Marcos 14
J.C. Ryle · Citado em PreceptAustin
Marcos 14
Ryle - THE chapter which opens with these verses, begins the account of our Lord’s sufferings and death. No part of the Gospels is so important as this. The death of Christ was the life of the world.—No part of our Lord’s history is so fully given by all the gospel writers as this. Only two of them describe the circumstances of Christ’s birth. All four dwell minutely on Christ’s death. Now the Passover and Unleavened Bread were two days away - This is the first mention of the Passover in Mark. Note that the Feast of Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were often considered by the Jews to be one feast or festival and so it was often called the “Jewish Passover Feast” which identified the full 8 days of the Passover and Unleavened Bread (from Nisan 14 through Nisan 21). Wuest simplifies it saying "It was one feast." MacArthur on the timing: That is not incidental information. It is the purpose of God that on that Passover in A.D. 30, on the fourteenth of the month Nisan, at the very hour when the Passover lambs were being slain on the Passover, three in the afternoon, Jesus would die. That’s pretty specific. . . Now there were three main feasts the Jews celebrated; the Feast of Pentecost, which was kind of a firstfruits, Feast of Booths, they’re remembering the wandering in the wilderness, and the Feast of Unleavened Bread. And so strictly speaking in the Mosaic Law, the Feast of Passover was one day, followed by a distinct celebration of unleavened bread for 7 days. As Fruchtenbaum notes "by Jesus’ day in 1st century Israel, and up until today, these two feasts were combined into one 8 day observance all labeled Passover." Passover of course was a memorial that celebrated (Ex 12:14) the night when the death angel passed over (Ex 12:12, 13) the doors of homes marked with the blood (Ex 12:7) of a blemish free lamb (Ex 12:3-5, cf Jn 1:29, 1 Pe 1:18-19+, 1 Cor 5:7). The Feast of Unleavened Bread commemorated Israel's exodus journey out of Egypt after the Passover. So at this time in Jerusalem, there would be Jewish pilgrims flooding in for these two great feasts which were in effect a celebration of Israel's past temporal salvation! How ironic that the very One to Whom all of the Feasts pointed (1 Cor 5:7) was preparing to sacrifice Himself to make a way for the eternal salvation of their souls! Sadly, most of the pilgrims did not have eyes to recognize Jesus as the Lamb of God Who could take away their sin and the sin of the world (Jn 1:29). This feast is prescribed in Leviticus 23:5-6+ In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at twilight is the LORD’S Passover. Then on the fifteenth day of the same month there is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the LORD; for seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. Grassmick - These two Jewish festivals were closely related and in popular usage were often designated as the “Jewish Passover Feast” (an eight-day festival, Nisan 14–21 inclusive; cf. Mark 14:2; John 2:13, 23; 6:4; 11:55). So Nisan 14, the day of preparation, was commonly called “the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread” (cf. Mark 14:12). (See The Bible Knowledge Commentary) The Jewish historian Josephus speaks of them as separate feasts but also combines them as one feast as in Antiquities xiv. 21 where we read.... So Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews together, and pressed on the siege vigorously. As this happened at the time when the feast of unleavened bread was celebrated, which we call the Passover, the principal men among the Jews left the country, and fled into Egypt. (Josephus The Antiquities of the Jews 14:2.1)
Marcos 14
Ryle - This profession was the language of a self-confident, inexperienced disciple who had not yet found out the weakness of his own faith, and the deceitfulness of his own heart. Men little know what they will do, till the time of temptation actually comes. “Is thy servant a dog,” said Hazael, “that he should do this great thing?” (2 Kings 8:13.) Hiebert - Although there was genuine love for Christ behind his protest, it revealed his sad ignorance of his own weakness. With his boast, Peter arrogantly elevated himself above the other disciples.“This is one of the most unfavorable specimens on record of the dark or weak side of this great apostle’s character, because it exhibits, not mere self-sufficiency and overweening self-reliance, but an arrogant estimate of his own strength in comparison with others, particularly with his brethren and associates in the apostolic office.” Jesus seems to make reference to this claim in John 21:15, “Lovest thou me more than these?” (The Gospel of Mark: An Expositional Commentary) Chambers - Peter did not wait on God, he forecast in his mind where the test would come, and the test came where he did not expect it. “I will lay down my life for Thy sake.” Peter’s declaration was honest but ignorant. “Jesus answered him…The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied Me thrice.” This was said with a deeper knowledge of Peter than Peter had of himself. He could not follow Jesus because he did not know himself, of what he was capable. Natural devotion may be all very well to attract us to Jesus, to make us feel His fascination, but it will never make us disciples. Natural devotion will always deny Jesus somewhere or other. “Never run before God’s guidance. If there is the slightest doubt, then He is not guiding. Whenever there is doubt—don’t.” -- Oswald Chambers Rod Mattoon - Peter would deny the Lord before the cock would crow. The Jewish people in that day divided the night into four parts: * Evening, from six to nine * Midnight, nine to twelve * The Cock crow, twelve to three * The Morning, three to six. The third period gained its name from the fact that roosters began to crow about the end of that period and continued to crow periodically until after daybreak. By the time Jesus and the disciples reached the Mount of Olives it was probably near midnight. Jesus was therefore predicting that, within a very few hours, Peter would desert the Lord and then deny Him three times—before three in the morning, when a cock would normally begin to crow. There would be denial before dawn and failure before first light. In future verses, we find this is what happened. His pride led to his fall. It will destroy you, too, if you are not careful. IMPULSIVE - There was nothing either of the nature of impulse or of cold-bloodedness about Our Lord, but only a calm strength that never got into panic. Most of us develop our Christianity along the line of our temperament, not along the line of God. Impulse is a trait in natural life, but Our Lord always ignores it, because it hinders the development of the life of a disciple. Watch how the Spirit of God checks impulse, His checks bring a rush of self-conscious foolishness which makes us instantly want to vindicate ourselves. Impulse is all right in a child, but it is disastrous in a man or woman; an impulsive man is always a petted man. Impulse has to be trained into intuition by discipline. Discipleship is built entirely on the supernatural grace of God. Walking on the water is easy to impulsive pluck, but walking on dry land as a disciple of Jesus Christ is a different thing. Peter walked on the water to go to Jesus, but he followed Him afar off on the land. We do not need the grace of God to stand crises, human nature and pride are sufficient, we can face the strain magnificently; but it does require the supernatural grace of God to live twenty-four hours in every day as a saint, to go through drudgery as a disciple, to live an ordinary, unobserved, ignored existence as a disciple of Jesus. It is inbred in us that we have to do exceptional things for God; but we have not. We have to be exceptional in the ordinary things, to be holy in mean streets, among mean people, and this is not learned in five minutes. (Chambers) The two paragraphs today both teach us about how God removes our impulsiveness. First, He “checks” our impulsiveness, which at first makes us feel foolish and defensive but in the end turns our impulsiveness into intuition. Second, He gives us drudgery and then gives us His supernatural grace to get us through. Has God disciplined the impulsiveness out of you yet? Or are you still following at a distance, as Peter did in Mark 14:54? Ask God for Jesus’ calm strength so you can overcome drudgery and be His disciple! Application Did the Holy Spirit point out your impulsiveness? How did you feel? Did you change? Are you spoiled? Who knows your spoiled side? How would they say to fix this side? Finish this prayer: “God, I need your grace to get through the next twenty-four hours. For me, the ‘dry land’ of drudgery is . . .”(Jed Macosko) GOD'S WILL And He said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto Thee. Take away this cup from Me; neverthe¬less, not what I will, but what Thou wilt. Mark 14:36 Years ago a minister was called to the home of a widow whose teenage daughter was the apple of her eye. She told the preacher that at the age of 3 the girl had been very ill, and the doctors said she would die. The mother admitted that she had accused God of cruelty and had prayed that He spare her daughter. She told Him she could never trust Him again if He did not do as she asked. God granted her request, in spite of what the doctors had said. For the next 13 years, she was her mother's pride and joy. But then she began to associate with bad companions. At the age of 17 she got into real trouble and broke her mother's heart. The tragic end of the story was told to the minister by that weeping woman when he arrived at her home that day. "My Janie is dead! She took her own life last night, and I found her in her room this morning." After several minutes of convulsive sobbing, she concluded, "0 Pastor, how I wish God had taken her when she was 3 years old! How I wish I had yielded to God's will and not insisted on having my own way!" For ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that. James 4:15+ When John Henry Jowett was a young man, he was so intent on pursuing a law career that he didn't consult the Lord about his vocation. One day he met a former Sunday school teacher, who asked him what he was going to do with his many talents. Jowett replied that he was studying to be a lawyer. Disappointed, his friend said, "I've prayed for years that you'd go into the ministry." This startled the brilliant young student and set him to thinking. Later Jowett wrote, "I then sought God's will in prayer and reverently obeyed His call. Now, after 35 years in His service, I can say that I've never regretted my choice." For Further Study: Matthew 12:50; John 6:38-40; Romans 12:1,2; Hebrews 13:20,21; James 4:13-17. PETER’ S FALL MARK 14 Downward steps—James Smith in Handfuls of Purpose Self-confidence, Mark 14:29. Proud Boasting, Mark 14:31. Unwatchfulness, Mark 14:37. Cowardliness,Mark 14:50–54. Ungodly Company, Mark 14:54. Denying the Lord Mark 14:71. Weeping, Mark 14:72. “Speak gently to an erring one, E’en if a deed of shame be done; We see the deed and instant blame, But not how hard it is to tame A heart of sin that has not died, A rebel will unsanctified.” Backsliding is a process (See article on Backsliding). Eve first saw, then desired, then took, then eat before she gave to Adam. Falling away out of the company and fellowship of Christ is the result of an inward disease preying upon the vitals of our spiritual being. That disease is self-will. Let us follow Peter in his downgrade march step by step. There was— 1. Self-confidence. Peter said, “Although all shall be offended, yet will not I” (v. 29). The “I” here is very self-assertive, comparing himself with the others he believes himself more trustworthy than any. Yet it was written that “He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool” (Prov. 28:26). “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10:12). 2. Proud boasting. “If I should die with Thee, I will not deny Thee in any wise” (v. 31). So said they all, but Peter spoke vehemently. Peter was as yet unbelieving and ignorant of his own weakness. Had not the Lord said unto him, “Whither I go ye cannot follow Me now?” (John 13:36). All self-boasting is a contradiction to His Word. 3. Unwatchfulness. He said unto Peter, “Simon, sleepest thou?” (v. 37). Pride and self-confidence are sure to lead to unwatchfulness. It is the consciously weak ones who lean hard. Sleepy souls are easily tempted (v. 38). By his sleep he became insensible to the sufferings of Christ. The next step down is— 4. Ashamedness. “Peter followed Him afar off” (v. 54). Jesus is not so popular now with the multitude. Peter follows; but far enough off as not to be identified with Him. A professing Christian is indeed afar off when he is ashamed of Him and His Word. At this stage the Word of God is neglected, prayer given up, and the company of those who testify for Christ forsaken. 5. Worldliness. “Peter sat with the servants, and warmed himself at the fire” (v. 54). Having fallen out of company with Christ, he now finds his company among those who know him not, and warms himself at the enemy’s fire. While the prodigal was spending his all in the far country he was just seeking to warm himself with the coals of the enemy’s fire. This is what the backslider is doing in seeking to find pleasure and comfort in the ways and things of the ungodly. A Christian must be cold indeed when he turns to the crackling thorns of worldly delights for heart warmth. 6. Denial. While he was warming himself he was charged with having been with Jesus. But he denied, saying, “I know not” (vs. 67, 68). When a man has gone the length of finding warmth among the Lord’s enemies we are prepared for the next sad step—denial. This is often done, if not by lip yet by wicked works. The Lord has uttered a solemn warning to such in Matthew 10:33. 7. Recklessness. “He began to curse and to swear saying, I know not this Man” (v. 71). He had said, “Though all shall be offended, yet will not I,” yet he becomes more easily offended than any, and now staggers into the ditch of open profanity. If a backslider be not restored before he goes the length of shameless lip denial the likelihood is that he will soon be found in the ranks of the reckless, the drunken, or some other open sin. 8. Repentance. Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, and when he thought thereon he wept (v. 72). The Lord had not prayed for Judas that his faith fail not, and he went out and hanged himself. It was when the prodigal son thought of his father’s house that he said, “I will arise and go to my father.” It is usually by some word of Christ that the backslider is brought to think of his ways, and to weep the bitter tears of repentance. Mark 14:30 And Jesus said to him, "Truly I say to you, that this very night, before a rooster crows twice, you yourself will deny Me three times." this day: Ge 1:5,8,13,19,23 before: Mk 14:66-72 Mt 26:69-75 Lu 22:54-62 Joh 18:17,25-27 1Co 10:12 Mark 14 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Related Passages: Matthew 26:34 Jesus said to him, “Truly I say to you that this very night, before a rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.” 35 Peter *said to Him, “Even if I have to die with You, I will not deny You.” All the disciples said the same thing too. Luke 22:34+ And He said, “I say to you, Peter, the rooster will not crow today until you have denied three times that you know Me.” John 13:38 Jesus answered, “Will you lay down your life for Me? Truly, truly, I say to you, a rooster will not crow until you deny Me three times. JESUS' PETRINE PROPHECY OF PETER'S DENIAL Luke's version gives us some background not found in Mark. Before predicting Peter's denial Jesus had declared to him "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded [permission] (exaiteo) to sift (exaiteo) you like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers." (Lk 22:31-32+) And Jesus said to him, "Truly (amen ) I say to you - This is the fourth and last "amen" statement in Mark 14 (Mk 14:9, 18, 25, 30), which Jesus uses to add a note of solemnity and authority to the "Petrine Prophecy" He is about to declare, once again showing His divine omniscience not only regarding Peter's heart but the rooster's crows! That this very night, before a rooster crows twice, you yourself will deny Me three times." - Jesus in essence calls Peter's declaration a lie! Jesus predicts Peter's denial and even gives the timing of His denial! Peter's failure would happen in the next few hours, before the night was over, because roosters typically crow at dawn's first light. Fitzmyer catches the sense of the prophecy – Peter’s ‘triple denial will come so quickly that a cock will not even be able to crow twice.' Play compilation of rooster's crowing (far more than 3 times). Notice that while all 11 would desert Jesus, Jesus makes it clear that Peter will not only desert Him but also deny Him! Jesus did not use the usual verb for deny (arneomai), but chose a very strong verb (aparneomai) that signifies utter and complete denial! All 4 Gospels record the fulfillment of Jesus "Petrine Prophecy." . Yes Peter would deny Jesus but He would return (Read Acts 2:1-4, 14-41+). This event serves as living proof of the indestructible power of the saving faith that God graciously grants to His children! God is able to keep saved those He saves! J C Ryle on the improbability of Peter's denial - This, be it remembered, was a very remarkable prediction, and a striking evidence of our Lord’s foreknewledge. That Peter should deny his Master at all, that he should actually deny Him that very night after receiving the Lord’s Supper,—that he should deny Him alter plain warnings, and after strong protestations that he would rather die,—and that he should deny his Master three times,—were all most improbable events. Yet they all took place! Deny (533)(aparneomai from apó = from + arneomai = to deny, refuse) means to deny, to refuse to recognize or acknowledge. It is a strengthened form of arneomai and thus mean to deny utterly (to completely deny) as used in this context of Peter denying any connection with Jesus (Mt 26:34, 35, 75, Mk 14:30, 31, 72, Lk 22:34, 22:62). THOUGHT- What is amazing is Peter knew this prophecy about his denial and yet was unable to keep it from being fulfilled! You would have thought after the first denial, Peter would have recalled the prophecy and been alert for two more denials. Clearly Peter's fear of men kicked into gear and stimulated a fleshly response. In one sense, we should not be surprised at Peter's denial. We have all had situations where we knew the truth and yet failed to act on the truth, instead acting in a fleshly manner. Related Resources: What was the reason behind Peter’s denial of Jesus? | GotQuestions.org What is the significance of the rooster crowing in regards to Peter denying Jesus three times? | GotQuestions.org How did the apostle Peter die? | GotQuestions.org What does it mean to deny yourself? What is self-denial? | GotQuestions.org What does the Bible say about shame and regret? | GotQuestions.org Can a person believe in some sense but not be saved? | GotQuestions.org How many prophecies did Jesus fulfill? | GotQuestions.org Illustration - A shipwrecked man managed to reach an uninhabited island. There, to protect himself against the elements and to safeguard the few possessions he had salvaged, he painstakingly built a little hut from which he constantly and prayerfully scanned the horizon for the approach of a ship. Returning one evening after a search for food, he was terrified to find the hut completely enveloped in flames. Yet by divine mercy this hard affliction was changed into a mighty advantage. Early the following morning he awoke to find a ship anchored off the island. When the captain stepped ashore, he explained, "We saw your smoke signal and came." Everything the marooned man owned had to be destroyed before he could be rescued. The trials and adversities of life are never pleasant, but it in them that we learn the secrets of dependence, of grace, of hope and of His presence. None of us wishes for trials or adversity, but it is through them that God refines the metal of our lives and molds us into His image. Just as metal is placed in a furnace and heated to a white hot state so the dross can be removed, God allows us to enter the furnace of affliction so that He might refine and purify our lives. Of course, the most difficult of the adversities we face is that which comes from sin and the attack of the devil. When we are forced to enter that furnace, the potential for pain is greatest....This passage lets us know that we do not have to fail in the attacks of life. We do not have to crawl away in defeat, never to be heard from again. I want to show you that anyone can endure the trials, tests and adversities of life. I want to show you that even if you have failed, you can still rise from the ashes and salvage what Satan has attempted to destroy. I want to share, from this passage, some Help For Sifted Saints. (Alan Carr) QUESTION - What is the significance of the rooster crowing in regards to Peter denying Jesus three times? ANSWER - Matthew 26:34, Luke 22:34, and John 13:38 all record Jesus telling Peter, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” Mark words it differently, which has led to some confusion. Mark 14:30 says, “And Jesus said to him, ‘Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times’” (emphasis added). Then, when the first servant girl questioned Peter about his relationship to Jesus, “he denied it, saying, ‘I neither know nor understand what you mean.’ And he went out into the gateway and the rooster crowed” (Mark 14:68). Later, after Peter’s third denial, “immediately the rooster crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, ‘Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times.’ And he broke down and wept” (Mark 14:72). Did the rooster crow once or twice, and what is the significance of that crowing? Since we know that all Scripture is God-breathed and therefore accurate (2 Timothy 3:16), we can rest assured that there are always explanations for seeming inconsistencies. In biblical days, roosters were common within the towns and cities. The first crowing often occurred around midnight. The second crowing could be expected before daybreak. Jesus’ prediction about Peter’s denials meant that Peter would have opportunities all night long to repeat the validating claim he made when he told Jesus, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16). However, despite three opportunities, the overconfident Peter denied His Lord every time. When daylight came, Jesus’ mock trial was over, and Peter lost his opportunities to defend Jesus as he had claimed he would do (Mark 14:29). Jesus did not say that Peter would deny Him before any rooster’s crow. So the report of a first crowing does not negate the validity of Jesus’ words. In those days, when someone made the comment “before the rooster crows,” it would have been commonly understood to mean the crowing at daybreak. But morning was not the only time roosters crowed. As anyone who has lived on a farm can attest, roosters crow whenever they feel like it. A rooster can crow when he senses danger, when another rooster threatens his flock, or simply because he got his days and nights mixed up. So it is perfectly understandable that Jesus would have been precise in prophesying to Peter that a rooster would actually crow twice during the time Peter was denying Him. The first crowing would not have been noticed by Peter at that moment, since people were used to hearing roosters at random times. It is similar to how people living near train tracks get used to hearing the noise of trains and stop noticing the sound. But when the morning rooster crowed, Peter was struck with the accuracy of Jesus’ words, and he went out and wept bitterly. It is also noteworthy that Mark was a close associate of Peter’s (1 Peter 5:13) and would have obtained many details for his Gospel from Peter himself. After the fact, Peter would have considered the first crowing more significant than he did at the time. Jesus’ prophetic words must have played over and over in his head as he then recalled the first crowing and then the second. It seems likely that, in his retelling of that night to Mark, Peter would have made mention of both crowings. Mark does not in any way contradict the other accounts, which only mention the second crowing. The second crowing was the most important one, since it marked the end of Peter’s testing. Because of the prominence of the story of Peter and the rooster, recorded in all four Gospels, the rooster, or cock, has at times been used as a Christian symbol. Some churches even place a rooster atop their steeples. Used as a symbol, the rooster represents the weakness of man and the grace of Christ in forgiving sinners. Peter three times denied his Lord and Savior, but he was forgiven, restored, and sent out to live for the glory of God (John 21:15–19). The rooster reminds us that Christ extends hope to sinners everywhere. The rooster, used as a Christian symbol, can also represent watchfulness. Before His arrest, Jesus prayed in the garden and asked His disciples to do the same. But He found them sleeping, and He said to Peter, “Are you asleep? Couldn’t you keep watch for one hour? Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation” (Mark 14:37–38). Later that night, Peter did indeed fall into temptation, and the rooster’s crow served as his spiritual wake-up call. The rooster can still be a reminder today that we must watch and pray and live as children of light: “You are all children of the light and children of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness” (1 Thessalonians 5:5). The rooster could also be seen as proclaiming the start of a new day. In Christ, all things become new (2 Corinthians 5:17). A new day of forgiveness and grace has dawned, and believers, saved by grace, proclaim the good news to a world in need of light. Jesus is never impressed with our fleshly bravado such as Peter expressed in Matthew 26:35. Jesus knows our hearts better than we do (Matthew 9:4; Luke 9:47). But, even though He knows the ways we will fail Him, our Lord does not stop loving us or using us to further His message. Those rooster crowings must have haunted Peter for many years and may have helped him stay humble, watchful, and committed to his calling. Our past failures can be battle scars in our lives as well, propelling us toward greater devotion and stricter loyalty to Jesus when we recall how much we have been forgiven (see Luke 7:47). Rod Mattoon - The Dictionary of Nautical Literacy records a true story that illustrates the destructiveness of overconfidence and pride. During a 1923 training exercise, a naval destroyer called the USS Delphy led a flotilla of seven vessels down the California coast. The USS Delphy was captained by Lieutenant Commander Donald T. Hunter, an experienced navigator and instructor at the Naval Academy. Without warning, about halfway on their training mission, a thick blanket of fog descended on the ships like a thick white veil. Hunter said it looked like pea soup and it prevented him from getting an accurate evaluation of his location. Contrary to Hunter's calculations, the lead ship was headed right into Devil's Jaw, which was a series of rocky outcroppings that were a scant two miles off the California coast near Santa Barbara. The dangerous area didn't stop Hunter from plowing ahead. This was not surprising, for Hunter was known for his self-confident decisiveness and what others called his "magic infallibility" to guide his ship. Traveling at 20 knots (23 mph), suddenly the USS Delphy smashed broadside into the rocky Point Arguello shoreline. The force of the massive collision of welded steel and jagged rock split the hull of the USS Delphy in half. One by one, the other destroyers followed the Delphy's lead and smashed into the rocks. Twenty-three naval men died. The accident resulted in the loss of all seven ships. It still stands as one of the worst peacetime naval disasters in history. Why? Pride goes before destruction and a haughty spirit before the fall. Our pride leads to a forecast for failure. The Rooster’s Crow - Robert Morgan I’ve often thought of Peter when noticing how easily men cry in my office. In my experience, more men than women have broken down during counseling sessions, and often because of guilt. The husband who ruined his marriage. The father whose temper drove away his son. The alcoholic who relapsed. When the eyes of Jesus scorch a man, when he hears the rooster’s crow and weeps bitterly, determined to change, he is then at last beyond regret, beyond remorse, to a level of sorrow called repentance. Two biblical characters, I’ve found, offer the best advice to men at such junctions. Peter teaches God-forgiveness. Though Peter denied Jesus three times, the Lord appeared to him privately following the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:5), with a view of restoring him (Luke 22:32). We have no record of the details of that meeting, but Peter undoubtedly confessed his sin in utter self-contempt and contrition; and there he vividly learned the power of the “precious blood of Christ” (1 Peter 1:19). Later by the sea, Jesus drew a three-fold affirmation of love from his wounded disciple (John 21:15–19, and the spiritual restoration was deepened. But another layer of healing is necessary, for it is often easier to be forgiven by God than to forgive oneself. Here, the Old Testament hero Joseph helps us. Just as Jesus was betrayed by Peter, Joseph was betrayed by his own brothers who sold him into slavery. But years later, he said to them: “Do not be grieved or angry with yourselves because you sold me here; for God sent me before you to preserve life” (Genesis 45:5). In other words, “I’ve forgiven you. Now stop beating yourselves up over this. Don’t wallow in it any longer. Put it behind you, for God, who overrules all, has used even this sin for good.” Our faults and failures are damning matters; but when we kneel before the risen Christ, confessing our sins, His blood forgives us thoroughly; and we rise from our knees to forgive ourselves and to get on with the Master’s business. When Critics Ask, page 306 - Norman Geisler - MATTHEW 26:34 (cf. Mark 14:30+)—When Peter denied Christ, did the rooster crow once or twice? PROBLEM: Matthew and John 13:38+ say before the rooster crows once, Peter will have denied the Lord three times. But Mark affirms that before the rooster crows twice Peter will deny Christ three times. Which account is right? SOLUTION: There is no contradiction between the two accounts because, given the correctness of the text, Matthew and John do not expressly state how many times the rooster will crow. They simply say Peter will deny Christ three times “before the rooster crows,” but they do not say how many times it will crow. Mark may simply be more specific, affirming exactly how many times the rooster would crow. It is also possible that different accounts are due to an early copyist error in Mark, that resulted in the insertion of “two” in early manuscripts (at Mark 14:30+ and Mark 14:72+). This would explain why some important manuscripts of Mark mention only one crowing, just like Matthew and John, and why “two” appears at different places in some manuscripts. Norman Geisler - Parallel accounts in the Gospels - PETER'S DENIALS - When Skeptics Ask - page 120 Many critics have blasted the Gospels because of variations in their records of the same events. Some even insist that it is impossible to harmonize all of the accounts into a cohesive whole. The existence of such harmonies as A.T. Robertson’s should suffice to quiet these complaints, but some still persist. A common objection is found in Peter’s denials. All accounts agree that Christ told Peter he would deny Him three times, but there appear to be more than three denials recorded. Also, Mark 14:30 says that the cock will crow twice and proceeds to mention two crows (Mk 14:68, 72), but there is only one crow spoken of in the other Gospels. There are, however, possible solutions which account for all the evidence without contradiction. First, as to the number of cock crows, there is no real problem if we understand that Mark simply included a detail that the others omitted. Since Peter himself was probably the source of Mark’s information (they are related in 1 Peter 5:13), there is no reason to doubt his word. It is reasonable to think that Peter might have noticed a cock crowing after the first denial and that he would include such details that the other disciples ignored because it had more personal relevance to him. The number of denials can be harmonized as follows: HARMONIZING PETER'S DENIALS FIRST DENIAL SECOND DENIAL THIRD DENIAL Mt. 26:69–70; Mk 14:66–68; Lk 22:55–57; Jn 18:17–18 Mt. 26:71–72; Mk 14:69–70a; Lk 22:58; Jn 18:25 Mt. 26:73–74; Mk 14:70b–72; Lk 22:59–60; Jn 18:26–27 Peter is warming himself by a fire in the court and a servant of the high priest brings the accusation, knowing that he entered with John. John’s description of the scene follows his account of the denial. A cock crows, noted by Mark. Peter has moved to a different fire on the porch when a second servant brings the same accusation. A relative of Malchus first recognizes Peter, then others note that his accent is Galilean. A second cock crows, noted by all. Second, it is possible that there is a copyist’s mistake in Mark 14:68, 72. The statement “and a cock crowed” may have been inadvertently written into verse 68 when it was originally only in verse 72. The word “second” would have been inserted later by someone seeking to clarify it. One of the very best Greek manuscripts supports this and a few other copies agree. As long as it is possible to reconcile alleged contradictions in one of these ways, there is no real contradiction. Since there are possible solutions, the Bible should be given the benefit of the doubt. Gleason Archer - How can the various accounts of Peter’s denial of Christ be reconciled? - Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties page 343 Concerning Peter’s denial, Christ is quoted in Matthew 26:34 as stating, “Truly I tell you that this night, before the rooster crows, you will three times deny Me.” Mark 14:30 quotes Jesus a little more fully: “And Jesus says to him, “ ‘Truly I tell you that today, this very night, before the rooster crows twice you will three times deny Me.’ ” (Luke 22:34 substantially follows Matthew’s wording, though in a somewhat briefer version.) Is this a real discrepancy, as some critics allege? Hardly, since we may be very sure that if the rooster crows twice, he has at least crowed once. Apparently Jesus did specify that the cock would crow a second time by the time the third denial had been expressed by Peter. The important part of the prediction, however, lay not in the number of times the rooster would sound out but in the number of times Peter would basely deny to his interrogators that he belonged to Jesus—or even that he was acquainted with Him. To add or include additional information does not amount to a contradiction of the testimony of a witness who has given a somewhat briefer account. Such variation is observed in the lecture notes taken by students in a classroom: some include more details than others. But that does not mean they are not all equally valid witnesses to what their instructor said. The same observation applied to the account of the triple denial itself. Each synoptist includes some items of information not included by the others, and John furnishes many details not found in the Synoptics at all. But it is perfectly clear that none of the statements are actually contradictory. When they are lined up in parallel columns, their rich wealth of information gives us a fuller account than could be gathered from any single one of them. Such a comparison yields the following composite narrative of Peter’s miserable experience during Christ’s trial before Caiaphas. Peter was admitted to the outer court of the high priest after John had spoken to the doorkeeper (thyrōcros is probably masculine here) who guarded the approach from the street (John 18:15–16). After Peter entered, he sat down by a fire to warm himself on that chilly night (Luke 22:56). But a girl who served as a doorkeeper on the inner side of the gate began looking intently at him and finally blurted out, “You too were with Jesus, the Galilean from Nazareth!” (Mark 14:67) (Luke 22:56 reads “You too were with him!”). Then she asked him point blank, “Aren’t you one of His disciples?” (John 18:17). To this Peter uttered his first denial, “I am not!” He added, “I don’t know or understand what you are talking about” (Matt. 26:70; Mark 14:68). Then he stoutly affirmed, “I don’t know Him, woman!” (Luke 22:57). After this brush with danger, Peter wandered off to the portico of the building itself; but even there he attracted some unwelcome attention. Another servant girl, who may well have been tipped off by the female gatekeeper, remarked to one of the bystanders, “This man was with Jesus the Nazarene” (Matt. 26:71). “He certainly was one of them,” she insisted (Mark 14:69). At this point, one of the men in the group leveled an accusing finger at Peter and declared, “You are one of them!” (Luke 22:58). Peter had by this time joined some men standing around a charcoal fire (apparently not the same fire he had stopped by in the outer court); they also picked up the accusation: “You too were with Jesus the Galilean!” (Matt. 26:73; Mark 14:70). They followed this charge with a forthright question: “Are you one of His disciples?” (John 18:25). With mounting intensity Peter replied, “Man, I am not!” (Luke 22:58). “I neither know nor understand what you are talking about!” (Matt. 26:72). Somewhat later, perhaps as long as an hour after the second denial (Luke 22:59), a relative of the servant Peter had wounded at Gethsemane spotted him and shouted out, “Didn’t I see you in the garden with Him? You certainly must have been with Him, for you are a Galilean” (Luke 22:59). At this the bystanders chimed in; “You are certainly one of them, for you are a Galilean” (Mark 14:70). “You must be, for you talk with Galilean accent” (Matt. 26:73). At this, Peter began to panic; so he broke out into cursing and swearing: “By God, I don’t even know the man you’re talking about!” (Mark 14:71). As soon as he had uttered this lie, Peter heard a rooster crowing. Suddenly he remembered how he had boasted the night before that he was ready to go to his death rather than deny his Lord. It was at that moment that Jesus Himself, who was still standing before Caiaphas under trial, looked over in Peter’s direction—and their eyes met (Luke 22:61). Covered with shame and full of self-loathing, Peter hurried out of the high priestly palace into the darkness of the night, now graying into dawn; and he sat down to weep and sob out his contrition before God. In conclusion, then, the four testimonies of the Evangelists contain no contradictions, even though the information they yield may be somewhat diverse. As in any properly conducted court hearing, it is the task of the judge and jury to piece together the full account of the occurrence under investigation on the basis of the report of their individual witness. Much of their testimony will, of course, be identical; but in each case there will be some details recalled or thought worth mentioning that are forthcoming from the other witnesses. There is under the laws of legal evidence no good grounds for concluding, as some biased scholars mistakenly do, that the difference between the Gospels involve genuine discrepancies and unresolvable contradictions. Critics such as these would be utterly incompetent to sit in judgment in any court of law. Mark 14:31 But Peter kept saying insistently, "Even if I have to die with You, I will not deny You!" And they all were saying the same thing also. kept saying: 2Ki 8:13 Job 40:4,5 Ps 30:6 Pr 16:18 18:24 29:23 Jer 10:23 Jer 17:9 saying the same thing: Ex 19:8 De 5:27-29 Mark 14 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Related Passages: Matthew 26:35 Peter *said to Him, “Even if I have to die with You, I will not deny You.” All the disciples said the same thing too. Luke 22:33+ But he said to Him, “Lord, with You I am ready to go both to prison and to death!” John 13:37 Peter *said to Him, “Lord, why can I not follow You right now? I will lay down my life for You.” PETER DENIES HE WILL DENY! But - Term of contrast. What a contrast it is! Peter denies that he will deny Jesus! Peter kept saying insistently -Kept saying is in the imperfect tense picturing Peter as repeatedly saying something like "Not me Lord. I would never deny You. No not me!" Insistently (ekperissos) means excessively, vehemently, emphatically. It gives us a vivid picture of Peter going beyond normal limits to rule out that he would ever deny Jesus. What do they say? Talk is cheap. Put your actions where your mouth is! Peter would be unable to back up his words when the fire of affliction began to burn hotter and closer! THOUGHT - Here we see the first stage of Peter's failure - SELF CONFIDENCE. He felt he was too loyal and too strong to deny his Lord. Yet the human heart is "deceitful above al1 things and desperately wicked" (Jer 17:9), and is a most faithless bedfellow. Never are we in greater danger of falling than when we are confident in our ability to stand (1 Cor 10:12). That is why we must ever cultivate a spirit of desperate dependence upon the power of God for everyday living (John 15:4-5). (Dwight Edwards) Even if I have to die with You, I will not deny You! - Not only did Jesus' prophecy of Peter's triple denial not damper his enthusiasm, it only fueled Peter's bravado so that now he not only will not deny Jesus, he will die for Jesus! Will not is a strong double negative (ou me - absolutely will not!) That sounds like he is very committed but he will soon be tested. Luke 22:33+ has "Lord, with You I am ready to go both to prison and to death!” he brazenly manifest his typical overconfident bravado (swaggering show of courage). Peter was sincere but would prove sincerely wrong. Peter underestimated the weakness of his flesh (something we all frequently do when tempted). Hiebert - Peter’s IF implies expectancy. He is willing to admit that his joint death with Jesus may be necessary. But he will not allow the fear of death to induce him to deny Jesus. (The Gospel of Mark: An Expositional Commentary) Plummer writes that "in his vehemence he does not see that he is charging Christ with uttering false predictions!" J C Ryle - This profession was the language of a self-confident, inexperienced disciple who had not yet found out the weakness of his own faith, and the deceitfulness of his own heart. Men little know what they will do, till the time of temptation actually comes. “Is thy servant a dog,” said Hazael, “that he should do this great thing?” (2 Kings 8:13.) THOUGHT - I have heard saints say "I am never tempted to _____ sin." While I am glad they can say that, they need to be aware that the only reason they have been able to resist that sin is because of God's provision of His Spirit and His grace and not their self-energized self-control! It is a dangerous thing in Christianity to say "I would never commit that sin." Beloved, as Peter would soon prove, when God removes His hedge of protection and gives our depraved sin nature full sway, we are capable of virtually any sin, whether "respectable" or "heinous!" Including even denying our Lord Jesus Christ! Simon should have prayed Ps 139:23, 24+, a good prayer for all disciples to pray from time to time because sin is so deceitful we may not even be aware of it! And they all were saying the same thing also - All 10 give their hearty "Amen" to Peter's firm denial of defection. While Jesus did not predict the other 10 would deny Him three times, He had predicted they would be scattered. Saying (lego) is in the imperfect tense which pictures them over and over denying they would depart and affirming they would remain loyal until "death do us part!" It is interesting that all 11 by saying they would remain loyal in effect implied Jesus had finally pronounced an inaccurate prophecy! But in only a few hours Jesus' prophecy was proven to absolutely "spot on." (See Mk 14:50, Mark 14:72). THOUGHT - Although we would all like to think we are different, the truth is we are all a lot like Peter and the rest of the disciples. We would have denied and departed rather than risk death! We all make all types of claims and promises to God but we cannot keep – “I will follow Christ anywhere!” I will never commit that sin again Lord, I promise! Look at God’s covenant people in OT times pledging to keep all of God’s laws – how did that turn out? John
Marcos 14
Ryle - this passage, an example of what believers ought to do in time of trouble. The great Head of the Church Himself supplies the pattern. We are told that when He came to the Mount of Olives, the night before He was crucified, “He kneeled down and prayed.” It is a striking fact, that both the Old and New Testaments give one and the same receipt for bearing trouble. What says the book of Psalms? “Call upon me in the time of trouble: I will deliver thee.” (Psalm 50:15.) What says the apostle James? “Is any afflicted? let him pray.” (James 5:13.) Prayer is the receipt which Jacob used, when he feared his brother Esau.—Prayer is the receipt which Job used when property and children were suddenly taken from him. Prayer is the receipt which Hezekiah used when Sennacherib’s threatening letter arrived. And prayer is the receipt which the Son of God Himself was not ashamed to use in the days of His flesh. In the hour of His mysterious agony He “prayed.” Let us take care that we use our Master’s remedy, if we want comfort in affliction. Whatever other means of relief we use, let us pray. The first Friend we should turn to ought to be God. The first message we should send ought to be to the throne of grace. No depression of spirits must prevent us. No crushing weight of sorrow must make us dumb. It is a prime device of Satan, to supply the afflicted man with false reasons for keeping silence before God. Let us beware of the temptation to brood sullenly over our wounds. If we can say nothing else, we can say, “I am oppressed: undertake for me.” (Isa 38:14.) Henry Blackaby - Going Farther with God Then He went a little farther, fell to the ground, and began to pray that if it were possible, the hour might pass from Him.—Mark 14:35 Some Christians are satisfied to have only a surface relationship with Christ. Others desire to share the holiest moments with Him. On the night Jesus spent in sacred prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane, the people responded to Him in various ways. There were those who were so indifferent to Jesus that they were unaware He was even in the garden. Then there was Judas, who knew where Jesus was but was too busy with his own schemes to join Him. The rest of the disciples joined Jesus in the garden, but they were distracted by sleep. Jesus told them the urgency of the hour, but they did not comprehend it. There was the inner circle of disciples, Peter, James, and John. They initially prayed with Jesus, yet even they could not grasp the significance of the moment. Ultimately, Jesus prayed alone. He went farther than His disciples and prayed longer. At the greatest moment of intercession in human history, there was no one willing to go with Jesus and watch with Him. Throughout history God has looked for those willing to yield everything to Him and His desire to redeem a world. At times God has marveled that no one was willing to go with Him (Isa. 63:5; 59:16). The prophets seemed to grasp more than the common people, for while society carried on as though nothing were wrong the prophets agonized and wept over what they knew God was preparing to do. God is calling you to go deeper in your prayer life with Him. If you are willing to be the person Jesus can take with Him into the most sacred moments, you will experience things only the angels shared with Jesus in the garden that night. Mark 14:36 And He was saying, "Abba! Father! All things are possible for You; remove this cup from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will." Abba: Mt 6:9 Ro 8:15,16 Ga 4:6 all: Mk 10:27 Ge 18:14 Jer 32:27 2Ti 2:13 Tit 1:2 Heb 5:7 6:18 remove: Lu 22:41,42 yet not what I will: Ps 40:8 Joh 4:34 5:30 6:38,39 12:27 18:11 Php 2:8 Heb 5:7,8 Mark 14 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Play song Abba Father Related Passages: Matthew 26:39 And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will.” Luke 22:42+ saying, “Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done.” Christ in Gethsemane Heinrich Hofmann, 1886 JESUS' INTIMATE, INTENSE REQUEST FOR THE CUP TO BE REMOVED In the famous painting entitled “The Agony in the Garden of Gethsemane,” in which the artist, Heinrich Hofmann, depicts Jesus on His knees in prayer with His hands clasped, the darkness of the painting is broken only by a halo of light around Jesus’ head and a heavenly light above. Hofmann chose not to paint the garden. It almost looks like Jesus is in a desert instead. In this way Hofmann captured something of the agony that Jesus endured during this long night of prayer. However, if we read Matthew's version, it appears Hoffman's painting may not be entirely accurate for Matthew says Jesus "went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed." (Mt 26:39+) We always need to be careful not to derive our theology form artistic renderings but from the Bible! And He was saying, "Abba! Father! - Abba is transliterated as Abba into English from the corresponding Aramaic word which was used in the everyday language of families as a term addressing one's father. Hiebert - “Abba, Father”—the bilingual form of address, used only here in the Gospels, stresses His filial consciousness even in His agony. He knew God was His Father even when He was being offered the bitter cup. Abba is Aramaic, while Father is the Greek equivalent. Abba was an everyday Jewish family term, used in the intimacy of the family. Among the Jews, it was seldom used with reference to God and then always with modifiers which denoted the distance between man and God. The Gospel writers never employ the term Abba in recording the teaching of Jesus concerning the Father, but the Aramaic term was apparently regularly used by Him in His teaching. His use of the term, which may mean “my father” or “our father,” thus conveyed a sense of intimacy in relation to God. His use of it for God may well have seemed somewhat disrespectful to His hearers, but it served to suggest a closeness with God which was something new to Judaism. The double title Abba, Father occurs only three times in the New Testament (Mark 14:36; Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6), always in the salutation in prayer to God. Mark’s employment of the double title here in the prayer of Jesus has been differently explained. Some regard it as Mark’s interpretative addition for the benefit of his Greek readers. But Mark gives no indication, as elsewhere, that he was adding a translation. Others hold that the double title was part of the original prayer as used by Jesus; it was preserved in the preaching of Peter as part of his vivid recollection of the scene. Since Jesus was bilingual, in His deep emotion He may well have felt impelled to use both terms. This seems probable. Still others think that Mark’s double designation was derived from the common usage of the bilingual Palestinian congregations. Paul’s employment of the double title in his epistles makes it clear that the double title had passed into common use among the Greek-speaking churches. It had apparently become a quasi-liturgical formula in addressing God. It probably came into common usage in the churches because Jesus had used it and because it denoted a new intimacy with God which Jesus had revealed and which had become a vital reality in the lives of His followers. (The Gospel of Mark: An Expositional Commentary) Abba (Aramaic for "father") (3962)(0005 - click to listen to pronunciation accentuating second syllable) (Abba) is transliterated as Abba into English from the corresponding Aramaic word which was used in the everyday language of families as a term addressing one's father. Children, as well as adult sons and daughters, used Abba when speaking to their fathers. And so Abba conveys a warm, intimate sense just as with our expression "Dear father." Abba emphasizes the warm, intimate and very personal relationship which exists between the believer and God. In Abba filial tenderness, trust and love find their combined expression. William
Marcos 14
Ryle adds "Prayer the Best Remedy in Time of Trouble - First, let us learn that prayer is the best practical remedy that we can use in time of trouble. We see that Christ himself prayed when his soul was sorrowful: all true Christians ought to do the same.Trouble is a cup that all must drink in this world of sin: we are “;born to trouble as surely as sparks fly upward” (Job 5:7); we cannot avoid it. Of all creatures, none is so vulnerable as mankind: our bodies, our minds, our families, our business, our friends, are all so many doors through which trial will come in. The holiest saints can claim no exemption from it: like their Master, they are often people of sorrow.But what is the first thing to be done in time of trouble? We must pray. Like Job, we must fall down and worship (Job 1:20); like Hezekiah, we must spread it out before the Lord (2 Kings 19:14). The first person we must turn to for help must be our God. We must tell our Father in heaven all our sorrow; we must believe confidently that nothing is too trivial or minute to be laid before him, so long as we do it with entire submission to his will. It is the mark of faith to keep nothing back from our best Friend: so doing, we may be sure we shall have an answer. “If it is possible” (verse 39), and the thing we ask is for God’s glory, it will be done: the thorn in the flesh will either be removed, or grace to endure it will be given to us, as it was to St. Paul (2 Corinthians 12:9). May we all store up this lesson against the day of need. It is a true saying that “prayers are the leeches of care.” Solomon gives us some wisom about not coming into temptation: Do not enter the path of the wicked (cp Ps 1:1+), and do not proceed in the way of evil men. Avoid (command) it, do not pass by it. Turn away (command) from it and pass on (command). (Pr 4:14, 15) Comment: And so in the present passage, the Lord Jesus instructs us that one way not to "enter the path of the wicked" is by continually watching and praying! Temptation (3986) (peirasmos from peirazo = to make trial of, try, tempt, prove in either a good or bad sense) describes first the idea of putting to the test and then refers to the tests that come in order to discover a person’s nature or the quality of some thing. Think of yourself as a tube of "spiritual toothpaste". Pressure brings out what's really on the inside! The context determines whether the intended purpose of the "temptation" is for good or for evil. We see this distinction in James chapter 1 where the first use of peirasmos refers to "trials for good" (as in 1Pe 1:6)… Consider it (aorist imperative ~ do it now once and for all!) all (wholly) joy ("whole joy", unmixed joy, without admixture of sorrow, not just "some joy" along with much grief! How is this possible? The Spirit produces His joy in you - Ga 5:22+), my brethren, when (implies temptations are to be expected) you encounter (fall into the midst of so as to be totally surrounded by) various (poikilos - all "shapes and sizes" of) trials (peirasmos), knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. (Jas 1:2,3+). From this passage we can see that God sends or allows tests (peirasmos) to increase the strength and quality of our faith and to demonstrate its validity. Every trial becomes a test of faith designed to strengthen the believer's faith, but if the believer fails the test by wrongly responding, then that test becomes a temptation or a solicitation to evil. Later James uses the related verb peirazo explaining that no one should "say when he is tempted (peirazo), “I am being tempted (peirazo) by God”; for God cannot be tempted (apeirastos from a = without + peirazo = tempt > incapable of being tempted) by evil, and He Himself does not tempt (peirazo) anyone." (Jas 1:13+) To summarize, if a believer responds to a peirasmos in faith (which in the context of Mt 26:41 = watching and praying prior to the peirasmos), he successfully endures a trial (and we call it just that -- a "trial" and not a "temptation") but if he falls into it, doubts God and disobeys, the trial becomes a "temptation" which can lead to sin. God allows "peirasmos" into our life not to make us sin but to make us more like the Savior. Not so with Satan as his encounter with our Lord illustrates. Matthew records that "Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted (peirazo- the verbal root of peirasmos) by the devil. (Mt 4:1+) The temptation of Jesus was morally neutral -- there was nothing inherently evil in offering Jesus bread (Mt 4:2, 3, 4+). The context however allows us to determine that the purpose of the testing was clearly for evil not good. Satan, the Evil one himself, used the "neutral" peirasmos in an attempt to induce Jesus to commit a sin. When peirasmos is used in a passage in which the context indicates it has to do with inducing one to sin, most modern Bible versions translate it as "temptation". To reiterate, when God is the agent, peirasmos is for the purpose of proving us, never for the purpose of causing us to fall. If it is the devil who tempts us even though it is the same Greek word, his nefarious purpose is to trip us up. In a sermon titled Faith Tested and Crowned (Ge 22:1-14) Alexander Maclaren distinguished between being tempted and being tried or tested. He said that temptation conveys the idea of appealing to the worst part of man, with the wish that he may yield and do the wrong. The latter (trial) means an appeal to the better part of man, with the desire that he should stand. Temptation says, 'Do this pleasant thing; do not be hindered by the fact that it is wrong.' Trial or proving says, 'Do this right and noble thing; do not be hindered by the fact that it is painful.' In sum, peirasmos refers to all the trials, testing, temptations that go into furnishing a test of one's character. As J C Ryle said "Trials are intended to make us think, to wean us from the world, to send us to the Bible, to drive us to our knees." J. C. Ryle exhorts us to "settle it firmly in our minds that there is a meaning, a needs-be and a message from God in every sorrow that falls upon us… There are no lessons so useful as those learned in the school of affliction… (and be encouraged for) The tools that the great Architect intends to use much are often kept long in the fire, to temper them and fit them for work." Comment: The point is that testing will come, even as it did to Peter who cut off Malchus' ear and then proceeded to deny his Lord three times. The tests for Peter demonstrated his inability to withstand temptation in his own human strength. The tests always show us our insufficiency and inadequacy to live the "Christ life" and our desperate, constant need for God's grace and empowering presence in the Spirit of Christ. We cannot resist temptation in the weakness of our flesh. God never said we could! But He can and He always said He would! By God's Spirit, He can enable us to resist the temptation in His strength (Zech 4:6). When the tests/temptations come, may God's Spirit helps us to recognize them, to humble ourselves, to surrender to His will, to experience His all sufficient powerful transformative grace and to believe His promise that the Tempter must flee. One caution - we are not advocating that the believer take a passive role in fighting temptation as suggested by the false teaching "Let go, let God." The phrase is more accurately stated "Let God, let's go!" In other words, in reliance on God's Spirit, we take the necessary action to fight the temptation. For more discussion of this critically important truth in our battle for progressive sanctification see "Paradoxical Principle of 100% Dependent and 100% Responsible" (100/100) TESTING/TEMPTING TIMES REFINING/PURIFYING TIMES Spurgeon's words on the value of trials/temptations in his personal life should encourage all of us to recognize and receive similar testing/tempting times in our lives as for our good and for God's glory.