Peter’s Denials; Divine Forgiveness, Matthew 26:69-75

One of the most, if not the most, significant doctrine that is taught in Scripture is that we have forgiveness of sin. It is one of the central teachings of biblical Christianity. It's the greatest gift that God has given to us, that we have true forgiveness. The King James also uses the words remission of sin. Without forgiveness we would live in a world of spiritual darkness. There would be sin running rampant. People would be living totally on the basis of their sin nature with no hope of recovery. We would truly live in a culture of death, with no life from God, no hope for eternal life, no comprehension of what real love or grace, or forgiveness is all about.

This was the reason that Jesus, the eternal second person of the Trinity entered into human history. And as we look at this episode of Peter's denials, they are told to us for the purpose of helping us understand divine forgiveness. We will be looking at these denials and understanding more about the forgiveness of God, especially from Matthew 26:69-75, but also looking at times at the synoptic accounts as well as the Gospel of John.

In the beginning and end of Luke there is an emphasis on forgiveness as the purpose for the incarnation. Those bookends tell us that this is a major theme in that Gospel. In Luke 1:77 the speaker is Zacharias who is the father of John the Baptist. He has been mute, unable to speak, since he didn't quite believe the announcement by the angel that his wife who was beyond childbearing years would give birth to a son. So the angel said that he wouldn't speak again until the child, the son, was born. When he did, there is a hymn of praise that is voiced by Zacharias. In that he says of John's ministry in relation to the Messiah that he would be there to give knowledge of salvation to his people by the forgiveness of their sin. That word forgiveness that we find that's a used primarily in the New Testament is an economic word that means to eradicate a debt to, cancel a debt, to take away that and to totally erase it. And that's what forgiveness of sins is, that sin is erased by the death of Christ on the cross.

At the end of Luke's Gospel, He says, "and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning in Jerusalem", again closing out that Gospel with the emphasis on forgiveness of sin. Forgiveness is not a new doctrine in the Old Testament. You often hear people influenced by liberalism or ignorance--sometimes they're the same—say that when you look at the Old Testament, you hear a God of harsh righteousness, a God of wrath, a God of punishment; and that is far from the truth, you have a God of love and forgiveness throughout pages of the Old Testament. For example, in Exodus 34:6,7,

Then the LORD passed by in front of him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave {the guilty} unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.”

So there's an emphasis on his righteous judgment, but the primary emphasis is on His love and grace. Micah 7:18,

Who is a God like You, who pardons iniquity And passes over the rebellious act of the remnant of His possession? He does not retain His anger forever, Because He delights in unchanging love.

This is the emphasis of God. The emphasis of the gospel is on forgiveness and cleansing from sin. In the New Testament, the same messages echoed. Peter in Acts 10:43 in declaring the gospel to the Gentiles says,

Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.

So forgiveness of sins is very much a part of the gospel, the focus of the gospel, and explaining the gospel.

When we come to this next section in the Gospel we learn of Peter's denial, which was indeed a spiritual tragedy is the low point of his spiritual life, but a tremendous opportunity for God's grace to shine forth, because we know that where God's grace is there is always a solution to our sin, a solution to our failure. No matter how great that failure is, no matter how great that sin is, no sin or failure need be a permanent reality in the Christian life. No sin is too great for the grace of God, and there's no fall from which we cannot recover.

So in this next scene, we shift the focus from Jesus' first two trials to Peter's trial. It is Peter's test to see if he will remain faithful and loyal to the Lord. We know he fails. We see Peter at his worst to remind us that God's grace always meets us at our worst.

Luke tells us what the lesson is that we should learn. I think it's always important that we go to Scripture to interpret Scripture and to tell us what the lessons are, what the purpose of a parable is, and what the significance of a historical event is.

In Luke two 22:32 Jesus says to Peter, "but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers."

This is when He is predicting that Peter will deny Him. There we know that even at the announcement of Peter's failure Jesus gives him hope. The gospel is the gospel of hope. He says, "when you return to me". It's not a permanent failure; it's not a permanent condition. He's not going to lose his salvation but he will by God's grace return to the Lord, unlike Judas. If you take a look at what happens in the next episode coming up in Matthew 27 we learn about Judas. So there's this contrast between Peter and his test, Jesus being tried, and then there's the contrast between Peter's failure and recovery versus Judas's failure and no recovery.

But what the Lord says in Luke 22:32 is, "when you return to me" the lesson is strengthen your brethren. Establish them is another way in which that word is translated. In the Greek it means to make firm and it is a word that indicates the strengthening of our spiritual life. So Peter, just like us, when we fail and recover, then we can use that to teach and train others and to encourage others in the grace of God.

As we begin to look at this episode, I want to take us back to the earlier part of the chapter. In verse 31 we see Jesus' prediction. We will look at Jesus' prediction, then look at the fulfillment of that prediction and Peter's denials, and then finish by looking at God's forgiveness for that failure.

In the prediction we read in verse 31, ^NASB "Then Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away because of Me this night, for it is written, ‘I WILL STRIKE DOWN THE SHEPHERD, AND THE SHEEP OF THE FLOCK SHALL BE SCATTERED.’ [32] “But after I have been raised, I will go ahead of you to Galilee.” [33] But Peter said to Him, “{Even} though all may fall away because of You, I will never fall away.”

We see this prediction coming in verse 34. Jesus said to him, “Truly I say to you that this {very} night, before a rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.”

Jesus said to him, "Will you lay down your life for my sake". That's what Peter thinks he will do, and then the Lord says, "Assuredly, I say to you that …" And Mark ads today. "… this night, before the rooster crows …" Mark adds "twice". One of the little differences between the Gospels is that Matthew and Luke just indicate when the rooster crows, they don't talk about how many times. Mark says, "Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny three times that you know me." So this is a prediction.

What we go on want to read is in verse 35. Peter responds and says, "Even if I have to die with you, I will not deny you." Mark adds, "Peter said vehemently to Him". It is a strong assertion that he will not deny the Lord, and so said all the disciples. They all agree. They are all denying that Jesus who is God incarnate, who is omniscient, who has demonstrated time and time again that He is a true prophet and He can and does accurately predict the future. They denied that He can predict the future, in this case. This is a classic example of how, not only those disciples, but all of us want to just deny the truth of God's Word.

This sets them up for tremendous failure—arrogance, as the Proverbs tells us: Pride goes before fall. So what we see here at the beginning and through the rest of this episode down through the arrest, is examples in Peter that are reflected in us, that show how we set ourselves up for spiritual failure.

First of all, we see that he is boasting. He thinks that he has reached a point of a spiritual plateau where he has arrived, and he is above certain sins, if any. He thinks that he is spiritually mature, that he has arrived, and that he will not fail

In Ecclesiastes 7:16, we read: "Do not be overly righteous". See that's Peter. He is violating this; he is self-righteous. It goes on to say, ^NASB " … and do not be overly wise. Why should you ruin yourself?"

Arrogance, self-absorption, and narcissism are self-destructive. That is the warning in Romans 12:3, For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith."

The word "soberly" in the in the Greek means to think honestly, accurately and objectively about yourself. Don't be bloated; don't be boastful; don't be arrogant. And this is what Peter was. This is his first step. He is operating on arrogance from his sin nature. And second, that leads him to reject the authority of Jesus. He is in effect denying that Jesus can tell the future. He is denying that Jesus is right here, and he flat contradicts Him, along with the other disciples. It's an indication that arrogance and pride are blinding them. They we don't believe the truth, and "we will believe the lie".

In Matthew 26:35, Peter says, "Even if I have to die with you, I will not deny you". It is a strong dogmatic assertion. He is saying it's impossible that he will deny Him, and the disciples all join in the chorus. And sadly, this is like too many believers. We think we've arrived, that we are above certain sins, that we wont commit certain sins, that that failure won't be our failure. And yet the reality is that just shows our lack of understanding of our sin nature, our capacity for sin and evil. Jeremiah says, "The heart is deceitful and wicked above all things. Who can know it?" The inner man that is controlled by the sin nature is capable of all manner of horrible sins.

And so Peter sets himself up by failure by living in denial, that thinking that he just is above that type of sin. The third way in which he fails is that he fails to pray in the garden. From the upper room they made their way to the garden of Gethsemane. In that garden Jesus gave them direction. He said, "Watch and pray, lest you enter into temptation …" The word there for temptation, PEIRASMOS, is the same word for testing. "… the spirit is willing". We saw that with Peter. "I'll never deny you". That's his spirit. He is going to assert his loyalty to the Lord, but the flesh, that is the sin nature, is weak and so he is unable to live up to his own ideal because he is really operating in the flesh, and not depending upon the Lord. He is denying the prayer, and as soon as the Lord leaves him, he and James and John would just go to sleep. Rather than watching and praying, they slept. Prayer was not vital in this spiritual warfare.

And this is what Paul is talking about in Ephesians 6:18, "praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit (or, by means of the Spirit), being watchful". Notice there that Jesus told the disciples to watch and pray, and here Paul reiterates that prayer is related to our watchfulness. It is our guard and we are to keep our guard up in our spiritual life, lest we fail in temptation. Paul says, "being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints". What he means by perseverance there is not the Calvinist doctrine of perseverance of the saints. That is what you would hear a Calvinist preacher introduce at this point, but that misreads the context. Perseverance here is enduring in prayer. It is continuing to pray, not just praying once and done, but continuing to pray because prayer is an exercise that focuses our mental attitude on dependence on God. So we are to pray continuously. 1 Thessalonians 5:16, we are to "pray without ceasing".

We give thanks in all things to the Lord. For the believer this is to characterize our every moment, as we are grateful. To be grateful you have to be humble. You cannot be arrogant and be grateful at the same time. Peter has failed to be watchful and to pray in the garden.

A fourth thing that has set Peter up for failure is that he is living in denial about his own weaknesses and his own sin. He is not unlike us, and we are not unlike him. Too often we are like what I call the vampire Christian. Remember what a vampires is? A vampire is the walking dead; they are little living in separation from God. They look like they are alive as believers but they are living like a dead person.

Also, when you hold up the cross in front of a vampire they fall down and flee from it. When you talk about the cross to a spiritual vampire, a rebellious believer, they become an enemy of the cross. Also, when you are a vampire you suck your nourishment from somebody else, and spiritual vampires are always trying to feed off of other believers that are stronger and focused. They are extremely needy. And then vampires love the darkness; they hate the light, so spiritual vampires walk in darkness rather than walking in the light. The last thing is that a vampire does can't see his reflection in the mirror, and a spiritual vampire doesn't see his reflection in the mirror of God's Word. So when you hold up the Word of God, "That doesn't apply to me; that's not me". They live in denial, and this is what is happening with Peter.

Jesus has pointed out his flaws and failures numerous times, but he doesn't accept it; he is living in denial of his sin nature, of his flaws and failures, and thinks that it doesn't apply to him. He doesn't recognize his weaknesses, that he's stubborn, that he is impulsive, that he is impatient, that he doesn't give things any thought. And this is exemplified in verse 51 where when the temple guard came up and the temple servant is there with the with the high priests, that Peter pulled out his sword and tried to cleave Malcus's head in two. He missed because Malthus dodged, or he was a poor aim, and he cut off his ear. He's trying to handle the problem on his own without dependence upon the Lord.

So all of these things have set Peter up and put him in a position where he is not able to withstand the temptation. By following Jesus into the courtyard he has put himself in a position where his enemies surround him, and where he will likely be put into an awkward situation. So by making bad decisions based on arrogance he puts himself in a trap, and that trap is where he stumbled. I've used that imagery intentionally because the word there for stumbling that Jesus used is the word SKANDALIZO, which comes originally in Greek from the term for that stick that would hold up a trap. It's the tripwire. And that's what he has done, he has built the trap for himself and now he's going to spring the trap on himself.

We do the same thing. By poor decisions we put ourselves in circumstances and situations where we set ourselves up for spiritual failure.

There are three denials that are mentioned in each of the Gospels. However, there are those who analyze the details in each Gospel and point out that there are certain differences. I would say, not contradictions, but there are those who would try to make them contradictions and that they don't fit together.

Now there are two approaches for resolving these apparent conflicts between the gospel accounts. The first approach is the more common approach, and that is to recognize that this is a very dynamic situation. As Peter comes into the courtyard of the high priest there are a lot of people there. There are temple guards there; there are Roman soldiers there, there are the servants of the high priests that are in there. There are a large number of people that are moving around. So as he comes in—and he one account states that when he is at the door, that is where the first denial begins, when the servant girl sees him at the door— that he denies it, and others would say he's already inside the courtyard.

I believe it could be a very dynamic situation where the conversation with the servant girl began when he comes into the door, and it continues as he enters into the courtyard. As she is talking to him he could very easily be trying to get away from her because he doesn't want to have his cover blown, and so the conversation goes on. What is picked up by the Gospel writers is one aspect or another of that conversation. It is not that the servant girl said one thing or asked one question and he gave one reply, but there was an interaction between them all related to that first denial, and then moving on to the second denial. That is the most common way of explaining these differences, because over all they are in agreement of the three denials.

The second way that it is handled is by a few people. I kept trying to find others in print to look at this. I have heard people teach this, but the only example of this in print I found was in a book I've recommended before by Stanley Ellison and Johnston Cheney, called Jesus Christ the Greatest Life, A Unique Blending of the Four Gospels. This was built on a book that came out back in the 60s called, The Life of Christ in Stereo. The author of that study died, and his idea was to take the four accounts of the Gospels and to blend them together so that we could sit down and read from the beginning of the announcements of the birth of Jesus all the way through past the resurrection, in order and get a full picture, because each author of each Gospel has his own purpose and he is choosing different statements and different events in order to fit his basic argument or his basic purpose. In that work Ellison and Cheney—and I but I don't remember which one now, but one of them worked at was a professor at Western conservative Baptist seminary for many years and is was very conservative, very orthodox, biblically correct in his in his approach is an excellent job—he suggests that there are as many as six denials. When Jesus said, "You will deny me three times" He didn't say that that could mean you could deny me more, but you would deny me at least three times. So I find that that might be stretching it a little bit. I'm not convinced of one view versus the other.

There are number of different, let's say, conflicts in the Gospel accounts. This is what New Testament professors tie themselves and not knots over, and reading a New Testament professor on these topics is really important, because that's where you can determine whether or not a guy really believes in the inerrancy of Scripture. So we have to start with the assumption that God the Holy Spirit is the author and preserve these men from error so that what they describe is perfectly accurate, although they may be looking at it from different vantage points, and only record only recording for us different aspects of a conversation that may have been involved in several different things. So I am more inclined to the first option, then the second, although that is definitely a possibility.

As we look at Matthew's account. We come to the first denial, Matthew 26:58 ^NASB But Peter was following Him at a distance as far as the courtyard of the high priest, and entered in, and sat down with the officers to see the outcome.

I added the next sentence because that comes from the Gospel of John. John never identifies himself. John talks about the beloved disciple, the disciple whom Jesus loved. He's always the anonymous disciple that's in the background as you read through the Gospel of John, but that we believe is John himself. Peter follows him at a distance into the high priest's courtyard. So did another disciple. Then were told, "Now that disciple …" This is all from John. "…was known to the high priest and went with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest".

I started off writing that from verse 58 and then added to it from John so we get a sense of what's happening here. The disciples were released at the arrest of Jesus and they just scattered, like when you turn the lights on and the roaches scatter. That's how they were scattering but Peter and John were the closest to the Lord and they hung back, and they followed the soldiers to the high priest's house at what they would consider a safe distance. Now the high priest's house was quite large and it included both the residence is of Caiaphas and Annas and probably a courtyard in between. So that is the biblical setting.

Jesus has been taken first to Annas and while He is being interviewed by Annas, as described in John chapter 18, this is when John first makes it into the courtyard and then makes it possible for Peter to be let into the courtyard. Luke 22:55 says: "After they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and had sat down together, Peter was sitting among them."

This tells us something about the crowd. It also tells us something about the climate that was probably pretty chilly that night. Peter needs to go over and warm himself by the fire. The temperature, if this is in late March or early April in Jerusalem, can be quite chilly and can drop down into the low 40s or upper 30s.

John 18:18 ^NASB Now the slaves and the officers were standing {there,} having made a charcoal fire, for it was cold and they were warming themselves; and Peter was also with them, standing and warming himself.

That's the whole background and scenario.

Matthew 26:69 ^NASB Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard, and a servant-girl came to him and said, “You too were with Jesus the Galilean.”

What she says is presented as an accusation, whereas when John describes it, it's presented more as a question; probably both took place. There is a question and then an accusation, so that it's a dynamic conversation that is taking place between Peter and this servant girl. At the same time we know Jesus is being interrogated by the Sanhedrin and they are marching a number of false witnesses into that trial. So Jesus is being tested on the inside; on the outside in the courtyard Peter is being tested. Inside the witnesses or are coming forward and the word in the Greek that is used for that is PROSERCHOMAI, which means to come to, and outside the servant girl comes forward to Peter, and it's the same word PROSERCHOMAI. So there's an intentional comparison and contrast going on in the minds of the authors of Scripture to bring out this particular contrast.

Jesus, who Paul compares to the first Adam, is successful in His trial and temptation, but Peter, like the first Adam, fails in his trial and temptation.

So she accuses him and says, "You also were with Jesus of Galilee". Mark says "Jesus of Nazareth". Nazareth was located in Galilee, so she may have said both. She was saying more than just one sentence. So what Mark says is true; what Matthew says is true.

His response is very strong. He denied it before them all. Mark says, "But he denied it, saying I neither know nor understand what you are saying." So here's the scene. She's in front of him. She says, "You were with Jesus of Nazareth," and he looks at her and there's a crowd around. He looks at her and says, "I neither know nor understand what you are saying", and then he looks at the crowd that's with her and says, "I don't know what you're so what you're saying". He's addressing her as well as the overall crowd.

Then we are told by Mark—and remember, Mark is the only one who says that Jesus predicted he would deny Him before the rooster crowed twice— "and a rooster crowed". This is the first time.

Another thing to point out here that is significant is that there are two ways that people understand the cock crowing. The first way is that this is talking about a literal rooster, and that this is talking about a rooster, which crowed once and then later on he crowed a second time. But also that idiom of the cock crowing was used as a technical term for the watch in the night. You will read different opinions on this and I don't know how to resolve that debate. One says that this is talking about a literal rooster crowing, the other saying no, this is talking about the watch in the night. The first cock crowing would be midnight, so the first cock crowing is indicating a timestamp here. It's my inclination is to think it's a literal rooster crowing but I'm not going to fight and die for either one.

The second denial then is described in verse 71. He gets away from the from the girl, goes out to the gateway and another girl saw him and said to those who were there, "This fellow also was with Jesus of Nazareth." And a second time he denies it. A little stronger, more forcefully he says, " do not know the man", and then he moves off and goes and he warms himself by the fire again.

Luke says about an hour had passed and another one confidently came up and said to Peter, "Surely you are one of them for you are a Galilean, and your speech shows it". Verse 7: I've conflated this with the synoptic accounts. Matthew 26:73 just says: "Surely you also are one of them for your speech betrays you." And the idea is that he's got this heavy accent from the north, and that exposes the fact that he's from Galilee. Just listen to somebody from Maine or somebody from Massachusetts or Boston some time I compare to somebody from Houston or south Louisiana and you can understand how accents giveaway the area from which you have come.

This third time he's even more strongly negative. He curses, he swears an oath, literally. "I don't know the man of whom you speak". And at this time, after that third denial Matthew says, "A rooster crowed". Mark says the rooster crowed a second time. So there are the three betrayals. It fulfills the prophecy.

This episode is put in this location by Matthew for a reason. He has not informed us about the first trial—that's John 18—he focuses on the second trial before Caiaphas, which is verses 57-68, and at the end He is being ridiculed by the guards, and they say to him, “Prophesy to us, You Christ; who is the one who hit You?” Of course He doesn't respond. But the way Matthew organizes the text is that he gives you the example of Peter's denial, which is the fulfillment of Jesus prophecy, telling the reader Jesus is a prophet who accurately predicted the future.

So this tells us what has what has transpired, and Mark closes it out by saying that a second time the rooster crowed. And then Peter called to mind the word that Jesus had said to him, "Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times", and when he thought about it, he wept.

Now there's something that neither Matthew nor Mark tell us, that is told by Luke in Luke 22:61. When the cock crows the second time Jesus is being moved from one location to another, so that He can look down and see Peter. He looks at Peter and Peter sees the Lord looking at him, and that is what drives the point home: that Peter remembered the word of Jesus before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times. And he went out and wept bitterly.

Now, as we look at what happens here the story does not end there. Peter is not mentioned again in Matthew, which I find interesting. He is not mentioned again by name. He is not mentioned at the tomb by name. You can do a search. This is the last time we hear about Peter in Matthew. Mark tells us about Jesus telling them to go tell the disciples "and Peter" to meet me in Galilee. Only Luke tells us of Peter running to the tomb with John on resurrection morning, as does John and his Gospel. But then John tells us of an event that occurs that is not mentioned in the other Gospels, that after Jesus goes to Galilee the disciples, Peter and the others, are out in their fishing boat. They have been fishing all night and they can't catch anything. And the Lord comes down and walks down to the beach and he shouts out to them: "Cast your net on the other side of the boat". They don't recognize him, and they cast their net to the other side of the boat and they bring in a hall of fish. Then Peter realizes that's the Lord.

We never are told when there's this meeting with Peter and he's forgiven, but Peter leaps out of the boat and he swims to the shore. And it is at that time that the Lord asked him three times, "Peter do you love me? Feed my sheep". Three times. That's a whole lesson in and of itself, but the point is that Peter is restored to fellowship with the Lord, and he is restored to ministry. There is no sin that we can commit where there's not a solution of forgiveness and restoration and our relationship with the Lord—restoration to spiritual growth and growing, and even restoration to ministry and service to the Lord.

There are a lot of people in legalistic churches that if you commit certain sins, then there's no restoration. That's it. You can't serve the Lord anymore because you did this or you did that or this is in your background, and that's just a denial of grace. Peter's forgiven after the horrible sin of denying Him Peter's forgiven and restored to an incredible ministry. We are all sinners; we all fail and fail, miserably at times, and some of the failures that are our worst, our mental attitude sins. I've been around the lot of pastors, I've been around pastors who have failed overtly speak in spectacular ways, and I have been a lot round a lot of pastors who people respect because of their high level of morality. But I also know them well enough to know that they have a high level of pride and arrogance, and that pride and arrogance is just as devastating and is just as deadly, even more so because it's hidden, as any overt sin could possibly be. The hypocrisy that takes place in churches about people's sin is just unbelievable. There is forgiveness. And if God forgives us and cleanses us from all unrighteousness, we need to completely forgive others and cleanse the slate.

Scripture says in Ephesians 1:7 and in Colossians that in Christ "we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace". And in Colossians 1:17, "in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins". Forgiveness is our possession as believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. We have remission of sin, and if we sin after were saved and we confess sin, God is so gracious that he forgives us of those sins that we that we admit to, but he goes on to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. That is what grace is all about.

Slides