The three assigned readings for the third Sunday of Easter on 4/22/07 are Acts 9:1-22 (Saul’s conversion); Revelation 5:1-14 (Opening the scroll) and John 21:1-19 (Boat filled with fish). This week we preach on John 21:7b which reads, “Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his outer garment (for he had removed it), and plunged into the sea.”
While it is certainly true that the Bible never contradicts itself, at times it appears that the disciples contradict themselves. One example at first reading is found when comparing this miracle of fish found in John 21 with the previous miracle of fish in Luke 5:4-9. In that earlier miracle Peter’s response was quite different. Verse 8 reveals Peter’s reaction. “He fell down at Jesus’ kness, saying, ‘Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.’” How does one reconcile the different reactions by Peter to the two different miracles of fish?
By using the distinctions between Law and Gospel we can understand the different reactions. In the first miracle of fish, Peter is much like Isaiah in chapter 6 of Isaiah when he bemoans the fact that he, an unclean man, has seen God. He concludes that he will be put to death. Both Isaiah and Peter are living under the Law in the sense that they are of the opinion that God will permit you to come into His presence only if you are perfectly sinless. Thus, both Isaiah and Peter recoil at the presence of God.
However, after Isaiah’s mouth is touched with the coal from the altar of God that cleanses him and after Peter hears the words of Jesus after the resurrection, “Peace be with you” there is a new living under the Gospel. This means that there is a trust in God Who not only invites us to come to Him but also regards us as His children through faith in the Messiah, Jesus Christ.
The sermon would point out that due to our weak faith and our constant sinfulness, we often imagine that God is punishing us through suffering. But in light of the promises of the Gospel, we can now be certain that no such eternal separation from God will ever take place between the believer and the Trinity because Jesus took upon Himself the curse of sin and separation with the words, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” The resurrection is God’s “Amen” to the sufferings of Christ.
The different responses by Peter in light of the two miracles of fish in Luke 5 and John 21 are a wonderful indication of the difference between living under the Law and living under the Gospel. Christians need to become more aware of this precious distinction between Law and Gospel in order to be comforted not by our lack of sins but by the fullness of the promises of our merciful and gracious God and Lord Jesus Christ.
Name:Tom Baker
I just finally got around to reading this one. This is again wonderful Gospel. I’ve found in my own personal life that this ‘living under the law’ vs. ‘living under the gospel’ reality has changed Scripture dramatically for me. I use to NEVER see comfort in the Word of God as a Christian but only further terror. It confounded me most aggrediously to hear someone like Luther or others say they found profound comfort in the Word, I could never find it because the Law always seemed to over throw the Gospel for me. But as I grow in the reverse of this Scripture that use to terrorize me have become the greatest comfort to me. I’ve begun over time to find increasing profound comfort from the Word. And it is not just a Law Gospel distinction but the concept of “living under” one or the other. Because you can have the form of Law/Gospel understanding but still be “living under the law” and THAT distinction may not help much. As one grows to be “living under the Gospel” that changes entirely. This sermon on this passage reminded me of that shift in me, or a person such as Peter here. I understand, NOW, what this sermon means!
Related but different: You know I’ve begun ready “The Two Natures of Christ” and one thing just “hit me” afresh in the face: Chemitz, and I cannot possibly produce the level of acumen, goes to great length to show that the essence of deity though among the Trinity is one, but that the essence of deity via the person of Christ is communicated to the human nature of Christ. Now, I’m always open for correction from error but it struck me that this is strongly held up by Luther and Lutherans more than any, even the Reformed as in Calvin. If I’m not completely fooling myself here; this seems to have implications for only seeing and knowing God, savingly, through Christ alone. If we seek to “see God” via the Father or the Spirit we run into trouble. For example “election”. It’s fact exists for sure, but if we “probe” the Divinity other than through Christ we run into trouble either despairing that we have been or proudly otherwise thinking we have been leading into two of Satan’s traps despair and pride. We may only safely grasp election in Christ. Why? Well, the deity in fullness has ONLY incarnate there whereby we may know God savingly and without danger to our souls one way or another. If we seek to “peek at God the Father in election”, who is elect or not, or seek in whom the Spirit operates by secondary effects, that can be imitated, we always run into the two dangers of utter despair of hope, unbelief, and prideful presumption otherwise than via Christ, unbelief. Either way its unbelief.
I think I’m becoming a closet Lutheran!
Blessings always,
Larry KY