|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 9, 2013 9:55:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 9, 2013 9:56:55 GMT -5
The Apostle Peter is spoken of in scripture more than all the other Apostles combined. There is little doubt he comes across as spontaneous (impetuous) outspoken and sometimes prideful. That said, he was one of Jesus' closest companions, a man of faith and outstanding loyalty (see John 6:68). Peter was in fact singled out to be given special privileges of service, so evidently Jesus saw in Peter qualities of leadership that would be useful to the newly established Christian community. Does this mean that Jesus condoned and rewarded Peter's shortcomings? Not at all, indeed while Peter's words and actions are recorded in scripture more than all the other Apostles combined, Peter is reprimanded and corrected for speaking or acting out of line or expressing thoughts that were not in line with bible principles more than any other Apostle also. For example when Jesus spoke about his coming betrayal and execution, Peter took it upon himself to take Jesus aside and "rebuke" him (Jesus), Jesus' reprimand is stern and unequivocal (Mat 16:23). Peter's lowest point
Perhaps Peter's worst moment came when he denied Jesus three times at the time of his (Jesus') trial. Although Peter had displayed a measure of courage by following the mob that arrested Jesus when all Jesus' other companions (save John) had fled for their lives, Peter's courage failed him when personally confronted and he denied ever having known Jesus. This betrayal effected Peter deeply and the account says that once he realized what he had done he when out and "wept bitterly". Is there any indication Peter was repentant and that (based on that repentance) Jesus forgave Peter.
WAS PETER REPENTANT OF DENYING JESUS?
The bible doesn't speak specifically of Peter's feelings about his denial of Jesus, indeed it is silent as to the specifics of their post resurrection meeting, (Mark 16:7; Lk 24:34) this doesn't mean there is no indication in the gospels of Peter's repentance.
The Record of Jesus character
Jesus was, throughout his earthly ministry, an outspoken opposer to evil and hypocracy, there is therefore no valid reason to believe Jesus deviated from this standard with Peter and condoned ungodly conduct on Peter's part (compare Matthew chapter 23). When the religious leaders distorted God's word, introduced unprincipled traditions and even went so far as to plot to have him (Jesus) killed, Jesus fearlessly exposed them (compare Mark 7:8; John 7:19; 8:44). He bowed neither to convention nor political pressure to compromise godly principles but rather was a staunch advocate of scriptural supremacy and moral excellence (Luke 13:32). Even with his own disciples, Jesus did not allow sentiment to blind him to their short coming and roundly condemned Judas his betrayer as the "son of destruction". On many occassions when Peter himself acted or spoke out of line with godly principles Jesus' reprimand him in no uncertain terms. Taking the consistent character of Jesus depicted in scripture into account, there is ample reason then to conclude that had Peter not been repentant but held that his denial of the Lord was justifiable even commendable, that Jesus would have identified him as a harmful influence and not only withheld forgiveness but called him out to protect the fledgling congregation.
Jesus' stated intention
The bible account indicates not only that Peter would indeed deny Jesus but that he would {quote} "return" NWT (NLT "turned to me again"; KJV "converted"). The Greek word translated to the English "repent" is metanoeo and it stresses the changed viewpoint or disposition, a rejecting of the past or intended course or action as undesirable (Luke 22:32 compare Rev 2:5; 3:3). So Jesus words that Peter will indeed "return" (ie turn back to his former good way of thinking) indicates strongly Jesus was predicting Peter's future "repentance".
Peter's post denial conduct.
As has been pointed out Peter was far from proud of his denial of Jesus, indeed the picture is given of Peter weeping at the realization of what he had done. Evidently he wasn't weeping because he had been caught out in his lie or that he had been arrested (and facing punishment) because of it, Peter wept despite it having been circumstantially expedient. It seems reasonable to ask then why did Peter weep? Was this not a stronge indicator of regret, a precursor of repentance?
Unlike Judas Iscariot, who is never recorded as seeking further fellowship with his former companions after his betrayal of Jesus, Peter is found in fellowship with other loyal disciples right after Jesus execution. We do not know if Peter initially shared the shameful fact of his denial (all of Jesus disciples no doubt had reason to regret their lack of courage during the tragic events of Christ's trial and execution) but what we do know is Peter didn't give up fellowship, an indication that his regret was followed by positive action on his part.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 10, 2020 21:20:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 10, 2020 21:21:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 10, 2020 21:53:46 GMT -5
Im
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 10, 2020 21:53:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 10, 2020 21:54:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 10, 2020 21:59:44 GMT -5
|
|
