Dana
Wrote on January 18, 2017 at 11:55:56
AM
“ ...while I wouldn't go to the mat on
this, I'm not 100% comfortable with being used as an example of ‘grit’”
+++++++++++++++++
John
Explains on Sun,
Jan 22, 2017 at 9:19 PM
As part of the conversation we had
concerning Post 22-Your Second Most
Favorite Book, Dana reminded me of some of his exploits after college and
before he committed himself to serving Christ. One of the things he did was
hobo, that is ride the rails, to be “on the road.” Back in the 1950s, during my
elementary school days, I remember often seeing men “on the road” riding in the
box cars or sitting on the flat cars of the numerous railroad trains that
passed through our town. Dana,
personally, did this a decade or two later. (Depending, I’d like to do a post
on this, but we’ll see.)
Some people presume that our
experiences help to make us who we are. Some would argue it is the nature (an
individual’s innate qualities) verses nurture (an individual’s personal
experiences) debate. Well, maybe. But
because I’m not a psychologist I won’t get into the professional arguments. But
I do know that it is often our experiences that help make us who we are. I
contend that it takes nerve, “grit,” to ride the rails. (Not only that, I
contend that being a Christian also takes “girt,” which quite often must come
from the Lord. Look at Joshua. He was with Moses for years. Saw the miracles.
Took part in the action. But when God taps him for leadership, what happened?
It seems to me he was close to chickening out. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=joshua+1&version=NASB Why else would God have to give Joshua a pep
talk, three times? But after being encouraged to “be strong
and courageous” we read how Joshua is then able to do what God is asking him to
do.) My comment to Dana about this set off a discussion about this and about
the men Jesus surrounded himself with.
Dana contends that the disciples were a “rough cut” bunch, especially
Peter.
This led to the idea of writing this
post. I can’t remember giving much in-depth thought to the toughness of the disciples. Yes, some
were fishermen, not an occupation for softies. (Remember Freddie Bartholomew in
the 1937 movie Captains Courageous where he played the role of a
pampered young boy who falls off an ocean liner and is rescued by a Portuguese
fisherman, played by Spencer Tracy, on a fishing sailing schooner? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captains_Courageous_(1937_film) Bartholomew can’t convince the crew to set
him ashore before they fill the schooner with fish, so he becomes a young crew
member. By the time he lands in Gloucester, MA, he has so matured that his wealthy father hardly
recognizes him. Feddie got “grit.” This
is an excellent movie to rent and show to your children. But make sure you
watch it with them.)
Sympathy for Peter? As Dana develops
this, I think many of us might see ourselves, and be thankful the Lord is who
He is-- Jehovah Mekoddishkem, or M’Kaddesh, which means The Lord
Who Sanctifies You. God sets us apart as his children when we become
believers. He sanctifies us and makes us holy because we are incapable of it on
our own.
++++++++++++++++++++
Then Dana
expands on Wed,
Jan 25, 2017 at 9:25 AM
Hi John,
While I wouldn't go to the mat on this, let me say that I'm not 100%
comfortable with being used as an example of "grit" in the
Favorite Second Book blog article. There are many more interesting
examples. Since we’re talking about
“grit,” why not look at some of the Biblical characters who displayed this
quality.
While the Bible has so many men and women
with “grit” about whom we could write, this is a blog, and not an encyclopedia.
That said, my “Cliff Notes” version of “gritty characters” would be Hebrews
chapter 11. Even so, there are too many in that chapter to expound upon
here. So I’ll pare things down even
further to just Jesus’ disciples, and take a look primarily at Peter.
While I cannot prove it by citing chapter
and verse, I feel pretty secure in the belief that Jesus of Nazareth, as a man
on this earth, had good times of enjoyment and fun with His disciples, family
and friends. If God has a sense of humor, then it would be safe to say
that Jesus, being of one and the same essence as the other persons of the
Trinity from and for all of eternity, had one too. It couldn't be
helped.
It's hard to imagine the "boys" and Jesus not having a good laugh now
and then, and most likely Peter alone provided plenty of fodder for such. The
disciples were a rough cut bunch of guys, and having spent a good
portion of my life around rough cut bunches of guys, I know only too well
how they like a good joke and a hearty laugh once in a while.
I find it harder to believe that on occasion, someone didn't attempt the
equivalent of sneaking some hot pepper into Peter's coffee (or whatever he
drank) without him knowing it, and ignited (literally) a huge round
of guffaws when it lit the unsuspecting fellow up. Jesus wasn't just
training disciples, He was herding cats.
These depictions of gentile, almost effeminate looking, nearly
Hallmark card-like angelic likenesses of the disciples, reclining
dutifully at the Master's feet with halos above their heads, are really
pretty ridiculous in my book. Many of the disciples were fishermen,
whose exposure to the sun and the salt air and years of hard work left them
looking more like grizzled 40 year olds, while still in their
20's. Simon the Zealot was a guerrilla in the underground resistance
against Rome. James and John were nicknamed "Boanerges," the
"sons of thunder." Peter whacked the ear off of the high
priest's servant in the garden when Jesus was arrested. These guys were
neither nerds nor sissies. They were uncouth, politically incorrect
tough guys, who acted like uncouth, politically incorrect tough guys, and, they
were men who never got much right until after Jesus' ascension when Pentecost
occurred. And, don’t you find it
interesting that the disciples who wrote Gospels and Epistles didn’t seem to
mind showing their human failings at all?
On several occasions I’ve heard Alistair
Begg bring up the point that one might think that the people who were citing
their experiences as some of the foundational acts in one of the most major
religious movements in history, would “polish” their accounts of themselves. No,
instead they honestly reported their mistakes and goof ups. They certainly had the opportunity to “toot
their own horns” so to speak, and present themselves as shining examples of
piety and religious wisdom, but they were content to show themselves in light
of Christ’s majesty and grace. They
didn’t mind portraying themselves as the 1st century version of the “Keystone
Cops” next to Jesus their Lord. Any credit they received later in Acts,
displaying their achievements as leaders of the early Church, are always
described in the light of what Jesus and the Holy Spirit had done in their
lives. Not I, I, Me, Me. It was always about Him.
Not to go on a rant, or maybe to intentionally go on a rant, but it really
galls me to hear ministers decry Peter's denial of the Lord as having been due
to cowardice, or, his being afraid of a little servant girl. Not on your
life. Turning a page or two back from the event in Scripture, remember
that Peter had drawn his sword and struck the first blow in what, (if
Jesus had not intervened,) would have ended up a blood bath right there in
the garden. Peter’s attack was hardly the action of a coward, in light of
the fact that there were trained soldiers present (in John's account) and a hostile,
well-armed rabble in tow (by Matthew's and Mark's accounts.)
None of the disciples fully understood Jesus' mission and teaching until
they were filled with the Holy Spirit in Acts 2. Then the light went
on, and they finally "got it." But until that time, they just
didn't get it at all.
Messianic expectation, in Jesus' day was as high and electric in feel
as it was completely misinterpreted by just about all of the folks in Israel,
the disciples notwithstanding. The deal was that Jesus was supposed to be
the Messiah King, David's successor, the one who in their mind would militarily
dispense with their Roman oppressors, and restore the Kingdom to Israel--usher
in a whole new eschatological age.
When Jesus mentions the forthcoming destruction of the Temple (to occur in 70
AD) to the Jewish mind, the eschaton was upon them! In short,
it signified the end of the world to them. The "Great and
Terrible Day of the LORD." Check out Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke
21, and look at the questions the disciples asked of Jesus when He spoke
of this. Even in Acts 1, just before the resurrected Jesus is taken
up to Heaven, the disciples ask Him if He is going to "restore the Kingdom
to Israel" at that time. They still didn't get it.
When Jesus rode into Jerusalem (the "Triumphal Entry") to exuberant
shouts of "Hosanna," (from the Hebrew, meaning "please
save",) He did so on the back of a donkey's colt, a sign of humility, and
even more so, a sign that He, as the true and rightful King, had come
to bring a different kind of Kingdom than the one they were expecting.
The people (and the disciples) wanted Jesus to change the political
structures in their world, but Jesus wanted to change hearts and lives, and to
deal with man's real oppressors, sin and Satan. Yes, there would come a
day when Jesus the King would topple every human, anti-God empire, and the
devil that inspired and controlled them, but in the providence and purposes of
God that day was not yet. Had Jesus ridden into Jerusalem on the back
of a stallion, the crowd would have crowned Him King, and probably
attacked Rome forthwith. The disciples were right there with them.
But Jesus didn't, at that time, present them with that sort of King or
Kingdom. When Jesus stopped Peter's hand in the garden, and healed the ear
of the high priest's servant, then just gave up and allowed Himself to be
arrested and taken off to a certain death, it wasn't cowardice Peter was
feeling; it was disillusionment.
In my opinion, when Peter was accused of being with Jesus by the servant
girl, and subsequently denied Him, he most likely did so because he was confused
(because things didn't EVEN go as he expected and believed it would and should
go) and sorely disgusted at the thought of THE Messiah, David's
heir, God's Son, the embodiment of fulfilled prophecy, just "giving in"
to His captors without a fight. In my estimation, Peter's declaration that
"I never knew Him," was as honest a statement as could possibly have
been uttered by him. Jesus' surrender presented to Peter an image of Jesus of
which he had not and could not remotely conceive.
How many times have we encountered someone who we thought we knew, and who
we assumed lived and acted a certain way, only to find out later that they
lived a double life, or had done something so unexpectedly out of character as
to defy our reality, and prompt our saying or thinking, "I don't even know
you?" I think that was the basis of Peter's denial. He wasn't
afraid to die for his Lord, as long as Jesus was going to fulfill his
(Peter's and all of Israel's) concept of what the Messiah King was
"supposed" to be according to their way of thinking. But to be
arrested, and perhaps killed for this one who had just flushed Peter's and
all of Israel's dreams and notions of the glories of the Kingdom
right down the toilet. Not a chance.
All the above should in no way be construed as my endorsement or
exoneration of Peter's denial. It was a horrible, though completely
understandable response in my point of view. When the rooster
crowed, Peter knew all too well just what he had done, and that only the Son of
God could have made that prediction so accurately. But even so, Peter
just couldn't put the pieces of the puzzle together. He wept bitterly,
the Scriptures say. I believe he did so, partly out of guilt for his
denial of Jesus, and perhaps partly because all of the events of the last
evening, and the overwhelming accompaniment of lostness and confusion of
that which he didn't understand, just hammered him into falling apart.
The good news is, that Jesus, after His resurrection instructed Mary
Magdalene and her companions at the [empty] tomb to go and tell His disciples
"...and Peter," that He will shortly meet them in Galilee.
Whether my assessment of Peter's actions are correct or not...well, we'll just
have to wait until Jesus' return to definitively find out, won't we, but
Jesus certainly knew beforehand what Peter's actions on the night of His arrest
would be, and He also knew Peter's true motivations for said actions. And in
spite of that, He still loved, forgave, and included Peter in His plans, both
immediately and in the future. And He does so with our failures too,
therefore I have hope.
As a parting shot to this subject, let me say that Jesus, knowing Peter's
future, knew that one day Peter would give his very life for Him, and
if tradition is to be believed, He also knew that Peter, upon being crucified
himself, would request that he be crucified upside down, because he didn't
consider himself worthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord.
Was that the mark of a coward? No, it was a combination of
Christ's magnificent, all consuming grace...and the "grit"
Peter had picked up "on the road" with Jesus.
Hey, you know what? My off the cuff rant, might have unwittingly become
one of our next blogs! How do you like that? God's something, isn't He?
Wasn't remotely aiming to write a blog at the outset of
this e-mail, but if you think it might work, we could call it
"Sympathy for Peter," or something like that. "True
Grit" unfortunately, has already been taken.
I'm going to hush now,
Dana
No comments:
Post a Comment