Scripture Text (NRSV)
8:27 Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea
Philippi; and on the way he asked his disciples, "Who do people say
that I am?"
8:28 And they answered him, "John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; and
still others, one of the prophets."
8:29 He asked them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered
him, "You are the Messiah."
8:30 And he sternly ordered them not to tell anyone about him.
8:31 Then he began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo
great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and
the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
8:32 He said all this quite openly. And Peter took him aside and began
to rebuke him.
8:33 But turning and looking at his disciples, he rebuked Peter and
said, "Get behind me, Satan! For you are setting your mind not on
divine things but on human things."
8:34 He called the crowd with his disciples, and said to them, "If any
want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up
their cross and follow me.
8:35 For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who
lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save
it.
8:36 For what will it profit them to gain the whole world and forfeit
their life?
8:37 Indeed, what can they give in return for their life?
8:38 Those who are ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous
and sinful generation, of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed
when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."
Comments:
The legal phrase, in plain view, comes to mind as I read this passage
in Mark. The clarity of Jesus' identity is so strong. The answer to
his questions of who do not require much thought. They are no brainers.
Add Psalm 19, and the creation adds her plain and certain voice of
witness to the glory of God. Jesus speaks matter of factly to his
disciples of his upcoming crucifixion, death and resurrection. The OT
phrase of Isaiah comes to my head, "Have you not seen? Have you not
heard?" Elaine yells at Mr. Pitt, "Can't you see it, Mr. Pitt? The
spaceship is right there!" Pitt continues to stare at the magic
painting squinting and grimmacing. buddhabob in Atlanta
OK. Another thing with words this week in vs. 33. Both of my Greek
Bibles use the word satan, while Greek NT's on various Internet sites
use the word Satan - small case versus capital S. The word satan, of
course, translates "adversary" and can be anything or anybody who
tries to block our way to God's Way. Satan (S)is a more specific term.
The English translations all use the capital S version. So does
Young's Analytical Concordance. I guess we get to choose.
Which version of the word are you using? Why? Or does it make no
difference to the text and how you will preach on this passage? Just
wondering... I may be the only one who's interested, and that's fine.
KyHoosierCat
Ky,
I don't think it matters. TO me, if we use the Satan, than it is
easier to dismiss it in their own lives. People want to see Satan as
the ugly guy that you KNOW is nasty. We know that Satan doesn't
opperate that way. I have worked with MANY sex offenders. It took me a
long time to get over the fact that as individuals they are seldom the
ugly monster looking guy you want to protect your kids from. They are
kind and gentle and slick. I however, cannot use this analogy in my
congregation as we have a sex offender that few know about. But
thought it may help show why I would use the satan. Anything that
keeps me from my relationship with Christ is satan.
just my 2 cents worth tammy in texas
The text has Jesus saying, "Get behind me, Satan! For you are setting
your mind not on divine things but on human things."
I don't have the Greek in front of me, but the last time we used this
text I remember that the word for "behind" can also be used (as it can
be in English) as "support" rather than "out of my sight." In other
words, Jesus could be trying to convince Peter to quit tempting him to
turn away from his purpose, and instead to get behind him, to back him
up, to support him in his endeavor.
Michelle
(I won't be "talking" as much in this forum this week or next, as this
week our congregation will be doing "Holy Cross" and next week will be
St. Matthew. Sigh.)
What does it mean to be a disciple of Christ? Discipline, but we don't
like discipline. We would rather choose the easy way. The hard way is,
well, too hard. We want Jesus to lead us to life, but we want him to
clear the way and make it easy for us. We want to enjoy the glory, but
skip the grunt work. But the grunt work is where Jesus shined and
where we must shine if we are to be his disciples. Our church is in
the midst of seeking two new employess, and in posting the ads, I
thought seriously about writing, "Serious Inquirers Only." While I
didn't put it in the ad, it is probably going to be the title of my
sermon on this passage
Tom in Nashville
This story provides the turning point in the Markan gospel. Peter is
the first human being in the narrative to acknowledge Jesus as the
Messiah, but he cannot accept that, as the Messiah, Jesus will have to
suffer. Moreover, Jesus issues a strong challenge to all by connecting
discipleship and the cross.
This is how Eugene Peterson writes this passage in The Message. I
believe it has some good clarification of Jesus' words:
" ... But Peter grabbed him in protest. Turning and seeing his
disciples wavering, wondering what to believe, Jesus confronted Peter.
"Peter, get out of my way! Satan, get lost! You have no idea how God
works! Calling the crowd to join the disciples, he said, "Anyone who
intends to come with me has to let me lead. You're not in the driver's
seat;I am. Don't run from suffering, embrace it. Follow me and I'll
show you how. Self Help is no help at all. Self Sacrifice is the way,
my way, to saving yourself, your true self. What good would it do to
get everything you want and lose you, the real you? What could you
ever trade your soul for? If any of you are embarrassed over me and
the way I'm leading you when you get around your fickle and unfocused
friends, know that you'll be an ever greater embarrassment to the Son
of Man when he arrives in all the splendor of God, his Father, with an
army of the holy angels."
Then he goes on in Ch.9 vs 1, " Then, he drove it home by saying,
"This isn't pie in the sky, by and by. Some of you who are standing
here are going to see it happen, see the Kingdom of God arrive in full
force."
I like how he differentiates his words to Peter, "Peter, get out of my
way," THEN, Satan, get lost!" You have no idea how God works. That is
how he deals with the "S" "s."
I also really like his interpretation of Jesus words of taking up the
cross. Allowing him to lead. And, Don't run from suffering, embrace
it." In our take a pill for every kind of pain society, these are
important words. For those who approach the church like a marketplace,
and leave because it doesn't entertain them enough, these are
important words.
Susan in Wa.
Was Peter giving lip service? Or did he really believe what he said? I
think he did believe Jesus was the Messiah. But, how long did it take
before he was back-peddling on his confidence in Jesus and their
mission? Of course, put into Peter's place, I would likely have done
the same thing. Well, even in my own place I do that. I have a
preconceived notion about who Jesus is. It is a combination of
childhood imagination, Sunday School, life experiences and serious
Biblical study. But sometimes I get it wrong. Sometimes I think Jesus
should be over HERE doing THIS, when he is apparently over there doing
something else, and I feel confused and at odds with him. Peter had
his own preconceived notion of Jesus - what he knew from the
Scriptures and rabbinic teachings about the Messiah (victor, not
victim, for sure!) and what he had witnessed Jesus doing. One who
could make the blind see and the deaf hear and the dumb speak surely
would not be caught and killed, he would be proclaimed from the
rooftops as a direct Gift from God! Besides,what good is a dead
Messiah??
I confess sympathy with Peter, for it is a difficult thing to live up
to a professed faith when that faith asks us to trust God/Jesus when
we have a "far superior" alternate plan in mind.
Just some early musings. Nothing concrete yet.
KyHoosierCat
Susan in WA.
I like that interpretation, too. Works for me. Thank you for sharing a
fresh reading of it.
And, once again, I do not know how this last thing got double-posted -
I followed the "rules"! Honest!
KHC
KyHoosierCat,
I too have sympathy for Peter. I like his passion about things, even
though he was often the act first, think later type of guy. I can
relate to that too. I think we all respond to situations in ways that
we have been trained to respond through our families, our culture, and
all kinds of ways we are conditioned to respond. When we love someone
and think they are our ticket to somewhere else, such as better
circumstances, we want to protect them. One of the reasons I love the
Message interpretation of the passage is he doesn't label Peter as
Satan, just that he didn't understand how God works. That is true for
all of us, is it not? It isn't until we've experienced a few things
down the line, that we are able to respond in God's ways, and not our
gut reactions.
Susan in Wa.
I was at a training on Sunday for clergy and laity on the issue of
Sunday school/Christian Ed, and for once one of those things was very
helpful. The leader, Gina Gilland, said that she's come to a point
where she's very clear about what she does and does not do with regard
to church. If it does not address the deep hole in the human heart, if
it does not teach about life and death, she's not interested. It's a
clarity of focus that is such a gift.
This is so helpful to me in a small church where we feel like we have
to compete with the mega-mall places that are rocking and rolling, so
more and more of our people won't peel off and head that direction.
I'm not saying some of those places aren't contributing something
good, but I do know there are still people out there hungering for
something substantial, as hard as it is for us to actually get on
board with it.
Don't know what that has to do with anything, but in a world of
mission statements and purpose-driven church, this text certainly lays
things out in a way we have to wrestle with.
I'm looking forward to the discussion this week.
Laura in TX
Adding the epistle twist to it, can a mouth that blesses God in one
breath curse God in the next? (or words to that effect) ...
Can a mouth that proclaims "Messiah!" rebuke him, too?
Sally in GA (another Peter-sympathizer)
KyHoosierCat Glad you have continued to contribute. How often we think
we have a better plan than God does.... As I have mentioned in a
previous posting, consevative members of my congregation are digging
their heels in over the confirmation of Gene Robinson as bishop of New
Hampshire. They are angry with the decision, saying it is
non-Biblical. God doing something new that doesn't fit with what their
conception is of what a bishop should be. Like Peter, their stance is
adversarial, to the point of saying, if things aren't the way they see
it, they are going to withdraw time, talent & treasure. But just as in
ordination of women, I don't believe that the Episcopal Church will
change it's mind about this. The train in leaving the station.
Hopefully folks will get on board,and follow him or step aside. I hope
I'm not skewing the thrust of the scripture, but that is what it is
saying to me. Susan in GA
To Ky Hoosier Cat,
I was just re-reading one of your posts where you addressed the
question whether Peter was just giving lip service or whether he truly
believed Jesus was the Messiah. Good question. I think he did believe,
but I think we all make a statement of belief in something and then
afterward, we really understand the true implications of that
statement. Like marriage, for example. We stand there and make a
promise for better or for worse, in sickness and in health etc. But we
truly learn the punch of those words in the times of "sickness" and
"Worse." We are stretched within ourselves, and we learn the true
meaning of commitment, and following through with what we have
confessed.
Susan in Wa.
Hey, some great stuff here on this forum! As i've attempted to say
over on the epistle page, I like that Peter's words (and we don't
really know what he specifically rebukes here do we?) Peter's words
become the launching point for Jesus to transform/correct/redeem
whatever lies behind what has been said. I'm encouraged here that its
OK to speak one's mind knowing that once spoken, Jesus does engage the
person and work at greater knowledge and fuller truth. In any case it
seems Peter was able to take Jesus' corrections and fly with them
rather than walk away all upset.
Funny how Jesus' tongue can speak words of encouragement (blessing)
and rebuke (curse) while some of us would read James as denying this
to be possible.
Perry in Elmira
KyHoosierCat
I look forward to your contributions. How often we think we have a
better plan than God does.... As I have mentioned in a previous
posting, consevative members of my congregation are digging their
heels in over the confirmation of Gene Robinson as bishop of New
Hampshire. They are angry with the decision, saying it is
non-Biblical. God doing something new that doesn't fit with what their
conception is of what a bishop should be. Like Peter, their stance is
adversarial, to the point of saying, if things aren't the way they see
it, they are going to withdraw time, talent & treasure. But just as in
ordination of women, I don't believe that the Episcopal Church will
change it's mind about this. It isn't an easy stand to take. It will
mean sacrifices. The church has already lost members and financial
backing. But love, justice and compassion call the church to take this
stand. The train is leaving the station. Hopefully folks will get on
board,and follow him or, sadly, step aside. I hope I'm not skewing the
thrust of the scripture, but that is what it is saying to me. Susan in
GA
Sally in Ga,
That is a good question: "Can we bless God and curse him in the next
breath? Can a mouth that claims Messiah rebuke him too?" This is kind
of similar to my answer to KyHoosierCat. I think Peter did believe
Jesus was the Messiah, but Jesus' words to him not understanding how
God works, or the way the above scripture reads, " setting your mind
of human things, not on divine things." (I like Eugene Peterson's
rendering, " You have no idea how God works! So, in that process of
confessing Jesus as Messiah, we bless him, but when we act in "human"
ways, and go off on our own, we are in a sense "rebuking" him. I see
the process of discipleship as learning how God works. In and out of
our lives, we learn the true implications for confessing Jesus as
Messiah, and most often in the difficult times of that discipleship,
when something is truly asked of us to follow through, and take up our
cross and follow him.
Susan in Wa.
Sally in GA,
Terrific question! Can we at once confirm Jesus and rebuke him? Thank
you for connecting this with James!
Well, we sure can't grab Jesus by the shoulders and yell in his face
like Peter did. But, in light of the Prophets announcing that God
cannot abide it when we are luke-warm, neither hot nor cold, maybe it
would be better if we did yell instead of what we are more prone to do
- get miffed and huffy and decide to go sit on the sidelines until
somebody appeases us. At least Peter was honest enough to say what he
thought and take the consequences. Perhaps he trusted his friend
enough to feel he could do that. He wasn't ostracized by Jesus, he was
embraced as part of the group again right away, it would appear. And,
as far as the Scriptures tell us, he didn't even try to atone for his
actions before that happened.
KyHoosierCat
Susan in GA
This issue that is dividing your church is one that might require God
to make an unmistakable appearance as he did in the Burning Bush, the
Transfiguration, at Pentecost and when the sky turned black at the
Crucifixion. Until he does, I'm not sure anyone will be willing to
give in on their position about the Confirmation of the Bishop in New
Hampshire.
Please know that I am praying with you for reconciliation and solution
in the Episcopal Church. It must be a horrible position to be sitting
in. For those who do leave (and I pray they reconsider), I pray they
are able to find a Church that has filled them as solidly as the
Episcopal Church has fed them.
KyHoosierCat
"In our take a pill for every kind of pain society" this phrase really
speaks volumes to me. Sometimes we need to feel the pain, so that we
know what to heal... Do we strive to keep membership from being
"painful" or committment making. I think this is a big grasp at straws
but somehow with pain some responsibility is also learned. If you fall
off the wall it hurts... Jesus calls us to access our life and put
away those things that keep us from living the life of a Disciple. We
can do a little study, pray a little prayer and worship on one sunday
and really understand it. Enough mumbling for now Nancy-Wi
A couple of things . . .
There is one other time when Jesus was tempted by Satan to "avoid the
pain and claim the gain" -- the temptation in the wilderness (Matthew
4), where Jesus used similar language to that addressed to Peter.
On another site, there was used the imagery of a boomerang. People
assume that its function is to return to you when you throw it -- but
for the aboriginal hunter, if it returns, it really means that you
missed your target and have to try again. Peter had the right
"boomerang" and he gave it his best throw, but he missed the "target."
When it became clear that he missed, he complained that the target
wasn't in the right place, and asked Jesus to stand in the way of his
toss so that it will come out "right." Jesus then re-oriented Peter --
set your mind on divine things, not human.
OLAS
Hey, All,
I gave a plug for this site today in my face-to-face text study today,
since some will be doing pentecost rather than Holy Cross. So we may
get some new "lurkers" and possibly some new contributers, too!
Michelle
The paradox of pain.
You effectively can't know healing without it! How ironic is that?
I get a great connection here to the story of the immoral woman in
Luke 7:36-50. Jesus says this, "Therefore I tell you, her sins, which
are many, are forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven
little, loves little." RSV.
The people in my congregation who have the greater appreciation of the
value of life are more often those who have experienced great tragedy.
These are the ones I trust.
Those who appear righteous and even faithful, but haven't fully been
put to the test, I have found to be my greatest opponents in matters
of the spirit. The worldly successful, make very difficult
parishioners. (I qualify my statement, by saying that not ALL fit this
mould)
We know from having read the whole story, that Peter will revert to
the old inclination. That of preservation of self, when the chips are
down. Is it Satan that denies Jesus, or is it Peter being fully human?
Satan, for me, is the spirit of self. Taken to its extreme - the love
of self leads to selfishness, and a total disregard for the other.
This is the destruction of relationship.
Jesus in this passage at least for me is outlining what it costs to
give yourself in relationship to others.
It is very easy not to get hurt in this life. You simply have to not
care, about anyone or anything.
Christianity is not a promise of an easy life, but hard road to a
promised life.
Keep up the stimulating work friends.
Regards,
KGB in Aussie
KGB in Aussie,
Thank you for an insightful post. I particularly liked your statement
about Satan being the spirit of self. Amen.
I am surrounded by folk who believe deeply in a Devil who is alone
responsible for the genesis of evil in the world. When I try to
unteach that and offer the possibility that humans created their own
havoc (outside of natural disaster and illness, of course), I am told
I am Biblically illiterate, that there is irrefutable proof of a
supernatural Satan in Scripture and in the world. It has become
pointless to debate it, so I've stopped, but it is so nice to hear
someone else say that truly Satan, or more properly satan, is our own
selfish being at work. I don't feel quite so much the lone wolf on
that subject.
KyHoosierCat
I'm an old fashioned girl who likes to read hard copy, but when I go
to preinable version, I get last week's discussion. How come?
Beach Betsy
Nancy in Wi - WOW! So true, so true.
It fits in well with my "theme" of the question "can one proclaim
'Messiah' in one breath and rebuke him in the next?"
Jesus says "take up your cross and follow me." The cross isn't a
pretty little gold thing we wear around our necks. The original cross
was painful, but the pain and discomfort must be lived for ultimate
healing.
Otherwise our lives are lived masking symptoms to all kinds of disease
-- and the primary disease of sin. It's not comfortable to look at
ourselves in our much-less-good-than=we'd-thought state. it causes an
identity crisis. Yet, for a deeper, follwoing-with-a-cross
relationship with Christ, must be regarded deeply.
Just a "quickie" post before going off to a meeting.
I ask everyone's prayers for a new class I'm starting tonight - "Life
Enrichment: what you can learn about your life and relationship with
God from the early Methodists." I hope this will be an outreach and
encourage many new participants, especially seekers.
Sally in GA
Peter does believe that Jesus is the messiah, but he struggles with
what kind of messiah. He wanted the royal Messiah to "save the Jews"
from Roman oppresion, sort of like Braveheart. After trying to explain
the dog name calling last week, I'm not going to focus on Jesus
calling Peter, satan. Instead I plan to focus on "Who do you say I am"
and "who does God say we are". Thanks for all the great insights.
Brian in NC
As I re-read the words of the passage this morning, it strikes me that
were Jesus' words to be heard by someone in the marketing or
advertising fields, that they would sternly rebuke him that his
message needs a little more pazazz! I imagine them telling him that he
should take all of those "negative" words and images out e.g. losing,
self denial, taking up our cross,(And not the pretty gold ones we wear
around our necks) and replace it with much more positive approach on
what the disciples will receive if they follow him. These are tough
words. I agree with KB Aussie that those who have been tested in life
with difficulty are the ones who can be trusted more in matters of the
Spirit, than those who have not. So true. We are working on a mission
project for the school providing school kits(Paper, pencils etc.) for
the children whose families cannot afford it. This is an orchard town.
Most of my church members are the orchard managers and owners, and
they are good people, who do alot to help their workers, but there is
still a great disparity between the owners and the workers. One of my
members griped this last week about why we should help them, because
they get $75 a day for harvest and get housing even when they aren't
working. She neglected to remember that the work is seasonal, and they
still have to put food on the table and clothes on their children in
the off season. That $75 a day decreases a lot when averaged out over
the whole year. But it is the attitude of my member that bothers me
more than the figures. And it comes back to the question of what it
really means to us to follow Jesus. Who do we say he is? Our friend?
Santa Claus? Our Savior,(But not for those people over there)? Or
Messiah? "For those who wnat to save their life will lose it, and
those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the Gospel,
will save it."
Susan in Wa.
" get behind me satan" the sentiment used when he was tempted in the
desert- the temptation not to go to the cross but claim relevance and
kingship immediatley- the same temptation peter was offering- "no, not
you Lord" You can not suffer and die- you can not be savior, you must
be a political leader.
Thanks, all, for a good discussion on a difficult text.
I serve a church wrestling with the tension between mission and
institutional preservation. When Jesus tells disciples "those who want
to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my
sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it," it sounds like
Jesus claims the job of institutional preservation all to himself, at
least if this address to the disciples is also to the church.
What would it look like for the church to offer itself completely, its
soul, its life, for the sake of Jesus Christ and the gospel? What
would it look like for the church to give up worrying about saving its
own life and focus completely on being obedient and faithful to Jesus,
even if it meant spending every penny in the bank account on mission
and ministry?
A nearby church of our denomination is probably about to close. It has
tens of thousands of dollars in the bank. It has a serviceable
building sitting on a valuable piece of real estate. It has 6 members.
They had a congregational meeting last week and could talk about
nothing but how to preserve the church so that their families could
hold funerals there.
What might happen if they asked what Jesus would have them do with the
assets, and gave it up? It might be too late for that congregation,
but what would have happened if they had begun putting all they had
into mission ten years ago? They are sitting on a growing area,
surrounded by people who need to hear and see the gospel.
What does it take for a congregation to understand the paradox that
all our efforts to save the church are futile?
From what Jesus says in this passage, it seems that only giving the
church, and ourselves, wholly and completely to Jesus will save it.
NM in TX
To NM in Tex.
I served a small church like that. They had what we termed "Survival
mentality" which meant that they held onto everything they had with a
death grip, for fear of losing it. It also meant there was no risk, to
reach outside of themselves, and the best they could do was maintain.
The contrast to that is losing ourselves for the sake of the gospel,
which is very hard to do, but when we do step out in faith and risk,
and give out, and serve, we are met with a power and resources beyond
ourselves, that multiplies. It reminds me of two gospel messages,(I
don't have the verse references) but the mustard seed, that it is the
smallest seed that grows into the largest tree, and the one about
unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains just
a single grain. But if it dies it bears much fruit." (Jn.12:24) I
looked it up!
When we relate your situation to this passage, I think the question
is, "Who Do you say that I am?" If they say he is their Messiah, if
all that they have and all that they are belongs to him, would they
not risk all to proclaim Him? I know it is a lot easier said than
done. But dying to themselves, is in part dying to the belief that
small and struggling is all they can ever be. So what does it mean for
them to pick up their cross and follow him?
Susan in Wa.
To Tennesean [re: infant dedication],
I grew up in The Church of the Brethren, an anabaptist denomination in
which child dedication is preferred. There used to be [and probably
still is] such a service in their Book of Worship. If you cannot find
one locally I'll see if I can dig mine up [we just moved] and type it
into an email for you.
Bob
Many of the contributions are focussing on Peter's failure, his
inabilty to grasp what it truly meant for Jesus to be the Messiah.
True enough, but the thing that always strikes me most about this
passage is the great aha! when Peter is asked directly, "but who do
you say that I am?"
Some years ago one of my daughters came home from school quite excited
and described how a girl she had known and was friendly with for some
time had said "you're my friend." Their relationship had changed. They
weren't just classmates now; they were friends.
Do you remember saying "I love you!" for the first time? My world
changed when I spoke out loud that bold and scary claim. I had
committed myself. The relationship was on a different plane.
The importance of servanthood, the cross and risking all of ourselves
needs to be stressed, but so does the importance of falling in love
with Christ, of committing ourselves, of giving our hearts. "Who do
you say that I am?" is a question Jesus addresses to each of us.
WheelsWoodbury
Someone once told me that one's perception is 90% of her/his reality.
As I read this week's posts, I am suddenly struck by the perceptions
voiced in the text Jesus asks, who do THEY say I am? In other words,
what is the public perception. I notice all the various answers that
do not really get to the truth.
Then Jesus asks, who do YOU say I am? Peter speaks for the whole
group, laying forth the correct perception and the real truth, "You
are the Messiah." Yet, as the story continues and as Jesus defines the
truth about Messiah, Peter's true perception comes to the front. Then,
Jesus clears the perception and further defines the reality.
I like what Brian in NC said on 9/10. "Peter does believe that Jesus
is the messiah, but he struggles with what kind of messiah. He wanted
the royal Messiah to "save the Jews" from Roman oppresion, sort of
like Braveheart. After trying to explain the dog name calling last
week, I'm not going to focus on Jesus calling Peter, satan. Instead I
plan to focus on "Who do you say I am" and "who does God say we are"."
I think that part of the reason the Church is floundering is
perception, -- the perceptions on the outside AND on the inside.
Others of you have alluded to something of the samething with the
"survival mentality" mentioned above. I would add that there is
another mentality at play here, also. It's often called the "Edifice
Complex."
Thanks for all the thoughts and thanks for any responses.
Steve in NC
NM in TX - I think we've all "been there." It's so frustrating!
Interesting, though, that I had the same thought on the same verses
based on what one of my current members told me.
There's a young man, the grandson of a beloved deceased matriarch,
who's just returned to the community from being in jail and has
worshiped with us a couple times. She said, "I hope you can get him.
We need him."
I thought of nothing to say at the time (still can't think of anything
pastoral and not a chastisement), but that's soooooo backwards! We
won't have any kind of labor pool until we think of evangelism as
"OTHERS needing US." do we believe we need members to do our work
(see, as she said, "we don't have many men")? or do we need to do the
work of the Lord?
Anyways, I thought of this week's Gospel - losing our life to gain it,
for what will it profit if we get all kinds of people to do some
"men's work" around here and yet forfeit our own lives as we atrophy
and grow ever older.
Thanks for letting me spout off.
Sally in GA
Is the statement "I hope you can get him. We need him" not, in its own
way, rebuking the Messiah?
Can we praise on Sunday and rebuke him on Thursday by being concerned
with our needs over his? Heck, the guy's trying to find work! Not easy
to do when you've just gotten out of jail.
Sally
With a little reflection on James' Letter it seems to me that this
gospel speaks of the problem we all have of not listening, allowing
our own prejudices or expectations to lead us without paying attention
to the reality of Jesus in our midst.
Our "tongue" is too quick to speak or our "ears" to slow to hear that
we are unable to take in all that our Lord is saying to us. We must
learn to open ourselves, to listen, even when the news is not what we
wanted to hear. Peter had trouble with Jesus' proclamation, and we
have difficulty understanding why we have to take up our cross and
lose our lives if we are going to find them, etc.
tom in ga
Yes, this passage is about perception. And it is also about the way
selfishness distorts perception. How our opinions, even though they
may sound right, may not be fully truth.
Peter proclaims that Jesus is the Messiah. Good for you Peter!
But he reveals his ignorance, by not properly appreciating what it
means for Jesus to be Messiah. Peter takes Jesus aside and privately,
not publicly mind you, but privately rebukes him. Claiming that this
couldn't possibly be the way it should be.
Peter like so many people in their decisions and choices, has arrived
at the right answer, but with the wrong motives.
We are not told from the text what the motives were, but they
obviously did not align with God's.
How easy it is to mouth empty words or even make good choices, "You
are the Messiah", but how much more difficult it is to follow them up
with appropriate action. "In order to be followers of the Messiah, you
will have to suffer, just like me."
My period in the priesthood, has revealed to me the compounded
pressure of decisions. Each decision, leads to other decisions, leads
to other decisions, leads to other decisions. This is the agony of the
knowledge of good and evil.
The never ending conflict, between saying what is right, and then
trying to live up to the words. Practice what we preach.
I have learnt to only say, what I am capable of applying. To do
otherwise is to be hypocritical. Just like Peter. It is easy to say
"Jesus is Lord," it is far harder to explore the reality of that
statement, and the consequences of it being the truth.
We forfeit our life, when we live a lie, or follow a false perception
of our true reality.
Thanks for listening to my convoluted ramblings.
Regards, KGB
What are people willing to exchange for their soul?
Consider what many do instead of attending corporate worship and
you'll get some options. Instead of using our freedom to pack our
churches, we use it in the USA to chase after other gods - primarily
the god of self. "I want this. I want that. It's my life. I'll do what
I want to do."
There's some law...now add some gospel.
lawdog
Thanks to all for the comments, questions and dialogue. It is so rich.
As I think more about this passage and especially Peter, it seems to
me that he is no different than the rest of us. I believe he did
believe Jesus was the Messiah, but he, like all of us, have to grow
into the understanding of that statement. That, when we state we
believe Jesus is the Messiah, it will have x,y,z implications for my
life, for my choices and lifestyle. And when we choose against Him,
especially shortly after confessing Jesus as Lord, it is in a sense
confessing him and then rebuking him. But we all grow into our
understanding a little at a time, die a little at a time. It doesn't
happen overnight. Somewhere in that process of growing into that
understanding we learn what parts of our understanding were skewed by
our own preconceived ideas, or agendas, and we then make the choice to
die to that, or say no to Christ's Lordship. "You can have this part
of me, but not that part, not quite yet." This is a challenging
passage. I want the sermon to be a dialogue that isn't pointing the
finger, but help people enter into the text, and speak to them where
they are. I certainly don't have the total understanding of that
statement, "You are the Messiah" yet in my own walk. Some of my church
members are most likely farther along in that than I am!
Susan in Wa.
Thanks to the enlightening and scholarly insights on this forum, I now
have my sermon outline all set. I'm going in the direction many of you
have been going - We make our profession of faith, but how does it pan
out in real life? Is it lip service or are we willing to pony up to
what we say we believe in? Faith is easy to profess (we do it all the
time in the Apostles' Creed, other creeds) but so very hard to live by
day by day. As one or two of you have pointed out, Peter was ready for
the "easy faith". Based on the Jews' long-standing hope that the
Messiah would be a political savior, Peter said quite confidently "I
believe you are the Messiah, now go run those nasty Romans out of our
country and show them who's in charge here". When it became clear that
Peter didn't - and we don't -want a hard faith that involves giving up
selfish desires, our way to true discipleship is blocked.
You are a truly inspiring group of contributors to this forum, and I
appreciate your work. How I would love to sit in your congregations
and hear the sermons you actually preach! Many blessings.
KyHoosierCat
greetings, i read weekly, contribute much less than that. i appreciate
the discussion. i appreciate the different points of view. i am with
kgb in aussie. i too feel satan is in me -- clearly my free choices
would atest to that every now and then. to say there is a Satan or
devil is too offer that being way too much power/ willamon has
enlightened me on that thought in his books. my church is fueding over
ss treasure and church treasure. the ss claims it as theirs and the
church is asking for combines. i am doing a 2 pt sermon like paul
harvery -- beginning with the epistle and dangers of the tongue and
then after a hymn giving the rest of the story. doing a who do you say
that i am? finish. a meeting went ugly monday and ended with church
folk saying they won't help with the sunday school picnic -- etc. etc.
i know god is calling me to preach on the tongue, but i also need to
encourage them to use their tongue to say who Jesus is. prayers are
welcome! pastor bonnie in pa
Is interpretation a process of cooking? Jesus says, "the Son of Man
must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief
priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise
again." It is not a parable, but a real story that is going to happen.
When I imagine the context of this story, Jesus' saying, "If any want
to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their
cross and follow me" is not alegorical.
Can we preach this "as is" to the congregation or do we need to cook
(by which I mean soften the message)? Can we preach to the
congregation to risk their lives for the sake of good news (peach and
justice...)?
What is the preacher's role in proclaiming the Gospel?
MUAH
I appreciate the substance of this week's discussion. Thanks for some
insightful comments.
I plan to focus on the two questions that Jesus poses: Who do people
say that I am? and Who do YOU say that I am?
The disciples' answers to the first question are John the Baptist,
Elijah, and one of the prophets. I want to transpose this question to
the present day. I doubt that anyone today would answer John the
Baptist or Elijah. Many would say that Jesus was a prophet. Others
would say that Jesus was a philosopher who put forth many ideas that
are still worthy of our consideration. Others might say that he was a
controversial and revolutionary figure who was sort of interesting. I
would appreciate other contemporary answers that any of you might
suggest.
However, I think Jesus' second question is the more important question
for us: Who do YOU say that I am. Certainly Peter answers for all of
us with his confession that Jesus is the Messiah, but there are two
categories of answers to this question. The first is the answer that
we give with our mouths. The answer for the church would certainly be
that Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ, the Son of God; he is Savior
and Lord. The second, and probably the more important of the two, is
the answer that we live. Our living will either confirm or refute our
verbal answer to Jesus' question. I think this is what Jesus was
getting at with his comments about taking up a cross and following him
and his comments about being ashamed of him. What we do as we live
every day is our real answer to Jesus' question. I guess I could give
examples of people who have lived inspiring lives following Christ.
I know this leaves out Jesus' interaction with Peter and the stuff
about saving and losing our lives, but I find it difficult to cover
every aspect of a text with one sermon. Any suggestions? Creature
Wayne
