Comments - journal RecentComments

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_06 @ nkjv@Mark:5 @ RandyP comments: I find it interesting that the legion of demons did not want Jesus to do a certain thing, begged for something other, and that Jesus "gave permission(nkjv)/gave them leave(kjv+rsv+asv)". For the poor man the result is just the same; he is freed from torment. For the demons they don't have to look for another host to inhabit; they are sent into the herd of swine (?did they know that the swine were going to drown - probably not?). For Jesus there is the added advantage that the owners of these swine (forbidden to eat by Jews) would be angry; they and the city's residents would be coming after Him in fear pleading that He leave their coast. Everyone seems to win here except for the owners and residents who would be recounting this fearful event for decades to come. The only question I have is did the demons die with the swine or are they still down there trapped in their carcass? or? Perhaps that is the question that the locals had as well.

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@Genesis:20 @ RandyP comments: "For I also withheld you from sinning against Me; therefore I did not let you touch her". It is interesting that the prophet Abraham is allowed to lie about Sarah being his sister to deceive Abimelech but, the same king is kept by God from sinning against (who? Abraham/Sarah/himself) God. Not only had the king been prevented, all the wombs of his household had been closed up. Had he married as he wanted (even touched) the wife of the prophet even though not knowing so/having been deceived by the couple, it would have been Abimelech's and therefore Abimelech's nation sin against God. What is Abraham's excuse? Fear of the possible designs of the ungodly. Is that a valid excuse for a man of God? Perhaps not valid but certainly human. I do not see that Abraham and Sarah lost out in this or were directly corrected by God. It does say that Sarah was rebuked but, the context seems more to suggest that Abimelech went out of his way to restore her marital honor.

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) nkjv@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_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_12 @ nkjv@Mark:9 @ RandyP comments: Six days after Jesus said some would see the kingdom with great power three disciples saw it on a mountain top; they saw Christ transfigured in glory and confirmed again by the Father. The kingdom see is where ever the king is found to be. The kingdom is wherever the king's rule has ultimate authority. The kingdom is whsere the heroes of earlier battles seek to return. Peter John and Andrew saw this kingdom and that kingdom is where they wanted now to stay. Jesus often said that the "kingdom has come". He often said "the kingdom is coming". He also said "the kingdom is here". The kingdom can be all those places because the kingdom is where He is at no matter where in heaven or earth His currently is. In power describes the unusual circumstances this truth to them was revealed. In power describes the clarity from which it now was seen. In power describes the additional verification place on it by prophets Moses and Elijah and then the voice from heaven. In power describes the glory and majesty that shown around Him "exceedingly white" like snow such as no launderer could whiten. What is interesting is the prohibition from telling others what they just saw until added to the testimony of having also seen Him risen.

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_19 @ nkjv@Genesis:36 @ RandyP comments: When we see the genealogy of Esau presented here for future reference what we should be seeing is the genealogy of the nation Edom. Edom will play a major role throughout the development of the nation Israel mostly from an adversarial position. Genealogies such as this also provide important archeological proof millenia later. Remember that Moses is not only writing to give us faith, but also scientific fact. Not all evidence supplied has today been discovered. The rate of discovery in the past 150 years is amazing. Faith buttressed by evidence is a good thing, evidence buttressed by faith another. Moses (writing for the Holy Spirit) was careful to provide various tracks of evidence (genealogies/geological markers/time markers/etc) as road maps from the honest future inquiror back into the past and from the past back out to the honest future believer. It is up to us to search out and use these evidences in proper sincere fashion without tainting the roadmap with what our less informed future faith wants them rather to say.

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_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".