Did Christ Command Peter To Deny Him?

[Mudcat]

Mat 26:34 Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the **** crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

I was thinking about this today and wanted to posit it here. I am not sure if its been discussed before, but I am curious to see what posters think about this?

Christ told(foretold), that Peter would deny him. Obviously this was something Peter was opposed to, in light of the fact he said he would die before he did that.

However, after Christ was taken, the opportunity arose in which Peter could have chosen to admit he knew Christ or instead, he could deny him.

We all know what Peter chose to do, but given his prior statements of his loyalty to Christ, we could draw a couple of conclusions.

Either Peter denied Christ for reasons other than the fact that Christ had told(or foretold) that he would or Peter denied Christ because he felt commanded to.

In one respect, Peter failed to some degree.

In another respect, Peter was only doing as he was commanded.

We can speculate as to what would have been the outcome if Peter had not denied Christ, no one could be certain as to what would happen in that case.

Hypothetically speaking, lets say had he not denied Christ, and this action would have been detrimental to his person,... if that was the case, then could Christ's statement been a command to Peter, for Peter's sake, that Peter himself ruefully followed through with? Rather than a prophecy of Peter's impending failure.

Don't know if anyone else finds this interesting, but if you have a thought on the matter, I'd like to hear it.

Mudcat

[Brenda]

Interesting thought! However, the Book of Mark sheds a little more light on it.

Mark 14: 72 "And the second time the **** crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the **** crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept."

It sounds to me that Peter wasn't consciously following instructions from Christ to deny him, because of the way the prophecy returned to his memory. Peter seemed very intent to never deny Christ and was then devastated when he realized what he'd done. But from Christ's perspective, he could have foretold the denial as something necessary for Peter to remain free to lead his church.

You could also wonder about Christ's knowledge of the forthcoming betrayal by Judas. Can't imagine that was a command either, because of what it led to. But still it's interesting to think about.

Note: Hey, I didn't edit the scripture. So let's just put rooster in there.

[Flyonthewall]

I was thinking about this today and wanted to posit it here. I am not sure if its been discussed before, but I am curious to see what posters think about this?

Christ told(foretold), that Peter would deny him. Obviously this was something Peter was opposed to, in light of the fact he said he would die before he did that.

However, after Christ was taken, the opportunity arose in which Peter could have chosen to admit he knew Christ or instead, he could deny him.

We all know what Peter chose to do, but given his prior statements of his loyalty to Christ, we could draw a couple of conclusions.

Either Peter denied Christ for reasons other than the fact that Christ had told(or foretold) that he would or Peter denied Christ because he felt commanded to.

In one respect, Peter failed to some degree.

In another respect, Peter was only doing as he was commanded.

We can speculate as to what would have been the outcome if Peter had not denied Christ, no one could be certain as to what would happen in that case.

Hypothetically speaking, lets say had he not denied Christ, and this action would have been detrimental to his person,... if that was the case, then could Christ's statement been a command to Peter, for Peter's sake, that Peter himself ruefully followed through with? Rather than a prophecy of Peter's impending failure.

Don't know if anyone else finds this interesting, but if you have a thought on the matter, I'd like to hear it.

Mudcat

It was discussed somewhat here: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...l=Peter+to+deny

but was not a long discussion. I found the concept interesting as I had not looked at it from that angle before.

[Mudcat]

Interesting thought! However, the Book of Mark sheds a little more light on it.

Mark 14: 72 "And the second time the **** crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the **** crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept."

It sounds to me that Peter wasn't consciously following instructions from Christ to deny him, because of the way the prophecy returned to his memory. Peter seemed very intent to never deny Christ and was then devastated when he realized what he'd done. But from Christ's perspective, he could have foretold the denial as something necessary for Peter to remain free to lead his church.

You could also wonder about Christ's knowledge of the forthcoming betrayal by Judas. Can't imagine that was a command either, because of what it led to. But still it's interesting to think about.

Its a good point you bring up, Brenda.

Couple of things come to mind, one being the different circumstances we see the same scenario presented in the Gospels. In the accounts, there are enough differences between versions that I think we could walk away with the notion Peter was saddened and wept, but to get overly specific we run into some seemingly contradictory reports. And to be honest, I tend to agree with you. At this point, I am just exploring the issue and don't have much of an opinion either.

*edit add - I am glad you brought up Judas, because he is another point of contrast. Mark's Judas never seemed quite as evil as John's Judas.... just a thought*

Its off topic, but I had a dog that had to be put down. Even though I did what was right, I wept.

Note: Hey, I didn't edit the scripture. So let's just put rooster in there.

I don't get the word monitor on this issue. But I suppose I feel like Paul kicking against the pricks, on the matter.

[Lightbearer]

I was thinking about this today and wanted to posit it here. I am not sure if its been discussed before, but I am curious to see what posters think about this?

Christ told(foretold), that Peter would deny him. Obviously this was something Peter was opposed to, in light of the fact he said he would die before he did that.

However, after Christ was taken, the opportunity arose in which Peter could have chosen to admit he knew Christ or instead, he could deny him.

We all know what Peter chose to do, but given his prior statements of his loyalty to Christ, we could draw a couple of conclusions.

Either Peter denied Christ for reasons other than the fact that Christ had told(or foretold) that he would or Peter denied Christ because he felt commanded to.

In one respect, Peter failed to some degree.

In another respect, Peter was only doing as he was commanded.

We can speculate as to what would have been the outcome if Peter had not denied Christ, no one could be certain as to what would happen in that case.

Hypothetically speaking, lets say had he not denied Christ, and this action would have been detrimental to his person,... if that was the case, then could Christ's statement been a command to Peter, for Peter's sake, that Peter himself ruefully followed through with? Rather than a prophecy of Peter's impending failure.

Don't know if anyone else finds this interesting, but if you have a thought on the matter, I'd like to hear it.

Mudcat

Interesting idea Mudcat, however I think Brenda has a good point, after he realized that Jesus had prophecied correctly he went out and "wept bitterly." I do not think it was a command, because Christ would not command Peter to lie, or deny Him... What He seemed to be teaching Peter was humility, he had just bragged that although all men would forsake Him, he never would. Jesus was teaching him to beware that anyone can fall, so not to be too sure of what he would do. If he had not denied knowing Christ he could have been arrested and crucified along with his master. Then what would have happened? Also it seemed that Peter was repenting when later in the book of John the master asks him if he loves Him three times. Three times he insists he does and is told "feed my sheep." These events give me the idea that Peter felt guilt for denying his Lord.

Peter was a great follower of Christ and he like we often do, let the flesh be weak though the spirit is willing. He proved he was willing to die for Christ by using the sword to cut off the servants ear. Yet when Jesus told him that he was not to fight to prevent His capture, I think that may have made Peter a little less sure of himself causing him to doubt what he should do. In this weakened condition he denied knowing the Lord and after he did it it sort of hit him and then he wept bitterly. At least that is my thoughts on it. But the commandment idea is intriguing.

Respectfully

Lightbearer

[LeSellers]

Christ told(foretold), that Peter would deny him. Obviously this was something Peter was opposed to, in light of the fact he said he would die before he did that.

Here's what the Bible says:

34 ἔφη αὐτῷ ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς· ἀμὴν λέγω σοι ὅτι ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτὶ πρὶν ἀλέκτορα φωνῆσαι τρὶς ἀπαρνήσῃ με.

The word "ἀπαρνήσῃ" is the second person, singular; future tense; indicative mood; middle deponent voice form of the verb: "thou shalt deny". It is a simple future, not an imperative. Jesus did not (at least, according to the best Greek we have) command Peter to deny Him.

Brenda mentioned Mark 14:73. It gives the same verb and form:

72 καὶ ἐκ δευτέρου ἀλέκτωρ ἐφώνησε. καὶ ἀνεμνήσθη ὁ Πέτρος τὸ ῥῆμα ὃ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ὅτι πρὶν ἀλέκτορα φωνῆσαι δὶς, ἀπαρνήσῃ με τρίς. καὶ ἐπιβαλὼν ἔκλαιε.

Peter is recalling the vent recorded 43 verses earlier:

30 καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς· ἀμὴν λέγω σοι ὅτι σὺ σήμερον ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ταύτῃ πρὶν ἢ δὶς ἀλέκτορα φωνῆσαι τρίς ἀπαρνήσῃ με.

We see exactly the same form of the verb here, too: "ἀπαρνήσῃ".

Either Peter denied Christ for reasons other than the fact that Christ had told(or foretold) that he would or Peter denied Christ because he felt commanded to.

No matter what other evidence there is, the Greek text does not support anything other than Christ's prophesying.

I take Peter's bitter weeping later the next morning as strong evidence that he was acting in his human weakness.

Lehi

[charity's child]

I have viewed the weeping in another light. IF he was under a command to deny Christ, the **** crowed, he realized the ordeal was over, and he wept, both with the bitterness of what he had been forced to do and with relief that it was over and done with.

Just a possibility.

[maklelan]

Here's what the Bible says: The word "ἀπαρνήσῃ" is the second person, singular; future tense; indicative mood; middle deponent voice form of the verb: "thou shalt deny". It is a simple future, not an imperative. Jesus did not (at least, according to the best Greek we have) command Peter to deny Him.

Brenda mentioned Mark 14:73. It gives the same verb and form: Peter is recalling the vent recorded 43 verses earlier: We see exactly the same form of the verb here, too: "ἀπαρνήσῃ".

No matter what other evidence there is, the Greek text does not support anything other than Christ's prophesying.

I take Peter's bitter weeping later the next morning as strong evidence that he was acting in his human weakness.

Lehi

In Koine it was not uncommon for the future indicative to indicate the imperative. It's kind of analogous with Semitic imperatives in that respect. Despite that, the context all but precludes an imperative reading.

[Mudcat]

In Koine it was not uncommon for the future indicative to indicate the imperative. It's kind of analogous with Semitic imperatives in that respect. Despite that, the context all but precludes an imperative reading.

Hey Mak,

Could you rephrase that statement in the Countryboy dialect?

I think I am 3 "aints" away from an ephiphany.

[Kevin Christensen]

I like the context that Rene Girard puts on the situation in I Beheld Satan, pages 19-21.

"In refusing a mimetic interpretation, in looking for the failure of Peter in purely individual causes, we attempt to demonstrate, unconciously of course, that in Peter's place we would not have denied Jesus."

Girard makes the case that ancient societies universally controlled the escalation of violence that grows from mimetic desires by means of scapegoats. He sees Peter, like everyone else, as caught up in mimetic contagion. In every other culture, the guilt of the scapegoat is unquestioned. Oedipus, for example. In the story of Joseph, in some of the Psalms, and especially in the story of Jesus, Peter comes out on Pentacost declaring the innocent of the scapegoat.

On page 191 he writes of Peter, "Just after his third denial, Peter hears a rooster crow, and he remembers what Jesus had predicted. Only then does he discover the crowd phenomenon in which he has participated. He proudly believed that he was immunized against all unfaithfulness to Jesus. All though the Gospel accounts, Peter is the ignorance instrument of scandals that manipulate him without his knowledge. In speaking to the Jerusalem crowd some days after the resuurection,he stresses the ignorance of those possessed by violent contagion. He speaks from personal knowledge."

Girard makes the case that the resurrection of Jesus, and the proclaimation of his innocence, uniquely unmasks the assumption that the scapegoat is necessarily guilty. And even the suggestion of that possibility was enough to unravel every pagan culture that came into contact with Christianity.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[LeSellers]

Could you rephrase that statement in the Countryboy dialect?

I believe he's saying that in Koine, you could say "You will do Xxxx," in the sense that "I command you to do Xxxx."

This is a feature of some languages (we do it in English, as the example shows), but hardly all, and it's difficult to detect from a written record. Even when we know exactly what I was trying illustrate here, I had to emphasize the word "will" so get the point across.

Lehi

[PacMan]

Wait, wait, wait...we're analyzing the Greek to determine what Peter was thinking (likely in Aramaic)? Does anybody else find the transition history a little suspect? Clearly, we don't know. But in this instance, I have a very difficult time believing that Mark was an expert on what Peter thought. It's a narrative account as he understood it...and there's nothing to say the got the story from the ****, er...horse's mouth.

I really do not believe that Peter was some coward. I bet he knew something. But of course, I could be wrong.

P.S. This stupid ****-eyed editing thing's a killer.

[Lamanite]

Hey my friend,

I'm not well versed in the Greek, but to a humble servant of the Lord, the way the Spirit interprets this event to me is that Peter definitely denied Christ of his own free will and choice.

I wrote an essay on this subject. I used my Greek lexicon to deconstruct the verbiage mentioned in the posts above, but in the end the circumstances prior to, during, and after the denial, leads me to believe that Peter denied the Savior. And I don't think this makes Peter a coward in any sense of the word. My respect and affection for him runs extremely deep.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[maklelan]

Hey Mak,

Could you rephrase that statement in the Countryboy dialect?

I think I am 3 "aints" away from an ephiphany.

Greek has a specific imperative way to form a verb so that everyone who reads or hears it knows it's a command. Koine (or "common") Greek also incorporated the future, meaning the phrase "you will deny" could be a statement of fact, or it could be a command. While that's a little ambiguous within the verb itself, the context of the event across the different gospel accounts leaves little doubt it was not being used as a command.

[Lamanite]

Greek has a specific imperative way to form a verb so that everyone who reads or hears it knows it's a command. Koine (or "common") Greek also incorporated the future, meaning the phrase "you will deny" could be a statement of fact, or it could be a command. While that's a little ambiguous within the verb itself, the context of the event across the different gospel accounts leaves little doubt it was not being used as a command.

Thank you for vindicating my long held beliefs. I will now attempt to publish my short essay on some faith promoting blog like "Life on Gold Plates".

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Mudcat]

Greek has a specific imperative way to form a verb so that everyone who reads or hears it knows it's a command. Koine (or "common") Greek also incorporated the future, meaning the phrase "you will deny" could be a statement of fact, or it could be a command. While that's a little ambiguous within the verb itself, the context of the event across the different gospel accounts leaves little doubt it was not being used as a command.

Thanks for that, Mak. I think Pac Man brings up a valid point, the conversation between Peter and Christ could have happened in Aramaic, though. Regardless, I'm not trying to overly support this notion... as it seems somewhat aberrant.

Thank you for vindicating my long held beliefs. I will now attempt to publish my short essay on some faith promoting blog like "Life on Gold Plates".

Big UP!

Lamanite

Hi Lamanite, just a thought.

If we assume there is a reason for prophetic statements and they are not given at whim. At the very least we have Christ informing Peter of what Peter will choose to do. If you don't believe that it could have been an instruction to Peter of sorts, then what do you feel was the purpose of this prophecy as it relates to Peter.

[maklelan]

Thanks for that, Mak. I think Pac Man brings up a valid point, the conversation between Peter and Christ could have happened in Aramaic, though. Regardless, I'm not trying to overly support this notion... as it seems somewhat aberrant.

If the Greek represents a literal translation of the Aramaic then the imperative is precluded. Aramaic has a very clear imperative and doesn't use the future for it. Outside of that, everything is pure speculation.

[consiglieri]

Dear Mudcat,

This is an interesting perspective, and one that I recall first hearing from President Spencer W. Kimball.

Ultimately, I am not persuaded that Jesus commanded Peter to deny him, though such a view might find support in, of all places, the recently discovered Gospel of Judas, wherein Jesus commands Judas not just to deny him, but to betray him.

At bottom, though, I think that if the NT Gospels had Judas denying Peter, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I think we have an inherent need to justfy Peter's actions because we believe that he was a faithful apostle of the Lord, and hence we engage in this type of proposition.

It seems that the NT theme of Peter is of a character who is somewhat weak in faith, epitomized by his inability to walk on the water. Interestingly, Peter is the only apostle other than Judas Iscariot whom Jesus refers to as the devil. (Jesus says of Judas that he had chosen twelve, and one of them a devil; and to Peter he says, "Get thee behind me, Satan.")

I see Peter developing from lack of faith and misguided zeal in the gospels to a pillar of strength in Acts, which makes him a much more interesting figure than some kind of DC superhero who never really grows.

Just some thoughts.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri (Italian for "Make Mine Marvel!")

[Mudcat]

I have viewed the weeping in another light. IF he was under a command to deny Christ, the **** crowed, he realized the ordeal was over, and he wept, both with the bitterness of what he had been forced to do and with relief that it was over and done with.

Just a possibility.

Hey CC,

That is something I hadn't taken into account. But the explanation you present makes just as much sense as if he had denied him without being commanded to do so. In retrospect, I don't know if command is the right word. Maybe rather Christ was saying to Peter, "There will come a point when you are going to be asked if you know me. Its ok if you say no."

I suppose, given the account in Luke, we see the Peter was within sight of Christ as some of this was occurring. Given the fact that Peter was brave enough to stay this close to his teacher.. given the circumstances doesn't strengthen the case for a fearful denial. But given his close proximity to Christ, a possible acknowledgment of being one of his apostles could have ultimately meant 4 crosses on Golgotha instead of 3.

I am equally agreeable that it is a VERY BIG IF and my propensity for speculation may be getting the best of me.

At present I still think there may be more than one way of looking at Peter's denial.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[Lamanite]

If we assume there is a reason for prophetic statements and they are not given at whim. At the very least we have Christ informing Peter of what Peter will choose to do. If you don't believe that it could have been an instruction to Peter of sorts, then what do you feel was the purpose of this prophecy as it relates to Peter.

I think one of the reasons can be found in his pointing out that Satan desired to lead him astray. It is IMO a story of mans vulnerability and our ability to repent. It also directs us to rely upon God for strength and redemption.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[maklelan]

I think one of the reasons can be found in his pointing out that Satan desired to lead him astray. It is IMO a story of mans vulnerability and our ability to repent. It also directs us to rely upon God for strength and redemption.

Big UP!

Lamanite

The version in John where they setting switches back and forth between Jesus and Peter makes it clear they're painting a picture of contrast between Peter, being accused accurately by the lowest in society and losing it, and Christ, being accused unjustly by the highest in society and not losing it.

[Mudcat]

Dear Mudcat,

This is an interesting perspective, and one that I recall first hearing from President Spencer W. Kimball.

Ultimately, I am not persuaded that Jesus commanded Peter to deny him, though such a view might find support in, of all places, the recently discovered Gospel of Judas, wherein Jesus commands Judas not just to deny him, but to betray him.

At bottom, though, I think that if the NT Gospels had Judas denying Peter, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I think we have an inherent need to justfy Peter's actions because we believe that he was a faithful apostle of the Lord, and hence we engage in this type of proposition.

It seems that the NT theme of Peter is of a character who is somewhat weak in faith, epitomized by his inability to walk on the water. Interestingly, Peter is the only apostle other than Judas Iscariot whom Jesus refers to as the devil. (Jesus says of Judas that he had chosen twelve, and one of them a devil; and to Peter he says, "Get thee behind me, Satan.")

I see Peter developing from lack of faith and misguided zeal in the gospels to a pillar of strength in Acts, which makes him a much more interesting figure than some kind of DC superhero who never really grows.

Just some thoughts.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri (Italian for "Make Mine Marvel!")

Hey Consig,

I agree Peter gets a tough go. He can't walk on water, Christ says he is the devil, he is at one point a Christ denier and that's not even mentioning his penchant for ear whacking and zealousness. To most he would likely be a fellow who was expecting a ben David and didn't quite know how to absorb this concept of a ben Joseph.

At this point, I certainly don't want to elevate him to the standard of a DC hero.

Anyways, I am not so interested in the receiver of the message, being Peter. Rather the real intent of the message, per Christ. I think its natural to pour the focus on how the message was received by Peter. But seems Pete has more than one problem that might stand in the way of a correct interpretation of such a statement.

As of yet, I haven't heard a cogent response to why Christ said what he said to Peter.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[hagoth7]

As of yet, I haven't heard a cogent response to why Christ said what he said to Peter.

Here's an attempt.

In my opinion, Christ told Peter that so that when Peter stumbled, he would be reminded of Christ's power. Which was a pathway to reconciliation.

Without that as an anchor, Peter could have been lost for good in despair and self-recrimination.

So I see the original statement as a prophetic life preserver.

Thoughts?

[Mudcat]

Here's an attempt.

In my opinion, Christ told Peter that so that when Peter stumbled, he would be reminded of Christ's power. Which was a pathway to reconciliation.

Without that as an anchor, Peter could have been lost for good in despair and self-recrimination.

So I see the original statement as a prophetic life preserver.

Thoughts?

Hi Hagoth,

I'll have to think on that a bit. Though I think the essence of what you are saying is that when Peter heard the rooster crow, it was a reminder to him of the power of the Christ. A statement that despite his failure God was in control.

Have I got that right?

editted **** to rooster

[hagoth7]

Though I think the essence of what you are saying is that when Peter heard the rooster crow, it was a reminder to him of the power of the Christ. A statement that despite his failure God was in control.

Have I got that right?

Yes.

As I see it, that's an important purpose of prophecy. So that when we see prophecy fulfilled, it instills in us a more abiding conviction that God's other promises will likewise be fulfilled.