Matthew 26:31-35
"Then Jesus told them, "This very might you will all fall away on account of me, for it is written: "I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered. But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee." Peter replied, "Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will." "Truly I tell you" Jesus answered, "this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times." But Peter declared, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." And all the other disciples said the same."
Peter confidently declared he would never deny Jesus but Jesus said he would - not once but three times before the night was out. What made Peter so confident he would not and why did he do so in the end? ( Of course he subsequently redeemed himself with his martyrdom)
Peter’s story indirectly tells us about the nature of man. Original sin caused man to be cursed with death. It is that same curse that causes more sin because we fear death - we cling to life desperately wanting to live longer and in the process, we may even deny the very existence of God. In Peter’s case, he denies association with Jesus when he fears for his life.
Peter had been at Jesus’ side for a long time. He must have seen enough miracles to believe Jesus was no mere rabbi. He had been touched by the Word, enough to give up everything to follow Jesus. Yet, at that final stage, when it came to the crunch Jesus knew and predicted Peter’s reaction.
Peter’s declaration (and the other disciples as well) is a warning for us. Why? Because this declaration was done in the comfort of a peaceful setting, the Last Supper where all the disciples were enjoying fellowship with each other and with the Lord. Peter probably meant what he said too. What could go wrong? He was probably starting understand who Jesus really was. And maybe he thought that nothing would happen to Jesus. He was the Messiah wasn't he? What harm could come to Him? Nothing was at stake in that moment. And in such circumstance it is then easy to profess faith and loyalty.
If Peter, who knew our Lord personally in the flesh, could deny Him subsequently, how much more in danger are we? As Christians in our country today, we are like those disciples at the supper. We are blessed in so many ways as we live peacefully and comfortably, able to worship without fear of persecution. We declare our faith publicly, despite a modern liberal culture that venerates the intellectual atheist and ridicules Christians for being weak and simple-minded (And if we are honest, we might hesitate to speak up in such liberal company - and that is a post for another day)
So is it really that difficult to imagine a scenario in which we may deny Jesus? (The movie Silence by Martin Scorcese really brings this point home as it depicts how the early Japanese Christians were forced to recant their faith or face death.) What brought about this epiphany that we might not be very different if placed in a similar situation?
A recent conversation about the war in Gaza turned to how the Palestinians were really unwanted and unliked by so many (including fellow Muslims and Arabs). They were seen as troublemakers. Other examples of such stereotypes spring readily to mind. Germans during the Nazi era. The Japanese during the occupation of Singapore. They were/are evil people - there are Christians who even refuse the second great commandment to love everyone, saying they will never forgive these people. If Christ died for the most wretched sinner, how can Christians deny forgiveness to anyone?
It is easy to stereotype and demonise (de-humanise) because it simplifies things in our minds. To an extent, it is also a defence mechanism, to justify our own righteousness and supposed superiority. “We are not like that. We will never be like that.” We dare not contemplate that we are capable of such evil. We freely confess the’ easy’ sins in our lives, but we firmly reject the notion that we are capable of the horror of such extremes of killing, murder, and genocide.
Are all Palestinians troublemakers? Did all Germans support Hitler? Did all Japanese support their imperialist ethos? (just watched an early Kurosawa film “No regrets for our youth” that covers this part of their history). Clearly not, if we give it any serious thought. Christians also understand that we are all sinners, and in that sense, no one can claim superiority of any one group (ethnic or some other distinction) over another. No one can claim with any certainty that they would behave differently.
So then, how do such regimes gain power? Some people definitely supported these regimes and profited, either financially or by gaining influence and power. And those would be the Judases of their era. The other necessary condition is that not enough people resisted or opposed them or did not succeed. And maybe some were persuaded to be more enthusiastic when presented with the early successes of the wars. Who doesn't want to be on a winning team? I believe the majority were simply cowed or suppressed by those in power. Faced with persecution, prison and death, they acquiesced. They kept silent or looked the other way.
A Taiwanese friend once took issue with a commentator's view that if really pushed to the wall and without support from allies, Taiwan would have no choice but to submit to reunification. That friend said, "We will fight to the death!" (I suspect it was rhetoric more than anything). That is something said in the comfort of a hypothetical (albeit a very real possibility) scenario and even if you believe it yourself (at the time, like Peter), it is unlikely most would choose that option.
In a world where many believe this life is the only one we have, the fear of death or loss of status (in my opinion, loss aversion is the most powerful force in the world today) is a powerful motivator (or demotivator depending on your perspective). We sin because of the trappings of life. We fear missing out because we think this is all there is. Or at least it is all we know at the moment. And so we want to live life to the fullest, which is not in itself wrong. It is the circumstances we find ourselves in which tests whether we pursue enjoying the fruits of His creation in the right way. Gratitude, and not greed for more, is the key.
This is where the early Christians provide a wonderful example of the opposite worldview. There was absolutely no material benefit for holding on to their faith. On the contrary they faced persecution and death. It is to the modern mind, almost unthinkable that Christianity would survive these odds. But as Timothy Keller said in one of his sermons, only Christianity (of all the faiths) satisfied both the intellectual and existential demands of any valid worldview/religion. Early Christians were not simpletons who simply believed because it made them feel good - it was a likely death sentence for something they believed but could not see nor prove to anyone - an eternal life. So why did they persevere? They heard the direct testimonies of those who witnessed the resurrection and other miracles. They saw the apostles being martyred and for what? The apostles did not get rich but they kept preaching that Jesus died and was resurrected, and were willing to die for that. And that is the intellectual credibility and rigour that an atheist would have to overcome.
So in Peter's story we get almost a complete picture of all of our human responses to Jesus. We believe, because the Holy Spirit touched our hearts. We grow in faith because we start to recognise His impact on our lives - an answered prayer, an unasked for blessing. We believe that nothing will trouble us if God is with us, and yet we doubt when things do not go our way, and that's perfectly understandable. We forget His goodness when we are threatened. But He is merciful and will bring us home to Him eventually if we do not turn away.