Post by Cindy on Nov 10, 2016 11:43:45 GMT -5
Most of us have been taught that Peter denied the Lord 3 times, but some teach that he denied the Lord 6 times. Which one is true. I suggest studying the scriptures and the following commentaries and then after praying, decide for yourself which you think is true. Personally, I believe Peter denied him 6 times. I don't believe that just because some commentaries said so. Part of the reason I think this is true is because it shows just how very wicked we really are and how difficult it is for us to trust the Lord. Peter was no superman. He was just a person like you and me. That he could deny the Lord at all says a lot about us, that he could deny him 3 or 6 times in one night, says even more about us and our little faith. To me, it's more important to understand what was going on inside Peter's heart and mind at this time, than to know exactly how many times he denied the Lord. But if we go with the 6 times, it certainly shows how scared and yet in a strange way, how brave Peter was. To me it shows exactly what Paul speaks about in Romans 7:15–25, and I see that in myself all the time too.
These are the main scriptures we'll be looking at.
“Then Jesus told them, “This very night you will all fall away on account of me, for it is written: “ ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’ But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee.” Peter replied, “Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will.” “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times.” But Peter declared, “Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you.” And all the other disciples said the same.” (Matthew 26:31–35)
““You will all fall away,” Jesus told them, “for it is written: “ ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’ But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee.” Peter declared, “Even if all fall away, I will not.” “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “today—yes, tonight—before the rooster crows twice you yourself will disown me three times.” But Peter insisted emphatically, “Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you.” And all the others said the same.” (Mark 14:27–31)
“Then seizing him, they led him away and took him into the house of the high priest. Peter followed at a distance. But when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and had sat down together, Peter sat down with them.” (Luke 22:54–55)
“and brought him first to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year. Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it would be good if one man died for the people. Simon Peter and another disciple were following Jesus. Because this disciple was known to the high priest, he went with Jesus into the high priest’s courtyard, but Peter had to wait outside at the door. The other disciple, who was known to the high priest, came back, spoke to the girl on duty there and brought Peter in. “You are not one of his disciples, are you?” the girl at the door asked Peter. He replied, “I am not.” It was cold, and the servants and officials stood around a fire they had made to keep warm. Peter also was standing with them, warming himself. Meanwhile, the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching. “I have spoken openly to the world,” Jesus replied. “I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret. Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said.” When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby struck him in the face. “Is this the way you answer the high priest?” he demanded. “If I said something wrong,” Jesus replied, “testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?”” (John 18:13–23)
“While Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant girls of the high priest came by. When she saw Peter warming himself, she looked closely at him. “You also were with that Nazarene, Jesus,” she said. But he denied it. “I don’t know or understand what you’re talking about,” he said, and went out into the entryway.” (Mark 14:66–68)
“A servant girl saw him seated there in the firelight. She looked closely at him and said, “This man was with him.” But he denied it. “Woman, I don’t know him,” he said. A little later someone else saw him and said, “You also are one of them.” “Man, I am not!” Peter replied.” (Luke 22:56–58)
“As Simon Peter stood warming himself, he was asked, “You are not one of his disciples, are you?” He denied it, saying, “I am not.” One of the high priest’s servants, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, challenged him, “Didn’t I see you with him in the olive grove?” Again Peter denied it, and at that moment a rooster began to crow.” (John 18:25–27)
I'm going to simply copy from the Life of Christ study guide, but want you to know too that other commentaries agree with this, though many simply stick to the idea of 3 denials too.
Matthew and Mark record this exchange which occurred after the departure from the upper room, whereas Luke and John record a similar, but different, event earlier in the evening. Here, the warning was made to the eleven, whereas the earlier warning was addressed to Peter. Peter, apparently still smarting from the rebuke inherent in the earlier prophecy, vehemently contradicted his Lord (Mark 14:31 “But Peter insisted emphatically, “Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you.” And all the others said the same.”), a lead which the other ten disciples then followed.
Consider for a moment the emotions of the eleven as they left that upper room. They must have felt very close to their Lord after the Upper Room Discourse (what disciple could fail to respond to that passionate plea?), and surely they had all resolved to honor His plea for unity. However, the cold truth of imminent desertion fractured their ranks in short shrift and made Peter self-assertive again. How frail is our human psyche! Peter’s response (Matt 26:33 “Peter replied, “Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will.””) could not have endeared him to the ten, and must have saddened his Lord for its lack of love, a subject on which He had just lectured the apostles. Before we criticize Peter, however, we should examine our own lives and attitudes, for surely his attitude is recorded for our instruction, not to satisfy our penchant for criticism. The Church’s cohesion is entirely dependent on Christ’s presence.
Our Lord’s prophecy of defection by the whole band was made with purpose. Its point is indicated in Matt v. 32: “But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee.” it was to reassure the apostles that their defection would be forgiven so as to encourage them to go to Galilee to await the risen Jesus Christ. When we study the resurrection narrative we will see that Christ had to do still more to bolster their faith (and possibly to dispel their remorse) before they would set out for Galilee.
Now let us turn our attention to the prophecy directed at Peter. First, it is significant that the Greek text uses different words for deny and betray, so Peter’s sin was of a different specie to that of Judas. Denying Christ is not the same as betraying Him (thank God!), and Christ does restore those who deny Him to fellowship with Him. Second, we should note the distinction between Luke 22:34, ‘before the cock crow at all,’ and Mark 14:30, ‘before the second cock crow.’ Mark is not contradictory, but a second warning, and as will be argued in Study 69, doubles the number of times Peter was to renounce his Lord. Matthew 26:34 may be either a repetition of the first (§245) warning at an early stage in Peter’s repeated assertions, or an abbreviated record of Mark 14:30 (the latter is more likely, because Matthew reports the second set of denials).
The Trial in Annas’ House (Luke 22:54–55; John 18:13–23)
After His arrest in Gethsemane, our Lord was first taken to Annas’ house which served as a convenient ‘holding’ station, for while Jesus was there Caiaphas was able to assemble the elders of the nation in his house. These events took place in the middle of the night (as Jesus was arrested around 10:30 p.m.), before the watch named ‘cockcrowing’ by the Romans. Romans divided the night into four watches of three hours each:
late 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.,
midnight 9 p.m. to 12 a.m.,
cockcrowing 12 a.m. to 3 a.m.,
and early 3 a.m. to 6 a.m. (see also Mark 13:35).
Annas had been high priest from AD 6–15, but had been deposed by the Romans. However, under the Mosaic Law a high priest held office until his death, so many Jews would still have regarded Annas as the rightful high priest. The Romans had appointed Caiaphas who was thus the ‘legal’ high priest. Notably, both tried Jesus, so the Jewish priesthood cannot escape culpability for rejecting their Messiah on a technicality! Nor can the Jewish nation by arguing the demerits of Caiaphas’ appointment.
John’s modesty in not naming himself after the other Gospels had omitted mention of his following Jesus (John was the last Gospel to be written) is exemplary. One wonders just what happened between the disciples fleeing and this event. John and Peter clearly came together in the dark and together decided to stay close to Jesus, presumably in an attempt to free Him from captivity. The crowd who arrested Jesus carried lamps and torches (John 18:3), so their route and destination could easily be followed. John used the fact that he knew the high priest to gain admission; this, together with the gatekeeper’s question, indicates that Jesus’ captors had taken precautions against His disciples infiltrating their stronghold in a natural caution to thwart any attempt to free Him.
Annas had chosen a girl as gatekeeper, presumably because women are generally more observant of people than are men (this point was demonstrated in Mark 14:66, and Mark 14:69). The question she posed to Peter (John 18:17 ““You are not one of his disciples, are you?” the girl at the door asked Peter. He replied, “I am not.””) was probably asked of everyone not known to her that evening, for the Greek text phrases this question as though she expected a negative answer. Peter did not disillusion her, and so gained entry to the courtyard in which Jesus stood. The cold noted in John 18:18 should give us pause to consider our Lord’s circumstances. After the severe emotional strain of Gethsemane, one could expect Him to be physically drained and in need of warmth, yet He was left wearing only His normal garments, while those around Him warmed themselves at the fire.
Annas was the power behind the high priesthood (indeed, he was Caiaphas’ father-in-law), and clearly must have been waiting up for Jesus’ arrest as this trial must have begun around midnight. It seems that Jesus was first taken to Annas’ palace in order to allow time for the men whom Caiaphas had summoned to assemble at his palace. Normal respect and caution would have ensured that Caiaphas only summoned these men after he was certain of Jesus’ arrest. It seems that when Annas found Jesus in his power he could not resist the opportunity to cross-examine Him, even though Jesus was probably simply being held in his palace as a matter of practical convenience until the men Caiaphas had summoned to him had assembled.
Annas was particularly concerned about the political implications of events, as is indicated by the questions he asked Jesus about His followers. The second aspect of his questions, on Jesus’ teachings, was probably an attempt to establish a charge of blasphemy. Annas was trying to get Jesus to testify against Himself; but as Roman law did not require a man to do so, Jesus did not oblige. Indeed, His answer emphasized the ridiculousness of the questions, for all His teaching had been made in public, which was precisely why Annas and Caiaphas were so anxious to get Him out of the way! (Caiaphas had originated the idea of crucifying Christ—John 18:14.)
The Greek text uses the perfect tense for ‘spoke’ in John 18:20; Jesus had finished His preaching as He had solemnly proclaimed in §224 (Matt 23:37–39), so one cannot but be impressed by His perfect consistency. God’s spirit will not always strive with man; there comes a time when God stops pleading with sinners. The ‘taught’ is an aorist, the tense Greek uses for a simple past action; so the change in tense is significant. Jesus was that sure of the clarity of His teaching that He could confidently refer His accusers to those whom He had taught. Surely, this sets an example of clarity in teaching which we who are privileged to teach should strive to emulate.
This ‘trial’ may be likened to an arraignment, but from the prosecution’s point of view, was devoid of any usefulness. It is little wonder that the frustration of one of the officers drove him to physical violence; his blow indicated their rejection of Jesus more explicitly than any words could convey. The Greek text makes it plain that the blow was vicious and violent; it was clearly an expression of intense hate, and marked the beginning of an intense outpouring of hate against Jesus. Sin always displays this hate towards righteousness; it is vicious, violent, passionate, irrational, and always futile, even as this demonstration was. Annas’ action of sending Jesus to Caiaphas (John 18:24) was an admission of defeat. He could not argue with the logic of Jesus’ reply in John 18:23, yet this did not cause him to reconsider his resolve.
Peter’s Denials at Annas’ House (Mark 14:66–68; Luke 22:56–58; John 18:25–27)
“While Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant girls of the high priest came by. When she saw Peter warming himself, she looked closely at him. “You also were with that Nazarene, Jesus,” she said. But he denied it. “I don’t know or understand what you’re talking about,” he said, and went out into the entryway.” (Mark 14:66–68)
“A servant girl saw him seated there in the firelight. She looked closely at him and said, “This man was with him.” But he denied it. “Woman, I don’t know him,” he said. A little later someone else saw him and said, “You also are one of them.” “Man, I am not!” Peter replied.” (Luke 22:56–58)
“As Simon Peter stood warming himself, he was asked, “You are not one of his disciples, are you?” He denied it, saying, “I am not.” One of the high priest’s servants, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, challenged him, “Didn’t I see you with him in the olive grove?” Again Peter denied it, and at that moment a rooster began to crow.” (John 18:25–27)
We now strike a passage of Scripture difficult to harmonize with the church’s traditional lore that Peter denied his Lord three times. Our concept of three denials stems from Jesus’ statement to Peter that he would deny Him three times. However, we invariably overlook the fact that our Lord said this twice; first, at the beginning of the Last Supper, and then at its conclusion (compare Luke 22:34 and John 13:38 with Matt 26:34 and Mark 14:30). “Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”” (Luke 22:34) “Then Jesus answered, “Will you really lay down your life for me? I tell you the truth, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times!” (John 13:38) ““I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times.”” (Matthew 26:34) ““I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “today—yes, tonight—before the rooster crows twice you yourself will disown me three times.”” (Mark 14:30)
So these two statements were separated by two or more hours; moreover, one was indoors, the other outdoors as they made their way to Gethsemane. Clearly, they were separated in time and place; thus there is no scriptural basis to claim that these prophecies are one. Furthermore, as we noted when studying these sections, the details of the two prophecies differ, the first specifying ‘before the cock crow,’ the second, ‘before the cock crow twice.’ So there is a distinct, though subtle, difference between these two prophecies; as we shall see, Peter was actually being told that because of his vehement contradiction of the first prophecy, he would deny Christ a second set of three times!
Each of the four Gospels records three denials by Peter, but on examination it is evident that more than three denials are described. When we list the people to whom Peter made his denials, we find at least three were to individual women and two to individual men, as well as some to collective accusers. When we consider the settings for the denials we find there were more than three; one accusation is recorded as being at the door to Annas’ house, another in the entrance to Caiaphas’ house, and two more in Annas’ and in Caiaphas’ courtyards. The bases of the accusations also number more than three; so in terms of people, location, and essence, we find more than three distinct denials.
We need to return to the Upper Room Discourse to begin unraveling this problem, for there we found that Luke and John recorded Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s denial early in the supper (Luke 22:31–34; John 13:36–38), while Matthew and Mark record a similar prediction en route to Gethsemane, after the supper was over (Matt 26:30–35; Mark 14:26–31). Significantly, Mark 14:30 reads ‘before the cock crows twice, you will deny me thrice,’ whereas Luke 22:34 reads ‘before the cock crows at all.’ So there were two distinct prophecies; first, to Peter individually that he would deny Christ three times before the cock crowed at all, and then that he would deny Him three times before the cock crowed twice, this last when Jesus warned all the disciples that they would abandon Him that night and Peter averred that he never would despite the actions of the rest. Mark 14:68 and Mark 14:72 indicate two distinct occasions on which there was a cockcrow that night. So we can look for a total of six denials, three before the first cockcrow which fulfilled the first prophecy, and three between the first and second cockcrows, which fulfilled the second prophecy.
Our Consolidated Gospel separates the scriptural record of these two sets of three denials each by Peter and accommodates Mark’s two distinct cockcrows. The full gospel record of the denials is tabulated below; when studying it, please note that it uses each Gospel sequentially. You will gain much by reading all accounts of the same denial concurrently, thus observing how detail is added to our understanding of each denial by the four individual Gospels.
Denials in Annas’ house.
Person........................Place..........
First denial........girl......door....John 18:17,
Second denial...girl.......fire......Mark 14:66–68, Luke 22:55–57, John 18:18, John 18:25
Third denial......man.....porch...Luke 22:58, John 18:26–27,
The first cock crow..................Mark 14:68, John 18:27,
Denials in Caiaphas’ house.
Person.............................Place..........
First denial........girl...........court..........Matthew 26:69–70,
Second denial....girl...........entry..........Matthew 26:71–72, Mark 14:69–70,
Third denial.......man.........court?.........Matthew 26:73–74, Mark 14:70–71, Luke 22:59–60,
The second cock crow.........................Matthew 26:74–75, Mark 14:72, Luke 22:60–62,
As you study this table, note how it preserves the gender of each accuser, and that there is no tension in the settings (unless it be that John reports Peter standing, and Luke him sitting, for the second denial in Annas’ house—but this is easily reconciled, for a cold person’s natural reaction is to stand in front of a fire and then, after warming up, to sit in its comfort). Notice, too, that ‘another girl’ of Matt 26:71 is explained, for the scene changed from Annas’ to Caiaphas’ house for Mark’s servant girl to identify Peter for the second time. Moreover, Matthew and Mark record the same description ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ as coming from the lips of the same girl, though on different occasions. Luke, in its record of the final denial, focuses on the beginning of the accusation, for the remark in Luke 22:59 “About an hour later another asserted, “Certainly this fellow was with him, for he is a Galilean.”” is clearly not addressed to Peter but to fellow bystanders. This triggered the crowd’s concerted accusation reported by Matthew and Mark.
Matthew records the denials in Caiaphas’ house which is where the official high priest rejected the King. Mark records the public denials (the first and third denials in Annas’ house were made to individuals; likewise, the first in Caiaphas’ house). Luke focuses on the individuals who positively identified Peter (the first challenge in Annas’ house expected a negative answer, so was not a clear denial), and, in contrast to Mark, records Peter’s specific attempts at deceiving individuals as distinct from groups. John records only the denials in Annas’ house. In summary, then, John records the first three denials and a cockcrow which must be the first. Matthew records the second three denials in Caiaphas’ palace and a cockcrow which must be the second. Mark records the public denials, and Luke the denials to individuals. John records three denials in Annas’ house, but both Mark and Luke compiled their records from both locales. Clearly, Peter had been all too thorough in denying his Lord, and both of Jesus’ prophecies were fulfilled. The foregoing table gives a more detailed explanation of the four records of the six denials.
Throughout these six denials there is constant movement, for Peter moved from one scene to the next, which is as one would expect in a real life situation. In Annas’ house we find him moving from the gate to the courtyard to the porch, ever seeking to elude his accusers. The same circumstance is found in Caiaphas’ house, for he moves from the courtyard to the gate (where he bumps into the girl from Annas’ house!) and then into the main house (or close to it, for he was close enough to Jesus during that last denial for his Lord to look at him). No matter where Peter went in that crowd he bumped into someone who recognized him! Most frequently it was a woman, which probably explains why Annas used a girl as his gatekeeper—she was more observant than a man!
Before we consider the first three denials, let us consider Peter. He probably saw himself in the role of a spy, for that is what he was trying to be. After all, why was he there? Would the man who had earlier defended Christ with his sword, now merely want to know what was happening, or would he want to free him? All we know of Peter indicates the latter! Now, conventional wisdom is that spies have to lie, so Peter probably reasoned it was necessary for him to do so. Peter fell into the situational ethics pitfall, but it is clear that Christ did not condone his actions. However, before we are too harsh on Peter, let us use his performance as a mirror against which to compare our own lives. With your life on the line, would you not have kept far away? At least Peter was trying to do something, so we must be slow to criticize him; he represents the best that is found in any disciple of any age. After all, he was chosen by Christ Himself, and criticism of Peter is therefore criticism of Jesus’ choice.
Now let us turn our attention to the first set of three denials, denials which took place in Annas’ house before the first cockcrow. We can readily reconstruct the sequence of events as follows:
1. When Peter arrived he could not gain access to Annas’ house until John arranged this for him. On passing the maiden gatekeeper, she asked him whether he was a disciple of Jesus; he denied this. This is the first denial (John 18:15–17).
2. The terrain of Jerusalem is generally steep, so the terraced forecourt and courtyard that Mark 14:66 indicates was a common architectural feature in Jerusalem. We can next imagine Peter standing on the higher level, surveying the scene below him.
3. Peter then joined the servants and officers at their fire in the courtyard (Luke 22:55; John 18:18), first of all standing and finally sitting down. There, one of the high priest’s slave girls recognized him and told those around her (Luke 22:56), finally asking Peter outright whether he was with Jesus of Nazareth (Mark 14:67). Peter sensibly tried to ignore the question, but the crowd repeated it to him (John 18:75). He then denied any knowledge of what they were talking about, of Jesus, and of his discipleship.
4. Peter then left that place (the fire has become too hot for him!), going out on the porch (Mark 14:68), where, after a short while, another person, a man this time, a relative of Malchus, asked him whether he had not seen him in the garden; with recognition becoming certain, he charged, “You are also of them.” Peter emphatically again denied that he was a disciple (Luke 22:58; John 18:26–27); this was followed immediately by the first cockcrow.
Peter’s questioners were unsure of their charge on the first two occasions he was accosted, as the words they used indicate; but the final question was a clear assertion, without any doubt, that Peter had been in the garden. Now, as Peter had been found actively defending Jesus with a sword (caught with a smoking gun in his hand!), there could be no doubt he was a disciple. One wonders how Peter could have been so imperceptive, but he may well have regarded his earlier defection in the Garden of Gethsemane as fulfilling Jesus’ prophecy that ‘before’ the cockcrow (watch of the cockcrowing) he would abandon Him. Peter was about to receive a lesson in the literal fulfillment of prophecy!
These three denials were happening at the same time that Jesus was being tried for the first time. When the crowd moved to Caiaphas’ palace (John 18:24), Peter moved with them.
The Trial in Caiaphas’ Palace (Matt 26:57–68; Mark 14:53–65; Luke 22:63–65; John 18:24)
The pertinent architectural features of Caiaphas’ house for this episode are the entrance vestibule, the room or portico in which our Lord’s trial took place, and an open courtyard between that vestibule and the courtyard. Simultaneous with the trial Caiaphas was conducting, Peter was moving about his house, seeking a quiet corner to take in the situation, no doubt still hoping to find some way to free Jesus. He saw himself as a spy, but the enemy’s ‘intelligence’ kept finding him and identifying him, blowing his cover, as it were!
In this awkward position we find the sorry spectacle of Peter denying his Lord three more times. But that is not the only sub-drama being enacted that night; somewhere, the traitor was seated, taking in the scene, and the enormity of his action finally broke over him. Then, too, the night’s activities had to be ‘legalized.’ The reports we now cover trace these three episodes. This time there is no mention of a fire and we find the following sequence of denials:
1. Peter was outside in the courtyard when a slave girl (presumably of Caiaphas this time) saw him and quite positively identified him as being with ‘Jesus of Galilee.’ Peter brushed her accusation aside by saying he did not know what she was talking about (Matt 26:69–70).
2. Peter then moved (naturally!) from that trouble spot to the entrance, where another girl, the same one who had earlier recognized him in Annas’ house, saw him again, and began telling all around her, ‘he is one of them’; ‘this fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth.’ This time he denied Jesus (Matt 26:71, 72; Mark 14:69, 70a). The phrase ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ (Matt 26:71) agrees with that used in Mark 14:67, so links this girl with Mark’s passage, a fact confirmed by Mark 14:69 saying the girl saw him ‘again.’ FOOTNOTE: This discussion on the significance of ‘Jesus of Galilee’ versus ‘Jesus the Nazarene’ may seem pedantic, but is necessary if one holds to verbal inspiration, for otherwise Mark 14:67 contradicts Matt 26:69 (both cannot be a verbally accurate report of the girl’s speech, unless she said ‘the Galilean, the Nazarene,’ which seems highly unlikely). The scheme suggested removes this tension. Study the text closely; Matthew says ‘another’ girl, Mark speaks of the same girl whose precedent (v.66) precipitated Peter’s second denial in Annas’ palace which John describes.
3. The final denial came a little while later (Matthew and Mark) and about an hour after the final denial in Annas’ house (Luke 22:59). This time, a man confidently denounced Peter to his companions on account of his accent (Luke 22:59) and the group then took up the denunciation (Matt 26:73; Mark 14:70) until Peter began to place himself under a curse and to vow that he did not know Jesus in order to make his denial sound more convincing. It was then that Jesus looked straight at Peter.
Consider the lighting: Peter could see Jesus easily as He would have been in a well-lit room; but, in human terms, Jesus would be hard put to see Peter outside in an inferior-lit outer space (it is always difficult, often impossible, to look from a well-lit space into a dark space). Yet Jesus looked straight at Peter, a further evidence of His divine omniscience. The Greek text of Luke 22:60 “Peter replied, “Man, I don’t know what you’re talking about!” Just as he was speaking, the rooster crowed.” draws attention to the simultaneous nature of Jesus turning, specifically looking straight at Peter, and the cock crowing while Peter was mid-sentence in his vehement denial of any knowledge whatever of Jesus. “Peter replied, “Man, I don’t know what you’re talking about!” Just as he was speaking, the rooster crowed. The Lord turned and looked straight at Peter. Then Peter remembered the word the Lord had spoken to him: “Before the rooster crows today, you will disown me three times.”” (Luke 22:60–61)
Only three of twelve (including the lone young man of Mark 14:51–52) had attempted to follow Jesus. Two, Peter and John, made it to Annas’ house; it seems only one made it to Caiaphas’ palace (apparently Peter went there alone, for John is not mentioned in this setting), and there Peter again denied his Lord three times. The significance of this Scripture is that it reveals that absolutely all men abandoned Jesus to the cross. Peter, the leader of the faithful, loudly denied Him; John, the beloved disciple, silently did the same. These two, chosen in love, and chosen to lead, epitomize the believers. Christ died for all men, yet none, not even those closest to Him, were adequate to offer Him any support in His death. His death was utterly lonely. This surely was the cruelest rejection of all—by men who claimed to believe on Him.
And when we deny Christ or are silent about Him, are we not the same?
Mills, M. S. (1999). The Life of Christ: A Study Guide to the Gospel Record
Lastly, let me show you a short except from another commentary that will also give you an idea of the many others who have realized that there were 6 denials:
““I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “today—yes, tonight—before the rooster crows twice you yourself will disown me three times.”” (Mark 14:30)
“That Mark should say, ‘Before the cock crow twice thou shalt deny me thrice,’ while the other Evangelists say, ‘Before the cock crow thou shalt deny me thrice,’ makes no real discrepancy. The latter speak generally of the cock-crowing as a period of time within which the three denials should take place; Mark more accurately says, that during this period the cock should not crow twice ere the denials were made” (The Life of Our Lord, p. 496). Webster and Wilkinson note that the expression “second crowing” “shows the accuracy of S. Mark, on the supposition that he wrote for the use of Christians at Rome. The Western world generally reckoned two cockcrowings, one at about 3 a.m. (“cockcrowing,” Mk 13:35), the other at the dawn of day. This last was the only one reckoned in the East (Greek Testament, vol. 1, p. 221). Stuart Custer notes the fact that Matthew and Luke do not mention the cock’s crowing twice is simply a case of their providing general information, whereas Mark, as the disciple of Peter, having been told the particulars more precisely, gives the more detailed account, incidentally proving the independent testimony of the four evangelists (Does Inspiration Demand Inerrancy?, p. 107). John W. Haley remarks, “The four evangelists agree as to the number of the denials; but Matthew, Luke, and John represent them as occurring before the crowing of the cock; Mark as occurring before the cock should crow ‘twice.”’ Haley further states, “Alford, Whitby, and many commentators note that cocks are accustomed to crow twice,—at or near midnight, and not far from day-break. Inasmuch as few persons hear the first crowing, the term generally denotes the second. All the evangelists refer to this latter; but Mark with greater precision designates it as the ‘second crowing.’ It seems probable that no one of the evangelists has mentioned all the denials by Peter during that sorrowful night. As the accusation was caught up, reiterated, and flung in his face by one and another of the servants and the guard, the terror-stricken man, in his agitation and in his anxiety to clear himself, would be likely to repeat the denial a considerable number of times, and in every variety of phrase. And, meanwhile, he would naturally be shifting about from place to place. This hypothesis accounts for the difficulty as to the persons who accosted him, and the places where he was when the denials were uttered” (An Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, pp. 424, 425). A careful reading of the four accounts lends support to the possibility that Jesus in Mk 14:30 predicted two series of three denials, three denials before each of two cockcrowings: (1) The first series of three. First denial: Jn 18:17, place, the door (thura) without; time, entering; the questioner, the porteress (thuroros). Second denial: Mt 26:70; Mk 14:68, place, the hall (aule); time, sitting; questioner, a certain maid. Lk 22:56-58 combines the same place and time, with the same maid, and another (heteros, masculine). Third denial: Mt 26:71, place, the gateway or porch (pulon). Time, an interval of an hour. Jn 18:25, 26 combines the same place and time, with another maid and bystanders, one of them being a relative of Malchus. A cock crew: Mk 14:68. Jn 18:27. (2) The second series of three. First denial: Mk 14:63, place, beneath the hall; time, shortly after; questioner, the maid again. Second denial: Mt 26:73; Mk 14:70, place, the gate (pulon); time, shortly after; questioners, the bystanders. Third denial: Lk 22:59, 60, place, the midst of the hall (aule, ver. 55); time, an hour after (ver. 59); questioner, a certain one (masculine). A cock crew: (Mt 26:74. Mk 14:72. Lk 22:61). We thus have a combined record in which there remains no difficulty, while each word retains its own true grammatical sense (Companion Bible, Appendix 160, pp. 183, 184. Compare Johnston M. Cheney, The Life of Christ in Stereo, Appendix III, pp. 222-224).
Smith, J. H. (1992). The new treasury of scripture knowledge: The most complete listing of cross references available anywhere- every verse, every theme, every important word
There's also an article I found that you might enjoy here: How Many Times Did Peter Deny Jesus?
These are the main scriptures we'll be looking at.
“Then Jesus told them, “This very night you will all fall away on account of me, for it is written: “ ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’ But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee.” Peter replied, “Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will.” “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times.” But Peter declared, “Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you.” And all the other disciples said the same.” (Matthew 26:31–35)
““You will all fall away,” Jesus told them, “for it is written: “ ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’ But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee.” Peter declared, “Even if all fall away, I will not.” “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “today—yes, tonight—before the rooster crows twice you yourself will disown me three times.” But Peter insisted emphatically, “Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you.” And all the others said the same.” (Mark 14:27–31)
“Then seizing him, they led him away and took him into the house of the high priest. Peter followed at a distance. But when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and had sat down together, Peter sat down with them.” (Luke 22:54–55)
“and brought him first to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year. Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it would be good if one man died for the people. Simon Peter and another disciple were following Jesus. Because this disciple was known to the high priest, he went with Jesus into the high priest’s courtyard, but Peter had to wait outside at the door. The other disciple, who was known to the high priest, came back, spoke to the girl on duty there and brought Peter in. “You are not one of his disciples, are you?” the girl at the door asked Peter. He replied, “I am not.” It was cold, and the servants and officials stood around a fire they had made to keep warm. Peter also was standing with them, warming himself. Meanwhile, the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching. “I have spoken openly to the world,” Jesus replied. “I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret. Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said.” When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby struck him in the face. “Is this the way you answer the high priest?” he demanded. “If I said something wrong,” Jesus replied, “testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?”” (John 18:13–23)
“While Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant girls of the high priest came by. When she saw Peter warming himself, she looked closely at him. “You also were with that Nazarene, Jesus,” she said. But he denied it. “I don’t know or understand what you’re talking about,” he said, and went out into the entryway.” (Mark 14:66–68)
“A servant girl saw him seated there in the firelight. She looked closely at him and said, “This man was with him.” But he denied it. “Woman, I don’t know him,” he said. A little later someone else saw him and said, “You also are one of them.” “Man, I am not!” Peter replied.” (Luke 22:56–58)
“As Simon Peter stood warming himself, he was asked, “You are not one of his disciples, are you?” He denied it, saying, “I am not.” One of the high priest’s servants, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, challenged him, “Didn’t I see you with him in the olive grove?” Again Peter denied it, and at that moment a rooster began to crow.” (John 18:25–27)
I'm going to simply copy from the Life of Christ study guide, but want you to know too that other commentaries agree with this, though many simply stick to the idea of 3 denials too.
Matthew and Mark record this exchange which occurred after the departure from the upper room, whereas Luke and John record a similar, but different, event earlier in the evening. Here, the warning was made to the eleven, whereas the earlier warning was addressed to Peter. Peter, apparently still smarting from the rebuke inherent in the earlier prophecy, vehemently contradicted his Lord (Mark 14:31 “But Peter insisted emphatically, “Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you.” And all the others said the same.”), a lead which the other ten disciples then followed.
Consider for a moment the emotions of the eleven as they left that upper room. They must have felt very close to their Lord after the Upper Room Discourse (what disciple could fail to respond to that passionate plea?), and surely they had all resolved to honor His plea for unity. However, the cold truth of imminent desertion fractured their ranks in short shrift and made Peter self-assertive again. How frail is our human psyche! Peter’s response (Matt 26:33 “Peter replied, “Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will.””) could not have endeared him to the ten, and must have saddened his Lord for its lack of love, a subject on which He had just lectured the apostles. Before we criticize Peter, however, we should examine our own lives and attitudes, for surely his attitude is recorded for our instruction, not to satisfy our penchant for criticism. The Church’s cohesion is entirely dependent on Christ’s presence.
Our Lord’s prophecy of defection by the whole band was made with purpose. Its point is indicated in Matt v. 32: “But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee.” it was to reassure the apostles that their defection would be forgiven so as to encourage them to go to Galilee to await the risen Jesus Christ. When we study the resurrection narrative we will see that Christ had to do still more to bolster their faith (and possibly to dispel their remorse) before they would set out for Galilee.
Now let us turn our attention to the prophecy directed at Peter. First, it is significant that the Greek text uses different words for deny and betray, so Peter’s sin was of a different specie to that of Judas. Denying Christ is not the same as betraying Him (thank God!), and Christ does restore those who deny Him to fellowship with Him. Second, we should note the distinction between Luke 22:34, ‘before the cock crow at all,’ and Mark 14:30, ‘before the second cock crow.’ Mark is not contradictory, but a second warning, and as will be argued in Study 69, doubles the number of times Peter was to renounce his Lord. Matthew 26:34 may be either a repetition of the first (§245) warning at an early stage in Peter’s repeated assertions, or an abbreviated record of Mark 14:30 (the latter is more likely, because Matthew reports the second set of denials).
The Trial in Annas’ House (Luke 22:54–55; John 18:13–23)
After His arrest in Gethsemane, our Lord was first taken to Annas’ house which served as a convenient ‘holding’ station, for while Jesus was there Caiaphas was able to assemble the elders of the nation in his house. These events took place in the middle of the night (as Jesus was arrested around 10:30 p.m.), before the watch named ‘cockcrowing’ by the Romans. Romans divided the night into four watches of three hours each:
late 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.,
midnight 9 p.m. to 12 a.m.,
cockcrowing 12 a.m. to 3 a.m.,
and early 3 a.m. to 6 a.m. (see also Mark 13:35).
Annas had been high priest from AD 6–15, but had been deposed by the Romans. However, under the Mosaic Law a high priest held office until his death, so many Jews would still have regarded Annas as the rightful high priest. The Romans had appointed Caiaphas who was thus the ‘legal’ high priest. Notably, both tried Jesus, so the Jewish priesthood cannot escape culpability for rejecting their Messiah on a technicality! Nor can the Jewish nation by arguing the demerits of Caiaphas’ appointment.
John’s modesty in not naming himself after the other Gospels had omitted mention of his following Jesus (John was the last Gospel to be written) is exemplary. One wonders just what happened between the disciples fleeing and this event. John and Peter clearly came together in the dark and together decided to stay close to Jesus, presumably in an attempt to free Him from captivity. The crowd who arrested Jesus carried lamps and torches (John 18:3), so their route and destination could easily be followed. John used the fact that he knew the high priest to gain admission; this, together with the gatekeeper’s question, indicates that Jesus’ captors had taken precautions against His disciples infiltrating their stronghold in a natural caution to thwart any attempt to free Him.
Annas had chosen a girl as gatekeeper, presumably because women are generally more observant of people than are men (this point was demonstrated in Mark 14:66, and Mark 14:69). The question she posed to Peter (John 18:17 ““You are not one of his disciples, are you?” the girl at the door asked Peter. He replied, “I am not.””) was probably asked of everyone not known to her that evening, for the Greek text phrases this question as though she expected a negative answer. Peter did not disillusion her, and so gained entry to the courtyard in which Jesus stood. The cold noted in John 18:18 should give us pause to consider our Lord’s circumstances. After the severe emotional strain of Gethsemane, one could expect Him to be physically drained and in need of warmth, yet He was left wearing only His normal garments, while those around Him warmed themselves at the fire.
Annas was the power behind the high priesthood (indeed, he was Caiaphas’ father-in-law), and clearly must have been waiting up for Jesus’ arrest as this trial must have begun around midnight. It seems that Jesus was first taken to Annas’ palace in order to allow time for the men whom Caiaphas had summoned to assemble at his palace. Normal respect and caution would have ensured that Caiaphas only summoned these men after he was certain of Jesus’ arrest. It seems that when Annas found Jesus in his power he could not resist the opportunity to cross-examine Him, even though Jesus was probably simply being held in his palace as a matter of practical convenience until the men Caiaphas had summoned to him had assembled.
Annas was particularly concerned about the political implications of events, as is indicated by the questions he asked Jesus about His followers. The second aspect of his questions, on Jesus’ teachings, was probably an attempt to establish a charge of blasphemy. Annas was trying to get Jesus to testify against Himself; but as Roman law did not require a man to do so, Jesus did not oblige. Indeed, His answer emphasized the ridiculousness of the questions, for all His teaching had been made in public, which was precisely why Annas and Caiaphas were so anxious to get Him out of the way! (Caiaphas had originated the idea of crucifying Christ—John 18:14.)
The Greek text uses the perfect tense for ‘spoke’ in John 18:20; Jesus had finished His preaching as He had solemnly proclaimed in §224 (Matt 23:37–39), so one cannot but be impressed by His perfect consistency. God’s spirit will not always strive with man; there comes a time when God stops pleading with sinners. The ‘taught’ is an aorist, the tense Greek uses for a simple past action; so the change in tense is significant. Jesus was that sure of the clarity of His teaching that He could confidently refer His accusers to those whom He had taught. Surely, this sets an example of clarity in teaching which we who are privileged to teach should strive to emulate.
This ‘trial’ may be likened to an arraignment, but from the prosecution’s point of view, was devoid of any usefulness. It is little wonder that the frustration of one of the officers drove him to physical violence; his blow indicated their rejection of Jesus more explicitly than any words could convey. The Greek text makes it plain that the blow was vicious and violent; it was clearly an expression of intense hate, and marked the beginning of an intense outpouring of hate against Jesus. Sin always displays this hate towards righteousness; it is vicious, violent, passionate, irrational, and always futile, even as this demonstration was. Annas’ action of sending Jesus to Caiaphas (John 18:24) was an admission of defeat. He could not argue with the logic of Jesus’ reply in John 18:23, yet this did not cause him to reconsider his resolve.
Peter’s Denials at Annas’ House (Mark 14:66–68; Luke 22:56–58; John 18:25–27)
“While Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant girls of the high priest came by. When she saw Peter warming himself, she looked closely at him. “You also were with that Nazarene, Jesus,” she said. But he denied it. “I don’t know or understand what you’re talking about,” he said, and went out into the entryway.” (Mark 14:66–68)
“A servant girl saw him seated there in the firelight. She looked closely at him and said, “This man was with him.” But he denied it. “Woman, I don’t know him,” he said. A little later someone else saw him and said, “You also are one of them.” “Man, I am not!” Peter replied.” (Luke 22:56–58)
“As Simon Peter stood warming himself, he was asked, “You are not one of his disciples, are you?” He denied it, saying, “I am not.” One of the high priest’s servants, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, challenged him, “Didn’t I see you with him in the olive grove?” Again Peter denied it, and at that moment a rooster began to crow.” (John 18:25–27)
We now strike a passage of Scripture difficult to harmonize with the church’s traditional lore that Peter denied his Lord three times. Our concept of three denials stems from Jesus’ statement to Peter that he would deny Him three times. However, we invariably overlook the fact that our Lord said this twice; first, at the beginning of the Last Supper, and then at its conclusion (compare Luke 22:34 and John 13:38 with Matt 26:34 and Mark 14:30). “Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”” (Luke 22:34) “Then Jesus answered, “Will you really lay down your life for me? I tell you the truth, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times!” (John 13:38) ““I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times.”” (Matthew 26:34) ““I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “today—yes, tonight—before the rooster crows twice you yourself will disown me three times.”” (Mark 14:30)
So these two statements were separated by two or more hours; moreover, one was indoors, the other outdoors as they made their way to Gethsemane. Clearly, they were separated in time and place; thus there is no scriptural basis to claim that these prophecies are one. Furthermore, as we noted when studying these sections, the details of the two prophecies differ, the first specifying ‘before the cock crow,’ the second, ‘before the cock crow twice.’ So there is a distinct, though subtle, difference between these two prophecies; as we shall see, Peter was actually being told that because of his vehement contradiction of the first prophecy, he would deny Christ a second set of three times!
Each of the four Gospels records three denials by Peter, but on examination it is evident that more than three denials are described. When we list the people to whom Peter made his denials, we find at least three were to individual women and two to individual men, as well as some to collective accusers. When we consider the settings for the denials we find there were more than three; one accusation is recorded as being at the door to Annas’ house, another in the entrance to Caiaphas’ house, and two more in Annas’ and in Caiaphas’ courtyards. The bases of the accusations also number more than three; so in terms of people, location, and essence, we find more than three distinct denials.
We need to return to the Upper Room Discourse to begin unraveling this problem, for there we found that Luke and John recorded Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s denial early in the supper (Luke 22:31–34; John 13:36–38), while Matthew and Mark record a similar prediction en route to Gethsemane, after the supper was over (Matt 26:30–35; Mark 14:26–31). Significantly, Mark 14:30 reads ‘before the cock crows twice, you will deny me thrice,’ whereas Luke 22:34 reads ‘before the cock crows at all.’ So there were two distinct prophecies; first, to Peter individually that he would deny Christ three times before the cock crowed at all, and then that he would deny Him three times before the cock crowed twice, this last when Jesus warned all the disciples that they would abandon Him that night and Peter averred that he never would despite the actions of the rest. Mark 14:68 and Mark 14:72 indicate two distinct occasions on which there was a cockcrow that night. So we can look for a total of six denials, three before the first cockcrow which fulfilled the first prophecy, and three between the first and second cockcrows, which fulfilled the second prophecy.
Our Consolidated Gospel separates the scriptural record of these two sets of three denials each by Peter and accommodates Mark’s two distinct cockcrows. The full gospel record of the denials is tabulated below; when studying it, please note that it uses each Gospel sequentially. You will gain much by reading all accounts of the same denial concurrently, thus observing how detail is added to our understanding of each denial by the four individual Gospels.
Denials in Annas’ house.
Person........................Place..........
First denial........girl......door....John 18:17,
Second denial...girl.......fire......Mark 14:66–68, Luke 22:55–57, John 18:18, John 18:25
Third denial......man.....porch...Luke 22:58, John 18:26–27,
The first cock crow..................Mark 14:68, John 18:27,
Denials in Caiaphas’ house.
Person.............................Place..........
First denial........girl...........court..........Matthew 26:69–70,
Second denial....girl...........entry..........Matthew 26:71–72, Mark 14:69–70,
Third denial.......man.........court?.........Matthew 26:73–74, Mark 14:70–71, Luke 22:59–60,
The second cock crow.........................Matthew 26:74–75, Mark 14:72, Luke 22:60–62,
As you study this table, note how it preserves the gender of each accuser, and that there is no tension in the settings (unless it be that John reports Peter standing, and Luke him sitting, for the second denial in Annas’ house—but this is easily reconciled, for a cold person’s natural reaction is to stand in front of a fire and then, after warming up, to sit in its comfort). Notice, too, that ‘another girl’ of Matt 26:71 is explained, for the scene changed from Annas’ to Caiaphas’ house for Mark’s servant girl to identify Peter for the second time. Moreover, Matthew and Mark record the same description ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ as coming from the lips of the same girl, though on different occasions. Luke, in its record of the final denial, focuses on the beginning of the accusation, for the remark in Luke 22:59 “About an hour later another asserted, “Certainly this fellow was with him, for he is a Galilean.”” is clearly not addressed to Peter but to fellow bystanders. This triggered the crowd’s concerted accusation reported by Matthew and Mark.
Matthew records the denials in Caiaphas’ house which is where the official high priest rejected the King. Mark records the public denials (the first and third denials in Annas’ house were made to individuals; likewise, the first in Caiaphas’ house). Luke focuses on the individuals who positively identified Peter (the first challenge in Annas’ house expected a negative answer, so was not a clear denial), and, in contrast to Mark, records Peter’s specific attempts at deceiving individuals as distinct from groups. John records only the denials in Annas’ house. In summary, then, John records the first three denials and a cockcrow which must be the first. Matthew records the second three denials in Caiaphas’ palace and a cockcrow which must be the second. Mark records the public denials, and Luke the denials to individuals. John records three denials in Annas’ house, but both Mark and Luke compiled their records from both locales. Clearly, Peter had been all too thorough in denying his Lord, and both of Jesus’ prophecies were fulfilled. The foregoing table gives a more detailed explanation of the four records of the six denials.
Throughout these six denials there is constant movement, for Peter moved from one scene to the next, which is as one would expect in a real life situation. In Annas’ house we find him moving from the gate to the courtyard to the porch, ever seeking to elude his accusers. The same circumstance is found in Caiaphas’ house, for he moves from the courtyard to the gate (where he bumps into the girl from Annas’ house!) and then into the main house (or close to it, for he was close enough to Jesus during that last denial for his Lord to look at him). No matter where Peter went in that crowd he bumped into someone who recognized him! Most frequently it was a woman, which probably explains why Annas used a girl as his gatekeeper—she was more observant than a man!
Before we consider the first three denials, let us consider Peter. He probably saw himself in the role of a spy, for that is what he was trying to be. After all, why was he there? Would the man who had earlier defended Christ with his sword, now merely want to know what was happening, or would he want to free him? All we know of Peter indicates the latter! Now, conventional wisdom is that spies have to lie, so Peter probably reasoned it was necessary for him to do so. Peter fell into the situational ethics pitfall, but it is clear that Christ did not condone his actions. However, before we are too harsh on Peter, let us use his performance as a mirror against which to compare our own lives. With your life on the line, would you not have kept far away? At least Peter was trying to do something, so we must be slow to criticize him; he represents the best that is found in any disciple of any age. After all, he was chosen by Christ Himself, and criticism of Peter is therefore criticism of Jesus’ choice.
Now let us turn our attention to the first set of three denials, denials which took place in Annas’ house before the first cockcrow. We can readily reconstruct the sequence of events as follows:
1. When Peter arrived he could not gain access to Annas’ house until John arranged this for him. On passing the maiden gatekeeper, she asked him whether he was a disciple of Jesus; he denied this. This is the first denial (John 18:15–17).
2. The terrain of Jerusalem is generally steep, so the terraced forecourt and courtyard that Mark 14:66 indicates was a common architectural feature in Jerusalem. We can next imagine Peter standing on the higher level, surveying the scene below him.
3. Peter then joined the servants and officers at their fire in the courtyard (Luke 22:55; John 18:18), first of all standing and finally sitting down. There, one of the high priest’s slave girls recognized him and told those around her (Luke 22:56), finally asking Peter outright whether he was with Jesus of Nazareth (Mark 14:67). Peter sensibly tried to ignore the question, but the crowd repeated it to him (John 18:75). He then denied any knowledge of what they were talking about, of Jesus, and of his discipleship.
4. Peter then left that place (the fire has become too hot for him!), going out on the porch (Mark 14:68), where, after a short while, another person, a man this time, a relative of Malchus, asked him whether he had not seen him in the garden; with recognition becoming certain, he charged, “You are also of them.” Peter emphatically again denied that he was a disciple (Luke 22:58; John 18:26–27); this was followed immediately by the first cockcrow.
Peter’s questioners were unsure of their charge on the first two occasions he was accosted, as the words they used indicate; but the final question was a clear assertion, without any doubt, that Peter had been in the garden. Now, as Peter had been found actively defending Jesus with a sword (caught with a smoking gun in his hand!), there could be no doubt he was a disciple. One wonders how Peter could have been so imperceptive, but he may well have regarded his earlier defection in the Garden of Gethsemane as fulfilling Jesus’ prophecy that ‘before’ the cockcrow (watch of the cockcrowing) he would abandon Him. Peter was about to receive a lesson in the literal fulfillment of prophecy!
These three denials were happening at the same time that Jesus was being tried for the first time. When the crowd moved to Caiaphas’ palace (John 18:24), Peter moved with them.
The Trial in Caiaphas’ Palace (Matt 26:57–68; Mark 14:53–65; Luke 22:63–65; John 18:24)
The pertinent architectural features of Caiaphas’ house for this episode are the entrance vestibule, the room or portico in which our Lord’s trial took place, and an open courtyard between that vestibule and the courtyard. Simultaneous with the trial Caiaphas was conducting, Peter was moving about his house, seeking a quiet corner to take in the situation, no doubt still hoping to find some way to free Jesus. He saw himself as a spy, but the enemy’s ‘intelligence’ kept finding him and identifying him, blowing his cover, as it were!
In this awkward position we find the sorry spectacle of Peter denying his Lord three more times. But that is not the only sub-drama being enacted that night; somewhere, the traitor was seated, taking in the scene, and the enormity of his action finally broke over him. Then, too, the night’s activities had to be ‘legalized.’ The reports we now cover trace these three episodes. This time there is no mention of a fire and we find the following sequence of denials:
1. Peter was outside in the courtyard when a slave girl (presumably of Caiaphas this time) saw him and quite positively identified him as being with ‘Jesus of Galilee.’ Peter brushed her accusation aside by saying he did not know what she was talking about (Matt 26:69–70).
2. Peter then moved (naturally!) from that trouble spot to the entrance, where another girl, the same one who had earlier recognized him in Annas’ house, saw him again, and began telling all around her, ‘he is one of them’; ‘this fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth.’ This time he denied Jesus (Matt 26:71, 72; Mark 14:69, 70a). The phrase ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ (Matt 26:71) agrees with that used in Mark 14:67, so links this girl with Mark’s passage, a fact confirmed by Mark 14:69 saying the girl saw him ‘again.’ FOOTNOTE: This discussion on the significance of ‘Jesus of Galilee’ versus ‘Jesus the Nazarene’ may seem pedantic, but is necessary if one holds to verbal inspiration, for otherwise Mark 14:67 contradicts Matt 26:69 (both cannot be a verbally accurate report of the girl’s speech, unless she said ‘the Galilean, the Nazarene,’ which seems highly unlikely). The scheme suggested removes this tension. Study the text closely; Matthew says ‘another’ girl, Mark speaks of the same girl whose precedent (v.66) precipitated Peter’s second denial in Annas’ palace which John describes.
3. The final denial came a little while later (Matthew and Mark) and about an hour after the final denial in Annas’ house (Luke 22:59). This time, a man confidently denounced Peter to his companions on account of his accent (Luke 22:59) and the group then took up the denunciation (Matt 26:73; Mark 14:70) until Peter began to place himself under a curse and to vow that he did not know Jesus in order to make his denial sound more convincing. It was then that Jesus looked straight at Peter.
Consider the lighting: Peter could see Jesus easily as He would have been in a well-lit room; but, in human terms, Jesus would be hard put to see Peter outside in an inferior-lit outer space (it is always difficult, often impossible, to look from a well-lit space into a dark space). Yet Jesus looked straight at Peter, a further evidence of His divine omniscience. The Greek text of Luke 22:60 “Peter replied, “Man, I don’t know what you’re talking about!” Just as he was speaking, the rooster crowed.” draws attention to the simultaneous nature of Jesus turning, specifically looking straight at Peter, and the cock crowing while Peter was mid-sentence in his vehement denial of any knowledge whatever of Jesus. “Peter replied, “Man, I don’t know what you’re talking about!” Just as he was speaking, the rooster crowed. The Lord turned and looked straight at Peter. Then Peter remembered the word the Lord had spoken to him: “Before the rooster crows today, you will disown me three times.”” (Luke 22:60–61)
Only three of twelve (including the lone young man of Mark 14:51–52) had attempted to follow Jesus. Two, Peter and John, made it to Annas’ house; it seems only one made it to Caiaphas’ palace (apparently Peter went there alone, for John is not mentioned in this setting), and there Peter again denied his Lord three times. The significance of this Scripture is that it reveals that absolutely all men abandoned Jesus to the cross. Peter, the leader of the faithful, loudly denied Him; John, the beloved disciple, silently did the same. These two, chosen in love, and chosen to lead, epitomize the believers. Christ died for all men, yet none, not even those closest to Him, were adequate to offer Him any support in His death. His death was utterly lonely. This surely was the cruelest rejection of all—by men who claimed to believe on Him.
And when we deny Christ or are silent about Him, are we not the same?
Mills, M. S. (1999). The Life of Christ: A Study Guide to the Gospel Record
Lastly, let me show you a short except from another commentary that will also give you an idea of the many others who have realized that there were 6 denials:
““I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “today—yes, tonight—before the rooster crows twice you yourself will disown me three times.”” (Mark 14:30)
“That Mark should say, ‘Before the cock crow twice thou shalt deny me thrice,’ while the other Evangelists say, ‘Before the cock crow thou shalt deny me thrice,’ makes no real discrepancy. The latter speak generally of the cock-crowing as a period of time within which the three denials should take place; Mark more accurately says, that during this period the cock should not crow twice ere the denials were made” (The Life of Our Lord, p. 496). Webster and Wilkinson note that the expression “second crowing” “shows the accuracy of S. Mark, on the supposition that he wrote for the use of Christians at Rome. The Western world generally reckoned two cockcrowings, one at about 3 a.m. (“cockcrowing,” Mk 13:35), the other at the dawn of day. This last was the only one reckoned in the East (Greek Testament, vol. 1, p. 221). Stuart Custer notes the fact that Matthew and Luke do not mention the cock’s crowing twice is simply a case of their providing general information, whereas Mark, as the disciple of Peter, having been told the particulars more precisely, gives the more detailed account, incidentally proving the independent testimony of the four evangelists (Does Inspiration Demand Inerrancy?, p. 107). John W. Haley remarks, “The four evangelists agree as to the number of the denials; but Matthew, Luke, and John represent them as occurring before the crowing of the cock; Mark as occurring before the cock should crow ‘twice.”’ Haley further states, “Alford, Whitby, and many commentators note that cocks are accustomed to crow twice,—at or near midnight, and not far from day-break. Inasmuch as few persons hear the first crowing, the term generally denotes the second. All the evangelists refer to this latter; but Mark with greater precision designates it as the ‘second crowing.’ It seems probable that no one of the evangelists has mentioned all the denials by Peter during that sorrowful night. As the accusation was caught up, reiterated, and flung in his face by one and another of the servants and the guard, the terror-stricken man, in his agitation and in his anxiety to clear himself, would be likely to repeat the denial a considerable number of times, and in every variety of phrase. And, meanwhile, he would naturally be shifting about from place to place. This hypothesis accounts for the difficulty as to the persons who accosted him, and the places where he was when the denials were uttered” (An Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, pp. 424, 425). A careful reading of the four accounts lends support to the possibility that Jesus in Mk 14:30 predicted two series of three denials, three denials before each of two cockcrowings: (1) The first series of three. First denial: Jn 18:17, place, the door (thura) without; time, entering; the questioner, the porteress (thuroros). Second denial: Mt 26:70; Mk 14:68, place, the hall (aule); time, sitting; questioner, a certain maid. Lk 22:56-58 combines the same place and time, with the same maid, and another (heteros, masculine). Third denial: Mt 26:71, place, the gateway or porch (pulon). Time, an interval of an hour. Jn 18:25, 26 combines the same place and time, with another maid and bystanders, one of them being a relative of Malchus. A cock crew: Mk 14:68. Jn 18:27. (2) The second series of three. First denial: Mk 14:63, place, beneath the hall; time, shortly after; questioner, the maid again. Second denial: Mt 26:73; Mk 14:70, place, the gate (pulon); time, shortly after; questioners, the bystanders. Third denial: Lk 22:59, 60, place, the midst of the hall (aule, ver. 55); time, an hour after (ver. 59); questioner, a certain one (masculine). A cock crew: (Mt 26:74. Mk 14:72. Lk 22:61). We thus have a combined record in which there remains no difficulty, while each word retains its own true grammatical sense (Companion Bible, Appendix 160, pp. 183, 184. Compare Johnston M. Cheney, The Life of Christ in Stereo, Appendix III, pp. 222-224).
Smith, J. H. (1992). The new treasury of scripture knowledge: The most complete listing of cross references available anywhere- every verse, every theme, every important word
There's also an article I found that you might enjoy here: How Many Times Did Peter Deny Jesus?
!!
