Comments - journal RecentComments

CR18Day_04 @ nkjv@Genesis:7 @ RandyP comments: nkjv@Genesis:7:2 suggests that even before the Levitical cannon nkjv@Leviticus:11:1-47 that there was a common knowledge about what animals were clean. Seven of each makes for an odd pairing male and female. Many of these species are not monogamous as well. Add to that that an equal number of males is not typically required. With chickens for instance it is customary to have one rooster to dozens of hens. Same with bovine bulls and cows etc... That God is stating such a pairing to be made is undoubtedly a statement of God to man in and of itself.

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:15 @ RandyP comments: "..the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete". Lost in all these wonders of what God is doing and what HE is going to do through Abram is the often missed byline of what others are going to be doing against God. One might ask why not just establish Abraham's descendants in the land right here and now? One, Abraham doesn't have any descendants yet. Two, the the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete. God could easily defend Abraham's clan from the Amorites right now, but there is something essential to the plan that includes the transgressions of the current inhabitants (and others) and includes the captivity of Abraham's. God not only intends to show what will be done and prove HIMSELF capable but, prove to one and all why it must be done and in the process draw a whole lot of people to depend on no one else but HIM. Even in the establishment of the nation Israel, the nation isn't an end in and of itself, it is one further step towards proving the need for the Messiah. God could have done any number of things (ie smiting the Amorites out of existance), but instead HE chose one thing other, the thing HE knew in the long run would prove out to be the only right. Hard as it is at time for us to understand, HIS ways are not our way/HIS thoughts not our thoughts. "Do not be affraid, Abram, for I am your sheild, your exceedingly great reward".

CR18Day_09 @ nkjv@Genesis:17 @ RandyP comments: God's covenant with Abraham here is unconditional; there is no "if you do this then I will do that". The only thing that is told him that his descendants will do is to guard/protect this covenant, the sign of that on their part being male circumcision. It does not say if you guard, it says that you will guard, and they have. Notice that the sign of the covenant circumcision is to be performed at eight days after birth before the child's age of consent and includes anyone born to or in your household. How often this was followed precisely as stated is questionable, but again this was merely the sign of God's covenant not the covenant itself. It is important to remember that this is the first major Covenant of God with man and is unconditional/immutable/irrevocable and takes all precedence over the future conditional covenants placed over the eventual nation of Israel.

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@Mark:12 @ RandyP comments: "Are you not greatly mistaken, because you do not know the Scriptures nor the power of God?". The Sadducee errors believing not that God can/will raise saints from the dead, an example of the power and decree of God. Also they fail at the point that the historical fathers are presently dead. The reason for this deficit is of course explained as them not knowing scripture. Scripture is more than a story or moral code to live by, scripture is the declaration of God's awesome power, a power that has exhibited itself in many fashions before the children of Israel at many times. The issue of bodily resurrection is important for these minions to understand for Christ Himself will be the first resurrected of many more to come. Though the fathers live at present, they await the physical resurrection of what they left behind earlier here on earth. This not according to the traditions of men but, according to scriptures and the revealed power of God.

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_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.