Scripture worthies: their characters viewed in a new light

Preface

The writer of these chapters has been for many years studying the Scriptural accounts of these, and other worthies, to see whether the accepted opinions concerning them were correct.

He has been surprised to discover how different was the fact, and that much light has been obscured by popular commentators.

If these pages shall encourage a more careful inspection of God’s Word, and enable the reader to see more clearly the high value and distinguished excellence of some lives that have been long under expositorial censure, the writer will enjoy a sufficient rew T ard for his effort to such an end.

This volume may be followed by others, aiming to give independent conceptions of New Testament his^ tory and teaching.

P. S. Whitman.

Toccoa, Ga.

f

Contents

Introduction ..... 9

Chapter II

1. Separation of Abraham and Lot.

2. Lot in Sodom.

3. Initial Misconceptions as to Abraham’s Concern

for Sodom.

4. God’s Positive Assertions Safe Interpreters of Hu-

man Actions.

5. Misconception as to Facts, which are turned to Lot’s

Disadvantage.

Chapter III

1. Eliezer and Rebecca.

2. “But Rebecca Loved Jacob.”

3. Parental Love Affected by the Conduct of Children.

4. Should Jacob’s Name be Interpreted to His Disad-

vantage?

5. “And Jacob was a Plain Man dwelling in Tents.”

6. Error of Expositors in making Rebecca chargeable

with the Future Troubles of the Family.

7. Gratuitous Lament because Isaac and Rebecca did

not Agree.

8. Rebecca acting in Concert with the Divine Purpose

previously Revealed.

CONTENTS

9. The Great Question. Was Rebecca in Fault as to Measures she Employed ?

a. Did Jacob Lie?

b. Did Jacob Deceive his Father?

c. Did Jacob Defraud Esau?

10. The Pottage Bargain Interpreted by the Way it was

Complied with.

11. Rebecca’s Fidelity to the Abrahamic Family.

12. Jacob in Haran. The “ Twenty Years ” Fallacy.

CHAPTER IV. Retubn of Jacob to Canaan .... 89

1. The Command to Return connected with the Promise

at Bethel.

2. Jacob in Council with Rachel and Leah.

3. How the Journey commences. Arrival in Mount

Gilead in Ten Days Explained.

4. Overtaken by Laban. Trouble ended by a Covenant

of Peace. Jacob met by Angels. Mahanaim.

5. Jacob sends Messengers to Esau. His alarm at the

Report brought back.

6. Preparing for the Worst, whilst his Reliance is God’s

Promise. He Prays.

7. He plans another Mode of Effort: Combatting Evil

with Good. The Presents viewed in connection with his Vow.

8. Victory antedated by the Contest at Peniel. Jacob

alone with God.

9. Battle between the Brothers described. Jacob as

Preexistent Gospel Victor Reenters the Promised Land.

CHAPTER VI. Moses — Why Moses and Aabon could not Enteb the

Pbomised Land ..... 110

CONTENTS

1. The Case of Moses at Kadesh=barnea.

2. The Case at Kadesh^Meribah, in which both Moses

and Aaron are Involved.

3. Some Things Restated. Conclusion.

Chapter VIII

The Foub Women — Tamab, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba 135 CHAPTER IX.

1. False Moralizers.

2. Saved from Death, but not from False Moralizers

2800 Years After.

3. The Traducers of Elijah.

Introduction

Biography, especially Scripture biography, will always be interesting and instructive. It is rightly employed, by those who give direction to the studies of the young in our Sunday-schools, for making the Bible attractive and thereby turning attention to its profoundest teachings. The biography of the Bible differs from that found anywhere else, in the accuracy of its representation of the characters of those it presents to us, and it is worthy of our most careful and candid study.

There was a time, perhaps, when, because many Scripture personages are unquestionably set before as as the people of God, it was thought necessary to justify every action recorded of them, and to show that, even if it did not in each instance meet with the direct approval of God, the case was so far exceptional as to make it no longer of any value to us in determining our duty or in testing our character. This sometimes required such a distortion of principles of righteousness, which ought to be recognized as immutable as to make them appear mutable, and of uncertain application in the affairs of our every-day life.

A reaction from this method is seen in the tendency nowadays to seize upon individual acts of in- 9

INTRODUCTION firmity, or upon conduct different from that which modern standards altogether approve, and by magnifying every weakness, and separating it from its connections, make it appear such a crime that one wonders how such characters could in any sense be considered righteous and be properly called the people of God. The flippancy with which serious charges of fault are made, and which distinguishes many late writers — sometimes, alas! of those who prepare the Sundays school lessons for our young people — is most painful to devout and thoughtful minds, and is sure to do great harm to those who get accustomed to this treatment of the history of men and women “of whom,” according to the unerring judgment of God, “ the world was not worthy.”

Its evil influence is further seen in the way that many have come to look even on our blessed Lord, who, instead of being regarded as the holy and absolutely perfect one, — appointed to be Judge of all because He is the Son of Man, John v. 27, — must needs be apologized for, and some of whose holiest and most godlike acts must be explained as instances of the infirmities of His human nature.

It is in earnest protest against this method of treatment that the articles compiled in this volume have been written. They have, indeed, been composed at different times and for different occasions; but having the same general purpose and being based on the same principle of candid interpretation of the Scripture narrative in all its particulars, it is well that they are collected, so as to lead students of

INTRODUCTION the Bible to take more careful views of those who are presented in its pages as specimens of real men and women, in whom the grace of God was operating to redeem them from the dominion of sin, and to show how we, too, may be made “ more than conquerors through Him that loved us.”

Let us bear in mind that if we are to be really profited by the biographies of the Bible we must study each character in all its connections with the fairness and candor to which a perfectly impartial record is entitled.

Whether each one who reads this volume will agree in every particular with the views expressed by the venerable man who gives us in it the fruits of his maturest and devoutest thought is not so important as that its character and purpose shall be recognized and that we shall be led to more careful, accurate, and just study of the living Word of the Living God.

Charles Manly.

Greenville , S. C.

.

I. Noah

Enoch and Noah compared ; or, was Noah a drunkard f

Bad as the world is, there have been at all times persons of remarkable virtue, and more or less commended by their fellow men; more than this, there have been men and women commended by God, whose commendation has been marked by miraculous testimony. What a record we have of Enoch! According to the reference of Jude the world had become very wicked; yet Enoch persevered, preaching righteousness, and there could have been no lack in his practice, for the divine record is that “he walked with God, after he begat Methuselah, three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters; and all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty^five years.” What additional commendation as the record ends, “And Enoch walked with God, and he was not; for God took him.” His approbation, we see, was most decidedly of God. What an admonition to the world is here, wherein is seen the difference in God’s estimation between Enoch and the rest of mankind. This delineation of Enoch’s character and the manner of God’s approbation are so 13 remarkable that we can hardly expect any mortal ever to shine in fairer light.

We make this reference to Enoch by way of introduction to the character of Noah. With the physical improvement of the race immediately subsequent to the time of Enoch, the world became more wicked than ever — so wicked that God said, “ I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth.” “ But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.” Hear further: “Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generation, and Noah walked with God.” Now a writer of eminence makes Enoch’s commendation superior to this, because it is said, “ Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years.” Here, it is proper to say, we do not know but that Enoch walked with God more than three hundred years, for he may have walked with God before he begat Methuselah as well as after. And as for Noah, we do not know but that he walked with God six hundred years. The Scripture quoted seems to present this walking with God as the general character of his life. It is said of Enoch that he walked with God three hundred years; but it does not diminish his high rank in goodness to suppose it was equaled or even surpassed by that of Noah. Men had become, in the time of Noah, altogether more violent and desperate in wickedness. His conflict with sin must have been sharper and more troublesome than that of Enoch; and we must remember it was nearly three times as long; and if, in commendation of his life it is said, “Noah was a just

NOAH man and perfect in his generation,” with the most significant item added, “ and Noah walked with God,” we think Noah’s exaltation is presented as no less wonderful than Enoch’s.

But Enoch’s distinctive eminence shines in the record, “ He was not, for God took him.” And this is not said of Noah. But God’s regard for him was shown in another way. When we think of God’s bringing on the flood, overwhelming the earth with water, and yet the ark with Noah and his family riding secure on the universal abyss — he and his family alone saved to start the human race anew — all this, it seems to us, is making Noah more distinguished by God than as if it could be said of him as of Enoch, “ He was not, for God took him.”

We come now to a point wherein Noah is supposed to suffer vastly in comparison with Enoch. The latter, it is said, is one of the few men whose record in Scripture is all on the credit side. The language descriptive of him is altogether the lauguage of encomium. “ He stands charged with no fault.” Now if all this were equally true of Noah, it would make his excellence more remarkable than Enoch’s; for the life of Noah was nigh six hundred years longer than that of Enoch, the people had become more abandoned to lust and violence than in the days of Enoch, making his conflict with vice more formidable and trying. Moreover his history is given with ten times the minuteness that characterizes that of Enoch, so that if there were follies or wrongs they would be altogether more apt to come to the surface.

All this would make Noah more wonderful than Enoch if, in his case, as in Enoch’s, inspiration records no flaw in his character.

Some moralizers are fond of allusions to the time when Noah lay overcome with stupor and uncovered in his tent. But who does not know that the divine pen is here recording the sin of Ham and that it is farthest possible from the intimation of wrong on the part of Noah? It is human pens and human tongues that here, with no particle of Scriptural warrant, write and talk of Noah’s sin, whereas the sacred narrative dwells alone on the sin of Ham and its consequences. It is because the Lord is God that He is not found complaining of Jesus for breaking the Sabbath, or of Noah, when by experience he first learned the stupefying nature of the beverage which his new vineyard had brought into use. If anyone supposes that Enoch’s three-hundred=year walk with God means no inadvertence, like taking a wrong path and getting lost, or doing nothing which his judges, in this nineteenth century after Christ, might construe to his disadvantage, he is as much mistaken as any Pharisee that has ever passed judgment upon Christian morals.

We may have a certain degree of forbearance with teachers and expositors who may be quite too fond of detecting flaws in the best characters; but when a preacher, taking occasion to dilate on the sins of good men, makes the fling which we sometimes hear, “ There was Noah the drunkard,” or “Noah who disgraced himself and brought a curse upon his

NOAH family by getting beastly drunk,” we can hardly express our resentme nt, for it is a libel of the most aggravating character. It is derisive of God and should be revolting to every candid reader of His Word.

What is fact in the case? Somebody was to learn by experience that if guided by thirst or taste alone he might drink so much of the new beverage as to make him intensely drowsy or reduce him to utter stupefaction. Noah’s case is plainly regarded, such is the tenor of the narrative, as an affair not necessarily involving blame any more than when a child, overdrinking of milk, falls into a deep slumber, Noah was no more a sinn er than the man who first learned that caution is needed lest, when suffering with heat or thirst, one should drink of cold water to excess. The life of Noah, which was continued three hundred years after this experience, offers no reasonable chance for us to suppose anything else than that he used the experience of that occasion for the benefit of his family. Nay, it is but fair to infer that his desce ndants at the very start, in repeopling the earth received due caution from Noah against all kinds of excessive indulgence. We may go further and safely conclude that, if before he died that preacher of righteousness found that there was no such thing as using the beverage in moderation, or keeping it from poisonous adulterations, he may have become quite radical in his admonition, and have ended his days a preacher of total abstinence.

In our day it is, indeed against a man’s character to get drunk even once. It supposes a voluntary mingling with bad company, deliberately going where poisonous intoxicants are kept; and this amid warnings of danger and ruin all around him — a state of things which did not exist in relation to Noah. But even in our day, if it is only once in his life that a person gets drunk, is it to be expected that thousands of years after he must be stigmatized as a drunkard? If we seek a man most to be relied on for temperance, it may be the man of whom it is said, “ He got drunk once, but never again.”

It is only common virtue to put a favorable construction upon a man’s conduct when the circumstances in the case will permit, But in the case of Noah the circumstances demand it. And the violation of this rule in respect to him should be abhorrent to all mankind.

II. Lot

I . — The Separation of Abraham and Lot.

The story of Abraham opens, himself the hero, but Lot the charm of it. Uncle and nephew by birth, they continue twins in goodness until the separation. The particulars of this event are given to show, as most of the commentators would have us think, how the two suddenly diverged from each other, not only in place of abode, but in moral character. From this time Abraham is represented by them as the uncle — “ noble, generous, magnanimous.” Lot as the nephew, — “ selfish, grasping, mean.” And the new character here given to Lot is made to decide the moral quality of all his future actions. To the end of his life no opportunity is omitted to reproach him with a sordid motive. Thus all along through life the misfortune with him is made to die back in that separation.

This is what we are now to examine. We shall consider the subject, first supposing the common understanding of expositors is correct, that the valley now occupied by the Dead Sea is one of the two parts denoted in the text by “ right ” and “ left,” (a fallacy to be considered in its place), and that the hill or 19 mountain country, Canaan, Gen. xiii.12, is the other.

FIRST VIEW.

The separation was at Abraham’s suggestion — the plan for carrying it out, also his. Lot, it is admitted, fell in with the suggestion and complied with the arrangement. These being the facts in the case, for Abraham afterwards to have been found complaining would have declared him the most unreasonable of men. But Abraham was never known to give the slightest intimation of there being any wrong on the part of Lot — a third fact worthy of note. And, with these three facts before them, what shall we say of those who make complaint for Abraham, accusing Lot, for the part he took in that transaction, of being “selfish,” “grasping,” “taking advantage of his uncle’s generous nature” ? Such a complaint, it seems to us, is unbecoming reasonable men.

SECOND VIEW.

"We may justly suppose that the aim of Abraham in his arrangement was that both parties should be perfectly satisfied. We think the previous harmony between them shows that he must have been skilled in arrangements to such an end. This purpose was sufficiently worthy without attributing to him any intention of being generous. No better proof is needed that this was the object in view than the perfect adaptation of his arrangement to that end. There is room enough; and Abraham says, “ If thou

LOT wilt take to the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left.” No words could better have signified that it would make no difference with him which part Lot took. This left no possibility for Abraham to be otherwise than perfectly satisfied whichever part Lot should take. Nothing remains in order to the full accomplishment of his purpose but for Lot to take the part he likes the better. If he does not do this, we cannot rely upon his being satisfied and Abraham’s plan will be frustrated. Abraham himself will not be satisfied. If he does not do this, it may seem to Abraham like regarding his words under the color of deceit. Every consideration makes it becoming in Lot to take the part he likes better. We presume he did so, for he seems to have taken the part better adapted to his occupation. The river and the brooks did attract his eyes, and he pushed into the valley, pleased with the thought of them, and it no doubt increased the satisfaction of Abraham and Sarah that he went away in good spirits. As for any undue desire of gain, he appears to have been as innocent as the shepherd boy who, instead of leaving his flocks to scanty and withered herbage, leads them on to some green oasis. Thus Abraham’s purpose was achieved in full.

THIRD VIEW.

The position uniformly assumed that one part was greatly superior to the other, and making this position the basis of Abraham’s generosity is, in the first place, embarrassing to Abraham himself, for he must have been conscious of this superiority or there would have been no generosity in the case, but the words of the proposal imply, not only that he would as soon have one part as the other, but that in his view, all things considered, one part was as good as the other. Thus to make him generous we have to take from him his sincerity. He would prefer, we think, that we let his sincerity alone.

But the assumption that one part was greatly superior to the other is turned to a worse account than to make Abraham generous. Lot, they say, takes the better part, and therefore they denounce him as “ selfish, ungrateful and mean.” Abraham is generous and even magnanimous for making the offer: Lot, selfish and mean for accepting it. Here we beg leave to demur. No true ethics have ever made the mere acceptance of a good offer mean. More kindly natures have been chilled, more friendships interrupted, more peace destroyed, by refusing good offers than by accepting them. Fannie comes home from school with a luscious apple which Jennie gave her. Jennie’s parents are poor. “ And was that the only apple she had?” “ It was.” “Child,” exclaims the mother, “ you should not have taken it. It was selfish and ungenerous in you.” “ Yes, mother,” says the little mistress in ethics, “ but I thought of all those scuppernongs uncle sent us, and I knew you would be willing for me to take her a few clusters of them to-morrow.” She did this — and what a new relation sprung up between the two girls — a friend-

LOT ship to last through life. The apple caused it, because it was not refused. Take Lot’s own case — call Abraham’s proposal generous : have it that Lot did not accept in the manner he did: notice how it might have embarrassed him to give a reason which would not have been a reflection upon Abraham. Would it do to intimate that his uncle could not afford it — thus calling into question his ability to understand his own affairs? Would it do to intimate that he did not really mean what he said, thus making his magnanimity to consist in big talk, a kind of Arab bombast? Would it do to even dream of a sinister motive, as if Abraham, in advance, was making a hush^offering to Lot, so that he would not “ vex his soul” with certain domestic improprieties about to follow? Or, would it do to admit that he was deterred by the fear of being placed under obligation to such a man as Abraham? Thus it becomes quite obvious that, as in the case of the schoobgirl, so in respect to Lot, in no way could he have managed more becomingly, or so as to have been less chargeable for lack of generosity than to have acted just as he did. If afterwards Abraham had become poor, who can say there would have been no scuppernong clusters to make it all right?

Put it down, the ethics which make it mean to accept a good offer are false. They make generous offers impossible. How can an offer be generous , if to accept it declares a man mean? More than this, they turn what is commonly understood as generous offers into insults. According to these ethics Lot could have reflected, “You make me this generous offer, do you? At the same time you know well enough you would accuse me of being mean should I accept it. How then can I regard your offer otherwise than as an insult? ”

The acceptance of an offer must he expected or it cannot be generous; and, if it should come to be understood that the acceptance makes one liable to the charge of meanness, what person, however generous, would ever make a generous offer? Thus the ethics of Lot’s detractors would secure us against all chances of erring as he did.

But it is their darling theory, and how they cling to it, “ If Lot had possessed the noble nature of his uncle, he would have taken the poorer part.” Here is some comfort after all, comfort for the elegant girl who did choose the most worthless of her suitors for her husband. Let no one murmur as if she “ threw herself away,” for, by her choice she rose to the “ noble nature ” of Abraham. It was always a wonder that my old acquaintance in the East, coming into this new country, did accept, at the offer of the government, a rough and stony place for his farm instead of a rich and level tract lying by the side of it, which he could have had at the same price. I understand now; he had the “noble nature of his uncle.” Here, too, is revealed something quite creditable to the Baptists of a former generation. They did choose every out'ofdhe'Way place for a meetingdiouse. They could have had central locations just as well as not, but — we see it now — their “ noble natures ” forbade. We

LOT are becoming as bad as Lot. Now, when a town proprietor gives us our choice of lots, we follow Lot’s exampe — take the best lot — the “selfish, grang wretches that we are!

FOURTH VIEW.

After long and loud denunciation of Lot as “greedy” for taking the better part, his detractors are suddenly berating him as “ foolish ” for taking the part he did. This better part turns out to be a foolish part — a ivorse part — the part beset with trouble and danger — fire and brimstone! Yet this very part — this accursed part — he should have left to Abraham: and, if he only had done so, it would have made him Abraham’s equal, and stamped his character as generous forever. There is nothing like detraction to bring these jewels of consistency into fair display.

FIFTH VIEW.

There is a way of contemplating this transaction so as to make Abraham appear generous. The only objection that can be offered to it is that it makes Lot generous also. Without calling Abraham’s sincerity into question, Lot’s intuitive sense might have detected in his uncle, or in Sarah, a lurking preference for one part over the other. Now it could not have been the part chosen by Lot. The place where they were was already Abraham’s selection, his choice. Though one part was essentially as good as the other, yet it might be a sacrifice of feeling to give up the place already sacred to them. They did not know but Lot might have feelings to be consulted, also. Thus the offer may be considered as waiving their feelings (not right, or temporary advantage) and essentially saying, “ Here, Lot, is a goodly place and you may prefer to keep right along where you are; if you do, we will go yonder.” But Lot would not allow this. He thought it would be a greater trial foi his uncle to leave than he was aware of. He was the younger — it belonged to him to try a new place. He did so , journeying into the valley and pleased withal, as we have said. This view of the affair is in keeping with all that we know of the two men up to this time. It is beautiful, each showing a delicate regard for the feelings of the other. It is generous Abraham, and it is also generous Lot, Who would have it otherwise?

ANOTHER VIEW.

It is possible that the nature of Lot’s choice has not been fairly comprehended. The idea that the “plain of Jordan” is one of those parts designated by Abraham as “ the left ” and “ the right,” may be entirely erroneous. We have seen all along that the separation has not appeared to be according to the terms of his proposal. “ If thou depart to the right, I will go to the left.” Lot departed and, “ journeyed , ” which is more than those terms indicated; but Abraham seems to have stayed pretty much where he was; which is less than those terms indicated. Again, this idea that “ the plain ” was one of the parts supposes that, at the time of the arrange-

LOT ment, Abraham and Lot were on the line between “the plain ” and hill or mountain country, but they were not. They were about midway between the Jordan and the Great Sea. I have no idea that when Abraham spake of “the right ” and “ the left,” he had a thought of the Jordan valley. The country to the east, before coming to the valley, was ample enough for one; the country west, ample enough for the other . 1 Situated as they were, the proposal anticipated no “ journeying ” of either party — no occupancy of the valley by either; but that they both were to remain in the hill country: both moving indeed, but neither “ journeying .” But the separation turns out to be a different thing. How are we to account for it? Only in this way. Lot never accepted the proposition .” When it was made, discreet and wise as it was (and it may have been generous also), it is said “Lot lifted up his eyes,” implying a distant survey. It was so — to look from that place afterwards known as Sichem (Sychar) to that part of the valley contemplated. The scene greets his imagination as, no doubt, he saw it on his return from Egypt. And now the answer to the

1 More probable it is that Abraham, in making the proposal, is supposed to face the east. This would exclude the Jordan valley from consideration, or at least leave it as much to the one as to the other: the arrangement being for one to “ depart to the north, and the other to go to the south” We here quote from the learned Dr. W. H. Young. “In Hebrew the Mediterranean is called the ‘hinder sea.’ And the proper name of Southern Arabia is Arabia Yemen which strictly means right hand, though the other meaning of ‘ Yemen,' namely, ‘ happy ’ has been perpetuated in the name ‘Arabia Felex.’ ”