<p>18:27 <em>Peter denied again; and immediately the cock crew-&nbsp; </em>John&rsquo;s account of Peter&rsquo;s denial of the Lord is to me very beautifully crafted by him to reflect his own weakness, lest the focus be left purely upon the failure of Peter. He alone of the evangelists records how he knew a girl who kept the door to the High Priest&rsquo;s palace, and how he was even known to the High Priest. He speaks to the girl, and she lets Peter in. Then, she recognizes Peter as one of the disciples, that he had been with Jesus, and he makes his shameful denial. But John&rsquo;s point is clearly this: he, John, was known to the same girl, and to Caiaphas- but they never accused <em>him</em> of having been with Jesus. Because they sadly didn&rsquo;t make the connection between John and Jesus. Yet when they saw Peter- they knew him as an upfront disciple of Jesus. And when Peter ran out in fear and shame, John remained in the High Priest&rsquo;s palace- unrecognized and unknown as a disciple of Jesus. The door girl must have realized that John and Peter were connected- because John had asked her to let Peter in. But she never made the accusation that John also had been one of Jesus&rsquo; followers. In all this, John reveals his own shame at his lack of open association with the Lord. Significantly, Acts 4:13 records how the Jews later looked at Peter and John &ldquo;and they took knowledge of them i.e. recognized them, as the girl had recognized Peter, that they both had been with Jesus&rdquo;. This is the very language of those who accused Peter of having &lsquo;been with Jesus&rsquo;. John learnt his lesson, and came out more publicly, at Peter&rsquo;s side, inspired by his equally repentant friend. It&rsquo;s an altogether lovely picture, of two men who both failed, one publicly and the other privately, together side by side in their witness, coming out for the Lord.</p>