“No matter how deeply we may be hiding in a place of sin, the Lord’s gaze toward us is never withdrawn, not even for a single moment.”

 

“No matter how deeply we may be hiding in a place of sin, the Lord’s gaze toward us is never withdrawn, not even for a single moment.”

 

 

 

 

“Then they seized Him and led Him away and brought Him into the high priest’s house. And Peter was following at a distance. And when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and had sat down together, Peter also sat among them. Then a servant girl, seeing him sitting in the light of the fire and looking closely at him, said, ‘This man also was with Him.’ But Peter denied it, saying, ‘Woman, I do not know Him.’ A little later, another person saw him and said, ‘You also are one of them.’ But Peter said, ‘Man, I am not.’ And after about an hour had passed, another person confidently asserted, saying, ‘Surely this man also was with Him, for he is a Galilean.’ But Peter said, ‘Man, I do not know what you are saying.’ And immediately, while he was still speaking, the rooster crowed. And the Lord turned and looked at Peter, and Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had said to him, ‘Before the rooster crows today, you will deny Me three times.’ And he went outside and wept bitterly.” (Luke 22:54–62).

 

 

(1)  First, after reading today’s passage, Luke 22:54–62, in both the Korean Bible and the Greek Bible, I would like to make a comprehensive summary by comparing it with the parallel passages in Matthew 26:57–58, Mark 14:53–54, 66–72, and John 18:12–18, 25–27.

1.    Differences in the location and the process of entering

 

The incident takes place at the high priest’s house, where Jesus had been taken after His arrest. Matthew, Mark, and Luke simply record that Peter was sitting in the courtyard of the high priest’s house or around the fire.  John’s Gospel, however, gives us the specific circumstances by explaining that, with the help of the “other disciple” (John), who was well known to the high priest, Peter was able to pass through the door and enter the courtyard.

 

2.   Changes in the people who questioned Peter

 

In the process of Peter’s three denials, the types of people who identified and confronted Peter are described somewhat differently in each Gospel.

 

First denial: All four Gospels commonly record that Peter first denied Jesus in response to the words of a servant girl (maidservant).

 

Second denial: Matthew and Mark say that another servant girl identified him again.  Luke, however, says that “another person” questioned him, while John records that the people as a whole who were warming themselves around the fire questioned him.  This shows that the atmosphere around Peter was becoming increasingly threatening.

 

Third denial: Matthew and Mark record that the people standing nearby confronted Peter after hearing his Galilean accent.  Luke, on the other hand, says that “another person” confidently asserted that Peter was with Jesus.  John gives a very specific testimony: a relative of Malchus, whose ear Peter had cut off, appeared and claimed, “Did I not see you in the garden with Him?”

 

3.   The intensity of the denials and the process leading up to the rooster’s crowing

 

Peter’s rejection becomes increasingly intense. Matthew and Mark record that Peter eventually denied Jesus “with curses and oaths,” stubbornly insisting that he did not know Him.  Luke and John, however, portray his denials in a relatively simple form, such as, “I do not know what you are saying.”  Also, Matthew, Luke, and John say that after Peter’s three denials, the rooster crowed once, whereas Mark records more precisely, in accordance with Jesus’ specific prediction that Peter would deny Him three times before the rooster crowed twice, that the rooster crowed twice.

4.   Differences in the decisive moment that awakened Peter’s memory

 

The greatest theological difference appears in the event that became the occasion for Peter’s repentance. Matthew, Mark, and John portray Peter as hearing the rooster crow and then remembering Jesus’ words, thereby coming to remorse.  Luke, however, emphasizes that when the rooster crowed, “the Lord turned and looked at Peter,” and that at the very moment Peter encountered the Lord’s gaze, he was broken, went outside, and wept bitterly.  Thus, Luke highlights Jesus’ gracious gaze as the most decisive turning point in the entire event (Internet).

 

(2)  Second, I would like to meditate on the words, “Peter was following at a distance” [ὁ δὲ Πέτρος ἠκολούθει μακρόθεν (ho de Petros ēkolouthei makrothen)] (Luke 22:54). What does this expression mean? Why did Peter follow Jesus, who was being arrested, “at a distance”? What lessons does this passage give us?

 

              1.   The original meaning of “at a distance” and its psychological background

 

The Greek word “μακρόθεν” (makrothen) signifies not only physical distance but also symbolizes spiritual and relational distance.  Furthermore, the original word for “follow”, “ἠκολούθει” (ēkolouthei), is in the imperfect tense, vividly portraying Peter as continuously following hesitantly while maintaining a safe distance and watching the situation carefully.

 

There are three major ways to understand why Peter followed at a distance.

 

Fear and the instinct for self-preservation: As Peter watched Jesus being helplessly arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane, he was deeply shocked. His very human fear that he too might be arrested and put to death caused him to increase the distance between himself and the Lord.

 

The conflict between his promise (boastful declaration) and reality: Only a few hours earlier, he had boldly declared, “Lord, I am ready to go with You both to prison and to death” (v. 33).  Because his conscience and loyalty would not allow him to abandon the Lord completely, he could not simply flee. Instead, he hovered around the scene while watching carefully and gauging the situation.

 

Establishing a “safe-distance zone” for compromise: The physical distance Peter maintained was a thoroughly calculated distance of compromise: “If it looks as though Jesus is going to be all right, I can move closer; but if the situation becomes dangerous and appears likely to harm me, I can run away at any time.”

 

2.   The spiritual lessons this passage gives us today

 

The “distance” Peter maintained reflects precisely the condition of spiritual stagnation that modern Christians frequently experience in their life of faith.

 

“At a distance” is ultimately a preliminary step toward “denial.”

Peter thought that maintaining his distance would keep him safe. But as he moved away from the Lord, the empty space was filled by the coldness of the world—the fire in the high priest’s courtyard—and by the threats of people.  Eventually, this led to the destruction of cursing and denying the Lord.  There is no neutral zone or safe distance in the life of faith. The very moment we move away from the Lord is the beginning of temptation.

 

The crisis of being “at a distance” comes when we trust in our own strength and enthusiasm.

Peter believed that, through his own determination and passion, he could follow the Lord to the very end.  Yet human resolve easily collapses when confronted with threatening circumstances.  Following the Lord closely is possible not through our own willpower, but only through humility that denies ourselves every day and seeks the help of the Holy Spirit.

 

It warns us against the “two-sided faith” of modern Christians.

It criticizes the kind of faith that wants neither to suffer disadvantages in the world—therefore maintaining a certain distance from the world—nor to lose salvation by refusing to believe in Jesus—therefore maintaining a certain distance from Jesus.  The Lord does not call us to be casual spectators who maintain an appropriate distance, but to be disciples who take up the cross and follow closely behind Him.

 

Conclusion of the meditation:

Peter’s “distance” exposes human weakness. But when it is connected with Luke 22:61, “The Lord turned and looked at Peter,” a great reversal takes place.  Peter was hiding at a distance, but Jesus’ love and gaze penetrated that great distance and reached Peter (Internet).

(a) Having heard this warning against the “two-sided faith” of modern Christians, what specifically should we do, and how should we do it?

 

a.  Honestly examine the “light” and “distance” I have hidden behind — the beginning of restoration

 

Peter kept his distance from the Lord and sat among the people, warming himself by the fire they had kindled in the middle of the courtyard (Lk. 22:55).  Likewise, when we become distant from the Lord, we seek refuge in the fires of comfort and security offered by the world—such as finances, personal connections, hobbies, and so forth.

 

Specific action: Every night or on the weekend, honestly record the priorities in your life.  We must identify what “light of the world” we are relying on more than we rely on the Lord.

 

Ask yourself: “When I am mixed in with people of the world, do I confidently reveal that I am a Christian, or do I hide at a ‘distance’ and remain silent because I am afraid of suffering disadvantages?”

 

b.   Courageously step out of the “safe-distance zone” — a public decision

 

To put an end to two-sided faith, we need to remove one of the bridges we have placed between the Lord and the world.  It is important to clearly declare our identity as Christians in the places where we live our daily lives—at work, at school, at home, and so forth.

 

Specific actions:

 

Begin with praying before meals: Start by praying before meals openly and with a heart of gratitude, rather than hurriedly praying while watching what others think of you at work or in public places.

 

Establish standards for what you will refuse: Practice politely but firmly saying, “As a Christian, I find it difficult to participate in this,” when faced with business practices that violate Christian conscience, unjust or corrupt conversations (gossip, obscene talk, and so forth), or excessive drinking occasions.

 

c.   Abandon “my own will” and draw closely to the Lord through “the Word and prayer” — spiritual training

 

The decisive reason Peter fell behind and remained at a distance was that he had slept in the Garden of Gethsemane when the Lord told him, “Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation” (v. 46).  We can never follow the Lord closely through our own determination and willpower alone.  We need spiritual nourishment in order to close the distance.

 

Specific actions:

 

Instead of “at a distance,” give the Lord the “first hour of the morning”: Begin your day not with smartphone news but with just ten minutes of meditation on the Word and prayer, tuning your spiritual frequency closely to the Lord.

 

Become deeply involved in a small-group community with fellow believers: It is easy to drift away again when we are alone.  Become deeply involved in a healthy small group within the church—a cell group, district group, or fellowship group—where believers can check one another’s spiritual distance and pray for one another.

 

In conclusion, every moment we stand before the choice: “Will I draw closer to Jesus, or will I retreat into the world?”  There is no middle ground.  Today, we must choose one small action that we can immediately take to “narrow the distance” between ourselves and the Lord (Internet).

 

(3)  Third, I would like to meditate on Peter’s three statements of denial of Jesus: “I do not know Him” [Οὐκ οἶδα αὐτόν (ouk oida auton)] (Lk. 22:57), “I am not” [Οὐκ εἰμί (ouk eimi)] (v. 58), and “I do not know what you are saying” [οὐκ οἶδα ὃ λέγεις (ouk oida ho legeis)] (v. 59), in connection with Jesus’ prediction: “You will deny that you know Me” [ἀπαρνήσῃ μὴ εἰδέναι με (aparnēsē mē eidenai me)] (v. 34).  In particular, when I meditate on Peter’s second denial, “I am not” [Οὐκ εἰμί (ouk eimi)] (v. 58), I am reminded of Jesus’ seven statements in the Gospel of John in which He declared, “I am …” [Ἐγώ εἰμι (egō eimi)]: “the bread of life” (John 6:35), “the light of the world” (8:12), “the door of the sheep” (10:7), “the good shepherd” (10:11), “the resurrection and the life” (11:25), “the way, and the truth, and the life” (14:6), and “the true vine” (15:1).  What connection is there between them?**

 

(a)  First, the connection between Peter’s three statements of denial—“I do not know Him” (Lk. 22:57), “I am not” (v. 58), and “I do not know what you are saying” (v. 59)—and Jesus’ prediction, “You will deny that you know Me.”

 

(i)      There is more than a simple fulfillment of prophecy between Jesus’ prediction (v. 34) and Peter’s actual three denials (vv. 57–59); there is a linguistic and spiritual connection in which the expressions of the Greek original correspond precisely. Artificial intelligence has explained this profound connection in three ways (Internet):

 

1.    A complete contrast and rejection concerning “knowledge”

 

Jesus’ prediction (v. 34): μὴ εἰδέναι με (mē eidenai me) → “to know Me [you will deny]”

 

Here, εἰδέναι (eidenai) is the infinitive form of οἶδα (oida), meaning “to know.” Jesus precisely identified that Peter would deny the “knowledge” that constituted a spiritual and personal relationship with the Lord.

 

Peter’s first denial (v. 57): Οὐκ οἶδα αὐτόν (ouk oida auton) → “I do not know Him.”

 

Peter’s third denial (v. 59): οὐκ οἶδα ὃ λέγεις (ouk oida ho legeis) → “I do not know what you are saying.”

 

Connection: In his first denial, Peter says that he does not know (οἶδα) Jesus Himself, thereby precisely fulfilling the Lord’s prediction. Furthermore, in his third denial, he goes so far as to say that he does not even “know (οἶδα)” what the person questioning him is saying. In this way, he completely isolates himself from all knowledge and circumstances related to the Lord, reaching a state of spiritual bankruptcy.

 

2.   The fulfillment of “ἀπαρνέομαι (aparneomai)”—meaning to deny, reject, or renounce oneself—and its implication of complete separation

 

Jesus’ prediction (v. 34): ἀπαρνήσῃ (aparnēsē) → “you will deny.”

 

The Greek verb ἀπαρνέομαι (aparneomai) is a strong word that goes beyond merely rejecting something. It conveys the idea of “a complete severing of a relationship” and “completely cutting off the connection.”

 

Peter’s second denial (v. 58): Οὐκ εἰμί (ouk eimi) → “I am not (one of His disciples).”

 

Connection: This brief statement by Peter represents the climax of the complete separation expressed by the Lord’s prediction concerning aparneomai.  By declaring, “I am not one of that group,” that is, “I have nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus,” Peter tragically severed his own identity and relationship with the Lord before the world, just as the Lord had predicted.

 

3.   Confirmation of divine omniscience that shatters human “boastful confidence”

 

Earlier, in verse 33, Peter confidently asserted his own determination: “Lord, I am ready to go with You both to prison and to death.”

 

But in verse 34, Jesus foretold that Peter would deny Him three times before the rooster crowed.  Then, in verses 57, 58, and 59, Peter fell exactly as the Lord had said, denying Him three times with the words, “I do not know,” “I am not,” and “I do not know what you are saying.”

 

Connection: This connection shows how powerless human enthusiasm and determination can be in the face of crisis, while at the same time revealing the divine authority of the Lord, who already knew everything even at the very moment Peter was failing.  Ultimately, when the rooster crowed immediately after Peter’s three denials, Peter was not simply realizing that he himself had been wrong; he was coming to understand that Jesus’ word was completely true—that His prediction had been fulfilled—and he was broken by that realization.

 

Conclusion of the meditation:

Jesus’ prediction—“You will say that you do not know Me”—and Peter’s responses—“I do not know; I am not”—fit together like a mirror image.  The comfort this connection gives us is the fact that the Lord already knows even the extent of our most miserable failures and weaknesses.  The Lord knew beforehand that Peter would deny Him so completely, yet He warned him in advance and later came back to restore him (Internet).

 

(b)   Next, the connection between Peter’s second denial, “I am not” (Lk. 22:58), and Jesus’ seven statements in which He declared, “I am …” [Ἐγώ εἰμι (egō eimi)]: “the bread of life” (Jn. 6:35), “the light of the world” (8:12), “the door of the sheep” (10:7), “the good shepherd” (10:11), “the resurrection and the life” (11:25), “the way, and the truth, and the life” (14:6), and “the true vine” (15:1).

 

(i)         From the perspective of Greek grammar and redemptive history, these two statements form a powerful linguistic contrast, vividly demonstrating humanity’s complete failure and God’s perfect salvation. Artificial intelligence has explained this spiritual connection in three dimensions (Internet):

 

1.   Denial of identity (Peter) vs. revelation of identity (Jesus)

 

Peter’s “οὐκ εἰμί (ouk eimi)”: “I am not (His disciple).”

 

When the people around him questioned him, saying, “You also are one of them (His disciples),” Peter vehemently denied his most essential identity—the fact that he was a disciple of Jesus.

 

Jesus’ “Ἐγώ εἰμι (egō eimi)”: “I AM.”

 

In contrast, throughout the Gospel of John, Jesus openly revealed who He is through His seven declarations.  He uses the divine designation associated with God’s revelation of Himself in Exodus 3:14—“I AM WHO I AM”—and thereby declares Himself to be the Messiah who would save all humanity.

 

Connection 1: Human beings, when confronted with a crisis, deny the Christian identity that they ought to preserve in order to save themselves—“οὐκ εἰμί (ouk eimi),” “I am not.” But Jesus, in order to save us, openly revealed who He is as God even in the face of the threat of death—“Ἐγώ εἰμι (egō eimi), “I AM.”

 

2.  The grace of reversal contained in the seven “I AM” declarations of John and Peter’s denial

 

a.   The Bread of Life who satisfies spiritual hunger (Jn. 6:35)

 

At the moment of crisis, Peter denied knowing the Lord and, as a disciple, reached a state of spiritual loss and bankruptcy.  But Jesus revealed Himself as “the bread of life,” and therefore came again to Peter, who was spiritually hungry because of his failure and emptiness, to provide him with the bread of life so that he would never hunger again.

 

b.   The Light of the World who drives away darkness and fear (John 8:12)

 

In the middle of the night, Peter denied the Lord in spiritual darkness while depending on the light of the fire that the world had kindled in the cold courtyard.  But Jesus came as “the light of the world,” shining the true light of truth into Peter’s soul, which was wandering in the deep darkness of guilt and shame, and rescued him.

 

c.   The Door of the Sheep who embraces the cowardice of one who was fleeing (Jn. 10:7)

 

Peter, afraid that he would be arrested, fled and desperately searched for a place where he could hide and preserve his life within the world.  But Jesus Himself became “the door of the sheep,” opening the only way through which Peter, who had cowardly turned away, could safely return at any time and receive true salvation and rest.

 

d.   The Good Shepherd who lays down His life for the sheep (Jn. 10:11)

 

Because of fear, Peter severed his relationship with Jesus, the Shepherd, and betrayed Him.  But because Jesus is not a hired hand but “the good shepherd,” He never abandoned the weak sheep, Peter, who had left Him and fled. Instead, He willingly gave His own life on the cross in order to save him.

 

e.  The Resurrection and the Life who raises him up from despair and bitter weeping (Jn. 11:25)

 

After denying Jesus three times, Peter went outside and wept bitterly, experiencing a despair that was virtually equivalent to being completely dead as a disciple.  But Jesus became “the resurrection and the life,” raising Peter, who had collapsed before what seemed like the sentence of spiritual death, and breathing new life into his calling.

 

f.   The Way, the Truth, and the Life who corrects falsehood and wandering (Jn. 14:6)

 

In order to escape the immediate crisis, Peter rejected the truth through the lie, “I do not know Him,” and completely departed from the right path.  Nevertheless, Jesus Himself became “the way, and the truth, and the life,” presenting Peter, who had fallen into falsehood, with the true path of restoration and the hope of unchanging truth once again.

 

g.   The True Vine who reconnects the withered branch (Jn. 15:1)

 

Peter, who denied his discipleship by saying, “I am not one of that group,” was like a withered branch that had separated itself from the vine.  But Jesus became “the true vine,” grafting the broken and withered Peter back into Himself through His love demonstrated on the cross, and ultimately restoring him as an apostle who would bear abundant fruit in his calling: “Feed My sheep.”

 

Conclusion of the meditation:

This contrast powerfully declares that even humanity’s most miserable “I am not” [Οὐκ εἰμί (ouk eimi)] failure cannot overcome Jesus’ perfect grace expressed in “I AM [Ἐγώ εἰμι (egō eimi)].”  Peter’s denial merely revealed his own limitations, but Jesus’ divine declaration demonstrated the victory of love that completely embraces and saves the broken disciple.

 

3.   The final convergence on the Sea of Tiberias (John 21)

 

The culmination of this connection takes place on the shore of the Sea of Tiberias after the resurrection.  After Peter had denied Jesus three times with “I am not (οὐκ εἰμί)”, he suffered from deep spiritual guilt.  Then Jesus, the True Vine and Good Shepherd (Ἐγώ εἰμι), came to him, prepared a charcoal fire—which recalls the charcoal fire in the high priest’s courtyard—and grilled fish for him (evoking the Bread of Life).  He then asked Peter three times, “Do you love Me?”  At that moment, Peter could no longer boast as he had previously, “I will die for You.”  Instead, he simply depended upon the Lord’s divine omniscience and made his confession.  Through this process of restoration, Peter’s “οὐκ εἰμί (I am not)” completely melted away within Jesus’ “Ἐγώ εἰμι (I am your Savior)” and was forgiven.

 

Conclusion of the meditation:

We often live the life of “οὐκ εἰμί (I am not)”, becoming weak and saying in the circumstances of our daily lives, “I am not a Christian,” or “I do not know Him.”  But the hope we must remember is that the power of Jesus’ declaration, “Ἐγώ εἰμι (I am your light, your shepherd, and your life),” is far greater than our weakness. Our failures are healed only within the perfection of the Lord (Internet).

 

(4)  Fourth and last, I would like to meditate on the words, “The Lord turned and looked at Peter” [καὶ στραφεὶς ὁ Κύριος ἐνέβλεψεν τῷ Πέτρῳ (kai strapheis ho Kyrios eneblepsen tō Petro)] (Lk. 22:61).  What does it mean here that the Lord “looked” at Peter?  And why did the Lord look at Peter?  And what lesson does the fact that, as a result of the Lord looking at Peter, “Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had said to him, ‘Before the rooster crows today, you will deny Me three times’” [καὶ ὑπεμνήσθη ὁ Πέτρος τοῦ ῥήματος τοῦ Κυρίου ὡς εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὅτι Πρὶν ἀλέκτορα φωνῆσαι σήμερον ἀπαρνήσῃ με τρίς (kai hypemnēsthē ho Petros tou rhēmatos tou Kyriou hōs eipen autō hoti prin alektora phōnēsai sēmeron aparnēsē me tris)] teach us?

 

(a)  Luke’s unique description, “The Lord turned and looked at Peter,” is one of the most beautiful and overwhelming moments of love in all of Scripture.  The meaning and purpose of the Lord’s gaze at Peter in the midst of the tense situation in which He was being interrogated and insulted, as well as the redemptive-historical lesson of the fact that Peter remembered the Word as a result, have been summarized by artificial intelligence as follows (Internet):

 

1.  The meaning of the Lord “looking” at Peter (ἐνέβλεψεν)

 

The Greek word “ἐνέβλεψεν (eneblepsen)” in the original text does not simply mean to glance briefly at someone’s outward appearance (βλέπω).  It carries the sense of “looking through to the center of the heart and the depths of the soul” and “looking intently with love and compassion.”

 

This gaze was absolutely not a harsh look of condemnation toward a betrayer, nor was it a condemning glance saying, “See? I was right, wasn’t I?”  Rather, this gaze contained the following heart of the Lord:

 

A gaze of omniscience saying, “I know you completely”: It was a look of deep understanding that said, “I already knew everything about the way you would fall, even the heart that is trembling in fear right now.”

 

A gaze of intercession saying, “I am praying for you”: Only a few hours earlier, before going to Gethsemane, the Lord had said, “I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail” (Lk. 22:32). This gaze demonstrated that the Lord’s faithful love was still fully in effect.

 

2.   Why did the Lord look at Peter at precisely that moment?

 

The timing when Jesus turned (στραφεὶς) and looked at Peter was immediately after Peter had finished his third denial and the rooster had immediately crowed (v. 60).  The reason the Lord looked at Peter at that precise moment was to protect Peter from Satan’s despair.

 

If Peter had heard only the sound of the rooster without the Lord’s gaze, he might have fallen into the condemnation and despair of “I am finished,” like Judas Iscariot, and destroyed himself.  But by directing His gaze toward Peter at the same moment as the rooster crowed, the Lord caused Peter to experience with his whole being that this event was not “the end of destruction,” but “the fulfillment of prophecy and the beginning of restoration.”  In other words, the Lord turned on a spiritual safety mechanism so that Peter would not be sifted and fall under the testing of Satan, who desired to sift him like wheat.

 

3.   The lesson from the fact that Peter “remembered” the Word (ὑπεμνήσθη)

 

The immediate change that took place in Peter as soon as he encountered the Lord’s gaze was that “he remembered the word of the Lord” (ὑπεμνήσθη, hypemnēsthē).  The lesson this chain reaction gives us today is extremely powerful.

 

True repentance begins when “the Word of God” comes back to our remembrance.

What made Peter weep was not merely the stimulus of his circumstances—the sound of the rooster—or simply a human emotion of regret. It was “the Word of the Lord” that had struck his soul through the Lord’s gaze.  When failure and sin enter our lives, the only way we can overcome them and survive spiritually is for the Lord’s Word, which has been planted in our hearts, to come alive again and pierce us.

 

The Word of the Lord is not an instrument of judgment but an “anchor of restoration.”

The word Peter remembered was the painful statement, “You will deny Me three times,” but in reality, the essence of that word was joined with the promise of restoration: “And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers” (Lk. 22:32).  Because the Lord’s Word came back to his mind, Peter did not despair and die; instead, he “went outside and wept bitterly” (ἔκλαυσεν πικρῶς), and with a broken heart he was able to repent before the Lord.

 

The Lord watches us attentively even from a distance.

Peter thought that because he was far away from the Lord, the Lord would not know what he was doing.  But even in the midst of the high priest’s interrogation, the Lord saw Peter hiding in a corner of the courtyard.  No matter how deeply we may be hiding in a place of sin, the Lord’s gaze toward us is never withdrawn, not even for a single moment.

 

Conclusion of the meditation:

Peter’s great apostolic life was not rewritten on the foundation of his own confidence, but on the foundation of “the Lord’s gaze” and “the Word he remembered.” Likewise, our faith is sustained not by our own determination when it collapses, but by the Lord’s faithful gaze, which looks directly at us and awakens the Word in our souls (Internet).