But Simon Peter followed Jesus afar off, and so did another disciple, to the high priest's palace. And that disciple was known to the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the court of the high priest. But Peter stood at the door without. Then the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the portress and brought in Peter. And when they had kindled a fire of coals in the midst of the hall, because it was cold, and were sitting about it, Peter sat with the servants to see the end, and warmed himself. Now when Peter was in the court below, there cometh one of the maidservants of the high priest, the maid that was portress; and when she had seen Peter sitting in the light and warming himself, and had looked on him, she said: "Thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth, the Galilaean. This man also was with him. Art not thou also one of this man's disciples?" But he denied Him before them all, saying: "Woman, I am not. I know Him not. I neither know nor understand what thou sayest." - Matthew 26:69,70; Mark 14:66-68; Luke 22:54-57; John 18:25
[NOTE. There is, perhaps, no scene in Scripture more difficult to harmonize than the scene of Peter's first denial; yet, as usual where harmony is difficult, the fact itself cannot for a moment be suspected. The first three Evangelists give it at the fireside, and do not say that the maid who challenged Peter was portress. Saint John seems to imply that the denial took place at the gate as soon as Peter had entered, and that it was made in answer to a challenge of the portress. If, as seems to be right, we must confine the denials to three, it would appear to be necessary to give the preference to the account of Saint Matthew, Saint Mark, and Saint Luke, and to take from Saint John further details. At the same time, it is to be noted that Saint John puts the second denial at the fireside, which the others place after he had left it; the third he describes as in answer to "the kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off," whom the others do not mention. The narrative of Saint John is throughout much more circumstantial and dramatic than is that of the others. It reads much more like the evidence of an eyewitness; it is written by one who already knew the other accounts; and if, as many suppose, Saint John was "the other disciple known to the high priest," it may well be the most accurate version. If we allowed four denials, then the accounts could be easily reconciled one at the gate, one at the fireside, and two after Peter had left it; though here, again, it is not clear that all are speaking of the same occasions. But for the purposes of meditation we have preferred the traditional three; the solemn fact remains, and alone concerns us.]
1. Peter had had his warning; he had dis believed in it; he had despised it; a later word implies that he had forgotten it; in consequence even Peter, the first to declare Our Lord to be "the Christ, the Son of the living God," is the first to deny Him.
2. The reason for the fall is clear. It is not merely fear of the portress; had they been alone, would he have denied Our Lord at her taunt? Would she ever have uttered it? Rather it is that demoralizing influence of a crowd, of public opinion, close akin to human respect, which so often seems to paralyze our lips when we would speak the truth.
3. And the occasion is no less clear. Peter's motive for going there was good; he went "that he might see the end." But the motive was not enough to justify his being there. He forgot the prayer: "Lead us not into temptation."
Summary
1. The neglect of warning.
2. The reason of the fall.
3. The occasion.
- from The Crown of Sorrow, by Archbishop Alban Goodier