Comments - journal RecentComments

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: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_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@Genesis:22 @ RandyP comments: This is the passage that we will have to pay particular attention to. This is the passage were many a foolish man has staked his claim on a works based justification with God. I want you to remember back on all the work God has performed on Abraham to bring him to this point in his faith. Abraham's works to this point certainly have been less than stellar (nor will be his works to continue). As time and experience have gone by, Abraham's faith has been refined down to one definable thing: God has promised/God has provided and will continue/therefore God will accomplish. What is Abraham's role in all this? Continue believing in the promise/provision/eventual accomplishment and to not get in the way of it by what his baser impulses are attempting to do to achieve this in some measure of his own. This is a refined faith much different than a works based justification, it is a God based justification. Remember this, that Abraham's faith has already been accounted to him as righteousness (justification) strkjv@Genesis:15:6 before Isaac was even born. The fact that Abraham is being tested now because of this imputed justification already received by faith is more a test of our understanding of Abraham's faith than it is a test of his own. If to be understood any other way than this, well then at minimum we should each be taking our sons to the mountain top alter to sacrifice thus prove ourselves worthy workers of a different justification; perhaps we should be proving ourselves by even more; perhaps we should be proving ourselves even more justifiable than the others just to make the final cut eh! Is that justification with God the way you understand it?

CR18Day_12 @ nkjv@Genesis:25 @ RandyP comments: Women often have twins. Not many ever have two nations in their womb though. As we move forward into the story of Jacob and Esau we have to remember that while the rivalry between the twin brothers is interesting, the story we need to focus on is the story of two rival nations that will continue long after. Esau becomes what will be known as the nation of Edom. Remember that it was Edom that prohibited Israel safe passage from the wilderness into Canaan. Remember that it was Edom that Israel was at constant war with in the days of Saul and David and Jehosaphat. Remember that is was Edom that joined forces with the Babylonian armies to capture Israel. It was the Edomites pressed under the thumb of the Maccabees, forced into Judaism. When we come to Isaac's deathbed blessing, Rebekah's insistence upon Jacob stealing the rights from Esau, this is of major importance to the lineage of Jacob/Israel.

CR18Day_13 @ nkjv@Genesis:27 @ RandyP comments: I think it is important again to stress that this storyline between Jacob and Esau has more to do about rivaling nations than rivaling siblings. This is the beginning of a heated feud between nations Edom and Israel that will last until near the time of Christ. The fact that Rebekah steps in to keep these lineages as ordered by the Lord is huge to Israel's future. None of the characters in this passage seem to be exemplary (Jacob, Esau, Isaac, Rebekah). Yet it all works as announced beforehand by the Lord. The amazing thing to consider is that the Lord already has established key components to the larger storyline of Israel in the opposing sibling lines of Canaan and now Edom. Please remember back to these familial associations each time these names are presented.

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 strkjv@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_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.