Commitment

Last Saturday we had a Men's Breakfast.  Here is what I shared regarding "commitment":

παραδίδωμι paradidōmi hand over; pass on

Romans 6:17 (NIV)¹⁷ But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted.

Romans 6:17 (KJV)¹⁷ But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

Romans 6:17 (ASV)¹⁷But thanks be to God, that, whereas ye were servants of sin, ye became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching whereunto ye were delivered;

Romans 6:17 (ESV)¹⁷ But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed,

παραδίδωμι paradidōmi hand over; pass on

1.      Occurrences in the NT

2.      Meaning

3.      Tradition history in connection with the Passion

4.      Usage

a.       Mark

b.      Matthew

c.       Luke-Acts

d.      John

e.       The Pauline corpus

f.       The Catholic Epistles

1. Παραδίδωμι appears in the NT 119 times; with greatest frequency in the Gospels and Acts (Matthew has 31 occurrences, Mark 20, Luke 17, John 15, Acts 13, total 96). There are 19 occurrences in the Pauline letters (6 in Romans and 7 in 1 Corinthians) and 4 in the Catholic Epistles (Apocrypha).

2. As an intensified form of “give,” παραδίδωμι designates the act whereby something or someone is transferred into the possession of another. Latin tradere also corresponds completely with παραδίδωμι .  

The great breadth of meaning displayed by παραδίδωμι is best divided according to the implied degree of possession and especially the degree of threat to the existence of the one who or that which is given over: a) entrust / commend / give for safekeeping; as a technical term hand down, almost command; b) hand over an area of authority / authorize / permit; c) hand over for judgment / punishment, etc. (the act is a threat to the one concerned, but follows a prescribed course), again a technical term; d) deliver / hand over; e) risk one’s existence or even sacrifice (especially as a self-sacrifice; f) hand over to death / destruction.

Under d) we can include the always concise and stereotyped statements on the act of Judas (all in the Gospels), for which the basic meaning is deliver over, though redacted modifications do appear. Παραδίδωμι does not mean “betray something (esp. secrets).” At the most it means, in a derived sense, “deliver, surrender” and thereby “betray (a person)”

3.  The most significant portion of NT uses of παραδίδωμι are connected with the Passion accounts. The following attempts to reconstruct a tradition history have been made:

a)….

b) The Synoptic Passion accounts and the pre-Pauline traditions arose independently of each other. In the pre-Pauline (and pre-Johannine) form of the tradition παραδίδωμι was found in one of three types of sonship formulas (“delivered up,” along with “adopted” and “sent”) and was not limited to the death of the Son of God, but also included his coming. The oldest form of the tradition is found in Rom 8:32 and John 3:16, while the form in Rom 4:25 is later.

Romans 8:32 (NIV)He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?

John 3:16 (NIV)“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

c)….

d) Originally, παραδίδωμι was used in a purely descriptive fashion in the account of Jesus’ trial (Mark 15:1, also for the act of Judas). Then in the early Passion apologetic it came to be used as a divine pass. (Mark 9:31; 14:21, 41, etc.).

e) The Pauline and Synoptic sayings arose independently. The Passion-theological use of παραδίδωμι first appears in Mark… Use of παραδίδωμι derives from the trial account (the actions of Judas). Mark was the first consciously to formulate ambiguous statements (in the same vein as the messianic secret), such as 9:31; he sees God’s hand behind the actions of unbelievers. The theologizing may be influenced by Pauline language.

f)…..

4.                     a) In Mark only two occurrences (4:29: permit; 7:13: pass on) have nothing to do with suffering; three deal with the suffering of the community (13:9, 11, 12: take before the court: unnatural enmity), another with a prefiguring of the destiny of Jesus (1:14: John the Baptist).

   The remaining Markan occurrences deal with Jesus’ Passion. Mark intertwines in these passages three different trajectories: the enigmatically intimated “delivering up” of the Son of man (9:31; 10:33; 14:21, 41; cf. 8:31), the “handing over” by Judas (3:19; 14:10f., 18, 21, 42), and the “delivery” of Jesus by the Jewish authorities to the Gentiles (10:33; 15:1, 10) and by the Gentiles to death (15:15)….

b) Matthew follows by and large the Markan formulations regarding Jesus’ Passion (also with regard to John the Baptist in 4:12): the handing over of the Son of man (17:22; 20:18f.; 26:2, 24, 45), the handing over by Judas (10:4; 26:15f., 21ff., 46ff.; 27:3f.), and transfer to and by Pilate (27:2, 18, 26). In the process Matthew closely connects the first two and places the blame entirely on Judas (frequency of mention, content and position of 27:3–10). Judas is the archetype of those who reject Jesus and understand their act only too late.

This tone of warning is well suited to another group of Matthean passages where the community is admonished with respect to the gifts that have been bestowed (25:14, 20, 22) and with respect to the persecutions under which they must not yield (10:17–21; 24:9f.). The unrepentant are threatened with being delivered to judgment (5:25; 18:34). Matthew also uses παραδίδωμι to emphasize the authority of Jesus (11:27, cf. 28:18).

c) In Luke-Acts παραδίδωμι possesses a wide range of meanings. In addition to the Passion-theological statements, we find: the tradition of the eyewitnesses (Luke 1:2), grant authority (10:22; weakened in 4:6: “I possess”), deliver to the officer (12:58), command (Acts 6:14; 16:4), abandonment by God (7:42), commit to grace (14:26; 15:40), and commit oneself (15:26). The breadth of meaning corresponds to the linguistic variation in the Markan source (Luke 6:16: Judas) and to the ample use of synonyms (e.g., Acts 2:23). Παραδίδωμι is not as important to Luke as it is to Mark and Matthew. He frequently replaces it with logical clarifications (thus Luke 3:20: “incarcerate”) and glosses (see 18:31f.; 21:16). Nevertheless, παραδίδωμι also appears frequently in the Lukan Passion accounts: the delivering up of the Son of man (9:44; 18:32; 22:22; 24:7) and the handing over by Judas (22:4, 6, 21f., 48), Pilate (23:25), and the Jewish authorities (20:20; Acts 3:13). God’s plan is fulfilled (Luke 24:7; cf. 17:25). But Luke places responsibility on the Jews (Acts 3:13; cf. 2:36; 7:51f.), though the power of the devil is never underestimated (Luke 4:6; cf. 22:3; Acts 26:18). Acts ultimately depicts the suffering Church as an imitation of its Lord: prison and delivery into the hands of the Gentiles and to death (8:3; 12:4; 21:11; 22:4; 27:1; 28:17; see also Luke 21:12, 16).

d) John uses παραδίδωμι for the act of Judas (9 or 10 occurrences) and for the handing over of Jesus to Pilate by the Jews (18:30, 35, possibly 19:11) or the reverse (18:36; 19:16). Παραδίδωμι signals delivery to a different sphere of power. Those who should be “his” end up rejecting Jesus; their deed is Satanic (6:71, etc.; 19:11). Ultimately, of course, the handing over of Jesus is not successful; Pilate gives Jesus back (19:16); what remains is the rejection. The evil game cannot, however, contest the sovereignty of Jesus (he predicted it: 6:64, etc.; his kingdom is of a different world: 18:36; nothing happens without the will of God: 19:11).

Beyond these passages lies only 19:30 (Jesus transfers the Spirit). The unusual formulation emphasizes active submission to the Father. The statement in 3:16 belongs to the Johannine theology of giving; it is doubtful that John has reworked an older “delivered-up” formula.

e) The usage of the Pauline corpus is not consistent: God abandons the sinner to his fate (Rom 1:24, 26, 28, more resignation than punishment); be entrusted to a form of teaching (Rom 6:17, cf. the Jewish practice of entrusting a student to the teaching of a rabbi; deliver a sinner to Satan for punishment (1 Cor 5:5; 1 Tim 1:20; no exact parallels; pass on teaching and modes of conduct (for faithful observance, 1 Cor 11:2, 23a; 15:3); surrender one’s body to be burned (13:3: martyrdom by fire? as a mark of slavery?); experience imitation of the death of the cross (2 Cor 4:11); and abandon oneself to sensuality (Eph 4:19).

Παραδίδωμι also appears in 1 Cor 15:24 in a christological sense (return or transfer power), in the first place as an interpretation of the surrender of Jesus’ life (“out of love of”: Gal 2:20; Eph 5:2, 25, probably traditional; cf. Gal 1:4; 1 Tim 2:6; Titus 2:14, which are connected with Mark 10:45).

f) In the Catholic letters παραδίδωμι is found in the first place in connection with divine judgment. The abused Christ leaves “it” (the object is lacking) to the “righteous judge” (1 Pet 2:23; cf. Rom 12:19). 2 Pet 2:4 emphasizes by way of warning that the judgment of God is sure; the fallen angels are an example (Genesis 6; cf. 1 Enoch 10–11, 18–19, 21–22).

Jude 3 and 2 Pet 2:21 stress in opposition to the false teachers “the faith that was once for all handed down” and “the command that was given” to Christians. The one who gives the command is probably the apostle (2 Pet 3:2; cf. Pol. Phil. 7:2). Doctrine and conduct belong together (cf. “way of righteousness,” 2 Pet 2:21; “straight way,” 2:15). One should not leave the foundation (Jude 20; cf. 1 Tim 1:19, etc.; also already Rom 16:17).

W. Popkes (Balz, H. R., & Schneider, G. (1990-c1993). Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament. Translation of: Exegetisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament. (3:18-21). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.)

The point?  The way you act can be faked, the way you are perceived by others can be faked, your sincerity can be faked, your "christian-ese" can be faked.  God sees your heart, he knows your commitment, He committed Jesus to you, can you do less than be committed to Him?

I struggle.  You struggle, we all struggle.  If only my husband/wife loved me, if only my boss wasn’t such a jerk, if only our neighbors would think of somebody besides themselves, if only that guy hadn’t cut me off in traffic, my kids, my parents, etc., etc.  The world would be a great place if it wasn’t for all of these stupid people.  Stupid liberals, stupid conservatives, and don’t get me started on other countries……

You know what all of the above struggles have in common?  Flesh.  They are material, physical, corporeal, carnal.

The apostle Paul says in Ephesians 6:12:

^““For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”

What? It isn’t “them”? How can it not be, it is so obvious.  It has got to be them, because if it isn’t then it has to be……..me?

Our struggle is not against people. It is not your mate, your boss, your neighbors, that jerk in the other car, your kids, or your parents. It is against our learned responses, our prejudices, our habits; it is a lack of regard and concern for our spirit. It is our spirit that needs strengthening, fortifying, stimulating.  How?  Paul continues in Ephesians:

“Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace.”

The Bible teaches that if you are struggling, and struggling hard, you are not putting on the full armor of God.  Read the Bible, memorize key verses, pray, go to church and fellowship with like-minded believers.  It is an easy prescription and the medicine you take can save your spiritual life.

Parables and Flesh

Matthew 13:10-17 (NIV)The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”  He replied, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.   Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.  This is why I speak to them in parables:

“Though seeing, they do not see;

though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:

“ ‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;

you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.

         For this people’s heart has become calloused;

they hardly hear with their ears,

and they have closed their eyes.

Otherwise they might see with their eyes,

hear with their ears,

understand with their hearts

and turn, and I would heal them.’

But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear.  For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

Acts 1:24 (NIV)

Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen

Why did Jesus teach in parables?  Other than the explanation Jesus himself offers above.  Let’s go a little bit deeper.  Acts clearly teaches His ability to see heart condition.  The crowds as a whole were there to get their “flesh” (see previous post) needs met.  Jesus provided healing and food.  They (the crowds) didn’t necessarily care about their deeper “spirit” needs.  Parables were a popular way of speaking so Jesus gave them something to talk about, those who had an interest in the spiritual side questioned further and Jesus, often gratefully, explained to those the “deeper things of God.”

I don’t think Jesus taught in parables to purposefully fulfill prophecy, I am sure He was saddened by it’s accuracy.

Flesh.

Baker’s Bible Encyclopedia says regarding flesh: “In the Old Testament the term is commonly used to designate the material stuff of the body, whether of men (Gen 40:19) or of animals (Lev 6:27)…Perhaps the most distinctive use of “flesh” in the OT is found in those passages where it designates human weakness and frailty over against God. “My spirit shall not abide in man forever, he is flesh” (Gen 6:3). In Psalm 78:39, God attributes sin to the fact that men are but flesh. In 2 Chronicles 32:8 the arm of flesh of the king of Assyria (for example his weakness) is contrasted with the all-powerful God.  The one who puts trust in God need not fear what “flesh” can do (Ps 56:4), but the one who puts trust in human flesh instead of in God is under a curse (Jer 17:5). In Isaiah 31:3 flesh is contrasted with spirit as weakness is with strength…However, nowhere in the OT is flesh viewed as sinful. Flesh is conceived as being created by God of the dust of the earth (Gen 2:7), and, as God’s creation, it is good. In the New Testament…flesh in such references is not sinful, but it is corruptible and cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 15:50). Jesus’ body was also a body of flesh (Col 1:22)….Flesh as the Body Itself…“He who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her. For, as it is written, ‘The two shall become one flesh’ ” (1 Cor 6:16)…Flesh as Person with Reference to Origin…In this usage the word may refer to the person’s human relationship, the physical origin and the natural ties that bind that one to other humans. Paul speaks of his kinsmen “according to the flesh,” his fellow Jews (Rom 9:3 kjv), and even uses “my flesh” (11:14 kjv) as a synonym for these kinsmen. The “children of the flesh” (9:8) are those born by natural generation in contrast to those born as a result of divine intervention. Christ was descended from David according to the flesh (1:3). The phrase does not designate merely the source of his bodily life, but of his entire human existence including both his body and his human spirit…Flesh as Human Existence. Another use of “flesh” simply designates human existence. As long as a person lives in the body, that one is “in the flesh.” Thus Paul can speak of the life which he lives “in the flesh” as lived by faith in the Son of God (Gal 2:20). Referring to Jesus’ earthly ministry, Paul says that he abolished “in the flesh” the enmity between Jew and Gentile (Eph 2:15). Peter has the same meaning when he speaks of Jesus having been put to death “in the flesh” (1 Pet 3:18). So also John: “Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” (1 Jn 4:2). This usage is reflected most notably in the apostle John saying, “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (Jn 1:14)…Flesh as Human Existence in Terms of Outward Appearance and Conditions. “Flesh” also extends beyond man in his bodily life to include other factors crucial to human existence. Thus, “confidence in the flesh” (Phil 3:3–6) does not mean confidence in the body, but confidence in the whole complex of the outward realm of human existence. It includes Paul’s Jewish ancestry, his strict religious training, his zeal, and his prominence in Jewish religious circles…This usage illuminates an otherwise difficult saying, “Henceforth know we no man after the flesh; yea though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more” (2 Cor 5:16 kjv). The rsv correctly renders the phrase, “from a human point of view.” The verse does not mean that Paul had heard and seen Jesus in Jerusalem at some previous time and had gained some acquaintance with Christ “after the flesh.” “After the flesh” modifies the verb “to know,” not the noun “Christ.” Before his conversion, Paul knew all people “after the flesh”; that is, he judged them by worldly, human standards. To know Christ “after the flesh” means to look at him through merely human eyes. As a Jew, Paul had felt that Jesus was a false, deluded messianic pretender. According to the Jewish understanding, the Messiah was to reign over the earth as Davidic king, save his people Israel, and punish the hated Gentiles. Now Paul has surrendered this false human view and knows Christ as he really is—the incarnate Son of God, the Savior of all who believe. Now as a Christian, Paul no longer judges others according to the flesh. He no longer thinks of the Gentiles as dogs in the usual Jewish way. He sees both Jews and Greeks as beloved of God, as people for whom Christ died…Flesh as Fallen Human Nature..When Paul says that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 15:50), he means, not that humanness cannot inherit the kingdom of God, but that human fallenness cannot; as the next clause shows, “neither doth corruption inherit incorruption” (kjv). The weak, fallen, corruptible body cannot inherit the kingdom of God; there must be a change; the “corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality” (1 Cor 15:52 kjv). This is not the salvation of the soul or spirit, but the exchange of one kind of body for another that is suited to the final glorious kingdom of God…When Peter confessed the messiahship of Jesus, Jesus replied, “flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 16:17). The meaning of this verse is obvious. This knowledge of Jesus’ messiahship was not a human deduction; it could be achieved only by divine revelation...Flesh as Fallen Sinfulness. There remains a group of ethical references that are distinctly Pauline. The most important feature of this usage is that man is seen not only as fallen and weak before God, but as fallen and sinful. Flesh is contrasted with Spirit—the Holy Spirit, not man’s spirit, and without the aid of the Spirit one cannot please God. The most vivid passage is the first part of Romans 8, where Paul sharply contrasts those who are “in the flesh” with those who are “in the Spirit.” To be “in the Spirit” in this sense does not mean to be in a state of ecstasy, but to be living one’s life in that spiritual realm which is controlled by the Spirit of God. Those who are “in the flesh,” that is, unregenerate, cannot please God: “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God” (vs 7 & 8) The translation “carnal mind” is unfortunate, for “carnal” in our idiom means to be surrendered to bodily appetites, especially to the sexual. The Greek is “the mind of the flesh.” Then Paul says, “But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you” (v 9). There are two contrasting and mutually exclusive realms: “in the flesh” and “in the Spirit.” To be “in the Spirit” means to be indwelt by God’s Holy Spirit, that is, to be a regenerate person…the unregenerate heart cannot please God by loving and serving him as God requires. Thus the Law was unable to make mankind truly righteous, because the flesh is weak (Rom 8:2). To live after the flesh is death; to live after the Spirit is life (v 6). Elsewhere Paul says, “For I know that in me [i.e., in my flesh] dwelleth no good thing” (v 18 kjv). Flesh here cannot be the physical flesh, for the body of flesh is the temple of the Spirit (1 Cor 6:19) and a member of Christ (v 15) and is to be the means of glorifying God (v 20). Paul means that in his unregenerate nature, there dwells none of the goodness that God demands.Works of the Flesh vs. Fruit of the Spirit. In Galatians 5:19–23 Paul contrasts the life in the flesh and the life in the Spirit. “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like” (vv 19–21 kjv). The important thing to note about this list is that while some of these are sins of bodily and sexual appetite, others are religious sins—idolatry, witchcraft—and several are sins “of the spirit,” that is, of the disposition—hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife. The words “seditions” and “heresies” refer not to theological heresies but to a factious, divisive spirit. This proves conclusively that for Paul the “flesh” is not synonymous with the body but includes the whole person, with all the inner attitudes and disposition…On the other hand, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, and selfcontrol (vv 22, 23). These are mostly characteristics of the inner self; “against such there is no law” (v 23); that is, when one is characterized by such traits as these, there is no need for an external law to indicate what is right and wrong…Victory over the Flesh. While a struggle remains in the Christian between the Spirit and the flesh, Paul knows of a way of victory for the spirit. The flesh of the body comes within the sphere of sanctification (1 Thes 5:23), but the flesh as the unregenerate human nature can only be put to death…This is called the tension between the indicative and the imperative. Because certain things have happened in Christ (indicative), certain inevitable results should accrue (imperative). In Paul’s view, the flesh has already been put to death in the death of Christ. Those who belong to Christ have already crucified the flesh with its passions and desires (Gal 5:24). Paul elsewhere says, “I have been crucified with Christ” (2:20) and “our old self was crucified with him” (Rom 6:6). Such references make it clear that “flesh” and the “self” are in some ways to be identified. This identity is further supported in the teaching about crucifixion, for Paul means the same thing by the crucifixion of the flesh that he means when he says, “How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? We were baptized into his death. We are buried with him by baptism into death” (vv 1–3). It is I myself who have died with Christ.  The same idea is expressed in a different idiom in Colossians 3:9. “Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man [the old nature of the flesh] with his deeds, and have put on the new man” [the regenerate nature]. The “old man” denotes the sinful, unconverted being. This is another way of saying that the old self has been crucified with Christ (Rom 6:6). Paul views this as something that has already happened when one comes to faith in Christ.  This crucifixion and death of the flesh does not, however, work automatically. It is an event that must be appropriated by faith. This involves two aspects. First, believers are to recognize that the flesh has been crucified with Christ. “Reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom 6:11 kjv). One cannot consider the self dead with Christ unto sin unless that person has actually died and been crucified with Christ; but because this has already happened at the moment of saving faith, it can be put into daily practice. Those who have died with Christ are to “put to death the deeds of the body” (8:13 kjv). “Body” is here used as a vehicle for the works of the “flesh”—the sensual life of the unregenerate nature. Those who have been brought from death into life are to yield their members to God as instruments of righteousness (6:13). One who has died with Christ is to “mortify” (kjv), that is, put to death what is earthly—fornication, uncleanness, covetousness (Col 3:5). Having already put off the old nature and put on the new, the believer is to put on compassion, kindness, lowliness, and the like (v 12).  Victory over the flesh is sometimes described as walking in the Spirit. “Walk by the Spirit, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh” (Gal 5:16; Rom 8:4)  Walking in the Spirit means to live each monment under the control of the Holy Spirit.

Leviticus 17:11 (NIV) For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.

That is a lot to read and I thank you for persevering.  The point?   Somebody asked me why God looked with favor on Abel’s offering and disfavor on Cain’s offering.  The Bible says that Cain brought “some” of his crops, Abel brought the “first and the fat portions of his herd”.

I believe that God showed in the garden what was required to atone for, and what was an acceptable sacrifice for man by killing an animal and providing skins, for covering, to Adam and Eve. (see Lev 17:11, above).  Abel was consistent and remembered what his father had told him, Cain appears lackadaisical regarding the quality and type of offering he gave.

Another interesting item, I believe the sacrificial system also was a sign and a process through which God taught the Israelites about the future, in the New Testament, relationship between Spirit and flesh.  By sacrificing the various offerings the participant was learning a valuable lesson.  Only by “putting off” of the flesh could a person feed his spiritual side.  The flesh is corruptible and passing away, but the spiritual is eternal.

John 6:51 (NIV)

⁵¹ I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

The historian Josephus in War, Volume III describes Peter “He appears as an admirable type of the Galilean, well-meaning, confiding, freedom-loving, and courageous, yet changeable, capricious, and eager for novelty.”  All of these traits are perfectly captured in Peter’s “walk on the water” in Matthew 14:28,29.  Peter immediately has the courage to step onto the water but it is like you can hear him screaming “I immediately regret my decision!!”  It is also amusing that this account is left out of Mark, which is the gospel that Peter is thought to have co-authored.  The swings are also evident when in the garden Peter draws his sword and cuts off the ear of one of the men coming to arrest Jesus, contrasted with Peter later that night disowning Jesus.

I believe this is the event that ultimately defined Peter, and became the “beacon” he kept returning to in his future ministry.  Going through something like actually disowning Jesus, literally to his face, then being forgiven, reconciled, and becoming a leader in the church, is a great example of personal redemption.  Sharing this, as I am sure he did, with struggling members of the church dealing with their own fears and frustrations must have been a great source of comfort.

Peter ultimately shows his acquired patience and understanding.  After disowning Jesus, then being personally reinstated by Jesus’ through the three questions (John 21:15-19), he writes in 2 Peter 1:12-15:

“So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have.   I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body,  because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me.   And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things.”