THE LAST WEEK OF JESUS' PUBLIC MINISTRY AND HIS CRUCIFIXION

Peter’s Denials of the Lord

-Matthew 26:58, 69-75; Mark 14:54, 66-72; Luke 22:54-62; John 18:15-18, 25-27

-“Each of the four Gospels records three denials; but the details differ considerably, as must

 always be the case where in each narrative a few facts are selected out of many sayings and

 doings...[T]here were three stages of the Jewish trial, (1) before Annas  (2) before Caiaphas and

 the Sanhedrin for informal examination, (3) before them in a formal trial...If Peter’s denials ran

 through all three (and Luke says in ver. 59 that there was an hour between his second and third

 denials), then no one of the four Gospels could give each of the denials precisely at the time of

 its occurrence; and so each Gospel merely throws them together, as in another way we here bring

 them together in one section.  There is no difficulty about the substantial fact of the denials; and

 we must be content with our inability to arrange all the circumstances into a complete programme”

 (Robertson, pg 156, fn).

-We now return to the time of Jesus being apprehended in the garden.  His apostles had scattered

 in fear and He was led away by His enemies.

            -Peter followed Jesus (as did John - “another disciple” in John 18:15) at a distance.  The desire

             to follow revealed love and concern for Jesus; the distance revealed fear.

-The proceedings that followed “...took place in the official residence of the high priest Caiaphas,

 where Annas had retained lodging apartments on one side of the large open court of that

 commodious building” (Shepard, pg 578).  “The sending of Jesus bound to Caiaphas involved

 nothing more than leading him across the courtyard” (Coffman, John, pg 396).

            -To help us understand the events that transpired regarding Peter’s denials, let’s reacquaint

             ourselves with the typical layout of such a house as Caiaphas’ in Jerusalem.  The houses

             were commonly built in a square or rectangular fashion with an open courtyard in the center.

             “On entering the only door in front, the first room is a small square room, surrounded with

             benches, called the ‘porch.’  In this room the master of the family commonly transacts business,

             and on private occasions receives visits. Passing through the porch, you enter a large square

             room directly in the center of the building, called the court...This center room, or court, is

             commonly uncovered or open above” (Barnes). 

-When John arrived on the scene, he entered in through the porch and into the court.  Due to the

 fact that John “...was known unto the high priest...” (John 18:15) he was granted this access.

            -“John’s acquaintanceship appears to have been with the household as well as with the high

             priest personally, for we find that it is used as a permit at the doorway.  It is likely that the

             high priest knew John rather in a business way - Acts iv. 13” (McGarvey/Pendleton, pg 700).

-Peter remained outside of the court until John saw him, spoke to the doorkeeper on his behalf

 and took him within. 

-The first denial  

-When reading John’s account (John 18:16-17), it might appear that Peter’s first denial took place at

 the door as he entered into the court.  However, when looking at the other accounts and then

 combining them with John’s, it seems that the first denial did come as a result of the doorkeeper’s

 questioning, but happened a little later. 

-It was a cool night in Jerusalem and a fire had been started within the court “...and the servants and

 officers stood there” (John 18:18).  Upon being allowed into the court, Peter made his way to this

 location where eventually he and the rest of the group sat down (Matt. 26:58; Mark 14:54; Luke

 22:55). 

-It seems that “the damsel that kept the door” (John 18:17) – “one of the maids of the high priest”

 (Mark 14:66), having taken notice of Peter when he first entered, watched Peter in the light of the

 fire.  She eventually approached and said, “You, too, were with Jesus the Galilean” (Matt. 26:69,

 NASB) and questioned him, “You are not also one of this man’s disciples, are you?” (John 18:17,

 NASB).

            -The way this question was presented allowed for a rather easy denial.  Peter responded before

             all those sitting around the fire, “I do not know what you are talking about” (Matt. 26:70,

             NASB), “I am not” (John 18:17).

-Peter then left the area near the fire and made his way to the porch (Matt. 26:71; Mark 14:68). 

            -Mark’s account tells us that a rooster crowed at this point – the first crowing of two foretold

             by Jesus (see Mark 14:30).  “There are two periods of cockcrowing.  The crowing at the latter

             hour is much more profuse than that at twelve o’clock.  Hence, that at three o’clock is the

             cockcrowing when only one is mentioned.  When two are mentioned that at twelve o’clock is

             the first cockcrowing; that at three, the second” (Lipscomb, pg 282).

            -Hence Dorris observes that when Peter first denied the Lord and then made his way to the

             porch, “It was now probably between twelve and one o’clock” (pg 353).

                        -So somewhere along this point – using Roman time – Thursday had come to a close

                         and Friday was underway.

-The second denial

-Even though Peter had changed his location in the house, the people continued to take note of him. 

-Another maid, having grown suspicious of Peter “…said unto them that were there, This fellow

 was also with Jesus of Nazareth” (Matt. 26:71).  Surely, such talk continued among the people

 and the tension experienced by Peter could have been on the rise.  Yet, undoubtedly, his focus

 remained upon Jesus and the proceedings involving him. 

-Eventually, another person confronted Peter and said, “You are one of them too!” (Luke 22:58,

 NASB).  

            -More people were now involved in the questioning of Peter and the accusation was now made in

             a more open-ended fashion. 

            -As a result, Peter’s second denial was made in a more forceful fashion.  “And again he denied

             with an oath [“Man, I am not! (Luke 22:58)] I do not know the man” (Matt. 26:72).

                        -The term “man” is translated from the Greek word “anthropos” and is “without distinction

                         of sex” (Vine’s).  Therefore, the maids may have been the ones who accused Peter or it may

                         have been one of the men who stood nearby or a combination of them all.  Either way, the

                         accusations against Peter continued and so did his denials.

-Peter was hopeful that his use of an oath would help in convincing his accusers that he was not a

 follower of Jesus.  Such would not be the case.

-The third denial

-Luke informs us that about an hour transpired between Peter’s second denial and the events of

 the third (see Luke 22:59).

-Despite Peter’s two previous denials, those around him were not convinced.  Eventually, they

 began to interrogate him further – “Surely you are one of them, for your accent gives you away”

 (Matt. 26:69, NIV).  Also, as revealed in John 18:26, a relative of Malchus was present and

 questioned, “Did I not see you in the garden with Him?” (John 18:26, NASB).

            -“Peter thus found himself in imminent peril of being arrested not only for being a disciple

             of Jesus but also for his assault to kill Malchus, the servant of the high priest” (Woods, pg 381).

-In response to the group’s pressing interrogation, Peter once again heightened the intensity of his

 denial.  This time “…he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, ‘I do not know this man

 of whom you speak’” (Mark 14:71, ESV).

            -“He not only, with an oath, repeats what he had said in the second, that he knew not of whom

             they spake, but he affirms it with imprecations of divine wrath on himself if he spake not the

             truth” (Dorris, pg 354). 

-Immediately following Peter’s third denial, the rooster crowed for a second time (Matt. 26:74;

 Mark 14:72; Luke 22:60; John 18:27). 

            -With this second crowing of the rooster it would be approximately three in the morning.

             Therefore, approximately three hours had transpired as Jesus appeared before Annas then

             Caiaphas and the council.  

-At the crowing of the rooster, Jesus turned and looked at Peter (Luke 22:61).

            -What a look this must have been!  It couldn’t have been a look of approval;  yet, certainly

             it was a look of compassion.  The Greek word translated “looked” “…implies a close,

             penetrating ‘look’” (Vines).

            -With a tender look toward Peter, Jesus revealed His knowledge of his denials.  With this

             eye contact came Peter’s remembrance of Jesus’ earlier words, “Truly I say to you, that you

             yourself this very night, before a cock crows twice, shall three times deny Me” (Mark 14:30,

             NASB).

                        -“Here, for the first time, the hapless disciple must have realized the enormity of his sin,

                         the depths of his degradation, and the grievous sorrow he was causing his blessed Lord,

                         and he went out and wept bitterly” (Woods, pg 382).

-The realization of his own shortcomings served as a heavy weight of burden upon Peter.  When

 one considers the conversation between Jesus and His distraught apostle, as recorded in John 21,

 one can see that a heavy weight of guilt and self-disappointment still pressed extremely hard upon

 the heart of Peter. 

            -It was following the departure of Peter that Jesus was turned over to the officers who