Comments - devotion RecentComments

May20 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@Mark:5:21 NO MAN SHOULD KNOW IT - Jesus is an equal opportunity healer. The woman with the blood issue has for twelve years been considered defiled. According to the law she must not go into the Temple, she must watch and wash every where she sits, she cannot lay with her husband. Once healed she ends her time of separation with more time apart and sacrifice. The ruler of the synagogue is about as high up as one Jew can get at that time. From all public observances his hands would be as clean as ceremony and ritual and stature could get. Both have needs, both people Jesus addresses. The experience for the three together does not go without complication however. Faith is the evidence of things hoped for. It is evident that the women has strong hope as her determination presses her through the crowd that is already thronging Jesus. It is evident in the ruler as he goes against the grain of what all his peers would think regarding Jesus. It is evident in Jesus as He works His way to the ruler's house though cornered by the throng, through the tumult of the professional wailers, past the jeers of the household, despite the urgent rush minding to touching details as stopping to acknowledge the woman's faith and sharing the private moment with both the father and mother. Clearly hope comes with plenty of opposition, plenty of obstical, plenty of objection. Hope often calls to Jesus as a last resort. Many things may be suffered on the way to becoming able to place all hope upon Jesus. When Jesus says "no man should know it", it doesn't mean that no one is not going to know it. Everyone that followed Him up to the house would know, everyone that saw the woman made whole would know, everyone in the house that was ordered out would know, the few that were invited in would know. And anyone who saw the young twelve year old girl walking out to play like nothing had happened would know. Jesus is wanting these people now in the know to figure this what has happened out on their own. The faith of Jesus faces resistance everywhere He goes. It is never as simple as hoping that mankind will understand, there is every evidence that He is determined to make it so. This is evidence in face of opposition.

July19 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@Luke:3:21-38 IT CAME TO PASS - A very significant day for Jesus symbolizing the passing of the torch from John to Jesus. John's ministry will now diminish and Jesus' strengthen. It is much like the passing of leadership from generation to generation. Jesus respectfully submits to John's baptism that John might see that this is no ordinary baptism, this is a royal inauguration crowned with the blessing of both Father and Holy Spirit. All the signs now point to Jesus, the lineage of both mother and human dad, the prophecies old and new, the opening of the skies with voices and appearances. That is not to say that everyone will now believe it. Just as Isaiah had written "Who has believed our report" most Jews to this day disregard the lineage of Joseph the child was not of his physical seed. The arm of the Lord can be revealed having performed every detail of the report and the majority still not believe it, being not in the form that they intellectually expect/agree to accept. Had it not been this self imposed technicality it would have been another. As best as I can recall Jesus does not ever entertain this trivial objection as penetrating and lasting as it has been. The faith of our Lord is in the submission to the Father's performance of mercy not in the intellectual suppositions of the fallen race. As it is said "My thoughts are not your thoughts" and "My ways are not your ways", what difference does it make if this is the way the Father did perform it and it still can be shown to superbly fit with the prophecies? I respectfully ask you then, how else did He perform it?

July28 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@Luke:5:33-39 NEW WINE - Notice that He never said "we're done with the old wine", He said he was preserving both old and new, just not together. This is said in the context of the bridegroom being in their presence. For the moment there is an occurrence that will only happen just this once, He is there. If the objection is prayer, why would He have the disciples pray to Him as if He were not there? If it is fasting, why would He have them seek a closer proximity to Him artificially when He is standing right there right now? When He leaves they will certainly need to do these things. The attempt is to get the old wine to see that there is a new wine; the measure of which is Himself. It requires them to see what He is doing in new ways. It is not that He will come sometime future, it is that He is here now. It is not what will He accomplish, it is what He is accomplishing and has accomplished. Even now, when we fast or pray, we do it because He has come, He has paid the dowry, we watch for Him to return for His bride. The faith of our Lord is illustrated today as two wines, everything that He poured into this before hand, everything new that He will pour separately from this point on. The two go hand in hand and are crafted for specific and distinct purposes. To criticize Him because the new wine hasn't the look and feel in it's infancy of the old is to not know the process of wines.

August1 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@Luke:6:27-36 WHAT THANK HAVE YE - God The Highest is kind to the unthankful and evil. Isn't that all of us? How thankful have you really been throughout your life? How aware were you of what He was doing, what He was blessing upon you that you should be thankful for? His blessings are not because we are good, they are because He is good. Jesus makes it sound as if part of the goodness is that God at times has a thanks for us. Imagine that, that something we could do He would be thankful for. Not just any deed mind you, but a thing that exceeds similar as He exceeds. And where can we exceed? Where He exceeds! In our conduct toward the unthankful and evil. Now some people would see that as weakness, as others winning over, and if not done properly it could be. Let's ask why someone would curse you? You've said something or done something righteous that you've offended them by else you would deserve being cursed, right? Why would someone smite you? Samething, they are offended at a righteousness performed just as they are offended at God. Despitefully use you, why is there despite? It is obvious that there is something uncommon about these situations, grounds that you stand for/on that they are reacting to that puts you both in the position to receive their objection and to receive God's thanks. You have stood up for God. Even in the smaller issues like a coat or something that you've lent not being returned, you likely have been asked because it is known that you are a Christian and you have chosen to represent Christians well by giving. Other peoples are asked of all the time, they could not retaliate just as you, what is it about your non-retaliation that exceeds theirs? Your's is done with the full knowing by both/all parties that it is done for God; so represent well. The faith of our Lord is in performing the uncommon, exceeding all expectation. People as a whole are unthankful and evil toward God and sharply take offense at those who presume to stand for God. From Cain and Able on this exchange could very well be religious on religious. As Jesus has performed and taught, do some thing to stand the gap that God himself would be thankful for.

December29 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@John:20:24-31 BECAUSE THOU HAST SEEN - What would of happened with Thomas had Jesus not returned for Him? Thomas would have to come into his belief just like any other of us; by the testimony of others. The thing is that there are plenty of Thomas's out there that have their mind fixed that there is nothing in these testimonies to believe, that it is something that they will have to see and feel for themselves. Is Jesus obligated to return for them as well? The thing is that that don't really need to see and feel in so many other areas of their lives, why is it so important to them in this particular case? They will take another's word when it comes to politics. They will take another's word when it comes to economics, investments, history, future prediction, court testimony, science, global warming, etc... They will also swallow rumor and innuendo and false premise and distortion and murmuring and intimidation and unjust balance. Why is it not their intellectual creed in these cases? The point is that we try intellectually to be these things and to a certain respect we are, but the reality is that it is close to impossible to be this in the broadest respect. Truth is that we are inescapably made to rely upon the testimonies and opinions of others. Yes it is difficult and error prone and requires discernment; even trust. Yes others have their personal motives and view points and see the same event with dissimilar details. But for men like Thomas (well meaning though they think that they are) to say to the others "no, I won't allow your word even into my preliminary consideration" or "you all are liars" or "this is something so much different than what Jesus told us that would happen; I think you are all reaching" such is not much more than self inflating pride. So you won't believe until you see for yourself. Well where were you Thomas when the rest of us saw Him? How many times do you think Thomas that He has to come back when you just happen to show up? Is Jesus really obligated to meet you on your terms and with your objections? In a sense it is important for the over all record that there was dissent observed in the group, at least for us that long after would follow, but in Thomas's case it is merely a stroke of God's grace that he was given another opportunity to satisfy his hypocritical and prideful demands. What if Jesus had not come to any disciple? What if He had appeared to the common public or to Pilate and Ananias instead? Would that have changed the fact of our Lord's resurrection? The faith of our Lord is in the testimony of others testifying to the veracity of His word. He didn't even attempt to write it down Himself. He may be the only major world messianic figure that went about it this way. Such a defense would be more than proper in a court of law. Why would it not in the court of individual belief?