Who are you? What are you? The answers to these questions will say a lot about you. Your identity can be self-described in a number of ways. It may begin with your name. When others pose the question to you, “who are you”, the most common response may well be your name. Your name is a title given to you since birth. It is meant to distinguish you from others in your family. It is meant to identify you in terms of great affection, originating from your parents, where no matter the relationship you have today, it most probably began with one of extreme love at the birth of a new child to them. But over time, some decide the name given them at birth, does not suit them, and they decide to change it to something better in their minds, to something else. This is not meant as disrespect. And in fact, in the Bible it happens a few times. Abram, was changed to Abraham, and Simon to Peter. The change for Abraham had meaning beyond affection, it meaning in designation to “who” he would become. The same is true is for Peter. And at the end of all things, Jesus intends to give us all new names in the Kingdom of heaven, names better suited to identify who we are meant to be, and who we will also become in the state of perfection throughout eternity.
What are you; is perhaps the more interesting question. The answer here could originate in a combination of your age, or sex, or religious or political affiliation. But most commonly your answer may find root in your job, your occupation, your skill set – that help you earn a living and sustain yourself. Most of us grow up into the job we have, through a series of educational progressions, and then influenced by a set of circumstances we never could have predicted but find ourselves either victim of; or reaching the aspirations of. We do what we need to do, to make a living, to provide for ourselves, or for our families. So what we are matches the demands of the place, opportunities, and times we live in. And there are few among us who answer this question as … I am a prophet of God. The ones who do answer this way, are pretty much seen as “cuckoo lulu” right out of the gate. Our minds jump right to the ideas of con-man, or self-deluded, and in the worst of all states, an agent of Satan. So what kind of revelation, does it take to be a prophet of God? And could it be a position more of us could occupy, if we only understood it better?
When we think of the great heroes of the Bible a few of them stand out because they are most closely associated with the ideas and the term prophet. Isaiah prophesied of the coming Messiah. Daniel of the Old Testament and the apostle John of the New, prophesied in tandem of the timeline of our world, all the way to the end of all things as we know them. So it is easier to look at John and declare he was a prophet, even though He was also a disciple, and a fisherman, and a searcher of God. After reading the book of Revelations however, it is easy to see how John could carry the title “prophet”. But then is the gift of prophecy a full-time occupation? Saul, the first king of Israel, who is known more for his ignominious end than his life, was given to bouts of prophecy. So much so, that it was a common expression to ask, is Saul among the prophets. And Matthew reveals to us that Peter too was given revelations that would become prophetic. Does this make Peter a prophet, and if not, could the idea of prophecy being a more limited thing that happens in the course of one’s life, make you a more likely candidate than you might have once believed?
I ask for many reasons, but the context of my question comes from personal experience. No, it was not me this time 😊. In this instance it was my wife of 30+ years. Over the course of our life together my life has not always been what it should have been. I went to the Lord in prayer asking what His will was as I struggled with the situations I put myself in. And out of the mouth of my wife (totally unbeknownst to her) were descriptions of my situation as clear as if she had first-hand knowledge – which she did not at the time. My answers came from her lips, and all the way to the writing of this blog she has never known it. But I did. And God did. His word passed the lips of my wife without her knowledge or cognition. Does this make her a prophet, perhaps, perhaps not. But more importantly, does it mean that revelation that comes from God, can pass through any human vessel – even when they are unaware it is happening, this I think is how it happens. Matthew in his gospel to the Hebrews seems to cite an example of just such a case.
The story begins in chapter sixteen picking up in verse 13 saying … “When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?’ The story begins with a simple question of identity. Jesus is not looking for an answer directly from the crowds, He has chosen to wait until the troop has traveled far from the last crowds, and He is now focusing in on what the disciples think about who He is. His question (like many a helpful teacher) already has the answer in it. The “Son of Man” is another way of referring to the Messiah, the Christ, or the Son of God. Nevertheless His disciples appear to miss the clue and offer more genuine insights into what the common answers are (perhaps including what they themselves are thinking). They respond in verse 14 answering … “And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.” This answer is meant to be flattering. For Jesus to be associated or identified with Elijah or Jeremiah or even more recently John the Baptist (all of them back from the dead) means that Jesus would definitely be a hero to the nation.
It might account for all the miracles, if God saw fit to bring back a prophet of such high caliber back from the dead to be His messenger / Messiah to His people. While a “normal” Jewish believer could not do what Jesus does, perhaps a resurrected hero of the past could do it. So it is not altogether impossible to believe that the disciples were using the response of the people to this question, to hide the fact that they may have shared these beliefs. As such, Jesus gets more specific, and removes the cover of the people and the collective “they” in their answers. Picking up in verse 15 He asks … “He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?” Now the veneer of what other people think has been stripped away from the answers they will give. And to us the answer should be obvious. Frankly, they must have been having a collective memory problem for it to be anything less than obvious to them. It was only days ago when Jesus walked on water, calmed a storm, instantly bent time and space for them to move a great distance. He fed 5000 then 4000 men (plus their women and children). He healed like Israel had never seen before. No prophet of the past had ever done anything like this, on any scale like this, ever. So why did they hesitate in their response?
Could it be, that they, like us, get fixated on an idea, and even when the Truth is presented differently to us, we may declare it for a moment, but begin reverting to our preferred ideas almost immediately. The disciples were falling victim to their respect of the existing church leadership, believing that it would be hard for them to get it entirely wrong. These ideas of an answer they already offered, while supposed to be flattering, were also a compromise between what they should have known, and what the church leadership would offer as a counter argument at the time. The miracles of Jesus were undeniable. But if Jesus were Elijah come back from heaven, then perhaps not so implausible. It keeps Jesus from being the Son of God, while offering a “logical” argument on how Jesus did what He did. And generations of non-believers continue to look for compromises of the idea of faith where the identity of Jesus remains. Make Jesus a “really good guy” and throw out the miracle stuff as exaggeration. Even within in the church, make Jesus a partner in your salvation, not the author and finisher of it. A compromise between what the Truth says about Himself, and what we will allow ourselves to believe about Jesus and how it all works.
However Peter offered a dissenting voice from his peers continuing in verse 16 saying … “And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. [verse 17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” The revelation of who Jesus is, is indeed a revelation sent from God the Father to Simon Barjona (who will be called Peter momentarily). This revelation cuts through all the compromises and makes clear who the Truth is. Peter did not know it was coming. Peter was not in deep prayer asking for a revelation. Peter was there, and God spoke through him. The words of the Father God sent through the mouth of Peter, not for the benefit of Jesus (who already knows who He is), but for the benefit of the church (those others around him) who needed to hear it loud and clear. To chase the compromise out of the room, and out of the thinking, God spoke through Peter. And because of this Jesus rightly points out that this revelation is a blessing.
Prophecy, and revelation, need not be a full-time occupation, or gift of the Spirit that happens every moment of every day. It can come as it is needed and through any vehicle our God chooses, at the time when it is needed most. It is not a casual thing, it is an important thing. It is not needed to predict the conditions of the roads before you travel to work, or help you find your misplaced keys. God may help you find those keys, but that is not revelation, it is the love of a Father. Revelation has immediate impact on the church, it drives away compromise. The words of my wife had exactly that effect for me. They made clear my compromises and clear what Jesus is capable of fixing, even when I could not see the way clear for it. The words of Peter did the same thing for those like-minded friends & followers in that venue, and were verified by Jesus Himself as being true. This was revelation indeed, but was it authority?
Jesus continues in verse 18 saying … “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The first thing Jesus does after this revelation is to change the name of Simon Barjona into Peter, which has the meaning of a small stone. Throughout scripture Jesus is referred to as the cornerstone (or the stone upon which everything else relies in the structure). Telling now formerly Simon, that his new position is Peter, is telling him that he too will be a stone in the structure of the church Jesus is going to build. Peter will NOT be the cornerstone. Only Jesus could ever be that. A church built upon any man is sure to fall. But a church built upon God will last and the gates of hell will not prevail against it, and believe me, they have tried, and continue to try. Jesus is trying to convey to Peter that he has a position in the new church, that it will be his shared mission to promote and grow the church Jesus will build. This is the same position Jesus offers you and I.
Jesus then looks across the group of His disciples and continues saying in verse 19 saying … “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” The disciples are to be given the keys of the kingdom. This is obviously symbolism. There were no literal keys ever minted or transferred. The meaning was to be symbolic. Whatever the church was to ask for (in unity) would be granted and done by Jesus who would soon return to heaven. Whether to open a door, or to seal one up for protection, requests of the church (when two or more would gather), were to be heard by the kingdom of heaven.
It is important to understand how DIFFERENT this model was, than the one Israel had since the days of Moses and the Exodus from Egypt. Since the wilderness wanderings, Israel had a temple first constructed with gold plated boards, and covered in tent materials, containing a physical ark with a mercy seat. Later king David would collect the materials and make the plans for a temple his son Solomon would build over many years. That temple would survive until Nebuchadnezzar invaded and twice destroyed it progressively. Israel would rebuild it and in the days of Christ it would be only a former shadow of itself yet still magnificent. Even then Israelites tended to face the temple when they prayed (no matter where they were in the world). They were proud of their temple and believed that the presence of God Himself could only be found in that location. What Jesus was saying now, was something entirely different. From now on, the unity of believers would represent His church and as few as two of them could open or seal up the kingdom. The presence of God would be found anywhere instead of only in one place. That was radical. That was contradictory to the prescriptions of Moses at the time, and for centuries of tradition since. But this was to be the new model.
So then the question; was authority transferred by the words of Jesus? And what authority? Obviously the church of Jesus would forever belong to Jesus not men. Obviously the work of our salvation would forever belong to Jesus not men. And often we would not understand it, or even like it. Matthew continues picking up in verse 20 saying … “Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. [verse 21] From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.” Right off the bat instructions from Jesus regarding His church include NOT sharing the revelation that Jesus was the Son of God. How completely counterintuitive. You would think the idea of sharing the identity of Christ would be priority one. But the timing was not right. So it was not. Had the disciples been wholesale sharing their beliefs at this time, the anger of the church leadership would have cut short the ministry of Jesus. And Jesus knew that cutting short His ministry without time to prepare His disciples would have an even more catastrophic effect on them with what was coming.
Jesus also begins revealing to His church what was to come in the near future. This was prophetic, as it had not happened yet. Yes, Jesus was a prophet in the terms we think of. But then Jesus was God, so knowing what God knows, can it still be considered prophecy, or just more of the Truth. But it did not matter, the message of the Truth, was something His church did not want to hear. The shortsightedness of man sees the death of Jesus as the end of hope with respect to the Romans. This was true. The reign of Rome was to continue for centuries after Jesus (first militarily, and then as a great religious persecuting power). Jesus did nothing to undo that. And the Truth He was sharing with them was about His death, but also about His resurrection. It seemed the back half of that news never could pierce the hearing of His own church leadership. Peter (the newly identified small stone in the house of the Lord) now does what any prudent deacon should do, when the Pastor seems to be running amuck.
Matthew continues in verse 22 saying … “Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.” Peter takes Jesus aside (keep in mind this is a rebuke) and says to Him, hey look, this just isn’t going to happen to You. The people are ready to make You our King. In fact, they have tried several times by force already, and somehow You have been able to disappear from the adoring crowds. But in any case; You have a job to do according to our interpretation of scripture, where You are supposed to throw off Roman oppression, and setup Your Kingdom forever. So You need to put this death nonsense out of Your head, and get busy with Your primary mission. No more death talk, you get it. Especially accusing the church leadership of wanting to torture and kill You. That kind of talk is going to get You tortured and killed, by the people who still trust them, if not by them. Now are we clear with what needs to happen? I am sure all of us believe the same way here, and want the same things here. You just gave us keys, so this is how we intend to use them.
And there it is folks, a paraphrase of every church leader throughout the ages reacting to news and the Truth they did not want to hear. Reciting every logical reason why the Truth was wrong. Reciting every long held doctrinal position so clearly backed up by scripture there could be no possible argument against it, except the words of the Truth, they do not want to hear. In short, they all net down to the desires and vision of men, stacked against the will of God, that remains in our best interest, and not the best interest of God. That is what Love means to Him. Jesus responds in verse 23 saying … “But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” Ouch! There is no stronger rebuke in history. If Peter was given this name of affection because of his new role as being a stone in the construction of the church, he has just gone from blessed – to an offense as bad as Satan himself.
It is interesting that Jesus does not throw Peter out of the church. But what occurs here is an object lesson on why authority can never be transferred from Jesus to any human. Peter, and men throughout the ages, and in our churches still, and in our mirrors still; value our own desires – the desires of men – more than the will of God. It is Satan himself behind this phenomenon. And it seems perfectly reasonable, perfectly logical, perfectly sensible. We know God loves His people. We know God does not want His people to suffer at the hands of injustice. We know God does not enjoy people worshipping pagan gods as a substitute for Himself. So it only makes sense that Jesus end all the suffering brought on by Rome. How could He not? How could He leave the most cruel empire in human history in charge of the fates of His own people? This empire ultimately being responsible for the deaths of so many of them. That does not make any sense. Yet Jesus looks at that line of thinking, and states, get thee behind me Satan.
In a short period of time Peter has gone from reciting the will of God through his lips, to reciting the will of Satan. He has fallen so far he is literally “an offense” to Jesus. No person is perfect, or should be revered just because the words of prophecy have passed their lips. The message is what is important. And as to the message, just because you have recited the will of God through your lips, does not make you immune to becoming the messenger of Satan and allowing his words to escape your lips as well. There is fallibility in mankind, or in any office within the church of Jesus. Leaders, and lay people alike, make mistakes. We sometimes pursue a direction that is more akin to the will of Satan than it is the will of God. To avoid this, we must heed the council of Jesus. Put aside our own desires, as He did. Submit our very desires to the transformation only Jesus can enact in us. And allow Jesus to put our will in harmony with the will of God. This takes submission on our part, and transformation on His. But He does not fail.
Our Catholic friends like to use this sequence of texts to proffer the idea that here is where Jesus made Peter the first pope. I see no evidence of that. Nor do I see any evidence of establishing a line of succession of the transference of power through the ages. What is clear, is the absolute fallibility of men, even of Peter. Peter went from the revelation of God the Father, to attempting to rebuke Jesus citing the words of Satan as what Jesus should do. That is not the mark of perfection, or of a church leader who can do no wrong. It is quite the opposite. It is also a demonstration of what occurs when the will of one person is offered without submission. Even groups can be convinced of the wrong thing. It is not just that when two or more are gathered. It is not just the gathering. It is the submission of self in the name of, to the person of, Jesus – only then can the will of God can be discerned.
And we must be willing to accept that will and that direction, even when we do not understand it. Even when we do not think it makes sense. Even when it seems entirely counterintuitive. No matter what the revelation we receive over the course of our lifetimes, He is always right, we are often wrong. Better to rely upon the authority of Jesus to run His church, and your life. Better to trust the infallibility of Jesus who has never been wrong, than the record of your decisions which are scattered with wrong choices. Better to look for the revelation of the will of God which comes when we are in submission to Jesus, than find ourselves uttering the revelations of Satan that are so much more pleasing to ourselves, and aligned with our desires and goals. And the Truth has so much more to say …
No comments:
Post a Comment