January16 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@Matthew:5:27-30 BUT I SAY UNTO YOU (ADULTERY) - The common teaching again falls short. It sees sin as actions and this action of adultery as mutual and consentual. Sin is of the heart however. You could cut eyes and limbs, anything would be better than nothing, but, you would still have the heart. The purpose of the law is to point us to the need for Christ, for Christ to be our fulfillment, not to provide a way for us to legislate against the flesh. One would have to legislate it in so many areas to the point where it would become sick and tired of any law and rebel against it out of spite. You cannot legislate the heart. The heart has played a trick already on us in defining adultery down to a remote and distant action. How many other other areas has it done this? It is Jesus' faith that the Law is correctly in place and can be used with the correct discernment to show us this errant heart. Remember He said 'blessed are thou'. Why? Because He 'has not come to destroy the law but fulfill it'. In what way then am I blessed? Because broken and humbled and contrite we turn to Him to be our fulfillment. It is our Lord's faith that Law and Grace (a specific grace - He Himself) work hand in hand to separate/lift men from their sin stained hearts.
February23 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@Matthew:13:31-35 SECRET FROM THE FOUNDATION - There may be a way to look at these parables and have them confirm what we have known all along. Jesus intends though to reveal things that have been concealed up until now and this/that parable. One must ask 'what do I understand now that until this parable was not known'? To do that one must search deeply with more than a passing glance. If the tiniest of seeds becomes a substantial tree, if the Kingdom hidden in three measures of meal raise the entire loaf, what new thing then does that mean? I think that the casual reader gets that He is talking about increase or growth here. Do they get what it is that is growing? Isn't the example of leaven also used as a analogy to spiritual corruption? Isn't the mustard seed used of the size of faith? Commentary cannot answer everything for you. Somethings simply must be searched out by one's self. To know that the true meaning is deep down into what has been concealed is an invitation into the parable. To know that parables are only opened up to the honest and sincere of reverent faith is a discipline. It is the faith of our Lord that all those that truly ask/seek/knock will find this wisdom and that this wisdom will grow out into every area and aspect of the believer's life. That the lives of believers together and united will combine throughout the world and ages to be supernaturally more than can be found in just one person.
April25 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@Matthew:27:62-66 THAT DECEIVER - We see the hatred or else the guilt of the priests and Pharisees turning to paranoia. As they saw it the first error was to be deceived into believing Jesus to be Christ, the last error to be deceived into believing His resurrection. If one could be deceived into either of these errors, one could be deceived into staging events and evidence to deceive others. Apparently, Pilate did not trust the Jewish temple guard either. Roman guards were already attached to the temple, so they were to be used to secure the sepulcher. So the tomb was sealed, move the stone/break the seal, and the guard was placed around it. This is the day after. The question becomes, with the evidence of the resurrection so central to the debate, why wasn't more done by either side to make sure the evidence? Given the accusation of deceit by the one and the accusation of extreme hatred and blood guilt by the other? The only one truly that could have done any better would have been Pilate and he had attempted to wash his hands of the matter. Others might feel that Jesus or the Father could have done better, but, really how much is enough? How much secured evidence does it take to make the issue convincing to ardent skeptics? Will there not always be areas of doubt? What about doubt and debate though is unhealthy? The Word of God has always been carried to the farther reaches more by its' opposition than it has its' friendly alliances. The faith of our Lord is in His read of the nature of man doing what it is going to do, the plan of God accounting for exactly that, consent and opposition to Him both carrying out His objective. Remember that He/we has thousands of years of historical insight into spreading His word ahead of this to know man's sparse obedience and coagulating opposition. He knows how to get things done.
June12 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@Mark:10:46-52 MADE THEE WHOLE/SAVED - kjv@Matthew:20:29-34; kjv@Luke:18:35-43 also give the same account. Mark here says "whole", Luke says "saved", Matthew omits the response noting Jesus' compassion but, he says that there are two beggars. Is there contradiction? Only if you want there to be. Why would you want there to be? So that you don't have to believe it. Is it that you believe that sight can't be restored as in a communicable eye disease? Is it that two men can't be present and one remembered in particular by Peter because of his name and perhaps as reference to those who might know him further? Is that being made whole cannot mean being saved? Is it that you think the Holy Spirit would make such an obvious mistake? There are plenty of other seeming contradictions if you want there to be. I would rather see it that the fame of Jesus was known well enough to the many beggars along the road near Jericho that some called to Him causing a disruption to the caravan of pilgrims to passover Jerusalem. The more they called out the more people tried to quiet them until finally Jesus was close enough to call at least two to where He was. They gladdly came and made petition of Him. He had compassion on them and seeing their faith was assured Himself that they were made whole/saved through the encounter. As others later read the account those who knew Peter would recognize the one name and be able to certify that he indeed could see and did remain in the faith perhaps having done or become something significant/memorable. The faith of our Lord is in the testimony that both had preceded Him and would follow Him. Where things needed to be further explained He made sure to mention, even repeat. Where things did not need but the benefit of a doubt He left it alone as a testing point. There are certainly challenging areas in our faith as there needs to be to prove our sincerity and give us room to grow, but, not one is contradiction unless one wants it to be. I would ask are you certain that you want this particular challenge to be the point your two paths split?
July23 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@Luke:4:38-44 THEREFORE I AM SENT - It is obvious that Jesus operates under the full assumption that He is servant that is sent. kjv@John:6:38 perhaps best explains this frame of mind in that He came down not to do His will, but the will of HIM that sent me. It is revealing that in so many places the people wanted Jesus out, one of the few times that they ask Him to stay it is not the Father's will. Imagine, let's say, that Jesus had stayed. He built a place to receive the people to Him instead of Him going out to the people. Say He trained thousands of disciples, anointed them, sent them out to plant similar institutions the world over. Makes a lot of sense does it not? It is not the Father's will! Imagine those loyal citizens that tracked Him to this desert place giving Him their sales pitch... "We've been thinking"... "You need a place to station your ministry"... "we need something that puts our name on the map"... "we think that we have much to offer"... "other cities can come here to you". All well and good, honest and sincere, but just not the Father's will. Maybe their pitch was smaller and more personal; who is to say. You'll remember that a few of the disciples were from this area; why not put down roots? There are a lot of things like that, I am sure, courses and objectives that just seem obvious and right; big plans, little plans, so many ways we feel we can help even counsel the Lord. The faith of our Lord is much more direct. The Father sent Him, the Father is going to guide Him which way to go. Our faith must resemble the same. It must be interesting (delightful) for Him to hear of all of our plans, encouraging to hear a kind welcoming word from us even if misguided. His path goes straight ahead to the next city however. What about ours?
September1 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@Luke:12:22-34 THERE YOUR HEART WILL BE - We surely know by now how important the heart is in the overall plan of scripture. Looking back on all the many examples of the Old Testament we've seen how the heart of a people waxes cold without much effort. It is almost the natural course to harden and takes special protracted effort to keep (on ours/God's part) to sustain any level of softening for any length of time. On both an individual level and as a nation we see how important the heart is in God's way of thinking and how He looks upon it to get to the truth of any matter. Where is the heart? Here Jesus says that it is with whatever you treasure. One could say "but I don't treasure one particular things, I have various interests, mostly people and family". Perhaps though we should re-examine how central to our core elements such as food and clothing and shelter fit into our relationship with God. Mostly He is something completely separate from these other elements, the control of these constant pursuits are difficult to blindly hand over. It is not that we don't have to make an effort towards these things, toil as Adam because of the curse, it is that we cannot allow them to be the things that harden us. Because they will. They always will. The moment after God performs something great in our lives we are likely to miss the onions back in our captivity in Egypt. The battle after the battle won by God will be the one that we try to win on our own. We will presume to be living by faith, but in these elemental areas proceed with confidence but one in God's provision. All these things the nations of the world seek. It is our Father's pleasure to give us the Kingdom. However, it takes a good measure of trust, a good measure of discipline, a good measure of obedience, a good measure of prudence and stewardship, planting/watering/harvesting. Most of all it take focus on God. To treasure God and His provision more than all and to work as for Him and His glory with thankfulness and a solid sense of His sufficiency. Much of what we worry about is out beyond that which we truly need. God will often lead us through a wilderness surviving on manna before leading us to land of milk and honey. It is likely that we will want to skip over the discipline of trust and obedience to get to the point of immediate plenty. These are the provisions that we inescapably tend to squander knowing not how to make best use of them. Israel squandered the promise land several times over. The faith of our Lord is in the heart. The heart has it's problems, but the heart can be true, it can be sincere, it can be focused. Our time here is a time to be spent becoming this type of heart.
September5 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@Luke:13:1-9 CUT DOWN - To what extent is God involved in catastrophe or mayhem? There may not be as much here in this passage as we'd like there to be for a complete theory. We know that even the hairs on our head are numbered and not a sparrow falls without His knowing. Somewhere we get the notion that these things are a punishment from God or that these people were sinners. It doesn't say that though does it? What it does say is about Israel the fig tree expected to produce fruit. This may be what a fruitless tree looks like; lunatic vengeful leaders and poor building codes, inspection and code enforcement. Who is to say that these Galileans weren't believers as Jesus spent so much time preaching in that area? We are looking for Jesus to answer the question on the small micro scale and He rather answers it on the macro. This is what one must expect when they turn their backs collectively on their God. They make bad decision, they become civilly corrupt, they are lead by tyrants and it is all because of their action and inaction, their faithlessness. This does not completely answer the tornado hurricane issue. It cuts through some preliminary issue however. The faith of our Lord is focused on big pictures, pictures behind pictures, pictures within pictures, knowing how things work and how they don't.
September15 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@Luke:15:11-32 A CERTAIN MAN HAD TWO SONS - Who are these sons? One son has served his dad all this time and has not transgressed his command. Every thing the dad yet possess is this son's. That takes every man/woman that I know out of the running. This son complains about the celebratory nature of his brother's return. The other son takes his inheritance in advance, squanders it, falls upon difficult times. This son would portray every single human in relation to God. This particular man realizes the error of his way and goes back to the dad even if to be a servant. This would portray every believer. So if one son is all people and the other is none, who is the other son? Who has not transgressed and retains their rightful inheritance that would now be confused and upset about the prodigal return of all repentant believing men? We heard in the previous parts of this discourse about the Angels rejoicing when a lost sinner is brought back by the Good Shepherd. Are all Angels that have not transgressed and still retain their rightful inheritance happy about mankind's celebrated return (unproven return) from such carnal reprobacy? I would say yes the Angels are happy, but with conscious effort. If this interpretation is true it would also suggest that the merriment amongst friends (like believers) is another area of initial angelic contention. It is better understood as the joy of the dad for the sons return being enjoyed amongst them rather than the friends carousing at the dad's expense. The faith of our Lord not only has to deal with the hearts and sincere feelings of men, but also of the Heavenly host. It would be easy for the dad to become so consumed by the actions of the lost son so as to diminish the sincerity and loyalty of the other. The righteousness of our Lord is that His mind/designs is always on both.
October5 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@Luke:20:27-40 GOD OF THE LIVING - It is amazing how many doctrines and layers of doctrine can be built from one wrong assumption. If wrong in this one area, how many other areas can one be wrong with? Add all the layers up and you can see how easy it is to live a religious life that believes in the same name of the one and only God, but is as wrong as wrong can get. Bring that truth forward into today's universalist notion that "all paths lead to God". A path derived from the assumption that there is no resurrection leads to a outlook and experience that differs from outlook and experience of others. It leads to a different perception of the necessity of Christ for salvation (salvation from what?). It is this perception and the many other possible combinations that allow one to rationalize the procedures necessary to kill off the Christ that stands today before them. How then do all paths lead to God if most paths lead to replacing Him? What the "all paths" argument is actually saying is that God is a big enough person to excuse these murderous (physically, intellectually, theologically) idolaters who blaspheme the work and testimony of the Holy Spirit, completely shun the design and plan of God the Father and disregard the sacrifice made on their behalf by God the Son. What this God is is whatever one wants Him to be; He is nothing more than a vain imagination. Do all paths lead then to a vain imagination? If even the believers of the one God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob can go astray at several essential points, what hope have the many would don't even believe that? The faith of our Lord is that man will not only be in heaven eternally, man will be on an equal footing with the angels that are already there. There is quite the transformation that has to occur between here and there. It is a transformation that only His death and resurrection can make on us. If God is the God of the living, then and now, how many of the living will have accepted Him for the God He actually is?
October6 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@Luke:20:41-47 GREATER DAMNATION - The concept of a scaled judgment is a tricky one. It would be easy for us to think that because we were slightly better than some others in good works we would receive slightly less judgment. We could extend it even further, that even though we did not believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and savior, we did believe that He was a very good man, we were inspired by Jesus to better love our neighbor and such, this would stand better in judgment than had we not believed/loved at all. Perhaps if we were on the verge of truly believing (teetering on the edge) we could avoid judgment altogether. The problem is that there are not separate areas in hell, one level of torment for the really bad, others graduated for the not so bad and almost good. Hell is hell. Hell is a complete separation from God (not varying degrees). What possibly may be the difference is the level of comprehension of one's utter guilt, that much was given to this servant and much was expected, that the expectation was not carried out, that what was carried out lead many of these tormented souls to this very place. Tyre and Sodom would not have this level of comprehension, but they would have the comprehension that they had lived vile and perverse lives. Those that sheepishly followed their leaders or peers into all manner of falsity and idolatry would know that they had been foolish and wrong, but they would not have the same responsibility for this eternal torment of others as would those given such responsibility over a great many. Interesting that this was tied in our reading to the momentary relief that the Pharisees felt in the debate over resurrection; they were right on one point, but yet absolutely wrong in the totality of their belief. The stumbling point for them was still Jesus being the Christ. This remains the stumbling point for many others as well including even the people who will prophecy and perform great works in the name of Jesus, but still refuse Him as their one and only Christ. Eternity is not a graduated scale of extreme torment to extreme serenity just as salvation is not a graduated scale slight acknowledgment to solely devoted. The faith of our Lord for His part is in absolutes. Absolute heaven and absolute hell. However He does know that on our parts, even the heaven that many will experience may be graduated by our comprehension of our responsibility to the dear ones there with us and how well we sought to fulfill our role in that responsibility. Clear (or clear-able) conscience may be our greatest eternal reward.
December18 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@John:18:15-18 PALACE OF THE HIGH PRIEST - When Jesus foresaw Peter denying Him three times what was it that He saw? How much of it did He see? How much did He plan even? For instance, did He know that John was known by the high priest and would be there or did He make him known? The Greek word doesn't show the level of familiarity. It becomes important because it is John that lets Peter into the servants area. Did John and Peter follow with Jesus in the procession or in the near distance tailing behind? Did they tail together? That becomes important to know how John knew Peter was near by to look for him; or to know that it was safe to bring him in. I guess my question is would Peter have denied Jesus regardless of where he was and then space and situation becomes unimportant? Did Jesus simply see three denials or see the situations developing outside of what He Himself was experiencing that lead to Peter's denials; even perhaps having a hand at making the situation(s) develop? We may never know from the text available to us. The theology that trails each possible explanation however does become quite interesting and complex. Why doesn't the Spirit lead the writer firmly as to these details? The Spirit records what is most important, Jesus is taken, two disciples follow. Little details are thrown in to make us wonder and ponder the possibilities. The possibilities are as enormous as God's sovereignty and as narrow as a man falsely accused and unlawfully treated. In our lives we can often sense the same circumstantial complexity and should center our faith on Him regardless. Would it be wrong for a woman of her own volition to come up and ask us a probing question? Would it be wrong for the Spirit to set that question in her heart to have her probe us? Would it be wrong of the Spirit to have a trusted associate of ours to come down and let us into a position where we could be probed? Would it be wrong for these things to occur most innocently and the test be us testing ourselves? The answer regardless is to have faith centered on Jesus. Whether we pass or fail the test, no matter how the test came about, the answer is to have faith centered on Jesus. It may be that this is the sole purpose of the test to begin with. The faith of our Lord is in God the Father and the Holy Spirit. How much He sees regarding us is an interesting consideration as the apparent depth alone is enormous. How much more He sees of the Father is a solid fact that He is willing to die for.
December29 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@John:20:24-31 BECAUSE THOU HAST SEEN - What would of happened with Thomas had Jesus not returned for Him? Thomas would have to come into his belief just like any other of us; by the testimony of others. The thing is that there are plenty of Thomas's out there that have their mind fixed that there is nothing in these testimonies to believe, that it is something that they will have to see and feel for themselves. Is Jesus obligated to return for them as well? The thing is that that don't really need to see and feel in so many other areas of their lives, why is it so important to them in this particular case? They will take another's word when it comes to politics. They will take another's word when it comes to economics, investments, history, future prediction, court testimony, science, global warming, etc... They will also swallow rumor and innuendo and false premise and distortion and murmuring and intimidation and unjust balance. Why is it not their intellectual creed in these cases? The point is that we try intellectually to be these things and to a certain respect we are, but the reality is that it is close to impossible to be this in the broadest respect. Truth is that we are inescapably made to rely upon the testimonies and opinions of others. Yes it is difficult and error prone and requires discernment; even trust. Yes others have their personal motives and view points and see the same event with dissimilar details. But for men like Thomas (well meaning though they think that they are) to say to the others "no, I won't allow your word even into my preliminary consideration" or "you all are liars" or "this is something so much different than what Jesus told us that would happen; I think you are all reaching" such is not much more than self inflating pride. So you won't believe until you see for yourself. Well where were you Thomas when the rest of us saw Him? How many times do you think Thomas that He has to come back when you just happen to show up? Is Jesus really obligated to meet you on your terms and with your objections? In a sense it is important for the over all record that there was dissent observed in the group, at least for us that long after would follow, but in Thomas's case it is merely a stroke of God's grace that he was given another opportunity to satisfy his hypocritical and prideful demands. What if Jesus had not come to any disciple? What if He had appeared to the common public or to Pilate and Ananias instead? Would that have changed the fact of our Lord's resurrection? The faith of our Lord is in the testimony of others testifying to the veracity of His word. He didn't even attempt to write it down Himself. He may be the only major world messianic figure that went about it this way. Such a defense would be more than proper in a court of law. Why would it not in the court of individual belief?
![[pBiblx2]](/img/pbiblx2_logo3.png){kind=logo}