Denial
Denial
SEE SELF-DENIAL.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
DENIAL
The New Testament speaks of two forms of denial, one bad, the other good. Denial in the bad sense has to do with openly disowning or rejecting God. People deny God by declaring publicly that they do not belong to him (Mat 10:33; Mat 26:70-72; Act 3:13-14; 2Pe 2:1; 1Jn 2:22-23; Jud 1:4; cf. Rev 2:13; Rev 3:8).
Wrong behaviour, even without words, can be a denial of the Christian faith (1Ti 5:8; Tit 1:16). Some may deny Christ in a moment of weakness and, after genuine repentance, be forgiven (Luk 22:31-34; Joh 21:15-17). But those who reject God will be rejected by him (2Ti 2:10-13; see APOSTACY).
Denial in the good sense has to do with the rejection of selfishness. Believers deny self for the sake of Christ by allowing their lives to be ruled by Christ instead of by themselves. They are controlled by Christs will, not by their own selfish desires. They promise to be obedient to Christ always, even if it should lead to death (Mat 16:24-26).
Jesus was the supreme example of self-denial, and in his case self-denial led eventually to death (Php 2:5-8). Believers, being united with Christ, deny themselves by giving up worldly attitudes and desires, and living disciplined, godly lives (2Co 4:2; Gal 2:20; Gal 5:24; Col 3:5; Tit 2:12; see OBEDIENCE; SELF-DISCIPLINE).
Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary
Denial
DENIAL.The verb , to deny, is used in contrast with , to confess (Mat 10:32 f. || Luk 12:8 f., where is also employed; cf. 2Ti 2:12, where is used specially of the verbal denial of Christ, due to fear of suffering). As confession of Christ (wh. see) is the outward expression of personal faith in Him, so denial of Him is (1) the withholding, (2) refusing, or (3) withdrawing such confession. In the first of these categories are included those who, like some members of the Sanhedrin (Joh 12:42), believed on Christ, but did not confess Him; in the second, those who did not believe on Him, and as a natural result did not confess Him; and, in the third, those who have confessed Him, but, through fear of men, deny Him in times of persecution. It is the third class to which reference is made in Mat 10:33 Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. Open disavowal of faith in Christ (before men) is taken as a clear indication of the offenders attitude towards Him, and eventuates in his exclusion from the blessings of the perfected kingdom in heaven. Such disavowal must be deliberate and persistent, and is to be distinguished from a momentary lapse of personal weakness, like that of Simon Peter, which by timely repentance became the means of strengthening his character, and enabling him to strengthen others (Luk 22:32). In the narrower and stricter sense, therefore, denial means public apostasy from faith in Christ, the guilt of which is visited with a punishment in exact correspondence with it.
1. The discourse in which the great warning against denial is found (Mat 10:17-33), and which was addressed to the Twelve in view of their Apostolic mission after the Resurrection, evidences its lateness by the serious situation depicted, in which exposure to the severest forms of persecution is contemplated, including punishment in the synagogues, arraignment before Gentile tribunals, and death itself. It must belong at earliest to the period of growing opposition, and has been assigned to as late a date as the close of the ministry. The Second Evangelist places a portion of it in the eschatological discourse spoken on Olivet to the four disciples on the Wednesday or Thursday of Passion-week (Mar 13:9-13). Christ no doubt foretold almost from the outset of His ministry that His disciples would be exposed to reproach and obloquy (Mat 5:11 f.), but the first intimation of serious opposition synchronizes with the first plain intimation of His own death (Mar 8:34 f.). It was in prospect of the undisguised hostility awaiting them in connexion with their Apostolic mission that Christ cautioned His disciples against the danger of denial. If He suffered death for claiming to be the Messiah (Mar 14:61-64), it is evident that those who afterwards proclaimed Him as such must run the risk of sharing a fate like His.
2. Due stress must be laid on the fact that the object of denial is the person of Christ, not simply His message or His words, which in any case derive their ultimate authority from His person. It is admitted that His earlier demand that men should fulfil the condition of participation in the Kingdom of God by repentance and trust in the message of salvation, became narrowed down afterwards to the demand that men should unite themselves to Him as the Messiah, and cleave fast to Him in trust (Wendt, Teaching, ii. 308). But the force of the concession is quite destroyed by the further representation that union to the person of the Messiah is nothing else than adherence to the message of the Kingdom of God brought by Him (p. 310.) This is to reduce the person of the Messiah to a compendious formula for His teachings, and ignores the fact that, after the great confession at Caesarea Philippi, Christ grounded on His Messiahship a claim to absolute self-surrender and self-sacrifice (Mar 8:34 f.). Devotion to Himself is henceforward made the supreme test of discipleship, and the withdrawal of such devotion seals the doom of the offender hereafter. We are in a region where personal relations and obligations are everything; where the injury done by denial is not measured by the rejection of a message merely, but by the wound inflicted on One who has rendered unparalleled services.
3. It is the rupture, though but for a moment, and without deliberate intention, of tender, intimate, personal ties by the act of the disciple, that renders the great denial of the chief Apostle so affecting an incident (Mat 26:69 ff., Mar 14:54; Mar 14:66-72, Luk 22:54 ff., Joh 18:15-18; Joh 18:25-27). His fall is the more surprising by reason of Christs clear announcement of it beforehand, and Peters strong protestations of fidelity (Mat 26:34 f., || Mar 14:30 f., Luk 22:33 f., 61, cf. Joh 13:37 f.). Deep as the fall was, however, care must be taken not to exaggerate its criminality. That the thrice-repeated denial was due to want of faith or devotion on the Apostles part, there is nothing to show. It was indeed ardent attachment to Christ that led him, after his hasty retreat, to follow at a distance, and seek admission to the house of Annas, before whom the preliminary examination of Christ took place. He was determined to keep near his Master, and it was doubtless this very determination that betrayed him into sin. When challenged in the porch by the maid who kept the door, he gave an evasive reply (Joh 18:17, Mar 14:68), fearing that to own his discipleship would lead to his exclusion from the premises. When taunted later on with being a disciple by the rough servants gathered round the fire in the courtyard (Joh 18:18; Joh 18:25), he denied it in more categorical fashion, hoping thereby to evade further remarks, and avoid the summary ejection which would have followed the detection of his previous falsehood. Having travelled so far on the downward path, it became well-nigh impossible to turn back, and on being charged by one of the kinsmen of Malchus with having been with Christ in the garden at the moment of the arrest, overcome by fear that he might be called to account for his rash act, he denied his Master for the third time, and backed up his denial with oaths and curses (Joh 18:26 f., cf. Mat 26:74). It has been suggested that his falsehoods would sit lightly on his conscience, on the ground that he felt justified in giving no kind of information about himself or his Master which might compromise a movement which he imagined was but temporarily arrested. He probably experienced no scruples in deceiving his Masters enemies, especially as this seemed the only way of carrying out his purpose to keep as near to Christ as possible without risk of detection. But when all due allowance is made for the excellency of his motives, his conduct is utterly indefensible. When he affirmed so confidently that he was ready to go to death, what he thought of was a public testimony to Christ, for whom he eounted no sacrifice too great. A great deed of heroism is often easier than loyalty in small things, and Peter, who had courage enough to defend his Master at the cost of his life, displayed lamentable weakness in a minor emergency. The sound of cock-crow, announcing the approaeh of dawn, was a painful reminder that he had proved lacking in genuine fidelity, and false to the pledges so recently given. But that his love to Christ still remained the same, was abundantly evidenced by his subsequent act of sincere contrition.
W. S. Montgomery.