Matthew 26:69-75

CRITICAL NOTES

Matthew 26:71. Porch.—The dim, over-arched passage, leading outward from the area of the court to the entrance gate (Morison).

Matthew 26:73. Thy speech bewrayeth thee.—Peter was discovered by his use of the Galilæan dialect. The Galilæans were unable to pronounce the gutturals distinctly, and they lisped, pronouncing sh like th. Perhaps Peter said, “I know not the ith,” instead of, “I know not the ish” (man) (Carr). To bewray, from the Anglo-Saxon wreian, to accuse, then, to point out, make evident,—the literal meaning of the Greek words (Bible Word-Book).

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— Matthew 26:69

Desertion.—Where were the followers of the Saviour during the time that He stood before the high priest, as described in the previous verses? As a rule they were wholly away from the scene. When He had seemed in their eyes to have forsaken Himself (Matthew 26:51), they forsook Him as well (Matthew 26:56). Only the Apostle John, as one known to the high priest (John 18:15), and the Apostle Peter, as introduced by him (ibid., Matthew 26:16), were sufficiently near, in the outer court, to be witnesses of the scene. What befell this last-named Apostle, in consequence of his being there at this time, is the subject of the verses before us. Their contents may be regarded as describing to us, in the first place, a great opportunity; and in the second place, a sad misuse of it.

I. A great opportunity.—Had St. Peter so wished, here was an opening for him to stand up for Christ and confess Him. There was everything in the place where he was (as we say) to give him this “chance.” It was within sight of all that occurred (Luke 22:61). It was filled with those who looked on. Most of them were enemies of the Saviour. Here was the occasion, therefore, for His friends to speak for Him. Also, Peter’s position there was such as to call him specially to undertake this duty. He was a marked man in that place. He had been introduced there, to begin, as a stranger; a thing which would naturally attract attention to him, as well from the doorkeeper as from others. Also, he had been a prominent figure in the garden at the apprehension of Jesus, a procedure in which some of his present companions, the high priest’s servants, had taken their part. Probably, also, there would be something in his appearance, corresponding to the conflict of feelings then raging within him on account of his previous boldness (John 18:10) but later timidity (Mark 14:54), which would draw special attention to him. We know that there was something in the provincial character of his dialect which would do the same thing. And we can well understand that the position he took up, near the “fire” (John 18:18) would make doubly visible whatever of strangeness there was to be seen in his looks. All these things of themselves would be a kind of challenge to him to say who he was, and so, at least, acknowledge his Lord and Master. Lastly, there was not a little to be found in the man’s natural character which would itself be a qualification for, and so a stimulus to, this duty. When we remember what he had said previously (ch. Matthew 16:16); as also what is said of him afterwards (Acts 4:13); as also yet that he must have been in heart in all the time intervening what he was on the occasions referred to;—we shall see that there must have been (at least to one part of him) in his present circumstances, a great call to speak out. “Why do you not confess Jesus now? Why not do so, as you said that you would? Here is a fitting time for so doing! Here are those ready to listen to you, and wanting to know, in fact, who you are! Why not tell them at once, and have done with it?” So his heart, surely, would say then to itself. “Forward in other things, be forward, also, in this.”

II. A sad misuse.—A sad misuse, in the first place, in a negative way—letting the opportunity pass. Instead of dealing with that to which he was invited, the Apostle, at first, tried merely to get out of its way. He did so, partly, in words. Even when one who was present, by the language she employed, pressed the opportunity then before him home on his heart, this was all that he did. “Thou also,” she said to him—thou as well as this John whom we all know here so well (?)—“wast with Jesus of Nazareth.” To this question—for such it really was—he returns what is really no “answer” whatever. He merely professes to have no knowledge at all on the matter in hand (Matthew 26:70). Also, he follows this word up by action of a similar purport; going out into the “porch” (Matthew 26:71), as though he were one having other business just then requiring his presence. The whole signifies that he does not wish at present to commit himself on the subject. He desires at present to be merely neutral about it. He dare not say, Yea, but he will not say, Nay, at this stage of the proceedings; thus, in fact, in such circumstances, by not confessing, denying his Lord. A sadder misuse, in the next place, in a positive way. Having begun thus badly, in other words, he goes on to still worse. Questioned again by another one there, and finding, in consequence, that he cannot take refuge, as he had hoped, in avoiding the subject, he goes on now, in so many words, to deny all knowledge of Christ. “So far from belonging to Him”—so his words mean—“I do not know who He is.” This he says, too, “with an oath” (Matthew 26:72). Lastly, “after a little,” when the effect of this solemnly uttered and distinct asseveration had somewhat worn off, as it were—and when some of those who had heard it, noting the peculiar dialect of the man who had made it, began, in consequence, to question the possibility of its truth—he is given a further and last opportunity of retracing his steps. “Surely, thou dost belong to the company of this Jesus; thy very speech proves that thou dost; why not confess it thyself?” So they in effect (Matthew 26:73). He, on the other hand, thus driven to bay, becomes desperate in his denial. “Then began he to curse and to swear saying, I know not the Man.” What do the words mean? “To curse.” To curse whom? What for? How far? “To swear.” To swear by whom? By his Maker? In attestation of his falsehood? To ask attention to his crime? There is no need to inquire. What the words do show is that he has become utterly lost in his ever-growing iniquity, and has put the opportunity now given him to the worst use that he could.

1. How extreme is the weakness of man when left to himself!—Such is the first lesson which this memorable story has ever taught to the church. Here is the most eminent of the then disciples of Christ—apparently the first stone in His church (Matthew 16:18)—the most forward ever and boldest of all—doing the very thing which he had thought wholly impossible a few moments before. It almost reads like a dream. The true Peter seems standing by, and watching a counterfeit one in his place. Who, after that, shall put trust in himself? Who shall say, after that, of any wickedness, that he may not be tempted to do it? Or, that the best of men may not be found in action what is most abhorrent to them in thought?

2. How supreme, on the other hand, is the strength of all who are true believers in Christ!—We do not see here the end of this Peter, or of the effect of grace on his heart. Even immediately, on the contrary, we see him brought to repent (Matthew 26:75); and that by a look (Luke 22:61). Afterwards we find him opening the door of faith alike to Gentile (Acts 15:7) and Jew (Acts 2:36). Afterwards we find even the Apostle Paul speaking of Him as a “pillar” (Galatians 2:9), as in the implied prediction of Christ (Luke 22:32). To so great height from so great depth did his faith bring him in time. And after just such fashion, therefore, may all those hope who have in them the same “seed” (1 Peter 1:25; 1 John 3:9). If there is nothing weaker, there is nothing stronger than a believer in Christ. If there is nothing he cannot do, there is nothing he cannot undo, by dependence on Him.

HOMILIES ON THE VERSES

Matthew 26:69. Peter’s sin.—

I. The sin.

1. A lie.

2. An oath (perjury).

3. An anathema and curse.

II. The occasion of the sin.—

1. Peter followed Christ afar off, from fear and frailty.

2. He kept bad company.—With the enemies of Christ.

3. Presumptuous confidence.—In his own strength and standing.

III. The repetition of the sin.—If we yield to one temptation, Satan will assault us with more and stronger; progress from bare denial to perjury and thus to imprecation.

IV. The aggravating circumstances.—

1. The person thus falling.—A disciple, an Apostle, the chief Apostle, a special favourite with Christ.

2. The Person denied.—His Master, his Saviour and Redeemer, who just before had washed his feet and given him the sacrament.

3. The company of high priests, and scribes, and elders, and their servants, before whom Peter denied his Master.

4. The time of the denial.—But a few hours after the communion.

5. The smallness of the temptation.—A mere question of a servant girl, a door-keeper.—W. Burkitt.

Denial.—

I. The precursors of Peter’s fall.

1. Self-confidence.

2. Rashness.—Peter had cut off the ear of Malchus. Misplaced bravery is very often, as in this instance, the forerunner of cowardice. If by our folly we put ourselves in jeopardy, we are on the highway to falsehood in order to get ourselves out again.

3. Distance from the Lord.

II. The aggravations of these denials.—These were many.

1. Peter had been well warned of his danger.

2. The time at which they were uttered.—It was with Jesus Himself the hour and power of darkness.

3. The Lord had given him many special tokens of His regard.

4. The manner in which they were made.

III. The sequel of the denials.—“The Lord turned and looked upon Peter.” What a look that was! It was a mingling of reproof, of tenderness, and of entreaty. It reminded Peter of the warnings he had received, of the kindness he had so ungratefully met, and especially of the words of love which had been so recently addressed to him: “Simon, Simon! behold Satan,” etc. (Luke 22:31). He saw then what he had done, and in a moment the fountains of the great deep within him were broken up. He lived on that look till the Master met him after the resurrection; and the thought of that prayer kept him from falling into despair. Had it not been for these things, he, too, might have gone, like Judas, and hanged himself. Note one or two important inferences from this subject:

(1) Great prominence in Christ’s service does not keep us from peril.
(2) Our greatest danger does not always he where we are weakest, but is sometimes where we are usually strongest. Peter’s characteristic was honesty: yet he fell into deceit. Peter’s nature was courageous: yet here he manifests cowardice.
(3) If Peter’s fall is a warning against over-confidence, his restoration ought to be an antidote to all despair.—W. M. Taylor, D.D.

Matthew 26:73. Speech betraying character.—“Thy speech bewrayeth thee.” Varieties of moral character, as well as country, are betrayed by speech:—

I.

The babbling fool.

II.

The censorious fault-finder.

III.

The malicious slanderer.

IV.

The oily flatterer.

V.

The ingenious liar.

VI.

The profane swearer.

VII.

The timid apostate.

VIII.

The bold confessor.—J. C. Gray.

Matthew 26:74. Peter’s guilt.—His guilt was the more flagrant because the ordeal was not compressed into a short compass. The questions did not roll in upon him so quickly as to leave no time for reflection and recovery; on the contrary, they seem to have been spread over a space of an hour at the least; and yet he deliberately forced his soul thrice to the denial.—C. E. B. Reed, M.A.

Matthew 26:75. Peter’s tears.—A man may be conscious of God’s forgiveness, as Peter was of the Saviour’s when He gave him that “look,” and still be unable to forgive himself; and as he remembers the past the floodgates are opened again and again. This was the case with Peter: the deed was done; it had been obliterated from the heart of Christ, but it pressed heavily upon his own; and the consciousness of having committed a base act blinded his eyes with tears. What had he done?

I. He had denied his Lord.—In doing so:—

1. He denied the greatest Teacher.—“Never man spake like this Man.”

2. He denied the kindest Friend.

3. He denied Him at a very critical period. He wept bitterly because of—

II. His likeness to the world.—

1. In his language.—“He began to curse and to swear.”

2. In his shame.

3. In his fear.—Cymro.