Feb 21 Part 1

I just finished reading the book of Mark and just like Matthew it ends with the telling of Jesus being crucified. But a thought came to me while I was rereading about Peter's denial (Mark 14:66-72 & Matthew 26:69-75). That the reason Peter denied Jesus was obviously part of God's great plan for Christianity after Jesus returned to Heaven.

(Maybe we have heard this before or not, I am not sure, but hear me out now as I try to explain it in my terms.)

Back in Mark 8:27 Jesus asks his disciples "Who do people say I am?" Some of the men replied, "John the Baptist, Elijah or other prophets." Then Jesus asked the men directly, "Who do you say I am?" (emphasis mine) and Peter replied "You are the Messiah." Well if you back up to Matthew 16:13 the same conversation is being spoken but from Matthew's perspective who I believe was there (remember Mark was not) after Peter's explamation Jesus proclaimed Peter to be blessed and at that point changed his name from Simon the doubter to Peter which means Rock and that he was going to use him to build his church. And that hell would not be able to conquer him or anything he did on earth. That he was granted the Keys to Heaven.

Well if we flashed forward to the point of Peter's denial if he had said "Yes, I know Jesus," like I am sure he would have if God had not blocked his mouth and tongue (no that is not in the Bible but we know God can do it) and speak the denial for Peter than Peter would have more than likely been right there with Jesus on the cross and who knows what might have happened to the Church that Peter built. Oh I am sure God would have found someone else but he didn't and for that I am very thankful that Peter denied knowing Jesus because to me that made his passion for spreading the Gospel of Jesus that much stronger. The fire that Peter had I think mostly came out of guilt for denying him but like Paul that guilt just fanned the flames.

On a side note upon further examination between the two books Matthew and Mark, I believe I did like Matthew better because it does go into more detail but if you are just looking for the facts then Mark is the way to go. And I am one of the believers that Mark used his conversations with Peter to write the book of Mark as they traveled. I think Peter was a very humble man and didn't want to have a lot of attention drawn to him. If you go back and compare passages especially like the one I just discussed Matthew will point out and name Peter as saying certain things or even doing certain action like trying to walk on water (Matt. 14:28-32), but Mark does not mention Peter at all when he writes about Jesus walking on water, it just says that Jesus walked out to the boat and calmed the storm. (Mark 6:50-51) So either Peter left that part out of his retelling to Mark or Mark had such a respect for Peter that he thought it might embarrass him and just decided to leave it out. I don't think the four men who wrote the gospels knew that others were writting the same thing, so Mark thought no one would be the wiser if he left it out. But the other men thought it was important.

Today's reading:
Mark 15-16
Leviticus 11-14