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'.
No comments:
Post a Comment