<p>14:68 <i>But he denied it, saying-</i> Matthew stresses the denial was before them all. Peter was living out the scene of condemnation at the last day, where the verdict likewise will be manifest &quot;before all&quot;. The Lord had used the same word in saying that whoever denied Him &quot;before men&quot; cp. &quot;before all&quot;, He will deny before the Father at the last day (Mt. 10:33). Peter appealed for Israel to repent on the basis that they had &quot;denied&quot; Christ (Acts 3:13,14 s.w.)- he is appealing for them to realize that they had done what he had done, and yet they could repent, convert and experience the same grace he had done. His appeal, made a stone's throw from where the denials were made and only 6 weeks later, was therefore so powerful. Peter likewise used his failure in his pastoral work with his converts, warning them that to even deny the Lord who redeemed us is the worst possible thing we can do (2 Pet. 2:1). Likewise 1 Jn. 2:22,23 speaks of denying Christ as being the characteristic of the AntiChrist. And John wrote in the context of the early church having Peter as its first leader, and John of course was fully aware of Peter's failure that night.</p><p>Peter in this life denied his Lord&nbsp;<i>in front of men</i>&nbsp;(Mt. 26:70)- and the record of his failure intentionally looks back to the Lord's warning that whoever denies Him&nbsp;<i>before men&nbsp;</i>will be denied by Him at judgment day (Mt. 10:33). He sinned, and in the court of Heaven was condemned. There is a passage in Proverbs 24:11,12 which has a strange relevance to Peter's self-condemnation. Having spoken of those being led away to death (the very context of Peter's denial), we read: &quot;If thou sayest, Behold we know not this man: doth not he that weigheth the hearts consider it? And shall not he render to every man according to his works?&quot;. This last phrase is quoted in Rev. 22:12 about the final judgment. Paul seems to consciously link Peter&rsquo;s church hypocrisy and legalism with his earlier denials that he had ever known the Lord Jesus. He writes of how he had to reveal Peter&rsquo;s denial of the Lord&rsquo;s grace &ldquo;before them all&rdquo; (Gal. 2:14), using the very same Greek phrase of Mt. 26:70, where &ldquo;before them all&rdquo; Peter made the same essential denial.</p><p><i>I neither know, nor understand what you say; and he went out into the porch; and the cock crew</i>- Again, Peter was acting as the condemned, to whom the Lord will say &quot;I know you not&quot; (Mt. 25:12; Lk. 13:25). The whole idea of &lsquo;I don&rsquo;t know Him&rsquo; must, sadly, be connected with the Lord&rsquo;s words in Mt. 7:23 and 25:41, where He tells the rejected: &ldquo;I never knew you&rdquo;. By denying knowledge of the Saviour, Peter was effectively agreeing that the verdict of condemnation could appropriately be passed upon him.&nbsp; In one of his many allusions to the Gospels, Paul wrote that &ldquo;If we deny him, he also will deny us&rdquo; (2 Tim. 2:12). Peter in this life denied his Lord&nbsp;<i>in front of men</i>&nbsp;(Mt. 26:70)- and the record of his failure intentionally looks back to the Lord&rsquo;s warning that whoever denies Him&nbsp;<i>before men&nbsp;</i>will be denied by Him at judgment day (Mt. 10:33). He sinned, and in the court of Heaven was condemned; and yet he could change the verdict by repentance.</p><p>Bible minded Peter must surely have later reflected that he had said those very words: 'I know not this man'. He &quot;went out&quot; from the Lord (Mk. 14:68) and then some minutes later further &quot;went out and wept bitterly&quot; (Lk. 22:62), living out the very figure of condemnation- and yet he was able to repent and come back. Peter's self condemnation is brought out in yet finer detail by considering what he meant when he thrice denied that he either knew nor understood about Jesus (Mk. 14:68). By that time, everyone had heard about Jesus- after all, the trial of Jesus was going on, and all Jerusalem were waiting with bated breath for the outcome. And there was Peter, standing by the fire in the High Priest's house, with everyone talking about the Jesus affair. Peter hardly would've meant 'Jesus? 'Jesus' who? Never heard of him. Dunno who you're talking about'. What he therefore meant, or wished to be understood as meaning, was that he didn't 'know' Jesus in a close sense, he wasn't a disciple of Jesus, he didn't know nor understand Jesus, i.e., he wasn't a follower of Jesus. When Peter tells the maid: &quot;I know not, neither understand what you say about this Jesus&quot; (Mk. 14:68), the other records interpret this as meaning that Peter said that he didn't know Jesus. So we may have to interpret the form of speech being used here; for Semitic speakers don't answer questions in the same way and form as we may be accustomed to. The &quot;what you say&quot; was about Jesus; and therefore Peter is saying that he neither knows closely nor understands this Jesus. And yet time and again, Peter's Lord had taught that those who did not or would not 'know and understand' Him were those who were &quot;outside&quot;, unknown by Him, rejected. And Peter was saying, to save his skin, 'Yes, that's me'. And yet... Peter repented, and changed that verdict. Mark&rsquo;s record of the Lord&rsquo;s trial is not merely a historical account. It&rsquo;s framed in terms of our need to testify for our faith too. The Lord&rsquo;s example in His time of suffering was and is intended to be our example and inspiration, in that we are to in a very practical sense enter into His sufferings. Mark records the Lord&rsquo;s prediction that His people would have to witness before both Jewish and Gentile authorities (Mk. 13:9-13)- and then Mark goes on in the next chapter to describe Jesus doing just this. The Lord asked His suffering followers not to prepare speeches of self-defence- perhaps exemplified and patterned for us in the way that He remained silent before His accusers. Peter is recorded as denying Christ three times- just as the Romans interrogated Christians and asked them to three times deny Christ. The Christians were also asked to curse, or <i>anathematizein</i>, Jesus. And when we read of Peter&rsquo;s cursing, the same word is used. We&rsquo;re left with the impression that Peter actually cursed Christ. And so Mark, who was likely writing the Gospel on Peter&rsquo;s behalf, is showing that Peter, the leader of the church, actually pathetically failed to follow his Lord at this time. And yet the Gospel of Mark was being distributed to Christians who were being dragged before Jewish and Roman courts. The idea was surely to give them an example and encouragement from Peter&rsquo;s failure, rather than portray a positive example of a man overcoming the temptation to curse and deny Christ. But this was how the Lord used Peter- as an example from failure for all of us. <br />&quot;Went out&quot; is the language of Judas going out (Jn. 13:30), Cain '&quot;went out&quot; (Gen. 4:16), as did Zedekiah in the judgment of Jerusalem (Jer. 39:4; 52:7). Esau went out from the land of Canaan into Edom, slinking away from the face of his brother Jacob, sensing his righteousness and his own carnality (Gen. 36:2-8). Even in this life, those who leave the ecclesia 'go out' after the pattern of Judas, condemning themselves in advance of the judgment by their attitude to the ecclesia (1 Jn. 2:19 cp. Acts 15:24). The unrighteous flee from God now, as they will then (Hos. 7:13). The ungrateful servant &quot;went out&quot; and condemned his brother- thus condemning himself (Mt. 18:28). Yet Peter in this life &quot;went out&quot; from the Lord (Mk. 14:68) and then some minutes later further &quot;went out and wept bitterly&quot; (Lk. 22:62), living out the very figure of rejection at the judgment-&nbsp; and yet was able to repent and come back. In this life we can be judged, condemned, weep...but still repent of it and thereby change our eternal destiny. But at the final judgment: it will be just too late. That 'judgment' will be a detailed statement of the outcome of the ongoing investigative jud1gment which is going on right now. <br />Mark&rsquo;s Peter&rsquo;s Gospel omits many incidents, but also uses the device of repetition to stress what the writer considers significant. In Mk. 14:68 he records himself as having said: &ldquo;I know, neither understand I what thou sayest&rdquo;. He stresses the nature of his own rejection of knowledge of the Lord. A similar awareness of the weakness of the flesh is found in 7:21: &ldquo;From within, out of the heart of man...&rdquo;.</p>