Comments - journal RecentComments

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@Genesis:15 @ RandyP comments: "..the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete". Lost in all these wonders of what God is doing and what HE is going to do through Abram is the often missed byline of what others are going to be doing against God. One might ask why not just establish Abraham's descendants in the land right here and now? One, Abraham doesn't have any descendants yet. Two, the the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete. God could easily defend Abraham's clan from the Amorites right now, but there is something essential to the plan that includes the transgressions of the current inhabitants (and others) and includes the captivity of Abraham's. God not only intends to show what will be done and prove HIMSELF capable but, prove to one and all why it must be done and in the process draw a whole lot of people to depend on no one else but HIM. Even in the establishment of the nation Israel, the nation isn't an end in and of itself, it is one further step towards proving the need for the Messiah. God could have done any number of things (ie smiting the Amorites out of existance), but instead HE chose one thing other, the thing HE knew in the long run would prove out to be the only right. Hard as it is at time for us to understand, HIS ways are not our way/HIS thoughts not our thoughts. "Do not be affraid, Abram, for I am your sheild, your exceedingly great reward".

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_06 @ nkjv@Mark:5 @ RandyP comments: It is doubtful that the residents in and around Gadarenes would have forgotten this event a decade and a half later when Mark formally recounted it. It is doubtful that the residents in and around Decapolis would have forgotten the formerly possessed man's testimony. Any one from anywhere else at that time doubting Marks account could easily have gone to either region and asked the residents. It is likely that the story was still widely known even there in Jerusalem. Maybe as time went by certain details would be passed down differently by the locals, the story might have morphed into something barely resembling what the Apostles recollected, but still decades later the evidence of the event described having happened would have been compelling.

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_10 @ nkjv@Genesis:19 @ RandyP comments: "..the outcry against them (Sodom) has grown great before the face of the LORD". Before this strkjv@Genesis:13:13 when Abraham and Lot first parted ways we were told that the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly. The cry now or shriek before the Lord against them has grown beyond even exceeding. This may be the cry of their many victims preceding, the cry of the righteous from nearby cities, the cry perhaps of the angels watching over, the cry of the ground below them, all the above but a terribly exceeding cry nonetheless. This obviously is not the first time that they had done something like this. It is not a minority behavior. This is going far beyond the scope of normal homosexual behavior to the point of pagan religious rite. Lot appears concerned about this so as to strongly insist that the angels stay the night in his protection. I have no doubt that the angels could have taken care of their own selves but, this perhaps was the gesture of righteousness that they both were looking for. Righteous people stick the neck (even their families safety) on the the line for the stranger and the innocent in times when wickedness thinks up it's worst. I have no idea if Lot had done anything as righteous for anyone else before this but, he did do it the very night when he unknowingly most needed to. We do get the sense that the wicked menfolk regard Lot as one who keeps acting as judge. This night Lot has gone too far according to them and will pay a price steeper than even intended towards the angels that they originally set out for. Many say that they were going after "strange flesh" angelic flesh to sodomize them. I am not so sure. I believe that this same behavior was what the cry against them had been all along.

CR18Day_10 @ nkjv@Psalms:1 @ RandyP comments: Interesting that on a day where we've seen Lot evidence much needed righteousness standing the gap for two angels and Abraham/Sarah cohorting to deceive the king of a righteous nation that this Psalm would come to our reading. Walking not in the counsel? Lot bravely shows us a positive example taking in and protecting the two angels, Abraham cowardly shows us a negative by lying to Abimelech about his wife his half sister. In the positive case the counsel of the ungodly was to hand the angels over so that they could sodomize the two every man of the city young and old that night. In the case of the negative example the counsel is actually a personal fear that a righteous man has about what might happen to him at the hands of the ungodly because of the beauty of his wife. It is not a tangible threat at this point, it is a perceived threat self formulated. These two examples are not always the case but, they begin to show us how complex walking not nor standing nor sitting really is. On the one hand there is the potential cost or personal sacrifice that may have to be made in order to adequately stand firm, keep one's word, protect the stranger/innocent. One the other hand is the fear of what these other could do to yet or worse yet to your spouse. Take comfort though for the Lord knows the way of the righteous; in fact HE had HIS son walk the same path, endure the same costly hardships, be tempted along this road just as you and I. In fact that man that this psalmist says to be blessed very well could be our Savior described to the tee.

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: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@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_11 @ nkjv@Mark:8 @ RandyP comments: "And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must..." This is the first time that Jesus has made full disclosure of this to His disciples according to Mark. This is a sudden shift of focus for His ministry. The past time frame is a time mostly of wonders and healings, the Son obediently watching what the Father does so to do it, the Father testifying to the authenticity of the Son by seemingly ceaseless acts of wondrous confirmation. The ministry as most would see it could stay at that and everyone would be alright with it. There is a hard cutting edge to the ministry still to come though that is soon to turn many an early believer back towards their home; Jesus will plainly lay out the righteous expectations both of Him to the Father and us to Him. It will cut each and every man for it will reveal the secrets deep in every man's thoughts and intentions.

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_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:31 @ RandyP comments: "Yet your father has deceived me and changed my wages ten times, but God did not allow him to hurt me". If the object of the many difficult experiences we go through is to come to know our God better, then Jacob has been brought now to a better understanding of God. To walk with God is not to walk unhindered, not dragged down by the burdens placed upon us by others, not to soar high above any problem or difficulty or substantial set back, it is to walk alongside Him through whatever transpires/conspires against us, ultimately with full faith intact, all the better for the experience. Now if Jacob had left the experience penniless, surely he would have to realize that he is leaving at least with two tremendous strong women and twelve substantial son's (heirs of Abraham/Isaac) and the experience of God working throughout to bless the wombs/bless the livestock/bless the servants. Surely he would know that if God had done all this once, now that God has called him onward, God could surely do the same or more again. This is how we best should think of our challenges as well. What we come out within each experience of God that is of the greatest value is simply the experience of God working within each experience. Any further reward is icing on the cake. Even if to lose all that we had in the outcome we would still gain that which is ultimately of the greatest value: God/our souls/each other/the faith to journey on.

CR18Day_18 @ nkjv@Mark:13 @ RandyP comments: There is the line of interpretation that suggests that the "you" that Jesus is prophesying of here are the same "you" plural that asked Him to explain this to them privately. James was martyred early on, but Andrew and Peter would have witnessed at least the beginning of the sorrows that befell Jerusalem throughout the 60's leading up to 70AD the destruction of the city and Temple (Andrew perhaps saw all of it). They of course were brought before councils and martyred in Greece and Rome respectively. John lived decades past this time of the nation's tribulation, later surviving an attempt of being boiled in oil and even later being exiled to the island Patmos where he wrote his Revelations to encourage the persecuted saints to follow. Most all of the pieces can be made to fit including the all important "abomination" and sudden flight of informed believers. We would be in the "after that tribulation" period strkjv@Mark:13:24 waiting on the darkening and the clouds of glory and sending of His angels which HE says Himself will come up on us unexpectedly as a "thief in the night". As with all interpretations there are some difficulties indeed with this view. Based just on this passage thus far however there could be possible substance to it. Keep it in mind when we come to other prophecies of the same events outside of this.

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: 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_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_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_23 @ nkjv@Mark:16 @ RandyP comments: Let us be clear as to why we believe in the death/resurrection/ascension of Jesus Christ the Son of God. It is not just because of these few testimonies from people that had seen Him in the flesh resurrected at the time (central and key as this evidence is). No we believe because of all that God has established prior to these testimonies even before Jesus Himself was born incarnate. We believe because of what was promised Adam and Eve of a seed to crush Satan, we believe because of what was promised Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, we believe because of what was promised to Moses and David and several verifiable prophets speaking to all Israel. We further believe because of the way God conducted HIMSELF even in man's utter disobedience, we believe because of the grace and mercy and longsuffering HE has shown successively to each generation, what HE has brought HIS people through, how HE has gathered HIS people, how lovingly HE has at times corrected them, how HE has stayed true to HIS word and not forsaken us even when we have not fully reciprocated. Much more do we believe because of the manner in which Jesus was born, the attention and resistance and tension from men His presence received even early on as an infant, later because of His teachings, because of His works (their size and scope and form). We believe because of the way He became despised and rejected for little or no tangible reason, sought after to kill, illegally tried and sentenced, brought before the Roman magistrate to execute because the Jews could not themselves do it. We believe because of the way people responded after His death, during the reports of His resurrection, the wild fire that immediately started throughout the region because of His gospel. We believe because of the effect this essential truth has proven to be in the everyday lives of everyday people throughout the ages ever since. In other words we believe because of all that God has established before and after to make this known, to confirm it as happening, to bless and favor those that this gospel has touched. In essence we have collected the best individual books relating to this evidence and establishment into one larger book of books. Each has it's own place in the chain of evidence. This Bible is why we believe what we do about that Jesus of Nazareth, His death/resurrection/ascension, that is why we believe even further in the revelation of His soon second coming and the day of final judgment. It is because of all that God has done throughout man's time on earth that brings us to these very same conclusions. Many will argue the resurrection and ascension singularly as if that were all it took to dispel all this other. I would say rather that it is all this other that proves the case for this one tremendously joyous thing: Christ indeed has Risen!

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@Genesis:45 @ RandyP comments: "And God sent me before you to preserve a posterity for you in the earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance. " The story of Joseph has every distinctive of the redemptive story as it eventually played out for real in the New Testament. First, the family that was delivered is under the unconditional promise of God made to Abraham, they remained in that covenant despite what they had done to Joseph. Second, they did not deserve deliverance, they had become irrationally angered by their seemingly self exalting brother, first decided to kill him themselves irregardless of their father's obvious love for him but traded him to hostile foreign merchants expecting them to kill him, returned to Jacob the bearer of the original covenant with a bloodied coat pretending that Joseph was dead, they lived their lives for several years after hiding a secret amongst themselves knowing that he was not confirmed to be dead. Third, a great famine they could not survive themselves drives them to the one place that they had heard might save their lives, unexpectedly to the very person they had left for dead, one who had once lived amongst them, now exalted above the mightiest kings of the earth, who has prepared vast storehouses for all that came to him. (Note: the deliverer is first received and exalted by a distant Gentile nation). Fourth, the exalted brother tests the other brothers to prove that they have had a true change of heart, once proven he reveals his truest identity to them fully and weeps joyously over them, provides for them from his own portion, asks for them to go back to the elder bearer of the original covenant in order to bring dieing Jacob and the entire remaining clan into his salvation. The Gentile servants hear of this reunion and rejoice to tell of it. Did I miss anything?

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.