Comments - journal RecentComments

CR18Day_03 @ nkjv@Mark:2 @ RandyP comments: These are all facts that anyone remotely present to Capernaum at that time would know and be able to attest to. Word of these events undoubtedly spread through the entire region. Multitudes of readers later in 48AD or so when Marks gospel was widely issued would still know either personally or second hand that Mark was viciously cutting through all the false information about Jesus Christ being propagated by the establishment's defense. Many of those healed for instance would still be living at this point to give their testimony. Those close to or within the the Pharisee sect or disciples of John the Baptist would be unable to refute these evidences 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_13 @ nkjv@Genesis:27 @ RandyP comments: I am not sure what to think of Isaac's storyline. It seems somewhat mundane compared to the other patriarchs. My confusion is amplified in his later days when he seeks to give Esau the final blessing and not Jacob. In his defense it might be that Rebekah did not disclose to him what the Lord had told her concerning the older twin serving the younger. Perhaps he did not know that Esau had sold his birthright to Jacob for a bowl of stew. Perhaps at this advanced age he is forgetful; I just can't put my finger on it. He seems at times to suspect Jacob impersonating Esau. The story of Isaac seems to be more about Rebekah and her determination than his. He was obviously blessed by the Lord beyond measure and he does carry an important place in the redemptive line.

CR18Day_17 @ nkjv@Genesis:31 @ RandyP comments: "Yet your father has deceived me and changed my wages ten times, but God did not allow him to hurt me". If the object of the many difficult experiences we go through is to come to know our God better, then Jacob has been brought now to a better understanding of God. To walk with God is not to walk unhindered, not dragged down by the burdens placed upon us by others, not to soar high above any problem or difficulty or substantial set back, it is to walk alongside Him through whatever transpires/conspires against us, ultimately with full faith intact, all the better for the experience. Now if Jacob had left the experience penniless, surely he would have to realize that he is leaving at least with two tremendous strong women and twelve substantial son's (heirs of Abraham/Isaac) and the experience of God working throughout to bless the wombs/bless the livestock/bless the servants. Surely he would know that if God had done all this once, now that God has called him onward, God could surely do the same or more again. This is how we best should think of our challenges as well. What we come out within each experience of God that is of the greatest value is simply the experience of God working within each experience. Any further reward is icing on the cake. Even if to lose all that we had in the outcome we would still gain that which is ultimately of the greatest value: God/our souls/each other/the faith to journey on.

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.