New Thoughts (09/11/12-09/14/12)
There is great challenge in trying to align the four accounts we have of Peter’s denial. I wonder, though, how much of that challenge comes of simply trying too hard. What do I mean? Jesus, as all four accounts report, had told Peter that he would deny his Lord three times that night. Being that it was Jesus who spoke, the words necessarily carried the weight of true prophecy. They had to be fulfilled, and the primary reason that all four Gospels cover the event is not to show what a weak-willed man Peter was, but to show that even in this, Jesus spoke with perfect knowledge.
But, ask this: For that prophecy to be fulfilled, is it needful that Peter issued precisely three denials? You see, each of the accounts provides us with three, and three is sufficient to prove the point. But, if we seek to make all four accounts tell of the same three denials, we run into major difficulties, and may arrive at the conclusion that at least one of these witnesses has remembered incorrectly. So, for example, Matthew speaks of another servant-girl identifying Jesus, whereas Mark seems to imply the same one who had first asked him about his status. John includes a very specific servant, one related to Malchus among his three accounts, which the others mention not at all. So, at the very least this would seem to give us four occasions. Or, there is the alternative that multiple questions were arising to account for each of those three denials. But, even there, it seems the responses we hear from Peter suggest more than three.
Again, I would say this does not require us to attempt to find a perfect correlation between all accounts. Indeed, I am constrained by my understanding of God and Scripture to hold that all four accounts are accurate and it is our understanding or interpretation of them which may be at issue. How much difficulty we will save ourselves if we but come at the questions from this perspective. Let God be true! Let Him be right and wholly accurate in His laying out of events for our benefit. But, our benefit is had only as we accept what He has testified, and seek to understand the truth, not pick apart the testimony. That insistence on trying to make the four accounts correlate absolutely is, I suspect, a thinly veiled attempt on our part to discredit the witness and find cause to relax back into our sins. May it never be!
Whatever the deeper cause, this interest in having the accounts agree more fully may lie behind the way many of the translations follow after the KJV and shift a definite article to an anarthrous rendering in Mark 14:69. Is it a maid, or the maid? Given the presence of hee in the text, it should be the maid. But, there’s Matthew with his clear statement that it was another. How could it be another if it was the same one? Somebody, it seems, felt the need to help the accounts agree. But, they already agree! They are only providing distinct details, which should hardly surprise. They are distinct witnesses with distinct perspectives, and so far as we know, only two of the accounts are those of men present at the scene. Mark, I will note again, is pretty fully attested to as recording Peter’s recounting of events as he taught the early church, and John, again with strong attestation, presents us with his own recollections, albeit from a later date.
This is sufficient to explain why only Mark speaks of two cock crows. For Peter, that minor detail was not so minor. After all, if he noticed the second crowing, he must have noticed the first. The second would hurt the more, because he ought to have been sufficiently reminded by the first one. Yet, his thoughts failed him until it was too late. For the others, one crow was enough to make the point, just as three of what may have been several occasions of denial sufficed to make the point. Was there anything to be gained by setting out in gory detail every last moment of that agonizing night? No.
Let us understand this, as well: The purpose of the gospels is neither to cut the apostles down to size nor to set them upon a pedestal. Indeed, the purpose of the gospels has next to nothing to do with the apostles. It is to do with Jesus. It is to provide testimony to Him, to demonstrate the truth of Him, and to explain the salvific purpose that is His. The apostles, insomuch as they are the providers of the testimony, have some need to demonstrate their validity as witnesses. Having been with Him start to finish through those years certainly fit the bill. Beyond that, they are secondary to the purpose of writing.
What I am saying is that, while this event was clearly important to the Apostles, it is included for one purpose: To demonstrate that Jesus, even in this dark hour, spoke with the full authority of heaven. He was indeed a prophet, the Prophet. Even to so small a detail as this, He was accurate. Peter, you will. And, Peter, you did.
If I think, for a moment, of how it is that Peter held on in spite of this cause for great remorse, perhaps it lies in that same fact, that Jesus was perfectly accurate, being perfectly knowledgeable. Go back, with me, to Luke’s account of dinner, just before Jesus had told Peter point blank just how swiftly and how badly he would fail of his brave boasting. “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded to sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers” (Lk 22:31). I emphasize that when. It’s not an if, for Jesus has prayed. It is when. It is going to happen just as surely as the three denials happened.
This leads me to consider another point. In looking at Peter’s situation preparatory to this study, I had written, “It had to be thus, for had Jesus not already told him it would be?” And, I note that I arrive at a very similar conclusion in what I have just been considering. But, I have to ask: Did it really have to be this way? Was it impossible, Jesus having spoken, that Peter could have responded other than as he did? Put another way, is there a point at which recognition of God’s sovereignty begins to be misconstrued as what others have perceived as fate. Fate is understood as inevitable. The gods have decreed the course of your days and nothing you can do will ever change it. God’s sovereignty, on the other hand, almost always seems to leave some place for repentance, for our own input into the equation. I say almost because there are cases where it is made pretty clear that no other outcome was possible. Take the case of Pharaoh, for instance. There, God made it very plain, “I have hardened his heart.” The potential for repentance has been taken from the equation. It is decided and it shall be.
But, this is not the case, clearly, with every true prophetic word, every true message of forewarning. When Jonah went to Ninevah, his reticence was founded on that exact issue. He knew God. He knew if he warned the Ninevites what was coming on them, they would repent and God would relent, and he didn’t want that to be the case. But, it seems to me that those sorts of prophecies come with an if clause. If you don’t repent, then this is going to be the situation. That, of course, admits of opportunity to change the course of events. Here, speaking to Peter, no such clause is provided. Jesus does not suggest that if Peter is not careful and prayerful he will deny Jesus three times. He simply says, you will. Indeed, it’s one of those “verily, verily, I say to you” moments, isn’t it (Mt 26:34, Mk 14:30, Jn 13:38)? Jesus stresses the certainty of this outcome. It’s going to happen.
So, while I would say that the more common experience is that we are left with a hand on the tiller, so to speak, in this case, no Peter could not have done otherwise. This is cast. This is in the same category of certainty as were the deeds of Judas, of Caiaphas, of Pilate. It could not but happen. The plan and purpose of salvation required it, and God had spoken it.
What I arrive at, then, is that we must not find an excuse for ourselves in these events. God is indeed sovereign and He does know and set forth all that is. Yet, at the same time He has set us forth as moral beings, as beings with not only the capacity to choose, but the responsibility. He reveals Himself to the nation of Israel, having demonstrated just exactly how impossible it is to oppose Him, and then He says, “You choose! You decide what gods you’re going to follow” (Jos 24:15). And, don’t you suppose you can escape responsibility by refusing to choose. Refusing to choose is already the choice made. It is the rarest exception, and for the most exceptional of circumstances, that are bereft of choice. Peter, even though he is so constrained to fulfill the word of his Lord to his own sorrow, is not bereft of responsibility. It is thus that he feels such great remorse when he realizes he has done just as Jesus said he would, he must.
But, something held him through that remorse, or Someone. And, I continue to suggest that it was confidence in Jesus. This very same failure on Peter’s part, by the power of God, is turned to a confidence in Jesus, and it is Jesus, as I noted, who said, “When you have turned again.” When you have repented. Restoration is not a potential for you, Peter, any more than is the failure for which you will need restoration. Think upon it.
I would like to draw attention to a time some weeks after this night, when Peter stands to give his first sermon. Some verses from that sermon show up amongst the parallel verses to the scene before us. “The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus, that very one you delivered up and disowned before Pilate, even though Pilate sought to release Him. You disowned the Holy and Righteous One, and preferred that a murderer be granted to you” (Ac 3:13-14). How do you hear Peter when he says that? I find that for my own part I tend to hear a great deal of anger, as I also tend to hear the prophets as they pronounce the wrath of God upon this nation or that one. But, to hear it thus is to hear it without a sense of the pastor’s heart. I hit this point with Amos, where one expects anger, resentment, vengefulness, particularly given the reception he was apparently getting. But, he is not there for revenge. He is there for hope. Like Jesus, he would have said that he came not to judge but to save. And that is, quite honestly, the sense we must have of any true man of God.
Consider the case with Peter. There he is in Jerusalem, where memory of these events would still be fresh in the minds of not only himself both those to whom he was speaking, and what has he to say? “You disowned the Holy and Righteous One.” OK. Stop right there! Don’t you even begin to suspect he was wagging his finger at them in some accusatory fashion. Think for a minute! Peter could not possibly have uttered those words without a very painful recollection of this night when Jesus was put on trial. He, too, had disowned the Holy and Righteous One, and well did he know it. Take that realization into his preaching. Now, to be certain, he may have had the same tendencies common to man, whereby we find most offensive in others the very faults we know in ourselves. But, then, why are we that way? It is generally because we, having determined these things to be faults, are struggling with them, perhaps even doing our utmost to hide and cover over the extent to which they plague us. So, to see somebody doing those things without concern gets under our skin. But, Peter’s already dealt with this issue. He has repented in the truest sense of the word, and he has experienced the Lord’s forgiveness as no other had done.
Can you, then, imagine the compassion with which these words come from him! He’s not out for vengeance. He’s not keen to condemn his countrymen. He knows, after all, how capable he would have been, had he been in their place, of doing exactly as they had done. No! He is here to see to those sheep Jesus asked him to look after. He is here to bring to salvation those who may have figured they’d cut themselves off from every possibility of it. And, let the record show that he was particularly successful in that pursuit. How not? The events we have before us had prepared him for just such an occasion, to reach just such a people.
Of all the apostles, Peter was particularly suited to have sympathy on these men who had called for the death of his Lord. More than any of the others, he has been forced to recognize that same weakness in himself, and now he stands as proof that even this is not beyond the power of Christ to forgive. Knowing the relief he had been blessed to experience, how he must have longed to see those listening to him obtain the same relief! There is no anger in him, only hope. He may not have that same personality as Paul, who would point himself out as the one most deserving of eternal punishment and yet set as an apostle by the very One he had sought to persecute. But, he understands. He has been, as we say, uniquely prepared to understand.
Here, we have a glimpse of God’s providence at work. This was not solely about fulfilling a prophecy. Certainly, it’s not about fulfilling what Jesus had said at dinner. That could easily have been dealt with by simply not telling Peter this would happen, by not determining that it would happen. Neither was it about satisfying some clause from the Old Testament, concerning the degree to which the Servant would be abandoned. More than enough was happening to call those predictions confirmed. What it was really about is preparing Peter. Without this, his prideful and strong-headed ways would never have changed. That boasting at table would still be with him. And, yes, we still see some clinging tatters of that bluster attaching to him yet as he and Paul meet in foreign lands. But, the impact of this training is clear on the Peter we see hereafter. He has, finally, learned to walk humbly before his God. As he preaches here in Jerusalem, there is a humility in his voice that ensures that those who hear their sins laid bare by his words also hear that all is not lost, hope is not cut off once for all time. They need not follow the course Judas chose. There is a Savior. Yes, it’s the very Man they sought to destroy. But, His heart is that big! Forgiveness is still possible. That man delivering the message stands as proof of that very thing, and well does he know it.
There are some other points about the text that deserve a bit of attention, and I may yet turn to them. But, just now, it seems to me that I ought to consider how I might apply the lesson I am taking from Peter’s situation. We get in those hard places, and our tendency is to turn inward, or to cast about for something by which we might pull ourselves out. But, the focus is off of God and upon self. I was reading in Psalm 73, last night, and Asaph writes there, “When my heart was embittered, and I was pierced within, then I was senseless and ignorant. I was like a beast before Thee” (Ps 73:21-22). We get that way. I understand my daughter went through just such a phase a day or two back. Clearly God is done with me, and He wants me to know it. Just look at what life has been throwing at me! It simply doesn’t occur to us to consider why God might be allowing these things. What is it He is trying to accomplish?
We are not privy to the thoughts Joseph may have had as he was sold into slavery by his brothers, or as he endured prison for something he had never done. But, we do see that he did not turn his back on God due to these circumstances. He did not decide God was clearly against him and he might as well, therefore do as he pleased. No. He continued in faithful pursuit of righteousness. And, as things came to a head; as he found himself positioned to avenge himself against those who had set all these evils in motion, he did not pursue vengeance but rather pursued rescue. His conclusion reveals his understanding of events. “You meant it for ill, but God meant it for good.” Your culpability is no less, but God’s goodness is likewise no less, and His goodness trumps your sinfulness.
Joseph, through great hardship, was uniquely prepared to be in a position to preserve his brothers. Jesus, by utmost hardship, was uniquely prepared to serve as the propitiation for our sins. Peter, by his experience, was uniquely prepared to reach out to the very ones who had connived to bring about the death of Jesus. This is not something which stopped with the Apostles. We read of such things through the ages. Augustine, if not for his wasted youth, would not have had such a productive maturity, and the Church would have been far the poorer for it. One could think of Bonhoeffer, of those many martyrs to Rome’s arrogance. One could think of any number of unknown believers today, still persecuted, still pursued to their deaths, yet unwilling to curse their oppressors, rather seeking their salvation.
Yesterday, we acknowledged the anniversary of the craven attacks known to us as 9/11. There were prayers, to be sure, for the relatives of those killed in the towers, on the planes. But, how many are praying for the souls of those who stage such attacks? As we hear of present-day attacks upon our embassies abroad, what are our thoughts? Are we out for blood, that they would dare such a thing? Are we concerned with heaping reproach upon our own government for failing us? Or, will we hear the heart of God, and begin to pray for the benighted people of those nations, mislead by demons, and raised in a culture devoted to demons?
But, this is more a communal application, I should think. There remains the personal. What are my own circumstances preparing me for? Is it simply for this task of teaching on Sundays? Or, is there something more for which God is shaping me? And, if it be that He is indeed shaping me for more, am I working with Him in that effort, or getting in His way? Truth be told, I think I am more often than not in the latter category, if only due to negligent attitude. Surely, I could be more keen to discern what it is He is trying to build in me. Surely, I could seek His wisdom on that matter and concern myself with how best I might come to the point at which I am aimed.
In other cases, whether through lethargy or nervousness about where it might be leading, I fear I may be actively opposing what He is doing in me. I could think, for example, of the effort of listening to those lectures Pastor pointed me towards. Why, those are work! Passively sitting about listening isn’t going to get the job done. OK. Well, that’s one issue, and one I should be able to overcome. Yes, it’s going to require me to go back and listen to a few of the lectures over again, but is that such a big deal? It seems to be, but there’s no good reason for it.
What looms larger, I think, is implication. Where is it leading? What if I do pursue these lectures and find myself being called to seminary? What if that calling turns out to be something beyond my present imagination? What if He really is asking me to give it all away, or even a significant portion of it, in favor of pursuing what He wants of me? Have I become so determined in my ways that I refuse to even consider that alternative? I suppose there’s one way to find out, eh?
Then, again, what is this present experience for? Why these years of contracting? Why the work at home for a season, and why at the office? Yes, it’s provision, and rather nice provision at that. But, why? If we are each of us created for the doing of specific deeds, which God has prepared beforehand for us to do, and for the doing of which He Himself is willing away and working away within us, what are my specific deeds?
What must I do, Lord, to prepare? Why do I feel so directionless in all this, like I’m just chasing after my own amusements? Why do I so rarely feel led? Oh, it’s not a matter of feelings, I know. It’s a matter of faith. But, faith needs conjoining with obedience, and I find myself at a loss to obey a direction I do not quite know. Lead me, Lord. And, so work within me that I may be led.
OK. I’m going to quickly point out a couple of more or less technical points in the text. This may be a bit anticlimactic coming after that point, but they are matters worth noting, I think. First, there is that which Matthew makes note of in verse 74. As the NASB translates, “he began to curse and swear.” Here, I think our own habit gets in the way of understanding. We think of cursing and swearing as being pretty much the same thing, and we cast it as a matter of using those words that we know we oughtn’t, that are considered impolite, and unfit for public usage. At least, they used to be. But, that’s not really the point, I don’t think. They are related terms, yes, but not redundant. To swear, as we are told Peter swore, isn’t about uttering profanities as if we had just hit thumb with hammer. It’s about taking oath, just as it was up there in verse 72. Being a man of his time and culture, such oath doubtless invoked God as witness. It is intended as a confirmation of the truth of the lie he is speaking.
To curse, is to add weight to the oath by seeking God’s own vengeance should the thing prove a lie. We recognize something along those lines in the covenant ceremony between Abraham and God. Thus may you do to me, should I fail to honor terms. It is absolutely explicit in the covenant between God and the Israelites. If you obey, blessing upon blessing. If you do not, thus shall I do to you, and thus, and thus, and destruction shall follow you all your days.
Frankly, what is said of Peter here is far more awful than simply speaking a few four letter words. It is the more awful because he, above all people in that courtyard, should know better. “Let your yes be yes, and your no be no.” Be honest. Be so honest that others would not require oaths and curses to accept your word as trustworthy. And here, Peter is using those very means to convince these folks to accept his lie as trustworthy! He, a witness for Truth Himself, and this is how he plays it? Not that we would ever do the like! I rather suspect most of us would have done much the same without so much as a thought for what we were doing, which is exactly how it went for Peter, I suspect. Self-preservation has that way about it.
Another point that deserves a bit of attention is that reply Peter gives in Luke 22:57. “I do not know Him.” If you are like me, you hear that pretty straight up. Peter is saying, effectively, that he’s never heard of this guy, has no clue who she’s even talking about. It ought to be pretty obvious, though, that this is not what he’s saying. It would be a most improbable line of defense, given where he is and why. I hadn’t really considered that until I got to a footnote in the NET that explained the particularly Jewish sense behind the phrase Peter spoke. Interesting: It’s a formulaic saying, something associated with the ban. It means something far different from the apparent sense of being aware of Jesus. Of course he was aware of Jesus. Who could not be by this point? Rather, it’s a denial of association. “I have nothing to do with him,” is the way the NET explains the intended meaning, and the meaning that would be plainly understood by the servant who had asked. The soldiers might have misunderstood, but the household, and those from the temple, would hear it exactly thus.
This raises a point of greater concern to us. We are inclined to think we find glaring inconsistencies in the text of Scripture, things that couldn’t possibly have gone down as described – like this defensive move of Peter’s. But, quite often our take on the matter is based on our own understanding of the most literal sense of the terms used here. It’s not that much different from how we tend to perceive Peter’s cursing and swearing in Matthew’s account. We see the terms. We parse the terms based on our own present-day understanding and culture. We arrive at a wholly incorrect picture of the situation. Add in colloquialisms, cultural points of reference that are wholly foreign to our experience, and the problems just get worse.
One of the ways I seek to counter this false filtering is by attempting to imagine myself in the scene. But that approach can only take one so far. It may provide a different perspective, as one contemplates how he would react or respond himself, had he been there. But, for things like this, the only real aid is to be found in either an in-depth study of the cultures of that time and place, or to avail oneself of the explanations provided by one who has. Since most of us do not have the resources or the inclination to dedicate to pursuit of studying ancient civilizations, the best bet is something like what the NET has provided here, preferably, more than one source. For, even the experts are inclined to disagree on this matter or that.
More immediately, though, the lesson to take is that we ought be careful readers of Scripture. We ought to expect, particularly in these most personal recollections that form the gospels, that there are going to be things said that are not intended as literally as we are inclined to take them. It is really no different than going to a different region of this country. It may not be quite so prevalent now as it once was, but there are local twists on the lingo that may render significant to the local what is utterly obscure to the outsider. Even between close friends you see this happen. There are little catch phrases, seemingly pointless to anybody not in the know, that will have those friends laughing, or nodding, or what have you. For those of a certain age, it is likely bits of some Monty Python routine or another, all but memorized in youth. But, for the younger generation, there is no meaning there. It’s just some bizarre ritual of the adults.
Obviously, with Scripture, the import of arriving at correct understanding is far greater. Obviously, too, those writing were not looking to relay things in code language, but rather to express events clearly so that their readers could grasp the meaning. But, much of this colloquial habit is just that, habit. It’s not a conscious effort. Rather, it would take conscious effort on the part of the author to avoid. For, it’s just the normal way of talking. It’s what one has heard and said all one’s days, and it wouldn’t necessarily occur to you that another may not get the real sense of your words; particularly if they’re not present, where you can see the question on their face.
In this case, there’s the added factor that it is Luke who is relaying Peter’s words. Luke, so far as we know, was not a Jew and not familiar with the ways of temple practice. He would have had, perhaps, some exposure as he traveled with Paul, but probably not to the point of having these formulaic expressions explained to him. When he was told this is what Peter said, that is what he transcribed into the record. It was not so clearly a misplaced phrasing as to cause him to seek out the meaning, as he might do with something more obviously Hebraic in meaning, or where the Aramaic was being used. So, like us, his first instinct is to simply accept it at face value and record it thus. Mark might have been expected to offer explanation, as he seems more inclined to explain particularly Jewish aspects of his account. But, again: if it doesn’t strike him as a thing inexplicable except to the Jewish mind, why would he? Looking at Mark 14:71, we see a very similar statement recorded, as, for that matter, we see in Matthew 26:74. Matthew, with his intended audience being Jewish, would have no cause whatsoever to explain. Mark may have simply thought the literal meaning near enough the formulaic as to require no explanation, or he may have simply been too familiar with it to really consider that others might hear something different. The point remains: Be careful in reading. Find something or someone to point out and explain those things that are lost to us by our distance from events.
Before I finish off this part of the text, I want to return to this man Peter once more. It is perfectly natural that we focus on his failings as they are set before us in these verses. But, I would that we consider the fact that he had willingly entered that place to begin with. Think about it! This is Peter, the only one, so far as we know, who actually assaulted the arresting party, and the one he assaulted is as likely as not right here around the fire. He would have no reason to suppose otherwise. Even if that servant is not out here, he is doubtless on premises. Certainly, even if no other would recognize him, that one would. Indeed, that thought had to be foremost in his mind when that servant’s brother pointed him out. “Didn’t I see you there?” Well, John at least recognized this one as brother to Peter’s victim. Might he not have pointed that out to Peter, giving further reason for Peter’s swift departure?
Leave that one aside, though. The guards are here, around the fire, and Peter is blithely walking in amongst them to warm himself as he awaits events. Surely, he has little enough cause to expect a peaceable result should one of those men spot him as a disciple. Did not Jesus Himself warn of something to that effect? “If they do thus to the master, they shall assuredly do the same to His servants.” What is he thinking? He has not the benefit of familiarity which John might wrap around himself. He is not known to the high priest, no friend of the family or what have you. He’s just a Galilean, and every Galilean is suspect at this point. They never were all that bright up there, easily taken in by the likes of Jesus. And, they’re hot-heads to boot. So, if anybody’s likely to stir up a riot over what’s happening here, it’d be them.
It gives us reason to understand Peter’s denials, certainly. But it should also give us cause to recognize his bravery. I see that same bravery shown later, when they are out fishing after the death of Jesus, and lo! There is Jesus on the shore (Jn 21). Even given his recognition that it was indeed Jesus who beckoned, consider the bravery of this man who, far from avoiding reunion with this One he failed so miserably and predictably, he does all in his power to haste that reunion, stripping down and diving in to swim to shore rater than wait for the boat.
If we see Peter through these events, it becomes a little bit less surprising, I think, that Jesus selected him to be a foundation for the Church. Headstrong? Yes. Impetuous? Certainly. But, brave and true as they come. Not without failings, no. No man is. But, as with David, a man after God’s own heart. Point him, and you could bet he was going to go. Give him a task and you could count on it getting done. And what a task he was handed: “Shepherd My sheep.” And, if ever an under-shepherd was carefully trained in the humility needed to be both leader and led, Peter was that man. He knew his own failings, and that they were grave indeed. But, he knew his Lord’s forgiveness, and that was great indeed! Who better to speak this good news, particularly to those very people who had been part of the death of Christ? Who better to speak the truth to them in love, with compassionate understanding? Who better to win their hearts to God? And the church was adding to its number daily.
