In Acts we have the story of Peter praying on the roof (Acts 10:9-16). God shows him some food he was not supposed to eat and told him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat." (Acts 10:13). In Peter-fashion we hear Peter saying, "By no means, Lord." (Acts 10:14). "No, Lord"? Really, Peter? But it's what we do. We see a command with which we do not concur and we say, with great love for God, "No, Lord."
There is simple stuff like, "Love your enemies." "No, Lord." There is the obvious "erroneous" stuff like, "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord." "No, Lord." Or, to be equitable, "Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church." "No, Lord." There is obvious stuff like "Flee sexual immorality." "No, Lord."
Sometimes they are "current event" kinds of things. The one I'm seeing a lot these days is, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." (Rom 13:1) "Oh, Lord, no," we say. "Have you seen who the authority is?" God answers back, "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by Him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good." (1 Peter 2:13-14). "Seriously, Lord, take a look. We should not be subject to this government." How about "Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed." (Rom 13:7)? "We owe them no respect, no honor. No, Lord." And we hear again from on high, "I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way." (1 Tim 2:1-2). "Me? Pray for them? They don't even know how to come in out of the rain!!" Our own ongoing versions of "No, Lord." A genuine oxymoron.
7 comments:
I don't disagree with your point, but I sometimes think Peter gets a bum rap for that episode. We are told to test the spirits because they can lead us away from God. In Peter's mind, God had commanded one thing, and he's now hearing someone command the opposite. I think saying no would be the appropriate response to a countermand, initially. And like Peter, the confirmation of that new command allows us to obey the new opposing command.
Granted, Peter does have a history of denying what God says.
Well, if it was a testing of the spirits, then "Lord" would not have been appropriate, would it? He seemed to think it was God. But he also said the same thing to Jesus in Matt 16:22 when Jesus told him He was going to be killed.
I agree with David that it seems more like Peter was asking than refusing. Although the fact that he seems to be using this episode as an proof that God did repeal the dietary laws.
I also agree with your larger point. I do think that (as per my recent post) too many of us today assume that our first response to a government action we don't like is to protest, or to disobey. It does seem clear to me that submission to secular governments is something taught in scripture that we tend to ignore.
While (as David noted) the main point was not Peter, I have to say that if Peter was asking, "Really, Lord?" rather than "No, Lord," I would have thought the first time would have been sufficient. He did it three times. That and the fact that Jesus repealed the dietary laws in Mark 7:19. I don't know. I don't think these excuses for Peter hold up. However, I also was making the point that we all do that at some point, so I'm not trying to point at Peter as a bad guy.
Of course, there's a difference between "protest" and "disobedience". To disobey a law is one thing, to protest in order to draw attention to some perceived problem is another. The manner of protest, of course, can't be disobedience to laws (rioting, for example, as opposed to truly peaceful marches and rallies).
I think Peter may have been more protesting than disobeying in his rebuke.
Since we already know that Peter wasn't particularly quick on the uptake, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he was really asking why, instead of saying no. But even if he wasn't he'd been the beneficiary of patience from the Lord enough times before that I'm pretty sure it was expected.
Post a Comment