John 17:21

Once a love relationship gets established, it is natural to expect the experience of intimacy to continue. But that growth is not guaranteed; and when growth stops, we often try to do something to "feel" better. For example, romantic and married couples have a tendency to idealize each other after awhile in order to make the relationship last or seem better than it really is. This can be helpful to get couples through hard times or dry periods in their relationship but it also becomes a substitute for deeper relational work. Of course, since relationships involve mutual cooperation to grow, a person may have to idealize an uncooperative partner and put a good spin on them to make the relationship work.

Christians are not immune from this, idealizing their relationship with God. Certainly, this is motivated by pressure felt among themselves to describe their relationship as better than it really is. Idealization is another kind of bias that limits our connection to God, for example, to only a working relationship. When the relationship is not going as well as we'd like, it's always "more positive" to think of "my God" as answering our prayers more than he really is. When we're not experiencing much closeness in the relationship, it's always "better" to consider God as sharing himself with us instead of us not making connection. We then end up living more with the idea of relationship with God than its true substance. In other words, while putting God in a box constrains him from being his true self with us, idealizing the relationship makes God into much more than he actually is to us.

This does not mean God idealizes us and doesn't hold us accountable. Grace is not a license to sin but only a relational means to come together, and to grow while together. So, grace is just as necessary to develop our intimacy with God as it was to establish it to begin with. By it we know God doesn't idealize us but allows us to be our true self with him. At the same time grace doesn't allow us to idealize God but frees us to allow God to be his true self in the relationship.

God doesn't idealize us because that would render all of Jesus' relational work as unnecessary. Likewise, whenever we idealize our relationship with God, we substitute this for further relational work and "make every effort" unnecessary. But developing our intimacy with God continues to be only a function of the relationship and, therefore, requires deeper relational work on our part.

The importance of understanding this stepwise process of relational work and embracing its ongoing need cannot be overemphasized. Yet, there are two cautions in its practice which we specifically need to be aware of.

 Cultivating intimacy is much more than working on problems or needs.

This "medical model" mentality also affects our involvement with others. As Christians we try to help others, some go as far to think we have the answers to any given problem. So when someone shares a difficulty, need or problem, the immediate tendency is to offer advice and solve their problem. This conditioned response becomes a substitute for involvement with that person who may only want understanding and someone to be with them. Is this what we usually see in church?

The second caution involves those who are conditioned by overstimulation in their environment and predisposed by high energy experiences. Perhaps this includes to some degree all of us who live in Western cultures. This influence on our perceptions might have a tendency to look at relational work somewhat like a shot of adrenaline. Though the focus is not on problems in the relationship there is a desire for stimulating experiences together. Obviously, sex has become that primary stimulating experience for "intimacy" in many relationships. Yet, whatever provides that high, gives that quick-fix (almost like a drug) in the relationship is the main pursuit of this relational work, even though the high wears off.

Intimacy is a relational experience which certainly includes our senses, but more importantly must involve our total person.

We know that Jesus made a specific effort to involve himself with tax collectors, the sexually promiscuous, other sinners, those deficient and undesirable to the majority. He received them exactly where they were. However you have processed this information about Jesus' life and ways, the relational implication here needs to find direct, personal meaning in our life. That is, we must (dei, unavoidable, not out of obligation) start seeing ourselves in the similar position as those above and embrace in our heart (like they experienced) the relational truth: Jesus receives me, God receives me where I am. God wants me for intimate relationship despite my dirt, crap, imperfections, inadequacies. All we have to do for him to have me is receive his grace.

(2) Matthew 15:10-20 (Mk.7:14-23) -- In his discussion about what's really important, Jesus showed us how to go about redefining ourselves: look at the total person, from the inside first then outward, not from the outside. The inner person (heart) is the most important part of us; and we cannot evaluate what a person is based on the outer person. Note that this builds on what Jesus just said prior to these passages (Mt.15:1-9; Mk.7:1-13) which addressed how we do relationships. Because of defining self in secondary ways, relationships done with the heart are not the primary priority. When this happens we don't understand what's important to God and his purpose in his commandments and the Law -- that is, to love. A self defined from "the outside in" relates to others in a comparative process. The self defined from "the inside out" relates to others in the relational process of agape, as Jesus does relationships.

(3) Matthew 5:3-5 -- When we work on redefining our self from the inside out, we encounter a major difficulty. What is it that I really see of my self when I look inside? This can become an issue we may rather dance around. I consider the beatitudes as interrelated characteristics of the Christian person. In these first three beatitudes Jesus provides us with the critical steps in the process of transformation. When we honestly look inside at our self, Jesus said we should be "poor in spirit" (Mt.5:3). "Poor" (Gk. ptochos) means abject poverty and utter helplessness, therefore, this person's only recourse is to beg. Just to be poor (Gk. penes) is different from ptochos because this person can still, for example, go out and work for bread. Penes may have little, but ptochos has nothing at all. This, Jesus said, is our true condition, our humanity. We are not only imperfect and sinful but inadequate and weak. This is how God sees us; this is what we need to accept about our self. We may be able to accept this spiritually but from a practical, everyday standpoint how can we live with this self-definition? There's a great deal at stake here and this definition wouldn't seem to work in the real world. But the alternative is to go back to the old definition based on lies and make more substitutes. For many that would be an easier alternative because it would not leave us so vulnerable. Yet, we will never be able to dance completely around the truth of our condition.

Jesus goes on that if we are ptochos, then our response will be to "mourn" (v.4, Gk. pentheo, lament, grieve, deep sadness). If our condition truly is ptochos, not penes, then mourning would be the natural response of our heart. Too often, however, we insulate ourselves from such feelings. In terms of how we see and feel about ourselves, it is around ptochos that issues of self-worth revolve. We don't usually recognize this because our heart is not aware of feeling pentheo (grief, deep sadness), only feeling insecure. Jesus said essentially that we need to open our heart and expose the pentheo by fully acknowledging, admitting, confessing our ptochos. (This may include seeing the condition of humanity in general.) More specifically, this is not a person, for example, who tries to be strong. They come to God for comfort, healing, cleansing, forgiveness, whatever, so they can be together. God leaves himself vulnerable to our humanity and we must (dei) likewise. Intimacy with God requires that our heart live in its true humanity. These are the moments we let him truly see us the most and give him the best opportunity to be with us.

These two characteristics (beatitudes) are critical to redefining ourselves. Thankfully, God didn't let us remain in this state and fall into despair. Jesus didn't come in order for us to merely feel bad about our self. As with the tax collectors, prostitutes and other sinners, he extended his favor to us in our helplessness, pursued us in our poverty, took us (the common) back to his special family, then cleaned us up from all our dirt, restored our hearts to intimate connection with the Father and legally granted us the relational position as his own child. This total process can best be defined as family love -- a process based on God's mercy and grace that continues for us to experience more.

Since God proved that we can trust him intimately, the initial experiences of his family love rightfully conclude with only one perception of our self. This perception forms the foundational characteristic of the redefined self, the new person in Christ. As Jesus revealed this is "the meek" (Gk. praus), which means gentle -- that is, not hard or resistant to live as one really is. The word involves the inner attitude and outer behavior of one who demonstrates what he/she truly is. Contrary to most images of "meek," this is not timid weakness but humble power, truth of character based on one's real condition. How exactly this may be expressed or displayed can be described best by the variety of Jesus' behaviors. Whatever the form, the important matter is that there is no lie or illusion in being meek. We experience difficulty when lies or illusions keep us from facing our ptochos or feeling our pentheo. This may involve a major area in our life or other problems and needs along the way which we deal with by ourselves instead of trusting intimately in God. Therefore, we make substitutes and act out some lie; we settle for less and live some illusion. In strong contrast, the meek is "blessed" (Gk. makarioi), which means to be fully satisfied because God is present and intimately involved in their life. This blessed experience is not about happiness with one's situation or circumstances; life is not reduced to our situations and circumstances. In this redefinition of self, the importance of our total person (from the inside out) and the primacy of intimate relationship become the focus. So, the full satisfaction of being blessed has purely a relational meaning which our heart experiences about the joy of intimate relationship with God. This is the ongoing relational outcome of these beatitudes and redefining our self in this process.

Haven't we all felt at times that we deserve more from God. . . ?

Let's go back to the parable of the vineyard workers. Haven't we all felt at times that we deserve more from God, that he's not being fair or doesn't really care? Or at least had the hope or expectation that God would honor us for our service? Such perceptions (e.g., of entitlement) are not based on the truth of our condition but on the lies or illusions of defining ourselves by what we do. The good intentions of trying to measure up to God, striving to be a better Christian or making sacrifices as a means to serve him (cf. Mt.9:13), all fall into this category of lies and illusions.

Most Christians wouldn't dispute Paul in Ephesians 2:8,9, that we have no basis to give credit to ourselves, that we are saved only because of God's grace. Yet, most Christians have a tendency to apply this only to salvation in the future while engaging in a different practice for daily life in the present based on what we do or have. We need to understand that this disrupts trusting God from our heart and interferes with our intimacy together. If we don't dance around our ptochos and pentheo, our heart responds with greater trust and intimacy. It is only when we deny or bury this part of our self that we effectively keep relational distance from God. No matter what Christian activity we participate in during those times, there is no functioning relational trust and intimacy experienced in our heart.

Lies and illusions keep us from the truth about our self, with the relational consequence of not living intimately connected to God in relationship. Remember Satan's counter-relational work and his goal for Christians: to distance us from our heart and to interfere in our relationship with God. These are the lies and illusions in which Satan would want us involved. These are what we need to expose, reject and turn from (repent) in ourselves, in our relationships and in our churches.

This process opens our heart to the redefinition of self which Jesus brought, freed us to live, and established us in by his earthly life (person and words), death and resurrection. In this process, he is the one who redeems us from the old and transforms us to the new. This redefinition provides us not only with authentic humility, from which to exercise more trust and intimacy, but also the relational basis for heart level thanksgiving and love. No wonder this person is blessed, fully satisfied.

Take some time to look inside your self. Be vulnerable to him who makes himself vulnerable to you and whatever is inside.

Thinking relationally and increasingly acting relationally are critical for our spiritual growth and development, authentic spirituality and spiritual formation. Since none of these practices or disciplines are ends in themselves, this relational perspective maintains our focus that they only serve as a means to make intimate connection with God and build this relationship with him. Furthermore, this relational perspective helps us understand the relational purpose and outcome of the process of sanctification.

Whenever we are redeemed, freed and transformed during the course of our Christian life, we are not just saved from, freed from, changed from something to nothing in particular. We always go from the old in us to the new. This is fundamental. Too often Christians think, for example, about dying to something old in them without also embracing the new to be raised up in its place. This is understandable if the new is abstract or only seen as spiritual. But what the new involves specifically is totally relational. What we are saved to, freed to, transformed to is intimate connection with God and growing in relationship with him -- plus his design and purpose for all relationships.

This relational purpose and outcome are obscured, or even lost, in many of our attempts to become more like Jesus. Part of any confusion about this comes from a limited view of two of Paul's statements. The first is "being transformed into his [Christ's] likeness" (2 Cor.3:18). In this context Paul is describing the change necessary for authentic faith; all other expressions have a veil hanging over their heart (3:14,15). His second statement is similar: "to be conformed to the likeness of his Son" (Rom.8:29). So, with this goal in mind we start emulating Christ's life but without always understanding Jesus' person and words.

"Transformed" (Gk. metamorphoo) means to undergo fundamental change of one's total form -- that is, in substance also, in contrast to changing only one's outward form as in masquerade (Gk. metaschematizo, cf. 2 Cor.11:13-15). This distinction is crucial in our time and culture where emphases are given more to form than substance. If we are indeed freed from a veil influencing, distorting or controlling our perceptions, like a screen and filter, then that freedom is directly a result of intimate relationship with God, as Jesus described in John 8:31,32. To understand Jesus' person and words is to look at this relationship. To emulate his substance, not merely his outward form, is to involve ourselves in this same relationship.

When you make the relational connections here and draw the relational picture, what emerges is family. . .

If we focus only on doing what Jesus did in order to become more like him, we miss his being, which is what the Father really wants us to be conformed to. How do we know what the Son is like in order to be conformed to him? Mainly from Jesus' earthly life in the flesh, which objectified it for us in his person and words. That's why it's so critical for us to fully understand him between the manger and the cross.

When we ask "who is Jesus, who was this Word who became flesh?," the two most defining aspects of Jesus are: (1) he is God, (2) he is the Son. The former is ontological and the latter is relational. We need to keep these two distinctly separate in the process of conforming to Jesus and becoming more like him. If we don't, we are setting ourselves up for failure.

From the description of the Word in John 1:14,18, "one and only" (Gk. monogenes) shows the very unique relationship of God the Son to God the Father. Ontologically Jesus is "one of a kind" and no one else can ever achieve or assume his position. This is how we often try to be more like Jesus. His ontological position, however, needs to be distinguished from his relational position as Son. Though we can never achieve his ontological position as God, the Father wants all of us to be relationally like Jesus, to be conformed to the same relational position as son or daughter and as siblings in God's family. Conforming to his likeness is about relational work.

Other than being unique and special, how is the relationship between the Son and the Father? An overview of how this relationship was as Jesus openly functioned in it on earth gives us a concrete picture. Because of what he practiced in the flesh, we can understand his likeness that the Father wants us to conform to.

Looking at how Jesus lived and functioned on earth, we can clearly observe how involved he was with his Father, how intimate they were with each other. To be like Jesus is first and foremost to be involved with the Father as he was; that was his order of priority. Nothing was more important to him. This intimacy with his Father has dimensions both of quantity and quality which interrelate but are helpful to distinguish.

I think they had fun together, enjoying a range of interaction.

In those times Jesus both shared his self with his Father as well as received from his Father. The fact that Jesus received from his Father is no surprise; but what he received may be a source of tension for those wanting to do relationship their way, or it could be an issue for anyone with a bias, for example, from their past experience with parental dominance or a child's overdependence. Jesus said: "the Father loves [Gk. phileo, affectionate love] the Son and shows him all he does" (Jn.5:20); that his Father is his model and he follows his Father's lead (Jn.5:19); that the Father taught him everything (Jn.8:28); that the Father validates the Son and corroborates his work (Jn.5:31,36-37; 8:17-18); that the Father is always with him (Jn.8:16,29; 16:32); that "all that belongs to the Father is mine" (Jn.16:15). The Father is not detached, passive or unresponsive; the transcendent God is a directly hands-on God. Because the Father loves (agape, sacrificial love and phileo, affectionate love) his children, this is the relational outcome of intimate involvement with him. Of course, for those mentioned above, this may be more intimacy than they want or too much to trust him in.

By the way, did you know that the Father loves the Son with affectionate love  (phileo)? This is important to grasp about God because our perceptions of him don't always include his warmth. Yet, a vital relationship with our Father requires the intimate experience of his tender affection. That's part of the relational work we're seeing between the Father and Jesus. To receive from the Father also involves the willingness to learn (Gk. didasko) from him, which inherently includes increasing our understanding of the Father by learning and assimilating, not merely for information but for shaping the will of his child. This is not mind control to constrain the person but heart merger of the common taken to the higher level of the Uncommon (holy). The relational outcome is that he keeps drawing us closer to himself. We cannot be intimate with God without being involved with the Holy and the Eternal. Relationship with God without this involvement is more illusion than reality. God doesn't do relationships by the common and temporal.

The above quantity is always guided and controlled by specific qualitative aspects which determine the extent of relational interaction possible with God. This quality is necessary to experience ongoing relational outcomes of intimacy and growth in the relationship.

The first qualitative aspect involves what Jesus said the Father seeks from those deeply involved with him: "spirit and truth" (Jn.4:23,24). From our previous discussion this is interpreted as "heart and honesty." God's glory as the God of heart can only properly be expressed and revealed in the relational context of intimate relationship. That's what Jesus did in the incarnation. What he revealed to us was the Father (Jn.17:6,26). Yet, he revealed more than information about the Father but also his experiential presence because they were united as one (Jn.10:38; 14:20; 17:21-22). Bonded together such that: if we see Jesus, we see the Father (Jn.14:9), if you know one you know the other (Lk.10:22); Jesus describes their intimate bond as "the Father living in me" (Jn.14:10), "living" (Gk. meno) is the same word we discussed in John 8:31-36 and its relational meaning.

Their intimate bond is both ontological and relational. We can only understand the relational bond of their hearts intimately connected. Because Jesus openly revealed to us his relational bond with his Father, we know what it is and how it functions. Furthermore, that same relational bond on the heart level is also ours to have and experience: relationally bonded to each other (Jn.14:20; 17:21); their intimate love relationship extended to those who conform to his likeness (Jn.14:21); loved by the Father just as he loves (agape) Jesus (Jn.17:23,26), which also includes being loved affectionately (phileo, Jn.16:27), the same as the Son (Jn.5:20).

The qualitative presence of our heart vulnerably extended to the Father opens the way to . . . experience him as Jesus does.

Honesty of the heart is not a matter we normally think about for Jesus. Yet, it's a quality present in his intimacy with his Father. Honesty is an interesting quality. On the one hand, we are either honest or dishonest; there is no in-between where we can be partially dishonest and still be honest. Honesty, on the other hand, can have degrees; we simply may not, for example, express everything. Jesus was not dishonest when he did not share all his feelings with some of the Jews, or when he talked in parables so others couldn't understand. As we've been discussing, he seemed very honest with his disciples in what he shared -- though I suspect he didn't express all his frustration and disappointment.

Honesty, however, in his relationship with his Father is the next level of relationship -- the ultimate level. We don't know all he shared in those evening interactions with his Father; yet we can readily assume he shared everything with total honesty. I say this because the key here is the relational issue of intimacy. We know that Jesus experienced a lot of rejection. We can't look at this merely as information because these are the relational consequences Jesus let himself be affected by in being vulnerably present. We have to look at this relationally, then we will understand his experience of hurt in certain relationships, particularly with his disciples. He must have shared a lot of that with his Father.

As the Son, Jesus showed us how much our Father wants to hold our heart in his hand.

What Jesus shared with his Father (that is recorded for us to learn from) reflects his total honesty and their deepest intimacy. As the time of his crucifixion came closer, he shared his troubled heart with his Father (Jn.12:27). As it was imminent, he shared his deep distress and pain B so strong that he asked not to die (Mt.26:38-44). The only time his Father could not be with him, he cried out to his Father with the ultimate pain and hurt: his Father's rejection (Mt.27:46). As the Son, Jesus showed us how much our Father wants to hold our heart in his hands. Christ as Son is so beautiful for us to see. And as we take in the Son, we are directly exposed to the Father.

Inherent in holy is to be different. Essentially, what is usually considered to be the consensus, the norm, is a contrary perspective or position from the holy. The common is the majority or dominant way of doing things -- the common way we define ourselves, the way we do relationships and thus also do church. To be holy is to separate ourselves from these. Jesus not only identified himself as uncommon but he also said that of his true followers (Jn.17:14,16). But he knew that just as he was tempted to the common, his followers would constantly be vulnerable to Satan's lies, so he prayed for help for us (Jn.17:15). This help was to neutralize Satan's counter-relational work and for our relational work with the Father so we can be transformed to his truth (Jn.17:17). Establishing and maintaining our integrity in the quality of holiness is absolutely critical and necessary to be intimately involved with the Father at the ultimate level of relationship.

Honesty of our heart requires us to be who we truly are before God in who he truly is. Because he is holy we cannot remain where we are, though he initially receives us there. That means, for example, the lies we've embraced and lived by -- no matter their consensus or dominance, even among Christians -- have to be rejected and "died to" and the truth (of us and him) embraced. As Paul quotes God (read 2 Cor.6:17,18), when we separate ourselves from the common "established way of doing things," God will receive us intimately and be a Father to us, and we will be his sons and daughters. This is the relational outcome of not being common, of becoming uncommon, holy like God.

Even as we read this about Jesus and what the Father wants, we have to be aware of what our predispositions are, including the influence of Satan's counter-relational work. If we don't think relationally, we're probably not going to act relationally. When we think of Jesus, his person, how he was and being like him, we can easily look at all this in our old way. That is, we can approach it, for example, from a doing perspective and think about all we have to do to be like Jesus. Likewise, when we think about taking our place in God's family, the first thing that usually comes to our mind is: what should we do? What spiritual gift should I exercise? Essentially, this attempts to be like Jesus ontologically -- trying to be perfect or measure up. That expectation would either put a great burden on us or freak us out. However it affects us, the result is we won't be free. Functionally, then, we live in our relationship with God in effect like a slave.

Obviously, that's not the approach God wants us to take. Contrary to what we often practice -- emotionally, if not intellectually -- the Father doesn't expect "ontological conformity" but wants "relational conformity." When Jesus instructed about the Sabbath, he restated from the O.T. "I desire mercy, not sacrifice" (Mt.12:7). When he was challenged for associating with sinners, he repeated the same words and instructed us to learn what they mean (Mt.9:13). In each of these situations, as well as the O.T. situations, Jesus sharply brings our focus back to the importance of the total person and the primacy of relationships -- foremost the person of God and our relationship with him -- not about doing the "right thing." We may still need to go back and learn what those words mean, if we don't understand how this underlies God's law, his commands, his design and purpose for our life and how Jesus lived.

In the relational process Christians are going to relate to God in actual practice either from a position as a slave or freely as his son/daughter.

My Father wants me to experience being his son -- that's what he made me. For many years, however, "Father" was only a title for God that I used, not a relational experience. The main reason for that was I wasn't really functioning as his son. What does he want for you? He wants the opportunities to be our Father, just as he is with Jesus. No "sibling rivalry" from the Son; Jesus wants all that he experiences with his Father to be ours also. This includes all the benefits: most of all love (agape, Jn.17:23,26) and affection (phileo, Jn.16:27), intimate sharing, and being taught by the Father with all that is his.

This relationship could be problematic for us. No more significant predisposition or bias develops in our life than what results from our experience with our earthly parents or those who raised us. We could discuss this matter for years. What's crucial now is understanding, acknowledging and being freed from these predispositions which invariably get imposed on God also and, thus, affect our relationship with God as Father. There is no more urgent area in our Christian life than to sort this out with him. It's a stepwise process; take the time to start now if you haven't seriously started already.

• Related to this, how well do you relate to your Father as his son or daughter?

*                          *                          *

Being Relationally Loved

As we get more established in the process of going from merely thinking relationally to also acting relationally, our transformation increasingly results in being relational. This transition is not usually a direct progression -- often going back and forth -- besides not being smooth. We will vividly see this in Peter's life.

Whenever tension exists in a relationship -- for example, being afraid to go deeper or a lack of self-confidence to get more involved -- there is a tendency to turn to substitutes in place of deeper relational involvement. Idealizing our relationship with God is one such substitute. Doing something for God instead of deeper involvement is another substitute. As we discussed about the issue of honesty and how much we should tell God, the key here also is the matter of intimacy and how much we really want to be with God. Substitutes are always easier and involve less risk for us than intimacy. Many times we make the easier choice, even though the substitutes are less satisfying.

If we have trouble with asking for forgiveness -- relationally, not theologically -- we have trouble with letting God love us. Obviously, then, this also means we have trouble with love in general. To minimize forgiveness is to minimize the intimacy of love -- first, his love, then our love, eventually others' love.

It has been my emphasis that to truly know someone is a relational process. This knowledge of a person is not mere information gained from observation; it is the experience of that person which could only result from direct relational involvement -- specifically in intimate relationship. Such experience is the function only of that kind of relationship, not of any other activity, amount of time or mutual purpose together. This relational process requires the openness of the heart in order to see and to hear the other person, as well as to share honestly with each other. As we examine Peter's interactions with Jesus, think about "when is he open?" and ask yourself "what prevents his openness?"

Luke 5:1-11 -- In the beginning of their relationship, Peter had a profound experience with Jesus which should have set the tone for the relationship. Was Peter's heart open to Jesus? We don't know what Jesus taught from the boat that day. Whatever Jesus said earlier, Peter was willing to comply with what seemed like his unreasonable request (v.4), even though they had worked hard all night (v.5). This willingness resulted in Peter's profound realization of the difference between him and Jesus (v.8). This experience shows us that Peter not only listened to Jesus' words, but he saw Jesus the person and, therefore, saw his own person as he truly is. This should have set the tone for their relationship. In Peter's initial openness here, he saw the qualitative difference between him and Jesus. But this is not merely a spiritual difference considered, for example, in limited moral grounds. It also involves the depth of the uncommon with the breadth of the common. The full reality of what Peter was and how he defined himself needed to be understood and addressed in very specific areas of his life. As we will see, those areas also needed to be redeemed, transformed and restored to God's design and purpose.

John 6:60-69 -- At this pivotal stage, many of Jesus' so-called disciples stopped following him because of the relational demands he had just placed on them (Jn.6:29-58). When Jesus asks the twelve disciples if they want to leave him also, speaking for them as he often did, Peter makes this profound confession (v.68). Peter wanted the more (eternal life) and rightly goes to the source for it. Yet, his focus on "the words (Gk. rhema) of eternal life" seems to emphasize Jesus' words, statements, more than his person -- for example, as the other term for "word," logos, emphasizes his essence (cf. Jn.1:14). Though Peter acknowledges that they know who Jesus is, the relational experience necessary for this level of knowledge still seems to be missing. Jesus responded that he had "chosen" (Gk. eklegomai, chosen for oneself) them, that is, they were chosen for this intimate relationship. Though Judas would miss out altogether on this relationship, the others struggled with it -- especially Peter.

Matthew 14:25-33 -- Peter had seen Jesus heal various persons, including his mother-in-law, and had just witnessed the miraculous feeding of the 5000. He knew what Jesus could do. Then, what was he thinking when he essentially asked Jesus to prove it was he (v.28)? What was he focused on? This remarkable request demonstrates that Peter sees Jesus for who he is, at least in terms of what he does, and initially trusts him. In the process, however, Peter is distracted from the person by the situation. The resulting fear constrained Peter's faith. Fear does that to us. The relational consequences of fear is that it causes us to pull inward and seek control. Relationally, Peter was not open to Jesus in that moment. Peter pulled back his trust and relationally distanced himself from the person Jesus, even though he asked Jesus to save him from the situation. His cry to be saved should not be confused with trust and relational involvement. In one moment he enjoyed intimate and unique connection with Christ walking on the water together. In the next, he was disconnected relationally from Jesus' person even as he hung on to his hand in the situation. It is important for us to understand this distinction in our relationship with Christ because we could be praying for similar results while distant relationally from God. Anything in the relationship that causes us to pull inward and seek control is in contrast to our trust which extends outward to God and lets go.

Mark 10:28 -- Remember from our previous discussion how Peter contrasts the disciples with the successful young guy (v.17ff). Based on what they did compared to what the young guy wasn't willing to, I think Peter implied they were better. At the same time I think he is expressing a self-concern because of what they did. Jesus didn't dismiss his concern and gave them the beautiful promise for both now and the future (vv.29-30). Yet, he also warned them about defining themselves in that way and seeking a higher position on the human totem pole (v.31). This issue remained problematic for them (cf. Mt.20:24; Lk.22:24), as we will see particularly in Peter's life. Nevertheless, Jesus kept extending his person vulnerably in love and was establishing a new order of life.

Matthew 16:13-20 -- This passage and the one immediately following reflect the ups and downs for Peter. We need to compare and contrast these two interactions Jesus had with Peter. When Jesus asked the disciples for their personal view apart from others' opinion of who he was, Peter responded directly and clearly (v.16). This moment is one of his highlights. Jesus called him "blessed" (Gk. makarios, same as in Beatitudes) not because he gave the correct answer. Peter didn't deduce this view from human thought, but from the Father's revelation (v.17, Gk. apokalypto, removed a veil, exposing to open view what was before hidden). Because God was present and involved in Peter's life, he was "blessed." This is not the same as "happy" -- an inadequate translation of makarios -- which tends to suggest merely a positive state of mind or pleasant circumstances. Blessed is sharing in the life of God and the give-and-take of that intimate relationship. Though Peter so far didn't seem very relationally intimate with Jesus, he did engage this relational process. The Father's revelation here should not be considered a unilateral act from which Peter benefited merely by being in the right place at the right time. God engages the relational process also. So, this reflected God's involvement with Peter as well as Peter's openness to and involvement with God, however imperfectly or inconsistently he practiced it.

Matthew 16:21-25 -- From here on Jesus told his disciples what's going to happen to him -- a reality that is a "must" (Gk. dei, necessary by the nature of things, unavoidable, in contrast to obligated, for example, morally or due to personal obligation). So, the gloomy events ahead for him are not optional in this sense. This scenario was too much for Peter to take; to his credit he didn't just sit there passively with his contrary feelings. Taking Jesus aside as if to counsel him, Peter responded strongly "to rebuke him" (v.22). The Greek word "rebuke" (epitimao) means to censure, rebuke; it is an abrupt and biting charge sharply expressing disapproval, harshly taking someone to task for a fault. The word implies that Peter expressed a warning as he confronted Jesus on his ludicrous plans. "Never, Lord!" -- this Greek word (hileos) functions in such phrases as an invocation for overturning evil. In our vernacular we might say "God forbid!" or "Absolutely no way!" We have to appreciate Peter's honesty here in sharing his feelings with Jesus; even though he was off-base about God's will, without the benefit of hindsight we might have felt the same way, and maybe we do about some other situation for today. It's important to share these feelings with God. Yet, despite Peter's honesty with these feelings, was he really completely open with Jesus? Why did Peter have these feelings?

Jesus' response helps us understand. He responded back even more strongly to Peter by identifying him as the enemy (v.23); contrast this with verse 17. Why was he now considered the enemy? Because he was a "stumbling block" to Jesus; the word (Gk. skandalon) always denotes enticing or trapping its victim in a course of behavior which could ruin the person. Exactly what was Peter trying to trap Jesus in which would lead to his ruin? Compared to verse 17 when Peter was influenced by the Father's revelation over human reason, Peter reversed himself to function on the basis of human thought. "Have in mind" (Gk. phroneo) means to think, have a mindset. This is more than a predisposition or bias. This activity also involves the will, affections, conscience, therefore to be mindful of and devoted to that perspective. Even at this stage of Peter's discipleship and immediately after his highlight experience, Peter's perception of Jesus' plans was based on his mindset controlled by human influence. In other words, Peter put Jesus in his box; and those plans not only didn't fit into his box, they were in conflict with how Peter perceived God, not to mention how he perceived himself. This couldn't happen to Peter's God -- absolutely no way. He honestly shared those feelings but he was not completely open about where he was coming from, about why he felt so strongly. This prevented his understanding of God's will and effectively made him God's enemy.

Matthew 17:1-8; Mark 9:2-13 -- Shortly after this came Jesus' transfiguration (Gk. metamorphoo, to transform, to alter fundamentally). This marks an important stage of Jesus revealing God's glory. In this amazing experiential moment, everything is brought together: the past (represented by Moses and Elijah), the present (with the Messiah in supernatural form and substance) and the future (the reality of God's kingdom/family) -- all with the presence of the Father relationally speaking in their midst. This summarizes all that God relationally shared, promised and experienced with his people, now being unfolded and fulfilled for these disciples to experience directly. Imagine yourself being present also, not for a mountain-top experience but for this total relational connection.

When Peter experienced Jesus' transformation and the presence of Moses and Elijah, he proposed setting up three tents. Why do you think he suggested this? Remember Moses' experiences with God, remember the conversation with the Samaritan woman (Jn.4:19ff). In this awesome moment Peter was stuck in the past. His old mindset quickly expressed itself again when he tried to constrain God's glory to a place -- just like the O.T. ways of relating to God. Mark's account tells us Peter suggested this because he was afraid (Mk.9:6); he didn't know what to say. We can empathize, because seeing Jesus transformed must have had a similar effect that transformations in science fiction movies may have on us. Once again fear leads to restraint as Peter reacted merely on the basis of the old. Rather than step out in trust to experience the more of eternity right before him, he backed away from making himself vulnerable to intimate relational connection with God and his family. Instead, Peter turned to what was familiar and comfortable to him, that is, to the "established ways of doing things," to substitutes.

Matthew 18:21-22 -- Peter later raises this interesting question about forgiveness. I think there are two ways to consider this question: what are the limits of our obligation in what we should do?, or, what is the extent of involvement we should have with others, especially those who wrong us or who are needy? Since Peter was more into what he did than relationships, it seems that he asked the former in terms of the quantity of doing something. Presumably, Peter wanted to fulfill his obligation, which seemed reasonable. Jesus, however, refocused Peter on what's really important, while helping him to understand Peter's own person. The numbers aren't important here but relationships and the quality of relational love. This wasn't about what Peter does but about what the other person needs. The parable Jesus relates to illuminate this is about giving mercy (Gk. eleeo), expressing compassion to relieve the other person's misery, affliction, need. If Peter had been ongoingly experiencing God's mercy and grace in this way, he would have understood what's important here. It involves redefining ourselves according to the reality of our own poverty (ptochos), being vulnerable with these feelings (pentheo) in our heart before God and humbly (praus) living this truth and relational experience with others, as we discussed earlier about the Beatitudes. Peter's focus suggests, in my opinion, that he had trouble with forgiveness and, therefore, with love -- both loving others and himself. Persons who define themselves primarily by what they do and have tend to have this problem, asking God similar questions. Do you think the prostitute who anointed Jesus would have asked the same question as Peter?

Faith is not a means to highlight ourselves. Faith as intimate trust is the relational means for deeper involvement with God and our privilege to serve him. This seems to be Jesus' point in the illustration he adds (vv.7-10): just be who/what you truly are and do what you've been told -- no more, no less; since you're not worthy to fulfill it on your own, God will help you to be/do that which he desires; the results will be because of his grace, therefore it is the servant who should be thankful, not the master.

John 13:1-10 -- Jesus was to show them this new way in an experience Peter could have never imagined. In that upper room prior to his death, "he now showed them the full extent of his love"(v.1). "The full extent" (Gk. eis telos) means the complete, continuous, perpetual, eternal action of God's love as he covenanted and now fulfills in Jesus, his Son. As he washed his disciples' feet and came to Peter, try to put yourself in Peter's place. From our discussion of Peter, what do you think Peter's tone was in the question he raised to Jesus (v.6)? What was going on for Peter in this moment? Jesus responded (v.7) that at the moment "you do not realize" (Gk. oida, intuitively know, understand, recognize already) "but later you will understand" (Gk. ginosko, know by learning or experience). You would think that this was sufficient to pacify Peter in his indirect question. Can you imagine what Peter is feeling at this point? Peter did more than object to Jesus' footwashing. His words (v.8), in the Greek aorist subjunctive mood with the double negative, were the strongest expression of categorical denial and refusal to let Jesus do it. Does this remind you of their interaction earlier in Mt.16:21-23? Peter struggled deeply in these moments for him to feel so strongly. Reflect on the issues for Peter and what was involved that made their relationship difficult.