Bible Study series: Mark 14:66-72. “Throwing himself out on the ground, he began to weep.”
Friendly greetings and a warm welcome to this Bible study! I write to learn, so let’s learn together how to apply these truths to our lives.
I also translate to learn. The translations are mine, unless otherwise noted. If you would like to see many others, please click here:
If you would like to see the original Greek, please click here:
At that link, I also offer more commentary and a Summary and Conclusion, geared towards discipleship. Scroll down to the bottom and check it out!
Let’s begin.
Scripture: Mark 14:66-72
66 Then, while Peter was below, in the courtyard, one of the chief priest’s servant girls, 67 seeing Peter warming himself, and fixing her gaze on him, said, “You also were with Jesus the Nazarene!” 68 But he denied it, saying, “I neither know nor understand what you are saying!” Then he went out to the forecourt, and a rooster crowed. 69 The servant girl, looking at him, began to say to the ones standing there, “This one is also with them!” 70 But again he denied it. After a short time, those standing around said to Peter, “You really are with them, for you also are a Galilean!” 71 But he began to call down curses and swear oaths: “I don’t this man you’re talking about!” 72 And instantly a rooster crowed a second time. Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken to him: “Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times.” Throwing himself out on the ground, he was weeping. (Mark 14:66-72)
Comments:
66-68:
Now we are back to Peter. This is the first accusation and first denial. Grammatically, the experts tell us that his denial (“I neither know nor understand”) is choppy or awkward. It shows Peter was caught off guard.
The last clause in v. 68 (“and a rooster crowed”) is inserted in brackets by the Greek NT scholars, but not in my translation, just to have the scene make sense of Jesus prediction. However, one does not have to fill in this blank. One can just assume the rooster crowed the first time, when v. 72 explicitly says the rooster crowed a second time. Many scholars believe that Mark got his Gospel material from listening to Peter, and this is the way Peter remembered it.
At the end of the verse, the Greek reads, “the Nazarene—Jesus.” This seems to be an insult, since many Jerusalemites, particularly the high priest’s household, did not like Galileans, seeing them as foreigners.
“forecourt”: He got up and went there, in order to make a fast getaway, if necessary.
69-71:
The entire scene, beginning with v. 66, has three, escalating mini-scenes: the first servant girl accuses Peter; the second one accuses him before the bystanders; the third accusation comes from those standing nearby, as they gang up on him. Peter moves farther and farther away from Jesus. Next, Jesus and Peter are viewed as foreign (so to speak). They are both from Galilee. Jerusalem was the big city, while the country bumpkins from up north were looked down on. Peter had a Galilean accent, and so did Jesus. In modern American terms, they had a southern accent. (And, no, southern accents are not bad things!)
Peter cursed and swore oaths. His fear got the better of him. When Peter swears an oath, he is putting himself under a curse (see Acts 21:12, 14, 21). Only Jesus can lift it off of him. This means that he has sunk more deeply into darkness, and only the resurrected Jesus could rescue and restore him (John 21:15-19).
It’s doubtful that he cursed Jesus. Strauss suggests that Peter called down curses on his accusers. “May God curse you for saying I’m with them!” Swearing an oath means something like this: “I swear by God and the temple I don’t belong with them!”
However, France “goes there” and says that Peter did call down curses on Jesus, writing:
In this context the natural object to be understood is Jesus, so that Mark portrays Peter as voluntarily doing what Pliny was later informed that ‘real Christians’ could not be compelled to do (Pliny, Ep. 10.96.5), cursing Jesus. This understanding of the text, which Christian interpreters naturally find unwelcome (hence translations such as RSV, NIV), is the most probable sense of Mark’s words, though he has avoided too blatant offence by leaving the object of the verb unstated.
You decide.
72:
Garland notes that the rooster struts around in foolish pride, being “cocky.” He represents Peter’s foolish boast (v. 29) (p. 567-68). Insightful.
This is the saddest verse in Peter’s life of discipleship. He had been rebuked by Jesus before: “Get behind me, Satan!” (Mark 8:33). But now he denied him three times. When Jesus gazed into his soul (Luke 22:61), the look must have been powerful.
“he began to weep”: it could be translated as “he was weeping.”
For some reason I always picture Peter as husky and masculine, a rough-hewn character with a weak self-edit button from his mind to his mouth. Jesus had to smooth out even more rough edges in Peter’s soul. Peter’s two epistles show how far he came. They are mature and wonderful.
Now let’s review the differences in the accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
The rhetorical license or freedom exercised by the three Gospel writers should not count against the veracity of their reports. Fair-minded readers laugh at such pretzel-like gymnastics to make the three accounts fit perfectly and precisely. It takes an extra-fussy mind to quibble about such things when the synoptic writers, God-inspired, gave themselves permission not to quibble about the precise sequence in their own versions. Their story-telling or rhetorical purpose was simply to show the intense drama of Peter denying his Lord just in the nick of time to fulfill Jesus’s prediction. Better still, Peter denied Jesus early in the morning at the time when the roosters announce the breaking dawn. That’s the main point of this whole episode in Peter’s life. So what will happen next? Jesus predicted his death at least three times. If his prediction about Peter was accurate, then so will his prediction about the end be.
Go to Mark 14 and scroll down to vv. 66-72 for a fuller explanation.
Let me finish with a simple equation. If you get it, great. If not, scroll past it.
An account having information, while another account covering the same topic (Peter’s denial) does not have the same information, does not add up to a contradiction. A difference, yes, but not a contradiction, particularly when the differences can be possibly reconciled. Mark has two crows, while Matthew and Luke have one. They streamlined the scene and never said “one crow and only one crow, not two of them.” Next, Matthew and Mark have Peter moving away from the fire, while Luke is silent about that. All throughout the three synoptic Gospel, some accounts include tidbits of information, while another account omits them.
Equations:
Information in one account + Silence in another account ≠ Contradiction
Boiled down:
Information + Silence ≠ A Contradiction
But
Information + Silence = A Difference
Or
Information + An omission = A Difference
A Difference ≠ A Contradiction
Differences are guided by the purpose of the biblical authors. Or we may not know why an author omits or includes bits of information. Whatever the case, we should not get panicky about them or deny the truthfulness of the accounts. This mindset is too fussy and demanding, not recognizing the texts as they present themselves but unwisely imposing our modern concerns on them.
If those equations help, then good. If not, move on to the next chapter.
See my posts:
13. Are There Contradictions in the Gospels?
14. Similarities among John’s Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels (celebrate the long list of similarities and do not focus on the differences)
Those two links are part of a fifteen-part series on the reliability of the Gospels. Go to Part 15 for a summary of each part, with links to them:
15. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels: Conclusion
There is probably by now a high-quality youtube video on the topic. You can look it up (I have not).
In any case, our faith in God and his written Word should not be brittle. It should not break when these differences emerge. Call it the dramatist’s art. All four biblical writers took small liberties to tell their stories, their own way. Please relax a lot more about this. Don’t get stuck into a groove laid down by hyper-inerrantists, who nervously force all the small details to fit together. Keep the plain thing the main thing. The plain thing is Peter’s denial and the lesson to be learned: Would we deny Jesus under pressure? If so, God will restore us on our repentance.
Bottom line: there is no contradiction in the synoptic Gospels in Peter’s denial.
GrowApp for Mark 14:66-72
1. Peter hit rock bottom, denying Jesus three times. Have you ever hit rock bottom? Have you ever denied, by word or action, your Christian walk with God in front of your old friends? How did God restore you?
2. Study 1 Peter 2:20-24. Does it say you are also called to suffer sometimes in your life when persecution comes? If you are not presently undergoing unjust persecution, how can you support the suffering church around the globe?
RELATED
10. Eyewitness Testimony in Mark’s Gospel
2. Church Fathers and Mark’s Gospel
2. Archaeology and the Synoptic Gospels
14. Similarities among John’s Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels
1. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels: Introduction to Series
SOURCES
For bibliographical data, please click on this link and scroll down to the very bottom:
Dr. Jim's Essential Bible Teaching 