Peter and the Rooster
On August 14, 2006,
Steve Centani, an American Reporter
working for Fox News, and his
cameraman, Olaf Wiig, a New
Zealander, were captured in the Gaza
Strip by a formerly unknown group
called The Holy Jihad Brigades. A day
or so later, a videotape surfaced
showing the two men were alive.
Certain demands were presented by the
hostages on the tape as a condition
for their release. Neither Israel nor
the United States would consider the
demands. For 13 days, recovery
efforts proceeded in two directions.
Many volunteers tried to locate the
missing men by interviewing various
militant factions in Gaza, while at
the same time Palestinian authorities
pursued diplomatic efforts.
Ultimately, the two hostages were
released unharmed on August 27 and as
you can imagine, it was a day of
rejoicing for the families and
employers of the two captives.
There is an
interesting twist to this otherwise
happy ending. On the day before their
release, the captors told the
hostages they had three choices. They
could: (1) Make a video denouncing
the policies of the United States in
the Middle East, convert to Islam and
be set free; (2) Pay a tax (a jizya,
a significant ransom), which Moslems
can impose on infidels, and be set
free; or (3) Suffer a jihad against
infidels and die. The hostages chose
option one. Steve Centani and Olaf
Wiig denounced Americas
policies in the Middle East, they
professed a conversion to Islam and
took Muslim names-all done while guns
and a video camera were pointed at
their heads.
Note: To become
a Muslim, a person has to say the
following words with sincerity:
Ash-hadu an la ilaha ill
Allah. (I bear witness that
there is no deity but Allah.)
Wa ash-hadu ana Muhammad
ar-rasullallah. (And I bear
witness that Muhammad is the
Messenger of Allah.) Understand that
Muslims do recognize and accept
forced conversions. The following
statements are taken from the Hadith,
a collection of sacred writings
concerning the teaching of Mohammed:
If a protected
person [Dhimmi] is forced to convert
to Islam, his conversion is valid. If
a Harbi [non-Muslim alien] is fought
against and converts to Islam-it is
valid
If the [same] Dhimmi
returns [to his former religion], he
is not killed [like an ordinary
apostate], but imprisoned until he
converts to Islam [again], because
there is doubt regarding his belief
[when he was forced to convert].
There is a possibility that it [i.e.,
his forced conversion was sincere, so
he is to be killed as an apostate. It
is [also] possible that he did not
believe [in Islam] while having been
forced to convert] and then he
[should] be a Dhimmi and shall not be
killed. pp. 168
(Azharite)
A female
apostate is not to be killed [unlike
the case of a male apostate]. She
should be imprisoned and beaten every
day until she becomes a Muslim
[again]. It means that Islam should
be offered to her and if she refuses
it, she should be flogged. Then Islam
should be offered to her [again] and
if she still refuses it, she should
be imprisoned. And there is a version
according to which she should be
taken out every day and beaten as we
have described, because it is not
permissible to kill her. She has
committed a gruesome crime that has
no fixed punishment [hadd] for it, so
she is punished by a non-fixed
punishment [tazir], that is,
beating and imprisonment.
pp. 371 (Azharite)
Did the
Hostages Do the Right Thing?
The decision the
hostages made has stimulated
considerable discussion on the
Internet. In short, the discussions I
have studied boil down to three
general views:
- A forced
conversion is no conversion.
This school of thought
believes that a religious
conversion is only genuine if
the conversion is an
expression of free will,
sincere intent and belief.
Because Centani and Wiig were
forced at gunpoint to say
certain words (both political
and religious) to save their
lives, their words and deeds
cannot be interpreted to be a
conversion. This school of
thought concludes,
Satisfying a ragtag
bunch of armed teenagers with
forced words is better than
having a bullet in your
head.
- A forced
conversion to Islam denies
the deity of Jesus Christ.
This school of thought
believes that if a Christian
succumbs to force and goes
through the motions of
converting to Islam, he
betrays the deity of Jesus
Christ and rejects the Bible
as the Word of God.
Therefore, advocates of this
view believe that if Centani
and Wiig were Christians
prior to their kidnapping,
they should be ashamed of
their cowardice because they
betrayed the Lord Jesus when
they converted. Advocates of
this view believe the
hostages should have boldly
refused to convert, choosing
death instead.
- When
life-threatening
circumstances exist, a person
is permitted to do anything
and everything possible to
save his life. This school of
thought believes that God
permits a person to use
self-defense. Self-defense
can be words, as well as
actions. This principle is
revealed in Exodus 22. If
a thief is caught breaking in
and is struck so that he
dies, the defender is not
guilty of bloodshed; but if
it happen after sunrise, he
is guilty of
bloodshed
(Exodus
22: 2,3) In other words,
under the right
circumstances, a person can
kill an intruder in darkness
without incurring guilt
because deadly force can be
used in self-defense.
However, after sunrise the
owner of the house is not
permitted to use deadly
force-at least this was the
case in Old Testament times
when guns did not exist.
Now that you know the
details of this hostage situation,
their three options, and the three
schools of thought that I have
summarized, to what school of thought
do you belong? Of course, this is a
highly personal matter and each
person has to choose for himself or
herself. Personally, I believe the
Bible teaches that God permits a
certain amount of self-defense. This
is true of nations and for
individuals. So, if God permits self
defense, what about Peter and the
rooster?
Peters
Declaration
How does the hostage
situation in Gaza compare with
Peters denial of Jesus in
Jerusalem? Please study the following
passage: When Jesus came to
the region of Caesarea Philippi, he
asked his disciples, Who do
people say the Son of Man is?
They replied, Some say John the
Baptist; others say Elijah; and still
others, Jeremiah or one of the
prophets. But what about
you? he asked. Who do you
say I am? Simon Peter answered,
You are the Christ, the Son of
the living God. Jesus replied,
Blessed are you, Simon son of
Jonah, for this was not revealed to
you by man, but my Father in
heaven. (Matthew 16:
13-17) When Jesus queried the
disciples about His identity, Peter
spoke with assurance and bravado
because he was very sure of two
things. He was sure of himself and he
was sure that Jesus was the Son of
God, the promised Messiah. Peter was
a natural born leader and his
self-assurance was both an asset and
a liability.
Before the cross, the
disciples often discussed the coming
kingdom of God, which they believed
Jesus was going to establish. Being
human, they argued among themselves
about the highest positions. Who
would get them? Peter made no
apologies. He was sure that he would
inherit the highest position because
he was a leader of men and one of
Jesus closet friends. Peter had
a high regard for himself and his
opinions, because among men, he was
physically powerful, talented and
highly intelligent. Peter knew that
he was a notch or two above the other
disciples and the other disciples
usually deferred to Peter because he
was gifted with a powerful
personality and natural leadership.
Jesus knew that Peter was egocentric.
Jesus also knew that Peter was
especially vulnerable to arrogance
and the trappings of power. So Jesus
took the opportunity to highlight
Peters flaws in front of the
other disciples during an argument on
who would hold the highest office. Also
a dispute arose among them as to
which of them was considered to be
greatest. Jesus said unto them,
The kings of the Gentiles [are
arrogant little men, they] lord it
over them; and those who exercise
authority over them call themselves
Benefactors [and you know how
empty but lavish this boasting is]. But
you are not to be like that. Instead,
[if you have a place in my
kingdom] the greatest among you
should be like the youngest [who
is not permitted to voice an opinion
in the presence of elders], and
the one who rules [must be
humble] like the one who serves.
For who is greater [in this
world], the one who is at the
table or the ones who serves? It is
not the one who is at the table. But [learn
from me, your Lord and Master] I
am among you as one who serves. You
are those who have stood by me in my
trials. And I confer on you a kingdom
[of suffering], just as my
Father conferred [this] one on
me, so that [when the time comes
for the kingdom of God to be
established] you may eat and drink
at my table in my kingdom and sit on
thrones, judging the twelve tribes of
Israel. [Now], Simon, Simon, [my
dear, arrogant and egocentric friend,
who has laid claim to the highest
position in my coming kingdom,
because your thinking and behavior is
of the world] Satan has asked to
sift you as wheat [the devil has
accused you before my Father, saying
that your aspirations were no
different than the devils, and
argues that you should not be
permitted to have part in my kingdom
because he has no part in Gods
kingdom]. But I have prayed
[to the Father] for you, Simon
that your faith may not fail. And
when you have turned back [repented
of your sins and abandoned your
carnal ways], strengthening your
brothers. But he [an
embarrassed Peter] replied,
Lord, [look at me, I am a
capable fighter] I am ready to go
with you to prison and to
death. Jesus answered, I
tell you, Peter, before the rooster
crows today, you will deny three
times that you know me. (Luke
22: 24-34, insertions mine)
Early Friday Morning
Now Peter was
sitting out in the courtyard, and a
servant girl came to him. You
also were with Jesus of
Galilee, she said. But he
denied it before them all. I
dont know what you are talking
about, he said. Then he went
out to the gateway, where another
girl saw him and said to the people
there, This fellow was with
Jesus of Nazareth. He denied it
again, with an oath: I
dont know this man! After
a little while, those standing there
went up to Peter and said,
Surely you are one of them, for
your accent gives you away.
Then he began to call down curses on
himself and he swore to them, I
dont know the man!
Immediately a rooster crowed. Then
Peter remembered the word Jesus had
spoken: Before the rooster
crows, you will disown me three
times. And he went outside and
wept bitterly. (Matthew 26:
69-75)
Why did Peter deny
that he knew Jesus three times? Many
people believe that Peter denied
Jesus in order to save his life (self
defense). They say he was afraid of
the consequences of being associated
with a condemned man. This argument
does not make sense to me because
Peter was not afraid of conflict.
Wasnt it Peter who bravely
wielded a sword and cut off the ear
of a man in order to save Jesus from
arrest? Wasnt Peter the only
disciple prepared to die defending
Jesus? I believe that Peter
sincerely meant all that he said, Lord
I am ready to go with you to prison
and to death. Peter truly
loved Jesus. Because of this love,
Peter was willing to die for Jesus
because Jesus was Peters God,
the Messiah, and the Son of the
living God!
So, why did Peter deny
Jesus? Peter denied Jesus that
morning because Peter had a major
paradigm shift. When peter saw the
object of his worship and loyalty,
his God and Messiah humbly submitting
to gross injustice, Peters
understanding of Messiahs
predicted power and His coming
kingdom fell apart. Everything Peter
lived for-power over the Jews and
Romans, the prestige of a high
office, exaltation as a hand picked
disciple of Jesus, bravery, valor,
courage and victory over the enemies
of Jesus-evaporated right before his
eyes. Peter saw a sickening
sight-Jesus being led away to die as
a common criminal. There would be no
kingdom of God. There would be no
high position. Realizing this, where
were the bravery, valor, courage and
victory that men of renown are known
for? Jesus showed none of this!
(Remember, Peter did not understand
there would be a resurrection at this
moment.) Peter felt completely
betrayed by his Lord and master,
because everything that he had
anticipated of Jesus and everything
he had lived for was not going to
happen. Being a disciple of a dead
man had no kingdom was more than
Peter; a natural born leader of men
could swallow. It was bitterness
toward Jesus that caused Peter to
deny that he even knew Him.
When the rooster
crowed for the third time, Jesus
turned and sadly looked at Peter.
Suddenly, Peter remembered the words
of Jesus a great epiphany occurred.
Peter realized that his bitterness
toward Jesus was totally misdirected.
He realized that his bitterness
sprang from carnal ambitions and
self-seeking, and these character
traits had no place in Christs
kingdom. The Holy Spirit overwhelmed
Peter with the realization that
Peter, like Lucifer, wanted to be in
Gods position. Peter was not
into submission. Instead, Peter was
all about my will be
done. However, after the
roosters third call and that
look from Jesus, Peter realized that
Jesus was doing the will of the
Father. Jesus, the Lamb of God, had
surrendered His will to the Father so
that the Fathers will might be
done through Him. And he
went outside and wept bitterly.
This event dramatically changed
Peter for the rest of his life.
Summary
When it comes to
denying Jesus (whether forced or not
forced), I conclude that each
situation has to be evaluated on its
merits. I think the Bible supports
this conclusion. A certain amount of
wisdom and discretion is needed. For
example, If I was snatched off the
street and taken as a hostage and
held for political purposes, I would
have probably done the same thing as
Centani and Wiig. On the other hand,
if I had been arrested and held
captive because of my faith in
Jesus Christ, that would be an
entirely different matter. I have
shared my thoughts on this topic in
hopes they will make you think about
this. When the Great Tribulation
begins, I believe a lot of Christians
will find themselves standing in
Peters shoes. Everything they
once believed will fall apart and the
temptation to be angry with God will
be overpowering.