The Accounting of Simon Peter's Six Denials of Christ

Harmonizing the Scripture passages concerning Peter's denial of Jesus at the time of His pre-crucifixion trial shows that Peter denied Christ six times, not three as some insist. These were predicted by Jesus to His disciples the night before He was executed. The denials occurred in groups of three, each group marked by a cockcrow. The denials were Peter's responses, twice to a doorkeeper maidservant, and once each to another maidservant, to a subordinate of the high priest conducting the trial, to a group of other menservants, and to a relative of the arresting officer Malchus who was wounded by Peter. The analysis also leads to the conclusion that in this matter and at this time, Peter did not demonstrate a saving loyalty to the Son of God, one that was to come later as a consequence of recognizing his fallibility.

Simon Peter is the most prominent of the twelve chosen disciples of Jesus, the Rabbi and Master Teacher whom Christians acknowledge as God Incarnate. In the Gospels, Peter is written about because of his unique weaknesses as well as his God-given moments of insight. This has placed him as the subject of many homilies dealing with the development of Christian character.

One of the most outstanding of his failures in his pre-Christian experience was the refusal to be identified with Jesus, at the moment when The Christ, The Anointed One, The Messiah, was subjected to a rigged court of Sanhedrin members determined to condemn Him to death.

In the hours leading up to this trial, Jesus found it necessary to bring out His estimate of Peter's inconsistency of character, as well as his lack of complete trust in Jesus' ability to predict the future, in which Peter failed to respond according to his own protestations.

The outcome was that at the very moment the disciples' support was most needed, Peter under the smallest provocation denied any association whatsoever with Jesus of Nazareth. He did that more than once, and with vehemence.

Homilies incorporating this event often summarily accept an incomplete integration of the Bible passages on it, and pronounce that Peter denied Christ three (3) times only. Even Bible students been taught this so frequently that it has been difficult to correct the impression left on undiscerning hearers. Actually, an attempt to understand the Scripture narrative while holding to this incorrect opinion leads the Bible reader to an impasse that can bring the reliability of the Bible to come under question.

To dispel this doubt, it is important to examine the Scripture utilizing its own testimony about itself. Taking the time for a diligent search of the related Scriptures with a rudimentary understanding of Greek grammar and reviewing the contemporary Jewish customs will provide a correct exegesis, and restore confidence in Biblical infallibilitry. Constructing a timeline against which the various witnesses are compared shows that Peter actually denied Jesus six times, not three. That fact is established beyond the shadow of a doubt by careful, meticulous, and precise study of the Scripture that harmonizes the texts and the timing that they must follow.

Time: The second guard time (watch) of the night which was 9:00 PM until midnight
Location: In the Upper Room of the disciples' Last Supper
Context: Peter protests his loyalty; and Jesus responds, correcting him.
Text:
John 13:37-38 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 cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice."

Observation: For each time a rooster crows, Jesus predicts that Peter will deny Him three times. Please note that Jesus'statement does not limit the number of cockcrows that might occur to only one, nor does it limit the number of Peter's impending denials to a total of only three. Jesus only asserts that Peter will deny him three times before a cockcrow sounds. Actually we will see that Mark's Gospel, the one he likely heard from his teacher Peter, tells of two rooster crowings. Peter would certainly have known how many times he denied Christ.

Location: Still in the Upper Room
Context: Jesus warns, encourages, and gives Simon a challenge about his testing in the events which are to come:
Text:
Luke 22:31-32 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."

Observation: Please note that "you" is 2nd person plural, meaning "you all." Satan wants to have an opportunity sift each of the disciples. Simon's faith in the past has been a bit spotty (walking on water, rejecting Jesus' death, presuming to assert hisleadership of the group, etc.), but the all-knowing Jesus has already prayed for him, "thee" (2nd person singular), Peter, personally, that though he is not yet converted, that he not permanently cease believing, but when he does finally evidence a saving faith and becomes converted, that he stabilize and exhibit reliability and solidarity in the operations ordained for the Apostles when they are commissioned.

Location: Still in the Upper Room
Context: Again Simon responds by reasserting that his loyalty is to death. Jesus again corrects him.
Text:
Luke 22:33-34 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 cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me."

Observation: Jesus' firm assertion that Peter's disloyalty will be shown not only within the day, but before the sun rises. The rooster usually crows to mark the time for sleepers to get up and begin the working day at the first light of dawn, about 5 AM.

Time: about 10:20 PM leaving the Upper Room, to about 12:30 AM
Location: Walking through the city
Context: Jesus warns the group that they will all be offended and be scattered because of being connected with Him. Nevertheless, yet a third time Peter blatantly contradicted Him. Without arguing, Jesus once more firmly and finally corrected Peter. But Peter, joined by the others, responded by repudiating Jesus' prophecy.
Text:
Mark 14:329-31 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 cock 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.

Observation: Simon Peter not only was wrong in his understanding of his own strength of character, but he failed to recognize that he really did not trust Jesus, even when his rabbi corrected him in front of he others three times. Neither did he realize that his passionate contradiction affected the others such that they began to trust him more than they believed Jesus. Thus, we read that Jesus had to correct him three times; and in spite of the repeated admonishments, he kept on resisting Jesus' correction, even to the point of implying that Jesus was at least if not lying, then at least not believing in him. What a reversal of roles!
They then continued through the city, on the way to Gethsemane, and Jesus then resumed his lessons on the Vine, on sacrificial love, about the world, about the coming of Another Comforter of the same kind as Himself, subsequent to His own departure from their Company.

Time: about 12:30 AM to about 1:15 AM
Location: somewhere before crossing the Kidron Brook
Context: Within the hearing of the disciples, Jesus placed His disciples into The Father's care, laying them in God's protective hands through His Priestly prayer of commitment.
Text:
John 17
Observation: The disciples have overestimated the strength and dedication of their Company, and of themselves personally, being greatly influenced by unfaithful, obdurate Peter. Jesus is getting ready to go to The Cross, leaving them behind. They are to be left without Him as their True Strengthener, Comforter, and Lord. The Holy Ghost will not be with them. They will be left for a few hours, vulnerable to the attack of Satan and his minions, except for the ather's care and protection about them.

(Now we must leave this, and move to the later time of Jesus' arrest and time of transportation to the housing complex of the palaces of Annas and Caiphas, joined by a roofed portico, or porch. The Greek for "palace" is αυλη (aule) (ow-lay) Strong's Number 0833, and the "porch" between the palace courthouses is προαυλιον. (proaulion) (pro-ow'-lee-on)

Time: about 3:40 AM and before the first cockcrow
Location: At the door of Annas' lower inner courtyard
Context: Jesus was brought into Annas' residence through a door, then up to the examination chamber. Because John knew the high priest he was permitted inside. Peter was bold enough to follow at some distance, then he lingered around the door admitting to the inner courtyard, the αυλη.
Text:
Mark 14:53-54a,b And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes. And Peter followed him afar off, even into the palace of the high priest:

Luke 22:54 Then took they him, and led him, and brought him into the high priest's house. And Peter followed afar off.

John 18:15-16a And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so ~~did~~ another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest. But Peter stood at the door without.

Observation: The activity in the lower public entry area of the servants and officers is about to be described in the Gospels. John is inside this room.

(A technical note here: The translators of the Authorized Version have italicized words they have added so that the reader may see that these words are not actually in the original Greek. These words are supplied for clarification or ones that are implied by the syntax, In this discussion, these words are not removed, but are here struck through so that the reader may be encouraged to read the text without them, especially where they are not absolutely necessary.) - - - - - - - - - -

Time: a little after 3:40 AM
Location: Inside the receiving room, the courtyard
Context: John gets Peter admitted into the room, and as Peter comes in the female servant-slave doorkeeper recognizes Peter as being with John, and asks him if he wasn't one of Jesus' disciples. Obviously, it was one of the disciples that did get Peter admitted. Peter positively denied that he was associated with the disciples of the man being tried.
Text:
Joh 18:16b-d, 17 Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter. Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, "Art not thou also ~~one~~ of this man's disciples?"
He saith, "I am not."

Observation: While he was coming in, the female servant doorkeeper interrogated him right away, maybe as a security procedure. Peter denies that he is of the Company of disciples that travel with Jesus, perhaps to avoid being asked to leave.
This was Peter's first denial of association with Jesus and His students.

Time: A little after 3:45, just after being brought in
Location: In the reception area, probably near the door
Context: Peter stood with the menservants and temple guards to warm himself near the fire of coals. Then after warming up he sat down with them, probably a little further away from the strong heat and/or to give others coming in a chance at the fire, but still in the fire's glow.
Text:
John 18:18 And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals; for it was cold: and they warmed themselves: and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself.

Mark 14:54c,d . . . and he sat with the servants, and warmed himself at the fire.

Luke 22:55 And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were set down together, Peter sat down among them.

Observation: When Peter came into the room, he first got warmed at the fire, then sat down with some of the priests' slave-servants and assistants.

Time: Shortly after Peter sat down
Location: Near the fire
Context: While Peter was sitting by the fire and illuminated by it, another young female servant approaches, close enough to see his face, and identifies him as a companion of Jesus of Nazareth,
Text:
Luke 22:56-57 But a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the ~~fire~~ light, and earnestly looked upon him, and said, "This man was also with him."
And he denied him, saying, "Woman, I know him not."

Matthew 26:69b,c, 70 . . . and a damsel came unto him, saying, "Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee."
But he denied before ~~them~~ all, saying, "I know not what thou sayest."

Mark 14:66, 67, 68a-d And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest: And when she saw Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and said, "And thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth. "
But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest."

Observation: Peter was sitting in the courtyard below the upper examination chamber, and in the φως phos, the light of the ανθρακιαν anthrakian fire-of-coals, and a παιδισκη paidiske (pay-dis-kay), a young female maid slave-servant, not the doorkeeper (who was also a παιδισκη), gazed on Peter intently in the light of the embers, and identified him, she as having seen Peter with Jesus. Peter disclaimed any knowledge of Him.
This is the second time he refused and denied Jesus.

Time: yet a moment later, almost 4:00 AM
Location: Still in the courtyard of Annas' palace, the αυλη courtyard
Context: This time, the observer is a male servant.
Text:
Luke 22:58 And after a little while another saw him, and said, "Thou art also of them."
And Peter said, "Man, I am not."
Observation: Another person, ετερος (heteros) (adjective, nominative case, singular, masculine) of a different kind, a δοῦλος doulos slave or υπηρετης uperetes assistant/officer--a man, as Peter witnesses in his denial--identified him as one "of them," one of the disciples of the man being tried upstairs.
This is the third time, chronologically, that Peter denies The Christ, so named by him elsewhere ("Thou art The Christ, the Son of The Living God").

Time: 4:00 AM
Location: in the vestibule, the porch, or portico, the passageway from the exit door of Annas' palace to the entrance door of Caiaphas' quarters.
Context: Peter exits the palace into the proaulian, the alleyway or portico, translated in the AV as a "porch," and for the first time, a rooster crows.
Text:
Mark 14:68e And he went out into the porch; and the cock crew
(Note: continuing on from the above verse portion).

Observation: This rooster crowed within about a half an hour or less after Jesus was taken in to be cross-examined, just as Peter exited into the porch/portico.
This is the first cockcrow in this chronology.

Time: At the first 4 AM crow or briefly after
Location: at or near the door, but in the portico
Context: Peter is not crying at this point, although he has already denied Jesus three times, as predicted. As Peter goes out into the portico, one of the servant maids who saw him before sees him again, and now she points him out to others outside. She saw him when he came in, and sees him again going out. She picks him out and to those outside proclaims his association with the disciples.
Text:
Mark 14:69, 70a And a maid saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by, "This is ~~one~~ of them."
And he denied it again.

Matthew 26:71-72 And when he was gone out into the porch, another ~~maid~~ saw him, and said unto them that were there, "This ~~fellow~~ was also with Jesus of Nazareth."
And again he denied with an oath, "I do not know the man."

Observation: First, this young female slave-servant doorkeeper was reported before, and now has seen him again. The word "another" is αλλη (al-lay; adjective, nominative, singular, feminine) which means "another feminine servant of the same kind," the same kind as the last one mentioned, which in the context was another like the girl peering at Peter him by the fire; so this must be the young girl who let Peter in, and then saw him going out as she tended the door, following him out into the portico.
This is the fourth time that Peter denounced Christ, but the second time he denied Jesus to the same young woman!

Time: between about 4:05 and 4:55 AM
Location: in the portico passageway
Context: Jesus was taken from Annas' residence through the portico to Caiaphas' residence door for further abuse.
Text:
John 18:24 Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.
Observation: At this point, after the first cockcrow, and after Peter had exited to the portico passage, Jesus was brought bound past Peter by the guards to the other end of the portico, by inference to Caiaphas' doorway. Peter must have seen him, or else he turned his back on Jesus, one would assume.

Time: some time in the interval up to about 4:55 AM Location: In the porch portico alleyway
Context: More of the slaves and assistants, all menservants, were standing about in the portico, warming themselves about another fire. There do not seem to be any benches in this passageway, so Peter mingling with them. They are likely now aware of his special status in this affair, and questioning him.
Text:
John 18:25 And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, "Art not thou also ~~one~~ of his disciples?"
He denied it, and said, "I am not."

Mar 14:70b-f, 71 And a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, "Surely thou art ~~one~~ of them: for thou art a Galilaean, and thy speech agreeth ~~thereto~~." But he began to curse and to swear, ~~saying~~, "I know not this man of whom ye speak."

Matthew 26:73, 74a,b,c And after a while came unto ~~him~~ they that stood by, and said to Peter, "Surely thou also art ~~one~~ of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee."
Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, "I know not the man. "

Observation: This took place a little after the maid saw him and pointed him out. Now almost everybody knows and remarks that Peter was one of the Galilean disciples of the prophet of Nazareth, and began chiding him.
But Peter still denied, and this was for the fifth time.

Time: 5:00 AM
Location: in the portico
Context: About one hour after Luke's previous eyewitness, a male servant/officer saw him, and this last witness of Peter's repudiation of Jesus confronted him. Hewas a relative of Malchus, and was with him in Gethsemane when Peter cut off Malchus' ear. Therefore, he could confidently say that Peter was with Jesus, for he saw Peter with Him in the Garden.
Text:
Luke 22:59 And about the space of one hour after another confidently affirmed, saying, "Of a truth this fellow also was with him: for he is a Galilaean."

John 18:27 One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, "Did not I see thee in the garden with him?"

Observation: The time of this event can be fixed at one hour after the first cockcrow, which would be at the usual signal from the rooster that the workday was about to begin. This is two agreeing reports from the same man at the same time, which completes the second phases of testing of Peter for any kind of faithfulness.
This is the sixth time that Peter lied and denied associ tion with Jesus even when another eyewitness had seen him immediately next to the Lord.

Time: 5:00 AM
Location: In the portico
Context: Simultaneously with Peter's last denial, a rooster crow was heard for the second time.
Text:
Mark 14:72a And the second time the cock crew.

Observation: The Greek word ευθεως eutheos (you-theh-ohs) may, but need not, invoke the sense of urgency that the English word "immediately" here denotes. In the AV, Strong's lexicon shows that the word was translated "anon, as soon as, forthwith, immediately, shortly, straightway," each of which gives a little different nuance. Therefore the Matthew "immediately" is not the same as the "immediately" which in Luke and John would be "instantly," for perhaps a few minutes to half an hour might have elapsed between the time that the group of men addressed him, and the instant that Malchus' relative firmly identified him. as the second crow sounded. A bit of translational looseness is allowed and employed with this word, here and in its other appearances in the NT. Mark does not even mention the time lapse between Peter's fifth occasion of denial to the group and the second crow. These differences in reporting, though basically agreeing, could be confusing to the casual reader, and shows the need for critical accuracy in expository preaching on this overall event.

Time: 5:00 AM
Location: in the portico
Context: When Jesus was brought into the proaulion, the portico/porch, he was being held at the door leading into Caiphas' offices, and had not yet gone in. After Peter's sixth denial, Jesus turned back and looked down the alleyway to Peter.
Text:
Luke 22:61a And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. Observation: The Greek word ενεβλεψεν eneblepsen seems to connote a fixed gaze, a significant glance but not quite actually staring, perhaps. It was surely noted by Peter as singling him out, and bringing to his mind Jesus' prediction on Peter's lack of constant loyalty.

Time: 5:00 plus a little
Location: in the portico
Context: The state of Peter's soul.
Text:
Luke 22:61b-e, 82 And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, "Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice."
And Peter went out, and wept bitterly.

Matthew 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, "Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice."
And he went out, and wept bitterly.

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

Observation: This is the first time that Peter's sorrow is openly and tearfully manifested, after his sixth and final failure to stand for his Master in the time of trouble.
It is interesting that the sensitive, observant Beloved John is silent regarding Peter's response to Christ's solemn glance at Peter. It is also interesting that Peter, likely in recounting this to his disciple John Mark, minimized the language expressing his sorrow, perhaps steering away from invoking Mark's pity for his moment of remorseful self-examination and repentance..
It would also be interesting to have an idea of who Matthew's and Luke's eyewitnesses were, that they should remark the deep sense of sorrow in Peter's grief.

Time: Just after the 5:00 AM cockcrow
Location: At the entrance of Caiaphas' residence.
Context: Jesus is led into the chamber for the second phase of condemning Him.
Text:
Luke 22:66a,b,c And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, . . .

Matthew 27:1 When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:

Mark 15:1 And straightway in the morning the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate.

Observation: At the coming of morning with the 5 AM cockcrow, Caiaphas opened his doors, the guards took Jesus into that council hall, and the retrial of Hesus began and the testing of Peter was over, for a time.

Careful compilation and sifting of the Scripture leads to the fact that indeed, Peter did deny Jesys three times before the crowing of a rooster, and he did it twice, ljust to prove that the prophecy was not a fluke.

By it Peter was found humanly false, was reprimanded, and came into a new appreciation of his culpability before Christ for his inability to perform what he promised, shorn of the power of Christ and of the Holy Ghost.

The correlation of the evidence given to us by inspiration of the Holy Spirit speaking through men of old, inerrant, infallible and plenarily verbally inspired gives us the clear picture of what Jesus prophesied for Peter in his immediate future.

It is wise to examine the scripture closely to acertain not only the facts, but the Bible truths proceeding from it. Without the harmonization ofthis moment in the revelation of God's plan for Peter, we would be easily led astray by less vigorous and thorough exegesis. Spiritual Conclusion The examination and collation of the Scriptural evidence clearly shows the incriminating evidence of the most verbal ally, Simon Peter, who in the end, without the strengthening of unbreakably committed trust in Jesus, and empowerment of the Holy Spirit, was simply not brave enough to overcome the intimidation, physical torture, and death that are the tools of the god of this world, and his human servants.

One cannot blame Peter for this, but it was important for him to learn that his bravura and bluster had not enough force to call up the courage to face the persecution that the Jewish religionists could exert, nor the power of the military governors could apply to quench any uprising. We need to remember that the kind of Messiah the Jewish people wanted, and thought that God was going to supply, would be one to lead them to victory over their Roman rulers.

But this is the very kind of involvement that Peter thought he was going to have, as a subordinate of an Anointed One (in the Greek, "Christ") that would lead masses of fellow Jews to throw off the subjection to legions of Roman soldiers who called their Caesar a God. Peter simply was not accepting that the end of Jesus would be to die, ignominiously executed on a cross, like hundreds of insurgents before them.

Simon Peter simply could not accept identification with the kind of leader he wanted: a leader capable of attracting thousands, multitudes of adherents, a worker of miracles, a man sent from God to lead these crowds against the theocracy of Quisling priest and Roman masters, a hero whom the crowds had just shouted "Alleluia!" and strewn palm fronds in His is path only three or four days before, as The Master rode his humble steed in a kingly procession into the city, the center of their faith with Jesus as their hope.

No wonder that the religionists called for the death of an insurgent leader whou would bring the wrath of Rome down on the people under their responsibility! No question that when Caiaphas called for Jesus' death: "It is expedient thast this man die for the people, rather tan the nation be destroyed!" that he received support from the whole priestly structure as well as the military governor.

At this point neither Peter nor his disciple brethren could even begin to imagine a King who was absolutely determined to gain a much greater victory over the whole spiritual realm of Satan and his terrestrial kingdom of sin and death, through bearing its sin to death by suffering the fiery wrath of the Mighty God in His Body on the Roman instrument of torment and degradation.

No, Peter at this time saw none of that. He only saw the death of his hope as a leader of a victorious Jewish insurgency against the constituted government. And that is not really merely giving in to craven impulses. His denials were a sign of recognizing the death of his dream as a mighty warrior in the temporal world, without sensing that he was on the threshold of a much greater spiritual victory over sin and death for everyone. He could not see it, because the Holy Ghost was not in him, and his Messiah was certainly going to die.

Doubtlessly Simon bar Jonah, the man perhaps laughingly nicknamed "Rock," had these passages in mind when he considered the consequences of denying his Master before men. Never forget that Peter had been taught about the consequences of denial in his lessons from Jesus his Lord and Master:

"Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword . . .
And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me" (Matthew 10:32-34, 38 AV).

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple. . . .
So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26-27, 33 AV).

It may be at just that time he experienced a sorrow that led to repentance not to ever be regretted, as Paul wrote the Corinthians who were warned and saved by his admonishments: "For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be ~~repented of~~ regretted: but the sorrow of the world worketh death" (2 Corinthians 7:10 AV) (my rendering of the verb ἀμεταμελητος ametameletos inserted).

For certainly, though Jesus had prayed that Peter not stop believing, and committed him with the others into the hands of The Father, Peter needed to release any sense of his own righteousness and determination, and to wholly cast himself on the only Rock that saves, The Christ of the Cross. And I believe we can be sure he did.

It is a powerful lesson that only God can save us from such depravity, works cannot, and that faith in Christ alone by the promise and hope of Scripture alone can accomplish that. The kind of absolute trust in Jesus as Savior and Redeemer that encourages the true child of The God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ to be willing to sustain persecution even--and especially--today, was not and could not be in him then.

But Jesus' prayers for him unfailingly held, as did the covering wings of the angels of The Mighty God, to preserve Peter for an unimaginable but illustrious destiny, clearly seen from the beginning by his fore-knowing Master, Who invited him to a glorious life,

May God The Father, and God The Son, And God The Holy Spirit be praised for His righteous and loving care for us, to save us for Himself Alone.

* The chronology is taken from the works of Dr. Fred Wittman, and appears on pages 44-48 of the appendix "A CHRONOLOGICAL HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS -- THE LIFE OF CHRIST" in the volume "THE GOSPELS -- A Precise Translation" which is freely available at no charge from Happy Heralds, Inc. The link to it is as follows: http://www.happyheralds.org

The text above using that timeline, and referring to the contents of the paper, is mine.

there must be at least two different women and two different men, and that one of the women accused Peter on two different occasions, once before the first crowing, and then after the first crowing but before the second crowing

No, nothing in the text with necessity points to this.

At this point in time, Simon Peter was not saved

This categorical statement shows unfamiliarity with Catholic soteriology. In order to be saved one has to die and undergo judgment (Hebrews 9:27). No one, -- not Peter, not Paul, not your pastor, not my priest -- is saved while they live. The justification of Peter, as the gospels tell us, was a long process and in that is resembles the justification of many saints.

I do not know what you are saying here

Simply that when an accusation comes from several people more or less at the same time, Peter would not go and deny to each accuser personally. As John writes: "They said therefore to him: Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said: I am not". That is a single denial to many people accusing.

imardmd1: there must be at least two different women and two different men, and that one of the women accused Peter on two different occasions, once before the first crowing, and then after the first crowing but before the second crowing

annalex: No, nothing in the text with necessity points to this.

What I have posted proves this dead wrong, and now I have to say that it is false:

Here's the related text from Luke:

"But a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire, and earnestly looked upon him, and said, This man was also with him.
And he denied him, saying, Woman, I know him not" (Luke 22:56-57 AV)

This is a woman, is it not? This is a παιδισκη paidiske a young female slave-servant. And this occurs while Peter is sitting.

"And after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou art also of them. And Peter said, Man, I am not" (Luke 22:58 AV)

This is a man, is it not? He is another, a different person, ετερος heteros, a male of a different kind of servant or functionary.

"And about the space of one hour after another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this fellow also was with him: for he is a Galilaean.
And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew" (Luke 22:59-60 AV).

This also is a man, is it not? He is a third person, αλλος allos, another male of the same kind of servant or functionary class.

In summary, there are a woman and two men being described.

Here are verses from the Matthew passage:

"Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.
But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest" (Matthew 26:69-70 AV)

This is a woman, is it not? She is a παιδισκη a young female slave-servant. He is sitting inside Annas' residence at the moment, when she recognizes him.

"And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth.
And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man" (Matthew 26:71-72 AV)

This is also a woman, is she not? And she is αλλη allay another female of the same kind of young female servant-slave as the first one just two verses back. And Peter is now outside on the "porch," the πυλών doorway from the αυλη courtyard to the covered alley between the residences.

There are is two women here, one in the courtyard, and the second one while Peter was standing on the porch.

==========

So the sum is that in just these two passages there are, without any question or confusion, at least two women and two men, four in all, with one denial per each person. You can not escape this.

And since I have redone part of the very clear work already explained in the body of the article, why don't you go back and do the rest that proves there were two occasions of denial to one of the women, and another occasion of denial to a group of men standing on the porch, not sitting around the fire in the courtyard?

This categorical statement shows unfamiliarity with Catholic soteriology. In order to be saved one has to die and undergo judgment (Hebrews 9:27).

I really care about this form of doctrine only in that it leads one (you) to Hell if you believe in it.

My sins were judged on the Cross by Almighty God, I was buried with Christ by baptism into his death, my old man was crucified with Him on the Cross, and I, the new spiritual man, was born. I will never again be judged. only my works will be judged, at the Judgment seat of Christ before His Second Coming.

For those who are not now saved, if they don't change their mind 180 degrees and believe on this, they will not be saved, certainly not on the basis of "good" works. There is nothing else to say, no excuse, when they and their works are judged at the Great White Throne and they are cast into the Lake of Fire.

But I think you've already been warned of this.

And you've confused justification with sanctification. They are not the same.

at least two women and two men, four in all, with one denial per each person

These are slightly different re-tellings of the same episode.

Yes, Luke's account has a man making the second accusation, whereas Mark and Matthew associate that with a woman, and John attributes the second accusation to a group of people.

That is a difference of the accounts of the second accusation. It does not follow that they resulted in more than one denial. That is because from John we learn that several were making the same accusation at the same time (John 18:25); obviously some of them were men and others are women, hence the discrepancy. It does not add another episode, it is the same episode told with slight differences.

Note, by he way, that of the four evangelists only John was there, and indeed John provides several extra details not found elsewhere. And it is John who reconciles the differences.

you've confused justification with sanctification

They are not the same but both are life-long processes, as the faith of S.t Peter illustrates.

There are many episodes of the Bible told somewhat differently. For example, the suicide of Judas is told differently; indeed, the passion if Christ itself is told with differences. As Salvation astutely remarked, it does not mean that Christ died four times. So it is with the episode of denials of Peter. It is not at all difficult to explain the different accusers in the second denials by the fact that there were several people accusing at the same time, — which John does.

Further, the vehemence with which you insist on your bizarre interpretation is puzzling. Do you really think that denying Christ three times would be acceptable, but denying Him six time would be completely over the line?

Your research, by the way, does not profit from attaching bogus timelines. “Time: between about 4:05 and 4:55 AM”. LOL. Don’t pretend you were there with a chronometer.

It is not “diligence” to put in fantastical time stamps and every once in a while cite Greek words and grammar as if it has anything to do with your points. It is nowhere near “scholarship”.

The second accusation and denial is second such according to any gospel, since all four have three of them. Indeed, as anyone can read, the second accusation is describes differently: Matthew and Mark have a woman accusing, Luke has a man, and John has several people.

The solution is evident: John, who provided most detail overall, described the second accusation and denial most comprehensively, as coming from several people at once. Other evangelists gave an incomplete account based on someone else’s memories.

Now, you could provide an interesting insight into the timing, the movement of Peter in and out of the courtyard, and you could advance the hypothesis that perhaps the second denial was in fact several. But the pretense that your marginal interpretation somehow is the exact truth down to the precise timing, and everyone else was just covering for Peter for two thousand years is silly, so serious conversation, that you perhaps hoped for, did not happen.

. . . pretense that your marginal interpretation is the exact truth down to the precise timing . . .

You like to sling pejorative adjectives about rather freely, while neglecting to account for the architecture of the scene; the status, location, and posture, of the characters; known relationship of events; and the number and timing of the rooster crows that give the time frame of the scenario. The sequence of the denials is accurate, The timing is obviously meant to be approximate, not claimed to be precise, but is reasonably estimated when the texts show that the first cockcrow and the second are about an hour apart. It is known that the first three denials came before the first cockcrow, and the second three came before the second and last cockcrow.

Jesus' two earlier prophecies of that evening are couched in terms that do not preclude two (or even more) cockcrows on the next morning. To insist that only three denials sre in view in the words of Christ would be the prejudicial blindness of an unimaginative mind that would not be open to review all the conditions that His prophecies regarding Peter would permit. In fact, the wording ought to give the inquiring student's spiritual discernment a little uptick when, for the second time, Jesus reiterates the prophecy and adds that Peter would deny him three times before the rooster crowed a second time. To limit the meaning of the prophecy to the scope of one's opinion is not really the way to approach the Scriptures with an open mind.

In this particular case, the call is to be more noble like the Bereans, and search the Scriptures to see if it be so. What is in the Scriptures is in the Scriptures, and needs to be interpreted as given, not change it if it doesn't seem to agree with one's prejudice. In this presentation, nothing is changed, only harmonized in the only way that can make the Gospels agree. If there are six denials, then there are six denials. Arm-waving won't change that.

Now, the harmonization and chronology of the texts given in this article are indisputably coherent, as you will have found when you took your Bible and followed through the two stages of this period of time when Jesus was brought into the first residence until the time when He was taken through the door of the second residence.

It is very clear that if you haven't followed this through for yourself, you have no basis for argufying; and if you have followed it through for yourself, you will still have no basis for arguing about it, either.

So, I think you might want to explain what is behind the purpose for your attempt to assail the integrity of this article, which also implies discrediting the integrity of the scholar who has studied, taught, preached, and translated the complete New Testament for over sixty years. I have already remarked that the chronology used is not mine, but comes from his article available on the Happy Heralds Inc web site.

I have said before that I was done with you on this, but I have been patient to restate points that defeat any cogent argument against it that you have proposed. Now my patience quota is used up, and I find I will have to treat any further attempts to discredit this chronology with unfounded opinions as churlish, and ignore them.

For anyone else, if they have an honest question that is for clarification of the article, I will respond as best I have time for.

Well there’s a subject that has a lot to do with our salvation and something we need to know. NOT

NOT?

This was article is about the phase in a person's life regarding salvation, in this case Simon Peter's.

If you deny Christ as your Owner and Master when it becomes inconvenient, or about identification with Him even when your death may be the cost, Jesus says that you are not His, and He will deny you before His Father when the time comes to be judged as to your eternal disposition.

That means if this is your state, then you do not have the standing of The Father considering you redeemed from Hell, nor the state of being His Spirit-begotten child.

That is not my doctrine. It is the doctrine of the Lord Jesus Christ as recorded in my Bible, and which is here shown by Peter's example. Like him, if you have a complete reversal of mind through spiritual rebirth, as Peter did on the day of Pentecost succeeding Jesus' death and resurrection, then you--like Peter--may be saved.

That's up to you, I am only an observer, not a judge.

Your "analysis" here fails because you have not considered it from a literal grammatical syntactical cultural contextual linguistic hermeneutic. Your description of the setting totally refuses to consider the chronology, but rejects those details found in the Greek text which nullifies your hypothesis.

In fact, your approach reads into the scripture a preconceived notion, and is thus eisegesis, an illegitimate way of interpreting God's word.

The above study uses proper methods of eisegesis, of deducing from the original inspired scripture essential elements that are not up to argumentation, and are thus the proper way to prepare for expository interpretation and application of the example to a person of our time claiming to be a "Christian," and able to instruct others in The Way.

Note that another reference is given by aimhigh in Post #4 comment to this article that also confirms this conclusion.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.