Acts (Written)

Sharing the Good News.

Monday, 25 April 2022

This man dealt treacherously with our people, and oppressed our forefathers, making them expose their babies, so that they might not live. Acts 7:19

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen)

You can also read this commentary, with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

Stephen just referred to “another king” who “arose who did not know Joseph.” He now continues referring to that king, saying, “This man dealt treacherously with our people.” Here, Stephen uses a word found only this one time in Scripture, katasophizomai. It is a compound verb coming from kata (bring down) and sophizó (make wise). As such, it signifies to deal craftily with or to act subtly.

This is a reference to the treatment of Israel as is first noted in Exodus 1 –

“Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. ⁹ And he said to his people, ‘Look, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we; ¹⁰ come, let us deal shrewdly with them, lest they multiply, and it happen, in the event of war, that they also join our enemies and fight against us, and so go up out of the land.’” Exodus 1:8-10

Stephen next says, “and oppressed our forefathers.” That is certainly what is next stated in the Exodus narrative –

“Therefore they set taskmasters over them to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh supply cities, Pithom and Raamses. ¹² But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew. And they were in dread of the children of Israel. ¹³ So the Egyptians made the children of Israel serve with rigor. ¹⁴ And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage—in mortar, in brick, and in all manner of service in the field. All their service in which they made them serve was with rigor.” Exodus 1:11-14

In this state of oppression, Stephen next explicitly describes at least a portion of their treatment with the horrifying words, “making them expose their babies, so that they might not live.”

An attack against the male babies was first noted in the ongoing narrative of Exodus –

“Then the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, of whom the name of one was Shiphrah and the name of the other Puah; ¹⁶ and he said, ‘When you do the duties of a midwife for the Hebrew women, and see them on the birthstools, if it is a son, then you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live.’” Exodus 1:15, 16

That directive from Pharaoh took an unusual turn and was not effective at meeting his goals, and so he made a command which was intended to reduce the number of Hebrews to a manageable level –

“So Pharaoh commanded all his people, saying, ‘Every son who is born you shall cast into the river, and every daughter you shall save alive.’” Exodus 1:22

The narrative, as given by Stephen, has carefully followed the words of Exodus 1, revealing the progression of what happened at that time.

Life application: What is unstated by Stephen, but which is something that would have been known to every Israelite, even from their earliest days as the parents talked about their history, is what is said about why the first attempt to reduce the male population failed. That is recorded in Exodus 1 as well –

“But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the male children alive. ¹⁸ So the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, ‘Why have you done this thing, and saved the male children alive?’
¹⁹ And the midwives said to Pharaoh, ‘Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are lively and give birth before the midwives come to them.’
²⁰ Therefore God dealt well with the midwives, and the people multiplied and grew very mighty. ²¹ And so it was, because the midwives feared God, that He provided households for them.” Exodus 1:17-21

Stephen skipped right over this, and yet by doing so it would have been its own reminder of the events to those he stood before. By simply recalling a story, the memory of the story would come to mind. In not mentioning this portion of it, it would surely have highlighted it in the minds of those who heard. It is in our nature to fill in the blanks of such things.

As this is so, it would be a reminder that non-Hebrews had been obedient to the inner moral standard placed in humans by God. They had not committed such a wicked act by being disobedient to the king’s edict. This would be an appeal, all by itself, to have the council consider their own wicked deeds by ignoring the words and actions of Christ and then, later, the obvious signs and wonders that have come through the apostles and which have been done in the name of Jesus.

Sometimes, what is left unstated is as poignant as what is openly stated. It is a good tool for each of us to consider. Ecclesiastes 5:2 says, “let your words be few.” It is good advice to remember before God and man. The few words we speak should carry weight, and the words we refrain from speaking can be just as heavy.

Lord God Almighty, help us to be wise in our speech, carefully considering everything we have to say, and only speaking out that which is wholesome, helpful, and pleasing in Your sight. It is so easy for us to allow our tongues to go beyond that which is proper, so help us in this Lord! For sure, we need it. Amen.

Austin.

Sunday, 24 April 2022

till another king arose who did not know Joseph. Acts 7:18

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen)

You can also read this commentary, with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

As was noted in the previous verse, it said that “when the time of promise drew near which God had sworn to Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt.” From there, and in accord with the detailed narrative of Exodus, Stephen continues by saying, “till another king arose.”

The identity of this king is debated, even today. In his commentary, Albert Barnes gives some possibilities –

“It has commonly been supposed to have been the celebrated Rameses, the sixth king of the eighteenth dynasty, and the event is supposed to have occurred about 1559 years before the Christian era. M. Champollion supposes that his name was Mandonei, whose reign commenced in 1585 b.c., and ended 1565 years before Christ (Essay on the Hieroglyphic System, p. 94, 95). Sir Jas. G. Wilkinson supposes that it was Amosis, or Ames, the ‘first’ king of the eighteenth dynasty (Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians, vol. 1, pp. 42, 2nd ed.). ‘The present knowledge of Egyptian history is too imperfect to enable us to determine this point’ (Prof. Hackett).”

Though the history of Egyptian rulers is much more fully known today, there is still debate on who the king was. Much of this depends on a person’s view of when the events of the biblical narrative actually took place. Regardless of this, it is relevant to understand that the word translated as “another” signifies another of a different kind. HELPS Word Studies defines it as, “héteros (‘another but distinct in kind’) stands in contrast to /állos (‘another of the same kind’). … [it] ‘emphasizes it is qualitatively different from its counterpart (comparison).’”

As such, this is a king, meaning a Pharaoh, that is distinctly different from the one that had previously ruled. Pharaoh at Joseph’s time was accommodating to the Israelites. However, and as will be noted by Stephen, this one will not be. That begins to be reflected in the next words, saying, “who did not know Joseph.”

The idea here could be either figurative or literal. If literal, it would mean he was unaware of the rule of the previous Pharaoh. This is unlikely as historical records would have been kept, and there was only a period of sixty-four years from the death of Joseph until the time of the birth of Moses.

What is more likely is that the word “know” is to be taken figuratively, as the word in Hebrew, yada, is often used. The Greek word used here, eidó, can also be used in a figurative sense. As such, it would mean that he did not recognize, or care about, the type of rule the previous Pharaoh acknowledged.

In other words, and as a suitable example, the founding fathers of the US had a certain type of rule which guided them. It was based on morality, Christian principles, personal industry and accountability, limited government, and so on. To sum them up, we might say, “Men of character.”

In contrast to that, one could name any modern democrat president and say he does not “know” or “care about” the type of leaders of the past. Instead, their decisions are based on perversion, anti-Christian principles, collectivism, no accountability for criminal behavior, government control, and so on. To sum them up, we might note them as “Moral minuscules.”

This is the type of contrast seen between the two kings. As such, there will be a completely different type of rule over his kingdom. The verse now quoted by Stephen comes from Exodus 1:8 –

“Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph.”

Life application: Because the commentary above touched upon the thought of good leaders and crummy ones, it is worth noting that if you live in a country where you have a right to vote, when you fail to do so and you then have a crummy leader elected over you (at whatever level of government), you are part of the problem. In the end, you have only yourself to blame for not being an active participant in the process which you have a right and a duty to engage in.

And more, by withholding one’s vote, that person is – by default – supporting whoever the elected official will be. It is worthy to note the words of James in such a situation –

“Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.” James 4:17

It is reasonable to assume that through inaction, the one who does not work against the wicked, when he has the opportunity to do so, will be held accountable for his chosen path. It is a sobering thing to consider when human life, personal property, and common morality are at stake. Take time to consider this and work to correct that which is evil by exercising your vote. If your candidate loses, it does not mean you didn’t try. Your efforts may have not succeeded, but they were also not in vain.

Lord God, how we would love to return to the days of sanity in government and morality within our society. And maybe it will happen. Or it may be that the country in which we live is destined to become as corrupt as the world before the flood. We are almost there already, for sure. No matter what, may we be willing to work against the rising tide of wickedness while we are able. Amen.

Randy. HS friend, now in Texas.

Saturday, 23 April 2022

“But when the time of the promise drew near which God had sworn to Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt Acts 7:17

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen)

You can also read this commentary, with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

The previous verse detailed the highly complicated statement from Stephen concerning the purchase of land by Abraham. With that stated, Stephen now continues with another note concerning Abraham. This helps to confirm the evaluation of the previous verse. The narrative is concerning the land of promise and how it is connected to Abraham personally. It explains why Stephen mentioned things the way he did. With that understood, Stephen says, “But when the time of the promise drew near.”

This is obviously speaking about the chosen line of inheritance, meaning the line of Jacob through his sons, during their stay in Egypt. It is based on the words of verse 7:15 that said, “So Jacob went down to Egypt; and he died, he and our fathers.”

God had said to Abraham “that his descendants would dwell in a foreign land, and that they would bring them into bondage and oppress them” (verse 7:6). That included both Canaan and Egypt. With the time in Egypt drawing to a close, Stephen notes, “which God had sworn to Abraham.”

The promise is noted in verse 7:5. Even though Abraham did not receive even as much as the step of a foot, God had promised the land of Canaan to him as a possession. The details about the timing and events were then conveyed and the covenant sign (circumcision) was then noted. After that came many more details concerning how Israel wound up in Egypt, but the connection to Canaan, though seemingly in the background, remained central to everything Stephen was relaying.

The entire thought was centered on the promise to Abraham, inclusive of Abraham’s purchase of the land from Hamor the father of Shechem. It is at that time, when the promise to Abraham was to come after four hundred years – and which included bondage and oppression – that “the people grew and multiplied in Egypt.”

The exponential growth in Egypt became a central point in the ongoing narrative. That will be seen in the verses to come. But noting it shows this. Israel is no longer a small clan of people consisting of seventy-five relatives. Rather, it has grown into a great multitude. How the Egyptians would deal with such a large group will be conveyed in the verses ahead by Stephen.

Life application: Stephen is chronicling the history of his people to the leaders of his people. He isn’t doing this to show them what a great historian he is. He is doing so as an indictment against them for not seeing what God is trying to convey, right from their own history.

Many key events in their history, in which God dealt with them intimately, are recorded as being outside of the land of Canaan. They are also prior to the law of Moses. The fact that the promise of the inheritance is prior to the law, and that many of the interactions with God are outside of the inheritance, should clue the leaders of Israel into the fact that Canaan is only typical of something else.

Further, that the promise was made prior to the law should clue them in that obtaining it cannot be by law observance. As it was given by promise (an act of grace), and the law is contrary to grace, then the law must simply be a tool to teach the people of Israel their need for grace. Paul explains this quite clearly in Galatians 3.

What Stephen is relaying – in what may seem to us as somewhat obscure words – is something that should have been perfectly understandable to his audience. But even if it went right over their heads, more lessons from Stephen will be forthcoming that will continue to demonstrate Israel’s constant resisting of the Holy Spirit.

As this is so, and as the Holy Spirit is intending to highlight the work of God in Christ, then it is no wonder that they missed the significance of Christ Jesus when He came. Keep thinking about how God is revealing Christ in the pages of the Bible as you read. That is the main focus of what God wants us to see.

Lord God, the way the Bible is written, it just keeps giving us new things to think about. Even after thousands of years of it being read and studied, new insights continue to come forth. What a precious treasure Your word is. May we be willing to consider it and to apply its precepts to our lives each and every day we live!  Amen.

I have no idea why I took this picture. It’s Texas. Yee haw.

Friday, 22 April 2022

And they were carried back to Shechem and laid in the tomb that Abraham bought for a sum of money from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem. Acts 7:16

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen)

You can also read this commentary, with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

The previous verse noted Jacob going down to Egypt, dying, and then also the fathers (meaning the sons of Israel) also died. Now Stephen turns to something that is out of order in the chronology, but it is a point that reflects an event that occurred with the fathers after their deaths, and so he mentions it now. However, it is a verse that is exceedingly confusing, even to the point where many scholars state it is actually a contradiction or a mistake. Stephen begins by saying, “And they were carried back to Shechem.”

The question here is, “Who is this referring to?” If it is referring to Joseph, Jacob, and the fathers, then there becomes a great difficulty in the text. If it is referring to Joseph and the fathers, then there is much less difficulty in what is said. In the previous commentary, this translation of the prior two verses was suggested, offsetting Jacob (who represents all of Israel) in parenthesis –

“Then Joseph sent and called his father Jacob and all his relatives to him, seventy-five people. (So Jacob went down to Egypt.) And he [Joseph] died, he and our fathers.” Acts 7:14, 15

For now, first and foremost, this is referring explicitly to what is noted as the book of Genesis ends –

“And Joseph said to his brethren, ‘I am dying; but God will surely visit you, and bring you out of this land to the land of which He swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.’ ²⁵ Then Joseph took an oath from the children of Israel, saying, ‘God will surely visit you, and you shall carry up my bones from here.’ ²⁶ So Joseph died, being one hundred and ten years old; and they embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt.” Genesis 50:24-26

What Joseph requested is noted as fulfilled in Joshua 24 –

“The bones of Joseph, which the children of Israel had brought up out of Egypt, they buried at Shechem, in the plot of ground which Jacob had bought from the sons of Hamor the father of Shechem for one hundred pieces of silver, and which had become an inheritance of the children of Joseph.” Joshua 24:32

Nothing is said in the Old Testament concerning the bones of the other fathers being carried back. The promise was only made to Joseph, and it was right that Joshua recorded it. However, it is logical that all of the fathers would be carried back for burial, and there are extra-biblical writings that state this is so. The fact that Stephen says it, and that the council did not object, also stands as a witness that it is so. Hence, it can be agreed upon that Stephen’s words reflect what occurred. With that noted, Stephen continues with, “and laid in the tomb that Abraham bought.”

Abraham’s name being included here is the problematic portion of the words. Only one purchase of a tomb by Abraham was recorded in Scripture, and that is found in Genesis 23. It is referring to the purchase of the cave of Machpelah in Hebron from Ephron the Hittite. Because of this, Jacob is almost always figured into the commentary of scholars. That would be erroneous. Jacob’s burial is clearly recorded in Genesis 50. He was buried prior to the years of bondage. But because Abraham is mentioned, the assumption is that it is somehow speaking of the cave of Machpelah in Hebron. But then Stephen continues, by saying, “for a sum of money from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem.”

The purchase of land from Hamor, the father of Shechem, has already been noted above in the quote from Joshua. But it was Jacob, not Abraham, that was mentioned. So, the logic is that either Stephen used the wrong name (Abraham), or that he used the wrong location (the land bought in Shechem). However, if Jacob is excluded from the thought of those whose bones were carried back and buried, as should be the case, it resolves the first problem. It is only speaking of the fathers (meaning Joseph and his brothers), and it is only speaking of the land in Shechem.

Understanding this, the only confusion is why it says “Abraham” instead of “Jacob” in regard to the purchase. In Genesis 12, it says the following –

“Abram passed through the land to the place of Shechem, as far as the terebinth tree of Moreh. And the Canaanites were then in the land.
⁷ Then the Lord appeared to Abram and said, ‘To your descendants I will give this land.’ And there he built an altar to the Lord, who had appeared to him.” Genesis 12:6, 7

As such, it can be inferred, even if it is not stated, that Abraham purchased the land before building an altar. But even if he did not, Stephen has noted Abraham concerning the land and the future inheritance several times. He will note him again in the coming verse as well. With that understood, Genesis 33 says this of Jacob –

“Then Jacob came safely to the city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, when he came from Padan Aram; and he pitched his tent before the city. ¹⁹ And he bought the parcel of land, where he had pitched his tent, from the children of Hamor, Shechem’s father, for one hundred pieces of money. ²⁰ Then he erected an altar there and called it El Elohe Israel.” Genesis 33:18-20

This is the same location as where Abraham was, and Jacob probably erected his altar in the same location as did Abraham. In this, and because Jacob is descended from Abraham, his building of the altar and buying of the land is an act of confirming what Abraham had done. As such, the purchase by Jacob can be said to have been made by Abraham.

And this is not without precedent elsewhere in Scripture. Abraham gave a tenth of his spoils to Melchizedek in Genesis 14. And yet, the author of Hebrews says that because of this, the tithes of Israel are paid through Abraham to Melchizedek.

“Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils. ⁵ And indeed those who are of the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come from the loins of Abraham; ⁶ but he whose genealogy is not derived from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. ⁷ Now beyond all contradiction the lesser is blessed by the better. ⁸ Here mortal men receive tithes, but there he receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives. ⁹ Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, ¹⁰ for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.” Hebrews 7:4-10

A similar type of event has occurred now with Abraham and Jacob. Being so, the purchase of the land by Jacob is a confirmation of the right to the land. It is considered a purchase by Abraham – this would be true whether Abraham originally paid money for the land or not. Abraham, by building an altar, was making a claim on the land for the Lord.

The author of Hebrews didn’t just arbitrarily make up the thought of a son paying through the loins of his father, but it would have been an understood precept because of its logical nature. The evidence of this is that the council did not argue the matter. They understood that the land was claimed by Abraham as an altar for the Lord. Jacob confirmed this by first buying the land and then building (rebuilding) the altar of Father Abraham.

Life application: Jacob was in the loins of his father Abraham when Abraham erected the altar in Genesis 12. In this, what Abraham has done belongs to Jacob, and thus it belongs to his descendants unless it is transferred from him somehow, such as being sold, given away or lost in war, or so on.

If Abraham was considered to have owned the land, that land will be passed to the son when it is either gifted to him or when the father dies. But if there is no record of a purchase of the land, there may be a sum later paid to confirm the ownership of that land. If so, that payment would be credited to the past times when the claim had been made by the father.

Jacob may have said, “Hamor, I am paying for this land my grandfather claimed when he built an altar on it. I would now like to build an altar on it. To ensure that there is no conflict with you, I am confirming Abraham’s claim by buying the land from you, which you also claim as yours.” In accepting the money, Hamor confirms the land is now Jacob’s. Thus, it would settle all disputes as to who owned it. But the original owner would still be considered by Jacob to be Abraham. Hence, Jacob’s money is credited by him to his grandfather Abraham.

In this, we can see that there is no contradiction or conflict in Stephen’s words. What he has said was fully understood by the council. They allowed him to continue with his discourse without correction or interruption, demonstrating that they accepted his words.

Lord God, Your word is filled with wonder and delight. It is a treasure house of wisdom and joy! Thank You for Your word that challenges us to seek out its depths, and to more fully appreciate the wisdom and care You put into it. Yes, thank You for Your precious word. Amen.

Everything is bigger in Texas. This is a home delivery of dishwashing detergent. Full year’s supply.
Ok, I have no idea what it was for, but it is Texas big.

Thursday, 21 April 2022

So Jacob went down to Egypt; and he died, he and our fathers. Acts 7:15

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen)

You can also read this commentary, with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

The previous verse noted Joseph’s call for Jacob and his relatives to come down to Egypt. With that said, Stephen continues with, “So Jacob went down to Egypt.”

That is recorded in Genesis 46 –

“So Israel took his journey with all that he had, and came to Beersheba, and offered sacrifices to the God of his father Isaac. ² Then God spoke to Israel in the visions of the night, and said, ‘Jacob, Jacob!’
And he said, ‘Here I am.’
³ So He said, ‘I am God, the God of your father; do not fear to go down to Egypt, for I will make of you a great nation there. ⁴ I will go down with you to Egypt, and I will also surely bring you up again; and Joseph will put his hand on your eyes.’
⁵ Then Jacob arose from Beersheba; and the sons of Israel carried their father Jacob, their little ones, and their wives, in the carts which Pharaoh had sent to carry him. ⁶ So they took their livestock and their goods, which they had acquired in the land of Canaan, and went to Egypt, Jacob and all his descendants with him. ⁷ His sons and his sons’ sons, his daughters and his sons’ daughters, and all his descendants he brought with him to Egypt.” Genesis 46:1-7

Stephen’s words skip over a lot of the Genesis narrative by next stating, “and he died.” It is a simple statement of fact. Stephen’s main words are focused on several points. One is that there has always been strife coming from the people of Israel, especially against the leadership – be it the Lord, the law, or Moses who issued forth the law of the Lord.

The other is that God’s revelation of Himself is not confined to either the temple or the land of Israel, but that a great deal of what is recorded came outside of the land. The Lord is the God of the whole world. His word and His authority stretch out beyond mere physical borders. As the life of Jacob in Egypt has nothing to add to these concepts that Stephen is developing, he simply cites the fact that he went to Egypt. From there, he continues by saying, “he and our fathers.”

Again, it is a simple statement of fact to close the point he had made concerning the patriarchs’ time in Egypt. Who “he” is referring to here should be questioned. Is this referring to Jacob or Joseph? The previous verse says that Joseph sent and called Jacob and his relatives down to Egypt. It then said, “So Jacob went down to Egypt.” Then it says, “And he died, he and our fathers.” Jacob is the nearest antecedent, but the clause could also be parenthetical. Thus, Joseph would be the subject now, for example –

“Then Joseph sent and called his father Jacob and all his relatives to him, seventy-five people. (So Jacob went down to Egypt.) And he [Joseph] died, he and our fathers.”

This is quite possible, and it has an important bearing on what will be said in the next verse. As for now, the main focus has been Joseph’s not being recognized for who he was and that it was only on the second visit that he revealed himself to his brothers. Stephen is hinting to the council that they are no different than their fathers who could not perceive the truth of who was standing right in front of them when Jesus came.

As for the death of Jacob, that is recorded in Genesis 49:33, saying, “And when Jacob had finished commanding his sons, he drew his feet up into the bed and breathed his last, and was gathered to his people.” The note of the death of “the fathers” is found in Exodus 1:6, saying, “And Joseph died, all his brothers, and all that generation.”

Life application: Stephen’s speech, like all of the Bible, focuses on that which is relevant to the narrative. Anything that is not relevant is overlooked. When Genesis 10 mentions a people group, there is a purpose for it. They may never be mentioned again in the Bible, or they may be referred to in a general sense, but that people group’s overall history will be irrelevant to the immediate plan of redemption and so nothing more is detailed about them.

The Chinese people, for example, are one of the most populous people groups on earth. But other than listing their first father in Genesis 10:17, they are only possibly referred to again in the all-inclusive statement “the kings of the east” mentioned in Revelation 16:12. And that verse may not be referring to them at all.

This doesn’t mean God doesn’t care about the Chinese people. They are certainly to be included in John 3:16, Matthew 28:19, and so on. But their history is otherwise irrelevant to the redemptive narrative. And so, they are not mentioned. Stephen’s speech follows this idea. What is necessary to make his point is stated. That which is not is simply closed out with a few simple words or it is completely ignored.

Keeping our focus on what is primary as we read the Bible will help us to keep from getting into strange teachings that profit nothing. For example, the Bible is not about the redemption of angels. And yet, there are teachers that spend an inordinate amount of time dealing with exactly that subject. In the process, and certainly because of their skewed focus, they make wild speculation and come to incorrect conclusions about what God is doing.

Keep the main narrative in mind. Focus on what God is revealing. In doing this, a lot of time that may be wasted will instead be productive. Above all, keep asking, “How does this point to Jesus.” God is revealing Himself in Christ for the reconciliation of the world. Keep that in mind as you read this treasure.

Yes, Lord God! It is so wonderful to contemplate Your word and to think about what You are telling us in it. Help us to keep our focus in line with what You want us to see. Help us to understand the glory of what You are doing in the stream of human existence to bring us back to Yourself. Amen.