42. People And Places

PEOPLE AND PLACES

I need an explanation of the apparent contradiction between2 Kings 18:5;2 Kings 23:25. Each of these kings, according to the record, seems to be greater than the other. The difference seems to be that Josiah’s devotion was particularly “according to all the law of Moses.” The revival under him was a Bible revival, in which the people were quickened in their desire to know the Scriptures and obey them.

Why did Joshua’s spies go to a harlot’s house? Why not some morally good house? Or did “harlot” have a different meaning in Bible limes?

There has been no change in the meaning of the word “harlot.” It may have been that Rahab was the only person in Jericho willing to receive the spies. In our day the Lord Jesus Himself is usually denied admission to what you call “morally good” homes. When He was here His enemies complained that He received sinners and ate with them (Luke 5:30-32). And in Matthew 21:31-32, He said to His critics: ‘The publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not; but the publicans and the harlots believed Him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.” And consider how far the grace of God went in the case of Rahab. She not only has a place among the immortals of Hebrews 11 (verse 31), but she actually became an ancestress of the Lord Jesus according to the flesh (Matthew 1:5). The vital difference between Rahab and the “morally good” people in Jericho was that while she and they were all sinners, she was a believing sinner and they were unbelieving sinners. Therefore she was saved and they were lost. Will you please explain how, after three and a half years of drought, the Prophet Elijah was able to find twelve barrels of water for drenching his sacrifice on Mount Carmel, as described in1 Kings 18:33-35?

It has been pointed out that there are springs on Carmel which in modem times are never dry. Of course, these might have dried up after so long a time without rain. But it is certain that scarcely fifteen miles away from the scene on Carmel there is the Mediterranean sea, and, although its salt water is not good to drink, it would do very well in quenching any fire but the fire of God. To transport twelve barrels of water for fifteen miles would present no difficulty. In any event, the water was there, for the Word of God records the fact.

What is meant by the words ofMatthew 7:6: “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine”? Who are the dogs, and who are the swine? The dog and the hog were both unclean according to the Levitical law, and neither of them could be used for food or for sacrifice. Both words are used in 2 Peter 2:22 as figures of those who trifle with the Word of God. They are unsaved professors who have never been really born again. It is quite possible for them to avoid much of the world’s pollution by mere contact with God’s people, and then be entangled therein and overcome. It is better not to have known the way of salvation, than after they have known it to despise it and to turn away from the holy commandment delivered unto them. “But it happened unto them according to the true proverb, the hog is turned to his own vomit again; (Proverbs 16:11), and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.”

What does it mean when it says don’t cast your pearls before swine? The Scripture referred to is Matthew 7:6, where our Lord says: “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” Dogs are in Scripture a type of men who are openly unclean (compare Deuteronomy 23:17-18, with Php 3:2-3 and Matthew 7:21-23). Swine are a familiar figure (2 Peter 2:22). They speak typically of those people who not only reject the Word of God but despise it. It may be that our Lord in using the figure was thinking of Proverbs 11:22, which says: “As a jewel of gold in a swine’s snout, so is a fair woman which is without discretion.”

What do you understand is meant by “casting out devils” in the Bible? It says that Jesus would not let them speak, for they knew Him. The phrase ought to read, “casting out demons.” No one is really called a devil in the Bible except Satan and Judas. In John 6:70 Judas Iscariot is actually called a devil by the Lord Jesus Himself. The Greek word for “devil” is diabolos, which means adversary, and it is usually translated Satan. The demons are identical with the unclean spirits which sometimes took possession of men, and which were often cast out of men by the Lord Jesus. He forbade them to speak because He is somewhat particular about the source of any testimony. The devil and his emissaries are liars generally, and our Lord does not want the testimony of liars.

There seems to be a discrepancy between the statement ofGenesis 23:16-20, where Abraham is said to have purchased the field of Ephron, including the cave of Machpelah, and the statement ofGenesis 33:19, that Jacob purchased the same field. If Abraham had bought the field for four hundred shekels of silver, why should Jacob buy the same field for one hundred shekels of silver? Was it not already his property? The probable answer is that during the interval of 80 years between the two transactions the descendants of Hamor laid claim to the field, and that instead of asserting his title by inheritance Jacob repurchased the field. This is a perfectly natural supposition and disposes of any discrepancy between the two statements. See Genesis 49:29-32; Genesis 50:13; Joshua 24:32.

What is the difference between Hebrew, Israelite and Jew?

Hebrew is the racial name, Israel is the national name, and Jew the religious name for the descendants of Abram through Isaac and Jacob.

I had a question from an unbeliever the other day, with reference to Terah and Abram. The days of Terah were 205. Abram seems to have been born when Terah was 70 years old, and he left Haran when he, Abram, was 75 years old. The answer must be either that Abram left Haran before Terah died, contrary to the usual belief, or else he was born a good many years “after” Terah became 70, Nahor and Haran being his elders. It’s not an important question of itself, but don’t these people fling all sorts of puzzles at one?

They do, indeed. Let us see:

Haran was Terah’s first-born son; Nahor, the second; and Abram the youngest; akhough Abram is named first in the record probably because he was the heir of the promises.

Haran was the father of Lot, Milcah and Iscah (Genesis 11:26-29). Milcah married her uncle Nahor and bore eight sons unto him, including Bediuel, the father of Rebekah who became Isaac’s wife (Genesis 22:20-23).

Haran’s second daughter, Iscah, the sister of Lot and Milcah, according to Jewish tradition, is identical with Sarai, who became Abram’s wife (see Josephus—Antiquities 1:6, Section 5). This is quite possible, for there is no distinction in the Hebrew of the Old Testament between the words for daughter and granddaughter. If the Jewish tradition referred to is correct, then Sarai was the granddaughter of Abram’s father, but not the granddaughter of his mother (Genesis 20:12). According to this understanding of the matter, Sarai became the wife of her uncle Abram, as her sister Milcah became the wife of her uncle Nahor.

Nahor, by the way, was named after Terah’s father, the grandfather of Terah’s three sons, Haran, Nahor and Abram. The statement in Genesis 11:26 that, “Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran,” proves nothing as to the order of their birth. That Haran was the eldest of the three brothers is apparent from the fact that his brothers married his daughters, and that Sarai at the time of her marriage was only ten years younger than her Uncle Abram. When Abram, the youngest of the three brothers, was born, Terah was 130 years old, as appears from comparing Genesis 11:31; Genesis 12:4 with Acts 7:2-4.

Experts in chronology agree that Abram’s first call “when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran (Haran)” (Acts 7:2), came to him in his sixtieth year; and the second call leading him out of Charran, “when his father was dead” (Acts 7:4) came, as we know, when he was 75 years old (Genesis 12:4). Abram’s name, meaning “High father,” was afterwards changed to Abraham, meaning, “Father of many nations”; and Sarai’s name, meaning, “My princess,” was changed to Sarah, meaning, “Princess,” omitting the “my,” since now she was to become not only a princess in a local and limited sense, but a mother of many nations, and therefore a sort of universal princess. The Bible tells us that God performed a miracle upon the body of Abraham in order that Isaac might be born. But is it not true that Abraham begat other children after Isaac?

Yes, indeed. God did for Abraham “exceeding abundantly above” all that he asked or thought. After Sarah’s death Abraham took another wife named Keturah and by her he fathered numerous children, whose names are given to us in Genesis 25-.1A. And here is a beautiful type. Sarah stands for “the mother of us all,” that is, of all those who by grace through faith plus nothing have been born again and have become children of God and joint heirs with Christ, the antitype of Isaac (John 3:6-8; Galatians 4:26-29; Hebrews 2:11-13; Hebrews 1:2; Romans 8:16-17). Keturah, who became Abraham’s wife after the blessing had come through Isaac, may typify the future blessing coming to Israel as the natural seed of Abraham and as Jehovah’s wife (Hosea 2:1-23; Deuteronomy 30:1-9). Was Moses a virgin’s son, as our Lord was? I have seen it so stated in a typical study comparing Moses as a type with Christ as the antitype.

No. All that was probably meant by the comparison was that Moses was adopted as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter. Can you explainExodus 4:24-25for me? It reads: “And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.” The picture is clear. Moses had been yielding to his wife Zipporah, who objected to the circumcision of their son, which should have been done when he was eight days old. Moses is now responding to God’s call for service, and yet God threatens to kill him in the way. Zipporah recognized the cause, and she herself, though reluctantly, circumcised the son, saying to Moses, “thou art a bloody husband unto me.” The lesson for us is plain. The Lord Jesus is a bloody Husband unto us, and if we are to be used in God’s service we must obey His Word.

InExodus 4:24whom did the Lord meet and seek to kill?

He threatened to kill Moses for his disobedience in failing to circumcise his son. From the record it appears that Moses had listened to his wife’s protests during the years since the son was born, instead of obeying the commandment to circumcise the son when he was eight days old. See Genesis 17:9-14. Who were the father and mother of Moses?

Moses’ father’s name was Amram, and his mother’s, Jochebed (see Exodus 6:20).

What is meant by the contention between Michael and Satan about the body of Moses as referred to in the Epistle of Jude, verse 9? When Moses died God buried him in a secret place unknown to man (Deuteronomy 34:5-6). The suggestion comes from Josephus that this was because the children of Israel might have made an idol of Moses’ body, had they known where it was. Of course we do not know whether this is true or not. In Matthew 17 Moses appeared with Elijah and the Lord Jesus on the mount of transfiguration, and that means Moses had his glorified body by that time. It is evident therefore that Michael had succeeded against Satan’s opposition in recovering Moses’ body from the tomb in order that it might appear on the mount. Who constituted the “rabble” going up out of Egypt with the people of Israel in the Exodus (Numbers 11:4-6)? The mixed multitude (“rabble”) consisted of Egyptians who went along with the children of Israel as they separated from Egypt, attracted no doubt by the miraculous character of Israel’s deliverance. This rabble is a type of unconverted church members in our day. They join the churches, professing to be Christians, but without any real change of heart. They may be quite sincere in their profession at the moment, but sincerity will never take the place of regeneration. This rabble then as now were the cause of weakness and division among the people of God. In Numbers 11:4-6 we read that “the rabble that was among them fell a lusting”; that is, they were not satisfied with the manna that God sent down from Heaven and desired the food of Egypt instead; “and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat? We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic; but now our soul is dried away: there is nothing at all, beside this manna, before our eyes.” The manna was a type of Christ as God’s appointed food for His people, the bread of Heaven. Unconverted church members of today, because they have lost their appetite for Christ as the bread of God, will turn to the things of the world, and will desire and demand that the things pleasing to the flesh be included in the work and way of the church. And because of their lusting after these things, such as extravagant buildings, ritualistic ceremonies, and “smooth things” from the mouth of the preachers, many of those who are unspiritual among God’s real children are carried away also.

I recently heard it stated that all the people now living upon the earth, white and black, red and brown and yellow, are descended from Noah. Is this true?

Yes. In the flood of Noah’s time all human life was wiped off the face of the earth excepting Noah and his family. Only eight persons were saved from drowning. These were Noah and his wife and their three sons and their wives. The three sons were Sham, Ham and Japheth. The Genesis 10 tells about their descendants, and this chapter is esteemed by students of ethnology as the most important document in existence relating to that science. See Genesis 7:7; Genesis 9:18-19.

If Jacob was a Jew, why was not Esau his twin brother a Jew also?

Neither Jacob nor Esau was a Jew, though both were Hebrews. Hebrew is a racial word, but Jew is a religious word, coming from the religion of Judaism. This religion was so named because from the tribe of Judah came the royal line and thus the leadership in the nation to which the religious system was given. The first occurrence of the word “Jew” in the Bible is in the plural—the Jews—in 2 Kings 16:6, and the first person called a Jew in the Scriptures was Mordecai, in Esther 2:5. We now call all Hebrews Jews, but, strictly speaking, as it is written in Romans 2:28-29, “he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart in the spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God.” In God’s Word it is made plain that any sin is forgiven if truly repented of, but I would like you to explainHebrews 12:16-17. Why was not Esau forgiven? It says he sought forgiveness with tears.

I am sony, but it does not say that. What it says is that “he found no place for repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.” Repentance is very different from forgiveness. Repentance means a change of mind. The Revised Version reads: “he found no place for a change of mind in his father, though he sought it diligently with tears.” Is there not a discrepancy between the statements of the twenty-sixth and the twenty-seventh verses of Genesis 46? In one verse the figures are 66 and in the other they are 70. Can you explain?

Yes, very easily, for the discrepancy is only imaginary. In verse 26 you have “the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt,” and in verse 27 you have “all the souls of the house of Jacob which came into Egypt.” You must add to the 66 who came with Jacob, those of his house whom he found already there, namely, Joseph and his two sons, and Jacob himself; which makes the total 70.

There is a passage in Scripture that I do not understand. It mentions something about bastards not being able to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. I know that some mothers are unfortunate and they are good Christian mothers. Please explain this.

Deuteronomy 23:2 says: “A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even unto the tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.” This says nothing about entering the Kingdom of Heaven: It refers only to the congregation of the Lord in Israel under the law. Under the Gospel there is the gift of eternal life for whosoever will receive it Incidentally, let me point out that one of the persons named in the genealogical table of Luke was born out of wedlock, namely Phares, son of Judah by Tamar (Genesis 38). This is the genealogy of Mary herself through her father Eli (printed Heli). In Matthew’s genealogy of Joseph there is also the name of Bathsheba, who bore a child of David out of wedlock; but this child died, and Solomon was born of her after David had made her his wife (2 Samuel 11). Our Lord was not descended from Solomon but from another son of David named Nathan. (Compare Matthew 1:6-7 and Luke 3:31.) All this shows how grace has overleaped every obstacle. Praise God! “Whosoever will may come.”

Why did God call David call “a man after mine own heart” (Acts 13:22)?

Because David believed what God told him, and stood for Him when he had to stand alone among men. David was a great sinner, and God’s heart was grieved by that, but when David’s sin was called to his attention he did not seek to justify himself. He confessed his sin, and was freely forgiven, though God brought severe suffering upon him in discipline. “Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth.” Can you harmonize the two accounts in 2 Samuel of King Saul’s daughter who was married to David and separated by King Saul? One account said she had no children unto her death; in a later chapter it said she bore five children.

I am sorry, but it is not exactly said that “she bore five children.” It is true that in 2 Samuel 6:23 it is written that “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children unto the day of her death”; and that in 2 Samuel 21:8-9, it is written that King David took “the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, . . . and delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites.” But notice that in the eighth verse these “five sons of Michal” were only her adopted children, “whom she brought up for Adriel.” Adriel was Michal’s brother-in-law, being the husband of Michal’s sister Merab (1 Samuel 18:19). Are men ever called gods in the Bible?

Yes. In Psalms 82:6, addressing the human judges and rulers, God says: “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most high.” And, in John 10:31-36, when our Lord said, “I and my Father are one,” the Jews threatened to stone Him, “for blasphemy; because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God” (31-33). And He in reply said: “Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?’ (34-36). In verse 30 the word “are” is in the masculine gender—”we” (two persons) are; while the word “one” is neuter—one thing. That would signify that He and His Father are not one in person, but one in nature. This disposes of the teaching that there is only one person in the Godhead, and that the Son is inferior to the Father.

Those called gods in Psalms 82 are the judges or magistrates as the official representatives and commissioned agents of God. Our Lord’s comparison of Himself with them was intended to show that the idea of a communication of the divine majesty to human nature was not foreign to the revelations of the Old Testament. But there is also a contrast between Him and these men “unto whom the word of God (merely) came.” It is never recorded of our Lord that the Word of God came to Him, for He Himself was—and is—the Word of God. The Jews did not understand Him to claim to be a god in the sense of Psalms 82, or they would not have threatened to stone Him; but God in the sense of Deity; and this claim He acknowledged, both here and in chapter 5.

How could a righteous God drive the Canaanitish nations out of their land before the children of Israel?

It was the very righteousness of God that compelled Him to do it. These nations had become so corrupt as to make it necessary for a just God to judge and destroy them. Read Leviticus 18, especially verses 24-30, and also Deuteronomy 12:29-32.

What did Job mean by a “daysman” (Job 9:33)? The word has the same meaning as “methator.” The answer to Job’s desire for a daysman is found in 1 Timothy 2:5-6.

What is the meaning of the phrase, “in the flesh,” in verse 16 of the Epistle to Philemon?

It must mean that Philemon and Onesimus were brothers in the physical sense, sons of the same parents. If this is what Paul meant to say, he could not have used Philemon’s language. It is apparent that Philemon had enslaved his own brother, and Paul in the Epistle is urging him to set him free.

Why was Ezra ashamed to ask the king’s help, as stated inEzra 8:22? The reason is given in the verse Itself. “I was ashamed because we had spoken unto the king, saying, ‘The hand of our God is upon all them for good that seek him; but his power and his wrath is against all them that forsake him.’” Ezra felt that, after having given such a testimony, he must act accordingly. And “so,” as he says in verse 23, “we fasted and besought our God for this: and he was entreated of us.” Ezra was glad for what the king had already done to further his expedition (Ezra 7:27-28); but to accept help willingly offered, and to ask for help, are two different things.

How long did it take Nehemiah to get the wall around Jerusalem rebuilt?

Fifty-two days (Nehemiah 6:15), and it was a marvelous accomplishment. Of course, there was much to be done after the wall had been sufficiently “finished” to shut out the enemy, but to get even this done in less than eight weeks was an astonishing feat. It was only possible because Nehemiah was a great leader, and because “the people had a mind to work” (Nehemiah 4:6). The opposition was fivefold: (1) by ridicule (2:19; 4:1-6), (2) by anger (4:7-9), (3) by opposition of discouraged brethren (4:10-23), (4) by greed (5:1-19), and (5) by craft (6:1-14). Of what nation is it said in Scripture that God hates it forever?

You are probably thinking of Edom, the people descended from Esau, Jacob’s twin brother. Their land was called Edom, or Idumea. God never forgave Edom for refusing to allow Israel to pass through its land in the days of the exodus (Numbers 20:14-21; Lamentations 4:22; Jeremiah 49:7-22; Ezekiel 25:12-14; Ezekiel 32:29-30; Ezekiel 35:1-15; Ezekiel 36:5; Joel 3:19; Amos 1:11-12). The book of Obadiah is altogether occupied with the humiliation of Edom (vs. 1-9); the sin of Edom (10-14); and the judgment awaiting Edom (15-21). And, finally, we read in Malachi 1:4 that Edom is “the people against whom Jehovah hath indignation for ever.”

What was Esther’s original name, and why was it changed? Her name was originally Hadassah, meaning “myrtle,” and it was changed to Esther, which means star. She is a wonderful type of the Church of God, the King’s bride, exalted from a lowly to a heavenly position. “He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory” (1 Samuel 2:8).

Please explain the way of Cain, the error of Balaam and the gainsaying of Core, mentioned in the eleventh verse of the Epistle of Jude; also the way of Balaam (2 Peter 2:15) and the doctrine of Balaam (Revelation 2:14).

1. The way of Cain is the way of the religionist, who, like Cain, knows there is a God, but insists upon worshiping Him in self-will, setting aside blood redemption as God’s appointed way of approach unto Him (Genesis 4:1-7).

2. Balaam was a false prophet who entered the employ of a heathen king and undertook to bring upon the nation of Israel the curse of God (Numbers 22 nd and 23rd chapters). His error was in supposing that since Israel was a sinful people, therefore a righteous God needed only to be reminded of their sinfulness to curse them. He was blind to the higher ethic of the cross which God saw in the future (Revelation 13:8), and by which God had found a way to be just and the justifier of His shining people (Romans 3:26).

3. The way of Balaam is the way of those professed ministers of righteousness who commercialize their gifts and sell them to the highest bidder. These, like Balaam, are looking “for reward” (Judges 11), and love “the wages of unrighteousness” (2 Peter 2:15). The reward or wages may be money, as were Balaam’s, or might be applause or promotion or popular favor. There are many of these messengers of Satan masquerading as Christian ministers, “whose end shall be according to their works” (2 Corinthians 11:13-15).

4. The doctrine of Balaam was his teaching the king of Moab to induce the children of Israel to intermarry with the heathen and to indulge in their heathen practices, including fornication. Having failed to curse God’s people, he sought to rob them of His blessing through their failure to walk in a path of separation. Wherever there is intermarriage between the saved and the unsaved and wherever there is fellowship with the works of darkness, the doctrine of Balaam is having its effect. (See 2 Corinthians 6:14 to 2 Corinthians 7:1.)

5. The gainsaying of Core (or Korah) is recorded in the sixteenth chapter of Numbers. It consisted in denying Moses’ authority as God’s appointed spokesman and leader, and usurping the office of the priesthood contrary to God’s word. There is much of this kind of thing in our day and those guilty of it will likewise perish.

How did Lazarus come out of his tomb at Bethany? We have heard it objected that he could not have walked out, since he was bound in his grave clothes.

There is no record that he “walked out,” and he was not told to walk out. The Lord cried saying, “Lazarus, come forth,” and the Word says that “he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with grave clothes” (John 11:43-44).

Why is Mary called the Magdalene? Does the word convey the idea that she was an impure, immoral woman? Not at all. She was called the Magdalene because she came from Magdala. And there is no evidence that she was an unchaste woman. She had been delivered from demon possession (Mark 16:9), but that is no indication that she was immoral. It is altogether too bad that the word Magdalene should ever be applied to hospitals for fallen women. This practice may be due to confusing Mary of Magdala with the woman “which was a sinner” who anointed our Lord in the Pharisee’s house (Luke 7:36), but this was by no means Mary of Magdala. Was man created naked? And was it originally intended that he should wear artificial clothing? Of course, he was created naked, both the man and the woman; for in Genesis 2:25 it is written that “they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.” But their original nakedness seems to have been different from the nakedness wrought by their sin, for in Genesis 3:7 it is written that “the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.” This seemed to avail so long as they were alone, but when they heard God’s voice they ran from Him, and Adam said, “I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.” Then it was that by killing animals God provided “coats of skin, and clothed them” (Genesis 3:21); thus teaching in a figure that “without the shedding of blood there is no remission.” It is probable that before his sin, man was clothed like God Himself, who coveres Himself with light as with a garment (Psalms 104:2), and that when he is fully redeemed from the fall, receiving a body like that of his Lord, he will again be thus arrayed in light (Romans 8:23; 1 John 3:1-3). For exactly what did David pray inPsalms 51:12? Was be praying for God to save him?

No, indeed. He was already a saved man, though he had fallen into grievous sin. His prayer was: “Restore unto me (not salvation, for this he already had, but) the joy of thy salvation.” He had not lost his salvation, but he had lost his joy, and he was seeking its restoration.

Please tell us whether Judas was ever saved?

He was never saved. He was a disciple and an aposde, but he was never born again. He was “a devil” (John 6:70-71), and when he died he went “to his own place” (Acts 1:25). Who are the Edomites?

They are the descendants “of Esau who is Edom” (Genesis 36:1). Another form of the word is Idumea (Isaiah 34:5-6; Ezekiel 35:15; Ezekiel 36:5). Are the Arabs the descendants of Esau?

No. They come from Ishmael, the son of Abraham and Hagar.

What do people mean by the expression, “from Dan to Beersheba”?

Dan was in the extreme north and Beersheba in the extreme south. So the expression signifies “from end to end,” or “from one end to the other.” A similar expression today would be “from coast to coast.” Can you tell us what is meant by the incident at Marah described inExodus 15:23-27? The word Marah is the same as the word Mary and its meaning is “bitter” or “bitterness.” The people of Israel were walking through the wilderness as they were led of God when they came upon Marah where the waters were bitter. When Moses cried unto God, Jehovah “showed him a tree, which when he had cast into the waters, the waters were made sweet.” These bitter waters found in the path of God’s leading may speak of the sufferings of God’s people as they walk with Him in the way. The Lord Jesus Himself declared that in the world we should have tribulation. These tribulations are sometimes for chastening, but always they are for the purpose of training the people of God. The tree typifies the cross of Calvary, which when we cast it into the waters of our afflictions makes the water sweet. See Romans 5:3-4. The cross itself was made sweet unto the Lord Jesus because it was in the way of His Father’s leading. See John 18:11. Was Lot a saved person?

Yes. In 2 Peter 2:7-8 Lot is spoken of twice as a “just” or “righteous” man, which means that he was justified by faith. The difference between Lot and Abraham was that Lot was not a separated man, while Abraham was. And it is to be noted that when Lot got into trouble on account of mixing with the world it was Abraham the separated man who had power to help. Compare Genesis 13:5-18; Genesis 14:1-16; Genesis 19:29. And it is so today. Power is with the man who is not only saved but who walks in a path of separation with God and from the world (2 Timothy 2:20-21). When the choice was presented to Lot he “chose him all the plain of Jordan,” looking only to the present advantage. Abraham, on the other hand, “looked for a city which hath foundations” (Hebrews 11:10), and “came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron” (Genesis 13:18). Mamre is a word which means “fatness.” Hebron means “communion.” Thus it is seen that these men are types, Lot of die worldly Christian, and Abraham of the spiritual Christian. Were Adam and Eve immortal before they had sinned?

Immortality is freedom from death. And since death entered through sin, and since therefore there would have been no death except for sin, it is clear that if Adam and Eve had never sinned they would never have died. See Romans 5:12. Will you please explain to us what was wrong in David numbering the people of Israel and Judah as recorded in 2 Samuel 24? How could it have been so wrong for the king to have a census taken to show the number of people in his kingdom? The twenty-first chapter of 1 Chronicles is a parallel account of this same matter. But in the Chronicles account it says that “Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel,” while in Samuel it reads that “the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.” The explanation of this seeming contradiction is that the idea came from Satan in the first place, and that David was activated by pride rather than by a desire to do the will of God. It is true that God also moved David to do it, but this was God’s permissive will rather than His directive will. If a servant of God really wants to do something contrary to the plan of God, and wants to do it rather than to do the will of God, it is often possible that God will consent to it in order to show His servant by the outcome that it was not the best way. In both accounts you will see that Joab, the head of the army, sought to dissuade David from his purpose, but without success. It appears that David was seeking to ascertain his military strength, and was leaning upon the army rather than upon God. At any rate the matter was a very serious thing from God’s point of view, for it resulted in the death of 70,000 men in Israel. The lesson for us is that we ought to seek always God’s directive will rather than His permissive will, because God’s way is always better than our way. Can you tell us what is the estimated wealth of the chemical salts in the waters of the Dead Sea?

It is estimated that the potash, bromine and other chemical salts, deposited in the Dead Sea basin are worth more than all the other wealth of the world beside. The figures of the experts are staggering. They declare that the potential value of these deposits is more than twelve hundred billions of dollars. How thrilling it is to reflect that, while men for centuries considered the Dead Sea basin as the most worthless and godforsaken spot earth, God was using it as a safety deposit vault to make the land of Israel the richest territory in the world! Surely, His ways are not as our ways. When Jesus remained in the temple at the age of twelve years, did it indicate at what age a child’s personal responsibility begins?

There is nothing of such indication in the record. The age of accountability doubtless varies in different children, but it is often reached before the age of twelve years. Had the disciples been converted before being called by Christ?

There is no evidence that the apostles (I suppose you refer to them in your word “disciples”) had been converted before they were called by Christ. As a matter of fact, I doubt whether any of them were born again until Matthew 16:16, where Simon Peter made the great confession by which he became a child of God. Were all twelve apostles Jews?

Yes. It is true that only Judas the betrayer was of the tribe of Judah which was also the tribe to which our Lord belonged; but the word “Jew” does not come from the tribal name, but rather from the religious term “Judaism.” There are today many who contend that the Jews and Israel are two different peoples, that the present-day British and other English-speaking peoples are Israel, and that through them the promises of universal blessing are to be fulfilled. But in the Scriptures all the tribes are often called Jews. Mordecai, who is called a Jew eight times in the book of Esther, was a Benjamite (Esther 2:5). In Isaiah 27:6 Israel is seen to include “them that come of Jacob,” and through them the face of the world is to be filled with fruit. Zechariah 8:23 says that the time is coming when ten Gentiles shall lay hold upon the skirt of a Jew, saying, “We will go with you, for we know that God is with you.” And Romans 11:25-27, to cite a New Testament instance, shows that the people now in blindness (the Jews) will remain in that blindness until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in (or, until the Church is completed), and then all Israel shall be saved as it is written.” Who was Jerubbaal, and what does the name mean?

Jerubbaal was a symbolic name for Gideon (Judges 8:35). The word means “Baal will contend,” and the word Gideon comes from a root meaning to fell, as felling a tree. The name Gideon means “feller,” that is, a warrior, one who cuts down, hews down, or destroys. And all this Gideon did as a faithful warrior of God.

Why is Dionysius called the Areopagite inActs 17:34?

Mars’ Hill was the Roman name for what the Greeks called Areopagus, meaning the Rock of Ares. Ares was the name of the Greek god of war, just as Mars was the god of war of the Romans. Dionysius, whose name means “a reveler,” was probably a member of the court held on Mars’ Hill, and therefore he is called the Areopagite. Can a saved person become an apostate? A saved person cannot become an apostate. Apostates are in mind in 1 John 2:19. One commentator, in a footnote on the last clause of this verse, says: “This is a frequent idiom in the Greek, and is a strong way of saying that no apostates were Christians.”

Why did Eve name her first-born son “Cain” and what is the connection between that name and her remark in relation to it inGenesis 4:1: “I have gotten a man from the Lord”?

“Cain” means “acquisition,” and the name was chosen because she had acquired or “gotten” her child The remark of Eve to which you refer is more literally translated, as in the marginal rendering of the Authorized Version, “I have gotten a man, even the Lord.” The Revised Version helps us still further in giving the name “Jehovah” in place of “the Lord.” Whenever “Lord” appears in our English Old Testament spelled with capital letters throughout, it stands for this mysterious name Jehovah, whose meaning is “He who eternally is and who is coming.” Eve fondly, though mistakenly, imagined that her firstborn son was really the Seed of the woman, the coming one, promised in Genesis 3:15. Therefore she said: “I have gotten a man, even Jehovah.” Do you really believe that the walls of Jericho fell down flat because the children of Israel marched around those walls once a day for six days and then seven times on the seventh day, as recorded in the sixth chapter of Joshua?

I verily believe that the walls of Jericho fell down flat after the people of Israel had marched around the city once a day for six days and seven times on the seventh day, and after the priests had blown the trumpets, and the people had shouted as commanded by Joshua. I believe all that. Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you that God, even by such means, should cause the walls of a city to fall down flat?

There is a great significance in the story of the conquest of Jericho. The central teaching is that, by means esteemed foolish in the eyes of man, God accomplishes His results. It is even so with relation to the gospel of Christ, which is looked upon as a foolish thing. “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. . .. Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling-block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1 Corinthians 1:18-25). The point is that the gospel, which the world considers to be foolishness, is the only means by which men can be saved from sin. When I say “saved from sin” I am not now speaking of being saved from hell. Salvation includes deliverance from hell in the future, but salvation also delivers from sin here and now. And it is all done through that foolish thing called the gospel of Christ, which is ever “the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek” (Romans 1:16-17).

Please explainMatthew 12:20: “A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory.” The context shows that when the Lord Jesus was threatened by His enemies, who “held a council against Him, how they might destroy Him” (verse 14), instead of destroying them, or even rebuking them, He “withdrew Himself from thence,” charging those who followed Him not to make Him known: that the word might be fulfilled which was spoken in Isaiah 42:1-4 : “Behold my servant (referring to Christ)... He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: ... He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.”

Israel was a broken reed, “whereon if a man lean, it will go into his hand, and pierce it” (Isaiah 36:6); it could not be relied upon, and the time had not yet come to deal with it in judgment. Israel was like smoking flax, giving out an offensive odor, and yet the time had not come to deal with it in judgment. Therefore, He “withdrew himself from thence.” In due time He who once came to save will return to judge and to subdue His enemies under His feet. In Isaiah 36:6—“Lo, thou trusteth in the staff of this broken reed, on Egypt; whereon if a man lean, it will go into his hand, and pierce it”—the Revisers have changed “broken” to “bruised.”

I heard a preacher say that the “years” of the fifth chapter of Genesis were lunar periods of a month, rather than solar periods of twelve months; and that Methuselah was really only 969 months old when he died, rather than 969 solar years. Is he right?

No. The absurdity of his contention will appear if you examine the chapter. For example, chapter 21 says that Methuselah’s father “Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah.” According to the lunar theory, therefore, Enoch became a father when he was less than six years old!

In2 Samuel 11:3the father of Bath-sheba, David’s wife, is called Eliam, and in1 Chronicles 3:5he is called Ammiel. Can you explain why the same man is called by different names?

You will notice that the two names have the same syllables except that the first and last syllables are transposed. Eliam is Ammiel backwards. They are only two forms of the same name. You will observe that the name of Bath-sheba occurs in another form (Bath-shua) in the second Scripture you cite.

Please explainHebrews 11:39-40. The meaning of this passage is that the Old Testament saints are waiting eagerly for the day when our Lord shall come to earth again in glory, for it is not until then that they themselves will enter into the fullness of their own inheritance. This does not mean that they are not already present with the Lord, but it does mean that until the Son of God is glorified, and they are glorified with Him, they shall not have been “made perfect” (see Zechariah 14:5; 2 Thess. I:10;judel4). In the second chapter of Matthew, verse 19, we read, “But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt.” And in the twentieth verse we read that Joseph was told to “Arise and take the young child and his mother and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child’s life.” Then in the twenty-third chapter of Luke, beginning at the seventh verse, we read: “And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at the time.” Then in the eighth verse it continues: “And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see Him of a long season, because he had heard many things of Him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by Him.” What I want to know and what puzzles me is how can it be that Herod died when the Lord Jesus was a babe, and then had an interview with Jesus when Jesus had become a man 30 years after Herod was reputed to be dead. The answer to your question is that there were several rulers named Herod. The king reigning at the time of our Lord’s birth was Herod the Great, son of Antipater and an Idumean by descent. His son Archelaus succeeded him (Matthew 2:22). “Herod the tetrarch” of Matthew 14:1-12 was Herod Antipas, another son of Herod the Great. Still anodier son of Herod the Great was Herod Philip, tetrarch of Iturea and of the region of Trachonitis (Luke 3:1) The Herod of Acts 13 was Herod Agrippa I, a grandson of Herod the Great. And Herod Agrippa II of Acts 25, 26 was a son of Herod Agrippa I, and therefore a grandson of Herod the Great.

Please give me some help onJohn 11:49-51;John 18:14. Did Caiaphas obtain his knowledge from the Scriptures, as we have them? I have looked for references, but am unable to find any.

I think that the passages cited explain themselves. Caiaphas did not get his information from the Scriptures, but “being the high priest that same year” he prophesied as the Holy Spirit revealed His will to him.

What is the meaning of “there came other boats from Tiberias” (John 6:23)?

Tiberias was a town on the Sea of Galilee, which sea was also called the Lake of Tiberias. The town itself was the capital of Galilee for some time. It was from this town that the boats spoken of had corne and had landed near the place where the miracle of feeding the five thousand had taken place, and it was in these boats that the people who sought the Lord Jesus came across to Capernaum seeking Him.

How may we distinguish between true and false teachers? I am familiar with the test laid down in1 John 4:2-3, but I cannot seem to get much help from it. It seems to me that even the false teachers confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. Please help me in this matter if you can. The mystery will clear up if you will remember the true significance of the expression, “Jesus Christ.” The word “Christ” is not really a name, but a title. It means the anointed one. And the question laid down in this test is as to whether the teacher who claims to come from God confesses that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ of God come in flesh. The Christ of God (Luke 9:20) is described in such detail in the Word of God as to make it perfecdy easy to recognize Him, and quite impossible to be deceived by any counterfeit of Him, if only one’s eyes are open to the Word of God and subject to its authority.

What then must a teacher confess about Jesus of Nazareth? The answer is that he must confess that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ of the Scriptures. The Scriptures demand and declare that Christ is Himself God (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:13-18; Hebrews 1:1-3; Hebrews 1:6-13; compare Psalms 2:7; 2 Samuel 7:14; Psalms 104:4; Psalms 45:6-7; Psalms 102:25-27; Psalms 110:1). The Christ of God must become incarnate in a virgin’s Son (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:18-25; John 1:14). The Christ of God must the on a cross as a substitutionary sacrifice for the sins of men, the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world (Psalms 22; Isaiah 53; John 1:29; 1 Corinthians 15:3). The Christ of God must rise from the dead on the third day, having been delivered up for our offenses. He must be raised again for our justification (1 Corinthians 15:4-8; Romans 4:25). The Christ of God must ascend into heaven and sit on the right hand of God as our great High Priest ever living to make intercession for His people, and therefore able to save them to the uttermost, or to the end (Psalms 110:1; Hebrews 7:25). The Christ of God who lives in heaven in His bodily capacity also lives now on earth in His people, Christ in us the hope of glory (Galatians 2:20; Colossians 1:27). And, finally, the Christ of God must come again in like manner as He went into heaven (Acts 1:11).

Every spirit that confesses that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ of God thus described in the Scriptures of God is himself a teacher come from God. And everyone who confesses not these things shows that he is not a teacher come from God, and against such we are warned in 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 : “For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.” Was Paul actually stoned to death and then raised from the dead at Lystra?

We are not fully informed. The record is given in Acts 14:19 where we read that Jews came from Antioch and Iconium to Lystra “who persuaded the people, and, having stoned Paul, dragged him out of the city, supposing that he was dead” (R.V.). Then we are told that as his disciples stood around about him mourning his death he rose up and went straight back into the city and stayed there overnight, departing on the morrow for Derbe. When it is remembered that the Jews stoned to death those criminals judged worthy of death, and that they stoned them by raining down great rocks down upon them, it is almost impossible to doubt that Paul was actually stoned to death, and raised from the dead miraculously. And yet if we believe, as seems very probable, that Paul is discussing his Lystra experience in 2 Corinthians 12:1-10 we must leave the question unanswered as to whether he actually died under the Lystra stoning, for he says he cannot tell whether or not he was in the body. Comparing the dates between Acts 14 and 2 Corinthians 12 you will find that just about “fourteen years” elapsed between them (see 2 Corinthians 12:2). Whether the stoning was actually to death or not, it is certain his recovering so quickly and so fully was miraculous, and that the infirmity of the flesh, resulting from the experience, was given him only that he might not be ruined in his testimony by undue exaltation.

Please tell us what our Lord meant by the mysterious words ofJohn 21:18: “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.” The words were addressed to Simon Peter and their meaning is explained in the verse 19: ‘This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God.” That is to say, he was telling Peter that he must one day die by crucifixion, even as his Lord had already done, for it was the risen Lord who said this thing to his disciple. Peter was curious to know about his fellow apostle John, and as John stood by Peter seeing him, said to Jesus, “Lord, and what shall this man do?” That is to say, “Now that Thou hast told me how I am to die, tell me about John: how shall he die?” To this the Lord Jesus answered, “If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.” This gave rise to a saying among the brethren that John should never die, but John himself is writing and says, “Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, if I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?’

While our Lord did not actually predict that John would live until his Lord’s second coming, He did declare or imply that he might live until that time. And so John went on to the end of his life on earth with the possibility that the Lord Jesus might come before he should die, while Peter went on with the sure anticipation of ending his life by crucifixion; and according to what seems to be reliable tradition Peter did die by crucifixion. But he was crucified with his head downward and his feet upward, since he felt so unworthy to the exactly as his Lord had died. Our position today as disciples of Christ is precisely the same as that of John during his earthly lifetime. We cannot know that we shall not die, and neither can we know that we shall ever die at all, for it is possible for our Lord to come for His own at any moment of any day or any night and catch them away to meet Him in the air. “We shall not all sleep” (1 Corinthians 15:51-54; compare 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18). Were the four living creatures, called “beasts” in the Authorized Version, saved by the blood? If so why did they not have crowns with the rest of the redeemed? The cherubim or living creatures were not saved by blood because they had never been lost. The pronoun “us” in Revelation 5:9 should be omitted. It has no place in the Greek text. The living creatures and the twenty-four elders join in the song, saying, “Thou art worthy to take the book and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation,” etc. Who was Cain’s wife? The only possible answer to your question is that Cain’s sister became his wife. In Genesis 5:3-5 we learn that Adam, who lived 930 years, begat daughters as well as sons. We do not have the names of these daughters, nor are we told how many there were, but, plainly, at least one of them had to become the wife of one of the sons in order that the race might be perpetuated. Could you explain the first part of Galatians 4, concerning sonship? Are not all Christians sons of God? The contrast is between the status of Jewish believers before the death and resurrection of Christ, and that of all believers, whether from among Jews or Gentiles, afterwards. In the old dispensation, believers were in the position of minor children and under the Law, but in the new dispensation, believers—all of them—are in the position of full-grown sons, free from the Law, and in partnership and fellowship with the Father. The “elements of the world” (verse 3) are the Commandments of Sinai (compare verses 9 and 21 and Colossians 2:20). The Law was an elementary “schoolmaster unto Christ,” that they might be justified by faith. But after faith came they were delivered from the old schoolmaster, being no longer under Law, but under grace (Galatians 3:23-25; Romans 6:14). In Galatians 3:26 the word “children” should read “sons.” The whole matter is worked out in the fourth chapter.

How did the apostles meet their death? Where can this information be found?

There is a tradition, apparently well founded, that all the apostles except John died a violent death, being put to death for their testimony. All the information available about that may be found in The Encyclopedia Britannica, or any other good Encyclopedia, in separate articles under the separate names of the apostles. Is the world many thousands of years old, as scientists are led to believe? If so, how may we account for the date of creation as B.C. 4004 in the Bible? I believe the Bible and should like to be able to explain this to one who believes only part of it. The chronological dates found in our Bibles have no reference to the creation of the earth, but only to the creation of man. No one questions the antiquity of the material creation, but no one has brought forth any proof that the creation of Adam was further back than 4004 B.C. The date of Genesis 1:1 is unrevealed. The second verse tells of a replenishing of the earth following some great catastrophe between the first and second verses, which is not recorded.

Last Sunday I listened to a very good sermon about the Shunammite woman, and in his preliminary remarks, the preacher said that doubt had risen in the minds of some regarding these stories concerning the doings of Elisha, as to whether they told of something that actually happened or not. The reason for this doubt was that inasmuch as Elisha’s work was principally acts of mercy it seemed incredible that he should curse a group of innocent children and cause them to be torn to pieces by two bears. He said that he disliked to believe that anything like that could be true, but left it to his hearers to judge for themselves.

It seems to me that there is nothing in the story to indicate that it is allegory, but that it tells of something that actually happened.

I would appreciate it very much if I might have your views regarding the truth of the story and also the seeming cruelty of the act.

I believe God’s Word as written and like to see the stand you take. May God bless you.

There is no reason whatever to doubt the historicity of the Bible record of Elisha. The things recorded there, as you put it, “actually happened.” I am passing on to you the helpful comment of John Urquhart on the passage particularly referred to: This event furnishes so convenient a weapon for those who desire to assault the Bible that we cannot be astonished that many have used it. There have been those who, quite apart from the use thus made of it by the foe, have found not a little perplexity in it. They have felt it to be quite opposed to the spirit of the New Testament. My readers are so familiar, not only with the objections, but also with the feelings to which I refer that I do not require to dwell upon them. But they may not have sufficiently considered a very obvious reply.

What is the spirit of the New Testament? They conceive of it possibly as an infinite patience—a spirit that can suffer but that cannot strike, that is always gende, and never terrible. But what, then, of the swift and fearful judgment upon Ananias and Sapphira? What of Paul’s address to the sorcerer Elymas: “O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?” And what of the judgment upon him when he was immediately deprived of sight?

What, too, of the judgments threatened in the New Testament? It is surely needful that those who talk so confidently about the spirit of the New Testament should see to it that they are not substituting their own fancies for New Testament facts. Perhaps the reply is that they are referring specially to the spirit of Jesus. I know that the predictions were amply fulfilled that said He should not strive, nor cry, nor break the bruised reed, nor quench the smoking flax. But what of His rebuke to Peter: “Get thee behind me, Satan,” and of those fearful woes upon the Pharisees? And shall we find no place for those awful indications of coming judgment found in the parables in which the Lord has pictured to us His coming again? The notion entertained by some of the spirit of the New Testament is as opposed to New Testament statements as it is out of accord with God’s dealings with Israel, with the nations, and with ourselves. He is a God of mercy, but He is also a God of judgment.

Let us now look at the facts and see whether even this tragic incident did not serve God and Israel’s highest interests. It is unfortunate that our version should have given the translation “little children.” The word used in the Hebrew answers to our word “lad,” or “youth”; and, while sometimes used of mere children, is also applied to fully grown young men. The word “litde,” which appears in the description, plainly points out that these were not fully grown young men, but were “young lads.”

Bethel had from the first been the seat of the revolt against God’s law, and the spirit of revolt seems to have spread until even the youth of the city were filled with it. The tidings of the wonders on the east and on the west of Jordan—the ascent of Elijah, the endowment of Elisha with a double portion of his spirit, the parting of the waters of the Jordan, and the healing of the fountain at Jericho—had, no doubt, been carried over all that district. Indeed, there seems to be a reference to the ascension of Elijah in the taunt that is now flung at his successor. The word which occurs in verse 11 (“And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven”) is used in the lads’ cry. They shout after this solitary man on whom is now resting the burden of Israel’s sin and need—”Ascend, Baldhead! Ascend, Baldhead!”

Understood in this way it was a peculiarly daring and impious mockery of the sign which God had just given to them in common with the rest of Israel. Now, will those who have been troubled with what we may freely call the appalling severity of this judgment, ask themselves one question? If this scornful reputhation and mockery of God’s ambassador had been passed over in silence, and if the example of Bethel had been followed all over the land, could Israel have escaped a corresponding judgment? Would not the land have rushed in its madness against the buckler of the Almighty? In any case, Elisha’s mission would have been a failure. A prophet, jeered at and hooted by the lads at the gate of a city, could not have effected much good within its walls. Looked at in this way there was both wisdom and mercy in the prompt action that nipped rebellion in the bud. The flood of impiety that might have covered the land was arrested. Its grave was dug in the judgment which fell so swiftly upon that tumultuous throng; and the heart of Israel, and of Bethel also, was awed as these “forty and two” were carried to the tomb, and as the tidings of their swift destruction sped from tribe to tribe.

I desire an explanation of the inferiority of Ham’s descendants. If, before the call of Abraham, humanity was one vast stream with neither Jew nor Gentile, how do Ham’s descendants come to be inferior? Seeing that God Himself cursed no man, I really doubt if He would allow drunken Noah to pronounce a curse to ruin a man and his descendants for life.

I think it will not do for us to ascribe to a “drunken Noah” the wonderful program laid down in the book of Genesis. The prophecy has been too accurately fulfilled to allow for any such treatment of it. The tenth chapter of Genesis has been pronounced by able scholars as containing more important matters than many a bulky volume. The first five verses give us the names of the seven sons of Japheth and the descendants of two of them; the next, and by far the longest section, verses 6 to 20, informs us of the four sons of Ham and the nations which sprang from them, including the Canaanites; while the third and closing section is devoted to the five sons of Shem, with their posterity.

According to good authorities there is ground for believing that the words “Ham abi” (Ham the father of), had been omitted from the text preceding the word Canaan in the sentence which says, “God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant” (Genesis 9:27). With these words supplied it would read, “and Ham the father of Canaan shall be his servant.” Dr. H. Grattan Guinness in an old work, entitled, The Divine Program of the World’s History, reviews at length the history of the ancient races and sums up the matter as follows: The Hamitic races lost all rule and empire twenty-five centuries ago; they now count for nothing among the powers of the world. The Semitic races were never greatly enlarged—never great conquerors, save for a short period in the Saracenic era. They have ruled the world by another weapon than the sword; they rule it still, and will rule it forever—religiously. The Japhetic races are, and have for over 2,000 years been, supreme among the children of men. The round globe itself is the only measure of their enlargement. They influence even China and Japan and the vast expanses of Central Asia and Central Africa. The North Pole and the South alike are visited by them. They girdle the globe with submarine cables, cross its continents with their railways, and its oceans with their steamships, carry their commerce to its most distant shores, and force the unwilling heathen into friendly intercourse. Moreover, they dwell in the tents of Shem both spiritually and physically; they share by faith the blessings of Abraham’s covenant, and they occupy and influence lands once occupied by Semitic peoples. Is not all this fulfilled prophecy on the grandest of scales? The entire ethnological development of the posterity of Noah foreseen and foretold when as yet the patriarch himself still lived! Did he guess how all this prolonged future would turn out? Was it by chance he assigned these widely different destinies to the descendants of his three sons? How came he to make no mistake? If Moses puts these words into his lips, why did he delineate a future absolutely contrary to every indication of his times? Why did he not make Noah assign supremacy to Ham, seeing, as he did, Hamitic empires all around him? Why did he not assign enlargement to Shem, and, as he knew little of Japheth, put the servitude down to his account? It would have seemed to human foresight a much more likely outline of the future. But no. Moses had nothing to do with the prophecy save as an editor. Noah had nothing to do with it save as an utterer. God Himself was and must have been its Author; and the second father of the human race was and must have been one of the “holy men of old,” who “spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” When did the Herod the who reigned when Christ was born? The death of Herod the Great took place during the year of our Lord’s birth, which according to our common chronology Isaiah 4 B.C.

What was the meaning of Jephthah’s vow? The story of Jephthah’s vow is recorded in Judges 11:30-40. It has been the subject of much discussion. We quote from John Urquhart: Did Jephthah intend to offer a human sacrifice to God, and did he really slay and present his own child as a burnt offering? It is quite true that heathen rites had everywhere made the world familiar with such atrocities; and it is not to be wondered at that for the first eleven centuries of the Christian era both Jews and Gentiles should rush to the conclusion that Jephthah had considered himself bound by his oath to commit such an abomination. The Targum of Jonathan says, for example: “A man may not offer son or daughter for a burnt offering, as did Jephthah the Gileadite, and did not consult Phinehas the priest; and if he had consulted Phinehas the priest, he would have redeemed her.” Similar references are found in early Christian writers. But the question is not how the Scripture has been interpreted, but rather how it ought to be interpreted, and when we read this passage with due care, we shall find it impossible, I think, to approve of the older interpretations.

Let us recall the facts. Israel had gone deeply into idolatry, but, taught by bitter experience, “they put away the strange gods from among them, and served the Lord” (10:16). Now let it be remembered that the law had emphatically expressed God’s utter abhorrence of human sacrifices. “Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God: for every abomination to the Lord, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it” (Deuteronomy 12:31). Is it credible, then, that at a time when Israel had returned in penitent grief and with eager cleansing of the land from heathen pollutions, Jephthah would have perpetrated such a crime? His daughter and her companions bewailed her virginity for the space of two months. During that time the tidings of the national hero’s intention must have gone all over the land. Let me ask again, Is it conceivable that, even though Jephthah, under some mistaken notion as to the sacredness of his vow, had resolved to present his daughter as a burnt offering, Israel would have looked on in silence? Would a people eager to please God have suffered the deed to be done? The longer the matter is looked at in this light, the more impossible will it be to believe that such a sacrifice was offered. But one passage, which has received too little attention, sweeps this notion entirely away. We read: “And it was a custom in Israel, that the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year” (verses 39,40). The word rendered “lament” does not bear that meaning. It means on the contrary, “to praise,” “to celebrate” (which is the translation in the Revised Version), or “commemorate.” Four days a year the Israelitish maidens celebrated this incident in their nation’s history. Is it credible that such a place would have been given to the praise and the celebration of one of the darkest deeds which man had ever perpetrated? Let us for the moment say with the critics that the people’s thought was being only gradually purged from such terrible conceptions of what was pleasing to God; can we even then conceive that after ages would have labored to keep alive the recollection of such a fearful deed? Where, in that case, would be the onward development which critics would substitute for the Law and the Gospel? On the face of it, this annual celebration can only mean that Israel saw nothing wrong in Jephthah’s offering, but found in it rather matter for high and sacred and long-continued national approval.

It is quite in keeping with this that there is not a trace of blood in the narrative. So much is this the case that writers speak of the Scripture “drawing a vail” over the transaction. But why should it draw a vail over this, when it tells the story so unreservedly? It is surely more natural to conclude that there was no vail to draw, and that there is not a trace of blood in the narrative for the simple reason that there was none in the transaction.

“But wherein, then, lay Jephthah’s surrender and his daughter’s self-sacrifice? To answer that question a word or two will suffice. The Law had provided for a case like this. In Leviticus 27:1-8 we read: “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for the Lord by thy estimation. And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary; and if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels,” etc. But there were, no doubt, cases in which redemption was not to be thought of, and this was one of them. Was there, then, any place for the devoted one in God’s service? It will be remembered that Samuel was devoted before his birth; and, when Hannah came with the child to Eli, the high priest, she was apparently doing a quite customary thing. There was no question in her mind as to the child’s being received for the service of the tabernacle. The offering of women for the same service was also a custom in Israel from the time the tabernacle was made till Israel’s last temple was destroyed. In Exodus 38:8 we are told that Bezaleel “made the laver of brass, and the foot of it of brass, of the looking-glasses of the women assembling, which assembled at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.” The word translated “assembling” means “serving.” It is applied in Numbers 4:23, and elsewhere, to the service of the priests in the tabernacle. The giving up of the mirrors by these women was an expression of their consecration. These were things they had no further use for. The elaborate dressing of the hair, and the adornment of the person, were for them things of a past to which they were not to return. That their service was spiritual, and not menial, we may gather from the reference to Anna, in Luke 2:37 : She “departed not from the temple, but served with fastings and prayers night and day.” Here also the word refers to sacred service, and is the New Testament equivalent for the word used in Numbers.

But, it may be asked, if this was all that Jephthah’s vow brought down upon his daughter, how can we explain his grief? It will be observed that Jephthah’s judgeship has several very peculiar features. There is no direct divine commission to deliver Israel. Jephthah is ambitious, and his ambition has all the intensity of a fire that has been damped down for a time, and then suddenly stirred. Wronged before his birth by others’ sin, he suffered additional injury from his brethren. They refuse him any share in the family possessions, and drive him from his home. And now the elders of Gilead come and beg him to take the supreme command of the Israelitish forces. Jephthah does what no previous judge had done save Abimelech: he makes a bargain with his afflicted brethren. “And Jephthah said unto the elders of Gilead, If ye bring me home again to fight against the children of Ammon, and the Lord deliver them before me, shall I be your head? And the elders of Gilead said unto Jephthah, The Lord be witness between us, if we do not according to thy words. Then Jephthah went with the elders of Gilead, and the people made him head and captain over them: and Jephthah uttered all his words before the Lord in Mizpeh” (11:9-11). This was plainly an attempt to found a royal house in Israel; and the attempt was frustrated by the unforeseen result of his vow. “And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter. And it came to pass when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back” (verses 34,35). The reader will note where the emphasis is put by the Scripture. “She was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.” With her consecration to the tabernacle service, the hope with which Jephthah had been so busy in these last days was suddenly cut down to the ground. The hope of establishing a royal house that should put to shame the houses of the men who had wronged him was now a vain dream. His honors would perish with him.

If anything further were needed to show that this is the right reading of this incident, it would be found in the burden of his daughter’s sorrow. She asks to be left alone for a couple of months—not that she may bid farewell to life and to all that makes it dear—but to bewail her “virginity.” She sorrows over the extinction of her father’s house, and his hope of a posterity that would wear his newly-acquired glory (The New Biblical Guide). In what period of Church history would you place the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus?

Jerusalem was destroyed by the Roman armies under Titus in the year A.D. 70. The beginning of the Church was in A.D. 30 with the descent of the Holy Spirit ten days after the ascension of our Lord. Thus the destruction of Jerusalem was 40 years after the birth of the Church.

InJob 1:8the Lord says of Job: “There is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man.” Does the Lord mean that Job had no sin at all? And inJob 27:6, Job says: “My righteousness I hold fast, and will not let it go.” Was Job self-righteous? If he was, did he have a right to be self-righteous? Some think it was all right for Job to be self-righteous, since he had no sin and was perfect and upright. I should like to have this explained.

Job was a wonderful man, but he was not sinless, “for there is no difference: for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:22-23). It is true that Job, in defending himself from the insinuations of his three friends, went pretty far in what you call self-righteousness. But when Jehovah appeared to him Job confessed, saying, “I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes” (Job 42:5-6).

Please explainJob 19:25-27. Is Job here prophesying of the Second Coming of Christ and the bodily resurrection?

Yes. That is not to say that Job fully understood the matter: the prophets were often ignorant as to the true meaning of the messages they delivered (1 Peter 1:10-12). But certainly the Second Coming of Christ and the resurrection of the body are included in Job’s prophecy. Did Jonah the in tzhe belly of the fish (Jonah 1:17;Jonah 2:2)? Is there any word in the original translation to signify that he actually died? Is it not just a type of the death and burial of the Lord Jesus Christ? For Christ said, “As Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s beDy; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:40); and then inJohn 3:14-15, He points to the serpent in the wilderness as a type of Himself—”As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up.” Are these not figures, speaking to us of the death and burial of our Lord?

There is much difference of opinion concerning this matter of Jonah among enlightened Bible students. The word translated “hell” in Jonah 2:2 is Sheol; and this is the word employed in the Old Testament for the place where the dead go. It is the equivalent of Hades in the New Testament. There is no doubt about Jonah’s experience being a type of the death and burial and resurrection of our Lord, and if Jonah really died, as I believe he did, and then was brought to life again, it would make the type all the more striking.

Unquestionably also, the serpent in the wilderness was a type, setting forth the saving power of Christ in His death on the cross. Did Jonah write a Psalm while in the belly of the fish? and, if he did, where is it to be found in the Bible?

Jonah did not write a Psalm while in the fish’s belly. His own statement of the matter is that he prayed unto Jehovah his God out of the fish’s belly; and his prayer, written (presumably by him) after his deliverance, and which reads much like a Psalm, is recorded in the second chapter of the book bearing his name.

What was the name of Jonah’s father? and what does it mean?

Jonah was the son of Amittai, according to 2 Kings 14:25 and Jonah 1:1. Amittai is Hebrew for “truth,” or “truth-telling.”

What is the meaning of Jonah’s name?

Jonah is the Hebrew word for “dove.” Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary suggests a likeness between the dove seeking rest when released from the ark of Noah and Jonah seeking rest when thrown overboard from the boat. Will you kindly explainJoshua 10:12-13? It says the sun stood still. Does the sun move? Are we not taught that the earth moves around the sun?

It is supposed that the true meaning of Joshua 10:12-13 is, that the sun and moon “stood still” with reference to their relation to the earth. It is a fact admitted by astronomers that the sun and moon both move, although the sun does not move around the earth, as it seems to do. It is only that daylight was lengthened by the sun and earth maintaining for a longer time than usual the relative positions required for such a result.

Please give us your thought as to the reason (if this can be known) for the call of Judas. The “reason for the call of Judas” is a question, I think, which is beyond our knowledge. No doubt God had a righteous reason for all that He did with reference to Judas, including, of course, his call, but, so far as I know, that reason is not revealed in Scripture, unless the revelation be in the words of our Lord recorded in John 13:18 : “I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.” Of course this answer does not go far enough to satisfy our questioning minds, but I know of nothing on the point which does go far enough. Was Judas, one of the twelve, converted at any time?

Judas was never born again. He was always “the son of perdition.” The Lord Jesus Himself called Judas a devil in John 6:70. The word is not “demon” but “devil” (diabolos). Apart from Satan, Judas is the only one to have this term applied to him in Scripture. The word so often translated “devils” should always be rendered “demons.”

Why did Jesus not pray for Judas the same as He prayed for Peter after he fell? Could Judas ever have repented and have been forgiven as Peter was? Or was Judas a victim of prophecy in that someone had to be chosen to betray and sell the Lord Jesus, as the shadow of the cross had fallen aslant Eden’s gate many years before? Why could not Judas have been saved, too?

Peter was a believer, but Judas was never a believer. Judas was all the time “the son of perdition” (John 17:12), and the Lord Jesus actually called him “a devil” (John 6:70-71). He was a free moral agent, but he chose of his own free will to reject the Son of God; and while it is true that through him the Lord Jesus was “delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God,” it is also true that “by wicked hands” He was betrayed and “crucified and slain” (Acts 2:23). There is without controversy great mystery in all this, but we may depend upon it that “the Judge of all the earth” has done right in it all (Genesis 18:25). Will you please reconcileMatthew 27:5withActs 1:18with reference to the death of Judas?

If you will read the two verses together with their contexts, I think the difficulty will clear up: “And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed . .. And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter’s field, to bury strangers in.” Thus “this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity.” After departing from the temple Judas “went and hanged himself, and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; and gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed me.” Matthew 27:3-10 and Acts 1:18-20 include all that is contained in the two passages on the subject. In your opinion did Lazarus suffer physical death a second time? InHebrews 9:27it is written that “it is appointed unto men once to die.” I somehow feel that Lazarus was translated after the Lord’s ascension. Do you think I am right?

Well, I myself “somehow feel” that you may be right, but I also “somehow feel” that you may be wrong. I wish I knew. It would seem that once is quite enough for any saved man to die, and I am indulging the hope that I may be among those who shall be excused from even that appointment (Hebrews 9:27); but as to what happened to Lazarus, your opinion is as good as mine, and that means it is no good at all. Who are the four living creatures in Revelation 4? The living creatures of Revelation 4 (not “beasts” as in A.V.) are doubtless the same as in Ezekiel 1, and, as pointed out by Dr. Scofield, “are identical with the Cherubim. The subject is somewhat obscure, but from the position of the Cherubim at the gate of Eden, upon the cover of the Ark of the Covenant, and in Revelation 4, it is clearly gathered that they have to do with the vindication of the holiness of God as against the presumptuous pride of sinful man who, despite his sin, would ‘put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life’ (Genesis 3:22-24). Upon the Ark of the Covenant, of one substance with the Mercy Seat, they saw the sprinkled blood which, in type, spoke of the perfect maintenance of the divine righteousness by the sacrifice of Christ (Exodus 25:17-20; Romans 3:24-26, notes). The living creatures (or Cherubim) appear to be actual beings of the angelic order. Compare Isaiah 6:2, note. The Cherubim or living creatures are not identical with the Seraphim (Isaiah 6:2-7). They appear to have to do with the holiness of God as outraged by sin; the Seraphim with uncleanness in the people of God. The passage in Ezekiel is highly figurative, but the effect was the revelation to the prophet of the Shekinah glory of the Lord. Such revelations are connected invariably with new blessing and service. Compare Exodus 3:2-10; Isaiah 6:1-10; Daniel 10:5-14; Revelation 1:12-19” (Scofield Reference Bible, page 840, footnote 1). It ought to be pointed out in this connection that in the song of Revelation 5:8-10, in which the living creatures join with the four and twenty elders, the pronoun “us” in verse 9 (A.V.) does not occur in the text. The living creatures are not among the redeemed. The R.V. has supplied the word “men” in the place of “us.” Whom does Lot’s wife typify inLuke 17:32? The context shows that she typifies those who start to flee from judgment but turn back and are overcome by it. This is exactly what Lot’s wife did (Genesis 19:26). Lot himself was a justified believer, as shown by 2 Peter 2:7-8, and therefore his life was saved when Sodom was destroyed; but his wife was an unbeliever, and she went out of Sodom only a short distance, following “behind him.” Her heart was really in Sodom all the time, and therefore the judgment overcame her.

Please explainNehemiah 7:1-3. Has the word “order of Melchisedec” any reference to the way it is used today in speaking of orders? Also, should we emphasize his being a type of Christ as to verse 3? The word “order” used in connection with Melchisedec has nothing whatever to do with the use of the word in connection with present-day organizations often called orders. Our Lord is at the head of a new priesthood. The old priesthood was in the tribe of Levi. Jesus was descended, according to the flesh, from Judah; so the order of Aaron was displaced by the order of Melchisedec. Melchisedec is a wonderful type of Christ, and the type is unfolded in the opening verses of Hebrews 7, including, certainly, the third verse. It is held by some that Melchisedec was Christ Himself in one of His pre-incarnate manifestations. But this cannot be true, for if it were true it could not be said of Melchisedec that he was “made like unto the Son of God.” He was not the Son of God himself, but he was “made like unto” Him. Is Michael, mentioned inDaniel 10:21, the Lord Jesus?

No. In Judges 9 we read that “Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.” Michael called upon the Lord to rebuke Satan, but Jesus is the Lord Himself. Thus Michael cannot be the Lord. Who is Michael, and where was the contention spoken of in Judges 9?

Michael is described in Jude as “the archangel,” and in Daniel 12:1 as “the great prince which standeth for the children of thy (Daniel’s) people”; that is, the people of Israel. The contention spoken of in Judges 9 was “about the body of Moses,” and was therefore doubdess “in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Beth-peor” (Deuteronomy 34:6). Who was really Moses’ father-in-law, Raguel, Jethro or Hobab?

Here is one of the “difficulties of Scripture” which disappears when the light of the truth is thrown upon it. It is so with them all.

There is a very enlightening discussion of the problem of Moses’ father-in-law in The New Biblical Guide by John Urquhart, volume 3, page 181, which I pass on to you: The father-in-law of Moses is called in Exodus 2:18, Reuel, or more correctly Raguel. But in chapter 3:1, we read that “Moses kept the flock of Jediro his father-in-law.” The same name is repeated in 4:18: “And Moses went and returned to Jediro his father-in-law.” Now this might have given us trouble enough even if it had stood alone; but it does not stand alone. In Numbers 10:29, we read: “And Moses said unto Hobab, the son of Raguel the Midianite, Moses’ father-in-law, We are journeying,” etc. Here a third name is introduced. It is quite true that the phrase “Moses’ father-in-law” might be understood as referring to Raguel the Midianite and not to Hobab. No one could say that we might not read the passage in that way. But that device would not help us much; for in Judges 4:11, we read that Heber the Kenite was “of the children of Hobab the father-in-law of Moses.”

Here, then, is a glaring difficulty, and it was only to be expected that the most would be made of it. A great German critic (Eichhorn) thought there must have been two writers of Exodus, the one of whom believed that Raguel was Moses’ father-in-law and the other who was equally confident that it was Jediro’s daughter whom Moses had married. A very minor English critic (Wilson) thought that the German had not gone far enough. He wrote, “Three different writers gave varying accounts, and the compiler of the Pentateuch implicitly followed his original documents,” because “not any single writer would throw such uncertainty about his subject.” Nor were those who maintained that the Pentateuch was the work of Moses quite clear as to the explanation. It often happens so, and then our varying explanations make the difficulty still greater. The Jews had noticed the difference in the names long ago, but they held that they were only different names of the same person. Jethro, according to them, had seven names, so that the case might easily have been worse and yet have had a very simple explanation. That solution, however, will hardly satisfy an English reader. He would ask for some proof, and would besides remember that, while Jethro takes his leave of Moses and returns to his own people, Hobab remains, and finally settles with the Israelites in Canaan. It is quite clear that we are dealing with persons and not with names merely. Others explained that the name was Raguel, and that “Jethro” was not a name but an official title, meaning “his excellency.” This might have swept Jethro away, but Hobab still remained, and it was plain that that explanation helped as litde as the other. And yet the solution was very simple. The trouble was caused not by the Bible but by its translators. The word rendered “father-in-law” is khothen, which seems to have been applied to any relation by marriage. Kalisch makes the astounding statement: “this meaning of Khothen is, with certainty, not found in any passage of the Bible.” That from a Rabbi, who, if he knew anything, ought to have known his Hebrew Bible, looks as if it setded the matter. But the reader will see what dependence is to be sometimes placed upon learning. In Genesis 19:12, we read that the angels said to Lot: “Hast diou here any besides? Son-in-law,” etc.; and again in verse 14, “and Lot went out, and spake unto his sons-in-law, who married his daughters.” The word in each case is the same that is applied to Jethro and Hobab, and here, undoubtedly, it has the meaning of “son-in-law.” But, more astonishing still, it is used in Exodus 4:25-26, in the sense of “husband.” Zipporah exclaims: “a bloody husband art diou to me.” It is quite true that the Jews have made two words out of one by supplying them with different vowel-points; but these vowel-points were not in use till several centuries after the beginning of the Christian era, and are only a Jewish comment. The word which Moses penned was in every case the same. He wrote each time the same diree characters, in the same order, and like the corresponding word in Arabic and Syriac, it means any relation by marriage. Raguel was Moses’ Khothen or Khathan, because Moses had married his daughter. But to Jediro and to Hobab the same term equally applied because Moses had married their sister. In the same way Moses was the Khathan of Zipporah because he was her husband.

Kindly tell me who the Nicolaitanes are mentioned inRevelation 2:6? The term is probably symbolic. It comes from Nihos, ruler or conqueror, and loos, the people. The Nicolaitanes then would be the original introducers of priestcraft into the churches. The whole Church is made up of an equal brotherhood of priests, but it has been divided into “clergy” and “laity,” which is a grievous error, and “which thing,” the risen Lord says, “I hate.” In Ezeldel 14:14 Noah, Daniel, and Job are cited as typical righteous men. Why more than Moses, Joseph, Samuel, and others?

I take it that Noah, Daniel and Job are mentioned only as samples of a large company of men who might have been mentioned. But it did not please the Lord to mention the whole list all at once.

Why were the tribes of Joseph and Levi put into the list of Revelation 7 and Dan and Ephraim left out? The tribe of Joseph is the same as the tribe of Ephraim. Joseph was Ephraim’s father, and there were two half tribes in his family, namely, Ephraim and Manasseh; so Ephraim is not left out, but appears in the list under the name of Joseph.

Levi is included, because Levi was one of the twelve tribes. The only tribe omitted is the tribe of Dan. Dan was the first of the tribes to apostasize. Please read Judges 17, 18, and see how the tribe of Dan departed from God, departed from their own country, and set up a religion of their own, which was a system of idolatry. This may be the reason for Dan’s exclusion from the list of the sealed remnant in Revelation 7. The name “Dan” means “judge.” If you will turn to Genesis 49 where we have Jacob’s dying blessing bestowed upon his sons, you will find the promise in the 16th and 17th verses concerning Dan, that he “shall judge his people, as one of the tribes of Israel.” So it appears that in the final manifestation of the kingdom the tribe of Dan will be restored to its place. Was the apostle Paul a married man?

It is evident that Paul was a widower. That he had been married appears from the fact that before his conversion he was a member of the Sanhedrin, voting as such for the condemnation and execution of the early Christians (Acts 26:10, R.V.), and to be a member of the Sanhedrin, as all agree, it was necessary to have a wife. That his wife had died in the meantime is shown by his words in 1 Corinthians 7:8, where he says “to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I” (compare also 1 Corinthians 9:5; 1 Corinthians 9:15). When Paul took the Jewish vow as recorded inActs 21:18-26was he not carrying out the spirit of1 Corinthians 9:19-23?

Very likely that was his motive, but Acts 21:4 shows that Paul was forbidden to go to Jerusalem at all, and it is therefore evident that he was out of the Lord’s will. Does not2 Corinthians 11:24mean that Paul was beaten five times with thirty-nine stripes each time? Or might it mean that he had four times received forty stripes, and a lesser number in the fifth beating? If he received thirty-nine stripes five times, can you tell me why he received each time one stripe short of the maximum number allowed inDeuteronomy 25:3?

I have no doubt that what Paul means to tell us is that he was beaten five times with thirty-nine stripes each time. And I suppose that thirty-nine stripes became the rule rather than forty in order always to avoid going beyond forty. That is to say, playing safe, so to speak, so that the legal number should not by any means be exceeded.

What did our Lord mean by His question to Peter, “Lovest thou me more than these?”

He meant, “Do you love me more than these other men love me?” Peter’s backsliding began by his claiming just that (Matthew 26:33). His replies to the Lord’s queries in John 21 showed that all his boastfulness was gone. When did Peter use the keys mentioned inMatthew 16:19? If he has not already used them, will he not use them when the Kingdom is ushered in?

He has already used them, and all of them. As the authorized spokesman for the risen Lord, he used the first key in Acts 2, when he declared that the door was open to the children of Israel; the second key in Acts 8, when he joined with John in laying hands upon the Samaritan believers, thus showing that the Samaritans (who were, strictly speaking, neither Jews nor Gentiles, but a hybrid mixture of both) were eligible; and the third in Acts 10, when he brought the first Gospel message to a Gentile audience, announcing that “WHOSOEVER believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” Since that time there has been no further use of keys. The door stands wide open for “whosoever will.” Do you believe the Bible teaches whether or not Peter was “born again” before his denial? Please explainLuke 22:32in that light. To me it is clear from Matthew 16:16 that Simon Peter was a born-again man when he fell into a backslidden state and denied his Lord. Through it all he never stopped believing that Jesus was the Christ the Son of God, for his Lord had prayed for Him that his faith fail not. From Luke 24:34 it appears that there was an interview between Simon Peter and his Lord early on the resurrection day. It was no doubt at that interview that Peter was restored to fellowship through confession, according to the method pointed out for backslidden children of God in 1 John 1:9.

Why did the Lord Jesus ask Peter three times, “Lovest thou me?”(John 21).

Probably because Peter’s denial had been direefold: in order to bring about Peter’s full restoration, the threefold open denial must be balanced by the threefold open confession. How precious it is to observe that the Lord never stopped until His servant’s restoration to fellowship and service was complete, and He could say, “Feed my sheep!”

Please explainMatthew 16:18, “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.” The storm of conflict raging about this passage largely turns upon the question as to what our Lord Jesus meant to signify by the word “rock.” Peter is the English equivalent for the Greek word, “petrvs,” meaning a stone; while “rock” is “petra” in the Greek. In the original text this distinction is made—‘Thou art Petros, and upon this petra I will build my church.” The whole fabric of the Papacy rests upon the Roman interpretation of this passage, by which it is claimed—

First—That the rock was Peter himself. The Romanist commentators point out that our Lord spoke not Greek but Syriac or Aramaic, and that in the language employed by Him there is but one word for a stone and a rock, namely, “cepha.” Thus the declaration would read, ‘Thou art Cepha, and upon this cepha I will build my church.” They also claim

Second—That the fact that Peter is the rock upon which the Church is built, together with the further fact that to Peter were delivered the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven—that these facts establish the primacy of Peter among the Aposdes. And the still further claim is made

Third—That the primacy of Peter has descended to his successors in office as Bishop of Rome. In short, that Peter was the first Pope and that all the Popes are fully authorized as his successors by the declaration of the Lord Jesus in Matthew 16.

Among the Protestant commentators there is no intelligible consensus. By some it is claimed that by the expression “this rock” is meant Christ Himself. It is suggested that perhaps the Lord Jesus, while speaking, laid His hand on His own breast (as when He said, “Destroy this temple,” meaning the temple of His body John 2:19).

Others, by “this rock” understand Peter’s confession of faith. By these it is pointed out that Peter’s confession—”Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”—is the great truth upon which the Church rests; and that Christ had this in mind when He spoke to Peter, as if He had said, “This is that great truth upon which I will build my church.”

Without assuming any knowledge beyond that of our brethren, and without any desire to be wise above what is written, let us seek to discover, as the Spirit of truth may be pleased to guide us, whatever God has revealed in the Scriptures, bearing upon the interpretation of this passage. Surely, it cannot be possible that God has left such important questions obscure and incapable of solution as are presented to us here. Remembering, then, that these tilings of the Spirit cannot be searched out by the natural man, and relying upon our divine Guide to lead us into the truth, let us examine the testimony of the Word of God as it relates to the portion before us. The Church’s One Foundation

First—We are not for a moment left in doubt as to the foundation of the Church. “Other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:11). This is He of whom it is written in Isaiah 28:16 “Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious comer-stone of sure foundation.” It was this same Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, who, speaking of his ascended Lord, in Acts 4:11-12, said, “He is the stone, which was set at nought of you the builders, which was made the head of the corner. And in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven that is given among men, wherein we must be saved.” And it was Peter again, who, in his First Epistle, referring to the passage from Isaiah, quoted above, wrote of the Lord Jesus, “Unto whom coming, a living stone, rejected indeed of men, but with God elect, precious, ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Because it is contained in Scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion a chief comer-stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be put to shame. For unto you therefore that believe is the preciousness: but for such as disbelieve, the stone which the builders rejected, the same was made the head of the comer; and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense” (1 Peter 2:4-8, R.V.). The rock is used as a symbol of Christ many times in the Scriptures, as, for example, in 1 Corinthians 10:4, and doubtless also in Matthew 7:24-25 and Luke 6:48. We may, therefore, count it settled that “The Church’s one Foundation Is Jesus Christ, her Lord.

She is His new creation By water and theWord. From Heaven He came and sought her, To Be His holy Bride; With His own blood He bought her, And for her life He did.”

Second—Nor is there any slightest question as to the Head of the Church.

God has raised His Son from the dead, and made Him to sit at His right hand in the heavenlies, far above all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in that which is to come; and He has put all things in subjection under His feet, and given Him to be Head over all things to the Church, which is His body, the fullness of Him that fills all in all (Ephesians 1:20-23). The Spirit of God declares unto us, in Ephesians 4:8-16, that the whole purpose of gifts in the Church is that we may grow up in all things into Him, who is the Head, even Christ; from whom all the body fitly framed and knit together, through that which every joint supplieth, according to the working in due measure of each several part, makes the increase of the body unto the building up of itself in love. That Christ is the Head of the Church is repeated in Ephesians 5:23 and Colossians 1:18, while in Colossians 2:18-19 we are warned against those teachers who fail to give Him that place.

Third—And yet, in spite of all that we have so far discovered, it still seems to be only fair and honest to conclude that when Jesus said, ‘Thou art a stone, and upon this rock I will build my church,” He meant us to understand that by the rock, as well as the stone, He meant Peter himself. Any other conclusion makes our Lord’s words, Thou art Peter,” to mean nothing and to have no connection with what follows.

Indeed, it seems very clear that if we had our Lord’s words in the language in which He spoke them, we should find no difference between the word translated Peter and the word rendered rock. This at least is the view maintained by many of the private translators of the New Testament. Dr. Young’s Bible Translation makes the disputed passage read, “Thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my assembly.”

Wakefield reads it, “Thou art truly named Peter, and upon this very stone I will build my church.”

George Campbell renders it, ‘Thou art named Rock, and on the rock I will build my church.”

Taylor’s New Testament has the word “Rock” in brackets, reading thus, ‘Thou art Peter [Rock], and upon this rock I will build my church.” The Emphatic Diaglott reads, ‘Thou art a rock, and on this rock I will build my church.”

Samuel Sharpe also employs the brackets, reading, “Thou art Peter [or a rock], and on this rock I will build my church.”

Andrews Norton shares the same view, for his translation reads, “You are, as I have named you, a rock, and on this rock I will build my church.”

Charles Thomson is very emphatic, rendering these words, “Thou art named Peter (a rock), and upon this very rock I will build my church.” And the Twentieth Century New Testament reading is, ‘Tour name is ‘Peter’—a rock, and on this rock I will build my church.” This conclusion does not at all affect the former one that Christ is the Foundation of the Church. In Ephesians 2:20, the Church is represented as being built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the chief Comer-stone. In the description of the Bride, the Lamb’s Wife, in Revelation 21, it is written that the city wall has twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb. Now Peter was the first of the Apostles of the Lamb who was gathered as a living stone unto Christ the great Living Stone. The building began, after Christ Himself, with Peter. He was the first stone to be laid upon the great underlying Foundation, which is Jesus Christ. Therefore, Jesus could say to Peter, as He did say, “Upon this rock I will build my church.”

Even to this day, whenever an important building is to be erected, the first thing to be done, after the foundation is completed, is to lay what we call the comer-stone. This is not the kind of comer-stone the New Testament uses as a figure of Christ, for the comer-stone in mat case supports the whole building. But the importance attached to the modern comer-stone consists in the fact that it is the first stone to be laid after the substructure is completed. Otherwise, it is no more important than the stones at the other comers, but because it is the very first stone in the superstructure we lay it with public ceremonies and give it a place of honor. In a sense, the whole building is built upon it, for the building begins with it. This is what Peter is in the Church. He is not and he never was a Pope. There is not a scrap of evidence that he was ever Bishop of Rome. He is a brother in a common brotherhood, though he was the first to enter that brotherhood. The Romanist premise does not lead to the Romanist conclusion.

Peter himself, by the Holy Spirit, has once and forever disposed of all the pretensions of the Papal hierarchy, falsely made in his name. Hear him as he speaks in 1 Peter 5:1-4 : ‘The elders therefore among you I exhort, who am a fellow-elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, who am also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed. Tend the flock of God which is among you, exercising the oversight, not of constraint, but willingly, according to the will of God; nor yet for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as lording it over the charge allotted to you, but making yourselves examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall be manifested, ye shall receive the crown of glory that fadeth not away.”

Fourth—As to Peter’s successors, he has none. There is not the slightest ground here for the doctrine of Apostolic Succession. Christ has no Vicegerent on the earth and needs none, for He Himself is present with His Church—He never leaves her nor forsakes her. As for the priesmood in the Church, there can be no separate order of priests, for the Church is a royal priesmood; every believer is a priest having full access into the holy of holies, where God dwells (See Hebrews 10:19-25).

Dean Alford, in his Greek Testament for English Readers, says: The name Peter (not now first given, but prophetically bestowed by our Lord on His first interview with Simon, John 1:42), or Cephas, signifying a rock, the termination being only altered from Petra to Petros to suit the masculine appellation, denotes the personal position of this Apostle in the building of the Church of Christ. He was the first of those foundation stones (Revelation 21:14) on which the living Temple of God was built: this building itself beginning on the day of Pentecost by the laying of diree thousand living stones on this very foundation. That this is the simple and only interpretation of the words of our Lord, the whole usage of the New Testament shows: in which not doctrines nor confessions, but men, are uniformly the pillars and stones of the spiritual building. See 1 Peter 2:4-6; 1 Timothy 3:15 (where the pillar is not Timothy, but the congregation of the faithful) and note: Galatians 2:9; Ephesians 2:20; Revelation 3:12. And it is on Peter, as by divine revelation making this confession as thus under the influence of the Holy Ghost, as standing out before the Apostles in the strengdi of this faidi, as himself founded on the one foundation, Jesus Christ, 1 Corinthians 3:11—that the Jewish portion of the Church was built, Acts 2-5, and the Gentile, Acts 10, 11. After this last event, we hear little of him, but during this, the first building time, he is never lost sight of: see especially Acts 1:15; Acts 2:14; Acts 2:37; Acts 3:12; Acts 4:8; Acts 5:15; Acts 5:29; Acts 9:34; Acts 9:40; Acts 10:25-26.

We may certainly exclaim with Bengel, “All this may be said with safety; for what has this to do with Rome?’ Nothing can be further from any legitimate interpretation of this promise than the idea of a perpetual primacy in the successors of Peter; the very notion of succession is precluded by the form of the comparison, which concerns the person, and him only, so far as it involves a direct promise. In its other and general sense, as applying to all those living stones (Peter’s own expression for members of Christ’s Church) of whom the Church should be built, it implies, as Origen excellendy comments on it, saying, that all this must be understood as said not only to Peter, as in the letter of the Gospel, but to every one who is such as Peter here showed himself, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches us. The application of the promise to St. Peter has been elaborately impugned by Dr. Wordsworth. His zeal to appropriate the rock to Christ has somewhat overshot itself. In arguing that the term can apply to none but God, he will find it difficult surely to deny all reference to a rock in the name Peter. To me, it is equally difficult, nay, impossible, to deny all reference in “upon this rock,” to the preceding word Peter. Let us keep to the plain, straightforward sense of Scripture, however that sense may have been misused by Rome. (Vol. 1, part 1, page 119.)

InActs 8:12we read that when the Samaritans “believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” Just what did Philip preach?

He preached the same message as the Lord Jesus had preached to Nicodemus in John 3 : “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (verses 3, 17,18). The Kingdom of God viewed here is the unseen Kingdom, which “comedi not with observation” (Luke 17:20-21). Believers are immediately translated into it when they believe and are born again; in Colossians 1:13 it is called the Kingdom of God’s dear Son, but that is identical with the Kingdom of God in its present unseen form. There is a time coming, however, when the Kingdom will be manifested, and then it will come with observation, and may be seen. ‘Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father” (Matthew 13:43). It is for this manifestation of the sons of God that the whole creation is waiting in earnest expectation (Romans 8:19).

What countries are now wholly or partly occupying the territory of the old Roman Empire?

There was included in the old Roman Empire the whole of North Africa, comprising Egypt, Morocco, etc; Israel and vicinity; Turkey; Balkan States; Austria; Spain; Italy; France; part of the Netherlands; and England as far north as the Cheviot Hills. Is there any reason for believing that Simon, inActs 8:18-24, was not a saved man?

Yes. Peter’s declaration that Simon had “neither part nor lot in this matter” constitutes a very strong reason for believing that Simon’s profession of faith was a false one. Who are the “sons of God” mentioned inGenesis 6:1-4? The reference is to believers who at that time sinned against God by intermarriage with unbelievers. It is held by some that these “sons of God” were angels. But this teaching is contrary to that of our Lord in Matthew 22:30. It has always been a grievous sin among God’s people to intermarry with His enemies, and against this we are expressly warned (2 Corinthians 6:14 to 2 Corinthians 7:1). A postmillennial friend of mine put this question to me: “Why should we be so conceited as to think that our earth is so much more important than any other planet? We are nothing but mere specks in the universe anyhow.” Perhaps you can help me.

“Specks in the universe” is right. The Word of God goes even further than your friend when it says: “Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing. ... All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing and vanity” (Isaiah 40:15-17). And yet for some inexplicable reason, “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everiasting life” (John 3:16). Glory, Hallelujah, Amen! Can you give me any light as to what Paul’s thorn in the flesh was? Some think it was an affliction of the eyes, others think that Paul realized that in his determination to reach the goal to which he was aiming Satan had turned loose the demons of Hell to buffet him. WouldGalatians 6:17have anything to do with this? In Galatians 6:17 Paul says: “From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.” The word “marks” represents the Greek word, stigmata, a word employed to describe a mark incised or punched upon the person of a slave for recognition of ownership. No doubt Paul used this word to refer to the scars of service which he bore upon his body as the result of the many sufferings he had endured. Of course, these might include the thorn in the flesh to which he refers. I am inclined to the belief that he alludes to an affliction of the eyes, resulting perhaps from his awful experience at Lystra where he was stoned and dragged out of the city and left for dead. This conclusion would seem to be logical from a careful study of Acts 14:19-20 and 2 Corinthians 12:1-9, both of which passages evidently refer to the same experience. The language of Galatians 4:13-15 may also be understood as tending to confirm this conclusion.

However, the question you raise is one that cannot be positively answered; it is one of the things that must wait “until the morning.” Will you be kind enough to explain why God allowed Samuel to appear when Saul went to the witch of Endor? Some teachers claim he did not appear—it was only a representation, as the demons do in the present day. But the Bible distinctly says Samuel appeared. Then the witch herself seems not to have expected him—she was so badly frightened. Personally, this does not bother me very much, but whenever I talk with those who believe in spiritism, they always bring up this incident from the Bible. If you can give me a clear explanation, I would be very grateful.

It is true that there is much confusion among Bible teachers on this subject, but I must agree with you that the definite statements that Samuel appeared to the woman, and that he spoke to Saul time and again, force us to the conclusion that it was Samuel himself who appeared and not a representation of Samuel by a demon. It is also true, as you suggest, that the witch herself was badly frightened, because what had actually occurred was far beyond her powers. The keys of Hades are not in a witch’s hands, but He who holds them in His hands did a new thing here and caused Samuel to appear and pronounce the doom of the apostate king. All this, however, gives no biblical warrant for spiritism (see Leviticus 19:31; Leviticus 20:6; Deuteronomy 18:10-12). Who are the cloud of witnesses ofHebrews 12:1?

They are the believers described in the preceding chapter. The word “witnesses” does not signify those who merely look on, though it may include that; but its true meaning is witness-bearers, or those who give testimony. The imagery of the passage is probably that of the amphitheater where the great crowd looks on and sees the gladiators contesting in the arena. In order to get the full meaning, however, we must imagine the great crowd of onlookers made up of those who themselves had at some time in the past been in the arena. They therefore knew from experience what the contest really meant. Was the woman “in the city, which was a sinner,” who anointed the Lord Jesus in the Pharisee’s house, as recorded inLuke 7:36-38, Mary of Bethany, or were there two anointings?

There were two anointings. The woman in Luke 7 is not Mary of Bethany. The anointing of Luke 7 took place in Galilee during the early part of our Lord’s ministry, while the other anointing recorded in Matthew 26:6-13, Mark 14:3-9 and John 12:1-8, took place at Bethany in Judaea very shortly before the crucifixion. It is proper to observe here also that there is no ground for the widespread notion that the woman of Luke 7:37, “which was a sinner,” was Mary of Magdala, out of whom the Lord Jesus cast seven demons. The woman of Luke 7:37 is not named, nor do we know anything of her except what is recorded in connection with her act of devotion in washing her Lord’s feet with her tears and wiping them with the hairs of her head, and then kissing his feet and anointing them with the ointment.

What happened to Zacharias, the priest, father of John the Baptist, for not believing the message of Gabriel? Is it true, as someone has told me, that he was made deaf as well as dumb?

Yes; he was dumb as well as deaf, for when his friends wanted to communicate with him at the end of the period of his dumbness, they “made signs” to ask him about his son’s name (Luke 1:62).