Matthew 26:69-75

THE VARIOUS ACCOUNTS of Peter's denial. All four Evangelists narrate the main facts. Their candid statements respecting what might seem derogatory to the good name of one of the chief Apostles is a guarantee of honesty and presumptive evidence of truthfulness. (Mark, who probably wrote under Peter's own direction, is very full.) Nor is there in the story an inherent improbability, at least for those who have knowledge of the workings of Divine grace. To objectors it may be said: ‘Thy speech bewrayeth thee.' Every point of the narrative accords not only with Christian experience, but with the character of Peter as sketched in the New Testament, and with our Lord's predictions and warnings to him. What befell Peter may befall any Christian who relies on his own strength, especially after self-exaltation (Matthew 26:33-35), lack of watchfulness and prayer (Matthew 26:40; Matthew 26:43), and presumptuous rushing into danger (Matthew 26:51; Matthew 26:58). The account of Peter's repentance also finds its confirmation in the Christian heart. It was occasioned in part by a natural cause (the crowing of a cock), yet even that was a direct sign from the Lord: by a look of compassion and love; by a remembrance of the Lord's words, recalling his past sin of pride quite as much as his present denial. All were from Christ, and hence the penitence was genuine. It was sudden as his sin had been; it was secret, sincere, and lasting. This internal evidence of truthfulness shows that the variations in the four accounts are evidences of independence, and not discrepancies. They agree in the main facts, namely, that Peter was recognized on three occasions during the night; that he was on all three a denier of his Lord; but they differ in details. They mention different recognizers, especially in the second and third case, they record different replies and different circumstances. It follows that not one of the four consulted the narrative of the others, or derived his account from the same immediate source. Forgers would have made their accounts agree; writers of legends would have shown a common source; but these differences prove that the occurrences took place and were reported by credible independent witnesses.

It is difficult, however, to construct a single narrative out of the four accounts. Each denial could not have consisted of a recognition by a single person and a single answer by Peter. Peter was in an excited crowd at night, for probably two hours or more. Three single questions and three single answers would not have been all that occurred, but rather three episodes of suspicion and denial. The variations therefore go to prove not only the independence, but also the truthfulness of the narratives. Agreement in every point would suggest collusion; the account of three simple questions and answers would seem improbable. Having four independent, competent witnesses, even if at our distance we cannot arrange all the details, the variations ought not to shake our faith in the entire accuracy of each and all the narratives. The theory of evidence that is most satisfactory accepts three occasions of denial, without counting each answer as a separate denial; the more numerous recognitions may have been nearly simultaneous, and the answers belonging to each occasion, given in well-nigh immediate succession.