Peter's Denial

The Rooster

                If among Christian circles one mentions the rooster crowing, or as the King James Version has it "the cock crowing", one can be confident that the same event recorded in the Bible will come to mind. That event concerns Peter's threefold denial of his connection to Jesus at the residence of the high priest, Caiaphas. A quick check of Strong's Concordance of the Bible - his John 18:15 reference being the KJV - indicates that the only occurrence of "cock crowing" is associated with Peter's denial of Jesus. It make sense then that all minds end up here.

                This is also one of those Bible episodes which has captured the imagination of the non-Christian population and had become part of our cultural vocabulary. Most people can quote that 'before the cock crows you shall deny me' ; or is it 'before the cock crows you shall deny me thrice'; or is it 'before the cock crows twice you shall deny me thrice'? Whatever. There is something instilled in the back of memories. (My New International Version of the Bible has chosen to go with rooster rather than cock so I shall follow their lead.

That pesky rooster at the Church of St Pierre en Gallicante in Jerusalem. Well he woke Peter up to what he had done!

                Zeroing in on the rooster's crowing in Jerusalem I finished up at the Church of Saint Pierre en Gallicante. Why there? This church (St Peter and the Rooster Crowing) is built over the generally accepted site of the residence of the high priest, Caiaphas. The church is controlled by a French Roman Catholic order, the Assumption Fathers, and so has retained its French title.

                This church then is the logical site at which to remember that fateful evening when Peter got into the passion story for all the wrong reasons.

                Let us look at Mark's account (14:53-54 and 66-72): ⁵³They took Jesus to the high priest, and all the chief priests, elders and teachers of the law came together. ⁵⁴Peter followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest. There he sat with the guards and warmed himself at the fire.   ....    ⁶⁶While Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant girls of the high priest came by. ⁶⁷When she saw Peter warming himself she looked closely at him. "You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus," she said. ⁶⁸But he denied it. "I don't know or understand what you're talking about," he said and went into the entryway. ⁶⁹When the servant girl saw him there , she said again to those standing around," This fellow is one of them." ⁷⁰Again he denied it. After a little while, those standing near Peter said, "Surely you are one of them for you are a Galilean."⁷¹He began to call down curses on himself, "I don't know this man you're talking about." ⁷²Immediately the rooster crowed the second time. Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken to him: 'Before the rooster crows trice you will disown me three times.' And he broke down and wept.

                What is immediately recognised is that this account of Peter's denial acts as a Markan frame on the account of Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin here in the home of the high priest. The text can be divided as follows:

Mark 14:53-54   Story 1a                Peter follows his Lord to the high priest's house.

Mark 14:55-65   Story 2                  Jesus is questioned and clearly states who he is.

Mark 14:66-72   Story 1b               Peter is questioned and denies knowledge of Jesus.

                Looked at together, the contrast between the reactions of Peter and Jesus is very marked. Peter is questioned (three times indeed!) and fails dismally. Jesus is questioned and boldly, in the face of his opponents, answers "I am" to the high priest's question of who he was.

"I don't know him." Peter warming himself beside the fire in the courtyard of the high priest, Caiaphas.

Many might question the historicity of this episode. How could these details be known? How could it be known what went on inside the walls of Caiaphas' house? Would Peter himself be likely to broadcast his involvement? Leaving aside this debate, the importance of the story for the reader is its metaphorical meaning - the message it should convey to those who heard it. These are those initial readers of Mark's Gospel but also all others leading up to us today.

                Yes, we are reading Mark's words 2000 years after they were written. Even in his wildest imagination Mark would not have realised that this would be the case. He was writing purely for his audience at that time. (The biblical scholars are unsure about who they might have been or indeed where they might have lived.) In presenting these incidents in the way which he has he surely is directing a message specifically for these readers.

                Persecution of Christians had been going on from the very first. Initially this was by the Jewish authorities and then by the Romans. One can assume that Mark's readers, circa 70AD, would have been targeted by the Romans. This story of Peter and Jesus depicts the choices that could be made - bold confession or denial in the face of persecution..

                But that does not leave us, the readers of today, out of the equation. We today are often faced with the same challenge, although repercussions of making a positive confession would be much less drastic and life threatening than that faced by Mark's readers.

                Finally a personal example. Sitting in the golf club house after a round we were discussing this and that. I mentioned that I would be away for a few weeks because I was going on a pilgrimage to Israel.

                "What, are you one of those Bible Bashers?"

                "Well, not so much a Bible Basher, whatever you might mean by that, but a simple Christian who accepts Jesus as his Saviour."

                "Oh."

                And the topic changed to politics. Everyone still plays golf with me.