Left Behind
But when Simon Peter saw that, he fell down at Jesus’ feet, saying, “Go away from me Lord, for I am a sinful man!” Luke 5:8 NASB
Go away – Peter’s reaction to being in the presence of a holy man is Hebraic. “Depart from me for I am a sinner.” Peter doesn’t flee. That comes later and it related to shame, not sin. On this day, Peter recognizes that God is with Yeshua in extraordinary ways and that is enough for Peter to want this man of God to leave him. Peter knows that his sin defiles the presence of YHVH and since he cannot remove his sin, he must ask someone who is very close to the holy God to leave. Peter has enough spiritual savvy to understand that he is the defiler and holiness cannot occupy the space of one who defiles.
We, on the other hand, somehow think that our sins draw us closer to the Messiah. We think that because we are sinners we need his presence all the more. We are focused on what we need, namely, forgiveness. Peter is focused on what God needs, namely, purity. Our focus is egocentric. Peter’s is God-centered. Peter’s statement is about maintaining God’s glory and honor at his own expense. We usually take just the opposite approach, that is, that God should be more than willing to sacrifice His honor and glory in order to help me deal with my dishonoring and insulting acts. Our preoccupation with ourselves prevents us from even recognizing our unworthiness before God. We have come to believe that God serves our interests, even in removing our defilement. Peter would never have agreed.
The Greek verb here is exerchomai. It is, of course, made up of the Greek words ex (ek – out from a point of origin) and erchomai (to come). Peter’s expression is ironic since the same verb is used of Yeshua’s calling of the disciples. “Come after me” is precisely the opposite of “Depart from me,” using the same Greek verb but only changing the prefix. Perhaps this is telling. The only difference between asking the Messiah to leave and following after the Messiah is the prefix we attach to the verb. That prefix is ek. It is entirely about motion or action from a point of origin. It has multiple nuances in Greek but its principle idea, movement, never changes. Movement, not destination. Origin, not end. We are either moving toward the Master or away from the Master and the direction is entirely ours to determine. We either ask God to leave or we follow after Him. The prefix only specifies our starting point, where we are right now. How it is applied is up to us.
Peter is the prefect example of someone who is quite aware of his own unholiness. At the very beginning, this causes him to implore holiness to depart. He is unworthy and he knows it only too well. Just like me. But holiness attracts and Peter cannot resist following. He knows that this Messiah has the words of life. Men who are acutely aware of their desperate sinfulness are attracted to what is good and pure. Men who are egocentric are oblivious of the wretchedness of their sins. Peter’s declaration may be yours and mine—if we realize how much our lives tarnish the reputation of YHVH. Peter’s point of origin is the dreadful awareness of his failures. That place begins his journey. Perhaps too many of us have attempted to walk with the Master without ever starting at exerchomai. Perhaps the journey of a thousand steps can’t even begin until we understand the first one.
Topical Index: ex, ek, exerchomai, come, go, depart, Luke 5:8
Luk 5:5 … but at Your word I shall let down the net.”
Luk 5:8 And when Shimʽon Kĕpha saw it, he fell down at the knees of יהושע, saying, “Depart from me, for I am a man, a sinner, O Master!”
Luk 5:9 For astonishment had seized him and all those with him, at the catch of fish which they took,
Luk 5:10 so too were Yaʽaqoḇ and Yoḥanan, the sons of Zaḇdai, who were partners with Shimʽon. Then יהושע said to Shimʽon, “Do not fear, from now on you shall catch men.”
Can shame, which is a form of fear, come unless one first doubts? Can one be astonished unless one did not believe? Does the Son of Elohim rebuke these lowly fishermen for their lack of belief? Rather, He says come with Me and I will make you fishers of men. And with My Spirit, you will “catch” men just as you have caught all these fish.
“Our preoccupation with ourselves prevents us from even recognizing our unworthiness before God.”
This statement is significant to me. I think it may be a good delineation between Godly shame (God-focused shame) and sinful shame (self-focused shame).
It is tricky to use words, or try to explain motives, or even to describe actions on this planet. That is because I think the devil has come up with a counterfeit to EVERYTHING, or at least an ungodly version.
“Perhaps the journey of a thousand steps cannot even begin until we understand the first one.” To me, this has to be the key. What is the motive? What is my focus, my intent? That determines the mode of movement. What’s In It For Me? is the intention of the yetzer ha-ra. What’s In It For Him? is the focus of the yetzer tov. Well put, Skip!
I think the devil must have invented an entire religious counterfeit for the yetzer ha-ra. I think the Church of Self (the “synagogue of Satan”) has all the sacraments, ritual, creeds and laws that the real Body has. They can even look identical. The outside (result) can look exactly the same. Good deeds. Contrition. How to tell the difference? How to detect the difference between Godly sorrow and the sorrow of the world that leads to death? How to detect the difference between the shame of EXPOSURE (the Church of Self is always focused on HIDING) and the humiliation of the Lord (which is the willingness to make public the secrets of the heart)? The shame that wishes to conceal, and the shame that wishes to reveal? One is sin. The other is the foundation of all moves toward true righteousness. But they can look identical to outward appearance! How to tell the difference between “I’m sorry I got caught” and “I’m glad I got caught”? This is the REAL question, Shakespeare!
One condition binds. The other one liberates. One condition conforms to the standard of the world, which is always seeking advantage; always at odds, in competition with, all others. The other one frees us from the world. I think Godly shame removes our playing piece from the playing board of the world. It says “I forfeit all ‘my’ advantages. Here; you can have all my ‘secret’ info to do with as you wish”. This stops the game of the world in its tracks. The yetzer ha-ra seeks to APPEAR righteous, so as to gain personal advantage. The yetzer tov REVEALS its flaws before others, so as to return advantage back to the community.
Greek thought separates – fractures – us into particles of singleness. Hebrew thought, the way I understand it, joins separate people into single FUNCTION. This requires all aspects of each person to be subjected to the community. Why? Well, I don’t know about any other reality, but, right now anyway, on this planet, we are at war. We need all supplies in common, but even more importantly we need all WEAKNESSES to be revealed. Why? Because the weakness of one is the weakness of all UNLESS it becomes known. When I reveal my weakness to the community, it becomes a strength. The enemy can use private weakness against the Body, but public weakness can be protected by that public. Humility then becomes the means for me to turn a weakness into strength. “Confess your sins one to another, that you may be healed.” Healing is a communal exercise. I became sick by myself. I become well again by rejoining the commonwealth (love that outdated word!).
Shame that hides is a sin to be repented of. Humiliation that reveals is evidence that I am gaining the PHRONEO (thanks, Carl!) of Yeshua, Who, even though He “thought it not robbery to be equal with God” still “made himself of no reputation”. Why? Not because He had done anything wrong, but because we had. Should it not be fitting that the way He reached out to us is also the way that we have to reach back out to Him? Halleluah!
I think the “fear” in these verses is connected to the manifestation of the huge catch of fish, rather than to any idea of shame. Frequently, when this word is used in the apostolic writings, it is associated with some manifestation of the power of God. Indeed, it is significant that Yeshua does not rebuke them here for lack of belief, because doubt was not part of what they were experiencing. I put myself in their place: if Yeshua told me to cast my net in a particular area and I pulled up a huge catch, I would be astonished at the manifestation because it is outside of the kinds of events familiar to me, but that does not equate to doubt or shame. What it does for Peter is cause him to become acutely aware of Yeshua’s intimate connection to YHVH, and to realize his own defilement in the presence of such holiness. That isn’t shame, nor is it doubt. It is knowledge of our own lack of transparency in the face of a God who allows no pretense.
I think I hear Suzanne when she points out that Peter was probably experiencing an awful (awe-full), or a numinous, moment. We don’t use the word “fear” in that context much these days, but I know the KJV does.
I also, though, think I hear Jenafor when she says that she thinks ungodly shame is based in fear. I think the same. The Bible draws a sharp contrast between righteousness and unrighteousness. It is NOT “fifty shades of gray” but instead it is either-or. “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin” tells me that all sin is going to based in fear, and all righteousness is going to be an act of faith. Therefore, ungodly shame is going to be driven by fear, including that most awful (as in BAD!) fear: Fear of Man. Humility, on the other hand, is an act of faith: faith in the community I am lowering myself before; faith in YHVH’s mercy and forgiveness; but also faith in myself. It takes true courage to voluntarily admit weakness. Sin is an act of cowardice. To be repented of.
These last few days’ writings have been killing me softly as I stop to listen for a while.
I appreciate the drawing of cultural parallels, but unless we understand how the words are used IN THIS VERSE. our exegesis will be faulty. That is not to say that the statements are inherently false. just that they do nor apply as used here.
The Beginning of Blessing
~ Depart from me, for *I am a sinful man, O LORD!” ~ (Luke 5.8)
O Simon Peter! “Blessed art thou!” (in KJV parlance..)
Peter, you are one blessed man for you have realized and recognized many things..
Just the Facts, (ma’am)
One.) God is holy. (Very. – More than we know!) Ask the prophet Isaiah!
Two.) We (all) are sinners.
Three.) Is there a solution? Is there a Mediator between God (who is holy) and (sinful) mankind?
BTW.. “if we say we have not (ever) sinned, we make Him a Liar and His word is not in us!” – (1 John 1.10) Any takers? Not me! For realz! I know what I’ve done – (or haven’t done!)
So, (Houston), Is there SomeOne who is (hello) “both” God and man? SomeOne who might represent (read plead) our case before the Judge of all the Earth? A Mediator? A Representative?
Though separated by thousands of years and miles from the ancient, but righteous Job, is our plea and our plight, -our “petition” the very same as his? Yes, Job.. “if only!!”
~ “If only” there was SOMEONE to mediate between us, SOMEONE to bring us together.. ~ (Job 9.33)
~ If only there was a Mediator between us, someone who could bring us together ~ (Job 9.33)
~ There is [Is there?] no Arbiter between us, who might lay His hand upon us both ~ (Job 9.33)
~ There is [Is there?] no Umpire between us, Who may lay His hand upon us both ~ (Job 9.33)
~ Neither is there [Is there?] any Daysman betwixt us, that might lay His hand upon us both ~ (Job 9.33)
Well.. Job, – after all these years, I’m so happy to be one to announce this very Good News, – There IS!!!
Yes, Abraham.. YHWH HAS provided Himself, the Lamb..(Genesis 22.8) and centuries later, cousin John was to proclaim, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world!” (John 1.29)
We might be willingly blind in one eye, and refuse to see out of the other..