An Interpretation of the English Bible
GENESIS
by B. H. CARROLL
Late President of Southwestern Baptist
Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas
Edited by
J. B. Cranfill
Grand Rapids, Michigan
New and complete edition
Copyright
1948, Broadman Press
Reprinted by Baker Book House
with permission of
Broadman Press
ISBN: 0-8010-2344-0
First Printing, September 1973
PHOTOLITHOPRINTED BY GUSHING - MALLOY, INC.
ANN ARBOR MICHIGAN, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
I Introduction
to an "Interpretation of the English Bible"
II Introductory
Studies – The Old Testament
III Introductory
Studies – The Pentateuch
IV Creation – Part One (1:1-25)
V Creation –
Part Two (1:26-2:3)
VI Man in Paradise
(2:4-25)
VII The
Angels
VIII The Fall
of Man (Chapter 3)
IX Sin
X Cain and
Abel (Chapter 4)
XI Chronology
from Adam to Noah (Chapter 5)
XII Enoch –
His Translation (Chapter 5)
XIII Causes
of the Deluge (6:1-22)
XIV Lessons of
the Flood (Chapter 7)
XV God's
Covenant with Noah (Chapters 8-9)
XVI Origin of
Nations and Languages (10:1-11:9)
XVII Distribution
and Territories of the Nations (10:1-11:9)
XVIII Generations
of Shem and Terah (11:10-32)
XIX The Call
and Migration of Abraham (Chapters 12-13)
XX The
Covenants with Abraham (Part One) (12:1-3; 15:1-21; 17:1-14; 22:1-19)
XXI The
Covenants with Abraham (Part Two) (12:1-3; 15:1-21; 17:1-14; 22:1-19)
XXII Abraham,
Lot, and Melchizedek (Chapter 14)
XXIII Abraham's
Conversion (Part One) (Chapter 15)
XXIV Abraham's
Conversion (Part Two) (15:1-19:28)
XXV The Life of
Abraham (Concluded) (19:29-25:18)
XXVI Isaac and Jacob
(25:19-28:9)
XXVII Jacob's
Conversion and Life in Haran (28:10-31:55)
XXVIII Jacob's
Meeting with Esau (32:1-34:31)
XXIX Jacob,
Joseph, and Others (Chapters 35-41)
XXX Joseph in
Egypt (Chapters 42-45)
XXXI Jacob and
Family Migrate to Egypt (46:1-47:27)
At the time of its publication this set was acclaimed
to constitute "the greatest commentary on the English Bible ever
published" (Baptist and Reflector). It remains to this day a
reliable guide to a thorough understanding of the Scriptures.
This is an excellent set for the preacher who aspires
to be true to the Word and who wishes to enrich his preaching ministry. It is
an invaluable aid for the teacher who seeks to guide his class to a deeper
knowledge and appreciation of God's Revelation to us. It is an ideal set for
any student of the Bible who desires to hear what God has to say to him.
This is more than a commentary. It is rightly called
an interpretation.
An interpretation of the English Bible now makes its appearance in six bindings. All
seventeen of the volumes of the prior printing are included.
The renowned author of this set was a Southern Baptist
preacher educated at Baylor University. After a pastorate at the Baptist Church
at Waco, Texas, he served in succession as Principal of the Bible Department
and Dean and Professor of English Bible at Baylor University, and as President
at South-western Baptist Theological Seminary.
An Interpretation of the English Bible remains a continuing contribution to Bible knowledge
and consistent Christian living. Additional information concerning this
valuable set is found in the General Foreword which follows.
An Interpretation of the English Bible, by Dr. B.H. Carroll, first came from the press of
Fleming H. Revell Company in 1913. Revell's copyright was bought by Broadman
Press in 1942. These volumes were edited by Dr. J. B. Cranfill, assisted by Dr.
J. W. Crowder. In the meantime, it became apparent that the
"Interpretation" was not complete: four volumes were yet needed to
include the whole Bible. Dr. J. W. Crowder had in his possession the material
of these volumes and at our request edited the following: IV, Poetical
Books of the Bible; VI, Divided Kingdom; VII, Prophets
of Assyrian Period; VIII, Prophets of Chaldean Period.
For the first time, therefore, we are able to present the new and complete Interpretation
of the English Bible, in seventeen volumes.
Of course, no one would be presumptuous enough to
attempt to edit the body of Dr. Carroll's work; these volumes are valuable
because of the undisputed position of the author in the minds and hearts of our
Baptist people. We are leaving the long paragraphs as written; we are not
disturbing references incorporating scientific statements which are now out of
date, nor have we made any effort to eliminate repetitions or to bring the
bibliography up-to-date.
As is known by readers of the earlier editions, this
work is an interpretation rather than a commentary in the popular acceptance of
the latter term. In such
interpretation, the author indulges in paraphrasing the biblical text, in
inserting now and then a sermon on a vital subject, and in sharing with his
readers bits of humor which he has picked up along the way. After each chapter
a lengthy list of pertinent questions is appended.
The reader finds Dr. Carroll's knowledge of the Bible
positively amazing, and rejoices in his strict adherence to the objective with
which he started: "We set out not to study human creeds, but the Bible,
and we agreed to let the Bible interpret itself and mean what it wants to
mean."
–
John L. Hill
INTRODUCTION TO AN INTERPRETATION OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE
My theme is a thrilling one – THE ENGLISH BIBLE. The most natural construction
of this topic calls for a history of the Bible in English from the earliest
crude version in this tongue to the latest version, and for a summing up of the
value of these versions in their traceable effect on our language and
literature, on individual character, on the family, the unit of society, on
business and commerce, on national policy, legislation and life, and on world
evangelization, civilization and unity.
A less natural construction allows the more timely discussion of the value of a
thorough study of the whole Bible in English by English-speaking people.
In expressing a preference for this less natural construction of the demands of
the topic, I do not seek to disparage the interesting character and importance
of the discussion as delimited by the first construction. No event in any
nation's history can be more momentous and far-reaching than the giving to them
of the Word of God in their mother tongue and allowing it to be an open book at
every fireside, with no page or promise or precept darkened by the proscriptive
shadow of priest or state. The book is for the people themselves. It is God's
message to man and is addressed in all its sublime simplicity to the individual
heart and conscience, obligating the personal responsibility of private
judgment.
You recall the notable fact at Babel, showing that division of the race into
nations arose from a prior confusion of tongues and not different languages
from a prior division into nations. A common speech is the greatest factor of
unity.
And you will observe also in that other Bible story that Pentecost, by its gift
of many tongues to one set of men, reversed the disintegration of Babel,
prepared the way for breaking down the middle walls of partition which
separated peoples, and rejoiced the hearts of the representatives of every
nation under heaven, who thereby were enabled to hear the Word of God each in
the tongue wherein he was born. And you also recall the apostolic declaration
that whoever speaks in an unknown tongue to another even though he speak the
words of life is unto his hearer as a barbarian. Even a thing without life, a
bugle, a harp, or flute, if it give no distinction in its sounds conveys no
message to the hearer. And when I consider what the English version of the
Bible has wrought, I could not overestimate the greatness of the topic under
this construction. (See 1 Cor. 14:7f.)
On the contrary, I desire to commend as one of the most charming and
instructive classics of our language, "The History of the English
Bible," by Doctor Pattison, of the Rochester Theological Seminary. Every
preacher, every Sunday school teacher, every English-speaking Christian, yea,
every student of our language, would do good to himself by adding to his
library this valuable contribution to our literature. Yet, very weighty are the
reasons which constrain me to adopt the line of discussion suggested by the
less natural construction of the topic.
The Bible in English is valueless unless we study it. Mighty as has been the
influence of this version, that influence has been measured by the study of the
Book. If all the English speaking people had made this version a vade mecum, a
lamp to their feet and the oracle of their counsel, the millennium would be
here now. We have the Book, but do we study it? Do we study it all? Who of use
ver devoted himself to a four years' consecutive course of earnest and
prayerful study of the English Bible, covering all its parts from Genesis to
Revelation, allowing the Book to mean what it wants to mean, and to be, by
comparison of all its parts, its own interpreter?
The idea of the work in this form originated in this way: First, a statement in
a great introductory oration by Dr. Boyce at Greenville, South Carolina, that
the Baptist ministry consists of two kinds – an educated ministry, and a
ministry of educated men – meaning by "an educated ministry" people
in the ministry who had received a college or university education; and meaning
by "a ministry of educated men," men trained for the ministerial
work, whether holding college or university degrees, being thoroughly
disciplined in the truth of the Bible. The history of the denomination shows
that the greatest achievements of the past in Baptist history have been by men
who were educated in the Bible) but not college men. To further explain this
idea, I quote from Dr. Broadus' History of Preaching: "Let
us bear in mind that the early progress of Christianity, that great and
wonderful progress to which we still appeal as one of the proofs of its divine
origin, was due mainly to the labours of obscure men, who have left no sermons,
and not even a name to history, but whose work remains plain before the
all-seeing eye, and whose reward is sure. Hail, ye unknown, forgotten brethren]
we celebrate the names of your leaders, but will not forget that you fought the
battles, and gained the victories. The Christian world feels your impress,
though it has lost your names. And we likewise, if we cannot live in men's
memories, will rejoice at the thought that if we work for God our work shall
live, and we too shall live in our work.
“And not only are these early labourers now unknown, but most of them were in
their own day little cared for by the great and the learned. Most of them were
uneducated. Throughout the first two or three centuries it continued to be true
that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, were
called to be Christian ministers or Christians at all. It was mainly the
foolish things, weak things, base things, that God chose. And what power they
had through the story of the cross, illuminated by earnest Christian living! .
. . And such preachers have abounded from that day to this, in every period,
country and persuasion in which Christianity was making any real and rapid
progress."
The thought is strongly reinforced in that great book, now much neglected by
our people, Wayland's Principles and Practices of the Baptists. What
a pity we cannot get our people to carefully read over again what he has to say
upon this very subject!
The sentiments thus set forth by these three great men of our history I
unhesitatingly accept. These are followed by an additional thought, to wit:
That there ought to be some place higher in character and extent of its work
than Bible institutes and Sunday schools, for preachers and laymen to meet
together to study the Word of God thoroughly.
THE SCOPE OF THE COURSE, AND THE TIME REQUIRED
The course requires that four consecutive years shall be devoted to the study
of the Bible itself, and not of things about the Bible, and must be arranged to
cover in the best method possible within the time limits the whole Bible – every
chapter and verse of every book from Genesis to Revelation. One hour each of
four days in every school week must be devoted to teaching and recitation, and
twice as many to study.
While it is in every way desirable that each student shall complete the entire
course, yet our method of study will possess this advantage – that a failure to
complete the course does not destroy the value of a partial course. Every
lesson even, apart from all others, will be profitable; and this profit will be
greatly enhanced if you prepare the lessons covering only one book.
The higher one's scholastic attainments, the wider the range of his general
information, the more perfect the discipline of his mind, the more systematic
his habits of application, the better is he prepared to take this course, and
the more profit will he likely derive from it. But if these high qualifications
were made conditions of entrance into this course, the main object in view
would be frustrated. The one prerequisite, therefore, is ability to read and
write in English, accompanied with a little common sense.
The course itself will quicken and develop his capacities and enlarge his
acquirements. A course thus restricted, and with this minimum of antecedent
qualifications necessarily assumes or takes for granted many things to which a
modern theological seminary devotes much special and critical inquiry. These,
for the time being, are left to subsequent opportunity, which indeed in some
cases may never come.
The study of the things thus deferred, even if by necessity deferred forever,
is not disparaged. But it is claimed that the study of the Bible itself – what
it says and what it means to the common mind – is a primal, elemental, vital,
and fundamental requirement, binding on every Christian conscience, and
intensely obligatory upon the mind and heart of every preacher.
TEXTBOOKS AND OTHER HELPS
The only textbook absolutely requisite is the English
Bible. The Common, or King James Version, can be made to serve, but the
Canterbury Revision, or the American Standard Version, is much preferred. On
the first book of the Bible Conant's translation of Genesis, with its critical
notes, is very helpful.
Editions of both Testaments can be had with the King James Version and
Canterbury Revision in parallel columns. The Jewish translation of the Old
Testament, by Isaac Leeser will be helpful; and the improved edition of the
American Bible Union Version of the New Testament.
In the study of the Gospels, Broadus' Harmony will be the
textbook. After that, Clarke's Harmony of the Acts will be the
textbook, compared with Goodwin's Harmony of the Life of Paul. The
student will need a concordance, Cruden's or Young's, and access to Smith's
Bible Dictionary, either abridged or unabridged, and to the Schaff-Herzog
Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge, and to some analysis of the Bible, West's
or Hitchcock's. This last to aid in comparing scripture with scripture. We are
now ready for a statement of the principle.
That very critical study of the things deferred calls for a wider range of
learning and a higher grade of scholarship than the commonalty of men, or even
the average preacher, now has or ever will have. By necessity, therefore, this
needed but special work must fall upon a comparatively small class, and this
class itself in turn be measurably dependent upon the greater scholarship and
information of a very few highly qualified experts.
It is assumed that the teacher himself has necessary general information, and
either possesses adequate scholarship or is sufficiently acquainted with its
best results to safely guide his class; and while avoiding technical
phraseology and nomenclature, can point out and expound what the Bible itself
says in the principal passages which have been made the occasion of minute,
far-reaching, and destructive criticism.
For example: (a) the alleged discrepancies in matter and style between the
first chapter of Genesis and the second chapter; (b) between Exodus 6:3, and
certain passages in Genesis; (c) between Jeremiah 7:22, and similar passages
from other prophets on the one hand, and the historical statement of Exodus,
Leviticus, and Deuteronomy on the other hand. It is assumed that the providence
of God, overruling all human agencies and earthly circumstances, has preserved
for the race all that is needed of the revelations his goodness bestowed at
sundry times and through divers instrumentalities, and has assured reliability
in the records embodying them, and their correlated matter. And that this
Providence has also overruled in the combination of the several books necessary
to a complete canon.
That this library of many books embodied now in one book and called by us the
Holy Bible, not only contains, but is the Word of God and is both so necessary
and complete in every part that it may not be subject to addition or
subtraction, and that, being inspired of God throughout, it must remain to the
end of the world as the sufficient, supreme, and infallible standard by which all
human creed and conduct should be regulated in time, and by which they shall be
judged at the last day.
That our present Hebrew and Greek texts being in essential substance
transcripts of the original manuscripts in these tongues, are sufficiently accurate
for all practical purposes; no doctrine, or precept, or promise, or hope being
lost or affected by transcription.
That our English versions do with substantial fidelity and accuracy translate
the Hebrew and Greek texts, and where difficulties arise, helps, brief but
sufficient for the purposes of this course, are accessible to the English
student.
That this book, as we now have it, both as a whole and in all its parts, is
profitable for teaching what we ought to know and believe, and for conviction and
correction of all wrongdoing, and for instruction in all right doing, in order
that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped unto every good work.
It is assumed that in our Baptist literary schools, or in other accessible
schools or theological seminaries, abundant provision is made in behalf of
those needing it or desiring it, for both the needed scholarships and its
employment in pursuing the studies about the Bible only briefly considered in
this course, whether relating to textual or historical criticism, or to any
other department of study prescribed in modern universities or theological
seminaries.
It is assumed that this course in the English Bible will not only not be in
opposition to, or a substitute for, higher scholarship and more critical
studies, but will promote them by tending powerfully and continually to
increase the number of recruits seeking to add to knowledge strictly biblical
all other helpful knowledge relative to it, and that too from a class who,
without the awakening and inspiration of this course, would certainly never
seek higher attainments, and more certainly never pursue special and critical
studies. All observation and experience justify the expectation that when the
mental horizon has been widened, aspiration kindled and the love of God's word
by study of the Bible in the mother tongue, it will be difficult for the
student to stop at the terminus of an elemental and fundamental course.
But the hope may be reasonably cherished that one grounded in this elemental
course will be safeguarded in many directions while pursuing other courses, and
will at least have attained to familiarity with all the Book itself. And, sad
to say, this safeguarding and attainment many never possess who actually become
or affect to become experts in the things about the Bible.
The Bible is its own interpreter. That is, we arrive at the meaning of any
passage by a comparison of scripture with scripture. Revelation is a unit, or
system of truth. The parts must be interpreted to agree with each other, and
with the trend of the whole system. A difficult or doubtful passage, here or
there, must not be set aside but must conform to what is clearly taught in many
unambiguous scriptures. As the Bible was given us for practical purposes,
bearing upon character, conduct and destiny, our study of it, to be profitable,
must be in a line with these purposes. The very heart of every lesson,
therefore, will be its doctrine on these points, and this doctrine must be so
received by faith and assimilated by obedience as to become experimental
knowledge. "Whosoever willeth to do the will of God shall know of the
doctrine whether it be of God."
Continual confirmation and increased assurance that we are rightly interpreting
the Divine Word can come to only those who can say: "Then shall we know if
we follow on to know the Lord," in the same experimental way which brings
its own blessings with every forward step. "But he that looketh into the
perfect law, the law of liberty, and so continueth, being not a hearer that
forgetteth but a doer that worketh, this man shall be blessed in his
doing." As this book is the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, reverent and
prayerful appeal to him for its right understanding and application is
continually necessary.
The idea of a course of study in the English Bible which would comprehend the
entire book is not of recent origin. Even before my conversion, when the book
was considered merely from the standpoint of literature, it seemed to me the
best and richest of the classics, and utterly apart from any thought of its
alleged inspiration, to deserve a place in the curriculum of a liberal
education far beyond that assigned Greek and Roman classics, or to the other
acknowledged masterpieces of our own tongue. That at least our textbooks should
include selections from its history, moral code, jurisprudence, worship,
poetry, orations, essays, and parables, sufficiently full in extent to convey a
fair understanding of the scope and variety of this matchless library of
literature: selections something like in extent and variety those given in
Professor Wilkinson's Foreign Classics in English.
From any literary viewpoint I could see no good reason far excluding from our
schools a study of this book, while giving so much attention to the myths,
fables, legends, idolatries, philosophies, and skeptical speculations selected
from ancient heathen and more modern foreign classics. In moral purity and
sublimity of thought, grandeur of matter and loftiness of design, they all fall
below the excluded Hebrew literature.
But soon after my conversion, and in the light of it, my reflections began to
take, and continued to take with cumulative power, a wider and intenser form.
In this Book alone I found the origin and destiny of all created things and
beings – here alone the nature of man, and his relations to God, the universe
and fellow man, out of which arise all of his obligations and aspirations, and
in conformity to which lie his usefulness and happiness. This Book alone
discloses man's chief good and chief end.
I saw it as the only living oracle, replying instantly and freely in simple,
unambiguous language to every interrogatory propounded by life's problems and
perplexities. In its presence the double-tongued oracles of the heathen became
dumb, their dubious utterances died into echoless silence and their idolatries
and superstitions were relegated to the moles and bats.
From this reflection there was an unconscious transition to the natural inquiry:
Are the people ignorant of the matter of this Book? And if informed somewhat,
how extensive and systematic is their knowledge? Investigation brought an
appalling answer to this inquiry: Very few were found to be students of the
Book. Fragmentarily, here and there, and from many sources, something of its
matter had been picked up by most men. Much of this in corrupt form.
The inquiry passed from the pew to the pulpit, and here the disclosure was more
startling. These men by office and profession were the teachers of the Book.
Surely these preachers have studied earnestly, prayerfully, profoundly, and
systematically all of the messages they are appointed to teach I And if they
have not as yet, in some fashion, gone over the whole ground, surely they are
habitually and diligently prosecuting such a study! If every one of the sacred
writings is inspired of God, and is profitable for teaching what men ought to
know and believe, and for conviction and correction of all wrongdoing, and
instruction in all right doing to the end that the man of God may be complete,
thoroughly equipped unto every good work, surely a teacher of the Book will
neglect no part of it, and will hasten to acquaint himself with it I
But the amazing truth must be acknowledged that few preachers, learned or
unlearned, actually study the Bible itself, their supreme textbook, as a
complete and well-ordered system of divine truth. It does not square with the
facts in the case to limit this ignorance of the Bible to uneducated country
preachers. Some of them study the Bible itself more, and are better acquainted
with it, than many educated preachers. Too many of the latter class confine
their studies to the framework and background of the divine painting, to the
human outskirts and spurs of the mountain of revelation, to the temporary and
perishing scaffolding of the temple of truth. The scholastic spirit drives out
the Holy Spirit; the study of the myriad vagaries of subtle and ever-shifting
philosophies, and of the protean shapes of speculative hypotheses and
hairsplitting criticisms on text or history, becomes their theological task.
And to this task, what are the labors of Hercules? Even searing with a hot iron
does not stop the growth of new heads on this Hydra.
A teacher in the public schools must stand a critical examination on his
textbook before receiving a certificate of efficiency. How many preachers could
stand such an examination on the Bible? Let any preacher with sufficient
honesty and courage to face the disclosure, make a candid examination of his
own ministry in any given period of years on three points: id
Say in five years, what amount of habitual, systematic study have I devoted to
the Bible itself, and over how much of the whole ground of revelation have I
passed in this time? Is not the most of my study merely to get a sermon for my
next appointment?
Judging fairly from the aggregate of all the texts from which I have preached
in five years, how much of the Bible itself have the people learned from me in
that time?
Has my practice conformed to the example of the prophets and apostles and of
our Lord, the Great Teacher?
While standing in amazement before this ignorance of the Bible, in both pew and
pulpit, another question smote me like lightning leaping out of the bosom of a
cloud: Is there in all the world a school where all this Word of God is taught
in the mother tongue of the people?
To the most diligent investigation the answer came like the note of a funeral
dirge: There is not one in the world! More than twenty-five years ago, before a
great audience, I propounded this question: What would be the power of a man
who with only Cruden's Concordance as a help, devotes three entire years to the
reverent and prayerful study of the English Bible? Let this application be as rigid
as a course in mathematics. Let him put aside for the time being all that he
cannot understand from a comparison of scripture with scripture; then construct
by his own analysis an orderly body of divinity.
Would not this man be a theologian? Would he not have an inexhaustible store of
Bible sermons? Would he not, other things being equal, tower among the
preachers like Saul, head and shoulders above his fellows?
Would he not be an original thinker? Would he not know how to handle the Bible?
Would he not be approved unto God as a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,
able to rightly divide the word of truth, giving to each hearer his portion in
due season?
The world is waiting for that man, ready to receive and honor him when he
arrives. We have in all history only one near approximation to this
supposititious man, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, who, by common consent, is
acknowledged to be the greatest preacher since apostolic times. I have seen
2,500 of his published sermons. They we as plump as a partridge, and as full of
meat as an egg. Now from several complete sets of these sermons you may
construct:
(a) A fairly good commentary on the whole Bible by arranging all of one set
according to the books from which the texts are taken.
(b) Then by topical arrangement of another set you may obtain a complete body
of systematic theology.
(c) From another set you may construct a system of practical theology, or of
homiletics, or of some other department, until you virtually cover the whole
ground of theological equipment in its practical phases, and as adapted to the
exigencies of everyday life.
These sermons show that he reverently and prayerfully studied the whole Bible,
honestly regarding it as inspired of God from Genesis to Revelation, and by
simple childlike faith accepting all of it as the word of God. With what
result? More fruit ripened on that tree than on any other that has blossomed
since the apostles died.
The world heard, and accepted, and honored the man; orphans were sheltered,
clothed, fed, and educated; aged widows found asylums in the clouded sunset of
life; thousands upon thousands in many lands were converted to God; colporteurs
pushed out their wagons laden with wholesome books; schools and churches sprang
up as by magic; preachers and teachers kindled their torches at his fire, and
diffused in worldwide waves the light of the spiritual conflagration.
These reflections, substantially in the order stated, led me to seek light on a
school model in the book itself. Here is what I found:
The school of the prophets established by Samuel, and further developed by
Elijah and Elisha. These men were not priests. They had no part in the ritual
of the Temple service. They were teachers of God's Word. They constituted the
only breakwater against the incoming floods of empty formalism and of
multitudinous idolatries. They were the axes with which God hewed off the
excrescences of national life, and his trumpets of judgment against social,
religious and political corruption. They were the forerunners of a faithful
ministry of a later day.
I found the school established by our Lord Jesus Christ. One day he looked out
on multitudes of the people and was moved with compassion. He saw them
scattered and helpless as sheep without a shepherd. He saw them wandering,
groping, stumbling, and falling a prey to every ravenous beast. He turned to
his disciples with an exhortation to prayer: "Pray ye to the Lord of the
harvest that he send more labourers into the harvest." Then he called to
him twelve men as his first class. They were neither from the ranks of the
great, the learned, nor of the rich. They were poor men, ignorant Galilean
fishermen. He kept them with him for instruction for three years. His Sermon on
the Mount was his first great lesson. Then from a boat he taught them in
matchless similitudes which later he expounded more privately. The lessons were
followed by the question: "Have ye understood all these things?" and
with the declaration: "Every scribe instructed in the kingdom of heaven is
a householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old."
He continued his instructions to the night of his betrayal, opening and
expounding all the things concerning himself written in the Law and the
Prophets and the Psalms, and yet later enduring them with the spiritual power
to shake the world.
I found the example of the Holy Spirit in recruiting new students: "For ye
see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not
many mighty, not many noble are called: but God hath chosen the foolish things
of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the
world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world
which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not to bring to
naught things that are: that no flesh should glory in his presence."
I found that when he called a great and learned man, Saul of Tarsus, this man
relied not on his earthly wisdom and learning, but himself said: "And I,
brethren, when I came unto you, came not with excellency of speech or wisdom,
declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything
among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in
weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching
were not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the
Spirit and of power: that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but
in the power of God."
From these Bible examples I turned to history and found four significant facts
established by its univocal testimony:
The great majority of the preachers in every age had but little learning except
what they gathered from the Bible.
That the great majority of the people in every age had to content themselves
with the ministry of this unlearned class.
That schools were established at great expense to highly equip the
comparatively small but much-needed class of preachers who became mighty in
learning. I rejoice at this wise provision, while deploring the sometime
perversion of it.
I found no provision for the great majority to be helped in Bible study.
From history I turned to Baptist polity and found, as I have already shown,
that Baptist polity and history are in accord with these statements, viz.: that
the ministry should not be restricted to the learned and socially great, but
should include as many of every class as God himself shall call.
Then I narrowed the vision to Texas and saw:
About three thousand Baptist preachers.
That about fifty of these annually go abroad to theological seminaries in other
states.
That provision is made in Texas schools to advance the literary education of
several hundred more.
That neither in literary schools here, nor in theological seminaries abroad, is
there provision for a course of study in the English Bible itself, anyway
nearly approaching the course outlined in this chapter. No one who has ever
taken what. is called the English course in a theological seminary will claim
any such thing. If he does, he will be contradicted by his classmates. I doubt
that any theological seminary would admit such a course into its curriculum. It
may be they are wise in this. I am not controverting but merely slating a fact.
I am merely tracing the origin and development of the idea concerning the course
here and now announced, and suggesting the reasons which led to its adoption in
the present form.
I saw ever before me two multitudes: the multitude of unlearned preachers; and
the far greater multitude who can never have any other ministry. I confess my
heart goes out to them. My natural instincts incline me to an aristocracy. But
Jesus Christ made me a democrat. I use the term in its etymological, not
political sense. I have longed for years to see a school for the study of the
English Bible.
I cannot shut out of my mind the three thousand preachers of Texas, while
rejoicing that fifty can go abroad to attend theological seminaries.
It is respectfully submitted that help toward a literary education in a
college, and help toward a theological education in a seminary, both of which
are advocated and commended, do not exhaust the meaning of ministerial
education. There is a need not yet supplied for a greater number than can
profit by either of these provisions.
For the establishment of this course, we deem conclusive the following REASONS:
There is no school of the kind on earth.
It follows the example set by our Lord himself, and accords with the Holy
Spirit's choice of men to preach the gospel.
It accords with settled Baptist polity.
It is needed for both the learned and the unlearned.
Not being restricted to preachers, it will aid in the training of Sunday school
teachers of both sexes.
It encourages the study of God's Word by the pew, which must, under divine law,
judge the soundness in doctrine of the preacher himself.
Not more than one in a thousand will study the whole Bible, or any part of it
systematically, apart from the requirements of a regular course.
Shall we not with joy and enthusiasm labor together to make this work a
crowning glory to our seminary?
Upon the enterprise let us invoke the favor of men and the blessings of God.
QUESTIONS
1. What history of the English Bible is commended?
2. What is the proposed course in the English Bible, and the time required for
completing it?
3. Why will it be valuable to take even a small part of this course?
4. What minimum literary qualifications required?
5. What textbooks required?
6. Helps suggested?
7. Considering the restricted scope of the course, and the minimum literary
qualifications, what things are necessarily assumed? State briefly and
substantially.
8. State briefly and substantially the general rules governing the course.
9. Why does the Bible, from a literary standpoint, deserve a larger place in a
course of study looking to a liberal education?
10. Why from the standpoint of its inspiration?
11. Are the people generally well informed as to Bible teaching?
12. Do preachers generally study it systematically?
13. Is there a school in the world where the whole Bible is taught?
14. What may be constructed from several sets of Spurgeon's published sermons
and addresses?
15. What does this show as to his study of the Bible?
16. State briefly the result on human life and character of his Bible study and
preaching.
17. What example of a Bible school have we in the Old Testament?
18. What good was accomplished by this school of the prophets?
19. What school in the New Testament?
20. From what classes generally does the Holy Spirit recruit his preachers?
21. What four significant facts does history declare?
22. What is Baptist polity with reference to educated and uneducated preachers?
23. How many Baptists in Texas?
24. What proportion of the Baptists of the world?
25. How many Baptist preachers in Texas?
26. About what number annually go abroad for theological education?
27. About how many annually seek literary advantages in Texas schools?
28. What proportion of these in Baylor University?
29. Is the course in the English Bible limited to preachers?
30. Why should Baptist laymen study the Bible?
31. What reasons led to the opening of this course?
There will be two chapters on the introduction to the Old Testament and to the
book of Genesis. This is the first chapter. It is not designed at all, by these
brief introductions, to take the place of the extensive work of biblical
introduction, but only to give some general outlines of the relations of the
book of Genesis.
I will commence with our English word "Bible." It has two
derivations. The first derivation was from the Greek neuter plural Biblia,
which means a library or collection of books. The word, "Holy,"
indicates the character of the books as distinguished from secular books, so
that the words, "Holy Bible," mean sacred library. Later on, after
all of the books were bound together into one volume, the word
"Bible" was derived from the singular Greek word, Biblos, and is
properly called “a” or "the book."
DIVISIONS OF THE CHRISTIAN WORLD AND THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARD THE BIBLE
In general terms, there are Romanists, Greeks, and Protestants. Only
technically do Baptists belong to the Protestants; in a general way you may
include them with the Protestants. The Romanists have an English Bible, the
Douay Version, which, in the Old Testament, differs from our Bible by certain
additions. I will state these differences: (1) Just after Nehemiah they insert
two books, Tobit and Judith; (2) they add .to the book of Esther six and a half
chapters; (3) just after Song of Solomon they insert two books, Wisdom and
Ecclesiasticus; (4) just after Lamentations they insert a book, Baruch; (5)
between Daniel 3:23, and 3:24, they insert 67 verses; (6) at the close of this
book they add two chapters, The History of Susanna and The Story of Bel and the
Dragon; (7) after Malachi they put two additional books, I and 2 Maccabees.
These books and parts of books which they add are not found in the Hebrew Bible
at all. They were never accepted by the Jews as a part of their sacred oracles.
They are sometimes inserted between the Old Testament and New Testament as
parts of what is called the Apocrypha, that is, the questioned books of the Old
Testament.
The Romanists have the same New Testament that we have, but there is another
quite important distinction between their English Bible and ours. Theirs is not
a translation from the original languages at all, but it is a translation of a
translation. It is a translation into English of what is called The Vulgate, or
the Jerome Latin Bible, and while the whole of it is a fine piece of work, in
the main, it is in itself but a translation from the faulty Greek version
called the Septuagint. And in that respect it is very inferior to our Bible. Their
English Bible is, therefore, different from ours in the renderings or
translations. I will give you two samples out of many: In Genesis 3:15, where
the promise is that the seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head, they
render: "she shall bruise the serpent's head" – making a woman
and not the Saviour the bruiser of the serpent's bead. Again, where our
Bible says "repent," theirs says "do penance."
We next come to the Jewish Bible in English. I have a copy of it before me. It
is a very modern translation; after the King James, and even after the
Canterbury Revision, which I advise you to purchase when able. It is by Isaac
Leeser, printed in 1891 at Chicago. The difference between this English Bible
and our Old Testament is that this version was made so late that all those
passages which ancient Jews counted as messianic, this version strains to so
render as to weaken, if not destroy, any application to our Lord Jesus Christ.
The original of the Jewish Bible has exactly the same matter as our Old Testament,
and the same books; it is only a difference of translation.
In our English Bible there are two grand divisions, called the Old Testament
and the New Testament. The word "testament" is a very unfortunate
translation of the original Greek word, dialheke, because our Bible is
not a last will and testament. In only two verses in the New Testament ought diatheke
to be translated "testament": Hebrews 9:16-17. Here, plainly, the
reference is to the last will and testament of a man who, as testator, must die
before his heirs can inherit. In every other place in the New Testament the
Greek word diatheke should be translated "covenant," which is
quite a different thing from a last will and testament. So we really should
call these two great divisions "The Old and New Covenants," and Paul
does so call them in his letter to the Hebrews. Now, the idea of the
translation, "testament," was suggested by two passages of Scripture:
Matthew 26:28ù"This is my blood of the new testament"; and the other
passage is Hebrews 9:15, "And for this cause he is the mediator of the new
testament [and it ought to have been rendered "covenant"], that by
means of death) for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the
first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal
inheritance." While, therefore, there are points of analogy between a
man's will and God's covenant, yet some hurtful interpretations have arisen by
calling these two divisions of our Bible "Old and New Testaments." I
refer particularly to a book of a certain sect looking upon the New Covenant as
a testament or last will of Jesus Christ. He says that as under a will nobody
can inherit until after the death of the testator, therefore no sins could be
remitted, and there could be no children of God, until after Christ died, a
failure to Dote the difference between the time of expiation and the time of
remission. The true interpretation of this matter is set forth in the
Philadelphia Confession of Faith, Art. VIII, Sec. 6, and in Art. XI, Sec. 6,
which read:
Art. VIII, Sec. 6, Philadelphia Baptist Confession: Although the price of
redemption was not actually paid by Christ till after His incarnation, yet the
virtue, efficacy, and benefit thereof was communicated to the elect in all ages
successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types,
and sacrifices wherein He was revealed and signified to be the seed of the
woman which should bruise the serpent's head, and the Lamb slain from the foundation
of the world, being the same yesterday, today, and forever.
Art. XI, Sec. 6: The justification of believers under the Old Testament was, in
all these respects, one and the same with the justification of believers tinder
the New Testament.
So you are to understand that the translation, "testament," is not
inspired; it is a human, misleading rendering of the Greek word, diatheke.
The Jews divided their Bible into the following classifications: "The Law,
The Prophets, and The Holy Writings." They understood by the Law the five
books of Moses, the Pentateuch, and they divided their prophets into two
classes: those who record history, as Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, which are
called the Earlier Prophets, not because they were prophecies, but because they
were books which prophets wrote. Their second subdivision of the second
division is the Later Prophets, and these they have divided into Greater and
Lesser: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and then the twelve minor prophets. To some
it is a matter of surprise that their third main division contains Daniel – not
that Daniel has no prophecy in it, but because Daniel's office was not
prophetic. He was the prime minister of an earthly government, and, while there
is much revelation in Daniel, yet there is very little prophecy directly
uttered by him. He records marvelous revelations which God gives to him, and
those revelations have much of the element of prophecy. For the same reason
they include the psalms in their third division. David was not by office a
prophet. By office he was a king, but incidentally he prophesied much in the
psalms. Some people are greatly troubled at the thought that Joshua, Judges,
Samuel, and Kings are classed among the prophets, and that Daniel's book is not
classed among the prophets. You understand that there is no denial of the
prophetic element in Daniel, but that his was not the prophetic office, and
that there is no assertion that Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings are
prophecies, but that they were written by prophets.
Our Old Testament has thirty-nine books; twenty-seven in the New Testament –
sixty-six books in all. The Romanist Old Testament has forty-six books, and
their New Testament the same as ours. The Jewish translation in English has
thirty-nine just. like ours, but they have two different enumerations of these
books. The first is twenty-four, obtained in this way: combining I and 2 Samuel
as one book, I and 2 Kings as one, I and 2 Chronicles as one, Ezra and Nehemiah
as one, and then the twelve minor prophets as one book, making twenty-four in
all, answering to the letters of the Greek alphabet. Then again they are
divided into twenty-two books, as found in Josephus. According to this
combination Ruth and Judges make one book, and Jeremiah and Lamentations make
one, answering to the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet. The New
Testament recognizes the threefold division of the Old Testament – The Law, The
Prophets, and The Psalms. Our Lord himself so recognizes it in Luke 24:44:
"All the things that are written concerning me in the law, the prophets
and the psalms."
The order is not inspired, nor chronological, nor at all times logical. The
Jewish Bible collates the books for liturgical purposes, i.e.) for readings in
the Temple, the synagogue, or the home, so as to provide special lessons for
each year, each week and each day. Now, if we had to put the books of the Bible
down in the order of their history, we have it about right as far as the second
book of Kings. If we should arrange them according to the date of the writing,
then, in my opinion, Job should come first, both logically and chronologically.
In the New Testament they are arranged according to a mixed method, more
historically than chronologically. Perhaps the first book of the New Testament
was James' letter; then would come Paul's letter to the Thessalonians; next,
his letters to the Corinthians, then Galatians and the Romans; and the letters
of his first Roman imprisonment – Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians,
and Hebrews. And then would follow Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, and the letters
of Paul to Timothy and Titus. John's Gospel and letters come very much later
than the others, with Revelation last of all. It is important for you to know
that fact in order to know how much of the written New Testament each man had
at the time he himself wrote.
DIVISION OF THE BIBLE INTO CHAPTERS AND VERSES
This is not inspired. The division into chapters took place about the middle of
the thirteenth century, A.D., and the honor of making that division lies
between Cardinal Hugo and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Stephen Langton. The
object of the division was to make a concordance, and so about the middle of
the thirteenth century the first concordance of the Bible was made. The
division into verses took place in the sixteenth century A.D., by Robert
Stephens, a printer in Paris, and that added very much to the facility in
making concordances. While generally these chapter and verse divisions are
fine, sometimes they break the connection and dislocate the thought most
arbitrarily. For example: Genesis I should include the first three verses of
the second chapter.
You ask a Catholic what is the supreme standard by which all conduct and creed
and destiny are determined, and he will say: "The Bible, with the
additions that we put in it, and in the translations that we give, and in the
interpretations we give, together with tradition." To illustrate: Suppose
you and a Roman Catholic were debating, and he should cite a proof text from
Tobit, or Judith, or Baruch, or I or 2 Maccabees, or Wisdom, or Ecclesiasticus
– e this would be authority to him, it would not be for you, but only
uninspired Jewish literature. Then, he would want to quote either from the
Vulgate Latin Version made by Jerome, or the Douay Version, which is but a
translation of the Latin Version into English, and then he would want to
confine you to the interpretations put upon it by the Church of Rome, and ultimately
the dictum of the Pope, while you would naturally object to hia text, his
renderings, and his interpretations; so you could not join in an issue. Your
standard and his standard are not the same.
Now, I want to say something about the method of studying the Bible in the Old
Testament. The history of the Old Testament is really divided into two parts –
just as distinct as it is possible for parts to be. The first part takes the
history from Genesis to the close of 2 Kings, the destruction of the Jewish
monarchy, with those prophets who prophesied in that period of time. Now, the
other part of history commences with Chronicles, and instead of following the
other order, it makes a new start from Adam. It commences with Adam and Eve, going
back to the beginning. It does not recognize anything but the Davidic line. Now
join with that Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, for history, and the post-Exile
prophets, and the lines of thought are different. There is a pause where the
Jewish monarchy dies. There is a new beginning after the return from the Exile.
While we can and do use Chronicles in harmonic connection with Samuel and
Kings, yet a part of I Chronicles does not synchronize with those books at all;
but goes back to Adam. For this second part of the Old Testament history you
need an entirely new viewpoint. You ought to commence the second part of the
Old Testament with Chronicles, then Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Daniel, and the
post-Exile prophets: Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. They form a later and
distinct part of the Old Testament history. I call attention to another
division of Old Testament history, very clearly indicated in the original by an
initial word, which is just one small letter, sometimes rendered
"and." This little word of connection and relation marks out the
several related groups of books, i.e., Genesis heads the first group, followed
by Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers – every one of the last three commences with
"and." Deuteronomy commences the second group, followed by Joshua,
Judges, I and 2 Samuel, I and 2 Kings – all of these connect with Deuteronomy
by the same word "and," showing a continuity of history. I Chronicles
commences the third group, followed by 2 Chronicles, Ezra. Nehemiah commences
the fourth group and is followed by Esther. This quadruple division has been
happily named thus:
1. The Books Before They Entered the Holy Land:
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers.
2. The Books in the Holy Land:
Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I and 2 Samuel, I and 2 Kings.
Deuteronomy heads this list because they are about to enter the land under a
renewed covenant, and relates to that entrance.
3. The Books out of the Holy Land:
I and 2 Chronicles, Ezra.
4. The Books in the Dispersion:
Nehemiah and Esther.
A HELPFUL BOOK is the Syllabus for Old Testament
Study, by Dr. Sampey, the professor of Hebrew and Old Testament English
in the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. This syllabus itself gives an
extensive and up-to-date bibliography, a great part of which the reader does not
now need, because we are in English, not Hebrew, and because many of you are
beginners, unprepared for many critical discussions. As we progress, however, I
will mention the helpful books an English student needs in studying the English
Old Testament. An exceptionally important part of Dr. Sampey's book is the
chronological chart.
The next preliminary thing to note is the unity of the Bible, the whole of it.
There are no other sixty-six books in the world that fit each other like these
sixty-six books do. Genesis connects on to Exodus, and Exodus connects back
with Genesis and on to Leviticus; Leviticus connects back with all these and
forward to Joshua; and it is that way all through the Old Testament, and
equally so with the New Testament. As Genesis commences with paradise lost, the
New Testament closes with paradise regained.
Then, this book is a growth in a twofold way. I do not believe with the Negro
who said that God Almighty handed down the Bible from heaven Just as we have it
in the King James Version. It was a growth as to its books, book added to book,
in a period of sixteen hundred years, with a gap of four hundred years between
the Old Testament, and the New. That is, from 1500 B.C. to A.D. 100; 1,600.
Then, it is certainly a growth in the unfolding of doctrine. Take the first
verse in the Bible: "God created the heavens and the earth," and
every other book in the Bible is evolved from that declaration. Take the
promise: "The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head," and
everything touching Christ is evolved from that declaration. Likewise from the
establishment of the throne of grace at the close of the third chapter of
Genesis, clear on to the book of Revelation is a development of God's plan of
salvation, from the first thought to its latest and highest expansion. It is a
growth from "type" to "antitype," from symbol to the thing
symbolized, from signs to things signified; and this is one of the highest
proofs of its inspiration: that an author back yonder 1,500 years before Christ
leaves behind several books, to which other authors in the several centuries
following have added their contributions, and these all articulate, fitting
into each other like the bones of one skeleton. This vast library, whose volumes
were written at different times, and under different conditions, fragmentarily
and multifariously, becomes a single book in its unity. We now come to…
These contents are very varied, and the styles of the different books vary. You
have here poetry, prose, history, drama, law, prophecy, parables, proverbs,
allegory, types – exceedingly varied. Now, the original languages in which this
book was written: The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, except the following
passages: Jeremiah 10:11; several chapters in Ezra, from 4:8 to 6:18, and
7:12-26; Daniel 2:4, to 7:28. All those exceptions were written in Chaldee or
Aramaic. The New Testament was written i Greek. It may be that even the letter
of James and the Gospel of Matthew were also written in Hebrew, but we know
that the whole, of the New Testament was written in Greek.
Now, to get this Bible, originally written in these languages, into the mother
tongue of each people is one of the most important things ever done. What was it
that brought about the division into nations? It was first a division of the
languages. God confused the speech. They were of one people and one tongue, and
through the confusion of speech came the division of nations, not vice versa;
not a division of nations and then different languages, but a division of
nations resulting from a confusion of tongues. Now, the reverse of the
confusion of the tongues at Babel is the gift of tongues at Pentecost. Why the
gift of tongues? That these messengers of the cross might speak to every nation
under heaven in the tongue in which they were born. Turning Hebrew, Aramaic,
and Greek into English is called (rightly) a version – that is, a turning of
one language into another; or it is called a "translation," from the
old compound Latin word, transfero-ferre-tuli-latum, meaning "to
translate, transfer." Suppose a colored liquid here in an opaque pitcher,
and suppose another pitcher not quite so opaque, but translucent, you can see
through it just a little. Then suppose another pitcher perfectly transparent. I
pick up the opaque pitcher that has the colored liquid in it and I transfer it,
translate it, turn it into the translucent pitcher. You can see it, but not
clearly. That is a bad translation. But suppose I turn it into the transparent
pitcher, that you may see its contents clearly. That is a good translation or
version. So a version is a translation. The Septuagint Version is the
translation of the Hebrew into Greek, the Vulgate is a translation of the
Septuagint into Latin, the Douay is a translation of the Vulgate into English.
Now, in another respect, what is the Bible? It is not a history of all nations.
It is a history of the kingdom of God. Genesis is a race history down to the
eleventh chapter, then it sidetracks all of the families but. one; when the
Ishmaelites come it sidetracks them; when Esau comes he is sidetracked; when
Lot's children come (the Moabites and Ammonites) it sidetracks them; but it
follows a certain family until it becomes a nation, to which are committed the
oracles of God, and touches the history of other nations where they bear upon
the development of the kingdom of God in that one people.
The usage of common life determines the meaning of a word or phrase; not that
of philosophy.
The usage of the time and place of the writer determines the meaning; not that
of any other time; not modern usage.
If a word or phrase has several meanings, the context determines the meaning it
bears in a given passage. The more common meaning of the writer's day is to be
preferred, provided it suits the passage, not that more common in our day.
If the author has occasion to employ a new word, or an old word in a new
signification, his own definition or his own usage must determine the meaning,
not any other author's usage.
The direct or literal sense of a sentence is the meaning of the author, when no
other is indicated, not any figurative, allegorical, or mystical meaning.
Passages bearing a direct, literal or fully ascertained sense go to determine
what passages have another sense than the literal, and what that other sense
is; not our opinions.
The Bible treats of God in relation to man. It is obvious that this
circumstance will afford occasion for new words and phrases, and new
applications of the old ones. It brings into view such peculiar figures of
speech as are called anthropomorphism and anthropopathism. It gives a new
expansion to all the previous rules.
A word, a phrase, or sentence belonging primarily to the things of man must be
understood, when applied to the things of God, in a sense consistent with his
essential nature; not in a sense contradictory to any known attribute of that
nature.
There is a growth in the Bible in two respects: (1) There ig a growth in the
adding of document to document for at least 1600 years. Hence the simple or
primary part of speech will appear in the earlier documents; the more expanded
and recondite may come out only in the later. (2) There is a growth also in
adding fact to fact, and truth to truth, whereby doctrines that at first come
out only in the bud are in the end expanded into full bloom. At its
commencement the Bible chooses and points the all-sufficient root from which
all doctrines may germinate. The root is God. In him inhere all the virtues
that can create and uphold a world, and therefore in the knowledge of him are
involved the doctrines that can instruct and edify the intelligent creature.
Hence the elementary form of a doctrine will be found in the older parts of
Scripture; the more developed form in the later books. This gives rise to two
similar rules of interpretation.
The meaning of a word or phrase in a later book of Scripture is not to be
transferred to an earlier book, unless required by the context.
The form of a doctrine in a subsequent part of the Bible must not be taken to
be as fully developed in a preceding part without the warrant of usage and the
context.
The Old Testament was composed in Hebrew, the New Testament in Greek. Each must
be interpreted according to the genius of the language in which it was
originally written. The interpreter must, therefore, be familiar with the
grammar of each in which the particulars which constitute its genius are
gathered into a system. The writers of the New Testament were, moreover,
Hebrews by birth and habit, with the possible exception of Luke. Their Greek,
therefore, bears a Hebrew stamp and their words and phrases are employed to
express Hebrew things, qualities, customs, and doctrines. Hence they Must receive
much of their elucidation from the Hebrew parts of speech of which they are the
intended equivalents. Two rules of interpretation come under this head:
The sense of a sentence, and the relation of one sentence to another, must be
determined according to the grammar of the language in which it is written.
The meaning of New Testament words and phrases must be determined in harmony
with Old Testament usage; not by Greek against Hebrew usage.
The Bible is the word of God. All the other elements of our fundamental
postulate are plain on the surface of things, and therefore unanimously
admitted. This, however, some interpreters of the Bible do not accept, at least
without reserve. But notwithstanding their rejection of this dogma such
interpreters are bound to respect the claims of this book to be the word of
God. This they can only do by applying to its interpretation such rules as are
fairly deducible from such a characteristic. In doing so they put themselves to
no disadvantage. They only give the claimants a fair stage, and put its high
claim to a reasonable test. Now, God is a God of truth. Hence all Scripture
must be consistent with truth and with itself. It contains no real
contradiction. This gives rise to the following rules:
All Scripture is true historically and metaphysically; not mythical and
fallible.
In verbally discordant passages that sense is to be adopted which will explain
or obviate the discrepancy; not a sense that makes a contradiction. To explain
it positively is to show the harmony of the passage; to obviate it negatively
is to show that there is no contradiction.
Scripture explains Scripture. Hence the clear and plain passages elucidate the
dark and abstruse; not anything foreign in Scripture to time, place or
sentiment; not our philosophy. Of rules that cross one another, the higher sets
aside or modifies the lower.
An inspired, illumined New Testament writer will give the true sense of an Old
Testament passage.
1. What the derivation and present meaning of our English word “Bible,"
and the meaning of the word "Holy" in this connection?
2. In general terms, name the three grand divisions of the Christian world and
state mainly the parts of the world occupied by them.
3. Do these agree on the books which constitute the collection known as the
Bible?
4. State the Romanist additions to what we call the Old Testament, and show
just where each addition is inserted.
5. On what grounds are these additions to be rejected?
6. Name another important distinction between their English Bible and ours.
7. What Jewish version commended, and what the difference between it and our
Old Testament?
8. What two grand divisions in our Bible?
9. What is the meaning of "Testament"?
10. From what scriptures did men deduce the names, "Old Testament"
and "New Testament"?
11. What name would have been better?
12. Cite a hurtful interpretation based upon the name, "Old and New
Testaments."
13. Cite the true interpretation of this matter.
14. Cite the Jewish divisions of their Bible.
15. Cite, in order, the books of The Law.
16. The books of the division called The Prophets.
17. The books of the division called The Psalms.
18. What principle or reason governed in naming the second division
"Prophets," and the third division "Holy Writings"?
19. Explain, according to this principle, why Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings
appear on the "Prophet" list, and Daniel appears o n the "Holy
Writings" list.
20. How many books in our Bible? In each grand division?
21. Show how the Jews made out their list of twenty-four books in the Old
Testament, and why? Also their list of twenty-two books, and why?
22. Cite a New Testament recognition of the three divisions of the Old
Testament.
23. Is the order in which the books of our present Bible are arranged inspired?
What principle governed in their arrangement?
24. Is the present division into chapters and verses inspired?
25. Who divided the Bible into chapters? When and why?
26. When the first concordance?
27. Who divided the Bible into verses, and why?
28. What else besides the Bible is a standard of authority on revelation with
Greeks and Romanists?
29. In what other way do Romanists widen the difference as to the standard
between themselves and Protestants?
30. What suggestion made relative to the study of the Old Testament, and what
quadruple division of Old Testament books in this connection?
31. What helpful book mentioned, and its peculiar merit?
32. Show the unity of the books of the Bible.
33. Show that the Bible is a growth in a twofold way.
34. What length of time from the writing of the first book to the last?
35. What are the contents of the Bible?
36. What are the original languages of the Bible?
37. What is a version of the Scripture? Name several.
38. What is the Bible as it relates to history?
39. What history of the English Bible commended? (Ans: Harwood Pattison's.)
40. Read carefully the rules of interpretation.
In the preceding chapter on the Introduction to the Old Testament I said some
things about the order of the books in the Old Testament, particularly calling
your attention to the present order in the Jewish Bible. There is no question
that the order of the historical books in our English Bible is the original
order. It was the order in the Septuagint translation, say about 250 years
before Christ, the oldest order of which we have any certain knowledge.
Now, in review, let me repeat that according to that order the historical books
of the Old Testament are in four groups, "May clearly designated in the Hebrew,
designated by the smallest word in the Hebrew language; just one letter and the
smallest except one. The meaning of the word is "and." That word
determines what books follow the first one in the group. For instance, Genesis
is the beginning of the first group and Exodus commences with "and,"
showing that it follows right after and connects with Genesis, and so on with
Leviticus and Numbers. This first group discusses the people of Israel outside
the Promised Land, i.e., before they enter it. Deuteronomy, the initial book of
the second group, treats of Israel inside the Promised Land. It is true that in
Deuteronomy they have not crossed the river, but they were at the river, and
Deuteronomy, with its renewed covenant, looks forward more than it looks
backward. Following Deuteronomy, from Joshua to 2 Kings, every book in its
order commences with "and"; and these books cover the stay in the
Promised Land. The third group consists of three books, all written by Ezra: 1
Chronicles is the initial book, making an entirely new beginning from Adam,
with the "and" and connecting 2 Chronicles and Ezra. These books
treat of the return to the Land after the Babylonian exile. This group ignores
the defection of the ten tribes following only the line: Adam, Noah, David.
While its events may be harmonized with the first and second groups, where
correspondent, the view is an entirely independent one and must be so
considered in study. Now the last, the fourth, group consists of two books:
Nehemiah and Esther. Nehemiah is the starting book, Esther follows with
"and"; so that this group touches Israel that did not return, or
Israel in dispersion. Keep these four thoughts in your mind:
4 books Inside the Land.
8 books Return to the Land.
3 books In the Dispersion.
2 books Outside the Land.
The other Old Testament books would arrange themselves about these four
historical groups thus: Job connects with the first group; Psalms, Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Obadiah, Joel, Jonah, Amos, Hosea, Isaiah,
Micah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Jeremiah, and Habakkuk with the second group; Jeremiah
being the bridge connecting with the third group; Ezekiel, Haggai, Zechariah,
and Malachi, with the third group; Daniel would connect with the fourth group,
preceding Esther in its history, but in its prophecies it is the connecting
bridge with the New Testament. This line of thought is very ably elaborated in
a recent and valuable series of books by John Urquhart, entitled "The
Bible: Its Structure and Purpose."
Now, concerning the Pentateuch – the first five books. Who is the author? Moses
– except the last and connecting chapter which records the death of Moses
written by the author of the book of Joshua, Joshua himself. The argument for
the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is: (1) Tradition. This tradition is
unbroken absolutely from the time of Moses to the close of the New Testament
canon. The Pentateuch is connected in tradition with no other name than the
name of Moses. (2) The next evidence is the New Testament witnesses. Christ and
His apostles repeatedly and positively ascribe the Pentateuch to Moses, and I
have an abiding impression that Christ knew at least as much about it as modern
critics. (3) The third argument for the authorship is the testimony of the
books themselves, with the exception of Genesis, which is partly an
introduction to the other four. All along they are attributed to Moses.
The second question is: What were the qualifications of Moses for writing these
books? The book of Acts tells us that Moses was learned in all the wisdom of
the Egyptians. He was not only the most cultivated teacher of his age, and a
thousand times more cultivated than some of the men that deny that he could
have written these books, but he was the most influential man of affairs. His
range of learning was immense. His conduct of public affairs was great. Dr.
Harper says that Moses was too busy a man to have left any literary remains.
Dr. Harper is wise above what is written. Now let us see what were his
opportunities of leisure. He was forty years in Midian, given time for
meditation. There doubtless he wrote the book of Genesis and, I think, first,
the book of Job. In the next place, he was a whole year at Mount Sinai, and the
record shows that at Mount Sinai the different parts of Exodus and nearly all
of Leviticus and part of Numbers were written. Then he was thirty-eight years
in the wilderness after the Israelites turned back from Kadesh-barnea, and in
that time he certainly could have composed the rest of Leviticus and Numbers.
He was about two weeks on the banks of the Jordan just where they crossed over
into the Promised Land, and the book of Deuteronomy consists almost altogether
of great addresses, and they were evidently carefully prepared addresses. Moses
had time to write them there, and the record expressly states that he did. Dr.
Harper himself was a very busy man, but it seems that he found time to write a
great many books, and if he, being so busy, could write a great many books, why
should he deny that Moses had time to write books? The age of Moses was an
intensely literary age. It used to be said that there was no writing in the
time of Moses, but very humbly have they apologized for any such foolish
statements. It is now known that long before the time of Moses writing was a
fine art. Cities of libraries were established, not only among the Egyptians,
but among the Canaanites. Moses himself will give you an account of a Canaanite
city that was called the book city, or the library city. The last thought in
connection with the Mosaic authorship consists of testimonies all the way
through the Pentateuch showing that when God gave a certain body of laws Moses
wrote those laws at the time. That goes on all the way through. The memoranda
of the book were at hand and continuously, not only like keeping a diary, but
the very form was written at the time.
The question arises: Was there any pre-existing material for the book of
Genesis? I want to say on that, that revelation from God commences with the
creation of man. He revealed himself to Adam, to Noah, to Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob, and so on. Undoubtedly many things touching the facts in Genesis were
reduced to writing before the times of Moses. For instance, we have a record in
Genesis of the first poets, the very words of the poets are cited and in the
poetical form. That was before the flood. Then from Adam, who lived 930 years,
to Noah, who closes up the first period of the world's history at the flood,
there was one intervening man, Methuselah, who was a contemporary of Adam for
many hundreds of years, and a contemporary of Noah for the 600 years; so that
only one man) standing between Adam and Noah, could have handed down
well-attested traditions of history up to that time. Then Shem, who was in the
Ark with Noah, lived 400 years after the flood, and did touch time with
Abraham. Some people erroneously claim that Melchisedek was Shem. He could have
been Shem so far as the time was concerned. So that between Abraham and Noah
one man touches both, and there were doubtless multitudes of various kinds of
documents touching the facts of Genesis. Genesis, however, is not a book made
up of fragments artificially pieced together. It is straight out, continuous, a
narrative by one man, and with the most remarkable proofs of unity throughout
of any book in the world's libraries today.
To further show the unity of the Pentateuch: Moses led the children of Israel
to Mount Sinai; you find the account commencing in the nineteenth chapter of
Exodus, and from Exodus 20 to the close of the twenty-third chapter you have an
account of the threefold covenant. The elements of that covenant are: (1) The
moral laws as given in Exodus 20; (2) the law of the altar, or the way of
approach to God through grace; and (3) civil legislation, ending with the
twenty-third chapter. Now, all the rest of Exodus, all of Leviticus, all of
Numbers and all of Deuteronomy are developments of that threefold covenant:
moral law, the grace law, or the way of approach to God through the altar, and
the civil law. Because at that time Israel became a nation.
If we consider the time and the circumstances of the Pentateuch we take our
stand in Midian, when Moses was in exile from Egypt, somewhere between 1431 and
1491 B.C. Now that last date you can keep in your mind – 1491 B.C. comes Mount
Sinai, and A.D. 1492 comes the discovery of America by Columbus. There in
Midian, when Moses was in solitude the keeper of the flock of Jethro, a great problem
pressed on his heart. He had felt the call of God to deliver the Israelites,
and with-out letting God pick the time, he picked it and the method of it, and
after killing that Egyptian he fled. Stephen says that Moses supposed that the
children of Israel would understand that God had appointed him to deliver them,
but they did not understand. He was not accredited to them as the deliverer
when they were suffering from oppression, and Moses himself was not prepared to
deliver Israel; but he selected his own time and that exile followed as a
consequence. Now, while in that exile, there came to his mind the following
problems:. "My people are in the fiery furnace of affliction, and there
seems to be no reason for it. Here is a bush burning and not consumed,
representing the persistence of the life of these people in the midst of the
most awful afflictions." And that is the problem of the book of Job. How
do you account for the undeserved afflictions of the righteous? Where do they
come from? While his mind was on that problem he comes in touch there with the
land of Job and the history of its great hero, and there is ample opportunity
to learn the history of the patriarch Job, who belonged to another branch of
the Semitic family. In that history he writes in precisely the same language of
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy – the same archaic
expressions. Whoever carefully studies the style, the thought, the
circumstances, in the book of Job, must put its composition about the time the
Pentateuch was written. What, then, was the object of the book of Job? In order
to understand the undeserved afflictions of the righteous. Job says: "Oh,
that mine adversary had written a book I We have no Bible; I am here suffering
under laws that I am not acquainted with. I don't understand. If I just had a
plain book, telling me what is my relation to God, and to the universe and what
is my duty, I would take that book on my shoulder and I would go to God with it
face to face, and talk to him as a man talks to his .friend." The key to
the book of Job is the call for a book of revelation. And the second idea in
the key is: Here are the righteous, sinful by nature, subject to the evil
influence of the devil. And next is: There is no daysman or mediator to stand between
me and God; no one with one hand touches God and with the other hand touches
me. And so there is a call for the revelation of a deliverer,. and the book of
Job closes just that way. That book demands a revelation. Following that Moses
composes, under the inspiration of God, the book of Genesis, which comes up to
his. very time. Now, the circumstances of his writing Exodus you already know.
He was at Mount Sinai a whole year. The circumstances of writing the rest of
Leviticus and Numbers not written at Sinai were during that long period of
thirty-eight years in the wilderness. The circumstances of writing Deuteronomy
were these: The first great stage of history was ended and Israel had sinned
against the covenant made at Mount Sinai. Now Deuteronomy, which literally
means the second giving of the law, is not only a restatement of the old
covenant, but it is a re-entrance into the covenant upon the part of Moses
representing God, and the people representing themselves; and that is renewed,
not with a view to anything in the past, but to the immediate entrance into the
Promised Land of God. Hence it is classed with the inside books and not with
the outside books.
The structure of the Pentateuch exhibits not only remarkable unity, but one
author. There are varieties in the style corresponding to the subject matter.
For example, the first chapter of Genesis is very abrupt – one mighty
sententious statement after another. When he commences the second chapter,
however, which correctly commences at v. 4, he gives details and elaborations
of previous rugged statements, and the style is more flowing to correspond.
Pope has said:
When Ajax strives some rock's vast weight to throw,
The line too labours, and the words move slow.
And the unity of the book of Genesis is shown by the following short analysis.
I give it here, but the analysis you must bring in your answers will be an
enlargement of this one. The short analysis consists of eleven divisions: I.
Introduction:
1. Genesis 1:1 – The creation of the universe.
2. Genesis 1:2 – The chaotic state of the earth – matter..
3. Genesis 1:2-26 – The Holy Spirit's development of the earth matter from
chaos to order, its correlation with the universe, the beginnings of life –
vegetable, animal and human.
4. Genesis 1:26-31 – Nature of the dominion and commission of man.
5. Genesis 2:1-3 – Institution of the sabbath commemorating creation.
6. Genesis 2:4 to 4:26 – Generations of the heavens and the earth.
7. Genesis 5:1 to 6:8 – Generations of Adam.
8. Genesis 6:9 to 9:29 – Generations of Noah.
9. Genesis 10:1 to 11:9 – Generations of the sons of Noah.
10. Genesis 11:10-26 – Generations of Shem.
11. Genesis 11:27 to 25:11 – Generations of Terah.
12. Genesis 25:12-18 – Generations of Ishmael.
13. Genesis 25:19 to 35:29 – Generations of Isaac.
14. Genesis 36:1 to 37:1 – Generations of Esau.
15. Genesis 37:2 to 50:26 – Generations of Jacob.
The whole of the chapters on Genesis will be an elaboration of this short
analysis.
What is the meaning of generation? When it says: "The generations of the
heavens and the earth" in 2:4, does it mean to tell you how the heavens
and the earth were produced? Unquestionably it means developments, not origin.
For instance, when it says: "the generation of Noah," that does not
mean how Noah commenced, but it means who descended from Noah. Generation means
history, development, and not origin. I must call your attention to some of the
characteristics of these several generations. Here is a singular one; there is
no other like it in the Old Testament. As often as these genealogical tables
are given in the Old Testament, this one is unique: "The book of the
generations of Adam." You do not have the word, "book," any
more. You have "the generations of," but not "the book of the
generations of." Now that goes on down through all the Old Testament but
the "book of the generations of Adam" occurs but once, and the New
Testament commences (Matt. 1:1), "The book of the generation of Jesus
Christ." First is the generation of the first Adam, and the second is the
generation of the Second Adam – a very important thought. As all of the Bible
is intended to be a book concerning the kingdom of God, a book concerning the
reign of grace from the time that the throne of grace was established at the close
of Genesis 3 until you get to the end of Revelation, and from the time that the
first promise was made, "The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's
head," on down, the Bible is a book of grace.
Now, another characteristic of these generations is, that they always commence
with the bad line first, i.e., Genesis gives an account of Cain's descent
before it takes up the descent of Seth.. It gives an account of the descent of
the nations of the earth. When you get to the generations of the sons of Noah,
it gives an account first of all of the nations of the earth, then it follows
one nation through Shem. When you come to Isaac and Ishmael, Ishmael's
genealogical table is put first, and then is sidetracked. When you come to Esau
and Jacob, Esau's genealogy is given first, and then Jacob's. Esau is
sidetracked. There are certain other lines in these genealogical tables which
demand careful observation. One of these: What is said of Seth? "These are
the generations of Seth." Every man Living in the world today is a
descendant of Seth. Every man that has lived in the world this side of the
flood is a descendant of Seth, and hence that commences with that particular
remark that Adam begat a son in his likeness and according to his image. God
made Adam in his image and according to his likeness, but after Adam fell, he
begat a son in his fallen image and likeness. Now, note that Shem's genealogy
really comes right. In giving the generations of the sons of Noah coming to
Shem it gives all the Semitic nations including the line in which Abraham was
called, but as he is not going to have any use for the rest of them, he
commences anew with Shem and finishes it with the line of Terah, Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob.
Now, the time covered by the book of Genesis is much more than the time covered
by all the other books in the Bible put together. Genesis covers-a history of
2,500 years. The other books of the Bible, all put together, cover a period of
1,600 years, as to their composition and history. What, then, is the book of
Genesis? It is a book of origins and developments – more of developments than
of origins. It will tell you the origin of the universe, and the origin of the
earth as a part of the universe and the origin of vegetables and animal life.
It will tell you of the first man, and it will go on telling you of the first
things, but more of the book is devoted to the development than origins.
Whenever you have the word "generation," that means development.
These developments all through the Old Testament constantly descend from the
general to the particular. "In the beginning God created the heavens and
the earth" – the whole universe. Now, the next verse descends to just one
little part of the universe, the earth, and then it will descend to one particular
family on this earth, and it will go on descending, descending, until you come
to Christ, and then the rest of the Bible ascends from the particular to the
general, and the end of the New Testament is as universal as the beginning of
the Old Testament.
Now, I want to quote here some words on the importance of the book of Genesis.
(1) I will quote from Dr. Conant:
The object of the book is to reveal to us the origin of the material universe;
man's origin and relation to God the Creator, and the equality of all men
before Him; the divinely constituted relation of the sexes; the divine
institution of the Sabbath; the origin of moral and physical evil; the primeval
history of the human race, and the origin of nations; the selection of one as
the .depository of the sacred records, and the divine purpose and method for
man's redemption; the history of its ancestral founders, and their relation to
the subsequent history. Of these truths, to the knowledge of which we owe the
present advancement in civilization, it is the object of the book to furnish a
divinely accredited record. Its value is apparent on the face of the above
statement, and is attested by the history of civilization; for without it no
amount of intellectual culture, of refinement in taste, of progress in the
sciences and arts, has ever been found sufficient to save a people from moral
corruption, and ultimate decay and ruin. In these truths, and the divine
attestation of them, lies the only basis of popular progress, and of permanent
national prosperity; and on all these we should be in the profoundest
ignorance, without the revelations contained in this book.
(2) Auberien, on the first eleven chapters, speaks also of the importance of
this book:
If we had not the first eleven chapters of Genesis, if we had on the beginnings
of the world and humanity, only the myths of the heathen, or the speculations
of philosophers, or the observations of naturalists, we should be in the
profoundest darkness concerning the origin and nature of the world and of man.
It is with these chapters on the one side, as with the prophecies and Scripture
on the other. There we get the true light on the first, here on the last
things; there on the foundation principles, here on the ultimate tendencies of
history; there on the first cause, here on the object of the world; without
which a universal history, or a philosophy of history, is impossible. But
prophecy itself also has its roots in these chapters, on which all later
revelation plants itself. Happily, these primeval records of our race, far more
widely than we are aware) have penetrated our whole mode of thinking, and sway
even those who believe they must reject the historical character of these
accounts. These chapters maintain the consciousness, in humanity, of its own
God-related nature, of its original nobility, and its eternal destination.
lt amazes me to see the attempts of men that don't believe in the book of
Genesis to write history. They don't know how to commence, they don't know
where to end. They don't know how to interpret. They don't see the overruling
hand of Divine Providence: blind as bats and moles, they detect no traces of
the divine purpose and providence in the history of the world. But prophecy
itself has its roots in these eleven chapters, on which all later revelation
plants itself.
Now I close with some recommendations concerning books. I don't say for you to
get these books right now, but as a general introduction to the Old Testament I
recommend a set of books, that is, Urquhart's "Bible: Its Structure and
Purpose." There are four volumes of it. On general introduction to the Old
Testament I commend Greene – he is the great man of Princeton. On the unity of
Genesis Greene's book was the most remarkable in the world until Urquhart's
series came out, and he adds much to Greene's. Commentaries: (1) Conant's
Genesis – he is the great Baptist scholar and translator. He is the author of
the tersest, most remarkable book on Baptism ever written; has translated
Genesis, and accompanied his translation with notes. I don't see how you can do
without the book, after a while. (2) The next is Murphy, who gives his
translation of Genesis, and then follows with his commentary. It is like a
slaughter of the innocents when he gets hold of a radical critic. Then (3) I commend
the Genesis part of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's. Next (4) is one that is
usually left out – McIntosh, a premillennialist, who, like the most of
premillennialists, is sound in the faith regarding the higher criticism. They
are all spiritual and McIntosh's book on the Pentateuch; while others fool with
a thousand things, McIntosh takes you to the very heart of God and man, and the
power of the Holy Spirit in teaching the word.
1. What evidence of the original order of the historical books of the Old
Testament?
2. How many groups with reference to the Promised Land, and how determined?
3. How would the other Old Testament books arrange themselves about these four
historical groups?
4. Who is the author of the Pentateuch, and what is the proof?
5. What were the qualifications of this author for writing these books?
6. How do you account for the last chapter of Deuteronomy?
7. Was there any pre-existing material for the book of Genesis?
8. Is Genesis .a book of fragments artificially pieced together?
9. Show the unity of the Pentateuch from the account of the Sinaitic covenant.
11. What great problem pressed on his heart there, and the result?
12. What are the arguments in favor of the Mosaic authorship of the book of
Job?
13. Where did Moses write Genesis? Exodus? Leviticua? Numbers? Deuteronomy?
14. What is the structural evidence for one author of the Pentateuch?
15. Show the unity of Genesis by a short analysis.
16. What is the meaning of "generation"?
17. What are the characteristics of these generations: (1) Of "The book of
----"? (2) Of the bad line? (3) Of Seth? (4) Of Shem?
18. What is the time covered by the book of Genesis, and what was the method of
revelation as begun here?
19. What is Conant's testimony on the importance of this book? Auberlen's?
20. What books recommended?
1. What is the attitude of the Greek Church toward the Romanists' additions to
our Bible?
2. Cite some New Testament names for the collection of books called the Old
Testament.
3. Why is the third division of the Jewish Bible called the Psalms?
4. Distinguish between revelation, inspiration, and illumination.
5. How much time may intervene between a revelation and the inspired record of
it?
Genesis is the book of origins and developments. It supplies its own outline or
plan of treatment in twelve sections:
1. In one sublime sentence it gives the origin of the universe. Genesis 1:1.
2. In a few other equally sublime sentences it gives the origin of this earth –
that part of the universe which is to become the arena of the Bible story,
culminating with a general statement of the origin of man, as a race, appointed
to occupy and subdue the earth. Genesis 1:2-31; 2:1-3.
A certain oft-recurring formula introduces every important stage of subsequent
development, serving as a bond of unity between the several parts, and as a
title to the ten other sections of the book:
3. "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth" (Gen.
2:4).
4. "This is the book of the generations of Adam" (Gen. 5: 1).
5. "These are the generations of Noah" (Gen. 6:9).
6. "These are the generations of the sons of Noah" (Gen. 10:1). By
whom the nations were divided after the flood (Gen. 10:32).
7. "These are the generations of Shem" (Gen. 11:10).
8. "These are the generations of Terah" (Gen. 11:27).
9. "These are the generations of Ishmael" (Gen. 25:12).
10. "These are the generations of Isaac" (Gen. 25:19).
11. "These are the generations of Esau" (Gen. 36:1).
12. "These are the generations of Jacob" (Gen. 37:2).
This framework of twelve sections is the designed
skeleton of the whole book. We commence, therefore, with…
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1:1).
"Beginning" here means the commencement of time; and shows that the
matter of the universe had a definite origin. Matter is not eternal.
"God" is the explanation of this origin. Matter did not start itself.
God alone is eternal.
"Created" means brought into being without the use of preexisting
material. This verb, having God for its subject, is generally used in the Bible
when something, not before existing, is brought into existence by divine power,
and is distinguished in this chapter and elsewhere from other verbs signifying
to make, shape, or to form out of pre-existing material.
As there could be no human witness when the original foundations were laid, and
as human science deals only with preexisting material, our knowledge of this
origin of things cannot come by science, history, or tradition, but by
revelation, and must be received by faith. Hence a subsequent scriptural
statement: "By faith we understand that the worlds have been framed by the
word of God, so that what is seen hath not been made out of things which
appear" (Heb. 11:3; Psalm 103:7). "Heavens and earth" means the
whole universe.
ORIGIN OF THE EARTH (Gen. I :2-31 ; 2: 1-3)
Quickening of inert, matter. "And the earth [i.e., the already created
matter out of which the earth was to be formed] was waste and void, and
darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God brooded upon the
face of the waters" (Gen. 1:2).
The story passes abruptly from the universe to that part of it which becomes
the scene of the Bible history. The description of the earth matter is very
vivid: waste, void, dark. The classical student cannot help recalling Ovid's
description of Chaos, here freely rendered into English: Before the sea and
land, and the heavens which cover all, Nature had one appearance in all the
world Which men called Chaos a rude and unassimilated mass . . . because in one
body Cold things fought with hot, wet things with dry, Soft things with hard,
imponderable things with heavy.
The doctrine is that matter is inert of itself. It had no inherent
potentiality. In itself has no capacity to become a world of order and beauty.
The quickening of matter by the Holy Spirit was therefore the second creative
activity. Given matter alone, and we have chaos alone; but given also an
extraneous power, intelligent, beneficent, and omnipotent, to impart capacity
to matter and to direct its movements, we will have a well-ordered and
beautiful world.
ORIGIN OF LIGHT
"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." Light is the
first product of the Spirit's breeding power exercised on matter. As a primal
subagent in the formation of other things its introduction was essential at
this point. Well does it deserve Milton's apostrophe: "Hail, holy Light,
offspring of heaven, first-born." It is the emblem of the divinity which
created it: "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all." Jesus
Christ is "the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the
world." His people, reflecting his image, are "the light of the
world."
The creation, by the simple fiat of God, serves to illustrate a mightier
creation, the conversion of the soul by the same Spirit: "God who
commanded the light to shine out of .darkness hath shined into our hearts,
giving the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus
Christ" (2 Cor. 4:6).
Atheistic philosophers vainly attempt to solve the mystery of light. Apart from
Revelation, the Almighty's questions propounded to Job remain unanswered:
"Where is the way to the dwelling of light? . . . By what way is the light
parted?" (Job 38:19-24). The eye is made for it, and truly light is sweet;
but what unaided wisdom can comprehend its mystery? Mysterious in origin, exquisitely
beautiful in combination of colors, immaculate and incorruptible. It cannot be
defiled by contact with impurity as can earth, air, or water.
This was not solar or stellar light, for there was yet no atmospheric medium
through which the light of any previously formed part of the universe could
reach and influence the inert mass of the earth. To call it cosmical light is
to name it and not explain it. The only ultimate explanation is that it was a
creative product resulting from the moving, brooding, quickening Spirit of God.
Some object to regarding earth light as a creative product because it now
reaches us from second causes – the sun, moon, and stars. The objection
perishes by pushing back the inquiry far enough. Some one of the existing words
of the universe must have been fashioned first out of the originally created
matter. In the case of this first one the origin of its light must be referred
to the first cause, i.e., creative fiat, since there was no other world from
which, as a second cause, its light could come. In the case of the earth, the
only one whose history is revealed, external light at the beginning had no
medium of approach.
"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and
let it divide the waters from the waters." Firmament or expanse, i.e.,
what is outspread, is the visible result of the formation of the earth's
atmosphere. This formation is the effect of supernatural power. The psalmist
declares: "The firmament showeth his handiwork." Milton, in Paradise
Lost, expresses the Bible thought:
The firmament, expanse of liquid, pure, Transparent, elemental air, diffused In
circuit to the uttermost convex Of this great round.
The atmosphere is the outer sphere of air fluid enveloping the earth as the
rind of an orange encloses the pulp. Its depth is supposed to be about
forty-five miles. It would be out of place here to discuss in detail its
manifold uses. We merely state in a general way that without it there could be
no vegetable or animal life, nor transmission of sound, nor the conveyance,
refraction, or decomposition of light. Its particular use specified in the text
is to separate waters from waters. The power to do this lies in its specific
gravity or weight. This weight, greatest at the sea level, gradually diminishes
as it ascends, until, by extreme rarity, its upper boundary is lost in the
higher enveloping sphere of ether. All waters expanded by heat into vapor or
cloud rise above the air; all vapors condensed until heavier than atmosphere
fall below it. You see clouds above clouds. The highest ones are the lightest.
Whatever condenses them brings them lower until their weight, exceeding that of
the atmosphere, precipitates them in the form of snow, sleet, hail, or rain.
The cloud, while seemingly only the natural result of light (or heat) and
atmosphere, is really the product of divine power. "Hath the rain a
father? Or whom hath begotten the drops of dew? Out of whose womb came the ice?
And the hoary frost of heaven, who gendered it?" (Job 38:28-29).
He giveth snow like wool; He scatterest the hoar frost like ashes; He casteth
forth his ice like morsels. Who can stand before his cold? He sendeth out his
word and melteth them.– PSALM 147:16-18
"For he draweth up the drops of water, which distill in rain from his
vapour, which the skies pour down and drop upon man abundantly. Yea, can any
understand the spreading of the clouds, the thunderings of his pavilion?"
(Job 36:27-29). "Dost thou know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous
works of him who is perfect in knowledge?" (Job 37:16).
"And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered unto one
place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so" (Gen. 1:9). Chaos,
meaning a commingling of elements, is now eliminated. There was first a
separation of light from darkness; then a separation of waters by the
intervening atmosphere; finally a separation of land and sea. This may have
been brought about either by upheaval of some parts of the land through the action
of subterranean fires, or by subsidence of the submerged crest of the land in
other places through cooling and shrinking of the interior mass, or by the
convulsions of mighty electric storms. It matters little what second causes
were employed. The omnipotent energy of the brooding spirit was the first
cause. "Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters, who maketh the
clouds his chariot; who walketh upon the wings of the wind; who maketh winds
his messengers; flames of fire his ministers; who laid the foundations of the
earth, that it should not be moved forever. Thou coveredst it with the deep as
with a vesture; the waters stood above the mountains. At thy rebuke they fled;
at the voice of thy thunder they hastened away. [The mountains rose, the
valleys sank down] unto the place which thou hadst founded for them. Thou hast
set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the
earth" (Psalm 104:3-9). "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations
of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding. Who determined the measures
thereof, if thou knowest? Whereupon were the foundations thereof fastened? Or
who laid the cornerstone thereof, when the morning stars sang together, and all
the sons of God shouted for joy? Or who shut up the sea with doors when it
brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb; when I made clouds the
garments thereof, and the thick darkness a swaddling band for it, and marked
out for it my bound, and set bars and doors, and said, Hitherto shalt thou come,
but no further; and here shall thy proud waves be stayed" (Job 38: 4-11).
"And God said, Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed, and
fruit-trees bearing fruit after their kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon
the earth: and it was so." We now come to consider the origin of life in
its lowest form. Matter is organized and vitalized into vegetation. Three
distinct classes of vegetable life are specified: the grass, the herb, and the
fruit tree. The first is a simple organism, all blade, and propagated by
division of its part; the second, complex, having a pithy stalk, and propagated
by its seed; the third, more complex, having a stem of wood, so being able to
rise above the ground, and bearing fruit which encloses the seed for
propagation.
At this first appearance of life, human science must acknowledge God. All the
research of the ages has never been able to prove even one case of spontaneous
generation or a biogenesis; that is, an origination of living organisms from
lifeless matter. Every living organism known to science proceeded from a
parental living organism. Professor Huxley concedes that science sees no reason
for believing that the evolution of living protoplasm from nonliving matter has
yet been performed.
Between nothing and matter was an infinite chasm which omnipotent creative
energy alone could span. Between the chaos of matter and order there was
another infinite chasm which God alone can span. Between matter and life of the
lowest order is yet another infinite chasm which God alone can span. We here
consider also for the, first time the great law of reproduction and
multiplication within the limit of species. Each divided root of grass produces
grass only. Each herb, through its own seed, reproduces only its own kind. Each
fruit tree, through its own seed, reproduces only its own kind. This law of
reproduction of species applies, as will be seen later, to the higher animal
life (Gen. 1:21, 25, 28), and is equally applicable to the highest order of animal
life, man himself (Gen. 128-5:3).
There is indeed a scriptural law of evolution following from a previous
involution. That is, there is development in everything according to its
nature. All potentiality in the germ may be developed, but wholly along the
lines of its own nature. "The earth beareth fruit of herself; first the
blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear" (Mark 4:28). "By
their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of
thistles?" (Matt. 7:16.) "Doth the fountain send forth from the same
opening sweet water and bitter? Can a fig-tree, my brethren, yield olives, or a
vine figs? Neither can salt water yield sweet" (James 3:11-12).
The plan of God's creation shows an ascending grade of life in all organisms.
While one kind never produces another kind, it may produce indefinite varieties
of its own kind. The margin between the several kinds is so slight that you may
compare it to the morning twilight, in which it is difficult to say when night
ceases and day begins. This narrowness of margin continues until we reach man,
the highest organism, and in his case, as will be shown, the chasm is infinite.
"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven." The
reader will observe that. in the first verse of Genesis we have a statement of
the creation of the heavens. The reference, here, therefore, is not to the
bringing into being of the heavenly bodies, for the verb to create is not used,
but the appointment of them for offices or usefulness to the earth. The whole
statement is from an earth viewpoint, and in reference to their relations to
the earth. The earth atmosphere having been established, and chaos eliminated
by the separation of the elements, to one on earth the heavenly bodies would
seem to begin to be. Their service to the earth is threefold: first to divide
the day from the night. That is, to continue and render permanent the
separation and distinction which was effected on the first day. Second, for
signs, seasons, days, and years. Third, as a permanent arrangement for the
distribution of light upon the earth.
In many places in the Bible it is made clear that God is the maker of the
heavenly bodies. Some of the references are unspeakably sublime and
instructive. "That maketh the Bear, Orion, and Pleiades, and the chambers
of the south" (Job 9: 9). "Canst thou bind the cluster of the
Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou lead forth the Mazzaroth in
their season? Or canst thou guide the Bear with her train? Knowest thou the
ordinances of the heavens? Canst thou establish the dominion thereof in the
earth?" (Job 38:31-33). "When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy
fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; what is man, that thou
art mindful of him, and the son of man that thou visitest him?" (Psalm
8:3-4). "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth
his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth
knowledge. There is no speech nor language; their voice is not heard. Their
line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the
world. In them hath he set a. tabernacle for the sun, which is as a bridegroom
coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run his course. His
going forth is from the end of the heavens, and his circuit unto the ends of
it, and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof" (Psalm 19:1-6).
"He appointed the moon for the seasons; the sun knoweth his the forest
creep forth. The young lions roar after their prey and seek their food from
God. The sun ariseth, they get them away, and lay them down in their dens. Man
goeth forth unto his work and to labour until the evening. 0, Jehovah, how
manifold are thy works I In wisdom hast thou made them all; the earth is full
of thy riches" (Psalm 104:19-24). "That ye may be the sons of your
Father who is in heaven; for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the
good, and sendeth rain on the just and unjust" (Matt. 5:45). "And yet
he left himself not without witness, in that he did good and gave you from
heaven rains and fruitful seasons, filling your hearts with food and
gladness" (Acts 14:17). "Because that which is known of God is
manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of
him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through
the things that are made even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may
be without excuse" (Rom. 1:19-20).
The object of these lengthy quotations from the Word of God with reference to
the creation and usefulness of the heavenly bodies is to show how clearly God's
revelation establishes the fact of his creation and guards against the tendency
in Man to worship the creature more than the Creator. The earliest and most
persistent form of idolatry was the worship of the heavenly bodies; or of
nature considered apart from God. The history of idolatries upon this point is
full of interest, and all through the Bible story we see a conflict between the
worship of the one true God and the creatures which he made. Paul, in his
letter to the Romans, gives the grounds and process of-idolatry. "Because
that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but
became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of
the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of
birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things" (Rom. 1:21-23). The Hebrew
prophets were very earnest in their exhortations against these idolatries.
"Hear ye the word which Jehovah speaketh unto you, 0 house of Israel: thus
sayeth Jehovah, Learn not the ways of the nations, and be not dismayed at the
signs of heaven; for the nations are dismayed at them" (Jer. 10:1-2).
"Thou art wearied in the multitude of thy counsels: let not the
astrologers, the star-gazers, the monthly prognosticators, stand up, and save
thee from the things that shall come upon thee" (Isa. 47: 13).
In all literature there is nothing to compare in sublimity of thought and
expression with Genesis I, Psalm 104, which is a hymn of creation, and the
address of the Almighty to Job (Job 38-41). There can be no sound theology, no
true conception of the material universe, of vegetable and animal life, of the
nature, dignity and relations of man, without a revealed groundwork of
creation. On this account so much attention, relatively, is given to the first
chapter of Genesis.
"And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and
let birds fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven" (Gen.
1:20). As in the case of vegetable life, animal life commences with the lowest
forms: those developed from water. In his apostrophe to the ocean, Byron well
says:
Even from out of thy slime the monsters of the deep arc made.
Again let the reader note that life comes from God'8 fiat, and not from any
inherent power in water and air.. Both sea and sky are thick-peopled at his
word:
Yonder is the sea, great and wide, Wherein are creeping things innumerable,
Both small and great beasts. There go the ships: There is leviathan, whom thou
hast formed to play therein. These wait all for thee, That thou mayest give
them their food in due season. Thou givest unto them, they gather; Thou openest
thy hand, they are satisfied with good. Thou bidest thy face, they are
troubled; Thou takest away their breath, they die, And return to the dust. Thou
sendest forth thy Spirit, they are created. – PSALM 104:25-30
ORIGIN OF
LAND ANIMALS
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their
kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind: and
it was so" (Gen. 1:24). This language means: Let there be live beings of
the substance of the earth. And now land, air, and sea are populous. The organs
of movement are adapted to the element – fins for the sea, wings for the air
and feet for the land. Some are amphibious – at home on land or sea, and some
in air, or land, or sea. In wisdom God made them all.
1. Derivation of the English word, "Genesis"?
2. From what version of the Bible do we get the name?
3. What is Genesis?
4. State the twelve sections into which the book divides itself.
5. First origin?
6. Meaning of "beginning"?
7. What does the first verse show?
8. What one word is the explanation of the universe?
9. Meaning of "created"?
10. With God for its subject, how is this verb used in the Bible?
11. Do we obtain our knowledge of creation from tradition, history, science, or
revelation?
12. What New Testament scripture expresses the fact?
13. The next origin set forth in the Bible story?
14. Give the Bible description of the earth matter.
15. What mighty agent is introduced to deal with matter?
16. What doctrine does this teach?
17. Given matter alone, what result?
18. Given matter and the Holy Spirit, what result?
19. First product of Spirit energy?
20. Of what is it the emblem?
21. What mightier creation does it illustrate?
22. Can atheistic philosophy account for light?
23. What questions concerning light does the Almighty propound to Job?
24. Was this first light either solar or stellar?
25. Why not?
26. What is the only ultimate explanation of light?
27. Have you read Milton's "Apostrophe to Light"?
28. Second product of Spirit energy?
29. What is the firmament?
30. What is atmosphere?
31. Mention some of its uses.
32. What special use in the text?
33. What property of atmosphere enables it to divide the waters?
34. Explain the process.
35. Of what natural agencies does the cloud appear to be the product?
36. What is the ultimate explanation?
37. Cite some scriptures attributing clouds, rain, snow, and hail to divine
origin.
38. The third product of Spirit energy operating on matter?
39. How has chaos been eliminated?
40. What second causes may have been employed to make dry land appear?
41. Cite some scriptures showing that second causes were but the servants of
the first cause.
42. Fourth product of Spirit energy?
43. What three classes of vegetable life are mentioned?
44. What word alone explains life?
45. What is abiogenesis?
46. Can human science prove even one instance of it?
47. What four infinite chasms which divine power alone can span appear in
Genesis I? Ans.: (1) Between nothing and matter; (2) Between the chaos of
matter and order; (3) Between matter, even when reduced to order, and the
lowest form of life; (4) Between the highest order of brute life and man.
48. State the great law of reproduction and multiplication of original forms of
life.
49. Is there any evidence that this law has been violated?
50. What is scriptural evolution?
51. What grade and margin in life organisms does God's plan of creation show?
52. In what one case is the margin infinitely wide?
53. Fifth product of the Spirit energy?
54. Does this mean that these heavenly bodies were then first created?
55. What does it mean?
56. What three offices of usefulness do the heavenly bodies render to the
earth?
57. Cite some scriptures showing the fact that God did create the heavenly
bodies.
58. Against what sin was the revelation designed to guard?
59. How does Paul state the ground and processes of idolatry?
60. What psalm is a hymn of creation?
61. What chapters of Job should be studied in connection with Genesis I?
62. Sixth product of Spirit energy?
63. Seventh product?
64. What organs of movement are adapted to the several elements, sea, air,
land?
65. Mention an amphibious animal.
66. One at home in all three elements.
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"
(Gen. 1:26). The creation of man is the last and .highest stage in the
production of organic life. Every step in creation so far is a prophecy of his
coming and a preparation fee it. This wonderful world is purposed for a higher
being than fish or fowl or beast. Not for them were accumulated the
inexhaustible treasures of mineral and vegetable stores. What use have they for
lignite, stone, coal, peat, iron, copper, oil, gas, gold, silver, pearls, and
diamonds? They have no capacity to enjoy the beauty of the landscape, the
glorious colorings of sea and sky. They cannot measure the distances to the
stars nor read the signs of the sky. They cannot perceive the wisdom nor adore
the goodness of the Creator. The earth as constituted and stored prophesied
man, demanded man, and God said, "Let us make man." When he wanted
vegetable life, he said, "Let the earth put forth shoots." When he
wanted sea animals, he said, "Let the sea swarm." When he wanted land
animals, he said, "Let the earth bring forth." But when the earth was
prepared for its true lord and master, he said, "Let us make man in our
image, after our likeness." "Thou hast made him but little lower than
God" (Psalm 8:5). (The Hebrew word here is Elohim, the same as in Genesis
1:1.)
When we contrast the language which introduces the being of man with that which
introduces the beast, and consider the import of "image and
likeness," and the dominion conferred on man, we are forced to the
conviction than between man and the highest order of the beast there is an
infinite and impassable chasm. And this view in confirmed by the divine
demonstration that no beast could be man's consort (Gen. 2:18-20) ; and the
divine law (Ex. 22:19).
"God is a spirit." (John 4:24). "The father of spirits"
(Heb. 12:9). "The Lord formeth the spirit of man within him" (Zech.
12:1). "The spirit of a man is the candle of the Lord" (Prov. 20:7).
"And Jehovah God breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life: and man
became a living soul" (Gen. 22:27). "The spirit retumeth to God who
gave it" (Eccl. 12:7). We may say, then, in one word that the spirituality
of man's nature is the image of God. Man is a rational, moral, spiritual being.
But this image of God involves and implies much more:
(a) Intuitive knowledge and reason. Colossians 3:10; Genesis 2:19-20.
(b) Uprightness and holiness. Ecclesiastes 7:29; Ephesians 4:24.
(c) Conscience. Romans 2:15.
(d) Will, or determinate choice, free moral agency.
(e) Worship of and communion with God.
(f) Dignity of presence. I Corinthians 11:7; Genesis 9:2.
(g) Immortality of soul, and provision for immortality of body by access to the
tree of life. Genesis 3:22.
(h) Capacity for marriage, not like the consorting of beasts.
(i) Capacity for labor apart from the necessary struggle for existence.
(j) Speech, itself an infinite chasm between man and beast.
The dual nature of man will be considered in the next chapter on the second
chapter of Genesis, which supplies details of man’s creation not given in this
general statement.
"Male and female made he them." Multiply and fill the earth. There is
one, and only one human race. The earth's population came from one pair. There
was no pre-Adamite man. There has been no post-Adamite man, unless we except
Jesus of Nazareth. The unity of the race is a vital and fundamental Bible
doctrine. Its witness on this point is manifold, explicit, and unambiguous.
(Gen. 9:19; 10:32; Acts 17:26.) The whole scheme of redemption is based on the
unity of the race (Rom. 5:12-21). When we speak of the Caucasian, Mongolian,
Malay, African, and North American Indian as different races, we employ both
unscientific and unbiblical terms if we mean to imply different origins. There
was no need for another race. This one pair could fill the earth by
multiplication. There was no room for another race, for all authority of rule
was vested in this one.
Multiply. Fill the earth. Subdue it. Man was to range over all zones and
inhabit all zones. The sea was to be his home as well as the land. The habitat
of each beast or bird or fish was of narrow limit.
Man was endowed with wisdom to adapt himself to all climates, protect himself
from all dangers and surpass all barriers. There was given to him the spirit of
intervention and exploration. He would climb mountains, descend into caves,
navigate oceans, bridge rivers, cut canals through isthmuses. To subdue the
earth was a vast commission which called out all of his reserve powers. Upon
this point we cannot do better than quote the great Baptist scholar, Dr.
Conant:
"If we look at the earth, as prepared for the occupancy of man, we find
little that is made ready for use but boundless material which his own labour
and skill can fit for it.
“The spontaneous fruits of the earth furnish a scanty and precarious
subsistence, even to a few; but with skilful labour it is made to yield an
abundant supply for the wants of every living thing."
On its surface, many natural obstacles are to be overcome. Forests must be
leveled, rivers bridged over, roads and canals constructed, mountains graded
and tunneled and seas and oceans navigated.
Its treasures of mineral wealth lie hidden beneath its surface; when discovered
and brought to light they are valueless to man till his own labor subdues and
fits them for his service. The various useful metals lie in the crude ore and
must be passed through difficult and laborious processes before they can be
applied to any valuable purpose. Iron, for example, the most necessary of all,
how many protracted and delicate processes are required to separate it from
impurities in the ore, to refine its texture, to convert it into steel before
it can be wrought into the useful ax or knife, with the well-tempered edge!
What an education for the race has been this labor of subduing the earth! How
it has developed reflection, stimulated invention and quickened the powers of
combination, which would otherwise have lain dormant!
Nor are the collateral and remote less important than the direct and immediate
results. He who takes a piece of timber from the common forest and forms it
into a useful implement thereby makes it his own and it cannot rightfully be
taken from him, since no one can justly appropriate to himself the product of
another's skill and labor. So he who originally takes possession of an
unappropriated field and by his labor prepares it for use thereby makes it his
own and it cannot rightfully be taken from him. Hence arises the right of
property, the origin and bond of civil society; and thus all the blessings of
society, and of civilization and government, are due to the divinely implanted
impulse, “fill the earth, and subdue it." Every institution of learning is
but a means to this one great end.
The dominion of man is as broad as his commission: "Have dominion over the
fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing
that moveth upon the earth" (Gen. 1:28). For thou hast made him but little
lower than God, And crownest him with glory and honour. Thou makest him to have
dominion over the works of thy hands; Thou hast put all things under his feet;
All sheep and oxen, Yea, and the beasts of the field, The birds of the heavens,
and the fish of the sea, Whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas. 0,
Jehovah, Our Lord, How excellent is thy name in all the earth. – PSALM 8:5-9
The exceeding great sweep of our dominion cannot be estimated until in the New
Testament we study its exercise by the Second Adam, our Lord Jesus Christ (Heb.
2:5-11). The fullness of it is even yet future.
And herein is man's title to the earth:
(a) He must populate it.
(b) He must develop its resources to support that population.
In God's law neither man nor nation can hold title to land or sea and let them
remain undeveloped. This explains God's dealings with nations. The ignorant
savage cannot hold large territories of fertile land merely for a hunting
ground. When the developer comes he must retire. Spain's title to Cuba perished
by 400 years of non-development. Mere priority of occupancy on a given territory
cannot be a barrier to the progress of civilization. Wealth has no right to buy
a county, or state, or continent and turn it into a deer park. The earth is
man's. Wealth has no right to add house to house and land to land until there
is no room for the people. "Woe unto them that join house to house, that
lay field to field, till there be no room, and ye be made to dwell in the midst
of the land" (Isa. 5:8).
The discussion of the days of creation has been designedly reserved until now,
on account of their relation to the last creative institution. When the text
says: "There was evening and there was morning, one day," or a second
day, the language is that of the natural day as we now have it. But this does
not necessarily mean that the earth was only 144 hours older than man. But it
does imply:
That God chose to conduct his processes of earth formation by alternatings of
activity and rest.
That he intended these periods of alternative activity and rest to constitute a
prototype of time division for man not suggested by the revolution of the earth
or any heavenly body. And that this division of time into a week should
punctuate the institution of the sabbath, which was made for man, not for God,
and that through it man's allegiance to God might be perpetuated.
We thus come to the crowning act of creation:
THE INSTITUTION OF THE SABBATH
"And the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had made; and he rested
on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the
seventh day and hallowed it; because that in it he rested from all his work
which God had created and made" (Gen. 2:1-3). It has already been observed
that the seven periods of creation called days, whatever their duration, were
designed to be a prototype of a division of time not suggested by nature. Our
natural day results from one revolution of the earth on its own axis; our month
from the moon's revolution around the earth; our year from the earth's
revolution around the sun. But the week is of divine appointment. A New
Testament scripture goes to the root of the matter: "And he said unto
them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath; so that the Son
of man is Lord even of the sabbath" (Mark 2:27-28).
God condescends to represent himself as man's archetype and exemplar. The
sabbath was not made for God: "The Almighty fainteth not, neither is
weary."
Among the reasons for the institution of the sabbath we may safely emphasize
these:
Man's Mind Is Finite and His Memory Imperfect. Some means must be provided to
stir up the finite mind of man to remember the significance of the mighty acts
of creation. And what is the significance of creation? It is a declaration of
these great truths: (1) That the material universe and all it contains had an
origin. (2) That it was brought into being by the creative act of an
intelligent, almighty, beneficent being. (3) That this being is God. (4) That
he is the only rightful proprietor and sovereign of the universe. (5) That his
will is the supreme law of its occupants. (6) That the knowledge of his will is
by his revelation.
It is a negation of these great untruths: (1) It denies atheism by assuming the
being of God. (2) It denies polytheism by the assertion of his unity. (3) It
denies deism by making a revelation. (4) It denies materialism in
distinguishing between matter and spirit, and in showing that matter is neither
self-existent nor eternal. (5) It denies pantheism by placing God before matter
and unconditioned by it. (6) It denies chance by showing that the universe in
its present order is not, in whole or in part, the result of "a fortuitous
concourse of atoms," or of the action of elementary principles of matter,
but of an extraneous intelligent purpose. (7) It denies fatalism by asserting
God's freedom to create when he would and to control how he would. (8) It
denies blind force by its revelation of beneficence intelligently directing and
adapting all things to good ends. (9) As a revelation it denies that man by
searching can find out God, and denies that all the myths of the heathen, or
the speculations of philosophy, or the observations of naturalists, can
dissipate the profound darkness concerning the origin and nature and end of the
world and of man.
Man's Body Is Mortal. Some means must be provided to guard its health and
preserve its powers. His powers of endurance and of persistent application are
limited. He cannot work unceasingly. He will need regular periods of rest for
his body and mind. He must also have stated periods of enjoyment and worshiping
God, that his soul may be fed and nourished. Man has a marvelous commission of
labor, progress and development in subduing the earth. But five things must never
be forgotten:
(1) Labor that is continuous will destroy both mind and body. Hence the
necessity of regular periods of rest.
(2) The higher nature must not be subordinate to the lower. The soul must not
wander too far from God. Communion with him is its nourishment and health. Man
must not live by bread alone. God must be loved and adored.
(3) God is earth's proprietor and man's sovereign. His supreme jurisdiction
must ever be acknowledged and accepted with complete submission.
(4) Man is social by the very constitution of his being. The unit of the family
must not be broken. But there can be no permanent circle unless God is its
center. And no tie will permanently bind unless it is sacred.
In subduing the earth, man has authority not only to lay under tribute the
forces of nature which are without feeling, but to use the strength of the
lower animals. These get weary. They cannot labor continuously. For their
faithful service they need not only good food and shelter, but regular periods
of rest.
(5) Not only animals need certain regular off-days, when they are to do no
work, but all mechanical and scientific implements need it in order to reach
maximum usefulness. It has been demonstrated that a steam engine, an ax, a
hand-saw, will do more and better work in the long run with regular days of
absolute rest.
Man's Spirit Finds Its Health in Communion with God. Some means must be
provided that will keep up this communion regularly and thereby prevent
alienation from God. All man's springs of joy are in God. Moreover, the
creative week is a type of the earth's history and presupposes the fall and
redemption of man. Therefore as one day is with the Lord as a thousand years,
we may say:
The Sabbath Foreshadows the Millennium; of the thousand years of gospel triumph
on the earth before the final judgment, and the final rest and glory of a
completed redemption of both earth and man, greater than the original creation.
The question then becomes momentous: What provision can a Heavenly Father make
that will effectually secure these great ends? That will secure adequate rest
for mind and body and soul? That will nourish and heal the spirit? That will
tend to recognition of and submission to the divine sovereignty and
proprietorship? That will make communities and nations cohere? That will
provide mercy and rest for overtaxed machinery and beasts and children and
women and slaves? That will prevent total departure from God? That will be a
barrier against greed and avarice and tyranny?
O Lord God, our Redeemer, Maker, our Preserver, Thou hast answered in the text:
"The sabbath was made for man." In the beginning thou didst ordain
it, thou didst bless it and hallow it. It is one of the three holy things that
man, though fallen and accursed, was permitted in mercy to bring with him from
the lost bowers of Eden; majestic labor, the holy institution of marriage and
the blessed and hallowed sabbath. Inestimable jewels! Time has never dimmed
your luster, nor change nor circumstance depreciated your value. The experience
of six thousand years bears witness to your divine origin. As types you have
illumined time; as antitypes you will glorify eternity.
And throughout the world, wherever the sabbath in its purity has been
disregarded, there marriage, in its true and holy sense) has been disregarded,
and there idleness and cheating and fraud and gambling have taken the place of
honest toil. There avarice and greed and tyranny have oppressed the poor, and
there immorality and vice and polytheism and pantheism and deism and chance and
fatalism and materialism and atheism have erected their standards. Yes, it is
true in its ultimate and logical outcome: no sabbath, no God.
The sabbath or atheism, which? Why try to narrow this question to Jewish
boundaries? The sabbath was made for man; for man, as man; for all men. Was
Adam a Jew? Was he a son of Judah, or of Heber, or of Abraham, or of Shem? The
sabbath was made for the first man, the progenitor of all the nations, and for
him even in paradise as a primal law of man's primal, normal nature.
Why talk of Mount Sinai and the tables of stone? The sabbath marked the fall of
the manna, that type of Jesus, the bread from heaven, before Sinai ever smoked
or trembled or thundered. Why talk of Moses? The sabbath was twenty-five
centuries old when Moses was born. It is older than any record or monument of
man. Before the flood it was more than an institution. It was a promise of
redemption from the curse pronounced in Eden. Pious hearts looked daily for the
coming of the rest that remaineth for the people of God. Hence Lamech named his
son "Noah," which means rest, saying: “This same shall comforet us
concerning our work and the toil of our hands, because of the ground which the
Lord hath cursed."
The sabbath was here before sin ever mantled man's face with the flush of
shame. The sabbath antedates all arts and sciences. It was here before Enoch
built a city, or Jabal stretched a tent, or Jubal invented instruments of
music, or Tubal-Cain became an artificer in brass and iron. It is older than
murder. Cain walked away from its altars of worship to murder his brother Abel.
Its sunlight flashed into the face of the first baby that ever cooed in its
mother's arms. It was a companion in Eden of that tree of life whose fruit gave
immortality to the body. And its glory enswathes the antitypical tree of life
in the Paradise of God, as seen in the apocalyptic visions of John the
revelator. Yes, it will survive the deluge of fire as it survived the deluge of
water. When the heavens are rolled together as a scroll, and the material world
shall be dissolved, the sabbath will remain. The thunders of the final judgment
shall not shake its everlasting pillars. It came before death, and when death
is dead it will be alive. The devil found it on his first visit to earth, and
its sweet and everlasting rest will be shoreless and bottomless after he is
cast, with other sabbath-breakers, into the lake of fire. Yea, as it commenced
before man needed a mediator between himself and God, so it will be an eternal
heritage of God's people when the mediatorial kingdom of Jesus Christ is
surrendered to the Father, and God shall be all in all. Thou venerable and
luminous institution of God! Time writes no wrinkle on thy sunlit brow, Such as
creation's dawn beheld, thou shinest now.
It was made for man; man on earth, and man in heaven. And mark you: The sabbath
was made for man, so that the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath. Mark the
force of that "so." It is equivalent to therefore or wherefore. That
is, since it was made for man, the Son of man, not of Abraham, the Son of man
is its Lord. Because Jesus was more than a Jew, because of his touch with all
humanity, Luke, writing not for Jews but for Greeks, never stops, like Matthew,
at Abraham, but traces his descent from Adam, the first man.
And as, in his humanity, he was the ideal man who should be the ensign of
rallying for all nations, Paul applies to him the glorious, prophetic psalm:
"But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art
mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a
little lower than the angels; thou crownest him with glory and honour, and
didst set him over the works of thy hands: Thou hast put all things in
subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he
left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put
under him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for
the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of
God should taste death for every man." As the God-man he is the Lord of
the sabbath. To his cross may be nailed a seventh day. But from his
resurrection may come a first day. One in seven is essential – which one is as
the Lord of the sabbath may direct.
The reader will observe the formula expressing the divine fiat which introduces
each successive step in the progress of the earth's formation:
"And God said" – Genesis 1:3.
"And God said" – Genesis 1:6.
"And God said" – Genesis 1:9.
"And God said' – Genesis 1:11.
"And God said" – Genesis 1:14.
"And God said" – Genesis 1:20.
"And God said" – Genesis 1:24.
"And God said" – Genesis 1:26.
"And God said" – Genesis 1:28.
“And God said” – Genesis 1:29.
In simple and sublime language his will or decree is expressed and the result
follows like an echo. He created the world by the word of his power. He spake
and it stood fast. To the first word, light responds; to the second,
atmosphere; to the third, dry land; to the fourth, vegetable life; to the
fifth, light holders; to the sixth, animal life in sea and air; to the seventh,
animal life on earth; to the eighth, human life; to the ninth, provision for
life. Though the formula does not recur, the sabbath decree (Gen. 2:1-3)
completes the ten words.
Primal institutions, (a) Marriage. "And he answered and said, Have ye no?
read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and
said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave
to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So that they are no more two
but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.
They say unto him, why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement,
and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses for your hardness of heart
suffered you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it hath not been
so. And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except for
fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and be that marrieth
her when she is put away, committeth adultery" (Matt. 19:4-9).
(b) Labor. "Subdue the earth."
(c) Sabbath for rest and worship.
(d) Dominion.
(e) Man's title to the earth on condition that he populate and subdue it.
There is no evidence that matter has received addition or loss since its
original creation. Nor that any additions have been made to the species of life
organisms, vegetable or animal.
There is no necessary discord between the Mosaic order of creation and the best
settled teachings of natural science. In his Manual of Geology, Dana
thus summarizes his understanding of the Mosaic account:
I. Inorganic era:
First Day – Light cosmical.
Second Day – The earth divided from the fluid around, or individualized.
Third Day – (1) Outlining of the land and water. (2) Creation of vegetation.
II. Organic era:
Fourth Day – Light from the sun.
Fifth Day – Creation of the lower order of animals.
Sixth Day – (1) Creation of mammals. (2) Creation of man.
Yet the Bible was given to teach religion, and not science.
Trinity in creation, (a) The Father. Genesis 1:1; Acts 17:24. (b) Holy Spirit.
Quickening matter with the several results of light, order, life. Job 26:13;
Psalm 10~30; Genesis 2:7; Zechariah 12:1; Hebrews 12:9; Proverbs 20:27;
Ecclesiastes 12:7.
(c) The Son. Proverbs 8:22-31; John 1:1-3; I Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 3:9;
Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:8.
Theological definition of creation: "By creation we mean that free act of
the Triune God by which in the beginning for his own glory he made, without the
use of pre-existing materials, the whole visible and invisible universe."
– A. H. Strong.
For whom was creation? Colossians 1:16.
For what? The divine glory.
Creation reveals what? Order, correlation, benevolent design: Genesis 1:14;
8:22; Job 38:1-33; Psalm 19:1-16; Matthew 5:45; Acts 14:17; Romans 1:19-20.
Addison's paraphrase of Psalm 19.
1. Eighth product of Spirit energy?
2. How did the creation prophesy man's coming?
3. In what does the image of God consist?
4. What does it involve and imply?
5. State the Bible teaching on the unity of the race.
6. Importance of the doctrine?
7. Into what five races did our old geographies divide men?
8. State man's commission.
9. State some details of the magnitude of this commission.
10. How did this lead to the rights of property?
11. How does it necessitate schools and promote arts, sciences, etc.?
12. What conditions man's title to the earth?
13. How does this explain God's dealings with the nations?
14. Apply the principle to the Indian tribes of America, and Spain's title to
Cuba.
15. How does it limit the purchasing power of the wealthy?
16. What name was given to the periods of creation?
17. Does this language necessarily imply that the earth was only 144 hours
older than man?
18. What three things does it imply?
19. The crowning institution of the creative week?
20. First reason for the sabbath?
21. Creation an affirmation of what truths?
22. Negation of what untruths?
23. Second reason?
24. Third reason?
25. Relation of sabbath to marriage, society, worship?
26. What formula introduces each degree of creation?
27. What were the great primal institutions?
28. Has there been any addition to matter since creation?
29. To the species of the life organisms?
30. Is there substantial accord between the Bible account of the order of
creation and the teaching of science?
31. Cite Scripture proof of the Trinity in creation.
32. Cite Dr. Strong's theological definition of creation.
33. For whom was creation?
34. For what?
35. It reveals what?
We commence with the fourth verse which begins the new division of the
analysis, to wit: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the
earth," and that division extends to the close of Genesis 4, but our
present chapter will discuss so much of it only as is found in the second
chapter.
In reading this chapter one is impressed, even in the translation, by a marked
difference in style between it and the first chapter of Genesis. How, then, do
we account for this great difference in style? A sufficient and simple answer
is that in every chapter the style corresponds to the subject matter. Some of
you will recall a paragraph from Alexander Pope with this couplet:
When Ajax strives some rock's vast weight to throw, The line too labours, and
the words move slow.
This essayist on style then goes on to show that in describing the
nimble-footed Camilla there is no labor in the line, and no slow motion in the
words. The first chapter of Genesis consists of terse, abrupt, sententious
sentences, each as rugged as a granite mountain. The nature of the subject
calls for that style. The second chapter, following the usual method of
Genesis, takes up certain items tersely stated in the first chapter and
enlarges or expounds the statement. This calls for a smoother and more flowing
style.
A thinking reader will also note another change in the second chapter. The
first chapter uniformly uses the word, "God," but the second chapter,
"Jehovah God," and this change from the name of "God" to
"Jehovah God" appears a number of times, not merely in Genesis, but
in many succeeding books, and is just as marked in the psalms as it is in
Genesis. The word "God" is employed when the Deity is spoken of in
the abstract. The words, "Jehovah God," are employed when there is a
revelation of the Deity spoken of in covenant relation. The name,
"Jehovah," is always used when you want to show God's covenant
relation with man, and you find both of these names, or titles, of God
oftentimes in the same verse (see Genesis 7:16; I Samuel 17:46-47; 2 Chronicles
18:31). God in the abstract is Elohim, or just "God," but God
in covenant relation is "Jehovah Elohim," or "Jehovah
God."
As we look over this second chapter at first glance, there seems to be on the
face of it another diversity from the first chapter in the order of creation.
In the first chapter the chronological order is strictly followed, man coming
last; in the second chapter the mind is fastened on the man who came last in
the first chapter, first in dignity, and the other things and beings are
discussed in their relation to him without intending to convey the idea that
this is the chronological order of their creation. The radical critics have
been accustomed to claim that these three marked changes between the first and
second chapters indicate different authors and different documents. There is no
convincing reason for accepting this explanation. The book of Genesis is not a
patchwork of different documents by different authors crudely and artificially
joined together; one purpose runs through the book. Whoever wrote one part of
it wrote all the parts of it, from whatever source his materials were derived.
Just here it is important to call your attention to the uniform method of
historic treatment in the book of Genesis. From the first sentence to the end
of the book there is a designed descent from the general and comprehensive to
the particular. For example, the first verse, in a few words, states that in
the beginning God created the universe. The second verse descends to this
particular: the condition of the created earth matter as being without form and
void, and darkness over the face of the deep. The author does not attempt to
state how much interval of time passed from the creation of the matter of the
universe to this particular state of the chaos of the earth matter. Having thus
shown what the chaotic state was he then shows the several steps by which this
chaos, under the mighty energy of the Holy Spirit, is changed into order.
The first eleven chapters are a race history. Then there is a descent to a
particular man and a family and a nation. Another uniform method of the book of
Genesis is, that in tracing the kingdom of God all of the families of whom the
elect line does not come are first given and then sidetracked. It gives the
generations of Ishmael before it gives the generations of Isaac, and the
generations of Esau before it gives the generations of Jacob.
In this second chapter, as has been said, following the methods of a descent
from the general to the particular, the author takes up certain brief
statements of the first chapter and sup- plies details that are not given in
the first. Among the examples are these: In the first chapter, following a
chronological; order, there is the bare statement that God commanded the earth
to bring forth grass and the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding
fruit. But the second chapter supplies a detail that at first there was no rain
but only a mist that went up from the earth and watered the face of the ground,
and caused the seeds of things which had been created to germinate; then the
first chapter states in general terms that God made man, male and female,
without detail. This second chapter tells us how man's body was made from the
dust of the ground, and how the spirit of man was communicated, and then it
shows how the female was derived from the man. This is a detailed elaboration)
or explanation, of the brief statement in the first chapter.
The second chapter then goes on to supply the detail of how God provided a
garden for the man, and how he came under covenant law to God, and the
stipulations of that covenant. This detailed information of the second chapter
is very important as showing the dual nature of man, how that his body was
formed from the dust of the earth. Here it is clear that the teaching is that
man's body was not evolved from any lower form of animal life. There is an
evolution clearly taught in the Bible, but it is an evolution of each seed
according to its kind, and not the transformation of one kind into another
kind. Whatever potentiality has been previously involved in any seed may be
evolved out of that seed. From a seed of wheat there is first the blade and
then the stalk and then the ear, and then the full or ripened ear, but barley
is not evolved from a wheat seed. Each one is according to its own kind. No
research of man has ever found an example of one kind being evolved from a
different kind. It would destroy all law and take away from man the value of
his reason in observing nature's course, or the course of the God of nature so
as to profit by it. This second chapter is equally clear as to the origin of
man's spirit. The spirit of the first man was not by any process of evolution
derived from any spirit of beast or demon, but a direct creation of God, an
impartation from God. Marcus Dods, in his book on Genesis, exceedingly lucid
and brilliant, though many times tending to the theory of the radical critic,
asks a question: "Was the first man a rude and ignorant savage or a highly
civilized man?" You may rest assured that the first man was the highest
and noblest of his kind, fresh from the hands of his Creator, created upright,
in righteousness, knowledge and true holiness, wonderfully dowered and
commissioned. He was superior not only to the rude and ignorant savage, but to
the highest type of present civilization.
This leads to another thought, viz.: that the savage tribes to today are not
merely ascending from a primeval degradation in the scale of beings, but are
examples of a degeneration from a previous higher type. On this point the whole
theory of Darwinian evolution is hopelessly at war with revelation and common
sense, and also with all of the clearly proved facts gathered by man's
research. This thought is further carried out by the fact that race memory has
embodied in tribal and I national myths proofs that man has not ascended from a
primeval cave dweller or a remote stone age to the present golden age of
civilization, but that there has been, according to the teachings of history
time and again, a descent from the primeval golden age to a silver, then a
brazen, and then an iron and then a stone age. As an instance, take Ovid's
"Metamorphoses" as embodying the classical idea of first a golden,
then a silver, then a brazen and then an iron age, and this is in harmony with
the myths and legends preserved among all people. By a kind of race memory they
all look back to & higher and nobler position than that now occupied. This
erroneous evolution theory goes a long way back and finds first, cave dwellers,
or troglodytes, and an evolution from the cave dweller of the stone age to the
present civilized time. But the Bible itself, as well as present history, shows
that troglodytas or cave dwellers existed contemporaneously with higher types.
The Horites mentioned in Genesis were troglodytes living in caves. This
evolution theory begs the question and contradicts the facts as well, in
demanding almost infinite periods of time between these several generations.
Not long ago the phosphate beds of Ashley, South Carolina, were discovered, and
in excavating for these phosphates there were found all mingled together the
bones, skeletons of animals including man, that, under this theory, must have
been separated in countless ages of time from each other.
We have in this second chapter a description of a garden, or paradise, in the
district of Eden. I need not cite the words of this description, for you have
the book before you. Captain Mayne Reid, in the Desert Home,
describes a fertile, well watered valley, mountain locked on every side, full
of flowers and fruits, that may convey to you some idea of paradise in a valley
of the mountains. Or you may get some idea of paradise in a valley of the
mountains from Johnson's Happy Valley of Rasselas. The record
says that this park was fertilized by a river system, which, in leaving the
garden, parted into fear beads that became mighty rivers. Two of these rivers
-- the Euphrates and the Tigris – are easy to locate, and the other two may be
easily inferred. In the Armenian mountains is yet to be seen a beautiful valley
in which, from the same water system, four famous rivers rise, not far from
each other. The springs of these rivers are not many miles apart. The
Euphrates, leaving this valley, flows, in general terms, south, reaching the
Indian Ocean through the Persian Gulf. The Tigris flows east and then south
until it unites with the Euphrates before it reaches the sea. The Halys and the
Araxes also rise in the same valley, one of them flowing northwest into the
Black Sea, and the other, east into the Caspian Sea.
There were two remarkable trees in this garden, the tree of life and the tree
of death. From what is said in the third chapter, and indicated by its own
name, the object of the tree of life was to furnish the fruit that would
ultimately eliminate the mortality of man's body so that long continuance in
the use of this fruit would make his body as immortal as his soul. On the other
hand, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil fruited unto death. Many of
the commentaries have found in this story of the garden of Eden a mere
allegory. All subsequent references to it in the Bible clearly prove that this
account is strictly historical. By following out your marginal references
abundant proof texts are to be found in both Testaments that the memory of this
famous garden lingered long lathe minds of the race. In the New Testament, at
the very close of it, paradise regained, with its water of life and the tree of
life, is set forth as the antitype of the earthly garden of Eden. It is quite
important to note that the man had duties in this garden. He was to tend the
garden and, as in the commission stated in the first chapter of Genesis, he
must subdue the earth. This shows that labor preceded sin and has in it a
natural dignity not to be despised.
It is well to note that this man in this garden, without being at all startled,
had direct communication with God; without fear or shame he met and communed
with his Creator. The biblical account clearly shows that this man stood in
covenant relations with his God. The very fact that some things are prescribed
and other things proscribed is an evidence of a covenant relation, the Creator
freely permitting some things, sharply prohibiting other things with severe
penalties attached to disobedience. The prohibition not to eat of the tree of
the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, except on a penalty of death, is a
stipulation of this covenant. Some have questioned the propriety of such a
moral test. But a test in this form is more excellent than one like an ordinary
law of nature demonstrating its own consequences.
Men have had some difficulty in locating the garden of Eden from the
description given in this second chapter, but their difficulties arise from
supposing there has been no change since primeval times. For example, the
Hiddekel, or Tigris, is said to compass all the land of Cush, and commentators,
keeping in mind the territory of Cush in Africa, experience a difficulty in
locating this river. They should notice that the descendants of Cush first
occupied the very territory which the Tigris compasses, and later some of them
settled in Arabia and others of them in Africa. A passage in Ezekiel, which the
reader must find, tells us that the garden of Eden was destroyed. By which is
meant not the annihilation of its mountains and its rivers, but such a change
as, were you now to see the location, you could not identify it from the
description given in Genesis. Several curious theories of the location of the
garden of Eden have been inflicted upon the people. A Methodist bishop is quite
sure that it was near where Charleston, South Carolina, now is. Another says
that it was at the North Pole and that the aurora borealis is still a
reflection of its pristine glory, and that there is an opening into the hollow
of the earth at the North Pole and paradise went down into that hole, and only
the aurora borealis outshines and that God had hedged it about with impassable
ice. The discovery of the North Pole, if it was a discovery, clearly disproves
the existence of such a stake as the north pole.
One of the most suggestive thoughts in this chapter is the way in which God
made the man sensible of his need of a companion, and of the kind of a
companion that he must have. The animals in pairs passed before the man and he
noticing that they were all in pairs – a lion and a lioness, a tiger and a
tigress, and so on – thus suggesting the thought to him that these lower
creatures had mates, and he had none, but further suggesting that because of
his difference in nature, he being in God's image and infinitely above any
lower animal, he could not find a mate among them. Having thus prepared man's
mind to see the necessity of a companion, God, by a spiritual anesthetic,
brings man's body into a state of painless insensibility, and while in that
state takes from him a part of himself near his heart, and out of that fashions
man's companion.
Here arises an important question: "Was the spirit of Eve a direct
creation like Adam's, or was her spirit derived from him as well as her
body?" This brings up two theological theories, one called the theory of
direct creation of spirits, and the other the theory of derivation by
traduction. It has always seemed to the author that the common theory, that the
souls of men are all of them, each in its turn, a direct creation of God, is
utterly incompatible with biblical facts. It would disprove hereditary
depravity or the necessity of regeneration. Education only would be needed.
When the companion was presented to man, Adam said, Isha, which means woman,
and woman means derived from man. When she was presented to him she was
presented to him in her entirety --body and soul – and he called her woman –
i.e., derived from man. So that Eve was as much a descendant of Adam as you
are. In other words the man, when created was the whole race in potentiality, and
every other human being, including Eve, was derived from him. A very important
doctrine will be seen to be dependent upon this when we come to the next
chapter, when we come to the fall of man. If Eve was a descendant of Adam, race
responsibility did not rest upon her. Her sin might bring death to her but only
to herself, but Adam's sin would bring it to all to be derived from him.
God himself married this first pair, and our Lord, in the nineteenth chapter of
Matthew, indicated the ceremony by the words which he quotes. In looking upon
this first pair, we come upon a somewhat startling statement prefaced by
"therefore": "Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother,
and shall cleave unto his wife." The usual idea seems to be that the right
of the matter is that a man shall take her to his father's and mother's house,
but the Bible says that a man shall leave his folk, and all the wives can
understand why this is so. They cannot go to the father-in-law and
mother-in-law and feel at home under the dominion of those who are practically
strangers. She wants her home. She is willing enough to receive counsel in the
home life from her mother, but not so well from his mother. So he should not
always be telling her how well his mother could make biscuits and pies and
coffee and desserts. Let her tell him how her mother used to do it. The truth
is, when they marry, they had better go off to themselves.
In two of the finest passages of Milton's Paradise Lost is the
poet's conception of the man's first consciousness after his creation and how
Eve awoke and found herself. I once took the passage about Eve waking and
finding herself, and made it the theme of an address before a college of young
ladies. I suggest that every reader read these two passages.
When we come to the New Testament we find proof corroborating the Genesis
account of the origin of the woman. It distinctly affirms that Adam was first
formed, then Eve, and that the woman was made for the man and not the man for
the woman, and that the man is the head of the family, from which are also
derived some beautiful lessons about Christ the Second Adam, and the church
derived from him; that as the first Adam slept while the woman was taken from
his side so Christ died that from his death might come his companion, his
spouse, his church; that Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it.
1. How do you account for the difference of style between the first and second
chapters of Genesis?
2. What says Alexander Pope on the variation of style?
3. What is the style in the first chapter? The second?
4. What variation in the use of the names of God, and how do you account for
it?
5. 1s this peculiar to the Pentateuch?
6. Why, in this section, is man's formation placed before vegetable and other
animal life?
7. Does the first chapter or the second present the chronological order?
8. Is the second chapter an independent and conflicting account of creation?
9. What is the uniform method of historic treatment in the book of Genesis?
10. Of what do the first eleven chapters of Genesis consist?
11. What details are supplied in the second chapter not found in the first
chapter?
12. Give an account of the origin of the first man's dual nature.
13. Was he, either in body or soul, developed from lower animals?
14. Was the first man a rude and ignorant savage, or the highest type of his
kind?
15. Are the savage tribes of today merely ascending from primeval degradation
in the scale of being, or are they examples of a degeneration from an original
higher type?
16. Does race memory, as embodied in the tribal and national myths, indicate
that man has ascended from cave dwellers of a remote stone age, or has
descended from a primeval golden age to silver, brass, iron, and stone
conditions?
17. Give a classic myth on this point.
18. Give Bible proof that troglodytes (cave dwellers) were not separated in
incalculable periods of time from. highly developed and civilized types, but
were contemporaries.
19. What bearing have the phosphate beds of Ashley, South Carolina on the
theory that immensely long periods of time separated the several forms of lower
animal life from each other and from man?
20. What ideal homes in fiction may possibly represent how the garden of Eden
was enclosed and safeguarded?
21. Locate and describe it. What curious theories about it?
22. How was this park fertilized?
23. What two remarkable trees were there?
24. The use or purpose of the tree of life?
25. Of the tree of death?
26. Is this garden story allegory or history?
27. Cite Old Testament proofs that the memory of this real garden lingered long
in the minds of the race. (See Gen. 13:10; Isa. 51:3; Ezek. 28:13; 36:35; Joel
2:3.).
28. Cite scripture proving its destruction. (See Ezek. 31:9, 16, 18.)
29. Man's duties in the garden?
30. Nature of his communion with God?
31. Scripture proof of Adam's covenant relations with God? (Hos. 6:7.)
32. Was it a covenant of grace or of works?
33. What prohibition expressed its stipulation on man's part?
34. What is the excellency of this moral test?
35. How did God make man sensible of his need of a companion?
36. Origin of the woman's body?
37. Was her soul a direct creation as Adam's, or was it derived from Adam?
38. Who married the first pair, and what New Testament scripture indicates the
ceremony?
39. The deep sleep that fell upon Adam and the woman's derivation from him
therein were typical of what? New Testament proof?
40. If either be done, why should the man leave his folk for his wife rather
than the wife her folk for the husband?
41. In their antitype show that both leave their folks.
42. Where in Paradise Lost do you find Milton's conceptions of how the man
first consciously found himself and the woman herself? Sir Egerton Bridges
Edition, pp. 297-8 and 205-6.
43. Cite New Testament corroboration of the Genesis account of the origin of
woman.
VII
We have seen in the second chapter of Genesis the happy estate of the man and
woman in paradise. We learn in the third chapter about the fall of man and his
expulsion from that garden. No more fundamental subject can be considered by a
Bible student, and we are not going to leave it until you are thoroughly
grounded in the significance of the fall of man. But we are not prepared to
commence the study of the fall until we consider somewhat the origin, nature,
office, and history of another very distinct class of created beings called
angels, through one of whom man was seduced to sin against God. So you see that
the subject of this chapter is the creation of the angels, their relation to
God and to man and the use of the serpent as an instrument in the temptation.
Many Bible words of general signification take on by special usage a particular
and official meaning; for example, the words, "apostle,"
"deacon," "church," or "angel." Primarily
"apostle" means one sent. In this original meaning one sent by
another is an apostle. Jesus was an apostle; so was Barnabas. But by special
use the term is restricted to the highest office in the earthly church, and
confined to the twelve apostles and to Paul. So "deacon" means
primarily a servant. In this original sense any one who serves is a deacon.
Jesus was a deacon. But by usage the term is restricted to a particular office
in the apostolic church. The Greek New Testament term rendered
"church" means primarily an official assembly called out for the
transaction of secular business, but later designates a particular congregation
of Christians. In like manner "angel" primarily means a messenger of
any kind. Any one bearing a message from another is in this original sense an
angel. Many passages in the Old Testament use the phrase, "angel of
Jehovah," to designate a preliminary manifestation of the Son of God
before his incarnation. In this original sense the pastors of the seven
churches in Asia are called the angels of the churches. Yet this general term
"angel" by abundant usage, designates a special class of created
beings, neither human nor divine – above the one, below the other – appointed
unto a distinctive office. These constitute the hosts of the heavens.
When, then, were they created? There was but one creative period, and that
period is set forth in the first chapter of Genesis and in the second chapter
down to the third verse. In that time were finished not only the heavens and
the earth, but "all the hosts of them" (Gen. 2:1). Now the hosts of
the earth are the created beings that inhabit the earth. The hosts of the
heavens are the angels. The order in which the earth's hosts – that is, the
animals of sea, air, and land, culminating in man – were brought into being,
has been set forth in previous chapters. But a consideration of the origin of
"the hosts of the heavens" has been deferred until their contact with
man brings them prominently into the earth history.
In the Psalm 148 all the creation, including the angelic hosts, are invoked to
praise Jehovah, their Creator:
Praise ye him, all his angels:
Praise ye him, all his hosts. . . .
For be commanded, and they were created.
Here the creation of the angels is associated in time with the rest of
creation. Even more particularly in this association set forth and attributed
to Jesus Christ in Colossians 1:16: "In him were all things created, in
the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether
thrones or dominions, or principalities or powers; all things have been created
through him and unto him." It is true that the Son of God, by his
incarnation, was subsequently made a little lower than the angels whom he
created (Heb. 2:7), but after his resurrection and ascension he was again
exalted above them: "Who is on the right hand of God, having gone into
heaven; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him" (2
Peter 3:22).
The hosts of heaven met Jacob at a later day (Gen. 32:1) and are an innumerable
company. "The Lord came from the myriads of holy ones" (Deut. 33:2).
"The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands upon
thousands" (Psalm 68:17). "Thousands of thousands ministered unto
him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him" (Dan. 7:10).
"Innumerable hosts of angels" (Heb. 12:22). "I heard the voice
of many angels) . . . and the number of them was ten thousand times ten
thousand and thousands of thousands" (Rev. 5:11).
The creation of the angels preceded that of the universe matter, and of course,
that of man. In other words, the first creation was when the angels were made.
We know this to be the case, because in the Psalm 104:4-5, these angels were
employed in bringing the chaotic earth matter into order. From the passage, Job
38:7, we are told that the sons of God watched it, had participated in it, and
when it was completed shouted for Joy over the world when it was created. They
rejoiced over the beautiful consummation.
By nature the angels were incorporeal, i.e., pure spirit (Psalm 104:4; Heb.
1:14; Eph. 6:12), and sexless (Matt. 22:30), and immortal (Luke 20:36),
possessed of superhuman and yet finite wisdom and power (2 Sam. 14:20; 2 Peter
2:11; Matt. 24:36; I Peter 1:12; Eph. 3:10). Angels are not a family, but a
company. They are without ancestry or posterity. Each stands or falls in his
own individuality. As they could not fall through a progenitor, nor become
corrupt through hereditary law, they cannot, when fallen, become subjects of
redemption through a second federal head (Heb. 2:16). Of angels, therefore, we
may say: They are created and therefore finite beings; by origin they are
called the sons of God (Job 1:6; 2:7); by nature they are spirits (Psalm 104:4)
; by character they are called "holy ones" or "saints" (Job
5:1; Psalm 89:5-7; Dan. 8:13; Jude 14). Later we shall find them ministrators
of the law (Gal. 3:19), heralds of the gospel (Luke 2:9-13), and servants of
Christ's people (Heb. 1:14).
Now we come to the origin of sin. From the most. ancient times the origin of
evil has baffled the inquisition of proud human philosophy. The Bible account
of it is both simple and satisfactory. It originated with the angels. These
angels were created free, moral agents, under law, on probation, with power to
determinate choice, hence liable to fall. The greater number of them stood the
test. In I Timothy 5:21, those who stood the test are called the elect angels.
But many fell from their state of innocence. See 2 Peter 2:4, and Jude 6:
"The angels which kept not their first estate." The leader and chief
among them was Satan, who "stood not in the truth" (John 8:44),
falling through pride (I Tim. 3:6). He was first called Lucifer, which means
"son of the morning." He loses that name and takes the name Satan.
This chief of the fallen angels has many Bible names. As expressive of his
primacy and supremacy over other evil spirits he is called Beelzebub. As
indicative of his hostility to man he is called Satan, which means adversary.
As descriptive of his methods of malignity against man his name is devil. In
this word is the idea of one who sets at variance. Those whom he seeks to set
at variance are God and man. When he approaches man he slanders God; when he
approaches God he accuses man. Hence, in his work of variance he is both an
accuser and a slanderer. When he approaches Eve he slanders God. When he
approaches God he accuses Job. In view of the result of his work he is called
Apollyon, the destroyer. He is never a constructionist, but eminently a
destructionist. He does not build; he demolishes. Because of the form he
assumed in the temptation of man, he is called the Serpent, the Dragon. Very
sinuous, tortuous, slimy, and subtle are his ways. On account of his rage and
predatory character he is compared to a roaring lion. He is called the tempter
because he incites to evil. He is called the receiver because he tempts by
lies. That he may deceive he comes as an angel of light, and that he may trap
the unwary he sets cunning traps as a fowler who ensnares birds. But all the
time he is a liar and a murderer, and the father of lies and murders. He is the
father of all false religions. He uses the lusts of the flesh, the pride of
life, and the course of the world in turning men away from God. He first
blinds, then binds and then stupefies, and so he keeps his goods in peace. He
is an awful and hideous reality, apart from God the most stupendous factor in
the universe. He is limited in power and in the time allotted him to work his
evil deeds. Now, as I stated, the angels, like man, were on probation. The best
statement of that case that I have ever seen is in Milton's Paradise
Lost, fifth book, commencing at the 520th line: Raphael said
to Adam:
“Son of heaven and earth, Attend: that thou art happy,
owe to God; That thou continuest such, owe to thyself, That is, to thy
obedience; therein stand. This was that caution given thee; be advised. God
made thee perfect, not immutable; And good he made thee; but to persevere He
left it in thy power; ordained thy will By nature free, not over-ruled by fate
Inextricable, or strict necessity: Our voluntary service he requires, Not our
necessitated; such with Him Finds no acceptance, nor can find; for how Can
hearts, not free, be tried whether they serve Willing or not, who will but what
they must By destiny, and can no other choose? Myself, and all the angelic
host, that stand In sight of God, enthroned, our happy state Hold, as you
yours, while our obedience holds; On other surety none: freely we serve,
Because we freely love, as in our will To love or not; in this we stand or
fall.”
Now comes a much more serious question. What was the occasion that led the
devil to sin? God did not make a devil; he created him a good angel, but
created him free to act, to stand or fall. Now, the devil sinned, and we find
his sin to be pride or ambition, but we have not yet found the occasion for
that sin. If you are familiar with Paradise Lost you will see that Milton says
the occasion was this: That God introduced his Son to the angels, and announced
that from that time he was to be king of the angels and that they were to serve
him. Milton bases his statement on the passage in the first chapter of Hebrews,
"When he bringeth his only Begotten into the world again he said, Let all
the angels of God worship him." Now, Milton makes that take place before
there was any universe. A fair interpretation of that scripture is that when
Jesus died and rose again – that was bringing his Begotten into the world again
– God said, "Let all the angels worship him." That is the true
explanation, that they were to worship not the Son of God in original divinity,
but the Son of God in raised humanity. So Milton was mistaken about the
occasion. Jesus Christ made the angels, all of them. He made the one that
became the devil, and I don't suppose that the devil's pride or ambition would
ever have led him to rebel against the one who created him through any desire
to succeed him. The question is, What was the occasion that excited the pride
of the devil? Now, the Bible does not say, but I am going to give you my own
opinion, and you can take it as an opinion. My opinion is that, in one of those
meetings in heaven like that described in Job at which all the angels at stated
times come up into the presence of God, he announced to them that he was going
to create this world and make man in his image and likeness, and that this man
through obedience, – if he observed the commandments of God and should eat of
the tree of life, – would become immortal and be lifted up above the angels,
and that it should be the office of the angels to serve this man. Now I think
there is where the devil protested. He was willing enough for God to be over him,
but he was unwilling for a creature, made originally lower. than himself, to
have a destiny that would one day put any being above him. Every saved soul
will be far above any angel. That is my opinion. If I had time I believe I
could show you inferentially, of course not specifically, for I would then have
to give you scriptures.
Now, in the second book of Paradise Lost Milton tracks the Bible
out much more clearly about how sin originated. When the devil, after being
cast out of heaven, is leaving hell to go back to find on earth this people
that were to be created below him and one day were to be above him, he meets at
the gate of hell Sin and Death, both horrible. And Just as he and Death are
about to fight, Sin intervenes. Sin is a beautiful woman from the waist up, and
a snake from the waist down. She says to Satan: "Death is thy son. I am
Death's mother. I am not only Death's mother, but I am thy daughter. Don't you
remember that time in heaven when your pride was excited, that fearful pain came
in your head and it was opened and out I leaped full grown like a beautiful
woman? And every angel said, 'Sin, Sin, Sin.' But, looking at my beauty, they
became enamoured of me, and especially thou, and thy espousal to Sin produced
the progeny, Death, and Death's espousal to Sin produced the progeny of the
hellhounds of remorse." That is Milton's idea, powerfully set forth,
marvelous. That coincides with what we were discussing in the New Testament
about sin. There is first enticement, then desire, then will, then sin) and sin
when it is full grown bringeth forth death. That part of Milton's work is true.
We are now compelled by the facts of the Bible story about to be considered to
take some note of a great mystery. And that is the power of spirit over matter
and over less powerful organisms of life. "Unquestionably, when permitted,
Satan can stir up a cyclone, or electric storm that leaves death in its path
(Job 1:16-19); or incite to robbery and murder (Job 1:15-17 and I John 3:12).
He can hypnotize inferior animals (Matt. 8:30-32), and make them obey his will.
He can, by consent of the subject, take possession of man's mind and make it
his servant. Hence, the demoniacal possessions of the New Testament. One of the
clearest revelations of Scripture is the immediate influence of spirit over
matter and the immediate impact of spirit on spirit. We could not otherwise
understand Genesis 1:2; 2:7; Psalm 104: 30; I Peter 1:21; John 3:3; Luke 1:55;
John 8:27; Acts 5:3, and many other passages. The formation of the earth, the
communication of man's soul, the incarnation of our Lord, the quickening of
regeneration, the resurrection, inspiration, demoniacal possession, the
preparation of dying infants for heaven, the stampeding of cattle, panics in
armies, mesmerism, hypnotism and a thousand other mysteries find their only
explanation in the doctrine of immediate impact of spirit on matter or on
another spirit.
The account of Genesis speaks of the serpent, the instrument, only. But fairly
interpreted it implies what is elsewhere so forcibly taught, that the serpent
was merely the instrument of a mighty spiritual power in the temptation of Eve.
That grandest of all epics, Paradise Lost, reveals throughout a profound study
of the whole Bible. It thus sets forth a possible method of the entrance of
Satan into the serpent:
So saying, through each thicket dank and dry, Like a black mist low creeping,
he held on His midnight search, where soonest he might find The serpent: him,
fast sleeping soon he found In. labyrinth of many a round self-rolled, His head
the midst, well stored with subtle wiles: Not yet in horrid shade or dismal
den, Nor nocent yet; but, on the grassy herb, Fearless unfeared he slept: in at
his mouth The devil entered; and his brutal sense, In heart and head, possessing,
soon inspired With act intelligential; but his sleep Disturbed not, waiting
close the approach of morn.
Just as the devil can take possession of a man and make him demoniac, so the
devil took possession of the serpent. The use of the serpent as a means, and
the most suitable means, arises out of his power and his cunning. I will quote
what Richard Owen says about the serpent: "He out climbs the monkey, out
swims the fish, out leaps the zebra, outwrestles the athlete, and crushes the
tiger." In Ruskin's "Queen of the Air" we find: "There are
myriads lower than the serpent, and more loathsome in the scale of being . . .
but it is the strength of the base element that is so dreadful in the serpent;
it is the very omnipotence of the earth. . . . It is a divine hieroglyph of the
demoniac power of the earth, of the entirely earthly nature. As the bird is the
clothed power of the air, so this is the clothed power of the dust; as the bird
is the symbol of the spirit of life, so this is the grasp and sting of
death."
You will notice that after the curse was pronounced upon him, because of what
he had done, the serpent was condemned to crawl, evidently implying that he had
not crawled before. In two or three books of the Bible we have an account of
fiery, flying serpents, and beyond all question the particular serpent that
tempted Eve was a flying serpent. That only shows that his power was greater
then than it has been since. He was condemned to crawl and clipped off his
wings. Nataerialists will tell you that there were serpents with wings, and all
tradition represents the dragon with wings. So that the Bible, nature and
tradition agree in the representation that the serpent employed for the
temptation of Eve was winged so that he had power in the air as well as power
on the land. EP After the curse was pronounced upon him he must crawl and '
pick his food up from the ground as I have seen them do. I have seen a
rattlesnake swallow a mule-eared rabbit. He licks him all over and covers him
with saliva, rolls him over in the sand and then swallows him whole with the
dust that is on him. That is how the serpent eats dust.
We have seen the creation of the angels. We have seen that a part of these
angels kept not their first estate. We have seen the sin which they committed,
pride, and we have seen that Satan is the chief of the fallen spirits that were
cast out. We have seen why he came to earth, to slander God and accuse man, to
make them sin, to keep them from attaining to the position that they would be
above him and bring them to the position that they would be under him. But,
"Know ye not," says Paul, "that the saints shall Judge
angels?"
1. Why defer to this connection the account of the angels?
2. Illustrate the special or official meaning of the several Bible words of
general signification.
3. What the literal or etymological meaning of the term "angel"?
4. What the special meaning?
5. Scriptural proof of their creation and by whom?
6. Before or after man's creation?
7. Why the Bible account of their creation less particular than that of man's?
8. What can you say of their number?
9. What their work in the creation of the earth?
10. The nature of the angels as distinguished from man?
11. Why may not sinning angels have a savior?
12. Give statement of these beings from the following viewpoints:
(1) As to creation;
(2) As to origin.;
(3) As to nature;
(4) As to character;
(5) As to service.
13. With what beings did sin originate?
14. With which one of the angels did sin originate?
15. According to the New Testament, what was his particular sin?
16. Give several names of this chief of the fallen angels, and their meanings.
17. What Milton's misconception of the occasion of sin?
18. What probably the real occasion?
19. What Milton's conception of the origin of sin?
20. Give Bible proof of the impact of spirit on spirit, and the influence of
spirit over matter.
21. What was the instrument of the temptation, and Milton s description of the
entrance of Satan into it?
22. What was the state of the serpent at first, and what the change in that
state in the curse?
23. New Testament proof of the nature and extent of their punishment?
24 Why delay the final punishment of the angels!
25. Scripture proof that the angels good and bad must report then work
regularly to God?
Now we come to the third chapter of Genesis, which gives us an account of the
first man on earth, the fall of man, his expulsion from the garden, and all of
the fearful consequences that followed that sin. We must regard this third
chapter of Genesis as history in every particular. It is true that the tree of
life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil, while actually trees in that
garden, do symbolize things, but everything in this chapter is literal history
and not allegory. The other books of the Bible, both Old and New Testament, are
rooted in this third chapter of Genesis and built upon it. This chapter
explains the necessity for redemption, and gives the first promise of
redemption.
Some years ago in San Angelo I was the guest of a cultivated gentleman who, by
the way, was an avowed infidel. He evidently wanted to involve me in a
discussion of infidel points. I saw on his mantle Tom Paine's Age of Reason. I
picked up the book and said, "Sir, this is the book that first led me to
distrust infidelity." I showed him in the first volume of that book, which
was written in a French prison when he had no Bible before him, and then in the
second volume of the book, which was written after he escaped from the prison
and had a Bible before him, the same declaration to this effect: "If the
account of Genesis about the Garden of Eden, and the talking serpent, and Adam
and Eve, and the flood are to be regarded as history, why is it no other Old
Testament book even so much as alludes to these things as facts?" I read
that statement to my host. He said, "How did that cause you to distrust
infidelity?" I said, "I would not have distrusted it so much if I had
found it in the first volume only, when he had no Bible, but when I found it in
the second book, which was written when he had a Bible, it made me know that
there was no accuracy or reliability in any statement that he might make."
My host said, "Do you question that statement?" I said, "I can
find four hundred allusions in the Old Testament books to what Tom Paine says
there is no shadow of an allusion."
In analyzing the. third chapter and making an elaborate outline, this would be
our outline: 1. The tempter 2. The tempted 3. The temptation 4. The woman's sin
5. The man's sin 6. The threefold immediate results:
(1) The awakening of conscience;
(2) Shame;
(3) Hiding. 7. The trial 8. The judgment 9. The woman's new name 10. The expulsion
and the intervention of grace:
(a) The promise, protevangelium, that the seed of the woman shall bruise the
serpent's head;
(b) The clothing of Adam and Eve in skins;
(c) The establishment of the throne of grace at the east of the garden.
Let us take up that analysis in order.
So far as Genesis shows, except by implication, the tempter was an actual
serpent. Dr. Adam Clarke, in his commentary on Genesis, Bays the tempter was an
ape. But I have never found even a Methodist that followed him. He has an
immense discussion on it. As a curious thing in commentaries, just read what he
says about an ape being the tempter. While the New Testament refers to the
tempter, Paul says the serpent beguiled Eve, yet in other places in the New Testament
and particularly in John's Gospel, letters and Revelation, the agent back of
the instrument is given as Satan, the devil, that old serpent.
This instrument employed in tempting man, as I have already told you, was
before the temptation a flying serpent. If you read the book of Isaiah you will
see a reference to fiery, flying serpents. This is to be inferred from the
penalty put on the serpent, that after he committed this offense he was to
crawl, implying that before that time he had not been reduced to that
necessity, and to eat dirt with his food. The agent of this temptation is thus
referred to in the eighth chapter of John. The promise says that enmity shall
be put between the woman's seed and the serpent's seed. Christ says to wicked
men, "Ye are of your father, the devil, and the lusts of your father it is
your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the
truth because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie he speaketh of
his own, for he is a liar and the father of lies."
When death came to Adam and Eve, so far as Satan was concerned, it was a murder
that he had committed. Just as in the next chapter he incites Cain to murder.
Cain was of the wicked one. You must look on the downfall of Adam and Eve as a
murder committed by the devil. They sinned, but when Satan is put on judgment,
he is put on judgment as a murderer. He brought about their ruin by lies.
The next question is: What credentials did the serpent bring to accredit him to
Eve and thereby deceive her? He is represented as coming as an angel of light.
Eve certainly did not suppose that she was listening to the devil. She thought
in her heart that the one who was telling her these things had given evidence
that he was from God. What were the credentials? There was one miracle, and
that was, talk. A serpent talked. Eve knew that no beast or reptile had ever
talked before. Here comes this beautiful, flying, shining serpent, and talking.
Just like one miracle was a sign to the Ninevites and accredited Jonah to them,
so this one miracle accredited the serpent to Eve. So when we come to the New
Testament we find that in the last great attempt to seduce the human race, when
that man of sin comes that we read about in 2 Thessalonians, he will come with
signs and wonders so as to almost deceive the very elect. You must then look
upon this woman's case as a case of deception. In the New Testament it is
expressly stated that the woman was deceived. I know of but one other instance
in the Bible of a brute talking, and that was the ass that Balaam rode which,
under the power of God's Spirit, talked, and that was a sign to Balaam that the
angel of the Lord was there. The next thing is…
Whom did he tempt? He did not tempt Adam. He tempted the woman. He is trying to
get Adam, but he is too sharp to approach the man himself. He does not believe
that he can impose on Adam. But the woman being the weaker vessel, he believes
that he can deceive her, and that through her he will get the man. That is the
plot. It is expressly stated that Adam was not deceived. The tempted, then, was
the woman.
Suppose we commence reading the chapter and as we find a point on the
temptation, you notice. "And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said,
Ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden?" There is a reflection upon
the word of God. So at the present time, I come before a man with the Bible and
I say, "You ought to do this." He says, "Yea, hath God said
that? How do I know that God said that?" And he suggests and injects into
my head a doubt as to whether we have any word of God. This particular
temptation Satan could never have brought before Adam because Adam knew God
said it. God gave that law to Adam before Eve was made. Eve gets her version of
it from Adam. You now see why Satan goes to the woman. Satan comes the same way
to you and me. He would not go to Paul and say, "Did the Lord Jesus Christ
give that gospel to you that you might preach?" But he will come to you
and me and say, "Did the Lord Jesus Christ give that gospel to Paul?"
You see we get our evidence of it second-hand. The first element of the
temptation, then, is to suggest a doubt as to whether God had issued a law.
The second suggestion to Eve: He calls her attention to the only limitation in
the law and not to the broad permission in the law. "Yea, hath God said,
Thou shall not eat of any of these trees?" He did not say, "0 woman,
how good God is I He gave you permission to eat of the ten thousand trees."
But he points out just one tree forbidden. You recall the old
"Bluebeard" story. He has married a woman and brings her to his
castle with its three hundred rooms and gives her the keys to every room in the
castle. And over the door of one room he writes, "Thou shalt not unlock
this door and enter." A friend coming, would say, "Are you, a wife,
shut out from a room here? Now why? He gave you this key to hold you and you
are perfectly free to open it." You see how subtle that suggestion is.
Just so, Satan comes to a boy at the present time to whom his father has given
a wide margin: "Now, my son, all the woods pasture you may range over; and
all that prairie land you may range over, and you may get all the hickory nuts
in the woods, and the berries and the fruits in the garden, everything that you
need. But there is one hole down yonder in the creek. Don't you go swimming in
that hole." The boy will go and look at that place and say, "Why
can't I go swimming in here? It doesn't look very different from the holes below
here and above here. What on earth did my father mean by telling me not to go
swimming in this place?" You can see how the tempter can make that boy
feel very bad; can make him take no pleasure in the broad permission all
around, if there is just one forbidden place.
That suggestion has another evil in it: "In limiting you this way is God
good? Now if he loved you, why did he not say, You can eat the fruit of any of
these trees?" That is very subtle, and would catch the women and boys and
the men and the girls now, and does it all along.
Notice the second part of the temptation. When the woman answers the question
by defending God she says, "He has given us permission to eat of every
tree in this garden but one, and that one he has commanded us not to eat of
lest we die." There is a penalty attached. Now comes the temptation:
"Ye shall not die" – that is just a scarecrow, just a make-believe, a
bugaboo. There is where Satan commenced his big lying. He is the father of
lies. He knew if they took of that tree death would ensue, and yet he boldly
affirms they would not die. At the present day he does that way. Men are
seduced to sin in the hope that they will escape its penalties, and because
sentence against an evil deed is not speedily executed; says God's prophet,
"The hearts of the children of men are fully set in them to do evil."
If the sinners down on the streets of our cities in their hearts believed in
the certainty and awfulness of the entirety of hell, it would have a tremendous
influence by way of restraint, but they have heard the devil say, "You
shall not die."
He enlarges that temptation. He said, "God knows that if you eat of that.
tree your eyes shall be opened. God knows that ye shall be as gods, discerning
good and evil." You see that suggestion is twofold. First, it is an appeal
to the desire for knowledge, and an appeal to the ambition, "Ye shall be
as gods." You now know why I quoted those three passages about the king of
Babylon and the prince of Tyre, and the man of sin who exalted himself above everything
that is called God, setting forth himself as God (Isa. 14; Ezek. 28; 2 Thess.
2). There was an element of both truth and falsehood. Unmixed falsehood never
makes a good tempting bait. "In vain is the snare spread in the sight of
the bird." You have to fool the bird. Here is the element of truth: The
record distinctly says that when they ate that fruit their eyes were opened, so
that what the devil said was true, and yet it was false. While knowledge came
to them of good, it was of good lost. While knowledge came to them of evil, it
was knowledge of evil by experience and without the power to shun it. As an old
writer has said, "Their eyes were opened to know good without the power to
do it) and to know evil without the power to shun it." While on the
surface it was a truth, in the heart of it was a lie, and Eve was deceived.
In a certain sense they did become as God, and God admits it in the close of
the chapter: "And Jehovah God said, Behold, the man has become as one of
us, to know good and evil." But he did not know good and evil like God
knows good and evil. God does not know evil experimentally. "Their eyes
were opened and they saw their nakedness, and the sight brought them
shame." Cardinal Newman says that the conscience was born right there. I
don't agree with him, but I do believe it was awakened there. Dr. Strong also
seems to think that conscience was born there, but man started with a
conscience. There had been no exercise of the conscience until sin had been
committed, and then conscience shuddered against it.
The woman yielded. Let us see what was the form of her yielding. "And when
the woman saw that the tree was good for food" – that is an appeal to the
appetite – "and that it was a delight to the eye" – that is the lust
of the eye, and the other was the lust of the flesh – "and that the tree
was to be desired to make one wise" – that is the pride of life Just as
John enumerates them in his letter. You see then, the temptation came through
her ear, her eye, then through her fleshly appetite, and ambition and pride.
When she saw that, "she took of the fruit and did eat." That was her
sin.
But she did not stop at that. I never saw a woman willing to stand entirely
alone. So she passed the fruit over to Adam. Now, who tempted Adam? Nobody but
the woman. "The woman gave to Adam and he did eat." The serpent did
not tempt him. We need here that passage from Milton describing man's reason
for sinning. I heard a distinguished scholar say that Milton's statement of
Adam's reason for sinning, namely, to stand by his wife even if she went to
hell, was the sublimest thing even in Milton's Paradise Lost. Over in France,
when some great man who has been loved, trusted and honored suddenly falls, the
first question they ask is, "Who was the woman?"
Let us look at Adam's sin in contradistinction from Eve's sin. To use a common
phrase, "Nobody pulled the wool over Adam's eyes." He was not
deceived. He knew God had said what the devil suggested to Eve that he had not
said. He believed that if he ate of that fruit it meant death. He never doubted
God's word. But he deliberately ate of that fruit because the woman asked him.
Unquestionably Adam's sin was greater than the sin of Eve, and the death that
has reigned over this world has not come because Eve sinned; don't you think
that. It came because Adam sinned. The human race did not fall in Eve. They are
recovered in Eve through the Saviour who is her seed, but not the man's. We
fell in Adam. He had DO excuse in the world. He preferred the woman to God;
that was his excuse. Many a man has done that. The next point is:
First, the awakening of conscience. Conscience is that inward monitor that
passes judgment on the rightfulness, of our actions. Before God said a thing
conscience had pronounced judgment, and hence John said, "If our hearts
condemn us, how much more will God, who is greater than our hearts, condemn
us?" Their consciences within them convicted them. Hence at the final
judgment, when God pronounces the last doom on any of the lost, they won't say
a word because inside of themselves that same judgment has already been
pronounced. Paul, referring to this, said of the heathen who had never had the
Word of God that yet they have a law, not a revealed law of God in a Bible, but
they have a revelation in nature and in the constitution of their being,
"their consciences meanwhile accusing or excusing them." The second
thing was that they saw their nakedness, not merely physical, but spiritual nakedness
in the sight of God, and shame followed and fear followed. "The wicked
flee when no man pursueth." Now comes…
God is going to hold the trial himself. He is represented as going into the
garden in the cool of the evening, and who can hide away from him? Jeremiah
says, "No man can hide from God." The prophet Amos says, "There
is no place where the guilty can hide from God." Psalm 139 says, "If
I should take the wings of the morning and fly to the uttermost part of the
sea, even there thine eye would see me and thy right hand would hold me."
The theme of this psalm is the omniscience of God, showing that we cannot
escape from it. We cannot hide even in hell from it. They ran into the bushes.
You know an ostrich thinks if it sticks its head in the sand it is hid. Sinners
take to the brush just as soon as conscience speaks. They begin to adopt
disguises and masks and hide, trying to cover up their transgressions. If they
get a letter they are afraid to open it for fear they will have bad news. If
there is a sudden sound they think somebody has come after them. The night is
peopled with phantoms, chimeras, and hobgoblins.
Now, the sinners are hid and God comes to make inquisition. One of the psalms
says, "When he maketh inquisition for blood, he will remember." A
murder has been committed. Two immortal beings have been murdered. His
inquisition is in this fashion: "Adam, where art thou?" You used to
come to meet me. You had no fear at all. You were always glad to meet God.
Where are you now? What a question! How far that question can go! One of the
mightiest sermons I ever heard in my life was preached on that text. That
penetrating question went out into that audience, making people take their
latitude and longitude, making them discover their whereabouts, making them see
how much they had drifted. Where are you as compared with yesterday, or last
year? And so God forces an answer, and the answer is a very candid one. Adam
says, "I heard thy voice and I was afraid because I were naked." God
says, "Who told you that you were naked? How did you find that out?"
It was conscience that told him. That representative of God on the inside ia
the one that gave that information, and so God, even if he had not been
omniscient, would have known that sin had been committed. And hence he says,
"Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest
not eat?" There is no dodging that question. A man may lie in a human
court. A man may plead not guilty and swear to his innocence when he knows he is
guilty. But when that question of God comes to him he has to answer according
to the truth. Adam tells the truth. He says, "The woman that thou gavest
to be with me, she tempted me and I did eat." You often hear that
discussed m sermons as if Adam were putting the blame on somebody else. He is
telling the naked truth; that is exactly what happened. God did give him that
woman, and that woman did tempt him and he did eat because she tempted him. He
does not justify himself. Now suppose Adam had resisted that temptation. Eve
would have been lost, but the human race would not have been lost, for God
could have made another woman. The race did not stand in Eve; it stood in Adam.
Now God turns to the woman, "What hast thou done?" and she tells the
truth. "The serpent beguiled me and I did eat." Every word of that is
true. She was deceived. She did not lay this blame on Adam because he was not
to blame for what she did except in one particular, which I will tell you about
after awhile. She told the simple truth: "I was deceived. I thought an
angel of light came, and he came accredited by a miracle. After I had committed
the sin and my conscience woke up, I knew I was wrong. I was beguiled and the
serpent was the one that did it." Adam was culpable for Eve's sin because
being present he did not restrain her, nor warn her. The record says she gave
to the man who "was with her." It is poetic license in Milton when he
represents the woman alone in her temptation.
God does not ask the serpent any questions. He pronounces judgment. The
judgment commences on the serpent. First, a curse, and this curse, so far as
expressed here, is on the instrument. "Cursed shalt thou be above all the
beasts of the field. Thou shalt hereafter crawl; thou shalt eat dirt. Thou shalt
have thy head crushed by the seed of the woman." It is fulfilled in a
snake. But those of you who remember the sermon on "The Three Hours of
Darkness" may recall how in that last conflict with the devil Christ put
his heel on the 'serpent's head, and though the serpent bit the heel he crushed
its head.
The judgment on the woman is severe. "I will multiply thy sorrow and thy
conception, thy child-bearing shall be with pain. Thou shalt be subject to the
man and he will rule over thee." When the man is good, a Christian man,
forgiven of his sin, and his wife has been forgiven of her sin, their relation
is like it was before, the woman is next to his heart, and the rule is not the
rule of a lord and master, but the two walk together in mutual love and support
each other. But if he is a bad man, see how he rules over the woman. Look at
India, China, Africa: there the women are slaves, goods and chattels. Let one
of these heathen get into straits and he will sell his wife. Look at the
Indians. One of the most eloquent things I ever heard was by Dr. Winkler in an
address on foreign missions. He said, "I stepped into an art gallery and
saw the picture of an Indian chief. He seemed to have the very strength of an
angel, and by his side was an Indian maiden, and how beautiful she was."
Here Dr. Broadus intervened with: "Stop describing that girl before all
these young men fall in love with her" – but Dr. Winkler went on –
"But who is that crouched behind the man and the girl? It is a wretched
old hag. Who is she? She is the Indian's wife. She hoes his corn and cooks his
venison and carries his burden and is his slave. And as she is, so will this
beautiful daughter be when she marries." Now turn to the curse on the man.
"Cursed be the ground for thy sake." The whole creation was made
subject to vanity, not willingly, but because it was man's home and a curse was
put upon the earth where man lived.
The next item of the outline is:
In the second chapter of Genesis Adam calls her woman, that is, derived from
the man. After this promise is made that the seed of the woman shall bruise the
serpent's head, he changes her name to Eve, signifying the mother of all the
living. I am sure that there is some recognition of the promise in the giving of
this name – that she was to be the mother through whom all who would live
forever would obtain their life. There is a great significance in that change
of name. Just like there was in the change of Abram's name to Abraham; in
Sarai's name to Sarah.
The last item of the outline is:
THE EXPULSION AND THE INTERVENTION OF GRACE
The intervention of grace consists of three things: first, a distinct promise
that the seed of the woman would bruise the serpent's head. That is called the
protevangelium. That is the first ray of light concerning the coming Redeemer,
that he was to be the seed of the woman. When the Messiah came we find that a
woman was his mother but no man was his father. Through the man, therefore,
death came into the world; through the woman the Saviour came into the world.
The second idea of the plan of redemption is that consciousness of nakedness
led these people to the vain attempt to clothe themselves. But grace intervenes
with a better clothing of the skins of animals. Every intelligent student of
the Old Testament has found at least a suggestion in this that no man can ever
cover his spiritual nakedness in the sight of God by his own works, and that if
he be covered it must be with the righteousness which God provides. But the
principal thing in the intervention of grace is in this last verse which I
quote: "So he drove out the man, and he placed at the east of the garden
of Eden the Cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every way to keep the
way to the tree of life." Now, I am no Hebraist, and I have no issue to
make with those who are really Hebrew scholars, but I will cite three
distinguished Hebraista who give a somewhat different rendering to this
passage. Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, in their commentary on Genesis, make
that read this way: "And he [i.e., God] dwelt at the east of the garden of
Eden between the Cherubim, and a Shekinah [a fire-tongue, or fire-sword] to
keep open the way to the tree of life." The same thought is presented more
clearly in the Jerusalem Targum, or Jewish commentary on the Old Testament. Dr.
Gill, the great Baptist Hebraist of England, presents the same thought.
Whatever may be the grammatical construction of this passage in the Hebrew, it
means this: that having expelled man from the garden, God established a throne
of grace and furnished the means to recover from the death which had been
pronounced. There was the mercy scat and there were the Cherubim, and there was
the symbol of divine presence in that fire tongue or sword, and whoever
worshiped God after man sinned must come to the mercy seat to worship and he
must approach God through a sacrifice. In no other way than through an
atonement could one attain to the tree of life. All passages that refer to the
Cherubim connect them with grace and the mercy seat, not as ministers of divine
vengeance, but as symbols of divine mercy. Moses, in Exodus 25, constructs the
ark of the tabernacle exactly like the one here used in the garden of Eden. He
has a covering or mercy seat, with two Cherubim with a flame between the
Cherubim. That was the throne of grace, or mercy seat, and sinners came to that
through the blood of a sacrifice. So we may be certain that Jamieson, Fausset,
and Brown, and the Jerusalem Targum, and Dr. Gill have given the spiritual
interpretation of this passage. It is true that the object was to bar out man
except through the intervention of the mercy seat, and it is true that the
purpose of the mercy seat was to keep open the way to the tree of life.
"Blessed are they who have washed their robes that they may have a right
to the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God."
Let us understand that immediately after the fall of man grace intervened.
First, with a promise of a Redeemer who would destroy the works of the devil. Second,
with clothing symbolizing the righteousness of Christ. Third, with a mercy seat
indicating the method by which God could be savingly approached. From this time
on until the flood that mercy seat is at the east of the garden and whoever
would partake of the tree of life and live forever must come to God where he
dwells between the Cherubim, where the Shekinah is the symbol of his presence,
and that we can only come to him in the blood of an atonement. You have only to
commence the next chapter to see how worshipers came before the Lord with an
offering. Where was the Lord? There was a particular place, just as the ark of
the covenant was in a place. They came before the Lord, where he dwelt between
the Cherubim, with their sacrifices. Cain refused to offer the sacrifice that
God's law required, having no faith in salvation by a Redeemer, and he went
away from the presence of the Lord there at the mercy seat, and all his
descendants went away from the presence and lived without God and without hope
in the world. Every Bible student ought to fasten the mind and the heart on
this last verse of the third chapter of Genesis as the establishment of the
throne of grace.
1. What: is the subject of the third chapter of Genesis?
2. What caused Dr. Carroll to first distrust infidelity?
3. In this temptation, who was the tempter?
4. What was his object?
5. Who was tempted, and why?
6. What was his instruments?
7. How did Satan accredit his instrument to Eve?
8. Why did he so accredit the serpent?
9. How does this show that he came in the guise of an angel of light?
10. To what solitary point does the temptation by the serpent so accredited
address itself?
11. How did Eve obtain her knowledge of the divine prohibition?
12. Was this second-hand knowledge to her accredited by any miracles?
13. Cite New Testament proof that she was really deceived, honestly supposing
that he was obeying God.
14. Was Milton right in supposing Eve to be alone when she was tempted, or was
the man with her?
15. Did the serpent's credentials beguile him?
16. Why, standing by and not deceived, did he not interpose to disabuse his
wife of her mistake?
17. Being not deceived himself, knowing that disobedience was wilful and
deliberate rebellion against God and meant death, why did he eat?
18. New Testament proof that the fall of man came by one transgression?
19. Was this transgression the woman's or the man's?
20. Show why death did not come to the human race by the woman.
21. Can you discern in this a reason that redemption should come from the seed
of the woman and not from the seed of the man?
22. What was the nature and extent of the death penalty attached to the
violation of the law?
23. Was this penalty then enforced?
24. What intervened to suspend it?
25. Yet what consequences of sin did follow the violation of the law?
26. How did Adam's fall affect his posterity? New Testament proof?
27. In order to any man's restoration to godlikeness what works of the Holy
Spirit does this depravity necessitate?
28. In order to his justification, what work of Christ?
29. How was this the first race probation?
30. Under what new covenant did the intervention of love and mercy place the
fallen man?
31. Expressed in what Edenic promise?
32. In what way must man now (at that time) approach God?
33. Cite and correctly render the scripture showing that God did keep open a
way to the tree of life in that garden from which man was expelled.
34, Were the judgments pronounced in Genesis 3:16-19, intended as a complete
fulfilment of the penalty threatened in Genesis 2:17, or where they more in the
way of necessary consequences of sin whose supreme penalty was suspended by the
intervention of grace?
Our study of the third chapter of Genesis revealed the first sin on earth, its
trial and judgment; the consequent expulsion of man from the garden of Eden,
and intervention of grace introducing a plan of redemption. Before proceeding
in the history of fallen man we need to dip somewhat into systematic theology
in order to fix in our minds some fundamental doctrines concerning both sin and
grace.
We are not prepared to give even a definition of sin until we consider the
several words which name it, or are its synonyms. We give the words in both
Greek and English: Hamartia – "Missing the mark," Matthew
1:21; Romans 7:7; Hebrews 9:26. Anomia – "Lawlessness," I John
3:4; Romans 7:8. Asebeia – "Unlikeness to God," Titus 2:12. Adikia
– "Iniquity, perversion from righteousness," Acts 8:23. Apostasia
– "Apostasy, or falling away, or departure," i.e., from God or the
faith, 2 Thessalonians 2:3; I Timothy 4:1; Hebrews 3:12. Echthra –
"Enmity," i.e., toward God, Romans 8:7. Epithumia –
"Cupidity, covetousness, lust," Romans 1:24. Kakia –
"Wickedness," Acts 2:25. Poneria – "Wickedness,"
Luke 11:39. Sarx; – "The flesh," Romans 8:2-7; I Corinthians
5:26; Galatians 5:16-21; I Peter 3:21. Plane – "Error, false
opinion," I John 4:6.
Even a glance at these words in the connections cited shows conclusively:
That sin implies a law or standard of righteousness, prescribing the right and
proscribing the wrong, and law implies a lawgiver to whom the subjects of law
are related. That law is not law which does not provide judgment and penalty.
That sin cannot be limited to external, overt acts but must also be a
disposition or state of the heart or mind. This will the more appear by
comparing Matthew 15:19-20, with Romans 1:28-32. Other scriptures also show
that as moral law does not arise from its publication but inheres in our
relations and in the very constitution or nature of our being, it must be a
fixed, universal, and unalterable standard and not a sliding scale that adapts
itself to our varying knowledge or circumstances. See the atonement provided
for sins of ignorance (Lev. 4:14, 20, 31) and of omission (5:5-6); and the
prayer to be cleansed from secret faults (Psalm l&: 12) and the
consciousness of past sins awakened by the knowledge of the law (Rom. 7:9-10) and
the penalty assessed on the servant who knew not the will of the master (Luke
11:48). With these and like scriptures in mind we consider next:
Sin is weakness or finiteness.
Sin is in the body, or matter; when the soul escapes from the body it will be
sinless.
Sin is the voluntary transgression of a known law.
Sin is a necessary discipline.
"Sin is a fall upward."
The first definition ignores the fact that the worst sinners are the strongest
in mind and body. It makes God the author of sin and contradicts conscience.
The second definition restricts sin to matter, cannot account for fallen angels
who have no bodies, nor the suffering of the disembodied rich man in our
Saviour's parable (Luke 16), and ignores many scriptures which make envy,
ambition, pride, covetousness, anger, the gravest sins. It also ignores the
fact that the body is only the servant or instrument of the soul. We might as
well say that the gun with which a man is killed is guilty of murder.
The third definition limits sin to an overt act when it may consist in not
doing, and limits to transgression when it may consist in merely falling short
and makes the law a sliding scale adjusting itself to the varying degrees of
knowledge, when oftentimes not to know is a sin.
The fourth definition takes away all demerit from sin and even encourages evil
as a means of education. This was the essence of the serpent's suggestion to
Eve to acquire knowledge of evil by experience.
Sin is lack of conformity to the moral law of God, either in act, disposition,
or state. The essence of sin is selfishness, that is, putting self in God's
place. Dr. Strong says
It is not merely a negative thing or absence of love to God. It is a
fundamental and positive choice or preference of self instead of God, as the
object of affection and the supreme end of being. Instead of making God the
centre of his life, surrendering himself unconditionally to God and possessing
himself only in subordination to God's will, the sinner makes self the centre
of his life, sets himself directly against God and constitutes his own interest
the supreme motive and his own will the supreme rule. While sin as a state is
unlikeness to God, as a principle is opposition to God, as an act is
transgression of God's laws, the essence of it always and everywhere is
selfishness. – A. H. Strong in "Systematic Theology."
Dr. Strong also quotes from Harris: "Sin is essentially egoism or
selfishness, putting self in God's place. It has four principal characteristics
or manifestations: (1) Self-sufficiency instead of faith; (2) Self-will instead
of submission; (3) Self-seeking instead of benevolence; (4) Self-righteousness
instead of humility and reverence."
All this further appears from a glance at four persons:
The sinless Saviour, who sought not his own will but the Father's (John 5:30;
Matt. 26:39); spake not from himself (John 7:16; 7:14); sought not his own
glory (John 7:18); pleased not himself (Rom. 15:3); exalted not himself (Phil.
2:5-6).
The Man of Sin, 2 Thessalonians 2:4, "Who opposeth and exalteth himself
against all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in
the temple of God, setting himself forth as God."
Saul of Tarsus, who was the chief of sinners because the most self-righteous
(Phil. 2:4-5; I Tim. 1:15-16).
Satan, the first sinner (I Tim. 3:6) compared with his great followers, the
king of Babylon (Isa. 14:13-14) and the prince of Tyre (Ezk. 28:2-6).
John 3:3 – "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily I say unto
thee, Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
Colossians 3:9-10 – "Lie not to one another, seeing that ye have put off
the old man with his doings, and have put on the new man, that is being renewed
unto knowledge after the image of him that created him."
Ephesians 4:23-24 – "And that ye be renewed in the spirit of your mind and
put on the new man, that after God hath been created in righteousness and
holiness of truth."
Loss of godlikeness, i.e., righteousness and holiness. Alienation of mind and
heart. Corruption of the whole moral nature in all its fountains. Hence moral
inability to keep God's law. The incurring of guilt and subjection to the
penalty of the divine law. This appears from the necessity and nature of
regeneration.
Death physical and spiritual. Separation of soul from God, separation of soul
from body. Did the race sin and fall in Adam? Romans 5:12-21: "Through one
man sin entered into the world and death through sin; and so death passed unto
all men, for that all sinned. . . . By the trespass of the one the many died .
. . the judgment came of the one unto condemntion . . . So then through one
trespass the judgment came unto all men unto condemnation . . . Through one
man's disobeydance the many were made sinners . . . Sin reigned in death."
Does this apply to infants who never reach personal accountability? Romans
5:14: "Death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not
sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression." "The wages of sin
is death; but eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord is the gift of God"
(6:23). David says (Psalm 51:5), "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity;
and in sin did my mother conceive me." There has been but one child of
woman born holy (Luke 1:35), "And the angel answered and said unto her,
The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall
overshadow thee; wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be
called the Son of God."
What is meant by total depravity? The depravity of a man refers to his fallen
nature derived from Adam. Ephesians 2:3: "We are by nature [i.e., by
birth] children of wrath." The word "total" refers to all the
parts-of his nature. That is, the depravity extends to all the fountains and
faculties of being, but does not refer to degrees or intensity of particular
sins. It does not mean that a sinner cannot progress in sin, waxing worse and
worse. Simply that there is no part of man holy, and no part that can originate
holiness.
It is evident from the foregoing that apart from grace all men come into the
world sinful by nature and become sinners by practice. Such is the testimony of
Scripture. There is no good tree that bringeth forth corrupt fruit. That which
is born of the flesh is flesh (I Kings 8:46; Eccl. 7:20; Rom. 3:1012, 23; Gal.
3:22; James 3:2; I John 1:8), hence the necessity of both regeneration,
sanctification, and atonement to save men. "By grace are ye saved."
1. Give eleven Greek words for sin and their English rendering.
2. From these words setting forth what sin. is, what does sin imply?
3. What does law imply?
4. What must law provide in order to be law?
5. Is sin limited to overt acts, or does it apply to a disposition or state of
heart or mind? Give Scripture proof.
6. From what does moral law arise?
7. Prove that law is not a sliding scale that adapts itself to our varying
knowledge or circumstances.
8. Cite five false definitions of sin.
9. Expose the error of the first.
10. Of the second.
11. Of the third.
12. Of the fourth.
13. Of the fifth.
14. What is the true definition of sin?
15. What is the essence of sin?
16. What is the substance of Dr. Strong's definition?
17. Cite four characteristics or manifestations of sin as selfishness.
18. Compare on these points the sinless Saviour, giving Scripture on each
point.
19. On the same points compare the opposite of the Saviour, the man of sin in 2
Thessalonians 2:4.
20. Show wherein Saul of Tarsus was the chief of sinners.
21. Cite scriptures showing the same characteristics of Satan himself.
22. What loss in his nature did man suffer from sin?
23. How does this appear from the necessity and nature of regeneration? (Three
scriptures.)
24. What the penalty of sin?
25. Cite clear New Testament proof that the race did sin and die in one act of
Adam.
26. Give Scripture proof that this applies to dying infants who never reach
accountability.
27. Quote Coleridge epitaph of four infants in St. Andrew, England.
28. What is meant by total depravity?
29. Proof from Scripture that apart from grace all men come into the world
sinful by nature and become sinners by practice.
30. What works of grace necessary to save men?
We now commence with the fourth chapter of the book of Genesis. We have an
account in this fourth chapter of a number of "first" things: The
first birth, the first man born of Adam and Eve; the first recorded act of
worship under the reign of grace as set forth in the third chapter and last
verse. We have here the first system of theology apart from expiation of sin by
sacrifice and apart from regeneration by the Holy Spirit, known in the New
Testament as "the way of Cain." Paul talks about the way of salvation
in the New Testament as "this way." Now here we have a distinct
parting of the ways. Cain is the author of one way, and that way is to deny the
guilt of man, to deny that he needs a Saviour, to refuse to seek God through a
bloody, sacrificial offering. It is further manifested by hatred of the true
religious spirit and, as John says, it originated with the devil. He says the
devil was the father of Cain. We have here the first murder. In this same
chapter we have the first account of a pastoral or nomadic life, that of
dwelling in tents. We have the first account of the building of cities; the
first account of the manufacture of tools – edged tools from iron or brass. We
have the first case of bigamy, man taking more than one wife. We have the first
case of one man killing another on account of an insult committed against a
female member of the family. We have the first poem, which we will consider
more particularly when we get to it. So there are many first things in this
fourth chapter. No man can understand the fourth chapter of Genesis who does
not interpret the last verse of the third chapter to mean that God dwelt
between the Cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, under the visible
symbol of the sword flame, or Shekinah, and with a view to keep open the way to
the tree of life.
This record states that it came to pass at the end of days, or after a time,
that Gain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering to Jehovah. That
expression, "the end of days," suggests a proper time in which to
worship God, the sabbath day as the appointed time in which to appear before
God. Cain and Abel came before God; came to him where he resided, visibly in
the symbol of the Shekinah, at the east of the garden of Eden. This is
supported by the language of Gain when he says that he was driven forth from
the presence of God; and he went away from the presence of God. He went away
from the place where God was; he went away from the manifestation of God at
that place; he went away from the means of approach to God at that place. It
also clearly follows from this language that there was not only a place where
God could be approached but that appointed means of approach had been
established for sacrifice. Neither Gain nor Abel would have known anything
about sacrifices unless sacrifices had been appointed. God would have otherwise
said, "Who hath required this at your hand?" So that the children of
Adam and Eve unquestionably were instructed that there was a place to find God,
that there was a time in which to come before him, and that there were means
through which to approach him. They were unquestionably instructed in these
things.
We also learn from this text that there were two kinds of offerings at least;
one was a bloody offering and the other a thank offering. The bloody offering
consisted of the offering of the firstling of the flock, and the unbloody, or
thank offering, was the offering of the fruits of the field. Both of these are
later incorporated into the Mosaic law established upon Mount Sinai – both the
thank offering and the bloody offering, – but it is clearly taught in the
subsequent history, and suggested in this history, that the very thank offering
to God which disregards the bloody offering and is dissociated from it, is void
of value in coming before God. The record states that Abel not only brought of
the firstlings of his flock, but also of their fat. Now we know from the
subsequent legislation that this proves that there was an altar established there
in the presence of God, an altar upon which the victim should be offered, upon
which the fat should be burned. You will find this in the Mosaic law in
Numbers.
The record states that Jehovah regarded, or received, or approved, first of
Abel himself, and second of his offering. It is a prevalent Jewish tradition
that the way in which God signified his approval was by sending fire down from
heaven to burn up the offering which Abel placed upon the altar. There are many
things in the subsequent history that justify this interpretation, that by fire
God bore witness to Abel and his offering. He bore witness by fire. When Elijah
offered his bullocks upon the altar he asked God to signify his approval by
fire from heaven, and fire did come down from heaven and burn up the offering
of Elijah. So that answers one of the questions propounded to you: In what way
did God bear testimony to Abel's faith?
The record also states that, when God signified no approval of Cain, nor of his
offering, Cain became angry exceedingly, and that his countenance fell; he
became very mad. We will see the fruit of that anger after a little, the
falling of his countenance and the anger in his heart at being rejected because
of the fault in himself. This made him an enemy of his brother whom God did
approve, and from that time to this those who reject the vicarious system of
expiation hate those who embrace it. There is nothing more evident in the world
today than the hatred in the natural heart against the method of approach to
God through a sacrifice, through the expiatory or substitutionary victim; and
that which is the heart of the gospel they hate far more than they hate the
devil. The devil is the author of their system of religion, if it may be called
a religion at all. Dr. Eliot, ex president of Harvard, hates the doctrine that
he has dissented from and commends the way of Cain. He abhors the thought that
man is lost without the regeneration of the Holy Spirit and the substitution
and expiation of Jesus Christ. And hence he avows that "the new
religion" will have no such dogmas. He has gone in the "way of
Cain."
"Why art thou angry? Why is thy countenance fallen? Is there not, if thou
doest well, a lifting up of that fallen countenance?" God is convicting
him upon this subject: that his anger is unjustifiable; that there is no good
reason for it, that there is no good reason for that fallen countenance; and
that if he would do well (and to do well according to the law required that an
expiatory victim should be offered) – that if he would do well his countenance
would be lifted up. Then God explains: "And if thou doest not well, sin is
crouching at the door; and toward thee is his desire; and do thou rule over
him." – Conant. That latter part of the seventh verse is exceedingly
difficult to interpret. I will repeat it: "And if thou doest not well, sin
is crouching at the door; and toward thee is his desire; and do thou rule over
him." Now I will tell you what two interpretations have been given. They
are both by as distinguished names as there are in the world. After I have
given you these interpretations I will let you accept either one, but I will
give you my opinion as to which is the better one. Understand that in a matter
that is so intricately difficult it does not become a teacher to be too
dogmatic and affirm that his view is the right one. I will read and show you
where the difficulty comes in: "And if thou doest not well, sin is
crouching at the door." The difficulty here is as to what sin means. One
line of interpreters says that it means sin in the usual acceptation of the
term. Another line of interpreters says that it means sin offering. The Hebrew
use of both meanings is abundant in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments.
Now, if we translate that "sin-offering," this would be the idea:
"And if thou doest not well, there is a sin-offering at the door. Go and
offer it. It is not too late. Your sacrifice was rejected because you did not
present the sin-offering. Now you are angered. Are you doing right to be
angered? There is a way in which that downcast countenance can be lifted up.
There is a way in which you, condemned, may be accepted, justified. There is a
sin-offering ready at hand, if you will just offer it." But if it means
sin in the common sense of the word, then this is the meaning: "If you do
not well, sin, like a wild beast, crouches at your door ready to spring on you
and destroy you." Dr. Alexander Maclaren, who is said to be the prince of
expositors, gives that view. Dr. Conant, who is in great favor with me as a
Hebrew scholar and in biblical interpretation, also gives that idea, that if a
man does not do right sin is at his door like a wild beast waiting to destroy
him. The Jews give that interpretation, and you may see that is Luther's
interpretation and the interpretation of most of the German scholars. My own
opinion is that the first view given is right; that sin means a sin offering.
That is my judgment. I am sure that the Septuagint necessitates that
interpretation. I am sure that most of the early fathers gave it that meaning;
and, I am sure that most of the English commentators give it that meaning; I am
also sure that is the only way to interpret the rest of the verse, "And
toward thee is his desire and do thou rule over him." Now, whoever says
that sin means something like a wild beast crouching at the door to destroy a
man interprets the rest of the sentence this way: "Sin's desire is toward
thee, but do thou rule over it." The trouble about it is that the pronouns
are masculine. You cannot say without straining it that sin has a desire toward
a man. It breaks the sense to say that a man is to rule over that wild beast.
Hence our translators of nearly all versions make these pronouns masculine, not
referring to sin. Then to whom do they refer? Now I will give you my opinion of
that. "And toward thee is his desire." Whose desire? Abel's, and thou
shall rule over him, Abel. Cain is the first-born. He has the right of
primogeniture. Now see the sensibleness of that interpretation. These two men
came to make an offering. The older brother's offering is rejected; the younger
brother's offering is accepted. The older brother begins to infer from that
that the younger brother is to be his ruler; that there is to be a change in
the law of primogeniture. Hence his hatred and he is ready to kill Abel rather
than submit to him. God says, "Why art thou angry and thy countenance
fallen? Is there not, if thou doest well, an excellency for thee, a
primogeniture to thee? And if thou doest not well, there is a sacrifice ready
to offer. Then the desire of Abel shall be to you and you shall rule over
him." That is my idea of the meaning of it. Cain wants to be first and he
does not want to admit that he needs a Saviour. He does not want to make a
sacrifice looking to his atonement. He does not come before God as a sinner. He
is perfectly willing to come before God as a tenant. "You made me and gave
me my strength and power and made this earth I am cultivating, and I am willing
to give a tenant's recognition by giving the firstfruits of the soil. But if
you add that I am to come as a lost sinner and seek the salvation of my soul
through an atonement, I won't do it. And if you condition my being the head of
this family on my making this sacrifice, I will defeat it in another way. I
will kill this man Abel that is to take my place."
The first murder was committed through the spirit of persecution on account of
religion, and since that time in every land streams of blood have flowed from
the persecuting spirit. The thought is this: Whoever does right; whoever obeys
God, has accepted God and received the witness of God, by those very facts
condemns the one who does wrong. He is a standing condemnation, just as Jesus
said the Ninevites and the queen. of Sheba would condemn the unbelieving
Galileans at the judgment, and if you live a clean life, if you hold things
sacred you do not commend yourselves to sinners. Sinners hate you, as Jesus
said of his disciples: "As they have hated me, so they will hate
you." As a wolf, or an owl, or a bat hates the light because its deeds are
evil, so men living in darkness love darkness rather than light because their
deeds are evil. And if this be true with reference to the light that comes from
the sun, moon and stars, how much more is it true with reference to the light
which comes from God I "This is the condemnation," says Jesus,
"that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than
light, because their deeds were evil." The light exposes their deeds. Your
light shining before men by contrast exposes the darkness that is in the man
who rejects your God, and the dark places of the earth are the habitations of
cruelty. John gives us the real origin of murder. He says that it was the
devil, and that Cain in committing murder – in being angry against God and in
committing murder – was acting under the promptings of the devil. "Cain
was of the wicked one," says John, "and slew his brother. And
wherefore slew he him? Because his deeds were evil, and his brother's were
righteous."
We now come to the point of inquisition on the part of God. "And Jehovah
said to Cain, Where is thy brother? Cain said, I know not." There is
another sin – a lie. He did know. And here is another sin that followed when he
said to God, "Am I my brother's keeper?" "Why do you come to me
in this inquisition about Abel? Go to Abel himself, or go to Adam and Eve, the
father and mother of Abel. What do you come to me for?" Here arose a
widely prevalent doctrine among sinners that in no sense is one man another's
keeper; that there is no responsibility on one man for the well-being of
another. When Moses came to enact a law on this subject he said, "If a man
be found slain in the field, and it is not known who killed him, you shall
measure the distance from that dead body to the cities around, and the city
which is nearest to that dead man shall be held responsible, and the rulers of
that city shall come and make an oath before God that this murder came through
no fault of theirs." If they were negligent in the administration of
Justice, if they had any customs, if they licensed any evil business that
tended to murder, then there was responsibility on them for that dead man. When
that officer was killed in Fort Worth, Texas, I stated in a sermon this law,
quoted that passage in the Mosaic law and referred to the ancient customs on
this subject, and then said that the authorities of that city which fostered
the saloon whose saloonkeeper committed the murder, in a measure were
responsible for that murder. There arose in the Middle Ages a trial of this
kind; Sir Walter Scott tells about it in "The Fair Maid of Perth."
One of the burghers of the city had been killed, a certain household was
suspected, and they were required to come, from the head of that house to the
lowest menial in the service, where the dead body lay. They must touch the dead
body wrapped in white linen and swear that they had nothing to do with it; and
the tradition was that if the murderer came and touched the dead body blood
would flow afresh from the wound. And therefore, according to Sir Walter Scott,
the murderer would not stand the test; he was afraid and preferred a trial by
combat. It is said of Lorenzo Dow that he was an expert in detecting a guilty
man through the working of conscience. He stopped one night at a house and
during the night some chickens were stolen. The man of the house asked him if
he could find out which one of the Negroes had stolen that chicken.
"Yes," he said. "Bring them here before me." Whereupon he
said to the Negroes: "I have put here a pot – just a common cooking pot –
turned upside down. Now you darkies do not know what is under that pot; Just
bear in mind now this thought: that maybe a stolen chicken is under this pot,
and when the guilty man touches it that chicken will crow." And when they
all passed around and touched the pot he made them exhibit their fingers. One
Negro had only seemed to touch it, and hence no soot was found on his finger at
all. "You stole that chicken," says Dow; "you made out that you
touched the pot but did not, because you were afraid. You are the thief and
must confess it." The psalmist says, "When thou makest inquisition
for blood, thou rememberest." When man makes inquisition for blood many
witnesses conveniently forget the facts. But when God makes inquisition for
blood He remembers, he knows. At an association I was once asked to preach a
sermon that would tend to convict men of sin, and I took that text: "When
thou makest inquisition for blood, thou rememberest." It was a singular
fact that about a hundred people in the audience were convicted of sin. God's
method of inquiry into a cause is perfect. The darkness can hide nothing from
him. He reads the very thoughts of the human heart, and so now he is making
inquisition for Abel's blood: "Where is thy brother?" And when Cain
lied God said, "What hast thou done? The voice of thy brother's blood
crieth unto me from the ground." What a doctrine is here! The voice of
blood – teaching that the earth which swallows up blood, the earth which drinks
up the blood of the slain man, cries out to heaven for vengeance, and the
murderer goes away saying, "Who knows I did it, if I just say that I do
not know and if I deny that I am responsible for it? Am I my brother's keeper?
Then whence will come any testimony to convict me? We were out there by
ourselves and no man witnessed it." But God tells Cain about a witness;
that the earth would not conspire with crime; that blood had a voice, and that
blood cries to heaven. Spurgeon preached on the passage in Hebrews, "And to
Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that
speaketh better than that of Abel." It was a great sermon. He contrasts
Abel's shed blood with the voice of Christ's blood. He describes the soul of
Abel expelled from the body by bloody murder, and rushing up to heaven in the
presence of God crying out, "Avenge my murder." But he says the blood
of Jesus comes into the presence of God and says, "Father, forgive them,
for they know not what they do."
Now notice the curse: "And now cursed art thou from the ground, which hath
opened its mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand; when thou
tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee its strength."
No matter where he should go in the world the ground would be against him, the
ground that. held the blood of his brother, the blood of his victim, and he
could not stay long at a place. The thought of this murder would pursue him. It
is said that Daniel Webster in prosecuting a murderer (and his speech is
reckoned among the classics) described the workings of the conscience of a
murderer; what a coward it made of him; how his crime was always before him;
how he would turn at any sudden sound, as if expecting a pursuer, crying out at
night in his dreams, because the avenger of blood was on his track. "When
thou tillest the ground it shall no more yield to thee its strength, a fugitive
and a wanderer thou shalt be in the earth." A man kills another in
England; he flees to the United States. Every policeman, he thinks, has had the
news telegraphed to him about that murder over there. He goes over to Canada,
he is still restless. He goes across the ocean into the islands of the sea.
Wherever he goes there is the apprehension in his heart that he may be held up
by the officers of the law, held to account for his brother's blood.
Now, let us see what Cain said to that sentence: "My iniquity is greater
than I can bear." To bear iniquities is to endure the penalty of the
iniquities. That is the meaning all through the Bible. So it is just the same
as if he had said, "My penalty is greater than I can bear," i.e., it
is unendurable. Then he sums it up by saying, "Thou hast driven me out
this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I
shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth, and it shall come to pass that
every one that findeth me shall slay me." This is the first point:
"And from thy face must I hide myself." In v. 16 we have the record:
"And Cain went away from the presence of Jehovah, and dwelt in the land of
Nod." "Nod" means wandering. He went from that place where God's
presence dwelt, at the east of the garden of Eden. "And I shall be a
fugitive and a wanderer in the earth." Now here he speaks his
apprehension: "And it shall come to pass that every one who finds me shall
slay me." Jehovah gives him this assurance: "Whoever slayeth Cain,
vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold." That is, man shall not be
judge) no individual can take into his own hands the right of vengeance. You
cannot justify yourself in shooting down a murderer; God is the judge, not you.
We will come later, in the Mosaic legislation, to study the law of the avenger
of blood, but this is not before us now, nor does it oppose the meaning here.
"And God appointed a sign for Cain, lest any finding him should smite
him." But, as the thought prevails among the Negroes, God put a mark on
Cain that everybody could see. I heard a lawyer once say, standing over a man
on trial for murder, "Sir, the mark of Cain is on your face; you carry
with you the handwriting of God on your countenance." It is questionable
that this is the mark. God set a sign for Cain to give him assurance that he
would at least be free from individual or human vengeance. As yet there was no
organization of civic society. After a while we will come to that and show that
at least after Noah left the ark God provided capital punishment. Society might
punish a murderer but no individual could do it.
Cain builded a city; Lamech was a bigamist; one of his children was the father
of those who dwell in tents and with cattle, and another was the father of all
who handle the harp and the pipe, which stands for the representation of
stringed instruments, the flute representing the wind instruments. Is there
anything in this suggestion? Does the restlessness of sinners promote
intervention of musical instruments as a means to soothe sorrow? Does the
restlessness of sin in the heart tend to promote invention of stringed
instruments? Strange that Cain's descendants were the first city builders, the
first inventors of musical instruments and the first inventors of manufactured
implements from iron and brass. Take that thought for what it is worth and try
to answer the question for yourselves.
Verse 22 closes with the fact that the sister of Tubal-Cain was Naamah, and the
only reason I can see for inserting that statement is that she is the one
through whom Lamech received his wound, and on account of which he killed a
young man; that because of a wrong to this kinswoman, his own daughter, Lamech
killed a young man. The Southern people know all about that. There has been a
rule with them that every man is justified in taking the life of another who
brings shame on his family. So Lamech composes a poem. There is a parallelism
in these lines:
Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;
Ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech:
For I have slain a man for wounding me,
And a young man for bruising me;
If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold,
Truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.
That is, if God would punish an individual who would kill Cain, because Cain
murdered his own brother, he would avenge on the individual who would kill
Lamech seventy and sevenfold, because Lamech claims that he was more justified
than Cain.
Now, the chapter closes thus: "And Eve bare a son and called his name
Seth; for God hath appointed me another seed in the place of Abel; for Cain
slew him. And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name
Enosh. Then began men to call upon the name of Jehovah." We have had in
the latter part of the chapter the sidetracking of the Cainites. We will come
to them again later. We have had the generations of Cain; now we come to the
new name, "Seth," and the Sethites. In the days of the sons of Seth,
and in those of Enosh, men began to call upon the name of the Lord. Thus
religious worship of the true kind was revived. Some have interpreted it:
"Then men began to be called by the name of Jehovah," i.e., sons of
God. Now we have gotten through with another (third) division of the book of
Genesis, an important one.
1. Give the "first" things of Genesis, the fourth chapter.
2. What hope was inspired in Eve's heart by the birth of Cain?
3. Show the analogy between the expectation of Christ's first coming and his second
coming.
4. State the system of theology embodied and implied in each of these
offerings,
5. What name does the New Testament give to Cain's theology?
6. Who are the followers of his way now?
7. There was a radical difference between Cain and Abel. In which of the
following particulars did it consist:
(1) Human parentage;
(2) Hereditary nature;
(3) Occupation;
(4) Intrinsic value of their offerings;
(5) Or spiritual parentage?
8. Give New Testament account of Cain's parentage.
9, What bearing on this fourth chapter has the interpretation of the last verse
of the third chapter?
10. What may be fairly inferred as to previous appointment of sacrifices
together with the time, place and object of their being offered by the fact
that Cain and Abel did, "at the end of days," come before the Lord
with their offerings?
II. What was the bearing of this fact on the salvation of Adam and Eve?
12. What two kinds of offerings are indicated in this chapter and what is the
evidence of the establishment of the altar of sacrifice?
13. What is meant by Jehovah having respect for one offering and disrespect for
the other offering? 14. In what respect was Abel's offering better than Gain's?
15. In what way did God bear testimony to Abel's faith? Give proof.
16. Cite New Testament proof that Abel secured even earthly immortality.
17. What effect did God's approval of Abel's offering have on Cain and how
evidenced?
18. What is the attitude of the natural heart toward a substitutionary
sacrifice? Illustrate.
19. How does God convict Cain?
20. Give the author's interpretation, of Genesis 4:7.
21. On what ground was the first murder committed and what is the attitude of
sinners toward God's children generally?
22. What inquisition did God make and what the Mosaic law on this point?
23. Give three illustrations. – Fort Worth, Texas, Sir Walter Scott, and
Lorenzo Dow.
24. What was the psalmist's testimony on this point and what use was made of
the text by the author?
25. What is the meaning of "the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto
me from the ground"?
26. What is meant by the voice of the blood of Abel in Hebrews 12:24; that is,
does it mean Abel's own blood shed by Cain (Genesis 4:10) or the blood of
sacrifice shed by Abel (Genesis 4:4)?
27. In either case show how the sprinkling or application of Christ's blood
speaketh better things than Abel's blood.
28. What was the curse pronounced upon Cain?
29. Illustrate the effect of this murder on Cain's conscience?
30. What was Cain's response and the meaning of "bearing iniquity"?
31. What idea of locality is involved in Cain's going away from the presence of
the Lord?
32. Show wherein Cain committed the unpardonable sin.
33. What purpose was served in exempting Cain from human vengeance and in the
visible mark, or sign, which protected him?
34. What was the mark placed upon Cain?
35. Who was Cain's wife?
36. Cite the achievements wrought by Cain's several descendants, and show what
things originated with them.
37. What is the meaning of…
If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold,
Truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold?
38. Who was appointed unto Eve as another seed in the place of Abel?
39. What doctrines set forth in this appointment?
40. Should the last clause of Genesis (fourth chapter) be rendered "began
to call upon the name of the Lord," or "be called by the name of
Jehovah"?
In the fourth chapter of Genesis we have seen the race of Adam following two
distinct lines of worship through Cain and Abel, Abel approaching God where he
dwelt as a Shekinah and oracle between the Cherubim, at the east of the garden
of Eden, under a grace covenant and through a vicarious expiation apprehended
by faith; Cain approaching God at the same place, but ignoring the double fact
that he was depraved in nature by descent from the fallen Adam and a sinner by
choice and deed; therefore rejecting the vicarious expiation prescribed by
grace and tendering only a thank: offering as a land tenant.
Cain thus denying sin denies the need of a Saviour. And denying depravity
denies the need of regeneration. And turning from the Holy Spirit remains a
subject of the evil spirit. And denying the authority of God in religion he
remains under the authority of the devil, the prince of this world by
usurpation. "Cain was of the wicked one." The New Testament calls the
devil religion "the way of Cain." And it must mightily amuse the
devil to hear a president emeritus of Harvard, nearly six thousand years later,
call "the way of Cain" a "new religion."
We have seen the anger and hate of the subject of the devil religion toward the
subject of the God religion culminate in murder, lying, and denial of social
responsibility. We have seen him, under the curse of God, go away from the
presence of God and while under spiritual unrest he and his descendants build
cities or become nomads, invent stringed and wind instruments of music,
establish factories for cutting implements of brass and iron, and in literature
attain a low form of poetry, yet they also develop bigamy, seduction, and
lawless slaying of the seducer.
Having thus traced the godless line of Cain to the seventh generation the
chapter closes with an account of the birth of Seth, the appointed successor of
Abel, and with the statement that this line resumed the worship of Jehovah
interrupted by the death of Abel. So the section of Genesis, commencing 2:4,
"These are the generations [or developments] of the heavens and the
earth," leaves the world under two opposing lines of worship, God worship
and devil worship, contending for earth supremacy, the kingdom of God warring
against the kingdom of Satan.
The fifth chapter opens a new section: "This is the book of the
generations of Adam." The unique phraseology, "This is the book of
the generations," occurs here only in the Old Testament and only once in
the New Testament (Matt. 1:1). It is designedly limited to the two Adams – the
natural man and the Lord from heaven.
One cannot escape deep conviction of the unity of the Bible when he compares
Genesis 5:1, with Matthew 1:1. Place them side by side thus:
"This is the book of the generations of Adam."
"This is the book of the generations of Jesus Christ." With this
parallel before you, read Romans 5:12-21.
The next two sentences of this section constitute another amazing parallel. Put
them also side by side, thus:
"In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he
him."
"And Adam begat a son in his likeness, after his image."
This parallel is far from meaning that Adam perpetuated, in his son, Seth, the
likeness and image of God which he himself had received in creation (Gen.
1:26). By sin Adam lost the image of God and became corrupt in his nature. This
is evident by what regeneration and sanctification must accomplish in a son of
Adam. "Ye have put off the old man with his doings, and have put on the
new man, that is being renewed unto knowledge after the image of him that
created him" (Col. 3:9-10). "Put ye away, as concerning your former
manner of life, the old man, that waxeth corrupt after the lusts of deceit; and
be ye renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new man, that after
God hath been created in righteousness and holiness of truth" (Eph.
5:22-24).
This fallen father could not transmit what he had loaf. Seth was born in the
image of a corrupt father. The first Adam, by creation, was in the image of
God. The Second Adam, by eternal subsistence, was the effulgence of God's glory
and the very image of his substance (Heb. 1:3). Hence Paul says, "And so
it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul. The last man Adam was
made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual but
that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man Is
of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. And as is the
earthy, such ore they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are
they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we
shall also bear the image of the heavenly" (I Cor. 15:45-49).
Another important matter to note is that the generations of Adam in this
section are limited to the line of Seth. This is because all descendants of
Cain perished in the deluge. While millions on earth today follow in "the
way of Cain" no man on earth is lineally descended from Cain. The
population of the whole earth today are lineal descendants of Seth and consist
of two classes only: (1) the regenerate, spiritual descendants of the Second
Adam, and (2) the unregenerate descendants in flesh and spirit of the first
Adam.
According to the invariable method of Genesis the generations of the evil line
are first given, as in the fourth chapter, and then the generations of the good
line, as in this chapter. The line of generation in this chapter is Seth,
Enosh, Kenan, Mehalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah.
We get at the age of the human race when the flood came by adding to the age of
Adam when Seth was born the age of each father named when his son was born and
then adding the age of Noah when the flood came. The figures are: 130 plus 105,
plus 90, plus 70, plus 65, plus 162, plus 65, plus 187, plus 182, plus 600;
total 1656ùmore than 161/2 centuries. Another remarkable fact is the longevity
of the antediluvians. Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Jared, and Methuselah all lived
over 900 years. By the overlapping we see how Methuselah was a contemporary of
both Adam and Noahù243 years with Adam and 600 years with Noah. Indeed Adam
lived 56 years as a contemporary of Lamech) the father of Noah, and only 126
years intervened between Adam's death and Noah's birth. In this way all the
revelations of God to man up to the flood required for transmission, by
tradition, only one intermediary between Adam and Noah.
On this remarkable longevity Dr. Gonant says, "The great age of man
previous to the Flood, gradually diminishing for some generations after, till
it reached its present usual limit, has been the subject of much discussion.
Some have attempted to account for the change in the duration of human life by
physical causes, namely, changes in the physical temperament of our world, in
modes of living, etc. Others have maintained, that the age of man did not then
greatly exceed that to which men are known to have attained in later times;
some supposing that each name represents several generations; others, that the
'year' was not a solar year as subsequently, but some equally defined period,
as a lunar month, or a period of six months between the solstices or equinoxes,
or a season of three months marked by the passage of the sun between the
equinoctial and solstitial points, or (according to the ancient division of the
year into spring, summer and winter) a season of four months.
"But this assumed meaning of the word year, making it a twelfth, or a
half, or a third, or a fourth of the solar year, has no historical support;
there being no evidence that such portions of time were ever made the unit of
measure for long periods, such as the duration of human life, or were ever used
for any other purpose than as fractions of the solar year. "It fails,
moreover, in its application. For though it might explain the cases occurring
in this chapter, it fails when applied to 11:10f, where some are mentioned as having
sons at the age of thirty, and as living to the age of four or five hundred
years.
"The term of life in man, as in all other animals, is God's ordinance. The
progress of a human being from infancy, through childhood, youth and manhood,
to old age, is a law of his constitution ordained by his Maker; and the length
of time assigned for each, together with the secondary causes on which it
depends, is also his appointment. Our belief that it was ever otherwise than at
present, depends on our confidence in the record which asserts it. It is not an
unphilosophical supposition, that man was originally so constituted, that his
term of life should go on diminishing till it reached its minimum, and there
remain stationary."
It may be accounted for in a simpler way. The fruit of the tree of life was
designed to eliminate the mortality of the body. Adam and Eve partook of this
fruit in the garden. It is quite possible that many centuries would elapse
before the effects of this eating would be altogether eliminated from the
bodies of Adam's descendants. The last four names of the list, Enoch,
Methuselah, Lamech, and Noah, call for special comment.
Concerning Enoch we note four things:
1. He walked with God.
2. The occasion of his commencing to walk with God, the birth of his son.
3. His remarkable prophecy (Jude 14-15).
4. The manner of his exit from the world.
As a comment on three of these four particulars I here attach a sermon,
preached by the author, January, 1894.
"'And Enoch walked with God; and he was not; for God took him' (Gen.
5:24). I think it quite probable that to supply the ellipsis this should read:
'and he was not found; for God took him.' To show the reasonableness of thus
supplying the ellipsis we have only to read the collateral passage describing
the translation of Elijah in 2 Kings 2:5-18. Now applying that narrative, I
will read over again: 'And Enoch walked with God; and he was not [i.e., he was
not found]; for God took him to himself.'
"The subject which I have selected tonight is one to me of very great
interest. 'Walking* in the sense used in this text never applies to doctrine;
it applies to conduct, to life; as when it is said of Zacharias, the father of
John the Baptist, that he and his wife, Elisabeth, walked in the commandments
of God. In both the Old and New Testaments, the word has that signification.
For instance, when God said to Solomon, If you will walk in my ways as thy
father David didst walk in my ways,' evidently referring .o the life, to the
conduct. Before one's life can be such as is e-pressed by this text, there is
something implied; something presupposed. The prophet Amos asks a question in
the third chapter and third verse of the book attributed to him: 'How can two
walk together except they be agreed?' So that if it be affirmed that two walked
together, it is implied that the two are at agreement. And it also follows from
the nature of the case that one of the two had been at enmity with the other
and that there had been a reconciliation. So that when we say of any man that
he walks with God, it implies that he has been reconciled to God. It does not
mean that God has conformed to him, but that he has conformed to God. It does
not mean that the Lord has lowered his standard to suit the man, but that the
man's way has been subordinated to God's way, and his life to God's rules. It
never implies any kind of change on the part of God, but always on the part of
man. So when it is affirmed of Enoch that he walked with God, it implies that
there had been a time when Enoch and God had not been at agreement, but that
something had occurred to put them at agreement, and that after this agreement
they had then walked together. This brings up the question: 'Does the Bible
show anywhere when this agreement took place between God and Enoch?' I think
so. A careful study of the passage shows that Enoch commenced to walk with God
when he was sixty-five years old. It is affirmed that he lived 365 years, and
it is affirmed that 300 years he walked with God. Then he commenced to walk
with God when he was sixty-five years old. The mind becomes a little curious to
know what it was that brought about this agreement between God and Enoch; what
occasion brought the two together. I think the Bible tells us what the occasion
was. It evidently connects the subject with the birth of Enoch's son, the birth
of his baby boy. Up to the time that Methuselah was born Enoch did not walk
with God, but a child is born unto him, and from the day that child is born as
long as he lived upon the earth, he walked with God. So we find the occasion in
the birth of this boy – the first-born child. I do not know why it is so – one
may speculate a great deal upon it – but the fact will not be questioned that
with children there comes a change in this world to the parents. There is
something in paternity and maternity that casts a different atmosphere about
all the things of this life; the medium of vision is entirely different. The
coloring is all changed. A boy has his ambitious dreams, his selfish thoughts of
distinction, his ideas of success to which everything must bend, and it is an
astonishing thing to him, the cast of mind evidently manifested by his father
and his mother. He cannot understand it. But after a while he grows up himself
and marries, and still after he marries it is a good deal like the prolongation
of youth. But a child comes to that family and with the first wail of that
voice, with the first uplifting of the eyes of that new-born soul, there has
come a radical and fundamental change in that house. Life will never be the
same again. The world will never appear to be the same any more. Here has come
a responsibility that could not even be conceived of before. Here has come a
joy that without the experience of it, the heart could not even take hold of
it. The objects of life are instantly changed. With his first-born child
instantly the whole course of the father's life is changed. He Bays, 'I stand
by myself and for myself no more. I am not now living for myself. I must live
for this child. I must live so that this pledge of God's affection, this being
which is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh, shall be properly reared; shall
take his proper place in the world.' So much in general.
"But you ask me why I ever fell upon the thought that this change in
Enoch's attitude toward God was brought about by the birth of this child? I do
not know all that occurred. I cannot conceive of it even. It is conjectural;
but I gather that something occurred in this communion with God at this point,
and that, too, by a revelation, a revelation that made the birth of that child
the most important thing to him in his life. And what was it? With the coming
of that child was the announcement from heaven: 'Do you see that baby? The
world will last as long as he lives, and no longer. When that child dies the
judgment of God is coming upon the earth. The windows of heaven are going to be
opened. The fountains of the great deep are going to be broken up. That chaos
will return, as described in the second verse of the first chapter of Genesis,
when the earth was first made; it was empty and void, a waste of water. In the
process of his divine work God separated the waters below from the waters
above. The expanse of the heaven was spread out. There was a separation of the
waters above and below. Then a separation of the waters below, the dry land
from the water. Now God says, 'When that child dies, I will restore the world
to its chaotic state as it was before the expanse was created that separates
the waters above and below. I will open the windows of heaven. That is, I will
remove the expanse. I will put my finger upon the law which keeps the waters
above in the clouds and restore it to what it was. And if I do that, the waters
that are up yonder will come down. And then I will take this earth that is now
dry land and sea, and will break up the foundations of the great deep, so that
it shall be water, and water only, again.' That, probably, is what he said to
this father. You ask me why I suppose this, since the record is silent. To me,
the record does not seem to be altogether silent. The record itself, and that
alone, suggests the thought. Consider the name given to the child – Methuselah.
That name signifies that with his departure comes this flood. In all
probability a divine revelation is memorialized in the name. Now then, let us
look for a moment upon the methods by which such a great revelation of God
operated upon the mind of Enoch to bring about a radical change in him. It
makes no difference how careless you are tonight about religious matters; it
makes no difference how absorbed you may be in the things of this world, you
may realize the cause of the change in Enoch. Suppose that it should be made
known to you, and is a way that you could not question the veracity of God,
that this world would last only as long as the life of some little child in
your house. Maybe there is a little girl at your house. What if it should be
creditably conveyed to you that this world would last just as long as that
little girl would live, and no longer. Perhaps you have a little boy at your
house, and the message comes to you, 'That child's life is the life of the
world. When that child dies the world will come to an end.' Now, as you could
have no knowledge of how long or how short that life might be, there would
instantly come before you the possibility of the cessation of the existence of
the earth at any time. It might be next week; it might be next year; but always
staring you in the face, every time you look upon the baby, or upon the boy,
upon the girl running around; every time you look; every time that child is a
little sick; every time fever comes or a slight chill, or any eruption on the
skin, or any apparent decline in health it would seem to you as the shadow of
the doom of the world. That being so, if you believed it; if it had been made
credible to you, you would begin to say within yourself, If this is the last of
it; if the world can last only as long as this child lives; how ought I to
live?' Now to show you how naturally and rationally that thought would come
into your mind, let me read to you again the passage of Scripture which
prefaced this sermon, the use of which you did not then probably anticipate.
Peter says, In the last days there shall come scoffers walking after their own
lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers
fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.
But the Lord is not slack concerning his promise as some men count slackness;
but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that
all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in
the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the
elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are
therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be
dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and
godliness, looking for and hastening unto the day of the coming of God, wherein
the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with
fervent heat?' You seethe practical effect of faith in that scripture; that if
men believe that the day of God is near at hand, the time of judgment, the hour
when we are to stand before him and answer for the deeds done in the body, and
how things that engage our attention here and absorb our minds and call out our
energies, that these things are evanescent; that not only is 'passing away'
written upon them, but the day of their departure is fixed already in the mind
of God. I say, with this conviction in the heart, that there is to be such a
speedy termination of this world's existence, as a natural, indeed, an
inevitable consequence, there is forced upon the man's mind that believes, this
thought: 'What ought my life to be?' It is furthermore manifest from the fact
that all men whose lives are and continue to be irreligious, are the men who by
some method have closed their eyes to the thought of a day of trial, of a
windup of the affairs of this world. The judgment of God and the speed with
which it is coming have become inoperative in wholesome effects upon their
minds, from the fact that they do not believe. The conviction does not seize
upon them. But our text supposes that this conviction did seize upon the mind
of Enoch; that it seized upon him in such a manner that he named his child in
reference to it, and from the birth of that child until he passed away he
walked with God. He walked with him as a familiar friend and lived with
reference to a speedy responsibility. A careful study of this passage shows
that from the birth of that child the attractiveness of this world had lost all
its power over the mind and heart of Enoch. The things which men covet most;
the honors which they esteem to be the highest, and the glories that are the
most entrancing to their views, were in his esteem, after this revelation from
God – after this conviction took possession of his heart – as if they did not
exist. The two were no longer polarized. I mean that there was no conductor of
influence. They did not come in touch. The earth magnet no longer up high
enough to look over it and see how near was the end moved Enoch. He had seen an
end of it. God had taken him of all earthly things. Seeing that and knowing how
little worth there was in it, he then began to say, 'As I find within myself
the stirrings of immortality, as I am conscious of a deathless spirit; as I
feel myself related to eternity; therefore, as this world is to pass away so
speedily upon which I have my temporary home, what should be my preparation for
the other world to which I hasten, and how shall I so live that when I pass
from this world I may go to one whose skies are never flecked with clouds, and
whose stability is such that neither floods nor fires shall interrupt the
continuity of their being?' It was in this way probably that his mind acted. As
a proof of it – and it is one of the most notable things in history, account
for it as you like – whenever and wherever in any age of the world any number
of persons have become possessed with a conviction of the sublunary nature of
things here and of the speedy approach of dissolution; of the nearness of their
contact with the hitherto invisible things of eternity; that as that conviction
at any period of the world has touched one man, or two, or a thousand; to the
extent of the touch, to that extent you find revivals in religion; you find men
realizing in their hearts that they want something more than this world; that
they want something more enduring than it can offer; they want something to
satisfy the cravings of the aroused and immortal spirit; they are no longer
willing simply to live and toil for bread and clothing, but rather that the
spirit may be fed, and that the spirit may be clothed and made happy forever.
"Another thought: This man having had such a revelation of the speedy
dissolution of the world in which he lived, what must, I ask you, have been the
workings of his mind as he studied the health of that child? Looking back, the
oldest man living was not yet dead. Adam was yet alive. He was over 700 years
old. Some men had died. Some had died early. Some had not lived to be 100. And
after a while Adam died, and here was the limit of his life. And Enoch would
look at him and say, 'What are the probabilities concerning this child of mine,
Methuselah?' 18 it not a curious and suggestive thing that the man whose life
was to terminate with the world itself was permitted to live longer than
anybody else ever did live? Is it not an exhibition of God's mercy? As this is
the child who is to live until the time comes for the world to be swept away by
a flood, and as during this interval the word of God is to be preached to lead
men to salvation, shall not the mercy of God prolong that day? Shall he not
live longer than any man ever did live? Shall he not live longer than any other
man will live? Shall not his age be unique, standing out from the age of any
other, because that from the hour of his birth the decree had gone forth, 'When
the breath leaves his body the throes of dissolution shall commence. When he
departs the clouds gather and the earth sickens and the seas are uprooted in
their foundations. Let him live and live and live, that space may be given for
men to repent'? But long before this man died, whose life was to be co-equal
with the world's existence, the one to whom the announcement was made had left
the earth; and there is something about that worth consideration. He was a
notable character. In all the mythologies of the heathen nations they have
preserved some kind of a tradition with regard to him. The most of these
traditions, of course, are far-fetched. But it shows that the impress of this
strange man was never effaced from the world. To him has been attributed the
first acquaintance with astronomy. To this man have been given the name and
fame of originating a written language. With all of which traditions I have
nothing to do and care but little about. I merely introduce these thoughts to
show that he impressed his age and subsequent ages, and that he so lived while
here upon the earth that he caused men to think about him and talk about him,
and conjecture about him thousands of years after he had passed away. (This
sermon continued in next chapter.)
1. In brief statement give review of chapter 4.
2. What parallel between Genesis 5:1, and Matthew 1:1, and the bearing on. the
unity of the whole Bible?
3. What amazing parallel in 5:1-3, the meaning of "begat a son in his own
likeness, after his image," Genesis 5:3, and what doctrines involved when
compared with Genesis 1:26?
4. What are the two classes of earth's population today?
5. How long from Adam to the flood and how ascertained?
6. Do you accept the extraordinary longevity as historically true?
7. What purpose was served by the long life of the early Christians?
8. Can you cite any case of long life among the Cainites, or among unbelievers
after the flood? If not, why this distinction?
9. How does Dr. Conant account for this longevity?
10. How does the author account for it?
11. Who was the last recorded example of extraordinary longevity and why was it
not necessary after that?
12. What man. was for a long time a contemporary of both Adam and Noah?
13. Which man, before the flood, never died?
14. Meaning of "walked with God"?
15. What is presupposed by it?
16. How old was he when. be began to walk with God and what event caused it?
17. Generally, what is the effect of paternity and maternity on people?
18. What revelation does the author think Enoch received at the birth of
Methuselah and upon what does he base his conviction?
19. How would such a revelation naturally affect Enoch's life?
20. What New Testament parallel serves as an admonition to every passing generation?
21. What curious and suggestive thing in the fact that Methuselah lived longer
than any one else in the world?
22. What shows Enoch’s impress upon the world?
ENOCH – HIS TRANSLATION
Genesis 5 (Continued)
"Enoch's taking off was the marvellous thing, inasmuch as so much
attention had been attracted to him. Let us imagine ourselves living in that
time when people would commence to say: 'Where is Enoch? Has anybody seen Enoch
to-day?' And inquiries are made at his home: 'Where is your father?' 1 do not
know.' Perhaps you ask the wife: 'Where is your husband?' 1 do not know; he is
gone.' 'Where is Enoch?' And a search is installed. The places he frequented
are all carefully searched, and at last, as the investigators return, the
question is passed back and forth: 'Where is he?' And he was not found. When
had any one ever gone so before? Never. Here was a mysterious disappearance.
Here was something that fixed the attention of that age more than a thunderclap
ten thousand times louder than an ordinary peal – the disappearance of Enoch.
Did he die? No. Was he sick? No. Well, when other people died we buried them.
Here are their graves. We cannot bury him, for we cannot find him. Where is his
body? What has become of his body? And how that thought would flash upon the
people. He cannot be found. Up to a certain time the observers saw him. One
would say: 1 saw him here last week.' Another, 'I saw him there the day after,
but where is he now?' Was it witchcraft? Compare the scenes recorded in the
second book of Kings, where fifty sons of the prophets unto whom God had made
the revelation that Elijah would be called up away from the earth without
dying, determined to witness his departure, and they watched Elijah and Elisha.
And they say to Elisha: 'Do you know that today Elijah is going to be taken
away from you?' 'Yes, I know it.' And those two walk off together. And Elijah
says to Elisha, 'You stop here.' And they go to another place: 'Then, stop
here.' 1 will not stop; as my soul liveth, I am going to hold on to you. I want
to know how you go. There is the record of a man's disappearance once before,
and where he went and how he went no one can tell. This time I will see.' And
Elijah says to him, 'What would you ask of me?' 'Give me thy spirit. Let the
double of thy spirit, the equivalent of it, let that come upon me. That is,
when you leave, let an equal power of the spirit now on you be upon me that the
world shall not be deprived of the like of your example.' Ah, if someone had
but thought of that in Enoch's time! If someone had clung to him and said, 'As
I live and as the Lord liveth, I will cling to you and follow you and when you
leave let an equivalent of your spirit be given unto me.' Nobody thought of it.
But now, mark you, Elijah said, If you can see me when I go, then you shall
have the equivalent of the spiritual power that is on me.' That test is not an
arbitrary one; it is required by the nature of the case, that no man could have
the spirit or the power that rested on Elijah unless his faith was so
sublimated and etherealized that he could look through the grossness of earth
and see the outshining of heaven and a higher and purer spiritual life. Hence,
he says, If you can see me, it will be so.' And Elisha saw him, and as he went
up he shouted: 'My Father! My Father! The chariot of God and the horsemen
thereof!' And he picked up the prophet's falling mantle and smote with it the
waters of the Jordan as Elijah had done, and called upon the name of the God of
Elijah to see if the spirit rested upon him that had rested upon his master,
and the waters were divided. The disappearance in this case was located. Here
was one witness; he saw it. These were adumbrations – they were shadows ahead. They
point to what will take place when Jesus comes. What is it? Paul says:
'Brethren, I will show you a mystery. We shall not all die. There will be a
large number of them living when Jesus comes, and all the Christians living
when he comes shall be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the
last trump. There shall occur a spiritual sanctification. There shall occur a
bodily glorification. Mortality shall put on immortality without passing
through the throes of death, and corruption shall put on incorruption without
decay or dissolution, without being led down in the loathsome charnel house.'
Many – perhaps thousands and tens of thousands, will be alive when Jesus comes.
In the twinkling of an eye they shall be translated and glorified and caught up
to heaven, soul and body. Paul says that Enoch was not, i.e., not found, for
God translated him. This is an old Latin word, an irregular verb, and it simply
means carried over or carried across. God carried him across. Across what?
Across death. Death is the river that divides this world from the world to
come, and here was a man that never did go through the river at all. When he
got there God carried him across. God transferred him; translated him; God
picked him up and carried him over and put him on the other shore. And walking
along here in time and communing with God by faith, in an instant he was
communing with God by sight in another world. Faith, oh, precious faith! .Faith
had turned to sight, and hope had turned to fruition in a single moment. Enoch
was translated. God took him. And it made an impression on that day, on this
day, and on every day. There are only two instances.
"Now I want to make an application of this subject. What, under the
circumstances, detailed in the life of Enoch and under the circumstances of the
statements made by the apostle Peter, are the things that keep people from
soberly reflecting? What are the things that stand in the way of preparation?
What are the things which, if removed, thousands would be convicted in an
instant? It is unbelief with reference to spiritual things; with reference to
the coming of the Son of God; with reference to the fact that the world in
which we live is the threshold only of the grand building of the world to come.
Now, when you sit down by one of your acquaintances and try to engage him in
serious conversation, what obstacles do you encounter? The power of this world,
the pride of life, the lust of the flesh. The whole vision is filled. And you
try to edge in or wedge in a word about personal responsibility to God. 'Oh,
there will be no judgment; things are moving on today like they did last year,
a hundred years ago. They will move on that way another thousand years.' Will
they mov~ that way to you a thousand years? Will it last fifty for you? Are you
right sure that it will last twenty-five for you? Even if the world should last
another thousand years, what is that to the individual? You will not last that
long. Your death fifty years hence will be a more momentous thing than God's announcement
to Enoch, that 'when this child dies the end will come,' because that child
lived 969 years. With all that tremendous effect on the mind of Enoch, it was
nearly a thousand years off. But is yours that far off? Is it not nearer to
each one of us here than it was to him? Is it not many hundreds of years nearer
to any of us than it was to him? Now why cannot we be induced) as he was
induced, to think about walking with God? Seeing that these things are to be
dissolved, so far as we are concerned, in a very short time, what manner of
persons ought we to be? What if you die within one year? What if your friends
come and ask about you and say, 'Where is he? Can anybody tell me where he is
gone?' He is gone from the world, never to come back. 'Gone where; where and to
what?' Oh, if I could by the Spirit's power bring down upon your hearts tonight
some conviction resulting from the manifest brevity of your life! It is not
only short, but its thread is brittle, and may snap in a moment. Shall not
Enoch's case profit you at all? Fix your mind on it. He looks out 969 years
into the future, and sees the end of the world. He stands and looks at itù969
years off, but it is the end of the world. How does it affect him? How does he
apply the knowledge? ‘Henceforward I will walk with God.' Now. here you are:
how far is it to the world's end with you? How much do you say? None of you
will say a hundred years; perhaps fifty; perhaps twenty-five; perhaps ten;
perhaps one. Maybe only a month. Why, then, can't you feel it like he felt it?
Why does not the. conviction come to you like it came to him? It is because
the. God of this world hath blinded the eyes of them who believe , not. He has
put a bandage, impenetrable and inscrutable, upon the eyes of the people that
they cannot see the nearness and the certainty of the approach of death and of
being ushered out of the world for ever and into another world for ever. Now,
that is why I took this subject tonight, January, 1894. In all human
probability one-fifth of us here in this house tonight will never see 1900.
That is only six years off. Some of you will certainly never see that. Oh,
believe it! The crape will be hanging on some of your door knobs before 1895.
Some homes now happy will be desolate before summer comes. There will be empty
cradles and vacant chairs. I speak of probabilities, judging from what is
occurring all along. And yet, how strange! We carelessly move along and say,
'Where is the promise of his coming?' No preparation to meet God; no living
with reference to eternity! God help you tonight to see that and feel that. Is
it wrong? Is it contrary to what you think is best? Is it expedient, feeling
about this as I do feel about it, do you think it would be best for me to stop
right here and make no effort to lead some soul here now to the thought of
preparation for God? Who can tell? It may be that God, in his infinite mercy,
has made this night the occasion of the turning point of salvation to some
immortal spirit, as he made the birth of that child the turning point in the
life of Enoch. Some of your have children. Their responsibility is on you. They
catch their cue from you. They walk the way you walk. They imbibe your spirit;
your shadow is on your boy, on your girl, on your home. Oh, father, mother,
when you think of your child, had you not better prepare to meet your God? What
is life to young people? What know they of its anguish; what of its
responsibilities? They hear the song of the siren; their eye is dimmed with the
glare of earth's tinsel; they are swept away on the tidal wave of youth's
buoyant feeling. But, oh, grown men and women, fathers and mothers, to whom God
has committed children, how can you put your hand upon the face of a sleeping
child one night and not prepare to meet God? Sometimes, even in the
thoughtlessness of youth, through a rift in the clouds, the divine benediction
falls like a halo of light, and some little Samuel hears the voice of God, and
says, 'Lord, here am 1.' Some Timothy, reading the Scriptures and hearing his
mother or his grandmother expound them, says, 'Lord, here am I.' Young man,
will you not turn tonight? Oh, see the line of demarcation. Who crosses next?
Maiden, is it you? Shall we very soon sadly inquire, 'Where is she?' 'She is
not.' 'Not found.' In that grave, there, the coffin holds its ashes, her soul
is not there.' 'Where is she?' 0, eternity, eternity, eternity I beg you now,
right now, take a step in the direction of heaven. I plead with you in view of
the brittle thread of life; in view of its brevity, in view of the judgment, in
view of the eternity of being, which must come when we pass out of this state
of existence, I entreat you to begin now to walk with God. Who walks not with
him here shall never walk with him yonder in white. Be reconciled to him tonight
that you may begin to walk with him tomorrow. Who is not reconciled here is
irreconciled forever. Be a child – a spiritual child of God, learning to walk
on the King's highway – stepping heavenward. Oh, take a step tonight, thou
fearful, trembling one. God holds out his hands; walk into his arms of
love." In this sermon of the important things in connection with the life
of Enoch there are three, and now one more remains. There is a passage in the
book of Jude to the effect that, "To these also Enoch, the seventh from
Adam, prophesied, saying, Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy
ones, to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their
works of ungodliness which they have ungodly wrought, and of all the hard things
which ungodly sinners have spoken against him." That translation is awful,
as to the tense, saying, "Behold, the Lord came." The idiom of the
language does not require such a tense. It ought to be, "The Lord will
come." Concerning this statement in the book of Jude there has been much
controversy. Not a great while ago a manuscript was found purporting to be the
full text of the book of Enoch. In it there is language quite similar to Jude's
statement, not exactly like it, but similar to it. It is evidently not a verbal
quotation from Jude; nor are the words in Jude quoted from it. Now it has been
contended by many that this book of Enoch was written – at least some of it –
before Christ came, and that Jude quotes from this Apocryphal book. That is the
contention. On the other hand, many scholars believe that what is called the
book of Enoch was written by a Christian after Jude's day, and that the passage
to which I referred is an elaboration of Jude's statement. I am quite sure that
no man can be safely confident as to the exact date of that book of Enoch.
Personally, I do not at all believe that it antedates the book of Jude. The
question then arises: From what source did Jude get this information about the
prophecy of Enoch? And you might ask, From what source did Peter get his
information that Noah was a preacher of righteousness? And you might also ask,
From what source does Paul get the names of the magicians who withstood Moses –
Jannes and Jambres? To all of which inquiries it is the easiest thing to say,
and the most rational, "They got it by inspiration of God."
Then comes up this point: Enoch in his lifetime having prophesied that the Lord
would come with myriads of his holy ones – angels – when is this coming? Did he
refer exclusively to the coming of the Lord in judgment of the world by the
flood, or even if this be his primary intent, did he also look far beyond the
flood to the final advent of our Lord? In answer to this question, we may say
that the prophets frequently had a primary reference to things near their own
times, and yet the deepest significance of their words looks to the times of
our Lord. It is easy to see this in David's prophecy concerning Solomon; it
starts off apparently with Solomon in view, but expands into a vision of the King
wiser and greater than Solomon, whose dominion is the whole world. So it may
well be that Enoch, profoundly impressed with the impiety of his day, might
speak in stern denunciation of the corruption that was then in the world and of
the impending judgment of God, but its use in the New Testament shows that he
was looking forward to a final world judgment which the flood prefigured. (See
2 Peter 3:5-12.)
Some people make out that the Old Testament saints had no clear ideas of the
future world, that they did not see beyond the grave. The translation of Enoch
is an everlasting refutation of that contention, and his prophecy concerning
the final judgment of God upon men is as conclusive as his translation. Indeed,
as we intelligently study the Old Testament we must revise the judgment of
little light before the flood, as will be shown in the next chapter. The theme
of that chapter is: "The Light Possessed by the Antediluvians."
In the preceding chapter I told you how to find the age of the world since man
occupied it till the coming of the flood, according to the Hebrew text of the
Old Testament, namely, by a simple addition to the age of Adam when Seth was
born, the age of Seth when his son was born, and so on till you come to Noah,
and then add 600 years, the age of Noah when the flood came. By adding these
figures you obtain 1,656 years, or more than sixteen and a half centuries, as
the age of man's occupancy of the world at the time of the flood. That is
according to the Hebrew text. There is extant a very faulty text of the Old
Testament, called the Samaritan Pentateuch. According to the Samaritan
Pentateuch it was 1.307 years from the creation of Adam to the flood, and this
result is gained by taking away from the age figures in the Hebrew enough to
make the difference. Then we have the Septuagint, or the Greek translation of
the Old Testament, no part of which is older than 250 B.C. Now the Septuagint
differs from the figures which I have given by adding 100 years in the
following cases:
100 years to Adam before Seth was born;
100 years to Seth before his son was born;
100 years to Enoch before his son was born;
100 years to Kenan before his son was born;
100 years to Mahalaleel before his son was born; in like manner
100 years to Enoch, and then adding
Six years to Lamech. That gives a total, according to the Septuagint, of 2,262
years from the creation of Adam to the flood. We have still a different account
of it in the book of Josephus. Josephus agrees with the Septuagint in adding
those hundreds, but agrees with the Hebrew when it comes to the age of Lamech;
and so there is only six years difference between Josephus' account and the
Septuagint account, that is to say, Josephus has 2,256 years.
This brings up an old question: The antiquity of the human race upon the earth.
Now if we take the figures in the Hebrew text, 1,656 to the flood, the 367 to
the call of Abraham, the 430 from the call of Abraham to the Exodus and the
time given variously from the Exodus to the coming of Christ, we have 4,004 years
in all. Now add that to 1913, our present A.D. time, and you get, according to
the Bible, the antiquity of man, 5,917 years. That is the Bible statement of
the antiquity of man. But over against this come the' various and contradictory
contentions of men arguing from their own conclusions in the several
departments of science to which they have given special attention. From geology
comes a contention based on fossil remains and the computed time in the
formation of the several strata of the earth, that man must have lived on the
earth anywhere from 100,000 to 1,000,000 years. All of which is mere conjecture
since no two of them will give the same date, though they are studying the same
matter. Not very long ago a very able scientist laughed at all of these
extravagant assertions of man's antiquity, based upon anything that is to be
found in history, geology, paleontology. Mark Twain was so much amused by
reading the different calculations made on insufficient data by geological
experts he took a hand him- self on this fashion. He mentions a date on which
the length of the Mississippi River between Cairo and New Orleans was
definitely known to be so much. Then he gave subsequent well known dates when
the river each time shortened its course by a cutoff. These were his facts. Now
followed his conclusions that if the length of the river was shortened so much
in a given time the date was not remote when Memphis and New Orleans would be
brought in touch and put under one municipal government, and by the same token
just a million years ago next November it was then sticking out over the Gulf
of Mexico like a fishing pole.
Take another example: John Fiske, who was one of the greatest historical
lecturers, and the most interesting that I have ever read after, when he comes
to consider the settlement of Jamestown, Virginia, finds himself unable, with
the data before him, to fix the precise date. But the same John Fiske, when
speaking as an evolutionist, can give you the exact date of the formation of
the strata and the dates of the ages of all the fossils to a fraction, and he
consequently can prove to you that man has been living on the earth one million
years. In other words, when discussing facts near the present time, where there
are abundant contemporaneous data, he is very modest in claiming an exact date
for a well-known event. But when he leaps out into the vagaries of evolutionary
speculations he becomes confidently assertive and knows better than the
Almighty himself when things took place, millions of years ago. Consequently my
advice to you is to possess your souls with patience until these infallible
experts get at least within a million years of each other, and go on believing
what the Bible says about the antiquity of man.
Two well-known historical events will aid you somewhat in moderating your awe
of those very learned men:
A clear-cut section of the deposit on the buried cities of Herculaneum and
Pompeii cut straight down from the surface to the streets will exhibit layers,
or strata, bearing the marks of incalculable periods of time, and yet all of it
resulted from one eruption of Versuvius.
The phosphate beds of South Carolina contain the mingled bones of animals,
including man's, which, according to these same infallible gentlemen, were
separated from each other by cycles of ages in the time of their existence on
earth.
Moreover, if we accept the Bible account of the flood, how much that puzzles
the geologist will be explained. In Genesis 1:2-10, we learn how chaos was
eliminated, particularly the part played by atmosphere. The flood in a large
measure reversed this process and restored chaos. I say that much of chaos was
eliminated by atmosphere. The weight of the atmosphere separated the waters
below from the waters above; and then the separation of the waters below from
the land below was brought about by a subsidence at one place and a raising of
the earth at other places. Now, if the flood reverses that process which
eliminated chaos and brings chaos back again, who can tell what changes were wrought
in the time of the flood on deposits of strata that we now geologically
examine? We know much to be historically true: that in one night an island of
magnitude, through volcanic eruptions, can rise up out of the sea; we also know
that in one night land that is high sinks down by a sudden subsidence into the
waters, and the ocean rolls over it forever. So that until we get surer
scientific light, you may rest yourselves content with what the Bible says
about the antiquity of man. It is questionable whether geology has as yet
attained to a science. It teaches some things you may rely on, but the huge
conclusions deduced from a minimum of facts are enough to make any man distrust
the teachings of his textbooks on geology, on psychology, on biology, and on
zoology.
The next point that I want to bring out is: We find that Lamech, a descendant
of Cain, a bigamist and a murderer, got off a piece of poetry, and this is the
poetry:
Adah and Zillah, hear my voice:
Ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech;
For I have slain a man for wounding me,
And a young man for bruising me:
If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold,
Truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.
That is poetic in form; you can tell that, even in the
translation. Now, when we come to a Lamech who is a descendant of Seth we find
a sweeter poem. You see these poems come from two Lamechs, one a Cainite, the
other a Sethite. When Noah was born, Lamech, his father, says:
This one will comfort us
From our labour,
And from the toil of our hands,
From the ground,
Which Jehovah cursed.
That is also poetical in form. But how shall we
interpret the prophecy of the latter poem? We saw that Enoch obtained a
revelation at the time that his son, Methuselah, was born and that he
prophetically named him to signify that the end of the world would come with
the death of this child, and it is a fact that the year in which Methuselah
died the flood came. Now, as to the prophecy! The word, "Noah," means
"rest." So he says, "He [this baby of ours] shall comfort us, or
rest us, from our labour, and from the toil of our hands, because of the ground
which Jehovah hath cursed." Now, to my astonishment, so accurate an
interpreter, and usually so sound an interpreter as Thomas J. Conant, whose
translation I have just read, says in a note, "There appears to be no
reference to Noah's subsequent history as given in the sacred records. They
seem rather to express the pious and grateful feelings of poor, time-worn
parents on the birth of a son from whom they hope for relief in the labours to
which sin has subjected mankind." If that interpretation is correct, then
the words are divested of all prophetic idea and of the hope of the weary
parents. I am glad to say that the best of the interpreters do not favor Dr.
Conant. He says, "there appears to be' no reference to Noah's subsequent
history." But let us prove a reference. Lamech speaks of the ground which
God had cursed and of his son bringing rest. Now, if we turn to Noah's
sacrifice after leaving the ark we find these words: "And the Lord smelled
a sweet savour, and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the
ground for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his
youth; neither will I again smite any more every living thing, as I have done.
While the earth remaineth, seed time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer
and winter, and day and night, shall not cease" (Gen. 8:21-22). So that
evidently this old father, Lamech, saw that in the days of his son Noah the
ground which God had cursed would be delivered from one part of that curse. It
is evidently, therefore, a prophecy, and I could easily show, if I chose to
take the time, that far beyond Noah personally, it looks to Shiloh, the rest
that remains for the people of God. It looks to one greater than Noah, even to
our Lord Jesus Christ, who will redeem the earth at last, absolutely, from the
curse which sin entailed upon it, when Adam committed his offense against
himself and versus all his seed.
1. What the meaning of "God took him"? Cite New Testament proof.
2. What other Old Testament case of translation?
3. When, according to the New Testament, will there be other cases?
4. What is the New Testament description of the process which takes place?
5. What are the things that keep people from soberly reflecting?
6. Give briefly the application of the sermon on Enoch.
7. What prophecy of Enoch preserved in the New Testament?
8. What controversy about this passage?
9. From what source did Jude get his information about the prophecy of Enoch?
10. What did Enoch mean by the coming of the Lord with his holy ones?
11. What evidence that Old Testament saints had clear ideas of the future
world?
12. How long from the creation of Adam to the flood, according to the Samaritan
Pentateuch? The Septuagint? Josephus?
13. According to our Bible what is the antiquity of the human race?
14. What is the testimony of some scientists and the value of their testimony?
15. What was Mark Twain's illustration?
16. What was John Fiske's position and what was the fallacy of it?
17. What two historical events in point and what do they prove?
18. What is the bearing of the process of the flood and the rising and
subsiding of islands in a short time, on the position of some geologists?
19. Contrast the poetry of the two Lamechs. Which is the better?
20. Is this later poem a prophecy, and, if so, to what does it immediately
refer?
21. What is Dr. Conant's interpretation of it?
22. To what remote event does the author refer this prophecy?
1. Nature and grounds of man's race title to the earth.
2. Light and help for maintaining title.
3. Limit at which title lapses.
4. Gradual approach to the limit (Gen. 4-5).
5. Limit passed by worldwide race corruption (Gen. 6:1-6, 11-12).
6. Worldwide race destruction announced (Gen. 6:7, 13).
7. Respite of mercy or space for repentance (Gen. 6:3; I Peter 3:19-20).
8. Means for preservation of race remnant for new beginning (Gen. 6:14-22).
In the study of Genesis 1:26-28, we have already considered, somewhat, man's
race title to the earth. In Genesis 3, we have considered man's forfeiture of
this title by violation of its conditions, but also learned how that by intervention
of grace forfeiture was not declared, but held in abeyance under the conditions
of a new probation.
Now in view of the impending race catastrophe set forth in this lesson,
resulting from another lapse of title by violation of the new grace conditions,
it is fitting to carefully restate the first item of the outline, viz.:
NATURE AND GROUNDS OF MAN'S RACE TITLE TO THE EARTH
It was never an absolute title arising from man's sovereignty, but always in
subordination to God. His title was that of tenant or steward of a divine
Sovereign. In the garden of Eden he was a tenant of his Creator-landlord, under
a covenant of works whose conditions of forfeiture of title were expressed in
the law concerning the tree of knowledge of good and evil. By the intervention
of grace after his fall he became the tenant of a Saviour-landlord under a
covenant of grace expressed by the law of propitiatory sacrifices then and
there appointed. So that we may summarize the conditions of his race title
under these heads:
(1) He holds as steward or tenant of God. When the tenant disregards his
relations toward God the title is vitiated and he may be evicted by summary
process at the will of the real owner.
(2) He must multiply and fill the earth, yet within the divine laws of
multiplication. Multiplication by illegal methods is not obedience to this
condition.
(3) He must subdue the earth and develop its resources, yet in lawful ways and
with lawful ends in view. The building of cities by Cain's descendants, or
their construction of tents, or invention of musical instruments, or implements
of industry, etc., these are innocent per se, but if perverted to ends of
alienation from God, this is not obedience to the condition.
In entering upon the study of the sixth chapter of Genesis, we must, therefore,
bear in mind two things: First, that we are not considering the individual but
the race title to the earth. Second, that this title is now held not under the
conditions of Adam's original probation, but under the conditions of grace
probation, which intervened to suspend lapse of title by Adam's disobedience.
The divine relations are now expressed in expiatory laws. Keeping these
essential points in mind, we are prepared to advance to the second division of
the outline:
It has always been an interesting inquiry, What gospel light had the world
before the flood? The briefness of the narrative has led many to underestimate
the degree of this light. By so much as this light is underestimated, by that
much is the mind inclined to revolt at the wholesale and stupendous catastrophe
and to impugn the divine goodness. But a fair comparison of this brief record
with later scriptures makes it evident that this light was very great and well
understood by the antediluvians. They did not fall through ignorance, but by
willful, deliberate, and persistent transgression. It is conceded on all hands
that they had the external light of nature (Psalm 19:1-6; Rom. 1:18-20; Acts
14:17), and its internal light of conscience (Rom. 2:15). But this is not
gospel light and could not avail to salvation after the fall. So the question
recurs, What gospel light had they? In briefest outline this light consisted
in:
(1) The promise of a Redeemer (Gen. 3:15) who would save them from the
defilement, guilt, and penalty of sin. Adam understood the promise, for he
called his wife Eve, that is, mother of life (Gen. 3:20). That Eve understood
is indicated by her expression at the birth of her first-born (Gen. 4:1).
(2) A throne of mercy was established at a definite place where sinful man
might approach God by a new and living" way to the tree of life (Gen.
3:24). "God dwelt between the Cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden,
as a Shekinah, to keep open the way to the tree of life."
(3) He instituted expiatory sacrifices as a means of approach to this throne
(Gen. 3:21; 4:3-4). Adam and Eve must have thoroughly understood, for we find
their children instructed in regard to sacrifices, and that God in a perfectly
intelligible way signified his approval or disapproval of their worship (Gen.
4:4-5; Heb. 11:4). When Cain willfully misunderstood, Jehovah from his throne
of grace patiently expostulated, and re-explained (Gen. 4:6-7). Cain understood
God as well as you understand now in a face to face conversation with your
earthly parents.
(4) The mark or sign of Cain, whatever it was, had to be conspicuous and
instantly recognizable in order to avail in protecting Cain from the summary
vengeance of all who met him. But such a sign would be a perpetual and visible
memorial of his sin and a mighty preacher to warn against its repetition. It
would be the most talked about thing in the world, more striking and
comment-inspiring than the Pyramids of Egypt.
(5) Sabbath privileges, or a set time of worship (Gen. 2: 1-3; 4:3).
(6) The brightest and surest light of tradition the world has ever known. It
was best and surest because of the longevity of the early Christians and
because the whole race was close together, not yet having been dispersed over a
wide area. Only two lives were sufficient to reach the deluge, Adam, and
Methuselah. For 930 years the first man, the head of the race, was living and
approachable, able to tell, as doubtless he did a thousand times, of his
wonderful history and more wonderful relations with God. Then this longevity
provided for verification of testimony by the long overlapping of lives of
great contemporaries. The power of this tradition in the testimony of the first
man may be inferred from the fact that the rapid and awful approaches to the
race doom were after his death. The brightness and accuracy of the tradition is
further evident from the fact that Lamech, the fifth generation from Cain,
remembered and cited the Almighty's exemption of Cain from the punishment of
man.
(7) The ministry and example of associated godly people (Gen. 4:26).
(8) Revelations and warnings through specially commissioned prophets like Enoch
(Jude 14:15).
(9) The supernal light of Enoch's translation (Gen. 5:24; Heb. 11:5).
(10) Preachers of righteousness like Noah (2 Peter 2:5; I Peter 4:6).
(11) The ministry of the Holy Spirit (Gen. 6 3; I Peter 3:19).
(12) Special space for repentance after announcement of destruction (Gen. 6:3;
I Peter 3:20).
Here are twelve distinct elements of external, gospel light.
LIMIT AT WHICH RACE TITLE TO THE EARTH LAPSES
Here the light of subsequent revelations helps greatly to illumine the brief
statements of our lesson. From a vast number of these later scriptures it is
necessary to cite only a few as examples to guide us safely in determining the
limit, under the grace probation, at which the race title to the earth is
forfeited.
Our Saviour declares that his people are the salt of the earth and adds:
"But if the salt hath lost its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is
thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out and trodden under foot of
men" (Matt. 5:13).
Ten righteous men could have saved Sodom and Gomorrah, but there was only one
(Gen. 18:32).
Says Jehovah to the prophet Ezekiel, "Son of man, when a land sinneth
against me by committing a trespass, and I stretch out my hand upon it, and
break the staff of the bread thereof, and send famine upon it, and cut off from
it man and beast; though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it,
they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord
Jehovah" (Ezek. 14:13-14). And said the Lord to Jeremiah, "Then said
Jehovah unto me, Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my mind would not
be toward this people: cast them out. of my sight, and let them go forth. And
it shall come to pass, when they shall say unto thee Whither shall we go forth?
then thou shall tell them, Thus saith Jehovah: Such as are for death, to death;
and such as are for the sword, to the sword; and such as are for the famine, to
the famine; and such as are for captivity, to captivity. And I will appoint
over them four kinds, saith Jehovah: the sword to slay, the dogs to tear, and
the birds of the heavens, and the beasts of the earth, to devour and to
destroy" (Jer. 15:1-3).
And our context: "And Jehovah said, My spirit shall not strive with man
for ever, for that he also is flesh" (Gen. 6:3).
From these and kindred passages three things are evident:
(1) That God made his spiritual seed the conservators of the world. To the
Jehovah worshippers he has committed the ministry of reconciling and preserving
the earth.
(2) The efficacy of this reconciling and preserving power is vested in the Holy
Spirit, who blesses their life and ministry by applying through regeneration
and sanctification the benefits of the expiatory sacrifice.
(3) Whenever, therefore, and from whatever causes, there is brought about a
reduction in the number of his people to such a minimum as to destroy the
saving power of this ministry, and whenever and from whatever causes the
world's persistent despising of the Spirit's grace brings about the withdrawal
of the Holy One, then we may know that the measure of iniquity is full, and the
race must perish from off the face of the earth.
So we may easily understand the limit: It is just where the salt of world
preservation has so lost its quality of saltness, or become so reduced in
quantity as to be powerless to affect so great a mass of corruption, or,
leaving figures of speech and coming to plain words, it is just where God's
people become so worldly-minded as to nullify the force of their testimony, or
so few in numbers that the sound of their testimony is lost in the World's
uproar of noises and the grieved and insulted Spirit is withdrawn.
Before considering the final causes of the destruction of the race as set forth
in our lesson, let us briefly revert to the approximate causes developed in
Genesis 4-5. As a double basis for race deterioration there was first, a nature
depraved by the fall of Adam, and second, the activity, craftiness, and
malignity of Satan as a tempter. From these were developed in practice:
The infidelity of Cain, that is, his rejection of the whole plan of the atonement,
as if his nature was unfallen and he stood where Adam had stood in the garden
of Eden, under a covenant of works, admitting indeed that he was a tenant of
the Creator, but denying that he was a tenant under grace. Under the promptings
of Satan he opened a way for all later infidels who deny that they need a
Saviour, or that they need regeneration, or sanctification by the Holy Spirit,
and consequently refuse to approach God through the expiation of a substitute.
By the murder of Abel, his brother, and the time which elapsed until Seth
became a Christian, Cain's descendants got much the start in numbers.
By his going away from the presence of Jehovah at the place of worship his
descendants were separated from the means of grace, and so waxed worse and
worse, willfully being without God, without a worship, and without a sabbath.
Through Lamech, one of his descendants, bigamy was introduced, violating the
law of marriage. This precedent deepened and widened social corruption (Gen.
4:19) and bigamy led to murder again (Gen. 4:23), and as hinted later, to
polygamy and a horde of murders (Gen. 6:2-4). And so the way of Cain led ever
downward with accumulated velocity into the deeper darkness.
LIMIT PASSED BY WORLDWIDE RACE CORRUPTION
(Genesis 6:1-5)
"And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth,
and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of
men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all they chose. And
Jehovah said, My spirit shall not strive with man for ever, for that he also is
flesh; yet shall his days be one hundred and twenty years. The Nephilim were in
the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto
the daughters of men, and they bare children to them; the same were the mighty
men that were of old, the men of renown" (Gen. 6:1-4).
The final causes of the deluge are here portrayed in vivid flashes of sublime
brevity. We see how nearly all the salt lost its quality of saltness; how the
quantity that retained its saltness was too small to overcome such a mass of
corruption; how the grieved and insulted Spirit ceased his striving. Just here
I must turn aside for a moment and dispose of some poisonous interpretations.
This paragraph has been made the occasion of the wildest vagaries of exposition
ever generated by unbridled fancy and speculative criticism. Many books have
been published in support of one or the other of two heretical theories. If you
young preachers ever dip much into general reading you are sure to meet some of
these books, advocating one of these theories. It is more than probable that
agents for books advocating these theories may canvass your own communities and
poison the minds of many of your congregations by the circulation of their evil
literature. In such case you might be disposed to censure your Bible teacher if
his silence left you without warning and without antidote for the poison.
Somewhat hesitatingly therefore I venture to clear away the brush of these
false interpretations before submitting what I conceive to be the true
exposition. I say hesitatingly, for ofttimes it is best not to advertise evil
by notice of it, but to trust rather to preoccupation of the ground by the good
and true. So we now take up…
That the sin which provoked the flood was miscegenation between the Adamites
made in God's image, and pre-Adamites, who were a soulless generation of beasts
though in human form, the highest connecting link between the man of Genesis
1:26, and the lower animals.
According to this theory the "sons of God" in our text were the
Adamites and the "daughters of men" were female Negroes. This theory
denies that any but the white race are children of Adam and proper subjects of
gospel address, and so it vitally and practically affects the foreign mission
enterprise. Just before and during the War Between the States it had many
advocates both North and South. The belief was the product of a political
exigency. Van Evrie, in the New York Day Book, a paper widely circulated in the
South, published a series of articles to show, on scientific and historical
grounds, that whites and blacks could not have a common race origin. Drs. Nott
and Gliddon of Mobile advocated a similar theory, with labored argument, in a
book entitled the Types of Mankind. Other books of like purport were written
and published in Texas resting on the additional ground of scriptural argument.
This theory, so far as it. is based on scientific grounds, that is, anatomy,
physiology, and history, has been utterly abandoned. The danger now from
teachers of science comes from the opposite extreme. They now not only concede
that all men of whatever race or color had a common origin, but affirm that all
life, whether vegetable, beast or man, had a common origin.
This complete somersault in scientific teaching within the memory of living men
admonishes us to waste no time in trying to reconcile the Bible with the human
science of today, lest tomorrow, when science changes again, we should be
obliged to make another adjustment, and so on ad infinitum. go far as the
theory is based on Bible argument, it. is opposed to the text and the whole
trend of Scripture teaching relative to the unity of the races. The word
translated "men" in our text means Adamites. The "daughters of
men" means the daughters of Adamite. More plausible is the…
Second Evil Theory
That the sin which provoked the flood was miscegenation between the angels and
women. According to this theory "sons of God" means angels who
intermarried with the daughters of men. The scriptural arguments on which this
theory rests are:
Angels are often called the sons of God.
Some manuscripts of the Septuagint have "angels" in the text instead
of "sons of God."
Verses 6 and 7 of Jude are cited to show that the sin of the angels was giving
themselves over to strange flesh like the Sodomites.
The giants, Nephilim, of Genesis 4:4, are angels.
The monstrous character of the offspring from this unnatural cohabitation is
cited in support of the theory (Gen. 4:4), latter clause. See a recent work of
fiction, Man or Seraph. Reply…
It is conceded that in the Scriptures angels are called sons of God, but never
in Genesis.
The presence of "angels" instead of "sons of God" in some
Septuagint manuscripts is not a translation of the Hebrew, but an Alexandrian
interpretation substituted for the original.
The whole argument in Jude is based upon the assumption that the pronounn
"these" in v 7 has for its antecedent the noun "angels" in
v. 6, whereas a nearer antecedent may be found in v. 7, namely, "Sodom and
Gomorrah." With this nearer antecedent Jude would read: "Even as
Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, with these," i.e., with
Sodom and Gomorrah, not with the angels. Moreover the offense in Jude 7 is not
the offense in Genesis 6:2. The latter is marriage, legal in itself.
"Nephilim," or giants, neither here nor in Numbers 13 -33, means
"angels." This would be to have another offense of the angels after
the flood.
The offspring of the ill-assorted marriage in Genesis 6:2-4, are not monsters
in the sense of prodigies resulting from cross of species, but "mighty
men," men of renown.
"Sons of God" means the Sethites, or Christians, men indeed by
natural generation, but also sons of God by regeneration. In Genesis 4:26,
directly connected with this lesson, we have the origin of the name: "Then
began men to be called by the name of the Lord." This designation of
Christians is common in both Testaments. I cite particularly Paalia82:6-7,
where we have precisely the same contrast between the regenerate and the
unregenerate as in our lesson: "All of you are sons of the Most High.
Nevertheless, ye shall die like men."
The inviolable law of reproduction within the limits of species – "after
their kind" – forbids the unnatural interpretation of this second theory.
According to our Lord himself the angels are sexless, without human passion,
neither marrying nor giving in marriage (Luke 20:35).
With this disposition of the two evil theories, we resume the interrupted exposition.
The offenses which so largely provoked the deluge are these:
Ill-assorted marriages of believers with infidels whereby their testimony for
God was hampered and clouded. So the gait lost its savour. All through both
Testaments the inexpediency of such marriages is reprobated. See the evil
consequences avoided by Abraham in Isaac's case (Gen. 24:3-4) and by Isaac in
Jacob's case (Gen. 28:1), and the evil consequences entailed in the cases of
Ishmael and Esau. Compare Ezra 10, and Nehemiah 13, with the law in Exodus
34:15-16, and Deuteronomy 7:3. When we come to study the later history of
Israel in Kings and Chronicles the examples of these evil marriages will be
found to multiply. In the New Testament we need to cite only 2 Corinthians
6:14-17: "Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers; for what fellowship
have righteousness and iniquity? or what communion hath light with darkness?
And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what portion hath a believer with
an unbeliever? And what agreement hath a temple of God with idols? for we are a
temple of the living God; even as God said, I will dwell in them, and walk in
them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore, Come ye
out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch no unclean
thing; and I will receive you."
With this passage, compare latter clause of I Corinthians 7:39.
The sins of the sons of God consisted in entering the sacred marriage relation
under the promptings of mere desire for beauty, regardless of the effect on
their holy mission as world preservers.
The expression, "all that they chose," seems to imply the sin of
polygamy. The bigamy of Lamech had thus become polygamy with the sons of Seth.
The result was that the offspring took after the mother instead of the father,
full of worldly ambition, becoming "Mighty men, men of renown."
Military glory and worldly fame was their god. In this way every source of
gaining recruits to the Christian army was cut off. When the old Christians
died there were no young ones to take their place. So the salt diminished in
quantity until Noah was left alone.
In the meantime some of the sons of Cain had become Nephilim, or giants, that
is, men of unbridled violence and lawlessness. Human life and property were no
longer safe from these murderers and freebooters. Cain's murder had generated a
brood of vipers.
The idea in Nephilim, or giants, means putting physical developments foremost
in education. The product is the prize fighter, or the man of violence. The
body is on top. Might is right. Gibborim, i.e., "men of fame or
ambition," means putting intellectual development foremost in education.
It is a higher and worthier education than mere physical development. It is
like saying: "There were John L. Sullivans and Captain Kidds and Jesse
Jameses in those days; and after the ill-assorted marriages there were
Voltaires and Humes and Ingersolls and Bonapartes," but no Washingtons or
Gladstones or Spurgeons or Edmond Paysons, except Noah alone. Dr. Conant thus
disposes of the whole statement: "The meaning of the passage may be stated
thus: The descendants of Cain were an irreligious race, and some were
distinguished for personal prowess and the oppressive use of it. Descendants of
Seth intermarried with women of this race; and from this union sprang men
distinguished for like character and conduct. Thus the whole race of man
becomes corrupt."
This was prefigured in the case of Cain, who, having committed the unpardonable
sin, was never again wooed by the Holy Spirit. Now the withdrawal is general.
The influence of the Spirit is both mediate and immediate. Mediately he works
through the ministry and the word of God. Immediately in convicting of sin and
in disposing the sinner's heart to accept the gospel preached. This immediate
influence ceases when the whole spiritual nature is so debauched as to become
"past feeling," so as our text puts it "for that he is
flesh" meaning altogether carnal. Flesh in this sense is not limited to
the body, but includes the moral and intellectual man as in Romans 8:5-8;
Galatians 5:19-23; 6:8.
We can also readily understand the withdrawal of the Spirit's immediate
influence from the ministry of the backslidden Sethites, leaving it powerless,
and even from the ministry of faithful Noah when that is persistently and
insultingly rejected (compare Matt. 10:13-15).
The calamity has come to any sinner when God says to his Spirit: "Let him
alone," while also saying to his praying people interceding for the
sinner: "Let me alone." This is the fatal conjunction: "Let him.
alone – Let me alone." What Jehovah Saw
"And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of the man was great in the earth,
and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil
continually" (Gen. 6:5). This statement is sweeping in its totality: (a)
Every device of the thoughts of his heart; (b) in its depravity, only evil; (c)
in its continuity, all the day. There can be no mistake about it, for it was
not as man saw it, but as Jehovah saw it. And what a sight for the pure eyes of
the infinitely Holy One!
"And it repented Jehovah that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved
him at his heart" (Gen. 6:8).
Just here we confront two difficulties: (a) The doctrine of our creed that God
is impassive; (b) the emphatic statement of other scriptures that God cannot
repent (I Sam. 15:29). How may we surmount these difficulties?
I think we can let the creed part take care of itself. We set out not to study
human creeds, but the Bible, and we agreed to let the Bible interpret itself
and mean what it wants to mean. Our text says, "It grieved him at the
heart." Dr. Conant says, "We cannot presume to fathom the depth of
meaning of such language, when spoken of the infinite and all-perfect God. How
the divine nature is affected by the guilt and folly of sin is unknown to us;
but this language is designed to bring it as near our conception as is possible
for our finite and imperfect nature." It seems to me that the doctor is
too guarded. For while indeed the finite cannot comprehend the infinite, we can
accept what the Infinite One reveals concerning himself. Jesus Christ reveals
the very heart of the Father. He came for that very purpose. The grief of Jesus
will reveal the grief of the Father. Suppose, therefore, we allow as exposition
of this difficulty Luke 19:41-44: "And when he drew nigh, he saw the city
and wept over it, saying, If thou hadst known in this day, even thou, the
things which belong unto peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the
days shall come upon thee, when thine enemies shall cast up a bank about thee,
and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall dash thee to
the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one
stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation."
The other difficulty is not a very troublesome one. When it is said: "God
is not a man that he should repent," it means, as men repent. A man may
change his mind when he gets more light on a subject, or he may change his mind
from mere instability of character. The Almighty never changes his mind from
either of these considerations. His very unchangeableness of nature, however,
necessitates a change of mind and con duct toward a creature who has changed
moral positions toward him. To illustrate, we may say at night, "The sun
has hidden his face," and in the morning, "He returns to smile upon
us." Yet it was the earth that changed faces toward the sun. The sun kept
steadily shining.
"And Jehovah said, I will destroy man whom I created from the face of the
ground; both man and beast, and creeping things, and birds of the heavens; for
it repenteth me that I have made them."
"And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh has come before me; for the
earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them
with the earth."
"And I, behold, I do bring the flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy
all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is
in the earth shall die."
This judgment is both sweeping and inclusive:
(a) As to man, literally: I will wipe man from the face of the earth, (b) All
living creatures of the land; from man to cattle, to reptile and to the fowls
of heaven. "All flesh wherein is the breath of life, from under the
heavens. All that is upon the earth shall expire." These perish with man,
for they were made for him. (c) The earth itself. "I will destroy them
with the earth." It too was made for man. There is no need for an empty
house or a desert land. The earth was cursed for man's sake and must share his
fate in woe (2 Peter 3:5-7) and in weal (Rom. 8:22-23; 2 Peter 3:13).
"And I, behold, I do bring the flood of waters upon the earth." We
cannot help going back to Genesis 1:8-10, and noting how the earth was formed.
It was all water, then God, by atmosphere, separated the waters above from the
waters below. Then he separated sea and land. Now in the flood he does two
things: (a) opens the windows of heaven and lets down all the water above; (b)
opens the fountains of the deep by convulsions below; so again overwhelms all
the land and makes a shoreless ocean. He who separates can unite again.
"His days shall be one hundred and twenty years." This does not refer
to the average limit of human life in the future in contrast with previous
longevity, but the race limit until the flood. Compare the message of Jonah:
"Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be destroyed." In like manner here:
Yet 120 years may the Spirit strive before the world is destroyed. This is the
space for repentance. The threatened doom may be a verdict by repentance, as in
the case of Nineveh. Compare the case of the fig tree in Luke 8:6-9; and of
Jezebel in Revelation 2:21; and of Jerusalem's day of visitation in Luke 20:42.
In this time of 120 years Jesus preached to them in the Spirit by Noah (I Peter
3:19-20; 2 Peter 2:5).
MEANS FOR PRESERVATION OF RACE REMNANT FOR NEW BEGINNING
"Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and
shalt pitch it within and without with pitch; and this is how thou shalt make
it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits,
and the height of it thirty cubits. A light shalt thou make to the ark, and to
a cubit shalt thou finish it upward; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in
the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make
it" (Gen. 6:14-16).
This wonderful vessel occupies a large space in the Bible story and thought.
The same Hebrew word, Tebah, is employed to designate the vessel in which the
infant Moses was preserved (Ex. 2:3). It was the prototype of the ark of the
covenant (Hebrew word, Aron) (Deut. 10:1), Jehovah saying to Moses as to Noah:
"Make thee an ark." In the New Testament the same Greek word,
kibotos, designates both these vessels (Heb. 9:4:11:7). Its material was the
durable gopher wood, probably cypress. It was made waterproof within and
without by a coating of pitch. It was not designed for steering or sailing,
merely to float. Its shape was the best possible for this purpose and for
tonnage or carrying capacity. Reckoning the unit of measure, the cubit, at 22
inches, nearly, we may compare its dimensions with the Great Eastern's:
Ark – 547 1/5 ft. long, 91 1/5 ft. wide, 54 18/25 ft. high. Great Eastern – 680
ft. long, 821/2 feet wide, 58 ft. high.
This furnishes ample room space for all its occupants and their food for the
time needed. While varieties of species of land animals in our time are
numerous, the number of species is not very great. Its arrangement in stories
and rooms was the best possible for the purpose. Its provision for light was
suitable and adequate.
"But I will establish my covenant with thee; and thou shalt come into the
ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee. And of
every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the
ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of the birds
after their kind, and of the cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing
of the ground after its kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep
them alive" (Gen. 6:18-20).
"Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee seven and seven, the male
and his female; and of the beasts that are not clean two, the male and his
female; of the birds also of the heavens, seven and seven, male and female, to
keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth" (Gen. 7:2-3).
This is the first direct reference to the distinction between clean and unclean
animals, which, however, originated at the appointment of animal sacrifices
just after the fall of man. The reference here assumes that the distinction is
well understood, too long established and common to call for explanation.
With these was food for all: "And take thou unto thee of all food that is
eaten, and gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for
them" (Gen. 6:21).
Noah was remarkable in character, life, and faith. He was a just man and
perfect in his generation. Like Enoch he walked with God. His faith was
marvelous: "By faith Noah, being warned of God concerning things not seen
as yet, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house;
through which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness
which is according to faith" (Heb. 11:7). See Andrew Fuller's great sermon
on this text.
Common opinion takes the "one hundred and twenty years" of Genesis
6:3, equal to Peter's phrase, "While the ark was preparing" (I Peter
3:21). There is a serious difficulty in accepting this view. Noah was 600 years
old when the flood came (7:11). He was 500 years old when Japheth was born
(5:32). Yet his sons are grown and married when, as it seems, the directions
for building the ark were given (6:18). It is not impossible to remove this
difficulty thus:
(a) The date of the statement in 6:3, is not given. It may have been twenty
years before the birth of Japheth.
(b) What is said in 6:18, may have been just after the ark was completed.
(c) There is no date given for the order, "Make thee an ark" (6:14).
So it is not impossible that the preparing of the ark was 120 years.
In a subsequent chapter will be considered the great lessons connected with the
building of the ark and the flood.
1. State the nature and ground of man's race title to the earth.
2. Give twelve elements of gospel light possessed by the antediluvians.
3. At what limit would the race title to the earth lapse?
4. What double base was there for race deterioration?
5. What four facts of evil practice were the remote causes of the deluge?
6. By what last disastrous sin was race corruption brought about and world
destruction necessitated?
7. State the first evil theory of this sin and reply to it.
8. The second evil theory and its alleged scriptural basis?
9. How do you answer it?
10. Show how the ill-assorted marriages of believers and unbelievers brought
about this race corruption.
11. What was the awful result as Jehovah saw it?
12. How did this sight affect him?
13. How do you harmonize the statement of Jehovah's grief with the doctrine of
the creed that God is impassive?
14. What fact of Christ's life illustrates the grief of God?
15. How do you explain the phrase, "It repented Jehovah that he had made
man," when compared with I Samuel 15:29?
16. What judgment did God pronounce?
17. Show how sweeping and inclusive was this judgment.
18. What means were appointed to bring it about?
19. What creative act did this reverse?
20. What respite of mercy and space for repentance was granted?
21. Does this 120 years refer to the future limit of the individual human life,
or the race limit until the flood?
22. What other Old Testament case similarly shows a. space for repentance?
23. What New Testament cases?
24. Explain I Peter 3:19-20, in connection with Genesis 6:3.
25. What means of preservation, for the race remnant spared, appointed?
26. Of what was the ark a prototype?
27. Of what an antitype?
28. Show this by explanation of Acts 10:11-15.
29. Reckoning the cubit at twenty-two inches nearly, show relative dimensions
of the ark and the Great Eastern.
30. For what occupants with a year's supply of food must room space be
provided?
Before we go on I wish to impress very solemnly on your minds certain great
lessons connected with the deluge.
The first question is: Is this history, this account of the destruction of the
world by a flood? My answer is: In all the rest of the Bible the back
references to it treat it as plain matter of fact; no allegory about it.
The next question is: What was the extent of the deluge? Your record says that
the water prevailed fifteen cubits, or twenty-eight feet, over all the
mountains under the whole heavens. The natural impression made upon the mind by
reading this account is that it was intended to be a complete destruction of
the world that then was; that the world was to make a new start. When we come
to the New Testament it will tell about the second deluge that is coming which
will be a deluge of fire; certainly that will be universal. A great many
people, who imagine that what they call science is always true and what we call
the Bible is never true unless science vouches for it, seem to think it
impossible that the deluge covered the whole world. But notice how slight the
elevation of the land is over the sea, that in a body 8,000 miles thick and
25,000 miles around, the difference between the water level and the highest
mountain is so slight that in a globe representing the earth the height of the
mountain would not be any more than the rind of an orange, or not so much as
that, hardly as much as a coat of paint. There would have to be only a very
slight elevation of the bottom of the sea, or a very slight subsidence of the
land in order for the water to cover the whole thing. We know that at one time
the water did cover it all. Listen to this account in the first chapter of
Genesis: "And the earth was waste and void, and darkness was upon the face
of the deep." It was all liquid. It was only later that the waters were
separated from the land. We study bow that separation took place by the
creation of the atmosphere so as to take above a great deal of the water and a
subsidence of the land so as to provide sea beds for the rest of the water.
Now, just reverse that process and the earth is covered with water again. The
windows of the heavens are opened and the water up there is let down. The
fountains of the great deep are broken up. There you have the storm above and
the upheaval below that will bring about the prevalence of the water over the
whole globe. It seems that it would be just as easy for God to cover the whole
earth with water again as it was to take it from a state where it was covered
with water and to bring the land up. He can do one wonder just as easily as the
other. A great many of them try to make out that the deluge covered only a
small part of the earth, the Tigris and Euphrates valleys, touching the Black,
Caspian, and Mediterranean seas. In order to test that, Mount Ararat is 17,260
feet high. Now, add twenty-eight feet to that, for the water stood above Mount
Ararat. Yet the water did not go beyond the Caspian and Black seas. That is a
greater miracle than the other, a great bulk of water there does not fall down
and does not obey the law of gravitation. I have always had less difficulty in
believing just what the Bible says about this flood than in trying to believe
it less than the Bible says.
The second thing is the style of this account. I have been reading history all
my life. I commenced at four years old. I never read a piece of history that is
more vivid in its eyewitness style than this account of the flood. Nothing is
as circumstantial as that. Take the history of the conflagration of Rome
written by an eyewitness. It is not nearly so definite and particular in all
its parts as this is. Take the accounts of the earthquake in San Francisco. The
style in which that account is written by any of the men who have tried to
describe it does not approach this in clearness of the statements and minute
exactness.
Notice, for one thing, the dates. He evidently wants to he understood that this
occurred at a particular time. I will read you some of the statements about
dates. "And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of water came
upon the earth." That gives you the year. In v. II it says, "In the
six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, and on the seventeenth
day of the month the same day were all the fountains of the great abyss broken
up and the windows of heaven opened." It says that the rain fell forty
days and nights, but it does not mean to say that no rain fell after that. Dr.
Conant's translation says, "And the heavy rain was upon the earth forty
days and forty nights."
Listen to the description as to how these waters gradually rose and gradually
fell; see if you can remember anything in literature more vivid. "And the
heavy rain was forty days upon the earth, and the waters increased and bore up
the ark. It rose up from the earth. And the waters prevailed and increased
mightily upon the earth and the ark went upon the face of the waters."
First it floated, then it moved. "The waters prevailed mightily upon the
earth and all the high mountains that were under the whole heavens were
covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail and the mountains were
covered." That tells you how it rose. "And the waters prevailed upon
the earth an hundred and fifty days." Notice this circumstantial account.
He is going to describe now how they began to fall. "And God caused a wind
to pass over the earth and the waters subsided." The fountains of the
abyss and the windows of the heavens were closed. The heavy rains from the
heavens were restrained, the waters returned to the earth continually, and the
waters abated from the end of one hundred and fifty days, and the ark rested in
the seventh month on the seventeenth day of the month on the mount of Ararat.
And the waters were continually abating until the tenth month. On the tenth
month and on the first day of the month the tops of the mountains were seen. It
came to pass at the end of forty days Noah opened the window of the ark and
sent forth a raven. And he went, going forth and returning, but he never came
back into the ark, just going to and fro. He sent forth a dove to see if the
waters were lightened and he waited "another seven days." Notice
again that I am just calling dates. "It came to pass in the six hundred
and first year, in the first month, the first of the month, the waters were
dried up." No man living could be more particular about every specification.
"In the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the
earth dry." There is the full account of the year divided into its parts.
I have never read anything that impressed me as this I have just quoted. One of
my examination questions will likely be: What have you to say about the graphic
description of the gradual rising of the waters and the gradual subsidence of
the waters? The literary style is perfect.
Now I have another question I am going to give as a general question. Those of
you that have been about farm yards have noticed that hogs begin to run around
and pick up straws to make a bed, and you just know that cold weather is
coming. You see flights of the birds as winter approaches, going south. Rats
leave a ship before it begins to sink. Now the question: Was it instinct that
got these animals into the ark? These were wild animals, elephants, lions,
tigers, snakes, birds: were they warned by instinct of the approaching storm,
and knew that the ark was the only safe place? And if not, how do you account
for their getting there? You don't suppose that Noah could go out and drive up
those wild beasts. There is an answer that is absolutely correct, but I will
pass it for the present.
The lessons concerning this deluge to which I call your attention, first,
gather around the name of Noah, one of the most remarkable names of the times.
As Adam's name stands out as the head of the human race, so this man's name
stands out as the second head of the human race. The Adam world is all gone.
This man is going to start on a new earth and make a new beginning for the
human race. There were only this man and his wife, his three sons and their
wives – eight people. What is said about the character of this man? The
Scripture testimony is that he walked with God and was perfect in his
generation. What is said about his faith? I will read you what is said. Hebrews
11:7, "By faith Noah, being warned of God concerning things not seen as
yet, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his house;
through which he condemned the world, and became the heir of the righteousness
which is according to faith." The chapter commences by saying, "Faith
is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."
Now, no man could foresee that flood. God said it would come in 120 years. The
first time he limited it, he said it should come at the death of Methuselah.
The next time he limits it, he says 120 years. The next time he says, "yet
seven days." There was not a sign in the sky above nor in the earth
beneath to warn anybody. But God told Noah that it was coming, and, moved with
godly fear, taking hold of the invisible things that had been made known to
him, by faith he built that ark. You think that was a small undertaking. Well,
suppose one man and his three boys, and as many people as he could hire, should
start out to build a ship as big as the Great Eastern. It cost an immense
amount of money. Those people who did not believe that the flood was coming
would not contribute anything to it. Noah had to put his own money into it.
That faith means a tremendous financial sacrifice on his part, to put
everything in the world he had in it. It meant to put the labor of his hands.
The people who were working for him would laugh at him and call him a crazy old
fool. Of course, they would take his money, as carpenters want work, but they
had no faith in it. I call the attention of the class to a sermon by Dr. Andrew
Fuller of England, "The Faith of Noah in Building the Ark," as one of
the finest sermons ever preached on faith in all homiletics. Faith does not
stop at a mere intellectual perception of a truth, or the assent of the heart
to a truth. Faith steps out and works and does everything in the world that is
necessary to be done.
Notice the strength of Noah's faith in this. He stood alone against the
judgment of the entire world. He is the only man that believes that the flood
will come. One of you start out today in any community and let nobody in that
community believe in what you are doing. Let them laugh at you and make fun of
your work. How long would you hold your faith? It is one of the most sublime
demonstrations in all the Word of God; that he would stand as Elijah did later
against the whole world and maintain that what God said was true and work to
it.
What is said about his preaching? All the time he was work ing he was also
preaching. In 2 Peter 2:5, he is called a preacher of righteousness, that is,
he preached that men should do right and do what God tells them to do. I Peter
3:21, says that Christ by the Spirit went and preached to the antediluvians in
the days of Noah. That is, Christ, not in person, but in the Spirit through
Noah, preached 120 years. Noah did the preaching as Christ's representative,
the Holy Spirit bearing witness to the truth of it. I Peter 4:6, has this
strange expression – if you want to see commentators stalled consult them on
this scripture: "For unto this end was the gospel preached even to the
dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live
according to God in the Spirit." In other words, as Paul says, this means
that the gospel has been preached all over the world and they have not heard.
"Their line has gone out to the ends of the earth." "Jesus Christ
lighteth every man that cometh into the world." There is a sense in which
the truth of God in some form has reached every heart and conscience that there
is in the world. Why was the gospel sent to these people that are now dead and
lost? God had in view when it was preached to them that they might be judged in
the flesh and live according to the spirit, but rejecting it they were lost in
both body and spirit. You must get fixed on your mind that old man's faith,
standing there by himself and continually pleading with his neighbors and
telling them that 120 years from now, 119 years from now, 100 years from now,
fifty years, ten years and the end comes. All that was the space for
repentance, and at last when you come down to seven days the ministry stops.
The Lord says, "Noah, you move in," and he moves in and the door is
shut. Then, "Where is Noah?" "He is inside." "Where is
the rain?" It has not come and another day passes. "Where is your
rain? Hallo, old man, where is that storm you were talking about?" No
rain. Yet seven days, and the day of grace is ended. No chance for anybody to
be saved in that seven days because the door is shut. God shut him in. He is
shut up; they are shut out. A whole week passes just that way. It is one of the
most suggestive and impressive lessons that I know of.
Such was the man's preaching. There is a reference to him in Ezekiel 14:14,
where he speaks about a certain wicked city, and he says, "Though Noah,
Job and Daniel were in this city they could save only themselves by their
righteousness." Whenever the number of righteous men gets so small that
the salt cannot preserve the world, or whenever the testimony of the righteous
becomes so low that it ceases to conserve, then doom comes and that doom is
irretrievable.
Let us see what the lessons are about the flood itself. In 2 Peter 3:4-7, we
have: "Where is the promise of his coming? for, from the day that the
fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the
creation. For this they willfully forget, that there were heavens from of old,
and an earth compacted out of water and amidst water, by the word of God; by
which means the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: but
the heavens that now are, and the earth, by the same word have been stored up
for fire, being reserved against the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly
men." Just as certain as the flood came and swept away the first world –
it came by the word of God, though the crowd did not believe it – just so
certain the world that now is will be destroyed by fire. Peter goes on to
describe that fire in this same connection. "The day will come that the
earth also, and the works that are therein, shall be burned up." If God
could destroy the first world by a flood of water, and according to his Word
that first destruction did come, we have the same Word of God to assure us that
the world next time will be destroyed by fire.
The second lesson is Matthew 24:37-39, and Luke 17:26. Jesus is talking:
"And as were the days of Noah, so shall be the coming of the Son of man.
For as in those days which were before the flood they were eating and drinking,
marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark,
and they knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall be the
coming of the Son of man." That is, its suddenness and their
unpreparedness for it. It comes like a thief in the night when they are not
looking for it. When Jesus comes again there will be some people at the
ballroom, just like Byron describes it:
There was a sound of revelry by night
And Belgium's capital had gathered then
Her beauty and her chivalry and bright
The lamps shone o'er fair women and brave men.
Soft eyes looked love to eyes which spake again
And all went merry as a marriage bell.
But hush. Hark! A deep sound strikes
like a rising knell.
"What is that sound?" "It is the cannon's opening roar."
And the Battle of Waterloo snatched those gay dancers from their partners and
hurried them to the feast of death. They will be dancing just that way when the
lightning flashes from one end of the heavens to the other when Jesus comes.
There will be two fellows quarreling over the price of a mutton chop, others
quarreling over taxes. There will be men building pigpens; boys going in swimming
in the creeks. And the judgment of the Lord Jesus Christ will come like a flash
of lightning. That is a very solemn lesson. Those people right up to the time
when heaven's windows opened and the fountains of the great deep burst up, in
utter disbelief of any end of the world, so it found them and they went down…
With a bubbling groan,
Unwept, unhonoured, and unknown.
The next lesson is found in 2 Peter 3, describing why the second coming of
Christ is deferred. Some people say, "He made us suspect that he is coming
soon and he has not come." Peter says that Christ is not slack about his
promises. That if he has not come his object is that his long-suffering might
lead men to repentance. Just like through that period of 120 years and throughout
the whole life of Methuselah. Why didn't that boy die at five years of age,
etc.? It is God suspending the judgment. God is holding that awful penalty
hair-swung, nothing but the breath of the Almighty to send it down in a moment,
in order that man might have space to repent.
The next lesson is Isaiah 54:9. This is not so dark a picture. I will commence
at v. 7: "For a small moment have I forsaken thee, but with great mercies
will I gather thee. In overflowing wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment,
but with everlasting love and kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith
Jehovah, my Redeemer. For this is as the waters of Noah unto me; for as I have
sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so have I sworn
that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee." God has said to his
people that he will never destroy the earth by another flood. "I swear to
thee that though thou hast forsaken me many a time, that I will never, no
never, destroy thee." It is one of the greatest doctrines on the final
perseverance of the saints in the Bible. A very sweet lesson. That is all I
have to say about the lessons of the flood. Let us look at
The first lesson about the ark is that it was intended for a perfectly sure
means of escape from that doom, pitched within and without, water-tight,
perfectly safe, everybody and everything within it was safe. No matter how it
rained. No matter how high the water stood; that the mountains disappeared.
That ark represents Christ. If we get in Christ, shut in Christ, as Paul puts
it, "I am dead and my life is hid with Christ in God," then let the
storms come.
Notice that to get into that ark there was only one door. Noah did not have a
door put at the top for the birds to come in, and a little hole under the floor
for the snakes to crawl under, and a great big gate for the elephants to get
in. No matter whether you are a big beast or a little beast, you have to go in
at the same place. You could not exhibit any pride about it. The eagle swooping
from his eyrie on the top of the mountain had to come in at that door, the very
door through which the snail crawled. That is a point for you in your
preaching. Christ says: "I am the door. I am the way. I am the truth and I
am the life, and there is no other way known under heaven or among men."
In the next place, that ark of Noah's is reproduced in the covenant at Mount
Sinai. As the first ark was made of cypress wood, this ark is made of acacia,
that is, an indestructible and long-lasting wood. This ark has the mercy seat
and the Shekinah. This ark has the throne of grace and the only way to get into
paradise is to come to that place.
We come to the last lesson on the ark in Acts 10. Without reading I will tell
it to you. Peter was just as narrow as the edge of a knife in his Jewish
prejudices, and he held the key that would open the door of the kingdom of
heaven to the Gentile world, and he was letting it get rusty in his girdle. On
the day of Pentecost he opened the door and let in three thousand Jews at a
jump, but not a Gentile. God brought him to Joppa where he could look out from
the housetop upon that sea whose waters washed the shores of the Gentile world,
alien, without God, and without hope in the world. Peter fell into a trance and
God let down an ark. You can call it a great white sheet held up at the four
corners, if you want to. But it was an ark, just as curious a sight as Noah's
old ark, and in this ark was every manner of beast and bird and creeping thing,
clean and unclean. The world had almost forgotten about that ark into which
hawks and doves and tigers and lambs and snakes and men went in together. God
shows Peter that sight again and says, "Arise, Peter, kill and eat."
Peter says, "I have never eaten anything unclean." God says,
"What I have cleansed do not thou call common or unclean. I want to teach
you the lesson of the ark, the symbolism of that ark in the days of Noah."
The entrance of those birds and animals into the ark was a foreshadow of the
reception of all people and all nations, tribes and kindred into Jesus Christ.
I have only to present the sabbath, and I am through with the special lessons
about the ark. The sabbath day runs all through, as "another seven
days," showing that long before Moses put into the Ten Commandments
"Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy," the seventh day was an
institution that began when God created the world and for man as man.
1. Is the Genesis account of the flood history?
2. What was the extent of the flood, upward and outward?
3. What was the process of the flood?
4. How high above the sea level are the loftiest mountain peaks of Armenia
where the ark rested?
5. What is the theory of the critics and what is the scientific difficulty in
accepting it?
6. What evidence from the style of the account in general?
7. What in particular from the dates mentioned?
8. What of the description of the rising and falling of the waters?
9. How did Noah get the animals into the ark? Give reasons for your answer,
10. What four lessons from Noah's life?
11. What is said about the character of this man?
12. What is said of his faith?
13. What shows the strength of his faith?
14. What is said about his preaching?
15. With whom does the prophet Ezekiel rank Noah and on what characteristic?
16. What four lessons for the flood itself?
17. What four lessons from the ark?
18. What lesson here on the question of the sabbath?
QUESTIONS FOR THOUGHT AND RESEARCH (Inferential and otherwise.)
19. What double test of faith did God prove Noah by?
20. What New Testament proof of his meeting the test and what great Baptist
preacher has a sermon on the text?
21. What was the financial difficulty to be overcome by Noah's faith?
22. What scientific difficulty?
23. What social difficulty?
24. What labor difficulty?
25. What waiting difficulty?
26. What several time divisions are found in the account of the deluge?
27. Who else in the world besides Noah's family ever saw such an assemblage of
animals as were in the ark?
28. Why did not this strange gathering change the wicked?
29. Cite Isaiah's comparison of man's stupidity with the intelligence of the
beasts.
30. Cite Job's description of the absorption of the wicked in worldly pleasures
till death suddenly smites them.
31. The significance of one door to the ark and a type of what?
32. The meaning of "Jehovah shut him in"?
33. According to the New Testament, who is vested with power to open and shut?
34. How long did the heavy rain continue?
35. What the extent of the destruction?
36. Cite three great proofs that the deluge was universal.
I want to put a general question: How long was Noah in the ark? In answering
that question you may consult 7:1-11, and 8:14. I call your attention in the
next place to a suggestion in the Speaker's Commentary on Genesis 8:4, which
tells us that the ark rested on Mount Ararat, and gives the date. According to
the Jewish year observed in this account, the ark rested on the seventeenth day
of the seventh month. On that. very day later, the Israelites crossed the Red
Sea, and on that day later Christ rose from the dead. We might investigate any
connection between the resting of that ark, the passage of the Red Sea and the
resurrection of Christ.
The next thought presented is with reference to the raven. Dr. Fuller of
England, in his exposition of Genesis, compares the sending out of the raven to
a man's getting out of the church who was never a Christian. He never wants to
go back. He pictures that raven flying around, resting on some dead body
floating on the top of the water, and never desiring to return to the ark of
the covenant. On account of the naming in this chapter of the raven, the dove,
the olive branch, and the rainbow, these four names have gone into all
languages and all literature as indicating certain things. The raven is
regarded as a croaker and a bird of ill omen; the dove is regarded as the
symbol of innocence; the olive branch as the symbol of peace; and the rainbow
as the symbol of hope. I was once asked the question where that dove got ' the
olive branch, since the whole earth had been flooded with water. The olive tree
lives under water. In the lakes of the Black Forest you can see olive trees
growing under the water and never blossoming until in dry weather when the
lakes sink down and the tops of the trees come up and immediately the tree
blossoms. Pliny in his Natural History said that the olive tree
grew under water in the Red Sea; that it grows in salt water. It is a very
hardy plant. So it is not a miracle that the dove found an olive branch, but
quite in accordance with the nature of this particular plant that it could live
and retain its vitality many months under water, and when the waters subsided
go to flowering and blooming.
We now come to the most significant thing in this part of Genesis, and that is
the covenant between God and the second head of the human race, Noah. I will
give this general question: What is the meaning of "covenant" based
on the Greek word? In very general terms a covenant is an agreement or compact
between two or more parties having its stipulation binding on both parties.
There is said here to be a covenant between God upon the first part and Noah on
the second part representing himself and the whole animal world. So Noah stands
there representing all earth life.
We want to note in the next place what was the basis of the covenant, the
meritorious ground of agreement. I will read that to you from the eighth chapter
and twentieth verse: "And Noah builded an altar unto Jehovah, and took of
every clean beast, and every clean bird, and offered burnt-offerings on the
altar. And Jehovah smelled the sweet savour; and Jehovah said in his heart, I
will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake." Now that was the
meritorious ground or basis of the covenant. In other words, Noah comes before
God as a sinner, making an offering. In the letter to the Hebrews we are told
that wherever there is a covenant there is a shedding of blood. There must be a
death. The basis of this covenant which God himself appointed is that animal
sacrifice typifying a greater sacrifice to come, which shall be sacrificed on
an altar. It must be complete.
The next thing is that the word "altar" appears here in the Bible for
the first time. I will give a general question: From what language is the word
"altar" derived and what is its literal meaning? I am calling your
attention to these new names in the Bible. The stipulation that God requires of
man is that he shall come before him and be justified through an atonement, and
the man's faith in that atonement constitutes the ground of God's entering into
covenant with him.
Let us notice some of the other stipulations of this covenant: 9:1, "And
God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, “Be fruitful, and multiply,
and replenish the earth." There you see is a renewal of the covenant with
Adam when he said, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the
earth." You must not only come before God as a sinner, but your obligation
is to go out and subdue this earth and fill it up with inhabitants. "And
the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth,
and upon every bird of the heavens; with all wherewith the ground teemeth, and
all the fishes of the sea, into your hands are they delivered." This is a
renewal of the dominion of man as given originally in Adam.
We now come to an enlargement of the Adamic covenant, Genesis 1:29: "And
God said, Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed; to you it shall be
for food; and to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the heavens,
and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have
given every green herb for food; and it was so." Now, let us see the
enlargement on that, Genesis 9:3: "Every moving thing that liveth shall be
food for you; and the green herbs have I given you all." God now gives
animal food in addition to the vegetable. The animal food embraces any animal
creature whatsoever. When we get to the Mosaic covenant we will see that this
food will be restricted to clean animals, to those that divide the hoof and
chew the cud. I want. you to notice that Noah stands as the head of the human
race like Adam stood and that he has a larger privilege than Adam had as to
animal food added, where before there was only vegetable. When we come to the
New Testament we will hear Paul arguing for the broadness of the privilege of
the covenant of Noah when he says, "Every creature of God is good and to
be received with thanksgiving." The covenantwith Noah is very much broader
than the covenant with Moses, because that covenant was with a single nation
only, and this was with the whole human race.
We notice now another thing entirely new: "But flesh with the life
thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." You may eat an
animal, but you must not eat him with the blood in him. When we come to Exodus,
Moses renews that law that a thing that is strangled, merely choked to death,
cannot be eaten because the blood is in him, and anything that merely dies
cannot be eaten. In Acts 15 you will find that James insists that that
restriction be put upon the Gentile Christians. Somehow I have always
sympathized with this restriction. I knew a man once, and held him in
considerable esteem until one day he told me that his favorite dish was blood
pudding. I never did like him as much afterward because that seems to me to be
such a horrid dish. People who eat blood are brutal and ferocious. Caesar said that
the Belgians, the bravest of men, lived on milk, showing that animal food
itself is not necessary. But the English believe that their superiority over
all nations in fighting arises from the great quantity of beef that they eat.
God gives permission to eat any animal creature, and I have known people who
would eat rattlesnakes and polecats and snails, and with some people bird's
nests are regarded as a delicacy. Savage nations show you the highest
compliment when they offer you a dish of grub worms. An African woman who
wanted to show a kindness to one of our missionaries who had been kind to her
went out and got him a dish of grub worms. There is no law against it except
taste. I would not prefer, for my part, the grub worms, nor the snails, nor the
polecats.
We now come to a new prohibition: "And surely your blood, the blood of
your lives, will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it; at
the hand of man, even at the hand of every man's brother, will I require the
life of man. Whoso sheddest man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in
the image of God made he man." Here is something we have not fallen in
with before. You remember when Cain killed his brother he was afraid that
whoever found him would kill him. God protected him from death by human hands.
Now, on this side of the flood God here instituted civil government and makes
murder punishable with death and makes it right for man in the capacity of a
civil government to take the life of a murderer. This is a very old law. It
goes back of the Mosaic law. This is not a Jewish law; it is a race law.
Upon this point I want to call your attention to the teaching of the Jewish
synagogues. The Jewish synagogue which was established just after the
Babylonian captivity has held that there were seven ordinances of Noah. They
call them the primal ordinances. I am going to give you these seven as the
synagogue gave them and see how many we can find here:
Abstinence from blood
Prohibition of murder
Recognition of civil authority
Idolatry forbidden
Blasphemy forbidden
Incest forbidden
Theft forbidden
The first three we find in this chapter. Idolatry and blasphemy are implied in
the offering. But I do not know where those Jews got the other two, incest and
theft.
We were discussing the stipulations that God required upon man's part. First,
he must come as a sinner with a sacrifice. Second, he must eat no blood. Third,
he must do no murder. Fourth, civil government should have charge of the
murderer and punish him with death. That far it is very clear as to the
stipulations that God requires of man. Another was that he was to replenish the
earth and exercise dominion over the beasts. Now, let us see what God's part
was. God blessed Noah. That means that he graciously accepts him in that
sacrifice that he offers, forgiving his sins if he through faith can see to
what that atonement points. The great blessing is the blessing of forgiveness
of sins through the atonement offering. Second, God promises that there shall
never be another flood of water. Third, that the laws of nature shall be
uniform, 8:22: "While the earth remaineth, seed time and harvest and cold
and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease." How
necessary it is that there should be a uniformity of law in nature. Some of you
have read the piece in the old third reader about a man living in the world of
chance. That man lost his wife and children because they unthoughtedly ate
poison and died. There was an inflexible law. In his despair he wished that he
lived in a world without law. He fell asleep and dreamed that he was in a world
of chance, where there was no uniformity. You could not tell what time of the
year winter would come, nor how long it would stay, nor what time of the year
summer would come. A man might have Just one eye and that on the top of his
head. His hands might be growing out from under his arms. His ox might have
wool like a sheep. When he had a toothache he put some coffee on to boil,
thinking that would help his tooth, but by chance it turned into ice instead of
boiling, and when the ice hit that bounding tooth, how it must have hurt! Are
you clear now about the things that God promised? (1) He will graciously accept
man through the offering. (2) He promised not to send another flood. (3) He
will give regularity of seasons. When a man goes to plant a crop he may know
what to expect.
We now look at the extent of this covenant. It is said to be a perpetual
covenant. Just as long as this dispensation lasts that will be true, and the
last thing is the token of that covenant. What indicates that a covenant has
been made between God and man? The rainbow is selected as a token. The people
who had passed through the flood, or had recently heard about such a big rain,
would be very much frightened every time they saw a cloud coming. Now, when you
see a cloud, when you are at a certain angle you will also see a rainbow and
that is a sign to you that God will never allow this earth to be destroyed by
water, and when God looks on it he will remember what he has promised. I here
give a quotation from Murphy on Genesis:
For perpetual ages this stability of sea and land is to last, during the
remainder of the human race. What is to happen when the race of man is
completed is not the question. At present God’s covenant is the well-known and
still-remembered compact formed with man when the command was issued in the
garden of Eden. So God's bow is the primaeval arch, coexistent with the rays of
light and the drops of rain. It is caused by the rays of the sun on the falling
raindrops at a particular angle. A beautiful arch of reflected and refracted
light is in this way formed for every eye. The rainbow is thus an index that
the sky is not wholly overcast since the sun is shining through the shower and
thereby demonstrating its partial extent. There could not, therefore, be a more
beautiful or more fitting token that there shall be no more a flood to sweep
away all flesh and destroy the land. It comes through its mild radiance only
when the cloud condenses into a shower. It consists of heavenly light
variegated in hue, mellowed in lustre, filling the beholder with an.
involuntary pleasure. It forms a perfect arch. It connects heaven and earth and
spans the horizon. In these respects it is a beautiful emblem of mercy
rejoicing against judgment, of light from heaven irradiating and beautifying
the soul, of grace always sufficient for the needy, of the reunion of earth and
heaven, of all the universality of the offer of salvation.
In Revelation 4:3, the rainbow about the throne of mercy, and in Revelation
10:1, the angel with a rainbow about his head, we have again the New Testament
symbolism of the rainbow. In Science Made Easy for All are some
of the most beautiful illustrations of the rainbow that I have ever seen. Three
years ago I was in Comanche, Texas. The sun had gone down, the full moon was
shining. We were sitting down at the supper table and somebody called out,
"Run out here and look at the moon." And there was a complete
rainbow, a perfect circle around the moon, a lunar rainbow, of course, fainter
than a solar rainbow, not so Conspicuous, and yet anybody could see it. I have
seen two others since.
I have one other observation to give you. I was on the train going from
McGregor down the Sante Fe toward Galdwell and talking with a man who saw no
evidence of God's loving care anywhere. "Why," I said, "if you
will just look out of the car window you will see one that keeps up with
us." And there was a rainbow keeping right up with the train, made from
the sun shining on the steam from the engine. It kept along with us about fifty
miles. Wherever water falls and the sun shines, and you are at the right angle
of vision you can see a token of God's infinite mercy. I said, "Now if you
cannot see any of these things, it is because of your angle of vision." As
Paul puts it, "If our gospel is veiled, it is veiled in them that perish:
in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that
the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should
not dawn upon them" (2 Cor. 4:3).
We now take up the prophecy concerning Noah's sons. Some of it is very
difficult, not so much for me to' tell as for you to remember. The closing
paragraph in the ninth chapter is not only the connecting link between what
goes before and what comes after, but all the future references throughout the
Bible connect with this passage that is inserted here.
I will read and comment. "And the sons of Noah, that went forth from the
ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth." I call attention to the relative
ages of these sons, and why their names do not appear in relative order.
Japheth was the oldest and Ham the youngest. "And Ham is the father of
Canaan." That expression is put in out of its proper connection in order
to explain something that will appear immediately after. "These three were
the sons of Noah: and of these was the whole earth overspread. And Noah began
to be an husbandman and planted a vineyard and drank of the wine and was
drunken." The word here used for wine contains the idea of fermentation.
"And he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw
the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and
Japheth took a garment upon both their shoulders and went backward and covered
the nakedness of their father, and their faces were backward, and they saw not
their father's nakedness."
We have just commenced the new race probation after the flood. How long it had
been after the flood we do not know exactly, but some years, because no
children were born to Shem, Ham, and Japheth until after the flood, and at this
time Canaan, the son of Ham) is grown. We see the great man that was perfect in
his generation, just and walked with God, this. new head of the race that had
such faith, a preacher of righteousness, as he falls into sin, the sin of
drunkenness. This teaches that no man) however exalted in character or
position, is absolutely safe from a fall. I don't mean that a Christian may
fall away and be forever lost, but I do say that the most exalted Christian in
the world must exercise watchfulness and prudence, or he will bring shame upon
the name of religion. We have had some most remarkable cases of this kind
besides the case of Noah.
This sin of Noah acted as a revelation, that is, it brought out the character
of his three children. When the youngest one looked upon the shame of his
father's drunkenness, he was inspired with no such feelings as those which
animated Shem and Japheth. He not only scorned his father, but went and
published it to the others. We sometimes find children who have not been well
raised, who go around to the neighbors and tell the little troubles that occur
in the family. It is always an indication of a bad heart and an untrained character.
The world has never had much respect for the taleteller and the gadabout. They
may listen to what you say, and may make use of it, but they will not respect
you for it. The filial piety and reverence of Shem and Japheth is one of the
most impressive lessons in history, and their action, walking backward and
holding the mantle on their shoulders so that when they got to their father
they could cover him without seeing him, originated the proverb: "Charity
covereth a multitude of sins." That means that love is not disposed to
point out the sins of others and talk about them. Love is more disposed to
cover them up.
"And Noah awoke from his wine, and he knew what his youngest son had done
unto him." How he found out I don't know. Perhaps it was told unto him.
Now we come to the first recorded prophecy, so far as the Old Testament is
concerned, that was ever spoken by man, though the New Testament tells us of a
prophecy that preceded this, the Lord himself having given a prophecy in the
third chapter of Genesis that "the seed of the woman shall bruise the
serpent's head." That was God's prophecy, and Enoch, the seventh from
Adam, made a prophecy, but it was not given in the Old Testament. This
remarkable prophecy of Noah consists of two divisions. First, the curse, and
then the blessing. "And he said, Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants
shall he be to his brethren." The question naturally arises whether that
curse extends to the other children of Ham, and if so, why Canaan alone is
specified. My opinion is that the curse extends to the whole of the descendants
of Ham from the fact that there was no blessing pronounced on him or any of his
children in the whole prophecy, and I think that Canaan was specified instead
of the others because Canaan is the one with which God's people will have to do
when they go to the Promised Land. They will have to rescue it from the
Canaanites, the descendants of Ham. That curse can be traced in history. The
Canaanites when they were conquered by Joshua and by David and by Solomon were
either destroyed or enslaved. They became the servants of their conquerors, and
it is certainly true that the other descendants of Ham became largely the
slaves of the world.
Let us look at the blessing: "And he said, Blessed be Jehovah, the God of
Shem, and let Canaan be his servant." Or, as Jamieson translates it:
"Blessed of Jehovah, my God, be Shem." That seems to make the better
reading, that Jehovah shall be the God of Shem, and Shem shall have religious
preeminence. In the line of Shem come all the oracles of God during the Old
Testament times, and in the New Testament times all of the Bible we have, with
the possible exception of one book, comes from the descendants of Shem. The
Semitic races seem to have taken the lead in religious matters, whether for
good or bad.
Notice the blessing on Japheth: "God enlarge Japheth." That part has
been fulfilled to the letter, as we will see later, that the children of
Japheth occupy the greater part of the world. Not only have they been enlarged
as to the territory that God allotted to them, but as leaders in intellectual
development and inventions, and in the government of the world. The second
blessing is: "And let him dwell in the tents of Shem." That means
that Japheth will get his religion from Shem. We are Gentiles, the children of
Japheth. Isaiah 60:9, says, "Surely the isles shall wait for me, and the
ships of Tarshish first, to bring thy sons from afar, their silver and their
gold with them, for the name of Jehovah thy God, and for the Holy One of
Israel, because he hath glorified thee." That shows the coming of the
Gentiles. This prophecy shows that the distinction among men or peoples is not
accidental, but that the world was divided among the descendants of three men.
It shows how far-reaching on the children is the consequence of a father's
action. It is always best for a man, if he is going to be a bad man, to remain
a bachelor and not throw a shadow over his descendants. The iniquities of the
fathers are visited upon the children as consequences.
Noah lived after the flood 350 years. That would bring him to Abraham's time,
so that Abraham could talk with the man who had witnessed the overthrow of the
old world, and who himself had only one man between himself and the first Adam,
who was Methuselah. Adam could talk to Methuselah, and Methuselah to Noah, and
Noah to Abraham, and so you see how easily tradition could be handed down.
1. How long was Noah in the ark?
2. What suggestion from the Speaker's Commentary, and what connection between
the resting of the ark, the passage of the Red Sea and the resurrection of
Christ?
3. What do the raven, dove, olive branch, and rainbow symbolize? What their
impress on subsequent literature?
4. Was the dove's finding an olive branch a miracle? Explain.
5. What is the most significant thing in this part of Genesis?
6. What is the meaning of "covenant," and what does Noah represent in
this covenant?
7. What was the meritorious ground of this covenant and New Testament testimony
on this point?
8. What is the first Bible use of the word "altar" and the etymology
of the word?
9. What covenant renewal do we find here?
10. What enlargement of the Adamic covenant?
11. How does this covenant with Noah compare with the one later with Moses and
why?
12. What one food restriction?
13. Cite the first establishment of civil government and criminal law.
14. What seven ordinances does the synagogue derive from the Noachic
legislation and how many of these do you find in the text?
15. What were the terms of the covenant with Noah on man's part?
16. On God's part?
17. What was the extent of this covenant?
18. What the token of the covenant?
19. What New Testament references to the rainbow and what its symbolism?
20. What the importance of the closing paragraph of the ninth chapter of
Genesis?
21. What the relative ages of the sons of Noah, and why the expression,
"And Ham is the father of Canaan," out of its proper connection?
22. What is the first case of vine culture and drunkenness?
23. What the lesson, of Noah's drunkenness?
23. What the lesson of Noah’s drunkenness?
24. What the distinction of filial piety and reverence in the sona of Noah?
25. What proverb seems to be based on Shem's and Japheth's covering the
nakedness of their father?
26. Was Ham's sin the cause or the occasion of Noah's curse? Ana.: The
occasion.
27. Was the curse from God or Noah?
28. Was it punitive on the person or consequential on his descendants?
29. Show historic fulfillment of the curse.
30. What was the meaning and historic fulfillment of the blessing on Shem?
31. What was the meaning and historic fulfillment of "God enlarge
Japheth"?
32. What was the meaning and historic fulfillment of Japheth dwelling in the
tents of Shem? 33. What was the significance of Noah's long life after the
flood?
ORIGIN OF NATIONS AND LANGUAGES
Genesis 10:1 to 11:9
Genesis, section six: "These are the generations of the sons of
Noah."
1. Unity of stock and speech.
2. Attempt at centralization.
3. Confusion of tongues.
4. Consequent grouping into nations.
5. Assignment of their respective territories.
6. Dispersion to allotted homes.
The tenth chapter of Genesis, with the first nine verses of the eleventh chapter,
constitutes our sixth division of the book, under the title: These are the
generations of the sons of Noah. This section closes the Bible history of man
as a race. Next to the account of the creation, and the fall of man, and of the
flood, it is the most valuable gem of literature. Indeed the most forcible
writers fall short of the reality in attempting to express the significance and
value of this record. Some of them say that it is the most ancient and reliable
account of the origin of nations. But this language implies that there are in
the world's literature parallel histories, though later and less reliable. But
there is no other account. This history has no parallel. It is unique, without
a model and without a shadow. It is both ancient and solitary. Moreover, to
call it the ancient and solitary history of merely the origin of nations falls
far below the facts. It not only cites the sires from whom all peoples have
descended, but also tells us by whom, where, why, how, and when the people of
one stock and tongue were parted into separate nations and divers tongues, and
by whom and in what lifetime came the allotment, of their respective
territories. It is therefore the foundation of ethnology, philology, and
geography; the root of history, prophecy, and religion.
The whole of the tenth chapter, with the first nine verses of the eleventh,
should be treated as one section. The tenth chapter cannot be understood
without this paragraph of the eleventh chapter. The table of the nations comes
first, and then follows the explanation of the division into nations. So that
in order of time the nine verses of the eleventh chapter precede nearly all of
the tenth chapter. We therefore take as our starting point a clause of the sixth
verse of the eleventh chapter: "And Jehovah said, Behold, they are one
people, and they have all one language." Their oneness of speech is
expressed by two discriminating words: "And the whole land was of one lip,
and one stock of words." "Stock of words" means the materials of
languages. "Lip," one of the organs of articulation, denotes manner
of speaking, or the use of the material. Family ties and common speech hold
them together. Hence as they multiplied and began to move out for homes, the trend
of the movement was in one direction only. A proverb of our day is,
"Westward the march of Empire takes its way." It was not so in the
beginning. The movement was toward the rising, not the setting sun. As the
years roll by and the population rapidly increases, this eastward tide of
emigration becomes as a mighty river in volume. But all migrations of men fall
under some leadership. The most daring, capable and dominant spirit, by sheer
force of character and qualities, naturally forges to the front and directs and
controls the movement, and as power increases, his ambition soars. He begins to
scheme and plan toward selfish ends. Our record names the man. Not without
adequate design does the author in giving his tables of nations turn aside to
sketch an episode when he comes to a certain man. "Ham begat Cush, and
Gush begat Nimrod; and he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a
mighty hunter before Jehovah: . . . And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel,
and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. Out of that land he
went forth into Assyria, and builded Nineveh and Calah (the same is the great
city)." This descendant of Ham becomes a leader. His name signifies
"The Rebel," or "we shall rebel." He makes himself a king.
The beginning of his kingdom was Babel in the land of Shinar.
This episode of the tenth chapter connects with the migration eastward in the
eleventh chapter: "And it came to pass, as they journeyed east, that they
found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. And they said to one
another, Come, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick
for stone, and slime had they for mortar. And they said, Come, let us build us
a city" (Gen. 11:2-4). In v. II we find that the city was Babel. Here,
then, we find the man, the leader. He was a mighty hunter, this mighty man, as
later (I Sam. 24:11; Jer. 16:16), a hunter of men. The expression, "before
the Lord," evidently means that he pushed his designs of whatever kind in
open and brazen defiance of God's sight and rule.
There now comes into his mind this ambitious scheme, the establishment of a
world empire. To accomplish this there must be a center of unity, a city, and
to insure stability and to hedge against the natural and disintegrating fear of
another deluge there must be a refuge. To induce submission on the part of his
following they must be supplied with a motive: "let us make a name."
This brings the situation into similarity with the conditions that preceded and
necessitated the deluge as set forth in Genesis 6:4, the days of the giants and
the mighty men, men of renown. This inordinate thirst for fame is idolatrv It
is the most cruel of the passions. Everything beautiful, good, holy, and true
goes down before it. As an illustration consider the ambition attributed to an
ancient painter: "Parrhasius, a painter of Athens, among the Olythian
captives Philip of Macedonia brought home to sell, bought one very old man. And
when he had him at his house put him to death with extreme torture and torment,
the better, by his example, to express the pains and passions of his Prometheus
whom he was then about to paint."
On this excerpt N. P. Willis writes his famous poem,
"Parrhasius." According to the poet when the tortured victim asks for
pity the painter replies:
I'd rack thee though I knew a thousand lives were perishing in thine
What were ten thousand to a fame like mine
Again, when the dying captive threatens him with the hereafter, the painter
mocks him by denial of future existence:
Yet there's a deathless name!
A spirit that the smouldering vault shall spurn,
And like a steadfast planet mount and burn –
And though its crown of flame
Consume my brain to ashes as it shone
By all the fiery stars I I'd bind it on!
Aye – though it bid me rifle
My heart's last fount for its insatiate thirst –
Though every life-strung nerve be maddened first –
Though it should bid me stifle
The yearning in my throat for my sweet child,
And taunt its mother till my brain went wild –
All – I would do it all – Sooner than. die, like a dull worm, to rot –
Thrust foully unto earth to be forgot!
Upon which the poet concludes:
How like a mounting devil in the heart
Rules the unreined ambition! Let it once
But play the monarch, and its haughty brow
Glows with beauty that bewilders thought
And unthrones peace forever. Putting on
The very pomp of Lucifer, it turns
The heart to ashes, and with not a spring
Left in the bosom for the spirit's lip,
We look upon our splendour and forget
The thirst of which we perish!
We are thus prepared to understand the history: "And they said, Come, let
us build a city, and a tower whose top may reach unto heaven, and let us make a
name; lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth" (Gen.
11:4).
All popular movements of this kind are directed by leaders who suggest the
watchwords and crystallize the agitation into forms of their own choosing. The
sin of the movement was manifold. It meant rebellion against God and ruin to
the race. The divine plan was diffusion, and the command was to push out in all
directions, not one; to occupy and subdue all the earth. But Nimrod's plan was
to keep the people all together under his leadership to serve his ends. The
object is thus expressed: "Lest we be scattered." To this day tyrants
pursue the same plan and put embargoes on outward movements. And to this day
God's providence has thwarted them by bringing about some discovery or
attraction that draws out and diffuses population, relieving the congestion at,
the crowded centers of life. A very interesting lesson of history is the study
of the ways of Providence in sending out migrations of men to colonize the
unoccupied parts of the earth. More wonderful and interesting is the way of
that Providence in dispersing Christians that they may carry the gospel to all
the world. The one thing that made Nimrod's plan of centralization possible was
the one language of the people. The audacity and rebellion of the plan provoked
divine inquisition and judgment. To allow its successful execution would defeat
every purpose of God concerning world occupation and bring about a corruption
of the race equal to that of the antediluvians. A world crisis had arrived. The
case called for heroic treatment and instant relief. What was the divine
remedy?
"Come, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may
not understand one another's speech. So Jehovah scattered them abroad from
thence upon the face of all the earth; and they left off building the city.
Therefore was the name of it called Babel; because Jehovah did there confound
the language of all the earth; and from thence did Jehovah scatter them abroad
upon the face of all the earth" (Gen. 11:7-9).
This is one of the mightiest and most far-reaching miracles of history. It
transcends in importance all the plagues of Egypt. Indeed it finds no
counterpart until the descent of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Dr. Conant
thus quotes from Schelling's Philosophy of Mythology:
Humanity cannot have left that condition, in. which there was no distinction of
peoples, but only of races, without a spiritual crisis, which must have been of
the deepest significance, must have taken place in the basis of human
consciousness itself. . . . For we cannot conceive of different peoples without
different languages; and language is something spiritual. If difference of
peoples is not something that was not from the first, but is something that has
arisen, then must this also hold true of the different languages. . . . Here we
fall in with the oldest account of the human race, the Mosaic writings; toward
which so many are disinclined, only because they know not what to do with it,
can neither understand nor use it. Genesis puts the rise of peoples in connection
with the rise of different languages; but in such a way, that the confounding
of the language is the cause, the rise of the peoples the effect.
To evade the significance of this miracle the higher critics resort to their
usual refuge, the document hypothesis. They magnify the tenth chapter and
disparage the first nine verses of the eleventh. The former, an Elohist
document, is credible; the latter, a Jehovah document, is incredible. They
claim that chapter 10 leaves us to suppose that the nations were distributed
upon the face of the earth in obedience to the natural laws which govern
colonization and migration, and that the present striking varieties in human
languages are wholly the natural result of the dispersion of the nations. The
tenth chapter does not leave us to any such suppositions, the episode of
Nimrod, the references to Peleg, and the three verses, 5, 20, 31, summing up
respectively the families of Japheth, Ham, and Shem, demand the explanation in
the next chapter. When asked to account naturally for these striking and
irreconcilable varieties in the few great parent languages, they reply:
Philology has as yet nothing very definite to say as to the possibility of
reducing to one the larger families of human speech. In fact, their oracle,
philology, is not merely dubious – it is dumb. Dr. Conant well sums up all that
philology can do with this problem:
The diversities in the languages of the earth present a problem which
philosophy has in vain laboured to solve. Comparative philology has shown, however,
that many different languages are grouped together by common affinities, as
branches of the same family, all having the same original language for their
common parent. Notwithstanding the great number and diversity of languages,
they may all be traced to a very few original parent tongues. The difficulty
lies in the essential and irreconcilable diversity between those several parent
tongues, not the remotest affinities existing to indicate a common origin, or
any historical relation; a problem for which speculative philosophy can find no
solution.
They cannot account for it naturally, but deny the supernatural account,
passing the matter by with a sneer, "Oh. that account is found only in the
Jehovah document." Or if they wish to be a little more respectful, they
say, "The fact is that here, as elsewhere, the Jehovist aims not so much
at presenting historical information as showing the ethical and religious
significance of the leading points in history and the chief changes in man's
condition." How happens it that they have such an infallible knowledge of
the aim of the Jehovist, and how can there be an ethical and religious
significance of history, which is not history but falsehood? If the historical
element of the first nine verses of the eleventh chapter be eliminated there is
nothing of any kind left, out of which to construct ethics or religion. If the
aim of the writer is not history, then words are not signs of ideas. It would
be far manlier and more consistent to follow the more destructive higher
critics and expunge what they call the Jehovistic record as spurious and
unworthy, than to weakly hold on to it and discredit it. The following maxims
of literary composition have long obtained:
Never introduce a god into the story unless there be an occasion for a god.
When introduced, let his speech and deeds be worthy of a god.
Let the result of his intervention be worthy of a god. Here was a worthy
occasion. Race ruin was imminent and unavoidable by human means. Here was
speech and deed worthy of divinity, and results too grand and far-reaching and
beneficial to admit of human conception or execution. The author of the book
follows his own appropriate method in the use of the divine means. When the
divine being, invisible and unapproachable and unknowable, is the subject, the
name is Elohim. Whenever it is God manifested particularly by
interventions of mercy, it is Jehovah and Jehovah God.
The first effect of the confusion of tongues is the stopping of the work, from
inability to comprehend each other. The consciousness that a supernatural power
had intervened would necessarily fill them with dread, lest a greater evil
befall them if they persisted in disobedience. Those who could best understand
each other would naturally group themselves and form the nucleus of a separate
nation. And this grouping also was naturally according to family origin,
whether of Shem, Ham, or Japheth, thus accounting for the three great root
languages whose barriers philology cannot pass. This harmonized also with…
ASSIGNMENT OF THEIR RESPECTIVE TERRITORIES
The proof of this divine allotment of territory is abundant in the lesson and
elsewhere. In summing up the histories of the sons of Japheth the record says,
"Of these were the isles of the nations divided in their lands, every one
after his tongue, after their families, in their nations." Similarly of
Ham: "These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their
tongues, in their lands, in their nations." And of Shem: "These are
the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands,
after their nations." More particular is the testimony in 10:25: "And
unto Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg; for in his days
was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan." This evidence
not only establishes the fact of the division of territory, but shows that the
event was so extraordinary and impressive as to give a name to a child born at
the time, namely, Peleg, i.e., Division. It is not probable that they could
agree among themselves as to the partition of territory. This question could be
settled only by supreme authority. And to this fact testify the Scriptures.
Paul said at Athens, "And he made of one every nation of men to dwell on
all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed seasons, and the
bounds of their habitation" (Acts 17:26). But the author of Genesis in
another book puts the matter beyond controversy:
When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, When he separated the
children of men, He set the bounds of the peoples According to the number of
the children of Israel. – Deuteronomy 32:8
This allotment of territory, after the confusion of tongues was followed by an
irresistible divine impulse that brought about…
DISPERSION TO ALLOTTED HOMES
They had said, "Lest we be scattered." When God acts the record says,
"So Jehovah scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the
earth: and they left off building the city. Therefore was the name of it called
Babel; because Jehovah did there confound the language of all the earth; and
from thence did Jehovah scatter them abroad upon the face of all the
earth" (Gen. 11:8-9). It has been objected that the division of the land
which gave rise to the naming of Peleg, came too early to be connected with the
dispersion following the confusion of tongues. The objection is ill advised.
The division and assignment of territory long preceded the dispersion. The very
sin of the attempt at centralization consisted in its deliberate rebellion
against this prior division. In the order of our chapter we have considered the
division after the confusion of tongues, not because it was then ordained, but
because it was then enforced. We are now prepared to take up chapter 10, and
consider specially the parts of the earth occupied by the descendants of the
several sons of Noah, which, however, is reserved for another chapter.
1. What can you Bay of the value of the tenth chapter of Genesis, (1) as
literature; (2) as history; (3) as instruction?
2. In order of time, which comes first. Genesis 11:1-9, or the tenth chapter,
and why this order?
3. What, then, was the starting point and what held the people together at this
time?
4. As they multiplied, what was the trend of their movement and what modern
proverb to the contrary?
5. Who became their leader, what was the meaning of his name, what great cities
did he build and where?
6. What was the meaning of "a mighty hunter" and "before the
Lord"?
7. What was his ambitious scheme, the essentials to its accomplishment and what
was its motive?
8. Give an illustration of cruel, unbridled ambition.
9. What was the manifold sin of this movement and the divine remedy for it?
10. What was God's plan of defeating such movements in modern times?
11. What was the counterpart of this mighty miracle?
12. What is Dr. Conant's explanation of the rise of the different peoples?
13. How do the critics try to evade the significance of this miracle and what
is this expositor's reply?
14. According to Dr. Conant what has comparative philology shown with respect
to the many different languages?
15. What is the position of the more respectful (mediating) critics and this
expositor's reply?
16. What three maxims of literary composition obtain and their application to
the matter in hand?
17. What was the first effect of the confusion of tongues and how account for
the three great root languages?
18. What is the Scripture proof of the divine allotment?
19. What brought about the dispersion, and how?
20. What objection is sometimes urged with respect to the dispersion, and the
reply thereto?
DISTRIBUTION AND TERRITORIES OF THE NATIONS
Genesis 10:1 to 11:9; 1 Chronicles 1:5-84
1. Resume of previous chapter
2. Some necessary statements
3. The Japheth nations: which and where
4. The Ham nations: which and where
5. The Shem nations: which and where…
In our last chapter it was shown that Genesis 10, and to the ninth verse of the
eleventh, constitute a distinct section of the book, and that while the first
part gives a table of the nations we must rely on the second part to explain
how they became separate nations with diverse languages. Hence in order of time
much of the second part precedes much of the first part. It was shown that,
instead of these two parts being independent, unrelated, and contradictory
documents as claimed by destructive higher critics, each part fits into the
other with dovetailed exactness and demands the other in order to a complete
account of the most marvelous origins in the annals of time since the creation.
Following a chronological order, except in one point, that chapter arranged for
discussion the scriptures of the two parts thus:
(1) One stock and one language (Gen. ll:6;ll:l).
(2) One trend of migration (11:2-3).
(3) The leader of the migration and settlement (10:8-10).
(4) His attempt at centralization (11:4).
(5) The defeat of the movement by confusion of tongues (11:6-7).
(6) The consequent groupings into nations according to tongues and family ties
(10:5, 20, 31-32).
(7) The prior divine partition of the earth territory among these nations
(10:5, 20, 25, 31-32; Deut. 32:8; Acts 17:26).
(8) Their dispersion (11:9) to their respective allotted territories (10:2-5;
10:6-20; 10:21-32).
(9) The secular object of the dispersion was to carry out the divine mandate,
fill the earth and subdue it (Gen. 1:28; 11:1). And the religious object to
seek and find God (Acts 17: 26-27).
It was also shown that this account is not merely the most ancient, but the
only extant history of the origin of nations and languages, and that it
furnishes the only solution of the irreconcilable differences in the few great
parent languages, a problem before which human philology is not only dubious,
but dumb. Therefore this one bit of inspired record is the only sure foundation
of the human sciences, ethnology and philology; and the root of history,
prophecy, and religion.
That chapter closed with the announcement that this chapter would consider more
particularly the dispersion of the nation groups to their respective
territories as set forth in the tenth chapter. This resume of the preceding
chapter must be kept in mind in order to a proper understanding of the present
one.
A higher critic thus testifies concerning the tenth chapter of Genesis:
"This ethnographical table is not only the most ancient and reliable
description of the various nations and peoples, but it has no parallel in it?
attempt to exhibit all the races of the earth as related to one another. The
ancients universally considered the various races of man to be divided from one
another by some impassable interval. The idea that all were of one blood was
unfamiliar and unaccountable to them. And it is only in recent times that
science has set itself to the task of tracing the relationship which exists
between each race and every other, a task which, with all the aids of philology
and anthropology available in modern times, cannot be said yet to be
independent of this ancient record." Will it ever be independent?
And now before entering into the details of this nation distribution let us
settle and fix in our minds:
This lesson roots in the prophecy of Noah concerning his children and fruits in
the book of Chronicles. The book of Chronicles gives a summary of world history
from Adam to Cyrus which is continued in Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, and Esther to
the times of Ahasuerus. Hence in I Chronicles 1: 5-24, this genealogy of
nations is repeated, with variations in some names, helpful to an understanding
of our text, and must, therefore, be studied in connection with it.
The time period is ten generations from Shem to Abraham and in round numbers
about 300 years. There might well be a population of 30,000,000 on the earth at
the call of Abraham. So far as this record is a genealogy of individuals, not
all, but only the most illustrious names are given, or when less illustrious,
only those bearing prominently on subsequent Bible history.
When the record says that Cush, a son of Ham, begat Nimrod, it does not
necessarily follow that Nimrod was a grandson of Ham in our sense of the word,
but a descendant of Ham through the Cush line. Compare genealogical tables in
Matthew and Luke.
This record is not merely or mainly a genealogy of individuals, but of peoples.
For example we find: (a) the dual form of names: as, Mizraim; (b) the plural
form: as, Ludim, Ananim, Lobahim, Naphthalim, Pathruaim, Cashhuhim, Caphtorim,
Zebaim; (c) tribal or Gentile forms: as, Jebusite, Amorite, Girgashite, Hivite,
Arkite, Sinite, Arvadite, Zemarite, Hamathite; (d) forms for groups of tribes:
as, Canaanites; (e) forms for nations: as, Gomer, Magog, and Madai.
The record is not merely an ethnological table, but geographical as well. We
not only have such expressions as "the isles of the Gentiles,"
"their countries," "their lands," with border lines
occasionally marked out, but even the names of some of the peoples, which either
were originally or soon came to be geographical expressions; as, the dual name,
Mizraim, certainly meaning, later, upper, and lower Egypt. To these may be
added Kittim, Donanim, and Philistim, which are names of countries. Rawlinson's
contention that the record is wholly ethnological is as untenable as the
opposite contention of Professor Sayce, that it is wholly geographical. We may
take our stand on this broad ground: Some of this record is the genealogy of
individuals; more of it is genealogy of families, tribes, and nations; much of
it is a table of countries embracing all the geographical world then known.
When the Almighty originally assigned these specific territories, with then
well understood metes and bounds, the assignment was subject to certain
modifications: (a) He reserved to himself the times and seasons and
instrumentalities of a change of ownership in a given territory (Acts 17:26),
nations as units being as responsible to him as individuals are. See in general
all subsequent Bible history, but particularly the "burdens" of the
prophets; as, Jeremiah 18:7-10; (b) some peoples would rebel against the
authority of the assignment and encroach on the territories of others. Thus in
the very record we find overlapping. A particular and notable illustration is
the land of Palestine assigned originally to a branch of Shem's family, but
preoccupied by Canaanites, the descendants of Ham. This territory was
subsequently restored by divine intervention in Joshua's time to the
descendants of the original owners.
It is impossible now, so great the lapse of time, and so many the changes in
names and nations, to trace accurately on a map all the details of this
original allotment of territory and the distribution of peoples. Yet it is
marvelous, notwithstanding time and changes, how much and how well we can trace
from this ancient record the principal nations and the countries settled by
them. In general terms we may say that the north was assigned to Japheth, the
south to Ham, and the middle territory to Shem. This assignment of an
intermediate place to Shem was from religious reasons, as the revelation from
God, both as to the Bible and the incarnation, was to come through the Shem
line and could thus more speedily and effectively reach the other branches of
the human family. The middle portion of Shem, in general terms, would reach
from the southern part of Armenia to the Persian Gulf, and its western border
would be the Mediterranean and the Red Seas. North of this, including Europe
and the greater part of Asia, would be Japheth's territory. South of this would
be all of Africa, Ham's territory. But from the causes previously cited,
namely, God's government of nations and the rebellion of some nations through
unwillingness to confine themselves to their allotted territory, there was and
has been much overlapping, with some intermingling and complicating so as to
cause endless and insoluble perplexities. Notwithstanding these perplexities
this record, even in its minutest details, is found to be exact so far as
modern knowledge can verify it.
Philology, an infant and imperfect science, has discovered three parent groups
of languages and peoples: Aryan, Semitic, and Turanian, corresponding to
Japheth, Shem, and Ham. But the highest authorities differ about the origin of
the Turanian peoples and tongues, some confidently affirming Japhethic origin,
others with equal confidence the Hamitic. We will now consider the record in
order.
The generations of Japheth include seven sons and seven grandsons who became
heads of nations. As we trace up their territory and subsequent history we are
reminded of Noah's prophecy, "God will enlarge Japheth and he will dwell
in the tents of Shem, and Canaan will be the servants of them." All Europe
and the greater part of Asia are settled by Japhethic nations. From him are
derived both the Indo-European, and, according to many ethnologists and
philologists, the Turanian races. Other ethnologists are just as confident that
the nations of the Turanian languages are descended from Ham. From Gomer is the
Cimmerian race, which located in Crimea around the Sea of Azov and spreads
westward and reappears in the Welsh Cymry, in Cambria and Cumberland. He is the
father of the Celts, whether in Gaul as found by Caesar, or in Ireland. Through
his sons Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah, he peopled much of Armenia and the
Carpathian Mountains. Concerning them the prophets say: "Gomer, and all
his hordes; the house of Togarmah in the uttermost parts of the north, and all
his hordes; even many peoples with thee" (Ezek. 39:6). "They of the
house of Togarmah traded for thy wares with horses and war-horses and
mules" (Ezek. 27: 14). "Set ye up a standard in the land, blow the
trumpets among the nations, prepare the nations against her, call together
against her the kingdoms of Ararat, Minni and Ashkenaz: appoint a marshal
against her; cause the horses to come up as the canker-worm" (Jer. 51:27).
Through Magog are the Scythians in Caucasus and the Russians. Ezekiel 38 should
be studied in connection with the lesson in locating the nations of Japheth
descended from Gomer, Magog, Tubal, and Meshech. From one of these sons
apparently come the Turanian race, including the Turks, the dwellers in the
Steppes of Asia, the Hungarians, the Finns and many others; the first
inhabitants of Hindustan and the Mongolians. From Madai, another son of
Japheth, come the Medes; from Javan, the lonians and Greeks; from Turas, the
Thracians; Javan's sons occupy Cyprus, Rhodes and other islands and coasts of
the Mediterranean Sea, and the coast of Spain. According to the record:
"Of these were the isles of the nations divided in their lands, every one
after his tongue, after their families, in their nations" (Gen. 10:5).
Greeks, Romans, Celts, Germans, Scandinavians, Russians, Scythians, Finns,
indeed all of what are now called the IndoEuropean, and perhaps the Turanian
races, are descended from Japheth.
According to the psalmist, the land of Ham is Africa, or more particular,
Egypt: Israel also came into Egypt;
And Jacob sojourned in the land of Ham.,
And he increased his people greatly,
And made them stronger than their adversaries.
He turned their heart to hate his people,
To deal subtly with his servants.
He sent Moses his servant,
And Aaron whom he had chosen.
They set among them his signs,
And wonders in the land of Ham.
Wondrous works in the land of Ham,
And terrible things by the Red Sea.
– PSALM 105:23-27; 106:22
His descendants, however, were the first to leave the territory assigned them.
His sons were Gush, Mizraim, Phut, and Canaan. Cush in many Old Testament
references is translated Ethiopia; later, Abyssinia. But commencing with
Nimrod, the Cushites began to occupy the Semitic territory, and have left their
impress from Nineveh all the way down the Tigris and Euphrates, and in Eastern
and Southern Arabia. Mizraim is Egypt, upper and lower. His sons occupied all
the Nile regions and Libya. From them came the Philistines who migrated to and
occupied the lower part of the Mediterranean coast belonging to Shem. The name
means "emigrants." This migration was one of the earliest and most
important in history. It is mentioned in Deuteronomy 2:23; Jeremiah 47:4; Amos
9:7. From Jeremiah 46:9, we may infer that Phut also settled in Africa. Canaan,
the youngest son of Ham, on whom rested the curse of Noah, disobeyed the divine
assignment of territory from the beginning and altogether. Only two sons of
Canaan are specified, Sidon and Heth. The first seized upon the upper part of
the Mediterranean shore, which was a lowland coast. This coast, Sidon and Tyre,
through which cities the name, Phenicia, came, exercised a wide influence on
the affairs of the world's later history. From Tyre, Carthage, the ancient
rival of Rome, was colonized. The great epic of Virgil assigns the beginning of
the animosity between Rome and Carthage to the unhappy outcome of Dido's love
for Aeneas. Though Ham's descendants first occupied Phenicia, they must have
early lost their hold on the land, for the Phenicians of history are Semitic in
language. Ham and Shem are blended in the Phenicians. Heth was the father of
the Hittite, a powerful nation, who, in Abraham's time, occupied Hebron in
Palestine. (See Genesis 23:4-19; 24:3-4; 28:1-2.) The other descendants of
Canaan, referred to only by tribal names, we find from the later Bible story
thus distributed:
Jebusites, around Jerusalem
Amorites, coasts of the Dead Sea and lower Jordan
Girgashites, westward from the Jordan (Josh. 24:11)
Hivites, base of Mount Hermon and valleys of Lebanon, and at Shechem (Gen.
34:2; Josh. 9:7-17; 11:19)
Arkites and Sinites, near Mount Lebanon
Arvadites, on the Phenician Island, Aradus (Ezek. 27:8-11)
Zemarites (Josh. 28:22; 2 Chron. 13:4)
Hamathites, in Hamath, chief city of upper Syria, on the Orontes
The country thus occupied by Canaan was nearly all the land of Palestine, from
which they were dispossessed when their iniquity was full.
From Elam came the people just north of the Persians;
Asshur, the Assyrians;
Arphaxad, the Chaldeans;
Lud, the Lydians in Asia Minor;
Aram, the Syrians.
The author contents himself with referring to the sons of only two of these,
Aram and Arphaxad. The only familiar name of Aram's sons is Uz, who occupied
Northern Arabia, the land of Job. The interest in Arphaxad's descendants
centers in Eber, the father of the Hebrew nation. The two sons of Eber are
Peleg, in whose day the land was divided and from whom Abraham is descended,
and Joktan, from whom descended many Arabian tribes.
QUESTIONS
1. What was the secular object of the dispersion? The religious object?
2. Show how this lesson roots m the prophecy of Noah and fruits in the book of
Chronicles.
3. What is the time period from Shorn to Abraham and what might have been the
population?
4. Is this record a complete genealogy of individuals? If not, what principle
governed the selection of names?
5. What is the meaning of "Cush, the son of Ham, begat Nimrod" and
the New Testament proof?
6. Is this merely or mainly a genealogy of individuals, and what fivefold
proof?
7. Rawlinson says that this is an ethnological table; Sayce says it is a
geographical table; others say it is a genealogy of individuals. Show how it is
all three.
8. The assignment of territories was subject to what modifications? Give
examples of each.
9. Locate in general terms the countries occupied respectively by the
descendants of Shern, Ham, and Japheth.
10. Why assigned to Shem an intermediate place?
11. What has caused many insoluble perplexities?
12. Philology has discovered what three parent groups of languages and peoples
and how do they correspond in general to the sons of Noah?
13. Name the principal nations descended from Japheth and locate them.
14. From Ham, and locate them.
15. From Shem, and locate them.
GENERATIONS OF SHEM AND TERAH
Genesis 11:10-32
"These are the generations of Shem" (11:10-16). This is the seventh
section of Genesis. In 10:21-31, we have a general account of the Shem families
as a part of the human race at large. There are but two discriminating
statements in that general account:
That Shem was the ancestor of the Hebrews.
That at Peleg's birth the earth was divided.
This was only 101 years after the flood, for Arphaxad was born two years after
the flood, then thirty-five years to the birth of Shelah, thirty years to Eber,
thirty-four years more to Peleg; total from flood, 101 years.
This division at this time, designating Europe and northern Asia for Japheth,
Africa for Ham, and southern Asia for Shem, explains more particularly the sin
of one trend of migration and the attempted concentration at Babel two or three
centuries later. The confusion of tongues and subsequent dispersion was the
divine method of enforcing the previous division. In the last chapter this
division, in order of arrangement, was placed after the confusion of tongues,
not because it was then ordained, but then enforced.
It may be asked, Why does the author, having given the descendants of Shem in
the tenth chapter, now devote a special section to the generations of Shem? The
reply is obvious: The first account was to show that all the human race was
derived from the three sons of Noah, including Shem. Hence all the Semitic
families are recited. But this section looks to only one branch of the Shem
family, disregarding all others, in order to lead up to the call 'of Abraham,
through whom a newly developed purpose of God will be brought out, namely, the
isolation of one nation from all others, to become the depository of revelation
and the means of race redemption. This selection of the Hebrews alone from
among all the nations leads to another question: Why this partiality? Were the Hebrews
better than the other nations? This is a fundamental and vital question. It is
very important that we should have clear views on it.
The selection of this nation in its beginnings and throughout all of its
developments for thousands of years in human history was an act of divine
sovereignty.
Neither in the beginning nor in any subsequent development was it based on any
merit or superior excellence in the elect people. It was wholly of grace.
Its design of good to the subject of the election was only incidental. The
beneficent object was redemption for all the families of the earth through the
agency of one. Upon these several points the teachings of both Testaments are
uniform. We should, therefore, here and now, ground ourselves upon the bedrock of
one of the most important of all the Bible doctrines. The chosen people
themselves continually forgot it and had to suffer in every age terrible
reminders of it. And the now favored Gentiles of gospel days to whom the
kingdom has passed need the same reminder, as Paul shows in the letter to the
Romans. That it may be clear to us that from the beginning God loved the whole
world, and throughout the whole workings of his providence looked to the
redemption of all, let us, before we enter upon the history of Abraham, glance
briefly at the scriptural foundation of the doctrine.
At the time of the call of Abraham, the world had gone astray as before the
flood. They had openly disregarded the divine division of the earth and the
mandate to occupy and subdue it. In brazen defiance they had determined to
concentrate and guard against punitive punishment by erecting a tower whose top
would reach to heaven. In heathen tradition this is called the efforts of the
giants when the Titans "Pelion on Ossa piled." Nimrod, the leader,
had become one of the Gibbor, i.e., mighty men, men of renown, like the
children born of the ill-assorted marriages of the sons of God with the
daughters of men, who provoked the flood. God had promised not to send another
flood; not thus again to destroy the world. His present remedy was to separate
them into nations with diverse tongues, and then select one nation as a
messenger and vehicle of mercy to all. All the families had gone into idolatry
with here and there an exception like Melchizedek and Job. Look at the
Scriptures.
Abraham's country: "And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith
Jehovah, the God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt of old time beyond the river,
even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nahor: and they served
other gods. And I took your father Abraham from beyond the river, and led him
throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his seed, and gave him
Isaac" (Josh. 24:2-3).
To the same purport is the testimony of the prophet Isaiah: "Hearken to
me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek Jehovah: look into the
rock whence ye were hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye were digged.
Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you; for when he was
but one I called him, and I blessed him, and made him many" (Isa. 51:1-3).
The testimony is the same concerning Jacob: "And thou shalt answer and say
before Jehovah thy God, A Syrian ready to perish was my father; and he went
down into Egypt, and sojourned there, few in number; and he became there a
nation, great, mighty, and populous" (Deut. 26:5).
"And not only so; but Rebekah also having conceived by one, even by our
father Isaac – for the children being not yet born, neither having done
anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might
stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said unto her, The elder
shall serve the younger" (Rom. 9:10-12).
The same principle governed in the selection of Jerusalem, the Canaanite city,
as a religious capital; it had no natural sanctity. "Thus saith the Lord
Jehovah unto Jerusalem: Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of the
Canaanite; the Amorite was thy father, and thy mother was a Hittite"
(Ezek. 16:3). The prophet goes on to compare that city to a newly born cast-off,
foundling child, which Jehovah had found, purified and adopted when, as said
the prophet: "No eye pitied thee, to do any of these things unto thee, to
have compassion upon thee; but thou wast cast out in the open field, for that
thy person was abhorred, in the day that thou wast born. And when I passed by
thee, and saw thee weltering in thy blood, I said unto thee, Though thou art in
thy blood, live; yea, I said unto thee, though thou art in thy blood,
live" (Ezek. 16: 5-8).
It is true concerning this nation, as saith the psalmist:
Thou broughtest a vine out of Egypt:
Thou didst drive out the nations, and plantedst it.
Thou preparedst room before it,
And it took deep root, and filled the land.
The mountains were covered with the shadow of it,
And the boughs thereof were like cedars of God.
It sent out its branches unto the sea,
And its shoots unto the river.
– PSALM 80:8-11
But again the question is propounded: "Son of man, what is the vine-tree
more than any other tree; the vine-branch which is among the trees of the
forest?"
When this nation failed to serve the divine purpose as a vehicle of salvation
to all the world, the kingdom of God was taken from it and given to the
Japhethic nations, who could bring forth fruit, and they in turn would thereby
incur the responsibility which once rested on the Jews. See Paul's parable of
the olive tree (Rom. 11:17-21). His conclusion of the whole matter is sublime:
'Tor God hath shut up all into disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all.
0 the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God I how
unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past tracing out I For who hath
known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? or who hath first
given to him and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and
through him, and unto him are all things. To him be the glory for ever,
Amen" (Rom. 11:32-36).
In a word, God called and sanctified the Hebrew nation with a view to make them
the means of salvation to all the nations, and located them in Palestine on the
Mediterranean, which washed the shores of Europe and Africa, that they might
reach both Ham and Japhath. We are now prepared to advance to
THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH (Genesis 11.27)
This section extends to Genesis 25:12. It is the life of Abraham, the most
illustrious personage in ancient history, and, if we except our Lord himself,
the most illustrious in the religious history of the world. He occupied a
prominent place in the literature and traditions of many nations. He is a
prominent figure in the world's three greatest religions, viz.: Jewish,
Christian and Mohammed. His native place was Ur of the Chaldees, in lower
Mesopotamia, the lowlands of the Tigris and the Euphrates, not far from their
entrance into the Persian Gulf. While it was in the territory assigned to Shem,
it had been overrun by the Hamites and was abandoned to idolatry. Terah,
Abraham's father, was an idolater. We have seen how his lineage was traced back
to Shem through ten generations. At Abraham's first appearance in history he is
seventy years old and married, but childless. His father is now 200 vears old.
When the previous record says, “Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram,
Nahor and Haran" (11:26), it is like a similar statement concerning Noah
(5:32,) and means the eldest of the three sons, which would be Nahor the eldest
in this case, who was much older than Abram. Terah was 130 years old when Abram
was born and died when Abram was seventy-five. Compare Acts 7:4, and Genesis
12:4.
His elder brother, Haran, is dead, but his son, Lot, a nephew of Abraham,
survives. There is another brother living, Nahor, who is married to his niece
Lot's sister. Abraham's wife is probably also his niece, a sister of Lot.
Possibly the Iscah of Genesis 11:29, is the same as Sarai. In later history
Abraham says of his wife: "And moreover she is indeed my sister, the
daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my
wife" (Gen. 20:12). And he also calls Lot bis brother (13:8), so the
genealogical records, in their loose usage, might call Sarah his sister, the
daughter (granddaughter) of his father. It is possible that she may have been
the daughter of Terah by a second wife.
This is of course mainly scriptural. While every passage in either Testament,
referring to him, should be studied the principal scriptures are: Genesis 11:27
to 25:11; John 8:33-59; Joshua 24:2; Isaiah 51:1-2; Acts 7:1-8; Romans 4:1-25;
Galatians 3:5-18; 4:21-31; Hebrews 7:1-6; 11:8-19; James 2:21-23. The very many
times in the Old Testament that Jehovah calls himself the God of Abraham, or
refers to his "covenant with Abraham," give him a significance far
above any other Old Testament saint, and the New Testament references confirm
it, making him the father of all the faithful.
The second source of material is Jewish tradition in apocryphal literature and
the Talmud, much of which is quite fanciful but some of it very interesting. A
passage in the book of Judith, particularly, will be considered later.
The third source of material is the Koran, and other Mohammedan traditions.
The fourth is the books of travel bearing on the geography of the migration of
Abraham, together with the vast contributions of modern archeology. These two
furnish the geographical and historical background of the scriptural story.
Fifth, all the good Bible dictionaries and commentaries will aid you in making
out for yourself in a well-connected life of Abraham.
Sixth, W. J. Deane's Life and Times of Abraham is one of several
valuable monographs. Abraham's high place in history may be gathered from his
relation to the world's three greatest religions, viz.: Jewish, Christian, and
Mohammedan.
Is specially designated as "Ur of the Chaldees." The exact location
of Ur has been much disputed. The passage in Joshua 24:2-3, would naturally
place it east of the Euphrates, and Stephen's speech, Acts 7, would locate it
between the Tigris and Euphrates, above their junction. These passages are:
"And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel,
Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the
father of Abraham, and the father of Nahor: and they served other gods. And I
took your father Abraham from the other side of the flood and led him
throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his seed and gave him
Isaac" (Josh. 24:2-3). "And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers,
hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham when he was in
Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran, and said unto him: Get thee out of thy
country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee.
Then came he out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Haran, and from
thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now
dwell" (Acts 7:2-4).
The advocates of modern research insist on locating Ur below the juncture of
these rivers, and on the west side near the coast. Their argument is very
plausible but contradicts Joshua and Stephen. You may see the difference by a
look at the map.
Modern archeological research has brought to light so much information on the
countries in which Abraham lived, or through which he traveled, that we know
their religions, their arts and sciences, their laws, their customs, their
dress, their field, vineyards, crops, herds and pastures, the business followed
their wars their civilization and their home life almost as well as if he had
lived in Europe or America, only a hundred years ago.
The idea that persecution was the impulse prompting Abraham's departure from
Chaldea arises from an interpretation of the word, "Ur," i.e.,
"by fire," suggested by the Latin version of Nehemiah 9:7: Qui
elegisti Abram et eduxisti eum de igne Chaldeorum i.e., "Who chose Abram
and led him from the fire of the Chaldeans." This is supported by a
passage in the Apocryphal book of Judith (5:6-8): "This people are
descended from the Chaldeans, and they sojourned heretofore in Mesopotamia,
because they would not follow the gods of their fathers which were in the land
of Chaldea. For they left the way of their ancestors, and worshiped the God of
heaven, the God whom they knew. So they cast them out from the face of their
gods and they fled into Mesopotamia and sojourned there many days."
Josephus says that Terah left Ur because of the grief for Haran his son, and
the tradition is that Abram received the call from God, and his family turned
with him to Jehovah worship; that the Chaldeans persecuted them and that Haran
in his father's presence was cast into a fiery furnace and burned to death. And
the tradition says that this is what is meant by Isaiah 29:22: "The Lord
redeemed Abram," that is, from persecution. We often find that God"
uses two methods in causing man to move in the right direction: He holds out an
incentive before him and kindles a fir7 of persecution behind him.
His appearance in history is due to a remarkable event, the call of God. The
deacon Stephen, in his defense before the Sanhedrin, says, "Brethren and
fathers, hearken. The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham when he was
in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran, and said unto him, Get thee out of
thy land, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I will shew thee.
Then came he out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Haran; and from
thence, when his father was dead, God removed him into this land, wherein ye
now dwell" (Acts 7:2-4). So that the call came when Abram was seventy
years old in Ur of the Chaldees. The statement of Stephen as to the place where
the call was received is confirmed by Jehovah's own words in a later
manifestation: "I am Jehovah that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees,
to give thee this land to inherit it" (Gen. 15:7). And by the statement in
Nehemiah: "Thou art Jehovah, the God who didst choose Abram, and who
broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of
Abraham" (Neh. 9:7). And while Terah, as the father, seems, according to
11:31, to head the migratory movement, the migration was the result of the call
to the son. The mightier destiny of a child oftentimes shapes the movement of a
parent.
In the next chapter we will take up "The Call and Migration."
1. At what point in. Genesis does race history cease?
2. What two discriminating statements in the general account of the Shem
families as a part of the human race at large?
3. How long after the flood to the division of the earth and how obtained?
4. Why does the author, having given the descendants of Shorn, in chapter 10,
now devote a special section (11:10-26) to his generation?
5. Why the partiality of selecting and favoring one nation? Ans.: Not because
it was better than any other nation, but he did it according to his own will
and purpose.
6. What three elements in the selection?
7. What was the moral condition of the earth when Abraham was called?
8. Cite a scripture to show there was no excellence in Abraham's country.
9. None in Abraham himself.
10. None in Jacob.
11. None in Jerusalem as a city.
12. That when the city and nation failed to be world conservators, both
perished.
13. That when the Gentiles, who now have the kingdom, also fail a like fate
awaits them.
14, How does Abraham rank among the men of the world?
15. He is prominent in what three of the world's greatest religions?
16. How old at his appearance in history?
17. How old was his father?
18. How many sons had Terah and which the eldest?
19. What akin were Abraham and his wife?
20. Where do you find mainly the material for a life of Abraham?
21. What relation does he sustain to God's people of all ages?
22. What the second source of material for a life of Abraham?
23. The third source?
24. The fourth?
25. The fifth?
26. The sixth?
27. What and where his native place?
28. What has modern archeological research contributed to an understanding of
his time?
29. What theories advanced concerning Abram's departure from Ur, and what
credit given them by the author?
30. What was the real cause of his appearance in history?
31. What scriptural record of his call reaches farthest back?
32. What was Terah's relation to this movement, and the philosophy of it?
THE CALL AND MIGRATION OF ABRAHAM
Genesis 12-13
Stephen says, "the God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham."
Jehovah is thus called in Psalm 29:3. In the Gospel of John the term is applied
to the incarnate Word: "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and
we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten of the father), full of
grace and truth" (John 1:14). The manifestation must have been in some
visible form and deeply impressive.
The terms of the call. It was from "thy country, thy kindred, and thy
father's house and to an unknown land."
The incentives. These were in the six fold promise: "And I will make of
thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and be
thou a blessing; and I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth
thee will I curse: and in thee shall all the families of the earth be
blessed" (Gen. 12:2-3).
The object of the call: (a) his own salvation (Rom. 4:1-3) ; (b) to make him
the father of a nation to become a depository of the oracles of God (Rom.
3:1-2; 9:4); (c) to make him the father of a spiritual seed until the end of
time; (d) the progenitor of the Redeemer in whom all the families of the earth
should be blessed (Rom. 9:5; Gal. 3:16).
The requirements of the call were faith and obedience.
These requirements were fully met. "By faith Abraham, when he was called,
obeyed to go out unto a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and
he went out, not knowing whither he went" (Heb. 11:8). Two important
matters will be considered later: (a) The steps of Abraham's faith; (b) the
covenants established with him.
Ur of the Chaldees, while Semitic territory, was dominated by the Cushites, who
were idolaters. There was no suitable environment among them for the upbuilding
of a chosen nation. The objective point of the migration was the land of Canaan
(1:31) But the line of the movement was up the Euphrates, not because it was
direct, but because it was the thoroughfare of travel, having an abundant
supply of water and pasturage. There were many of these migrations from the
same country toward Canaan, and the Euphrates route was the usual way of
approach, thereby avoiding the intervening desert. At Haran the movement was
checked on account of the aged father who died there. Nahor, the other brother,
seems later to have followed to the same point and there permanently
established himself. In Haran both Isaac and Jacob subsequently found wives
among his descendants. The caravan from Haran was large. The principal parties
were Abraham, Lot and their wives. But they had many servants and cattle and
much substance.
The movement was steadily south and adjusted to the needs of their herds,
lingering at pleasant stopping places while pasturage lasted. The tradition
that he stopped a while in Damascus seems well founded, for there in his house
was born his bond servant and steward, Eliezer of Damascus. (Compare 15:2-3.)
Entering Canaan on the north, the movement progressed to Shechem, one of the
most beautiful valleys in all the land, where was an already famous oak grove.
Dr. Hackett thus describes the valley:
A few hours north of Bethel, a valley suddenly opens upon the traveller among
the hills, which, though not so extensive as Esdraelon or Sharon, is yet
unsurpassed in point of beauty and fertility, by any other region in the Holy
Land. . . . It runs very nearly north and south, and may be ten or twelve miles
in length and a mile and a half in breadth. . . . Toward the upper part of the
plain the mountains which skirt its westward side fall apart, leaving a
somewhat narrow defile between them, where stands Nablus, the ancient Shechem
or Sychar. A more lovely spot than that which greets the eye it would be
difficult to find in any land. Streams, which gush from perennial fountains,
impart a bright and constant freshness to the vegetation." Concerning the
same valley Mohammed says: "The land of Syria is beloved by Allah beyond
all lands, and the part of Syria that he loveth most is the district of
Jerusalem, and the place which he loveth most in the district of Jerusalem is
the mountain of Nablus."
It was an ideal pastoral land, becoming yet more famous in after ages. Here the
Lord appeared again to Abraham, and told him that this was the Promised Land.
Abraham erected an altar in response to this intimation and the place became a
permanent sanctuary. It was his way of setting up a standard to assert his
title to the land yet in possession of the Canaanite. Under this famous oak in
after times the grandson, Jacob, had serious trouble (35:4). Moses, in
Deuteronomy, refers to these oaks. And here Joshua assembled all Israel in the
impressive scenes of the nation's history: (a) when blessings and cursings were
announced from the opposite summits of Ebal and Gerizim, and (b) when he delivers
his farewell address long afterward (Josh. 24:2), and made a final covenant
with the people and erected a memorial tablet (24:25-28). Nearly two centuries
later the pillar was standing and the place was sacred (Judg. 5:6). Near the
same place our Lord talked at the well with the woman of Samaria (John 4). We
here note the fact that wherever Abram dwelt he erected an altar to God. Thus
his whole life was a witness to that faith in the one God which is the
groundwork in the civilization of our age, and is diffusing its blessings
around the world.
From Shechem Abraham makes a short move to Bethel and erects another altar.
This place also becomes famous in the subsequent history. The historian calls
the place by its later name. The early name of the place was Luz. The name
"Bethel" was conferred by the grandson, Jacob, when fleeing from
Esau, in commemoration of his conversion there when be dreamed of the ladder
which reached to heaven. Leaving Bethel, Abraham moved steadily south until he
had thus traversed Palestine from north to south. God is showing him the
country that shall one day be possessed by his descendants. There seems little
probability in his day of the fulfillment of the promise. He and his children
lived on faith concerning the country, and for themselves lifted up their eyes
to its heavenly antitype. Thus testified Stephen: "And he gave him none
inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: and he promised that
he would give it to him in possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet
he had no child" (Acts 7:5). But Paul is bolder: "By faith he became
a sojourner in the land of promise, as in a land not his own, dwelling in
tents, with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: for he
looked for the city which hath the foundations whose builder and maker is God.
. . . These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having
seen them and greeted them from afar, and having confessed that they were
strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things make it
manifest that they are seeking after a country of their own. And if indeed they
had been mindful of that country from which they went out, they would have had
opportunity to return. But now they desire a better country, that is, a
heavenly: wherefore, God is not ashamed of them, to be called their God; for he
hath prepared for them a city" (Heb. 11:9-10, 13-16).
And now comes a calamity that sends Abraham out of the Promised Land. A long
drought, followed by a famine, ensues. Pasturage, crops and water fail, a
fearful trial to any cattleman, as we in Texas know by many experiences. There
later, as here, oftentimes when surface water fails, the people resorted to
well digging. Some wells then, as now, become not only famous, but the occasion
of strife. But Abraham had not yet learned to find supplies of water under
ground as later (Gen. 21:30; 26:15), and so taking counsel of fear rather than
that of faith, he left the Promised Land for Egypt, even then the granary of
the world. The. whole expedition to Egypt seems to have been a mistake of human
calculation, for in a similar experience in his son's time Isaac was forbidden
to go to Egypt (Gen. 26:1-2).
We now come to the one blot on the fair name of this great patriarch. It seems
that when he first left Haran to go on the long wandering among strange people,
his mind was disturbed by the fear that the stranger in the land, having the
power, would rob him of his beautiful wife, and so he led Sarah into a compact
of duplicity, even on his own statement of the case, which he makes to
Abimelech: "And it came to pass when God caused me to wander from my
father's house, that I said unto her: This is thy kindness which thou shalt
show unto me: at every place whither we shall come, say of him, He is my
brother."
The example of the father was followed by Isaac, the son. The same principles
apply to all three cases. We might as well dispose of all of them here. In
reply to the question: What defense can be made of the duplicity of Abraham and
Isaac, our answer is: It is difficult to make any defense of dissimulation. The
most plausible explanation is thus made by Conant:
Censure would be just, if the object had been to deceive others to their
injury. But the object was personal safety; and the injury to others arose from
their own violation of the duties of hospitality and the rights of strangers.
Persons traveling, or sojourning, where the full knowledge of their relations
exposes them to dangers, are not bound to disclose all that concerns
themselves, and in no way concerns others. This principle is often acted on,
and without any violation of moral duty; but whether wisely and prudently, the
circumstances of the case must decide. Abraham consulted his wife's honour, no
less than his own safety, in. adopting this expedient. For if she had been
deprived of him, her only protector, her fate would have been worse than his.
But while he passed for her brother, none but honorable proposals would be made
to her as his sister; and these could be evaded or postponed until they should
remove to a place of safety. That she should be taken without consent, by royal
authority, was a contingency not likely to be foreseen. But my own opinion is
that this defense is specious, and hardly Justified by the facts, since the
expedient was repeated by Abraham with Abimelech after its known failure in
Egypt, and by Isaac later, with the double experience of Abraham before him. It
would seem more consistent with dignity and morality, if both had implicitly
trusted God and told the truth, thus saving themselves from being put to
disadvantage by the just censure of unbelievers. The whole transaction is
discreditable to Abraham, particularly his acceptance of gifts on account of
his wife. Why, after this solemn lesson, it should have been repeated by both
father and son is inexplicable.
The Scriptures themselves pass no express judgment on the duplicity of Abraham.
They record the facts, whatever they may be. They anticipate Cromwell's direction
to the painter: "Paint me as I am. Leave out no scar or blemish." But
the Lord did intervene for the protection of Abraham by sending plagues on
Pharaoh as later for oppressing Abraham's descendants. In that case, as this,
the Egyptians were urgent to get them out of the land. It is customary for
commentators to eulogize Pharaoh and Abimelech for their integrity in
condemning Abraham's duplicity, but observe that they showed no integrity until
after the rebuke of God. Then all at once, they who had seized a woman by
violence from the household of an inoffensive stranger, became very pious. To
these incidents the psalmist refers:
When they were but a few men in number, Yea, very few, and sojourners in it,
And they went about from nation to nation, From one kingdom to another people,
He suffered no man to do them wrong; Yea, he reproved kings for their sakes,
Saying, Touch not mine anointed ones, And do my prophets no harm. – PSALM
105:12-25
Indeed, it was the protecting care of God that made them friends in every
place, and camped around them as a protecting army.
Observe the position already attained by Egypt, and that her rulers are styled
Pharaohs. This was a title, not a name, sometimes used in connection with the
name of the king, as Pharaoh Necho (2 Kings 23:29), and Pharaoh Hopra (Jer.
44:30). The discussion as to what dynasty in Egypt held rule in Abram's time
may be reserved for later investigation. Dr. Conant says:
There is reason to believe that the Pharaoh of this passage was not a native
prince, but was one of the shepherd kings (Hyksos), who ruled over lower Egypt,
bordering on Canaan, from about 2080 B.C., when the country was overrun by the
incursion of the Arabian race, known in history as the Shepherds. The territory
was nearly contiguous, known as the "south country" (verse 9), and
the language of the dominant races was the same in both. On the eastern
frontier, toward Canaan, was a royal residence for a portion of the year, the
Zoan mentioned in Numbers 13:22, and referred to in Psalm 88:12, 43, as the
scene of the plagues of Egypt.
It is evident that Abraham learned some things in Egypt. When he came out of
the land the record says he had silver and gold, which is the first notice in
the Bible of these precious metals as currency. He also brought out of Egypt a
handmaiden for his wife, who will cause some trouble later. The thirteenth
chapter gives an account of the transaction between Abraham and Lot, to which
you are referred for the answers to the questions of this incident.
1. What was the nature of Abraham's call?
2. What were the terms?
3. What were the incentives?
4. What were the objects?
5. What were the requirements, did Abraham meet them and what was the proof?
6. Why was Abraham called to leave his country?
7. What was the objective point, the route, and why?
8. Why the sojourn at Haran?
9. What direction did he take from Haran? Did he atop at Damascus and the
proof?
10. What was the first stopping place in Canaan and Dr. Hackett's description
of it?
11. What events of later history make this place famous?
12. What did Abraham do here which was his custom ever afterward?
13. What was the next objective point, its two names, who gave it the second
and why?
14. What course did he take from Bethel and what was the object?
15. What was Abraham's relation to this country, and what the proof?
16. What calamity drives him from the country, was this a wise course and the
proof?
17. What one blot on his fame?
18. What is the best that can be said of the duplicity of Abraham and Isaac in
passing off the wife as a sister? (Conant.)
19. Show wherein this does not exculpate.
20. What is the explanation of their success under such circumstances?
21. Who was the ruler in Egypt at this time and what did Abraham bring out of
Egypt with him?
22. Who accompanied Abraham from Haran through Canaan to Egypt and came out
with him?
23. On leaving Egypt, what their objective point?
24. What trouble arose between Abraham and Lot and what was cause?
25. How was this difficulty settled and what the definite location of each
after their separation?
26. After Lot was separated from Abraham what revelation did God make to him
and where does he next pitch his tent?
THE COVENANTS WITH ABRAHAM (PART ONE)
Genesis 12:1-3; 15:1-21; 17:1-14; 22:1-19
We now come to consider one of the most important subjects of religious history
– the covenants made with Abraham. The lessons in Genesis that bear directly
upon the matter are in chapters 12:1-3; 15:1-21; 17:1-15; 22:1-19. All of these
should be carefully studied in themselves and with their New Testament
connections.
The investigation will show that there are either two distinct covenants, or
what amounts practically to the same thing, two distinct lines of thought; one
fleshly, the other spiritual, with equally distinct developments. Let us go
over the whole matter step by step.
In general terms a covenant is an arrangement or agreement between two or more
parties. Its terms are the stipulations or conditions which set forth the
reciprocal relations and obligations of the parties entering into the
agreement. The word "covenant" is frequently employed in both
Testaments to express an agreement between men, or between God and men. It
first appears in Genesis 6:18, where God says to Noah, "I will establish
my covenant with thee." As examples of a covenant between men we should
study the covenant between Abraham and Abimelech (Gen. 21:27-32); the covenant
between David and Jonathan (I Sam. 15:1-4; 20: 12-16), the covenant between
David and the elders of Israel (I Chron. 11:1-3). Figurative use of the word
appears in Job's covenant with his eyes (Job 31:1), Ephraim's covenant with
death and hell (Isa. 28:15-18).
The root of the Hebrew word signifies to cut or divide, referring to the custom
of cutting or dividing in two the animal sacrifice in order to ratification by
the covenant-makers passing between the parts. As vivid examples of this
consider: "And God said unto Abraham, Take me a heifer three years old,
and a she-goat three years old, and a ram three years old, and a turtledove and
a young pigeon. And he took him all these, and divided them in the midst, and
laid each half over against the other; but the birds divided he not. . . . And
it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold, a
smoking furnace, and a flaming torch that passed between these pieces"
(Gen. 25:9-10, 17). "And I will give the men that have transgressed my covenant,
that had not performed the words of the covenant which they made before me,
when they cut the calf in twain and passed between the parts thereof"
(Jer. 34:18). "Gather my saints together unto me, those that have made a
covenant with me by sacrifice" (Psalm 1:5).
This is of great importance in determining the Bible meaning of covenant. It
shows that covenants were ratified by very vivid, religious services in which
an appeal was made to God to witness the integrity and sincerity of the
covenant makers and to judge the violators of it. In these religious ceremonies
both parties took a most sacred oath to observe the stipulations of the
agreement under penalty of divine judgment. For example: "I sware unto
thee, and entered into a covenant with thee," says Jehovah to Jerusalem
(Ezek. 16:8). "And Jonathan caused David to swear again" (I Sam. 20:
17). "Swear unto me here by God that thou wilt not deal falsely with
me," says Abimelech to Abraham. And Abraham said, "I will
swear." "Wherefore he called that place Beersheba; because there they
sware both of them" (Gen. 21:2324, 31). Upon this point a New Testament
statement is conclusive: "For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he
could swear by none greater, he sware by himself, saying, Surely blessing will
I bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. And thus, having patiently
endured, he obtained the promise. For men swear by the greater: and in every
dispute of theirs the oath is final for confirmation. Wherein God, being minded
to show more abundantly unto the heirs of the promise the immutability of his
counsel, interposed with an oath; that by two immutable things, in which it is
impossible for God to lie, we may have a strong encouragement, who have fled
for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before us" (Heb. 6:13-18). Because,
therefore, of the oath and the sacrifice, to violate a covenant was regarded
not only as most dishonorable but also a profane action, indicating great
depravity and irreligion. The Romans charged the Carthaginians with habitual disregard
of treaties so made, and pilloried them in history with the proverb,
"Punic Faith." But Paul in. his letter to the Romans characterizes
them, with other heathen, as "covenant breakers" (Rom. 1:31). On the
other hand, David in delineating a citizen of Zion, says, "He that
sweareth to his own hurt and changeth not" (Psalm 15:4).
Usually covenants were accompanied by some sign, token, or memorial. The
rainbow was the token of the covenant with Noah. The seven ewe lambs were a
token of the covenant with Abimelech, and Abraham also planted a tamarisk tree
as a memorial. Jonathan gave David his own raiment as a token of their
covenant. Circumcision was the sign of one of God's covenants with Abraham. We
have said that the first Bible use of the term is in Genesis 6:18. But this is
not the first Bible record of the fact that a covenant was made. There were
before this two covenants with Adam as the head of the race; one of works
before the fall, and one of grace after the fall. The terms of the first covenant
with Adam are clearly expressed in Genesis 2:16-17. A violation of terms by
either party nullifies the covenant. This covenant was broken by Adam, as saith
the prophet: "But they like Adam have transgressed the covenant"
(Hos. 6:7). A failure to be circumcised was a breach of the covenant of which
it was not only a sign but a stipulation (Gen. 17:14). The unchangeableness of
the divine being was manifested in his keeping every covenant made with man
(Psalm 89:34-35). Having prepared the way by these general observations, we
will not examine the four scriptures cited in Genesis 12; 15; 17; 22.
The word, "covenant," is not mentioned in Genesis 12:1-4. But Paul in
the letter to the Galatians refers to a covenant of grace made with Abraham
which was an anticipation of the gospel, and which he fixes by a date which
exactly fits this paragraph in Genesis 12, and no other. The date is 430 years
before the giving of the law on Mount Sinai. The anticipated gospel is in 12:3:
"In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed." This very
passage is quoted by the apostle Peter, and expressly called a covenant:
"Ye are the sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with
your fathers, saying to Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the families of the
earth be blessed" (Acts 3:25). So that both Paul and Peter call this
covenant of grace. This covenant of grace made with Abraham when seventy years
old, and 430 years before the giving of the law, is confirmed with an oath when
years afterward he offered up Isaac on the altar: "And the angel of
Jehovah called unto Abraham a second time out of heaven, and said, By myself
have I sworn, saith Jehovah, because thou hast done this thing, and has not
withheld thy son, thine only son, that in blessing I will bless thee, and in
multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heavens, and as the
sand which is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his
enemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because
thou hast obeyed my voice" (Gen. 22:15-18).
To this confirmation Paul thus refers: "Brethren, I speak after the manner
of men: Though it be but a man's covenant, yet when it hath been confirmed, no
one maketh it void, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham were the promises spoken,
and to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to
thy seed, which is Christ. Now this I say: A covenant confirmed beforehand by
God, the law, which came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not
disannul, so as to make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance is
of the law, it is no more of promise: but God hath granted it to Abraham by
promise" (Gal. 3:15-18). This language makes clear these points:
That the gospel covenant with Abraham in Acts 7:2-3, when Abraham was seventy
years old, and restated in Genesis 7: 1-3, when he was seventy-five years old.
That this covenant with Abraham is confirmed by the divine oath as recorded in
Genesis 22:15-18. This is also the confirmation set forth in Hebrews 6:16-18.
That this covenant was made 430 years before the giving of the law.
An examination of the grace covenant in Genesis 12, and of its confirmation in
Genesis 22, shows that it has one distinguishing peculiarity, namely, its
blessings for all the world. Let us next examine the record in Genesis 15. In
v. 8, Abraham asks God how he may know that he would inherit the land of
Palestine. Whereupon follows an exact account of a covenant, and expressly
called a covenant, whose terms are clear that God will give his lineal
descendants, according to the flesh, this very land whose metes and bounds are
clearly set forth. There is nothing here for the world at large. It is strictly
a national covenant. Examine all its terms and see. Now if we examine the record
in Genesis 17, we find again this national covenant and a sign is added,
namely, circumcision.
So that we may say that two distinct covenants were made with Abraham:
The covenant of grace, Genesis 7, which was confirmed with an oath, Genesis 22,
and that this covenant is so recognized by both Peter and Paul.
A national covenant (Gen. 15), whose sign of circumcision was added (Gen. 17).
This national or circumcision covenant reappears in the law covenant at Mount
Sinai. And this law covenant is expressly contrasted with the grace covenant in
Paul's letter to the Galatians. "For it is written, that Abraham had two
sons, one by the handmaid, and one by the freewoman. Howbeit the son by the
handmaid is born after the flesh; but the son by the freewoman is born through
promise. Which things contain an allegory: for these women are two covenants;
one from Mount Sinai, bearing children unto bondage, which is Hagar. Now this
Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and answereth to Jerusalem that now is: for she
is in bondage with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which
is our mother. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; Break
forth and cry, thou that travailest not; For more are the children of the
desolate than of her that hath the husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are
children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted
him that was born after the Spirit, so also it is now. Howbeit what saith the
Scripture? Cast out the handmaid and her son: for the son of the handmaid shall
not inherit with the son of the freewoman. Wherefore, brethren, we are not
children of a handmaid, but of the freewoman (Gal. 4:22-31).
To settle this matter beyond controversy we have only to prove from the
Scriptures that the circumcision, or national covenant, was passed over and
merged into the Sinai covenant and the case will be complete. This will be
shown later in the argument. So we have before us the Abrahamic covenants.
There are distinctly two, widely differing in range and terms. The plurality of
these covenants is thus expressed by Paul: "Who are Israelites; whose is
the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and
the service of God, and the promises" (Rom. 9:4).
The principal difference between the circumcision covenant and the Sinai or law
covenant is that the latter is an enlargement of the former. One is seed; the
other is fruit.
1. Where are the scriptures on the covenants with Abraham?
2. What two covenants made with him?
3. In general terms what is a covenant and what are the terms of a covenant?
Give examples.
4. Etymologically, what does the word mean? Illustrate.
5. How were covenants ratified and what was the meaning of that action?
Illustrate.
6. What New Testament proof of God's oath to Abraham and what the purpose of
it?
7. How was the violation of a covenant regarded, what was charge of the Romans
against the Carthaginians and how did Paul characterize all of them?
8. What was the token of the several covenants, viz.: Between God and Noah;
Abraham and Abimelech; Jonathan and David; God and Abraham?
9. What covenants had God made with the race prior to his covenant with Abraham
and what nullified the covenant in each case?
10. Since the word "covenant" does not occur in Genesis 12:1-4, how
do we know that this contains a covenant?
11. What covenant was this and what was the date?
12. How old was Abraham and when was this covenant confirmed with him?
13. What three points are made clear by Paul's statement in Galatians3:15-18?
14. What covenant was made with Abraham in Genesis 15 and what was its sign?
15. Restate the two covenants with Abraham, where found, the relation of the
second to the Sinaitic covenant, and how contrasted with the grace covenant.
THE COVENANTS WITH ABRAHAM (PART TWO)
Genesis 12:1-3; 15:1-21; 17:1-14; 22:1-19
One's understanding of these covenants affects all of his theological and
church relations. If he confounds them, or reckons them as identical, he never
gets out of the Old Testament for a plan of salvation, system or doctrines,
idea of the church, nature, objects, and subjects of church ordinances. Hence
it is easy for him to drift into ritualism, accept the doctrine of union of
church and state and coercion of conscience by the magistrate. If he regards
them as distinct, one to replace the other, he finds in the New Testament a
plan of salvation, system of doctrine, idea of the church, number, nature,
object, and subjects of church ordinances. He naturally rejects union of church
and state, believes in liberty of conscience, opposes all hierarchies,
advocates congregational form of church organizations and their independence of
each other.
The covenants have been a battleground between Baptists and pedobaptists
throughout their history. A man's views on the covenants easily locate him in
one or the other rank. While multitudes of books have been written, the
strongest pedobaptist argument in favor of their construction of the covenants
is a brief statement by that eminent Presbyterian divine, Dr. N. L. Rice. The
substance of his argument is this: (1) "The covenant with Abraham is the
covenant of grace, therefore it did not belong to the Jewish dispensation and did
not pass away with it. (2) The covenant confessedly embraced believers and
their infant children, and since it remains unchanged it embraces them still.
(3) All who were in the covenant had a right to its seal, and those embraced in
it now have the same right. And since professed believers and their infant
children did receive the seal of the covenant by expressed command of God, the
same characters must receive it still. (4) As circumcision was the first seal,
and was administered to professed believers and their infant children, so
baptism is now the seal and must be administered to the same characters. Or (1)
the Abrahamic covenant was and is the covenant of grace; and the church of God,
as a people in covenant with him, was organized on this covenant. (2) As the
church was organized on this covenant, it embraced in its membership all who
were embraced in the covenant, namely, professed believers and their infant
children. (3) The Christian church stands on the same covenant and is identical
with the Abrahamic church, and embraces the same characters in its membership,
viz.: professed believers and their infant children. (4) All embraced in the
covenant and in the church membership are entitled to the initiatory rite, and
since professed believers and their infant children did receive circumcision,
the first initiatory rite, the same characters, being still embraced in the
same covenant, have a right to baptism, which is now the initiatory rite."
To this very able statement of his case we submit the following reply: Dr. Rice
assumes instead of proving his premises:
(1) He ignores the fact of two covenants with Abraham – the covenant of grace
and the covenant of circumcision, which he blends with great confusion of
thought. (2) As the covenant of grace made with Abraham was but a continuation
and enlargement of previous covenants and promises reaching back to the fall of
Adam, any church argument based on this covenant should no more commence with
Abraham than with Noah or Seth, why not commence with Adam? (3) Neither the
covenant of grace nor the covenant of circumcision "confessedly embraced
believers and their infant children." Ishmael, the first descendant of
Abraham who received the rite, was neither a believer nor an infant. The adult
slaves of Abraham who received it at the same time were certainly not
"infant children" of any believer, nor did the law require that they
themselves be believers. They were circumcised because they were Abraham's
slaves, without any regard to age or personal faith. The law as to such
subjects of circumcision was never changed.
So far as Abraham's lineal descendants are concerned, on all millions of them,
circumcision, if performed according to law, could never by any possibility be
administered to a believer. The law requiring its performance when the subject
was eight days old must be neglected or violated before a believer could have
any chance to reach circumcision. By its own provisions of enforcement it
perpetually excluded believers from its reception, just as infant baptism
necessarily tends to drive believer's baptism from the face of the earth. Dr.
Rice's plural, "believers," is an impossibility; therefore, under the
regular workings of the law, Abraham would be only one. So much for Abraham's
fleshly descendants.
In the case of a proselyte from the Gentiles who voluntarily became a Jew, he
need not be a believer in the New Testament sense, and no descendant of his
till the judgment day could reach circumcision by faith. We thus see what
becomes of the doctor's fundamental premise: "Believers and their infant
children." (4) Dr. Rice makes an utterly unscriptural use of the word
"seal." To Abraham personally, unto him alone, is circumcision
declared to be a seal, a seal of his faith which he had before he was
circumcised. It could never be this to any of his descendants under a proper
enforcement of the law. To them it might be a sign. The Bible never calls
baptism a seal in any sense. New Testament believers are sealed by the Holy
Spirit, not by water. (5) Dr. Rice assumes the identity of the Christian church
with what he is pleased to call the "Abrahamic church." "The
Abrahamic church" is too vague a term for such an important premise. It
needs to be defined somewhat. The Christian church is a visible organization.
The only visible Abrahamic organization is national Israel. Substitute
"national Israel" for "Abrahamic church" in the premise,
and the identity theory perishes by its own weight. You need not argue against
it – it falls to pieces if you look at it! (6) Dr. Rice assumes that baptism
came in the place of circumcision, which is at war with both Scripture and
history. If he means only that there is some analogy between the place occupied
in the Christian system by baptism and the place occupied in the Jewish system
by circumcision, this is cheerfully granted, but all the force of the analogy
is against infant baptism, thus: Circumcision was administered to Abraham's
fleshly seed; baptism must be administered to Abraham's spiritual seed.
It is well just here to fix carefully in our minds the elements of the law of
circumcision. Circumcision was administered, (1) to Abraham's natural seed; (2)
and to their slaves; (3) but to males only; (4) when eight days old; (5) was by
obligation a family rite; (6) could be legally performed by man or woman; (7)
it obligated to keep the whole Sinaitic law, with which it was incorporated, as
a means of justification and life, under a covenant of works; (8) is guaranteed
by an earthly domain for a possession.
With these elements before us, it will be easy to show why baptism did not come
into its place, and what did come into its place, and how the analogy between
baptism and circumcision is destructive to infant membership. This may be made
manifest under the following heads: (1) Both are "shadows." A shadow
cannot cast a shadow. (2) Its antitype, regeneration, came in the place of
circumcision. (See Rom. 2:28-29; Phil. 3:3; Col. 2:11.) (3) In the New
Testament, the same people, if Jews, were baptized after being circumcised, as
in the case of Jesus and his apostles, or were circumcised after baptism, as in
the case of Timothy by Paul. (4) The case in Acts 15:1-30, settles the
question: (a) The Judaizing teachers who tried to force circumcision on the
baptized Gentiles at Antioch could not have understood that baptism was
appointed to succeed circumcision; (b) the apostles and elders at Jerusalem
could not have so understood it either, for while the question was argued at
length and exhaustively, no one referred to such a simple fact, which, if true,
would have settled the whole controversy in a word. Their silence about it on
this occasion was both inexcusable and criminal, if it were true. (5) Utterly
unlike circumcision, baptism is for Jew and Gentile, male and female, for
believers, only, when they believe, without regard to age, is an ecclesiastical
and not a family rite, is administered by special officers; as a mere memorial
rite to the covenant of grace, it is in no sense essential to justification and
life, and guarantees neither an earthly nor a heavenly Canaan. (6) If baptism
came in the place of circumcision, then it must be confined in its
administration either to Abraham's natural seed, or to his spiritual seed. If
his natural seed only, that excludes the Gentile pedobaptists, as well as their
children, and. contradicts the Scriptures (Matt. 3:7-9). If to his spiritual
seed, that excludes their infants for whose benefits the argument is made and
establishes the true scriptural position – baptism for believers only. (Compare
Acts 8:12, 37; 16:33-34; 18:8.)
The next point necessary in this argument is to show that circumcision was
passed over to Moses and became an integral part of the covenant of Sinai. The
proof is this: In Genesis 17, God proposes an everlasting covenant with Abraham
and his natural seed after him. The stipulation on God's part was to give them
the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession. The stipulation on their part
was to keep the ordinance of circumcision and all that is involved. Any male
not circumcised was cut off from the people and the inheritance. In Exodus
4:24-26, we learn that God sought to slay Moses because, on account of his
wife's objection, his child had not been circumcised. Moses was not relieved
from the hazard until his wife, Zipporah, to save the husband's life, yielded,
though reluctantly, and circumcised the child.
Moses was now the appointed deliverer to lead the children of Israel into the
land which God, according to his stipulation of the covenant, was to give them
(Ex. 6:4-8). Their final deliverance was accomplished by the Passover, which
they were commanded to celebrate by a memorial feast. But no uncircumcised male
was allowed to eat this feast (Ex. 12:4448). Thus Moses gave them circumcision
in a national and perpetual statute. Then the nation was organized at Sinai and
the covenant re-enacted and the law given; circumcision was incorporated in it
as an essential feature of it (Lev. 12:3). Thus, according to our Lord, Moses
gave them circumcision as a national statute, and not as originating it, but as
a requirement from the fathers when the original covenant was established (John
7:22-23). So it is testified that all who went out of Egypt to seek the land
promised were circumcised (Josh. 5:5). Again, when Joshua led them across the
Jordan into the Promised Land, the Lord halted them at Gilgal until all born in
the forty years of wanderings should be circumcised (Josh. 5:19). They could
not secure title to the land until their stipulation was fulfilled.
Thus we see circumcision made an essential feature of the Sinai covenant, since
that is only an enlargement of the original covenant of circumcision. The proof
becomes conclusive when we consider the relation of circumcision to the Sinai
law. This is set forth by Paul: "For circumcision indeed profiteth, if
thou be a doer of the law; but if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy
circumcision is become uncircumcision" (Rom. 2:25). "Behold, I, Paul,
say unto you, that, if ye receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing.
Yea, I testify again to every man that receiveth circumcision that he is a
debtor to do the whole law" (Gal. 5:2-3).
This Sinai covenant was strictly a covenant of works. It promised life solely
on the condition of exact, implicit, and complete obedience to all its
mandates. So testify the Scriptures: "Ye shall therefore keep my statutes,
and mine ordinances; which if a man do, he shall live in them; I am
Jehovah" (Lev. 18:5). "For Moses writeth that the man that doeth the
righteousness which is of the law shall live thereby" (Rom. 5:5).
"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he
is become guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also,
Do not kill. Now if thou dost not commit adultery, but killest, thou art become
a transgressor of the law" (James 2:10-11).
On this very account there could be no life by it. It gendered to bondage and
was a yoke of bondage, which their fathers were unable to bear (Gal. 4:24; 5:1;
Acts 15:10).
Their circumcision covenant said, "Do and live."
The grace covenant said, "Believe and live."
The clearest exhibition, perhaps, in the Bible of the contrast between this
covenant and the covenant of grace made with Abraham, appears in Paul's
allegory (Gal. 4:21-31). Just here dates become very important. That you may
for yourself compare the respective dates of the covenant of circumcision and
the covenant of grace we submit the following orderly statement: Paul says
(Gal. 3:17) that it preceded the law by 430 years. Reckoning back from the
giving of the law, we have, first, the stay of the Israelites in Egypt 210
years, Second/Jacob was then 130 years old. Third, when Jacob was born Isaac
was sixty years old. Fourth, the covenant of Acts 7:2-3, and Genesis 12:1-4,
was thirty years old before the birth of Isaac, making exactly 430 years. Or
Abraham was seventy years old when the covenant of grace was made with him
(Acts 7:2-3; Gen. 12:1-4), which was thirty years before Isaac's birth (Gen.
21:5; 25:26); Jacob was 130 when he entered Egypt (Gen. 47:9), accordingly,
their stay in Egypt was 210 years. So 30, 60, 130 and 210 is 430. But the
covenant of circumcision was twenty-nine years later, when Abraham was
ninety-nine years old (Gen. 27:1-14). There is a great distinction in the law
of descent between the two covenants; one national or fleshly, the other
spiritual or supernatural.
1. How does one's understanding of these covenants affect his theology and idea
of the church?
2. What is the substance of N. L. Rice's argument to prove that the church
commenced with Abraham and that infants are members of it?
3. How does the expositor answer it?
4. What are the elements of the law of circumcision?
5. Show why baptism did not come in its place, what does come in its place, and
how the analogy between baptism and circumcision destroys infant baptism.
6. Give Scripture proof that circumcision was passed over to Moses and became
an integral part of the Sinaitic covenant,
7. What is the relation of circumcision to the Sinaitic law?
8. What did these covenants say respectively?
9. How does Paul get his 430 years of Galatians 3:17, and when was the covenant
of circumcision given?
10. What New Testament allegory contrasts this covenant sharply with the
covenant of grace?
11. What is the great distinction in the law of descent between the two
covenants?
1. The Great Foray
2. Its Defeat by Abraham
3. Melchizedek
4. Abraham's Disinterestedness
The account of the war, or foray, in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis, treated
but as an episode in the life of Abraham, very briefly outlined, yet is full of
interest in showing how the nations descending from the three sons of Noah were
strangely mingled in the countries drained by the Tigris, Euphrates, and the
Jordan. The most labored research of modern times, including all discoveries of
archeology and philology, fails to solve satisfactorily the perplexing
questions of nationality bristling in this episode. The best human authorities
differ as to the location of Ellasar, one of the kingdoms mentioned, and of the
nations over whom Tidal reigned, and even as to the location of the five cities
of the plain. There is equal difficulty in determining with certainty the
derivation of some of the nations and tribes mentioned in our lesson. But the
solution of these questions is of little practical importance in our times. The
best and safest course for us to pursue is to follow strictly the Bible story,
and later, if you have leisure and desire, you may prosecute studies in the
vast and varied .literature pertaining to the subject. We need not waste time
in perplexing ourselves over these matters now.
Just a few sentences will be sufficient to outline the situation: Abraham, the
hero of the story, is at Hebron, west of the Dead Sea, in the southern part of
Palestine. The mountains are between him and that sea. He has formed an
alliance for mutual protection with three brothers, Marnre, Eschol, and Aner,
who are Amorites, that is, descendants of Ham. Lot, his nephew, is living in
Sodom, chief city and head of the five confederate and petty governments near
the Dead Sea. These are descendants of Ham.
The country east of the Jordan River, commencing at a point as far north as the
sea of Galilee, and extending south as far as the middle of the Dead Sea, is
held by three tribes of giants, called Rephaim, Zuzim, and Ernim. These are
original inhabitants; that is, they were in the country before the Canaanites,
Ham's descendants, migrated to Palestine. They were descendants of either Shem
or Japheth. They were idolaters, worshiping the moon goddess, Ashtoreth (plural
Ashtaroth), called by the Greeks, Astarte. The corresponding male divinity was
Baal, the sun god.
South of these, and in the northern and mountainous part of Arabia, were the
Horites. These also were original inhabitants, who dwelt in neither tents nor
houses but in caves. Hence they are called Troglodytes, that is, those who creep
into holes. From which son of Noah they were descended the record does not
clearly show) and research has not satisfactorily determined. This example of
cave dwellers in historic times is a sufficient refutation of the baseless
speculation that cave dwellers and the Stone Age belong to an infinitely remote
past, and marked a grade of man's evolution from lower animals. Troglodytes
never mark an ascending scale from lower animalism, but always a degradation
from a higher grade. Cave dwellers and the most highly civilized races are
contemporaries.
West of these in the mountainous district of Asia, between Palestine and Mount
Sinai, were the Amorites, descendants of Ham, with some of whom Abraham was in
covenant; and the Amalekites of unknown origin. With the Amalekites our later
history will have much to do. They are the uncompromising foes of Israel after
the exodus from Egypt. They are called by Balaam "The first of the
nations" (Goiim), (Num. 24:20). We will hear of them throughout the Old
Testament period. It must not be supposed that they commenced with Amaiek,
grandson of Esau (Gen. 36:10-16), though it is probable that this descendant of
Esau was named after them, and his descendants became mingled with them, as
perhaps also the descendants of Ishmael mingled with the Horites whom they
dispossessed of the country around Mount Seir.
Let us now glance at the other parties of the story. We have seen how Nimrod, a
descendant of Ham, through Gush, established the first empire in the land of
Shinar in the lower valleys of the Euphrates and Tigris, and pushed northward
to Nineveh. This ancient empire is now divided into two governments: Shinar,
ruled by Arnraphel, and Ellasar ruled by Arioch, and both of these are now
tributary to Elam, a country east of them and extending south to the Persian
Gulf. The Elamites were descendants of Shem. So that now under Chedorlaorner
the Shemites hold dominion over nearly all the original territory assigned to
Shem. Thirteen years before this story opens they had subdued the five petty
kingdoms of which Sodom was chief. In the thirteenth year these cities had
revolted. The nations under Tidal, who were also subject to Elam, were probably
descendants of Japheth, north of Elam in Assyria. The empire of Chedorlaorner
was, therefore, very extensive, but neither homogeneous nor cohesive, being
held together only by force of arms and the genius of Chedorlaorner. It
embraced nearly all the Tigris and Euphrates country down to the Persian Gulf,
part of Arabia, and much of Syria.
On the revolt of Sodom and its confederates, Chedorlaorner organizes and
conducts one of the best planned and most extensive campaigns in early history.
Assembling into one great flying column the forces of Elam, Shinar, Ellasar,
and uniting them with the nations under Tidal, he sweeps down first upon. the
Rephaim, then upon the Horim, then upon the Zuzim, then upon the Emirn, all the
time moving south until he reaches his terminus at El-paran, on the border of
the Sinai wilderness. Thus far he has moved east of the Jordan and the Dead
Sea. Now turning north and on a line westward of his first movement, he smites
the Amalekites and Amorites southwest of the Dead Sea, and moving near to
Abraham's home in Hebron, he falls upon the cities of the plains, defeats the
five kings in the valley of Siddim, spoils Sodom and Gomorrah, and moves as
rapidly north as the great booty and numerous captives will permit. Whether he
moved east or west of the Dead Sea depends upon the location of Sodom and
Gomorrah. My own conviction is that from Engedi, on the west coast of the sea,
he moved around the southern end, and there fought his battle and captured the
cities whose site was southwest of the Dead Sea. Among the captives is Lot, now
also stripped of all his goods, both household effects and cattle.
So far the expedition has been a complete success. Fugitives from Sodom carry
the doleful story of the disaster to Abram, the Hebrew, at Hebron. The fate of
his unfortunate kinsman is his interest in the matter. We now discover a new
trait in Abram's otherwise peaceful character. He becomes suddenly a man of war
and a general. He hastily organizes a flying column of his own armed retainers,
318 in number, and of his confederates in covenant, the three Amorite brothers.
What force they had does not appear in the record. With this column Abram
rapidly pursues the now careless and heavy laden army of Chedorlaorner,
overtakes them at Dan, the most northern part of Palestine, divides his forces
and surprises them by a night attack on both flanks, utterly routs them,
presses on in a relentless pursuit as far as Damascus, retakes all the spoil
and recovers all the prisoners. It was a regular Stonewall Jackson campaign;
matchless in strategy, swift in. execution, and persistent in the pressure of
the defeated army We are surprised at this achievement of Abram. We never could
have suspected from his past history that beneath his quiet, religious, and
peaceable disposition there slumbered the spirit and genius of a great general
and swift-smiting warrior.
From a military point of view, Chedorlaomer's well-planned campaign and Abram's
defeat of the whole plan in its hour of victory, by one lightning stroke equal
to Rossbach, is full of interest. But a greater surprise awaits us. The news of
his great victory flies before him on his return. He comes as a conquering
hero, a deliverer of many smitten people. As he approaches Salem, afterward
Jerusalem, a personage mightier than Abram steps out of the shadows to bless
him and then recedes into the shadows and is swallowed up for ever. The episode
is the most unique, startling, dramatic, and mysterious in all history. We hold
our breath in surprise as the brief incident seems to step out of the skies and
step back again. The author tells the story with the simplicity and brevity of
a child, without one word of explanation to satisfy the curious. A silence
falls on the scene and its incident unbroken for nearly 900 years. It is then
broken by the psalmist king of Israel, whose prophetic spirit foresees the
ascended messianic king on the throne of heaven and exclaims: Jehovah hath
sworn, and will not repent:
Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. – PSALM 110:4
Silence falls again on both the original incident and the subsequent vision for
more than a thousand years, to be broken by the apostolic voice speaking in the
letter to the Hebrews, a voice of light which shines back for twenty centuries
and re-illumines the startling episode of Abram'8 life, but only intensifies
its mystery. For thirty centuries men have been reading that brief paragraph in
the fourteenth chapter of Genesis. .From the mind of every reader leaps the
question: Who is Melchizedek? When the psalmist record is added, the question
doubles: Who, who is Melchizedek? When the apostolic record comes, the question
trebles: Who, who, who was Melchizedek?
Men who never propounded the question to themselves, "What must I do to be
saved?" have died unhappy because they could not find out who was Melchizedek.
Curiosity deepens as time rolls on. Savants and schoolboys, rabbis and rustics,
have assumed the role of Ordipus to this sphinx. And in all probability the
reader also is now asking, "Who was Melchizedek?" I am quite sure
that I will fail to satisfy your curiosity, but I will try, provided you will
not ask me to go out of the record. So I will hoist your question to the
masthead of a separate division:
We are shut up to three records: Genesis 14:18-20; Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 5:6-7.
Many answers by many men have been given, a few of which will be merely named:
He was Shem; he was Ham; he was an angel; he was a pre-manifestation of the Son
of God in human form; he was the Holy Spirit; he was an appearance of the
divine influence. Only two of these answers have been made plausible enough to
obtain wide acceptance. These two alone will be noted, then one additional will
be discussed.
First, therefore, was he Shem? The argument in favor of this theory is
substantially as follows:
Shem was alive at this date. He was about 100 years old at the time of the
deluge and lived 500 years after that event. This establishes the fact that he
was a contemporary of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
This was a king in the middle of the territory assigned to Shem, and the place,
afterward Jerusalem, always remained the sacred center of Semitic sentiment and
religion. It was to this place, Mount Moriah, Abraham went later by divine
command to offer up Isaac.
He was a priest of the Most High God. And by divine arrangement in patriarchal
times the head of the family was the priest of the family. Shem, then living,
was the head and priest of all his descendants.
By virtue of his leadership and office he was greater than Abraham and was
entitled to the tithes offered by his illustrious descendant.
It was exceedingly appropriate that the aged and venerable patriarch should go
forth and bless his distinguished descendant on his deliverance of the whole
country from an invading and despoiling tyrant.
Abram's instant recognition of his superior standing and office is perfectly
natural if this were Shem, but would call for a revelation if Melchizedek were
a Canaanite, resting under Noah's curse.
Such a priesthood in the person of a Hamite was violative of the religious birthright
of Shem. Noah's prophecy had declared: "Blessed be Jehovah) the God of
Shem." This was the spiritual primogeniture held by Abel above Cain, by
Seth above Cain, by Abram above Haran, by Isaac above Ishmael, by Jacob above
Esau, by Judah above Reuben.
The second plausible theory is that Melchizedek was a pre-manifestation of the
Son of God – an appearance in human form as in Genesis 18:22, and Joshua
5:13-15. The arguments in support of this theory are derived from the seventh
chapter of the letter to the Hebrews:
The titles: (a) King of Righteousness, and King of Peace, (b) Priest of the
Most High God.
Without earthly parentage or genealogy.
Eternity of being expressed in these words: "Having neither beginning of
days nor end of life"; "Here men that die receive tithes, but there
one of whom it is witnessed that he liveth."
Eternity of office: "Priest for ever"; "abideth a priest
continually"; "a priest who hath been made not after the law of a
carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life." His
greatness: "But without dispute the less is blessed of the better."
The third theory, and the only one worth consideration, is based on both
negative and positive argument:
Negative. He was not Shem, (a) because the record nowhere calls him by that
name, which is marvelous if he had been Shem, and (b) because his lack of
genealogy or registered pedigree makes it impossible that he could have been
Shem, since his pedigree is carefully and repeatedly given.
He was not a pre-manifestation of the Son of God, but a type of the Son of God.
God cannot be a type of himself. There is a likeness between shadow and
substance, but not identity.
Positive. The Genesis account is simple and natural history. The king of Sodom
and the king of Salem are both recognized as going out to meet Abram, in the
same connection (Gen. 14:17-18), and as if both were earthly kings.
As the place of meeting was in the territory of the king of Salem, he acts as a
host and provides refreshments for all parties; but being priest as well as
king, he blesses Abram and receives tithes.
He was greater than Abram by superiority of office. The points of likeness
between him and our Lord, which constitute him a type are these:
As to kingship: His name meant king of righteousness, and his country, Salem,
meant peace. These normal significations were relations in Christ's case.
As to priesthood: Melchizedek was not a priest because the head of a family,
nor because of a pedigree connecting him with a family of priests, as in the
case of the children of Levi; but by direct appointment of God, and this
appointment was not transmissible to his descendants. It stood out unique
without precedent or consequent, and hence figuratively was for ever. So far as
the record goes there is no genealogy of the man. No account of his father or
mother or descendants. Just as now, people who are proud of their ability to
trace their descent in England from William the Conqueror, or in this country
from Revolutionary sires, count a man who is unable to trace his descent as a
man of no family. So the prophet Isaiah speaks of the Messiah who was cut off:
"Who shall declare his generation?" There is no record of the
beginning or end of Melchizedek's priesthood, and hence its seeming eternity.
In its seeming, not in its reality, is its likeness of Christ's priesthood. So
far as the history goes, Melchizedek cannot be proved to be a descendant of
Shem, Ham, or Japheth. It is as if he were a foundling, an orphan, whose
parentage is undeterminable, who yet by sturdy manhood won his way to the
throne, and by his piety in the midst of darkness was singled out by the
Almighty to be his priest. A.II around him was gross idolatry. He alone
worshiped the true God and mediated between his subjects and God with priestly functions.
These singularities in his remarkable history made him a type of the great
messianic High Priest. In Joshua's time we shall find an Adonizedek, king of
Salem, who possesses none of the characteristics of Melchizedek.
According to this theory, Melchizedek was a real earthly king of unknown
parentage, who, without the aid of family teaching, and in the midst of gross
idolatry, was taught of God and appointed his priest, though of the time of the
appointment there is no record, and none of its discontinuance.
Our lesson closes with another flash of light on the greatness of the character
of Abram: "And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and
take the goods thyself. And Abram said unto the king of Sodom, I have lifted up
my hand unto Jehovah, God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth, that I will
not take a thread nor shoe-latchet nor aught that is thine, lest thou shouldest
say, I have made Abram rich: save only that which the young men have eaten, and
the portion of the men that went with me, Aner, Escliol and Mamre; let them
take their portion" (Gen. 4:21-24). The lifting up of his hand indicates
an oath or vow made to God, doubtless when he started in pursuit, that if the
Lord would bless him he would not enrich himself by this war. His
disinterestedness is mingled with justice. He does not bind his allies by his
oath, and insists that they should have their lawful part of the spoils. The
reader will note here the first mention of tithes.
1. In the great foray of the fourteenth chapter of Genesis, what great
difficulties confront the reader?
2. Briefly outline the situation at the beginning of this episode.
3. What was the extent and nature of the empire of Chedorlaorner?
4. Describe the military campaign of Chedorlaorner.
5. Describe Abram's brilliant counterstroke.
6. To what modern general may Abram be compared in this marvelous campaign?
7. What two great events grace his triumph on his return?
8. Who broke the silence first after the first incident, and when does second
voice break another silence?
9. Name several theories of Melchizedek.
10. What is the first theory discussed and what are the arguments in favor of
it?
11. What is the second theory and the arguments for it?
12. The third theory and its arguments?
13. Was his offering of bread and wine a prototype of the Lord's Supper?
14. In what respect was he a type of Christ?
15. Why did Abram refuse reward from the king of Sodom?
1. Abraham's Despondency
2. The Vision of the Word of God.
3. Abraham's Conversion
4. The Sacrifices of the Covenant and Birds of Prey
5. The Waiting and the Darkness
6. The Trance and the Prophecy
On many accounts this history is one of unusual interest. A number of new words
confront us. Not before in the Bible record have we met the phrase, "The
Word of the Lord," or the corresponding name of God, uttered by Abram,
"The Lord God" (Hebrew, Jehovah Adonai), nor the words,
"vision," "shield," "believed." Here, too, for
the first time we come upon imputed righteousness, about which theologians in
all ages have much to say. If later doctrinal and denominational divergencies
took points of wide departure from the covenants, how much more from imputed
righteousness?
Here also we find the first clear statement that Abram's heir shall not be an
adopted son, but his own child, though a subsequent revelation must declare
plainly the child's maternity. And here also we find for the first time the yet
faraway date when Abram's descendants shall take possession of the Promised
Land, the reason for the long delay, a prophetic outline of their history for
400 years, and the exact boundaries of the territory to be occupied by them in
the day of Israel's greatest extension of empire. And here also is the first
minute description of an ancient covenant, the prototype of historic covenants
among men and nations for thousands of years.
But the most important new thing is the detailed account of a conversion to God
which becomes the model of all subsequent ages, with which even we today must
measure our own profession of faith. It has already been shown more than once
that the New Testament revelation is but the development and fruitage of Old
Testament revelation, but here emphatically we find the taproot of that
individual Christianity whose flowers bloom in all climes and times, countries,
and races.
Our last chapter revealed Abraham in the role of a matchless warrior triumphant
in strategy, celerity, battle, and pursuit, and then blessed by the priest of
the Most High God, and then towering above all contemporaries in a
disinterestedness concerning the spoils of victory that challenges the
admiration of the ages and furnishes a model too high for imitation by the
civilization of the nineteenth century nations. Maybe the twentieth century
will climb up to its sublime height.
But man's hopes and fears alternately prevail, like the swing of a pendulum or
like the succession of day and night. Abram seems startled at his own success,
and fears the prominence it thrust upon him. Kings have delighted to do him
honor) and nations glorify him for their deliverance. But instead of being elated
at these extraordinary manifestations of human approval, he finds in them an
occasion of apprehension. "Will they not excite envy and jealousy? Will
they not inspire hatred against the stranger who is only a sojourner among
them? Is it not true that
He who ascends to mountain tops shall find
The loftiest peaks most wrapped in clouds and snow;
He who surpasses or subdues mankind
Must look down on the hate of those below?
Then will not Chedolaorner, stung into madness by defeat, and chagrined that
the fruit of a great and victorious campaign is snatched from his hands by a
handful of men, call out a mightier army from the limitless resources of a
great empire and come back in irresistible might to avenge dishonor put upon
him by an insignificant adversary? And yet again doubt whispers, "And I am
not an impractical idealist to reject the present and substantial rewards of
victory? And concerning this proposed country, Do I own a foot of it, or is
there a rational prospect of it? And what about it all in any event? Am I not
old and childless, with only a servant for an heir?" How natural, how
realistic is every Bible story I How unattainable the naturalness by the
imitation of the modern novelist! We thus see the state of Abram's mind, which
prepares the way for…
"After these things the word of Jehovah came unto Abram in a vision,
saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield and thy exceeding great reward"
(Gen. 15:1). The place is Hebron. The time is night. The despondency, the
loneliness, the darkness, the doubt, and the fear call for a new revelation.
"The word of God came in a vision." The formula, "the word of
God," entirely new here, becomes quite familiar in subsequent history. The
word here seems to be a person. Is it not the divine Logos of John's first
chapter, and not a mere saying or message? Does it not address itself to sight
as well as to hearing? The word came in a vision, i.e., in mental perception.
Abram not only heard words, but saw the speaker. The mind may see an image
invisible to others in several ways:
(1) In a dream while asleep, as later in this lesson (w. 1217) and as vividly
described by Eliphaz:
Now a thing was secretly brought to me,
And mine ear received a whisper thereof.
In thoughts from the visions of the night,
When deep sleep falleth on men,
Fear came on me, and trembling,
Which made all my bones to shake.
Then a spirit passed before my face;
The hair of my flesh stood up.
It stood still, but I could not discern the appearance thereof;
A form was before mine eyes:
There was silence, and I heard a voice, saying,
Shall mortal man be more just than God?
Shall a man be more pure than his maker?
– JOB 4:12-17
In the dream we both see and hear.
(2) While awake in a trance, as in the case of Paul: "And it came to pass,
that, when I had returned to Jerusalem, and while I prayed in the temple, I
fell into a trance, and saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee
quickly out of Jerusalem; because they will not receive of thee testimony
concerning me" (Acts 22:17-18).
Consider another experience of the apostle: "But I will come to visions
and revelations of the Lord. I know a man in Christ, fourteen years ago
(whether in the body, I know not; or whether out of the body, I know not; God
knoweth), such a one caught up even to the third heaven. And I know such a man
(whether in the body, or apart from the body, I know not; God knoweth), how
that he was caught up into Paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is
not lawful for man to utter" (2 Cor. 12:1-4).
(3) Again, while in a normal waking state, without dream or trance, God may
render so acute a vision by the power of his Spirit that the thin veil between
the visible and the invisible becomes transparent. This is an immediate view.
See the case of the young man on the mountain with Elisha (2 Kings 6:15-17),
and the case of Stephen (Acts 7:55-56). A notable example of seeing face to
face, apart from dream or trance, is the case of Moses. All three of these
physical states of receiving revelation are thus set forth later: "And he
said, Hear now my words: if there be a prophet among you, I Jehovah will make
myself known unto him in a vision, I will speak with him in a dream. My servant
Moses is not so; be is faithful in all my house: with him will I speak mouth to
mouth, even manifestly, and not in dark speeches; and the form of Jehovah shall
he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant,
against Moses?" (Num. 12:6-8). Such immediate vision will ultimately be
the privilege of all the saints, says Paul: "For now we see in a mirror
darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know fully
even as also I was fully known" (I Cor. 13:12). The subject of God's
methods of revelation to man is a wide one, and full of interest, with which we
shall have much to do later. Then will we learn to pity that unhappy king of
whom it was written: "And when Saul inquired of Jehovah, Jehovah answered
him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets" (I Sam. 28:6).
The comfort of the word of vision to Abram lies in two particulars:
(1) "Fear not, I am thy shield." It is a
precious thought that the first Bible use of the word, "shield,"
refers to God as the defensive armor which will ward off every missile of the
enemy. Paul must have had this in view in citing the Christian's armor in
Ephesians 6:10-18, particularly 16: "Withal taking up the shield of faith
wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the evil one."
The shield of faith is God, behind whom faith shelters and trusts. With God
intervening what need Abram care for Chedorlaorner? Indeed, "If God be for
us, who can be against us?" President Andrew Johnson, in great peril, put
Grant between himself and the irate Edwin M. Stanton. With God between us and
our -roes we may sing all the triumphant and defiant songs of the Bible saints.
(2 Sam. 22:3; Psalm 28:7; 84:11; 119:114; Rom. 8:37-39.)
(2) "I am thy exceeding great reward." Thus God offers himself to
Abram as both safety and treasure. Offers himself as the spring of every joy
and the only satisfying portion. Heretofore he has excited Abram by the offer
of land, greatness, property, ambition, and children, but now he offers
himself. What are the rejected spoils of Sodom to this reward? If a man have
all things else and not God, he is poor indeed. If he has God and nothing else,
he is rich indeed. This is the only satisfaction to human hunger and thirst.
Well might the enlightened psalmist sing: "My heart and my flesh cry out
unto the living God." "As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so
panteth my soul after thee, 0 God. My soul thirsteth for God, for the living
God: When shall I come and appear before my God?" (Psalm 134: 2; 42:1-2).
Surely if God shall say: "The Lord's portion is his people" (Deut.
22:9), the Christian may respond with David: "God is my portion for
ever" (Psalm 73:26). It was because Moses saw and understood this
"recompense of the reward" that he refused to be called the son of a
princess, and counted the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures
of Egypt.
But the light has not come to Abram yet. "Lord God, what can you give me
in the way of reward that will amount to anything, seeing I am a childless old
man swiftly passing away, with only a bondservant for an heir?" The
visible Logos responds: "The slave shall not be thine heir, but thine own
son." And now the narrative assumes rapid movement. The hand of the
doubting man feels the electric thrill of the divine hand. He is led forth out
of the darkness of the tent into the open air and pointed upward to that
marvelous sight, the glorious star-gemmed sky of that Oriental land. Above him
through that dry, transparent atmosphere, gleams the splash of the Milky Way,
whose myriad light holders, like a clustered chandelier, mingle and intermingle
and weave their rays of light into one great bridal veil of silver glory, fit
ornament for a soul's espousal to God. Above him stream out the sweet and
unbound influence of the Pleiades and the gleam of the unclosed bands of Orion.
Mazzaroth is led forth in his sight by an unseen hand, and Areturus and his
sons march forth at the divine mandate. They declare the glory of God and make
known his invisible power and Godhead. Revelation whispers in his ear while nature
spreads out that other, that sublimely illustrated volume, "Count them if
able; so shall thy seed be in multitude." And the tone of every shining
star whispers to his heart, "Abram, the hand that made us is divine;
Abram, if God made and controls the stars, there is nothing too hard for him.
Abram, thy seed shall outnumber the stars, a multitude that no man can number,
out of every nation, and tribe, and tongue and kindred. Abram, thy seed shall
outshine the stars, for they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the
firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and
ever; Abram, have faith in God."
But alas! natural light cannot convert the soul and make wise the simple. He
turns from the map of the sky to the face of its Maker, in vision before him,
and hears his voice: "What are land and children and spoils and stars?
Abram, I am thy exceeding great reward, have faith in me." He quickens, he
thrills with new-born life, "He believed in Jehovah." Here first we
find the word "believed," in all the Bible. "HE BELIEVED,"
the biggest word that ever entered into the heart of man or fell from his lips.
Mark, too, the object of his belief. He believed in Jehovah. The Logos was with
God, that was God, and who later became incarnate, stood before him. He saw
him, for the Word came in a vision. That very Word, when incarnate, said to the
Jews: "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it and was
glad." Abram heard him, for the Word spoke unto him. He felt him, for the
Word led him forth. He believed in him and became a converted soul, yea, the
father of the faithful until the end of time. And God imputed it unto him for
righteousness.
Here every word of the fourth chapter of Romans becomes an exposition of our
lesson. The several points there made by the apostle are these:
1. Faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. His faith is counted
righteousness. The righteousness of God was imputed to him through faith. This
was not to him that worketh, but to him that believeth.
2. This faith comes before circumcision in order that he might be father of all
that believed, even though they be not circumcised Jews.
3. Righteousness was imputed by faith that it might be of grace to the end that
the promise might be sure to all his seed.
4. This was a living, moving, and growing faith. It took steps (Rom. 4:12). A
faith that will not walk is not the faith of Abraham.
5. It was the faith of regeneration (Rom. 4:17).
6. It made him the friend of God (James 2:23)
7. It was the model of faith in David's day (Rom. 4:6-8).
8. It is the model of our faith today. (Rom. 4:23-25) and the model of our walk
and work (Rom. 4:12).
9. It ripened into perfection by use, obedience and work. forty years later
when he gave up Isaac and had God alone (James 2:22-23).
1. Where in the Old Testament do we find an account of Abram's conversion?
2. In the account of his conversion, what mighty words or phrases appear for
the first time?
3. What three other things do we find here?
4. What was the most important new thing found here?
5. What. is the relation of Abram's conversion to ours?
6. What questionings arose in Abram’s mind, just after his great victory, which
prepared the way for the vision which followed?
7. What. was the place, time, and circumstances of the vision?
8. What is the meaning of "The Word of God" which came to Abram?
9. In what ways may the mind see an image invisible to others? Give an instance
of each case.
10. In what two particulars was the comfort of the "word of vision” to
Abram?
11. What is the meaning of "I am thy exceeding great reward" and the
application?
13. Following this, what question did Abram ask, God's answer to it and what
the method of impressing this upon Abram's mind?
14. What was Abram's response and what was the object of his faith?
15. What does our Lord say of Abram's faith?
16. Where do we find in the New Testament an exposition of this lesson and what
are the several points there made?
ABRAHAM'S CONVERSION (PART TWO) AND SOME SELECTED THOUGHTS Genesis 15 to 19:28
SACRIFICES OF THE COVENANT AND BIRDS OF PREY
We have discussed only three divisions of the outline given at the beginning of
the last chapter. The next item is "The Sacrifices of the Covenant."
Account of that is given in Genesis 15:9-11: "Take me a heifer three years
old, and a she-goat three years old, and a ram three years old, and a
turtledove and a young pigeon. And he took all these, and divided them in the
midst, and laid each half over against the other; but the birds divided he not.
And the birds of prey came down upon the carcasses, and Abram drove them
away." One of the most impressive sermons I ever read was delivered by a
Methodist preacher on the text: "Abram drove them away." His line of
thought was, that when we come before God with what he has required in our
hands, and put it before him, we have to wait his acceptance, and as a test of
our faith while he is waiting, the fowls come to destroy the sacrifice. The old
commentators used to represent the fowls as nations endeavoring to destroy the
people of Abram. Others refer it to the New Testament thought where, when the
seed was deposited, the fowls came and picked them up. The spiritual thought
is, whoever makes an offering to God, waiting, must see to it that the offering
is not spoiled by the enemies of God and man.
Abram waited until the sun was nearly down. There he was. He had passed between
the pieces. Night came, and a horror of great darkness came upon him. He still
waited. God had not signified his presence. Suddenly in a trance he sees a
smoking furnace and a shining lamp pass between the sacrifices. The shining
lamp is the Shekinah, the indication of divine presence. With the passing
through of the visible representation of God there comes a voice of prophecy:
"And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and lo, a
horror of great darkness fell upon him. And he said unto Abram, Know of a
surety that thy seed shall be sojourners in the land that is not theirs, and
shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; and also that
nation, whom they shall serve, will I Judge; and afterwards they shall come out
with great substance. But thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be
buried in a good old age. And in the fourth generation they shall come hither
again: for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet full." That is a
remarkable prophecy, that the descendants of Abram should go into bondage among
Egyptian people, but would come out in the fourth generation to the land
promised to Abram. Two reasons are assigned why Abram or his descendants should
not immediately have the land. It would be a long time before his descendants
would be sufficiently numerous and disciplined. Then the land was occupied by
the Amorites, whose iniquity was not yet full. God does not remove a people
until their iniquity is full. The promise, then, was made to Abram afar off. He
himself died in a good old age.
I want to notice a serious chronological difficulty. Genesis 15:13, says,
"And they shall afflict them four hundred years." Exodus 12:4,
"The time that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt was four hundred and
thirty years." Notice that difference of thirty years. Acts 7:6, "And
God spake in this wise, that his seed should sojourn in a strange land, and
that they should bring them into bondage and treat them ill for four hundred
years." That agrees with Genesis 15:13. Galatians 3:17, "A covenant
confirmed beforehand by God, the law, which came four hundred and thirty years
after." Paul states that it was back 430 years from the giving of the law
to the call of Abram. If that is so, how do you get 400 or 430 years in bondage
in Egypt, as it was 220 years from the call of Abram before they went into
Egypt? In my discussion on the covenants I took Paul’s New Testament statement
as the correct one, adopted by Archbishop Usher and given in your Bibles,
leaving only 210 years in Egypt.
Jehovah said to Abram, “Unto thy seed have I given this land from the river of
Egypt unto the great river, the Euphrates." I find Old Testament proof
that at one time Abram's descendants did actuary-possess all the country from
the eastern mouth of the Nile to the Euphrates. The sixteenth chapter opens
with a human attempt to fulfill the prophecy of God. In the fifteenth chapter
Abram said, "0 Lord Jehovah, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go
childless, and he that shall be possessor of my house is Eliezer of
Damascus?" And Jehovah said, "This man shall not be thine heir; but
he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels." Sarah, knowing that she
was barren, and that she and her husband were old, falls upon an Oriental
method by which Abram should have a son. She gives her handmaiden, Hagar the
Egyptian, to Abram as a wife in order that Hagar's child by Abram should be as
Sarah's child. She got herself, Abram and the handmaiden, the descendants of
Abram through her own son and through Hagar's son all into a world of trouble.
Once I kept worrying a teacher who had promised that in an hour he would go to
a certain orchard for some fruit. I waited and waited and asked him if it
wasn't most time. So he took an old-fashioned hourglass, filled with sand and
narrow in the middle so that the sand could run through in just one hour, and
said to me, "When that sand drops through we will go." I sat there
and looked at that hourglass. Finally I reached over and shook it. That was
human effort. It did not make the sand come a bit faster. So Sarah's shaking
the hourglass did not help matters. When the handmaiden found she was to be the
mother of Abram's child, she despised Sarah; Sarah began to quarrel and oppress
the handmaiden so that she ran away. We now come to a new expression (16:7),
"And the angel of the Lord found her by a fountain of water in the
wilderness." After this point that expression occurs often, and all the
circumstances go to show that it was a pre-manifestation of the Son of God. You
will see later that he is here spoken of as God. The angel prophesied to Hagar.
"Return to thy mistress and I will greatly bless thy seed, that it shall
not be numbered for multitude. Thou shall bear a child and thou shalt call his
name Ishmael because God hath heard thy affliction, and he shall be as a wild
ass among men; his hand shall be against every man, and every man's hand shall
be against him, and he shall dwell over against all his brethren." When I
was eleven years old a man in Sunday school asked where the passage was about
the boy who was to become like a wild ass. Every boy went home to find the
passage, and I determined to find it before I slept. Beginning at Genesis, I
read through until I found it, and what a thrill of joy went through my heart.
A gentleman in Arkansas who used to know me when a boy asked me this,
"What achievement of your life has filled you with the greatest Joy?"
I told him that it was catching my first 'possum. I was about seven years old
and had a bob-tailed brindle dog named Lupe. He got to smelling around an old
log, and finally pulled out a 'possum. I grabbed him by the tail and went home
shouting. Now the object of these general questions is to put you on a line of
thinking for yourselves. I asked my elder brother about Ishmael. In an atlas he
showed me. Arabia, and described the marvelous exploits of the people, and
particularly since they adopted the religion of Mohammed how their hands have
been against every man. They live. in tents and have camels and horses. Lew
Wallace tells about the Arab sheik whose fine horse Ben Hur drove in the
chariot race. Sir Walter Scott's Talisman treats of these Bedouins of the
desert. Strange that God's prophecy should designate the characteristics of the
descendants of this man for thousands of years.
Verse 13 says, "Thou art a God that seeth, Wherefore the well is called
Beer-Lahai-roi," meaning "living after, you have seen." You
remember the saying that no mortal can see God and live. She was persuaded that
God had met bex.
She obeyed his voice, and went back and became subject to Sarah.
I have selected certain thoughts for the reader's attention. The first relates
to the establishment of the covenant of circumcision. I would go extensively
into a discussion of that but for the fact that at the twelfth chapter we
discussed all the covenants with Abram.
The second thought is the enlargement in God's announcement to Abram. He now
not only specifies that Abram's son shall be his heir and not his bondservant, but
that he shall be a son of his wife, Sarah. It is characteristic of the Old
Testament prophecies to become more particular in each subsequent announcement.
Genesis 2 says, "The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's
head." As the light increases, this seed of the woman shall be a
descendant of Seth, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, David, more
particular all the time. In Hebrews, Romans, and Galatians this subject is
particularly discussed. In Hebrews we learn that God made an announcement to
Abram that involved a natural impossibility, but Abram staggered not through
unbelief. In one of these books there is a reference to the steps of Abram's
faith. When the general convention was in session at Dallas some years ago, I
was called upon to preach a sermon at the pastors' conference, and took for my
text, "The Steps of Abraham's Faith." Commencing with the statement
that a faith that cannot walk is a very puny child, I traced the steps of
Abraham's faith. When he was seventy years old, God called him out of Ur of the
Chaldees. He believed God, and stepped far enough to reach Haran. He halted
there till his father died, and took another step to the Holy Land. As each new
revelation of God would come his faith stepped higher and culminated in the
offering of Isaac, confident that God would raise him from the dead and
perpetuate his seed through him.
In this larger announcement God changes the name of Abram to Abraham, and of
Sarai to Sarah. Indians do not name their children until some exploit is
performed which gives them a name. We sometimes overburden our children with
names. A child who may have great facility in telling lies about cherry trees,
or anything else, we name George Washington. One without missionary spirit is
often named Judson, or a child without pulpit eloquence or faith we name
Spurgeon. My father did the same with his children. He named one for Richard
Baxter, author of Saints' Rest. He named me for Solomon's commander-in-chief
who succeeded Joab. We are very illustrious in our names. But Abram's name was
changed by an event in his life which evidenced great faith. In other words, it
is better to earn a name than to have a great name thrust upon us. Jacob's name
originally meant supplanter, which he was. In that great struggle where he
wrestled with God, his name was changed to Israel, a marvelous name, fairly
earned. We ought to be more concerned about the name that we merit than about
the name with which fond and over expectant parents burden us.
In the enlargement of this promise that his son would inherit, Abraham gives
utterance to an expression from which have often preached, and I give it to you
to preach from: "0, that Ishmael might live before you." Ishmael, his
son by Hagar, was about thirteen years old. Abraham was very much attached to
him, and fondly hoped that in him the family fortunes rested. Now comes God's
announcement that a child yet unborn should set Ishmael aside. How many times
in substance has a father prayed that prayer. Dr. Andrew Broadis, the elder, had
an illustrious son that he did not think much of. He had another son, his
Absalom, and prayed continually that this son might live before God. But that
son died a drunkard, while the other became a preacher as great as his father.
In the Prentiss family of Maine, the likely son died. There was a crippled boy
in the family called the child of his mother's hand, because he was kept alive
for five years t)y his mother's rubbing. The father said, "Oh, that it had
been the crippled boy that died." The crippled boy became S. S. Prentiss.
What the other boy would have been we do not know.
The next thought refers to Abraham's hospitality. Standing under an oak tree he
sees three illustrious visitors coming in the garb of men, and entertains them
with great hospitality. One of them proved to be the angel of the Lord, a
pre-manifestation of the Son of God, and the others, the angels that destroyed
Sodom. Upon that passage the writer of Hebrews says, "Be not forgetful to
entertain strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares." I
quoted that passage to a woman once who had a big house and never entertained
anybody. I told her how much the lives of families were influenced by
illustrious persons that stopped just one night. How Spurgeon's career was
shaped by an illustrious man who stayed at his father's house one night, and
next morning put his hand on the boy's head and prayed that God might make him
a great preacher and send him to preach the gospel to lost London. The boy
never got from under the power of it, nor did the family. This lady said if she
ever entertained any angels it was certainly unawares, for she had never found
it out. I have known my father to entertain seventy-five messengers at an
association. When we did not have enough beds, we scattered the cotton out and
put quilts down in the cotton house. When Waco was a village the First Church
entertained free of charge 3,500 visitors. They were there from every state in
the Union attending the Southern Baptist Convention. We did not have enough
homes, so after filling every hotel and boarding house, we went out two or
three miles in the country. When I paid the hotel bill next. morning it was
just $1,500. It did not hurt us. Nothing ever did Texas more benefit. The
railroads took it up and gave every one of them a free trip through Texas and
Mexico. It advertised Texas all over the world. I entertained forty men in my
house. Dr. Sears entertained forty women. His neighbors said he nearly broke
his leg so he might stay at home and talk. Anyhow, it was a blessing on his
home and mine.
While Abraham entertained these angels a renouncement is made that a son should
be born and to his wife, Sarah. Sarah was inside the tent. But women can hear
better than men. What I say downstairs my wife can always hear upstairs. Sarah
heard them and laughed aloud at the idea that an old woman like herself should
become the mother of a son so illustrious. When her child was born and she saw
how foolish it had been to laugh at the word of God, she named the child Isaac,
meaning, "laughter" – and what a sweet name!
After the entertainment the destroying angels start off to Sodom on their
mission. The angel of the Lord, walking with Abraham, asked the question,
"Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do to Sodom, seeing that I
know that he will command his children after him to keep my law?" Look at
the thoughts: Abraham by his faith had become the companion of God so that God
said, "I will have no secrets from Abraham as to my dealings with the
affairs of earth." By similar faith and life we get into confidential
relations with God, and he promises that we shall know things that others do
not know. Notice next the great act which made Abraham trustworthy: "For I
know that he will command his children after him." The great sin of Eli
was that he did not restrain his children. The great merit of Abraham was that
he did rightly raise his child Isaac. The great virtue of Jews to this day is
the reverence they have for parents and the obedience that children render to their
parents. The Gentile boy is like that wild ass of the desert we discussed. He
learns to call his father "the old man," and thinks it mighty smart
"to row his own boat," to "gang his own gait." A Jewish boy
would not dream of such a thing. They are a thousand miles ahead of us in this
respect. The curse of the present day is the ill regulated youth. Instead of
remaining children, which would be better, boys nine and ten years old become
manikins. A preacher found one on the streets one day and asked, "My son,
do you drink?" The boy, thinking it a disgrace if he did not, said,
"No, sir, I hasn't got to that yet but I chews and cusses." That is
the spirit of the boyhood of today. The Presbyterians are ahead of the Baptists
in training their children. They teach the Catechism better. We let the devil
take possession of our children and fortify himself before we begin to do
anything for their salvation, as a rule.
As soon as God announced the destruction of Sodom, Abraham commenced praying.
In all the Word of God and in all literature there is nowhere else to be found
such a prayer. He starts out, "Shall not the judge of all the earth do
right, and if he does right will he slay the righteous with the wicked?"
He asked if God would spare the city for the sake of fifty righteous men. God
said, "Yes." He took a forward step and asked God if he would save
the city for the sake of forty righteous men. God said, "Yes."
"Hear me once again, Will you not save the city if there be thirty?"
God said he would spare the city. "Will you spare the city for twenty's
sake?" God said, "Yes." Abraham made his last step, "Will
you save the city if there be ten righteous men?" With that precedent why
did not Abraham go to five? That leads to a thought presented by our Saviour in
the Sermon on the Mount, viz.: "Ye are the salt of the earth" as well
as "the light of the world." The world cannot be destroyed while the
righteous are in it. The reason why the fire has not leaped out of the storm
cloud and riven the earth with its fiery bolt is the good people of God that
are in the world. That only keeps cities, states, and nations from
instantaneous annihilation by the irrevocable judgments of God. The wicked do
not know that all that keeps them from sudden death and out of hell is the righteous
constituting the salt of the earth. When God raises the dead bodies of his
saints that sleep in the earth, and snatches up to the clouds the living
Christians that are changed, immediately, as by the following of an inexorable
law, fire worldwide seizes the earth, and ocean and continent are wrapped in
flames. The conserving power is gone.
I want you to barely look at what is too foul for public speech. Read it alone,
covered with shame, this last sin of Sodom which gives a name to a sin,
"Sodomy." Our courts recognize that sin, which is incorporated in the
common law of England and the United States. They sought to perpetuate this sin
that night and Lot restrains them. These angels of God whom they mistook for
men and upon whom they purposed to commit this sin, smote the lecherous crowd
with blindness. And after every one of them was stricken blind, they groped for
the door still to commit that sin. If you want a picture of the persistence of
an evil passion, when the heart is hard and the neck stiffened, when the soul
is incorrigible and obdurate, take the picture of these people, blinded by the
Judgment of God and yet groping for the door.
The record states that the angels told Lot if he had anybody in that city to
get them out mighty quick, and Lot went to his sons-in-law and urged them to go
out. My question is, Were they actually his sons-in-law? He had two daughters
at home. Did he have other daughters married to Sodomites? Or were the
sons-in-law merely betrothed, fiancés? An old backwoodsman first called my
attention to it, and I refer the matter to you. In the morning the angel
gathers the family out of the city as fast as he can. He says to Lot,
"Make haste. We can do nothing till you are out of the city." You
must get the good people out before a city can be destroyed. Notice the
lamentable fate of Lot's wife, an Old Testament woman immortalized by our Lord
in the great prophecy in Luke 17:32: "Remember Lot's wife." She
looked back and was turned into a pillar of salt. The angel said to Lot,
"Stay not in the plains." Lot said, "That is too far. Let me
stop at Zoan, this little city near by." Some of the funniest things I
ever heard in my life were connected with that text, "Is it not a little
one?" Like the Methodist preacher's sermon on "How shall Jacob arise
since he is small?"
The destruction that came was a good deal like the report given in Marryat's
novel, Poor Jack. When the father whipped his wife with a pigtail
off his head until she fainted, the doctor inquired, "What is the matter
with your mother? Is it external or internal?" The boy replied,
"Doctor, I think it is both." The destruction that came upon Sodom
was both internal and external. Fire came down from heaven, and the earth
opened and swallowed it. It had the characteristics of a volcanic eruption, an
electric storm and an earthquake. The destruction was instant and total and
down there under the water lie the relics of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the sea is
called the Dead Sea. No flesh or animal life is in it. Josephus says that when
you bite the fruit from the apple tree on its borders a puff of dust fills your
mouth. If you jump into it you do not sink. The Dead Sea, lower than the
Mediterranean, has no outlet. The Dead Sea that receives into its bosom all the
tides of the sacred Jordan from the .snows of Lebanon which come through
Galilee, waters upon which Christ walked, in which he was baptized; waters that
Elijah smote with his mantle; waters in which Naaman was healed of his leprosy;
waters the most famous in sacred history; that whole river is like a string on
which a necklace of pearls is strung, yet all that water goes into the Dead
Sea, which receives it and turns nothing out but dust and ashes. Harris, the
author of the book entitled Mammon, compares that sea to the Antinomian heart,
always receiving and never giving. It has become the image of eternal
destruction. Can you question whether God knows how to preserve the righteous
and his ability to punish the wicked and the sinner?
1. How was the covenant between God and Abraham ratified and how is the primary
meaning of the word "covenant" here exemplified?
2. What two interpretations of "Abram drove them away" and what is
the spiritual meaning of it?
3. What trial of Abraham follows this, how then did God signify his presence
and what word of prophecy accompanied it?
4, What two reasons assigned for the descendants of Abraham not immediately
possessing the land promised to him?
5. What chronological difficulty is pointed out and how do you solve it?
6. How did Sarah try to help the Lord fulfill his prophecy to Abraham and what
was the result?
7. How do you explain the appearance of the angel of the Lord to Hagar, what
prophecy did he make to her and what was remarkable about this prophecy?
8. What two elements of the enlargement of God's announcement to Abraham?
9. How did Abraham receive the first and what were the steps of Abraham's
faith?
10. Why did God change the name of Abram and what is the application?
11. In this enlargement to what expression does Abraham give utterance, its
meaning and application? Illustrate.
12. What can you say of Abraham's hospitality, who were the guests and what is
the blessing that often comes from such entertainment?
13. What is the origin and meaning of the word "Isaac"?
14. After the destroying angels departed for Sodom, what question did the angel
of the Lord raise, into what secret did he let Abraham and what great act of
Abraham made him trustworthy?
15. Contrast Jews and Gentiles on parental duty and what denomination of people
stands next to the Jews in training children?
16. Describe Abraham's intercession for Sodom and what was the teaching of our
Lord in point?
17. What is the name which indicates the awful sin of the Sodomites?
18. Did Lot have actual sons-in-law? If not, explain the reference to his
sons-in-law.
19. What was the fate of Lot's wife and what was our Lord's use of this
incident?
20. By what means were Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed?
21. What New Testament use was made of the judgment on these cities? (2 Peter
2:6-9; Jude 7.)
22. Ancient writers locate Sodom and Gomorrah at the southern, extremity of the
Dead Sea, modern writers at the northern extremity. What do you say?
23. What does the destruction of these cities symbolize and in view of the
permanent effect, what question does this forever settle?
THE LIFE OF ABRAHAM--(Concluded)
Genesis 19:29 to 25:18
This chapter concludes the life of Abraham. It covers over five chapters of
Genesis. The important events are varied:
1. Lot's history after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the
incestuous origin of the Ammonites and Moabites.
2. Abraham's dealing with Abimelech, the Philistine king.
3. The birth and weaning of Isaac.
4. The casting out of the handmaiden, Hagar, and Ishmael.
5. The great trial of Abraham's faith.
6. The death and burial of Sarah.
7. The marriage of Isaac.
8. Abraham's marriage with Keturah – their children.
9. Abraham's disposition of his property.
10. Death and burial.
11. Character.
All these events wonderfully illustrate Oriental life of that age.
Our lesson commences with Genesis 19:29: "And it came to pass, when God
destroyed the cities of the Plains, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot
out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in which Lot
dwelt." An examination question will be, To whom was Lot indebted for his
rescue from the destruction of Sodom? Verse 30 gives the origin of two famousù1
should say infamous – nations: Moabites and Ammonites. They resulted from the
incest with his daughters on the part of Lot. No nations have developed so
harmoniously with their origin. They were immoral, untrustworthy, every way a
blot upon civilization, the bitterest enemies of the Israelites, except the
Amalekites and Philistines.
The twentieth chapter returns to Abraham. He located in the territory of the
Philistine king. The Philistines, descendants of a son of Ham, originally
located in Egypt. But they get their name from their migratory habits. Leaving
the place that God assigned to them, they took possession of the southwestern
coast of the land which derives its name from them, in our time called
Palestine. They had not yet developed the confederacy of the five cities, like
the Swiss cantons, which they established later. Abimelech is not a name, but a
title, like Pharaoh. The Philistine king has more honor than any subsequent
king. We have discussed the responsibility of Abraham, making Sarah say that
she was his sister. She is eighty years old, but a most beautiful young woman.
God has restored youth to her and Abraham. Abimelech takes Sarah, but is
prevented from harming her through a dream God sent, warning him that she was
the wife of one of his prophets, and that he would die if he did not return
her. Abimelech justly rebukes them both. In v. 9 he says to Abraham, "What
hast thou done unto us? and in what have I offended thee, that thou hast
brought on me and my kingdom a great sin?" Abraham makes a very lame
excuse. Isaac repeats the very same thing with another Abimelech. To Sarah,
Abimelech says, "Behold, I have given a thousand pieces of silver; behold
it is for thee a covering of the eyes to all that are with thee; and in respect
of all thou art righted." The wrong that had been done by her captivity
was thus amply compensated. The text of the King James Version says she was
reproved. I think it was a gentle rebuke. Note the healing of Abimelech in v.
17 at the prayer of Abraham, just as we see the friends of Job forgiven at the
intercession of Job, and Israel forgiven at the intercession of Samuel and
Moses. What mighty power has the intercessory prayer of good men with God!
According to promise Isaac was born. Then Sarah becomes both inspired and poetical.
Her Magnification sounds like that of the virgin Mary. She said, "God hath
made me to laugh; every one that heareth will laugh with me." The child
was named Isaac, which means laughter. Some children are born to make parental
hearts sing with joy. Many children cause the parental heart to ache.
We come to another incident: "The child grew, and was weaned." And
Abraham made a great religious festival in honor of the weaning of Isaac. Sarah
saw the son of Hagar making sport and said to Abraham, "Cast out this
handmaid and her son; for the son of this handmaid shall not be heir with my
son, even with Isaac." It was a little hard on Ishmael. He had been the
only child, much loved by his father. He was taking a pretty wide swing in
affairs at the birth of Isaac, which, according to an old saying, "broke
his nose," and put him out of commission. So, although it was a religious
ceremony, Ishmael mocked, sinning against God, the father, mother, and child.
Sarah seems rather hard, but she was exceedingly wise. It was very difficult to
bring up two seta of children in a house where there is already a spirit of
jealousy. Ishmael would not have been a safe guide for his little brother. It
hurt Abraham very much. That night God appeared to him in a vision and confirmed
what Sarah had said. Paul quotes the words of Sarah in Galatians 4, "Cast
out the handmaid and her son." In that famous letter he says that Hagar
and Sarah are allegorical, representing two covenants: one according to the
flesh, Hagar, typifying Israel; the other according to the spirit, in which
Sarah represents the Jerusalem which is above. All true spiritual children of
Abraham are children of promise, born of the spirit. This interpretation throws
a great light on the incidents recorded here.
The story becomes still more pathetic when early next morning Abraham puts a
goatskin full of water and some bread upon Hagar's shoulder, and starts her and
the boy off. She struck out, trying to find the way to Egypt. But she got
tangled up in the desert. In a hot dry, sandy country it does not take long to
drink all the water a woman can carry. The water gave out. Ishmael was
famishing with thirst. The mother could not bear to see him die. So she put him
under a little bush to shelter him as much as possible, and drawing off to a
distance, wept and sobbed in anguish of spirit. And the angel of God spoke to
her, "What aileth thee, Hagar? Fear not; for God hath heard the voice of
the lad where he is." The boy, too, was praying. Once in preaching a sermon
to children I took that text. The other night my little boy asked me to repeat
a scripture before we had family prayer. I told him of the boy born to be a
wild man, against whom was every man's hand, and whose hand was against every
man. How that he and his mother had to leave home when he was a little fellow.
That hot walk in the desert, the insatiable thirst, and the mother going off to
pray. How it occurred to the little boy to pray, and how when he prayed God
heard the voice of the lad himself. Instantly my little boy spoke up and began
to tell of two or three times when he had prayed and God had heard him. I
encouraged him in that thought. I told him whenever he got into trouble, no
matter how small, to pray; just as a child to tell God, and while nobody on earth
might hear him, his Heavenly Father would hear even a whisper. I tell you this
that you may impress upon young people the fact that God heard the voice of the
lad himself. At the Arkansas convention in Texarkana, I preached a sermon for
Dr. Barton's church. A mother came to me before preaching and said that she had
two boys in whom she was very much interested, and wanted me to pray for them
that day. I said, "Suppose you tell those boys to pray while I
preach." She told them, and at the close of the sermon they were happily
converted. Dr. Barton baptized them that night, both at one time, holding each
other's hands. It made a very impressive sight. Having heard about this, when I
returned later to Texarkana, another mother came and stated a similar case. I
told her to ask the lad to pray himself. That boy was converted and joined the
church at the close of the service. In lecturing to the Y. M. C. A. in the
afternoon, before I commenced my talk, I raised the point that God could hear
anybody in that audience of five hundred men. There were some very bad cases,
men who had stained their homes, grieved their wives, darkened the prospect of
their children. I told them that God would hear them even on the brink of hell,
if they would turn to him and pray, "God, be merciful to me, a
sinner." One man stepped right up and gave me his hand. At night all the
churches worshiped at one church. I preached to within ten minutes of train
time, and left without knowing the result. But with two preachers to call out from
the audience the people who would take God at his word, and judging from the
seeming impression, there ought to have been a great many conversions there
that night. I would be glad if every preacher would take that text, "I
have heard the voice of the lad where he is," and preach a sermon. Get it
on the minds of the children that God will hear them. "God opened her
eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went and filled the bottle with
water, and gave the lad drink. And God was with the lad." That is the second
part of the text. First, I have heard the voice of the lad himself; second, God
was with the lad.
His mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt, and he became the father
of twelve nations. I have told you about the Arabs, the descendants of Ishmael.
They hold the ground where Abraham, Sarah, Jacob, Leah, Isaac, and Rachel were
buried. There is an immense structure built at that place. Until 1869 they
would not allow a Gentile to enter, but in that year the Prince of Wales was
permitted to go inside. The remainder of the chapter states a remarkable
covenant between Abraham and Abimelech. It became evident that God was with
Abraham and nobody could harm him. Abimelech wanted a covenant with that kind
of a man. In my preaching I used to advise sinners never to go into business
with a backslidden Christian, for God will surely visit him with Judgments, and
he may come with fire to burn up the store. Anyway, a backslidden Christian is
an unsafe partner. But what a fine partner is a Christian who is not a
backslidden one. Abraham said that he ought to rectify a certain offense.
"I dug this well in order to water my stock and your servants took
it." Abimelech righted the wrong. They took an oath of amity toward each
other, so that the place was called Beersheba, i.e., the well of the oath. That
marks the southern boundary of Palestine as we regard it.
I am going to give you the salient points of the twenty-second chapter, which
presents the most remarkable incident in the life of Abraham. God had said that
in Isaac was all Abraham's hope for the future. God determined to try the faith
of Abraham. It has been forty years since his conversion, and he has been
stepping up higher and higher until you would think he must have reached the
heights and graduated. But the crowning touch to his faith is to come now. God
said, "Take now thy sou, thine only son, whom thou lovest, even Isaac, and
get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt
offering." It was a staggering request, and yet Abraham staggered not in
unbelief. He thought, "What will become of God's promise?" In Hebrews
it is explained how he argued it out and trusted. If God said, "Put Isaac
to death," he would do it, but God had said that through Isaac was to come
the Messiah. So it would be necessary for God to raise Isaac from the dead.
They set out early. If they had waked Sarah and told her what they were going
to do, there probably would have been a row. So they took their servant, a
mule, and some wood, and started to distant Mount Moriah, where Jerusalem is.
As they drew near the place, Isaac, who had been doing some thinking, says,
"Father, here is the wood and the fire, but where is the lamb for the
sacrifice?" It had not been mentioned what his part was. Abraham answered,
"My son, the Lord will pro-, vide a sacrifice." They reached the
place near where Christ was later crucified. Abraham built the altar and placed
the wood upon it. He commenced binding Isaac. The son, never saying a word,
submitted. He stretched him over that altar, and drew his knife over the boy,
and already in Abraham's mind Isaac was dead. But just as the knife was about
to descend, God said, "Abraham, Abraham, stay thy hand. Isaac shall not
die." He looked around and there in a bush was a ram caught by its horns.
He took that and offered it.
There are two marvelous lessons to be derived from this incident. The most
significant is that God made Abraham feel the anguish that God felt in giving
up his only begotten Son to die for man. Abraham is the only man that ever
entered into the sorrow of the Divine Mind in giving up Jesus to die. When he
is bound on the cross and prays, "Save me from the sword," the Father
cries out, "Wake, 0 sword, and smite the Shepherd." When he cries,
"Save me from the enemy that goeth about like a roaring lion," and
when he prays, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from
me," it was not possible if anybody was to be saved. The other thought is
that as the Father consented to give up his Son, so the Son obediently
submitted. Thus Isaac becomes the type of Christ. And Abraham called the name
of the place Jehovah-jireh, "it shall be provided." When I was a
young preacher I preached a sermon on all the double names of Jehovah found in
the Old Testament, such as Jehovah-Elohim, Jehovah-Tsidkena, Jehovah-jireh,
etc.
Now we come to a passage that made a great impression on the mind of the author
of the letter to the Hebrews. "And the angel of the Lord called unto Abram
in a second time out of heaven, and said, By myself have I sworn, saith
Jehovah, because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son,
thine only son, that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will
multiply thy seed as the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is upon
the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in thy
seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my
voice." That matter is discussed in Hebrews, Romans, and Galatians. When I
was a young preacher I used to delight in preaching from this passage, and I
like it yet, Hebrews 6:16, "For men verily swear by the greater; and an
oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing
more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his
counsel, confirmed it by an oath: that by two immutable things, in which it was
impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled
for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: which hope we have as an
anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within
the veil." In order to assure every child of God that his hope is well
grounded and that he cannot be disappointed, two things in which it is
impossible for God to lie are joined and twisted together to make a cable which
is fastened to the anchor of hope: one, the promise of God, the other the oath
of God. In commenting upon that Paul said that, though it was a covenant with a
man, because it was confirmed by the oath of God, it could not be disannulled.
In v. 20 we find, "And it came to pass after these things, that it was
told Abraham, saying, Behold, Milcah, she hath also borne children unto thy
brother Nahor; Uz his firstborn, and Buz his brother, and Kemuel the father of
Aram, and Chesed, and Hazo and Pildash, and Jidlaph and Bethuel. And Bethuel
begat Rebekah." That incident is put in to prepare for a subsequent
chapter, showing where Isaac got his wife. My wife's brother, when he was a
little fellow, came to his mother and wanted to know who were the boys that
milked a bear. She said she did not know. He said it was in the Bible, so he
read, "Those eight did Milcah bear." Then his mother told him of the
old Hardshell preacher's sermon on that text, to this effect: They got out of
milk at a certain house. The only available source was a she bear, and so the
sturdy boys roped her and brought in the milk.
The twenty-third chapter, which gives an account of the death of Sarah, and the
purchase of a burial place by Abraham, is a very interesting historical account
because it gives all the details of a noted business transaction, showing how
Orientals dealt in their trades. Notice particularly the v. II, what Ephron
says, "Nay, my lord, hear me: the field I give thee, and the cave that is
therein, I give it thee; in the presence of the children of my people gave I it
thee: bury thy dead." If an Englishman or an American had said that, it
would have meant an outright gift, but for an Oriental or a Mexican, he expects
the full price. If you enter a house in Mexico they will tell you everything is
yours, cows, lambs, etc., but don't you take for granted that it is so; it is
just soft speech. Notice in closing this transaction that the currency was not
coin, but weighed silver. Silver and gold were not put in pieces of money, but
in any form; as, rings, bracelets, or bars, counted by weight; not numbered.
The twenty-fourth chapter tells how marriages were contracted in the East, and
is an exceedingly interesting bit of history on that subject. Abraham brings
out a revelation that God had previously made that we have no account of
elsewhere, viz.: that God had told him not to marry his son to any of the
idolaters of the land, but to his own people who were worshipers of God. So
Abraham took Eliezer and swore him. The form of the oath is given, showing how
these solemn oaths were taken between man and man. This head servant, taking
ten camels, struck out from the southern part of Palestine, going to the
Euphrates, a long trip, though common for caravans. He is much concerned about
his mission and says to Abraham, "You tell me not to take Isaac there
because God told you never to take your son back to that country." There
is another revelation, not previously recorded. "Now, suppose when I get
there the girl won't come to me?" Abraham said, "That will exempt you
from your responsibility, but God will prosper you in this, his arrangement,
and will govern you in everything." We have a description of this old man
falling on a plan by which a sign would be given. He sat down near a well and
waited for the women to come and draw water. In this country men draw the water
– we don't expect women to draw enough water for a herd of cattle. His plan was
that he would steadily look at the women who came and fixing his mind on one,
he would ask her to give him a drink, and if she inclined the bucket to him and
said, "Let me water your camels," she would be the one. Later we find
Jacob falling upon the same method. In our time young men manage to find their
wives without signs or omens. So when Rebekah, granddaughter of Nahor, brother
of Abraham, came out, a beautiful virgin, and he asked her for a drink, and she
let her pitcher down and held it in her hand, and then offered to water the
camels, Eliezer knew she was the right one. He took a ring of gold, a
half-shekel in weight, two bracelets for her hands, ten shekels in weight, and
said, "Whose daughter art thou? Is there in thy father's house a place for
us to pass the night?" She told him who she was, and that there was a place
and abundant provisions for him and his camels.
So when she got to the house she reported the case and her brothers came out.
Her father was a polygamist, and the eldest of each set of children was the
head. So Laban, Rebekah's brother, came out and invited old Eliezer in. Food is
set before him, but he says, "I will not eat until I have told my
message." Laban told him to tell it. And he said, "I am Abraham's
servant. And Jehovah hath blessed my master greatly; and he is become great;
and he hath given him flocks and herds, and silver and gold, and men servants
and maid servants, and camels and asses. And Sarah, my master's wife, bare a
son to my master when she was old; and unto him hath he given all that he
hath." That was a very fine introduction. Whenever you open negotiations
with a young lady's father for marriage in the case of a young man whose father
is very wealthy and this son his only heir, you have paved the way for a fair
hearing. He strengthened the case by stating that under the inspiration of God
he was forbidden to take a wife from among the idolaters, but was commanded to
come to this place for a wife, the idea of appointment by God, a match made in
heaven. Some matches are made of sulfur, not in heaven. He gave his third
reason. "Not only is my master's son rich, and I am here under the
arrangement of God, but after I got to this place, I let God give me a sign to
determine the woman." Having stated his case he says, "If you will
deal truly and kindly with my master, tell me; and if not, tell me, that I may
turn to the right hand or to the left."
In the King James Version, Eliezer's speech has a translation that used to be
very famous as a text. He says, "I have come to seek a bride for my
lord." A Methodist preacher in Edward Eggleston's Circuit Rider, preaching
from that text before an immense congregation, says, "My theme is
suggested by the twenty-fourth chapter of Genesis," and gave a little of
the history. "Now," he says, "I am here to seek a bride for my
Lord, to espouse a soul to God. And like old Eliezer, I am under an oath of
God. Like him I am not willing to eat until I have stated my case. And like him
I have come by divine appointment. And like him I have tokens of his spirit
that somewhere in this congregation is the bride of God. And like him I
commence wooing for my Lord by stating whose son he is. He is the Son of God.
He is very rich. He is the heir of all things in the world." Edward
Eggleston, in telling that story, relates that Patsy, a beautiful girl, who had
despised religion and circuit riders, was wonderfully impressed by the sermon.
It was the custom in the early days of Methodism to demand that women should
eschew jewels, basing it on a New Testament expression about bad worldly
ornaments. So while the preacher was exhorting and pleading for a bride for his
master, Patsy commenced taking off her earrings, loosening her bracelets, and
putting them all on the table. Then she said, "I seek to be ornamented by
the One to whom you propose to espouse me, even the Lord Jesus Christ. I lay
aside the trappings of external wealth and splendour, and look for that quality
of spirit that best ornaments a woman." Paul says, showing that the
Methodist preacher was not going out of the record, "I have espoused you
to Christ."
The custom was for the betrothal to take place at the house of the bride's
father, and Eliezer comes in the name of his master and the betrothal is
undertaken. The marriage is consummated whenever the bride is taken to the
bridegroom's house, and he meets and takes her in. The virgins of Matthew 25
are all espoused, but the bridegroom has not yet come to take them to his
house. When Eliezer had stated his case the father and brother say, "This
thing proceeds from Jehovah, and it is a question we cannot answer. Behold
Rebekah is before you. Take her and go, and let her be the wife of thy master's
son." As soon as the betrothal is completed, Eliezer according to custom,
takes the lady to his camel and hands out the presents sent by the bridegroom.
"And the servants brought forth jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and
raiment, and gave them to Rebekah, and he gave also to her brother and her
mother precious things." We perpetuate that somewhat in our marriage
festivals when friends bring bridal presents. According to an Eastern custom a
bridegroom makes presents to the bride's mother and family. As these samples of
the richness of Abraham were displayed, they felt still better satisfied about
the judiciousness of the marriage.
Next morning Eliezer wants to start right home, but they said, "Let the
damsel stay awhile. You stay a couple of weeks or months." But Orientals
always expect the answer, "No, I am in a hurry. I must go." So they
proposed to leave it to the girl. I have often wondered if they were going to
leave anything to her. They called Rebekah and she said, "I will go."
That leads me to remark what a singular thing it is that a girl raised in a
loving family, sheltered by parental care from even a cold breath of air, the
pride and light of the house, all at once, on one night's notice, pulls up
stakes and leaves the old home, saying to a man pretty much what Ruth said to
Naomi, "Where thou goest I will go. Where thou lodgest I will lodge. Thy
God shall be my God, and thy people shall be my people, and God do so to me, if
I ever cease from following after thee." And yet, it is God's providence.
So Rebekah and her maids, and the servant of Abraham and his men struck out
from Haran on the Euphrates, on that long pilgrimage, south to Damascus; to the
headwaters of the Jordan; then down either side of the river until you come to
Hebron, where the bridegroom was. Just before Rebekah gets to Hebron, it
happened that Isaac was out, taking a walk for meditation. In such a period of
a young man's life, he is given to meditation. When you see a young fellow that
has always wanted to be surrounded by a crowd of boys, getting up early in the
morning and taking a long walk by himself, there is something up. So Isaac was
out on this meditating expedition, and Rebekah saw him. She instantly slipped
down from the camel and put the veil over her face. The bridegroom could never
see the face of the bride until he took her into his house. That part I do not
think I would like. In the East the women are secluded until after their
marriage.
The next chapter gives us an account of Abraham we hardly expect. Sarah has
been dead sometime, and he took another wife, Keturah. Then there is a
statement of their children and the countries they inhabit. They become mostly
Arabs. We find this in 25:5: "And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac.
But unto the sons of the concubines, Hagar and Keturah, that Abraham had,
Abraham gave gifts; and he sent them away from his son Isaac, while he yet
lived, eastward unto the east country." Though he made provisions for all,
his general estate went to the child of promise.
Abraham lived 175 years and died in a good old age, full of days. Brother Smith
used that expression in conducting the funeral of President Brooks' father.
Going from the funeral I asked my wife, who is a good listener to a sermon of
any kind, what Brother Smith said. She said, "He had the usual things to
say on such occasions, but brought out the biblical interpretation I am not
sure about. He interpreted 'full of days' to mean 'satisfied with his days.'
" I said, "He certainly is right. Old age and full of days are
distinguished thus. A man might live to be an old man and not be full of days.
Every retrospect of his life might bring him sorrow." I am afraid few people,
when they come to die, can say with Paul, "The time of my exodus is at
hand, and I am ready to be poured out full of days. I have fought a good fight.
I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up a crown which God the
righteous judge shall give to me."
The next noticeable expression is, "He was gathered to his people."
That does not mean that his body was deposited in the family burying ground. As
yet no member of his family was in the cave of Machpelah except his wife. In
the Old Testament the expression refers to the soul and is one of those
expressions that teach the belief in the immortality of the soul and the
existence of the soul separate from the body. Next, Isaac and Ishmael bury him.
The last time we saw Ishmael was at the weaning of Isaac, when he was mocking.
Both are married. Ishmael has a large family. The fathers of these
nationalities that are to be distinct until the second coming of Christ, come
together at the father's grave. It is very touching that these two boys whom
the antagonism of life had parted, whom the very trend of destiny had led
separate, when the father died, came back without antagonism to bury him.
The chapter then gives a brief account of the generations of Ishmael, which
constitutes one of the sections of the book of Genesis. Note the fact that
according to the promise made to Ishmael, he becomes the father of twelve
tribes. He died at the age of 137. Verse 18 says, "Before the face of his
brethren he abode." That expression means that he dwelt in the sight of
his brethren, yet separated from them, living his own independent life.
Abraham is now dead. Here is a question I put to every class in Genesis.
Analyze the character of Abraham and state the constituent elements of his
greatness. I give you some hints. (1) His mighty faith, the father of the
faithful, whose faith took steps and staggered not through unbelief, no matter
how often or hard it was tried. That is the supreme element of his greatness.
(2) His habit of religion. He took no "religious furloughs" when he
travelled, as some men do. Wherever he stopped he erected an altar to God. Some
years ago at Texarkana, some young men got on the train, and among them a
Baptist preacher, and all were drinking. Finally one of them turned to him and
said, "I won't drink with you any more unless you will promise to quit
preaching." He was away from home and thought nobody knew him. (3) His
capacity for friendship. He was one of very few men counted the friend of God.
Christ says concerning some of his people, "I call you not servants. I
call you friends, and ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command
you." Abraham was also a friend of his fellow men. No man or woman, no
matter what the external conditions, who is not capable of great, strong,
undying friendship, can be very great. (4) His love of peace. He said to Lot
concerning the strife between the herdsmen, "Let there be no strife
between us. Though I am the older and came here first, you can take the land
you want and I will take what is left." Lot selected the fertile plain of
the Jordan and pitched his tent. Wherever Abraham went there were warlike,
quarrelsome tribes, men who lived with swords on and daggers in hand, yet he
had no quarrels. (5) But as we have seen, when necessary to make war, he struck
fast, hard, and effectively. He evinced great courage. (6) His independence of
character. He would not accept a gift from Ephron the Hittite a burying place
for his dead. He would not accept as much as a shoestring from the spoils of
the Sodomites, which he had recovered in battle from the Babylonians, lest the
king of Sodom should say, "I have made Abram rich." (7) His justice.
In an old reader there is a legend that a stranger, lost and in trouble, came
to his tent. Abraham cared for his stock, washed his feet, gave him food and a
place to sleep. But when the man started to lie down, Abraham seized him and
said, "You cannot sleep under my tent. You propose to lie down without
thanking God for these blessings!" He put him out and the man went to
sleep outside of the tent. In the night came a voice from heaven,
"Abraham, where is the guest I sent?" "Lord, he came; I treated
him kindly, but when I saw how unthankful to thee he was, I cast him out."
"Abraham, I have borne with that man many years. Could you not bear with
him one night? I sent him that you might lead him to me." Abraham,
weeping, went out, and brought the man back in his arms. (8) Governing his
family. "I know Abraham, that he will command his children after
him." (9) His unswerving obedience. (10) His affection and provision for
his family. He loved his wife very much, and made provision for every member of
his family before he died. These are some of the characteristics of the
greatness of Abraham. They are homely virtues, but they are rare on that
account.
1. To whom was Lot indebted for his rescue from the destruction of Sodom?
Proof?
2. What was the origin of the Moabites and Ammonites and how does their history
harmonize with their origin?
3. In whose country does Abraham locate after the destruction of Sodom, of
which son of Noah were they descendants and what the origin of their name?
4. Who was king of this people, what was Abraham's aim here and what notable
example of intercessory prayer?
5. Recite Sarah's Magnification and give a New Testament parallel.
6. What was the occasion of Ishmael's sin. that drove him and his mother from
home, what was the sin itself, the wisdom of Sarah, the divine approval and the
New Testament use of this incident?
7. Tell the story of Hagar and Ishmael as outcasts, what text cited in this
story, and what the application?
8. Whom did Ishmael marry, how many nations of his descendants and who are his
descendants today?
9. What was the covenant between Abimelech and Abraham and what advice to
businessmen is based thereon?
10. What great trial of Abraham's faith and how did he stand the test?
11. What two marvelous lessons from this incident?
12. What blessing from heaven on Abraham because of his obedience in this test
and what New Testament impress of this passage?
13. In the great trial of his faith when Isaac was offered, how was Abraham a
type of the Father?
14. Why the incident of Genesis 22:20-24, given here, and what the text and
Hardshell sermon cited?
15. What of particular interest in the twenty-third chapter, what Oriental
custom here exemplified and what was the medium of exchange?
16. What two new revelations in Genesis 24, and tell the story of how Isaac got
his wife.
17. What famous text is in this passage and what noted sermon cited on it?
18. What was the custom of Oriental marriages and what New Testament scripture
does it illustrate?
19. What part of the Oriental marriage do we perpetuate in our marriages and
with what modifications?
20. What part did Rebekah have in this affair and what eastern custom does she
comply with upon her first sight of Isaac?
21. Who was Abraham's second wife and who were his descendants by this wife?
22. How old was Abraham when he died and what is the meaning of "full of
days"?
23. What is the meaning, both negatively and positively, of the expression:
"He was gathered to his people," what touching thing occurred at his
funeral and what was the meaning of "Before the face of his brethren he
abode"?
24. Analyze the character of Abraham and state the constituent elements of his
greatness.
We take up the story of Isaac and Jacob. The closing paragraphs of Isaac's
history are recorded in Genesis 35:28-29, his death and burial. There is an old
saying, "Blessed is the nation which has no history." History is
devoted to extraordinary events. A thousand years of quiet and peace find no
description in the pages of history. A few years of wars, pestilences, and earthquakes
receive much attention. Isaac may be called the patriarch without a history.
I wish to refer first to his mother. An examination question will be: What New
Testament passages refer favorably to Sarah? The answer in Hebrews 11 says that
she is a woman of faith. By faith she was enabled to bear seed. 2 Peter 3:6,
places her above the woman of Peter's time as a model in subjection and
obedience to her husband and the laws of maternal relation. The apostle Paul in
Galatians 4 makes Sarah the type of the Jerusalem which is above – the mother
of us all.
We have considered in previous lectures the things which went before Isaac's
birth. As early as Genesis 12:3, God had promised that in Abraham's seed all
the families of men should be blessed, but Abraham thought that could apply to
an adopted child as well as a real child. When the promise is spoken a second
time, it is expressly stated that it should be his own child. Then Abraham did
not know who the mother would be. But the third statement was that it was not
only to be his own child, but by his wife, Sarah. So according to Paul, Isaac
comes into the world the child of promise, and by a miraculous birth. In this
respect he is the type of all Christians who are regenerated, born of
supernatural power.
In contrasting Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, we find Isaac unlike his father and
son in the following particulars: He was unlike them in age. He lived to be 180
years old; neither of them lived that long. In the matter of travel: Isaac
never got out of the sight of the smoke that went up from the tent where he was
born. With a compass you might draw a circle with a radius of 100 miles around
his birthplace as a center, and he was never beyond that circle. He was never
north of the city of Jerusalem; east of the river Jordan; south of the South
country where Beersheba was; never west of the Mediterranean Sea. No man of his
age and with his wealth traveled so little. Again, he was unlike both father
and son in his marriage relations. He had but one wife, and she bore him only
two children, both at one birth. He was as pure a man in the marriage relation
as ever lived in the world. He was unlike both father and son in his
passiveness, i.e., he had no spirit of aggression or self-assertion. He was
never in a battle. There were very few stirring events in his history. But when
you read the lives of Abraham and Jacob many mighty and thrilling events come
up. Unlike father and son, he became blind in his old age and nearly helpless.
You might say that Jacob's life commenced with a struggle, and was under the
clouds the early years, but about the middle of his life the sun shines out,
and the sunset is unclouded. Isaac commenced life with laughter and ended with
sorrow. The record tells of his building only one altar, though he may have
built others. He offered only one prayer, the prayer for his wife. God appeared
to him only twice, but to Jacob and Abraham many times. He was like Abraham in
one fault, duplicity concerning his wife to the king of the Philistines. He was
like both father and son in being a prophet of God.
The record passes over the happy years of his life, most of the 120 years. If
you have read Thomson's Land and the Book, or any modern book
about the South country, you have a vivid description of the kind of land where
he lived. No perennial streams, scarcely any trees, bleak mountains and plains,
in the spring a beautiful country of flowers, but they last only a short time.
I have seen at least forty varieties of them gathered from the fields where Isaac
lived. The water question was a great question in his life, as of all the
patriarchs, there being little rain and the streams entirely dry the greater
part of the year. So they had to dig for water. And one may imagine the growing
up of this boy under favorable and happy circumstances, loved by his father and
mother, scarcely any troubles, quietly Jiving his life in a tent, amid flowers
and flocks and herds.
The record does tell about his trials. I give you a list. They commenced when
he was weaned, at three years old. At that time he wag very much persecuted by
his big brother, Ishmael, who was fourteen years older. That strong wild boy,
superseded by the coming of Isaac, persecuted the little fellow, and if I had
to say under what sense of wrong my soul was most indignant in my youth, it
would be in observing rude, big boys, being cruel to timid little fellows at
school. Nobody can tell through what horrors a timid soul passes in going out
in public life and coming in contact with rougher beings. Especially is this
true in schools, and where hazing is permitted, it is perfectly awful. The next
sorrow was when he was offered up. He was then about twenty and had lived in
perfect peace about seventeen years. Next when his mother died. He could not be
consoled for several years, because she was everything to him. He was the child
of his mother. There is a legend – I do not call it history – that when Abraham
took Isaac to offer him up he told Sarah and broke her heart and caused her
death. You don't get that out of the Bible, however. The next trial is one that
a good many children come in touch with, the introducing of a stepmother into
the family, but the record does not indicate that there was any trouble between
Isaac and his wife and Keturah, the second wife of Abraham. The next, a very
great sorrow, was that his wife bore no children. He had been married twenty
years, and it troubled him much, knowing the promise of God. But instead of
seeking to fulfill the prophecy as Abraham and Sarah had done, he carried the
case to God in prayer. The Lord heard him and promised that children should be
born to him. The next trial was the death of his father. His twin boys, Jacob
and Esau, were about fifteen years old. So the grandfather lived long enough to
know the boys thoroughly. The next trouble was when the famine came, and he had
to go into the land of the Philistines, and he was afraid that Abimelech or
some other ungodly man would kill him in order to get his wife. It does not
always follow, however, that other people are as anxious to capture our wives
as we think they are. But it nearly happened in this. case.
We now come to the culminating period of Isaac's life, Genesis 26:12-28. He is
now in the country of Abimelech: "And Isaac sowed in that land . . . and
there Isaac's servants digged a well." There Abimelech and Phicol made a
covenant with him and from now on his sorrows multiply. The next sorrow arises
from a little transaction concerning a mess of pottage. You remember the
prophecy that the older child of Isaac should serve the younger. The mother was
partial to Jacob. Esau, a man of the plains, and a great hunter, was loved by
his father. The mother instructed her son to help out God's prophecy. She
watched her chance. The chance came when Esau returned from hunting, tired and
hungry, and Jacob had Just made a pot of red pottage. Esau's own name meant
red-headed, and people don't have red heads for nothing. Esau said to Jacob,
"Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red pottage, for I am faint."
And Jacob said, "I will give it to you if you will acknowledge that the
birthright belongs to me." That was driving a hard bargain, but Esau was
so hungry that he sold the birthright. Isaac did not say a word, but in his own
mind he determined to bestow the blessing on Esau, because he loved him most.
The next trouble comes in Esau’s marriage. Esau married two idolatrous women,
and the record states that it was a great grief to Rebekah and Isaac. The next
calamity is that Isaac begins to go blind. Next the great deception was
practiced on him by his wife and Jacob. Feeling that he might soon pass away he
determined as a prophet to bestow the blessing on the firstborn, on Esau. So he
told Esau to go out and kill venison and fix him a savory dish. Isaac liked
Esau's venison, somewhat of a sensual man. I am told that it is a
characteristic of some preachers these days to like savory dishes, and woe to
the preacher who has to preach at night after eating a big dinner of mince pie
at twelve o'clock! Rebekah seemed to have a listening ear and heard Isaac
talking to Esau. Now she is going to help God out. Isaac willed that Esau
should have the birthright. Esau ran to kill the venison. Jacob and Rebekah
plotted to defeat him. So she put Esau's clothing on Jacob, as Esau was a hairy
man. Rebekah told him to kill and dress a kid and tell the old man it was
venison, and that he was Esau. It was a very villainous transaction. Jacob
brought the kid and the father said, "Is this my son Esau?" and Jacob
said, "Yes, father." Isaac said, "Come here, let me feel."
He felt of the garment and said, "The touch is like Esau, but the voice is
like Jacob." Anyhow he ate the dish of kid and pronounced the blessing on
Jacob. Here is that blessing in poetic form:
See, the smell of my son
Is as the smell of a field which
Jehovah hath blessed;
And God give thee of the dew of heaven,
And of the fatness of the earth,
And plenty of grain and wine:
Let peoples serve thee,
And nations bow down to thee:
Be lord over thy brethren,
And let thy mother's sons bow down to thee:
Cursed be every one that curseth thee,
And blessed be every one that blesseth thee.
There Isaac gives Jacob power over his brother, thinking he was giving it to
Esau. Now the question arises and Paul argues it in Romans 9, how could God
approve such fraud as that? Well, God did not approve it. Paul says, "It
is not of him that willeth." Isaac willed to give it to Esau. "It is
not of him that runneth." Esau ran to get the venison. It was not of Jacob
and his mother, but of the election, God having decreed before the children
were born, before either one had done good or evil, that the younger should be
the one through whom the Messiah should come.
The most touching thing was when Esau came back: "And it came to pass as
soon as Isaac had made an end of blessing Jacob, and Jacob was yet scarce gone
out of the presence of Isaac, his father, that Esau, his brother, came in from
his hunting. And he also made savoury food, and brought it unto his father; and
he said unto his father, Let my father arise, and eat of his son's venison,
that thy soul may bless me. And Isaac, his father, said, Who art thou? And he
said, I am thy son, thy firstborn, Esau. And Isaac trembled exceedingly, and
said, Who then is he that hath taken venison and brought it me, and I have
eaten of all before thou earnest, and have blessed him? Yea, and he shall be
blessed. When Esau heard the words of his father, he cried, Bless me, even me,
0 my father. Jacob hath supplanted me these two times: he took away my birthright,
and behold he hath taken my blessing." And Isaac answered:
Behold, of the fatness of the earth shall be thy dwelling,
And of the dew of heaven from above;
And by thy sword shalt thou live, and thou shalt
serve thy brother;
And it shall be as thou rovest at will, thou wilt
shake off thine enemy.
In one of the old prophets it is said, "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I
hated." That refers not to the persons of Jacob and Esau, but to the
nationalities. Esau was heathen, and Jacob was Israel. None of this work of
election in any particular had anything to do with the character of either.
None of it with the wishes of the father and mother. It was God's sovereign
disposition of the case and touched the descendants rather than the two
persons. Hebrews 12:16 brings out the character of Esau a little more plainly:
"Lest there be any fornicator or profane person, as Esau, who for one mess
of meat sold his birthright. For ye know that when he afterward desired to
inherit the blessing, he was rejected; for he found no place for repentance,
though he sought it carefully with tears." That used to trouble me. It
looked like Esau wanted to repent of his sin and God would not forgive him. I
will read it to you according to the true rendering: "For he found no place
for a change of mind in the father." It was not Esau's repentance, but
Isaac's repentance. Don't ever misapply that scripture. That was a great
trouble to Isaac. And as for the rascality of Jacob and Rebekah, they had to
bear a heavy burden. Esau determined to kill Jacob and his mother seat him away
and never saw him again.
The next thing was the death of his brother Ishmael; then the death of his
wife; and afterward the departure of Esau. There he was alone, father, wife,
brother dead, one son banished and another gone away. Then Jacob came and
comforted him in his last illness. I have given you an outline of the sorrows
of Isaac, but there are really two that I have not mentioned, viz.: Jacob had
gotten to the Holy Land on his return, but had not reached his father's house
when Rachel died. Isaac was living, but he never got to see Rachel. Joseph was
sold into slavery and Isaac never saw him, then comes the death of Isaac.
Let us look at the character of this man. He was intensely religious, domestic and
peaceful; passive in his resistance to evil and in one event of his life a type
of Christ; when he got to the mountain he carried the wood upon which he was to
be offered as Christ bore his own cross until he fainted. A type of the
Christian is his miraculous birth. When we come to consider Jacob and Esau
further attention will be given to these details. In the grave of Machpelah, by
the side of his father Abraham, and mother Sarah, Isaac and his wife Rebekah
were buried. And to this day the Arabs point to the casket which contains the
remains. This is the culminating period of the prosperity in the life of Isaac.
So we now pass to the…
In the first of the chapter on Isaac we have necessarily considered somewhat
the incidents of Jacob's life up to the time that he left his father's home. It
was then said that those incidents would be examined more particularly when we
studied Jacob's own life. Oliver Wendell Holmes, in reply to the question, How
early should the education of a child begin? replied, "Commence with his
grandmother." To a great extent certainly most lives are the mixed results
of preceding forces. Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, are all in some
degree reproduced in Jacob. Oliver Wendell Holmes also says, "A man is an omnibus
in which all his ancestors ride." Don't forget these two quotations. This
thought he embodies and illustrates in his book Elsie Venner. The object of
that book was to show how conflicting ancestral traits struggled for supremacy
in this girl. We might add that every life is a result of many forces,
including the following: (1) God; (2) the devil; (3) heredity; (4)
individuality; (5) environment; (6) opportunity; (7) education; (8) habits. We
will be little prepared to analyze or comprehend Jacob's life, if we lose sight
of any one of these forces. So far in Jacob's life individuality has bad but
limited place, since he has been under the dominion, or domination, of his
mother. Individuality comes most into play when we are thrown upon our own
resources, and are responsible for our own decisions and have to make our own
way. We will find in this history that Jacob appears to much greater advantage
when his own individuality comes into play than when he was under the influence
of another. We will find the value of his past habits in his taking care of
himself and making a support, and that, too, under very adverse conditions,
more adverse than that of any of you boys, hard as you think your lot is. We
are going to like Jacob a great deal better as we get on in his history than we
do at the start. It has been well said that no hunter is a good businessman.
This holds good from Esau to Rip Van Winkle. The domestic habits of Jacob, and
his training in caring for flocks and herds, serve him well in after life. From
his mother and her family comes his shrewd business sense. Woe to the man who
expects to get rich trading with Jacob. He is a prototype of all Yankees and
modern Jews in driving close bargains. Hunter Esau was the first victim to
"cut his eye-teeth" on that fact.
But before we study the individuality as manifested when thrown upon his own
resources, we must refresh our minds with a backward glance at his history as
given in previous chapters. His parentage, Isaac, son of Abraham, and Rebekah,
granddaughter of Nahor, Abraham's brother. But a mightier factor than parental
influence or heredity touches him. Prophecies and mighty doctrines were on
their way toward him before be began to be. God comes before parents. The
divine purpose and the divine election touching his life will look far beyond
the personal Jacob, and be far above and paramount over affection, will,
weakness, or duplicity of parent or child, long after the earthly actors are
dead. Yea, into thousands of years of the future the foreknowledge,
predestination and election of God will project themselves until the whole
human race becomes involved in Jacob, and until eternity and everlasting
destiny comes. Deep and wide as may be this shoreless ocean of the divine
purpose, we are permitted to look at it, so far as revealed, though it be
unnavigable by the human reason. Prophecies: The first prophecy directly
affecting. Jacob is God's answer to the mother's inquiry concerning the infants
in her womb. "Two nations are in thy womb, and two peoples shall be
separated therefrom, and one shall be stronger than the other people and the
elder shall serve the younger." This prophecy evidently refers not so much
to the boys themselves as to their descendants. Indeed in its wider
significance it concerns all nations more than the two nations. So referring,
it considers neither parental bias, nor character of either child. It is not a
divine decree fixing the eternal destiny of either child. For reasons
sufficient to himself, God of his own will selects one of these nations to
become his people and through whom he will savingly reach all other peoples.
The second relevant prophecy appears in Isaac's blessing on Jacob: "And
God give thee of the dew of heaven and of the fatness of the earth, plenty of grain
and new wine." That is temporal. "Let peoples serve thee and nations
bow down to thee." That is national. That refers to the primogeniture.
"Cursed be every one that curseth thee and blessed be every one that
blesseth thee." That is the prophecy of the twenty-seventh chapter. This
prophecy is restated and enlarged in the blessing on Esau, as follows:
"And thou shalt serve thy brother, but it shall come to pass, when thou
shalt break loose, thou shalt shake his yoke off thy neck" (Gen. 24:40).
These two prophecies, like the first, find their real meaning in the descendant
nations, rather than in Jacob and Esau personally. Esau himself never served
Jacob himself. Their application to the nations rather than to the brothers
themselves appears in the last Old Testament book, Malachi 1:2-5: "Was not
Esau Jacob's brother? saith Jehovah, yet I loved Jacob, but Esau I hated, and
made his mountains a desolation." It is evident that Malachi in his day,
thousands of years after Jacob and Esau, is not discussing the two men
personally, but Jacob the people, and Edom, Esau's people. This national
application is also evident from Paul's use of the Genesis and Malachi
quotations in Romans 9:10-13. He is there discussing God's election of Israel
to be his people, and how that nation, on account of infidelity, was cast off
and the Gentiles took their places. He is proving that doctrine from this
quotation from Malachi. All this prophecy, Paul says, illustrates God's
sovereign election. But so far it is the election of a nation. Personal
election of an individual Christian is not so far discussed. The personal
privilege conferred in this is the primogeniture conferred on Jacob. In what
did this right consist? I am sure to ask that question on examination. The
answer is: (1) Rule in family and tribe; (2) A double portion of the
inheritance (Deut. 2:17); (3) The priesthood of the family and the high
priesthood of the tribe. In England the right of primogeniture still prevails
to a large extent. The eldest son inherits the father's estate, and in order to
support that property they have the "Law of Entail," that the
property cannot be alienated, but must pass down to each first son. The income
may be used in providing a portion for the other children, but the principal
must remain intact. That is one of the special privileges our forefathers
objected to. Jefferson and his colaborers determined to abolish both of these
laws as far as they applied to America. The history of Virginia shows various
steps of legislation undertaken by Jefferson, and aided particularly by the
Baptists, in destroying these laws. A man may bequeath his property by will,
but that will is subject to legal investigations. It can be broken if he
unjustly deprive any child of a fair share of the inheritance. The original
prophecy that the elder should serve the younger was never forgotten by the
mother, and through her it was made known to her favorite son, Jacob. In both
of them arose a desire to hasten the fulfillment of that prophecy. Like Sarah,
their impatience could not wait for God himself to fulfill his word. Now comes
another examination question, What was the first step taken to hasten its
fulfillment? That mess of pottage business. I will not recite the history, but
I will ask you on examination to analyze Jacob's sin in that transaction, and
Esau's sin. The analysis of Jacob's sin is: (1) Presumption toward God by human
instrumentality to hurry up God's purpose. (2) Unfilial toward Isaac. (3)
Unfraternal and inhuman toward Esau to take advantage of his extremity by a
sharp bargain. (4) It was snatching at a promise before it was ripe. The
doctrine involved is: You may do evil to bring about a good thing. That is the
doctrine of the Jesuits, abhorrent to God's Word. This evil rather delayed
matters. It brought on Jacob the intense hatred of Esau. The analysis of Esau's
sin is: (1) He was sensual; the satisfaction of present desire seemed greater
than future blessing. (2) There was profanity in his sin; he despised the
sacred primogeniture. How does the Old Testament characterize Esau's sin?
"He despised the birthright." How does the New Testament? "He
was guilty of profanity." Any act of irreverence is profanity. There has
come a proverb from that transaction: "Don't sell your birthright."
Who has written a book entitled The Mess of Pottage You will find
it in the book stores, but I do not recommend it to you. Ben Franklin has a
similar proverb. When he was small, a man had a whistle which he made very
attractive. Ben Franklin, so intense in his desire to get that whistle, gave
the man everything he had. But when he walked off he felt very much
dissatisfied; it did not whistle as well as he thought it would. It taught him
this: Never pay too much for a whistle. John Bunyan, in Pilgrim's Progress, has
a picture hanging in the interpreter's house: Two boys, Patience and Passion.
Passion rushes up and says, "Father, give me all my goods right now."
The father gives him the goods and he soon spends all. But Patience waits for
the right time. Many people are so governed by appetite that though they may
know that the commission of an offense will wreck their future career, they
forget the future in their lust.
What was the second step to hasten the fulfillment of the promise? It consists
in the concerted action between Rebekah and Jacob to deceive blind old Isaac
and have him bless Jacob, confirming the right of primogeniture. I shall now
proceed to analyze the sin of Rebekah in this transaction. Rebekah's sin
consisted in presumption toward God in doing an evil thing and in the
overweening power over Jacob's character, who did.. not want to do it.
"Honoring the mother," was carried beyond the legitimate limit.
Children ought not to obey their parents in committing a crime. Jacob's sin
consisted in making his mother's desire greater than the promptings of
conscience and regard for God's will. This did not help the purpose a particle.
How does the New Testament show that it did not help the purpose? "It is
not to him that willeth, like Isaac, nor to him that runneth, like Esau, but it
was of God." It intensified Esau's hatred against his brother: "He
cheated me out of my birthright by trade, and now out of my father's blessing.
I will kill him." Esau was the fellow to do it. He would boil over, and in
anger would kill anybody. So to save the favorite child the mother sent him
away and never saw him again. She did not make anything, "but it is true
that both of these evil steps were overruled by the providence of God for good.
1. Why may Isaac be called a "patriarch without a history"?
2. What New Testament passages refer favorably to Sarah?
3. What three revelations to Abraham concerning the "child of
promise" and of what is this child in his birth a type?
4. In what respects of life and character did Isaac differ from his father,
Abraham, and his son, Jacob?
5. For what does the New Testament commend him? (Hebrews 11:20.)
6. Describe the land where he lived. What was the great problem of his life?
7. Though the most of Isaac's life was joyful and peaceful, he had some trials
and sorrows. Tell them.
8. Cite scripture showing culmination of Isaac's prosperity.
9. In which one of the trials was he a type of our Lord?
10. What prophecy was Jacob trying to have fulfilled in the "mess of
pottage" translation? Was it right to seek its fulfillment in this way?
11. How did Isaac undertake to nullify the trade between Jacob and Esau and how
was his plan defeated?
12. Did God approve such transaction and what Paul's explanation of it?
13. What pathetic incident followed and what was the blessing upon Esau?
14. What is the meaning of the name "Jacob" and from what incident
originated?
15. What is the meaning of "Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I
hated"?
16. Give the character of Esau as interpreted in the New Testament and what
other name had Esau?
17. In Hebrews 12:17, was the blessing that Esau vainly sought salvation?
Explain, then, the passage: "He found no place for repentance, though he
sought carefully with tears."
18. What two sad events after Jacob's return to the Holy Land before he reached
his father's house?
19. Describe the character of Isaac and in what was he a type of Christ?
20. With whom, according to Oliver Wendell Holmes, must a child's education
begin?
21. What other saying of his bears on heredity?
22. What book did he write on ancestral traits?
23. What forces are factors in every human life?
24. When does individuality come most into play and the application to Jacob?
25. What was the mightiest force that touched Jacob, what was the prophecies
concerning him and what is the application of these prophecies?
26. What was Paul's use of the first of these prophecies together with Malachi
1:2-5?
27. What was the personal privilege conferred on Jacob in these prophecies and
blessings?
28. In what did the right of primogeniture consist and what traces of this in
history?
29. Analyze Jacob's and Esau's sin in the "mess of pottage"
transaction and what was the doctrine involved?
30. How does the Old Testament characterize Esau's sin? The New Testament?
31. What is profanity and what proverb from the transaction? Illustrate.
32. What were the sins of Isaac, Rebekah, Esau, and Jacob, respectively, in the
transaction about the blessing?
JACOB'S CONVERSION AND LIFE IN HARAN
Genesis 28:10 to 31:55
Now we come to an important event in Jacob’s life, his leaving home to be
absent many years, and his conversion. How different his leaving from old
Eliezer's! Eliezer went openly, with a large train and many handsome presents.
Jacob had to slip off, without money, an exile and afoot. From this time on the
man's individuality will come out. This chapter gives an account of his
conversion, the great event of his life, 28:1018. That dream was God’s method
of communicating with this lonely man. The ladder in that dream, according to
John's Gospel, represents Jesus Christ, the connecting stairway between earth
and heaven, upon which angels descend to earth and ascend to heaven. In that
dream Jacob saw a grand sight for any man. Earth and heaven had been separated
by sin with earth's inhabitants under a curse. By grace that chasm was spanned
by the coming of the Redeemer. Upon that stairway angels come to earth and
carry back their reports. Jesus said (John 1), "Hereafter you shall see
the angels of heaven ascending and descending upon the Son of man,"
showing that he fulfilled the type of Jacob's ladder. Dr. Richard Fuller has a
marvelous sermon on Jacob's ladder. He was the great orator of the Southern
Baptist pulpit, tall, finely formed, handsome, his voice as a silver bell, and
as sweet in its melody as the whisper of an Aeolian harp. It is said that no
man could interest a crowd following Dr. Fuller in a speech. He is the only
man, other than Dr. J. L. Burrows who has preached the Convention Sermon more
than once in the Southern Baptist Convention. People were carried away by the
man and his personality. He was one of the few rich men who are called a man of
great intellectuality. Read his sermon on Jacob's ladder, and also the one on
"The Cross of Christ."
Jacob awakened from his sleep and said, "Surely Jehovah is in this
place," and he called the name of that place Bethel. "And Jacob vowed
a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go,
and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, so that I come again to
my father's house in peace, and Jehovah shall be my God, then this stone, which
I have set up for a pillar, shall be God's house: and of all that thou shalt
give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee." There is the evidence of
his conversion, his keen sense of divine presence and realization of the import
of divine communication, his recognition, as if for the first time in his
hitherto unworthy life, of his relations to God and the fixed purpose that came
into his heart from that time on to serve God, and to honor God with the
firstfruits. Here we come to the second mention of tithing before the giving of
the law on Sinai. We have seen before that Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek.
This man is changed from this time on. He does not lose his shrewd business
sense, but he is godly and prayerful and believes that wherever he goes God is
with him. That is the secret of a religious life. The conviction that there is
a direct connection between earth and heaven, and that every angel in heaven,
to the extent of his power, is pledged to the companionship and protection of
every child of God, and that Jesus Christ is the connecting link between earth
and heaven, and that through sickness and health, good and evil report, God
will be with his people, is a sure basis of a good life. That consciousness
brings out the purpose, "I will serve and honour God with everything that
I have." I remember, while sitting in the back end of a wagon, I read this
passage to my wife. The circumstances were these: At the close of the War
Between the States, though crippled with wounds, and bankrupt, I voluntarily
assumed an antebellum debt of $4,000, not legally my own, and had finally paid
all by selling everything I bad but wife and baby, and was moving to a church
on the promise of $500 a year. I said, "Now, wife, here is a time to
settle our financial relation to God. We haven't got a thing, and we are sure
to fail if he is not honored by us, and if he is honored we will succeed. Let
us enter into a covenant right here that whatever happens we will give God
one-tenth of every cent that we ever make." We did from that time on. I
have long since passed that limit. For many years I have been giving one-fifth,
and some years two-fifths. So here was the event that changed this man's life.
What matters it that he was banished from home and alone, without friends and
without money? If God' was his portion he was rich no matter how poor. If God
was with him he had company, no matter how lonely. If God was for him, who
could be against him?
The rest of this chapter we devote to Jacob's life in Haran (Gen. 29 to 31:55),
a period of twenty years. He enters tliat country afoot, with nothing but the
clothes he had on and the staff in his hand. He comes out an exceedingly rich
man, very much married, with twelve children. Another son was born later. The
lesson commences with telling how he arrived at Haran and stopped at the well,
perhaps the same at which old Eliezer stopped when he went after a bride for
Isaac. Here he meets Rachel, the one woman throughout his life he was to love.
She was a little girl about ten or twelve years old, or she would not have bad
charge of the flock by herself. But in Oriental countries a girl of twelve is
equal in maturity to a girl of seventeen here. It was a case of love at first
sight. He never loved another woman while he lived. After they were made known
to each other (v. II), "And Jacob kissed Rachel and lifted up his voice
and wept." My first question is, Why did he weep after kissing that girl?
I leave that for you to find out. When Brother Truett and his wife were here,
looking toward each other just about like Jacob and Rachel, and we were passing
over this, I gave that same question. Some of the class answered, "He wept
because he had not commenced that work sooner." And one ill-natured young
preacher said, "He wept because Rachel had been eating onions." But
Brother Truett's wife gave the true answer. See who of you will give it.
The next remark is on the v. 14: "And Laban, the father of Rachel, said
unto him, Surely thou art my bone and my flesh. And he abode with him a month
of days," i.e. he stayed as a guest for a full month. A guest must not
stay too long. So naturally Laban raised the question of something to do, and
said to Jacob, "Because thou art my brother," which means kinsman,
"shouldst thou, therefore, serve me for nothing? Tell me what shall be thy
wages." Laban proposes a business transaction. Look at it. Jacob says,
referring to the two girls – Leah, the elder, was not beautiful and her eyes
were weak, but Rachael was beautiful of form and countenance – "I will
serve thee seven years for thy younger daughter. It was the custom for the bridegroom
to give presents, and in the Orient today a man in a measure purchases his
wife. But Jacob had nothing to give, but he was to serve seven years without
other wages. Young men of the present day think if they serve for a girl thirty
days that it is a great tax on them, and they begin to think how much they have
paid for ice cream, streetcar fare, buggy rides, theater tickets, etc., and
begin to bring matters to a focus. They have not the love that Jacob had. And
his proposition was accepted. Next, v. 20, "And Jacob served for Rachel
seven years, and they were in his eyes but a few days for the love he had for
her." There is a remarkable proof of the genuineness of his love. This is
one of the most illustrious cases of deep, personal, lifelong attachment that we
have any historical account of, and has become proverbial: "Serve seven
years for Rachel." At the end of the seven years he claimed the
fulfillment of the contract. Now this young man who had practiced the deception
upon his old, blind father, has a deception practiced upon him. Laban is very
tricky and unscrupulous. All that crowd up there are shrewd traders and sharp
bargainers. Whoever deals with them has to keep both eyes open, and not sleep
in the day, and not sleep very sound at any time in the night. They are that
way till this day. The manner of consummating the marriage, the betrothal of
which had lasted seven years, is very simple: In a formal way the father veils
the girl and at night turns her over to the bridegroom. That ends the ceremony.
I have seen a letter today from a judge who occupies his seat for the first
time, and he says one of the first acts of his administration was to marry a
couple and he tells of the ceremony, too simple to repeat, but it does not make
much difference about the form, the fact that the transfer has been made and
accepted establishes the validity.
Here comes a general question, What ill-natured English poet, in order to
illustrate what he calls the disillusions that follow marriage said, "With
Rachel we lie down at night; in the morning, behold it is Leah"? I don't
agree with him at all. There have been thousands and thousands of marriages
where there was not only no disillusion after the marriage was consummated, but
an ever-deepening, lifelong attachment. I expect if some woman had written a
couplet she would have put it: "With George Washington we lie down at
night, and in the morning, lo I it is Benedict Arnold." It sounds smart,
but you ought not to have any respect for any man who reflects upon the
sanctity of the marriage relation. I knew a couple who married early, the man
about twenty-three, and the girl about eighteen. After twenty-five years had
passed the man said, "I have not been anywhere in the world that she has
not been with me. Even when I go hunting, fishing, traveling, she is with me.
And there has never been an hour since I married her that I had not rather be
with her than with anybody else in the world." And the woman said the same
thing. I think that kind of testimony is much better than the English poet's
testimony.
Jacob was very indignant at the cheat perpetrated upon him. He did not love
Leah, and he did not want her at all. The explanation that Laban made is so
thin that it won't hold water. It is not true that in the East you cannot marry
the younger until the older is disposed of. Laban then said, "As soon as
the week of wedding festivities is over, I will let you have Rachel, provided
you will serve seven more years. You can take her at the end of the week, but
you take her on a credit until you have served the seven years." Jacob
made that trade. Fourteen years of hard work! I want you to think of that
whenever you think of the bad things Jacob did; think also of the good points
in the man.
Now we come to the evils of polygamy forced upon Jacob. He never wanted but one
woman, but this trickery of his uncle gave him two, and the jealousy of these
two wives fastened upon him two more; so that there were two wives and two
concubines. For quite a while the strife between the two wives goes on. What
kind of a home do you suppose that was? Among the Mormons they do sometimes
give a separate house to each wife, but others put a dozen in the same house.
Jealousy is certain to develop and cause conflict among the children. A
struggle between these two wives is manifested in the names given to the
children. Leah, in these seven years, bore Jacob seven children, six sons and
one daughter. Rachel bore one son, Joseph, and afterward another. The two
maidservants bore two each. That makes twelve sons. I will call the names out
in the order in which they were born. Reuben, Leah's firstborn, means
"See, a son." It expresses her pride, that Jacob's firstborn was a
son, and not a daughter. Simeon, her second, means "a hearing": that
she asked God, as the love of her husband had not come when Reuben was born as
she supposed, to send her another child, but Jacob still did not love her.
Levi, her third, means "a Joiner"; "Now I will be joined to my
husband." But he did not join them. Judah, her fourth, means "praise";
"Praise Jehovah for the blessing that has come upon me, now that I have
borne four sons to my husband." When Bilhah, Rachel's handmaid, bore a
son, Rachel named him Dan, meaning "a judge"; "God has judged my
side of the case." When Naphtali, the second son, was born to her
handmaid, Rachel names him "wrestling." She had wrestled in prayer to
God for still additional hold on the husband. Then Zilpah, Leah's handmaid,
bore a son and he is named Gad. The literal Hebrew means "good fortune,"
but when we come to interpret it in chapter 49, it means "7 troop,"
i.e., four sons have already been born on the Leah side and here is another.
That means there is going to be a troop of them. Her next son is named Asher,
which means "happy" – happy in getting the advantage of Rachel. Then
Leah herself bears another son, Issachar, which means "reward." Her
next son, Zebulun, means "dwelling." "I have borne six sons to
my husband. Surely he will dwell with me." When her daughter was born she
named her Dinah, which means "vindication": "God is vindicating
my side of the marriage relation." At that time Rachel bore her first
child and she named him Joseph, "May he add, as I now have a start."
Later on, Rachel's last son is born, and dying she names him Benoni, "the
child of my anguish." But the husband steps in and for the first time gets
to name one of the children. He names him Benjamin, "the child of my right
hand." These are the twelve names bestowed on the sons. When we come to
the dying blessing that Jacob pronounces in chapter 49 upon all of the
children, we will see some additions to the names and the characteristics there
brought out. These titles come from what the mothers thought of the twelve
children at the time they were born, but the names from chapter 49 come from
the developments of character in the boys themselves. In Deuteronomy 33, where
Moses pronounces the blessing on the twelve tribes, calling them by their
names, he leaves out one of the twelve altogether, and brings in new titles not
based upon what was in the mother's mind, nor upon the characteristics of the
twelve sons, but upon the characteristics of the tribes descended from the
sons. In Revelation 12, we will come upon another list of them, where the
reference is not at all to the reasons heretofore expressed in their names but
to the later tribal characteristics. As we pass along I, will ask you to
compare these four lists of the children of Jacob. You know we have four lists
of the twelve apostles, and sometimes different names for the same person. Yet
more particularly will I call your attention to the birthright man. Reuben, the
firstborn, is entitled to the right of primogeniture. You will find out later
how he loses it, and how the several elements of the right of primogeniture are
distributed among three other sons of Jacob. At the end of the fourteen years
Jacob claimed the fulfillment of his contract. Up to this time he had not made
anything, except the wife that he wanted. He has a large family, no money or
property, but rich in this family. A young man of the present time, encumbered
with twelve children in fourteen years of married life, would think himself
pretty much hampered, particularly if he had no bank account, cotton field, or
big salary. Now the question comes up about a new contract. God had marvelously
blessed Laban on account of Jacob. Jacob had attended to his business so well,
being competent from habits of earlier life to which I called your attention in
a previous chapter, that Laban did not want to lose Jacob. Jacob makes another
proposition: "You shall not pay me any salary, but I propose that we leave
it for divine providence to designate how much I ought to get. Most of the
sheep are white, brown, or black, an unmixed colour. I propose that my part
shall be the speckled, striped or ringstreaked." Laban looked over his
flocks and found only a little sprinkle in all the multitudes not having a
solid color. So he accepted the proposition. He was a very shrewd old man.
Before the contract goes into effect he moves every one that is already
ring-streaked, striped, or speckled, three days' journey from Jacob, and puts
them in the hands of his sons and says to Jacob, "We will start
even." Jacob said nothing, but God was with him, and we have here
presented in the history how Jacob got rich, and the expedients that he
resorted to in order that the flocks might bear striped, speckled, and
ring-streaked. And we learn how God intervened that Jacob, who had been working
fourteen years and had been cheated, might have compensation. Through Jacob's
expedient, and particularly through divine providence, Jacob's flocks
increased. Old Laban looked on and it puzzled him. Laban's children looked on
and it puzzled them. The pure white and solid colors began to get fewer and
fewer. Jacob's flock began to multiply beyond all human calculation. What
follows? Laban's sons begin to talk about it: "This stranger has come up
here. He did not have a thing when he came to our house. He is managing this
business and getting all of our father's property. After a while there won't be
anything to divide between us." Laban heard the boys talking and he agreed
with them. When he would pass Jacob he would look at him sideways and would not
speak to him. Jacob saw a storm was brewing. God came to him in a vision and
said, "Return to thy native land. It is time to go, twenty years have
passed." Jacob did not know how his wives would stand on the matter. So he
sent for them to come out to the field. He would not talk to them about it at
the house. He stated the case fairly: how badly he had been treated, and wanted
to know if the wives would stand by him and would go with him. They told him
they would, and he might have known it. A man need never be afraid, if he is a
good husband, of her not standing by him. Everybody else in the world may go
back on him, but a good wife will be true. Laban was away on a three days'
journey, so they decided to strike out without letting him know. And to add to
it, Rachel went into Laban's house and stole his teraphim, little images of
idolatry and divination. Just as Demetrius, the silversmith at Ephesus, made
little models of the temple of Diana at Ephesus, so they could tie them around
their necks or put them in their pockets and carry them around with them.
Wherever they felt like worshiping, they could bow down before this little
trinket, or as they now tie crosses around their necks, or when they get up
they bow down before that cross or little image of the virgin Mary. Now, the
question comes up, Why did Rachel steal the teraphim? That is what I want you
to answer. I have my own opinion, but I don't want to force it on you now. One
may answer that she was herself at heart an idolater, at least in part. Now,
you may adopt that, if you want to, for your answer. It is not mine. They
started at a good time. Laban was gone to that other flock, and they knew he
would not be back for three days and that they would have three days the start.
So they crossed the Euphrates and set out with many servants, cattle, sheep,
goats, and quite a sprinkling of children and only four wives. It was a pretty
big caravan. I don't know just which way Jacob went. He may have gone down to
Damascus, and from Damascus to Gilead.
Three days passed before Laban heard of it. He cornea home after shearing his sheep
and wanted to find his little gods, but he could not find them. Then he went
out to look for his interests in that other herd, and lo, Jacob was gone. So he
rallied a party, a flying column, without women or children, flocks, or other
hindrances, on swift dromedaries, or horsesù1 suppose dromedaries – and at the
end of seven days he caught them near the mountains of Gilead. But the night
before he caught up with them old Laban had an experience that he had never had
before in his life. In that night Almighty God in a vision comes to him and
says, "Laban, don't you speak either good or evil to Jacob. Keep your
hands of." Unquestionably that is the only thing that prevented the
killing of Jacob and taking the wives and children and that property – God's divine
intervention. It sobered Laban very much. They had a meeting, and it was one of
the most touching incidents in human history. Why some novelist has not brought
it out I don't know. Old Laban said, "You have stolen my goods, my cattle,
my teraphim." Jacob knew nothing about these little gods and denied it,
and said he had carried off only what was his own. Now comes Jacob's speech
which I would like for you to be able to memorize. "And Jacob answered and
said to Laban, What is my trespass? what is my sin, that thou hast hotly
pursued after me? Whereas thou hast felt about all my stuff, what hast thou
found of all thy household stuff? set it here before my brethren and thy
brethren, that they may judge betwixt us two. These twenty years have I been
with thee; thy ewes and thy she-goats have not cast their young, and the rams
of thy flocks have I not eaten. That which was torn of the beasts I brought not
unto thee; I bare the loss of it; of my hand didst thou require it, whether
stolen by day or by night. Thus I was; in the day the drought consumed me, and
the frost by night; and my sleep fled from mine eyes. These twenty years have I
been in thy house; I served thee fourteen years for thy two daughters, and six
years for thy flock; and thou hast changed my wages ten times. Except the God
of my father, the God of Abraham, and the fear of Isaac, had been with me,
surely now hadst thou sent me away empty. God hath seen mine affliction and the
labour of my hands, and rebuked thee yesternight." Old Laban could not say
a word to that. The promise that God had made to Jacob that he would be with
him had been literally fulfilled. Laban then proposes that a covenant be made
between them. They erected and consecrated a pillar, that Laban's crowd should
never pass that pillar toward the Holy Land to do evil to Jacob, and Jacob's
crowd could never pass that pillar going to Laban's country to do evil to him.
Now open wide your eyes and ears: "And Laban called it Jegar-sahadutha;
but Jacob called it Galeed." The first is Aramaic, and the second word is
Hebrew, and they mean exactly the same thing. Dr. Joseph Parker of England has
preached a great sermon on the text entitled "Logomachy," i.e.,
strife about words. "And Laban said, This heap is witness between me and
thee this day," and he called it Mizpah. Here I am going to tell you a
fragment of a very touching story. In the first year of the war, just before a
young man had started to the army, he paid very pointed attention to a lady,
and they became engaged. During the war, the man, in passing the time in
absence and with new faces, changed his feelings. His first letters were very
loving and glowing. Then they began to lose the glow and diminish in length,
and at last he quit writing. One evening just before a terrible battle in which
many were killed, I was standing by the side of this man when one of the men
who had been on a furlough brought a letter and handed it to him. He looked at
the letter and said, "Pshaw! that is from that bothersome woman." He
opened it and there wasn't a thing in it except a piece of colored paper, and
on it was written in capital letters: "Mizpah, THE LORD WITNESSETH BETWEEN
ME AND THEE."
He turned white as he looked at it. This woman knew the Bible story and knew
that, where a covenant had been made in the name of God and God's name brought
in, whoever violated that covenant not only wronged a human being but was
guilty of sin toward God. His hand shook as he looked at it. He told me about
it, and I said, "If you are a man, you go right to your tent and send her
a humble, penitent letter." He said, "I won't do it." And I
said, "Then watch out. That woman has quit appealing to you. She has
appealed to God. Mizpah, the Lord witness between me and thee." He says, "I
reckon I can take care of myself." The next day we went into battle. He
was shot through the heart and fell on me. That saved my life. When the battle
was over I went back and found him thoroughly dead, and in going through his
pockets to send home to his family, I found that piece of paper and through the
center of the word "Mizpah" the Yankee bullet had gone right into his
heart.
My reason for calling your attention to this is that he is a profane person who
is irreverent toward God in anything. He is profane in the East who breaks an
oath, and it is counted an everlasting degradation. Whenever you agree to
anything in the name of God, you bring God in as a witness. Then you do what is
said in another Old Testament book, "When I swear to my hurt, I will keep
my word." Stick to your word. Notice when Jacob meets Laban it is diamond
cut diamond, but when Jacob meets Esau, it is rapier meeting hammer.
1. What was the great event of Jacob's life?
2. State the time, place, and circumstances of his conversion.
3. What New Testament passage explains Jacob's ladder and who preached a great
sermon on it?
4. What melting hymn was suggested by this incident?
5. What name did Jacob give to the place of his conversion, and why?
6. What vow did he make?
7. What was the evidence of his conversion?
8. What is the secret of a successful, religious life?
9. What do we find here which was mentioned in the Bible only once before this,
and what is the author's belief respecting that teaching?
10. How long was Jacob in Haran?
11. Contrast his condition when he went in with his condition when he came out.
12. Describe the meeting of Jacob and Rachel.
13. Why did Jacob weep after he kissed Rachel?
14, How did Jacob get Rachel and what evidence that he loved her?
15. What proverb based on this incident?
16. How was the law of lex talionis exemplified in Jacob's case?
17. What do you think of the English poet's testimony referred to?
18. Was Laban's explanation to Jacob plausible and what good points of Jacob
here comes out?
19. State some of the evils of polygamy.
20. Who were Jacob's children by Leah? Rachel? Bilhah? Zilpah?
21. What the meaning of their names?
22. From what were these names derived?
23. What four lists of these names do we have in the Bible?
24. What was Jacob's condition, at the end of fourteen years?
25. What business contract did he now make with Laban and what do you think of
the way he executed his part?
26. How did Jacob get away from Laban and why did Rachel steal Laban's
teraphim?
27. How did Jacob get the start of Laban and where did Laban over-take him?
28. What kept Laban. from killing Jacob?
29. What charge did Laban bring against Jacob?
30. What was Jacob's reply?
31. Cite the passage that shows the hardness of Jacob's life in Haran.
32. How was it finally settled?
33. What is the meaning of Mizpah and what illustration of this is given by the
author?
Our last discussion closed with the thirty-first chapter of Genesis, and we had
just finished our discussion of Jacob's meeting with his uncle Laban. In this
discussion we take up the thirty-second chapter, which deals with Jacob's
meeting with Esau, his brother, his inveterate enemy, and the method which was
pursued by Jacob in appeasing Esau's wrath. "And Jacob went on his way,
and the angels of God met him. And Jacob said when he saw them, This is God's
host, and he called the name of that place Mahanaim," or as the margin has
it, "The two hosts or companies." This vision was an encouraging
revelation to Jacob. He saw a heavenly band on earth; hence the name,
"Mahanaim," or "two companies." That upper band had been
with him all the time, but invisible. Here he is permitted to see them. In view
of apprehended troubles ahead of him, this vision greatly assures him of
safety. The psalmist later expressed the general truth: "The angel of
Jehovah encampeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them"
(Psalm 34:7). In the same way Jehovah opened the eyes of the faithful young man
with Elisha: "And he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and
chariots of fire round about Elisha" (2 Kings 6:17). So, when our faith is
bright enough we can see the presence of attending angels.
In v. 3 we learn that Jacob sent messengers forward into the country of Esau to
find out the plan of his brother. It had been twenty years since Jacob had seen
his brother, on that occasion when through the duplicity of his mother and
himself he had secured the blessing of the birthright from his old, blind
father, when Esau had determined to kill him and his mother had sent him away
from home secretly. Jacob was naturally very anxious to know what Esau's
reception would be and so he sent these messengers. And in order to excite the
attention of his brother to his wealth and possessions, Jacob directed the
messengers as follows: "Thus shall ye say unto my lord Esau: Thus saith
thy servant Jacob, I have sojourned with Laban, and stayed until now: and I have
oxen, and asses, and flocks, and men-servants, and maidservants: and I have
sent to tell my lord, that I may find favour in his sight."
When the messengers returned to Jacob they brought back the news that the wrath
of Esau had not abated during these twenty years. "We came to thy brother
Esau, and moreover he cometh to meet thee, and four hundred men with him."
And Jacob was afraid. So he began to make preparation for his meeting with his
brother. His first step was to divide his herds and his people into three
companies, in order that they might not all be destroyed at one stroke from the
warlike band of his brother. But notice that in his preparation, he made no
effort to resist the onslaught of his brother's men. He had a stronger shield
than physical forces, the shield of faith in God's promises to him, and the
accompanying angel host. And his next step and best step of all was his earnest
prayer. Let us notice that prayer: "0 God of my father Abraham, and God of
my father Isaac." Do you notice how that prayer leads? He states the fact
that Jehovah was the God of his father and his grandfather, and he had made
promises to both of them. Then he pleads the fact that God had commanded him,
therefore the Lord ought to protect him in his obedience. He pleads the Lord's
promise: Who said, "I will do thee good." Notice another element of
power in his prayer: "I am not worthy of the least of all the mercies, and
of all the truth, which thou hast shown thy servant." There is humility in
the prayer, pleading the promise, pleading the command, pleading the triple
blessing pronounced upon Abraham, Isaac, and himself, and then acknowledging,
that, personally, he was not worthy of any of it: "With my staff I passed
over this Jordan; and now I have become two companies." Let us see what he
is going to ask for. He knows how to make a request. He did not commence by
praying that the Lord would bless the dwellers in the steppes of Asia and on
the islands of the sea, and then pray all around the world. He says, "Deliver
me, I pray thee, from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau: for I fear
him lest he come and smite me, the mother with the children. And thou saidst, I
will surely do thee good, and make thy seed as the sand of the sea, which
cannot be numbered for multitude." That is his step so far. Now he is
going back to his worldly wisdom again. He is like Mohammed, who said,
"Tie your camel and pray the Lord that he may not get away." Don't
turn the camel loose and then pray that he may not escape. As the old British
general said to his soldiers, "Pray to the Lord and keep your powder
dry." Don't simply pray and leave God to do everything, but do what you
can do.
Let us see the next step he takes. "He took a present for his brother
Esau: first, two hundred she-goats and twenty he-goats; second, two hundred
ewes and twenty rams; third, twenty milk camels and their colts; fourth, forty
cows and ten bulls; fifth, twenty she-asses and ten foals." Notice how he
makes that work: "And he said unto his servants, Pass over before me, and
put a space betwixt drove and drove." When the first drove meets Esau, he
will say, "Who are you, and what is this?" They will say, "We
are Jacob's servants, and this is a present to his brother Esau." After
awhile Esau meets the second drove, and receives the same answer to his
question. Imagine in your mind the effect of these repeated answers. Imagine
his feelings after he had met these five successive droves, – Jacob's wisdom,
viz.: that he must not be content with making a small impression:
Many drops of water, drop, drop, drop,
.....will wear away a rock.
And yet again present a thing to a man's mind; wait a
while and present it again. Maybe the first impression glances off, but after
awhile one will stick. It does not seem to me that the maddest man in the world
could have remained mad until he got through meeting these herds.
We now come to Jacob's last step. Here was the brook Jabbock, flowing into the
Jordan. Jacob sends all his family and property across that brook and is left
alone. He is going to have a big battle and he is going to fight this battle
out with God. From no scripture have I ever gained more spiritual power than
that. I never went out as an agent or undertook any enterprise that I did not
separate myself from all humankind, and go off alone with God, and just like a
little child, state the whole case, prostrate myself before him; and if I win
the divine favor I am not afraid of anything. And a man wrestled with him till
the rising of the dawn. The prophet Hosea calls him an angel (Hosea 12:4), and
a little later Jacob calls him God, and he was a manifestation of the Logos,
the Son of God. When he saw that he prevailed not against Jacob, he touched the
hollow of Jacob's thigh and it was out of joint. He said to Jacob, "Turn
me loose, for the dawn is coming." Jacob said, "I will not let thee
go, unless thou bless me." He could stand on but one foot, but he would
not turn loose. The Hoosier Schoolmaster by Edward Eggleston has
a remarkable lesson about a bulldog that belonged to "Old Man Mean's"
boys which had this virtue, viz.: whenever he took hold he would not turn
loose. You might kick him and scold him, but he held his grip. That taught a
lesson to the schoolmaster. I think the dog and the schoolmaster both might
credit Jacob with the original idea. What a marvelous secret of success that
is: "I will not let thee go unless thou bless me." Anybody that
knocks tentatively at the door of prayer and runs off before anybody comes,
making but one petition, will never succeed. You have heard me state before,
and I will restate it now, how that idea of persistence got hold of me when I
was four years old. I slept with my eldest brother and he taught me history
lessons in child stories. One night he told me the history of the g Battle of
Marathon, where one hundred thousand Persians were assailed by ten thousand
Greeks under Miltiades; how the Greeks broke the ranks of the Persians, and
followed them into the sea; how the Persians got into their boats, and the
Greeks grabbed the boats with their hands until the Persians cut their hands
off; and then how they caught bold with their teeth until the Persians cut
their heads off. And when my brother got that far, I jumped up in the bed and
yelled out, "Hurrah for the Greeks!" until I woke up the whole house.
There is the secret of prayer. As David Crockett said, "Be sure you are
right, and then go ahead." "And the angel said to Jacob, What is thy
name? and he says, Jacob," which means supplanter, a crafty fellow, and
the angel says, "Thy name shall no more be called supplanter, but Israel,
for thou hast striven with God and with men and has prevailed," power with
God and man. One of the greatest revival sermons ever preached in Waco was
preached by A. B. Earle, an evangelist, on that text: "Israel, power with
God and man." One of my examination questions is: Analyze Jacob's power
with God and with man. With God: humility, pleading of commandment, then the
promise, then his faith which took hold, then his importunity: "I will not
let thee go unless thou bless me." His power with men appears from the way
he got at Esau. He took every step that wisdom could suggest to placate and
disarm the adversary of hostility. Some men have a way of looking at you that
conveys an insult, and others with a shrug of the shoulders. Shakespeare tells
how the' followers of Montague and Capulet would insult each other, one by
twisting his mustache and the other by letting his hand rest on his sword. They
would begin, "Did you twist your mustache?" "I twisted my
mustache." "Did you touch your sword?" "I touched my
sword," until finally they got to fighting. Jacob had none of that. He was
never going to have a controversy for which he was responsible. His power with
man consisted in this also, that he never violated a contract. You can find no
evidence in the Bible that Jacob ever went back on a compact made with men.
"Jacob called the name of the place Peniel," i.e., "the face of
God." "I have seen God face to face, and my soul was delivered."
The sun rose upon him as he passed over Peniel, and he limped on his thigh.
Therefore, the children of Israel eat not the sinew of the hip. Look at the
effect of that upon Esau: Present after present, and Jacob coming to meet him,
limping, without a weapon in his hand. There are two things I want to say about
this. One is that all the second-blessing people and sanctificationists make
this an example in which their second blessing was received, sinless
perfection. And they used to go by the name of "Penielists." Unquestionably
it was a tremendous upward step in the spiritual life of Jacob. But he needed
more of God's discipline before he would be perfectly holy, and we will come to
some of it after awhile. I ask you to read the best spiritual interpretation of
this incident of Jacob's life that I know, Charles Wesley's great hymn. Every
time I teach Genesis I have the class bring out that hymn, which you will find
in the old-time Methodist hymnbook:
Come, 0 thou traveller unknown, whom still I hold but
cannot see,
My company before is gone, and I am left alone with thee.
With thee all night I mean to stay and wrestle till
the break of day.
My prayer hath power with God, the grace unspeakable I
now receive
Through faith I see thee face to face and live.
In vain I have not wept and strove; thy nature and thy name is love.
I have a remark for you preachers: Get as many commentaries as you can on that
wrestling of Jacob. Every time you see it mentioned in literature, buy what is
said, and read and study it profoundly. You are looking for power; that is what
you preachers ought to be looking for, power with God and men. Right in that
incident of Jacob's life power can be found. There are a great many things in
the Bible you can go over hurriedly. They are parts that hold the rest
together, but this is a passage to spend the night on.
But we will go on, however. Jacob has the matter settled with God, and has done
everything he can do to get God on his side, and has succeeded. As Saul's name
was changed to Paul, and Abram's name was changed to Abraham, so Jacob's name
was changed to Israel, as Simon's name was changed to Peter, Cephas, a stone.
Great events of life justify a change of name. "Jacob lifted up his eyes
and beheld Esau coming with his four hundred men." Now we see the last
step that Jacob took. First he takes the two concubines and their four sons, as
the least beloved, and puts them ahead; then Leah and her six sons and daughter
as next most beloved, and puts them next; and last he puts Rachel and Joseph in
the rear, furthermost from danger. I don't blame him for his preference, but
Jacob is not going to skulk in the rear. He goes in front, limping as God had
lamed him. But as Paul says, "When I am weak, then am I strong." He
is now going to rely upon God altogether. When Esau saw him all of his enmity
had banished and he ran to meet him and embraced him and fell upon his neck and
kissed him and they wept. They had not met for twenty years. Then Esau saw the
women and children and asked an introduction. Each woman with her children came
up and was introduced in order; so Esau became acquainted with the family and
Jacob won out completely.
The clouds ye so much dread
Are big with mercy, and shall break
In blessing on your head.
I hope that when trouble comes and takes to itself the form of a cloud and
gathers thick and thunders loud, you will be as humble before God and as
courageous before man as Jacob was, and come out of it as well.
Esau proposes to accompany him. Jacob said no; that he had a great many young
cattle and children, and they could not go fast like the soldiers, and he does
not think it wise to keep too long in the company of that force of border men.
In Ivanhoe we have an account of the wisdom of Wamba, the son of
Witless, when he saw Richard the Lion-Hearted, "hail fellow well
met," with Robin Hood's crowd of thieves. It all went off very well, but
he was afraid if they kept on, directly some controversy would arise, and so he
got off into a thicket and blew a horn, and everybody got up. Thus the wise son
of Witless warned Richard that he had better separate from the thieves.
Jacob moved down into the valley of the Jordan, a hot, rank place, and full of
sinkholes. He did not stay long. Next he came to Shechem and pitched his tent
before that city. Although all the country belonged to him as it did to
Abraham, he bought a piece of land. There occurs the incident which is
self-explanatory, recounted in the thirty-fourth chapter, and upon which I need
to comment very little. Dinah wanted to go to a parties – will call it that –
that the Shechemites were giving. It is a characteristic of girls that they do
like to go to parties, but it is not best for a young girl, unchaperoned, to
go, among strange wild people. But this heathen loved her and came to Jacob and
proposed to marry her, and Jacob would have consented under the circumstances,
but an expedient was resorted to that they should become Jews. So the males
were circumcised. But Simeon and Levi and their followers came and killed all
the men and took possession of the property, and merged the two tribes into
one, a most horrible transaction, yet it is customary for brothers to slay
those who ruin their sisters, at least it used to be so regarded in the South.
Jacob did not approve of it and felt that it was an awful wrong, especially
after a covenant had been made and marriage had been proposed and accepted, and
they had even agreed to turn Jews. When the old man comes to die you will hear
from him on this.
1. What assurance of safety did God give Jacob in view of his apprehended
trouble in meeting Esau, what name did Jacob give the place and why?
2. Cite a passage in the psalms on this, "id an incident in the life of
Elisha on this point.
3. What initiative step did Jacob take toward reconciliation with Esau?
4. What plan did Jacob then adopt for meeting his brother?
5. What report did the messengers make to Jacob?
6. What are the elements of power in his prayer?
7. What was his request and how does he co-operate in. bringing it about?
8. Give the sayings of Mohammed and of the British general on this point.
9. What present did he send Esau and what was the plan of presentation?
10. What was his last battle before meeting Esau?
11. Who wrestled with Jacob and what is the key to Jacob's power?
12. How was the lesson of persistence impressed upon the expositor's mind?
13. What new name was given Jacob here, and why?
14. Analyze Jacob's power with God and his power with men.
15. What name did Jacob give to the place where he wrestled, and its meaning?
16. What effect of this fight went with Jacob through life and what custom
practiced by the children of Israel in memory of the event?
17. What modern claim is based upon this experience of Jacob's and what is the
fallacy of this claim?
18. What matchless hymn was suggested by this event in Jacob's life?
19. What advice here is especially adapted to preachers?
20. Cite several instances in Scripture of the change of the name and the
justification for such change.
21. How did Jacob shield Rachel from danger in this plan of meeting Esau?
22. What position did Jacob take and what was the effect of all this on Esau?
23. How did Jacob evade Esau's proposal to accompany him on the journey?
24. Where did Jacob stop after this meeting with Esau and why so named?
25. Where did he stop next and what trouble did Jacob have here? Cite the dying
testimony of Jacob relative to this incident.
26. What part of Jacob's character was inherited from Isaac? What is
attributable to divine discipline?
This will be a running comment commencing at the thirty-fifth chapter and
extending through the forty-first. Our last discussion showed the great disturbance
of mind on Jacob's part at the cruelty of Simeon and Levi in destroying the
Shechemites. At this time God told Jacob to leave that place and go to Bethel.
In removing, Jacob determined to purify his household from idols; if he was to
have the enmity of the people, he was determined not to have the disfavor of
God. So be commanded all his household to put away their strange gods and to
change their garments. They also gave up the rings in their ears and noses. It
is not fashionable with us now to wear rings that way, but many do. After this
purification God protected them by causing a fear to fall upon the inhabitants
of the land, or else Jacob's crowd would have been annihilated on account of
what Simeon and Levi bad done.
At Bethel he builds an altar and worships God, and God reappears to him and
gives him a renewed assurance of his protection. He then leaves Bethel for what
is now called Bethlehem, or Ephrath. At that place occurred the death of Rachel
in giving birth to Benjamin. She was not buried in the cave of Machpelah, like
the rest of the family, but for hundreds of years her tomb was standing and
visible; they show it to you now, but not with certainty may you accept the
tradition. In 35:8, we find an account of the death of Deborah, Rebekah's
nurse. That is the only hint as to the death of Rebekah. We infer from the fact
that the old nurse had come to live with Jacob that Rebekah was dead. I may
have an examination question on that point. The rest of the chapter is devoted
to the names of Jacob's sons by his several wives, which I will bring out in an
examination question. The chapter closes with the death of Isaac. Jacob comes
to Mamre, or Hebron, now the head of the tribe. Esau and Jacob unite to bury
their father. The thirty-sixth chapter gives a genealogy of the descendants of
Esau. Nothing is particular in that except the generations of Seir, father of
the Horites. I will give this examination question: Why in the generations of
Esau, are the generations of the Horites included? The answer is that Esau's
people moved to the country occupied by the Horites and intermarried with them.
You will note that the Horites, or cave dwellers, are not prehistoric men.
The thirty-seventh chapter is devoted to the youth of Joseph, a very particular
section. We find here the development of the murderous envy and hate of
Joseph's brethren toward him. An examination question will be: State what
caused the envy and hatred of Joseph's brethren toward him. The answer is:
Joseph brought an evil report concerning the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, and
they counted that tattling. If he had been one of the sons at work, and had
reported on the others, that would have been a tell-tale business. If one in
college should be appointed as a representative of the faculty, he could make a
report without being justly amenable to the charge of tattling. Joseph was sent
by his father to make a report. Next, Israel loved Joseph above all his other
sons. I think the circumstances make it certain that he loved him justly. He was
the oldest son of the only woman Jacob ever loved. He was intensely lovable,
more so than any of the other boys. It is a fact, however, that there never was
a case where a parent loved one child more than the others that it did not
cause ill will in the family. The third reason is given here: "And he made
him a full length garment." King James Version, "a coat of many
colours." When a parent distinguishes between his children in dress he is
sure to bring on a row. There Jacob made a mistake. Fourth, Joseph dreamed a
dream and told it to his brothers, and they hated him yet the more. "I
dreamed that we were binding sheaves, and behold, my sheaf arose and stood
upright, and your sheaves stood around and bowed down to my sheaf." If
that dream originated with Joseph it shows that he was already imagining
superiority over his brethren. But if it did not originate with Joseph, which
it did not, as it came from God – it showed a lack of wisdom in Joseph to tell
the other boys. The dream was literally fulfilled in afterlife, and so must
have been from God. He dreamed another dream: "Behold, I dreamed yet
again, and behold the sun and moon and eleven stars bowed down to me." The
sun is papa, and the moon is mamma, and the stars are the eleven brothers, the
whole family bowed down. He ought never to have told that dream to those boys.
He told it to his father also. To show how quickly his father understood it, he
said, "Shall we indeed, thy mother and thy father and thy brethren, bow
down to thee?" His brothers envied him because his father kept that
saying. He knew that meant something for his boy, and he was proud of the glory
the boy would attain. Here are five things, and envy can get very fat on five
things.
I once delivered an address on that subject before the Wake Forest College,
entitled the "Ambitious Dreams of Youth." There do come into bright
minds forecasts of future greatness, great elation and swelling of the heart in
thinking about it, that cannot be doubted. Sometimes these ambitious dreams do
not come from God but from the heart of the student. I told those Wake Forest
boys of a young fellow out in the mountains. When he started off to school a
dream ran through his mind: "I will go to Wake Forest and make the
brightest record ever made in that school. I will get through the four years'
course in three. I will get up my recitations so that the faculty will be
talking about the most brilliant student in the institution. I will get the
class honors. When I shall have delivered the valedictory and go home, all
along the way people will say, 'There is the boy who delivered the valedictory
address.' When I get home the family and all the servants will come out in a
double row, and a band will play, 'See the conquering hero come.' " Then I
turned to the president and said, "Mr. President, what are you going to do
with these ambitious boys who see the other boys bow down and their parents
bowing down before them? Those boys think they have the world in a sling."
But one thing 'is sure, no one ever became really great who did not aspire to
be great.– There is an honest ambition to excel, but where the faculty of
imagination is wanting – and it takes that to be a dreamer – that man can be
successful in a matter-of-fact way, but he certainly can never be successful as
an artist, sculptor, painter, or as an orator or statesman. There is a creative
power in the imagination. Woe to the one who expects to be great and has it
not. It is characteristic of the Spirit's day, as foretold by Joel and
expounded by Peter, "Your young men shall see visions, and your old men
shall dream dreams." Sometimes men who have not the Spirit, and who find
it easier to win in fancy than in fact, indulge in air castles which need to be
ridiculed. There is a story in the old "Blue Back Speller" of a
maiden who, walking alone with a pail of milk upon her head, fell into the
following train of reflections: "The money for which I shall sell this
milk will enable me to increase my stock of eggs to three hundred. These eggs,
allowing for what may prove addle, and what may be destroyed by vermin, will
produce at least two hundred and fifty chickens. The chickens will be fit to
carry to market about Christmas, when poultry always brings a good price; so
that by May Day I cannot fail of having enough money to purchase a new gown.
Green! Ò, let me consider, yes, green becomes my complexion best, and green it
shall be. In this dress I will go to the fair, where all the young fellows will
strive to have me for a partner; but I shall perhaps refuse every one of them,
and, with an air of disdain, toss from them." Transported with this
triumphant thought she could not forbear acting with her head what thus passed
in her imagination, when down came the pail of milk, and with it all her
imaginary happiness. Dr. Wayland, one of the greatest educators in the United
States, has a lecture on the "Evils of the Imagination," that every
schoolboy ought to read. Even barefoot boys, fishing in the creek, will weave
stories of companies of which they are captains, and they will kill 1,000
buffaloes and 1,500 Indians. When I was canvassing for the Education Commission
in Northeast Texas, I had to go about eleven miles out into the country. A lad
of about twelve asked the privilege of taking me. I wondered why, but when we
got out of town he turned around and said, "Dr. Carroll, I asked the
privilege of taking you to this place because I wanted to talk to you. I heard
your address on education, and do you know, I am going to be governor of Texas
someday?" I smiled and said, "Tell me about it," and he unfolded
himself. That boy had already drawn out his own horoscope and filled out all
the details of his future. He was brilliant. He had stood at the head of his
classes. Instead of rebuking him I simply cautioned him and at the same time
encouraged him because he had this record. He did not tell lies. He was never
absent from his classes. He was never guilty of what you call schoolboy
follies. He was intense in his application, and up to that time he had
accomplished all that he had ever undertaken. So it would not surprise me if
that boy yet becomes governor. I am waiting to see, however. One of the most
instructive parts of the Bible is this that relates to the early life of Joseph
and his premonitions of future greatness. Not long ago I read an account of a
brilliant girl about thirteen years old. Her parents, uncles, and aunts were
all trying to restrain her from following a certain line of education. She met
it all by saying, "It is in me to do that. I know I can win on it. I dream
about it. It fills my vision. I am irresistibly drawn to it." And she did
win on it, a country girl that became famous before the great audiences in
European capitals.
This envy that had five roots, after awhile will come to a head when
opportunity presents itself. A great many people carry envy and hate in their
hearts and it eats like a cancer and burns like a hidden fire and no
opportunity ever comes to gratify it, and the world knows nothing about it.
"Gray's Elegy" tells, in referring to the lowly graves, about
"some mute, inglorious Milton" that never had a chance to follow the
promptings of his muse. Not only that, but the lowly graves hold many a heart
which had burned with hatred and envy and petulance that never had an
opportunity to express itself in "Some Cromwell, guiltless of his
country's blood." They say that everything comes to him who waits, and so
this crowd waited, and here is their chance. Joseph's brethren left Hebron, and
went to Shechem, where they had massacred the Shechemites. They were looking
for territory to pasture their immense herds. The father tells Joseph to go and
see if it is well with the brothers and their flocks. It is a long way from
home. When the boys see him coming they say, "Behold the dreamer cometh;
let us slay him and cast him into a pit." There were ten brothers in the
meeting; eight were of one mind, but two had dissenting views. Reuben, the
oldest, said, "Let us not kill him. Let us cast him into the pit."
The record says that Reuben intended to carry him back to Jacob. So he stands
guiltless. The other one is Judah. We find when they bind him and strip off his
coat that he pleads with them, ten great strong men, binding a boy, their own
brother, and he weeping. Later they saw a caravan coming called Ishmaelites in
one place and Midianites in another. Midian was a descendant of Esau, whose
territory bordered on Ishmael's, and the two tribes intermingled. Now Judah
said, "Let us not kill him, but sell him to this caravan to take to
Egypt." In a speech I once delivered in the chapel of Baylor University, I
told of a proposition about selling a man that would scorch the paper it was
written on. The high court of state plotted it, the leading preacher instigated
it, and the man they proposed to sell was one of the most illustrious on the
roll of fame in the United States. So they sold Joseph. Then they took his coat
and dipped it in the blood of a kid, and carried it to the father to make the
impression that Joseph bad been torn to pieces by wild beasts. That was the
heaviest stroke that Jacob ever received. He rent his garments, put on
sackcloth, mourned many days and refused to be comforted. "I am going down
to my son mourning to the underworld." We will leave him there and look at
one or two other matters.
The thirty-eighth chapter is devoted entirely to some rather scaly incidents in
the life of Judah. The chapter is of such a character that it forbids
discussion in a public address. Read it and gather your own lessons. It
commences with Judah's sin in marrying a Canaanite woman. Two of the sons born
of this marriage God killed for their wickedness. This wife became an
ancestress of our Lord. He derives his descent from four women not Jewesses.
Rahab, the harlot; Tamar, the Canaanite; Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the
Hittite, whom David took; Ruth, the Moabitess.
The next three chapters give an account of Joseph in Egypt. When the caravan
reached Egypt they sold him to Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh. Potiphar finds
his trustworthiness, purity and truthfulness and attention to business, and
promotes this slave to the head of the house. When sold into slavery the brave
heart ought not to despair. But the beauty of his person, great personality,
evident kindly manhood, attracted Potiphar's wife, and she fell in love with
him, as some married women do. Joseph refused to Join her in this unlawful
love. Whereupon, as "love unrequited and. scorned turns to hate," she
accused him of the very offense which he refused to consider. So Potiphar puts
him in prison. Now, though a prisoner, this man begins to work his way to the
front. He is faithful to every duty. Finally he is put at the head of all the
criminals in the jail. How can you put down a good man, true to God and
himself? This position brings him into contact with other dreams besides his
own. There are two that the birds snatched the bread of Pharaoh's table out of
fellow prisoners, the chief baker and butler of Pharaoh. Both are troubled. God
sent those dreams. For a man to dream the basket on his head is a very singular
thing. Joseph interpreted that to mean that he would gain his liberty but that
Pharaoh would put him to death. It happened just that way. The butler dreamed
about a cluster of grapes, well formed, sweet flavored, and luscious, and that
he squeezed it into a goblet and handed the new wine to Pharaoh. Joseph tells
him that means that he shall be restored and promoted to his old place, and
says, "When you are promoted, remember me." The butler promised well
enough, but forgot. It is easy to forget the unfortunate. But after awhile God
sends more dreams. This time Pharaoh has a double dream. He dreams that he sees
seven stalks of grain come up in the Nile Valley, full eared and heavy headed.
Right after them come up seven thin) shrivelled, parched stalks and they devour
the others. He dreamed he saw seven fat beef cattle, and seven lean, ill
favored, gaunt, starved specimens that ate the fat ones up. Nobody could tell
Pharaoh what the dream meant. But finally the butler remembered Joseph and
said, "When I was in prison there was a Hebrew lad who told us our dreams
and they came out just like he said." Pharaoh sent for Joseph, and we see
him step out of the prison to stand before the monarch to explain dreams, as
Daniel did later. He says each dream means the same thing, that there were
going to be seven years of great plenty in which the earth would be burdened
with its crops. It reminds me of what a man on the Brazos River said. Leaving
out part of his language, which was very emphatic, I quote the other: "I tell
you, I will have to build a wall around my field and call it a crib: there is
so much corn in it." He did make eighty bushels to the acre, and showed me
a number of stalks with three full cars, standing only a foot apart and twenty
feet high. Joseph said, "These seven years will be followed by seven years
of drought and famine in which nothing will be made. God sent me here to
provide. You ought to husband the resources of these fruitful years so that
they can be spread out over the famine years." Pharaoh was wonderfully
impressed, and instantly promoted Joseph to the position of prime minister and
made him next to himself. Just exactly as Joseph predicted, the thing happened.
Great storage places, perfect reservoirs for holding wheat, and treasure houses
were built. At the end of the first year people wanted bread to eat. Under
advice of Pharaoh Joseph sold to them, taking their money, jewels, stock, land,
then themselves. At the end of the seven years Pharaoh had the whole country,
and Egypt was the granary of the world. "And all countries come into Egypt
to Joseph to buy corn."
That is the history of Joseph up to the time we come in touch with Jacob again.
1. Where did God tell Jacob to go from Shechem?
2. What important step did he take before going, and why?
3. How did God intervene to save Jacob from the inhabitants of the land?
4. What events happened at Bethel?
5. When did Rebekah die and what is the evidence?
6. Where did Jacob go from Bethel and what the events by the way?
7. Name the sons of Jacob by each of his wives and handmaids.
8. Where were they born?
9. Where does Jacob go from Ephrath, or Bethlehem, and what important event
occurred there?
10. To what is the thirty-sixth chapter devoted, and why the genealogy of the
Horites in this connection?
11. Whose is the most flawless character in history i Ana.: Joseph's.
12. As a child, what could he say of his father and mother?
13. State in order the several causes or occasions of the hatred of his
brothers.
14. What mistake did Joseph make in this?
15. What is the importance of dreams of greatness? Illustrate.
16. What is the difference between dreams of true greatness and building air
castles? Illustrate.
17. What is the nature of ungratified envy and hate?
18. Cite passages from "Gray's Elegy" to illustrate this point.
19. What was the culmination of the hatred of Joseph's brothers? Can you find a
parallel to this in the New Testament?
20. How was Reuben's attitude toward the hostility against Joseph distinguished
from that of his brothers?
21. How was Judah's?
22. Who took Joseph out of the pit and sold him? (Genesis 37:2728.)
23. Explain the confusion of the names of the Midianites and the Ishmaelites.
24. Compare the dejection of Jacob with that of Elijah, and show wherein both
were mistaken.
25. To what is the thirty-eighth chapter devoted?
26. What was Judah's beginning in this downward course of sin?
27. What four Gentile women became ancestress of our Lord?
28. Who became Joseph's master in Egypt, what of his promotion and misfortune
in this house?
29. How did he get out of prison and what six dreams touched his life?
30. Who was the author of those dreams?
31. To what position was he promoted in the kingdom?
32. What of Egypt at the close of the seven years of famine?
The history of Joseph in Egypt is exquisitely charming in style, the most
beautiful story of any language, and so plain that anybody can understand it.
There are no critical questions to discuss, but I will emphasize some points.
Stephen, in Acts, says that this famine extended over Egypt and Canaan; other
references indicate that it was much more extensive. Anyhow, it came to Jacob
at Hebron, and he sent his ten sons to buy wheat. Corn in the Old Testament
does not mean Indian corn, or maize, which was not known until the discovery of
America. Many other things were not known until that time. The world had no
sugar, molasses, coffee, tobacco, or potatoes. When Sir Walter Raleigh first
carried Irish potatoes to England, they ate the tops like salad, not knowing
the roots were good. So Jacob sends his sons to Egypt to bring back a caravan
load of corn, and Joseph recognizes them. As they did not recognize him, he
affected to consider them as spies. But he had a purpose in view. His heart was
very kind and generous to them, but he wanted to impress some very solemn
lessons on them. He put them in ward for three days. On the third day he took
them out and said that by leaving one of their brethren as a hostage they could
take corn home to their father, and if they had told the truth and were not
spies, when they returned they must bring the youngest brother, about whom they
had spoken.
Now follows this language, which I have often made the occasion of a sermon:
"And they said one to another, We are verily guilty concerning our
brother, in that we saw the distress of his soul, when he besought us, and
would not hear; therefore is this distress come upon us. And Reuben answered
them, saying, Spake I not unto you, saying, Do not sin against the child; but
ye would not hear? therefore also, behold, his blood is required." The
point is that they were convicted of the sin of having sold Joseph into Egypt. Joseph
had not said anything to them about it. The crime had been committed a long
time back) and they had never shown any compunction of conscience. A
circumstance comes up in a strange land, and all at once every one of them is
convicted of sin. The use I make of that in preaching is this: I begin at the
first of Genesis and go through the entire Bible, making a digest of every case
of conviction of sin mentioned. I write that case out, stating what the sin
was, how long after the sin before conviction came, and the causes of
conviction. The object of the study is to prepare me to preach to the
unconverted. If you cannot convict people of sin, they do not want a Saviour.
Their own consciences convicted these men. A sinner becomes apprehensive; he
flees when nobody pursues. He will construe any sudden judgment as a punishment
for that sin. Unless you know that about human nature, you won't know how to
deal with conviction. That was exactly the effect that Joseph wanted to bring
about, but not by open accusation or denunciation. He wanted to treat them in
such a way that they would get into a tight place and their consciences would
do the rest. Other remarkable cases of conviction are where Nathan convicted
David; Jonah the Ninevites; and the cases on the day of Pentecost. After
studying the Bible through, I go to my experience to find the first thing that
made me feel that I was a sinner, and the other times I have felt conviction of
sin. From my own experience I learn how to deal with others in their experience.
That I regard as the most important thought in this lesson.
Before these boys get home, they find the money paid for the wheat in their
sacks. See how that conviction creeps out again: "Behold, my money is
returned, and their hearts went out, and they turned trembling one to another,
saying, What is this that God has done unto us?" When they got home they
had to explain to their father the absence of Simeon, the return of their
money, and that they must take Benjamin with them on their return. Jacob said,
"Me have you bereaved of my children: Joseph is not, and Simeon is not,
and ye will take Benjamin away: all these things are against me." I used
to treat that this way: that in our pessimism we are apt to construe things
against us that ultimately prove good for us. I illustrate it by: "All
things work together for good to them that love God." But from the
translation: "On me are all these things," you get an entirely
different and very suggestive sermon. Jacob hints that they had killed Simeon,
or disposed of him some way like they had Joseph. The thought is this: no man
can commit a sin that terminates in himself. It always breaks some other heart.
If a boy steals, it hurts his mother worse than it hurts him. If a man commits
a murder, his wife may say, "On me is this thing." If he is a
drunkard, on her and her children are all those things. In the social order no
human being is independent of others, but bound by indissoluble ties of blood
and society; nor stands by himself, and cannot sin by himself. Preaching on
that subject once, I drew a picture of a North Carolina boy who went away from
home and left his widowed mother in sorrow. While traveling he took a religious
furlough; played cards, drank whiskey, became dissipated, finally had delirium
tremens, spent all his money, got into debt, lost his reputation, and
determined to commit suicide. I drew a picture of him standing on the brow of a
precipice, ready to jump. I called attention to a cord around him which went
back, and I followed that cord back to North Carolina, and found it knotted
around his mother's heart. When he jumped it tore her heart also. "On me
are all these things."
We come to the generous proposition of Reuben: "My two eons shalt thou
slay if I bring him not to thee." Since Reuben was not guilty of selling
Joseph, it was very generous on his part. But his father could not trust
Reuben: "My son shall not go down with you; for his brother is dead, and
he only is left: if harm befall him by the way in which ye go, then will ye bring
down my gray hairs with sorrow to the grave [Sheol]." But Jacob did not
take into account the pressure of the famine. We stand against many things,
sometimes, to which after awhile we yield. Judah now proposes to become a
surety for the lad: "My life and everything I have is in thy hands, if I
don't bring this boy back." That has often been used as a representation
of Christ's becoming surety for this people. Jacob most reluctantly gives his
consent, and with his usual wisdom takes every precaution to guard against
trouble: "Take of the choice fruits of the land in your vessels, and carry
down the man a present, a little balm, a little honey, spicery and myrrh, nuts
and almonds." He has done all that he could; now he is going to pray:
"And God Almighty give you mercy before the man, that he may release unto
you your other brother and Benjamin."
We have an account of their reception in Egypt, and I want you to note the
working of that conviction again. Joseph made ready a feast for them, released
Simeon to them, "And the men were afraid because they were brought to
Joseph's house, and they said: Because of the money that was returned in our
sacks at the first time are we brought in: that he may seek occasion against
us, and take us for bondmen, and our asses." How easy it is for an
apprehensive heart to suppose that every seeming sinister thing is a messenger
of God and of judgment. So they stepped out to the man who had charge of
Joseph's house and explained about the matter. They supposed that accusation
was going to be made against them, and sought to defend themselves beforehand.
Shakespeare in Hamlet thus refers to the queen: "The lady
protests too much, I think." Whenever anybody gives you an explanation of
a thing before there is an accusation and keeps on explaining, it instantly
creates a thought in the minds of others that something needs explaining.
Here in v. 27, is a very touching thing, and in studying literature you ought
always to notice pathetic and delicately expressed things: "And he asked
them of their welfare, and said, Is your father well, the old man of whom you
spoke? Is he yet alive? And they said, Thy servant, our father, is well, he is
yet alive." Now, when he asked that question how must his heart have stood
still until he got the answer, and how much he was touched at the sight of
Benjamin. Notice in v. 32, that Joseph could not eat with his brethren, because
Egyptians could not eat with strangers. The Jew to this day will not eat with
Gentiles. A Jewish drummer has to get a dispensation from his Rabbi to eat at
hotels. The Egyptians required certain precautions in order to escape
ceremonial defilement, and would not eat with those who ate certain animals.
They would not eat with any one who would kill a cow, a crocodile, a beetle, or
sacred animal. The Jews once brought complaint against Peter because he had
eaten with uncircumcised Gentiles. Notice v. 34: "And he took and sent
messes to them from before him: but Benjamin's mess was five times so much as
any of theirs." That has become a proverb. Old Baptists used to say,
"Have you prepared a feast for us today?" "Yea, a Benjamin's
mess."
The next chapter tells how Joseph sent them out again and put their money back;
and how he had his silver cup inserted in Benjamin's sack. When they had gone,
he sent men after them with this question: "Wherefore have ye requited
evil for good? Is not this that in which my lord drinketh, and whereby he
indeed divineth?" What is meant by divining with a cup? When I was a
little fellow they used to divine this way: They would take a cup of muddy
coffee and let the coffee escape, leaving the grounds (dregs) in the bottom of
the cup, and would whirl the cup around, and tell a fortune by the position the
dregs assumed. That was a very simple Arkansas method of divining, but it was
exactly in line with this Egyptian method. Gipsy women divine with cards, or by
the lines of one's hands. They denied having the cup, but when the bags were
opened it was found in Benjamin's bag. In v. II notice that conviction of sin
again. When they got back Judah said, "What shall we say unto my lord?
What shall we speak? God hath found out the iniquity of thy servants,"
still carrying everything back to that crime they had committed. It is that
response of human conscience that enables criminal lawyers, who understand
human nature, to become mighty prosecutors of crime. Daniel Webster used to
say, when they were morally sure of the guilt of a man and he had no legal
evidence, '"Never mind, I will get the testimony." Then he would begin
his speech. He would draw a supposititious picture of the crime; how the man
crept in at the window, etc., and if he did not tell it exactly right the
fellow would cry out: "It was not that way", which would betray him.
If he would follow the crime to the line, the criminal would show the fear in
his face. Webster always had an ally in the conscience of the criminal.
Now we come to one of the greatest pieces of oratory in the world, the speech
of Judah before Joseph. Analyze the power of Judah's speech. In Scott's
Heart of Midlothian, in Jeanie Deans' speech before the queen of
England, you will find the only thing in literature which I think compares with
this speech of Judah. Effie Deans, sister of Jeanie, had been convicted of a
crime; Jeanie walked most of the way from Scotland to make a petition for her
sister's pardon. The Duke of Argyll befriended her, and managed that she should
have an interview with the queen, and told her just to speak her heart, and not
to fix up anything to say. This noble Scottish girl – and that part is history
as well as romance – delivered one of the most impressive, affecting, pathetic
little speeches that ever fell from the lips of mortal. I will glance at this
speech of Judah's and show you what I think constitutes its elements of power.
"And Judah came near to him, and said, 0 my lord, let thy servant, I pray
thee, speak a word in my lord's ears, and let not thine anger burn against thy
servant, for thou art even as Pharaoh." Notice two elements of power: the
humility of the speaker and the conciliation of the one whom he addressed:
"Thou art even as Pharaoh." The next element of power is that he most
delicately makes Joseph responsible for the situation: "My lord asked his
servants, saying, Have ye a father or brother? And we said unto my lord, we
have a father, an old man, and a child of his old age, a little one; and his
brother is dead, and he alone is left of his mother." "His mother is
dead and his father loves him, and you made us bring him." Having made
that point clear, he introduces the father, "Thy servant, my father, said
unto us, Ye know that my wife bare me two sons and one went out from me, and I
said, Surely he is torn in pieces, and I saw him no more, and if you take this
one also from my presence, and harm befall him, ye will bring my gray hairs in
sorrow to the under-world. Now, when I go to my father, and the lad is not with
us, it will come to pass that he will die." And he comes to the last point
of power, and that is his proposition of substitution: "Now, therefore,
let thy servant remain instead of the lad, and let the lad go to his
father." When Judah reached the climax it had power with Joseph. Judah was
a father himself and many times had made that generous proposition to go into
bondage in place of the boy.
Whereupon Joseph makes himself known to his brethren. And Joseph said,
"Come near, I am Joseph, your brother, whom ye sold into Egypt. Be not
grieved nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me, for God sent me before you
to preserve life." That brings up the question: Who sent Joseph into
Egypt? Their consciences told them they had done it, and they knew it. But they
sent him for evil, but God sent him for good. That will enable you to get a
principle by which the hardest doctrines in the Bible will be reconcilable. We
are all the time conscious of doing from our own will. AB Peter said to the
Jews: "What God had predetermined to be done, ye with wickedness have
done." There is predestination on God's part, and action on their part, which
did not exculpate them from blame, on account of free moral agency and
predestination.
Alexander Carson, one of the greatest Baptist writers, a Presbyterian,
converted in North Ireland, has written a book on the providence of God, and
illustrates his theme by the case of Joseph, showing that while the father had
his care, the boys their sin, and Joseph wept at being put into the pit and
sold into bondage, and that Potiphar's wife intervened with her lust, and that
the prison held Joseph, yet over all these intermingling human feelings and
devices and persecutions, far beyond human sight, the government of God was
working. An examination question will be: "Who wrote a book on the
providence of God, and illustrated it by the life of Joseph?" After this reconciliation
Joseph sends his brothers back home to bring their father back. We will take up
the story there in our next discussion.
1. What can. you say of the story of Joseph in Egypt?
2. What the extent of the famine in Egypt?
3. What did Jacob send to Egypt after, and what several products were then
unknown to the people in the Orient?
4. How did Joseph treat his brothers on their first trip, and why?
5. What inner nature of history does the narrative of his brethren disclose?
6. Show the workings of the consciences of his brothers.
7. What direction for a study of conviction?
8. What was the second step of Joseph in convicting them of sin?
9. What explanation did they have to make to Jacob?
10. What was his reply and the lessons therefrom? Illustrate.
11. What was the proposition of Reuben and Jacob's reply?
12. Who finally prevailed with Jacob, and how?
13. What evidence of the workings of conviction on their return to Egypt and
how did they try to excuse themselves?
14. What of Shakespeare's statement in point and its lesson?
15. What touching incident of their meeting Joseph on the second trip?
16. Why did Joseph not eat with them?
17. What expedient did Joseph adopt to get Benjamin?
18. What is meant by divining with the cup?
19. What evidence of conviction here?
20. What advantage of this principle to criminal lawyers? Illustrate.
21. What is the expositor's estimate of Judah's speech before Joseph in behalf
of Benjamin?
22. With what speech in the works of Sir Walter Scott may it be compared?
23. Give an analysis of the power of Judah's speech.
24. Who sent Joseph into Egypt, and what part of the divine government is most
strikingly illustrated in. his history?
25. What noted Baptist author has written a book on this subject?
JACOB AND HIS FAMILY MIGRATE TO EGYPT
Genesis 46:1 to 47:27
Concerning this eventful migration, we consider just now several important
matters:
This appears first from the revelation made to Abraham when he was yet
childless (Gen. 15:13-16); and here again in a vision to Jacob at Beer-sheba
(46:1-4). There is much interplay of human passion and purpose (37:18-36) and
natural causes, as the famine, and high above all God is reigning, making the
envious brothers and Joseph their victim (46:4-7), the famine itself, the
Midianite, Ishmaelite, Potiphar and wife, the prison, the butler and baker, and
Pharaoh himself – all subservient to his plan of the ages concerning the
redemption of the race.
Two totals are given in the Hebrew text, sixty-six and seventy. The sixty-six
are those descending from Jacob's own loins and who went with him. This, of
course, does not include Jacob himself, nor Joseph and his two sons, already in
Egypt: they, added, make the seventy. In detail we have as descendants of Leah,
his first wife: Reuben and four sons, five; Simeon and six sons, seven; Levi
and three sons, four; Judah, three living sons, and two grandsons, six;
Issachar and four sons, five; Zebulun and three sons, four; his daughter Dinah,
one; total, thirty-two, Jacob himself making thirty-three. Of Zilpah, Leah's
maid, we have Gad and seven sons, eight; Asher, four sons, a daughter, and two
grandsons, eight; total, sixteen. Of Rachel, Joseph, and two sons, three;
Benjamin and ten sons, eleven; total fourteen. Of Bilhah, Rachel's maid, we
have Dan and one son, two; Naphtali and four sons, five; total, seven. Then
thirty-three plus sixteen plus fourteen plus seven equals seventy. You will
observe that neither Jacob's surviving wives, nor any of his sons' wives, nor
any slaves, nor other dependents, are counted in this register. Judging from
the numerous following of Abraham and Isaac, the dependents must have been a
little army. It is remarkable that only one daughter and one granddaughter
appear in the list. When we compare ages that are expressly given, for example,
Jacob 130 (47:9), and that all of the children except Benjamin were born in the
sojourn of twenty years in Haran, we may agree with Murphy that the respective
ages must have been at this time: Jacob 130; Joseph 30 (41:26) ; Reuben 46;
Simeon 45; Judah 43; Naphtali 42; Gad 42; Asher 41; Issachar 41; Zebulun 40;
Dinah 39; Benjamin 26. We must conclude that both Judah and his son married at
about fourteen, and Benjamin, to have ten sons, must have married at fifteen.
But we now fall upon more serious difficulties, at least to some commentators.
These arise from (1) the Septuagint Version of Genesis 46: which gives the
number seventy-five instead of seventy, and Stephen in Acts 7:14, gives
seventy-five. How shall we reconcile these accounts with the Hebrew? The
explanation is not very difficult. The Septuagint, not inspired, itself
explains the discrepancy between it and the Hebrew text by adding five
additional names, descendants of Joseph's children, Ephraim and Manasseh. The
usual explanation of the passage in Acts is that Stephen merely quoted from the
Septuagint. But this is more than doubtful. Stephen's words, quoting from the
American Standard Version, are: "And Joseph sent and called to him Jacob
his father, and all his kindred, three score and fifteen souls." In this
seventy-five neither Joseph nor his children may be counted. We readily see how
Jacob and sixty-six descendants, sixty-seven in all, are counted in the
seventy-five, but where do we get the other eight? We must look for them in the
words, "All his kindred." But who are these? They may well be the
surviving wives of Jacob and his sons, none of them given in the Genesis list.
We know that two of Jacob's wives are dead, Rachel, buried near Bethlehem
(31:19), and Leah, buried in the cave of Machpelah (49: 31). Judah's wife was
also dead (38:12), and possibly Reuben's. But we may reasonably count that at
least eight wives of Jacob and his sons were living, and this would better
explain Stephen's words, "All his kindred," than to suppose that he
quoted from the Septuagint.
But some critics find difficulties from another source, to wit: the
enumerations in Numbers 26:5-51, and in I Chronicles 4-8. The enumeration in
Numbers, hundreds of years later, under different time conditions, deals with
the later descendants of Jacob's children, and would not naturally fit exactly
into the Genesis list. It nowhere contradicts Genesis, and the slight variation
in the spelling of certain names is easily explicable. The Chronicles
enumeration, still more remote in time, and for other purposes, presents no
difficulty except for one looking for discrepancies.
There is a difficulty in chronology concerning the length of the sojourn in
Egypt, already considered in Genesis 15:13, and it will come up again in Exodus
12:40; Acts 7:6; and Galatians 3:17, which will be considered when we come to
Exodus 12:40.
The sorrow of Jacob for the loss of Joseph has become proverbial in the East.
It was a sorrow that could not be comforted: "I have grief like that which
Jacob felt for the loss of Joseph" (see Arabian Nights, Vol. 2, pp. 112,
206, 222). Scriptural expressions of his sorrow are Genesis 37:33-35; 42:3638;
47:9.
When his sons returned from Egypt and announced that Joseph was alive, he
fainted. Note 45:25-28: "And they went up out of Egypt, and came into the
land of Canaan unto Jacob their father. And they told him, saying, Joseph is
yet alive, and he is ruler over all the land of Egypt. And his heart fainted,
for he believed them not. And they told him all the words of Joseph, which he
had said unto them; and when he saw the wagons which Joseph had sent to carry
him, the spirit of Jacob their father revived: and Israel said, It is enough;
Joseph my son is yet alive: I will go and see him before I die." He was
also greatly assured with these words of Jehovah, 46:2-4: "And God spake
unto Israel in the visions of the night, and said, Jacob, Jacob. And he said,
Here am 1. And he said, I am God, the God of thy father: fear not to go down
into Egypt; for I will there make of thee a great nation; I will go down with thee
into Egypt; and I will also surely bring thee up again: and Joseph shall put
his hand upon thine eyes."
Their affecting meeting is thus described in 46:29-30: "And Joseph made
ready with his chariot, and went up to meet Israel his father, to Goshen; and
he presented himself unto him, and fell on his neck, and wept on his neck a
good while. And Israel said unto Joseph, Now let me die, since I have seen thy
face, and thou art yet alive." Under widely different circumstances our
Lord, in the parable of the prodigal son, described the touching meeting of a
long-separated father and son.
JOSEPH PRESENTS HIS FATHER AND BROTHERS TO PHARAOH
Taking with him five of his brothers, after instructing them what to say,
Joseph introduces them to Pharaoh, and so manages to secure the land of Goshen
for them (46 to 47:6). The advantages of the land of Goshen were these: (1) It
was the best in Egypt for pasturage; (2) it isolated the children of Israel
from the Egyptians, thus enabling them to preserve uncontaminated the exclusive
religious faith, and hedged against giving offense to the Egyptians by either
religion or occupation and tended to prevent intermarriage; (3) it was the
frontier gateway into their Promised Land.
According to Herodotus (2:164), the Egyptians were divided into seven distinct
classes or castes: Priests, warriors, cowherders, swine-herders, interpreters,
boatmen and shepherds. Our text says: "Every shepherd is an abomination to
the Egyptians." It is certain that Egyptian sculpture represents the
shepherds in a most degrading way. So the two peoples would be mutually
repulsive on many grounds. The favor accorded to Jacob's family and dependents
being attributable to the esteem of the royal family for Joseph, all the dreams
of Joseph were thus fulfilled. His brethren now bow down before him, and the
father is nourished by him.
JACOB AND PHARAOH (47:7-11)
The meeting between these two men, so strongly alike in every way, presents
both of them in a favorable light. Pharaoh is very courteous and Jacob is full
of dignity. It is he that blesses Pharaoh. The sincerity of Jacob's famous
words has been questioned. "The days of the years of my pilgrimage are
thirty and a hundred years: few and evil have been the days of the years of my
life, and they have not attained unto the days of the years of the life of my
fathers in the days of their pilgrimage." Marcus Dods, on Genesis, quotes
Lady Duff-Gordon: "Old Jacob's speech to Pharaoh really made me laugh
(don't be shocked), because it is so exactly like what a fellah says to a pasha
– Jacob being a most prosperous man, but it is manners to say all that."
Lady Duff-Gordon may indeed be amused at the Oriental manners of her time, as
the Orientals were doubtless amused at hers, only they were too polite to show
it. But you might make a great sermon on Jacob's words) and find in them
evidences of deepest sincerity.
(1) He correctly represents his life as a "pilgrimage," whose
destination, rest and home, and reward, are in the world above, and so
testifies the New Testament (Heb. 11:8-10, 13-16). It was from the New
Testament Scriptures, descriptive of this feeling of the patriarch life, that
Bunyan derived the idea immortalized in his Pilgrim's Progress. There is no
mere mannerism or perfunctory custom in Jacob's reference to his life as a
pilgrim. (2) It is strictly true that he had not attained to the days of his
fathers. Relative fewness of days was his when compared with either patriarchal
longevity, or eternity. (3) While brightened here and there by divine visitations,
his days were full of evil. He was a man of sorrows and acquainted with
hardships and griefs. Remorse of conscience for his own sins clouded his life,
and the chastening therefore was a heavy burden. His apprehension of Esau's
violence, his separation from his mother never to see her again in this life,
his exile from home, and lonely, friendless life, counted much. No gem of
literature is more exquisite, pathetic and tragic than his own simple statement
to Laban of his twenty years of trial in Padan-Aram, as follows: "And
Jacob was wroth, and chode with Laban; and Jacob answered and said to Laban,
What is my trespass? what is my sin, that thou hast holly pursued after me?
Whereas thou hast felt about all my stuff, what hast thou found of all thy household
stuff? Set it here before my brethren and thy brethren, that they may judge
betwixt us two. These twenty years have I been with thee; thy ewes and thy
she-goats have not cast their young, and the rams of thy flocks have I not
eaten. That which was torn of beasts I brought not unto thee; I bare the loss
of it; of my hand didst thou require it, whether stolen by day or stolen by
night. Thus I was; in the day the drought consumed me, and the frost by night;
and my sleep fled from mine eyes. These twenty years have I been in thy house;
I served thee fourteen years for thy two daughters, and six years for thy
flock: and thou hast changed my wages ten times. Except the God of my father,
the God of Abraham, and the fear of Isaac, had been with me, surely now hadst
thou sent me away empty. God hath seen mine affliction and the labour of my
hands, and rebuked thee yesternight." His troubles from the polygamy
forced upon him were many. The sin of Reuben wounded him to the heart. The
dishonor done to Dinah, and the violence of Simeon and Levi left lasting scars
never to be forgotten. His anxieties about hostile neighbors never left him.
His loss of his beloved Rachel was irreparable, and his loss of Joseph broke
his heart. It was shallow pertness and affected smartness on the part of Lady
Duff Gordon to ridicule a speech so eloquently and so sublimely true.
JOSEPH'S ADMINISTRATION OF THE AFFAIRS OF EGYPT (41:37-57; 47:13-26)
More than once has the world been surprised at the wise administration of
national affairs by alien Jews, promoted for merit alone to the highest
political offices. It commenced with Joseph's rule over Egypt; it is followed
by Daniel's rule over Babylon, and Mordecai's and Nehemiah's influence at the
court of Persia. We have modern examples in the sway of the Rothschilds over
the finances of many nations, Disraeli in England creating the British Empire,
and Judah P. Benjamin in the Confederate States. There are multitudes of
examples on a smaller scale.
Joseph's administration in Egypt gave it world pre-eminence. His bringing all
the land to Pharaoh has been questioned. But it was not only an unavoidable
expedient, but greatly simplified the government of a turbulent population, and
gave to the people themselves a definite one-fifth tribute, instead of
uncertain, oppressive taxation and much tyrannical oppression. If they paid the
one-fifth, a land rent far cheaper than prevails here, their burdens were
ended. His gathering the people into cities was to simplify the distribution of
stores. There will doubtless always be difference of opinions about the wisdom
of agrarian laws. The abolition of private ownership in land has been argued in
our time and country by Henry George and his followers. A political economist
will find it difficult to answer satisfactorily his Progress and Poverty. The
accumulation of large landed interests, mines, minerals, timbers, oil, etc., in
the hands of a few men, or irresponsible syndicates, menaces today the peace of
the world. Isaiah prophesies woe to those who add house to house and land to
land until there is no room for the people. Jefferson claimed that the earth in
usufruct belongs to the living. Goldsmith well says in his Deserted
Village:
III fares the land to hastening ills a prey,
Where wealth accumulates and men decay.
The Gracchi perished in trying to remedy the land evil in ancient Rome. The
ancient Germans, according to Caesar, prevented private ownership of lands, as,
according to Prescott, did the ancient Peruvians. England passed through the
throes of this very burning question. It is certain that Egypt was happier
under Joseph's rule than ever before or since. So were the Peruvians under the
land policy of the Incas. In the United States today the battle is on to the
death to preserve to the people the water courses, the forests, the natural
resources; and to relax the choking grasp of monopolies that prey, in selfish,
insatiable greed, upon the very vitals of the people. Joseph, being an alien,
did not attempt to destroy the landownership of the priesthood, the most
plausible and yet the most dangerous monopoly known to a free people. Other
nations have been compelled to abolish their ownership. The successful fight in
Mexico on that point is the most notable in history. The priesthood held
one-half the land in fee simple, and not only paid no taxes, but forced the
people owning the other half to support them. They ruled the cradle, the grave
and futurity itself. Their holidays drove labor from the calendar. This
ownership in the Philippines constituted one-half of the gravest problems in
our government of those islands, in the solution of which, mainly by President
Taft when in charge there, more unwise statesmanship was displayed than was
ever before exercised by our country's rulers, the end of which in fateful
consequences is not yet.
Under all circumstances, the administration of Egyptian affairs by Joseph is
the wisest record in the annals of time. A writer cited by Marcus Dods mentions
an inscription on the tomb of an Egyptian, supposed to refer to this famine in
Joseph's time: "When a famine broke out for many years I gave corn to the
city in each famine." Smith's Bible Dictionary, article
"Famine," cites the only other seven years of famine known to
Egyptian history. It lasted from A.D. 1064 to 1071.
1. What is the proof that Jacob's migration to Egypt was of divine appointment?
2. Show the interplay of human passion, the natural causes and name the actors
who played any part in this matter.
3. How do you reconcile the two totals of sixty-six and seventy given in the
Hebrew text?
4. How do you reconcile the numbers in Genesis 46:26-27, with the addition of
vv. 15, 18, 22, 25, and Acts 7:14?
5. What difficulties from another source puzzle the critics and what the
explanation?
6. What proverb is based on Jacob's loss of Joseph?
7. What are the scriptural expressions of his sorrow?
8. How did the news that Joseph was alive affect him?
9. How was he assured in this matter?
10. Describe the affecting meeting of Joseph and Jacob. What New Testament
illustration of this incident cited?
11. What land did Joseph secure for his father and brothers, and what the
advantages of this land?
12. According to Herodotus, what were the classes of the Egyptians?
13. What was the position of the shepherd among the Egyptians, the evidence and
how account for the favor accorded Jacob and his family?
14. What were his famous words to Pharaoh and what Lady Duff Gordon's remark
about them?
15. What evidences of the sincerity of his words?
16. What New Testament evidence that Jacob correctly represented his life as a
pilgrimage?
17. In what famous allegory is this idea immortalized?
18. How old was Jacob when he stood before Pharaoh and how do his days compare
with the days of the other patriarchs?
19. What the evidence that his days were full of evil?
20. Itemize Jacob's troubles somewhat.
21. What ancient Jews became powerful in the affairs of foreign governments?
22. What modern ones have made their influence felt likewise?
23. What were the blessings of Joseph's administration to the people?
24. What are agrarian laws? Who wrote Progress and Poverty and what was its
aim?
25. Cite Isaiah's prophecy in point.
26. What was Jefferson's position on it?
27. What said Goldsmith about it?
28. Cite illustrations of this in ancient and modern history.
29. How does the administration of Joseph in Egypt compare with other
administrations of like nature?
30. What is the meaning of "Joseph shall put his hand upon thine
eyes"? (Gen. 46:4.)
31. The meaning of "And Pharaoh took off his ring and put it on Joseph's
hand"?
32. Cite other Bible instances of the use of the signet ring.
THE LAST DAYS OF JACOB AND JOSEPH
Genesis 47:27-50
We may thus compare Jacob and Solomon: The sun of Solomon's life rose in a
blaze of light and glory, and set in the darkest clouds. The sun of Jacob's
life rose in clouds, which lingered long, but set in joy and glory. Joseph and
Daniel may thus be compared: These are the two basal personal lives of history,
and the most important in beneficent political administration known to the
annals of time. We may search in vain among the records of men to find two
other prime ministers of nations that may rank with them.
How very few old men, after a hale and strong career, are permitted to enjoy
the last seventeen years of declining age in peace, nourished by a favorite
son, with tranquility in the family and prosperity in business. But age lives
much in the past, exercising memory more than hope. Jacob now remembers, as
death approaches, the cave of Machpelah in the Promised Land, where side by
side repose the bodies of his ancestors, and exacts a solemn promise from
Joseph that he be buried there. And in his farewell request to his sons he
repeats this dying charge (read chapter 49:29-33), as follows: "And he
charged them, and said unto them, I am to be gathered unto my people; bury me
with my fathers in the cave that is in the field of Ephron the Hittite, in the
cave that is in the field of Machpelah, which is before Mamre, in the land of
Canaan, which Abraham bought with the field from Ephron the Hittite for a
possession of a burying-place. There they buried Abraham and Sarah his wife;
there they buried Isaac and Rebekah his wife; and there I buried Leah – the
field and the cave that is therein, which was purchased from the children of
Heth. And when Jacob made an end of charging his sons, he gathered up his feet
into the bed, and yielded up the ghost, and was gathered unto his people."
The remaining incidents of the book of Genesis come under these heads:
1. Jacob blesses Joseph's children.
2. Prophecy concerning his children.
3. The burial of Jacob.
4. The fear of Joseph's brethren that he would punish them for their sins after
their father's death.
5. The death of Joseph.
Taking them up in order, we have:
THE BLESSING OF THE SONS OF JOSEPH Genesis 48:1-20
Hearing of his father's extreme illness, Joseph visits him and takes his two
children with him. The old man is so feeble that he has to sit up in bed
supported on his staff, and he is so nearly blind that the children must be
brought close to him that he may see their faces and kiss them. Joseph purposes
in his heart that Manasseh, his firstborn, should receive the greater blessing,
and so places him before Jacob in such a way that Jacob's right hand might rest
on Manasseh's head. But Jacob crosses his hands, and puts his right hand upon
Ephraim's head, and the left one on Manasseh. He commences his benediction on
Joseph himself, and announces that his name must be the name of the two boys;
in other words, that both of these sons must be counted as if they were the
sons of Jacob, that is, that each one of them should become the head of a tribe
of Israel; and this is what is meant by the explanation of Jacob to Joseph:
"I have given to thee one portion above thy brethren," and
immediately he designates the location of Ephraim in the Promised Land. That is
the portion that came to him, and is described as that which came through the
destruction of the Shechemites. Here an explanation is needed of Hebrews 11:21:
"By faith Jacob, when he was dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph,
and worshipped leaning upon the top of his staff." We do not find this
last clause in the Hebrew, but the Septuagint uses these words, only it puts
them in Genesis 47:31, as a substitute for the words of the Hebrew: "And
Israel bore himself upon the bed's head." It will be observed that the
author of the letter to the Hebrews corrects the Septuagint's misapplication of
these words. The Septuagint confines them to the occasion when Jacob exacts the
oath from Joseph to bury him in the cave of Machpelah, as related in Genesis
47, but the author of the letter to the Hebrews applies them to the occasion
when Jacob blesses the children of Joseph, as related in Genesis 48. We can
well see how the words, "and he worshipped, leaning upon the head of his
staff," fit the occasion of Jacob's blessing the children of Joseph. The
old man was too feeble to sit up in bed, unless he was supported by his staff;
and with his feet resting on the floor, the children of Joseph were put between
his knees, that he might see their faces and kiss them, while he steadied
himself resting on his staff. When this was over we have these words: "and
he bowed his face to the earth"; that is, it was at this juncture that
Jacob worshiped, leaning upon the head of his staff. This New Testament usage
of a Septuagint passage shows that the writers of the New Testament always
quoted intelligently from that version, and whenever necessary, they corrected
it.
In commenting on the forty-ninth chapter of Genesis, which contains the
blessings pronounced by Jacob on his twelve sons, four distinct things need to
be borne in mind. First, what was in the mother's mind when the boy was named;
second, what the boys turned out to be, as set forth in this chapter; third,
what the tribe descending from them turned out to be, as set forth in
Deuteronomy 34; fourth, the final reference to the tribes in Revelation 7.
These four scriptures should be studied together. For example, I will take up
what it says about Reuben first: "And Jacob called unto his sons, and
said: Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall
you in the latter days." Reuben, the eldest, under usual conditions, would
have had all the rights of primogeniture, the head of the family and the tribe
and the priest, the one in whom the promised Messiah should come. "Reuben,
thou art my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength; the
pre-eminence of dignity and the pre-eminence of power. Boiling over as water,
thou shalt not have the pre-eminence." That means that Reuben should not
have the primogeniture. "Boiling over as water" refers to a pot on a
fire, which, when it gets hot, runs over the pot and into the fire. That is the
picture of one whose passions and appetites are not restrained, but when
excited boil over. Because of that characteristic Reuben loses the birthright.
In the common version it says, "unstable as water." The same idea is
involved; that water may seem to be perfectly level, but when you put fire to
it, it bubbles over. Now compare that with what Moses said in Deuteronomy 33,
and you will see that for Reuben as a tribe the prospect brightens. Moses said,
"Let Reuben live, and not die; nor let his men be few." You would
have inferred from what Jacob said that the tribe would pass away on account of
the sin and instability of the father. We go to the next case:
Simeon and Levi he puts together, because they were united in that great piece
of cruelty and deception practiced upon the Shechemites, and the barbarous
massacre of the men and the enslavement of the women and children and the
robbing of the flocks. Jacob says:
Simeon and Levi are brethren;
Weapons of violence are their swords.
Here is a proverb which I have preached from:
0 my soul, come not thou into their council;
Unto their assembly, my glory, be not thou united;
For in their anger they slew a man,
And in their self-will they hocked an ox.
Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce;
And their wrath, for it was cruel:
I will divide them in Jacob,
And scatter them in Israel.
One of your examination questions will be: When was that fulfilled? Ans.: When
Joshua made the allotments. Simeon and Levi received no allotments. Simeon was
scattered about in Judah and other territory. So, as a matter of fact, these
two tribes were scattered. Now, let us see when we come to Moses what change has
taken place (Deut. 33:8) :
And of Levi he said,
Thy Thummirn and thy Urim are with thy godly one,
Whom thou didst prove at Massah,
With whom thou didst strive at the water of Meribah;
Who said of his father, and of his mother, I have not seen him;
Neither did he acknowledge his brethren,
Nor knew he his own children:
For they have observed thy word,
And keep thy covenant.
They shall teach Jacob thine ordinances,
And Israel thy law:
They shall put incense before thee,
And whole burnt-offering upon thine altar.
Bless, Jehovah, his substance,
And accept the work of his hands:
Smite through the loins of them that rise up against him,
And of them that hate him, that they rise not again.
So far as Levi is concerned, then, the prospects are very wonderfully
brightened when you come to Moses. There you begin to get an idea of the answer
to another one of the general questions: How were the elements of the rights of
primogeniture, which Reuben lost, distributed among the others? You see Levi gets
a part, and becomes the priest of the family and the tribe, and as the priest
he is the religious instructor. Moses tells us by what act Levi obtained that
revision of the original sentence against him. The instance is when Israel
worshiped the golden calf; Levi stood by Moses when he said, "Whoever is
on the Lord's side, let him come and stand over here," and the whole tribe
of Levi came and stood by him. And in smiting the idolaters, they had no regard
of men. In the final division of the rights of primogeniture, Levi received the
priesthood, Joseph became the head of the tribe and Judah became the one
through whom the promised Messiah should come.
We find that Moses does not mention Simeon at all, but he reappears in the
Revelation list, and that Dan disappears from that list. Jacob says about
Judah:
Judah, thee shall thy brethren praise:
Thy hand shall be on the neck of thine enemies;
Thy father's son shall bow down before thee.
Judah is a lion's whelp;
From the prey, my son, thou art gone up:
He stooped down, he couched as a lion,
And as a lioness; who shall rouse him up?
The sceptre shall not depart from Judah,
Nor the ruler's staff from between his feet,
Until Shiloh come;
And unto him shall the obedience of the peoples be.
Binding his foal unto the vine,
And his ass's colt unto the choice vine;
He hath washed his garments in wine,
And his vesture in the blood of grapes:
His eyes shall be red with wine,
And his teeth white with milk.
The first line of the above prophecy was a reference to the Messiah who shall
come from him. In v.10 is a remarkable messianic prophecy: "The sceptre
shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until
Shiloh come." Shiloh is the Saviour. And so we find that the kingdom
remain-ed (that Judah remained a kingdom) until it was destroyed by
Nebuchadnezzar. Then, subordinated to Persia, civil government was restored
under Zerubbabel of the line of David, and a hierarchy under Joshua, the high
priest. The restoration was accomplished by Ezra and Nehemiah, aided by the
prophets Haggai and Malachi. Under Greek rule Antiochus Epiphanes sought to
destroy the whole Jewish polity and religion, but was defeated by the
Maccabees, who became kings. Under Roman rule, Herod the Great, who married the
last of the Maccabees) became king. Then just before Herod died Shiloh, the
Messiah, came. As Herod was an ldumean, "the sceptre had departed from
Judah." While Herod's descendants, at the will of Rome, ruled under some
subordinate title over parts of the Holy Land, yet all semblance of autonomous
government perished at the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, A.D. 70, since
which time the Jews, though existing as a dispersed race, have had no settled
home, nor nationality, nor temple, nor altar, nor sacrifice, nor priesthood. If
therefore Shiloh has not come, He can never come.
Zebulun shall dwell at the haven of the sea;
And he shall be for a haven of ships;
And his border shall be upon Sidon.
We find Zebulun and Sidon located that way all through their history. Moses
said (Deut. 33:18):
Rejoice, Zebulun, in thy going out;
And, Issachar, in thy tents.
They shall call the peoples unto the mountains;
There shall they offer sacrifices of righteousness.
So that brightens for Issachar and Zebulun. When we come to Judges we find some
illustrious people coming out of these tribes. We shall come to Dr. Burleson's
great text: "The sons of Issachar were wise, and had understanding of what
Israel ought to do." Therefore, he said, whenever you see a leader of the
people, he is a son of Issachar, who knows how, in great conventions, to tell
Israel what policy to adopt. Look at Issachar as Jacob describes him (49:14) :
Issachar is a strong ass,
Crouching down between the sheepfolds:
And he saw a resting place that it was good,
And the land that it was pleasant;
And he bowed his shoulder to bear,
And became a servant under taskwork.
So Issachar becomes a burden-bearing beast. Just so he could get fodder to eat
and a good shed in the winter, he did not mind having a master and paying a
tribute to him. But, as we have seen, it brightens for Issachar in the account
by Moses. Jacob says of Dan:
Dan shall judge his people,
As one of the tribes of Israel.
There he refers to what the name "Dan" means. I have known several
boys named Dan; and their nickname in the family is always "Judge."
Doubtless there was an anticipation in this case of the time when an
illustrious member of the tribe of Dan should be a judge of Israel. Our friend
Samson was that man. Now comes a reference not so good (v. 17) :
Dan shall be a serpent in the way,
An adder in the path,
That biteth the horse's heels,
So that his rider falleth backward.
I have waited for thy salvation, 0 Jehovah.
That meant that Dan should not be an open enemy, but would lie in ambush. He
was a snake in the grass. When we come to read the history in the book of
Judges, we find that Dan got very much dissatisfied with the territory assigned
to him, and slips out and steals some idols and goes up into the northern part
of the country, and there becomes an idolater. There was an organization in the
United States history called the Danites. After Joe Smith was killed at Nauvoo
the Mormons moved to Salt Lake City, and organized this secret society to
combat their enemies; and these Danites perpetrated that infamous Mountain
Meadows Massacre, of which so much has been said. Just as Mrs. Harriet Beecher
Stowe's book Uncle Tom's Cabin, had much to do with stirring up
the North, and Thomas Dixon's Clansman has had to do with
reversing the effect of that book, so a book entitled The Danites, a
dramatized story, brought such a storm of indignation that the whole United
States was set on fire against the Mormons, and finally General Albert Sidney
Johnston, at that time colonel, was detached there with a force to put down the
Mormon Rebellion. I can just remember the indignation created in the public
mind by the horrors revealed in The Danites. Dan is not mentioned in
Revelation.
Gad, a troop shall press upon. him;
But he shall press upon their heel.
There Jacob goes back to the name the mother had in mind. Let us see how Gad
enlarges in the writings of Moses (Deut. 33:20-21):
Blessed be he that enlargeth Gad:
He dwelleth as a lioness,
And feareth the arm, yea, the crown of the head.
And he provided the first part for himself,
For there was the lawgiver's portion reserved;
And he came with the heads of the people;
He executed the righteousness of Jehovah,
And his ordinances with Israel. We come to Asher (v. 20) :
Out of Asher his bread shall be fat,
And he shall yield royal dainties. Moses says (Deut. 33:24) :
Blessed be Asher with children;
Let him be acceptable unto his brethren,
And let him dip his foot in oil. This last clause means that he will have a
prosperous time as to this world's goods. Moses says of Naphtali:
0 Naphtali, satisfied with favour,
And full with the blessing of Jehovah,
Possess thou the west and the south. Whenever a boy is delivering his
commencement address and scrapes star dust, we call him a "son of
Naphtali." Now Jacob says (v. 21):
Naphtali is a hind let loose:
He giveth goodly words. That means that Naphtali is to furnish the orators. And
we now come to the richest blessing of all, the blessing on Joseph. I read that
to my little boy the other night, as the occasion of the service in the family
prayer. I wanted him to see what a great thing it is when a father comes to die
that he can look into the face of children sad say only good things (v. 22):
Joseph is a fruitful bough,
A fruitful bough by a fountain;
His branches run over the wall.
The archers have sorely grieved him,
And shot at him, and persecuted him:
But his bow abode in strength,
And the arms of his hands were made strong
By the hands of the Mighty One of Jacob.
By the consent of Pharaoh, Joseph went up to bury his father, accompanied by a
great caravan, including distinguished Egyptians, and the whole family, and all
the family of Jacob's sons. It was an immense train, and when they came to the
threshing floor of Atad they mourned for their father seven days. It was such
an imposing funeral as to impress itself upon the minds of the inhabitants of
the land. And then the body of the aged patriarch was put into the family
burying place, in the cave of Machpelah.
It was quite natural that Joseph's brethren would suspect, now that the father
was out of the way, that Joseph's conduct toward them would change, and so they
sought to conciliate him; but with great magnanimity he thus addresses them
(50: 19-21): "Fear not, for am I in the place of God? And as for you, ye
meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring to pass, as it is
this day, to have much people alive. Now therefore fear ye not: I will nourish
you and your little ones. And he comforted them, and spake kindly unto
them." And the Genesis record closes with:
He lives to see the children of his sons to the third generation. Being about
to die he gave this charge to them (50:24-26): "God will surely visit you,
and bring you up out of this land unto the land which he sware to Abraham, to
Isaac, and to Jacob. And Joseph took an oath of the children of Israel, saying,
God will surely visit you, and ye shall carry up my bones from hence." He
told them that they should bury his bones in the Promised Land.
A noted Scotch preacher, Melville, preached a great sermon on "The Bones
of Joseph," well making this point: "There can be no sufficient
reason for the preservation of the bodies or bones of the dead, if there be no
resurrection of the dead." When we take up the later history we will find
that when the Israelites did leave Egypt, they took the body of Joseph, i.e.,
his bones (Ex. 15:19). They put his bones, not in the cave of Machpelah, but
according to the promise made to Joshua (Josh. 24:32): "And the bones of
Joseph, which the children of Israel brought up out of Egypt, buried they in
Shechem, in the parcel of ground which Jacob bought of the sons of Hamor the
father of Shechem for a hundred pieces of money."
1. Compare the beginning and end of Jacob's life with Solomon's.
2. Compare Joseph and Daniel.
3. What characteristic of old age was exemplified in Jacob?
4. What was his request to Joseph which was repeated in his dying charge to his
sons?
5. What now are the remaining incidents of the book?
6. How did Jacob thwart the purpose of Joseph to give Manasseh the greater
blessing?
7. What did Jacob mean by saying that these sons should be called by his name?
8. What is meant by Jacob in this expression: "I have given to thee one
portion above thy brethren"?
9. Explain in this connection Hebrews 11:21.
10. Of what does the forty-ninth chapter of Genesis consist?
11. What 4 things should be borne in mind in the study of this chapter?
12. What wag the element of weakness in Reuben's character which lost him the
birthright?
13. What striking New Testament illustrations are employed concerning preachers
who partake of Reuben's weakness of character? (2 Peter 2:17; Jude 12-13.)
14. How does the dying prophecy of Moses brighten the fate of Reuben's
posterity?
15. Why did Jacob take Simeon and Levi together?
16. What was the penalty for their sin and when fulfilled?
17. How does Moses brighten the prospects of Levi?
18. How were the several elements of the birthright forfeited by Reuben
distributed among his brethren?
19. How did Levi's descendants, by a great act of merit, regain a distinction
greater than Levi forfeited?
20. What important messianic prophecy is a part of the blessing of Judah?
21. What was its bearing on the claim of Jesus to be the Messiah?
22. According to Jacob's prophecy, where was Zebulun located?
23. In Jacob's prophecy to what is Issachar likened?
24. How in Moses' prophecy do the prospects of Zebulun and Issachar brighten?
25. Cite the text used by Dr. Burleson.
26. What is the meaning of "Dan" and what illustrious member of the
tribe exemplified the name?
28. What do we learn of Dan in later history that justifies the prophecy?
29. What deadly secret organization in American history was based on the
prophecy about Dan?
30. Whose dramatized story, The Danites, stirred the popular indignation
against the Mormons?
31. How does Moses enlarge Gad over Jacob's prophecy?
32. How do Moses' and Jacob's blessings on Asher compare?
33. What special gift should characterize the sons of Naphtali?
34. On which son came the richest blessing?
35. Which tribe is not mentioned in the blessing of Moses?
36. Which is omitted in the sealing of Revelation?
37. Describe the funeral of Jacob.
38. What was the fear of Joseph's brethren after the death of Jacob?
39. What prophecy did Joseph give at his death?
40. What oath did he take of the children of Israel?
41. Who preached a great sermon on "The Bones of Joseph," and what
was the main point?
42. When was the prophecy of Joseph fulfilled and where did they bury him?