Genesis 42:27 — KJV with Strong's Concordance

Navigate

Chapter 42

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

²⁷And as one of them opened his sack to give his ass provender in the inn, he espied his money; for, behold, it was in his sack's mouth.

Genesis 42:27 —

My Notes

Notes are saved on this device.

← Genesis 42:26 Genesis 42:28 →

Original word meaning

— of 11

Tap any underlined word in the verse to see its original meaning.

Cross-References

From the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Exodus 4:24
And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.
Luke 10:34
And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
Genesis 44:11
Then they speedily took down every man his sack to the ground, and opened every man his sack.
Luke 2:7
And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
Genesis 43:21-22
And it came to pass, when we came to the inn, that we opened our sacks, and, behold, every man's money was in the mouth of his sack, our money in full weight: and we have brought it again in our hand. …

Topics

Coin Finances Inn Interest Lending Money Silver Temple

Commentary

Matthew Henry’s Complete Commentary on the Bible (1710)

(vv. 21-28)

Here is, I. The penitent reflection Joseph’s brethren made upon the wrong they had formerly done to him, Gen. 42:21. They talked the matter over in the Hebrew tongue, not suspecting that Joseph, whom they took for a native of Egypt, understood them, much less that he was the person they spoke of. 1. They remembered with regret the barbarous cruelty wherewith they persecuted him: We are verily guil…

Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, David Brown’s Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary (1871)

(vv. 27)

25-28. Joseph commanded to fill their sacks with corn, and to restore every man’s money--This private generosity was not an infringement of his duty--a defrauding of the revenue. He would have a discretionary power--he was daily enriching the king’s exchequer--and he might have paid the sum from his own purse.