What Did Jesus Do?
The servant girl said to Peter, “You also are not one of this man’s disciples, are you?”
He said, “I am not.”
John 18.17
When Peter had declared that he was prepared and willing to lay down his life for Jesus, the Lord had predicted that before the hour of the cock’s crowing the brash disciple would not only not lay down his life, he would distance himself from Christ by three times denying that he was a follower of the Lord (See John 13.36-38). Now, in the courtyard of the high priest, the Shepherd stood alone, separated from his flock, as Peter, given three opportunities to identify himself with the Lord, each time denied any association with Jesus (John 18.17, 25-26).
I don’t know that I have ever heard anyone attribute Peter’s thrice-repeated denials as anything other than a failure of his faith at a time of severe testing, and a lack of courage in the face of possible arrest and execution. But none of the accounts in the four Gospels mention flagging faith, or cowardice inducing fear, as motivation for the denials. Whatever the reason for his denials, the Synoptic Gospels alike report that they moved Peter to bitter weeping (Matthew 26.75; Mark 14.72; Luke 22.62), while John makes no mention of any tears (John 18.27). Personally, I am not about to accuse Peter of cowardice, aware as I am of the times I have failed the Lord, which number far more than three. Perhaps Peter was guilty of loving his own life more than he loved Jesus, but when Christ later questioned Peter regarding how much he loved the Lord, the disciple capitalized on the opportunity to affirm what it appeared he had three times denied—as many times as Jesus asked, Peter confirmed that he indeed loved the Lord. Even more, the manner in which the Apostle would die added even stronger testimony as to his loyalty and love for Jesus, and those whom Jesus loved (see John 21.15-19).
Additionally, we know it caused the Lord himself no little anguish, and bitter tears as well, to submit to the Father’s will for his life (see Matthew 26.37, 39, 42; Mark 14.33-36; Luke 22.41-44). As it was the Father’s will that his Son alone should suffer and die for the sins of the world, I might even be inclined to say that Peter was passing a severe testing of his faith by denying Jesus, that the apostle’s denials were the Father’s will; Peter may have been quite willing to die with Jesus, yet constrained himself to deny the Lord so that the will of the Father would be done, and the Lamb of God alone would be sacrificed on the Cross. I believe I might call down curses upon myself if my faith actually required me to deny the Lord.
Peter had heard the Lord’s repeated predictions of his coming death; is it too much for us to consider that Peter, though he was willing to die with the Lord, reluctantly denied Jesus? Remember, it was Peter who was willing to single-handedly take up a sword in defense of Jesus and face an armed mob (John 18.10). Shusaku Endo’s novel, Silence, is a moving and powerful tale of a priest whose faith found its greatest expression in denying Jesus, and the priest’s own bitter tears of anguish and self-reproach are, perhaps as with Peter, an expression of love surmounting faith’s greatest test. While the other ten Apostles deserted Jesus, it was Peter who was called upon to deny the Lord. And I, for one, am willing to affirm that this may have been a triumph, rather than a failure, of faith, for it was the will of the Father that Jesus stood alone before his condemners.
As the Son, the Lamb of God, silently stood alone before those who condemned him, so too Peter, the Rock upon whom Christ would build his Church, wept alone for the Lord he loved yet had denied.
S.D.G.
Jim
www.jimwilkenministries.org
Marion, NC
PS 37.4
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Jesus Went As It Was Willed
What Did Jesus Do?
“…they led him to Annas, father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest.”
John 18.13
The wills of two men, Annas and Caiaphas, had such influence with the Sanhedrin that it might be said that they directed the actions of that body. Thus, one might conclude that anyone who was brought before the Sanhedrin was subject to the authority and will of those two men. While this may have been the case for others who were arrested, and who stood before the Sanhedrin during the time of Annas and Caiaphas, it was not so when they had Jesus of Nazareth seized and bound. Truly, Jesus went as it was willed, not by any man, but by the Father.
You see, while Caiaphas had lately come to the shrewd political conclusion that it would be “expedient” for one man to die rather than the whole nation perish (see John 11.50), the Father had ordained, before the foundations of the earth had been laid, that justice, grace, mercy, and love required that the Son should die rather than the whole world perish. This is not to say that it was the Father’s will that the whole world would be saved, but that whoever believed in the Son should have eternal life (see John 3.16). Jesus, ever the obedient Son, went as it was willed by the Father. And all who are saved owe eternal thanks and praise to the One who willed, and to the One who went as it was willed.
Of course, much that transpires still in this fallen world appears to be the direct result of the will of men and women, and even children. Yet, even though it is true that God has granted to human beings the privilege and responsibility of exercising moral choice, no one, regardless of how high or low their station in the world, imposes their will on others but that it is ultimately subject to the perfect and sovereign will of the Father. Jesus went as it was willed. But it was neither his own will (see Mark 14.36), nor that of man, that directed the Lord’s steps, but the Father’s will alone.
Everyone of us has the opportunity and the need each to make the choice, actually to make many choices, as to whose will we will submit to. Do we impudently act as if we possessed total freedom of will, and simply do as we see fit, such as the people of Israel did in the days of the Judges (see Judges 21.25)? Or do we, much as the Sanhedrin, submit to the will of those who are positioned by wealth, politics, or religion to exercise undue influence and power in the world? If we claim to be believers, then there is but one faithful course for us to follow, and that is the path which Jesus took all the way to the Cross, and beyond. Jesus went, not as he himself willed, nor as men willed, nor as the world willed, but as it was willed by the Father. If we would be Christ’s disciples this is the only way for us to travel through the days of our lives.
S.D.G.
Jim
www.jimwilkenministries.org
Marion, NC
PS 37.4
“…they led him to Annas, father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest.”
John 18.13
The wills of two men, Annas and Caiaphas, had such influence with the Sanhedrin that it might be said that they directed the actions of that body. Thus, one might conclude that anyone who was brought before the Sanhedrin was subject to the authority and will of those two men. While this may have been the case for others who were arrested, and who stood before the Sanhedrin during the time of Annas and Caiaphas, it was not so when they had Jesus of Nazareth seized and bound. Truly, Jesus went as it was willed, not by any man, but by the Father.
You see, while Caiaphas had lately come to the shrewd political conclusion that it would be “expedient” for one man to die rather than the whole nation perish (see John 11.50), the Father had ordained, before the foundations of the earth had been laid, that justice, grace, mercy, and love required that the Son should die rather than the whole world perish. This is not to say that it was the Father’s will that the whole world would be saved, but that whoever believed in the Son should have eternal life (see John 3.16). Jesus, ever the obedient Son, went as it was willed by the Father. And all who are saved owe eternal thanks and praise to the One who willed, and to the One who went as it was willed.
Of course, much that transpires still in this fallen world appears to be the direct result of the will of men and women, and even children. Yet, even though it is true that God has granted to human beings the privilege and responsibility of exercising moral choice, no one, regardless of how high or low their station in the world, imposes their will on others but that it is ultimately subject to the perfect and sovereign will of the Father. Jesus went as it was willed. But it was neither his own will (see Mark 14.36), nor that of man, that directed the Lord’s steps, but the Father’s will alone.
Everyone of us has the opportunity and the need each to make the choice, actually to make many choices, as to whose will we will submit to. Do we impudently act as if we possessed total freedom of will, and simply do as we see fit, such as the people of Israel did in the days of the Judges (see Judges 21.25)? Or do we, much as the Sanhedrin, submit to the will of those who are positioned by wealth, politics, or religion to exercise undue influence and power in the world? If we claim to be believers, then there is but one faithful course for us to follow, and that is the path which Jesus took all the way to the Cross, and beyond. Jesus went, not as he himself willed, nor as men willed, nor as the world willed, but as it was willed by the Father. If we would be Christ’s disciples this is the only way for us to travel through the days of our lives.
S.D.G.
Jim
www.jimwilkenministries.org
Marion, NC
PS 37.4
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Jesus Stayed With The Name
What Did Jesus Do?
Jesus said to them, “Whom do you seek?” They answered him, “Jesus of Nazareth.”
Jesus said to them, “I am he.”
John 18.4-5
When the posse which Judas had led out came to Gethsemane to arrest Jesus, the Lord did not try to flee or resist capture in anyway. In fact, Jesus took charge of the situation, knowing full well what was up. Yet, the Lord did not simply step forward and say, “You got me, coppers!” Instead, he played “dumb,” so to speak, asking who it was the soldiers were looking for, though there could have been no doubt in his mind who they had come to seize. Why did Jesus feign ignorance of what was going on? Well, I believe it had something to do with the name he shared with the Father, the name he had manifested to his followers (John 17.6). Essentially paraphrasing the words the Father had spoken to Moses more than a thousand years earlier (“I AM WHO I AM.” Exodus 3.14), Jesus stopped the mob in its tracks by revealing, “I AM He.” Rather than let the police blotter record that Jesus of Nazareth had been apprehended, the Lord stayed with the name, so that it would be known that the band which had come out with lanterns and torches and weapons had clapped irons on the great I AM.
There is no little significance in Jesus staying with The Name. For immediately, and persisting down to our present day, there have been those who insist that what occurred in Jerusalem was nothing more than the Sanhedrin eliminating a troublesome itinerant rabbi from the Galilee, or the Romans crucifying one of many insurrectionists whom they executed during the course of their occupation of Palestine. But it is hard to argue or support such a trifling explanation. And Jesus made it even harder to do so by staying with The Name. If they would take him in to custody, Jesus wanted to make sure the soldiers and their officers knew exactly who it was they were turning over to the chief priests and Pharisees. And they knew. For upon hearing the Lord's declaration, “I AM HE,” the mob drew back and fell prostrate (John 18.6). This spontaneous reaction of mixed awe, fear, and reverence would not have occurred if the platoon thought it was merely taking a common outlaw or rebel in for questioning and trial.
And it is very likely that no common outlaw or rebel would have meekly surrendered himself to his would-be captors, as Jesus did (John 18.8). But surrender was necessary if the lives of the disciples were to be preserved; and Jesus was determined that not one of them should be lost, (John 18.9).
Even when Simon Peter sought to mount a spirited defense of the Lord by striking out with a sword, Jesus would have none of it. He stayed with the name, the name he shared with the Father, and accepted the “cup” the Father had given him (John 18.11). Bitter as the cup was, it was only Christ’s confidence and trust in The Name that enabled him to take and drink it.
In light of these verses the folly of those who today would re-name or re-imagine God is amply evident, and believers who pursue such nonsense in fact trifle with their eternity. For, as Peter would later testify to the Sanhedrin, there is no salvation apart from The Name (Acts 4.12).
S.D.G.
Jim
www.jimwilkenministries.org
Marion, NC
PS 37.4
Jesus said to them, “Whom do you seek?” They answered him, “Jesus of Nazareth.”
Jesus said to them, “I am he.”
John 18.4-5
When the posse which Judas had led out came to Gethsemane to arrest Jesus, the Lord did not try to flee or resist capture in anyway. In fact, Jesus took charge of the situation, knowing full well what was up. Yet, the Lord did not simply step forward and say, “You got me, coppers!” Instead, he played “dumb,” so to speak, asking who it was the soldiers were looking for, though there could have been no doubt in his mind who they had come to seize. Why did Jesus feign ignorance of what was going on? Well, I believe it had something to do with the name he shared with the Father, the name he had manifested to his followers (John 17.6). Essentially paraphrasing the words the Father had spoken to Moses more than a thousand years earlier (“I AM WHO I AM.” Exodus 3.14), Jesus stopped the mob in its tracks by revealing, “I AM He.” Rather than let the police blotter record that Jesus of Nazareth had been apprehended, the Lord stayed with the name, so that it would be known that the band which had come out with lanterns and torches and weapons had clapped irons on the great I AM.
There is no little significance in Jesus staying with The Name. For immediately, and persisting down to our present day, there have been those who insist that what occurred in Jerusalem was nothing more than the Sanhedrin eliminating a troublesome itinerant rabbi from the Galilee, or the Romans crucifying one of many insurrectionists whom they executed during the course of their occupation of Palestine. But it is hard to argue or support such a trifling explanation. And Jesus made it even harder to do so by staying with The Name. If they would take him in to custody, Jesus wanted to make sure the soldiers and their officers knew exactly who it was they were turning over to the chief priests and Pharisees. And they knew. For upon hearing the Lord's declaration, “I AM HE,” the mob drew back and fell prostrate (John 18.6). This spontaneous reaction of mixed awe, fear, and reverence would not have occurred if the platoon thought it was merely taking a common outlaw or rebel in for questioning and trial.
And it is very likely that no common outlaw or rebel would have meekly surrendered himself to his would-be captors, as Jesus did (John 18.8). But surrender was necessary if the lives of the disciples were to be preserved; and Jesus was determined that not one of them should be lost, (John 18.9).
Even when Simon Peter sought to mount a spirited defense of the Lord by striking out with a sword, Jesus would have none of it. He stayed with the name, the name he shared with the Father, and accepted the “cup” the Father had given him (John 18.11). Bitter as the cup was, it was only Christ’s confidence and trust in The Name that enabled him to take and drink it.
In light of these verses the folly of those who today would re-name or re-imagine God is amply evident, and believers who pursue such nonsense in fact trifle with their eternity. For, as Peter would later testify to the Sanhedrin, there is no salvation apart from The Name (Acts 4.12).
S.D.G.
Jim
www.jimwilkenministries.org
Marion, NC
PS 37.4
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
