Comments - journal RecentComments

CR18Day_06 @ nkjv@Mark:5 @ RandyP comments: I find it interesting that the legion of demons did not want Jesus to do a certain thing, begged for something other, and that Jesus "gave permission(nkjv)/gave them leave(kjv+rsv+asv)". For the poor man the result is just the same; he is freed from torment. For the demons they don't have to look for another host to inhabit; they are sent into the herd of swine (?did they know that the swine were going to drown - probably not?). For Jesus there is the added advantage that the owners of these swine (forbidden to eat by Jews) would be angry; they and the city's residents would be coming after Him in fear pleading that He leave their coast. Everyone seems to win here except for the owners and residents who would be recounting this fearful event for decades to come. The only question I have is did the demons die with the swine or are they still down there trapped in their carcass? or? Perhaps that is the question that the locals had 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_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_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_16 @ nkjv@Genesis:29 @ RandyP comments: Interesting that attractive beauty is brought up again with Rachel as it was with Sarah and Rebekah. For them their beauty was felt a danger by their husbands in these foreign lands and causes them trouble therein. Rachel is also described as a shepherdess working her father's flocks, grueling and demanding sometimes dangerous work. Jacob's immediate attraction to Rachel becomes his long pathway to experiencing Yahweh through trial and error. Not sure why Jacob thought of working seven years to earn himself Rachel when other more sure arrangements likely could have been made. He seems to have set himself up for the problems ahead.

CR18Day_17 @ nkjv@Genesis:30 @ RandyP comments: "I have learned by experience that the LORD has blessed me for your sake". For Laban to confess this to Jacob is amazing. Certainly it is true but, how many father in laws or employers ever even recognize this as being the case let alone confess it. Now when Jacob declares the same concept back to Laban it sounds to me more presumptuous. "..the LORD has blessed you since my coming. And now, when shall I also provide for my own house?" You see the impression given that God provided you all this through me now you provide for me? Why is it not so too God has/shall provide for me? Sure Jacob says "you shall not give me anything" and it is meant to say 'what you have is God's... give me of God's the speckled and spotted' but, it is given by Laban just the same. Despite how it sounds perhaps there is something greater being conveyed here, that Jacob knows his father in law too well and knows that his departure will effect his father in law's vast possessions and also his perception of Jacob's righteousness considerably; the break will not be clean. Jacob wants something for his wages but, this concern and familiarity scares him. He seems to know that God will bless the spotted stock in order to make the exchange right (or at least is calling upon to) but, feels he himself still must contend with Laban. Surely God wants Laban to get past this and let HIS chosen lineage go. It seems that this is God working through Jacob on Laban and yet Jacob working through God toward Laban but, Jacob's fears and intents at the same time causing some perceivable awkwardness to the transaction.

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_19 @ nkjv@Genesis:37 @ RandyP comments: It seems to me that Reuben was willing to risk his brother's wrath by delivering Joseph back to his father Jacob. It would have made for big trouble in the household. Judah however saw it as an opportunity to turn a profit. Judah becomes the line of descendants that Christ is promised through. So it is not because of any exemplar behavior that the bloodline is chosen. The tribes of Judah and Benjamin later will become the only two tribes that remain of the divided nation Israel, the other tribes will split away. The Ishmaelites you'll recall take us back to Abraham and Hagar's son Ishmael. Midianites also descend from Abraham from his second wife Keturah. They would be the cause of plenty problems for Israel in years to come. Of interest is that Jacob's son are taking action with absolutely no thought even for their father Jacob who will be devastated by the sight of the bloodied tunic. No thought for Joseph, no thought for Jacob, no thought for Benjamin Rachel's other son, no thought for God righteousness, and one could even say no thought for themselves. This I believe to be a result of ungodly jealousy, consuming anger, murderous rage which is amplified in their hearts because of polygamy.

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_24 @ nkjv@Genesis:44 @ RandyP comments: Great concern must be raised as to whether Joseph actually divines information or not. The most logical explanation is that he is making it look like it to his brothers to continue concealing his true identity. If not the case we are struck with possibility that Joseph has learned divination from the Egyptians. In later years divination is strictly prohibited by the Law of Moses. I would imagine that even before the law God was just as offended by it as with the Law. Joseph is never confronted by God on this issue, which leads me to believe that he was not actually divining. The other alternative may be that the translation of the word into English may be misleading. My brief word study dict:strongs H5172 is showing the Hebrew word as split between the prohibited type of prognostication and the lesser observational/experiential form. In this case, that it is the cup being the object referred seems to substantiate the darker meaning; one would not simply anticipate events in the future by using a cup.

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.