PETER’S DENIAL
There are at least two different perspectives we may use to view Peter’s denial of Jesus.
One possibility is that Peter disclaimed his acquaintance with Jesus because Jesus instructed him to do exactly that. To suppose that such a denial was based on cowardice or weakness is contrary to every other example of Peter’s personality and motives reported in the scriptures. In every other instance, Peter acted courageously, even impetuously, in his endorsement and protection of Christ. In fact, he was ready to kill to ensure his Master’s safety a short time earlier in Gethsemane.
It is possible to read the text of the Savior’s declaration to Peter about the latter’s forthcoming denial as an instructional command rather than as a prediction. In other words, Peter may have been told to deny being associated with the Savior. That seems to be the line of reasoning followed by Elder Spencer W. Kimball in a magnificent address at Brigham Young University entitled Peter, My Brother.
[President Kimball said; “Is it possible that there might have been some other reason for Peter’s triple denial? Could he have felt that circumstances justified expediency? When he bore a strong testimony in Caesarea Philippi, he had been told that “they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ” (Matthew 16:20).
“When the three Apostles came down from the Mount of Transfiguration, they were again charged implicitly, “Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead” (Matthew 17:9). Could Peter have felt this was not the time to tell of Christ? He had been with his Lord in Nazareth when the Savior was taken by his own people to the brow of the hill, “whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong. But he passing through the midst of them went his way” (Luke 4:29–30). Surely Peter did not think of this escape as cowardice but as wise expediency. Christ’s time was not come.”]
Elder Bruce C. Hafen has written: “Consider … the case of Peter on the night he denied any knowledge of his Master three times in succession. We typically regard Peter as something of a weakling whose commitment was not strong enough to make him rise to the Savior’s defense. But I once heard President Spencer W. Kimball offer an alternative interpretation of Peter’s behavior. In a talk to a BYU audience in 1971 President Kimball, then a member of the Council of the Twelve, said the Savior’s statement that Peter would deny him three times before the cock crowed just might have been a request to Peter, not a prediction. Jesus might have been instructing his chief apostle to deny any association with him in order to ensure strong leadership for the Church after the Crucifixion.
“As President Kimball asked in his talk, who could doubt Peter’s willingness to stand up and be counted? Think of his boldness in striking off the guard’s ear with his sword when the Savior was arrested in Gethsemane. President Kimball did not offer his view as the only interpretation, but he did suggest there is enough justification for it that it should be considered. So what is the answer—was Peter a coward, or was he so crucial to the survival of the Church that he was prohibited from risking his life? … (Believing Heart, 57–58).
Luke 22:61 records that “the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter,” and Peter remembered what Jesus … commanded him to do. Then the scripture notes that “Peter went out, and wept bitterly” (v. 62). Why would the chief apostle go out and weep bitterly if he was obeying an instruction from the Lord? The answer is—because it was simply not in Peter’s constitution, as we read everywhere else in the Gospels, to shy away from anything, in fear or cowardice. It is understandable that he would go out and weep bitter tears at being powerless to help his dearest Friend.
Peter the Rock would be crushed bitterly by the suffering of Jesus that he could not help relieve.
—Verse by Verse, The New Testament, Vol. 1 by Andrew C. Skinner, D. Kelly Ogden
Luke 22:34 In this verse Jesus indicates that Peter will deny (disown) knowing Jesus. It is misleading to state that Peter denied Christ three times. Peter was not asked that night whether or not he believed that Jesus was the Christ; rather, the questions put to Peter had to do with his association with Jesus of Nazareth. Thus, it would be more accurate to say, "Peter denied knowing Jesus" …
—A Companion to Your Study of the New Testament: The Four Gospels by Daniel H. Ludlow
Robert JohnsonMarch 20, 2026
Is it possible that there might have been some other reason for Peter’s triple denial?
Could he have felt that circumstances justified expediency? When he bore a strong testimony in Caesarea Philippi, he had been told that “they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ”
(Matthew 16:20).
When the three Apostles came down from the Mount of Transfiguration, they were again charged implicitly, “Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead” (Matthew 17:9). Could Peter have felt this was not the time to tell of Christ? He had been with his Lord in Nazareth when the Savior was taken by his own people to the brow of the hill, “whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong. But he passing through the midst of them went his way” (Luke 4:29–30). Surely Peter did not think of this escape as cowardice but as wise expediency. Christ’s time was not come.
From Peter My Brother by President Kimball
ShaunaMarch 20, 2026
I love Peter--he is one of my heroes. What faith! what courage! what commitment to the Savior--he becomes a fearless witness after the Savior's ascension.. And remember that the Apostles didn't have the gift of the Holy Ghost until after Christ's Resurrection.
And I have always loved Presdient Kimball's passionate defense of Peter. The Lord chose him to lead the Church after His death--need we say more?
Kenneth StevensMarch 20, 2026
I recall reading and learning a few years ago that the "cock-crow" was the "name" of the "trumpet call" that Roman soldiers used to inform soldiers when their "night-watch" changed around 2 am. It was a trumpet call and not a bird call.
Dave HallMarch 15, 2021
Pres. Kimball, in his BYU address, "Peter, My Brother" nowhere suggested that the Savior commanded Peter to deny him. Rather, he suggested that Peter, in his mind, may have been worried about what would happen to the church if something happened to him. The idea that Peter was commanded or inspired to deny Christ doesn't square with the intense remorse he felt over the incident.
Marcia SmootMarch 12, 2021
I can't get into Peter's head but I, too, believe Peter was no coward. I feel it is entirely possible that he was commanded to deny the Christ that he would be preserved to lead the Savior's flock following our Lord's atoning sacrifice.
MikeMarch 10, 2021
The text of President Kimball's talk can be found here: https://rsc.byu.edu/ministry-peter-chief-apostle/appendix-peter-my-brother
SGHMarch 10, 2021
https://troygparker.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/peters-denial-prediction-or-command/
There is another theory to the “why” of Peter’s denial. In order to protect the Chief Apostle, Christ himself commanded Peter to deny knowing Him. When we read the account in Matthew, what we perceive as a prophecy could, in fact, be a command.
CatherineMarch 10, 2021
I never believed he denied in the way he was always betrayed. And later years ago is saw in old institute Manuel in the appendix was article that Spencer w Kimball. . expressed a different perspective . that I agreed with . lets look at different perspective. We need to look from the beginning. Not be going in detail. There is too much To point out
Here is a few . Peter was going to be the Prophet. He risked his life cutting the soldiers ear. They could of right than and there be killed . we need reread the whole conversation at the Passover. And how does the commanments start Thou shalt.? just another way to see the whole picture. . I appreciate your thought.
I personally believe he was told to deny.him. and the type of man Peter is ...is a disservice to his testimony .
Susan GillmoreMarch 10, 2021
I believe it was President Spencer W. Kimball who proposed that Peter denied knowing Jesus because Jesus asked him to. Peter was to become the head of the Church. It was important that Peter not be arrested and killed with the Savior. Having to deny knowing Jesus went against Peter's character and testimony. Perhaps this is why he wept so bitterly when he had fulfilled this commandment given him by Jesus.
kim mossMarch 10, 2021
I personally like to think of that night as President Kimball did as he proclaimed while giving an address at BYU. I believe the address was titled "My brother Peter" or "Peter my brother?"
"He said that Peter was no coward. This is the bold man that was a scrapper and ready to fight and protect the Savior at any moment regardless of the consequences.
Peter was the one that would take over the Church following the Saviors crucifixion. He needed to be there to take over and if he admitted to being with the savior he would have suffered the same fate. Therefore Christ gave Peter a commandment, "Thou shalt" deny me thrice!. In other words, "Peter you had better deny even knowing me or you will be killed as well and all will be lost." He then obeyed the command and battling against every fighting instinct he had, he obeyed his orders.
BryanMarch 10, 2021
I had never thought of the parallel between the three denials and the three affirmations, but you led up to it beautifully and I was there with you right before you said it.
Comments | Return to Story
Robert JohnsonMarch 20, 2026
PETER’S DENIAL There are at least two different perspectives we may use to view Peter’s denial of Jesus. One possibility is that Peter disclaimed his acquaintance with Jesus because Jesus instructed him to do exactly that. To suppose that such a denial was based on cowardice or weakness is contrary to every other example of Peter’s personality and motives reported in the scriptures. In every other instance, Peter acted courageously, even impetuously, in his endorsement and protection of Christ. In fact, he was ready to kill to ensure his Master’s safety a short time earlier in Gethsemane. It is possible to read the text of the Savior’s declaration to Peter about the latter’s forthcoming denial as an instructional command rather than as a prediction. In other words, Peter may have been told to deny being associated with the Savior. That seems to be the line of reasoning followed by Elder Spencer W. Kimball in a magnificent address at Brigham Young University entitled Peter, My Brother. [President Kimball said; “Is it possible that there might have been some other reason for Peter’s triple denial? Could he have felt that circumstances justified expediency? When he bore a strong testimony in Caesarea Philippi, he had been told that “they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ” (Matthew 16:20). “When the three Apostles came down from the Mount of Transfiguration, they were again charged implicitly, “Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead” (Matthew 17:9). Could Peter have felt this was not the time to tell of Christ? He had been with his Lord in Nazareth when the Savior was taken by his own people to the brow of the hill, “whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong. But he passing through the midst of them went his way” (Luke 4:29–30). Surely Peter did not think of this escape as cowardice but as wise expediency. Christ’s time was not come.”] Elder Bruce C. Hafen has written: “Consider … the case of Peter on the night he denied any knowledge of his Master three times in succession. We typically regard Peter as something of a weakling whose commitment was not strong enough to make him rise to the Savior’s defense. But I once heard President Spencer W. Kimball offer an alternative interpretation of Peter’s behavior. In a talk to a BYU audience in 1971 President Kimball, then a member of the Council of the Twelve, said the Savior’s statement that Peter would deny him three times before the cock crowed just might have been a request to Peter, not a prediction. Jesus might have been instructing his chief apostle to deny any association with him in order to ensure strong leadership for the Church after the Crucifixion. “As President Kimball asked in his talk, who could doubt Peter’s willingness to stand up and be counted? Think of his boldness in striking off the guard’s ear with his sword when the Savior was arrested in Gethsemane. President Kimball did not offer his view as the only interpretation, but he did suggest there is enough justification for it that it should be considered. So what is the answer—was Peter a coward, or was he so crucial to the survival of the Church that he was prohibited from risking his life? … (Believing Heart, 57–58). Luke 22:61 records that “the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter,” and Peter remembered what Jesus … commanded him to do. Then the scripture notes that “Peter went out, and wept bitterly” (v. 62). Why would the chief apostle go out and weep bitterly if he was obeying an instruction from the Lord? The answer is—because it was simply not in Peter’s constitution, as we read everywhere else in the Gospels, to shy away from anything, in fear or cowardice. It is understandable that he would go out and weep bitter tears at being powerless to help his dearest Friend. Peter the Rock would be crushed bitterly by the suffering of Jesus that he could not help relieve. —Verse by Verse, The New Testament, Vol. 1 by Andrew C. Skinner, D. Kelly Ogden Luke 22:34 In this verse Jesus indicates that Peter will deny (disown) knowing Jesus. It is misleading to state that Peter denied Christ three times. Peter was not asked that night whether or not he believed that Jesus was the Christ; rather, the questions put to Peter had to do with his association with Jesus of Nazareth. Thus, it would be more accurate to say, "Peter denied knowing Jesus" … —A Companion to Your Study of the New Testament: The Four Gospels by Daniel H. Ludlow
Robert JohnsonMarch 20, 2026
Is it possible that there might have been some other reason for Peter’s triple denial? Could he have felt that circumstances justified expediency? When he bore a strong testimony in Caesarea Philippi, he had been told that “they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ” (Matthew 16:20). When the three Apostles came down from the Mount of Transfiguration, they were again charged implicitly, “Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead” (Matthew 17:9). Could Peter have felt this was not the time to tell of Christ? He had been with his Lord in Nazareth when the Savior was taken by his own people to the brow of the hill, “whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong. But he passing through the midst of them went his way” (Luke 4:29–30). Surely Peter did not think of this escape as cowardice but as wise expediency. Christ’s time was not come. From Peter My Brother by President Kimball
ShaunaMarch 20, 2026
I love Peter--he is one of my heroes. What faith! what courage! what commitment to the Savior--he becomes a fearless witness after the Savior's ascension.. And remember that the Apostles didn't have the gift of the Holy Ghost until after Christ's Resurrection. And I have always loved Presdient Kimball's passionate defense of Peter. The Lord chose him to lead the Church after His death--need we say more?
Kenneth StevensMarch 20, 2026
I recall reading and learning a few years ago that the "cock-crow" was the "name" of the "trumpet call" that Roman soldiers used to inform soldiers when their "night-watch" changed around 2 am. It was a trumpet call and not a bird call.
Dave HallMarch 15, 2021
Pres. Kimball, in his BYU address, "Peter, My Brother" nowhere suggested that the Savior commanded Peter to deny him. Rather, he suggested that Peter, in his mind, may have been worried about what would happen to the church if something happened to him. The idea that Peter was commanded or inspired to deny Christ doesn't square with the intense remorse he felt over the incident.
Marcia SmootMarch 12, 2021
I can't get into Peter's head but I, too, believe Peter was no coward. I feel it is entirely possible that he was commanded to deny the Christ that he would be preserved to lead the Savior's flock following our Lord's atoning sacrifice.
MikeMarch 10, 2021
The text of President Kimball's talk can be found here: https://rsc.byu.edu/ministry-peter-chief-apostle/appendix-peter-my-brother
SGHMarch 10, 2021
https://troygparker.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/peters-denial-prediction-or-command/ There is another theory to the “why” of Peter’s denial. In order to protect the Chief Apostle, Christ himself commanded Peter to deny knowing Him. When we read the account in Matthew, what we perceive as a prophecy could, in fact, be a command.
CatherineMarch 10, 2021
I never believed he denied in the way he was always betrayed. And later years ago is saw in old institute Manuel in the appendix was article that Spencer w Kimball. . expressed a different perspective . that I agreed with . lets look at different perspective. We need to look from the beginning. Not be going in detail. There is too much To point out Here is a few . Peter was going to be the Prophet. He risked his life cutting the soldiers ear. They could of right than and there be killed . we need reread the whole conversation at the Passover. And how does the commanments start Thou shalt.? just another way to see the whole picture. . I appreciate your thought. I personally believe he was told to deny.him. and the type of man Peter is ...is a disservice to his testimony .
Susan GillmoreMarch 10, 2021
I believe it was President Spencer W. Kimball who proposed that Peter denied knowing Jesus because Jesus asked him to. Peter was to become the head of the Church. It was important that Peter not be arrested and killed with the Savior. Having to deny knowing Jesus went against Peter's character and testimony. Perhaps this is why he wept so bitterly when he had fulfilled this commandment given him by Jesus.
kim mossMarch 10, 2021
I personally like to think of that night as President Kimball did as he proclaimed while giving an address at BYU. I believe the address was titled "My brother Peter" or "Peter my brother?" "He said that Peter was no coward. This is the bold man that was a scrapper and ready to fight and protect the Savior at any moment regardless of the consequences. Peter was the one that would take over the Church following the Saviors crucifixion. He needed to be there to take over and if he admitted to being with the savior he would have suffered the same fate. Therefore Christ gave Peter a commandment, "Thou shalt" deny me thrice!. In other words, "Peter you had better deny even knowing me or you will be killed as well and all will be lost." He then obeyed the command and battling against every fighting instinct he had, he obeyed his orders.
BryanMarch 10, 2021
I had never thought of the parallel between the three denials and the three affirmations, but you led up to it beautifully and I was there with you right before you said it.
ADD A COMMENT