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_01 @ USER SET UP INSTRUCTIONS @ RandyP comments: If you haven't set up a frequent contributor's profile page (ex= RandyP ) and would like to, send me your profile bio and picture via email.

CR18Day_05 @ nkjv@Genesis:10 @ RandyP comments: This is now the second re-population of Genesis, first being the more controversial from Adam and Eve. Critics often ask "where did Cain and Seth get their wives"? The answer most likely is that they were sisters, but it doesn't have to stop there. Genesis was written not as an overall history as much as it was of all redemptive history (the details that would be important to our understanding of God's redemption). Seth and Cain's brothers and sisters are unnamed and unnumbered. Over the course of nine hundred plus years Eve surely bore Adam many. Those children married and had children. Those children bore many children. It could be that Cain and Seth married nieces or even grand nieces. While Cain was the first child, neither Able nor Seth necessarily have to be second and third if we are to look at the narrative as a redemptive history. In this passage we are back down to eight persons starting all over again. In both passages we can see how quickly the multiplication of being fruitful adds up.

CR18Day_05 @ nkjv@Mark:4 @ RandyP comments: It is a marvel to think that any one could listen to Jesus shore-side or later read His parables in Mark's gospel and assume that just anybody could easily understand them as they are meant; yet that is how most people approach it. They rather understand them as they want to understand them, that His words say what they themselves want them to say. It is even more of a marvel that they largely disagree with what they want them to say and somehow feel superior to believers having seen through the myth or obvious contradictions. Or else they minimize the meaning that they are willing to take from it to such an extent that it is nothing more than what good advice anybody else could have come up with. It serves the purposes of man's deceitful heart to do this so. Why would Jesus hide His meaning from all but a select few? Because few have the heart to hear it as is truly meant. Most are too busy listening to their own thoughts about they are hearing Him say rather than the actual words themselves within their meaningful context.

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_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_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_10 @ nkjv@Mark:7 @ RandyP comments: "All these evil things come from within and defile a man". It is a long list of evil things for sure, all coming from the heart within. The heart of man Jesus taught is truly the central key. Religion in most all of it's human forms attempts to restrict what the hands and feet do, what the mouth eats, what the eye looks upon, what the tongue speaks forth. Religion in it's spiritual form rather is a complete regeneration of the heart that better changes all of these other physical and mental heart outlets. The prophecy of Isaiah aptly fits the conversation as a whole because human religion can really only get us so far; to the point of supposedly honoring God with our lips. Without God reaching in and changing the heart though this religion is a very poor representation of faith and rightful worship; vain and laying aside/rejecting the commandment of God. Numerous examples could be made as to this form of faith. Numerous examples will be made of these religious types by Jesus on his continuing pathway to His cross where He will die and raise again for us to have this undefiled regenerated heart and heart led faith.

CR18Day_11 @ nkjv@Genesis:21 @ RandyP comments: Young men will scoff. It is just what they do, not understanding the bigger picture and not seeing anything other than their own self interests. Can't blame the kid for that. It is obvious though that a time has to come where the two lineages are going to have to part ways. Both will be blessed beyond measure but, only one line will be the redemptive line that God will work mankind's salvation through. There is no heroic contest to be waged, no one child better than the other/rest, it is simply a choice God has made long before either child was born, it simply is part of a plan that God has been working Abraham (and therefore true believers) through little by little to bring him (us) into the right mode of faith. In our regular everyday lives between ourselves it really is more about who is the most athletic, the most educated, the most assertive and hungry, or the one with the best family name; or as Ishmael would understand it the one who can hit the bullseye and split that arrow in the very next shot. That is the world that even young men grow to understand. The world of godliness is an entirely different matter however. It is not about this man or the other, it is about our one Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and what has transpired because of Him on our mutual behalf. This all important pathway leading to Jesus is now beginning to transpire upon Abraham through quite young babbling toddler named Isaac.

CR18Day_11 @ nkjv@Genesis:22 @ RandyP comments: This is the passage that we will have to pay particular attention to. This is the passage were many a foolish man has staked his claim on a works based justification with God. I want you to remember back on all the work God has performed on Abraham to bring him to this point in his faith. Abraham's works to this point certainly have been less than stellar (nor will be his works to continue). As time and experience have gone by, Abraham's faith has been refined down to one definable thing: God has promised/God has provided and will continue/therefore God will accomplish. What is Abraham's role in all this? Continue believing in the promise/provision/eventual accomplishment and to not get in the way of it by what his baser impulses are attempting to do to achieve this in some measure of his own. This is a refined faith much different than a works based justification, it is a God based justification. Remember this, that Abraham's faith has already been accounted to him as righteousness (justification) sf_ostervald_rev1@Genesis:15:6 before Isaac was even born. The fact that Abraham is being tested now because of this imputed justification already received by faith is more a test of our understanding of Abraham's faith than it is a test of his own. If to be understood any other way than this, well then at minimum we should each be taking our sons to the mountain top alter to sacrifice thus prove ourselves worthy workers of a different justification; perhaps we should be proving ourselves by even more; perhaps we should be proving ourselves even more justifiable than the others just to make the final cut eh! Is that justification with God the way you understand it?

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: Ashamed of Jesus and His words, let's consider. An adulterous and sinful generation on the one hand, God incarnate preparing to obediently die and rise again for the remedy for our sins and adultery. Which is the greater? Can we deny that this is adulterous and sinful generation? I think not. Can we deny that Christ has died and risen now to redeem us from this our plight? Well it sounds logical but, many are either skeptical or don't see the need. Can we deny that He shall return in the glory of His Father with the holy angels? Well that is where it gets sticky because He hasn't yet and He hasn't for quite a long time. Is this what we are ashamed of? Consider that in the day people were expecting the Messiah to be a military/political leader who would immediately restore the nation Israel to world prominence, deliver them from Roman rule. When the critic harshly insisted, there was that to contend with. Today the public expectation is much different, it is to leave it alone to it's own beliefs, to not meddle or tattle or stand against or be preachy. All this talk of heaven and hell and personal accountability, talk of depravity and original guilt and original pollution, talk of truth and righteousness and holiness and virtue, this talk has no place in this time or generation. So when the critic harshly insists, there is that again to contend with. Is the shame that we have to contend for our beliefs at all? We are sensitive to how others feel about us. In a sense for all our religiosity and business we still yet do not percieve nor understand, our heart is still hardened, having eyes we do not see, having ears we do not hear, neither do we remember; at least not to the extent that we should. "Whoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me...". Ashamed? What does that mean? How might it present itself? Are we ashamed even if be in the least bit ashamed to deny ourselves and follow? Well then we certainly need to get to the bottom of that quickly.

CR18Day_12 @ nkjv@Psalms:4 @ RandyP comments: How long? That is the real question in a nut shell. We were created in God's image, to capably reflect HIS holiness glory and light but, for our desire to be wise in our own eyes reflect nothing but our own shame and guilt. We were created capable of love yet what is it that we love? Worthlessness in a word, something if anything that only gets eaten by moth and rust. Created to partake of God's truth yet all that is squandered away for a whole lot of falsehood. How long? That is the question. How long will this be the choice? How long will this be the consequence? How long will this be the blindness, the hardness, the casualty? Another year? Another month? Another day? "..know that the LORD has set apart for Himself him who is godly...". "Offer the sacrifices of righteousness, And put your trust in the LORD."

CR18Day_12 @ nkjv@Genesis:25 @ RandyP comments: Women often have twins. Not many ever have two nations in their womb though. As we move forward into the story of Jacob and Esau we have to remember that while the rivalry between the twin brothers is interesting, the story we need to focus on is the story of two rival nations that will continue long after. Esau becomes what will be known as the nation of Edom. Remember that it was Edom that prohibited Israel safe passage from the wilderness into Canaan. Remember that it was Edom that Israel was at constant war with in the days of Saul and David and Jehosaphat. Remember that is was Edom that joined forces with the Babylonian armies to capture Israel. It was the Edomites pressed under the thumb of the Maccabees, forced into Judaism. When we come to Isaac's deathbed blessing, Rebekah's insistence upon Jacob stealing the rights from Esau, this is of major importance to the lineage of Jacob/Israel.

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: "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: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_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_23 @ nkjv@Mark:16 @ RandyP comments: "...but they did not believe them either". Shown clearly here is the natural tendency of man to be critical of what he has not yet seen for himself. No doubt the reports coming to the disciples from many sources are describing something never before witnessed as true. I think it significant to us as later believers that Jesus did not first appear to the eleven disciples, that we see that they too were of doubt. Not everyone of every generation will be privy to witnessing this resurrection in person, logistically that would just be impossible. The majority are going to have to simply take it on another person's word. Thankfully we do have their word. We also have the witness of how their lives proceeded following this, the impact of having seen this, the witness of just how true they believed this to be. The fact is that people that knew these people believed these peoples testimony and in turn their lives also were greatly effected. The chain of justifiable evidence like this continues even into our day where a great many are just as convinced in their minds as if they themselves had personally witnessed this first hand. The disciples later did see Jesus physically. Again I think it important that we see that even for them belief became a process, then there could be no doubt. Having been told by Jesus that HE was going to do this and believing it to have been physically accomplished is after all contrary to most rational and critical tendencies.

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_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.

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?

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.