³² “Therefore, everyone who will acknowledge me before others, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. ³³ But whoever denies me before others, I will also deny him before my Father in heaven. ³⁴ Don’t assume that I came to bring peace on the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. ³⁵ For I came to turn

a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;
³⁶ and a man’s enemies will be
the members of his household.^[k]

³⁷ The one who loves a father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; the one who loves a son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. ³⁸ And whoever doesn’t take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. ³⁹ Anyone who finds his life will lose it, and anyone who loses his life because of me will find it.

The above are words of Jesus taken from Matthew 10. They are part of a wider section in the gospel that includes the commissioning of the twelve and then Jesus’ prediction of persecution to come. The short passage immediately before the one quoted above is very clear about the need to fear God more than man and expresses it in terms of those who can kill the body only versus the one who can destroy both body and soul. The overall thrust of the wider passage is clear: believers will be persecuted but it is better to stand for Christ in the face of such persecution than suffer eternal loss in Hell by denying him.

However, the quoted section above is key for those who want to argue that anybody who – under severe pressure of knife to the throat, neck on the block or gun to the head – is told to renounce Jesus, and the person utters a recantation, such a person cannot be truly saved. Indeed, such a person (it is argued) has denied Jesus and so Jesus will now necessarily deny them before the Father. This is, they aver, the only natural reading of the passage. Anybody who recants Christ but then is killed anyway for having been his follower has denied him and sealed their own fate. Whilst I can understand how somebody reading these verses in isolation might reach such conclusions, I think there are significant problems with this view.

Decisionism

Some of those who would make that case are (rightly) clear on the problem of decisionism. Decisionism is the belief that the decision of a moment for Christ is tantamount to the act of being saved. In other words, if you said the sinners prayer once in your life then you are over the line and in the kingdom. The pseudo-doctrine of once-saved-always-saved then kicks in and, voila! Your single prayer, possibly prayed as an emotional reaction to whatever was happening at the time, is deemed the fundamental act of conversion that can nevermore, henceforth be undone. Decisionism pushes people for such decisions and then pronounces them absolutely, one hundred percent, definitely saved when they get them.

Now, some who argue for the view of denying Christ mentioned above are very clear-sighted about decisionism. Of course the decision of a single moment, a single prayer, doesn’t determine whether you are saved or not. We’re about the perseverance of the saints not the complete sanctifying effect of a single prayer! Whilst conversion does inevitably involve deciding to follow Christ – a decision – it is the ongoing decision and desire to continue following Christ that matters, not the single prayer of a particular moment. And we recognise that the one who has indeed determined to follow Christ will also stumble and fall as they do that. They will sometimes choose sin in particular moments rather than choosing to submit to the Lordship of Jesus. Nobody thinks that a solitary moment of sin, particularly as it is repented of, determines your entire walk with Christ. We remain sinners and thus will sin; the question is our direction of ongoing travel not our decision (sinful or otherwise) of a moment.

This makes it particularly odd, then, when those who recognise these things still insist the failure at one moment in time – under some quite severe pressure at that – necessarily does determine your salvation. Apparently, the prayer of one moment in time is not enough to save you, but the failure to own Christ at one moment in time – a moment from which you can’t repent because aggressors chopped your head off before you were able – apparently does seal your damnation. If decisionism is wrong (and it is), it is wrong both for conversion and when it comes to one-time issues of sin. Our entire walk with Jesus, our conversion, our standing with Jesus is not ultimately determined by one decision at one moment in time (neither by a good one to follow him nor a bad one denying him).

Peter restored after denials

The evident biblical proof of this is the Apostle Peter. Peter was told by Jesus that he would deny him three times before the cock crows. Peter then did deny Jesus – quite forcefully, with curses and swearing – three times before the cock crowed. So, let’s just be very clear about the situation with Peter, particularly in light of Matthew 10. Peter absolutely denied the Lord before men. Not just once, but three times. It wasn’t just the decision of a single moment either, he did it repeatedly, with increasing vociferousness. Peter absolutely denied Jesus before men. What, then, based on Matthew 10 should we expect? Peter is lost. Peter is finished. Jesus will no longer acknowledge Peter before the Father in Heaven.

But we turn to John 21 and what happens there? Three times Jesus asks Peter if he loves him. Peter denied Jesus three times; here he acknowledges Jesus three times. Jesus doesn’t insist – in that decisionistic way – that Peter denied him so he is done. Jesus restores Peter despite his quite public denials of Jesus.

This episode necessarily means we cannot read Matthew 10 as suggesting the denial of a moment necessarily means we have truly and properly denied Jesus. If that were true, Peter would have been finished. But Peter’s denials were not final. Jesus restored Peter. Peter never really “fell away”, he fell into sin as we all do. But he wept over his denials, bitterly regretting them. He still wanted to follow Jesus but sinned in the moment. Jesus’ restoration of Peter makes clear the sin of the moment – even serious matters like public and vociferously denying Jesus – are not irredeemable. If we are genuinely saved, even regrettable sins, including denials of Christ under pressure, have ultimately been paid for by Jesus.

Actual denial vs momentary denial

I suspect we need to make a distinction here between actual denials of Christ and momentary denials of Christ. This distinction (in my view) is akin to the one we might make between actual conversions to Christ and momentary decisions for Christ. To pose the question as one of those paradoxical riddles: when is a denial not a denial? A: when we deny it!

I think the denials that Jesus is talking about in Matthew 10 are not the times we play down our Christianity and pretend we’re not really followers of Jesus out of embarrassment or fear. These times are still sinful and warrant repentance. But they are nonetheless the sinful decision of a moment. They are not a settled denial of Christ. I am not convinced these are the situations that Matthew 10 is talking about.

I do think Matthew 10 is talking about a couple of other scenarios. There are those who claim to follow Jesus but deny him by their lifestyle. They say they know and follow Jesus but they deny Jesus by the way they live, continuing unrepentantly in their sin. This is to deny Jesus. It is to refuse to submit to his Lordship. Second, I think it’s talking about those who – out of fear of persecution – refuse to own Christ. They don’t want anyone to ever know that they follow him and so, in their lifestyle and speech, they deny Christ. They may claim amongst friends to believe in him, but the way they live and operate they deny him because they don’t want anyone to know that they believe. I think these are the denials Jesus is talking about in Matthew 10.

The momentary decision to deny Christ with our mouths out of fear under great pressure – though sinful – is not necessarily the kind of denial Jesus is talking about. That’s the kind of denial Peter did and was restored by Jesus. Peter’s lifestyle – and years knocking about with Jesus, giving up his job and all sorts – all speak to Peter NOT really denying Christ. This was a momentary lapse, not a settled denial. Nicodemus, on the other hand, is a helpful counter-example who – believing Jesus is from God and knowing full well who he is – nevertheless was too scared to own Christ, visiting him by night and changing absolutely nothing about his lifestyle in light of his beliefs lest anybody found out. Peter’s denial was not the kind of settled denial Jesus is talking about in Matthew 10. Nicodemus’ denials is the kind of denial Jesus is talking about in Matthew 10.

The question is, what category of denial does a person staring down the barrel of a gun, out of great fear in the moment, who wrongly, sinfully but understandably denies Jesus under duress, fall into? Is it a Petrine denial in word-but-not-reality or is it a Nicodemusean denial of settled conviction not to be known a follower of Christ?

Judging the denial

The key factor here is surely this: any person staring down the barrel of gun, with a sword on their neck or a knife at their throat being asked to renounce Christ is only there because they have clearly NOT denied Christ. It is their being known as a follower of Jesus that means they are being asked to deny him in the first place. That would speak – much like Peter – to somebody who is clearly NOT seeking to deny Jesus. It speaks to somebody who, despite such dangers, was willing to own Jesus and be known and his follower. Should such a person, under that level of duress, deny Jesus with their words in the moment, I think we have to reasonably assume that is the equivalent of any one of us sinning in any number of ways in a given moment and it not meaning the end of our salvation.

By contrast, a person who is not living in any way as a believer, whose lifestyle would not cause anybody to even consider that they might be a Christian, these are the people who are denying Christ. These are the people who – despite what they may say in secret to Christian people – are not owning Jesus. They are denying him by their lifestyle. They are the people who so fear men that they will not be seen to follow Jesus at all. It is these sorts of people that Jesus has in mind in Matthew 10.

Why it matters

I have heard more than a few people say, ‘I worry what I would do under that sort of pressure to deny Jesus. I couldn’t honestly say I wouldn’t say I renounce Jesus.’ We have historic examples of these sorts of issues too; notably, Thomas Cranmer. Of course, Cranmer retracted his recantation and repented. But he was clearly moved to deny the gospel under great pressure and pain of death as were many others like him. Are we really saying Jesus can cover every sin for the believer except this one? It is not unlike arguments about suicide, with some insisting it is a final act of sin that is in effect not possible to be covered by Jesus. You can read here why I think that is wrong.

In many cases, I believe the Spirit will provide us with the grace required to stand firm for Jesus even under intense pressure. It is worth saying that God does not promise to give us the sense that he will provide grace for us in the moment nor the mental ability to envisage how we would stand firm for Jesus under such circumstances. But if and when God calls us to such situations, we will find the grace of God sufficient to stand.

But in cases where we don’t do what we know to be right, where we sin and are killed nevertheless with no opportunity to repent, does that mean the end for us? Will Jesus now deny us before the Father when, ten seconds earlier, he would have acknowledged us as his? The Bible is clear that those who believe by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved. It does not say those who deny Jesus once in word-only, under intense pressure, will be condemned. Peter did exactly that and wasn’t condemned. Many believers have denied Jesus under minimal pressure and there is nothing to suggest that is the final word on their salvation. Indeed, such a belief is to turn salvation into a matter of works again. A matter of our definitely not denying Jesus ever in front of anyone. And certainly not at a point they might kill us and we don’t have any time to repent. That is effectively Catholic doctrine of last rites and unforgiveable sins that is simply unbiblical.

The denials Jesus is concerned about are the denials of those who either claim to know Jesus but deny him in their lifestyle or who, fearing persecution in the ordinary run of things, refuse to be seen to follow him. It is those who pretend consistently that they do not know Jesus, and refuse to let their light shine before men lest those same men persecute them, that Jesus has in mind. Those who are genuinely facing death becaue of their faith in Jesus are clearly not in view – whether they manage to affirm their belief as the axe falls or not – because they are facing death because they did own Christ. It’s not the decisionistic words of a moment that Jesus says determine our salvation. It’s our refusal to be known as a follower of Jesus out of fear of man that is at issue. That’s a not a momentary issue, but a long-term ongoing one.