"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church (Matt 16:13)."
Review
Matthew: "... Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. Peter said unto him, Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples."
Mark: "..That this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. but he (Peter) sake the more vehemently, If I should die with thee, I will not deny thee in any wiese. Likewise said they all."
Luke: "... And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death. And he (Christ) said, I tell thee, Peter the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me."
John: Interestingly, there is no account of Christ telling/warning Peter that he would thrice deny his Saviour. There is, veritivley, documentation of Peter's denial.
Notice the occult differences between the preceding passages of scripture. There is a discrepancy between Matthew and Mark in the precise timing of the denial- Mark tells that the denial is within the same day as the Garden incident. Mark and Luke provide an understanding that Peter was willing to die for and with Christ.
Mark: "..That this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. but he (Peter) sake the more vehemently, If I should die with thee, I will not deny thee in any wiese. Likewise said they all."
Luke: "... And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death. And he (Christ) said, I tell thee, Peter the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me."
John: Interestingly, there is no account of Christ telling/warning Peter that he would thrice deny his Saviour. There is, veritivley, documentation of Peter's denial.
Notice the occult differences between the preceding passages of scripture. There is a discrepancy between Matthew and Mark in the precise timing of the denial- Mark tells that the denial is within the same day as the Garden incident. Mark and Luke provide an understanding that Peter was willing to die for and with Christ.
The Currently-Accepted Method
In LDS Gospel Doctrine classes I've heard that Peter's denial was a display of faithlessness. I've heard that Peter sat without the walls as a consequence of fear, the inability to walk alongside Christ to the cross, to the bitter end.
Additionally, there has been speculation that when Peter was 'with' Christ [physically, he had the perfection of Christ's strength with him. When Peter was separated from Christ, physically, as was the case in the Denial, Peter could no longer rely on the ambiance of Christ's strength. It wasn't until after the resurrection that Peter received the Holy Ghost (John 20:22) and it's corresponding strength and faith-promotion. Therefore, Peter's lack of faith was expected nder the circumstance as he didn't have the Holy Ghost.
Additionally, there has been speculation that when Peter was 'with' Christ [physically, he had the perfection of Christ's strength with him. When Peter was separated from Christ, physically, as was the case in the Denial, Peter could no longer rely on the ambiance of Christ's strength. It wasn't until after the resurrection that Peter received the Holy Ghost (John 20:22) and it's corresponding strength and faith-promotion. Therefore, Peter's lack of faith was expected nder the circumstance as he didn't have the Holy Ghost.
The Potentially Probable Method
If I were to have read the Denial account for the first time just yesterday, I may have come to separate conclusions from the 'Currently Accepted Method.' I maybe, just maybe, would have read the text directly, without paradigms, and believed the following:
Jesus said to Peter in Matthew 26:34-35,
Jesus said to Peter in Matthew 26:34-35,
"... Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. Peter said unto him, Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples."
One frequently reads this statement and concludes that Jesus spouted a prophecy that he would be denied by Peter. What if there were another alternative? What if Jesus was actually giving Peter a commandment that Peter thrice deny him?
What if Jesus could see the outcome of Peter's continual allegiance- what if Peter hadn't denied Christ? It is potentially probably that had Peter not denied Christ, he would have been taken into Roman custody alongside Christ. Had Peter avowed association with Christ, it is ostentatiously likely that Peter would also have met either imprisonment and death, and the church would have been left without a Head. It just may be that Peter's denial of Christ was his greatest and most difficult act of faith.
Couldn't Peter have understood the magnitude of faith it would take to reject Christ, and consequently spoke with 'vehemence' against having to perform such an act? Could one truly assume that Peter, who drew his sword against an unnumbered crowd and smote the ear of a guard, would back down against a sole damsel, or sole high priest, or a sole servant? Peter- brash, strong-willed, upright Peter- could Peter really deny Christ not just once but three times? Would it not make sense that Peter would creep around the walls of Annas' palace, like a mouse at a dinner table, just to hear a word dropped concerning Christ (to be with him 'to the end').
Would Peter reduce himself to an anonymous person out of fear? I definitely believe not. Peter's assumed anonymity wasn't a feckless display of fear, it was an univocal display of compassion toward Christ- although Peter couldn't see Christ, at least he could be near in proximity to him, all the while offering up words of sincerest prayer. Peter may not have stood next to Christ at the Priest's serpentine bar, but was still practicing, without the walls, the counsel he had previously been instructed (at the Garden) to learn to watch with Christ an hour.
Would Peter reduce himself to an anonymous person out of fear? I definitely believe not. Peter's assumed anonymity wasn't a feckless display of fear, it was an univocal display of compassion toward Christ- although Peter couldn't see Christ, at least he could be near in proximity to him, all the while offering up words of sincerest prayer. Peter may not have stood next to Christ at the Priest's serpentine bar, but was still practicing, without the walls, the counsel he had previously been instructed (at the Garden) to learn to watch with Christ an hour.
Conclusion
I do not endorse either supposition. I simply state that I have faith in Christ, and believe that there are a multiplicity of reasons behind people's action. Maybe Peter had reasons for his denial. Maybe not. It is simply for each person to decide the reasons, and the ensuing implications. :) Enjoy ruminating.
No comments:
Post a Comment