73. Ii. ILLUSTRATIONS OF ACCURACY APPLIED TO THE REVELATION OF TRUTH

1. Words and Expressions.

"From above."—In Luke i. 3 we read, "It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first to write unto you in order."

There is no "very" in the Greek. The R.V. says simply "from the first."

But, when we read this accurately, we note that the word is ἄνωθεν (anōthen); and, when we look at all the other passages where it occurs we see that it means here from above. That is where Luke got his information from. That is why his understanding was so "perfect."

If the following passages be read carefully this will be seen to be the meaning: Matt. xxvii. 51. Mark xv. 38. John iii. 3, 7, 31; xix. 11, 23. Jas. i. 17; iii. 15, 17.

With two exceptions (Acts xxvi. 5, and Gal. iv. 9) the word always means from above. There is no occasion to introduce the idea of time where it is not needed. If the ordinary meaning makes sense, and makes for the Inspiration of God's Word, why arbitrarily take a meaning which destroys the sense? If holy men of old spake from God, who is "above" (2 Pet. i. 21), why give ἄνωθεν a meaning here which makes them speak from themselves?

"Another King" (Acts vii. 17, 18).—Here we read the words of Stephen: "The people grew and multiplied in Egypt till another king arose which knew not Joseph."

If we read this accurately we notice that the word for another is ἕτερος (heteros), another, of a different kind; and not ἄλλος (allos), which means another of the same kind.¹

The word points, therefore, to the fact that it was not another king of the same dynasty, but a different dynasty altogether.

With this agrees Exod. i. 8, not, of course, in the use of the word heteros, which is Greek, but in the Hebrew "arose," which is קוּם (kūm), and means to stand up and occupy the place of another (see Dan. ii. 31, 39, 41; iii. 24). Moreover the word "new" is קָדוֹשׁ (chūdūsh) (for the meaning of which see Deut. xxxii. 17, and compare Judg. v. 8).

Josephus says, "the crown being come into another family" (Ant. ii. 9).

The discoveries now made in Egypt prove that this was the case. The mummy of this very Pharaoh is to be seen to-day in the Museum at Bulak, and it is clear that this Rameses was the Pharaoh of the Oppression.²

He was an Assyrian, and every feature of his face shows that this was the case, being so different from the pictures of the Pharaoh who preceded him.

Now we can understand Isa. iii. 4, which has so puzzled the commentators, who were unable to understand why the two oppressions, in Egypt and Assyria, should be mentioned together in the same sentence, as though they were almost contemporary.

The discoveries in Egypt, and the Accuracy of the Divine Words, show that this latter was indeed the case. For in Isa. iii. 4 we read:

"Thus saith Adonai Jehovah,

My People went down aforetime into Egypt to sojourn there;

And the Assyrian oppressed them without cause."

¹ The force of these may be seen in Matt. ii. 12: "another way" (allos). Matt. iv. 21: "other two brethren" (allos). Gal. i. 6, 7: "a different (heteros) gospel, which is not another" (allos). Matt. vi. 24: "hate one and love the other" (heteros). Matt. xi. 3: "do we look for another" (heteros). Heb. vii. 11; "another priest" (heteros).

² While Mencphta, his son, was the Pharaoh of the Exodus.

"ANOTHER KING". ACTS VII. 17, 18

These words are now seen to be exquisitely accurate; for that was exactly what took place: Israel did go down into Egypt to sojourn there, but a new king arose, of a different dynasty, and he, an Assyrian, oppressed them without cause.

There is no occasion to assume that Isaiah coupled together two events separated by centuries, when such assumption creates the very difficulty complained of.

"The world that then was" (Gen. i. 2). -The accurate reading in the English of the A.V. Gen. i. 2 will be sufficient to show there is something in the verse which needs explanation; and when we have explained it we shall find that it points to a wonderful exposition of the Creation, and provides a complete answer to all the cavils of Geologists.

This discovery would be impossible if the Revised Version were used, as the Revisers deliberately discarded the use of italics in certain cases, one of which was in the case of the verb "to be," which does not exist in Hebrew.

In Gen. i. 2 (A.V.) we read: "And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep."

Here, it will be seen that, the first "was" is in Roman type, while the second is in Italic type. This accuracy tells us that the latter verb, "was," represents the verb to be; and that the former "was" must represent a different verb, and not the verb "to be." This is the case; and the verb is הִנֵּה (hāyah), to become, come to pass.

That this is its meaning is clear from the very next verse (v. 3): "Let there be light, and there was light." Here the verb for "be" and "was" is hayah, and means become, while, in verse 4, the verb "was" is the verb to be, and is in italics.

The same use of "was" (Roman type) and "was" (Italic type) may be seen in verses 9 and 10; and in verses 11 and 12.

If we enquire further about the verb hayah we find it in Gen. ii. 7, "and man became a living soul; ch. iv. 14, "it shall come to pass"; ch. ix. 15, "the waters shall no more become a flood"; ch. xix. 26, Lot's wife "became a pillar of salt."

From all this we assuredly learn that Gen. i. 2 should read, "and the earth BECAME without form."

Having made this discovery we now pursue it further; and we "search the Scriptures" to find out whether God has said anything else about the way in which He created the earth. And we find it in Isa. xlv. 18. Here the sentences are heaped together, in order to impress us with the fact that, He who created the earth, ought to know, and be able to tell us, how He made it. Note the words:

"Thus saith Jehovah that created the heavens:

Elohim himself that formed the earth, and made it;

He hath established it,

He created it not tohū."

But this word תְּהִי (tohū) is the very word which is translated "without form" in Gen. i. 2. So that, whatever tohū means, it is evident that God did not create the earth tohū. Therefore it must have become so, at some time, in some way, and from some cause which we are not told.

It is clear from this that in Gen. i. 1 we have the record concerning what is called in 2 Pet. iii. 6 "the world that then was." This earth, we are there told also, "being overflowed with water perished." This is exactly what is stated in Gen. i. 1, 2.

So that at the end of the first verse we must put a very large full stop; or draw a line; or leave a blank space, so as to separate verse 1 from what follows in verse 2, which relates to "the heavens and earth which are now" (2 Pet. iii. 7), and which will continue, until the time comes for "the new heavens and the new earth" of 2 Pet. iii. 18, and of many other Scriptures.

When Geologists have settled how many years they require between the first and second verses of Gen. i. there is ample room for all they want, and a large margin beside.

Meanwhile, we may well conclude that all the fossils and remains which are found belonged to "the world that then was," and thus, at one stroke, remove all friction between Geology and Scripture.

Again, we ask, why assume that all the Geological phenomena pertain to the earth "which is now," when it is this very assumption which creates the difficulty?