And Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said therefore to him: Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it and said: I am not.
ην δε σιμων πετρος εστως και θερμαινομενος ειπον ουν αυτω μη και συ εκ των μαθητων αυτου ει ηρνησατο ουν εκεινος και ειπεν ουκ ειμι
11 Church Fathers comment on this verse
O into what insensibility this fervent and fiery man had sunk while Jesus was being led away!
Even after all this he does not move from his place, but still warms himself. Thus you may know how great is the weakness of our nature when God leaves it. And when they question him, he again denies.
Peter, though an ardent lover, is seized by such insensibility that the Teacher has already been led away, yet he still does not move from the place and warms himself.
So they question him again, and he denies Him, not only a second time, but a third.
Why did all the Evangelists write about Peter in agreement? Not in order to condemn their fellow disciple, but to teach us how evil it is not to turn to God in everything, but to rely on oneself.
One must marvel at the Master's love for mankind. He is bound and is led from place to place. Yet He did not abandon care for His disciple.
Rather, turning, He looked at Peter, as another Evangelist notes (Lk 22:61). By this look He reproached him for his weakness and stirred in him repentance and tears.
What happened then to Peter is what many of us now experience, as can be seen.
The Word of God who dwells in us is bound and, as it were, taken captive, enslaved now by sorrow, now by pleasure.
For we are bound and led captive by both: either by worldly pleasures or by sorrows, while forgetting God.
Then the Word is condemned, irrationality prevails, and the servant strikes the master. Such is the uprising of the passions.
Our mind, like another Peter, often trusts in itself that it will not deny the Word. Therefore it stands and warms itself.
It "stands" because it does not bow down or humble itself, but remains fixed and stubborn in self-confidence.
It "warms itself" because it is sick with self-confidence, from heat and pride.
But a "maidservant" rebukes it, some small and enervating pleasure, and it immediately denies the Word and submits to irrationality.
Or some sorrowful temptation rebukes it, just as then a "servant" rebuked Peter, and then its weakness is revealed.
But let us pray that Jesus, the Word of God, may look upon us and move us to repentance and tears when we go out from the courtyard of the prince of this world, this high priest who crucifies the Lord.
For when we go out from this world, which is the courtyard of the prince of the world, only then shall we rise to sincere repentance.
As the Apostle Paul says, "Let us go forth to Him outside the gate," that is, this world, "bearing His reproach" (Heb 13:13).
The divine Evangelist profitably checks the course of his narrative, as one would restrain a swift-running horse, and returns again to what came before. For what reason? Before proceeding further, it was necessary to point out Peter's third denial. It had occurred in a way entirely fitting to it and corresponding to Christ's prediction. Therefore he considers it useful to return to the beginning and says that Jesus was sent from Annas to Caiaphas. He shows that Peter was questioned by the servants who were warming themselves with him. In particular, he was questioned by one belonging to the family of the servant whom Peter had struck with the sword. At this point Peter made the third denial. Then he mentions the cry of the rooster.
He thereby shows that there was no discrepancy with reality in the words of our Savior, who foreknew and foretold His own disciple's weakness in difficult moments. Perhaps the God-enlightened writer of this sacred book would not have recalled this weakness at all, had he not had in view the slanderous chatter of those who hate God. For certain people especially fond of disputing Christ's good repute would at once have said: Show us how and when Peter's denial, foretold by Christ, was fulfilled. You claim that Christ could not speak falsely. You say that He is the Truth and shone forth from the True Father. In view of this, the divine Evangelist judged it entirely necessary to give us the narrative concerning this. Everywhere he shows the truthfulness of the Lord's words. Yet perhaps one of our opponents will refrain from objecting to us with such words. Instead, he will prove to be a fierce accuser of Peter. He will attribute incomparable cowardice to the sincere disciple. He will call him so prone to errors in his words that he already fell into a third denial, without even touching the trial of sufferings or standing at the very gates of danger. But to speak this way belongs only to those not yet initiated into the mystery of Christ's faith. I, however, set such thoughts as far away as possible and bid farewell to their chatter. I turn to the defense of this event, offering the mystical divine economy as proof to those already taught to understand the Mysteries of the Christian faith. For the all-wise Evangelist certainly had to recall these events well. He did so to make his hearers understand what the teachers of the world themselves were like before Christ's Resurrection and before the descent of the Holy Spirit upon them. He also showed what they became afterward, when they received the grace through the Spirit which Christ called 'power from on high' (Lk 24:49). Everyone can see that they were very ready to receive virtue. They were animated by a strong desire to follow Christ, and very often resolved to contend against every danger. But since our Savior Jesus Christ had not yet abolished the dominion of death, the fear of death was still harsh and utterly unbearable. They had not yet received the Spirit, nor had they been strengthened by grace from above. Their soul was not yet wholly free from human faintheartedness for supernatural courage. Therefore they did not appear completely unshaken before the fear of sufferings. Iron is hard by nature. Yet it cannot touch the strongest stones without harm to itself, unless it receives strength from sharpening. So too the human soul may prove very courageous in its irrepressible impulses toward every kind of good. Yet it will never endure the weight of the struggles that arise from this unless it is first strengthened by grace through the Divine Spirit. Therefore, in the beginning, even the disciples themselves could sometimes appear weaker. But when they received the Spirit of the God who is over all, they put off their weakness. They were transformed into His firmness. Through communion with Him, they were raised to supernatural boldness. Thus even the weakness of the saints has been beneficially described, to the praise and glory of God. He changes weakness into strength. He raises up what is easily shaken by simple fears and sometimes crushed merely by expectations of suffering, making it like an invincible fortress. What happened to one or to several of the saints must be an example and encouragement for us. From this we learn never, because of our weakness, to yield to unwillingness to serve God. Rather, we must hope in Him who can strengthen all and who grants us the ability, even beyond hope, to be adorned with supernatural struggles.
However, after saying that Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas, the Evangelist returned to the point in his narrative where he had left Peter. He wished to recount Peter's threefold denial, which occurred in the house of Annas.
"Now Simon Peter stood and warmed himself," he says. Here he repeats what he had already said, then adds what follows.
Then they said to him, "Are you not also one of His disciples?" He denied it and said, "I am not." He had already denied once, and now again.
85. John continues his account: Peter gave a second negative answer to the same question, whether he was one of His disciples.
Rightly he did not wish to acknowledge himself a disciple of Him whom they had just called a man.
And the third time he protests that he was seen with Him: "I was not with the one whom you call a man, but I did not depart from the Son of God."
A very detailed explanation of these words was given in the interpretation of the words in the twenty-sixth chapter of the Gospel according to Matthew: "And going inside, he sat with the servants, to see the end" (Mt 26:58), and what follows.
Peter's Denial. Meanwhile, while the trial of Jesus was taking place, Peter had probably come with John from the house of Annas to the house of Caiaphas. He sat in the courtyard of that house, trying to look like an outsider who had come to the commotion merely out of curiosity. The servants of Caiaphas often entered and left the tribunal, telling those seated in the courtyard everything that was happening there. Peter was probably very anxious as he listened to their reports. By this he showed that it was not idle curiosity alone that had brought him there. Noticing his agitation, one of the maidservants approached him and asked: 'Surely you also were with Jesus the Galilean (Mt 26:69).
Since you listen so intently to everything said about Him?' Peter had not yet had time to answer when one of the high priest's slaves, a relative of Malchus, whose ear Peter had cut off, looked closely at Peter and said: Did I not see you with Him in the garden? Peter was confused and said: 'I neither know nor understand what you are saying' (Mk 14:68). With these words he rose and went toward the exit, into the outer courtyard. As he was approaching the gate, the rooster crowed. Jesus' prediction of Peter's denial is reported by all the Evangelists in complete agreement. Yet Matthew, Luke, and John say nothing about how many times the rooster crowed when Peter denied Jesus three times. Mark, however, wrote his Gospel from Peter's words. Therefore he knew the details of this sorrowful event better than the other Evangelists. He transmits Jesus' prediction in these words: 'Truly I say to you, today, this very night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times' (Mk 14:30). Therefore the Evangelist Mark, narrating Peter's denial, notes this detail. After the first denial in the courtyard of Caiaphas, the rooster crowed the first time. After the third, it crowed the second time. Certainly this detail, having essential significance, could not have been forgotten by Peter. Thus Peter had already denied Christ once. Immediately, as though to remind him of Jesus' prediction and to warn him against further denials, the first midnight cry of the rooster rang out. But Peter, it seems, paid no attention to this warning. Immediately, as he was going out through the gate, another maidservant approached him. Drawing the attention of the people standing by the gate to him, she said: 'This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth' (Mt 26:71). All who were present turned searching eyes upon Peter. He could not endure them. Fear seized him. He not only denied Jesus a second time, but even swore to everyone that he did not know 'this Man' (Mt 26:72). He did not even call Him by name. Peter's sworn assurances probably had an effect on his accusers. They left him in peace. After some time, carried away by a passionate desire to know what was happening to his Teacher, he again entered the courtyard and sat down by the fire. According to the Evangelist Luke, about an hour passed after the second denial (Lk 22:59). According to the Evangelists Matthew (Mt 26:73) and Mark (Mk 14:70), the third denial began a little later. Peter, being born and living in Galilee, spoke in the Galilean dialect. It differed sharply, by its roughness and its incorrect pronunciation of certain sounds and even whole words, from the Aramaic dialect then used by the inhabitants of Judea. All the high priest's attendants sitting by the fire were, of course, speaking about Jesus. They were probably repeating the opinion earlier suggested to them by their master, that the Messiah had to come from Bethlehem and not from Nazareth of Galilee. They also said that Jesus, as a Galilean, could not even be a prophet. Speaking about Galilee, they could not fail to notice Peter, whose dialect clearly betrayed him as a Galilean. They remembered the suspicion raised earlier, whether he was a disciple of Jesus, and began to say to him: 'Though you swore that you do not know this Man, now we suspect that you are one of His disciples, for your speech shows that you are a Galilean.' Fear again fell upon Peter. He began to swear and call God to witness, saying: 'I do not know this Man of whom you speak' (Mk 14:71). By this time the trial of Jesus had already ended, and He was led out from the tribunal into the courtyard. Immediately the rooster crowed a second time, and Christ looked at Peter. Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken to him: 'Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times' (Mk 14:72). He went out and wept bitterly. Saint Clement, the disciple of the Apostle Peter, testifies that throughout the rest of his life, whenever Peter heard the rooster crow at night, he fell prostrate. With tears he repented of his denial and asked forgiveness, although he had already received it from Jesus Christ Himself soon after His Resurrection. Peter was drenched with tears in repentance. But how painful it was for Jesus to see the best of the remaining eleven disciples swearing that he did not know this Man, and fearing even to pronounce His name. The cup of inward torments overflowed.
Yet this made him withdraw from the fire and head toward the exit. There another maidservant met him and began telling those around that "this man also was with Jesus of Nazareth."
Still more disturbed by this, Peter began to swear that he "did not know this Man."
Meanwhile a crowd surrounded him, and many were already saying to him, "Surely you also are one of them, for your speech betrays you."
And one of the high priest's attendants, a relative of Malchus, even said directly, "Did I not see you with Him in the garden?"
Then Peter, seized with terror, began "to curse and swear that he did not know this Man." And suddenly a rooster crowed, announcing the coming of dawn.
Peter was struck as by thunder by this ordinary crowing. He immediately remembered what Christ had said to him in response to his self-confident declaration of devotion to his Teacher.
Stricken with the terror of self-conviction, he rushed headlong from the high-priestly courtyard and "wept bitterly."
"Simon Peter stood and warmed himself." This indicates that the subsequent denials took place in the same courtyard where the first occurred.
It also indicates that this was the common courtyard at the high-priestly house, where Annas and Caiaphas lived.
"Then they said to him," and so forth. This is more general than in the first Evangelists (cf. the note on Mt 26:71-72 and the parallels in Mark and Luke).
From a comparison of the accounts of this denial of Peter, the second, it is clear that Peter, disturbed by the first denial, moved from the fire in the inner courtyard to the outer one.
But when the Lord was led through this courtyard from Annas to Caiaphas, he probably returned again to the inner courtyard and found himself by the fire.
Here the second denial took place.
"They said to him." According to the account of the Evangelist Mark, it was the same maidservant, the gatekeeper. According to the Evangelist Matthew, it was another maidservant.
According to the Evangelist Luke, it was another person. That is, several people spoke, expressing suspicion that Peter was a disciple of Jesus.
"He denied it." Again he denied, and with an oath, as the first Evangelist says.
What follows? The Evangelists' narrative gives no indication that the later events concerning Peter took place anywhere far from the place of his first denial.
St. John says only that Christ was led from Annas to Caiaphas. This means that Annas and Caiaphas lived in one and the same high-priestly courtyard.
Here also all the bitter events with Peter took place.
While the interrogation of the Savior was taking place before Caiaphas, Peter still loved his Teacher and still wished to know closely what would happen to Him.
He stood by the gate of the outer courtyard. There another maidservant saw him and said to those standing there, "This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth" (Mt 26:71).
Peter stood among the servants warming themselves by the fire, and he too warmed himself. He left the maidservant's words unanswered.
But following her example, one of the servants also said, "You are one of them" (Lk 22:58). Then others repeated, "You are one of His disciples."
Everything Simon heard about himself was only conjecture. Yet he became troubled, and in his confusion and fear it seemed to him that he was being interrogated.
And so, having said to the servant, "No" (Lk 22:58), he hastened to confirm his assurance with an oath (Mt 26:72).
Thus Simon had already denied his Teacher and Lord a second time, and still he did not recognize or feel his sin.
Now he denied Him even with an oath, and again not in the face of real danger. Yet he still did not see his own state.
For the account of Peter's denial, see also the Gospels: Mt 26:70, 72, 74; Mk 14:71.
In Luke, as we have already mentioned above, there is an exceedingly important detail, one which Luke could have learned only from Peter himself.
It is this: "The Lord turned and looked at Peter, and Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had said to him, 'Before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.'"
Peter's bitter tears, shed after the denial, are recorded by the Evangelists in Mt 26:75, Mk 14:72, and Lk 22:62.
St. Gregory the Theologian, in his Oration on the Holy Lights of Theophany, mentions Israel's baptism in the sea, John's baptism unto repentance, and finally the higher baptism in the Spirit, which is perfection.
He then adds, "I know also a fourth baptism, that of martyrdom and blood; and I know a fifth baptism, that of tears."
How the Lord restored the one who had fallen completely we shall see later in chapter 21, in the Lord's appearance at the Lake of Tiberias.
Peter's denial, as we have said, was the consequence of excessive confidence in his own strength.
In the sorrow of repentance, in humility, and in the awareness of the weakness of his powers, Peter was washed with tears.
And the Lord returned His grace to him. In human weakness and in the awareness of it, He gave him the power of God, against which the strong, the humanly wise, and the learned could not stand.
Returning to verse 26, we note how well John knew the high-priestly courtyard.
He is not only the only Evangelist who knows the name of the servant Malchus, whose ear Peter cut off in the garden (verse 10).
He also indicates that the man who questioned Peter was a relative of Malchus. There is no doubt that he himself was an eyewitness of all these events.
Passages read together with this verse.
Greek text, 24 words with lemma, transliteration and Strong’s number. Tap to expand.
THEOSIS