So why is it, in Acts 12, that James got the sword while Peter got the angel? I have been mulling this over for the last 24 hours and, so far, I've come up with this:
Don't know.
I'm sure James had people praying for him, just like Peter did. Probably a lot of the same people, actually.
I bet after James' death, the disciples were a lot more motivated to pray for Peter now that he too had been detained by Herod. Maybe the angel was in answer to more fervent prayer?
Maybe. But even the most fervent prayer sometimes gets the answer of "no". Besides, the text certainly does not explicitly draw a cause and effect lesson on prayer.
In fact, if anything, it is clear that the disciples were praying, but not necessarily with profound faith. When Peter came knocking at their door, they couldn't understand how it could possibly be him.
So I'm not sure why sometimes you get the angel and sometimes you get the sword, but here is something worth noting: God has a Marty McFly problem.
Remember how in Back to the Future, Marty travels back in time, witnessing his parents as teenagers on the very day they were to meet for the first time? Marty's actions alter the timeline, accidentally eliminating the future existence of his siblings and even himself.
Well, God sends His angel to rescue Peter, but that means other people's timelines are permanently altered: "After Herod had a thorough search made for Peter and did not find him, he cross-examined the guards and ordered that they be executed." (Acts 12:19)
Peter got the angel, but at least two guards - two other human beings (and maybe more) - got the sword in his place.
Being omniscient, God must know up front the cost/benefit ratio of granting any answer to prayer.
And that thought just makes my head hurt.
Glad I'm not God.
No comments:
Post a Comment