There are two different approaches or views on Peter’s denial. Both come from harmonies of the Gospels which shed light on how the pieces go together at the big picture level. At least from two published perspectives.
From Robertson’s Harmony, clipped from E-Sword:
From Robert Thomas and Stanley Gundry’s “A Harmony of the Gospels”
Take note of the different ways in which Peter’s denial is viewed in each of these harmonies. Note the different perspectives or ordering and how Luke’s version matches or otherwise with the other gospels. As I have told you before, comparing one gospel with the others gives us good insight to the purposes of the author in question.
Note that Thomas and Gundry take the viewpoint that there were two stages to the prediction of Peter’s denial. I have included Thomas and Gundry’s footnotes to help you understand why they conclude there were two phases.
Thomas and Gundry’s footnotes:
Re: First Prediction
Luke 22:34, John 13:38; Since Luke and John make Peter’s denial an integral part of the events in the upper room (cf Luke 22:39, John 18:1) it appears wiser to allow for two predictions of Peter’s denial. The second prediction described by Matthew and Mark came while the company was at the Mount of Olives (Matt 26:34, Mark 14:30). In connection with this second prediction, Peter and the other disciples claimed they would never deny Him. (Matt 26:35, Mark 14:31)
Re: Second Prediction
(Matt 26:34, Mark 14:30) The third of the four watches of the night (12:00 AM to 3:00 AM) was called “cock crowing” cf Mark 13:35. The cock would crow early in this period and again toward the periods end. In Mark’s account, Jesus referred to the second crowing so as to be quite specific. Matthew records a reiteration of his prediction in more general terms, that is, he refers to only one crowing, the second, which was the more commonly known of the two. Before dawn the next morning Peter was to deny his Lord three times.
Robertson’s View
Robertson, on the other hand, sees it rather more simplistically as a one time prediction of Peter’s denial. His harmony gives us a more complete contrast between the gospel on the macro level. Thomas and Gundry’s version is a little harder to see the complete contrasts because they have divided the event into two stages. I will let you spend the time comparing these gospel accounts to see what you come up with, before we dig into the details of Luke’s text and seek to understand Luke’s unique approach.
My suggestion is that once again you colour code the differences and similarities between the gospel accounts in the way that we have done before.
Here is the standard colour code I have used before:
- Common material shared between the gospel accounts
- Uniquely Matthew
- Uniquely Mark
- Uniquely Luke
- Uniquely John
I will spend one more day looking at big picture issues (macro matters) in the next Gem before we get into the details of Luke’s account.
Live your life with the fewest amount of woulda coulda shoulda’s possible.
Anon
Luck is the intersection of preparation and opportunity.
Seneca
Unless you try and do something beyond what you have mastered, you will never grow!
Anon
Successful people ask better questions, and as a result, they get better answers.
Tony Robbins