11. PETER'S DENIAL Mark 14:66-72 (Matthew 26:69-75; Luke 22:55-62; John 18:15-18; John 18:25-27) 66 And as Peter was beneath in the court, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest;--Matthew says: "A maid." It appears from John's record that she was the maid who kept the door. (John 18:16-17.) 67 and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and saith, Thou also wast with the Nazarene, even Jesus.--Literally, This the Nazarene was contemptuous, an epithet among the Jews of Judea. (Mark 1:24.) She may have feared being blamed for admitting him. He seems to have been in no great danger, except as he might be recognized as the one who smote Malchus. Some see in the words "thou also" a reference to John. 68 But he denied,--Matthew says: "He denied before them all." saying, I neither know, nor understand what thou sayest --That is, he did not see any reason why this question was asked. All this was falsehood; and Peter must have known that it was such. This is remarkable, because Peter had just before been so confident. and he went out into the porch;--Peter was embarrassed and confused by the question; and to save his confusion from attracting further notice, he went away from the fire into the porch, where he expected to be unobserved. Yet in vain. By the very movement to avoid detection, he came into contact with another who knew him, and repeated the charge. and the cock crew.--True to Mark's own report of the prediction (verse 30), he here mentions the fact that a cock crowed immediately after the first denial. It was now probably between twelve and one o'clock. 69 And the maid saw him,--Matthew says: "Another maid." By comparing the parallel passages the reader will see that after the charge was first made by the porteress, it was repeated by quite a number of others, both male and female, and that Peter made various answers, though all amounted to but three denials. and began again to say to them that stood by, This is one of them.--That is, one of his disciples. "Art thou also one of his disciples?" (John 18:25.) 70 But he again denied it. And after a little while again they that stood by said to Peter, Of a truth thou art one of them; for thou art a Galilaean.--Matthew says: "Thy speech maketh thee known." Peter and the other Galileans spoke the same language as the Jews of Jerusalem, but they had some peculiar pronunciations like the provincialisms of our own country, by which they were distinguished. From his being a Galilean, they inferred that he was a follower of Jesus--an illogical conclusion, and yet a correct one. 71 But he began to curse, and to swear, I know not this man of whom ye speak.--This is Peter's third denial. This was an advance upon his second. 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. 72 And straightway the second time the cock crew.--The second crowing of the cock is around three o'clock. This is a fulfillment of the prediction of the Master, which shows his divinity. And Peter called to mind the word, how that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice.--Luke tells us that when the cock crew Jesus turned and looked upon Peter, and that then he remembered his words. They were in the same room--Jesus at the upper end of the hall, elevated for a tribunal, and Peter below with the servants; so that Jesus could look down upon Peter standing near the fire. And when he thought thereon, he wept.--Matthew says "He went out, and wept bitterly." Overwhelmed and forced to tears over his fall, he went out to hide his bitter weeping and himself from his Master's eyes. He went alone into the darkness of the night and wept bitterly. It is worthy of note that the fact that the fall of Peter is recorded by all the evangelists is high proof of the honesty and candor of our sacred historians. They were willing to mention their own faults without attemping to appear to be better than they were. An uninspired historian would have omitted the fall of Peter and mentioned only his good qualities This shows the difference between an inspired and an uninspired historian and is strong evidence that the Bible is from God.