Truth Magazine

By David McClister

Crucifixion was an agonizing, torturous death, but Jesus endured a torture that was nearly as, or perhaps equally, excruciating before he ever got to the cross. This was the pain he suffered when he was scourged.

Scourging, called verberatio by the Romans, was possibly the worst kind of flogging administered by ancient courts. While the Jews administered whippings in the synagogues for certain offenses, these were mild in comparison to scourging. Scourging was not normally a form of execution, but it certainly was brutal enough to be fatal in many cases. A person certainly could be beaten to death by the scourge if that was desired. Its purpose was not only to cause great pain, but to humiliate as well. To scourge a man was to beat him worse than one would beat a stupid animal. It was belittling, debasing, and demeaning. It was considered such a degrading form of punishment that, according to the Porcian (248 B.C.) and Sempronian (123 B.C.) laws, Roman citizens were exempt from it. It was, therefore, the punishment appropriate only for slaves and non-Romans, those who were viewed as the lesser elements in Roman society. To make it as humiliating as possible, scourging was carried out in public.

The instrument used to deliver this form of punishment was called in Latin a flagellum or a flagrum. This was much different from the bull whip that is more common in our culture. It was instead more like the old British cat o’ nine tails, except that the flagellum was not designed merely to bruise or leave welts on the victim. The flagellum was a whip with several (at least three) thongs or strands, each perhaps as much as three feet long, and the strands were weighted with lead balls or pieces of bone. This instrument was designed to lacerate. The weighed thongs struck the skin so violently that it broke open. The church historian Eusebius of Caesarea recounts with vivid, horrible detail a scene of scourging. He says, “For they say that the bystanders were struck with amazement when they saw them lacerated with scourges even to the innermost veins and arteries, so that the hidden inward parts of the body, both their bowels and their members, were exposed to view” (Ecclesiastical History, Book 4, chap. 15).

The victim of a scourging was bound to a post or frame, stripped of his clothing, and beaten with the flagellum from the shoulders to the loins. The beating left the victim bloody and weak, in unimaginable pain, and near the point of death. It is no doubt that weakness from his scourging was largely the reason Jesus was unable to carry his cross all the way to Golgotha (Matt. 27:32 and parallels).

As noted above, the beating administered by synagogues was not nearly as drastic as a Roman scourging. First, the instrument used in the synagogues was a lighter whip and was not weighted with metal or bone. Second, according to the tradition recorded in the Mishnah (tractate Makkot), the judges would determine if the victim could survive the full measure of the beating required by the law (forty lashes). If he could not, the number of lashes was reduced. Third, the Law of Moses limited whippings to forty lashes (Deut. 25:3), which was a provision to prevent excessive humiliation. The Jews usually stopped at thirty-nine (lest they counted wrong and violated the law by giving more than forty; cf. Paul’s reference to “thirty-nine stripes” in 2 Cor. 11:24). Scourging, however, was much more traumatic, even to the point of being fatal. The flagellum was a much more torturous instrument, the lashes were delivered without any compassion or consideration for the victim’s health, and Roman law imposed no limit to the number of lashes inflicted at scourging. Roman law mandated scourging as part of capital sentences, but this probably had the effect of shortening the victim’s agony once on the cross. The victim would have been so weak from blood loss and pain that he would die more quickly than if he had not been scourged. This seems to have been the case with Jesus (although the scourging was probably not the only thing that caused him to die relatively quickly).

Why did Pilate have Jesus scourged? While Roman law required capital sentences to be accompanied by scourging, the decision to scourge Jesus was made before it was determined that he would be crucified. After Jesus was scourged, Pilate attempted to release him (John 19:1ff). Only when the crowd threatened riot at this suggestion did Pilate allow Jesus to be crucified, and then still reluctantly. It seems that Pilate had two things in mind. First, it may be that Pilate, while he was unable to find out exactly what Jesus had done to cause the Jews to be so angry with him, suspected that Jesus was at least a troublemaker and had probably done something to deserve a flogging. It was Pilate’s job to keep and enforce peace in his region of the empire, so he probably felt no guilt at having Jesus scourged for having caused such an uproar. Second, Pilate hoped that if he humiliated Jesus enough the mob would be satisfied and he would not have to execute a man he believed to be innocent (cf. Luke 23:16). He stood the scourged Jesus before them wearing a crown of thorns and a mock robe. Pilate told them, “Behold, the man!” (John 19:5). By this he meant, “Look at him now. He will not go around calling himself a king any more, and he will not cause you any more trouble.” However, the mob was not satisfied with only a humiliated Jesus. They demanded his death.

Like everything else about his death, Jesus knew that he would be scourged. He mentioned it when He predicted his sufferings for the third time (Matt. 20:19 and parallels). He knew that before he died of the torture of the cross he would have to endure a savage, brutal beating at the hands of the Romans who were more than ready to vent their hatred against Jews. He accepted those blows, and his body was ripped open at the post, for us. He was taking the punishment of the sins of the world so that we might not have to suffer the consequences of our transgressions. By his stripes we are healed.

2210 71st St. W., Bradenton, Florida 34209

By Ray Madrigal

The gospels of Matthew (26:47-56), Mark (14:43-52), Luke (22:47-53), and John (18:2-12) all narrate the awesome and awful account of Jesus’ arrest. The scene seems ominous from the very start. Jesus has already informed his closest companions that one of them would betray him into the hands of sinful men, and yet another would deny any association with him whatsoever. Although the disciples considered it quite difficult to believe that such treason and sedition could be found among them, in fact they all would eventually forsake him that very night.  As Jesus contemplated the horrible events that were about to take place, Peter, James, and John were unable to stay awake for even one hour and pray with him during that momentous night. The spirit was willing, but the flesh was quite weak indeed.

The synoptic gospels unanimously describe Judas as “one of the twelve.” Why this detail? Could it be that this is a timeless message for all disciples everywhere? If one of the closest companions of our Lord could commit such betrayal, it is certainly possible for me, for you, for any twentieth-century (or third millennium) disciple to commit similar acts of spiritual treason and perfidy. In truth, it is possible for modern disciples to treat Jesus with great contempt and dishonor whenever they commit apostasy and fall away (Heb. 6:6). Ignorance, neglect, indifference, apathy, hypocrisy all have a spiritual dimension that translates into religious rebellion. There is certainly more than one way to betray the Son of man with a kiss. Of course, Jesus knew in advance what Judas would do, and even predicted the course of events that would later transpire that very night. The one who “ate of my bread, has lifted his heal against me” (Ps. 41:9; Mark 14:18; John 13:18, 26). Although Judas would later have a change of heart, the damage was done, and could not be reversed. 

The gospel of John informs us that a coalition of (Roman) soldiers and (Jewish) officials from the chief priests and Pharisees was formed to arrest Jesus of Nazareth. Although this motley crew was equipped with “lanterns and torches and weapons,” they all “drew back and fell to the ground” when Jesus identified himself to them: “I am he” (18:3, 6). It is amazing that the combined strength of Jerusalem and Rome could only subdue Jesus on his terms. Even during this dark night of despair, Jesus was in complete control of the situation. The Son of God voluntarily submitted to the will of the Father, and thus was arrested at the hands of sinful men. Though Jesus could have marshaled the forces of twelve legions of angels (Matt. 26:53) to rescue him at this perilous moment, instead, he willingly drank the cup which had been prepared by the Father.

When Jesus’ companions finally realized what was happening, “one of those who stood by drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear” (Mark 14:47). Although all four canonical gospels depict this remarkable event, only John mentions names. The brave and defiant disciple was, of all people, Simon Peter, who would later deny that he even knew Jesus. The slave’s name was Malchus (18:10). Only Luke tells us that Jesus immediately “touched his ear and healed him” (22:51). The combined details of the gospels tell us in no uncertain terms that this was no time for fighting (although see Luke 22:35-38). As Jesus would later tell Pilate, and as Jesus’ followers would later learn, “My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingdom is not from the world” (John 18:36). The miraculous healing of Malchus’ ear was yet another obvious reminder of Jesus’ authority and power even at this hour of crisis. “When I was with you day after day in the temple, you did not lay hands on me. But this is your hour, and the power of darkness” (Luke 22:53).

In describing the cowardly behavior of the disciples, both Mark and Matthew make note of the direct fulfillment of the Old Testament Scriptures.  “All forsook him and fled” (Mark 14:50-52, cf. 14:27). Those who had followed Jesus for so long, at this moment of truth, simply ran away. Perhaps confused and disoriented, one young man left his linen cloth behind and “ran away naked.” Misunderstanding the nature of the situation, and seeing their leader bound and (seemingly) powerless, the disciples ran away, looking for some place to hide. Since their shepherd seemed defeated and stricken, the bewildered sheep quickly scattered (Zech. 13:7).

The record of Jesus’ arrest in the garden of Gethsemane portrays a resolute Savior determined to submit to the divine will and endure great suffering in order to secure salvation for all who profess Christ. That he had the power to summon the angelic host to rescue him from this imminent danger only underscores his great love for mankind. Jesus knew in advance what was about to take place. He accepted the worship of those who arrested him, and witnessed the rapid dispersion of his closest friends. Jesus experienced emotional as well as physical pain but was determined to give up everything, including his own life, to make atonement for sins possible. Although the awful and terrible events surrounding Jesus’ arrest in the garden would immediately lead to his death by crucifixion, his bodily resurrection would soon demonstrate the impotence of death itself, and usher in the blessed hope of eternal life. “Thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 15:57).

8005 Dumont Ct., Temple Terrace, Florida 336

By Harold Tabor

Pilate was the sixth procurator of Judea (Sabinus, Coponius, Ambivus, Rufus, Gratus) who was appointed by Tiberius Caesar. His wife was named Claudia. They normally lived in the Roman headquarters at Caesarea on the coast (Acts 23:35). But, at the time of major feasts, they would have come to Jerusalem and stayed in the Praetorium.

Roman procurators were hardened rulers trained to deal harshly with situations of dissent. Pilate had not always been kind to the nation he ruled. Philo and Josephus tell of at least three occasions where Pilate offended the Jews. He had ordered a garrison of Roman soldiers to carry their standards with the image of Tiberius into the City of Jerusalem by night. He ordered the construction of an aqueduct system from the Pools of Solomon to Jerusalem using appropriated funds from the Temple treasury called Corban. He insisted on hanging gilt shields dedicated to Tiberius in the halls of Herod’s palace in Jerusalem. 

Roman procurators were tolerate of all religions as long as the Roman symbols of deity were hailed, taxes were paid to Caesar and everyday life was peaceful.

When the sunlight began to shine over the Mount of   Olives (it was early morning, John 18:28), the Roman procurator found himself presented with a serious judicial situation. The Sanhedrin had brought a criminal before him and they were unwilling to enter the palace because of the Feast. The whole multitude, referring to the Sanhedrin (Mark 15:2) which consisted of the Chief Priests (heads of the twenty-four priestly courses), the Scribes or lawyers, and the Elders, were representatives of the people. Thus approximately seventy men were there to bring the accusations against Jesus. The Sanhedrin had the right to pass sentence of death, but did not have the power to execute that sentence (John 18:31; 19:7). That power had been taken from the Sanhedrin when Judea became a Roman province. 

When Pilate asked, “What accusation bring you against this man?”, he was asking for a definite formal charge against this man? The reply was: “If He were not a malefactor” (literally, one doing evil), we would not be here (John 18:30 or a criminal from kakos, “evil” and ergon “work” meaning a evil worker or doer in Luke 23:32, 33, 39, and 2 Tim. 2:9). Pilate was not ready for such a vague charge and replied that they should handle the case according to their own law. Pilate did not want to be involved with their religious disputes. Luke records the specific charges by the chief priests as (1) stirring up or exciting (perverting) the people (nation), (2) prohibition of payment of the tribute-money to Caesar, and (3) the assumption of the title of Christ as “King of the Jews” (Luke 23:2). Pilate knew the first assertion was false. The second charge was a deliberate falsehood (Matt. 22:14-22). Pilate would examine privately Jesus on the nature of his kingdom and “truth.”
 
Entering into the Praetorium (judgment hall or palace), Pilate’s judicial inquiry of Jesus was with the question of treason “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus explains that his kingdom was a spiritual kingdom and not a political kingdom that would threaten the Roman Empire. He did not gather a political army to provoke a rebellion against Rome. His kingdom was based upon spiritual “truth” rather than political “philosophy” or power (John 18:33-37). No defendant can be found guilty on his own testimony.

Pilate responded with the second question, “What is truth?” Pilate returns outside and announces the official acquittal: “I find no fault in this man” (Luke 23:4; John 18:38). This meant that Pilate found no legal ground for punishment. Since there was no crime against Roman law, the charges should have been dropped.

After Pilate’s attempt to change the circumstances based upon jurisdiction, he calls “the chief priest and rulers and people” together and restates his conclusion. Neither Pilate nor Herod Antipas has found any fault/crime “in this man touching those things whereof you accuse him and nothing worthy of death” (Luke 23:14). Pilate attempts to avoid the judgment of condemnation again by suggesting that he would chastise him and release him (Luke 23:15). Pilate recognized that the Jewish leaders were motivated by envy (Matt.27:18; Mark 15:10) and were persistent in their attempts to condemn Jesus. This was the second acquittal.

The Gospel of John mentions a “custom” at the Feast of releasing a prisoner. The origin of the custom is obscure. Nevertheless, Pilate asked the Jews whether he should release “the King of the Jews” (Mark 15:9; John 18:39) or Barabbas (Matt. 27:17). The chief priest persuaded or stirred up the multitude that they should ask for Barabbas. After the soldiers had put a crown of thorns on the head of Jesus and a purple garment, they came out saying, “Hail, King of the Jews.” Pilate said, “I bring him out to you, that you may know that I find no crime in him” (John 19:4). This is the third statement of acquittal.

When the chief priest and other officers saw Jesus, they cried out, “Crucify him.” Pilate responded with the question, “What shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ and whom you call the King of the Jews?” And the multitude cried out, “Let him be crucified.”

Pilate’s response is, “Why, what evil has he done?” Luke’s account adds, “I find no cause of death in him” (Luke 23:22; John 19:6). Both Pilate’s wife and Pilate called Jesus a just or innocent man (Matt. 27:19, 24). 

In spite of the fourth statement of acquittal, the Jews insist that there is “a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God” (John 19:7). The Jews punished criminals by stoning (Lev. 24:16; Deut. 17:7), but the Romans crucified the worst criminals.

Pilate is more fearful when he hears the new charge that “he made himself the Son of God.” Pilate enters the Praetorium the fifth time with Jesus and asks him, “Whence are you?” No self-incriminating statement is forward coming. Jesus does not answer. Pilate responds that he has power to release or crucify Jesus. Then Jesus answers that Pilate would have no power “against me, except it was given from above” (John 19:9-10).  

Pilate goes out to the crowd and seeks to release Jesus. But the crowd has grown more intense by responding, “If you release this man, you are not a friend of Caesar.” Pilate knew he must not be charged with not being “a friend of Caesar.” When he brings Jesus outside the crowd responds with loud voices and continues with an increasingly tumultuous cry. Pilate consents to the multitude giving sentence that “the King of the Jews” was to be crucified. The multitude had no king but Caesar.    

Pilate had acquitted Jesus four times and then allowed the verdict of a mob to rule.

All of this was a matter of prophecy “that the words of Jesus might be fulfilled.” For if the prophecies of Jesus were to be fulfilled (John 3:14; 8:28; 12:32), he must be “lifted up” by crucifixion and not die by stoning. 

htabor@compuserve.com

By Chris Reeves

“The Passion of Christ.“ What a wonderful theme for Truth Magazine! The cross of Christ (along with the events that surround it) is the central theme of the entire Bible. What a pleasure it is for me to be asked to contribute something to this theme. I am thankful for the opportunity to study and re-study the story of Peter’s denial of Christ. I learn new truths each time I dig into the text. But I am also thankful for this assignment because it causes me to examine myself in light of what Peter did. I have been made to review my own character as I ask myself if I am like Peter in anyway. When I see Peter on this occasion I see myself in some ways, and I am reminded of the constant need to remain faithful to Jesus.

The Facts of Peter’s Denial

All four gospel writers record Peter’s denial of Christ. First they record Jesus’ prediction of denial and then they record the shameful act of denial (Matt. 26:31-35, 58, 69-75; Mark 14:27-31, 54, 66-72; Luke 22:31-34, 54-62; John 13:36-38; 18:15-18, 25-27). The basic facts of Peter’s denial are as follows.

Peter’s Denial Anticipated. Sometime after Jesus and his apostles finish the Passover meal, Jesus predicts that all his apostles (and Peter in particular) will fall away.1 He uses the word “offended”2 to describe their act of denial. This word comes from the Greek word skandalizo, meaning “to snare,” and then, “to cause to stumble.” All the apostles would later “stumble” (NKJV) or “fall away” (NASV, NIV) when it came time for them to stand for the Lord. Jesus also quotes Zechariah 13:7 at this time and applies it to himself and his apostles: “I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.” At this point, Peter speaking from his usual impetuous and impulsive nature,3 makes his promise: “If all shall be offended in thee, I will never be offended.” Jesus then predicts that Peter will not keep his promise: “Verily I say unto thee, that this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.”4 Peter responds: “Even if I must die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples.”5 For the first time in the story of Peter’s denial we are introduced to the word “deny.” This word, used in Jesus’ prediction and Peter’s promise, comes from the Greek word aparneomai, meaning “to deny utterly.” W.E. Vines says this word means, “. . . to affirm that one has no connection with a person” (Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testaments Words, 2:158). No doubt Peter was sincere when he made his promise, but later he would find out how weak he really was. Soon Peter would deny having any connection whatsoever with Jesus. Peter was the first to promise his loyalty to Jesus and the first to deny Jesus. Before leaving the prediction of Peter’s denial we must include an important fact added by Luke’s gospel. Luke records that Jesus not only predicted Peter’s denial, but that he also prayed for Peter’s conversion. Jesus said, “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan asked to have you, that he might sift you as wheat: but I made supplication for thee, that thy faith fail not; and do thou, when once thou hast turned again, establish thy brethren” (Luke 22:31-32). Satan was asking that all the disciples would sin (compare Job 1:7; 2:2). Jesus was asking that Peter would be saved. Thanks be to God that Jesus’ prayer was answered as the story of Peter’s life will later show.

Peter’s Denial Accomplished. Some time passes. Peter goes with James and John into the Garden of Gethsemane with Jesus to pray and Peter falls asleep. He is also with Jesus at the time of his arrest where he pulls out his sword and cuts off the ear of Malchus, the high priest’s servant. Then the story of Peter’s denial picks up again. While Jesus is in the house or court of Caiaphas, the high priest, Peter is seeking anonymity in the crowd nearby. Matthew says, “But Peter followed him afar off, unto the court of the high priest, and entered in, and sat with the officers, to see the end” (Matt. 26:58).6 It is during Jesus’ trial before this Jewish court, that Peter denies the Lord. First a maid says to him inside the house, “Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilaean.” Peter denies it saying, “I know not what thou sayest.”7 Then someone outside the courtyard on the porch says, “This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth.” Peter denies it a second time even stronger with an oath saying, “I know not the man.” Finally, after some time passes,8 bystanders (particularly, a kinsman of Malchus, John 18:26) come to Peter and say, “Of a truth thou also art one of them; for thy speech maketh thee known.”9 Peter denies it a third and final time strongly with cursing and swearing, “I know not the man.” Notice that Peter refers to Jesus as “the man.” He wouldn’t even say his name! Clearly Peter wants to disassociate himself from Jesus. Immediately, the cock crows a second time just as Jesus had predicted. At this point in the story, Luke’s gospel supplies us with another important detail. Luke tells us that “the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter” (Luke 22:61). This must have been one of the most difficult expressions to face. The expression that says, “What have you just done? Why did you do this to me?” The expression also says, “I told you so.” Jesus’ look must have broken Peter’s heart. Our story closes with some of the saddest words ever recorded in sacred history, “And he went out and wept bitterly.”

The Lessons from Peter’s Denial

• The Lesson of Stumbling and Denial. When Peter denied the Lord he “stumbled.” He did not heed the admonition of his Master who said, “And blessed is he, whosoever shall find no occasion of stumbling in me” (Matt. 11:6). When Peter denied the Lord he disassociated himself from Jesus. We have already learned that the word “deny” in our text means “to affirm that one has no connection with a person.” Peter did not deny that Jesus existed, he denied that he had any relationship with Jesus. Not all denial is wrong. For example, to be a true disciple we must deny self (Matt. 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23). But we must never deny Jesus. This is sinful. We may deny Jesus in a number of ways. We may forsake the assembly of the saints and the Lord’s supper. We may cease to preach the doctrine of Christ (or at least not mention it) when contemporary, controversial issues come up. We may regularly attend a local church but sow discord among the brethren. We may give into peer pressure and go along with the crowd into sin. We may see the need to become a Christian but never do it. Whatever the case may be, whenever we deny Jesus in this life, be prepared for Jesus to deny us in the judgment day (Luke 12:9). Let us all go out and boldly confess to the world that we are Jesus’ disciples (Matt. 10:32-33).
• The Lesson of Intercessory Prayer. Jesus prayed especially for Peter that his faith would not utterly fail. His prayer was heard (cf. John 11:42) and Peter did not fall away completely. Peter, no doubt was thankful later that Jesus had prayed for him. Because temptation is great and all around us, we need to pray for our brethren, and we need our brethren to pray for us. We must remember the power of prayer and the need for supplications (Eph. 6:18; Phil. 4:6; 1 Tim. 2:1; Heb. 5:7).
• The Lesson of the Downward Spiral to Apostasy. What was Peter’s problem on the night he denied Jesus? Let us examine Peter’s downward steps to apostasy. He was proud, boastful, over-confident and self-assured (Matt. 26:31-35; compare Ps.118:8; Prov. 16:18; 1 Cor. 10:12). He was spiritually lazy; he did not watch and pray (Matt. 26:36-46; compare Eph. 5:15; 1 Thess. 5:1-8; Heb. 2:1-3). He was zealous for the wrong cause — a physical fight (Matt. 26:47-56; compare 2 Cor. 10:4-5; Eph. 6:10-13). He was cowardly and did not follow Jesus closely, but “afar off” (Matt. 26:58; compare Mark 8:38; Rev. 21:8). He put himself in the midst of worldliness by the fireside of the enemy (Matt. 26:69; compare Ps. 1:1; Prov. 6:27-29; 1 Cor. 15:33; Jas. 4:4). Finally, he denied the Lord (Matt. 26:69-75; compare Matt. 10:32-33). No wonder Peter ended up in sin! Peter took the slow, easy and gradual path to apostasy. 
• When we get close to sin, the opportunity to sin is greater. Therefore, let us “flee” sin (1 Cor. 6:18; 10:14; 1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:22), not see how close we can get to it. When we “flee” from sin, the Devil will “flee” from us (Jas. 4:7). Peter learned his lesson, and later in life he wrote two epistles encouraging Christians to remain faithful to the Lord. In those epistles he encouraged humility, not pride (1 Pet. 5:5-6); diligence, not laziness (1 Pet. 1:13; 4:7; 5:8-9; 2 Pet. 1:5, 10; 3:14, 17-18); courage, not cowardice (1 Pet . 4:16); abstinence, not worldliness (1 Pet. 2:1-2, 11-12); and defense, not denial (1 Pet. 3:15). Peter knew firsthand the reality and dangers of apostasy and tried his best to discourage others from following his example (2 Pet. 2:20-22).
• The Lesson of the Ease of Sin. On the night Peter denied Jesus, he found it easy to move from one sin to another. First, Peter denied being with Jesus, then he denied even knowing Jesus and finally he ended up cursing and swearing. Peter went from a simple denial, to a violent denial, to an open, profane denial. Peter went from bad to worse, and such is the case with many sins. B.W. Johnson’s comments are insightful: “The gradations of guilt in the denials of Peter: (1) Ambiguous evasion; (2) distinct denial with a false oath; (3) awful adjuration with solemn imprecations on himself” (The People’s New Testament, 150). Beware, the Devil often makes it easy for you to sin once and then continue on into more and more sin (2 Tim. 3:13).10
• The Lesson of Rebounding from Sin. Thanks be to God that Peter did not remain in sin. Let us now examine Peter’s upward steps to restoration. First, he remembered the words of Jesus and then he wept bitterly. Peter did not try to cover up his sin, but he recognized it, took responsibility for it and repented. But he did not stop there. Peter moved on. Unlike Judas (Matt. 27:5), Peter had genuine remorse and repentance which lead him to do great things for the Lord (cf. 2 Cor. 7:10). After this dark denial was committed, we find Peter running to the tomb in Jerusalem (John 20:1-6) and speaking with Jesus about love and service in Galilee (John 21:15-23; 1 Cor. 15:5). We find Peter associating with the Twelve in Jerusalem (Acts 1:15-26), standing and preaching a beautiful sermon on Pentecost in the Temple, performing miracles in the Temple and speaking boldly in the Temple (Acts 2:14-5:29). We find Peter doing his part to fulfill the Great Commission in Samaria (Acts 8:14-25; 9:32-40; 10:1ff; 11:1ff; 15:7-11; Gal. 2:7-8). He is even imprisoned for the cause of Christ by Herod in Jerusalem (Acts 12:1-19). Finally, Peter writes two epistles of encouragement (1 Pet. 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:1). Yes, we are told that Peter sinned on one other occasion (Gal. 2:11-14). But even then he did not remain in sin. He rebounded once again. Have you heard “the cock crow” in your life? Have you denied Jesus? You don’t have to remain an apostate, you can be converted and come back to the Lord! Don’t quit! Don’t give up!

Peter was not a likely candidate to commit the act of denial. He was distinguished for the great confessions he made and the great deeds that he did during the Lord’s ministry. And yet, Peter is the very one who denies Jesus; not once, but three times. The tragic incident in the life of Peter that we have studied reminds me of the words David used as he lamented the death of Saul and Jonathan. David exclaimed three times, “How are the mighty fallen!” (2 Sam. 1:19, 25, 27). Indeed, the mighty fall and great workers in God’s kingdom today can fall if they are not careful. Let us all learn the lessons from Peter’s denial of Christ. May we never deny Jesus, but continue to confess our allegiance to Jesus Christ throughout our life.

Notes

1. After comparing all four accounts, Robert L. Thomas and Stanley N. Gundry suggest two separate predictions by Jesus: one in the upper room, and one at the mount of Olives (The NIV Harmony of the Gospels, 202, footnote b).
2. All Scripture quotations in this article are taken from the American Standard Version (1901) unless otherwise indicated.
3. See Matt. 14:28-31; 16:21-23; 17:4-5 for examples of Peter’s impulsive character.
4. The cock actually crowed “twice” according to Mark 14:30, 72.
5. Mark tells us that Peter said these words “exceeding vehemently” (Mark 14:31); that is, insistently and emphatically. Matthew and Mark tell us that all the disciples made the same basic promise (Matt. 26:35b; Mark 14:31b). Yet, how sad it is to learn that they all ran away (Mark 14:50-51).
6. John’s gospel tells us that Peter was invited into the court of the high priest by “the other disciple, who was known unto the high priest” (John 18:15-16). The unnamed “disciple” is probably John who speaks of himself impersonally (see John 19:26-27; 20:2-4, 8; 21:7, 20, 23-24). Peter “was beneath in the court” (Mark 14:66). He probably stood in an open courtyard surrounded by a building.
7. At this point the cock crows for the first time (Mark 14:68). J.W. McGarvey suggests that the first cock-crowing was around midnight, and the second cock-crowing was around 3 a.m. (The Fourfold Gospel, 656). See Mark 13:35.
8. Luke says, “And after the space of about one hour” (Luke 22:59).
9. Peter was detected by his Galilean accent. Craig S. Keener comments: “Galilean accents differed from Judean accents; Galileans were careless with their vowels and failed to clearly differentiate the various guttural consonants” (The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, 124), and again, “Regional accents were difficult to hide (cf. Judg. 12:6)” (Ibid., 252).
10. Commentators point out that one question asked of Peter was formed in the negative in the original Greek making it easy for Peter to answer in the negative; something like, “You are not one of his disciples are you?” (John 18:17, 25). How convenient the Devil makes it to sin sometimes!

chrisreeves@juno.com