Human Beings

I'm slowly working my way through a book title Twelve Ordinary Men. From what I've read so far (and I haven't gotten that far), it is about how Jesus took men with no particular talents and were from no standing in life and molded them into His apostles and teachers of the gospel.

In only the first 50 or so pages, I already disagree with the author on some things, but I will say it is interesting to view the apostles as real people. Many times I think there is a tendency to dehumanize them because of the prominent roles they played. Don't get me wrong, I'm not belittling their contributions. But I am saying that before Jesus took them by His side, taught, guided and corrected them, they were just regular fellows like you and me.

A few of them were fishermen, another was a tax collector and another was a zealot. I never really knew what a zealot was until I researched it. Zealots were Jews that rebelled against Roman rule and were often provoked violence towards them. Imagine how Simon (the zealot) and Matthew (the tax collector) felt toward each other before Jesus brought them together.

All throughout the gospels, there are many examples of the apostles' human frailty. No one exhibited this more than Peter, the man who eventually become the leader of the apostles in many ways.

Something the book pointed out that I never realized: in every list of the apostles, Peter is named first. Always, Judas is named last. In fact, Every time all 12 are listed, the names are in almost identical order. I think it is reasonable to say that some apostles were closer to Jesus than others. And from a management standpoint, that makes perfect sense. It's not that Jesus favored one over another. Imagine if he had given equal power and knowledge to all 12. Who would have settled debates? Who would have been looked to for leadership? It is quite obvious in Acts that Peter is the leader as he preached on the day of Pentecost after the Holy Spirit was given and God also gave Peter the vision that led the apostles to preach to gentiles.

As the book says, Peter exhibited so many of the "raw materials" that you look for in a leader. He was always the first into the water (literally!) and the first to respond to questions. He had a thirst for knowledge, he took initiative and most importantly, he was teachable. Jesus saw those traits and molded him into not just a leader, but a great leader.

Peter had many flaws as well. But Jesus used those shortcomings to teach. Take for instance Matthew 16, when Peter told Jesus that He would not have to suffer. Jesus said to him, "get behind Me, Satan!" Basically telling Peter, "you don't know what I have to do, and you won't stop me from doing it!" At that moment, Peter understood only the things of men and not the things of God. And at that moment, he was an enemy. Peter's mouth often wrote checks he couldn't cash, but it was obvious that later, when he was writing 1 and 2 Peter that all the lessons left an impact on him.

In 1 Peter 2 he wrote a great deal about being submissive. What a dramatic turn from the brash young man that was portrayed in many instances in the gospel.

Before ever doing any in depth study, I always admired Peter. He was always the character I wanted to play in the church plays. Yes, he and all of the disciples were flawed but with faith and boldness they overcame the shortcomings and spread the gospel to every corner of the earth.

I am flawed too. But I also have characteristics that God can and wants to use just like He did with the apostles. It's up to me, though, to put my strengths to work and become even stronger by improving upon my weakness.