We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.

How do you respond to Matthew 26:36?

At the last supper Jesus said to Peter, “Truly I tell you, this very night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times.”

This is probably the most frequently quoted verse by defenders of the classical understanding of God’s foreknowledge against the open view. How, they ask, could Jesus have been certain Peter would deny him three times unless he possessed exhaustive definite foreknowledge of the future? The answer, I believe, is to be found in four simple observations.

First, consider that Peter was to be a foundational pillar in the Church that the Lord was establishing. To equip Peter for this role, the Lord needed to humble Peter and teach him the meaning of true, sacrificial love for the Shepherd and his flock. So God providentially arranges things so that Peter reveals his unloving, cowardly character three times with the ultimate goal of teaching him (not coincidentally) three times what the real meaning of love is: it is something which leads one to courageously sacrifice their life for another, just as Jesus did (see John 21:15–19).

Second, the crowing of the cock reveals no special foreknowledge on Jesus’ part but was simply a way of referring to the break of dawn (when cocks always crow). Perhaps some providential intervention was necessary to have the cock crow immediately after Peter’s third betrayal in order to drive home the point of Jesus’ prophecy (Matt. 26:74–75), but that is certainly an easy feat for the sovereign Lord of history.

Third, regarding Peter’s predicted denial, there is no reason to conclude that this was a “crystal ball” view into the future rather than a divine understanding of Peter’s present character. I suspect that anyone who knew Peter’s character perfectly could have predicted with certainty that under certain circumstances he would act cowardly. This doesn’t mean Peter’s character was settled from the moment of birth, only that as Peter freely made decisions throughout his life his character was solidified to the point where God could know it was certain that, under certain circumstances, Peter would deny Christ. Though Peter would not at this point be free to refrain from denying Christ, he is still morally responsible for doing so since it was his own free decisions that formed his character in this way in the first place.

Some have thought that Peter’s general bravado, and especially his cutting off the ear of the high priest’s slave, reveals that his character was not solidified (and thus predictable) in a cowardly direction (Matt. 26:51–52). But the reason why Peter’s behavior appeared so brave when Jesus was about to be arrested and turned was so cowardly after Jesus was arrested is not hard to discern: in the latter situation, Jesus was no longer with him.

Recall that Peter held strongly to the customary Jewish view that the messiah would be a military figure who would free the Jews from the oppressive Romans. Peter undoubtedly believed up to the bitter end that Jesus would not allow himself to be arrested and crucified (cf. Matt. 16:21–23). Jesus’ arrest changed everything. Peter’s false expectations and hopes regarding what Jesus was to be, and what he would be alongside Jesus, fell apart. And nothing allows for one’s true character to shine forth like the crumbling of a personal dream. God perfectly knew Peter’s character and the effect Jesus’ arrest would have on him. He could thus accurately predict what his behavior would be in these circumstances.

Finally, little if any divine intervention would be necessary to ensure that three people would notice and question Peter about his relationship with the Lord. After all, Jesus and his disciples had been public figures for some time.

Jesus’ prediction, therefore, was rooted in God’s omniscient awareness about Peter’s true character and was given out of love for the purpose of transforming Peter into the type of Christ-like leader the Lord wanted him to be. We misunderstand it, I believe, if we read into it evidence that everything about the future is settled and thus that God knows it as such.

Category:
Tags: ,
Topics:
Verse:

Related Reading

What is the significance of Deuteronomy 8:2?

Moses tells the Israelites that the Lord kept them in the desert forty years “in order to humble you, testing you to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commandments.” In the classical view, God would have of course eternally known the character the people would develop in the…

Topics:

To What Extent is the Future Open to Real Possibilities?

We frequently get questions about the extent to which the future is composed of actual possibilities rather than settled or determined. Here’s what Greg has to say in response to these questions: 1. We can be confident the future is settled, to the extent that the Bible depicts the future as settled. This, of course,…

Podcast: The Making of God of the Possible

Greg talks about making his book “God of the Possible,” then offers his initial thoughts on Thomas Oord’s book “God Can’t.” http://traffic.libsyn.com/askgregboyd/Episode_0468.mp3

How do you respond to Acts 2:23 and 4:28?

Question: Acts 2:23 and 4:28 tell us that wicked people crucified Jesus just as God predestined them to do. If this wicked act could be predestined, why couldn’t every other wicked act be predestined? Doesn’t this refute your theory that human acts can’t be free if they are either predestined or foreknown? Answer: In Acts…

What is the significance of 2 Samuel 24:17–25?

“So the Lord answered [David’s] supplication for the land, and the plague was averted from Israel.” The passage suggests that the Lord intended the plague to judge Israel further but David’s supplication persuaded him to change his mind and relent from his punishment. If the future is to some degree open and God is genuinely…

Topics:

What is the significance of 1 Samuel 15:35?

“…the Lord was sorry that he made Saul king over Israel.” (see 1 Sam. 15:12). Once again, the Lord expresses his regret over having made Saul king of Israel, an emotion which is inconsistent with the classical view of God’s foreknowledge. It’s important to note that Samuel had prayed all night trying to change the…

Topics: