Comments - journal RecentComments

CR18Day_16 @ nkjv@Mark:11 @ RandyP comments: Three major events are described in this chapter that people in and around Jerusalem should remember well even more than a decade later. If it hadn't happened as reported by Mark, we would have seen objections made. We don't; it was not even the Pharisee/Sadducee line of attack the decades following. It would be enough to remember because of the political/social fear/tension and talk of revolt that that would widely be talked/worried about.

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_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_23 @ nkjv@Mark:16 @ RandyP comments: "...but they did not believe them either". Shown clearly here is the natural tendency of man to be critical of what he has not yet seen for himself. No doubt the reports coming to the disciples from many sources are describing something never before witnessed as true. I think it significant to us as later believers that Jesus did not first appear to the eleven disciples, that we see that they too were of doubt. Not everyone of every generation will be privy to witnessing this resurrection in person, logistically that would just be impossible. The majority are going to have to simply take it on another person's word. Thankfully we do have their word. We also have the witness of how their lives proceeded following this, the impact of having seen this, the witness of just how true they believed this to be. The fact is that people that knew these people believed these peoples testimony and in turn their lives also were greatly effected. The chain of justifiable evidence like this continues even into our day where a great many are just as convinced in their minds as if they themselves had personally witnessed this first hand. The disciples later did see Jesus physically. Again I think it important that we see that even for them belief became a process, then there could be no doubt. Having been told by Jesus that HE was going to do this and believing it to have been physically accomplished is after all contrary to most rational and critical tendencies.

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.