Comments - journal RecentComments

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_09 @ nkjv@Genesis:16 @ RandyP comments: "Took Hagar her maid". How often do we think that the delayed answer to our prayers is calling for sacrifice on our part? How often do we answer prayers ourselves and then blame God that the answer is not all that it should have been or created a whole new set of problems on top of the old? There are always unpredictable consequences to our own answers. There are sacrifices that may need to be but, what sacrifices will those be? For Sara it should not have been to give her man over to another woman, it should have been the time she wouldn't be able to have raising her own child due to her rapidly advanced age. We must consider these thing wisely as well.

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_16 @ nkjv@Genesis:29 @ RandyP comments: Interesting that attractive beauty is brought up again with Rachel as it was with Sarah and Rebekah. For them their beauty was felt a danger by their husbands in these foreign lands and causes them trouble therein. Rachel is also described as a shepherdess working her father's flocks, grueling and demanding sometimes dangerous work. Jacob's immediate attraction to Rachel becomes his long pathway to experiencing Yahweh through trial and error. Not sure why Jacob thought of working seven years to earn himself Rachel when other more sure arrangements likely could have been made. He seems to have set himself up for the problems ahead.

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_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_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_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_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.