—his relationship with Jesus. It is a deliberate and false claim of non-acquaintance.
Verse Breakdown
"But he denied before them all"
This clause immediately establishes the stark contrast ("But") between Peter's previous boast of loyalty and his current action. The verb "denied" (ἀρνέομαι, arnéomai) signifies a strong repudiation. The phrase "before them all" (ἔμπροσθεν πάντων, émprosthen pántōn) underscores the public and undeniable nature of his denial. It was not a private thought but a public declaration, witnessed by others in the courtyard, amplifying the severity of his failure.
"saying, I know not what thou sayest"
This is Peter's exact verbal response. His statement, "I know not what thou sayest" (οὐκ οἶδα τί λέγεις, ouk oída ti légeis), is a classic example of evasive language. Rather than a direct "I don't know the man," which would be a clear lie, Peter feigns ignorance or misunderstanding of the accusation itself. He attempts to deflect the charge by pretending he doesn't comprehend the servant girl's implication, thereby subtly disassociating himself from Jesus without a direct, confrontational denial of acquaintance. This nuanced response reveals his fear and his attempt to escape the dangerous situation.
Literary Devices
Matthew employs several powerful literary devices in this verse. The most prominent is Dramatic Irony, where the audience is aware of Jesus's prophecy in Matthew 26:34 that Peter would deny Him three times before the cock crowed, even as Peter himself, and the characters in the scene, are oblivious to the immediate fulfillment unfolding. This creates a sense of tragic inevitability and underscores Jesus's divine foreknowledge. Furthermore, the scene is rich in Contrast; Peter's public denial stands in stark opposition to his earlier fervent boasts of loyalty and his willingness to die for Jesus. This highlights the profound gap between human resolve and the reality of fear under pressure. The very setting, the courtyard of the high priest, adds a layer of Symbolism, representing the hostile world outside the protective presence of Christ, where even the most devoted disciples can stumble.
Theological and Thematic Connections
Peter's denial in Matthew 26:70 is a profound theological moment that speaks to the depths of human frailty and the unwavering sovereignty of God. It demonstrates that even those closest to Christ are susceptible to fear and failure, highlighting the pervasive nature of sin and the limitations of human resolve apart from divine strength. Yet, precisely because it fulfills Jesus's prophecy, it also powerfully affirms God's perfect foreknowledge and control over all events, even the most painful and seemingly chaotic. This moment of Peter's weakness ultimately serves to magnify the steadfastness of Christ, who, despite being betrayed and abandoned, remained faithful to His mission, setting the stage for His atoning sacrifice.
Reflection and Application
Peter's denial serves as a sobering mirror for every believer, reminding us that even the most fervent faith can be tested and, without vigilance, can falter under pressure. It compels us to examine the areas in our own lives where fear of man, desire for acceptance, or even subtle forms of self-preservation might lead us to compromise our witness or deny our association with Christ, whether explicitly or implicitly. This passage fosters humility, recognizing that our strength is not in our own resolve but in God's sustaining grace. It teaches us compassion for others who stumble, reminding us that God's grace is sufficient for our weaknesses and that failure is not the end of our story with Him. Ultimately, Peter's journey from denial to restoration offers profound hope, demonstrating God's unfailing love and His power to forgive, restore, and recommission even those who have fallen.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
Why did Peter deny Jesus, especially after his earlier bold declarations of loyalty?
Peter's denial was primarily driven by intense fear and the instinct for self-preservation in a highly dangerous and hostile environment. Despite his genuine love and loyalty for Jesus, as evidenced by his earlier declaration in Matthew 26:33, the immediate threat of being identified with a condemned man, coupled with the suddenness and severity of the situation, overwhelmed his resolve. His human weakness and the immense pressure of the moment caused him to succumb, fulfilling Jesus's prophecy in Matthew 26:34. It highlights the reality that even devoted followers can falter when faced with extreme duress.
Was Peter's denial a complete rejection of his faith, and was he forgiven?
While Peter's denial was a grievous sin and a clear act of disloyalty, it was not a complete and final rejection of his faith in Christ. It was a failure of courage and trust, born of fear, rather than a deliberate renunciation of his belief. Crucially, Peter was indeed forgiven and fully restored by Jesus after the resurrection. The Gospel of John records Jesus's tender conversation with Peter by the Sea of Galilee, where Jesus three times asks Peter if he loves Him, effectively reversing the three denials and recommissioning Peter to "feed My sheep" (John 21:15-19). This powerful act of restoration underscores God's boundless grace, forgiveness, and His ability to redeem even our most profound failures.
Christ-Centered Fulfillment
Peter's denial, a stark display of human frailty and failure, finds its profound Christ-centered fulfillment not in Peter's weakness, but in Jesus's perfect strength and unwavering faithfulness. While Peter denied his Lord, Jesus, the true Lamb of God, never denied His Father or His mission, even in the face of unimaginable suffering and death. His steadfast obedience, culminating in His atoning sacrifice on the cross, is the ultimate answer to human sin and failure. Peter's restoration, vividly depicted in John 21:15-19, is made possible only through the finished work of Christ—His death for our sins and His resurrection for our justification (Romans 4:25). Jesus's perfect life, sacrificial death, and glorious resurrection provide the grace and forgiveness that not only cover Peter's denial but also empower all believers to overcome their own weaknesses and live lives of faithful obedience, knowing that even when we deny Him, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13).