Comments - journal RecentComments

CR18Day_02 @ nkjv@Genesis:1 @ RandyP comments: If one does not believe that God created the heavens and the earth then one also cannot not believe that God made man (all men and women) in HIS own image. Human life therefore does not have the same imputed and imutable sanctity nor holiness. Yes one can respect human life, but the respect for life is a much different thing than the respect for God's very image. Later in nkjv@Genesis:9:6 a postdiluvian prohibition is placed upon murder, the reason given = because we are created in God's own image.

CR18Day_02 @ nkjv@Genesis:1 @ RandyP comments: What does it mean to be made in God's image? Does it mean that we are god's in and of ourselves? No, it means that we are to be reflections of HIS light. Mirrored surface reflecting HIS holiness into this world. Image bearers. There is only need for one God to exist. More gods than that in any past/future respect is nothing but a defilement.

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 nkjv@Isaiah:14:12-15 nkjv@Ezekiel:28:11-19, perhaps even a pre-adamite world on earth. Consider also that all the LORD's works are perfect nkjv@Deuteronomy:32:4 nkjv@Job:38; beautiful/hidden from the beginning nkjv@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_05 @ nkjv@Genesis:10 @ RandyP comments: This is now the second re-population of Genesis, first being the more controversial from Adam and Eve. Critics often ask "where did Cain and Seth get their wives"? The answer most likely is that they were sisters, but it doesn't have to stop there. Genesis was written not as an overall history as much as it was of all redemptive history (the details that would be important to our understanding of God's redemption). Seth and Cain's brothers and sisters are unnamed and unnumbered. Over the course of nine hundred plus years Eve surely bore Adam many. Those children married and had children. Those children bore many children. It could be that Cain and Seth married nieces or even grand nieces. While Cain was the first child, neither Able nor Seth necessarily have to be second and third if we are to look at the narrative as a redemptive history. In this passage we are back down to eight persons starting all over again. In both passages we can see how quickly the multiplication of being fruitful adds up.

CR18Day_05 @ nkjv@Mark:4 @ RandyP comments: The sower sows the word.... He sows it indiscriminately on to a variety of different soils. Why waste seed where it will not be received? Many would think that it is the condition of the heart that determines whether the seed is received (which it is), but that each person is responsible for the condition of their heart (which might be a stretch for this parable - what can soil do on it's own to prepare it's own self?). Have you ever known a sower that was not a farmer? Is not the seed received received by the soil that he himself tilled? that he himself didn't compost and fertilize? that he himself didn't level, furrow and irrigate? Again I ask why waste seed everywhere else? How else does the sower do all this other at the same time? Why even the birds of the air are getting in on some word (not that it will do them any good)!

CR18Day_06 @ nkjv@Genesis:15 @ RandyP comments: "..the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete". Lost in all these wonders of what God is doing and what HE is going to do through Abram is the often missed byline of what others are going to be doing against God. One might ask why not just establish Abraham's descendants in the land right here and now? One, Abraham doesn't have any descendants yet. Two, the the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete. God could easily defend Abraham's clan from the Amorites right now, but there is something essential to the plan that includes the transgressions of the current inhabitants (and others) and includes the captivity of Abraham's. God not only intends to show what will be done and prove HIMSELF capable but, prove to one and all why it must be done and in the process draw a whole lot of people to depend on no one else but HIM. Even in the establishment of the nation Israel, the nation isn't an end in and of itself, it is one further step towards proving the need for the Messiah. God could have done any number of things (ie smiting the Amorites out of existance), but instead HE chose one thing other, the thing HE knew in the long run would prove out to be the only right. Hard as it is at time for us to understand, HIS ways are not our way/HIS thoughts not our thoughts. "Do not be affraid, Abram, for I am your sheild, your exceedingly great reward".

CR18Day_06 @ nkjv@Psalms:148 @ RandyP comments: A "horn" figuratively equates to the pinnacle of power. The horn of HIS people, the praise of all HIS saints could refer to none other than Jesus Christ in whom all things were created, by whom all things were created, for whom all things were created. If the people were to say that the horn was something other, say the glory of Israel, those particular people would not be HIS people. There is much difference between the glory of Israel which has a certain glory indeed and the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ whose glory is Israel's whether they acknowledge it or not. After all, doesn't Israel exist that God might exalt one nation that was not a nation, a people that were not a people, to a level in the world's eye that would prove the need for a Savior having proved the undeniable case of sin, having made good the longstanding promise made to Abraham to bless all nations by Abraham's messianic seed (singular)? So then in context to this psalm HIS people are to praise their LORD not only for His creative power and firm rule over nature, we are to praise Him for His name alone is exalted!

CR18Day_09 @ nkjv@Genesis:17 @ RandyP comments: God's covenant with Abraham here is unconditional; there is no "if you do this then I will do that". The only thing that is told him that his descendants will do is to guard/protect this covenant, the sign of that on their part being male circumcision. It does not say if you guard, it says that you will guard, and they have. Notice that the sign of the covenant circumcision is to be performed at eight days after birth before the child's age of consent and includes anyone born to or in your household. How often this was followed precisely as stated is questionable, but again this was merely the sign of God's covenant not the covenant itself. It is important to remember that this is the first major Covenant of God with man and is unconditional/immutable/irrevocable and takes all precedence over the future conditional covenants placed over the eventual nation of Israel.

CR18Day_09 @ nkjv@Mark:6 @ RandyP comments: "He could do no mighty work there". We must be very cautious not to make the text say something it does not. Unintentionally perhaps, we can make this passage to say that it was the people's disbelief that kept/blocked Jesus from doing any intended mighty works; as if the sovereign God was not all that sovereign. Surely that is not what we mean to say but, that is often how our explanations come across. Better put, throughout the gospels (especially John's) we are presented a picture of the obedient Christ. What Christ sees the Father doing that He does. What He hears the Father say that He says. The Son is in fact mirroring the Father and if He doesn't behave in this all dependent manner well then there would be no reason to believe that He is in fact the Son. Satan's temptation of Jesus was an attempt to get the Son to do something that the Father HIMSELF was not seen/heard doing. Not that Jesus did not have these powers Himself but, that those powers were for this time to be set aside in humble submission/obedience. The Father would thus acknowledge glorify each of the Son's obediences by performing them thereby confirming HIS beloved Son in whom HE was well pleased in front of our eyes. Here Jesus had come amongst His own and saw the Father doing no mighty works, so He did likewise obediently. By doing no great works much was actually being said and done by them. You can imagine after having seen Jesus with the multitudes a day or so before how loud this sudden silence would be screaming out. Even Jesus' disciples were getting into the act previously and now? Why is this? Not to say "because of their unbelief" but to say "to make their unbelief known".

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@Genesis:20 @ RandyP comments: "For I also withheld you from sinning against Me; therefore I did not let you touch her". It is interesting that the prophet Abraham is allowed to lie about Sarah being his sister to deceive Abimelech but, the same king is kept by God from sinning against (who? Abraham/Sarah/himself) God. Not only had the king been prevented, all the wombs of his household had been closed up. Had he married as he wanted (even touched) the wife of the prophet even though not knowing so/having been deceived by the couple, it would have been Abimelech's and therefore Abimelech's nation sin against God. What is Abraham's excuse? Fear of the possible designs of the ungodly. Is that a valid excuse for a man of God? Perhaps not valid but certainly human. I do not see that Abraham and Sarah lost out in this or were directly corrected by God. It does say that Sarah was rebuked but, the context seems more to suggest that Abimelech went out of his way to restore her marital honor.

CR18Day_11 @ nkjv@Psalms:107 @ RandyP comments: "...Therefore He brought down their heart with labor...". Some would wish to remove the "therefore" from their understanding; God brings hearts down just because. What a mean God that would be. The "therefore" suggest however that "they" had a major part in this because of their rebellion against HIS word and the despising of HIS counsel. If the "they" are to mean Israel, think of how many other times they did just that. It seems as if it is easier to fall into this rebellious mindset than it is to maintain the right mindset on it's own. I suspect it true in a personal sense, this gravitation towards rebellion but, I know it for certain among generations of men. One God delivered generation passes it's renewed godly enthusiasm and testimony to the next, the next passes down what amounts to stories or legends of the past to the next, not having experienced God to the same extent the successive generations grow colder and colder to this point of rebellion and despising counsel. This all too familiar entropy often occurs within a matter of years within one generation; even within days in some cases. "Therefore" God's righteous response to them is to bring them down (but not to let go). Down can be to let them suffer the consequences of their own counsel and actions for a time alone or serve those to whom they have become debtor/captor. Down can be a bit more drastic like a famine or multiple rainless seasons, enemy nations mounting on their borders. Down can be leaving them to their own resource and efforts if that's the way they want it minus HIS gracious blessings and wonderous power. Down could possibly mean progressively down as far down as they decide to go before they cry out to the Lord and HE bring them back. They suffer as one together in many instances so that they know without question that this is a God thing being imposed. But, HE does bring back. It would sound mean had we not done anything to deserve it or if there wasn't something better for us to know and be apart of but, think back on the majority of times when HE has blessed us when we didn't deserve that good part of HIM either. "Oh, that men would give thanks to the LORD for His goodness, And for His wonderful works to the children of men!"

CR18Day_11 @ nkjv@Mark:8 @ RandyP comments: "And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must..." This is the first time that Jesus has made full disclosure of this to His disciples according to Mark. This is a sudden shift of focus for His ministry. The past time frame is a time mostly of wonders and healings, the Son obediently watching what the Father does so to do it, the Father testifying to the authenticity of the Son by seemingly ceaseless acts of wondrous confirmation. The ministry as most would see it could stay at that and everyone would be alright with it. There is a hard cutting edge to the ministry still to come though that is soon to turn many an early believer back towards their home; Jesus will plainly lay out the righteous expectations both of Him to the Father and us to Him. It will cut each and every man for it will reveal the secrets deep in every man's thoughts and intentions.

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_13 @ nkjv@Genesis:27 @ RandyP comments: I am not sure what to think of Isaac's storyline. It seems somewhat mundane compared to the other patriarchs. My confusion is amplified in his later days when he seeks to give Esau the final blessing and not Jacob. In his defense it might be that Rebekah did not disclose to him what the Lord had told her concerning the older twin serving the younger. Perhaps he did not know that Esau had sold his birthright to Jacob for a bowl of stew. Perhaps at this advanced age he is forgetful; I just can't put my finger on it. He seems at times to suspect Jacob impersonating Esau. The story of Isaac seems to be more about Rebekah and her determination than his. He was obviously blessed by the Lord beyond measure and he does carry an important place in the redemptive line.

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_17 @ nkjv@Mark:12 @ RandyP comments: "These will receive greater condemnation". Note that it does not say greater punishment. There is only one level of punishment, utter separation from the presence/restraint/provision of God: hell. Greater condemnation means that there is much greater reason that they are judged worthy of this one eternal punishment: impersonating a shepherd of HIS own flock (or as illustrated being a vinedresser that won't surrender to the owner his rightful fruit). Some would think that there are tiers to this judgment, that some will be better off than others, that some will be instigators and others recipients, that there will be those that party and those that suffer. The bible says no such thing. Each person will suffer as if there was no one else around him and yet all will suffer the same together as one for it is not only God's separation that they suffer but, God's wrath. Neither outpouring choses whom to separate/punish more.

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_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@Psalms:12 @ RandyP comments: "The words of the LORD are pure words, Like silver tried in a furnace of earth, Purified seven times". Look at what the Lord is saying: that HE will rise for the cause of the oppressed, that HE will preserve the godly man. Now those are fighting words from a supposedly all compassionate God. Because of the unrighteousness of the ungodly who say "who will lord over us" (in other words many of those who are trying to tell us that God is nothing but compassionate, that all paths lead to heaven, that God doesn't trifle himself with man's doings) there are few godly men to be found (men who stand for God's poor/needy); God must arise in return. The godly were viewed as having been lord's over them. The righteous God is viewed as attempting to lord over them. The battle ground they choose to fight this fight is over the poor and needy; with their tongue note they intend to prevail. Sounds almost like the modern battles between Leftism and Libertarianism. It may be wise to remember that just because the words of the Lord are purified seven times that does not mean that are not still fighting words.

CR18Day_19 @ nkjv@Mark:14 @ RandyP comments: I sense that even though Judas has already been to the chief priests to field their offers to turn Jesus over, that Jesus does not yet see this as "the betrayal". Jesus says that one here "will" betray Him. The actual betrayal is still an option for Judas that he will have to decide on. Note that Jesus as much as tells Judas in the other men's hearing that it would be better for him (if that is his decision to betray) to have been never born than to suffer the woe he is about to to suffer as a consequence; and yet Judas decides to betray him any way. Some would say that Judas does not have a choice in the matter, some even that he was predestined/born to do this. Why then would it be said that it would be better for him not to be born? Why then must he suffer for that which he had no choice in doing? One possible explanation for us to consider is that God does not violate man's choices, but knows what those choices are going to be with perfect foreknowledge. God uses the foreknowledge of our choices to direct the accomplishment of HIS perfect will. Another explanation is that God is always in action, man is always responding to God's action, man is free to react however he chooses but it is never any surprise to God how a particular individual does in fact react; man's free reaction thus can be reliably be counted on. This theory essentially holds that God does not make a man to do any particular thing, HE simply counts on it. Some would look at this as the ability to predict, I look at it as the ability to know a man better than he can know himself.

CR18Day_20 @ nkjv@Genesis:39 @ RandyP comments: "But the LORD was with Joseph and showed him mercy". It is a popular notion that the Lord's blessing brings nothing but good, it is not of the Lord if it brings bad. Being largely superficial we see that on the surface that it doesn't look good for Joseph; sold into slavery, falsely accused of sexual misconduct, imprisoned, forgotten. If this is what being righteous brings, why consider being righteous then? On the other hand, looking deeper we see that the Lord truly is with Joseph raising him to the top each and every time. Other people could see that the Lord was with Joseph, they trusted him so much with their businesses that they themselves didn't even know what business was being done; yet they prospered like at no other time. The question as we would have it becomes why then should other people prosper when the righteous man remains a slave? This friends is often the dividing point between the mind set of a righteous man from a not so righteous man: the righteous will continue trusting and serving the Lord regardless of/with little consideration of what it will mean to himself, the not so righteous will do so only when it means a foreseeable good unto himself. One such person should ask how righteous being not so righteous really is.

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_24 @ nkjv@Psalms:24 @ RandyP comments: LORD of hosts is a common phrase in the OT filter:OT LORD+of+hosts . King of glory only appears in this one psalm filter:OT King+of+glory and here it appears five times. It is made obvious that the LORD and the King are one in the same. Rarely is the LORD of hosts ever equated to king filter:OT LORD+of+hosts+AND+king , the king being referred to elsewhere is a human king. The point is that this king is none other than the Jehovah of hosts, the strong and mighty, mighty in battle. Agreed? It is not David. It is not Israel herself. It is not some future human ruler. It is Messiah; Messiah is Jehovah of hosts. So why would King of glory/LORD of hosts be entering through gates of eternity when He should already be there? Why does He have to be identified and equated to as one in the same? Why need there be such a joyous celebration at this occurrence? Could it be that took upon Himself flesh being born of a woman, was despised and rejected, stood silent like a lamb before it's shearers, bore the iniquity of us all, was cut off from the land of the living, was raised into the pleasure of the remaining Jehovah and lives evermore to make intercession for transgressors? That certainly would something worth celebrating. That certainly would require our re-familiarization to as to His true identity. So I ask you: Who is this King of glory?

CR18Day_25 @ nkjv@Galatians:2 @ RandyP comments: "(who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage)". Paul does not mince words. There are men of reputation. There are pillars. There are men in whom the influence of God's grace can be readily perceived working in them. There are men who spy seeking to bring the group as a whole into bondage. The implication is that these spies are men of reputation who make themselves to be somebody; lesser men at least would think them to be reputable. Paul thought them to be only what they were: stealthy spies. It was to be a private audience with certain pillars to make sure that what the two men had been doing till now was square with the Apostles and that what they were going to continue doing was square as well. How it became a full scale church council seems beyond the original intent. Paul didn't know who these men were, didn't care to know because he could see right through them, made no difference to him because he wasn't going to be distracted by them; not even for one hour. If only we were as observant and uncompromising as he was. These men are still to this day sneaking in. They might even be the ones insisting on and deciding a council.

CR18Day_26 @ nkjv@Galatians:3 @ RandyP comments: This chapter goes along way to prove the Doctrine of justification by faith alone. It does not rule out the utility of the law and works in everyday practical matters, it places the ultimate justification found in Christ received by faith far above law/works instead. Justification means for one to be declared by God as righteous. The scripture has declared us all to be under sin no matter how good our works and obedience is to the law. If we miss one point of the law (and we often do) we are guilty of the whole law. So then, as observant as the Pharisee were, each was still guilty of the whole law if only by the fact of falling short in one particular facet. Even in this, we are talking about that hypothetical person that is only short in one specific area; that person does not exist, matters are actually much worse. There is one person however that has ever lived an entire life without any short fall/sin as concerning the law: Christ Jesus. Being declared right with God in the believers case is a matter of substitution only, He bears upon Himself the punishment of each of our sins in full, we receive His righteousness as a covering by imputation from His in full. It then becomes not our righteousness by works or by law or by birthright but, His righteousness covering over us that God looks upon and judges to be sufficiently righteous. The law and works are then given their proper place as a means of exercising/evidencing the curse-less state the believer now is under thanks to Christ. He/she might still miss at points of the law (and often does) but, the humble believer is now energized and tooled by the Spirit to do the better at it not being judged guilty of all of law in Christ.