Comments - journal RecentComments

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_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: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_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_10 @ nkjv@Psalms:1 @ RandyP comments: Interesting that on a day where we've seen Lot evidence much needed righteousness standing the gap for two angels and Abraham/Sarah cohorting to deceive the king of a righteous nation that this Psalm would come to our reading. Walking not in the counsel? Lot bravely shows us a positive example taking in and protecting the two angels, Abraham cowardly shows us a negative by lying to Abimelech about his wife his half sister. In the positive case the counsel of the ungodly was to hand the angels over so that they could sodomize the two every man of the city young and old that night. In the case of the negative example the counsel is actually a personal fear that a righteous man has about what might happen to him at the hands of the ungodly because of the beauty of his wife. It is not a tangible threat at this point, it is a perceived threat self formulated. These two examples are not always the case but, they begin to show us how complex walking not nor standing nor sitting really is. On the one hand there is the potential cost or personal sacrifice that may have to be made in order to adequately stand firm, keep one's word, protect the stranger/innocent. One the other hand is the fear of what these other could do to yet or worse yet to your spouse. Take comfort though for the Lord knows the way of the righteous; in fact HE had HIS son walk the same path, endure the same costly hardships, be tempted along this road just as you and I. In fact that man that this psalmist says to be blessed very well could be our Savior described to the tee.

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_17 @ nkjv@Genesis:31 @ RandyP comments: "O God of my father Abraham and God of my father Isaac, the LORD who said to me...". Jacob is going from one difficult situation to another (at least one that is potentially dangerous) but, he is doing it in obedience to the LORD and he is doing it in faith. His faith is that the God that guided and watched over Abraham by unconditional covenant, the God who did the same for Isaac, having commanded him to return to his father's land and of descendents numerous as the stars that the same God will guide and watch over him as well. It has to be comforting to him in a hopeful way, yet at the same time there is the manner in which he had left his brother twenty years previous. Hope often has to be strong enough to overcome rational/irrational fear (and perhaps guilt) in order to keep us obedient. What God calls us to is rarely the easiest most natural thing for us to do. It is that way so that it strengthens or faith in the process. Jacob restrengthens his faith in remembrance of covenant God had made with him and his fathers. What remembrance do we restrengthen our faith in similarity? It might be wise for us today to list those things out for future reference.

CR18Day_18 @ nkjv@Genesis:34 @ RandyP comments: "I have enough, my brother; keep what you have for yourself." No you keep it. No just take it. Thank you but not needed. Sounds like a couple brothers that haven't seen each other for twenty years that didn't part on good terms trying to feel each others intentions out before committing to anything further.

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_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_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@Genesis:37 @ RandyP comments: It seems to me that Reuben was willing to risk his brother's wrath by delivering Joseph back to his father Jacob. It would have made for big trouble in the household. Judah however saw it as an opportunity to turn a profit. Judah becomes the line of descendants that Christ is promised through. So it is not because of any exemplar behavior that the bloodline is chosen. The tribes of Judah and Benjamin later will become the only two tribes that remain of the divided nation Israel, the other tribes will split away. The Ishmaelites you'll recall take us back to Abraham and Hagar's son Ishmael. Midianites also descend from Abraham from his second wife Keturah. They would be the cause of plenty problems for Israel in years to come. Of interest is that Jacob's son are taking action with absolutely no thought even for their father Jacob who will be devastated by the sight of the bloodied tunic. No thought for Joseph, no thought for Jacob, no thought for Benjamin Rachel's other son, no thought for God righteousness, and one could even say no thought for themselves. This I believe to be a result of ungodly jealousy, consuming anger, murderous rage which is amplified in their hearts because of polygamy.

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_23 @ nkjv@Genesis:41 @ RandyP comments: "..the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass". We can remember back to Abraham where he was told by the LORD that his descendents will be brought into Egypt and that they would find favor, but the heart of the Egyptians would turn and they would be placed in bondage for many years. This storyline is part of that greater storyline and we are basically only into the first act. These men Joseph and Pharaoh for as much of a role as they play are only playing a part in a story much bigger than either of them written long before either were born. As much as we like to give preference in our theories to an individual's abilities and choices, very little in this chapter can be proved as being anything remotely concerned with that. God gives a dream to one man, HE gives the interpretation to another; HE gives it in such a way that the one man gives to the other (a complete stranger/a prisoner/a Hebrew) governorship over his vast empire. God gives seven years of plenty to fill the storehouses, gives seven years of severe famine, drives Joseph's brothers without their knowing to Joseph's feet to plead for wheat to survive the widespread famine. Yes, there is the individual's ability and choice involved to an extent but, it has only a secondary importance to God's choice and ability and some promises made three generations ago. And God is not yet finished. The story of Abraham's descendents in Egypt is only a part of an even larger story of the descendents being given the land of Canaan for their own, a story that will lead them all the way to a promised Messiah (going back to Adam and Eve) and the eternal salvation of their very souls.

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@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_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?

CR18Day_26 @ nkjv@Genesis:48 @ RandyP comments: "...truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his descendants shall become a multitude of nations." Of each of Jacobs sons, each became a single tribe of Israel except for Joseph who became two. The twelve tribes are really thirteen by count but twelve by vote, the two are often counted as half tribes else other times the priestly tribe of Levi is excluded. Manasseh settles east of the Jordan. Ephraim settles west of Jordan in a somewhat central parcel that one day becomes Samaria. For four hundred years it hosted the Ark and the Tabernacle until the time of David (of Judah). Joshua, Gideon and Saul were all leaders over Israel from this tribe. Early on Ephraim was pre-eminent among all the tribes under until the second Jewish period when that importance was given to Judah. It split with Judah along with nine other tribes during Solomon's son King Rehoboam's oppresive reign. Assyria latter took it over and the tribe was forced to intermingle marriages. The whole became the so called "bastard" nations of Samaria.