ACC ~ Matthew 26 v69 - 75

I DO NOT KNOW THE MAN

CHRYSOSTOM: Oh strange and wonderful acts! When indeed he saw his master seized, Peter 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 became a denier. For who would not have been inflamed to indignation by the things that were then done? Yet the great disciple, overcome by fears, so far from showing indignation, even denies and cannot even stand the threat of a tiny and lowly servant girl.

This happens not only once but a second and third time. He denies the Lord. In a short period and even before judges, he denies him. For it was “when he went out to the porch” that they asked him whether he was the man who “was with Jesus of Nazareth.” And he was not even aware of his own lying. Luke says that Christ looked upon him, [1] and this made it clear that he had denied him and was not even aware of how far he had fallen into forgetfulness. This happened even though the cock had crowed. He needed a further remembrance from his Master. Jesus’ look was greater than any voice. Peter was so full of fear. Mark says that when he had once denied the Lord, [2] then first the cock crowed, but then it did so for a second time and a third time. He shows us more particularly the weakness of the disciple, that he was utterly dead with fear. Mark had learned these things from the eyewitnesses, for he himself was a follower of Peter. One marvels at Mark in that, so far from hiding his teacher’s faults, he declared them more distinctly than the rest. On this very account he was a true disciple.

Why does Matthew affirm that “Peter remembered the saying of Jesus, ‘Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times,’” while Mark declares after the third denial that “the cock crew the second time”? [3] Both are in harmony. At each crowing the cock is inclined to crow both a third and a fourth time. Mark showed that not even the sound of the rooster checked him and brought him to recollection. So that both things are true. For before the cock had finished the one crowing, Peter 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. Then “he went out and wept bitterly.” THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 85.1-2. [4]

[1] Lk 22:61.

[2] Mk 14:68-72.

[3] Mk 14:72.

[4] PG 58:758-59; NPNF 1 10:507.

PETER DENIED CHRIST WITH AN OATH

JEROME: “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. [1]

“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. [2] It could not be that Peter, on whom the light of the world had gazed, should remain in the darkness of denial. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 4.26.72-75. [3]

[1] Judg 12:6. Shibboleth in the Hebrew.

[2] Lk 22:61-62.

[3] CCL 77:261-62.

YOU WERE ONE OF THEM

ORIGEN: Upon examining Peter’s denial, we note that “as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” [1] 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.” [2] 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,” [3] 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.” [4] 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. [5] 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,” [6] 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.” [7] COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 114. [8]

[1] Jn 7:39.

[2] Mt 10:20.

[3] Eph 4:27.

[4] Mk 7:7.

[5] Peter denies Jesus when he is “outside (exō), in the courtyard” of the palace where the assembly had gathered. He repents when he goes outside (exō) of the courtyard. Origen interprets the first “outside” in the sense of being far from Jesus and “in the courtyard” as a symbol of the evil of the world. Overcome by this, Peter renounces Christ. The second “outside” refers to being far from the dangers of the world, and thus Peter repents.

[6] Rom 13:12.

[7] Heb 10:26-27.

[8] GCS 38.2:236-38.

THE ACCUSERS

ORIGEN: 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. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 114. [1]

[1] GCS 38.2:240.