Introduction

The Gospels provide different accounts of when Jesus predicted Peter's denial. This apparent discrepancy has led to discussions among scholars and believers alike. In this essay, we will examine the various accounts, analyze their contexts, and explore possible explanations for the seeming inconsistency.

The Gospel Accounts

Let's begin by reviewing the relevant passages from each Gospel:

Luke's Account

John's Account

Matthew's Account

Mark's Account

Analysis of the Accounts

The accounts in Luke and John place Jesus' prediction during the Last Supper, while Matthew and Mark locate it later, as Jesus and his disciples were walking to Gethsemane. This apparent discrepancy raises questions about the exact timing and sequence of events.

Possible Explanations

Several explanations have been proposed to reconcile these accounts:

1. Multiple Predictions

Jesus predicted Peter's denial more than once. The accounts in Luke and John refer to an initial prediction during the Last Supper, while Matthew and Mark are recording a later reiteration of the prophecy on the way to Gethsemane.

2. Different Perspectives

Each Gospel writer may have chosen to emphasize different aspects of the evening's events, leading to variations in how they presented the timing of Jesus' predictions.

3. Reiteration by Peter

It's possible that Peter himself raised the issue again while walking to Gethsemane, prompting Jesus to repeat his prediction. This could explain why Matthew and Mark's accounts place the prediction later in the evening.

Contextual Considerations

To better understand these accounts, we should consider their broader context:

This passage from John indicates that Judas had already left to betray Jesus, placing the subsequent conversation (including the prediction of Peter's denial) during the Last Supper.

On the other hand, Matthew and Mark's accounts are preceded by Jesus' prediction that all the disciples would fall away, quoting Zechariah 13:7. This suggests a later timing, as Jesus prepared his disciples for the events to come.

The Discrepancy in Cock Crowings

An important detail that we must address is the difference in the number of cock crowings mentioned in the Gospel accounts. While Matthew, Luke, and John all mention a single cock crowing, Mark's account distinctly mentions two:

This discrepancy adds another layer of complexity to our analysis. Several explanations have been proposed by scholars:

1. Mark's Precision

Some argue that Mark, possibly drawing from Peter's own recollection, provides a more detailed account. The other Gospel writers might have simplified the prediction to focus on its fulfillment rather than the specific timing.

2. Different Focuses

The other Gospel writers may have focused on the final cock crow that coincided with Peter's third denial, while Mark chose to include the detail of an earlier crowing.

3. Idiomatic Expression

The phrase "before the cock crow" in the other Gospels might have been an idiomatic expression meaning "before dawn," while Mark provides a more literal account of the actual events.

Harmonization Attempts

Attempts to harmonize these accounts often suggest that there were indeed two cockcrowing, with Peter's denials occurring as follows:

1. First denial - before the first cock crow
2. Second and third denials - between the first and second cock crow

This interpretation allows for all Gospel accounts to be accurate, with Mark providing additional detail.

Conclusion

The difference in the number of cock crowings, along with the variations in the timing of Jesus' prediction, reminds us of the complex nature of the Gospel narratives. Each evangelist wrote with a specific audience and purpose in mind, sometimes emphasizing different details or arranging events to highlight particular theological points.

Rather than seeing these differences as contradictions, we can view them as complementary perspectives that provide a richer, more nuanced understanding of the events surrounding Peter's denial. The core message remains consistent across all accounts: Jesus foreknew Peter's denial, Peter vehemently disagreed, and the prediction was ultimately fulfilled.

These variations in the Gospel accounts invite us to engage more deeply with the text, considering the unique emphases and perspectives of each writer. They also remind us that the Gospels are not mere historical chronicles, but theological narratives designed to convey the significance of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.

In conclusion, we can appreciate the richness of the Gospel accounts. They collectively paint a vivid picture of Peter's overconfidence, his subsequent failure, and ultimately, the grace and restoration offered by Christ. This narrative arc serves as a powerful reminder of human frailty and divine mercy, which transcends the specific details of timing and sequence.

While the exact timing of Jesus' predictions of Peter's denial may seem unclear from a surface reading of the Gospels, several plausible explanations exist to harmonize the accounts. Whether Jesus made multiple predictions or Peter himself prompted a reiteration of the prophecy, the central message remains consistent across all four Gospels.

The focus is on Jesus' foreknowledge, Peter's overconfidence, and the ultimate fulfillment of the prediction, all of which contribute to the broader narrative of Jesus' passion and the disciples' journey of faith.

So, the case is solved. Jesus made two separate predictions of Peter's denial: The first at the Last Supper (Luke 22:31-34 and John 13:37-38) and the latter based on Peter's reprisal of the earlier discussion (Matthew 26:31-35 and Mark 14:27-31) while walking toward Gethsemane. Each Gospel writer highlighted only one account each.

The mystery of the number of cock crowings is also solved. There were definitely what we would count as two, the second of which Jesus based his prediction upon.