May5 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@Mark:1:40-45 GO THY WAY - Lepers were outcast from the society until given inspection and clearance from the priests. The general population untrained in these matters were to comply with the law in this regard. By showing and telling the people first this man is both breaking the commandment given by Jesus who just healed him and causing the people to break the law by not segregating him until the clear signal was given. There is no doubt that he is healed. Jesus is showing respect toward the law and the rule of order. Jesus cannot be accused of stepping outside this law. He is nearly in a no win situation of either leaving a man in his leprosy, being accused of neglecting the law (which He will anyway) or having His fame spread about forcing His ministry away from the cities. Jesus of course chooses the course of most compassion. The faith of our Lord is clear even when there is no clear choice apparent, to uphold the law by being compassionate even if there is a price to pay or a negative consequence, to adapt to the situation there after as it leads you on the ground. It is a compassion not just for compassion's sake but for the law's and for what God has ahead.
July24 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@Luke:5:1-11 NEVER THE LESS AT THY WORD - I've been confused here in Luke where the disciples came in. Matthew has Jesus meeting Simon and Andrew, they leave all to follow, then John and James in similar fashion, no mention of the Mother-in-Law. Mark has Simon and Andrew first, John and James a little further, then Simon's Mother-in-Law. Luke has Simon's Mother-in-Law then all four fishermen as partners. John has two of the Baptist's disciples one of which is Andrew follow, he brings Simon to Jesus, Jesus then finds Philip who finds Nathaniel, these men go to the wedding in Cana, no mention of the Mother-in-Law. How do we pull these all together in proper respect? I will give it a try. The Mother-in-Law seems to be the pivot point. The first miracle being at the wedding puts John's account ahead of the Mother-in-Law's time as in Mark. John's is more detailed, Marks typical style is compressed. This means that they know each other and have toured a short time before returning to Peter's home to heal her then pick up again leaving all to follow full time. Matthew and Luke pick up at the healing and attempt to talk Jesus into staying, after a brief rest Jesus returns to the shore where the boy's have partnered up to regroup telling them about becoming fishers of men, given what has happened they realize their sinful nature, leave all behind now for a full time road ministry. To me this better describes a process Jesus utilized to gently bend the men by introducing them to the road and ministry, taste the good and bad of the experience, see the truly miraculous, before asking them dive full in. It also explains the importance of this moment in Galilee and why two of the Gospel writer decide to start at this. The faith of the Lord includes faith in these particular men. These men are given to Him by the Father, it is His responsibility not to loose any of them except for the son of perdition. These men are full in now thanks to His gentle patient yet determined manner as well as His obvious miraculous powers.
September25 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@Luke:18:18-30 SAVE ONE - Is Jesus saying that He is not good? Is He saying that He is not God? Neither. He is speaking the ruler's hidden thoughts. The ruler is approaching Jesus and addressing Him as "good master" which if truth be told the ruler does not fully believe; not in the general sense of a local rabbi or high priest, not in the overall sense of Lord of Heavens. If so he would have dropped all that he had and followed. So why did he address Jesus as "good master" if he perceives Jesus neither good nor his master? Jesus said that none is good, save one, God. Not even the rabbis of the day were called good because it was doctrine that such a determination would put them on a level of God, which they weren't about to do. It was/is also their doctrine that there is not a triune godhead of Father/Son/Holy Spirit, even though they believe in Holy Spirit and the Seed (Righteous Servant). There must have been some suspicion on the man's part, reluctant yet curious that Jesus is attempting to expose. If Jesus means to say that He is not good/God He by implication is also saying that the Holy Spirit is not good/God either for only one is good implying the Father; and yet that would be blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. Rather, He is saying that He is good/God as is the Father, as is the Holy Spirit. Further, as He is good/God then He is Master and need be surrendered to and revered as such. If the master has done such (forgone all His riches and glory) so then should his servant. Imagine a rich lord or barron with many servants that upon an approaching war leaves all his riches behind so as to fight the battle and asks his servants to come fight as well. Yet the servants do not let go of the lords possessions that they hold thus hindering their movements towards the battlefield. It is ridiculous to see an enlisted soldier attempt to fight while his arms are filled with silverware and fine tapestries. The rich ruler hardly realizes that his Good Master stands before him heading down the road to the greatest of all battles, the battle for all men's souls. This man is talking about obediently performing the daily household chores when his weary master is talking leaving it behind for now to join in the fight. Unfortunately, few of His servants are able to do that; none by their own terms. The faith of our Lord is not writing this man (nor any man) off, He is simply identifying the present dilemma. Those that have given up all things for the cause have done so by God having brought them through the eyes of the needle. If this man is to do it it will be by God's hand as well; the good triune God's hand.
October17 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@Luke:23:44-49 INTO THY HANDS - His final words in Luke are a quote from David kjv@Psalms:31:5 . Was scripture like this what He was focusing on up there to get himself through this? He did always combat temptation with scripture quotes! So much of what David writes about mirrors what we'd imagine Jesus saying if He had He not kept His silence. kjv@Psalms:31 as a whole is very close in details with just a few oddities such as an iniquity that David had that Jesus would not (unless it is the iniquity of man He bore). There are several Psalms of David that Jesus could be reflecting on like this one kjv@Psalms:22 etc... David's Psalms have that kind of similarity to our struggles and are often used to empathetically encourage us. It could have been the same for Jesus as He felt His bodily functions shutting down. Perhaps these Psalms would be too focused on what He was going through and He was clinging to several of the more "Glory/Splendor of the Father" type writings kjv@Psalms:21 kjv@Psalms:104 etc... Jesus appears lucid to the end and amazingly strong to speak considering what is happening to His lungs (He is basically suffocating, drowning in edema and exhausting himself to death nJesusDeathScientific). Or could it be instead that David was reciting Jesus' silent Psalms. Our Lord has put absolutely everything on the line; there is nothing else for Him to give. If He were a gambler He would be said to be "all in". For it to be finished this way there seems to be a lot left on the table for the others yet to accept and understand and take on. The faith of our Lord is in everything now out beyond this certain death, and as to those He is leaving behind it is in the work of the Holy Spirit to tie all the pieces for them together.
November11 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@John:6:60-71 WILL YE ALSO - The proving began with Philip and Andrew. It ended with many leaving. Jesus knew what He was going to do beforehand and He also knew who was going to believe because of it; not many. We are told no one comes to Jesus but those who the Father gives. We also are told later in the end when Jesus prays in the garden that Jesus did not lose a one of those given except the son of perdition Judas. This would suggest that originally Jesus was given as few as eleven. The others involved such as the women that often traveled and served Him might either be part of that number in a different sense or will become part of that number fully at His resurrection. Remember that there can be a difference between being in the process of being drawn to Jesus by the Father and being fully given by the Father, between being taught of the Father and receiving He that has been sent. The length of this delay however may be a pre-cruxification dilemma as now we can be taught by the Holy Spirit of the entire completed work of Jesus without Him first having to perform it as here. I do not believe that this meant all of those who walked away this day stayed away either, only that they no longer walked with Him physically while He was here on Earth. In a real sense not even the eleven disciples are fully aware of what it is that Jesus will be shown by the Father to actually mean to them. They believe proportionately and somewhat selectively, but yet are said to be given. That Jesus knew this beforehand says a lot about the human heart and it's condition; that it cannot come to this saving grace on it's own; that it is a divine drawing and a spiritual process. The conviction and acceptance realized of this condition may well be the initial result of the drawing. Many left Him initially rejecting this truth. Some of that many are likely because of this pending conviction to return at some point. The faith of our Lord is definitely in the process performed by the Father and Holy Spirit. He can prove out the stark realities present in this condition because He knows that the divine process is in motion and ultimately effective. It seems to be a very long and deep process, but it is what sets us apart preparing us for the eternal. In this we know He truly is that Christ, Son of the living God.
November16 @ @ rRandyP comments: FaithOfJesus *John:8:12-30 FOR I AM NOT ALONE - As far as I can tell the Pharisees are basing their rejection of Jesus on three key points. One, they do not know who He is. Two, they believe He is only testifying of himself. Three, there is no scripture relating to a p(P)rophet coming from Galilee. We know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Jesus does not address this with them Himself, therefore He must be leaving this to them or others to find out. He does address the issue of them not knowing who He is stating that unless one knew the Father one would not know the Son. Again the burden is left to them, if they wanted to know the Father it would be as easy as getting to know the Son. Then there is the issue of one verses multiple testimony which again comes down to what they are willing to accept. John early on in this book made it clear that the testimonies of others was to mean everything to the gospel case.
December4 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@John:13:18-30 TO WHOM I GIVE SOP - Why didn't Jesus out Judas right then and there? Let's put ourselves in the mind of Judas for a moment. Whatever it was that made him to inquire with the Sanhedrin in the first place he has probably carried in his heart long before that; one doesn't just jump to such a decision. Now he is carrying all of that plus the anxiety of it all now coming together into this supper attempting to disguise it. The disciples there with him are looking at one another sizing each other up. Peter the courageous spokesman is even timid about asking who Jesus means. Jesus though is leaving it hang out there over the room. Judas and He both know who He is talking about, yet it is left for everyone to ponder and search out for themselves. Judas has to be thinking "Master just tell them". Orelse maybe Jesus is thinking "Judas just tell them". The truth is Jesus is man enough (has better purposes) to not out Judas to the others and Judas is coward (disturbed) enough not to confess either to Jesus or the others. How odd it must have been to dip the morsel in the Lord's bowl and still not be noticed by the rest of the attendees. It is nearly impossible to get into the mind set of Judas. The faith of our Lord however sees this as a moment that they/we will all look back on with breathless amazement/confusion. As this event continues to hang over the crowd of believers today, what message exactly does the Lord's faith wish us to look back on? How easy it is to miss what is actually going on in any moment let alone the few epic ticks. One first sees Judas go out the door and thinks nothing of it (or finds another explanation for it). Next thing Judas is approaching with a platoon of temple guards. Suddenly one looks back and remembers that Judas did take up the sop. Days later one recalls Jesus never outed Judas, but then again He did; no one else was close enough to the moment though to know any different. If not close enough to this moment, what other moments are we too distant in?
December26 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@John:20:1-9 AS YET THEY KNEW NOT - It is interesting to see the state of things as Jesus has left them. Remember, these are the very people Jesus has left the future ministry with. They seem totally unprepared; do they not? First of all, Mary doesn't seem willing to trust what she saw and had been told along the way to Peter and John; she appears to withhold information that we know from the other gospels leaving it all to their own inquiries instead. Second John, one of the two speed racers, willing admits that as much as Jesus talked about it neither man yet knew the Old Testament scriptures relating to the necessary resurrection. We can interpret this a couple different ways, either the men were just coming up short (a blinding of human pride say) or the information was being externally withheld (a purposeful blinding of sorts by the Spirit or such). The first option seems most likely, the second most intriguing. It may be that the initial apostolic contemplation of resurrection to His glory must come at the time after the crushing reality of the loss and finality of His death as a human is most deeply absorbed, when the guilt and shame of our own roles in this have been fully tasted. It is like tasting the bitters before the sweet. Think of the many believers today who grab on to the resurrection gospel without first grasping the ripping pain of His sacrifice. Do they really know the one without knowing first the other? Think of the many believers today that grab on to the pain and sacrifice without then grasping the glorification through resurrection gospel. Both halves are equally important, but there seems a proper order intended especially for these particular disciples who have been called to be the Apostles. Certainly there is a blinding of pride or doubt or such that each of us inflict upon ourselves. Certainly there is a blindness of newness and unfamiliarity with things spiritual, the thoughts of God not being ours and such. Why wouldn't it also be certain that there is an order and process (time released revelation) God is employing to reveal these things to those chosen to testify to and continue the earthly work of Jesus. Add now that Jesus knew and left the keys to His kingdom to this; meaning that the things that we are witnessing from these men and women are crucial first steps, a sign of the gradual unveiling, the crack of dawn growing brighter. What they have learned before this is set aside for an awakening. What they have learned before will by the Spirit be reintroduced into their remembrance. Now however is the rustling ahead of a new birth. The faith of our Lord is that we will know not by our own understanding, but we will know by His revelation. These men and women will be the first to know. They will begin to know when the Spirit is soon received. Already though they are sensing the motions of the heavenly fluttering near and surrounding them.
![[pBiblx2]](/img/menu.png)
![[pBiblx2]](/img/pbiblx2_logo3.png){kind=logo}