Peter

In Luke 22:32, Jesus tells Peter what to do “after thou art converted.” This seems like an odd thing for Him to say, Peter has been part of His ministry for three years. Peter has walked on the water; he has witnessed the transfiguration, and seen Jesus with Moses and Elijah (how did Peter know who the other two men were?); he has proclaimed Jesus to be the Christ, to which Jesus responded that that was revealed by His Father. Peter was the Rock on which Jesus would build His church. How is it that Jesus is talking about Peter’s conversion in future tense?
There are a lot of things in the Gospels that would indicate that Peter was a minister of the Gospel. He witnessed a lot of miracles: a coin in a fish’s mouth, that Peter himself hooked from the sea; his mother-in-law healed of a grave illness, a fig tree that withered because Jesus cursed it. He was right by Jesus’ side for most of the three years of Jesus’ ministry. He himself cast out demons and healed the sick.
At the same time, there are instances that showed that Peter really didn’t understand what Jesus’ ministry was all about. Once Jesus rebuked Peter sharply, because Peter promised to defend Jesus if anyone tried to hurt Him. Even after being rebuked for that, when the soldiers came to arrest Jesus, Peter grabbed a sword and was apparently ready to fight off the entire Roman army. Peter didn’t want to let Jesus wash his feet (but then when Jesus explained to him that He had to wash his feet in order for Peter to have a part in Jesus, then Peter wanted his head and hands washed, too). Peter fell asleep at the Garden of Gethsemane, during a time when Jesus most needed the support of His disciples. Peter was also the one that denied that he knew Jesus.
So what happened to cause Peter to be converted? What was the event? The big thing that happened after Jesus made that statement was that He was crucified. Remember that Jesus told Nicodemus that he had to be born again. How does one get born again? Romans 6:4 says that we should walk in newness of life after we have been buried with Him by baptism unto death. 1 Corinthians 5:7 tells us to purge out the old leaven, and become a “new lump” and makes reference to Christ being our Passover sacrifice. 2 Corinthians 5:17 says that we are new creatures in Christ; all things are become new. Hebrews 10:20 tells us that we have a new and living way, through the flesh of Jesus.
It becomes clear that being born again has a lot to do with the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, that, really, there were no Christians prior to the death, burial, and resurrection. There were followers of Jesus, but they didn’t have the whole Gospel truth, because it hadn’t happened yet. If Peter had his way, then Jesus would never have been crucified, and we would all be in our sins. Of course, Peter was converted when he understood the why of it all: that Jesus came as a sacrifice to save us from our sins.

What About the Thief?

I promised Friday that I was going to stop blogging about the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ this week, but, then I touched on the (in)famous thief on the cross on Friday, and realized that that topic alone deserved more discussion than I could possibly include in that post, so, once more, but tomorrow, something completely different, I promise.
Luke 23:39-43 gives the account, although Luke is apparently less convinced than Matthew that the individual involved was a thief, he uses the more generic term, malefactor. Basically, the story is this: at the crucifixion, Jesus and two others that had also been condemned to death. At first, the other two mocked Jesus, knowing that He had claimed to be the Messiah, and believing that God would not allow something this horrific to happen to His Messiah. Sometime during the crucifixion, though, one of the men had a fit of conscience, and defended Jesus, realizing that He didn’t deserve the same fate.
Where did this attack of conscience come from? Did this man, knowing that he was going to die, suddenly decide that he wanted to do something noble? Perhaps he thought history would remember him more favorably than the other… I can’t help but think that this was something more along the lines of Matthew 16:13-17, where Jesus asked the disciples who He was, and Peter told Him; leading Jesus to say that flesh and blood had not revealed it to Peter, but the Father. I’m not sure what the thief on the cross prayed, but it seems to me that whatever it was, led the Father to reveal to him that salvation was on the next cross over.
Now, a lot of people theorize that since the thief on the cross clearly believed in his heart, and confessed with his mouth, just as we are told to do in Romans 10:9, that it proves that belief and confession are all that is required for salvation. I have blogged before salvation being more complicated than that. Let us consider for a moment that this was a pretty extreme situation. For one thing, Christianity was a fairly new idea. Jesus’ followers weren’t even known as Christians yet. How many opportunities did the thief have to accept Jesus as his personal savior prior to finding himself dying right next to Him? Further, we know that the thief was a sinner (aren’t we all?); he wasn’t being crucified as a follower of Jesus. Now we have been taught that baptism is for the remission of sins (Luke 3:3, Acts 2:38). Obviously, the thief didn’t climb down off of his cross, get baptized, and then get back on his cross, but it’s equally obvious that he had the kind of sin in his life that would have kept him out of Heaven, so what happened? Surely Jesus knew what kind of man He was talking to… In Luke 5:24 (and Matthew 9:6, and Mark 2:10), Jesus demonstrates that He has the power on earth to forgive sins.
Further, in the book of Romans (often referred to as the book of salvation), Apostle Paul explains to us the mechanism of baptism: When we are baptized into Christ, we are baptized into His death, the body of sin is destroyed, for he that is dead is freed from sin. In other words, our baptism represents the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The thief didn’t have to go through a rite representative of dying with Christ, he literally died with Christ.
How many of us can say, honestly, that the first time we ever had the opportunity to accept Jesus was when we were in the process of already dying, that we were dying with Him, and that He personally forgave our sins? Not too many, I would think. Yet, I have heard an awful lot of people use the thief on the cross as an excuse not to get baptized. I don’t think God likes excuses (I’ve certainly never gotten a warm, fuzzy feeling when I have tried to use one on Him). The Bible also tells us that (in James 4:17), to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. So, while the thief on the cross clearly didn’t need to be baptized, the rest of us do; not only would it be a sin to not get baptized, given the opportunity, but we would still face every other sin that we ever committed in judgment…
By the way, one other thing, in John 10:1, Jesus said that if anyone comes up any other way, the same is a thief and a robber. Now I have sometimes wondered if He didn’t say that, knowing that there would be a thief that would end up in Heaven by a little bit different route than the rest of us. Really, though, Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, so the thief did make it to Heaven by the same Way. Really, though, too, if you read John 10, Jesus isn’t talking about getting to Heaven some other way, He’s talking about someone coming into the sheepfold (the church) pretending to be the Shepherd, and that’s a whole different situation.

The Crucifixion

I have been reading an article written by a Muslim scholar who has obviously spent a great deal of time and effort trying to explain why he does not believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and why no one else should, either. He does make some good points, but there is also a great deal of confusion in what he writes. The article can be found here.
Let me address some of his concerns (I don’t think that I can possibly address all of them, and probably not any of them to his satisfaction, but here goes):
First, he quotes Apostle Paul as saying that, “For all your good deeds are like filthy rags.” Of course, Paul never said that, it is in Isaiah (and the article gives the chapter and verse), but his point is that, according to Paul, salvation is only through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
He goes on to say that Jesus clearly had one thing in mind, but had to change his plans as the situation changed, and that crucifixion was not on Jesus’ agenda. He cites the prayer in the garden as evidence of this, and yet, if you read the prayer, Jesus is clearly submitting to God’s will. Jesus was, even then, setting the example that, sometimes, even when we pray for one thing, God’s will is not in it, and we have to be willing to do what God wants us to do. Further, Jesus himself prophesied the crucifixion, in Matthew 20:17-19.
He goes on to say that Allah tells them (and, I presume us) to demand proof (Koran, Sura 2, verse 111 “Say, ‘Produce your proof if ye but speak the truth’”). I find it interesting that the Koran is not subjected to the same burden of proof that the Bible is. Of course, he assures us that the Koran is the inspired Word of Allah, just as Peter tells us that the Bible is. He insists that any reader must be allowed to analyze the proof, and I agree, but I would ask that the proof be analyzed with a great deal of prayer, as opposed to simply gainsaying the evidence (of course, I say that, knowing full well that Ahmed Deedat would insist that he did pray over this, and he is not gainsaying the evidence, and that I should pray and not gainsay the Koran).
He insists that Jesus was not crucified, that Jesus was only assumed to be dead. He takes a lot of issue with the fact that “most” depictions of the crucifixion show Jesus being crucified differently than the two thieves. I have never noticed that, personally, maybe I just never paid that much attention. To be honest, I don’t really care how an artist painted the crucifixion, I don’t know of any artist that was there and painted it. It doesn’t surprise me that there are inaccuracies in the paintings. I would hope no one bases his or her faith on paintings done hundreds of years after the fact.
Mr. Deedat also goes on to say that we Christians have essentially charged the Jews falsely for the death of Christ. He further goes on to say that Muslims should defend their Jewish cousins from the Christians. There is an interesting concept. I have to agree that Jews need to be defended. Part of me wants to blast the anti-Semitics in Islam at this point, but I am very much aware that there are many anti-Semites that call themselves Christians as well. Quite frankly, if one believes in the crucifixion and resurrection, one should be thankful to the Jews for helping to orchestrate it (it was God’s will, after all), if one does not believe in the crucifixion, than what exactly is it that one blames the Jews for?
He also objects to the idea that Jesus, who taught His disciples to turn the other cheek, would tell them to buy swords. He rejects out of hand the idea that Jesus was talking about spiritual swords, even after the disciples told Jesus that they already had two swords, and He said, “It is enough.” If Jesus were planning sedition, His disciples were clearly going to need more than two swords. Particularly since, as we read later, Peter, who bore one of the swords, was only able to inflict a relatively minor wound on one of the High Priest’s servants (not one of the High Priest’s guards, mind you, one of his servants). The Apostles might have been manly men, but they were not trained in combat, as were the Temple Guard.

I could go on, but there is a lot here already. Perhaps some other time.

Passover and the Crucufixion

I posted a blog about Communion on Monday, and it occurred to me that, although I alluded to the idea that the Passover foreshadowed the Crucifixion, I didn't go into a lot of detail about it. I will attempt to rectify that now.
In Exodus 12, God told Moses to have Israel prepare for the tenth plague--the death of the firstborn. On the tenth day of the month, the Israelites are to pick out a lamb for each household; the lamb is to be a perfect lamb, without any blemish on it. On the fourteenth day of the month, the lamb was to be sacrificed, and its blood applied to the doorposts of the house. God said that He would pass through Egypt and take the firstborn from any household that didn't have the blood of the lamb on the doorposts. In Numbers 9, God tells Moses that the children of Israel should celebrate Passover every year, and He says that they should not let even one bone of the Passover sacrifice to be broken, not even after it was dead.
In John 1:29, John the Baptist proclaimed Jesus to be the Lamb of God, a sentiment echoed in Revelation 7:17, 14:10, 15:3, 19:9, etc. In First Peter 1:19, Peter compares Jesus to a lamb without blemish, and even says that it was the blood of Jesus that redeemed us. In Hebrews 9:12, Apostle Paul tells us that Jesus' blood gives us eternal redemption (as in, the sacrificial offerings of various animals has to be done over and over, but the sacrifice of Christ was done once for all of us). Also, in John 19:33, we are told that the soldiers came around to break the legs of the three men being crucified, so that the could entomb them, and not worry about them getting away, but they saw that Jesus was already dead, so they didn’t bother to break His legs.
So, the sacrifice should be a lamb, check. The lamb should be without blemish, check. The blood of the Lamb signals the death angel to pass over, check. No broken bones, check. It’s also clear that Jesus was crucified the week of Passover: Matthew 26 indicates that the Last Supper happened on the first day of the feast of unleavened bread (Passover lasts a week), but Matthew also tells us that the chief priests and scribes didn’t want to take Jesus on the feast day, because it might cause an uproar (Matthew 26:5). Mark 14:12 also indicates that the Last Supper was on the first day of the feast of unleavened bread. Luke 22:7 indicates the same thing. John 18:28, on the other hand, says that when Jesus was taken into Pilate’s judgment hall, that the scribes and priests had not yet celebrated Passover. I think that it’s a pretty safe bet that Jesus wanted to celebrate Passover once more with His disciples before His crucifixion, so He had them prepare Passover early, but none of them thought to mention that in the narrative. In fact, John 19:14 says that the day of the crucifixion was the preparation for the Passover, which, if I’m reading that correctly, was the time that the lamb was sacrificed for Passover. It’s hard to be sure, the way the Gospels were written, but it seems like Jesus was actually crucified on the fourteenth of the month.