TRV
“Peter Denies Jesus”· Matthew 26:69–75
Translation
See on the biblical-era map
In the KJVVerse 24,127 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 72.) And again he denied it with an oath, 'I do not know the man.' And after a little while those standing there came up and said to Peter, 'Surely you also are one of them, for your accent betrays you.' Then he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, 'I do not know the man.' And immediately the rooster crowed. And Peter remembered the saying of Jesus, 'Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.' And he went out and wept bitterly. Some pious people have interpreted this passage in such a way that they say Peter did not deny God but only a man, and the meaning is: 'I do not know the man, for I know God.' A discerning reader understands how frivolous this interpretation is; they defend Peter in such a way as to make God guilty of lying. For if he did not deny, then the Lord lied, who said, 'Truly I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.' See what he says, you will deny me, not a man.
(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 26:72 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
Matthew 26:72 records the second of Peter's three denials of Jesus, an event precisely foretold by Christ. This pivotal moment unfolds in the high priest's courtyard amidst Jesus's illegal trial, vividly illustrating the immense pressure, fear, and human frailty that led one of Jesus's most ardent disciples to vehemently disassociate himself from his Master, despite earlier declarations of unwavering loyalty.
Context
Literary Context
This verse is situated within the intensely dramatic narrative of Jesus's passion week, specifically during his nocturnal arrest and subsequent illegal trial before the Sanhedrin, presided over by Caiaphas. Having followed Jesus "from afar" (Matthew 26:58), Peter seeks to observe the proceedings while attempting to blend in with the servants and officers warming themselves by a charcoal fire. His first denial, prompted by a servant girl, is recorded in Matthew 26:69-70. Matthew 26:72 describes the second denial, occurring shortly after, when "another maid" (or "another girl" in some translations) or "another" (referring to a male in Mark and Luke) identifies him, prompting Peter to escalate his denial with a solemn oath. This sequence directly fulfills Jesus's prophecy to Peter in Matthew 26:34, setting the stage for the third denial and the crowing of the rooster.
Historical & Cultural Context
The setting is the courtyard of the High Priest, a place of significant religious and political authority in Jerusalem. The trial itself was a travesty of justice, conducted at night, without proper witnesses, and on false charges, violating numerous Jewish legal traditions. Oaths, in Jewish culture, were extremely serious declarations, often invoking God's name as a witness to the truth of one's statement. To swear an oath was to put one's integrity and spiritual standing on the line. Peter's act of denying "with an oath" underscores the profound social and spiritual pressure he felt to convince his accusers of his non-association with Jesus. The fear of being identified as a follower of a condemned man, especially one accused of blasphemy and sedition, was immense and could lead to arrest, persecution, or even death. Peter's actions reflect the very real danger faced by Jesus's disciples in that moment.
Key Themes
Matthew 26:72 powerfully contributes to several overarching themes in Matthew's Gospel. Firstly, it highlights Human Weakness and Frailty, even among the most devoted disciples. Peter, who had earlier boldly declared his willingness to die for Jesus (Matthew 26:35), succumbs to fear, demonstrating the stark contrast between human resolve and divine power. Secondly, the verse emphasizes the Nature of Denial, portraying it not merely as a passive lack of recognition but as an active, emphatic disavowal of relationship, intensified by an oath. This act of denial stands in stark contrast to the steadfastness of Jesus himself, who, even under immense pressure, affirmed his identity before the Sanhedrin (Matthew 26:63-64). Finally, this event serves as a profound illustration of the Fulfillment of Prophecy, underscoring God's sovereign control over history and the infallible accuracy of Jesus's foreknowledge, even concerning the failures of his closest followers.
Exposition and Analysis
Key Word Analysis
Meaning to contradict, disavow, reject, or abnegate. In this context, Peter's denial is a strong repudiation of any connection to Jesus, an active refusal to acknowledge him, rather than a passive lack of knowledge. It implies a deliberate turning away from a previously acknowledged relationship.
Referring to a solemn declaration, a sacred restraint, or an appeal to God as a witness. Peter's use of an oath signifies the extreme measure he took to convince his accusers, elevating his denial from a simple statement to a binding, public, and spiritually weighty affirmation of falsehood. This act highlights the depth of his fear and desperation.
A primary verb meaning to see (literally or figuratively), and by implication, to know. In the perfect tense, as implied here, it signifies a settled state of knowledge. Peter's declaration, "I do not know the man," is a categorical denial of any personal acquaintance or relationship, despite having spent years intimately with Jesus. It's a denial of recognition and association.
Verse Breakdown
"And again he denied with an oath"
This clause indicates Peter's second instance of denial, emphasizing a repeated pattern of disavowal. The addition of "with an oath" signifies a heightened level of intensity and solemnity in his denial. An oath, in Jewish culture, was a serious vow, often invoking God's name, making Peter's lie not just a falsehood but a sacrilege. This detail underscores the extreme pressure Peter was under and his desperate attempt to convince his accusers of his non-association with Jesus, even at the cost of his integrity and spiritual standing.
"I do not know the man"
This is the precise content of Peter's denial. The phrase "the man" (referring to Jesus) is a dismissive and impersonal way of speaking, further emphasizing Peter's attempt to distance himself. It's a categorical statement of non-recognition and non-relationship, directly contradicting his years of intimate discipleship and his earlier fervent declarations of loyalty. This statement is a complete repudiation of his Master in a moment of profound crisis.
Literary Devices
Matthew employs several literary devices to heighten the drama and theological impact of this scene. The most prominent is Irony, as Peter, who earlier vowed to never deny Jesus and even die for him (Matthew 26:33-35), now emphatically denies him under pressure. This creates a stark contrast between Peter's self-assured declarations and his actual performance, highlighting the fragility of human resolve apart from divine strength. There is also significant Dramatic Tension building throughout the narrative, as the reader is aware of Jesus's prophecy regarding Peter's denials, creating anticipation and dread as each denial unfolds. This tension is palpable in the courtyard setting, where Peter is surrounded by potential accusers, and his words carry immediate, life-threatening implications. The repeated nature of the denials, each more emphatic than the last, builds towards the climax of the cock crowing, serving as a powerful and painful reminder of human failure and the fulfillment of divine prophecy.
Theological and Thematic Connections
Matthew 26:72 serves as a stark reminder of human frailty and the seductive power of fear, even for those closest to Christ. Peter's denial, intensified by an oath, exposes the inherent weakness of human resolve when confronted with overwhelming pressure, underscoring the theological truth that true faithfulness is not sustained by self-confidence but by divine grace. This moment also highlights the perfect foreknowledge of Jesus and the sovereign plan of God, as Peter's failure precisely fulfills Christ's prophecy. Yet, it is within this profound failure that the stage is set for a powerful demonstration of God's restorative grace, foreshadowing the path of repentance and forgiveness available to all who falter.
Reflection and Application
Peter's denial in Matthew 26:72 is a profoundly humbling and instructive passage for believers today. It serves as a powerful mirror, reflecting our own potential for fear-driven compromise and the painful reality of our human limitations. Peter, despite his bold declarations and intimate relationship with Jesus, succumbed to the immediate threat, choosing self-preservation over open allegiance. This reminds us that spiritual strength is not a static possession but a dynamic reliance on God, especially when facing social pressure, professional risk, or personal discomfort for the sake of our faith. We are called to examine our own lives: where do we deny Christ, not necessarily with an explicit oath, but through silence, inaction, or the pursuit of acceptance from the world? This passage compels us to cultivate humility, recognize our dependence on the Holy Spirit, and pray for courage to stand firm, knowing that even in our failures, God's grace remains sufficient for repentance and restoration.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
Why did Peter deny Jesus, especially after his earlier bold declarations?
Peter's denial was primarily driven by intense fear and self-preservation in a moment of extreme danger. He had followed Jesus into the high priest's courtyard, a hostile environment where Jesus was being condemned. Being identified as a follower of Jesus could have led to his own arrest, torture, or even death. Despite his earlier bold declarations of loyalty (Matthew 26:33-35), Peter's human courage failed him under this immense pressure. His actions underscore the reality of human frailty and the power of fear to override even sincere intentions.
What is the significance of Peter denying Jesus "with an oath"?
The phrase "with an oath" significantly intensifies Peter's denial. In Jewish culture, an oath was a solemn and binding declaration, often invoking God's name as a witness. To swear an oath was to put one's integrity and spiritual standing on the line. By doing so, Peter was not merely stating "I don't know him" casually; he was making a forceful, public, and religiously weighty affirmation that he had no association with Jesus. This demonstrates the depth of his desperation to convince his accusers and highlights the severity of his lie, as it was a false oath before God.
Christ-Centered Fulfillment
Peter's profound failure in Matthew 26:72, denying his Lord with an oath, stands in stark contrast to the perfect faithfulness of Christ. While Peter succumbed to fear and self-preservation, Jesus, in the very same hours, steadfastly endured the unjust trial, the mockery, and the impending crucifixion, all for the sake of those who would deny Him. Peter's sin, like all human sin, highlights the desperate need for a Savior who is perfectly righteous and capable of bearing the weight of human unfaithfulness. Jesus did not deny Peter; instead, He allowed Himself to be denied and ultimately crucified, taking on the very sin of denial, so that Peter, and all believers, could be forgiven and restored. The ultimate fulfillment of this narrative is found not in Peter's failure, but in Christ's unwavering commitment to His mission, His intercessory prayer for Peter (Luke 22:31-32), and His triumphant resurrection, which paved the way for Peter's restoration and empowerment by the Holy Spirit to boldly proclaim the very Christ he once denied (Acts 2:14-41). Thus, Peter's denial serves as a poignant backdrop, illuminating the unparalleled grace and redemptive power of the Lamb of God, who suffered for our weaknesses and offers forgiveness for our failures.