With Easter approaching, it’s likely just a matter of time until you are reminded that the most famous of Jesus’ disciples, Simon Peter, denied knowing who Jesus was not once, or even twice, but a brazen three times. While overall Peter gets an impressive grade as the first human leader of the early church, this lapse is always remembered. Often it is spoken of in cautionary terms: “If it could happen to Peter, it could happen to you.”
It also seems to have plagued Peter for the rest of his days. If the traditional account of the martyrdom of Peter is correct, he asked to be crucified on an inverted Cross, saying he was not worthy to be crucified the same way as his master Jesus, for he had denied him three times. It appears that his request was granted. In some ways it is unspeakably sad that Peter still had this lapse bubbling away inside of him up until his own crucifixion – a reminder that even though Jesus so clearly and generously forgave Peter for his denial – you find the account in John 21:15-19 – it is possible that Peter never really forgave himself. If so, he is one of a vast number who struggle to accept that God’s forgiveness is so much greater than our fallenness.
While it is hard to view Peter’s 3-fold denial of Jesus as anything better than disappointing, it has always intrigued me, and left me feeling I want to come to Peter’s defense – and I think there are a few things worth noting.
While I won’t get into this debate, there is the obvious old chestnut… If Jesus predicted in advance that Peter would deny him 3 times, was Peter not simply a puppet fulfilling a prophecy? There you go – it’s the old predestination/ free will debate. If predestined, is Peter really to blame (and for that matter – yes, let me be controversial – is Judas Iscariot to blame for his betrayal – more about that here)? Or is it more that Jesus knows and understands us so well that he can accurately play it forward, and knows the outcome without causing it? If so, it’s revealing that he chooses someone with such obvious flaws as Peter. Clearly he doesn’t expect perfection from his followers. In this case, he doesn’t even require consistent loyalty. Just as well, as he certainly didn’t get it from Peter or the rest of his sleepy disciples, who can’t even stay awake as Jesus agonised in the Garden of Gethsemane.
But there you go – I am being conventional in the way I am handling this incident – assigning blame and judgment, rather than spotting some hidden virtues in the midst of the mess.
For there are some virtues waiting to be named in Peter’s denial.
The most obvious is that he stuck around to be asked not once, or twice, but three times if he knew Jesus. If it had been me, I would have been out of the place after the first question. Clearly having followed Jesus and his captors to the High Priest’s courtyard took some courage, and surely after having narrowly escaped being outed after the first question, Peter should have hot footed it away into the night. He might have been afraid, terribly afraid, but love kept him there. And he stayed after the second question so that he was there for the third… and so was there to hear the crowing of the rooster – the heartbreaking reminding that Jesus knew about his frailty and denial in advance. Peter might not have covered himself in glory during this time, but he stayed – and stayed at significant risk to himself.
Which of course points to an even earlier virtue. He did follow Jesus. He tried to stay close in Jesus’ hour of need. He had even tried to defend Jesus a little earlier – cutting off Malchus’ ear in the process (John 18:10-11). That would have been an adrenaline burst – and was probably something Peter had never done before, for he was a fisherman, not a warrior. Talk about a completely out of control evening. This was it. Surely we shouldn’t judge people on the basis of their lowest moments, but rather in the light of their best.
And Peter had far better moments. Think of the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). With thousands gathered, Peter stands up and boldly proclaims the good news of Jesus death and resurrection. He might have been too afraid to tell a lowly servant girl that he knew Jesus, but in this new chapter he is speaking to thousands. Not long after he and John are arrested for their persistent preaching. Commanded to stop, they boldly reply “Judge for yourself whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:19-20). This is a very different Peter – a reminder not to write anyone off too quickly.
And when we say we shouldn’t write anyone off to quickly, we should include ourself. Perhaps this is why the story of Peter’s denial gets told over and over again. For if it could happen to Peter, and Peter could bounce back from it, well – why not me… why not you? True, the shadow of it remains with Peter (it’s still in his mind as he faces his own death) – but it doesn’t hold him back. He doesn’t use it as an excuse to remain out of action. In its own way it is a redemptive story, for it leads to a humbler Peter… a less sure of himself Peter (remember how earlier he had confidently said: “Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will” Matt 26:33), a far more Jesus like Peter.
We keep telling this story because we need to hear it. It is a celebration of second chances. We need to hear it if we are in the pre-denial stage of our journey, we need to hear it if we are in the post-denial stage. At heart it is a story of human arrogance, fallenness, grace, forgiveness and starting again – and all the other muddling things that happen along the way. It is a story for you and for me…
Nice chatting…
Photo by Efrem Efre : https://www.pexels.com/photo/st-peters-square-in-vatican-17359031/
Please help extend the reach of this blog by forwarding it on to others and reposting. You are free to reproduce material from the blog with acknowledgment of its source.
Thank you, Brian.
Would it be fair to say that God’s knowing all future events and choices beforehand, because He exists outside of time, does not necessarily mean that He causes them, and therefore does not rule out human free will? Didn’t God also know that Adam and Eve would sin? If so, His knowing it beforehand would not necessarily mean He caused it.
Hi Ash. Yes – that is certainly a view that is often held. It points out that God’s foreknowledge is not the same as saying that God causes certain actions, but simply that being beyond time, God can see them in advance. Those committed to predestination would disagree and say that God is the ultimate cause of all and that actions we cannot understand are simply because our limited intelligence is unable to see God’s wiser plan behind it all. It’s a lively topic and much hangs off it. For what it is worth, I lean in your direction!