101223 faithposting

[prismaticbleed]

 
KVOTD= "Trust, faith, & obedience are God's recipe for joy." = "Have faith in His Goodness, call out to Him for help in prayer, and then believe & follow His Word."
It's so simple but so powerful. Yet it ALL banks on that FAITH. If you don't trust that God IS, and that He IS GOOD, then you will be literally incapable of joy.
BUT they unexpectedly tied this in to EXODUS 16:4??? "God heard the Israelites cry for help, even though it sounded like complaining." He was STILL AWARE OF THEIR NEEDS & WORRIES, and He was STILL GENEROUS IN PROVIDING-- but in the very provision He TESTED THEIR OBEDIENCE: would they follow His instructions concerning the provisions? THAT would reveal not just whether or not they were GRATEFUL, but mainly whether or not they TRUSTED HIM TO FULLY MEET THEIR NEEDS when THEY COULDN'T CONTROL THE OUTCOME. He limited their collection of manna and effectively forced them to surrender to the SUFFICIENCY of His Loving care instead of fearing that they would run out DESPITE His PROMISE that they would NOT.


We have SO MANY TABS open for Catholic articles & SO MUCH LEFT TO TYPE from yesterday, it's overwhelming. But we want to focus on John 12. We need the Gospel foundation in order to truly understand and properly speak about anything else in our religious walk.

------‐--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I found this amazing reflection by Kristin Miller on the Mark 14 parallel to the opening of John 12=

"When Mary of Bethany broke her alabaster jar and anointed the head and feet of Jesus with her costly perfume, the disciples were indignant... Such valuable commodities were now lost... they complained. And they rebuked her. They rebuked her harshly for an act of love they deemed too costly. Waste! they cried. Jesus in turn rebuked His disciples and commended Mary. He will always commend love, especially, I think, when it is costly... Mary, in her Master’s estimation, just as she had chosen the best use of her time, had now chosen the best use of her treasures."
I appreciate the brutal phrase "valuable commodities." It really objectifies the act, an appalling take that highlights the wrongness of their grumbling... yet nowhere near as much as the word "lost." It's shocking-- to think that something, anything, given to Christ is "lost"!! It clearly reveals one's priorities and perspective, as to whether their treasure is on earth or in heaven.
DO we think this way?
...
This mortal mindset is also contrasted brilliantly with Mary's, when Jesus alone recognized and commends her act as one of love. The onlookers didn't see that. They were too blinded by temporal concerns of finance & reputation & worldly prudence. They were counting costs and calculating losses, only willing to approve or engage in acts of generosity that weren't too generous... after all, they didn't want to "waste" anything. 
This viewpoint seeps into one's heart like poison. Whenever you start counting the cost of giving, you become incapable of love.
...
There's no such thing as a "waste" when Love is concerned, because Love sanctifies it all. Regardless of how it is received, it is GIVEN, and that is what pours forth FROM GOD. Such a holy gift CANNOT be "wasted" because its very existence, its very bestowal & blessing, is ALREADY of infinite value.


------‐--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Starting Ellicott today!

...First just let me say that, reading the Gospel, I feel so much love rushing up in my heart for God and Jesus Christ and the people of God. Reading BACE's visions as supplements make this charity flare up especially intensely. I must put SOLID TIME aside daily to read them.
But I mention this at all because I never before felt LOVE and ZEAL while reading Scripture. As a child it was dry duty or morbid fascination (the fiery furnace, Absalom, the Passion), but no personal longing. As an adult during my ex-Catholic "phase" (thank God that's ALL it was!!) my reading was tainted by critical suspicion & cynicism, and I was blinded by pagan prejudice. I felt no fondness for even the "natural beauty" of the text.
But now... I literally hunger for it. I crave it. If I go a day without reading the Bible I actually feel like I'm starving. I NEED it now, but more than that, I WANT it. No, even more-- I DESIRE it. It's a heart-longing, not just a head-fascination. Even that, now, is being transformed into a healthy hunger for Knowledge as a SPIRITUAL GIFT, not a feat of intelligence.
I thank God profusely for all of this. It's ALL by grace, undeserved & bounteous. If this new & real Love for God and His Word is but the tiniest splinter of Heaven, then let me tell you, it is ABSOLUTELY WORTH EVERYTHING to get there. Life without this would be death enough.


"Here was one sitting at meat with them who had lain in the sepulchre four days. The meal is in his case, as afterwards in that of our Lord Himself, a physical proof of the Resurrection."
That is a EUCHARISTIC PARALLEL, which only shocks me because it suddenly makes it clear that the "proof of Resurrection" is a MEAL. The one who was dead and now lives PROVES it by EATING FOOD. This stuns me because the only explanation I can guess is the DIRECT TRANSMUTATION OF THE FALL, in which eating was made the proof of DEATH!!
Food in and of itself has no power-- ONLY THE TREES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GARDEN. And whereas the first Adam ate the one, the second Adam ate the other-- one in disobedience via pleasure, the other in obedience via agony.
...

"St. Matthew and St. Mark both state that she anointed His head. This was the usual custom; but St. John remembers that the act of love went beyond that of common esteem, in the depth of its gratitude and reverence, and anointed the feet, and wiped them with her own hair."
She did not exclude the typical reverence in order to give the unusual one! Even in deep humility, she would not have refused to show the typical honors to Him, because He deserved those fully, as well as everything else she could offer. This also shows that she wasn't trying to make a scene or special show; her heart just overflowed and she acted without any scheme or plan. She just poured everything out in sheer gracious love, blessedly heedless of cost or criticism. In this very act, spontaneous and sincere, she uses her hair to clean His feet rather than looking for a "proper" cloth-- she cares not for particulars, as her mind is transfixed on worship, not on appearances. In such self-forgetfulness her own hair-- a symbol of maiden glory & beauty, maybe even a treasure to her-- is deemed sufficient for serving the all-consuming cause of love, stripped of its pride and equated with a washbasin rag... and through that complete humiliation, it is transformed into a means of worship, and sanctified as such.

"Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence?... that is, in actual value, for the yearly wage of a working man, and for the food therefore which would have maintained a poor man’s household for a whole year. (Comp. Note on John 6:7.) St. Mark adds, “and they were angry at her.” (Compare Note on John 11:33.)"
Those parallels just LEAPT OUT at me.
The ointment cost as much as to feed a poor family for a year. She used it to anoint Christ, Who would feed the poor in spirit with Himself forever... He Who had PROVED this capacity by feeding five thousand men of His Own Power when that same ointment could only have purchased them momentary crumbs. Jesus's Mind is on eternal benefits.
Judas, and perhaps others, "snorted" like angry horses at Mary for her "waste," indignant at this alleged misuse of wealth, as Lazarus watched nearby.... yet JESUS had "snorted" with indignance while Lazarus was in the tomb, and Mary was again weeping at His feet-- not at her, as He did not do now, but at the crowd surrounding them, who were also "weeping" but without any compassion for the dead. They were just playing a role, doing what was dutiful, expecting a later reward. Jesus snorted at their hypocrisy and lack of love... just as now, Judas snorts from that same lukewarmness of heart, offering no true pity for the Man being anointed for the tomb, and seeking only to profit from the bereaved.

SIMILARLY,
""And [Judas] bare what was put [into the bag]"... The form of the word expresses continuance of the act, and may refer to the recurring opportunities of fraud as distinct from the mere fact of carrying the chest with a known sum in it. But we may certainly render the word “bare away,” for St. John himself uses it in this sense in John 20:15; and this clause would then mean “and purloined what was put therein.”
JOHN 20:15 JUST HAPPENS TO BE THIS:
"Jesus said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping? Who are you looking for?" Because she thought he was the gardener, she said to him, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will take him."
AGAIN IT'S JESUS AND MARY MAGDALENE. The language links it all together.
Here she is, at the very tomb she anointed Him for, and she thinks He has been "carried away," just as Judas "carried away" the money that he wanted to supplement with her ointment, and which motivated him to "carry away" Jesus in cruel betrayal-- not for "three hundred days wages," but for "thirty pieces of silver"-- which some Biblical researchers say was only about four months pay.
...
As for Mary "taking" Him away from where He was removed, i want to see if there is also an elegant link to the other two scenes= weeping at Lazarus's death, and weeping at Jesus's feet as she anointed Him for burial. First, Lazarus had been "taken" and Jesus brought Him back. Second, though, no one had been "taken"... yet. Like the hypocritical mourners, Judas stood there in contrast to Mary, as the symbol of hopeless loss.
Now, however, it's just Jesus and Mary.
...
Other times "βαστάζω" is used, esp. in John=
"Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”"
OH MAN THAT PARALLELS THE OTHER INSTANCES TOO!!!
...
ALSO HERE=
"Carrying His own cross, He went out to The Place of the Skull..."
...

Also THIS fascinates me too=
"But because he was a thief, and had the bag... We have to think of Judas as treasurer of the common fund which supplied the wants of the little band, and from which gifts to the poor were made. The word rendered “bag” here, the only passage where it occurs in the New Testament... means literally the “key-chest,” in which musicians carried their flute-keys. Hence it was applied to a chest in the wider sense, and especially, as here, to a small and portable chest."
That word is "γλωσσόκομον" and yes it is defined as "From glossa and the base of kosmos; properly, a case (to keep mouthpieces of wind-instruments in) i.e. (by extension) a casket or (specially) purse -- bag."
YOU NOTICE THOSE ORIGINATING GREEK WORDS???
"TONGUE/ NATIONAL LANGUAGE" AND "WORLD/ ADORNMENT".
HOWEVER another possibility is "komizó" which means "carry/ care for/ receive/ obtain," but ALSO "I receive back, receive what has belonged to myself but has been lost, or else promised but kept back, or: I get what has come to be my own by earning, recover."
...


I am overanalyzing everything. I'm thinking too much and my head hurts. I'm too anxious. God forgive me.