Doubting Doubt
(Table of Contents - Click This Link)
The Process
Step 4 – Part 2
The Indefeasible Testimony
We are familiar with the story of Peter denying Jesus. It is one of the few events that are recorded in all four of the gospels. The Gospel of Luke has one detail that the others do not have. In chapter 22 verse 61 it says
The
Lord turned and looked at Peter.
In
Matthew, Mark and Luke, they all record that with the second crowing of the
rooster, Peter recalled Jesus’ prediction and that he then wept. John does not tell us those things.
Most translations have Luke 22:61 in just these words – “The Lord turned
and looked at Peter.” Some others say
“The Lord looked upon Peter,” or “The Lord looked straight at Peter,” or “The
Lord looked directly at Peter.”
About this look, no version says any more than this.
What did Peter see in Jesus’ eyes?
Let’s try a couple of guesses.
Did Peter see shock and surprise?
“Peter! I can’t believe you did
that! Who would’ve guessed? You could have fooled me!”
No.
Did Peter see contempt and anger?
“I
always knew you were a good-for-nothing, Peter.
You’re not a rock, you’re a clod!
No.
What did Peter see?
He
saw compassion.
“Oh, Peter! It breaks my heart to
even have to watch this happen to you. I
know you’re going to hurt over this for a long time. Poor, Peter!”
Sure, Peter saw compassion.
IMPORTANT – How do we know this?
In
the first place, see how Peter was affected.
It says that Peter wept bitterly.
What else could have caused this response? Not shock and surprise. Not even contempt and anger.
And seeing compassion, of all things, in Jesus’ eyes why did that make
Peter weep bitterly? This was no
occasion for Peter to get a warm and comforted feeling. Peter had let Jesus down. Peter had gone back on his word.
Why would that make Peter cry? He
could have been simply disappointed:
“Oops! I messed up that time!” He could have felt apologetic: “Oh, hey, Jesus, sorry about that!”
At
the very center core of this, Peter wept because of one thing: he knew
Jesus. Peter knew Jesus had chosen him,
though he had never done anything to deserve to be chosen and had done who
knows how many things not to deserve it.
Peter knew Jesus was the one worth living for and worth dying for like
no one else could be. And Jesus cared
for Peter.
Peter knew Jesus.
How else do we know that Peter saw compassion in Jesus’ eyes?
We
know that Jesus cared. Jesus cared for
all of the poor in spirit and for those who mourn. He had compassion for the hungry and had said,
“If I send them home hungry, they will collapse on the way.” Jesus cared for the outcasts of society and
for those who sought for eternal life.
Jesus cared for little children.
Jesus saw a crowd, not as an unruly mob, but like sheep without a
shepherd and He had compassion for them.
Jesus cared for Jerusalem. And
Jesus cares for each and every one of us.
How else do we know that Peter saw compassion in Jesus’ eyes?
John told us: “This is how we
know … by the Spirit he gave us.” (1
John 3:24) If we have accepted Christ as
Lord, we know by the very Spirit of Christ.
“The Spirit himself testifies with out spirit …” (Roman 8:26)
In
other words, there is no guesswork about it.
Let me repeat that: There is no
guesswork about it. We have not been
left as orphans (John 14:18). We do not
have to suppose that Jesus had compassion in His eyes. We know it. Because we know Him. We know Him! Or at least, we should know Him, and if we
don’t we have a whole lot of extra praying to do.
So
what does all this have to do with anything?
Name one way that is NOT how we know that Jesus had compassion in His
eyes?
By
reading what the Bible says. The Bible
does not tell us that Jesus had compassion in His eyes.
Luke 22:61 tells us nothing about compassion or tears or sawdust or
anything else that was in Jesus’ eyes.
Funny, isn’t it? The Bible doesn’t
tell us this thing and yet we know it without any question whatsoever; because
we know Jesus.
What about Mary? What about John
the Baptist? Are even they really such
strangers to us that we don’t know them that well? We have a large wheelbarrow full of things
that we know about them and yet we are prepared to ditch all that in favor of
something that makes no sense at all.
We
are ready at the drop of a hat to make claims that the evidence points to the
bizarre explanation without supplying any of that evidence at all. Of course we don’t give any evidence,
because, until further information comes to my attention, I am unaware that
there is any evidence. I have hunted for
it but have not found it. I have
requested it but as of this writing no one has provided any. But we have no trouble at all with an
explanation which is hardly more than a phantom due to all of the missing
information surrounding it. We don’t
even think that’s odd and we can’t believe it when some wise guy like me comes
along and asks about it!
My
concern is that if we are on the wrong track with these two secondary issues,
what else might we be missing?
No comments:
Post a Comment