Synoptics 315, 316, and 330

Peter’s Denial and the Meaning of the Rooster Crow

Much brighter than it was before. We need the peroxide. We still, you know, after all these years, you still haven't brought your Philips and your Loctite. We really need Philips and Loctite. This is just, how old is this thing now?

I mean, wow. It's getting really... We're Reformed Baptists. We don't change very quickly at all. What was I saying? So Moses was in the bulrushes, and yes, Luke gives us a very brief recounting of this, where instead of the conversation you have in Matthew and Mark, you have Simon saying, Behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail.

When you have turned again, strengthen your brethren. And he said to him, Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death. He said, I tell you, Peter, the cock will not crow this day until you three times deny that you know me.

So, just in passing, that 31st verse of chapter... 31 and 32 of chapter 22 in Luke, one of the key Petrine texts in Roman Catholicism, in other words, Rome looks at that text as the sea, Jesus prays specifically for Peter, and when he is turned again, he is to strengthen his brethren, etc.

And this has to do with the exaltation of Peter to the position of highest authority in the church. Interestingly enough, that is a viewpoint that no one in the early church thought of, but as things developed over time, they came up with that idea.

Now, in all of these, you have Peter, in essence, saying, I will lay down my life for you, I will not deny you. There is this level of confidence and really pride, arrogance, possibly, on the part of Peter.

We know Peter is an impetuous speaker. One of my favorite stories in the Bible is when Peter, James, and John are on the Mount of Transfiguration, and Peter just has to say something. And so he suggests a construction project on the mountain, and I think it's Luke that's kind enough to say that Peter did not know what he was talking about.

And I appreciate the kindness with which that was expressed, but Peter says, I will not deny you. Now, obviously, one of the common objections and statements that is directed toward the New Testament, as far as errors, is the number of times that the rooster crows.

And you will notice that the only difference in this is that Mark, you have Matthew saying, before the cock crows. You have Luke saying, the cock will not crow this day. John says, truly I say to you, the cock will not crow.

And Mark has, before the cock crows, twice. Now, I don't know about the rest of you, but it seems to me that for the cock to crow twice, it had to have done it the first time. So when people jump on this, I go, well, first of all, what does it mean for the cock to crow?

I mean, that's a standard kind of statement. We who don't live, well, I suppose if you live out in the Northwest Valley, or maybe out in the outer portions of the valley, almost anywhere anymore, but it's been pushed farther and farther and farther out over the years.

I've been here over 40 years now, and there are still some places I'll be out riding, you know, real early in the morning out along the canal or something like that, way out toward 83rd and 91st, stuff like that.

And there's still some farms and things like that out there that have livestock and things like that. And so you'll still, there's still a few places where you can hear the roosters doing their thing at sunrise.

But for most of us, that's no longer how we are woken up in the morning or anything else. We all have our very accurate time pieces and smartphones and everything else to get us up at the exact right time.

But obviously in days past, time phraseology was considerably less exact than it is today. In fact, as I mentioned, well, did I mention? Well, as we will mention anyways, no, I mentioned at the G3 conference, when you're talking about the hour of Christ's crucifixion, one of the things we're going to notice is that John uses the Roman system of timekeeping versus Matthew, Mark, and Luke, who used the Jewish system of timekeeping.

And as a result, instead of starting at sunrise, it starts at midnight, so there's a number of hours difference between. But even then, what was interesting is what they would do is they would, instead of daylight savings time and odd stuff like that, they would just simply divide the number of hours of daylight into 12 equal portions.

So if you, you know, it'd be like I was in Norway a few weeks ago, and it was, there was only like seven hours of light during the day. And so they still have 12 hours. You just divide that seven hours into 12 segments.

So an hour would change its size rather than playing around with your clocks or having sunrise at a different time because, you know, that actually makes sense when you think about it. So there are a lot of different ways of not only telling time, but also different ways of dividing years.

Many of the cultures back then, you know, we're so accustomed to, you know, December 31st, January 1st. Everybody knows Chinese New Year is different, for example. But that's been common all along. And so a lot of times when there are conflicts and trying to figure out what year a certain event took place in history, it's because, well, you know, we have some evidence that took place in the third year of King so-and-so.

Okay, were they using the accession method or non-accession method? Eh? Because there would be an accession year, and then the first year, the anniversary of his having come to throne would begin year number one.

And then some countries didn't do it that way. Some nations would just start from that. It just creates a massive mess that makes it real easy for atheists and stuff to simplistically throw out, oh, there's all these errors and stuff like that.

It's a whole lot harder to actually deal with the material. Anyways, coming back to Peter, if you put the four stories together, you can see exactly what takes place. And it's interesting that when Mark gives us the fulfillment of this, he doesn't have the cock crowing once somewhere along the line, and then only the second time does Peter go, oh, oh, he said I would deny him three times.

I've denied him three times. No, it doesn't do that. So all Mark is doing is giving more information. And I think Matthew, Luke, and John are just simply using the phrase in a standard temporal way. I'm not sure what the cock crows twice means other than I've certainly heard them when I have been in rural settings.

And it does seem like when the sun really gets up, there's more of a, I don't know, maybe they sound like us. Ever heard us singing that opening hymn? It's pretty bad. You know, some of us haven't hardly said anything yet this morning other than morning.

And so especially if it starts off too high, all of us guys are like, one, two, three, four, five, you know, it's horrible. But by the time the sun's really up there, they've gotten warmed up, and they really give you the cock-a-doodle-doo type thing.

So maybe that's what it's about. I don't know. But the point is that there are three denials, and that it is the sounding of the rooster that will remind Peter. And the point is, this is at night when it's being told, this is the mark of the beginning of the day.

And so what Jesus is saying is, really? You'll give your life for me? You'll go to the grave? You'll never deny me? You've got less than 12 hours, and you're going to deny me three times. And when Peter does this, as we will see, we will read the stories later on, they fall later in the narrative, Peter goes out and weeps bitterly, especially since we're given the information in one instance that Jesus looks upon him.

He's close enough to Jesus for Jesus to know what has happened, and he goes out and weeps bitterly. And certainly there is this, it's interesting, I won't take the time to refute all of it, but I listened sometime last year to a particular, fairly well-known New Testament scholar who's come up with this interesting theory, which requires you to throw the entirety of the New Testament out, but hey, New Testament scholars come up with stuff like that, where in essence he believes that Matthew is seeking to identify Peter as a false teacher and a false prophet.

And he uses this story to say that Peter is actually in parallel with Judas. And it may sound insane to you right now, but it's amazing how believable he can make it sound, as long as you don't have to worry about taking the New Testament as a whole.

As long as you can put Matthew over here, because he admits that's not what Mark and Luke and Peter or Paul, Matthew is off by himself, so what he's done is he's taken an axe and gone whack! And once you do that, you can come up with all sorts of really believable theories.

And it's interesting, this fellow is a part of the evangelical, or was he the one that was kicked out? Anyways, Norman Geisler went after him years ago, said he really didn't believe in inerrancy, and Norman Geisler is an odd and interesting fellow, but he was right about this one.

He's been vindicated on that particular one, because this guy has come up with these wild and crazy theories. Anyway, so we have the denial of Peter, and certainly in light of what Luke tells us, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail, and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.

Did Peter hold on to those words as he wept, as he went out into the darkness and wept, and recognized his weakness and his failure? Did he even remember? You think about the time period between the crucifixion and the resurrection, what a dark, dark time it was, as reflected in, for example, the words of the disciples to Jesus on the road to Emmaus.

What a dark, dark time it was, and how much did they reflect back upon these words? How much light in that darkness did these words give, or was it only upon later reflection that they really began to understand?

Luke's going to tell us in Luke 24 that Jesus has to open their minds to understand the Scriptures and their testimony to him. It was a difficult time, but one thing we certainly get from Jesus' words here is that while Satan demanded to have Peter, Jesus says, no, and that's all there is to that.

So, for all those Gnostics out there that try to, you know, the word-faith Gnostics, who say that in essence you have two equal competing deities, light and darkness, and that it's our positive confession that allows God to work in this world, seems to make a lot of money, but it's pretty weird, not found in the New Testament by any stretch of the imagination.

And from Jesus' perspective, and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren. So, certainly Peter must have felt at this point in time that he could never resume his role amongst the twelve. And, of course, I use the term twelve knowing Judas has gone out.

The twelve just became a name. That's why it's used elsewhere, even after Judas is gone. I mean, they just became known as the twelve. Even when there was eleven, they were still known as the twelve. And that's why there was such a desire in Acts chapter one to get number twelve back in there.

I've always been of the opinion, I could be wrong, that what you have with choosing Matthias was not God's doing. There was this other guy, if they just waited long enough, they would have found him, named Paul.

The Sword, Household Defense, and the Transition in Jesus’ Ministry

But anyway, that's another issue. The point is God is in control of this particular situation. Section 316 is funny. We go from one that has four parallels to Luke alone. Luke alone, in Luke 22, 35 -38.

And he said to them, when I sent you out with no purse or bag or sandals, did you lack anything? They said, nothing. He said to them, but now let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag, and let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one.

For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me. And he was reckoned with transgressors. For what is written about me has its fulfillment. And they said, look, Lord, here are two swords. And he said to them, it is enough.

Now, just in passing, there are some who have theorized that what we have here is the militant Jesus. If any of you have ever listened to my debunking of Achmed Didat, one of Didat's theories was that Jesus was hiding in fear of the Jews.

He knew of their plans. He had armed his men and was preparing for a fight. Well, I don't know about you, but two swords amongst twelve guys, yeah. We've got some military gentlemen with us this morning.

Do you all normally have two guns amongst twelve guys on the front? It's not a really good idea? No. Only if they're chaplains. Okay, all right. That's good. All right. It's obvious to me that, and certain Jewish apologists do the same thing.

There's this one rabbi, Shmuley Boteach, who's a friend of Michael Brown. He wrote a book a couple years ago called The Kosher Jesus. His whole thing was, look at this, and Jesus is getting ready to lead a revolution.

Yeah, okay. Two swords, lead a revolution against the Romans. That's good. You'd have to be really dumb to have thought that two swords was going to do this. The point is, Jesus is looking forward. He's letting the disciples know that the transition is now taking place and that their life in ministry is going to be significantly different in the future.

And while they had been sent out by him with no purse or bag or sandals, they did not lack anything. But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. Let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one.

In other words, they're going to be going a lot farther. They're not just going to be going out on short missions, trips, and then returning to Jesus. They're going to be driven out from amongst men. And it's hard to miss that the reason for purchasing the sword is not for revolution.

It's not for protection of Jesus that night or anything along those lines. And in fact, when Peter draws the sword in the garden, Jesus says, Put your sword up. You've misunderstood what my purpose was.

But it seems rather clear that even in Jesus' parables, he talks about, for example, the man breaking into the house and binding the strong man and so on and so forth. And what's behind all of that in the standard understanding of the people of that day would be the responsibility that a person has to care for one's family.

You can't understand some of the things that Jesus said, unless it's pretty obvious that the father of the household had the responsibility to care for the wife and the children and to defend them if need be.

There were robbers on the roads. And there's nothing in what it says, Turn the other cheek. That really was about insults, not harming of the body and stealing of the property and loss of life and so on and so forth.

And so it does seem to me that the Christian pacifist movement, which has a long history, has missed some of the background and some of the most basic things. And some of you may recall, when was it? I don't know, about five, six years ago.

It didn't become a big brouhaha, but John Piper posted a blog article about how he felt about not defending his home if it were broken into, if a man broke into his home in the middle of the night, because this guy, you know, I'm ready to go to heaven, whoever's breaking into my house probably isn't.

And I wrote a response, and I said, I don't get that. I think a man has a moral responsibility to protect his family, and if in the providence of God a man breaks into somebody else's house, they're forfeiting a lot in so doing, including their right to safety.

And while I would love to have the opportunity of evangelizing such a person, if he's heading for my kids or my wife, he better have been evangelized beforehand, because he's about to meet his maker. And it didn't result in any big debates or anything like that, but I've just never quite gotten that particular perspective, but there are folks that hold that perspective.

I'm sorry? Okay. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. You need to understand, a .44 would be really stupid to use in a house, because that would kill your neighbor, too. There are certain weapons appropriate for home defense, and there are others that are not appropriate for home defense.

If it's going to go through your house and the neighbor's house and the next neighbor's house, that's not a good thing to do, and most of our houses really aren't all that well built these days. Anyway, that being said, let's move on to the next important section, which is all the way over on 297, Section 330, because we've already done everything that's in between, because we did John 14, 15, 16, 17.

We did all those, and they appear here in the narrative, but we already covered all of that, and so now we move into Gethsemane, and this is a, obviously, I've been, you know, when you look at it here, if we're on 297 and the last page of material is 337, that's it.

The end is draweth nigh, but, of course, as I'm looking at my schedule, right now I've got two-week trips to Zurich, Florida, Texas, and a possible weekend in Spain, and then we've got Salt Lake, so it might take a while, and that's just between now and July.

No, no, September. So we'll see. We'll see how all that works out, but we're making progress. We're making progress. We'll get there someday. Some of you don't know what to do if we actually start a study someplace else.

Gethsemane, the Arrest, and the Betrayal by Judas

It's like, what? What is he doing? I don't know, but we'll get there eventually. Section 330, Gethsemane, obviously, as I've said many times, this section of the study is going to throw the most difficult synoptic parallel issues at us.

We've had some tough ones in the past, but there is no question that as far as for me in preparation, you as far as if you do preparation or study, this could be the toughest material. There's no question about it.

And almost all, outside of the birth narratives, it is the arrest, crucifixion, resurrection narratives that are the focus of the vast majority of accusations of contradiction when it comes to the New Testament.

So everything we've learned in the past, and one of the problems in doing this as slowly as we've done it, is that we have addressed so many of the fundamental mechanisms that we must bring to bear in the interpretation of these texts, literally in years gone by.

We've talked about telescoping, and we've talked about looking at the author's intention and audience and all that stuff, and we've applied it numerous times. But some of that, when did we start again, George?

Yeah, I know, your other notebooks. I know, but we looked at... It was like nine years, wasn't it? 2006? Yeah, somewhere around there. So if you weren't with us at that particular point in time, that might give you some idea that when I say something, we're not just throwing it out there for the fun of it.

We've gone over a lot of this stuff before, and that is one of the disadvantages of being as thorough as we have been. But we will probably have to review a couple of those things as we start looking at these particular sections.

Let's look at Matthew chapter 26, beginning at verse 36. In small print, it reminds us that when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. So after the supper and after the establishment of what we call the Lord's Supper, there is a singing of a hymn, which certainly would have been derived from the Psalter, almost undoubtedly, and how interesting it would be to hear the apostolic band singing.

That would have been quite the thing to hear. And then they got to the Mount of Olives, and it seems rather clear, it is interesting, that this seems to have been an apostolic meeting place, that the vineyard there where olives were pressed to create olive oil, we have historically and archaeologically found an enclosure there.

It was sort of a cave, but not really. It was a cave that was used for pressing the olives. And then there was a hole in the roof that would allow light in. And there seems to be good reason to think that this may have been one of the favorite places for Jesus and disciples to go overnight.

Because I know we don't get this, but I remember back, I've lived here for 40 years, but I do remember when we lived in Pennsylvania, that there is this fascinating phenomenon called DEW. D-E-W. And it's amazing.

You'll get up in the morning, and it's like they turned the irrigation on all night. But they didn't. It's God's irrigation. It's fascinating. And you walk through the grass, and your feet get soaked, but it didn't rain.

And for those of us in the desert, we're like, what is that? Well, it happens there. And if you're laying out in the open in certain times of the year there, you will get soaked. If you're on the ground, you will end up quite soaked unless you have something over you to protect you.

And so there seems to be good reason to think that this enclosure that has been discovered that goes all the way back to that time period may have been where the disciples stayed and had cover from the elements because they also have something called rain there.

And it's necessary for us to cover these strange historical contexts that those of us here in the Sonoran Desert have a difficulty understanding, not just during the monsoon season. And so this may have been where it was taking place.

John tells us when Jesus spoke in these words, he went forth with his disciples across the Kidron Valley where there was a garden which he and his disciples entered. And so that is named for us specifically by Matthew and Mark.

Then Jesus went with them to a place called Gethsemane. And he said to his disciples, sit here while I go yonder and pray. And taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, so interestingly enough the same three that had been on the Mount of Transfiguration, taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, he began to be sorrowful and troubled.

Then he said to them, my soul is very sorrowful even to death. Remain here and watch with me. And going a little farther, he fell on his face and prayed. Now, just in passing once again, the theory that is put forward by D-Dot and others is that, see, this is the nine, well, the nine are on perimeter watch and the three are the bodyguard.

And so he's setting up his military defenses here, is the idea that they try to read into this. You will notice, if that's the case, that the disciples are pretty lousy at this. Because, as you will notice, they keep falling asleep.

So it's, I don't know about you, but they didn't seem to be overly nervous at this point in time or excited. At this point, Judas had already left, right? Ah, yeah, yeah, well, well, yes, yes, yes. So it's only eight, yeah, so it's only eight, yeah.

So it's only eight on the perimeter and three. Yeah, it's even less, yeah, that's even worse, yeah. You're right, you're right. So thank you for that numerological correction. Got to keep, yeah, good, all right.

And going a little further, he fell on his face and prayed, My father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me, nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. And he came to the disciples and found them sleeping, and he said to Peter, So could you not watch with me one hour?

Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. Again, for the second time he went away and prayed, Father, if this cannot pass until I drink it, thy will be done.

And again he came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were heavy. So leaving them again, he went away and prayed for the third time, saying the same words. Then he came to the disciples and said to them, Are you still sleeping and taking your rest?

Behold, the hour is at hand. The Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us be going. See, my betrayer is at hand. While he was still speaking, Judas came, section 331, and with him a great crowd with swords and clubs, and the chief priests and the elders of the people.

Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, The one I shall kiss as the man sees him. And he came up to Jesus at once and said, Hail, Master, and he kissed him. Jesus said to him, Friend, why are you here?

Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him. Now, Mark is very close to Matthew, but there are a few interesting additions. For example, when Jesus prays, he says,. And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee.

Remove this cup from me, yet not what I will, but thou wilt. He comes and speaks to the disciples. He went again and goes and prays. Interestingly enough, there is no mention of, in Matthew, their being awoken the second time, but Mark has, and again he came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were heavy, and they did not know what to answer him, so there really wasn't much of a discussion.

He came a third time. He doesn't bother to mention Jesus going and praying, but it's assumed. In both, you have the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Then, pretty much the same story in regards to the betrayal by Judas.

Luke does not give nearly as much information as you can see. He telescopes some of it. The essence of the prayer is pretty much the same. He doesn't mention the drawing away of the three disciples from the body, but just simply says that he withdrew from them a stone, threw, knelt down, and prayed.

The prayer is pretty much the same. He does not mention them multiple times. Instead, it goes directly to, while he was still speaking, there came a crowd. A man called Judas, one of the twelve, was leading them.

He drew near Judas to kiss him, but Judas said to him, Judas, would you betray the Son of Man with a kiss? There is the information given in regards to the conversation. Maybe what is said, friend, why are you here, is said audibly to all.

Luke records for us the more personal statement to Judas, would you betray the Son of Man with a kiss? What's interesting to me is, in all three, you have the phraseology, Son of Man. If I were you, I would keep an eye on that phrase, especially as it's going to be used over the next few chapters.

In this chapter, in Mark, because in just a number of verses, about 20 verses, you're going to see one of the most important uses of this particular phrase. I'll just mention again in passing, this is your burden to bear in having me as your Sunday School teacher once in a while.

There are those who have this very odd theory, that the Son of Man is someone other than Jesus. Bart Ehrman believes that the Son of Man is an eschatological figure that Jesus was pointing ahead to. When I debated Shabir Ali at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, one of the arguments that he raised there was, Jesus is not the Son of Man, hence that section in John 14, where he quotes about the Son of Man appearing before the Ancient of Days, is something future?

It's not about Jesus. I don't know about you, but it's painfully obvious to me that that requires such a complete discombobulation. I like that word, discombobulation. Atomizing, cutting apart of the text.

Because, what are you saying to Judas? What is Jesus saying to the disciples? Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. It's obviously referring to exactly what's going on, and he's the Son of Man.

It's so obvious, it makes you wonder, how can this be? But again, you and I operate on the idea that you actually have to listen to all that Matthew says, and all that Mark says, and all that Luke says, and there's this light that can be shed upon the New Testament by the New Testament.

And so much of modern scholarship, that's not even allowed any longer. But it's painfully obvious. This is a reference to Jesus himself, and he's referring to himself as the Son of Man. Now, let me... five minutes, right?

Let me just emphasize something here that I think is important for us to understand. What's going on here? Why is, as Luke describes it, in an amazing fashion... Where did they put it? Well, where is...

I'm missing something here in this text. Where is the Lukan version of the angels ministering to Jesus? I'm sorry? Well, yeah, but is that in yours? Because it's not in mine. Y 'all seen the same thing I am?

It's not there. Mine goes from 42 to 45. Well, that's interesting. Well, isn't that interesting? Well, there it is, the bottom of the page. Golly, Bob. If you look at the bottom of the page, there is a textual variant.

I just didn't expect them to put it into footnotes at this point. Interesting. And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. Being in agony, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down upon the ground.

Okay, maybe, let's see, paragraph 298 says there's a parallel... No, that's... This is... No. Does 298 have something there? Does it? Yep. Interesting. Anyway, there is a textual variant at that point.

Unfortunately, having wasted all that time finding the small print at the bottom of the page, we will definitely pick up with this. So what I'll do is I'll put it this way. I'll ask you, because I know that I will be here...

Well, Lord willing, I will be here next week. Do you find it incongruous that the Son of Man, who, for example, has shown confidence in the fact that Peter's faith will not fail, that he is going to turn again and strengthen his brethren, who has repeatedly said, the Son of Man must be betrayed in the hands of sinners, he will be scourged, beaten, crucified, and rise again the third day, that in his prayer to the Father, repetitively, it is, do I have to drink this cup?

I will do your will, but if it be possible, let this cup pass from me. Is this fear on the part of Jesus at his own death? I've had many a Muslim point to this and say, this is an obvious sign of the corruption of the Bible because a prophet of God would never be fearful in this way.

I've had some even mock these sections. So, what's going on here? That is something that we need to focus upon. I think we need to be ready to give an answer for. And that's what we'll talk about when we start next time.

Make a note. Great keeper of the notes. Keepers of the note. We have multiple keepers of the notes. So, that's what we'll pick up next time around. Let's close time prayer. Heavenly Father, we do thank you for your word and we thank you, of course, for the revelation it gives to us of the great self-giving of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

We ask that as we study these things, our hearts will once again be filled with thanksgiving and wonder at the great price that has been paid for our redemption. As we go into worship now, lift up our hearts that we may understand your truth and may honor and glorify you.

We pray in Christ's name. Amen. I'm sorry?