Comments - journal RecentComments

CR18Day_04 @ nkjv@Mark:3 @ RandyP comments: It has been a decade or more since Jesus of Nazareth was crucified as the multitudes are first reading/listening to this first official gospel. The gospel is stating that within the first three chapters there was already a conspiracy between the Pharisee and Herodians to destroy Jesus. The reason for all now to see for the conspirators anger cannot be thought of as being anything other than His claim to forgive sins (which only God can do) and being Lord of the Sabbath and the Fast (which only God can be). Add to this that He has also already claimed to be the living fulfillment of Isaiah's messianic prophecy. There has been no talk by Jesus of any politically divisive ambitions. Now in an effort to destroy Jesus they are insinuating that He works for Satan. The topic of Jesus cannot be avoided by them because of the fact that He is performing so many miracles. They are being forced into a corner that they would rather not defend. This then is a case study of how men void of truth react to the true light. Mary had been told that her child would one day "reveal the intents of hearts of many"; this He is doing with little effort other than doing what good His Father is directing Him to do.

CR18Day_09 @ nkjv@Genesis:16 @ RandyP comments: "Angel of the LORD" is better translated in English as the Angel/messenger of Jehovah. It can not be just angel or messenger because he is making direct promises that only Christ could make "I will multiply...." etc.. It is not to mean that Christ is an angel, it is to mean that Christ is an official/chief deputy of the Father Jehovah.

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@Genesis:23 @ RandyP comments: Many believe that back at the time of Noah that God officially limited our life spans to no more than 125 years. I once heard a retelling of an alleged news report that a god fearing faithful elderly woman discontinued with her life long devotion to God because she lived to exceed this 125 year limit.; her bible could no longer be true because of this obvious contradiction. I have heard the story repeated more than once; I believe it to be a widely spread urban legend. Sarah here lives to be 127, Abraham her elder later took another wife and lived to be 175. The 125 year limitation has to be either referring to 125 years from the date of God's decree to make an end of all flesh till the first raindrop of the flood or else a general guideline of life spans and not a hard set rule. It is important not to jump to any irrational conclusions when encountering scriptural difficulties. It is important not to believe everything that you hear; urban legends of all sorts are everywhere true as they might sound.

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@Genesis:24 @ RandyP comments: Why was Abraham so insistent on Isaac not taking a wife from the local Canaanites? Look at the base of the name Canaanite. Whose name do you see? Canaan right? The son of Ham who Noah cursed to be servants of the servants. Ever wonder why Noah didn't curse all of Ham's offspring? Call it providence but, Canaan's descendants became the very people that now possessed the land soon to be promised to Noah's son Seth's descendant Abraham (therein the nation Israel). How much Noah knew about this at the time is doubtful but, by providence this is how it all worked out. Also provident is that by Seth's descendant marrying another of Seth's descendants the redemptive line leading to Jesus is kept pure. Did Abraham know all of this? Impossible to tell. It is something for us now to ponder and appreciate however.

CR18Day_13 @ nkjv@Genesis:27 @ RandyP comments: I think it is important again to stress that this storyline between Jacob and Esau has more to do about rivaling nations than rivaling siblings. This is the beginning of a heated feud between nations Edom and Israel that will last until near the time of Christ. The fact that Rebekah steps in to keep these lineages as ordered by the Lord is huge to Israel's future. None of the characters in this passage seem to be exemplary (Jacob, Esau, Isaac, Rebekah). Yet it all works as announced beforehand by the Lord. The amazing thing to consider is that the Lord already has established key components to the larger storyline of Israel in the opposing sibling lines of Canaan and now Edom. Please remember back to these familial associations each time these names are presented.

CR18Day_16 @ nkjv@Mark:11 @ RandyP comments: Three major events are described in this chapter that people in and around Jerusalem should remember well even more than a decade later. If it hadn't happened as reported by Mark, we would have seen objections made. We don't; it was not even the Pharisee/Sadducee line of attack the decades following. It would be enough to remember because of the political/social fear/tension and talk of revolt that that would widely be talked/worried about.

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: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@Genesis:37 @ RandyP comments: I think we should spend a moment in this new developing storyline of Joseph discussing the obvious dangers of polygamy. We have seen this danger with sons of different women Isaac and Ishmael. We have seen it now with the twelve sons of Jacob. We sense it heightened now that Rachel is not there to fend for her two sons especially the elder Joseph. In part Jacob's love for Joseph comes out of his love and mourning for Rachel. Jacob you'll remember was tricked by Laban into this polygamy it was Rachel that he wanted only and first. The problem we can observe is rooted in who the man loves more. This is true among the wives. This is true among the children. It puts the man in an impossible spot being that he may or may not have any leaning of affection one way or the other, if he does it may or may not be anything his heart has any control over. Though he might do all that he sees possible to make things equal there is little that he can do to alter the perceptions of the others once those perceptions have rooted. Many a polygamist man is trapped into a life of saying what he doesn't mean, expressing what he doesn't rightly feel, and making apology for it at every twisting bend. If that becomes true for the man of the house, think what that means to the wife or child that is perceived to be his favored object. Think how the other wives/siblings amongst themselves can work their unfettered perceptions into a greasy and consuming froth. Polygamy has been tolerated in the past by God, but it has never HIS sanctioned preference.

CR18Day_20 @ nkjv@Genesis:39 @ RandyP comments: "But the LORD was with Joseph and showed him mercy". It is a popular notion that the Lord's blessing brings nothing but good, it is not of the Lord if it brings bad. Being largely superficial we see that on the surface that it doesn't look good for Joseph; sold into slavery, falsely accused of sexual misconduct, imprisoned, forgotten. If this is what being righteous brings, why consider being righteous then? On the other hand, looking deeper we see that the Lord truly is with Joseph raising him to the top each and every time. Other people could see that the Lord was with Joseph, they trusted him so much with their businesses that they themselves didn't even know what business was being done; yet they prospered like at no other time. The question as we would have it becomes why then should other people prosper when the righteous man remains a slave? This friends is often the dividing point between the mind set of a righteous man from a not so righteous man: the righteous will continue trusting and serving the Lord regardless of/with little consideration of what it will mean to himself, the not so righteous will do so only when it means a foreseeable good unto himself. One such person should ask how righteous being not so righteous really is.

CR18Day_20 @ nkjv@Mark:15 @ RandyP comments: In most present day judicial systems a man is innocent until proven guilty. At the very heart of that statement is the notion that an innocent man should not need to prove his innocence, rather it is on the prosecution to first prove his guilt. If and once the prosecution has done that then the man still would have the further right to fully defend his innocence. The natural instinct is to pile up the two mounds of evidence at the same time and measure which pile stands up taller. Such an instinct neglects the more judicious notion that the accused man is first innocent. There is a common baser instinct as well that the accused is first guilty and has to prove himself innocent else why would have been arrested and brought before this court anyway. It is precisely because the evidence can be misread, evidence can be trumped up or falsified, clearer evidence can be avoided, others can be lying. The evidence in this case is clearly not what convicts Jesus, Pilate could find no evidence. What convicts Jesus is public sentiment which has been roused up by his accusers. No defenders came to His legal side. No witnesses were called on His behalf. It was a largely a trial only brought before the court of His accusers afterwards brought before a whimpish political judge that cared more for his own waning popularity than for any form of human justice. In the end however, it is not ultimately about human justice, it is about divine justice, Christ suffers our form of justice in order to bring to us precisely that.

CR18Day_05 @ nkjv@Genesis:11 @ RandyP comments: The sin observed in Babel runs throughout children of men (son's of Adam). Essentially it is this 1. The make a name for himself 2. To make himself secure by his own doing both in direct rebellion to God. The command of God is to "go" fill the entire earth. With it comes frontier type individualism, non-centralized control, reliance upon God. With rebellion comes gathering into cluster, centralized power and control, socialization, many men working towards one cause the object of which is whatsoever the few in control task them to do. That whatsoever is the thing that most concerns God for the heart and intents of man toward God are only rebellion. Nimrod intends to have a tower built that reaches to the heaven. The tower is a symbol of man made religion for the masses to look up to, for the idols way up and authorities in the middle to look down from. It is such a minute and pitiful sight sight from heaven that the omnipresent God mockingly has to come way down from heaven even to see it. By confusing the one current language into many, God effectively partitions mankind against each other and thus partitions man from there being one central world government drunken on the blood of the godly as we the see in the end with the Whore of Babylon after God loosens HIS current restraint.