TRV
“Peter Denies Jesus”· Matthew 26:69–75
Translation
King James Version
And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth.
Complete Jewish Bible
He went out onto the porch, and another girl saw him and said to the people there, "This man was with Yeshua of Natzeret."
Berean Standard Bible
When Peter had gone out to the gateway, another servant girl saw him and said to the people there, “This man was with Jesus of Nazareth.”
American Standard Version
And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and saith unto them that were there, This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth.
World English Bible Messianic
When he had gone out onto the porch, someone else saw him, and said to those who were there, “This man also was with Yeshua of Nazareth.”
Geneva Bible (1599)
And when hee went out into the porche, another maide sawe him, and sayde vnto them that were there, This man was also with Iesus of Nazareth.
Young's Literal Translation
And he having gone forth to the porch, another female saw him, and saith to those there, `And this one was with Jesus of Nazareth;'
See on the biblical-era map
In the KJVVerse 24,126 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 26:71 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 26:71 recounts the second of Peter's three denials of Jesus, a pivotal moment that intensifies the pressure on the apostle as he attempts to distance himself from his Master amidst the chaotic backdrop of Jesus' unjust trial. Having moved from the courtyard to the more public "porch" or vestibule, Peter is once again identified, this time by another maid who publicly declares his association with Jesus of Nazareth to those present, further escalating the stakes of his denial.
Context
Literary Context
This verse is deeply embedded within the narrative of Jesus' arrest and trial, immediately following Peter's first denial in Matthew 26:69-70. After Jesus' betrayal by Judas and His arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane, Peter, despite his earlier boastful declarations of loyalty, followed Jesus at a distance to the high priest Caiaphas' courtyard. While Jesus faced an illegal night trial inside, Peter lingered among the servants and guards, attempting to remain inconspicuous. His movement "out into the porch" (Greek: pylōna) suggests a slight shift in location, perhaps an attempt to escape the scrutiny of the first maid or to find a better vantage point, but it inadvertently places him in a more exposed area, leading directly to this second, more public accusation. The immediate literary context highlights the escalating pressure on Peter and sets the stage for his third and most vehement denial, followed by the crowing of the rooster and his bitter repentance, as detailed in Matthew 26:73-75.
Historical & Cultural Context
The setting is the courtyard of the high priest's house, likely a large, semi-public space where servants, guards, and other onlookers would gather, especially during a significant event like a trial. The "porch" (Greek: pylōn) refers to the gateway or vestibule, an entrance area that was still part of the high priest's property but more accessible to the street or a less restricted part of the complex. In ancient Jewish society, such areas were not entirely private, and conversations and observations would be common. Servants, particularly maids, often had keen eyes and ears, observing the comings and goings, and were not shy about commenting or identifying strangers. The identification of Jesus as "Jesus of Nazareth" was a common way to refer to Him, emphasizing His Galilean origin, which was often viewed with disdain by the Judean religious elite (John 1:46). This identifier also served to distinguish Him from other individuals named Jesus, underscoring His humble background and, for some, undermining any messianic claims.
Key Themes
This verse powerfully contributes to several overarching themes within Matthew's Gospel and the broader Passion narrative. Firstly, it underscores the theme of human weakness and frailty, even among devoted disciples. Peter, who had confidently declared his readiness to die for Jesus in Matthew 26:33-35, succumbs to fear under pressure, illustrating the stark contrast between human resolve and the need for divine strength. Secondly, it highlights the fulfillment of prophecy, as Jesus had explicitly foretold Peter's three denials before the rooster crowed in Matthew 26:34. The precise details of the denials, including the specific locations and accusers, emphasize the divine foreknowledge and sovereign control over these events, even amidst human failure. Thirdly, the escalating public nature of the denials—from a single maid to "them that were there"—illustrates the mounting pressure and the increasing cost of discipleship when confronted with opposition. This public exposure forces Peter into a more vehement denial, setting the stage for his profound repentance.
Exposition and Analysis
Key Word Analysis
This verb means "to issue (literally or figuratively); to come (forth, out), depart (out of), escape, get out, go (abroad, away, forth, out, thence), proceed (forth), spread abroad." Peter's act of "going out into the porch" signifies a physical movement from one part of the courtyard to another. This movement might have been an attempt to distance himself from the previous accusation or to observe the proceedings more clearly, but ironically, it led him to a more exposed position where he was again identified.
Derived from pylē (gate), this noun refers to "a gate-way, door-way of a building or city; by implication, a portal or vestibule." It denotes an entrance area, often semi-public, that served as a transition space between the outside and the inner parts of a dwelling or complex. Peter's presence in the pylōn suggests he was no longer deep within the private courtyard but in a more visible, transitional space, making him more susceptible to public recognition.
This primary verb, used here in the aorist, means "to see (literally or figuratively); by implication, (in the perfect tense only) to know." In this context, it signifies a direct, visual perception. The "another maid" directly perceived Peter's presence and recognized him, leading to her immediate accusation. The act of seeing here is the catalyst for the second confrontation, highlighting the inescapable nature of Peter's situation.
Verse Breakdown
"And when he was gone out into the porch"
This phrase describes Peter's physical relocation from the inner courtyard, where the first denial occurred, to the outer vestibule or gateway. This movement, perhaps intended to reduce scrutiny or gain a better vantage point, ironically places him in a more exposed and public area, setting the scene for his next challenge.
"another [maid] saw him"
This signifies the appearance of a new accuser, distinct from the maid who initiated the first denial. The use of "another" emphasizes the persistent and relentless nature of the accusations Peter faces. The maid's act of "seeing" him implies direct visual recognition, confirming his presence in a place where he likely sought to remain unnoticed.
"and said unto them that were there"
Unlike the first denial, which might have been a more direct, private confrontation, this accusation is made publicly. The maid speaks "unto them that were there," indicating a group of onlookers, guards, or other servants. This public declaration significantly raises the stakes for Peter, forcing him to deny Jesus in front of multiple witnesses.
"This [fellow] was also with Jesus of Nazareth"
This is the direct accusation, clearly linking Peter to Jesus. The phrase "Jesus of Nazareth" identifies Jesus by His hometown, often used by those who did not fully acknowledge His divine claims or messianic identity. The word "also" (Greek: kai) emphasizes Peter's shared association with Jesus, implying a close connection that the maid had observed or inferred.
Literary Devices
The passage employs several literary devices to heighten its dramatic impact and theological significance. Foreshadowing is prominent, as this event directly fulfills Jesus' earlier prophecy that Peter would deny Him three times before the rooster crowed (Matthew 26:34). This literary technique underscores divine sovereignty and the certainty of prophetic fulfillment, even through human failure. Dramatic Irony is also at play; the audience is aware of Peter's earlier fervent boasts of loyalty (Matthew 26:33), which stand in stark contrast to his current actions, creating a sense of tragic inevitability. The shift in location to the "porch" can be seen as Symbolism, representing Peter's movement from a place of relative concealment to one of greater exposure, mirroring the increasing pressure and public nature of his denials. The Repetition of the denial motif, with distinct accusers and escalating public exposure, builds narrative tension and emphasizes the severity of Peter's spiritual struggle.
Theological and Thematic Connections
Matthew 26:71 powerfully illustrates the profound fragility of human resolve when confronted with intense fear and external pressure. Peter's repeated denial, especially as it becomes more public, serves as a stark reminder that even the most devoted disciples are susceptible to spiritual weakness and temptation without the sustaining grace of God. This moment highlights the critical theological truth that genuine faith is not merely intellectual assent or emotional fervor, but a deep reliance on God's strength, especially in moments of crisis. It also underscores the meticulous fulfillment of divine prophecy, demonstrating God's sovereign knowledge and control over all events, even those involving human sin and failure. Peter's fall, though grievous, ultimately serves as a powerful testament to the depth of God's grace and the possibility of restoration for those who stumble.
Reflection and Application
Peter's experience in Matthew 26:71 offers profound lessons for contemporary believers. It serves as a sobering reminder that even those with the strongest intentions and deepest love for Christ can falter under pressure. Peter's move "into the porch" might symbolize our own attempts to find a "safe" distance from challenging situations, only to find ourselves more exposed. This passage calls us to humility, recognizing our inherent weakness and the constant need for God's empowering grace. It challenges us to examine our own lives: where do we compromise our faith to avoid discomfort or persecution? Are we willing to publicly identify with Jesus, even when it's unpopular or risky? Peter's failure is not presented as a condemnation but as a testament to the reality of human struggle and the incredible grace of God that allows for repentance and restoration. His subsequent bitter weeping (Matthew 26:75) underscores the pain of denying Christ and the necessity of genuine remorse. We are called to vigilance, prayer, and a humble reliance on the Holy Spirit, rather than self-confidence, to navigate the trials of faith.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
Why did Peter go "out into the porch" after his first denial?
Peter's movement "out into the porch" (Greek: pylōn, meaning a gateway or vestibule) after his first denial (recorded in Matthew 26:69-70) is not explicitly stated as to his motivation, but several possibilities exist. He might have been trying to escape the scrutiny of the first maid who identified him, seeking a less conspicuous spot. Alternatively, he could have been trying to get a better view of the proceedings inside the high priest's house, where Jesus was being tried. It's also possible he was simply moving around due to the cold, as the text mentions a fire in the courtyard (Matthew 26:69). Ironically, moving to the porch, a more public and transitional area, only exposed him to another accuser and a more public confrontation.
What is the significance of "Jesus of Nazareth" in this context?
The phrase "Jesus of Nazareth" was a common way to identify Jesus, referring to His hometown in Galilee. In this context, it carries several layers of significance. For those in Judea, particularly the religious elite, Nazareth was often viewed with disdain or skepticism (John 1:46), implying a humble or even contemptible origin. By identifying Peter as being "with Jesus of Nazareth," the maid not only links him to the accused man but also implicitly associates him with a figure who, from a Judean perspective, lacked the prestigious background or credentials expected of a Messiah. This identifier highlights the social and regional prejudices of the time and underscores the humble, non-elite origins of Jesus and His early followers.
Christ-Centered Fulfillment
While Matthew 26:71 vividly portrays Peter's human weakness and failure, it ultimately points to the perfect, unwavering obedience of Jesus Christ, who stands in stark contrast to His faltering disciple. Peter's denial, born of fear and self-preservation, highlights the universal human condition of sin and inadequacy. Yet, at the very moment Peter is denying Him, Jesus is inside, steadfastly enduring an unjust trial, perfectly fulfilling the Father's will and setting His face like flint towards the cross (Isaiah 50:7). Jesus, the true and faithful Israelite, never denies His Father or His mission, even when facing the ultimate pressure. His perfect obedience, culminating in His atoning death and resurrection, provides the very grace by which Peter, and all believers, can be forgiven and restored (Romans 5:19). Peter's bitter repentance and subsequent restoration (John 21:15-19) are direct results of Christ's finished work, demonstrating that Jesus' perfect life and sacrifice cover even the most profound human failings, offering hope and new life to all who turn to Him.