Read 2 Sam. xxiv., and John xxi. 15-23.
THE WILFUL.—John xiii. 6-10.
The character of Peter stands clear cut in the Gospels. He had a warm
heart, an eager mind, an impulsive will, a quick initiative, and a
native aptitude for pre-eminence. He took the lead almost unconsciously
and without premeditation, but none the less he was conscious of a keen
pleasure in being first. Prominence with him was not a choice of
calculation, but rather an innate instinct and necessity of nature.
Alike by what was best and by what was worst in him, it was natural for
Peter to stand out from the rest, and whether right or wrong, to be
their spokesman, champion, and chief.
As Jesus went round, washing the disciples' feet, there was perfect
stillness in the room. None ventured to speak in explanation or
remonstrance till He came to Peter. But as He prepared to kneel down
behind him, Peter stopped Him with a protest: "Lord, dost thou wash my
feet?" It looks on the face of it altogether good, and pure, and manly.
But then Christ was no narrow-hearted pedant, eager to find fault, and
imagining offence where none existed. Yet Peter's protest, instead of
being approved, is gently but firmly refused. "What I do thou dost not
understand now, but thou shalt understand presently." Beneath the fair
surface of the remonstrance there must have been some unlovely thing
that had to be rebuked away. What was the jarring chord? Had Peter's
motive been contrition, and contrition only, would he have waited till
it came to his turn? Would he not have leapt to his feet at once, and
insisted on taking the Master's place, and washing the feet of them all?
Did he sit still, ashamed for himself and them, but angrily ashamed,
resolving first that he would not basely allow his Lord to demean
Himself, then thinking hard things of the others, who suffered it
without protest? And so, when it came to his turn, was his heart full of
censorious thoughts, and a proud resolve that he would come out of the
humiliation better than the rest? If, without breach of charity, we may
take this to have been his mood, then we can understand Christ's kindly
deprecation of his words and act. He fancied his impulse all good and
noble. He did not know the treachery of his own heart. He did not fathom
the necessity for the humbling experience of having to be washed by his
Master. With the cleansing of his feet in simple obedience, his heart
would be cleansed also of pride and of anger. Then he would understand
what his Master was doing, and how He had to do it to put right so much
that was wrong in the heart of His wayward follower.
It is not easy to obey without understanding. What was noble in Peter,
and what was base, combined to hold him back from yielding. Peter's love
recoiled from the humbling of his Master. Peter's pride shrank from the
humbling of himself. "Thou shalt never wash my feet." Truly a noble,
proud refusal! There was in it a strange mixture of good and evil. Peter
wanted to come back to right, but he wished to come in his own way.
Christ's way was painful, and the disciple would fain choose another
that did not lead through the Valley of Humiliation. But then, if you
have gone wrong through pride you cannot get right again and yet keep
your pride. If you would be good you must abase yourself. Peter's
refusal meant that his spirit still was not quite subdued, his heart not
quite humble and contrite. In that mood he could not enter into the
sacred communion of his Master's dying love. With that spirit cherished
and maintained he could not belong to His fellowship. "If I wash thee
not, thou hast no part with Me."
Christ knew Peter's heart. The man loved his Master with a passionate
personal attachment. These words fell on his spirit with a sudden chill.
To have no part with Christ—that was more than he could bear. "Lord, not
my feet only, but also my hands and my head." It is as though he would
say, "A great part in Thee!" And we might readily count the request
blameless, and the mood that uttered it commendable only. But Jesus
declines it, and in refusing suggests that it has in it something of
unreality and excess. So then, without his knowing it, there must have
lurked in the thought Peter's love of pre-eminence. First of all, he had
wished to differ from the others in not being washed at all. Now that he
must be washed, he would be the most washed of all. Ah, the subtle
danger of wanting to be first, even in goodness! We cannot safely try to
be good for the sake of being foremost. We must be good just for
goodness' sake, with no thought of self at all. And surely silent
submission had become Peter better than any speech. When a man knows he
has gone wrong again and again, and Christ has undertaken to set him
right, his wisdom is to offer no resistance, nor make any suggestion, as
if he knew better than Jesus what had best be done.
Self-will in choosing the way in which we are to be saved and sanctified
is a blunder from which few are quite free. We cannot leave our souls
simply in God's care and teaching. We catch at Christ's hands, and
distrust the simplicity of His grace, and dictate to the Holy Spirit the
experience and discipline we deem best. Surely it is not becoming and it
is not wise. When a man has been taken into God's hands, and has been
forgiven his sins, and is being taught by God, he should just keep very
still and very humble, and let God make of him what He will.