An Interpretation of the English Bible GENESIS

An Interpretation of the English Bible


Late President of Southwestern Baptist
Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas

Edited by
J. B. Cranfill

Grand Rapids, Michigan
New and complete edition
Copyright 1948, Broadman Press
Reprinted by Baker Book House
with permission of
Broadman Press
ISBN: 0_8010_2344_0
First Printing, September 1973



At the time of its publication this set was acclaimed to constitute „the greatest commentary on the English Bible ever published” (Baptist and Reflector). It remains to this day a reliable guide to a thorough understanding of the Scriptures.

This is an excellent set for the preacher who aspires to be true to the Word and who wishes to enrich his preaching ministry. It is an invaluable aid for the teacher who seeks to guide his class to a deeper knowledge and appreciation of God’s Revelation to us. It is an ideal set for any student of the Bible who desires to hear what God has to say to him.

This is more than a commentary. It is rightly called an interpretation.

An interpretation of the English Bible now makes its appearance in six bindings. All seventeen of the volumes of the prior printing are included.

The renowned author of this set was a Southern Baptist preacher educated at Baylor University. After a pastorate at the Baptist Church at Waco, Texas, he served in succession as
Principal of the Bible Department and Dean and Professor of English Bible at Baylor University, and as President at South-western Baptist Theological Seminary.

An Interpretation of the English Bible remains a continuing contribution to Bible knowledge and consistent Christian living. Additional information concerning this valuable set is found in the General Foreword which follows.


An Interpretation of the English Bible, by Dr. B.H. Car-roll, first came from the press of Fleming H. Revell Company in 1913. Revell’s copyright was bought by Broadman Press in 1942. These volumes were edited by Dr. J. B. Cranfill, assisted by Dr. J. W. Crowder. In the meantime, it became apparent that the „Interpretation” was not complete: four volumes were yet needed to include the whole Bible. Dr. J. W. Crowder had in his possession the material of these volumes and at our request edited the following: IV, Poetical Books of the Bible; VI, Divided Kingdom; VII, Prophets of Assyrian Period; VIII, Prophets of Chaldean Period. For the first time, therefore, we are able to present the new and complete Interpretation of the English Bible, in seventeen volumes.
Of course, no one would be presumptuous enough to attempt to edit the body of Dr. Carroll’s work; these volumes are valuable because of the undisputed position of the author in
the minds and hearts of our Baptist people. We are leaving the long paragraphs as written; we are not disturbing references incorporating scientific statements which are now out of date, nor have we made any effort to eliminate repetitions or to bring the bibliography up_to_date.
As is known by readers of the earlier editions, this work is an interpretation rather than a commentary in the popular acceptance of the latter term. In such interpretation, the author indulges in paraphrasing the biblical text, in inserting now and then a sermon on a vital subject, and in sharing with his readers bits of humor which he has picked up along the way. After each chapter a lengthy list of pertinent questions is appended.
The reader finds Dr. Carroll’s knowledge of the Bible positively amazing, and rejoices in his strict adherence to the objective with which he started: „We set out not to study human creeds, but the Bible, and we agreed to let the Bible interpret itself and mean what it wants to mean.”
– John L. Hill


I. Introduction to an „Interpretation of the English Bible” 1
II. Introductory Studies – The Old Testament 19
III. Introductory Studies – The Pentateuch . . . . . . 35
IV. Creation – Part One 48
V. Creation – Part Two 61
VI. Man in Paradise 76
VII. The Angels 87
VIII. The Fall of Man 98
IX. Sin 114
X. Cain and Abel 120
XI. Chronology from Adam to Noah 134
XII. Enoch – His Translation . 148
XIII. Causes of the Deluge 162
XIV. Lessons of the Flood 182
XV. God’s Covenant with Noah 194
XVI. Origin of Nations and Languages 207
XVII. Distribution and Territories of the Nations 218
XVIII. Generations of Shem and Terah 228
XIX. The Call and Migration of Abraham 238
XX. The Covenants with Abraham (Part One) 246
XXI. The Covenants with Abraham (Part Two) 253
XXII. Abraham, Lot, and Melchizedek 261
XXIII. Abraham’s Conversion (Part One) 271
XXIV. Abraham’s Conversion (Part Two) 280
XXV. The Life of Abraham (Concluded) 293
XXVI. Isaac and Jacob 310
XXVII. Jacob’s Conversion and Life in Haran. 324
XXVIII. Jacob’s Meeting with Esau 338
XXIX. Jacob, Joseph, and Others 348
XXX. Joseph in Egypt . 358
XXXI. Jacob and Family Migrate to Egypt 367
XXXII. The Last Days of Jacob and Joseph. 377



My theme is a thrilling one – THE ENGLISH BIBLE.
The most natural construction of this topic calls for a his-
tory of the Bible in English from the earliest crude version
in this tongue to the latest version, and for a summing up of
the value of these versions in their traceable effect on our
language and literature, on individual character, on the family,
the unit of society, on business and commerce, on national
policy, legislation and life, and on world evangelization, civi-lization and unity.
A less natural construction allows the more timely discus_
sion of the value of a thorough study of the whole Bible in
English by English_speaking people.
In expressing a preference for this less natural construc_
tion of the demands of the topic, I do not seek to disparage the
interesting character and importance of the discussion as de_
limited by the first construction. No event in any nation’s
history can be more momentous and far_reaching than the
giving to them of the Word of God in their mother tongue
and allowing it to be an open book at every fireside, with no
page or promise or precept darkened by the proscriptive
shadow of priest or state. The book is for the people them_
selves. It is God’s message to man and is addressed in all
its sublime simplicity to the individual heart and conscience,
obligating the personal responsibility of private judgment.
You recall the notable fact at Babel, showing that division of the race into nations arose from a prior confusion of tongues

and not different languages from a prior division into nations.
A common speech is the greatest factor of unity.
And you will observe also in that other Bible story that
Pentecost, by its gift of many tongues to one set of men,
reversed the disintegration of Babel, prepared the way for
breaking down the middle walls of partition which separated
peoples, and rejoiced the hearts of the representatives of every
nation under heaven, who thereby were enabled to hear the
Word of God each in the tongue wherein he was born.
And you also recall the apostolic declaration that whoever
speaks in an unknown tongue to another even though he speak
the words of life is unto his hearer as a barbarian. Even a
thing without life, a bugle, a harp, or flute, if it give no dis_
tinction in its sounds conveys no message to the hearer. And
when I consider what the English version of the Bible has
wrought, I could not overestimate the greatness of the topic
under this construction. (See I Cor. 14:7f.)
On the contrary, I desire to commend as one of the most
charming and instructive classics of our language, „The His_
tory of the English Bible,” by Doctor Pattison, of the Roches_
ter Theological Seminary. Every preacher, every Sunday
school teacher, every English_speaking Christian, yea, every
student of our language, would do good to himself by adding
to his library this valuable contribution to our literature.
Yet, very weighty are the reasons which constrain me to adopt
the line of discussion suggested by the less natural construc_
tion of the topic.
The Bible in English is valueless unless we study it. Mighty
as has been the influence of this version, that influence has
been measured by the study of the Book. If all the English_
speaking people had made this version a vade mecum, a lamp
to their feet and the oracle of their counsel, the millennium
would be here now. We have the Book, but do we study it?
Do we study it all? Who of use ver devoted himself to a
four years’ consecutive course of earnest and prayerful study
of the English Bible, covering all its parts from Genesis to
Revelation, allowing the Book to mean what it wants to mean,
and to be, by comparison of all its parts, its own interpreter?

The idea of the work in this form originated in this way:
First, a statement in a great introductory oration by Dr.
Boyce at Greenville, South Carolina, that the Baptist ministry
consists of two kinds – an educated ministry, and a ministry
of educated men – meaning by „an educated ministry” people
in the ministry who had received a college or university edu_
cation; and meaning by „a ministry of educated men,” men
trained for the ministerial work, whether holding college or
university degrees, being thoroughly disciplined in the truth
of the Bible. The history of the denomination shows that the
greatest achievements of the past in Baptist history have been
by men who were educated in the Bible) but not college men.
To further explain this idea, I quote from Dr. Broadus’ His_
tory of Preaching: „Let us bear in mind that the early progress
of Christianity, that great and wonderful progress to which
we still appeal as one of the proofs of its divine origin, was
due mainly to the labours of obscure men, who have left no
sermons, and not even a name to history, but whose work re_
mains plain before the all_seeing eye, and whose reward is
sure. Hail, ye unknown, forgotten brethren] we celebrate the
names of your leaders, but will not forget that you fought the
battles, and gained the victories. The Christian world feels
your impress, though it has lost your names. And we like_
wise, if we cannot live in men’s memories, will rejoice at the
thought that if we work for God our work shall live, and we
too shall live in our work.
“And not only are these early labourers now unknown, but
most of them were in their own day little cared for by the
great and the learned. Most of them were uneducated.
Throughout the first two or three centuries it continued to
be true that not many wise according to the flesh, not many
mighty, not many noble, were called to be Christian ministers
or Christians at all. It was mainly the foolish things, weak
things, base things, that God chose. And what power they
had through the story of the cross, illuminated by earnest
Christian living! . . . And such preachers have abounded from
that day to this, in every period, country and persuasion in
which Christianity was making any real and rapid progress.”
The thought is strongly reinforced in that great book, now
much neglected by our people, Wayland’s Principles and Prac_
tices of the Baptists. What a pity we cannot get our people
to carefully read over again what he has to say upon this
very subject!
The sentiments thus set forth by these three great men of
our history I unhesitatingly accept. These are followed by an
additional thought, to wit: That there ought to be some place
higher in character and extent of its work than Bible institutes
and Sunday schools, for preachers and laymen to meet to_
gether to study the Word of God thoroughly.

The course requires that four consecutive years shall be de_
voted to the study of the Bible itself, and not of things about
the Bible, and must be arranged to cover in the best method
possible within the time limits the whole Bible – every chap_
ter and verse of every book from Genesis to Revelation. One
hour each of four days in every school week must be devoted
to teaching and recitation, and twice as many to study.
While it is in every way desirable that each student shall
complete the entire course, yet our method of study will possess this advantage – that a failure to complete the course does not destroy the value of a partial course. Every lesson even,

apart from all others, will be profitable; and this profit will be greatly enhanced if you prepare the lessons covering only one book.

The higher one’s scholastic attainments, the wider the range
of his general information, the more perfect the discipline of
his mind, the more systematic his habits of application, the
better is he prepared to take this course, and the more profit
will he likely derive from it. But if these high qualifications
were made conditions of entrance into this course, the main
object in view would be frustrated. The one prerequisite,
therefore, is ability to read and write in English, accompanied
with a little common sense.
The course itself will quicken and develop his capacities and enlarge his acquirements. A course thus restricted, and with this minimum of antecedent qualifications necessarily assumes or takes for granted many things to which a modern theological seminary devotes much special and critical inquiry. These, for the time being, are left to subsequent opportunity, which indeed in some cases may never come.
The study of the things thus deferred, even if by necessity
deferred forever, is not disparaged. But it is claimed that the
study of the Bible itself – what it says and what it means
to the common mind – is a primal, elemental, vital, and funda_
mental requirement, binding on every Christian conscience,
and intensely obligatory upon the mind and heart of every

The only textbook absolutely requisite is the English Bible.
The Common, or King James Version, can be made to serve,
but the Canterbury Revision, or the American Standard Version, is much preferred. On the first book of the Bible Conant’s translation of Genesis, with its critical notes, is very helpful.
Editions of both Testaments can be had with the King
James Version and Canterbury Revision in parallel columns.
The Jewish translation of the Old Testament, by Isaac Leeser
will be helpful; and the improved edition of the American
Bible Union Version of the New Testament.
In the study of the Gospels, Broadus’ Harmony will be the
textbook. After that, Clarke’s Harmony of the Acts will be
the textbook, compared with Goodwin’s Harmony of the Life
of Paul. The student will need a concordance, Cruden’s or
Young’s, and access to Smith’s Bible Dictionary, either
abridged or unabridged, and to the Schaff_Herzog Encyclopae_
dia of Religious Knowledge, and to some analysis of the Bible,
West’s or Hitchcock’s. This last to aid in comparing scripture
with scripture. We are now ready for a statement of the
THINGS ASSUMED That very critical study of the things deferred calls for a
wider range of learning and a higher grade of scholarship than
the commonalty of men, or even the average preacher, now
has or ever will have. By necessity, therefore, this needed but
special work must fall upon a comparatively small class, and
this class itself in turn be measurably dependent upon the
greater scholarship and information of a very few highly
qualified experts.
It is assumed that the teacher himself has necessary gen_
eral information, and either possesses adequate scholarship
or is sufficiently acquainted with its best results to safely guide
his class; and while avoiding technical phraseology and
nomenclature, can point out and expound what the Bible itself
says in the principal passages which have been made the occa_
sion of minute, far_reaching, and destructive criticism.
For example: (a) the alleged discrepancies in matter and
style between the first chapter of Genesis and the second chap_
ter; (b) between Exodus 6:3, and certain passages in Gene_

sis; (c) between Jeremiah 7:22, and similar passages from
other prophets on the one hand, and the historical statement
of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy on the other hand.
Jt is assumed that the providence of God, overruling all
human agencies and earthly circumstances, has preserved for
the race all that is needed of the revelations his goodness be_
stowed at sundry times and through divers instrumentalities,
and has assured reliability in the records embodying them,
and their correlated matter. And that this Providence has /
also overruled in the combination of the several books neces_
sary to a complete canon.
That this library of many books embodied now in one book
and called by us the Holy Bible, not only contains, but is the Word of God and is both so necessary and complete in every
part that it may not be subject to addition or subtraction, and
that, being inspired of God throughout, it must remain to O
the end of the world as the sufficient, supreme, and infallible
standard by which all human creed and conduct should be
regulated in time, and by which they shall be judged at the
last day.
That our present Hebrew and Greek texts being in essential
substance transcripts of the original manuscripts in these
tongues, are sufficiently accurate for all practical purposes; no
doctrine, or precept, or promise, or hope being lost or affected
by transcription.
That our English versions do with substantial fidelity and
accuracy translate the Hebrew and Greek texts, and where
difficulties arise, helps, brief but sufficient for the purposes of
this course, are accessible to the English student.
That this book, as we now have it, both as a whole and in
all its parts, is profitable for teaching what we ought to know
and believe, and for conviction and correction of all wrong_
doing, and for instruction in all right doing, in order that the
man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped unto every
good work.

It is assumed that in our Baptist literary schools, or in
other accessible schools or theological seminaries, abundant
provision is made in behalf of those needing it or desiring it,
for both the needed scholarships and its employment in pur_
suing the studies about the Bible only briefly considered in
this course, whether relating to textual or historical criticism,
or to any other department of study prescribed in modern
universities or theological seminaries.
It is assumed that this course in the English Bible will not
only not be in opposition to, or a substitute for, higher
scholarship and more critical studies, but will promote them
by tending powerfully and continually to increase the num_
ber of recruits seeking to add to knowledge strictly biblical
all other helpful knowledge relative to it, and that too from
a class who, without the awakening and inspiration of this
course, would certainly never seek higher attainments, and
more certainly never pursue special and critical studies. All
observation and experience justify the expectation that when
the mental horizon has been widened, aspiration kindled and
the love of God’s word by study of the Bible in the mother
tongue, it will be difficult for the student to stop at the
terminus of an elemental and fundamental course.
But the hope may be reasonably cherished that one grounded in this elemental course will be safeguarded in many directions while pursuing other courses, and will at least have
attained to familiarity with all the Book itself. And, sad to
say, this safeguarding and attainment many never possess
who actually become or affect to become experts in the things
about the Bible.

The Bible is its own interpreter. That is, we arrive at the
meaning of any passage by a comparison of scripture with
scripture. Revelation is a unit, or system of truth. The
parts must be interpreted to agree with each other, and with

the trend of the whole system. A difficult or doubtful passage,
here or there, must not be set aside but must conform to what
is clearly taught in many unambiguous scriptures.
As the Bible was given us for practical purposes, bearing
upon character, conduct and destiny, our study of it, to be
profitable, must be in a line with these purposes. The very
heart of every lesson, therefore, will be its doctrine on these
points, and this doctrine must be so received by faith and assimilated by obedience as to become experimental knowledge. „Whosoever willeth to do the will of God shall knowof the doctrine whether it be of God.”
Continual confirmation and increased assurance that we
are rightly interpreting the Divine Word can come to only
those who can say: „Then shall we know if we follow on to
know the Lord,” in the same experimental way which brings
its own blessings with every forward step. „But he that
looketh into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and so con_
tinueth, being not a hearer that forgetteth but a doer that
worketh, this man shall be blessed in his doing.”
As this book is the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, reverent
and prayerful appeal to him for its right understanding and
application is continually necessary.


The idea of a course of study in the English Bible which
would comprehend the entire book is not of recent origin.
Even before my conversion, when the book was considered
merely from the standpoint of literature, it seemed to me the
best and richest of the classics, and utterly apart from any
thought of its alleged inspiration, to deserve a place in the
curriculum of a liberal education far beyond that assigned
Greek and Roman classics, or to the other acknowledged mas_
terpieces of our own tongue. That at least our textbooks
should include selections from its history, moral code, juris_
prudence, worship, poetry, orations, essays, and parables, suf_
ficiently full in extent to convey a fair understanding of the
scope and variety of this matchless library of literature: selec_
tions something like in extent and variety those given in
Professor Wilkinson’s Foreign Classics in English.
From any literary viewpoint I could see no good reason far
excluding from our schools a study of this book, while giving
so much attention to the myths, fables, legends, idolatries,
philosophies, and sceptical speculations selected from ancient
heathen and more modern foreign classics. In moral purity
and sublimity of thought, grandeur of matter and loftiness of
design, they all fall below the excluded Hebrew literature.
But soon after my conversion, and in the light of it, my
reflections began to take, and continued to take with cumula_
tive power, a wider and intenser form. In this Book alone I
found the origin and destiny of all created things and beings – here alone the nature of man, and his relations to God, the
universe and fellow man, out of which arise all of his obliga_
tions and aspirations, and in conformity to which lie his use_
fulness and happiness. This Book alone discloses man’s chief
good and chief end.
I saw it as the only living oracle, replying instantly and
freely in simple, unambiguous language to every interrogatory
propounded by life’s problems and perplexities. In its pres_
ence the double_tongued oracles of the heathen became dumb,
their dubious utterances died into echoless silence and their
idolatries and superstitions were relegated to the moles and
From this reflection there was an unconscious transition
to the natural inquiry: Are the people ignorant of the matter
of this Book? And if informed somewhat, how extensive and
systematic is their knowledge? Investigation brought an
appalling answer to this inquiry: Very few were found to be students of the Book. Fragmentarily, here and there, and

from many sources, something of its matter had been picked
up by most men. Much of this in corrupt form.
The inquiry passed from the pew to the pulpit, and here
the disclosure was more startling. These men by office and
profession were the teachers of the Book. Surely these preach_
ers have studied earnestly, prayerfully, profoundly, and sys_
tematically all of the messages they are appointed to teach I
And if they have not as yet, in some fashion, gone over
the whole ground, surely they are habitually and diligently
prosecuting such a study! If every one of the sacred writings
is inspired of God, and is profitable for teaching what men
ought to know and believe, and for conviction and correction
of all wrongdoing, and instruction in all right doing to the end
that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped
unto every good work, surely a teacher of the Book will neg_
lect no part of it, and will hasten to acquaint himself with it I
But the amazing truth must be acknowledged that few
preachers, learned or unlearned, actually study the Bible it_
self, their supreme textbook, as a complete and well_ordered
system of divine truth. It does not square with the facts in
the case to limit this ignorance of the Bible to uneducated
country preachers. Some of them study the Bible itself more,
and are better acquainted with it, than many educated
preachers. Too many of the latter class confine their studies to
the framework and background of the divine painting, to the
human outskirts and spurs of the mountain of revelation, to
the temporary and perishing scaffolding of the temple of truth.
The scholastic spirit drives out the Holy Spirit; the study of
the myriad vagaries of subtle and ever_shifting philosophies,
and of the protean shapes of speculative hypotheses and hair_
splitting criticisms on text or history, becomes their theologi_
cal task. And to this task, what are the labors of Hercules?
Even searing with a hot iron does not stop the growth of new
heads on this Hydra.

A teacher in the public schools must stand a critical ex_
amination on his textbook before receiving a certificate of
efficiency. How many preachers could stand such an ex_
amination on the Bible? Let any preacher with sufficient
honesty and courage to face the disclosure, make a candid ex
amination of his own ministry in any given period of years
on three points: id
Say in five years, what amount of habitual, systematic study have I devoted to the Bible itself, and over how much of the whole ground of revelation have I passed in this time? Is not the most of my study merely to get a sermon for my next
Judging fairly from the aggregate of all the texts from
which I have preached in five years, how much of the Bible
itself have the people learned from me in that time?
Has my practice conformed to the example of the prophets
and apostles and of our Lord, the Great Teacher?
While standing in amazement before this ignorance of the
Bible, in both pew and pulpit, another question smote me like
lightning leaping out of the bosom of a cloud: Is there in all the world a school where all this Word of God is taught in the
mother tongue of the people?
To the most diligent investigation the answer came like
the note of a funeral dirge: There is not one in the world!
More than twenty_five years ago, before a great audience, I
propounded this question: What would be the power of a
man who with only Cruden’s Concordance as a help, devotes
three entire years to the reverent and prayerful study of the
English Bible? Let this application be as rigid as a course
in mathematics. Let him put aside for the time being all that
he cannot understand from a comparison of scripture with
scripture; then construct by his own analysis an orderly body
of divinity.
Would not this man be a theologian? Would he not have
an inexhaustible store of Bible sermons? Would he not, other
things being equal, tower among the preachers like Saul, head
and shoulders above his fellows?
Would he not be an original thinker? Would he not know
how to handle the Bible? Would he not be approved unto
God as a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, able to
rightly divide the word of truth, giving to each hearer his
portion in due season?
The world is waiting for that man, ready to receive and
honor him when he arrives. We have in all history only one
near approximation to this supposititious man, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, who, by common consent, is acknowledged to be the greatest preacher since apostolic times. I have seen
2,500 of his published sermons. They we as plump as a par-tridge, and as full of meat as an egg,. Now from several com_
plete sets of these sermons you may construct:
(a) A fairly good commentary on the whole Bible by ar_
ranging all of one set according to the books from which the
texts are taken.
(b) Then by topical arrangement of another set you may
obtain a complete body of systematic theology.
(c) From another set you may construct a system of prac_
tical theology, or of homiletics, or of some other department,
until you virtually cover the whole ground of theological
equipment in its practical phases, and as adapted to the
exigencies of everyday life.
These sermons show that he reverently and prayerfully
studied the whole Bible, honestly regarding it as inspired of
God from Genesis to Revelation, and by simple childlike faith
accepting all of it as the word of God. With what result?
More fruit ripened on that tree than on any other that has
blossomed since the apostles died.
The world heard, and accepted, and honored the man; or_
phans were sheltered, clothed, fed, and educated; aged widows
found asylums in the clouded sunset of life; thousands upon
thousands in many lands were converted to God; colporteurs
pushed out their wagons laden with wholesome books; schools
and churches sprang up as by magic; preachers and teachers
kindled their torches at his fire, and diffused in worldwide
waves the light of the spiritual conflagration.
These reflections, substantially in the order stated, led me
to seek light on a school model in the book itself. Here is
what I found:
The school of the prophets established by Samuel, and
further developed by Elijah and Elisha. These men were not
priests. They had no part in the ritual of the Temple serv_
ice. They were teachers of God’s Word. They constituted
the only breakwater against the incoming floods of empty
formalism and of multitudinous idolatries. They were the
axes with which God hewed off the excrescences of national
life, and his trumpets of judgment against social, religious and
political corruption. They were the forerunners of a faithful
ministry of a later day.
I found the school established by our Lord Jesus Christ.
One day he looked out on multitudes of the people and was
moved with compassion. He saw them scattered and helpless
as sheep without a shepherd. He saw them wandering, grop_
ing, stumbling, and falling a prey to every ravenous beast.
He turned to his disciples with an exhortation to prayer: „Pray
ye to the Lord of the harvest that he send more labourers into
the harvest.” Then he called to him twelve men as his first
class. They were neither from the ranks of the great, the
learned, nor of the rich. They were poor men, ignorant Galilean
fishermen. He kept them with him for instruction for three
years. His Sermon on the Mount was his first great lesson.
Then from a boat he taught them in matchless similitudes
which later he expounded more privately. The lessons were
followed by the question: „Have ye understood all these
things?” and with the declaration: „Every scribe instructed in
the kingdom of heaven is a householder who brings out of his
treasure things new and old.”
He continued his instructions to the night of his betrayal,
opening and expounding all the things concerning himself
written in the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms, and yet
later enduring them with the spiritual power to shake the
I found the example of the Holy Spirit in recruiting new
students: „For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not
many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many
noble are called: but God hath chosen the foolish things of
the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak
things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
and base things of the world which are despised, hath God
chosen, yea, and things which are not to bring to naught
things that are: that no flesh should glory in his presence.”
I found that when he called a great and learned man, Saul
of Tarsus, this man relied not on his earthly wisdom and
learning, but himself said: „And I, brethren, when I came
unto you, came not with excellency of speech or wisdom, de_
claring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined
not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him
crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and
in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching were
not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration
of the Spirit and of power: that your faith should not stand
in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.”
From these Bible examples I turned to history and found
four significant facts established by its univocal testimony:
The great majority of the preachers in every age had but
little learning except what they gathered from the Bible.
That the great majority of the people in every age had to
content themselves with the ministry of this unlearned class.
That schools were established at great expense to highly
equip the comparatively small but much_needed class of
preachers who became mighty in learning. I rejoice at this
wise provision, while deploring the sometime perversion of it.
I found no provision for the great majority to be helped in
Bible study.
From history I turned to Baptist polity and found, as I
have already shown, that Baptist polity and history are in
accord with these statements, viz.: that the ministry should
not be restricted to the learned and socially great, but should
include as many of every class as God himself shall call.
Then I narrowed the vision to Texas and saw:
About three thousand Baptist preachers.
That about fifty of these annually go abroad to theological
seminaries in other states.
That provision is made in Texas schools to advance the
literary education of several hundred more.
That neither in literary schools here, nor in theological sem
inaries abroad, is there provision for a course of study in the
English Bible itself, anyway nearly approaching the course
outlined in this chapter. No one who has ever taken what. is
called the English course in a theological seminary will claim
any such thing. If he does, he will be contradicted by his
classmates. I doubt that any theological seminary would ad_
mit such a course into its curriculum. It may be they are
wise in this. I am not controverting but merely slating a fact.
I am merely tracing the origin and development of the idea
concerning the course here and now announced, and suggest_
ing the reasons which led to its adoption in the present form.
I saw ever before me two multitudes: the multitude of un_
learned preachers; and the far greater multitude who can
never have any other ministry. I confess my heart goes out
to them. My natural instincts incline me to an aristocracy.
But Jesus Christ made me a democrat. I use the term in its
etymological, not political sense. I have longed for years to
see a school for the study of the English Bible.
I cannot shut out of my mind the three thousand preachers
of Texas, while rejoicing that fifty can go abroad to attend
theological seminaries.
It is respectfully submitted that help toward a literary
education in a college, and help toward a theological education
in a seminary, both of which are advocated and commended,
do not exhaust the meaning of ministerial education. There
is a need not yet supplied for a greater number than can profit
by either of these provisions.
For the establishment of this course, we deem conclusive
the following

There is no school of the kind on earth.
It follows the example set by our Lord himself, and accords
with the Holy Spirit’s choice of men to preach the gospel.
It accords with settled Baptist polity.
It is needed for both the learned and the unlearned.
Not being restricted to preachers, it will aid in the training
of Sunday school teachers of both sexes.
It encourages the study of God’s Word by the pew, which
must, under divine law, judge the soundness in doctrine of the
preacher himself.
Not more than one in a thousand will study the whole Bible, or any part of it systematically, apart from the requirements of a regular course.
Shall we not with joy and enthusiasm labor together to
make this work a crowning glory to our seminary?
Upon the enterprise let us invoke the favor of men and the
blessings of God.

1. What history of the English Bible is commended?
2. What is the proposed course in the English Bible, and the time required for completing it?
3. Why will it be valuable to take even a small part of this course?
4. What minimum literary qualifications required?
5. What textbooks required?
6. Helps suggested?
7. Considering the restricted scope of the course, and the minimum literary qualifications, what things are necessarily assumed? State briefly and substantially.
8. State briefly and substantially the general rules governing the course.
9. Why does the Bible, from a literary standpoint, deserve a larger place in a course of study looking to a liberal education?
10. Why from the standpoint of its inspiration?
11. Are the people generally well informed as to Bible teaching?
12. Do preachers generally study it systematically?
13. Is there a school in the world where the whole Bible is taught?
14. What may be constructed from several sets of Spurgeon’s published sermons and addresses?
15. What does this show aa to his study of the Bible?
16. State briefly the result on human life and character of his Bible study and preaching.
17. What example of a Bible school have we in the Old Testament?
18. What good was accomplished by this school of the prophets?
19. What school in the New Testament?
20. From what classes generally does the Holy Spirit recruit his preachers?
21. What four significant facts does history declare?
22. What is Baptist polity with reference to educated and uneducated preachers?
23. How many Baptists in Texas?
24. What proportion of the Baptists of the world?
25. How many Baptist preachers in Texas?
26. About what number annually go abroad for theological education?
27. About how many annually seek literary advantages in Texas schools?
28. What proportion of these in Baylor University?
29. Is the course in the English Bible limited to preachers?
30. Why should Baptist laymen study the Bible?
31. What reasons led to the opening of this course?


There will be two chapters on the introduction to the Old
Testament and to the book of Genesis. This is the first chap_
ter. It is not designed at all, by these brief introductions, to
take the place of the extensive work of biblical introduction,
but only to give some general outlines of the relations of the
book of Genesis.
I will commence with our English word „Bible.” It has two
daiivations. The first derivation was from the Greek neuter
plural Biblia, which means a library or collection of books.
The word, „Holy,” indicates the character of the books as dis_
tinguished from secular books, so that the words, „Holy Bible,”
mean sacred library. Later on, after all of the books were
bound together into one volume, the word „Bible” was derived
from the singular Greek word, Biblos, and is properly called
“a” or „the book.”


In general terms, there are Romanists, Greeks, and Protes_
tants. Only technically do Baptists belong to the Protestants;
in a general way you may include them with the Protestants.
The Romanists have an English Bible, the Douay Version,
which, in the Old Testament, differs from our Bible by certain
additions. I will state these differences: (1) Just after Nehe_
miah they insert two books, Tobit and Judith; (2) they add
.to the book of Esther six and a half chapters; (3) just after
Song of Solomon they insert two books, Wisdom and Ecclesi_

asticus; (4) just after Lamentations they insert a book,
Baruch; (5) between Daniel 3:23, and 3:24, they insert 67
verses; (6) at the close of this book they add two chapters,
The History of Susanna and The Story of Bel and the Dragon;
(7) after Malachi they put two additional books, I and 2
Maccabees. These books and parts of books which they add
are not found in the Hebrew Bible at all. They were never
accepted by the Jews as a part of their sacred oracles. They
are sometimes inserted between the Old Testament and New
Testament as parts of what is called the Apocrypha, that is,
the questioned books of the Old Testament.
The Romanists have the same New Testament that we have, but there is another quite important distinction between their English Bible and ours. Theirs is not a translation from the original languages at all, but it is a translation of a transla_
tion. It is a translation into English of what is called The Vul_
gate, or the Jerome Latin Bible, and while the whole of it is a
fine piece of work, in the main, it is in itself but a translation
from the faulty Greek version called the Septuagint. And in
that respect it is very inferior to our Bible. Their English
Bible is, therefore, different from ours in the renderings or
translations. I will give you two samples out of many: In
Genesis 3:15, where the promise is that the seed of the woman
shall bruise the serpent’s head, they render: „she shall bruise
the serpent’s head” – making a woman and not the Saviour the
bruiser of the serpent’s bead. Again, where our Bible says
„repent,” theirs says „do penance.”
We next come to the Jewish Bible in English. I have a copy
of it before me. It is a very modern translation; after the
King James, and even after the Canterbury Revision, which I
advise you to purchase when able. It is by Isaac Leeser, print_
ed in 1891 at Chicago. The difference between this English
Bible and our Old Testament is that this version was made so
late that all those passages which ancient Jews counted as
messianic, this version strains to so render as to weaken, if not

destroy, any application to our Lord Jesus Christ. The original
of the Jewish Bible has exactly the same matter as our Old
Testament, and the same books; it is only a difference of

In our English Bible there are two grand divisions, called
the Old Testament and the New Testament. The word „testa_
ment” is a very unfortunate translation of the original Greek
word, dialheke, because our Bible is not a last will and testa_
ment. In only two verses in the New Testament ought dia_
theke to be translated „testament”: Hebrews 9:16_17. Here,
plainly, the reference is to the last will and testament of a man
who, as testator, must die before his heirs can inherit. In every
other place in the New Testament the Greek word diatheke
should be translated „covenant,” which is quite a different
thing from a last will and testament. So we really should call
these two great divisions „The Old and New Covenants,” and
Paul does so call them in his letter to the Hebrews. Now, the
idea of the translation, „testament,” was suggested by two
passages of Scripture: Matthew 26:28ù”This is my blood of
the new testament”; and the other passage is Hebrews 9:15,
„And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament
[and it ought to have been rendered „covenant”], that by
means of death) for the redemption of the transgressions that
were under the first testament, they which are called might re_
ceive the promise of eternal inheritance.” While, therefore,
there are points of analogy between a man’s will and God’s
covenant, yet some hurtful interpretations have arisen by
calling these two divisions of our Bible „Old and New Testa_
ments.” I refer particularly to a book of a certain sect looking
upon the New Covenant as a testament or last will of Jesus
Christ. He says that as under a will nobody can inherit until
after the death of the testator, therefore no sins could be re_
mitted, and there could be no children of God, until after

Christ died, a failure to Dote the difference between the time
of expiation and the time of remission. The true interpretation
of this matter is set forth in the Philadelphia Confession of
Faith, Art. VIII, Sec. 6, and in Art. XI, Sec. 6, which read:
Art. VIII, Sec. 6, Philadelphia Baptist Confession: Although
the price of redemption was not actually paid by Christ till
after His incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefit
thereof was communicated to the elect in all ages successively
from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises,
types, and sacrifies wherein He was revealed and signified to
be the seed of the woman which should bruise the serpent’s
head, and the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,
being the same yesterday, to_day, and forever.
Art. XI, Sec. 6: The justification of believers under the Old
Testament was, in all these respects, one and the same with
the justification of believers tinder the New Testament.
So you are to understand that the translation, „testament,”
is not inspired; it is a human, misleading rendering of the
Greek word, diatheke.

The Jews divided their Bible into the following classifica_
tions: „The Law, The Prophets, and The Holy Writings.”
They understood by the Law the five books of Moses, the
Pentateuch, and they divided their prophets into two classes:
those who record history, as Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings,
which are called the Earlier Prophets, not because they were
prophecies, but because they were books which prophets wrote. Their second subdivision of the second division is the Later Prophets, and these they have divided into Greater and Lesser: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and then the twelve minor prophets. To some it is a matter of surprise that their third main division contains Daniel – not that Daniel has no prophecy in it, but because Daniel’s office was not prophetic. He was the prime minister of an earthly government, and, while there is much revelation in Daniel, yet there is very little prophecy

directly uttered by him. He records marvelous revelations which God gives to him, and those revelations have much of the element of prophecy. For the same reason they include the psalms in their third division. David was not by office a prophet. By office he was a king, but incidentally he prophesied much in the psalms. Some people are greatly troubled at the thought that Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings are classed among the prophets, and that Daniel’s book is not
classed among the prophets. You understand that there is no
denial of the prophetic element in Daniel, but that his was
not the prophetic office, and that there is no assertion that
Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings are prophecies, but that
they were written by prophets.

BOOK DIVISIONS Our Old Testament has thirty_nine books; twenty_seven in
the New Testament – sixty_six books in all. The Romanist
Old Testament has forty_six books, and their New Testament
the same as ours. The Jewish translation in English has thirty_
nine just. like ours, but they have two different enumerations
of these books. The first is twenty_four, obtained in this way:
combining I and 2 Samuel as one book, I and 2 Kings as one,
I and 2 Chronicles as one, Ezra and Nehemiah as one, and
then the twelve minor prophets as one book, making twenty_
four in all, answering to the letters of the Greek alphabet.
Then again they are divided into twenty_two books, as found
in Josephus. According to this combination Ruth and Judges
make one book, and Jeremiah and Lamentations make one,
answering to the twenty_two letters of the Hebrew alphabet.
The New Testament recognizes the threefold division of the
Old Testament – The Law, The Prophets, and The Psalms. Our
Lord himself so recognizes it in Luke 24:44: „All the things
that are written concerning me in the law, the prophets and
the psalms.”

THE ORDER OF THE BOOKS The order is not inspired, nor chronological, nor at all times
logical. The Jewish Bible collates the books for liturgical pur_
poses, i.e.) for readings in the Temple, the synagogue, or the
home, so as to provide special lessons for each year, each week
and each day. Now, if we had to put the books of the Bible
down in the order of their history, we have it about right as
far as the second book of Kings. If we should arrange them
according to the date of the writing, then, in my opinion, Job
should come first, both logically and chronologically. In the
New Testament they are arranged according to a mixed meth_
od, more historically than chronologically. Perhaps the first
book of the New Testament was James’ letter; then would
come Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians; next, his letters to
the Corinthians, then Galatians and the Romans; and the let_
ters of his first Roman imprisonment – Philippians, Phile_
mon, Colossians, Ephesians, and Hebrews. And then would
follow Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, and the letters of Paul to
Timothy and Titus. John’s Gospel and letters come very much
later than the others, with Revelation last of all. It is im_
portant for you to know that fact in order to know how much
of the written New Testament each man had at the time he
himself wrote.


This is not inspired. The division into chapters took place
about the middle of the thirteenth century, A.D., and the
honor of making that division lies between Cardinal Hugo
and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Stephen Langton. The ob_
ject of the division was to make a concordance, and so about
the middle of the thirteenth century the first concordance of
the Bible was made. The division into verses took place in the
sixteenth century A.D., by Robert Stephens, a printer in Paris,
and that added very much to the facility in making con_
cordances. While generally these chapter and verse divisions
are fine, sometimes they break the connection and dislocate the
thought most arbitrarily. For example: Genesis I should in_
clude the first three verses of the second chapter.


You ask a Catholic what is the supreme standard by which
all conduct and creed and destiny are determined, and he will
say: „The Bible, with the additions that we put in it, and in
the translations that we give, and in the interpretations we
give, together with tradition.” To illustrate: Suppose you and
a Roman Catholic were debating, and he should cite a proof
text from Tobit, or Judith, or Baruch, or I or 2 Maccabees, or
Wisdom, or Ecclesiasticus – e this would be authority to
him, it would not be for you, but only uninspired Jewish litera_
ture. Then, he would want to quote either from the Vulgate
Latin Version made by Jerome, or the Douay Version, which
is but a translation of the Latin Version into English, and then
he would want to confine you to the interpretations put upon
it by the Church of Rome, and ultimately the dictum of the
Pope, while you would naturally object to hia text, his render_
ings, and his interpretations; so you could not join in an issue.
Your standard and his standard are not the same.


Now, I want to say something about the method of studying
the Bible in the Old Testament. The history of the Old Testa_
ment is really divided into two parts – just as distinct as it is
possible for parts to be. The first part takes the history from
Genesis to the close of 2 Kings, the destruction of the Jewish
monarchy, with those prophets who prophesied in that period
of time. Now, the other part of history commences with
Chronicles, and instead of following the other order, it makes
a new start from Adam. It commences with Adam and Eve,
going back to the beginning. It does not recognize anything
but the Davidic line. Now join with that Ezra, Nehemiah,
Esther, for history, and the post_Exile prophets, and the lines
of thought are different. There is a pause where the Jewish
monarchy dies. There is a new beginning after the return
from the Exile. While we can and do use Chronicles in har_
monic connection with Samuel and Kings, yet a part of I
Chronicles does not synchronize with those books at all; but
goes back to Adam. For this second part of the Old Testament
history you need an entirely new viewpoint. You ought to
commence the second part of the Old Testament with Chroni_
cles, then Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Daniel, and the post_Exile
prophets: Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. They form a later
and distinct part of the Old Testament history. I call atten_
tion to another division of Old Testament history, very clearly
indicated in the original by an initial word, which is just one
small letter, sometimes rendered „and.” This little word of
connection and relation marks out the several related groups
of books, i.e., Genesis heads the first group, followed by Exo_
dus, Leviticus, Numbers – every one of the last three com_
mences with „and.” Deuteronomy commences the second
group, followed by Joshua, Judges, I and 2 Samuel, I and 2
Kings – all of these connect with Deuteronomy by the same
word „and,” showing a continuity of history. I Chronicles
commences the third group, followed by 2 Chronicles, Ezra.
Nehemiah commences the fourth group and is followed by
Esther. This quadruple division has been happily named thus:

1. The Books Before They Entered the Holy Land:
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers.

2. The Books in the Holy Land:
Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I and 2 Samuel,
I and 2 Kings.
Deuteronomy heads this list because they are about to enter
the land under a renewed covenant, and relates to that en_
3. The Books out of the Holy Land:
I and 2 Chronicles, Ezra.
4. The Books in the Dispersion:
Nehemiah and Esther.

is the Syllabus for Old Testament Study, by Dr. Sampey, the
professor of Hebrew and Old Testament English in the South_
ern Baptist Theological Seminary. This syllabus itself gives
an extensive and up_to_date bibliography, a great part of
which the reader does not now need, because we are in Eng_
lish, not Hebrew, and because many of you are beginners,
unprepared for many critical discussions. As we progress, how_
ever, I will mention the helpful books an English student
needs in studying the English Old Testament. An exceptionally
important part of Dr. Sampey’s book is the chronological

The next preliminary thing to note is the unity of the Bible,
the whole of it. There are no other sixty_six books in the
world that fit each other like these sixty_six books do. Genesis
connects on to Exodus, and Exodus connects back with Gene_
sis and on to Leviticus; Leviticus connects back with all these
and forward to Joshua; and it is that way all through the
Old Testament, and equally so with the New Testament. Aa
Genesis commences with paradise lost, the New Testament
closes with paradise regained.
Then, this book is a growth in a twofold way. I do not be_
lieve with the Negro who said that God Almighty handed
down the Bible from heaven Just as we have it in the King
James Version. It was a growth as to its books, book added

to book, in a period of sixteen hundred years, with a gap of
four hundred years between the Old Testament, and the New.
That is, from 1500 B.C. to A.D. 100ù1,600. Then, it is cer_
tainly a growth in the unfolding of doctrine. Take the
first verse in the Bible: „God created the heavens and the
earth,” and every other book in the Bible is evolved from
that declaration. Take the promise: „The seed of the
woman shall bruise the serpent’s head,” and everything
touching Christ is evolved from that declaration. Likewise
from the establishment of the throne of grace at the close of
the third chapter of Genesis, clear on to the book of Revela_
tion is a development of God’s plan of salvation, from the
first thought to its latest and highest expansion. It ia a growth
from „type” to „antitype,” from symbol to the thing sym_
bolized, from signs to things signified; and this is one of the
highest proofs of its inspiration: that an author back yonder
1,500 years before Christ leaves behind several books, to which
other authors in the several centuries following have added
their contributions, and these all articulate, fitting into each
other like the bones of one skeleton. This vast library, whose
volumes were written at different times, and under different
conditions, fragmentarily and multifariously, becomes a sin_
gle book in its unity. We now come to


These contents are very varied, and the styles of the differ_
ent books vary. You have here poetry, prose, history, drama,
law, prophecy, parables, proverbs, allegory, types – exceedingly
varied. Now, the original languages in which this book was
written: The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, except
the following passages: Jeremiah 10:11; several chapters in
Ezra, from 4:8 to 6:18, and 7:12_26; Daniel 2:4, to 7:28. All
those exceptions were written in Chaldee or Aramaic. The New
Testament was written i Greek. It may be that even the
letter of James and the Gospel of Matthew were also written
in Hebrew, but we know that the whole, of the New Testament
was written in Greek.
Now, to get this Bible, originally written in these languages,
into the mother tongue of each people is one of the most im_
portant things ever done. What was it that brought about the
division into nations? It was first a division of the languages.
God confused the speech. They were of one people and one
tongue, and through the confusion of speech came the division
of nations, not vice versa; not a division of nations and then
different languages, but a division of nations resulting from a
confusion of tongues. Now, the reverse of the confusion of
the tongues at Babel is the gift of tongues at Pentecost. Why
the gift of tongues? That these messengers of the cross might
speak to every nation under heaven in the tongue in which they
were born. Turning Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into English
is called (rightly) a version – that is, a turning of one language
into another; or it is called a „translation,” from the old com_
pound Latin word, transfero_ferre_tuli_latum, meaning „to
translate, transfer.” Suppose a colored liquid here in an opaque
pitcher, and suppose another pitcher not quite so opaque, but
translucent, you can see through it just a little. Then suppose
another pitcher perfectly transparent. I pick up the opaque
pitcher that has the colored liquid in it and I transfer it, trans_
late it, turn it into the translucent pitcher. You can see it, but
not clearly. That is a bad translation. But suppose I turn it
into the transparent pitcher, that you may see its contents
clearly. That is a good translation or version. So a version is
a translation. The Septuagint Version is the translation of the
Hebrew into Greek, the Vulgate is a translation of the Sep_
tuagint into Latin, the Douay is a translation of the Vulgate
into English.
Now, in another respect, what is the Bible? It is not a his_
tory of all nations. It is a history of the kingdom of God.
Genesis is a race history down to the eleventh chapter, then
it sidetracks all of the families but. one; when the Ishmaelites
come it sidetracks them; when Esau comes he is sidetracked;
when Lot’s children come (the Moabites and Ammonites) it
sidetracks them; but it follows a certain family until it be_
comes a nation, to which are committed the oracles of God,
and touches the history of other nations where they bear upon
the development of the kingdom of God in that one people.


The usage of common life determines the meaning of a word or phrase; not that of philosophy.
The usage of the time and place of the writer determines
the meaning; not that of any other time; not modern usage.
If a word or phrase has several meanings, the context deter_
mines the meaning it bears in a given passage. The more com_
mon meaning of the writer’s day is to be preferred, provided
it suits the passage, not that more common in our day.
If the author has occasion to employ a new word, or an old
word in a new signification, his own definition or his own usage
must determine the meaning, not any other author’s usage.
The direct or literal sense of a sentence is the meaning of the author, when no other is indicated, not any figurative, allegorical, or mystical meaning.
Passages bearing a direct, literal or fully ascertained sense
go to determine what passages have another sense than the
literal, and what that other sense is; not our opinions.
The Bible treats of God in relation to man. It is obvious that
this circumstance will afford occasion for new words and
phrases, and new applications of the old ones. It brings into
view such peculiar figures of speech as are called anthropomor_
phism and anthropopathism. It gives a new expansion to all
the previous rules.
A word, a phrase, or sentence belonging primarily to the
things of man must be understood, when applied to the things
of God, in a sense consistent with his essential nature; not in
a sense contradictory to any known attribute of that nature.
There is a growth in the Bible in two respects: (1) There
ig a growth in the adding of document to document for at least
1600 years. Hence the simple or primary part of speech
will appear in the earlier documents; the more expanded
and recondite may come out only in the later. (2) There is a
growth also in adding fact to fact, and truth to truth, whereby
doctrines that at first come out only in the bud are in the end
expanded into full bloom. At its commencement the Bible
chooses and points the all_sufficient root from which all doc_
trines may germinate. The root is God. In him inhere all the
virtues that can create and uphold a world, and therefore in
the knowledge of him are involved the doctrines that can in_
struct and edify the intelligent creature. Hence the elementary
form of a doctrine will be found in the older parts of Scrip_
ture; the more developed form in the later books. This gives
rise to two similar rules of interpretation.
The meaning of a word or phrase in a later book of Scripture
is not to be transferred to an earlier book, unless required by
the context.
The form of a doctrine in a subsequent part of the Bible
must not be taken to be as fully developed in a preceding part
without the warrant of usage and the context.
The Old Testament was composed in Hebrew, the New Tes_
tament in Greek. Each must be interpreted according to the
genius of the language in which it was originally written. The
interpreter must, therefore, be familiar with the grammar of
each in which the particulars which constitute its genius are
gathered into a system. The writers of the New Testament
were, moreover, Hebrews by birth and habit, with the possible
exception of Luke. Their Greek, therefore, bears a Hebrew
stamp and their words and phrases are employed to express
Hebrew things, qualities, customs, and doctrines. Hence they
Must receive much of their elucidation from the Hebrew parts

of speech of which they are the intended equivalents. Two rules
of interpretation come under this head:
The sense of a sentence, and the relation of one sentence to
another, must be determined according to the grammar of the
language in which it is written.
The meaning of New Testament words and phrases must be
determined in harmony with Old Testament usage; not by
Greek against Hebrew usage.
The Bible is the word of God. All the other elements of our
fundamental postulate are plain on the surface of things, and
therefore unanimously admitted. This, however, some inter_
preters of the Bible do not accept, at least without reserve.
But notwithstanding their rejection of this dogma such inter_
preters are bound to respect the claims of this book to be the
word of God. This they can only do by applying to its inter_
pretation such rules as are fairly deducible from such a charac_
teristic. In doing so they put themselves to no disadvantage.
They only give the claimants a fair stage, and put its high
claim to a reasonable test. Now, God is a God of truth. Hence
all Scripture must be consistent with truth and with itself. It
contains no real contradiction. This gives rise to the following
All Scripture is true historically and metaphysically; not
mythical and fallible.
In verbally discordant passages that sense is to be adopted
which will explain or obviate the discrepancy; not a sense that
makes a contradiction. To explain it positively is to show
the harmony of the passage; to obviate it negatively is to show
that there is no contradiction.
Scripture explains Scripture. Hence the clear and plain pas_
sages elucidate the dark and abstruse; not anything foreign in
Scripture to time, place or sentiment; not our philosophy.
Of rules that cross one another, the higher sets aside or_
modifies the lower.

An inspired, illumined New Testament writer will give the
true sense of an Old Testament passage.

1. What the derivation and present meaning of our English word “Bible,” and the meaning of the word „Holy” in this connection?
2. In general terms, name the three grand divisions of the Christian world and state mainly the parts of the world occupied by them.
3. Do these agree on the books which constitute the collection known as the Bible?
4. State the Romanist additions to what we call the Old Testament, and show just where each addition is inserted.
5. On what grounds are these additions to be rejected?
6. Name another important distinction between their English Bible and ours.
7. What Jewish version commended, and what the difference between it and our Old Testament?
8. What two grand divisions in our Bible?
9. What is the meaning of „Testament”?
10. From what scriptures did men deduce the names, „Old Testament” and „New Testament”?
11. What name would have been better?
12. Cite a hurtful interpretation based upon the name, „Old and New Testaments.”
13. Cite the true interpretation of this matter.
14. Cite the Jewish divisions of their Bible.
15. Cite, in order, the books of The Law.
16. The books of the division called The Prophets.
17. The books of the division called The Psalms.
18. What principle or reason governed in naming the second division „Prophets,” and the third division „Holy Writings”?
19. Explain, according to this principle, why Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings appear on the „Prophet” list, and Daniel appears o n the”Holy Writings” list.
20. How many books in our Bible? In each grand division?
21. Show how the Jews made out their list of twenty_four books in the Old Testament, and why? Also their list of twenty_two books, and why?
22. Cite a New Testament recognition of the three divisions of the Old Testament.
23. Is the order in which the books of our present Bible are arranged inspired? What principle governed in their arrangement?
24. Is the present division into chapters and verses inspired?
25. Who divided the Bible into chapters? When and why?
26. When the first concordance?
27. Who divided the Bible into verses, and why?
28. What else besides the Bible ia a standard of authority on revelation with Greeks and Romanists?
29. In what other way do Romanists widen the difference as to the standard between themselves and Protestants?
30. What suggestion made relative to the study of the Old Testament, and what quadruple division of Old Testament books in this connection?
31. What helpful book mentioned, and its peculiar merit?
32. Show the unity of the books of the Bible.
33. Show that the Bible is a growth in a twofold way.
34. What length of time from the writing of the first book to the last?
35. What are the contents of the Bible?
36. What are the original languages of the Bible?
37. What is a version of the Scripture? Name several.
38. What is the Bible as it relates to history?
39. What history of the English Bible commended? (Ans: Harwood Pattison’s.)
40. Read carefully the rules of interpretation.


In the preceding chapter on the Introduction to the Old Tes_
tament I said some things about the order of the books in the
Old Testament, particularly calling your attention to the pres_
ent order in the Jewish Bible. There is no question that the
wder of the historical books in our English Bible is the original
wdec. It was the order in the Septuagint translation, say
about 250 years before Christ, the oldest order of which we
have any certain knowledge.
Now, in review, let me repeat that according to that order
the historical books of the Old Testament are in four groups,
„May clearly designated in the Hebrew, designated by the
smallest word in the Hebrew language; just one letter and the
smallest except one. The meaning of the word is „and.” That
word determines what books follow the first one in the group.
For instance, Genesis is the beginning of the first group and
Exodus commences with „and,” showing that it follows right
after and connects with Genesis, and so on with Leviticus and
Numbers. This first group discusses the people of Israel outside
the Promised Land) i.e., before they enter it. Deuteronomy, the
initial book of the second group, treats of Israel inside the
Promised Land. It is true that in Deuteronomy they have not
crossed the river, but they were at the river, and Deuteronomy,
with its renewed covenant, looks forward more than it looks
backward. Following Deuteronomy, from Joshua to 2 Kings,
every book in its order commences with „and”; and these
books cover the stay in the Promised Land. The third group
consists of three books, all written by Ezra: I Chronicles is the
initial book, making an entirely new beginning from Adam,
with the „and” and connecting 2 Chronicles and Ezra. These

books treat of the return to the Land after the Babylonian ex_
ile. This group ignores the defection of the ten tribes follow_
ing only the line: Adam, Noah, David. While its events may
be harmonized with the first and second groups, where corre_
spondent, the view is an entirely independent one and must be
so considered in study. Now the last, the fourth, group con_
sists of two books: Nehemiah and Esther. Nehemiah is the
starting book, Esther follows with „and”; so that this group
touches Israel that did not return, or Israel in dispersion. Keep
these four thoughts in your mind:
Outside the Land. 4 books
Inside the Land. . 8 books
Return to the Land 3 books
In the Dispersion 2 books
The other Old Testament books would arrange themselves
about these four historical groups thus: Job connects with the
first group; Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon,
Obadiah, Joel, Jonah, Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah, Nahum,
Zephaniah, Jeremiah, and Habakkuk with the second groupù
Jeremiah being the bridge connecting with the third group;
Ezekiel, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, with the third group;
Daniel would connect with the fourth group, preceding Esther
in its history, but. in its prophecies it is the connecting bridge
with the New Testament. This line of thought is very ably
elaborated in a recent and valuable series of books by John
Urquhart, entitled „The Bible: Its Structure and Purpose.”
Now, concerning the Pentateuch – the first five books. Who
is the author? Moses – except the last and connecting chapter
which records the death of Moses written by the author of the
book of Joshua, Joshua himself. The argument for the Mosaic
authorship of the Pentateuch is: (1) Tradition. This tradi_
tion is unbroken absolutely from the time of Moses to the close
of the New Testament canon. The Pentateuch is connected in
tradition with no other name than the name of Moses. (2) The

next evidence is the New Testament witnesses. Christ and
His apostles repeatedly and positively ascribe the Pentateuch
to Moses, and I have an abiding impression that Christ knew
at least as much about it as modern critics. (3) The third ar_
gument for the authorship is the testimony of the books
themselves, with the exception of Genesis, which is partly an
introduction to the other four. All along they are attributed to
The second question is: What were the qualifications of
Moses for writing these books? The book of Acts tells us that
Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians. He
was not only the most cultivated teacher of his age, and a
thousand times more cultivated than some of the men that
deny that he could have written these books, but he was the
most influential man of affairs. His range of learning was im_
mense. His conduct of public affairs was great. Dr. Harper
says that Moses was too busy a man to have left any literary
remains. Dr. Harper is wise above what is written. Now let
us see what were his opportunities of leisure. He was forty
years in Midian, given time for meditation. There doubtless
he wrote the book of Genesis and, I think, first, the book of
Job. In the next place, he was a whole year at Mount Sinai,
and the record shows that at Mount Sinai the different parts of
Exodus and nearly all of Leviticus and part of Numbers were
written. Then he was thirty_eight years in the wilderness after
the Israelites turned back from Kadesh_barnea, and in that
time he certainly could have composed the rest of Leviticus
and Numbers. He was about two weeks on the banks of the
Jordan just where they crossed over into the Promised Land,
and the book of Deuteronomy consists almost altogether of
great addresses, and they were evidently carefully prepared
addresses. Moses had time to write them there, and the record
expressly states that he did. Dr. Harper himself was a very
busy man, but it seems that he found time to write a great
many books, and if he, being so busy, could write a great many
books, why should he deny that Moses had time to write
books? The age of Moses was an intensely literary age. It
used to be said that there was no writing in the time of Moses,
but very humbly have they apologized for any such foolish
statements. It is now known that long before the time of
Moses writing was a fine art. Cities of libraries were estab_
lished, not only among the Egyptians, but among the Canaan_
ites. Moses himself will give you an account of a Canaanite
city that was called the book city, or the library city. The
last thought in connection with the Mosaic authorship con_
sists of testimonies all the way through the Pentateuch show_
ing that when God gave a certain body of laws Moses wrote
those laws at the time. That goes on all the way through.
The memoranda of the book were at hand and continuously,
not only like keeping a diary, but the very form was written
at the time.
The question arises: Was there any pre_existing material for
the book of Genesis? I want to say on that, that revelation
from God commences with the creation of man. He revealed
himself to Adam, to Noah, to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and so
on. Undoubtedly many things touching the facts in Genesis
were reduced to writing before the times of Moses. For in_
stance, we have a record in Genesis of the first poets, the very
words of the poets are cited and in the poetical form. That
was before the flood. Then from Adam, who lived 930
years, to Noah, who closes up the first period of the world’s
history at the flood, there was one intervening man, Me_
thuselah, who was a contemporary of Adam for many hun_
dreds of years, and a contemporary of Noah for the 600 years;
so that only one man) standing between Adam and Noah, could
have handed down well_attested traditions of history up to that
time. Then Shem, who was in the Ark with Noah, lived 400
years after the flood, and did touch time with Abraham. Some
people erroneously claim that Melchisedek was Shem. He
could have been Shem so far as the time was concerned. So
that between Abraham and Noah one man touches both, and
there were doubtless multitudes of various kinds of documents
touching the facts of Genesis. Genesis, however, is not a book
made up of fragments artificially pieced together. It is straight
out, continuous, a narrative by one man, and with the most re_
markable proofs of unity throughout of any book in the world’s
libraries today.
To further show the unity of the Pentateuch: Moses led the
children of Israel to Mount Sinai; you find the account com_
mencing in the nineteenth chapter of Exodus, and from Exodus
20 to the close of the twenty_third chapter you have an ac_
count of the threefold covenant. The elements of that cove_
nant are: (1) The moral laws as given in Exodus 20; (2) the
law of the altar, or the way of approach to God through grace;
and (3) civil legislation, ending with the twenty_third chapter.
Now, all the rest of Exodus, all of Leviticus, all of Numbers
and all of Deuteronomy are developments of that threefold covenant: moral law, the grace law, or the way of approach
to God through the altar, and the civil law. Because at that
time Israel became a nation.
If we consider the time and the circumstances of the Penta_
teuch we take our stand in Midian, when Moses was in exile
from Egypt, somewhere between 1431 and 1491 B.C. Now that
last date you can keep in your mind – 1491 B.C. comes Mount
Sinai, and A.D. 1492 comes the discovery of America by Columbus. There in Midian, when Moses was in solitude the keeper of the flock of Jethro, a great problem pressed on his heart. He had felt the call of God to deliver the Israelites, and with_out letting God pick the time, he picked it and the method of it, and after killing that Egyptian he fled. Stephen says that
Moses supposed that the children of Israel would understand
that God had appointed him to deliver them, but they did not
understand. He was not accredited to them as the deliverer
when they were suffering from oppression, and Moses himself
was not prepared to deliver Israel; but he selected his own
time and that exile followed as a consequence. Now, while in
that exile, there came to his mind the following problems:. „My
people are in the fiery furnace of affliction, and there seems
to be no reason for it. Here is a bush burning and not con_
sumed, representing the persistence of the life of these people
in the midst of the most awful afflictions.” And that is the
problem of the book of Job. How do you account for the un_
deserved afflictions of the righteous? Where do they come
from? While his mind was on that problem he comes in touch
there with the land of Job and the history of its great hero,
and there is ample opportunity to learn the history of the
patriarch Job, who belonged to another branch of the Semitic
family. In that history he writes in precisely the same lan_
guage of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuterono_
my – the same archaic expressions. Whoever carefully studies
the style, the thought, the circumstances, in the book of Job,
must put its composition about the time the Pentateuch was
written. What, then, was the object of the book of Job? In
order to understand the undeserved afflictions of the righteous.
Job says: „Oh, that mine adversary had written a book I We
have no Bible; I am here suffering under laws that I am not
acquainted with. I don’t understand. If I just had a plain
book, telling me what is my relation to God, and to the uni_
verse and what is my duty, I would take that book on my
shoulder and I would go to God with it face to face, and talk
to him as a man talks to his .friend.” The key to the book of
Job is the call for a book of revelation. And the second idea
in the key is: Here are the righteous, sinful by nature, subject
to the evil influence of the devil. And next is: There is no
daysman or mediator to stand between me and God; no one
with one hand touches God and with the other hand touches
me. And so there is a call for the revelation of a deliverer,.
and the book of Job closes just that way. That book demands
a revelation. Following that Moses composes, under the in_
spiration of God, the book of Genesis, which comes up to his.
very time. Now, the circumstances of his writing Exodus you
already know. He was at Mount Sinai a whole year. The
circumstances of writing the rest of Leviticus and Numbers
not written at Sinai were during that long period of thirty_
eight years in the wilderness. The circumstances of writing
Deuteronomy were these: The first great stage of history was
ended and Israel had sinned against the covenant made at
Mount Sinai. Now Deuteronomy, which literally means the
second giving of the law, is not only a restatement of the old
covenant, but it is a re_entrance into the covenant upon the
part of Moses representing God, and the people representing
themselves; and that is renewed, not with a view to anything
in the past, but to the immediate entrance into the Promised
Land of God. Hence it is classed with the inside books and
not with the outside books.
The structure of the Pentateuch exhibits not only remark_
able unity, but one author. There are varieties in the style
corresponding to the subject matter. For example, the first
chapter of Genesis is very abrupt – one mighty sententious
statement after another. When he commences the second chap_
ter, however, which correctly commences at v. 4, he gives
details and elaborations of previous rugged statements, and
the style is more flowing to correspond. Pope has said:

When Ajax strives some rock’s vast weight to throw,
The line too labours, and the words move slow.

And the unity of the book of Genesis is shown by the following short analysis. I give it here, but the analysis you must bring in your answers will be an enlargement of this one. The short analysis consists of eleven divisions:

I. Introduction:
1. Genesis 1:1 – The creation of the universe.
2. Genesis 1:2 – The chaotic state of the earth – matter..
3. Genesis 1:2_26 – The Holy Spirit’s development of the
earth matter from chaos to order, its correlation with
the universe, the beginnings of life – vegetable, animal
and human.
4. Genesis 1:26_31 – Nature of the dominion and commis_
sion of man.
5. Genesis 2:1_3 – Institution of the sabbath commemo_
rating creation.
6. Genesis 2:4 to 4:26 – Generations of the heavens and
the earth.
7. Genesis 5:1 to 6:8 – Generations of Adam.
8. Genesis 6:9 to 9:29 – Generations of Noah.
9. Genesis 10:1 to 11:9 – Generations of the sons of Noah.
10. Genesis 11:10_26 – Generations of Shem.
11. Genesis 11:27 to 25:11 – Generations of Terah.
12. Genesis 25:12_18 – Generations of Ishmael.
13. Genesis 25:19 to 35:29 – Generations of Isaac.
14. Genesis 36:1 to 37:1 – Generations of Esau.
15. Genesis 37:2 to 50:26 – Generations of Jacob.

The whole of the chapters on Genesis will be an elaboration
of this short analysis.
What is the meaning of generation? When it says: „The
generations of the heavens and the earth” in 2:4, does it mean
to tell you how the heavens and the earth were produced? Un_
questionably it means developments, not origin. For instance,
when it says: „the generation of Noah,” that does not mean
how Noah commenced, but it means who descended from
Noah. Generation means history, development, and not origin.
I must call your attention to some of the characteristics of
these several generations. Here is a singular one; there is no
other like it in the Old Testament. As often as these gen_
ealogical tables are given in the Old Testament, this one is
unique: „The book of the generations of Adam.” You do not
have the word, „book,” any more. You have „the generations
of,” but not „the book of the generations of.” Now that goes
on down through all the Old Testament but the „book of the
generations of Adam” occurs but once, and the New Testa_
ment commences (Matt. 1:1), „The book of the generation
of Jesus Christ.” First is the generation of the first Adam, and
the second is the generation of the Second Adam – a very im_
portant thought. As all of the Bible is intended to be a book
concerning the kingdom of God, a book concerning the reign
of grace from the time that the throne of grace was established
at the close of Genesis 3 until you get to the end of Revela_
tion, and from the time that the first promise was made, „The
seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent’s head,” on down,
the Bible is a book of grace.
Now, another characteristic of these generations is, that they
always commence with the bad line first, i.e., Genesis gives an
account of Cain’s descent before it takes up the descent of
Seth.. It gives an account of the descent of the nations of the
earth. When you get to the generations of the sons of Noah,
it gives an account first of all of the nations of the earth, then
it follows one nation through Shem. When you come to Isaac
and Ishmael, Ishmael’s genealogical table is put first, and then
is sidetracked. When you come to Esau and Jacob, Esau’s
genealogy is given first, and then Jacob’s. Esau is sidetracked.
There are certain other lines in these genealogical tables
which demand careful observation. One of these: What is said
of Seth? „These are the generations of Seth.” Every man
Living in the world today is a descendant of Seth. Every man
that has lived in the world this side of the flood is a descendant
of Seth, and hence that commences with that particular remark
that Adam begat a son in his likeness and according to his
image. God made Adam in his image and according to his
likeness, but after Adam fell, he begat a son in his fallen
image and likeness. Now, note that Shem’s genealogy really
comes right. In giving the generations of the sons of Noah
coming to Shem it gives all the Semitic nations including the
line in which Abraham was called, but as he is not going to
have any use for the rest of them, he commences anew with
Shem and finishes it with the line of Terah, Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob.
Now, the time covered by the book of Genesis is much more
than the time covered by all the other books in the Bible put
together. Genesis covers_a history of 2,500 years. The other
books of the Bible, all put together, cover a period of 1,600
years, as to their composition and history. What, then, is the
book of Genesis? It is a book of origins and developments –
more of developments than of origins. It will tell you the
origin of the universe, and the origin of the earth as a part of
the universe and the origin of vegetables and animal life. It
will tell you of the first man, and it will go on telling you of
the first things, but more of the book is devoted to the develop_
ment than origins. Whenever you have the word „generation,”
that means development. These developments all through the
Old Testament constantly descend from the general to the
particular. „In the beginning God created the heavens and the
earth” – the whole universe. Now, the next verse descends to
just one little part of the universe, the earth, and then it will
descend to one particular family on this earth, and it will go
on descending, descending, until you come to Christ, and then
the rest of the Bible ascends from the particular to the general,
and the end of the New Testament is as universal as the be_
ginning of the Old Testament.
Now, I want to quote here some words on the importance
of the book of Genesis. (1) I will quote from Dr. Conant:
The object of the book is to reveal to us the origin of the
material universe; man’s origin and relation to God the Creator,
and the equality of all men before Him; the divinely consti_
tuted relation of the sexes; the divine institution of the
Sabbath; the origin of moral and physical evil; the primaeval
history of the human race, and the origin of nations; the selec_
tion of one as the .depository of the sacred records, and the
divine purpose and method for man’s redemption; the history
of its ancestral founders, and their relation to the subsequent
history. Of these truths, to the knowledge of which we owe
the present advancement in civilization, it is the object of the
book to furnish a divinely accredited record. Its value is
apparent on the face of the above statement, and is attested
by the history of civilization; for without it no amount of
intellectual culture, of refinement in taste, of progress in the
sciences and arts, has ever been found sufficient to save a people
from moral corruption, and ultimate decay and ruin. In
these truths, and the divine attestation of them, lies the only
basis of popular progress, and of permanent national pros_
perity; and on all these we should be in the profoundest
ignorance, without the revelations contained in this book.
(2) Auberien, on the first eleven chapters, speaks also of the
importance of this book:
If we had not the first eleven chapters of Genesis, if we
had on the beginnings of the world and humanity, only the
myths of the heathen, or the speculations of philosophers, or
the observations of naturalists, we should be in the profound_
est darkness concerning the origin and nature of the world and
of man. It is with these chapters on the one side, as with
the prophecies and Scripture on the other. There we get the
true light on the first, here on the last things; there on the
foundation principles, here on the ultimate tendencies of
history; there on the first cause, here on the object of the
world; without which a universal history, or a philosophy of
history, is impossible. But prophecy itself also has its roots
in these chapters, on which all later revelation plants itself.
Happily, these primaeval records of our race, far more widely
than we are aware) have penetrated our whole mode of think_
ing, and sway even those who believe they must reject the
historical character of these accounts. These chapters main_
tain the consciousness, in humanity, of its own God_related
nature, of its original nobility, and its eternal destination.
lt amazes me to see the attempts of men that don’t believe
ln the book of Genesis to write history. They don’t know
how to commence, they don’t know where to end. They don’t
know how to interpret. They don’t see the overruling hand of
Divine Providence: blind as bats and moles, they detect no
traces of the divine purpose and providence in the history of
the world. But prophecy itself has its roots in these eleven
chapters, on which all later revelation plants itself.
Now I close with some recommendations concerning books.
I don’t say for you to get these books right now, but as a
general introduction to the Old Testament I recommend a set
of books, that is, Urquhart’s „Bible: Its Structure and Pur_
pose.” There are four volumes of it. On general introduction to
the Old Testament I commend Greene – he is the great man of
Princeton. On the unity of Genesis Greene’s book was the
most remarkable in the world until Urquhart’s series came out,
and he adds much to Greene’s. Commentaries: (1) Conant’s
Genesis – he is the great Baptist scholar and translator. He is
the author of the tersest, most remarkable book on Baptism
ever written; has translated Genesis, and accompanied his
translation with notes. I don’t see how you can do without
the book, after a while. (2) The next is Murphy, who gives
his translation of Genesis, and then follows with his com_
mentary. It is like a slaughter of the innocents when he gets
hold of a radical critic. Then (3) I commend the Genesis
part of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s. Next (4) is one that
is usually left out – McIntosh, a premillennialist, who, like the most of premillennialists, is sound in the faith regarding the higher criticism. They are all spiritual and McIntosh’s book on the Pentateuchùwhile others fool with a thousand things, McIntosh takes you to the very heart of God and man,
and the power of the Holy Spirit in teaching the word.


1. What evidence of the original order of the historical books of the Old Testament?
2. How many groups with reference to the Promised Land, and how determined?
3. How would the other Old Testament books arrange themselves about these four historical groups?
4. Who is the author of the Pentateuch, and what is the proof?
5. What were the qualifications of this author for writing these books?
6. How do you account for the last chapter of Deuteronomy?
7. Was there any pre_existing material for the book of Genesis?
8. Is Genesis .a book of fragments artificially pieced together?
9. Show the unity of the Pentateuch from the account of the Sinaitic covenant.
11. What great problem pressed on his heart there, and the result?
12. What are the arguments in favor of the Mosaic authorship of the book of Job?
13. Where did Moses write Genesis? Exodus? Leviticua? Numbers? Deuteronomy?
14. What is the structural evidence for one author of the Pentateuch?
15. Show the unity of Genesis by a short analysis.
16. What is the meaning of „generation”?
17. What are the characteristics of these generations: (1) Of „The book of ____”? (2) Of the bad line? (3) Of Seth? (4) Of Shem?
18. What is the time covered by the book of Genesis, and what was the method of revelation as begun here?
19. What is Conant’s testimony on the importance of this book? Auberlen’s?
20. What books recommended?


1. What is the attitude of the Greek Church toward the Romanists’ additions to our Bible?
2. Cite some New Testament names for the collection of books called the Old Testament.
3. Why is the third division of the Jewish Bible called the Psalms?
4. Distinguish between revelation, inspiration, and illumination.
5. How much time may intervene between a revelation and the inspired record of it?


Genesis 1:1_25

Genesis is the book of origins and developments. It supplies
its own outline or plan of treatment in twelve sections:
1. In one sublime sentence it gives the origin of the uni_
verse. Genesis 1:1.
2. In a few other equally sublime sentences it gives the ori_
gin of this earth – that part of the universe which is to become
the arena of the Bible story, culminating with a general state_
ment of the origin of man, as a race, appointed to occupy and
subdue the earth. Genesis 1:2_31; 2:1_3.
A certain oft_recurring formula introduces every important
stage of subsequent development, serving as a bond of unity
between the several parts, and as a title to the ten other sec_
tions of the book:
3. „These are the generations of the heavens and of the
earth” (Gen. 2:4).
4. „This is the book of the generations of Adam” (Gen. 5:
5. „These are the generations of Noah” (Gen. 6:9).
6. „These are the generations of the sons of Noah” (Gen.
10:1). By whom the nations were divided after the flood
(Gen. 10:32).
7. „These are the generations of Shem” (Gen. 11:10).
8. „These are the generations of Terah” (Gen. 11:27).
9. „These are the generations of Ishmael” (Gen. 25:12).
10. „These are the generations of Isaac” (Gen. 25:19).
11. „These are the generations of Esau” (Gen. 36:1).
12. „These are the generations of Jacob” (Gen. 37:2).

This framework of twelve sections is the designed skeleton
of the whole book. We commence, therefore, with,

„In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”
(Gen. 1:1). „Beginning” here means the commencement of
time; and shows that the matter of the universe had a definite
origin. Matter is not eternal.
„God” is the explanation of this origin. Matter did not start
itself. God alone is eternal.
„Created” means brought into being without the use of pre_
existing material. This verb, having God for its subject, is
generally used in the Bible when something, not before exist_
ing, is brought into existence by divine power, and is dis_
tinguished in this chapter and elsewhere from other verbs
signifying to make, shape, or to form out of pre_existing ma_
As there could be no human witness when the original foun_
dations were laid, and as human science deals only with pre_
existing material, our knowledge of this origin of things cannot
come by science, history, or tradition, but by revelation, and
must be received by faith. Hence a subsequent scriptural
statement: „By faith we understand that the worlds have been
framed by the word of God, so that what is seen hath not been
made out of things which appear” (Heb. 11:3; Psalm 103:7).
„Heavens and earth” means the whole universe.

ORIGIN OF THE EARTH (Gen. I :2_31 ; 2: 1_3)
Quickening of inert, matter. „And the earth [i.e., the already
created matter out of which the earth was to be formed] was
waste and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep;
and the Spirit of God brooded upon the face of the waters”
(Gen. 1:2).
The story passes abruptly from the universe to that part of
it which becomes the scene of the Bible history. The descrip_
tion of the earth matter is very vivid: waste, void, dark. The
classical student cannot help recalling Ovid’s description of
Chaos, here freely rendered into English:
Before the sea and land, and the heavens which cover all,
Nature had one appearance in all the world
Which men called Chaos a rude and unassimilated mass
. . . because in one body
Cold things fought with hot, wet things with dry,
Soft things with hard, imponderable things with heavy.
The doctrine is that matter is inert of itself. It had no in_
herent potentiality. In itself has no capacity to become a world
of order and beauty. The quickening of matter by the Holy
Spirit was therefore the second creative activity. Given matter
alone, and we have chaos alone; but given also an extraneous
power, intelligent, beneficent, and omnipotent, to impart
capacity to matter and to direct its movements, we will have
a well_ordered and beautiful world.

„And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.”
Light is the first product of the Spirit’s breeding power exer_
cised on matter. As a primal subagent in the formation of
other things its introduction was essential at this point. Well
does it deserve Milton’s apostrophe: „Hail, holy Light, off_
spring of heaven, first_born.” It is the emblem of the divinity
which created it: „God is light, and in him is no darkness at
all.” Jesus Christ is „the true light that lighteth every man
that cometh into the world.” His people, reflecting his image,
are „the light of the world.”
The creation, by the simple fiat of God, serves to illustrate
a mightier creation, the conversion of the soul by the same
Spirit: „God who commanded the light to shine out of .dark_
ness hath shined into our hearts, giving the light of the

knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ”
(2 Cor. 4:6).
Atheistic philosophers vainly attempt to solve the mystery
of light. Apart from Revelation, the Almighty’s questions pro_
pounded to Job remain unanswered: „Where is the way to the
dwelling of light? . . . By what way is the light parted?” (Job
38:19_24). The eye is made for it, and truly light is sweet;
but what unaided wisdom can comprehend its mystery? Mys_
terious in origin, exquisitely beautiful in combination of colors,
immaculate and incorruptible. It cannot be defiled by contact
with impurity as can earth, air, or water.
This was not solar or stellar light, for there was yet no
atmospheric medium through which the light of any previously
formed part of the universe could reach and influence the
inert mass of the earth. To call it cosmical light is to name
it and not explain it. The only ultimate explanation is that it
was a creative product resulting from the moving, brooding,
quickening Spirit of God.
Some object to regarding earth light as a creative product
because it now reaches us from second causes – the sun, moon,
and stars. The objection perishes by pushing back the inquiry
far enough. Some one of the existing words of the universe
must have been fashioned first out of the originally created
matter. In the case of this first one the origin of its light must
be referred to the first cause, i.e., creative fiat, since there was
no other world from which, as a second cause, its light could
come. In the case of the earth, the only one whose history is
revealed, external light at the beginning had no medium of

„And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the
waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Firma-
ment or expanse, i.e., what is outspread, is the visible result
of the formation of the earth’s atmosphere. This formation is
the effect of supernatural power. The psalmist declares: „The
firmament showeth his handiwork.” Milton, in Paradise Lost,
expresses the Bible thought:
The firmament, expanse of liquid, pure,
Transparent, elemental air, diffused
In circuit to the uttermost convex
Of this great round.
The atmosphere is the outer sphere of air fluid enveloping
the earth as the rind of an orange encloses the pulp. Its depth
is supposed to be about forty_five miles. It would be out of
place here to discuss in detail its manifold uses. We merely
state in a general way that without it there could be no vege_
table or animal life, nor transmission of sound, nor the con_
veyance, refraction, or decomposition of light. Its particular
use specified in the text is to separate waters from waters.
The power to do this lies in its specific gravity or weight.
This weight, greatest at the sea level, gradually diminishes as
it ascends, until, by extreme rarity, its upper boundary is lost
in the higher enveloping sphere of ether. All waters expanded
by heat into vapor or cloud rise above the air; all vapors con_
densed until heavier than atmosphere fall below it. You see
clouds above clouds. The highest ones are the lightest. What_
ever condenses them brings them lower until their weight, ex_
ceeding that of the atmosphere, precipitates them in the form
of snow, sleet, hail, or rain.
The cloud, while seemingly only the natural result of light
(or heat) and atmosphere, is really the product of divine
power. „Hath the rain a father? Or whom hath begotten the
drops of dew? Out of whose womb came the ice? And the
hoary frost of heaven, who gendered it?” (Job 38:28_29).
He giveth snow like wool;
He scatterest the hoar frost like ashes;
He casteth forth his ice like morsels.
Who can stand before his cold?
He sendeth out his word and melteth them.
– PSALM 147:16_18
„For he draweth up the drops of water, which distill in rain
from his vapour, which the skies pour down and drop upon
man abundantly. Yea, can any understand the spreading of
the clouds, the thunderings of his pavilion?” (Job 36:27_29).
„Dost thou know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous
works of him who is perfect in knowledge?” (Job 37:16).

„And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gath_
ered unto one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was
so” (Gen. 1:9). Chaos, meaning a commingling of elements,
is now eliminated. There was first a separation of light from
darkness; then a separation of waters by the intervening at_
mosphere; finally a separation of land and sea. This mag
have been brought about either by upheaval of some parts of
the land through the action of subterranean fires, or by sub_
sidence of the submerged crest of the land in other places
through cooling and shrinking of the interior mass, or by the
convulsions of mighty electric storms. It matters little what
second causes were employed. The omnipotent energy of the
brooding spirit was the first cause. „Who layeth the beams of
his chambers in the waters, who maketh the clouds his chariot;
who walketh upon the wings of the wind; who maketh winds
his messengers; flames of fire his ministers; who laid the foun_
dations of the earth, that it should not be moved forever. Thou
coveredst it with the deep as with a vesture; the waters stood
above the mountains. At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of
thy thunder they hastened away. [The mountains rose, the
valleys sank down] unto the place which thou hadst founded
for them. Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over;
that they turn not again to cover the earth” (Psalm 104:3_9).
„Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Declare, if thou hast understanding. Who determined the
measures thereof, if thou knowest? Whereupon were the foun_
dations thereof fastened? Or who laid the cornerstone thereof,
when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God
shouted for joy? Or who shut up the sea with doors when it
brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb; when I made
clouds the garments thereof, and the thick darkness a swad_
dling band for it, and marked out for it my bound, and set
bars and doors, and said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no
further; and here shall thy proud waves be stayed” (Job 38:

„And God said, Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding
seed, and fruit_trees bearing fruit after their kind, wherein is
the seed thereof, upon the earth: and it was so.” We now
come to consider the origin of life in its lowest form. Matter
is organized and vitalized into vegetation. Three distinct
classes of vegetable life are specified: the grass, the herb, and
the fruit tree. The first is a simple organism, all blade, and
propagated by division of its part; the second, complex, having
a pithy stalk, and propagated by its seed; the third, more
complex, having a stem of wood, so being able to rise above
the ground, and bearing fruit which encloses the seed for
At this first appearance of life, human science must acknowl_
edge God. All the research of the ages has never been able to
prove even one case of spontaneous generation or a biogenesis;
that is, an origination of living organisms from lifeless matter.
Every living organism known to science proceeded from a pa_
rental living organism. Professor Huxley concedes that science
sees no reason for believing that the evolution of living proto_
plasm from nonliving matter has yet been performed.
Between nothing and matter was an infinite chasm which
omnipotent creative energy alone could span. Between the
chaos of matter and order there was another infinite chasm
which God alone can span. Between matter and life of the
lowest order is yet another infinite chasm which God alone
can span. We here consider also for the, first time the
great law of reproduction and multiplication within the
limit of species. Each divided root of grass produces grass
only. Each herb, through its own seed, reproduces only its own
kind. Each fruit tree, through its own seed, reproduces only
its own kind. This law of reproduction of species applies, as
will be seen later, to the higher animal life (Gen. 1:21, 25, 28),
and is equally applicable to the highest order of animal life,
man himself (Gen. 128__ 5:3).
There is indeed a scriptural law of evolution following from
a previous involution. That is, there is development in every_
thing according to its nature. All potentiality in the germ
may be developed, but wholly along the lines of its own nature.
„The earth beareth fruit of herself; first the blade, then the
ear, then the full grain in the ear” (Mark 4:28). „By their
fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns,
or figs of thistles?” (Matt. 7:16.) „Doth the fountain send
forth from the same opening sweet water and bitter? Can a
fig_tree, my brethren, yield olives, or a vine figs? Neither
can salt water yield sweet” (James 3:11_12).
The plan of God’s creation shows an ascending grade of life
in all organisms. While one kind never produces another kind,
it may produce indefinite varieties of its own kind. The mar_
gin between the several kinds is so slight that you may com_
pare it to the morning twilight, in which it is difficult to say
when night ceases and day begins. This narrowness of margin
continues until we reach man, the highest organism, and in
his case, as will be shown, the chasm is infinite.

„And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of
heaven.” The reader will observe that. in the first verse of
Genesis we have a statement of the creation of the heavens.
The reference, here, therefore, is not to the bringing into being
of the heavenly bodies, for the verb to create is not used, but

the appointment of them for offices or usefulness to the earth.
The whole statement is from an earth viewpoint, and in ref_
erence to their relations to the earth. The earth atmosphere
having been established, and chaos eliminated by the separa_
tion of the elements, to one on earth the heavenly bodies
would seem to begin to be. Their service to the earth is three_
fold: first to divide the day from the night. Th&t is, to con_
tinue and render permanent the separation and distinction
which was effected on the first day. Second, for signs, seasons,
days, and years. Third, as a permanent arrangement for the
distribution of light upon the earth.
In many places in the Bible it is made clear that God is the
maker of the heavenly bodies. Some of the references are un_
speakably sublime and instructive. „That maketh the Bear,
Orion, and Pleiades, and the chambers of the south” (Job 9:
9). „Canst thou bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the
bands of Orion? Canst thou lead forth the Mazzaroth in their
season? Or canst thou guide the Bear with her train? Knowest
thou the ordinances of the heavens? Canst thou establish the
dominion thereof in the earth?” (Job 38:31_33). „When I con_
sider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the
stars, which thou hast ordained; what is man, that thou art
mindful of him, and the son of man that thou visitest him?”
(Psalm 8:3_4). „The heavens declare the glory of God; and
the firmament showeth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth
speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge. There is no
speech nor language; their voice is not heard. Their line is
gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of
the world. In them hath he set a. tabernacle for the sun, which
is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth
as a strong man to run his course. His going forth is from the
end of the heavens, and his circuit unto the ends of it, and
there is nothing hid from the heat thereof” (Psalm 19:1_6).
„He appointed the moon for the seasons; the sun knoweth his

the forest creep forth. The young lions roar after their prey
and seek their food from God. The sun ariseth, they get them
away, and lay them down in their dens. Man goeth forth unto
his work and to labour until the evening. 0, Jehovah, how
manifold are thy works I In wisdom hast thou made them all;
the earth is full of thy riches” (Psalm 104:19_24). „That ye
may be the sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he mak_
eth his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain
on the just and unjust” (Matt. 5:45). „And yet he left him_
self not without witness, in that he did good and gave you
from heaven rains and fruitful seasons, filling your hearts
with food and gladness” (Acts 14:17). „Because that which is
known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto
them. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the
world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that
are made even his everlasting power and divinity; that they
may be without excuse” (Rom. 1:19_20).
The object of these lengthy quotations from the Word of
God with reference to the creation and usefulness of the heav_
enly bodies is to show how clearly God’s revelation establishes
the fact of his creation and guards against the tendency in
Man to worship the creature more than the Creator. The earli_
eat and most persistent form of idolatry was the worship of
the heavenly bodies; or of nature considered apart from God.
The history of idolatries upon this point is full of interest, and
all through the Bible story we see a conflict between the wor_
ship of the one true God and the creatures which he made.
Paul, in his letter to the Romans, gives the grounds and process
of_idolatry. „Because that, knowing God, they glorified him not
as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reason_
ings, and their senseless heart was darkened. Professing them_
selves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory
of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of cor_
ruptible man, and of birds, and four_footed beasts, and
creeping things” (Rom. 1:21_23). The Hebrew prophets were

very earnest in their exhortations against these idolatries.
„Hear ye the word which Jehovah speaketh unto you, 0 house
of Israel: thus sayeth Jehovah, Learn not the ways of the
nations, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the
nations are dismayed at them” (Jer. 10:1_2). „Thou art wear_
ied in the multitude of thy counsels: let not the astrologers,
the star_gazers, the monthly prognosticators, stand up, and
save thee from the things that shall come upon thee” (Isa. 47:
In all literature there is nothing to compare in sublimity of
thought and expression with Genesis I, Psalm 104, which is a
hymn of creation, and the address of the Almighty to Job
(Job 38_41). There can be no sound theology, no true con_
ception of the material universe, of vegetable and animal life,
of the nature, dignity and relations of man, without a re_
vealed groundwork of creation. On this account so much at_
tention, relatively, is given to the first chapter of Genesis.

„And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living
creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open firma_
ment of heaven” (Gen. 1:20). As in the case of vegetable life,
animal life commences with the lowest forms: those developed
from water. In his apostrophe to the ocean, Byron well says:
Even from out of thy slime the monsters of the deep arc
Again let the reader note that life comes from God’8 fiat, and
not from any inherent power in water and air.. Both sea and
sky are thick_peopled at his word:
Yonder is the sea, great and wide,
Wherein are creeping things innumerable,
Both small and great beasts.
There go the ships:
There is leviathan, whom thou hast formed to play therein.
These wait all for thee,
That thou mayest give them their food in due season.
Thou givest unto them, they gather;
Thou openest thy hand, they are satisfied with good.
Thou bidest thy face, they are troubled;
Thou takest away their breath, they die,
And return to the dust.
Thou sendest forth thy Spirit, they are created.
– PSALM 104:25-30

„And God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures
after their kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the
earth after their kind: and it was so” (Gen. 1:24). This lan_
guage means: Let there be live beings of the substance of the
earth. And now land, air, and sea are populous. The organs
of movement are adapted to the element – fins for the sea,
wings for the air and feet for the land. Some are amphibious
– at home on land or sea, and some in air, or land, or sea. In
wisdom God made them all.

1. Derivation of the English word, „Genesis”?
2. From what version of the Bible do we get the name?
3. What is Genesis?
4. State the twelve sections into which the book divides itself.
5. First origin?
6. Meaning of „beginning”?
7. What does the first verse show?
8. What one word is the explanation of the universe?
9. Meaning of „created”?
10. With God for its subject, how is this verb used in the Bible?
11. Do we obtain our knowledge of creation from tradition, history, science, or revelation?
12. What New Testament scripture expresses the fact?
13. The next origin set forth in the Bible story?
14. Give the Bible description of the earth matter.
15. What mighty agent is introduced to deal with matter?
16. What doctrine does this teach?
17. Given matter alone, what result?
18. Given matter and the Holy Spirit, what result?
19. First product of Spirit energy?
20. Of what is it the emblem?
21. What mightier creation does it illustrate?
22. Can atheistic philosophy account for light?
23. What questions concerning light does the Almighty propound to Job?
24. Was this first light either solar or stellar?
25. Why not?
26. What is the only ultimate explanation of light?
27. Have you read Milton’s „Apostrophe to Light”?
28. Second product of Spirit energy?
29. What is the firmament?
30. What is atmosphere?
31. Mention some of its uses.
32. What special use in the text?
33. What property of atmosphere enables it to divide the waters?
34. Explain the process.
35. Of what natural agencies does the cloud appear to be the product?
36. What is the ultimate explanation?
37. Cite some scriptures attributing clouds, rain, snow, and hail to divine origin.
38. The third product of Spirit energy operating on matter?
39. How has chaos been eliminated?
40, What second causes may have been employed to make dry land appear?
41. Cite some scriptures showing that second causes were but the servants of the first cause.
42. Fourth product of Spirit energy?
43. What three classes of vegetable life are mentioned?
44. What word alone explains life?
45. What is abiogenesis?
46. Can human science prove even one instance of it?
47. What four infinite chasms which divine power alone can span appear in Genesis I? Ans.: (1) Between nothing and matter; (2) Between the chaos of matter and order; (3) Between matter, even when reduced to order, and the lowest form of life; (4) Between the highest order of brute life and man.
48. State the great law of reproduction and multiplication of original forms of life.
49. Is there any evidence that this law has been violated?
50. What is scriptural evolution?
51. What grade and margin in life organisms does God’s plan of creation show?
52. In what one case is the margin infinitely wide?
53. Fifth product of the Spirit energy?
54. Does this mean that these heavenly bodies were then first created?
55. What does it mean?
56. What three offices of usefulness do the heavenly bodies render to the earth?
57. Cite some scriptures showing the fact that God did create the heavenly bodies.
58. Against what sin was the revelation designed to guard?
59. How does Paul state the ground and processes of idolatry?
60. What psalm is a hymn of creation?
61. What chapters of Job should be studied in connection with Genesis I?
62. Sixth product of Spirit energy?
63. Seventh product?
64. What organs of movement are adapted to the several elements, sea, air, land?
65. Mention an amphibious animal.
66. One at home in all three elements.

Genesis 1:26 to 8:3

Origin of Man
„And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness” (Gen. 1:26). The creation of man is the last and
.highest stage in the production of organic life. Every step in
creation so far is a prophecy of his coming and a preparation
fee it. This wonderful world is purposed for a higher being
than fish or fowl or beast. Not for them were accumulated the
inexhaustible treasures of mineral and vegetable stores. What
use have they for lignite, stone, coal, peat, iron, copper, oil,
gas, gold, silver, pearls, and diamonds? They have no capacity
to enjoy the beauty of the landscape, the glorious colorings of
sea and sky. They cannot measure the distances to the stars
nor read the signs of the sky. They cannot perceive the wisdom
nor adore the goodness of the Creator. The earth as consti_
tuted and stored prophesied man, demanded man, and God
said, „Let us make man.” When he wanted vegetable life, he
said, „Let the earth put forth shoots.” When he wanted sea
animals, he said, „Let the sea swarm.” When he wanted land
animals, he said, „Let the earth bring forth.” But when the
earth was prepared for its true lord and master, he said, „Let
us make man in our image, after our likeness.” „Thou hast
made him but little lower than God” (Psalm 8:5). (The He_
brew word here is Elohim, the same as in Genesis 1:1.)
When we contrast the language which introduces the being
of man with that which introduces the beast, and consider the
import of „image and likeness,” and the dominion conferred
on man, we are forced to the conviction than between man and

the highest order of the beast there is an infinite and impass_
able chasm. And this view in confirmed by the divine demon_
stration that no beast could be man’a consort (Gen. 2:18_20) ;
and the divine law (Ex. 22:19).

„God is a spirit.” (John 4:24). „The father of spirits” (Heb.
12:9). „The Lord formeth the spirit of man within him”
(Zech. 12:1). „The spirit of a man is the candle of the Lord”
(Prov. 20:7). „And Jehovah God breathed into man’s nostrils
the breath of life: and man became a living soul” (Gen. 22:27).
„The spirit retumeth to God who gave it” (Eccl. 12:7). We
may say, then, in one word that the spirituality of man’s na_
ture is the image of God. Man is a rational, moral, spiritual
But this image of God involves and implies much more:
(a) Intuitive knowledge and reason. Colossians 3:10; Gen_
esis 2:19_20.
(b) Uprightness and holiness. Ecclesiastes 7:29; Ephesians
(c) Conscience. Romans 2:15.
(d) Will, or determinate choice, free moral agency.
(e) Worship of and communion with God.
(f) Dignity of presence. I Corinthians 11:7; Genesis 9:2.
(g) Immortality of soul, and provision for immortality of
body by access to the tree of life. Genesis 3:22.
(h) Capacity for marriage, not like the consorting of beasts.
(i) Capacity for labor apart from the necessary struggle
for existence.
(j) Speech, itself an infinite chasm between man and beast.
The dual nature of man will be considered in the next chap_
ter on the second chapter of Genesis, which supplies details
of man’s creation not given in this general statement.


„Male and female made he them.” Multiply and fill the
earth. There is one, and only one human race. The earth’s
population came from one pair. There was no pre_Adamite
man. There has been no post_Adamite man, unless we except
Jesus of Nazareth. The unity of the race is a vital and funda_
mental Bible doctrine. Its witness on this point is manifold,
explicit, and unambiguous. (Gen. 9:19; 10:32; Acts 17:26.)
The whole scheme of redemption is based on the unity of the
race (Rom. 5:12_21). When we speak of the Caucasian,
Mongolian, Malay, African, and North American Indian as
different races, we employ both unscientific and unbiblical
terms if we mean to imply different origins. There was no need
for another race. This one pair could fill the earth by multi_
plication. There was no room for another race, for all authori_
ty of rule was vested in this one.


Multiply. Fill the earth. Subdue it. Man was to range over
all zones and inhabit all zones. The sea was to be his home
as well as the land. The habitat of each beast or bird or fish
was of narrow limit.
Man was endowed with wisdom to adapt himself to all cli_
mates, protect himself from all dangers and surpass all bar_
riers. There was given to him the spirit of intervention and
exploration. He would climb mountains, descend into caves,
navigate oceans, bridge rivers, cut canals through isthmuses.
To subdue the earth was a vast commission which called out
all of his reserve powers. Upon this point we cannot do better
than quote the great Baptist scholar, Dr. Conant:
„If we look at the earth, as prepared for the occupancy of
man, we find little that is made ready for use but boundless
material which his own labour and skill can fit for it.

“The spontaneous fruits of the earth furnish a scanty and
precarious subsistence, even to a few; but with skilful labour
it is made to yield an abundant supply for the wants of every
living thing.”
On its surface, many natural obstacles are to be overcome.
Forests must be levelled, rivers bridged over, roads and canals
constructed, mountains graded and tunnelled and seas and
oceans navigated.
Its treasures of mineral wealth lie hidden beneath its sur_
face; when discovered and brought to light they are valueless
to man till his own labor subdues and fits them for his service.
The various useful metals lie in the crude ore and must be
passed through difficult and laborious processes before they
can be applied to any valuable purpose. Iron, for example, the
most necessary of all, how many protracted and delicate proc_
esses are required to separate it from impurities in the ore,
to refine its texture, to convert it into steel before it can be
wrought into the useful ax or knife, with the well_tempered
What an education for the race has been this labor of sub_
duing the earth! How it has developed reflection, stimulated
invention and quickened the powers of combination, which
would otherwise have lain dormant!
Nor are the collateral and remote less important than the
direct and immediate results. He who takes a piece of timber
from the common forest and forms it into a useful implement
thereby makes it his own and it cannot rightfully be taken
from him, since no one can justly appropriate to himself the
product of another’s skill and labor. So he who originally
takes possession of an unappropriated field and by his labor
prepares it for use thereby makes it his own and it cannot
rightfully be taken from him. Hence arises the right of prop_
erty, the origin and bond of civil society; and thus all the
blessings of society, and of civilization and government, are
due to the divinely implanted impulse, “fill the earth, and

subdue it.” Every institution of learning is but a means to
this one great end.

The dominion of man is as broad as his commission: „Have
dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the
heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the
earth” (Gen. 1:28).
For thou hast made him but little lower than God,
And crownest him with glory and honour.
Thou makest him to have dominion over the works
of thy hands;
Thou hast put all things under hia feet;
All sheep and oxen,
Yea, and the beasts of the field,
The birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea,
Whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.
0, Jehovah, Our Lord,
How excellent is thy name in all the earth.
– PSALM 8:5_9
The exceeding great sweep of our dominion cannot be esti_
mated until in the New Testament we study its exercise by the
Second Adam, our Lord Jesus Christ (Heb. 2:5_11). The ful-
ness of it is even yet future.

And herein is man’s title to the earth:
(a) He must populate it.
(b) He must develop its resources to support that popula_
In God’s law neither man nor nation can hold title to land
or sea and let them remain undeveloped. This explains God’s
dealings with nations. The ignorant savage cannot hold large
territories of fertile land merely for a hunting ground. When
the developer comes he must retire. Spain’s title to Cuba
perished by 400 years oi nondevelopment. Mere priority
of occupancy on a given territory cannot be a barrier to the

progress of civilization. Wealth has no right to buy a coun_
ty, or state, or continent and turn it into a deer park. The
earth is man’s. Wealth has no right to add house to house and
land to land until there is no room for the people. „Woe unto
them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there
be no room, and ye be made to dwell in the midst of the land”
(Isa. 5:8).

The discussion of the days of creation has been designedly
reserved until now, on account of their relation to the last
creative institution. When the text says: „There was evening
and there was morning, one day,” or a second day, the lan_
guage is that of the natural day as we now have it. But this
does not necessarily mean that the earth was only 144 hours
older than man. But it does imply:
That God chose to conduct his processes of earth formation
by alternatings of activity and rest.
That he intended these periods of alternative activity and
rest to constitute a prototype of time division for man not
suggested by the revolution of the earth or any heavenly body.
And that this division of time into a week should punctuate
the institution of the sabbath, which was made for man, not
for God, and that through it man’s allegiance to God might be
We thus come to the crowning act of creation:

„And the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the
host of them. And on the seventh day God finished his work
which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all
his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh
day and hallowed it; because that in it he rested from all his
work which God had created and made” (Gen. 2:1_3). It has
already been observed that the seven periods of creation called
days, whatever their duration, were designed to be a prototype
of a division of time not suggested by nature. Our natural
day results from one revolution of the earth on its own axis;
our month from the moon’s revolution around the earth; our
year from the earth’s revolution around the sun. But the week
is of divine appointment. A New Testament scripture goes to
the root of the matter: „And he said unto them, The sabbath
was made for man, and not man for the sabbath; so that the
Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath” (Mark 2:27_28).
God condescends to represent himself as man’s archetype
and exemplar. The sabbath was not made for God: „The Al_
mighty fainteth not, neither is weary.”
Among the reasons for the institution of the sabbath we
may safely emphasize these:
Man’s Mind Is Finite and His Memory Imperfect. Some
means must be provided to stir up the finite mind of man to
remember the significance of the mighty acts of creation. And
what is the significance of creation? It is a declaration of these
great truths: (1) That the material universe and all it con_
tains had an origin. (2) That it was brought into being by
the creative act of an intelligent, almighty, beneficent being.
(3) That this being is God. (4) That he is the only rightful
proprietor and sovereign of the universe. (5) That his will is
the supreme law of its occupants. (6) That the knowledge of
his will is by his revelation.
It is a negation of these great untruths: (1) It denies athe_
ism by assuming the being of God. (2) It denies polytheism
by the assertion of his unity. (3) It denies deism by making
a revelation. (4) It denies materialism in distinguishing be_
tween matter and spirit, and in showing that matter is neither
self_existent nor eternal. (5) It denies pantheism by placing
God before matter and unconditioned by it. (6) It denies
chance by showing that the universe in its present order is not,
in whole or in part, the result of „a fortuitous concourse of
atoms,” or of the action of elementary principles of matter,

but of an extraneous intelligent purpose. (7) It denies fatalism
by asserting God’s freedom to create when he would and to
control how he would. (8) It denies blind force by its revela_
tion of beneficence intelligently directing and adapting all
things to good ends. (9) As a revelation it denies that man
by searching can find out God, and denies that all the myths
of the heathen, or the speculations of philosophy, or the ob_
servations of naturalists, can dissipate the profound darkness
concerning the origin and nature and end of the world and of
Man’s Body Is Mortal. Some means must be provided to
guard its health and preserve its powers. His powers of en_
durance and of persistent application are limited. He cannot
work unceasingly. He will need regular periods of rest for his
body and mind. He must also have stated periods of enjoy_
ment and worshiping God, that his soul may be fed and
nourished. Man has a marvelous commission of labor, prog_
ress and development in subduing the earth. But five things
must never be forgotten:
(1) Labor that is continuous will destroy both mind and
body. Hence the necessity of regular periods of rest.
(2) The higher nature must not be subordinate to the lower.
The soul must not wander too far from God. Communion
with him is its nourishment and health. Man must not live
by bread alone. God must be loved and adored.
(3) God is earth’s proprietor and man’s sovereign. His su_
preme jurisdiction must ever be acknowledged and accepted
with complete submission.
(4) Man is social by the very constitution of his being. The
unit of the family must not be broken. But there can be no
permanent circle unless God is its center. And no tie will
permanently bind unless it is sacred.
In subduing the earth, man has authority not only to lay
under tribute the forces of nature which are without feeling,

but to use the strength of the lower animals. These get weary.
They cannot labor continuously. For their faithful service
they need not only good food and shelter, but regular periods
of rest.
(5) Not only animals need certain regular off_days, when
they are to do no work, but all mechanical and scientific im_
plements need it in order to reach maximum usefulness. It has
been demonstrated that a steam engine, an ax, a hand_saw,
will do more and better work in the long run with regular
days of absolute rest.
Man’s Spirit Finds Its Health in Communion with God.
Some means must be provided that will keep up this com_
munion regularly and thereby prevent alienation from God.
All man’s springs of joy are in God. Moreover, the creative
week is a type of the earth’s history and presupposes the fall
and redemption of man. Therefore as one day is with the
Lord as a thousand years, we may say:
The Sabbath Foreshadows the Millennium; of the thousand
years of gospel triumph on the earth before the final judg_
ment, and the final rest and glory of a completed redemption of
both earth and man, greater than the original creation. The
question then becomes momentous: What provision can a
Heavenly Father make that will effectually secure these great
ends? That will secure adequate rest for mind and body and
soul? That will nourish and heal the spirit? That will tend
to recognition of and submission to the divine sovereignty and
proprietorship? That will make communities and nations co_
here? That will provide mercy and rest for overtaxed machin_
ery and beasts and children and women and slaves? That will
prevent total departure from God? That will be a barrier
against greed and avarice and tyranny?
O Lord God, our Redeemer, Maker, our Preserver, Thou
hast answered in the text: „The sabbath was made for man.”
In the beginning thou didst ordain it, thou didst bless it and
hallow it. It is one of the three holy things that man, though

fallen and accursed, was permitted in mercy to bring with
him from the lost bowers of Eden; majestic labor, the holy
institution of marriage and the blessed and hallowed sabbath.
Inestimable jewels! Time has never dimmed your luster, nor
change nor circumstance depreciated your value. The experi_
ence of six thousand years bears witness to your divine origin.
As types you have illumined time; as antitypes you will glo_
rify eternity.
And throughout the world, wherever the sabbath in its pur_
ity has been disregarded, there marriage, in its true and holy
sense) has been disregarded, and there idleness and cheating
and fraud and gambling have taken the place of honest toil.
There avarice and greed and tyranny have oppressed the poor,
and there immorality and vice and polytheism and pantheism
and deism and chance and fatalism and materialism and athe_
ism have erected their standards. Yes, it is true in its ultimate
and logical outcome: no sabbath, no God.
The sabbath or atheism, which? Why try to narrow this
question to Jewish boundaries? The sabbath was made for
man; for man, as man; for all men. Was Adam a Jew? Was
he a son of Judah, or of Heber, or of Abraham, or of Shem?
The sabbath was made for the first man, the progenitor of all
the nations, and for him even in paradise as a primal law of
man’s primal, normal nature.
Why talk of Mount Sinai and the tables of stone? The
sabbath marked the fall of the manna, that type of Jesus, the
bread from heaven, before Sinai ever smoked or trembled or
thundered. Why talk of Moses? The sabbath was twenty_five
centuries old when Moses was born. It is older than any rec_
ord or monument of man. Before the flood it was more than
an institution. It was a promise of redemption from the curse
pronounced in Eden. Pious hearts looked daily for the coming
of the rest that remaineth for the people of God. Hence
Lamech named his son „Noah,” which means rest, saying:
“This same shall comforet us concerning our work and the toil
of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord hath
The sabbath was here before sin ever mantled man’s face
with the flush of shame. The sabbath antedates all arts and
sciences. It was here before Enoch built a city, or Jabal
stretched a tent, or Jubal invented instruments of music, or
Tubal_Cain became an artificer in brass and iron. It is older
than murder. Cain walked away from its altars of worship to
murder his brother Abel. Its sunlight flashed into the face of
the first baby that ever cooed in its mother’s arms. It was a
companion in Eden of that tree of life whose fruit gave im_
mortality to the body. And its glory enswathes the antitypical
tree of life in the Paradise of God, as seen in the apocalyptic
visions of John the revelator. Yes, it will survive the deluge of
fire as it survived the deluge of water. When the heavens are
rolled together as a scroll, and the material world shall be dis_
solved, the sabbath will remain. The thunders of the final
judgment shall not shake its everlasting pillars. It came before
death, and when death is dead it will be alive. The devil found
it on his first visit to earth, and its sweet and everlasting rest
will be shoreless and bottomless after he is cast, with other
sabbath_breakers, into the lake of fire. Yea, as it commenced
before man needed a mediator between himself and God, so it
will be an eternal heritage of God’s people when the media_
torial kingdom of Jesus Christ is surrendered to the Father,
and God shall be all in all. Thou venerable and luminous in_
stitution of God!
Time writes no wrinkle on thy sunlit brow,
Such as creation’s dawn beheld, thou shinest now.
It was made for man; man on earth, and man in heaven.
And mark you: The sabbath was made for man, so that the
Son of man is lord even of the sabbath. Mark the force of that
„so.” It is equivalent to therefore or wherefore. That is, since
it was made for man, the Son of man, not of Abraham, the
Son of man is its Lord. Because Jesus was more than a Jew,
because of his touch with all humanity, Luke, writing not for
Jews but for Greeks, never stops, like Matthew, at Abraham,
but traces his descent from Adam, the first man.
And as, in his humanity, he was the ideal man who should
be the ensign of rallying for all nations, Paul applies to him
the glorious, prophetic p~alm:: „But one in a certain place testi_
fied, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or
the son of man that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little
lower than the angels; thou crownest him with glory and
honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: Thou
hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he
put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put
under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels
for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that
he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.” As
the God_man he is the Lord of the sabbath. To his cross may
be nailed a seventh day. But from his resurrection may come
a first day. One in seven is essential – which one. is as the
Lord of the sabbath may direct*

The reader will observe the formula expressing the divine
fiat which introduces each successive step in the progress of
the earth’s formation:
„And God said” – Genesis 1:3.
„And God said” – Genesis 1:6.
„And God said” – Genesis 1:9.
„And God said’ – Genesis 1:11.
„And God said” – Genesis 1:14.
„And God said” – Genesis 1:20.
„And God said” – Genesis 1:24.
„And God said” – Genesis 1:26.
„And God said” – Genesis 1:28.
“And God said” – Genesis 1:29.

In simple and sublime language his will or decree is ex_
pressed and the result follows like an echo. He created the
world by the word of his power. He spake and it stood fast.
To the first word, light responds; to the second, atmosphere;
to the third, dry land; to the fourth, vegetable life; to the fifth,
light holders; to the sixth, animal life in sea and air; to the
seventh, animal life on earth; to the eighth, human life; to the
ninth, provision for life. Though the formula does not recur,
the sabbath decree (Gen. 2:1_3) completes the ten words.
Primal institutions, (a) Marriage. „And he answered and
said, Have ye no? read, that he who made them from the be_
ginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause
shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his
wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So that they are
no more two but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined
together, let no man put asunder. They say unto him, why
then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to
put her away? He saith unto them, Moses for your hardness
of heart suffered you to put away your wives; but from the
beginning it hath not been so. And I say unto you, whosoever
shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry
another, committeth adultery; and be that marrieth her when
she is put away, committeth adultery” (Matt. l&:4_9).
(b) Labor. „Subdue the earth.”
(c) Sabbath for rest and worship.
(d) Dominion.
(e) Man’s title to the earth on condition that he populate
and subdue it.

There is no evidence that matter has received addition or
loss since its original creation. Nor that any additions have
been made to the species of life organisms, vegetable or animal.
There is no necessary discord between the Mosaic order of
creation and the best settled teachings of natural science. In
his Manual of Geology, Dana thus summarizes his understand_
ing of the Mosaic account:
I. Inorganic era:
First Day – Light cosmical.
Second Day – The earth divided from the fluid around, or
Third Day – (1) Outlining of the land and water. (2) Crea_
tion of vegetation.
II. Organic era:
Fourth Day – Light from the sun.
Fifth Day – Creation of the lower order of animals.
Sixth Day – (1) Creation of mammals. (2) Creation of man.
Yet the Bible was given to teach religion, and not science.
Trinity in creation, (a) The Father. Genesis 1:1; Acts 17:24.
(b) Holy Spirit. Quickening matter with the several results
of light, order, life. Job 26:13; Psalm 10~30; Genesis 2:7;
Zechariah 12:1; Hebrews 12:9; Proverbs 20:27; Ecclesiastes
(c) The Son. Proverbs 8:22_31; John 1:1_3; I Corinthians
8:6; Ephesians 3:9; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:8.
Theological definition of creation: „By creation we mean
that free act of the Triune God by which in the beginning for
his own glory he made, without the use of pre_existing mate_
rials, the whole visible and invisible universe.” – A. H. Strong.
For whom was creation? Colossians 1:16.
For what? The divine glory.
Creation reveals what? Order, correlation, benevolent de_
sign: Genesis 1:14; 8:22; Job 38:1_33; Psalm 19:1_16; Mat_
thew 5:45; Acts 14:17; Romans 1:19_20.
Addison’s paraphrase of Psalm 19.

1. Eighth product of Spirit energy?
2. How did the creation prophesy man’s coming?
3. In what does the image of God consist?
4. What does it involve and imply?
5. State the Bible teachine on the unity of the race.
6. Importance of the doctrine?
7. Into what five races did our old geographiea divide men?
8. State man’s commission.
9. State some details of the magnitude of this commission.
10. How did this lead to the rights of property?
11. How does it necessitate schools and promote arts, sciences, etc.?
12. What conditions man’s title to the earth?
13. How does this explain God’s dealings with the nations?
14. Apply the principle to the Indian tribes of America, and Spain’s title to Cuba.
15. How does it limit the purchasing power of the wealthy?
16. What name was given to the periods of creation?
17. Does this language necessarily imply that the earth was only 144 hours older than man?
18. What three things does it imply?
19. The crowning institution of the creative week?
20. First reason for the sabbath?
21. Creation an affirmation of what truths?
22. Negation of what untruths?
23. Second reason?
24. Third reason?
25. Relation of sabbath to marriage, society, worship?
26. What formula introduces each degree of creation?
27. What were the great primal institutions?
28. Has there been any addition to matter since creation?
29. To the species of the life organisms?
30. Is there substantial accord between the Bible account of the order of creation and the teaching of science?
31. Cite Scripture proof of the Trinity in creation.
32. Cite Dr. Strong’s theological definition of creation.
33. For whom was creation?
34. For what?
35. It reveals what?

Genesis 2:4_25

We commence with the fourth verse which begins the new
division of the analysis, to wit: „These are the generations of
the heavens and of the earth,” and that division extends to the
close of Genesis 4, but our present chapter will discuss so much
of it only as is found in the second chapter.
In reading this chapter one is impressed, even in the transla_
tion, by a marked difference in style between it and the first
chapter of Genesis. How, then, do we account for this great
difference in style? A sufficient and simple answer is that in
every chapter the style corresponds to the subject matter.
Some of you will recall a paragraph from Alexander Pope with
this couplet:
When Ajax strives some rock’s vast weight to throw,
The line too labours, and the words move slow.
This essayist on style then goes on to show that in describ_
ing the nimble_footed Camilla there is no labor in the line, and
no slow motion in the words. The first chapter of Genesis
consists of terse, abrupt, sententious sentences, each as rugged
as a granite mountain. The nature of the subject calls for that
style. The second chapter, following the usual method of Gen_
esis, takes up certain items tersely stated in the first chapter
and enlarges or expounds the statement. This calls for a
smoother and more flowing style.
A thinking reader will also note another change in the sec_
ond chapter. The first chapter uniformly uses the word, „God,”
but the second chapter, „Jehovah God,” and this change from
the name of „God” to „Jehovah God” appears a number of

times, not merely in Genesis, but in many succeeding books,
and is just as marked in the psalms as it is in Genesis. The
word „God” is employed when the Deity is spoken of in the
abstract. The words, „Jehovah God,” are employed when there
is a revelation of the Deity spoken of in covenant relation.
The name, „Jehovah,” is always used when you want to
show God’s covenant relation with man, and you find both
of these names, or titles, of God oftentimes in the same verse
(see Genesis 7:16; I Samuel 17:46_47; 2 Chronicles 18:31).
God in the abstract is Elohim, or just „God,” but God in cove_
nant relation is „Jehovah Elohim,” or „Jehovah God.”
As we look over this second chapter at first glance, there
seems to be on the face of it another diversity from the first
chapter in the order of creation. In the first chapter the
chronological order is strictly followed, man coming last; in
the second chapter the mind is fastened on the man who came
last in the first chapter, first in dignity, and the other things
and beings are discussed in their relation to him without in_
tending to convey the idea that this is the chronological order
of their creation. The radical critics have been accustomed to
claim that these three marked changes between the first and
second chapters indicate different authors and different docu_
ments. There is no convincing reason for accepting this ex_
planation. The book of Genesis is not a patchwork of different
documents by different authors crudely and artificially joined
together; one purpose runs through the book. Whoever wrote
one part of it wrote all the parts of it, from whatever source his
materials were derived.
Just here it is important to call your attention to the uni_
form method of historic treatment in the book of Genesis.
From the first sentence to the end of the book there is a de_
signed descent from the general and comprehensive to the
particular. For example, the first verse, in a few words, states
that in the beginning God created the universe. The second
verse descends to this particular: the condition of the created
earth matter as being without form and void, and darkness
over the face of the deep. The author does not attempt to
state how much interval of time passed from the creation of
the matter of the universe to this particular state of the chaos
of the earth matter. Having thus shown what the chaotic state
was he then shows the several steps by which this chaos, under
the mighty energy of the Holy Spirit, is changed into order.
The first eleven chapters are a race history. Then there is
a descent to a particular man and a family and a nation.
Another uniform method of the book of Genesis is, that in
tracing the kingdom of God all of the families of whom the
elect line does not come are first given and then sidetracked.
It gives the generations of Ishmael before it gives the genera_
tions of Isaac, and the generations of Esau before it gives the
generations of Jacob.
In this second chapter, as has been said, following the meth-
ods of a descent from the general to the particular, the author
takes up certain brief statements of the first chapter and sup-
plies details that are not given in the first. Among the exam_
pies are these: In the first chapter, following a chronological;
order, there is the bare statement that God commanded the
earth to bring forth grass and the herb yielding seed, and the
fruit tree yielding fruit. But the second chapter supplies a
detail that at first there was no rain but only a mist that went
up from the earth and watered the face of the ground, and
caused the seeds of things which had been created to germi_
nate; then the first chapter states in general terms that God
made man, male and female, without detail. This second chap-
ter tells us how man’s body was made from the dust of the
ground, and how the spirit of man was communicated, and then
it shows how the female was derived from the man. This is a
detailed elaboration) or explanation, of the brief statement
in the first chapter.
The second chapter then goes on to supply the detail of how
God provided a garden for the man, and how he came under
covenant law to God, and the stipulations of that covenant.
This detailed information of the second chapter is very im_
portant as showing the dual nature of man, how that his body
was formed from the dust of the earth. Here it is clear that
the teaching is that man’s body was not evolved from any
lower form of animal life. There is an evolution clearly taught
in the Bible, but it is an evolution of each seed according to
its kind, and not the transformation of one kind into another
kind. Whatever potentiality has been previously involved in
any seed may be evolved out of that seed. From a seed of
wheat there is first the blade and then the stalk and then the
ear, and then the full or ripened ear, but barley is not evolved
from a wheat seed. Each one is according to its own kind. No
research of man has ever found an example of one kind being
evolved from a different kind. It would destroy all law and
take away from man the value of his reason in observing na_
ture’s course, or the course of the God of nature so as to profit
by it. This second chapter is equally clear as to the origin of
man’s spirit. The spirit of the first man was not by any proc_
ess of evolution derived from any spirit of beast or demon,
but a direct creation of God, an impartation from God. Marcus
Dods, in his book on Genesis, exceedingly lucid and brilliant,
though many times tending to the theory of the radical critic,
asks a question: „Was the first man a rude and ignorant sav_
age or a highly civilized man?” You may rest assured that
the first man was the highest and noblest of his kind, fresh
from the hands of his Creator, created upright, in righteous_
ness, knowledge and true holiness, wonderfully dowered and
commissioned. He was superior not only to the rude and ig_
norant savage, but to the highest type of present civilization.
This leads to another thought, viz.: that the savage tribes
to today are not merely ascending from a primeval degrada_
tion in the scale of beings, bufr are examples of a degeneration
from a previous higher type. On this point the whole theory
of Darwinian evolution is hopelessly at war with revelation
and common sense, and also with all of the clearly proved facts
gathered by man’s research. This thought is further carried
out by the fact that race memory has embodied in tribal and I
national myths proofs that man has not ascended from a prim_
eval cave dweller or a remote stone age to the present golden
age of civilization, but that there has been, according to the
teachings of history time and again, a descent from the pri_
meval golden age to a silver, then a brazen, and then an iron
and then a stone age. As an instance, take Ovid’s „Metamor_
phoses” as embodying the classical idea of first a golden, then
a silver, then a brazen and then an iron age, and this is in
harmony with the myths and legends preserved among all
people. By a kind of race memory they all look back to &
higher and nobler position than that now occupied. This er_
roneous evolution theory goes a long way back and finds first,
cave dwellers, or troglodytes, and an evolution from the cave
dweller of the stone age to the present civilized time. But the
Bible itself, as well as present history, shows that troglodytas
or cave dwellers existed contemporaneously with higher types.
The Horites mentioned in Genesis were troglodytes living in
caves. This evolution theory begs the question and contradicts
the facts as well, in demanding almost infinite periods of time
between these several generations. Not long ago the phosphate
beds of Ashley, South Carolina, were discovered, and in ex_
cavating for these phosphates there were found all mingled
together the bones, skeletons of animals including man, that,
under this theory, must have been separated in countless ages
of time from each other.
We have in this second chapter a description of a garden,
or paradise, in the district of Eden. I need not cite the words
of this description, for you have the book before you. Captain
Mayne Reid, in the Desert Home, describes a fertile, well_
watered valley, mountain locked on every side, full of flowers
and fruits, that may convey to you some idea of paradise in
a valley of the mountains. Or you may get some idea of para_

dise in a valley of the mountains from Johnson’s Happy Val_
ley of Rasselas. The record says that this park was fertilized
bv.a river system, which, in leaving the garden, parted into
fear beads that became mighty rivers. Two of these rivers –
the Euphrates and the Tigris – are easy to locate, and the
other two may be easily inferred. In the Armenian mountains
is yet to be seen a beautiful valley in which, from the same
water system, four famous rivers rise, not far from each other.
The springs of these rivers are not many miles apart. The
Euphrates, leaving this valley, flows, in general terms, south,
reaching the Indian Ocean through the Persian Gulf. The
Tigris flows east and then south until it unites with the Eu_
phrates before it reaches the sea. The Halys and the Araxes
also rise in the same valley, one of them flowing northwest
into the Black Sea, and the other, east into the Caspian Sea.
There were two remarkable trees in this garden, the tree of
life and the tree of death. From what is said in the third chap_
ter, and indicated by its own name, the object of the tree of
life was to furnish the fruit that would ultimately eliminate
the mortality of man’s body so that long continuance in the
use of this fruit would make his body as immortal as his soul.
On the other hand, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
fruited unto death. Many of the commentaries have found in
this story of the garden of Eden a mere allegory. All subse_
quent references to it in the Bible clearly prove that this ac_
count is strictly historical. By following out your marginal
references abundant proof texts are to be found in both Testa_
ments that the memory of this famous garden lingered long
lathe minds of the race. In the New Testament, at the very
close of it, paradise regained, with its water of life and the
tree of life, is set forth as the antitype of the earthly garden
of Eden. It is quite important to note that the man had duties
in this garden. He was to tend the garden and, as in the com_
mission stated in the first chapter of Genesis, he must subdue

the earth. This shows that labor preceded sin and has in it a
natural dignity not to be despised.
It is well to note that this man in this garden, without being
at all startled, had direct communication with God; without
fear or shame he met and communed with his Creator. The
biblical account clearly shows that this man stood in covenant
relations with his God. The very fact that some things are
prescribed and other things proscribed is an evidence of a cove_
nant relation, the Creator freely permitting some things, sharp_
ly prohibiting other things with severe penalties attached to
disobedience. The prohibition not to eat of the tree of the fruit
of knowledge of good and evil, except on a penalty of death,
is a stipulation of this covenant. Some have questioned the
propriety of such a moral test. But a test in this form is more
excellent than one like an ordinary law of nature demonstrat_
ing its own consequences.
Men have had some difficulty in locating the garden of Eden from the description given in this second chapter, but their
difficulties arise from supposing there has been no change since
primeval times. For example, the Hiddekel, or Tigris, is said
to compass all the land of Cush, and commentators, keeping in
mind the territory of Cush in Africa, experience a difficulty in
locating this river. They should notice that the descendants
of Cush first occupied the very territory which the Tigris com_
passes, and later some of them settled in Arabia and others of
them in Africa. A passage in Ezekiel, which the reader must
find, tells us that the garden of Eden was destroyed. By which
is meant not the annihilation of its mountains and its rivers,
but such a change as, were you now to see the location, you
could not identify it from the description given in Genesis.
Several curious theories of the location of the garden of Eden
have been inflicted upon the people. A Methodist bishop is
quite sure that it was near where Charleston, South Carolina,
now is. Another says that it was at the North Pole and that
the aurora borealis is still a reflection of its pristine glory, and
that there is an opening into the hollow of the earth at the
North Pole and paradise went down into that hole, and only
the aurora borealis outshines and that God had hedged it about
with impassable ice. The discovery of the North Pole, if it was
a discovery, clearly disproves the existence of such a stake as
the north pole.
One of the most suggestive thoughts in this chapter is the
way in which God made the man sensible of his need of a
companion, and of the kind of a companion that he must have.
The animals in pairs passed before the man and he noticing
that they were all in pairs – a lion and a lioness, a tiger and
a tigress, and so on – thus suggesting the thought to him that
these lower creatures had mates, and he had none, but further
suggesting that because of his difference in nature, he being in
God’s image and infinitely above any lower animal, he could
not find a mate among them. Having thus prepared man’s
mind to see the necessity of a companion, God, by a spiritual
anesthetic, brings man’s body into a state of painless in_
sensibility, and while in that state takes from him a part of
himself near his heart, and out of that fashions man’s com_
Here arises an important question: „Was the spirit of Eve
a direct creation like Adam’s, or was her spirit derived from
him as well as her body?” This brings up two theological
theories, one called the theory of direct creation of spirits,
and the other the theory of derivation by traduction. It has
always seemed to the author that the common theory, that
òthe souls of men are all of them, each in its turn, a direct
creation of God, is utterly incompatible with biblical facts.
It would disprove hereditary depravity or the necessity of
regeneration. Education only would be needed. When the
companion was presented to man, Adam said, Isha, which
means woman, and woman means derived from man. When
she was presented to him she was presented to him in her
entirety –body and soul – and he called her woman – i.e.,

derived from man. So that Eve was as much a descendant
of Adam as you are. In other words the man, when created
was the whole race in potentiality, and every other human
being, including Eve, was derived from him. A very impor_
tant doctrine will be seen to be dependent upon this when
we come to the next chapter, when we come to the fall of
man. If Eve was a descendant of Adam, race responsibility
did not rest upon her. Her sin might bring death to her
but only to herself, but Adam’s sin would bring it to all to be
derived from him.
God himself married this first pair, and our Lord, in the
nineteenth chapter of Matthew, indicated the ceremony by
the words which he quotes. In looking upon this first pair,
we come upon a somewhat startling statement prefaced by
„therefore”: „Therefore shall a man leave his father and
mother, and shall cleave unto his wife.” The usual idea
seems to be that the right of the matter is that a man shall
take her to his father’s and mother’s house, but the Bible says
that a man shall leave his folk, and all the wives can under_
stand why this is so. They cannot go to the father_in_law
and mother_in_law and feel at home under the dominion of
those who are practically strangers. She wants her home. She
is willing enough to receive counsel in the homelife from her
mother, but not so well from his mother. So he should not
always be telling her how well his mother could make biscuits
and pies and coffee and desserts. Let her tell him how her
mother used to do it. The truth is, when they marry, they
had better go off to themselves.
In two of the finest passages of Milton’s Paradise Lost is
the poet’s conception of the man’s first consciousness after
his creation and how Eve awoke and found herself. I once
took the passage about Eve waking and finding herself, and
made it the theme of an address before a college of young
ladies. I suggest that every reader read these two passages.
When we come to the New Testament we find proof cor_
roborating the Genesis account of the origin of the woman.
It distinctly affirms that Adam was first formed, then Eve,
and that the woman was made for the man and not the man
for the woman, and that the man is the head of the family,
from which are also derived some beautiful lessons about
Christ the Second Adam, and the church derived from him;
that as the first Adam slept while the woman was taken from
his side so Christ died that from his death might come his
companion, his spouse, his church; that Christ also loved the
church and gave himself for it.

1. How do you account for the difference of style between the first and second chapters of Genesis?
2. What says Alexander Pope on the variation of style?
3. What is the style in the first chapter? The second?
4. What variation in the use of the names of God, and how do you account for it?
5. 1s this peculiar to the Pentateuch?
6. Why, in this section, is man’s formation placed before vegetable and other animal life?
7. Does the first chapter or the second present the chronological order?
8. Is the second chapter an independent and conflicting account of creation?
9. What is the uniform method of historic treatment in the book of Genesis?
10. Of what do the first eleven chapters of Genesis consist?
11. What details are supplied in the second chapter not found in the first chapter?
12. Give an account of the origin of the first man’s dual nature.
13. Was he, either in body or soul, developed from lower animals?
14. Was the first man a rude and ignorant savage, or the highest type of his kind?
15. Are the savage tribes of today merely ascending from primeval degradation in the scale of being, or are they examples of a degeneration from an original higher type?
16. Does race memory, as embodied in the tribal and national myths, indicate that man has ascended from cave dwellers of a remote stone age, or has descended from a primeval golden age to silver, brass, iron, and stone conditions?
17. Give a classic myth on this point.
18. Give Bible proof that troglodytes (cave dwellers) were not separated in incalculable periods of time from. highly developed and civilized types, but were contemporaries.
19. What bearing have the phosphate beds of Ashley, South Carolina on the theory that immensely long periods of time separated the several forms of lower animal life from each other and from man?
20. What ideal homes in fiction may possibly represent how the garden of Eden was enclosed and safeguarded?
21. Locate and describe it. What curious theories about it?
22. How was this park fertilized?
23. What two remarkable trees were there?
24. The use or purpose of the tree of life?
25. Of the tree of death?
26. Is this garden story allegory or history?
27. Cite Old Testament proofs that the memory of this real garden lingered long in the minds of the race. (See Gen. 13:10; Isa. 51:3; Ezek. 28:13; 36:35; Joel 2:3.).
28. Cite scripture proving its destruction. (See Ezek. 31:9, 16, 18.)
29. Man’s duties in the garden?
30. Nature of his communion with God?
31. Scripture proof of Adam’s covenant relations with God? (Hos. 6:7.)
32. Was it a covenant of grace or of works?
33. What prohibition expressed its stipulation on man’s part?
34. What is the excellency of this moral test?
35. How did God make man sensible of his need of a companion?
36. Origin of the woman’s body?
37. Was her soul a direct creation as Adam’s, or was it derived from Adam?
38. Who married the first pair, and what New Testament scripture indicates the ceremony?
39. The deep sleep that fell upon Adam and the woman’s derivation from him therein were typical of what? New Testament proof?
40. If either be done, why should the man leave his folk for his wife rather than the wife her folk for the husband?
41. In their antitype show that both leave their folks.
42. Where in Paradise Lost do you find Milton’s conceptions of how the man first consciously found himself and the woman herself? Sir Egerton Bridges Edition, pp. 297_8 and 205_6.
43. Cite New Testament corroboration of the Genesis account of the origin of woman.


We have seen in the second chapter of Genesis the happy
estate of the man and woman in paradise. We learn in the
third chapter about the fall of man and his expulsion from
that garden. No more fundamental subject can be considered
by a Bible student, and we are not going to leave it until you
are thoroughly grounded in the significance of the fall of man.
But we are not prepared to commence the study of the fall
until we consider somewhat the origin, nature, office, and his_
tory of another very distinct class of created beings called
angels, through one of whom man was seduced to sin against
God. So you see that the subject of this chapter is the crea_
tion of the angels, their relation to God and to man and the
use of the serpent as an instrument in the temptation.
Many Bible words of general signification take on by special
usage a particular and official meaning; for example, the words,
„apostle,” „deacon,” „church,” or „angel.” Primarily „apos_
tle” means one sent. In this original meaning one sent by
another is an apostle. Jesus was an apostle; so was Barnabas.
But by special use the term is restricted to the highest office
in the earthly church, and confined to the twelve apostles
and to Paul. So „deacon” means primarily a servant. In
this original sense any one who serves is a deacon. Jesus was
a deacon. But by usage the term is restricted to a particular
office in the apostolic church. The Greek New Testament
term rendered „church” means primarily an official assembly
called out for the transaction of secular business, but later
designates a particular congregation of Christians. In like
manner „angel” primarily means a messenger of any kind.
Any one bearing a message from another is in this original
sense an angel. Many passages in the Old Testament use
the phrase, „angel of Jehovah,” to designate a preliminary
manifestation of the Son of God before his incarnation. In
this original sense the pastors of the seven churches in Asia
are called the angels of the churches. Yet this general term
„angel” by abundant usage, designates a special class of
created beings, neither human nor divine – above the one, be_
low the other – appointed unto a distinctive office. These con_
stitute the hosts of the heavens.
When, then, were they created? There was but one crea_
tive period, and that period is set forth in the first chapter
of Genesis and in the second chapter down to the third verse.
In that time were finished not only the heavens and the earth,
but „all the hosts of them” (Gen. 2:1). Now the hosts of
the earth are the created beings that inhabit the earth. The
hosts of the heavens are the angels. The order in which the
earth’s hosts – that is, the animals of sea, air, and land,
culminating in man – were brought into being, has been set
forth in previous chapters. But a consideration of the origin
of „the hosts of the heavens” has been deferred until their
contact with man brings them prominently into the earth his_
In the Psalm 148 all the creation, including the angelic hosts, are invoked to praise Jehovah, their Creator:
Praise ye him, all his angels:
Praise ye him, all his hosts. . . .
For be commanded, and they were created.
Here the creation of the angels is associated in time with
the rest of creation. Even more particularly in this association
set forth and attributed to Jesus Christ in Colossians 1:16: „In
him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth,
things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or domin_
ions, or principalities or powers; all things have been created
through him and unto him.” It is true that the Son of God, by
his incarnation, was subsequently made a little lower than the

angels whom he created (Heb. 2:7), but after his resurrection
and ascension he was again exalted above them: „Who is on
the right hand of God, having gone into heaven; angels and
authorities and powers being made subject unto him” (2
Peter 3:22).
The hosts of heaven met Jacob at a later day (Gen. 32:1)
and are an innumerable company. „The Lord came from the
myriads of holy ones” (Deut. 33:2). „The chariots of God
are twenty thousand, even thousands upon thousands” (Psalm
68:17). „Thousands of thousands ministered unto him, and
ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him” (Dan.
7:10). „Innumerable hosts of angels” (Heb. 12:22). „I
heard the voice of many angels) . . . and the number of them
was ten thousand times ten thousand and thousands of
thousands” (Rev. 5:11).
The creation of the angels preceded that of the universe
matter, and of course, that of man. In other words, the first
creation was when the angels were made. We know this to be
the case, because in the Psalm 104:4_5, these angels were em_
ployed in bringing the chaotic earth matter into order. From
the passage, Job 38:7, we are told that the sons of God
watched it, had participated in it, and when it was completed
shouted for Joy over the world when it was created. They
rejoiced over the beautiful consummation.
By nature the angels were incorporeal, i.e., pure spirit
(Psalm 104:4; Heb. 1:14; Eph. 6:12), and sexless (Matt. 22:
30), and immortal (Luke 20:36), possessed of superhuman
and yet finite wisdom and power (2 Sam. 14:20; 2 Peter 2:11;
Matt. 24:36; I Peter 1:12; Eph. 3:10). Angels are not a
family, but a company. They are without ancestry or pos_
terity. Each stands or falls in his own individuality. As they
could not fall through a progenitor, nor become corrupt through
hereditary law, they cannot, when fallen, become subjects of
redemption through a second federal head (Heb. 2:16). Of
angels, therefore, we may say: They are created and therefore
finite beings; by origin they are called the sons of God (Job
1:6; 2:7); by nature they are spirits (Psalm 104:4) ; by char_
acter they are called „holy ones” or „saints” (Job 5:1; Psalm
89:5_7; Dan. 8:13; Jude 14). Later we shall find them minis_
trators of the law (Gal. 3:19), heralds of the gospel (Luke
2:9_13), and servants of Christ’s people (Heb. 1:14).

Now we come to the origin of sin. From the most. ancient
times the origin of evil has baffled the inquisition of proud
human philosophy. The Bible account of it is both simple
and satisfactory. It originated with the angels. These angels
were created free, moral agents, under law, on probation, with
power to determinate choice, hence liable to fall. The greater
number of them stood the test. In I Timothy 5:21, those who
stood the test are called the elect angels. But many fell from
their state of innocence. See 2 Peter 2:4, and Jude 6: „The
angels which kept not their first estate.” The leader and
chief among them was Satan, who „stood not in the truth”
(John 8:44), falling through pride (I Tim. 3:6). He was
first called Lucifer, which means „son of the morning.” He
loses that name and takes the name Satan. This chief of the
fallen angels has many Bible names. As expressive of his
primacy and supremacy over other evil spirits he is called
Beelzebub. As indicative of his hostility to man he is called
Satan, which means adversary. As descriptive of his methods
of malignity against man his name is devil. In this word is
the idea of one who sets at variance. Those whom he seeks to
set at variance are God and man. When he approaches man
he slanders God; when he approaches God he accuses man.
Hence, in his work of variance he is both an accuser and
a slanderer. When he approaches Eve he slanders God. When
he approaches God he accuses Job. In view of the result of
his work he is called Apollyon, the destroyer. He is never a
constructionist, but eminently a destructionist. He does not

build; he demolishes. Because of the form he assumed in the
temptation of man, he is called the Serpent, the Dragon. Very
sinuous, tortuous, slimy, and subtle are his ways. On account
of his rage and predatory character he is compared to a roar_
ing lion. He is called the tempter because he incites to evil.
He is called the receiver because he tempts by lies. That he
may deceive he comes as an angel of light, and that he may
trap the unwary he sets cunning traps as a fowler who ensnares birds. But all the time he is a liar and a murderer, and the father of lies and murders. He is the father of all false religions. He uses the lusts of the flesh, the pride of life, and the course of the world in turning men away from God. He first blinds, then binds and then stupefies, and so he keeps his goods in peace. He is an awful and hideous reality, apart from God the most stupendous factor in the universe. He is limited in power and in the time allotted him to work his evil deeds. Now, as I stated, the angels, like man, were on probation. The best statement of that case that I have ever seen is in Milton’s Paradise Lost, fifth book, commencing at the 520th line:
Raphael said to Adam: Son of heaven and earth,
Attend: that thou art happy, owe to God;
That thou continuest such, owe to thyself,
That is, to thy obedience; therein stand.
This was that caution given thee; be advised.
God made thee perfect, not immutable;
And good he made thee; but to persevere
He left it in thy power; ordained thy will
By nature free, not over_ruled by fate
Inextricable, or strict necessity: Our voluntary service he requires,
Not our necessitated; such with Him
Finds no acceptance, nor can find; for how
Can hearts, not free, be tried whether they serve
Willing or not, who will but what they must
By destiny, and can no other choose?
Myself, and all the angelic host, that stand
In sight of God, enthroned, our happy state
Hold, as you yours, while our obedience holds;
On other surety none: freely we serve,
Because we freely love, as in our will

To love or not; in this we stand or fall.
Now comes a much more serious question. What was the
occasion that led the devil to sin? God did not make a devil;
he created him a good angel, but created him free to act, to
stand or fall. Now, the devil sinned, and we find his sin to be
pride or ambition, but we have not yet found the occasion for
that sin. If you are familiar with Paradise Lost you will see
that Milton says the occasion was this: That God introduced
his Son to the angels, and announced that from that time he
was to be king of the angels and that they were to serve him.
Milton bases his statement on the passage in the first chapter
of Hebrews, „When he bringeth his only Begotten into the
world again he said, Let all the angels of God worship him.”
Now, Milton makes that take place before there was any
universe. A fair interpretation of that scripture is that when
Jesus died and rose again – that was bringing his Begotten
into the world again – God said, „Let all the angels worship
him.” That is the true explanation, that they were to worship
not the Son of God in original divinity, but the Son of God
in raised humanity. So Milton was mistaken about the occa_
sion. Jesus Christ made the angels, all of them. He made
the one that became the devil, and I don’t suppose that the
devil’s pride or ambition would ever have led him to rebel
against the one who created him through any desire to succeed
him. The question is, What was the occasion that excited
the pride of the devil? Now, the Bible does not say, but I
am going to give you my own opinion, and you can take it as
an opinion. My opinion is that, in one of those meetings in
heaven like that described in Job at which all the angels at
stated times come up into the presence of God, he announced
to them that he was going to create this world and make man
in his image and likeness, and that this man through obedience,
– if he observed the commandments of God and should eat of
the tree of life, – would become immortal and be lifted up
above the angels, and that it should be the office of the angels
to serve this man. Now I think there is where the devil
protested. He was willing enough for God to be over him,
but he was unwilling for a creature, made originally lower.
than himself, to have a destiny that would one day put any
being above him. Every saved soul will be far above any
angel. That is my opinion. If I had time I believe I could
show you inferentially, of course not specifically, for I would
then have to give you scriptures.
Now, in the second book of Paradise Lost Milton tracks
the Bible out much more clearly about how sin originated.
When the devil, after being cast out of heaven, is leaving hell
to go back to find on earth this people that were to be created
below him and one day were to be above him, he meets at the
gate of hell Sin and Death, both horrible. And Just as he
and Death are about to fight, Sin intervenes. Sin is a beauti_
ful woman from the waist up, and a snake from the waist
down. She says to Satan: „Death is thy son. I am Death’s
mother. I am not only Death’s mother, but I am thy daugh_
ter. Don’t you remember that time in heaven when your
pride was excited, that fearful pain came in your head and
it was opened and out I leaped full grown like a beautiful
woman? And every angel said, ‘Sin, Sin, Sin.’ But, looking
at my beauty, they became enamoured of me, and especially
thou, and thy espousal to Sin produced the progeny, Death,
and Death’s espousal to Sin produced the progeny of the hell_
hounds of remorse.” That is Milton’s idea, powerfully set
forth, marvelous. That coincides with what we were discuss_
ing in the New Testament about sin. There is first entice_
ment, then desire, then will, then sin) and sin when it is full
grown bringeth forth death. That part of Milton’s work is
We are now compelled by the facts of the Bible story about
to be considered to take some note of a great mystery. And
that is the power of spirit over matter and over less powerful
organisms of life. „Unquestionably, when permitted, Satan
can stir up a cyclone, or electric storm that leaves death
in its path (Job 1:16_19); or incite to robbery and murder
(Job 1:15_17 and I John 3:12). He can hypnotize inferior
animals (Matt. 8:30_32), and make them obey his will. He
can, by consent of the subject, take possession of man’s mind
and make it his servant. Hence, the demoniacal possessions
of the New Testament. One of the clearest revelations of
Scripture is the immediate influence of spirit over matter and
the immediate impact of spirit on spirit. We could not other_
wise understand Genesis 1:2; 2:7; Psalm 104: 30; I Peter
1:21; John 3:3; Luke 1:55; John 8:27; Acts 5:3, and many
other passages. The formation of the earth, the communica_
tion of man’s soul, the incarnation of our Lord, the quickening
of regeneration, the resurrection, inspiration, demoniacal pos_
session, the preparation of dying infants for heaven, the stam_
peding of cattle, panics in armies, mesmerism, hypnotism and
a thousand other mysteries find their only explanation in the
doctrine of immediate impact of spirit on matter or on another
The account of Genesis speaks of the serpent, the instru_
ment, only. But fairly interpreted it implies what is elsewhere
so forcibly taught, that the serpent was merely the instru_
ment of a mighty spiritual power in the temptation of Eve.
That grandest of all epics, Paradise Lost, reveals throughout
a profound study of the whole Bible. It thus sets forth a pos_
sible method of the entrance of Satan into the serpent:
So saying, through each thicket dank and dry,
Like a black mist low creeping, he held on
His midnight search, where soonest he might find
The serpent: him, fast sleeping soon he found
In. labyrinth of many a round self_rolled,
His head the midst, well stored with subtle wiles:
Not yet in horrid shade or dismal den,
Nor nocent yet; but, on the grassy herb,
Fearless unfeared he slept: in at his mouth
The devil entered; and his brutal sense,
In heart and head, possessing, soon inspired
With act intelligential; but his sleep
Disturbed not, waiting close the approach of morn.
Just as the devil can take possession of a man and make him
demoniac, so the devil took possession of the serpent. The
use of the serpent as a means, and the most suitable means,
arises out of his power and his cunning. I will quote what
Richard Owen says about the serpent: „He outclimbs the
monkey, outswims the fish, outleaps the zebra, outwrestles the
athlete, and crushes the tiger.” In Ruskin’s „Queen of the Air”
we find: „There are myriads lower than the serpent, and
more loathsome in the scale of being . . . but it is the strength
of the base element that is so dreadful in the serpent; it is the
very omnipotence of the earth. . . . It is a divine hieroglyph of
the demoniac power of the earth, of the entirely earthly nature. As the bird is the clothed power of the air, so this is
the clothed power of the dust; as the bird is the symbol of the
spirit of life, so this is the grasp and sting of death.”
You will notice that after the curse was pronounced upon
him, because of what he had done, the serpent was condemned
to crawl, evidently implying that he had not crawled before.
In two or three books of the Bible we have an account of
fiery, flying serpents, and beyond all question the particular
serpent that tempted Eve was a flying serpent. That only
shows that his power was greater then than it has been since.
He was condemned to crawl and clipped off his wings. Nat_
aerialists will tell you that there were serpents with wings, and
all tradition represents the dragon with wings. So that the
Bible, nature and tradition agree in the representation that the
serpent employed for the temptation of Eve was winged so
that he had power in the air as well as power on the land. EP
After the curse was pronounced upon him he must crawl and ‘
pick his food up from the ground as I have seen them do.
I have seen a rattlesnake swallow a mule_eared rabbit. He
licks him all over and covers him with saliva, rolls him over
in the sand and then swallows him whole with the dust that is
on him. That is how the serpent eats dust.

We have seen the creation of the angels. We have seen
that a part of these angels kept not their first estate. We
have seen the sin which they committed, pride, and we have
seen that Satan is the chief of the fallen spirits that were
cast out. We have seen why he came to earth, to slander God
and accuse man, to make them sin, to keep them from at_
training to the position that they would be above him and
bring them to the position that they would be under him.
But, „Know ye not,” says Paul, „that the saints shall Judge

1. Why defer to this connection the account of the angels?
2. Illustrate the special or official meaning of the several Bible words of general signification.
3. What the literal or etymological meaning of the term „angel”?
4. What the special meaning?
5. Scriptural proof of their creation and by whom?
6. Before or after man’s creation?
7. Why the Bible account of their creation less particular than that of man’s?
8. What can you say of their number?
9. What their work in the creation of the earth?
10. The nature of the angels as distinguished from man?
11. Why may not sinning angels have a savior?
12. Give statement of these beings from the following viewpoints:
(1) As to creation;
(2) As to origin.;
(3) As to nature;
(4) As to character;
(5) As to service.
13. With what beings did sin originate?
14. With which one of the angels did sin originate?
15. According to the New Testament, what was his particular sin?
16. Give several names of this chief of the fallen angels, and their meanings.
17. What Milton’s misconception of the occasion of sin?
18. What probably the real occasion?
19. What Milton’s conception of the origin of sin?
20. Give Bible proof of the impact of spirit on spirit, and the influence of spirit over matter.
21. What was the instrument of the temptation, and Milton s description of the entrance of Satan into it?
22. What was the state of the serpent at first, and what the change in that state in the curse? . .
23. New Testament proof of the nature and extent of their punishment?
24 Why delay the final punishment of the angels!
25. Scripture proof that the angels good and bad must report then work regularly to God?

Genesis 3

Now we come to the third chapter of Genesis, which gives
us an account of the first man on earth, the fall of man, his
expulsion from the garden, and all of the fearful consequences
that followed that sin. We must regard this third chapter of
Genesis as history in every particular. It is true that the tree
of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil, while
actually trees in that garden, do symbolize things, but every_
thing in this chapter is literal history and not allegory. The
other books of the Bible, both Old and New Testament, are
rooted in this third chapter of Genesis and built upon it. This
chapter explains the necessity for redemption, and gives the
first promise of redemption.
Some years ago in San Angelo I was the guest of a culti_
vated gentleman who, by the way, was an avowed infidel. He
evidently wanted to involve me in a discussion of infidel
points. I saw on his mantle Tom Paine’s Age of Reason. I
picked up the book and said, „Sir, this is the book that first
led me to distrust infidelity.” I showed him in the first vol_
ume of that book, which was written in a French prison when
he had no Bible before him, and then in the second volume
of the book, which was written after he escaped from the
prison and had a Bible before him, the same declaration to
this effect: „If the account of Genesis about the Garden of
Eden, and the talking serpent, and Adam and Eve, and the
flood are to be regarded as history, why is it no other Old
Testament book even so much as alludes to these things as
facts?” I read that statement to my host. He said, „How did

that cause you to distrust infidelity?” I said, „I would not
have distrusted it so much if I had found it in the first volume
only, when he had no Bible, but when I found it in the second
book, which was written when he had a Bible, it made me
know that there was no accuracy or reliability in any state_
ment that he might make.” My host said, „Do you question
that statement?” I said, „I can find four hundred allusions
in the Old Testament books to what Tom Paine says there is
no shadow of an allusion.”
In analyzing the. third chapter and making an elaborate out_
line, this would be our outline:
1. The tempter
2. The tempted
3. The temptation
4. The woman’s sin
5. The man’s sin
6. The threefold immediate results:
(1) The awakening of conscience;
(2) Shame;
(3) Hiding.
7. The trial
8. The judgment
9. The woman’s new name
10. The expulsion and the intervention of grace:
(a) The promise, protevangelium, that the seed of
the woman shall bruise the serpent’s head;
(b) The clothing of Adam and Eve in skins;
(c) The establishment of the throne of grace at the
east of the garden.
Let us take up that analysis in order.


So far as Genesis shows, except by implication, the tempter
was an actual serpent. Dr. Adam Clarke, in his commentary
on Genesis, Bays the tempter was an ape. But I have never
found even a Methodist that followed him. He has an im_
mense discussion on it. As a curious thing in commentaries,
just read what he says about an ape being the tempter. While
the New Testament refers to the tempterùPaul says the ser_
pent beguiled Eveùyet in other places in the New Testament
and particularly in John’s Gospel, letters and Revelation, the
agent back of the instrument is given as Satan, the devil, that
old serpent.
This instrument employed in tempting man, as I have al_
ready told you, was before the temptation a flying serpent.
If you read the book of Isaiah you will see a reference to fiery,
flying serpents. This is to be inferred from the penalty put
on the serpent, that after he committed this offense he was
to crawl, implying that before that time he had not been re_
duced to that necessity, and to eat dirt with his food. The
agent of this temptation is thus referred to in the eighth
chapter of John. The promise says that enmity shall be put
between the woman’s seed and the serpent’s seed. Christ says
to wicked men, „Ye are of your father, the devil, and the
lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer
from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth because there
is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie he speaketh of his
own, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”
When death came to Adam and Eve, so far as Satan was
concerned, it was a murder that he had committed. Just as
in the next chapter he incites Cain to murder. Cain was of
the wicked one. You must look on the downfall of Adam and
Eve as a murder committed by the devil. They sinned, but
when Satan is put on judgment, he is put on judgment as a
murderer. He brought about their ruin by lies.
The next question is: What credentials did the serpent bring
to accredit him to Eve and thereby deceive her? He is rep_
resented as coming as an angel of light. Eve certainly did
not suppose that she was listening to the devil. She thought
in her heart that the one who was telling her these things
had given evidence that he waa from God. What were the
credentials? There was one miracle, and that was, talk. A
serpent talked. Eve knew that no beast or reptile had ever
talked before. Here comes this beautiful, flying, shining ser_
pent, and talking. Just like one miracle was a sign to the
Ninevites and accredited Jonah to them, so this one miracle
accredited the serpent to Eve. So when we come to the New
Testament we find that in the last great attempt to seduce
the human race, when that man of sin comes that we read
about in 2 Thessalonians, he will come with signs and wonders
so as to almost deceive the very elect. You must then look
upon this woman’s case as a case of deception. In the New
Testament it is expressly stated that the woman was deceived.
I know of but one other instance in the Bible of a brute talk_
ing, and that was the ass that Balaam rode which, under the
power of God’s Spirit, talked, and that was a sign to Balaam
that the angel of the Lord was there. The next thing is

Whom did he tempt? He did not tempt Adam. He tempted
the woman. He is trying to get Adam, but he is too sharp
to approach the man himself. He does not believe that he
can impose on Adam. But the woman being the weaker
vessel, he believes that he can deceive her, and that through
her he will get the man. That is the plot. It is expressly
stated that Adam was not deceived. The tempted, then, was
the woman.

Suppose we commence reading the chapter and as we find
a point on the temptation, you notice. „And he said unto the
woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of any tree of
the garden?” There is a reflection upon the word of God.
So at the present time, I come before a man with the Bible
and I say, „You ought to do this.” He says, „Yea, hath God
said that? How do I know that God said that?” And he
suggests and injects into my head a doubt as to whether
we have any word of God. This particular temptation Satan
could never have brought before Adam because Adam knew
God said it. God gave that law to Adam before Eve was
made. Eve gets her version of it from Adam. You now see
why Satan goes to the woman. Satan comes the same way
to you and me. He would not go to Paul and say, „Did the
Lord Jesus Christ give that gospel to you that you might
preach?” But he will come to you and me and say, „Did the
Lord Jesus Christ give that gospel to Paul?” You see we
get our evidence of it second_hand. The first element of the
temptation, then, is to suggest a doubt as to whether God had
issued a law.

The second suggestion to Eve: He calls her attention to
the only limitation in the law and not to the broad permis_
sion in the law. „Yea, hath God said, Thou shall not eat
of any of these trees?” He did not say, „0 woman, how good
God is I He gave you permission to eat of the ten thousand
trees.” But he points out just one tree forbidden. You recall
the old „Bluebeard” story. He has married a woman and
brings her to his castle with its three hundred rooms and
gives her the keys to every room in the castle. And over the
door of one room he writes, „Thou shalt not unlock this door
and enter.” A friend coming, would say, „Are you, a wife,
shut out from a room here? Now why? He gave you this
key to hold you and you are perfectly free to open it.” You
see how subtle that suggestion is. Just so, Satan comes to a
boy at the present time to whom his father has given a wide
margin: „Now, my son, all the woods pasture you may range
over; and all that prairie land you may range over, and you
may get all the hickory nuts in the woods, and the berries
and the fruits in the garden, everything that you need. But
there is one hole down yonder in the creek. Don’t you go
swimming in that hole.” The boy will go and look at that
place and say, „Why can’t I go swimming in here? It doesn’t
look very different from the holes below here and above here.
What on earth did my father mean by telling me not to go
swimming in this place?” You can see how the tempter can
make that boy feel very bad; can make him take no pleasure
in the broad permission all around, if there is just one for_
bidden place.
That suggestion has another evil in it: „In limiting you
this way is God good? Now if he loved you, why did he not
say, You can eat the fruit of any of these trees?” That is
very subtle, and would catch the women and boys and the
men and the girls now, and does it all along.
Notice the second part of the temptation. When the woman
answers the question by defending God she says, „He has
given us permission to eat of every tree in this garden but
one, and that one he has commanded us not to eat of lest
we die.” There is a penalty attached. Now comes the temp_
tation: „Ye shall not die” – that is just a scarecrow, just a
make_believe, a bugaboo. There is where Satan commenced
his big lying. He is the father of lies. He knew if they took
of that tree death would ensue, and yet he boldly affirms
they would not die. At the present day he does that way.
Men are seduced to sin in the hope that they will escape its
penalties, and because sentence against an evil deed is not
speedily executed; says God’s prophet, „The hearts of the
children of men are fully set in them to do evil.” If the
sinners down on the streets of our cities in their hearts be_
lieved in the certainty and awfulness of the entirety of hell,
it would have a tremendous influence by way of restraint, but
they have heard the devil say, „You shall not die.”
He enlarges that temptation. He said, „God knows that
if you eat of that. tree your eyes shall be opened. God knows
that ye shall be as gods, discerning good and evil.” You
see that suggestion is twofold. First, itia an appeal to the
desire for knowledge, and an appeal to the ambition, „Ye
shall be as gods.” You now know why I quoted those three
passages about the king of Babylon and the prince of Tyre,
and the man of sin who exalted himself above everything
that is called God, setting forth himself as God (Isa. 14;
Ezek. 28; 2 Thess. 2). There was an element of both truth and
falsehood. Unmixed falsehood never makes a good tempting
bait. „In vain is the snare spread in the sight of the bird.”
You have to fool the bird. Here is the element of truth: The
record distinctly says that when they ate that fruit their
eyes were opened, so that what the devil said was true, and
yet it was false. While knowledge came to them of good, it
was of good lost. While knowledge came to them of evil, it
was knowledge of evil by experience and without the power
to shun it. As an old writer has said, „Their eyes were opened
to know good without the power to do it) and to know evil
without the power to shun it.” While on the surface it was a
truth, in the heart of it it was a lie, and Eve was deceived.
In a certain sense they did become as God, and God admits
it in the close of the chapter: „And Jehovah God said, Behold,
the man has become as one of us, to know good and evil.”
But he did not know good and evil like God knows good and
evil. God does not know evil experimentally. „Their eyes
were opened and they saw their nakedness, and the sight
brought them shame.” Cardinal Newman says that the con_
science was born right there. I don’t agree with him, but I
do believe it was awakened there. Dr. Strong also seems
to think that conscience was born there, but man started with
a conscience. There had been no exercise of the conscience
until sin had been committed, and then conscience shuddered
against it.
The woman yielded. Let us see what was the form of her
yielding. „And when the woman saw that the tree was good

for food” – that is an appeal to the appetite – „and that it
was a delight to the eye” – that is the lust of the eye, and
the other was the lust of the flesh – „and that the tree was to
be desired to make one wise” – that is the pride of life Just
as John enumerates them in his letter. You see then, the
temptation came through her ear, her eye, then through her
fleshly appetite, and ambition and pride. When she saw that,
„she took of the fruit and did eat.” That was her sin.
But she did not stop at that. I never saw a woman willing
to stand entirely alone. So she passed the fruit over to Adam.
Now, who tempted Adam? Nobody but the woman. „The
woman gave to Adam and he did eat.” The serpent did not
tempt him. We need here that passage from Milton describ_
ing man’s reason for sinning. I heard a distinguished scholar
say that Milton’s statement of Adam’s reason for sinning,
namely, to stand by his wife even if she went to hell, was the
sublimest thing even in Milton’s Paradise Lost. Over in
France, when some great man who has been loved, trusted
and honored suddenly falls, the first question they ask is,
„Who was the woman?”


Let us look at Adam’s sin in contradistinction from Eve’s
sin. To use a common phrase, „Nobody pulled the wool over
Adam’s eyes.” He was not deceived. He knew God had said
what the devil suggested to Eve that he had not said. He
believed that if he ate of that fruit it meant death. He never
doubted God’s word. But he deliberately ate of that fruit
because the woman asked him. Unquestionably Adam’s sin
was greater than the sin of Eve, and the death that has reigned
over this world has not come because Eve sinned; don’t you
think that. It came because Adam sinned. The human race
did not fall in Eve. They are recovered in Eve through the
Saviour who is her seed, but not the man’s. We fell in Adam.

He had DO excuse in the world. He preferred the woman to
God; that was his excuse. Many a man has done that. The
next point is:

First, the awakening of conscience. Conscience is that in_
ward monitor that passes judgment on the rightfulness, of our
actions. Before God said a thing conscience had pronounced
judgment, and hence John said, „If our hearts condemn us,
how much more will God, who is greater than our hearts, con_
demn us?” Their consciences within them convicted them.
Hence at the final judgment, when God pronounces the last
doom on any of the lost, they won’t say a word because inside
of themselves that same judgment has already been pro_
nounced. Paul, referring to this, said of the heathen who had
never had the Word of God that yet they have a law, not a
revealed law of God in a Bible, but they have a revelation
in nature and in the constitution of their being, „their con_
sciences meanwhile accusing or excusing them.” The second
thing was that they saw their nakedness, not merely physical,
but spiritual nakedness in the sight of God, and shame fol_
lowed and fear followed. „The wicked flee when no man pur_
sueth.” Now comes

God is going to hold the trial himself. He is represented as
going into the garden in the cool of the evening, and who can
hide away from him? Jeremiah says, „No man can hide from
God.” The prophet Amos says, „There is no place where the
guilty can hide from God.” Psalm 139 says, „If I should take
the wings of the morning and fly to the uttermost part of the
sea, even there thine eye would see me and thy right hand
would hold me.” The theme of this psalm is the omniscience of
God, showing that we cannot escape from it. We cannot hide

even in hell from it. They ran into the bushes. You know
an ostrich thinks if it sticks its head in the sand it is hid.
Sinners take to the brush just as soon as conscience speaks.
They begin to adopt disguises and masks and hide, trying to
cover up their transgressions. If they get a letter they are
afraid to open it for fear they will have bad news. If there
is a sudden sound they think somebody has come after them.
The night is peopled with phantoms, chimeras, and hobgoblins.
Now, the sinners are hid and God comes to make inquisi_
tion. One of the psalms says, „When he maketh inquisition
for blood, he will remember.” A murder has been committed.
Two immortal beings have been murdered. His inquisition is
in this fashion: „Adam, where art thou?” You used to come
to meet me. You had no fear at all. You were always glad
to meet God. Where are you now? What a question! How
far that question can go! One of the mightiest sermons I
ever heard in my life was preached on that text. That pene_
trating question went out into that audience, making people
take their latitude and longitude, making them discover their
whereabouts, making them see how much they had drifted.
Where are you as compared with yesterday, or last year?
And so God forces an answer, and the answer is a very can_
did one. Adam says, „I heard thy voice and I was afraid
because I were naked.” God says, „Who told you that you
were naked? How did you find that out?” It was conscience
that told him. That representative of God on the inside ia
the one that gave that information, and so God, even if he
had not been omniscient, would have known that sin had been
committed. And hence he says, „Hast thou eaten of the tree,
whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?”
There is no dodging that question. A man may lie in a human
court. A man may plead not guilty and swear to his inno_
cence when he knows he is guilty. But when that question of
God comes to him he has to answer according to the truth.
Adam tells the truth. He says, „The woman that thou gavest
to be with me, she tempted me and I did eat.” You often hear
that discussed m sermons as if Adam were putting the blame
on somebody else. He is telling the naked truth; that is ex’
actly what happened. God did give him that woman, ar.d that
woman did tempt him and he did eat because she tempted
him. He does not justify himself. Now suppose Adam had
resisted that temptation. Eve would have been lost, but the
human race would not have been lost, for God could have
made another woman. The race did not stand in Eve; it
stood in Adam.
Now God turns to the woman, „What hast thou done?” and
she tells the truth. „The serpent beguiled me and I did eat.”
Every word of that is true. She was deceived. She did not
lay this blame on Adam because he was not to blame for what
she did except in one particular, which I will tell you about
after awhile. She told the simple truth: „I was deceived. I
thought an angel of light came, and he came accredited by a
miracle. After I had committed the sin and my conscience
woke up, I knew I was wrong. I was beguiled and the serpent
was the one that did it.” Adam was culpable for Eve’s sin
because being present he did not restrain her, nor warn her.
The record says she gave to the man who „was with her.” It
is poetic license in Milton when he represents the woman alone
in her temptation.

God does not ask the serpent any questions. He pro_
nounces judgment. The judgment commences on the serpent.
First, a curse, and this curse, so far as expressed here, is on
the instrument. „Cursed shalt thou be above all the beasts
of the field. Thou shalt hereafter crawl; thou shalt eat dirt.
Thou shalt have thy head crushed by the seed of the woman.”
It is fulfilled in a snake. But those of you who remember the
sermon on „The Three Hours of Darkness” may recall how
in that last conflict with the devil Christ put his heel on the
‘serpent’s head, and though the serpent bit the heel he crushed
its head.

The judgment on the woman is severe. „I will multiply
thy sorrow and thy conception, thy child_bearing shall be with
pain. Thou shalt be subject to the man and he will rule
over thee.” When the man is good, a Christian man, for_
given of his sin, and his wife has been forgiven of her sin,
their relation is like it was before, the woman is next to his
heart, and the rule is not the rule of a lord and master, but
the two walk together in mutual love and support each other.
But if he is a bad man, see how he rules over the woman.
Look at India, China, Africa: there the women are slaves,
goods and chattels. Let one of these heathen get into straits
and he will sell his wife. Look at the Indians. One of the
most eloquent things I ever heard was by Dr. Winkler in an ad_
dress on foreign missions. He said, „I stepped into an art
gallery and saw the picture of an Indian chief. He seemed
to have the very strength of an angel, and by his side was an
Indian maiden, and how beautiful she was.” Here Dr.
Broadus intervened with: „Stop describing that girl before
all these young men fall in love with her” – but Dr. Winkler
went on – „But who is that crouched behind the man and
the girl? It is a wretched old hag. Who is she? She is the
Indian’s wife. She hoes his corn and cooks his venison and
carries his burden and is his slave. And as she is, so will
this beautiful daughter be when she marries.” Now turn to
the curse on the man. „Cursed be the ground for thy sake.”
The whole creation was made subject to vanity, not willingly,
but because it was man’s home and a curse was put upon the
earth where man lived.
The next item of the outline is:

In the second chapter of Genesis Adam calls her woman,
that is, derived from the man. After this promise is made
that the seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent’s head,
he changes her name to Eve, signifying the mother of all the
living. I am sure that there is some recognition of the prom_
ise in the giving of this name – that she was to be the mother
through whom all who would live forever would obtain their
life. There is a great significance in that change of name.
Just like there was in the change of Abram’s name to Abra_
ham; in Sarai’s name to Sarah.
The last item of the outline is:


The intervention of grace consists of three things: first, a
distinct promise that the seed of the woman would bruise the
serpent’s head. That is called the protevangelium. That is
the first ray of light concerning the coming Redeemer, that he
was to be the seed of the woman. When the Messiah came
we find that a woman was his mother but no man was his
father. Through the man, therefore, death came into the world; through the woman the Saviour came into the world.
The second idea of the plan of redemption is that conscious_
ness of nakedness led these people to the vain attempt to clothe
themselves. But grace intervenes with a better clothing of
the skins of animals. Every intelligent student of the Old
Testament has found at least a suggestion in this that no man
can ever cover his spiritual nakedness in the sight of God by
his own works, and that if he be covered it must be with the
righteousness which God provides. But the principal thing in
the intervention of grace is in this last verse which I quote:
„So he drove out the man, and he placed at the east of the
garden of Eden the Cherubim and the flaming sword which

turned every way to keep the way to the tree of life.” Now,
I am no Hebraist, and I have no issue to make with those
who are really Hebrew scholars, but I will cite three dis_
tinguished Hebraista who give a somewhat different rendering
to this passage. Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, in their com_
mentary on Genesis, make that read this way: „And he [i.e.,
God] dwelt at the east of the garden of Eden between the
Cherubim, and a Shekinah [a fire_tongue, or fire_sword] to
keep open the way to the tree of life.” The same thought
is presented more clearly in the Jerusalem Targum, or Jewish
commentary on the Old Testament. Dr. Gill, the great Baptist
Hebraist of England, presents the same thought. Whatever
may be the grammatical construction of this passage in the
Hebrew, it means this: that having expelled man from the gar_
den, God established a throne of grace and furnished the means
to recover from the death which had been pronounced. There
was the mercy scat and there were the Cherubim, and there
was the symbol of divine presence in that fire tongue or sword,
and whoever worshiped God after man sinned must come to
the mercy seat to worship and he must approach God through
a sacrifice. In no other way than through an atonement could
one attain to the tree of life. All passages that refer to the
Cherubim connect them with grace and the mercy seat, not as
ministers of divine vengeance, but as symbols of divine mercy.
Moses, in Exodus 25, constructs the ark of the tabernacle
exactly like the one here used in the garden of Eden. He has a
covering or mercy seat, with two Cherubim with a flame be_
tween the Cherubim. That was the throne of grace, or mercy
seat, and sinners came to that through the blood of a sacrifice.
So we may be certain that Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, and
the Jerusalem Targum, and Dr. Gill have given the spiritual
interpretation of this passage. It is true that the object was
to bar out man except through the intervention of the mercy
seat, and it is true that the purpose of the mercy seat was to
keep open the way to the tree of life. „Blessed are they who
have washed their robes that they may have a right to the
tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God.”
Let us understand that immediately after the fall of man
grace intervened. First, with a promise of a Redeemer who
would destroy the works of the devil. Second, with clothing
symbolizing the righteousness of Christ. Third, with a mercy
seat indicating the method by which God could be savingly
approached. From this time on until the flood that mercy
seat is at the east of the garden and whoever would partake
of the tree of life and live forever must come to God where
he dwells between the Cherubim, where the Shekinah is the
symbol of his presence, and that we can only come to him in
the blood of an atonement. You have only to commence the
next chapter to see how worshipers came before the Lord with
an offering. Where was the Lord? There was a particular
place, just as the ark of the covenant was in a place. They
came before the Lord, where he dwelt between the Cherubim,
with their sacrifices. Cain refused to offer the sacrifice that
God’s law required, having no faith in salvation by a Re_
deemer, and he went away from the presence of the Lord
there at the mercy seat, and all his descendants went away
from the presence and lived without God and without hope
in the world. Every Bible student ought to fasten the mind
and the heart on this last verse of the third chapter of Gene_
sis as the establishment of the throne of grace.

1. What: is the subject of the third chapter of Genesis?
2. What caused Dr. Carroll to first distrust infidelity?
3. In this temptation, who was the tempter?
4. What was his object?
5. Who was tempted, and why?
6. What was his instruments?
7. How did Satan accredit his instrument to Eve?
8. Why did he so accredit the serpent?
9. How does this show that he came in the guise of an angel of light?
10. To what solitary point does the temptation by the serpent so accredited address itself?
11. How did Eve obtain her knowledge of the divine prohibition?
12. Was this second_hand knowledge to her accredited by any miracles?
13. Cite New Testament proof that she was really deceived, honestly supposing that he was obeying God.
14. Was Milton right in supposing Eve to be alone when she was
tempted, or was the man with her?
15. Did the serpent’s credentials beguile him?
16. Why, standing by and not deceived, did he not interpose to disabuse his wife of her mistake?
17. Being not deceived himself, knowing that disobedience was wilful and deliberate rebellion against God and meant death, why did he eat?
18. New Testament proof that the fall of man came by one trans_
19. Was this transgression the woman’s or the man’s?
20. Show why death did not come to the human race by the woman.
21. Can you discern in this a reason that redemption should come
from the seed of the woman and not from the seed of the man?
22. What was the nature and extent of the death penalty attached
to the violation of the law?
23. Was this penalty then enforced?
24. What intervened to suspend it?
25. Yet what consequences of sin did follow the violation of the law?
26. How did Adam’s fall affect his posterity? New Testament proof?
27. In order to any man’s restoration to godlikeness what works of
the Holy Spirit does this depravity necessitate?
28. In order to his justification, what work of Christ?
29. How was this the first race probation?
30. Under what new covenant did the intervention of love and mercy place the fallen man?
31. Expressed in what Edenic promise?
32. In what way must man now (at that time) approach God?
33. Cite and correctly render the scripture showing that God did
keep open a way to the tree of life in that garden from which man
was expelled.
34, Were the judgments pronounced in Genesis 3:16_19, intended as a complete fulfilment of the penalty threatened in Genesis 2:17, or where they more in the way of necessary consequences of sin whose supreme penalty was suspended by the intervention of grace?


Our study of the third chapter of Genesis revealed the first
sin on earth, its trial and judgment; the consequent expulsion
of man from the garden of Eden, and intervention of grace
introducing a plan of redemption. Before proceeding in the
history of fallen man we need to dip somewhat into systematic
theology in order to fix in our minds some fundamental doc_
trines concerning both sin and grace.


We are not prepared to give even a definition of sin until
we consider the several words which name it, or are its syno_
nyms. We give the words in both Greek and English:
Hamartia – „Missing the mark,” Matthew 1:21; Romans
7:7; Hebrews 9:26.
Anomia – „Lawlessness,” I John 3:4; Romans 7:8.
Asebeia – „Unlikeness to God,” Titus 2:12.
Adikia – „Iniquity, perversion from righteousness,” Acts
Apostasia – „Apostasy, or falling away, or departure,” i.e.,
from God or the faith, 2 Thessalonians 2:3; I Timothy 4:1;
Hebrews 3:12.
Echthra – „Enmity,” i.e., toward God, Romans 8:7.
Epithumia – „Cupidity, covetousness, lust,” Romans 1:24.
Kakia – „Wickedness,” Acts 2:25.
Poneria – „Wickedness,” Luke 11:39.
Sarx; – „The flesh,” Romans 8:2_7; I Corinthians 5:26; Gala_
tians 5:16_21; I Peter 3:21.

Plane – „Error, false opinion,” I John 4:6.
Even a glance at these words in the connections cited shows
That sin implies a law or standard of righteousness, pre_
scribing the right and proscribing the wrong, and law implies
a lawgiver to whom the subjects of law are related. That
law is not law which does not provide judgment and penalty.
That sin cannot be limited to external, overt acts but must
also be a disposition or state of the heart or mind. This will
the more appear by comparing Matthew 15:19_20, with Ro_
mans 1:28_32. Other scriptures also show that as moral law
does not arise from its publication but inheres in our relations
and in the very constitution or nature of our being, it must be
a fixed, universal, and unalterable standard and not a sliding
scale that adapts itself to our varying knowledge or circum_
stances. See the atonement provided for sins of ignorance
(Lev. 4:14, 20, 31) and of omission (5:5_6); and the prayer
to be cleansed from secret faults (Psalm l&: 12) and the con_
sciousness of past sins awakened by the knowledge of the law
(Rom. 7:9_10) and the penalty assessed on the servant who
knew not the will of the master (Luke 11:48). With these
and like scriptures in mind we consider next:

Sin is weakness or finiteness.
Sin is in the body, or matter; when the soul escapes from
the body it will be sinless.
Sin is the voluntary transgression of a known law.
Sin is a necessary discipline.
„Sin is a fall upward.”
The first definition ignores the fact that the worst sinners
are the strongest in mind and body. It makes God the author
of sin and contradicts conscience.

The second definition restricts sin to matter, cannot account
for fallen angels who have no bodies, nor the suffering of the
disembodied rich man in our Saviour’s parable (Luke 16),
and ignores many scriptures which make envy, ambition, pride,
covetousness, anger, the gravest sins. It also ignores the fact
that the body is only the servant or instrument of the soul.
We might as well say that the gun with which a man is killed
is guilty of murder.
The third definition limits sin to an overt act when it may
consist in not doing, and limits to transgression when it may
consist in merely falling short and makes the law a sliding
scale adjusting itself to the varying degrees of knowledge,
when oftentimes not to know is a sin.
The fourth definition takes away all demerit from sin and
even encourages evil as a means of education. This was the
essence of the serpent’s suggestion to Eve to acquire knowl_
edge of evil by experience.

Sin is lack of conformity to the moral law of God, either
in act, disposition, or state. The essence of sin is selfishness,
that is, putting self in God’s place. Dr. Strong says
It is not merely a negative thing or absence of love to God.
It is a fundamental and positive choice or preference of self
instead of God, as the object of affection and the supreme end
of being. Instead of making God the centre of his life, sur_
rendering himself unconditionally to God and possessing him_
self only in subordination to God’s will, the sinner makes self
the centre of his life, sets himself directly against God and
constitutes his own interest the supreme motive and his own
will the supreme rule. While sin as a state is unlikeness to
God, as a principle is opposition to God, as an act is trans_
gression of God’s laws, the essence of it always and every_
where is selfishness. – A. H. Strong in „Systematic Theology.”
Dr. Strong also quotes from Harris: „Sin is essentially
egoism or selfishness, putting self in God’s place. It has four
principal characteristics or manifestations: (1) Self_sufficiency

instead of faith; (2) Self_will instead of submission; (3) Self_
seeking instead of benevolence; (4) Self_righteousness instead
of humility and reverence.”
All this further appears from a glance at four persons:
The sinless Saviour, who sought not his own will but the
Father’s (John 5:30; Matt. 26:39); spake not from himself
(John 7:16; 7:14); sought not his own glory (John 7:18);
pleased not himself (Rom. 15:3); exalted not himself (Phil.
The Man of Sin, 2 Thessalonians 2:4ù”Who opposeth and
exalteth himself against all that is called God, or that is wor_
shipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting him_
self forth as God.”
Saul of Tarsus, who was the chief of sinners because the
most self_righteous (Phil. 2:4_5; I Tim. 1:15_16).
Satan, the first sinner (I Tim. 3:6) compared with his great
followers, the king of Babylon (Isa. 14:13_14) and the prince
of Tyre (Ezk. 28:2_6).

John 3:3 – „Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily
I say unto thee, Except one be born anew, he cannot see
the kingdom of God.”
Colossians 3:9_10 – „Lie not to one another, seeing that ye
have put off the old man with his doings, and have put on the
new man, that is being renewed unto knowledge after the
image of him that created him.”
Ephesians 4:23_24 – „And that ye be renewed in the spirit
of your mind and put on the new man, that after God hath
been created in righteousness and holiness of truth.”
Loss of godlikeness, i.e., righteousness and holiness. Aliena_
tion of mind and heart. Corruption of the whole moral na_
ture in all its fountains. Hence moral inability to keep God’s

law. The incurring of guilt and subjection to the penalty of
the divine law. This appears from the necessity and nature of

Death physical and spiritual. Separation of soul from God,
separation of soul from body. Did the race sin and fall in
Adam? Romans 5:12_21: „Through one man sin entered
into the world and death through sin; and so death passed unto
all men, for that all sinned. . . . By the trespass of the one the
many died . . . the judgment came of the one unto condemn_
tion . . . So then through one trespass the judgment came unto
all men unto condemnation . . . Through one man’s disobey_
dance the many were made sinners . . . Sin reigned in death.”
Does this apply to infants who never reach personal ac_
countability? Romans 5:14: „Death reigned from Adam until
Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness
of Adam’s transgression.” „The wages of sin is death; but
eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord is the gift of God” (6:23).
David says (Psalm 51:5), „Behold, I was brought forth in
iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” There has
been but one child of woman born holy (Luke 1:35), „And the
angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come
upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow
thee; wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be
called the Son of God.”
What is meant by total depravity? The depravity of a man
refers to his fallen nature derived from Adam. Ephesians 2:3:
„We are by nature [i.e., by birth] children of wrath.” The
word „total” refers to all the parts_of his nature. That is, the
depravity extends to all the fountains and faculties of being,
but does not refer to degrees or intensity of particular sins.
It does not mean that a sinner cannot progress in sin, waxing
worse and worse. Simply that there is no part of man holy,
and no part that can originate holiness.
It is evident from the foregoing that apart from grace all
men come into the world sinful by nature and become sinners
by practice. Such is the testimony of Scripture. There is no
good tree that bringeth forth corrupt fruit. That which is
born of the flesh is flesh (I Kings 8:46; Eccl. 7:20; Rom. 3:10_
12, 23; Gal. 3:22; James 3:2; I John 1:8), hence the necessity
of both regeneration, sanctification, and atonement to save
men. „By grace are ye saved.”

1. Give eleven Greek words for sin and their English rendering.
2. From these words setting forth what sin. is, what does sin imply?
3. What does law imply?
4. What must law provide in order to be law?
5. Is sin limited to overt acts, or does it apply to a disposition or
state of heart or mind? Give Scripture proof.
6. From what does moral law arise?
7. Prove that law is not a sliding scale that adapts itself to our
varying knowledge or circumstances.
8. Cite five false definitions of sin.
9. Expose the error of the first.
10. Of the second.
11. Of the third.
12. Of the fourth.
13. Of the fifth.
14. What is the true definition of sin?
15. What is the essence of sin?
16. What is the substance of Dr. Strong’s definition?
17. Cite four characteristics or manifestations of sin as selfishness.
18. Compare on these points the sinless Saviour, giving Scripture on each point.
19. On the same points compare the opposite of the Saviour, the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians 2:4.
20. Show wherein Saul of Tarsus was the chief of sinners.
21. Cite scriptures showing the same characteristics of Satan himself.
22. What loss in his nature did man suffer from sin?
23. How does this appear from the necessity and nature of regeneration? (Three scriptures.)
24. What the penalty of sin?
25. Cite clear New Testament proof that the race did sin and die
in one act of Adam.
26. Give Scripture proof that this applies to dying infants who never reach accountability.
27. Quote Coleridge epitaph of four infants in St. Andrew, Eng_
28. What is meant by total depravity?
29. Proof from Scripture that apart from grace all men come into
the world sinful by nature and become sinners by practice.
30. What works of grace necessary to save men?

Genesis 4

We now commence with the fourth chapter of the book of
Genesis. We have an account in this fourth chapter of a num_
ber of „first” things: The first birth, the first man born of
Adam and Eve; the first recorded act of worship under the
reign of grace as set forth in the third chapter and last verse.
We have here the first system of theology apart from expiation
of sin by sacrifice and apart from regeneration by the Holy
Spirit, known in the New Testament as „the way of Cain.”
Paul talks about the way of salvation in the New Testament
as „this way.” Now here we have a distinct parting of the
ways. Cain is the author of one way, and that way is to deny
the guilt of man, to deny that he needs a Saviour, to refuse to
seek God through a bloody, sacrificial offering. It is further
manifested by hatred of the true religious spirit and, as John
says, it originated with the devil. He says the devil was the
father of Cain. We have here the first murder. In this same
chapter we have the first account of a pastoral or nomadic
life, that of dwelling in tents. We have the first account of
the building of cities; the first account of the manufacture of
tools – edged tools from iron or brass. We have the first case
of bigamy, man taking more than one wife. We have the first
case of one man killing another on account of an insult com_
mitted against a female member of the family. We have the
first poem, which we will consider more particularly when we
get to it. So there are many first things in this fourth chap_
ter. No man can understand the fourth chapter of Genesis
who does not interpret the last verse of the third chapter to

mean that God dwelt between the Cherubim at the east of the
garden of Eden, under the visible symbol of the sword flame,
or Shekinah, and with a view to keep open the way to the
tree of life.
This record states that it came to pass at the end of days,
or after a time, that Gain brought of the fruit of the ground
an offering to Jehovah. That expression, „the end of days,”
suggests a proper time in which to worship God, the sabbath
day as the appointed time in which to appear before God.
Cain and Abel came before God; came to him where he re_
sided, visibly in the symbol of the Shekinah, at the east of the
garden of Eden. This is supported by the language of Gain
when he says that he was driven forth from the presence of
God; and he went away from the presence of God. He went
away from the place where God was; he went away from the
manifestation of God at that place; he went away from the
means of approach to God at that place. It also clearly fol_
lows from this language that there was not only a place where
God could be approached but that appointed means of ap_
proach had been established for sacrifice. Neither Gain nor
Abel would have known anything about sacrifices unless sae_
rificea had been appointed. God would have otherwise said,
„Who hath required this at your hand?” So that the children
of Adam and Eve unquestionably were instructed that there
was a place to find God, that there was a time in which to
come before him, and that there were means through which to
approach him. They were unquestionably instructed in these
We also learn from this text that there were two kinds of
offerings at least; one was a bloody offering and the other a
thank offering. The bloody offering consisted of the offering
of the firstling of the flock, and the unbloody, or thank offer_
ing, was the offering of the fruits of the field. Both of these
are later incorporated into the Mosaic law established upon

Mount Sinai – both the thank offering and the bloody offering,
– but it is clearly taught in the subsequent history, and sug_
gested in this history, that the very thank offering to God
which disregards the bloody offering and is dissociated from
it, is void of value in coming before God. The record states
that Abel not only brought of the firstlings of his flock, but
also of their fat. Now we know from the subsequent legisla_
tion that this proves that there was an altar established there
in the presence of God, an altar upon which the victim should
be offered, upon which the fat should be burned. You will find
this in the Mosaic law in Numbers.
The record states that Jehovah regarded, or received, or ap_
proved, first of Abel himself, and second of his offering. It is
a prevalent Jewish tradition that the way i’i which God signi_
fied his approval was by sending fire down from heaven to
burn up the offering which Abel placed upon the altar. There
are many things in the subsequent history that justify this
interpretation, that by fire God bore witness to Abel and his
offering. He bore witness by fire. When Elijah offered his
bullocks upon the altar he asked God to signify his approval
by fire from heaven, and fire did come down from heaven and
burn up the offering of Elijah. So that answers one of the
questions propounded to you: In what way did God bear tes_
timony to Abel’s faith?
The record also states that, when God signified no approval
of Cain, nor of his offering, Cain became angry exceed_
ingly, and that his countenance fell; he became very mad.
We will see the fruit of that anger after a little, the falling of
his countenance and the anger in his heart at being rejected
because of the fault in himself. This made him an enemy of
his brother whom God did approve, and from that time to this
those who reject the vicarious system of expiation hate those
who embrace it. There is nothing more evident in the world
today than the hatred in the natural heart against the method
of approach to God through a sacrifice, through the expiatory
or substitutionary victim; and that which is the heart of the
gospel they hate far more than they hate the devil. The devil
is the author of their system of religion, if it may be called
a religion at all. Dr. Eliot, ex president of Harvard, hates the
doctrine that he has dissented from and commends the way of
Cain. He abhors the thought that man is lost without the re_
generation of the Holy Spirit and the substitution and expia_
tion of Jesus Christ. And hence he avows that „the new reli_
gion” will have no such dogmas. He has gone in the „way
of Cain.”
„Why art thou angry? Why is thy countenance fallen? Is
there not, if thou doest well, a lifting up of that fallen coun_
tenance?” God is convicting him upon this subject: that his
anger is unjustifiable; that there is no good reason for it, that
there is no good reason for that fallen countenance; and that
if he would do well (and to do well according to the law re_
quired that an expiatory victim should be offered) – that if he
would do well his countenance would be lifted up. Then God
explains: „And if thou doest not well, sin is crouching at the
door; and toward thee is his desire; and do thou rule over
him.” – Conant. That latter part of the seventh verse is exceed_
ingly difficult to interpret. I will repeat it: „And if thou doest
not well, sin is crouching at the door; and toward thee is his
desire; and do thou rule over him.” Now I will tell you what
two interpretations have been given. They are both by as
distinguished names as there are in the world. After I have
given you these interpretations I will let you accept either one,
but I will give you my opinion as to which is the better one.
Understand that in a matter that is so intricately difficult it
does not become a teacher to be too dogmatic and affirm that
his view is the right one. I will read and show you where the
difficulty comes in: „And if thou doest not well, sin is crouch_
ing at the door.” The difficulty here is as to what sin means.
One line of interpreters says that it means sin in the usual ac_
ceptation of the term. Another line of interpreters says that it
means sin offering. The Hebrew use of both meanings is
abundant in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. Now,
if we translate that „sin_offering,” this would be the idea:
„And if thou doest not well, there is a sin_offering at the door.
Go and offer it. It is not too late. Your sacrifice was rejected
because you did not present the sin_offering. Now you are
angered. Are you doing right to be angered? There is a way
in which that downcast countenance can be lifted up. There
is a way in which you, condemned, may be accepted, justified.
There is a sin_offering ready at hand, if you will just offer it.”
But if it means sin in the common sense of the word, then
this is the meaning: „If you do not well, sin, like a wild beast,
crouches at your door ready to spring on you and destroy you.”
Dr. Alexander Maclaren, who is said to be the prince of ex_
positors, gives that view. Dr. Conant, who is in great favor
with me as a Hebrew scholar and in biblical interpretation,
also gives that idea, that if a man does not do right sin is at
his door like a wild beast waiting to destroy him. The Jews
give that interpretation, and you may see that is Luther’s
interpretation and the interpretation of most of the German
scholars. My own opinion is that the first view given is right;
that sin means a sin offering. That is my judgment. I am
sure that the Septuagint necessitates that interpretation. I am
sure that most of the early fathers gave it that meaning; and, I
am sure that most of the English commentators give it that
meaning; I am also sure that is the only way to interpret the
rest of the verse, „And toward thee is his desire and do thou
rule over him.” Now, whoever says that sin means something
like a wild beast crouching at the door to destroy a man in_
terprets the rest of the sentence this way: „Sin’s desire is
toward thee, but do thou rule over it.” The trouble about it is
that the pronouns are masculine. You cannot say without
straining it that sin has a desire toward a man. It breaks the
sense to say that a man is to rule over that wild beast. Hence
our translators of nearly all versions make these pronouns
masculine, not referring to sin. Then to whom do they re_
fer? Now I will give you my opinion of that. „And toward
thee is his desire.” Whose desire? Abel’s, and thou shall rule
over him, Abel. Cain is the first_born. He has the right of
primogeniture. Now see the sensibleness of that interpretation.
These two men came to make an offering. The older brother’s
offering is rejected; the younger brother’s offering is accepted.
The older brother begins to infer from that that the younger
brother is to be his ruler; that there is to be a change in the
law of primogeniture. Hence his hatred and he is ready to kill
Abel rather than submit to him. God says, „Why art thou
angry and thy countenance fallen? Is there not, if thou doest
well, an excellency for thee, a primogeniture to thee? And if
thou doest not well, there is a sacrifice ready to offer. Then the
desire of Abel shall be to you and you shall rule over him.”
That is my idea of the meaning of it. Cain wants to be first
and he does not want to admit that he needs a Saviour. He
does not want to make a sacrifice looking to his atonement.
He does not come before God as a sinner. He is perfectly
willing to come before God as a tenant. „You made me and
gave me my strength and power and made this earth I am
cultivating, and I am willing to give a tenant’s recognition by
giving the firstfruits of the soil. But if you add that I am to
come as a lost sinner and seek the salvation of my soul through
an atonement, I won’t do it. And if you condition my being
the head of this family on my making this sacrifice, I will
defeat it in another way. I will kill this man Abel that is to
take my place.”
The first murder was committed through the spirit of per_
secution on account of religion, and since that time in every
land streams of blood have flowed from the persecuting spirit.
The thought is this: Whoever does right; whoever obeys God,
has accepted God and received the witness of God, by those
very facts condemns the one who does wrong. He is a standing
condemnation, just as Jesus said the Ninevites and the queen.
of Sheba would condemn the unbelieving Galileans at the
judgment, and if you live a clean life, if you hold things sacred
you do not commend yourselves to sinners. Sinners hate you,
as Jesus said of his disciples: „As they have hated me, so they
will hate you.” As a wolf, or an owl, or a bat hates the light
because its deeds are evil, so men living in darkness love dark_
ness rather than light because their deeds are evil. And if this
be true with reference to the light that comes from the sun,
moon and stars, how much more is it true with reference to
the light which comes from God I „This is the condemnation,”
says Jesus, „that light is come into the world, and men loved
darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” The
light exposes their deeds. Your light shining before men by
contrast exposes the darkness that is in the man who rejects
your God, and the dark places of the earth are the habitations
of cruelty. John gives us the real origin of murder. He says
that it was the devil, and that Cain in committing murder –
in being angry against God and in committing murder – was
acting under the promptings of the devil. „Cain was of the
wicked one,” says John, „and slew his brother. And wherefore
slew he him? Because his deeds were evil, and his brother’s
were righteous.”
We now come to the point of inquisition on the part of God.
„And Jehovah said to Cain, Where is thy brother? Cain said,
I know not.” There is another sin – a lie. He did know. And
here is another sin that followed when he said to God, „Am I
my brother’s keeper?” „Why do you come to me in this in_
quisition about Abel? Go to Abel himself, or go to Adam and
Eve, the father and mother of Abel. What do you come to
me for?” Here arose a widely prevalent doctrine among sin_
ners that in no sense is one man another’s keeper; that there
is no responsibility on one man for the well_being of another.
When Moses came to enact a law on this subject he said, „If
a man be found slain in the field, and it is not known who
killed him, you shall measure the distance from that dead
body to the cities around, and the city which is nearest to that
dead man shall be held responsible, and the rulers of that city
shall come and make an oath before God that this murder
came through no fault of theirs.” If they were negligent in the
administration of Justice, if they had any customs, if they
licensed any evil business that tended to murder, then there
was responsibility on them for that dead man. When that of_
ficer was killed in Fort Worth, Texas, I stated in a sermon this
law, quoted that passage in the Mosaic law and referred to
the ancient customs on this subject, and then said that the
authorities of that city which fostered the saloon whose saloon_
keeper committed the murder, in a measure were responsible
for that murder. There arose in the Middle Ages a trial of
this kind; Sir Walter Scott tells about it in „The Fair Maid of
Perth.” One of the burghers of the city had been killed, a
certain household was suspected, and they were required to
come, from the head of that house to the lowest menial in the
service, where the dead body lay. They must touch the dead
body wrapped in white linen and swear that they had nothing
to do with it; and the tradition was that if the murderer came
and touched the dead body blood would flow afresh from the
wound. And therefore, according to Sir Walter Scott, the mur_
derer would not stand the test; he was afraid and preferred a
trial by combat. It is said of Lorenzo Dow that he was an
expert in detecting a guilty man through the working of con_
science. He stopped one night at a house and during the night
some chickens were stolen. The man of the house asked him if
he could find out which one of the Negroes had stolen that
chicken. „Yes,” he said. „Bring them here before me.” Where_
upon he said to the Negroes: „I have put here a pot – just a
common cooking pot – turned upside down. Now you darkies
do not know what is under that pot; Just bear in mind now
this thought: that maybe a stolen chicken is under this pot,
and when the guilty man touches it that chicken will crow.”
And when they all passed around and touched the pot he made
them exhibit their fingers. One Negro had only seemed to touch
it, and hence no soot was found on his finger at all. „You stole
that chicken,” says Dow; „you made out that you touched
the pot but did not, because you were afraid. You are the
thief and must confess it.” The psalmist says, „When thou
makest inquisition for blood, thou rememberest.” When man
makes inquisition for blood many witnesses conveniently for_
get the facts. But when God makes inquisition for blood Jie
remembers, he knows. At an association I was once asked to
preach a sermon that would tend to convict men of sin, and I
took that text: „When thou makest inquisition for blood, thou
rememberest.” It was a singular fact that about a hundred
people in the audience were convicted of sin. God’s method of
inquiry into a cause is perfect. The darkness can hide nothing
from him. He reads the very thoughts of the human heart,
and so now he is making inquisition for Abel’s blood: „Where
is thy brother?” And when Cain lied God said, „What hast
thou done? The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me
from the ground.” What a doctrine is here! The voice of
blood – teaching that the earth which swallows up blood, the
earth which drinks up the blood of the slain man, cries out to
heaven for vengeance, and the murderer goes away saying,
„Who knows I did it, if I just say that I do not know and if I
deny that I am responsible for it? Am I my brother’s keeper?
Then whence will come any testimony to convict me? We were
out there by ourselves and no man witnessed it.” But God tells
Cain about a witness; that the earth would not conspire with
crime; that blood had a voice, and that blood cries to heaven.
Spurgeon preached on the passage in Hebrews, „And to Jesus
the mediator of a new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling
that speaketh better than that of Abel.” It was a great sermon.
He contrasts Abel’s shed blood with the voice of Christ’s blood.
He describes the soul of Abel expelled from the body by
bloody murder, and rushing up to heaven in the presence of
God crying out, „Avenge my murder.” But he says the blood
of Jesus comes into the presence of God and says, „Father,
forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
Now notice the curse: „And now cursed art thou from the
ground, which hath opened its mouth to receive thy brother’s
blood from thy hand; when thou tillest the ground, it shall not
henceforth yield unto thee its strength.” No matter where he
should go in the world the ground would be against him, the
ground that. held the blood of his brother, the blood of his
victim, and he could not stay long at a place. The thought of
this murder would pursue him. It is said that Daniel Webster
in prosecuting a murderer (and his speech is reckoned among
the classics) described the workings of the conscience of a
murderer; what a coward it made of him; how his crime was
always before him; how he would turn at any sudden sound,
as if expecting a pursuer, crying out at night in his dreams,
because the avenger of blood was on his track. „When thou
tillest the ground it shall no more yield to thee its strength, a
fugitive and a wanderer thou shalt be in the earth.” A man
kills another in England; he flees to the United States. Every
policeman, he thinks, has had the news telegraphed to him
about that murder over there. He goes over to Canada, he is
still restless. He goes across the ocean into the islands of the
sea. Wherever he goes there is the apprehension in his heart
that he may be held up by the officers of the law, held to ac_
count for his brother’s blood.
Now, let us see what Cain said to that sentence: „My iniq_
uity is greater than I can bear.” To bear iniquities is to
endure the penalty of the iniquities. That is the meaning all
through the Bible. So it is just the same as if he had said,
„My penalty is greater than I can bear,” i.e., it is unendurable.
Then he sums it up by saying, „Thou hast driven me out this
day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be
hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth,
and it shall come to pass that every one that findeth me shall
slay me.” This is the first point: „And from thy face must I
hide myself.” In v. 16 we have the record: „And Cain went
away from the presence of Jehovah, and dwelt in the land of
Nod.” „Nod” means wandering. He went from that place
where God’s presence dwelt, at the east of the garden of Eden.
„And I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer in the earth.” Now
here he speaks his apprehension: „And it shall come to pass
that every one who finds me shall slay me.” Jehovah gives
him this assurance: „Whoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall
be taken on him sevenfold.” That is, man shall not be judge)
no individual can take into his own hands the right of ven_
geance. You cannot justify yourself in shooting down a mur_
derer; God is the judge, not you. We will come later, in the
Mosaic legislation, to study the law of the avenger of blood,
but this is not before us now, nor does it oppose the meaning
„And God appointed a sign for Cain, lest any finding him
should smite him.” But, as the thought prevails among the
Negroes, God put a mark on Cain that everybody could see.
I heard a lawyer once say, standing over a man on trial for
murder, „Sir, the mark of Cain is on your face; you carry with
you the handwriting of God on your countenance.” It is ques_
tionable that this is the mark. God set a sign for Cain to
give him assurance that he would at least be free from in_
dividual or human vengeance. As yet there was no organiza_
tion of civic society. After a while we will come to that and
show that at least after Noah left the ark God provided capital
punishment. Society might punish a murderer but no individ_
ual could do it.
Cain builded a city; Lamech was a bigamist; one of his
children was the father of those who dwell in tents and with
cattle, and another was the father of all who handle the harp
and the pipe, which stands for the representation of stringed
instruments, the flute representing the wind instruments. Is
there anything in this suggestion? Does the restlessness
of sinners promote intervention of musical instruments as
a means to soothe sorrow? Does the restlessness of
sin in the heart tend to promote invention of stringed instru_
ments? Strange that Cain’s descendants were the first city
builders, the first inventors of musical instruments and the
first inventors of manufactured implements from iron and
brass. Take that thought for what it is worth and try to
answer the question for yourselves.
Verse 22 closes with the fact that the sister of Tubal_Cain
was Naamah, and the only reason I can see for inserting that
statement is that she is the one through whom Lamech received
his wound, and on account of which he killed a young man;
that because of a wrong to this kinswoman, his own daughter,
Lamech killed a young man. The Southern people know all
about that. There has been a rule with them that every man
is justified in taking the life of another who brings shame on
his family. So Lamech composes a poem. There is a parallel_
ism in these lines:
Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;
Ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech:
For I have slain a man for wounding me,
And a young man for bruising me;
If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold,
Truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.
That is, if God would punish an individual who would kill
Cain, because Cain murdered his own brother, he would avenge
on the individual who would kill Lamech seventy and seven_
fold, because Lamech claims that he was more justified than
Now, the chapter closes thus: „And Eve bare a son and
called his name Seth; for God hath appointed me another seed
in the place of Abel; for Cain slew him. And to Seth, to him
also there was born a son; and he called his name Enosh. Then
began men to call upon the name of Jehovah.” We have had
in the latter part of the chapter the sidetracking of the Cain_
ites. We will come to them again later. We have had the
generations of Cain; now we come to the new name, „Seth,”
and the Sethites. In the days of the sons of Seth, and in those
of Enosh, men began to call upon the name of the Lord. Thus
religious worship of the true kind was revived. Some have
interpreted it: „Then men began to be called by the name of
Jehovah,” i.e., sons of God. Now we have gotten through
with another (third) division of the book of Genesis, an im_
portant one.

1. Give the „first” things of Genesis, the fourth chapter.
2. What hope was inspired in Eve’s heart by the birth of Cain?
3. Show the analogy between the expectation of Christ’s first coming and his second coming.
4. State the system of theology embodied and implied in each of
these offerings,
5. What name does the New Testament give to Cain’s theology?
6. Who are the followers of his way now?
7. There was a radical difference between Cain and Abel. In which of the following particulars did it consist:
(1) Human parentage;
(2) Hereditary nature;
(3) Occupation;
(4) Intrinsic value of their offerings;
(5) Or spiritual parentage?
8. Give New Testament account of Cain’s parentage.
9, What bearing on this fourth chapter has the interpretation of the
last verse of the third chapter?
10. What may be fairly inferred as to previous appointment of sac_
rifices together with the time, place and object of their being offered
by the fact that Cain and Abel did, „at the end of days,” come before
the Lord with their offerings?
II. What was the bearing of this fact on the salvation of Adam and
12. What two kinds of offerings are indicated in this chapter and
what is the evidence of the establishment of the altar of sacrifice?
13. What is meant by Jehovah having respect for one offering and
disrespect for the other offering?
14. In what respect was Abel’s offering better than Gain’s?
15. In what way did God bear testimony to Abel’s faith? Give proof.
16. Cite New Testament proof that Abel secured even earthly im_
17. What effect did God’s approval of Abel’s offering have on Cain and how evidenced?
18. What is the attitude of the natural heart toward a subasitutionary sacrifice? Illustrate.
19. How does God convict Cain?
20. Give the author’s interpretation, of Genesis 4:7.
21. On what ground was the first murder committed and what is the attitude of sinners toward God’s children generally?
22. What inquisition did God make and what the Mosaic law on this point?
23. Give three illustrations. – Fort Worth, Texas, Sir Walter Scott,
and Lorenzo Dow.
24. What was the psalmist’s testimony on this point and what use
was made of the text by the author?
25. What is the meaning of „the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth
unto me from the ground”?
26. What is meant by the voice of the blood of Abel in Hebrews
12:24; that is, does it mean Abel’s own blood shed by Cain (Genesis
4:10) or the blood of sacrifice shed by Abel (Genesis 4:4)?
27. In either case show how the sprinkling or application of Christ’s blood speaketh better things than Abel’s blood.
28. What was the curse pronounced upon Cain?
29. Illustrate the effect of this murder on Cain’s conscience?
30. What was Cain’s response and the meaning of „bearing iniquity”?
31. What idea of locality is involved in Cain’s going away from the presence of the Lord?
32. Show wherein Cain committed the unpardonable sin.
33. What purpose was served in exempting Cain from human ven_
geance and in the visible mark, or sign, which protected him?
34. What was the mark placed upon Cain?
35. Who was Cain’s wife?
36. Cite the achievements wrought by Cain’s several descendants,
and show what things originated with them.
37. What is the meaning of
If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold,
Truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold?
38. Who was appointed unto Eve as another seed in the place of Abel?
39. What doctrines set forth in this appointment?
40. Should the last clause of Genesis (fourth chapter) be rendered
„began to call upon the name of the Lord,” or „be called by the name
of Jehovah”?

Genesis 5

In the fourth chapter of Genesis we have seen the race of
Adam following two distinct lines of worship through Cain
and Abel, Abel approaching God where he dwelt as a Shekinah
and oracle between the Cherubim, at the east of the garden
of Eden, under a grace covenant and through a vicarious
expiation apprehended by faith; Cain approaching God at the
same place, but ignoring the double fact that he was depraved
in nature by descent from the fallen Adam and a sinner by
choice and deed; therefore rejecting the vicarious expiation
prescribed by grace and tendering only a thank: offering as a
land tenant.
Cain thus denying sin denies the need of a Saviour. And
denying depravity denies the need of regeneration. And turn_
ing from the Holy Spirit remains a subject of the evil spirit.
And denying the authority of God in religion he remains under
the authority of the devil, the prince of this world by usurpa_
tion. „Cain was of the wicked one.” The New Testament calls
the devil religion „the way of Cain.” And it must mightily
amuse the devil to hear a president emeritus of Harvard, nearly
six thousand years later, call „the way of Cain” a „new re_
We have seen the anger and hate of the subject of the
devil religion toward the subject of the God religion culminate
in murder, lying, and denial of social responsibility. We have
seen him, under the curse of God, go away from the presence
of God and while under spiritual unrest he and his descendants
build cities or become nomads, invent stringed and wind instru_

ments of music, establish factories for cutting implements of
brass and iron, and in literature attain a low form of poetry,
yet they also develop bigamy, seduction, and lawless slaying
of the seducer.
Having thus traced the godless line of Cain to the seventh
generation the chapter closes with an account of the birth of
Seth, the appointed successor of Abel, and with the statement
that this line resumed the worship of Jehovah interrupted
by the death of Abel. So the section of Genesis, commencing
2:4, „These are the generations [or developments] of the heav_
ens and the earth,” leaves the world under two opposing lines
of worship, God worship and devil worship, contending for
earth supremacy,ùthe kingdom of God warring against the
kingdom of Satan.
The fifth chapter opens a new section: „This is the book of
the generations of Adam.” The unique phraseology, „This is
the book of the generations,” occurs here only in the Old
Testament and only once in the New Testament (Matt. 1:1).
It is designedly limited to the two Adams – the natural man
and the Lord from heaven.
One cannot escape deep conviction of the unity of the Bible
when he compares Genesis 5:1, with Matthew 1:1. Place
them side by side thus:
„This is the book of the generations of Adam.”
„This is the book of the generations of Jesus Christ.”
With this parallel before you, read Romans 5:12_21.
The next two sentences of this section constitute another
amazing parallel. Put them also side by side, thus:
„In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God
made he him.”
„And Adam begat a son in his likeness, after his image.”
This parallel is far from meaning that Adam perpetuated,
in his son, Seth, the likeness and image of God which he him_
self had received in creation (Gen. 1:26). By sin Adam lost

the image of God and became corrupt in his nature. This is
evident by what regeneration and sanctification must accom_
plish in a son of Adam. „Ye have put off the old man with his
doings, and have put on the new man, that is being renewed
unto knowledge after the image of him that created him” (Col.
3:9_10). „Put ye away, as concerning your former manner of
life, the old man, that waxeth corrupt after the lusts of deceit;
and be ye renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the
new man, that after God hath been created in righteousness
and holiness of truth” (Eph. 5:22_24).
This fallen father could not transmit what he had loaf. Seth
was born in the image of a corrupt father. The first Adam, by
creation, was in the image of God. The Second Adam, by eter_
nal subsistence, was the effulgence of God’s glory and the very
image of his substance (Heb. 1:3). Hence Paul says, „And
so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul.
The last man Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit
that was not first which is spiritual but that which is natural;
and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man Is of the
earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. And
as is the earthy, such ore they also that are earthy; and as is
the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as
we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the
image of the heavenly” (I Cor. 15:45_49).
Another important matter to note is that the generations
of Adam in this section are limited to the line of Seth. This
is because all descendants of Cain perished in the deluge.
While millions on earth today follow in „the way of Cain” no
man on earth is lineally descended from Cain. The population
of the whole earth today are lineal descendants of Seth and
consist of two classes only: (1) the regenerate, spiritual de_
scendants of the Second Adam, and (2) the unregenerate
descendants in flesh and spirit of the first Adam.
According to the invariable method of Genesis the genera_
tions of the evil line are first given, as in the fourth chapter,
and then the generations of the good line, as in this chapter.
The line of generation in this chapter is Seth, Enosh, Kenan,
Mehalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah.

We get at the age of the human race when the flood came
by adding to the age of Adam when Seth was born the age of
each father named when his son was born and then adding the
age of Noah when the flood came. The figures are: 130 plus
105, plus 90, plus 70, plus 65, plus 162, plus 65, plus 187, plus
182, plus 600; total 1656ùmore than 161/2 centuries.
Another remarkable fact is the longevity of the antedilu-
vians. Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Jared, and Methuselah all
lived over 900 years. By the overlapping we see how Methu_
selah was a contemporary of both Adam and Noahù243 years
with Adam and 600 years with Noah. Indeed Adam lived 56
years as a contemporary of Lamech) the father of Noah, and
only 126 years intervened between Adam’s death and Noah’s
birth. In this way all the revelations of God to man up to the
flood required for transmission, by tradition, only one inter_
mediary between Adam and Noah.
On this remarkable longevity Dr. Gonant says, „The great
age of man previous to the Flood, gradually diminishing for
some generations after, till it reached its present usual limit,
has been the subject of much discussion. Some have attempted
to account for the change in the duration of human life by
physical causes, namely, changes in the physical temperament
of our world, in modes of living, etc. Others have maintained,
that the age of man did not then greatly exceed that to which
men are known to have attained in later times; some suppos_
ing that each name represents several generations; others, that
the ‘year’ was not a solar year as subsequently, but some
equally defined period, as a lunar month, or a period of six
months between the solstices or equinoxes, or a season of three

months marked by the passage of the sun between the equi_
noctial and solstitial points, or (according to the ancient divi_
sion of the year into spring, summer and winter) a season of
four months.
„But this assumed meaning of the word year, making it a
twelfth, or a half, or a third, or a fourth of the solar year, has
no historical support; there being no evidence that such por_
tions of time were ever made the unit of measure for long
periods, such as the duration of human life, or were ever used
for any other purpose than as fractions of the solar year.
„It fails, moreover, in its application. For though it might
explain the cases occurring in this chapter, it fails when ap_
plied_to ll:10f, where some are mentioned as having sons at
the age of thirty, and as living to the age of four or five hun_
dred years.
„The term of life in man, as in all other animals, is God’s
ordinance. The progress of a human being from infancy,
through childhood, youth and manhood, to old age, is a law of
his constitution ordained by his Maker; and the length of time
assigned for each, together with the secondary causes on which
it depends, is also his appointment. Our belief that it was ever
otherwise than at present, depends on our confidence in the
record which asserts it. It is not an unphilosophical supposi_
tion, that man was originally so constituted, that his term of
life should go on diminishing till it reached its minimum, and
there remain stationary.”
It may be accounted for in a simpler way. The fruit of the
tree of life was designed to eliminate the mortality of the
body. Adam and Eve partook of this fruit in the garden. It is
quite possible that many centuries would elapse before the
effects of this eating would be altogether eliminated from the
bodies of Adam’s descendants. The last four names of the
list, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, and Noah, call for special

Concerning Enoch we note four things:
1. He walked with God.
2. The occasion of his commencing to walk: with Godùthe
birth of his son.
3. His remarkable prophecy (Jude 14_15).
4. The manner of his exit from the world.
As a comment on three of these four particulars I here at_
tach a sermon, preached by the author, January, 1894.
” ‘And Enoch walked with God; and he was not; for God
took him’ (Gen. 5:24). I think it quite probable that to supply
the ellipsis this should read: ‘and he was not found; for God
took him.’ To show the reasonableness of thus supplying the
ellipsis we have only to read the collateral passage describing
the translation of Elijah in 2 Kings 2:5_18. Now applying
that narrative, I will read over again: ‘And Enoch walked with
God; and he was not [i.e., he was not found]; for God took
him to himself.’
„The subject which I have selected tonight is one to me of
very great interest. ‘Walking* in the sense used in this text
never applies to doctrine; it applies to conduct, to life; as
when it is said of Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist,
that he and his wife, Elisabeth, walked in the commandments
of God. In both the Old and New Testaments, the word has
that signification. For instance, when God said to Solomon,
If you will walk in my ways as thy father David didst walk
in my ways,’ evidently referring .o the life, to the conduct.
Before one’s life can be such as is e_pressed by this text, there
is something implied; something presupposed. The prophet
Amos asks a question in the third chapter and third verse of
the book attributed to him: ‘How can two walk together except
they be agreed?’ So that if it be affirmed that two walked to_
gether, it is implied that the two are at agreement. And it
also follows from the nature of the case that one of the two

had been at enmity with the other and that there had been a
reconciliation. So that when we say of any man that he walks
with God, it implies that he has been reconciled to God. It
does not mean that God has conformed to him, but that he has
conformed to God. It does not mean that the Lord has lowered
his standard to suit the man, but that the man’s way has been
subordinated to God’s way, and his life to God’s rules. It
never implies any kind of change on the part of God, but
always on the part of man. So when it is affirmed of Enoch
that he walked with God, it implies that there had been a
time when Enoch and God had not been at agreement, but
that something had occurred to put them at agreement, and
that after this agreement they had then walked together. This
brings up the question: ‘Does the Bible show anywhere when
this agreement took place between God and Enoch?’ I think
so. A careful study of the passage shows that Enoch com_
menced to walk with God when he was sixty_five years old.
It is affirmed that he lived 365 years, and it is affirmed that
300 years he walked with God. Then he commenced to walk
with God when he was sixty_five years old. The mind be_
comes a little curious to know what it was that brought about
this agreement between God and Enoch; what occasion
brought the two together. I think the Bible tells us what the
occasion was. It evidently connects the subject with the birth
of Enoch’s son, the birth of his baby boy. Up to the time
that Methuselah was born Enoch did not walk with God, but
a child is born unto him, and from the day that child is born
as long as he lived upon the earth, he walked with God. So we
find the occasion in the birth of this boy – the first_born child.
I do not know why it is so – one may speculate a great deal
upon it – but the fact will not be questioned that with children
there comes a change in this world to the parents. There is
something in paternity and maternity that casts a different
atmosphere about all the things of this life; the medium of
vision is entirely different. The coloring is all changed. A
boy has his ambitious dreams, his selfish thoughts of distinc_
tion, his ideas of success to which everything must bend, and
it is an astonishing thing to him, the cast of mind evidently
manifested by his father and his mother. He cannot under_
stand it. But after a while he grows up himself and marries,
and still after he marries it is a good deal like the prolonga_
tion of youth. But a child comes to that family and with the
first wail of that voice, with the first uplifting of the eyes of
that new_born soul, there has come a radical and fundamental
change in that house. Life will never be the same again. The
world will never appear to be the same any more. Here has
come a responsibility that could not even be conceived of be_
fore. Here has come a joy that without the experience of it,
the heart could not even take hold of it. The objects of life
are instantly changed. With his first_born child instantly the
whole course of the father’s life is changed. He Bays, ‘I stand
by myself and for myself no more. I am not now living for
myself. I must live for this child. I must live so that this
pledge of God’s affection, this being which is bone of my bone
and flesh of my flesh, shall be properly reared; shall take his
proper place in the world.’ So much in general.
„But you ask me why I ever fell upon the thought that this
change in Enoch’s attitude toward God was brought about by
the birth of this child? I do not know all that occurred. I
cannot conceive of it even. It is conjectural; but I gather that
something occurred in this communion with God at this point,
and that, too, by a revelation, a revelation that made the birth
of that child the most important thing to him in his life. And
what was it? With the coming of that child was the announce_
ment from heaven: ‘Do you see that baby? The world will
last as long as he lives, and no longer. When that child dies
the judgment of God is coming upon the earth. The windows
of heaven are going to be opened. The fountains of the great
deep are going to be broken up. That chaos will return, as de_
scribed in the second verse of the first chapter of Genesis, when
the earth was first made; it was empty and void, a waste of
water. In the process of his divine work God separated the
waters below from the waters above. The expanse of the heav_
en was spread out. There was a separation of the waters above
and below. Then a separation of the waters below, the dry
land from the water. Now God says, ‘When that child dies,
I will restore the world to its chaotic state as it was before
the expanse was created that separates the waters above and
below. I will open the windows of heaven. That is, I will re_
move the expanse. I will put my finger upon the law which
keeps the waters above in the clouds and restore it to what it
was. And if I do that, the waters that are up yonder will come
down. And then I will take this earth that is now dry land
and sea, and will break up the foundations of the great deep,
so that it shall be water, and water only, again.’ That, prob_
ably, is what he said to this father. You ask me why I suppose
this, since the record is silent. To me, the record does not
seem to be altogether silent. The record itself, and that alone,
suggests the thought. Consider the name given to the child –
Methuselah. That name signifies that with his departure comes
this flood. In all probability a divine revelation is memo_
rialized in the name. Now then, let us look for a moment upon
the methods by which such a great revelation of God operated
upon the mind of Enoch to bring about a radical change in
him. It makes no difference how careless you are tonight
about religious matters; it makes no difference how absorbed
you may be in the things of this world, you may realize the
cause of the change in Enoch. Suppose that it should be made
known to you, and ia a way that you could not question the
veracity of God, that this world would last only as long as the
life of some little child in your house. Maybe there is a little
girl at your house. What if it should be creditably conveyed
to you that this world would last just as long as that little girl
would live, and no longer. Perhaps you have a little boy at
your house, and the message comes to you, ‘That child’s life
is the life of the world. When that child dies the world will
come to an end.’ Now, as you could have no knowledge of
how long or how short that life might be, there would in_
stantly come before you the possibility of the cessation of the
existence of the earth at any time. It might be next week; it
might be next year; but always staring you in the face, every
time you look upon the baby, or upon the boy, upon the girl
running around; every time you look; every time that child is
a little sick; every time fever comes or a slight chill, or any
eruption on the skin, or any apparent decline in health it
would seem to you as the shadow of the doom of the world.
That being so, if you believed it; if it had been made credible
to you, you would begin to say within yourself, If this is the
last of it; if the world can last only as long as this child lives;
how ought I to live?’ Now to show you how naturally and
rationally that thought would come into your mind, let me
read to you again the passage of Scripture which prefaced this
sermon, the use of which you did not then probably anticipate.
Peter says, In the last days there shall come scoffers walking
after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his
coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue
as they were from the beginning of creation. But the Lord is
not slack concerning his promise as some men count slackness;
but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should
perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day
of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the
heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements
shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that
are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things
shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in
all holy conversation and godliness, looking for and hastening
unto the day of the coming of God, wherein the heavens being
on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with
fervent heat?’ You seethe practical effect of faith in that
scripture; that if men believe that the day of God is near at
hand, the time of judgment, the hour when we are to stand
before him and answer for the deeds done in the body, and
how things that engage our attention here and absorb our
minds and call out our energies, that these things are evanes_
cent; that not only is ‘passing away’ written upon them, but
the day of their departure is fixed already in the mind of God.
I say, with this conviction in the heart, that there is to be
such a speedy termination of this world’s existence, as a natur_
al, indeed, an inevitable consequence, there is forced upon the
man’s mind that believes, this thought: ‘What ought my life
to be?’ It is furthermore manifest from the fact that all men
whose lives are and continue to be irreligious, are the men who
by some method have closed their eyes to the thought of a day
of trial, of a windup of the affairs of this world. The judgment
of God and the speed with which it is coming have become
inoperative in wholesome effects upon their minds, from the
fact that they do not believe. The conviction does not seize
upon them. But our text supposes that this conviction did
seize upon the mind of Enoch; that it seized upon him in such
a manner that he named his child in reference to it, and from
the birth of that child until he passed away he walked with
God. He walked with him as a familiar friend and lived with
reference to a speedy responsibility. A careful study of this
passage shows that from the birth of that child the attractive_
ness of this world had lost all its power over the mind and
heart of Enoch. The things which men covet most; the honors
which they esteem to be the highest, and the glories that are
the most entrancing to their views, were in his esteem, after
this revelation from God – after this conviction took possession
of his heart – as if they did not exist. The two were no longer
polarized. I mean that there was no conductor of influence.
They did not come in touch. The earth magnet no longer
up high enough to look over it and see how near was the end
moved Enoch. He had seen an end of it. God had taken him
of all earthly things. Seeing that and knowing how little worth
there was in it, he then began to say, ‘As I find within myself
the stirrings of immortality, as I am conscious of a deathless
spirit; as I feel myself related to eternity; therefore, as this
world is to pass away so speedily upon which I have my
temporary home, what should be my preparation for the other
world to which I hasten, and how shall I so live that when
I pass from this world I may go to one whose skies are never
flecked with clouds, and whose stability is such that neither
floods nor fires shall interrupt the continuity of their being?’
It was in this way probably that his mind acted. As a proof
of it – and it is one of the most notable things in history, ac_
count for it as you like – whenever and wherever in any age
of the world any number of persons have become possessed
with a conviction of the sublunary nature of things here and
of the speedy approach of dissolution; of the nearness of their
contact with the hitherto invisible things of eternity; that as
that conviction at any period of the world has touched one
man, or two, or a thousand; to the extent of the touch, to that
extent you find revivals in religion; you find men realizing in
their hearts that they want something more than this world;
that they want something more enduring than it can offer;
they want something to satisfy the cravings of the aroused and
immortal spirit; they are no longer willing simply to live and
toil for bread and clothing, but rather that the spirit may be
fed, and that the spirit may be clothed and made happy for_
„Another thought: This man having had such a revelation
of the speedy dissolution of the world in which he lived, what
must, I ask you, have been the workings of his mind as he
studied the health of that child? Looking back, the oldest man
living was not yet dead. Adam was yet alive. He was over
700 years old. Some men had died. Some had died early. Some
had not lived to be 100. And after a while Adam died, and
here was the limit of his life. And Enoch would look at him
and say, ‘What are the probabilities concerning this child of
mine, Methuselah?’ 18 it not a curious and suggestive thing
that the man whose life was to terminate with the world itself
was permitted to live longer than anybody else ever did live?
Is it not an exhibition of God’s mercy? As this is the child
who is to live until the time comes for the world to be swept
away by a flood, and as during this interval the word of God
is to be preached to lead men to salvation, shall not the mercy
of God prolong that day? Shall he not live longer than any
man ever did live? Shall he not live longer than any other
man will live? Shall not his age be unique, standing out from
the age of any other, because that from the hour of his birth
the decree had gone forth, ‘When the breath leaves his body
the throes of dissolution shall commence. When he departs
the clouds gather and the earth sickens and the seas are up_
rooted in their foundations. Let him live and live and live,
that space may be given for men to repent’? But long before
this man died, whose life was to be co_equal with the world’s
existence, the one to whom the announcement was made had
left the earth; and there is something about that worth con_
sideration. He was a notable character. In all the mythologies
of the heathen nations they have preserved some kind of a
tradition with regard to him. The most of these traditions,
of course, are far_fetched. But it shows that the impress of
this strange man was never effaced from the world. To him
has been attributed the first acquaintance with astronomy. To
this man have been given the name and fame of originating a
written language. With all of which traditions I have nothing
to do and care but little about. I merely introduce these
thoughts to show that he impressed his age and subsequent
ages, and that he so lived while here upon the earth that he
caused men to think about him and talk about him, and con_
jecture about him thousands of years after he had passed
(This sermon continued in next chapter.)

1. In brief statement give review of chapter 4.
2. What parallel between Genesis 5:1, and Matthew 1:1, and the bearing on. the unity of the whole Bible?
3. What amazing parallel in 5:1_3, the meaning of „begat a son in
his own likeness, after his image,” Genesis 5:3, and what doctrines
involved when compared with Genesis 1:26?
4. What are the two classes of earth’s population today?
5. How long from Adam to the flood and how ascertained?
6. Do you accept the extraordinary longevity as historically true?
7. What purpose was served by the long life of the early Christians?
8. Can you cite any case of long life among the Cainites, or among
unbelievers after the flood? If not, why this distinction?
9. How does Dr. Conant account for this longevity?
10. How does the author account for it?
11. Who was the last recorded example of extraordinary longevity
and why was it not necessary after that?
12. What man. was for a long time a contemporary of both Adam
and Noah?
13. Which man, before the flood, never died?
14. Meaning of „walked with God”?
15. What is presupposed by it?
16. How old was he when. be began to walk with God and what event caused it?
17. Generally, what is the effect of paternity and maternity on people?
18. What revelation does the author think Enoch received at the
birth of Methuselah and upon what does he base his conviction?
19. How would such a revelation naturally affect Enoch’s life?
20. What New Testament parallel serves as an admonition to every passing generation?
21. What curious and suggestive thing in the fact that Methuselah
lived longer than any one else in the world?
22. What shows Enoch’s impress upon the world?

Genesis 5 (Continued)

„Enoch’s taking off was the marvellous thing, inasmuch as
so much attention had been attracted to him. Let us imagine
ourselves living in that time when people would commence to
say: ‘Where is Enoch? Has anybody seen Enoch to_day?’ And
inquiries are made at his home: ‘Where is your father?’ 1 do
not know.’ Perhaps you ask the wife: ‘Where is your hus_
band?’ 1 do not know; he is gone.’ ‘Where is Enoch?’ And a
search is installed. The places he frequented are all carefully
searched, and at last, as the investigators return, the question
is passed back and forth: ‘Where is he?’ And he was not found.
When had any one ever gone so before? Never. Here was a
mysterious disappearance. Here was something that fixed the
attention of that age more than a thunderclap ten thousand
times louder than an ordinary peal – the disappearance of
Enoch. Did he die? No. Was he sick? No. Well, when other
people died we buried them. Here are their graves. We cannot
bury him, for we cannot find him. Where is his body? What
has become of his body? And how that thought would flash
upon the people. He cannot be found. Up to a certain time
the observers saw him. One would say: 1 saw him here last
week.’ Another, ‘I saw him there the day after, but where is
he now?’ Was it witchcraft? Compare the scenes recorded
in the second book of Kings, where fifty sons of the prophets
unto whom God had made the revelation that Elijah would be
called up away from the earth without dying, determined to
witness his departure, and they watched Elijah and Elisha.
And they say to Elisha: ‘Do you know that today Elijah is

going to be taken away from you?’ ‘Yes, I know it.’ And those
two walk off together. And Elijah says to Elisha, ‘You stop
here.’ And they go to another place: ‘Then, stop here.’ 1 will
not stop; as my soul liveth, I am going to hold on to you. I
want to know how you go. There is the record of a man’s dis_
appearance once before, and where he went and how he went
no one can tell. This time I will see.’ And Elijah says to him,
‘What would you ask of me?’ ‘Give me thy spirit. Let the
double of thy spirit, the equivalent of it, let that come upon
me. That is, when you leave, let an equal power of the spirit
now on you be upon me that the world shall not be deprived
of the like of your example.’ Ah, if someone had but thought
of that in Enoch’s time! If someone had clung to him and said,
‘As I live and as the Lord liveth, I will cling to you and follow
you and when you leave let an equivalent of your spirit be
given unto me.’ Nobody thought of it. But now, mark you,
Elijah said, If you can see me when I go, then you shall have
the equivalent of the spiritual power that is on me.’ That test
is not an arbitrary one; it is required by the nature of the case,
that no man could have the spirit or the power that rested on
Elijah unless his faith was so sublimated and etherealized
that he could look through the grossness of earth and see the
outshining of heaven and a higher and purer spiritual life.
Hence, he says, If you can see me, it will be so.’ And Elisha
saw him, and as he went up he shouted: ‘My Father! My
Father! The chariot of God and the horsemen thereof!’ And
he picked up the prophet’s falling mantle and smote with it the
waters of the Jordan as Elijah had done, and called upon the
name of the God of Elijah to see if the spirit rested upon him
that had rested upon his master, and the waters were divided.
The disappearance in this case was located. Here was one
witness; he saw it. These were adumbrations – they were shad_
ows ahead. They point to what will take place when Jesus
comes. What is it? Paul says: ‘Brethren, I will show you a
mystery. We shall not all die. There will be a large number
of them living when Jesus comes, and all the Christians living
when he comes shall be changed in a moment, in the twinkling
of an eye, at the last trump. There shall occur a spiritual
sanctification. There shall occur a bodily glorification. Mor_
tality shall put on immortality without passing through the
throes of death, and corruption shall put on incorruption with_
out decay or dissolution, without being led down in the loath_
some charnel house.’ Many – perhaps thousands and tens of
thousands, will be alive when Jesus comes. In the twinkling
of an eye they shall be translated and glorified and caught up
to heaven, soul and body. Paul says that Enoch was not, i.e.,
not found, for God translated him. This is an old Latin word,
an irregular verb, and it simply means carried over or carried
across. God carried him across. Across what? Across death.
Death is the river that divides this world from the world to
come, and here was a man that never did go through the river
at all. When he got there God carried him across. God trans_
ferred him; translated him; God picked him up and carried
him over and put him on the other shore. And walking along
here in time and communing with God by faith, in an instant
he was communing with God by sight in another world. Faith,
oh, precious faith! .Faith had turned to sight, and hope had
turned to fruition in a single moment. Enoch was translated.
God took him. And it made an impression on that day, on
this day, and on every day. There are only two instances.
„Now I want to make an application of this subject. What,
under the circumstances, detailed in the life of Enoch and
under the circumstances of the statements made by the apostle
Peter, are the things that keep people from soberly reflecting?
What are the things that stand in the way of preparation?
What are the things which, if removed, thousands would be
convicted in an instant? It is unbelief with reference to spirit_
ual things; with reference to the coming of the Son of God;
with reference to the fact that the world in which we live is
the threshold only of the grand building of the world to come.
Now, when you sit down by one of your acquaintances and
try to engage him in serious conversation, what obstacles do
you encounter? The power of this world, the pride of life,
the lust of the flesh. The whole vision is filled. And you try
to edge in or wedge in a word about personal responsibility to
God. ‘Oh, there will be no judgment; things are moving on
today like they did last year, a hundred years ago. They will
move on that way another thousand years.’ Will they mov~
that way to you a thousand years? Will it last fifty for you?
Are you right sure that it will last twenty_five for you? Even
if the world should last another thousand years, what is that
to the individual? You will not last that long. Your death
fifty years hence will be a more momentous thing than God’s
announcement to Enoch, that ‘when this child dies the end
will come,’ because that child lived 969 years. With all that
tremendous effect on the mind of Enoch, it was nearly a thou_
sand years off. But is yours that far off? Is it not nearer to
each one of us here than it was to him? Is it not many hun_
dreds of years nearer to any of us than it was to him? Now
why cannot we be induced) as he was induced, to think about
walking with God? Seeing that these things are to be dis_
solved, so far as we are concerned, in a very short time, what
manner of persons ought we to be? What if you die within one
year? What if your friends come and ask about you and say,
‘Where is he? Can anybody tell me where he is gone?’ He is
gone from the world, never to come back. ‘Gone where; where
and to what?’ Oh, if I could by the Spirit’s power bring down
upon your hearts tonight some conviction resulting from the
manifest brevity of your life! It is not only short, but its
thread is brittle, and may snap in a moment. Shall not Enoch’s
case profit you at all? Fix your mind on it. He looks out 969
years into the future, and sees the end of the world. He stands
and looks at itù969 years off, but it is the end of the world.
How does it affect him? How does he apply the knowledge?
‘Henceforward I will walk with God.’ Now. here vou are: how
far is it to the world’s end with you? How much do you say?
None of you will say a hundred years; perhaps fifty; perhaps
twenty_five; perhaps ten; perhaps one. Maybe only a month.
Why, then, can’t you feel it like he felt it? Why does not the.
conviction come to you like it came to him? It is because the.
God of this world hath blinded the eyes of them who believe ,
not. He has put a bandage, impenetrable and inscrutable,
upon the eyes of the people that they cannot see the nearness
and the certainty of the approach of death and of being ush_
ered out of the world for ever and into another world for ever.
Now, that is why I took this subject tonight, January, 1894.
In all human probability one_fifth of us here in this house
tonight will never see 1900. That is only six years off. Some
of you will certainly never see that. Oh, believe it! The crape
will be hanging on some of your door knobs before 1895. Some
homes now happy will be desolate before summer comes. There
will be empty cradles and vacant chairs. I speak of probabili_
ties, judging from what is occurring all along. And yet, how
strange! We carelessly move along and say, ‘Where is the
promise of his coming?’ No preparation to meet God; no
living with reference to eternity! God help you tonight to see
that and feel that. Is it wrong? Is it contrary to what you
think is best? Is it expedient, feeling about this as I do feel
about it, do you think it would be best for me to stop right
here and make no effort to lead some soul here now to the
thought of preparation for God? Who can tell? It may be
that God, in his infinite mercy, has made this night the occa_
sion of the turning point of salvation to some immortal spirit,
as he made the birth of that child the turning point in the life
of Enoch. Some of your have children. Their responsibility is
on you. They catch their cue from you. They walk the way
you walk. They imbibe your spirit; your shadow is on your
boy, on your girl, on your home. Oh, father, mother, when
you think of your child, had you not better prepare to meet
your God? What is life to young people? What know they
of its anguish; what of its responsibilities? They hear the song
of the siren; their eye is dimmed with the glare of earth’s
tinsel; they are swept away on the tidal wave of youth’s
buoyant feeling. But, oh, grown men and women, fathers and
mothers, to whom God has committed children, how can you
put your hand upon the face of a sleeping child one night and
not prepare to meet God? Sometimes, even in the thoughtless_
ness of youth, through a rift in the clouds, the divine benedic_
tion falls like a halo of light, and some little Samuel hears the
voice of God, and says, ‘Lord, here am 1.’ Some Timothy,
reading the Scriptures and hearing his mother or his grand_
mother expound them, says, ‘Lord, here am 1.’ Young man,
will you not turn tonight? Oh, see the line of demarcation.
Who crosses next? Maiden, is it you? Shall we very soon sad_
ly inquire, ‘Where is she?’ ‘She is not.’ ‘Not found.’ In that
grave, there, the coffin holds its ashes, her soul is not there.’
‘Where is she?’ 0, eternity, eternity, eternity I I beg you now,
right now, take a step in the direction of heaven. I plead with
you in view of the brittle thread of life; in view of its brevity,
in view of the judgment, in view of the eternity of being, which
must come when we pass out of this state of existence, I en_
treat you to begin now to walk with God. Who walks not with
him here shall never walk with him yonder in white. Be
reconciled to him tonight that you may begin to walk with
him tomorrow. Who is not reconciled here is irreconciled for_
ever. Be a child – a spiritual child of God, learning to walk
on the King’s highway – stepping heavenward. Oh, take a step
tonight, thou fearful, trembling one. God holds out his hands;
walk into his arms of love.”

In this sermon of the important things in connection with
the life of Enoch there are three, and now one more remains.
There is a passage in the book of Jude to the effect that, „To
these also Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying,
Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones,
to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly
of all their works of ungodliness which they have ungodly
wrought, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners
have spoken against him.” That translation is awful, as to the
tense, saying, „Behold, the Lord came.” The idiom of the_
language does not require such a tense. It ought to be, „The
Lord will come.” Concerning this statement in the book of
Jude there has been much controversy. Not a great while ago
a manuscript was found purporting to be the full text of the
book of Enoch. In it there is language quite similar to Jude’s
statement, not exactly like it, but similar to it. It is evidently
not a verbal quotation from Jude; nor are the words in Jude
quoted from it. Now it has been contended by many that this
book of Enoch was written – at least some of it – before Christ
came, and that Jude quotes from this Apocryphal book. That
is the contention. On the other hand, many scholars believe
that what is called the book of Enoch was written by a Chris_
tian after Jude’s day, and that the passage to which I referred
is an elaboration of Jude’s statement. I am quite sure that no
man can be safely confident as to the exact date of that book
of Enoch. Personally, I do not at all believe that it antedates
the book of Jude. The question then arises: From what source
did Jude get this information about the prophecy of Enoch?
And you might ask, From what source did Peter get his in_
formation that Noah was a preacher of righteousness? And
you might also ask, From what source does Paul get the names
of the magicians who withstood Moses – Jannes and Jambres?
To all of which inquiries it is the easiest thing to say, and the
most rational, „They got it by inspiration of God.”
Then comes up this point: Enoch in his lifetime having
prophesied that the Lord would come with myriads of his holy
ones – angels – when is this coming? Did he refer exclusively
to the coming of the Lord in judgment of the world by the
flood, or even if this be his primary intent, did he also look
far beyond the flood to the final advent of our Lord? In
answer to this question, we may say that the prophets fre_
quently had a primary reference to things near their own times,
and yet the deepest significance of their words looks to the
times of our Lord. It is easy to see this in David’s prophecy
concerning Solomon; it starts off apparently with Solomon
in view, but expands into a vision of the King wiser and greater
than Solomon, whose dominion is the whole world. So it may
well be that Enoch, profoundly impressed with the impiety of
his day, might speak in stern denunciation of the corruption
that was then in the world and of the impending judgment of
God, but its use in the New Testament shows that he was
looking forward to a final world judgment which the flood
prefigured. (See 2 Peter 3:5_12.)
Some people make out that the Old Testament saints had no
clear ideas of the future world, that they did not see beyond
the grave. The translation of Enoch is an everlasting refuta_
tion of that contention, and his prophecy concerning the final
judgment of God upon men is as conclusive as his translation.
Indeed, as we intelligently study the Old Testament we must
revise the judgment of little light before the flood, as will be
shown in the next chapter. The theme of that chapter is: „The
Light Possessed by the Antediluvians.”
In the preceding chapter I told you how to find the age of
the world since man occupied it till the coming of the flood,
according to the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, namely,
by a simple addition to the age of Adam when Seth was born,
the age of Seth when his son was born, and so on till you come
to Noah, and then add 600 years, the age of Noah when
the flood came. By adding these figures you obtain 1,656
years, or more than sixteen and a half centuries, as the age of
man’s occupancy of the world at the time of the flood. That
is according to the Hebrew text. There is extant a very faulty
text of the Old Testament, called the Samaritan Pentateuch.
According to the Samaritan Pentateuch it was 1.307 years
from the creation of Adam to the flood, and this result is gained
by taking away from the age figures in the Hebrew enough to
make the difference. Then we have the Septuagint, or the
Greek translation of the Old Testament, no part of which is
older than 250 B.C. Now the Septuagint differs from the figures
which I have given by adding 100 years in the following
100 years to Adam before Seth was born;
100 years to Seth before his son was born;
100 years to Enoch before his son was born;
100 years to Kenan before his son was born;
100 years to Mahalaleel before his son was born; in like
100 years to Enoch, and then adding
Six years to Lamech. That gives a total, according to the
Septuagint, of 2,262 years from the creation of Adam to the
flood. We have still a different account of it in the book of
Josephus. Josephus agrees with the Septuagint in adding those
hundreds, but agrees with the Hebrew when it comes to the
age of Lamech; and so there is only six years difference be_
tween Josephus’ account and the Septuagint account, that is to
say, Josephus has 2,256 years.
This brings up an old question: The antiquity of the human
race upon the earth. Now if we take the figures in the Hebrew
text, 1,656 to the flood, the 367 to the call of Abraham, the 430
from the call of Abraham to the Exodus and the time given
variously from the Exodus to the coming of Christ, we have
4,004 years in all. Now add that to 1913, our present A.D.
time, and you get, according to the Bible, the antiquity of
man, 5,917 years. That is the Bible statement of the antiquity
of man. But over against this come the’ various and contra_
dictory contentions of men arguing from their own conclusions
in the several departments of science to which they have given
special attention. From geology comes a contention based on
fossil remains and the computed time in the formation of the
several strata of the earth, that man must have lived on the

earth anywhere from 100,000 to 1,000,000 years. All of which
is mere conjecture since no two of them will give the same
date, though they are studying the same matter. Not very
long ago a very able scientist laughed at all of these extrava_
gant assertions of man’s antiquity, based upon anything that
is to be found in history, geology, paleontology. Mark Twain
was so much amused by reading the different calculations made
on insufficient data by geological experts he took a hand him-
self on this fashion. He mentions a date on which the length
of the Mississippi River between Cairo and New Orleans was
definitely known to be so much. Then he gave subsequent well_
known dates when the river each time shortened its course by
a cutoff. These were his facts. Now followed his conclusions
that if the length of the river was shortened so much in a given
time the date was not remote when Memphis and New Orleans
would be brought in touch and put under one municipal gov_
ernment, and by the same token just a million years ago next
November it was then sticking out over the Gulf of Mexico
like a fishing pole.
Take another example: John Fiske, who was one of the
greatest historical lecturers, and the most interesting that I
have ever read after, when he comes to consider the settle_
ment of Jamestown, Virginia, finds himself unable, with the
data before him, to fix the precise date. But the same John
Fiske, when speaking as an evolutionist, can give you the
exact date of the formation of the strata and the dates of the
ages of all the fossils to a fraction, and he consequently can
prove to you that man has been living on the earth one million
years. In other words, when discussing facts near the present
time, where there are abundant contemporaneous data, he is
very modest in claiming an exact date for a well_known event.
But when he leaps out into the vagaries of evolutionary specu_
lations he becomes confidently assertive and knows better than
the Almighty himself when things took place, millions of years

ago. Consequently my advice to you is to possess your souls
with patience until these infallible experts get at least within
a million years of each other, and go on believing what the
Bible says about the antiquity of man.
Two well_known historical events will aid you somewhat in
moderating your awe of those very learned men:
A clear_cut section of the deposit on the buried cities of
Herculaneum and Pompeii cut straight down from the surface
to the streets will exhibit layers, or strata, bearing the marks
of incalculable periods of time, and yet all of it resulted
from one eruption of Versuvius.
The phosphate beds of South Carolina contain the mingled
bones of animals, including man’s, which, according to these
same infallible gentlemen, were separated from each other by
cycles of ages in the time of their existence on earth.
Moreover, if we accept the Bible account of the flood, how
much that puzzles the geologist will be explained. In Genesis
1:2_10, we learn how chaos was eliminated, particularly the
part played by atmosphere. The flood in a large measure re_
versed this process and restored chaos. I say that much of
chaos was eliminated by atmosphere. The weight of the
atmosphere separated the waters below from the waters above;
and then the separation of the waters below from the land
below was brought about by a subsidence at one place and a
raising of the earth at other places. Now, if the flood reverses
that process which eliminated chaos and brings chaos back
again, who can tell what changes were wrought in the time
of the flood on deposits of strata that we now geologically ex_
amine? We know much to be historically true: that in one
night an island of magnitude, through volcanic eruptions, can
rise up out of the sea; we also know that in one night land that
is high sinks down by a sudden subsidence into the waters, and
the ocean rolls over it forever. So that until we get surer
scientific light, you may rest yourselves content with what the
Bible says about the antiquity of man. It is questionable
whether geology has as yet attained to a science. It teaches
some things you may rely on, but the huge conclusions de_
duced from a minimum of facts are enough to make any man
distrust the teachings of his textbooks on geology, on psy_
chology, on biology, and on zoology.
The next point that I want to bring out is: We find that
Lamech, a descendant of Cain, a bigamist and a murderer, got
off a piece of poetry, and this is the poetry:
Adah and Zillah, hear my voice:
Ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech;
For I have slain a man for wounding me,
And a young man for bruising me:
If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold,
Truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.
That is poetic in form; you can tell that, even in the transla_
tion. Now, when we come to a Lamech who is a descendant
of Seth we find a sweeter poem. You see these poems come
from two Lamechs, one a Cainite, the other a Sethite. When
Noah was born, Lamech, his father, says:
This one will comfort us
From our labour,
And from the toil of our hands,
From the ground,
Which Jehovah cursed.
That is also poetical in form. But how shall we interpret the
prophecy of the latter poem? We saw that Enoch obtained
a revelation at the time that his son, Methusaleh, was born
and that he prophetically named him to signify that the end
of the world would come with the death of this child, and
it is a fact that the year in which Methuselah died the flood
came. Now, as to the prophecy! The word, „Noah,” means
„rest.” So he says, „He [this baby of ours] shall comfort us,
or rest us, from our labour, and from the toil of our hands,
because of the ground which Jehovah hath cursed.” Now, to
Diy astonishment, so accurate an interpreter, and usually so
sound an interpreter as Thomas J. Conant, whose translation
I have just read, says in a note, „There appears to be no
reference to Noah’s subsequent history as given in the sacred
records. They seem rather to express the pious and grateful
feelings of poor, time_worn parents on the birth of a son from
whom they hope for relief in the labours to which sin has
subjected mankind.” If that interpretation is correct, then
the words are divested of all prophetic idea and of the hope
of the weary parents. I am glad to say that the best of the
interpreters do not favor Dr. Conant. He says, „there appears
to be’ no reference to Noah’s subsequent history.” But let us
prove a reference. Lamech speaks of the ground which God
had cursed and of his son bringing rest. Now, if we turn to
Noah’s sacrifice after leaving the ark we find these words:
„And the Lord smelled a sweet savour, and the Lord said in his
heart, I will not again curse the ground for man’s sake; for the
imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will
I again smite any more every living thing, as I have done.
While the earth remaineth, seed time and harvest, and cold
and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night, shall not
cease” (Gen. 8:21_22). So that evidently this old father,
Lamech, saw that in the days of his son Noah the ground
which God had cursed would be delivered from one part of
that curse. It is evidently, therefore, a prophecy, and I
could easily show, if I chose to take the time, that far be_
yond Noah personally, it looks to Shiloh, the rest that remains
for the people of God. It looks to one greater than Noah,
even to our Lord Jesus Christ, who will redeem the earth at
last, absolutely, from the curse which sin entailed upon it,
when Adam committed his offense against himself and versus
all his seed.

1. What the meaning of „God took him”? Cite New Testament proof.
2. What other Old Testament case of translation?
3. When, according to the New Testament, will there be other cases?
4. What is the New Testament description of the process which takes place?
5. What are the things that keep people from soberly reflecting?
6. Give briefly the application of the sermon on Enoch.
7. What prophecy of Enoch preserved in the New Testament?
8. What controversy about this passage?
9. From what source did Jude get his information about the prophecy of Enoch?
10. What did Enoch mean by the coming of the Lord with his holy
11. What evidence that Old Testament saints had clear ideas of the
future world?
12. How long from the creation of Adam to the flood, according to
the Samaritan Pentateuch? The Septuagint? Josephus?
13. According to our Bible what is the antiquity of the human race?
14. What is the testimony of some scientists and the value of their
15. What was Mark Twain’s illustration?
16. What was John Fiske’s position and what was the fallacy of it?
17. What two historical events in point and what do they prove?
18. What is the bearing of the process of the flood and the rising and subsiding of islands in a short time, on the position of some geologists?
19. Contrast the poetry of the two Lamechs. Which is the better?
20. Is this later poem a prophecy, and, if so, to what does it imme_
diately refer?
21. What is Dr. Conant’s interpretation of it?
22. To what remote event does the author refer this prophecy?

Genesis 6:1_22

1. Nature and grounds of man’s race title to the earth.
2. Light and help for maintaining title.
3. Limit at which title lapses.
4. Gradual approach to the limit (Gen. 4_5).
5. Limit passed by worldwide race corruption (Gen. 6:1_6, 11_12).
6. Worldwide race destruction announced (Gen. 6:7, 13).
7. Respite of mercy or space for repentance (Gen. 6:3; I
Peter 3:19_20).
8. Means for preservation of race remnant for new begin_
ning (Gen. 6:14_22).
In the study of Genesis 1:26_28, we have already considered,
somewhat, man’s race title to the earth. In Genesis 3, we have
considered man’s forfeiture of this title by violation of its con_
ditions, but also learned how that by intervention of grace
forfeiture was not declared, but held in abeyance under the
conditions of a new probation.
Now in view of the impending race catastrophe set forth in
this lesson, resulting from another lapse of title by violation of
the new grace conditions, it is fitting to carefully restate the
first item of the outline, viz.:


It was never an absolute title arising from man’s sovereignty,
but always in subordination to God. His title was that of ten_

ant or steward of a divine Sovereign. In the garden of Eden
he was a tenant of his Creator_landlord, under a covenant of
works whose conditions of forfeiture of title were expressed in
the law concerning the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
By the intervention of grace after his fall he became the tenant
of a Saviour_landlord under a covenant of grace expressed by
the law of propitiatory sacrifices then and there appointed.
So that we may summarize the conditions of his race title
under these heads:
(1) He holds as steward or tenant of God. When the ten_
ant disregards his relations toward God the title is vitiated and
he may be evicted by summary process at the will of the real
(2) He must multiply and fill the earth, yet within the di_
vine laws of multiplication. Multiplication by illegal methods
is not obedience to this condition.
(3) He must subdue the earth and develop its resources,
yet in lawful ways and with lawful ends in view. The build_
ing of cities by Cain’s descendants, or their construction of
tents, or invention of musical instruments, or implements of
industry, etc., these are innocent per se, but if perverted to
ends of alienation from God, this is not obedience to the con_
In entering upon the study of the sixth chapter of Genesis,
we must, therefore, bear in mind two things: First, that we
are not considering the individual but the race title to the
earth. Second, that this title is now held not under the condi_
tions of Adam’s original probation, but under the conditions
of grace probation, which intervened to suspend lapse of title
by Adam’s disobedience. The divine relations are now ex_
pressed in expiatory laws. Keeping these essential points in
mind, we are prepared to advance to the second division of
the outline:


It has always been an interesting inquiry, What gospel light
had the world before the flood? The briefness of the narrative
has led many to underestimate the degree of this light. By
so much as this light is underestimated, by that much is the
mind inclined to revolt at the wholesale and stupendous
catastrophe and to impugn the divine goodness. But a fair
comparison of this brief record with later scriptures makes it
evident that this light was very great and well understood by
the antediluvians. They did not fall through ignorance, but
by wilful, deliberate, and persistent transgression. It is con_
ceded on all hands that they had the external light of nature
(Psalm 19:1_6; Rom. 1:18_20; Acts 14:17), and its internal
light of conscience (Rom. 2:15). But this is not gospel light
and could not avail to salvation after the fall. So the ques_
tion recurs, What gospel light had they? In briefest outline
this light consisted in:
(1) The promise of a Redeemer (Gen. 3:15) who would
save them from the defilement, guilt, and penalty of sin.
Adam understood the promise, for he called his wife Eve, that
is, mother of life (Gen. 3:20). That Eve understood is indi_
cated by her expression at the birth of her first_born (Gen.
(2) A throne of mercy was established at a definite place
where sinful man might approach God by a new and living”
way to the tree of life (Gen. 3:24). „God dwelt between the
Cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, as a Shekinah,
to keep open the way to the tree of life.”
(3) He instituted expiatory sacrifices as a means of ap_
proach to this throne (Gen. 3:21; 4:3_4). Adam and Eve
must have thoroughly understood, for we find their children
instructed in regard to sacrifices, and that God in a perfectly
intelligible way signified his approval or disapproval of their
worship (Gen. 4:4_5; Heb. 11:4). When Cain wilfully mis_

understood, Jehovah from his throne of grace patiently expos_
tulated, and re_explained (Gen. 4:6_7). Cain understood God
as well as you understand now in a face to face conversation
with your earthly parents.
(4) The mark or sign of Cain, whatever it was, had to be
conspicuous and instantly recognizable in order to avail in
protecting Cain from the summary vengeance of all who met
him. But such a sign would be a perpetual and visible memo_
rial of his sin and a mighty preacher to warn against its repe_
tition. It would be the most talked about thing in the world,
more striking and comment_inspiring than the Pyramids of
(5) Sabbath privileges, or a set time of worship (Gen. 2:
1_3; 4:3).
(6) The brightest and surest light of tradition the world
has ever known. It was best and surest because of the
longevity of the early Christians and because the whole race
was close together, not yet having been dispersed over a wide
area. Only two lives were sufficient to reach the deluge, Adam, and Methuselah. For 930 years the first man, the head of therace, was living and approachable, able to tell, as doubtless he did a thousand times, of his wonderful history and more wonderful relations with God. Then this longevity provided for verification of testimony by the long overlapping of lives of great contemporaries. The power of this tradition in the testimony of the first man may be inferred from the fact that the rapid and awful approaches to the race doom were after his death. The brightness and accuracy of the tradition is
further evident from the fact that Lamech, the fifth genera_
tion from Cain, remembered and cited the Almighty’s exemp_
tion of Cain from the punishment of man.
(7) The ministry and example of associated godly people
(Gen. 4:26).
(8) Revelations and warnings through specially commis_
sioned prophets like Enoch (Jude 14:15).
(9) The supernal light of Enoch’s translation (Gen. 5:24;
Heb. 11:5).
(10) Preachers of righteousness like Noah (2 Peter 2:5; I
Peter 4:6).
(11) The ministry of the Holy Spirit (Gen. 6 3; I Peter
(12) Special space for repentance after announcement of _
destruction (Gen. 6:3; I Peter 3:20).
Here are twelve distinct elements of external, gospel light.

Here the light of subsequent revelations helps greatly to
illumine the brief statements of our lesson. From a vast
number of these later scriptures it is necessary to cite only a
few as examples to guide us safely in determining the limit,
under the grace probation, at which the race title to the earth
is forfeited.
Our Saviour declares that his people are the salt of the
earth and adds: „But if the salt hath lost its savour, where_
with shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but
to be cast out and trodden under foot of men” (Matt. 5:13).
Ten righteous men could have saved Sodom and Gomorrah,
but there was only one (Gen. 18:32).
Says Jehovah to the prophet Ezekiel, „Son of man, when
a land sinneth against me by committing a trespass, and I
stretch out my hand upon it, and break the staff of the bread
thereof, and send famine upon it, and cut off from it man and
beast; though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were
in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their right_
eousness, saith the Lord Jehovah” (Ezek. 14:13_14). And said
the Lord to Jeremiah, „Then said Jehovah unto me, Though
Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my mind would not
be toward this people: cast them out. of my sight, and let them
go forth. And it shall come to pass, when they shall say unto
thee Whither shall we go forth? then thou shall tell them,
Thus saith Jehovah: Such as are for death, to death; and such
as are for the sword, to the sword; and such as are for the
famine, to the famine; and such as are for captivity, to cap_
tivity. And I will appoint over them four kinds, saith Je_
hovah: the sword to slay, the dogs to tear, and the birds of the
heavens, and the beasts of the earth, to devour and to destroy”
(Jer. 15:1_3).
And our context: „And Jehovah said, My spirit shall not
strive with man for ever, for that he also is flesh” (Gen. 6:3).
From these and kindred passages three things are evident:
(1) That God made his spiritual seed the conservators of
the world. To the Jehovah worshippers he has committed the
ministry of reconciling and preserving the earth.
(2) The efficacy of this reconciling and preserving power
is vested in the Holy Spirit, who blesses their life and ministry
by applying through regeneration and sanctification the bene_
fits of the expiatory sacrifice.
(3) Whenever, therefore, and from whatever causes, there
is brought about a reduction in the number of his people to
such a minimum as to destroy the saving power of this min_
istry, and whenever and from whatever causes the world’s
persistent despising of the Spirit’s grace brings about the
withdrawal of the Holy One, then we may know that the
measure of iniquity is full, and the race must perish from off
the face of the earth.
So we may easily understand the limit: It is just where the
salt of world preservation has so lost its quality of saltness, or
become so reduced in quantity as to be powerless to affect so
great a mass of corruption, or, leaving figures of speech and
coming to plain words, it is just where God’s people become so
worldly_minded as to nullify the force of their testimony, or so
few in numbers that the sound of their testimony is lost in the
World’s uproar of noises and the grieved and insulted Spirit is
Before considering the final causes of the destruction of
the race as set forth in our lesson, let us briefly revert to the
approximate causes developed in Genesis 4_5.
As a double basis for race deterioration there was first, a
nature depraved by the fall of Adam, and second, the activity,
craftiness, and malignity of Satan as a tempter. From these
were developed in practice:
The infidelity of Cain, that is, his rejection of the whole
plan of the atonement, as if his nature was unfallen and he
stood where Adam had stood in the garden of Eden, under a
covenant of works, admitting indeed that he was a tenant of
the Creator, but denying that he was a tenant under grace.
Under the promptings of Satan he opened a way for all later
infidels who deny that they need a Saviour, or that they need
regeneration, or sanctification by the Holy Spirit, and conse_
quently refuse to approach God through the expiation of a
By the murder of Abel, his brother, and the time which
elapsed until Seth became a Christian, Cain’s descendants got
much the start in numbers.
By his going away from the presence of Jehovah at the
place of worship his descendants were separated from the
means of grace, and so waxed worse and worse, wilfully being
without God, without a worship, and without a sabbath.
Through Lamech, one of his descendants, bigamy was intro_
duced, violating the law of marriage. This precedent deep_
ened and widened social corruption (Gen. 4:19) and bigamy
led to murder again (Gen. 4:23), and as hinted later, to
polygamy and a horde of murders (Gen. 6:2_4). And so the
way of Cain led ever downward with accumulated velocity
into the deeper darkness.

(Genesis 6:1_5)

„And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the
face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that
the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair;
and they took them wives of all they chose. And Jehovah
said, My spirit shall not strive with man for ever, for that he
also is flesh; yet shall his days be one hundred and twenty
years. The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also
after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters
of men, and they bare children to them; the same were the
mighty men that were of old, the men of renown” (Gen.
The final causes of the deluge are here protrayed in vivid
flashes of sublime brevity. We see how nearly all the salt
lost its quality of saltness; how the quantity that retained its
saltness was too small to overcome such a mass of corruption;
how the grieved and insulted Spirit ceased his striving. Just
here I must turn aside for a moment and dispose of some
poisonous interpretations.
This paragraph has been made the occasion of the wildest
vagaries of exposition ever generated by unbridled fancy and
speculative criticism. Many books have been published in
support of one or the other of two heretical theories. If you
young preachers ever dip much into general reading you are
sure to meet some of these books, advocating one of these
theories. It is more than probable that agents for books advo_
cating these theories may canvass your own communities and
poison the minds of many of your congregations by the circu_
lation of their evil literature. In such case you might be dis_
posed to censure your Bible teacher if his silence left you
without warning and without antidote for the poison. Some_
what hesitatingly therefore I venture to clear away the brush

of these false interpretations before submitting what I conceive
to be the true exposition. I say hesitatingly, for ofttimes it
is best not to advertise evil by notice of it, but to trust rather
to preoccupation of the ground by the good and true. So we
now take up

First Evil Theory
That the sin which provoked the flood was miscegenation
between the Adamites made in God’s image, and pre_Adamites,
who were a soulless generation of beasts though in human
form, the highest connecting link between the man of Genesis
1:26, and the lower animals.
According to this theory the „sons of God” in our text were
the Adamites and the „daughters of men” were female Ne_
groes. This theory denies that any but the white race are
children of Adam and proper subjects of gospel address, and
so it vitally and practically affects the foreign mission en_
terprise. Just before and during the War Between the States
it had many advocates both North and South. The belief
was the product of a political exigency. Van Evrie, in the
New York Day Book, a paper widely circulated in the South,
published a series of articles to show, on scientific and histori_
cal grounds, that whites and blacks could not have a common
race origin. Drs. Nott and Gliddon of Mobile advocated a
similar theory, with labored argument, in a book entitled the
Types of Mankind. Other books of like purport were written
and published in Texas resting on the additional ground of
scriptural argument.
This theory, so far as it. is based on scientific grounds, that
is, anatomy, physiology, and history, has been utterly aban_
doned. The danger now from teachers of science comes from
the opposite extreme. They now not only concede that all
men of whatever race or color had a common origin, but
affirm that all life, whether vegetable, beast or man, had a
common origin.

This complete somersault in scientific teaching within the
memory of living men admonishes us to waste no time in try_
ing to reconcile the Bible with the human science of today,
lest tomorrow, when science changes again, we should be
obliged to make another adjustment, and so on ad infinitum.
go far as the theory is based on Bible argument, it. is opposed
to the text and the whole trend of Scripture teaching relative
to the unity of the races. The word translated „men” in our
text means Adamites. The „daughters of men” means the
daughters of Adamite. More plausible is the

Second Evil Theory
That the sin which provoked the flood was miscegenation
between the angels and women. According to this theory „sons
of God” means angels who intermarried with the daughters of
men. The scriptural arguments on which this theory rests are:
Angels are often called the sons of God.
Some manuscripts of the Septuagint have „angels” in the
text instead of „sons of God.”
Verses 6 and 7 of Jude are cited to show that the sin of the
angels was giving themselves over to strange flesh like the
The giants, Nephilim, of Genesis 4:4, are angels.
The monstrous character of the offspring from this unnatural cohabitation is cited in support of the theory (Gen. 4:4), latter clause. See a recent work of fiction, Man or Seraph.

It is conceded that in the Scriptures angels are called sons
of God, but never in Genesis.
The presence of „angels” instead of „sons of God” in some
Septuagint manuscripts is not a translation of the Hebrew,
but an Alexandrian interpretation substituted for the original.
The whole argument in Jude is based upon the assumption
that the pronounn „these” in v 7 has for its antecedent the

noun „angels” in v. 6, whereas a nearer antecedent may be
found in v. 7, namely, „Sodom and Gomorrah.” With this
nearer antecedent Jude would read: „Even as Sodom and
Gomorrah, and the cities about them, with these,” i.e., with
Sodom and Gomorrah, not with the angels. Moreover the
offense in Jude 7 is not the offense in Genesis 6:2. The latter is
marriage, legal in itself.
„Nephilim,” or giants, neither here nor in Numbers 13 _33,
means „angels.” This would be to have another offense of the
angels after the flood.
The offspring of the ill_assorted marriage in Genesis 6:2_4,
are not monsters in the sense of prodigies resulting from cross
of species, but „mighty men,” men of renown.
„Sons of God” means the Sethites, or Christians, men in_
deed by natural generation, but also sons of God by regenera_
tion. In Genesis 4:26, directly connected with this lesson,
we have the origin of the name: „Then began men to be
called by the name of the Lord.” This designation of Chris_
tians is common in both Testaments. I cite particularly Paalia_
82:6_7, where we have precisely the same contrast between
the regenerate and the unregenerate as in our lesson: „All
of you are sons of the Most High. Nevertheless, ye shall die
like men.”
The inviolable law of reproduction within the limits of
species – „after their kind” – forbids the unnatural interpreta_
tion of this second theory.
According to our Lord himself the angels are sexless, with_
out human passion, neither marrying nor giving in marriage
(Luke 20:35).
With this disposition of the two evil theories, we resume
the interrupted exposition. The offenses which so largely pro_
voked the deluge are these:
Ill_assorted marriages of believers with infidels whereby
their testimony for God was hampered and clouded. So the
gait lost its savour. All through both Testaments the inex_
pediency of such marriages is reprobated. See the evil conse_
quences avoided by Abraham in Isaac’s case (Gen. 24:3_4)
and by Isaac in Jacob’s case (Gen. 28:1), and the evil conse_
quences entailed in the cases of Ishmael and Esau. Compare
Ezra 10, and Nehemiah 13, with the law in Exodus 34:15_16,
and Deuteronomy 7:3. When we come to study the later his_
tory of Israel in Kings and Chronicles the examples of these
evil marriages will be found to multiply. In the New Testa_
ment we need to cite only 2 Corinthians 6:14_17: „Be not
unequally yoked with unbelievers; for what fellowship have
righteousness and iniquity? or what communion hath light
with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial?
Or what portion hath a believer with an unbeliever? And
what agreement hath a temple of God with idols? for we are
a temple of the living God; even as God said, I will dwell in
them, and walk in them, and I will be their God, and they
shall be my people. Wherefore, Come ye out from among
them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch no unclean
thing; and I will receive you.”
With this passage, compare latter clause of I Corinthians
The sins of the sons of God consisted in entering the sacred
marriage relation under the promptings of mere desire for
beauty, regardless of the effect on their holy mission as world
The expression, „all that they chose,” seems to imply the
sin of polygamy. The bigamy of Lamech had thus become
polygamy with the sons of Seth.
The result was that the offspring took after the mother
instead of the father, full of worldly ambition, becoming
„Mighty men, men of renown.” Military glory and worldly
fame was their god. In this way every source of gaining
recruits to the Christian army was cut off. When the old

Christians died there were no young ones to take their place.
So the salt diminished in quantity until Noah was left alone.
In the meantime some of the sons of Cain had become
Nephilim, or giants, that is, men of unbridled violence and
lawlessness. Human life and property were no longer safe
from these murderers and freebooters. Cain’s murder had
generated a brood of vipers.
The idea in Nephilim, or giants, means putting physical
developments foremost in education. The product is the prize
fighter, or the man of violence. The body is on top. Might
is right. Gibborim, i.e., „men of fame or ambition,” means
putting intellectual development foremost in education. It
is a higher and worthier education than mere physical develop_
ment. It is like saying: „There were John L. Sullivans and
Captain Kidds and Jesse Jameses in those days; and after the
ill_assorted marriages there were Voltaires and Humes and
Ingersolls and Bonapartes,” but no Washingtons or Glad_
stones or Spurgeons or Edmond Paysons, except Noah alone.
Dr. Conant thus disposes of the whole statement: „The mean_
ing of the passage may be stated thus: The descendants of
Cain were an irreligious race, and some were distinguished for
personal prowess and the oppressive use of it. Descendants
of Seth intermarried with women of this race; and from this
union sprang men distinguished for like character and con_
duct. Thus the whole race of man becomes corrupt.”
The Withdrawal of the Grieved and Insulted Spirit
This was prefigured in the case of Cain, who, having com_
mitted the unpardonable sin, was never again wooed by the
Holy Spirit. Now the withdrawal is general. The influence
of the Spirit is both mediate and immediate. Mediately he
works through the ministry and the word of God. Imme_
diately in convicting of sin and in disposing the sinner’s heart
to accept the gospel preached. This immediate influence
ceases when the whole spiritual nature is so debauched as to
become „past feeling,” so as our text puts it „for that he is

flesh” meaning altogether carnal. Flesh in this sense is not
limited to the body, but includes the moral and intellectual
man as in Romans 8:5_8; Galatians 5:19_23; 6:8.
We can also readily understand the withdrawal of the
Spirit’s immediate influence from the ministry of the back_
slidden Sethites, leaving it powerless, and even from the min_
istry of faithful Noah when that is persistently and insulting_
ly rejected (compare Matt. 10:13_15).
The calamity has come to any sinner when God says to his
Spirit: „Let him alone,” while also saying to his praying peo_
ple interceding for the sinner: „Let me alone.” This is the
fatal conjunction: „Let him. alone – Let me alone.”

What Jehovah Saw
„And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of the man was
great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts
of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5). This state_
ment is sweeping in its totality: (a) Every device of the
thoughts of his heart; (b) in its depravity, only evil; (c) in
its continuity, all the day. There can be no mistake about it,
for it was not as man saw it, but as Jehovah saw it.
And what a sight for the pure eyes of the infinitely Holy

How the Sight Affected Jehovah
„And it repented Jehovah that he had made man on the
earth, and it grieved him at his heart” (Gen. 6:8).
Just here we confront two difficulties: (a) The doctrine of
our creed that God is impassive; (b) the emphatic statement
of other scriptures that God cannot repent (I Sam. 15:29).
How may we surmount these difficulties?
I think we can let the creed part take care of itself. We
set out not to study human creeds, but the Bible, and we
agreed to let the Rihip internret itself and mean what it wants
to mean. Our text says, „It grieved him at the heart.” Dr.
Conant says, „We cannot presume to fathom the depth of
meaning of such language, when spoken of the infinite and
all_perfect God. How the divine nature is affected by the
guilt and folly of sin is unknown to us; but this language is
designed to bring it as near our conception as is possible for our finite and imperfect nature.” It seems to me that the doctor is too guarded. For while indeed the finite cannot comprehend
the infinite, we can accept what the Infinite One reveals con_
cerning himself. Jesus Christ reveals the very heart of the
Father. He came_ for that very purpose. The grief of Jesus
will reveal the grief of the Father. Suppose, therefore, we
allow as exposition of this difficulty Luke 19:41_44: „And
when he drew nigh, he saw the city and wept over it, saying, If
thou hadst known in this day, even thou, the things which
belong unto peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
For the days shall come upon thee, when thine enemies shall
cast up a bank about thee, and compass thee round, and keep
thee in on every side, and shall dash thee to the ground, and
thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee
one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of
thy visitation.”
The other difficulty is not a very troublesome one. When
it is said: „God is not a man that he should repent,” it means,
as men repent. A man may change his mind when he gets
more light on a subject, or he may change his mind from mere
instability of character. The Almighty never changes his mind
from either of these considerations. His very unchangeable_
ness of nature, however, necessitates a change of mind and con
duct toward a creature who has changed moral positions
toward him. To illustrate, we may say at night, „The sun
has hidden his face,” and in the morning, „He returns to smile
upon us.” Yet it was the earth that changed faces toward the
sun. The sun kept steadily shining.

„And Jehovah said, I will destroy man whom I created
from the face of the ground; both man and beast, and creep_
ing things, and birds of the heavens; for it repenteth me that
I have made them.”
„And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh has come
before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them;
and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.”
„And I, behold, I do bring the flood of waters upon the
earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from
under heaven; everything that is in the earth shall die.”
This judgment is both sweeping and inclusive:
(a) As to man, literally: I will wipe man from the face
of the earth, (b) All living creatures of the land; from man
to cattle, to reptile and to the fowls of heaven. „All flesh
wherein is the breath of life, from under the heavens. All
that is upon the earth shall expire.” These perish with man,
for they were made for him. (c) The earth itself. „I will
destroy them with the earth.” It too was made for man.
There is no need for an empty house or a desert land. The
earth was cursed for man’s sake and must share his fate in
woe (2 Peter 3:5_7) and in weal (Rom. 8:22_23; 2 Peter

Means of Destruction
„And I, behold, I do bring the flood of waters upon the
earth.” We cannot help going back to Genesis 1:8_10, and
noting how the earth was formed. It was all water, i’hen
God, by atmosphere, separated the waters above from the
waters below. Then he separated sea and land. Now in the
flood he does two things: (a) opens the windows of heaven
and lets down all the water above; (b) opens the fountains of
the deep by convulsions below; so again overwhelms all the
land and makes a shoreless ocean. He who separates can
unite again.

„His days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” This
does not refer to the average limit of human life in the fu_
ture in contrast with previous longevity, but the race limit
until the flood. Compare the message of Jonah: „Yet forty
days and Nineveh shall be destroyed.” In like manner here:
Yet 120 years may the Spirit strive before the world is de_
stroyed. This is the space for repentance. The threatened
doom may be a verdict by repentance, as in the case of
Nineveh. Compare the case of the fig tree in Luke 8:6_9; and
of Jezebel in Revelation 2:21; and of Jerusalem’s day of visi_
tation in Luke 20:42. In this time of 120 years Jesus preached
to them in the Spirit by Noah (I Peter 3:19_20; 2 Peter 2:5).


„Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make
in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch;
and this is how thou shalt make it: the length of the ark three
hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height
of it thirty cubits. A light shalt thou make to the ark, and to
a cubit shalt thou finish it upward; and the door of the ark
shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third
stories shalt thou make it” (Gen. 6:14_16).
This wonderful vessel occupies a large space in the Bible
story and thought. The same Hebrew word, Tebah, is em_
ployed to designate the vessel in which the infant Moses was
preserved (Ex. 2:3). It was the prototype of the ark of
the covenant (Hebrew word, Aron) (Deut. 10:1), Jehovah
saying to Moses as to Noah: „Make thee an ark.” In the
New Testament the same Greek word, kibotos, designates both
these vessels (Heb. 9:4:11:7). Its material was the durable
gopher wood, probably cypress. It was made waterproof
within and without by a coating of pitch. It was not designed

for eteering or sailing, merely to float. Its shape was the best
possible for this purpose and for tonnage or carrying capacity.
Reckoning the unit of measure, the cubit, at 22 inches, nearly,
we may compare its dimensions with the Great Eastern’s:
Ark – 547 1/5 ft. long, 91 1/5 ft. wide, 54 18/25 ft. high. Great Eastern – 680 ft. long, 821/2 feet wide, 58 ft. high.
This furnishes ample room space for all its occupants and
their food for the time needed. While varieties of species of
land animals in our time are numerous, the number of species
is not very great. Its arrangement in stories and rooms was
the best possible for the purpose. Its provision for light was
suitable and adequate.

Its Occupants
„But I will establish my covenant with thee; and thou shalt
come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy
sons’ wives with thee. And of every living thing of all flesh,
two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep
them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of the
birds after their kind, and of the cattle after their kind, of
every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of
every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive” (Gen.
„Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee seven and
seven, the male and his female; and of the beasts that are not
clean two, the male and his female; of the birds also of the
heavens, seven and seven, male and female, to keep seed alive
upon the face of all the earth” (Gen. 7:2_3).
This is the first direct reference to the distinction between
clean and unclean animals, which, however, originated at
the appointment of animal sacrifices just after the fall of man.
The reference here assumes that the distinction is well under_
stood, too long established and common to call for explana_
With these was food for all: „And take thou unto thee of all
food that is eaten, and gather it to thee; and it shall be for
food for thee, and for them” (Gen. 6:21).

Its Builder
Noah was remarkable in character, life, and faith. He was
a just man and perfect in his generation. Like Enoch he
walked with God. His faith was marvelous: „By faith Noah,
being warned of God concerning things not seen as yet, moved
with godly fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house;
through which he condemned the world, and became heir of the
righteousness which is according to faith” (Heb. 11:7). See
Andrew Fuller’s great sermon on this text.

The Time of the Building
Common opinion takes the „one hundred and twenty years”
of Genesis 6:3, equal to Peter’s phrase, „While the ark was
preparing” (I Peter 3:21). There is a serious difficulty in
accepting this view. Noah was 600 years old when the flood
came (7:11). He was 500 years old when Japheth was born
(5:32). Yet his sons are grown and married when, as it
seems, the directions for building the ark were given (6:18).
It is not impossible to remove this difficulty thus:
(a) The date of the statement in 6:3, is not given. It may
have been twenty years before the birth of Japheth.
(b) What is said in 6:18, may have been just after the
ark was completed.
(c) There is no date given for the order, „Make thee an
ark” (6:14). So it is not impossible that the preparing of the
ark was 120 years.
In a subsequent chapter will be considered the great lessons
connected with the building of the ark and the flood.

1. State the nature and ground of man’s race title to the earth.
2. Give twelve elements of gospel light possessed by the antediluvians.
3. At what limit would the race title to the earth lapse?
4. What double base was there for race deterioration?
5. What four facts of evil practice were the remote causes of the
6. By what last disastrous sin was race corruption brought about and world destruction necessitated?
7. State the first evil theory of this sin and reply to it.
8. The second evil theory and its alleged scriptural basis?
9. How do you answer it?
10. Show how the ill_assorted marriages of believers and unbelievers brought about this race corruption.
11. What was the awful result as Jehovah saw it?
12. How did this sight affect him?
13. How do you harmonize the statement of Jehovah’s grief with the doctrine of the creed that God is impassive?
14. What fact of Christ’s life illustrates the grief of God?
15. How do you explain the phrase, „It repented Jehovah that he
had made man,” when compared with I Samuel 15:29?
16. What judgment did God pronounce?
17. Show how sweeping and inclusive was this judgment.
18. What means were appointed to bring it about?
19. What creative act did this reverse?
20. What respite of mercy and space for repentance was granted?
21. Does this 120 years refer to the future limit of the individual
human life, or the race limit until the flood?
22. What other Old Testament case similarly shows a. space for repentance?
23. What New Testament cases?
24. Explain I Peter 3:19_20, in connection with Genesis 6:3.
25. What means of preservation, for the race remnant spared, ap_
26. Of what was the ark a prototype?
27. Of what an antitype?
28. Show this by explanation of Acts 10:11_15.
29. Reckoning the cubit at twenty_two inches nearly, show relative
dimensions of the ark and the Great Eastern.
30. For what occupants with a year’s supply of food must room space be provided?

Genesis 7

Before we go on I wish to impress very solemnly on your
minds certain great lessons connected with the deluge.
The first question is: Is this history, this account of the de_
struction of the world by a flood? My answer is: In all the
rest of the Bible the back references to it treat it as plain
matter of fact; no allegory about it.
The next question is: What was the extent of the deluge?
Your record says that the water prevailed fifteen cubits, or
twenty_eight feet, over all the mountains under the whole
heavens. The natural impression made upon the mind by
reading this account is that it was intended to be a complete
destruction of the world that then was; that the world was to
make a new start. When we come to the New Testament
it will tell about the second deluge that is coming which
will be a deluge of fire; certainly that will be universal.
A great many people, who imagine that what they call science
is always true and what we call the Bible is never true unless
science vouches for it, seem to think it impossible that the
deluge covered the whole world. But notice how slight the
elevation of the land is over the sea, that in a body 8,000
miles thick and 25,000 miles around, the difference between the
water level and the highest mountain is so slight that in a
globe representing the earth the height of the mountain would
not be any more than the rind of an orange, or not so much
as that, hardly as much as a coat of paint. There would have
to be only a very slight elevation of the bottom of the sea,
or a very slight subsidence of the land in order for the water

to cover the whole thing. We know that at one time the water
did cover it all. Listen to this account in the first chapter
of Genesis: „And the earth was waste and void, and darkness
was upon the face of the deep.” It was all liquid. It was only
later that the waters were separated from the land. We study
bow that separation took place by the creation of the atmos_
phere so as to take above a great deal of the water and a
subsidence of the land so as to provide sea beds for the rest
of the water. Now, just reverse that process and the earth is
covered with water again. The windows of the heavens are
opened and the water up there is let down. The fountains of
the great deep are broken up. There you have the storm
above and the upheaval below that will bring about the preva_
lence of the water over the whole globe. It seems that it would
be just as easy for God to cover the whole earth with water
again as it was to take it from a state where it was covered
with water and to bring the land up. He can do one wonder
just as easily as the other. A great many of them try to make
out that the deluge covered only a small part of the earth, the
Tigris and Euphrates valleys, touching the Black, Caspian,
and Mediterranean seas. In order to test that, Mount Ararat
is 17,260 feet high. Now, add twenty_eight feet to that, for
the water stood above Mount Ararat. Yet the water did not
go beyond the Caspian and Black seas. That is a greater
miracle than the other, a great bulk of water there does not
fall down and does not obey the law of gravitation. I have
always had less difficulty in believing just what the Bible says
about this flood than in trying to believe it less than the Bible
The second thing is the style of this account. I have been
reading history all my life. I commenced at four years old.
I never read a piece of history that is more vivid in its eye_
witness style than this account of the flood. Nothing is as
circumstantial as that. Take the history of the conflagration
of Rome written by an eyewitness. It is not nearly so defi_
nite and particular in all its parts as this is. Take the ac_
counts of the earthquake in San Francisco. The style in which
that account is written by any of the men who have tried to
describe it does not approach this in clearness of the state_
ments and minute exactness.
Notice, for one thing, the dates. He evidently wants to he_
understood that this occurred at a particular time. I will read
you some of the statements about dates. „And Noah was six
hundred years old when the flood of water came upon the
earth.” That gives you the year. In v. II it says, „In
the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month,
and on the seventeenth day of the month the same day were
all the fountains of the great abyss broken up and the win_
dows of heaven opened.” It says that the rain fell forty days
and nights, but it does not mean to say that no rain fell after
that. Dr. Conant’s translation says, „And the heavy rain was
upon the earth forty days and forty nights.”
Listen to the description as to how these waters gradually
rose and gradually fell; see if you can remember anything in
literature more vivid. „And the heavy rain was forty days
upon the earth, and the waters increased and bore up the ark.
It rose up from the earth. And the waters prevailed and in_
creased mightily upon the earth and the ark went upon the
face of the waters.” First it floated, then it moved. „The
waters prevailed mightily upon the earth and all the high
mountains that were under the whole heavens were covered.
Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail and the moun_
tains were covered.” That tells you how it rose. „And the
waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.”
Notice this circumstantial account. He is going to describe
now how they began to fall. „And God caused a wind to pass
over the earth and the waters subsided.” The fountains of
the abyss and the windows of the heavens were closed. The
heavy rains from the heavens were restrained, the waters re_
turned to the earth continually, and the waters abated from
the end of one hundred and fifty days, and the ark rested in
the seventh month on the seventeenth day of the month on
the mount of Ararat. And the waters were continually abating
until the tenth month. On the tenth month and on the first
day of the month the tops of the mountains were seen. It
came to pass at the end of forty days Noah opened the win_
dow of the ark and sent forth a raven. And he went, going
forth and returning, but he never came back into the ark, ]ust
going to and fro. He sent forth a dove to see if the waters
were lightened and he waited „another seven days.” Notice
again that I am just calling dates. „It came to pass in the six
hundred and first year, in the first month, the first of the
month, the waters were dried up.” No man living could be
more particular about every specification. „In the second
month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the
earth dry.” There is the full account of the year divided into
its parts. I have never read anything that impressed me ae
this I have just quoted. One of my examination questions will
likely be: What have you to say about the graphic description
of the gradual rising of the waters and the gradual subsidence
of the waters? The literary style is perfect.
Now I have another question I am going to give as a general question. Those of you that have been about farm yards have noticed that hogs begin to run around and pick up straws to make a bed, and you just know that cold weather is coming. You see flights of the birds as winter approaches, going south. Rats leave a ship before it begins to sink. Now the question: Was it instinct that got these animals into the ark? These were wild animals, elephants, lions, tigers, snakes, birds: were they warned by instinct of the approaching storm, and knew that the ark was the only safe place? And if not, how do you account for their getting there? You don’t suppose that Noah could go out and drive up those wild beasts. There is an answer that is absolutely correct, but I will pass it for the present.
The lessons concerning this deluge to which I call your at_
tention, first, gather around the name of Noah, one of the most
remarkable names of the times. As Adam’s name stands out as
the head of the human race, so this man’s name stands out as
the second head of the human race. The Adam world is all
gone. This man is going to start on a new earth and make a
new beginning for the human race. There were only this man
and his wife, his three sons and their wives – eight people.
What is said about the character of this man? The Scrip_
ture testimony is that he walked with God and was perfect
in his generation. What is said about his faith? I will read
you what is said. Hebrews 11:7, „By faith Noah, being
warned of God concerning things not seen as yet, moved with
godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his house;
through which he condemned the world, and became the heir
of the righteousness which is according to faith.” The chap_
ter commences by saying, „Faith is the assurance of things
hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Now, no man
could foresee that flood. God said it would come in 120
years. The first time he limited it, he said it should come at
the death of Methusaleh. The next time he limits it, he says
120 years. The next time he says, „yet seven days.” There
was not a sign in the sky above nor in the earth beneath to
warn anybody. But God told Noah that it was coming, and,
moved with godly fear, taking hold of the invisible things that
had been made known to him, by faith he built that ark. You
think that was a small undertaking. Well, suppose one man
and his three boys, and as many people as he could hire,
should start out to build a ship as big as the Great Eastern.
It cost an immense amount of money. Those people who did
not believe that the flood was coming would not contribute
anything to it. Noah had to put his own money into it. That
faith means a tremendous financial sacrifice on his part, to
put everything in the world he had in it. It meant to put the
labor of his hands. The people who were working for him
would laugh at him and call him a crazy old fool. Of course,
they would take his money, as carpenters want work, but
they had no faith in it. I call the attention of the class to a
sermon by Dr. Andrew Fuller of England, „The Faith of Noah
in Building the Ark,” as one of the finest sermons ever
preached on faith in all homiletics. Faith does not stop at a
mere intellectual perception of a truth, or the assent of the
heart to a truth. Faith steps out and works and does every_
thing in the world that is necessary to be done.
Notice the strength of Noah’s faith in this. He stood alone
against the judgment of the entire world. He is the only
man that believes that the flood will come. One of you start
out today in any community and let nobody in that com_
munity believe in what you are doing. Let them laugh at you
and make fun of your work. How long would you hold your
faith? It is one of the most sublime demonstrations in all
the Word of God; that he would stand as Elijah did later
against the whole world and maintain that what God said was
true and work to it.
What is said about his preaching? All the time he was work
ing he was also preaching. In 2 Peter 2:5, he is called a
preacher of righteousness, that is, he preached that men should
do right and do what God tells them to do. I Peter 3:21, says
that Christ by the Spirit went and preached to the antedilu_
vians in the days of Noah. That is, Christ, not in person, but
in the Spirit through Noah, preached 120 years. Noah did the
preaching as Christ’s representative, the Holy Spirit bearing
witness to the truth of it. I Peter 4:6, has this strange ex_
pression – if you want to see commentators stalled consult
them on this scripture: „For unto this end was the gospel
preached even to the dead, that they might be judged accord_
ing to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the Spirit.”
In other words, as Paul says, this means that the gospel has
been preached all over the world and they have not heard.
„Their line has gone out to the ends of the earth.” „Jesus
Christ lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” There
is a sense in which the truth of God in some form has reached
every heart and conscience that there is in the world. Why
was the gospel sent to these people that are now dead and
lost? God had in view when it was preached to them that they
might be judged in the flesh and live according to the spirit,
but rejecting it they were lost in both body and spirit. You
must get fixed on your mind that old man’s faith, standing
there by himself and continually pleading with his neighbors
and telling them that 120 years from now, 119 years from
now, 100 years from now, fifty years, ten years and the end
comes. All that was the space for repentance, and at last
when you come down to seven days the ministry stops. The
Lord says, „Noah, you move in,” and he moves in and the
door is shut. Then, „Where is Noah?” „He is inside.”
„Where is the rain?” It has not come and another day passes.
„Where is your rain? Hallo, old man, where is that storm
you were talking about?” No rain. Yet seven days, and the
day of grace is ended. No chance for anybody to be saved in
that seven days because the door is shut. God shut him in.
He is shut up; they are shut out. A whole week passes just
that way. It is one of the most suggestive and impressive les_
sons that I know of.
Such was the man’s preaching. There is a reference to him
in Ezekiel 14:14, where he speaks about a certain wicked city,
and he says, „Though Noah, Job and Daniel were in this city
they could save only themselves by their righteousness.”
Whenever the number of righteous men gets so small that the
salt cannot preserve the world, or whenever the testimony of
the righteous becomes so low that it ceases to conserve, then
doom comes and that doom is irretrievable.
Let us see what the lessons are about the flood itself. In
2 Peter 3:4_7, we have: „Where is the promise of his coming?
for, from the day that the fathers fell asleep, all things con_
tinue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For
this they wilfully forget, that there were heavens from of old,
and an earth compacted out of water and amidst water, by the
word of God; by which means the world that then was, being
overflowed with water, perished: but the heavens that now are,
and the earth, by the same word have been stored up for fire,
being reserved against the day of judgment and destruction
of ungodly men.” Just as certain as the flood came and swept
away the first world – it came by the word of God, though the
crowd did not believe it – just so certain the world that now
is will be destroyed by fire. Peter goes on to describe that
fire in this same connection. „The day will come that the
earth also, and the works that are therein, shall be burned up.”
If God could destroy the first world by a flood of water, and
according to his Word that first destruction did come, we have
the same Word of God to assure us that the world next time
will be destroyed by fire.
The second lesson is Matthew 24:37_39, and Luke 17:26.
Jesus is talking: „And as were the days of Noah, so shall be
the coming of the Son of man. For as in those days which
were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying
and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into
the ark, and they knew not until the flood came, and took
them all away; so shall be the coming of the Son of man.”
That is, its suddenness and their unpreparedness for it. It
comes like a thief in the night when they are not looking for
it. When Jesus comes again there will be some people at the
ballroom, just like Byron describes it:
There was a sound of revelry by night
And Belgium’s capital had gathered then
Her beauty and her chivalry and bright
The lamps shone o’er fair women and brave men.
Soft eyes looked love to eyes which spake again
And all went merry as a marriage bell.
But hush. I Hark I A deep sound strikes like a rising knell.
„What is that sound?” „It is the cannon’s opening roar.”
And the Battle of Waterloo snatched those gay dancers from
their partners and hurried them to the feast of death. They
will be dancing just that way when the lightning flashes from
one end of the heavens to the other when Jesus comes. There
will be two fellows quarreling over the price of a mutton chop,
others quarreling over taxes. There will be men building
pigpens; boys going in swimming in the creeks. And the
judgment of the Lord Jesus Christ will come like a flash of
lightning. That is a very solemn lesson. Those people right
up to the time when heaven’s windows opened and the foun_
tains of the great deep burst up, in utter disbelief of any end
of the world, so it found them and they went down
With a bubbling groan,
Unwept, unhonoured, and unknown.
The next lesson is found in 2 Peter 3, describing why the
second coming of Christ is deferred. Some people say, „He
made us suspect that he is coming soon and he has not come.”
Peter says that Christ is not slack about his promises. That
if he has not come his object is that his long_suffering might
lead men to repentance. Just like through that period of 120
years and throughout the whole life of Methuselah. Why
didn’t that boy die at five years of age, etc.? It is God sus_
pending the judgment. God is holding that awful penalty
hair_swung, nothing but the breath of the Almighty to send it
down in a moment, in order that man might have space to
The next lesson is Isaiah 54:9. This is not so dark a picture.
I will commence at v. 7: „For a small moment have I
forsaken thee, but with great mercies will I gather thee.
In overflowing wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment,
but with everlasting love and kindness will I have mercy on
thee, saith Jehovah, my Redeemer. For this is as the waters
of Noah unto me; for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah
should no more go over the earth, so have I sworn that I would
not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.” God has said to
his people that he will never destroy the earth by another
flood. „I swear to thee that though thou hast forsaken me
many a time, that I will never, no never, destroy thee.” It
is one of the greatest doctrines on the final perseverance of
the saints in the Bible. A very sweet lesson. That ia all I
have to say about the lessons of the flood. Let us look at

The first lesson about the ark is that it was intended for
a perfectly sure means of escape from that doom, pitched
within and without, water_tight, perfectly safe, everybody and
everything within it was safe. No matter how it rained. No
matter how high the water stood; that the mountains disap_
peared. That ark represents Christ. If we get in Christ, shut
in Christ, as Paul puts it, „I am dead and my life is hid
with Christ in God,” then let the storms come.
Notice that to get into that ark there was only one door.
Noah did not have a door put at the top for the birds to come
in, and a little hole under the floor for the snakes to crawl
under, and a great big gate for the elephants to get in. No
matter whether you are a big beast or a little beast, you have
to go in at the same place. You could not exhibit any pride
about it. The eagle swooping from his eyrie on the top of the
mountain had to come in at that door, the very door through
which the snail crawled. That is a point for you in your
preaching. Christ says: „I am the door. I am the way. I am
the truth and I am the life, and there is no other way known
under heaven or among men.”
In the next place, that ark of Noah’s is reproduced in the
covenant at Mount Sinai. As the first ark was made of
cypress wood, this ark is made of acacia, that is, an indestruc_
tible and long_lasting wood. This ark has the mercy seat and
the Shekinah. This ark has the throne of grace and the only
way to get into paradise is to come to that place.
We come to the last lesson on the ark in Acts 10. Without
reading I will tell it to you. Peter was just as narrow as the
edge of a knife in his Jewish prejudices, and he held the key
that would open the door of the kingdom of heaven to the
Gentile world, and he was letting it get rusty in his girdle.
On the day of Pentecost he opened the door and let in three
thousand Jews at a jump, but not a Gentile. God brought
him to Joppa where he could look out from the housetop upon
that sea whose waters washed the shores of the Gentile world,
alien, without God, and without hope in the world. Peter fell
into a trance and God let down an ark. You can call it a
great white sheet held up at the four corners, if you want to.
But it was an ark, just as curious a sight as Noah’s old ark,
and in this ark was every manner of beast and bird and creep_
ing thing, clean and unclean. The world had almost forgotten
about that ark into which hawks and doves and tigers and
lambs and snakes and men went in together. God shows Peter
that sight again and says, „Arise, Peter, kill and eat.” Peter
says, „I have never eaten anything unclean.” God says,
„What I have cleansed do not thou call common or unclean.
I want to teach you the lesson of the ark, the symbolism of
that ark in the days of Noah.” The entrance of those birds
and animals into the ark was a foreshadow of the reception of
all people and all nations, tribes and kindred into Jesus Christ.
I have only to present the sabbath, and I am through with
the special lessons about the ark. The sabbath day runs all
through, as „another seven days,” showing that long before
Moses put into the Ten Commandments „Remember the sab_
bath day to keep it holy,” the seventh day was an institution
that began when God created the world and for man as man.

1. Is the Genesis account of the flood history?
2. What was the extent of the flood, upward and outward?
3. What was the process of the flood?
4. How high above the sea level are the loftiest mountain peaks of
Armenia where the ark rested?
5. What is the theory of the critics and what is the scientific diffi_
culty in accepting it?
6. What evidence from the style of the account in general?
7. What in particular from the dates mentioned?
8. What of the description of the rising and falling of the waters?
9. How did Noah get the animals into the ark? Give reasons for
your answer,
10. What four lessons from Noah’s life?
11. What is said about the character of this man?
12. What is said of hia faith?
13. What shows the strength of his faith?
14. What is said about his preaching?
15. With whom does the prophet Ezekiel rank Noah and on what
16. What four lessons for the flood itself?
17. What four lessons from the ark?
18. What lesson here on the question of the sabbath?

(Inferential and otherwise.)
19. Whiat double test of faith did God prove Noah by?
20. What New Testament proof of his meeting the test and what
great Baptist preacher has a sermon on the text?
21. What was the financial difficulty to be overcome by Noah’s faith?
22. What scientific difficulty?
23. What social difficulty?
24. What labor difficulty?
25. What waiting difficulty?
26. What several time divisions are found in the account of the deluge?
27. Who else in the world besides Noah’s family ever saw such an
assemblage of animals as were in the ark?
28. Why did not this strange gathering change the wicked?
29. Cite Isaiah’s comparison of man’s stupidity with the intelligence of the beasts.
30. Cite Job’s description of the absorption of the wicked in worldly pleasures till death suddenly smites them.
31. The significance of one door to the ark and a type of what?
32. The meaning of „Jehovah shut him in”?
33. According to the New Testament, who is vested with power to
open and shut?
34. How long did the heavy rain continue?
35. What the extent of the destruction?
36. Cite three great proofs that the deluge was universal.

Genesis 8_9

I want to put a general question: How long was Noah in
the ark? In answering that question you may consult 7:1_11,
and 8:14. I call your attention in the next place to a sugges_
tion in the Speaker’s Commentary on Genesis 8:4, which tells
us that the ark rested on Mount Ararat, and gives the date.
According to the Jewish year observed in this account, the ark
rested on the seventeenth day of the seventh month. On that.
very day later, the Israelites crossed the Red Sea, and on that
day later Christ rose from the dead. We might investigate
any connection between the resting of that ark, the passage
of the Red Sea and the resurrection of Christ.
The next thought presented is with reference to the raven.
Dr. Fuller of England, in his exposition of Genesis, compares
the sending out of the raven to a man’s getting out of the
church who was never a Christian. He never wants to go
back. He pictures that raven flying around, resting on some
dead body floating on the top of the water, and never desiring
to return to the ark of the covenant. On account of the nam_
ing in this chapter of the raven, the dove, the olive branch,
and the rainbow, these four names have gone into all languages
and all literature as indicating certain things. The raven is re_
garded as a croaker and a bird of ill omen; the dove is re_
garded as the symbol of innocence; the olive branch as the
symbol of peace; and the rainbow as the symbol of hope. I
was once asked the question where that dove got ‘ the olive
branch, since the whole earth had been flooded with water.
The olive tree lives under water. In the lakes of the Black

Forest you can see olive trees growing under the water and
never blossoming until in dry weather when the lakes sink
down and the tops of the trees come up and immediately the
tree blossoms. Pliny in his Natural History said that the olive
tree grew under water in the Red Sea; that it grows in salt
water. It is a very hardy plant. So it is not a miracle that
the dove found an olive branch, but quite in accordance with
the nature of this particular plant that it could live and retain
its vitality many months under water, and when the waters
subsided go to flowering and blooming.
We now come to the most significant thing in this part of
Genesis, and that is the covenant between God and the sec_
ond head of the human race, Noah. I will give this general
question: What is the meaning of „covenant” based on the
Greek word? In very general terms a covenant is an agree_
ment or compact between two or more parties having its stipu_
lation binding on both parties. There is said here to be a
covenant between God upon the first part and Noah on the
second part representing himself and the whole animal world.
So Noah stands there representing all earth life.
We want to note in the next place what was the basis of
the covenant, the meritorious ground of agreement. I will
read that to you from the eighth chapter and twentieth verse:
„And Noah builded an altar unto Jehovah, and took of every
clean beast, and every clean bird, and offered burnt_offerings
on the altar. And Jehovah smelled the sweet savour; and
Jehovah said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground
any more for man’s sake.” Now that was the meritorious
ground or basis of the covenant. In other words, Noah comes
before God as a sinner, making an offering. In the letter to
the Hebrews we are told that wherever there is a covenant
there is a shedding of blood. There must be a death. The
basis of this covenant which God himself appointed is that
animal sacrifice typifying a greater sacrifice to come, which
shall be sacrificed on an altar. It must be complete.

The next thing is that the word „altar” appears here in
the Bible for the first time. I will give a general question:
From what language is the word „altar” derived and what is
its literal meaning? I am calling your attention to these new
names in the Bible. The stipulation that God requires of man
is that he shall come before him and be justified through an
atonement, and the man’s faith in that atonement constitutes
the ground of God’s entering into covenant with him.
Let us notice some of the other stipulations of this covenant: 9:1, „And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” There you see is a renewal of the covenant with Adam when he said, „Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” You must not only come before God as a sinner, but your obligation
is to go out and subdue this earth and fill it up with inhabi_
tants. „And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be
upon every beast of the earth, and upon every bird of the
heavens; with all wherewith the ground teemeth, and all the
fishes of the sea, into your hands are they delivered.” This
is a renewal of the dominion of man as given originally in_
We now come to an enlargement of the Adamic covenant,
Genesis 1:29: „And God said, Behold, I have given you every
herb yielding seed; to you it shall be for food; and to every
beast of the earth, and to every bird of the heavens, and to
everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is
life, I have given every green herb for food; and it was so.”
Now, let us see the enlargement on that, Genesis 9:3: „Every
moving thing that liveth shall be food for you; and the green
herbs have I given you all.” God now gives animal food in
addition to the vegetable. The animal food embraces any ani_
mal creature whatsoever. When we get to the Mosaic cove_
nant we will see that this food will be restricted to clean ani_
mals, to those that divide the hoof and chew the cud. I
want. you to notice that Noah stands as the head of the human

race like Adam stood and that he has a larger privilege than
Adam had as to animal food added, where before there was
only vegetable. When we come to the New Testament we will
hear Paul arguing for the broadness of the privilege of the
covenant of Noah when he says, „Every creature of God is
good and to be received with thanksgiving.” The covenant_
with Noah is very much broader than the covenant with
Moses, because that covenant was with a single nation only,
and this was with the whole human race.
We notice now another thing entirely new: „But flesh with
the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.”
You may eat an animal, but you must not eat him with the
blood in him. When we come to Exodus, Moses renews that
law that a thing that is strangled, merely choked to death,
cannot be eaten because the blood is in him, and anything that
merely dies cannot be eaten. In Acts 15 you will find that
James insists that that restriction be put upon the Gentile
Christians. Somehow I have always sympathized with this
restriction. I knew a man once, and held him in considerable
esteem until one day he told me that his favorite dish was
blood pudding. I never did like him as much afterward be_
cause that seems to me to be such a horrid dish. People who
eat blood are brutal and ferocious. Caesar said that the Bel_
gians, the bravest of men, lived on milk, showing that animal
food itself is not necessary. But the English believe that their
superiority over all nations in fighting arises from the great
quantity of beef that they eat. God gives permission to eat
any animal creature, and I have known people who would eat
rattlesnakes and polecats and snails, and with some people
bird’s nests are regarded as a delicacy. Savage nations show
you the highest compliment when they offer you a dish of
grub worms. An African woman who wanted to show a kind_
ness to one of our missionaries who had been kind to her went
out and got him a dish of grub worms. There is no law against

it except taste. I would not prefer, for my part, the grub
worms, nor the snails, nor the polecats.
We now come to a new prohibition: „And surely your blood,
the blood of your lives, will I require; at the hand of every
beast will I require it; at the hand of man, even at the hand
of every man’s brother, will I require the life of man. Whoso
sheddest man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for
in the image of God made he man.” Here is something we have
not fallen in with before. You remember when Cain killed
his brother he was afraid that whoever found him would kill
him. God protected him from death by human hands. Now,
on this side of the flood God here instituted civil government
and makes murder punishable with death and makes it right
for man in the capacity of a civil government to take the life
of a murderer. This is a very old law. It goes back of the
Mosaic law. This ia not a Jewish law; it is a race law.
Upon this point I want to call your attention to the teach_
ing of the Jewish synagogues. The Jewish synagogue which
was established just after the Babylonian captivity has held
that there were seven ordinances of Noah. They call them
the primal ordinances. I am going to give you these seven as
the synagogue gave them and see how many we can find here:
Abstinence from blood
Prohibition of murder
Recognition of civil authority
Idolatry forbidden
Blasphemy forbidden
Incest forbidden
Theft forbidden
The first three we find in this chapter. Idolatry and blas_
phemy are implied in the offering. But I do not know where
those Jews got the other two, incest and theft.
We were discussing the stipulations that God required upon
man’s part. First, he must come as a sinner with a sacrifice.
Second, he must eat no blood. Third, he must do no murder.
Fourth, civil government should have charge of the murderer
and punish him with death. That far it is very clear as to the
stipulations that God requires of man. Another was that he
was to replenish the earth and exercise dominion over the
beasts. Now, let us see what God’s part was. God blessed
Noah. That means that he graciously accepts him in that sac_
rifice that he offers, forgiving his sins if he through faith can
see to what that atonement points. The great blessing is the
blessing of forgiveness of sins through the atonement offering.
Second, God promises that there shall never be another flood
of water. Third, that the laws of nature shall be uniform,
8:22: „While the earth remaineth, seed time and harvest and
cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night
shall not cease.” How necessary it is that there should be a
uniformity of law in nature. Some of you have read the piece
in the old third reader about a man living in the world of
chance. That man lost his wife and children because they
unthoughtedly ate poison and died. There was an inflexible
law. In his despair he wished that he lived in a world without
law. He fell asleep and dreamed that he was in a world of
chance, where there was no uniformity. You could not tell
what time of the year winter would come, nor how long it
would stay, nor what time of the year summer would come.
A man might have Just one eye and that on the top of his
head. His hands might be growing out from under his arms.
His ox might have wool like a sheep. When he had a tooth_
ache he put some coffee on to boil, thinking that would help
his tooth, but by chance it turned into ice instead of boiling,
and when the ice hit that bounding tooth, how it must have
hurt! Are you clear now about the things that God promised?
(1) He will graciously accept man through the offering. (2)
He promised not to send another flood. (3) He will give reg_
ularity of seasons. When a man goes to plant a crop he may
know what to expect.

We now look at the extent of this covenant. It is said to be
a perpetual covenant. Just as long as this dispensation lasts
that will be true, and the last thing is the token of that cove_
nant. What indicates that a covenant has been made between
God and man? The rainbow is selected as a token. The peo_
ple who had passed through the flood, or had recently heard
about such a big rain, would be very much frightened every
time they saw a cloud coming. Now, when you see a cloud,
when you are at a certain angle you will also see a rainbow
and that is a sign to you that God will never allow this earth
to be destroyed by water, and when God looks on it he will
remember what he has promised. I here give a quotation from
Murphy on Genesis:
For perpetual ages this stability of sea and land is to last,
during the remainder of the human race. What is to happen when the
race of man ia completed is not the question. At present God’s
covenant is the well_known and still_remembered compact formed with man when the command was issued in the garden of Eden. So God’s bow is the primaeval arch, coexistent with the rays of light and the drops of rain. It is caused by the rays of the sun on the falling raindrops at a
particular angle. A beautiful arch of reflected and refracted light is in this way formed for every eye. The rainbow is thus an index that the sky ia not wholly overcast since the sun is shining through the shower and thereby demonstrating its partial extent. There could not, therefore, be a more beautiful or more fitting token that there shall be no more a flood to sweep away all flesh and destroy the land. It comes through its mild
radiance only when the cloud condenses into a shower. It consists of heavenly light variegated in hue, mellowed in lustre, filling the beholder with an. involuntary pleasure. It forms a perfect arch. It connects heaven and earth and spans the horizon. In these respects it is a beautiful emblem of mercy rejoicing against judgment, of light from heaven irradiating and beautifying the soul, of grace aJways sufficient for the needy, of the reunion of earth and heaven, of all the universality of the
offer of salvation.
In Revelation 4:3, the rainbow about the throne of mercy,
and in Revelation 10:1, the angel with a rainbow about his_
head, we have again the New Testament symbolism of the
rainbow. In Science Made Easy for All are some of the most
beautiful illustrations of the rainbow that I have ever seen.

Three years ago I was in Comanche, Texas. The sun had gone
down, the full moon was shining. We were sitting down at the
supper table and somebody called out, „Run out here and
look at the moon.” And there was a complete rainbow, a per_
fect circle around the moon, a lunar rainbow, of course, fainter
than a solar rainbow, not so Conspicuous, and yet anybody
could see it. I have seen two others since.
I have one other observation to give you. I was on the
train going from McGregor down the Sante Fe toward Gald_
well and talking with a man who saw no evidence of God’s
loving care anywhere. „Why,” I said, „if you will just look
out of the car window you will see one that keeps up with us.”
And there was a rainbow keeping right up with the train, made
from the sun shining on the steam from the engine. It kept
along with us about fifty miles. Wherever water falls and the
sun shines, and you are at the right angle of vision you can
see a token of God’s infinite mercy. I said, „Now if you can_
not see any of these things, it is because of your angle of
vision.” As Paul puts it, „If our gospel is veiled, it is veiled
in them that perish: in whom the god of this world hath
blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the
gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should
not dawn upon them” (2 Cor. 4:3).
We now take up the prophecy concerning Noah’s sons. Some of it is very difficult, not so much for me to’ tell as for you to remember. The closing paragraph in the ninth chapter is not only the connecting link between what goes before and what comes after, but all the future references throughout the Bible connect with this passage that is inserted here.
I will read and comment. „And the sons of Noah, that went
forth from the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth.” I
call attention to the relative ages of these sons, and why their
names do not appear in relative order. Japheth was the oldest
and Ham the youngest. „And Ham is the father of Canaan.”
That expression is put in out of its proper connection in order
to explain something that will appear immediately after.
„These three were the sons of Noah: and of these was the
whole earth overspread. And Noah began to be an husband_
man and planted a vineyard and drank of the wine and was
drunken.” The word here used for wine contains the idea of
fermentation. „And he was uncovered within his tent. And
Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father,
and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth
took a garment upon both their shoulders and went backward
and covered the nakedness of their father, and their faces
were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.”
We have just commenced the new race probation after the
flood. How long it had been after the flood we do not know
exactly, but some years, because no children were born to
Shem, Ham, and Japheth until after the flood, and at this time
Canaan, the son of Ham) is grown. We see the great man that
was perfect in his generation, just and walked with God, this.
new head of the race that had such faith, a preacher of right_
eousness, as he falls into sin, the sin of drunkenness. This
teaches that no man) however exalted in character or position,
is absolutely safe from a fall. I don’t mean that a Christian
may fall away and be forever lost, but I do say that the most
exalted Christian in the world must exercise watchfulness and
prudence, or he will bring shame upon the name of religion.
We have had some most remarkable cases of this kind besides
the case of Noah.
This sin of Noah acted as a revelation, that is, it brought
out the character of his three children. When the youngest
one looked upon the shame of his father’s drunkenness, he was
inspired with no such feelings as those which animated Shem
and Japheth. He not only scorned his father, but went and
published it to the others. We sometimes find children who
have not been well raised, who go around to the neighbors and
tell the little troubles that occur in the family. It is always an
indication of a bad heart and an untrained character. The
world has never had much respect for the taleteller and the
gadabout. They may listen to what you say, and may make
use of it, but they will not respect you for it. The filial piety
and reverence of Shem and Japheth is one of the most impres_
sive lessons in history, and their action, walking backward
and holding the mantle on their shoulders so that when they
got to their father they could cover him without seeing him,
originated the proverb: „Charity covereth a multitude of sins.”
That means that love is not disposed to point out the sins of
others and talk about them. Love is more disposed to cover
them up.
„And Noah awoke from his wine, and he knew what his
youngest son had done unto him.” How he found out I don’t
know. Perhaps it was told unto him. Now we come to the
first recorded prophecy, so far as the Old Testament is con_
cerned, that was ever spoken by man, though the New Testa_
ment tells us of a prophecy that preceded this, the Lord himself
having given a prophecy in the third chapter of Genesis that
„the seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent’s head.” That
was God’s prophecy, and Enoch, the seventh from Adam, made
a prophecy, but it was not given in the Old Testament. This
remarkable prophecy of Noah consists of two divisions. First,
the curse, and then the blessing. „And he said, Cursed be
Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be to his brethren.”
The question naturally arises whether that curse extends to the
other children of Ham, and if so, why Canaan alone is speci_
fied. My opinion is that the curse extends to the whole of the
descendants of Ham from the fact that there was no blessing
pronounced on him or any of his children in the whole proph_
ecy, and I think that Canaan was specified instead of the
others because Canaan is the one with which God’s people
will have to do when they go to the Promised Land. They will
have to rescue it from the Canaanites, the descendants of Ham.
That curse can be traced in history. The Canaanites when
they were conquered by Joshua and by David and by Solomon
were either destroyed or enslaved. They became the servants
of their conquerors, and it is certainly true that the other
descendants of Ham became largely the slaves of the world.
Let us look at the blessing: „And he said, Blessed be Jeho_
vah, the God of Shem, and let Canaan be his servant.” Or, as
Jamieson translates it: „Blessed of Jehovah, my God, be
Shem.” That seems to make the better reading, that Jehovah
shall be the God of Shem, and Shem shall have religious pre_
eminence. In the line of Shem come all the oracles of God
during the Old Testament times, and in the New Testament
times all of the Bible we have, with the possible exception of
one book, comes from the descendants of Shem. The Semitic
races seem to have taken the lead in religious matters, whether
for good or bad.
Notice the blessing on Japheth: „God enlarge Japheth.”
That part has been fulfilled to the letter, as we will see later,
that the children of Japheth occupy the greater part of the
world. Not only have they been enlarged as to the territory
that God allotted to them, but as leaders in intellectual de_
velopment and inventions, and in the government of the world.
The second blessing is: „And let him dwell in the tents of
Shem.” That means that Japheth will get his religion from
Shem. We are Gentiles, the children of Japheth. Isaiah 60:9,
says, „Surely the isles shall wait for me, and the ships of Tar_
shish first, to bring thy sons from afar, their silver and their
gold with them, for the name of Jehovah thy God, and for the
Holy One of Israel, because he hath glorified thee.” That shows
the coming of the Gentiles. This prophecy shows that the dis_
tinction among men or peoples is not accidental, but that the
world was divided among the descendants of three men. It
shows how far_reaching on the children is the consequence of a
father’s action. It is always best for a man, if he is going to
be a bad man, to remain a bachelor and not throw a shadow
over his descendants. The iniquities of the fathers are visited
upon the children as consequences.
Noah lived after the flood 350 years. That would bring him
to Abraham’s time, so that Abraham could talk with the man
who had witnessed the overthrow of the old world, and who
himself had only one man between himself and the first Adam,
who was Methuselah. Adam could talk to Methuselah, and
Methuselah to Noah, and Noah to Abraham, and so you see
how easily tradition could be handed down.

1. How long was Noah in the ark?
2. What suggestion from the Speaker’s Commentary, and what
connection between the resting of the ark, the passage of the Red Sea and the resurrection of Christ?
3. What do the raven, dove, olive branch, and rainbow symbolize?
What their impress on subsequent literature?
4. Was the dove’s finding an olive branch a miracle? Explain.
5. What is the most significant thing in this part of Genesis?
6. What is the meaning of „covenant,” and what does Noah repre_
sent in this covenant?
7. What was the meritorious ground of this covenant and New Testament testimony on this point?
8. What is the first Bible use of the word „altar” and the etymology of the word?
9. What covenant renewal do we find here?
10. What enlargement of the Adamic covenant?
11. How does this covenant with Noah compare with the one later
with Moses and why?
12. What one food restriction?
13. Cite the first establishment of civil government and criminal law.
14. What seven ordinances does the synagogue derive from the Noachic legislation and how many of these do you find in the text?
15. What were the terms of the covenant with Noah on man’s part?
16. On God’s part?
17. What was the extent of this covenant?
18. What the token of the covenant?
19. What New Testament references to the rainbow and what its
20. What the importance of the closing paragraph of the ninth chapter of Genesis?
21. What the relative ages of the sons of Noah, and why the ex_
pression, „And Ham is the father of Canaan,” out of its proper connec_
22. What is the first case of vine culture and drunkenness?
23. What the lesson, of Noah’s drunkenness?
23. What the lesson of Noah’s drunkenness?
24. What the distinction of filial piety and reverence in the sona of
25. What proverb seems to be based on Shem’s and Japheth’s covering the nakedness of their father?
26. Was Ham’s sin the cause or the occasion of Noah’s curse? Ana.: The occasion.
27. Was the curse from God or Noah?
28. Was it punitive on the person or consequential on his descendants?
29. Show historic fulfilment of the curse.
30. What waa the meaning and historic fulfilment of the blessing on Shem?
31. What was the meaning and historic fulfilment of „God enlarge
32. What was the meaning and historic fulfilment of Japheth
dwelling in the tents of Shem?
33. What waa the significance of Noah’s long life after the flood?

Genesis 10:1 to 11:9

Genesis, section six: „These are the generations of the sons
of Noah.”
1. Unity of stock and speech.
2. Attempt at centralization.
3. Confusion of tongues.
4. Consequent grouping into nations.
5. Assignment of their respective territories.
6. Dispersion to allotted homes.
The tenth chapter of Genesis, with the first nine verses of
the eleventh chapter, constitutes our sixth division of the book,
under the title: These are the generations of the sons of Noah.
This section closes the Bible history of man as a race. Next
to the account of the creation, and the fall of man, and of the
flood, it is the most valuable gem of literature. Indeed the
most forcible writers fall short of the reality in attempting to
express the significance and value of this record. Some of them
say that it is the most ancient and reliable account of the
origin of nations. But this language implies that there are in
the world’s literature parallel histories, though later and less
reliable. But there is no other account. This history has no
parallel. It is unique, without a model and without a shadow.
It is both ancient and solitary. Moreover, to call it the ancient
and solitary history of merely the origin of nations falls far
below the facts. It not only cites the sires from whom all peo_
ples have descended, but also tells us by whom, where, why,
how, and when the people of one stock and tongue were parted
into separate nations and divers tongues, and by whom and in
what lifetime came the allotment, of their respective territories.
It is therefore the foundation of ethnology, philology, and
geography; the root of history, prophecy, and religion.

The whole of the tenth chapter, with the first nine verses of
the eleventh, should be treated as one section. The tenth
chapter cannot be understood without this paragraph of the
eleventh chapter. The table of the nations comes first, and
then follows the explanation of the division into nations. So
that in order of time the nine verses of the eleventh chapter
precede nearly all of the tenth chapter. We therefore take as
our starting point a clause of the sixth verse of the eleventh
chapter: „And Jehovah said, Behold, they are one people,
and they have all one language.” Their oneness of speech is
expressed by two discriminating words: „And the whole land
was of one lip, and one stock of words.” „Stock of words”
means the materials of languages. „Lip,” one of the organs of
articulation, denotes manner of speaking, or the use of the
material. Family ties and common speech hold them together.
Hence as they multiplied and began to move out for homes,
the trend of the movement was in one direction only. A prov_
erb of our day is, „Westward the march of Empire takes its
way.” It was not so in the beginning. The movement was
toward the rising, not the setting sun. As the years roll by
and the population rapidly increases, this eastward tide of
emigration becomes as a mighty river in volume. But all mi_
grations of men fall under some leadership. The most daring,
capable and dominant spirit, by sheer force of character and
qualities, naturally forges to the front and directs and controls the movement, and as power increases, his ambition soars.
He begins to scheme and plan toward selfish ends. Our record
names the man. Not without adequate design does the author
in giving his tables of nations turn aside to sketch an episode

when he comes to a certain man. „Ham begat Cush, and
Gush begat Nimrod; and he began to be a mighty one in the
earth. He was a mighty hunter before Jehovah: . . . And the
beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad,
and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. Out of that land he went
forth into Assyria, and builded Nineveh and Calah (the same
is the great city).” Thia descendant of Ham becomes a leader.
His name signifies „The Rebel,” or „we shall rebel.” He makes
himself a king. The beginning of his kingdom was Babel in
the land of Shinar.
This episode of the tenth chapter connects with the migra_
tion eastward in the eleventh chapter: „And it came to pass,
as they journeyed east, that they found a plain in the land of
Shinar; and they dwelt there. And they said to one another,
Come, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they
had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar. And they
said, Come, let us build us a city” (Gen. 11:2_4). In v. II we
find that the city was Babel. Here, then, we find the man,
the leader. He was a mighty hunter, this mighty man, as later
(I Sam. 24:11; Jer. 16:16), a hunter of men. The expression,
„before the Lord,” evidently means that he pushed his designs
of whatever kind in open and brazen defiance of God’s sight
and rule.
There now comes into his mind this ambitious scheme, the
establishment of a world empire. To accomplish this there
must be a center of unity, a city, and to insure stability and
to hedge against the natural and disintegrating fear of another
deluge there must be a refuge. To induce submission on the
part of his following they must be supplied with a motive:
„let us make a name.” This brings the situation into similarity
with the conditions that preceded and necessitated the deluge
as set forth in Genesis 6:4, the days of the giants and the
mighty men, men of renown. This inordinate thirst for fame
is idolatrv It is the most cruel of the passions. Everything

beautiful, good, holy, and true goes down before it. As an
illustration consider the ambition attributed to an ancient
painter: „Parrhasius, a painter of Athens, among the Olythian
captives Philip of Macedonia brought home to sell, bought one
very old man. And when he had him at his house put him to
death with extreme torture and torment, the better, by his
example, to express the pains and passions of his Prometheus
whom he was then about to paint.”
On this excerpt N. P. Willis writes his famous poem, „Parr_
hasius.” According to the poet when the tortured victim asks
for pity the painter replies:
I’d rack thee though I knew a thousand lives were perishing in thine
What were ten thousand to a fame like mine
Again, when the dying captive threatens him with the here_
after, the painter mocks him by denial of future existence:
Yet there’s a deathless name!
A spirit that the smouldering vault shall spurn,
And like a steadfast planet mount and burn –
And though its crown of flame
Consume my brain to ashes as it shone
By all the fiery stars I I’d bind it on!
Aye – though it bid me rifle
My heart’s last fount for its insatiate thirst –
Though every life_strung nerve be maddened first –
Though it should bid me stifle
The yearning in my throat for my sweet child,
And taunt its mother till my brain went wild –
All – 1 would do it all – Sooner than. die, like a dull worm, to rot –
Thrust foully unto earth to be forgot!
Upon which the poet concludes:
How like a mounting devil in the heart
Rules the unreined ambition! Let it once
But play the monarch, and its haughty brow
Glows with beauty that bewilders thought
And unthrones peace forever. Putting on
The very pomp of Lucifer, it turns
The heart to ashes, and with not a spring
Left in the bosom for the spirit’s lip,
We look upon our splendour and forget
The thirst of which we perish!

We are thus prepared to understand the history: „And they
said, Come, let us build a city, and a tower whose top may
reach unto heaven, and let us make a name; lest we be scat_
tered abroad upon the face of the whole earth” (Gen. 11:4).
All popular movements of this kind are directed by leaders
who suggest the watchwords and crystallize the agitation into
forms of their own choosing. The sin of the movement was
manifold. It meant rebellion against God and ruin to the race.
The divine plan was diffusion, and the command was to push
out in all directions, not one; to occupy and subdue all the
earth. But Nimrod’s plan was to keep the people all together
under his leadership to serve his ends. The object is thus ex_
pressed: „Lest we be scattered.” To this day tyrants pursue
the same plan and put embargoes on outward movements. And
to this day God’s providence has thwarted them by bringing
about some discovery or attraction that draws out and diffuses
population, relieving the congestion at, the crowded centers
of life. A very interesting lesson of history is the study of
the ways of Providence in sending out migrations of men to
colonize the unoccupied parts of the earth. More wonderful
and interesting is the way of that Providence in dispersing
Christians that they may carry the gospel to all the world.
The one thing that made Nimrod’s plan of centralization possi_
ble was the one language of the people. The audacity and
rebellion of the plan provoked divine inquisition and judg_
ment. To allow its successful execution would defeat every
purpose of God concerning world occupation and bring about
a corruption of the race equal to that of the antediluvians. A
world crisis had arrived. The case called for heroic treatment
and instant relief. What was the divine remedy?

„Come, let us go down, and there confound their language,
that they may not understand one another’s speech. So Jeho_
vah scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all

the earth; and they left off building the city. Therefore was
the name of it called Babel; because Jehovah did there con_
found the language of all the earth; and from thence did
Jehovah scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth”
(Gen. 11:7_9).
This is one of the mightiest and most far_reaching miracles
of history. It transcends in importance all the plagues of
Egypt. Indeed it finds no counterpart until the descent of the
Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Dr. Conant thus quotes from
Schelling’s Philosophy of Mythology:
Humanity cannot have left that condition, in. which there was
no distinction of peoples, but only of races, without a spiritual
crisis, which must have been of the deepest significance, must
have taken place in the basis of human consciousness itself. . . .
For we cannot conceive of different peoples without different
languages; and language is something spiritual. If difference
of peoples is not something that was not from the first, but is
something that has arisen, then must this also hold true of the
different languages. . . . Here we fall in with the oldest account
of the human race, the Mosaic writings; toward which so many
are disinclined, only because they know not what to do with it,
can neither understand nor use it. Genesis puts the rise of
peoples in connection with the rise of different languages; but
in such a way, that the counfounding of the language is the
cause, the rise of the peoples the effect.
To evade the significance of this miracle the higher critics
resort to their usual refuge, the document hypothesis. They
magnify the tenth chapter and disparage the first nine verses
of the eleventh. The former, an Elohist document, is credible;
the latter, a Jehovah document, is incredible. They claim that
chapter 10 leaves us to suppose that the nations were dis_
tributed upon the face of the earth in obedience to the natural
laws which govern colonization and migration, and that the
present striking varieties in human languages are wholly the
natural result of the dispersion of the nations. The tenth
chapter does not leave us to any such suppositions, the episode
of Nimrod, the references to Peleg, and the three verses, 5, 20,
31, summing up respectively the families of Japheth, Ham,

and Shem, demand the explanation in the next chapter. When
asked to account naturally for these striking and irreconcilable
varieties in the few great parent languages, they reply: Philol_
ogy has as yet nothing very definite to say as to the possibility
of reducing to one the larger families of human speech. In
fact, their oracle, philology, is not merely dubious – it is dumb.
Dr. Conant well sums up all that philology can do with this
The diversities in the languages of the earth present a prob_
lem which philosophy has in vain laboured to solve. Com_
parative philology has shown, however, that many different
languages are grouped together by common affinities, as branches
of the same family, all having the same original language for
their common parent. Notwithstanding the great number and
diversity of languages, they may all be traced to a very few
original parent tongues. The difficulty lies in the essential and
irreconcilable diversity between those several parent tongues,
not the remotest affinities existing to indicate a common origin,
or any historical relation; a problem for which speculative
philosophy can find no solution.
They cannot account for it naturally, but deny the super_
natural account, passing the matter by with a sneer, „Oh. that
account is found only in the Jehovah document.” Or if they
wish to be a little more respectful, they say, „The fact is that
here, as elsewhere, the Jehovist aims not so much at presenting
historical information as showing the ethical and religious
significance of the leading points in history and the chief
changes in man’s condition.” How happens it that they have
such an infallible knowledge of the aim of the Jehovist, and
how can there be an ethical and religious significance of his_
tory, which is not history but falsehood? If the historical ele_
ment of the first nine verses of the eleventh chapter be elimi_
nated there is nothing of any kind left, out of which to con_
struct ethics or religion. If the aim of the writer is not history,
then words are not signs of ideas. It would be far manlier and
niore consistent to follow the more destructive higher critics
and expunge what they call the Jehovistic record as spurious
and unworthy, than to weakly hold on to it and discredit it.

The following maxims of literary composition have long ob_
Never introduce a god into the story unless there be an
occasion for a god.
When introduced, let his speech and deeds be worthy of a
Let the result of his intervention be worthy of a god. Here
was a worthy occasion. Race ruin was imminent and unavoid_
able by human means. Here was speech and deed worthy of
divinity, and results too grand and far_reaching and beneficial
to admit of human conception or execution. The author of the book follows his own appropriate method in the use of the divine means. When the divine being, invisible and unap_
proachable and unknowable, is the subject, the name is Elohim. Whenever it is God manifested particularly by interventions of mercy, it is Jehovah and Jehovah God.

The first effect of the confusion of tongues is the stopping
of the work, from inability to comprehend each other. The
consciousness that a supernatural power had intervened would
necessarily fill them with dread, lest a greater evil befall them
if they persisted in disobedience. Those who could best under_
stand each other would naturally group themselves and form
the nucleus of a separate nation. And this grouping also was
naturally according to family origin, whether of Shem, Ham,
or Japheth, thus accounting for the three great root languages
whose barriers philology cannot pass. This harmonized also

The proof of this divine allotment of territory is abundant
in the lesson and elsewhere. In summing up the histories of
the sons of Japheth the record says, „Of these were the isles
of the nations divided in their lands, every one after his
tongue, after their families, in their nations.” Similarly of
Ham: „These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after
their tongues, in their lands, in their nations.” And of Shem:
„These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their
tongues, in their lands, after their nations.” More particular
is the testimony in 10:25: „And unto Eber were born two
sons: the name of the one was Peleg; for in his days was
the earth divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan.” This
evidence not only establishes the fact of the division of terri_
tory, but shows that the event was so extraordinary and im_
pressive as to give a name to a child born at the time, namely,
Peleg, i.e., Division. It is not probable that they could agree
among themselves as to the partition of territory. This ques_
tion could be settled only by supreme authority. And to this
fact testify the Scriptures. Paul said at Athens, „And he made
of one every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the
earth, having determined their appointed seasons, and the
bounds of their habitation” (Acts 17:26). But the author of
Genesis in another book puts the matter beyond controversy:
When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance,
When he separated the children of men,
He set the bounds of the peoples
According to the number of the children of Israel.
– Deuteronomy 32:8
This allotment of territory, after the confusion of tongues
was followed by an irresistible divine impulse that brought

They had said, „Lest we be scattered.” When God acts the
record says, „So Jehovah scattered them abroad from thence
upon the face of all the earth: and they left off building the
city. Therefore was the name of it called Babel; because
Jehovah did there confound the language of all the earth; and
from thence did Jehovah scatter them abroad upon the face
of all the earth” (Gen. 11:8_9). It has been objected that the
division of the land which gave rise to the naming of Peleg,
came too early to be connected with the dispersion following
the confusion of tongues. The objection is ill advised. The
division and assignment of territory long preceded the dis_
persion. The very sin of the attempt at centralization consisted
in its deliberate rebellion against this prior division. In the
order of our chapter we have considered the division after
the confusion of tongues, not because it was then ordained, but
because it was then enforced. We are now prepared to take
up chapter 10, and consider specially the parts of the earth
occupied by the descendants of the several sons of Noah,
which, however, is reserved for another chapter.

1. What can you Bay of the value of the tenth chapter of Genesis,
(1) as literature; (2) as history; (3) as instruction?
2. In order of time, which comes first. Genesis 11:1_9, or the tenth
chapter, and why this order?
3. What, then, was the starting point and what held the people to_
gether at this time?
4. As they multiplied, what was the trend of their movement and
what modern proverb to the contrary?
5. Who became their leader, what was the meaning of his name, what great cities did he build and where?
6. What was the meaning of „a mighty hunter” and „before the Lord”?
7. What was his ambitious scheme, the essentials to its
accomplishment and what was its motive?
8. Give an illustration of cruel, unbridled ambition.
9. What was the manifold sin of this movement and the divine remedy for it?
10. What was God’s plan of defeating such movements in modern
11. What was the counterpart of this mighty miracle?
12. What is Dr. Conant’s explanation of the rise of the different peoples?
13. How do the critics try to evade the significance of this miracle
and what is this expositor’s reply?
14. According to Dr. Conant what has comparative philology shown with respect to the many different languages?
15. What is the position of the more respectful (mediating) critics
and this expositor’s reply?
16. What three maxims of literary composition obtain and their ap
plication to the matter in hand?
17. What was the first effect of the confusion of tongues and how
account for the three great root languages?
18. What is the Scripture proof of the divine allotment?
19. What brought about the dispersion, and how?
20. What objection is sometimes urged with respect to the dispersion, and the reply thereto?

Genesis 10:1 to 11:9; I Chronicles 1:5_84

1. Resume of previous chapter
2. Some necessary statements
3. The Japheth nations: which and where
4. The Ham nations: which and where
5. The Shem nations: which and where

In our last chapter it was shown that Genesis 10, and to the
ninth verse of the eleventh, constitute a distinct section of
the book, and that while the first part gives a table of the
nations we must rely on the second part to explain how they
became separate nations with diverse languages. Hence in
order of time much of the second part precedes much of the
first part. It was shown that, instead of these two parts being
independent, unrelated, and contradictory documents as
claimed by destructive higher critics, each part fits into the
other with dovetailed exactness and demands the other in
order to a complete account of the most marvelous origins in
the annals of time since the creation.
Following a chronological order, except in one point, that
chapter arranged for discussion the scriptures of the two parts
(1) One stock and one language (Gen. ll:6;ll:l).
(2) One trend of migration (11:2_3).

(3) The leader of the migration and settlement (10:8_10).
(4) His attempt at centralization (11:4).
(5) The defeat of the movement by confusion of tongues
(6) The consequent groupings into nations according to
tongues and family ties (10:5, 20, 31_32).
(7) The prior divine partition of the earth territory among
these nations (10:5, 20, 25, 31_32; Deut. 32:8; Acts 17:26).
(8) Their dispersion (11:9) to their respective allotted ter_
ritories (10:2_5; 10:6_20; 10:21_32).
(9) The secular object of the dispersion was to carry out
the divine mandate, fill the earth and subdue it (Gen. 1:28;
11:1). And the religious object to seek and find God (Acts 17:
It was also shown that this account is not merely the most
ancient, but the only extant history of the origin of nations
and languages, and that it furnishes the only solution of the
irreconcilable differences in the few great parent languages, a
problem before which human philology is not only dubious,
but dumb. Therefore this one bit of inspired record is the only
sure foundation of the human sciences, ethnology and philol_
ogy; and the root of history, prophecy, and religion.
That chapter closed with the announcement that this chap_
ter would consider more particularly the dispersion of the
nation groups to their respective territories as set forth in the
tenth chapter. This resume of the preceding chapter must be
kept in mind in order to a proper understanding of the present
A higher critic thus testifies concerning the tenth chapter of
Genesis: „This ethnographical table is not only the most an_
cient and reliable description of the various nations and peo_
ples, but it has no parallel in it? attempt to exhibit all the
races of the earth as related to one another. The ancients
universally considered the various races of man to be divided
from one another by some impassable interval. The idea that
all were of one blood was unfamiliar and unaccountable to
them. And it is only in recent times that science has set itself
to the task of tracing the relationship which exists between
each race and every other, a task which, with all the aids of
philology and anthropology available in modern times, cannot
be said yet to be independent of this ancient record.” Will it
ever be independent?
And now before entering into the details of this nation dis_
tribution let us settle and fix in our minds:

This lesson roots in the prophecy of Noah concerning hia”
children and fruits in the book of Chronicles. The book of
Chronicles gives a summary of world history from Adam to
Cyrus which is continued in Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, and
Esther to the times of Ahasuerus. Hence in I Chronicles 1:
5_24, this genealogy of nations is repeated, with variations in
some names, helpful to an understanding of our text, and must,
therefore, be studied in connection with it.
The time period is ten generations from Shem to Abraham
and in round numbers about 300 years. There might well be a
population of 30,000,000 on the earth at the call of Abraham.
So far as this record is a genealogy of individuals, not all,
but only the most illustrious names are given, or when less
illustrious, only those bearing prominently on subsequent Bible
When the record says that Cush, a son of Ham, begat Nim_
rod, it does not necessarily follow that Nimrod was a grandson
of Ham in our sense of the word, but a descendant of Ham
through the Cush line. Compare genealogical tables in Mat_
thew and Luke.
This record is not merely or mainly a genealogy of individ-uals, but of peoples. For example we find: (a) the dual form

of names: as, Mizraim; (b) the plural form: as, Ludim, Ana_
nim, Lobahim, Naphthalim, Pathruaim, Cashhuhim, Caphto_
rim, Zebaim; (c) tribal or Gentile forms: as, Jebusite, Amorite,
Girgashite, Hivite, Arkite, Sinite, Arvadite, Zemarite, Hama_
thite; (d) forms for groups of tribes: as, Canaanites; (e)
forms for nations: as, Gomer, Magog, and Madai.
The record is not merely an ethnological table, but geo_
graphical as well. We not only have such expressions as „the
isles of the Gentiles,” „their countries,” „their lands,” with
border lines occasionally marked out, but even the names of
some of the peoples, which either were originally or soon came
to be geographical expressions; as, the dual name, Mizraim,
certainly meaning, later, upper, and lower Egypt. To these
may be added Kittim, Donanim, and Philistim, which are
names of countries. Rawlinson’s contention that the record is
wholly ethnological is as untenable as the opposite contention
of Professor Sayce, that it is wholly geographical. We may
take our stand on this broad ground: Some of this record is
the genealogy of individuals; more of it is genealogy of fami_
lies, tribes, and nations; much of it is a table of countries em_
bracing all the geographical world then known.
When the Almighty originally assigned these specific terri_
tories, with then well understood metes and bounds, the as_
signment was subject to certain modifications: (a) He reserved
to himself the times and seasons and instrumentalities of a
change of ownership in a given territory (Acts 17:26), nations
as units being as responsible to him as individuals are. See in
general all subsequent Bible history, but particularly the „bur_
dens” of the prophets; as, Jeremiah 18:7_10; (b) some peoples
would rebel against the authority of the assignment and en_
croach on the territories of others. Thus in the very record
we find overlapping. A particular and notable illustration is
the land of Palestine assigned originally to a branch of Shem’s
family, but preoccupied by Canaanites, the descendants of
Ham. This territory was subsequently restored by divine in_
tervention in Joshua’s time to the descendants of the original
It is impossible now, so great the lapse of time, and so manythe changes in names and nations, to trace accurately on a map all the details of this original allotment of territory and the
distribution of peoples. Yet it is marvelous, notwithstanding
time and changes, how much and how well we can trace from
this ancient record the principal nations and the countries set_
tled by them. In general terms we may say that the north was
assigned to Japheth, the south to Ham, and the middle terri_
tory to Shem. This assignment of an intermediate place to
Shem was from religious reasons, as the revelation from God,
both as to the Bible and the incarnation, was to come through
the Shem line and could thus more speedily and effectively
reach the other branches of the human family. The middle
portion of Shem, in general terms, would reach from the south_
ern part of Armenia to the Persian Gulf, and its western border
would be the Mediterranean and the Red Seas. North of this,
including Europe and the greater part of Asia, would be
Japheth’s territory. South of this would be all of Africa, Ham’s
territory. But from the causes previously cited, namely, God’s
government of nations and the rebellion of some nations
through unwillingness to confine themselves to their allotted
territory, there was and has been much overlapping, with some
intermingling and complicating so as to cause endless and in_
soluble perplexities. Notwithstanding these perplexities this
record, even in its minutest details, is found to be exact so far
as modern knowledge can verify it.
Philology, an infant and imperfect science, has discovered
three parent groups of languages and peoples: Aryan, Semitic,
and Turanian, corresponding to Japheth, Shem, and Ham. But
the highest authorities differ about the origin of the Turanian
peoples and tongues, some confidently affirming Japhethic
origin, others with equal confidence the Hamitic. We will now
consider the record in order.

The generations of Japheth include seven sons and seven
grandsons who became heads of nations. As we trace up their
territory and subsequent history we are reminded of Noah’s
prophecy, „God will enlarge Japheth and he will dwell in the
tents of Shem, and Canaan will be the servants of them.” All
Europe and the greater part of Asia are settled by Japhethic
nations. From him are derived both the Indo_European, and,
according to many ethnologists and philologists, the Turanian
races. Other ethnologists are just as confident that the nations
of the Turanian languages are descended from Ham. From
Gomer is the Cimmerian race, which located in Crimea around
the Sea of Azov and spreads westward and reappears in the
Welsh Cymry, in Cambria and Cumberland. He is the father
of the Celts, whether in Gaul as found by Caesar, or in Ire_
land. Through his sons Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah, he
peopled much of Armenia and the Carpathian Mountains.
Concerning them the prophets say: „Gomer, and all his
hordes; the house of Togarmah in the uttermost parts of the
north, and all his hordes; even many peoples with thee”
(Ezek. 39:6). „They of the house of Togarmah traded for
thy wares with horses and war_horses and mules” (Ezek. 27:
14). „Set ye up a standard in the land, blow the trumpets
among the nations, prepare the nations against her, call to_
gether against her the kingdoms of Ararat, Minni and Ash_
kenaz: appoint a marshal against her; cause the horses to
come up as the canker_worm” (Jer. 51:27).
Through Magog are the Scythians in Caucasus and the
Russians. Ezekiel 38 should be studied in connection with
the lesson in locating the nations of Japheth descended from
Gomer, Magog, Tubal, and Meshech. From one of these sons
apparently come the Turanian race, including the Turks,
the dwellers in the Steppes of Asia, the Hungarians, the
Finns and many others; the first inhabitants of Hindustan
and the Mongolians. From Madai, another son of Japheth,
come the Medes; from Javan, the lonians and Greeks; from
Turas, the Thracians; Javan’s sons occupy Cyprus, Rhodes
and other islands and coasts of the Mediterranean Sea,
and the coast of Spain. According to the record: „Of these
were the isles of the nations divided in their lands, every one
after his tongue, after their families, in their nations” (Gen.
Greeks, Romans, Celts, Germans, Scandinavians, Russians,
Scythians, Finns, indeed all of what are now called the Indo_
European, and perhaps the Turanian races, are descended
from Japheth.

According to the psalmist, the land of Ham is Africa, or
more particular, Egypt:
Israel also came into Egypt;
And Jacob sojourned in the land of Ham.,
And he increased his people greatly,
And made them stronger than their adversaries.
He turned their heart to hate his people,
To deal subtly with his servants.
He sent Moses his servant,
And Aaron whom he had chosen.
They set among them his signs,
And wonders in the land of Ham.
Wondrous works in the land of Ham,
And terrible things by the Red Sea.
– PSALM 105:23_27; 106:22
His descendants, however, were the first to leave the terri_
tory assigned them. His sons were Gush, Mizraim, Phut, and
Canaan. Cush in many Old Testament references is translated
Ethiopia; later, Abyssinia. But commencing with Nimrod, the
Cushites began to occupy the Semitic territory, and have left
their impress from Nineveh all the way down the Tigris and
Euphrates, and in Eastern and Southern Arabia. Mizraim is
Egypt, upper and lower. His sons occupied all the Nile regions
and Libya. From them came the Philistines who migrated to
and occupied the lower part of the Mediterranean coast be_
longing to Shem. The name means „emigrants.” This migra_
tion was one of the earliest and most important in history. It
is mentioned in Deuteronomy 2:23; Jeremiah 47:4; Amos 9:7.
From Jeremiah 46:9, we may infer that Phut also settled in
Africa. Canaan, the youngest son of Ham, on whom rested the
curse of Noah, disobeyed the divine assignment of territory
from the beginning and altogether. Only two sons of Canaan
are specified, Sidon and Heth. The first seized upon the upper
part of the Mediterranean shore, which was a lowland coast.
This coast, Sidon and Tyre, through which cities the name,
Phenicia, came, exercised a wide influence on the affairs of the
world’s later history. From Tyre, Carthage, the ancient rival
of Rome, was colonized. The great epic of Virgil assigns the
beginning of the animosity between Rome and Carthage to
the unhappy outcome of Dido’s love for Aeneas. Though Ham’s
descendants first occupied Phenicia, they must have early lost
their hold on the land, for the Phenicians of history are Semitic
in language. Ham and Shem are blended in the Phenicians.
Heth was the father of the Hittite, a powerful nation, who,
in Abraham’s time, occupied Hebron in Palestine. (See Genesis
23:4_19; 24:3_4; 28:1_2.) The other descendants of Canaan,
referred to only by tribal names, we find from the later Bible
story thus distributed:
Jebusites, around Jerusalem
Amorites, coasts of the Dead Sea and lower Jordan
Girgashites, westward from the Jordan (Josh. 24:11)
Hivites, base of Mount Hermon and valleys of Lebanon, and
at Shechem (Gen. 34:2; Josh. 9:7_17; 11:19)
Arkites and Sinites, near Mount Lebanon
Arvadites, on the Phenician Island, Aradus (Ezek. 27:8_11)
Zemarites (Josh. 28:22; 2 Chron. 13:4)
Hamathites, in Hamath, chief city of upper Syria, on the
The country thus occupied by Canaan was nearly all the
land of Palestine, from which they were dispossessed when
their iniquity was full.

From Elam came the people just north of the Persians;
Asshur, the Assyrians;
Arphaxad, the Chaldeans;
Lud, the Lydians in Asia Minor;
Aram, the Syrians.
The author contents himself with referring to the sons of
only two of these, Aram and Arphaxad. The only familiar
name of Aram’s sons is Uz, who occupied Northern Arabia,
the land of Job. The interest in Arphaxad’s descendants cen_
ters in Eber, the father of the Hebrew nation. The two sons
of Eber are Peleg, in whose day the land was divided and
from whom Abraham is descended, and Joktan, from whom
descended many Arabian tribes.

1. What was the secular object of the dispersion? The religious object?
2. Show how this lesson roots m the prophecy of Noah and fruits in the book of Chronicles.
3. What is the time period from Shorn to Abraham and what might have been the population?
4. Is this record a complete genealogy of individuals? If not, what principle governed the selection of names?
5. What is the meaning of „Cush, the son of Ham, begat Nimrod”
and the New Testament proof?
6. Is this merely or mainly a genealogy of individuals, and what
fivefold proof?
7. Rawlinson says that this is an ethnological table; Sayce says it
is a geographical table; others say it ia a genealogy of individuals.
Show how it is all three.
8. The assignment of territories was subject to what modifications? Give examples of each.
9. Locate in general terms the countries occupied respectively by
the descendants of Shern, Ham, and Japheth.
10. Why assigned to Shem an intermediate place?
11. What has caused many insoluble perplexities?
12. Philology has discovered what three parent groups of languages and peoples and how do they correspond in general to the sons of Noah?
13. Name the principal nations descended from Japheth and locate
14. From Ham, and locate them.
15. From Shem, and locate them.

Genesis 11:10_32

„These are the generations of Shem” (11:10_16). This is
the seventh section of Genesis. In 10:21_31, we have a general
account of the Shem families as a part of the human race at
large. There are but two discriminating statements in that
general account:
That Shem was the ancestor of the Hebrews.
That at Peleg’s birth the earth was divided.
This was only 101 years after the flood, for Arphaxad was
born two years after the flood, then thirty_five years to the
birth of Shelah, thirty years to Eber, thirty_four years more
to Peleg; total from flood, 101 years.
This division at this time, designating Europe and northern
Asia for Japheth, Africa for Ham, and southern Asia for Shem,
explains more particularly the sin of one trend of migration
and the attempted concentration at Babel two or three cen_
turies later. The confusion of tongues and subsequent disper_
sion was the divine method of enforcing the previous division.
In the last chapter this division, in order of arrangement, was
placed after the confusion of tongues, not because it was then
ordained, but then enforced.
It may be asked, Why does the author, having given the
descendants of Shem in the tenth chapter, now devote a
special section to the generations of Shem? The reply is ob_
vious: The first account was to show that all the human race
was derived from the three sons of Noah, including Shem.
Hence all the Semitic families are recited. But this section

looks to only one branch of the Shem family, disregarding all
others, in order to lead up to the call ‘of Abraham, through
whom a newly developed purpose of God will be brought out,
namely, the isolation of one nation from all others, to become
the depository of revelation and the means of race redemption.
This selection of the Hebrews alone from among all the na_
tions leads to another question: Why this partiality? Were
the Hebrews better than the other nations? This is a funda_
mental and vital question. It is very important that we should
have clear views on it.
The selection of this nation in its beginnings and throughout all of its developments for thousands of years in human history was an act of divine sovereignty.
Neither in the beginning nor in any subsequent development was it based on any merit or superior excellence in the elect people. It was wholly of grace.
Its design of good to the subject of the election was only
incidental. The beneficent object was redemption for all the
families of the earth through the agency of one. Upon these
several points the teachings of both Testaments are uniform.
We should, therefore, here and now, ground ourselves upon
the bedrock of one of the most important of all the Bible doc_
trines. The chosen people themselves continually forgot it and
had to suffer in every age terrible reminders of it. And the
now favored Gentiles of gospel days to whom the kingdom has
passed need the same reminder, as Paul shows in the letter
to the Romans. That it may be clear to us that from the
beginning God loved the whole world, and throughout the
whole workings of his providence looked to the redemption of
all, let us, before we enter upon the history of Abraham, glance
briefly at the scriptural foundation of the doctrine.
At the time of the call of Abraham, the world had gone
astray as before the flood. They had openly disregarded the
divine division of the earth and the mandate to occupy and
subdue it. In brazen defiance they had determined to concen_
trate and guard against punitive punishment by erecting a
tower whose top would reach to heaven. In heathen tradition
this is called the efforts of the giants when the Titans „Pelion
on Ossa piled.” Nimrod, the leader, had become one of the
Gibbor, i.e., mighty men, men of renown, like the children born of the ill_assorted marriages of the sons of God with the
daughters of men, who provoked the flood. God had promised
not to send another flood; not thus again to destroy the world.
His present remedy was to separate them into nations with
diverse tongues, and then select one nation as a messenger
and vehicle of mercy to all. All the families had gone into
idolatry with here and there an exception like Melchizedek
and Job. Look at the Scriptures.
Abraham’s country: „And Joshua said unto all the people,
Thus saith Jehovah, the God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt of
old time beyond the river, even Terah, the father of Abraham,
and the father of Nahor: and they served other gods. And I
took your father Abraham from beyond the river, and led him
throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his seed,
and gave him Isaac” (Josh. 24:2_3).
To the same purport is the testimony of the prophet Isaiah:
„Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that
seek Jehovah: look into the rock whence ye were hewn, and
to the hole of the pit whence ye were digged. Look unto
Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you; for when
he was but one I called him, and I blessed him, and made him
many” (Isa. 51:1_3).
The testimony is the same concerning Jacob: „And thou
shalt answer and say before Jehovah thy God, A Syrian ready
to perish was my father; and he went down into Egypt, and
sojourned there, few in number; and he became there a nation,
great, mighty, and populous” (Deut. 26:5).
„And not only so; but Rebekah also having conceived by
one, even by our father Isaac – for the children being not yet
born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the pur_
pose of God according to election might stand, not of works,
but of him that calleth, it was said unto her, The elder shall
serve the younger” (Rom. 9:10_12).
The same principle governed in the selection of Jerusalem,
the Canaanite city, as a religious capital; it had no natural
sanctity. „Thus saith the Lord Jehovah unto Jerusalem: Thy
birth and thy nativity is of the land of the Canaanite; the
Amorite was thy father, and thy mother was a Hittite” (Ezek.
16:3). The prophet goes on to compare that city to a newly
born cast_off, foundling child, which Jehovah had found, puri_
fied and adopted when, as said the prophet: „No eye pitied
thee, to do any of these things unto thee, to have compassion
upon thee; but thou wast cast out in the open field, for that
thy person was abhorred, in the day that thou wast born.
And when I passed by thee, and saw thee weltering in thy
blood, I said unto thee, Though thou art in thy blood, live; yea,
I said unto thee, though thou art in thy blood, live” (Ezek. 16:
It is true concerning this nation, as saith the psalmist:
Thou broughtest a vine out of Egypt:
Thou didst drive out the nations, and plantedst it.
Thou preparedst room before it,
And it took deep root, and filled the land.
The mountains were covered with the shadow of it,
And the boughs thereof were like cedars of God.
It sent out its branches unto the sea,
And its shoots unto the river.
– PSALM 80:8_11
But again the question is propounded: „Son of man, what
is the vine_tree more than any other tree; the vine_branch
which is among the trees of the forest?”
When this nation failed to serve the divine purpose as a
vehicle of salvation to all the world, the kingdom of God was
taken from it and given to the Japhethic nations, who could
bring forth fruit, and they in turn would thereby incur the responsibility which once rested on the Jews. See Paul’s para_
ble of the olive tree (Rom. 11:17_21). His conclusion of the
whole matter is sublime: ‘Tor God hath shut up all into dis_
obedience, that he might have mercy upon all. 0 the depth
of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God I how
unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past tracing
out I For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath
been his counsellor? or who hath first given to him and it shall
be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him,
and unto him are all things. To him be the glory for ever,
Amen” (Rom. 11:32_36).
In a word, God called and sanctified the Hebrew nation with a view to make them the means of salvation to all the nations, and located them in Palestine on the Mediterranean, which washed the shores of Europe and Africa, that they might reach both Ham and Japhath. We are now prepared to advance to

(Genesis 11.27)
This section extends to Genesis 25:12. It is the life of Abra_
ham, the most illustrious personage in ancient history, and, if
we except our Lord himself, the most illustrious in the religious history of the world. He occupied a prominent place in the literature and traditions of many nations. He is a prominent figure in the world’s three greatest religions, viz.: Jewish, Christian and Mohammed. His native place was Ur of the Chaldees, in lower Mesopotamia, the lowlands of the Tigris and the Euphrates, not far from their entrance into the Persian Gulf. While it was in the territory assigned to Shem, it
had been overrun by the Hamites and was abandoned to idol_
atry. Terah, Abraham’s father, was an idolater. We have
seen how his lineage was traced back to Shem through ten gen_
erations. At Abraham’s first appearance in history he is seven_
ty years old and married, but childless. His father is now 200
vears old. When the previous record says, “Terah lived seventy
years, and begat Abram, Nahor and Haran” (11:26), it is like
a similar statement concerning Noah (5:32,) and means the
eldest of the three sons, which would be Nahor the eldest in
this case, who was much older than Abram. Terah was 130
years old when Abram was born and died when Abram was
seventy_five. Compare Acts 7:4, and Genesis 12:4.
His elder brother, Haran, is dead, but his son, Lot, a nephew of Abraham, survives. There is another brother living, Nahor, who is married to his niece Lot’s sister. Abraham’s wife is probably also his niece, a sister of Lot. Possibly the Iscah of
Genesis 11:29, is the same as Sarai. In later history Abraham
says of his wife: „And moreover she is indeed my sister, the
daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother;
and she became my wife” (Gen. 20:12). And he also calls
Lot bis brother (13:8), so the genealogical records, in their
loose usage, might call Sarah his sister, the daughter (grand_
daughter) of his father. It is possible that she may have
been the daughter of Terah by a second wife.


This is of course mainly scriptural. While every passage in
either Testament, referring to him, should be studied the prin_
cipal scriptures are: Genesis 11:27 to 25:11; John 8:33_59;
Joshua 24:2; Isaiah 51:1_2; Acts 7:1_8; Romans 4:1_25; Gala_
tians 3:5_18; 4:21_31; Hebrews 7:1_6; 11:8_19; James 2:21_23.
The very many times in the Old Testament that Jehovah calls
himself the God of Abraham, or refers to his „covenant with
Abraham,” give him a significance far above any other Old
Testament saint, and the New Testament references confirm
it, making him the father of all the faithful.
The second source of material is Jewish tradition in apoc_
ryphal literature and the Talmud, much of which is quite
fanciful but some of it very interesting. A passage in the
book of Judith, particularly, will be considered later.

The third source of material is the Koran, and other Mo_
hammedan traditions.
The fourth is the books of travel bearing on the geography
of the migration of Abraham, together with the vast contri_
butions of modern archeology. These two furnish the geo_
graphical and historical background of the scriptural story.
Fifth, all the good Bible dictionaries and commentaries will
aid you in making out for yourself in a well_connected life of
Sixth, W. J. Deane’s Life and Times of Abraham is one
of several valuable monographs. Abraham’s high place in
history may be gathered from his relation to the world’s three
greatest religions, viz.: Jewish, Christian, and Mohammedan.


Is specially designated as „Ur of the Chaldees.” The exact_
location of Ur has been much disputed. The passage in
Joshua 24:2_3, would naturally place it east of the Euphrates,
and Stephen’s speech, Acts 7, would locate it between the
Tigris and Euphrates, above their junction. These passages
are: „And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the Lord
God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood
in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father
of Nahor: and they served other gods. And I took your father
Abraham from the other side of the flood and led him through_
out all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his seed and gave
him Isaac” (Josh. 24:2_3). „And he said, Men, brethren, and
fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father
Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in
Haran, and said unto him: Get thee out of thy country, and
from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew
thee. Then came he out of the land of the Chaldeans, and
dwelt in Haran, and from thence, when his father was dead,

he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell” (Acts
The advocates of modern research insist on locating Ur be_
low the juncture of these rivers, and on the west side near the
coast. Their argument is very plausible but contradicts Joshua
and Stephen. You may see the difference by a look at the
Modern archeological research has brought to light so much information on the countries in which Abraham lived, or
through which he traveled, that we know their religions, their
arts and sciences, their laws, their customs, their dress, their
field, vineyards, crops, herds and pastures, the business fol_
lowed their wars their civilization and their home life almost
as well as if he had lived in Europe or America, only a hun_
dred years ago.

The idea that persecution was the impulse prompting Abra_
ham’s departure from Chaldea arises from an interpretation of
the word, „Ur,” i.e., „by fire,” suggested by the Latin version
of Nehemiah 9:7: Qui elegisti Abram et eduxisti eum de igne
Chaldeorum i.e., „Who chose Abram and led him from the fire
of the Chaldeans.” This is supported by a passage in the
Apocryphal book of Judith (5:6_8): „This people are de_
scended from the Chaldeans, and they sojourned heretofore in
Mesopotamia, because they would not follow the gods of their
fathers which were in the land of Chaldea. For they left the
way of their ancestors, and worshiped the God of heaven,
the God whom they knew. So they cast them out from the
face of their gods and they fled into Mesopotamia and so_
journed there many days.” Josephus says that Terah left Ur
because of the grief for Haran his son, and the tradition is
that Abram received the call from God, and his family turned
with him to Jehovah worship; that the Chaldeans persecuted
them and that Haran in his father’s presence was cast into a
fiery furnace and burned to death. And the tradition says that
this is what is meant by Isaiah 29:22: „The Lord redeemed
Abram,” that is, from persecution. We often find that God”
uses two methods in causing man to move in the right direc_
tion: He holds out an incentive before him and kindles a fir
of persecution behind him.
His appearance in history is due to a remarkable event, the
call of God. The deacon Stephen, in his defense before the
Sanhedrin, says, „Brethren and fathers, hearken. The God of
glory appeared unto our father Abraham when he was in
Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran, and said unto him,
Get thee out of thy land, and from thy kindred, and come
into the land which I will shew thee. Then came he out of
the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Haran; and from
thence, when his father was dead, God removed him into this
land, wherein ye now dwell” (Acts 7:2_4). So that the call
came when Abram was seventy years old in Ur of the Chal_
dees. The statement of Stephen as to the place where the
call was received is confirmed by Jehovah’s own words in a
later manifestation: „I am Jehovah that brought thee out of
Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it” (Gen.
15:7). And by the statement in Nehemiah: „Thou art Je_
hovah, the God who didst choose Abram, and who broughtest
him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name
of Abraham” (Neh. 9:7). And while Terah, as the father,
seems, according to 11:31, to head the migratory movement,
the migration was the result of the call to the son. The
mightier destiny of a child oftentimes shapes the movement
of a parent.
In the next chapter we will take up „The Call and Migra_

1. At what point in. Genesia does race history cease?
2. What two discriminating statements in the general account of the Shem families as a part of the human race at large?
3. How long after the flood to the division of the earth and how
4. Why does the author, having given the descendants of Shorn, in
chapter 10, now devote a special section (11:10_26) to hia generation?
5. Why the partiality of selecting and favoring one nation? Ans.:
Not because it was better than any other nation, but he did it according
to his own will and purpose.
6. What three elements in the selection?
7. What was the moral condition of the earth when Abraham was
8. Cite a scripture to show there was no excellence in Abraham’s
9. None in Abraham himself.
10. None in Jacob.
11. None in Jerusalem as a city.
12. That when the city and nation failed to~be world conservators,
both perished.
13. That when the Gentiles, who now have the kingdom, also fail a like fate awaits them.
14, How does Abraham rank among the men of the world?
15. He is prominent in what three of the world’s greatest religions?
16. How old at his appearance in history?
17. How old was his father?
18. How many sons had Terah and which the eldest?
19. What akin were Abraham and his wife?
20. Where do you find mainly the material for a life of Abraham?
21. What relation does he sustain to God’s people of all ages?
22. What the second source of material for a life of Abraham?
23. The third source?
24. The fourth?
25. The fifth?
26. The sixth?
27. What and where hia native place?
28. What has modern archeological research contributed to an understanding of his time?
29. What theories advanced concerning Abram’s departure from Ur, and what credit given them by the author?
30. What was the real cause of his appearance in history?
31. What scriptural record of his call reaches farthest back?
32. What was Terah’s relation to this movement, and the philosophy of it?

Genesis 12_13

Stephen says, „the God of glory appeared unto our father
Abraham.” Jehovah is thus called in Psalm 29:3. In the
Gospel of John the term is applied to the incarnate Word:
„And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten of the father),
full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). The manifestation must
have been in some visible form and deeply impressive.
The terms of the call. It was from „thy country, thy
kindred, and thy father’s house and to an unknown land.”
The incentives. These were in the sixfold promise: „And I
will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and
make thy name great; and be thou a blessing; and I will bless
them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse:
and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed” (Gen.
The object of the call: (a) his own salvation (Rom.
4:1_3) ; (b) to make him the father of a nation to become a de_
pository of the oracles of God (Rom. 3:1_2; 9:4); (c) to
make him the father of a spiritual seed until the end of time;
(d) the progenitor of the Redeemer in whom all the families
of the earth should be blessed (Rom. 9:5; Gal. 3:16).
The requirements of the call were faith and obedience.
These requirements were fully met. „By faith Abraham,
when he was called, obeyed to go out unto a place which he was
to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing
whither he went” (Heb. 11:8). Two important matters will

be considered later: (a) The steps of Abraham’s faith; (b)
the covenants established with him.

Ur of the Chaldees, while Semitic territory, was dominated
by the Cushites, who were idolaters. There was no suitable
environment among them for the upbuilding of a chosen nation.
The objective point of the migration waa the land of Canaan
(1:31) _ But the line of the movement was up the Euphrates,
not because it was direct, but because it was the thoroughfare
of travel, having an abundant supply of water and pasturage.
There were many of these migrations from the same coun_
try toward Canaan, and the Euphrates route was the usual
way of approach, thereby avoiding the intervening desert.
At Haran the movement was checked on account of the aged
father who died there. Nahor, the other brother, seems later
to have followed to the same point and there permanently
established himself. In Haran both Isaac and Jacob subse_
quently found wives among his descendants. The caravan
from Haran was large. The principal parties were Abraham,
Lot and their wives. But they had many servants and cattle
and much substance.

The movement was steadily south and adjusted to the needs
of their herds, lingering at pleasant stopping places while pas_
turage lasted. The tradition that he stopped a while in Da_
mascus seems well founded, for there in his house was born
his bond servant and steward, Eliezer of Damascus. (Com_
pare 15:2_3.) Entering Canaan on the north, the movement
progressed to Shechem, one of the most beautiful valleys in all
the land, where was an already famous oak grove. Dr. Hackett
thus describes the valley:
A few hours north of Bethel, a valley suddenly opens upon
the traveller among the hills, which, though not so extensive as
Esdraelon or Sharon, is yet unsurpassed in point of beauty and
fertility, by any other region in the Holy Land. . . . It runs very
nearly north and south, and may be ten or twelve miles in
length and a mile and a half in breadth. . . . Toward the upper
part of the plain the mountains which skirt its westward side
fall apart, leaving a somewhat narrow defile between them,
where stands Nablus, the ancient Shechem or Sychar. A more
lovely spot than that which greets the eye it would be difficult
to find in any land. Streams, which gush from perennial foun_
tains, impart a bright and constant freshness to the vegetation.”
Concerning the same valley Mohammed says: „The land of
Syria is beloved by Allah beyond all lands, and the part of
Syria that he loveth most is the district of Jerusalem, and the
place which he loveth most in the district of Jerusalem is the
mountain of Nablus.”
It was an ideal pastoral land, becoming yet more famous
in after ages. Here the Lord appeared again to Abraham, and
told him that this was the Promised Land. Abraham erected
an altar in response to this intimation and the place became
a permanent sanctuary. It was his way of setting up a stand_
ard to assert his title to the land yet in possession of the
Canaanite. Under this famous oak in after times the grand_
son, Jacob, had serious trouble (35:4). Moses, in Deuter_
onomy, refers to these oaks. And here Joshua assembled all
Israel in the impressive scenes of the nation’s history: (a)
when blessings and cursings were announced from the opposite
summits of Ebal and Gerizim, and (b) when he delivers his
farewell address long afterward (Josh. 24:2), and made a
final covenant with the people and erected a memorial tablet
(24:25_28). Nearly two centuries later the pillar was stand_
ing and the place was sacred (Judg. 5:6). Near the same
place our Lord talked at the well with the woman of Samaria
(John 4). We here note the fact that wherever Abram dwelt
he erected an altar to God. Thus his whole life was a witness
to that faith in the one God which is the groundwork in the
civilization of our age, and is diffusing its blessings around
the world.
From Shechem Abraham makes a short move to Bethel and
erects another altar. This place also becomes famous in the
subsequent history. The historian calls the place by its later
name. The early name of the place was Luz. The name
„Bethel” was conferred by the grandson, Jacob, when fleeing
from Esau, in commemoration of his conversion there when
be dreamed of the ladder which reached to heaven. Leaving
Bethel, Abraham moved steadily south until he had thus
traversed Palestine from north to south. God is showing him
the country that shall one day be possessed by his descendants.
There seems little probability in his day of the fulfilment of
the promise. He and his children lived on faith concerning
the country, and for themselves lifted up their eyes to its
heavenly antitype. Thus testified Stephen: „And he gave him
none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on:
and he promised that he would give it to him in possession, and
to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child” (Acts
7:5). But Paul is bolder: „By faith he became a sojourner
in the land of promise, as in a land not his own, dwelling in
tents, with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same
promise: for he looked for the city which hath the founda_
tions whose builder and maker is God. . . . These all died in
faith, not having received the promises, but having seen
them and greeted them from afar, and having confessed that
they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that
say such things make it manifest that they are seeking after
a country of their own. And if indeed they had been mindful
of that country from which they went out, they would have
had opportunity to return. But now they desire a better
country, that is, a heavenly: wherefore, God is not ashamed
of them, to be called their God; for he hath prepared for them
a city” (Heb. 11:9_10, 13_16).

And now comes a calamity that sends Abraham out of the
Promised Land. A long drouth, followed by a famine, en_
sues. Pasturage, crops and water fail, a fearful trial to any
cattleman, as we in Texas know by many experiences. There
later, as here, oftentimes when surface water fails, the people
resorted to well digging. Some wells then, as now, become
not only famous, but the occasion of strife. But Abraham
had not yet learned to find supplies of water under ground
as later (Gen. 21:30; 26:15), and so taking counsel of fear
rather than that of faith, he left the Promised Land for Egypt,
even then the granary of the world. The. whole expedition to
Egypt seems to have been a mistake of human calculation,
for in a similar experience in his son’s time Isaac was forbid_
den to go to Egypt (Gen. 26:1_2).
We now come to the one blot on the fair name of this great
patriarch. It seems that when he first left Haran to go on the
long wandering among strange people, his mind was disturbed
by the fear that the stranger in the land, having the power,
would rob him of his beautiful wife, and so he led Sarah into
a compact of duplicity, even on his own statement of the case,
which he makes to Abimelech: „And it came to pass when God
caused me to wander from my father’s house, that I said
unto her: This is thy kindness which thou shalt show unto
me: at every place whither we shall come, say of him, He is
my brother.”
The example of the father was followed by Isaac, the son.
The same principles apply to all three cases. We might as well
dispose of all of them here. In reply to the question: What
defense can be made of the duplicity of Abraham and Isaac,
our answer is: It is difficult to make any defense of dissimula_
tion. The most plausible explanation is thus made by Conant:
Censure would be just, if the object had been to deceive
others to their injury. But the object was personal safety; and
the injury to others arose from their own violation of the duties
of hospitality and the rights of strangers. Persons travelling, or
sojourning, where the full knowledge of their relations exposes
them to dangers, are not bound to disclose all that concerns
themselves, and in no way concerns others. This principle is
often acted on, and without any violation of moral duty; but
whether wisely and prudently, the circumstances of the case
must decide. Abraham consulted his wife’s honour, no less than
his own safety, in. adopting this expedient. For if she had been
deprived of him, her only protector, her fate would have been
worse than his. But while he passed for her brother, none but
honourable proposals would be made to her as his sister; and
these could be evaded or postponed until they should remove
to a place of safety. That she should be taken without consent,
by royal authority, was a contingency not likely to be foreseen.
But my own opinion is that this defense is specious, and hardly
Justified by the facts, since the expedient was repeated by
Abraham with Abimelech after its known failure in Egypt,
and by Isaac later, with the double experience of Abraham
before him. It would seem more consistent with dignity and
morality, if both had implicitly trusted God and told the truth,
thus saving themselves from being put to disadvantage by the
just censure of unbelievers. The whole transaction is discred-itable to Abraham, particularly his acceptance of gifts on account of his wife. Why, after this solemn lesson, it should have been repeated by both father and son is inexplicable.
The Scriptures themselves pass no express judgment on the
duplicity of Abraham. They record the facts, whatever they
may be. They anticipate Cromwell’s direction to the painter:
„Paint me as I am. Leave out no scar or blemish.” But the
Lord did intervene for the protection of Abraham by sending
plagues on Pharaoh as later for oppressing Abraham’s de_
scendants. In that case, as this, the Egyptians were urgent
to get them out of the land. It is customary for commenta_
tors to eulogize Pharaoh and Abimelech for their integrity in
condemning Abraham’s duplicity, but observe that they
showed no integrity until after the rebuke of God. Then all at
once, they who had seized a woman by violence from the
household of an inoffensive stranger, became very pious. To
these incidents the psalmist refers:
When they were but a few men in number,
Yea, very few, and sojourners in it,
And they went about from nation to nation,
From one kingdom to another people,
He suffered no man to do them wrong;
Yea, he reproved kings for their sakes,
Saying, Touch not mine anointed ones,
And do my prophets no harm. – PSALM 105:12_25
Indeed, it was the protecting care of God that made them
friends in every place, and camped around them as a protecting

Observe the position already attained by Egypt, and that
her rulers are styled Pharaohs. This was a title, not a name,
sometimes used in connection with the name of the king, as
Pharaoh Necho (2 Kings 23:29), and Pharaoh Hopra (Jer.
44:30). The discussion as to what dynasty in Egypt held
rule in Abram’s time may be reserved for later investigation.
Dr. Conant says:
There is reason to believe that the Pharaoh of this passage
was not a native prince, but was one of the shepherd kings
(Hyksos), who ruled over lower Egypt, bordering on Canaan,
from about 2080 B.C., when the country was overrun by the in_
cursion of the Arabian race, known in history as the Shepherds.
The territory was nearly contiguous, known as the „south coun_
try” (verse 9), and the language of the dominant races was the
same in both. On the eastern frontier, toward Canaan, was a
royal residence for a portion of the year, the Zoan mentioned in
Numbers 13:22, and referred to in Psalm 88:12, 43, as the
scene of the plagues of Egypt.
It is evident that Abraham learned some things in Egypt.
When he came out of the land the record says he had silver
and gold, which is the first notice in the Bible of these precious
metals as currency. He also brought out of Egypt a hand_
maiden for his wife, who will cause some trouble later. The
thirteenth chapter gives an account of the transaction be_
tween Abraham and Lot, to which you are referred for the
answers to the questions of this incident.

1. What was the nature of Abraham’s call?
2. What were the terms?
3. What were the incentives?
4. What were the objects?
5. What were the requirements, did Abraham meet them and what
was the proof?
6. Why waa Abraham called to leave his country?
7. What waa the obiective point, the route, and why?
8. Why the 80)ourn at Haran?
9. What direction did he take from Haran? Did he atop at Damas_
cus and the proof?
10. What waa the first stopping place in Canaan and Dr. Hackett’s
description of it?
11. What events of later history make this place famous?
12. What did Abraham do here which was his custom ever afterward?
13. What was the next objective point, its two names, who gave it
the second and why?
14. What course did he take from Bethel and what waa the object?
15. What waa Abraham’s relation to this country, and what the proof?
16. What calamity drives him from the country, waa this a wise
course and the proof?
17. What one blot on his fame?
18. What is the best that can be said of the duplicity of Abraham
and Isaac in passing off the wife as a sister? (Conant.)
19. Show wherein this does not exculpate.
20. What is the explanation of their success under such circumstances?
21. Who was the ruler in Egypt at this time and what did Abraham
bring out of Egypt with him?
22. Who accompanied Abraham from Haran through Canaan to Egypt and came out with him?
23. On leaving Egypt, what their objective point?
24. What trouble arose between Abraham and Lot and what was cause?
25. How was this difficulty settled and what the definite location of each after their separation?
26. After Lot was separated from Abraham what revelation did God make to him and where does he next pitch his tent?

Genesis 12:1_3; 15:1_21; 17:1_14; 22:1_19

We now come to consider one of the most important sub_
jects of religious history – the covenants made with Abraham.
The lessons in Genesis that bear directly upon the matter are
in chapters 12:1_3; 15:1_21; 17:1_15; 22:1_19. All of these
should be carefully studied in themselves and with their New
Testament connections.
The investigation will show that there are either two dis_
tinct covenants, or what amounts practically to the same thing,
two distinct lines of thought; one fleshly, the other spiritual,
with equally distinct developments. Let us go over the whole
matter step by step.
In general terms a covenant is an arrangement or agree_
ment between two or more parties. Its terms are the stipula_
tions or conditions which set forth the reciprocal relations
and obligations of the parties entering into the agreement.
The word „covenant” is frequently employed in both Testa_
ments to express an agreement between men, or between God
and men. It first appears in Genesis 6:18, where God says to
Noah, „I will establish my covenant with thee.” As exam_
ples of a covenant between men we should study the cove_
nant between Abraham and Abimelech (Gen. 21:27_32); the
covenant between David and Jonathan (I Sam. 15:1_4; 20:
12_16), the covenant between David and the elders of Israel
(I Chron. 11:1_3). Figurative use of the word appears in
Job’s covenant with his eyes (Job 31:1), Ephraim’s covenant
with death and hell (Isa. 28:15_18).

The root of the Hebrew word signifies to cut or divide, re_
ferring to the custom of cutting or dividing in two the animal
sacrifice in order to ratification by the covenant_makers pass_
ing between the parts. As vivid examples of this consider:
„And God said unto Abraham, Take me a heifer three years
old, and a she_goat three years old, and a ram three years old,
and a turtledove and a young pigeon. And he took him all
these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each half over
against the other; but the birds divided he not. . . . And it came
to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, be_
hold, a smoking furnace, and a flaming torch that passed be_
tween these pieces” (Gen. 25:9_10, 17). „And I will give the
men that have transgressed my covenant, that had not per_
formed the words of the covenant which they made before
me, when they cut the calf in twain and passed between the
parts thereof” (Jer. 34:18). „Gather my saints together unto
me, those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice”
(Psalm 1:5).
This is of great importance in determining the Bible mean_
ing of covenant. It shows that covenants were ratified by
very vivid, religious services in which an appeal was made to
God to witness the integrity and sincerity of the covenant_
makers and to judge the violators of it. In these religious
ceremonies both parties took a most sacred oath to observe the
stipulations of the agreement under penalty of divine judg_
ment. For example: „I sware unto thee, and entered into a
covenant with thee,” says Jehovah to Jerusalem (Ezek. 16:8).
„And Jonathan caused David to swear again” (I Sam. 20:
17). „Swear unto me here by God that thou wilt not deal
falsely with me,” says Abimelech to Abraham. And Abraham
said, „I will swear.” „Wherefore he called that place Beer_
sheba; because there they sware both of them” (Gen. 21:23_
24, 31). Upon this point a New Testament statement is con_
clusive: „For when God made a promise to Abraham, since
he could swear by none greater, he sware by himself, saying,
Surely blessing will I bless thee, and multiplying I will multi_
ply thee. And thus, having patiently endured, he obtained
the promise. For men swear by the greater: and in every dis_
pute of theirs the oath is final for confirmation. Wherein
God, being minded to show more abundantly unto the heirs
of the promise the immutability of his counsel, interposed
with an oath; that by two immutable things, in which it is
impossible for God to lie, we may have a strong encourage_
ment, who have fled for refuge to lay hold on the hope set be_
fore us” (Heb. 6:13_18). Because, therefore, of the oath and
the sacrifice, to violate a covenant was regarded not only ae
most dishonorable but also a profane action, indicating great
depravity and irreligion. The Romans charged the Carthagin_
ians with habitual disregard of treaties so made, and pilloried
them in history with the proverb, „Punic Faith.” But Paul in.
his letter to the Romans characterizes them, with other heath_
en, as „covenant breakers” (Rom. 1:31). On the other hand,
David in delineating a citizen of Zion, says, „He that sweareth
to his own hurt and changeth not” (Psalm 15:4).
Usually covenants were accompanied by some sign, token,
or memorial. The rainbow was the token of the covenant
with Noah. The seven ewe lambs were a token of the cove_
nant with Abimelech, and Abraham also planted a tamarisk
tree as a memorial. Jonathan gave David his own raiment as a
token of their covenant. Circumcision was the sign of one of
God’s covenants with Abraham. We have said that the first
Bible use of the term is in Genesis 6:18. But this is not the
first Bible record of the fact that a covenant was made. There
were before this two covenants with Adam as the head of the
race; one of works before the fall, and one of grace after the
fall. The terms of the first covenant with Adam are clearly
expressed in Genesis 2:16_17. A violation of terms by either_
party nullifies the covenant. This covenant was broken by
Adam, as saith the prophet: „But they like Adam have trans_
gressed the covenant” (Hos. 6:7). A failure to be circumcised
was a breach of the covenant of which it was not only a sign
but a stipulation (Gen. 17:14). The unchangeableness of the
divine being was manifested in his keeping every covenant
made with man (Psalm 89:34_35). Having prepared the way
by these general observations, we will not examine the four
scriptures cited in Genesis 12; 15; 17; 22.
The word, „covenant,” is not mentioned in Genesis 12:1_4.
But Paul in the letter to the Galatians refers to a covenant
of grace made with Abraham which was an anticipation of
the gospel, and which he fixes by a date which exactly fits
this paragraph in Genesis 12, and no other. The date is 430
years before the giving of the law on Mount Sinai. The antic_
ipated gospel is in 12:3: „In thee shall all the families of the
earth be blessed.” This very passage is quoted by the apostle
Peter, and expressly called a covenant: „Ye are the sons of
the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with your
fathers, saying to Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the
families of the earth be blessed” (Acts 3:25). So that both
Paul and Peter call this covenant of grace. This covenant of
grace made with Abraham when seventy years old, and 430
years before the giving of the law, is confirmed with an oath
when years afterward he offered up Isaac on the altar: „And
the angel of Jehovah called unto Abraham a second time
out of heaven, and said, By myself have I sworn, saith Je_
hovah, because thou hast done this thing, and has not with_
held thy son, thine only son, that in blessing I will bless thee,
and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the
heavens, and as the sand which is upon the seashore; and thy
seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in thy seed shall
all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast
obeyed my voice” (Gen. 22:15_18).
To this confirmation Paul thus refers: „Brethren, I speak
after the manner of men: Though it be but a man’s covenant,
yet when it hath been confirmed, no one maketh it void, or
addeth thereto. Now to Abraham were the promises spoken,

and to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many;
but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. Now this
I say: A covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the law,
which came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not dis_
annul, so as to make the promise of none effect. For if the
inheritance is of the law, it is no more of promise: but God
hath granted it to Abraham by promise” (Gal. 3:15_18). This
language makes clear these points:
That the gospel covenant with Abraham in Acts 7:2_3, when
Abraham was seventy years old, and restated in Genesis 7:
1_3, when he was seventy_five years old.
That this covenant with Abraham is confirmed by the di_
vine oath as recorded in Genesis 22:15_18. This is also the
confirmation set forth in Hebrews 6:16_18.
That this covenant was made 430 years before the giving
of the law.
An examination of the grace covenant in Genesis 12, and
of its confirmation in Genesis 22, shows that it has one dis_
tinguishing peculiarity, namely, its blessings for all the world._
Let us next examine the record in Genesis 15. In v. 8,
Abraham asks God how he may know that he would inherit the
land of Palestine. Whereupon follows an exact account of a
covenant, and expressly called a covenant, whose terms are
clear that God will give his lineal descendants, according to
the flesh, this very land whose metes and bounds are clearly
set forth. There is nothing here for the world at large. It
is strictly a national covenant. Examine all its terms and see.
Now if we examine the record in Genesis 17, we find again this
national covenant and a sign is added, namely, circumcision.
So that we may say that two distinct covenants were made
with Abraham:
The covenant of grace, Genesis 7, which was confirmed
with an oath, Genesis 22, and that this covenant is so recog_
nized by both Peter and Paul.
A national covenant (Gen. 15), whose sign of circumcision
was added (Gen. 17). This national or circumcision covenant
reappears in the law covenant at Mount Sinai. And this law
covenant is expressly contrasted with the grace covenant in
Paul’s letter to the Galatians. „For it is written, that Abra_
ham had two sons, one by the handmaid, and one by the free_
woman. Howbeit the son by the handmaid is born after the
flesh; but the son by the freewoman is born through promise.
Which things contain an allegory: for these women are two
covenants; one from Mount Sinai, bearing children unto bond_
age, which is Hagar. Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in
Arabia and answereth to Jerusalem that now is: for she is in
bondage with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above
is free, which is our mother. For it is written, Rejoice, thou
barren that bearest not; Break forth and cry, thou that tra_
vailest not; For more are the children of the desolate than of
her that hath the husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was,
are children of promise. But as then he that was born after
the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, so also
it is now. Howbeit what saith the Scripture? Cast out the
handmaid and her son: for the son of the handmaid shall not
inherit with the son of the freewoman. Wherefore, brethren,
we are not children of a handmaid, but of the freewoman
(Gal. 4:22_31).
To settle this matter beyond controversy we have only to
prove from the Scriptures that the circumcision, or national
covenant, was passed over and merged into the Sinai covenant
and the case will be complete. This will be shown later in
the argument. So we have before us the Abrahamic cove_
nants. There are distinctly two, widely differing in range and
terms. The plurality of these covenants is thus expressed by
Paul: „Who are Israelites; whose is the adoption, and the
glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the
service of God, and the promises” (Rom. 9:4).
The principal difference between the circumcision covenant
and the Sinai or law covenant is that the latter is an enlarge_
ment of the former. One is seed; the other is fruit.

1. Where are the scriptures on the covenants with Abraham?
2. What two covenants made with him?
3. In general terms what ia a covenant and what are the terms of
a covenant? Give examples.
4. Etymologically, what does the word mean? Illustrate.
5. How were covenants ratified and what was the meaning of that
action? Illustrate.
6. What New Testament proof of God’s oath to Abraham and what
the purpose of it?
7. How waa the violation of a covenant regarded, what was charge
of the Romans against the Carthaginians and how did Paul characterize all of them?
8. What waa the token of the several covenants, viz.: Between God and Noah; Abraham and Abimelech; Jonathan and David; God and Abraham?
9. What covenants had God made with the race prior to his covenant with Abraham and what nullified the covenant in each case?
10. Since the word „covenant” does not occur in Genesis 12:1_4, how do we know that this contains a covenant?
11. What covenant was this and what was the date?
12. How old was Abraham and when was this covenant confirmed
with him?
13. What three points are made clear by Paul’s statement in Gala_
14. What covenant was made with Abraham in Genesis 15 and what was its sign?
15. Restate the two covenants with Abraham, where found, the relation of the second to the Sinaitic covenant, and how contrasted with the grace covenant.

Genesis 12:1-3; 15:1-21; 17:1-14; 22:1-19

One’s understanding of these covenants affects all of his
theological and church relations. If he confounds them, or
reckons them as identical, he never gets out of the Old Testa_
ment for a plan of salvation, system or doctrines, idea of the
church, nature, objects, and subjects of church ordinances.
Hence it is easy for him to drift into ritualism, accept the
doctrine of union of church and state and coercion of con_
science by the magistrate. If he regards them as distinct, one
to replace the other, he finds in the New Testament a plan
of salvation, system of doctrine, idea of the church, number,
nature, object, and subjects of church ordinances. He natural_
ly rejects union of church and state, believes in liberty of
conscience, opposes all hierarchies, advocates congregational
form of church organizations and their independence of each
The covenants have been a battleground between Baptists
and pedobaptists throughout their history. A man’s views on
the covenants easily locate him in one or the other rank.
While multitudes of books have been written, the strongest
pedobaptist argument in favor of their construction of the
covenants is a brief statement by that eminent Presbyterian
divine, Dr. N. L. Rice. The substance of his argument is
this: (1) „The covenant with Abraham is the covenant of
grace, therefore it did not belong to the Jewish dispensation
and did not pass away with it. (2) The covenant confessedly

embraced believers and their infant children, and since it re_
mains unchanged it embraces them still. (3) All who were in
the covenant had a right to its seal, and those embraced in
it now have the same right. And since professed believers
and their infant children did receive the seal of the covenant
by expressed command of God, the same characters must re_
ceive it still. (4) As circumcision was the first seal, and
was administered to professed believers and their infant chil_
dren, so baptism is now the seal and must be administered
to the same characters. Or (1) the Abrahamic covenant was
and is the covenant of grace; and the church of God, as a peo_
ple in covenant with him, was organized on this covenant. (2)
As the church was organized on this covenant, it embraced
in its membership all who were embraced in the covenant,
namely, professed believers and their infant children. (3)
The Christian church stands on the same covenant and is iden_
tical with the Abrahamic church, and embraces the same
characters in its membership, viz.: professed believers and
their infant children. (4) All embraced in the covenant and
in the church membership are entitled to the initiatory rite,
and since professed believers and their infant children did
receive circumcision, the first initiatory rite, the same charac_
ters, being still embraced in the same covenant, have a right
to baptism, which is now the initiatory rite.”
To this very able statement of his case we submit the fol_
lowing reply: Dr. Rice assumes instead of proving his
(1) He ignores the fact of two covenants with Abraham –
the covenant of grace and the covenant of circumcision, which
he blends with great confusion of thought. (2) As the cove_
nant of grace made with Abraham was but a continuation and
enlargement of previous covenants and promises reaching back
to the fall of Adam, any church argument based on this cove_
nant should no more commence with Abraham than with Noah
or Seth, why not commence with Adam? (3) Neither the

covenant of grace nor the covenant of circumcision „con_
fessedly embraced believers and their infant children.”
Ishmael, the first descendant of Abraham who received the
rite, was neither a believer nor an infant. The adult slaves of
Abraham who received it at the same time were certainly not
„infant children” of any believer, nor did the law require that
they themselves be believers. They were circumcised because
they were Abraham’s slaves, without any regard to age or per_
sonal faith. The law as to such subjects of circumcision was
never changed.
So far as Abraham’s lineal descendants are concerned, on all
millions of them, circumcision, if performed according to law,
could never by any possibility be administered to a believer.
The law requiring its performance when the subject was eight
days old must be neglected or violated before a believer could
have any chance to reach circumcision. By its own provisions
of enforcement it perpetually excluded believers from its re_
ception, just as infant baptism necessarily tends to drive be_
liever’s baptism from the face of the earth. Dr. Rice’s plural,
„believers,” is an impossibility; therefore, under the regular
workings of the law, Abraham would be only one. So much
for Abraham’s fleshly descendants.
In the case of a proselyte from the Gentiles who volun_
tarily became a Jew, he need not be a believer in the New
Testament sense, and no descendant of his till the judgment
day could reach circumcision by faith.
We thus see what becomes of the doctor’s fundamental
premise: „Believers and their infant children.” (4) Dr. Rice
makes an utterly unscriptural use of the word „seal.” To
Abraham personally, unto him alone, is circumcision declared
to be a sealùa seal of his faith which he had before he was
circumcised. It could never be this to any of his descendants
under a proper enforcement of the law. To them it might be a
sign. The Bible never calls baptism a seal in any sense.
New Testament believers are sealed by the Holy Spirit, not by
water. (5) Dr. Rice assumes the identity of the Christian
church with what he is pleased to call the „Abrahamic church.”
„The Abrahamic church” is too vague a term for such an im_
portant premise. It needs to be defined somewhat. The
Christian church is a visible organization. The only visible
Abrahamic organization is national Israel. Substitute „na_
tional Israel” for „Abrahamic church” in the premise, and the
identity theory perishes by its own weight. You need not
argue against it – it falls to pieces if you look at it! (6)
Dr. Rice assumes that baptism came in the place of cir_
cumcision, which is at war with both Scripture and history.
If he means only that there is some analogy between the
place occupied in the Christian system by baptism and
the place occupied in the Jewish system by circumcision,
this is cheerfully granted, but all the force of the analogy
is against infant baptism, thus: Circumcision was admin_
istered to Abraham’s fleshly seed; baptism must be admin_
istered to Abraham’s spiritual seed.
It is well just here to fix carefully in our minds the ele_
ments of the law of circumcision. Circumcision was adminis_
tered, (1) to Abraham’s natural seed; (2) and to their slaves;
(3) but to males only; (4) when eight days old; (5) was by
obligation a family rite; (6) could be legally performed by
man or woman; (7) it obligated to keep the whole Sinaitic
law, with which it was incorporated, as a means of justifica_
tion and life, under a covenant of works; (8) is guaranteed by
an earthly domain for a possession.
With these elements before us, it will be easy to show why
baptism did not come into its place, and what did come into
its place, and how the analogy between baptism and circum_
cision is destructive to infant membership. This may be
made manifest under the following heads: (1) Both are
„shadows.” A shadow cannot cast a shadow. (2) Its anti_
type, regeneration, came in the place of circumcision. (See
Rom. 2:28_29; Phil. 3:3; Col. 2:11.) (3) In the New Testa_
ment, the same people, if Jews, were baptized after being cir_
cumcised, as in the case of Jesus and his apostles, or were cir_
cumcised after baptism, as in the case of Timothy by Paul.
(4) The case in Acts 15:1_30, settles the question: (a) The
Judaizing teachers who tried to force circumcision on the
baptized Gentiles at Antioch could not have understood that
baptism was appointed to succeed circumcision; (b) the apos_
tles and elders at Jerusalem could not have so understood it
either, for while the question was argued at length and ex_
haustively, no one referred to such a simple fact, which, if
true, would have settled the whole controversy in a word.
Their silence about it on this occasion was both inexcusable
and criminal, if it were true. (5) Utterly unlike circumcision,
baptism is for Jew and Gentile, male and female, for believers,
only, when they believe, without regard to age, is an ecclesiasti_
cal and not a family rite, is administered by special officers; as
a mere memorial rite to the covenant of grace, it is in no sense
essential to justification and life, and guarantees neither an
earthly nor a heavenly Canaan. (6) If baptism came in the
place of circumcision, then it must be confined in its adminis_
tration either to Abraham’s natural seed, or to his epiritual
seed. If his natural seed only, that excludes the Gentile pedo_
baptists, as well as their children, and. contradicts the Scrip_
tures (Matt. 3:7_9). If to his spiritual seed, that excludes
their infants for whose benefits the argument is made and es_
tablishes the true scriptural position – baptism for believers
only. (Compare Acts 8:12, 37; 16:33_34; 18:8.)
The next point necessary in this argument is to show that
circumcision was passed over to Moses and became an integral
part of the covenant of Sinai. The proof is this: In Genesis
17, God proposes an everlasting covenant with Abraham and
his natural seed after him. The stipulation on God’s part was
to give them the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession.
The stipulation on their part was to keep the ordinance of
circumcision and all that is involved. Any male not cir_
cumcised was cut off from the people and the inheritance.
In Exodus 4:24_26, we learn that God sought to slay Moses
because, on account of his wife’s objection, his child had not
been circumcised. Moses was not relieved from the hazard
until his wife, Zipporah, to save the husband’s life, yielded,
though reluctantly, and circumcised the child.
Moses was now the appointed deliverer to lead the children
of Israel into the land which God, according to his stipula_
tion of the covenant, was to give them (Ex. 6:4_8). Their
final deliverance was accomplished by the Passover, which they
were commanded to celebrate by a memorial feast. But no
uncircumcised male was allowed to eat this feast (Ex. 12:44_
48). Thus Moses gave them circumcision in a national and
perpetual statute. Then the nation was organized at Sinai
and the covenant re_enacted and the law given; circumcision
was incorporated in it as an essential feature of it (Lev. 12:3).
Thus, according to our Lord, Moses gave them circumcision
as a national statute, and not as originating it, but as a re_
quirement from the fathers when the original covenant was
established (John 7:22_23). So it is testified that all who
went out of Egypt to seek the land promised were circumcised
(Josh. 5:5). Again, when Joshua led them across the Jordan
into the Promised Land, the Lord halted them at Gilgal until
all born in the forty years of wanderings should be circum_
cised (Josh. 5:19). They could not secure title to the land
until their stipulation was fulfilled.
Thus we see circumcision made an essential feature of the
Sinai covenant, since that is only an enlargement of the origi_
nal covenant of circumcision. The proof becomes conclusive
when we consider the relation of circumcision to the Sinai law.
This is set forth by Paul: „For circumcision indeed profiteth, if
thou be a doer of the law; but if thou be a transgressor of the
law, thy circumcision is become uncircumcision” (Rom. 2:25).
„Behold, I, Paul, say unto you, that, if ye receive circumci_
sion, Christ will profit you nothing. Yea, I testify again to
every man that receiveth circumcision that he is a debtor to
do the whole law” (Gal. 5:2_3).
This Sinai covenant was strictly a covenant of works. It
promised life solely on the condition of exact, implicit, and
complete obedience to all its mandates. So testify the Scrip_
tures: „Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and mine ordi_
nances; which if a man do, he shall live in them; I am Je_
hovah” (Lev. 18:5). „For Moses writeth that the man that
doeth the righteousness which is of the law shall live thereby”
(Rom. 5:5). „For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and
yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all. For he
that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill.
Now if thou dost not commit adultery, but killest, thou art_
become a transgressor of the law” (James 2:10_11).
On this very account there could be no life by it. It gen_
dered to bondage and was a yoke of bondage, which their
fathers were unable to bear (Gal. 4:24; 5:1; Acts 15:10).
Their circumcision covenant said, „Do and live.”
The grace covenant said, „Believe and live.”
The clearest exhibition, perhaps, in the Bible of the con_
trast between this covenant and the covenant of grace made
with Abraham, appears in Paul’s allegory (Gal. 4:21_31). Just
here dates become very important. That you may for yourself
compare the respective dates of the covenant of circumcision
and the covenant of grace we submit the following orderly
statement: Paul says (Gal. 3:17) that it preceded the law
by 430 years. Reckoning back from the giving of the law,
we have, first, the stay of the Israelites in Egypt 210 years,
Second/Jacob was then 130 years old. Third, when Jacob
was born Isaac was sixty years old. Fourth, the covenant
of Acts 7:2_3, and Genesis 12:1_4, was thirty years old before
the birth of Isaac, making exactly 430 years. Or Abraham
was seventy years old when the covenant of grace was made
with him (Acts 7:2_3; Gen. 12:1_4), which was thirty
years before Isaac’s birth (Gen. 21:5; 25:26); Jacob was 130
when he entered Egypt (Gen. 47:9), accordingly, their stay
in Egypt was 210 years. So 30, 60, 130 and 210 is 430. But
the covenant of circumcision was twenty_nine years later,
when Abraham was ninety_nine years old (Gen. 27:1_14).
There is a great distinction in the law of descent between
the two covenants; one national or fleshly, the other spiritual
or supernatural.

1. How does one’s understanding of these covenants affect his the_
ology and idea of the church?
2. What is the substance of N. L. Rice’s argument to prove that the
church commenced with Abraham and that infants are members of it?
3. How does the expositor answer it?
4. What are the elements of the law of circumcision?
5. Show why baptism did not come in its place, what does come in its place, and how the analogy between baptism and circumcision destroys infant baptism.
6. Give Scripture proof that circumcision was passed over to Moses and became an integral part of the Sinaitic covenant,
7. What is the relation of circumcision to the Sinaitic law?
8. What did these covenants say respectively?
9. How does Paul get his 430 years of Galatians 3:17, and when was the covenant of circumcision given?
10. What New Testament allegory contrasts this covenant sharply with the covenant of grace?
11. What is the great distinction in the law of descent between the
two covenants?

Genesis 14

1. The Great Foray
2. Its Defeat by Abraham
3. Melchizedek
4. Abraham’s Disinterestedness

The account of the war, or foray, in the fourteenth chapter
of Genesis, treated but as an episode in the life of Abraham,
very briefly outlined, yet is full of interest in showing how the
nations descending from the three sons of Noah were strange_
ly mingled in the countries drained by the Tigris, Euphrates,
and the Jordan. The most labored research of modern times,
including all discoveries of archeology and philology, fails to
solve satisfactorily the perplexing questions of nationality
bristling in this episode. The best human authorities differ
as to the location of Ellasar, one of the kingdoms mentioned,
and of the nations over whom Tidal reigned, and even as to
the location of the five cities of the plain. There is equal diffi_
culty in determining with certainty the derivation of some of
the nations and tribes mentioned in our lesson. But the solu_
tion of these questions is of little practical importance in our
times. The best and safest course for us to pursue is to follow
strictly the Bible story, and later, if you have leisure and de_
sire, you may prosecute studies in the vast and varied .litera_
ture pertaining to the subject. We need not waste time in
perplexing ourselves over these matters now.
Just a few sentences will be sufficient to outline the situa_
tion: Abraham, the hero of the story, is at Hebron, west of
the Dead Sea, in the southern part of Palestine. The moun_
tains are between him and that sea. He has formed an al_
liance for mutual protection with three brothers, Marnre,
Eschol, and Aner, who are Amorites, that is, descendants of
Ham. Lot, his nephew, is living in Sodom, chief city and head
of the five confederate and petty governments near the Dead
Sea. These are descendants of Ham.
The country east of the Jordan River, commencing at a
point as far north as the sea of Galilee, and extending south
as far as the middle of the Dead Sea, is held by three tribes of
giants, called Rephaim, Zuzim, and Ernim. These are original
inhabitants; that is, they were in the country before the
Canaanites, Ham’s descendants, migrated to Palestine. They
were descendants of either Shem or Japheth. They were
idolaters, worshiping the moon goddess, Ashtoreth (plural
Ashtaroth), called by the Greeks, Astarte. The correspond_
ing male divinity was Baal, the sun god.
South of these, and in the northern and mountainous part of
Arabia, were the Horites. These also were original inhabi_
tants, who dwelt in neither tents nor houses but in caves.
Hence they are called Troglodytes, that is, those who creep
into holes. From which son of Noah they were descended
the record does not clearly show) and research has not satis_
factorily determined. This example of cave dwellers in his_
toric times is a sufficient refutation of the baseless specula_
tion that cave dwellers and the Stone Age belong to an in_
finitely remote past, and marked a grade of man’s evolution
from lower animals. Troglodytes never mark an ascending
scale from lower animalism, but always a degradation from a
higher grade. Cave dwellers and the most highly civilized
races are contemporaries.
West of these in the mountainous district of Asia, between
Palestine and Mount Sinai, were the Amorites, descendants

of Ham, with some of whom Abraham was in covenant; and
the Amalekites of unknown origin. With the Amalekites our
later history will have much to do. They are the uncompro_
mising foes of Israel after the exodus from Egypt. They are
called by Balaam „The first of the nations” (Goiim), (Num.
24:20). We will hear of them throughout the Old Testament
period. It must not be supposed that they commenced with
Amaiek, grandson of Esau (Gen. 36:10_16), though it is prob_
able that this descendant of Esau was named after them, and
his descendants became mingled with them, as perhaps also
the descendants of Ishmael mingled with the Horites whom
they dispossessed of the country around Mount Seir.
Let us now glance at the other parties of the story. We
have seen how Nimrod, a descendant of Ham, through Gush,
established the first empire in the land of Shinar in the lower
valleys of the Euphrates and Tigris, and pushed northward
to Nineveh. This ancient empire is now divided into two
governments: Shinar, ruled by Arnraphel, and Ellasar ruled
by Arioch, and both of these are now tributary to Elam, a
country east of them and extending south to the Persian Gulf.
The Elamites were descendants of Shem. So that now under
Chedorlaorner the Shemites hold dominion over nearly all the
original territory assigned to Shem. Thirteen years before this
story opens they had subdued the five petty kingdoms of which
Sodom was chief. In the thirteenth year these cities had re_
volted. The nations under Tidal, who were also subject to
Elam, were probably descendants of Japheth, north of Elam
in Assyria. The empire of Chedorlaorner was, therefore, very
extensive, but neither homogeneous nor cohesive, being held
together only by force of arms and the genius of Chedorlaorner.
It embraced nearly all the Tigris and Euphrates country down
to the Persian Gulf, part of Arabia, and much of Syria.
On the revolt of Sodom and its confederates, Chedorlaorner
organizes and conducts one of the best planned and most ex_
tensive campaigns in early history. Assembling into one great
flying column the forces of Elam, Shinar, Ellasar, and uniting
them with the nations under Tidal, he sweeps down first upon.
the Rephaim, then upon the Horim, then upon the Zuzim, then
upon the Emirn, all the time moving south until he reaches
his terminus at El_paran, on the border of the Sinai wilder_
ness. Thus far he has moved east of the Jordan and the Dead
Sea. Now turning north and on a line westwaid of his first
movement, he smites the Amalekites and Amorites south_
west of the Dead Sea, and moving near to Abraham’s home in
Hebron, he falls upon the cities of the plains, defeats the five
kings in the valley of Siddim, spoils Sodom and Gomorrah, and
moves as rapidly north as the great booty and numerous cap_
tives will permit. Whether he moved east or west of the Dead
Sea depends upon the location of Sodom and Gomorrah. My
own conviction is that from Engedi, on the west coast of the
sea, he moved around the southern end, and there fought his
battle and captured the cities whose site was southwest of
the Dead Sea. Among the captives is Lot, now also stripped
of all his goods, both household effects and cattle.
So far the expedition has been a complete success. Fugitives
from Sodom carry the doleful story of the disaster to Abram,
the Hebrew, at Hebron. The fate of his unfortunate kinsman
is his interest in the matter. We now discover a new trait in
Abram’s otherwise peaceful character. He becomes suddenly
a man of war and a general. He hastily organizes a flying
column of his own armed retainers, 318 in number, and of his
confederates in covenant, the three Amorite brothers. What
force they had does not appear in the record. With this
column Abram rapidly pursues the now careless and heavy_
laden army of Chedorlaorner, overtakes them at Dan, the most
northern part of Palestine, divides his forces and surprises
them by a night attack on both flanks, utterly routs them,
presses on in a relentless pursuit as far as Damascus, retakes
all the spoil and recovers all the prisoners. It was a regular
Stonewall Jackson campaign; matchless in strategy, swift in.
execution, and persistent in the pressure of the defeated army
We are surprised at this achievement of Abram. We never
could have suspected from his past history that beneath his
quiet, religious, and peaceable disposition there slumbered the
spirit and genius of a great general and swift_smiting warrior.

From a military point of view, Chedorlaomer’s well_planned
campaign and Abram’s defeat of the whole plan in its hour
of victory, by one lightning stroke equal to Rossbach, is full
of interest. But a greater surprise awaits us. The news of his
great victory flies before him on his return. He comes as a
conquering hero, a deliverer of many smitten people. As he
approaches Salem, afterward Jerusalem, a personage mightier
than Abram steps out of the shadows to bless him and then
recedes into the shadows and is swallowed up for ever. The
episode is the most unique, startling, dramatic, and mysterious
in all history. We hold our breath in surprise as the brief in_
cident seems to step out of the skies and step back again.
The author tells the story with the simplicity and brevity of a
child, without one word of explanation to satisfy the curious.
A silence falls on the scene and its incident unbroken for near_
ly 900 years. It is then broken by the psalmist king of Israel,
whose prophetic spirit foresees the ascended messianic king on
the throne of heaven and exclaims:
Jehovah hath sworn, and will not repent:
Thou art a priest for ever
After the order of Melchizedek.
– PSALM 110:4
Silence falls again on both the original incident and the
subsequent vision for more than a thousand years, to be
broken by the apostolic voice speaking in the letter to the
Hebrews, a voice of light which shines back for twenty cen_
turies and reillumines the startling episode of Abram’8 life,
but only intensifies its mystery. For thirty centuries men
have been reading that brief paragraph in the fourteenth chap_
ter of Genesis. .From the mind of every reader leaps the ques_
tion: Who is Melchizedek? When the psalmist record is added,
the question doubles: Who, who is Melchizedek? When the
apostolic record comes, the question trebles: Who, who, who
was Melchizedek?
Men who never propounded the question to themselves,
„What must I do to be saved?” have died unhappy because
they could not find out who was Melchizedek. Curiosity deep_
ens as time rolls on. Savants and schoolboys, rabbis and
rustics, have assumed the role of Ordipus to this sphinx. And
in all probability the reader also is now asking, „Who was Mel_
chizedek?” I am quite sure that I will fail to satisfy your
curiosity, but I will try, provided you will not ask me to go
out of the record. So I will hoist your question to the mast_
head of a separate division:

We are shut up to three records: Genesis 14:18_20; Psalm
110:4; Hebrews 5:6_7. Many answers by many men have
been given, a few of which will be merely named: He was
Shem; he was Ham; he was an angel; he was a premanifes_
tation of the Son of God in human form; he was the Holy
Spirit; he was an appearance of the divine influence. Only
two of these answers have been made plausible enough to ob_
tain wide acceptance. These two alone will be noted, then one
additional will be discussed.
First, therefore, was he Shem? The argument in favor of
this theory is substantially as follows:
Shem was alive at this date. He was about 100 years old
at the time of the deluge and lived 500 years after that event.
This establishes the fact that he was a contemporary of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
This was a king in the middle of the territory assigned to
Shem, and the place, afterward Jerusalem, always remained

the sacred center of Semitic sentiment and religion. It was
to this place, Mount Moriah, Abraham went later by divine
command to offer up Isaac.
He was a priest of the Most High God. And by divine
arrangement in patriarchal times the head of the family was
the priest of the family. Shem, then living, was the head and
priest of all his descendants.
By virtue of his leadership and office he was greater than
Abraham and was entitled to the tithes offered by his illus_
trious descendant.
It was exceedingly appropriate that the aged and venerable
patriarch should go forth and bless his distinguished de_
scendant on his deliverance of the whole country from an in_
vading and despoiling tyrant.
Abram’s instant recognition of his superior standing and
office is perfectly natural if this were Shem, but would call for
a revelation if Melchizedek were a Canaanite, resting under
Noah’s curse.
Such a priesthood in the person of a Hamite was violative
of the religious birthright of Shem. Noah’s prophecy had de_
clared: „Blessed be Jehovah) the God of Shem.” This was
the spiritual primogeniture held by Abel above Cain, by Seth
above Cain, by Abram above Haran, by Isaac above Ishmael,
by Jacob above Esau, by Judah above Reuben.
The second plausible theory is that Melchizedek was a pre_
manifestation of the Son of God – an appearance in human
form as in Genesis 18:22, and Joshua 5:13_15. The arguments
in support of this theory are derived from the seventh chap_
ter of the letter to the Hebrews:
The titles: (a) King of Righteousness, and King of Peace,
(b) Priest of the Most High God.
Without earthly parentage or genealogy.
Eternity of being expressed in these words: „Having neither
beginning of days nor end of life”; „Here men that die re_
ceive tithes, but there one of whom it is witnessed that he
Eternity of office: „Priest for ever”; „abideth a priest con_
tinually”; „a priest who hath been made not after the law of a
carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.”
His greatness: „But without dispute the less is blessed of
the better.”
The third theory, and the only one worth consideration, is
based on both negative and positive argument:
Negative. He was not Shem, (a) because the record no_
where calls him by that name, which is marvelous if he had
been Shem, and (b) because his lack of genealogy or registered
pedigree makes it impossible that he could have been Shem,
since his pedigree is carefully and repeatedly given.
He was not a premanifestation of the Son of God, but a
type of the Son of God. God cannot be a type of himself.
There is a likeness between shadow and substance, but not
Positive. The Genesis account is simple and natural his_
tory. The king of Sodom and the king of Salem are both
recognized as going out to meet Abram, in the same connec_
tion (Gen. 14:17_18), and as if both were earthly kings.
As the place of meeting was in the territory of the king of
Salem, he acts as a host and provides refreshments for all
parties; but being priest as well as king, he blesses Abram and
receives tithes.
He was greater than Abram by superiority of office.
The points of likeness between him and our Lord, which
constitute him a type are these:
As to kingship: His name meant king of righteousness, and
his country, Salem, meant peace. These normal significations
were relations in Christ’s case.
As to priesthood: Melchizedek waa not a priest because
the head of a family, nor because of a pedigree connecting him

with a family of priests, as in the case of the children of Levi;
but by direct appointment of God, and this appointment was
not transmissible to his descendants. It stood out unique
without precedent or consequent, and hence figuratively was
for ever. So far as the record goes there is no genealogy of
the man. No account of his father or mother or descendants.
Just as now, people who are proud of their ability to trace
their descent in England from William the Conqueror, or
in this country from Revolutionary sires, count a man who
is unable to trace his descent as a man of no family. So the
prophet Isaiah speaks of the Messiah who was cut off: „Who
shall declare his generation?” There is no record of the be_
ginning or end of Melchizedek’s priesthood, and hence its
seeming eternity. In its seeming, not in its reality, is its
likeness of Christ’s priesthood. So far as the history goes,
Melchizedek cannot be proved to be a descendant of Shem,
Ham, or Japheth. It is as if he were a foundling, an orphan,
whose parentage is undeterminable, who yet by sturdy man_
hood won his way to the throne, and by his piety in the midst
of darkness was singled out by the Almighty to be his priest.
A.II around him was gross idolatry. He alone worshiped the
true God and mediated between his subjects and God with
priestly functions. These singularities in his remarkable his_
tory made him a type of the great messianic High Priest. In
Joshua’s time we shall find an Adonizedek, king of Salem, who
possesses none of the characteristics of Melchizedek.
According to this theory, Melchizedek was a real earthly
king of unknown parentage, who, without the aid of family
teaching, and in the midst of gross idolatry, was taught of God
and appointed his priest, though of the time of the appoint_
ment there is no record, and none of its discontinuance.

Our lesson closes with another flash of light on the greatness of the character of Abram: „And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods thyself. And Abram said unto the king of Sodom, I have lifted up my hand unto Jehovah, God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth, that I will not take a thread nor shoe_latchet nor aught
that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:
save only that which the young men have eaten, and the
portion of the men that went with me, Aner, Escliol and
Mamre; let them take their portion” (Gen. 4:21_24). The
lifting up of his hand indicates an oath or vow made to God,
doubtless when he started in pursuit, that if the Lord would
bless him he would not enrich himself by this war. His disin_
terestedness is mingled with justice. He does not bind his allies
by his oath, and insists that they should have their lawful
part of the spoils. The reader will note here the first mention
of tithes.

1. In the great foray of the fourteenth chapter of Genesis, what great difficulties confront the reader?
2. Briefly outline the situation at the beginning of this episode.
3. What was the extent and nature of the empire of Chedorlaorner?
4. Describe the military campaign of Chedorlaorner.
5. Describe Abram’s brilliant counterstroke.
6. To what modern general may Abram be compared in this mar_
velous campaign?
7. What two great events grace his triumph on his return?
8. Who broke the silence first after the first incident, and when does second voice break another silence?
9, Name several theories of Melchizedek.
10. What is the first theory discussed and what are the arguments in favor of it?
11. What is the second theory and the arguments for it?
12. The third theory and its arguments?
13. Was his offering of bread and wine a prototype of the Lord’s
14. In what respect was he a type of Christ?
15. Why did Abram refuse reward from the king of SodomT

Genesis 15

1. Abraham’s Despondency
2. The Vision of the Word of God.
3. Abraham’s Conversion
4. The Sacrifices of the Covenant and Birds of Prey
5. The Waiting and the Darkness
6. The Trance and the Prophecy
On many accounts this history is one of unusual interest.
A number of new words confront us. Not before in the Bible
record have we met the phrase, „The Word of the Lord,” or
the corresponding name of God, uttered by Abram, „The Lord
God” (Hebrew, Jehovah Adonai), nor the words, „vision,”
„shield,” „believed.” Here, too, for the first time we come upon
imputed righteousness, about which theologians in all ages
have much to say. If later doctrinal and denominational
divergencies took points of wide departure from the cove_
nants, how much more from imputed righteousness?
Here also we find the first clear statement that Abram’s
heir shall not be an adopted son, but his own child, though
a subsequent revelation must declare plainly the child’s ma_
ternity. And here also we find for the first time the yet far_
away date when Abram’s descendants shall take possession
of the Promised Land, the reason for the long delay, a pro_
phetic outline of their history for 400 years, and the exact
boundaries of the territory to be occupied by them in the day
of Israel’s greatest extension of empire. And here also is the
first minute description of an ancient covenant, the prototype
of historic covenants among men and nations for thousands
of years.
But the most important new thing is the detailed account of
a conversion to God which becomes the model of all subse_
quent ages, with which even we today must measure our own
profession of faith. It has already been shown more than
once that the New Testament revelation is but the develop_
ment and fruitage of Old Testament revelation, but here em_
phatically we find the taproot of that individual Christianity
whose flowers bloom in all climes and times, countries, and
Our last chapter revealed Abraham in the role of a match_
less warrior triumphant in strategy, celerity, battle, and pur_
suit, and then blessed by the priest of the Most High God, and
then towering above all contemporaries in a disinterestedness
concerning the spoils of victory that challenges the admira_
tion of the ages and furnishes a model too high for imitation
by the civilization of the nineteenth century nations. Maybe
the twentieth century will climb up to its sublime height.
But man’s hopes and fears alternately prevail, like the
swing of a pendulum or like the succession of day and night.
Abram seems startled at his own success, and fears the prom_
inence it thrust upon him. Kings have delighted to do him
honor) and nations glorify him for their deliverance. But
instead of being elated at these extraordinary manifestations
of human approval, he finds in them an occasion of appre_
hension. „Will they not excite envy and jealousy? Will they
not inspire hatred against the stranger who is only a sojourner
among them? Is it not true that
He who ascends to mountain tops shall find
The loftiest peaks most wrapped in clouds and snow;
He who surpasses or subdues mankind
Must look down on the hate of those below?

Then will not Chedolaorner, stung into madness by defeat,
and chagrined that the fruit of a great and victorious cam_
paign is snatched from his hands by a handful of men, call
out a mightier army from the limitless resources of a great
empire and come back in irresistible might to avenge dis_
honor put upon him by an insignificant adversary? And yet
again doubt whispers, „And I am not an impractical idealist to
reject the present and substantial rewards of victory? And
concerning this proposed country, Do I own a foot of it, or
is there a rational prospect of it? And what about it all in
any event? Am I not old and childless, with only a servant
for an heir?” How natural, how realistic is every Bible story I
How unattainable the naturalness by the imitation of the
modern novelist! We thus see the state of Abram’s mind,
which prepares the way for

„After these things the word of Jehovah came unto Abram
in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield and
thy exceeding great reward” (Gen. 15:1). The place is
Hebron. The time is night. The despondency, the loneliness,
the darkness, the doubt, and the fear call for a new revela_
tion. „The word of God came in a vision.” The formula,
„the word of God,” entirely new here, becomes quite familiar
in subsequent history. The word here seems to be a person.
Is it not the divine Logos of John’s first chapter, and not a
mere saying or message? Does it not address itself to sight
as well as to hearing? The word came in a vision, i.e., in
mental perception. Abram not only heard words, but saw
the speaker. The mind may see an image invisible to others
in several ways:
(1) In a dream while asleep, as later in this lesson (w. 12_
17) and as vividly described by Eliphaz:
Now a thing was secretly brought to me,
And mine ear received a whisper thereof.

In thoughts from the visions of the night,
When deep sleep falleth on men,
Fear came on me, and trembling,
Which made all my bones to shake.
Then a spirit passed before my face;
The hair of my flesh stood up.
It stood still, but I could not discern the appearance thereof;
A form was before mine eyes:
There was silence, and I heard a voice, saying,
Shall mortal man be more just than God?
Shall a man be more pure than his maker? – JOB 4:12_17
In the dream we both see and hear.
(2) While awake in a trance, as in the case of Paul: „And
it came to pass, that, when I had returned to Jerusalem, and
while I prayed in the temple, I fell into a trance, and saw
him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out
of Jerusalem; because they will not receive of thee testimony
concerning me” (Acts 22:17_18).
Consider another experience of the apostle: „But I will
come to visions and revelations of the Lord. I know a man
in Christ, fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I know
not; or whether out of the body, I know not; God knoweth),
such a one caught up even to the third heaven. And I know
such a man (whether in the body, or apart from the body, I
know not; God knoweth), how that he was caught up into
Paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful
for man to utter” (2 Cor. 12:1_4).
(3) Again, while in a normal waking state, without dream
or trance, God may render so acute a vision by the power of
his Spirit that the thin veil between the visible and the in_
visible becomes transparent. This is an immediate view. See
the case of the young man on the mountain with Elisha (2
Kings 6:15_17), and the case of Stephen (Acts 7:55_56). A
notable example of seeing face to face, apart from dream or
trance, is the case of Moses. All three of these physical states
of receiving revelation are thus set forth later: „And he said,
Hear now my words: if there be a prophet among you, I
Jehovah will make myself known unto him in a vision, I will
speak with him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so;
be is faithful in all my house: with him will I speak mouth to
mouth, even manifestly, and not in dark speeches; and the
form of Jehovah shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not
afraid to speak against my servant, against Moses?” (Num.
12:6_8). Such immediate vision will ultimately be the priv_
ilege of all the saints, says Paul: „For now we see in a
mirror darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part;
but then shall I know fully even as also I was fully known”
(I Cor. 13:12). The subject of God’s methods of revelation
to man is a wide one, and full of interest, with which we
shall have much to do later. Then will we learn to pity
that unhappy king of whom it was written: „And when Saul
inquired of Jehovah, Jehovah answered him not, neither by
dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets” (I Sam. 28:6).
The comfort of the word of vision to Abram lies in two
particulars: (1) „Fear not, I am thy shield.” It is a precious
thought that the first Bible use of the word, „shield,” refers
to God as the defensive armor which will ward off every
missile of the enemy. Paul must have had this in view in
citing the Christian’s armor in Ephesians 6:10_18, partic_
ularly 16: „Withal taking up the shield of faith wherewith ye
shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the evil one.” The
shield of faith is God, behind whom faith shelters and trusts.
With God intervening what need Abram care for Chedor_
laorner? Indeed, „If God be for us, who can be against
us?” President Andrew Johnson, in great peril, put Grant
between himself and the irate Edwin M. Stanton. With God
between us and our _roes we may sing all the triumphant and
defiant songs of the Bible saints. (2 Sam. 22:3; Psalm 28:7;
84:11; 119:114; Rom. 8:37_39.)
(2) „I am thy exceeding great reward.” Thus God offers
himself to Abram as both safety and treasure. Offers him_
self as the spring of every ]oy and the only satisfying
portion. Heretofore he has excited Abram by the offer of
land, greatness, property, ambition, and children, but now
he offers himself. What are the rejected spoils of Sodom_
to this reward? If a man have all things else and not
God, he is poor indeed. If he has God and nothing else, he is
rich indeed. This is the only satisfaction to human hunger and
thirst. Well might the enlightened psalmist sing: „My heart
and my flesh cry out unto the living God.” „As the hart
panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after
thee, 0 God. My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God:
When shall I come and appear before my God?” (Psalm 134:
2; 42:1_2). Surely if God shall say: „The Lord’s portion is his
people” (Deut. 22:9), the Christian may respond with David:
„God is my portion for ever” (Psalm 73:26). It was because
Moses saw and understood this „recompense of the reward”
that he refused to be called the son of a princess, and counted
the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of
But the light has not come to Abram yet. „Lord God,
what can you give me in the way of reward that will amount
to anything, seeing I am a childless old man swiftly passing
away, with only a bondservant for an heir?” The visible
Logos responds: „The slave shall not be thine heir, but thine
own son.” And now the narrative assumes rapid movement.
The hand of the doubting man feels the electric thrill of the
divine hand. He is led forth out of the darkness of the
tent into the open air and pointed upward to that marvelous
sight, the glorious star_gemmed sky of that Oriental land.
Above him through that dry, transparent atmosphere, gleams
the splash of the Milky Way, whose myriad light holders, like
a clustered chandelier, mingle and intermingle and weave
their rays of light into one great bridal veil of silver glory,
fit ornament for a soul’s espousal to God. Above him stream
out the sweet and unbound influence of the Pleiades and the
gleam of the unclosed bands of Orion. Mazzaroth is led forth
ini his sight by an unseen hand, and Areturus and his sons march forth at the divine mandate. They declare the glory
of God and make known his invisible power and Godhead.
Revelation whispers in his ear while nature spreads out that
other, that sublimely illustrated volume, „Count them if
able; so shall thy seed be in multitude.” And the tone of
every shining star whispers to his heart, „Abram, the hand
that made us is divine; Abram, if God made and controls the
stars, there is nothing too hard for him. Abram, thy seed
shall outnumber the stars, a multitude that no man can num_
ber, out of every nation, and tribe, and tongue and kindred.
Abram, thy seed shall outshine the stars, for they that be
wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they
that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever;
Abram, have faith in God.”

But alas! natural light cannot convert the soul and make
wise the simple. He turns from the map of the sky to the
face of its Maker, in vision before him, and hears his voice:
„What are land and children and spoils and stars? Abram,
I am thy exceeding great reward, have faith in me.” He
quickens, he thrills with new_born life, „He believed in
Jehovah.” Here first we find the word „believed,” in
all the Bible. „HE BELIEVED,” the biggest word that
ever entered into the heart of man or fell from his lips. Mark,
too, the object of his belief. He believed in Jehovah. The
Logos was with God, that was God, and who later became
incarnate, stood before him. He saw him, for the Word came
in a vision. That very Word, when incarnate, said to the
Jews: „Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and
he saw it and was glad.” Abram heard him, for the Word
spoke unto him. He felt him, for the Word led him forth.
He believed in him and became a converted soul, yea, the
father of the faithful until the end of time. And God imputed
it unto him for righteousness.
Here every word of the fourth chapter of Romans becomes an exposition of our lesson. The several points there
made by the apostle are these:
1. Faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. His
faith is counted righteousness. The righteousness of God
was imputed to him through faith. This was not to him that
worketh, but to him that believeth.
2. This faith comae before circumcision in order that he
might be father of all that believed, even though they be not
circumcised Jews.
3. Righteousness was imputed by faith that it might be pf
grace to the end that the promise might be sure to all tiw.
4. This was a living, moving, and growing faith. It took
steps (Rom. 4:12). A faith that will not walk is not the faith
of Abraham.
5. It was the faith of regeneration (Rom. 4:17).
6. It made him the friend of God (James 2:23)
7. It was the model of faith in David’s day (Rom. 4:6_8).
8. It is the model of our faith today. (Rom. 4:23-25) and
the model of our walk and work (Rom. 4:12).
9. It ripened into perfection by use, obedience and work.
forty years later when he gave up Isaac and had God alone (James 2:22-23).

1. Where in the Old Testament do we find an account of Abram’s
2. In the account of his conversion, what mighty words or phrases appear for the first time?
3. What three other things do we find here?
4. What was the most important new thing found here?
5. What. is the relation of Abram’s converaion to ours?
6. What questionings arose in Abram’s mind, just after his great victory, which prepared the way for the vision which followed?
7. What. was the place, time, and circumstances of the vision?
8. What is tbe meaning of „The Word of God” which came to
9. In what ways may the mind see an image invisible to others?
Give an instance of each case.
10. In what two particulars was the comfort of the „word of vision” to Abram?
11. What is the meaning of „I am thy exceeding great reward” and
the application?
13. Following this, what question did Abram ask, God’s answer to it and what the method of impressing this upon Abram’s mind?
14. What was Abram’s response and what was the object of his faith?
15. What does our Lord say of Abram’s faith?
16. Where do we find in the New Testament an exposition of this
lesson and what are the several points there made?

Genesis 15 to 19:28


We have discussed only three divisions of the outline given
at the beginning of the last chapter. The next item is „The
Sacrifices of the Covenant.” Account of that is given in
Genesis 15:9_11: „Take me a heifer three years old, and a
she_goat three years old, and a ram three years old, and a
turtledove and a young pigeon. And he took all these, and
divided them in the midst, and laid each half over against
the other; but the birds divided he not. And the birds of
prey came down upon the carcasses, and Abram drove them
away.” One of the most impressive sermons I ever read
was delivered by a Methodist preacher on the text: „Abram
drove them away.” His line of thought was, that when we
come before God with what he has required in our hands,
and put it before him, we have to wait his acceptance, and as
a test of our faith while he is waiting, the fowls come to
destroy the sacrifice. The old commentators used to represent
the fowls as nations endeavoring to destroy the people of
Abram. Others refer it to the New Testament thought where,
when the seed was deposited, the fowls came and picked them
up. The spiritual thought is, whoever makes an offering to
God, waiting, must see to it that the offering is not spoiled
by the enemies of God and man.
Abram waited until the sun was nearly down. There he
was. He had passed between the pieces. Night came, and a
horror of great darkness came upon him. He still waited. God
had not signified his presence. Suddenly in a trance he sees
a smoking furnace and a shining lamp pass between the sacri_
fices. The shining lamp is the Shekinah, the indication of
divine presence. With the passing through of the visible
representation of God there comes a voice of prophecy: „And
when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram;
and lo, a horror of great darkness fell upon him. And he
said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be
sojourners in the land that is not theirs, and shall serve them;
and they shall afflict them four hundred years; and also that
nation, whom they shall serve, will I Judge; and afterwards
they shall come out with great substance. But thou shalt go
to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old
age. And in the fourth generation they shall come hither
again: for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet full.” That
is a remarkable prophecy, that the descendants of Abram
should go into bondage among Egyptian people, but would
come out in the fourth generation to the land promised to
Abram. Two reasons are assigned why Abram or his descend_
ants should not immediately have the land. It would be a
long time before his descendants would be sufficiently numer_
ous and disciplined. Then the land was occupied by the
Amorites, whose iniquity was not yet full. God does not
remove a people until their iniquity is full. The promise,
then, was made to Abram afar off. He himself died in a
good old age.
I want to notice a serious chronological difficulty. Genesis
15:13, says, „And they shall afflict them four hundred years.”
Exodus 12:4, „The time that the children of Israel dwelt in
Egypt was four hundred and thirty years.” Notice that
difference of thirty years. Acts 7:6, „And God spake in this
wise, that his seed should sojourn in a strange land, and
that they should bring them into bondage and treat them
ill for four hundred years.” That agrees with Genesis 15:13.
Galatians 3:17, „A covenant confirmed beforehand by God,
the law, which came four hundred and thirty years after.”
Paul states that it was back 430 years from the giving of the
law to the call of Abram. If that is so, how do you get 400 or
430 years in bondage in Egypt, as it was 220 years from the
call of Abram before they went into Egypt? In my discussion
on the covenants I took Paul’s New Testament statement as thecorrect one, adopted by Archbishop Usher and given in
your Bibles, leaving only 210 years in Egypt.

Jehovah said to Abram, “Unto thy seed have I given
this land from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the
Euphrates.” I find Old Testament proof that at one time
Abram’s descendants did actuary_possess all the country
from the eastern mouth of the Nile to the Euphrates. The
sixteenth chapter opens with a human attempt to fulfil the
prophecy of God. In the fifteenth chapter Abram said, „0
Lord Jehovah, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless,
and he that shall be possessor of my house is Eliezer of
Damascus?” And Jehovah said, „This man shall not be thine
heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels.”
Sarah, knowing that she was barren, and that she and her
husband were old, falls upon an Oriental method by which
Abram should have a son. She gives her handmaiden, Hagar
the Egyptian, to Abram as a wife in order that Hagar’s child
by Abram should be as Sarah’s child. She got herself, Abram
and the handmaiden, the descendants of Abram through her
own son and through Hagar’s son all into a world of trouble.
Once I kept worrying a teacher who had promised that in an
hour he would go to a certain orchard for some fruit. I waited
and waited and asked him if it wasn’t most time. So he
took an old_fashioned hourglass, filled with sand and narrow
in the middle so that the sand could run through in just one
hour, and said to me, „When that sand drops through we will
go.” I sat there and looked at that hourglass. Finally I
reached over and shook it. That was human effort. It did not
make the sand come a bit faster. So Sarah’s shaking the
hourglass did not help matters. When the handmaiden found
she was to be the mother of Abram’s child, she despised Sarah;
Sarah began to quarrel and oppress the handmaiden so that
she ran away. We now come to a new expression (16:7),
„And the angel of the Lord found her by a fountain of water
in the wilderness.” After this point that expression occurs
often, and all the circumstances go to show that it was a pre_
manifesation of the Son of God. You will see later that he
is here spoken of as God. The angel prophesied to Hagar.
„Return to thy mistress and I will greatly bless thy seed,
that it shall not be numbered for multitude. Thou shall bear
a child and thou shalt call his name Ishmael because God
hath heard thy affliction, and he shall be as a wild ass among
men; his hand shall be against every man, and every man’s
hand shall be against him, and he shall dwell over against all
his brethren.” When I was eleven years old a man in Sunday
school asked where the passage was about the boy who was
to become like a wild ass. Every boy went home to find the
passage, and I determined to find it before I slept. Be_
ginning at Genesis, I read through until I found it, and what
a thrill of joy went through my heart. A gentleman in
Arkansas who used to know me when a boy asked me this,
„What achievement of your life has filled you with the great_
est Joy?” I told him that it was catching my first ‘possum. I
was about seven years old and had a bob_tailed brindle dog
named Lupe. He got to smelling around an old log, and
finally pulled out a ‘possum. I grabbed him by the tail and
went home shouting. Now the object of these general ques_
tions is to put you on a line of thinking for yourselves. I asked
my elder brother about Ishmael. In an atlas he showed me.
Arabia, and described the marvelous exploits of the people,
and particularly since they adopted the religion of Mohammed
how their hands have been against every man. They live.
in tents and have camels and horses. Lew Wallace tells about
the Arab sheik whose fine horse Ben Hur drove in the chariot
race. Sir Walter Scott’s Talisman treats of these Bedouins
of the desert. Strange that God’s prophecy should designate
the characteristics of the descendants of this man for thou_
sands of years.
Verse 13 says, „Thou art a God that seeth, Where_
fore the well is called Beer_Lahai_roi,” meaning „living after,
you have seen.” You remember the saying that no mortal can
see God and live. She was persuaded that God had met bex.
She obeyed his voice, and went back and became subject to.
I have selected certain thoughts for the reader’s attention.
The first relates to the establishment of the covenant of
circumcision. I would go extensively into a discussion of that
but for the fact that at the twelfth chapter we discussed all the
covenants with Abram.
The second thought is the enlargement in God’s announce_
ment to Abram. He now not only specifies that Abram’s son
shall be his heir and not his bondservant, but that he shall be
a son of his wife, Sarah. It is characteristic of the Old Testa_
ment prophecies to become more particular in each subsequent
announcement. Genesis 2 says, „The seed of the woman shall
bruise the serpent’s head.” As the light increases, this seed of
the woman shall be a descendant of Seth, Noah, Shem, Abra_
ham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, David, more particular all the time.
In Hebrews, Romans, and Galatians this subject is particu_
larly discussed. In Hebrews we learn that God made an
announcement to Abram that involved a natural impossi_
bilty, but Abram staggered not through unbelief. In one of
these books there is a reference to the steps of Abram’s faith.
When the general convention was in session at Dallas some
years ago, I was called upon to preach a sermon at the pastors’
conference, and took for my text, „The Steps of Abraham’s
Faith.” Commencing with the statement that a faith that
cannot walk is a very puny child, I traced the steps of
Abrahams’s faith. When he was seventy years old, God called
him out of Ur of the Chaldees. He believed God, and stepped
far enough to reach Haran. He halted there till his father
died, and took another step to the Holy Land. As each
new revelation of God would come his faith stepped higher
and culminated in the offering of Isaac, confident that God
would raise him from the dead and perpetuate his seed through
In this larger announcement God changes the name of Ab_
ram to Abraham, and of Sarai to Sarah. Indians do not name
their children until some exploit is performed which gives
them a name. We sometimes overburden our children with
names. A child who may have great facility in telling lies
about cherry trees, or anything else, we name George Washing_
ton. One without missionary spirit is often named Judson, or
a child without pulpit eloquence or faith we name Spurgeon.
My father did the same with his children. He named one
for Richard Baxter, author of Saints’ Rest. He named me for
Solomon’s commander_in_chief who succeeded Joab. We are
very illustrious in our names. But Abram’s name was changed
by an event in his life which evidenced great faith. In other
words, it is better to earn a name than to have a great name
thrust upon us. Jacob’s name originally meant supplanter,
which he was. In that great struggle where he wrestled with
God, his name was changed to Israel, a marvelous name,
fairly earned. We ought to be more concerned about the
name that we merit than about the name with which fond and
overexpectant parents burden us.
In the enlargement of this promise that his son would in_
herit, Abraham gives utterance to an expression from which
have often preached, and I give it to you to preach from:
„0, that Ishmael might live before you.” Ishmael, his son
by Hagar, was about thirteen years old. Abraham was very
much attached to him, and fondly hoped that in him the
family fortunes rested. Now comes God’s announcement that
a child yet unborn should set Ishmael aside. How many
timeg. in substance has a father prayed that prayer. Dr.
Andrew Broadis, the elder, had an illustrious son that he did
not think much of. He had another son, his Absalom, and
prayed continually that this son might live before God. But
that son died a drunkard, while the other became a preacher
as great as his father. In the Prentiss family of Maine, the
likely son died. There was a crippled boy in the family called
the child of his mother’s hand, because he was kept alive for
five years t)y his mother’s rubbing. The father said, „Oh,
that it had been the crippled boy that died.” The crippled
boy became S. S. Prentiss. What the other boy would have
been we do not know.
The next thought refers to Abraham’s hospitality. Stand_
ing under an oak tree he sees three illustrious visitors coming
in the garb of men, and entertains them with great hospitality.
One of them proved to be the angel of the Lord, a premani_
festation of the Son of God, and the others, the angels that
destroyed Sodom. Upon that passage the writer of Hebrews
says, „Be not forgetful to entertain strangers, for thereby
some have entertained angels unawares.” I quoted that pas_
sage to a woman once who had a big house and never enter_
tained anybody. I told her how much the lives of families
were influenced by illustrious persons that stopped just one
night. How Spurgeon’s career was shaped by an illustrious
man who stayed at his father’s house one night, and next
morning put his hand on the boy’s head and prayed that God
might make him a great preacher and send him to preach the
gospel to lost London. The boy never got from under the
power of it, nor did the family. This lady said if she ever
entertained any angels it was certainly unawares, for she had
never found it out. I have known my father to entertain
seventy_five messengers at an association. When we did not
have enough beds, we scattered the cotton out and put quilts
down in the cotton house. When Waco was a village the First
Church entertained free of charge 3,500 visitors. They were
there from every state in the Union attending the Southern
Baptist Convention. We did not have enough homes, so after
filling every hotel and boarding house, we went out two or
three miles in the country. When I paid the hotel bill next.
morning it was just $1,500. It did not hurt us. Nothing ever
did Texas more benefit. The railroads took it up and gave
every one of them a free trip through Texas and Mexico. It
advertised Texas all over the world. I entertained forty men
in my house. Dr. Sears entertained forty women. His neigh_
bors said he nearly broke his leg so he might stay at home and
talk. Anyhow, it was a blessing on his home and mine.
While Abraham entertained these angels a reannouncement
is made that a son should be born and to his wife, Sarah.
Sarah was inside the tent. But women can hear better than
men. What I say downstairs my wife can always hear up_
stairs. Sarah heard them and laughed aloud at the idea that
an old woman like herself should become the mother of a son
so illustrious. When her child was born and she saw how
foolish it had been to laugh at the word of God, she named
the child Isaac, meaning, „laughter” – and what a sweet name!
After the entertainment the destroying angels start off to
Sodom on their mission. The angel of the Lord, walking with
Abraham, asked the question, „Shall I hide from Abraham
what I am about to do to Sodom, seeing that I know that he
will command his children after him to keep my law?” Look
at the thoughts: Abraham by his faith had become the com_
panion of God so that God said, „I will have no secrets from
Abraham as to my dealings with the affairs of earth.” By
similar faith and life we get into confidential relations with
God, and he promises that we shall know things that others do
not know. Notice next the great act which made Abraham
trustworthy: „For I know that he will command his children
after him.” The great sin of Eli was that he did not restrain
his children. The great merit of Abraham was that he did
rightly raise his child Isaac. The great virtue of Jews to this
day is the reverence they have for parents and the obedience
that children render to their parents. The Gentile boy is like
that wild ass of the desert we discussed. He learns to call his
father „the old man,” and thinks it mighty smart „to row his
own boat,” to „gang his own gait.” A Jewish boy would not
dream of such a thing. They are a thousand miles ahead of
us in this respect. The curse of the present day is the ill_
regulated youth. Instead of remaining children, which would
be better, boys nine and ten years old become manikins. A
preacher found one on the streets one day and asked, „My son,
do you drink?” The boy, thinking it a disgrace if he did not,
said, „No, sir, I hasn’t got to that yet but I chews and cusses.”
That is the spirit of the boyhood of today. The Presbyterians
are ahead of the Baptists in training their children. They
teach the Catechism better. We let the devil take possession
of our children and fortify himself before we begin to do
anything for their salvation, as a rule.
As soon as God announced the destruction of Sodom, Abra_
ham commenced praying. In all the Word of God and in all
literature there is nowhere else to be found such a prayer. He
starts out, „Shall not the judge of all the earth do right, and
if he does right will he slay the righteous with the wicked?”
He asked if God would spare the city for the sake of fifty
righteous men. God said, „Yes.” He took a forward step and
asked God if he would save the city for the sake of forty right_
eous men. God said, „Yes.” „Hear me once again, Will you not
save the city if there be thirty?” God said he would spare the
city. „Will you spare the city for twenty’s sake?” God said,
„Yes.” Abraham made bis last step, „Will you save the city if
there be ten righteous men?” With that precedent why did not
Abraham go to five? That leads to a thought presented by
our Saviour in the Sermon on the Mount, viz.: „Ye are the
salt of the earth” as well as „the light of the world.” The
world cannot be destroyed while the righteous are in it. The
reason why the fire has not leaped out of the storm cloud and
riven the earth with its fiery bolt is the good people of God
that are in the world. That only keeps cities, states, and
nations from instantaneous annihilation by the irrevocable
judgments of God. The wicked do not know that all that
keeps them from sudden death and out of hell is the righteous
constituting the salt of the earth. When God raises the dead
bodies of his saints that sleep in the earth, and snatches up
to the clouds the living Christians that are changed, immedi_
ately, as by the following of an inoxerable law, fire worldwide
seizes the earth, and ocean and continent are wrapped in
flames. The conserving power is gone.
I want you to barely look at what is too foul for public
speech. Read it alone, covered with shame, this last sin of
Sodom which gives a name to a sin, „Sodomy.” Our courts
recognize that sin, which is incorporated in the common law
of England and the United States. They sought to perpetuate
this sin that night and Lot restrains them. These angels of
God whom they mistook for men and upon whom they pur_
posed to commit this sin, smote the lecherous crowd with
blindness. And after every one of them was stricken blind,
they groped for the door still to commit that sin. If you want
a picture of the persistence of an evil passion, when the heart
is hard and the neck stiffened, when the soul is incorrigible and
obdurate, take the picture of these people, blinded by the
Judgment of God and yet groping for the door.
The record states that the angels told Lot if he had any_
body in that city to get them out mighty quick, and Lot went
to his sons_in_law and urged them to go out. My question is,
Were they actually his sons_in_law? He had two daughters
at home. Did he have other daughters married to Sodomites?
Or were the sons_in_law merely betrothed, fiances? An old
backwoodsman first called my attention to it, and I refer the
matter to you. In the morning the angel gathers the family
out of the city as fast as he can. He says to Lot, „Make
haste. We can do nothing till you are out of the city.” You
must get the good people out before a city can be destroyed.
Notice the lamentable fate of Lot’s wife, an Old Testament
woman immortalized by our Lord in the great prophecy in
Luke 17:32: „Remember Lot’s wife.” She looked back and
was turned into a pillar of salt. The angel said to Lot, „Stay
not in the plains.” Lot said, „That is too far. Let me stop
at Zoan, this little city near by.” Some of the funniest things
I ever heard in my life were connected with that text, „Is it
not a little one?” Like the Methodist preacher’s sermon on
„How shall Jacob arise since he is small?”
The destruction that came was a good deal like the report
given in Marryat’s novel, Poor Jack. When the father whipped
his wife with a pigtail off his head until she fainted, the doc_
tor inquired, „What is the matter with your mother? Is it
external or internal?” The boy replied, „Doctor, I think it is
both.” The destruction that came upon Sodom was both
internal and external. Fire came down from heaven, and tlie
earth opened and swallowed it. It had the characteristics of_
a volcanic eruption, an electric storm and an earthquake. The
destruction was instant and total and down there under the
water lie the relics of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the sea is
called the Dead Sea. No flesh or animal life is in it. Jose_
phus says that when you bite the fruit from the apple tree on
its borders a puff of dust fills your mouth. If you jump into
it you do not sink. The Dead Sea, lower than the Mediter_
ranean, has no outlet. The Dead Sea that receives into its
bosom all the tides of the sacred Jordan from the .snows of
Lebanon which come through Galilee, waters upon which
Christ walked, in which he was baptized; waters that Elijah
smote with his mantle; waters in which Naaman was healed
of his leprosy; waters the most famous in sacred history; that
whole river is like a string on which a necklace of pearls is
strung, yet all that water goes into the Dead Sea, which re_
ceives it and turns nothing out but dust and ashes. Harris,
the author of the book entitled Mammon, compares that sea
to the Antinomian heart, always receiving and never giving.
It has become the image of eternal destruction. Can you
question whether God knows how to preserve the righteous and
his ability to punish the wicked and the sinner?

1. How was the covenant between God and Abraham ratified and
how is the primary meaning of the word „covenant” here exemplified?
2. What two interpretations of „Abram drove them away” and what is the spiritual meaning of it?
3. What trial of Abraham follows this, how then did God signify
his presence and what word of prophecy accompanied it?
4, What two reasons assigned for the descendants of Abraham not
immediately possessing the land promised to him?
5. What chronological difficulty is pointed out and how do you solve it?
6. How did Sarah try to help the Lord fulfil his prophecy to Abra_
ham and what was the result?
7. How do you explain the appearance of the angel of the Lord to
Hagar, what prophecy did he make to her and what was remarkable
about this prophecy?
8. What two elements of the enlargement of God’s announcement to Abraham?
9. How did Abraham receive the first and what were the steps of
Abraham’s faith?
10. Why did God change the name of Abram and what is the
II. In this enlargement to what expression does Abraham give
utterance, its meaning and application? Illustrate.
12. What can you say of Abraham’s hospitality, who were the guests and what is the blessing that often comes from such entertainment?
13. What is the origin and meaning of the word „Isaac”?
14. After the destroying angels departed for Sodom, what question
did the angel of the Lord raise, into what secret did he let Abraham and what great act of Abraham made him trustworthy?
15. Contrast Jews and Gentiles on parental duty and what denomination of people stands next to the Jews in training children?
16. Describe Abraham’s intercession for Sodom and what was the
teaching of our Lord in point?
17. What is the name which indicates the awful sin of the Sodomites?
18. Did Lot have actual sona_in_Jaw? If not, explain the reference
to his sons_in_law.
19. What was the fate of Lot’s wife and what was our Lord’s use of this incident?
20. By what means were Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed?
21. What New Testament use was made of the judgment on these
cities? (2 Peter 2:6_9; Jude 7.)
22. Ancient writers locate Sodom and Gomorrah at the southern, extremity of the Dead Sea, modern writers at the northern extremity.
What do you say?
23. What does the destruction of these cities symbolize and in view of the permanent effect, what question does this forever settle?

Genesis 19:29 to 25:18

This chapter concludes the life of Abraham. It covers over
five chapters of Genesis. The important events are varied:
1. Lot’s history after the destruction of Sodom and Gomor_
rah, and the incestuous origin of the Ammonites and Moabites.
2. Abraham’s dealing with Abimelech, the Philistine king.
3. The birth and weaning of Isaac.
4. The casting out of the handmaiden, Hagar, and Ishmael.
5. The great trial of Abraham’s faith.
6. The death and burial of Sarah.
7. The marriage of Isaac.
8. Abraham’s marriage with Keturah – their children.
9. Abraham’s disposition of his property.
10. Death and burial.
11. Character.
All these events wonderfully illustrate Oriental life of that
Our lesson commences with Genesis 19:29: „And it came to
pass, when God destroyed the cities of the Plains, that God
remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the
overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in which Lot dwelt.”
An examination question will be, To whom was Lot indebted
for his rescue from the destruction of Sodom?
Verse 30 gives the origin of two famousù1 should say in_
famous – nations: Moabites and Ammonites. They resulted
from the incest with his daughters on the part of Lot. No
nations have developed so harmoniously with their origin.
They were immoral, untrustworthy, every way a blot upon
civilization, the bitterest enemies of the Israelites, except the
Amalekites and Philistines.
The twentieth chapter returns to Abraham. He located in
the territory of the Philistine king. The Philistines, descend_
ants of a son of Ham, originally located in Egypt. But they
get their name from their migratory habits. Leaving the
place that God assigned to them, they took possession of the
southwestern coast of the land which derives its name from
them, in our time called Palestine. They had not yet de_
veloped the confederacy of the five cities, like the Swiss
cantons, which they established later. Abimelech is not a
name, but a title, like Pharaoh. The Philistine king has more
honor than any subsequent king. We have discussed the
responsibility of Abraham, making Sarah say that she was his
sister. She is eighty years old, but a most beautiful young
woman. God has restored youth to her and Abraham. Abim_
elech takes Sarah, but is prevented from harming her through
a dream God sent, warning him that she was the wife of one
of his prophets, and that he would die if he did not return
her. Abimelech justly rebukes them both. In v. 9 he says to
Abraham, „What hast thou done unto us? and in what have I
offended thee, that thou hast brought on me and my king_
dom a great sin?” Abraham makes a very lame excuse. Isaac
repeats the very same thing with another Abimelch. To Sarah,
Abimelech says, „Behold, I have given a thousand pieces
of silver; behold it is for thee a covering of the eyes to all that
are with thee; and in respect of all thou art righted.” The
wrong that had been done by her captivity was thus amply
compensated. The text of the King James Version says slie
was reproved. I think it was a gentle rebuke. Note the
healing of Abimelech in v. 17 at the prayer of Abraham, just
as we see the friends of Job forgiven at the intercession of Job,
and Israel forgiven at the intercession of Samuel and Moses.
What mighty power has the intercessory prayer of good men
with God!

According to promise Isaac was born. Then Sarah be_
comes both inspired and poetical. Her Magnificat sounds like
that of the virgin Mary. She said, „God hath made me to
laugh; every one that heareth will laugh with me.” The
child was named Isaac, which means laughter. Some chil_
dren are born to make parental hearts sing with joy. Many
children cause the parental heart to ache.
We come to another incident: „The child grew, and was
weaned.” And Abraham made a great religious festival in
honor of the weaning of Isaac. Sarah saw the son of Hagar
making sport and said to Abraham, „Cast out this handmaid
and her son; for the son of this handmaid shall not be heir
with my son, even with Isaac.” It was a little hard on Ish_
mael. He had been the only child, much loved by his father.
He was taking a pretty wide swing in affairs at the birth of
Isaac, which, according to an old saying, „broke his nose,” and
put him out of commission. So, although it was a religious
ceremony, Ishmael mocked, sinning against God, the father,
mother, and child. Sarah seems rather hard, but she was
exceedingly wise. It was very difficult to bring up two seta
of children in a house where there is already a spirit of jeal_
ousy. Ishmael would not have been a safe guide for his
little brother. It hurt Abraham very much. That night God
appeared to him in a vision and confirmed what Sarah had
said. Paul quotes the words of Sarah in Galatians 4, „Cast
out the handmaid and her son.” In that famous letter he says
that Hagar and Sarah are allegorical, representing two cove_
nants: one according to the flesh, Hagar, typifying Israel;
the other according to the spirit, in which Sarah represents
the Jerusalem which is above. All true spiritual children of
Abraham are children of promise, born of the spirit. This
interpretation throws a great light on the incidents recorded
The story becomes still more pathetic when early next
morning Abraham puts a goatskin full of water and some bread
upon Hagar’s shoulder, and starts her and the boy off. She
struck out, trying to find the way to Egypt. But she got
tangled up in the desert. In a hot dry, sandy country it does
not take long to drink all the water a woman can carry. The
water gave out. Ishmael was famishing with thirst. The
mother could not bear to see him die. So she put him under
a little bush to shelter him as much as possible, and drawing
off to a distance, wept and sobbed in anguish of spirit. And
the angel of God spoke to her, „What aileth thee, Hagar?
Fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he
is.” The boy, too, was praying. Once in preaching a sermon
to children I took that text. The other night my little boy
asked me to repeat a scripture before we had family prayer.
I told him of the boy born to be a wild man, against whom was
every man’s hand, and whose hand was against every man.
How that he and his mother had to leave home when he was a
little fellow. That hot walk in the desert, the insatiable thirst,
and the mother going off to pray. How it occurred to the
little boy to pray, and how when he prayed God heard the
voice of the lad himself. Instantly my little boy spoke up
and began to tell of two or three times when he had prayed
and God had heard him. I encouraged him in that thought.
I told him whenever he got into trouble, no matter how small,
to pray; just as a child to tell God, and while nobody on earth
might hear him, his Heavenly Father would hear even a
whisper. I tell you this that you may impress upon young
people the fact that God heard the voice of the lad himself.
At the Arkansas convention in Texarkana, I preached a
sermon for Dr. Barton’s church. A mother came to me be_
fore preaching and said that she had two boys in whom she
was very much interested, and wanted me to pray for them
that day. I said, „Suppose you tell those boys to pray while
I preach.” She told them, and at the close of the sermon
they were happily converted. Dr. Barton baptized them that
night, both at one time, holding each other’s hands. It made
a very impressive sight. Having heard about this, when I
returned later to Texarkana, another mother came and stated
a similar case. I told her to ask the lad to pray himself. That
boy was converted and joined the church at the close of the
service. In lecturing to the Y. M. C. A. in the afternoon, be_
fore I commenced my talk, I raised the point that God could
hear anybody in that audience of five hundred men. There
were some very bad cases, men who had stained their homes,
grieved their wives, darkened the prospect of their children. I
told them that God would hear them even on the brink of hell,
if they would turn to him and pray, „God, be merciful to me,
a sinner.” One man stepped right up and gave me his hand.
At night all the churches worshiped at one church. I
preached to within ten minutes of train time, and left without
knowing the result. But with two preachers to call out from
the audience the people who would take God at his word, and
judging from the seeming impression, there ought to have been
a great many conversions there that night. I would be glad
if every preacher would take that text, „I have heard the
voice of the lad where he is,” and preach a sermon. Get it on
the minds of the children that God will hear them. „God
opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went
and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink. And
God was with the lad.” That is the second part of the text.
First, I have heard the voice of the lad himself; second, God
was with the lad.
His mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt, and
he became the father of twelve nations. I have told you about
the Arabs, the descendants of Ishmael. They hold the ground
where Abraham, Sarah, Jacob, Leah, Isaac, and Rachel were
buried. There is an immense structure built at that place.
Until 1869 they would not allow a Gentile to enter, but in that year the Prince of Wales was permitted to go inside. The
remainder of the chapter states a remarkable covenant be_
tween Abraham and Abimelech. It became evident that God
was with Abraham and nobody could harm him. Abimelech
wanted a covenant with that kind of a man. In my preaching
I used to advise sinners never to go into business with a back_
slidden Christian, for God will surely visit him with Judg_
ments, and he may come with fire to burn up the store. Any_
way, a backslidden Christian is an unsafe partner. But whata_
fine partner is a Christian who is not a backslidden one. Abra_
ham said that he ought to rectify a certain offense. „I dug
this well in order to water my stock and your servants took
it.” Abimelech righted the wrong. They took an oath of
amity toward each other, so that the place was called Beer_
sheba, i.e., the well of the oath. That marks the southern
boundary of Palestine as we regard it.
I am going to give you the salient points of the twenty_
second chapter, which presents the most remarkable incident
in the life of Abraham. God had said that in Isaac was all
Abraham’s hope for the future. God determined to try the
faith of Abraham. It has been forty years since his conver_
sion, and he has been stepping up higher and higher until
you would think he must have reached the heights and gradu_
ated. But the crowning touch to his faith is to come now.
God said, „Take now thy sou, thine only son, whom thou
lovest, even Isaac, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and
offer him there for a burnt offering.” It was a staggering re_
quest, and yet Abraham staggered not in unbelief. He thought,
„What will become of God’s promise?” In Hebrews it is ex_
plained how he argued it out and trusted. If God said, „Put
Isaac to death,” he would do it, but God had said that through
Isaac was to come the Messiah. So it would be necessary for
God to raise Isaac from the dead. They set out early. If
they had waked Sarah and told her what they were going to
do, there probably would have been a row. So they took their
servant, a mule, and some wood, and started to distant Mount
Moriah, where Jerusalem is. As they drew near the place,
Isaac, who had been doing some thinking, says, „Father,
here is the wood and the fire, but where is the lamb for
the sacrifice?” It had not been mentioned what his part
was. Abraham answered, „My son, the Lord will pro_,
vide a sacrifice.” They reached the place near where
Christ was later crucified. Abraham built the altar and
placed the wood upon it. He commenced binding Isaac. The
son, never saying a word, submitted. He stretched him over
that altar, and drew his knife over the boy, and already in
Abraham’s mind Isaac was dead. But just as the knife was
about to descend, God said, „Abraham, Abraham, stay thy
hand. Isaac shall not die.” He looked around and there in a
bush was a ram caught by its horns. He took that and of_
fered it.
There are two marvelous lessons to be derived from this
incident. The most significant is that God made Abraham
feel the anguish that God felt in giving up his only begotten
Son to die for man. Abraham ia the only man that ever en_
tered into the sorrow of the Divine Mind in giving up Jesus
to die. When he is bound on the cross and prays, „Save me
from the sword,” the Father cries out, „Wake, 0 sword, and
smite the Shepherd.” When he cries, „Save me from the ene_
my that goeth about like a roaring lion,” and when he prays,
„My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me,” it
was not possible if anybody was to be saved. The other
thought is that as the Father consented to give up his Son,
so the Son obediently submitted. Thus Isaac becomes the type
of Christ. And Abraham called the name of the place Jeho_
vah_jireh, „it shall be provided.” When I was a young
preacher I preached a sermon on all the double names of
Jehovah found in the Old Testament, such as Jehovah_Elohim,
Jehovah_Tsidkena, Jehovah_jireh, etc.
Now we come to a passage that made a great impression on
the mind of the author of the letter to the Hebrews. „And
the angel of the Lord called unto Abram”.in a second time out
of heaven, and said, By myself have I sworn, saith Jehovah,
because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy
son, thine only son, that in blessing I will bless thee, and in
multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heav_
ens, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy
seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in thy seed
shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast
obeyed my voice.” That matter is discussed in Hebrews, Ro_
mans, and Galatians. When I was a young preacher I used
to delight in preaching from this passage, and I like it yet,
Hebrews 6:16, „For men verily swear by the greater; and an
oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Wherein
God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of prom_
ise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:
that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for
God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled
for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: which hope
we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and
which entereth into that within the veil.” In order to assure
every child of God that his hope is well grounded and that he
cannot be disappointed, two things in which it is impossible
for God to lie are joined and twisted together to make a cable
which is fastened to the anchor of hope: one, the promise of
God, the other the oath of God. In commenting upon that Paul
said that, though it was a covenant with a man, because it was
confirmed by the oath of God, it could not be disannulled.
In v. 20 we find, „And it came to pass after these things,
that it was told Abraham, saying, Behold, Milcah, she hath
also borne children unto thy brother Nahor; Uz his firstborn,
and Buz his brother, and Kemuel the father of Aram, and
Chesed, and Hazo and Pildash, and Jidlaph and Bethuel. And
Bethuel begat Rebekah.” That incident is put in to prepare
for a subsequent chapter, showing where Isaac got his wife.
My wife’s brother, when he was a little fellow, came to his
mother and wanted to know who were the boys that milked a
bear. She said she did not know. He said it was in the Bible,
so he read, „Those eight did Milcah bear.” Then his mother
told him of the old Hardshell preacher’s sermon on that text,
to this effect: They got out of milk at a certain house. The
only available source was a she bear, and so the sturdy boys
roped her and brought in the milk.
The twenty_third chapter, which gives an account of the
death of Sarah, and the purchase of a burial place by Abra_
ham, is a very interesting historical account because it gives
all the details of a noted business transaction, showing how
Orientals dealt in their trades. Notice particularly the v. II,
what Ephron says, „Nay, my lord, hear me: the field I give
thee, and the cave that is therein, I give it thee; in the pres_
ence of the children of my people gave I it thee: bury thy
dead.” If an Englishman or an American had said that, it
would have meant an outright gift, but for an Oriental or a
Mexican, he expects the full price. If you enter a house in
Mexico they will tell you everything is yours, cows, lambs,
etc., but don’t you take for granted that it is so; it is just soft
speech. Notice in closing this transaction that the currency
was not coin, but weighed silver. Silver and gold were not put
in pieces of money, but in any form; as, rings, bracelets, or
bars, counted by weight; not numbered.
The twenty_fourth chapter tells how marriages were con_
tracted in the East, and is an exceedingly interesting bit of
history on that subject. Abraham brings out a revelation that
God had previously made that we have no account of else_
where, viz.: that God had told him not to marry his son to any
of the idolaters of the land, but to his own people who were
worshipers of God. So Abraham took Eliezer and swore him.
The form of the oath is given, showing how these solemn oaths
were taken between man and man. This head servant, taking
ten camels, struck out from the southern part of Palestine,
going to the Euphrates, a long trip, though common for cara_
vans. He is much concerned about his mission and says to
Abraham, „You tell me not to take Isaac there because God
told you never to take your son back to that country.” There_
is another revelation, not previously recorded. „Now, suppose
when I get there the girl won’t come to me?” Abraham said,
„That will exempt you from your responsibility, but God will
prosper you in this, his arrangement, and will govern you in
everything.” We have a description of this old man falling
on a plan by which a sign would be given. He sat down near
a well and waited for the women to come and draw water. In
this country men draw the water – we don’t expect women to
draw enough water for a herd of cattle. His plan was that he
would steadily look at the women who came and fixing his
mind on one, he would ask her to give him a drink, and if she
inclined the bucket to him and said, „Let me water your
camels,” she would be the one. Later we find Jacob falling
upon the same method. In our time young men manage to find
their wives without signs or omens. So when Rebekah, grand_
daughter of Nahor, brother of Abraham, came out, a beautiful
virgin, and he asked her for a drink, and she let her pitcher
down and held it in her hand, and then offered to water the
camels, Eliezer knew she was the right one. He took a ring of
gold, a half_shekel in weight, two bracelets for her hands, ten
shekels in weight, and said, „Whose daughter art thou? Is
there in thy father’s house a place for us to pass the night?”
She told him who she was, and that there was a place and
abundant provisions for him and his camels.
So when she got to the house she reported the case and her
brothers came out. Her father was a polygamist, and the eld_
est of each set of children was the head. So Laban, Rebekah’s
brother, came out and invited old Eliezer in. Food is set before
him, but he says, „I will not eat until I have told my message.”
Laban told him to tell it. And he said, „I am Abraham’s serv_
ant. And Jehovah hath blessed my master greatly; and he is
become great; and he hath given him flocks and herds, and
silver and gold, and men servants and maid servants, and
camels and asses. And Sarah, my master’s wife, bare a son to
my master when she was old; and unto him hath he given all
that he hath.” That was a very fine introduction. Whenever
you open negotiations with a young lady’s father for marriage
in the case of a young man whose father is very wealthy and
this son his only heir, you have paved the way for a fair
hearing. He strengthened the case by stating that under the
inspiration of God he was forbidden to take a wife from among
the idolaters, but was commanded to come to this place for a
wife, the idea of appointment by God, a match made in heaven.
Some matches are made of sulphur, not in heaven. He gave his
third reason. „Not only is my master’s son rich, and I am here
under the arrangement of God, but after I got to this place, I
let God give me a sign to determine the woman.” Having
stated his case he says, „If you will deal truly and kindly with
my master, tell me; and if not, tell me, that I may turn to the
right hand or to the left.”
In the King James Version, Eliezer’s speech has a transla_
tion that used to be very famous as a text. He says, „I have
come to seek a bride for my lord.” A Methodist preacher in
Edward Eggleston’s Circuit Rider, preaching from that text
before an immense congregation, says, „My theme is suggested
by the twenty_fourth chapter of Genesis,” and gave a little of
the history. „Now,” he says, „I am here to seek a bride for my
Lord, to espouse a soul to God. And like old Eliezer, I am
under an oath of God. Like him I am not willing to eat until
I have stated my case. And like him I have come by divine
appointment. And like him I have tokens of his spirit that
somewhere in this congregation is the bride of God. And like
him I commence wooing for my Lord by stating whose son he
is. He is the Son of God. He is very rich. He is the heir of
all things in the world.” Edward Eggleston, in telling that
story, relates that Patsy, a beautiful girl, who had despised
religion and circuit riders, was wonderfully impressed by the
sermon. It was the custom in the early days of Methodism to
demand that women should eschew jewels, basing it on a New
Testament expression about bad worldly ornaments. So while
the preacher was exhorting and pleading for a bride for his
master, Patsy commenced taking off her earrings, loosening
her bracelets, and putting them all on the table. Then she
said, „I seek to be ornamented by the One to whom you pro_
pose to espouse me, even the Lord Jesus Christ. I lay aside
the trappings of external wealth and splendour, and look for
that quality of spirit that best ornaments a woman.” Paul
says, showing that the Methodist preacher was not going out of
the record, „I have espoused you to Christ.”
The custom was for the betrothal to take place at the house
of the bride’s father, and Eliezer comes in the name of his
master and the betrothal is undertaken. The marriage is con_
summated whenever the bride is taken to the bridegroom’s
house, and he meets and takes her in. The virgins of Matthew
25 are all espoused, but the bridegroom has not yet come to
take them to his house. When Eliezer had stated his case the
father and brother say, „This thing proceeds from Jehovah,
and it is a question we cannot answer. Behold Rebekah is
before you. Take her and go, and let her be the wife of thy
master’s son.” As soon as the betrothal is completed, Eliezer
according to custom, takes the lady to his camel and hands
out the presents sent by the bridegroom. „And the servants
brought forth jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment,
and gave them to Rebekah, and he gave also to her brother
and her mother precious things.” We perpetuate that somewhat
in our marriage festivals when friends bring bridal presents.
According to an Eastern custom a bridegroom makes presents
to the bride’s mother and family. As these samples of the
richness of Abraham were displayed, they felt still better sat_
isfied about the judiciousness of the marriage.
Next morning Eliezer wants to start right home, but they
said, „Let the damsel stay awhile. You stay a couple of weeks
or months.” But Orientals always expect the answer, „No, I
am in a hurry. I must go.” So they proposed to leave it to the
girl. I have often wondered if they were going to leave any_
thing to her. They called Rebekah and she said, „I will go.”
That leads me to remark what a singular thing it is that a girl
raised in a loving family, sheltered by parental care from even
a cold breath of air, the pride and light of the house, all at
once, on one night’s notice, pulls up stakes and leaves the old
home, saying to a man pretty much what Ruth said to Naomi,
„Where thou goest I will go. Where thou lodgest I will lodge.
Thy God shall be my God, and thy people shall be my people,
and God do so to me, if I ever cease from following after thee.”
And yet, it is God’s providence. So Rebekah and her maids,
and the servant of Abraham and his men struck out from Ha_
ran on the Euphrates, on that long pilgrimage, south to Da_
mascus; to the headwaters of the Jordan; then down either
side of the river until you come to Hebron, where the bride_
groom was. Just before Rebekah gets to Hebron, it happened
that Isaac was out, taking a walk for meditation. In such a
period of a young man’s life, he is given to meditation. When
you see a young fellow that has always wanted to be sur_
rounded by a crowd of boys, getting up early in the morning
and taking a long walk by himself, there is something up. So
Isaac was out on this meditating expedition, and Rebekah saw
him. She instantly slipped down from the camel and put the
veil over her face. The bridegroom could never see the face
of the bride until he took her into his house. That part I do
not think I would like. In the East the women are secluded
until after their marriage.
The next chapter gives us an account of Abraham we hardly
expect. Sarah has been dead sometime, and he took another
wife, Keturah. Then there is a statement of their children and
the countries they inhabit. They become mostly Arabs. We
find this in 25:5: „And Abraham gave all that he had unto
Isaac. But unto the sons of the concubines, Hagar and Ke_
turah, that Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts; and he sent
them away from his son Isaac, while he yet lived, eastward
unto the east country.” Though he made provisions for all, his
general estate went to the child of promise.
Abraham lived 175 years and died in a good old age, full of
days. Brother Smith used that expression in conducting the
funeral of President Brooks’ father. Going from the
funeral I asked my wife, who is a good listener to a sermon
of any kind, what Brother Smith said. She said, „He had the
usual things to say on such occasions, but brought out the
biblical interpretation I am not sure about. He interpreted
‘full of days’ to mean ‘satisfied with his days.’ ” I said, „He
certainly is right. Old age and full of days are distinguished
thus. A man might live to be an old man and not be full of
days. Every retrospect of his life might bring him sorrow.” I
am afraid few people, when they come to die, can say with
Paul, „The time of my exodus is at hand, and I am ready to
be poured out full of days. I have fought a good fight. I have
kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up a crown which God
the righteous judge shall give to me.”
The next noticeable expression is, „He was gathered to his
people.” That does not mean that his body was deposited in
the family burying ground. As yet no member of his family
was in the cave of Machpelah except his wife. In the Old
Testament the expression refers to the soul and is one of those
expressions that teach the belief in the immortality of the soul
and the existence of the soul separate from the body. Next,
Isaac and Ishmael bury him. The last time we saw Ishmael
was at the weaning of Isaac, when he was mocking. Both are
married. Ishmael has a large family. The fathers of these
nationalities that are to be distinct until the second coming of
Christ, come together at the father’s grave. It is very touching
that these two boys whom the antagonism of life had parted,
whom the very trend of destiny had led separate, when the
father died, came back without antagonism to bury him.
The chapter then gives a brief account of the generations of
Ishmael, which constitutes one of the sections of the book of
Genesis. Note the fact that according to the promise made to
Ishmael, he becomes the father of twelve tribes. He died at
the age of 137. Verse 18 says, „Before the face of his brethren
he abode.” That expression means that he dwelt in the sight
of his brethren, yet separated from them, living his own inde_
pendent life.
Abraham is now dead. Here is a question I put to every
class in Genesis. Analyze the character of Abraham and state
the constituent elements of his greatness. I give you some
hints. (1) His mighty faith, the father of the faithful, whose
faith took steps and staggered not through unbelief, no matter
how often or hard it was tried. That is the supreme element of
his greatness. (2) His habit of religion. He took no „religious
furloughs” when he travelled, as some men do. Wherever he
stopped he erected an altar to God. Some years ago at Texar_
kana, some young men got on the train, and among them a
Baptist preacher, and all were drinking. Finally one of them
turned to him and said, „I won’t drink with you any more
unless you will promise to quit preaching.” He was away from
home and thought nobody knew him. (3) His capacity for
friendship. He was one of very few men counted the friend of
God. Christ says concerning some of his people, „I call you
not servants. I call you friends, and ye are my friends if ye
do whatsoever I command you.” Abraham was also a friend
of his fellow men. No man or woman, no matter what the
external conditions, who is not capable of great, strong, undy_
ing friendship, can be very great. (4) His love of peace. He
said to Lot concerning the strife between the herdsmen, „Let
there be no strife between us. Though I am the older and
came here first, you can take the land you want and I will
take what is left.” Lot selected the fertile plain of the Jor_
dan and pitched his tent. Wherever Abraham went there
were warlike, quarrelsome tribes, men who lived with swords
on and daggers in hand, yet he had no quarrels. (5) But as we
have seen, when necessary to make war, he struck fast, hard,
and effectively. He evinced great courage. (6) His indepen_
dence of character. He would not accept a gift from Ephron
the Hittite a burying place for his dead. He would not accept
as much as a shoestring from the spoils of the Sodomites,
which he had recovered in battle from the Babylonians, lest
the king of Sodom should say, „I have made Abram rich.” (7)
His justice. In an old reader there is a legend that a stranger,
lost and in trouble, came to his tent. Abraham cared for his
stock, washed his feet, gave him food and a place to sleep.
But when the man started to lie down, Abraham seized him
and said, „You cannot sleep under my tent. You propose to
lie down without thanking God for these blessings!” He put
him out and the man went to sleep outside of the tent. In the
night came a voice from heaven, „Abraham, where is the guest
I sent?” „Lord, he came; I treated him kindly, but when I
saw how unthankful to thee he was, I cast him out.” „Abra_
ham, I have borne with that man many years. Could you not
bear with him one night? I sent him that you might lead him
to me.” Abraham, weeping, went out, and brought the man
back in his arms. (8) Governing his family. „I know Abra_
ham, that he will command his children after him.” (9) His
unswerving obedience. (10) His affection and provision for his
family. He loved his wife very much, and made provision for
every member of his family before he died. These are some of
the characteristics of the greatness of Abraham. They are
homely virtues, but they are rare on that account.

1. To whom was Lot indebted for his rescue from the destruction of Sodom? Proof?
2. What waa the origin of the Moabites and Ammonites and how
does their history harmonize with their origin?
3. In whose country does Abraham locate after the destruction of
Sodom, of which son of Noah were they descendants and what the origin of their name?
4. Who was king of this people, what was Abraham’s ain here and
what notable example of intercessory prayer?
5. Recite Sarah’s Magnificat and give a New Testament parallel.
6. What was the occasion of Ishmael’s sin. that drove him and his
mother from home, what was the sin itself, the wisdom of Sarah, the
divine approval and the New Testament use of this incident?
7. Tell the story of Hagar and Ishmael as outcasts, what text cited
in this story, and what the application?
8. Whom did Ishmael marry, how many nations of his descendants and who are his descendants today?
9. What was the covenant between Abimelech and Abraham and
what advice to businessmen is based thereon?
10. What great trial of Abraham’s faith and how did he stand the test?
11. What two marvelous lessons from this incident?
12. What blessing from heaven on Abraham because of his obedience in this test and what New Testament impress of thia passage?
13. In the great trial of his faith when Isaac was offered, how was
Abraham a type of the Father?
14. Why the incident of Genesis 22:20_24, given here, and what the text and Hardshell sermon cited?
15. What of particular interest in the twenty_third chapter, what
Oriental custom here exemplified and what was the medium of exchange?
16. What two new revelations in Genesis 24, and tell the story of
how Isaac got his wife.
17. What famous text is in this passage and what noted sermon cited on it?
18. What was the custom of Oriental marriages and what New Testament scripture does it illustrate?
19. What part of the Oriental marriage do we perpetuate in our marriages and with what modifications?
20. What part did Rebekah have in this affair and what eastern
custom does she comply with upon her first sight of Isaac?
21. Who was Abraham’s second wife and who were his descendants by this wife?
22. How old was Abraham when he died and what is the meaning
of „full of days”?
23. What is the meaning, both negatively and positively, of the ex_
pression: „He was gathered to his people,” what touching thing oc_
curred at his funeral and what was the meaning of „Before the face
of his brethren he abode”?
24. Analyze the character of Abraham and state the constituent
elements of his greatness.

Genesis 52:19 to 28:9

We take up the story of Isaac and Jacob. The closing para_
graphs of Isaac’s history are recorded in Genesis 35:28_29, his
death and burial. There is an old saying, „Blessed is the nation
which has no history.” History is devoted to extraordinary
events. A thousand years of quiet and peace find no descrip_
tion in the pages of history. A few years of wars,
pestilences, and earthquakes receive much attention. Issac
may be called the patriarch without a history.
I wish to refer first to his mother. An examination question
will be: What New Testament passages refer favorably te
Sarah? The answer in Hebrews II says that she is a woman
of faith. By faith she was enabled to bear seed. 2 Peter 3:6,
places her above the woman of Peter’s time as a model in
subjection and obedience to her husband and the laws of
maternal relation. The apostle Paul in Galatians 4 makes
Sarah the type of the Jerusalem which is above – the mother
of us all.
We have considered in previous lectures the things which
went before Isaac’s birth. As early as Genesis 12:3, God had
promised that in Abraham’s seed all the families of men
should be blessed, but Abraham thought that could apply to
an adopted child as well as a real child. When the promise is
spoken a second time, it is expressly stated that it should be
his own child. Then Abraham did not know who the mother
would be. But the third statement was that it was not only to
be his own child, but by his wife, Sarah. So according to Paul,
Isaac comes into the world the child of promise, and by a

miraculous birth. In this respect he is the type of all Chris_
tians who are regenerated, born of supernatural power.
In contrasting Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, we find Isaac un_
like his father and son in the following particulars: He was
unlike them in age. He lived to be 180 years old; neither of
them lived that long. In the matter of travel: Isaac never got
out of the sight of the smoke that went up from the tent where
he was born. With a compass you might draw a circle with
a radius of 100 miles around his birthplace as a center, and
he was never beyond that circle. He was never north of the
city of Jerusalem; east of the river Jordan; south of the South
country where Beer_sheba was; never west of the Mediter_
ranean Sea. No man of his age and with his wealth traveled
so little. Again, he was unlike both father and son in his mar_
riage relations. He had but one wife, and she bore him only
two children, both at one birth. He was as pure a man in the
marriage relation as ever lived in the world. He was unlike
both father and son in his passiveness, i.e., he had no spirit of
aggression or self_assertion. He was never in a battle. There
were very few stirring events in his history. But when you
read the lives of Abraham and Jacob many mighty and thrill_
ing events come up. Unlike father and son, he became blind
in his old age and nearly helpless. You might say that Jacob’s
life commenced with a struggle, and was under the clouds the
early years, but about the middle of his life the sun shines
out, and the sunset is unclouded. Isaac commenced life with
laughter and ended with sorrow. The record tells of his build_
ing only one altar, though he may have built others. He of_
fered only one prayer, the prayer for his wife. God appeared
to him only twice, but to Jacob and Abraham many times.
He was like Abraham in one fault, duplicity concerning his
wife to the king of the Philistines. He was like both father
and son in being a prophet of God.
The record passes over the happy years of his life, most of
the 120 years. If you have read Thomson’s Land and the
Book, or any modern book about the South country, you have
a vivid description of the kind of land where he lived. No
perennial streams, scarcely any trees, bleak mountains and
plains, in the spring a beautiful country of flowers, but they
last only a short time. I have seen at least forty varieties of
them gathered from the fields where Isaac lived. The water
question was a great question in his life, as of all the patri_
archs, there being little rain and the streams entirely dry the
greater part of the year. So they had to dig for water. And one
may imagine the growing up of this boy under favorable and
happy circumstances, loved by his father and mother, scarcely
any troubles, quietly Jiving his life in a tent, amid flowers and
flocks and herds.
The record does tell about his trials. I give you a list. They
commenced when he was weaned, at three years old. At that
time he wag very much persecuted by his big brother, Ishmael,
who was fourteen years older. That strong wild boy, super_
seded by the coming of Isaac, persecuted the little fellow, and
if I had to say under what sense of wrong my soul was most
indignant in my youth, it would be in observing rude, big boys j
being cruel to timid little fellows at school. Nobody can tell I
through what horrors a timid soul passes in going out in pub_
lic life and coming in contact with rougher beings. Especially
is this true in schools, and where hazing is permitted, it is
perfectly awful. The next sorrow was when he was offered up.
He was then about twenty and had lived in perfect peace about
seventeen years. Next when his mother died. He could not
be consoled for several years, because she was everything te
him. He was the child of his mother. There is a legend – I do
not call it history – that when Abraham took Isaac to offer
him up he told Sarah and broke her heart and caused her death.
You don’t get that out of the Bible, however. The next trial
is one that a good many children come in touch with, the in_
troducing of a stepmother into the family, but the record does
not indicate that there was any trouble between Isaac and his
wife and Keturah, the second wife of Abraham. The next, a
very great sorrow, was that his wife bore no children. He had
been married twenty years, and it troubled him much, knowing
the promise of God. But instead of seeking to fulfil the
prophecy as Abraham and Sarah had done, he carried the case
to God in prayer. The Lord heard him and promised that
children should be born to him. The next trial was the death
of his father. His twin boys, Jacob and Esau, were about fif_
teen years old. So the grandfather lived long enough to know
the boys thoroughly. The next trouble was when the famine
came, and he had to go into the land of the Philistines, and
he was afraid that Abimelech or some other ungodly man
would kill him in order to get his wife. It does not always
follow, however, that other people are as anxious to capture
our wives as we think they are. But it nearly happened in this.
We now come to the culminating period of Isaac’s life, Gene
sis 26:12_28. He is now in the country of Abimelech: „And
Isaac sowed in that land . . . and there Isaac’s servants digged
a well.” There Abimelech and Phicol made a covenant with
him and from now on his sorrows multiply. The next sorrow
arises from a little transaction concerning a mess of pottage.
You remember the prophecy that the older child of Isaac
should serve the younger. The mother was partial to Jacob.
Esau, a man of the plains, and a great hunter, was loved by
his father. The mother instructed her son to help out God’s
prophecy. She watched her chance. The chance came when
Esau returned from hunting, tired and hungry, and Jacob had
Just made a pot of red pottage. Esau’s own name meant
red_headed, and people don’t have red heads for nothing.
Esau said to Jacob, „Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red
pottage, for I am faint.” And Jacob said, „I will give it to
you if you will acknowledge that the birthright belongs to me.”
That was driving a hard bargain, but Esau was so hungry
that he sold the birthright. Isaac did not say a word, but

in his own mind he determined to bestow the blessing on Esau,
because he loved him most. The next trouble comes in Esau’s
marriage. Esau married two idolatrous women, and the record
states that it was a great grief to Rebekah and Isaac. The next calamity is that Isaac begins to go blind. Next the great decep-tion was practiced on him by his wife and Jacob. Feeling that he might soon pass away he determined as a prophet to bestow the blessing on the firstborn, on Esau. So he told Esau to go out and kill venison and fix him a savory dish. Isaac liked Esau’s venison, somewhat of a sensual man. I am told that it is a characteristic of some preachers these days to like savory dishes, and woe to the preacher who has to preach at night after eating a big dinner of mince pie at twelve o’clock! Rebekah seemed to have a listening ear and heard Isaac talking to Esau. Now she is going to help God out. Isaac willed that Esau should have the birthright. Esau ran to kill the venison. Jacob and Rebekah plotted to defeat him. So she put Esau’s clothing on Jacob, as Esau was a hairy man. Rebekah told him to kill and dress a kid and tell the old man it was venison, and that he was Esau. It was a very villainous transaction. Jacob brought the kid and the father said, „Is this my son Esau?” and Jacob said, „Yes, father.” Isaac said, „Come here, let me feel.” He felt of the garment and said, „The touch is like Esau, but the voice is like Jacob.” Anyhow he ate the dish of kid and pronounced the blessing on Jacob. Here is thatblessing in poetic form:
See, the smell of my son
Is as the smell of a field which
Jehovah hath blessed;
And God give thee of the dew of heaven,
And of the fatness of the earth,
And plenty of grain and wine:
Let peoples serve thee,
And nations bow down to thee:
Be lord over thy brethren,
And let thy mother’s sons bow down to thee:
Cursed be every one that curseth thee,
And blessed be every one that blesseth thee.
There Isaac gives Jacob power over his brother, thinking he
was giving it to Esau. Now the question arises and Paul argues
it in Romans 9, how could God approve such fraud as that?
Well, God did not approve it. Paul says, „It is not of him that
willeth.” Isaac willed to give it to Esau. „It is not of him
that runneth.” Esau ran to get the venison. It was not of
Jacob and his mother, but of the election, God having decreed
before the children were born, before either one had done good
or evil, that the younger should be the one through whom the
Messiah should come.
The most touching thing was when Esau came back: „And
it came to pass as soon as Isaac had made an end of blessing
Jacob, and Jacob was yet scarce gone out of the presence of
Isaac, his father, that Esau, his brother, came in from his
hunting. And he also made savoury food, and brought it unto
his father; and he said unto his father, Let my father arise,
and eat of his son’s venison, that thy soul may bless me. And
Isaac, his father, said, Who art thou? And he said, I am thy
son, thy firstborn, Esau. And Isaac trembled exceedingly, and
said, Who then is he that hath taken venison and brought it
me, and I have eaten of all before thou earnest, and have
blessed him? Yea, and he shall be blessed. When Esau heard
the words of his father, he cried, Bless me, even me, 0 my
father. Jacob hath supplanted me these two times: he took
away my birthright, and behold he hath taken my blessing.”
And Isaac answered:
Behold, of the fatness of the earth shall be thy dwelling,
And of the dew of heaven from above;
And by thy sword shalt thou live, and thou shalt
serve thy brother;
And it shall be as thou rovest at will, thou wilt
shake off thine enemy.

In one of the old prophets it is said, „Jacob have I loved and
Esau have I hated.” That refers not to the persons of Jacob
and Esau, but to the nationalities. Esau was heathen, and
Jacob was Israel. None of this work of election in any particu_
lar had anything to do with the character of either. None of
it with the wishes of the father and mother. It was God’8
sovereign disposition of the case and touched the descendants
rather than the two persons. Hebrews 12:16 brings out4be
character of Esau a little more plainly: „Lest there be any
fornicator or profane person, as Esau, who for one mess of
meat sold his birthright. For ye know that when he afterward
desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected; for he found
no place for repentance, though he sought it carefully with
tears.” That used to trouble me. It looked like Esau wanted
to repent of his sin and God would not forgive him. I will
read it to you according to the true rendering: „For he found
no place for a change of mind in the father.” It was not Esau’s
repentance, but Isaac’s repentance. Don’t ever misapply that
scripture. That was a great trouble to Isaac. And as for the
rascality of Jacob and Rebekah, they had to bear a heavy
burden. Esau determined to kill Jacob and hia mother seat
him away and never saw him again.
The next thing was the death of his brother Ishmael; then
the death of his wife; and afterward the departure of Esau.
There he was alone, father, wife, brother dead, one son ban_
ished and another gone away. Then Jacob came and comforted
him in his last illness. I have given you an outline of the
sorrows of Isaac, but there are really two that I have not men_
tioned, viz.: Jacob had gotten to the Holy Land on his return,
but had not reached his father’s house when Rachel died. lsaae<
was living, but he never got to see Rachel. Joseph was sold
into slavery and Isaac never saw him, then comes the death of
Let us look at the character of this man. He was intensely
religious, domestic and peaceful; passive in his resistance to
evil and in one event of his life a type of Christ; when he got
to the mountain he carried the wood upon which he was to be
offered as Christ bore his own cross until he fainted. A type
of the Christian is his miraculous birth. When we come to
consider Jacob and Esau further attention will be given to
these details. In the grave of Machpelah, by the side of his
father Abraham, and mother Sarah, Isaac and his wife Re_
bekah were buried. And to this day the Arabs point to the
casket which contains the remains. This is the culminating
period of the prosperity in the life of Isaac. So we now pass
to the
In the first of the chapter on Isaac we have necessarily con_
sidered somewhat the incidents of Jacob's life up to the time
that he left his father's home. It was then said that those
incidents would be examined more particularly when we stud_
ied Jacob's own life. Oliver Wendell Holmes, in reply to the
question, How early should the education of & child begin?
replied, "Commence with his grandmother." To a great extent
certainly most lives are the mixed results of preceding forces.
Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, are all in some de_
gree reproduced in Jacob. Oliver Wendell Holmes also says,
"A man is an omnibus in which all his ancestors ride." Don't
forget these two quotations. This thought he embodies and
illustrates in his book Elsie Venner. The object of that book
was to show how conflicting ancestral traits struggled for
supremacy in this girl. We might add that every life is a
result of many forces, including the following: (1) God; (2)
the devil; (3) heredity; (4) individuality; (5) environment;
(6) opportunity; (7) education; (8) habits. We will be little
prepared to analyze or comprehend Jacob's life, if we lose
sight of any one of these forces. So far in Jacob's life individu_
ality has bad but limited place, since he has been under the
dominion, or domination, of his mother. Individuality comes
most into play when we are thrown upon our own resources,
and are responsible for our own decisions and have to make
our own way. We will find in this history that Jacob appears
to much greater advantage when his own individuality comes
into play than when he was under the influence of another. We
will find the value of his past habits in his taking care of him_
self and making a support, and that, too, under very adverse
conditions, more adverse than that of any of you boys, hard as
you think your lot is. We are going to like Jacob a great deal
better as we get on in his history than we do at the start. It
has been well said that no hunter is a good businessman. This
holds good from Esau to Rip Van Winkle. The domestic habits
of Jacob, and his training in caring for flocks and herds, serve
him well in after life. From his mother and her family comes
his shrewd business sense. Woe to the man who expects to get
rich trading with Jacob. He is a prototype of all Yankees and
modern Jews in driving close bargains. Hunter Esau was the
first victim to "cut his eye_teeth" on that fact.
But before we study the individuality as manifested when
thrown upon his own resources, we must refresh our minds
with a backward glance at his history as given in previous
chapters. His parentage, Isaac, son of Abraham, and Rebekah,
granddaughter of Nahor, Abraham's brother. But a mightier
factor than parental influence or heredity touches him. Prophe_
cies and mighty doctrines were on their way toward him before
be began to be. God comes before parents. The divine purpose
and the divine election touching his life will look far beyond
the personal Jacob, and be far above and paramount over af_
fection, will, weakness, or duplicity of parent or child, long
after the earthly actors are dead. Yea, into thousands of years
of the future the foreknowledge, predestination and election
of God will project themselves until the whole human race
becomes involved in Jacob, and until eternity and everlasting
destiny comes. Deep and wide as may be this shoreless ocean
of the divine purpose, we are permitted to look at it, so far as
revealed, though it be unnavigable by the human reason.
Prophecies: The first prophecy directly affecting. Jacob is
God's answer to the mother's inquiry concerning the infants
in her womb. "Two nations are in thy womb, and two peoples
shall be separated therefrom, and one shall be stronger than
the other people and the elder shall serve the younger." This
prophecy evidently refers not so much to the boys themselves
as to their descendants. Indeed in its wider significance it con_
cerns all nations more than the two nations. So referring, it
considers neither parental bias, nor character of either child.
It is not a divine decree fixing the eternal destiny of either
child. For reasons sufficient to himself, God of his own will se_
lects one of these nations to become his people and through
whom he will savingly reach all other peoples. The second
relevant prophecy appears in Isaac's blessing on Jacob: "And
God give thee of the dew of heaven and of the fatness of the
earth, plenty of grain and new wine." That is temporal. "Let
peoples serve thee and nations bow down to thee." That is
national. That refers to the primogeniture. "Cursed be every
one that curseth thee and blessed be every one that blesseth
thee." That is the prophecy of the twenty_seventh chapter.
This prophecy is restated and enlarged in the blessing on Esau,
as follows: "And thou shalt serve thy brother, but it shall
come to pass, when thou shalt break loose, thou shalt shake his
yoke off thy neck" (Gen. 24:40). These two prophecies, like
the first, find their real meaning in the descendant nations,
rather than in Jacob and Esau personally. Esau himself never
served Jacob himself. Their application to the nations rather
than to the brothers themselves appears in the last Old Testa_
ment book, Malachi 1:2_5: "Was not Esau Jacob's brother?
saith Jehovah, yet I loved Jacob, but Esau I hated, and made
his mountains a desolation." It is evident that Malachi in his
day, thousands of years after Jacob and Esau, is not discussing
the two men personally, but Jacob the people, and Edom,
Esau's people. This national application is also evident from
Paul's use of the Genesis and Malachi quotations in Romans
9:10_13. He is there discussing God's election of Israel to be
his people, and how that nation, on account of infidelity, was
cast off and the Gentiles took their places. He is proving that
doctrine from this quotation from Malachi. All this prophecy,
Paul says, illustrates God's sovereign election. But so far it
is the election of a nation. Personal election of an individual
Christian is not so far discussed. The personal privilege con_
ferred in this is the primogeniture conferred on Jacob. In what
did this right consist? I am sure to ask that question on
examination. The answer is: (1) Rule in family and tribe; (2)
A double portion of the inheritance (Deut. 2:17); (3) The
priesthood of the family and the high priesthood of the tribe.
In England the right of primogeniture still prevails to a large
extent. The eldest son inherits the father's estate, and in order
to support that property they have the "Law of Entail," that
the property cannot be alienated, but must pass down to each
first son. The income may be used in providing a portion for
the other children, but the principal must remain intact. That
is one of the special privileges our forefathers objected to.
Jefferson and his colaborers determined to abolish both of these
laws as far as they applied to America. The history of Vir_
ginia shows various steps of legislation undertaken by Jeffer_
son, and aided particularly by the Baptists, in destroying these
laws. A man may bequeath his property by will, but that will
is subject to legal investigations. It can be broken if he un_
justly deprive any child of a fair share of the inheritance.
The original prophecy that the elder should serve the young_
er was never forgotten by the mother, and through her it was
made known to her favorite son, Jacob. In both of them arose
a desire to hasten the fulfilment of that prophecy. Like Sarah,
their impatience could not wait for God himself to fulfil his
word. Now comes another examination question, What was the
first step taken to hasten its fulfilment? That mess of pottage
business. I will not recite the history, but I will ask you on
examination to analyze Jacob's sin in that transaction, and
Esau's sin. The analysis of Jacob's sin is: (1) Presumption
toward God by human instrumentality to hurry up God's
purpose. (2) Unfilial toward Isaac. (3) Unfraternal and in_
human toward Esau to take advantage of his extremity by a
sharp bargain. (4) It was snatching at a promise before it was
ripe. The doctrine involved is: You may do evil to bring
about a good thing. That is the doctrine of the Jesuits, abhor_
rent to God's Word. This evil rather delayed matters. It
brought on Jacob the intense hatred of Esau. The analysis of
Esau's sin is: (1) He was sensual; the satisfaction of present
desire seemed greater than future blessing. (2) There was pro_
fanity in his sin; he despised the sacred primogeniture. How
does the Old Testament characterize Esau's sin? "He despised
the birthright." How does the New Testament? "He was guilty
of profanity." Any act of irreverence is profanity. There has
come a proverb from that transaction: "Don't sell your birth_
right." Who has written a book entitled The Mess of Pottage
You will find it in the book stores, but I do not recommend it
to you. Ben Franklin has a similar proverb. When he was
small, a man had a whistle which he made very attractive.
Ben Franklin, so intense in his desire to get that whistle, gave
the man everything he had. But when he walked off he felt
very much dissatisfied; it did not whistle as well as he thought
it would. It taught him this: Never pay too much for a whis_
tle. John Bunyan, in Pilgrim's Progress, has a picture hanging
in the interpreter's house: Two boys, Patience and Passion.
Passion rushes up and says, "Father, give me all my goods
right now." The father gives him the goods and he soon spends
all. But Patience waits for the right time. Many people are
so governed by appetite that though they may know that the
commission of an offense will wreck their future career, they
forget the future in their lust.
What was the second step to hasten the fulfilment of the
promise? It consists in the concerted action between Rebekah
and Jacob to deceive blind old Isaac and have him bless Jacob,
confirming the right of primogeniture. I shall now proceed to
analyze the sin of Rebekah in this transaction. Rebekah's sin
consisted in presumption toward God in doing an evil thing
and in the overweening power over Jacob's character, who did..
not want to do it. "Honoring the mother," was carried beyond
the legitimate limit. Children ought not to obey their parents
in committing a crime. Jacob's sin consisted in making his
mother's desire greater than the promptings of conscience and
regard for God's will. This did not help the purpose a particle.
How does the New Testament show that it did not help the
purpose? "It is not to him that willeth, like Isaac, nor to him
that runneth, like Esau, but it was of God." It intensified
Esau's hatred against his brother: "He cheated me out of my
birthright by trade, and now out of my father's blessing. I will
kill him." Esau was the fellow to do it. He would boil over,
and in anger would kill anybody. So to save the favorite child
the mother sent him away and never saw him again. She did
not make anything, "but it is true that both of these evil steps
were overruled by the providence of God for good.

1. Why may Isaac be called a "patriarch without a history"?
2. What New Testament passages refer favorably to Sarah?
3. What three revelations to Abraham concerning the "child of promise" and of what is this child in his birth a type?
4. In what respects of life and character did Isaac differ from hiS
father, Abraham, and his son, Jacob?
5. For what does the New Testament commend him? (Hebrews 11:20.)
6. Bescribe the land where he lived. What waa the great problem
of his life?
7. Though the most of Isaac's life waa joyful and peaceful, he had
some trials and sorrows. Tell them.
8. Cite scripture showing culmination of Isaac's prosperity.
9. In which one of the trials was he a type of our Lord?
10. What prophecy was Jacob trying to have fulfilled in the "mess of pottage" translation? Was it right to seek its fulfilment in this way?
11. How did Isaac undertake to nullify the trade between Jacob and Esau and how was his plan defeated?
12. Did God approve such transaction and what Paul's explanation of it?
13. What pathetic incident followed and what was the blessing upon Esau?
14. What is the meaning of the name "Jacob" and from what incident originated?
15. What is the meaning of "Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I
16. Give the character of Esau as interpreted in the New Testament and what other name had Esau?
17. In Hebrews 12:17, was the blessing that Esau vainly sought salvation? Explain, then, the passage: "He found no place for repentance,
though he sought carefully with tears."
18. What two sad events after Jacob's return to the Holy Land be_
fore he reached his father's house?
19. Describe the character of Isaac and in what was he a type of
20. With whom, according to Oliver Wendell Holmes, must a child's education begin?
21. What other saying of his bears on heredity?
22. What book did he write on ancestral traits?
23. What forces are factors in every hu~nan life?
24. When does individuality come most into play and the application to Jacob?
25. What was the mightiest force that touched Jacob, what was the
prophecies concerning him and what is the application of these prophecies?
26. What was Paul's use of the first of these prophecies together with Malachi 1:2_5?
27. What was the personal privilege conferred on Jacob in these
prophecies and blessings?
28. In what did the right of primogeniture consist and what traces of this in history?
29. Analyze Jacob's and Esau's sin in the "mess of pottage"
transaction and what was the doctrine involved?
30. How does the Old Testament characterize Esau's sin? The New Testament?
31. What is profanity and what proverb from the transaction?
32. What were the sins of Isaac, Rebekah, Esau, and Jacob, respectively, in the transaction about the blessing?

Genesis 28:10 to 31:55

Now we come to an important event in Jacob’s life, his leaving home to be absent many years, and his conversion. How
different his leaving from old Eliezer's! Eliezer went openly,
with a large train and many handsome presents. Jacob had
to slip off, without money, an exile and afoot. From this time
on the man's individuality will come out. This chapter gives
an account of his conversion, the great event of his life, 28:10_
18. That dream was God’s method of communicating with this
lonely man. The ladder in that dream, according to John's
Gospel, represents Jesus Christ, the connecting stairway be_
tween earth and heaven, upon which angels descend to earth
and ascend to heaven. In that dream Jacob saw a grand sight
for any man. Earth and heaven had been separated by sin
with earth's inhabitants under aa curse. By grace that chasm
was spanned by the coming of the Redeemer. Upon that stair_
way angels come to earth and carry back their reports. Jesus
said (John 1), "Hereafter you shall see the angels of heaven
ascending and descending upon the Son of man," showing that
he fulfilled the type of Jacob's ladder. Dr. Richard Fuller has
a marvelous sermon on Jacob's ladder. He was the great ora_
tor of the Southern Baptist pulpit, tall, finely formed, hand_
some, his voice as a silver bell, and as sweet in its melody as
the whisper of an aeolian harp. It is said that no man could
interest a crowd following Dr. Fuller in a speech. He is the
only man, other than Dr. J. L. Burrows who has preached
the Convention Sermon more than once in the Southern Bap_
tist Convention. People were carried away by the man and

his personality. He was one of the few rich men who are
called a man of great intellectuality. Read his sermon on
Jacob's ladder, and also the one on "The Cross of Christ."
Jacob awakened from his sleep and said, "Surely Jehovah
is in this place," and he called the name of that place Bethel.
"And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and
will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to
eat, and raiment to put on, so that I come again to my father's
house in peace, and Jehovah shall be my God, then this stone,
which I have set up for a pillar, shall be God's house: and of
all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto
thee." There is the evidence of his conversion, his keen sense
of divine presence and realization of the import of divine com_
munication, his recognition, as if for the first time in his hither_
to unworthy life, of his relations to God and the fixed purpose
that came into his heart from that time on to serve God, and
to honor God with the firstfruits. Here we come to the second
mention of tithing before the giving of the law on Sinai. We
have seen before that Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek.
This man is changed from this time on. He does not lose his
shrewd business sense, but he is godly and prayerful and be_
lieves that wherever he goes God is with him. That is the
secret of a religious life. The conviction that there is a direct
connection between earth and heaven, and that every angel in
heaven, to the extent of his power, is pledged to the companion_
ship and protection of every child of God, and that Jesus
Christ is the connecting link between earth and heaven, and
that through sickness and health, good and evil report, God
will be with his people, is a sure basis of a good life. That
consciousness brings out the purpose, "I will serve and honour
God with everything that I have." I remember, while sitting
in the back end of a wagon, I read this passage to my wife.
The circumstances were these: At the close of the War Be_
tween the States, though crippled with wounds, and bankrupt,
I voluntarily assumed an antebellum debt of $4,000, not legally
my own, and had finally paid all by selling everything I bad
but wife and baby, and was moving to a church on the promise
of $500 a year. I said, "Now, wife, here is a time to settle our
financial relation to God. We haven't got a thing, and we are
sure to fail if he is not honored by us, and if he is honored we
will succeed. Let us enter into a covenant right here that what_
ever happens we will give God one_tenth of every cent that we
ever make." We did from that time on. I have long since passed
that limit. For many years I have been giving one_fifth, and
some years two_fifths. So here was the event that changed
this man's life. What matters it that he was banished from
home and alone, without friends and without money? If God'
was his portion he was rich no matter how poor. If God was
with him he had company, no matter how lonely. If God was
for him, who could be against him?
The rest of this chapter we devote to Jacob's life in Haran
(Gen. 29 to 31:55), a period of twenty years. He enters tliat
country afoot, with nothing but the clothes he had on and the
staff in his hand. He comes out an exceedingly rich man, very
much married, with twelve children. Another son was born
later. The lesson commences with telling how he arrived at
Haran and stopped at the well, perhaps the same at which old
Eliezer stopped when he went after a bride for Isaac. Here
he meets Rachel, the one woman throughout his life he was to
love. She was a little girl about ten or twelve years old, or
she would not have bad charge of the flock by herself. But in
Oriental countries a girl of twelve is equal in maturity to a
girl of seventeen here. It was a case of love at first sight. He
never loved another woman while he lived. After they were
made known to each other (v. II), "And Jacob kissed Rachel
and lifted up his voice and wept." My first question is, Why
did he weep after kissing that girl? I leave that for you to
find out. When Brother Truett and his wife were here, looking
toward each other just about like Jacob and Rachel, and
we were passing over this, I gave that same question. Some of

the class answered, "He wept because he had not commenced
that work sooner." And one ill_natured young preacher said,
"He wept because Rachel had been eating onions." But Brother Truett's wife gave the true answer. See who of you will give
The next remark is on the v.. 14: "And Laban, the father
of Rachel, said unto him, Surely thou art my bone and my
flesh. And he abode with him a month of days," i.e he stayed
as a guest for a full month. A guest must not stay too
long. So naturally Laban raised the question of something
to do, and said to Jacob, "Because thou art my brother,"
which means kinsman, "shouldst thou, therefore, serve me for
nothing? Tell me what shall be thy wages." Laban proposes
a business transaction. Look at it. Jacob says, referring to
the two girls – Leah, the elder, was not beautiful and her eyes
were weak, but Rachael was beautiful of form and counte_
nance – "I will serve thee seven years for thy younger daugh_
ter. It was the custom for the bridegroom to give presents,
and in the Orient today a man in a measure purchases his
wife. But Jacob had nothing to give, but he was to serve
seven years without other wages. Young men of the present
day think if they serve for a girl thirty days that it is a
great tax on them, and they begin to think how much they
have paid for ice cream, streetcar fare, buggy rides, theater
tickets, etc., and begin to bring matters to a focus. They
have not the love that Jacob had. And his proposition was
accepted. Next, v. 20, "And Jacob served for Rachel seven
years, and they were in his eyes but a few days for the love
he had for her." There is a remarkable proof of the genuine_
ness of his love. This is one of the most illustrious cases of
deep, personal, lifelong attachment that we have any historical
account of, and has become proverbial: "Serve seven years
for Rachel." At the end of the seven years he claimed the
fulfilment of the contract. Now this young man who had

practiced the deception upon his old, blind father, has a de_
ception practiced upon him. Laban is very tricky and un_
scrupulous. All that crowd up there are shrewd traders and
sharp bargainers. Whoever deals with them has to keep both
eyes open, and not sleep in the day, and not sleep very sound
at any time in the night. They are that way till this day.
The manner of consummating the marriage, the betrothal of
which had lasted seven years, is very simple: In a formal way
the father veils the girl and at night turns her over to the
bridegroom. That ends the ceremony. I have seen a letter
today from a judge who occupies his seat for the first time, and
he says one of the first acts of his administration was to marry
a couple and he tells of the ceremony, too simple to repeat,
but it does not make much difference about the form, the
fact that the transfer has been made and accepted establishes
the validity.
Here comes a general question, What ill_natured English
poet, in order to illustrate what he calls the disillusions that
follow marriage said, "With Rachel we lie down at night; in
the morning, behold it is Leah"? I don't agree with him at all.
There have been thousands and thousands of marriages where
there was not only no disillusion after the marriage was con_
summated, but an ever_deepening, lifelong attachment. I
expect if some woman had written a couplet she would have
put it: "With George Washington we lie down at night, and
in the morning, lo I it is Benedict Arnold." It sounds smart,
but you ought not to have any respect for any man who re_
flects upon the sanctity of the marriage relation. I knew a
couple who married early, the man about twenty_three, and
the girl about eighteen. After twenty_five years had passed
the man said, "I have not been anywhere in the world that
she has not been with me. Even when I go hunting, fishing,
travelling, she is with me. And there has never been an hour
since I married her that I had not rather be with her than
with anybody else in the world." And the woman said the
same thing. I think that kind of testimony is much better
than the English poet's testimony.
Jacob was very indignant at the cheat perpetrated upon him.
He did not love Leah, and he did not want her at all. The
explanation that Laban made is so thin that it won't hold
water. It is not true that in the East you cannot marry the
younger until the older is disposed of. Laban then said, "As
soon as the week of wedding festivities is over, I will let you
have Rachel, provided you will serve seven more years. You
can take her at the end of the week, but you take her on a
credit until you have served the seven years." Jacob made
that trade. Fourteen years of hard work! I want you to think
of that whenever you think of the bad things Jacob did; think
also of the good points in the man.
Now we come to the evils of polygamy forced upon Jacob.
He never wanted but one woman, but this trickery of his
uncle gave him two, and the jealousy of these two wives
fastened upon him two more; so that there were two wives
and two concubines. For quite a while the strife between the
two wives goes on. What kind of a home do you suppose that
was? Among the Mormons they do sometimes give a separate
house to each wife, but others put a dozen in the same house.
Jealousy is certain to develop and cause conflict among the
children. A struggle between these two wives is manifested
in the names given to the children. Leah, in these seven years,
bore Jacob seven children, six sons and one daughter. Rachel
bore one son, Joseph, and afterward another. The two maid_
servants bore two each. That makes twelve sons. I will call
the names out in the order in which they were born. Reuben,
Leah's firstborn, means "See, a son." It expresses her pride,
that Jacob's firstborn was a son, and not a daughter. Simeon,
her second, means "a hearing": that she asked God, as the
love of her husband had not come when Reuben was born as
she supposed, to send her another child, but Jacob still did not
love her. Levi, her third, means "a Joiner"; "Now I will
be joined to my husband." But he did not join them. Judah,
her fourth, means "praise"; "Praise Jehovah for the blessing
that has come upon me, now that I have borne four sons to my
husband." When Bilhah, Rachel's handmaid, bore a son,
Rachel named him Dan, meaning "a judge"; "God has judged
my side of the case." When Naphtali, the second son, was
born to her handmaid, Rachel names him "wrestling." She
had wrestled in prayer to God for still additional hold on the
husband. Then Zilpah, Leah's handmaid, bore a son and he
is named Gad. The literal Hebrew means "good fortune,"
but when we come to intepret it in chapter 49, it means "
troop," i.e., four sons have already been born on the Leah
side and here is another. That means there is going to be a
troop of them. Her next son is named Asher, which means
"happy" – happy in getting the advantage of Rachel. Then
Leah herself bears another son, Issachar, which means "re_
ward." Her next son, Zebulun, means "dwelling." "I have
borne six sons to my husband. Surely he will dwell with me."
When her daughter was born she named her Dinah, which
means "vindication": "God is vindicating my side of the mar_
riage relation." At that time Rachel bore her first child and
she named him Joseph, "May he add, as I now have a start."
Later on, Rachel's last son is born, and dying she names him
Ben_oni, "the child of my anguish." But the husband steps
in and for the first time gets to name one of the children. He
names him Benjamin, "the child of my right hand." These
are the twelve names bestowed on the sons. When we come
to the dying blessing that Jacob pronounces in chap_
ter 49 upon all of the children, we will see some additions
to the names and the characteristics there brought out.
These titles come from what the mothers thought of the
twelve children at the time they were born, but the names
from chapter 49 come from the developments of charac_
ter in the boys themselves. In Deuteronomy 33, where
Moses pronounces the blessing on the twelve tribes, calling
them by their names, he leaves out one of the twelve alto_
gether, and brings in new titles not based upon what was in
the mother's mind, nor upon the characteristics of the twelve
sons, but upon the characteristics of the tribes descended from
the sons. In Revelation 12, we will come upon another list
of them, where the reference is not at all to the reasons here_
tofore expressed in their names but to the later tribal charac_
teristics. As we pass along I, will ask you to compare these
four lists of the children of Jacob. You know we have four
lists of the twelve apostles, and sometimes different names for
the same person. Yet more particularly will I call your at_
tention to the birthright man. Reuben, the firstborn, is en_
titled to the right of primogeniture. You will find out later
how he loses it, and how the several elements of the right of
primogeniture are distributed among three other sons of Jacob.
At the end of the fourteen years Jacob claimed the ful_
filment of his contract. Up to this time he had not made
anything, except the wife that he wanted. He has a large
family, no money or property, but rich in this family. A young
man of the present time, encumbered with twelve children in
fourteen years of married life, would think himself pretty much
hampered, particularly if he had no bank account, cotton
field, or big salary. Now the question comes up about a new
contract. God had marvelously blessed Laban on account
of Jacob. Jacob had attended to his business so well, being
competent from habits of earlier life to which I called your
attention in a previous chapter, that Laban did not want to
lose Jacob. Jacob makes another proposition: "You shall
not pay me any salary, but I propose that we leave it for di_
vine providence to designate how much I ought to get. Most of
the sheep are white, brown, or black, an unmixed colour. I
propose that my part shall be the speckled, striped or ring_
streaked." Laban looked over his flocks and found only a
little sprinkle in all the multitudes not having a solid color.
So he accepted the proposition. He was a very shrewd old
man. Before the contract goes into effect he moves every
one that is already ring_streaked, striped, or speckled, three
days' journey from Jacob, and puts them in the hands of his
sons and says to Jacob, "We will start even." Jacob said
nothing, but God was with him, and we have here presented
in the history how Jacob got rich, and the expedients that he
resorted to in order that the flocks might bear striped, speckled,
and ring_streaked. And we learn how God intervened that
Jacob, who had been working fourteen years and had been
cheated, might have compensation. Through Jacob's expe_
dient, and particularly through divine providence, Jacob's
flocks increased. Old Laban looked on and it puzzled him.
Laban's children looked on and it puzzled them. The pure
white and solid colors began to get fewer and fewer. Jacob's
flock began to multiply beyond all human calculation. What
follows? Laban's sons begin to talk about it: "This stranger
has come up here. He did not have a thing when he came
to our house. He is managing this business and getting all
of our father's property. After a while there won't be any_
thing to divide between us." Laban heard the boys talking
and he agreed with them. When he would pass Jacob he
would look at him sideways and would not speak to him.
Jacob saw a storm was brewing. God came to him in a vision
and said, "Return to thy native land. It is time to go, twenty
years have passed." Jacob did not know how his wives would
stand on the matter. So he sent for them to come out to
the field. He would not talk to them about it at the house.
He stated the case fairly: how badly he had been treated, and
wanted to know if the wives would stand by him and would
go with him. They told him they would, and he might have
known it. A man need never be afraid, if he is a good hus_
band, of her not standing by him. Everybody else in the world
may go back on him, but a good wife will be true. Laban was
away on a three days' journey, so they decided to strike out
without letting him know. And to add to it, Rachel went into

Laban's house and stole his teraphimùlittle images of idolatry
and divination. Just as Demetrius, the silversmith at Ephesus,
made little models of the temple of Diana at Ephesus, so they
could tie them around their necks or put them in their pockets
and carry them around with them. Wherever they felt like
worshiping, they could bow down before this little trinket,
or as they now tie crosses around their necks, or when they
get up they bow down before that cross or little image of the
virgin Mary. Now, the question comes up, Why did Rachel
steal the teraphim? That is what I want you to answer. I
have my own opinion, but I don't want to force it on you now.
One may answer that she was herself at heart an idolater,
at least in part. Now, you may adopt that, if you want to,
for your answer. It is not mine. They started at a good time.
Laban was gone to that other flock, and they knew he would
not be back for three days and that they would have three
days the start. So they crossed the Euphrates and set out
with many servants, cattle, sheep, goats, and quite a sprinkling
of children and only four wives. It was a pretty big caravan.
I don't know just which way Jacob went. He may have gone
down to Damascus, and from Damascus to Gilead.
Three days passed before Laban heard of it. He cornea
home after shearing his sheep and wanted to find his little
gods, but he could not find them. Then he went out to look
for his interests in that other herd, and lo, Jacob was gone.
So he rallied a party, a flying column, without women or chil_
dren, flocks, or other hindrances, on swift dromedaries, or
horsesù1 suppose dromedaries – and at the end of seven days
he caught them near the mountains of Gilead. But the night
before he caught up with them old Laban had an experience
that he had never had before in his life. In that night Almighty
God in a vision comes to him and says, "Laban, don't you
speak either good or evil to Jacob. Keep your hands of."
Unquestionably that is the only thing that prevented the kill_

ing of Jacob and taking the wives and children and that property – God's divine intervention. It sobered Laban very
much. They had a meeting, and it was one of the most touch_
ing incidents in human history. Why some novelist has not
brought it out I don't know. Old Laban said, "You have
stolen my goods, my cattle, my teraphim." Jacob knew noth_
ing about these little gods and denied it, and said he had
carried off only what was his own. Now comes Jacob's speech
which I would like for you to be able to memorize. "And
Jacob answered and said to Laban, What is my trespass?
what is my sin, that thou hast hotly pursued after me?
Whereas thou hast felt about all my stuff, what hast thou
found of all thy household stuff? set it here before my breth_
ren and thy brethren, that they may judge betwixt us two.
These twenty years have I been with thee; thy ewes and
thy she_goats have not cast their young, and the rams of thy
flocks have I not eaten. That which was torn of the beasts I
brought not unto thee; I bare the loss of it; of my hand didst
thou require it, whether stolen by day or by night. Thus
I was; in the day the drought consumed me, and the frost by
night; and my sleep fled from mine eyes. These twenty years
have I been in thy house; I served thee fourteen years for thy
two daughters, and six years for thy flock; and thou hast
changed my wages ten times. Except the God of my father,
the God of Abraham, and the fear of Isaac, had been with
me, surely now hadst thou sent me away empty. God hath
seen mine affliction and the labour of my hands, and rebuked
thee yesternight." Old Laban could not say a word to that.
The promise that God had made to Jacob that he would be
with him had been literally fulfilled. Laban then proposes
that a covenant be made between them. They erected and
consecrated a pillar, that Laban's crowd should never pass
that pillar toward the Holy Land to do evil to Jacob, and
Jacob's crowd could never pass that pillar going to Laban's
country to do evil to him.
Now open wide your eyes and ears: "And Laban called
it Jegar_sahadutha; but Jacob called it Galeed." The first is
Aramaic, and the second word is Hebrew, and they mean
exactly the same thing. Dr. Joseph Parker of England has
preached a great sermon on the text entitled "Logomachy,"
i.e., strife about words. "And Laban said, This heap is wit_
ness between me and thee this day," and he called it Mizpah.
Here I am going to tell you a fragment of a very touching
story. In the first year of the war, just before a young man
had started to the army, he paid very pointed attention to a
lady, and they became engaged. During the war, the man, in
passing the time in absence and with new faces, changed his
feelings. His first letters were very loving and glowing. Then
they began to lose the glow and diminish in length, and at
last he quit writing. One evening just before a terrible battle
in which many were killed, I was standing by the side of this
man when one of the men who had been on a furlough brought
a letter and handed it to him. He looked at the letter and
said, "Pshaw! that is from that bothersome woman." He
opened it and there wasn't a thing in it except a piece of
colored paper, and on it was written in capital letters:

He turned white as he looked at it. This woman knew
the Bible story and knew that, where a covenant had been
made in the name of God and God's name brought in, who_
ever violated that covenant not only wronged a human being
but was guilty of sin toward God. His hand shook as he
looked at it. He told me about it, and I said, "If you are a
man, you go right to your tent and send her a humble, peni_
tent letter." He said, "I won't do it." And I said, "Then
watch out. That woman has quit appealing to you. She has
appealed to God. Mizpah, the Lord witness between me and
thee." He says, "I reckon I can take care of myself." The
next day we went into battle. He was shot through the heart
and fell on me. That saved my life. When the battle was
over I went back and found him thoroughly dead, and in
going through his pockets to send home to his family, I found
that piece of paper and through the center of the word
"Mizpah" the Yankee bullet had gone right into his heart.
My reason for calling your attention to this is that he is a
profane person who is irreverent toward God in anything.
He is profane in the East who breaks an oath, and it is counted
an everlasting degradation. Whenever you agree to anything
in the name of God, you bring God in as a witness. Then
you do what is said in another Old Testament book, "When I
swear to my hurt, I will keep my word." Stick to your word.
Notice when Jacob meets Laban it is diamond cut diamond,
but when Jacob meets Esau, it is rapier meeting hammer.

1. What was the great event of Jacob's life?
2. State the time, place, and circumstances of his conversion.
3. What New Testament passage explains Jacob's ladder and who
preached a great sermon on it?
4. What melting hymn was suggested by this incident?
5. What name did Jacob give to the place of his conversion, and why?
6. What vow did he make?
7. What was the evidence of his conversion?
8. What is the secret of a successful, religious life?
9. What do we find here which was mentioned in the Bible only
once before this, and what is the author's belief respecting that teaching?
10. How long was Jacob in Haran?
11. Contrast his condition when he went in with his condition when he came out.
12. Describe the meeting of Jacob and Rachel.
13. Why did Jacob weep after he kissed Rachel?
14, How did Jacob get Rachel and what evidence that he loved her?
15. What proverb based on this incident?
16. How was the law of lex talionis exemplified in Jacob's case?
17. What do you think of the English poet's testimony referred to?
18. Was Laban's explanation to Jacob plausible and what good points of Jacob here comes out?
19. State some of the evils of polygamy.
20. Who were Jacob's children by Leah? Rachel? Bilhah? Zilpah?
21. What the meaning of their names?
22. From what were these names derived?
23. What four lista of these names do we have in the Bible?
24. What was Jacob's condition, at the end of fourteen years?
25. What business contract did he now make with Laban and what
do you think of the way he executed his part?
26. How did Jacob get away from Laban and why did Rachel steal
Laban's teraphim?
27. How did Jacob get the start of Laban and where did Laban over_take him?
28. What kept Laban. from killing Jacob?
29. What charge did Laban bring against Jacob?
30. What was Jacob's reply?
31. Cite the passage that shows the hardness of Jacob's life in Haran.
32. How was it finally settled?
33. What is the meaning of Mizpah and what illustration of this is
given by the author?

Genesis 32:1 to 34:31

Our last discussion closed with the thirty_first chapter of
Genesis, and we had just finished our discussion of Jacob's
meeting with his uncle Laban. In this discussion we take up
the thirty_second chapter, which deals with Jacob's meeting
with Esau, his brother, his inveterate enemy, and the method
which was pursued by Jacob in appeasing Esau's wrath.
"And Jacob went on his way, and the angels of God met
him. And Jacob said when he saw them, This is God's host,
and he called the name of that place Mahanaim," or as the
margin has it, "The two hosts or companies." This vision was
an encouraging revelation to Jacob. He saw a heavenly band
on earth; hence the name, "Mahanaim," or "two companies."
That upper band had been with him all the time, but invisible.
Here he is permitted to see them. In view of apprehended
troubles ahead of him, this vision greatly assures him of
safety. The psalmist later expressed the general truth: "The
angel of Jehovah encampeth round about them that fear
him, and delivereth them" (Psalm 34:7). In the same way
Jehovah opened the eyes of the faithful young man with
Elisha: "And he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full
of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha" (2 Kings
6:17). So, when our faith is bright enough we can see the
presence of attending angels.
In v. 3 we learn that Jacob sent messengers forward into the
country of Esau to find out the plan of his brother. It had
been twenty years since Jacob had seen his brother, on that
occasion when through the duplicity of his mother and him_

self he had scecured the blessing of the birthright from his old,
blind father, when Esau had determined to kill him and his
mother had sent him away from home secretly. Jacob was
naturally very anxious to know what Esau's reception would
be and so he sent these messengers. And in order to excite
the attention of his brother to his wealth and possessions,
Jacob directed the messengers as follows: "Thus shall ye
say unto my lord Esau: Thus saith thy servant Jacob, I have
soJOurned with Laban, and stayed until now: and I have
oxen, and asses, and flocks, and men_servants, and maid_
servants: and I have sent to tell my lord, that I may find
favour in his sight."
When the messengers returned to Jacob they brought back
the news that the wrath of Esau had not abated during these
twenty years. "We came to thy brother Esau, and moreover
he cometh to meet thee, and four hundred men with him."
And Jacob was afraid. So he began to make preparation for
his meeting with his brother. His first step was to divide
his herds and his people into three companies, in order that
they might not all be destroyed at one stroke from the war_
like band of his brother. But notice that in his preparation,
he made no effort to resist the onslaught of his brother's
men. He had a stronger shield than physical forces, the
shield of faith in God's promises to him, and the accompany_
ing angel host. And his next step and best step of all was
his earnest prayer. Let us notice that prayer: "0 God of my
father Abraham, and God of my father Isaac." Do you notice
how that prayer leads? He states the fact that Jehovah
was the God of his father and his grandfather, and he had
made promises to both of them. Then he pleads the fact
that God had commanded him, therefore the Lord ought to
protect him in his obedience. He pleads the Lord's promise:
Who said, "I will do thee good." Notice another element of
power in his prayer: "I am not worthy of the least of all
the mercies, and of all the truth, which thou hast shown thy
servant." There is humility in the prayer, pleading the prom_
ise, pleading the command, pleading the triple blessing pro_
nounced upon Abraham, Isaac, and himself, and then acknowl_
edging, that, personally, he was not worthy of any of it:
"With my staff I passed over this Jordan; and now I have
become two companies." Let us see what he is going to ask
for. He knows how to make a request. He did not commence
by praying that the Lord would bless the dwellers in the
steppes of Asia and on the islands of the sea, and then pray
all around the world. He says, "Deliver me, I pray thee, from
the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau: for I fear
him lest he come and smite me, the mother with the chil_
dren. And thou saidst, I will surely do thee good, and make
thy seed as the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered
for multitude." That is his step so far. Now he is going back
to his worldly wisdom again. He is like Mohammed, who said,
"Tie your camel and pray the Lord that he may not get
away." Don't turn the camel loose and then pray that he
may not escape. As the old British general said to his
soldiers, "Pray to the Lord and keep your powder dry."
Don't simply pray and leave God to do everything, but do
what you can do.
Let us see the next step he takes. "He took a present for
his brother Esau: first, two hundred she_goats and twenty
he_goats; second, two hundred ewes and twenty rams; third,
twenty milk camels and their colts; fourth, forty cows and
ten bulls; fifth, twenty she_asses and ten foals." Notice how
he makes that work: "And he said unto his servants, Pass
over before me, and put a space betwixt drove and drove."
When the first drove meets Esau, he will say, "Who are you,
and what is this?" They will say, "We are Jacob's servants,
and this is a present to his brother Esau." After awhile Esau
meets the second drove, and receives the same answer to his
question. Imagine in your mind the effect of these repeated
answers. Imagine his feelings after he had met these five
successive droves, – Jacob's wisdom, viz.: that he must not be
content with making a small impression:
Many drops of water, drop, drop, drop,
….. will wear away a rock.

And yet again present a thing to a man's mind; wait a while
and present it again. Maybe the first impression glances off,
but after awhile one will stick. It does not seem to me that
the maddest man in the world could have remained mad until
he got through meeting these herds.
We now come to Jacob's last step. Here was the brook
Jabbock, flowing into the Jordan. Jacob sends all his family
and property across that brook and is left alone. He is going
to have a big battle and he is going to fight this battle out
with God. From no scripture have I ever gained more spiritual
power than that. I never went out as an agent or undertook
any enterprise that I did not separate myself from all human_
kind, and go off alone with God, and just like a little child,
state the whole case, prostrate myself before him; and if I
win the divine favor I am not afraid of anything. And a
man wrestled with him till the rising of the dawn. The prophet
Hosea calls him an angel (Hosea 12:4), and a little later
Jacob calls him God, and he was a manifestation of the Logos,
the Son of God. When he saw that he prevailed not against
Jacob, he touched the hollow of Jacob's thigh and it was out
of joint. He said to Jacob, "Turn me loose, for the dawn is
coming." Jacob said, "I will not let thee go, unless thou
bless me." He could stand on but one foot, but he would
not turn loose. The Hoosier Schoolmaster by Edward Eggles_
ton has a remarkable lesson about a bulldog that belonged to
"Old Man Mean's" boys which had this virtue, viz.: whenever
he took hold he would not turn loose. You might kick him
and scold him, but he held his grip. That taught a lesson
to the schoolmaster. I think the dog and the schoolmaster
both might credit Jacob with the original idea. What a
marvelous secret of success that is: "I will not let thee go
unless thou bless me." Anybody that knocks tentatively
at the door of prayer and runs off before anybody comes,
making but one petition, will never succeed. You have heard
me state before, and I will restate it now, how that idea of
persistence got hold of me when I was four years old. I
slept with my eldest brother and he taught me history lessons
in child stories. One night he told me the history of the
g Battle of Marathon, where one hundred thousand Persians
were assailed by ten thousand Greeks under Miltiades; how
the Greeks broke the ranks of the Persians, and followed them
into the sea; how the Persians got into their boats, and the
Greeks grabbed the boats with their hands until the Persians
cut their hands off; and then how they caught bold with their
teeth until the Persians cut their heads off. And when my
brother got that far, I jumped up in the bed and yelled out,
"Hurrah for the Greeks!" until I woke up the whole house.
There is the secret of prayer. As David Crockett said, "Be sure
you are right, and then go ahead." "And the angel said to
Jacob, What is thy name? and he says, Jacob," which means
supplanter, a crafty fellow, and the angel says, "Thy name
shall no more be called supplanter, but Israel, for thou hast
striven with God and with men and has prevailed," power with
God and man. One of the greatest revival sermons ever
preached in Waco was preached by A. B. Earle, an evangelist,
on that text: "Israel, power with God and man." One of my ex_
amination questions is: Analyze Jacob's power with God and
with man. With God: humility, pleading of commandment,
then the promise, then his faith which took hold, then his im_
portunity: "I will not let thee go unless thou bless me." His
power with men appears from the way he got at Esau. He
took every step that wisdom could suggest to placate and dis_
arm the adversary of hostility. Some men have a way of
looking at you that conveys an insult, and others with a shrug
of the shoulders. Shakespeare tells how the' followers of
Montague and Capulet would insult each other, one by twist_
ing his mustache and the other by letting his hand rest on
his sword. They would begin, "Did you twist your mus_
tache?" "I twisted my mustache." "Did you touch your
sword?" "I touched my sword," until finally they got to fight_
ing. Jacob had none of that. He was never going to have a
controversy for which he was responsible. His power with
man consisted in this also, that he never violated a contract.
You can find no evidence in the Bible that Jacob ever went
back on a compact made with men.
"Jacob called the name of the place Peniel," i.e., "the face
of God." "I have seen God face to face, and my soul was
delivered." The sun rose upon him as he passed over Peniel,
and he limped on his thigh. Therefore, the children of Israel
eat not the sinew of the hip. Look at the effect of that upon
Esau: Present after present, and Jacob coming to meet him,
limping, without a weapon in his hand. There are two things
I want to say about this. One is that all the second_blessing
people and sanctificationists make this an example in which
their second blessing was received, sinless perfection. And
they used to go by the name of "Penielists." Unquestionably
it was a tremendous upward step in the spiritual life of Jacob.
But he needed more of God's discipline before he would be
perfectly holy, and we will come to some of it after awhile.
I ask you to read the best spiritual interpretation of this inci_
dent of Jacob's life that I know, Charles Wesley's great hymn.
Every time I teach Genesis I have the class bring out that
hymn, which you will find in the old_time Methodist hymn_
Come, 0 thou traveller unknown, whom still I hold but cannot see,
My company before is gone, and I am left alone with thee.
With thee all night I mean to stay and wrestle till the break of day.
My prayer hath power with God, the grace unspeakable I now receive
Through faith I see thee face to face and live.
In vain I have not wept and strove; thy nature and thy name
is love.
I have a remark for you preachers: Get as many commen_
taries as you can on that wrestling of Jacob. Every time you
see it mentioned in literature, buy what is said, and read and
study it profoundly. You are looking for power; that is what
you preachers ought to be looking for, power with God and
men. Right in that incident of Jacob's life power can be
found. There are a great many things in the Bible you can
go over hurriedly. They are parts that hold the rest together,
but this is a passage to spend the night on.
But we will go on, however. Jacob has the matter settled
with God, and has done everything he can do to get God on
his side, and has succeeded. As Saul's name was changed to
Paul, and Abram's name was changed to Abraham, so Jacob's
name was changed to Israel, as Simon's name was changed to
Peter, Cephas, a stone. Great events of life justify a change
of name. "Jacob lifted up his eyes and beheld Esau coming
with his four hundred men." Now we see the last step that
Jacob took. First he takes the two concubines and their
four sons, as the least beloved, and puts them ahead; then
Leah and her six sons and daughter as next most beloved, and
puts them next; and last he puts Rachel and Joseph in the
rear, furthermost from danger. I don't blame him for his pref_
erence, but Jacob is not going to skulk in the rear. He goes
in front, limping as God had lamed him. But as Paul says,
"When I am weak, then am I strong." He is now going to
rely upon God altogether. When Esau saw him all of his
enmity had banished and he ran to meet him and embraced
him and fell upon his neck and kissed him and they wept.
They had not met for twenty years. Then Esau saw the women and children and asked an introduction. Each woman with her children came up and was introduced in order; so Esau became acquainted with the family and Jacob won out completely.
The clouds ye so much dread
Are big with mercy, and shall break
In blessing on your head.
I hope that when trouble comes and takes to itself the form
of a cloud and gathers thick and thunders loud, you will be
as humble before God and as courageous before man as Jacob
was, and come out of it as well.
Esau proposes to accompany him. Jacob said no; that he
had a great many young cattle and children, and they could
not go fast like the soldiers, and he does not think it wise
to keep too long in the company of that force of border men.
In Ivanhoe we have an account of the wisdom of Wamba, the
son of Witless, when he saw Richard the Lion_Hearted, "hail
fellow well met," with Robin Hood's crowd of thieves. It
all went off very well, but he was afraid if they kept on,
directly some controversy would arise, and so he got off into a
thicket and blew a horn, and everybody got up. Thus the
wise son of Witless warned Richard that he had better sepa_
rate from the thieves.
Jacob moved down into the valley of the Jordan, a hot, rank
place, and full of sinkholes. He did not stay long. Next he
came to Shechem and pitched his tent before that city. Al_
though all the country belonged to him as it did to Abraham,
he bought a piece of land. There occurs the incident which
is self_explanatory, recounted in the thirty_fourth chapter,
and upon which I need to comment very little. Dinah wanted
to go to a parties – will call it that – that the Shechemites
were giving. It is a characteristic of girls that they do like
to go to parties, but it is not best for a young girl, unchap_
eroned, to go, among strange wild people. But this heathen
loved her and came to Jacob and proposed to marry her, and
Jacob would have consented under the circumstances, but
an expedient was resorted to that they should become Jews.
So the males were circumcised. But Simeon and Levi and
their followers came and killed all the men and took posses_
sion of the property, and merged the two tribes into oneùa
most horrible transaction, yet it is customary for brothers to
slay those who ruin their sisters, at least it used to be so re_
garded in the South. Jacob did not approve of it and felt that
it was an awful wrong, especially after a covenant had been
made and marriage had been proposed and accepted, and they
had even agreed to turn Jews. When the old man comes to
die you will hear from him on this.

1. What assurance of safety did God give Jacob in view of his ap_
prehended trouble in meeting Esau, what name did Jacob give the place and why?
2. Cite a passage in the psalms on this, "id an incident in the life
of Elisha on this point.
3. What initiative step did Jacob take toward reconciliation with
4. What plan did Jacob then adopt for meeting his brother?
5. What report did the messengers make to Jacob?
6. What are the elements of power in his prayer?
7. What was his request and how does he co_operate in. bringing it
8. Give the sayings of Mohammed and of the British general on this point.
9. What present did he send Esau and what was the plan of presentation?
10. What was hia last battle before meeting Esau?
11. Who wrestled with Jacob and what is the key to Jacob's power?
12. How was the lesson of persistence impressed upon the expositor's mind?
13. What new name was given Jacob here, and why?
14. Analyze Jacob's power with God and his power with men.
15. What name did Jacob give to the place where he wrestled, and
its meaning?
16. What effect of this fight went with Jacob through life and what
custom practiced by the children of Israel in memory of the event?
17. What modern claim is based upon this experience of Jacob's and what is the fallacy of this claim?
18. What matchless hymn was suggested by this event in Jacob's life?
19. What advice here is especially adapted to preachers?
20. Cite several instances in Scripture of the change of the name and the justification for such change.
21. How did Jacob shield Rachel from danger in this plan of meeting Esau?
22. What position did Jacob take and what was the effect of all this on Esau?
23. How did Jacob evade Esau's proposal to accompany him on the journey?
24. Where did Jacob stop after this meeting with Esau and why so
25. Where did he stop next and what trouble did Jacob have here?
Cite the dying testimony of Jacob relative to this incident.
26. What part of Jacob's character was inherited from Isaac? What
is attributable to divine discipline?

Genesis 35_41

This will be a running comment commencing at the thirty_
fifth chapter and extending through the forty_first. Our last
discussion showed the great disturbance of mind on Jacob's
part at the cruelty of Simeon and Levi in destroying the She_
chemites. At this time God told Jacob to leave that place
and go to Bethel. In removing, Jacob determined to purify
his household from idols; if he was to have the enmity of
the people, he was determined not to have the disfavor of
God. So be commanded all his household to put away their
strange gods and to change their garments. They also gave
up the rings in their ears and noses. It is not fashionable with
us now to wear rings that way, but many do. After this puri_
fication God protected them by causing a fear to fall upon the
inhabitants of the land, or else Jacob's crowd would have
been annihilated on account of what Simeon and Levi bad
At Bethel he builds an altar and worships God, and God
reappears to him and gives him a renewed assurance of his
protection. He then leaves Bethel for what is now called Beth_
lehem, or Ephrath. At that place occurred the death of Rachel
in giving birth to Benjamin. She was not buried in the cave
of Machpelah, like the rest of the family, but for hundreds of
years her tomb was standing and visible; they show it to you
now, but not with certainty may you accept the tradition.
In 35:8, we find an account of the death of Deborah, Re_
bekah's nurse. That is the only hint as to the death of Re_
bekah. We infer from the fact that the old nurse had come

to live with Jacob that Rebekah was dead. I may have an
examination question on that point. The rest of the chapter
is devoted to the names of Jacob's sons by his several wives,
which I will bring out in an examination question. The
chapter closes with the death of Isaac. Jacob comes to
Marnre, or Hebron, now the head of the tribe. Esau and
Jacob unite to bury their father. The thirty_sixth chapter
gives a genealogy of the descendants of Esau. Nothing is
particular in that except the generations of Seir, father of the
Horites. I will give this examination question: Why in the
generations of Esau, are the generations of the Horites in_
cluded? The answer is that Esau's people moved to the coun_
try occupied by the Horites and intermarried with them.
You will note that the Horites, or cave dwellers, are not pre_
historic men.
The thirty_seventh chapter is devoted to the youth of
Joseph, a very particular section. We find here the develop_
ment of the murderous envy and hate of Joseph's brethren
toward him. An examination question will be: State what
caused the envy and hatred of Joseph's brethren toward him.
The answer is: Joseph brought an evil report concerning the
sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, and they counted that tattling. If
he had been one of the sons at work, and had reported on the
others, that would have been a tell_tale business. If one in
college should be appointed as a representative of the faculty,
he could make a report without being justly amenable to the
charge of tattling. Joseph was sent by his father to make a
report. Next, Israel loved Joseph above all his other sons. I
think the circumstances make it certain that he loved him
justly. He was the oldest son of the only woman Jacob ever
loved. He was intensely lovable, more so than any of the
other boys. It is a fact, however, that there never was a case
where a parent loved one child more than the others that it
did not cause ill will in the family. The third reason is
given here: "And he made him a full length garment." King
James Version, "a coat of many colours." When a parent
distinguishes between his children in dress he is sure to bring
on a row. There Jacob made a mistake. Fourth, Joseph
dreamed a dream and told it to his brothers, and they hated
him yet the more. "I dreamed that we were binding sheaves,
and behold, my sheaf arose and stood upright, and your
sheaves stood around and bowed down to my sheaf." If that
dream originated with Joseph it shows that he was already
imagining superiority over his brethren. But if it did not
originate with Josephùwhich it did not, as it came from God
– it showed a lack of wisdom in Joseph to tell the other boys.
The dream was literally fulfilled in afterlife, and so must
have been from God. He dreamed another dream: "Behold,
I dreamed yet again, and behold the sun and moon and
eleven stars bowed down to me." The sun is papa, and the
moon is mamma, and the stars are the eleven brothersùthe
whole family bowed down. He ought never to have told that
dream to those boys. He told it to his father also. To show
how quickly his father understood it, he said, "Shall we
indeed, thy mother and thy father and thy brethren, bow
down to thee?" His brothers envied him because his father
kept that saying. He knew that meant something for his boy,
and he was proud of the glory the boy would attain. Here are
five things, and envy can get very fat on five things.
I once delivered an address on that subject before the Wake
Forest College, entitled the "Ambitious Dreams of Youth."
There do come into bright minds forecasts of future great_
ness, great elation and swelling of the heart in thinking about
it, that cannot be doubted. Sometimes these ambitious dreams
do not come from God but from the heart of the student. I
told those Wake Forest boys of a young fellow out in the
mountains. When he started off to school a dream ran through
his mind: "I will go to Wake Forest and make the brightest
record ever made in that school. I will get through the four
years' course in three. I will get up my recitations so that the
faculty will be talking about the most brilliant student in the
institution. I will get the class honors. When I shall have
delivered the valedictory and go home, all along the way peo_
ple will say, 'There is the boy who delivered the valedictory
address.' When I get home the family and all the servants
will come out in a double row, and a band will play, 'See the
conquering hero come.' " Then I turned to the president and
said, "Mr. President, what are you going to do with these
ambitious boys who see the other boys bow down and their
parents bowing down before them? Those boys think they
have the world in a sling." But one thing 'is sure, no one ever
became really great who did not aspire to be great.– There is
an honest ambition to excel, but where the faculty of imagina_
tion is wanting – and it takes that to be a dreamer – that man
can be successful in a matter_of_fact way, but he certainly
can never be successful as an artist, sculptor, painter, or as an
orator or statesman. There is a creative power in the imagi_
nation. Woe to the one who expects to be great and has it
not. It is characteristic of the Spirit's day, as foretold by Joel
and expounded by Peter, "Your young men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dream dreams." Sometimes men who
have not the Spirit, and who find it easier to win in fancy
than in fact, indulge in air castles which need to be ridiculed.
There is a story in the old "Blue Back Speller" of a maiden
who, walking alone with a pail of milk upon her head, fell
into the following train of reflections: "The money for which
I shall sell this milk will enable me to increase my stock of
eggs to three hundred. These eggs, allowing for what may
prove addle, and what may be destroyed by vermin, will pro_
duce at least two hundred and fifty chickens. The chickens
will be fit to carry to market about Christmas, when poultry
always brings a good price; so that by May Day I cannot
fail of having enough money to purchase a new gown. Green!
òùlet me considerùyes, green becomes my complexion best,
and green it shall be. In this dress I will go to the fair, where
all the young fellows will strive to have me for a partner; but
I shall perhaps refuse every one of them, and, with an air of
disdain, toss from them." Transported with this triumphant
thought she could not forbear acting with her head what thus
passed in her imagination, when down came the pail of milk,
and with it all her imaginary happiness. Dr. Wayland, one of
the greatest educators in the United States, has a lecture on the
"Evils of the Imagination," that every schoolboy ought to
read. Even barefoot boys, fishing in the creek, will weave
stories of companies of which they are captains, and they will
kill 1,000 buffaloes and 1,500 Indians. When I was can_
vassing for the Education Commission in Northeast Texas,
I had to go about eleven miles out into the country. A lad
of about twelve asked the privilege of taking me. I wondered
why, but when we got out of town he turned around and
said, "Dr. Carroll, I asked the privilege of taking you to this
place because I wanted to talk to you. I heard your address
on education, and do you know, I am going to be governor
of Texas someday?" I smiled and said, "Tell me about it,"
and he unfolded himself. That boy had already drawn out his
own horoscope and filled out all the details of his future. He
was brilliant. He had stood at the head of his classes. In_
stead of rebuking him I simply cautioned him and at the same
time encouraged him because he had this record. He did not
tell lies. He was never absent from his classes. He was never
guilty of what you call schoolboy follies. He was intense in
his application, and up to that time he had accomplished all
that he had ever undertaken. So it would not surprise me
if that boy yet becomes governor. I am waiting to see, how_
ever. One of the most instructive parts of the Bible is this
that relates to the early life of Joseph and his premonitions
of future greatness. Not long ago I read an account of a bril_
liant girl about thirteen years old. Her parents, uncles, and
aunts were all trying to restrain her from following a certain
line of education. She met it all by saying, "It is in me to
do that. I know I can win on it. I dream about it. It
fills my vision. I am irresistibly drawn to it." And she did
win on it, a country girl that became famous before the great
audiences in European capitals.
This envy that had five roots, after awhile will come to a
head when opportunity presents itself. A great many people
carry envy and hate in their hearts and it eats like a cancer
and burns like a hidden fire and no opportunity ever comes
to gratify it, and the world knows nothing about it. "Gray's
Elegy" tells, in referring to the lowly graves, about "some
mute, inglorious Milton" that never had a chance to follow the
promptings of his muse. Not only that, but the lowly graves
hold many a heart which had burned with hatred and envy
and petulance that never had an opportunity to express itself
in "Some Cromwell, guiltless of his country's blood." They
say that everything comes to him who waits, and so this crowd
waited, and here is their chance. Joseph's brethren left
Hebron, and went to Shechem, where they had massacred the
Shechemites. They were looking for territory to pasture their
immense herds. The father tells Joseph to go and see if it is
well with the brothers and their flocks. It is a long way from
home. When the boys see him coming they say, "Behold
the dreamer cometh; let us slay him and cast him into a
pit." There were ten brothers in the meeting; eight were of
one mind, but two had dissenting views. Reuben, the oldest,
said, "Let us not kill him. Let us cast him into the pit." The
record says that Reuben intended to carry him back to Jacob.
So he stands guiltless. The other one is Judah. We find when
they bind him and strip off his coat that he pleads with them,
ten great strong men, binding a boy, their own brother, and he
weeping. Later they saw a caravan coming called Ishmaelites
in one place and Midianites in another. Midian was a de_
scendant of Esau, whose territory bordered on Ishmael's, and
the two tribes intermingled. Now Judah said, "Let us not
kill him, but sell him to this caravan to take to Egypt." In
a speech I once delivered in the chapel of Baylor University,
I told of a proposition about selling a man that would scorch
the paper it was written on. The high court of state plotted
it, the leading preacher instigated it, and the man they pro_
posed to sell was one of the most illustrious on the roll of
fame in the United States. So they sold Joseph. Then they
took his coat and dipped it in the blood of a kid, and carried
it to the father to make the impression that Joseph bad been
torn to pieces by wild beasts. That was the heaviest stroke
that Jacob ever received. He rent his garments, put on sack_
cloth, mourned many days and refused to be comforted. "I
am going down to my son mourning to the underworld." We
will leave him there and look at one or two other matters.
The thirty_eighth chapter is devoted entirely to some rather
scaly incidents in the life of Judah. The chapter is of such a
character that it forbids discussion in a public address. Read
it and gather your own lessons. It commences with Judah's
sin in marrying a Canaanite woman. Two of the sons born
of this marriage God killed for their wickedness. This wife
became an ancestress of our Lord. He derives his descent
from four women not Jewesses. Rahab, the harlot; Tamar,
the Canaanite; Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite, whom
David took; Ruth, the Moabitess.
The next three chapters give an account of Joseph in Egypt.
When the caravan reached Egypt they sold him to Potiphar,
an officer of Pharaoh. Potiphar finds his trustworthiness,
purity and truthfulness and attention to business, and pro_
motes this slave to the head of the house. When sold into
slavery the brave heart ought not to despair. But the beauty
of his person, great personality, evident kindly manhood, at_
tracted Potiphar's wife, and she fell in love with him, as some
married women do. Joseph refused to Join her in this unlaw_
ful love. Whereupon, as "love unrequited and. scorned turns
to hate," she accused him of the very offense which he refused
to consider. So Potiphar puts him in prison. Now, though a
prisoner, this man begins to work his way to the front. He is
faithful to every duty. Finally he is put at the head of all
the criminals in the jail. How can you put down a good man,
true to God and himself? This position brings him into
contact with other dreams besides his own. There are two
that the birds snatched the bread of Pharaoh's table out of
fellow prisoners, the chief baker and butler of Pharaoh. Both
are troubled. God sent those dreams. For a man to dream
the basket on his head is a very singular thing. Joseph in_
terpreted that to mean that he would gain his liberty but that
Pharaoh would put him to death. It happened just that way.
The butler dreamed about a cluster of grapes, well formed,
sweet flavored, and luscious, and that he squeezed it into a
goblet and handed the new wine to Pharaoh. Joseph tells
him that means that he shall be restored and promoted to his
old place, and says, "When you are promoted, remember me."
The butler promised well enough, but forgot. It is easy to
forget the unfortunate. But after awhile God sends more
dreams. This time Pharaoh has a double dream. He dreams
that he sees seven stalks of grain come up in the Nile Valley,
full eared and heavy headed. Right after them come up seven
thin) shrivelled, parched stalks and they devour the others.
He dreamed he saw seven fat beef cattle, and seven lean, ill
favored, gaunt, starved specimens that ate the fat ones up.
Nobody could tell Pharaoh what the dream meant. But finally
the butler remembered Joseph and said, "When I was in prison
there was a Hebrew lad who told us our dreams and they
came out just like he said." Pharaoh sent for Joseph, and we
see him step out of the prison to stand before the monarch to
explain dreams, as Daniel did later. He says each dream
means the same thing, that there were going to be seven
years of great plenty in which the earth would be burdened
with its crops. It reminds me of what a man on the Brazos
River said. Leaving out part of his language, which was very
emphatic, I quote the other: "I tell you, I will have to build
a wall around my field and call it a crib: there is so much
corn in it." He did make eighty bushels to the acre, and
showed me a number of stalks with three full cars, standing
only a foot apart and twenty feet high. Joseph said, "These
seven years will be followed by seven years of drought and
famine in which nothing will be made. God sent me here to
provide. You ought to husband the resources of these fruitful
years so that they can be spread out over the famine years."
Pharaoh was wonderfully impressed, and instantly promoted
Joseph to the position of prime minister and made him next
to himself. Just exactly as Joseph predicted, the thing hap_
pened. Great storage places, perfect reservoirs for holding
wheat, and treasure houses were built. At the end of the
first year people wanted bread to eat. Under advice of
Pharaoh Joseph sold to them, taking their money, jewels,
stock, land, then themselves. At the end of the seven years
Pharaoh had the whole country, and Egypt was the granary
of the world. "And all countries come into Egypt to Joseph
to buy corn."
That is the history of Joseph up to the time we come in
touch with Jacob again.

1. Where did God tell Jacob to go from Shechem?
2. What important step did he take before going, and why?
3. How did God intervene to save Jacob from the inhabitants of
the land?
4. What events happened at Bethel?
5. When did Rebekah die and what is the evidence?
6. Where did Jacob go from Bethel and what the events by the way?
7. Name the sons of Jacob by each of his wives and handmaids.
8. Where were they born?
9. Where does Jacob go from Ephrath, or Bethlehem, and what
important event occurred there?
10. To what is the thirty_sixth chapter devoted, and why the gene_
alogy of the Horites in this connection?
11. Whose ia the most flawless character in history i Ana.: Joseph's.
12. As a child, what could he say of his father and mother?
13. State in order the several causes or occasions of the hatred of hia
14. What mistake did Joseph make in this?
15. What is the importance of dreams of greatness? Illustrate.
16. What is the difference between dreama of true greatness and
building air castles? Illustrate.
17. What is the nature of ungratified envy and hate?
18. Cite passages from "Gray's Elegy" to illustrate this point.
19. What was the culmination of the hatred of Joseph's brothers? Can
you find a parallel to this in the New Testament?
20. How was Reuben's attitude toward the hostility against Joseph
distinguished from that of his brothers?
21. How was Judah's?
22. Who took Joseph out of the pit and sold him? (Genesis 37:27_
23. Explain the confusion of the names of the Midianites and the
24. Compare the dejection of Jacob with that of Elijah, and show
wherein both were mistaken.
25. To what is the thirty_eighth chapter devoted?
26. What was Judah's beginning in this downward course of sin?
27. What four Gentile women became ancestresses of our Lord?
28. Who became Joseph's master in Egypt, what of his promotion and
misfortune in thia house?
29. How did he get out of prison and what six dreams touched his
30. Who was the author of those dreams?
31. To what position was he promoted in the kingdom?
32. What of Egypt at the close of the seven years of famine?

Genesis 42-45

The history of Joseph in Egypt is exquisitely charming in
style, the most beautiful story of any language, and so plain
that anybody can understand it. There are no critical ques_
tions to discuss, but I will emphasize some points.
Stephen, in Acts, says that this famine extended over Egypt
and Canaan; other references indicate that it was much more
extensive. Anyhow, it came to Jacob at Hebron, and he sent
his ten sons to buy wheat. Corn in the Old Testament does
not mean Indian corn, or maize, which was not known until
the discovery of America. Many other things were not known
until that time. The world had no sugar, molasses, coffee, to_
bacco, or potatoes. When Sir Walter Raleigh first carried
Irish potatoes to England, they ate the tops like salad, not
knowing the roots were good. So Jacob sends his sons to
Egypt to bring back a caravan load of corn, and Joseph
recognizes them. As they did not recognize him, he affected
to consider them as spies. But he had a purpose in view. His
heart was very kind and generous to them, but he wanted to
impress some very solemn lessons on them. He put them in
ward for three days. On the third day he took them out and
said that by leaving one of their brethren as a hostage they
could take corn home to their father, and if they had told the
truth and were not spies, when they returned they must bring
the youngest brother, about whom they had spoken.
Now follows this language, which I have often made the
occasion of a sermon: "And they said one to another, We are
verily guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the dis_
tress of his soul, when he besought us, and would not hear;

therefore is this distress come upon us. And Reuben an_
swered them, saying, Spake I not unto you, saying, Do not
sin against the child; but ye would not hear? therefore also,
behold, his blood is required." The point is that they were
convicted of the sin of having sold Joseph into Egypt. Joseph
had not said anything to them about it. The crime had been
committed a long time back) and they had never shown any
compunction of conscience. A circumstance comes up in a
strange land, and all at once every one of them is convicted
of sin. The use I make of that in preaching is this: I begin
at the first of Genesis and go through the entire Bible, mak_
ing a digest of every case of conviction of sin mentioned. I
write that case out, stating what the sin was, how long after
the sin before conviction came, and the causes of conviction.
The object of the study is to prepare me to preach to the
unconverted. If you cannot convict people of sin, they do not
want a Saviour. Their own consciences convicted these men.
A sinner becomes apprehensive; he flees when nobody pur_
sues. He will construe any sudden judgment as a punishment
for that sin. Unless you know that about human nature, you
won't know how to deal with conviction. That was exactly
the effect that Joseph wanted to bring about, but not by
open accusation or denunciation. He wanted to treat them
in such a way that they would get into a tight place and
their consciences would do the rest. Other remarkable cases
of conviction are where Nathan convicted David; Jonah the
Ninevites; and the cases on the day of Pentecost. After
studying the Bible through, I go to my experience to find the
first thing that made me feel that I was a sinner, and the other
times I have felt conviction of sin. From my own experience
I learn how to deal with others in their experience. That I
regard as the most important thought in this lesson.
Before these boys get home, they find the money paid for
the wheat in their sacks. See how that conviction creeps out
again: "Behold, my money is returned, and their hearts went
out, and they turned trembling one to another, saying, What
is this that God has done unto us?" When they got home
they had to explain to their father the absence of Simeon,
the return of their money, and that they must take Benjamin
with them on their return. Jacob said, "Me have you be_
reaved of my children: Joseph is not, and Simeon is not, and
ye will take Benjamin away: all these things are against me."
I used to treat that this way: that in our pessimism we are
apt to construe things against us that ultimately prove good for
us. I illustrate it by: "All things work together for good to
them that love God." But from the translation: "On me are
all these things," you get an entirely different and very sug_
gestive sermon. Jacob hints that they had killed Simeon, or
disposed of him some way like they had Joseph. The thought
is this: no man can commit a sin that terminates in himself.
It always breaks some other heart. If a boy steals, it hurts
his mother worse than it hurts him. If a man commits a
murder, his wife may say, "On me is this thing." If he is a
drunkard, on her and her children are all those things. In
the social order no human being is independent of others, but
bound by indissoluble ties of blood and society; nor stands by
himself, and cannot sin by himself. Preaching on that sub_
ject once, I drew a picture of a North Carolina boy who went
away from home and left his widowed mother in sorrow.
While travelling he took a religious furlough; played cards,
drank whiskey, became dissipated, finally had delirium tre_
mens, spent all his money, got into debt, lost his reputation,
and determined to commit suicide. I drew a picture of him
standing on the brow of a precipice, ready to jump. I called
attention to a cord around him which went back, and I fol_
lowed that cord back to North Carolina, and found it knotted
around his mother's heart. When he jumped it tore her heart
also. "On me are all these things."
We come to the generous proposition of Reuben: "My two
eons shalt thou slay if I bring him not to thee." Since Reuben
was not guilty of selling Joseph, it was very generous on his
part. But his father could not trust Reuben: "My son shall
not go down with you; for his brother is dead, and he only is
left: if harm befall him by the way in which ye go, then
will ye bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to the grave
[Sheol]." But Jacob did not take into account the pressure of
the famine. We stand against many things, sometimes, to
which after awhile we yield. Judah now proposes to become
a surety for the lad: "My life and everything I have is in thy
hands, if I don't bring this boy back." That has often been
used as a representation of Christ's becoming surety for this
people. Jacob most reluctantly gives his consent, and with his
usual wisdom takes every precaution to guard against trou_
ble: "Take of the choice fruits of the land in your vessels,
and carry down the man a present, a little balm, a little
honey, spicery and myrrh, nuts and almonds." He has done
all that he could; now he is going to pray: "And God
Almighty give you mercy before the man, that he may re_
lease unto you your other brother and Benjamin."
We have an account of their reception in Egypt, and I
want you to note the working of that conviction again. Joseph
made ready a feast for them, released Simeon to them, "And
the men were afraid because they were brought to Joseph's
house, and they said: Because of the money that was re_
turned in our sacks at the first time are we brought in: that
he may seek occasion against us, and take us for bondmen,
and our asses." How easy it is for an apprehensive heart to
suppose that every seeming sinister thing is a messenger of
God and of judgment. So they stepped out to the man who
had charge of Joseph's house and explained about the matter.
They supposed that accusation was going to be made against
them, and sought to defend themselves beforehand. Shake_
speare in Hamlet thus refers to the queen: "The lady pro_
tests too much, I think." Whenever anybody gives you an
explanation of a thing before there is an accusation and keeps
on explaining, it instantly creates a thought in the minds of
others that something needs explaining.
Here in v. 27, is a very touching thing, and in studying
literature you ought always to notice pathetic and delicately
expressed things: "And he asked them of their welfare, and
said, Is your father well, the old man of whom you spoke?
Is he yet alive? And they said, Thy servant, our father, is
well, he is yet alive." Now, when he asked that question how
must his heart have stood still until he got the answer, and
how much he was touched at the sight of B en j amini Notice
in v. 32, that Joseph could not eat with his brethren,
because Egyptians could not eat with strangers. The Jew to
this day will not eat with Gentiles. A Jewish drummer has to
get a dispensation from his Rabbi to eat at hotels. The Egyp_
tians required certain precautions in order to escape cere_
monial defilement, and would not eat with those who ate
certain animals. They would not eat with any one who would
kill a cow, a crocodile, a beetle, or sacred animal. The Jews
once brought complaint against Peter because he had eaten
with uncircumcised Gentiles. Notice v. 34: "And he took and
sent messes to them from before him: but Benjamin's mess
was five times so much as any of theirs." That has become
a proverb. Old Baptists used to say, "Have you prepared a
feast for us today?" "Yea, a Benjamin's mess."
The next chapter tells how Joseph sent them out again and
put their money back; and how he had his silver cup inserted
in Benjamin's sack. When they had gone, he sent men after
them with this question: "Wherefore have ye requited evil
for good? Is not this that in which my lord drinketh, and
whereby he indeed divineth?" What is meant by divining
with a cup? When I was a little fellow they used to divine
this way: They would take a cup of muddy coffee and let the
coffee escape, leaving the grounds (dregs) in the bottom of
the cup, and would whirl the cup around, and tell a fortune by
the position the dregs assumed. That was a very simple
Arkansas method of divining, but it was exactly in line with
this Egyptian method. Gipsy women divine with cards, or
by the lines of one's hands. They denied having the cup,
but when the bags were opened it was found in Benjamin's
bag. In v. II notice that conviction of sin again. When they
got back Judah said, "What shall we say unto my lord? What
shall we speak?ùGod hath found out the iniquity of thy
servants," still carrying everything back to that crime they
had committed. It is that response of human conscience that
enables criminal lawyers, who understand human nature, to
become mighty prosecutors of crime. Daniel Webster used
to say, when they were morally sure of the guilt of a man and
he had no legal evidence, '"Never mind, I will get the testi_
mony." Then he would begin his speech. He would draw a
supposititious picture of the crime; how the man crept in at
the window, etc., and if he did not tell it exactly right the
fellow would cry out: "It was not that way"ùwhich would
betray him. If he would follow the crime to the line, the
criminal would show the fear in his face. Webster always
had an ally in the conscience of the criminal.
Now we come to one of the greatest pieces of oratory in the
world, the speech of Judah before Joseph. Analyze the power
of Judah's speech. In Scott's Heart of Midlothian, in Jeanie
Deans' speech before the queen of England, you will find the
only thing in literature which I think compares with this
speech of Judah. Effie Deans, sister of Jeanie, had been con_
victed of a crime; Jeanie walked most of the way from Scot_
land to make a petition for her sister's pardon. The Duke of
Argyll befriended her, and managed that she should have an
interview with the queen, and told her just to speak her heart,
and not to fix up anything to say. This noble Scottish girl –
and that part is history as well as romance – delivered one of
the most impressive, affecting, pathetic little speeches that ever
fell from the lips of mortal. I will glance at this speech of
Judah's and show you what I think constitutes its elements of
power. "And Judah came near to him, and said, 0 my lord,
let thy servant, I pray thee, speak a word in my lord's ears,
and let not thine anger burn against thy servant, for thou art
even as Pharaoh." Notice two elements of power: the humility
of the speaker and the conciliation of the one whom he ad_
dressed: "Thou art even as Pharaoh." The next element of
power is that he most delicately makes Joseph responsible for
the situation: "My lord asked his servants, saying, Have ye a
father or brother? And we said unto my lord, we have a father,
an old man, and a child of his old age, a little one; and his
brother is dead, and he alone is left of his mother." "His
mother is dead and his father loves him, and you made us
bring him." Having made that point clear, he introduces the
father, "Thy servant, my father, said unto us, Ye know that
my wife bare me two sons and one went out from me, and I
said, Surely he is torn in pieces, and I saw him no more, and if
you take this one also from my presence, and harm befall him,
ye will bring my gray hairs in sorrow to the under_world. Now,
when I go to my father, and the lad is not with us, it will come
to pass that he will die." And he comes to the last point of
power, and that is his proposition of substitution: "Now,
therefore, let thy servant remain instead of the lad, and let the
lad go to his father." When Judah reached the climax it had
power with Joseph. Judah was a father himself) and many
times had made that generous proposition to go into bondage
in place of the boy.
Whereupon Joseph makes himself known to his brethren.
And Joseph said, "Come near, I am Joseph, your brother,
whom ye sold into Egypt. Be not grieved nor angry with your_
selves, that ye sold me, for God sent me before you to preserve
life." That brings up the question: Who sent Joseph into
Egypt? Their consciences told them they had done it, and they
knew it. But they sent him for evil, but God sent him for
good. That will enable you to get a principle by which the
hardest doctrines in the Bible will be reconcilable. We are all
the time conscious of doing from our own will. AB Peter said
to the Jews: "What God had predetermined to be done, ye with
wickedness have done." There is predestination on God's part,
and action on their part, which did not exculpate them from
blame, on account of free moral agency and predestination.
Alexander Carson, one of the greatest Baptist writers, a
Presbyterian, converted in North Ireland, has written a book
on the providence of God, and illustrates his theme by the case
of Joseph, showing that while the father had his care, the boys
their sin, and Joseph wept at being put into the pit and sold
into bondage, and that Potiphar's wife intervened with her
lust, and that the prison held Joseph, yet over all these inter_
mingling human feelings and devices and persecutions, far
beyond human sight, the government of God was working. An
examination question will be: "Who wrote a book on the
providence of God, and illustrated it by the life of Joseph?"
After this reconciliation Joseph sends his brothers back home
to bring their father back. We will take up the story there in
our next discussion.

1. What can. you aay of the story of Joseph in Egypt?
2. What the extent of the famine in Egypt?
3. What did Jacob send to Egypt after, and what several products
were then unknown to the people in the Orient?
4. How did Joseph treat his brothers on their first trip, and why?
5. What inner nature of history does the narrative of his brethren
6. Show the workings of the consciences of hia brothers.
7. What direction for a study of conviction?
8. What waa the second step of Joseph in convicting them of sin?
9. What explanation did they have to make to Jacob?
10. What was his reply and the lessons therefrom? Illustrate.
11. What waa the proposition of Reuben and Jacob's reply?
12. Who finally prevailed with Jacob, and how?
13. What evidence of the workings of conviction on their return to
Egypt and how did they try to excuse themselves?
14. What of Shakespeare's statement in point and its lesson?
15. What touching incident of their meeting Joseph on the second
16. Why did Joseph not eat with them?
17. What expedient did Joseph adopt to get Benjamin?
18. What is meant by divining with the cup?
19. What evidence of conviction here?
20. What advantage of this principle to criminal lawyers? Illustrate.
21. What is the expositor's estimate of Judah's speech before Joseph
in behalf of Benjamin?
22. With what speech in the works of Sir Walter Scott may it be
23. Give an analysis of the power of Judah's speech.
24. Who sent Joseph into Egypt, and what part of the divine govern_
ment is most strikingly illustrated in. his history?
25. What noted Baptist author has written a book on this subject?

Genesis 46:1 to 47:27

Concerning this eventful migration, we consider just now
several important matters:

This appears first from the revelation made to Abraham
when he was yet childless (Gen. 15:13_16); and here again
in a vision to Jacob at Beer_sheba (46:1_4). There is much
interplay of human passion and purpose (37:18_36) and nat_
ural causes, as the famine, and high above all God is reigning,
making the envious brothers and Joseph their victim (46:4_7),
the famine itself, the Midianite, Ishmaelite, Potiphar and
wife, the prison, the butler and baker, and Pharaoh himself –
all subservient to his plan of the ages concerning the redemp_
tion of the race.

Two totals are given in the Hebrew text, sixty_six and sev_
enty. The sixty_six are those descending from Jacob's own
loins and who went with him. This, of course, does not include
Jacob himself, nor Joseph and his two sons, already in Egypt:
they, added, make the seventy. In detail we have as descend_
ants of Leah, his first wife: Reuben and four sons, five; Simeon
and six sons, seven; Levi and three sons, four; Judah, three
living sons, and two grandsons, six; Issachar and four sons,
five; Zebulun and three sons, four; his daughter Dinah, one;
total, thirty_two, Jacob himself making thirty_three. Of Zil_
pah, Leah's maid, we have Gad and seven sons, eight; Asher,
four sons, a daughter, and two grandsons, eight; total, sixteen.
Of Rachel, Joseph, and two sons, three; Benjamin and ten
sons, eleven; total fourteen. Of Bilhah, Rachel's maid, we have
Dan and one son, two; Naphtali and four sons, five; total,
seven. Then thirty_three plus sixteen plus fourteen plus seven
equals seventy. You will observe that neither Jacob's surviv_
ing wives, nor any of his sons' wives, nor any slaves, nor other
dependents, are counted in this register. Judging from the
numerous following of Abraham and Isaac, the dependents
must have been a little army. It is remarkable that only one
daughter and one granddaughter appear in the list. When we
compare ages that are expressly given, for example, Jacob 130
(47:9), and that all of the children except Benjamin were born
in the sojourn of twenty years in Haran, we may agree with
Murphy that the respective ages must have been at this time:
Jacob 130; Joseph 30 (41:26) ; Reuben 46; Simeon 45; Judah
43; Naphtali 42; Gad 42; Asher 41; Issachar 41; Zebulun 40;
Dinah 39; Benjamin 26. We must conclude that both Judah
and his son married at about fourteen, and Benjamin, to have
ten sons, must have married at fifteen.
But we now fall upon more serious difficulties, at least to
some commentators. These arise from (1) the Septuagint Ver_
sion of Genesis 46: which gives the number seventy_five in_
stead of seventy, and Stephen in Acts 7:14, gives seventy_five.
How shall we reconcile these accounts with the Hebrew? The
explanation is not very difficult. The Septuagint, not inspired,
itself explains the discrepancy between it and the Hebrew text
by adding five additional names, descendants of Joseph's chil_
dren, Ephraim and Manasseh. The usual explanation of the
passage in Acts is that Stephen merely quoted from the Sep_
tuagint. But this is more than doubtful. Stephen's words,
quoting from the American Standard Version, are: "And Jo_
seph sent and called to him Jacob his father, and all his kin_
dred, three score and fifteen souls." In this seventy_five neither
Joseph nor his children may be counted. We readily see how

Jacob and sixty_six descendants, sixty_seven in all, are counted
in the seventy_five, but where do we get the other eight? We
must look for them in the words, "All his kindred." But who
are these? They may well be the surviving wives of Jacob and
his sons, none of them given in the Genesis list. We know that
two of Jacob's wives are deadùRachel, buried near Bethle_
hem (31:19), and Leah, buried in the cave of Machpelah (49:
31). Judah's wife was also dead (38:12), and possibly Reu_
ben's. But we may reasonably count that at least eight wives
of Jacob and his sons were living, and this would better ex_
plain Stephen's words, "All his kindred," than to suppose that
he quoted from the Septuagint.
But some critics find difficulties from another source, to wit:the enumerations in Numbers 26:5_51, and in I Chronicles
4_8. The enumeration in Numbers, hundreds of years later,
under different time conditions, deals with the later descen_
dants of Jacob's children, and would not naturally fit exactly
into the Genesis list. It nowhere contradicts Genesis, and the
slight variation in the spelling of certain names is easily ex_
plicable. The Chronicles enumeration, still more remote in
time, and for other purposes, presents no difficulty except for
one looking for discrepancies.
There is a difficulty in chronology concerning the length of
the sojourn in Egypt, already considered in Genesis 15:13, and
it will come up again in Exodus 12:40; Acts 7:6; and Galatians
3:17, which will be considered when we come to Exodus 12:40.


The sorrow of Jacob for the loss of Joseph has become pro_
verbial in the East. It was a sorrow that could not be com_
forted: "I have grief like that which Jacob felt for the loss of
Joseph" (see Arabian Nights, Vol. 2, pp. 112, 206, 222). Scrip_
tural expressions of his sorrow are Genesis 37:33_35; 42:36_
38; 47:9.
When his sons returned from Egypt and announced that
Joseph was alive, he fainted. Note 45:25_28: "And they went
up out of Egypt, and came into the land of Canaan unto Jacob
their father. And they told him, saying, Joseph is yet alive,
and he is ruler over all the land of Egypt. And his heart
fainted, for he believed them not. And they told him all the
words of Joseph, which he had said unto them; and when he
saw the wagons which Joseph had sent to carry him, the spirit
of Jacob their father revived: and Israel said, It is enough;
Joseph my son is yet alive: I will go and see him before I die."
He was also greatly assured with these words of Jehovah,
46:2_4: "And God spake unto Israel in the visions of the night,
and said, Jacob, Jacob. And he said, Here am 1. And he said,
I am God, the God of thy father: fear not to go down into
Egypt; for I will there make of thee a great nation; I will go
down with thee into Egypt; and I will also surely bring thee
up again: and Joseph shall put his hand upon thine eyes."
Their affecting meeting is thus described in 46:29_30: "And
Joseph made ready with his chariot, and went up to meet Is_
rael his father, to Goshen; and he presented himself unto him,
and fell on his neck, and wept on his neck a good while. And
Israel said unto Joseph, Now let me die, since I have seen thy
face, and thou art yet alive." Under widely different circum_
stances our Lord, in the parable of the prodigal son, described
the touching meeting of a long_separated father and son.

Taking with him five of his brothers, after instructing them
what to say, Joseph introduces them to Pharaoh, and so man_
ages to secure the land of Goshen for them (46 to 47:6). The
advantages of the land of Goshen were these: (1) It was the
best in Egypt for pasturage; (2) it isolated the children of
Israel from the Egyptians, thus enabling them to preserve
uncontaminated the exclusive religious faith, and hedged

against giving offense to the Egyptians by either religion or
occupation and tended to prevent intermarriage; (3) it was
the frontier gateway into their Promised Land.
According to Herodotus (2:164), the Egyptians were divided
into seven distinct classes or castes: Priests, warriors, cow_
herders, swine_herders, interpreters, boatmen and shepherds.
Our text says: "Every shepherd is an abomination to the
Egyptians." It is certain that Egyptian sculpture represents
the shepherds in a most degrading way. So the two peoples
would be mutually repulsive on many grounds. The favor ac_
corded to Jacob's family and dependents being attributable to
the esteem of the royal family for Joseph, all the dreams of
Joseph were thus fulfilled. His brethren now bow down before
him, and the father is nourished by him.


The meeting between these two men, so strongly alike in
every way, presents both of them in a favorable light. Pharaoh
is very courteous and Jacob is full of dignity. It is he that
blesses Pharaoh. The sincerity of Jacob's famous words has
been questioned. "The days of the years of my pilgrimage
are thirty and a hundred years: few and evil have been the
days of the years of my life, and they have not attained unto
the days of the years of the life of my fathers in the days of
their pilgrimage." Marcus Dods, on Genesis, quotes Lady
Duff_Gordon: "Old Jacob's speech to Pharaoh really made me
laugh (don't be shocked), because it is so exactly like what a
fellah says to a pasha – Jacob being a most prosperous man,
but it is manners to say all that." Lady Duff_Gordon may
indeed be amused at the Oriental manners of her time, as the
Orientals were doubtless amused at hers, only they were too
polite to show it. But you might make a great sermon on
Jacob's words) and find in them evidences of deepest sincerity.
(1) He correctly represents his life as a "pilgrimage," whose
destination, rest and home, and reward, are in the world above,
and so testifies the New Testament (Heb. 11:8_10, 13_16). It
was from the New Testament Scriptures, descriptive of this
feeling of the patriarch life, that Bunyan derived the idea im_
mortalized in his Pilgrim's Progress. There is no mere manner_
ism or perfunctory custom in Jacob's reference to his life as
a pilgrim. (2) It is strictly true that he had not attained to
the days of his fathers. Relative fewness of days was his when
compared with either patriarchal longevity, or eternity. (3)
While brightened here and there by divine visitations, his days
were full of evil. He was a man of sorrows and acquainted
with hardships and griefs. Remorse of conscience for his own
sins clouded his life, and the chastening therefor was a heavy
burden. His apprehension of Esau's violence, his separation
from his mother never to see her again in this life, his exile
from home, and lonely, friendless life, counted much. No gem
of literature is more exquisite, pathetic and tragic than his own
simple statement to Laban of his twenty years of trial in
Padan_Aram, as follows: "And Jacob was wroth, and chode
with Laban; and Jacob answered and said to Laban, What is
my trespass? what is my sin, that thou hast holly pursued after
me? Whereas thou hast felt about all my stuff, what hast thou
found of all thy household stuff? Set it here before my breth_
ren and thy brethren, that they may judge betwixt us two.
These twenty years have I been with thee; thy ewes and thy
she_goats have not cast their young, and the rams of thy flocks
have I not eaten. That which was torn of beasts I brought not
unto thee; I bare the loss of it; of my hand didst thou require
it, whether stolen by day or stolen by night. Thus I was; in
the day the drought consumed me, and the frost by night;
and my sleep fled from mine eyes. These twenty years have I
been in thy house; I served thee fourteen years for thy two
daughters, and six years for thy flock: and thou hast changed
my wages ten times. Except the God of my father, the God of
Abraham, and the fear of Isaac, had been with me, surely now
hadst thou sent me away empty. God hath seen mine affliction
and the labour of my hands, and rebuked thee yesternight."
His troubles from the polygamy forced upon him were many.
The sin of Reuben wounded him to the heart. The dishonor
done to Dinah, and the violence of Simeon and Levi left lasting
scars never to be forgotten. His anxieties about hostile neigh_
bors never left him. His loss of his beloved Rachel was ir_
reparable, and his loss of Joseph broke his heart. It was shal_
low pertness and affected smartness on the part of Lady Duff_
Gordon to ridicule a speech so eloquently and so sublimely

(41:37_57; 47:13_26)

More than once has the world been surprised at the wise
administration of national affairs by alien Jews, promoted for
merit alone to the highest political offices. It commenced with
Joseph's rule over Egypt; it is followed by Daniel's rule over
Babylon, and Mordecai's and Nehemiah's influence at the
court of Persia. We have modern examples in the sway of the
Rothschilds over the finances of many nations, Disraeli in
England creating the British Empire, and Judah P. Benjamin
in the Confederate States. There are multitudes of examples
on a smaller scale.
Joseph's administration in Egypt gave it world pre_emi_
nence. His bringing all the land to Pharaoh has been ques_
tioned. But it was not only an unavoidable expedient, but
greatly simplified the government of a turbulent population,
and gave to the people themselves a definite one_fifth tribute,
instead of uncertain, oppressive taxation and much tyrannical
oppression. If they paid the one_fifth, a land rent far cheaper
than prevails here, their burdens were ended. His gathering the people into cities was to simplify the distribution of stores.
There will doubtless always be difference of opinions about the
wisdom of agrarian laws. The abolition of private ownership
in land has been argued in our time and country by Henry
George and his followers. A political economist will find it
difficult to answer satisfactorily his Progress and Poverty. The
accumulation of large landed interests, mines, minerals, tim_
bers, oil, etc., in the hands of a few men, or irresponsible syn_
dicates, menaces today the peace of the world. Isaiah prophe_
sies woe to those who add house to house and land to land
until there is no room for the people. Jefferson claimed that
the earth in usufruct belongs to the living. Goldsmith well
says in his Deserted Village:
III fares the land to hastening ills a prey,
Where wealth accumulates and men decay.
The Gracchi perished in trying to remedy the land evil in
ancient Rome. The ancient Germans, according to Caesar,
prevented private ownership of lands, as, according to Pres_
cott, did the ancient Peruvians. England passed through the
throes of this very burning question. It is certain that Egypt
was happier under Joseph's rule than ever before or since. So
were the Peruvians under the land policy of the Incas. In the
United States today the battle is on to the death to preserve
to the people the water courses, the forests, the natural re_
sources; and to relax the choking grasp of monopolies that
prey, in selfish, insatiable greed, upon the very vitals of the
people. Joseph, being an alien, did not attempt to destroy the
landownership of the priesthood, the most plausible and yet
the most dangerous monopoly known to a free people. Other
nations have been compelled to abolish their ownership. The
successful fight in Mexico on that point is the most notable in
history. The priesthood held one_half the land in fee simple,
and not only paid no taxes, but forced the people owning the
other half to support them. They ruled the cradle, the grave
and futurity itself. Their holidays drove labor from the calen_
dar. This ownership in the Philippines constituted one_half of
the gravest problems in our government of those islands, in
the solution of which, mainly by President Taft when in
charge there, more unwise statesmanship was displayed than
was ever before exercised by our country's rulers, the end of
which in fateful consequences is not yet.
Under all circumstances, the administration of Egyptian
affairs by Joseph is the wisest record in the annals of time. A
writer cited by Marcus Dods mentions an inscription on the
tomb of an Egyptian, supposed to refer to this famine in Jo_
seph's time: "When a famine broke out for many years I gave
corn to the city in each famine." Smith's Bible Dictionary,
article "Famine," cites the only other seven years of famine
known to Egyptian history. It lasted from A.D. 1064 to 1071.

1. What is the proof that Jacob's migration to Egypt was of divine
2. Show the interplay of human passion, the natural causes and
name the actors who played any part in this matter.
3. How do you reconcile the two totals of sixty_six and seventy
given in the Hebrew text?
4. How do you reconcile the numbers in Genesis 46:26_27, with the
addition of vv. 15, 18, 22, 25, and Acts 7:14?
5. What difficulties from another source puzzle the critics and what
the explanation?
6. What proverb is based on Jacob's loss of Joseph?
7. What are the scriptural expressions of his sorrow?
8. How did the news that Joseph was alive affect him?
9. How was he assured in this matter?
10. Describe the affecting meeting of Joseph and Jacob. What New
Testament illustration of this incident cited?
11. What land did Joseph secure for his father and brothers, and
what the advantages of this land?
12. According to Herodotus, what were the classes of the Egyptians?
13. What was the position of the shepherd among the Egptians, the
evidence and how account for the favor accorded Jacob and his family?
14. What were his famous words to Pharaoh and what Lady Duff_
Gordon's remark about them?
15. What evidences of the sincerity of his words?
16. What New Testament evidence that Jacob correctly represented
his life as a pilgrimage?
17. In what famous allegory is this idea immortalized?
18. How old was Jacob when he stood before Pharaoh and how do
his days compare with the days of the other patriarchs?
19. What the evidence that his days were full of evil?
20. Itemize Jacob's troubles somewhat.
21. What ancient Jews became powerful in the affairs of foreign
22. What modern ones have made their influence felt likewise?
23. What were the blessings of Joseph's administration to the people?
24. What are agrarian laws? Who wrote Progress and Poverty and
what was its aim?
25. Cite Isaiah's prophecy in point.
26. What was Jefferson's position on it?
27. What said Goldsmith about it?
28. Cite illustrations of this in ancient and modern history.
29. How does the administration of Joseph in Egypt compare with
other administrations of like nature?
30. What is the meaning of "Joseph shall put his hand upon thine
eyes"? (Gen. 46:4.)
31. The meaning of "And Pharaoh took off his ring and put it on
Joseph's hand"?
32. Cite other Bible instances of the use of the signet ring.

Genesis 47:27_50

We may thus compare Jacob and Solomon: The sun of
Solomon's life rose in a blaze of light and glory, and set in the
darkest clouds. The sun of Jacob's life rose in clouds, which
lingered long, but set in joy and glory. Joseph and Daniel
may thus be compared: These are the two basal personal lives
of history, and the most important in beneficent political ad_
ministration known to the annals of time. We may search in
vain among the records of men to find two other prime minis_
ters of nations that may rank with them.
How very few old men, after a hale and strong career, are
permitted to enjoy the last seventeen years of declining age
in peace, nourished by a favorite son, with tranquillity in the
family and prosperity in business. But age lives much in the
past, exercising memory more than hope. Jacob now remem_
bers, as death approaches, the cave of Machpelah in the Prom_
ised Land, where side by side repose the bodies of his ancestors,
and exacts a solemn promise from Joseph that he be buried
there. And in his farewell request to his sons he repeats this
dying charge (read chapter 49:29_33), as follows: "And he
charged them, and said unto them, I am to be gathered unto
my people; bury me with my fathers in the cave that is in the
field of Ephron the Hittite, in the cave that is in the field of
Machpelah, which is before Marnre, in the land of Canaan,
which Abraham bought with the field from Ephron the Hittite
for a possession of a burying_place. There they buried Abra_
ham and Sarah his wife; there they buried Isaac and Rebekah
his wife; and there I buried Leah – the field and the cave that
is therein, which was purchased from the children of Heth.
And when Jacob made an end of charging his sons, he gath_
ered up his feet into the bed, and yielded up the ghost, and
was gathered unto his people."
The remaining incidents of the book of Genesis come under
these heads:
1. Jacob blesses Joseph's children.
2. Prophecy concerning his children.
3. The burial of Jacob.
4. The fear of Joseph's brethren that he would punish them
for their sins after their father's death.
5. The death of Joseph.
Taking them up in order, we have:

Genesis 48:1_20

Hearing of his father's extreme illness, Joseph visits him and
takes his two children with him. The old man is so feeble that
he has to sit up in bed supported on his staff, and he is so
nearly blind that the children must be brought close to him
that he may see their faces and kiss them. Joseph purposes in
his heart that Manasseh, his firstborn, should receive the
greater blessing, and so places him before Jacob in such a way
that Jacob's right hand might rest on Manasseh's head. But
Jacob crosses his hands, and puts his right hand upon Eph_
raim's head, and the left one on Manasseh. He commences his
benediction on Joseph himself, and announces that his name
must be the name of the two boys; in other words, that both
of these sons must be counted as if they were the sons of
Jacob, that is, that each one of them should become the head
of a tribe of Israel; and this is what is meant by the explana_
tion of Jacob to Joseph: "I have given to thee one portion
above thy brethren," and immediately he designates the loca_
tion of Ephraim in the Promised Land. That is the portion

that came to him, and is described as that which came through
the destruction of the Shechemites. Here an explanation is
needed of Hebrews 11:21: "By faith Jacob, when he was
dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, and worshipped
leaning upon the top of his staff." We do not find this last
clause in the Hebrew, but the Septuagint uses these words,
only it puts them in Genesis 47:31, as a substitute for the
words of the Hebrew: "And Israel bore himself upon the bed's
head." It will be observed that the author of the letter to the
Hebrews corrects the Septuagint's misapplication of these
words. The Septuagint confines them to the occasion when
Jacob exacts the oath from Joseph to bury him in the cave
of Machpelah, as related in Genesis 47, but the author of the
letter to the Hebrews applies them to the occasion when Jacob
blesses the children of Joseph, as related in Genesis 48. We
can well see how the words, "and he worshipped, leaning upon
the head of his staff," fit the occasion of Jacob's blessing the
children of Joseph. The old man was too feeble to sit up in
bed, unless he was supported by his staff; and with his feet
resting on the floor, the children of Joseph were put between
his knees, that he might see their faces and kiss them, while he
steadied himself resting on his staff. When this was over we
have these words: "and he bowed his face to the earth"; that
is, it was at this juncture that Jacob worshiped, leaning upon
the head of his staff. This New Testament usage of a Sep_
tuagint passage shows that the writers of the New Testament
always quoted intelligently from that version, and whenever
necessary, they corrected it.

Genesis 49

In commenting on the forty_ninth chapter of Genesis, which
contains the blessings pronounced by Jacob on his twelve sons,
four distinct things need to be borne in mind. First, what was

in the mother's mind when the boy was named; second, what
the boys turned out to be, as set forth in this chapter; third,
what the tribe descending from them turned out to be, as set
forth in Deuteronomy 34; fourth, the final reference to the
tribes in Revelation 7. These four scriptures should be studied
together. For example, I will take up what it says about Reu_
ben first: "And Jacob called unto his sons, and said: Gather
yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall be_
fall you in the latter days." Reuben, the eldest, under usual
conditions, would have had all the rights of primogeniture, the
head of the family and the tribe and the priest, the one in
whom the promised Messiah should come. "Reuben, thou art
my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength; the
pre_eminence of dignity and the pre_eminence of power. Boil_
ing over as water, thou shalt not have the pre_eminence." That
means that Reuben should not have the primogeniture. "Boil_
ing over as water" refers to a pot on a fire, which, when it gets
hot, runs over the pot and into the fire. That is the picture of
one whose passions and appetites are not restrained, but when
excited boil over. Because of that characteristic Reuben loses
the birthright. In the common version it says, "unstable as
water." The same idea is involved; that water may seem to
be perfectly level, but when you put fire to it, it bubbles over.
Now compare that with what Moses said in Deuteronomy 33,
and you will see that for Reuben as a tribe the prospect
brightens. Moses said, "Let Reuben live, and not die; nor let
his men be few." You would have inferred from what Jacob
said that the tribe would pass away on account of the sin and
instability of the father. We go to the next case:
Simeon and Levi he puts together, because they were united
in that great piece of cruelty and deception practiced upon
the Shechemites, and the barbarous massacre of the men and
the enslavement of the women and children and the robbing
of the flocks. Jacob says:
Simeon and Levi are brethren;
Weapons of violence are their swords.
Here is a proverb which I have preached from:
0 my soul, come not thou into their council;
Unto their assembly, my glory, be not thou united;
For in their anger they slew a man,
And in their self_will they hocked an ox.
Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce;
And their wrath, for it was cruel:
1 will diyide them in Jacob,
And scatter them in Israel.
One of your examination questions will be: When was that
fulfilled? Ans.: When Joshua made the allotments. Simeon
and Levi received no allotments. Simeon was scattered about
in Judah and other territory. So, as a matter of fact, these
two tribes were scattered. Now, let us see when we come to
Moses what change has taken place (Deut. 33:8) :
And of Levi he said,
Thy Thummirn and thy Urim are with thy godly one,
Whom thou didst prove at Massah,
With whom thou didst strive at the water of Meribah;
Who said of his father, and of his mother, I have not seen him;
Neither did he acknowledge his brethren,
Nor knew he his own children:
For they have observed thy word,
And keep thy covenant.
They shall teach Jacob thine ordinances,
And Israel thy law:
They shall put incense before thee,
And whole burnt_offering upon thine altar.
Bless, Jehovah, his substance,
And accept the work of his hands:
Smite through the loins of them that rise up against him,
And of them that hate him, that they rise not again.
So far as Levi is concerned, then, the prospects are very
wonderfully brightened when you come to Moses. There you
begin to get an idea of the answer to another one of the general
questions: How were the elements of the rights of primogeni_
ture, which Reuben lost, distributed among the others? You
see Levi gets a part, and becomes the priest of the family and
the tribe, and as the priest he is the religious instructor. Moses
tells us by what act Levi obtained that revision of the original
sentence against him. The instance is when Israel worshiped
the golden calf; Levi stood by Moses when he said, "Whoever
is on the Lord's side, let him come and stand over here," and
the whole tribe of Levi came and stood by him. And in smiting
the idolaters, they had no regard of men. In the final division
of the rights of primogeniture, Levi received the priesthood,
Joseph became the head of the tribe and Judah became the
one through whom the promised Messiah should come.
We find that Moses does not mention Simeon at all, but he
reappears in the Revelation list, and that Dan disappears from
that list. Jacob says about Judah:
Judah, thee shall thy brethren praise:
Thy hand shall be on the neck of thine enemies;
Thy father's son shall bow down before thee.
Judah is a lion's whelp;
From the prey, my son, thou art gone up:
He stooped down, he couched as a lion,
And as a lioness; who shall rouse him up?
The sceptre shall not depart from Judah,
Nor the ruler's staff from between his feet,
Until Shiloh come;
And unto him shall the obedience of the peoples be.
Binding his foal unto the vine,
And his ass's colt unto the choice vine;
He hath washed his garments in wine,
And his vesture in the blood of grapes:
His eyes shall be red with wine,
And his teeth white with milk.
The first line of the above prophecy was a reference to the
Messiah who shall come from him. In v.10 is a remarkable messianic prophecy: "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until Shiloh come." Shiloh is the Saviour. And so we find that the kingdom remain-ed (that Judah remained a kingdom) until it was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. Then, subordinated to Persia, civil govern-ment was restored under Zerubbabel of the line of David, and a hierarchy under Joshua, the high priest. The restoration was accomplished by Ezra and Nehemiah, aided by the prophets Haggai and Malachi. Under Greek rule Antiochus Epiphanes sought to destroy the whole Jewish polity and religion, but was defeated by the Maccabees, who became kings. Under Roman rule, Herod the Great, who married the last of the Maccabees) became king. Then just before Herod died Shiloh, the Messiah, came. As Herod was an ldumean, "the sceptre had departed from Judah." While Herod's descendants, at the will of Rome, ruled under some subordinate title over parts of the Holy Land, yet all semblance of autonomous government perished at the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, A.D. 70, since which time the Jews, though existing as a dispersed race, have had no settled home, nor nationality, nor temple, nor altar, nor sacrifice, nor priesthood. If therefore Shiloh has not come, He can never come.
Zebulun shall dwell at the haven of the sea;
And he shall be for a haven of ships;
And his border shall be upon Sidon.
We find Zebulun and Sidon located that way all through their history. Moses said (Deut. 33:18):
Rejoice, Zebulun, in thy going out;
And, Issachar, in thy tents.
They shall call the peoples unto the mountains;
There shall they offer sacrifices of righteousness.
So that brightens for Issachar and Zebulun. When we come
to Judges we find some illustrious people coming out of these
tribes. We shall come to Dr. Burleson's great text: "The sons
of Issachar were wise, and had understanding of what Israel
ought to do." Therefore, he said, whenever you see a leader of
the people, he is a son of Issachar, who knows how, in great
conventions, to tell Israel what policy to adopt. Look at Issa_
char as Jacob describes him (49:14) :
Issachar is a strong ass,
Crouching down between the sheepfolds:
And he saw a resting place that it was good,
And the land that it was pleasant;
And he bowed his shoulder to bear,
And became a servant under taskwork.

So Issachar becomes a burden_bearing beast. Just so he
could get fodder to eat and a good shed in the winter, he did
not mind having a master and paying a tribute to him. But,
as we have seen, it brightens for Issachar in the account by
Moses. Jacob says of Dan:
Dan shall judge his people,
As one of the tribes of Israel.

There he refers to what the name "Dan" means. I have known several boys named Dan; and their nickname in the
family is always "Judge." Doubtless there was an anticipation
in this case of the time when an illustrious member of the tribe
of Dan should be a judge of Israel. Our friend Samson was
that man. Now comes a reference not so good (v. 17) :
Dan shall be a serpent in the way,
An adder in the path,
That biteth the horse's heels,
So that his rider falleth backward.
I have waited for thy salvation, 0 Jehovah.

That meant that Dan should not be an open enemy, but would lie in ambush. He was a snake in the grass. When we come to read the history in the book of Judges, we find that Dan got very much dissatisfied with the territory assigned to him, and slips out and steals some idols and goes up into the northern
part of the country, and there becomes an idolater. There was
an organization in the United States history called the Danites.
After Joe Smith was killed at Nauvoo the Mormons moved to
Salt Lake City, and organized this secret society to combat
their enemies; and these Danites perpetrated that infamous
Mountain Meadows Massacre, of which so much has been
said. Just as Mrs. Harriet Beecher Stowe's book Uncle Tom's
Cabin, had much to do with stirring up the North, and Thomas
Dixon's Clansman has had to do with reversing the effect of
that book, so a book entitled The Danites, a dramatized
story, brought such a storm of indignation that the whole
United States was set on fire against the Mormons, and finally

General Albert Sidney Johnston, at that time colonel, was de_
tached there with a force to put down the Mormon Rebellion.
I can just remember the indignation created in the public mind
by the horrors revealed in The Danites. Dan is not mentioned
in Revelation.
Gad, a troop shall press upon. him;
But he shall press upon their heel.

There Jacob goes back to the name the mother had in mind.
Let us see how Gad enlarges in the writings of Moses (Deut.
Blessed be he that enlargeth Gad:
He dwelleth as a lioness,
And feareth the arm, yea, the crown of the head.
And he provided the first part for himself,
For there was the lawgiver's portion reserved;
And he came with the heads of the people;
He executed the righteousness of Jehovah,
And his ordinances with Israel.

We come to Asher (v. 20) :
Out of Asher his bread shall be fat,
And he shall yield royal dainties.
Moses says (Deut. 33:24) :
Blessed be Asher with children;
Let him be acceptable unto his brethren,
And let him dip his foot in oil.

This last clause means that he will have a prosperous time as
to this world's goods. Moses says of Naphtali:
0 Naphtali, satisfied with favour,
And full with the blessing of Jehovah,
Possess thou the west and the south.

Whenever a boy is delivering his commencement address and
scrapes star dust, we call him a "son of Naphtali." Now Jacob
says (v. 21):
Naphtali is a hind let loose:
He giveth goodly words.
That means that Naphtali is to furnish the orators. And we
now come to the richest blessing of all, the blessing on Joseph.
I read that to my little boy the other night, as the occasion
of the service in the family prayer. I wanted him to see what
a great thing it is when a father comes to die that he can look
into the face of children sad say only good things (v. 22):
Joseph is a fruitful bough,
A fruitful bough by a fountain;
His branches run over the wall.
The archers have sorely grieved him,
And shot at him, and persecuted him:
But his bow abode in strength,
And the arms of his hands were made strong
By the hands of the Mighty One of Jacob.

By the consent of Pharaoh, Joseph went up to bury his fa_
ther, accompanied by a great caravan, including distinguished
Egyptians, and the whole family, and all the family of Jacob's
sons. It was an immense train, and when they came to the
threshing floor of Atad they mourned for their father seven
days. It was such an imposing funeral as to impress itself
upon the minds of the inhabitants of the land. And then the
body of the aged patriarch was put into the family burying
place, in the cave of Machpelah.

It was quite natural that Joseph's brethren would suspect,
now that the father was out of the way, that Joseph's conduct
toward them would change, and so they sought to conciliate
him; but with great magnanimity he thus addresses them (50:
19_21): "Fear not, for am I in the place of God? And as for
you, ye meant evil against me; but God meant it for good,
to bring to pass, as it is this day, to have much people alive.
Now therefore fear ye not: I will nourish you and your little
ones. And he comforted them, and spake kindly unto them."
And the Genesis record closes with:
He lives to see the children of his sons to the third genera_
tion. Being about to die he gave this charge to them (50:24_
26): "God will surely visit you, and bring you up out of this
land unto the land which he sware to Abraham, to Isaac, and
to Jacob. And Joseph took an oath of the children of Israel,
saying, God will surely visit you, and ye shall carry up my
bones from hence." He told them that they should bury his
bones in the Promised Land.
A noted Scotch preacher, Melville, preached a great sermon
on "The Bones of Joseph," well making this point: "There
can be no sufficient reason for the preservation of the bodies
or bones of the dead, if there be no resurrection of the dead."
When we take up the later history we will find that when
the Israelites did leave Egypt, they took the body of Joseph,
i.e., his bones (Ex. 15:19). They put his bones, not in the cave
of Machpelah, but according to the promise made to Joshua
(Josh. 24:32): "And the bones of Joseph, which the children
of Israel brought up out of Egypt, buried they in Shechem,
in the parcel of ground which Jacob bought of the sons of
Hamor the father of Shechem for a hundred pieces of money."

1. Compare the beginning and end of Jacob's life with Solomon's.
2. Compare Joseph and Daniel.
3. What characteristic of old age was exemplified in Jacob?
4. What was his request to Joseph which was repeated in his dying
charge to his sons?
5. What now are the remaining incidents of the book?
6. How did Jacob thwart the purpose of Joseph to give Manasseh
the greater blessing?
7. What did Jacob mean by saying that these sons should be called
by his name?
8. What is meant by Jacob in this expression: "I have given to thee
one portion above thy brethren"?
9. Explain in this connection Hebrews 11:21.
10. Of what does the forty_ninth chapter of Genesis consist?
11. What 4 things should be borne in mind in the study of this chapter?
12. What wag the element of weakness in Reuben's character which
lost him the birthright?
13. What striking New Testament illustrations are employed con_
cerning preachers who partake of Reuben's weakness of character?
(2 Peter 2:17; Jude 12_13.)
14. How does the dying prophecy of Moses brighten the fate of Reu_
ben's posterity?
15. Why did Jacob take Simeon and Levi together?
16. What was the penalty for their sin and when fulfilled?
17. How does Moses brighten the prospects of Levi?
18. How were the several elements of the birthright forfeited by
Reuben distributed among his brethren?
19. How did Levi's descendants, by a great act of merit, regain a
distinction greater than Levi forfeited?
20. What important messianic prophecy is a part of the blessing of
21. What was its bearing on the claim of Jesus to be the Messiah?
22. According to Jacob's prophecy, where was Zebulun located?
23. In Jacob's prophecy to what is Issachar likened?
24. How in Moses' prophecy do the prospects of Zebulun and
Issachar brighten?
25. Cite the text used by Dr. Burleson.
26. What is the meaning of "Dan" and what illustrious member of
the tribe exemplified the name?
28. What do we learn of Dan in later history that justifies the prophecy?
29. What deadly secret organization in American history was based
on the prophecy about Dan?
30. Whose dramatized story, The Danites, stirred the popular indig_
nation against the Mormons?
31. How does Moses enlarge Gad over Jacob's prophecy?
32. How do Moses' and Jacob's blessings on Asher compare?
33. What special gift should characterize the sons of Naphtali?
34. On which son came the richest blessing?
35. Which tribe is not mentioned in the blessing of Moses?
36. Which is omitted in the sealing of Revelation?
37. Describe the funeral of Jacob.
38. What was the fear of Joseph's brethren after the death of Jacob?
39. What prophecy did Joseph give at his death?
40. What oath did he take of the children of Israel?
41. Who preached a great sermon on "The Bones of Joseph," and
what was the main point?
42. When was the prophecy of Joseph fulfilled and where did they
bury him?

Lasă un răspuns

Completează mai jos detaliile tale sau dă clic pe un icon pentru a te autentifica:


Comentezi folosind contul tău Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Fotografie Google

Comentezi folosind contul tău Google. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Poză Twitter

Comentezi folosind contul tău Twitter. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Fotografie Facebook

Comentezi folosind contul tău Facebook. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Conectare la %s

%d blogeri au apreciat: