Many facets of Peter's character seem to be revealed at the time of Jesus' betrayal. His fervent expressions of loyalty at the start are sadly belied by the story of his denials at the finish. We are left with the impression of a man who reacted quickly and not always advisedly to the circumstances of the moment. He desired and fully intended to be completely loyal to his Master at all times; it never entered his head that he could be anything else. But it was still a surface loyalty, taking its inspiration and power from his own interpretation of what Jesus had told them respecting their promised position in His Kingdom when that Kingdom should come. It was not a loyalty that was derived from a sober appraisal of the opposition and hardships that must inevitably come to those who avowedly took their stand with the Nazarene. Despite all that had happened in the past, Peter still had not realized that there was to be suffering and death before the promised glory and life. So it was with his usual assured demeanour that he went with John to prepare the room and table for their annual Passover meal. He probably wondered why Jesus had given him so apparently pointless an instruction instead of telling him plainly where the ceremonial was to be conducted. He was to go into the city and follow a man who would be carrying a pitcher of water (that in itself was a most unusual circumstance in a society where only women carried pitchers of water) and the place to which he was led was to be the venue. If, as tradition has it, it was the home of Mary the mother of John Mark, Peter and John must have known the house well. It is idle to speculate; suffice it that the two disciples carried out their instructions and at the appointed hour Jesus assembled there with the twelve.

The incidents of the supper are well known. The first one affecting Peter, so far as the record reveals, is the washing of the disciples' feet by Jesus. It was an object lesson, an example they were to remember and emulate in after days, when Jesus was no more with them. It was a lesson in the spirit of service and mutual helpfulness. Their minds were still full of the idea and prospect of reigning as kings over Israel, an idea inspired by orthodox Judaistic Messianic hopes. But they needed to be shown that their reign was to be one of service to the ruled, that as kings and priests among mankind they would be the servants of all; so Jesus pointed the moral by declaring 'I am among you as he that serves" (Luke 22.27 RSV). "If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet" (John 13.14 RSV). Perhaps some of the other disciples, the more thoughtful among them, understood and took to themselves the Lord's meaning, but not so Peter. "You shall never wash my feet" he protested. To him the very idea was abhorrent. He regarded Jesus as Lord supreme to be honoured and reverenced and kept on a pinnacle well above the common herd. He never realized that in this attitude he was also placing himself in a similar position in relation to the people around him. He would no more think of himself washing the feet of those whom he was called upon to evangelize than he would admit the propriety of allowing his Lord to wash his own feet. While he was in that condition of mind, Jesus had to say to him, as He did say, "if I do not wash you, you have no part in me" ". To which Peter reacted with his characteristics instantaneous change of mood and responded "Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head". And now Jesus had to restrain his sudden enthusiasm and bring him back to a calm and sober appraisal of the reason for which He was performing this little service in the first place.

Peter was irrepressible. Not many minutes elapsed before the time came for Jesus to utter the word that was to strike consternation into the hearts of all at the table. The time of the betrayal was at hand and Jesus knew the identity of the betrayer. It was with a heavy heart that He looked around the circle of eager faces and said 'Truly… I say to you, one you will betray me". There must have been a sudden amazed silence as incredulity and dawning horror registered on each countenance, and then, furtively, each began to look to others, as though expecting to see the truth written on one of their faces. No one dared speak. The silence continued until Peter, impetuous as ever, motioned urgently to John, who was seated next to the Lord, to ask him of whom He had spoken. Peter had already on a previous occasion contradicted the Lord when He had spoken of His coming suffering and death, and been rebuked. Perhaps he did not want to risk another rebuke at this moment. Perhaps at this startling blow to all his own hopes of an early assumption of kingly power by Jesus, backed by all the authority of Heaven which He so manifestly possessed, Peter could not trust himself to speak. At any rate it was John who asked the fateful question.

It almost seems as though only John and Peter heard the answer and understood the significance of the subsequent action. Jesus dipped a piece of bread in the liquid remaining in the dish, upon which the Passover lamb had rested and handed it to Judas, who then hurriedly left the assembly. The following verses indicate that the disciples in general did not know why he went out or the significance of Jesus' words to him. Had they all understood the meaning of Jesus' action this could not have been said of them; they all would have known that Judas was the traitor. It would seem that Peter's gesture to John was unnoticed by the others. John's question and Jesus' reply were possibly uttered in a low tone of voice unheard by them. Peter watching from his position a little distance away sensed the reply by the movement of the Lord's lips or by his immediate action and was the only one besides John who did so. And that, at last, convinced Peter that his Lord meant what He said and was indeed going almost at once to betrayal and death.

It was in that mood that he listened the more intently to Jesus' next words. Only for a little while now shall I be with you, He told them, and "where I am going you cannot come". Feeling himself blundering on the edge of a great mystery, Peter could not let such words pass unchallenged. He must know. "Lord, where are you going?" But Jesus was not explicit. He was going, and Peter could not follow him now but he would do so later. Peter was in no mood for conundrums. He only knew that he wanted to be with Jesus wherever He went and whatever He did, and if, as now appeared, that meant open conflict with His enemies and the risk of death at last, he was ready for that. "Lord, why cannot I follow you now? I will lay down my for you!" (John 13.37 RSV). Jesus must have looked upon him with eyes of love and sympathy, knowing how soon his rash avowal of loyalty to the end was to be put to the test. "Even though they all fall away, I will not" (Mark 14.29 RSV) the earnest disciple insisted. Was it at that point the Lord spoke the comforting words which are recorded only by Luke "Simon, Simon, behold Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat: but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again strengthen your brethren" (Luke 22.31, 32 RSV). Jesus knew of the denial that was so soon to come. Does this mean that He also knew Peter to be sound at heart; that despite the lapse he would come back and be the tower of strength to the church that Jesus had said right at the beginning he would be? Nevertheless there was a sad duty to perform, a hard word to fall on Peter's ears, unheeding though they be at the moment: "truly, I say to you, this very night, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times (Mark 14.30 RSV). . Peter did not consciously disbelieve his Master. In his present excited and confident state of mind the significance of the words just did not sink in. He heard them, and understood their import, but they did not register as applicable to him neither did he receive them as a definite statement of an event which was certainly to come to pass. He answered hastily, perhaps only half appreciating the meaning of his own words; "If I must die with you, I will not deny you. ". The murmur of assent from the other disciples probably blurred the personal aspect of the matter in Peter's mind. It was an academic situation anyway, impossible of experience in real life, and he had returned Jesus an academic answer and there the matter could rest. And Jesus did let the matter rest there too. Only a few hours now, and what He had foreseen would, inevitably and tragically, come to pass. But first there was the scene in Gethsemane where Peter tried to defend his Master by the sword. It is a strange little episode. How did it come about that Peter was armed with a sword in the first place and why did Jesus allow him to carry it at all? They had just come from the scene of the Last Supper; no fitting place for swords there. And yet they had two swords even in that hallowed room! Just before leaving for Gethsemane, Jesus had told them in effect that the life which faced them after his departure would necessitate a change in His instructions to them as evangelists. Whereas formerly they were to rely on the hospitality of their fellow-Jews to whom they preached, taking neither purse not script with them, they were now to traverse the wider wilder outside world. There they would not necessarily encounter fellow Jews and must make some modest provision for their needs themselves. Hence they must now take purse and script, and in addition, a sword. It has been suggested that this was for protection against wild beasts although the allusion is not very plain. At any rate the disciples misunderstood him and excitedly produced swords that they had apparently smuggled in. Luke is the only one who records the incident (22.35-38). Our Lord's reference to the prophecy is Isaiah 53 that He was to be reckoned among the transgressors may give colour to the alternative idea that the presence of the swords was to demonstrate that he could have defended himself from the arrest if he wished. Hence his comment "it is enough". But the instruction in v.36 to sell their garments and buy swords must imply an application to the emergency that now faced them and hence after Jesus' death. At any rate He allowed Peter to take his sword with him knowing that He would not accept its use to achieve release from His enemies. Peter of course was not to know that, and in his present frame of mind he was prepared to take on all comers. When the Temple guards approached to arrest Jesus, Peter was sure that the hour of decision was come. Jesus would be compelled to declare himself now and use His heavenly powers to confound His enemies. But Peter intended to get one blow in first. His wild lunge missed whatever was its intended mark (he was probably not very expert with a sword anyhow). He succeeded merely in slicing off the ear of the High Priest's captain of the guard. For a moment perhaps, the nature of the arrest hung in the balance. Fired by Peter's example, the rest of the disciples might well have joined in defence of their Master and a general melee developed. But Jesus stopped them with an imperious gesture. "Put your sword back into its place" He said to Peter "for all who take the sword will perish by the sword". And then, more gently "Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels (Matt.26. 52,53 RSV). "A Roman legion consisted of six thousand men. Peter was stopped in his tracks; he had forgotten that Jesus had at His command other-worldly powers greater by far than this trumpery sword. And now he realised that Jesus had no intention of using that power; that He was not going to resist arrest. Perhaps, unbidden, words of old, well-remembered words, flashed into his mind with a new and terrible significance "He is led as a lamb to the slaughter" and dark despair filled his mind. With the despair came fear, fear of the relentless guards who now had Jesus, unresistingly in their grasp. He dropped his sword and ran, following his fellow disciples, ran with all his might from a scene that would evermore be etched on his mind as the time of his life's great disillusionment. But once again his basic loyalty came to the top. Where he went we do not know, but it was not many hours before he was trying, with John. to re-establish contact with his captive Lord. Of the others there is no record. They had evidently gone into hiding, but Peter and John were hovering on the outside of the High Priest's palace where Jesus was being examined. John was known to the palace staff in other connections and so was able to get inside and somewhere near the group surrounding Jesus without being challenged. Peter was not so fortunate; he mingled with a group surrounding a fire that had been made in the courtyard and there he remained hoping to escape detection until he could see for himself what the outcome was to be. It was an act of considerable courage entirely wiping out his previous momentary panic in Gethsemane for if he was identified with the man now on trial, in the then excitable atmosphere, he would most certainly have been denounced and made to share his fate. So he remained there, endeavouring to be inconspicuous and saying as little as he could to anyone. The attempt, of course, was futile. A Galilean fisherman in the midst of a crowd of town Judeans would be about as unnoticeable as a Cornishman in a group of London cockneys. Before long one of the young woman servants, passing by in the execution of her duties, looked upon him and remarked "You also were with Jesus the Galilean". The men around the fire looked up and there was a sudden silence. Peter looked around wildly for John; he was nowhere to be seen, and then at the circle of suspicious faces, and he panicked. "I do not know what you mean" he blustered, and got up and went outside to the porch of the building. It was colder there but away from those accusing eyes. But his retreat availed him nothing, for in a little while another servant came by and observed to the little knot of bystanders "This man was with Jesus of Nazareth" and again with mounting fear, he denied the charge. "I do not know the man" he insisted, and then apparently, and strangely at variance with his evident state of panic went back beyond the group round the courtyard fire and into the building to a point where he was within sight of Jesus. Despite his repeated denials, he could not tear himself away from his beloved Lord. And it was while thus standing, trying to follow the course of the trial and to see what was going on without making himself conspicuous, that he suddenly chilled at the words of the third challenge. "Certainly you are also one of them for your accent betrays you". His nerve suddenly broke, and he began to curse and swear, saying, "I do not know the man". ". Hardly had the words left his lips than there sounded on the still night air, clear and piercing, over all Jerusalem, the long, drawn-out notes of the Roman bugle announcing the changing of the guard at the third watch (3.0 am.). This was the signal that was known as "the cock-crow" because it heralded the imminence of dawn. Peter, horrified, heard those silver notes and realised what he had done, remembered his confident boast of a few hours earlier and his airy dismissal of the mere suggestion that he would ever falter in his loyalty to his Master. The Lord turned and looked upon him. He met those eyes, eyes not of reproach but of love and sympathy and understanding, and too, of forgiveness. And as the crowd closed in again around the beloved form, Peter stumbled, unheeding past the hostile bystanders, past the group still seated round the fire, through the porch with its crowd of loungers into the street and wept bitterly.

(to be continued) AOH