Revelation, Authority, & Infallibility ...

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 …

 

 

Papal Fallibility and When You will Never be Wrong Again ...

It is said, whatever must rise, must also fall.  Perhaps this is just another misconception created by our sinful state, hopelessly bound to an addiction to failure … if not for Christ.  The prophet Nahum gives us hope that affliction shall not rise up a second time, so once we are finally and fully perfected by Christ, we can trust Him that we will not fall back into the sin of who we are today.  But before that final perfection has taken hold, we remain subject to the weakness of our selfish state.  Even in matters of religion, and our relationship with Christ this is true.  The Pharisees represented the class of religious leaders who despite lifetimes of studying, debating, and interpreting scriptures; missed the Messiah who stood right in their midst.  They were members of the “right” religion, studying the “right Bible”, and worshipping the “right God”, but refused to see perfection in the sacrifice of loving others that embodied Jesus Christ.  Instead they held to their own wisdom on matters of scripture, reasoning that no one could know them better than they.

But it is too easy to look only at the Pharisees and assign blame, and avoid seeing ourselves in them from the scriptures we read.  Peter too, suffered from weakness of our addiction to sin, even while in the presence of Christ, even when only seconds before having been in direct communication with our Father God.  It is very hard for us to imagine this.  For if being in a prophetic state with the Father God is not enough to perfect us, what is?  But perhaps that is the question Peter would wish us to ask as he relays the series of event to John Mark in his gospel chapter eight picking up in verse 27 saying … “And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am?”  Only recently had Jesus and his followers been in Bethsaida, where Jesus had revealed Himself in the role of our Creator as He had privately restored the sight of the blind man.  Now they were traveling again on the roads and byways near the town of Caesarea Philippi.  As they traveled, and thinking on recent events, Jesus poses a question, perhaps “the” question, to His disciples about “who” He is.

As Peter relays this gospel to John Mark to transcribe, it is obviously written from the perspective of hindsight.  Peter already knows the end of the story, he already knows now firmly who Jesus is.  In fact, as he recalls events to John Mark, nearly all of them are intended to help the reader reach the same conclusion about the identity of Christ, that Peter already knows.  But when this incident was happening in real time, things were not quite as certain.  Jesus had not disappointed his own followers by not overthrowing Roman rule as yet.  Jesus had not died or rose again yet.  So no matter how excited the disciples were about the prospect of who Jesus was, and perhaps all of Israel with them, there still existed a lack of certainty, an echo of doubt that kept them all from the potential they had yet to explore.  So comes the question of Christ to keep them thinking.  Jesus carefully words the question asking at first only “whom do men” say that I am.  In this way, He allows His disciples to offer answers that are popular, or even controversial, under the cover of saying they were only repeating what they have heard, instead of what they themselves are thinking.  It is a clever way to reduce the pressure of accountability when answering “the” question of any age.

So the disciples put forward the popular thinking of the people, and as they do, they believe these answers to ALL be flattering to any man.  John Mark continues in verse 28 saying … “And they answered, John the Baptist: but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets.”  John the Baptist, the first cousin of Jesus, who also had miraculous signs even at his own birth; was “the” most popular religious figure in Israel in that day.  To assign and equate the identity of Jesus with that of John the Baptist, should have been a great honor.  The living ministry of John, the humility he adopted in his clothing, and his diet, and long hair; was echoed only in how great the Holy Spirit had infected his preaching.  John preached a message of repentance, for it was only repentance that could in any way “prepare” the people for contact with God.  For Jesus to be considered as John in resurrected form should have been a great spiritual honor.  Any man would have been flattered, but Jesus was not.

To equate Jesus to Elias was more calculating.  Elias or Elijah had been whisked away to heaven on a chariot of fire and angels.  He never saw mortal death.  He was like Enoch in this regard.  For Elias to have returned to earth again was logical, and possible, and subtly required far less faith to believe than in a virgin birth.  No one had really heard of Jesus before He was thirty (except His parents, siblings, and a temple full of astounded leaders when He was twelve and taught them for 3 days).  So to believe that heaven spit out a fully grown 30-year-old Elias to teach them again and do miracles, required less faith than to believe that Jesus was born here, and grew into “who” He was.  In any case, Jesus should have been honored to have equity of His identity assigned to the great prophet Elias, for only Moses was greater in the minds of the people.  But Jesus was unmoved by this attribution as well.  So He challenges them to get more personal with their answers.

John Mark continues in verse 29 saying … “And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ. [verse 30] And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.”  Jesus now asks them directly, who do “you” say that I am.  This question will now assign direct accountability to their answers.  They cannot mask what they think behind the accumulation of what they have heard the “people” saying.  They have to fess up with a personal answer.  What if they get it wrong?  He does not seem to be pleased so far with that He has heard.  It takes a certain courage to answer this question first.  So Peter steps up, in his loud and usually boisterous way.  But He says something, that surprises even himself.  He declares that Jesus is “the Christ”.  This term is meant to say, “the Son of the Living God”.  In his declaration, Peter is stating the identity of Jesus is Creator, is God, is more than Messiah, Jesus is everything and more.  This is not something Peter could “know” at that time.  They all suspected it.  They all were teaching it to those who would listen, but not without harboring some level of doubt in themselves.  But Peter was saying something out loud for everyone to hear.  And Peter is correct.

The response of Jesus is interesting.  In this version of the gospel, the one being relayed and recounted by Peter, he records only that Jesus tells them all to keep this knowledge secret.  But Matthew has more to say on the incident, in chapter 16 and verse 17 the answer of Christ includes high praise for Peter.  Jesus says there … “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.”  Jesus now calls Peter “blessed”.  This is a high honor, as the reason for his blessing is that our Father God has given this bold revelation to Peter.  Perhaps this is the first prophetic encounter Peter has had, it will not be his last.  Though the disciple John is most known for the prophetic gift, Peter too will have several prophetic revelations and record them in his works.  It is telling that this recognition is left out of Mark’s gospel.  Mark was not there, so he can only transcribe what Peter recounts, and in this case, Peter is not eager to record the high praise of Jesus as this incident unfolds.  Peter knows of a truth, that he himself is only a disciple, no more, no greater than any other disciple.  And Peter also knows what happens next.

According to how Matthew remembered this event, Peter should have been elated that he not only got the answer right.  He did so, because the Father God was revealing it to him.  In our day, we refer to this as a “spiritual high”.  It is a time when we feel as though there is no better feeling we could have.  We are as close to God as we have ever been, we feel His love and His approval, and to quote our Lego friends … “everything is awesome”.  But this is Peter’s recollection of events.  His memory is undimmed.  He knows what happened and what was said.  In the time he recalls it to John Mark, already his audience attributes too much spiritual authority to a man who is no different than you or I.  Being bold, is not supposed to translate into being right.  Being a leader, is not supposed to take the burden of taking decisions to God, instead of to men.  Peter has seen the temptation that accompanies leadership in the church, the Pharisees were living examples of it.  And Peter knows himself not to be immune.

The story continues with Jesus Christ adding to the blessing of revelation His Father has only seconds before, began in this encounter as it continues in verse 31 saying … “And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. [verse 32] And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.”  God the Father had revealed to Peter who Jesus was.  Jesus took that cue, and believed the disciples must be ready to hear the whole truth about what His mission truly was.  Knowing He was God, should have allowed the disciples to know that death and rejection were not to be feared.  But in the minds of the disciples, rejection of the leadership of the “right church”, that studied the “right Bible” would discredit Jesus as the Messiah.  Not only would the people be discouraged by this formal rejection, but the disciples would as well.  Add to that, Jesus was in the same breath blowing away every hope they had, that He would rise to be the conqueror all of them knew He could be if He just tried.  Romans would stay in power.  Romans would kill Him.  Romans would be around to tax, torture and kill them forever if this all this came to pass.

These words spoken by God, went against everything Peter and the others wanted to believe.  They countered their own interpretations of scriptures they shared with the Pharisees about the role of the Messiah.  Instead of accepting the validity of God who spoke only truth, Peter thinks Jesus needs a good shaking to snap Him out of this nonsense.  So again, Peter acts in his bold and decisive manner, he will grab Christ and snap Him out of this nonsensical diatribe of prophecy that must surely be wrong, as it counters everything in scripture they all understood.  Jesus must be in some sort of shock, from the exhaustion of preaching all day and praying all night.  But the rebuke of men as to the veracity of the words of God, never goes as planned.

Peter recalls what happens next in stunning clarity, a chill still goes up his spine as John Mark transcribes verse 33 saying … “But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.”  Peter has fallen from Blessed of the Father God, to equity with Satan himself.  For indeed it was Satan who prompted Peter to act in order to defend the religion he was so fond of.  Satan often prompts men to be extreme in the defense of a faith that has no basis in truth.  He goes so far as to convince them they should kill to defend the word of God, and men accept this lie and act on it.  In this case, Peter’s rebuke of Jesus is nothing next to the clear rebuke of himself.  Peter is not the greatest disciple by any means, Peter is not the stone of the church, only Jesus could be that.  Peter instead is equated with Satan, for Peter has just espoused the very doctrines of Satan, and he has done it loudly, boldly, and with confidence in front of the others.

But here is the arrogance of us … that we should believe Peter rose at all because of anything he said or accomplished.  And that we should think that Peter fell, because of anything that God did to see that happen.  The wisdom that resulted in Peters declaration about the identity of Christ came from God the Father.  Everything we “relay” that comes from God is good, is a blessing to us and the world.  We “relay” His love to others, it passes through us, it does not originate within us.  We are not infallible, only God is.  When we can submit and be transformed to be devoid of self, a perfect vessel in the service of God, we can reveal God’s truth instead or our own.  It was the truth of Father God about the identity of Jesus Christ.  It was the doctrines of Satan and Peter’s own self belief that came in the rejection of the words of Jesus about His own mission and destiny.  When Peter accepted what God told him, he was blessed.  When Peter offered his own wisdom, he was rebuked.  It was the injection of self that made the difference.  It is the injection of self that makes us fallible, everyone from abject sinner, to the pope. 

We can be perfect, we can make no more mistakes, when we can submit ourselves fully and know no more of self, revealing only Him in us.  This ultimate state of perfection is possible, it is the journey we are on.  The issue Peter faced was no different for you or I.  For too often we savor not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.  This doctrine is the doctrine of Satan.  The wisdom of men is the mouthpiece of Satan.  The reason why the identity of Jesus is “the” question of any age, is because the role of Jesus as our Savior and our Creator are the basis of our salvation.  As our Savior, Jesus died in our stead, and paid the price of justice Satan demands for our choices.  As our Creator, Jesus re-creates the core of our character, of who we are, as we submit to Him.  In this, he not only pays for our sins, He provides us the means never to want to commit them again.  That is salvation, to be saved from who we are.  If the identity of Jesus is not God, not Creator, not Savior, then we are destined to remain slaves to self.  This is why every other competing ideology lacks a viable plan to achieve utopia.  Man must be saved from himself, he cannot do it himself.

Whether we are an abject sinner, a regular church attendee, or leader of a large congregation, our fallibility is determined by how much of His revelation we accept, and how much of our own, we interject …

 

Tall Pointy Hats ...

Have you ever wondered where the tradition of headwear came from?  After all covering our heads in the cold seems like a good idea, but when practicality is no longer the goal, it seems being ornate takes over.  You used to be able to tell the good guys from the bad guys in a western by the color of their hats – good guys wore white, bad guys wore black.  But color has long since lost any value in this regard; John Travolta made wearing black cowboy hats a fad after the movie Urban Cowboy; and as I recall the KKK prefers wearing white sheets on their heads.  So color does not mean anything anymore. 

In times of wars past, a helmet protected the head, and generally identified which side you were fighting for.  Not anymore; these days it looks more like those in a uniform and those who are not.  Berets were worn at one time by elite fighting forces, we even named one of them “Green Berets” but I am not certain the name has remained in effect, it seems to have been subsumed by the terms “Special Forces” or “Rangers” today.  In any case headgear seems to have always had a role in military activities.

I guess the most identifiable place where “hats” make the biggest difference is related to royalty.  Crowns and tiara’s are where the big money lies.  The more ornate the crown of course, the more valuable.  Crowns were meant to be rare, generally only the King ever wore a crown.  Peasants would not dream of such a thing.  But peasants were meant to take pride in the audacity and beauty of the crowns belonging to King and country where they were from.  Adding jewels, adding artistic carvings, constructing them of complex design – all of these considerations go in to the making of a crown that is “fit for a king”.  But then, who wears crowns anymore?  Most are now found on display in Museums.

You could argue that due to the invention of democracy, people think differently about crowns now.  No one would dare to wear a crown anymore, either for fear of it getting stolen, or for ridicule in implying they were somehow superior to their peers.  As I stated above, it is not as though practicality is the goal of headwear anymore.  But there is one trait in ornate headwear that seems to have survived the ages; it seems the taller the hat, the more regal, or more important must be its wearer.   Look at the head-dress of American Indian tribes, the chief has many many feathers, the braves have a few depending on age, and skill.  The crowns of the Pharoah’s of Eqypt were tall for the Royal couple, much less so for any other positions.  Even the grand dragon of the KKK has a more ornate Sheet than his co-conspirators.  And one last place I can think of off-hand, within the Catholic church, the Pope alone wears the most ornate of head-gear left on the planet.  Do you ever wonder why this trait has endured?

I have a theory about it.  I believe the premise was derived from Heaven itself.  I imagine that the King of Kings and Lord of Lords has a crown fit for His position in the Universe.  I can imagine it is taller and more elaborate than any the world could ever imagine.  I imagine that He sits at the right hand of His Father, who sits on the Throne at the highest pinnacle, or highest point within the city of Heaven itself.  A brilliant shining beacon of light that emanates to the entire Universe.  So if the most important guy gets the tallest most important hat, then it stands to reason that our God probably has the tallest, nicest one ever conceived.

My guess is that in an effort to foster vanity and inequality in our perceptions of our fellow man, Satan polluted the idea of crowns and introduced them into our various cultures with as much negative baggage as possible.  Examine the contrast for a second; God our Father, despite whatever head-gear He prefers, is willing to give us any good thing at a moment’s notice – He spends His time trying to think of things to do FOR His creation, not what He can get FROM it.  Yet when an earthly king puts on his elaborate crown, he very rarely puts it aside to do the work of a servant.  More often, he gets caught up in the perceptions of superiority that accompany a crown, and does only the work he believes is worthy of him or his position.  When we put on a crown, we become the object of service, not the instrument or the tool of it.

Yet the Old Testament of the Bible outlines very clearly the idea that NO man is superior to another in any way shape or form.  Abraham, Joseph, Daniel, Elijah, and many others refused to bow themselves down in the presence of earthly kings or warlords.  It was not the humility they were supposed to lose, but even the remote idea of worshipping anything other than God.  To bow ONLY before God, was to show the proper respect to the proper source that alone deserved it.  Bowing down before idols was considered a major affront to our Creator God.  Sticks, stones, sculptures and our fellow man were not to warrant the same respect as that given to our Lord in Heaven.  Many times Biblical patriarchs refused to bow themselves down to powerful earthly Kings, and risked their very lives in this seeming act of defiance.  Not so with us.

When you consider the Bible’s view that indeed ALL men are created equal, and are equally flawed, it seems the teaching of bowing in submission only to God to be another reinforcement of the gospel itself.  In order to be saved, we must humble ourselves only to God, accept only His gift, and submit our will ONLY to Him.  It is God alone who can change us; not our pastor, or our parents, or our therapists.  It is God alone who can redefine the creation of a man.  It is in God alone we can be born again through the miracle of His redemptive power.

This should be a liberating concept particularly to our pastors and spiritual leaders.  Those who take up the work of the Lord to spread His word, and His gospel, should be freed by not carrying the burden of undo respect or homage by their brothers in Christ.  Pastors are NOT our role models, Christ alone can fulfill this calling.  Pastors are NOT expected to be perfect anymore than the man in my mirror is.  If I seek perfection, I should look to Christ, not to those who try to teach me.  This is a liberating idea that maintains the equality of our humanity, no matter what role He chooses for us in fulfilling His good purposes and work.  All the glory, all the honor, all the respect, can go to Christ – we can save the humility for each other.

As I thought about this, the concept of the pointy hat began to eat at me.  Not only is the papal headwear ornate, taller than almost any other hat on planet earth, it is inscribed with the latin words – Vicarious Filii Dei – meaning ‘replacement for the Son of God’.  Catholic tradition is built on the idea that the Apostle Peter was named the first Pope of the church.  That Christ’s statement regarding building His church “upon a rock” was meant to mean Peter.  Subsequent interpretations of this same scripture have alternate meanings, in that Peter was referred to as a Stone compared to Christ alone referred to as “the Rock” upon which the church would be built.  This has been a point of contention between Catholics and Protestants for years.

But looking past which side of the interpretation you subscribe to, there is a much larger issue at hand.  Where in the Bible anywhere does it recommend that any church leader should put on a tall, ornate, pointy hat?  You see what happens to men in politics when they wear a crown, happens to men in religion as well.  The idea of being servant of all, is replaced by becoming the object of all service.  Men bow before the Pope, kiss a ring he wears on his hands.  Men humble themselves before the Pope and the entire world covers him extensively in their news media.  Why?  ALL men are created equal, and are equally flawed.  It occurs to me, the Pope must suffer much by carrying the undo burden of men bowing to his frailty.  Yet I have never heard of a Pope asking believers to show homage only to Christ.  Should not the greatest teacher of all direct all to the source of love, and true source of worship?  Isn’t that what the original Christ did?

Throughout the life of Christ on earth He wore no kingly robes.  He wore no crown, except one made of thorns to mock Him at His death.  He who should have been King of all, was in fact, servant of all.  Christ served us.  He served the poor in person, with kindness, with healing, with truth taught in gentle humility and love.  He did not command throngs to serve Him, but instead served them all Himself.  Our example, was the Son of Man, the true leader of our faith, of our religion, who dressed modestly, who acted incessantly, and who loved as no other ever could or will.  He wore no pointy hat in our world.  He showed us what to aspire to.  I wonder if there will ever be a Pope of the Catholic faith, who foregoes the pomp and circumstance, who casts down the hat in humility, and directs all those who follow him to follow Christ.  I wonder if other Christians, and leaders of the faith in other churches, will ever cast aside their wealth, put aside their fame, and direct others to follow only Christ.  The danger in our leaders is their belief that they in fact lead, when the truth is that only Christ can lead.  We are ALL only His humble servants …

Wondering After The Beast ...

This past week our nation was visited by the new Pope.  In a world of 24 hours news networks based on a profit-centered mentality, this was “front-page-news.”  I do agree that the Pope is a world-renowned spiritual leader and his visitation to our country is noteworthy.  But I wonder why visits by the Dali Lama, or various Jewish Rabbi’s, and Muslim Clerics are not given equal news attention as the Pope.  Hindu’s seem to get no press at all, Buddhists barely a mention in general, and Scientologists only when a dose of humor is required.  In short, our news media seems biased towards Christian religious figures to the exclusion of most others.  Is this what God would want?

After all Christians believe they serve the only TRUE God.  In fact you could argue this entire blog series is definitely slanted towards the validation of Jewish and then Christian theology, with a smattering of understanding towards Muslims.  So why not be happy when CNN chooses to make Papal coverage it’s nearly one and only story of the week.  Isn’t it good for a representative of our true God to get a little attention?  Doesn’t it serve to remind the world that religion still matters?  And why on earth would I title this blog entry “wondering after the beast?”

The beast mentioned in Revelation 13:3 that I make reference to is a Biblical symbol for the evil that stands against God – in both his precepts, goals, and values.  Satan of course is the anti-God, meaning that everything that Satan embraces stands in opposite contrast to what God embraces.  Where God grants freedom of choice, Satan exerts total control.  Where God invites debate and reason, Satan demands unwavering and unquestioning allegiance.  Where God offers unconditional love, Satan demands unconditional addictive slavery.  And finally, where God asks for faith and trust, Satan offers control and power.  So many in our world embrace Satan’s way.  Indeed, evil has a tremendous marketing machine that has warped the minds of millions into believing they are in control of their lives, can earn their own destinies, and do not need to serve anyone other than self.  This is the nature of the beast described in Revelations.

Obviously, were Satan to visit our capital in the flesh, Christians would immediately decry his welcome.  We would be appalled that our governmental leaders would openly accept and listen to words coming directly from the evil one.  We picture Satan as red-skinned, dual horns from his head, 6-6-6 tattooed on his forehead, with a spiked tail and a pitchfork.  This image is one we are comfortable with.  But to picture him as a smooth talking Brad-Pitt look alike with words that offer hope and peace – seems counter to our imagery therefore not Satan.  But what if it is?  What if Satan is responsible for the red-skinned, pitch-forked image we imagine in the first place.  What if he actually does look more like Robert Redford, with a voice like Andrea Boccelli, and with the speaking ability of Ronald Reagan (the great communicator).  Dodging our preconceived ideas of his appearance we would undoubtedly give his words consideration.  We might actually listen to his arguments.  Lest you believe him ineffective, he was able to dissuade 1/3 of all the angels in Heaven to follow his ideas.  This is not the mark of an idiot.

Could it be that the ‘Beast’ is already among us?  Some have proffered the idea that G.W. might be the anti-christ.  This may be humorous, but is unfair and untrue.  G.W. is nothing more than flawed Christian, just like me, or just like you.  His flaws may yield more consequences to us all, but it does not put him in league with absolute evil.  But does one have to be entirely evil, to do the work of the evil-one?  In short, no.  When someone is given attention, the words they speak have consequence.  If they stand and say something counter the principles of God, they speak on behalf of evil, and their tongue becomes the tool of the Beast.  The papal system preaches the infallibility of the Pope, the idea that man can be saved by penance (his own actions), and the idea that man’s edicts are more important than the edicts of God.  The papal system has re-written the original 10 commandments, and plainly admits to changing the day of worship God ordained from the seventh to the first day of the week.  This entire series of arguments is not Biblically centered.  It is works centered.  It is based on the teachings of men.  And it stands in stark contrast to the teachings found in the Bible.  This set of beliefs is not just a disagreement among Christians over doctrine, it is a fundamental assault on the character of God himself.

Yet the Pope is followed by the press, and his fans, as would one of the great rock-stars of our era.  His words are listened to for spiritual guidance even though the foundation of his belief system is essentially the same as every other false religion that has ever existed on this earth – that man can work enough to save himself – in short, man does not truly need God for Salvation, he can rely on his own efforts, or will fail by them.  This does not make the Pope the antichrist either.  That title would be too restrictive if ONLY applied to the Pope.  Does not Buddhism and Hinduism proffer the same idea (man can achieve inner peace through the strength of his own determination).  Does not Muslim religion teach that only strict adherence to the Quran will enable one to enter Paradise?  Or the Jewish faith essentially teach that ONLY by following the Torah can one be saved.  All of these religions have beautiful aspects of truth found in them.  And all of these religions have a singular fundamental flaw – that man can somehow save himself.  True Christianity embraces mans inability to save himself, and therefore the need of a savior.  This is the fundamental distinction between the true God, and all of those who would proclaim themselves to be god.

Revelation 13:3 has sometimes been interpreted that after the Pope’s beheading by Napoleon, the Catholic church would again rise in prominence until the entire world wondered after the beast yet again.  This interpretation does not seem to be wide enough to incorporate the many representatives the Beast employs today.  There are many competing ideas that regularly assault the fundamentals of Christianity.  Those that assert your independence is your most closely guarded asset, teach you a principle opposite to the government of God.  You are not independent in that control of your life is not up to you, nor can it ever be.  Your life and fate will be determined outside of yourself.  You have only to choose which power will have influence over it (good or evil).  No choice for God, is a default choice for Satan.  It is not your independence that should be cherished, but your humble acceptance of your need of God that should be developed.  Your recognition of your condition, not your denial of it.

When the Dali Lama says that inner peace is possible.  He is not lying.  He is simply not telling you where the actual source of inner peace can be found.  It is not in meditation that peace is achieved, it is in unselfish service to others.  The principles of the government of God are the values to be cherished.  Focus on self is to be avoided, focus on service to others, embraced.  When those religious leaders speak contrary the guidelines of God’s plan, they become a mouth-piece of the Beast.  When governmental leaders seek to impose their moral authority and demand an allegiance to their own version of ‘morality’ they become a mouth-piece of the Beast.  When Christians stand and condemn others for their deeds or words or beliefs that run contrary to their own – they become agents of intolerance, and therefore the mouth-piece of the Beast.  It would be impossible to confine the image of the Beast to just the Pope, or the Dali Lama, or G.W. – his image is everywhere.  It has permeated this world to such a point it is almost impossible to escape.

There is beauty that can be found in any religion on the earth.  Not everything someone else espouses to be true is inherently evil.  The Pope himself is not the devil, nor is any Catholic, nor is any Muslim, Jew, Hindu, or Buddhist.  Protestant Christians are not immune from spreading a doctrine of self-reliance and intolerance.  We are ALL imperfect.  It is not the messenger that is the problem, but the message itself.  Judging is no more up to man, than Salvation is to be earned by his own hand.  People are not condemned by their mistaken beliefs, they are condemned through a constant rejection of the love God offers.  To single out any particular religion, or person, and call them the anti-christ, or claim they have embraced the mark-of-the-beast is to miss the entire point.  The Beast’s message is to be countered with the truth, no matter who the messenger.  The principles of Heaven should be espoused and placed in stark contrast with the principles of the evil one, no matter who the messenger is, or the where the forum for his delivery.  The messenger should not ever be condemned, only the words that fall in contrast to the values of God’s character.  There is hope for all of us, even Saul was made into Paul through the grace of God.

Being a mouthpiece for the Beast may not be full-time job.  But it certainly appears that the following after his message has become a full time obsession.  The media seems bent on giving it voice.  It is no wonder that the prophesy of Revelation has been fulfilled in our lifetime.  Our world seems to be inclined to embrace self rather than service.  I hope the truth can be found amidst all the noise and distractions and I hope we are humble enough to embrace it …