Though it is quite clear that the gospel authors did not compose their works with a strict chronology in mind, this does not mean that they were arranged haphazardly.
The gospels were assembled with careful forethought, often in order to draw out certain theological themes. For example, right smack in the middle of Mark 8, Mark juxtaposes several stories together, which at first glance may seem to have nothing to do with one another.
First, there is a conversation between Jesus and his disciples in a boat on the way back after a testy exchange with the Pharisees. Jesus warns them, “Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees…” (v. 15). The disciples are puzzled by this remark, assuming he is referring to literal bread.
In his reply, Jesus asks them, “Do you have eyes, and fail to see?” (v. 18a).
Second, Mark places the story of Jesus curing a blind man in Bethsaida. Jesus puts saliva on the man’s eyes and asks, “Can you see anything?” The man affirms that his sight has improved, but he cannot see with clarity. Again Jesus lays hands on him, and now his sight is perfectly restored.
Immediately following this, Jesus has another private conversation with his disciples on the way to Caesarea Philippi. He asks them the question they have been agonizing over, “Who do you say that I am?” Peter boldly declares, “You are the Messiah.”
And yet, moments later, after attempting to reprimand Jesus for suggesting that he would suffer and be killed, Peter is rebuked by Jesus: “Get behind me, Satan! For you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things” (v. 33).
Mark wants us to associate the blind man in this story with Peter. The blind man’s sight came in two stages. After Jesus first lays hands on him, his sight improves, but he still cannot see with clarity. But after Jesus lays hands on him the second time, his sight is now flawless. What does this have to do with Peter?
Jesus’ Question
In that tense moment on the road to Caesarea Philippi, Jesus poses the very dangerous question regarding his identity. Peter boldly and correctly declares that Jesus is the Messiah. It is clear that Peter is beginning to see something about Jesus that many were unable or unwilling to see.
“Do you have eyes, and fail to see?”
However, Peter still does not clearly grasp everything that this entails. When Jesus begins to explain to his disciples his future suffering, death, and resurrection, Peter takes him aside and attempts to scold him.
While Peter identified Jesus as the Messiah, like most first-century Jews he was looking for a Messiah who would help liberate them from Roman oppression. So when Jesus was arrested, Peter took out his sword and started swinging it, convinced that Jesus would jump on board and call on legions of angels and annihilate Israel’s enemies.
In other words, though Peter was beginning to see, his perception remained blurry. And the clarity he needed would not come until the events of Jesus’ final week had unfolded.
Though Peter was beginning to see, his perception remained blurry. And the clarity he needed would not come until the events of Jesus’ final week had unfolded. Click To TweetJesus’ Point
So what do we take away from all this?
-
Jesus welcomes into discipleship even those with wrong-headed ideas about his mission.
Peter wasn’t the only disciple who held warped ideological views regarding the nature of the kingdom of God. When James and John suggested calling down fire on a Samaritan village, Jesus sternly rebuked them, saying, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of.”
Often the disciples’ concept of the kingdom of God was either misguided or completely antithetical to Jesus’ kingdom mission. However, even in their wrongness, Jesus did not ban them from following him.
We may have sharp disagreements with others in the body of Christ. We may even be able to identify certain theological and ideological agendas that we deem to be dangerous.
We must be careful not to dismiss and disqualify those whom Jesus has welcomed to the table.
-
Actual discipleship is a life-long expedition.
Discipleship is a process, not a status. Anyone who is on the journey with Jesus will encounter some unexpected twists and turns along the way. Peter is a prime example. Theology will change. Viewpoints will be tweaked. The course will be adjusted. Not every idea one picks up is worth holding onto.
Discipleship is a process, not a status. Anyone who is on the journey with Jesus will encounter some unexpected twists and turns along the way. Click To TweetBut we must not get impatient and dismissive of others who we perceive to be further behind. We can certainly extend help when appropriate. But not everyone’s journey with Jesus will look exactly the same. We must be okay with that.
-
Leaders must be willing to be misunderstood.
No matter how skilled one may be at communication, people always receive and assess through their own internal filter. This inevitably opens the door for misunderstanding and misrepresentation.
If Christ, the perfect human being, could be misunderstood and misrepresented, then we who follow him will certainly endure our fair share as well.
As with Peter, sometimes there is no way to talk someone out of a misguided viewpoint. In those cases, we can only step back and allow God the time and space necessary to chip away at those rough edges.
The same Peter who cut off a soldier’s ear would later follow his savior by taking up his own cross. It took several decades for Peter to arrive at that point, through lots of heartbreak, frustration, and disillusionment.
But he finally arrived.
God is not in a hurry. God is in it for the long haul. In the meantime, leaders must be willing to submit to God’s pace and take joy in the opportunity to imitate Christ.
Missio Alliance Comment Policy
The Missio Alliance Writing Collectives exist as a ministry of writing to resource theological practitioners for mission. From our Leading Voices to our regular Writing Team and those invited to publish with us as Community Voices, we are creating a space for thoughtful engagement of critical issues and questions facing the North American Church in God’s mission. This sort of thoughtful engagement is something that we seek to engender not only in our publishing, but in conversations that unfold as a result in the comment section of our articles.
Unfortunately, because of the relational distance introduced by online communication, “thoughtful engagement” and “comment sections” seldom go hand in hand. At the same time, censorship of comments by those who disagree with points made by authors, whose anger or limited perspective taints their words, or who simply feel the need to express their own opinion on a topic without any meaningful engagement with the article or comment in question can mask an important window into the true state of Christian discourse. As such, Missio Alliance sets forth the following suggestions for those who wish to engage in conversation around our writing:
1. Seek to understand the author’s intent.
If you disagree with something the an author said, consider framing your response as, “I hear you as saying _________. Am I understanding you correctly? If so, here’s why I disagree. _____________.
2. Seek to make your own voice heard.
We deeply desire and value the voice and perspective of our readers. However you may react to an article we publish or a fellow commenter, we encourage you to set forth that reaction is the most constructive way possible. Use your voice and perspective to move conversation forward rather than shut it down.
3. Share your story.
One of our favorite tenants is that “an enemy is someone whose story we haven’t heard.” Very often disagreements and rants are the result of people talking past rather than to one another. Everyone’s perspective is intimately bound up with their own stories – their contexts and experiences. We encourage you to couch your comments in whatever aspect of your own story might help others understand where you are coming from.
In view of those suggestions for shaping conversation on our site and in an effort to curate a hospitable space of open conversation, Missio Alliance may delete comments and/or ban users who show no regard for constructive engagement, especially those whose comments are easily construed as trolling, threatening, or abusive.