We all know this scripture. And we all know the common interpretation of the events that transpired. Peter swore to Christ he would never turn his back on him, and Jesus basically scoffed at his claim, prophesying that Peter would in fact deny him three times before the morning arrived. Upon finding himself doing so, Peter wept bitterly, we assume because of the regret he felt.
I have a different take on this scripture. I think Peter proved throughout his entire life that he was not afraid to stand up for what he felt was right. He wasn't afraid of anyone or anything. His name was Simon, but Christ called him Petra/Peter, meaning Rock. I think when he told Christ he would not abandon him, he meant it. After all, when the soldiers came for Jesus in Gethsemane, who drew his sword and swiped off the ear of one of the soldiers? Peter. He was ready to die for Jesus right then and there.
No I don't think Christ was scoffing at Peter and telling him about his weakness. I think Jesus issued the words "thou shalt deny me three times" as a commandment of sorts. Not to mock his strength or zealotry, but to test his humility. I think Jesus gave Peter the hardest commandment he'd ever been given up until that point in his life--to swallow his pride, and for the good of Christ's church and his mission and his plan, to embrace doing what Peter felt went against every fiber of his being. To deny confederacy with his teacher, his savior, and best friend.
"Wept bitterly." I think about that a lot. Think about what Peter saw during his time with Jesus. First, the miracle of the fish on the other side of the boat that almost sank his vessel. Then the miracle of turning water to wine at a wedding feast. Feeding thousands with a few fish and five loaves of bread. Calming a storm with a few words. Watching him heal the sick, the lame, the blind, the deaf, and even raising the dead. At one point during all of this, Peter's faith grew so strong that he himself walked on water for a moment after seeing Jesus do it. Peter was a rock. I don't believe for a second that he REALLY turned his back on Jesus. I think he was commanded to. And I think that final test is what prepared him to go unflinchingly into the world afterward and proclaim the Gospel as the head of the church and work similar miracles of his own.
Maybe some of you can see where I'm going with this.
That's right. I'm not ready to write off Mike Pence just yet. I'm not ready to write off Wray and Sessions and Bill Barr yet either ("trust Wray", "trust Sessions", "trust Barr"). We don't know the whole story yet. Sure, on the outside they appear to have stabbed Trump in the back, to have denied him three times, to have sold him out for bag of silver. And maybe that's exactly what they did.
But maybe not. I'm not ready to bury anyone yet until this all shakes out. Until I know the whole story, I'm keeping an open mind. Disinformation is necessary, after all. Just like Trump and the vaccine--which feels like clever doublespeak that will be made clear in time, I can't help wondering how many moving parts this plan had, how many actors, and how many patriots were asked to do things they hated to have to do by Trump and/or Q et al, in order to push the plan forward to its ultimate conclusion. Things are not always what they seem at first. We may come to praise these men yet. Who knows. Maybe Christ, like Trump, had a little Sun Tzu in him. And maybe Pence, like Peter, was just the perfect man for the job.
We do differ. I don't share your view as Christ as God.
Do you want to read that again? If he's accessible to everyone through the blood of Christ he's still accessible to everyone so yes, in a sense, he is at our beck and call. You just need to know how to call him.
There's nothing wrong with pointing out qualities people have and saying "God is like that." You're hung up on semantics. You're coming to God's aid as if he needs your help. I think he's doing just fine without you feeling the need to stick up for him like this.
Again, we differ. I'm not into that Paul stuff.
That's still an offering. You talk out of both sides of your mouth when you say there's nothing you can offer him, and then proceed to list something you can offer him. This is a problem I have with mainstream Christianity, which I really just view as Paul-ism. It's nothing but idolatry at its core. I think Christ did his best to waken people up to the reality of their own lineage, not just his own, but alas, humans prefer easy answers for the absence of the miraculous in their lives. They want an idol to worship, to save them, rather than accept responsibility as a Child of God, which Christ said we were. "Is it not written in your law, 'I have said, ye are gods, children of the Most High. If they were called Gods to whom the word of God came, wherefore do you persecute me for saying I am God's son?"
I think Peter got the message.
Paul, not so much.
Thank you for presenting your point of view...while we differ in fundamental beliefs, I really appreciate you explaining your beliefs without attacking or becoming vile. I understand why you believe what you do and why you word things like you do. I pray that God will bless you richly. "We love Him because He first loved us".
Likewise. I appreciate how you handled that.