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_04 @ nkjv@Genesis:6 @ RandyP comments: "All flesh had corrupted their way on the earth". Since the time of the fall things have only gotten worse. The dominant feature at this time now is violence, the earth is filled with it through them. This then can be said to be the outcome of seeking to be gods in our own eyes knowing good and evil. Given the choice between good and evil, the deceptive heart will more than likely choose evil even when the mind believes that it is choosing good (evil being any other desire than God's). Evil is like a river current. to do good requires turning about and planting a foothold against it's momentous flow, advancing one's opposition forward step by step. Often in this effort we are all alone and going up against all odds. It is not necessarily that we don't intend to do good, it is that we fail to sustain the effort long enough to make any lasting impact. This human inability also is compounded by the fact that males of this age likely were in an violent struggle with/against the sons of God for their own women folk and livelihoods.

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_09 @ nkjv@Genesis:16 @ RandyP comments: "The Lord has restrained me". It would be very interesting to know whether this was true or else Sara's impression of things. If it is her impression then she is never called to account for this; perhaps it should be better said that her age is what is at cause. If this divine restraint is the true then we have a couple possibilities to consider: One might be able to suggest for instance that God was testing the couple to see if they were going to do something on their own. The other possibility is that HE knew how they were going to react and that HE was out to let both them and us know that the doing of this was all HIS. It may not seem like an important distinction but, it is. There is a different frustration on Sara's part if she thinks that she is capable but being kept from bearing the child or not capable with God still sitting on HIS hands about it. Perhaps we are of similar frustrations in our prayers and then attempt to take the prayer answer into our own hand. The answer might be God's alone regardless of how long it takes or how desperate the situation is getting. The experience may well drive them/us into a deeper knowledge/trust of God first. It is this future clarified faith that will be accounted to them as righteousness.

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_10 @ nkjv@Genesis:19 @ RandyP comments: A famous evangelist of the last century has been quoted as saying that "if God does not judge modern day San Francisco, He owes Sodom a big apology". I certainly don't want to stand behind San Francisco nor any other cities sinfulness (regardless of what it's dominant sin is), but I do not see the same level of wickedness as presented here. These are a city full of men at the front door insisting on sodomizing two strangers for what I believe are religious not just sexual reasons. I have yet to hear of a case of this same kind of activity in modern San Francisco. There is also the issue of the outcry against it coming before the Lord. Now days the so called "Silent Majority" is just that: silent; there is little if any outcry before the Lord. There is few if any righteous persons stepping up to protect the innocent at their own possible peril largely because their few if any non consenting victims and little if any of this type of mass behavior. All that really can be said is that this Silent Majority keeps acting as judge in their silent uninvolved sort of way. God owes no one any apology, but He does owe all of us judgment.

CR18Day_11 @ nkjv@Mark:8 @ RandyP comments: Four thousand men, probably about that number again in women and kids conservatively. How many of those who saw this miracle of the loaves were still alive at the wider publication of Mark's gospel a decade and a half later? Quite a few of them; especially of the kids. How many others did each of these men women and children tell that would know of this event second hand or third hand and still be living? Conservatively hundreds of thousands, half or more still living. How many critics of that day refuted Mark's written account or questioned the numbers? We do not know of any. Again, how many witnesses at the feeding of the five thousand men plus women and children? How many other people did they tell? How many were living to later support Mark's gospel? How many critics refuted that additional multitudes' claims? Again the blind man in Bethsaida; what kind of numbers are we talking about there? Was the blind man still alive? What did he say about this? Were those all important surviving witnesses nearby? Could anyone in Bethsaida still confirm this? Unfortunately you see, this logical line of critical inquiry was not the line of attack that the critics then engaged in (leading us to believe that they knew it would be inaffective to their defence). Their means of countering Mark was to slander and persecute and physically compel believers to blaspheme the faith, else to argue against it on mere philosophical grounds. The history here says more than just Mark's written words.

CR18Day_12 @ nkjv@Mark:9 @ RandyP comments: Six days after Jesus said some would see the kingdom with great power three disciples saw it on a mountain top; they saw Christ transfigured in glory and confirmed again by the Father. The kingdom see is where ever the king is found to be. The kingdom is wherever the king's rule has ultimate authority. The kingdom is whsere the heroes of earlier battles seek to return. Peter John and Andrew saw this kingdom and that kingdom is where they wanted now to stay. Jesus often said that the "kingdom has come". He often said "the kingdom is coming". He also said "the kingdom is here". The kingdom can be all those places because the kingdom is where He is at no matter where in heaven or earth His currently is. In power describes the unusual circumstances this truth to them was revealed. In power describes the clarity from which it now was seen. In power describes the additional verification place on it by prophets Moses and Elijah and then the voice from heaven. In power describes the glory and majesty that shown around Him "exceedingly white" like snow such as no launderer could whiten. What is interesting is the prohibition from telling others what they just saw until added to the testimony of having also seen Him risen.

CR18Day_17 @ nkjv@Genesis:31 @ RandyP comments: "O God of my father Abraham and God of my father Isaac, the LORD who said to me...". Jacob is going from one difficult situation to another (at least one that is potentially dangerous) but, he is doing it in obedience to the LORD and he is doing it in faith. His faith is that the God that guided and watched over Abraham by unconditional covenant, the God who did the same for Isaac, having commanded him to return to his father's land and of descendents numerous as the stars that the same God will guide and watch over him as well. It has to be comforting to him in a hopeful way, yet at the same time there is the manner in which he had left his brother twenty years previous. Hope often has to be strong enough to overcome rational/irrational fear (and perhaps guilt) in order to keep us obedient. What God calls us to is rarely the easiest most natural thing for us to do. It is that way so that it strengthens or faith in the process. Jacob restrengthens his faith in remembrance of covenant God had made with him and his fathers. What remembrance do we restrengthen our faith in similarity? It might be wise for us today to list those things out for future reference.

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: 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_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_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?