How Could Peter Deny Christ Three Times?

Tom: We’re continuing with the gospel. We’re in the Gospel of John:18:24Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.
See All..., “Now Annas had sent him [speaking about Jesus] bound unto Caiaphas the high priest. 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.” Verse 26: “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? Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.” Or crowed.

Dave: Yeah, this is Old English. Well, Tom, it’s a sad commentary here on, I’m afraid, all of us. Peter wants so much to be loyal to his Lord, and yet he’s trying to protect his own skin. He pulled out his sword, and he’s not a very good swordsman. Aimed to cut off his head….

Tom: No, he’s used to filleting fish.

Dave: Yeah, got his ear. Of course he doesn’t know that this is a relative. But it’s a little bit frightening to him. This man says he was in the Garden. “Didn’t I see you in the garden with him?” And Peter is just backpedaling as fast as he can.

“No, no, no, no! I don’t know him.” He’s denying Jesus. He has in his heart—well, he’s going to go out and weep bitterly. He’s ashamed of himself. But he’s only proving what Jesus said. You know, Peter had said, “Well I’ll die with you!”

Jesus said, “No, Peter, you will eventually die.” In fact, he was crucified, and tradition says he wanted to be crucified upside down, because he wasn’t worthy to be crucified as his Lord was. Jesus said, “Yeah, you’ll follow me. But not right now.” You see if all the disciples had been crucified with Jesus, it would almost look like, well, they participated in our salvation. Or they paid for their own sins, and Christ paid for the sins of others. It wouldn’t work. It couldn’t happen. Christ had to do it alone.

They all forsook him and fled, but Peter, he’s trying so hard. You just can’t help but love Peter. He’s so impulsive, and he said, “Lord I’ll do it! I’ll die with you.” And then he fled to save his own skin. And then he’s ashamed. So then he follows afar off, and then he kind of sneaks in. John actually comes and asks the servant to let Peter in. John is known to the high priest.

And now here’s Peter. Dear Peter. Well, the Lord is going to empower him. He’s going to be a changed man. But not at this point. So he’s done exactly what Christ said. He denied Jesus three times. And then the cock crows, the rooster crows. Now that means actually not just one, but it’s the time for the cock crowing. And if we read Mark’s Gospel, Mark gives it to us a little more precisely. Jesus actually said, “Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me thrice.” So Mark tells us that after the first time Peter denied him, then a rooster crowed. Obviously out of sync with the rest of them. This rooster got his time schedule mixed up. And he’s…one lone rooster crows. That was the grace of God. “Peter, remember what I said? Now before it crows again, you will deny me two more times. Now Peter, this is a warning.” And Peter, he couldn’t help himself. He denies Christ two more times. It says an hour later actually, so this one rooster crowed an hour too soon. And then all the roosters began their chorus. What a tragedy.

“Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the Passover.

Tom: Dave, let me digress a little bit. Earlier we were talking about The Passion of the Christ. And I mentioned that that was Mel’s vision. Not only taken from the Scriptures as he understood them, but also, he had some other sources. Visionaries, Catholic…those in the process of becoming Catholic saints. Now, what I’m getting at here is, how much of that—somebody says, “Well Mel’s just…it’s a film. It’s not the Scriptures. This is not a documentary. Mel is just taking artistic license.” Can you take artistic license with something that’s so foundational, so important as the Word of God?

Dave: Well, Tom, if a person wants to fill in things, go ahead. If you’re preaching, and I’m trying to…we’re giving some explanation here that is not there, but we’re trying to take it exactly from the Bible. We’re not adding something to the Bible. But if you want to say, “Well, I think this is the way it happened, I suppose.” But, you see, the film….

Tom: Is that accurate?

Dave: The film is—no, it’s not accurate. The film is passed off as presenting it as it is in the Scriptures. It does not present it as it is in the Scriptures. You see, I have a problem again—Tom, we’re going to get more letters, I’m going to upset more people out there, but…

Tom: But, Dave this is a film. Everybody has—I’m saying it’s a film. People are entitled to their opinion. You go see other films, and somebody says, “Well, I like it for this reason, I didn’t like it for this reason.” So what’s the problem here? Except that there are some issues that we think, I believe, are critical with regard to the way people are receiving this.

Dave: Yeah, but, Tom, it’s beyond that. It’s more fundamental than that. The scripture says, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” We are born again by the Word of God. “And this the word which by the gospel is preached unto you….” Over, and over and over, the Scripture says we live by the Word, we meditate upon the Word. Now when we think that we can improve the Bible—or are we going to make it more understandable? Are we going make it clearer to people by acting it out on the screen? In my opinion, Tom, and people…thank you for saying what you just said. People can come to their own conclusions. I don’t think you should tamper with the Word of God by trying to act it out on a screen.

First of all, you can’t act out the part of Jesus. Nobody can play that. But the Bible is the Word of God. This is God’s Word. He’s the Creator! It’s inspired of the Holy Spirit. “Every word of God is pure.” This is what the scripture says. Then I think let’s stick with the Word. That would be a major complaint that I would have. And I know that there are many people who disagree with me. And I don’t run around preaching and saying, “Don’t go to this film, and don’t do this, and don’t do that.” I’m expressing my conviction and my opinion from the Scriptures.

Tom: Well, Dave, let me add one more thing to this. As the week of taping of this program, on Monday they had an ABC movie that reached millions of people. It was called Judas. It was a Paulist production. The Paulists, the Paulist Fathers of Roman Catholicism, and so on. Now I would imagine that those who loved Mel Gibson’s film hated—if they saw this one. But, you know, one was from now from the point of view of Judas, done by basically a Roman Catholic production.

On the other hand, Mel is a traditionalist Roman Catholic. A pre-Vatican II, Latin Mass-oriented Catholic.

Now, you want to talk about relative here? You hated one, but you love the other. Yet both coming from a very Roman Catholic point of view. Aren’t we in an area here that gets a bit mushy with regard to saying yes, this one was good, and that one was bad?

Dave: Well, Tom, I get back to what I said. I’m concerned that our understanding of the Bible is being changed through these films. I want to get back to the Bible.