Comments - devotion RecentComments

February6 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@Matthew:9:1-8 THAT YOU MAY KNOW... ARISE - Does Jesus actually link palsy to sin? It could be read this way. However, if so why did He not say 'that you may see that sin causes palsy and that I have the power to forgive sin'. Would He have left the man at 'good cheer' had it not been for the thoughts of blasphemy in the audience? We have a observable evidence here in being able to walk. We have an unobservable evidence here being forgiven. Could it be that this healing was meant to be testament to His power as Christ first and foremost and if Christ then the power to heal as well as the power to forgive? The audience seemed to think that God had given a power to men. The power to heal palsy by the casual forgiveness of sins? Or the power to come to a Christ who has the proven authority to do either or both? Is it easier to say forgiven or arise? Both are impossible to say if you are not Christ. The faith of our Lord is in the authorities given Him by the Father for the purposes of performing the Father's will. Not only does He believe in such, He is willing and able to demonstrate such; both observable and unobservable.

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.

April18 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@Matthew:26:69-75 THRICE - It would be hard for any Galilean in Jerusalem to deny that He is not a follower of the accused Galilean, his speech/inflections would give him away. No one was fooled of course and the more he tried to deny it the more insistent others became. So why then did he continue? Keep in mind that he swore that he wouldn't. I feel that the sense of personal danger must have been too great. If the authorities wanted to reign in the rest of Jesus' group what better place to start than with the interogation of Peter. Torture could be used to discover the whereabouts of the remainder. The mood of the public had certainly changed as well, Peter may not have made it into the hands of the authorities if taken by the hand of the mob. Peter's testimony of what Jesus had declared could be used against Jesus as well. There is so much unknown and suspicious tide to consider. Earlier Peter had thought that he understood the pressures that would come to bare against him as a disciple of the captured Christ; he underestimated the depths that this late night could erode down into and the sentiments of the aroused mobs now gathering. There are well thought out reasons not just cowardice at work in Peter's denial. Extreme danger brings with it different angles and realities that Peter had not before considered. Jesus had considered these pressures and angles though and yet was not condemning. Peter would weep bitterly. A river would flow of embarrassment and shame and powerlessness and complete let down, but, most of all a torrent of love for the man that he had invested all his devotion and hope into. Even though we may not know the full weight of momentum behind this denial, we can certainly sympathize with it as we are just as likely or more so to do the same under lesser conditions. The faith of our Lord understands the pressures His word can bare on us just as much as He knows our strengths and weaknesses. He knows that what we intend to be/do for Him is rarely what comes out; and frankly He is okay with that as long as there is open repentance and progress made. The way of our lives is a constant correction. This is a real and correctable experience Peter has stepped into that will mold and shape the remainder of his life. Not many would have the guts to step into the danger so far as Peter did, it is almost as miraculous as stepping out onto the raging waters. We cannot say that what Peter ended up doing as he realized the storm set against him was right but, we can say that it was transformative; love and devotion will continue and grow. The Lord knows how to lead us from here in our bitter and broken tears to there into His secure and loving arms. This as much as anything is the trust that we must come to have in Him.

October15 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@Luke:22:66-23:25 YE SAY THAT I AM - It is said by many that Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God, that the gospels have been corrupted into claiming that for Him. Here Jesus claims that He would not be believed if He did tell it. Further He said that herefore after He would be at the right hand throne of God. Does that mean that that He was making the claim to be the Son of God? The chiefs, scribes and elders took it to mean so. How does one corrupt the fact that the well schooled Hebrew scholars and leaders sought vehemently to kill Jesus because of this blasphemous claim, that they falsified information on a trumped up charge of national perversion and sedition, that they accused him of claiming to be Christ which by prophetical necessity is the same Son of God, that neither of the state authorities could not find evidence for the trumped up charge and that the leaders still pursued the death sentence for Jesus over that of a seditious murderer? Jesus does not have to claim it at this point because everyone there knows that it is the claim that He is by implication making. The issue then (as it is now) is whether one believes the claim or not, not whether the claim has been made. Not believing that the claim has been made is cheap and lazy way intellectually of not having to believe in Jesus the Son of God. It is employed mainly by those other religions that want to borrow from the teachings/goodness of Jesus without having to take Him at His word. The faith of our Lord is in much more than words, it is also in accomplishments and reactions. What better way to answer whether you are Son of God than have your adversaries unwittingly and against their will prove it.