Comments - devotion RecentComments

December18 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@John:18:15-18 PALACE OF THE HIGH PRIEST - When Jesus foresaw Peter denying Him three times what was it that He saw? How much of it did He see? How much did He plan even? For instance, did He know that John was known by the high priest and would be there or did He make him known? The Greek word doesn't show the level of familiarity. It becomes important because it is John that lets Peter into the servants area. Did John and Peter follow with Jesus in the procession or in the near distance tailing behind? Did they tail together? That becomes important to know how John knew Peter was near by to look for him; or to know that it was safe to bring him in. I guess my question is would Peter have denied Jesus regardless of where he was and then space and situation becomes unimportant? Did Jesus simply see three denials or see the situations developing outside of what He Himself was experiencing that lead to Peter's denials; even perhaps having a hand at making the situation(s) develop? We may never know from the text available to us. The theology that trails each possible explanation however does become quite interesting and complex. Why doesn't the Spirit lead the writer firmly as to these details? The Spirit records what is most important, Jesus is taken, two disciples follow. Little details are thrown in to make us wonder and ponder the possibilities. The possibilities are as enormous as God's sovereignty and as narrow as a man falsely accused and unlawfully treated. In our lives we can often sense the same circumstantial complexity and should center our faith on Him regardless. Would it be wrong for a woman of her own volition to come up and ask us a probing question? Would it be wrong for the Spirit to set that question in her heart to have her probe us? Would it be wrong of the Spirit to have a trusted associate of ours to come down and let us into a position where we could be probed? Would it be wrong for these things to occur most innocently and the test be us testing ourselves? The answer regardless is to have faith centered on Jesus. Whether we pass or fail the test, no matter how the test came about, the answer is to have faith centered on Jesus. It may be that this is the sole purpose of the test to begin with. The faith of our Lord is in God the Father and the Holy Spirit. How much He sees regarding us is an interesting consideration as the apparent depth alone is enormous. How much more He sees of the Father is a solid fact that He is willing to die for.

December19 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@John:18:19-24 WHY ASKETH THOU - How do a few powerful elite (but not powerful enough to do this deed on their own) sway the perception and support of enough others to get this job done? Think of those others as the jury. The prosecution's effort here is intended to grab the focus of the jury away from anything Jesus might be defending Himself by. The officer appears offended by the defendant's answer with the purpose of setting a definite tone of authority and gamesmanship by the defendant for the room fully in mind. Whether he was told to do this or whether he just felt it necessary we do not know; I believe it though to be staged. The high priest is seeking to set a similar tone releasing into the room air the scent that Jesus is being secretive for the blood hounds to sniff without having to prove it. Irregardless of any answer, the jury (many of the same) is left with the sense of Jesus disrespectfully toying with authority and that authority knows something that Jesus would rather hold back. It is all an act, but very effective in increments. One does not break the will at first, but bends it. Knowing that this ploy is in place our Lord's comments are as they should be, essentially "what is your intention in asking me that". Jesus is not going to defend Himself here. He has already proved Himself on a much bigger stage. His silence instead will be proof against intents and methods of His accusers. The trial is much the same in our age. His accusers are setting the stage for the jury by filling the air with nebulous scents; no need for proofs (less effective). The scent of holding something threatening back, the ora of descent and rebelion, the air of war mongering and brainwashing and alterior motive, the tinge of stirring crowds into fanaticism, all thrown out not to be answered (how could we) but to set the tone and put the adherent on the defensive. Where then is the Lord's defense? Is it really in us becoming more vocal and defensive? Or is it in us keeping true to what He has been teaching and commanding all along? Is not our love and fruitfulness in the knowledge of Him His best defense? The faith of our Lord is in the work that He has already been doing, it is in knowing from this initial work what in the future will be done. His faith is not in the trial or the defense or the court of corruptible opinion, it is in the righteousness of His Father. So must ours! Not everyone else is an accuser, they may simply be the jury. They should be aware of the tactic just the same.