We need to keep in mind that all the while the Jewish authorities were interrogating Jesus, Peter and probably Judas were in the courtyard, watching and listening to what went on just above them. The rooms, where Annas interrogated Jesus and where Caiaphas had arranged Jesus’ illegal trial with a portion of the Sanhedrin present, were in partial view and within earshot of Peter and Judas. That is, if Judas was, indeed, with Peter, who sat by the fire warming himself in the courtyard with the servants of the high priest. They probably couldn’t see everyone, but they could listen to what was said. The heads of some and the upper torso of a few others, including Jesus’, could be seen. So, the long night drew on.
A short while after Judas had arranged for Peter’s entrance (John 18:15-16), the maid who let Peter into the high priest’s palace asked Peter if he was one of Jesus’ disciples (John 18:17), which, of course he denied (Mark 14:66-68), leaving the warmth of the fire to stand at the porch or hall leading to the courtyard. While he did so, the cock crew for the first time. Not long afterward, another maid told the men who stood by that Peter was one of Jesus’ disciples, and one of them questioned Peter, but once again he denied knowing Jesus, this time with an oath (Mark 14:69-70; cp. Matthew 26:72; Luke 22:58). Finally, about an hour later (Luke 22:59) a relative of the man, whose ear Peter had cut off, came to him saying he saw him in the garden (John 18:26) and another agreed, saying Peter’s speech is that of a Galilean. Therefore, he must be one of Jesus’ disciples (Mark 14:70). Nevertheless, Peter denied knowing Jesus a third time, swearing and calling curses down upon himself, if he was lying (Mark 14:71). Immediately afterward the cock crew for a second time. Then, Peter remembered, and, looking up at the Lord, their eyes met (Luke 22:61). Full of remorse over what he had done, Peter ran outside and wept bitterly (Mark 14:72; Luke 22:62).
Peter’s denials need to be put into context, because so many believe it was an act of cowardice, but I believe it was for another reason. Otherwise, Peter was nothing more than a blowhard (Mark 14:31; Matthew 26:33, 35)! Consider, when the disciples permitted the mob to take Jesus without violence, there had to have been a discussion afterward. Judas had to answer to the others and hide what he had done. Furthermore, it must have been agreed that the disciples needed to know what went on at the high priest’s palace, so they could know what to do to gain Jesus’ release. Undoubtedly, this would have been Judas’ idea. He was a zealot, and political intrigue and violence served his overall purpose. Something like this must have occurred, so Peter was elected or volunteered to go with Judas to find out the end of the matter (Matthew 26:58). In other words, there was a plan in place, but Peter needed to remain anonymous for the sake of the plan, if it were to be successful. Therefore, Peter did the unthinkable. He denied he had ever known his Lord, even with curses and oaths.
Nevertheless, there is a problem with the plans of men, who seek to serve the Lord through strategies of their own devising. We do not have the power to cause them to work out as we desire. Often things go awry, and this is especially so, if our agreement is with those who are still in rebellion against the Lord. We are warned by Paul to make a wide path around such things, because the Lord isn’t in such agreements (2Corinthians 6:14-18). Most often this scripture is used to advise believers against marrying unbelievers, but marriage isn’t the context of Paul’s argument. Rather, he speaks against any unfair agreement with an unbeliever, concluding that just as there is no agreement between light and darkness, or righteousness with unrighteousness, or the Temple of God (the believer) with idols (the unbeliever), plans made with unbelievers will never serve the cause of Christ.[1]
_______________________________________________________
[1] It is November of 2020 as I conclude this portion of my study in Mark’s Gospel (I am about two years ahead of scheduling this study for publishing). Evangelical Christianity had been most adamant in their support of Donald Trump for his election in 2016 and again for his reelection in 2020. The man is arrogant, lied so often that truth was something unknown by many. He slandered others and thought to undermine the free press. He had wickedly separated immigrant children from their parents and imprisoned them in stockades, and supported terrorists like white supremacist groups and foreign dictators. He threatened folks who testified against his behavior, and he has undermined our democracy by refusing to concede an election that he had legitimately lost. Why has Evangelical Christianity supported him? They have repeatedly claimed, because he promised to put conservative judges on the Supreme Court that would abolish abortion. Will this be successful? I doubt it, because the word of God preaches against it. The plans of the righteous made with the unrighteous don’t serve the cause of Christ. The Lord commissioned his disciples to preach the Gospel, not make agreements with Caesar. Such agreements, even if they work out as planned, will never serve the cause of Christ. I have heard testimony after testimony that folks see Evangelical Christianity as hypocritical, and they refuse to be a part of them. In other words, many would be followers of Christ reject him, because of what Evangelical Christianity has done. The Gospel was traded for a plan to end abortion. But if abortion is to be abolished, it will be done through the Gospel, not through a plan of convenience made by men who refuse to labor in the Gospel to achieve that end, patiently waiting for the Lord to bring about what he desires.
Smoodock's Blog 