Peter is asked if he is with Jesus and answers: “I am not.”
That phrase echoes like a wound. In John’s Gospel, Jesus has spoken the divine name "I AM". Peter answers with its negation: I am not.
The denial is not merely fear. It is dissociation. It is survival through untruth that happens beside a fire.
Peter’s denial takes place while imperial machinery hums in the background. Roman power, religious collaboration, and bureaucratic procedure are all in motion. The arrest is justified as necessary. Stability must be preserved. Order must be maintained.
Peter does not swing a sword here. That moment has already passed. In the garden, he cut off the servant’s ear. Jesus responded:
“Those who live by the sword will perish by the sword.” Matthew 26:52
In the courtyard, Peter’s violence has turned inward. He now wields the sword of denial. He does not say, “Crucify him.” He says, “I am not with him.” When we say, "What we have done are strategic strikes," and “We are not at war,” while bombs fall and bodies are counted, we stand at another charcoal fire.
War is apocalyptic. It unveils. It reveals executive overreach, congressional retreat, spectacle replacing deliberation. It reveals a contradiction sustained without consequence. It reveals the administration's lies as atmosphere. We are reminded today that Peter’s denial was not the creation of fear. It was the unveiling of it.
War does not create moral disorder. It exposes what was already operative. To deny being at war while invoking strength and inevitability is not neutrality. It is participation in a lie that allows violence to proceed without accountability.
“I am not.”
Jesus’ warning about the sword is not a naïve rejection of force; it is a diagnosis of spiritual contagion. When force becomes a demonstration of will initiated from an intoxication with dominance rather than tragic necessity, the sword is no longer a tool of last resort. It is an icon of idolatry.
Idolatry is not a primitive religion. It is the enthronement of the self. It is when the pleasure of dominance outweighs restraint. It is when the First Commandment collapses into executive impulse.
Peter’s first instinct was the sword. His second was denial. Both were attempts to control the outcome.
Jesus chooses neither. When the first covenant is ignored, something holy fractures. In John 18, the religious leaders believe they are preserving the covenant. They hand Jesus over to Rome to protect the nation. Covenant becomes a justification for killing the one who embodies it.
When leaders shrug and say, “That’s the way it is”, a beloved community must refuse the shrug because everybody bears the image of God. To call them an acceptable loss of life is not simply admitting what is real. It is sacrilege. Peter’s denial participates in that sacrilege. It leaves Jesus alone before the empire.
The New Testament word apokalypsis means unveiling. Peter thought he was hiding. Instead, his fear was revealed. Our declarations of strength and necessity often reveal what we most fear. Perhaps we are losing control. Perhaps we feel the need to center a story we tell around us.
So, nuclear threats were destroyed and yet they need destruction again; bombing followed by promises of peace; violence baptized as restraint. When contradiction carries no cost, falsehood becomes atmosphere.
Paul called this the powers and principalities not merely individual lies, but structures that metabolize untruth until it feels like oxygen Peter breathed that air in the courtyard. So do we.
The Psalms teach us to cry, “How long?” The prophets teach us to say, “Woe.”. Lament is not weakness. It is the refusal to normalize death.
Peter wept bitterly when the rooster crowed. That weeping is the first truthful act he performs after his denial. Perhaps lament and grief must be our first truthful acts, too.
Resurrection does not mean returning to the illusion that we were the “good guys.” It does not mean trust is instantly restored. Resurrection in John 21 takes Peter back to another charcoal fire. Jesus does not shame him. He asks, three times, “Do you love me?”
Peter’s restoration requires confronting the denial. Something has died in war, and our nation's resurrection cannot be nostalgia for what we have lost. It will be a new creation after burial.
But burial must come first. Peter’s story does not end with “I am not.” It ends with a witness. With martyrdom, according to tradition. With costly solidarity.
The question is whether we will move from the courtyard’s fire to the breakfast fire of restoration.
War has unveiled us. The rooster has crowed. Will we say again, “I am not”?
Or will we stand with the One who refused the sword and refused the lie?
No comments:
Post a Comment