How Many Times Did the Cock Really Crow?

Tom: Thanks, Gary. You are listening to Search the Scriptures Daily, a program in which we encourage everyone who desires to know God’s truth to look to God’s Word for all that is essential for salvation and living one’s life in a way that is pleasing to Him.

Our subject for the last few weeks has been alleged contradictory verses in the Bible. These have been declared by critics to be proofs that the Bible could hardly be what Christians claim—the Word of God. Dave, if the Bible does contradict itself, we would have to agree with the critics that it could not be God’s specific revelation to mankind. But too often people take the word of those who denigrate the Scriptures just on their say-so. They haven’t read the books themselves, yet the criticism supports the bias they feel towards it. But more troublesome is what happens among some Christians who profess to believe in the Bible but rather than checking out the so-called proofs of contradiction, they grit their teeth, dig in their heels, and exclaim that they are still going to hold to the Bible by faith, no matter what.

Dave: Mm-hmm. That’s an unfortunate reaction. I guess they think they are being loyal to the Lord and to His Word, but we’d better find out. If there are contradictions—and if that is the case—God does not contradict Himself, then this can’t be the Word of God. As you already said, we should be willing to discuss the issues. Something unscientific? Well, let’s check it out. Something that isn’t historically accurate? Let’s check it out. And, of course, as we’ve mentioned before, the Bible has been examined like no other book. I just finished writing the article, you know, for the newsletter, and it’s amazing—the staff reads it over—the things they find, the mistakes they find, even when I read over what I just wrote; the editing I want to do and the changes I want to make.

And yet the Bible—wow! It has been examined by critics for at least a couple thousand years and, I’m sure, before, but since Christ came, those who oppose Christianity have been trying to find some flaw, some contradiction, some inaccuracy, some unscientific statement. Tom, you couldn’t write a book like that, that would stand up under such scrutiny! And, as we’ve mentioned before, and everyone knows, forty different people, over 1,600 years—most of them did not know one another, they never met one another, there was no collusion, they came from different times, different cultures, and yet there is a cohesiveness and continuity to this book. Without contradiction, they confirm one another, they complement one another, it all is woven together into one fabric, one beautiful tapestry, you could say. One of the differences, of course, since Islam is much in the news and in peoples’ thoughts these days, that’s one of the differences between the Bible and the Qur’an.

Tom: And Muslim scholars advance the Qur’an over the Bible because, supposedly, it just had one author.

Dave: That’s not good! We’ve got to take his word for it. There were no witnesses; we have no proof that he was inspired of the angel Gabriel or Allah, speaking through the angel Gabriel—no proof of that. So, we have to look internally. There are many contradictions—we won’t go into that again—contradictions with the Bible. But every author in the Bible has 39 others to confirm him. There is no other book like that, and, of course, the internal evidence, the prophecies, etc.—absolute proof! So, one of the questions . . . you’ve got a contradiction now that somebody found.

Tom: Well, Dave, I am looking at your book, In Defense of the Faith, and on that basis you must hang around with a tough crowd, because we’re drawing our questions from your book, and some of these questions take, not just you, but they take the Bible to task—and other writings.

Dave: They’re challenging questions, and I like challenging questions. What’s the point of having something easy?

Tom: Because it reinforces your faith. Again, if this is God’s Word, it’s got to be true. And, even though you have to dig and work at it, you’re going to be all the more encouraged, more confident, in what you’ve got, again, which is God’s Word.

Let’s go to the first question, Dave. “In Matthew, Luke, and John, Jesus tells Peter that before the cock crows once the next morning he will deny Him three times. Yet in Mark 14, Jesus just as clearly tells Peter that his denial will come before the cock crows twice. This apparent contradiction troubles me. Can you help?”

Dave: Well, first of all, I don’t remember who this person was. I have files and files of these things. But it isn’t true that “in Matthew, Luke, and John, Jesus tells Peter, before the cock crows once.” It doesn’t say that. It says, “before the cock crows.” And that expression really means the time of the cock crowing. He’s not talking about a particular rooster somewhere.

Tom: So it’s a phrase used to just point to a certain time?

Dave: That’s right. There’s a time of the morning called, “the cock crowing.” That’s when the roosters—if one starts, they all join in. There’s a certain time. “Nature” has programmed them—not nature, but God has put this into them. They mark, I guess, the dawning of the day. So, that’s what Matthew, Luke, and John say: “It’s before the time of the cock crowing you will deny me three times.” But, Mark—he gives us some other details. He says . . .

Tom: Dave, before you go . . .

Dave: Okay, all right.

Tom: Because, you go into Mark:13:35Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning:
See All..., just to establish what you just said—this is verse 35, it says, “Watch ye therefore, for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cock crowing or in the morning.”

Dave: Right.

Tom: So that establishes—or reinforces—what you just said. But Mark then gets very specific, starting with chapter 14 verse 30.

Dave: Yeah, He says . . . well, Jesus is saying to Peter, “Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice.”

Tom:  Three times.

Dave:  Three times. Well, that’s an unusual statement in itself. Are we talking about a particular rooster somewhere? You wouldn’t say, “Before a rooster crows twice.” I mean, was there only one rooster around? I’m sure there were plenty of roosters in the neighborhood; which rooster are you talking about? Oh, there’s a particular pet rooster and he usually crows twice in the morning? (He probably crows more than that!) No, that’s not what it’s talking about! It’s a very unusual statement, first of all, and as we read the account, we find out that there was a rooster that crowed prematurely. That’s interesting! That’s amazing, because it was not until an hour later that all of the roosters began to crow. And the first rooster that crowed way ahead of schedule, he did it just after Peter denied Jesus the first time.

You really feel sorry for Peter, but it’s a reflection of our hearts. I was reading the account of some of the martyrs right now in Indonesia, in the Sudan, and one particular account I was reading—this was a woman, and she tells how when the jihad warriors attacked her village (they are fleeing into the jungle), her father couldn’t run fast enough. They caught up with him. He was cut to pieces with his own machete, and she said, “What hurt me the most was it was our Muslim neighbor who did it to him!”

But anyway, they were caught—that’s how she witnessed this. Her father would not renounce Christ. They were caught, and they were told—and several hundred of them confessed the shahada, the formula, “There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet,” and “we are circumcised to be made Muslims.” You don’t have to even believe in your heart. You just repeat the formula. And she said, “May God forgive us. We still retain Christ in our hearts—it didn’t change what we really believe, but they did it.”

Well, I can’t judge these people. I haven’t faced that situation. I don’t think I would do it. I can’t deny my Lord. Allah is not the God of the Bible; we won’t go into that, we’ve gone through that before. Allah is not a father; sixteen times in the Qur’an it denies that Allah could have a son. But the Bible is very clear. Jesus spoke of His Father. He is the God and Father of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

But anyway, you have to sympathize with Peter. I mean, in his bravado he said, “Though all deny thee, yet will not I! Lord, if I have to die I will remain loyal to you.” Well, we then focus on Peter quite a bit, but the scripture does say, “They all forsook him and fled,” every one of them. That includes John. Now, Peter followed from afar off, and, apparently, John—I don’t know exactly what his position was. He knew the high priest, and he was let in by a servant of the high priest.

So John is apparently inside watching this. He is at the foot of the cross. None of the other disciples were. On the other hand, we don’t read that John was protesting the innocence of Christ. I don’t know. The Bible doesn’t give us the entire account.

But I think our Lord was very gracious with Peter. First of all, he warned him, “the cock will not crow twice before you deny me thrice, three times.” Or, in the other three passages, “before the cock crowing, you will deny me three times.”

Tom: Now Dave, let me just ask you a question about that, because we have a specific, but then you said, “Before the . . .

Dave: “crowing of the cock”

Tom: “. . . crowing of the cock, you will deny me three times.” But we know that there was one in advance.

Dave: Right, but it was a single . . . it says, “a rooster crowed.” That was not “the cock crowing”—must have been a way ahead of time. But Peter, he was afraid for himself, and when someone says, “Well, didn’t I see you in the garden?”

I don’t know, he denies it, and a maid says, “Well, you sound like a Galilean. Your speech betrays you.” But the first time he denies, a rooster crows, just a single rooster. That should have brought Peter to repentance. The Lord was very gracious. But instead of that, he went on, twice more, and even with oaths and cursing, swearing, “I know not the man!” Then, after the third time, that is “the crowing of the roosters.” They all start to crow now; it’s the cock crowing time.

And, there is no contradiction in these accounts. But, as you said, when we face the contradiction and don’t just say, “Well, okay, I am going to believe the Bible regardless,” and we try to understand—it’s not a contradiction, and it shows us the graciousness of our Lord—and, of course, His control over roosters and His knowledge of the future.

We’ve discussed this in more detail in a book that we’ve just finished on Calvinism. We have discussed it in the newsletter—the fact that God knows the future. The fact that Jesus knew what Peter was going to do did not make Peter do it. That man has a free will, and, again, that’s—people jump at that! You know, “free will”—how are you free? You’re in bondage to sin and so forth. Yes, but we do struggle; we don’t have to make the choices that we make. If we are honest, we would look back and say, “I did not have to do that, but I did it.”

The fact that God knows in advance what we are going to do does not cause us to do it. And Jesus is speaking as God. He observes the universe from outside. That’s one of the problems with Star Wars Force. If it’s part of the universe, it’s running down like a clock. That’s one of the problems with, say, Hinduism. You have Transcendental Meditation though the god of Hinduism is not transcendent. He is “part of the universe.” This is pantheism, and so God . . .

Tom:  . . . and no solution to the problem. The problem is interwoven throughout God and everything else, if God is not transcendent.

Dave: Exactly! God is going down with the universe; He’s winding down. Somebody mentioned to me the other day—“Now you talk about the universe is running down like a clock. We don’t have those kinds of clocks anymore; you’ve got to explain it to people.” Anyway, the fact that God knows does not change events. Now, He can change events if He wants to; He’s not going to override our will. He has given us the power of choice so we can love Him, so we can know Him, so we can love one another. But time is part of this physical universe! Without time, there’s no motion, and God is not part of the physical universe. He is outside of time, and what is to us past, present, and future, to God is just one continuous now, one continuum. He sees it all. And if God would be tripped up, His foreknowledge would be tripped up, by our choice, and He wouldn’t know ahead of time what we were going to do, then He’s not God. Omniscience includes knowing the future, even though someone can make a choice.

So, Peter had a choice, and Christ warned him, and yet he went ahead with it. And then, after the third time he denies Him, and the cocks are crowing, the roosters are crowing all over the place, and, apparently, he can see . . . it must be an open place—he’s not right up there where the trial is, but he is in the courtyard, and Christ turns and looks at Peter! And, it says Peter went out and wept bitterly.

Oh, my, how many times has that happened in our lives? The remorse for something that we have done, and we knew that we didn’t have to do it. So, it’s a tremendous lesson for us, and I think the Lord is gracious in all of our lives.

Tom: Dave, as we’re looking through here (We’ve got other questions. We won’t get be able to get to all of them today with regard to alleged contradictions), but it makes me think about how we read the Scriptures. For example, some people want to be very literal in their understanding of everything they read. They say,

“No, no, this says this: the cock crowed,” so they want to be very specific, but they don’t give language the opportunity. But if you’re going to take them literally, they have to be meant to be taken literally. We are going to discuss this a little more when we get to the gospel of John in our last segment. But my point here is, if I’m looking at a phrase, and it’s really meant to be taken figuratively, I’m going to be in trouble if I can’t make the distinction. Somebody looks at the phrase, “at the cock crowing,” and they want that to be very specific when it’s not meant to be that way.

Dave: They want it to be one rooster.

Tom: Yeah, so we have to understand . . .

Dave: Of course . . .

Tom:  . . . if we are going to read the scriptures and understand what it says . . .

Dave: Right.

Tom: . . . get the true meaning, we’ve got to look at these devices and really understand them.

Dave: Well, you see the honesty, the disingenuousness, of the authors here. They are not in collusion with one another; they’re not trying to come up with something. Each author, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John—they provide a specific piece of information. They are writing about this from different viewpoints, as they do in other things as well, but it all ties together. This is a terrific testimony in court; if you have this kind of testimony in court, you’ve got a solid case.

Tom: Dave, let me go to another question right along this line: “I read something about Peter’s denial of the Lord that stumped me in a paper published by a group of atheists. It pointed out that according to Mark’s account; Peter’s second denial was the result of questioning by the same maid who precipitated his first denial (that’s Mark:14:69And a maid saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by, This is one of them.
See All...). But Matthew:26:71And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth.
See All... says it was another girl, and Luke:22:66-69 [66] And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying, [67] Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: [68] And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go. [69] Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.
See All..., and Matthew:26:71And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth.
See All..., have Peter leaving the fire in the courtyard and going to the gateway where he was questioned by whoever it was. But John:18:25And 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.
See All... has Peter warming himself at the fire in the courtyard when he was queried. How do we reconcile all this?”

Now Dave, that’s what I am talking about. As we’ll get in and explain this, somebody is trying to lock down a specific where it was not meant to be taken that way at all. Let’s go into this one.

Dave: Well, Tom, I am always amazed at what work people will go to, how diligently they will pursue their attempt to find errors, and, believe me, I have a letter—well, we got it at our ministry, I think it was a few months ago now, from a Muslim. This was in Nigeria or over in Africa somewhere—I’m sure that he had not searched all these things out. He must have gotten them from some Muslim or some book, but boy, he had all kinds of things like this, you know, that they were going to use to prove— the Qur’an is full of them.

I think we’ve run out of time, Tom, we’re going to have to leave our audience, but first of all, Mark:14:69And a maid saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by, This is one of them.
See All..., says a maid. It doesn’t say the same maid, and that’s consistent with Matthew’s another maid. And Luke:22:58And after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou art also of them. And Peter said, Man, I am not.
See All... doesn’t say it was a man, but when Peter replies, “Man, I know not,” that’s just an expression that you would use. So, again, as you said, taking this too literally but in an attempt to find a problem that really isn’t there.

Tom: Dave, I’ve gone over this passage and, as you say, we’re encouraging our listeners to do the same, but if they do, they’re going to see there are lots of people involved. More than one could have been accusing, questioning him. Likewise, he could have been addressing the men following, as you said, accusations by a maid. You’re dealing with a crowd, and, you know, voices are coming from this way and that way, so we don’t know specifically.

Dave: So, if she is addressing him in front of these men, he wants to defend himself to the men, of course.

Tom: Well, Dave, if you’re saying something to a group, you don’t know who is going to talk back to you, and these passages don’t tell us specifically.

Dave: There is no contradiction. It’s clear from both Matthew:26:71And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth.
See All... and Mark:14:69And a maid saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by, This is one of them.
See All... that she isn’t just talking to Peter. It says, “She said to them that were there . . .”

“. . . began to say to them that stood by.” So his response, “man,” is very appropriate.