Tackling Tradition 26: Reevaluating Peter’s Betrayal

Did Peter really betray Yeshua in the Gospel accounts or did he merely give the appearance of betraying Him?  

Thesis: Peter’s betrayal of Christ was done to protect himself & His followers. He did not abandon Yeshua as if he had lost faith in Him or because he was afraid for his own well being.  Rather, the Gospels are subtly informing us that he was executing an agreed upon plan to hide both himself & any number of Yeshua’s followers.  

31 Then Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away because of me this night. For it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’ 32 But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee.” 33 Peter answered him, “Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away.” 34 Jesus said to him, “Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” 35 Peter said to him, “Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you!” And all the disciples said the same.  (Matthew 26:31–35, ESV)

The clue is in verse 31: Τότε λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς·Πάντες ὑμεῖς σκανδαλισθήσεσθε ἐνἐμοὶ ἐν τῇνυκτὶ ταύτῃ, γέγραπταιγάρ· Πατάξω τὸν ποιμένα, καὶ⸀διασκορπισθήσονται τὰ πρόβατα τῆςποίμνης·

The word translated as “(you) will all fall away is σκανδαλισθήσεσθε.   Parsing of this word reveals that this word was written in passive voice.   The subject (Yeshua’s followers in Gethsemane) is acted upon (ie is receiving the action of the verb).

The author made a deliberate choice to avoid using the middle voice.   Middle voice in Greek indicates that the subject is both the agent of the action and somehow concerned with the action, or benefits from it.   The author did not utilize middle voice — he chose instead to use passive voice.  

Consequently, “you will fall away” is something (en)acted upon the subject.  Put another way, the author does not depict Yeshua’s followers as middle voice agents (ie as both the agents of & beneficiaries of the action (who) will fall away). Rather this falling away is the result of something (en)acted (done ) upon/to them.  

What does this mean for the tradition bound view of Peter (and the others) as a coward(s)?    Notice that Peter is the one who proclaims his loyalty to Christ & is the one who cut off Malchus’ ear (John 18:10). Peter was many things — but coward was not one of them. 

In addition…

John 7 informs us that, in response to the plot to assassinate Yeshua, Yeshua decided to go to Feast of Booths (Sukkot), arriving after the Disciples.  This act has the marks of being a carefully executed plan in which the 12 entered the city, thereby distracting Yeshua’s opponents so that Yeshua could arrive safely.  

In addition, the man whom Peter struck is named “Malchus.”  The meaning of his name is “my king/kingdom.”  Most people think Malchus is a bondslave, bonded to the Jewish high priest Caiphas.   I disagree.  It’s more likely that he is Joseph of Arimathea, a lawyer/judge of the People.    

Malchus (Joseph of Arimathea) is a friend of Peter & a judge/king (Galatians 2).  They are both “Cephas,” and stalwart followers of Yeshua very like Nicodemus who had the courage to visit Yeshua personally in the face of great danger should he have been found out.  

Putting these clues together, we see that, contrary to Ecclesiastical Tradition, Peter isn’t a loose cannon who in the chaos accidentally struck Malchus’ ear then later showed his true colors as a coward. Rather, he is very likely in cahoots with Malchus (Joseph of Arimathea), who is present as a figurative bond servant to Christ moreso than Caiphas & to ensure the journey to Caiphas was not an exercise in physical abuse.  

What, then, actually happened?  Very likely, the (super duper off the books) arresting taskforce arrived, & Peter struck at Malchus deliberately as a show of his & the others’ resolve.   The others, for their part, weren’t cowards either, even asking if they should draw the sword (Luke 22:49).    Malchus appears to have volunteered have his ear cut off in order to protect Yeshua.   In other words, he was part of the exit strategy for the 12 in the event something like Gethsemane happened.  

Peter & John Mark (John) then ran to the tribunal. Peter’s denial threre is far more likely part of the plan to end protect & secure him, John Mark, Malchus & the others.  In other words, Peter denies Christ  in order to publicly protect the others —- not because he is a coward.  On the contrary, he was complying with Yeshua’s wishes that the 12 protect themselves by way of verbally shielding them publicly, thus buying time for them to disperse &/or hide.    

Thank you for reading today, &, as always, “Go & sin no more.”