When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body... But ... they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee...’” Mark 16:1-7
It’s embarrassing, isn’t it, when you’re caught out as ignorant of something you should have known upside down, inside out and off by heart for years. (Perhaps it happens to keep us humble.)
It happened to me recently as I listened to a sermon. The preacher was speaking from Mark 16 about Jesus’ resurrection. He had got to the point where the women reach the tomb and find it open. We are told they are “alarmed” when they discover an angel inside. But he tells them the good news that Jesus is risen from the dead.
And then he gives them a job to do: “Go, tell his disciples and Peter...”
And (here comes my confession) in all my lifetime of reading the Bible - not to mention preaching from it! - I had never really noticed those two words “and Peter”. (Actually, my wife tells me she has heard me preach on it, but I don’t remember it; I just hope she’s right.)
So... “and Peter”? Why do those two words matter?
Well, if nothing else they prompt a question: why would Mark include this mention of Peter - a mention which Luke, in his parallel account, doesn’t have? It’s true that in the early church there was a belief that Peter and Mark were very close - that Mark in fact shaped his Gospel around Peter’s memories. But why should he see fit to add these two words? Did he feel he wanted to put a special spotlight on Peter?
If so, there is a very simple reason for doing so. Peter had, just hours earlier, denied Jesus.
If you go back to chapter 14 you find this sad and shameful event described - in verses 29-31 Jesus predicts Peter’s betrayal, and Peter indignantly refuses to accept that he will ever do such a thing; and then in verses 66-72 the whole thing is spelt out in painful detail. It ends with a graphic, heart-breaking picture: Peter “broke down and wept”. (Can you see him?)
So could it be that the reason for that “and Peter” was in order to close the chapter on those sad events? Or, at least, to pave the way for it to be closed?
Look at it this way... The disciples were told to head north to Galilee, their old stamping-ground, to meet the risen Jesus there. But we can well imagine Peter being so shattered by what had happened that he just wouldn’t want to go - “I’m not worthy! I let him down! You go without me. I’ll stay here..”.
But when he heard those special words of the angel, “and Peter”, wouldn’t that have set his mind at rest? Those words say, in effect, “And don’t be in any doubt, Jesus wants to see Peter with you. Yes, he got it badly wrong, but Jesus still loves him and wants him there with you all.”
(Some people have suggested that the special mention of Peter was simply because he was, of course, the leader of the original twelve. And that is possible. But if so you would expect the wording to be “Peter and the disciples” rather than “the disciples and Peter”.)
We can’t prove anything. But it’s hard to disagree with the conclusion of one commentator: “Poor fallen Peter was specially included in the word of hope”. Such is the tenderness and compassion of Jesus.
And a word thus directed at Peter can, of course, speak powerfully also to other Christians burning under a sense of failure. One of the problems the early church had to grapple with was what to do about believers who had denied Christ - given that others had heroically stood up to torture. And so the same commentator goes on: “Did Mark perhaps see this as a special word of comfort for Christians who had broken under persecution, at Rome or elsewhere?”
If we turn to John’s Gospel, we find that his account of the resurrection is very different from those of the other three. Among other things, it gives us a story the others don’t include - a long conversation between the risen Jesus and Peter in which Peter is restored fully (John 21:15-24). So it seems that that long story in John, and the angel’s two words “and Peter” in Mark, point in the same direction - there is hope for those who have failed!
A friend once said to me that he had “messed up big time” in his walk with God, and felt unworthy to hold his head up and call himself a Christian. I imagine we have all been in that place. It’s at times like that that we need to notice “and Peter”.
Jesus doesn’t cast us off; he continues to love us and to have a purpose for our lives.
Is this a message you need today?
Loving Father, as I look at my life I seem to see so much failure - I am often ashamed of the ways I have let you down. Thank you for the tenderness of Jesus towards Peter. Insofar as I am truly sorry, please may I also know that tenderness. Amen.
It’s embarrassing, isn’t it, when you’re caught out as ignorant of something you should have known upside down, inside out and off by heart for years. (Perhaps it happens to keep us humble.)
It happened to me recently as I listened to a sermon. The preacher was speaking from Mark 16 about Jesus’ resurrection. He had got to the point where the women reach the tomb and find it open. We are told they are “alarmed” when they discover an angel inside. But he tells them the good news that Jesus is risen from the dead.
And then he gives them a job to do: “Go, tell his disciples and Peter...”
And (here comes my confession) in all my lifetime of reading the Bible - not to mention preaching from it! - I had never really noticed those two words “and Peter”. (Actually, my wife tells me she has heard me preach on it, but I don’t remember it; I just hope she’s right.)
So... “and Peter”? Why do those two words matter?
Well, if nothing else they prompt a question: why would Mark include this mention of Peter - a mention which Luke, in his parallel account, doesn’t have? It’s true that in the early church there was a belief that Peter and Mark were very close - that Mark in fact shaped his Gospel around Peter’s memories. But why should he see fit to add these two words? Did he feel he wanted to put a special spotlight on Peter?
If so, there is a very simple reason for doing so. Peter had, just hours earlier, denied Jesus.
If you go back to chapter 14 you find this sad and shameful event described - in verses 29-31 Jesus predicts Peter’s betrayal, and Peter indignantly refuses to accept that he will ever do such a thing; and then in verses 66-72 the whole thing is spelt out in painful detail. It ends with a graphic, heart-breaking picture: Peter “broke down and wept”. (Can you see him?)
So could it be that the reason for that “and Peter” was in order to close the chapter on those sad events? Or, at least, to pave the way for it to be closed?
Look at it this way... The disciples were told to head north to Galilee, their old stamping-ground, to meet the risen Jesus there. But we can well imagine Peter being so shattered by what had happened that he just wouldn’t want to go - “I’m not worthy! I let him down! You go without me. I’ll stay here..”.
But when he heard those special words of the angel, “and Peter”, wouldn’t that have set his mind at rest? Those words say, in effect, “And don’t be in any doubt, Jesus wants to see Peter with you. Yes, he got it badly wrong, but Jesus still loves him and wants him there with you all.”
(Some people have suggested that the special mention of Peter was simply because he was, of course, the leader of the original twelve. And that is possible. But if so you would expect the wording to be “Peter and the disciples” rather than “the disciples and Peter”.)
We can’t prove anything. But it’s hard to disagree with the conclusion of one commentator: “Poor fallen Peter was specially included in the word of hope”. Such is the tenderness and compassion of Jesus.
And a word thus directed at Peter can, of course, speak powerfully also to other Christians burning under a sense of failure. One of the problems the early church had to grapple with was what to do about believers who had denied Christ - given that others had heroically stood up to torture. And so the same commentator goes on: “Did Mark perhaps see this as a special word of comfort for Christians who had broken under persecution, at Rome or elsewhere?”
If we turn to John’s Gospel, we find that his account of the resurrection is very different from those of the other three. Among other things, it gives us a story the others don’t include - a long conversation between the risen Jesus and Peter in which Peter is restored fully (John 21:15-24). So it seems that that long story in John, and the angel’s two words “and Peter” in Mark, point in the same direction - there is hope for those who have failed!
A friend once said to me that he had “messed up big time” in his walk with God, and felt unworthy to hold his head up and call himself a Christian. I imagine we have all been in that place. It’s at times like that that we need to notice “and Peter”.
Jesus doesn’t cast us off; he continues to love us and to have a purpose for our lives.
Is this a message you need today?
Loving Father, as I look at my life I seem to see so much failure - I am often ashamed of the ways I have let you down. Thank you for the tenderness of Jesus towards Peter. Insofar as I am truly sorry, please may I also know that tenderness. Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment