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@Psalms:148 @ RandyP comments: A "horn" figuratively equates to the pinnacle of power. The horn of HIS people, the praise of all HIS saints could refer to none other than Jesus Christ in whom all things were created, by whom all things were created, for whom all things were created. If the people were to say that the horn was something other, say the glory of Israel, those particular people would not be HIS people. There is much difference between the glory of Israel which has a certain glory indeed and the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ whose glory is Israel's whether they acknowledge it or not. After all, doesn't Israel exist that God might exalt one nation that was not a nation, a people that were not a people, to a level in the world's eye that would prove the need for a Savior having proved the undeniable case of sin, having made good the longstanding promise made to Abraham to bless all nations by Abraham's messianic seed (singular)? So then in context to this psalm HIS people are to praise their LORD not only for His creative power and firm rule over nature, we are to praise Him for His name alone is exalted!

CR18Day_06 @ nkjv@Mark:5 @ RandyP comments: It is doubtful that the residents in and around Gadarenes would have forgotten this event a decade and a half later when Mark formally recounted it. It is doubtful that the residents in and around Decapolis would have forgotten the formerly possessed man's testimony. Any one from anywhere else at that time doubting Marks account could easily have gone to either region and asked the residents. It is likely that the story was still widely known even there in Jerusalem. Maybe as time went by certain details would be passed down differently by the locals, the story might have morphed into something barely resembling what the Apostles recollected, but still decades later the evidence of the event described having happened would have been compelling.

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) kjv@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_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@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_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_23 @ nkjv@Genesis:42 @ RandyP comments: "Joseph remembered the dreams which he had dreamed about them, and said to them..". For Joseph, his long journey began with some dreams given him as a youth that his family would one day bow themselves before him. Much has happened to Joseph along this journey but, nothing that would suggest to us that Joseph's will and determination has brought this moment now to take place. In fact for the longest time those dreams seemed to be nothing but dreams, dreams had made him to suffer; not so. This certainly is not the course one would plan out if to engineer an event when the making of the dream to come true would pass. This is because this event was not engineered by Joseph, it was engineered and brought to pass by the LORD; there can be no doubt of that the way the story is presented, everything described here tells us that it was by God's hand and God's hand only. What we now must consider about the movement of God's hand is that it moves upon God's favor, favor is what makes all of this to occur, favor actuated by promise. In the natural sense everything can appear to be working against the man. Because of God's favor though, even that which appears to be working against the man/woman is unknowingly working for him/her by God's hand. And in the end it can only be said that it was by God's favor and therein God is praised.

CR18Day_24 @ nkjv@Psalms:24 @ RandyP comments: LORD of hosts is a common phrase in the OT filter:OT LORD+of+hosts . King of glory only appears in this one psalm filter:OT King+of+glory and here it appears five times. It is made obvious that the LORD and the King are one in the same. Rarely is the LORD of hosts ever equated to king filter:OT LORD+of+hosts+AND+king , the king being referred to elsewhere is a human king. The point is that this king is none other than the Jehovah of hosts, the strong and mighty, mighty in battle. Agreed? It is not David. It is not Israel herself. It is not some future human ruler. It is Messiah; Messiah is Jehovah of hosts. So why would King of glory/LORD of hosts be entering through gates of eternity when He should already be there? Why does He have to be identified and equated to as one in the same? Why need there be such a joyous celebration at this occurrence? Could it be that took upon Himself flesh being born of a woman, was despised and rejected, stood silent like a lamb before it's shearers, bore the iniquity of us all, was cut off from the land of the living, was raised into the pleasure of the remaining Jehovah and lives evermore to make intercession for transgressors? That certainly would something worth celebrating. That certainly would require our re-familiarization to as to His true identity. So I ask you: Who is this King of glory?

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_25 @ nkjv@Galatians:2 @ RandyP comments: "(who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage)". Paul does not mince words. There are men of reputation. There are pillars. There are men in whom the influence of God's grace can be readily perceived working in them. There are men who spy seeking to bring the group as a whole into bondage. The implication is that these spies are men of reputation who make themselves to be somebody; lesser men at least would think them to be reputable. Paul thought them to be only what they were: stealthy spies. It was to be a private audience with certain pillars to make sure that what the two men had been doing till now was square with the Apostles and that what they were going to continue doing was square as well. How it became a full scale church council seems beyond the original intent. Paul didn't know who these men were, didn't care to know because he could see right through them, made no difference to him because he wasn't going to be distracted by them; not even for one hour. If only we were as observant and uncompromising as he was. These men are still to this day sneaking in. They might even be the ones insisting on and deciding a council.