Why did peter

[WPG12]

In the book of John, peter decides to go fishing. The other disciples decide to go with him. When one disciple realizes it is Jesus on the shore, peter puts his clothes on and jumps out of the boat. He abandoned the work he started and left others to finish the work he started. Not caring that the others wanted to see him just as bad as peter did. Peter was always impetious and selfish.

When the others finally got the nets to the shore, Jesus asked them to bring their catch to him, peter ran and took of the catch he abandoned to bring to them. Always taking credit for what he didn't do.

Jesus, knowing peter would be sent to that "other flock", the gentiles he was told to go to, and knowing peter would jump out of that boat, also. Admonishes him asking peter if peter loves him and telling peter to feed the sheep. The gentiles peter would be sent to would become, the "body of Christ" that peter was sent to, to do the work in feeding the flock. Peter always cared about what men thought of him, and always being disobedient, jumped out of that boat when "those who came from james" caused him to fall away.

How can it be said that Jesus was restoring peter to a position he never really had in the first place, and not admonishing Peter's selfishness and disobedience, warning him not to do what he had just done in abandoning his brothers and the work he started? Whole theologies are built on this story, and the idea that Jesus was putting peter in a place peter should never have been put.

If Jesus was rewarding Peter's selfish, impetious, disobedience then it cannot be said that Jesus was a just man.

[WPG12]

What was morally objectionable about what he did?

I honestly find it sad and disheartening that is even a question.

Leaving your brothers to finish a work you started and they go help you with, because you want something is ok?

Especially when they would want what you was just as badly?

Do you really see that as morally acceptable?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 11 by WPG12]



GONE FISHING

The Apostle Peter is portrayed in scripture as an outspoken and dynamic man, who was often impetuous and occassionally overconfident. While waiting in Galilee, as instructed by the resurrected Jesus, for a further meeting, Peter (typical of this man of energy who was loath to inactivity) annonced his intent to go fishing. His friends join him. At the end of this fishing expedition they sight Jesus from the boat on the sea shore and Peter, spontaneously dives into the water rather than bring the boat, which by this time laidened with fish, ashore with his companions. Was Peter's swimming ashore a selfish act of "abandonment" that demanded reprimand and repentance to be "forgiven" or a spontaneous act motivated by love of the Lord?

ABANDON SHIP?

• Before judging Peter too harshly, we do well to keep things in perspective. Firstly The boat wasn't very far from the shore. John precises the boat as being abut 300 feet (90 meters) from the shore. A 40 foot sailboat can cover this distance in less than 4 or 5 mins. If they were (as is likely) rowing the final distance, possibly a few minutes longer so we are talking about a few minutes further effort. Since it was the sheer number of fish they were hauling into the nets that alerted the fishermen that it was in fact Jesus, we can conclude that the fish had already been netted by the time Peter left the boat. Thus Peter would have participated in most of "the work" having worked all night and for the early part of the morning and probably participated in the haul as well as bringing the boat within minutes of the shore.
  
  Further, it is unlikely that their boat had three sets of oars demanding a six man team to row it. Indeed since Peter initially expressed his desire to go fishing without making any request he be accompanied, it seems the boat was likely on the smaller side. Depending on the size of the boat we can probably figure on just one or two sets requiring no more than two or four oarsmen. It is more than unlikely in period of the last 5 or 10 minutes they would have taken turns so that everyone had a 2 or 3 minute tour of duty. The point is, even if Peter had stayed it is conceivable that not have participated in the final minutes of rowing and that any turn he was to take may well have already been completed.
  
  Nevertheless there was indeed some further work to be done. How should we view this? Did Peter "abandon" his fellow fishermen? It should be noted that it was probably Peter's boat (since it is unlikely he made the independent decision to go fishing with somebody else's property), so the other men were there at upon his invitation. Peter was perfectly within his right to leave his own boat and committed no sin, after all its not a crime to leave your car unlocked even if you risk losing it. In any case, there was nothing to stop the others abandoning the boat (which was not theirs anyway) and and swimming to shore with him if they wanted to; and if there was a loss of catch and income, that would show where their priorities lay. Peter had clearly shown where his affections lay... and it wasn't with the fish.

SELFISH OR SELFLESS

• While some may classify Peter's actions as "selfish" (implying Peter was motivated chiefly by a concern for personal profit or pleasure) this does not accurately reflect the bible narrative. John rather presents Peter's actions as a spontaneous expression of his love of Jesus. Peter's swim was not for "profit" if anything, he risked losing 153 fish (and their monetary value) and it certainly couldn't have been for pleasure (it wasn't a long swim but after an entire night of fishing, it could only have added to his general sense of fatique). Indeed arguably it took more effort to swim the 90 meters than to sail it, but who of us on catching sight of a long lost loved one, would not instantly drop what we were doing, and get to that one as fast as possible? It seems reasonable, and not overly charitable then, to classify his action as selfless rather than selfish, rightly putting actions towards Jesus above his personal comfort and financial gain. If Peter's companions, kindly ensured that no finacial loss was finally incurred, Peter could not have obliged them to do so nor could he have reprimanded them for abandoning the boat and the catch as he (Peter) had chosen to do.
  
  While one can indeed speculate that the other five men might have appreciated an extra hand with bringing the boat to land (and indeed Peter could have gone over and helped them haul the boat up onto the beach) they may also have more appreciated one of their number welcoming Jesus with the enthusiasm that he (Jesus) merited. Indeed Peter is often depicted as the one that said what they were all probably thinking, and did what they lacked the courage or spontaneity to do. Regardless of how we interpret the scene, there is one fact that is indisputable, the account contains absolutely no record of any of the other men expressing their dissaproval or displeasure at Peter's action. Since they were not loath to argue amongst themselves and didn't hesitate to express their displeasure at one of their number, this in itself remains a strong indicative they were either unconcerned or approving of what Peter had done.

Did Peter try to "take credit for what he didn't do"?

• There is nothing in the account that indicates this. Jesus instructed them to go and get some of the fish from the catch and Peter did as told. (Notable in its absence is Jesus adding "Not you Peter, you didn't sail it the last 90 meters so you stay put") There is absolutely no comment that indicates Peter claimed to have been responsible for more than was due. Indeed the narrative implies they were all present aware that they had taken part in a miracle and that Jesus himself was responsible for the large catch. Peter had his faults and was prone to overconfidence, but he is not presented in scripture as a proud or manipulative man, on the contrary he was extraordinarily frank and forthcoming without guise or hypocrisy.

CONCLUSION Although it is of course possible to read the account of Peter swimming to shore to meet the Lord as the immorally neglectful act of a lazy man again shirking his responsibilities to enjoy privileges at the cost of others, this seems at the least unreasonably bias and at the most a gross misreading of the text. A much more balanced conclusion is rather that it was a spontaneous if somewhat impulsive act of a man deeply in love with his master that not only did not represent any misconduct but could be seen as evidence of a sincere and guileless devotion.

JEHOVAHS WITNESS

[WPG12]

Like I said, I find it sad and disheartening that anyone could see it as morally acceptable, no matter how you could try to explain it away with a lot of assumptions.

Nothing Jesus taught is found in what peter did, sacrificing your own will to do what is right is not found in that act at all.

What has Christianity become.

[JehovahsWitness]

Which specific passages do you see as evidence of Jesus forgiving a repentant man?

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 shortcomings 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, 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 strong 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.

CONCLUSION Although there is no explicit statement in scripture that Peter repented of his denial of Jesus, this is implicit in both his attitude and Jesus' post resurrection treatment of him (Peter). Indeed by asking him three times (the same number of times he had previously denied knowing Jesus) to affirm his love for him, Jesus was giving Peter the opportunity to go on record as renouncing his previous denial and affirming his "matanoeo" ie his complete rejection of that past wrong, ie his repentance

[JehovahsWitness]

Peter was never concerned with anyone other than himself. This again is shown in acts, when he was lead out of prison with his non-concern for the guards. When you contrast his escape from Paul's staying in the prison when the doors were opened. Paul stayed knowing if he left the guard would be killed, Paul was more concerned with that one guards life than his own. Peter was more concerned with his own escape than multiple guards he could have converted.

I don't mean to be insulting but have you actually read the full account? Are you aware that Peter was instructed to leave the prison by an angel? If we take it that angels are God's messengers, would that not mean that Peter left the Prison upon God's instruction?

[WPG12]

You actually see more repentance out of Judas, who betrayed the person of Christ, not the spirit. When he saw what he had done and tried to make it right, he couldn't, and could not bare to live with the shame of what he had done, would have rather give up his own life than live with the guilt. Yes, he was a their and betrayed the man, not realizing the consequences of what he had done in giving Jesus to them, when he realized it, and couldn't make it right, he killed himself.

Just because peter reassociated himself, does not mean he repented of anything. People do that all of the time.

[WPG12]

[Replying to post 15 by JehovahsWitness]


I don't get insulted, I don't mind being questioned at all.

Yes of course I have read it,

And, behold, the angel of the Lord came upon him, and a light shined in the prison: and he smote Peter on the side, and raised him up, saying, Arise up quickly. And his chains fell off from his hands. And the angel said unto him,

Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals. And so he did. And he saith unto him, Cast thy garment about thee, and follow me.

And he went out, and followed him; and wist not that it was true which was done by the angel; but thought he saw a vision. When they were past the first and the second ward, they came unto the iron gate that leadeth unto the city; which opened to them of his own accord: and they went out, and passed on through one street; and forthwith the angel departed from him. And when Peter was come to himself, he said, Now I know of a surety, that the Lord hath sent his angel, and hath delivered me out of the hand of Herod, and from all the expectation of the people of the Jews.
Acts 12:7‭-‬11 KJV

Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.
John 21:18 KJV


Death is not always a physical thing, peter not thinking before he jumped and followed that angel of the Lord sealed his own fate. Once again through disobedience. He did what Paul didn't, when God himself opened the prison doors for him, because peter had no concern for others.

[polonius]

Acts of the Apostles tells us that when he left the Jerusalem, Peter "went to another place." Any idea where?

[WPG12]

[Replying to post 18 by polonius.advice]

I can only assume, but I do have an idea of where he went. I think he says at the end of the first letter where he went.

[showme]

Acts of the Apostles tells us that when he left the Jerusalem, Peter "went to another place." Any idea where?

As the stand in for Shebna, the steward in charge of the royal household, with the keys of the house of David, he was "cast into a vast country"/Roman Empire, "there you shall die" (Isaiah 22:15-22). All for the simple reason that he had shamed your master's house (Isaiah 22:18).