Comments - journal RecentComments

CR18Day_06 @ nkjv@Psalms:148 @ RandyP comments: A "horn" figuratively equates to the pinnacle of power. The horn of HIS people, the praise of all HIS saints could refer to none other than Jesus Christ in whom all things were created, by whom all things were created, for whom all things were created. If the people were to say that the horn was something other, say the glory of Israel, those particular people would not be HIS people. There is much difference between the glory of Israel which has a certain glory indeed and the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ whose glory is Israel's whether they acknowledge it or not. After all, doesn't Israel exist that God might exalt one nation that was not a nation, a people that were not a people, to a level in the world's eye that would prove the need for a Savior having proved the undeniable case of sin, having made good the longstanding promise made to Abraham to bless all nations by Abraham's messianic seed (singular)? So then in context to this psalm HIS people are to praise their LORD not only for His creative power and firm rule over nature, we are to praise Him for His name alone is exalted!

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_11 @ nkjv@Psalms:107 @ RandyP comments: "...Therefore He brought down their heart with labor...". Some would wish to remove the "therefore" from their understanding; God brings hearts down just because. What a mean God that would be. The "therefore" suggest however that "they" had a major part in this because of their rebellion against HIS word and the despising of HIS counsel. If the "they" are to mean Israel, think of how many other times they did just that. It seems as if it is easier to fall into this rebellious mindset than it is to maintain the right mindset on it's own. I suspect it true in a personal sense, this gravitation towards rebellion but, I know it for certain among generations of men. One God delivered generation passes it's renewed godly enthusiasm and testimony to the next, the next passes down what amounts to stories or legends of the past to the next, not having experienced God to the same extent the successive generations grow colder and colder to this point of rebellion and despising counsel. This all too familiar entropy often occurs within a matter of years within one generation; even within days in some cases. "Therefore" God's righteous response to them is to bring them down (but not to let go). Down can be to let them suffer the consequences of their own counsel and actions for a time alone or serve those to whom they have become debtor/captor. Down can be a bit more drastic like a famine or multiple rainless seasons, enemy nations mounting on their borders. Down can be leaving them to their own resource and efforts if that's the way they want it minus HIS gracious blessings and wonderous power. Down could possibly mean progressively down as far down as they decide to go before they cry out to the Lord and HE bring them back. They suffer as one together in many instances so that they know without question that this is a God thing being imposed. But, HE does bring back. It would sound mean had we not done anything to deserve it or if there wasn't something better for us to know and be apart of but, think back on the majority of times when HE has blessed us when we didn't deserve that good part of HIM either. "Oh, that men would give thanks to the LORD for His goodness, And for His wonderful works to the children of men!"

CR18Day_16 @ nkjv@Genesis:28 @ RandyP comments: "If Eloheem will be with me, and keep... and give... then shall Jehovah be my Eloheem". God is with Jacob and keeps him and gives to him richly, Jacob just doesn't have the experience of it yet. HE gives him a dream showing HIMSELF in Heaven with a ladder connecting to him down below by angels and in that dream HE reaffirms HIS longstanding unconditional covenant promising to keep and bring him back to this present land. Now normally our walk with God is not a you do this God and then as result of you doing that I will make you my God (making God prove himself first). Our walk is more of first having the belief from hearing the word and getting to better know whom we believe in through the daily experience of trying to live that word forward. Much of that initial word is comprised of promises however. It is in the hope of seeing those promises fulfilled that we are propelled forward. The hope is that HE will keep us here and now and bring us back to the point that HE gave us vision. With hope there is expectation but, before expectation can be fulfilled there are to be numerous experiences that bring us to a fuller realization beyond that of just a generalized God but, of, as a result of a series of processes, a very specific and identifiable knowledge of Yahweh.

CR18Day_17 @ nkjv@Mark:12 @ RandyP comments: "These will receive greater condemnation". Note that it does not say greater punishment. There is only one level of punishment, utter separation from the presence/restraint/provision of God: hell. Greater condemnation means that there is much greater reason that they are judged worthy of this one eternal punishment: impersonating a shepherd of HIS own flock (or as illustrated being a vinedresser that won't surrender to the owner his rightful fruit). Some would think that there are tiers to this judgment, that some will be better off than others, that some will be instigators and others recipients, that there will be those that party and those that suffer. The bible says no such thing. Each person will suffer as if there was no one else around him and yet all will suffer the same together as one for it is not only God's separation that they suffer but, God's wrath. Neither outpouring choses whom to separate/punish more.

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_17 @ nkjv@Genesis:31 @ RandyP comments: "What is my trespass? What is my sin, that you have so hotly pursued me?" Funny how one even when in the right can yet be in the wrong, at least by association. Jacob is right. Unknowingly though his wife Rachel is placing him in the wrong; she has in fact stolen some of Laban's idols. The whole list of everything Jacob has done and endured righteously over twenty years under Laban's idolatrous hands is called into question because of another person's (his bone of bone/flesh of flesh) act say of sentimentality or possible duplicity. This comes from the one person Jacob longingly suffered for the most, the one with whom he was smitten for at first glance. It is an ugly ugly story anytime deception has to be used to keep the greater storyline right side up. It is even uglier when it is the one whom you most love, that is most beautiful in your eyes that brings that unknown cloud knowingly over your head.

CR18Day_19 @ nkjv@Genesis:35 @ RandyP comments: "Then God (Eloheem) went up from him in the place where He talked with him". The Apostle John quotes Jesus twice that "no man has seen God" and mentions it a third time in his first letter, yet there are multiple mentions of filter:OT LORD+AND+appeared in the Old Testament. Of interest we also have indication as here stated of the LORD going up afterwards, else coming down or just leaving. There seems to be no doubt nor unfamiliarity as to whom it is appearing in man's presence; no proof has to be given. Even when other angelic beings are beside Him His identity is obvious. There are a couple ways possible for us to interpret how this apparent contradiction can be resolved. The most prominent idea is that these are Christophanies (appearances of Christ before becoming human flesh); Christ is God but in viewable form. The second is what we see is as much of HIMSELF as God can show us without posing a danger to the lives of those HE is appearing to; a projection into our finite dimension or else avatar within a presentable form. Third HIS appearance is a vision HE plants within our mind. Fourth, we have the idea that an angel is making a substitutionary appearence for God. Some appearances are identified specifically as visions, others leave the impression that He is there (and is eating for instance), others are not as clear. These appearances are to be differentiated from the times when we are simply told that God or the LORD spoke saying... By all evidence God has been quite vocal and quite visable in these testaments.

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_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_25 @ nkjv@Galatians:2 @ RandyP comments: "(who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage)". Paul does not mince words. There are men of reputation. There are pillars. There are men in whom the influence of God's grace can be readily perceived working in them. There are men who spy seeking to bring the group as a whole into bondage. The implication is that these spies are men of reputation who make themselves to be somebody; lesser men at least would think them to be reputable. Paul thought them to be only what they were: stealthy spies. It was to be a private audience with certain pillars to make sure that what the two men had been doing till now was square with the Apostles and that what they were going to continue doing was square as well. How it became a full scale church council seems beyond the original intent. Paul didn't know who these men were, didn't care to know because he could see right through them, made no difference to him because he wasn't going to be distracted by them; not even for one hour. If only we were as observant and uncompromising as he was. These men are still to this day sneaking in. They might even be the ones insisting on and deciding a council.