Isaiah 50:4-6
Matthew 26: 69‑75

Many years ago a theory was put forth in the business world that became known as the Peter Principle.  The formulation of the principle was the result of people resisting accountability.  When there was a problem in an office or a division with regard to a person being irresponsible, the irresponsible person would be promoted out of the office or division rather than confronted about his irresponsibility. This was named for the man who made the observation that people often were promoted to their highest level of incompetence and became known as the Peter Principle.
           
The first Peter Principle was developed centuries earlier.   It is in marked contrast to the approach I just mentioned.  The first Peter Principle was developed by Jesus through his relationship with Simon Peter.   
Andrew and Simon were brothers.  They were fishermen by trade and apparently were in the fishing business with James and John.   Whenever Simon and Andrew are mentioned together, Simon is mentioned first which has contributed to speculation that he was the older of the two.  Simon and Andrew were the first two disciples that Jesus called and their fishing buddies and partners, James and John, were close behind them. 
              
The name, Simon, means flittering dove. 1  Jesus chose to identify him as Peter which means rock. How flittering dove became solid rock is a moving study of Peter's involvement with Jesus.  As we explore the changing of Simon into Peter we can see how our stories intersect with his. 
           
One word is descriptive of Peter as he is portrayed in the Gospels, impetuous.  There are numerous examples given of Peter leaping before he looked, speaking before he thought, and answering with what he hoped was the right answer.   
           
Peter was with Jesus from the early days of his ministry.   He saw Jesus' popularity grow and he saw the conflict arise between Jesus and religious leaders.  There was a lot of talk about who Jesus was and who he was not.  One day Jesus brought up the subject himself with his disciples.  He asked them straight forwardly, "What are you hearing?  Who are people saying that I am?"  They gave their answers, "Some say Elijah, some Moses, and some say John the Baptist."   Then Jesus asked a thorny, pointed question, "Who do you say that I am?"  The silence was deafening.  Apparently they had never thought he would ask them that or they never thought they would have to answer.  But that is the question everyone has to answer about Jesus.  "Who do you say that he is?"  Well, the disciples were nervous, uncomfortable.  John shifted his weight from one foot to the other.  James looked at Andrew, and Andrew looked at Simon.  Already they were coming to depend on "old flittering dove" to fill the void caused by silence.  They were eager for him to speak even if he were wrong.  Somehow that was better than silence.  They preferred to remain silent and have Jesus think they were ignorant than to open their mouths and remove all doubt.  Besides they could count on Simon to blurt out something.   This time was no exception.  Simon blurted out, "You are the Messiah, the son of the living God" (Matthew 16: 16). 
           
Even as impetuous as Simon was, it took a lot of courage to make such a statement.  If what Simon said were true, it could blow the lid off everything.  If it were not true, then Simon and  the rest of them could get their lids blown off as being  blasphemers for thinking such a thing much less for verbalizing  it.  Jesus responded by giving Simon his very own beatitude,  "Blessed are you, Simon Bar‑Jona!" (Which seemed to be what he called him when he really meant business)  For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but God who is in heaven” (Matt. 16: 17). 
           
Then Jesus told him he was going to give him another name, Peter which meant rock.  It would have made more sense to have  called him "Rocky" in the sense of being shaky because that was more  descriptive of what Simon had been like.  He was forever vacillating, always eager to speak but seldom if ever eager to listen.  He was shaking right then because he had been nervous with all the silence.  Then when Jesus blessed him that made him shake even more.  Simon felt his heart jump and his legs melt.    He was rocky but no rock. 
           
Of course my assessment is so much like so many of our conclusions.  We are forever deciding that what a person will be in the future is just like what he has been in the past.  Jesus seemed to look at a person and see what the potential was and he called on people to become the potential that he saw in them. The identity of any person is wrapped up in his name.  Jesus sought to give Simon a new name because he saw the potential for him to be a solid rock rather than a flittering dove.  To name a person is in a sense to call him into being and that is what Jesus was doing with Simon.  He was calling "Rock” into existence. 
           
A rock is not the prettiest thing in the world, even if it is a diamond in the rough.  A rock isn't fancy and it has no finesse.  If a rock gets rolling in the wrong direction, watch out!  Who knows what destruction or obstruction it can cause.  Of course it also is true that once a rock settles down, it pretty much stays in place.  So Jesus called Simon, "Rock," and the name stuck with him for the rest of his life. 
           
Simon had been around Jesus all this time and finally some of what Jesus had been saying was beginning to sink in.  What satisfaction and relief Jesus must have had!  All of his effort had not been in vain.  Someone was finally catching on to who he was and what he was about.  Simon was moving on up.  He had been a fisherman and Jesus had invited him to become an inviter of people, inviting them to acknowledge God’s relationship with them.   Now, with this new insight percolating in Simon, Jesus renamed him and moved him on up to be the keeper of the keys of the kingdom.  Peter had been promoted.
           
It wasn’t long after this apparent insight that Peter reversed himself.  When he was on the Mount of Transfiguration, he suggested they build three tabernacles and just stay there rather than be concerned about the needs of people. But Jesus’ emphasis always was the needs of people.  
           
There were other times when Peter said the wrong thing, got the wrong point, or did the wrong thing.  On one occasion Jesus was talking about forgiveness and Peter wanted so much to receive Jesus’ approval.   He knew from experience that forgiveness was Jesus’ forte.  This time Peter initiated the conversation about forgiveness because he wanted to impress Jesus with his insight and his big heartedness.  So he asked Jesus a question, "If somebody keeps on sinning against me, how many times do I have to forgive him?"  The question gives away Peter's attitude.  He saw forgiveness as a demand, a requirement rather than as a natural outgrowth of his love and concern for the one who was sinning against him.  Peter also revealed his attitude by answering his own question.  He really was not looking for or expecting an answer to his question.  Peter wanted Jesus to confirm what he already thought.  Peter thought that to forgive someone seven times would be the limit.  Perhaps Peter thought that since seven was the perfect number to forgive someone seven times would be perfect forgiveness.  Jesus responded by saying that if he forgave someone seventy‑seven times or seven times seventy times (variant texts of Matt. 18:22 give both numbers) he was just getting warmed up.  To keep score is to deny forgiveness to another and to betray the lack of the authentic spirit of forgiveness.  The numbers Jesus used was his way of portraying the  limitlessness of forgiveness like the Psalmist had done by saying  "as far as the east is from the west, so far does God remove our  transgressions from us" (Ps. 103:12).  Jesus reversed the law of vengeance expressed by Lamech (Gen. 4: 23‑24) which was endless revenge.  In contrast to this, the disciple of Christ is to practice endless forgiveness.  Forgiveness toward others is to be limitless just as the love of God is limitless. 
           
Much later at the last meal Peter had with Jesus, Peter rushed to assure Jesus that even if everybody else forsook him, he would not.  After the meal they went to the Garden of Gethsemane.
           
Jesus invited Peter, James, and John to go on further with him.  Then he asked them to remain and watch with him.  Jesus went on further.  Jesus obviously was in agony.  He was troubled and seeking comfort.  He needed his disciples to watch with him.   He especially needed the support of those who had been closest to him.  He wanted and needed them to bear his burden with him.  But what happened?  While he went on further to pray in solitude, Peter, James, and John went to sleep.  When Jesus returned he sought to respond to their denial by asking them if they could not stay awake for one hour.  He urged them to watch and pray so they might not enter into temptation.  Jesus was preparing himself for what he sensed was coming.  He sought to get his disciples to prepare themselves, but it was too painful.  They preferred to avoid the painful thoughts of what might happen so they went to sleep.  This was the perfect, passive form of denial. 
           
I wonder what would have happened had Peter and the others remained awake, watched and prayed.  Would they have been better prepared to face the events that came?  Would Peter have been less eager to resort to violence when the arrest came?  Would Peter have been more willing to stand up for Jesus in the courtyard of the high priest?  As painful and burdensome as life was becoming for Jesus, he sought to prepare himself in communion with God.  In the face of the burden and pain that Peter sensed that Jesus was experiencing, Peter went to sleep.  The pain was too intense. It was more than he was willing to face.  Thus he went to sleep.  That was the easiest way he knew to deny what was happening.  He preferred to cope that way rather than to watch and pray.  When the worst came only hours later, Peter was unprepared to deal with it and his denial became aggressive, even more blatant than his sleeping in Gethsemane.  When Jesus needed the support and care of those closest to him, they were asleep.   It was a strong hint of the lack of support he would receive from them in the hours to come.
           
Later that evening while they were in the Garden of Gethsemane, the soldiers came to arrest Jesus.  Once again Peter sought to be the obstructer.  He attempted to deny what was taking place by using violence to keep violence from happening.   He jerked out his sword and took off Malchus' ear.  I don't know if that was a warning blow of what was to come or if Peter was just so off the mark with his sword like he had been so often with his statements.  Jesus responded to this denial by telling Peter to put the sword away and to quit getting in the way of him being the Messiah, the Son of the living God. 
           
Peter followed Jesus along with an unnamed disciple to the courtyard of the high priest.  Through the influence of the unnamed disciple Peter was permitted access to the courtyard.  A maid thought she recognized Peter and asked if he were not one of Jesus’ disciples.  Peter was evasive saying, "I do not know what you mean" (Matt. 26: 70).  Peter moved closer to the fire.  He had never been so cold in his entire life.  Another maid asked him the same question.  This time with an oath he replied, "I do not know the man" (Matt. 26: 72).  Then some bystanders, who had been overhearing, chided Peter suggesting that his accent had given him away.  (I can’t imagine anyone having an accent.) But Peter denied knowing Jesus again.  With each denial he seemed to feel colder and moved closer to the fire.   Then there was a sound that unlocked an avalanche of memories in Peter’s mind.  Whether some rooster squawked the rising sun or a  Roman bugler sounded the fourth watch, Peter remembered denying  that he would deny Jesus and now he had denied him three times.   How unglued Peter must have felt and then there was one more devastating experience.  About that time Jesus was brought across the courtyard and he turned and looked at Peter (Luke 22:61).  Oh the pained expression that must have been in Jesus' eyes as his eyes met Peter's!  He had heard the voice of a close friend say, “I've never seen this guy before in my life"(AP).  With one look Jesus responded to Peter's denial.  For some reason I suspect that Jesus’ look was a redemptive one.  My suspicion is raised because of Peter's reaction.  Peter went out and wept bitterly (Luke 22:62).  The tears poured down Peter's face like rain washing down a rock. 
           
Can you imagine what it must have been like for Peter to see Jesus on the cross?  Think of the remorse he felt.  Think of the beating he gave himself for having failed so miserably.  The chances are good that if Peter had been arrested with Jesus that he would have defended him faithfully.  Who of us cannot imagine circumstances where we know that we would be faithful to God?   But the situations in life never develop quite like we have played them out in our minds.  The events in Jesus' life did not develop as Peter imagined they would.  Never in his worst nightmares did Peter ever dream that he would deny Christ although denial was one of Peter’s primary coping mechanisms throughout his encounters with Jesus.   When conflict became most intense in Jesus' life, Peter's coping mechanism of denial became most blatant.
           
To read the accounts of Peter’s involvement with Jesus is to read denial after denial.  But it also is to read Jesus’ reaction to denial.  Jesus never accepted the denial as the last word.  Jesus left room for Peter to change his mind, change course, and embrace God’s love and grace.  Eventually, the message got through to Peter.  He became a primary leader in the movement and a rock in the foundation of the early church.  Jesus saw that potential in Peter and continually sought to call it out of Peter by calling him to accountability for his words and deeds and offering him forgiveness for his failures and denials.  What a powerful, redemptive way to respond to denial and to change flittering dove into rock.
           
Hearing Peter’s story is like hearing our own.  We promise our faithfulness to God.  We claim God can count on us.  Then we are faced with someone in need and we just don’t have the time.  We hear the rumblings of war and our voice for peace is silent. We see the person imprisoned by poverty needing an advocate and we turn our heads and close our eyes.
           
When we open our eyes again there is the face of God looking longingly at us, forgiving us and inviting us once again to speak up for peace, to stand up for the disenfranchised.  What a great opportunity to respond to denial with love.  We can do that.  But will we?  Will we?
Note
    
1John Claypool.  "Simon Peter Revisited," Sermon delivered at Northminster Baptist Church, Jackson, Mississippi, January 4, 1981, p. 2.