Across the Gospel narratives, John, Jesus, and Peter represent movements within consciousness itself. The stories describe how awareness shifts between observing, assuming, resisting, and finally stabilising in a new state. When read this way, the Bible becomes a precise psychological account of the law of assumption.
Jesus and John: Observer and Assumed Self
In John’s Gospel especially, there is a subtle fluidity between Jesus and John. At times John appears as the observer — the awareness that witnesses what is unfolding. Jesus appears as the self moving through embodiment — the state being assumed.
This is not accidental. Neville Goddard repeatedly taught that scripture moves between the one who is aware and the one who is experienced. Awareness can observe a state, then step into it and wear it as “me.” John represents the witnessing consciousness; Jesus represents the assumed identity moving toward fixation — what Neville called the crucifixion, the fixing of an assumption.
Seen this way, the arrest of Jesus is not an external betrayal but an inward moment: the new assumption is no longer theoretical. It is being taken seriously. It is about to be fixed.
Simon Peter: Hearing, Reasoning, and the Rock of the Skull
Simon Peter’s name carries two key ideas:
- Simon comes from “hearing” — the receptive, reasoning mind that listens, reacts, and weighs evidence.
- Peter means “rock” — not moral strength, but structure. The fixed framework through which we interpret reality.
This “rock” is not an external church. Symbolically, it is the skull — the mental structure where assumptions are held and from which perception flows.
Peter therefore represents the conditioned mind: the part of us that can recognise truth intellectually, confess it verbally, and yet recoil when that truth demands the death of an old self-concept.
Recognition Without Endurance
When Peter declares, “You are the Christ,” he is not lying. This is genuine recognition. In Neville’s terms, it is the moment you embody your anointed, ideal, set apart you — the chosen one developed throughout the narrative.
But immediately after, Peter resists the crucifixion:
“Be it far from you, Lord.”
This is the same inner conflict everyone experiences with the law of assumption. We like recognition, but we resist implication. To assume a new state means the old identity must die. The reasoning mind — Simon — objects.
Jesus’ response, “Get behind me, Satan,” is not a moral rebuke. “Satan” simply means adversary. It is the adversarial thought that argues from appearances and refuses the inner movement of assumption. It is told to get behind, not destroyed — reasoning must follow, not lead.
Walking on Water: Assumption Versus Appearance
Peter walking on water shows the same mechanism. He steps out when focused on the word — the assumption. He sinks when attention returns to the wind — sensory evidence.
The lesson is not about courage, but consistency. Assumption works only while it is occupied inwardly. The moment awareness re-identifies with appearances, the state collapses.
The Denial: When the Old Structure Cannot Follow
During the arrest, this tension reaches its peak. Jesus moves inward, toward fixation of a new state. Peter remains outside.
When questioned, Peter says:
“I do not know the man.”
This is not cowardice alone. Psychologically, it is the inability of the old self-concept to recognise the new assumed identity. The reasoning mind cannot yet say, “This is me.” The denial is structural, not moral.
The cock crowing symbolises awakening — the sudden realisation that belief has lagged behind assumption. It is the moment you see the split within yourself.
The Unnamed Disciple: Silent Alignment
Alongside Peter stands another figure: an unnamed disciple who enters freely with Jesus.
In scripture, names signify fixed states. To be unnamed is to be unconditioned. This disciple represents quiet inner knowing — awareness that does not argue, explain, or resist. It simply moves with the assumption.
While Peter stands outside analysing and denying, this aspect is already inside. This is the part of you that knows a shift is real before there is any external confirmation.
Restoration: Stability After Collapse
Peter’s later restoration is not forgiveness for failure; it is integration. The threefold denial is balanced by a threefold affirmation of love — love here meaning attachment, allegiance, fixation.
Once the old structure has collapsed, it can be rebuilt properly — now serving the assumed state rather than opposing it. The rock becomes stable only after it has failed.
Conclusion: The Law of Assumption in Living Form
This entire drama describes the law of assumption in motion:
- Recognition arises.
- Resistance appears.
- Collapse exposes the split.
- Assumption stabilises.
Jesus is the assumed self moving inward. John is the observing awareness. Peter is the conditioned structure learning, through failure, to follow rather than lead.
The Bible is not asking you to admire these figures. It is showing you how consciousness actually changes — not cleanly, not instantly, but inevitably, once assumption is fixed.
About The Author | Bible Verse Analysis | Genesis 1:26 Series | Rock Series