Comments - journal RecentComments

CR18Day_05 @ nkjv@Genesis:11 @ RandyP comments: There are two remarks to be made drawn out by the this and the last chapter regarding human choice whether it is free or not. We have the issue of a curse Noah placed on grandson Canaan in response to Ham's actions. Canaan is being directly effected by something his father was guilty of doing. This curse effects human will and self determination on a man to grandson level with God's own involvement unclear. Then there is the splintering of human language into several diverse languages having a direct/purposeful effect upon the will and ability of man as a whole; God seeking to keep human self determination from harming itself. Though human will and self determination apparently remains in both cases, it has thus become limited/restricted to some extent either by man in the first case or else by God in the second (perhaps in the first). Perhaps the will was never completely unrestricted from the Fall. Perhaps the will is free, but the options available for it to chose from are limited. From just the text of two chapters nothing can be said for certain except that there are early indications that man's will is somehow being imposed upon to some mysterious extent, perhaps from various sources.

CR18Day_06 @ nkjv@Genesis:12 @ RandyP comments: Now in the storyline of Abram we see God moving in an unprecedented fashion regarding HIS redemptive plan. We see a series of firsts, the first mention of a great nation, the making of an unconditional covenant, a personal appearance identifying the future location of that nation, the act of protecting the patriarch and his wife from others and their own poor self interested decisions, bringing about the enrichment and military success of the man, providing the acquaintance of a kingly high priest (a shadow of the redemption to come), giving the promise of a direct heir, prophesying the captivity of his descendants to Egypt; all this activity just in the first three chapters. Not until Moses do we see anything near this level of direct involvement by God. If there was a flag for us to stake the claim of what God was going to do redemptively for man the first would be planted in the storyline of Abram (Abraham).

CR18Day_09 @ nkjv@Genesis:16 @ RandyP comments: "The Lord has restrained me". It would be very interesting to know whether this was true or else Sara's impression of things. If it is her impression then she is never called to account for this; perhaps it should be better said that her age is what is at cause. If this divine restraint is the true then we have a couple possibilities to consider: One might be able to suggest for instance that God was testing the couple to see if they were going to do something on their own. The other possibility is that HE knew how they were going to react and that HE was out to let both them and us know that the doing of this was all HIS. It may not seem like an important distinction but, it is. There is a different frustration on Sara's part if she thinks that she is capable but being kept from bearing the child or not capable with God still sitting on HIS hands about it. Perhaps we are of similar frustrations in our prayers and then attempt to take the prayer answer into our own hand. The answer might be God's alone regardless of how long it takes or how desperate the situation is getting. The experience may well drive them/us into a deeper knowledge/trust of God first. It is this future clarified faith that will be accounted to them as righteousness.

CR18Day_10 @ nkjv@Genesis:19 @ RandyP comments: "..the outcry against them (Sodom) has grown great before the face of the LORD". Before this strkjv@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_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_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_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?