Could Christ Have Commanded Peter To Deny Him?

[Mudcat]

I was thinking about this today and wanted to posit it here. I am not sure if its been discussed before, but I am curious to see what posters think about this?

Christ told(foretold), that Peter would deny him. Obviously this was something Peter was opposed to, in light of the fact he said he would die before he did that.

However, after Christ was taken, the opportunity arose in which Peter could have chosen to admit he knew Christ or instead, he could deny him.

We all know what Peter chose to do, but given his prior statements of his loyalty to Christ, we could draw a couple of conclusions.

Either Peter denied Christ for reasons other than the fact that Christ had told(or foretold) that he would or Peter denied Christ because he felt commanded to.

In one respect, Peter failed to some degree.

In another respect, Peter was only doing as he was commanded.

We can speculate as to what would have been the outcome if Peter had not denied Christ, no one could be certain as to what would happen in that case.

Hypothetically speaking, lets say had he not denied Christ, and this action would have been detrimental to his person,... if that was the case, then could Christ's statement been a command to Peter, for Peter's sake, that Peter himself ruefully followed through with? Rather than a prophecy of Peter's impending failure.

Don't know if anyone else finds this interesting, but if you have a thought on the matter, I'd like to hear it.

Mudcat

[nebula]

Ummm . . . no.

It was not a command but a prophecy.

An interesting interpretation I have heard though was that it wasn't so much out of fear that Peter denied Him, but rather that Jesus wasn't fulfilling his idea of what Messiah was and this confused him to the point of dispair.

You see, there are two aspects of Messiah prophecied in the Prophets - the Suffering Servant (Messiah ben Joseph) and the Conquoring King (Messiah ben David). It's been debated whether these were to be 2 different individuals or the same. Due to the Roman oppression, Messiah the Conquoring King was very appealing to them, and this is the Messiah the people were looking for.

Messiah ben David was not supposed to be seized, was not to submit, and not be subdued - yet all three happened to Jesus when He was arrested.

This is how he could go from attacking with the sword in the garden to denial.

In this light, Peter's reaction was one of, "I thought He was Messiah; now I don't know . . . I don't know who He is!"

If this is so, then in a way, recalling Jesus' words to him may have been an assurity that He was still in control - for He saw this coming.

Just a thought.

[Mudcat]

Peter was not commanded to deny Christ...I doubt he even felt that way. Remember when he chopped the ear of of the soldier. He was told he would deny Christ before this act. Christ had allowed Peter to see exactly what was in himself. Peter thought that he was loyal to the end, yet, it was proven other wise. Peter then saw exactly how he was, and confessed before the Lord...You know that I love you.

Peter strength was no longer in his ability but in the Lord knowledge. He trusted the Lord more than himself. This is what Christ wanted Peter to see.

Hey Ruck1b!

Thanks for the response. For the record, I am just exploring the issue. However, as you pointed out... Peter whacked a soldiers ear off in a posse full of Romans. Do you think fear of death was on his mind? I don't.

Yet in these instances or denial, fear seems to be his motivator and granted given the situation, Peter's admission of Christ could have brought him dire consequences. However, a "fearful" Peter doesn't fit his modus operandi.

Seems the foundation of the Church was first built upon by Peter's confession. Isn't it possible that Christ chose to command Peter to protect such an endeavor.

What do you think?

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[Mudcat]

Ummm . . . no.

It was not a command but a prophecy.

An interesting interpretation I have heard though was that it wasn't so much out of fear that Peter denied Him, but rather that Jesus wasn't fulfilling his idea of what Messiah was and this confused him to the point of dispair.

You see, there are two aspects of Messiah prophecied in the Prophets - the Suffering Servant (Messiah ben Joseph) and the Conquoring King (Messiah ben David). It's been debated whether these were to be 2 different individuals or the same. Due to the Roman oppression, Messiah the Conquoring King was very appealing to them, and this is the Messiah the people were looking for.

Messiah ben David was not supposed to be seized, was not to submit, and not be subdued - yet all three happened to Jesus when He was arrested.

This is how he could go from attacking with the sword in the garden to denial.

In this light, Peter's reaction was one of, "I thought He was Messiah; now I don't know . . . I don't know who He is!"

If this is so, then in a way, recalling Jesus' words to him may have been an assurity that He was still in control - for He saw this coming.

Just a thought.

Its been a bit since my last post, but Nebula, I must say you always have a way of distinctly supporting your position. However your position resides upon the presupposition that Peter fell into one specific camp. Isn't it possible that Peter might have actually accepted Christ at his own words and divorced himself of any preconceptions?

This concept of mine is a bit of an offshoot. One would think those who lean heavily upon apostolic authority in this present day would have gravitated to such a position and yet even there we don't see the case. There is no doubt I am presenting a perspective that strays from the norm. But does it stray from Scripture?

[OneLight]

What you offer does have some truth to it. Prophesy comes from God and will come to past. That would mean that Peter would deny Christ thrice before the cock crowed that morning. That is factual, yet, to say that Peter was commanded to do so is another story. Just as in every prophesy, we are given insight to the future. We can try to deny this fact and change the future by trying another road, but in the end, God wins. The other road for Peter was that he truly believed that he would never deny Christ, but when it came down to it, fear entered him and he fulfilled the prophetic words of Jesus.

[nebula]

Its been a bit since my last post, but Nebula, I must say you always have a way of distinctly supporting your position. However your position resides upon the presupposition that Peter fell into one specific camp. Isn't it possible that Peter might have actually accepted Christ at his own words and divorced himself of any preconceptions?

At the Last Supper, the disciples were arguing with each other over who would be the greatest in the Kingdom. When Jesus said He would be delivered to the Gentiles, did Peter or any of the others take Him at His word? No!

There was not a single one of His followers who showed any indication that they understood the need for Jesus to be arrested, tried, and put to death. And this includes Peter. If he accepted Christ at His own words, he would not have protested, saying that he would die with Jesus, nor would he have drawn his sword in the Garden.

This concept of mine is a bit of an offshoot. One would think those who lean heavily upon apostolic authority in this present day would have gravitated to such a position and yet even there we don't see the case. There is no doubt I am presenting a perspective that strays from the norm. But does it stray from Scripture?

I have never heard anyone proposing that a word of prophecy is a command.

[Mudcat]

At the Last Supper, the disciples were arguing with each other over who would be the greatest in the Kingdom. When Jesus said He would be delivered to the Gentiles, did Peter or any of the others take Him at His word? No!

There was not a single one of His followers who showed any indication that they understood the need for Jesus to be arrested, tried, and put to death. And this includes Peter. If he accepted Christ at His own words, he would not have protested, saying that he would die with Jesus, nor would he have drawn his sword in the Garden.

I would submit this in evidence to the contrary.

Joh 16:29 His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb.

IMO, it seems they understood rather clearly. Or at least in John's depiction of it, it seems so.

I have never heard anyone proposing that a word of prophecy is a command.

Ok, put yourself in Peter's shoes. Christ has told him, the he will deny Christ before morning. Peter runs into a situation where the choice to deny Christ is put before him. What would you do?

[RebekahDavid]

blessings,

this is huge speculation. no where does it say that Jesus commanded peter to deny Him and to deny Jesus actually goes against all the rest of scripture that follows. Jesus did however makes some commands which are well worthy studying

love your sister in Christ,

Rebekah David

[nebula]

**I fixed the quotes**

At the Last Supper, the disciples were arguing with each other over who would be the greatest in the Kingdom. When Jesus said He would be delivered to the Gentiles, did Peter or any of the others take Him at His word? No!

There was not a single one of His followers who showed any indication that they understood the need for Jesus to be arrested, tried, and put to death. And this includes Peter. If he accepted Christ at His own words, he would not have protested, saying that he would die with Jesus, nor would he have drawn his sword in the Garden.

I would submit this in evidence to the contrary.

Joh 16:29 His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb.

IMO, it seems they understood rather clearly. Or at least in John's depiction of it, it seems so.

If this means they understood that He had to suffer and die and rise again, why was it so hard for them to believe He had risen?

And again, why did Peter draw his sword and attack?

And why did Peter, James and John fall asleep? If it was you, and you believed what He said "at face value" as He said it - would you have let yourself fall asleep?

I have never heard anyone proposing that a word of prophecy is a command.

Ok, put yourself in Peter's shoes. Christ has told him, the he will deny Christ before morning. Peter runs into a situation where the choice to deny Christ is put before him. What would you do?

Matt. 26

74 Then he began to curse and swear, saying, "I do not know the Man!" Immediately a rooster crowed. 75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus who had said to him, "Before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times." So he went out and wept bitterly.

The indication is that he had forgotten about what Jesus said. but when the rooster crowed, then he remembered.

[Mudcat]

No, I dont think that would be the case either. Jesus said upon this rock(Peter's confssion) I build...

Well I think the point I am driving at isn't that Peter is the foundation, rather Christ is, however had the Gospel not been preached beyond his sacrifice through Peter, Paul, etc.. then it would have been a fruitless work. Christ said that those who came behind him would do greater works than he did. I don't think this is in regards to greater in quality, but greater in quantity. If Peter wasn't a necessary component to God's plan, Christ would have chosen another.

BTW... This concept I am discussing, I don't hold as doctrine so I don't plan getting on a soap box about it. However, I hope you and the other posters don't mind me taking the posited argument to its conclusion to see where all the holes in it are.

I doubt that Christ would command Peter to deny Him because that is totally contrary to His nature. That would be like Him telling me...go slap your spouse in the face. He wouldn't say that. Like Peter I may be one who would say I will never lay my hands on my wife. Then all it take is for her to push those right buttons and....I'm looking at Jesus like, I cant believe I did that. (Btw...this is hypothetical)

Yes, I see your point. Perhaps command is to harsh a word. To articulate how I am thinking of it. Maybe it was more like, "There will come in the near future Peter, when you will deny me. Its ok." In regards to it being against his nature, I might put it in the same category as Christ healing a man and then telling him to keep quiet about who healed him.

Given the close proximity he was to the Savior during the surrounding events, its quite possible his admission of being an apostle may have meant there 4 crosses on Golgotha not 3. Given the importance of the transmission of the Gospel that would proceed his death, I think taking an effort to protect Peter here, might have been a possible motivation.

The fact is, Peter did not know himself, Jesus knew Peter, He just needed Peter to know Peter. Peter was bold...I won't deny You Lord, no matter what the rest of these do. Jesus was like Peter, Peter, Peter...you dont know yourself. Before the daybreaks you will have denied me 3 times. Our Lord knows us, it is us who dont know ourselves. We may say what we wont do, but let some real pressure come and Jesus will show us...us.

I'm not saying your statement here is implausible. In fact it is likely the case. If we take Christ's statement as prophetic rather than imperative, what is the benefit to Peter for the statement? If we take it as prophecy, then it served to make a liar of Peter. What do you think the underlying message of Christ telling a person they will fail him in advance is?