The Enthusiasm of Simon Peter

Let me start by stating, here and now, that I firmly believe the Holy Bible to be infallible and inerrant. It is the inspired Word of God, and as such is indelibly intertwined with the Lord Himself.

'Nuff said there.

We had our company Christmas shindig this past weekend and, boy - what a blast! Unfortunately (for me, at least), I allowed myself to be cajoled into singing a little karoke. (My boss informed me I had a nice voice. Trust me - I proved him wrong.)

The song selected for me to warble: "Born to be Wild." The choice was ill-fitting, to say the least. It is not a song that fits me in the least. Indeed, I was born to be mild.

As I prepped to teach last week's second installment of our Peter class (Flawed Yet Chosen), I pondered this. Peter had a zeal, an eagerness, that I really crave. What was it that made Peter so excited about following Christ?

We dug into the four Gospel accounts of Jesus' calling the four disciples. Matthew 4:18-22 and Mark 1:14-20 basically tells us Jesus called Peter and his brother, Andrew, and "at once they left their nets and followed him" (Mt.4:20, Mk. 4:18, NIV). They didn't just abandon their boats. They left everything . Consider that for a moment. If some stranger came up to you at work and said, "Leave your livelihood behind and come follow me," would you do it? People would say you were nuts, wouldn't they? (If you think I am trying to say Peter or any the apostle were unstable in any way, purge that thought from your minds and read on...)

Luke 5:1-11 fills out the picture somewhat. We see Jesus on the shore, teaching a crowd. He has Peter take Him out in his boat and produces for the weary fishermen a net-busting bounty of fish. This after a long night of toil for Peter and his fellow fishermen that produced a catch of exactly zero fish.

Nil.

Nada.

Nothing but net [and maybe some seaweed]).

Peter's reaction: "When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus' knees and said, 'Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!' For he and all his companions were astonished at the catch of fish they had taken..." (Lk. 5:8-9, NIV).

John 1:35-42 tells what appears to be a different story altogether. In this account, which apparently takes place before the encounter noted above, Andrew (Peter's brother and a follower of John the Baptist) came to Christ first. Then, "the first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, 'We have found the Messiah' (that is, the Christ). And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Peter)" (Jn.1:41-42, NIV).

How do we account for such different accounts of essentially the same event? Consider this: Mark was most likely the first gospel written. It only makes sense that Matthew and Luke would have had access to John Mark's gospel as it circulated throughout the churches. I believe Matthew and Luke are, in a sense, both expounding on and confirming what Mark wrote. Likewise with John, whose gospel was written perhaps 30-50 years after the other three synoptic gospels. I believe that the purpose of John's gospel was, in part, to fill in the gaps from the other three gospels. Therefore, if you take all four gospel accounts together, you have a cohesive whole. You see the bigger picture.

To demonstrate what I meant, I sat a soda bottle down in the middle of a round table and asked the people sitting at the table to look at it. Some could see the trademark on the label. Some could see the list of ingredients. Some could see the Iowa / Michigan 5 cent deposit box. Some could see the barcode. If you turn it, you get the full picture. The same is true with the gospels. If you look at all four gospels, you will get a much fuller view.

So... as for Peter. He heard about Jesus through his very enthusiastic brother, Andrew. Perhaps Simon Peter was skeptical at first (this may in part account for the shame Peter expresses in Luke 5:8). If he was, Jesus eradicated the doubt with a net brimming with fish.

Of course, Peter had just looked our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the eye. I cannot imagine the glory one would have seen in those eyes!

WWPD?

As I prep for teaching a series on the apostle Peter, I find myself trying to mentally walk in his shoes and thinking, "How would Peter react to a given situation?" I say react because Peter had a real proclivity for being reactionary (as opposed to proactive). Forethought wasn't Peter's forte.

For example: Jesus calls Peter out of the boat. Peter reacts by walking on the water.

Jesus appears with Moses and Elijah. Peter reacts by offering to build them a tent.

Roman guards arrive at the garden to arrest Jesus. Peter reacts by lobbing off a centurion's ear.

Scripture doesn't tell us Peter considered these things and then acted. Peter worked off impulse.

And, boy, did he ever mess up!

And yet... "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:18-19, NIV).

Why would Jesus choose such an impulsive individual to be "the rock" upon which He builds His church? Generally speaking, while Peter's actions tended to be wrong / mistaken, his heart was right. He wanted to please Christ. He wanted to do right. But Peter tended to get in his own way.

Don't we all.

Maybe God isn't looking for the most able. Maybe what's more important is who is the most willing.

(c) 2008 by Chris & Jennie Courtney. All rights reserved.

Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.
The "NIV" and "New International Version" trademarks are registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by International Bible Society. Use of either trademark requires the permission of International Bible Society.