Could Peter Not Have Denied Christ Three Times?

Luke 22:31–34 (ESV)

³¹“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat,

³²but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.”

³³Peter said to him, “Lord, I am ready to go with you both to prison and to death.”

³⁴Jesus said, “I tell you, Peter, the rooster will not crow this day, until you deny three times that you know me.”

 Luke 22:54–62 (ESV)

⁵⁴Then they seized him and led him away, bringing him into the high priest’s house, and Peter was following at a distance.

⁵⁵And when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and sat down together, Peter sat down among them.

⁵⁶Then a servant girl, seeing him as he sat in the light and looking closely at him, said, “This man also was with him.”

⁵⁷But he denied it, saying, “Woman, I do not know him.”

⁵⁸And a little later someone else saw him and said, “You also are one of them.” But Peter said, “Man, I am not.”

⁵⁹And after an interval of about an hour still another insisted, saying, “Certainly this man also was with him, for he too is a Galilean.”

⁶⁰But Peter said, “Man, I do not know what you are talking about.” And immediately, while he was still speaking, the rooster crowed.

⁶¹And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the saying of the Lord, how he had said to him, “Before the rooster crows today, you will deny me three times.”

⁶²And he went out and wept bitterly.

............

The careful reader is left with some troubling options:

-        Could Peter, on his own free will have chosen not to deny Jesus three times over and against Jesus’ prediction?

-        Was Jesus unable to prevent Peter from falling to the temptation of denying him by his prayer? I mean, Jesus just told Peter in verse 32 that he prayed so that Peter’s faith would not fail. Yet, it did fail three times before the rooster crowed as Jesus predicted.

-        If Peter was completely determined in this case, then why did he feel guilty and weep? Why didn’t he just blame God for making him deny Christ three times just so the prophecy wouldn’t fail?

-        Was it possible that Peter could have proven Jesus’ prediction wrong under the framework proposed by libertarian free will? Did Jesus know that Peter was going to deny him or was it a lucky guess? Are we, as Christians, willing to suggest that Jesus could have been wrong about Peter’s denials?

-        Is the interpretation of this scene, and the entirety of the Bible for that matter, reduced to a choice between determinism and libertarian free will?

Upon the exact fulfilling of Christ’s prophecy through Peter’s third denial and the roosters’ crow, Peter wept after “the Lord turned and looked” at him (Luke 22:61-62, ESV). This parallels Job despising himself in God’s presence and many other biblical examples (Job 42:6; Isa. 6:5; Acts 9:3-4; Dan. 10:9-10; Ezek. 1:28). Regardless of view concerning man’s capacity biblically, all men are always responsible because God in His mere revelation is an ethical standard. Man is wrong and God is always right, for the potter has all rights over the clay (Rom. 9). The creator-creature distinction explains man’s responsibility at the surface, however, Peter’s capacity to act requires distinction for our pursuit of theological precision. One of the primary viewpoints is libertarian free will, which means that man’s choices are unhindered and unpredictable because man can go against his own nature at any point in time. You have probably heard it said that “God is just waiting for you to choose him” or “God is just watching the game film trying to see who would believe in Jesus.” From this perspective, Peter could have decided to not deny Christ three times because God, on some level, does not know the decisions man will make. Another viewpoint is called determinism, which explains that our decisions are caused by something external to ourselves, such as God, our biology, environment, and so forth. Determinism reduces the actions of man by blaming everything but himself for his thoughts, words, and actions. This ethical framework makes one’s decisions illusory, comparable to those of a robot. So, from the determinist perspective, Peter was forced to deny Christ three times and so, ultimately, he should not be held accountable for his actions.

An important preface to this next part is twofold:

-        First, the moral argument a common apologetic tactic that is used to prove God’s existence because of the universally acknowledged sense of moral responsibility by mankind must come from somewhere. Meaning, mankind cannot rid himself of imposing morality or feeling moral guilt because it is written on the hearts of everyone.

-        Second, everyone acknowledges feeling free and bound by nature to varying degrees, which is why there remains an unending debate.

To play the views out, we will look at determinism and libertarian free will before I put forth the Biblical alternative. In determinism, God is seen as a tyrant who unjustly imputes guilt to our actions because he determined it, and so we just deal with it. If Peter denied Christ because God forced him to do it, then it is fair to say that Peter should not have wept for denying Jesus three times. Instead of feeling guilt and sadness, Peter should have blamed Jesus, God the Father, the Holy Spirit (or lack thereof), the first Adam, chemical reactions in the brain, or whatever else for making him deny Christ. In short, determinism seeks to absolve all moral responsibility from man and blame it entirely on something external to himself. Since Peter does feel guilty, we feel guilt, and we don’t feel like robots, then the viewpoint swings over to libertarianism where God is subjected to man’s decisions and feelings. This means that, for man to be held responsible, he must be free from all external control, even free from God. That each decision we make is made from a clean slate, for there can be nothing causing a certain action to take place.[1] If this is so, it would then delegitimize our source for supreme authority because God is subjected to man under this ethical framework. This is because if God does not know the decisions of man, even for the smallest increment of time you can think of, he is no longer eternal, sovereign, and omniscient. When taking libertarian free will to its logical conclusion, the biblical doctrine of God falls apart because God must be subjected to external circumstances. Instead of maintaining the gap between Creator and creature, the author and the character, libertarian free will inverts the distinction and makes the creator subject to his creation. From the Libertarian perspective, Peter could have not denied Christ three times.

However, thankfully, we need not favor either view and this is where modern arguments fail. Most arguments reduce the Bible’s portrayal of man’s capacity to act in an either-or conundrum between libertarian free will and determinism. What happens is that both parties agree on a false premise: That predestination and free will are incompatible. So, these two frameworks are what is written on the whiteboard of arguable options. Therefore, a libertarian free will proponent goes into an argument against someone arguing for God’s sovereignty and what occurs is quite the spectacle. They both sling verses at each other defending their position in context (for the most part) until they depart frustrated. Meanwhile, both options are unbiblical in and of themselves and shouldn’t even be written on the whiteboard as biblical options in the first place. When in reality, the biblical view of this issue has been left off the whiteboard entirely and Scriptural premise remains ignored. If Scripture affirms both free will and determinism/predestination, then we must also, which is called the Compatibilist view. In short, the correct premise is that they are compatible. The Biblical understanding of free will is that man is completely free to act according to his spiritually dead nature, while being held responsible to conform to the eternal moral standard of God. Just because man ought to conform to God’s moral standards does not imply that man can do so. Since the Bible affirms both free will and the absolute sovereignty of God, there is no contradiction. Compatibilism emboldens, and makes sense of, our understanding as to why Peter is justly responsible in the first paragraph and clears up the dichotomy in the second paragraph. So, God, in His being and wisdom, remains an omnipotent, omniscient, and just God who can hold a free Peter responsible for what he has foreordained to occur for his glory. This is because Peter is completely free to choose according to his sinful nature, which obviously leads him to sin and deny Christ like the rest of mankind. Therefore, mankind, being by nature against God’s prescriptive will and subjected to God’s decretive will, are free to do exactly what we would do in accord with our sinful nature. On the other hand, we are free to act in accord with our regenerate nature, yet still tainted by sin (Romans ch. 7). Since we are free to act in accord with our nature, we would not be free if we were to go against our nature. Man’s freedom and God’s sovereignty are layered truths, meaning one does not necessarily have to displace the other. Truths can layer and remain true. God built the entire railroad track and sees the trains adventure at the beginning, middle, and the end at the same exact time. While, the train of time encompassing man’s existence is fueled by the decisions of man, freely going exactly where God has pre-determined for it to go (Acts 4 cf. Prov. 21:1).

Two helpful explanations:

What is your favorite food?

Let’s say that my favorite food is a ribeye steak. There just so happens to be a restaurant that serves two things on the menu (You can also play this out with your favorite food and your least favorite food being something you would never, ever eat): Ribeye steaks and Ancient Scrolls. In accord with my nature, I will freely order a ribeye steak every time I go into the restaurant. But why? Well, because my nature dictates that I would rather eat a ribeye steak instead of an ancient scroll. Could I change my natural inclination on a whim and desire to eat the scroll instead of a ribeye steak? No, inasmuch as I could change my desire from wanting to eat a ribeye steak to desiring to graze on the grass out back of the restaurant like a cow. It’s not possible. What would it take for me to freely choose to eat a scroll instead of a steak? If that did happen, would I be free? For me to order a scroll instead of a steak, I would either have to be held down and forced to, bribed, or coerced into doing so. To which, as you have probably realized, at that point, I would no longer be free to exercise my nature. Something external would have to intercede.

In the same way, we are born with a sinful nature and thereby have the proclivity to sin because we are born spiritually dead, blind and deaf to the things of God (Gen 5:1-5; Eph. 2:1-3; Rom. 5:12; Col. 2:13; Gen 6:5; John 6:44, 65; Rom. 3:9-3:12; Rom. 8:7-8). We are free to act and live according to our sinful nature (choose steak over the scroll every time), but we are not free to change our sinful nature because the sinful will of the flesh is no help at all in doing so (Eph. 2:1-3; John 1:11-14; John 6:61-65; John 8:34-38; John 14:6-7). As someone once said, “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.”[2] We are commanded and obligated to be perfect as our heavenly father is perfect, however, that does not mean we have the inherent capacity to be perfect (Matt. 5:48; Rom 1-3 cf. “Ought does not imply can”). Just because the Bible commands everyone to believe in Jesus, it does not mean humanity has the inherent capacity to do so (John 6:44, 61-65; John 8:34-38; John 14:6-7; Rom. 3:9-12; Rom. 8:7-8; 1 Cor. 2:14). We cannot confuse and conflate what one ought to do with what one can do. The former has to do with obligation to do something while the latter speaks to a capacity to do something. To suggest any level of capacity for a mere person to fulfill the law or to choose Jesus is to delegitimize the person and work of Christ on the cross and his continuing work through his people by the Holy Spirit. To be rescued from your sinful nature requires an external someone holding you down and forcing you to eat of the scroll. That is, to choose the things of God over and against the things of the flesh. Or, to use New Testament language, “You must be born again,” having your heart circumcised by the Spirit of God (John 3:5-8; John 6:63; Ezek. 36:25-28; Dt. 30:6). As Paul further questioned, “Who will deliver us from this body of death?” Like Ezekiel, God must reveal himself to us, the Spirit must enter us and empower us so that we can stand in the presence of God and heed God’s command to eat of the scroll. Ezekiel could not on his own libertarian free will stand in the presence of God, and so he needed the power of God applied to him to stand up. Ezekiel could only obey God’s command to eat of the scroll because he remained empowered by the Spirit. Like Ezekiel, the Word of God will taste “as sweet as honey” only when we are given new hearts by the Spirit of God that will receive his Word and commandments gladly (Ezek. 3:3). Until we have the Spirit of God given to us, the things of God are a “Fragrance from death to death” (2 Cor. 2:16). Apart from being born again by the supernatural circumcising of your heart by the Spirt, you can choose nothing of the things of God. Moreover, you can’t even discern the things of God in Scripture (1 Cor. 2:14). You are held responsible for freely going against God until God intervenes and imputes Christ’s righteousness to you by his grace alone (Lam. 3:37-39). Is there, then, injustice on God’s part? Not only does God justly send spiritually dead people to hell because of the eternal moral law embedded in his creation, but he also sends them to hell because they freely choose to go there in accord with their nature. God gives them up to what their hearts desire, which is sin. So, no, by no means, is there injustice on God’s part (Rom. 9). If man could access salvation through a decision, a prayer, or a list of commands apart from God, God’s Grace could not be called Grace.

Every story needs a storyteller.

God possesses eternality, which means that he is in no way bound by time. God is completely outside of time and so when he spoke creation into existence, it was in an instant. For God to possess eternality, that means he wrote the entire Biblical story from beginning to end and sees all of time in a perfect, instantaneous, simultaneous present. Therefore, when it comes to the fall in the garden of Eden, Jesus on the cross, you reading this article, and Jesus’ second coming, God sees it all at the same exact time. So, to suggest that God cannot know anything that occurs in the story he spoke into existence is absurd. Also, it is equally absurd to suggest that God ought to take blame for the evil that was brought into this world by the beings he created. For one, you don’t think along those lines in real life when it comes to stories. If we did, then every mystery crime novelist would be in prison for murder. In Narnia, when Edmund betrays his siblings or when the White Witch kills Aslan, who do you get angry with? Do you feel anger with C.S. Lewis? No, you don’t. You are angry with Edmund and the White Witch. Whenever there is conflict, betrayal, and murder in the book, you hold the character responsible, not the author.

Furthermore, in the book of Acts, the Apostles teach us this doctrine of compatibilism through their speech. In Acts 2:22-24 and 4:28, we find the most blatant verses concerning God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility,

Acts 2:23 (ESV)

²³this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

Acts 4:27–28 (ESV)

²⁷for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,

²⁸to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

All the people acted freely according to their sinful natures, which God foreordained before the foundation of the world. So, through the entire book of Acts, we never find the Apostles empathizing with the people of their day by saying, “The blood of Jesus really isn’t on your hands because you were just doing what God foreordained you to do.” In fact, the Apostles bluntly charged them saying “You killed the Author of Life (Jesus), whom God raised from the dead” (Acts 3:15 cf. Acts. 2:22-24; Acts 2:36; Acts 3:18; Acts 4:10-11; Acts 5:30-31; Acts 7:52; etc., emphasis mine).

To conclude, Mystery and contradiction, as Herman Bavinck said, are not synonymous. Peter could not have done anything other than freely deny Christ three times before the rooster crowed as foreordained by God. Because of his denials, Peter was justly held responsible for going against God’s prescriptive will even though he was subject to God’s decretive will. And thank God it is dependent on his will not ours, hence “Thy will be done” (Matt. 6:10, KJV). The Biblical response to the sovereignty of God ought to be nothing short of praise and worship (Rom. 11:33; Job 42:2; Isa. 45:7; Eph. 1:11; 1 Chron. 29:10-13; Dan. 2:20-21).

Credo ut intelligam (Isa. 7:9b cf. 2 Chron. 20:20)

“I believe in order to understand” – St. Anselm of Canterbury, Proslogion 1

[1] For an in-depth look at the nature of decisions, decision-making, and causation, I recommend Jonathan Edward’s book called “The Freedom of the Will.”

[2] This is Paul in Romans 8:7-8. God the Holy Spirit said that through Paul.