^«5«<«»^

W"^

'•*»

;tliiiii

m-^i

-?Si

.^^

|^H<|llNJ'Wtt!tMl^'JtliPJDffM<ftluiuiiN Ul^^ll^,U UltillUa^

r I ^ h "I^tve titft Book

DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

Famous Women

of Sacred Story ;
the Old and New
Testament. Two
Volumes ; Each a
Series of Sixteen
Popular Lectures,
faithful delineations
and pen pictures of
the most noted
characters in His
tory. The good and
evil traits in these
famous women are
made to read a
salutatory lesson to
their sisters of the
present day, em
phasizing reverent
faith in the Bible,
rather than the new
versions of "wo
man's rights." By
Rev.lW.B.Wharton,D.D. Beautifully
iUustrated. 318 and 3.-}o pages. Each, $1,50.
Historical and Patriotic Addresses,
Centennial and Quad
rennial, comprising up
wards of one hundred
select orations and
poems, delivered in
every State ofthe Union
on the one hundredth
anniversary of American
Independence, by Hon.
Wm. M. Evarts, Rev.
Dr. Storrs, H.W. Beech
er, Charles F. Adams,
Robert C. Winthrop,
Horatio Seymour, Geo.
Wm. Curtis, Chauncey
M. Depew, and others,
— issued under the aus
pices of the respective
authors.. . hicluding the most noted Columbian Ad
dresses of 1893-93. Edited by F. Saunders, A.M.,
Librarian of Astor Library. I048 octavo p, $3.50.

E. B TREAT & CO., 211-243 W. 23d St., Hew York

BIBLE DIFFICULTIES
Old Testament

BIBLE DIFFICULTIES

AND THEIR

Alleviative Interpretation

BY
ROBERT STUART MacARTHUR
Pastor of Calvary Baptist Church, New York

©lb Testament

NEW YORK
E. B, treat & COMPANY
241-243 West 23D Street
1899

Copyright, 189S
By E. B. treat & COMPANY
New York

PREFACE,

During the past few months, the substance of
the chapters comprising this volume was deliv
ered in addresses on consecutive Sunday evenings
in the regular course of the author's ministry in
the Calvary Baptist Church. He has long felt
that most of the difficulties generally supposed to
be in the Bible are not really in the Bible ; but
are in the human interpretation of the Bible,
rather than in the divine revelation itself. It is
vastly impor,tant to separate between erroneous
biblical exposition and the actual truth of divine
revelation. The newer scholarship, it will readily be ad
mitted, has disturbed the faith of some Bible stu
dents; but it is absolutely certain that it has
given the Bible a fresh interest and an increased
value. It is not necessary to accept all the con
clusions of the so-called Higher Critics ; indeed,
these conclusions are often at variance with one
another, and more careful criticism will entirely
refute some of the positions taken. But we can
readily see that the later criticism has done much
to disabuse the minds of some readers of their
traditional interpretations and unauthoritative
preconceptions of Holy Scripture; and, as a re
sult, the Bible was never so new and so attractive
a library as it is at this hour. It never was so

IO PREFACE.
carefully studied as now ; and it never has been to
the church or to the race the blessing which it
will be in the near future. The aim of these dis
courses is to separate between false interpreta
tion and genuine revelation. Miracles which God
performs we unquestioningly receive; miracles
which men imagine we are free to accept or re
ject. This volume contains a selection rather than a
collection of difficulties in the Old-Testament
Scriptures. Questions asked by members of the
author's congregation, and by correspondents in
different parts of the country, partly guided him
in his selection of the difficulties discussed.
Doubtless, many passages of Scripture which are
serious difficulties to the minds of some readers
have been omitted ; but it was not possible to in
clude all within the limits of a volume of con
venient size. Still it is believed that the most
serious difficulties are here discussed. The au
thor regrets that these discussions do not more
fully combine the results of the latest and most
reverent scholarship with the spirit of sincere
love to the Holy Book and its divine Author. Of
his failures in all respects he is distinctly and
deeply conscious; nevertheless, he hopes that as
these discussions have proved helpful to many
hearers, and also to his own spiritual faith and
life, they may be blessed in the wider circle to
which, through this volume, they are now intro
duced. This is his sincere desire and earnest
prayer as this volume goes forth.
Calvary Study, New York City,
October, 1898.

CONTENTS;

Chapter Page
I. Was there Really Light Before the Sun ? . . 13
II. Was the World Made in Six Solar Days ? . . 25
III. Where and What was the Garden of Eden ? . 39
IV. What were the Sin and Sentence in Eden? . 53
V. What was Cain's Mark, and Who was his Wife? 6g
VI. Who were the Sons of God and the Daughters
of Men?  87
VII. Does God Repent and the Spirit Withdraw ? . 107
VIII. Was the Noachian Flood Universal or Local? . 125
IX. What was the Purpose of the Tower of Babel? 145
X. Was Lot Wise in Pitching his Tent toward
Sodom?  163
XI. Who was Melchizedek, the Mysterious King-
Priest?  179
XII. Was the Destruction of Sodom Natural or Su
pernatural?  197
XIII. Did God Mean that Abraham Should Really
Offer Isaac?  217
XIV. Did Rebekah and Jacob Cheat Isaac and Rob
Esau?  235
XV. Who was the Wrestler with Jacob at Jabbok? . 253
XVI. Did God or Pharaoh Harden Pharaoh's Heart? 269

1 2 CONTENTS.
Chapter Page
XVII. Was the Passage of the Red Sea Supernatural? 287
XVIII. What were the Symbols called the Urim and
Thuramim?  305
XIX. Did Balaam's Ass Literally Speak with Man's
Voice?  327
XX. Did the Sun and Moon Stand Still at Joshua's
Command?  . 345
XXI. Did Jephthah Really Sacrifice his Daughter? . 359
XXII. Did Samuel Appear when Summoned by the
Witch of Endor?  373
XXIIL Did Two She-bears Destroy Forty-two Chil
dren?  389
XXIV. Was the Destruction of the Canaanites Vin-
dicable ?  405
XXV. Are the Imprecatory Psalms Justifiable or even
Explicable?  417
XXVI. Are the Prophet Jonah and the Great Fish His
torical?  435

I.
WAS THERE REALLY LIGHT BEFORE THE
SUN?

WAS THERE REALLY LIGHT BEFORE
THE SUN?
Truly sublime are the opening words of Gene
sis. No other historical writing approaches its
first verse in grandeur and majesty. It implies
the existence, the eternity, the freedom, the om
nipotence, the intelligence, and the goodness of
God. The first sentence denies atheism, for it
assumes God. It denies materialism, for it as
serts Creation. It denies pantheism, for it declares
the personality of God. The word bara, trans
lated "created," is one of three words, the others
being yatsar and asah, used in this section, and
bara always has God for its subject, whatever its
object may be. Yatsar, formed, and asah, made,
both refer to construction out of pre-existing ma
terials, and both are predicable of God and man.
The verb bara, in its simple form, occurs forty-
eight times, according to Dr. Murphy, and always
in one sense. The word "Elohim," translated
God, is found in the Hebrew Scriptures fifty-
seven times in the singular, and about three thou
sand times in the plural, according to the same
authority. In the plural it may mean the " Eter
nal Powers," but it is correctly translated God.
Later references will be made to the significance

1 6 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
of its plural form, conjoined with verbs and ad
jectives in the singular, being thus somewhat of
an anomaly in language, and giving a suggestion
of the doctrine of the unity of the Godhead,
which was later fully revealed.
In the preceding verses the inspired writer de
scribed the condition of the world while in its
chaotic state. Now he enters on the details of
that stupendous process by which the whole was
reduced to order, and the heavens and the earth
were made to appear in their beauty and glory.
The great secret of the entire process is the being
and the power of God. Remove God from this
lofty history, this noble poem, this sublime an
them, this glorious oratorio of primeval wisdom
and goodness, and you have nothing left behind
but darkness, mystery, and chaos. Insert God in
the history, and all becomes perfectly reasonable,
and partially explicable. Every thoughtful man
must admit that there is far less mystery and
difficulty with, than without, God. Eliminate
God, and you eliminate reason as well as faith.
Atheism has no explanation to give of Creation ;
it leaves the whole subject involved in impene
trable darkness and hopeless mystery. Admit
God, and the hymn of Creation has beauty, maj
esty, and glory. Thus it comes to pass that " God
said" is the keynote to this sublime song. This
word of God removes all ideas of blind force and
senseless matter. Thus it is that God's presence
and power in the first majestic words of Genesis

WAS THERE LIGIIT BEFORE THE SUN? l^
answer a thousand questions of the human mind
and heart. Past all the works of Creation we
must go to the person of God as the divine
Author. God Not Eliminated.
Behind the visible universe stands God. Men
talk of the laws of nature. What do they mean?
What is a law? A law is only a name which we
give to the manner in which we have observed
some force to act. If the force be physical, we
have a physical law; if moral, we have a moral
law. A law is not a force, but a form; not a
motor, but a motion; not a power, but a process.
Law implies a lawgiver, evolution an evolver, or
der an ordainer. There stands God. We have
often permitted ourselves to be confused as to the
true definition of law. We have allowed our
selves to think of law as if it were endowed with
power and possessed of personality. Even if evo
lution were fully established, it would not elimi
nate God. Nothing can be evolved that has not
first been involved. There stands God. Back of
all processes is God as the almighty power. But
how are we to understand the words " and God
said"? Did God literally utter His voice in that
primeval solitude? Did His voice echo through
that chaotic abyss? This we cannot suppose.
We have here an example of the application to
God of terms which usually are applied to human
beings. In this way the Bible often speaks of

1 8 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
God's face, ear, hand, and voice. In harmony
with this usage the Bible speaks of God as repent
ing and as performing other acts characteristic of
man. This usage is what the theologians call an
example of anthropomorphism. If God is to
communicate with men He must adopt methods
which men can understand, and if men are to
speak of God, they must use the only language
which it is possible for them to employ. " God's
speaking is His willing, and His willing is His
doing." This is the first time that the phrase
" God said" is used in this narrative, but it is used
in all ten times in the account of the creation. It
is also a characteristic form of expression in the
Old Testament. We have it in such forms as
"God spake, saying," "Thus saith the Lord of
hosts," and such other expressions as " the word of
the Lord came, saying."
On reading the first chapter of Genesis we are
reminded of the first chapter of John's Gospel,
" In the beginning was the Word." Observe the
similarity between these two great opening chap
ters. What is the irresistible conclusion? The
" God-said" of the Old Testament is the God-word
of the New Testament. The Jehovah of the Old
Testament is the Jesus of the New Testament.
In John we further read that Jesus made all
things which were made. At this point also the
two records harmonize. In Genesis we have the
majestic words, " Let there be light, and there
was light"; or, more literally, "Light be, and

IVAS THERE LIGHT BEFORE THE SUN? 19
light was." The sublimity of these words in the
original cannot be fully reproduced in English.
It appears more completely in the Greek of the
Seventy and in the Latin Vulgate. Longinus,
the famous Platonic philosopher and finished rhe
torician, born at Athens or in Syria, about 213
A.D., a student in Alexandria and finally a teacher
in Athens, the man whose knowledge was so great
and varied and his critical taste so acute that he
was called a " living library" and a " walking mu
seum," refers to these words as an illustration of
his theme when writing of the Sublime. The
Eternal Word speaks, and light is. Finely has
Dr. George Dana Boardman said : " Man's words
are but sounds, God's words are deeds. He but
speaks, and lo! light, sky, ocean, mountain, tree,
animal, man, star, universe. He spake, and it
was ; He commanded, and it stood fast. "
Light before the Sun.
But just here a difficulty arises. Whenever the
mind of the Infinite comes into contact with the
finite, an insoluble problem emerges. The finite
can apprehend, but cannot comprehend the In
finite. Now we know God, not as He is, but as
we are. Now at best we see through a glass
darkly. Could there have been light before the
sun's creation? Can there be any alleviative ex
planation? Assuredly there can. We are told
that the sun is the primary source of light, and,

20 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
in a measure, the statement is true. We are
now, let it be borne in mind, in the first day of
Creation, but when we reach the fourth day we
are told that God made the sun. We immediately
ask, " How, then, could there have been light on
the first day?" At this point many are embar
rassed and some are staggered. I well remember
how I once was puzzled because of this apparent
contradiction in the inspired narrative. Sceptics
quickly seized upon these statements as if they
were the result of crass ignorance on the part of
the writer of the Creation records. As early as
the days of Celsus, who lived in the second cen
tury after Christ, and wrote about 150 a.d., this
objection to the Mosiac record of the Creation
was urged. But in wonderful ways have the au
thoritative conclusions of science come forward as
witnesses to the truth of this sacred story.
Let us look at some of the explanations which
have been offered. Some say that the sun was
created at the first a perfectly luminous body,
but that the vapors arising from the condition of
the world at the time shut out his light, and that
when God said, "Let there be light," He simply
dispersed these mists and vapors and thus caused
the light of the sun to be seen. They thus make
the light only a manifestation of what was pre
viously in existence, and not the creation of some
thing which until then had no existence. But they
have still to account for the creation of the sun,
or at least for the narrative touching that point in

WAS THERE LIGHT BEFORE THE SUN? 21
the history of the fourth day. This they do by
supposing that there we have not the account of
the sun's creation, but only the record of the
command that the sun was appointed to rule by
day. Augustine thought that this was simply
spiritual light; and Calvin recognized the dis
tinction between this light and that mentioned in
connection with the creation of the sun, but he
had no very clear explanation to give. But the
narrative tells us not simply that light began to
be visible, but it asserts that light began to be ;
and it seems certain that the majestic language
here attributed to Elohim is too lofty and sublime
to be applied to so comparatively unimportant an
event as the scattering of the mists and clouds.
Here comparatively late discoveries, or at least
applications, of scientific knowledge come for
ward to solve the problem. We know that light
was once supposed to be a distinct element or
substance ; but now it is believed to be simply a
mode or condition of matter. Thus it is now
known that the light-giving qualities of many
bodies are due to their condition of incandescence.
It is certainly known that light is not entirely de
pendent on the sun. No one who is at all familiar
with the subject now doubts that there is a kind
and degree of light apart from the sun ; and it is cer
tain that this chemical or cosmical light possesses
some qualities conducive to the growth of vegeta
tion. It is beyond any question true that " any
solid body can be rendered incandescent by being

2 2 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
heated up to between 700° and Soo° Fahrenheit,"
and liquids also which are capable of being heated
up to the required degree emit light. We know
also that fire-flies, certain kinds of wood, and still
other substances in their normal condition, throw
out light. We know, indeed, that there are many
theories as to the phenomenon of light, but much
connected with it is still wrapped in mystery. It
travels much faster than sound. When a cannon
is fired at a distance we first see the flash and then
later hear the sound. Light travels 186,000 miles
a second, or more than a million times faster than
sound. It therefore takes the light of the sun
eight minutes to travel from the sun to the earth.
Light travels farther as well as faster than sound ;
in proof of this statement is the familiar fact
that we often see lightning so far off that we
cannot hear the thunder which accompanies it at
the point of its origin. But much as we know of
it, it still has its mysteries. The Pythagorean
and Newtonian theory was that light was trans
mitted to the eye by.the emission of small parti
cles of luminous matter. This is called the emis
sion corpuscular theory. The earlier theory made
light an attenuated, imponderable substance ; the
undulatory theory makes light to be propagated
by the vibrations of matter called ether. These
theories were long rivals, but the undulatory
theory has completely triumphed over the other.
Professor Dana affirms that the wave lengths
in the vibration of molecular force have been as-

WAS THERE LIGHT BEFORE THE SUN? 23
certained. He also reminds us that the laws of
heat and of electrical and chemical action are so
involved with those of light that all these condi
tions are convertible and one in molecular origin.
The nebular hypothesis of La Place, who stood
second to none but Newton in the great science
of mathematical astronomy, asserts that the con
densation of the originally void, dark, gaseous
chaos would be accompanied by intense molecular
or chemcial activity, and so would assuredly emit
light. Infidelity called Moses a blunderer and
the Bible a fraud for affirming that there was
light before the sun ; and now all the scientists
declare that this very result must have occurred.
Moses was no scientist ; he lived in an age when
nothing was known of molecular activity. He
never heard of Newton or La Place ; he could not
have understood the nebular hypothesis if he had
heard of it. How came he to anticipate the con
clusions of modern science? God taught him ; he
was inspired of the Almighty. Let infidelity be
dumb ; let it hide its empty head. God taught
Moses, and Moses teaches the scientists of the
nineteenth century. In medicine, as in astron
omy, Moses is abreast of the science of to-day.
Regarding all sanitary laws, the medical profes
sion of to-day is only struggling up to the point
reached by Moses ages ago. Who taught Moses?
The Almighty. How came the cosmogony of
Moses to be right, according to the latest dicta of
science, while the cosmogonies of all heathen na-

24 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
tions excite the laughter of all scientific men to
day? There stands God. It is high time for a
shallow atheism to be entirely silent, or to speak
with great modesty. Let all believers in divine
revelation rejoice in God's Word, the glorious old
Bible, which God is magnifying in the halls of
scientific learning, in the homes of devout be
lievers, and in the churches of Jesus Christ
throughout the world!

II.
WAS THE WORLD MADE IN SIX DAYS?

IL
WAS THE WORLD MADE IN SIX DAYS?
In Genesis, the first chapter and the fifth verse,
our attention is called to the first day in the his
tory of Creation. In the same verse we are told
that God called the light day, and the darkness
night. We need not be surprised that God gave
names to the things which He had created. The
names given to things by us express the impres
sion which they have made upon our minds ; but
the names given by God express the nature of
the things to which they are given. It seems cer
tain that God, in naming the day and the night, had
reference to their phenomena rather than to their
duration. The names were not for the benefit of
men when first given, as there were no human
beings then to make use of the names which God
gave ; but these names were rather a declaration
of the qualities or nature of the things to which
they were applied. It is still true that, in a real
sense, ." words are things." We may be abso
lutely certain that there was a significance in the
words employed by God, which made it fitting
that they should be applied to the things which
He made. We cannot, for a moment, suppose
that the name given to one object could with

28 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
equal propriety have been given to another. But
it must be admitted that there is still much uncer
tainty as to the etymology of the words which
God employed. The Hebrew word translated
day is yam, and the word translated night is la-
yela. These names, let it be borne in mind, were
descriptions of nature rather than measures of
time. Some scholars suggest that yam expresses " the
tumult, stir, and business of the day. " Those who
give it this meaning probably connect it with the
word yam, which depicts the boiling or foaming
of the sea. They make lay ela refer to " the yell
ing or howling of wild beasts at night," and so
connect it with the Latin ululare. But probably
Gesenius and others are more nearly correct in
deriving the word yam from a root meaning " to
be warm, to glow with heat." This derivation
makes it analogous to the Arabic, yahina, to glow
with anger. It has been well said that in a sultry
climate, like that of the East, this would be a suit
able description of the day to distinguish it from
the night. Gesenius and other Hebrew scholars
associate the word for night with the rare Hebrew
root Itil, meaning to roll up; and the idea sug
gested is that night rolls up or wraps all things in
the curtains of obscurity and darkness. We may
be quite sure that there was entire appropriate
ness in the terms applied by God to the day and
the night. God has a reason, doubtless, for every
name He gives and for every act He performs ; and

WAS THE WORLD MADE IN SIX DAYS? 29
whether or not we fully understand the etymology
of these words, we may be sure that they point out
the distinguishing peculiarities of the objects to
which they are applied. A similar remark will
apply to the names given to the heavens and the
earth, to the sea and to the dry land, and to all
the other objects named in the account of Crea
tion. We read in the latter part of this fifth verse,
" And the evening and the morning were the first
day. " The more literal translation is, " And even
ing was, and morning was, day one. " Because the
darkness preceded the light, the evening is prob
ably mentioned first ; and it is likely that for this
reason the Jews began their day of twenty -four
hours from the evening. There has always been
some difference of opinion as to the exact mean
ing of the language here used. Some have
affirmed that we have here an ordinary solar day
of twenty-four hours. This, it is claimed, is the
natural meaning of the langTiage here employed ;
and the words of the fourth commandment are
quoted to show that here we have simply an ordi
nary astronomical day. But some who so affirm
reckon the day from daybreak to daybreak, while
others reckon it from sunset to sunset.
Meaning of "One."
Let us look carefully into the Scriptural use of
the two words " day one. " Let us entirely free our
minds from any real or supposed necessity, as the

3° OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
result of modern scientific discovery in geology or
any other science, to understand the word " day"
as meaning a period of indefinite duration. Let
us, without prejudice one way or the other, get
the heart meaning and the Scriptural usage of
these two words translated in our version " first
day" and more literally " day one. " The two
words in Hebrew are yoni, day, and ahad, one.
The numeral " 07ie " is several times used in Scrip
ture when clearly it means certain, peculiar, special,
unique. It is in these passages used in the sense
of the Latin quidam. Thus we have the word in
Daniel viii. 3 : " Then I lifted up mine eyes, and
saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a
ram which had two horns, and the two horns were
high, but one was higher than the other, and the
higher came up last. " The word ahadi& certainly
used here to describe a ram of a peculiar charac
ter; that is, one having two horns of unequal
height, and so a certain, a peculiar, a unique ram.
So in Ezekiel vii. 5, it is used of an evil, an only
evil ; that is, an evil of an unwonted character, an
evil of a peculiar nature. In Solomon's Song
vi.9, we have the words: " My dove, my undefiled
is but one, she is the only one of her mother. " It
is quite certain that in this passage also the word
" one" expresses the idea of something peculiar,
something especially distinguished, something
quite out of the ordinary character of things and
persons of the same general class. It would be
easy to give still other references illustrative of

WAS THE WORLD MADE IN SIX DA VS? 31
the same meaning of the word. Now, apply this
Scripture use of the word one to the case in hand,
and the meaning, will be, " And evening was,
and morning wa.s, a peculiar or unique day. " Thus
we see that the evening and the morning here
mentioned were, according to this explanation, a
certain, a peculiar, a unique, and not an ordinary
day. This so-called day, as we shall later more
fully see, constituted an epoch, an era, a period of
time of indefinite duration.
Scientific and Other Considerations.
We shall soon take up the Scripture use of the
word day; but there are a few antecedent con
siderations which ought to receive our passing at
tention. Geology has long declared that the earth
required vast epochs to bring it into its present
condition ; but it is not proposed to burden this
article with geological technicalities, or any oth
er form of wearisome scientific terminology. It
may, however, be safely affirmed that science
probably shows that the order of creative de
velopment was that of the Mosaic record, first
plants, then fish and fowl, and finally animals
and man. If we were to go carefully into the
testimony of rocks and were to consider that testi
mony as admissible, it would certainly be strongly
in favor of an era of indefinite duration rather
than a day of twenty-four hours, an era perhaps
of thousands, possibly of millions, of years. In
deed, without any special scientific knowledge it

32 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
can readily be seen that the works of the different
days of Creation could not be put into the compass
of days of twenty-four hours each, except by con
tinuous miracles of the most stupendous character.
That God could do this, no one who rightly be
lieves in His omniscience and omnipotence can for
a moment doubt; but that God did this is open to
doubt so strong as to be virtually a denial. Such
enormous haste as the hypothesis of days of
twenty-four hours would necessitate is not in har
mony with God's methods, as we see them in Cre
ation or providence. Take, for example, the work
of the sixth day. On that day the animals were
created ; Adam was made ; the animals were col
lected together and named as they passed in re
view before Adam ; on that day he was cast into
a deep sleep by God, and a rib was taken from
his side, was fashioned into a woman, and she
was presented to Adam. If these were days of
twenty-four hours each, then all that is recorded
in the first five verses of the first chapter of Gene
sis took place in twenty-four hours. Who can be
lieve it? No one doubts that God couldhavQ done
this, but it is difficult to believe that God did
all this in that time. If these were days of
twenty-four hours each, then the world could not
have been more than one hundred and forty-four
hours older than man ; and if he were created in
the early part of the sixth day, the world was not
even that much older than man. Is this conceiv
able? It is so only, as already remarked, by sup-

WAS The world made in six days? 33
posing continuous miracles of the most stupendous
character ; but in the economy of God, so far as
we can learn His ways, He has always kept the
miraculous displays of His power within econom
ical limits. The length of the seventh day de
termines the length of the other six; but most
commentators consider that God's Sabbatic day
extends from Creation to the present hour. Must
not then the other six days be days of indefinite
duration? If the six days mentioned in Exodus
XX. 1 1 are days of twenty-four hours each, so must
the seventh day be one of twenty-four hours ; but
God is represented as having rested on that day
from His creative labors. If that day is still con
tinued, and so is one of indefinite duration, are
we not justified in affirming that the other six
were also periods of undefined length?
Attention has often been called to the fact that
many heathen cosmogonies give indirect confir
mation to the view here presented. Egyptian,
Persian, Indian, and Etruscan legends are named
by different writers on this subject, and while not
of authority in themselves, they may be quoted
as showing that this idea was widely diffused.
Many Christians can remember how a generation
ago their simple Christian faith was rudely
shocked by scientific affirmations that the world
was not made in six days of twenty-four hours
each. The writer well remembers that in his
boyhood his faith was greatly disturbed, and for a
time almost wrecked, by statements..efem«a=6lder
3

34 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
and wiser than himself, men who read widely in
the scientific literature of the times, and who
affirmed that the statements of the Bible were
disproved by the absolutely conclusive demonstra
tions of science. He was not able to refute these
statements ; he thought the Bible taught that the
world was made in six days, of twenty-four hours
each. He thought he must hold on to the twen
ty-four-hour theory or reject the Bible. Thahld*
God ! we now see that neither science nor Scripture
teaches that the world was made in six days of
twenty-four hours each ! To believe the Bible is
one thing, but to believe all the interpretations
which some men choose to give the Bible is quite
another thing.
Scripture Use of the Word "Day."
Now, let us look at the Scripture use of the
word "day." Perhaps the highest Hebrew au
thority favors the etymology which refers the
word to a root meaning " to be warm, to be hot,
to glow with heat," as already suggested. If this
origin of the word be correct, it might refer to the
glowing or heated periods through which the world
passed in its successive developments. But the
purpose at this point is simply to refer to the
Scriptural use of the word ; thus Scripture will in
terpret Scripture. Nothing is more certain than
that the word yam, day, is repeatedly used in the
Scripture when reference is made to epochs, eons,

WAS THE WORLD MADE IN SIX DAYS? 35
periods of indefinite length. We have the first in
stance in this immediate connection in the record
of Creation itself; the word is found in Genesis
ii.4. There Ave read: " These are the generations
of the heavens and of the earth, when they were
created, in the day (beyom) that the Lord God made
the earth a,nd the heavens. " Here the word " day"
is clearly not a solar day ; it is most certainly used
to cover the entire period of Creation. This is the
first time the word occurs after the history of the
day of the creative week, and it will be admitted
by all that it is here applied to the entire period.
It would seem as if there were a providential pur
pose to show us at this point that the word " day"
in the account of Creation meant an epoch, and
not a period of twenty-four hours. It is strange
that many of the readers of the Bible seem to
have overlooked this verse, when they have in
sisted that the six days of Creation were days of
twenty-four hours each. It is astonishing that
traditional interpretations often close the eyes of
even scholarly commentators to the plain reading
of God's Word. The Hebrew Scriptures gener
ally clearly show that the word " day" often de
notes a period of past or future time without
limit. In Isaiah xxx. 8, we read, " Now go . . .
and note it in a book, that it may be for the time
to come for ever and ever." The phrase " time to
come," as seen in the margin of our Bibles, liter
ally means, "the latter day." Nothing could be
clearer than that the word " day" here refers to an

36 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
indefinite period. In Job xviii. 20 we read,
" They that come after him shall be astonied at
his day." Here the word "day" stands for the
whole period of a man's life. In Isaiah ii. 11 we
have "... the Lord alone shall be exalted in
that day," and in the next verse we have a refer
ence to "the day of the Lord of hosts." The
word day here clearly means the time when God
would punish His people for their sins ; it prob
ably refers to the captivity in Babylon. This is a
time when Jehovah will inflict vengeance on the
people; a time is coming when God's righteous
anger would be revealed. In Jeremiah xlvi. 10 we
have the words, " the day of the Lord God of hosts,
a day of vengeance." In Ezekiel xxx. 3 we read:
" For the day is near, even the day of the Lord is
near, a cloudy day, it shall be the time of the
heathen." In Zephaniah i. 7 we read, "For the
dayof the Lord is at hand. " In Joel ii. 31 we
have the words : " The sun shall be turned into
darkness, and the moon into blood, before the
great and the terrible day of the Lord come." In
all these passages a period of trial on the part of
the people, and of righteous judgment on the part
of God is announced. In Judges xviii. i the word
days is used for a period of time in history, and in
Ecclesiastes xii. 3 we have the expression, " In
the day when the keepers of the house shall trem
ble," where the word day is used for old age. We
use the word often with that meaning now. We
still speak of "his day," "my day," "your day,"

WAS THE WORLD MADE IN SIX DAYS? 37
referring to periods of time and to sections of
one's age.
There is one very striking passage to which at
tention should be called. In Zechariah xiv. 6, 7
reference is made probably to the time of our
Lord's coming, and to the entire Gospel dispensa-
tio:\ ; the words are : " And it shall come to pass in
that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor
dark, but it shall be one day which shall be
known to the Lord, not day nor night. " The day
to which reference is here made is certainly a day
unique in f-ie world's history. It is one of God's
da3'S, not one of man's days. It is such a day as
distinguishes it from all of man's civil or solar
days. It is a special time, a unique period, known
as the day of the Lord. Reference might be
made also to Psalm xc. 4 ; xcv. 8 ; Isaiah xlix. 8 ;
2 Corinthians vi. 2 ; John ix. 4 ; i Thessalonians
V. 2 ; 2 Peter iii. 10 ; Hebrews xiii. 8 ; and in 2 Peter
iii. 8 we have the words : " But, beloved, be not
ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the
Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as
one day." Unfortunately, many of the Lord's
children have seemed to be ignorant of this very
one thing.
Prof. Tayler Lewis is authority for the general
statement that Scriptu.re clearly shows that there
are days or eras which God supernaturally divided
by His own power in the creation of the world,
and that there are other days concerning which
God said, " Let the sun divide them." These lat-

38 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
ter are the natural, the solar days, measured off
by the returning course of nature. Thus we have
in the Bible two kinds of days ; the one kind is
directly God-made, the other is indirectly sun-
made. Nothing is more certain than that the
Bible does not teach that the days of Creation
were days of twenty-four hours. We ought not
to let any affirmation to that effect disturb our
faith. We ought to be calm, truthful, and joyous
in the Lord and in the word of His truth. Some
of the scaffolds which men have erected around
the temple of revelation are falling. Let them
fall ! Their disappearance will permit the divine
temple to be the more clearly seen in its perfect
symmetry, spotless beauty, and divine majesty.
Away with false interpretations, away with all
forms of superstition, away with all kinds of infi
delity! With glorious old Isaiah, writing under
the inspiration of the Almighty, we shall say,
" The grass withereth, the flower fadeth, but the
word of our God shall stand forever."

in.
WHERE AND WHAT WAS THE GARDEN
OF EDEN?

III.
WHERE AND WHAT WAS THE GARDEN
OF EDEN?
The Scriptural account of the Garden of Eden
is found in the second chapter of Genesis, begin
ning with the eighth verse and going to the end
of the seventeenth. The question as to the loca
tion and character of the Garden of Eden has
always been one of fascinating interest. The
writer of the Book of Genesis, in harmony with
the well-known character of Hebrew composition,
having carried his subject to a convenient resting-
place, often reverts to a point already passed over.
So, in giving an account of the Garden of Eden,
he goes back to a time antecedent to man's ap
pearance on the earth. It is evident, from this
account, that the garden was fully prepared some
time — how long, of course, we do not know — be
fore the intended occupant was prepared to pos
sess it. A wonderful name is Eden ! It is music
on the tongue as it is pronounced, and its sound
thrills the heart. It awakens.the most delicious
memories, and it suggests the most glorious proph
ecies. The word translated garden properly
means an enclosure, from a word meaning to
fence or to protect. In the Septuagint it is usu-

42 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
ally rendered Paradise, but this is a word neither
of Greek nor Hebrew origin. It is found in
Xenophon's " Cyropasdia" and other of his writ
ings, about B.C. 400. The Greek translation of
the Bible took this word as the translation of the
garden which the Creator prepared for innocent
man. The word has been generally supposed to
be Persian, from which language Xenophon de
rived it. In that language it represents a park,
a pleasure garden, a woodland enclosure, pro
tected by a wall, abundantly watered, and abound
ing with fruit-trees, flowers, and other objects of
beauty. The word finally came to be applied to
any delightful region, and was in this sense intro
duced into the later Hebrew in the form of par-
dees. In our version it is sometimes rendered
forest and sometimes orchard and garden. Prob
ably the derivation should be carried farther back
than the Persian.
The word is certainly found in the Armenian
tongue, one of the oldest languages of one of the
oldest people in the world. In this language it is
compounded of two words, meaning edible grains
or herbs. The Armenians frequently use the
word as applied to a garden adjoining a dwelling;
but it is almost certain that the origin of the word
goes back to the Sanscrit, paradeesha, standing for
a region of surpassing beauty. The word became
finally a metaphor to express the idea of exquisite
delight, and so it was used not only for the abode
of our first parents in their innocence and bliss,

WHERE AND WHAT WAS EDEN? 43
but as a figurative name for Heaven, the home of
the blessed. In this sense it is several times used
in the New Testament. The word Eden is there
fore one of the most venerable and beloved names
in geography. The Greek word hedone is nearly
identical in sense as well as in sound. It ought to
be constantly borne in mind that Eden was a tract
of country, of which part, and as we may well be
lieve the most beautiful part, was the Paradise,
park, organ, garden of all delight. We ought not
to suppose that Eden is identical with the Garden
of Eden. They are to be constantly distinguished
if we are to have an intelligent conception of the
Biblical narrative.
The Allegorical Interpretation.
In almost all ages of the church there have been
writers who interpreted the Biblical narrative of
Eden as a mere allegory. The same remark will
apply to their interpretation of the whole story of
the Creation and Fall of Man. Many of these
allegorical interpretations are beautiful in them
selves, and are suggestive of important truths,
although they are not adequate interpretations of
the Biblical story. In harmony with this method
of exposition, Philo made Paradise the governing
faculties of the soul. The four rivers described
in the Book of Genesis he made four virtues:
Prudence, temperance, courage, and justice.
Origen, under the general infiuence of this
method, makes Paradise, Heaven; the trees, ^n-

44 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
gels; and the rivers, wisdom. Other mystical in
terpreters have given different significations to
the various features of the Biblical narrative, but
have still retained the chief features of this alle
gorical method. A few more heroic interpreters
have cut the Gordian knot by declaring that the
entire story is the spurious interpolation of a com
paratively late age. Luther believed that the
garden remained under the guardianship of an
gels until the time of the flood, and that so great
was the convulsion of nature incident to the flood
that all traces of Eden were obliterated. But the
narrative in Genesis seems clearly to imply that
at the time of the historian the countries and riv
ers described were still in existence. That im
pression grows constantly upon the mind of the
careful reader of the Biblical story ; he strongly
feels that the description of the garden is vividly
present to the mind of the writer, and that the
garden was capable of being visited by him and
his readers. Traditional Edens.
Almost all nations have had the idea of a ter
restrial Paradise. The conception of Eden, as in
some sense the Garden of God, retains its hold not
only on the minds of Hebrew prophets and poets,
but in the hearts of poets, historians, and philoso
phers among all the nations with whose records we
have become familiar. Arabian legends tell us
of *a garden on the summit of a great and glorious

WHERE AND WHAT WAS EDEN? 45
mountain inaccessible to men. Hindu traditions
have their Garden of Eden on the top of a moun
tain shaped like the seed-cup of the sacred lotus.
In this blessed abode of divinity is the holy grove
of Indra; there also is the Jambu tree, whose
fruit fed the waters of the Jambu River, waters
which impart immortal life, beauty, and glory to
all who drink thereof. The Chinese have their
enchanted garden in one of the high ranges of the
Houanlun Mountains. The Medo-Persians had
theirs also. The Greeks had their Hesperides,
suggestive of innocence, beauty, and immortality.
All these traditions are but echoes of the Hebrew
story. They bear eloquent testimony to the real
ity of the Biblical narrative. It is difficult, if not
impossible, to account for the universality of this
belief, except on the hypothesis of the historicity
of the thing 90 widely believed.
The Location of Eden.
Where were the tract of Eden and the Garden
of Paradise in Eden? Is it possible for us to an
swer these questions with any degree of certainty?
In making this search, a starting-point is found in
the second chapter of Genesis. This is an artless,
child-like, and altogether charming description.
In this respect it is in harmony with all the narra
tives of the primitive Hebrew Scriptures. Some
would interpret the expression, " Eastward in
Eden," in the eighth verse of the second chapter
of Genesis, to mean eastward of the place of the

46 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
writer. We may ask. Where was that writer's
standing-point? Perhaps in Palestine. In all
ages and lands the religion of the rising sun is
poetically supposed to be of surpassing beauty.
As a matter of fact, the cradle of the race did lie
eastward to the land of Israel. But perhaps the
phrase, " Eastward in Eden," means in the eastern
part of the tract of Eden; this seems to be the
most natural interpretation of the phrase. We
also have the description of the river which
watered the garden, and its division into four dis
tinct streams, to guide us in our discussion. It is
well known that few questions are so difficult of
a satisfactory solution as the location of Eden.
Its discussion has ever temptingly invited, and
has often utterly baffled, the investigation of
scholars. Europe, Asia, and Africa have been
carefully examined to find this garden of beauty.
It has been said that from " China to the Canary
Isles, from the Mountains of the Moon to the
coasts of the Baltic, no locality which in the
slightest degree corresponded to the description
of the first home of the human race has been left
unexamined." Eden has been sought for all the
way from Siberia to the South Sea Islands. Hasse
gratified his national pride by placing it on the
shore of the Baltic. Rudbeck, who was a Swede,
located Eden in Scandinavia. The Greeks placed
the Garden of Hesperides in the extreme west,
and others would have it, as we have seen, in
some of the ranges of the glorious Himalayan

WHERE AND WHAT WAS EDEN? 47
Mountains, near the region which traditionally,
and perhaps correctly, is called the cradle of the
race and the birthplace of mythical gods and his
torical men. Some have given up the quest as
utterly hopeless. They put the solution of this
problem in the same category with that of per
petual motion, the quadrature of the circle, and
the interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy. Two
points, however, are absolutely clear in this
whole discussion. We must find a river which is
divided as one current, or, as a river system, into
four streams, two of which are the Tigris and the
Euphrates. The identification of these two rivers
with the Hiddekel and the Phrat, has never been
disputed. But what rivers shall stand for the Pison
and the Gihon? It may be said that investigators
here usually divide themselves into two great
classes — those who place the Garden of Eden be
low the junction of the Tigris and the Euphrates,
and those who seek it in the high tablelands of
Armenia. All other interpretations may be
readily eliminated from our problem. Those
theories which make the Ganges, the Indus, or
the Nile the rivers described in the narrative
may at once be set aside. The men who sug
gested these theories, as a rule, deny the histori
cal reality of the Biblical description. They re
duce the inspired narrative to the level of a myth
or saga.
Let us again bear in mind that Eden was not a
garden, but the region or territory in which the

48 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
garden lay, and that there is no good reason to
suppose that the deluge greatly changed the face
of the country. As already suggested, the writer
was evidently describing a territory which in his
day was, in his judgment, capable of identifica
tion. Let us also remember that the Hebrew
word NaJiar stands not for an individual river,
but for the river system of the country to which
it is applied ; and let us further bear in mind that
the general situation is clearly fixed by the rivers
Tigris and Euphrates. V/e are now prepared to
affirm with these facts in mind that Eden was in
the highlands of Armenia. To the illustration
of this statement a few facts clearly contribute;
let us look closely at these facts. A careful ex
amination of the highlands of Armenia, west of
Mount Ararat, and about five thousand feet above
the sea, will show that it corresponds, in a remark
able and fascinating degree, to the description of
Eden given in the Book of Genesis. It is well
known that, within a circuit of a few miles in diam
eter in this general region, four great rivers
take their rise ; and it is equally well known that
those four rivers have many branches. These
rivers are the Euphrates, which is at least sixteen
hundred miles long; the Tigris, which, there is
good reason to believe, is the Hiddekel — a word
which really signifies " the rapid Tigris" — of Gen
esis, and which is i, 146 miles long before its junc
tion with the Euphrates at Kurnah, where they
form the Shat-el-Arab, which flows on about one

WHERE AND WHAT WAS EDEN? 49
hundred and twenty miles to the Persian Gulf.
Midway between these two main sources of the
Euphrates rises the Araxes, which flows northeast
for a thousand miles and then pours its waters into
the Caspian Sea. At no great distance from the
Euphrates is the Halys, or Phasis, which runs a
winding course northwesterly for seven hundred
miles to the Black Sea. Two of these rivers are
unquestionably among those named in Genesis,
and the Phasis, or Halys, is supposed to-be the
Pison of Genesis, and the Araxes, the Gihon. A
little study of comparative philology helps us at
all these points, since both Gihon and Araxes
mean practically the same thing; both names
admirably describe the dart-like swiftness of
the river. All travellers who have carefully ex
amined this region testify that it is to this day
one of wonderful fertility and of surpassing
beauty. It is almost certain that in this region,
occupying the highest portion toward the east,
was the Eden of the Book of Genesis.
Fruitful Lessons.
The story of man's occupancy of the Garden of
Eden, previous to his fall, is full of lessons of the
greatest interest and importance. Attention has
often been called to the fact that Eden was a
place of work. Even in his spotless innocence
Adam was commanded to dress the garden and to
keep it. Work is God's benediction and not His
malediction. Christ taught us that work was
4

5° OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
His own normal condition as well as that of His
Father. Horticulture was the first of all arts,
and the first of all laborers was a sinless man.
Indolence and barbarism are ever close neighbors.
The man or the nation that refuses to obey God's
law of subduing the earth must perish. A lazy
man must greatly try the patience of the Infinite
God. The Apostle Paul becomes righteously in
dignant at the Thessalonian idlers, declaring that
if they will not work neither shall they eat. The
cure of pauperism is found in the opportunity and
the disposition for hard and remunerative work.
No law of political economy is more universal and
irresistible than this law. There is absolutely no
hope for the American Indian except he be taught
to work. Few men die of overwork. It has been
well said that it is friction and not revolution that
destroys machinery. Work is the inseparable con
dition of human happiness and progress.
Eden was the birthplace of language. Dr.
Boardman has charmingly illustrated this truth in
his "Creative Week." Speech is the most won
derful faculty in man. It allies him to angels
and to God. It proves his heirship to immortality
and divinity. The origin of language is one of the
most subtle and fascinating of problems. Perhaps
speech came as a direct gift from Heaven. It is
a wonderfully interesting thought that man's first
recorded act was the giving of names to God's
creatures in Eden. The study of words is really
the study that touches life and thought at their

WHERE AND WHAT WAS EDEN? 51
deepest points. It practically includes all other
kinds of study. " Words are things," as the fiery
Mirabeau said when addressing the stormy French
Assembly. Our Lord has taught us that we are
to be j adged by our words. The gift of language
is both sublime and awful. The tongue may be
almost angelic or it may be altogether Satanic.
The tale-bearer or scandal-monger is the child of
Hades. Every man has his Eden. There is a time of
childlike innocence in every life. Innocence is
not necessarily virtue. Virtue implies the test of
temptation and the victory over temptation. In
Eden man had his period of probation, involving
both permission and probation. Adam must be
taught the distinction between right and wrong.
He must learn that he was a finite creature,
and that God alone was infinite. The prohibi
tion thus given to Adam was necessary to
teach him whether or not he was obedient. All
human life is a prohibition ; there is a forbidden
something in every man's life. Every man has
his Eden ; every man is in some sense his own
Adam. As often as any man chooses the evil
rather than the good, the lower rather than the
higher self, and Satan rather than God, he has re
peated Adam's fall. It is useless to chase Adam
up and down the ages ; it is greatly wise to make
sure that we stand when our test comes. Thank
God! the second Adam stood, although the first
Adam fell. Our true golden age is in the future.

52 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
There is a diviner tree of life, more crystalline
water, a sublimer and diviner Paradise than that
of Eden. The rainbow of promise spans the
firmament of Revelation, and the glory of Para
dise lost is ineffably transcended by the glory of
Paradise regained.

IV.
WHAT WERE THE SIN AND SENTENCE IN
EDEN?

IV.
WHAT WERE THE SIN AND SENTENCE
IN EDEN?
The account of the temptation, transgression,
and sentence in Eden is found in the third chap
ter of Genesis. We are safe in saying that no
words can overestimate the happiness of Adam
and Eve during the period of their innocence.
Made in the image of God, unassailed by temp
tation, pure in thought, word, and act, and holding
communion with God as a man does with his dear
est friend, theirs was celestial joy amid terres
trial environments. But a sad experience awaited
them; their joy was to end in sorrow, their in
nocence in transgression, and their Eden in Aven.
Their history is forever after associated with that
of a malignant spirit, and they are to become sin
ful, wretched, degraded, and despicable.
We do not know how long was their period of
joy and felicity ; many writers have given us vari
ous speculations on that point, but the Bible gives
us no information. Somehow, in reading the
story, one cannot help feeling that the period was
short, although on that point no affirmation can
be made. We now enter on the story of the in
troduction of sin and all its woes. This chapter

56 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
gives us the tragic scene which brought Eden to
an end. The story is the saddest which was ever
told. The sin of our first parents changed Para
dise into pandemonium and Edenic bliss into
Hadean woe. The Temptation.
Our attention is directed in the study of this
chapter to the instrument in the temptation of
Adam and Eve; this instrument or agent is in
troduced to us as " the serpent. " It should, how
ever, be borne in mind that the English word ser
pent comes to us from the Latin word serpo, to
creep, and when we turn to the Hebrew word, na-
hash, we see that it has no suggestion whatever of
the motion of the serpent. The Hebrew word
translated serpent is one of extreme difficulty. It
would have been vastly better had it been simply
accurately transliterated, rather than incur the
liability of being incorrectly translated. Gese
nius, in his Hebrew and English lexicon, in
forms us that the word is unused in Kal, is
onomatopoetic, and that it means to hiss, to whis
per, and is used especially of the whisperings of
soothsayers. In Piel he makes it mean to prac
tise enchantment, to use sorcery, and also to
augur, to forbode, to divine. He gives us a
second root, probably signifying, as he says, to
shine, and from that he gives us the word mean
ing brass. The question arises as to whether the
latter word which he gives is really a second root.

THE SIN AND SENTENCE IN EDEN. 57
Prof. Tayler Lewis, in his comments on the pas
sage in Dr. Lange's Commentary, quotes from
Gesenius, and then adds : " It (this word) is far
more likely, however, to have had for its primary
sense that from which comes the secondary mean
ing of brass, or rather of bronze — sJiining metal.
This gives, as the primary, the idea of splendor,
glistening. The name may have been given to
the serpent from its glossy, shining appearance,
or more likely from the bright glistening of the
eye. This would bring it into analogy with the
Greek drakon, from derko, derkomai — sharp, pierc
ing sight. There is the same derivation from
the eye in the Greek op/iis, or from the general
shining appearance, as a striking and beauti
ful, though terrible object. . . . The Latin ser
pens is simply a generic name — reptile. " If the
word has really for its primary sense the sec
ondary meaning of brass or of bronze, then
it is used in Scripture in a variety of mean
ings. In certain of its uses and connections it will
mean to examine fully, to discover by trial, or to
practise divination. The name, therefore, ap
plies more appropriately to an intelligent being
than to s\. reptile. Following the Septuagint,
most modprn translators have rendered the origi
nal word by serpent ; but even a casual study of
the Scripture use of the word, especially if Pro
fessor Lewis is correct in his suggestion regarding
its primary and secondary senses, shows us that

S8 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
it has many significations. It is translated divi
nations and enchantments; it is also rendered
brass, brazen, chains, fetters, and in several
places it is translated steel, 2 Samuel xxii. 35,
Job XX. 24, Psalm xviii. 34. It is also rendered in
Ezekiel, xvi. 36, filthiness. In Job xxvi. 13 we
have the Hebrew words nahash bariach, rendered
"crooked serpent"; but many commentators af
firm that the reference is to some form of sea ani
mal, perhaps the sea-horse. The fact is that the
word. — ^if its primary sense was, as Professor
Lewis suggests, that from which comes the sec
ondary meaning of brass or bronze- — is so broad
and varied in its meaning that it is not possible
always to be sure of its right translation. The
Septuagint translation, as already suggested, ren
ders the Hebrew word nahash by the Greek word
Dpi lis, a serpent. But there is no certainty that
this translation was chosen because it was its fixed
meaning, but rather because it was difficult to de
termine its fixed meaning, and this word, on the
whole, seemed to the translators the most appro
priate. Indeed, they do not seem to have care
fully studied the original ; and we have seen that
they have not rendered the word uniformly, but
variously. The New-Testament writers almost
always quoted from the Septuagint version, and
they seldom changed a word in their quotations.
They, therefore, carried over this word aphis into
their writings ; and thus we come, as already inti
mated, to have the English word serpent as the

THE SIN AND SENTENCE IN EDEN. 59
translation of the Hebrew word nahash, coming
through the Greek word aphis.
A diligent study of the narrative in Genesis
shows that the nahash stood at the head of all in
ferior animals. He walked erect ; he was endued
with the power of speech ; he could reason, allure,
and persuade. Adam had named the animals,
perhaps, according to their distinguishing charac
teristics ; but the power of speech on the part of
the nahasJi does not seem to have surprised Eve
at the time of her temptation nor Adam later.
They seem to have been familiar with the posses
sion of this power on the part of the naliasJt. It
has sometimes been said that certain species of
serpents have rudimentary feet; but no one will
affirm that any serpent ever had the gifts of
speech possessed by the nahash. Serpents have
no organs of speech. God could, of course, have
given this power to a serpent in Eden ; but there
is no hint that any special bestowment was made
in this case, as in the case of Balaam's ass, whether
that narrative be subjective or objective.
The question arises as to what this agent was,
and who was the principal behind the agent. Is
this narrative history or allegory? It is easier to
admit the historicity of the narrative than to ex
plain it on any other hypothesis ; but even if we
admit that it was allegory, its profound truths
and lessons would still remain. The presence of
some skilful principal back of the active agent is
apparent at every stage. That principal was Sa-

6o OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
tan, as many passages of Scripture clearly teach.
But what was this creature, here called the na-
liasJi f Did a slimy, loathsome snake tempt our
first mother? It is almost impossible so to be
lieve ; and the Scriptures do not so affirm. No
mere reptile — except by the presence of continued
miracle — could do the things attributed to this
nahash. It is far more natural to believe that we
have here some apostate spirit, erect in attitude,
attractive in form, resplendent in appearance,
and eloquent in speech. The sentence later pro
nounced on this creature clearly shows that with
the sentence came humiliation, manifested in a
degrading form of motion and method of secur
ing food. If a serpent had tempted Eve ; there
would be no significance in the sentence inflicted.
Our Lord clearly teaches us in John viii. 44 that
the devil was a murderer and the father of lies
from the beginning; and the Apostle Paul, in
writing to the Corinthians, compared the seduc
tion of Eve to that of the Corinthians; but the
Corinthians v/ere in no danger of being deceived
by a brute animal, hence Eve must have been be
guiled by something more than a reptile. We are
distinctly told that Satan can be transformed into
an angel of light ; and there seems to have been
no other time when such a transformation was so
important to his Satanic purposes as in the Gar
den of Eden. One can scarcely help feeling that
he was so transformed there. He may have as
sumed the form of some glorious and winged

THE SIN AND SENTENCE IN EDEN. 6 1
creature, such as in Scripture was known as a
seraph ; some creature with angelic attractions in
dress, appearance, and eloquence. It is certain
that the sentence pronounced, changed the shape
and properties of this creature ; it was then that
it was commanded to go on its belly and eat
dust. Before this curse was pronounced this be
ing may have been one of the most intelligent,
gentle, and beautiful of creatures. His mode of
attack was wonderfully skilful. He took advan
tage of Eve when she was alone, and thus with
out the counsel and succor of her husband. He
does not contradict the word of God ; he merely
asks questions. He insinuates doubt ; he implies
that it cannot be possible that God would lay
upon Eve an arbitrary command. At the outset
the woman answers well ; but it would have been
better if she had not parleyed with the arch-
traitor. Satan denies nothing, affirms nothing;
but he questions everything. Finally he becomes
bold and blasphemous. He suggests that God is
jealous of His honors and fears to have His crea
tures become wise as gods. His language is so
artful that while he means one thing. Eve under
stands him to mean another. We never can ex
plain how the first thought of sin can arise in the
minds of innocent beings. This is the first time
that a lie was even suggested to Eve. The origin
of evil is a metaphysical problem which the Bible
does not attempt to explain. It is the bottomless
abyss of rationalistic thinking and of theological

62 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
teaching. It baffles speculative philosophy as
truly as Scriptural theology. To explain sin from
our point of view is to excuse sin. The Bible
clearly shows that God is not the author of sin,
and that it was man's volition which brought his
pristine innocence to an end. The finest meta
physical analysis of the progress of sin is given us
by the Apostle James i. 13-15; here we have the
natural history of sin, and no human reasoning
has ever approached the skill of this analysis.
The Transgression.
Eve's curiosity was excited. She had listened
v/ith interest ; she had gazed with longing. De
sire brought forth sin, and sin when finished
brought forth death. The sophistry of the na-
Jiash was too much for her unsophisticated na
ture. He seemed so wise, so noble, so good; and
the promised result was so entrancing ! The frail
mother of the race in that evil hour disobeyed
God, partook of the fruit, and gave it to her hus
band ; with fatal facility her husband ate, and, as
Milton says, " brought death into the world, and
all our woes."
We know not what the fruit was of* which they
partook. Many Greek traditions make it the fig ;
some of the rabbis suggest that it was the vine or
the olive ; but the Latin fathers and Milton sug
gest that it was the apple. He sings of it as " that
crude apple which perverted Eve. " We probably
have in this later supposition an unconscious testi-

THE SIN AND SENTENCE IN EDEN. d-^,
mony to the value of the apple as, all things con
sidered, the best fruit the world has produced.
Were Adam and Eve forced to eat? Certainly
not. It was their own voluntary act. Satan
could tempt them to sin, but he could not sin for
them. He can incite men to sin, but he cannot
compel men to sin. They lifted the floodgate ad
mitting the stream of evil to flow into the world,
and they did it of their own deliberate choice.
God is not the author of sin. But why did God
permit such a result? Could God have prevented
it? Yes, by making man a machine. If man be
man, he must be free ; if not free, he is not man.
Freedom is the inalienable attribute of manhood ;
but if free, he may use his freedom for evil rather
than for good. That is the solemn, awful, and yet
glorious responsibility of manhood. God could
not — it is said reverently — have prevented man's
sin without doing violence to the nature of man
as a free agent, of man as man. God gave him
every persuasive to obedience, and every dissua
sive from disobedience. Milton, to quote him
once more, expresses a true thought regarding
man in his actual strength and inherent freedom,
" Sufficient to have stood, but free to fall. " Had
God by physical force interposed to prevent this
act of disobedience, there would have been no
virtue in obedience. Involuntary obedience is
no obedience. If there be not freedom, there is
neither virtue nor vice. The introduction of sin
is the problem of the ages. We can, however,

64 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
see some signal benefits arising from these sad
catastrophes. If the first Adam had not sinned,
the second Adam had not redeemed; where sin
abounded, grace superabounded. The loss of
the terrestrial Paradise made possible a celestial
Paradise. The fall gives incomparable glory to
the manifestation of God's wisdom, mercy, and
love. Redeemed sinners will sing songs in
Heaven, to which unfallen angels will ever be
strangers. Eternity will be the witness of God's
refulgeiit glory, ineffable love, and immaculate
holiness in the salvation of lost man !
The Sentence Inflicted.
The eyes of Adam and Eve were opened. The
commission of sin always lets in a terrible light
upon the soul. Our judgment of sin changes the
moment we have committed sin. Innocence had
previously clothed Adam and Eve as with a robe ;
now leafy vestments perform that office. Con
scious guilt made them cowards, and they es
caped into the dark recesses of the garden, as if
they could hide from the all-seeing God. God in
the cool of the day sought them out. He was
already the good Shepherd, going after the wan
dering sheep. In the ethnic religions we see man
toilfuUy seeking after God ; in revealed religion
we see God lovingly seeking man. Sin existed
in the universe before it blighted the blessedness
of Eden, and love was eternal in the heart of God
before Adam and Eve were placed in Eden.

THE SIN AND SENTENCE IN EDEN. 65
Adam's lack of chivalry, born of sin, blames the
woman, and the woman blames the serpent, and
the inference is that the nahash would blame
God ; but Adam's reply was too witless to deserve
God's notice. God does not interrogate the na-
hasJt. Out of pure malignity he was self-moved
in harmony with his inherent Satanism ; oh him,
therefore, first falls the terrible words of doom.
Doubtless the curse fell both upon the principal
and the agent. It is now that the naliash be
comes degraded to its present loathsome appear
ance, though formerly it may have been beautiful
and may have moved with wings, with head erect
and with beauty and dignity in its form. Doubt
less, also, the curse was a typical prophecy of the
great victory which Christ was to win over Satan
and all his works. Enmity was now put between
the seed of the nahash and of the woman. From
this time forth two kinds of people are seen strug
gling in the world. Evermore there will be a
Cain and an Abel, an Ishmael and an Isaac, an
Esau and a Jacob; the one will be after the flesh
and the other after the spirit. This enmity un
derlies the mighty conflict of the ages. Under
Christ go forth the hosts of truth and righteous
ness ; under Satan the forces of death and hell.
The battle will be waged until Christ becomes
King of all nations, and is recognized as Lord
blessed for evermore.
Motherhood was henceforth to bring sorrow.
Motherhood is the glory of womanhood. In
5

66 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
motherhood woman loses herself in another life.
In giving another life to the world motherhood
becomes like Godhood. If motherhood multiplies
a woman's sorrows, it multiplies also her power to
bestow blessings. Christianity everywhere puts
the crown of glory upon the brow of woman and
mother. In bestowing a new life the rapture of life
is wondrously and almost divinely experienced.
The very ground was cursed for man's sake,
and in more sweat and toil than otherwise would
have been necessary was man to eat his bread.
Eve's name is now changed from Islia, manness,
to Chavah, life or living — as the mother of all liv
ing. From the skins of animals, probably slain
for sacrifices, they made clothing for themselves.
They are now sent from the garden; and God,
probably in holy sarcasm, rebukes Adam's at
tempt to become like God. He listened to the
voice of the tempter, and instead of becoming
like God, he has become an outcast. Behold the
cherubim and the flaming sword at the gate of
Eden ! All connected with the cherubim is very
obscure. This seems to be the first occasion of
the introduction of this mystic symbol, which
later was to represent some of the profoundest
mysteries of redemption. In this symbol was a
glorious element of hope. Promises of Paradise
restored marked the sorrowful departure of our
first parents from Paradise lost. The gleaming
sword from the midst of the cherubim pointed to
the cross of Calvary.

THE SIN AND SENTENCE IN EDEN. 67
Ethnic Traditions.
Many nations have legends of the fall. The
Chaldean mythologists make a thirst of knowl
edge the cause of man's fall. In the Persian leg
ends we have a happy pair, Meschiah and Mes-
chiane, who were holy in deed and word, and who
dwelt in a garden. In the Hindu mythology there
is a king of dragons named Naga ; probably this
is a form of the Hebrew nahash. The first being
created by Brahma, Krishna, triumphs over Kali-
naga by trampling on his head. Doubtless all
the nations absorbed something of the truth fully
revealed in the Bible. The Bible story teaches
the utter malignity of Satan. Every man has his
own Eden. Every man is in some sense his own
Adam. Every man must watch and pray that he
be not led into temptation. God's mercy runs as
a golden thread through the whole story of reve
lation. Preparation of the incarnation of Christ
is seen at Eden's gate. It is the splendor of
prophecy, the charm of history, and the glory of
psalmody ; and it reaches through the Bible and
through the history of the race from Eden lost to
Eden found.

V.
WHAT WAS CAIN'S MARK, AND WHO WAS
HIS WIFE ?

V.
WHAT WAS CAIN'S MARK, AND WHO
WAS HIS WIFE?
The fullest account of Cain's life is found in the
fourth chapter of Genesis. There was doubtless
much significance in the name by which Eve
called her first-born son. What is the meaning of
his name? To this question many answers have
been given. Some writers connect it with the
Arabic kayn, meaning a smith, or Izayin, a lance,
because of the arts which the Cainites introduced.
Others derive it from a word meaning envy ; others
from a word signifying to beat, with a possible
allusion to the murder of Abel. Still others from
a word meaning to lament. But the best author
ities derive it from the word kanah, to create, to
acquire, to obtain, making the name mean " posses
sion," or "acquisition." This seems to be the
meaning of Eve's words when she said: " I have
gotten a man from the Lord. " He was, according
to the record, the first-born of the human race, and
also the first murderer and fratricide. What did
Eve mean by her statement regarding his birth?
Did she imagine that the son now born was no
other than the divine personage promised in the
gracious assurance recorded in the fifteenth verse

72 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
of the preceding chapter? Did she really say, " I
have gotten a man (even) Jehovah"? No one will
doubt that her words can fairly be so interpreted.
She may have really believed that the seed prom
ised which should bruise the serpent's head had
now come. Others make her words to mean, " I
have gotten a man with the help of Jehovah."
Those who so interpret her words are not governed
so much by the language of the text as by the opin
ion that she could not so soon have developed the
Messianic idea, that this belief would credit her
with too mature a christological conception. But
we know that Enoch, in the seventh generation,
recognized Jehovah as the coming one ; and Eve
might have done so thus early. It is certain that
the mind of Eve was much occupied with the idea
of the coming deliverer. It was natural for a
young mother, especially in the wonderful cir
cumstances of this birth, to cherish high hopes of
her first-born son. In any case, her words indi
cate a beautiful faith. In the birth of Cain, her
faith laid hold of the word "Jehovah," as seen in
the fact that she used the divine name Jehovah,
and not the vaguer Elohim, the name she used
when holding the colloquy with the wicked na
hash. Some have supposed that previous to this
she had borne daughters, and that the birth of a
son was thus emphasized ; but the natural impres
sion in reading the narrative is that Cain was the
first-born of the human race. What delight must
have been experienced when this child was born !

CAIN'S MARK, AND HIS WIFE. 73
Every m.other can recall the marvels of this won
drous experience. But imagine the feelings of
the first mother— at least so far as this record in
forms us— at the birth of the first-born man child.
No imagination, however vivid, can fully conceive
the reality of this impressive case. Well might
Eve think that this child was no other than the
promised deliverer. This child was at least, we
are safe in saying, the pledge of the deliverer at
some time, even if he were not himself that de
liverer. In this particular case the young mother
was greatly mistaken in her estimate of Cain's
worth. It would seem as if the tempter in the
garden had more to do with him than Jehovah.
Offerings by Cain and Abel.
To Adam and Eve another son was born. Him
they called, perhaps by divine direction in allu
sion to his untimely end, Abel, meaning vanity,
a term which the psalmist applies to the race as a
whole. Eve seems more sober now in naming
this child than when she named Cain. Life's ex
periences are more numerous and serious. The
historian seven times, with a pathetic iteration,
mentions the fact that Abel was Cain's brother.
If the name were divinely given, then it was an
unconscious and melancholy prophecy of Abel's
early death. Abel was a keeper of sheep ; Cain
was a tiller of the ground. The parents brought
up their sons to habits of industry. The duty of
religious worship had also been taught the two

74 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
sons. There was already a special time and place
for worship. Already the Sabbath seems to have
been observed, as indicated by the phrase, " in
process of time," or more literally, " at the end of
days." To the place where the visible glory of
God was displayed, or the Shekinah, the sons
brought their offerings. Cain brought of the
fruit of the ground, and Abel of the firstlings of
his flock. Thus in the dawn of human life we see
the offering of sacrifices to God. God must have
given some instruction regarding these offerings.
Here at the very threshold of history we come on
the mystery of the institution of sacrifices. This
fact suggests profound questions in life and its re
lations to God. For Abel and his offering God
had respect ; but not unto Cain and his offering.
There was a difference between the offerings, and
also between the offerers. Cain's offering was an
acknowledgment of God as a benefactor, he bring
ing a mine hah, or thank-offering. But in his offer
ing there was no confession of sin, no plea for par
don, no suggestion of atonement. His offering
was such as any self-righteous man could make.
Abel seems to have brought a thank-offering and
also a victim to be slain for his sins. Here is a
suggestion of the sacrifice of Christ, who was a
lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
There was also a difference in the spirit of the
offerers. In Hebrews xi. 4 we read that " by faith
Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice
than Cain." This is suggestive language. It

CAIN'S MARK, AND HIS WIFE. 75
teaches that Abel's offering had much more in it
than Cain's; itwas iuWex^pleiona — than Cain's.
Wickliffe's translation is, a "much more sacri
fice." It possessed a principle which Cain's
lacked; for Abel already by faith grasped the
hope of the coming Messiah. The brothers were
here and thus divided. They were types of the
two great classes found in all ages; one serves
God only from the head, giving Him distant hom
age as Creator ; but the other draws near to God,
acknowledging the offerer's personal sinfulness
and God's divine and immaculate holiness. Al
ready we have a suggestion of the truth that
without the shedding of blood there is no remis
sion of sin. Cain's Awful Crime.
God's rejection of Cain's offering made him
very wroth. He showed fierce anger against his
brother. His state of mind was thoroughly Sa
tanic; but God was patient with him, notwith
standing his contumacy. God expostulated with
him as to how he also might receive a blessing.
For him also there might be a lifting up of the
countenance of God. But if repentance was not
exercised, sin, like a wild beast in ambush, would
crouch at the door ready to spring upon the sinner.
Sin did so crouch and so spring, and it finally made
Cain its prey. It has been said that the first mur
der was caused by a religious dispute ; and it is cer
tain that many times since disputes about religion

76 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
are responsible for acts of irreligion. Cain con
cealed his true sentiments toward Abel and con
versed freely with him until he could carry out
his murderous design. So acted Joab toward Ab
ner and Amasa ; so acted Absalom toward Amnon.
Cain was naturally a morose and vengeful man;
and so he rose up and slew his brother. We are
fully informed as to why he committed this Sa
tanic deed (i John iii. 12), " because his own works
were evil, and his brother's righteous." No
crime in the world's history impresses the mind
with horror more than the crime of Cain; and
treachery adds blackness to the fratricide. Per
haps he did not fully know how small a matter
might cause death, as, according to the record,
this was the first instance of human mortality.
But it is certain that the spirit of murder was in
his heart. Solemn to us are the words of our
Lord at this point, teaching us that the spirit of
hate, ardently cherished, makes any man a mur
derer in God's sight. Thus by the act of Cain
death came into the world, and the first man who
became its victim died a martyr for truth and
God. How the hearts of Adam and Eve must
have bled! Their first-born son is a murderer,
and their next born is the victim ! We may be
sure that over the living sinner they grieved more
than over the dead saint. Abel was the first from
earth to enter Heaven, and he entered it as the
first of the noble army of martyrs. It was mar
vellous mercy on the part of God that He should

CAIN'S MARK, AND HIS WIFE. 77
enter into a colloquy with Cain, who now added
lying to murder. It would be difficult to use
words which were more insolent, contemptuous,
and mendacious than those of Cain who said to
God, when He asked concerning Abel, " I know
not; am I my brother's keeper?" His heart was
already hardened toward his brother, as it was
impious toward God. Terrible is God's curse
upon Cain! Abel's voice was silent, but his blood
was shed, and that blood with trumpet tongue
shall cry from the ground until its voice shall
reach the throne of the Almight)', calling down
vengeance on the guilty. To Cain the very
ground is cursed, so that it could not yield ade
quate results for the most careful tillage. A
fugitive and a vagabond shall he be. Well
might he exclaim, " My punishment is greater
than I can bear." If we can take as accurate the
other rendering, " My iniquity is greater than
forgiveness," we may cherish the hope of his re
pentance. He is driven from the place where the
visible symbols of God's presence were manifested,
and no more shall he see the divine glory shining
forth between the cherubim. From the society
of his parents he is driven forth as a vagabond
on the earth, which is cursed to a double barren
ness wherever he shall set his foot. Remorse
shall gnaw his soul. Every stranger he fancies
will seek to slay him. Thus the guilty wretch
almost excites the pity of angels, and he has alto
gether won the fellowship of devils.

78 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
His Mark.
We do not know where the " land of Nod" was.
The name means simply flight, or exile, or va
grancy. Some have fancifully supposed that they
found a connection between the original word
and India; others have seen a relation between
the words Cain and China; but all that we know
of its position is that it was "east of Eden." It
is utterly vain to attempt the identification of
Nod with any definite locality. There he built a
city, or fort, or kremlin, and named it after his
son Enoch, as his own name would dishonor the
place, he built the fort, or keep, for self -protec
tion under the instinct of fear. Perhaps in his
effort to build a city he disobeyed God ; and pos
sibly, also, in that effort we see how vigorously
he strove to overcome the disadvantages under
which he suffered as a tiller of the ground, which
now, as a part of his curse, had become virtually
barren under his hand. As a vagrant, perhaps
hating and hated, he lived, with awful memories
of sin, and thus with terrible experiences of re
morse. This leads us to ask. What was the mark which,
in our common version, it is said that the Lord
put upon Cain? This question has given rise to
many foolish conjectures. Four out of every five
persons whom we meet believe that some brand,
mark, or stigma was placed on the brow of Cain.
Nothing is further from the truth. The Scrip-

CAIN'S MARK, AND HIS WIFE. 79
ture, properly translated, makes no suggestion of
such a brand, and yet this thought has gone into
literature, into speeches in our courts, and into
much of our common phraseology. It is a thou
sand pities that the Bible is so often mistrans
lated, misinterpreted, and misapplied. He is do
ing a genuine service for God's Word and for the
young people of our churches who clearly and
wisely separates between God's revelation ancl
man's misinterpretation. From the Septuagint
version in which we have the words, " groaning
and trembling shalt thou be," some have supposed
that he became a pitiable paralytic. One old
writer, author of " Bereshith Rabba," says the
mark was a circle of the sun rising on him;
another that it was Abel's dog which constantly
followed him. Some interpreters of the Talmud
say that it was the letter tau on his forehead, as the
first letter of the Hebrew word teshubeh, meaning
repentance; and one learned rabbi, to surpass
all other ridiculous interpretations, affirmed that
Cain's mark was a long horn growing out of his
forehead. This is all pure tradition, superstition,
and nonsense. The wetched fratricide was filled
with alarm lest all he met should slay him, and
God, as an act of special grace, declared that
sevenfold vengeance should be taken on the
slayer of Cain. To comfort the wretched outcast,
as the Revised Version has it, "the Lord ap
pointed a sign for Cain." This is an excellent
translation of the original phrase. He did not

8o OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
put a mark upon Cain ; that would have been the
most likely way to have brought upon him the
dangers which he feared. The Lord simply gave
him a sign, or token, as a memorial that he should
not be slain. The word translated " mark" is oth.
In like manner God gave a sign, or token, to
Noah, Genesis ix. 13; to Moses, Exodus iii. 12;
offered one to Ahaz, Isaiah vii. 11, and to Heze
kiah, Isaiah xxxviii. 7, 8. Probably this sign was
visible to Cain only, and was not in any way per
ceptible to others. Just what the sign was we
may never be able to determine, but nothing is
more certain than that it was not a brand upon
himself. One is almost impatient that such mis
conceptions of Scripture should be found in the
thought and literature of our time, as well as
through the past centuries. A mistranslation
often perpetuates itself in the daily speech even
of those who know the true meaning of the pas
sages which they continue to misrepresent.
Cain's Wife.
Who was Cain's wife? This question is one of
the standing conundrums on the part of certain
irreverent or religiously indifferent men and wo
men. It has also perplexed some of the most
thoughtful and devout believers in divine revela
tion. It is astonishing that so many men are
ready to neglect known duty in their desire to
find objections to the inspired narrative. When
urged to follow Christ they immediately ask un-

CAIN'S MARK, AND HIS WIFE. 8 1
answerable questions regarding the Bible. It is
well to remind such cavillers that it will be quite
time enough for them to demand solutions of per
plexing problems when they have obeyed God in
all known duties. So long as they are disobe
dient to what they thoroughly know, they have
no right to expect light on problems which they
may never be able exhaustively to understand.
Some one has quaintily said that these critics are
determined to choke themselves with bones, while
they reject the supply of boneless fish which is suf
ficient for all their wants.
Every earnest student of the Bible, however,
may properly study and, if possible, discover all
the truth which it contains. Doubtless, as John
Robinson in circumstances of the greatest interest
said in substance, God has more light yet to break
forth from His word. We do well to study it
carefully, and to master all the discoverable truth
which it contains. Was Cain's wife his sister?
So it has been frequently and emphatically af
firmed. If there were not various centres of Creation,
and so a possible pre-Adamite race, there must
have been a marriage between some brother and
sister in the Adamite family. It is barely possible,
however, that this incestuous marriage, as we now
judge, was not between Cain and his sister. Adam
must already have had daughters of whose birth
we have no information. There was now a very
considerable population. We know that at the
6

82 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
birth of Seth, Adam was one hundred and thirty
years old, and in all probability there were many
sons and daughters besides those specifically
named. There certainly was a population whom
Cain feared, lest he might be put to death. We
can hardly suppose that he was afraid of his father
and mother. It is not at all improbable that there
was a very considerable population before Cain's
marriage, and his wife may have been from one
of these families. It is not impossible, however,
that she was literally his sister. We may well
believe that if she stood in this relationship she
was married to Cain before the death of Abel, for
we can hardly believe that after that event she
would have been willing to become Cain's wife.
The marriage of brothers and sisters may have
been considered at that time a necessary condition
to the propagation of the race. We may well be
lieve also that in that early day the contrasts
between members of the primitive family, as
between Cain and Abel, were strongly marked
Thus the conditions of marriage would be more
normal than between members of the same family
in our day. We know also that the laws prohibit
ing the union of brothers and sisters, which after
ward were enacted, were then unknown. It is a
remarkable fact also that in very much later times
and among what were then the most civilized na
tions, such alliances were not forbidden, and were
not considered incestuous. We know that not only
did the Athenian law not forbid such marriages,

CAIN'S MARK, AND HIS WIFE. 83
but it made it compulsory for a brother to marry a
sister, if after reaching a certain age she had not
found a husband. We know also that Abraham
married Sarah, who was his half-sister, and Moses
was himself the offspring of a marriage which the
laws he promulgated would have prohibited as un
holy. The question as to Cain's wife is not really
one of much importance. The frequency and per
sistency with which it is asked is no evidence of
its real importance, but rather of the inquisitive,
if not perverse, spirit of the questioners. It is
fitting, however, that all the light which the
Scripture enables us to possess should be thrown
upon the subject. When objectors to divine reve
lation ask this question, supposing that it is in
some sense an excuse for their neglect of duty,
they deserve very little consideration at our hands.
When they will in the spirit of reverence obey all
the commands which they fully know, it will be
quite time enough for us to give them solutions of
the perplexing problems of Scripture. Were God
to give them full light on unknown duties, so long
as they refuse to walk in the light they now have,
God would then be putting a premium on their
disobedience and perversity. Those who do
God's will fully know that will. This is a law
illustrated in the study of every science and art,
as truly as in the experience and practice of true
religion. Only as we walk in the light which we
have, in the study of any physical phenomenon,
can we expect to have additional light falling

84 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
upon unseen paths. We must walk up to the
limit of the known, before we can step over into
the realm of the unknown, in all the broad spheres
of scientific thought, as truly as in the great realms
of divine revelation. There is so much worthful
knowledge which we can acquire that it is use
less to spend time in the effort to acquire knowl
edge which never can be certain, and which if
certain is practically worthless. It is well some
times frankly to say, " we do not know. " Often
the profoundest ignorance is the serenest knowl
edge. Time and energy are too valuable to be
wasted in useless pursuits; and further inquiry
concerning Cain's wife belongs to this class of
useless efforts. His Fate.
His character seems to have been morose and
malicious to a remarkable degree. His de
scendants are enumerated to the sixth generation.
They became numerous and powerful. Lamech
instituted polygamy. Jabal adopted a nomadic
life. Jubal invented musical instruments, and
Tubal-Cain was the first of the great family of
smiths. The civilization of this line was marked
by violence and godlessness and by song and love.
The names of the women bespeak their beauty
and attractiveness. Theirs was an unsanctified
civilization, while that of Seth was marked by
great simplicity and godly sincerity. Cain may
have obtained divine forgiveness. His penitence

CAIN'S MARK, AND HIS WIFE. 85
may have been long and sincere. If the transla
tion of Genesis iv. ^.3 may be, " mine iniquity is
greater than that it may be forgiven," there is
some hope of his sincere repentance and final sal
vation. We know that our Lord in dying prayed
for His murderers, and we know that Stephen
followed the example of his Lord in this regard,
and possibly so did Abel. We know that we are
all in danger of being murderers in heart, for
hatred of our brother, according to Christ's
higher law, is murder.
Thank God! that for us and for Cain there is
power enough in the cleansing blood of Christ to
give us the whiteness of snow! The words of
God, in Isaiah i. 18, fall like a benediction upon
our hearts, conscious of their many and heinous
sins : " Come now, and let us reason together,
saith the Lord; though your sins be as scarlet,
they shall be white as snow ; though they be red
like crimson, they shall be as wool. "

VI.
WHO WERE THE SONS OF GOD AND THE
DAUGHTERS OF MEN?

VI.
WHO WERE THE SONS OF GOD AND
THE DAUGHTERS OF MEN?
In Genesis, the sixth chapter and the first and
second verses, our attention is called to these two
classes, and to their relations with each other. It
is quite certain that the patriarchal age was not
one of general innocence. So soon as daughters
were born, the beauty of womanhood tempted de
praved men, and the holiness of married love
soon gave place to unhallowed desire. Thus the
primeval sanctities of domestic life early degener
ated into sinful unions between those who were
called "sons of God," and those who are de
scribed as daughters of men.
Distinct Classes.
Soon after the sin of Cain mankind was divided
into two distinct classes ; the one class was repre
sented by Cain, who went out from the presence
of God, and the other class was represented by
Seth, who still abode where God's glory was spe
cially manifested. The Sethites were of the seed
of the woman ; the Cainites were of the seed of
the serpent. We see that in his exile Cain built
a city, a fort, or a keep, the fear of harm and the
instinct of self-defence being strong in his mind.

90 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
When the Cainites were released from the fear
which marred all the happiness of their progeni
tor, they became numerous and prosperous.
Therefore we now first learn of the building of
tents, and thus we see that the people must have
had some skill in carpentry; they also showed
that they had acquired some knowledge of spin
ning, weaving, and working in iron and brass for
agricultural implements and martial weapons.
They also manifested considerable skill in what
may be called the fine arts. Lamech's fragment
of song exhibits the poetical knowledge which
the people thus early possessed; for that song,
according to authoritative critics, possesses the
characteristics of perfect Hebrew poetry.
The birth of Seth Eve distinctly recognized as
a compensation for the death of Abel. In a spe
cial sense she received him as a gift from God ;
and she expected that his descendants would be
worthy to be called the "sons of God." We
shall later see that her hope was realized, for the
descendants of Seth were ruled by the spirit of
God, and so were truly the sons of God. With
the birth of Enos we are told that men began to
call upon the name of the Lord. The interpreta
tion of this statement is not free from difficulties.
Some suppose that this language means that men
and women began profanely to use the name of
God. It is barely possible that the words are
capable of such a meaning ; but it is more natural
to see in them a solemn invocation of God in audi-

SONS OF GOD AND DAUGHTERS OF MEN. 91
ble and social prayer. This method of approach
ing God took place, as we have seen, at the birth of
Enos, two hundred and thirty-five years after the
creation of Adam. Some have supposed that the
words mean that God's name was now called upon
or applied to certain men. That sense of the ex
pression is not really opposed to the idea that men
now began to call upon the name of the Lord. It
seems wellnigh certain that we are here taught
that a new method of approaching God was intro
duced. It is an interesting fact that up to this
time we never read that man spoke to God, al
though wfe often read that God spoke to man. It
is difficult correctly to appreciate the primeval
simplicity of the thoughts then entertained re
garding God. Perhaps a sense of guilt, after the
disobedience of Eden, prevented Adam and Eve
from addressing God; and perhaps a profound
reverence might produce the same result. The
lines of human life are now diverging; faith is
growing on the one side, and iniquity is increas
ing on the other. The race is passing beyond its
infancy. We are not to suppose that all of the
line of Seth were righteous, and all of the line
of Cain iniquitous ; but believing penitents were
chiefly in the line of Seth, and proud defiers
chiefly in the line of Cain. The progress of evil
showed itself in fratricide, in polygamy, and in
many forms of violence.

92 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
Statistical and Genealogical.
Dr. Murphy calls the first four chapters of Gene
sis the primeval Bible of mankind. With the be
ginning of the fifth chapter we enter upon a docu
ment containing a genealogy which is far-reaching
in its relations. The fifth chapter contains the his
tory of the line from Adam to Noah, the genealogy
ending with the flood.
Dr. Joseph Parker entitles his paragraph on the
fifth chapter, " Nobodyism. " There are, however,
names in this chapter which shine like diamonds
amid common stones and semi-precious jewels.
Noah was the second head of the line of faith and
hope, of which Adam was the first head. Enoch
"walked with God." This is a remarkably
suggestive statement in the midst of the com
paratively dry list of names in this chapter.
Enoch's life was far in advance of the highest
attainments of his ancestor Seth. Singularly
enough we have in this connection the word God
for the first time with the definite article — God
with whom Enoch walked ; but this sacred name
often appears afterward with the definite article.
He is thus clearly distinguished from all the false
gods of all times and peoples. In Abel's offering
we had a suggestion of an atonement; in Seth's
time we had the devout heart voicing itself in
prayer; and now, in Enoch's life, we have a
man walking with God: and for three hundred
years at least he so walked, and during this period

SONS OF GOD AND DAUGHTERS OF MEN. 93
he was not withdrawn from the world, but begat
sons and daughters, and discharged the varied
duties of his station in life. He was accounted
a prophet, and the epistle of Jude shows that he
foretold the coming of the Lord. It is said after
ward of Noah, as now of Enoch, that he " walked
with God," and of no other in the history is this
affirmation made. Enoch was translated, as we
learn in the epistle to the Hebrews, and did not
see death. In his walking with God we have
Eden partially restored. We are told that Me
thuselah lived to be nine hundred and sixty-nine
years old. We have no warrant for supposing
that at that time a year stood for a month now, or
that there was any real difference in the style of
recounting time. Perhaps the tree of life gave
the proper support to the human constitution,
and, perhaps also, bodily vigor was greater in
that primeval period than now. There is no good
reason for doubting that, by a proper observance
of all human laws, human life might be much
more prolonged than it is in our time ; but such a
prolongation would not be an unmixed blessing.
It is difficult to conceive of a life spent in the
primeval simplicity of the days of Methuselah.
We live more in a decade now, with our steam
ships, railways, telegraphs, telephones, and all
the other multiplied activities of the closing days
of the nineteenth century, than Methuselah could
have lived in a millennium. We can truly say
with Bailey in his " Festus" :

94 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
"We live in deeds, not years; in thoughts, not breaths;
In feelings, not in figures on a dial.
We should count time by heart-throbs. He most lives
Who thinks most, feels the noblest, acts the best."
The Downward Trend.
A long period has elapsed since the creation of
Adam before we reach Noah, perhaps not less
than fifteen hundred years. We are now told,
at the opening of the sixth chapter of Genesis,
that the race had made great progress in moral
evil. We shall soon see that God is preparing
to inflict summary vengeance on the guilty, if
they will not listen to the voice of His servant
Noah, and repent of their evil ways. The diver
gence between the two lines of human character
to which reference has been made has now be
come very marked, but as the race began rapid
ly to multiply the representatives of the two
classes came into close relation. Corrupt men
partook in a remarkable degree of the worst qual
ities of the fallen Adam. The purpose of the
sacred writer is to trace to its fountain-head the
stream of corruption which resulted finally in
bringing the deluge upon the world of the ungod
ly. Promiscuous marriages he emphasizes as the
chief cause of general degeneracy, and of hasten
ing the judgment of God. One of the old divines
has well said that " but for the deluge of sin there
had not been a deluge of water. " To inequality
in the yoke of marriage, the union of believers

SONS OF GOD AND DA UGHTERS OF MEN. 95
with infidels, of the pious with the profane, was
due this superfluity of wickedness. Inequality
in marital relations led to inequality in all the re
lations of life. Unequal marriages resulted in the
birth of impious sons and daughters, rather than
of sons and daughters of God.
The Sons of God.
Who are meant by the " sons of Elohim," men
tioned in this Scripture? To this question many
and contradictory answers have been given ; these
questions must be fairly considered in their order.
Several difficult questions arise at this point.
Who were the " daughters of men"? Who were
the " Nephilim" ? What is the meaning of " the
Spirit's striving with men"? What of the limita
tion to one hundred and twenty years ? Several
of these questions will later receive consideration ;
but the one immediately before us is concerning
the "sons of God."
Some writers have said that they were sons of
princes or other men of high rank. We know
that in Psalm Ixxxii. 6 we have this language
when it might have that interpretation. But does
the sacred writer here mean simply to say that
men of high rank degraded themselves by marry
ing women of inferior position? This opinion was
early held and learnedly advocated by Hebrew
and other scholars, and in later times it was care
fully elaborated by Schiller. But it is now held
by very few commentators of wide reputation,

g6 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
careful scholarship, and sound judgment. It may
at once be eliminated from our discussion. A
second interpretation is, that the "sons of Elo
him" were servants and worshippers of false gods.
Those who hold this view make the word Elohim
mean not the true God, but idols; they also make
the servants or worshippers of these false gods to
be the descendants of some pre-Adamite race.
This view, therefore, is obliged to assume differ
ent centres of creation and various orders of cre
ated beings. If it could be proved that there was
a pre-Adamite race, new meaning would be given
to Romans v. 14: "Nevertheless death reigned
from Adam to Moses, even over them that had
not sinned after the similitude of Adam's trans
gression." That view makes the " daughters of
men" to be the daughters of the Adamites, as con
tradistinguished from the sons of the pre-Adam-
ites. It holds that the women thus descended
from Adam were true in their spiritual faith and
worship, but were now perverted by their mar
riage with idolatrous men. This opinion has been
supported with striking ingenuity. It quite re
verses the ordinary explanation of both the classes
mentioned in the narrative. The earlier chapters
of Genesis, however, confine our attention simply
to the Adamites.
A third interpretation is that which under
stands by the phrase "sons of Elohim," angels.
This explanation requires careful consideration ;
and it is not so easily disposed of as the others.

SONS OF GOD AND DAUGHTERS OF MEN. 97
to which attention has been directed. It was
held by some Hebrew scholars of the early days
and of well-known repute ; it was also emphati
cally taught by many of the Christian fathers, and
in our day by the learned Delitzsch, by Kurtz, and
by so popular a writer as Canon Farrar. We
know also that Byron, in his " Mystery of Cain,"
has taken advantage of this interpretation for
some of his finest dramatic effects; and that
Moore in his " Loves of the Angels" has with
glowing imagery, poetical fervor, and rhetorical
beauty embodied this theory, which may be so
presented as to be attractive, but at other times
is simply monstrous. It is only fair to those hold
ing this view that the grounds upon which they
maintain it should be stated. They affirm that
generally in the Old Testament the phrase, " the
sons of God," is a name for the angels; and it is
frankly admitted by those who oppose the theory
that at times the phrase is so used in the Old-
Testament Scriptures. But with equal earnest
ness it is denied that it always has this mean
ing. It will scarcely be claimed that this is the
necessary meaning even in Psalm xxix. i, or
Psalm Ixxxix. 6 ; but that this is its meaning in
Job xxxviii. 7, and in Daniel iii. 25, is generally ad
mitted. In these two places the phrase with its
context certainly refers to angels. The strongest
argument in favor of this interpretation is found
in the epistle of Jude, and in 2 Peter ii. 4. Per
haps both these writers refer to the same apos-
7

98 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
tasy. Jude quotes from the book of Enoch, which
apparently indorses this view. It seems clear
that angels possessed the power of assuming the
human form. Without doubt this interpretation
gave rise to many of the heathen mythologies re
garding the relation of the gods above to men
and women on the earth ; and the heroes of clas
sical story are generally supposed to have found
their origin in fantastic legends of this character ;
so also probably had the vague myths of the
Incubi and Succubi of the Middle Ages. But
there is so mythical a character to these stories
of the loves of the fallen angels with the daugh
ters of men that it becomes difficult to receive
such an interpretation of a passage of Scripture.
To this view reference will again be made a little
later. A fourth interpretation is that which under
stands by the phrase " sons of God" the descend
ants of Seth, and by the " daughters of men" un
godly women. Who, then, are the " sons of God"?
A host of commentators, some ancient, nearly all
of the leading reformers, and many scholars of the
present day on both sides of the sea, adopt this
view. They make the descendants of Seth to
marry the descendants of Cain, and to this min
gling of the races they refer the corruptions which
preceded the flood. These are called the sons of
God because they have the spirit or disposition
of God. Those mentioned in Job xxxviii. 7, as
joining in the symphony of the universe, seem to

SONS OF GOD AND DAUGHTERS OF MEN. 99
be an order of creatures existing before the crea
tion of man. As holy beings they might well be
called the " sons of God. " Those referred to in
the Scripture we are especially considering ap
proached God with appropriate offerings. They
rightly called upon His name ; and, like Enoch,
they in some measure daily walked with God.
By ancestry they were nominally the "sons of
God," and in actual life they were personally the
"sons of God." We know that the word son is
often used in Scripture to describe a variety of
relations. When Seth was born he was recog
nized as given in the place of Abel, and so, in a
special sense, was the son of God. We have al
ready seen that when Enos was born men began
to call upon the name of the Lord. They were
thus set apart as standing in a special relation to
God. They were believers ; they walked not after
the fiesh, but after the Spirit. They were born
of the Spirit, were led by the Spirit, and so were
the " sons of God. " They thus had the lofty qual
ities of likeness to God. Here was already the
essential idea of the church of God. These men
were the salt of the earth ; and, when they con
tracted promiscuous marriages with the heathen
ized races about them, they brought the corrup
tion of the world into the church of God. We
cannot, therefore, think that they were angels in
the usual sense of that term. We are distinctly
informed that the angels neither marry nor give
in marriage (Matthew xxii. 30). The teaching of

TOO OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
Scripture seems to be that angels have no distinc
tion of sex, and have not the sexual affections
characteristic of men; and, moreover, we cannot
conceive of different species, even of earthly crea
tures, being attracted to one another in these re
lationships. Much less can we suppose that su
perhuman spirits would have affectional desires
after human creatures. The whole narrative im
plies that we are in the region of humanity, and
not of angelic beings. If these were good angels
we can hardly suppose that they would commit
the sin here charged, and we cannot suppose that
if they were bad angels they would be called the
" sons of God. " We are not to give this interpre
tation to the statement in Jude, except it be im
possible otherwise to interpret the passage; and
it is clear that there is no absolute necessity for
so forced an explanation. When we take the
phrase " sons of God" to mean the pious Sethites,
we have an interpretation which is natural, con
sistent, and scriptural ; and it enables us to avoid
the mythical and often suggestively monstrous
exposition which makes the " sons as of God" to
be angels.
The Daughters of Men.
By the " daughters of men" we need not under
stand the daughters of the Cainitic race exclusive
ly; it includes the daughters of men generally.
They were " the daughters of Adam" ; they were
the daughters of the profane and impious race of

SONS OF GOD AND DAUGHTERS OF MEN. lOI
the " old Adam" ; they had in them the nature of
the fallen Adam. In several passages of the New
Testament the word " men" is used as equivalent
to fallen, degenerate, and sinful men. These
" sons of God" departed from the precepts of their
early and godly training; they thus relaxed the
strictness of their religious and social relations.
They yielded to the fascinations of mere physical
beauty, and their sin was that of promiscuous
marriage, irrespective of moral and spiritual char
acter. Their Sinful Choice.
They were governed simply by what was pleas
ing to the eye, as was Eve when she partook of
the forbidden fruit. Thus it came to pass that
" they took them wives, of all which they chose. "
Here we see laxity of choice without discernment
of character.- It has been well said that they
chose wives, " not from the godliness of their lives,
but for the goodliness of their looks. " Social man
now repeated the act of individual man in the first
sin; thus socially they apostatized from God as
Adam did individually. The sensual triumphed
over the spiritual; the nobler elements of the
marital relations were debased to the level of
mere phj^sical attractions. Thus God's professed
people destroyed the last hope of the church of
that day by their profligacy. It was folly to sup
pose that ungodly mothers would be likely to
train up godly children. The sin of promiscuous

102 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
marriages opened the way to the evils which
finally overwhelmed the race. Degeineracy of the
whole race must now go on apace.
Unequal Yokings.
We have already seen that in the seventh gen
eration Lamech became a polygamist. We have
also seen that the Cainitic women possessed the
charms of beauty, grace, and other forms of phys
ical attractiveness. Their very names indicate
their personal charms ; they were Adah (beauty) ,
Zillah (shade), and Naamah (lovely). These
names suggest the dominant characteristics of
the Cainitic race. Fascinated by the charms of
beauty, the "sons of God" cast aside all religious
principles. They were ensnared by outward
charms rather than by inward character. They
did not deliberate upon the consequences of their
sensual choices. Young men and women commit
similar sins to-day. They are attracted by the
charms of beauty, by the graces of mere intellec
tual culture, and by the fascinations of wealth and
station. Many a woman virtually sells body and
soul for a title, and some for a home ; and many
a man sells all that he has for filthy lucre. Such
marriages are not marriages in the eyes of God,
and perhaps ought not to be so considered in the
eyes of men. Man)' young men and women enter
the marriage relation with as little thought as if
they were birds of the air. There are marriages
which ought for physical reasons to be forbidden

SONS OF GOD AND DAUGHTERS OF MEN. 103
by the laws of the State. We pay vastly more
attention to laws of pedigree, heredity, and affin
ity among animals than we do among men and
women. One's heart is saddened as he thinks of
the reckless manner in which many enter the
bonds of holy matrimony. It is sufficiently diffi
cult for a man to climb the rugged heights of fame
when his wife keeps equal step by his side ; but it
is almost impossible for him to climb when he
must drag her up by main force. Many men and
women become engaged in early youth, the man
to pursue courses of liberal education, and the
woman to starve in the daily routine of domestic
duties. Soon an impassable intellectual chasm
will separate them. They grow apart, and broken
lives and bleeding hearts are the inevitable re
sult. Tennyson in " Locksley HaU" tells the sad
story :
"He will hold thee, when his passion shall have spent its
novel force,
Something better than his dog, a little dearer than his
horse. "
Often the case is reversed, and the other words of
Tennyson have their sorrowful application :
" As the husband is, the wife is ; thou art mated with a clown,
And the grossness of his nature will have weight to drag
thee down. "
God help the girls who marry young men to re
form them. They are undertaking a tremendous
responsibility. God help the girls the breath of

104 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
whose lovers is tainted with intoxicating drink.
There is little before such but fearful anxiety,
hopeless sorrow, and indescribable grief. Too
often in the marriage relation the bad corrupts
the good, and the good does not convert the
bad. Wrecked lives, broken homes, and bleeding
hearts are the almost inevitable results of such
marriages. O Christian men and women, be not
unequally yoked with unbelievers. Marry in
the Lord. What fellowship can light have with
darkness, the church with the world, Christ with
Belial? Glorious is the river Rhone as it leaps from the
Rhone glacier, more than five thousand feet above
the sea. Turbid are its waters as it enters Lake
Geneva ; but stand on this bridge and watch it as
it issues from the lake, with the clearness of
heaven's blue, and with the swiftness of an ar
row. Nearly two miles below Geneva, the Arve,
milky with powdered granite, pours its waters
against the cerulean Rhone. The Rhone resists
the proposed union. Side by side they run for
many miles, the milky Arve and the azure Rhone.
Slowly but surely the muddy waters of the Arve
are gaining the ascendancy. Standing upon the
bridge at Lyons the mighty river rolls beneath
us, a muddy, milky stream, and so pours its wa
ters into the Gulf of Lyons, after its course of six
hundred miles has been run. God help us that
the heavenly purity of our Christian lives may
never become the muddy waters of earth, when

SONS OF GOD AND DAUGHTERS OF MEN. 105
the Streams of other lives are mingled with ours
in our marriage relations. God help our young
men and women to live for truth, for honor, for
love, for God, for Heaven !

VII.
DOES GOD REPENT AND THE SPIRIT
WITHDRAW ?

VII.
Does God Repent and the Spirit Withdraw?
This is a startling heading for a chapter or an
article, but it is fully justified by the narrative in
the sixth chapter of Genesis, beginning with the
third verse and ending with the eighth verse.
The human race is approaching a fearful crisis.
The cup of divine judgment is almost full. The
whole race is on probation. Part of it has re
ceived God's gracious approbation, but the greater
part must suffer His righteous reprobation. We
are brought face to face with the terrible fact that
man is unworthy to be longer the tenant of the
glorious temple erected by God for his occupancy.
It is difficult to exaggerate the language of the
Scripture, which describes man's sinfulness be
fore God. Man has become flesh rather than
spirit; and the temporal and sensual have tri
umphed over the spiritual and eternal. Man has
become renowned for violence rather than honor
able for reverence. A deluge of evil will be fol
lowed by a deluge of water. The whole race,
with the exception of one family, must suffer the
infliction of God's righteous judgment.

iio old testament difficulties.
The Spirit Ceasing to Strive.
The language of the third verse of this chapter
is somewhat obscure, but is tremendously solemn.
We suppose the spirit here named is the Ruach
Elo/iim. Here, as already taught us in the in
spired narrative, the plurality of the Godhea.d is
implied. When we read the words, "Jehovah
said," we understand that God spoke to Himself
or to others in the sacred Trinity. The language
is equivalent to saying that God purposed or re
solved upon the course of action later described.
There is some difference of opinion as to the ex
act meaning of the word translated " strive." It
may mean to keep down, to rule, or to judge ; it
has in it usually the thought of reproving in some
judicial sense. It might, indeed, mean that God's
spirit might not longer be humbled by dwelling
in man, because he has become flesh. By flesh
we are to understand sinful beings, and not sim
ply corporeal creatures. The word bashar is here
used in its ethical significance, as is the word
sarks, flesh, in the New Testament. Possibly the
idea of the carnal ma,n, as distinguished from the
spiritual, so often expressed by the Apostle Paul,
has its origin in this verse.
It is a solemn but blessed fact that the Spirit
of God does strive with men. Our Lord taught
us that one of the offices of the Holy Spirit, when
He should come in His fulness, would be to " re
prove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and

DOES GOD REPENT? HI
of judgment." We see the Spirit, thus early in
the history of the race, engaged in this blessed
work. In the negative statement contained in
this verse we have shining forth the bright light
of God's mercy to sinful man. His Spirit comes
to illumine their darkness, to arouse their con
science, and, if possible, to win their affection to
truth and to God. We cannot too strongly em
phasize this blessed truth. Graciously does the
Spirit call to mind former judgments; lovingly
does He present persuasive arguments, and re
peatedly does He emphasize encouraging prom
ises. During the period of .one hundred and
twenty years the Spirit did thus intercede for God
with the antediluvian world. But the striving of
the Spirit implies resistance on the part of men,
and that resistance may so increase that the Spirit
may finally entirely withdraw. The Spirit's with
drawal forbodes temporal and eternal destruction.
There certainly is a point beyond which He will
not go in His entreaties with men. In harmony
with our freedom and God's divine purpose the
Spirit will not exercise force on the wills of men.
God will not interfere with the law of freedom
which He has established in His control with free
moral agents. Involuntary obedience is not obe
dience. Compulsory love, faith, and hope are a
contradiction in terms. The Spirit of God ceases
to strive with men when they drive him from
their hearts. The whole world is vocal with
God's calls of mercy; the very air we breathe is

112 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
laden with God's gracious ministries. The Spirit
pleads, wrestles, and even agonizes with men.
Nothing in human thought is more wonderful
than God's patience with the disobedient and re
bellious. The history of the world is a history of
rebellion against God. Think of the sins of that
antediluvian world, so aggravated and so heinous !
God was patient with men, even though they were
ripe for destruction. He could do nothing more
then, he can do nothing more now to induce men
to repent, without interfering with their moral
freedom. The Spirit of God knocks at all the
doors of the heart, but the time will come when
He will depart and leave men to the terrible fate
which they have brought upon themselves. God
condemns no soul to eternal death; men bring
condemnation upon themselves. They are lost
because they wish to be lost; a little reflection
will show that this statement is true in its deepest
meaning. Every man will go where, in his deep
est heart, he wishes to go. God's providence
simply registers the judgment which men pass
upon themselves. The time will come, if men
continue to resist the Spirit, when God must say
of each soul, " Cut it down, why cumbereth it the
ground?" We all may well pray with the Psalm
ist, " Take not thy Holy Spirit from me."
We now see that God declares that man's days
are to be one hundred and twenty years. It seems
clear that the reference here is not to the life of
men, but to that of the race, before the coming

DOES GOD REPENT? I13
of God's primitive judgment. The writer goes
back to a point of time already passed over, the
time before the birth of Shem, Ham, and Japheth;
one hundred years intervened between their birth
and the flood. It thus seems certain that the ref
erence is to the period of grace allowed the nation,
because, while we are not told of men living, after
the end of this period, nine hundred years and
upward, we know that Noah, Abram, and others,
from Shem to Terah, greatly exceeded the limit
of one hundred and twenty years. Man is thus
seen to be flesh, to be dominantly carnal; the
breath which the Almighty breathed into his nos
trils is triumphed over by the corporeal nature.
His day of grace is therefore limited. By his
act in building the ark as well as by his word in
preaching the truth, Noah is to exhort, warn, and
rebuke. We are told that Noah was a just man,
that he was perfect in his generation, and that
he walked with God ; these are certainly marked
qualities of excellence. The evening of oppor
tunity has come to the doomed race. Their cup
is rapidly filling, and its terrible contents will
soon be poured out.
Who Were the Giants ?
We are told in the fourth verse that there " were
giants in the earth in those days." These were
men of vigorous bodies and of violent wills.
The word translated giants is rather descriptive
of cruelty than of great strength. These giants
8

114 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
were not the issue of the promiscuous marriages,
to which reference is here made, for they existed
before that time. They ought not then to be con
founded with the children of these mixed mar
riages, as the latter form a separate class. It is
perhaps unfortunate that the original word is
translated by our word giants. The Septuagint
is responsible for this translation, as it gives us
the word gigantes, which literally signifies earth-
born, but we have translated it giants, and thus
conveyed the idea that these were persons of enor
mous size. The Hebrew word is nephilim; this
word is derived from naphal, meaning to fall. It
may refer to apostates, fallen from God and the
true faith, and then to violent men, such as ty
rants, usurpers, and oppressors, who fell upon
their fellow-men. Later in this verse we have
thegibborim ; they were " mighty men, impetuous,
heroic men." The whole subject of the Anakim,
Nephilim, Gibborim, Rephaiin, Emin, and Zuzim,
variously translated by our word giants and by
similar terms, is obscure to a remarkable degree.
Calvin calls these men " the first nobility of the
world; honorable robbers, who boasted of their
wickedness." Some have doubted whether they
were men of large physical stature ; but perhaps
it is not at all surprising that there were physical
giants in that early day. The primitive records
of most nations contain stories of gigantic men
and women. This is true of Great Britain and
most European countries. The possibility of gi-

DOES GOD REPENT? 115
gantic human creatures is in harmony with the
great structures, such as the pyramids and the
great gates of ancient cities; and geological in
vestigations reveal to us gigantic ferns, trees, and
mosses, and in the animal kingdom we have evi
dences of the megatherium and other enormous
creatures, which may have inhabited the world
in the earlier day. God Vindicated.
Beginning with the fifth verse and going to the
end of the eighth verse, we have a striking vindi-
¦ cation of God in His terrible acts of judgment.
We see here that God did not act in haste, and as
the result of a sudden impulse. We are told that
He carefully observed the wickedness of His crea
tures. The description of the sinfulness of man
is minute and accurate. The sin of the race was
not local and limited, and was not characterized
by ordinary corruption. The one hundred and
twenty years of grace have passed, and the ini
quity of man was widespread and deep-seated.
Nothing could surpass the carefulness of the de
scription here given of man's sin. It had reached
a fearful climax. It was characterized by brutal
outrage and abominable lust. We are told at the
outset that men had become flesh ; that they no
longer discerned their high destiny, but were
brutalized and sensualized. We are next im
pressed with the fact that the wickedness of men
was not simply an accident but a state. They

II 6 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
were corrupt within and without. Their wicked
ness, — ra'at/i, from the root raa, to make a loud
noise, to rage, hence to be wicked — " was multi
plied," and it was continually increasing. Mar
vellously strong is the statement in the latter
part of the fifth verse, regarding the sinfulness
of "every imagination {yetser, a device) of the
thoughts of his heart." We are here taught that
the very materials out of which ideas were formed
were evil. The embryo of every thought was
sinful ; the deepest fountain of life was poisoned.
The picture is still more fully darkened by the
thought that this unmixed evil was without in-.
terval of good. It was evil continually, literally,
every day. This is the most terrific picture of
fallen souls to be found in any literature. The
more carefully one studies the words of the origi
nal, the more awful does the picture become.
Instead of having the excellences of a Seth, an
Enoch, or a Noah, we have men and women
possessed of the darkest features of a diabolical
character, which the strongest Hebrew words can
describe. God Repenting.
We are not surprised that we should read in the
sixth verse that " it repented Jehovah that he had
made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his
heart. " These are startling words. How are we
to understand this language? Can God repent?
Do not the Scriptures say that He cannot? In

DOES GOD REPENT? II 7
Numbers xxiii. 19 we read: "God is not a man,
that he should lie ; neither the son of man, that
he should repent. Hath he said and shall he not
do it, or hath he spoken and shall he not make it
good?" And in i Samuel xv. 29 we read: "And
also the strength of Israel will not lie nor repent ;
for he is not a man that he should repent."
These are strong words. Can a God of infinite
perfection be grieved at His heart? Does not the
suggestion even of this possibility detract from
the glory of God's perfection? If rightly under
stood we shall find that this language gives us
new, tender, and beautiful conceptions of the
mighty and loving God our Saviour. We have
here an illustration of what has been called the
frankness, even the imprudence, of Scripture.
Scripture must be compared with Scripture, in
order that we may get its teaching in entirety.
The word yinnahem, repented, is from naham,
to pant, to groan, and finally to grieve. It re
minds us of the German reuen and the English
¦rue. Let us remember that when repentance
is ascribed to God we must not suppose that it
implies a change of purpose in the Almighty.
When we attribute this act to God it is expres
sive of our conception of God rather than of God's
essential character. The language is rather the
manner of men ; it is simply and frankly anthro-
popathic speech. Thus understood it is perfectly
intelligible. We cannot speak of God or to God,
or He to us, unless language is adopted which we

Ii8 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
can understand. As far back, however, as the
days of the vSeventy an attempt was made to soften
this language ; but such an attempt is utterly un
necessary to a true understanding of the Scrip
ture. In harmony with the anthropopathic prin
ciple, it speaks of God's hands, eyes, ears, and
feet. The meaning simply is, that God has' power
to perform the acts which we perform in the use
of these parts of our bodies. Thus the Scripture
represents Him as exercising the passions of
anger, love, and grief which we discover in our
selves unavoidably. We must reason about God
in the use of comparison and analogy. Repent
ance in God is a change in His attitude toward
men, rather than a change in His mind and will.
An old divine thus speaks: "Repentance with
man is the change of will ; repentance with God is
the willing of a change. " The language used here
of God gives us a wonderful picture of the tender
ness of His fatherly heart. His heart is grieved
even when he permits the blow of justice to fall.
It has been well said that "though the divine pur
pose is immutable, the divine nature is not im
passable." God's heart is pitiful as the heart of
the tenderest earthly father, and gentle as that of
the most loving mother. We are sure that not
until men rejected, grieved, and despised His
Holy Spirit was the punishment of their sin in
flicted. We must not deny to God the attributes
of freedom, personality, holiness, and justice.
We may be sure that this statement regarding

DOES GOD REPENT? up
God, in some way not fully known to us, implies
processes analogous to those of the human heart
and will. In God are found attributes which to
us may seem to be inharmonious and contradic
tory, but which in Him are in eternal and glori
ous unison. Righteous Noah.
The eighth verse teaches us that " Noah found
grace in the eyes of Jehovah. " The various de
scriptions of Noah in this connection are pecul
iarly attractive. They set him before us as a man
of a beautifully balanced character. His name
means "rest," or "consolation," and probably in
giving it his father believed that he was the prom
ised deliverer. The old man's sad heart turns
with hope to the birth of his son ; but Lamech
was deceived in his hope regarding Noah, as Eve
was mistaken in the birth of Cain. Nevertheless
we feel the charm of Noah's beautiful name. He
was the tenth from Adam in the line of Seth. He
is the first man whom the Scriptures call " just. "
We are glad to read that he found grace in the
sight of Jehovah. For the first time "grace,"
which in evangelical theology has so tender and
beautiful a meaning, finds expression in a word.
God's love, revealing itself in human character in
Abel, in Enoch, and in Noah, here reaches a higher
elevation. We now have revealed to us the blessed foun
tain whence comes true nobility of character and

I20 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
likeness to God. Noah was a preacher of right
eousness. This truth must ever be emphasized,
and the passage in i Peter iii. 18-20 should be
studied in the light of this antediluvian history,
personal and general. We there learn that the
Spirit of Christ, through the instrumentality of
the pious patriarch, preached to the disobedient
spirits of the old world. This passage occupies
a prominent place in modern theological discus
sions. It has been cited in support of a second
probation, and in proof of a purgatory. We
ought to bear in mind that the spirits, to whom
reference is thus made, are the souls of those men
in prison who once heard the Gospel, and enjoyed
the opportunity but rejected the duty of repent
ance. By the Spirit of Christ we may understand
either the Holy Spirit or the divine nature of
Christ. These men were the sinners destroyed
by the flood ; their spirits, shades, or manes, were
popularly supposed to be imprisoned in the caves
of the earth. To these spirits Christ, through
Noah, preached during their lifetime. The fables
of the Greeks that the earthquakes were caused
by the efforts of imprisoned giants to shake off
the mountains heaped upon them, have their ori
gin in the tradition respecting the fate of these
antediluvian rebels, who were shut up in subter
ranean regions because of their rebellion against
God. These antediluvian sinners were those
" which some time (once or formerly) were diso
bedient"; "the long-suffering of God waited in

DOES GOD REPENT? 121
the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing."
If Christ had gone after His death and had
preached to these spirits, we should have read,
"waited until after Christ's death."
Scholars have given us examples from Demos
thenes and other Greek writers, as well as from
the Scriptures, to show that the phrase, " he went
and preached," is simply a pleonasm for "he
preached." We have a suggestive example of
this construction in Ephesians ii. 15-17, "having
abolished . . . came and preached peace to you
which were afar off, and to them that were nigh."
It is certain that after His resurrection Christ did
not personally go to the Gentiles to preach to
them ; He went by His apostles. We are familiar
with the Latin phrase. Qui facit per alium, facit
per se. Paul in writing to the Ephesians repre
sents Christ as doing that which He did do through
His apostles. In like manner Peter represents
Christ as doing that which He did through Noah.
Peter spoke of the antediluvians who at the time
he wrote were spirits in prison ; that is certainly
the fair meaning of his words. This is the only
passage in the New Testament on which the Ro
man doctrine of purgatory is supposed to rest ; it
is the passage also on which some base their be
lief in a second probation. It is also one author
ity for the clause in the so-called Apostles' Creed
relating to the descent into hell; but we know
that this creed was repeated for hundreds of years
before this clause was introduced. No one knows

122 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
by whom or when it was inserted. In its present
form, this creed cannot be traced to a period
earlier than about the middle of the eighth cen
tury. This scripture is certainly a foundation of
sand for both these groundless theories. The
argument from this passage, promising a second
probation to those who die in ignorance of Christ,
is wholly irrelevant. These spirits in prison did
not die in ignorance of God's word and will; for
they had frequent and solemn warnings. Divine
patience waited until divine mercy was exhausted.
Even if it be granted that Christ did in person
preach in hades, there is no evidence that any
spirits there confined repented or were liberated
therefrom. This passage suggests hopelessness
rather than hopefulness, even granting, what is
not taught in Scripture, that Christ did teach in
person in the region of lost souls. We know that
but one voice came from that dark region, as
taught us by our Lord, and it was a voice of hope
less misery and of sinful unbelief ; that voice gives
us the only example in the Bible of a prayer offered
to a saint, and that prayer came from hell and was
never answered. Romanists certainly have not
much encouragement to pray to saints.
Solemn are the echoes coming to us from the
antediluvian world. Does God's Spirit strive
with any to-day? Grieve not the Holy Spirit.
Quench not the heavenly flame. Resist not the
loving voice. Joyously yield to the ' gracious
promptings of the divine Spirit. Let the prayer

DOES GOD REPENT? 1 23
of every heart be, with the deepest tenderness and
solicitude, that of the Psalmist in his sincere re
pentance, " Cast me not away from thy presence,
and take not thy Holy Spirit from me. "

vm.
WAS THE NOACHIAN FLOOD UNIVERSAL
OR LOCAL?

VIIL
WAS THE NOACHIAN FLOOD UNIVER
SAL OR LOCAL?
The account of the ark, the deluge, the assuag
ing of the waters, and God's covenant with Noah
is found in the book of Genesis, sixth, seventh,
and eighth chapters. We have already seen that
the cup of God's righteous judgment was full.
The deluge of sin is now about to bring a deluge
of water ; but it is to be a lustral wave that shall
sweep over the corrupt earth. We are familiar
with the covenant given to Noah to prepare an
ark and to enter therein with his family.
The Ark.
It is difficult to know the exact meaning of the
Hebrew word tebatJi, translated ark. The word
is found only here and in Exodus ii. 3, where it is
applied to the basket in which the mother of
Moses laid her babe. A different word is used,
aron, for the ark of the covenant (Exodus xxv.
10). The ark which Noah was commanded to
make was to consist of gopher or cypress wood, if
we mean any particular species of tree ; this wood,
because of its lightness and durability, the Phoeni
cians used for building their vessels, the Athenians

128 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
their coffins, and the Egyptians their mdmmy-
cases. These trees were such as contained pitch,
turpentine, and similar resinous materials. We
know that the ark was divided into a number of
small compartments placed in three tiers, and we
also know that light was admitted through open
ings called windows ; but great obscurity attaches
to the word tzoliar, translated window. It is
likely that it was a series of light and air holes of
lattice-work. A different word is used for the
window, halon, which Noah is said to have opened
at the end of forty days. The word tsohar implies
that the window was in some way connected with
the transmission of light, as it comes from a root
meaning shining. It was probably a collective
term for skylights, in which there may have been
revolving lattices, or some transparent substance
with which we are not familiar. The door of the
ark must have been of considerable size to admit
the various aninials, and it must also have been
above the highest point which the water w ould
reach ; perhaps the word translated door is also to
be used in a collective sense, implying a number
of openings in the different stories of the ark.
We are told that the ark was 300 cubits long, 50
cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. What was the
length of a cubit? The cubit later in Jewish his
tory came to be six hand-breadths, or about
twenty -one inches; this was known as the sacred
cubit, although there was a common cubit of eigh
teen inches. Taking the longer of these measures

WAS THE FLOOD UNIVERSAL OR LOCAL? 129
as correct, the ark would be 525 feet long, 87 feet
wide, and 5 2 feet and 6 inches high. The Great
Eastern is 680 feet long, 691 on deck, 83 feet
wide, and 58 feef deep. The ark was intended
only to float, to have ample storage, and to keep
reasonably steady on the waters. It was a great
oblong floating house, a building in the form of a
parallelogram. It was without sails or rudder ; it
was not a boat in any modern sense. It has been
estimated that it would carry at least 20,000 men
with ample provision for six months, besides eigh
teen pieces of cannon. It was not, of course, in
tended to move rapidly through the waters. We
are told that Peter Jansen, a Dutch Mennonite
merchant, constructed in the year 1609, at Hoorn,
a vessel on the same model as the ark. His vessel
was 120 feet long, 20 feet broad, and 12 feet deep.
It is also said to have been well adapted to freight
age, but not appropriate for a long voyage. This
great vessel failed to accomplish any practical
purpose, as it was soon broken to pieces by the
waves. The ark of Noah was a colossal oblong
chest, smeared with bitumen, and, although well
suited for the purpose for which it was con
structed, it would not have been of practical ser
vice outside of that purpose. It is also known
that several vessels called fleuten, or floats, were
built in Denmark after the proportions of the ark.

130 old testament difficulties.
The Animals in the Ark.
Did Noah literally take into the ark a pair of
the animals of the whole world? The answer to
this question depends upon the question, " Was the
flood universal or local?" Could all the animals
of the world, by sevens or by pairs, with food
sufficient for a year, have been stored away in the
ark? This question has been often asked, and de
tailed mathematical answers have been frequently
given. Hugh Miller, in his "Testimony of the
Rocks," takes up the question in a practical way.
He quotes Sir Walter Raleigh's calculations on
the subject, but it must be borne in mind that Sir
Walter proposed space for less than one hundred
distinct species of creatures. His calculations
are remarkably interesting, as he arranges the
animals in one story, the birds in another, and
the provisions in another, with ample space for
Noah and his famity. There were still earlier
classiflcations of animals and birds, making the
number of species larger than that given by Sir
Walter Raleigh; but the knowledge which we
now possess of the animal kingdom throws all
these calculations into utter confusion. Buffon
made the distinct species of animals and birds
double what Sir Walter reckoned; and now, so
astonishing is the progress made, we should
have to make the number of species many times
greater than that which Buffon gives. A great
world is open to us which was entirely unknown

WAS THE FLOOD UNIVERSAL OR LOCAL? 131
even a few generations ago. Vast discoveries are
made in every department of inquiry. These
facts incidentally show, what later will be proved
from other considerations, that the flood was only
local and not general, only partial and not uni
versal. To believe that the fiood was universal is
to believe in continuous miracles of the most
stupendous character, and miracles as needless
for the moral purpose for which the flood came as
they would have been gigantic in themselves.
All who believe in an infinite God believe that
He could have performed all these miracles. The
only question is. Did He perform them? From
all that we know of God's methods we are abun
dantly warranted in saying that He is invariably
economical in the displays of His power, and that
He thus always keeps the miraculous element at
a minimum. Then we have, if we believe in a universal
flood, to get the animals from the ends of the
earth. This could not be done, except again by
continuous miracles of an enormous nature.
Once it was held that all the animals which now
are found in all parts of the globe originally pro
ceeded from some common centre, such as the
ark might easily have occupied ; but no reputable
zoologist, no reasonably intelligent man, reason
ably well acquainted with the numbers and dis
tribution of species, will venture now to express
such an opinion. Attention has often been called
by writers on this subject to the fact that South

132 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
America has animals totally distinct from those of
Europe, Asia, or Africa, and Australia has a
whole class of marsupials utterly unknown in
other parts of the world. New Zealand has birds
so ill-provided with wings that they can only run
on the ground. It is also affirmed by competent
authorities that this remarkable distribution of
species existed long before the period of the
deluge. False Views of God.
It is astonishing that some interpreters of the
Bible think that they honor God and the Bible by
taxing our credulity to the utmost, when the fact
is that by so doing they dishonor both God and the
Bible. They put God, to some degree at least,
into the category of heathen deities, delighting in
vast displays of power, without necessity, without
reason, and without wisdom; and they do some
thing toward reducing the Bible to a level with
the senseless legends of barbaric gods and myth
ological deities. We ought to thank God for the
larger element of sanctified common sense which
now enters into the interpretations of the oracles
of God. This element honors alike God and the
Bible. Only by continuous miracles could the
animals be brought into the ark. How could the
sloth and the armadillo have been brought across
continents and seas from their home in South
America? How the kangaroo from the forests
and prairies of Australia? How the polar bear

WAS THE FLOOD UNIVERSAL OR LOCAL? 133
from the icebergs of polar regions? How were
the carnivorous animals supplied with food dur
ing the year's abode in the ark? Were these
animals miraculously supplied with food? Were
their teeth and digestive organs so changed that
they could live on vegetables? To care for a year
for even the limited number of animals which
have their home in Noah's vicinity, it has well
been said, must have been a task not easy of ac
complishment. To care for all the animals which
would have been collected together, if the flood
were universal, would have been absolutely im
possible, except by daily miracles of the most
enormous character.
But was not Noah told to take two of every liv
ing thing of all flesh into the ark? Most assuredly.
But how would he understand such a command?
Would it suggest to him armadillos from South
America, kangaroos from Australia, polar bears
from the North Pole? Surely not. He would
understand it' — how could he understand it other
wise? — to mean two of every kind known to him.
Surely he was not a zoological professor. Would
any one with sense, except for a few misunder
stood expressions in the narrative, ever suppose
that Noah or Moses had such a conception of the
meaning of God's words as a belief in a universal
deluge supposes? Noah and Moses could hardly
have been nineteenth-century zoologists. How
could they, after the subsidence of the flood, have
been carried back to the distant countries whence

134 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
they came? Who could have transported them?
By what ships or railways did they come and go?
How have all vestiges of their journey back and
forth been concealed? It is quite too bad that
certain classes of biblical students have thought
that they honored the Bible by making it as diffi
cult as possible of belief. Thank God, wiser
methods of investigation and interpretation now
prevail. We can still believe in God and in the
Bible without taking farewell of sound reason,
clear judgment, and common sense.
The Bible Narrative.
Does the Bible teach that the flood was univer
sal? That is the chief, really the only, question.
If it does I accept its statements, even though to
me they are inexplicable. But the Bible does not
so affirm. Fairly interpreted, it makes no such
statement. Explaining Scripture by Scripture, we
shall see that its strongest expressions are capable
of being interpreted in harmony with the idea of
a local flood. True, it speaks of the destruction
of " all flesh" and of " all in whose nostrils was the
breath of life" ; but how did the writer understand
such language? Was he referring to North or
South America, to Australia, to China, to Japan?
Did he not mean all in his own locality? Did he
not mean all the world which he knew? How
could he have meant anything else? Was he not
using such language as is used constantly in the
Bible, when clearly only a limited locality is in-

WAS THE FLOOD UNIVERSAL OR LOCAL? 135
tended ? Let the Bible interpret the Bible. Let
us read it when it says, "All countries came into
Egypt to buy corn." What countries, America,
Europe, Australia? Clearly the countries with
which the writer was familiar. Hear another
passage, this time from the New Testament: "A
decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the
world should be taxed." What world? Are we
to take such passages in an absolutely literal sense?
Such an interpretation would be nonsense. It
was all the world with which those concerned
were familiar. The words of Obadiah in i Kings
xviii. 10, "There is no nation or kingdom whither
my lord hath not sent to seek thee," no one ever
dreams of interpreting literally. One of the
strongest expressions in the narrative of the del
uge is, " All the high hills which were under the
whole heaven. " But this is no stronger than an
other Scripture which says, " This day will I begin
to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon
the nations that are under the whole heaven."
Even the terms of the blessing promised Noah
after the flood, though it regards Noah as the
head of a new human family and the representa
tive of a new race, can all be interpreted by sup
posing that the flood, in the mind of the writer,
was universal only in the sense that it extended
to the whole world as then known.
There is no reason for supposing that the ark
rested on one of the peaks now called Ararat ; for
Ararat was a country, and not simply a moun-

136 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
tain ; and a range like that of the Zagros would
answer all the purposes of the narrative. The
local tradition, which finds parts of the ark on the
top of the mountain, is, of course, of no authority
whatever. Some great and sudden subsidence of the land
accompanied by an in-rush of the waters of the
Persian Gulf, or some other body of water, to
gether with the rain for one hundred and ninety
days, would comply with all the conditions of the
breaking up of the great deep and the opening of
the windows of heaven. In the year 1819a severe
earthquake shock caused a great depression in a
part of the salt marsh called the " Runn of
Kutch," in India, and many lives were lost and a
vast inland sea was soon formed. No reference
in the sacred narrative is made to any land, or to
any world, except that portion of the earth's sur
face known to the writer. That territory, and an
unknown margin adjoining it, were covered with
water. The Scripture says nothing of distant
portions of Asia, Europe, America, Africa, or
Australia; and when the Scripture is silent we
ought not to speak. We ought not to be wise
above that which is written. The writer speaks
constantly as an eye-witness ; and within his hor
izon all the hills were covered.
We are at this time removed from Adam by ten
generations, including Noah's. A careful esti
mate of population would give us from three to
four millions in the time of Noah ; and every in-

WAS THE FLOOD UNIVERSAL OR LOCAL? 137
dication suggests that the population was confined
to a limited territory. Dr. Murphy expresses the
opinion that an area equal to that of the British
Isles would be amply sufficient for the entire
population of men, women, and children. It is
easy to locate a territory of this size where the
subsidence would be a comparatively easy matter,
even as judged by recent inundations in different
parts of the earth. The earth which was sub
merged is the earth which was corrupt before God ;
it was the earth which was filled with violence.
It was this earth, and not any other, which was
destroyed by the flood. It is easy to see how a
people of four millions could be living in the great
basin of the Euphrates and Tigris, and how an
area in the vicinity of the Indian Ocean, the Per
sian Gulf, the Caspian, the Black, the Mediterra
nean,* and the Red seas could readily be sub
merged, in full harmony with the teaching of the
Scriptures, while the rest of the universe would
not be affected. It must ever be borne in mind
that the description is by a man and from his
point of view, and not from the point of view of
the all-seeing God. It is absolutely certain that
the Bible does not affirm that the whole globe was
covered with water. If the Bible did so affirm, I
should believe it without any hesitancy whatever ;
but we have no right to read into God's word our
unwarranted thought; we ought to get out of
God's word simply His authoritative teaching.

138 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
Additional Difficulties.
The astronomical difficulties in the way of a
universal flood are insuperable. If the fiood were
universal, the water must have risen several miles
above the sea-level. Such an increase of water
would have affected the equatorial diameter of the
earth and its orbit around the sun, and would
have increased the sun's attraction on the planets;
and thus disorder would have been produced
throughout the remotest regions of space. After
the waters had been assuaged enormous changes
would have been necessary again in order that the
former relations of the heavenly bodies might be
reestablished. God would have had practically
to create the world anew. Can we conceive that
this enormous series of miracles could have oc
curred simply for the punishment of a corftpara-
tively small number of people inhabiting a limited
portion of the earth's surface? God does not
waste power in this way. The geological objec
tions are scarcely less great than the astronomical.
The zoological difficulty, as we have already sug
gested, is perhaps greater than either the geo
logical or the astronomical. Had there been a
general deluge, apart from continuous miracles,
there would have been a general destruction of
marine life. The changing depths of water would
have destroyed the coral reefs of the Pacific. Yet
Noah does not seem to have taken any kind of
marine animals into the ark. A general deluge

WAS THE FLOOD UNIVERSAL OR LOCAL? 139
would have entirely changed the climate of the
whole world ; it would have destroyed all kinds of
fresh-water fish, and such a submergence of the
land in sea-water would have brought destruction
upon all terrestrial plants. We have no reason to
suppose that Noah took any stock of such plants
into the ark. It was once supposed — and the old
books may yet so affirm — that geological discover
ies confirmed the opinion that the deluge was uni
versal. The existence of shells and corals upon
the high mountains was supposed to be evidence
of the universality of the deluge. Voltaire once
found it difficult to answer the arguments of those
who cited the existence of fossil shells on high
mountains, and his arguments to explain away
these supposed evidences are as childish as the
evidences themselves were imaginary. Greater
knowledge removes the difficulties inseparable
from the belief in a universal deluge, and enables
us readily to accept the statements of God's word.
All these considerations, therefore, lead us to be
lieve that the flood was local. The moral purpose
for which it occurred is fully subserved by a
limited, rather than by a general, deluge. Ac
cepting this view, nearly all difficulties vanish.
With charming simplicity, as well as marvellous
sublimity, the Bible narrates the story. Its nar
rative is free from the heart-rending scenes which
the painters have so often depicted. The two
ideas constantly dwelt upon in the Bible are the
blotting out of the sinful race in the submergence

140 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
of the polluted earth, as far as the eye could see,
and the absolute safety of Noah and his family in
the ark. The sending out of the dove, and its
final return with the fresh olive leaf, is one of the
most charming of pictures. In Psalm xxix. lo,
the poet sings of the majesty of God, and gives a
sublime conception when he says, " Jehovah sat
as king at the flood." The prophet Isaiah intro
duces God as referring to the flood to emphasize
the truth of His promise. The New Testament
gives its full sanction to the historicity of the nar
rative. Our Lord clearly declares that the state
of the world at His second coming will be like
what it was in the days of Noah. The Apostle
Peter draws from the flood lessons as to the long-
suffering of God and the separation of the church
from the world. He also makes it an instance of
the righteous judgment of God, who spared not
the old world when it was corrupted by sin. Most
beautiful is the closing scene after the judgment
had been inflicted. Noah then built his altar, the
first altar of which we read in the Bible, and then
Jehovah smelled an " odor oi satisfaction" and
promised that never again would he, for man's
sake, curse the ground nor smite any living thing.
Then the rainbow received its new meaning, and
the special promises were given regarding seed
time and harvest, cold and heat, day and night.
This is a peaceful, beautiful, and divine picture of
the cleansed earth, spanned by the rainbow in the
clouds after the fearful deluge had passed.

WAS THE FLOOD UNIVERSAL OR LOCAL? 141
Traditions of the Deluge.
The literatures of many nations abound in
legends of the flood, and between these and the
Bible narrative marked resemblances are found.
In various forms these traditions describe the pre
servation of one righteous man with his family.
The Chaldaean traditions are nearest to the He
brew records. The god Belus foretold a vast rain
flood. The structure of a great ship is described ;
a raven is sent out, and the ark itself is said to
have been preserved on the high mountains.
There are many other notices of the flood, such
as those in the Phoenician mythology and in the
Phrygian story of King Annakos. There is also
a cycle of traditions in Eastern Asia, such as the
Persian, Indian, and Chinese. These traditions,
though varying in so many respects, all point to
the truth of the Bible narrative. There is also
the cycle of tradition found among the American
nations, such as those of Mexico, those of the Ha
waiian Islands, and those of many Indian tribes.
There are also legends of the flood preserved by
the Fiji Islanders, by the Scandinavian Eddas,
and also the account in the Koran ; but the most
interesting of all these myths are those of the
Greek legends. They had two such myths — that
of Ogyges and that of Deucalion and Pyrrha.
This latter is the best known of the ethnic tradi
tions. It teaches us that the world had sunk into
iniquity, and that mankind was doomed to de-

142 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
struction. The ocean and the clouds combined
to drown the sinful race. The pious Deucalion,
with his wife Pyrrha, floated in a chest, which
bore them safely to the peaks of Parnassus. He,
like Noah, sent out a dove, which returned the
first time, but not the second. God gives in all
these traditions confirmation of the truth of His
holy Word. Lessons.
This solemn and sublime event teaches us im
portant lessons. We see that God is able to exe
cute judgment against the greatest sinners.
Though sinners join hand-in-hand they shall not
escape God's righteous justice. Sinning angels
cannot escape. God burned up the filthy Sodom
ites and drowned the sinful antediluvians. All
the resoures of nature are at God's command.
He wields the thunderbolt ; and through heaven's
open windows He poured the flood, and the vol
cano and the hurricane are obedient to His will.
God gives ample warning to sinners and abun
dant opportunit}^ for repentance. For one hun
dred and twenty years Noah was a preacher of
righteousness. His acts in building the ark, as
well as his words in preaching the Gospel, were
warnings to impenitent sinners. Doubtless he
was often the subject of sneers and jeers. The
people may have considered him a good old man,
but with strange fancies and amusing forebodings.
They doubtless thought him lacking in sense, and

WAS THE FLOOD UNIVERSAL OR LOCAL? 143
perhaps wrong in his head; but he still kept on
preaching. God's infinite holiness patiently
waited. Wonderful was the long-suffering of
God in the days of Noah. Well might the Apostle
Peter dwell upon God's matchless patience; but
the blow eventually fell. This terrible judgment
manifested God's holiness, even as it was seen in
Eden or on Sinai.
There is safety for all true believers. God said
to Noah, " Come thou and all thy house into the
ark," and then God graciously closed the door and
Noah was safe. The world without perished.
God can save all His children, whatever destruc
tion maj' befall others. Sodom was destroyed,
but Lot was saved. Jericho was destroyed, but
Rahab was Saved. Without, to-day, the flood of
evil prevails. Christ is the true ark of safety.
Come into Him, and you shall outride the storms
of life, and land at last on the shining hills of
glory, in the enjoyment of a new heaven and a
new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

IX.
WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE TOWER
OF BABEL?

IX.
WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE
TOWER OF BABEL?
The account of the Tower of Babel is found in
the eleventh chapter of Genesis and the first nine
verses. Reference is made several times in the
preceding chapter to the division of the race into
various settlements ; the narrative now before us
explains the divisions of the race and the diver
sities of the languages there assumed. This
division and diversity resulted from the project of
building the temple and tower of Babel, and of
God's displeasure with the purpose of the people.
In harmony with the method often employed by
inspired writers, the dispersion of the people is
first mentioned, and then the cause of that dis
persion is fully described.
It is quite certain that the early fathers of the
human family, after the deluge, wandered about
for some time without any fixed place of abode ;
but it was also quite certain that they could not
always live a nomadic life. Gregariousness is an
inseparable instinct of humanity; this tendency
of human nature is shown to-day in the desire for
city life. It thus comes to pass that the popula
tion of our great cities is increasing at the ex-

148 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
pense of rural populations. This tendency is seen
in all the countries of the globe. British and
continental cities are growing almost as rapidly
as are the most enterprising cities in America.
In harmony with this ancient and universal in
stinct the descendants of Noah finally made a per
manent residence in the land of Shinar. Shinar
was the ancient name of Babylonia or Chaldaea,
as the tract of land in later times came to be
known. This was a great alluvial district
through which the Tigris and Euphrates flowed
before reaching the sea. This country was
marked by the absence of stone for building ma
terial, but it was famous for the excellence of the
bricks there made, and for the slime that was
used for mortar. It vv^as known also for its textile
fabrics ; the " goodly Babylonish garment" of
Joshua vii. 2 1 , which proved a snare to Achan, was
a " garment of Shinar." This country is probably
to be identified with the Sumer or the Shumer of
the cuneiform inscriptions, and so a name denot
ing the southern portion of the " land of the Chal-
dseans. " The name usually includes the whole
rich and populous alluvial plain to which refer
ence has been made, reaching from the Persian
Gulf to a point north of the modern Bagdad, a
little more than two hundred miles.

PURPOSE OF THE TOWER OF BABEL. 1 49

"One Lip."
Up to the time mentioned in the Scripture
under consideration the people had remained to
gether, speaking one language. We are told that
they were, to render the words literally, " of one
lip and of words one" ; that is, they employed one
kind or stock of words. They also developed one
kind of civilization. As the lip is the principal
organ in the utterance of words, the word sapJiah,
lip, is here employed, although a frequent Scrip
ture term for language is lesJion, tongue. The
confusion of the lip is probably a change in the
pronunciation of words, and this change will ac
count for the babel, or confusion, which took
place at this time. The people finding a home in
the rich plain of Shinar^ the derivation suggesting
its name as the land of " the two rivers," they de
termined to build a city and tower of great height.
All ancient authorities and modern travellers
affirm that building material was easy to find in
this valley. The people, therefore, proceeded to
burn bricks, " burning them to a burning, " that is,
burning them thoroughlj^ and to use slime or
bitumen for mortar. Bricks were often dried
simply by the sun, but these heroic builders
wished to secure the most durable material, and
so they thoroughly burned the bricks. The
Scripture narrative teaches us that God interposed
and frustrated all their plans, and this interposi-

ISO OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
tion was brought about by the introduction of
hopeless confusion into their lanugage. They
were thus unable longer to understand one an
other. They therefore " left off to build the city,"
and soon were scattered abroad on the face of the
earth. This remarkable circumstance gave rise
to the word babel, perhaps meaning confusion.
This name the Greeks corrupted into Babylon,
and although originally applied only to the Tower
of Babel, it was afterward extended to the city of
Babylon, which grew up about the tower; and
finally it was extended to the whole province of
Babylonia. We thus see that God did not intend
that men should always remain in a limited local
ity and should speak only one language. Per
haps the account here given will not explain fully
the origin of languages ; but it is at least sugges
tive of elements which entered into that origin,
and into the conceptions of the times of the
writer regarding the diversity of speech. Some
would derive the word Babel from Bab-ilu, mean
ing "the gate of the god." This is in substance
the story as found on the inspired page. It is
narrated in a dramatic manner and with rare
poetic beauty. Ethnic Traditions.
The Chaldaean traditions state that the first
men became proud of their great strength and
raised a tower reaching toward heaven in the
place where Babylon afterward stood. They

PURPOSE OF THE TOWER OF BABEL. 151
state also that the gods, assisted by fierce winds,
hurled the building down upon the heads of the
builders, and that out of the material thus col
lected the city of Babylon was built. These tra
ditions harmonize with the Bible narrative in say
ing that before this event all the people spoke
one language, but after it they differed widely in
their tongues. Greek traditions are in substantial
harmony with those of Chaldaea. Plato makes
the uniformity extend to animals as well as to
men in the golden age. Perhaps the advance of
linguistic science will yet enable us to understand
the language of animals, as these traditions affirm
concerning the early period of human history.
Plato also echoes other parts of the Bible story in
saying that men in their unholy ambition aspired
to immortality, and that they were punished by
Jupiter, who utterly confounded their language.
Attention has also been called to the fact that in
the account of the wars of the Titans against the
gods, we clearly see traces of the traditionary re
semblances to the narrative in the Bible concern
ing Babel. Other traditions associate these events
with Nimrod, a "bold, bad man," who strove to
alienate the minds of the people from God, and to
build a tower too high for the waters ever to
reach its top. This he did, the traditions affirm,
in order to take revenge for the punishment of
the deluge. But this explanation for the cause of
the erection of Babel is very unsatisfactory. We
know that the people could not have feared an-

152 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
other deluge, for God had given an express prom
ise to the contrary ; and if another deluge should
come, they must have known that no tower they
could build would protect them, as the waters
went over the highest hills in the parts sub
merged. Several writers on this subject remind us that
it was long believed that the native Babylonian
records contained references to the tower of Babel
and the confusion of speech ; and, it is stated, that
recently such a record has been discovered. Mr.
George Smith brought a number of clay tablets
from Babylonia and deposited them in the British
Museum, and among them is one, unfortunately
badly mutilated, but still sufficiently legible to
show that it probably contained the Babylonian
account of this whole deeply interesting history.
Herodotus, in simple and graphic language, de
scribes the building of the walls of Babylon in ex
pressions which remind us of the Biblical narra
tive of the building of the tower of Babel. In
both, narratives there is a reference to the excel
lent building materials which the Babylonian soil
furnishes in such abundance. Bitumen pits are
still found from which bitumen bubbles up, and
which can be readily manufactured into cement
for use in buildings at the present day. It is
known that in some parts of southern California
there is soil containing materials not unlike those
found in the alluvial plain of Babylon. The
tablets found in the British Museum state that the

PURPOSE OF THE TOWER OF BABEL. 153
tower was erected under the supervision of a semi-
divine being called Etanna. In Central America
there are traditions similar to the stor}^ of the
tower of Babel. Xelhua, one of the seven giants
rescued from the deluge, so the tradition affirms,
attempted to storm heaven and oppose all the
gods, and so he built the great pyramid of Cholula.
But in this case also the gods interposed, destroyed
the tower with fire, and utterly confounded the
language of the builders. In northern India
traces of similar legends are found; and even
among certain African tribes Dr. Livingstone met
with traditions possessing features similar to the
narrative in the Bible. There are also Australian
legends regarding the origin of the diversity of
speech kindred to those already named. All
these traditions point to an original historic inci
dent ; they tend to confirm our faith in the Bible
narrative. They are all eloquent as to the orig
inal unity of the race and the reality of the divine
purpose in its dispersion.
Reasons for Building the Tower.
It is clearly shown in the sacred narrative that
the design of the builders was threefold. They
wished to make a name ; this is distinctly stated
in Genesis xi. 4. A tower is simply another name
for a citadel, or place of defence. This reason
for the building of the tower sets aside a great
many foolish conjectures as to its design. The

154 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
primary object was to transmit an illustrious
name for grand designs and heroic enterprises.
The project had reference to some warlike move
ments which v.'ould enable the people to defend
themselves against insurrections, and probably to
enforce an unhol}^ despotism. Nimrod was prob
ably the leader, and he was one of the first who is
recorded to have attempted the exercise of des
potic power over his fellow-men. A second
reason was an ambition to erect a structure which
in itself should challenge attention and evoke
admiration. A third reason is that the people
might not be scattered abroad. The Bible gives
no intimation whatever that the tower was built
for the purpose of escaping another flood. The
great height of the tower would make it a rallying
point in the level plains where it was located. In
these wide and level plains this was an object of
great practical importance, as there are few ob
jects to guide the traveller in his journeys, the
plains being virtually a vast sea of land. In the
simple fact that the people did not wish to be
scattered abroad they were opposing God's pur
pose as several times declared. It is quite cer
tain that some unworthy motives and ungodly
ambitions were blended with the desire of the
people to remain together. There is much in this
desire which elicits our commendation, but we
must see that the conduct of the people evinced
pride, arrogance, and disobedience against God.
They were forcing a conspiracy to establish a uni-

PURPOSE OF THE TOWER OF BABEL, 155
versal temporal monarchy. God intended that
the people should spread themselves abroad, and
they attempted to defeat the purpose of God in
this regard. They resolved to establish a civiliza
tion of their own ; they planned to build society,
not upon faith in an unseen God, but on lofty
brick walls and sky-kissing towers. Thy were
believers in a merely material civilization. Their
work was an offspring of an unholy ambition.
Philo narrates a tradition that each man wrote
his name on a brick which was to be placed in the
structure. The same tendency is seen to-day.
Men strive to shut out God from personal, family,
and national life. They talk simply of law, of
culture, and of civilization, ignoring God and
spiritual and eternal things. God will in some
form confound their plans as surely as He did
those of the builders on the plains of Shinar. God
can overrule and frustrate the ambitious dreams
of the Nimrods, the Nebuchadnezzars, the Alex
anders, the Caesars, and the Napoleons of all cen
turies, countries, and civilizations.
The Original Language.
We do not know what the original language
was which was confounded at Babel. For a long
time it was claimed that it was the Hebrew, but
that idea has now been largely abandoned.
Learned men have not yet reached any satisfac
tory conclusion regarding the original tongue.

156 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
Some suppose that it is entirely lost. It may
have been the Hebrew or the Aramaic. We know
that the Aramaic was long dominant in the valley
of the Euphrates, and that it is closely allied to
the Hebrew; these two facts make a strong plea
in favor of the Aramaic, or Chaldee, as the very
language of Noah, or at least as belonging to the
same family of languages as that which he spoke.
Enthusiastic Highland Scotchmen are flrmly con
vinced that the language of Adam and Noah was
none other than the Gaelic, and some of the argu
ments which they use in the attempt to establish
this point are, to say the least, most suggestive
and striking. This, however, is a point regarding
which scholarship has not yet reached any defi
nite conclusion. The science of comparative phi
lology has in recent years made tremendous prog
ress. It has enabled us to determine the relations
between the Saxon and the Norman, and between
the conquering Aryans in India and the many
conquered tribes in that great peninsula, and it
may yet enable us to determine with some degree
of certainty the language which was spoken before
the confusion of tongues and the dispersion of the
peoples occurred. God will eventually use the
scholarship of the world for the glory of the Bible,
the salvation of men, and the honor of Jesus
Christ.

PURPOSE OF THE TOWER OF BABEL. 157

The Modern Representative oe Babel.
This historic tower is mentioned only once in
Scripture, in the passage now under review. Was
it ever completed? All the indications confirm
us in believing that it was not ; perhaps it never
advanced much beyond its foundations. The
Jewish tradition is that fire fell from Heaven and
split the tower into fragments. It is believed,
however, that the "Tower of Belus" occupies the
site of the original tower of Babel. Classical
writers, in describing Babylon, uniformly refer to
a tower-like building which they call " The Tem
ple or Tomb of Belus." This structure is de
scribed by Herodotus, and is probably represent
ed by the modern " Birs-Nimrud " ; some writers
in this connection speak of what was called " The
Temple of the Seven Lights of the Earth," dedi
cated to Nebo at Borsippa, a suburb of Babylon.
This structure was completed in the reign of Ne
buchadnezzar. When he conquered Jerusalem he
put its captured treasures in the temple of Bel at
Babylon. When the Jews were carried captive
into Babylonia they saw in many of the great
buildings reminders of the tower mentioned in
their Scriptures. Christian travellers were accus
tomed to call any great mass of ruins " The Tower
of Babel. " There was long a consensus of opin
ion among the learned that Birs-Nimrud, or Tow
er of Nimrod, was the tower of Babel ; and it is

158 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
now pretty generally agreed that it at least is a
good representative of an ancient Babylonian
temple-tower. Dr. William Hayes Ward, of New
York, as the head of the Wolfe expedition, had
it photographed by Mr. J. H. Haynes, and Dr.
Ward has fully described this historic ruin. He
is disposed to regard the story in Genesis as an
interesting illustration of folklore; but his de
scription and illustrations tend to confirm the
truth of the story. The building is an oblique
pyramid. Its first basement stage is an exact
square 272 feet each way, 26 feet high; the second
is 230 feet each way, and the third 188 feet. It
thus decreases in width as it increases in height.
It has been recently conjectured that the upper
portions of this tower were used as an observa
tory for astronomical observations. It is well
known that the Babylonians were earnest stu
dents of astronomy, and the elevation of this
tower, the clear atmosphere, and the broad plains
were all conducive to the careful study of this en
nobling science. It has also been suggested that
the upper portions of this tower were used by the
priests as sleeping-places in the summer-time, as
they gave greater coolness and greater freedom
from insects than the lower stories furnished.
All travellers agree that this mass of ruins is
deeply impressive as it rises out of the desert
plain. Parts of it show the effect of great heat,
as they are vitrified. It is a fire-blasted pile and
is rent and fragmentary. Its dreary aspect has

PURPOSE OF THE TOWER OF BABEL. 159
led to its being called " Nebuchadnezzar's Prison. "
The entire neighborhood indicates that here
there was some signal overthrow in former times.
Perhaps the vitrification is a justification of the
tradition that the tower was blasted by the light
nings of Heaven. The pyramidal temples of other
countries make belief in this great tower of Belus
less difficult. All who have visited Tanjore, in
India, are familiar with a tower which will at
least suggest that of Babel — the Tower at Tan
jore. It is built entirely of stone, and on its top
is a chapel or temple whose design is in harmony
with that of other sacred structures in India.
The gate of these pagodas always fronts the
east; they are generally on the banks of great
rivers, and are usually surrounded by courts.
The great Mexican pyramid is not much unlike
that of Tanjore. These pyramids show the ten
dency of former days in different parts of the
world and among various peoples.
God's Purpose in the Dispersion of Races.
It was the purpose of God that the three primi
tive families should migrate. From the central
regions, where they developed their first civiliza
tions, they went out by successive colonizations,
and soon they established distant communities.
Marvellously interesting is it to trace God's hand
in the boundaries and characteristics of various
nations. The Hamitic, the Semitic, and the Ja-

l6o OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
phetic had each its work to do, and its triumphs
to achieve. The sons of Japheth were men of
resistless will and tireless muscle. Westward and
northward they pushed, and finally they became
the authors of Greek literature, of Roman gov
ernment, of modern Europe, and of marvellous
America. This commingling of races is God's
plan for saving man physically. No unmixed
race can long hold its own. The native Hawai-
ians must speedily die or unite with some other
races. The modern Frenchman has in his veins
the blood of the Celt, the Frank, and the Nor
man, and he is better than either one alone.
In the veins of the modern Briton are the com
mingling streams of the blood of many nations ;
and the modern Briton is marching to the ends
of the earth, carrying with him law, liberty, civil
ization, and Christianity. The American of the
future will be an amalgam of many nations ; and
he ought to be the noblest product of civilization
and Christianity which the world has yet seen.
America deserves the best from all the nations of
the earth. The worst nations of southern Europe
should no longer be permitted to dump their ref
use populations on our American shores.
Lessons.
There is great danger that we may still mani
fest the spirit of the builders of Babel. Men are
still under the power of unholy ambitions and

PURPOSE OF THE TOWER OF BABEL, l6l
material civilizations. God should be the guide
of every life. God should be the senior partner
of every business. It is daring impiety which
leaves God out of our plans for life.
The church of Jesus Christ had its natal day
on the day of Pentecost, and Pentecost is the
counterpart of Babel. Pentecost made it possible
for the messengers of the cross to go to the ends
of the earth with the message of the Gospel of
salvation. Babel made men in some sense- aliens ;
Pentecost aims to make all men brothers. In the
Fatherhood of God we have the true brotherhood
of man. The church calls us to labor as builders
of the true city of God. Its living stones are ce
mented together by the unity of the faith. The
city we are building has enduring foundations,
and its top will finally reach to Heaven. In
Heaven there is one language, one life, one love.
God hasten the blessed consummation when the
kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdom
of our Lord and His Christ!

X.
WAS LOT WISE IN PITCHING HIS TENT
TOWARD SODOM?

X.
WAS LOT WISE IN PITCHING HIS TENT
TOWARD SODOM?
In Genesis, the thirteenth chapter and a part of
the twelfth verse, we read concerning Lot that
he " pitched his tent toward Sodom. ' ' Did he act
wisely in so doing? The story suggested by these
words is full of interest and instruction. It opens
with associative glimpses into family life of the
ancient time.
We here see how in private life there are op
portunities of displaying a rare heroism and a fine
chivalry. We shall observe in studying this nar
rative that common events may reveal selfishness
or generosit)' of character, and may be made an
occasion for developing the noblest qualities of
manhood and the broadest principles of godliness.
This ancient story shows us how true religion
beautifies and glorifies domestic life, and how the
lowliest duties may manifest the loftiest qualities
in human action. Lot's Name and Family.
His name means a covering or a veil. He was
the son of Haran, and so the nephew of Abram.
His grandfather was Terah. About two thousand

1 66 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
years before Christ he removed with his grand
father to Haran in Mesopotamia. There Terah
died aged two hundred and five years. About a
year later, in company with Abraham, Lot came
into the land of Canaan. In consequence of a
famine, he went with Abram and Sarai into
Egypt; soon after he returned to the southem
part of Canaan, and then went to the region of
Bethel and Ai, where Abram built his first altar
and called upon the name of Jehovah. We shall
get a true conception of Lot's character and his
tory by a series of pictures representing both, at
which we may now look.
First Picture.
We have before us Lot making a selfish choice
of the best pastures. This is a most instructive
picture. In the background are seen the herds
men of Lot engaged in strife with the herdsmen
of Abram. Still farther in the background are
seen the Canaanite and the Perizzite who still
dwelled in the land ; and in the foreground are
seen the noble Abram and the selfish Lot. The
presence of the heathen in the land ought to have
warned the herdsmen of the danger of their family
quarrels. But the spirit of rivalry and jealousy
broke forth, notwithstanding the danger to which
it subjected both Abram and Lot. They went
down into Egypt poor, and they now return rich.
The Hebrew words translated " very rich" literal-

WAS LOT WISE? 167
ly mean exceedingly heavy. The term rich is, of
course, a relative one, and judged by British or
American standards a wealthy Arab sheik would
be considered poor. The wealth of these emirs
consisted mostly in flocks of sheep and goats, and
in camels. Their increased flocks made herbage in
the vicinity of Bethel too scanty for their accom
modation. Behold the two men standing on one
of the round swelling hills near Bethel ! So far
as we can discover, there is no strife between
them ; it is limited to their herdsmen. But Abram
was sagacious enough to foresee that these jar
ring jealousies would increase more and more,
and might finally cause an estrangement between
him and his nephew. These two men stand look
ing out over the empty land in the direction of
Sodom. The land before them is beautiful to the
eye ; it is well watered — literally it was " all a- wa
tering " — showing the fertilizing effect which
irrigation by various streams produced.
The language of the Scripture at this point is
very striking. The land is as beautiful as the
wonderfully green Egypt which they had just
left, and beautiful even as the garden of Jeho-
irah, whose superhuman charms still lingered in
the thought of the time. Abram gave Lot his
choice. Through the clear air of Palestine the
distant valley could clearly be seen. It has
been well remarked that we are here reminded
of the choice of Hercules, as described in Gre
cian legend, and of the turning back of the

l68 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
prophet from Damascus as represented in the
fables of Islam. Abram here treats Lot as if
they were really brethren, instead of uncle and
nephew. The prospect was fascinating in the
extreme, and Lot could not resist its attractions.
He chose all the plain of Jordan ; he journeyed
east, he pitched his tent toward Sodom, and he
separated from his noble uncle. The conduct of
Abram was eminently considerate ; it was gener
ous almost to a fault. Not only was he the se
nior and superior of the two, but he was especially
called of God to lordship in the land. The con
duct of Lot was selfish and covetous to a remark
able degree. His finer feelings were deadened,
and he assumed enormous risk in going toward
Sodom, because of its well-known character for
the practice of abominable evils.
This picture makes a powerful appeal to the
imagination. We shall later see that Lot paid an
enormous price for his rich pastures. We ought
always to remember, when we yield to the gratifi
cation of the moment, that there is a to-mor
row with which we must reckon. The people of
Sodom were not only wicked, but desperately
wicked; they were high-handed and heaven-dar
ing siniters. Yet Lot chose their neighborhood
for the sake of its temporal advantage. It may
be that the word translated to-ward means at, or
in the vicinity of, Sodom ; but it is not quite in
Sodom. Choices reveal character. A man is
really what his choice declares his inner life to

WAS LOT WISE? 169
be. The man who prefers pebbles to diamonds
manifests insanity. The man who chooses a tem
porary earthly good and rejects eternal and spir
itual things is morally insane. So Lot chose. He
removed his tent from place to place, but grad
ually he approaches Sodom. Perhaps he intended
to keep at some distance from this perilous place ;
but still he goes imperceptibly onward. He nears
this sink of corruption. He treads the borders
of forbidden ground.
So men trifie to-day with evil; so they parley
with the devil. They lie pn the bank of the nar
row stream dividing right from wrong. They do
not intend to cross that stream ; but they love to
look upon the blooming fiowers and to breathe
the pleasant odors of the forbidden land. Things
inevitably follow their tendencies. If these men
do not quickly change their course both they and
Lot will be in Sodom. " Let him that thinketh
he standeth take heed lest he fall."
Second Picture.
We next find Lot, together with the inhabitants
of Sodom, made a prisoner by Chedorlaomer.
Let us quickly get the salient features of this
picture. Chedorlaomer came from beyond the
Euphrates ; he was king of Elam, in Persia. He
was the leader of the several allied kings, who
invaded Canaan. He had already brought a
number of small states under tribute, and among

170 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
these were the five cities in the region of the
Dead Sea. These states were impatient under
their burden of tribute, and finally they withheld
its payment. This led to the invasion of the
country, and to the ravaging visitation of the
whole country south and east of the Jordan.
Soon the kings of the plains were defeated and
carried away as slaves, as was the custom of the
times. Lot was included in this unfortunate num
ber of slaves. He had cast in his lot with these
people, and he must share with them in their evil
fortune. This is part of the price which he is
paying for his good pastures. Behold him now
borne off, a slave in the power of his cruel cap
tors! Nobly does the character of generous Abram
appear in this crisis in the life of Lot. Abram
heard of his misfortune and hastened to his
rescue. The brave uncle immediately armed
three hundred and eighteen of his retainers- — a
fact that shows he was a sheik of wealth and
power — and joined by three friendly Amoritish
chiefs, he pursued the returning invaders. Near
the fountains of the Jordan he overtook them as
they fled in haste. Some of his allies attacked
the enemies by night on the one side, and some
on the other; and soon they were thrown into
utter confusion and fled in hopeless dismay. On,
on over the hills went the brave Abram and his
heroic men in hot pursuit until they reached the
neighborhood of Damascus. They then returned

WAS LOT WISE? 171
victorious, carrying back the men and the proper
ty seized by the invaders. Doubtless Lot's sad
plight influenced Abram to undertake this ex
ploit ; but in delivering Lot he conferred signal
benefits on many tribes and peoples ; and, as a ¦
result, his courage and wisdom were greatly
honored throughout the land. It was while on
his return from this successful expedition that
he was met by Melchizedek, king of Salem, and
priest of the most high God.
Abram might have kept, according to the usa
ges of war, then and there, and in many parts of
the Orient still, the recovered goods; and the
king of Sodom, who met the victors in the val
ley near Salem, freely admitted this right. But
Abram, with a truly noble spirit toward men and
a loyal devotion toward God, refused the goods,
saying : " I have lifted up mine hand unto Jeho
vah, the most high God, and I will not take from
a thread to a sandal-thong, lest thou shouldst
say, I have made Abram rich." These are stir
ring words ; they thrill our hearts to this hour.
These heroic achievements and generous senti
ments gave Abram much deserved celebrity in
Canaan. The people owed their deliverance to
Abram, and even Lot, for his uncle's sake, must
have received some respect and gratitude. But
the Sodomites were so besotted, corrupt, and
bestial as to have few sentiments of gratitude or
generosity above the level of their degraded in
stincts and sensualized desires.

172 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
Third Picture.
We now find Lot actually living in Sodom. He
is now married, and probably he found his wife
in Sodom. That was a bad place in which to find
a wife. Better never be married than marry in
Sodom ! Were there no other women whom he
could have chosen? Had his own tastes already
become degraded? Nothing more surely suggests
a man's measure, intellectual and spiritual, than
the wife he chooses. Marriage should be the out
come of the deepest choice and the noblest ambi
tion ; it should be the wisest act of life, and the
fullest proof of divine guidance. Think of marry
ing a woman in Sodom ! This name through all
the ages has been the symbol of all that is vilest
in human relations. Abram's nephew married to
a woman of Sodom ! Soon there are in his house
hold sons and daughters marriageable and mar
ried. One would have thought that he would
have had more sense, a nobler ambition, and a
truer piety than so to marry. He is now a well-
known resident of the town ; he is a leader in its
affairs. All these sad results have come from
pitching his tent toward Sodom. His family later
showed the degrading influences of the social at
mosphere in which they lived. Lot is paying a
terribly high price for his good pastures. Men
make a fearful mistake when for the sake of busi
ness prosperity they knowingly form partnerships
with bad men, and willingly subject themselves to

WAS LOT WISE? 173
moral dangers in their choice of a residence. No
man has a right to assume these terrible risks.
God help us to avoid even the appearance of evil !
Fourth Picture.
Behold Lot a judge in Sodom. This is the
rabbinical tradition, and there are hints in
vScripture looking in this direction. In Genesis
xix. I we read of Lot as sitting in the gate of So
dom. He had thus thoroughly identified himself
with the city and its people. In ancient times
and cities the gates were the chief places of re
sort. There social intercourse took place, there
pleasant recreations were enjoyed, there the mar
kets were held, there public affairs were discussed,
and there courts of justice held their sessions.
All these things brought great concourses of peo
ple to the gate. Modern Arabs and other Orien
tal people still flock to the gates of the towns and
cities ; there the news of the day is heard, and all
forms of social life are enjoyed. The Jewish
commentators, as already suggested, understand
the reference to Lot's sitting at the gate as im
plying that he exercised the authority of a mag
istrate. The elders of the cities in those early
days readily became the acknowledged judges in
civil affairs. Lot was now a comparatively old
man; he was a resident of long standing in
Sodom. He was acknowledged to be a leader in
business and in social life ; his business interests
and his social relations are in Sodom. Mrs. Lot,

174 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
it is fair to assume, was also a recognized social
leader in the best or worst circles of society in
Sodom. The young ladies of the family were
possibly the belles of the town. It is an awful
thing for a man to begin by pitching his tent
toward Sodom ; there are ten chances to one that
he will end by landing in Sodom. It is an un
speakably foolish thing to put one's head into the
lion's mouth. One day the lion will close his
mouth, and there will be a headless man at the
menagerie or circus. Often the best way to over
come temptation is to avoid temptation. It is
mockery of God to pray, " Lead us not into temp
tation," and then recklessly run into temptation.
God help us to avoid pitching our tent toward
Sodom ! Fifth Picture.
Behold Lot thoroughly humiliated while enter
taining heavenly visitors. He still preserves in
the midst of the licentious corruptions of Sodom
some of the nobler qualities of a generous hospi
tality. Behold him inviting those heavenly visi
tors to turn in and tarry all night in his house.
We see the water brought for the dusty feet of
the tired travellers ; wc see bread offered them for
their hunger ; we witness all the rites of a chival
rous hospitality, even as these mysterious way
farers had enjoyed the hospitality of Abram that
very morning on the heights of Hebron. The
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews does not fail

WAS LOT WISE? 175
to mention with commendation this charming
trait. The Apostle Peter tells us that Lot's
righteous soul was vexed, wearied, burdened,
from day to day by the filthy conversation and
unlawful deeds of his fellow-townsmen. God did
indeed keep him from the grosser contaminations
of his neighbors; for the Lord knoweth how to
deliver the godly out of temptation. Lot was in
some sense a just man in the midst of a mob of
lawless, sensual, and utterly abominable neigh
bors. But a greater trial than ever before is now in
store for him. We have seen him extending the
hospitality of his tent to his heavenly visitants.
They are the avenging angels sent to destroy
guilty Sodom. The news of their arrival is
noised about the town ; the brutal men of Sodom
surround the house of Lot and make a demand
for the strangers. Their purpose has made the
name of Sodom a synonym for infamy throughout
all the ages. The demand is resisted; the house
is attacked; and then the angels, thus having a
fearful illustration of the wickedness which they
came to punish, struck the worse than beastly
men with blindness. The Hebrew word trans
lated blindness is bassanverim , this word liter
ally means with "dazzled blindnesses." We have
the original word only here and in 2 Kings vi.
18, where a similar effect was produced on the
Syrian army in answer to Elisha's prayer. In
both cases a confused vision, such as is caused by

176 'OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
vertigo of the brain, resulted. Still these satanic
Sodomites madly persisted in their abominable
purpose. Think of bringing up a family in such
a social atmosphere! Truly Lot was paying a
high price for his good pastures. Truly the
Sodomites were ripe for the judgment which was
about to fall upon them from God. Little did
they think that vengeance was so near. Men are -
still fascinated by evil ; they are still blind to the
coming of God's judgments. Lot is now told that
Sodom will be destroyed, and he is urged to flee
with his family from the doomed place.
Sixth Picture.
Behold Lot in the midst of all the horrors
attending the destruction of Sodom. This is a
fearful picture ; it is impossible to paint its colors
too vividly. The angels promised deliverance to
Lot's daughters who had married in Sodom, but
they scorned the offer of mercy. Hastened by
the angels. Lot, his wife, and two unmarried
daughters, start for a place of safety. His wife
lingered, looked lovingly backward, and was soon
covered with an incrustation from the saline
storm. See him . and his daughters hastening to
Zoar ! This was the smallest of the cities of the
plain; and to afford him a place of relief it had
been spared. In a cavern in the mountains he and
they abode for some time. Well had it been for
him if he had remained with Abram. All his
property is gone, several of his family are gone,

WAS LOT WISE? 177
his wife is gone, and soon his honor and that of
his daughters will go. Terrible is the price
which Lot paid for his good pastures !
Seventh Picture.
One wishes to draw a veil over this picture and
forever to hide the later scenes of Lot's life.
Only the barest outlines of this picture can be
given. Already the taint of Sodom is manifested
in Lot's daughters. They are dishonored, and
he is unconsciously degraded. Thus sprang the
Moabites and the Ammonites. Many attempts at
excusing this transaction have been made ; but
apology for it is impossible. Charity covers it
with a mantle.
Lot's preservation is alluded to by our Lord,
and his character is honored in certain respects
by the Apostle Peter. The Mohammedan tradi
tions affirm that he went to Sodom as a preacher
of righteousness. They still point out his grave
east of Hebron. The names of Lot and Sodom
are still associated with the sins which are said to
be still the most common in Eastern cities.
Lessons.
We see the terrible depravity of which human
nature is capable. The phrase " total depravity"
is not found in the Bible, but it sometimes seems
as if the thing itself is found in certain circles of
human life. It is often a slander on animals to
call some men brutes. God alone can fully see

178 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
the terrible depths of sin to which human souls may
fall. There is constant need that we watch and
pray that we do not ourselves fall. Sinners are
often most reckless when their hour of doom is
nearest. The men of Sodom showed their great
wickedness in the presence of God's avenging
angels. Men little know now how near the cloud
of wrath may be whose thunderbolts the prayers
of some saints are warding off from their hearts.
We see that God can preserve His saints from
the worst forms of contaminations even in fear
fully sinful environments; but men ought not
needlessly to expose themselves to danger. What
right has a reformed man to go into saloons?
The tinkle of glasses and the odors of liquors may
set his appetite aflame as with the fires of hell.
It is a most dangerous thing for some persons to
go " slumming. " A noble physician will not hesi
tate to go to a home whose atmosphere is laden
with malaria. A true minister, in like manner,
will go where the germs of moral malaria fill the
air ; but even he ought to be very sure that it is
God who calls for the visit, and that God calls
him, and not some one else, to make the visit. Let
us all remember, not only Lot's wife, but Lot's
selfish choice and fearful fate. God help us to
avoid the very appearance of evil, and to turn
our face and direct our steps evermore toward
truth, purity, Christ, and Heaven!

XI.
WHO WAS MELCHIZEDEK, THE MYSTERIOUS
KING-PRIEST ?

XI.

WHO WAS MELCHIZEDEK, THE MYS
TERIOUS KING-PRIEST ?
The first account of this remarkable personage
is found in Genesis xiv. 18-20. Around but few
characters of history, sacred or profane, is there
so great a cloud of mystery as around this king-
priest ; and regarding no man whose history is
recorded in the Bible has fancy played so large a
part. This result is due in great measure to the
sudden manner in which he first appears on, and
departs from, the page of Bible history. His per
sonality falls upon the sacred narrative as a ray of
light from the noonday sky ; this old king-priest,
like the fiash of a meteor, crosses the path of the
conquering patriarch. Thus he emerges from the
gloom of historic darkness, and he almost imme
diately disappears into the darkness whence he
had emerged, and then into an historic seclusion
wellnigh inscrutable. Yet during his brief ap
pearance, he was treated by Abram with so much
respect that the mystery of his personality is
greatly deepened. Nearly a thousand years pass,
and he once more appears upon the historic
pages, in the words of the Psalmist ; then for a

l82 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
thousand years more there is complete silence
concerning him, and his name finally appears,
surrounded with deeper apparent mystery, in the
fifth, sixth, and seventh chapters of the Epistle
to the Hebrews. We there learn that his parent
age was unknown, his genealogy unrecorded,
and the beginning and ending of his priestly office
unchronicled. It is not surprising that in this
ancient and enigmatical personage many saw a
divinely .appointed type of Jesus Christ as the
great High-Priest and eternal King. For hun
dreds, perhaps thousands, of years this unique be
ing has been the subject of earnest discussion. It
is almost unpardonable temerity to undertake to
answer the question asked in the title of this dis
course. We may, however, devoutly study the
passages of Scripture in which his name occurs ;
and we may firmly hold the conclusion forced
upon us, when these Scriptures are interpreted
without prejudice, and with all the lucidity which
the Holy Spirit may give as the reward of their
reverent study. His Name and Office.
Profoundly suggestive is the name of Melchi
zedek, "King of Righteousness." The name in
dicates that the Canaanitish language was prob
ably Semitic. This title seems to be personal,
rather than official, like the words Pharaoh and
Augustus. He is also called " King of Salem"—

WHO WAS MELCHIZEDEK? 183
the king of peace. Regarding the location of
Salem we shall have occasion later to speak ; the
name, however, is beautifully suggestive in con
nection with this mysterious king-priest. We are
also told that he was " the priest of the most high
God." It is a deeply interesting fact that the
word cohen, priest, occurs here for the first time
in the Bible, and it is observable that it is found in
connection with the worship of an ancient people
outside the chosen people of God. There will
always be doubt regarding the etymological
meaning of the word. Usually the priesthood of
the patriarchs was simply that of the head of the
family; but here we have a priest performing
solemn priestly acts not limited by the family
relation. The appearance of this title indicates
the existence of a constituted worship not belong
ing to what was afterward known as the Mosaic
cultus. Perhaps, indeed, the Mosaic ritual was
a fuller development of a system of worship which
existed from the beginning. Significant also is
the name here given to God, "the Most High
God" — literally. El Elion. This name for the su
preme Deity occurs only here; the word El signi
fies the strong One, and is usually applied to God
in connection with some qualifying attribute. It
recognizes God as the exalted and the supreme
One. Probably under this name Melchizedek
worshipped the true God.

l84 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
Various Opinions.
In all periods, alike of Jewish and Christian
history, the personality of Melchizedek has been
invested with peculiar awe. Some Jewish tradi
tions declare that he was a survivor of the deluge,
and was possibly the patriarch Shem. If he were
this patriarch, his great age, his wide experience,
his relation to Noah, and his approval by God
would all tend to advance his dignity, and to
make his authority wellnigh supreme. He could
readily be conceived of as virtually the undis
puted lord of the whole land, and as entitled
to convey the possessions under his control to
Abram, who received his benediction. Jerome
devotes much space to the discussion of the per
son, position, and territorial dominion of Melchi
zedek, and he states that it was the prevailing
opinion in his day, among the Jews, that Melchi
zedek was the patriarch Shem. Some authorities
ascribe this opinion also to the Samaritans who,
although opposed bitterly to the Jews in many
things, agreed with them in making Melchizedek
none other than Shem. The article on Melchize
dek in Smith's Bible Dictionary states that this
opinion was embraced by Luther, Melanchthon,
Broughton, Selden, Lightfoot, Jackson, and many
others. This writer further reminds us, that Ori
gen and others believed that Melchizedek was an
angel ; it is thus easy for us to see how great rever
ence would be paid by Jews and Christians alike

WHO WAS MELCHIZEDEK? 185
to such a character as Melchizedek. But a care
ful examination of the passages of Scripture in
which his name appears will show that there is
no good reason for believing that he was either
the patriarch Shem or an angel from Heaven.
Others have thought that he was the incarnation
of some power, virtue, or influence of God; but
this idea was sharply opposed by other Christian
teachers honored for great learning and devout
piety. The bold conjecture has been made that
he was the Holy Ghost. Still others have af
firmed that he was the Son of God appearing in
human form. The great Ambrose seems to have
adopted this view, and it has found favor among
many modern teachers. A former member of the
Calvary Church, and a very .learned man in many
languages, philosophies, and religions, tenaciously
held this view. It was always interesting and in
structive to hear his reasoning on this subject,
and to observe the reverent enthusiasm with
which he traced the stately steppings of the
Christ in that mysterious land and ancient his
tor)'. Akin to this Christian idea is that of some
Jews that Melchizedek was the Messiah. We all
believe that Christ appeared occasionally in tem
porary incarnations before he became the Son of
Man in Bethlehem's manger. That he appeared
to Abraham, to Jacob, to Moses, to Joshua, and
to Gideon, there can be but little doubt. If we
refuse to believe that Melchizedek was a true
man, nothing could be more natural than to sup-

l86 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
pose that he was the Christ. The language of the
writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, some have
thought, favors that idea. Melchizedek is there
spoken of as without father or mother, and with
out beginning of life or end of days. We shall,
a little later, see that there is a much simpler,
more natural, and more literal interpretation of
that language, which frees it from giving its
authority to the idea that Melchizedek was the
Messiah. There have been still other opinions as
to his identity, such as that he was a descendant
of Ham_, or Japhet, or Enoch ; but it is needless
to multiply these unwarranted and unscriptural
guesses, and some of them are not only unscrip
tural but contrascriptural.
The Teaching of Scripture.
Many of our difficulties in interpreting Scrip
ture are not really in the Scripture itself, but in
men's unwarranted additions to Scripture. It is
often far harder to understand some human com
ments on the Scriptures than it is to comprehend
the teachings which these comments were in
tended to elucidate. It is often much more diffi
cult to interpret some so-called Christian creeds
than it is to understand the Scripture on which
they are supposed to be based. He was not an
ignorant man who said, while reading Bunyan's
" Pilgrim's Progress, " that he got on very well with
the large print, but he often found it impossible
to understand the notes at the bottom of the page.

WHO WAS MELCHIZEDEK? 187
We often need to read Scripture afresh ; to read
it as if the Bible were a book just issued from the
press ; to read it with the interest which attaches
to Dr. Nansen's recent volumes, or to the life of
Lord Tennyson. If we were in this way to read
the passages bearing on baptism, there would be
no further controversy in the churches on that
subject. The Bible cannot make its teachings
clearer, both as to the subject and the act of bap
tism. If Christ and the apostles had intended to
teach that believers are the only subjects of bap
tism and immersion is the act in baptism, they
would have used the very language which they
have employed. The Greek is the most accurate
and philosophical of all languages. It has a word
meaning to sprinkle and one meaning to pour,
but neither is ever employed regarding baptism,
but always the word meaning to immerse. But
many men read the commands regarding bap
tism, not to get out God's thought, but to put in
their own wish ; such reading of the Bible is not
exegesis of the divine thought, but is eisegesis of
the human desire. Too many read the Bible
through spectacles of tradition and prejudice.
No book suffers in this way as does the Word of
God. A similar remark will apply to the teach
ing of the Bible regarding Melchizedek, and many
other persons and subjects. Many of the diffi
culties in interpreting the Bible are of human
manufacture; and so many of the objections
made by agnostic critics are not really against

l88 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
divine revelation, but against human misinterpre
tation. Let us study the Scripture references to this
mysterious king. The first one is Genesis xiv.
18-20. Abram is returning from his pursuit of
Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him,
and who had taken Lot and others as captives.
Abram had now become bold and heroic. When
in Egypt he was distrustful and pusillanimous;
but now the spirit of family loyalty and divine
obedience is strong in his soul. He won a glori
ous victory. He brought back Lot and the goods
which had been taken, as well as the people.
This expedition excited great attention, and won
general admiration among the Canaanites, and
the victorious band was hailed with joy as it
returned in peace. Abram surprised all by the
brilliant military genius which he displayed. We
were prepared to see in him gentleness, benevo
lence, and magnanimity ; but we scarcely expected
to see him the leader of heroic exploits, such as
we are accustomed to associate with the names of
Miltiades, Caesar, Cromwell, Napoleon, and many
brave Britons and Americans of recent days.
The king of Sodom went out to meet Abram,
and he is filled with admiration over the success
of this dashing expedition. Abram is now in
the valley of Shaveh, or the level valley, which is
the king's dale. This name it may have received
because it was used for military exercises and
kingly sports ; perhaps it was also a place of great

WHO WAS MELCHIZEDEK? 189
beauty, and it may have been associated in all
subsequent times with the historic events here
narrated. There Abram is met by Melchizedek,
king of Salem. He is a much more illustrious
personage than the king of Sodom. He is com
mendable for his personal excellence, his peace-
loving disposition, and his religious spirit. He
refreshed Abram with bread and wine. -He thus
expressed his gratitude to Abram, who had won
for the land freedom, peace, and prosperity. It
is simply ridiculous to find here any direct refer
ence to the Lord's supper. What could this an
cient king have known of that ordinance? The
bread and wine may have been not only for the
refreshment of Abram and his followers, but also
as a symbol of the divine blessing. They thus
recognized God as the true author of the military
successes which had been achieved. Melchizedek
combined in himself the offices of priest and king,
as was not uncommon in patriarchal times; he
was, as he has been called in this discourse, a
"king-priest." Balaam was a prophet and Mel
chizedek a priest among heathen people. God
thus, in marvellous ways, caused His light to shine
among the benighted nations. The title given to
Melchizedek is never given to Abram, and be
cause he was thus honored above Abram, the
"father of the faithful," and the " friend of God,"
many Jewish and other commentators have con
sidered that he must have been a supramundane
being, and that his priesthood must have been

190 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
something quite other than the patriarchal priest
hood. The fact also that Abram paid him tithes,
tenths, emphasizes this opinion. These were the
usual offerings to God, and were a recognition
of the divine priesthood of Melchizedek. His
priestly benediction on Abram tended also to
confirm this opinion. No other priestly act is
recorded of Melchizedek, but still others he may
have frequently discharged. His hospitality was
simply in harmony with the customs of that an
cient time and country.
In Psalm ex. 4 we have the words " Thou art
a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek" ;
and in the seventh chapter of Hebrews we have a
full reference to Melchizedek, and an argument
founded on the facts there stated. But none of
these references justify us in supposing that
he was Shem ; for Moses has continually spoken
of Shem under his own proper name, and why
should he now speak of him under another name?
The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews tells
us of Melchizedek that he was " without father,
without mother, without descent, having neither
beginning of days nor end of life. " He could not,
therefore, have been Shem, for his genealogy is
clearly given in Scripture and is traced to Adam.
Both the name of Melchizedek and that of the city
where he reigned were most appropriate to one who
was priest and king, and the predecessor of the
Messiah. There would be very little difficulty in
the account in Genesis, were it not for the refer-

WHO WAS MELCHIZEDEK? 191
ence to Melchizedek in Hebrews, and the ques
tions which that passage has aroused. The question
has often been asked. Where was Salem? Jerome
makes Salem to be identical with a town near
Scythopolis or Bethshan, which in his day was
called Salem, and in which were extensive ruins
which were called those of Melchizedek's palace.
But it is now more common to make Salem Jeru
salem. It was probably called Salem at that time ;
it is so called as late as the time of the psalmist.
In Psalm Ixxvi. i, 2 we read: "In Judah is God
known ; his name is great in Israel. In Salem also
is his tabernacle and his dwelling-place in Zion."
Later it was called Jebus, because it was possessed
by the Jebusites, and later still Jerusalem.
The valley of Shaveh is the valley east of Jeru
salem, through which the Kidron flows. Josephus
asserts the identity of the two places, and he also
asserts that the king's dale is in this immediate
vicinity. We thus locate the place where Mel
chizedek met Abram, and we have an historical
setting for Melchizedek himself.
Not the Messiah.
That he could not have been the Messiah is
clearly seen from the language of the Epistle to
the Hebrews. If he were the Christ, it could not
be said with propriety that he " was made like the
Son of God," for that would be saying that he was
made like unto himself. Neither could it be said
that Christ was constituted a priest "after the

192 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
order of Melchizedek"; for that would be affirm
ing that he was a type of Himself. A natural in
terpretation of this passage shows conclusively
that he was not the Messiah. The statement that
he was without father, without mother, and with
out descent, etc. , has really in it no serious diffi
culty of interpretation. We know that in the
estimation of the Jews it was very important that
the line of the priesthood should be carefully kept ;
that all their genealogies should be accurately pre
served, and that the direct descent of their priests
from Aaron should be capable of conclusive de
monstration. But the writer affirms that in the
case of Melchizedek there was no such genealogi
cal table ; that there was no record of the name
of his father or mother; that he suddenly ap
peared, then mysteriously disappeared, and that
thus he stood alone. He once crossed the track
of Abram, as we have seen, at a most interesting
time in the patriarch's life. He is then lost to
the sacred writings for a thousand years; then,
in a few words, he appears for a moment in the
ancient psalm as a type of the coming Lord. He
came again out of the shadows in the Epistle to
the Hebrews, and then -retired into eternal silence.
The writer of the Epistle is discussing the priest
hood of Christ ; and, as a priest, he, like Melchize
dek, stood alone; his name is not in the line of
priests ; he pertained to another rather than to a
priestly tribe ; his ancestors are not mentioned as
priests, and as a priest he had no descendants.

WHO WAS MELCHIZEDEK? 193
Thus, like Melchizedek, he had a lonely con-
spicuity; as a priest he was absolutely unique,
except for the likeness to Melchizedek. The
genealogy of Christ as a man can be traced, but
not as a priest ; and it is His priesthood which is
the subject of discussion. Melchizedek may have
had a very honorable ancestry, but it is not re
corded, for the names of his ancestors nowhere
appear in the records of the priestly office. In
like manner his descendants were utterly un
known; so far as the genealogical records go, he
was without descent. Under the Mosaic dispen
sation the law determined all things pertaining
to the priestly offlce ; and in the time of Moses
the Levites were required to serve from the age
of thirty to fifty ; after passing fifty they were re
lieved from the more arduous duties of their
office. Later they began their service at the age
of twenty. But the writer of this Epistle tells us
that regarding Melchizedek nothing of this kind
occurred. No one knew when he entered . on his
office, and no one knew when he retired from it.
So far as the records go — which were kept so
carefully in all other cases — Melchizedek was
without beginning of days or end of life. There
is no difficulty at any of these points; we have
really put the difficulties into the record, instead
of finding them already there. After having dis
appeared for a thousand years, since the time of
the psalmist, a reference to Melchizedek appears
to teach the Hebrew Christians that it was the
13

194 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
purpose of God to abolish the Levitical priest
hood. Christ's priesthood is above that of Aaron
and all priests. Melchizedek was a priest not by
inheritance, but by divine appointment; so was
Christ. Thus Christ was a priest not after the
order of Aaron, but after the order of Melchizedek.
This statement suggests the harmony between
the priesthood of both as brought out in the iioth
Psalm. The points of resemblance between the
priesthood of Christ and Melchizedek are very
striking. Neither was of the Levitical order;
both were superior to Abram ; both were kings
and priests; both were kings of peace and of
righteousness ; and, so far as priestly records are
concerned, neither had beginning of life nor end
of days. Abram recognized in Melchizedek one
higher in official standing as a minister of religion
than himself. Abram gave Melchizedek the " top
of the heap," as the Greek word rendered spoils
in Hebrews vii. 4 literally means. After a battle
the Greeks were accustomed to collect the spoils
into a heap, and before they distributed them to
themselves, they took off a portion from the top
and gave it to the gods. So Abram honored Mel
chizedek; so in all things Christ ought to have
the preeminence.
Josephus has probably given us the correct view
of Melchizedek; he makes him a Canaanitish
prince, a man of noble character and godly life.
He seems to have been a man raised up by God
in an unlikely environment. He was a man whose

WHO WAS MELCHIZEDEK ? 195
genealogy was veiled in mystery, so that in this
particular, as in other respects, he is a type of
Christ. All God's true children are kings and
priests unto God. The lowliest son of God in
our day is vastly higher in the kingdom of heaven
than was even Melchizedek. We are heirs of
God, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. We are
a preserved people for a reserved inheritance.
In some sense, the very angels are our minister
ing servants. Let us rejoice in our high honors,
and loyally perform our lowliest duties.
When we return weary from some fierce confiict,
there will be some servant of our divine King to
minister refreshment in the hour of need. Like
Abram we shall eat and be strengthened. Al
though Melchizedek could have had no thought of
the Lord's Supper, we can in that ordinance re
joice that Christ gives Himself to us as the Bread
of Life. To us, as weary pilgrims and as tired
soldiers. He comes forth to cheer us in the path of
duty. The weary march and the heavy fighting
fit us for His divine companionship in the sacred
ordinance. Fierce temptations assail us, the
blood of the battle stains us ; but the hour of re
freshment assuredly will come.
Let us strive to be God's servants for the re
freshment of our fellow-servants. Beautiful was
Melchizedek as a type of Christ in his priestly and
regal service. Moses did not claim to be either
priest or king. David would not intrude into the
priestly office. But we are both priests and kings.

196 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
Melchizedek in his quiet, pure, and mysterious
life may never have realized the great honor
which was put upon him when in refreshing
Abram he became a type of Christ. He gave to
God the honor of Abram's victory. Let us give
God similar honor. Let us render similar service
to our fellow-pilgrims, and let us ever la)' our
crowns, here and hereafter, at the pierced feet of
him who was the Lord of both Abram and Mel
chizedek.

XIL
WAS THE DESTRUCTION OF SODOM NAT
URAL OR SUPERNATURAL?

XII.
WAS THE DESTRUCTION OF SODOM
NATURAL OR SUPERNATURAL?
The destruction of Sodom and the other cities
of the Jordanic circle, as given in Genesis xix.
23-28, is one of the most solemn events recorded
in Scripture. The physical features of this ter
rible disaster are deeply impressive, and the moral
lessons are profoundly instructive. It is quite
certain that Sodom was a place of considerable
importance. Like the other four cities of the
plain, it had a king of its own, and it clearly was
the chief town of the Pentapolis. Its name has
gone throughout the world as the synonym of
degrading vice. These Jordanic cities are first
named in Genesis x. 19 as belonging to the Can
aanites. They are next mentioned in Genesis
xiii. 10-13 ill connection with the choice made
by Lot, when he and Abram stood together be
tween Bethel and Ai. Before them, and dis
tinctly in view, was at least a part of the " circle
of Jordan." Then it was conspicuous for the
abundance of its streams, the greenness of its
grass, and the attractiveness of all its features.
It is spoken of at that time as a " garden of Jeho
vah." The " ciccar of Jordan" is frequently men-

200 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
tioned as the technical expression used to describe
these towns. Meaning of Sodom.
It is difficult to be absolutely certain as to the
meaning of the name Sodom. Some writers affirm
that it means "burning"; but others equally
learned make it mean " vineyard" ; and still others
connect it with a word meaning to enclose or to
fortify. Probably the word burning better than
any other expresses the meaning, although it is
possible that the name has this meaning from the
subsequent catastrophe. It may, however, be
true that fire had already passed over this valley
previous to the great destruction now under con
sideration. In the account which we have of the
battle of the kings, we are told in Genesis xiv. lo
that "the vale of Siddim was full of slime-pits."
This expression denotes places where petroleum,
which became by evaporation bitumen, oozed out
of the ground, or places which had been exca
vated in securing bitumen to be employed as
cement in the construction of the houses erected
here. In Deuteronomy the place is spoken of as
never again to be inhabited ; and in several Scrip
tures it is referred to as a place where no man was
abiding, a land turned to ashes, as overthrown
and burned, and as cities in ashes at the time of
the writers. The fate of the cities is referred to
in the New Testament as a solemn warning to
those who should live ungodly. Our Lord makes

THE DESTRUCTION OF SODOM. 201
the punishment of those who reject His gospel,
and who refuse to listen to His disciples, as worse
than that of the people of these doomed cities.
Josephus speaks of the five cities whose ashes ap
pear even in the fruit of the valleys which these
cities once occupied.
Location of These Cities.
Once it was very common to suppose that the
site of these cities is the basin now occupied by
the Dead Sea. This supposition makes the Dead
Sea to have been caused by the fearful catastrophe
which destroyed the cities. The idea was that the
Jordan ran through the entire length of the Ghor
or valley from the base of Mount Hermon to the
Gulf of Akaba. This theory was long maintained
with great tenacity, and the evidence in its sup
port seemed to be reasonably strong. It is now,
however, abandoned by the most careful students
of the locality and of the Scripture narrative.
The subject, it is admitted, is surrounded by con
siderable difficulty ; but although Burckhardt dis
covered the valley of the Arabah between the
Dead Sea and the Red Sea, and so gave probabil
ity to the idea that the Jordan once fiowed through
this valley to the Red Sea, until the convulsion
which overthrew the cities, the theory is now seen
to be untenable. It is admitted that it is an at
tractive theory; bat almost midway between the
two seas there is a watershed seven hundred and
eighty-seven feet above the ocean level, and north

202 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
of it streams fiow into the Dead Sea, and streams
to the south fiow into the Gulf of Akaba. It is
also affirmed, as the result of careful measure
ments, that the Gulf of Akaba is thirty-five feet
higher than the Mediterranean Sea ; it is, there
fore, more than thirteen hundred feet above the
Dead Sea and the Jordan valley. Dean Stanley
has well said that a convulsion which would have
depressed the valley of the Jordan so far below
the Mediterranean would have shattered Palestine
to its centre. Perhaps the whole valley, from
the base of Hermon to the Red Sea, was once an
arm of the Indian Ocean or adjoining seas. When
changes came, which caused the sea somewhat to
subside, the three lakes now found in this valley
were left with the Jordan as their connecting
river. It is still difficult, notwithstanding all the dis
coveries that have been made, to locate with cer
tainty these cities of the plain. Josephus speaks
indefinitely of Sodom, but he refers to Zoar in
such terms as to suggest that it was at the south
end of the sea. Eusebius uses language of the
same general purport. This was the opinion of
most travellers during the Middle Ages, and is still
that of the majority of modern visitors and topog
raphers. Dr. Edward Robinson is very clear
and emphatic in his affirmations to that effect.
We know that the southern end of the sea is quite
distinct from all other parts as to its depth ; the
northern part of the lake being thirteen hundred

THE DESTRUCTION OF SODOM. 203
feet deep, and the southern being only thirteen feet
deep, indicating that this latter part is of recent
formation. The name Usdum, given to the ridge
of salt at the southwest corner, seems to locate
Sodom. The name Amrah, given to a valley
among the mountains in this general neighbor
hood, it is easily seen is a modiflcation of the word
Gomorrha. Mr. Tristram, however, for a time
gave it as his opinion that the cities were at the
northern and not at the southern end of the sea ; but
later he modified this view, and adopted the tradi
tional opinion in its stead. Dr. Selah Merrill, whose
long residence in Palestine, and whose careful
study of all its features, give his opinions weight,
locates the cities at the northern end, and Sir J.
W. Dawson adopts the opinion of Dr. Merrill in
this regard. With the utmost modesty, and yet
with considerable certainty, the traditional view
is presented in these lectures. It is not plain, as
was once the current opinion, that these five cities
were submerged in the lake. It was once affirmed
that the walls, columns, and capitals of great build
ings were discerned below the water; but that
opinion is now virtually abandoned by all whose
authority is of any weight. It is not even certain
that the destruction was caused by an overflow of
water ; the probability is that the overflow of water
was a comparatively unimportant element in the
catastrophe. It is affirmed by those who favor
the northern end of the lake that Abram and Lot
could not see Sodom as they stood between Bethel

204 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
and Ai, except the cities were located at the
northern end of the lake. But it should be borne
in mind that if they saw a part of the circle, that
fact would meet all the requirements of the his
tory. Neither is the account of the invasion of
the five kings conclusive evidence that the cities
were at the northern end of the lake ; nor yet is it
convincing as to that location when reference is
made to Abram's view of the evidences of de
struction as he witnessed them from some point
near Hebron. The Scripture reference to Zoar
gives great weight to the traditional view that the
cities were at the southern end of the lake. No
one can carefully note the differences between the
depths of the lower part of the lake and its other
portions, to which reference has been made, with
out feeling that some terrible catastrophe produced
the portion of the lake below the Tongue, or El-
Lisan.
The Dead Sea.
In studying this sea we must entirely divest our
minds of all the superstitions which are attached
to it by all mediaeval and by some modern trav
ellers. The idea that no bird could fiy across the sur
face without immediately perishing, and that the
touch of its water was fatal to health, and even to
life, is an utterly groundless and even ridiculous
superstition. Ignorant monks are largely respon
sible for these foolish and false notions. There

THE DESTRUCTION OF SODOM. 205
is not in them a single element of truth. Whether
seen in sunshine or storm, the Dead Sea is an im
pressive and beautiful sheet of water. Its waters
are pellucid to a remarkable degree, and they are
also free from the pollution common to many of
our inland lakes. The neighborhood of this sea
before the destruction of Sodom was a favorite
resort for invalids and pleasure-seekers, and it
would not be at all surprising if it should once
more become an attractive place for travellers,
and, at certain seasons of the year, for invalids.
Great hotels may yet be erected on its shores, and
lines of railways may carry travellers to its vicin
ity. Nothing can surpass the brilliant colors seen
in its direction and over the mountains of Moab
as one looks out over both from the Mount of
Olives. The brilliant tints in Holman Hunt's
" Scapegoat" are not an exaggeration of the
glowing colors over sea and mountains under the
rays of the setting sun. No one who has enjoyed
that sight will ever forget the glory of the burn
ished mountains and the resplendent sea. The
enormous evaporation explains in part these at
mospheric effects, which transform sea, moun
tains, and sky into a fairyland of wondrous splen
dor and glory.
Its Names.
The Dead Sea is a name entirely unknown to
Bible writers. They call it the Salt Sea, the Sea
of the Plain, the East Sea, and once simply The

2o6 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
Sea. The Greeks and the Romans called it the
Asphaltic Lake. The absence of living creatures
in its waters, and the supposed deadly influence
of its neighborhood, led to its being called the
Dead Sea. The Arabs call it Bahr Lut, or the
Sea of Lot. Until after the fearful catastrophe,
with which its name is associated, no notions of
horror attach to its name. The valley of the Dead
Sea and of the Jordan is between fifteen and six
teen miles from Jerusalem. The Mediterranean
Sea is twenty-six hundred feet below Jerusalem,
but this descent is spread over about thirty-five
miles ; recent and skilful measurements show that
the Dead Sea is thirteen hundred feet below the
Mediterranean, and almost four thousand feet be
low Jerusalem, although the distance is less than
half that to the Mediterranean. Sir J. W. Daw
son informs us that the descent from Jerusalem
to the Jordan is about the rate of one foot in
twenty feet. The differences in climate are cor
respondingly great. One may leave a temperate
climate at Jerusalem, go fifteen miles, and find a
tropical climate at the Jordan ; one may leave, as
was true in January, 1884, snow-drifts five feet
deep at the Jaffa Gate at Jerusalem, go fifteen
miles to Jericho, and find there a warm and
even a sultry atmosphere. The marked diversi
ties in climate and soil in Palestine must have had
a great influence on the habits and character of
the people. The Dead Sea occupies the lowest
part of the crevasse, about two hundred and fifty

THE DESTRUCTION OF SODOM. 207
miles long, reaching from the foot of Mount Her
mon to the Gulf of Akaba. The Dead Sea is
forty-six miles long, and is over ten miles wide
at its greatest breadth. Its area is three hundred
square miles. It receives numerous perennial
streams and winter torrents on the east and south,
besides the full stream of the Jordan, which pours
into it, it is estimated, six million tons of water
daily; and this entire amount is carried off by
the great evaporation. It is not difficult to see
how the hot and dry atmosphere is capable of
absorbing this enormous quantity of water. The
sea has no outlet, visible or invisible. In the
nature of the case, it cannot have an outlet, ex
cept there be, as was once supposed, a great pit
at its bottom, leading to the centre of the earth.
It is the most depressed sheet of water on the
globe. Lake Urmia in Persia, seven miles from
the town of Urmia, is said to be more salt than
the Dead Sea, and Lake Elton, which is on the
steppes east of the Volga, and which supplies a
great part of the salt of Russia, is also, perhaps,
more salt, although it is difficult to get authorita
tive figures. The great Salt Lake of Utah has
marked features in common with the Dead Sea;
and this physical likeness confirmed the early
Mormons in the belief that this salt sea and its
river Jordan were indeed parts of a second land of
promise. The American salt sea is daily losing
its saltness, and what the final result will be it is
difficult to determine. The fish, which are car-

2o8 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
ried down by the Jordan to the Dead Sea, die
almost immediately, and even fish accustomed to
the Mediterranean die soon in the Dead Sea.
The Jordan pushes its brown waters for a consid
erable distance into the sea, but it soon loses its
vitality and becomes sluggish. In the afternoon
a deep haze rises and hangs over the sea and the
vicinity, and it may be well likened to " the smoke
going up forever and ever. "
The huge barrier of fossil salt, which is at the
south end, accounts in part for the saltness of the
sea, and the great evaporation of fresh water com
pletes the result in that direction. The waters
are usually placid, and are quite inodorous, blue,
limpid, and beautiful. The degree of saltness
depends naturally upon the nearness of fresh
water streams pouring into the sea. The waters
have a heavy and oily aspect. A gallon of dis
tilled water weighs ten pounds ; a gallon of Dead
Sea water twelve and a quarter pounds. A large
part of this extra weight is chloride of sodium,
or common salt; chloride of magnesium causes
the bitter taste, and chloride of calcium gives it
its oily feeling. So dense is the water that float
ing is easy, but sinking is difficult ; swimming is
also difficult, as the feet constantly rise to the sur
face. One rolls about in the water like a cork
tub, and one can almost sit in it as he would in a
rocking-chair. Horses experience strange sensa
tions in it, as their feet constantly rise above the
water. Irritation of the skin often results from

THE DESTRUCTION OF SODOM. 209
bathing, especially if there are abrasions of the
skin, as there are sure to be in a country where
insects so abound. In 1848 Lieutenant Lynch, of
the United States navy, spent three weeks in a
survey of the Dead Sea. It is said that, while
coming in metallic boats into the sea from the Jor
dan, he met a gale, and the heavy waves struck the
boat as if they were the sledge-hammers of Titans.
Ducks occasionally may be seen floating .on the
water, utterly contradicting the mediseval theory
regarding the water and its immediate atmosphere.
Bare mountain ranges flank the sea, rising from
fifteen hundred to two thousand feet.
Great quantities of bitumen, sulphur, and musca
are found on the shores ; from the latter souvenirs
are made and offered for sale in Bethlehem and
Jerusalem ; this substance takes on a fine polish,
and will burn like cannel coal, but emits an al
most intolerable odor. The low promontory called
"El-Lisan," the Tongue, pushes westward and
northward into the sea from the eastern shore ; it is
ten miles long and from five to six miles wide. The
greatest depth of the sea is thirteen hundred feet,
but south of the Tongue the circular bay, as already
remarked, is only about thirteen feet deep. The
depth of the sea varies considerably according to
the season. It is certainly a remarkable sheet of
water. Lake Sir-I-Kol is fifteen thousand six
hundred feet above the level of the sea ; this is the
most elevated sheet of water on the globe, and it
is well called by the natives, Bam-i-duniah, mean-
14

2IO OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
ing " the roof of the world. " The river Oxus rises
in this lake. As it is the most elevated body of
water, so the Dead Sea is the most depressed.
Beautiful as it is in many respects, it is still a
steaming caldron, and so great is the evaporation
that it can never be filled to overfiowing. The
most impressive thought in Norway, as one
watches the splendor of the midnight sun, is that
of deep and almost holy awe, in the midst of the
profound silence and the golden sunshine of the
midnight hour. In like manner, a sense of death
like silence, of deepest awe, and of the conscious
ness of a holy presence impresses the mind and
heart as one stands by the shores of this mysteri
ous sea. Physical Causes of the Catastrophe.
To the discussion of this thought all previous
remarks have tended. Here we are to see the
meeting of the natural and the supernatural. If
we find adequate physical causes for the fearful
cataclysm, let no one say that we on that account
deny the supernatural element in the destruction
of Sodom. God can avail Himself of His resources
stored up in the heart of the earth as truly as of
His resources in the region vaguely called the
heavens. They are inadequate, and often inac
curate, interpreters of the Scriptures who refuse
to see the presence of God in the physical as well
as in the spiritual forces employed. These inter
preters are often unfair to those who see God as

THE DESTRUCTION OF SODOM. 2Ti
truly on earth as in heaven. The men who say
that if we give due place to physical phenomena
we are disloyal to the Scripture and its divine
author ; who say that if Jonah goes the Bible goes,
the church goes, and Jesus goes, are guilty of ex
treme folly, alike in their interpretations of and
deductions from Holy Scripture. We firmly be
lieve in the historicity of the story of Jonah, but
if it could be proved that the story were not his
toric, neither the Bible nor Jesus would go. We
firmly believe that the divine character and mis
sion of Jesus Christ do not depend for their reality
upon any man's interpretation of the story of
Jonah. Men who make statements of this kind
play directly into the hands of unbelievers ; such
men do all in their power to give away much of
their case. Unbelievers will attack the outposts
of these men, and perhaps carry some insignifi
cant place of defence, and then, in harmony with
the admission of these interpreters, unbelievers
will claim that they have captured the citadel.
We may believe that the Bible does not say,
when fairly interpreted, that the sun and moon
stood still at the command of Joshua ; indeed, we
may be unable to discover that Joshua really ever
gave such a command. Do we therefore deny
the supernatural? Are we therefore infidel toward
the Bible and disloyal toward God? Who has the
right so to assert? In adopting such an interpre
tation we may be simply showing our loyalty to
the exact teaching of the Bible and our devotion

212 OLD TESIAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
to its divine author. Personally we may believe
that ravens fed Elijah at the brook Cherith; but
if another interprets the word orebim, translated
ravens in our common version, to mean, as it may
mean, with slight vowel changes which no sen
sible man considers to be authoritative, "Ara
bians," or "merchants," or "the people of Orbi,"
a neighboring town, what right have we to charge
him -^ith denying the Bible? He may be only the
more strict in his adherence to the Bible. Some
men think that if we deny or doubt their inter
pretation of certain difficult passages we are dis
believers of the Bible and no better than publi
cans and sinners. Their word they deem to be
virtually God's v/ord. Who made these men
masters in Israel? Whence gained they such
wisdom? The more unscholarly they are the
more authoritative do they become. Spiritual
insight into the Bible is one thing ; it is the chief
thing in studying certain passages. But other
parts can be understood only by accurate scholar
ship as the result of prolonged and devout study
of history, philology, archeology, and related
sciences. Certain peripatetic evangelists are
largely responsible for these unscholarly inter
pretations, illogical deductions, and unscriptural
affirmations. However good their intentions
may be, the practical result of their methods is
to weaken the authority of Scripture, and to dis
honor its divine Author.
In discovering the attendant physical phenom-

THE DESTRUCTION OF SODOM. 213
ena in the destruction of Sodom we recognize God
as the God of heaven and earth, and recognize
this fearful catastrophe as perfectly natural, so
far as regards the means employed, and as en
tirely supernatural so far as regards their employ
ment at that time, for that purpose, and in the
severe degree which secured the result. We are
told in Genesis xiv. 10, as we have already seen,
that slime-pits abounded in this vicinity. What
are slime-pits? Simply petroleum wells. Where-
ever bitumen abounds eruptions are liable .to
occur. Petroleum exudes from the rocks, both
on the sides and on the bottom, of the Dead Sea ;
it is then hardened by evaporation, and asphal-
tum is formed. We know that this plain was
liable to earthquakes and volcanic eruptions from
the earliest times of which we have any record.
We know that the Dead Sea sends up great
masses of asphaltum, especially when earthquakes
occur, as in 1834 and in 1837. Sir J. W. Dawson
is as loyal, humble, and devout as a believer as
he is learned, accurate, and fearless as a scientist;
and'he shows that this valley was subject to con
ditions which frequently obtain in the oil regions
of our own country and Canada. He shows that
a few years ago, in the oil district of Petrolia
in Canada, a borehole struck a reservoir of gas
which rushed up with tremendous force, carrying
with it a great quantity of petroleum. This gas
at once took fire, rising in a tall column of flame,
and burning petroleum spread over the ground.

214 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
setting fir e to many tank s in the vicinity. A village
was burned, and several lives were lost ; a whirl
wind was caused, which carried dense smoke into
the air, and soon burning bitumen fell in showers.
This is almost an exact description of what hap
pened in Sodom when it is said that God rained
upon it brimstone and fire, that is, burning brim
stone, out of heaven. The description of the de
struction of Petrolia is in many features a descrip
tion of the destruction of Sodom. Nothing is
more certain than that science supports the Bible.
Prof. G. F. Wright, of Oberlin College, a man
who stands high in the ranks of scientists, shows
clearly in his volume, " Scientific Aspects of
Christian Evidences," that the whole region
about the Dead Sea has the appearance now of
being an abandoned "oil district," and that all
the conditions for the catastrophe described in the
Bible were present in the inflammable accumula
tions of oil and gas reservoirs.
We have only to suppose that at the time of the
destruction quantities of gas and petroleum ex
isted below the plain ; then their escape through
a fissure would produce the results described.
These combustible materials might be ignited by
lightning falling upon them, or by a convulsion
in the earth. Rising into the heavens, they would
then fall like fiery rain upon the earth. There
would be an eruption of saline water forming a
brine thick with mud. Lot's wife, no doubt, was
overtaken and suffocated by this saline storm, and

THE DESTRUCTION OF SODOM. 215
her body was so encrusted as to become not a
pillar, but, as the original has it, a mound of salt.
The exhaustion of these subterranean reservoirs
would cause a subsidence of the earth, and all the
facts described in the Scripture would follow in
the most natural way. We do God and the Bible
great injustice when we shut out the natural phe
nomena from their appropriate share in this
supernatural event. God is as much the God of
the earth beneath as of the heaven above. Every
unprejudiced geologist must see that the narra
tive in Genesis is in perfect harmony with the
geological features of the district. Nothing but
the occurrence of the events could have given rise
to the narrative, and from a scientific point of
view the account is wonderfully harmonious with
all the facts which scientific investigation has dis
covered in the neighborhood. In giving appro
priate place to these physical, phenomena we not
only do not detract from the miraculous character
of the catastrophe, but we give it the greater
prominence, because we see that in the soil itself
God had stored up all the forces for its produc
tion. There is nothing in the Bible narrative
suggestive of the wild myths which have often
been associated with this overthrow ; but all the
statements are in the fullest accordance with the
physical possibilities of that historic valley.

2l6 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
Lessons.
We see here how God can punish sinners with
physical forces associated with their own sin. We
see also the danger of looking back. Looking
back leads to going back, and going back is per
dition. Obedience would have saved Lot's wife;
disobedience wrought her utter bodily destruc
tion. It is possible to be nearly saved and yet be
wholly lost. Anxiety for salvation is not salva
tion. Conviction is not conversion.
Sin may abound amid the most charming en
vironments. Early civilizations gathered about
beautiful locations. Civilization without spiritual
religion is weakness and danger. God has hidden
fountains of judgment about every man's path.
Destruction may come in every walk of life.
Even the righteous with difficulty are saved.
Angels had to lay hold of Lot and hasten him
from Sodom. Lot was saved as by fire, but his
whole nature was contaminated by his evil sur
roundings. Stay not in the plain. Look not
backward to Sodom, but forward and upward to
Jesus.

XIIL
DID GOD MEAN THAT ABRAHAM SHOULD
REALLY OFFER ISAAC?

XIIL
DID GOD MEAN THAT ABRAHAM
SHOULD REALLY OFFER ISAAC?
The account of the trial, triumph, and reward
of Abraham's faith is found in the twenty-second
chapter of Genesis. Abram has now become
Abraham, and Sarai has become Sarah, and this
change in the names indicates a new relation to
God, and suggests a new development of their
character. We have passed through several
Stages of great interest in the remarkable life of
the " friend of God. " We have seen him leaving
country and kin at God's call; and we have seen
him in the land of strangers because of the stress
of famine. We have seen him returning to his
own country, and being separated from Lot, who
selfishly sought richer pastures for his numer
ous flocks. We have seen Abraham winning
superb victories over plundering kings and ma
rauding hordes. We have seen him in the midst
of grievous doubts about his posterity; and we
have seen him surrendering his paternal affec
tion in relation to the son of his bond-maid. We
have seen him rejoicing in the possession of a
son, whose mother was Sarah, and whose birth
was in fulfilment of glorious promises from God.

220 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
But we are now to see him passing through the
' most difficult experience of his heroic career. It
is always fascinatingly interesting to see illus
trious characters in trying situations, conquering
great difficulties, and rising superior over subtle
temptations under the inspiration of great moral
principles. Abraham seemed at this time to have
been approaching the serene evening of his
troubled life ; the early morning was over, the
ruffled noon had passed, and a calm and trium
phant evening seemed to have come. But just
then the severest trial he had ever known came
upon him like a thunderbolt out of a clear sky.
The most appalling ordeal now summons him to
a new test of faith. The intensity of the strain
which he must suffer baffles all description; it
even exhausts all our power of thought. The
terrible blow must be struck with his own hand.
God's precept seems to be antagonistic to God's
promise. Never did so terrible trial come to a
child of God, and never did a child of God win a
more glorious triumph.
The Severe Trial of Abraham's Faith.
All the circumstances of this trial combine to
make it extremely severe. To be the ineans of
putting a human being to death as a holocaust
was a terrible thought. Perhaps Abraham was
not unfamiliar with human sacrifices as offered by
the Canaanites and the early Chaldeans ; but the
peculiar nature of his trial must have severely

SHOULD ABRAHAM OFFER ISAAC? 221
tested his faith in God as a holy Being. Could
God give a command to any man to destroy his
own child? Was not Isaac the child of special
promise and hope? Did not the future salvation,
temporal and spiritual, of millions rest upon his
life? Could God give a command which should
involve such fearful consequences? The thought
of offering any one in sacrifice is terrible; but
when the victim is his own son, and such a son
as Isaac, the command is ineffably severe. The
language of the command must have lacerated
the heart of Abraham to its very core. Isaac is
called "thy son," "thine only son, Isaac, whom
thou lovest. " The terms of this command must
have gone like sharp swords to the soul of Abra
ham ; they must have pierced his heart, even as
his knife was to pierce the body of Isaac. It
would be difficult to imagine a greater accumula
tion of affectionate terms for testing parental love.
But we must not suppose that God did this " to
tempt" Abraham in the ordinary meaning of the
word tempt. The word is here used in the sense
of try, prove, or test; in the Revised Version the
word is correctly translated "did prove." The
ordinary meaning of tempt is to solicit to evil, and
in this sense, as the Apostle James teaches us,
God tempteth no man. The Hebrew word nissah
is, without doubt, correctly translated tried, tested,
or proved. All God's children must pass through
severe trials of their faith, and Abraham can be
no exception. God had only one Son without sin ;

222 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
but God did not have even one Son without suffer
ing. But God graduates our trials according to
our strength. Abraham is now able to endure a
trial of great force, for he has already developed
a sublime moral heroism. The language of the
command must have been so understood by Abra
ham that Isaac was to be offered, not simply as a
spiritual self-surrender, but really as a burnt-
offering. Sublime, indeed, was the faith which
did not stagger at this command ! Tt is true that
at this time no formal prohibition, like that of
the Mosaic code, had been issued against human
sacrifices; but every instinct in Abraham's heart,
as the father of Isaac and as a son of God, must
have opposed his obedience to the command, ex
cept for his triumphant faith in God's wisdom,
love, and power.
The divine origin of the command adds to the
severity of the trial. It is distinctly affirmed that
it was God who proved Abraham's faith. Could
a God who was just and holy issue such a com
mand? This question might well tax Abraham's
faith ; it sometimes taxes the faith of men even
to this hour. This command has been a fruitful
theme of cavil with the enemies of divine revela
tion through all the centuries. It is positively
affirmed by some that it is utterly inconsistent
with the attributes of a holy God. Some have
endeavored to remove the difficulty by declaring
that the entire narrative is mythical ; some that it
was merely a .subjective impulse on the part of

SHOULD ABRAHAM OFFER ISAAC? 223
Abraham,, and others that it was directly inspired
by Satan. But it is not too much to say that these
suppositions are more difficult of belief than is
the plain statement of the narrative. God as the
Author of life can take it away as it pleases Him
without any shadow of injustice. He did not give
life to Isaac upon the condition that it was to be
taken away only by the event which we call death.
The conduct of Junius Brutus, who passed the
sentence upon his own children that before his
eyes they should be beaten to death with rods,
has been justified by reputable historians and
moralists, because of the circumstances of the
case. Brutus owed this duty to his country. Did
Abraham owe less duty to his God? Abraham
seems now to have been on intimate terms with
God; he readily distinguished the voice of God
from all other voices. It is the high dignity of a
moral being that he is placed in circumstances of
moral probation. God had a lofty purpose in ap
plying this heart-searching test to Abraham, and
only He who knows the heart and who is holy,
just, and good, can determine the right tests which
are to be employed for reaching the highest moral
ends. The event does present many and great diffi
culties, but it also suggests reasonable explana
tions. We cannot suppose that Abraham was in
error in believing that God called for the actual
sacrifice, but we know that this was an exceptional
command for a unique occasion. We know also

224 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
with absolute certainty that this command does
not authorize human sacrifices; on the contrary,
the result shows that God virtually prohibits hu
man sacrifice. We must bear in mind also that
God never intended that the command would be
literally executed. He knew from the beginning
what the result would be ; He foresaw the faith of
His servant, and He knew when He gave the com
mand that He would intervene at the right moment
to save the father's heart and the boy's life. His
purpose was to test Abraham's faith. This signal
instance of unquestioning submission to the will
of God has been a shining Hght upon the path of
many to cheer them in the way of obedience.
Had the impulse been from Abraham's own mind,
desiring to rise above his heathen neighbors in
the value of his offering, the narrative would not
represent God as giving the command. Abraham
is to rise to loftier heights of faith than he had
yet attained; his faith is to be perfected. He
must not trust in the life of Isaac, but rather in
the promise of God. He must give his son up as
if he were dead, so that he may receive him as a
gift from God, who, as the writer to the Hebrews
tells us, Abraham believed could raise him from
the dead.
But there is a still higher thought which must
enter into this whole discussion. The difficulty
is largely removed when we consider that there
is here a typical reference to the sacrifice of
Christ. When the heathen practised human

SHOULD ABRAHAM OFFER ISAAC? 225
sacrifices their act implied their sense of the in
sufficiency of animal sacrifices. The true idea of
sacrifice was fulfilled in Christ of whom Isaac was
only a type. Isaac's sacrifice was not accom
plished ; it foreshadowed its completion in Jesus
Christ, who in the fashion of man became obedient
unto the death of the cross. We must see, indeed
we cannot help seeing, this fuller meaning in this
ancient narrative. In John viii. 56, Jesus, when
addressing the unbelieving Jews, said : " Your
father Abraham rejoiced to see my day ; and he
saw it, and was glad." On what occasion in
Abraham's life could these words so fittingly have
their application as in his constructive offering of
Isaac? It is not here said that Abraham rejoiced
to see Christ Himself, but to see His day. This
must imply that it was the peculiar day or hour
in Christ's life which gave that life its essential
character, which Abraham actually saw. What
was that day or hour but the one to which CJirist
so often referred as "my hour — the hour," the
time when he was betrayed into the hands of
sinners? The laying down of his life constituted
Jesus the Redeemer of the world. When Abra
ham constructively sacrificed his only son, he saw
Christ's day as at no other time in his life. This
is the natural interpretation of our Lord's refer
ence to Abraham. If the entire significance of
this mysterious command of God was a trial of
Abraham's faith, that result could have been se
cured without directing Abraham to the place
15

226 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
which later was the site of Jerusalem, and to offer
up his sacrifice on or near the very spot where
afterward the Son of God gave His life for the re
demption of men. Without at all forcing the
natural meaning of Scripture, we cannot help
seeing in Abraham's sacrifice a suggestion of the
love of God which led Him to give His " only be
gotten Son" for a lost world, and in the obedience
of Isaac we cannot fail to be reminded of Him who
bore His cross to Calvary and died thereon as a
willing sacrifice for the sins of men.
The Transcendent Victory of Faith.
This was the grand crisis, the crowning event,
the glorious victory in the history of the patriarch.
He was called to a high destiny ; he has already
been taught to believe in God on His bare promise ;
and he has been taken into covenant with Jeho
vah. More and more does the glory of God shine
in his faith and devotion. He is now to show
that he is as one born again, that he is dead to
self and alive to God. But he would have been
less than human if this terrible test did not cause
him indescribable pain. But his obedience was
prompt ; he rose up early in the morning and pre
pared for the journey. What a morning that
must have been in Abraham's tent! See him
starting with his young men and Isaac, the wood
being prepared for the burnt-offering! Did he
tell Sarah of the command? Perhaps he had not
the courage ; her affection for Isaac might have

SHOULD ABRAHAM OFFER ISAAC? 227
overpowered Abraham's faith. What wonderful
thoughts must have been in his tender, obedient,
brave, but breaking heart! The brief, senten
tious, and somewhat broken clauses of the narra
tive at this point finely set forth his calm deliber
ation and his unflinching heroism. No one better
than he could have appreciated the apparent in
consistency between the divine precept and the
divine promise concerning Isaac ; but faith glori
ously triumphed. Still the moral difficulty of
offering a human sacriflce remained ; and its only
solution was in the divine command. The divine
Creator, within the limits of absolute rectitude,
will do right even though human reason- cannot
understand the divine action. The story is told
with exquisite simplicity. The distance from
Beersheba to Moriah, the Salem of Melchizedek,
is about forty-five miles. Perhaps the first day
was somewhat broken by the necessary prepara
tions; we may, therefore, assume that they
travelled fifteen miles that day, twenty on the
second day, and on the third day they would come
early within sight of the appointed place. Jewish
tradition tells us that the place was indicated by
a cloud of glory or a pillar of fire. Behold the
solemn procession ! Was there ever such a journey
taken on this earth? Abraham commands his
young men to remain behind while he and the
young lad go forward to worship. He dare not
open his heart in speech in the presence of his
servants. They might have interposed to prevent

2 28 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
the execution of his purpose; they might have
believed that he was actually beside himself. On
what grounds did Abraham intimate that he and
the lad would return to the servants? Was this
an act of pardonable dissimulation? Was it a
somewhat confused utterance? Was it not rather
an unconscious prophecy? Was it not still more
fully the voice of his all-conquering faith? He
must conceal his full purpose from his servants.
There is wonderful pathos in the words of the
seventh verse, "my father" and "my son." Did
not Abraham even now account that God was able
to raise his son even from the dead? Behold
Isaac with the wood of the burnt-offering upon
his shoulder ! Josephus reports the tradition that
he was now twenty-five years old ; he certainly was
old enough and strong enough to resist if his spirit
had not been sweetly obedient. We cannot help
beholding in him a type of our blessed Lord bear
ing His cross, perhaps to the same place. A
silence, both dreadful and mysterious, must have
fallen on both father and son, which was broken
by Isaac's question regarding a lamb for a burnt-
offering. This question must have gone to Abra
ham 's heart with terrible pain. If his heart could
have relented, that question from his beloved and
innocent boy would have melted it into compas
sion. Only the scenes of Gethsemane and Cal
vary surpass in pathos and tenderness this journey
to the sacrificial altar. Surely it must have
dawned upon Isaac that he was himself to be the

SHOULD ABRAHAM OFFER ISAAC? 229
sacrificial victim. Wonderful is Abraham's reply,
" God will provide Himself a lamb for a burnt-
offering. " This is the utterance of heroic faith
and not pious dissimulation. Silence then seems
again to have fallen upon both as they went on
together ; it was a terrible moment for father and
son. Isaac seems to have assisted in all the affect
ing preparations for the proposed sacrifice. Then
he is bound, and the mighty secret, which must
have been suspected by himself and with difficulty
was concealed by his father, is fully divulged.
Isaac now knows that he is the destined victim.
As noble as is Abraham's faith, so heroic and
divine is Isaac's obedience; truly he also "was
led as a lamb to the slaughter." We are grateful
that the sacred historian has drawn a veil over
this affecting scene ; we shall not rudely lift that
veil ; we shall not coarsely describe this painful,
solemn, and sublime event. We cannot but see
illustrations of the unspeakable love of God and
the unresisting obedience of the Lamb of God as
the sacrifice for sinners. Abraham is thoroughly
in earnest. With unhesitating promptness he
stretches forth his hand to slay his son. We al
most shudder as we approach the terrible crisis,
and nature shrinks back at the fearful spectacle.
At this crucial moment the Angel of Jehovah
interposes for Isaac's deliverance. In this fear
ful moment the awful mandate is countermanded.
The title given to this divine messenger shows
that he was not a created being, b'ut a divine per-

230 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
sonage, who often appears in the narrative under
the title of Angel of Jehovah, or the Angel of the
Covenant. Just then a substitute is found in the ram caught
in the thicket by his horns ; thus God provided
Himself with a burnt-offering. We cannot help
seeing here a foreshadowing of Christ, who was
the true sacrifice, even from before the founda
tion of the world. Faith in God was the secret
of Abraham's great triumph. There was danger
lest he should trust in Isaac rather than in God to
fulfil all of God's great promises. He now shows
that his faith rested on the bare word of God as
the ground of all his hope. Such an act of self-
sacrifice is of the highest value. It teaches lessons
of the utmost importance. It has proved a
school of faith throughout all countries and cen
turies. From the terrible ordeal Abraham came
forth like gold tried in the furnace. We may
almost hear God addressing him in these sugges
tive words: "All thy vexations
Were but my trials of thy love, and thou
Hast strangely stood the test. ''
The Divine Approval of Faith.
The voice from heaven declares that God does
not accept human sacrifices. Man is rather a
doomed culprit than an appointed victim. The
intention was enough to show Abraham's faith,
and that test had been conspicuously given by

SHOULD ABRAHAM OFFER ISAAC? 231
actual experiment. Abraham's voluntary sur
render was the keystone in the sublime arch of
his faith, which still stands before the world giv
ing Abraham praise and God glory. God inter
posed at the right time. It has been well said,
that if His interposition had been sooner, Abra
ham's faith would not have been fully tested;
and had it been later, Isaac's life had not been
saved. God accepted the will for the deed, the
arresting voice being heard when the knife was
ready to strike. The ram was then substituted
for Isaac. Abraham rises here almost to a divine
height, for in his intent he withheld not his only
son, and yet in fact he offered a substitute. We
may well see in Abraham's act a shadow of the
love of God who spared not His only Son ; and in
the substituted ram we see an emblem of Him
who, as the Lamb of God, gave Himself as an
offering for sinners.
God's approval was shown in the new name
given to the place — Jehovah-jireh, the Lord will
provide, or will see. The name was thus changed
from Moriah, which by interpretation meant " the
land of vision," a name probably given from this
event, in reference to the remarkable vision or
manifestation of God which was there made, and
to which fuller allusion is found in the new name
Jehovah-jireh. There are many interpretations
of both these names ; the latter name is in some
sense a proverb ; it declares that on the mount of
Abraham's sacrifice Jehovah would afterward re-

232 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
veal a greater sacrifice for the salvation of His
people. It clearly suggests that "man's extrem
ity is God's opportunity." This prophecy had
many fulfilments and applications, but it was
literally fulfilled in' the manifestation of the di
vine glory in Solomon's temple, and later in the
incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascension
of Jesus Christ. Some believe that Calvary and
Moriah were identical ; this we cannot affirm with
certainty, but the lessons taught by both are sub
stantially similar. He who provided a ram has
since provided the atoning Lamb, of whom this
ram was a type. Thus it was that Abraham saw
Christ's day and was glad. In the Mount, in the
highest experience of trial, God will appear to
deliver His saints. Abraham has now reached a
great moral elevation; the angel of the Lord,
therefore, confirms with great solemnity all the
special promises already made. Abraham's off
spring, instead of being cut off by the death of
Isaac, will be as the stars of heaven and the sand
of the seashore. He shall also have a great terri
tory and vast temporal power and influence. He
takes his place at the head of the faithful and as
a type of the justified. He shows that he deserves
the twofold title, the father of the faithful and
the friend of God. Thus it comes to pass that
the lessons of Moriah and Calvary sweetly blend.
East of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre a spot
is pointed out with the idea of connecting the
sacrifice of Isaac with the crucifixion of Christ.

SHOULD ABRAHAM OFFER ISAAC? 233
Just at hand there is an ancient thorn-tree, which
is usually covered with the rags of pilgrims, and
tradition affirms that it is the thicket in which the
ram was caught. Some writers have gone so far
as to see in the thorn-tree a shadow of the crown
of thorns. We need not dwell upon these fanci
ful allusions, but we can rest securely upon the
great fact that the deepest significance of this
offering of Isaac is found in the sacrifice of Jesus.
Additional Teachings.
We may learn from this most interesting his
tory that trials are sure to come to the greatest
as well as to the humblest of God's saints. All
God's children must pass through deep waters;
but God has promised that the waters shall not
overflow them. They all must go into some
flercely heated furnace; but it is certain that a
divine presence will be with them, so that the
flames shall not consume even their garments.
God has not promised to save His people from
trial, but to make them victorious over trial.
Sanctified trials separate the chaff from the wheat ;
they consume the dross and so purify the gold.
They develop character, ennoble life, and prepare
for heaven.
We see also in studying this narrative the
blessedness of trusting God. It is evermore true
that the time of greatest trial gives the opportunity
for exercising the sweetest trust. Abraham would
never know the blessedness of receiving Isaac as

234 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
one raised from the dead had he not trusted God
with unquestioning faith. Not until the summit
of the mountain is reached can we behold the
grandest display of God's glory. He who with
holds nothing from God will by a blessed experi
ence realize that God withholds nothing from him.
We here behold with new beauty and radiant
glory the true Lamb of God provided as an offer
ing for sin. Abraham may not have understood
this great truth in all its fulness, but he certainly
had some glimpses of the glory that was to be
fully revealed. In some sense Isaac bound and
laid upon the altar was a type of man's helpless
ness; in another sense he was the type of Christ
as the deliverer. All the sacrifices of the olden
time pointed to Jesus as the Lamb of God, who
taketh away the sin of the world. Past every
type and shadow, past every symbol and offering,
let us look away unto Jesus, the author and fin
isher of our faith.

XIV.
DID REBEKAH AND JACOB CHEAT ISAAC
AND ROB ESAU?

XIV.
DID REBEKAH AND JACOB CHEAT
ISAAC AND ROB ESAU?
We now enter, in the twenty-seventh chapter
of Genesis, upon the study of one of the most pic
turesque and pathetic stories in the Bible. It is
a story which at one time makes the eye moist
with tenderness, and at another time makes the
heart throb with indignation. But whether it ex
cites our praise or blame, it never fails to secure
our interest. It attracts childhood and old age
with equal force, and holds both with a resistless
charm. The inspired historian tells the story
fully and frankly, but without any comments of
his own. A thoughtless reader might suppose
that the sacred writer considered the conduct of
Rebekah and Jacob to be simply a dexterous trick,
not involving any great moral delinquency. But
the later development of the story shows plainly
how a just God punished the sins of all concerned ;
and we thus learn instructive lessons as to the
baleful results of fraud and deceit. We see plainly
that no one can oppose God and prosper.

238 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
Preparations for the Paternal Blessing.
Isaac was now growing old. He evidently had
fallen into physical, mental, and spiritual feeble
ness. It is clear that Rebekah anticipated his
speedy death, but he surprised her by living still
for more than forty years. He did not seem to
understand that in the purpose of God Jacob was
heir to the promises. He seems to have been
stricken with some sharp malady, as well as in
creasing blindness; and, like most other men, he
was unduly alarmed by his physical symptoms.
Perhaps he had not fully learned of the command
of God to Rebekah concerning her sons ; neither
may he halve known of the transference of the
birthright of Esau to Jacob. He therefore makes
arrangements for bestowing the paternal blessing
on Esau; and so he called Esau to him — Esau
bene haggadol, " Esau his son the great" — mean
ing the greater or older of his sons. Notwith
standing Esau's undutiful conduct in marrying
into the people of Canaan, his father still treated
him with great and even culpable partiality. He
directed Esau to take his weapons, J^ele, a word
signifying implements or utensils of any kind;
and it is probable that our English word weapon
originally had this broad meaning, and was not
limited to instruments of warfare. He instructs
Esau to go out to the field and secure some veni
son. The expression in the original, as Dr. Bush
has pointed out, is striking; Esau is to "hunt me

ESA U'S BIR THRIGHT. 239
a hunting," tzudak li tzayidah — that is, game of
¦whatever kind. The result shows that a kid of
the goats might have sufficed, but a cunning
hunter like Esau would naturally prefer game to
kids. The Orientals were and are fond of highly
flavored and luxurious dishes, and this is implied
in the Hebrew which we translate, " savory
meat. " The original is mataminim, from a word
meaning to taste. There is almost no end to the
salts, spices, garlics, and onions of Oriental dishes ;
thus sweet and sour, oil and acid, combine to
mystify the dish and to enhance its value in the
judgment of the Oriental palate. This Hebrew
word means delicacies of any kind which would
be grateful to the taste of Isaac, whose appetite,
as the result of his illness, needed tempting.
There is little doubt but that there was also a
religious significance in the meal of which he
desired to partake. It was probably part of a re
ligious solemnity ; it was in some sense a sacrifice
offered by the recipient of the blessing, and thus
it would be considered as a ratification of the pro
ceeding. Thus Jacob killed two kids of the goats,
although one would have been sufficient for the
meal. In addition to the religious idea involved,
Isaac's spirits would be revived and his vigor in
creased by the delicacies, for the solemn work of
bestowing the parental blessing. We thus see
Isaac preparing to perform his part in discharg
ing the solemn obligations which belonged to his
position. As Elisha demanded the influence of

240 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
music before speaking the word of the Lord, so
Isaac sought to secure the necessary physical-
vigor and inspiration for this great occasion.
Rebekah's Wily Stratagem.
Rebekah overheard Isaac giving his instruc
tions to Esau. She, doubtless, was greatly ex
cited. A crucial moment in the family history
had arrived; a sad domestic drama is to be en
acted ; plotting and counter-plotting are to be the
order of the hour. When Rebekah sees Isaac
about to bestow the blessing on Esau, she deter
mines to trust her own skill and deceit rather than
God's wisdom and purpose. Perhaps she thought
she was justified in using deceit to forward God's
plans; perhaps she saw no other way to prevent
Isaac from thwarting the divine purpose ; and
perhaps there was a strange mingling of blamable
maternal jealousy and commendable faith in the
divine and prenatal oracle. It is possible that she
did not clearly distinguish between the good and
evil in her motives. She is a resourceful woman;
she is master of the duplicity characteristic of her
family. She braves the indignation of Isaac, the
anger of Esau, and the displeasure of God. Her
course was deplorably wicked; it ought never to
have an apologist. It was an act of cruel deceit
toward her husband, of great guilt toward Esau,
and perhaps of even greater wrong toward Jacob;
but it was most of all a signal offence against
God. Her conduct has found apologists, but the

ESAU'S BIRTHRIGHT. 241
result showed that it never received the approval
of God. She was equally weak and wicked in
supposing that the fulfilment of God's promise
required treachery on her part. Her policy was
hopelessly crooked, and wholly at variance with
the trustfulness and honesty of a true child of
God. She distrusted God, and endeavored to
accomplish His purpose by utterly unrighteous
means. She is a proficient in the arts of dis
simulation ; she adopted the satanical and Jesui
tical maxim that the end justifies the means.
She was impiously daring in commanding Jacob
to obey her voice, and in her willingness to as
sume God's curse. One is startled at her words
and acts. She loved Jacob unwisely ; she rightly
recognized that he was the birthright son, and she
also remembered Esau's reckless and contemp
tuous treatment of the privileges of the birthright ;
but nothing could justify her in the wrongs she
did. She was the cunning mother of a cunning,
though cowardly, son.
Progress of the Plot.
Esau has now gone to the field to hunt for the
venison ; the way is therefore clear in the home
for the course of deception which Rebekah has
determined to pursue. Jacob, in harmony with
his timorous nature, views the matter more coolly
than does his mother ; he sees and rightly esti
mates the dangers in the way, but he is far more
concerned that he may be safe than that he may
16

242 OLD TESTAMENT DISSICULTIES,
be right; he cares only for the risk, and not for
the sin of the course proposed. He is not con
cerned with the enormity of his offence against
God. He fears that he shall seem to his father as
a deceiver, kimtataa, as one that causeth greatly
to err, as a very deceiver. The original is most
emphatic ; perhaps it includes the idea of despis
ing or mocking another. He may have no objec
tions to the imposition on his senile father or his
open-hearted brother, but he is greatly alarmed
lest he should be detected in his frauds, and so a
curse and not a blessing should come upon him
from his father. Rebekah might have gone to
Isaac, if she found that he was determined to give
the birthright to Esau, and might have urged him
to follow the counsels of God. The temptation
which came to her was in its essence that which
came to our Lord in the wilderness, when Satan
offered Him the kingdoms of the world if he would
give Satan His homage ; it is the temptation which
comes to all of us in every walk of life ; it is the
temptation which we must resist with holy indig
nation, or before which we shall fall in hopeless
subjection. Jacob's Acquiescence.
Rebekah assured her son that she would take
the curse upon herself. She ran a fearful risk in
making such a declaration, and she thus mani
fested a low tone of moral sentiment. She could
not take Jacob's curse, even if she would; only

ESAU'S BIR THRIGHT, 243
the compassionate Saviour of sinners, who bore
our sins in His own body on the tree, can take the
curse upon Himself. Her words, perhaps, show
great faith in the divine prediction, but they
magnify rather than minify the fraud which she
purposes to practise upon Isaac.
It is simply astonishing that in the form of
solemnization of matrimony in one of the prayer-
books, a petition is offered that the man and
woman entering into this sacred relationship
should live together as did Isaac and Rebekah.
Doubtless this petition is based upon the monog
amy characteristic of Isaac and Rebekah, as dis
tinguished from the polygamy of that day; but
it is, to say the least, a most unfortunate prayer
to be offered at the marriage ceremony. When
one remembers the domestic drama in that an
cient family, and the painfully unwifely conduct
of which Rebekah was guilty toward her invalid
and blind husband, one would surely prefer some
other prayer on such an occasion. Rebekah's
greater force of character entirely overcame
Jacob's hesitancy. He goes to the flock and se
cures two kids of the goats, and Rebekah deter
mines that with all the witchery of her cookery
she shall make Isaac believe that the delicacies
which he desired are now prepared. She is thor
oughly master of the situation; and Jacob was
both her tool and accomplice. She prepares
goodly raiment, hahamudotJi, desirable garments,
with which to impose further on her husband.

244 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
She also will cover Jacob's hands and neck with
the skins of the kids so as to make him appear the
more like Esau. It is well understood that the
Oriental camel goats, as they are called, furnish
a wool that is soft and silky, and of a much finer
texture than that of the European goat. This
wool was often used as a substitute for human
hair. Rebekah will leave nothing undone to
carry out her plans. She could readily impose
upon the dim sight and the dull touch of the blind
invalid. A Dramatic Scene.
The scene at this point is as striking as it is
sad. It is difficult to surpass the spirit of decep
tion practised by Jacob at this point. The father
wonders at .the haste with which Esau has re
turned ; he wonders, also, whether this can really
be his son. And now Jacob deliberately and re
peatedly lies to his father, at this solemn hour
and in connection with this solemn event. We
must call things by their right names ; we need
not be more solicitous for the character of Jacob
than is the Bible. Doubtless by some mental and
spiritual legerdemain he justifies himself. Aug
ustine and others attempt to justify his conduct
on the ground that he already had purchased the
birthright. We do not wish to criticise with undue
severity a fallible man whom God designed greatly
to honor ; but none of the patriarchs can be taken
as models for our conduct. They lived under a

ESA U ' S BIR THRIGHT, 245
primitive and very imperfect code of morals.
The Bible nowhere justifies the conduct of Jacob
and Rebekah ; if the Bible had been written by
uninspired men, this story had never been told.
Uninspired writers often magnify and even create
the virtues of their heroes ; and they often minify
and even deny the vices of their heroes. But
while the Bible sets down naught in malice, it
dares tell the truth and the whole truth. Jacob
even went so far as to bring in God as sharing in
the deception he had practised. He found the
venison so soon " because the Lord thy God
brought it to me." The original is here very
striking, liikrait lephanai, made it to occur, or
caused it to come before me. Jacob here uses
language expressive of a special interposition of
Providence on his behalf. But Isaac is not yet
through with Jacob, and his falsehoods must be
repeated. Isaac's ear denotes the difference of
tone, although his eyes give no testimony. A
thrill of alarm must have filled Jacob's soul as
Isaac commands him to come near. Martin
Luther strikingly says : " I should have probably
run away with horror and let the dish fall. " Isaac
feels the hairy skin, and it resembles Esau's; still
he has a lurking doubt, ^nd in response to his
question, Jacob affirms that he is his very son
Esau. Had there been a failure at this point,
the whole scheme would have failed, but Rebekah
guarded against this danger. Jacob was after
ward the victim of the deceits which his sons

246 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
I
practised upon him in connection with the coat of
Joseph. True religion is not responsible for Jacob; it
was the lack of true religion which made him de
ceitful. He had not yet passed through that ex
perience which we understand by conversion,
but which was his at the brook Jabbok. True re
ligion was no more responsible for this act than
it was for Paul when he persecuted the believers
in Jesus. In Jacob we find the quiet patience
of his father, and the grasping selfishness and
unholy acquisitiveness so characteristic of his
mother's family. It was diamond cut diamond
when these two Hebrews, Laban and Jacob, were
driving a bargain. We ought ever to remember
that God's promises and purposes never necessi
tate, certainly never justify, fraud and falsehood
on the part of men. God can accomplish all His
purposes without wrong-doing on the part of His
creatures. The Paternal Kiss.
In verses 26 to 29 we see that the paternal kiss
is given and the paternal benediction bestowed.
One would think that the father's kiss would have
burned the son's cheek. Isaac smelled the smell
of Jacob's raiment. We know that often in blind
men the sense of smell helps them to recognize
objects. As Jacob was supposed to have returned
from the field, it Vvras expected that his garments
would smell of the chase. It is still common in

ESA U'S BIR THRIGHT, 247
many parts of the Orient to distinguish persons
by smelling the crown of the head or other parts
of the body; of an amiable man it is often said:
" How sweet is the smell of that man ; the smell
of his goodness is universal. " Thus Isaac smelled
and kissed him. The kiss was the sign of affec
tion, the token of friendship, and, in some sense,
a symbol of homage. And while he kissed Jacob
the odor of Esau's garments, impregnated by
aromatic herbs, excited the sensibilities of the
aged man and inspired him to pour forth his bene
diction. Jacob was to receive the fatness of the
earth, the dew of heaven, the homage of nations,
and to exercise lordship over his mother's sons.
Esau's Return.
A thrilling scene comes before us. Esau un
expectedly returns. Clandestinely Jacob had re
ceived the blessing. No wonder we read : " Isaac
trembled very exceedingly." The painful illu
sion is dispelled, the abominable deception is dis
covered, and the guilt of wife and son is revealed.
Isaac's emotions must have been absolutely over
whelming. A just indignation must have filled
his soul. He must at the same time have been
conscious of his own wrong in allowing his unwise
love for Esau to lead him to disobey God. Years
before, he was willing to trust God, even to laying
himself upon the altar of sacrifice. But the bene
diction had been given, and it cannot be recalled.
He now saw that it was God's purpose that the

248 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
blessing should continue in the line of Jacob rather
than in that of Esau. Esau's grief is distressing;
and we cannot but sympathize with him in his
terrible disappointment, even though we blame
him for despising his birthright. There is an
obvious reference to Jacob's name when Esau
said: " He hath supplanted — yakebani — me these
two times." Jacob's name, yaakob, Esau here
interprets, and it can not be denied that there
was ground for these reflections upon Jacob the
supplanter. But Isaac has a blessing for Esau
also. 'With his name was long associated do
minion by the sword and great power among the
people. To him a pastoral life is distasteful, as it
was afterward with his race. The Edomites were
long independent, but were conquered by David
and others. Rebekah is obliged to urge her be
loved Jacob to flee to Laban, her brother, and
there remain until Esau's wrath shall abate. She
was the cause of much of the sorrow in her family,
and she suffers retributive chastisements. She
parts with Jacob, not to see him for twenty years,
if ever after ; and even in this parting with him
she artfully plans so as to conceal from Isaac the
worst features of the case.
Lessons.
We see by this ancient story the danger that
men may sin even while seeking a worthy end.
All the parties to this domestic tragedy sinned
against one another and against God. Isaac

ESA U ' S BIR THRIGHT. 249
sinned by striving to set aside the will of God,
because of his unwise partiality toward Esau.
Rebekah sinned by distrusting God, and by prac
tising abominable deceptions. She did evil that
good might come. Her course was evil, and that
continually. Jacob sinned in a most revolting
way, in the transaction by which he secured the
birthright. He took a mean advantage of Esau's hunger,
and robbed him of that which should have been
dearer to Esau than life itself. He sinned in
obeying his mother rather than God, and one sin
led to another, until his falsehood became pro
fanity, making God a partner in his crime. Esau
sinned in despising his birthright and also in his
marital relations. We have no right ever to make
God's supposed designs the rule of our conduct.
God does not give us His prophecies as maxims
for the government of our actions. We are
simply to do right, even though the heavens
should fall. Parents are in danger of cherishing
an unwarranted partiality for sons or daughters,
and against this tendency they must ever be
watchful. We learn, also, that sin must evermore be pun
ished. Punishment followed according to the
most natural laws all concerned in this guilty
transaction. The best men and women are com
passed with infirmity ; sinless perfection does not
belong to this life. The old Greek tragedies show
us the close relation between crime and punish-

25° OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
ment, between sin and sorrow; they teach this
lesson as truly as it is taught even in the Bible.
In the end wicked schemes prove abortive ; in the
end the deceiver is himself deceived; "the engi
neer is hoist on his own petard." Jacob suffered
from the cupidity of Laban, and afterward from
the deception of his own sons. Terrible was the
sorrow of Rebekah as she parts, probably forever,
from her beloved Jacob. As the chief offender,
she probably was the chief sufferer. Whatsoever
we sow that shall we reap ; that is one of the most
solemn statements in the whole Bible. As God
lives, the man who sows the wind shall reap the
whirlwind. Thank God! there is forgiveness
with Him, if we but turn to Him in penitence and
faith. We read that " Esau found no place of repent
ance, though he sought it carefully with tears."
We must not suppose that Esau, wishing to re
pent, could not; the meaning clearly is that he
sought for his father's repentance, in the sense of
a change in his purpose ; but all his tears could
not change that purpose. He sowed to the flesh,
and he could not expect to reap the fruit of the
spirit. We sympathize with him in his great and
bitter cry, and in contrast with his dashing con
duct we stigmatize the mean cupidity and com
mercial sharpness of Jacob; but Esau's cry is
simply that of one who did not heed God's warn
ing, and who despised God's gracious gifts. He
threw away his blessing for a mess of pottage,

ESAU'S BIRTHRIGHT. 251
and he cannot now get it for a flood of tears.
Happy are they who know the time of grace, and
who do not despise the opportunity of mercy.
Esau's tears are too late ; he must reap as he
sowed. We also have a great and glorious birth
right, and we also may lose it for some temporary
pleasure. Adam and Eve sold theirs for a little
fruit. God help us not to choose baubles for
diamonds, earth for heaven, time for eternity,
and self for Christ !

XV.
WHO WAS THE WRESTLER WITH JACOB
AT JABBOK ?

XV.
WHO WAS THE WRESTLER WITH
JACOB AT JABBOK?
In the 3 2d chapter of Genesis we have an ac
count of the turning-point in the life of Jacob.
We here see another wonderful event in the stir
ring career of this historic patriarch. Before this
period we observed his cunning devices, his nu
merous artifices, and his intense selfism, growing
out of a weak and defective faith. But after this
period we shall notice his great humility, com
mendable resignation, and beautiful confidence as
a child 'of God and a patriarch of Israel. The old
Jacob, with his desire to supplant his brother and
his uncle by his commercial shrewdness, disap
pears; the new Jacob, who is now Israel, appears
and remains ever afterward on the historic page.
It required much sorrow, many trials, and severe
chastisements to eliminate Jacob and to introduce
Israel. All the previous events in his life were
but the divine preparations for his change of heart
and of name. Hitherto his conduct was that of a
clever, self-reliant, and not over-scrupulous man;
hitherto he has fought with the weapons of human
shrewdness and unholy cunning. Now we are to
see him relying on God and doing his duty as a

256 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
follower of the holy One, and as the head of a
great race. We are now to enter upon the period
which marks his conversion, his regeneration, his
consecration as a true servant of God.
Preparing to Return.
His departure from Canaan to Aram was marked
by a crisis in his life ; so now is his return from
Aram to Canaan marked by another and even
greater crisis. We are told that on his way a
vision of the heavenly host was granted to him ;
we do not know just how this apparition of angels
was made to Jacob. We are, however, fully to
believe that these angels, malakim, messengers,
were not merely human, but truly the. angels of
God. We may well believe that the occasion was
sufficiently important to justify an angelic mani
festation. Jacob now has to pass through the
land of Edom, which was in possession of his
brother Esau. He also had every reason to be
lieve that Esau might be as hostile as he was
powerful. God's angels thus came to quiet his
fears and to strengthen his hopes. A glorious
physical prospect is here before him ; fresh ver
dure and rich pasturage are about him, and as he
enters the land the heavenly messengers give him
greeting. He now sees that his late deliverance
was due to God's providence, and that his future
welfare is also under God's watchcare. Twenty
years before when, fleeing from his angry brother,
he had arrived at Bethel, the mystical ladder.

WHO WAS THE WRESTLER WITH JACOB? 257
reaching from earth to heaven, and upon it angels
ascending and descending, he beheld ; and now
as he returns, angel hosts come to defend him
should dangers arise. He rightly called the name
of that place Mahanaim; this Hebrew word is a
'dual term implying two hosts or camps. Years
before he saw the angelic messengers in a dream,
but now he sees them when awake. He recog
nizes them as the messengers of God, and he
names the place Mahanaim from the double host.
This place has been identified with Mahneh, and
the name was handed down to after ages as a place
of sanctuary for the trans- Jordanic tribes. Jacob
is still on the heights of the trans-Jordanic hills.
These messengers do not seem to have given him
any verbal communication, but he could readily
infer the object of their mission and so become
assured of God's protecting providence. This
was truly a glorious vision which was granted
Jacob at this crisis of his life. In Psalm xxxiv.
7 we read, " the angel of the Lord encampeth
round about them that fear him." The word
angel in this passage without doubt means " an-
gelry, " the collective multitude of angels. Such
a multitude we may well believe Jacob now saw.
They surrounded his camp, and their presence
and the events which there occurred have made
the place historic and even immortal. He is by
the brook Jabbok, a word which probably means
"pouring out," or "flowing forth," or it may be
connected with the word in verse 24, rendered
17

258 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
"wrestled." It is now the Zerka, a perennial
stream which flows into the Jordan, between the
sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea, after a westerly
course of about sixty miles. Penuel, where Jacob
wrestled with the angel, was a fording-place of
this brook. This stream divided the territory of
Og from that of Sihon, and it flowed through the
region afterward assigned to the tribe of Gad.
Sending Messages to Esau.
Verses 3 to 9 give us the account of the mes
sage sent to Esau informing him of Jacob's ar
rival. We now, again, have the word malakim as
in the flrst verse of the chapter, but now refer
ring to human and not divine messengers. This
mission was obviously a very wise precaution, for
Jacob fears the wrath of his justly incensed
brother. Jacob is ever skilful, cautious, and
crafty ; he knew something of the temper of his
brother, and he now knows also something of hi
great power. We do not know why or when Esau
had removed to the land of Seir. This was Arabia
Petrea on the east and south of the Dead Sea, and
inhabited originally by the Horites, or "troglo
dytes," who excavated the singular rock-dwell
ings found in the vicinity of Petra; this was a
place with which Esau had become connected by
marriage with a daughter of Ishmael. Probably
the gradual enlargement of his domestic establish
ment and the unfllial deportment of his wives
made it fitting that he should not live near his

WHO WAS THE WRESTLER WITH JACOB? 259
parents; we may also believe that there was a
divine purpose in his departure from the land of
promise, thus making room for his brother, its
divinely appointed possessor. Esau thus acted
with the utmost freedom, and yet he was fulfill
ing the divine purpose in the course he adopted.
He had a force of four hundred men with him,
and this is a truly formidable company of depen
dents. He has begun to live by the sword; and,
being associated by marriage with Hittites and
Ishmaelites, he has become a powerful sheik.
What was his purpose in thus approaching Jacob?
Perhaps he generally travelled with a large escort ;
perhaps he is not openly hostile to his brother,
but is just in that state of mind when a slight word
or act may infiame his wrath.
Jacob approaches him with marked respect and
deference ; his instructions to the messengers are
conciliatory in the extreme. He does not avail
himself of the honor of precedency as given in
the paternal blessing, but he calls Esau his lord
and speaks of himself as " thy servant. " He takes
great pains to suggest — a very important matter,
doubtless, to both — that he does not come in pov
erty asking help, but in wealth, and so is able to
bestow favors. He wishes Esau to know that he
has not come to claim "the double portion," and
this statement would certainly tend greatly to
conciliate Esau. Doubtless it was a time of great
anxiety to Jacob ; we are told that he was '' dis
tressed," yetzer, straitened — ^this term implies that

26o OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
the distress of Jacob was very real ; and, without
doubt, God intended thereby to quicken His ser
vant's fervency in prayer, and to lead him to cast
himself unreservedly upon divine help. We now
see Jacob exercising the utmost precaution as he
divides his flecks, herds, and camels into two
bands ; he has determined to prepare himself for
the worst while he trusts for the best. If Esau
should smite one band the other may escape by
flight. We ought not to blame him for taking
these precautions; we ought not to say that he
ought to trust God without adopting wise meas
ures to help himself. His prudence was as com
mendable as it was considerable ; and he can the
more truly trust God after he has wisely helped
himself. We see also that he manifested the ut
most skill by placing spaces between the droves
of cattle. He would thus make the number ap
pear as large as possible, as do the adroit man
agers of political processions in our own day. He
wished Esau properly to estimate the value of the
gift. The announcement of the gift to Esau and
the expressions of his regard for his brother are
repeated in the most artful manner possible. It
is asserted that Jacob is Esau's servant, and "be
hold thy servant Jacob is behind us." Jacob
makes sure that nothing shall be neglected which
shall appease Esau. Truly Jacob was a Hebrew
of rare wisdom, skill, and foresight. These quali
ties would give him great success to-day in
America; he would doubtless take high rank

WHO WAS THE WRESTLER ]VITII JACOB? 261
among his fellow Hebrews amid the exciting com
petitions of our day. Our thoughts turn for the
moment from Jacob thus making careful prepara
tion, to his open-hearted brother approaching
him with his large escort. Probably Esau had an
almost pardonable vanity in showing Jacob how
powerful he had become ; possibly, also, he wished
to protect him from danger on the journey. Esau
was always dashing, startling, and chivalrous.
There was a decidedly spectacular, and a some
what Napoleonic, element in his character, an
element which almost, in spite of our better judg
ment, wins our undue admiration. This is the
picture of the two brothers. One is planning on
the banks of the Jabbok to appease his brother,
while that brother approaches him with a power
ful company of retainers.
Prayer Following Effort.
Jacob now prays as well as plans for deliver
ance. He not only uses all his own skill, but he
seeks help from God. We have here really a re
markably fine model for a special prayer to God ;
this is one of the best, as it is one of the most an
cient, intercessions with God which we have in
the Bible. This successful prayer deserves par
ticular notice. Jacob approaches God pleading his
promises for the protection of his people. He lays
hold of God's faithfulness as a God in covenant
with his people ; and thus he appeals to God as his
own God in covenant with Abraham and Isaac. He

262 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
also lays claim to personal mercies and promises.
Most beautifully also does he manifest a spirit of
deep humility and self-abasement; the prayer is
literally steeped in humility ; and yet it is as urgent
as it is humble. He does not forget in his pleas
for deliverance his own unworthiness and God's
greatness and holiness. It would be difficult to
emphasize unduly the excellence of the spirit
which he here manifests. He frankly confesses
his sin and invokes God's mercy as an unmerited
boon while he prostrates himself in the dust at
God's feet; then he earnestly prays for deliver
ance, making tender reference to " the mother
with the children." He identifies himself thus
with the entire company, as he was its leader and
head. He then pleads God's promise that He
would grant him prosperity and crown him with
blessing. We have often thought of Jacob, as he
has been perhaps unkindly called, as " the father
of Jewish guile"; that element, doubtless, was in
his nature, but we ought not to forget that he was
a faithful lover and a tender father, and that he is
now to rise to be a majestic man of faith, and to
have his name written with honor upon the im
perishable pages of sacred story. Thankfulness
was one of the striking characteristics of his faith
and his prayer. He traced all his success to
God's loving care and gracious providence. We
thus see him alone engaged in communion with
God on the bank of the Jabbok.

WHO WAS THE WRESTLER WITH JACOB? 263
The Mysterious Wrestler.
Jacob is thus alone, as all the others of nis com
pany have passed over. We now approach the
crisis of the crisis in his life. God has marvellous
honors in store for him, and he must be prepared
for their reception. He is to have a new name
and a new nature ; he is to be made worthy of his
great place in the Kingdom of God. He has
hitherto been a very unsaintly saint; but he is
now entering upon a new life and a new conse
cration to God. Old things are passing away and
all things are becoming new. Hitherto he has
been self-reliant, self-righteous, self-seeking ; thus
he bargained and plotted for the birthright ; thus
he bargained with God at Bethel ; thus he higgled
with Laban, cheating and being cheated. Just at
this crisis, when, perhaps, he had passed over the
ford and was seeking a little rest, a strange Being
wrestles with him. The word wrestled, yeabek,
a term occurring only here, is perhaps derived
from abak, dust. It is supposed by some authori
ties to be applied to wrestling because of the dust
which was excited by the exertions of the wres
tlers. The combatants in the Grecian games were
glad literally to raise the dust, because thereby
they could grasp more firmly the naked bodies of
their opponents, which were besmeared with oil.
Jacob is still true to his old nature, which has not
yet fully passed away ; he will fight it out on the
line of self-confidence if it take all night to reach

264 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
a conclusion. He has been a taker-by-the-heel, a
supplanter, all through his life; and, true to his
character, he closes in with this great Unknown.
But this mysterious One touches the socket of his
hip-joint, and immediately it is wrenched out of
joint. The thigh is the pillar of the wrestler's
strength, and now Jacob is absolutely helpless, he
can only hang in his helplessness on his con
queror, and thus he will sweetly learn that when
he is weak he is strong. He clings to his con
queror and begs for a blessing. His action at this
point is profoundly suggestive in its spiritual in
struction. Jacob is in the mighty hand of his
almighty Vanquisher, who will overthrow the
self-trustful Jacob, but who will not deny the
prayer of the helpless and trustful supplicant.
We know from other Scripture, Hosea xii. 4, that
he wept and made supplication, throwing himself
in importunate prayer upon the mercy of God.
Who was this mysterious wrestler? He does
not give his name to Jacob, but he changes
Jacob's name to Israel. In the passage before us
the mysterious One is termed a man, but in
Hosea xii. 4 he is called " the Angel" ; this refer
ence clearly shows us that he was not a human
antagonist. In verse 30 he is virtually called God
in connection with the name of the place Peniel.
Thus he who is at one tim^ called " a man" and
" the Angel" is afterward designated by the august
title of God. There is not the slightest doubt but
that this mysterious wrestler was none other than

WHO WAS THE WRESTLER WITH JACOB? 265
the Angel of the Covenant, none other than the
Son of God, none other than Jesus the Christ.
No longer is the patriarch to be Jacob the sup
planter, but Israel, a prince and a prevailer with
God. Jacob is no match in a contest with God as
a wrestler, but as a suppliant he prevailed. The
new name and the new nature go together. Jacob
needed both, and Jacob now received both. He
has now learned that the contest with Esau was
nothing, but the contest with Jehovah was every
thing. Hitherto he had been a clever and perti
nacious man ; henceforth he is to be the humble
suppliant, the devout believer, and the faithful
servant. The transaction was profoundly real in
Jacob's experience, and was symbolic of Jacob's
past, present, and future.
The Face of God.
The word Peniel means "the face of God."
Jacob so named the place because he had seen
God face to face, " rait Iii Elohim panim el panitn"
("I have seen the Elohim faces to faces"), had
seen him fully and completely, and still lived.
He carried ever after the marks of this conflict,
for we are told that "he halted upon his thigh."
When the Apostle Paul, in the abundance of his
revelations, was exalted to the third heaven, he
received a thorn in the flesh to humble him ; so
Jacob received, perhaps, in the sciatic nerve, " the
tendo Achillis of the Greeks," a token for a like
purpose which he should carry with him to his

266 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
grave. The Jews to this day abstain religiously
from eating of the sinew which shrank, or became
feeble, a custom which is a monument to the his
torical truth of this remarkable event in the life
of Jacob.
All true Christian? have their remarkable spir
itual experiences. The artist has his times of
glowing enthusiasm and of almost superhuman
inspiration, historians and artists love to visit
places historic in their respective departments of
genius. The man of letters lingers with fondest
enthusiasm on moments of history and art in the
world's great historic and artistic capitals. The
Christian has his Bethlehems and Gethsemanes
and Olivets. All along life's pathway he has his
Peniels, times and places when the glory of God
shines upon him and . the peace of God fills his
soul. Peniel may be found in secret prayer, in
sacred communion, in the study of the Bible, or
in the assembly of God's people. Happy are they
who know these experiences which are foretastes
of heaven itself. We may yet see God in the face
of Jesus Christ and thus find our true life. He
who walked in the garden in the cool of the day,
who guided Noah, who visited Abraham, who
delivered Lot, came finally as the Son of Man to
dwell with men. The same mysterious One pro
nounced the word " Mary," as this devoted woman
wept at His sepulchre. It was He who walked
with the two disciples on the way to Emmaus.
It is He who walks and talks with His children to

WHO WAS THE WRESTLER WITH JACOB? 267
this blessed hour. It is well for us when we re
ceive some wonderful honor from God, to receive
also some memento of humility lest we be unduly
elated by our spiritual exaltation. As men heard
Jacob's new name and saw his lameness they
would be reminded of the spiritual honor which
he had received. May our humility ever testify
to the reality of our communion with a risen and
exalted Christ!
Great trials are necessary to the purification of
our faith. But for Jacob's utter helplessness he
had never become the prevailer with God. When
trials are sanctified they are the richest proofs
of God's fatherly love. Let us not hesitate to
go into the furnace, if only the Son of God go
with us.
He who prevails with God can never be over
come by men. Success in life must depend, as
its deepest source, upon the favor of God. What
is the mightiest power of our adversaries com
pared with the almighty power of our God? The
might and the wisdom of man are weakness and
foolishness with God. Christ's real triumph was
in Gethsemane ; our greatest triumphs are to be
in our closets. If we be victorious there, men will
not be victorious over us in the public walks of life.
We pray too little. Let us wrestle in fervent
prayer with God and we shall never be vanquished
by men. The man who fears God so much that
he has no fear of men will triumph over every foe.
If we be wrestling Jacobs we shall become pre-

268 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
vailing Israels. Never was a more glorious night
than that of Jacob's on the bank of Jabbok. As
the morning dawns the unknown wrestler disap
pears and the triumph of Jacob is complete.
Esau, as the impulsive hunter, passes away. But
Jacob, purified by trial and cleansed by grace,
transformed from the supplanter into the prince
of God, still stands before the world crowned with
glory and honor. Let us not be weary in our sup
plications. Upon us, as upon him, the Sun of
righteousness will rise with healing in his beams
and undimmed glory in His rays, and we, too,
shall be transformed from supplanting Jacobs into
prevailing Israels.

XVI.
DID GOD OR PHARAOH HARDEN PHARAOH'S
HEART ?

XVI.
DID GOD OR PHARAOH HARDEN
PHARAOH'S HEART?
Few subjects in biblical interpretation have
given rise to greater controversies and more con
flicting opinions than the hardening of Pharaoh's
heart. This subject has greatly perplexed the de-
voutest believers, and it has given infidels of
every class supposed materials for criticism of
God and His holy Word. If we understand the
subject rightly, we shall clearly see that neither
God nor his Word needs apology on the part of
any class of believers. This discourse is in no
technical sense a theodicy; theodicean allevia
tions of this difficult narrative are not really
necessary if only our interpretation be correct, if
only it be truly biblical. If professional inter
preters and all readers would only look at the en
tire narrative concerning the hardening of Pha
raoh's heart in the light of common sense, of daily
experience and observation, and especially in the
light of a fair interpretation, instead of through
the medium of traditional conceptions and un
authoritative creeds, they would have no difficulty
in discovering the truth without any intermixture
of error. Such aii interpretation of God's Word

272 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
will clearly show that God was no more respon
sible for the hardening of Pharaoh's heart than He
is to-day for the hardening of the hearts of all
men who shut their eyes to the light of His Word,
and who sear their consciences against the influ
ence of His Spirit.
It will be readily admitted that there are things
hard to understand in the statements made con
cerning Pharaoh; there are also facts difficult of
explanation in every man's resistance to the
claims of God upon his mind and heart. Unfor
tunately, the Scripture narrative respecting the
Egyptian king has been so interpreted as to cause
many to stumble thereat, and others to become
fierce opponents of God's way and Word. But it
is absolutely certain that a correct understanding
of the narrative will greatly lessen the inherent
difflculties of the case, and will bring God's treat
ment of this proud and stubborn king into line
with the laws which govern men to-day in their
rejection of truth, and in their refusal to do justly
toward God and men, and into line also with the
natural and inevitable effect of such conduct on
their hearts and wills. In speaking of the harden
ing of Pharaoh's heart, the Bible simply states
facts and suggests processes which we are daily
witnessing among men now, as in the case of
Pharaoh in that ancient day and remote land. A
careful study of the texts in which reference is
made to the hardening of Pharaoh's heart will
show that there was no other influence at work

DID GOD HARDEN PHARAOH'S HEART? 273
than that which proceeded from his own deter
mination not to lose the services of the Israelites
by obeying God in letting them go, as God
through Moses had commanded; and that there
was no other control over his heart than the action
of laws still operant on the hearts of men who re
fuse to obey God, and whose hearts become hard
ened by the rejection of the Holy Spirit even to
this hour. We are still taught to command men
not to refuse to hear God's voice; and we are still
taught that by refusing to obey they harden their
hearts as truly as Pharaoh hardened his.
Prophecy of the Hardening.
When we turn to Exodus iv. 21, we learn that
before Moses had returned to Egypt God had de
clared of Pharaoh, " I will harden his heart, that
he shall not let the people go." At flrst blush
these words surprise us, and suggest that God, by
an act of arbitrary and sovereign power, had
made it impossible for Pharaoh to obey the divine
command given by Moses. We must, however,
remember the purpose for which this statement
was made to Moses. It was needful that he
should be strongly impressed with God's provi
dence in all the events which were to occur ; thus
the result in regard to Pharaoh is stated at the
outset for the encouragement of Moses. This
statement was not so much causative as it was
predictive. T^is statement of God resulted from
His omniscience, He thereby knowing what would
18

274 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
be true in regard to Pharaoh, rather than from
God's omnipotence, he thereby being able to
cause this result to be true. The purpose of the
statement was to prepare Moses for the flnal re
sult lest he should become discouraged upon a
first and second failure, and should renounce the
solemn mission upon which he had been sent by
God. He is prepared for Pharaoh's repeated re
fusals, and for the dread ultimatum which finally
he will announce to Pharaoh. Moses is to under
stand that the heart of Pharaoh and of all kings is
in the hand of the Almighty who sent him upon
this mission.
It is important at this point that we should care
fully observe that the Bible, in speaking of the
hardening of Pharaoh's heart, employs in the
Hebrew original three distinct words differing
in meaning from one another, but which, unfor
tunately, are all in the common version of the
Scriptures indiscriminately rendered " hardened."
It may be permitted, even in a popular discourse,
to explain the diversity of the import of these
words. In Exodus iv. 21, the passage already
quoted, we have the expression chazzek etJi libbo,
" I will strengthen his heart. " The Hebrew word
Jiazak, which our version translates harden, liter
ally signifies to strengthen, confirm, embolden,
make courageous ; it is translated by such words
as to excite to duty, to be strong, to persevere.
It is placed by Hebrew compilers at the end of
some of the book's in the Bible ¦ to encourage

DID COD HARDEN PHARAOH'S HEART? 275
readers to proceed with their study of the sacred
writings, and to render the obedience which they
require. It is a part of the exhortation of God to
Joshua, Joshua. i. 7, rak chazak, "only be thou
strong." It is also found in Joshua's dying ex
hortation to the people (xxiii. 6) ve-cJiazakteiii,
"be ye therefore very courageous," etc. No one
would think of translating the original in these
cases by the word "harden"; perhaps, indeed, the
word " hardy" would not be inappropriate to the
meaning of the passage before us and its context.
If we carried over this meaning to God's words to
Moses concerning Pharaoh in the passage under
consideration, the thought would simply be, " I
will make Pharaoh's heart daring, presumptuous,
hardy" ; the principle which acts in harmony with
God's holy law, and which is rightly termed cour
ageous, becomes presumptuous, dangerous, and
defiant when it is opposed to God's will as revealed
in His Word. Another one of the three words
which is used to describe the condition of Phara
oh's heart is kabad, this means " to make heavy" ;
and the third word is kashah, meaning "to make
hard" in the sense of difficult, intractable, immov
able, stiff, or rigid. We thus see that these three
original words differ considerably from one an
other in their primary significance. When, for
the second time, God says (Exodus vii. 3), " I will
harden Pharaoh's heart," the announcement was
made to Moses just before the beginning of the
ten plagues. Moses is thus informed that the

276 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
course which God would pursue with regard to
Pharaoh would harden, and not soften, his heart,
would simply make him more obstinate in his re
fusal that Israel should not go. The result of this
process on the part of Pharaoh would make it
necessary that Moses should make before the
Egyptians still greater exhibitions of the divine
might and majesty. The purpose of this an
nouncement to Moses, as before, was to assure
him that in assuming these enormously difficult
tasks God was with him, and would overrule all
things for the deliverance of his people. In these
statements regarding the process of petrification
of the heart of Pharaoh the statement by God is
again predictive rather than causative. The whole
purpose, at this point, is to strengthen the faith,
quiet the fears, and multiply the hopes of Moses
by the assurance of God's presence in the vast
undertaking commanded by God and assumed by
Moses. When God is spoken of as hardening the
heart of Pharaoh, the language simply implies
that without the exertion of any positive divine
influence Pharaoh should so treat God's command-
as inevitably, by the operation of perfectly natural
laws, to confirm, to strengthen, and to harden
himself in his opposition to God. Instead of be
ing humbled by the wonderful displays of divine
power, he should be, by his resistance of light and
by his wilful opposition to truth, the more de
termined in his opposition to the mandate of
Jehovah. God is said to have done this simply

DID GOD HARDEN PHARAOH'S HEART? 277
because He permitted it ; in no other sense can it
be said that He was the author of this hardening.
In some sense, as Augustine long ago suggested,
God may be said to harden those whom He re
fuses to soften. If men will not walk in the light
that God gives them, they become blind ; if they
will not listen to God's call, they repel God.
Nowhere does God, by an exercise of arbitrary
power, make it impossible for men to see the
light, to walk in the truth, and to believe the
right. When men grieve God's spirit, that spirit
withdraws from them, and they are thus left to
the consequence of their own wilful and sinful
act. In Deut. ii. 30, language is applied to Sihon,
King of Heshbon, similar to that here used with
reference to Pharaoh, and in both cases we have
simply the statement of the result of the disobedi
ence of these two men to the plain commands of
God. In Joshua xi. 20, like terms are employed
of the enemies of God. They had sinned against
the light they had received, and God justly left
them to the pride and obstinacy of their own
wicked hearts. They chose to retain their idol
atry, and God permitted them to be destroyed.
Similar sad experiences are being enacted in the
history of every congregation, and in the lives
of thousands of men to this very hour. We
have in the Bible the statement of the operation
of these laws ; we have all around us to-day the
operation of these laws, and if we had its inspired
history, the language of the Bible regarding

278 OLD TESTAMENTS DIFFICULTIES,
Pharaoh would be repeated to-day regarding
tens of thousands who hear and who reject the
gospel of salvation. In the Bible we have a flash
from the X-ray of divine truth ; that truth is still
operant, but we do not see its processes. Any
one who will take the pains to examine the use of
these Hebrew words in other parts of the Bible
will see that they are employed with different
shades of meaning, as suggested in this discourse ;
and he will see that there is a solemn personal
danger which still warrants the solemn exhorta
tion of the Psalmist (Ps. xcv. 8), "Harden not
your heart." This hardening is here spoken of
as a voluntary act on the part of those who reject
God's Word, an act for which certainly God can
not be responsible, except He should deprive men
of the freedom which is the inalienable right and
great glory of manhood.
Pharaoh's Responsibility.
Attention frequently has been called to the fact
that while in the narrative in Exodus the harden
ing of Pharaoh's heart is ten times ascribed, in
the sense now explained, to the Lord, it is also
several times ascribed to Pharaoh himself (Exodus
viii. 15, 32; ix. 34); it is also several times stated
that his heart was hardened, without naming the
author of the process. We can readily see that
the fact when ascribed to God, and then to Pha
raoh, is so ascribed in different senses of the word,
so that there is no contradiction between the two

DID GOD HARDEN PHARAOH'S HEART? 279
assertions. It can be ascribed to God only in one
of two senses : first, in that He permits it to occur ;
or, second, in the sense that He is the Designer,
Creator, and Supreme Governor of the entire uni
verse, and that the acts of all His creatures may, in
some sense, be carried back to Him, either as per
mitting or causing their occurrence. In the early
day God was so constantly thought of as present
and active in the government of the world and the
control of men that it was natural to refer to Him
as the author of all events of whatever kind. But
in no respect was God the author of Pharaoh's
sin ; in no respect is He the author of the sins of
men to-day. God does not interfere with the
freedom with which men are endowed ; if He did
so interfere there could be, on the part of men,
neither right nor wrong, neither virtue nor vice,
neither personal sinfulness nor holiness. It is un-
fortunte that in our common version only the
word " harden" is used to translate the three dif
ferent Hebrew terms now given and explained ;
had their various shades of meaning been prop
erly expressed in English many of the difficulties
which have arisen would be unknown. The same
three terms are used when the hardening is as
cribed to God as when it is ascribed to Pharaoh,
or when its author is not distinctly stated.
The Progress of the Hardening.
Pharaoh resisted the reasonable demands of
Moses for the deliverance of the people, notwith-

28o OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
Standing all the wonderful signs which Moses had
given him. The hand of God became more and
more clearly revealed ; finally Pharaoh confessed
his wrong. His magicians could, in a measure,
convert the rod into a serpent; still they must
have felt Aaron's superiority as his rod swallowed
up their rods. Before the ten plagues the heart
of Pharaoh was hardened ; and after each of the
first five plagues the hardening is expressly attrib
uted to Pharaoh himself, or is named without
specifying the author (vii. 22; viii. 15, 19, 32; ix.
7). After the sixth plague, Pharaoh still resist
ing, we read for the first time (ix. 12) that "The
Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh." This
word really means that " the Lord made firm the
heart of Pharaoh ; the Hebrew is yehazzek. Space
for repentance was then given Pharaoh, for after
the seventh plague we read (ix. 34) that Pharaoh
' ' made heavy his heart. ' ' The third plague utterly
overmatched the skill of Pharaoh's magicians;
they owned their powerlessness, and confessed
the presence of the finger of God. After the fifth
plague Pharaoh discovered that not one of the
cattle of the Israelites was dead. This difference
between the Israelites and Egyptians ought to
have removed Pharaoh's last doubt. It did pro
duce a marked impression on the minds of some
of the Egyptians, and when the seventh plague
was announced, they took steps to protect their
cattle against the predicted storm of hail and fire.
After this plague Pharaoh owned his sin, ac-

DID GOD HARDEN PHARAOH'S HEART? 281
knowledged the righteousness of God and the
wickedness of himself and his people (ix. 27) ; but
when the severity of the plague was over he hard
ened his heart again (ix. 35). The sun of pros
perity once more shone forth ; and, as the natural
sun hardens the clay that had been saturated by
rain, so Pharaoh's heart was hardened by the re
moval of the plague and the occurrence of the
respite. He was thus preparing himself and his
people for the final catastrophe. He was, by his
own voluntary, deliberate, personal, and wicked
acts, fitting his heart for the judicial and divine
hardening as the natural and inevitable result of
the laws of freedom with which he and we are
endowed. The progress of evil in the human soul
is one of the most solemn facts in human exist
ence. Men who will not use their limbs will one
day find that they are virtually unusable; men
who will not exercise their memories practically
lose their memories ; men who will not speak and
pray in religious services will largely lose the
power of speech and prayer. A species of eyeless
fish is found in dark caves; having no use for
eyes, they soon have no eyes to use. These are
tremendously solemn realities in the experiences
of men to-day as well as in the judicial judgment
on Pharaoh. These great moral laws sweep
through the universe; they are irresistible as
gravitation and universal as God. No one can es
cape their operation. If we come into line with
them, they will help us in the development of

282 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
character for useful lives on earth and for admis
sion into heaven ; if we oppose them, they will, by
all the might of infinity, utterly destroy us.
Human Disobedience and Divine Hardening.
Let us bear in mind that the words referring to
God's agency in the process of Pharaoh's harden
ing were for the encouragement of Moses, and
that the words referring to his own action show
his determination to resist God. The wonders
and signs performed by God through Moses acting
on a better man with a better heart would have
secured obedience ; but acting on Pharaoh with
his haughty heart, cruel nature, and mistaken no
tions of political economy, simply produced hard
ness and rebellion amounting to moral insanity.
But for his sullen obstinacy, his determined dis
obedience, and his wilful blindness, his heart had
never been hardened; the responsibility of this
hardness, therefore, rests with him, and not with
God. The same sun hardens clay and softens
wax. Do we blame the sun because the clay is
hardened? The differences between the two re
sults in the clay and the wax are due to the dif
ferences between the two substances, and not to
the sun, although it apparently produced these
opposite effects. God's providences were by
Pharaoh's disobedience the occasion of his hard
ening ; but his own stubborn will and wicked heart
were the cause of his hardening. God did not
purpose the hardening, in the sense of causing it ;

DID GOD HARDEN PHARAOH'S HEART? 283
God permitted it, in the sense of letting natural
forces and wholesome laws bring about their usual
and inevitable result. God uniformly performs
good; God may occasionally permit evil. Men
may, in the exercise of their God-given freedom,
so misuse God's good gifts that they result in evil,
and not in good, so far as the will of man is con
cerned. Let us thus clearly understand that God's
announcement to Moses of the hardening of
Pharaoh's heart was not causative, but simply
predictive. The fulfillment of the prediction was
suspended to give Pharaoh an opportunity to turn
to God in penitence, and to the enslaved people in
justice. We have seen that five plagues occurred,
and still Pharaoh resisted all these remarkable
proofs of the divine presence and power ; and not
until then was the divine prediction against him
fulfilled. God restrained His punishment until
the cup of Pharaoh's guilt was full. Pharaoh
hardened his own heart in determined sin before
God hardened it in righteous punishment. Pha
raoh was by his own will an obstinate, impenitent,
and abominable sinner, before God by His sover
eign permission allowed him to be judicially, in
harmony with the law of his own conduct, a
doomed reprobate. Practical Applications.
These great truths have their practical applica
tions in the lives of men to-day. The Bible

284 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
simply declared the process of hardening in the
heart of Pharaoh ; but a similar process is taking
place to-day in the hearts of thousands who listen
to the gospel of Christ. If God should fully write
the history of many in our congregations, it could
be said of them, as truly as of Pharaoh, that they
hardened their own hearts in their guilt, and that
God permitted this hardening in their guilt, and
also that God permitted this hardening in punish
ment for their wicked unbelief. We know that
in the exercise of their freedom men now resist,
despise, and oppose God ; out of this conscious, ob
stinate, and determined resistance comes hardness
of heart. The moment a man knowingly and will
ingly disobeys God, that moment the process of
hardening begins. God's calls are numerous,
tender, and varied. As truly as did Pharaoh
harden his heart, so do men harden their hearts
at this hour. Their act is voluntary ; it is charge
able to themselves, and not to God. In God's
name you are exhorted to-day, " harden not your
hearts as in the provocation."
The Gospel never leaves men as it finds them ;
it must either harden or soften. It must either
be a savor of life unto life, or of death unto
death ; and the savor which is life to one, or death
to another, is according to the manner in which
the Gopsel is received. It is never the intention
of God that the Gospel should bring death ; but,
like every blessing which is rejected or perverted,
it works the greater evil when rejected. Pha-

DID GOD HARDEN PHARAOH'S HEART? 285
raoh's heart was once relatively susceptible; then
he rejected and opposed God, and so his heart be
came a stone in his bosom. The Bible tells us
that God hardened it, and it also tells us that he
hardened it himself; and both statements are
true in the senses already explained. When we
neglect light and knowledge, they add to our con
demnation. Men may to-day pass over into the
power of Satan as truly as Pharaoh was in his
grasp. We do not so much need greater proofs of God's
will as we need greater willingness to obey His
will. Men do not need greater light so much as
they need better eyes ; the light may be strong
enough wellnigh to scorch their eyes, and yet
they pretend that they do not see the path of
duty. The most astounding miracles could not
subdue Pharaoh's heart. Christ could not con
vince men who would close their eyes to His mir
acles and their ears to His words. He assured us
that some men would not believe, though a
preacher to them rose from the dead. The his
toric Lazarus rose from the dead, and some strove
to put him to death. Christ rose from the dead,
but some men to-day are so hardened in heart
that they will not believe Him.
God will assuredly in the end come off victori
ous. Resistance to Him will end in our utter de
feat. Each pleading invitation rejected will add
to our guilt ; each gentle admonition refused will
increase our insensibility. The Apostle Paul tells

286 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
US of certain persons who were "past feeling."
Open your hearts to-day to listen to God's call,
lest the time may come when God will say, " Be
cause I have called, and ye refused; I have
stretched out my hand, and no man regarded";
" I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock
when your fear cometh." God forbid that it
should be said of any who hear or read these
words : " Then shall they call upon me, but I will
not answer; they shall seek me early, but they
shall not find me : for that they hated knowledge,
and did not choose the fear of the Lord. "

XVIL
WAS THE PASSAGE OF THE RED SEA
SUPERNATURAL ?

XVIL
WAS THE PASSAGE OF THE RED
SEA SUPERNATURAL?
This is an interesting and practical question;
it has its relations to the wonderful events which
mark the deliverance of Israel from the bondage
of Egypt. The fourteenth chapter of Exodus
records the miraculous passage of Israel through
the Red Sea. By remarkable signs God attested
the commission of Moses to Pharaoh. The num
ber of these signs was ten, expressive of their
completeness. The hour was now near when de
liverance for Israel should come. God was not
deaf to the cry of the oppressed which went up to
His ear. Brave and wise leaders were needed ;
and the heroic Moses and the eloquent Aaron are
the men for the hour. When the tale of bricks
was doubled, then came Moses. When the knell
of liberty seemed about to ring, then the song of
hope sounded forth. If Moses and Aaron shall
fail in reaching the heart of Pharaoh, the Al
mighty One, whose name is Jehovah, shall make
him hear. 19

2 90 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
The Deliverance.
Probably the Pharaoh of the exodus was Men-
ephtah L, the son and successor of Rameses II.
This Rameses was called by the Greeks Sesostris ;
he was the most famous of all the Pharaohs, being
a mighty conqueror in Africa, Asia, and Europe.
His statues and temples are found throughout the
Nile valley, from Zoan to Nubia. His mummy
was found in 1881, in a rock chamber on the west
bank of the Nile, near Thebes, and was trans
ferred to the Boulak Museum at Cairo. His son,
Menephtah I., appears to have been inglorious,
and to have died without finishing his father's
tomb. With him probably Moses was familiarly
associated in childhood within the palace. It
must have been a startling experience to be
authoritatively addressed by the friend of his boy
hood, now the leader of the captive people, and
the representative of Jehovah. But a greater
than Moses is here ; the Almighty is the leader of
this deliverance. Moses knew, and Pharaoh was
soon to learn, the truth of which Lowell has sung :
"Right forever on the scaffold, 'Wrong forever on the
throne —
Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim
unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above
His own."
God has now made bare His arm for the deliver
enee of His chosen, and no power of Egypt can

THE PASSAGE OF THE RED SEA. 291
resist the onward march of the Almighty. The
plagues followed each other in quick succession ;
then came the last terrible night. Jehovah passed
through the land of Egypt, and the midnight
echoed with the loud wail of a nation's woe. The
gods of Egypt, one by one, were utterly over
whelmed, and Jehovah is triumphant. The king
seeks Moses and Aaron, and the people cry out in
their bitter grief that he should permit Israel to go.
Finally, Pharaoh says " Go" ; and the great exodus
is begun. Egypt's slaves have become men and
women ; a nation is born in a night. The journey
to Canaan is begun, and Jehovah goes before His
people. The pillar of cloud and of fire was more
to Israel than was the brazier of the great Alex
ander to Greece. For a time all went well, for
water and food were abundant, and the hearts of
the people beat high with patriotic hope. But
Israel had many lessons to learn — lessons as to the
value of liberty and the necessity of righteousness
to the preservation of liberty. These are lessons
which we have not fully learned even to this hour.
The people journey onward to Etham, on the
edge of the wilderness. Should they continue
their journey in that direction, they would pass
immediately into the wilderness, and Pharaoh,
pursuing them, would soon overtake and recapture
the imperfectly armed fugitives. The Lord would
not conduct them by the straight road into the
land of promise lest the appearance of war should
discourage them ; still less might he carry them

292 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
into the wilderness, where they might be readily
overtaken and entirely overcome by well-dis
ciplined soldiers. The order is therefore given
to change the line of march, and soon they are
encamped before Pi-hahiroth, the last encamp
ment before crossing the Red Sea. They are be
tween Migdol and the sea. Perhaps it is impos
sible, after the local changes of more than three
thousand years, to determine these sites. Baal-
ze-phon was over against Pi-hahiroth. Thus the
Israelites had mountains on the west and south,
and sea on the east.
Pharaoh repented of his leniency in having let
them go. The wound in his heart is healing, and
the old satanic spirit is returning. When sick, he
would be an angel; when well, he was a devil.
He believed that the fugitives were entangled in
the land and shut in by the wilderness. God has
already been honored by His victory over Pha
raoh, and His glory will be still more signally dis
played. We now have an account of the pursuit
of Pharaoh; the third day has now arrived, and
pride, ambition, and revenge fill Pharaoh's soul.
Orders for instant preparation are given, and
soon six hundred chosen chariots, belonging to
the state, are pursuing Israel in hot haste. The
pride and chivalry of Egypt are in Pharaoh's
army ; his knights are men-at-arms ready for any
chivalrous and heroic service. Finely bred horses
drew his war-chariots, and in each chariot was a
warrior and a charioteer. The days of mourning

THE PASSAGE OF THE RED SEA, 293
over the dead first-born added to the fierceness of
the attack on Israel. Terrible was the situation
of Israel at this moment. The sight of the well-
appointed soldiers of Pharaoh filled them with
alarm. They forgot the wonderful interposition
by which they had escaped thus far ; for the sight
of their former masters amid the splendor and
pomp of chariots and horses caused their hearts to
fail with fear. On the west and south mountains
frowned; on the east rolled the sea, and yonder
on the north the war chariots of Egypt, with
apparently resistless might, were approaching.
Though comparatively few in number, these
horsemen and chariots had conquered mighty
foes, and had given Egypt glorious victories.
Shame on Israel's cowardice in the presence of
Egypt's chivalry! Shame on Israel's meanness
toward the heroic Moses ! The prolonged period
of slavery had robbed them of bravery. In the
agony of their distress they charged Moses with
having brought them into the wilderness to die.
This is the treatment which this heroic and per
plexed leader receives from the cowards whom he
is striving to rescue. This is evermore the fate
of noble-hearted souls, who strive to lift the down
trodden into fuller light, larger liberty, and nobler
manhood. Never was cynicism more cynical;
never cowardice more cowardly. Slavery made
these Israelites cravens ; it transformed men into
soulless things. The heart of Moses must have
been touched to the quick with their cowardice ;

294 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
from some part of the great host there ought to
have been heard this brave voice :
" Though love repine and reason chafe.
There came a voice without reply,
'Tis man's perdition to be safe,
When for the truth he ought to die. "
These men knew but little of the infinite re
sources of the Almighty ! Though hemmed in on
every earthly side, one way was opened to Moses —
the way upward to God ' s throne and heart. Moses
is strong in faith. He assures the people that they
shall see their enemy no more forever. He affirms
that Jehovah shall fight for His own. Only God
could deliver a defenceless people from an armed
and infuriated foe. God's voice comes to Moses,
" Whycriest thou unto me?" Then the command
is given to stretch the rod out over the sea and
divide it. God gives the assurance that again the
heart of Mizraim shall be hardened, and that the
people shall know that the Lord is God. We be
hold the cloud between the camp of Israel and the
camp of Mizraim, light to one and darkness to the
other. Now we behold Moses stretching his hand
over the sea. A strong east, or northeast, wind
blows all that night, and behold ! the waters are di
vided, and the sea is made dry land. Thus the
waves rolled back, and thus Israel marched for
ward. In dashed the pursuing Egyptians; their
hosts are soon in the midst of the waters. We are
told in language of mysterious majesty, that " the

THE PASSAGE OF THE RED SEA, 295
Lord looked" in the morning watch into the host
of Egypt. It was a marvellous moment. Other
Scripture clearly teaches that a storm burst upon
the sea, that flash after flash of lightning shot
through the midnight darkness, and peal after
peal of thunder rolled over the heads of the be
wildered Egyptians. Their chariot wheels are
removed, and, as the morning dawns, the hand of
Moses is stretched once more over the sea. The
waves roll backward. The chariots and horse
men, and all the army of Pharaoh sank like lead
in the midst of the sea. Glorious was this display
of almighty power. At one fell sweep the chiv
alry of Egypt is laid low. Soon the dead are cast
upon the shore of the sea, and the song of Moses,
one of the most triumphant paeans ever heard by
human ears — more glorious than the Marseillaise
of France, the " Ein' teste Burg ist unser Gott"
of Germany, the noblest songs of Puritanism in
England, and the most patriotic hymns of
America — is sublimely chanted, with the music of
the stormy sea as its divine accompaniment.
The Red Sea.
This is the substance of the miraculous story
told by the inspired penman. In order more fully
to understand it, a few facts regarding the Red
Sea may appropriately be given. The Red Sea
is known by various names. Sometimes it is
called simply the Sea; sometimes the Sea of
Suph, and sometimes the Egyptian Sea. The

296 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
Egyptians called it the Sea of Punt, that is, of
Arabia; its Arabic name is Bahr-el-Hedjaz, from
a province on its eastern coast, or Bahr-el-Ahmar,
meaning " the red. " The Erythrean, or Red Sea,
was the Greek and Roman name. The word
Erythrean means the same in Greek that Edom
does in Phoenician and Hebrew. Suph denotes
the wool-like seaweed found on its shores. The
name " Red" Sea probably is from Edom, its
northeast part having washed the country pos
sessed by the Edomites, or from the color of its
corals, or possibly from the red zoophytes found
at times floating on its surface. But the better
opinion is that which gives the name " Red" from
the pink colors found at times on the mountains
on the shores; but the best explanation of the
name is that which finds it in the word Edom,
which means red. The Greeks borrowed the
name from the Phoenicians. The name Edom
was taken for an appellative instead of a proper
name, hence the name Red Sea to this day. The
sea is a beautiful green or blue. The Black Sea
is not black, the Blue Danube is not blue, the
Yellow Sea is not yellow, and the Red Sea is not
red. It is really an arm of the Indian Ocean. On
the east is Arabia, and on the west is Egypt. The
straits of Bab-el-Mandeb, or Gate of Tears, con
nect it with the Indian Ocean. This writer will
never forget the scorching heat which he experi
enced when he sailed over this historic sea. Since
November, 1869, the Suez Canal has connected

THE PASSAGE OF THE RED SEA. 297
it with the Mediterranean. The sea is about
fourteen hundred and fifty miles long, with an
average width of one hundred and fifty miles.
The north end divides into the Gulf of Suez on
the west, the Gulf of Akaba on the east ; and be
tween these two bodies of water lies the peninsula
of Mount Sinai. There is no doubt but that the
sea was anciently connected with the Nile by a
canal used by the Pharaohs, fifteen centviries be
fore Christ. Recently this canal was restored,
and it is now the Sweet-water canal, giving water
to the stations between the Mediterranean and the
Red Sea, and causing fertility in many parts of
the country which otherwise would be deserts.
The sea is difficult of navigation because of sub
merged coral reefs ; it receives no rivers, but many
rain torrents.
The Natural and the Supernatural.
There is no doubt but that in the time of Moses
the sea extended at least fifty miles farther north
than to-day. It is believed that this change has
taken place within the historic period. If so,
this is a fulfilment of the prophecy of Isaiah xi.
15; xix. 5: "The Lord shall utterly destroy the
tongue of the Egyptian sea," etc. Probably the
"Lake of the Crocodile," the Birket-el-timsah,
indicates the old bed.
Where did the Israelites cross the Red Sea?
This is a perplexing question. We follow them
from Rameses to Succoth, then to Etham, " in the

298 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
edge of the wilderness." Probably each place of
encampment marked the close of a day's journey.
The last camping-place was Pi-hahiroth. But
where was that? Probably it was the name of a
natural locality, and it seems to have been near
the sea. How far was the passage of the sea
natural, and hpw far supernatural? It is quite
certain that the ten plagues, or at least several
of them, were just what might have been ex
pected in Egypt. It is equally certain, also, that
the order in which they occurred is the normal
order in which the natural phenomena would
operate. Thus the corruption of the river was
naturally followed by the plague of frogs; and
thus, from the dead frogs, gnats and flies were
bred, and from these painful and poisonous in
sects came, in turn, murrain among the cattle
and boils among the people. These plagues, in
kind though not in degree, are actually experi
enced to this day in Egypt. Travellers there even
now, when a southwest wind is blowing, observe
swarms of locusts, and in the spring of the year
they are known to come with an east wind. Le-
pisus speaks of a "regular snowdrift of locusts."
He also says " that they fell down in showers, and
this continued for six days." Even during the
last few years, great storms of hail have occurred
in Egypt, and thousands of cattle have been car
ried off by murrain. It was, therefore, to be ex
pected that God would use material immediately
at hand for the punishing of the Egyptians. The

THE PASSAGE OF THE RED SEA, 299
natural element was in the presence of common
plagues among the people ; the supernatural ele
ment was in the extent, fierceness, and succession
of these plagues for the accomplishment of God's
purpose in humbling the heart of Pharaoh and
breaking the power of Egypt.
The inspired narrative teaches us that there
was a like commingling of the natural and the
supernatural in the passage of the Red Sea.
Travellers and scholars of many centuries and
countries have given their best thought to this
great event. Strabo, Josephus, Diodorus, Nie-
buhr, Stanley, Robinson, Professor Palmer, Sir
J. W. Dawson, and many others, have carefully
studied every spot in the entire neighborhood,
and every scrap of information on this important
subject. But they contradict one another as to
the place of the passage. Sir J. W. Dawson many
of us are accustomed to follow with great readi
ness and satisfaction, but it is difficult to be sure .
regarding the authority which we should follow
touching these much debated historic conclusions.
There is no doubt, as already suggested, that the
waters of the Red Sea once occupied a much
larger area than at present. There is no doubt
but that a strong east or northeast wind would
'produce a great effect upon the ebb and flood
tides. The Seventy has south wind instead of
east wind; the Bible word is not definite, for
kadim may refer to any rough wind ; the term is
generic rather than specific. The statement that

300 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
the place of passage must have been broad, as
the whole Egyptian army perished, is not well
founded. The force employed against the Israel
ites was not large. There were only six hundred
chariots, each carrying two men. This was prob
ably only the advance guard of a much larger
army which later would join these chariots. We
do not know how many chariots went abreast. It
is difficult, indeed it is impossible, to calculate the
space which would have been taken by the Israel
ite multitudes. No doubt Moses calculated these
details with the utmost care. He was as wise as
he was brave, and as practical as he was prayer
ful. To this hour the wind often drives out the
water from parts of the Red Sea ; islets thus ap
pear, which look like huge stepping-stones; and
so, at the head of the arms of the sea sandbanks
and fords are found, which may have literally
been trodden by the escaping Hebrews. Diodorus
says that at times '' the whole bay at the head of
the sea was laid bare." Doubtless Moses, like
the skilled leader he was, like the man who was
master of the learning of the Egyptians, includ
ing geometry, surveying and hydraulics, and with
a knowledge of the tides, took advantage of that
knowledge at this critical hour. He would have
been unworthy of his great responsibility had he
not done so. Even though the whole event may
have been in due course of nature, we must still
see that God's will and purpose were thereby
accomplished. All the processes of nature, ordi-

THE PASSAGE OF THE RED SEA. 30 1
nary and extraordinary, are under God's control.
There is a region in which in God's thought there
is no distinction between natural and superna
tural ; we make such distinctions, but to God all
is natural, and all is supernatural. We have seen
that in all the miracles in Egypt there was a union
of the natural and svipernatural. This was not
otherwise in the miracles of our Lord. He took
advantage of the water when He made wine ; He
availed Himself of the loaves and fishes in the
hands of a boy when He performed a miracle to
feed hungry thousands. Doubtless this is God's
usual method. In the Bible the spiritual is the
antithesis to the natural; the word supernatural
is a human rather than a divine word.
By admitting, nay, by insisting on, the pres
ence of the natural in this passage of the Red Sea,
in harmony with the distinct statement of the in
spired historian regarding the strong wind that
blew that night, we are very far from rejecting
the miraculous element in the great event. All
the resources of the universe are God's. It was
He who caused the wind to blow ; it was He who
made the sea roll back in obedience to His will.
The use of a natural wind gives additional honor
to God in this event.
His power and purpose are seen in that the
wind blew at the right time and in the right di
rection to deliver the Israelites, and to destroy
the Egyptians. If we reject the miraculous ele
ment in this marvellous event, how shall we ac-

302 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
count for the shallower waters for Israel, and the
deeper waters for Egypt? We affirm with undi
minished emphasis our faith in the reality of this
miracle, and our increasing honor to God because
of His ability to use natural forces at the right
time, and with the necessary volume, and under
the appropriate control for the accomplishment of
His divine purposes. If the crossing took place
near Suez- — -as probably, notwithstanding all that
has been said in favor of other localities, it did —
the strong wind acting on the ebb tide could drive
the waters from the arm of the sea near Suez, and
possibly even from the end of the gulf. Thus the
shallower parts would become dry, while, as Dr.
Edward Robinson has suggested, the northern
part of the arm would still remain in its normal
condition. The waters would thus be divided,
and so would be a wall — in the sense of being a
barrier — to the Israelites on the right hand and
on the left. The miracle was thus natural as to
the means employed, and supernatural as to the
application of these means for a divine and glori
ous end. Recent surveys clearly show that the
narrator must have traversed the country, and
have been an eye-witness of the events which he
thus records. The narrative seems to have been
a daily journal.
Paul refers to the passage of the Red Sea as a
type of baptism, as it marked the beginning of a
new era in the life of the Israelites. It was the
crisis of the exodus ; no event comparable to it is

THE PASSAGE OF THE RED SEA. 303
found in all the pages of that divine history. It
gave inspiration to the genius of the psalmist, and
the song of Moses on the Arabian shore is the
prelude to that more ' triumphant paean, which
shall be chanted by the redeemed, standing on the
sea of glass, having the harps of God and' singing
the song of Moses and the Lamb. There is no
difficulty in life too great for God. If we move
forward in the performance of duty, every form
of opposition will disappear, every foe will be
overthrown, and victory from the hand of God
shall assuredly be ours.

XVIIL
WHAT WERE THE SYMBOLS CALLED THE
URIM AND THUMMIM?

20

XVIII.
WHAT WERE THE SYMBOLS CALLED
THE URIM AND THUMMIM?
What were the Urim and Thummim? It
would not be easy to ask a question to which a
conclusive reply is more difficult. It has been
suggested by some writers on this subject that
as the Jewish exiles on their return from Babylon
postponed the settlement of a difficulty till there
should rise up "a priest with Urim and Thum
mim," so we may not be able to answer this ques
tion until a priest comes with Urim and Thum
mim to give us the answer as to what both were.
Many learned scholars of different countries and
centuries frankly confess that they do not know
what these symbols were ; and some declare that,
in their judgment, it is impossible ever to know,
and that God probably meant that this discovery
should never be made.
But no earnest student of the Bible can ever
be satisfied to pass the subject over in silence as
the result either of indifference or cowardice ; we
are under solemn obligation to learn all which the
Bible, rightly interpreted, can teach us. Both

3o8 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
nature and revelation are constantly giving up
knowledge which had remained quite mysterious
or utterly unknown for ages. We must modestly
and reverently strive to master every kind of
knowledge which our minds are capable of receiv
ing, and which the divine storehouse contains for
our instruction. Out of this treasury are to come
things old and new. It is, of course, frankly ad
mitted that all kinds of knowledge are not of
equal importance. What is necessary to our
knowledge of salvation in Christ is simple ; what
is essential to our growth in grace is compara
tively plain. But, while thankfully and joyfully
partaking of the sincere milk and also of the
strong meat of the Word, we may profitably at
tempt to understand some of the things in differ
ent parts of the Bible which the Apostle Peter,
referring to parts of the writings of his brother
Paul, describes as " things hard to be understood. "
But in so doing we shall not forget the plainer
and weightier matters of the law. Matriculates
in Christ's school may, with the angels, desire to
look into the profound mysteries both of redemp
tion and revelation, and the Urim and Thummim
belong to this class of mysterious and sacred
things. Rightly studied, we shall find that even
this subject is not without great value to us in our
practical and spiritual lives ; we shall clearly and
joyously see that these mysterious symbols direct
us to Christ, who is the world's true Light and
glorious Perfection.

WHAT WERE THE URIM AND THUMMIM? 309
Various Theories.
Various theories, as was to be expected, have
been suggested in explanation of these remark
able symbols. Indeed, the literature of the sub
ject would make a library of considerable dimen
sions, for the solution of the problems connected
with these symbols has proved to be as fascinating
as it is confessedly difficult. It would be a com
paratively easy matter to give a summary of these
various hypotheses ; but it will be more profitable
to follow a correct historical method, which shall
account with reasonable fulness for the discover
able facts of Scripture regarding these symbols.
The terms themselves we are able to understand
without much, if any, doubt. To discover their
meaning is a fair starting-point in our discussion.
The Hebrew in Exodus xxviii. 30 is Urim ve-etli
hattummim, the " Lights" and " Perfections. " The
Greek version makes the clause mean, " The
Manifestation and the Truth." Other versions
give it as " Enlightenings and Certainties," " Elu
cidations and Perfections," "Illuminations and
Certainties," the "Lucid and the Perfect"; the
Vulgate gives it as "Doctrine and Verity," and
Luther, in his later translations, gave it as " Light
and Right."
Let us look carefully at the Hebrew terms in
their order. Hebrew scholars are nearly unani
mous in making Urim the plural of Ur, light
or fire ; but, as we have seen, the Septuagint and

3IO OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
other versions give a slightly different mean
ing to the word. The literal English equivalent
is "Lights." Regarding Thummim there is also
great unanimity of opinion in deriving it from
the Hebrew word tom, meaning perfection or
completeness. Some would derive the word from
the Hebrew amen, to be true, but the majority, as
already stated, from the word tom, some finding
in it the meaning, "a twin," they imagining that
the two groups of gems, six on each side of the
breastplate, constituted the Urim and Thummim.
The best English equivalents of these Hebrew
words would be, liglit and perfection; for there is
a traditional belief among the Jews, and a virtual
consensus of opinion among all scholars, that the
plural forms do not imply numerical plurality.
This plural is probably what is called t'he p lur a les
cxcellenticB, denoting the things or modes through
which the oracle of God was given. Some have
assumed that there is here what the rhetoricians
call a liendiadys, making the two words equivalent
to perfect light; but, perhaps, the weight of
authority is in favor of regarding the words as
referring to distinct things. This latter idea is
certainly suggested by the fact that in Numbers
xxvii. 2 1, and i Sam. xxviii. 6, Urim is found
alone. And in Deut. xxxiii. 8, the usual order is
inverted, Thummim being given first. It is stated
that, with the probable exception of Psalm xvi. 5,
Thummim is never given alone. It is not sur
prising that different versions slightly vary the

WHAT WERE THE URIM AND THUMMIM? 311
meaning of these words; but the variations in
meaning are more apparent than real. In Scrip
ture language perfection and truth, and light and
truth are practically identical ; that which is per
fect is truly performed, and that which is truly
performed is necessarily perfect. In Joshua xxiv.
14 we read: "Fear the Lord and serve, him in
sincerity and in truth" ; the Hebrew is, betummim
ubeemeth. We can see at a glance that here the
idea of our obscure phrase is not remote from the
thought of this exhortation. It is also in harmony
with the thought expressed in i John iii. 18, " But
in deed and in truth" ; neither is it far removed
from Psalm cxix. 130, " The entrance of thy words
giveth light." We are also reminded of Psalm
xliii. 3, " Send out thy light and thy truth." It is
true that the words Urim and Thummim are not
here found, but it is perfectly obvious that the
psalmist has in mind the very thought which prob
ably these symbols set forth; and, indeed, his
thought may be literally an echo of the high-
priest's prayer when he went before God with the
Urim and Thummim on his heart.
Some Other Scripture References.
These wonderful words come before us first in
Exodus xxviii. 30. They are introduced in the
account of the high-priest's a;-parel, and they are
mentioned without a single word of explanation,
as if they were already quite familiar to the writer
and its readers. The breast-plate was a piece of

312 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
embroidery about ten inches square and of very
elaborate work, which the high-priest wore on his
breast. The front was set with twelve precious
stones, on each of which was engraved the name
of one of the tribes. Inside the breast -plate, we
are told, the Urim and Thummim were to be
placed;, and they were to be on Aaron's heart
when he went in before the Lord. How we wish
that at this point a few words of description and
explanation had been given, but not a word is
written. It certainly seems as if it were assumed
that both Moses and the people would understand
what was meant when the symbols are named.
Joshua, when he became the successor of the
heroic lawgiver, is commanded to stand before
Eleazar, the priest, " who shall ask counsel for
him after the judgment of Urim," and this coun
sel is to determine the course that Israel shall
pursue. The Urim and Thummim are mentioned
with the blessing of the tribe of Levi ; and they
are mentioned in the history of the Judges, and
Saul is left in darkness, being answered " neither
by dreams nor by Urim nor by prophet." They
are referred to also in other Scriptures directly
or indirectly. Some have supposed because they
are introduced without any explanation that they
were of supernatural origin, and were unlike any
thing upon the earth. They are thus suddenly
brought to our notice on the sacred page. So
far as we can discover, no order was given for
their construction ; and no hint is given that these

WHAT WERE THE URIM AND THUMMIM? 313
names were to be employed for any of the articles
which Moses was to make. This obscurity has
led many to suppose that God never intended that
we should endeavor to solve this mystery; but
there is no warrant for this opinion, any more
than regarding a thousand things in nature and
revelation which once were impenetrably mysteri
ous, but which now are exhaustively understood.
Various Opinions.
Were the Urim and Thummim the same as the
Teraphim? This theory would make them noth
ing more than small divining images put into the
lining or the folds of the breast-plate, and which
miraculously spoke with an articulate voice utter
ing the oracles of God. This view distinguishes
them from the twelve stones and from each other,
and it makes them to have been placed in the
chosen. It is not impossible that there are certain
passages of Scripture which show that the Tera
phim were used as a substitute for the Urim ; but
it is almost certain that if such were the case
the substitution was the result of conformity to
heathen ideas, and was not authorized by God.
The Mosaic system was intended carefully to
guard the people against the danger of image
worship ; but such a conception of the Urim and
Thummim would make them contribute directly
to the indorsement of heathenism.
Others make the Urim and Thummim bright
stones, perhaps diamonds, in the form of dice.

314 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
They suppose that a number of them were carried
in the pocket of the high-priest's chosen, and when
he wished for a divine response they were thrown
on a table, or on the ark of the covenant, and as
they fell their position, according to laws under
stood by the priests, enabled them to discover
the answer which God intended to give. But
this view robs the whole proceeding of dignity
and propriety, and brings it into the category of
the rules or tricks of fortune-tellers; it is also
without due Scripture warrant. Another theory
makes these symbols a stone or plate placed in the
middle of the ephod or within its folds, on which
plate or stone the sacred name of Jehovah was
engraved. By gazing on this the priest became
capable of prophesying and listening to the divine
voice communicating the will of God. This name
of Jehovah is the SJiemhammepJiorash of the Jew
ish Cabbalists; this is sometimes called the
" Tetragrammaton," or four -lettered name of God,
by the mystic virtue of which name the priest
was enabled to pronounce luminous and perfect
oracles. This conceit is now largely relegated to
the figments of the Talmudical rabbins, figments
as numerous as they are childish and fantastic.
Another view makes the Urim and Thummim
identical with the twelve tribal gems, and makes
the two words equivalent in meaning to. Perfect
Illumination. We knov/ that on these twelve
stones the names of the twelve tribes of Israel
were engraved, and when the high-priest went

WHAT WERE THE URIM AND THUMMIM? 315
before the Lord he bore "the judgment of the
children of Israel upon his heart." According to
Josephus and the Seventy, these jewels were the
twelve precious stones of the breast-plate. This
theory supposes that they revealed God's purpose
by emitting an extraordinary lustre, or by an ar
rangement of letters forming the divine response,
the letters necessary for that purpose being dis
tinguished from the other letters. This theory
has various modifications in its essential features,
and also in its incidental details. Some authori
ties would make the letters bright when victory
was at hand, and dark when disaster was near.
It is difficult to distinguish between the subor
dinate theories of different interpreters which
have for their fundamental basis this general con
ception of the precious stones in the breast-plate
as the Urim and Thummim. Probably these
jewels still exist somewhere as symbols of the
eternity and fidelity of God. It would be fascina
tingly interesting and equally instructive if they
should some day be discovered and the mystery of
centuries resolved. Some of those who hold this
general view believe that as the high-priest fixed
his eyes and concentrated his thought on these
jewels and on the great attributes which they
represented, he was able, partly by well-known
laws as illustrated in hypnotism, and partly as the
result of an immediate divine influence, to pass at
once into communion with God and into a true
prophetic vision.

3l6 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
The Probable Explanation.
Most of the theories now named may at once
be eliminated from our discussion. There are but
two which seem worthy of consideration. The
first of these is that which identifies the Urim and
Thummim with the twelve tribal gems and which
regards the two words, by the figure of liendiadys,
as equivalent to perfect illumination. This is
the view which the author had strong preposses
sions to adopt. There is much to be said in its
favor. If the words were regarded merely as
epithets applied to the stones in the breast-plate
they would seem to be especially appropriate.
These stones were intrinsically brilliant, splendid,
and luminous, and thus they might apparently be
termed with propriety Lights and Perfections.
It is fair for us to assume that these stones were
the most perfect of their kind. Then, again, if
the Urim and Thummim were not identical with
the gems of the breast-plate, it seems difficult to
explain the fact that the inspired historian gives
no account of their preparation and of their relig
ious uses. All other parts of the ritual are de
scribed with the utmost carefulness ; every pin of
the tabernacle and every thread of the priestly
garments had to be made according to divine di
rection ; and yet here are symbols of the utmost
importance in obtaining responses from God, and
no account is given of their preparation or conse
cration for this sacred function. The silence of

WHAT WERE THE URIM AND THUMMIM? 317
the historian, it is natural to believe, gave a strong
presumption that the Urim and Thummim were
identical with the brilliant gems of the breast
plate. But there is an objection to this view suggested
in Leviticus viii. 8, " And he put the breast -plate
upon him; also he put in the breast-plate the
Urim and Thummim." This passage clearly
speaks of these symbols as being put into the
breast-plate ; this seems to be also the clear mean
ing of the words in the verse, which is really the
text of this discourse (Exodus xxviii. 30), "And
thou shalt put in the breast-plate of judgment the
Urim and the Thummim. " Other passages might
be quoted illustrative of the force of the word
"in" in this case (Exodus xxv. 16, 21), "And thou
shalt put into the ark the testimony which I shall
give. " This latter verse shows that the testimony
was distinct from the ark into which it was put.
It would, therefore, seem a natural inference that
the Urim and Thummim were in like manner dis
tinct from the breast-plate, and that they bore to
the breast-plate a relation similar to that which the
tables of testimony bore to the ark of the cove
nant. It would thus seem that Moses, after in
serting the precious stones in the "pectoral," was
commanded to put the Urim and Thummim into
some fold or pouch of this same pectoral, even
as he put the tables into the ark. It seems im
possible to avoid the conclusion that these symbols
were in some way put into the fold or lining of

3l8 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
the breast-plate. Dr. Bush in his comments on
this verse strives to break the force of this reason
ing by stating that the stones of the breast-plate
might not have been attached externally, but that
the pectoral was of the nature of a bag or pocket
in which the stones themselves may have been
deposited; but his reasoning fails to carry con
viction.
The Most Approved Theory.
Modern Egyptology furnishes us with a clew to
the true explanation. All intelligent students will
admit that there are many points of similarity be
tween the Jewish and Egyptian systems of wor
ship. For a long time both Jewish and Christian
scholars were slow to recognize this fact. They
feared that by admitting this similarity it would
militate against Judaism as a divinely revealed
religion. It was long believed that no custom,
rite, or symbol was introduced into Judaism from
any system of heathenism. Sometimes the trans
ference to Judaism of things common to it and to
Egyptian heathenism was affirmed as a divine
condescension to the superstitious notions of
Israel when in a condition of ignorance and de
basement, but that view is not considerate or even
tenable. Fortunately the prejudice of earlier
times in this regard is now passing away. It may
be true — it certainly is true, in some respects —
that the Egyptians got many of their rites and
symbols from the Hebrews, and no doubt the law

WHAT WERE THE URIM AND THUMMIM? 319
of reciprocal influence was in operation. In quite
recent years so many new sources of knowledge
on this subject have been made available that now
the interchange of religious ideas and symbols is
not a question of argument, but of fact. The an
cient paintings and sculptures not only give in
struction regarding the nation in peace and war
but also concerning its social customs and relig
ious rites. We now fully know much which half
a century ago was entirely unknown regarding
the garments worn by the priests, and the cere
monial observances in their religious services.
There is a striking similarity even between the
Egyptian ark borne by the priests and the ark of
the Covenant as described by Moses ; the similar
ity is found even in the manner in which both
arks were carried. Did the Jews borrow from the
Egyptians? Did the Egyptians borrow from the
Jews? Did both derive their ideas from some
common and patriarchal source? This latter is
the most probable view; doubtless, many ideas
came down from remote antiquity as the sons of
Noah were scattered to different lands. At the
moment, we are stating the fact of this similarity
and not attempting to account for it. The earliest
religious ideas were preserved among the Jews
in comparative purity, while among the nations
which knew not God they were gradually cor
rupted and mingled with abominably idolatrous
practices, but many essential truths still remained.
Ideas, rites, and symbols would not be adopted

320 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
by the Israelites from the Egyptians merely be
cause they were Egyptian; but they might be
adopted because they were right, were primitive,
were divine in their origin, and thus they might
again be ordained by Moses. That in a corrupted
form some of them were observed by the Egyp
tians is no reason why in their religious meaning
and true form they should not be observed by the
Hebrews. This consideration deserves emphasis ;
it has been too much overlooked in past years in
studying the Bible. Egyptian Teachings.
Bearing these great principles in mind, we are
prepared to see their illustration in connection
with the Urim and Thummim. The Egyptian
paintings show a pectoral ornament somewhat
corresponding to the Jewish cJiosen or breast-plate.
In addition to this discovery, two Greek historians
call attention to the fact that the Egyptian arch-
judge, who was always a priest, venerable in age,
distinguished in learning, and commendable in
character, always wore a gold chain around his
neck — a gold chain to which was suspended an
image made of a sapphire stone which was called
in Greek Aletheia, meaning "Truth," when he
officiated in civil and religious functions. With
this image he touched the litigant when a suit
began, and he permitted the winner to look upon
it or to kiss it when he had gained his cause. It
is believed that this image was a representation

WHAT WERE THE URIM AND THUMMIM? 321
of the goddess Thmei, who was worshipped as
" Truth and Justice," and it is not a little remark
able that the very name of this Egyptian deity
suggests the word Thummim. A mummy was
found at Cairo around whose neck was found a
chain, to which was attached a plate or symbol
with the figure of a bird, which suggested Truth
and Justice. It is interesting also to know that
traces of a similar custom are found among the
Romans, for among the Vestal Virgins she sat
who was called "Maxima," and who assisted in
the trial of causes. To this hour a triangular
mirror is found in courts of law in Russia which
in some mysterious way symbolizes the presence
of the Czar and through him the presence of God.
As one looks into the mirror and sees himself, so
it is believed the Czar, and above him God, look
into the heart. This mirror, indirectly at least,
implies the presence of Justice, and the necessity
of truth. Something similar is also known among
the Japanese, and it is an interesting fact that to
this hour in Great Britain "the royal mace" is
borne by, or carried before, a magistrate as the
symbol of his authority, and it must be laid upon
the table of the clerk when the House is in ses
sion. It was long believed that the Egyptians
derived the custom under discussion from the
Jews after Solomon's marriage with the daughter
of Pharaoh ; but it is now quite certain, as the re
sult ot comparatively recent studies, that these
resemblances to Hebrew customs belong to a

322 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
much earlier period. This representation of the
Egyptian goddess expressed the notion of two
truths, or the double character of Truth and Jus
tice. Before the election of a king among the
Jews the chief priest was a civil officer as well as
a religious functionary ; in this respect the analogy
between the two peoples is all the closer. It has
been reasonably suggested that the touch of the
successful litigant with the image in the Egyptian
court bears some relation to Isaiah vi. 7, " Lo, this
hath touched thy lips ; and thine iniquity is taken
away, and thy sin purged" ; also to Jeremiah i. 9 ;
Esther v. 2, and many instances in the Bible in
which touching represents the impartation or pos
session of miraculous power or virtue.
If we were to carry out the similarity still
further it might be found that the Urim and
Thummim, as signifying Light and Truth, bear
some analogy to the two figures of Ar, the Sun,
and TJimei, Truth — figures worn by the Egyptians
in their breast-plate. Often Thmei is represented
by a figure wearing two ostrich feathers. It is
known also that in the final judgment Osiris is
represented as wearing around his neck this
double image of Justice and Truth.
It is not forgotten that there have been argu
ments used against the Egyptian origin of the
Urim and Thummim ; but these arguments have
already been virtually named in connection with
our discussion of the tribal gems in the breast
plate as the Urim and Thummim. It is known

WHAT WERE THE URIM AND THUMMIM? 323
that in the early days, as even now, peculiar virtue
was often attributed to gems as amulets and
charms; thus jasper, amethyst, emerald, and all
stones were supposed to have a peculiar signifi
cance and to be influential in warding off evil and
in bringing good. We cannot suppose that God
would indorse any heathen or superstitious ideas
in the use of such a symbol, but He could exalt it,
purify it, and glorify it, and make it a part of true
worship. We know that in Egyptian thought the
mystic Scarabaeus was an emblem of profound sig
nificance ; as it came out of the dark earth after
the flood of waters it was therefore the symbol of
life out of death and of transformation and resur
rection. In many countries various symbols came
to be virtually thoughts and words in painting or
sculpture. Thus some symbol, whether or not
suggested to the Hebrews by the Egyptians,
seems to have been placed in the chosen, setting
forth the great and glorious fact that Light and
Truth were a blessed revelation from God, were
the centre of the nation's life, the guiding star of
the nation's progress, and the glorious ideal of
the nation's hope. This was the Urim and
Thummim. Typical Significance.
There is not space to discuss the process of con
sulting Jehovah by Urim and Thummim; there
is, perhaps, even greater doubt regarding the
method of consultation than regarding the Urim

324 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
and Thummim themselves. It seems certain that
these symbols were closely connected with the
theocratic government of the Hebrews, and that
after that government passed away this method
of consulting God seemed also to have passed
away. All pertaining to the office of the high-
priest was typical of the Christian dispensation
and of the office and work of Christ. This is,
doubtless, true also of the Urim and Thummim.
Christ is the glory of the old dispensation. He
is the very heart of the Bible. He was and is the
true Urim and Thummim ; He was the end of the
law for righteousness ; He was the reality of every
symbol, the substance of every shadow, the de
sire of every longing heart. He was Light, Per
fection, and Truth. He was " the true light which
lighteth every man that cometh into the world."
He was Perfection, " being made perfect, he be
came the author of salvation to all that obey
Him." He was Manifestation: "He was God
manifest in the flesh." He was also "the Way,
the Truth, and the Life." Through the Urim and
Thummim a measure of the Holy Ghost was
granted to the Jewish high-priest ; but Christ is a
high-priest who possesses the Holy Ghost without
measure. Christ is a high-priest " who put on
righteousness as a breast-plate." Christ is the
glorious Luminary of the new Jerusalem. He is
its Perfection. Perhaps the Urim and Thummim
are suggestive also of " the white stone" which is
beautifully symbolic in the Christian mysteries as

WHAT WERE THE URIM AND THUMMIM? 325
set forth in the book of Revelation. We are thus
sweetly led by the Lights and Perfections, the
Urim and Thummim, to the cross, to the feet and
to the heart of Jesus Christ, the Light of all dis
pensations, of all religions, of all philosophies, of
all civilizations and of all experiences, and the
crowning glory, cloudless beauty, and ineffable
bliss of the heavenly city, the new Jerusalem.

XIX.

DID BALAAM'S ASS LITERALLY SPEAK
WITH MAN'S VOICE?

XIX.
DID BALAAM' S ASS LITERALLY
SPEAK WITH MAN'S VOICE?
The narrative in Numbers the twenty-second
chapter, and the allusion to this narrative in 2
Peter ii. 15, 16, have been regarded by most Bible
readers and commentators as fraught with great
difficulties. In the minds of some Christians
these difficulties are so great that they are dis
posed to reject the entire narrative as fictitious,
or at least as utterly inexplicable. It is, there
fore, of very great importance that an interpreta
tion shall be found which is true to the original
narrative, and which at the same time relieves it
from difficulties which many consider to be in
superable. It is believed that a genuinely alle-
¦ viative interpretation can be given which is also
thoroughly loyal to the inspired record, more
loyal, indeed, than the traditional interpretation.
Balaam is a profoundly mysterious and a
strangely interesting man. He comes suddenly
into the sacred narrative, and his name reappears
in the Book of Revelation. It is evident that in
the church at Pergamos, Rev. ii. 14, there were
those who taught, as did Balaam, so as to lead
men into idolatry and the gross sins of the flesh. ,

330 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
The teachings of the Nicolaitanes were of like
character and tendency. Much of mystery at
taches to the name, which means " conquerors of
the people." Perhaps both names, Balaam and
Nicolaitanes, are used symbolically, like the name
Jezebel, to designate certain types of false teach
ers. Balaam's first appearance is as abrupt as
that of Elijah the Tishbite, and is as mysterious
as it is abrupt. He is at the same time a truly
instructive historical character. He is almost
as mysterious as Melchizedek, and yet his life
is full of lessons of the greatest practical value.
Both in his virtues and his vices he is thoroughly
human. He is richly endowed with the gift of
prophecy ; and he utters sentiments worthy of the
heartiest commendation. The words which he
spake to Balak, as recorded by the prophet Micah
vi. 6-8, are not surpassed in loftiness of thought
and eloquence of speech by any words of man re
corded in the Bible. These noble sentiments are
an anticipation of the Sermon on the Mount ; they
are worthy to stand beside the sublimest truths
uttered by the Apostle Paul. The man who
spoke these great truths was fully inspired of God,
so far as concerns their utterance. God used
Balaam in wonderful ways in connection with the
progress of true religion; and his name is thus per
petuated through all generations. There is no liter
ary honor so great as a place in the divine library
which we call the Bible. Compared with this honor
all the glory of human fame is less than nothing.

DID BALAAM'S ASS LITERALL Y SPEAK? 331
In the Book of Numbers xxii. 5, Balaam is in
troduced as the son of Beor, who in 2 Peter ii. 15
is called Bosor. This form of the word may be a
Chaldaism; for many believe that the Apostle
Peter was in Babylon at the time of this writing.
But the change in the form of the name may be
due to the transmutation of the letters with the
desire of softening the sound of the original He
brew word. Among the Midianites, to whom
Balaam belonged, he seems to have exercised an
authority not unlike that possessed by Moses
among the Israelites. In Numbers xxxi. 8 his
name is mentioned in connection with the five
kings of Midian, indicating that he possessed high
rank and exercised great authority. His home
was at Pethor, a city of Mesopotamia and prob
ably on the banks of the Euphrates, although its
exact site is entirely unknown. Some have sup
posed that as Pethor is derived from the word
pathor, to "interpret," it is the name of a place
which was the chief resort of men who professed
to explain occult arts and to interpret the will of
the gods. The name Balaam may mean " lord of
the people," but others understand it to be "the
destruction of the people," with an allusion to his
supposed su|3ernatural powers ; and it is also sug
gested that his father's name probably comes
from a root meaning to consume or destroy. God
now and then chooses out persons dwelling among
the heathen and endues them with remarkable and
unexpected knowledge of Himself for the accom-

332 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
plishment of His great and holy purposes. Ba
laam belonged to this class of divinely chosen in
struments in God's method of dealing with men.
He certainly was a man of high intellectual attain
ments ; indeed, he was in the true sense of the
word a genius of a rare order. He had poetical
and prophetical gifts as great as they were rare
then and now ; he was literally a seer and a poet.
He possessed remarkable intuitions of spiritual
truth ; and he also recognized God as the author
of his unusual endowments. . He thus stood on
that mysterious borderland which overlaps true
religion on the one side and gross heathenism on
the other. Ever and anon in different ages and
lands inexplicable men of this character are found.
Some of these men are partly deceived, and are
partly deceivers ; and often the most analytic his
torian cannot draw the lines of separation between
these two conditions. Indeed, often the men
themselves could not always tell when they were
acting under high motives and when impelled by
the grossest ambitions. The great plays of
Shakespeare finely illustrate the apparently con
tradictory elements in the lives of men. Now
Dr. Jekyll comes forward and now Mr. Hyde ap
pears in many lives in many lands and at various
times; it is not otherwise in some measure in the
lives of all men. There were times when the
Apostle Paul was distinctly conscious of these con
tradictory elements in his deepest nature.

DID BALAAM'S ASS LITERALL Y SPEAK? 333
Historic Glimpses.
Balaam's natural and acquired gifts gave him
great influence among his contemporaries. It
was believed that he had power not only over
temporal, but, to some degree at least, over
eternal destinies; and also that his blessing or
curse had the approval of God. Josephus calls
him an "eminent diviner." He has been well
called by Bishop Newton " a strange mixture of a
man"; for while he practised an art expressly
forbidden to the Israelites, he possessed some
true knowledge of Jehovah, rendered Him wor
ship, and received from Him divine communica
tions. Balaam finally came to believe that his
great gifts were his own, and that he might use
them to advance his personal interests. The
Israelites were now marching to the occupation
of Palestine ; on the plains of Moab, on the east
of the Jordan, they were encamped. At that time
Balak was king of the land. He had heard of the
wonderful manner in which the Israelites had
overcome the Amorites, and he is filled with
alarm. He knows that he has no chance what
ever in fighting these victorious invaders; he
feels that if they come to battle he had better sur
render at once. He puts the case very strongly
when he declares that the Israelites can " lick up
all that are round about us, as the ox licketh up
the grass of the field. " What shall he do in his
great distress? He hears of Balaam, the sooth-

334 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
sayer of Pethor. He will now have recourse to
the supernatural. He will enlist divine power
against his foe. Here a great truth is suggested;
here an important lesson may be learned. It is
eminently wise to invoke supernatural aid, but
we should be quite certain that the aid invoked is
truly supernatural. We ought not to be satisfied
with appealing to Balaam or Simon Magus. Balak
entered into a league with the Midianites against
the Israelites. He also hastily sent messengers
to Balaam in his remote home with rich rewards
to secure his help in divination. At first Balaam
refused with emphasis; but later he hesitated,
and expressed a desire to seek wisdom from God
in prayer. He ought to have known better than
to pray in those circumstances. His duty was
clear; he ought not to ask God to help him in
compromising right with wrong. Other messen
gers came to Balaam with promises of greater
gifts and honors. Again he juggled with right
and endeavored to cheat God. God finally granted
him his desire, but assured him that in the end
his plans would be frustrated. The narrative at
all these points is remarkably suggestive and in
structive. It deserves to be more fully studied at
these points than the purpose of this discourse
will permit.
We now see Balaam starting on his journey
with the messengers of Balak, king of Moab.
God was much displeased with Balaam's impor
tunity, and yet He granted him in some sense his

DID BALAAM'S ASS LITERALLY SPEAK? 335
desire. On the journey he met the angel of the
Lord, who stood before him, lesatan lo, for a
Satan to him, or an adversary against him. Now
comes the remarkable narrative. Numbers xxii.
23-35- This entire narrative is worthy our most
careful thought. We are here told that the dumb
brute spake with a human voice. , The animal
seemed to have a deeper spiritual perception than
its rider. The ass saw the angel standing in the
way with drawn sword in hand. Balaam smote
the creature that he might induce it to continue
the journey. It is a strange story. What is its
true interpretation? Is it a narrative of events
which literally occurred as here stated? There is
not space to go, in the effort to answer this ques-^
tion, into all the details of the narrative ; but two
possible interpretations can be given, and only
two views can well be taken, and the reason for
the adoption of one and the rejection of the other
will be stated. Two Interpretations.
Is this narrative literal history, or is it merely
a vision? Is this a description of an objective or
a subjective experience? Did the words ascribed
to the ass proceed literally from its mouth, or was
the scene transacted in the mind of Balaam in a
condition of ecstasy or trance? These are the
questions to be answered; let them be kept dis
tinctly before our thought. Either answer might
be given with certain modifications by those who

336 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
fully believe in the authenticity of the narrative ;
the correctness of the narrative is not to be called
in question whichever of these interpretations may
be adopted, for the question is simply one of in
terpretation. Those who believe that this is a
literal narrative affirm that the incidents recorded
must be assumed to be literal, so long as no in
formation to the contrary is given. They claim
that it would be unnatural to expect any of the
occurrences to be a vision,, except a statement to
that effect was made; and that if the visionary
element were introduced it would be difficult to
tell where it ended and where the historical nar
rative began; and they claim, finally, that the
language of the Apostle Peter, in his second
Epistle ii. 16, favors the literal sense. Are these
claims well founded? We may say in reply that
we know with absolute certainty that there are
numerous instances in the Bible where we have
abrupt transitions from one style to another, and
that no mention of the transition is made. The
Bible supposes some degree of sanctified common
sense on the part of all its readers. The sacred
writers, therefore, slide frequently from events
in the natural world to the relation of a vision
or dream wherein notice of the transition is
given. In Genesis xv. i we are told that the word of the
Lord came to Abraham in a vision. In the fifth
verse Abraham is asked to look toward heaven
and to tell the stars, and he is assured that like

¦ DID BALAAM'S ASS LITERALLY SPEAK? 337
to their great nurrtber shall be his seed. In the
twelfth verse we see, as Dr. Bush in his comments
on the narrative especially under discussion re
minds us, that it was the daytime when Abraham
saw the stars, indicating that this sight was a
vision and not a literal reality. In Jeremiah xiii.
1-7 we see that Jeremiah was commanded to go
to the river Euphrates and hide his girdle ; but at
the time this command was given the prophet was
in the land of Canaan, hundreds of miles from the
Euphrates. It was clearly a command given in a
vision. So Ezekiel when in the land of Babylon,
Ezekiel viii. 1-12, was ordered to dig a hole in
the wall at Jerusalem ; and he was then shown the
abominations of the house of Israel, a transaction
which certainly must have taken place in a vision.
The voice addressed to Samuel when he minis
tered unto the Lord before Eli, i Sam. iii. i-io,
was clearly of the character of a vision ; and in
the fifteenth verse of that chapter we distinctly
read, "Samuel feared fo show Eli the vision,"
mareJi, a word always, or generally, used of in
ternal visions. In John xii. 28, 29, we are told of
the voice which came from heaven, and it is quite
evident that it was addressed to the inner sense of
those for whom it was especially intended; for
others heard it only with the outward ear, and to
them it was simply a meaningless noise, or the
voice of an angel. In the narrative of Paul's con
version. Acts ix. 3-8, there is no suggestion that
the leading events were simply or Qbiefly internal

3'38 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
or subjective ; but when we , compare with that
account Acts xxii. 9 we are inevitably forced to
the conclusion that, in its deep significance, it
was to the Apostle Paul a vision. Other instances
might be furnished leading to the same conclu
sion. The language of the Apostle Peter does
not forbid this interpretation. In quoting a pas
sage from the Old Testament he does not neces
sarily confine himself to any one interpretation
which we may give of that passage. He takes the
passage as he finds it. In like manner we could
refer to a character in Shakespeare or in any great
writer, and we might use the language of that
character without entering into a full discussion
as to various interpretations of the language, or
of the relation which the character sustains to the
original author's purpose. Could not the Apostle
Peter, or any other apostle, have referred with
perfect propriety to the Lord's call to Samuel, al
though it was in a vision? Was not that call just
as real when addressed to the inner ear as it would
have been if addressed to the outer ear? It is
not a question of the reality of the divine com
munication, but only of the method which God
chose to employ. Positive Evidence.
We have only to turn to Numbers xii. 6 to see
that dreams are designated as the usual mode of
divine communication to the prophets. This fact
certainly goes far to confirm our belief in the sub-

DID BALAAM'S ASS LITERALLY SPEAK? 339
jectivity of the incident under discussion. We
there read: " Hear now my words: If there be a
prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself
known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto
him in a dream." Balaam belonged to the class
of whom this affirmation is made. Why should
we doubt the correctness of this positive affirma
tion of Scripture? Is not the narrative before us
in perfect harmony with this divine promise?
When we look at chapter xxiv. verses 3, 4, 15, 16,
we see that Balaam speaks of himself as the man
"which heard the words of God, which saw the
vision of the Almighty, falling into a trance, but
having his eyes open," etc. Perhaps we ought
not to quote the words "into a trance"; the He
brew may admit only of the translation "falling,"
or " falling down" ; but the statement has its ap
propriate application to the incident recorded in
the narrative whose true interpretation we are
aiming to give. Was not that the occasion when
Balaam was in this condition of prophetic ecstasy?
To what other occasion can these words be so
well applied? That condition was the appropriate
one for a seer like Balaam. Those who deny the
application of this statement to this incident
should clearly establish the correctness of their
denial. It is difficult, if not impossible, to name
another event in the life of Balaam to which this
language so fittingly can be referred. It seems
almost certain that the appearance of the angel
was to- the inward and not outward eye; and just

340 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
so the voice of the ass was intended for his spir
itual and not physical ear.
Another argument in favor of this view is that
Balaam expresses no astonishment on hearing the
ass speak ; neither do his servants ; neither do the
Moabitish princes who accompanied him. They
seem to have heard nothing unusual and to have
seen nothing supernatural. If Balaam had heard
the ass speak, we might expect hira to have been
struck speechless with astonishment at so unusual
an event. But he goes on speaking almost with
petulancy, chiding the brute as if it had been a
disobedient servant. His language certainly is
not what we might expect from one who had wit
nessed a prodigy so remarkable as an ass speaking
with a man's voice. It is also to be said that the
drift of Jewish interpreters, as well as that of
many great Christian scholars, favors the sub
jective explanation. Maimonides leads off with
an indorsement of this interpretation; Leibnitz,
Hengstenberg, and Tholuck, and among compara
tively recent American scholars Dr. George Bush,
and the writers in Smith's and other Bible dic
tionaries, earnestly support, or at least incline to
this same view.
This view does not in any way deny the historic
reality of the event ; it nowhere denies, or even
depreciates, its miraculous occurrence and its
divine influence. God is seen to exert such an
influence on Balaam that the reproof which he
received sank deep into his heart. He saw this

DID BALAAM'S ASS LITERALLY SPEAK? 341
wonderful sight with the eyes of his soul, and he
heard this powerful rebuke with his spiritual ear.
The angel was revealed to him in his prophetic
or ecstatic state. Which ever view we adopt we
see that the occurrences were realities to Balaam.
The subjective view does not make the events to
be less real. In any case there was a direct com
munication from God to Balaam. God could
have put the sound of words into the mouth of
the beast, or into the ear of Balaam ; and in either
case it would be equally the work of God, and
would be equally effective. We may readily be
lieve that all the incidents narrated actually oc
curred on the natural plane, with the exception
of the angelic appearance and the miraculous
speech, which were perceived by the spiritual eyes
and ears of Balaam. To him it was all a terrible
reality ; to him this was a real theophany, a gen
uinely divine interposition. It was just as real
as if it had all been a literal sight and sound.
Why should we doubt the correctness of this inter
pretation? Certainly it is in harmony with God's
usual method of revealing Himself in that age ;
for no one can doubt that His revelation was, for
the most part, by dreams and visions. Balaam's
history in this connection shows that in two cases,
at least, he waited until night, the usual and nat
ural season for dreams and visions. There is
no certain evidence that God ever revealed Him
self otherwise to Balaam, unless this case be an
exception. Why should we introduce a new

342 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
method on the part of God? Why insist on a
needlessly difficult interpretation when an easier
one is in harmony with God's ordinary mode of
communication? None of those present, as al
ready suggested, seem to have been cognizant
that any communication was made to Balaam.
No wonder is expressed; no alarm was experi
enced ; no comments were made. Let us adopt
an interpretation which fully meets all the re
quirements of the case, which relieves the narra
tive from the enormous difficulties of the literal
interpretation, and which is in perfect harmony
with God's usual method of communicating His
will to Balaam, and to other Old-Testament seers,
which is in harmony with the statement in Num
bers xii. 6, and in equal harmony with the words
of Balaam in the twenty-fourth chapter. Why
refuse to accept the teachings of these Scrip
tures? Why create difficulties? Why not believe
the Bible, letting Scripture interpret Scripture?
Additional Teachings.
God can and often does reach out His hand and
choose His servants from among idolatrous peo
ples. Perhaps reports of the miracles attending
the exodus had reached Balaam in his own land;
perhaps he was a descendant of Shem, and the
germs of religious truth may have lingered long
among the people. Perhaps Jacob's residence
for twenty years in Mesopotamia disseminated

DID BALAAM'S ASS LITERALLY SPEAK? 343
the elements of true religion, though mingled with
much superstition. God can still select His great
instruments out of the most unfavorable environ
ments. Balaam even spoke of God as " the Lord
my God." Balaam's sin was great. He dared,
for the reward which Balak offered, to abuse his
office as a prophet, and to think that his divine
gifts were his own, and to call down curses on
God's people. He admired righteousness, but he
loved the wages of unrighteousness. The bearer
of sublime messages of Jehovah, he still counselled
that the young women of Moab should lead the
Hebrews to worship Baal-Peor, and as a result
twenty-four thousand Israelites were slain. His
conduct in this regard was abominable in the ex
treme. But even Balaam, as he himself frankly con
fessed, could speak only as God ultimately di
rected. He was powerless in the presence of the
Almighty. He was obliged to bless those whom
he wished to curse. It is glorious to serve a God
who can make even the wrath of men contribute to
His praise. The fearful doom which befell Balaam
warns us against seeking gain in ways of sin. If
we are to die the death of the righteous, as Balaam
hoped he might, we must live the life of the right
eous as God commands us, and as our highest
interest here and hereafter requires.
God still speaks.

XX.
DID THE SUN AND MOON STAND STILL?

XX.
DID THE SUN AND MOON STAND
STILL?
Many persons are greatly troubled by the diffi
cult miracles and histories recorded in the Bible.
There was a time when the miracles were sup
posed to be of great evidential value. At that
time, the greater they were in number, and the
more stupendous they were in character, the
greater was their supposed value. But that day
has passed away, and it is not likely to return.
Now the miracles themselves, in the judgment of
many critics, need the support of alleviative ex
planations. Many persons turn away from the
Bible, not because of what it really teaches, but
because of what they suppose that it teaches.
We ought always to bear in mind that to believe
the Bible is one thing, but to believe all the in
terpretations of the Bible which some persons
choose to give is quite another thing. Miracles
performed by God we joyfully receive ; but mir
acles imagined by commentators we certainly are
at liberty to reject. Unfortunately, to doubt the
interpretations of Scripture given by some men
is to lead these men to declare that you doubt the
revelations given by God ; but one must be loyal

348 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
to God's truth even at the expense of losing the
good opinion of traditional interpreters of that
truth. No one who really believes in God can doubt
the possibility of miracles. We know that God
metes out the heavens with a span; we know
that he holds the waters, even of the mightiest
oceans, in the hollow of His hand. We must
firmly believe that, by introducing laws now un
known to us. He could stop the clock of the uni
verse without jarring its mechanism. The ques
tion before us is not. Could God perform the
stupendous miracle of causing the sun and the
moon to stand still? The simple question is. Did
God cause the sun and moon to stand still at the
command of Joshua? Does the account in Joshua
X. 12-14 declare that the sun stood still? It may
be unhesitatingly affirmed that it is not so stated
in this Scripture, nor clearly in any other portion
of God's Word. We know well that a man can
arrest the progress of a machine many thousand
times greater than himself; and we may confi
dently affirm that God. could arrest the progress
of the world in its course around the sun. All
the discoveries of modern science, when rightly
understood, make it easier to believe in God, in
prayer, and in all spiritual realities. Let us clear
ly understand that the only question before us in
regard to this passage is a question of fact. Was
the writer speaking in impassioned and figurative
language, or speaking in the language of sober

DID THE SUN AND MOON STAND STILL? 349
and literal truth? These, let it be repeated, are
simply questions of fact. This passage, it is
frankly admitted, has given great difficulty to
many commentators, and to all apologists of re
vealed truth. God for wise purposes has intro
duced miracles into both the Old and the New
Testament, but for equally wise purposes He has
apparently reduced them to a minimum. Let us
look at some of the interpretations which have
been given to this vexed passage.
Different Interpretations.
Many of the early rabbis and Christian fathers
took the literal view of the passage. They sup
posed that the sun actually stood still in the
heavens. The sun was then believed to revolve
around the earth; thus these interpreters were
ignorant of the diurnal motion of the earth, which
has been wellnigh the universal doctrine since
the time of Galileo and Copernicus. This view
was held even after the reception of the Coperni-
can system of the universe ; but it was then ex
plained as optical rather than strictly literal. It
made, in this later modification of the view, the
earth and not the sun the stationary body at the
command of Joshua. These interpreters, how
ever, differed among themselves as to the length
of time during which the sun or the earth was
stationary; some said forty-eight hours, some
thirty-six, some twenty-four, and some twelve.

350 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
Another class of interpreters, led perhaps by
Spinoza, affirmed that the miracle was caused by
refraction and refiection. This view made the
sun to appear above the horizon after the usual
time of setting. We know that we get the after
glow of sunset in the diverse forms familiar to
travellers in lofty mountains and in high latitudes.
This result might be caused by a change in the
atmospherical medium, and so the sun might ap
pear to be above the horizon even after it had set.
This explanation makes the miracle much less
formidable than the literal view necessitates. It
makes, as we have seen, a change merely in the
atmospheric medium, and it leaves the rotatory
motion of the earth undisturbed. The sun always
is set before it appears to us to have gone below
the horizon ; by the law of refraction it appears
to us to be above, when really it is below the hor
izon. According to this interpretation, all that
it was necessary for God to do was to increase an
effect observable in our daily experience. We
would then have visibly the same result as if the
earth had actually paused in its revolution round
its axis. This explanation will relieve the minds
of many readers of the Bible, and it will account
for the phenomenon which some believe they find
in this famous passage in Joshua. But is it nec
essary to introduce even this modified view? The
real question before us, as already remarked, is
simply one of fact. A third view is related to the
one just given ; it is what is called the subjective

DID THE SUN AND MOON STAND STILL? 351
prolongation of the day. According to this inter
pretation, the day was not really lengthened, but
was supposed by Joshua and the Israelites to
have been prolonged. They were so busily en
gaged in conflict with their enemies, and they
accomplished so much in the time, that they did
not take accurate account of the time. It seemed
to them that the day had been prolonged, and the
writer simply records the popular opinion. This
interpretation will relieve some minds of the stu
pendous difficulties inseparable from a strictly
literal interpretation of the passage. There is a
fourth interpretation which, it has been well said,
is among the curiosities of biblical exposition.
This view supposes that the lightning which ac
companied the hailstorm was prolonged far into
the night, and that thus the darkness was so il
lumined as to appear like daylight.
The Better View.
Is there not a more satisfactory explanation
than any of those thus far given? The view pre
sented first by Maimonides, the learned Jew born
at Cordova, March 30th, 1135, a master in the He
brew Scriptures, the Talmud, and Jewish litera
ture generally, is that the passage is simply a
poetic way of saying that the Israelites won their
sublime victory before the setting of tbe sun.
Before the day closed five kings with their armies
were utterly vanquished. This view is indorsed

352 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
by Hengstenberg, and by many other commen
tators, Jewish and Christian, Roman and Prot
estant. It is very doubtful whether a strict interpreta
tion of the words will warrant us in making Josh
ua's language a prayer to God. Are we obliged
to regard his words as more literal than the apos
trophe of Isaiah, " Oh that thou wouldst rend
the heavens and -come down, that the mountains
would fiow down at thy presence"? Are the
words to be taken as more literal than the state
ment of Deborah and Barak that, " The stars in
their courses fought against Sisera"? Are they
more literal than the words of the psalm, " The
hills melted like wax at the presence of the Lord"?
Or the words of the other psalm, " The mountains
skipped like rams"? Are they more literal than
the words of Isaiah, " All the trees of the fields
shall clap their hands"? Joshua's words remind
us of the words of Wellington at Waterloo — " Oh,
that Bliicher or night would come!" There is in
the " Iliad" a prayer by Agamemnon not unlike
the words of Joshua on this occasion :
" Jove greatest, Jove most glorious sky-dweller, cloild be-
dight.
Let not the sun nor darkness fall and wrap the world in
night.
Till Priam's stately palace I cast in ruin low."
It is to be said in general that the words in the
original have been greatly misunderstood. The

DID THE SUN AND MOON STAND STILL? 353
author's meaning is very obscure. The language
attributed to Joshua is abrupt, broken, impas
sioned. It is absolutely certain that literally ren
dered it does not assert that the sun remained in
the heavens a day, nor an hour, longer than its
usual time. The passage simply affirms that the
sun stood still long enough for the people to be
avenged upon their enemies ; it did not set until
the great work of that heroic day was completed.
A people, unused to the appliances of war, over
came with great slaughter soldiers fully armed
and trained to military exploits. The sun and
moon were witnesses of the valorous deeds of
God's people; they held their courses until the
triumph was complete.
It is fitting that we should look at the words a
little more closely; a careful examination will
show that even a tyro in Hebrew poetry can see
that the words will not bear the meaning usually
given them by traditional interpreters. It is very-
doubtful whether the language attributed to
Joshua is, in any real sense, a prayer. No He
brew scholar will deny that' here nothing is said
of a direct address to Jehovah ; the address is not
to God, but to the sun and moon. We see at once
that the language in the original properly means,
not to Jehovah, but before, or in reference to Je
hovah. The verb translated " stand still" in the
original is " ddm, " and it generally means " cease, "
"rest," "be still," "keep silent. " The meaning
"stand still" seems to be an inference from the
23

354 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
thirteenth verse, and not a translation. In Ex
odus XV. 1 6 and in Lamentations ii. lo this verb
signifies to be dumb with terror. It is often used
figuratively to signify a silent or submissive frame
of mind. See Psalms Ixii. ii; iv. 4; xxxvii. 7,
and Isaiah xxiii. 2. It is thus certain that the
meaning is very indefinite. We have positively
no right to make this word certainly mean that
the sun's course was arrested in the heavens. It
is also to be observed that the phrase in the thir
teenth verse, " hasted not to go down about a
whole day," is a mistranslation. The Hebrew
keyom tdmim means as at tlie perfect day. This
says nothing whatever about the sun's remaining
in the heavens for a whole day. If we compare
Exodus xxxi. 18, and other scriptures in which a
similar expression is found, we shall have full
proof of the correctness of the interpretation now
given. It is distinctly stated in the thirteenth verse
that this account is written in the Book of Jasher.
The sepJier haydshdr, or the " Book of the Upright, "
appears to have been a collection of eulogistic odes
in praise of national heroes. This quotation is
thus a part of a triumphal song, like that recorded
in the fifth chapter of Judges, where in the twen
tieth verse there is a very similar thought, which
has already been quoted in this article. The
Book of Jasher is mentioned in 2 Samuel i. 18,
where reference is made to teaching the use of
the bow. There it is said the David's lamenta-

DID THE SUN AND MOON STAND STILL? 355
tion is partially an extract from this book. Some
have supposed that this book refers to some book
or books of the Bible itself, but that is not the
common opinion. No one can read Joshua x.
even in English without feeling that verses 12-14
are a quotation, if not an interpolation. No allu
sion is found in the Scriptures to this event, ex
cept in an obscure passage in Habakkuk iii. 1 1 ;
and Josephus makes but a slight reference to this
supposed miracle. A vast structure of argument
has gathered around this passage, and it is now
time that it should fall to the ground. The im
portance of the passage has been greatly exag
gerated both by the friends and the foes of
revealed religion. It is certain that in our
version the passage is somewhat of a mis
translation; it is also equally certain that it
is a quotation, and it is possible that it is an
interpolation. In no case ought this uncer
tain passage longer to trouble devout students
of the Word of God.
Josephus simply says in referring to this inci
dent : " The day was increased, lest the night
should check the zeal of the Hebrews. " We have
seen that if we accept the historicity of the nar
rative, it can be explained by the recognized laws
of refraction and refiection without involving the
tremendous consequences not only upon the globe
itself, but upon the entire solar system, and even
upon the equilibrium of the whole material uni
verse, which the traditional interpretation neces-

356 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
sitates. The Copernican system as set forth by
Galileo invested the passage, interpreted liter
ally, with alarming importance. Around it fierce
ecclesiastical battles have been fought. The Vati
can has had a conspicuous share in these battles,
and has had often to confess its defeats. The
explanation of Kepler is deeply interesting : " They
will not understand that the only thing Joshua
prayed for was that the mountains might not in
tercept the sun from him. Besides, it had been
very unreasonable at that time to think of astron
omy, or of the errors of sight ; for if any one had
told him that the sun could not really move on
the valley of Ajalon, but only in relation to sense,
would not Joshua have answered that his desire
was that the day might be prolonged, so it were
by any means whatsoever?"
In writing a history of the Civil War one might
well quote Whittier's words in " Barbara Frit-
chie" : "'Shoot, if you must, this old gray head.
But spare your country's flag, ' she said,"
without becoming responsible for the eiiact and lit
eral truth of the story of this woman's loyalty.
It is affirmed that history will not indorse the
details of the poem. The writer of the Book of
Joshua quoted from- a book of poems; he so in
forms us in connection with the quotation. Why
can we not believe him? Why must we create
difficulties which the writer takes pains not to

DID THE SUN AND MOON STAND STILL? 357
suggest? Let the battle over this vexed passage
cease; let us take its own explanation of itself.
Let God's Word interpret itself, although it prove
many human interpretations to be erroneous.
God's Word will stand forever.

XXI.
DID JEPHTHAH REALLY SACRIFICE HIS
DAUGHTER ?

XXI.
DID JEPHTHAH REALLY SACRIFICE
HIS DAUGHTER?
This question has for many generations per
plexed Bible students. The fact that Jephthah,
in the eleventh chapter of Hebrews, is mentioned
as one of the heroes of faith, has led many per
sons to doubt that he really offered his daughter
in sacrifice. Volumes have been written on the
subject of his rash vow ; and many writers have
stoutly maintained that his character should be
relieved from the dark stain of having offered his
daughter as a sacrifice in consequence of that vow.
The account is found in the eleventh chapter of
the book of Judges.
Jephthah was the ninth judge of Israel, and was
of the tribe of Manasseh. His father's name was
Gilead, and he was born out of wedlock. His fa
ther having died, his brothers, who refused him
a share of the heritage, expelled him from his
home. He then withdrew to the land of Tob,
which was beyond the limit of Hebrew territory.
He was distinguished always by great bravery of
character and by equal skill in arms. After his
banishment by his brothers, a number of desper
ate men gathered about him, and he became the

362 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
leader of this reckless band. In this respect his
life was not unlike that of David after his with
drawal from the court of Saul. Jephthah and his
companions thus resorted to a life of brigandage ;
but such a life was not deemed dishonorable in
the East in those days, nor in very much later
times, especially so long as freebooters preyed
simply upon public or private enemies and were
not guilty of needless cruelties in their brigand
age. They might rob and possibly murder, but
they must' do both with delicacy and despatch,
and, according to the rules of their order, with
some degree of gentlemanly deportment. This
class of men were the Robin Hoods of that early
day. We well know that in the border wars be
tween England and Scotland a class of men of
similar character long fiourished with some degree
of governmental authority and general approval.
We also know that Columbus in his early life, and
Drake and Raleigh, the naval heroes in the time
of Elizabeth, and others of this general character,
were really pirates. Jephthah was a freebooter
of this class, and his aggressions were confined to
small neighboring nations, who were in some sort
the enemies of Israel even when a nominal peace
was observed.
The Deliverer and Judge of Israel.
The Ammonites and their allies had held the
country east of the Jordan in subjection for eigh
teen years. Once more the people turned in peni-

DID JEPHTHAH SACRIFICE HIS DA UGH TER? 363
tence to Jehovah, and once more He heard their
prayer and sent them deliverance. The daring
deliverer at this time was Jephthah, the rugged
chieftain and reckless freebooter. His dashing
exploits and successful enterprises gave him the
reputation of great bravery and superb heroism.
Notwithstanding that his brothers had driven him
from home, when his kindred were groaning un
der foreign oppression, the people generally looked
to this lawless compatriot for deliverance. It
must have been a proud day for him when the
deputation was sent to invite him to take com
mand. He did not quite forget the treatment he
had formerly received, but after some demur and
delay he consented to be the leader of Israel's
faithful band, who determined to return to God
and to overthrow the enemies of the nation. The
Ammonites were assembled in force when Jeph
thah sent to them demanding a reason for their
invasion. His whole procedure was marked by a
certain kind of rude dignity which we cannot but
admire ; it shows that even in that early day some
provocation was required before any war was con
sidered justifiable. The spirit of our own time
in this regard was thus early anticipated. There
is no nation to-day in Christendom that would
declare war except it had grounds for the declara
tion which other nations might be expected heart
ily to approve. This fact makes nations extremely
slow in our day to issue the final declaration mak
ing war inevitable. This principle seems to be

364 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
deeply rooted in human nature. Jephthah recog
nized the propriety of this procedure; and the
Ammonites also felt obliged to justify their ag
gressive operations by affirming that the land be
yond the Jordan belonged to them rather than to
the Israelites. The Ammonites were its owners
before it was taken from them by the Amorites,
from whom, in turn, the Israelites had captured
the territory. On these grounds they attempted
to justify their effort to recapture the soil. Jeph
thah laid down in his reply a principle which has
been observed through the centuries among civ
ilized nations^ — a principle which the great writers
on international law have repeated and empha
sized. It is most interesting to discover in this
remote country and time the germs of interna
tional law as it has been fully developed in our
own time. It was here affirmed that by right of
conquest the Israelites secured the territory from
its actual possessors ; thus the Israelites could not
recognize the claim of any former possessors, who
had rendered them no assistance in securing the
territory, but who had rather opposed the claims
of the Israelites. The Ammonites, however, con
tinued to assert their claims to the soil, and thus
the issue was joined, and finally resort was had
to the arbitrament of war. Jephthah thus saw
that all negotiations with the king of the Ammo
nites would be fruitless. The Spirit of the Lord,
as a spirit of strength and bravery, came upon
him, and he at once prepared for war. The Gil-

DID JEPHTHAH SACRIFICE HIS DAUGHTER? 365
eadite elders consented — and their consent was
solemnly ratified before the Lord in Mizpeh — that
in the event of being victorious Jephthah should
be considered as the head of the nation.

His Solemn Vow.
The war on which he entered was likely to be
severe and deadly. Jephthah was under profound
emotion; and he, in a spirit of reckless daring
not unmingled with religious devotion, solemnly
vowed to the Lord, " If thou shalt without fail de
liver the children of Ammon into my hands, then
it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the
doors of my house to meet me, when I return in
peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely
be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt
offering." The word- here rendered "what
soever" in the authorized version may be ren
dered "whosoever," as it is without distinction
of gender.
Jephthah girded himself for war. He burst
upon the enemy with terrific fury. He drove
the Ammonites before him, capturing twenty
towns from Aroer on the Arnon to Minnith and
to Abel Keramim. The Ammonites thus sus
tained a terrible overthrow. Jephthah was thus
victorious, and he returned in peace to his house
in Mizpeh. The news of his glorious victory pre
ceded his own return to Mizpeh ; but instead of
being met by an animal or by a slave, his only

366 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
daughter, in whom his heart was bound up with
peculiar tenderness, filled with pride because of
her father's splendid victory, came forth with
timbrels and with dances to meet the triumphant
hero. Her fair companions joined her in this
hour of gladness and glory. But the sight of his
daughter, dancing in the joy of her heart, was
enough to freeze the blood in the father's veins
and to stop his heart in its beating. What can it
all mean? No sooner did he see his daughter
than he rent his robes and cried, " Alas ! . my
daughter, thou has brought me very low; for I
have opened my mouth unto the Lord and cannot
go back." The music is hushed; the maiden
draws near in silence. The hero of the hour is
the picture of despair. The wretched man for
gets all the victories of the battle in this moment
of domestic tragedy. Nobly does the heroic
maiden speak : " My father, if thou hast opened
thy mouth unto the Lord, do to me according to
that which has proceeded out of thy mouth ; for
asmuch as the Lord hath taken vengeance for
thee of thine enemies, the children of Ammon."
Her beautiful young life is the awful price of his
great victory, and the noble but misguided young
woman insisted that he should not disregard his
solemn vow. The bearing of both is equally
striking in this sad calamity in their family life.
Must she die — she, his only child, and so young
and beautiful? The greatness of the sacrifice he
must make almost crushes his life ; but the brave-

DID fEPHTHAH SACRIFICE HIS DAUGHTER? 367
spirited maiden rises with a noble grandeur above
her own sorrow, and above her father's grief,
with her mistaken conception of God and duty ;
she glories in her father's and her nation's vic
tory, even though it be at the price of her own
beautiful young life. She is calm when rough-
cheeked warriors turn pale and quiver with sor
row. She merely asks for a short period to be
given her, which she will spend in the lonely
depths of the mountains bewailing her sad fate —
bewailing, as did the Antigone of Sophocles in
her special grief, that she must die without the
hope of becoming a bride or mother in Israel.
No doubt all eyes were turned in admiration on
the heroic girl. Then came the last sad scene,
for " he did with her according to his vow. "
The Daughter's Fate.
What was the fate of Jephthah's daughter?
What did he do unto her according to his vow?
Volumes have been written in answer to this
question. It has been stoutly maintained that ho
did not offer her in sacrifice, but that she was
simply doomed to a life of perpetual celibacy.
Others, as Professor Bush, have affirmed that a
human sacrifice was contemplated, but that dur
ing the time when the maiden bewailed her vir
ginity upon the mountains, Jephthah obtained
better information respecting the nature of vows,
and that finally he redeemed his daughter at a

368 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
legal valuation. As between this view and that
of perpetual celibacy the idea of legal redemption
is more probable ; but neither view meets the con
clusion that " he did with her according to his
vow." If she were preserved from death there
would be no significance iq the lamentations of
the daughters of Israel, and to make the word
"lamentations" mean "celebrations" is certainly
a forced significance. There is really no difficulty
in the text; the entire difficulty arises from our
unwillingness to accept the text in its natural
meaning. Commentators have, therefore, in
vented a new thing in Israel, both in ancient and
in modern times, that a damsel should be conse
crated to perpetual virginity in consequence of a
vow of her father. All unprejudiced interpreters
must admit that nothing of this kind is contained
in the vow ; they must also admit that this idea is
utterly foreign to all Hebrew notions regarding
wifehood and motherhood. If commentators are
at liberty, because of their dislike to accept the
teaching of any part of Scripture, to inject into
a given passage what, naturally interpreted, it
clearly does not contain, then Scripture can be
made to mean anything which commentators de
sire. Many Jewish interpreters admit that Jeph
thah sacrificed his daughter, and affirm that she
was not devoted to perpetual virginity or to any
form of religious service. It is even alleged that
the dynasty of the house of Eleazar was passed
over to that of Ithamar because the high-priest

DID JEPHTHAH SACRIFICE HIS DA UGH TER? 369
permitted this horrible sacrifice to be performed.*
We do not know where the immolation took place,
but probably on some altar in the wild region be
yond the Jordan. The painters represent it as
having taken place at the altar of the Tabernacle,
and Jewish authority can be quoted for this view,
but it is utterly impossible to believe that such a
terrible sacrifice could have taken place at the
altar of God, and a high-priest as the sacrificer.
The Horrible Sacrifice Hateful to God.
The story of this sacrifice lingered long in the
memory of the people ; and for generations after
ward Jewish maidens, in sympathy with the self-
sacrificing spirit of Jephthah's daughter, bewailed
her fate. The story brings us into the atmos
phere of classical times. We are reminded of the
sacrifice of Iphigenia, the daughter of Agamem
non and Clytemnestra. Agamemnon having
vowed to offer her, and having failed to keep his
vow, the Grecian ships could not sail from the
* Joseph Kimchl is especially the author of the interpre
tation that the maiden was shut up in a house which her
father erected for this purpose, and that she was there vis
ited by the daughters of Israel four days in each year while
she lived. It is true that Hebrews such as Levi ben Ger-
som 'and Bechai. and Christian scholars such as Grotius,
Bishop Hall, Dr. Hales and some others of earlier and
later times have adopted this view. Lightfoot for a time
held this view, but more careful study led him to abandon
it and adopt the interpretation which the story naturally
teaches. 24

370 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
port of Aulis against Troy until the offended gods
were propitiated by the sacrifice of the maiden.
There is thus often a close likeness between the
Hebrew story and those of the heathen nations of
nearly contemporaneous times. It was an age of
rash vows. The whole nation made a vow against
the tribe of Benjamin, and King Saul made a vow
which nearly cost Jonathan his life. Jonathan
would have been slain but for the interposition of
the army ; but there is no mention of an interposi
tion on behalf of the heroic but misguided maiden
and her brave but superstitious father. Without
doubt the darker view of this tragedy is the cor
rect one. It is true that human sacrifices were
forbidden by the law; but Jephthah lived in
Gilead, and Gilead adjoined the countries of Moab
and Ammon, where human sacrifices were com
mon. In the unsettled times in which the Judges
lived many Israelites adopted the cruel practices
and superstitious customs of their heathen neigh
bors, even good men performing acts as truly for
bidden by the law as were human sacrifices.
Thus an altar was set up by Gideon at Ophrah
against the distinct law on that subject. It can
not be denied that human sacrifices were in these
rude times often considered meritorious and pro
pitious by some Israelites, as by almost all the
heathen peoples. This was the first and last hu
man sacrifice offered in a mistaken interpretation
of the will of Jehovah. We must constantly bear
in mind that this was a time of anarchy, ignorance,

DID JEPHTHAH SACRIFICE HIS DAUGHTER? 371
and superstition. Vows of ceHbacy were then
entirely unknown among the Hebrews ; the idea
of nunnery belonged to a much later period, and
to a different condition of society. It is affirmed
that the maiden could not be dedicated to the ser
vices of the high-priest, for he and the ark were
then at Shiloh in the territory of Ephraim, and
Jephthah was then at deadly war with that tribe.
There is something peculiarly painful in the
idea that this maiden, perhaps crowned with
flowers and led for.th with music and song to the
altar, could have been a sacrifice pleasing to God.
This act was the result of a false principle and a
foolish vow ; it was an act utterly hateful to God
and utterly repugnant to all the finer feelings of
human nature. Let us in no way hold God or
true religion responsible for so cruel, abominable,
and wicked an act. Such an act was not per
formed because its perpetrators had true religion,
but simply because they were utterly lacking in
true religion. It was not performed because God
commanded it or approved it, but because its per
petrators, living in a heathen atmosphere, were
ignorant of God's will, and so committed an act
unspeakably displeasing to God and dishonoring
to man. Tennyson in his poem, " A Dream of
Pair Women," gives a glowing picture of this
maiden lifted above herself in her desire to bless
her country, assist her father and honor her God ;
but her mistake was as great as her self-sacrifice
was heroic.

XXIL
DID SAMUEL APPEAR WHEN SUMMONED
BY THE WITCH OF ENDOR?

XXII.
DID SAMUEL APPEAR WHEN SUM
MONED BY THE WITCH OF ENDOR?
Saul, the first king of Israel, is one of the most
romantic and tragic characters of history. He
was the son of Kish of the tribe of Benjamin, and
his name means "the desired one." Zelah was
probably the place of his birth. His father was a
wealthy and powerful chief; and Saul while
searching for lost asses found a kingdom. A
" seer" was met on the journey, and he was none
other than the prophet Samuel, who after a little
time poured over Saul's head the oil of consecra
tion. Saul was an unusually attractive man at
that moment, as he towered head and shoulders
above average men. He received both an inner
and an outer call to the new life which awaited
him by the ordainment of God. The latter call
was given him at Mizpeh, when in his modesty
he was hidden in the circle of the baggage which
surrounded the encampment. His great stature
aroused the utmost enthusiasm of the people;
and soon they shouted, " Long live the king. "
This was the first time this shout was ever heard
in Israel, and perhaps in the world — a shout
later so often heard both in ancient and modem

3/6 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
times in scenes of joy and sorrow, of comedy and
tragedy. Later, when Saul had apparently returned to
private life, he heard as he drove his oxen near
Gibeah those wild lamentations peculiar to Eastern
towns when some great calamity has come. Soon
he learned that Nahash, king of the Ammonites.
had issued a terrible threat against Jabesh Gilead.
The Spirit of God came upon Saul, as upon the
Judges in an earlier day; and the shrinking and
timid man was immediately transformed into the
brave patriot and heroic leader. The bones of
two of the oxen which he was driving were sent
through the country as a suggestive message.
The people came in a body to meet Saul at Bezek.
The Ammonites were totally routed. Soon under
the direction of Samuel at Gilgal the monarchy
was inaugurated anew, and Saul was recognized
with solemn sacrifices as the victorious leader in
the kingdom, and was publicly installed and
anointed. Samuel virtually gave over his own
administration to Saul, whose military successes
produced a profound impression on the people,
and thus the monarchy was fully established.
Saul's First Transgression.
We are passing over great movements with
only the briefest mention. We see Samuel grad
ually withdrawing from the responsibility of
leader until Saul fully assumed that position be
fore all the people. God was the true King, and

DID SAMUEL APPEAR WHEN SUMMONED? 377
Saul simply His lieutenant. This relation was
well understood both by Saul and the people.
This is the true idea of the theocracy ; but unfor
tunately when Saul was put to the test of this idea
he proved unfit for his high office. The first
trial led to the threat which ended in his rejection
by God; for Saul forgot that he was only the ser
vant of Jehovah. In the second year of his reign,
as it is believed, he strove to shake off the heavy
Philistine yoke. This yoke was peculiarly griev
ous in his own tribe, over which a Philistine
officer exercised some degree of authority. Soon
he raised a small army, which under the leader
ship of the noble Jonathan took a fort of the Phil
istines. Saul later was reduced to a great ex
tremity, and the seventh day having come, whose
expiration Samuel had enjoined Saul to await,
Saul ordered sacrifices to be offered. Whatever
was the exact nature of this act, the fact was soon
recognized that Saul in performing it had greatly
sinned against God. Saul's conduct at this point
virtually involved a rejection of God, and the as
sumption of the claim to conduct the war accord
ing to his own will rather than God's command.
Upon Samuel's arrival after the completion of the
sacrifice he pronounced a curse on Saul's thought
less zeal. Soon after, largely through the bold
exploits of Jonathan, aided by a panic of the
enemy, Saul effected a great slaughter; but his
rashness led almost to the death of Jonathan.
The reckless vow of Saul regarding this truly

37^ OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
heroic son was the first appearance of Saul's mad
ness. The Philistines, however, were driven to
their own country, and for a time were confined
within its limits. Great honor thus came to Saul,
as no previous ruler had reached so high a posi
tion and had won so striking a triumph. Now he
began the organization of a royal establishment,
and we soon see the beginning of the institutions
which marked the monarchy. There is the nu
cleus of a standing army ; there is a bodyguard of
young, tall, and handsome Benjamites ; and there
are official runners and messengers. David and
Abner are the two principal officers at court, and
they sat with Jonathan at the king's table. An
other officer was the keeper of the royal mules.
The king now appears in state. His tall spear
became the symbol of his office ; and it is still the
mark of the dignity of the Bedouin sheik. It was
reproduced in the great iron staff always carried
by Ivan the Terrible of Russia as the symbol of
the Czardom. This spear was ever after asso
ciated with Saul in battle, at his meals, and in
his repose. It is as inseparable from his name
as is the harp from David's name. We now see
Saul with a diadem on his head and a bracelet on
his arm. He has become an autocratic rather
than a theocratic king.
Saul's Second Transgression.
The years pass. There is war with Amalek ;
and in sparing the conquered king and retaining

DID SAMUEL APPEAR WHEN SUMMONED? 379
the spoil Saul disobeyed the command of Samuel.
Thus he failed a second time in the trial of his
obedience to God and to His prophet. He failed
to extirpate the Amalekites, whose hostility to the
people of God was so old and so fierce. Saul
probably spared the king in order to make a
greater parade at the sacrificial thanksgiving.
Josephus expressly says that Agag was spared for
his stature and beauty; such a prisoner would
greatly grace Saul's triumph. At southern
Carmel he set up a monument, probably a tri
umphal arch of myrtles, olives, and palms, to
commemorate his victories. His spirit of rebel
lion against God led to his final rejection ; and his
disobedience led Samuel to withdraw all approval
from Saul. The separation between them was
indicated by the rent in Samuel's robe of state,
as he tore himself awaj' from Saul's grasp. He
was thus left to his sins and their inevitable pun
ishment; and we read that " Samuel mourned for
SauL" His Last Offence.
From the time of Samuel's rejection of him
Saul's life is one long tragedy. Doubtless at
times he was mentally and morally insane. The
frenzy which occasionally only touched him lightly
at other times controlled him completely. He
became at times the victim of melancholia; and
then the subject of fierce and uncontrollable pas
sion. David's harp temporarily chased away his
sorrow ; but soon it came back associated with the

380 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
savage madness which broke out against David
and Jonathan. The monarchy which he had or
ganized was breaking down at every point. The
Philistines were again in the land, and their char
iots and horses swept over the Plain of Esdraelon.
Near Shunem their camp was pitched. On the
opposite side, on Mount Gilboa, was the army of
Israel, clinging to the heights for safety against
the resistless chariots of the Philistines. Great
events are rushing on apace. Saul's army is near
the spring of Harod, or the Spring of Trembling,
a name which assumed an evil omen in connection
with this sad history. The cup of Saul's iniquity
is fast filling ; he is to perform just one more act
of open rebellion against God and that cup will be
full. It is a solemn moment in Saul's checkered
life. He is crossing the boundary line between
God's patience and His wrath. God help us all
when that terrible crisis comes, as come it may,
in our lives !
Saul had driven out those who practised necro
mancy; perhaps his act was intended in some
sense as an atonement for his many forms of dis
obedience to God. As we now see him his condi
tion is desperate. He is forsaken of God and of
men. No oracles now give him any communica
tions of God's will. Samuel is dead, Samuel on
whom he had leaned in so many crises for help,
and had not leaned in vain. David is now alien
ated, David whose dash and bravery, love and
loyalty had so often spared or delivered Saul in

DID SAMUEL APPEAR WHEN SUMMONED? 381
times of great danger. There is one witch left in
the land ; and we are now to see in Saul a strange
mixture of superstition and religion at this trying
moment. He asks his attendants to seek out for
him a woman who had a familiar spirit, as the
vague phrase in the narrative describes her. The
expression more literally is " a mistress of the Ob,"
a name which is derived from the leathern bag,
sometimes called a bottle, used in magical incan
tations, and it may suggest the practice of ven
triloquism ; the Septuagint translates the word " a
ventriloquist." Probably the name "Ob" is so
given because it was supposed that the spirit or
demon which possessed the necromancer inflated
the body so that it protuberated like the skin
used as a bottle. The Ob of the Hebrews was
thus exactly similar in conception to the Pytho of
the Greeks, and the name might be used both for
the performer and for the spirit which was sup
posed to possess him. Saul's act was positively
forbidden by the law. Lev. xx. 6, which sentenced
such pretenders to death, and Saul himself had
recently enforced this law.
Her Residence.
Near Endor such a vvoman lived. There is a
Hebrew i,radition, mentioned by Jerome, that she
was the mother of Abner, and that because of her
relationship to him she escaped the general mas
sacre of the necromancers at the hands of Saul.
Let us get the scene clearly in mind. The armies

382 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
are in full sight of each other ; between them lies
a part of the historic plain of Esdraelon. The
sight of the Philistines filled Saul with fear, and
so we read that "his heart trembled greatly."
He is alone in his camp. Neither David, Samuel,
nor God was now on his side. Neither by dreams,
Urim, nor prophets would the Lord give him any
answer. His suspense was terrible. If an an
swer will not come from heaven, perhaps one will
come from hell. Look at the place as travellers
see it to-day. A short ride from Nain brings us
to Endor; the word means the "Spring of Dor."
This spring has made the place habitable through
all the centuries. Here are found to-day a few
squalid people in their huts of stone and earth.
Here are also some remarkable caves ; enter these
caves. Behold this one; it is roomy, and in it
observe almost at any moment women filling their
water-skins or jars. The walls of this cave are
old, seamed, and weird. It is the traditional
place of the abode of the witch of Endor, whom
Saul came to consult. Wretched old women may
still be seen coming out of their holes or caves to
stare at strangers as they approach. It is no diffi
cult task to imagine that one of these hags repre
sents the old witch, who has made the place
famous through all the centuries since Saul's visit.
Saul's journey was a perilous one; but the out
ward danger was nothing compared to the horror
of great darkness which filled his soul. We can
still trace the road which he took. He must have

DID SAMUEL APPEAR WHEN SUMMONED? 383
crossed the plain, gone round the left flank of the
enemy, ascended the ridge of Little Hermon, and
then have gone down a steep descent to Endor.
Meaning of the Appearance.
Was the scene which followed a genuine appa
rition or a vulgar imposture? Volumes have been
written in answer to that question. Many cir
cumstances suggest that it was an imposture.
Saul was in exactly the frame of mind which ex
posed him to an imposition; he was weak, excit
able, and superstitious. He came to this woman
by night ; he sees her alone, his attendants being
absent although near at hand. It is easy to sup
pose that one of his servants had agreed with the
woman to personate Samuel. The narrative
shows us that Saul did not see any appearance of
Samuel. From this supposed ghost he learned
nothing which he might not have learned from
his attendants, except the words: "To-morrow
shalt thou and thy sons be with me" ; and atten
tion has been called by several critics to the fact
that the word translated " to-morrow" is very am
biguous, and often means the future indefinitely.
But others believe that Samuel did actually
appear to Saul ; and possibly it will be admitted
that the narrative' suggests the hypothesis of
some kind of apparition. Josephus pronounces a
labored eulogy on the woman. But the literal
appearance of Samuel, it may be said in reply, is

384 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
inconsistent with all which we know of the dead.
Can the dead assume a corporeal shape? Can
they converse and perform other acts of living
beings? Can we suppose that the spirits of de
parted saints are amenable to the call of every
old witch who chooses to dupe gullible men and
women? Such a thought is incredible. Heaven
would offer few attractions if saints like Samuel
are to be called back to earth by witches like the
woman of Endor. Others have suggested that
the woman induced Satan or some other evil
spirit to personate Samuel. But what right have
we to assume that any person has such power
over Satan? What right have we to assume that
Satan has any power over, or any relation to, de
parted saints like Samuel? This theory is not
encouraging to saints as they leave this earth.
Is it not better to suppose that God permitted
a divine impression to be made, partly upon the
senses of Saul and partly upon those of the
woman, that Saul might be once more rebuked
for his many departures from God? As we care
fully read the narrative we discover that Samuel
appeared before the woman had performed any of
her tricks of jugglery. When she saw Samuel she
was utterly amazed and cried out with a loud
voice ; and thus she appears to have been as much
startled as was Saul himself. There seemed to
have been no magical formulae employed to cause
the appearance, or to give her ground to affirm
an appearance. God for wise purposes seems to

DID SAMUEL APPEAR WHEN SUMMONED? 385
have interposed, and to have given the woman a
vision of the presence of Samuel ; in this sense that
presence was real to her, and through her state
ment real to Saul. God in a similar way moved
upon the mind of Balaam so that he was obliged
to bless those whom Balak desired him to curse.
The hearts of all men and women are under the
power of God ; and He can overrule the evil of
men for good. The woman believed that she saw
Samuel, but Saul saw nothing. He simply lis
tened to the woman's description of a god-like
figure of an aged man wrapped in the royal cloak
or sacred robe, an appearance like that of gods,
and then Saul fell the whole length of his gigantic
stature on the ground, and so remained until the
woman and her servants forced him to take nour
ishment. The woman was an impostor, and Saul
was in a sense her victim, but God overruled the
duplicity of the one and the superstition of the
other for the accomplishment of His divine pur
poses. The Sad Ending.
Thus Saul heard his death-knell rung from the
world of spirits. Back through the darkness he
goes with his sorrowful heart wellnigh broken in
his bosom. What a night he must have passed !
The day dawns, and soon he is rushing into battle.
The Philistines poured down the hill on the one
side, and the Israelites were forced up the hill
slopes. The battle was sore against Saul; the
archers hit him, and he was mortally wounded.
25

386 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
He fought with the valor of despair. At his
feet Jonathan and his other sons lay dead. Saul
sought death, but it came not to his relief. He is
faint and dizzy with the darkness and weakness of
the approaching end. Fearing that he might be
the sport of the Philistines if captured, he begs
his armor- bearer to thrust him through with the
sword. But respect for his fallen master pre
vents the servant from granting this boon. Be
hold Saul fixing his sword into the blood-stained
ground, and see him falling upon it with the
courage of despair ! Now he lies in pain smeared
with his own blood. A wild Amalekite, wander
ing over the upland waste seeking plunder, sees
the dying king and at that king's request he puts
him out of pain, giving him the coup de grace.
He then took off the royal diadem and bracelet
and carried them with the news of Saul's death
to David. The Philistines found the body on the
morrow, and stripped and decapitated it. The
armor was sent into the Philistine cities, and ap
parently deposited in a temple at Bethshan ; and
on the walls of the same city was hung the naked
and headless body of Saul, together with the
corpses of his three sons. The body was removed
from Bethshan by the gratitude of the inhabitants
of Jabesh Gilead, who did not forget the kindness
done them by Saul in the beautiful days of his
early kingship. They came over the Jordan by
night, took down the bodies, burned their flesh,
and then buried the bones under a tamarisk at

DID SAMUEL APPEAR WHEN SUMMONED? 387
Jabesh. David finally removed Saul's ashes and
those of Jonathan to their ancestral sepulchre at
Zelah in Benjamin.
There is no more melancholy character in Bible
history than that of Saul. There was in him much
that elicited admiration and evoked enthusiasm.
But his rashness was controlled neither by sense
nor conscience. The naturally fierce spirit of
the tribe of Benjamin developed in him into
uncontrollable ferocity. The naturally strong
affection manifested toward David and Jonathan
was perverted into bitter wrath, which finally de
veloped into insanity. The zeal which was un
controlled became disobedience toward God, and
this disobedience was the cause of all his disasters.
Those who reject God will believe in witcnes.
Men who are too incredulous to believe in the
Bible will believe in the ravings of ignorant, vul
gar, and lying spiritual mediums and fortune
tellers. There is no depth too low for men who
turn away from God, from purity, from truth,
and from the Bible. The whole law of God is
summed up by the divine Lord in the two great
principles which are universal as gravitation and
eternal as God: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy
God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and
with all thy might. This is the first and great
commandment. And the second is like unto it ;
thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these
two commandments hang all the law and the
prophets. "

XXIIL
DID TWO SHE-BEARS DESTROY FORTY-
TWO CHILDREN?

XXIII.
DID TWO SHE-BEARS DESTROY FORTY-
TWO CHILDREN?
The narrative of this incident in the life of
Elisha is found in 2 Kings ii. 23-25. The belief
that two she-bears, as a part of the curse of Elisha
on the derisive children at Bethel, utterly de
stroyed forty-two of these young people has
greatly perplexed many Bible readers, and has
utterly offended others, who desire to accept un
questioningly the Bible narrative. Recently at a
great assembly of Sunday-school teachers in this
city a rector of one of the churches unreservedly
affirmed that this incident was not authentic, that
it was an interpolation, and that, without the
slightest doubt, the event never occurred. His
affirmations and the doubts engendered in the
minds of many Christian people are largely, if
not entirely, caused by a misinterpretation of the
ancient story. It is most unfortunate that many
readers of the Bible have confounded false inter
pretations with true revelations; it ought to be
clearly seen that their objections are not really
against the Bible narrative, but against incorrect
explanations of that narrative.
Let us "fetch a compass" and approach this in-

39^ OLD TESTAMENT. DIFFICULTIES'.
cident so that its salient features may be discov
ered and emphasized. Elisha was the successor
of Elijah as the leader in the prophetical office.
As such a leader it was fitting that he should visit
the school of the prophets which was at Bethel.
This place, it will be remembered, was then a
chief seat of the illegal and idolatrous calf wor
ship. Elisha is on his way from Jericho to Mount
Carmel as he visits Bethel. In company with
Elijah he had made his last visit to that historic
town, when these two famous men were taking
their memorable journey before Elijah's transla
tion. We now approach the story at which many
have taken offence. They have considered it un
worthy of the great prophet ; they have even de
clared that it was immoral on Elisha's part to
pronounce a curse on these derisive youths. As
Elisha approaches Bethel we see these youths
clustered near the entrance to the town, as is the
manner of the' idle crowds in Palestine to this
day. The incident which is about to occur is
recognized at once as altogether unlike the life
and spirit of Elisha, and as more nearly resem
bling those of Elijah. We have here the one case
of severity in a life remarkable for its gentleness
and beneficence ; but a clear understanding of the
facts in the case will remove many of the difficul
ties with which the story is associated in the
minds even of devout readers of the Bible.

DID SHE-BEARS DESTROY CHILDREN? 393
Not Irresponsible Children.
We are not for a moment to suppose that these
derisive youths were little boys, merely irrespon
sible children, indulging in a childish prank as
Elisha approached the town. If we examine
closely the words which they uttered, as well as
the conduct which they manifested, we shall
clearly see that their abusive epithets were not
born of a mere childish freak. They knew well
what they were doing; they belonged to a city
which was the centre of an abominable apostasy.
Because of its bad pre-eminence Bethel, meaning
"house of God," was called Bethaven, meaning
" house of the idol. " These youths incarnated the
spirit and manifested the temper which we might
naturally ex!pect from the offspring of confirmed
and aggressive apostates from God. They were
not, as already affirmed, irresponsible little chil
dren. The objectors to this narrative generally
assume that these were children, perhaps from six
to ten years of age ; but nothing could be farther
removed from the facts in the case. The original
terms are nearim ketanim, which may mean young,
men in the strength and vigor of their early man
hood. Naar, the singular form of the word of
which nearim is the plural, signifies not only a
child, but a young man, a servant, a soldier, one
actually fit to go out to battle. Isaac is called
naar when it is believed he was twenty-eight
years old; and Joseph was also called by this

394 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
name when, according to some authorities, he was
thirty-nine years old. The word is applied to the
soldiers who served as a body-guard to Ahab.
It is also applied to Solomon when he was at least
twenty years old, at the time when he began to
reign; and Jeremiah uses the word of himself
when he was called to be a prophet. Those who
translate the original terms by the phrase " young
people" are probably entirely correct. It is quite
certain that the terms could appropriately be used
of those who had reached the period of early
manhood, and who might be of different ages
within that limit. We still speak of the Hebrews
as the " children of Israel" ; and different words
in the Hebrew translated children have a great
breadth of meaning.
It is thus evident that those who mo'cked Elisha
were fully accountable for their abusive and ir
reverent language. If this fact had been held
constantly in mind it would have entirely dis
armed many of the severest critics of this ancient
story. They have, as already implied, supposed
that these were thoughtless, sportive, prankish,
and merely fun-loving little children. Because
of this misconception as to their age the critics
have been disposed to consider that their offence
was very light, and so their punishment was
extremely severe. Thus the opposers of the
narrative have affirmed, because of these miscon
ceptions, that there was no proper proportion be
tween the crime committed and the punishment

DID SHE-BEARS DESTROY CHILDREN? 395
inflicted. It has thus come to pass that rather
than believe that divine revelation was responsible
for so great an injustice many earnest Christians,
as well as hostile critics, have rejected the narra
tive as an unauthoritative tradition or an unfor
tunate interpolation.
Meaning of the Insolent Epithet.
"Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald
head." The original words thus translated are
aleh kareach, and they are the language of gross
est insult. Some have supposed that these
words are equivalent to, " Ascend, thou empty
skull, to heaven," implying that these youths
knew of Elijah's translation. If this be the
meaning, their language was blasphemy against
God, and the punishment of these Bethelite idol
aters was light compared with their crime. If
this be the significance of the language, then
great scorn is cast upon the ascension of Elijah.
But this is probably not the correct interpreta
tion. Many authorities affirm that the word
translated "go up" does not mean "ascend," in
the sense in which the ascension of Elijah took
place. In addition to this consideration, it is not
at all probable that these" young people could have
heard at this time of the ascension of Elijah.
The language of the sixteenth verse clearly sug
gests that even the disciples of the prophet had
not yet learned of the translation of tbe-ir great
master.

396 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
Let US get the scene clearly in mind. We see
these young Bethelite defamers clustered about
the entrance to their city. They behold Elisha
at a distance as he approaches; they recognize
him by the prophet's mantle. It was probably
the mantle which Elijah had worn, and which he
had left behind him as he ascended ; it was, there
fore, in a peculiar sense the symbol of the pro
phetic offlce. They recognized Elisha as an ear
nest opponent of the calf worship to which they
were devoted, and of which Bethel in a special
sense was the headquarters. They watch Elisha
ascending the hill and approaching their city.
They have come out probably as an organized
band ; they certainly were a numerous group, for
if forty-two were injured by the bears there must
have been more than that number in the entire
company. They now call to Elisha in mockery,
Aleh kareach, " Go up, thou bald head." It is as if
they had said, " Be off, thou prophet of God; we
do not want your presence in our city ; let us be
rid alike of God and His prophet." The word
which is here translated " bald head" is a peculiar
term, and it strictly describes shortness of hair at
the back of the head; it. is distinct from another
term which describes baldness at the front of the
head. The term does not necessarily afflrm actual
baldness. These youths could not notice the con
dition of Elisha in that regard, as they were now
seeing him at a distance. It is true that Elisha
might have been prematurely bald. We know.

DID SHE-BEARS DESTROY CHILDREN? 397
however, that he lived long after this event ; but
his baldness, if it existed, as already suggested,
could not have been observed by these youths
when they uttered their opprobrious language.
It is quite well known that there could have been
no artificial baldness of the head caused by shav
ing, as the law forbade those who were conse
crated to the service of God from shaving the hair
of the head. Probably the language attributed
some form of moral culpability to Elisha; for
baldness was often regarded as the sign of leprosy,
or as the result of some form of moral dishonor.
The epithet was, therefore, implicative of moral
disgrace, and was thus a great reproach to Elisha
as a man of God. Attention has been called to
the fact that the tonsure among the Roman priests
was long considered in many countries not as a
mark of consecration and holiness, but rather as
a symbol of moral impurity. It is absolutely cer
tain that the. language applied to Elisha was the
keenest sort of scornful epithet, when uttered
against him as a prophet of the true God. We
have not, therefore, here an exhibition of the
mere wantonness of ordinary irreverence of boys
for age or worthy character; we have rather a
premeditated dishonor and a stinging insult to
Elisha as the prophet and minister of the most
high God. The scorn of these wicked youths was
not so much against Elisha as a man, but upon his
calling as a prophet. These defamers were de
spising Jehovah Himself. Elisha was simply the

398 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
ambassador of God, and as such God rather than
Elisha was the object of insult. His short-
trimmed locks differed so widely from the shaggy
hair of Elijah, which streamed down his shoulders,
that the youths considered him and his claims to
prophetship on that account, as well as because
of their aversion to God and His worship, as a fit
subject for denial and insult. We have thus dis
honor cast upon God, and upon the office of
prophet in the caustic language hurled at Elisha.
Elisha's "Curse."
This part of the narrative has been subjected to
severe criticism. We must not suppose that
Elisha in a petulant humor, and certainly not in
the spirit of personal revenge, declared God's
punishment of the sin committed. As God's
prophet he was making his first appearance in
Bethel. He could not allow this open mockery
to pass in silence. Had he permitted these boys
to go unrebuked he would have practically denied
his holy calling, and would have dishonored his
divine Master. Great Britain and the United
States cannot allow any form of dishonor to be
given to their ambassadors in any land ; for these
ambassadors represent the dignity, honor, and
power of their respective governments. Elisha
was the representative of the great God in the
midst of the worshippers of calves, and the honor
of God was involved in the honor of His prophet.

DID SHE-BEARS DESTROY CHILDREN? 399
But what do we mean by Elisha's curse? What
did Elisha do? Certainly he did nothing more
and nothing other than to declare the divine judg
ment on the wicked spirit and language of these
youths. He spoke in the name of the Lord,
besltem fehovah, by the name or authority of
Jehovah. It is certain that Elisha had no power
in or of himself to inflict the punishment which
came upon these deriders of God ; he could not
cause bears to come out of the wood. All that
Elisha could do was to declare the punishment
upon these sinful youths; and certainly Elisha
could do nothing less. It is to be said regarding
this part, and all parts of the narrative, that pos
sibly something is omitted in the record as we
have it, or some expression has greatly changed
its meaning since the record was made, and so
difficulties in the narrative are multiplied. It is
almost certain that if additional facts were given
all apparent disproportion between the offence
and the punishment, and regarding every other
difficulty in the narrative, would entirely disap
pear. The Punishment Inflicted.
What was the punishment thus infiicted on
these derisive and irreverent youths.'' We are
told that there " came forth two she-bears out of
the wood and tare forty and two children of
them." To this hour, as many travellers have
observed, the road to Bethel winds up the defile.

4O0 OLD TESTAMEsNT DIFFICULTIES,
and under the hill there are ruins which are sup
posed to be those of Ai. There are still some
trees found in this vicinity; but in Elisha's day
the neighborhood was marked by a thick forest
which was the home of wild beasts. We are now
dealing, let it be carefully remembered, with the
judgment of God which befell these depraved
youths. God had distinctly said : " I will also send
wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of
your children and destroy your cattle, and your
highways shall be desolate." When did these
bears come forth in relation to the time of the com
mittal of the offence by these young people? We
are not told ; the time may have been long after
ward. Regarding this matter it is impossible to
make an affirmation. But frankness compels us
to say that the natural impression of the narrative
is that this result happened soon after the mock
ery by the youths took place. Why are we dis
tinctly told that the instruments of the punish
ment were " she- bears"? There must be a reason
for this characterization, otherwise any bears
might have served the divine purpose in the in
fliction of merited punishment. We know that
she-bears are particularly flerce ; especially when
robbed of their whelps are they peculiarly raven
ous. To this fact frequent reference is made in
Scripture. ¦ It is not at all impossible that these
forty-two youths who were thus injured, in a
spirit of recklessness while employed in the wood
niay have robbed these bears of their young.

DID SHE-BEARS DESTROY CHILDREN? 401
The bears having been robbed may have been in
the track of these youths at the time they insulted
the prophet. God's providence easily could have
ordered this natural occurrence so as to give it the
effect of a divine cause, as indeed it was. Accord
ing to this conjecture, the bears were filled with
wrath for the loss they had sustained, and the jus
tice of God readily could guide them to the group
of the insulting and blasphemous youths.
But what was the extent of the punishment in
flicted? Much depends, in the correct interpreta
tion of the narrative, upon a right answer to this
question; and at this point careless readers and
traditional interpreters have greatly erred. They
assume that forty-two of these youths were killed.
How do we know that they were killed? It ought
to be constantly affirmed that it is not asserted in
this narrative that these bears ate forty-two, or
two, or even one of these reviling young people.
The word means only that the bears rent, or tore,
to a greater or less degree, forty-two of these in
solent youths. The word is used with consider
able breadth of meaning in different connections.
Perhaps nothing more is asserted than that the
flesh was torn, possibly only the clothing; and
there is a bare possibility that simply the group
was torn asunder, scattered pell-mell in every
direction ; although the special references to the
forty-two would indicate that something happened
to them which did not occur to others of the num
ber. The natural impression is that an injury of
26

402 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
some serious kind was inflicted, although its ex
tent cannot be accurately learned from the word
employed; but it is absolutely certain that it is
not here affirmed that even one child was killed.
This fact ought to be emphasized whenever the
story is discussed. It is a thousand pities that
meanings have been put into this word "tare"
which it will not bear and which its connections
nowhere suggest. The true explanation of the
word tare relieves the narrative of the supposed
disproportion between the crime committed and
the punishment inflicted. Lessons.
This story of the olden time is suggestive of les
sons for modern life and daily duty. It is always
a serious thing to reproach any person for infirmi
ties or deformities. It is still more so to attribute
physical or moral defects where they do not exist.
Those who reproach a man because he is a servant
of the most high God blaspheme God whose ser
vant he is. There are times when righteous wrath
is not only justifiable but its absence would be
culpable. The nobler the soul and the purer the
heart the more quickly will they flash out against
injustice to God or man, and against moral wrong
wherever found. God always has at hand the
means of punishing the guilty. He has hidden
resources in the soil to destroy the doomed cities
of the plain. He has. bears in the woods in leash
waiting for the command to injure irreverent

DID SHE-BEARS DESTROY CHILDREN? 403
youths. He has in earth and air, in sea and sky,
forces of nature which in harmony with natural
law will inflict inevitable punishment upon all the
violators of His law. No wicked words, no irrev
erent acts, no unholy thoughts escape the notice
of the great God of heaven and earth. When the
furious Saul persecuted the believers in Jesus he
persecuted Jesus Himself. He who defames the
prophets of God, or offends even the little ones
who believe in Jesus, strikes a blow at the majesty
of heaven and gives sorrow to the heart of the lov
ing Saviour. God's feeblest saints are dear to
Him as the apple of the eye ; the names of His
lowliest children are written in the palms of His
hands, and every time the hands are opened He
sees their names, and as often as the hands are
closed all the forces of heaven and earth are em
ployed for their protection.

XXIV.
THE DESTRUCTION OF THE CANAANITES.

XXIV.
THE DESTRUCTION OF THE CANAAN
ITES.
WAS the destruction of the Canaanites justifia
ble? In the judgment of many earnest
students, the moral difficulties in the Book of
Joshua are greater than are the astronomical dif
ficulties. The destruction of the Canaanites by the
command of God, and through the instrumentality
of Joshua, has been a subject of frequent attacks
by infidels upon the morality of the Bible and upon
the character of God. We all know that even the
most earnest believers are often perplexed by the
moral problems arising out of this subject and de
manding solution. Why did God command, or
even permit, this destruction? How could such
massacres occur without utterly demoralizing the
people responsible therefor? How could a book
claiming to be divine even seem to indorse such
terrible slaughters? These questions demand our
careful consideration, and to them alleviative an
swers can be given.
Character of the Age.
The age was one in which might made right.
God has revealed Himself to men in sundry parts

4o8 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
as men were able to receive the revelation. That
God commanded the extermination of the Canaan
ites is most certain. In Deuteronomy we read :
" Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth ;
but thou shalt utterly destroy them," and the rea
son assigned for this command is, " That they
teach you not to do after all their abominations. "
Is such a command in harmony with the divine
attributes of justice and mercy? God has to do- — ¦
it is said reverently — the best He can with the
material in His hand. The age of Joshua was
characterized by great ignorance of God. Thus
there was a low ethical standard among men.
Men were savage and brutal ; acts were then per
mitted, and even commanded, which would have
been utterly prohibited under the Gospel dispen
sation. Men had not then learned to say : " Our
Father, who art in heaven" ; and being ignorant
of the Fatherhood of God, they were correspond
ingly ignorant of the brotherhood of man. The
spirit of mercy inculcated by Christ was entirely
unknown in that rude time. It is quite unfair,
as we shall later fully see, to carry back from the
New Testament the morality there taught, and
apply it to the conduct and character of men who
did not have the full and blessed light of this
highest revelation of God. It was also a time
when property belonged to communities rather
than to individuals. Communities were, there
fore, held responsible for the acts performed by
their representatives. Punishment of nations

DESTRUCTION OF THE CANAANITES. 409
was in harmony with the forms of justice then
prevailing. Joshua believed himself to be the
minister of God in the punishment of the Canaan
ites. He was what the courts and officers of the
law are in our day. Have they right to pro
nounce judgment and to take life? Joshua had a
higher right in both respects; he was God's di
rect instrument. The Israelites were in a sense
responsible for the morality of the Canaanites;
and frequent rebukes by God were administered
to the Israelites for not having more fully obeyed
His command in the punishment of His and their
enemies. It was also the practice in that day among all
nations to put to death all prisoners taken in war.
The humanity of our time is the development of
thousands of years of Christian teaching. It
must ever be borne in mind that the commands
of God through Moses were greatly in advance of
the moral education of the world at that time.
Never was a leader of conquering armies less
governed by selfish motives and unholy ambitions
than was the brave and noble Joshua. Compared
with Alexander the Great, Caesar, Charles V.,
Philip II. , or Napoleon, Josuha appears conspicu
ous for noble character, selfless motives, and relig
ious consecration. Men must always be judged
with reference to the standard of morality of the
times in which they lived. Moses and Joshua
were far in advance of the moral standard of their
age ; they were the unworldly and godly men of

4IO OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
their time. The charge rightly made against Co
lumbus is, that he lived below the highest stand
ard of his time ; a similar charge might be made
against some of the practices of the Puritans, even
after they came to the New World. All students
of history must admit that the Jewish religion
never introduced barbarism into the world; on
the contrary, it greatly softened the spirit of cru
elty wherever it was established. Such conquer
ors as the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians
were far less merciful than was Joshua. The
Greeks and Romans stained the progress of their
armies by crimes from which Joshua was entirely
free. These classic nations did not hesitate to
dedicate captive women to the impure worship of
Aphrodite or Mylitta. The violation of women
was almost universal in the case of towns sacked
by armies of the earlier heathen, and even of
later Christian days. Goths, Vandals, Huns, Bul
garians, and Turks, frequently surpassed Joshua
in their pitiless cruelties. The conduct of the
Duke of Alva, Philip of Spain, and the Pope of
Rome in relation to the Netherlands was vastly
more abominable, in their various forms of atroc
ity, than was the conquest of Joshua over the
Canaanites. . This a General Problem.
How could God, we may ask, permit the bar
barities of pagan Rome against the early Chris
tians? How could God permit the still more

DESTRUCTION OF THE CANAANITES. 411
awful crimes of Papal Rome against those whom
that church called heretics? How could God, in
comparatively recent days, permit the satanic
atrocities of the Spanish Inquisition? How could
the nations of Europe and the republic of Amer
ica permit the hadean slaughter of the Armenians
by the Kurds and the Turks? How could the
American republic long, without effective pro
test, permit the nameless cruelties of a Weyler in
Cuba? We do not, indeed, answer one difficulty
by suggesting other difficulties; but we show, at
least, that the problem is not peculiar to Joshua
or the Bible.
Let it be remembered that often apparent se
verity is the truest leniency in war. The storm
ing of Drogheda in Ireland by Cromwell has been
fiercely criticised, but his act received justifica
tion not only in his own day, but in our time as
well. Carlyle affirms that, terrible as was Oliver's
surgery, it prevented greater suffering by bring
ing the war to a speedy end ; in this respect it
was more merciful than would have been a gen
tler course. Cromwell was himself convinced
that his severity " prevented the effusion of blood
for the future. " As a matter of fact, his stern
ness speedily ended the Irish war. The conduct
of the British armies in suppressing the Sepoy
atrocities in the Indian mutiny is a case in point.
It was not in wanton cruelty that General Neill
tied Sepoys to the mouths of cannons, and then
fired the cannons, and shot the cruel wretches

412 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
into fragments, thus infiicting apparently shock
ing forms of cruelty. He took advantage of a
prevalent superstition among the Sepoys to the
effect that the bodies thus mutilated would suffer
additional humiliation and torture in the world to
come. His act struck a degree of terror into the
hearts of the rebels such as it is difficult for us to
comprehend. It largely overthrew the rebellion.
For every Sepoy thus put to death, it is safe to
say that at least five hundred lives were saved.
It is also certain that if the Israelites had fol
lowed up their first successes by similar crushing
victories, they would have speedily become mas
ters of Palestine, and would thus have saved many
lives and averted many moral evils.
Guilt of the Canaanites.
We ought also to remember that the Canaanites
were guilty of the most abominable crimes con
ceivable by the human mind. They sinned
against the light of nature, against the example
of the patriarchs, and against the warnings given
by God in the punishment of Sodom and Gomor
rah. In His commands against them God was
but expressing His indignation against horrible
forms of vice. We have only to turn to the Book
of Leviticus to see the awful catalogue of abomi
nations, which, we are distinctly told, were com
mitted by the people of the land. Some forms of
their crimes were long punishable by death in
Great Britain and in her colonies. This writer

DESTRUCTION OF TIIE CANAANITES. 413
once saw a young man on trial for his life under
the forms of British law, charged with one of the
crimes of which the Canaanites were guilty. No
words are too strong to express the indignation
which all true men must feel against the nameless
crimes committed by these beastly Canaanites.
Indeed, it is unfair to animals to put them in the
same category with the inhabitants of the land
which the Israelites came to conquer. When
Israel refused to destroy these pamperers of vice,
she lapsed into their idolatrous and lustful prac
tices; she even sacrificed children on the altars
of Moloch. Thus it was that their religion was
degrading beyond description. When fifteen
hundred years later some of their practices were
introduced into Rome, the satirists of that day
regarded the advent of these vices as an enormous
calamity. These Canaanites knew of God's won
ders in Egypt and of the victories over the kings
of Gilead and Bashan. They knew that God had
chastised the Hebrews for participating in the
abominations of Baal-Peor. We know that Ra
hab informed the spies that she had known of
God's mighty judgment; so, doubtless, did oth
ers. She repented and was saved, and perhaps a
goodly number of others also repented and were
saved. All might thus have been saved. God
might indeed have punished the Canaanites by
the operation of natural laws ; He does punish in
that way violators of moral laws in our day. No
man can escape these laws; they follow him as

414 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
does his shadow. But if God had punished the
Canaanites by epidemics, by pestilence, or by
some other display of His righteous wrath. His
abhorrence of sin would not have been so clearly
shown as when He used the Israelites as the in
struments of His righteous anger. Nature in-
fiicts its wrath now upon weak women and harm
less children, and whatever charge may be made
against the God of revelation must also be made
against the God of nature.
A General Law.
Let it further be remarked that the nation that
will not conform to the highest civilization of its
time will by that civilization be destroyed. This
statement is the formulation of a law universal as
God and irresistible as gravitation. God was now
about to introduce the fullest manifestation of His
kingdom yet given to men; and He required a
territory from which evil infiuences were absent
for the display of His great purposes. Similar
truths are illustrated in America. God had great
purposes in the establishment of the American
republic. But in order that Pilgrim and Puritan
fathers might have an appropriate sphere for
planting and developing the great principles of
American civilization and Christianity, the Indian
had to be driven back from his former hunting-
ground. The process has continued until this
day. The Indian's territory was demanded for a

DESTRUCTION OF THE CANAANITES. 415
higher civilization, and for that purpose, by va
rious providential combinations, it was taken.
The Indian has been driven back and back almost
to the other edge of the continent. The process
will go on until he is either civilized or extermi
nated. Doubtless, great cruelties have been prac
tised against the Indian on our own continent;
doubtless, solemn treaties have been broken, and
the white man has been guilty of much injustice
toward his red brother. Nevertheless there is
divine justice and an inevitable necessity in the
operation of the law that nations that will not
submit to the highest civilization of their time
shall by that very civilization be destroyed. The
greatest good to the greatest number necessitates
the execution of this apparently severe but uni
versal and eternal law. Dr. Arnold rightly
teaches us that " The Israelites' sword, in its
bloodiest executions, wrought a work of mercy for
all the countries of the earth, to the very end of
the world."
As a final consideration, it is to be remembered
that there is an anger which is not sinful. In
deed, the tenderer men are the more righteously
wrathful do they become against wrong wherever
found. He is only a being of paste and putty
whose anger does not flash out against certain
crimes committed against God and man. Jesus
was a terrible Preacher against the hypocrites of
His day. There are times in which even the
holiest souls find appropriate vehicles in the im-

4l6 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
precatory Psalms for the expression of their high
est thought. Dean Stanley calls attention to the
fact that during the Sepoy rebellion the Book of
Joshua was read in the churches with a great
sense of appropriateness. There is need to-day
of certain phases of the moral indignation against
evil expressed in many of the Psalms and illus
trated in the conduct of Joshua and the Israelites.
Let us be modest in passing judgment upon those
who had to deal with the abominable cruelties
and indescribable impurities which the Moabites
committed in honor of Chemosh, and the Philis
tines in honor of Dagon. Let us not be wiser
than God. Only the man who is wiser, tenderer,
purer, and holier than God may presume to criti
cise God. God had His purpose all through this
bloody period. His people fought not simply
against the enemies of Israel, but against the
enemies of humanity. We to this hour are reap
ing good fruit from the seed which they sowed,
though they often sowed it amid tears and blood.

xxv.
ARE THE IMPRECATORY PSALMS JUSTIFI
ABLE OR EVEN EXPLICABLE?

xxv.
ARE THE IMPRECATORY PSALMS JUS
TIFIABLE OR EVEN EXPLICABLE?
By the Imprecatory Psalms we mean those
psalms in which the author invokes curses upon
his enemies, and does this in a real or apparent
spirit of vindictiveness. In some of the psalms
to which this title is applied the author seems to
take positive delight in the suffering of his foes.
Some psalms in their entirety are usually classed
as imprecatory; and parts of other psalms bear
this title. It is believed by competent critics that
the psalms which are most intensely imprecatory
bear strong marks of the authorship of David.
The following are among the psalms or parts of
psalms to which the title imprecatory is generally
applied ; these are not, indeed, all the psalms that
could be selected of this class, but they are fair
specimens of the spirit and style of all the psalms
to which this title can properly be given ; of the
entire psalms usually classed as maledictory the
following may be named: Pss. xxxv., Iviii., lix.,
Ixix. , and cix. Parts of other psalms are usually
placed in this category: Pss. iii. 7; v. 10; ix. 2-
4; X. 15; xviii. 37-43; xxviii. 4; xxxi. 17; xxxv.
3-8; xxxvii. 12-15; xL 14; lii. 5-7; lv. 9, 15, 23;

420 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
Iviii. 6-10; lix. 12-15; Ixiii- 9-1 1; l^iv. 7-9; Ixviii.
2; Ixix. 22-25; Ixxix. 12; Ixxxiii. 9-17; cix. 6-
15; cxxxvii. 7-9. In some of these passages, es
pecially cix. 6-11 and cxxxvii. 8, 9, the maledic
tory spirit is very marked.
No one can deny that these portions of Holy
Scripture have seriously perplexed devout readers,
and that they have also furnished plausible objec
tions to those who deny the inspiration of these
psalms. Some of these psalms breathe a spirit of
revenge and malice apparently inconsistent with
all our ideas of true religion ; indeed, some of them
shock sensitive readers, and startle those who are
not sensitive. It has been gravely proposed by
men not lacking in devoutness that an expurgated
edition of the psalter should be prepared for gen
eral use, an edition which should omit all psalms
possessing this maledictory spirit. Various theo
ries have been propounded by scholars in different
countries and centuries to explain the presence
of these psalms, and portions of psalms, in a book
claiming to be directly from God. No one will
deny that the difficulty connected with their pres
ence in such a volume is real and great. Perhaps
it is impossible entirely to remove' these difficul
ties. Difficulties, however, of many kinds are
not peculiar to the Bible as a revelation from
God; difflculties are found in natural science, in
mental philosophy, and in practical morals which
we cannot entirely remove. But although all
difflculties connected with the imprecatory psalms

THE IMPRECATORY PSALMS. 421
cannot be removed, it is quite certain that some
really alleviative suggestions can readily be made.
Alleviative Explanations.
It is quite certain that some critics have greatly
exaggerated the spirit of vindictiveness recog
nized by all in some parts of the psalter ; but it
ought to be borne in mind that really very few of
the psalms possess this characteristic. Dean
Stanley in his lectures on the Jewish church, vol.
ii., p. 170, calls attention to the fact that out of
one hundred and fifty psalms in the psalter, only
four are specially marked as possessing a vindic
tive spirit. In this connection we ought to em
phasize the fact that much importance should be
attached to the natural vehemence of expression
among the Orientals, as compared with the habits
of thought and language on the part of those liv
ing in cooler climates and possessing different
characteristics. It is absolutely certain that much
that is supposed in these psalms to be harsh and
vindictive may be referred to the spirit of the age
in which the psalms were written, and to the char
acteristics of th^ writers themselves. Critics of
all kinds of literature ought to judge an author
by the standards of his own age and place, and
not by standards of our time and place. We con
stantly apply these principles to the Greek and
Latin poets, to the records of knight-errantry in
the Middle Ages, to the language of Covenanters

42 2 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
and Puritans, and, indeed, to authors of all times
and places. It is certain that Biblical authors
are equally entitled to the application of this prin
ciple of literary criticism. It is quite certain
that often uneducated men who use rough and
seemingly harsh words mean to express no more
harsh and cruel feeling than other men express in
the smooth tones and courtly phrases of a more
refined culture. He is an unfair critic, to judge
the subject purely on literary grounds, who re
fuses in his study of the imprecatory psalms to
give due weight to the genius of Hebrew poetry
and the spirit of the age in which David lived.
The true critic will always strive to distinguish
between an author's real meaning and the color
which his mental habit, national education, and
immediate environment give to that expression.
Except this principle be constantly borne in mind,
we shall pass an utterly false judgment on the
Covenanters of Scotland and the Puritans both of
Old and New England. David certainly is en
titled to a fair application of this conspicuously
fair principle of literary criticism. We all know
that the Oriental, even to this day, uses extremely
strong language for the expression even of ordi
nary feeling and opinion. When Europeans
would express the idea that God loves men, they
use a simple statement to that effect ; but when
the Asiatic prophet expresses the same idea he
says : " Thy maker is thy husband" ; and he
further expresses the idea by referring to the joy

THE IMPRECA TOR Y PSALMS. 423
of the bridegroom over the bride as illustrative
of God's joy in His people. These statements are
almost objectionable because of the amatory ele
ment which the Occidental discovers ; but the form
of expression was most natural and proper to the
Oriental. In like manner the Oriental expresses
his sense of justice in language equally strong.
Tbe apparently terrific denunciations of the
psalmist meant nothing more to him than lan
guage which we often use without offending the
most sensitive readers. This principle of criti
cism ought carefully to be applied to the writings
of all Oriental poets and prophets. Mahy oppo
nents of the Bible have been guilty of great un
fairness because of their failure to recognize this
eminently appropriate principle in their interpre
tation of the psalter and other portions of the Old
Testament. Some have found an alleviative interpretation
in the opinion that some of the imprecatory psalms
are predictive rather than maledictive. This in
terpretation implies that the imprecations state
what would be rather than what the writer desired
should be. But this view must not be pressed
unduly. The more careful study of the Hebrew
original in these recent times does not warrant
this view, except possibly in a very limited appli
cation. The scholarship of an earlier day made
some of the passages to be rendered in the future
rather than in the imperative ; possibly in some
cases the laws of the Hebrew language will per-

424 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
mit this interpretation. So far as this explana
tion is permissible, the idea is that the punishment
denounced is what sinners deserved rather than
what the writer desired on their account. This
language is predictive rather than imprecative.
It expresses what, in the operation of natural
laws with which we are all familiar, is sure to fol
low a course of evil conduct. Sin will be followed
by sorrow; what a man sows that shall he as
suredly reap. We cannot separate between sin
and punishment; punishment will follow sin as
the shadow follows substances in the sunshine.
But even if this interpretation is applicable to a
few passages the most serious difficulties still re
main, as this explanation will not meet all the
cases. It is quite certain that in some passages
there is an expression of feeling, of desire, of
pleasure in the invocation of terrible calamities
upon the enemies of the writer. This is at best a
timid way of dealing with real difficulties. Can
this vindictive spirit be reconciled with the char
acter of Christianity? Is it in harmony with any
form of revealed religion? These are most seri
ous questions, and they deserve the most careful
consideration. An alleviative interpretation has been sug
gested on the ground that the duty of forgiving
enemies is not distinctly taught in the Old Testa
ment. But this is not a tenable position. The
Jewish Scriptures condemn a spirit of revenge.
It would be easy to quote passages from Exodus,

THE IMPRECATORY PSALMS. 425
Leviticus, Proverbs, and from still other portions
of the Old Testament to show that even these
Scriptures did enjoin the requiting of evil with
good. It is also true that David recognized this
obligation, and was himself frequently a noble il
lustration of the spirit of magnanimity toward his
foes. It is to be said that in some cases the writer
of these malefic passages merely records the feel
ings of others, and in those cases he is not to be
held responsible for the language employed.
This explanation covers a number of cases, and
some of them those of the most serious character.
The writer merely expresses the gratification
which others would feel in seeing vengeance in
flicted on their enemies, even though that ven
geance should come in the most cruel forms. In
these cases all that the writer, or the Spirit of in
spiration, is responsible for is the correctness of
the record. The writer is merely telling the story
of the cruelty of others, and is not expressing
any cruel feelings of his own. In Genesis xxxiv.
25-29, xlix. 6, 7, the inspired writer gives a record
of the cruelty of the sons of Jacob ; so in 2 Sam.
xii. 31, we have simply a statement of the cruelty
which had been inflicted and for which the writer
had no responsibility whatever. One of the most
Startling of the imprecatory passages is the one
in Psalm cxxxvii. 8, 9 ; this passage has shocked
many devout students of the psalter; but it is
simply a statement of the actual feelings of those
who should wreak vengeance on Babylon. The

426 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
pride and arrogance of Babylon had been so great
that we can well suppose many who should see
her terribly punished would have the utmost sat
isfaction, even though that punishment were sav
age and barbarous in the extreme. But there is
nothing in this record necessarily to show that the
author of the psalms rejoiced in the infliction of
that punishment. This solution of the difficulty
will certainly apply to some of the imprecatory
passages. It is quite certain that Mr. Motley, in
writing of the cruelties of Alva in the Nether
lands, or of the Inquisition in Spain, or any re
cent writer speaking of the satanism of Weyler in
Cuba, must not be supposed as sympathizing with
the cruelty which he describes. This explanation
will not apply to all the objectionable passages, but
it certainly does to a number of them, and is an
explanation to which due weight should be given.
Still Other Alleviations.
It has been proposed by some writers to explain
these imprecations on the ground that they are
the language natural to the human heart, lan
guage which naturally and actually occurred to
the mind of the psalmist but which is not com
mended to us for imitation. Inspiration is not
omniscience ; inspiration is not perfection. The
spirit of inspiration is not responsible for wicked
thoughts on the part of the psalmist, any more
than it is responsible for wicked acts on the part

THE IMPRECATORY PSALMS. 427
of Abraham, Jacob, David, or Peter. The biog
raphy of other men in the Bible clearly shows
that they were guilty of acts which must be con
demned even by their own standards of morality.
If inspired men may do selfish and resentful acts,
they may also speak passionate and unrighteous
words. The Scripture is always honest in its
statem^ents even regarding eminent servants of
God. It palliates nothing ; it dares tell the whole
truth. Without doubt this illustration of truth
fulness on the part of the Bible is an element of
its great power. It does not present to us the life
of the most distinguished saint as free from
struggles with sins and temptations. It does not
give us the highest forms of religion conceivable,
but it represents its noblest men as struggling with
manifold temptations and so working out a noble
character. The failings even of Moses, David,
and Peter have given encouragement and inspira
tion to all subsequent ages, even as the heroic
morality of Joseph and the unfaltering courage of
Daniel have rebuked weakness and encouraged
fidelity and loyalty. Thus the psalmist does not
select simply his highest emotions and his noblest
aspirations for exhibition in his writings ; but he
gives a true picture of his own heart in its various
struggles against evil and toward good. The
psalmist was only partially sanctified. No true
view of inspiration requires us to deny that vin
dictive feelings might arise in the mind of an in
spired poet and a partially sanctified king. The

428 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
Bible frankly admits David's great sins. The re
ligious emotions of the best men are mingled with
imperfections. The spirit of inspiration is not
responsible for these feelings, any more than for
the evil acts of those whose lives are recorded ; it
is responsible simply for a correct record of these
feelings and acts. These portions of the writer's
feelings are not given for our imitation. Inspira
tion is not sanctification. Balaam uttered true,
glowing, and sublime prophecies, and yet Balaam
was in many respects a bad man. No man will
deny that such men as Augustine, Luthier, Me
lanchthon, Calvin, Knox, and scores more in
earlier and later days, were at times guilty of un
christian feeling and unholy action. It should
constantly be borne in mind that perfection is un
known even among the greatest saints of all ages
and climes. A man may be a true historian and
not be in the full sense a true man.
A very helpful alleviative interpretation is
found in the fact that David identifies the enemies
of God with his own enemies. The critics of
these portions of the psalter have largely forgot
ten this fact, but it is a fact that ought never to
be forgotten. David speaks not so much against
the enemies of David as against the enemies of
David's Lord. He well expresses his own spirit
when he says : " Do I not hate them, O Lord,
that hate thee?" "I hate them with perfect
hatred; I count them mine enemies." The
author of the article on the Psalms in Smith's

THE IMPRECATORY PSALMS. 429
Dictionary of the Bible, in illustrating this point,
calls attention to the fact that even Catiline had
insight enough to say, " An identity of wishes and
aversions, this alone is true friendship. " Apply
ing this test to David in his relations to God, we
can see that the union between them was such
that all God's enemies David regarded as his own
personal foes. David was in a sublime sense
God's representative; the honor of God's name
and the glory of God's kingdom were in a marvel
lous way committed to the care of David. In re
quiting the wrongs of his Lord and King he for
got his own wrongs as committed against himself,
and thought of them only as committed against
his God. An American or British ambassador at
a foreign court may entirely lose sight of an
attack upon himself, and consider it simply as
aimed at the government whose representative
at that court he is. David's zeal for God made
all God's enemies in some sense his own enemies.
It has been well said, by the writer to which allu
sion has just been made, that it was when David
felt God's honor to be insulted that he rose to so
lofty a vengeance as to express himself thus :
" That thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies.
And the tongue of thy dogs in the same. "
Many other similar examples of the manifesta
tion of this spirit could readily be given. David
rises to his noblest strains of righteous wrath when
he is defending God's honor and is entirely for-

43° OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
getful of his own personal wrongs. It would be
easy to quote passages from these psalms showing
his kindness, gentleness, and forgiveness toward
his own foes. There is a striking illustration of
this spirit in Psalm xxxv. 12, 13: " They rewarded
me evil for good to the spoiling of my souL But
as for me, when they were sick my clothing was
sackcloth ; I humbled my soul with fasting ; and
my prayer returned into mine own bosom. "
Two Strong Alleviations.
We must recognize the fact that in the impreca
tory psalms a righteous indignation is often ex
pressed, a sense of outraged justice here finds
voice. All true men must admit that there are
times when the spirit of forbearance must give
place to the spirit of righteous indignation. The
holier the soul the hotter at times will be this spirit,
and the stronger will be its expression. It has
often been remarked that in the study of the sa
tanic Inquisition in Spain, of the horrible St.
Bartholomew massacre, and of the terrible Smith-
field fires, even the gentlest spirit finds the im
precatory psalms an appropriate vehicle of ex
pression. The humblest and most devout saints
in India during the Sepoy rebellion found solid
comfort in reading these portions of the psalter.
Many of us during the fearful massacres in Ar
menia and still later in Cuba sympathized with
the spirit of these Christians in India, and found

THE IMPRECATORY PSALMS. 43 1
corresponding comfort in these maledictory pray
ers. As one thinks of the devilish spirit of the
liquor traffic he may without sin, in some mod
ified sense, use these psalms as expressive of
his feeling. There is an indignation which is
righteous ; there is an anger that is sinless. The
holier the soul the greater will this indignant and
righteous anger be. He is made of paste and
putty whose spirit does not flame forth in indig
nant wrath against forms of sin unfortunately too
common in every walk of life. It has been well
said that David was the Milton and Cromwell of
his time ; he fought the earthly battles of his Lord
and Master. We do not feel that Milton showed
an un-Christian spirit when, catching the echo of
David's lyre, he sang:
"Avenge, O Lord, thy slaughtered saints, whose bones
Lie scattered on the Alpine mountains cold. "
We must also bear in mind that David was a
magistrate, was a king, and was in a real sense
the representative of God. It was a part of his
function to discover and arraign the guilty and to
dispense justice. We cannot deny that in certain
conditions punishment is right. A law without a
penalty is not law, but simply advice. Account
for it as we may, there is something in our nature
which approves of the infliction of penalty when
crime has clearly been committed. The whole
theory of government recognizes the necessity for
arrangements for detecting and punishing crime.

432 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
We thus have an array of constables, jurymen,
and judges. Is it not lawful for a detective, or a
constable, or a keeper of a prison to pray that he
may discover the guilty and infiict the appro
priate punishment? Could not a detective officer
in his private devotions or at his family altar offer
a prayer that he should be successful in discover
ing and punishing fiendish criminals? Could not
David appropriately offer a similar prayer? Is
not his prayer in its essence simply that justice
ma.)' be done and that righteous punishment may
be inflicted? It cannot be proved that there is in
the imprecatory psalms any more malice than
might be found in the heart of an officer of the
law even in our day when he is endeavoring to do
his duty in capturing and punishing criminals.
The nobler the student of Scripture the more
readily will he see that even the imprecatory
psalms have some place in human life, and so in
divine revelation. It is not an evidence of a high
spiritual conception that finds no place for the
resistance to evil, and for the avengement of
wrong, which is found in this portion of the
psalter. All that is manliest in human nature and
divinest in God will at times flame forth in de
nouncement of evil and in vindication of the right.
It ought to be borne further in mind that what
ever difficulty exists regarding the imprecatory
psalms is a difficulty created by the Bible itself.
The sacred writers have given us this record. It
is clearly seen in the Bible that all its parts have

THE IMPRECATORY PSALMS. 433
their own method of denouncing sin. In the his
torical books sin is denounced by simply showing
its effects in harmony with natural law. Its
results in national character are seen in the loss
of vigor and nobility, and in the final enslavement
of the people. The prophets denounce it with
tremendous rhetorical vigor. If one will read
the anathemas of Isaiah, Amos, and other proph
ets with this thought in mind he will see that
David's imprecations are comparatively mild and
gentle. No one uttered more fearful " woes" than
fell from the lips of the loving Saviour. He
spoke with a breadth of application and intensity
of meaning which David could not understand.
The purer and diviner the character of Christ the
severer and fiercer the imprecations He uttered.
Let it then never be forgotten that David spoke
rather of God's enemies than of his own. The
Bible with the utmost candor gives us the record.
Its writers indulged in no feelings which they
were unwilling to record. If we condemn these
imprecations, we ought to remember that the
spirit which leads to their condemnation has come
from the Bible itself. The Bible is one book ; all
its parts are one revelation from God. We must
judge its writings as a whole. Men and books
must be criticised in their entirety. It is quite
unfair to judge either by their beginning and not
by their ending. Thus it will come to pass that
the entire book, when rightly understood, is seen
to be harmonious. 28

434 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
We have thus seen that there are many allevia
tions of these difficulties. The nobler the soul
the more easy will he find it to interpret these
imprecations. When right is on the cross and
wrong is on the throne, when the wicked oppose
and those who should be valiant for truth are
silent, then noble souls in the fires of persecution
catch the true spirit of the imprecatory psalms.
In the day of peace and sunshine dilettante fol
lowers of Christ may seem shocked at the strong
language and apparently vindictive spirit of these
psalms ; but in the day of terrific trial between
right and wrong, good and evil, Christ and Satan,
a holy resentment may become the divinest of
emotions. Let us make due allowance for the
Orientalism in the diction of these imprecations,
for the heroic spirit of resistance to evil in the
heart of the psalmist, and for the sublime identi
fication of his enemies with God's foes, and many
of these apparently insuperable difficulties will
vanish. Let us not claim to be holier than was
David, gentler than was Jesus, diviner than have
been thousands of white-souled saints through the
ages, who at times of righteous indignation have
found these psalms in harmony with the tenderest
love, the saintliest desire, and the holiest aspira
tion.

XXVL
JONAH AND HIS BOOK.

XXVI.
JONAH AND HIS BOOK.
No book in the Bible has been so vigorously
assailed by infidels as the book of Jonah, and thus
many of the most beautiful lessons which the
book teaches have been entirely forgotten in the
criticism to which it has been subjected. This
story, regarded simply as literature, is one of the
most interesting short stories in any language.
No book of the Old Testament so clearly teaches
the lesson of universal brotherhood as does the
book of Jonah. In portions of the book of Isaiah
this lesson is taught, but with nothing like the
emphasis given it in the book of Jonah. God re
bukes the exclusiveness of the prophet and the
narrowness of the Jews, and throws the mantle of
His loving-kindness and forgiving mercy over the
nation that cruelly hated the Jewish people. The
lesson of human brotherhood taught in the book
of Jonah anticipates the presentation of that great
truth given by our Lord and by the Apostle Paul.
In this respect the book of Jonah is unique among
the books of the Old Testament. The great ma
jority of critics almost entirely overlook this sub
lime truth in their carping criticisms and cav-

438 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
illing disputations. Jonah was really the first
foreign missionary; he carried the message of
mercy to a heathen people.
Groundless Reasoning.
They are utterly at fault who affirm that if
the historical character of the book of Jonah is
disproved, then Christianity itself is destroyed.
Those who so speak are guilty of unpardonable
looseness of thinking. They practically affirm
that if Jonah goes, the Bible goes and Jesus goes.
No man is warranted in making so exaggerated
and so reasonless a statement as that ; indeed, it
is difficult to understand how a man with a grain
of common sense in relation to such matters can
make such a statement. Those who so afflrm
make the historical interpretation of the book of
Jonah of equal importance with the divine char
acter and sacred mission of Jesus Christ. It used
to be afflrmed by men of this class that if it were
shown that the world was not created in six lit
eral days of twenty-four hours each, then Genesis
was overthrown, the Bible was disproved, and re
ligious faith was destroyed. It is rare to find any
class of interpreters to-day who afflrm that the
world was made in six literal days. Perhaps each
one of these creative days represented thousands,
possibly millions, of years. But although we
have changed our interpretation regarding the
meaning of the word day, we have not lost our

JONAH AND HIS BOOK. 439
faith in spiritual realities or in the divine revela
tions given us in the Bible. There was a time
when most interpreters of Scripture believed that
the sun actually stood still in the heavens, at the
command of Joshua ; but many of the most de
vout and spiritual interpreters to-day believe, as
is plainly stated in the narrative, that the descrip
tion is a quotation taken from the book of Jasher, a
book probably made up of national, historical, and
triumphal songs of patriotic heroes ; and that no
such affirmation as that the sun stood still is made
in the Bible narrative. We have unquestioning
faith in God's miracles; but it is permissible
to have but little regard for miracles which are
the creations of extravagant commentators and
unscholarly preachers. Several learned men have
affirmed that merchants or Arabians, and not
ravens, brought food to Elijah; by omitting, or
slightly changing, the vowel points, which are
admitted to have no great authority, the Hebrew
letters may mean Arabians, or "merchants" or
the "inhabitants of Oreb or Orbi." The word in
the Hebrew is "Orebim." But should a man
adopt any of these interpretations, we have no
right to call him a disbeliever in the supernatural.
Does a man who adopts this interpretation reject
the New Testament and disbelieve in Christian
ity? John Jasper stands ready to charge with
infidelity those who deny that "de sun do move."
Augustine affirmed that the idea of an antipodes
was unscriptural, for how could those who lived

440 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
there see the Lord when He should return to the
earth? Once many churchmen believed that the
earth stood still, and that the sun revolved around
it ; and they thought a denial of that belief tended
to disprove the Bible and to destroy Christianity.
An " infallible" pope and the sacred congregation
persecuted Galileo and were ready to torture all
opposers of their crude beliefs. Luther con
demned the Copernican system ; he thought " the
upstart astrologer" was a fool and was teaching
contrary to Scripture. Calvin also believed that
faith in Copernicus was infidelity to Scripture.
The Roman and the Lutheran churches practi
cally were the John Jaspers of an earlier day.
Some evangelists and pastors of our day have
fallen into false methods of interpretation. They
have raised a false issue ; they have manufactured
a test of fidelity to Scripture which exists only in
their excited imagination or in their untrained rea
soning. It is extremely foolish for any man to say
that if Jonah goes Jesus goes, and the Bible goes,
and Christianity goes. I venture to affirm that our
faith in Jesus Christ, and in a divine revelation,
does not rest on the interpretation which we
give to the book of Jonah, or to any other book
of the Old Testament. As we shall see, there
have been various theories of interpretation con
cerning this book ; but whether we believe in the
historical, the allegorical, or the parabolical inter
pretation, we do not thereby lose the symbolic
and spiritual lessons which the book teaches ; and

JONAH AND HIS BOOK. 44I
we do not deny the authority of Jesus Clirist in
His interpretation of the book, and we certainly
do not lose our faith in Christianity or revelation.
It is quite certain that the chief value of this book
in the time of our Lord was its symbolic signifi
cance rather than its historical reality. We may
hold our belief that the book is truly historical,
and yet guard ourselves against so unwise a prop
osition as that our faith in Jesus Christ depends
upon the historicity, or upon any theory of inter
pretation, of the book of Jonah.
Theories of Interpretation.
There have been several well-defined theories
of interpretation of this book. Some have af
firmed that the entire narrative was a dream
which Jonah had while asleep in the sides of the
ship. This is certainly an easy method of dis
posing of all the difficulties which the narrative
contains, but it probably suggests more difficul
ties of another kind that are found in the narra
tive as we now have it. Others have regarded
the book purely as an allegory ; the)' have consid
ered it a parody upon, if not the original form of,
various heathen fables, such as those of Arion and
the Dolphin, or the wild adventures of Hercules.
We know that Joppa and its vicinity were the
home of many legends. The story of Androm
eda and Perseus is located at this place, as are
others of a somewhat similar character. Even

442 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
if the book were a pure allegory, its spiritual les
sons, as already suggested, would still remain,
and ou~ Lord's use of it as recorded in the
twelfth chapter of Matthew would still be justi
fied. Many of the most orthodox interpreters have
adopted the allegorical or dramatic interpretation
of the Song of Solomon, but their orthodoxy in
so doing has never been called in question. Sin
gularly enough the allegorical interpretation of
the Song of Solomon has been considered as con
clusive evidence of orthodoxy ; but the allegorical
interpretation of the book of Jonah these same
exegetes consider rank heresy. A third theory is
that Jonah when thrown into the sea was picked
up by a ship having a fish for a figurehead and
bearing the name of a fish. We know that it was
common then, and is now, to give ships the names
of animals of various kinds and to ornament them
with figureheads representing these animals. Da
gon means a fish, and Dagon was the national
idol of the Philistines, with temples at Gaza and
Ashdod in this general vicinity. Dagon had the
body of a fish and the head of a man. A German
scholar has adopted this view and has argued at
length in its favor. It is an interesting fact that
Jonah's prayer, which, like Hannah's prayer, is
rather a hymn of praise than a prayer, is uttered
when he seems to have escaped from danger
and not when he was in the midst of danger.
This interpretation would make the prayer to

JONAH AND HIS BOOK, ' 443
have been offered after he was rescued from the
sea and was safely aboard the ship. Akin to this
interpretation is that which makes his rescue to
have been due to a life preserver, or some similar
means of escape. There are interpreters who
affirm that the story has a historical basis, but
with many fanciful and mythical additions ; while
still others believe that the story is purely moral
and without any historical foundation. But quite
recently another interpretation has been sug
gested. It is stated that the name Nineveh is
no other than Ninua, or Nunu, which means
"fish," and as the city was called the great city,
its old Assyrian name was simply the Great Fish
or the Fish City. To this day, it is said, the
name on the monuments is represented by a fish
in a basin or tank. This view would make Nine
veh itself the " great fish" that swallowed Jonah,
and in crying to the Lord for deliverance he gave
the city its old Assyrian name, praying to be de
livered from the " great fish. " There is historical
truth somewhere in these many interpretations.
We can afford to be patient and to wait for fuller
light. I am not disposed to give up the historic
ity oi the narrative. Very weighty scholarship in
Germany, and to a very considerable extent in
Great Britain and the United States, is still in
favor of the historical reality of the narrative.
This view is held by such men as Hess, Heng
stenberg, Baumgarten, Delitzsch, and by many in
Britain and America of like broad learning and

444 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
sound judgment. The fact is that the denial of
the historical reality of the narrative involves
difflculties as serious as its frank admission.
There has been a vast deal of silly wit expended
on this book as a " fish story" of the ancient time.
Confirmatory Evidence.
There is nothing whatever in the Old Testa
ment or the New to show that this narrative is a
myth or a parable ; on the contrary, there is much
to teach us that it is a record of an actual occur
rence. The prophet Jonah is referred to in 2
Kings xiv. 25, and beyond question the prophet
who gave his name to the book is the same to
whom reference is there made. He was a proph
et of God in the reign of Jeroboam II. The
word Jonah means " dove," and his father's name,
Amittai, means "the truth of God." It is almost
certain that there could not have been two proph
ets bearing the same name and sons of fathers
of the same name, especially of names so sugges
tive and rare as these. Jonah was of Gath-Hepher,
a town in lower Galilee in Zebulon. It has been
suggested that Jonah was a child when Homer
sang his rhapsodies on the shores of the Mediter
ranean ; that he was a contemporary of Lycurgus,
the Spartan lawgiver, and that he was the senior of
Romulus by one century and of Herodotus by four
centuries. A criticism has been made on the book
of Jonah because it is written in the third person.

JONAH AND HIS BOOK. 445
but this is the very puerility of criticism. We
know well that the commentaries of Cassar and
the Anabasis of Xenophon were also written in the
third person. It has been charged that the style
of the book threw doubt upon its reality, but a
more careful scholarship shows that it is written
in pure and simple Hebrew. Indeed, almost all
the more genuinely critical examinations of these
details are confirmatory of the historicity of the
narrative. This is especially true in its relations to Nine
veh. The King of Nineveh at the time of Jonah's
visit is supposed to have been Pul, and Layard
places him at 750 b.c. Nineveh was the metrop
olis of ancient Assyria, and was called by the
Greeks and Romans the Great Ninus or Ninua. It
was probably situated on the east bank of the Ti
gris, opposite the modern Mosul. Recent excava
tions confirm statements made in the books of
Jonah and Nahum regarding the immense size of
Nineveh. These discoveries quite justify the
statement that it contained more than one hun
dred and twenty thousand young children, thus
indicating that it had a population of at least half
a million. The people were wealthy and warlike.
Nineveh was long the mistress of the East. With
in the last generation Layard, Botta, Smith, and
others have been exploring its mounds and have
made discoveries confirmatory of the Bible nar
rative. They have found sculptured memorials
containing the actual Assyrian accounts of events

446 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
recorded in the books of Kings and Chronicles.
They make mention of the names of Jehu, Heze
kiah, Omri, and also of various cities in Judea and
Syria. They also give Sennacherib's own ac
count of his invasion of Palestine. It is as sur
prising as gratifying that these long-buried tablets
are confirmatory, even in minute details, of the
statements contained in the Bible.
Additional Confirmation.
Even what is said in the book of Jonah regard
ing the gourd which so suddenly sprang up is
fully corroborated by the rapid production of the
plant known as the Palma Christi. This plant is
found with broad leaves, giving a dense shade and
supporting itself on its own stem. It is still al
most a miracle in its wellnigh instantaneous
growth. It is found in many parts of Arabia,
Syria, and India. It is well known also that a
species of the white shark, sometimes measuring
sixty feet in length, has been found in the Medit
erranean which easily swallows a man whole, and
many statements have been made as to the dis
covery of men who had been thus swallowed.
Infidels once objected to the narrative because of
the use of the word whale, as it seldom enters
the Mediterranean Sea, and because the throat of
some species is too small to swallow a man ; but
the fact is that neither in the Hebrew of the Old
Testament nor in the Greek of the New has the

JONAH AND HIS BOOK. 447
word that limited meaning, the species of marine
animal or sea-monster not being defined. A
knowledge of Eastern peoples to-day shows how
readily a whole community may be startled into
sudden repentance, or at least panic, by the sol
emn announcement of a man believed to be a
prophet. Cases are on record in which a Chris
tian priest startled a whole Mussulman town by
declaring that he had received a divine commis
sion to announce a coming plague. Plainly there
was no permanent reformation, no revival, no
genuine conversion in the case of Nineveh. We
know, too, that there was a vigorous trade between
Syria and Tarshish in that early day. Reference
is made in the Bible to the " ships of Tarshish," as
we long spoke of East Indiamen ; as these in both
cases were the greatest ships of their class. It
thus comes to pass that in all these incidental
ways confirmation of the ancient narrative is
found. It would not be at all surprising if natural law
should yet show that the account of the swallow
ing of Jonah by a great fish is strictly scientific.
Cases of catalep.sy, hypnotism, ecstasy, and trance
are almost equally mysterious. Cases of hiberna
tion and aestivation are quite as difficult of expla
nation. There are well-attested cases in which
breathing nearly or entirely ceases. There is a
Rocky Mountain squirrel whose temperature is
only three degrees above the freezing-point dur
ing its winter sleep. The woodchuck and the

448 OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.
raccoon roll themselves into a ball and press their
noses so tightly against their bodies that breath
ing is impossible. It is said also that the mar
mots pass into a state of such complete suspended
animation that an electric shock will not arouse
them, and the most deadly gases will not affect
them in the least. Bats go to sleep in clusters,
the central one often during the entire winter bear
ing a weight of ten pounds. Bats have been sealed
in glass jars, and the most careful tests have been
made to see if any of the oxygen had been used,
but there was no perceptible change in the air.
The common garden snail covers the opening of
its shell with a silky membrane which becomes
encrusted with carbonate of lime, hermetically
sealing the creature, which is without food, air,
heat, or circulation. Cases are known in which
it has been artificially sealed for three years, and
then brought to life. There may be truth in the
stories told of toads embedded in solid rocks and
then brought to life.
Human hibernation is equally mysterious. The
fakirs in India may impose even on the most care
ful scientific men; but seemingly genuine cases
of inexplicable hypnotism, or other unaccountable
conditions, have occurred. Baird, in his treatise
on the subject, published in 1850, tells of the case
of a man in Lahore who was buried alive in 1837,
in the presence of men determined to detect
fraud, if any attempt to practise it were made,
and who was long after dug up and restored to

JONAH AND HIS BOOK. 449
life. There are many things in heaven and earth
not yet explicable by our philosophy.
The character of Jonah" is also consistent
throughout the entire book which bears his name.
The story is simple, straightforward, and striking
ly honest ; it is almost painfully frank in its state
ment of the faults of its subject and writer. It
bears every evidence of being a truthful state
ment. We must not suppose from Jonah's at
tempt to flee from the presence of the Lord that
he thought he could ever escape from God's
sight ; he was too familiar with the truth as to
God's presence to be guilty of such an error. We
are rather to understand the language to mean
that he was determined to go out from the pres
ence of the Lord as His servant and minister;
that is, that he determined to set aside his char
acter and office as a prophet of the Lord. He
gives evidence that he possessed a petulant, quer
ulous disposition; indeed, he seems at times to
have been afflicted almost with a species of insan
ity. This character of narrowness, petulance,
querulousness, and hypochondria he maintains to
the very last. We can easily see that he did not
wish to be a prophet to the Ninevites, and his
dislike of them and of his errand of mercy ap
pears to the close of the narrative.
The Orientals have always had a high regard
for Jonah. His tomb is shown with veneration
near the ruins of Nineveh and also at Gath-Hep
her, which was the place of his birth. The Mo-
29

45° OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES,
hammedans honor him greatly. It is a striking
fact that an entire chapter in the Koran is in
scribed with his name. The difficulties con
nected with the book, which have so strongly in
fluenced the critics of the Occident, have never
been influential in the minds of the people of the
Orient. The book of Tobit recognized Jonah as
an historacil character ; and this fact is significant
as indicating current Jewish opinion on the sub
ject. The readers of Josephus know of the testi
mony of a similar purport which he bears to the
historical character of Jonah.
The book should be studied afresh. The chief
purpose of the author was to teach great moral
and spiritual lessons ; and such lessons our Lord
taught us from the book. It shows God's for
giveness to a heathen city when its repentance
became manifest. It shows that God cares not
for the chosen nation alone, but for all men.
Here are suggested large lessons of sympathy and
love; here we see God's greatness and man's lit
tleness, God's patience and man's petulance,
God's charity and man's cruelty. Let us study
the book for its beauty as literature, its charm as
a souvenir of a remote time and civilization, and
especially as a revelation of divine love and
mercy. Whatever interpretation we may give
to some of its parts, its great lessons will stand,
honored by the approval of Jesus Christ and com
mended by our sense of God's justice, mercy, truth
and grace.

3 9002