Feb 8 2019 Mark 9:2-13

Then Peter said to Jesus, ‘Rabbi, it is good for us to be here; let us make three dwellings, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah’.

Good old Peter. We read stories of what he did, and we think he’s so thick, so rash. How could HE be the rock on which the church is built? But I think that’s because we have the luxury of hindsight, church teachings, and a familiarity with the stories. But if you stop and think about Peter’s responses and actions, they’re humanly rationale, and I would likely do the same. 

It reminds me of the movie Invictus, about Nelson Mandela’s insistence to desegregate and utilize the formerly all-white South African rugby team. It’s a great movie – politics, humanity, compassion, sports. There’s a scene where he’s riding in the backseat with his chief of staff, as she’s running through his schedule and upcoming work. Instead, he wants to talk about rugby. She is utterly confused, and ‘rebukes’ him. “Why do you care about a child’s game? You have big world problems to solve!”  As you watched the scene, you knew Mandela had a bigger plan, but I absolutely related to her. She was doing her job, and I would have likely been doing the same. 

Of course, Mandela had a bigger vision, and an integrated national sports team would be the perfect tool to rally the divided nation. Like Peter, she was a faithful companion. Like Peter, she didn’t have the same vision as her leader. And unlike Bible stories about Peter, I was quick to relate to her, because I didn't have the history of hindsight, familiarity, and teachings.
  
Peter is asking about building houses for two apparitions that appeared with Jesus after he’d been turned dazzling white at the top of a mountain. This is known as the Transfiguration, where Jesus was transfigured in front of some of his disciples. Of course the visions of Moses and Elijah didn’t need houses. Maybe this offer of construction was to help. Maybe it’s what Peter knew how to do in that moment. Maybe it was an offer intended to make permanent this moment. If I build a house for these three, they’ll stick around.
Whatever his motive, Peter was genuine in his human, fallible, yet well-intentioned actions. He didn’t have the same insight or lineage as Jesus. He worked with the human world, human insights, and human faults we all have. And you’d think that Peter would have figured it out. But even at his crucifixion, Peter was the one who denied knowing him – another entirely human response. And we scoff at Peter, because we know Jesus’ lineage, and we know the rest of the story. But the glory of Peter is that he, Peter, the fallible, human, impetuous Peter was the rock on which the Church was built. 

Peter’s the person who the risen Christ returned to, and asked him three times “Do you love me?” Peter’s response three times was, “Of course”. Jesus’ response? Feed my sheep. Three times he denied Jesus. Three times given the option to profess his love. 
Even Peter. Even after the denials at the cross. We gloss over Peter’s humanity, when we think he’s so unlike us, that we’d know better. But in doing that, we miss the glorious truth that it’s precisely in those human, impetuous, oafish moments that Jesus’ love and faith in Peter is so constant.. And we miss the fact that it’s in our human, impetuous, oafish moments that Jesus’ love and faith in us is so constant.