Jesus asked His disciples, "Whom do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?" And they said, Some for John the Baptist, and some for Elijah, and some for Jeremiah, or for one of the prophets. He said to them, "And who do you say that I am?" And Simon Peter answered, saying, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. Then Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed art thou, Simon son of Jonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed these things unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven; and I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it (Mt 16:13-18).

At the moment of this confession of faith, John the Baptist is already dead. All the characters that the crowd wants to see in Jesus are already dead. This means that the crowd believes that they are all resurrected in the person of Jesus. Thus, we are talking about a faith analogous to Herod's, a belief in an imaginary resurrection. Luke expresses this even more explicitly than Matthew: Jesus, he writes, was taken for one of the resurrected prophets of old (Lk 9:19).

The reference to the "Gates of Hades", that is, to the abode of the dead among the Greeks, seems important to me. It means not only that evil will not overcome good. Here we can also see an indication of the religion of violence, which is always nothing but the religion of the dead and death. We recall here the saying of Heraclitus: "Dionysus and Hades are one."

Between these two religions – the Gospel and violence – children see the difference, since violence frightens them, and Jesus does not, but wise and clever people do not notice any difference here. They compare topics in a scientific way, and since they find the same themes everywhere, they do not see a true structural difference, even if they consider themselves structuralists. They see no difference between the hidden scapegoat that John the Baptist is to those who are willing to worship him by killing him, and the scapegoat that is exposed and exposed, which is the Jesus of the Passion.

Peter sees this difference, which will not prevent him from falling into universal mimetic behavior several times later. The extreme solemnity of Jesus in this passage shows that the distinction understood by Peter will not be understood by all people. In short, the Gospels insist on the paradox of belief in the resurrection of Jesus, while maintaining extreme skepticism about phenomena very similar to this resurrection in the eyes of those who are not taught by this very faith.

Chapter XII: Peter's Denial

In describing the effect of the Passion on the disciples, Jesus quotes the words of the prophet Zechariah: "I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered" (Zech 13:7; Mk 14:27). Immediately after his arrest, a disorderly flight begins. The only one who did not run away is Peter. He follows the escort from a distance and eventually enters the court of the high priest at the time when Jesus is being interrogated in the palace itself. Peter is able to enter this courtyard thanks to the recommendation of "another disciple who was known to the high priest" (Jn 18:15-16) and who followed Jesus with him. The "other disciple" is not named, but there is no doubt that the Apostle and Evangelist John himself is meant.

Peter, Mark tells us, followed Jesus from afar, "even inside the court of the high priest; and sat with the attendants, and warmed himself by the fire." (Mk 14:54). There is nothing more natural than this fire on a March night in Jerusalem. "Meanwhile, the slaves and servants, having made a fire, because it was cold, stood and warmed themselves. Peter also stood with them and warmed himself" (Jn 18:18).

Peter is already doing the same things that others are doing, and for the same reasons that others are doing. He already imitates others, but there seems to be nothing remarkable about it. It is cold, and everyone is warming themselves by the fire, Peter is also warming himself with them. At first, we do not understand why this is noted. However, in a text so stingy with specific details, this detail cannot be accidental. Three of the four evangelists mention this fire. They must have reasons for this. We must try to find them in Mark's text, which is the most primitive, as we are always told:

And it came to pass, when Peter was in the courtyard below, that one of the high priest's maidservants came, and when she saw Peter warming himself, and looked at him, and said, "Thou hast also been with Jesus of Nazareth." But he denied, saying, "I do not know and do not understand what you say." And he went out into the front yard; And the rooster crowed. The maidservant, seeing him again, began to say to those standing there, "This is one of them." He again renounced. After a while, those who stood there again began to say to Peter, "Surely you are one of them; for thou art a Galilean, and thy tongue is alike. And he began to swear and swear, I do not know this man of whom ye speak. Then the rooster crowed a second time. And Peter remembered the word that Jesus had spoken to him, "Before the crows twice, thrice shalt thou deny me; and began to weep (Mk 14:66-72).

At first, we think Peter is just lying. Peter's denial could have been reduced to this lie, but nothing is rarer than "just a lie," and in this case, too, on reflection, the lie loses all its smoothness. What, in fact, was demanded of Peter? He was required to confess that he had been with Jesus. But after his arrest, there were no disciples or community left around Jesus. Now there is no one really with Jesus, not Peter or anyone else. As is known, existentialist philosophers saw in "being-with" one of the main modalities of being. Martin Heidegger calls it Mitsein, which literally translates as "being-with".