Comments - journal RecentComments

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_02 @ nkjv@Genesis:2 @ RandyP comments: Naked and not ashamed... because they knew themselves to be accurate reflections of what it meant to be created in God's image. In God's image is there any other way to be but naked and not ashamed? Compare this to strkjv@Genesis:3:7-8 where they hid themselves from the "presence".

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 strkjv@Isaiah:14:12-15 strkjv@Ezekiel:28:11-19, perhaps even a pre-adamite world on earth. Consider also that all the LORD's works are perfect strkjv@Deuteronomy:32:4 strkjv@Job:38; beautiful/hidden from the beginning strkjv@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:9 @ RandyP comments: Note now that while the world that then was was destroyed in the flood, wickedness has not been completely purged; there is a carry over. Righteous Noah is the first evidence of this getting unconsciously drunk. Ham is the second evidence of it by the manner that he looked upon his father's nakedness. It is Noah pronouncing a curse upon Ham's son Canaan which is important to note for two reasons. First, the fact that Ham is black skinned has been used by some bigots as proof that all black people are cursed or sub-human. The better interpretation is that one particular lineage of Ham's through Canaan is cursed by Noah. Ham you will recall had other black sons Cush and Mizrain and Phut that were not cursed (perhaps more) and lkely many daughters. Second, the lands best known that Canaan's descendants came to occupy are the very lands that later would become the promised land of Israel. What the actual effect of this "servant of servants unto his brethren" curse was meant to be and to what extent God would willingly honor it are other difficulties in the biggoted world view.

CR18Day_05 @ nkjv@Mark:4 @ RandyP comments: It is a marvel to think that any one could listen to Jesus shore-side or later read His parables in Mark's gospel and assume that just anybody could easily understand them as they are meant; yet that is how most people approach it. They rather understand them as they want to understand them, that His words say what they themselves want them to say. It is even more of a marvel that they largely disagree with what they want them to say and somehow feel superior to believers having seen through the myth or obvious contradictions. Or else they minimize the meaning that they are willing to take from it to such an extent that it is nothing more than what good advice anybody else could have come up with. It serves the purposes of man's deceitful heart to do this so. Why would Jesus hide His meaning from all but a select few? Because few have the heart to hear it as is truly meant. Most are too busy listening to their own thoughts about they are hearing Him say rather than the actual words themselves within their meaningful context.

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_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_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: Four thousand men, probably about that number again in women and kids conservatively. How many of those who saw this miracle of the loaves were still alive at the wider publication of Mark's gospel a decade and a half later? Quite a few of them; especially of the kids. How many others did each of these men women and children tell that would know of this event second hand or third hand and still be living? Conservatively hundreds of thousands, half or more still living. How many critics of that day refuted Mark's written account or questioned the numbers? We do not know of any. Again, how many witnesses at the feeding of the five thousand men plus women and children? How many other people did they tell? How many were living to later support Mark's gospel? How many critics refuted that additional multitudes' claims? Again the blind man in Bethsaida; what kind of numbers are we talking about there? Was the blind man still alive? What did he say about this? Were those all important surviving witnesses nearby? Could anyone in Bethsaida still confirm this? Unfortunately you see, this logical line of critical inquiry was not the line of attack that the critics then engaged in (leading us to believe that they knew it would be inaffective to their defence). Their means of countering Mark was to slander and persecute and physically compel believers to blaspheme the faith, else to argue against it on mere philosophical grounds. The history here says more than just Mark's written words.

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_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_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_18 @ nkjv@Genesis:32 @ RandyP comments: We find that when the patriarchs build an altar not only do they build it and worship at it, they name the spot. Most altars mark a specific place where God had met up with them else a place to where God had brought them. The named spot not only means something to the patriarch involved but, also the descendents to follow; plus it keeps the story of which in their remembrance. We do not build altars anymore to worship, many significant places seem to take on an idolatry of their own, yet remembrance is important if kept in the proper light. When God meets up with a man, when God brings a man to a momentous spot it is good to keep that immediate time in remembrance. Looking back on your walk with God, where would your altar and memorial sites be? Are your children aware of them?

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: "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@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_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: Great concern must be raised as to whether Joseph actually divines information or not. The most logical explanation is that he is making it look like it to his brothers to continue concealing his true identity. If not the case we are struck with possibility that Joseph has learned divination from the Egyptians. In later years divination is strictly prohibited by the Law of Moses. I would imagine that even before the law God was just as offended by it as with the Law. Joseph is never confronted by God on this issue, which leads me to believe that he was not actually divining. The other alternative may be that the translation of the word into English may be misleading. My brief word study dict:strongs H5172 is showing the Hebrew word as split between the prohibited type of prognostication and the lesser observational/experiential form. In this case, that it is the cup being the object referred seems to substantiate the darker meaning; one would not simply anticipate events in the future by using a cup.

CR18Day_05 @ nkjv@Genesis:10 @ RandyP comments: The names listed here in 10 are what many call the "Table of Nations". From these three major family divisions come the first 70 nations of the world. Ham's division for instance extends south into Africa, from his generations come upper and lower Egypt, another comes Libya, another Ethiopia etc... Ham's son Canaan is of particular interest as those nations become a constant source of trouble later for Israel. From Japhath come the nations to the far east Asia/Russia/Eastern Europe. Shem is where we get those of the middle east mainly, the Persians, the Aramaic, the Semites, the Greeks, those that eventually settled north up the coast toward Spain and Brittan. Shem is also where we get Eber (the root word leading to Hebrew) whom through we arrive later at Abraham. Note that chapter 11 happens at the time of Nimrod, meaning that this genealogy covers both the three generations Ham to Nimrod, from Nimrod the Tower of Babel and the division of human language and beyond. With this table of nations adequately laid out for us to understand then Moses returns us back to the time of Babel in 11. Also note that it only takes three generations from Ham to Nimrod after the flood for the sin of all men to raise to a point of God's direct action again.

CR18Day_05 @ nkjv@Genesis:11 @ RandyP comments: Not only is this the dividing point of all the world languages, it should also be considered a major dividing point in the world's religions. From here each of the peoples are going to take their own freedoms and liberties with the base religions either man made demonic influenced faiths or God revealed and purposed faith or an intermingling. Some will choose to keep certain elements of the original like the Adam/Eve and flood accounts, some will carry on through to Abraham before splitting, some will rebel from this point and suppress the Genesis revelation altogether. That God has now set this in motion by confusing the languages must mean that there is enough of the message instilled in them that there is ample means for them to come to Christ at some point else be judged for not changing course back to Him.

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?

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.

CR18Day_27 @ nkjv@Genesis:49 @ RandyP comments: "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor a lawgiver from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes; And to Him shall be the obedience of the people." It is often speculated as to how much the bible patriarchs knew about God's plan of redemption as we now know it, what had been passed down, what had been further revealed to them, what they actually believed? Here we have a statement by Jacob that many would suggest is his belief in a coming Messiah: Shiloh; others would say a coming peace/nation. Where would Jacob have gotten that if to mean a Messiah? This would come from the initial statement of God after the fall when HE promised Eve a "Seed" that would crush the Serpent's head. Could this Seed mean the nation Israel (that the nation one day would crush Satan)? Note that as Jacob is in the act of blessing his son upon his death bed he is revealing some not so complimentary things about each son's future progeny, even Judah's (scepter ruling "until" the coming of Shiloh). Note that all son's but Benjamin (due to age) rebelled against the love of their father and his beloved Joseph by falsifying his death and selling him into slavery. Note that Judah's rule ended during the Maccabees into the Herod kings (who were not from Judah) immediately precedes the time of Jesus. The utter destruction of the Temple and consequential total dispersion of Jerusalem left impossible any chance of Judah's reign picking back up even into today. Messiah is either Jesus of Nazareth (or someone during that same time) or else Jacob lied. How much did Jacob know? Quite a bit actually. Now so do each of his sons and son's families.