Comments - journal RecentComments

CR18Day_03 @ nkjv@Genesis:3 @ RandyP comments: This is the first recording of an external influence being placed upon man: the fallen angel Satan. This appears rarely in scripture as it then is depicted as the damage man himself is responsible for. We know that the influence is present (prince of the air/this world etc..), but the bible is not written to be about Satan per se. As the Holy Writ continues however it is Cain that becomes murderous, Lamech that is murderous and boastful, the antediluvian world prior to Noah that becomes wicked in it's every imagination etc... It is not said much at all how much blame is Satan's directly (other than him having deceived the nations), but it is stated repeatedly and compellingly how much this present state of affairs is man's doing for which he alone is accountable.

CR18Day_04 @ nkjv@Psalms:104 @ RandyP comments: Gap Theory is often flagrantly misrepresented by those that oppose it as being an un-biblical attempt to meld scripture with man's current interpretation of the geologic record. The true basis of the theory however is that scripture consistently uses overwhelming deluges of water as signs of God's judgment. Scripture therefore may suggest that while God "bara - created" the heavens and the earth whole nkjv@Genesis:1:1, something happened between that and nkjv@Genesis:1:2 that required God's judgment; it is during this alleged gap that Gap Theorist place the fall of Lucifer and 1/3 of the angelic host sf_ostervald_rev1@Isaiah:14:12-15 sf_ostervald_rev1@Ezekiel:28:11-19, perhaps even a pre-adamite world on earth. Consider also that all the LORD's works are perfect sf_ostervald_rev1@Deuteronomy:32:4 sf_ostervald_rev1@Job:38; beautiful/hidden from the beginning sf_ostervald_rev1@Psalms:3:11. Consider that "was - hayah" means became, that "void - tohu va bohu" means empty/waste (thus became waste), that the Spirit of God then hovered over (another symbol of judgment) the waters and that God later had to divide the waters from the land in order to "let there be - hayah (become)" what the theory would say is an "awah - make/restoration" in six days. This of course is one possible explanations of scripture and there are more scriptures then presented here used to support it. But, even if one does not agree with Gap Theory one should not so callously disparage the possibility. The opposing more coventional view has just as many difficulties being that God would have then created an dark empty flooded waste (perfect however?). This passage in 104 I believe speaks of Noah's flood (not to return again), though it does also suggest that the foundations were laid before the waters covered it as a garment.

CR18Day_04 @ nkjv@Mark:3 @ RandyP comments: It has been a decade or more since Jesus of Nazareth was crucified as the multitudes are first reading/listening to this first official gospel. The gospel is stating that within the first three chapters there was already a conspiracy between the Pharisee and Herodians to destroy Jesus. The reason for all now to see for the conspirators anger cannot be thought of as being anything other than His claim to forgive sins (which only God can do) and being Lord of the Sabbath and the Fast (which only God can be). Add to this that He has also already claimed to be the living fulfillment of Isaiah's messianic prophecy. There has been no talk by Jesus of any politically divisive ambitions. Now in an effort to destroy Jesus they are insinuating that He works for Satan. The topic of Jesus cannot be avoided by them because of the fact that He is performing so many miracles. They are being forced into a corner that they would rather not defend. This then is a case study of how men void of truth react to the true light. Mary had been told that her child would one day "reveal the intents of hearts of many"; this He is doing with little effort other than doing what good His Father is directing Him to do.

CR18Day_09 @ nkjv@Genesis:16 @ RandyP comments: "Angel of the LORD" is better translated in English as the Angel/messenger of Jehovah. It can not be just angel or messenger because he is making direct promises that only Christ could make "I will multiply...." etc.. It is not to mean that Christ is an angel, it is to mean that Christ is an official/chief deputy of the Father Jehovah.

CR18Day_10 @ nkjv@Genesis:19 @ RandyP comments: "..the outcry against them (Sodom) has grown great before the face of the LORD". Before this sf_ostervald_rev1@Genesis:13:13 when Abraham and Lot first parted ways we were told that the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly. The cry now or shriek before the Lord against them has grown beyond even exceeding. This may be the cry of their many victims preceding, the cry of the righteous from nearby cities, the cry perhaps of the angels watching over, the cry of the ground below them, all the above but a terribly exceeding cry nonetheless. This obviously is not the first time that they had done something like this. It is not a minority behavior. This is going far beyond the scope of normal homosexual behavior to the point of pagan religious rite. Lot appears concerned about this so as to strongly insist that the angels stay the night in his protection. I have no doubt that the angels could have taken care of their own selves but, this perhaps was the gesture of righteousness that they both were looking for. Righteous people stick the neck (even their families safety) on the the line for the stranger and the innocent in times when wickedness thinks up it's worst. I have no idea if Lot had done anything as righteous for anyone else before this but, he did do it the very night when he unknowingly most needed to. We do get the sense that the wicked menfolk regard Lot as one who keeps acting as judge. This night Lot has gone too far according to them and will pay a price steeper than even intended towards the angels that they originally set out for. Many say that they were going after "strange flesh" angelic flesh to sodomize them. I am not so sure. I believe that this same behavior was what the cry against them had been all along.

CR18Day_10 @ nkjv@Genesis:19 @ RandyP comments: A famous evangelist of the last century has been quoted as saying that "if God does not judge modern day San Francisco, He owes Sodom a big apology". I certainly don't want to stand behind San Francisco nor any other cities sinfulness (regardless of what it's dominant sin is), but I do not see the same level of wickedness as presented here. These are a city full of men at the front door insisting on sodomizing two strangers for what I believe are religious not just sexual reasons. I have yet to hear of a case of this same kind of activity in modern San Francisco. There is also the issue of the outcry against it coming before the Lord. Now days the so called "Silent Majority" is just that: silent; there is little if any outcry before the Lord. There is few if any righteous persons stepping up to protect the innocent at their own possible peril largely because their few if any non consenting victims and little if any of this type of mass behavior. All that really can be said is that this Silent Majority keeps acting as judge in their silent uninvolved sort of way. God owes no one any apology, but He does owe all of us judgment.

CR18Day_10 @ nkjv@Psalms:1 @ RandyP comments: Interesting that on a day where we've seen Lot evidence much needed righteousness standing the gap for two angels and Abraham/Sarah cohorting to deceive the king of a righteous nation that this Psalm would come to our reading. Walking not in the counsel? Lot bravely shows us a positive example taking in and protecting the two angels, Abraham cowardly shows us a negative by lying to Abimelech about his wife his half sister. In the positive case the counsel of the ungodly was to hand the angels over so that they could sodomize the two every man of the city young and old that night. In the case of the negative example the counsel is actually a personal fear that a righteous man has about what might happen to him at the hands of the ungodly because of the beauty of his wife. It is not a tangible threat at this point, it is a perceived threat self formulated. These two examples are not always the case but, they begin to show us how complex walking not nor standing nor sitting really is. On the one hand there is the potential cost or personal sacrifice that may have to be made in order to adequately stand firm, keep one's word, protect the stranger/innocent. One the other hand is the fear of what these other could do to yet or worse yet to your spouse. Take comfort though for the Lord knows the way of the righteous; in fact HE had HIS son walk the same path, endure the same costly hardships, be tempted along this road just as you and I. In fact that man that this psalmist says to be blessed very well could be our Savior described to the tee.

CR18Day_10 @ nkjv@Mark:7 @ RandyP comments: "All these evil things come from within and defile a man". It is a long list of evil things for sure, all coming from the heart within. The heart of man Jesus taught is truly the central key. Religion in most all of it's human forms attempts to restrict what the hands and feet do, what the mouth eats, what the eye looks upon, what the tongue speaks forth. Religion in it's spiritual form rather is a complete regeneration of the heart that better changes all of these other physical and mental heart outlets. The prophecy of Isaiah aptly fits the conversation as a whole because human religion can really only get us so far; to the point of supposedly honoring God with our lips. Without God reaching in and changing the heart though this religion is a very poor representation of faith and rightful worship; vain and laying aside/rejecting the commandment of God. Numerous examples could be made as to this form of faith. Numerous examples will be made of these religious types by Jesus on his continuing pathway to His cross where He will die and raise again for us to have this undefiled regenerated heart and heart led faith.

CR18Day_11 @ nkjv@Mark:8 @ RandyP comments: Ashamed of Jesus and His words, let's consider. An adulterous and sinful generation on the one hand, God incarnate preparing to obediently die and rise again for the remedy for our sins and adultery. Which is the greater? Can we deny that this is adulterous and sinful generation? I think not. Can we deny that Christ has died and risen now to redeem us from this our plight? Well it sounds logical but, many are either skeptical or don't see the need. Can we deny that He shall return in the glory of His Father with the holy angels? Well that is where it gets sticky because He hasn't yet and He hasn't for quite a long time. Is this what we are ashamed of? Consider that in the day people were expecting the Messiah to be a military/political leader who would immediately restore the nation Israel to world prominence, deliver them from Roman rule. When the critic harshly insisted, there was that to contend with. Today the public expectation is much different, it is to leave it alone to it's own beliefs, to not meddle or tattle or stand against or be preachy. All this talk of heaven and hell and personal accountability, talk of depravity and original guilt and original pollution, talk of truth and righteousness and holiness and virtue, this talk has no place in this time or generation. So when the critic harshly insists, there is that again to contend with. Is the shame that we have to contend for our beliefs at all? We are sensitive to how others feel about us. In a sense for all our religiosity and business we still yet do not percieve nor understand, our heart is still hardened, having eyes we do not see, having ears we do not hear, neither do we remember; at least not to the extent that we should. "Whoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me...". Ashamed? What does that mean? How might it present itself? Are we ashamed even if be in the least bit ashamed to deny ourselves and follow? Well then we certainly need to get to the bottom of that quickly.

CR18Day_16 @ nkjv@Genesis:28 @ RandyP comments: "If Eloheem will be with me, and keep... and give... then shall Jehovah be my Eloheem". God is with Jacob and keeps him and gives to him richly, Jacob just doesn't have the experience of it yet. HE gives him a dream showing HIMSELF in Heaven with a ladder connecting to him down below by angels and in that dream HE reaffirms HIS longstanding unconditional covenant promising to keep and bring him back to this present land. Now normally our walk with God is not a you do this God and then as result of you doing that I will make you my God (making God prove himself first). Our walk is more of first having the belief from hearing the word and getting to better know whom we believe in through the daily experience of trying to live that word forward. Much of that initial word is comprised of promises however. It is in the hope of seeing those promises fulfilled that we are propelled forward. The hope is that HE will keep us here and now and bring us back to the point that HE gave us vision. With hope there is expectation but, before expectation can be fulfilled there are to be numerous experiences that bring us to a fuller realization beyond that of just a generalized God but, of, as a result of a series of processes, a very specific and identifiable knowledge of Yahweh.

CR18Day_16 @ nkjv@Genesis:29 @ RandyP comments: Interesting that attractive beauty is brought up again with Rachel as it was with Sarah and Rebekah. For them their beauty was felt a danger by their husbands in these foreign lands and causes them trouble therein. Rachel is also described as a shepherdess working her father's flocks, grueling and demanding sometimes dangerous work. Jacob's immediate attraction to Rachel becomes his long pathway to experiencing Yahweh through trial and error. Not sure why Jacob thought of working seven years to earn himself Rachel when other more sure arrangements likely could have been made. He seems to have set himself up for the problems ahead.

CR18Day_17 @ nkjv@MPsalms:11 @ RandyP comments: "For the LORD is righteous, He loves righteousness; His countenance beholds the upright". Here believe it or not we have the very picture of a compassionate God explained best by what HE is most compassionate about. Many would say no that this is the very picture of a judgmental God, a God who narrowly only cares about one certain thing (which by the way is largely impossible for any man to achieve). What the critic typically is describing is a non-judgmental God rather a compassionate God; they are equating compassion with being non-judgmental. This is a totally erroneous definition of compassion. A person is compassionate only when things matter deeply to him, when possible outcomes are weighed and the best and desired outcome is chosen, when both the end justifies the means and the means justify the end, when one stands firm on the grounds of what is true and good and complete and lasting. The prize you see is to have us HIS fallen creatures to be brought back into the glorious presence and favor of our Holy God, to be neath the wing of that presence and favor forever more. What glory and holiness would that prize be if God was to degrade down to the simple minded nebulous image of non judgmentalism (if there actually is such a thing), allowing that eternity to be pretty much what this corrupted life itself has become? Shall the compassionate God justify righteousness with HIS lasting presence and favor or shall HE justify the critic's more of the same corruption with it? As to righteousness, man himself indeed is unable to achieve it. It is not something that is meant for man to achieve. Christ has achieved man's righteousness, Christ is his righteousness received by faith. The man that receives the righteousness of Christ is changed by the effect of it upon him, but still it is Christ's righteousness alone. This is the righteousness God truly is compassionate about, for it satisfies all of HIS requirements and best intensions for the man whom HE created!

CR18Day_17 @ nkjv@Genesis:30 @ RandyP comments: "I have learned by experience that the LORD has blessed me for your sake". For Laban to confess this to Jacob is amazing. Certainly it is true but, how many father in laws or employers ever even recognize this as being the case let alone confess it. Now when Jacob declares the same concept back to Laban it sounds to me more presumptuous. "..the LORD has blessed you since my coming. And now, when shall I also provide for my own house?" You see the impression given that God provided you all this through me now you provide for me? Why is it not so too God has/shall provide for me? Sure Jacob says "you shall not give me anything" and it is meant to say 'what you have is God's... give me of God's the speckled and spotted' but, it is given by Laban just the same. Despite how it sounds perhaps there is something greater being conveyed here, that Jacob knows his father in law too well and knows that his departure will effect his father in law's vast possessions and also his perception of Jacob's righteousness considerably; the break will not be clean. Jacob wants something for his wages but, this concern and familiarity scares him. He seems to know that God will bless the spotted stock in order to make the exchange right (or at least is calling upon to) but, feels he himself still must contend with Laban. Surely God wants Laban to get past this and let HIS chosen lineage go. It seems that this is God working through Jacob on Laban and yet Jacob working through God toward Laban but, Jacob's fears and intents at the same time causing some perceivable awkwardness to the transaction.

CR18Day_17 @ nkjv@Genesis:31 @ RandyP comments: "Yet your father has deceived me and changed my wages ten times, but God did not allow him to hurt me". If the object of the many difficult experiences we go through is to come to know our God better, then Jacob has been brought now to a better understanding of God. To walk with God is not to walk unhindered, not dragged down by the burdens placed upon us by others, not to soar high above any problem or difficulty or substantial set back, it is to walk alongside Him through whatever transpires/conspires against us, ultimately with full faith intact, all the better for the experience. Now if Jacob had left the experience penniless, surely he would have to realize that he is leaving at least with two tremendous strong women and twelve substantial son's (heirs of Abraham/Isaac) and the experience of God working throughout to bless the wombs/bless the livestock/bless the servants. Surely he would know that if God had done all this once, now that God has called him onward, God could surely do the same or more again. This is how we best should think of our challenges as well. What we come out within each experience of God that is of the greatest value is simply the experience of God working within each experience. Any further reward is icing on the cake. Even if to lose all that we had in the outcome we would still gain that which is ultimately of the greatest value: God/our souls/each other/the faith to journey on.

CR18Day_17 @ nkjv@Genesis:31 @ RandyP comments: "O God of my father Abraham and God of my father Isaac, the LORD who said to me...". Jacob is going from one difficult situation to another (at least one that is potentially dangerous) but, he is doing it in obedience to the LORD and he is doing it in faith. His faith is that the God that guided and watched over Abraham by unconditional covenant, the God who did the same for Isaac, having commanded him to return to his father's land and of descendents numerous as the stars that the same God will guide and watch over him as well. It has to be comforting to him in a hopeful way, yet at the same time there is the manner in which he had left his brother twenty years previous. Hope often has to be strong enough to overcome rational/irrational fear (and perhaps guilt) in order to keep us obedient. What God calls us to is rarely the easiest most natural thing for us to do. It is that way so that it strengthens or faith in the process. Jacob restrengthens his faith in remembrance of covenant God had made with him and his fathers. What remembrance do we restrengthen our faith in similarity? It might be wise for us today to list those things out for future reference.

CR18Day_18 @ nkjv@Genesis:34 @ RandyP comments: There is a very common belief that by serving God no bad thing can ever happen to us. For instance our daughters will never be raped, our sons will keep a level head, the family as a whole will not be put in danger. Maybe the desires of wicked people are spiritually manipulated. Maybe shields of divine protection surrounds us. Maybe it's the way we raised our children them that makes them always to do what is right; always in the right place at the right time. Maybe as some believe angels are assigned to protect us. The crux of the notion is that the God we serve will not allow any of it for we are HIS. Where do we get that belief? Remember that God had promised Jacob that HE would be "with him" nkjv@Genesis:31:3 but, what does that mean in terms of an all encompassing protection from any/all harm. What then does this mean for us? If harm does ever come to us does that mean that God is not with us? That God is angry with us? That somehow we are judged deserving of that? It is at these times we begin to question our belief in God when what we really should be questioning is the inconsistency of the premise of our belief in all impenetrable protection. Scriptural evidence is replete with examples where harm did come to both Old and New Testament saints. The difference being that harm did not defeat these people, harm made them to cry out to their God, God was found to be with them helping them onward every step of the way.

CR18Day_18 @ nkjv@Mark:13 @ RandyP comments: There is the line of interpretation that suggests that the "you" that Jesus is prophesying of here are the same "you" plural that asked Him to explain this to them privately. James was martyred early on, but Andrew and Peter would have witnessed at least the beginning of the sorrows that befell Jerusalem throughout the 60's leading up to 70AD the destruction of the city and Temple (Andrew perhaps saw all of it). They of course were brought before councils and martyred in Greece and Rome respectively. John lived decades past this time of the nation's tribulation, later surviving an attempt of being boiled in oil and even later being exiled to the island Patmos where he wrote his Revelations to encourage the persecuted saints to follow. Most all of the pieces can be made to fit including the all important "abomination" and sudden flight of informed believers. We would be in the "after that tribulation" period sf_ostervald_rev1@Mark:13:24 waiting on the darkening and the clouds of glory and sending of His angels which HE says Himself will come up on us unexpectedly as a "thief in the night". As with all interpretations there are some difficulties indeed with this view. Based just on this passage thus far however there could be possible substance to it. Keep it in mind when we come to other prophecies of the same events outside of this.

CR18Day_19 @ nkjv@Genesis:35 @ RandyP comments: "Then God (Eloheem) went up from him in the place where He talked with him". The Apostle John quotes Jesus twice that "no man has seen God" and mentions it a third time in his first letter, yet there are multiple mentions of filter:OT LORD+AND+appeared in the Old Testament. Of interest we also have indication as here stated of the LORD going up afterwards, else coming down or just leaving. There seems to be no doubt nor unfamiliarity as to whom it is appearing in man's presence; no proof has to be given. Even when other angelic beings are beside Him His identity is obvious. There are a couple ways possible for us to interpret how this apparent contradiction can be resolved. The most prominent idea is that these are Christophanies (appearances of Christ before becoming human flesh); Christ is God but in viewable form. The second is what we see is as much of HIMSELF as God can show us without posing a danger to the lives of those HE is appearing to; a projection into our finite dimension or else avatar within a presentable form. Third HIS appearance is a vision HE plants within our mind. Fourth, we have the idea that an angel is making a substitutionary appearence for God. Some appearances are identified specifically as visions, others leave the impression that He is there (and is eating for instance), others are not as clear. These appearances are to be differentiated from the times when we are simply told that God or the LORD spoke saying... By all evidence God has been quite vocal and quite visable in these testaments.

CR18Day_19 @ nkjv@Genesis:37 @ RandyP comments: "But when his brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers, they hated him and could not speak peaceably to him". Was Joseph set up by Jacob's outwardly expression of love to suffer what he later suffered at the hands of his brothers? I have heard many sermons on Father's Day say as much. I think it better to say rather that the brother's propensity towards utter hatred is the prominent consideration. A father cannot always anticipate how his children are going to react. A father cannot always contain his love for one particular child for the sake of those children he certainly loves but not as easily. A father may not even be aware of there being a problem unless the wife or else one of the other children make him aware of it. A father cannot be held responsible for the way his other children react to an outward expression of love especially when it comes to them either leaving as dead or selling that more beloved child into slavery. That occurrence is not the result of child rearing, that occurrence is a result of some very ungodly anger deeply rooted among the brethren. Later on it will be said by Joseph "what you meant toward me for evil" meaning Joseph did not blame Jacob, no, the brothers were directly responsible for this. But, even then he said "God meant it for good". God did not cause this, God simply allowed it to happen so that HIS good might restored (we'll explore that further as the story is recounted). Jacob's love did not cause this. Hatred caused this and surely that hatred existed long before there was a multi-colored coat weaved and given by one God fearing and loving man. Perhaps these preachers should not be so hard on Jacob on a day meant to honor our many Jacob like fathers.

CR18Day_19 @ nkjv@Genesis:37 @ RandyP comments: I think we should spend a moment in this new developing storyline of Joseph discussing the obvious dangers of polygamy. We have seen this danger with sons of different women Isaac and Ishmael. We have seen it now with the twelve sons of Jacob. We sense it heightened now that Rachel is not there to fend for her two sons especially the elder Joseph. In part Jacob's love for Joseph comes out of his love and mourning for Rachel. Jacob you'll remember was tricked by Laban into this polygamy it was Rachel that he wanted only and first. The problem we can observe is rooted in who the man loves more. This is true among the wives. This is true among the children. It puts the man in an impossible spot being that he may or may not have any leaning of affection one way or the other, if he does it may or may not be anything his heart has any control over. Though he might do all that he sees possible to make things equal there is little that he can do to alter the perceptions of the others once those perceptions have rooted. Many a polygamist man is trapped into a life of saying what he doesn't mean, expressing what he doesn't rightly feel, and making apology for it at every twisting bend. If that becomes true for the man of the house, think what that means to the wife or child that is perceived to be his favored object. Think how the other wives/siblings amongst themselves can work their unfettered perceptions into a greasy and consuming froth. Polygamy has been tolerated in the past by God, but it has never HIS sanctioned preference.

CR18Day_19 @ nkjv@Genesis:37 @ RandyP comments: It seems to me that Reuben was willing to risk his brother's wrath by delivering Joseph back to his father Jacob. It would have made for big trouble in the household. Judah however saw it as an opportunity to turn a profit. Judah becomes the line of descendants that Christ is promised through. So it is not because of any exemplar behavior that the bloodline is chosen. The tribes of Judah and Benjamin later will become the only two tribes that remain of the divided nation Israel, the other tribes will split away. The Ishmaelites you'll recall take us back to Abraham and Hagar's son Ishmael. Midianites also descend from Abraham from his second wife Keturah. They would be the cause of plenty problems for Israel in years to come. Of interest is that Jacob's son are taking action with absolutely no thought even for their father Jacob who will be devastated by the sight of the bloodied tunic. No thought for Joseph, no thought for Jacob, no thought for Benjamin Rachel's other son, no thought for God righteousness, and one could even say no thought for themselves. This I believe to be a result of ungodly jealousy, consuming anger, murderous rage which is amplified in their hearts because of polygamy.

CR18Day_19 @ nkjv@Mark:14 @ RandyP comments: By criticizing the woman pouring perfume over Jesus these men are criticizing Jesus who is allowing her to do so. The men (some = more than just Judas) are quite taken back by the wasteful expense of this woman's act and are presumably thinking just of the poor. Godliness often is situational, what is godly in one situation (even in most situations) may not be godly in all situations; it may only be godly in one particular situation yet that is precisely to where the ball has bounced. That seems to be the problem with rigid legalism just as it seems to be the problem with soft wrapped good works and intentions. The presence of God in the flesh seems to bring about several of these changes in godly direction, examples like disciples not fasting etc.. What is generally true is in fact a good standard to follow, but better still is keeping an eye on the bouncing ball and the game at hand is far wiser.

CR18Day_20 @ nkjv@Genesis:38 @ RandyP comments: Why should we be told anything of this odd seemingly inconsequential story? We know to watch the line of Judah closely for the promise of the messiah is to come through it. Through which of Judah's sons would the line continue? Judah's son by this widowed daughter in law Tamar: Perez (Pharez) nkjv@Matthew:1:3 nkjv@Luke:3:33. Knowing the story now we should all collectively raise our eyebrows in unison; this is just about as strange as strange can possibly get. Tamar's husband is wicked. God kills him he is so wicked. How wicked do you have to be to be killed directly by God, no middle man involved? It is almost as if the line is going to continue through Tamar regardless of who the father is. Er is taken out so that it wouldn't be him. The next suitable brother Onan was taken out because he wanted nothing to do with her but to go into her. The next son is too young at the time but is promised (a promise broke by Judah). Judah, a widower himself is out propositioning harlots and goes into her not knowing it was her. Doesn't this go to show that the line has nothing whatsoever to do with good men and women doing what is right, it has everything to do about whom God has chosen? Tamar births twins and nearly a miracle unto itself the first twin out is not the twin who first stuck his arm out, no God had other plans. God had chose the one Tamar declared "the breach be upon you".

CR18Day_23 @ nkjv@Genesis:41 @ RandyP comments: "..the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass". We can remember back to Abraham where he was told by the LORD that his descendents will be brought into Egypt and that they would find favor, but the heart of the Egyptians would turn and they would be placed in bondage for many years. This storyline is part of that greater storyline and we are basically only into the first act. These men Joseph and Pharaoh for as much of a role as they play are only playing a part in a story much bigger than either of them written long before either were born. As much as we like to give preference in our theories to an individual's abilities and choices, very little in this chapter can be proved as being anything remotely concerned with that. God gives a dream to one man, HE gives the interpretation to another; HE gives it in such a way that the one man gives to the other (a complete stranger/a prisoner/a Hebrew) governorship over his vast empire. God gives seven years of plenty to fill the storehouses, gives seven years of severe famine, drives Joseph's brothers without their knowing to Joseph's feet to plead for wheat to survive the widespread famine. Yes, there is the individual's ability and choice involved to an extent but, it has only a secondary importance to God's choice and ability and some promises made three generations ago. And God is not yet finished. The story of Abraham's descendents in Egypt is only a part of an even larger story of the descendents being given the land of Canaan for their own, a story that will lead them all the way to a promised Messiah (going back to Adam and Eve) and the eternal salvation of their very souls.

CR18Day_24 @ nkjv@Genesis:44 @ RandyP comments: It is interesting to see the brothers' concern now for Jacob with regard to Benjamin that they didn't have in regard to Joseph. The passage of time and regret may have something to do with it. The nearness of Jacob now to death may play apart. One would hope that the knowledge of Joseph being sold not mulled/devoured to death and the guilt of attempting to maintain their lie before their father has worn heavy on each of them. As much as I disagree with what Joseph is staging now, I sense that he is fishing for some type of indication of their regret and shame and change of heart. I do not see that Joseph has been directed by God to pursue this in this manner but, I almost feel that God is allowing him this for the sake of Joseph's own restorative process. It brings up an interesting question as to when a person obviously victimized by the sinful nature of another is given the opportunity to either retaliate else restore, how much leeway can be given for the victims own damaged nature to work itself through it's pain and confusion? Surely the victim does not have the right to sin in like fashion, sin after all is sin but, does the victim have the right to work to sort their way through it even if their restorative actions become questionable? My sense of compassion says yes. My sense of righteousness says only within constructive limits. Joseph I feel comes close to these limits by what he is staging.

CR18Day_25 @ nkjv@Genesis:45 @ RandyP comments: "And God sent me before you to preserve a posterity for you in the earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance. " The story of Joseph has every distinctive of the redemptive story as it eventually played out for real in the New Testament. First, the family that was delivered is under the unconditional promise of God made to Abraham, they remained in that covenant despite what they had done to Joseph. Second, they did not deserve deliverance, they had become irrationally angered by their seemingly self exalting brother, first decided to kill him themselves irregardless of their father's obvious love for him but traded him to hostile foreign merchants expecting them to kill him, returned to Jacob the bearer of the original covenant with a bloodied coat pretending that Joseph was dead, they lived their lives for several years after hiding a secret amongst themselves knowing that he was not confirmed to be dead. Third, a great famine they could not survive themselves drives them to the one place that they had heard might save their lives, unexpectedly to the very person they had left for dead, one who had once lived amongst them, now exalted above the mightiest kings of the earth, who has prepared vast storehouses for all that came to him. (Note: the deliverer is first received and exalted by a distant Gentile nation). Fourth, the exalted brother tests the other brothers to prove that they have had a true change of heart, once proven he reveals his truest identity to them fully and weeps joyously over them, provides for them from his own portion, asks for them to go back to the elder bearer of the original covenant in order to bring dieing Jacob and the entire remaining clan into his salvation. The Gentile servants hear of this reunion and rejoice to tell of it. Did I miss anything?

CR18Day_26 @ nkjv@Genesis:47 @ RandyP comments: You'll remember that God had told Abraham that his descendents would end up being slaves in Egypt before being brought back into the land promised to Abraham. What has happened to that promise? Is Jacob aware of it as he stands before the pharaoh to bless him? Much like what has happened to Joseph will soon happen to all of Israel: What they have meant for evil, God has meant for good. It all starts out good here for the small people that were not a people Israel. God's blessings however are putting them slowly in a position of being despised by the common Egyptian citizen. Let's say it puts them first in a position of envy, in rich lands, over the pharaoh's herds, pronouncing taxes, distributing reserves. Envy can be a dangerous place to be in when you are a foreigner. Jacob likely remembers the prophecy well. Knowing and being able/needing to do something about it though are two different things. It is all looking good at this moment for Israel. But, for how long?