Tuesday, November 2 - Miriam

Today's reading from the One Year Bible Chronological Reading Plan is Mark 14:53-15:20; Matthew 26:57-27:10; Luke 22:54-71; John 18:25-27.

I'll just start off by saying that I can't believe it is already November, and I'm pretty sure this is the longest I've done daily or near-daily Bible reading in my entire life.  So thanks to all of you for keeping me accountable and for all your great thoughts and encouragement.

First in today's passage - Jesus did not defend himself against his accusers.  Was this because he knew this must all take place to fulfill his Father's plan?  Was it because he knew the people were determined to get rid of him one way or another and there was no point in defending himself?  Our human nature is to defend ourselves when we feel we are under attack or being unjustly accused of something.  The problem with this response is that in most cases we are reacting emotionally and we tend to lash out or respond inappropriately aggressively, causing the other party to think that there must be something to this... after all, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."  Pilate thought it strange too.  He asked Jesus if he wasn't going to answer the accusations.  How many people had been brought before him accused of various crimes?  I'm sure very many.  And I'm equally sure that all of them had tried to defend themselves.  Yet here was Jesus, accused of many things which I'm sure most of the people there, including Pilate, knew to be false, and yet he didn't say a single word in his own defense. 

Who Killed Jesus, the Messiah? Part I is a commentary by Bob Deffinbaugh on bible.org and he shared some interesting information.  Talking about the initial hearing with Annas, father-in-law of the high priest:

This was not a legal hearing in the first place. This was a personal confrontation with the unofficial high priest who had long sought the removal of Jesus. His son-in-law had previously determined that Jesus must be gotten rid of’ (verse 14). Annas no doubt wished to gloat over his apparent victory, and hopefully to obtain evidence for the upcoming trial of Jesus from His own lips.

It was because of Annas’ illegal questioning that Jesus responded, “Why do you question Me? Question those who have heard what I spoke to them; behold these know what I said” (John 18:21). In Jewish justice, as in our own system, no one can be compelled to produce testimony against himself. This was what Annas was doing. He was ‘fishing’ in his questions. Jesus refused to respond to such illegal questioning. One of the officers who stood by considered the response of Jesus insolent and struck Him (verse 22).


Some have accused Jesus of not following His own instruction to ‘turn the other cheek.’ May I suggest that the actions of Jesus are an excellent commentary on His teaching in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus there taught that one should never lash back or seek to retaliate for personal insults. But here it was not a matter of insult so much as a question of legal rights. Jesus would not tolerate injustice. It was not a matter of personal feelings in this situation but of principle. How few there are today who will stand up for matters of principle.

Also in that commentary he quotes a book by James S. Stewart that lists 5 ways in which Jesus' trial was illegal according to the Jewish legal system.  Feel free to read the commentary if you are interested in examining that further.  It is very interesting.

Next the denial of Jesus by Peter.  From Failure - Lapse, Not Collapse by Bob Deffinbaugh on bible.org -
(1) It was not just an individual act of denial. To put it in other words, Peter’s sin was no solo. Jesus had said that Satan had demanded permission to sift all of the disciples as wheat.134 In Matthew’s account, Jesus said, “… You will all fall away because of Me this night …” (Matthew 26:31). Peter, as usual, may have served as the spokesman, but he did not fail alone.

(2) Peter’s denial was no mere act of cowardice. Unlike most of the other disciples, Peter followed his Lord after the arrest. Granted, it was ‘from a distance’ (Matthew 26:58), but that was far more than most of the others were willing to chance. Also, let us not forget that Peter was willing to die for his Lord. When Peter pulled out his sword and cut off the ear of the high Priest’s servant, Malcus (John 18:10), he undoubtedly failed to accomplish his objective, which was to cut off his head! Peter was willing to go down fighting in a blaze of glory; he simply couldn’t tolerate passive acceptance of suffering and injustice—yet.

(3) Peter’s denial evidenced a temporary failure of his faith, but not a denial of his faith. We must make this distinction if we are to take the words of the Lord Jesus seriously (and literally!): “… But I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail …” (Luke 22:32). We must come to one of two conclusions here. Either the prayer of Jesus was unanswered (and so Peter’s faith really did fail), or Jesus’ request was granted and Peter’s faith merely faltered, but did not completely fail.

Peter denied knowing his Lord, but his statement cannot mean that his love of Jesus, which had grown over those years together with the Savior, suddenly died. There was still faith, hope, and love, though momentarily overshadowed by doubts and fears. Who of us can deny that such doubts and fears have troubled our hearts and challenged our faith?

If I may attempt to draw a feeble analogy, I do not believe that an act of adultery on the part of either a husband or a wife is sufficient basis for dissolving the marriage relationship. This is why I do not advise the so-called “innocent party” to initiate divorce when their partner has been unfaithful. An act of immorality, in my opinion, does not necessarily prove that all love and commitment has been cast aside. Such was the case, I maintain, with Peter and his relationship to his Lord.

Interesting, no? 

I don't know how many of you have seen the movie The Passion of the Christ.  I've seen it, a few years ago when it came on out DVD.  I watched it partly because I wanted to see how it was portrayed and whether or not it was accurate according to the Bible.  I was interested to see whether it would have a negative or derogatory slant, since it was a Hollywood film (by the way, I thought it was well done - definitely not entertainment, however).  I think it gave me a new appreciation for what Jesus went through in the hours before he was actually crucified.  There are only a couple of short verses in the Bible describing how Jesus was treated by the guards after he was condemned and it's easy to read those couple of short verses without actually registering what it must have been like.  The pastor at my church talked on Sunday about who Jesus was and why he can understand and empathize with us, whatever we may be going through.  This is one of the reasons, right here.  He was taunted, made fun of, mocked and insulted, spit on, punched, and hit on the head with a staff.  How petty and minor seem some of the things that we take so personally when measured against what Jesus had to endure.  He does understand how we feel and what it's like to be bullied and beaten up.  Hopefully we can remember, when we're feeling like no one understands how we feel or what we're going through, that Jesus DOES understand.  He's been there and he promises to be there for us, whenever we need him. 

Tomorrow's passage: Mark 15:2-20; Matthew 27:11-31; Luke 23:1-25; John 18:28-19:16.