By: Obed Pineda
There she was, waiting in the security check line at the airport, feeling the levels of her patience being siphoned by the snail’s pace movement of the line. She had arrived at the airport around four-thirty in the morning and had spent approximately twenty minutes waiting in line. Hearing others around her grumble and murmur about how long it was taking security to clear the passengers and their luggage for safety began to sour her against the process as a whole. Finally, after forty-five minutes, she was next in line to go through the security checkpoint when she learned what was causing the unpopular delays; all passengers were required to remove their shoes prior to crossing the metal detector. This infuriated her because she could not understand why the TSA would impose (in her “humble” opinion) such a ludicrous demand on the passengers. Once she was at the front, she voiced her dissatisfaction with how this prerequisite of removing their shoes was inconveniencing all of them especially because it was illogical to her as the motive for having to do so. The TSA officer acknowledged her frustration and proceeded to inform her that asking passengers to remove their footwear was now required because a terrorist had made an attempt to detonate an explosive on a flight which he successfully boarded on the plane by hiding the device in his shoes. Thus, in an effort to increase their security measures to prevent any future similar attempts they were now enforcing this “shoes-off rule” that was indeed an inconvenience for all parties involved, albeit necessary to better insure a safe flight for everyone boarding the plane. Often times it is human nature to protest against those rules that we deem as inopportune because they tend to make us feel uncomfortable. Like in our story, the idea of taking off our shoes in a public setting, like an airport, is not ideal (especially if your socks have holes in them) but important for decreasing potential threats to our safety. When the ultimate goal of these bothersome rules is to protect the life of the individual, then the “inconvenience” they may cause is truthfully no inconvenience at all. It does not deny that it still feels a bit troublesome at times, but understanding the purpose for why it is vital to comply should put a person’s mind more at ease with doing so. The mindset that this rule was not created exclusively to irritate me, rather to secure my safety should calm the raging storm brewing in my impatient mind. This precious lesson was paramount for the Lord’s disciples to learn if they were to become His witnesses after His departure. It was the lesson He taught Peter when He espoused to everyone around them, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me” (Luke 9:23). It is valuable to perceive that all three synoptic Gospel accounts were inspired by God to include not only Jesus saying these words, but the sequence of events which prompted Him to do so (cf. Matthew 16:13-28, Mark 8:27-38, and Luke 9:18-26). Every account begins with the Master’s inquiry about His identity which ultimately led to Peter’s confession that He is their long awaited Messiah (cf. Matthew 16:13-20, Mark 8:27-30, and Luke 9:18-20). This is an important detail that must not be overlooked as it pertains to our lesson. The Savior’s purpose for asking His twelve disciples questions about His identity was to test the integrity and conviction of their faith in Him. Matthew and Mark both record that prior to this conversation He had cautioned them, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees” (Matthew 16:6, cf. Mark 8:15). Both inspired penmen include Peter’s confession following Jesus’ instruction of avoiding the influence of the Pharisees’ and Sadducees’ doctrines. Thus, the context of the pericope establishes that Peter’s conviction about who Jesus was came from his own deduction and understanding of the Messianic prophecies in relation to what his Master had done before them (cf. Matthew 16:17). Let us recall that at this point in history, Jewish society had been waiting for the arrival of their prophesied Messiah for several centuries. Additionally, Gamaliel revealed in his address to the Jewish council that there had already been other men before Jesus who had claimed to be the Christ, but were proven to be false in their proclamation (cf. Acts 5:35-37). Ergo, Peter’s conviction that they had assuredly found the One of whom the prophets wrote about is fundamental in what happens next according to the text. Again, all three synoptic scribes mention that after Peter’s admission that he believed Jesus to be the Christ of God, the Redeemer “began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things,and be rejectedby the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed,and after three days rise again” (Mark 8:31). Jesus’ revelation to His disciples was not received well by them, most of all by Peter himself. The reason this was the case: the Jews had long held the idea that their Warrior King would remove the yoke of Rome’s bondage and restore David’s actual, physical throne at Jerusalem. Ergo, Jesus openly telling them that the Jewish leaders would reject Him as the Messiah and that they would be the ones to kill Him was…an inconvenience. If this was so, this meant that they would continue to live under Rome’s rule, that Israel’s lost kingdom would not soon be reestablished, or worse that Jesus of Nazareth was not the Christ. These inconvenient thoughts (among others) that stemmed from His announcement about His death coaxed Peter to audaciously take “Him aside and began to rebuke Him” (Mark 8:32, cf. Matthew 16:22). Undoubtedly, Peter had not fully grasped a full understanding of all the Scriptures concerning Christ as revealed by the Lord’s rebuke of Peter (cf. Matthew 16:23, Mark 8:33). Peter’s lack of proper understanding of the importance of Jesus’ crucifixion was a product of holding very zealously to a personal belief near and dear to him. It was an inconvenience for him to let go of the traditional interpretation that he had been taught about the Messiah since his childhood. Yet, like our story, it was a necessary inconvenience that needed to happen for him to be able to use the keys of the Kingdom that had been handed to him by Jesus, correctly (cf. Matthew 16:18-19, Acts 2:14-47, 10:34-48). Peter would deny himself by putting aside his personal desire and belief about the restoration of Israel’s earthly kingdom, and by allowing God’s will to happen, accepting and trusting it in a spirit of humility. Hence, the Lord used Peter’s brazen attempt as a teachable moment for all concerning the benefit of self-denial and self-sacrifice in the life of His faithful followers (cf. Matthew 16:24-28, Mark 8:34-38, and Luke 9:23-26). It is unquestionable that it is human nature to want to resist doing those things which inconvenience our comfortable lifestyle. Yet, it is in these moments where we must have the wisdom to uncover the danger of losing our souls if we do not accept that the purpose for that necessary inconvenience is to insure the security of our spiritual flight to heaven (cf. Mark 9:43-50).