Who Was Peter?

We think we know him. The lead disciple, a fisherman known as one of the sons of thunder. Instrumental in the formation of the early church, he was a man both passionate and fallible. But, do we really know him? True to our very human nature, we assume; we jump to conclusions. Rarely do we stop to consider what it is we think we know.

This study comes from Luke 22: 31-32. In verse 31, Jesus said something to Peter that he had, in all likelihood, not stopped to consider. Jesus said, “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:”

I ask, how might Peter have been 'sifted' had Satan got his wish? What is the thing about sifting? It is a process by which the whole has those parts removed that are most important to the sifter. The remainder is discarded or otherwise negated.

What we see in this is that Peter, the man we thought we knew, had within his nature a mixed bag of characteristics. Some things about Peter were for Jesus, some things for the devil. To know that Peter had such a mixed nature is to know that all of us have such a mixed nature. Peter was '50/50' – he could have gone either way.

At this point, human nature adjusts its thinking about Peter, saying, “well, yeah. He was a man.” Such adjustable reasoning serves only to rationalize the assumptions we have already jumped to. If the reader will look above, he or she will notice that the previous assumption about Peter included as much of his future state as it did his present state. And now, human nature would include new data into its old assumption.

Between the original assumption and the adjusted assumption, the latter is more nearly correct. Should we think that human nature is completely settled in this new, more nearly correct assumption, new sets of data would only garner new adjustments – anything but being proven wrong.

That is a flaw in human nature, a nature that Peter shared. He too was not want to be proven wrong. He thought he was who and where he should be. We are the same. We are comfortable and settled in who and what and where we are – therefore, it is not we that must be adjusted, but the assumption.

Already, we see that what we thought we knew about Peter, and indeed about ourselves, can change in the blink of an eye – can change and yet, somehow, remain the same. We think we are all that, but we are not. We thought Peter was the lead disciple, a mover, and shaker in the early church, a martyr. Peter pretty much thought the same thing.

Jesus followed one startling and disturbing revelation with another. He said to Peter in verse 32, “But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.”

New data: Peter, the disciple, the passionate leader of the early church, the humble yet uncompromising martyr – he still needed to be 'converted'. I repeat, he still needed to be converted. Let's take a quick look at the significance of that one word.

The definition goes like this: To modify so as to serve a different function. To turn to another or a particular use or purpose; divert from the original or intended use. To change in character; cause to turn from an evil life to a righteous one. What was Peter's original or intended use – fodder for Satan? When we look at the Peter we think we knew, what do we see – someone who still needed to be converted from evil? Someone who had not yet been converted to righteousness?

What of the rest of us? Are we not in the same boat as Peter? We share the same fallible human nature. All of us jump to conclusions. Even as Peter heard the words of Jesus, he jumped to a conclusion: 'Oh, I'll follow you anywhere, even to the cross'.

Maybe, if we did not make such incomplete assumptions, we would not have to make so many embarrassing adjustments later on.

Two Verses -- 29 and 30

These two verses speak of a kingdom given. We will investigate the nature of this kingdom. We will examine the extended kingdom to know if it is the same as the original or different. These are the verses from the King James version of the Bible:

“And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

In the first place, God has a kingdom and sits on a throne. We ask, what kind of king are we talking about, and what type of kingdom does this kind of king have? Jesus gave us the answer to the first half of this question. In John 4:24, Jesus informs us that, “God is a spirit.” It stands to reason that a spiritual God has a spiritual kingdom. That kingdom includes the very solid and corporeal reality we all know so well.

It has always been difficult to reconcile the spiritual and corporeal realities. Jesus said this about the two realities in John 3:6, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” On the surface of things, that leads reason to assume that the two realities are separate. We inquire here if anything or anyone can be spiritual and corporeal at the same time.

There is a dawning awareness of truth. It stands as such: a spiritual God has an only begotten son, but that son is a man. Here, we study the nature of that corporeal being. We find an answer to our seeking in Matthew 1:20, “But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.”

See the above quote from Jesus in John 3:6, “ . . . that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” Now, the developing awareness of truth stands as such: a spiritual God had an only begotten son who was both spiritual and corporeal. He was born of the flesh, therefore he was flesh. He was born of the Spirit, therefore he was spirit. It was to this hybrid spirit/flesh son that the Father appointed a kingdom. Now we have to ask, what was the nature of the appointed kingdom?

Was it a hybrid Kingdom? Well, of course, it was. The Father's spiritual kingdom included the world and everything in it. Why should not the Son's kingdom be the same? It appears that the spiritual and corporeal realities are joined at the hip, or they are joined in an eternal dance in which the Spirit leads. The worldly concept of Yin and Yang is that of opposites bound eternally in the union wholeness – in other words, the opposites are not two, but one.

So Jesus was appointed a kingdom. Are there similarities to the kingdom he appoints his disciples? Jesus said, “I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;” There is an apparent similarity. The kingdom is an extension, and it was appointed the disciples by Jesus just as it was appointed Jesus by God, “that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom . . .”

The kingdom of Christ is in and is a part of, the kingdom of God. Please refer to the following Biblical verses: Matthew 26:64, Mark 16:19, Hebrews 10:12, and 1Peter 3:22. Christ is on the right hand of God in God's kingdom; the disciples are on the right hand of Christ in Christ's kingdom.

The kingdoms are not separate kingdoms. The disciples do not travel from a separate kingdom to the kingdom of Christ to eat and drink at his table in his kingdom. The kingdoms are all joined. The kingdoms are one kingdom, and while they are spiritual and spiritually governed, they include our corporeal world with its diminutive worldly kingdoms of man.

From their appointed kingdom, which is part of the kingdom appointed to Christ, which in turn is part of the bigger picture of the kingdom of God, these spiritual/fleshly disciples, (after the manner of Christ, who was both of the Spirit and of the flesh) will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. There are questions we must ask at this point.

First and foremost is this: are the tribes of Israel both spiritual and worldly? Do the disciples each represent one of the tribes, either literally or spiritually? Have the tribes evolved into something greater than tribes – such as nations or nationalities? Are all of them even still around; weren't ten of the tribes altogether lost – or did they, rather, merge with, and ultimately become one with other ethnicities? Finally, could the twelve tribes be twelve types of spiritually evolved humans? So much to think about.

In closing, let me just answer the fourth question with a verse from the book of Acts. Paul said to king Agrippa in Acts 26:6-7, “And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers; Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come.”

And again, from James 1:1, “James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.”

Obviously, to the those in the know back in the day, all twelve tribes still existed. Ten tribes did not disappear from the face of the earth, neither must they be reinvented. In a hybrid kingdom that is part of the bigger kingdom of God, which must always include the corporeal with the spiritual, twelve men born of the Spirit, will be responsible for the twelve tribes of Israel. These twelve tribes, or nations, may be both corporeal and spiritual. How will they be judged? I looked up the meaning to the word judge and found that, among the ordinary synonyms, the word judge has one interesting and telling synonym that I wish the reader to consider – that synonym for the word judge is the word 'gather'.

One Verse -- 28

In this study, I want to deal with one verse only and one thought. Luke 22:28 has Jesus telling his disciples this, “Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.”

He said that to all twelve of his disciples, even the one who betrayed him. As far as we know, they were the only ones present at the last supper.

The statement is enigmatic and stands without support from other verses. What could Jesus have possibly referred to by the expression “my temptations?” Obviously, it was an ongoing issue. If the disciples had “continued” with Jesus in this regard, they were always with Jesus when Jesus was tempted. They knew each one of the temptations.

That fact alone opens to us the possibility that at least some of the disciples were present when Jesus was tempted by Satan in the wilderness. They witnessed Jesus fasting for forty days. As we know, that temptation was written down – but where are the rest of the temptations?

Some of you reading this may recall a movie titled 'The Last Temptation of Christ'. My point in this is that temptations are real and must be dealt with in real ways. We must know for certain how the word was used by Jesus. If, for example, Jesus referred to something as a temptation in a purely euphemistic sense – well, that changes everything.

Synonyms for the word euphemistic include 'mild', 'understated', 'indirect', 'neutral', 'evasive', 'diplomatic', 'inoffensive', and 'polite'. If Jesus used the word 'temptations' as a substitute for another concept, that makes for a needle-in-a-haystack scenario for those of us seeking the truth.

On the other hand, if Jesus lived a life in which he daily overcame some temptation or other, why did not the writers of the gospels present us with these temptations? Why did they not name them and show us just how Jesus won each battle? It is possible, of course, that time, itself, has altered the direction from which we approach the word. What if, originally, ( by which I include culturally-inclusive applications) the word implied a test or particular objective rather than the daily failings of human nature?

Here, I am thinking along the lines of the twelve labors of Hercules – feats so difficult as to seem impossible. Surely, raising the dead, rising from the dead, walking on water, and such other similar exploits would qualify in this regard. One has to acknowledge that since there was a perpetual fame associated with the actions of Jesus, there must be a real reason for the fame.

It cannot be chalked up to the simplicity of uneducated peasants. I am pretty well educated, but I have to say, if I saw someone raise the dead or cure uncurable diseases with just a touch and a word, I too would be just as amazed. To see the things that Jesus did – that would astound anyone.

No one denied the things he did, not even his enemies in the Sanhedrin. Pharisees did not deny the impossible things he accomplished. Sadducees did not deny his amazing feats. Rulers did not refute his deeds or fame. In all, the only thing that his enemies did in that regard was to suggest he performed his mind-blowing feats by a power other than God.

When we look at the impossible things that Jesus was able to accomplish, how far can we take the list? How about a fish with a coin in its mouth? How about walking through a mob intent on stoning him? How about holding a conversation with Moses and Elijah? How about feeding thousands with next to nothing? How about calming the storm?

Admittedly, Jesus did amazing things. Were these 'labors' to be accomplished? Such things are easy to see, but are there other labors that might pass us unnoticed? How about changing the mind of a mob intent on obeying the law by stoning a woman caught in adultery? That mindset was self-justifying, not to mention sanctioned in written law. Such men could stone sinners with one hand tied behind their backs. They probably dreamed about stoning sinners.

We may also view the verbal battles Jesus won against the religious authorities in the sight of vast crowds as labors of a sort. If these were the temptations, they were indeed presented by the gospel writers. They are clearly, plainly and adequately presented.

This Do In Remembrance Of Me

Luke 22:7-20 describes the last supper up to the cup after the meal. Sunday school will teach you this is the broken body of Christ and the new testament in his blood. They get that from the text; it was, after all, what Jesus told his disciples.

Many people look at the last supper without consideration for the fact that the last supper was the Passover. Many people read what Jesus said in verses nineteen and twenty, about his body and his blood, without a thought for the many things he did not say.

Jesus asked so little for himself, but he did ask this one thing in verse nineteen. He asked of them, and of us, to “do this in remembrance of me.” He did not ask us to sculpt statues or paint pictures of him. He did not ask to have additional holidays instituted on his behalf. He asked one thing only – that the Passover be observed.

The Passover was and is a celebration of deliverance. It was observed, unchanged, from the time of Moses to the time of Jesus. It was the same every year. An unblemished lamb was slain and eaten. The blood of the lamb was applied to the delivered and was the sign by which they were spared from the penalty of death.

What we must notice about the last supper is that it was not described as containing a lamb. The main fair was bread and wine. There was an obvious shift in symbolism; Christ became the lamb. He became the sign through which men are to be spared the penalty of death. Yes, instead of death, those to whom his blood is applied are to find deliverance and new life.

His suffering was foreshadowed in the symbol of the Passover bread while his blood was foreshadowed in the symbol of the Passover wine – produced via crushing. The symbols did not commence in the last supper, but were existent in the preceding appellations: 'bread of life' and 'true vine'.

If therefore, the Lamb of God took on the symbols of bread and wine, it behooves the seeker to know just how these items figured into the Passover.

The Matzah, or unleavened bread, was central to the meal as not everyone was able to eat lamb. The matzah was also known as the 'bread of affliction' and was meant to represent a life without sin. The Passover meal, as I understand it, contained a stack of unleavened bread (at least three) each separated from the other by a napkin. The middle loaf was the one to be 'broken' at the meal. One might easily see the significance of the middle loaf in a stack of three as an indicator of Jesus' order in the Trinity.

I have taken information from https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/qa-archives/question/what-is-the-meaning-of-the-passover-foods/ and recommend you read the full article. This what the article says about the unleavened bread: “The most significant part of the Seder meal occurs when the Yachatz is picked up after the Karpas (parsley dipped in salt water) is eaten. The Yachatz is a single pouch containing three Matzah. The single pouch symbolizes unity. The middle Matzah is then removed, broken in half, and wrapped in a cloth. This is called the Afikomen. Jewish tradition says that the three Matzahs represent the Jewish people, the priests, the Levities, and the people. Jewish tradition does not know why the middle Matzah is broken. They do not know when this part of the Seder was established. However, for Christians the symbolism is obvious. The Yachatz represents our one and only God and the three Matzah represent the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The breaking of the middle Matzah symbolizes the punishment and death of Jesus Christ. It is important to note that Matzah is stripped and has holes. One-half of this broken Matzah is then wrapped and put away until just before the third cup. This symbolizes Jesus’ burial and resurrection on the third day. The Passover Seder is a great reminder of what Jesus Christ did for all of us. We can be delivered from the bondage of sin when we believe in Jesus Christ and ask Him to forgive our sins. ”

The cup of wine mentioned in Luke 22:20 was the final of four cups throughout the meal. The article goes on to list them in this manner:

Cup of Sanctification. It symbolized Israel’s deliverance from being under the burdens of the Egyptians.

Cup of Deliverance. It symbolized Israel’s deliverance from their bondage.

Cup of Redemption. It symbolized God’s promise to redeem Israel from with an outstretched arm.

Cup of Praise. It symbolized the fact that God took the Israelites to be His people.

As to whether Jesus drank alcoholic wine or grape juice, that is still hotly debated. Psalm 104:15 seems to reference alcoholic wine when it states, “And wine that maketh glad the heart of man,” but one must know that natural wine back in those times only reached an alcoholic state of three to four percent. His adversaries also accused Jesus of being a winebibber, which would also suggest an alcoholic content.

However, as concerns the Passover, there is a contention that since they had no leaven in the bread, they would have no leaven in the wine. The natural fermentation of wine in those times was accomplished only from the sugars in the grape. No leaven was added. It is supposed that that new wine was grape juice only, but there is no indication that new wine was fresh from the vat or no more than a day old. There are words from the original texts of Greek and Aramaic that support wine as unfermented juice. Let the reader judge for him or herself.

The Passover significance of the bread and the wine are clear enough. Jesus asked that we eat the Passover bread of affliction and life and drink the Passover wine of praise with him in mind. He was the lamb of God; his body was the middle loaf of matzah, broken on the cross. His blood was the new testament poured out to release us from the penalty of death. Thus, we belong to Christ and to God. We are given a kingdom by Christ as Christ was given a kingdom by God.

It is a Passover of spiritual symbols that brings us to our promised land. Jesus asks that we partake of this spiritual Passover in remembrance of him.