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_05 @ nkjv@Mark:4 @ RandyP comments: The sower sows the word.... He sows it indiscriminately on to a variety of different soils. Why waste seed where it will not be received? Many would think that it is the condition of the heart that determines whether the seed is received (which it is), but that each person is responsible for the condition of their heart (which might be a stretch for this parable - what can soil do on it's own to prepare it's own self?). Have you ever known a sower that was not a farmer? Is not the seed received received by the soil that he himself tilled? that he himself didn't compost and fertilize? that he himself didn't level, furrow and irrigate? Again I ask why waste seed everywhere else? How else does the sower do all this other at the same time? Why even the birds of the air are getting in on some word (not that it will do them any good)!

CR18Day_09 @ nkjv@Mark:6 @ RandyP comments: "He could do no mighty work there". We must be very cautious not to make the text say something it does not. Unintentionally perhaps, we can make this passage to say that it was the people's disbelief that kept/blocked Jesus from doing any intended mighty works; as if the sovereign God was not all that sovereign. Surely that is not what we mean to say but, that is often how our explanations come across. Better put, throughout the gospels (especially John's) we are presented a picture of the obedient Christ. What Christ sees the Father doing that He does. What He hears the Father say that He says. The Son is in fact mirroring the Father and if He doesn't behave in this all dependent manner well then there would be no reason to believe that He is in fact the Son. Satan's temptation of Jesus was an attempt to get the Son to do something that the Father HIMSELF was not seen/heard doing. Not that Jesus did not have these powers Himself but, that those powers were for this time to be set aside in humble submission/obedience. The Father would thus acknowledge glorify each of the Son's obediences by performing them thereby confirming HIS beloved Son in whom HE was well pleased in front of our eyes. Here Jesus had come amongst His own and saw the Father doing no mighty works, so He did likewise obediently. By doing no great works much was actually being said and done by them. You can imagine after having seen Jesus with the multitudes a day or so before how loud this sudden silence would be screaming out. Even Jesus' disciples were getting into the act previously and now? Why is this? Not to say "because of their unbelief" but to say "to make their unbelief known".

CR18Day_12 @ nkjv@Genesis:24 @ RandyP comments: Why was Abraham so insistent on Isaac not taking a wife from the local Canaanites? Look at the base of the name Canaanite. Whose name do you see? Canaan right? The son of Ham who Noah cursed to be servants of the servants. Ever wonder why Noah didn't curse all of Ham's offspring? Call it providence but, Canaan's descendants became the very people that now possessed the land soon to be promised to Noah's son Seth's descendant Abraham (therein the nation Israel). How much Noah knew about this at the time is doubtful but, by providence this is how it all worked out. Also provident is that by Seth's descendant marrying another of Seth's descendants the redemptive line leading to Jesus is kept pure. Did Abraham know all of this? Impossible to tell. It is something for us now to ponder and appreciate however.

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@Mark:14 @ RandyP comments: I sense that even though Judas has already been to the chief priests to field their offers to turn Jesus over, that Jesus does not yet see this as "the betrayal". Jesus says that one here "will" betray Him. The actual betrayal is still an option for Judas that he will have to decide on. Note that Jesus as much as tells Judas in the other men's hearing that it would be better for him (if that is his decision to betray) to have been never born than to suffer the woe he is about to to suffer as a consequence; and yet Judas decides to betray him any way. Some would say that Judas does not have a choice in the matter, some even that he was predestined/born to do this. Why then would it be said that it would be better for him not to be born? Why then must he suffer for that which he had no choice in doing? One possible explanation for us to consider is that God does not violate man's choices, but knows what those choices are going to be with perfect foreknowledge. God uses the foreknowledge of our choices to direct the accomplishment of HIS perfect will. Another explanation is that God is always in action, man is always responding to God's action, man is free to react however he chooses but it is never any surprise to God how a particular individual does in fact react; man's free reaction thus can be reliably be counted on. This theory essentially holds that God does not make a man to do any particular thing, HE simply counts on it. Some would look at this as the ability to predict, I look at it as the ability to know a man better than he can know himself.

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: "Why do you look so sad today?" . Sometimes the biggest things to happen in one's life begin with simply being aware of other people, being concerned for other people, asking a simple question, becoming involved in helping other people find their urgent answers. It was never like Joseph saw an opportunity to get his case to Pharaoh by helping either of these two prisoners from Pharaoh's court. It wasn't like Joseph thought "here is my chance". It was not anything but an awareness and making one's self available to another in need. Joseph had likely done this many times for many people, it was likely just part of Joseph's character, he may have been known to others as being trust-able with these types of matters. See, so many of us would like to be this type of blessing to others but, we blindly pass by these many smaller opportunities in search of that one big one. Others don't have the level of confidence to open up to us because we do not have the level of confidence to have first opened the doorway to them. The Lord has favor on HIS children. It is not for HIS children to pick and chose who to spend that favor on. Nor is for the children to be so distant and put out not to be approachable by others. Nor is it for the favored children to come to other's answers by their own intellect or deductions. Nor is it for us to sugar coat the revealed answer when it is not so pleasing.

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: The idea of there being one core language (say Hebrew) from which all other languages have descended from is a very controversial idea. Modern linguists have struggled to boil it all down to four root tongues. The singular base idea is not necessary to the key scriptural understanding however, it is something perhaps better stated as being propagated by one group (say the Hebrews). When God confused the original language it could just as easily be that HE confused them all equally, that there is no longer that essential core in evidence. This would explain why it is linguists can only strain out four bases. Without the original to compare the four (if that's the number) to, we are left with no identifiable link between them. I have the suspicion that their are actually more than four roots at this point however, that we are mis-identifying commonalities in the search of proving the one. Had there remained the one core (say Hebrew) the other languages would have attempted to go back to it to circumvent the divisive confusion. All the "sons of men" were said to be doing this rebellion. Why not then have all the languages of men confused?