Why did Peter deny Jesus?

[rikuoamero]

In the "Telling Fact from Fiction" thread, I opined (among a lot of other things) that Peter has no motivation to deny Jesus three times. However, that isn't strictly speaking true.
Just to get everybody up to speed, here's the timeline of events (as best as I can make it out, using all four gospels)

1) Jesus has a supper, the last supper, with his disciples. In all four gospels, (I have the NIV translation open in my browser), Jesus predicts that Peter will deny him before the rooster crows. Jesus predicts his death via crucifixion only in G.Matthew (this is said two days before the Passover). The prediction of death is hinted at/implied in G.Luke during the supper. In G.John, it is some unspecified point before the supper.
2) Jesus goes off to pray, and Peter goes with him (specifically named in G. Matthew, G. Mark but not in G.Luke or G.John)
3) Jesus is then arrested. Peter is named as being with Jesus when this arrest happens in G. Matthew, G. Mark, but in G. Luke is presumably there being counted among the disciples who had gone with Jesus to the Mount of Olives. In G. John, Peter is named as being the one who attacks the guard mentioned in point 4.
4) One of the arresting guards has his ear cut off. Only G. John identifies his attacker, namely Peter. Only G.Luke says the ear is healed by Jesus, the other gospels are silent on this topic.
5) Jesus says to put away weapons and boasts that he can call on God his father and angels to save him (only in G.Matthew).
6) Jesus is taken to see Caiaphas the chief priest (G.Matthew, Mark & Luke), with G.John saying he was taken first to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas.
7) Peter follows at a distance and is able to enter the court-yard of the high priest Caiaphas (all four gospels)
8) Jesus is questioned by the priests and goes through a trial, enduring false testimony (G.Matthew, G.Mark). In G.Luke, this is written after Peter's denial. In G.John, the denials happen during the trial with the priests.
9) Jesus is beaten in G.Matthew, G.Mark. In G.Luke, the beating is mentioned after Peter denies Jesus. No mention of a beating in G.John. Peter presumably witnesses the trial and beatings, or is made aware of them.

Hopefully I did a good job with the above, trying to lay out a timeline of events [strike](as an aside, G.John is confusing in that it mentions that Jesus was taken to Annas first, that Caiaphas was the high priest that year, which presumably means that Annas is not a/the high priest. Jesus is questioned by the high priest (v19), but then in verse 24, "Then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest." Huh...who was questioning Jesus then?)[/strike] UPDATE - I have checked up on this and Annas was either officially or unofficially a high priest along with Caiaphas

Anyway, to sum up what Peter would have known, saw and believed:
A) He is a follower of Jesus. He has presumably seen or heard or believes the many miracles his master has done, such as the healings and resurrections.
B) He witnesses first hand Jesus healing a severed ear.
C) His master has predicted that Judas would betray him. Peter witnesses both the prediction and the actual betrayal, so this alone (if not other things) would have convinced him that his master can foretell the future.
D) He hears his master boast (albeit in one gospel only) that he is unafraid, that he can call on divine aid.
E) Presumably witnesses the beatings Jesus receives, although I do have to stress that we do not know whether we can classify this as torture. Punches and slaps are mentioned in three of the gospels, although we don't know how severe.

At the point in time, the precise moment when Peter denies Jesus...that is all he knows. He knows/believes his master can foretell the future with accuracy, that he can call on divine aid, that his master is going wilfully to his trial/death and that his master can heal and even raise the dead.
With all of this in mind...why does Peter deny Jesus?
If we take the story (or stories) and remove Jesus's prediction about Peter, but leave in the denial...what does the story look like to you then? I'll tell you what it looks like to me: the denials come completely out of the blue. There is literally no motivation for Peter to do so. He has no reason to.

However, in all of this pondering and collating, I can think of only three reasons for why Peter would have done the denials. Christians might read that sentence and wonder why all this big song and dance then, why this thread, but please, continue reading.

A) The first reason is that it is purely a literary device, that the prediction and/or actual denial are purely fictions, propaganda, designed to advertise the awesome power of Jesus. This is of course something that (most) Christians are unlikely to agree with, so moving on...
B) That Peter himself doesn't believe or entertains some doubts (to a lesser or greater extent) as to Jesus's abilities to save/protect himself and/or his followers.
C) That Peter believed Jesus to be a prophet who can foretell the future, and that he (Peter) simply could not allow for a situation where Jesus makes a false prediction. This one is similar to what I call the Cashier's Dilemma - in my workplace, in the staff only area, there is a poster put up by management that says the customer is always right. However, several times, a customer has disparaged themselves. Am I then to agree with them, thus insulting them, or do I disagree, flatter them?...but then this means they are wrong.
So did Peter wilfully deny Jesus, purely so as to ensure that Jesus could not have made a false prophecy?

In no scenario, do I see a situation where Peter comes out smelling like roses. His credibility as an author, as someone who supposedly tells us about Jesus in his own works (at least, presuming here purely for the sake of argument that everything attributed to him was written or dictated by him), loses strength.

Questions for Discussion
1) Why did Peter deny Jesus. Are there other motivations beyond what I listed A,B,C?
2) Do you think Peter is still credible, as a witness in his own works or when other NT authors rely on him?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 10 by ElCodeMonkey]

That is one thing I had considered but I deliberately did not put in my list. The reason being that this then amounts to us ultimately not knowing what to believe about/from Peter.
If we consider that Peter panicked and did something stupid without thinking, almost as if by reflex...then we cannot use it as a judge of his character. However, is this the case with Peter? How can we tell that it was just a panic on his part?
Maybe the problem is with me, and me being somewhat disconnected with my emotions, of being a high functioning Aspergers. This is something that I find maddening, something I can't quite understand about emotions.

[1213]

...1) Why did Peter deny Jesus. Are there other motivations beyond what I listed A,B,C?
2) Do you think Peter is still credible, as a witness in his own works or when other NT authors rely on him?

I think the reason was that Peter was afraid what would happen to him, if he would admit the truth. I don’t think this makes him less credible. It also shows, he or other disciples were not easily believing things.

[rikuoamero]

...1) Why did Peter deny Jesus. Are there other motivations beyond what I listed A,B,C?
2) Do you think Peter is still credible, as a witness in his own works or when other NT authors rely on him?

I think the reason was that Peter was afraid what would happen to him, if he would admit the truth. I don’t think this makes him less credible. It also shows, he or other disciples were not easily believing things.

Why would he be afraid? Afraid of what? Did he see or did he not see Jesus resurrecting the dead, conjuring food, even healing severed ears?

It also shows, he or other disciples were not easily believing things.

Even though presumably these things happened right in front of them, versus what happens in today's world, where there is no Jesus standing right in front of us dispensing miracles.
And yet, you apparently believe more strongly or more readily than Peter did. Peter presumably saw Jesus raise the dead, and yet he was still afraid of dying...whereas (I presume) you haven't seen such.

[showme]

In the "Telling Fact from Fiction" thread, I opined (among a lot of other things) that Peter has no motivation to deny Jesus three times. However, that isn't strictly speaking true.
Just to get everybody up to speed, here's the timeline of events (as best as I can make it out, using all four gospels)

1) Jesus has a supper, the last supper, with his disciples. In all four gospels, (I have the NIV translation open in my browser), Jesus predicts that Peter will deny him before the rooster crows. Jesus predicts his death via crucifixion only in G.Matthew (this is said two days before the Passover). The prediction of death is hinted at/implied in G.Luke during the supper. In G.John, it is some unspecified point before the supper.
2) Jesus goes off to pray, and Peter goes with him (specifically named in G. Matthew, G. Mark but not in G.Luke or G.John)
3) Jesus is then arrested. Peter is named as being with Jesus when this arrest happens in G. Matthew, G. Mark, but in G. Luke is presumably there being counted among the disciples who had gone with Jesus to the Mount of Olives. In G. John, Peter is named as being the one who attacks the guard mentioned in point 4.
4) One of the arresting guards has his ear cut off. Only G. John identifies his attacker, namely Peter. Only G.Luke says the ear is healed by Jesus, the other gospels are silent on this topic.
5) Jesus says to put away weapons and boasts that he can call on God his father and angels to save him (only in G.Matthew).
6) Jesus is taken to see Caiaphas the chief priest (G.Matthew, Mark & Luke), with G.John saying he was taken first to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas.
7) Peter follows at a distance and is able to enter the court-yard of the high priest Caiaphas (all four gospels)
8) Jesus is questioned by the priests and goes through a trial, enduring false testimony (G.Matthew, G.Mark). In G.Luke, this is written after Peter's denial. In G.John, the denials happen during the trial with the priests.
9) Jesus is beaten in G.Matthew, G.Mark. In G.Luke, the beating is mentioned after Peter denies Jesus. No mention of a beating in G.John. Peter presumably witnesses the trial and beatings, or is made aware of them.

Hopefully I did a good job with the above, trying to lay out a timeline of events [strike](as an aside, G.John is confusing in that it mentions that Jesus was taken to Annas first, that Caiaphas was the high priest that year, which presumably means that Annas is not a/the high priest. Jesus is questioned by the high priest (v19), but then in verse 24, "Then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest." Huh...who was questioning Jesus then?)[/strike] UPDATE - I have checked up on this and Annas was either officially or unofficially a high priest along with Caiaphas

Anyway, to sum up what Peter would have known, saw and believed:
A) He is a follower of Jesus. He has presumably seen or heard or believes the many miracles his master has done, such as the healings and resurrections.
B) He witnesses first hand Jesus healing a severed ear.
C) His master has predicted that Judas would betray him. Peter witnesses both the prediction and the actual betrayal, so this alone (if not other things) would have convinced him that his master can foretell the future.
D) He hears his master boast (albeit in one gospel only) that he is unafraid, that he can call on divine aid.
E) Presumably witnesses the beatings Jesus receives, although I do have to stress that we do not know whether we can classify this as torture. Punches and slaps are mentioned in three of the gospels, although we don't know how severe.

At the point in time, the precise moment when Peter denies Jesus...that is all he knows. He knows/believes his master can foretell the future with accuracy, that he can call on divine aid, that his master is going wilfully to his trial/death and that his master can heal and even raise the dead.
With all of this in mind...why does Peter deny Jesus?
If we take the story (or stories) and remove Jesus's prediction about Peter, but leave in the denial...what does the story look like to you then? I'll tell you what it looks like to me: the denials come completely out of the blue. There is literally no motivation for Peter to do so. He has no reason to.

However, in all of this pondering and collating, I can think of only three reasons for why Peter would have done the denials. Christians might read that sentence and wonder why all this big song and dance then, why this thread, but please, continue reading.

A) The first reason is that it is purely a literary device, that the prediction and/or actual denial are purely fictions, propaganda, designed to advertise the awesome power of Jesus. This is of course something that (most) Christians are unlikely to agree with, so moving on...
B) That Peter himself doesn't believe or entertains some doubts (to a lesser or greater extent) as to Jesus's abilities to save/protect himself and/or his followers.
C) That Peter believed Jesus to be a prophet who can foretell the future, and that he (Peter) simply could not allow for a situation where Jesus makes a false prediction. This one is similar to what I call the Cashier's Dilemma - in my workplace, in the staff only area, there is a poster put up by management that says the customer is always right. However, several times, a customer has disparaged themselves. Am I then to agree with them, thus insulting them, or do I disagree, flatter them?...but then this means they are wrong.
So did Peter wilfully deny Jesus, purely so as to ensure that Jesus could not have made a false prophecy?

In no scenario, do I see a situation where Peter comes out smelling like roses. His credibility as an author, as someone who supposedly tells us about Jesus in his own works (at least, presuming here purely for the sake of argument that everything attributed to him was written or dictated by him), loses strength.

Questions for Discussion
1) Why did Peter deny Jesus. Are there other motivations beyond what I listed A,B,C?
2) Do you think Peter is still credible, as a witness in his own works or when other NT authors rely on him?

You forget that Peter was fulfilling Zechariah 13:7 as explained in Matthew 26:31, and Peter's denial follows Yeshua saying that Satan wished to sift Peter, and Yeshua praying for Peter. Peter was simply to fill the role of the "worthless shepherd" of Zechariah 11:16-17, who would not feed, care or tend the sheep, and who would leave the flock (the lost sheep of the house of Israel), to go to the Gentiles (Acts 15:7). Peter, and Judas Iscariot (Zechariah 11:12-13) & (Matthew 27:9-10) were simply following the path laid down by Scripture. Judas was chosen because of his love of money, and Peter was chosen for his role, apparently because of his ego.


Luke 22:31-34 King James Version (KJV)

31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:

32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

33 And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death.

34 And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 11 by rikuoamero]

There's a recurring theme of impulsiveness in the portrayals of Peter. He

- Was quick to insist God forbid Jesus should die
- Left the boat to walk on water
- Went into the tomb when beloved disciple hesitated
- Withdrew from the gentiles when some Jewish Christians came to Antioch

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 14 by showme]

You forget that Peter was fulfilling Zechariah 13:7 as explained in Matthew 26:31

No I am not. Text from Zechariah follows
“Awake, sword, against my shepherd,
against the man who is close to me!�
declares the Lord Almighty.
“Strike the shepherd,
and the sheep will be scattered,
and I will turn my hand against the little ones.

I see no prophecy, nothing specific. Jesus does quote it in Matthew 26, yes...but that is an action Jesus took, not Peter.

Anyway, what you say here makes the whole situation akin to that of a play, with actors and roles and prepared lines and actions. What you say here does not map to a real person in the real world. You reduce Peter to nothing more than a puppet, or an actor, dancing on strings and saying or doing things purely so as to fulfill a role in a script. The script says there will be a betrayal, a denial, so that is what the actors do. This Peter, the Peter that you talk about, is not a real person. He has no thoughts or feelings of his own.
You said it yourself
Peter, and Judas Iscariot were simply following the path laid down by Scripture.
This isn't real life, with real people, who think things organically and come to decisions all their own. This is a story, with set movements and events. The script(ure) calls for the actor to make a decision that he would not make in real life, and he does so.

[1213]

Why would he be afraid? Afraid of what? Did he see or did he not see Jesus resurrecting the dead, conjuring food, even healing severed ears?

He just saw Jesus captured and probably feared that he also will be captured. I can understand if he wanted to avoid that.

[rikuoamero]

Why would he be afraid? Afraid of what? Did he see or did he not see Jesus resurrecting the dead, conjuring food, even healing severed ears?

He just saw Jesus captured and probably feared that he also will be captured. I can understand if he wanted to avoid that.

He has also seen Jesus walk on water and heard Jesus boast, at the time of his arrest, that he could call on the aid of God and angels. He also sees Jesus heal a severed ear, along with either seeing or hearing of healing injuries and even deaths on previous occasions.
Why would Peter be afraid of being captured? If my best friend Superman surrenders willingly to authorities, why would I be afraid of being captured? He can fly, bust out of jail and save me.