Comments - journal RecentComments

CR18Day_03 @ nkjv@Genesis:3 @ RandyP comments: This is the first recording of an external influence being placed upon man: the fallen angel Satan. This appears rarely in scripture as it then is depicted as the damage man himself is responsible for. We know that the influence is present (prince of the air/this world etc..), but the bible is not written to be about Satan per se. As the Holy Writ continues however it is Cain that becomes murderous, Lamech that is murderous and boastful, the antediluvian world prior to Noah that becomes wicked in it's every imagination etc... It is not said much at all how much blame is Satan's directly (other than him having deceived the nations), but it is stated repeatedly and compellingly how much this present state of affairs is man's doing for which he alone is accountable.

CR18Day_01 @ USER INSTRUCTIONS @ RandyP comments: This journaling facility is intended to be used for bible commentary and to share external web links that might be of interest to the current bible topic. Please refer all general usage questions to me directly so that we can keep the commentary clean and free from general user distractions. Thank you!

CR18Day_04 @ nkjv@Mark:3 @ RandyP comments: It has been a decade or more since Jesus of Nazareth was crucified as the multitudes are first reading/listening to this first official gospel. The gospel is stating that within the first three chapters there was already a conspiracy between the Pharisee and Herodians to destroy Jesus. The reason for all now to see for the conspirators anger cannot be thought of as being anything other than His claim to forgive sins (which only God can do) and being Lord of the Sabbath and the Fast (which only God can be). Add to this that He has also already claimed to be the living fulfillment of Isaiah's messianic prophecy. There has been no talk by Jesus of any politically divisive ambitions. Now in an effort to destroy Jesus they are insinuating that He works for Satan. The topic of Jesus cannot be avoided by them because of the fact that He is performing so many miracles. They are being forced into a corner that they would rather not defend. This then is a case study of how men void of truth react to the true light. Mary had been told that her child would one day "reveal the intents of hearts of many"; this He is doing with little effort other than doing what good His Father is directing Him to do.

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@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:16 @ RandyP comments: "Angel of the LORD" is better translated in English as the Angel/messenger of Jehovah. It can not be just angel or messenger because he is making direct promises that only Christ could make "I will multiply...." etc.. It is not to mean that Christ is an angel, it is to mean that Christ is an official/chief deputy of the Father Jehovah.

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_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@Mark:14 @ RandyP comments: By criticizing the woman pouring perfume over Jesus these men are criticizing Jesus who is allowing her to do so. The men (some = more than just Judas) are quite taken back by the wasteful expense of this woman's act and are presumably thinking just of the poor. Godliness often is situational, what is godly in one situation (even in most situations) may not be godly in all situations; it may only be godly in one particular situation yet that is precisely to where the ball has bounced. That seems to be the problem with rigid legalism just as it seems to be the problem with soft wrapped good works and intentions. The presence of God in the flesh seems to bring about several of these changes in godly direction, examples like disciples not fasting etc.. What is generally true is in fact a good standard to follow, but better still is keeping an eye on the bouncing ball and the game at hand is far wiser.

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_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@Galatians:1 @ RandyP comments: "..any other gospel.." How many times must it be repeated? Just as not every path leads to heaven not every gospel leads to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. The apostle raises a grave concern for us today. Note that Paul ties the issue of there being other gospels directly to the human tendency to please other men rather that be bondservant to Christ. Men need to be pursuaded of God's gospel not God pursuaded of man's. In the end man's various gospels aren't going to be of any use to them; the men that they were designed to please will all be in a unpleasurable place eternally unsatisfiable. The first example given is Paul's own previous conversation, his years as a Jewish zealot/enforcer, a life of pleasing other men even to the extent of willingly doing the dirty work they themselves did not wish to do. Everything he did to please those men (as Jesus wisely predicted) he did thinking that it was heroic service to God. These men above him relied upon that sentiment, they fostered it, they empowered themselves by being able to direct it towards their own purposes. The good news is that the gospel of Christ has nothing to do with pleasing these men. In fact if one chooses to look at it this way, the bad news is rather that this type of man will be extremely displeased by it and will be sending other zealous pawns out against you now. There are so many different directions that these "other gospels" can point believers that it will take a much larger discussion of this Epistle to the Galatians to grasp.

CR18Day_05 @ nkjv@Genesis:10 @ RandyP comments: The names listed here in 10 are what many call the "Table of Nations". From these three major family divisions come the first 70 nations of the world. Ham's division for instance extends south into Africa, from his generations come upper and lower Egypt, another comes Libya, another Ethiopia etc... Ham's son Canaan is of particular interest as those nations become a constant source of trouble later for Israel. From Japhath come the nations to the far east Asia/Russia/Eastern Europe. Shem is where we get those of the middle east mainly, the Persians, the Aramaic, the Semites, the Greeks, those that eventually settled north up the coast toward Spain and Brittan. Shem is also where we get Eber (the root word leading to Hebrew) whom through we arrive later at Abraham. Note that chapter 11 happens at the time of Nimrod, meaning that this genealogy covers both the three generations Ham to Nimrod, from Nimrod the Tower of Babel and the division of human language and beyond. With this table of nations adequately laid out for us to understand then Moses returns us back to the time of Babel in 11. Also note that it only takes three generations from Ham to Nimrod after the flood for the sin of all men to raise to a point of God's direct action again.

CR18Day_05 @ nkjv@Genesis:11 @ RandyP comments: The sin observed in Babel runs throughout children of men (son's of Adam). Essentially it is this 1. The make a name for himself 2. To make himself secure by his own doing both in direct rebellion to God. The command of God is to "go" fill the entire earth. With it comes frontier type individualism, non-centralized control, reliance upon God. With rebellion comes gathering into cluster, centralized power and control, socialization, many men working towards one cause the object of which is whatsoever the few in control task them to do. That whatsoever is the thing that most concerns God for the heart and intents of man toward God are only rebellion. Nimrod intends to have a tower built that reaches to the heaven. The tower is a symbol of man made religion for the masses to look up to, for the idols way up and authorities in the middle to look down from. It is such a minute and pitiful sight sight from heaven that the omnipresent God mockingly has to come way down from heaven even to see it. By confusing the one current language into many, God effectively partitions mankind against each other and thus partitions man from there being one central world government drunken on the blood of the godly as we the see in the end with the Whore of Babylon after God loosens HIS current restraint.