Did Christ Command Peter To Deny Him?

[aletheia]

"What was he to do? Could he do more? What would have been the result had he admitted his connection? Would he have lived to preside over the church? Peter had seen the Savior escape from crowds many times and hide from assassins. Is it conceivable that Peter also saw advisable advantage to the cause in his denial? Had Peter come to fully realize the hidden meaning in the oft-repeated phrase â??Mine hour is not yet comeâ? (John 2:4), and did he now understand that â??now is the Son of man glorifiedâ? (John 13:31)? I do not pretend to know what Peterâ??s mental reactions were nor what compelled him to say what he did that terrible night. But in light of his proven bravery, courage, great devotion, and limitless love for the Master, could we not give him the benefit of the doubt and at least forgive him as his Savior seems to have done so fully. Almost immediately Christ elevated him to the highest position in his church and endowed him with the complete keys of that kingdom.

Simon Barjona did not have long to consider the matter or change his decisions, for he now heard the **** crow twice and was reminded of Christâ??s prediction. He was humbled to the dust. Hearing the birdâ??s announcement of the dawn reminded him not only that he had denied the Lord but also that all the Lord had said would be fulfilled, even to the crucifixion. He went out and wept bitterly. Were his tears for personal repentance only, or were they mingled with sorrowful tears in realization of the fate of his Lord and Master and his own great loss?" (Peter My Brother, Spencer W. Kimball)

In all light of the context of Peter's life and relationship with Christ I would seriously consider it to be a commandment. Or at least, not to rule out the possibility of it.

[maklelan]

"What was he to do? Could he do more? What would have been the result had he admitted his connection? Would he have lived to preside over the church? Peter had seen the Savior escape from crowds many times and hide from assassins. Is it conceivable that Peter also saw advisable advantage to the cause in his denial? Had Peter come to fully realize the hidden meaning in the oft-repeated phrase â??Mine hour is not yet comeâ? (John 2:4), and did he now understand that â??now is the Son of man glorifiedâ? (John 13:31)? I do not pretend to know what Peterâ??s mental reactions were nor what compelled him to say what he did that terrible night. But in light of his proven bravery, courage, great devotion, and limitless love for the Master, could we not give him the benefit of the doubt and at least forgive him as his Savior seems to have done so fully. Almost immediately Christ elevated him to the highest position in his church and endowed him with the complete keys of that kingdom.

Simon Barjona did not have long to consider the matter or change his decisions, for he now heard the **** crow twice and was reminded of Christâ??s prediction. He was humbled to the dust. Hearing the birdâ??s announcement of the dawn reminded him not only that he had denied the Lord but also that all the Lord had said would be fulfilled, even to the crucifixion. He went out and wept bitterly. Were his tears for personal repentance only, or were they mingled with sorrowful tears in realization of the fate of his Lord and Master and his own great loss?" (Peter My Brother, Spencer W. Kimball)

In all light of the context of Peter's life and relationship with Christ I would seriously consider it to be a commandment. Or at least, not to rule out the possibility of it.

President Kimball's talk was a response to church-wide anti-Peter rhetoric (as silly as that sounds). Mark Peterson had recently published a missionary tract in Europe condemning Peter as a "vacillating weakling" upon whom Christ would never have based the church. When President Kimball acceded to the presidency he had all the tracts recalled. His talk was an attempt to get people to back off Peter. He was suggesting his denial be reconsidered so people would think more positively about Peter. He never insisted it had to be a commandment, and I don't see how the context can support that reading.

[consiglieri]

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

MARY MAGDALENE--Peter, don't you know what you have said?

You've gone and cut him dead.

PETER--I had to do it, don't you see?

Or else they'd go for me.

MARY MAGDALENE--It's what he told us you would do.

I wonder how he knew.

All the Best!

--Webberlieri

[Lightbearer]

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

Well from the context I think the Savior was warning us all not to be so confident or sure of what we say we will do:

(Mark 14:27-31) "And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered. But after that I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee. But Peter said unto him, Although all shall be offended, yet will not I. And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the **** crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. But he spake the more vehemently, If I should die with thee, I will not deny thee in any wise. Likewise also said they all.

Also in another account:

(Luke 22:31-34) "And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death. And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the **** shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me."

And here also:

(John 13:36-38) "Simon Peter said unto him, Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterwards. Peter said unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thy sake. Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The **** shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice."

From these accounts it seems to me that Jesus was warning Peter to not be so sure of himself, to be more humble. The result I think was he wept bitterly because he discovered that in spite of his good intentions and desires he did deny that he knew his Lord. So to me it is a lesson in humility and of the need for constant vigilance and determination to follow our Lord as closely as we can because Satan desires to have us all, he wants us to stray from the path to fall short and to be overcome by the things of this world. On the other hand the Lord wants us to follow Him and endure to the end in faith and humility. That is what I think the Lord was trying to teach Peter and by extension all of us.

Respectfully submitted,

Lightbearer