April17 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@Matthew:26:57-68 THOU HAST SAID - Imagine in a modern day court setting the judge (not the prosecutor) stacking the jury against the accused, gathering as many false witnesses as it would take, disallowing testimony for the defense, and forcing the accused into self incrementation. There would be grounds for a mistrial would there not? If Jesus is Messiah (there is evidence) would it be blasphemy for Messiah to state the obvious fact that soon the roles of judge would be reversed and He would be judging them? The chief prosecutor (who was also the judge) did not prove that Jesus was not Messiah, did not even try, for his judgement was predetermined (despised and rejected, esteemed not) and guilt was merely implied. There would be quiet a case for any defense attorney to use in the extradition proceedings to Roman authorities up to and including the physical mistreatment of the defendant if Jesus so chose. Jesus did not pursue such a course as prophesied by Isaiah, like a sheep drawn by her shearers He kept silent. There will be a proper judgement however of these proceedings and these men when the time is right. Those that smote him will be named and by the judgement by which they judged they likely could be judged as well. How is this relevant to us today? We too hold ourselves as judge and jury and prosecutor, the evidence we allow and disallow is based upon a predetermined implication of guilt. Jesus and the followers of Jesus are judged by this standard everyday and night in the high palace of public and civic opinion. The faith of our Lord is not in the legal rights He Himself has because He has forgone any such rights as sacrificial lamb. It is not in this worlds legal system (though in a negative sense it is). It is not in Peter and John outside gathering up the troops or moving legal mountains into the sea by faith. It is in His Father's plan and the report of the prophets. So must our's.
June29 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@Mark:14:53-65 I AM - We see the weakness of the Law; the rule of which is bent by man's own judgment. The greatest truth of all is judged to be blasphemy. If the question was to be asked "how do I lawfully kill this man (forget that He is Christ momentarily), and the answer that they came up with is to invite others to bare false witness/force the defendant to perjure himself and to exclude more defense minded or sympathetic ears from the inquiry, one has to assume that upholding the Law had very little to do with their proceeding. The Law became something to hide their true intents behind. Thus it is it's weakness. There must be the political calculation that they have been able to turn the swell of public support towards their cause or that they've been too lax given the situation; they are comfortable in doing this now. Here then the weakness of public sentiment is shown as the majority respects the show of power over all else even miracle and scripture. The leaders are offended to the point of slapping Him and spitting and yet are obliged enough to Roman government not to carry out the Levitical sentence of death from Deuteronomy themselves. Thus the weakness of the Sanhedrin itself is manifest. This is all a tangled corrupted mess. Jesus takes it as it is and as it comes. The heart of man is really what is on trial here and the prosecution of it is from the Father. The faith of our Lord is that His sacrifice will bring a change to all this. Change for most will not be for quite some time, but, change for a few (like the man downstairs by the servant's fireside) will be the unquenchable starting point.
August14 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@Luke:8:40-56 GO IN PEACE - There seems always to be an uncomfortable reaction of people to Jesus. When the crowd was asked who had touched Him, you can imagine the fright the poor women had (and others) as if she had stolen away a healing from the Lord. Clearly the Lord did not mean it as such, but the women felt as if she "not hid". The disciples have an odd discomforted reaction as if frustrated that they'd have to keep track of who had and who had not touched Him on top of everything else. The synagogue ruler had to be uncomfortable that his options had all dwindled down to Jesus, that it would be known by the rest of the congregation that he had approached this revolutionary. The mourners in the room have the uncomfortable involuntary eruption of distaste and scorn. Jesus has to remove them from the room. I would imagine most all of us would be uncomfortable placed in our Lord's presence no matter what He did or did not do. Almost like a stage fright, a fear of being found out, our fight or flight defense mechanism is more than likely to be reject and despise or else shun and run. Understanding these tendencies, Jesus must navigate these potentially explosive minefields everyday. Frightened and wounded birds we each are. His response to the woman "be of comfort, thy faith hath made thee whole, go in peace", His taking hold of the girl's hand saying "maid arise", His words to the parents "give her meat", these are all very sensitive/sincere calming gestures and yet are commanding enough to firmly steer the situation aright. The faith of our Lord is rigid in heavenly obedience yet empathetic on multiple human levels. Not everyone's reaction is going to be met, however, it should be clear that the principal players are going to be thoroughly touched.
August29 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@Luke:11:37-54 RAVENING AND WICKEDNESS - Esteemed Theophilus, so that you don't get swept away with this liberal notion of a gentile passive peaceful ecumenical Unitarian type of Jesus, you will recall that I mentioned twice now a light is not lit to be hid... that in His light men's works will be manifest... well welcome to the making manifest side of Jesus! Jesus is invited to dinner, remember that, He is their guest. The pharisee did not see the freight train heading his way. Jesus ties His hosts (the leading parties of this temple generation) to the blood guiltiness going all the way back to Abel. Another man, a scribe, takes offence at the implied association of scribes to the pharisees; Jesus pours it on even harder. The blood of the prophets is required at these men's hands. And there will be more prophets by the end that will be added to their account; namely Jesus Himself. There is no reason for us to believe that Jesus did not mean exactly what He said. If so it is shockingly profound as to the history we have recorded of Israel, it's true nature and the direction of it's religious leadership all of this time. What is interesting is the reaction to this; peppering Him with every type of question to draw Him out with things they can use against Him. It is a tactic to take the offensive without mounting the slightest defense; they believe that in the public's eye that they have that advantage... and they are right. Ravening and wickedness have been quite effective for them all this time, there are challenges publicly, but certainly not reason not to press hard at Jesus now. What is not explained is how Jesus walked away from this in one piece or on what note the gathering ended. The faith of our Lord is not about being peaceable and gentle it is about being true to God's word. Liberal theologians who confuse Jesus with Gandhi or a dove of peace have a much different version of Jesus than does Luke. If these men are what Jesus says they are there is no way that He is going to stay silent; not for the sake of politeness, not for the sake of His hosts, not for the sake of bringing all sides together for a big pow wow. Call the spade what it is... especially when the case is so clear, has been for so long, and the blood of your many servants is to be accounted for.
October11 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@Luke:22:39-46 THAT YE ENTER NOT - There was not any hiding or deception. Jesus went to where He always went. Where He knew He would be found. From other accounts we know that He left Himself little defense dividing His disciples eight and three, telling the three to pray. What was the temptation that they were supposed to pray over? Was it the temptation to try and defend Him? Was it the temptation to try and follow Him to His trials? Was it the temptation to try and disguise themselves amongst the crowd where they would be caught in the position of having to deny Him for their own safety? Is this what would open the door to Satan sifting Peter? There are many temptations on the road ahead for these men. Without knowing what one was likely to face how would one go about praying over their temptations? Like the Lord's model prayer one would fill their minds and hearts with the righteousness of God and His kingdom, submit oneself to His will, surrender ones earthly cares asking for His provision and deliverance, offer repentance and seek forgiveness, acknowledge the essential attributes of God, pray this again as the corporate "us". Not everyone did this. Apparently the wrestling over who was the greatest had worn them all out. Jesus is going through something that we cannot explain. We like to focus on His petition, but what we should be focusing on physical agony that He is under even after being supported by an angel. What strength did the angel give? Probably confirmation of the Father's answer to the petition, that this was indeed the Father's will. This extreme pressing of Jesus to the point of blood coming through the pores you will note is happening before Jesus is placed into anyone else's custody. The disciples may be vaguely aware of this sudden change, they are sleeping for sorrow. The temptation may be to hide in sorrowful sleep from what is happening, that it is by the Father's hand, that it is happening before anything other, to be overcome with the developing situation and resort to one's own carnal resources to hold it off. The faith of our Lord steps outside of it's agony for the moment to check on the others and finds them unconscious. He exhorts them once again to pray for themselves.
November1 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@John:4:1-26 IF THOU KNEWEST THE GIFT - Jesus is apparently avoiding/postponing conflict with the Pharisee's who are now taking notice of Jesus by the numbers He is drawing away from them in Judea. He takes the most direct route to Galilee venturing through the hated Jewish half breed land of Samaria. Jesus stops outside of Sychar and sends His band of Jewish looking fellows into the town to barter with the natives for food. A woman comes to the well to draw water just as she did probably twice a day, this time to find a lone road weary Jew sitting at the step of the well. What ensues is one of the most intimate conversations recorded in the gospels. It describes how Jesus pursued His way past her many defenses to bring her into an understanding of who He really was. First defense was ethnic, though they shared a common ancestry she made it a point to draw out their difference rather than their similarities. Jesus dislodged that defense by suggesting that who He was was someone that both and Jew and Samaritan had long looked forward to and that what He had to give was much anticipated by both. Her second defense was to claim ancestral rights to the lineage of Jacob. His response was to offer her more than an old decaying inherited landmark and to point to the vast difference of the shallow mountain runoff well's water to His eternal living water. Still calling Him "sir", her third defense is to make Him prove His offer. He replies by pointing her politely to a adulterous secret she holds that could not be known by any stranger. Now that she sees Him on the level of maybe a Jewish prophet, her fourth defense is to deflect His piercing gaze into her soul by diverting it to theoretical controversy as to the true singular sacred places of worship. It is an easy answer for Him to turn back on her for it does not matter where one worships as it does who the true object of that worship is given to. Her fifth defense is to put the concept of Messiah off into the future "well when messiah comes he will". Jesus declares "I am He". She has no other defense, she has only to believe His oath or not believe. There is no doubt that Jesus had many such conversations like this with a great many people. The few that we have recorded (like the previous with Nicodemus) are much glossed over and tightly edited with purpose. This seems to be one of the most open and free flowing of them all and show us a very intimate side of Jesus. He was not pushy, but very engaged and direct. He spoke in vivid pictures and concept that could be latched onto and remembered easily with time released multilayer payloads. He was able to work through her defenses with an intriguing honesty and sincerity and passion that she would come to respect. By the time the woman reaches her kinfolk she is convinced that He is Christ. The recorded record of our Lord is fast pace and compact with good reason. The faith of our Lord however is on a much deeper one on one plane that connects with the very core of the people He presents Himself to.
December19 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@John:18:19-24 WHY ASKETH THOU - How do a few powerful elite (but not powerful enough to do this deed on their own) sway the perception and support of enough others to get this job done? Think of those others as the jury. The prosecution's effort here is intended to grab the focus of the jury away from anything Jesus might be defending Himself by. The officer appears offended by the defendant's answer with the purpose of setting a definite tone of authority and gamesmanship by the defendant for the room fully in mind. Whether he was told to do this or whether he just felt it necessary we do not know; I believe it though to be staged. The high priest is seeking to set a similar tone releasing into the room air the scent that Jesus is being secretive for the blood hounds to sniff without having to prove it. Irregardless of any answer, the jury (many of the same) is left with the sense of Jesus disrespectfully toying with authority and that authority knows something that Jesus would rather hold back. It is all an act, but very effective in increments. One does not break the will at first, but bends it. Knowing that this ploy is in place our Lord's comments are as they should be, essentially "what is your intention in asking me that". Jesus is not going to defend Himself here. He has already proved Himself on a much bigger stage. His silence instead will be proof against intents and methods of His accusers. The trial is much the same in our age. His accusers are setting the stage for the jury by filling the air with nebulous scents; no need for proofs (less effective). The scent of holding something threatening back, the ora of descent and rebelion, the air of war mongering and brainwashing and alterior motive, the tinge of stirring crowds into fanaticism, all thrown out not to be answered (how could we) but to set the tone and put the adherent on the defensive. Where then is the Lord's defense? Is it really in us becoming more vocal and defensive? Or is it in us keeping true to what He has been teaching and commanding all along? Is not our love and fruitfulness in the knowledge of Him His best defense? The faith of our Lord is in the work that He has already been doing, it is in knowing from this initial work what in the future will be done. His faith is not in the trial or the defense or the court of corruptible opinion, it is in the righteousness of His Father. So must ours! Not everyone else is an accuser, they may simply be the jury. They should be aware of the tactic just the same.
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}