• About this site

Marriage and the Family

• About this site

 Here's the Difference

• About this site

Rosa and her son Jesus

• About this site

Eric Walberer

• About this site

Anthony Elliott

• About this site

According to 1 Kings 15:33" TARGET="_blank">1 Kings 15:33 Baasha began to reign over Israel in the third year of Asa, king of Judah, and reigned twenty-four years, making his death occur In the twenty-seventh year of Asa’s reign. In 2 Chron. xvi. i, however, we read that Baasha came up against Judah in the thirty-sixth year of Asa’s reign, i.e., nine years after his death, according to the chronology in ‘Kings. How can this discrepancy be explained?

The natural way of explaining such a difficulty would be to say that there has evidently been a transcriber’s error—_”tllirty_sjxth year of Asa” in 2 Chronicles 16:1," TARGET="_blank">2 Chronicles 16:1, for thirty-sixth year. Baasha would then have become king early in the 3rd year of Asa, and reigned 24 years, a part of a year counting a year. Baasha would then have died probably toward the close of Asa’s z6th year, and have been succeeded by Elah his son in the same year. Such an error would in no way affect the inspiration of the Bible, but only manifest the carelessness of the transcriber. I once found in a new French Bible the following sentence:
“God resists the humble and gives grace to the proud.” I at once wrote to the B. & F.B.S., and far from accusing me of attacking the inspiration of the Scriptures, they thanked me and had a new sheet printed and inserted in the First Epistle of Peter in this French edition. It is certain that, apart from the inspiration of God, by which the chronicler wrote, he, as a man, had access to the Books of Kings, etc., and was quite as capable of noticing the discrepancy as the present questioner and answerer. Besides, if it was a transcriber’s error, why was it left and why did no variety of reading spring up? Again, the numbers “thirty-six” and “twenty-six” are very distinct in the Hebrew, and are given not in numbers, but in words, “twenty” being “‘esrim,” and “thirty,” shelöshim,” which are not easily confused, so why should we not seek some other explanation? There are good authorities who believe that the thirty-sixth year of Asa in Chronicles really refers to the year of the division of the kingdoms, which would be the i6th year of his reign. This fits in much better with the time necessary for the wars between Asa and Baasha, the building of Ramah; and this mode of reckoning was, in all likelihood, in general use at the time. In any case, if we knew all, all would be plain, and we can fall back with confidence on the words of the Apostle, “All Scripture,” (or Every Scripture) is given by inspiration of God.”

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

Please explain 1 Samuel 28:15-19" TARGET="_blank">1 Samuel 28:15-19 in the light of Ecclesiastes 9:5." TARGET="_blank">Ecclesiastes 9:5.

Does this give ground for to-day’s teaching of Spiritism?

The story of 1 Samuel 28" TARGET="_blank">1 Samuel 28 in no way justifies the practice of Spiritism in this or in any other age.

As for Ecciesiastes 9:5, it expresses the general rule, “The dead know not anything”; the above story of the witch of Endor is the exception, by God’s special permission, as I shall seek to show. “The dead know not anything,” i.e., of what is going on on the earth, but they know what is going on where they are, as the story of the ex-rich man and Lazarus shows (Luke 16)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 16). The former and Abraham knew each other, and the former recognised Lazarus and remembered his own five brethren.

I have not the slightest doubt Samuel was really permitted by God to respond to the call. This was less, I doubt not, of a surprise to Saul the dupe, than to the witch, the deceiver. To her the attendant spirit was familiar, but she seems to have been completely taken aback by the appearance of the strange visitant that Samuel was, for “she cried with a loud voice,” and did not know him, though by some peculiar intuition she at once became aware of the identity of Saul. Samuel was a true prophet, and could foretell the morrow’s happenings, but we have no justification for supposing that wicked spirits can foretell the future.
That this response to Saul’s evil action does not justify modern Spiritism is clear, from the fact that it did not justify his own recourse to this medium, for it is specifically mentioned in 1 Chronicles 10:13" TARGET="_blank">1 Chronicles 10:13 as one of the two causes of his final downfall: (i) “his transgression” i.e., in sparing Amalek, and also (z) his “asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it. And he enquired not of the Lord, therefore He slew him.” He did ask of the Lord (sha’al), as indeed of the witch, but he did so in a merely formal way in the former case and he did not enquire (dãrash) of Him, as he did of the witch; for in her case he put himself to all pains to get information. Saul knew perfectly well the distinct prohibition of Jehovah to any kind of occult practices—consulting spirits, etc. (see Leviticus 19:31;" TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 19:31; Leviticus 20:6, 27;" TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 20:6, 27; Deuteronomy 18:9-12)," TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 18:9-12), and had as we know, acted thereon, till he found it convenient to transgress!

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

FORGIVENESS
Is there to be forgiveness without acknowledgment of wrong?

There are various categories of forgiveness in the Scriptures, which must be distinguished—God’s forgiveness of sinners; the Father’s forgiveness of His children; ecclesiastical forgiveness; and personal forgiveness.

As to the first named, though it is a mistake to apply to the conversion of the sinner, the words of 1 John 1:9" TARGET="_blank">1 John 1:9 “If we confess our sins, etc.,” which have to do directly with God’s children, yet it may be confidently affirmed that no sinner ever received divine forgiveness without acknowledgment of sin in one form or another, tacit or explicit, leading on to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, when revealed. But here it is not so much a confession of particular sins, as of sinnership—”God be merciful to me a sinner.” This corresponds with “repentance unto life,” the result of the Holy Spirit’s work in conviction, without which there can be no true conversion to God.

In the case of the Father’s forgiveness to His erring children, it is conditional on confession of sins; then “He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” It is perfectly true that God’s forgiveness has already covered the sins in question, but His forgiveness as Father is needed, if communion with Him is to be restored. The confession should be real and full, and at once forgiveness and cleansing follow, though not often realised to the full at once. David was forgiven the instant he confessed his sin in the presence of Nathan, but later he wrote the 51st Psalm. This may correspond to the application of “the water of separation” on the third and seventh days (Numbers 19: 12, 19)." TARGET="_blank">Numbers 19: 12, 19).

As for ecclesiastical forgiveness, this is that which is referred to in Matthew 18:18" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:18 and John 20:23" TARGET="_blank">John 20:23—the “binding or loosing,” the remitting or retaining, of sins, not by ecclesiastical officials, the pretended priests of Christendom, but by the local church. Nothing is said in these passages of the condition attaching to the forgiveness, but the case that arose in the Corinthian Church (see chap. . i), throws light on this, for in the second epistle, the restoration of the offender is recommended by the apostle on the ground of his repentance—”lest perhaps such an one should be swallowed up with over-much sorrow”—and if they forgive him, he (Paul) will forgive also (2 Corinthians 2: 7-10)." TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 2: 7-10). Paul does not appeal to some leaders in the Corinthian Church, but to the Church as a whole. This ecclesiastical forgiveness has been perverted into what is known as auricular confession, and priestly absolution, things, as we believe, totally foreign to the New Testament and Christianity. As for individual forgiveness, there should be from the first a forgiving spirit on the part of the offended person; he must not bear a grudge or count the offender as an enemy, but be ready to forgive (Matthew 18: 15, 21, 22)," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18: 15, 21, 22), but he must not express his forgiveness until the offence is acknowledged. To do so would be a subtle way of putting your opponent in the wrong, and be an insult rather than a favour. “If thy brother tresspass against thee rebuke him, and if he repent forgive him” (Luke 17:3, 4)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 17:3, 4).

William Hoste

• About this site