Note VII.

ON PETER'S DENIALS OF CHRIST.

It is seldom desirable that an author should be his own commentator, but there are two subjects of considerable importance mentioned in the preceding treatise which require explanation; and, as that explanation could not be conveniently given in the work itself, it is here subjoined. These subjects are the denials of Christ by Peter, and the representation of Christianity as founded, not on a testament, but on a covenant.

Concerning the nature and number of Peter's denials of Christ much misapprehension has prevailed. By the majority of harmonists and commentators they are reckoned as three, and ascribed either to disaffection, timidity, or unbelief; but, if all the circumstances of the case as described by the evangelists are carefully examined, it will plainly appear that they were seven in number, and occasioned by presumption and spiritual pride.

After celebrating his last paschal supper with the apostles, instituting his own supper, and dismissing from the apartment Judas Iscariot, whose intended treachery he had previously intimated, both to the traitor himself, and to the beloved disciple, Christ said to the eleven, — "Children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye will seek me, and as I said to the Jews, — Whither I go ye cannot come, — so now I say to you. A new commandment I give you, — to love one another; [I mean] to love one another as I have loved you. Hereby all men will know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love to one another.' — And the Lord said, 'Simon! Simon! behold Satan hath demanded to have you, that he may sift [you] like wheat, but I have prayed for thee that thy faith may not fail. When [therefore] thou art restored, strengthen thy brethren.' — Simon Peter said to him, — 'Lord, whither goest thou?' — Jesus answered him, — 'Whither I go thou canst not follow me now, but thou shalt follow me hereafter.' — Peter said to hira, — 'Lord! why cannot I follow thee now^? I am ready to go with thee both to prison and to death: I will lay down my life for thy sake.' — Jesus answered him, — 'Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? I assuredly tell thee, the cock will not crow this day before thou wilt thrice deny that thou knowest me." — The important discourses of Christ which followed this conversation terminated in his well-known prayer to the Father, after recording which, the narrative thus proceeds. — "When Jesus had spoken these words he went forth with his disciples, and having sung a hymn, they repaired as usual to the Mount of Olives. He then said to them, — 'All of you will this night be offended by me, for it is written, — I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered: — but after I am risen [from the dead,] I will go before you to Galilee.* — Peter answered him,— 'Though all [others] should be offended by thee, I will never be offended.' — Jesus said to him, — 'I tell thee truly that to-day, [even] this very night, before the cock crows the second time, thou wilt disown me thrice:' — but he spoke the more positively, — 'Though I should die with thee, I will never disown thee:' — so likewise said all the disciples."¹

The foregoing passages relate the predictions made by Christ on this subject: the following ones exhibit the accomplishment of these predictions. About an hour after his entrance into the garden of Gethsemane, a formidable band of soldiers and civil officers, despatched by the military and ecclesiastical authorities at Jerusalem, arrived there to apprehend him. Before surrendering himself to them, he stipulated with characteristic kindness for the safe retreat of his apostles. — "If ye seek me, allow these men to depart;' — thus fulfilling the declaration which he had made, — 'Of those whom thou gavest me I have not lost one.' — Then they advanced, laid hands on Jesus, and seized him. On this those who were with him, perceiving what was about to happen, said to him, — 'Lord, shall we smite with the sword?' — and Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high-priest's slave, and cut off his right ear. The slave's name was Malchus. Then said Jesus to Peter, — 'Put the sword into the scabbard, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. The cup which the Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? Thinkest thou that I cannot even now request my Father, and he would send to my aid more than twelve legions of angels? [but] how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled, [which declare] that thus it must be?' — And he said, — 'Suffer [me] thus far:' — and, touching the ear of Malchus, he healed him. Then said Jesus to the chief-priests, commanders of the temple- [guard,] and elders, who had come forth against him, — 'Are ye come forth as against a robber, with swords and staves, to seize me? I sat daily amongst you, teaching in the temple, and ye did not seize me; but this is your hour, and the power of darkness, in fulfilment of the writings of the prophets.' — Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled."²

In order to represent more distinctly the seven denials of Christ by Peter, which shortly followed these events, they are here separately stated in the words of the evangelists.

FIRST DENIAL.

Annas sent Jesus bound to Caiaphas the high-priest, at whose palace all the chief-priests, scribes, and elders were assembled. — Now Simon Peter had followed Jesus at a distance; another disciple also [followed him:] that disciple was known to the high-priest, and entered with Jesus into the palace, but Peter stood without at the gate; so the other disciple who was known to the high-priest went out, and spoke to the maid-servant who attended the gate, and obtained admission for Peter. Then said the maid-servant to Peter, — "Art not thou also [one] of this man's disciples?" — He said, — "I am not." — John, chap. 18, v. 15-17, 24.

SECOND DENIAL.

And he went in, and joined the officers, to see the end. The slaves and officers were standing round a fire of embers which they had kindled in the midst of the hall, for it was cold, and were warming themselves, and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself. Whilst he was there, one of the maid-servants of the high-priest came, and seeing Peter sitting at the fire, after looking steadfastly at him, said, — "This man also was with him, — Thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth;" — but he disowned him before them all, saying, — "Woman, I know him not, neither do 1 understand what thou meanest." — Matt. chap. 26, v. 58, 69, 70; —Mark, chap. 14, v. 54, 66-68; — Luke, chap. 22, v. 55-57.

THIRD DENIAL.

A little after another person saw him, and said, — "Thou also art [one] of them:" — but Peter said, — "Man, I am not." — Luke, chap. 22, v. 58.

FOURTH DENIAL.

And he went out into the porch, and the cock crew. Whilst he was there, another [maid-servant] saw him, and said to those who were present, — "This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth." — Again he denied [it] with an oath, [saying,] — " I know not the man." — Matt. chap. 26, v. 71, 72; —Mark, chap. 14, v. 68-70.

The first trial of Christ by the Sanhedrim, occupying about an hour, here intervened,

FIFTH DENIAL.

[Meanwhile] Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. So they said to him, — "Art not thou also [one] of his disciples?" — he denied [it,] and said, — "I am not." — John, chap. 18, v. 25.

SIXTH DENIAL.

One of the high-priest's slaves, a relative [of him] whose ear Peter had cut off, said, — "Did not I see thee in the garden with him?" — Again Peter denied [it.] — John, chap. 18, v. 26,. 27.

SEVENTH DENIAL.

A little after another man confidently affirmed, saying, — "Certainly this man also was with him, for he is a Galilean." — So the by-standers came up, and said again to Peter, — "Certainly thou also art [one] of them, for thy [manner of] speaking is similar, [and] discovereth thee:" — but he began to utter oaths and curses, [saying,] — "Man, I know not what thou meanest: I know not this man of whom ye speak:" — and instantly, whilst he was yet speaking, the cock crew the second time. And the Lord turned and looked on Peter: and Peter remembered what the Lord had said to him, — "Before the cock crows the second time thou wilt disown me thrice:" — and he went out, and wept bitterly."³ — Matt. chap. 26, v. 73-75; — Mark, chap. 14, v. 70-72; — Luke, chap. 22, v. 59-62.

The general correctness of this representation of Peter's denials will perhaps be sufficiently obvious on inspection; but there are two points connected with the subject which may seem to require further explanation, namely, the motives of these denials, and their number. The narrative itself suggests as their primary cause, that presumption and self-confidence, which prompted Peter to declare that he would stand by Christ even if all others abandoned him, and to contradict his master when foretelling the reverse; for, on hearing the prediction, — "he spoke the more positively, — 'Though I should die with thee, I will never disown thee." — But the immediate cause was no doubt the dread of capital punishment, as the natural consequence of his atrocious assault on Malchus in the garden of Gethsemane; for, although this act "^was providentially arrested, it was evidently one of intentional murder towards the individual, and of open sedition against the lawful governors of the land, both civil and ecclesiastical. It was an act alike opposed to the spirit, and hostile to the success of the gospel; and had not Christ promptly remedied the evil, by rebuking the apostle, and healing the wounded slave, might have seriously injured his character and cause. The apostles were apparently unprepared for his ready submission to the power of his adversaries; and hence, on seeing him calmly resign himself into their hands, — "they all forsook him, and fled." — Finding, however, that they were not pursued by the guard, Peter and John speedily returned to the spot, and followed him to his destination; but with a remarkable difference in their demeanour, corresponding to the difference of their previous conduct. John, who had not committed any offence, entered boldly with Jesus into the high-priest's palace, where, although well known to be one of his disciples, he was allowed to remain unmolested; whilst Peter, conscious of the danger which he had incurred by his recent outrage, followed at a distance, and when admitted into the palace, was soon betrayed into a denial of his discipleship.

His danger, both then and long afterwards, was indeed great. Owing to the darkness and confusion of the scene in the garden, he fortunately escaped without being recognized as the man who wounded Malchus; for, had he been detected, he might have been legally put to death for a crime precisely similar to that of Barabbas, — ** who, on account of a sedition attended with murder which had taken place in the city, was in prison with his accomplices."— The reality and extent of the danger are indicated by the fact, that both Christ and the three earlier evangelists carefully abstained from mentioning the name of Peter in connexion with this occurrence. When Jesus said, — "Put the sword into the scabbard," &c., — he did not name him. Matthew, Mark, and Luke merely intimate that it was one of the disciples who thus acted; and John alone, who wrote at a later period, when the danger was past, expressly names both the apostle and his victim, — "Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high-priest's slave, and cut off his right ear. The slave's name was Malchus." — Neither was the danger confined to Peter, but involved also the sacred cause to which he was devoted. His fear on this occasion was therefore natural and rational; and, had he been wise, he would, like the apostles generally, have yielded to circumstances, and taken refuge in retirement. But his pride forbad so humiliating a course. He had confidently promised to follow his master both to prison and to death, to lay down his life for his sake, and faithfully to adhere to him though all others forsook him. He was aware that by entering into the high-priest's palace he should run the risk of being detected as the assailant of Malchus, but, on the other hand, could not without a struggle submit to the disgrace of grossly breaking his word, and forfeiting his engagements. He therefore followed the guard afar off; and through the influence of John who had entered some time before, obtained admission in an evil hour into the dreaded mansion.

In order that the sequel may be better understood, it is proper to notice that this mansion, like that of Eliashib, in the time of Nehemiah, was apparently an official residence within the precincts of the temple, where during the passover and other solemn seasons the attendance of the high-priest was frequently required. Here alone, until the final decline of the Jewish state, the Sanhedrim held their sittings, in a large circular saloon, called by the Jews, — the chamber of free-stone. Here the trial of Stephen was conducted;⁴ and here they were at this time assembled, anxiously awaiting the appearance of Jesus, as a prisoner at their bar. Those who entered this apartment from without passed in succession through a portico or vestibule, and a spacious hall, the roof of which, as well as that of the council-chamber, was probably perforated, and in fair weather partially open to the sky. At the entrance of the vestibule a maid-servant was stationed, as portress, to take cognizance of those who went in or out. In the midst of the hall a fire of embers or charcoal was kindled in a brasier, for the accommodation of the slaves and officers who attended on the high-priest, and the other members of the Sanhedrim. Under the disquietude of mind naturally induced by the perilous position into which he had thrown himself, Peter twice approached the fire in the hall, and twice retired to the vestibule, in which two apartments all his denials were committed. The identity or diversity of these denials, as described with some variety by the four evangelists, is determined by those of the times, places, persons, or other principal circumstances connected with them; — their arrangement is fixed either by the order of narration, when uncontradicted, or by more positive indications of sequence, when these are supplied. The first, fifth, and sixth denials are peculiar to John's gospel, the third to that of Luke, the second and seventh are related by the three earlier evangelists in common, and the fourth by Matthew and Mark alone.

The first of Peter's denials was addressed to the maidservant at the gate; and having occurred at the very moment of his entrance into the palace, cannot be confounded with any other. The second, addressed to another of the high-priest's maid-servants, is represented by Luke as having happened almost immediately after Peter's first approach to the fire in the hall. It must, of course, have followed the former, and preceded all the rest. The third denial, given in reply to a man, is by Luke expressly dated a little after the last, and about an hour before the seventh. On this ground it is left where it is found in the narrative, annexed to the preceding one; and from the shortness of the interval, and the similar expression applied by the evangelist to the parties, both of whom seem to have observed Peter by the light of the fire, it may reasonably be concluded that both denials occurred in the same situation. From John's statement it is evident that the three concluding denials also took place in the hall, whither Peter, who had previously retired from it, must therefore after a time have returned, the interval of about an hour having been occupied by the first trial of Christ before the Sanhedrim. The two former of these denials, whereof the second is by John almost confounded with the seventh which so speedily ensued, are consequently the fifth, addressed to the attendants, on their asking Peter whether he were not a follower of Jesus; and the sixth, in reply to a relative of Malchus, on his putting a similar question. The seventh, in reply to the attendants, on their again charging him more positively with being a disciple, was manifestly the last denial, having immediately preceded the second crowing of the cock, and the final retirement and penitence of Peter; — "Instantly, whilst he was yet speaking, the cock crew the second time, . . . . and he went out, and wept bitterly."

Supposing it to have been now demonstrated that Peter denied Christ seven times, it may reasonably be asked how this view can be reconciled with the express, and seemingly restrictive declarations of all the evangelists, that he denied him thrice, a declaration repeated in not less than seven different passages.⁵ The solution of this difficulty depends on a right interpretation of the terms employed, an interpretation which is happily furnished by some of the evangelists themselves; amongst whom Luke alone intimates what the Saviour meant by denying him, and Mark alone what he meant by the crowing of the cock. Of disowning Christ there were evidently two modes or degrees, the lower degree consisting in a person denying that he was his disciple, the higher in denying that he had any knowledge of him whatever. Amongst the Jews, as amongst most other civilized nations, when a man was tried on a capital charge, it was usual to receive any respectable testimony which might be adduced in favour of his general character. There were doubtless many persons in Jerusalem at that time who, although they were not disciples of Jesus, could bear witness to the purity and beneficence of his life. Even his adversaries, either directly or indirectly, admitted the fact. Caiaphas declared that it was expedient to sacrifice him to the safety of the nation, implying that it was unjust; Judas Iscariot confessed, when it was too late, that he had betrayed innocent blood; and Pontius Pilate, after the fullest investigation, pronounced him a righteous man. Yet Peter, the most eminent and zealous of the apostles, owing to the unhappy predicament into which he had brought himself, rendered less justice to the character of his master than those who were concerned in his death; and thus perhaps contributed unwittingly to the fulfilment of a remarkable passage in Isaiah's prophecy concerning the sufferings of the Messiah, chap. 53, v. 8.

"By an oppressive judgment he was taken off;
And his manner of life who would declare?"⁶

for he was guilty of denying Christ in both the modes above described, having repeatedly protested, not only that he was no disciple of Christ, but even that he did not know the man. It was the latter more aggravated kind of denial which, during the paschal supper, the Saviour predicted Peter would commit before cock-crowing the next morning; — "I assuredly tell thee, the cock will not crow this day before thou wilt thrice deny that thou knowest me'' — When on the subsequent passage from Jerusalem to Gethsemane this prediction was repeated, the time of its accomplishment was intimated with equal precision; — "I tell thee truly that to-day, [even] this very night, before the cock crows the second time, thou wilt disown me thrice." — These two explanatory passages serve to show that, in all the corresponding ones, the more general terms employed for this purpose are to be understood in the special sense here expressed; that by Peter's disowning Christ thrice is meant his thrice denying that he knew him; and by the cock-crowing, not the slight and casual crowing which often takes place during the middle watch of the night, but the loud, regular, and repeated cry of that bird which introduces the following watch, at three o'clock in the morning, according to the division of the day then in use, as noticed in Mark's gospel; namely, evening, midnight, cock-crowing, and morning.⁷ Jewish writers are said to have objected to the evangelical narrative in this respect, that on account of the sanctity of Jerusalem fowls were not allowed to be kept there; but, supposing this to have been the case the objection is unimportant, since they might have been kept immediately without the walls, from which no part of the city was very remote, and the distance to which the crowing of cocks can be heard in early morning is well known.

The Jewish day commenced at sunset, the period of darkness preceding that of light, agreeably to the mode of expression so often repeated in the Mosaic history of the creation, — "The evening and the morning were the first day," &c.; — and to the divine direction respecting the day of atonement, — "From even to even shall ye celebrate your sabbath." — During the original passion-week, as it may be termed, the paschal day began about six o'clock on Wednesday evening, being the fourteenth day of Nisan, which was the first month of the sacred year, and coincided with the vernal equinox. The first day of the feast of unleavened bread, being an extraordinary sabbath, began at the same hour on Thursday evening; the second day of the feast, which in this instance was the ordinary weekly sabbath, on Friday evening; the third day of the feast, and first of the week, on Saturday evening, and so forth.⁸ Attention to these facts is necessary, in order fully to understand the circumstances described in the gospel narrative of that important period. Thus, notwithstanding the objections of some commentators, it is most clearly and positively stated by the evangelists that Christ and his apostles celebrated the paschal supper on the accustomed day and hour; namely, on the evening of Thursday, the fourteenth of Nisan, the solemnity having naturally been protracted into the ensuing night, that is, into the commencement of Friday, the fifteenth; on which memorable day the whole of our Saviour's sufferings and death were accomplished. The Mosaic law directed that the paschal supper should not commence later than the evening of the fourteenth of Kisan, and that no part of the lamb or kid should remain unconsumed beyond the morning of the fifteenth.⁹ — It is accordingly stated by the three earlier evangelists that, on the appointed day, — "when the evening was come, [Christ] placed himself at table with the twelve;" — and, long before they quitted the upper chamber where they partook of the paschal supper, John mentions that — "it was night." — Hence appears the perfect accuracy of Christ's second prediction concerning Peter, in reference to time; — "To-day, [even] this very night, before the cock crows the second time, thou wilt disown me thrice;" — corresponding to the accuracy of his first prediction in reference to mode; — "The cock will not crow this day before thou wilt thrice deny that thou knowest me." — These predictions are exceedingly precise, and they were most precisely fulfilled; for on inquiry it will be found that, among the seven denials of Christ by Peter which preceded the second crowing of the cock, there were just three of the personal kind; and by so critical an accordance with the facts of the case, the truth of the predictions is more strikingly displayed than if there had been no other denials.¹⁰ The proof of this statement is as follows:

Peter's first denial was a general one; for, on being asked by the portress at the gate, — "Art not thou also [one] of this man's disciples?" — he said, — "I am not."-^ The second was a personal and more public disavowal; for, when another maid-servant, having observed him sitting at the fire in the hall, positively asserted, — "Thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth,' — he disowned him before them all, saying, — "Woman, I know him not, neither do I understand what thou meanest." — The third was general, in reply to another person who affirmed, — "Thou also art [one] of them': — but Peter said, — 'Man, I am not." — He then went out into the vestibule, or portico; and, as Mark alone relates, the cock crew. Peter had therefore in some sort denied Christ three times, even before the first crowing of the cock; but, as has been above shown, this did not fulfil the prediction, neither is it so represented by the evangelists. The fourth denial was personal, when the portress, again observing him in the vestibule, more confidently affirmed to those who were present, — "This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth': — again he denied [it] with an oath, [saying,] — "I know not the man." — The fifth was general, on Peter's return to the fire in the hall; for, the by-standers having asked him, — "Art not thou also [one] of his disciples'? — he denied [it,] and said, — "I am not." — The sixth also was general, when a relative of Malchus having put to him the searching question, — "Did not I see thee in the garden with him'? — again Peter denied [it."] — The seventh and last denial was, however, in the highest degree personal and decided; for, on the attendants at the fire making the positive charge, — "Certainly thou also art [one] of them, for thy [manner of] speaking is similar, [and] discovereth thee,' — he began to utter oaths and curses, [saying,] — 'I know not this man of whom ye speak,'' — Peter's conduct on this latter occasion is well illustrated by that of John of Gischala, one of the leaders of the Jews in their final war with the Romans, as thus escribed by Josephus. — "But now John was afraid for himself, since his treachery had proved unsuccessful; so he took the armed men that were about him, and removed from Tiberias to Gischala, and wrote to me to apologize for himself concerning what had been done, as if it had been done without his approbation, and desired me to have no suspicion of him to his disadvantage. He also added oaths, and certain horrible curses upon himself, and supposed he should be thereby believed in the points he wrote about to me."¹¹

The preceding remarks may serve to show that a well-constructed Harmony, or, in other words, a careful analysis and consolidation of the statements of the four evangelists, affords great and peculiar advantages. In many cases, a complete and methodical view of the events which they relate cannot otherwise be obtained; but by this means every occurrence is placed in the clearest and most natural light, and circumstances are often discovered which, without such a process, might easily be overlooked. The character, origin, and design of the several gospels are also hereby thoroughly illustrated; whilst their veracity is at the same time confirmed by a train of internal evidence which, although minute and subtile, is on that very account the more demonstrative and irresistible,

1) The portions of the four gospels here harmonized are, Matt, chap. 26, v. 30-35; — Mark, chap. 14, v. 26-31; — Luke, chap. 22, v. 31-34, 39; — John, chap. 13, v. 33-38; chap. 18, v. 1.

2) The portions of the four gospels here harmonized are, Matt, chap. 26, v. 50-56; — Mark, chap. 14, v. 46-50; — Luke, chap. 22, v. 49-53; — John, chap. 18, v. 7-11.

3) The portions of the four gospels here harmonized are, Matt, chap. 26, v. 57, 58, 69-75; — Mark, chap. 14, v. 53, 54, 66-72; — Luke, chap. 22, v. 54-62; — John, chap. 18, v. 15-18, 24-27.

4) See Calmet's Dictionary, Article Sanhedrim; also Nehemiah, chap. 3, v. 20, 21; — Acts, chap. 6, v. 8-15.

5) Matt. chap. 26, v. 34, 75; — Mark, chap. 14, v. 30, 72; — Luke, chap. 22, v. 34, 61; — John, chap. 13, v. 38.

6) Bishop Lowth's New Translation of Isaiah, vol. i. p. 171. See also the note in vol. ii. pp. 327, 328, which strongly supports the correctness of this interpretation.

7) Mark, chap. 6, v. 48; chap. 13, v. 35; chap. 14, v. 29, 30; — Luke, chap. 12, v. 38; chap. 22, v. 34.

8) Genesis, chap. 1, v. 5, &c.;  — Exodus, chap, 12, v. 14-20; — Levit. chap. 23, v. 4-8, 26-32; — Numbers, chap. 9, v. 1-5; — Deuteron. chap. 16, v. 1-8,

9) Exodus, chap. 12, v. 1-28; — Numbers, chap. 28, v, 16-25.

10) Matt, chap.26, v. 17-20; — Mark, chap. 14, v. 12-17, 29, 30; — Luke, chap. 22, v. 7-14, 33, 34; — John, chap. 13, v. 25-30.

11) Whiston's Josephus, vol. iii. pp. 204, 205; — Congregational Magazine for 1833; pp. 85-91; 143-148.