John 18:27Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

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).

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.

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.

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."

The first watch began with the beginning of night and lasted until the ninth hour. The second ended at the twelfth hour. The third ended at the third hour. Finally, the fourth lasted from the third to the sixth hour in the morning. Alongside this division into watches, the more ancient designation of certain points of the night by gallicinium was also retained. 'Watch,' the Lord Jesus Christ said to His disciples, 'for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or at the crowing of the rooster, or in the morning' (Mk 13:35). The Greek reads: Ὀψέ, ἢ μεσονυκτίου, ἢ ἀλεκτοροφωνίας, ἢ πρωΐ. From these words of the Savior we see, first, that the crowing of the rooster, ἀλεκτοροφωνία, served even in His days as a designation of time. Second, it did not last all night, but for a certain time between midnight and morning. Censorinus and Pliny help us define the time of the rooster's crowing more exactly. The first divides the second half of the night in this way. 'Midnight forms the beginning and end of the Roman day,' he says. 'The time nearest to it is called de media nocte. Then follows gallicinium, when the roosters begin to crow. After that comes conticium, when they are silent. Ante lucem indicates the time before dawn. Finally, diluculum is the full arrival of day, although the sun has not yet risen.' Here gallicinium follows after midnight, but not immediately. It follows after the interval designated by the term de media nocte. Pliny directly assigns gallicinium to the fourth watch of the night. Since conticium, ante lucem, and diluculum must also fall within this watch, it is clear that the very beginning of the fourth watch must be set apart for gallicinium. That is, it belongs to the fourth hour of the night. This specifically Roman distinction of nighttime may be applied, at least with respect to gallicinium, also to the Jewish reckoning of time. The gallicinium was well known to the Jews. Since the scene by the fire in the high-priestly courtyard occurred alongside and at the same time as another scene, the criminal trial of the Lord Jesus Christ in the house itself, on the second floor, the data for determining the time of the first scene can naturally serve to determine the time of the second. According to the more detailed description in the Evangelist Mark, the rooster crowed twice during the Apostle Peter's denial. The Evangelist Luke says that 'about an hour had passed' (Lk 22:59) between the questions put to the Apostle by the high priest's servants. Their purpose was to expose his Galilean origin and his close connection with the Defendant.

Peter hastened away from the place of his sorrowful fall and from the eyes of men, and he wept bitterly. Tears flow also from joy; these are sweet tears. They flow from offense and in illness; these are tormenting tears. But those drawn forth by a wounded conscience are the most biting tears, the most painful and fully bitter. These were the tears Peter now poured out. My hearers, behold what even the best man can become. Peter had listened so long to the Lord's instruction. Peter had trained himself so long in piety before the face of the Lord. Peter was not corrupted by life. He was ready for every good work, and pious not merely in outward appearance. Yet he fell. Neither the education of a mind enlightened by the truths of heavenly wisdom, nor sufficient experience in the spiritual life, saved Peter from his sorrowful fall. Agree that the One who looked not at faces but at hearts distinguished him with special love. Therefore he was a man of rare virtues. This man had endured many hardships for the Lord Jesus. He had seen in Him the Son of God. He had loved Him ardently. He had resolved to die for Him. He had heard the warnings about his weakness only a few hours before. Yet he fell three times in one night and denied his Lord. After this, consider what men mean, and what good they can do by themselves, with their own powers and means. O how blind, how criminal is that earthly philosophy which rises up with questions and dissatisfaction against the gracious love of the heavenly Father for mankind. Peter did not come to repentance until the life-giving gaze of heavenly Goodness fell upon him. By himself, man only falls. The best thing weak man can do is to feel the gracious gaze and repent of his fall. Conversely, the most dangerous condition is the state of self-reliance, self-satisfaction, and forgetful pride. Only humble awareness of one's inclination to fall, and only contrition for one's falls, distinguishes man from that fallen spirit who fell by the fall of unbending pride. Terrible and hopeless is the state of that spirit, fallen because he does not want to acknowledge his fall. He does not want to recognize his guilt. Therefore let us weep, bitterly weep over our sins. They are so many in us, far more than in Simon. 'Lament, mourn, and weep,' the Apostle James exhorts us. 'Let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves before the Lord, and He will exalt you' (Jas 4:9-10). The risen Savior commanded that word about Himself be spoken to His disciples and to Peter. That is, He made it especially known to the weeping Peter that He loved him. He loved him, forgetting the past fall. He embraced his repentance with love. He still regarded him as Peter, and not as Simon. In exactly the same way He will receive our tears as well. Long ago the Prophet said: 'The lawlessness of the lawless man shall not kill him on the day when he turns from his lawlessness' (Ezek 33:12). Glory and praise to Your boundless goodness, O Lord. For us, salvation lies in humility alone. Amen.

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.