How old was Abraham when his father died?

In Genesis 11:26" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 11:26 we read, “Terah lived seventy years and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran,” and in V. 32, “and the days of Terab were two hundred and five years and Terah died in Haran.” Now, taking 70 from 205, would make Abram 135 years when Terah died, while we know from Gen. 12:4" TARGET="_blank">Gen. 12:4 that Abram was 75 years old when he left Haran, and from Acts 7:4" TARGET="_blank">Acts 7:4 that he did not leave Haran till Terah died.

It is not necessary to believe from Genesis 11:26" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 11:26 that Abram, Nahor, and Haran were all born in the same year, but simply that Terah had no children till he was 70, and then had three sons born at intervals. In Genesis 5:32," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 5:32, we have an instance of the same thing, when we read that “Noah was five hundred years old, and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth,” and yet Genesis 10:21" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 10:21 tells us Japheth was older than Shem. It is equally clear that Abram was not the eldest of the three brothers. He and Shem are put first because of their importance as the progenitors of the chosen race and the Messiah. It is generally held that Haran was the eldest, born when Terah was 70, and that Abram came into the world 6o years later. This would account for the fact that he and his nephew Lot, son of Haran, seem to have been much of the same standing. Besides, we are distinctly told that Abraham was 75 when at the death of Terah, he departed out of Haran. He was born, therefore, when his father was 130 years of age.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is the Lord present only in the meeting of the Lord's Supper?

Do you consider that there is a deeper significance in the presence of the Lord at His table on the first of the week than when the saints meet for prayer or a Bible reading?

Perhaps it is not quite clear what the questioner means by “a deeper significance.” The Lord’s words, “Where two or three are gathered together in (or unto) My Name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20)," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:20), apply primarily to the Prayer Meeting (v. 19). Perhaps the Lord’s presence is often more real to the saints at His table, because they are more occupied with Him there, than with their needs. Besides, there is often more real exercise of soul before going to the Lord’s table, than to the Prayer Meeting or Bible Reading. “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat.” We get what we go in for. But the prayer eeting and Bible Reading ought not to be neglected, as is too often the case, by the majority of the assembly, or treated lightly even sometimes by those who attend. Surely there would be a greater spirit of prayer poured out and more edification in the Bible Reading if all went in a spirit of soul preparation and waiting upon God.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

When does the "breaking of the bread" take place?

When does the "breaking of the bread" take place?

Blessing (giving thanks for) the cup and breaking the bread (1 Corinthians 10:16)" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:16) are united assembly acts that require each believer’s individual participation. "The bread which we break" is "the communion of the body of Christ" because "we are all partakers of that one body" (verse 17). "Breaking the bread" takes place when each believer partakes of the loaf. "Breaking bread" is used in Scripture where we would say, "eating a meal" (Acts 2:46)" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:46) and connotes nothing official. It is not "the bread which He break," referring to the Lord’s breaking the bread and passing it to the disciples (Matthew 26:26)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 26:26). Whether or not a brother breaks the loaf open before he distributes it to others is immaterial. His act is neither official nor significant. Nothing in Scripture suggests that the person who gives thanks for the emblem must distribute it to others or that the person who distributes the bread must also distribute the cup. Pretentiousness is foreign to the Lord’s Supper.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

If a damaging rumor about a believer proves to be false, should the person be cleared publicly?

If a damaging rumor about a believer proves to be false, should the person be cleared publicly?

If the inaccurate rumors were dealt with publicly (for example, by a public rebuke, 1 Timothy 5:20)," TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 5:20), they should be cleared publicly. Otherwise, as is more usually the case, those who become aware that what they have heard or repeated is false should be as diligent to correct and contain the damage as they were to further it. They would do the right thing if they apologized to the individual, too. As far as the wronged believer is concerned, he may kindly request the believers who have told others these inaccuracies to repair the damage to the assembly's testimony by correcting their mistakes. Beyond that, the wronged believer should leave it to the Lord to vindicate his name (Proverbs 20:22)." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 20:22). It's a safe "rule of thumb," that when a believer can trust the Lord to clear his name he is in the right; when he insists that others clear his name, he casts suspicion on his cause.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Does Isaiah 45 teach that God made the earth "without form"?

Doesn't Isaiah 45:18" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 45:18 prove that God did not create the earth "without form"?

In the New Scofield Reference Bible, the editors moved the note on the Gap Theory from its place in the old edition (Genesis 1:2)" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 1:2) to Isaiah 45:18," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 45:18, since this verse seems to offer stronger proof for the theory than any other. Isaiah 45:18" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 45:18 states that God did not create the earth "without form" (tohu), but Genesis 1:2" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 1:2 states that the earth was "tohu." Thus it would seem that the earth became formless some time after the initial creation. But to understand Isaiah's meaning, we must look at 45:18 in its context. The last phrase of the verse explains the point. Isaiah is speaking of God's design in creation. God did not create the world to be an empty place, but formed it to be inhabited. It was never God's purpose to have an empty world, so He filled it with inhabitants. In Genesis 1:2," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 1:2, therefore, the formless and empty state of the earth on the first day was simply the beginning, not the goal of creation. During the five days of creation that followed, God progressively finished the earth's shape and filled it with creatures. By the end of the sixth day, the earth was no longer "tohu." God had achieved all that He intended, and rested on the seventh day. Further, the context of Isaiah 45:18" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 45:18 shows why the prophet discusses this truth here. What God starts, He finishes (see 55:11; 66:9). Israel's salvation is guaranteed, because (according to 45:17) it is eternal. It was planned "from the foundation of the earth," and therefore must come about-despite present appearances. Just as God accomplished His creative purpose for the earth in six days, so He will perform His saving purpose for Israel in due time.

D. Vallance
Other pages in this section

About this site

who are the three shepherds of Zecheriah 11?

Can we know from the Scriptures who are the three shepherds of Zecheriah 11:8?

It would be too much for anyone to affirm that there is no light in the Scripture on any point mentioned therein. All anyone can say is that he has no light. The incident of the three shepherds forms part of a prophetic Scripture, referring to the closing days of Israel’s history. As shepherds they would be responsible rulers of Israel, but their names are not indicated here, but no doubt this prophecy will shine out clearly when it is fulfilled. In the meantime students of prophecy, as has well been said, are not called to try to be prophets.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

I don't feel motivated to keep loving my spouse. What can I do?

When I lack motivation or encouragement, is there any help?

Keep in mind that honoring the Lord as a spouse is not a means of changing your spouse; it is your loving service to the One Who saved you and wants to honor you. The ultimate purpose is His approval now and at the Bema (2 Corinthians 5:9, 10)." TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 5:9, 10). Yield daily to the gentle Spirit's work. He is able to give the needed grace. The struggle you sense indicates His desire to claim more of you for Christ (James 4:5, 6)." TARGET="_blank">James 4:5, 6).

Look behind you. Your children and other young folks who observe you will be greatly influenced by your example. They have a sixth sense that sees through pretense.

Be thankful that your experiences open windows into the Lord's heart and provide a deepening understanding of the greatest thing God will ever accomplish - presenting a Bride to His Son.

The path to the greatest glory a loving, almighty Father could plan for His Son led through the agonies of Golgotha. Should we complain that our path to eternal glory is not always comfortable?

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Are the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 the angels of Jude 6?

Are the "sons of God" in Genesis 6" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 6 the angels of Jude 6" TARGET="_blank">Jude 6?

Capable men have differed on this for years. Here are three suggestions for differentiating between these passages.

First, the phrase, "sons of God," does not necessarily mean angels. Three times it does (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7)," TARGET="_blank">Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7), but at least 4 times this word describes Israels relationship to God as "sons" (Exodus 4:22;" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 4:22; Hosea 1:10;" TARGET="_blank">Hosea 1:10; Deuteronomy 14:1;" TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 14:1; Psalm 73:15)." TARGET="_blank">Psalm 73:15). This expresses a relationship of favor with God, distinguished from all others; that may be its thought in Genesis 6." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 6.

Second, in their context, these verses are the bridge between the genealogy of the godly in chapter five and the corruption that demanded the righteous judgment of the flood. Since other passages hold men - not fallen angels - responsible for the evil of those days (Genesis 6:12, 13;" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 6:12, 13; Job 22:15-17;" TARGET="_blank">Job 22:15-17; 2 Peter 2:5)," TARGET="_blank">2 Peter 2:5), the context favors the view that a lack of separation by a favored generation hastened the corruption.

The context in Jude also seems to differentiate the two passages. With Egypt and Sodom, these angels form part of one of Judes many triplets. As with those referred in Jude 4," TARGET="_blank">Jude 4, these all sinned while privileged and then suffered judgment, as those in verse 4 would. If Lucifers thought brought immediate judgment (Isaiah 14:12, 13)," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 14:12, 13), the sin of these in Jude 6" TARGET="_blank">Jude 6 must likewise have called for immediate banishment to everlasting chains. Even if the "sons of God" in Genesis 6" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 6 were angels, they were previously fallen (judged) angels, who for a prolonged period - as is supposed - cohabited with women. This is not an illustration of those who sin while privileged and therefore suffer severely.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Should a Christian be baptized in the name of Jesus?

What is the correct baptismal formula to use? Is it that given in Matthew 28:19" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28:19? In Acts 2:38" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:38 Peter says, “In the name of Jesus Christ.” In Acts 10:48" TARGET="_blank">Acts 10:48 we read, “In the Name of the Lord.” In Acts 16:5" TARGET="_blank">Acts 16:5 “They were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus.”

Does Matthew 28:19" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28:19 refer to the millennium?

The commission of Matthew 28:19" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28:19 was given by the Lord to His disciples before leaving them, as their immediate “marching orders,” and there is no hint that it was intended for the millennium, some far- off future dispensation, or that it was superseded by some other commission. Indeed, who had the right to supersede it? It is shallow reasoning to infer that because the formula of Matthew 28" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28 is not specifically mentioned in the Acts, it was not used.
Then the formula of blessing in Numbers 6:23-27" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 6:23-27 was never used in the history of Israel, since it is not once mentioned! On the contrary, it was doubtless often used, and so with the baptismal formula of Matthew 28." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28. There are two prepositions used in connection with baptism in the Acts—”en” and “eis.” The first means “in”, and with “the Name” it simply explains the authority for baptism. Peter commands them “in the Name of the Lord” to be baptized (Acts 10:48)" TARGET="_blank">Acts 10:48)—order of the Greek. The “eis” occurs twice: i.e., in Acts 8:16," TARGET="_blank">Acts 8:16, with reference to the Samaritans, and in Acts 14:5" TARGET="_blank">Acts 14:5 of the John Baptist disciples at Ephesus, in both of which cases special importance attached to the confession of the right name—”into the Name of the Lord Jesus.” But this was in no sense a formula, and we need have no doubt but that the formula of Matthew 28" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28 “into the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Holy Ghost,” was used in every case. What more appropriate for a Christian dispensation, or less so for a future Jewish economy? The “epi” of Acts 2:38" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:38 has to give way to “en,” it is generally agreed. Peter here too refers back to the authority of the Lord for baptizing. And if we are doing something on another person’s authority, should we not carry out that person’s direction to the letter?

It should be noticed that in any case, a person is not saved by being batpized correctly or incorrectly. Baptism is for a believer who has already received Christ as his savior. See the other questions below regarding salvation and baptism.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

What is behind the present aim to bring all the groups in Christendom back to the "mother church"?

What is behind the present aim to bring all the groups in Christendom back to the "mother church"?

Looking at events in light of what will exist in the seven years of tribulation, we cannot help attaching significance to the way the "mother church" is accommodating herself to so many groups in Christendom. Her strange alliance with "evangelicals" opposing abortion is one way of finding common ground. Other twists of theological language serve the same end. The World Council of Churches also contributes to this.

The end result of all false worship is embodied in "Great Babylon, the mother of harlots . . ." (Rev 17:5)." TARGET="_blank">Rev 17:5). She will be the amalgamation of all non-biblical faiths.

We cannot, however, assume the role of prophets. To us, the path from what we see at present and what we see in the prophetic future is a straight line. We do not know if that is the case. The means by which it will all work out have not been revealed to us. We can identify trends that are moving in the direction of revealed prophecies, but we cannot say that those events are fulfilling those prophecies.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu