The story of Abraham will ever be an important one, and particularly that part of it dealing with the memorable doings at the place he named "Jehovah-jireh," where, as related in Genesis 22, he showed his wonderful obedience to God. Whatever may be conjectured to the contrary, the record in Genesis is clear and unmistakable. It was a test of Abraham's faith in God. Some critics want to know why, if God is all knowing, he should have said to Abraham: "For now I know that thou fearest God" (Gen. 22:12). The problem of foreknowledge is an extremely difficult one, and discussion about it is usually fruitless. God in this case speaks of the test of Abraham as though it had been an experiment. He proved him and found him firm in faith and perfect in obedience. It was in obedience to the Lord's command that he stood ready to offer up his son Isaac, and not because he himself had chosen such a sacrifice, in order to be like his idolatrous neighbors, who offered up their children to Moloch. Genesis 22:2 dismisses this latter suggestion altogether. The immediate effect of Abraham's successful test was the great blessing which God bestowed on him (verse 16), which, together with God's covenant, made Abraham the most important Biblical character and his name better known than that of any other human being on earth. All the promises to Abraham have been fulfilled, except the return of his descendants to the promised land. His seed is past all reckoning. Not only have all the Jews been his offspring, but Christians as well are in a sense his spiritual children. Their faith in Christ brings them into his family and makes them heirs of the promises made to him. The land of Canaan was promised to his seed forever. Since they are not in possession of it now we must believe they will return, as many other prophecies also declare. The promise was, however, not made to Abraham alone, but to him and his seed, which includes Christ--to the literal Israel and also to the spiritual Israel. The complete fulfillment of the covenant awaited the coming of Christ, "the seed," concerning whom it was made. See Galatians 3:16.
There is doubtless difficulty in reconciling the passage in Genesis 18 with the statement in John 1:18, that "No man hath seen God at any time." Authorities regarded the Genesis passage as relating to one of the "theophanies" of the Old Testament; that is, a real appearance of God to man. It is believed, however, that these appearances were of Christ the Son, rather than God the Father. The New Testament teaches that Christ existed co-eternally with the Father, and it is not inconceivable that he would at times take the appearance of humanity when he wished especially to make himself known to men. This explanation rec onciles all these occurrences with the statement of John that no one has seen God; that is, God the Father. Christ is the personal manifestation of God to man.
The passage in Joshua, 10th chapter, describing the miracle of the sun and moon at the time of the battle in the vale of Ajalon, has been much discussed. Some commentators hold that it is a passage in which the inspired historian departs from his narrative to introduce a highly poetic quotation, in other words, a poetical figure of speech, not to be interpreted literally--as though one might say that "God and all nature fought on the side of Joshua." Again, the reference to the poetical book of Jasher as the source of this passage lends color to this explanation (see verse 13). Others prefer the literal view, regarding it as a miracle in which the hours when sun and moon were both visible (the sun on the heights of Gibeon at noon and the moon in the valley) were extended into a whole day, or twelve hours of light (see Macdonald's Prin-cipia and the Bible), the continued radiance of both orbs lighting the battleground. Still another interpretation is that the sun and moon were heavily obscured by storm clouds (see verse 11), and that Joshua's prayer was that they should withhold their light and that the gloom or semi-darkness of the storm might last until the battle was fought, giving the Israelites the advantage of a surprise with smaller numbers, the strength of which the enemy could not properly estimate.
The only source of information is the Bible narrative and it contains no intimation that it is to be understood otherwise than literally. Theologians who have preferred to regard the narrative as a parable or allegory have usually been led to do so by the suggestion that the eating of fruit which was "good for food," and "pleasant to the eyes," and was moreover within reach, was an offense too venial to have been justly visited with a punishment so severe and far-reaching. The objection, however, is not well founded, because it ignores the main point involved. The gravity of the offense consisted, not in the act itself, but in the fact that Adam and Eve in committing it were consciously and willfully violating God's explicit and emphatic command. They were punished for disobedience. Even if we should hold that it took some other form than the actual and literal eating of fruit, the principle is the same. There is no valid reason for rejecting the Bible narrative or putting any other construction on the words than is there implied.
Adam means "red" and so also does the word Edom, both having relation to the ruddiness of flesh and the color of the clayey soil. (See Gen. 2:7.) Some commentators hold that Adam, the first man, was probably of the complexion of the Arabs, or Edomites, ruddy though dark, while others take a different view. No definite theory can be formed on this subject.
There are many mundane things beyond the reach of present human knowledge and the site of Eden and the language of our first parents are among the number. Some philologists have ventured the conjecture that the primeval language must have been a simple vocabulary whose formation is indicated in Gen. 2:19, and which was strictly limited to the natural requirements of our first progenitors; in other words, signs and sounds apprehensible by the senses. All agree that speech, or the power of expressing emotions, or desires, was coeval with the creation of man. The earliest monuments and inscriptions yet discovered do not reach as far back into antiquity as the confusion of tongues at Babel (about B.C. 2200), previous to which (Gen. 2:1), the Biblical record states that "the whole earth was of one language and one speech," although probably there were many variations and dialects, each containing some element of the original tongue. Man's first utterances were probably what philologists term a "physical language," limited to the expression of simple needs and afterwards expanded to meet man's growing experience with his own nature and the world around him.
It was preserved in the tabernacle and, according to Paul (see Heb. 9:4), it was kept in the Ark, beside the two tablets of stone and the pot of manna. There is no mention of any other receptacle. The statement in I Kings 8:9 implies that by Solomon's time these relics had disappeared. It is possible, however, for a different interpretation to be placed on Deut 31:26, which may mean that the rod was kept beside the Ark, and not within it.
The name of Cain's wife is nowhere mentioned in the Bible. Arab traditions are preserved in one of which she is called Asura, in another Save, but these are not seriously regarded by scholars.
Her name is not given in Scripture. The reference to Abigail, one of the members of Jesse's family, in II Sam. 17:25, is frequently misunderstood. The Nahash there mentioned is either another name for Jesse or it refers to Nahash, king of Ammon, one of whose wives afterward became the wife of Jesse, as stated in the chronicles of the Jewish church.
Began approximately 1875 B.C.
Believed to be about 1895 B.C.
Ham, one of the sons of Noah, was the progenitor of the negro race (see Gen. 9:18-27).
About 1874 B.C. Date of his death, 1857 B.C.
There were three walls about Jerusalem. The first was built by David and Solomon; the second, enclosing one of the northern sections of the city, was built by Uzziah, Jotham and Manasseh, and restored by Nehemiah; the third was built by Herod Agrippa, and was intended to enclose the hitherto unprotected suburbs which had grown out from the northern part of the city. According to Josephus, who is not always thoroughly reliable, the circumference of the city, evidently including all the sections enclosed by the three walls he describes, was thirty-three stadia, a little less than four English miles.
The appellation "Jew" is derived from the patriarch Judah, and was originally applied to all members of that tribe and also to subjects of the separate kingdom of Judah, in contradistinction to the seceding ten tribes, who retained the name of Israelites. During the captivity and ever since, the term "Jew" seems to have been applied indiscriminately to the whole race.
The names of the kings of Judah in their canonical order are: Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Ahaziah, Athaliah (queen), Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, Zedekiah.
It is supposed that the manna of the Israelites was a saccharine exudation of a species of tamarisk, the sap of which was set flowing by an insect. Several trees yield manna, as the flowering ash of Sicily and the eucalyptus of Australia. In India a sweet exudation comes from the bamboo, and a similar substance is obtained from the sugar-pine and common reed of our own country.
Mizpah, or Mizpeh, was the name of several localities in Old Testament history. The word means "a watch-tower," and in literature the whole of the beautiful remark made by Laban to Jacob (Gen. 31:49) has been included in its meaning: "The Lord watch between me and thee when we are absent one from the other."
Commentators hold that the Ethiopian (or Cushite) woman mentioned in Num. 12 as the wife of Moses, against whom Aaron and Miriam complained, was Zipporah. Their opposition is believed to have been caused by jealousy of her relatives and their influence.
There is nothing to show what became of Moses' rod. Aaron's rod, however, is said (in Heb. 9:4) to have been preserved in the sacred Ark of the Jews along with the tables of the law and the pot of manna.
Her name is not given in the Bible, although it has been preserved in tradition..
The two chapters in the Bible that are alike are II Kings 19 and Isa. 37. Both are regarded as the work of Isaiah, relating a series of events which in one book are placed in their proper historical setting and in the other find their true place among the prophecies.
In Gen. 20:12 Abram speaks of Sarai as his half-sister, the daughter of the same father, but not the same mother. The common Jewish tradition referred to by Josephus (Antiquities 1,6,6) and also by Jerome, is that Sarai was identical with Iscah (see Gen. 11:29), daughter of Haran and sister of Lot, who is called Abraham's "brother."
The word "Selah," which occurs a number of times in the Psalms, was a musical or liturgical sign, whose meaning is unknown. Some regard it as a pause in the music, to mark a transition in the theme or composition. It seems to have no grammatical connection with the sentence after which it appears, and has therefore nothing to do with the meaning of the passage. It was a note to the singers of the psalm, or to those who were accompanying the singing with instruments.
The Amalekites were a wicked, oppressive, war-like and cruel people. They were powerful and influential and possessed cities in the south of Canaan. (See I Sam. 15:18; Judg. 10:12; Num. 24:7.) They were the first to oppose Israel (Exo. 17:8); Saul overcame them (I Sam. 14:48); David invaded their land (I Sam. 30:1-2), and what was left of them was completely destroyed during the reign of Hezekiah (I Chron. 4:41-43).
The Ammonites were so called (Deu. 2:19). They were a cruel, covetous, proud, reproachful, vindictive, superstitious and idolatrous nation (see Amos 1:13; Zep. 2:10; Eze. 25:3,6; Judg. 10:6; Jer. 27:3). Their chief city was Rabbah (II Sam. 12:26-27), where they were governed by hereditary kings (II Sam. 2:20-21). They had various encounters with Israel. With the Philistines they oppressed Israel for eighteen years (Judg. 10:6-9). Saul succeeded against them as did David, and Joab overcame them (I Sam. 11:11; II Sam. 10:7-14). Solomon intermarried with them and introduced their idols into Israel (I Kin. 11:1-5).
They were one of the seven nations of Canaan and were governed by many independent kings (Josh. 5:1; Josh. 9:10). They originally inhabited a mountain district in the south (Num. 13:29), but later acquired an extensive tract from Moab, east of Jordan (Num. 21:26,30). They had many strong cities (Num. 32:17, 33). They were profane, wicked and idolatrous (Gen. 15:16; Josh. 24:15). They interfered with Israel (Num. 21:21) at times, again were peaceful, but were finally brought into bondage by Solomon (I Kin. 9:20-21).
In Genesis 8:20 we find the first reference to an altar, namely that one on which Noah offered his sacrifice to God for deliverance from the danger of the Flood. Armenian tradition says it was built on Mount Ararat.
The tower of Babel is always an interesting subject for discussion. Philologists are divided concerning the language spoken before the "Confusion of Tongues" at Babel. What little we know of it is learned at second-hand from the testimonies of classical authorities. The Babylonians called the locality of Babel "Barsip" (the Tower of Tongues). A French expedition to Mesopotamia found a clay cake or tablet, which showed that the language at some indefinitely remote period was written in the form of signs and hieroglyphics; but even this was probably long after the dispersion at Babel. What universal language was spoken by prehistoric man thousands of years ago will probably never be definitely known. It may have been Babylonian or Arabic in character, but this is mere conjecture. Supplementary to the Bible record, there are many traditions preserved concerning the Tower and its fate, and these mostly claim for it a Babylonian origin, holding that Babylonia was the cradle of the human race. The site of the tower, according to modern opinion, is identified as Birs Nimrud, a huge mound covering gigantic ruins and situated at Felujiah in Mesopotamia; but this identification is by no means certain.
The political cause of the captivity was the repeated revolt of Judah against the power of Babylon. Relying on the help of Egypt, the king broke his promise of fidelity and refused to pay the tribute he had promised to pay. The prophets uttered many warnings against this suicidal course, and still more against the idolatry and accompanying immorality which prevailed. They assured the nation that, beset as Judah was by dangers from her powerful neighbors, she would be safe, if only she would be faithful to God. But the king and people were continually forsaking him and turning to evil courses, until at last God gave them up to their enemies. This was the spiritual cause of the captivity. The neglect of the Sabbatic years, mentioned II Chronicles 36:21, was only one of many provocations. The writer mentions it incidentally, to show that what the people would not do voluntarily, was done when they were carried away and the land rested seventy years.
You need to read the entire story in Numbers 22 to get a complete idea of the situation. Balaam was in the first instance forbidden to go. That answer should have been sufficient for Balaam, but when the princes came with alluring offers of gifts and office and honors, he bade them remain to see whether there might be any fresh instructions. He obviously hoped that permission would be given. He showed his ignorance of God's ways in supposing that Barak's gifts and promises could make any difference to God's decision. His answers to the men also showed that he would like to comply if God would let him. Probably, too, God read in his mind an intention to pronounce the curse for which Barak was willing to pay. Hence the warning by the way, which would brace up his wavering resolution to utter the word of the Lord even if it was disagreeable to Barak.
The words, as they are found in Daniel, are pure Chaldee, and if they appeared in the Chaldean characters on the wall, might have been read by any person present who understood the alphabet of the Babylonian language. Authorities differ as to the language in which the famous Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin appeared. Dr. Hales suggests that it may have been in primitive Hebrew; Josephus implies that it was in Greek. Another explanation is that while the observers may have been familiar with the language, its meaning or signification may have been hidden from them, until explained by the prophet.
The Genesis narrative tells us that the Lord had no respect for Cain's offering, as he had that of Abel, his brother's. The reason for this must have been a wrong spirit in Cain (Gen. 4:3-7). Verse 7 states: "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well sin lieth at the door." There have been many interpretations suggested for the last part of this verse; but whatever translation may be given the specific words, the whole narrative implies that the trouble with Cain was with his motive. He did not come humbly, worshipfully, as Abel did, and probably his offering was less costly, less of a real sacrifice. Again, it has been thought that in the acceptance of the animal sacrifice and the rejection of the fruit sacrifice there was a suggestion of the fact that sin requires death for an atonement. Abel's was the first of the long line of offerings for sin in which blood was shed, culminating in the sacrifice of Christ's body on the cross. The mark upon Cain has been a fertile subject of conjecture among Biblical scholars. Some hold that it was probably a sign given to Cain as assurance that no man should kill him, but the nature of the sign, and whether it was something perceptible to others, are left in uncertainty. One commentator suggests that it may have been an aspect of such ferocity that he became an object of horror and avoidance. Lastly, the question is asked about the land of Nod, to which Cain was banished after the murder of Abel and where he found his wife. The land of Nod means simply "land of exile." We may gather from Gen. 4:14-15 that at the time referred to, the human family had multiplied considerably. Cain's wife was doubtless some blood relative, probably a sister. An ancient Arab tradition states that her name was Azura. From the account in Genesis, we may conjecture that al though only four persons are mentioned in the sacred narrative up to this point, the human race had increased rapidly (Josephus says that the Jews held a tradition that Adam had thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters). Cain's fear of punishment may therefore have been directed toward his own relatives.
The number of adults over twenty years of age who left Egypt is stated in Exodus 12:37, at about six hundred thousand. Allowing the normal proportion of children to such a host we may infer that the total number was probably between one and two millions. Three or four months later, when they were at Sinai, a more careful count was made and the number of adults is then given (Ex. 38:26) at 603,550. Two years later another census was taken and the number is stated (Num. 2:32) at exactly the same figure, but as the Levites were not included and there were 22,000 of them, we may assume that by that time the adults numbered about 625,000. Thirty-eight years later, immediately after a pestilence had swept away large numbers and just before entering Canaan, another census was taken. The figures are given (Numbers 26:21) at 601,730, which shows a slight decrease. Of these only two--Joshua and Caleb--were left of the adults who crossed the Red Sea. With these exceptions, the entire adult generation died in the wilderness.
The Canaanites were descendants of Ham (Gen. 10:6) and comprised seven distinct nations (Deu. 7:1). Though great and mighty (Num. 73:28) they were idolatrous, superstitious, profane and wicked (Deu. 29:17, Deu. 18:9-11, Lev. 18:21). They had many strong cities (Num. 13:28). Israel was warned against making league or intermarrying with them or following their idols or customs (Deu. 7:2; Jos. 23:12; Ex. 23:24; Lev. 18:26,27). They were partially subdued by Israel (Josh. 10, Josh. 11, Judg. 1). Some of their descendants were still found in the time of Jesus (Matt. 15:22; Mark 7:26).
An ever fruitful topic is the date of Creation. The chronology which one finds in the marginal columns of many of the older Bibles, notably in the Authorized Version of King James, is not a part of the Bible itself by any means. It is the work of Archbishop Ussher, an illustrious prelate of the Irish Church, who lived 1580-1656. His chronological labors were directed towards affording an idea of the time that elapsed between certain events in recorded history. For this purpose he took the year 1 A. D. -- the beginning of the Christian era -- as his starting point, and reckoned backwards as far as reliable recorded history afforded good working ground. He reckoned as far back as 4,000 years before Christ, and then finding no more available material in the form of history, either written or inscribed, he had necessarily to stop. He did not by any means imply, however, nor are his figures interpreted by Biblical scholars to mean, that he had reached the point of Creation. On the contrary, he had simply gone as far as recorded history enabled him to go. The Mosaic books in the Old Testament did not claim, in any sense, that the world was created in 4000 B. C. The first line, first verse, and first chapter of Genesis distinctly tells us that "in the beginning" God created the heaven and the earth. Moses was educated at the court of Egypt and imbibed all that was worth learning of the Egyptian civilization, which was old even at that date. But before Egypt there had been still older kingdoms and civilizations. Any one looking up the history in any good encyclopedia of Babylonia, Phoenicia, Chaldea and other ancient nations will form some idea of the great antiquity of that portion of the world's history which has not yet been definitely written. In the last century, the world has yielded up many of its secrets to excavators, and consecrated scholarship has made unquestioned discoveries, which are accepted by all the churches, showing that recorded time must now be pushed back to a period at least 2,000 years earlier than Ussher's computation. How far beyond this we have to travel to get at the date of Creation is as much a conjecture as ever. Science tells us that countless ages may have passed in the early stages of the world's geological development; and even before man appeared on the scene. It is true that scientists differ in this as they do in many other things, but the essential fact remains that the world is far older by many thousands of years than our forefathers supposed. We have better light on the subject than they had, and yet in no vital sense does that light conflict with the words of Scripture "in the beginning." In the New Testament also the same identical language is used at the opening of John's Gospel, chapter 1, verse 1, "In the beginning was the Word." Thus we see in both dispensations, the old and the new, a recognition of the fact that the date of the world's creation is far beyond man's computation.
Many have asked: "How long did it take God to create the world and what was the order in which the various beings and things were brought forth?" There are many theories propounded concerning Creation. Some interpreters contend that the Bible account should be taken as meaning literal days, while others, remembering that a day is as a thousand years in God's sight, interpret them as meaning periods of indefinite duration. This problem has been a theme of endless discussion and science is powerless to decide it. The first three days of Creation comprise the inorganic era and the last three days the organic era. The first two chapters of Genesis are repetitive of the story of Creation, the first seven verses of chapter 2 reciting more briefly what was already stated in the first chapter in a somewhat different literary form. As to the order in which Creation proceeded, we have nothing else to guide us than Genesis and the order there given is: first day, light (general); second day, earth and water divided; third day, land and water outlined and vegetation created; fourth day, light (direct); fifth day, lower animals created; sixth day, mammals and man created; seventh day, rest As to the length of time between the Creation of Adam and of Eve, that is one of the disputed points on which no one can speak conclusively. Theorizing is futile and traditions (such as some found in Jewish literature) do not avail.
Dean Stanley, strange to say, avers that in the order given to Solomon (I Kings 2:5-9) King David "bequeathed a dark legacy of long cherished vengeance." Dr. Terry's view seems more probable, that "this dying charge was not the offspring of personal revenge, but a measure of administrative wisdom." "David," says Wordsworth, "does not mention among Joab's sins that which caused him personally the most poignant grief, the murder of Absalom." He dwells on the fact that Joab had treacherously slain Abner and had also assassinated Amasa, shedding the blood of war in peace. Shimei had blasphemously insulted the royal majesty of Israel. David, it is true, had sworn to spare Shimei, but this oath was not binding on Solomon. David seems to feel that he had been too lax in punishing crime. His own guilt, though repented of, may have made him feel that the son of Zeruiah, in particular, was too strong for him. Hence this charge to Solomon as keeper of God's law and guardian of the kingdom's safety. In one sense, the execution of these men may be looked upon as an act of retributive justice (they being the enemies of the king), yet in the view of some commentators, the personal vindictiveness that David cherished in the matter, and the absence of a disinterested purpose to secure justice and the welfare and security of Israel, his kingdom, call for condemnation of David in his instructions to his son.
In Dan. 1:6 the companions and Daniel are spoken of as the children of Judah. This means of the tribe of Judah. There is no evidence that they were brothers in the sense of blood relationship. Shadrach was the Chaldee name of Hananiah, the chief of the "three children," or young men of the tribe of Judah, who were Daniel's companions. He was taken captive with Daniel and a number of others at the first invasion of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar about B.C. 606. All four were young men of kingly bearing of the royal tribe of Judah and of superior understanding or education. Meshach was the Chaldee name given by the Babylonian court to Mishael, and Abednego was the name similarly bestowed on Azariah.
He had a number of wives, but those that are known chiefly to history are Abigail of Carmel (I Chron. 3:1); Michal, the daughter of Saul (II Sam. 3:13); and Bathsheba (I Chron. 3:5).
This question has often been asked, both by scoffers and the serious. David, it is true, had fallen into deep sin many times; but his struggles, his remorse, his repentance, his efforts at reparation--these also must be considered. He lived in a rude and warlike age. His whole life, as one biographer says, was "the faithful struggle of an earnest human soul toward what was good and best--a struggle often baffled, yet never ended." This was the character of the man who was illustrious as soldier, shepherd, poet, king, prophet; who kindled patriotism, united Israel, and made it a great nation, and who drove out the worship of strange gods in the land. In view of all the blessings that came to the Hebrew race through David's reign; in view also of "the oath sworn unto David," and of the many evidences of his repentance and his trust in God, as expressed in the Psalms, his career must be regarded as a whole rather than judged of by specific acts, if we would try to find out how David in any degree merited the commendation which the sacred historians accord him.
They were descendants of Esau. They inhabited a fertile and rich country specially given to them (Deu. 2:5; Gen. 27:39). Their country was traversed by roads though it was mountainous and rocky (Num. 20:17; Jer. 49:16). They were governed by dukes and later by kings (Gen. 36:15-30; Num. 20:14). In character they are said to have been wise, proud and self-confident, strong and cruel, vindictive, idolatrous and superstitious (Jer. 49:7,16,19; Eze. 25:12; II Chron. 25:14,20; Jer. 27:3). They inhabited the cities of Avith, Pau, Bozrah, Teman and others. Though they were implacable enemies of Israel, it was forbidden to hate them (Deu. 23:7) or to spoil, and they might be received into the congregation in the third generation (Deu. 23:8). Saul made war against them and David conquered them (I Sam. 14:47; II Sam. 8:14). They took refuge in Egypt and returned after David's death (I King 11:17-22) when they confederated with Israel's enemies only to again be over thrown (2 Chron. 20:10) but finally aided Babylon against Judah (Psa. 137:7, Oba. 1:11).
The bodies of Elijah and Enoch were doubtless changed or transformed as Paul describes in I Cor. 15:51,52 --the verses immediately following the well-known passage, that flesh cannot inherit the kingdom. They were changed into spiritualized bodies like in some degree that with which Christ rose from the dead. His resurrection body seemed to be made of flesh, but it was clearly different from that which he possessed before his death. All the redeemed, the saints who have died before Christ's coming and those who are alive when he comes, are promised these new "celestial" bodies for the heavenly life. These are the views of commentators who have discussed the subject.
Read Genesis 2:4-6. This, according to some geologists, indicates that the earth, being then in a cooling condition, had no rain; and they also affirm that there may have been none until the great precipitation at the Flood cleared the atmosphere, and established new conditions. (See chapters 8 and 9.) Of course, these are merely scientific speculations or conjectures, but they are not opposed to Scripture.
All the information we have in Scripture concerning the population of the earth before the Flood is contained in Genesis chapters 4, 5 and 6. It is made clear in Gen. 5:4. that Adam had a numerous progeny. Jewish tradition says he had thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters. Chapter 5:1 tells of the increased population. There must have been intermarriages. This is the view generally accepted by commentators, as the only reasonable explanation, where no other light can be had on the subject. The only record we have of the repopulation of the world after the Flood is that found in Genesis, ninth, tenth and eleventh chapters.
There is no recorded evidence that a rainbow was visible from the earth before the Flood. Some commentators hold that the conditions described in Genesis 2:6, "But there went up a mist from the earth," etc., lasted until the atmospheric change wrought by the Flood and that the rainbow was a natural consequence of such change. This, however, despite the fact that scientific support is claimed for such view, is merely conjecture. The Bible (Gen. 9:13-17) is very clear to the effect that God established the rainbow at that lime as "the token of the covenant" between Him and mankind and hence we need no conjecture.
Adam and some of his descendants as late as the time of the Flood, are believed to have lived under a revealed system, in which, through their patriarchs and otherwise, they had a knowledge of God sufficient for their condition. Afterwards there arose the nature-worship, called Fetishism, consisting of the setting up and worshipping of animals, trees and stones, etc.-- an idolatry invented by those who for their sins had been forsaken of God (Romans 1:28). There is no distinct mention in the Bible of any idols prior to the time of the Flood, but it is reasonable to suppose that idolatry was one of the abominations for which that terrible punishment was visited on the earth. The first positive indications of idolatry which appear in history are found in the worship of Set or Sitekh (equivalent to the Hebrew Patriarch, Seth), to whom divine honors were paid by the Egyptians. Some Jewish writers interpret Genesis 4:26 to mean that Ems, the son of Seth, was the originator of idolatry in that he paid divine honors to the host of heaven instead of to God alone.
They were descendants of Canaan's son Heth. One of the seven Canaanitish nations, they dwelt in Hebron and were governed by kings (Deu. 7:1; Gen. 23:2,3,10; I Kin. 10:29). Their land was promised to Israel and it was commanded to destroy them; but Israel did not destroy them entirely (Deu. 7:1,2,24; Josh. 14:13; Judg. 3:5). Among their prominent personages were Ephron, Ahimelech and Uriah (Gen. 49:30; I Sam. 26:6; II Sam. 11:6,21). Esau, Solomon and many other Israelites intermarried with the Hittites. They were a warlike people and made many conquests.
They formed one of the seven nations of Canaan, descended from Canaan (Gen. 10:15,17). They dwelt near Lebanon. The Shechemites and Gibeonites were affiliated with them (Judg. 3:3; Gen. 34:2; Josh. 9:3-7). Esau intermarried with them. Their land was promised to Israel and it was commanded to destroy them (Deu. 7:1,2,24). In the reign of Solomon, a remnant of the Hivites was made tributary to Israel (I Kin. 9:20,21).
They were descendants of Ishmael, Abraham's son, and were divided into twelve tribes (Gen. 25:16; Gen. 16:15,16). They were also called Hagarites, Hagarenes and Arabians (I Chron. 5:10; Psa. 83:6; Isa. 13:20). They were governed by kings, were rich in cattle and dwelt in tents (Jer. 25:24; Isa. 13:20; I Chron. 5:21). Though they were the merchants of the East and traveled around in large caravans (Gen. 37:25; Job 6:19), they were frequently lawless and would waylay and plunder travelers (Jer. 3:2). After harassing Israel, they were overcome by Gideon (Judg. 8:10-24; II Chron. 5:10; II Chron. 26:7). It would seem that later they became more peacefully inclined, as they sent presents to Kings Solomon and Jehosha-phat (I Kin. 10:15; II Chron. 17:11).
It began at Bethel but the change there was extremely slight. Jacob regarded his vision there very much as a business arrangement. If God would help him and give him bread to eat and bring him back safe, then God should be his God and he would give him a tenth of all. At Jabbok the crisis was much more far-reaching. He realized there his danger and his need of a blessing. He no longer bargained with God, he saw that his own strength was futile, he was a humble suppliant for God's favor. From that night on he was a different man, by no means perfect, but far better than before.
Both the Authorized and Revised Versions leave the question in doubt, and commentators have been divided in opinion as to whether she was sacrificed or doomed to live the life of a recluse. Human sacrifices are an abomination unto the Lord. A new reading or translation which several notable scholars have urged as the correct one is: "It shall surely be the Lord's or I will offer up to him a burnt offering." Hebrew scholars declare this to be the more accurate rendering. (See Judges 11:30,31,39.) It changes the aspect of the case and makes Jephthah to say practically that if the first living thing that came forth from his house to meet him was one that would be unacceptable, then a burnt offering of an acceptable character would be substituted. This would lead to the conclusion that the daughter was not sacrificed, but condemned to a life of perpetual virginity and a burnt offering offered up in her stead. Several eminent writers, including Joseph Kimchi, Ben Gerson and Bechai (Jewish authorities) and a number of Christian authors, held that instead of being sacrificed she was shut up in a house specially prepared by her father and visited there by the daughters of Israel four days in a year as long as she lived. In support of this theory it is pointed out that the Hebrew term employed to express Jephthah's vow is the word neder, which means a "consecration" and not che-rem, which means "destruction."
In Jerusalem, the Jews always turned their faces toward the "holy hill" of the temple while praying (see Dan. 6:10; II Chron. 6:34). The Samaritans, on the contrary, faced Mt. Gerizim. In the court of the temple, the Jews in prayer faced the temple itself (see I Kings 8:38) to the Holy of Holies (see Ps. 5:8). Daniel, while praying in exile, opened his window toward Jerusalem (see Dan. 6:10). Modern Jews in Europe and America customarily face the East in prayer. It was a custom among the early Christians to face the East but that has long been discontinued. Mohammedans face in the direction of Mecca.
Students of prophecy are not agreed on the subject. The majority infer, from various passages, that they will be restored before the coming of Christ in the second stage of that coming. The first stage is thought to be in the air to summon those Christians who are looking for him, to meet him (see I Thess. 4:16,17). The second stage is after the great tribulation when he comes to reign.
The Holy City has been captured and recaptured many times by contending forces. In several of the sieges it has been partially ruined, but in at least four it has been practically destroyed, the first about 1400 B.C., when captured by the tribes of Judah and Simeon; the second in 586 by Nebuchadnezzar; the third in 170 B.C. by Antiochus Epiphanes; the fourth, and doubtless most terrible, in 70 A.D., by Titus. The city was restored by Hadrian in 135 A.D., and since then has changed hands many times. It now belongs to Turkey, and has about 60,000 inhabitants.
In II Sam. 24:16-25 we learn how the threshing floor of Araunah came to be chosen for the site of an altar of commemoration and sacrifice. Moreover, Scripture and Jewish tradition unite in pointing to that threshing floor as the spot upon which Abraham prepared to offer Isaac (although some eminent authorities have disputed this). Read also the account of the purchase of the site from Oman (Araunah) in I Chron. 21:26-28; and in the next chapter (I Chron. 22:1,9,10) which shows how David had a divine revelation that his son should build the temple there.
According to leading commentators, Job was a personage of distinction, wealth and influence who lived in the north of Arabia Deserta, near the Euphrates, some 1800 B. C. His life was patriarchal, his language the Hebrew of that early day, when it was interspersed with Syriac and Arabic. He lived before Moses. His book is probably the oldest book in the world. It is now interpreted as a public debate in poetic form, dealing with the Divine government It abounds in figurative language. The "day" men tioned in Job 2:1 was one appointed for the angels to give an account of their ministry to God. Evil is personified in Satan, who also comes to make report The question to Satan and his response are simply a dramatic or poetic form of opening the great controversy which follows.
"Tempted" is scarcely the word to use in that case. Job was tried or tested. The question was what his motive was in serving God. Satan with his natural doubt about any one having pure motives, asserted that Job served God only for what he gained by it, and that if his property was taken away from him, he would curse God. So Job was put to the proof, to see what he would do under trial, and whether he was really as disinterested as God believed him to be. The object of the author appears to have been to correct, a false view of adversity, which view was prevalent in his time. People had the idea that severe calamities were punishments dealt out by God because of sin. When a man of good moral character, therefore, was in trouble, people suspected that he had sinned secretly, and that God was punishing him for it. It was often a cruel and unjust suspicion. In writing this description, the author evidently was trying to eradicate it After reading such a book, a man who saw another in trouble, instead of despising him as a sinner, might say, "Perhaps he is being tried as Job was," and so might sympathize instead of blaming him. Our concern should be to learn the lesson the book was designed to teach, rather than to discuss the question whether it is history or parable, for that question cannot now be authoritatively answered.
This question is doubtless prompted by the ancient tradition or superstition that we have less days in February than any other month, as Job was born in February. This of course is a fallacy. There was no February in the time of Job, 1520 B. C. The months, or divisions of time, were not as we have them now. The year of the Jews consisted of twelve lunar months of twenty-nine and thirty days alternately, a thirteenth being from time to time introduced to accommodate it to the sun and seasons. Let it be noted that while Job cursed his birthday, he did not curse his Maker, so why should the Lord drop a day on account of a little weakness in his servant, who, despite his great sufferings, never uttered any reproach against the Author of his being? Our months as at present, we have from the Romans. With those people February had originally twenty-nine days in an ordinary year, but when the Roman Senate decreed that the eighth month should bear the name of Augustus, a day was taken from February and given to August, which had then only thirty, that it might not be inferior to July, named in honor of Julius Caesar.
This question is answered authoritatively in the book itself (see Job 42:7), where God is represented as saying, "My wrath is kindled against thee and thy two friends; for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right." One gets a clearer idea of the book by regarding it as a symposium on the problem of suffering, each speaker being a representative of a school of thought. Each speaker keeps to the same aspect of the subject but all agree in regarding unusual suffering as an evidence of unusual sin. They imply that in Job's case, he being outwardly so good a man, his sin was aggravated by hypocrisy. This was unjust, because, as we learn by the first chapter, it was precisely because he was so good a man that his affliction came upon him. The author of the book evidently wished to administer a warning to the people of his time against being uncharitable in their inferences.
Job is believed to have been a real personage--a type of the earliest patriarchs, a man of high intelligence and great faith. The story is cast in dramatic form. Professor S. S. Curry, of Yale and Harvard Divinity Schools, thus outlines it: the place, a hill outside the city; a rising storm, flashing lightning, rolling thunder and a rainbow; the speakers, God, the patriarch Job, his friends, and Satan; the theme, the mystery of human suffering, and human existence." To which may be added, a sublime faith in the divine wisdom, righteousness and justice. The book of Job is regarded by the highest Bible scholarship as a spiritual allegory. The name Job is derived from an Arabic word signifying "repentance," although Job himself is held to be a real personage. (See Ezek. 14:14 and James 5:11.)
It was a heathen form of worship to Molech, Mil-corn or Chemosh, which the Israelites had borrowed or adapted from the Moabites and Ammonites. Human sacrifices were made in high places to Molech. The chief interpreters Jarchi, Kimchi and Maimonides wrote that in the worship of Molech, the children were not burned, but were made to pass before two burning pyres as a purificatory rite. It is quite clear, however, that in many cases lives were actually sacrificed (see Psalm 106:37,38; Jer. 7:31). It was assumed that by this rite the victims were purged from dross of the body and attained union with the deity.
The "lost tribes," so-called, were the Jews carried into captivity by Shalmaneser (II Kings 17:6), and chiefly belonging to Israel or the ten tribes. Many theories as to their location and their descendants have been ventilated, and they have been successively located (by ingenious investigators) in Hindustan, Tartary, China, Africa, Great Britain and among the aborigines of North America. More reasonable conjectures hold that while some returned after the exile, and others were left in Samaria, many remained in Assyria and afterward joined with the Jews in forming colonies throughout the East, so that, in a certain sense, they shared the ultimate history of their brethren of Judah.
The pillar which is mentioned in the story concerning the fate of Lot's wife, in Genesis 19, is referred to by a number of writers. Josephus (in Antiquities 1,11,14) wrote that it still remained in his day, and he had seen it--i. e., the peculiar formation of crumbling, crystalline rock associated by tradition with the event. Clemens Romanus, Irenaeus and Benjamin of Tudela also wrote of the strange formation as visible in their day, but later writers stated that it had ceased to exist. It is related that, by a singular coincidence, Lieutenant Lynch, who led an American exploring party around the Dead Sea, found on the southwestern shore, at a place called by the Arabs Usdum, a pillar some forty feet high, composed of salt crystals, capped with carbonate of lime, which he assumed to have been detached by the action of the winter rains upon the rock-salt hills. Professor Palmer claims in one of his books to have seen this same formation, which the Arabs, in their usual manner, had connected with the Bible story, although it is not at all certain that the locality is identical with that indicated in Genesis. Several commentators hold that the geological character of the rocks and the prevalence of salt crystals justify the conclusion that the Bible passage might be interpreted to mean "like a pillar of salt," and that the body of Lot's wife "had become fixed for a time to the soil by saline or bituminous incrustations."
It is in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis that Melchisedec is historically presented to us. The incident and its record, although so brief, and standing in such singular isolation from the thread of the history which it interrupts, is not only in itself most striking and interesting, but also in its typical teaching profoundly instructive. How suddenly and altogether unexpectedly does Melchisedec here appear before us--a most kingly and majestic form, yet clad in priestly robes, and with the mystic emblems of eucharistic offering-- bread and wine--in his hands. We see those priestly hands raised in blessing; we observe the great patriarch, Abraham--the father of the faithful and the Friend of God--bowing before the mysterious priest-king, and presenting to him the tithes of all his spoil; and then, as abruptly as it appeared, the vision passes away, and for nearly a thousand years the voice of inspiration utters not again the name of Mechisedec. Then, however, in an ecstatic Psalm of a most distinctly Messianic character, and descriptive of our Lord's exaltation in the day of his power, we meet with it once more in the solemn declaration: "The Lord hath sworn and will not repent, thou art a priest forever, after the order of Melchisedec (Ps. 110:4). Again, something like a thousand years pass away, and then, once more, the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews take up the subject of this mysterious personage, who, "Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days, or end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually" (Heb. 7:3); and on the two brief references to him, above given, which are all that the Scriptures contain, founds an argument to show the superiority of Christ's priesthood, as being "after the order of Melchisedec," to that of Aaron, or Levi, which it had superseded.
Who was Melchisedec? Much labor has been wasted in attempts to answer the question. Later Jewish tradition identified him with Shem; and it is certain that that patriarch was not only alive in the days of Abraham, but even continued to live till Jacob was fifty years old. (Compare Gen. 11:11 with verses 12:26, 21:5, 25:7-26.) According to others he belonged to the family of Ham, or of Japheth; and it has been said that this is necessarily implied by the language of the Apostle when drawing a parallel between Melchisedec and Christ, he says that our Lord belonged to "a tribe of which no man gave attendance at the altar." Some, again, have suggested that he was an incarnate angel, or other superhuman creature, who lived for a time among men. Others have held that he was an early manifestation of die Son of God; and a sect, called the Melchisedecians, asserted that he was "an incarnation of the Holy Ghost." But, in all these conjectures, the fact has been strangely overlooked that the reticence of Scripture on the point is typical and significant, for, could it be determined who Melchisedec really was, it could no longer be said that he was "without father, without mother, without genealogy"; which statement is to be understood, not as implying that he was not a natural descendant of Adam, but that he designedly appears and disappears in the sacred narrative without mention either of his parentage or death.
There can, however, be no question that, whoever Melchisedec may have been, he was an eminent type of Christ. This is placed beyond doubt, not only by the language of the 110th Psalm--the Messianic character of which has ever been recognized by Jews and Christians alike--but especially by the argument of the Apostle, in the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in the course of which there occurs the explicit declaration that he was--in the various respects mentioned--"made like unto the Son of God."
They were the descendants of Lot and were neighbors of the Amorites on the opposite side of the River Arnon (Num. 21:13). They were governed by kings and possessed many great cities (Num. 21:28-30; Is. 15:1; Num. 23:7). They were proud, arrogant, idolatrous, superstitious, rich, confident and prosperous. They were mighty men of war (Is. 16:6; I Kin. 11:7; Jer. 27:3; Jer. 48:7,11,14). The Amorites deprived them of a large part of their territory (Num. 21:26). The Moabites refused to let Israel pass through their country and were so greatly impressed and alarmed by the multitude of the Israelitish host that, with Midian, they sent Balaam to curse it (Num. 22 to 24). Subsequently, Israel was enticed into their idolatry and even intermarried with them. They were always hostile to Israel until Saul subdued them (I Sam. 14:47) and were later made tributary to David and the Jewish kings (II Sam. 8:2-12; II Kin. 3:4), but finally joined Babylon against Judah (II Kin. 24:2).
The account in Num. 20 very clearly shows that Moses disobeyed the divine command in striking the rock as he did. For the moment he apparently lost his faith, and his temper as well. He had been explicitly instructed to "speak unto the rock" (verse 8) instead of which he addressed the people in hasty and passionate words and smote the rock twice. (See Ps. 106:32,33.) His whole attitude betrayed his doubt, not of God's power, but of his will to help a people who had been rebellious. Further, Moses was irreverent (see verse 12) in that his language and bearing detracted from the sanctity of the occasion and was therefore displeasing to God. He had been entrusted with a great enterprise and his perfect obedience to and implicit faith in God were indispensable. As the result showed, his failure involved serious consequences for the whole nation.
The passage in Jude 1:9 referring to the dispute between Michael and Satan over the body of Moses, is regarded by Vitringa, Lardner, McKnight and other distinguished commentators as symbolical, "the body of Moses" being intended to represent the Mosaic law and institutions (see Zech. 3:1), in the same manner in which modern Christians call the Church "the body of Christ." According to others, it has reference to a Jewish legend connected with the secret burial of the great lawgiver (Deu. 34:6). The Targum of Jonathan attributes the burial of Moses to the hands of angels, led by Michael as the guardian of Israel. Other views set forth in the Hebrew books are that Satan disputed the burial, claiming the body because of the blood of the Egyptian whom Moses slew, and because of the leader's sin at Meribah. Having "the power of death," he opposes the raising of Moses' body again for these reasons, but the hitter's visible presence with Enoch and Elijah at the Transfiguration gave evidence of Michael's triumph, and was also a pledge of the coming resurrection. Josephus, the Jewish historian (in Antiquities 4:8), states that God hid the body of Moses, lest it should be worshiped by the people.
We do not know any more on the subject than is related in the Bible. The natural inference from the narrative is that the king was temporarily deprived of his reason, and insane people often do things as unnatural as eating grass. There is nothing improbable in the Biblical statement. On the other hand, some authorities suggest that the narrative means nothing more than that the king left his palace and the cares of state and lived the life of a peasant for seven years; or, as we might say, vegetated in rural seclusion; but the plain statement of the text is that generally accepted. Daniel 4:35-37 indicates that he became, at least outwardly, a believer in the true God.
According to the directions in Genesis 6:15, the Ark was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits broad and 30 cubits high. Bible students have been greatly puzzled over the length of the cubit, which seems to have varied greatly in ancient times. It is evident, however (from Deu. 3:11), that it was taken as a measure from the human body, and may have been either from the wrist to the end of the third figure, or the entire length of the lower or forearm, from the elbow to the wrist, or even from the elbow to the finger-point. One authority, Celsus, says the cubit was identified with the ulna, or under and larger of the two bones of the arm. The Egyptian cubit, which the Hebrews may have taken, measured six hand-breadths and the Jewish rabbins (as the Mishna states) assigned six hand-breadths to the Mosaic cubit, while Josephus says a cubit was equal to two spans, the span being equal to three hand-breadths. Ezek. 40:5, 43:13 speaks of the cubit "which was a cubit and a hand-breadth" which was the Babylonian cubit. It would thus seem that the Ark, though its size cannot be confidently stated, was a very spacious vessel, probably exceeding 500 feet in length, fully 85 feet broad and over 52 feet high. In 1609 Peter Jansen of Horn, in Holland, built a vessel of these proportions and found that it would stow fully a third more cargo than ships of its size built in the ordinary manner. It had 3,600,000 cubic feet of space, and after nine-tenths had been assigned for food storage there was still room for 7,000 pairs of animals, each with 50 cubic feet of space. It was, in fact, a huge floating storehouse, rather than a ship.
As to the materials of which the Ark was built, we find in Genesis 6:14 that Noah is told to make an ark of "gopher" wood. There are various conjectures as to what kind of wood this was. Bunsen holds that it was a wood found only in Egypt; Dietrich believes it was a heavy reed-like growth; Gesenius affirms that it was pine, fir or cedar, and Bochart says cypress. Chaldee translators declare it to have been the sissu, a dark-colored wood of Arabian growth and highly valued. A majority hold to the opinion that cypress was meant, on account of its enduring qualities.
As to the time occupied in building it, much has been said but little of real worth. The only Bible passage supposably referable to this question is Genesis 6:3. This passage is variously interpreted. By some it is held to refer to a shortening of human life; by others it is interpreted as meaning that the period stated would be further granted as a respite--an opportunity for repentance--failing which the divine presence (the Shecinah, which had hitherto continued at the gate of Eden) would be withdrawn from the world on account of its wickedness. The best answer is that nowhere is it stated in the Bible how long Noah was engaged in building the Ark. The Lord had offered a respite of 120 years, after the warning to the human race (see I Peter 3:20; II Peter 2:5), and it was during this period that Noah, who was a "preacher of righteousness," not only labored in the work of awakening the people to the enormity of their sin and of urging them to repentance, but also used a portion of that period in preparing the Ark for the emergency that would arise, if the people did not listen to his cry for repentance.
Since endive, chicory, wild lettuce, or nettles, were important articles of food to the ancient Egyptians, it is likely that these were the bitter herbs of the Passover feast, more especially so, as they are at the present time eaten by the Jews in the East.
Some of the "higher critics" claim that the ancient calendar of the antediluvians made the year really a month, or lunar period. Others, with somewhat more reason, assert that a year was a season of growth equal to three of our months. Hensler and Hufeland, two German authorities, claim that the patriarchal year was three months till Abraham's time, eight months till Joseph's time, and thereafter twelve months. One eminent Bible scholar has pointed out that if we accept the monthly year theory, Mahalaleel's sixty-five years before the birth of his son Jared would make him a parent at five years and three months of our reckoning; Enoch would be the same age when his son Methuselah was born, and the ages of the other patriarchs at the birth of their children would be equally preposterous. Of course, such conclusions absolutely condemn the monthly year theory. Conditions among the antediluvians were totally different from those after the Flood. There had been no rain, and the sun and planets were not visible; in the moist atmosphere, growth was greatly stimulated and all natural conditions tended to animal and vegetable longevity, precisely as the Bible indicates. Besides, as that period produced animal types of giant proportions, created for strength and endurance, the analogy of nature would seem to demand that man should bear some harmonious proportion to his surroundings. Genesis 6:4 (first clause) clearly implies this. Age and stature, not only human but otherwise, became greatly diminished after the Flood.
All the evidence is against the theory that he was drowned in the Red Sea. Some very interesting information, furnishing striking confirmation of the Bible narrative, has recently been obtained, by deci phering the inscriptions on ancient Egyptian monuments. From these it appears that the Pharaoh who "refused to let the people go" was named Menephthah. He was the youngest son of the great Pharaoh, Rameses II, the Pharaoh who oppressed the Hebrews and ordered the killing of the male infants, and whose death is mentioned in Exodus 2:23. Menephthah was an old man, at least sixty, when he came to the throne, and was constitutionally timid and feeble. He joined with him in the government his brilliant son Seti, a young man resembling in person and character his grandfather, the great Rameses. Seti was virtually king though his father, Menephthah, was king in name. The Bible alludes to Seti as "the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on the throne" (Ex. 12:29). This young man's tomb has been found, and a record of his achievements, showing him to have been a great general and administrator. But his name does not appear in the list of the Pharaohs and the inscription on his tomb shows that he never became king, but died suddenly, while still only a prince. The Bible tells us how he died. It was on the night when the angel slew the firstborn. Menephthah, as we know by the Bible narrative, pursued the Hebrews. He had no son now to take command as on former occasions. He was then an old man eighty-two years of age. What more likely than that, when he saw the Israelites descend into the Red Sea, he should send on his army and stay behind himself, not caring at his age, and at night, to undertake so perilous a journey. The Egyptian records state that once before, on the eve of battle, when he should have led his army, the old man had a convenient vision, ordering him not to enter the battle but to give the command to his son. He doubtless excused himself on this occasion and so saved his life. A parallel case of a father and son reigning simultaneously is found in Belshazzar, who, though exercising kingly functions, does not appear on the list of kings. He was associated in government with his father, Nabon-nidus, and, like Seti in Egypt, died before his father.
This expression in Exodus 7:3 has been a stumbling-block to many. There is a point reached by those who have long persisted in wicked courses which is known as judicial blindness, a point at which--God's restraining spirit being withdrawn--they become unable to distinguish right from wrong or good from evil. They grow hardened and morally incorrigible. (See Mark 3:5; Rom. 11:25; II Cor. 3:14; Eph. 4:18.) Under such circumstances, the offender turns even blessings into sin by abusing them, and unless overtaken by some great adversity, continues in his course, blind to consequences. This was doubtless the case with Pharaoh. Egypt had sinned deeply, and so long as its rulers were unchecked by some stronger power, they would continue to sin. Pharaoh, long accustomed to the abuse of power, steeled himself against all sense of justice arid mercy, and this the "permissive act of providence" allowed, in order that the culminating punishment should be the more severe. In other words, Pharaoh was permitted to go on in his sin, in order that his fate might be made an awful example to the whole world.
The true interpretation is that the divine message of warning and the plagues which followed were the occasion of Pharaoh's heart being hardened. Thus the expression which has been translated as "hardened," is, in Hebrew, "strong," implying that the influence of the events had been to make the king's heart stubborn or rebellious. (See Ex. 7:13,14, 8:19, and 9:35.) Elsewhere in the same narrative the Hebrew expression is capable of being translated "made heavy" (as in Ex. 7:14 and 8:15 and 32, also Ex. 9:34). The passage in Exodus 7:23, which may be rendered as in the Authorized Version, and also as "he (Pharaoh) set his heart even to this," expresses the condition of Egypt's ruler, who had set his face like a flint against Jehovah, and was alternately depressed and defiant, but not repentant
Their origin is nowhere expressly stated in the Bible; but since the prophets describe them as "the Philistines from Caphtor" (Amos 9:7), and "the remnant of the maritime district of Caphtor" (Jer. 47:4), it is probable that they were the "Caphtorim which came out of Caphtor," and who expelled the Avim from their lands and occupied them (Deu. 2:23), and that they were the Caphtorim mentioned in the Mosaic genealogical table among the descendants of Mizraim. There is equal authority for believing Caphtor to have been the island of Cyprus, or a land somewhere between Egypt and Ethiopia, or a part of Northern Egypt Some have claimed that Caphtor and the modern island of Crete are identical; but the best authorities do not agree with this conclusion.
Some ancient authorities, rabbins and others attribute the book to Solomon; others hold that it has a composite origin and is the work of a number of writers. The ablest modern critics hold the latter opinion. It is probable that Solomon was the author of the portion beginning with the first verse of the tenth chapter and ending with the sixteenth verse of the twenty-second chapter. As we learn from the first verse of the twenty-fifth chapter, the collection of proverbs extending to the end of the twenty-ninth chapter was also attributed to him, but was not compiled until 250 years after his death. The remainder of the book appears to be composed of six portions by different hands at different periods. One of these is the introduction, which occupies the first nine chapters. This was probably written by the man who compiled the whole book, but whose name is unknown.
Who Composed the Psalms? The Book of Psalms (which is the Psalter of the Hebrews) has many authors, the principal one being David. Some are attributed to Hezekiah, Josiah, and Zerubbabel, two (the 72nd and 127th) to Solomon, several to the Levites and the Asaphites, one, at least, to Jeduthun, eleven to the sons of Korah, one to Ethan (Psalm 89), while many are of uncertain authorship. Moses is given by tradition as the author of Psalm 90, being the only contribution of which his authorship is reasonably certain. The Psalms cover a period of a thousand years. They were composed at different remote periods, by various poets; David, the most prolific contributor, being' indicated as the author of seventy-three Psalms in the Hebrew text and eleven in the Septuagint
The passage in Matthew 2:18 relates to the Baby-Ionian captivity. Rachel, the wife of Jacob, and mother of Joseph and Benjamin, is figuratively represented as rising from the tomb and lamenting over the loss of her children. Raman in Benjamin was a scene of pillage and massacre in Jeremiah's time (see Jer. 31:15), and hence is chosen by the prophet in his figurative scene of lamentation.
It is generally held by. a majority of writers and travelers that the passage was made at Ras Atakah Point, about six miles south of Suez, and opposite the southern end of Jebel Atakah. At Ras Atakah, the land runs out in the form of a promontory for fully a mile into the sea beyond the regular shore line. Beyond this, there is a shoal for nearly a mile more, over which the water at low tide is usually about fourteen feet deep. Beyond this, and before the true channel or center is reached, there are two other comparative shoals; the channel itself is somewhere about fifty feet deep and three-quarters of a mile wide. There is another succession of shoals on the eastern shore. The distance from shore to shore is about five and a half miles.
It is supposed by well-informed authorities that she came from Yemen, in Arabia Felix. In Matthew 12:42 she is referred to as the "Queen of the South," who came from "the uttermost parts of the earth," a term applied by the ancients to southern Arabia. Not improbably she was a lineal descendant of Abraham by Keturah, whose grandson, Sheba, peopled that part of the then known world. The Arabic account of this queen gives her the name of Bilkis or Yelkamah, a monarch of the Himyerites; but their account is probably more legendary than accurate as to detail.
The Bible here gives us no clue but tradition has preserved some of the questions which she is said to have put to Solomon to test his wisdom!. These, we believe, are principally found in the Talmudical writings. It is said she introduced a party of children all dressed alike, and asked the king to tell which were boys and which girls. King Solomon ordered vessels to be brought that the children might wash then-hands. The girls rolled up their sleeves, but the boys plunged their hands into the water at once, and were easily detected by the king. The queen next ordered her attendants to set before Solomon a number of beautiful bouquets and asked him to indicate which were the real flowers and which the false. Solomon ordered the keeper of his gardens to bring in a hive of bees, and they almost instantly settled upon the natural flowers and began to extract the sweets from them, leaving the artificial flowers untouched. Other traditions illustrative of Solomon's wisdom are told by the ancient writers.
His chief sin was disobedience. Samuel, the recognized representative of God in the nation, had commanded him to wait till he arrived in Gilgal, saying he would come in seven days. Saul did not wait till the end of the seventh day, thereby showing an impatient and disobedient spirit. God demands that men obey Him implicitly. "To obey is better than sacrifice," Samuel said to Saul on another occasion of his disobedience. Probably, also, Saul had no right to conduct the ritual of sacrifice. As to Samuel's doing so, he may simply have ordered it done, directing Eleazar the priest to conduct the ceremony; or his office of prophet may have given him the authority to act also as priest. Furthermore, though not a descendant of Aaron, he belonged to the priestly tribe of Levi.
The reason of the Egyptian hatred of the shepherds is a historic one. The Hyksos or Shepherd Kings, hundreds of years before Joseph's time, had invaded and conquered Lower Egypt and ruled the Delta, although they never occupied the whole country. They came from the East and were probably Arabians, and are represented as having been a cruel and arrogant race, who subjected the Egyptians to great hardships. "(See Gen. 46:34.) They were finally driven out of the country by a coalition of forces under several kings. They were probably called Shepherds because of the simplicity of their life, which was largely pastoral and semi-barbaric. Manetho, the Egyptian historian, says that they were the builders of Jerusalem, but his reference is probably to the Canaanites rather than the Jews. Some writers suggest that they were the progenitors of the Bedouins, and that the Amalekites, Midianites, and other hostile nations who opposed the Israelites after the Exodus were also descended from the stock of the expelled Shepherds. It is not improbable that the Philistines may also have been a branch of the same Shepherd family.
These people were descendants of Sidoa, a son of Canaan, and were formerly a part of the Phoenician nation (Matt. 15:21,22; Mark 7:24,26). They dwelt on the sea-coast in the cities of Zidon and Zarephath (Josh. 11:8; I Kin. 17:9; Luke 4:26), and were governed by kings. In character they were careless, idolatrous, superstitious, wicked and unpenitent (Judg. 18:7; I Kin. 11:5; Jer. 27:3-9; Matt. 11:21,22). Their business was commerce and of course they were skillful sailors (Isa. 23:2; Eze. 27:8). They supplied the Jews with timber, who in turn supplied them with provisions (I Chron. 22:4; Acts 12:20; Eze. 27:17). Although they were hostile and oppressive to God's people, Solomon and Abijah intermarried with them, and Israel followed the Sidonian idolatry (Judg. 10:12; Eze. 28:22-24; I Kin. 11:1, 16:31).
Comparatively little. Sodom was a small but populous country, and according to Josephus (Antiquities, chapter 9, book 1) was rich and flourishing, with five kings controlling its affairs and with a certain degree of ancient civilization. Doubtless they were idolaters, but they had an opportunity, through the presence of Lot and his household, of knowing the true God. In chapter 11, book 1 of the Antiquities the historian tells of their great wealth and pride, their injustice toward men, their impiety and peculiar vices. So persistent were they in wickedness that the overthrow of their chief city and the destruction of the people came upon them as a punishment.
Undoubtedly, as from every other part of the Bible. The difficulties in regard to it arise from the various views as to its plan and purpose. No less than sixteen of these have been advanced by expositors. Three only, however, have commended themselves to any large number of Bible students. One of them regards it as the yearning of God's people, when separated from the Temple and the ordinances of the Jewish service. A second view is that it represents, under (he image of an intense love, the relation of Christ and his people. Paul uses the same symbol in Eph. 5:22-23. This was evidently the view taken by the men who put the headings to the chapters in the King James Version of the Bible, which headings have been discarded in the Revised Version. The third view is the literal. which is taken by modern scholars and is growing in favor. It is that the poem celebrates the trials and triumph of a country maiden, who when carried away from her humble home and her rustic lover to become an inmate of the king's harem, rejects with scorn the magnificence and luxury offered her and remains faithful to her lover, with whom she returns. The lesson is obvious. It is the lesson of a fidelity to tram and righteousness which no offer of wealth and luxury can disturb.
Rehoboam reigned over one and Jeroboam over ten. (I Kings 11:31-35,12:21.) The tribe of Levi was not counted because it had no land possessions (Num. 18:20-24), except cities for dwellings, with their outlying fields for pasturage (Num. 35:1-8). The tribe of Joseph was divided into two parts, Ephraim and Manasseh, which are usually spoken of as two distinct tribes. But in this division Joseph seems to have been counted as but one tribe, making Jeroboam's ten. Although Rehoboam at first retained only Judah, most of the tribe of Benjamin soon joined his kingdom. Simeon and Dan also became part of the kingdom of Judah.
The sin of Uzzah (I Chron. 13:9,10) and its sudden punishment have been a subject of much discussion. None but priests of Aaron's family (that is, of the priest's household) were permitted to touch the Ark. Uzzah was of a Levitical family. In the house of his father, Abinadab, the Ark had rested for twenty years. When Uzzah put forth his hand to prevent the Ark from falling he was smitten, Josephus explains, because he touched it, "not being a priest." Others, however, have taken the view that Uzzah's sin was not that of laying unordained and unconsecrated hands upon the Ark in a moment of excitement, but rather --if the real reason lay in this direction at all--because he recklessly and sacrilegiously appropriated to himself powers and privileges which he well knew belonged to higher persons. One commentator writes: "The whole proceeding was disorderly and contrary to the distinct and significant regulations of the law which prescribed that the Ark should be carried on the shoulders of the Levites (Ex. 25:14), whereas it was here conveyed in a cart drawn by oxen. Besides, it should have been covered. There seems to have been no priest in charge, and it would appear that the sacred vessel was brought forth naked to the common gaze." Uzzah as a Levite should have observed and remedied these things, but his growing familiarity with the mysteries of the Jewish religion had made him careless, and the punishment came upon him at a time when it would most effectually check the evils among the people. That it had this effect is evident from I Chron. 15:2-13.
Much has been written on the question whether, in the scene at Endor, an imposture or a real apparition appeared. Eustathius and a majority of the early Christian fathers held the former opinion, and repre sent it as a deception of the evil one; Origen held the latter view. It should be remembered that Saul, at the time was forsaken of God and that, rendered desperate by his sins, he had recourse to this woman, who in the Hebrew writings is described as "a mistress of Ob" or a necromancist (not a "witch") who obtained a living by pretending to have intercourse with spirits, while the Greek writers describe her as a ventriloquist. Josephus, the Jewish historian, describes her as one of a class of fortune-tellers who had been banished by the king. Saul's highly wrought nervous condition at the time, combined with the fact that he himself saw no vision or spirit, but simply listened to and accepted the necromancer's description of an aged man of godlike appearance, should be taken into consideration, and these facts doubtless influenced the early fathers in reaching the conclusion that the wretched king had been the victim of an imposition.
The chapters containing the visions are chiefly concerned with the hope founded on the approaching end of the seventy years, which, as Jeremiah predicted, would be the period of the captivity in Babylon. These are the meaning of the visions, according to some interpreters: The flying roll, a huge book with wings, contained the record of sin and curse. The prophet sees it flying from the Holy Land, destroying on its way the houses of the thieves and perjurers. The woman in the ephah (5:5-11) represents the principle of evil and of temptation. She, too, like sin and the curse, must be removed from the land, and she is carried away to the land of Shinar, which the Jews regarded as the fit abode of wicked things. The chariots of the winds (6:1:8) are God's messengers commissioned to avenge Israel. The black horses go north, that is to punish Persia; the dappled, south, that is against Egypt; and the white, west, that is against Greece, then becoming formidable. The horses of the fourth chariot have a general commission for any part of the world in which enmity to Israel might develop.
