My soul clings to you,Your right hand upholds me.
In the previous article (the rooster crow) we described the rooster crow that accompanied Peter’s denial. In this article, we will discuss the differences between the different Gospel accounts of the events surrounding Peter’s three denials. Below is a comparison of the different Gospel accounts.
As discussed in the previous article, these scenes are not static and chromatic, simple scenes, but instead are vibrant, and full-color events. Yet each gospel writer is only giving us gist snapshots of this dynamic event. It is good to look at what the denials are not. They are not Peter getting one question and then giving one denial each time, but instead three occasions where there are conversations in which Peter denies Jesus. This is also not a scene like mannequins in a store window where the characters remain in the same place and are immobile. There is a lot of movement and a lot of talking. So for example when one author speaks of sitting and another standing, the answer is yes. There is a fire in the middle of the courtyard with a group of people over several hours. There will be a movement among those people. Sometimes they will be standing, sometimes sitting, and probably at one time, you will have both. The Gospel writers are writing the gist of the story. If we were there and giving a gist, we would have described it in similar ways and with many people telling the story would have it told as it is told in the Gospels. Peter is also in distress, most in this kind of emotional distress do not remain still for long. So in the first denial, we see the gatekeeper servant girl start asking him questions and then following him to the fire and continuing her questioning multiple times as Peter sits and stands or stands and sits is a scene we would expect. It looks like she at least asked him three times. Peter’s denials are broken up into three periods of denials where a conversation occurred where Peter was questioned more than once and he responded more than once as he was questioned. So in other words, three dynamic periods of questioning with three dynamic responses or denials. If we only saw a one-question-one-reply response, the skeptics would be complaining that that is not how real conversations work and would be calling the story fake. Also, remember Peter was in distress, people in this kind of distress typically can’t stay still and will pace. Not only is he in distress but he is also trying to protect himself and get away from the questioning. So in the second scene, a possible scenario is that he leaves the fire, the gatekeeper servant girl takes advantage of this and questions him again and as he tries to get away from her and head back to the fire another servant girl nearby comes in on the questioning, they are both saying this to bystanders as well and others joined in in this episode of Peter’s second denial. Again on the third denial, we see a group of people questioning Peter, and Peter responds to those questions with cursing and denials. In between these episodes is a clear period of time in between each denial of probably about an hour. Which is fitting with what we would expect of the two rooster crows. So despite what some might complain the accounts in the Gospels of Peter’s denial are not contradictory.
Conclusion
The account of Peter’s denial makes sense if we understand the dynamic nature of normal life and conversations, there was a dialogue between Jesus and Peter and there were dialogues between Peter and his accusers. Peter was in distress and moving about. People were in a courtyard around a fire for hours and were also not static. This account also fits with what we know of how a rooster crows. Instead of being contradictory, these Gospel accounts give us a more realistic picture of what occurred.
God made us with the compacity of creativity. Because of sin, this creativity can be used wisely or foolishly, for good or evil. Skeptics no matter how the Bible is written will imagine faults and errors, it is human nature to deny God and it is human nature to creatively, though foolishly build arguments of what we think is evidence against God, for “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” When we say there is no God, we become like mannequins in a window. When we trust in the faithfulness of God we enter an adventurous and beautiful story.
Articles to Read:
