Genesis Commentary - Dr. Peter S. Ruckman - PDFCOFFEE.COM (2024)

THE BOOK OF

GENESIS

By Peter S. Ruckman B.A., B.D., M.A., Th.M., Ph.D. President and Founder of Pensacola Bible Institute Copyright © 1969 by Peter S. Ruckman All rights reserved (PRINT) ISBN 1-58026-001-2 Reprint 2001

BB BOOKSTORE P.O. Box 7135 Pensacola, FL 32534 www.kjv1611.org Other works available on Kindle PUBLISHER’S NOTE The Scripture quotations found herein are from the text of the Authorized King James Version of the Bible. Any deviations therefrom are not intentional.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Chapter 10

Chapter 11

Chapter 12

Chapter 13

Chapter 14

Chapter 15

Chapter 16

Chapter 17

Chapter 18

Chapter 19

Chapter 20

Chapter 21

Chapter 22

Chapter 23 Chapter 24 Chapter 25

Chapter 26

Chapter 27

Chapter 28

Chapter 29

Chapter 30

Chapter 31

Chapter 32

Chapter 33

Chapter 34

Chapter 35

Chapter 36

Chapter 37

Chapter 38

Chapter 39

Chapter 40

Chapter 41

Chapter 42

Chapter 43

Chapter 44

Chapter 45

Chapter 46

Chapter 47

Chapter 48

Chapter 49

Chapter 50

PREFACE This Preface, as all those found in the Bible Believer’s Commentary Series, only emphasizes the fact that this set of commentaries was written to COMMENT on the Scripture. It is a unique series in that it does not seek to criticize, correct, revise , or pass judgment on the Scriptures. The AV 1611, Reformation text of the Protestant Bible is assumed to be correct until proved incorrect, and therefore, this text will be used throughout. It is a foregone conclusion that the writer has had twenty years to weigh the merits of Nestle’s Critical Apparatus in the Greek New Testament and Kittel’s Apparatus in the Old Testament (J.C. Hinrichs, Lipsiae, 1913), and has had ample time to investigate them as the leading theories of A. T. Robertson, Lachmann, Griesbach, and Westcott and Hort in regards to the over evaluation of the so called “LXX” (i.e., the Vaticanus manuscript constructed by Origen, Marcion, Valentinus, and Eusebius). In our courts of law, a person is “innocent until proven guilty”; however, the opponents of the AV (Fundamentalists included) are grabbing at the chaff and dust particles of liberal and Catholic scholarship in an effort to prove that the AV 1611 is in error. After carefully checking the 1500 (plus) “supposed errors” in the Old Testament text, the author has come to the conclusion that 80 percent of the critics of the AV 1611 do not know about what they are talking, and the remaining 20 percent did what they did for scholastic standing. Time does not permit a lengthy and detailed discussion of the critical blunders made by the opponents of the AV text—Keil, Starke, Delitzsch, Lange, Scholtmann, Gesenius, Ewald, Hitzig, Calvin, Theiner, Rashi, Murphy, Rosenmuller, Barnes, Grotius, Havernack, Shultz, and scores of others. These men, who rejected the AV 1611 for the Latin traditions of Rome (or the Alexandrian traditions of North Africa), are evidently not capable of intelligent comment on the English text, so they have been dispensed with, in the large, except where we may occasionally point out an especially ludicrous private interpretation which they have placed over the text. The rejection of the AV 1611 text took place in the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries under such dubious designations as “The Age of Reason” (i.e., the rejection of revelation), “The Age of Enlightenment” (i.e., the rejection of the word as light), and “Higher Criticism” (i.e., man attempting to correct God’s “mistakes”), etc. Contrary to both popular belief and scholastic tradition, the majority of commentators in this period (if not all of them) fall into step with the private interpretations of Rome. Although many of the commentators cleave to the “fundamentals” as expressed in the Nicene Creed (and emphasize these fundamentals in their works), few, if any, show any reverence for the Bible, any understanding of Bible prophecy, or any humility in changing the AV text into the Roman text used by apostate Alexandrian scholarship. This is the text used by the RV (1885), the ASV (1901), and the RSV (1952). The Bible Believer’s Commentary proceeds from the bias that the AV 1611 Bible is the word of God until conclusively proven otherwise. This Received Text (Textus Receptus) omits the Apocrypha as part of the inspired canon of the Old Testament, and this is the text which God has preserved and blessed and used in the “Philadelphia” period of church history. The works of Goforth, Studd, Livingstone, Cartwright, Sunday, Moody, Edwards, Jones, Torrey, Gen. Booth, Finney, Taylor, Brainerd, Wesley, Whitefield, Luther, Tyndale, and others were done with this text in hand. Representatives of it (for the New Testament) can be found in one unbroken line from A.D. 180 to A.D. 2001. Its rivals—the Hesychian and Western type texts—run, hop, skip, and jump for less than 500 years, and they so violently disagree with each other that there are more variations between the

Hesychian type texts themselves in 300 years than there are in the Greek texts of the AV 1611 for 1500 years! In Genesis, we shall study the riches of the Authorized Text as it comes to us through the sacrificial labors of Wycliffe and Tyndale, the Puritans’ “Geneva Bible,” the Masoretic Text of four printed Hebrew Bibles, the Antwerp and Complutensian Polyglots (1517), and the King James Authorized Version (1611). In keeping with historical fact and common sense, we find the Hebrew text preserved most faithfully in Judea (before A.D. 70) and then in Arabia (after A.D. 70), by Abraham’s kinfolk—Ishmael (see Gal. 4 and Gen. 14, 15). After the Mohammedan excursions into Spain, we find the text preserved faithfully by such Bible-believing Jews as Moses Ben Nachman. The correct “succession” of manuscripts for the New Testament goes around Italy in the other direction: Syrian, Byzantine types of manuscripts go up from Antioch and Constantinople into Greece and the Balkans, and eventually to Germany and England. Knowledge of these two “end runs” around Rome is essential to true textual criticism. At present, the scholars’ union is still firmly holding to the untenable and fanciful theory that the most “authoritative” New Testament texts come from North Africa through Rome! (This weird fantasy is promoted by the Greek faculties of Bob Jones University and Tennessee Temple, as well as the College of Cardinals and Chicago University.) Let it be kept firmly in mind, therefore, in dealing with critics of the AV 1611 Bible, that its sources are far more authoritative and far more in keeping with historical truth than any of the sources used by the present-day “Bible translations” of the modern “commentators.” The correct source for finding Hebrew (Oriental) truth would be the Jew. Any future preservation of divine revelation would be in keeping with this choice, for “salvation is of the Jews” (see John 4:22). The correct Hebrew text, then, will not go from North Africa to England via Rome, the people who crucified the Jewish Messiah. The text will go from Genesis to Malachi in the hands of the Levites (Mal. 2:7), and upon the rejection of the Messiah, this text will have to get to Europe through Abraham’s son Ishmael. “Isaac” was rejected! (see Gal. 4). The Hebrew Bible, therefore, proceeds to Europe by the Moslems and Jews, via Spain and Gibraltar, appearing in its best form in the Complutensian Polyglot edited by Cardinal Ximenes (1522). The correct Hebrew text would certainly not go from Augustine to Europe via Rome. Our liberal and Catholic cowbirds invented a theory which asks us to believe that all “authoritative texts” go into Europe from Italy, thus emphasizing the “spirituality” of the ecclesiastical hierarchy at the Vatican. History would prove something quite different. This hierarchy did what it could to stifle Greek and Hebrew scholarship from 500-1546, and while it did that, the Hebrew and Greek grammarians girdled Italy and came in through Spain and the Balkans. At the Council of Trent (1546), there was not one noted Greek or Hebrew scholar present. So in Genesis, we will deal with the Hebrew text of the Receptus, and this text takes the left flank (while the proper Greek text is circling right) to avoid that great purple-clad “Mother of...Abominations” (Rev. 17:5). As the ancient Jewish exegetes (the Karaites) believed, so we believe that we should go to the Hebrew text for our information; not to the so called “LXX” or the Coptic or the Targum of Onkelos or the forged additions of the Leningrad manuscript or the Mishna or Midrash or the Talmud or the “Tiqqune Sopherim” or the “Itture Sopherim” or Philo or Josephus or the Gemara, the Kaballa, the Tanaim, or the Amoraim. The Bible believer has as much real need for these sources in the Old Testament as he does for the Interpreter’s Bible or Berkhof in the New Testament. We are here concerned with “what saith the Scriptures?” And we are not in the least interested in what anyone thought they said or what they taught or what they think they should have taught.

Time and space again forbid a detailed discussion of the problems of the historicity and authorship of the Book of Genesis. If anyone would like to waste time on these problems and exercise in cadence with Graf-Wellhausen, he may spend several years in the extensive (and sometimes commendable) work of John Peter Lange’s Commentary. Correctly speaking, the whole matter can be settled in two days with a good book or two by Harry Rimmer or Robert Dick Wilson. Since Julius Bewer (“Literature of the Old Testament”) has given us a typically representative statement in relation to the AV text of Genesis (and the other books in the Pentateuch), we may well paraphrase it here: “The dates and figures found in the first five books of the Bible are altogether unreliable.” Since Bewer has never proved that statement—nor have any of his associates on the RSV translating committee—we may coin the phrase and state it more reverently thus: “The information found in the books written by the leaders of the National Council of Churches is altogether unreliable.” This shall be our attitude in handling the type of scholarship represented by the RSV committee. Ninety percent of what they may say about Genesis can be dismissed without second thought. Since our Catholic and liberal friends are so tactful and “Christlike” in their attitude towards the AV 1611 book of Genesis, we may try one more statement by another RSV translator, Walter Russell Bowie (“Great Men of the Bible”), “The story of Abraham comes down from ancient times, and how much of it is fact and how much of it is legend no one can positively tell.” Since our Lord Jesus Christ in John 8:33-58, already told us how much of Abraham’s story we can believe, and since Paul devoted a chapter to it (Rom. 4), we may answer Mr. Bowie (and all his bedfellows) with something equally as kind and tactful: “The publication of the RSV comes down from ancient Catholic tradition, and how much of it is Scripture and how much is Greek mythology, no one can positively tell.” (It is certain that readings in Luke 2, John 9, and Luke 18 are Gnostic depravations from Philo and Origen.) Let us then gather our wits about us and begin to read what God has given us in a language we can understand. Without flinching, let us assume at least one bias (since the commentators ahead of us have assumed from six to six hundred!). We shall assume that the Old Testament text of the AV 1611 Bible is the one God wants us to have and that the Almighty God, who was powerful enough to inspire it, was well able to preserve it on any dime store counter in the world. (If this assumption is “heresy,” then hit the ceiling and chin yourself a few times.) From the standpoint of Textual Criticism and Manuscript Evidence, we are interested in the Pietist Michaelis (1668), not the Ebionites Symmachus and Theodotian (200). We want to learn from Kahle and the Tiberians (with their Masoretic System), not from Ben Naphtali. We shall be attentive to the thoughts of Moshe Ben Asher, not Baier and Delitzsch (1869), and we shall accept Jacob Ben Hayyim’s text (Bomberg, 1524) as reliable. To sum it up, we believe that the first book of Moses was written by Moses, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost (2 Pet. 1:20,21; John 5:36-42, 1:45; Exod. 32:32–33). The book is well named “Genesis,” for it records the beginnings of Heaven and Earth, Man, Sin, Salvation, and the Races. Jesus Christ Himself contributes to Higher Criticism by vouching for the historicity of the book (Mark 13:19) and the lives of those in it—Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Noah, Lot, and Adam. In the final analysis, the commentators (whatever their hue and brand) will have to settle their guesswork with Him. The text of this Commentary is the superior text of the Authorized Version, 1611, and as such, its text honors the deity of Jesus Christ and the infallibility of Scripture. The ASV (1901) is naturally rejected for its profane marginal notes on Zechariah 12:10; John 9:35-38; Isaiah 7:14; the texts in Luke 2:33; 2 Timothy 3:16; Micah 5:2; Isaiah 52:15; and its omissions of whole passages of inspired Scripture, words and verses removed in Matthew 1:25, 6:33, 8:29, 9:13, 12:35, 13:51, 16:3,20, 18:11; 1 John 4:19, 5:7; Jude 25; Revelation 1:8,9,11, 2:13,

5:14, 6:1, 11:17, 12:12,17, 14:5, 16:7, 20:9, Acts 2:30, 7:30,37, 8:37, 9:5,6, 10:6, 16:31, 17:26, 20:25,32, 23:9 and scores of other places. We are not interested in correcting and revising God’s word, and we are not in sympathy with those who think they are smart enough to do it. The ASV, as its twin sisters (the RV and the RSV), will not be referred to in this commentary except to demonstrate the truth of the AV text by contrast with it. Truth stands out very clearly when displayed on a background of error. GENESIS: The book of beginnings. May our prayer not be “Lord, give us the scholarship and ability to unravel the original languages and thereby demonstrate our intellectuality,” but rather may it be “Spe ak Lord, thy servant heareth!...Open thou mine eyes that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law!” “THE BOOK OF GENESIS”

DATA: The book was written by Moses and is commonly called “The First Book of Moses.” It has 50 chapters, 1,534 verses, and 38,267 words. It is found first in the list of books in the Hebrew canon and in the English canon. The word “Genesis” is kin to “generations,” “genes,” or “generate,” and marks the book as “the Book of Beginnings.” It records the beginning of the Heavens, the Earth, Man, Sin, Redemption, the Races, and the Covenants. Its outstanding characters are Adam and Eve, Noah and Enoch, Cain and Abel, Lot and Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael, Esau and Jacob, Joseph and Judah. The types of Jesus Christ in the Book are Adam, Abel, the Lamb, Isaac, the Ark, Judah, Shiloh, and Joseph. The types of Antichrist are Cain, Ham, Nimrod, Laban, Ishmael, Esau, and Pharaoh.* Every major doctrine in both Testaments is found in the first twelve chapters, and the book is a supplement to the Book of Revelation, making the Bible an infinite circle, with neither beginning nor ending, in regard to its inexhaustible riches. *The office, not the man who befriended Joseph.

CHAPTER 1 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” The first line in the AV 1611 proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that this book is going to be the most unusual one ever written. There are ten words in the sentence. (In the Hebrew text there are seven.) This undesigned coincidence is remarkable when one studies the numerology of the Bible and learns that the number seven is the number of “perfection” or completion given as a sign to Israel (see comments on Gen. 2:1), while the number ten is the number of the Gentile (see comments on Gen. 10:10). The Hebrew text, under the examination of the Russian scholar Panin, exhibits even greater peculiarities which space will not permit listing. Psalm 12:6 tells us that the Hebrew text is “tried...seven times.” Since God told the Hebrews to observe “sevens” throughout their national feasts (see Lev. 23, 25), we are not surprised to find the opening words of the Hebrew Bible (Gen. 1:1) are “Berash*th bara Elohim eth hashamayim waeth ha’aretz”—7 words, with 28 Hebrew letters (4x7), 14 letters in the subject (2x7), 14 letters in the predicate (2x7), and “God” as the third word in the sentence. But the wonders of the text only begin here. A theologian, upon examining Genesis 1:1, is struck by the fact that in the very first verse of the Bible, without apologies to anyone, the Holy Spirit attacks the six favorite philosophies or religions of mankind. 1. “GOD created”: this denies atheism, for the first statement is that there is a God present. (There went Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky!) 2. “GOD created”: notice the singular. The “gods” (Psa. 82:6 and 2 Cor. 4:4) did not create the Universe. There went the Babylonian mythology of the “demiurge,” and there went Siva, Krishna, Pali, and a thousand Hindu “deities.” (No wonder the Bible leaves a bad taste in an ecumenical mouth!) 3 . “GOD created”: if God “created,” and Jesus said that He did—see Mark 13:19—then Darwin has blundered and has led astray 80 percent of the high school teachers in America. Nor does “Theistic Evolution” offer a decent substitute, for the statement is that God “CREATED”; He “evolved” nothing. Jesus was a “Creationist” (Mark 13:19), and Moses said “Amen” to this theology in Deut. 4:32. If Jesus “corrected Moses” in the Sermon on the Mount (and the Liberals believe that He did), how is it that He forgot to correct Moses’ mistaken ideas about volution and Creationism? 4. “God created THE HEAVEN” : the verse now takes a sideswipe at Unity, Unitarianism, Brahmanism, and Christian Science, for the verse declares that God is separate from His creation. This defeats the philosophy of “pantheism” which teaches that God is “one with matter.” The universe is not God, and God is not “the heaven.” It therefore follows that the “Kingdom of God” is not the “Kingdom of Heaven,” for “God is a Spirit” (John 4:24), and the “heavens” are literal, physical, visible elements. (See book The Sure Word of Prophecy. ) Heaven, in the Scriptures, is used as the space between the earth and the clouds (Acts 1:8–12; Job 35:5), the space between the atmosphere and the solar system (Gen. 1:1), and the space between the galaxies and the presence of God Himself (see commentary on Revelation, Rev. 4:1–6). This direction is straight north, over the star Alpha Draconis (Psa. 75:6,7, 48:2; Isa. 14:12–14; Job 26:7, 37:22). No understanding is needed of the Hebrew (Shamayim) or the Greek (ouranos) for an understanding of a cosmology superior to that taught at the Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral.

5. “IN THE BEGINNING God”: the verse now attacks the Greek philosophers (regardless of which school they professed to follow), for all Greek philosophers believed in the eternity of matter, exactly as it is taught in the state universities today. The heavens are not “in the beginning” (see the corrupt translation by Goodspeed); God is in the “beginning” (see John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1 for the Holy Spirit’s comment). 6. “IN THE BEGINNING GOD created”: clearly indicating the intervention of supernatural power into the visible element and the time element. This is clearly an attack on Kierkegaards’s “existentialism,” and it is somewhat of an insult to Calvin’s fatalism. God does have an active interest in His creation and does insert Himself into the activities of His creatures (see Psa. 148). The glorious uphill procession of the “blind staggers” into an unknown future is a doctrine which Genesis 1:1 defeats at the start. The Bible, therefore, begins with six pieces of hate literature written for the purpose of overthrowing the major religious and philosophical propositions of the twentieth century. This explains all the opposition which the Bible receives, and it clearly marks the Book, from the beginning, as a negative attack on man. Man is against the Bible because it is against him. In verse 1 of the Book, we can find all the elements of science summed up in 10 words: (1) Time —beginning, (2) Space—heavens, (3) Motion—created, (4) Matter—the earth, (5) Energy—God created. David, a man who accepted God’s pronouncements against him (2 Sam. 16:10–12), was correct when he stated: “Thy word is true from the beginning” (Psa. 119:160). The last thing to notice about this opening verse in the Bible is that the date of creation is not given. Although a “recreation” is described in verses 2–20, no date is given for Genesis 1:1. We should notice this, as most college professors and high school teachers display their ignorance at this point. They assume that the Bible teaches that the earth is only 6,000 years old (dated according to Archbishop Ussher’s chronology). This is quite typical of Bible-rejecting education. (Very seldom do critics of the Bible have even a handful of facts with which to work.) The earth could have been here a good 4,000,000 years before God “recreated it” in seven evenings and mornings. Read the text closely; it is much more “scientific” than the superficial guesswork of Einstein, Darwin, Huxley, Millikan, or Bernard Ramm. 1:2 “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” The Hebrew verb reads “tohu vabohu” and implies a previous catastrophe and then a “remaking.” This introduces a mysterious element into the narrative which has never yet been explained satisfactorily by commentators. The standard interpretation is arrived at by lining up the verse with John Milton’s fable of Satan falling from heaven with his angels. But Milton put the expulsion in the past, whereas the verse he used for proof, Revelation 12:4–8, is clearly future. Jeremiah 4:23 and Isaiah 14:17 are other verses produced to teach this doctrine. The argument is that the world was once populated by a “pre-Adamic” race—and this must follow, for there are “cities,” “birds,” “kings,” and “men” in the contexts of Jeremiah 4:23 and Isaiah 14:17—and that this race and “pre-Adamic world” were destroyed by a terrible ice age or meteorite bombardment from outer space or an ice cap or something that had to do with Satan’s fall. The argument is not without difficulty, although some of it checks with the other Scriptures. 1. Man, as such, does not show up in the Scriptures until after the recreation (see Gen. 1:27, 2:7).

2. The first city is built by a murderer in Genesis 4:17. 3. No animals show up in the Scriptures until Genesis 1:20. 4. The contexts of Jeremiah 4:23 and Isaiah 14:17 is obviously the same as that of Revelation 12:3–10; it is the Great Tribulation, which is yet future. However, it is plain to see that something happened which destroyed the original creation. Satan was in some way connected with it, for he is called the “god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4). He is the “demiurge” of the Babylonian Cuneiform tablets, and of course, he is the universal “father of all mankind” worshipped by the contemporary race-mixer and liberal theologian. At this point, the student must be prompt and attentive to believe the word of God where it is written, as he finds it. The key to understanding Genesis 1:2 is found in the unsearchable riches of the AV 1611, but it is carefully concealed from the unbeliever (see l Cor. 1–2). Comparing Scripture with Scripture, the Holy Spirit reveals: 1. Although men were not present before the creation of Adam and Eve, something like men must have been present, for beings called the “sons of God” are mentioned in connection with the preAdamic earth (Job 38:1–8). 2. These “sons of God” appear in Genesis 6:1–6 (see comments). 3. These “sons of God” are angels who appear (like all angels) as young men without wings; they are taken to be “gods” when they land on earth (Acts 14:11). 4. These “gods” are the constant theme of the Old Testament warnings, and the power of Satan is well illustrated by the fact that all Fundamental, Catholic, Liberal, and Neo-Orthodox commentators mistake the “gods” of John 10:34 for Old Testament “Jewish judges”! 5. These “gods” will be mistaken by John Glenn, Scott Carpenter, Anders, Bormann, and Von Braun to be “men from other planets” when they put in their third appearance on this earth (see Luke 17:26–30). 6. These “gods” were on this earth before Adam. They came in male form, and were under the “god of this world,” before Genesis 1:3 (see Psa. 82:6, 86:8, 82:1, 97:7, 96:5, 97:9; Job 21:22). What they did to this earth between 3000 B.C. and 2340 B.C. they will do again in the near future. (You don’t have to pay extra for that; I just threw that in there because it will come to pass whether anyone believes it or not!) 7. In mythology (see the definitive work by Hislop, The Two Babylons), these are the “gods” of Socrates (471 B.C.), Homer (100 B.C.), Ovid, Virgil (100 B.C.), Horace (100 B.C.), Herodotus (413 B.C.), and Sophocles (405 B.C.). “And darkness was upon the face of the deep.” Here the Scriptures need to be compared with Scripture, not with Copernicus (1473–1543) and LaPlace (1749–1827). The “deep” here is certainly not the surface of the Mediterranean Sea or the Atlantic Ocean. The “deep” (whatever it is) is clearly an area larger than our solar system, containing a body of water at least 3,000,000,000 times larger than the Pacific. The “face” of this “deep” is frozen, at absolute zero where molecular action ceases (see comments on 1:7). John describes it as “a sea of glass” (Rev. 4:6) or “glass mingled with fire” (Rev. 15:2). Since John was called up to Glory to describe this celestial stratification, its description in Revelation supersedes any scientific information gathered before or since that time. Job says that the face of this abyss is north. (Compare Psa. 75:6, 48:2; Heb. 12:22; Job 37:18–22, etc.) “The deep” is the container of the universe itself. The top of “the deep” would lie at least 100,000,000 miles beyond the great “Bay Nebula” of the constellation of Orion. “The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” It is called to our attention again that

water is found in this abyss. Second Peter 3:4–7 is undoubtedly a reference to this verse, as 2 Peter 3:4 is pointed right slam at the twentieth-century evolutionists who do not believe that the heavens and earth of now are different from the heaven and earth of Genesis 1:1. Three sets of “heaven and earth” are mentioned in Scripture. 1. The heaven and earth of Genesis 1:1. 2. The heavens and earth of NOW (Gen. 1:4–30). 3. The heavens and earth of 2 Peter 3:13; Revelation 21–22. The Bible picture, then, of the heavens and earth is not in the least connected with the caricature drawn by Bible-rejecting “scientists” who seek to create the impression that the “ancient Hebrews’” concept of the heavens and earth was “a giant turtle with an arch on his back through which the stars, etc.” The “ancient Hebrews” thought nothing of the kind. The Bible picture of the heaven and earth (Gen. 1:1–3) is far in advance of any of the astronomer’s calculations in 2001. (Dates will occasionally be inserted in the commentary in advance of publication because certain characteristics of Bible rejectors are fixed and constant in any millennium or century.) This description (Gen. 1) is that of an original heaven and earth with the earth in a different position than it is now, at least in regard to the constellations. This original earth sinks into an abyss of water, departing from God, and “the darkness covers the face” of this abyss. The exact positions and astronomical measurements are not revealed, nor is there any indication of how far this earth (in its own solar system) is traveling away from God, but you can be certain that any “exploding universe” will explode so as to drive the habitation of man as far from the presence of “the Majesty in the heavens” as possible (see Heb. 8:1; Eph. 2:20–22). 1:3 “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” One is struck by the fact that for God to say a thing is the same as to produce it. The reverse of the dictum is true; if God did not say it, it never would have showed up (Heb. 1:3, 11:3). “Let there be light.” This is not “sunlight.” In Psalm 74:16, this light is something over and above “sunlight.” This is the light of God Himself; it contains no such impurities as “sunspots,” photospheres, corona (pearly gray layer), etc. This “light” would black out the sun in one ray, and to press this truth home on the heart of the unregenerate sinner, God has set His seal for a witness in heaven (Psa. 19:1–4). Upon examining the nonluminous “Bay Nebula” northward, astronomers have found a great hole rent in the sky through which comes a light so bright, that suns such as ours appear on it like flyspecks on a curtain. (Although the Bikini blast could produce a light bright enough to blind a man two miles away with his back turned to it, the “light” of Genesis 1:3–4 would make this man-made flashlight look like a tar vat exploding.) 1:4 “And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.” “And God saw the light, that it was good.” The expression “it was good” is found concurrent with every act of creation in Genesis 1, except verse 8, where the firmament is created. This omission is ominous, and the believer should not fail to find out the reason for the omission. “And God divided.” The expression is richly suggestive of God’s nature. He is a divider, rarely a joiner. We find God joining Adam and Eve (Gen. 2:24) and joining the believer to Himself in “one body” (Eph. 2–3) and believers with each other (1 Cor. 1:10), but the Scriptures in both Testaments

reveal God as the God of separation, not integration (study carefully: Deut. 32:7, 8; Lev. 11; Gen. 11; 2 Cor. 5:14–17; and Matt. 13:40–41). This much despised “duality” or “absolutism” or “dogmatic truth” is quite characteristic of divine revelation. It would seem as though the Creator were especially interested in upsetting the trend of “modern thought.” 1:5 “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.” Notice the capital “D” in “Day” in the AV 1611 text. This clearly sets this “Day” off as being more than a twenty-four hour period of time. The evenings and mornings which follow are said to be “days,” but they are listed as days, with a small “d.” A “Day,” in the Scripture, not only refers to a twenty-four hour period of time but also to a period of 1,000 years (2 Pet. 3:8). To make sure that Stier, Harnack, Hollman, Holtzman, Neander, Olhausen, Shedd, Schliermacher, Theodoret, Bengel, and Lightfoot do not confuse this 1,000 year period for “an indefinite period of time,” the Holy Spirit writes out the words “One Thousand” six times in Revelation 20:1–7 so that the commentators listed may know that it means a thousand. (They still miss it, but after all, there are some people who couldn’t hit a bunch of bananas with a bass fiddle.) A “Day” can also mean a dispensation, in which God deals with someone (note Heb. 3:15 and 2 Cor. 6:2). A “Day” can also be used to mark off a time of judgment (see 2 Pet. 3:7; Luke 19:42–44). In plainer words, the Holy Spirit uses the word “Day” as it best suits Him. Men, in common language, use the same word with a variety of meanings, and it is a little thick-headed for a linguist to prohibit God from using the word in His own way. “The evening and the morning.” The expression is unique in that it indicates the Hebrew method of reckoning time: that is, from 6 P.M. to 6 P.M., instead of 6 A.M. to 6 A.M. This is an invaluable aid when the student is dealing with the problems of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. (See commentary on Matthew; Matt. 12:40). 1:6 “And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.” In God’s first three acts of recreation (1:4, 7, 10), He is careful to mix nothing. God is a divider (Luke 12:51; John 7:43). “Let there be a firmament.” The firmament, with the meaning inherent in the English “firm,” turns out to be “a beaten expanse” (Hebrew:rakiya), but the “waters” (alas!) turn out to be waters above the solar system! Knobel, Keil, Gesenius, and the majority of commentators here leave the truth of Scripture once and for all. They leave it permanently and never return. Before they have gone through ten verses of a Hebrew Bible, their Hebrew scholarship fails them completely, and they drop out of sight as reliable authorities for the seeker of truth. Here, the majority of commentators assume that “the ancient Hebrews” imagined a universe to be a “metallic vault, fixed on the water flood which surrounds the

earth, borne by the highest mountains, which were ‘pillars’ to sustain it.” To protect the Bible account from being an outrageous burlesque of truth, the modern Conservatives, Fundamentalists (including the Scofield Board of Editors), and Catholics apologize to science (1 Tim. 6:20) and insist that the Holy Spirit is not able to speak in scientific terms but must use the “imagery of metaphor in poetical description.” Scofield bows lamely out with the theory that the “waters above the heavens” are “vapor” (i.e., clouds). So with one consent the heretic, believer, infidel, Jew, Catholic, Protestant, atheist, Fundamentalist, and Conservative “throw in the towel” and turn the Bible over to science and philosophy for their authoritative corrections. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the greatest Bible scholars who ever lived were converted to the Devil’s viewpoint before they got to verse 8 in the AV 1611 text. Faced with an impossible exposition in view of the “findings of modern science” (that is the Madison Avenue cliché), the commentators (et al.) race out, cash in, and go home to lunch to let the Bible fend for itself. This it is quite able to do. 1. Vapors are never the “waters above the heavens” (see Psa. 148:8). 2. “Waters above the heavens” are not above heaven (singular) but are above the HEAVENS (plural). (Note the plural in Gen. 2:1; Psa. 148:4.) 3. The firmament between the “waters” contains the sun, moon, and stars! How then could it be the space between the ocean and the “clouds” (Gen. 1:14–19)? 4. God’s throne is on the “face of the deep” (Job 26:7–13, 38:30), and the top of this “deep is frozen” (see references under 1:2). If water is above the HEAVENS (plural), would it not have to be above the throne of God? If there are three heavens (see notes on Gen. 1:1), then “HEAVENS” would have to be at least a reference to the first two! The rebuttal to this evidence is simply the defection of the entire body of Christian “scholarship” to a pro-scientific position where they will escape ridicule. Having dropped the key to revelation in the first chapter of the book which God gave them, the Lord is no longer interested in revealing anything to modern “scholarship,” whether it be conservative or liberal. Both groups took the side of “science” against the infallible word, and both groups did it with clear knowledge of the warning in 1 Timothy 6:20. (You will find the new Bibles are very careful to change this verse so their “partner in crime” cannot be detected.) Thus, the AV 1611 gets off to a flying start. It orders its statements and words so that six verses after it begins, it eliminates from the field of interpretation 200 commentators (the best), 500 Hebrew scholars, the College of Cardinals, the faculty members of 2000 universities, and about 40,000 preachers who preached in three centuries. All of these men were afraid of the darts of ridicule which would be hurled by “scientists,” and none of them had the faith or the backbone to accept the text as it stood. Since this work is a “Bible Believer’s Commentary,” we shall accept the findings of the Holy Spirit first and consider the theoretical guesswork of “science” secondly. Where science lines itself up with the word of God, we will tolerate its pronouncements, and where it does not we will treat it with the same contempt with which it treats Genesis 1. 1. Satan is in a body of water (Job 41:31–32). 2. This body of water is a “sea” (Job 41:31). 3. Christ comes through this “sea” at the Advent (Hab. 3:8–10; 2 Sam. 22:8–17). 4. This “sea” disappears after the explosion of “heaven and earth” (Rev. 20:11, 21:1–2). 5. Jesus comes down through this water to get to earth (Matt. 12:40; John 2). 6. This is the symbology of John the Baptist’s ministry (Matt. 3).

7. Christians go up through it at the Rapture. 8. This is typified by the Exodus through the Red “Sea” (Exod. 12–15). 9. This sea was colorless; it is now RED (Heb. 8:2, 5; 9:7–10, 12, 20–22, 24). 10. It became dyed through a transaction which involved a universal eternal fluid (Acts 20:28; Heb. 9:14). 11. This watery separation from God puts all sinners “under the wrath of God” in type (Jer. 5:22; Psa. 88:7, 18:16, 66:12, 69:14, 124:4). 12. It enables the sinner who accepts a substitute “receiver of God’s wrath” to become part of the substitute’s body and flesh (Eph. 5). 13. This “sea” has opened twice in the past and will open twice in the future. 14. These openings are typified by the crossings of Moses, Joshua, Elijah, and Elisha (Exod. 14, Josh. 2–4, 2 Kings 2). 15. Men under this water are likened to “fish” (Ecc. 9:12; Hab. 1:14). 16. Hence, the first four disciples called to minister are commercial fishermen (Matt. 4:19; Mark 1:17). 17. Where man has rejected the truth of this revelation, Paul prays that he will understand it (Eph. 3:18–19). (And notice that the verse says nothing about comprehending the “love of Christ,” as you have heard it preached since Chrysostom, A.D. 450.) 18. The truth is preserved in Christian hymnology (unwittingly) by various writers—“Crossing the bar,” “On Jordan’s stormy banks I stand,” “I won’t have to cross Jordan alone,” “Echo back ye ocean waves,” “We shall sing on that beautiful shore,” “While the nearer waters roll,” “Pilot me, over life’s tempestous sea,” “Amid the flood of mortal ills prevailing” (note in the last case, Martin Luther aborted the verse, Psa. 29:10, 24:2, so it would not have to be taken literally), “Unknown waves around me roll,” “I’ll sail the wide seas no more,” etc. 19. Twice in 3,000 years, the earth has been submerged under literal water (see 1:2 and 7:1–15) to enforce the scientific truth that the solar system, geographically, is under a body of water that is at least 100,000,000,000 times larger than the Atlantic and Pacific combined. The answer to this mass of evidence, intra- and extra-Biblical is simply, “The writers are using figurative expressions which are highly metaphorical.” But this is the method of the apostate Greek scholarship of Alexandria, Egypt, perfected by Origen (A.D. 184–254), who worshipped science and philosophy. The Bible cut Origen’s water off in Colossians 2 and 1 Timothy 6 before he had the syrup taken out of his baby formula. 1:8 “And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.” The expression “And God saw that it was good” is not found on this day of creation. The reason for the omission is apparent only if the reader grasps the truth of Ephesians 6:10–13, Isaiah 24:21, and Job 41:31–32. The second heaven, in which we find the solar systems, galaxies, nebula, star clusters, and constellations, also contains the demoniac powers, fallen angels, and Satan himself. This is the domain of the “monsters” about which the ancient “scientists” of Columbus’ day worried! Having proved that they did not inhabit the waters of the Pacific and the Atlantic, the idiots eliminated them from reality altogether, entirely overlooking the fact that the “sea” of Job 41:31–32 was not the Pacific or the Atlantic! Man now goes confidently and blithely up into the wrong domain (Psa. 115:16) to contact “the god of this world.” The “sea monster” of Job 41 (“leviathan”), identified in

Isaiah 27 and Revelation 12:8,9 (see commentary on Revelation), is in a body of water. Job 41:31– 32 is plainly a reference to the “deep” of Genesis 1:2. This “leviathan” cannot possibly be a whale or crocodile or elephant or whirlpool or anything that the commentators label him in an effort to conceal him, for this “leviathan” has more than one head! The obvious English sentence which unravels the whole mystery is Psalm 74:14. How a Hebrew scholar (Gesenius, Delitzsch, Kalisch, Knobel, Kregel, DeRossi, Kennicott, or any of them!) could think he was qualified to comment on Scripture, while saying that Leviathan was a crocodile, is just too much! This “leviathan” is said to be a “dragon” and a “serpent” with seven heads, and he has such wisdom that he can (without trying) eliminate the first 5,000 Bible scholars which come his way, before they have read six verses of Scripture written in eighth grade English. (Although “everything was good” in Gen. 1:31, the context of Gen. 1:31 is referring to the human and animal creation on earth.) 1:9 “And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.” The “one place” is “maqom.” It means “one bed,” indicating that the scooped out ocean beds are all connected so that somewhere they join. Notice further that the writer has ceased to describe creative acts outside the solar system. The “waters” which now show up are not waters “above and below” the firmament of the starry heavens (see comments on 1:6–8), but are waters above and below a firmament in which birds fly (see 1:20–23). This is the firmament which the Scofield board of Editors, Larkin, Pember, DeHaan, Epps, McClain, and all the conservatives mistook for the firmament of 1:6–8. The mistake, however, was intentional. They did not wish to “offend the brethren” who set great stock on “the findings of science.” The “seas” of Genesis 1:9–10 are in no way similar to the “sea” of Genesis 1:6–8, which was called “the great deep” in Genesis 1:2. (Notice how Psa. 148:3–8 preserves this order exactly beginning with God Himself and then working down through the third heaven to the second, and from the second to the first, and then to earth itself.) 1:11 “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.” Three things stand out in the passage, and all three of them contradict the radical theories of Darwin, derived from William Paley (1734–1805), Jean Baptiste LaMarck (1744–1829), Robert Chambers (1844), and Lyell (1797–1875). The first point is that the action of vegetable creation takes place in a twenty-four hour period. No longer is the word “day” used, but “evening and morning,” indicating a twenty-four hour period. To make the “day” of Genesis 1:8, 13 mean “a 1,000 year period of time” (see remarks under 1:5) would be ridiculous, for it would require that vegetation grow on earth for a thousand years without any sunlight! (There is no sun until verses 15 and 16—see comments.)

The second point made is that the vegetation does not “evolve from some cooling mass slung out from the sun,” nor is it conceived by the reaction of a planetesimal theory, nebular hypothesis, or tidal theory. The vegetation sprouts by the divine commandment of a living God, and this is the view adopted by Jesus Christ (Mark 13:19)—even if some of His followers fancy that they know more about it than He does! When men try to create vegetable matter themselves, they naturally suppose that “creation” must be evolved by “spontaneous generation,” cosmic “panspermia,” cell models, colloids, enzymes, and “viruses”; but this is simply man trying to give God credit for being almost as smart as man (see Rom. 1). The creation of Genesis 1:12 obeys the commandment of God in 1:11 and obeys immediately. In Ramm’s The Christian [?] View of Science and Scripture, the gullible devotee of Alexandrian tradition is given a new “high sounding word” to mouth—“progressive creationism” (p. 256). This “progressive creationism” (like “progressive education” and “progressive Jazz”) is a hodgepodge of contradictions jammed together to produce a mongrel doctrine of creation. To Bernard Ramm (as to Darwin), Genesis 1 is a record of “Successive acts...through various stages [!]” (p. 271). This “progressive creationism” (called formerly “Theistic Evolution”) is the standard teaching of Zahn, Mivart, and Dorlodot (Roman Catholic theologians). To be as blunt and as pointed about the matter as possible, the term (or both terms) is an unnecessary compromise with evolutionists who never knew about what they were talking from Jean Astruc (1684–1706) to Einstein (1879–1955). The nebulous ghost of “progressive creationism” is no more scientific than “Theistic Evolution.” Why not “immediate development”? (Ain’t that a dilly.) “Progressive creationism” is just one more etymological abortion in a host of propaganda terms, such as “imperialism” for anti-Communism, “Catholicism” for religious fascism, “ecumenicism” for compromise, “cooperation” for surrender of liberties, “integration” for race-mixing, “neo-orthodoxy” for whitewashed infidelity, “chronic alcoholic” for drunkard, “transient” for bum, “divine conception” for unbelief in the Virgin Birth, “total commitment” for a born-again experience, “giving your life to Christ,” instead of being washed in the blood, “pastoral psychology” for rejecting the Scripture, and “religious emphasis week” for a revival meeting. And if there be any other thing contrary to sound doctrine, it may be briefly stated as “whenever and wherever science, education, religion, TV, and American magazines reject the AV 1611, reject them.” The third point driven home in the text is that the creation responds to the commandment by reproducing “after his kind” (see the definitive work by Byron Nelson, Augsburg, 1952). A fairly intelligent reader can learn from this that dandelions do not produce petunias, and nasturtiums do not produce roses, potatoes do not bring forth oranges, apples do not bear bananas, and wheat does not (under normal conditions) reproduce watermelons. Hybrids can be produced by cross-pollinization, but Burbank (1849–1926) long ago proved that “selective breeding of a pure strain” can only be had where there is segregation. This is a basic law of nature known to every breeder of dogs and cattle in the world; it is a law that is unknown and undiscovered by the NAACP, the Supreme Court, the priests of Rome, and Charles Darwin. Citron planted too near to a melon patch will color the melons citron yellow. Bantam corn will taste like No. 2 hybrid if planted too near to “field corn.” Where the selection is left to man, hybrids and mutations can be produced, which are inferior to pure products; but where God works in creation, seed produces “after its kind.” To those readers who have been oppressed in high school and college by the inane fatuities of evolutionists, this commentary highly recommends the work by Henry Morris, The Bible and Modern Science (Moody Press, 1951) and the work by Wilbur Smith, Therefore Stand (Wilde Co., Boston, 1950).

Moffat (in keeping with the best Alexandrian scholarship) translates “FRUIT of every kind” to avoid the intimation that Darwin and company were crazy (which they were). “Fruit of every kind” is plainly the doctrinal statement of a theological position; it has nothing to do with translation. The Hebrew, “Laminah,” does not allow Moffatt’s fabrication by any stretch of the roots of the words. “Lamedh” and “Min,” in Hebrew, are inseparable prepositions which can mean “to and for” or “from and than”; but “EVERY” in Hebrew is Col (or Kol), and the word does not appear in the text or anywhere near it. Moffatt’s “of every kind” is quite typical of the work done by the ASV (1901) and the RSV (1952) translating committees; it is a deliberate, intentional attempt to force the Bible to adopt the archaic and outmoded Darwinian theory in place of its own scientific and factual account. This is not scholarship; it is false indoctrination. 1:14 “And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.” The passage deals with the creation of the planetary heavens, constellations, galaxies, nebulae, and asteroids, etc. It naturally draws tremendous antipathy from superstitious astronomers and geologists raised on the traditional Darwinian “party line.” In vain will the Bible believer examine the Centrifugal Force Hypothesis, the LaPlace Theory, the Encounter Hypothesis, the Collision Hypothesis, the Double Encounter Hypothesis, the Turbulence Hypothesis, the Dust Cloud Pipe Dream, or the Nebular Hypothesis for a useful or sensible explanation for the present “state of things.” All of these hypotheses are merely polite suggestions that one should abandon the Genesis account. They all have one thing in common. They all assume (and that is the proper word for it!) that something came from nothing, by itself, at a period of between 4,000,000,000 to 400,000,000,000,000,000 years ago (give or take a few hundred million; science is very exact!). We are to assume, with these theorists, that the present state of things—regular orbits, precision movements of groups, balance of axes and motion—was brought about by “self-generation” from a shapeless mass of cosmic something or other. What faith it would take to believe in such nonsense! In the Bible, God “creates the heaven and earth” and then recreates it in twenty-four hour periods, recreating the sun after the earth is recreated! This reversal of science fiction brings up a scream of protest from the scientists; and the roar is so deafening that, alas, Larkin and Scofield get drawn off with Barth, Brunner, Tillich, Ramm, and other unstable souls! What? The earth here before the sun? What? Is this a resurrection of the issue which Galileo (1564–1652) is supposed to have settled? I thought we had proved that the sun was the center of everything here? Isn’t that what the Baal worshipers thought (2000–500 B.C.)? Shouldn’t we pay more attention to Baal’s birthday (X-mass) than to the “birth of a soul”? Herr Doctor, what do you mean by saying the earth was here first! Why that would put the emphasis on man’s relationship to God! We want to get the relationship back to the physical universe (the sun) being the author and creator of life! Larkin and Scofield quickly join the sun worshipers and run around frantically in Genesis 1 trying to find a way to have the sun already there before it shows up. “It was concealed by the vaporous

atmosphere of the earth.” “There was an ice canopy that shielded it.” “It could not penetrate the darkness till the third day.” “It was there, but you just couldn’t see it,” etc. (Anything except believe the text!) Now, the “proofs” for the gradual development of vegetation on a gradually cooling earth, which was slung out of a burning gaseous mass from a gradually “becoming” dust cloud in a gradually developing universe, are as follows: 1. Fossils in higher layers of rocks show the appearance of “new forms” which are not found in lower layers. 2. The rate of formation of sedimentary rock from layers of soil particles (produced by erosion) helps to determine the age of the earth. 3. Uranium changes to lead at a certain rate, and this can be used in determining the age of the rock layers. 4. Estimating the rate by which river water dissolves salts from rocks and soil, and calculating the existing salt content of the ocean, can determine an approximate age. 5. In 200,000,000 years, molecules of hydrogen and helium have been dissipating at a certain rate (10 percent to one-tenth of 1 percent) of the sun’s mass, thus enabling us to figure backwards to its origin. Before examining the “foolishness of this world” (1 Cor. 1–2), the believer had better face two facts squarely. Once these facts are faced, “scientific investigation” ceases forever to be a terror to the Bible text. Rather, science assumes its proper posture—that of a small boy coming to revelation with a lot of silly questions, which revelation sometimes answers and sometimes does not, depending upon the Author of revelation. 1. All theories on “origins” are based on a geochronology which refuses the facts of history. All theories, including those erected on the fruitless and ineffectual “Libby Carbon 14” experiment, are based on the lying assumption (and that is the proper word) that the flood of Genesis 6–9 was not a universal flood and, therefore, the atmospheric conditions preceding the flood were uniform and substantially the same as those that exist today. The phenomenon of Carbon 14 is caused by cosmic bombardment which exists today but may not have existed before the flood or before Genesis 1:2. Carbon 14 experiments, even in a “controlled situation,” allow an error of 180 years in 3,000 years (measurements on the hull of a Viking ship) and would allow an error of 24,000,000,000 years in computing the origin of the solar system. 2. The sun has been losing about 4,600,000 tons of mass per second since astronomers began to observe it. If one computes backwards (and that is how all geochronological systems are arrived at), he would have to add over 4,000,000 tons of mass per second to the sun to estimate its origin. By computing in this fashion and adopting the haphazard methods of “modern” science, the sun (400,000,000 years before the origin of the earth) would have had to have been big enough to fill half of the universe. Did you know that 900,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons of mass added to a star that is already 332,000 times the mass of the earth makes a pretty fair sized “sun”? It would be reasonable to suppose that all twelve constellations were slung out of such a mass, as to suppose the earth was. Somewhere down the line, the “intensive, extensive, laborious, detailed, scientific investigators” have forgotten how to add and multiply. They have never even tested the “Bible hypothesis” of Creation. The fossil record (see proof 1) turns out to be more of a “spoof” than a “proof.” Agassiz, Pictet, Sedgwick, Simpson (1960), and Rhodes (1962) all bear testimony to the fact that most “taxa” appear

abruptly; whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, and major groups of organisms appear with “Melchisedechian abruptness” without any obvious ancestors. The modern evolutionists have all but given up trying to prove “transmutation of species” from the fossil evidence, as all the important “missing links” are still missing. Zeuner (1952), Schindewolf (1950), and Brough (1958), in the footsteps of Bernard Ramm’s “progressive creationism,” have now devised a remarkable innovation to Darwin which describes families of animals as occurring in “explosive bursts” or explosive “surges” which produce big leaps in evolution! All this claptrap and high sounding nonsense should impress the believer with one fact generally speaking: science doesn’t know what it is doing about nine-tenths of the time. “Upon a rock yet uncreate, amid a chaos incohate, an uncreated being sate: Beneath him rock, above him cloud (and the cloud was rock and the rock was cloud!) The rock then growing soft and warm, the cloud began to take a form: a form chaotic, vast and vague, which issued in the cosmic egg! Then the being uncreate, on the egg did incubate, and thus became the incubator, and of the egg did allegate: and thus became the alligator! And the incubator was potentate— But the alligator was potentator!” According to Prof. George Gaylord Simpson, Dr. Merson Davies, and Prof. Daniel I. Axelrod, the Pre-cambrian period (an arbitrary designation invented by the Bible rejectors themselves) shows no evidence of the highly developed forms of fossils which appear in the next stratum (i.e., the Cambrian period). The reason this fossil record is so damaging to the theory of Darwin is that the fossils of the Cambrian period start with the forms of life which scientists consider essential to their substitute plan of salvation (i.e., man saves himself). The missing fossils are what we call “diversified, multicellular marine invertebrates.” (This is a scholarly way of saying “fishes without backbones.”) The geological hocus pocus presented in the average university today (by a stoned professor who is rocking his students to sleep!) is based largely on the fossil record. But the fossil record is based largely on the geologic record. This is a kind of adult “leapfrog.” “We know this fossil is 4,000,000 years old because of the layer of rocks in which we found it!” Well how do you know the layer of rock is that old? “Oh, easy, look at the fossils we found in it!” But enough is enough. When a Seventh-day Adventist (George McCready Price) began to publish a host of articles (“The New Geology”) supporting a Biblical theory of creation and geologic development, he was refuted on the grounds that he “didn’t understand” because he had not had “the proper training.” But this lame alibi can be analyzed by any preacher, politician, or army officer at once. It is the equivalent of saying, “Although I cannot prove that you are wrong, nevertheless, since you are not one of us, trained by us, taught what we believe from the sources in which we were taught, you couldn’t possibly know what you’re talking about.” This is the priest’s standard answer to the theology of Martin Luther, even though Luther was trained by them, from the sources by which they were trained. This is the Southern Baptists’ answer to the preachers of Independent Baptist Churches, and it is the Pharisees’ frame of mind towards Jesus Christ in John 7:15. (It will be the attitude of Bible scholars toward this set of commentaries.) Price began with the assumption (and that is the proper word for it) that the Bible was right.

Kulp, Lyell, Linton, Miller, and Schuchert began with the assumption (and that is the proper word) that the Bible was wrong. This makes for two geologies, two theories of creations, two lines of thoughts, two absolute dualisms. The “neutral” approach of science to the Bible (supposedly an unbiased approach) is itself an absolute opposite on the end of a duality. The two geologies and two lines of thought end where the Bible ends: New Jerusalem and a Lake of Fire (Rev. 20; John 3:36; 1 John 5:10–13). God is an extremist. To sum up the activities of this fourth day, one may say that the Christian can disqualify accredited geologists for their lack of intelligence on the same grounds with which they disqualify the Christian for his lack of intelligence. Since the Bible-rejecting “neutralists” insist that Price’s Biblical theory is wrong on the grounds that he is “incompetent,” “inexperienced,” “unrecognized,” and “lacking credentials,” the Bible believer can dump 95 percent of the astronomers’ and geologists’ findings in the same category, for they have had no Bible training and do not know the difference between Pelagianism and Calvinism. Since they are inexperienced in the word of truth, and since they lack “accreditation” by the Holy Spirit, what they have to offer in the way of Darwinian reconstruction amounts to very little indeed. “He made the stars also.” The postscript is beautiful. “He made the stars also.” As a sort of finishing embellishment, God threw in enough galaxies to sidetrack the scientists for the next 5,000 years. “Also,” did you notice that postscript? Nothing is too hard for our God (Gen. 18:14), and a little matter of the creation of a few billion suns would not take up an appreciable amount of time. God not only made them in twenty-four hours, but He named them (Psa.147:4). Hipparchus (in Egypt) thought that he had done this since he had charted 1,022, and Ptolemy (100–180 A.D.), a few years later, could only find four more. With his catalog of stars, the Darwinian monkey men of the first few centuries thought they had caught up with Psalm 147:4. Scientists of Ptolemy’s day ridiculed Jeremiah 33:22, exactly as Kepler ridiculed Genesis 1:16. The Bible believers of Ptolemy’s day treated him exactly as they should have treated Kepler. They disqualified him on the grounds of ignorance. All Bible-rejecting scientists are agnostic (see Acts 17:22–23). Present-day astronomers are still trying to catch up with the postscript of Gen. 1:16, and they have about run out of names (even to identify landmarks on the moon!). One would think (to look at a moon map) that the only language God knew was Greek or Latin. Why call it “Mare Tranquillitatis,” “Mare Serenitatis,” “Mare Nubium,” “Tycho,” “Clavius,” “Apennine Mountains,” “Leibnitz,” “Aristarchus,” and “Alphonsus” when you could call it “Pig alley,” “Sand Bottom,” “Rock Haven,” “Hell’s Halfacre,” “Rocky Bottom,” “Pock Face,” “Ash Heap,” or “Skunk Hollow”? Do you see how those last names detract from the prestige of fallen man? Why “ascend” into heaven in a rocket called “Boob Tube” when you can call it “Apollos”? (See commentary on Revelation, Rev. 9, “son of Perdition,” Apollyon, etc.) 1:17 “And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.” The divine purpose for the setting of the “lights” is said to be for “signs, seasons, days, and years and to give light” (see vss. 14–15). Notice how careful the Holy Spirit is to tell you that the sun and the moon are not for habitation. Man’s government, by divine fiat, extends only to the height of the eagle’s flight (Gen. 1:26; Psa. 115:16). Further extension is called “progress” (see comments on Gen. 3:17–19) by unregenerate man; it is called “intrusion” or “out of bounds” (see comments on Gen.

10:10–14) by God. Granted that man will get to the moon and get back, but he will not populate it before the Rapture. Now, the sun rules the day, and the moon rules the night. This opens a great truth in dispensationalism which we will run across many times in the Scriptures between Genesis and Revelation. 1. God moves by sevens (see Lev. 23 and 25). 2. The earth is therefore destined to be here for 7,000 years, with the last period of 1,000 years as a period of rest (Rev. 20:1–6). 3. The moon is said to be a type of Christ’s body, the church (Song of Sol. 6:10), and is always spoken of as female (cf. Eph. 5 with Gen. 2 and 2 Cor. 11:1–4). 4. The sun is everywhere spoken of as a “Him,” and the references are to a “Bridegroom” who is Christ (see Mal. 4:2; Psa. 19:4–5; Matt. 13:43). 5. With a 7,000-year length of tenure, and the last 1,000 year period “a Sabbath” (Rev. 20:1–6), the remaining 6,000 years of this planet clearly fall into two divisions: 4000 B.C. and A.D. 2000. 6. The second of these periods (A.D. 33 to A.D. 2000) is spoken of in the Bible as “NIGHT” (see 1 Thess. 5:1–5). 7. The last period of 1,000 years (the Millennial Sabbath) is always spoken of as “sunrise in the morning.” (See Mal. 4:1–4; Matt. 13:43, etc.) This explains why the Christian reflects the light of Christ during the night—this age. It explains why the Christian has no light of his own, but only the “Light of the World,” and why Jesus said, “Ye are the light” and at the same time “I am the light” (Matt. 5:14; John 9:5). This explains why the world is so anxious to conquer the moon, as the moon is the Church in typology, the Virgin Bride of Jesus Christ (see 2 Cor. 11:1–4). It further explains why the sun appears red, upon rising and setting (oh, yes, the dust cloud again!), picturing Christ’s death at Calvary and His Second Advent with garments “dipped in blood” (see commentary on Revelation—Rev. 14:20). It further explains why the earth revolves against the sun and why the SUN (“Son”) travels against the world. It further explains why east to west is the proper direction (see comments on Gen. 3:24), and it explains why any heathen, anywhere in the world (Psa. 19:1–8), knows enough about an AV 1611 Bible to get converted, in spite of science, education, and religion. The primary function of the sun and moon (1:18) was to “divide the light from the darkness.” (Cf. the first division between light and darkness in Genesis 1:3–4, and observe how the writer has moved from the third heaven in verses 1–4, down into the solar system in verses 17 and 18.) Since the sun and the moon are for purposes of division, not unity, the Bible again ruins itself forever in the eyes of unsaved mankind, for the highest ideal that any religious leader can have on this earth (or any political leader for that matter) is to “get everybody together in one big happy family” (see comments on Gen. 11:1–3). Jesus Christ was the greatest divider of men who ever lived and aside from uniting enemies of the word (see Luke 23:1, 12) and uniting “born-again” believers in His Body (1 Cor. 12:13–25), the Bible speaks of no “united ecumenical programs” of any kind. “Modern man” desires to “help” Jesus get His prayer answered (in John 17:21) by mixing Negroes, Whites, Republicans, Spaniards, hippies, Methodists, Judo experts, Italians, Buddhists, boy scouts, Democrats, Hindus, surfers, Chinese, popes, mechanics, Jews, bullfighters, kindergarten teachers, GMAC executives, head hunters, Russians, chefs, junkies, Socialists, Christians, cartoonists, deep sea divers, models, and Catholics into one indiscriminate magpie nest, and thereby prove something or other. But the sun divides the day from the night, and the moon (a type of the Body of Christ) gives light in the dark . A

Christian who isn’t separated from darkness and putting light on it is not a Christian by Bible definition (see Eph. 5:7–17; Col. 1:13; 1 Thess. 5:1–6). 1:19 “And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.” Dispensationally, this would end the 4,000 year period before the first coming of Jesus Christ. As “the Sun of righteousness” (Mal. 4), He appears the first time to Israel like sunlight on the crags and chasms of the Grand Canyon; for when He comes the first time, Israel is diseased, without a prophet or an honest interpreter of Scripture, and they had been in that condition for 400 years. They were under Roman domination, led by “blind leaders of the blind.” (See commentary on Matthew, on the similarities between the first and second comings—Matt. 1–2.) 1:20 “And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.” “Let the waters bring forth....” The first actual creation of animal life is from water, and henceforth, the “water birth” is always associated with the first birth in the flesh. Observe how both Testaments speak of this first birth as a “water birth”—a physical thing; not once is it ever connected with the spiritual rite of baptism (ordinance or “sacrament” or anything you want to call it). (Cf. Isa. 48:1, 23:4; Prov. 5:15–18.) Nicodemus, being several hundred years ahead of the sacramentalist Augustine (354–430) and the “water dog” Alexander Campbell (1805), clearly understood the Genesis meaning of “water.” Not once in his questioning (John 3:4) does Nicodemus ever confuse WATER BAPTISM with BIRTH, and not once does Jesus Christ in answering him ever mention “BAPTISM” (see John 3:5). Both men understood about what they were talking, and no amount of distortion by Catholic or Campbellite will ever change the God-breathed words of divine authority. John 3:3–5 is the proof text of the Roman communion to prove that all “baptized” (i.e., sprinkled) Catholics are “Christians.” (See cross references in the Amplified Version, which adopts the same heathen sacramental system.) The first life on this earth is brought forth by a “WATER BIRTH,” and this water birth is a physical birth, not a spiritual one. It pictures the natural condition of the unregenerate sinner who must be “BORN AGAIN” (see John 3:3–7). Observe the marvelous placement of the word “life!” (This is the first time the word has occurred in Scripture, and all “first mentions” should be marked and considered prayerfully.) LIFE doesn’t show up till after the fourth day. It is absolutely essential that the believer grasp this, for it confirms beyond the wildest shadow of a doubt the premillennial system of Bible interpretation. “He thathath the Son hath life” (1 John 5:12); “He that believeth on the Son hath...life” (John 3:36); “The gift of God is eternal life” (Rom. 6:23). Up to here, Jesus Christ is only pictured as the sun— the Author of physical light and physical life on this planet. But bless the Lord, Oh my soul! In verse

20, on the FIFTH day (see “death of Adam” in Gen. 5:5), He comes to die for my sins and give me a life that will not expire until God Himself is buried (A.D. 1880, Nietzsche; A.D. 1969 Altizer)! By the “thousand year-day” setup of Genesis 1:3–4, Archbishop Ussher’s chronology is confirmed, and no real LIFE can show up on this earth until 4,000 (four days) years after the recreation of Genesis 1:3–27! The fowls are mentioned as simultaneous creations with the sea animals. Fowls and fish are the separate dish for gourmets, in distinction from “meat.” Both fowl and fish lay eggs instead of giving birth to cubs, colts, whelps, babies, litters, etc. Both have tails which are used in locomotion, and both have migratory habits which take them thousands of miles every year. They are so closely related that deluded evolutionists have been known to state that “the first bird crept out of an altered reptile egg” (Schindewolf, 1950). This is an interesting theory. It poses more problems than it answers—as does all scientific investigation into any field. How does one get feathers from scales when the feathers would have to come from a cold-blooded animal who doesn’t have warm blood— which birds have! Or to press the thing all the way (as some readers of this commentary will do in order to discredit it), is not “mother nature” wonderful to allow birds and fish to lay eggs instead of bearing their young? For as surely as science doesn’t know where it’s going or how to get there, the weight of a baby eagle would “ground” its mother in flight, and the poor female mullet would be sunk to the bottom where she could get no oxygen, for what mother could carry 500,000 babies during one pregnancy? (Locusts and grasshoppers are included with the turkeys, birds, and chickens as “fowl,” in Lev. 11:20–22.) “The open firmament of heaven” (vs. 20; see comments on Gen. 1:9–10). Fish become the basic animal food for mankind. This is the first LIFE mentioned, so it supplies the basic need for life—phosphorus. Anyone growing a garden knows the properties of seaweed and dead fish; they are superior to any fertilizer outside of human manure. Cod liver oil (and associated fish oils) can enter bone structure during human assimilation and are valuable for preventing arthritis. (This may explain why Americans are such an arthritic people, for they are not a “fish eating” people; they are a “hot dog and hamburger eating people.”) Broiled fish is the diet of the risen Saviour (Luke 24; John 21), and the nations who use it as a basic food diet (China and Japan) are not bothered with arthritis a great deal, even though the strain they put on the skeletal system is more than three times the strain placed on it by the average American. Fishes without scales and fins are considered to be unclean food (for Israel) under the Mosaic Law (Lev. 11), but there is nothing wrong with the sheephead, flounder, bream, drum, snapper, bass, crappie, mullet, mackerel, trout, salmon, pompano, bluefish, grouper, snook, bluegill, dolphin, herring, tuna, perch, cod, steel head, pike, and skipjack! Eat all you can get! 1:24 “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” Notice again the constant repetition of “after his kind.” This displays Darwin’s theory in the most ridiculous light possible, and it—along with Genesis 1:1—is one of the main reasons why educated Europeans and Americans “resent or reject” the AV 1611 text. The irrational theory that rats come from bats, and cats from hats, and mats from flats, and slats from gnats, is absolutely essential to

the theory that man is growing up from an orangutan. Any “unlike creation” (if it ever did take place) was either a “monstrosity” (see Java man, etc.) who was an exception to normal birth, or it was the deliberate attempt of man, acting mechanically, to interfere with the processes of nature. Left alone, nature produces after her kind; always has and always will. To comment further, there is a system of ordered laws in nature and the universe, which appear also in music and art (at least until about 1900!). The violation of these laws is man’s own doing (see Ecc. 7:29) as he attempts to recreate, in the image of his own depravity, a system or “way of life” equal to (or better than) God’s. This anarchy (Job 21:15) is seen clearly in modern painting, music, and literature and is vividly projected in theories of modern sociology. To be brief about it, man wants to prove that he comes from an animal so he can live like an animal and gain heaven by “survival of the fittest” (i.e., salvation by moral character and sacraments). To do this, man must prove that disorder and irrationality (and violation of natural laws) are not only permissible and advisable, but can be downright “artistic.” Hence, the twentieth century is a circus in which every attempt is made to force together dissimilar elements in the name of “unity.” Unity is what God accomplished in the creation, but He “divided” dissimilar elements to do it. Man cannot get unity by division, for this only brings about schisms, factions, sects, cults, and wars. So man attempts to imitate God’s creative powers by forcing a unity of dissimilar elements. In the twentieth century, from pope to politician (is there any difference?), all the believer hears is the dictum that unity is the supreme good, regardless of how it is brought about or regardless of the elements it embraces. This current religious conviction is the guiding hand in the paintings of Picasso, Miro, Kline, Kooning, and Pollock; the music of Copeland, Strauss, and Stravinsky; the “sensitivity exercises” of psychiatry; the politics of the National Council of Christian Churches; and the religious designs of the Vatican State. “After any kind” is man’s mind on the subject, and “after his kind” is God’s mind on the subject (Isa. 55:5–8). 1:26 “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Here we arrive at the classic passage on the direct creation of man. It is so objectionable to the Darwinians that Darwin’s ancestors (opossums?) have desired to rewrite Genesis 1–3 in the light of the marvelous monkey-man mind and force the inspired account into the mold of the imaginations of men who claim to be descended from monkeys and jellyfish. Without wasting too much time in refuting Darwin’s theory (i.e., bad guesswork), let us note hastily the “scientific objections” to the passage other than the outstanding objection: that a fallen race of sinners, degenerating backwards, is not too anxious to have the processes put down on a public record. The earliest man is supposed to have been Pithecanthropus, represented by the spurious “Java man” and the like spurious “Peking man.” These men supposedly came from a gradual evolution of Tarsius (Tarsiers), through the Hominoids and Great Apes (Proconsul, Paranthropus, Gibbon, Neanderthal, and eventually the Gorilla—see King Kong, the “Planet of the Apes,” Tarzan, etc.). This erudite, blue-blooded line of thoroughbreds eventually evolved into Pope Johns and Pope Pauls and Hemmingways and Steinbecks and various people who “survived the fittest,” etc. As it has been so

aptly put by another, “Once I was a tadpole when I began to begin, next I was a frog with my tail tucked in. Then I was a monkey in a banyan tree, and now I am a doctor with a Ph.D. Tadpole, frog, and monkey man, all glory to nothing for the planless plan!” Who would you thank if you did evolve? No one? (Then you are described in Rom. 1:21, and you’ve “had it” as the expression goes.) Driven from pillar to post trying to explain this ridiculous monkey business, the M.A.’s, Ph.D.’s, and D.D.’s have finally reached an impasse, via the following route. 1. Man triumphed over animals because of his intelligence. (Trouble: Neanderthal man [discovered 1856] had specimens whose brain capacity was 1600cc, which is far above the modern European size. Has modern man become more stupid since 70,000 B.C.?) 2. We made an error. The brain size has nothing to do with it. It was man’s “primitive traits” or “mental capacity to think.” Tools came first, then the brains gradually grew from using tools. (Trouble: For 100 years all evolutionists said that the brains came first and that they invented the tools! Somebody is not being very “scientific.”) 3. It is not the brain or the tools. The thing that proves that Neanderthal man was primitive is that in spite of his large brain he walked like an ape and had superhuman teeth. (Trouble: Australopithecus [discovered 1924, Johannesburg, South Africa] had a brain not much bigger than an ape [507.9cc against 498.3cc], but he is classified as subhuman by Hooten [1946] and other “scientists.” Why? Because although he walked like a man, which Neanderthal did not, and had human teeth, which Neanderthal did not, his brain was too small to be human!) But who is trying to kid whom? When a body of “scientists” reverse their opinions four times in 100 years on the “origins” of the human race and do the whole thing with the brass and gall of a man professing to be dealing with FACTS, who but a demented idiot (or Life magazine) would buy it? a. Neanderthal’s teeth can occur in modern types (see Senurik’s works, 1939). b. “Cro-Magnon man” is still shopping at the A&P in 1975 (see work by Boule and Vallois, Dryden Press, 1957). c. The two largest skull capacities ever measured had a capacity of 2,800cc. One of them was the skull of a U.S. Senator and the other was that of an IDIOT (checks!). (See Dr. Ashley Montagu, “Globe and Mail,” 1966, p. 20.) d. Apes and monkeys survived all the ape men! Anywhere in Africa can be found “modern man” and “ancient ape.” Why is it that the “missing link” could not survive the gap? The ape made it. Was he a higher form of life than the ape man? (You see, you didn’t get it all in college.) You see, “skullology” is not removed far from “skull-duggery,” and Christ was crucified in the Place of a Skull. The whole approach to man’s “origin” smacks of a Bible-rejecting sinner trying to rationalize his sins. Why would anyone think that ONE SKULL represented an extinct race of people? Did you ever think about that? There have been more than 40,000,000,000 knuckleheads (pigheads, blockheads, blackheads, etc.) who have bedded down in the soil since 4000 B.C., and why would any man in his right mind assume that ONE or even twenty skulls represented a standing population of a generation which scientists claim must have lived at least 8,000 years? Surely it wouldn’t be too hard to get two skulls that represented the same period of development. Why assign 8,000 years to one skull, 14,000 to another, and 10,000 to another? What are you trying to do? (The bonehead is trying to bridge several thousand years, which he invented, so he can prove his theory.)

1. There is no bloodline between animals and man to prove their kinship. (Tests conducted in 1902 by Nutall prove “conclusively” that the strongest agreement in blood types is between horses and whales, and then whales and bats. Bats, by the way [if you are not bats to start with], evidently come from tigers! Hereditary factors, incidentally, lie in GERM CELLS, not blood serum.) 2. Close similarity between men and animals extends only to the physical structures, and the “ontogeny” of man does not repeat that of animals. No human embryo goes through the “stages of the race” (when the “race” is connected to animals), for the breathing apparatus of a baby develops late, and his head develops early. That is not a description of amoeba, paramecium, or planaria! There is no similarity between the mental and spiritual structure of men and animals, and the lowest type man feels the necessity of “paying for his sins” and worshipping a Supreme Being, while the highest type animal would have no guilt feelings at all about killing a man and eating him. 3. “Vestigial organs” are about as foolproof as pipe organs or mouth organs. The “coccyx” supports muscles which control functions of the body during elimination; therefore, it is not useless. The appendix (as the tonsils) is a protective organ against early life infections, so it is not useless. The earlobes store blood for keeping the ears warm in cold weather. The pineal gland is useful for regulating metabolism in early life, and the “eye-folds” regulate the flow of tears. 4. “The Piltdown man” (Charles Dawson, 1912) turned out to be a hoax, and the famous Neanderthal man only had thirteen relatives (Dr. Meyer of Connecticut says he was a cossack killed in 1814!), and the bones were missing from most of them. The Heidelberg man (supposedly representing several hundred thousand people), if he had to show up for a summit conference, would present an amazing appearance, for the sole evidence that this man ever lived (let alone a hundred thousand ancestors) was a JAWBONE. (Of an ass? Judg. 15:15. There is an ass somewhere in this theory!) 5. “Java man” is part of a skull, a molar tooth, and a femur bone. And marvel of marvels, the bones were not found in the same place; they were dug up more than a year apart! Isn’t science wonderful? Was “Java man” hit with an atom bomb or what? What kind of monkey business is this where high school students and college students are supposed to take such subjects seriously and get graded on their work? Prof. H. F. Osborn and T. B. Bishop (of Victoria Institute) insisted that “Java man” and “Heidelberg man” were working for the AF of L and the CIO today, and their types are represented in thousands of skull shapes in the twentieth century. A conclusion is needed. The Bible believer arrives at a sound and reasonable conclusion by examining all the evidence on both sides. He comes to the conclusion that any theory as persistent as the evolutionary hypothesis, which has managed to survive 200 years of evidence produced to nullify it, has a supernatural power behind it. It is Darwin’s religious conviction, and the fanatics who propagate it have no more respect for fact or truth than a Spanish inquisitor engaged in a heretic hunt. Evolution is not a scientific theory. It is a religious conviction which a man must accept by faith in the face of ten thousand proofs that he is deluded (2 Thess. 2:1–12). People do not evolve; they die. Nature does not improve; man wastes it and carries on drives to try and preserve it. Nations do not come to understandings, except against a common enemy. (Think about that!) Communications and transportation do not evolve; they are worked upon. Inventions don’t evolve; they are created. The universe is not integrating; it is exploding outward. Your memory doesn’t evolve; it gets worse. What could have possessed Huxley and Darwin to set out to prove that all history, nature, the world, and the universe was a lie and that only they had the true solution? As John Roach Stratton has so aptly said, “Uranium and radium disintegrate; there is no ‘upward surge’ in chemical elements.” The big trees of centuries back show that there is degeneration in the kingdom

of vegetables. The “mammoth” and the “saber-tooth tiger” were not inferior to the modern elephant and tiger; they were superior (the line evidently degenerated). And nowhere is the downward slide of man more evident than in the matter of morals, spiritual discernment, fidelity to truth, ability to resist temptation, moral principles and standards, ethical practices, and trustworthiness. You, sir, are not “evolving.” If you are saved, then “He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6). Notice that He still has to do something! There is no automatic “evolution” there! But if you are not saved, you are in the same monkey suit Darwin was in (with the rest of the monkeys). You can monkey with evolution all your life, and they will still bury you when you’ve “evolved” to your highest state. And then the worms who survived “the survival of the fittest” will survive on your corpse, sir! Think about thatl The grand procession from Puddle to Paradise (to quote Dr. Shadduck) is shrouded with the great swelling words of the “intelligentsia”—“ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,” “genetic relationships,” “structural similarities,” and “acquired characteristics”; but through it all we see the bleek and grinning skull of an educated pagan who can produce nothing but more of himself. Apples produce apples. Infidels produce infidels. Only God can produce something new out of nothing (see Job 14:4 and 2 Cor. 5:17). “So God created man.” Animals don’t waste time writing on paper about “spontaneous generation” and “progressive creationism,” etc. (How about “direct indirection” or possibly “immediate graduality?”) No group of animals can be taught to sing four-part harmony, and you could preach all day to a field full of pigs, and you couldn’t get one of them to kneel and pray for forgiveness. “In his own image,” which explains why man has two faculties no animal has ever had, or ever will have: the faculty to speak, “In the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1) and the faculty to write, “Thy word is true from the beginning” (Psa. 119:160). Why would any true revelation of a true God come to man in any other way than in the form of words in a Book (see Psa. 119:89, 105, 130)? The smartest chimpanzee who ever lived cannot be made to talk when he is three years old. The dumbest child (as normal as the chimpanzee) cannot be kept from talking. Why? Wiener (1954) brushes the whole matter off (as blithely as Darwin brushed off the fossil record) by indicating that human beings have a “built-in mechanism.” There is the most excruciating scientific statement that ever “trod the boards.” For the benefit of other Evolutionists—Lysenko, Bateson, DeVries, Goldschmidt, Simpson, Driesch, Bergson, Mewawar, Zeuner, Brough, and others—may we humbly suggest what this “built-in mechanism” is? (Since none of you can locate it, test it, photograph it, measure it, define it, or put it together; it is the “image of God” which makes man [even in his fallen state] remember his past relationship with God and his duty to recover it or suffer the consequences; see notes on Gen. 3:15–19.) So much for (d)evolution. “In his own image.” The image is defined in Hebrews 1:1–3, Colossians 2, and 2 Corinthians 4:4 as being the Lord Jesus Christ. The image is not Calvin’s (or Berkhof’s) definition; the Scriptures define themselves. The image is a person, and Adam is so “Christ-like” that Jesus Christ is called “the second Adam “ (1 Cor. 15). The image is further defined in Genesis 2:7 where the exact nature of man’s composition is described. “In the image of God created he him” is proof that man has a body, soul, and spirit (see 1 Thess. 5:23). Man is a trichotomy, not a dichotomy (see Heb. 4:12). (Exactly how Calvin, Machen, Hodge, Dabney, Strong, and Berkhof got messed up on the “dichotomy” is hard to say.) 1. The body is a “Soma” (Gr.) or a “Basar” (Heb.). Christ is God’s body—the image of God.

2. The soul is “Psuche” (Gr.) or “Nephesh” (Heb.) and is a bodily shape within the man, which is stuck to his body until he is “born again.” 3. The spirit is the “Pneuma” (Gr.) or “Ruach” (Heb.), and everywhere in the Bible it is likened to wind or air (see Ezek. 37:9–14, John 3:6–8). The soul is joined to the body in the Old Testament (after the fall of Adam). Adam is created with his soul “loose” within his body, and if he was created with the soul stuck to the body, it would matter nothing, for his flesh (body) is not yet become the “flesh” of Romans 7:18, and the “flesh” of Colossians 2:11. The soul, body, and spirit bear exactly the same relationship to each other that an inner tube full of air bears to a tire. The soul has a bodily shape (Rev. 6:9–11), and it can burn in hell forever as a body (2 Cor. 12:1–4) without burning up. It fits the body as an inner tube fits a tire, being shaped exactly like the tire. Hence every “soul” is an individual creature with distinct properties of its own. The soul is the “ego” (Gr.), the “I am” of the individual. The studies in the Hebrew usage of the word yield no new truth at all. To this day scholars assume the word is interchangeable with “life” because it is occasionally applied to animals (Num. 31:28; Rev. 16:3), and those who do not believe this still swear by the theorizing of the Greek scholars at Alexandria (100–300) who thought (along with Plato, Aristotle, etc.) that the “soul” was a peanut-shaped object (tiny, little, small, bigger, or big) located somewhere within the body, possibly in the heart (left ventricle, according to Rosicrucianism and Theosophy) or the brain. This, also, is the standard Catholic conception. The soul, or “I am,” corresponds to God the Father in type, and it constitutes that part of the image which “No man hath seen, nor can see” (John 1:18; 1 Tim. 6:16). After the fall of man, this soul is stuck to a “body of death” (see remarks on Gen. 17:9–10), and consequently, the Old Testament writers use the word “soul” as synonymous with the body (see Gen. 19:20, 17:14; Lev. 22:6, 22:11, 23:30; Num. 31:28). This led Judge Rutherford and the Russellites to assume that the soul went (at death) to the same place the body went: i.e., the grave. This gross error in private interpretation has undoubtedly increased the population of hell by a “goodly number.” The soul leaves the body at death and departs long before any dirt is shoveled over anyone (see Gen. 50:3, 49:33, 35:18). The spirit, as wind or air, is common to all men (1 Cor. 2:11) and common to all animals (Ecc. 3:21). After the fall this is a dead spirit (see comments on Gen. 3:5–7), and it must be “born again” before the soul of its possessor can enter the presence of God permanently (see commentary on Matthew, Matt. 27:50–54). No Old Testament saints enter God’s presence permanently except one man—Enoch. And Enoch is the exception to the rule since he pictures a group of people who do not die and will never die! (See commentary on Revelation, Rev. 11:3–6). It is the spirit in a man that is “born again” when he is born again, not his “soul” (cf. John 3:6). The unconverted man in this age, then, is like a flat tire. He is a live body with a dead spirit (Eph. 2:1–6); whereas, the child of God is a live spirit within a dead body (see Rom. 6:2–10). The “body of flesh” is the body of flesh. Hyper-Ascetics had the Pauline slant on it but did not practice the Pauline way of overcoming it (see Rom. 6–7). Because of Monastic excesses, the Reformers—Calvin foremost—adopted the peculiar theology that the Adamic nature was to be “spiritualized” and that the flesh was to be spiritualized. This is the theology of Pantaenus, Philo, and Origen. The flesh in the New Testament is the flesh, and when Paul says, “in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing,” he meant, “in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing” (Rom. 7:18). The Calvinistic way around this is to say that “the flesh” (the skin itself) is all right, it is just that what works “in it” (Rom 7: 23) is no good. The answer to this absurd Christian infidelity lies in a good look at the tombstones of Moody, Torrey, Finney, Sunday, Carey, Goforth, Studd, Livingstone, etc. If there is nothing wrong with the skin (flesh), why does it then rot and worms eat it? And what is the need of getting a new

body of skin (flesh) if the one you are in is all right? (See 1 John 3:1–3; Phil. 3:20–21.) No, there is something radically wrong with these attempts to make the AV 1611 line up with the dead orthodox private interpretations of men who resent its authority. Man is a trichotomy. He is made “in the image of God” and therefore must have a soul; God’s soul is God the Father. He must have a spirit; God’s spirit is the Holy Ghost. And He must have a body; God’s body is the Lord Jesus Christ (see John 14:1–9). The outstanding difference between Adam and Jesus is that Adam is “born growed.” He is made out of red-brown dirt (Heb.—“Adam”) and is fashioned below ground (Psa. 139:15–16) out of the same fourteen chemical elements that are found in his body today. Christ is a “begotten Son” who existed as an “unborn” Son in eternity (see Isa. 9:6; Prov. 8:22–32). (Calvin had Servetus [1511–1553] burnt at the stake for refusing to believe that the “Begatting”—from Heb. 1:5—was before Gen. 1:1!) Both Adam and Jesus Christ are “Sons of God” (see Luke 3:38), but it would appear that Adam got his blood from the wrong place (see comments on Gen. 2:23). Jesus Christ’s blood was the blood of God Himself according to Acts 20:28. (As a consequence, you will find that nearly all the new “Bibles” alter Acts 20:28 any way they possibly can. The thought that God would have blood is just a little too much for the modern “gnostic” who is trying to get all religions together. Observe how deftly the ASV, 1901, and similar frauds remove “through his blood” from Col. 1:14.) Adam has a living soul (Gen. 2:7) which becomes “lost” and becomes glued to a body of sin. He has a living spirit which dies within him, according to God’s solemn warning (Gen. 2:17). Originally, he walks in fellowship with his Creator and shares the thoughts of the divine mind: the supreme object of worship for all philosophers! He falls from this grand and glorious estate and becomes a self-righteous, lying hypocrite trying to find religious “ways and means” to reject the free offer of salvation (see Gen. 3:1–15 and comments). This is the essential, paramount, foremost, continual, and main objection that scientists, educators, and intellectuals have against the AV 1611 Bible. If the account of Genesis 1–3 is true and God has said what He intended to say, the way He intended to say it, then it leaves the human race of sinners DAMNED, even when they sincerely believe that what they believe is right and follow what they think is right (see Prov. 14:12). As Dave Gardner said, “If a man sincerely lived up to what he believed to the best of his ability, and then woke up in hell, whom would he get mad at?” (Laughter.) But that conundrum is easy, Dave old buddy, he’d get mad at God. That is why the Holy Spirit said, “gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 13:42). Men are mad at God right now; how much more when they awake in a lake of fire and begin to blame God for that too! The truth of Genesis 1–3 enrages the heart of the Bible-rejecting “Christian” or pagan philosopher. Every religion in the world is based on the idea that man is “working up to something” (see Cain, Gen. 4:1–6). All religions can get together on two points. One—that if a man sincerely follows what he believes is right, “he’ll make it.” Two—but nobody can know for sure they are going to make it until they’ve made it! This disqualifies at once Catholicism, Protestantism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Judaism, and Muhammadanism (and any other) from having any relevance to anything. For what man needs is the restoration of an image—if Genesis 1–3 is correct. Following a teaching, muttering prayers, getting rid of “karma,” spinning wheels, twiddling beads, practicing Golden Rules, taking “sacraments,” etc., is interesting “playhouse religion”; but the Bible reveals that man is “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1–6) and that apart from a spiritual new birth, which restores a fallen image (not a “baby sprinkling” which puts a man into a church!), mankind is lost. The Augustinian-Aquinas system (as the Calvin-Anglican system) has its roots in the depraved philosophies of Plato and Aristotle (see Col. 2:8). These systems teach the Western world that if a

man can accept a religious teaching instead of what the Bible SAYS, and if he “believes in the teaching hard enough,” he can interpret the Bible to mean anything he wants it to mean which will fit his system. This is how the Roman Catholic Church was built, and this is why it is still in operation today (see commentary on Matthew, Matt. 16:16–18). All attempts to develop religious systems from the Bible (which will be a substitute for what the Bible SAYS) arrive at their predestinated end—hell (see 1 Pet. 2:8; 2 Pet. 3:16). For without the restoration of the “image of God,” which man lost, man is exactly what Darwin and Huxley figured him to be. We may give our college bums credit for one thing: apart from the redeeming grace of God and the New Birth, they are what they profess to be—educated apes. “Male and female created he them.” This poses a problem for the evolutionist almost as bad as the “bonehead” problem or the “fossil” problem. From where did the “sexes” come? One-celled animals don’t have any sex and never develop any “sex.” Quick! Come up with anything! Anything but Genesis 1! Anything but the Bible! Invent something if you have to, but “save us from that horrible Book”! (You see, “scientific progress” is largely the defense mechanism of the organism defending itself from unknown sources of danger!) Without going into a long thing, we shall pick up a textbook on How Life Began (I will not embarrass the author by giving his name!) and study a sample of modern, objective, scientific research. “Before the first living cell was created—PERHAPS several billion years ago—THERE MAY HAVE BEEN many trials and failures. IT SEEMS PROBABLE that there were several steps along the way. PERHAPS the complex molecules of protoplasm arose from these in-between forms. PERHAPS these molecules SOMEHOW became able to reproduce themselves and to grow together. THEY MAY HAVE BEEN just barely over the line that separates the nonliving from the living...PROBABLY THESE FIRST....” Well, now, come on doctor! Get the thing started! This doesn’t look like a short cut; it doesn’t even look like a detour. It is a dead end from a dead head! Why not put it like this, “Before the first living cell was created, perhaps by God Himself, there may have been a Father, Son, and Spirit. It seems probable that there was, and that they did the creating. Perhaps the Genesis account is correct. Perhaps it happened exactly as Moses wrote it....” What is the difference in the two systems? How is the first system superior to the second? Where is its evidence? Even the evolutionists have to follow Genesis 1 in the order of recreation: water and animals first! Vegetation before man. Man last. Since evolutionists admit that their evidence confirms the Genesis account, then where is their evidence which confirms their own account (see remarks under Gen. 1:27). Diatoms and amoebas are sexless, and further, there are no “two” or “three-celled” animals in existence and these never have been. The gap between a one-celled animal and one with scores of cells is an evolutionary gap that has existed since the first bacteria put the flu on a brontosaurus. A sexless being cannot automatically develop into a bisexual being. That is an absolute truth, and no amount of “defining of terms” (that is the modern way to beat absolute truth—sophistry) can change it. Sexless one-celled animals never develop into two-celled “sexed” animals by themselves, even under variations of heat or pressure or moisture. (Devote your life to this experiment and the lives of your children and your grandchildren, and when you get through put it down, there is no such thing as two-celled animals evolving from a one-celled animal; there never has been and there never will be.) 1:28 “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and

replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.” A careful student will see that the commission given to Adam is quite similar to the one given to Noah (Gen 9:1–4). “Replenish” indicates some kind of a previous population (see comments on Gen. 1:2). “Have dominion” states that Adam is a “king” (see Heb. 2:6–8; Psa. 8:6–8). This hurts Darwin’s feelings again, for to Darwin, man is NOW the head of creation after becoming “king of the mountain” by beating the other animals to death. Darwin’s monkey man “outgrew” creation. But in Genesis 1–2, man was created a true king, the head of all creation, and then he falls from this position which Satan regains (cf. Luke 4:6; Jer. 27:5–10; Eph. 6:10–14)! Man in his present state is a deposed monarch with only temporary power over nature (see Gen. 9:1–4). His true “Christlike” image is gone (see 1:27) and is only restored in individuals who receive the Lord Jesus Christ as their Blood Atonement, but even these do not assume a reign as “king” until the Second Coming (see Rev. 5:10, 11:15; Luke 19:12–27). Man’s “dominion” is never completely restored until the “Second Adam” returns to win back what Adam lost (see Rom. 8: 17–29; Isa. 11:1–11), and this is the authoritative, total, and conclusive teaching of the Bible in regards to “man’s place” on this earth. Other interpretations come from rejecting the plain statements of 1 Corinthians 15:22; Daniel 2:44; Zechariah 6:9–15; and Hebrews 2:1–8. The Christian is awaiting the restoration “of all things” (Acts 3:20–23), and the context of his hope is always the Second Coming of the King of Glory to renew the lost paradise which Adam and Eve traded for an education (see comments on Gen. 3:1–3). The “restoration” worked for by the Roman Catholic Church (hereafter referred to as “RCC”) and the National Council of “Christian” Churches (hereafter referred to as NCCC) consists of deeds, mortgages, stocks, loans, bonds, councils, drives, projects, plans, programs, lobbies, bills, litigations, and propaganda as they take over the political helm of a dead, decayed, blasted, fallen, and ruined creation. While they do this, their eternal theme song is “bringing in the kingdom.” But no King, no kingdom! Verse 29 shows that until the fall, Adam and Eve ate only fruits and vegetables which grew above the ground (note—“which is upon the face of all the earth”; i.e., tomatoes, cabbage, beans, peas, etc.). When they are “run out” of Paradise, they eat vegetables which grow in the dirt and have to be dug up out of it. “In sorrow shalt thou eat of it” (the ground; i.e., potatoes, carrots, onions, etc.). Do you get the point? Man is going down. For every man who goes up in a rocket, they bury 400,000,000 more. “For meat” is the AV 1611 definition of any kind of food. There is no need for “a better translation.” The Bible is self-definitive, and since bread is a type of the flesh (Gen. 40:16,17; 2 Sam. 13:5–9; 1 Chron. 21:23), either “meat” or “bread” will do for any kind of a meal (cf. Lev. 5:13, 6:20, 2:4).

“To every beast of the earth” would suggest that, until Genesis 3:10, the animals were vegetarians. To confirm this, Isaiah speaks of vegetarian lions at the Second Coming (see Isa. 11:1– 10). The thought is further enforced by Romans 8:20–27, which mentions the entire animal creation being under the Adamic curse until the Second Advent. The amillennial and postmillennial systems make no allowance for this restoration, as their systems only include “the betterment of man.” A little selfish, don’t you think, when God intends to restore the whole creation (see Acts 3:19–22 and Rom. 8)? Why on earth would amillennial theologians (Presbyterian and Reformed) and postmillennial theologians (Catholic and Southern Baptist) overlook the animals? And why would the evolutionists talk about “bringing in the kingdom” without restoring the animals? Do they not profess to be animals themselves? Somebody is missing some marbles. “And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.” Thus ends the recreation of the heaven and earth. It ends on a 6, and the number 6 is followed by a rest. Since man is created on this 6th day, the number turns out to be man’s number—note 666 (Rev. 13:18; Ezra 2:13; 2 Chron. 9:13). For the complete numerology consult Daniel 3:1–8; 1 Samuel 30:9; 2 Samuel 15:18; 1 Kings 10:14; Luke 23:44; John 4:6; and Acts 10:9.

CHAPTER 2 2:1 “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.”

The use of the word “heavens” indicates again that the re-creation of the first heaven and earth (Gen. 1:3–25) includes work on the second heaven as well, for the “host of them” is mentioned. This would not only include the “starry host” of the planets, stars, etc., but also the spiritual principalities and powers mentioned in Isaiah 24:21 and Ephesians 6:10–13. On the seventh day, we find that the six times repeated expression “the evening and the morning” is omitted. The omission is very significant, although it will yield no truth or light to a Catholic or a Reformed theologian. (Ask any of them, any time, why the expression “the evening and the morning” is omitted in connection with the seventh day and then wait till the cows come home and go back out to pasture before a sensible answer comes. They don’t have the slightest idea.) The Hebrew text reveals nothing on it, and a Hebrew lexicon will only confuse the student who is searching for the truth. The seventh day is endless because it typifies the seventh millennial period (Rev. 20:1–6) which goes right out into eternity without a defeat (see Rev. 20:9–10). As surely as the final “morning” begins with the Advent (Matt. 13:43), the day cannot have an “evening and a morning,” for that would imply another day to follow. But no other day follows! For eternity starts in Revelation 20, at verse 10 (see Mal. 4:2; Matt. 13:43; Rev. 20:7; Rev. 21–22). The premillennial system has proved to be foolproof thus far in the Scriptures (see comments on Gen. 1:20). And if that doesn’t seem to be much of an achievement, since we have only come one chapter, let it be remembered that the “traditions of men,” including the best conservative scholarship of 500 years, got off the bus back in the sixth verse of the chapter (see comments). “His work which he had made.” Many scholars draw a distinction between “created” (Barah—Hebrew) and “made” (Banah—Hebrew) and waste a good deal of paper talking about “creating”—meaning to make something out of nothing—and “making”—to make something out of something that is already there—and these discourses are not without charm. They are quite similar to the endless discussions on the “stoa” by the Greek philosophers, which I am sure had a certain utility and elegance for news addicts of that time (see Acts 17:21). But the root hunting of Hebrew words is useless, for it is stated that God created Adam (Gen 5:1–2), and He certainly created him out of something; He created him out of red-brown dust or clay (Gen. 2:7). The Lord does not collapse after a “hard day’s night” when He is through with the six days of creation, but merely ceases to exert His creative powers. He rests from creating new things. The verses introduce a thought which was seized upon by Ellen G. White back between 1827– 1915. (The correct name is Mrs. Ellen Gould Harmon James White; it’s kind of like Mary Baker Patterson Glover Eddy...but why go on?) Mrs. White, with the help of the “Seventh Day Baptists,” concocted a teaching which is known as “Seventh-day Adventism.” Its publishing houses are the Review and Herald (Washington, D.C.), the Southern Publishing Co. (Nashville), and the Pacific

Publishing Company. The radio program which propagates her teachings is quaintly called “the Hour of Prophecy” (with none of the communicants knowing for certain where they are going at death! See commentary on Revelation, Rev. 19:10). Seventh-day Adventists rarely admit that they are “Seventhday Adventists” and prefer to go about disguised as “Bible-believing Christians.” Briefly, these are the ten reasons why none of them could use the pseudonym honestly: 1. Moses wrote Genesis around 1450 B.C., and when he wrote Genesis 2:1–3, he was writing about something that neither he nor any man on earth knew anything until the law was given on Mount Sinai. (Ezek. 20:12, 20 and Neh. 9:14 are very clear on this, and neither passage needs “interpreting” anymore than a stop sign at an intersection.) 2. No Gentile in Genesis was ever commanded to “keep the Sabbath,” and Noah, Adam, Enoch, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob never fooled with it. 3. Adam was given God’s “commandments” in Genesis 2:15–17 and was commanded nothing about the “Sabbath” at all. 4. If He had given Adam a commandment on the Sabbath, it would have been ridiculous, for Adam, until Genesis 3:19–20, had no work from which to rest! 5. There can be no distinction between the “moral law” (the Ten Commandments) and the “ceremonial law” (Leviticus, etc.) in God’s sight, for the ceremonial Sabbath is found on the Tablets of Stone (Exod. 20:8), and the next commandment after it, on the same Tablet of Stone (Exod. 20:12), is found in the ceremonial law of Leviticus (Lev. 19:3). The third “moral law” after that (Exod. 20:15) is found in the ceremonial law of Leviticus 19:11. 6. “Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all,” says James (James 2:10), and the Seventh-day Adventist who observes Friday (6 P.M.) to Saturday (6 P.M.) and cooks a meal on a gas stove is just as lost as the man they stoned in Numbers 15:33–34. You cannot light a stove on the Sabbath (see Exod. 35:3). 7. The New Testament Commandments are two in number (see John 15:10, 12). They plainly replace the Old Testament “ten” in the passage on the subject by the Apostle to the Gentiles (see Rom. 13:9–11). The Tables of Stone were “done away with” in 2 Corinthians 3, and the Christian is not “under the law, but under grace” (read Rom 6:14). The New Testament “believer” who is counting on the works of the Law to save him is “fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4). 8. A man who observes the Sabbath more than 8,000 miles from Palestine is breaking the Sabbath, for nowhere outside of Palestine is the Sabbath ever mentioned—not even in Genesis 2 (see comments on verses 8–14). A man “resting” from Friday (6 P.M.) to Saturday (6 P.M.) might be able to pick up alot of money Sunday by staying open for business, but he wouldn’t fool God a bit. Friday over here is SATURDAY in the land where God gave the Sabbath as a sign between Him and Israel (see Neh. 9 and Ezek. 20:12, 20). 9. Christians met on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7), broke bread on the first day of the week (ibid.), preached on the first day of the week (ibid.), took up collections on the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:1–2), received the Holy Spirit on the first day of the week (Acts 2:1–4), after their Saviour rose from the dead the first day of the week (John 20:1; Matt. 28:1; Luke 24:1). That is, the reason why a “Seventh-day Adventist” observes the seventh day of the week is because he is not a Christian; he is an Old Testament Jew, seeking justification by “the works of the law.” See the Holy Spirit’s solemn comment on this kind of madness in Romans 9:31–33; 10:14; 3:20; 3:28; etc. 10. The original “Seventh-day Adventist” taught that not only was a Christian to keep the Old Testament Jewish Sabbath as a token of his love for Christ, but further, a man could not be saved unless he kept it! More than this, the original “Sabbatarians” taught that the Devil bore off the

Christian’s sins as the “scapegoat” and that, therefore, Satan was the final atonement (see corrective comments under Matt. 12:40 in commentary on Matthew). But that isn’t all; the original “Adventists” taught soul sleep, annihilation of the wicked, and the thousand year reign on earth of Lucifer, not Jesus Christ. The modern “Seventh-day Adventist” has had his applecarts kicked over so many times by real Bible believing Christians (who have forced him to read the Scriptures) that the position of M.E.G.H.J. White (A,B,C,D,E,F,?) is now: a. You get saved by trusting the blood atonement. b. If you “love Christ,” you will keep not “His commandments” but the Old Testament ones given to Moses! c. The favorite verse now is 1 John 2:4, whereas it was Revelation 13:16–17. Originally, “the mark of the beast” was going to church on Sunday! How the mighty have fallen! Leaving “Seventh-day Adventism” for the babies who are “unskilful in the word” (see Heb. 5:13), we should turn to Exodus 12:16. In this salient passage, it is observed that even before the seventh day Sabbath is revealed to Moses and Israel (see Neh. 9:14), the first day is given for a “holy convocation”! The context here (Exod. 12) is blood-bought believers, under grace, before the law. (See commentary on Revelation, Rev. 12:17 and 14:12).

2:4 “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.”

The so called “LXX,” written nearly 300 years after the resurrection of Christ (and still naively attributed to Old Testament Jewish writers of 250 B.C. by all the faculty members of conservative schools, including Bob Jones and Tennessee Temple), here alters the text to “the book of the generations,” thus unwittingly destroying one of the most remarkable phenomena for “structural unity” in the whole Bible. (See remarks on Gen. 5:1 as it was compared with Matt. 1:1, and don’t forget the gravity of the LXX’s abortion of the text. By altering Gen. 2:1 to read as Gen. 5:1 and Matt. 1:1, the scribes of the LXX [Origen, Marcion, Symmachus, Theodotian, Aquilla, Eusebius, Constantine, Valentinus, etc., all born after Paul was beheaded] have obscured three major Bible doctrines: 1. “In Adam all die.” 2. In Christ all live. 3. Jesus Christ is the Second Adam.) Verse 4 also has Graf and Wellhausen treed for awhile. They assume (and that is the proper word for it) that if the Holy Spirit repeats any material in Genesis–Deuteronomy it is because “two or more different” scribes are writing and then a later redactor sort of “slaps things together.” (See comments on Deutero Dumpty, Gen. 16:11–14.) The theory (like Darwin’s sacred cow) is still in vogue (see The Interpreter’s Bible ), though it has been disproved so many times it would be just as sane to say that “M” (Mickey Mouse) wrote Genesis 2:4, and “H” (Huckleberry Hound) wrote Genesis 1, and “S” (Snoopy) put them together. After all, are we to suppose that Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:7 and Genesis 5:1, 2 are three separate creations of three different men? In Genesis 1:27, He said, “created.” In Genesis 2:7, He

said, “formed.” And in Genesis 5:1, He said, “made.” What do you want us to believe? That a redactor stuck them together? Well, that would be a stupid thing to do, for it is apparent that they don’t match! A man trying to cement something together to fool someone would not do a thing like that if he had any brains! What are we to believe? That Genesis 1 is a Caucasian and Genesis 2 is an Asiatic and Genesis 5 is an African? Why not the reverse; African first? Then why hasn’t his civilization ever caught up with the Caucasian? You see, not only does a college education fail to provide the answers, it fails to state the questions. College graduates, as a whole, glory in agnosticism and actually think that the hallmark of a truly “educated man” is the fact that he hasn’t found out anything “for sure” yet. If this is the case, then don’t ever let that type of man attempt to teach you anything! Verse 6 states that atmospheric conditions which existed prior to man’s creation and prior to the creative acts of Genesis 1:11–13 were different than they were after Genesis 9 (see comments on geochronology under Gen. 1:16–17). Verse 5 is an explicit statement that at the time of this tropical, misty atmosphere, nothing was yet “growing.” The plants are “in the ground” but do not grow until after man is created. Again, one is reminded to accept such “scientific advancements” as Libby’s Carbon 14 Test with a ton of salt. The “evening-morning periods” of Genesis 1 cannot be 1,000-year periods for the reasons mentioned before, and to date the earth (the present earth) at a date beyond 2,000,000,000 years B.C. overthrows the very method of dating used by the scientists themselves. Uranium breaks into lead and helium (which are stable), and 1/637th part of uranium turns to lead in 10,000,000 years. But look out! The oldest sample, in igneous rock, is only 1,800,000 years old, judging by this method. This means the geologists (using their own methods) have blasted their theories to pieces, for the average geologist dates the Mesozoic era at 60,000,000 to 185,000,000 years and insists that the earth was here with life forms on it as far back as 520,000,000 years! The rejection, therefore, of the “generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created” is what the Bible calls “willful ignorance” (see 2 Pet 3:4–5). An unlettered commercial fisherman wrote those lines, but that is perfectly all right. Any fisherman knows that when you measure fathoms by a standard fathom measure, you do not say the floor of the ocean is 520,000,000 feet down when you are standing on it throwing a cast net. If the atmosphere of the earth has been consistent since its creation (which it has not), the earth has not been a planet for 2,000,000 years according to the “scientific evidence” produced by the scientists themselves. (In the Bible account, it could have been here 1,994,000 years [in Gen. 1:1] before God recreated it in six evenings and mornings, but recreate it He did, in the time given in a King James 1611, Authorized Version.) It is a soul-shattering thought to consider that if the figures of uranium breakdown are correct (even if there has been no change in the atmosphere, which there has been), our best scientific brains, with the finest scientific equipment available, consistently make errors in calculations of better than 99.5 percent. The geologists assume that it took 2,000,000,000 years (minimum estimation; some of them say 40,000,000,000 years) for life to progress from algae to Pope Paul. Two million is only l/100th of two billion. This is an error of 99.5 percent for science. And science is the “god” on which educated Americans are counting to save their lives, families, homes, country, and their souls.

2:7 “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

We have made considerable comment already on this passage under Genesis 1:27, which says Man is a direct creation. He is made full grown, at about thirty years of age, and no “evolution” of any kind is connected with his creation. He is made exactly as the Bible states, and a branch of “truth seekers” who can make 99.5 percent errors in stating “facts” is not to be taken seriously when one approaches the subject of man’s origin. Did you ever stop to actually think about the time and labor that have gone into the biological, anthropological, and archaeological myths which are taught in high schools and colleges today? Imagine the sweat and agony that have gone into inventing such animals as Pterodactyl, Diplodocus, Brontosaurus, Triceratops, Archaeopteryx, Eohippus, Balucatherium, Oreodont, Cynodictis, Arsinoitherium, Hoplophoneus, Dinictis, Syndyoceras, Notharctus, and Seuglodon! And as if this were not enough fairy tale monsters to put in a menagerie, some incredible idiot went on with Pleistocene, Pliocene, Oligocene, Eocene, Cretacious, Jurassic, Triassic, Permian, Carboniferous, Devonian, Silurian, Ordovician, Cambrian, Cenozoic, Mesozoic...! Why, don’t you see what is going on here? The simpletons have run out of English words with which to discuss imaginary objects, so they disguise their ignorance and lack of evidence by running to Greek and Latin so you won’t know about what they’re talking! Any dunce can figure that out. Modern advertisers do the same thing continually. Make it sound “scholarly” and “intellectual” and people will think you are gifted with the ability to talk in tongues! Why, there is just as much “scholarship” in this: “The valve ports are enlarged to match the new seat diameters in test no. 5 for the cruiser; the McGurk cam shaft replaces the solid lifters and the chilled iron valve lifters were put on spring retainer washers!” Now, isn’t that tremendous? Why, “eminent scientists” don’t understand that discourse any more than you do! It is just someone else’s technical language which they put on you. (Think about that two or three years.)

2:8 “And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.”

“A garden eastward in Eden.” Eden, then, is the name of the country in which the garden was planted. To locate Eden, we again turn to the Scriptures and compare verse with verse. 1. Genesis 13:10 likens Eden to “the land of Egypt,” and the area here is Sodom, south of the Dead Sea. 2. Amos 1:5 speaks of “the house of Eden” being located near Damascus. (Ptolemy locates it southeast of Laodicea.) 3. Isaiah 51:3 likens Zion, at Jerusalem, to Eden. 4. Second Kings 19:12, locates it near Thelasar, which is the Gozan-Haran area from which Abram came after leaving Ur. “Eden,” then, by a Scripture with Scripture comparison, can only be identified as a triangularshaped piece of land with the apex at Mt. Ararat and the two bottom corners (forming the base) running from the Nile, straight east to Ur, at the top of the Persian Gulf; each side of the triangle would be nearly 1,000 miles in length. This is the “land grant” given to Abraham (see Gen. 15), and it

is the piece of land which will belong to Israel in the Millennium (Ezek. 44–48 cf. Psa. 89:25; 2 Sam. 8:3; 1 Kings 4:20–25). This piece of land is the famous “Fertile Crescent” of secular history; the Bible mentions it as being the place where history began on this earth and the place where it will end. One of the greatest proofs of all proofs that the Bible is the word of God is that history has to begin where Genesis 2 says it began, and history has to end where Revelation 20 says it will end—in the Near East. And where else would history begin but “in a garden”? The city is supported by the farm, “the king himself is served by the field,” and when the farmers in a country are slighted and abused, it is not long before that nation ceases to prosper. All civilizations come from “gardens” on “rivers,” and the monkey man theory which has men springing up from mountainsides, cave bottoms, and beaches is nonsense. The reader now sees “the tree of life.” It is forbidden to Adam when he is thrust out of Eden (Gen. 3:24), it is typified in Proverbs 11:30 by the heavenly wisdom, and it appears in Revelation 22:14 as a reward for good works to people who are saved in the Tribulation and the Millennium. Nor does the Holy Spirit leave us in any doubt about what kind of a tree it is. This supernatural tree is an olive tree (see Rom. 11:14–24; Zech. 4:10–14). In the Gospels, it appears in connection with Mt. Olivet and the “olive press” (Gethsemane). Now appears “the “tree of knowledge of good and evil” (so earnestly coveted by Europeans). Again, the Holy Spirit leaves the reader in no doubt whatsoever as to what kind of a tree it is. While Hebrew scholars and “Orientalists” fumble hopelessly around in a morass of tradition, folklore, superstition, and Chaldean roots, the Scriptures interpret themselves without asking anyone’s opinion. The fabulous “Adam’s apple” which Eve was supposed to have passed on to her spouse was not an apple at all, and it certainly was not an “apricot”! It was a vine tree. 1. The vine is a tree (Ezek. 15). 2. It is forbidden fruit in Numbers 6:1–6. 3. It is a type of blood throughout the Bible (Matt. 26:26–28). 4. Blood is forbidden throughout the Bible (Gen. 9; Lev. 17; Acts 15). 5. The vine tree is connected with nakedness (see Noah and Adam). 6. The vine tree is connected with drunkenness (see Lot and Ben-hadad). 7. Nakedness and drunkenness go together (Lam. 4:21; Hab. 2:15). 8. The vine tree crawls like a snake, and in Palestine, the vines crawl on the ground. Thus, the Holy Spirit eliminates the “other” 5,000 commentators and preachers who tried a hand at believing the Bible. If the word couldn’t dump them in the sixth verse of the first chapter, there wasn’t one left on board by the ninth verse of the second chapter. The nakedness and drunkenness (which go hand in hand with “the wine cup”—see Isa. 5:11, 22; Lam. 4:21) are well known in collegiate circles, and a theologian who doubts the association should study the SOP (standard operating procedure) used by unregenerate young men who are out to seduce young ladies. They know exactly why a “little drink” is appropriate for a night of “making out.” “The vine tree” is found in John 15, where “the true vine” suddenly appears, in contrast to “the vine of the earth” (see Rev. 14:18–20). This opens a revelation which again the commentators missed, but having cut themselves off from revelation by refusing to believe what the Scriptures said about themselves, it is only natural that all future revelation would stop. And it has. What follows is painfully clear to the next generation and would probably be rejected even by a religious leader who believed the word. 1. Blood is forbidden under three testaments: before the Law (Gen. 9), under the Law (Lev. 17),

and after the Law (Acts 15). 2. Hence, no communion cup (or Eucharist) could contain real blood, or the communicant would damn himself every time he took it (see 1 Cor. 11:29; Psa. 16:4). 3. Hence, the Pharisees are astounded at Christ’s suggestion concerning cannibalism (John 6:51, 53, 55). 4. At this juncture (John 6), the Roman Catholic accepts the cannibalism literally on the basis of Matthew 26:27, which is not connected with the context of John 6! 5. At the same juncture (John 6), Jesus quickly tells the Bible believer that cannibalism will do him no good, for he is speaking of spiritual flesh (note John 6:57, 6:53). 6. So the Christian runs one way—grape juice for communion, the “new wine” (Matt. 26:26–30) from the “fruit of the vine” (see Isa. 65:8; Gen. 40:10–14), as a type of ”pure blood” (John 2:1–4; Deut. 32:14), 7. The Catholic priest picks up fermented liquor, contrary to the clear statement that “new wine” is found in the “cluster” (Isa 65:8), and then causes his congregation to violate a major Bible commandment found in the word from Genesis to Revelation! 8. Thus, the morning “mass” is a repetition of Eve’s sacrifice, and not Christ’s, and the sacrifice of Malachi 1:11 (distorted from its Israelish context—the Millennium—by the “Church Fathers”) becomes an alibi for sin. 9. This mass is described by the Holy Spirit as the grapes and vine of dragons and Sodom, and it is carried out by people who profess that Peter is the “Rock,” instead of Jesus Christ. See the exact words of the Holy Spirit in Deuteronomy 32:31–33, which passage has been deleted in Catholic Bibles to prevent church members from finding out the true nature of their church. (See commentary on Revelation, Rev. 13; and commentary on Matthew, Matt. 16:16–20.) There are then two rocks, two vines, two churches, two beliefs (see comments on Gen. 4:3–6); and the True Vine of John 15:1–6 is not the vine from which Mother Eve received her blood. Wrong vine, wrong tree, wrong blood, wrong mass, wrong sacrament. The Bible, then, in its second chapter, throws a beam of light clear across twenty-three centuries and warns the believer what church organization to avoid. The one to avoid is the one which uses the citations of “Church Fathers” and appeals to “tradition” to sin against God and His word, “in the name of Jesus Christ,” etc. To this day, women like to put “red” on their lips, and the latest is “liquid lipstick.” But Eve is way ahead of you ladies. She had “liquid lipstick” before the first Pharaoh showed up in Egypt. “The life of the flesh is in the blood” (Lev. 17:11–14), so there is a good possibility that Adam (as Christ’s resurrection body) had no blood when he was created; and there is an excellent probability that Eve was also created that way (see comments on Gen. 2:23). At any rate, “the tree of knowledge of good and evil” produces a blood stream in our first ancestors which guarantees that they will devolve, disintegrate, and rot, no matter what science says! The word “knowledge” here (Gen. 2:9) is found as Gnosis (Greek) in 1 Timothy 6:20, and just as Eve was warned not to eat it, the Christian is told to beware of “oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.” And while “modern man” talks about the “myth of Genesis,” he has displayed right under his nose, every Sunday morning, a repetition and a reenactment of the sin which brought “modern man” to his ultimate destiny: a hole in the ground. Man’s blood cannot keep him alive. He needs eternal life, and to get this he must get blood that is pure from somewhere. No Bible believing Christian (Acts 20:28) would have any trouble in finding this blood, and the last place in the world he would think

of looking for it would be in a bottle of fermented liquor, handled by a black robed priest of the “Queen of Heaven” (see commentary on Revelation, Rev. 2:14, 20).

2:10 “And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. 11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; 12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. 13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. 14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.”

Again, we are reminded of the territorial limits of the land called “Eden,” for what follows cannot be located in a tract of land twenty-five miles square. (Witness, for example, the psychotic frustration of the lawyer near Blountstown, Florida, who erected a manmade “Garden of Eden” for Yankee tourists and even put a sign in his front yard saying, “Adam was made here”!) “Euphrates” is self-evident; everyone knows where it is. So is “Hiddekel” in verse 14, as it is connected with Assyria and was always known by that name until it was called “the Tigris.” “Gihon” is connected with Africa, somewhere north of Ethiopia, so we are at the southwest corner of the triangle (see comments on vs. 8). “Pison” (Hebrew—“increase”) is not located, although “Havilah” is found in Genesis 10:7, Genesis 10:29, and 1 Samuel 15:7. Two possible locations are northern Arabia and southern Palestine. Dealing as it does with four main rivers—the Nile, the Euphrates, the Tigris, and the Jordan—the Bible may refer to Jordan by the name “Pison”; however, this is guesswork (see archaeological notes in Gen. 13:10). T he “gold,” mentioned in connection with this river (Gen. 2:11), would likely locate it somewhere in southern Arabia. Franz Delitzsch located Eden above Babylon; George Wright (geologist) favored an area further south, near the Persian Gulf; and neither of them distinguished Eden from “the GARDEN of Eden.” This sample of conservative scholarship, a Hebrew genius and an archaeological investigator, emphasizes again the great truth that will become clearer and clearer to the reader of this commentary as he proceeds; namely, scholars of any hue have a great deal of trouble in reading sixth-grade English. The text said, “a garden eastward in Eden” (Gen. 2:8). (The word “Havilah” can mean “anguish” and the word “Gihon” is “the breaking forth” or “impetuous.” “Ethiopia” [Cush] in verse 13 is “black or burnt” [as usual], and ”Hiddekel” means “the riddle of the palm.”)

2:15 “And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day

that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

Man’s first occupation, then, according to revelation (not Darwin) is that of an “husbandman” or the “fruit dresser” of an orchard. (If Darwin had his way in the matter, I suppose the first “man” [apeman, ape-man, man-ape, ape ape-man, man man-ape, or whatever it, or he, was!] was occupied with drawing cartoons on cave walls!) The word “husband” is connected with a man taking care of a fruit-bearing wife (see Psa. 127:3, 128:3). Children always prefer fruit to vegetables if given a chance, and if you don’t believe it, call the boy in between meals and offer him an apple and a bowl of beans, or better still, a peach (or plum) and a bowl of cooked carrots. Better still, put some grapes beside a potato on a small plate, and see which one of them lasts the longest! If there is any truth to “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” (go learn what that meaneth!), it is that the Bible defines the steps of growth for every individual in the history of its first three chapters. “Thou mayest freely eat.” Notice that Adam is given permission to partake of a tree which will allow him to live forever (cf. Rev. 22:17 and Gen. 3:22). Then Adam is offered eternal life on a free basis, which is good proof that he had no blood in him at this time which could have sustained him forever. “The gift of God is eternal life,” and only in the dispensations of the Mosaic Law, the Tribulation, and the Millennium is this “gift” ever given on any conditions. From 4000 B.C. to 1450 B.C. (nearly 3,000 years), it is an unconditional free gift if it is obtained at all, and from A.D. 38 to 1900+ (nearly 2,000 years), the same conditions apply. The conditions of this present dispensation are very, very clear: “By the righteousness of one the free gift came” (Rom. 5:18), “So also is the free gift” (Rom. 5:15), “But the free gift” (Rom. 5:16). Any other “plan of salvation” for this age (and note that the context of the verses quoted above is a comparison between Adam and Jesus Christ!) is a “Mother Eve plan of salvation,” based on disgruntled rebelliousness, for when Mother Eve quotes the passage (Gen. 2:16) to Satan in Genesis 3:2, you will notice she omits the word “freely.” Eve willfully slanders the free gift of God (Rom. 6:23) and thereby becomes the mother of every church in this age which mixes grace with works. Eve quotes Scripture to justify salvation by works, but as Alexander Campbell, Mary Baker Eddy, Ellen G. White, Judge Rutherford, Judge Russell, Pope Leo, Pope Gregory, Madam Blavatsky, Emment Fox, Emily Cady, Pope Pius, Pope John, Joseph Smith, and THE DEVIL, she misquotes it. “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” First, the Lord gives a positive, permissive privilege, and then He follows it with a negative prohibitive command, “Thou shalt surely die.” The reason for the prohibition is not to prevent Adam from knowing, but to prevent something from happening to him which God knows will happen if he fools with it. The commandment (as the First Commandment in the Decalogue) is given for his protection, not his frustration. The words which are spoken define the battleground for the earth in the next 6,000 years (see comments on Gen. 3:1). In the final analysis, every sin on earth stems from either refusal to hear what God says or to believe what He says or to act on what He says. God told Adam something. He told Him in fifth-grade English, and there was nothing to “interpret” in what He told him. All he had to do was believe it and act on it. The first Adam is tested on what God said; the last Adam is tested on the same grounds (Luke 4:1–13). The battleground never changes; it is always the same, and the surest proof in the world that the Bible is the word of God is the fact that it begins by stating clearly the exact, universal, eternal issues and the exact problems involved in these issues and the resolving of

them (see comments on Gen. 3:2–4). All sin stems from one of three attitudes toward the word when it is finally heard. One: “The word of God is incomplete; add to it.” This Eve does (see Gen. 3:2–4). Following in her footsteps, Joseph Smith adds the Book of Mormon, the Mohammedans add the Koran, the Catholic adds the Apocrypha, the Jews add the Talmud, and the popes add their private interpretations of tradition. Two: “The word of God has too many nasty things in it; take them out.” This Eve does (see Gen. 3:2–4). Following in her footsteps, the ASV and RSV take out Matthew 12:47, 21:44, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28; Luke 24:12, 24:40; John 5:4; Acts 8:37, etc. The Jew removes the New Testament, the Catholic removes the verses that describe his church (Deut. 32:31–32; Matt. 23:14), and the Amplified takes out “now” (from John 18:36). The liberal takes out everything but the Sermon on the Mount and Psalm 23 and then removes everything from the Sermon on the Mount but the “Lord’s” Prayer and the “Beatitudes.” The Campbellite takes out half of Mark 16:16 and half of 1 Peter 3:21. The Communist takes out everything except Acts 2:44, and the Fundamentalist takes out half of Romans 8:1 and all of 1 John 5:7. Three: “The word of God could not be literal; take it figuratively.” This Eve does (see Gen. 3:2– 4). Following in Eve’s footsteps, the Jehovah Witness makes hell “the grave,” the Catholic makes half of hell “purgatory,” the Fundamentalist makes it “separation from God,” the Reformers apply the promises of Israel to the Church, and the Roman popes make “Babylon the Great” pagan Rome, instead of papal Rome. Neo-Orthodox commentators make the Second Coming of Christ the destruction of Jerusalem, the Christian Scientists get rid of heaven and hell and reduce them to a “state of mind,” and then the whole crew turns right around and makes physical baptism a spiritual new birth and physical bread and liquor Christ’s spiritual body! The moral of all this is simple. When God tells you to do something, you’d better do it, and when He tells you not to do something, you better hadn’t do it. And if you don’t know what He told you to do (or not to do), you flat better find out, and find out for yourself immediately. You are 5,970 years after Adam’s commission; and there are 50,000 teachers, preachers, priests, bishops, and religious leaders ready, willing, anxious, and able to get you so messed up in the word and the will of God that you won’t be able to tell St. Peter’s Cathedral from an outhouse.

2:18 “And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.”

The context is before the fall of man and the subsequent “depravity,” which is apparent in the Bible’s description of man henceforth; however, it should be noted that even later “A prudent wife is from the Lord,” and “whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing” (Prov. 19:14, 18:22). The “help meet” can bring about more problems than “help” if she turns out to be “a brawling woman” (Prov. 21:9) or an angry and contentious woman (Prov. 21:19) or a foolish woman (Prov. 14:1). Paul’s remarks on the single state of life for male and female (see 1 Cor. 7) show that there is a possibility of worse calamaties happening to people than being “bachelors” or “old maids.” As Sam Jones so aptly said, “I would rather have a dozen old maid daughters than have the sons-in-laws that some of you have!” Everywhere, in either Testament, it is taken for granted that the female function is to help the man;

this truth holds under the dispensation of grace in the New Testament (see 1 Cor. 11:3, 8–9). The modern idea that things should be “fifty-fifty” is best explained in the modern joke: “At my house we share fifty-fifty. I tell my wife what to do, and she tells me where to go.” There are many illustrations of the modern “help meet,” and they are too numerous to list. The perfect helpmeet is described in the last chapter of the book of Proverbs, and by such a standard, the average twentieth-century woman is far from the original purposes of her creator in her “high standard of gracious living” etc. The late Walter Maier (Lutheran Hour) once broadcasted a list of the world’s ten greatest women. Only four of them were married, and two of these never had any children. I believe they ran something like—Queen Elizabeth, Marie Antionette, Joan of Arc, Madame Curie, etc. Exactly how this type of woman meets the demands of a genuine “helper” for an individual husband is rather obscure. Even more obscure is the “Mary” presented to Catholic believers for their adoration, for if she were a perpetual virgin, then her husband was also a perpetual virgin, unless he lived in fornication or adultery while he was married to her. This brings up the question, would God pick a mother for His Son, as an example for other women, and have her violate 1 Corinthians 7:1–5: Mary was certainly a sorry wife and a poor helpmeet if she remained in a state of “holy matrimony” while refusing her husband the rights which were his by divine law in Genesis 2, Deuteronomy, Matthew 19, and 1 Corinthians 7. If Mary were a “perpetual virgin,” which she certainly was not (see Psa. 69:8), then she was a lawbreaker of the worst sort and a sinner on par with Mary Magdalene! A “helper” is never a “hinderer,” and a “helper” is never “boss.” At least not on any job I’ve ever worked! The wisest man who ever lived claimed that it was better to dwell “alone on a housetop” or “in the wilderness” than with a brawling or contentious woman (Prov. 21:9, 25:24) in a house. As a famous bachelor once said: “I would rather want something I don’t have than have something I don’t want.” One bachelor was asked (at the age of eighty) why he had never married. He said, “Because when I was twenty years old standing in a ticket line, I accidentally stepped on the skirt of a formal worn by a woman ahead of me. She turned like lightning and hissed: ‘Get off my dress, you brute!’ and when she saw me she suddenly smiled and said sweetly: ‘Oh, I am so sorry; I thought you were my husband!’” Our text poses another problem. Would a monkey cook and sew for Adam? Most monkeys do very little cooking, sewing, or house cleaning. If the theistic evolutionists are right—let alone the Darwinian!—certainly the female of the species evolved simultaneously with the male! Or did she? If she did, the thoughts of God on Adam’s helper are ridiculous, for according to theistic evolution the first men were apes or half apes who turned into men—male and female. Is it not rather odd that when the first female showed up she was called “woman” instead of “monkey,” and her “helping functions” were to match (“meet”) his need?

2:19 “And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.”

In the Midrash Rabba, God asks Adam about each animal, “What is this?”; After all the animals are named, “Thou, what is thy name?” Adam responds, “I should be called Adam, for I was taken from adamah” (Hebrew for “ground”). “And what is M y name?” continues the Lord. “Thou art

Adonai, for thou art Adon (Lord) of all thy creatures.” Whether or not this dialogue is farfetched, it remains true that the Hebrew word for Adam has the same trilateral root as Edom: i.e., “red-brown” dirt (see comments on Gen. 2:7). In a more fanciful setting, Adam and Eve are supposed to be naming the beasts, and when one goes by Eve calls it a “rhinoceros”; whereupon Adam says, “And why did you call that animal that?” “Because,” says Eve, “it looked more like a rhinoceros than anything we have seen yet!” The text states that Adam is the originator of the names; he is not playing a $64,000 guessing game with the Creator to see how much he knows. The original names are undoubtedly Hebrew, the language of heaven, and to arrive at the modern European and African and Asiatic designations one would have to pursue the studies of Hislop (The Two Babylons) and trace the roots back to the Chaldean used in Genesis 11. It is to be noticed that the animals are created out of the same material from which man is created; that is, dust of the ground. Hence, the bodies of both return to dust (Ecc. 3:20). “My name was Mud” is the commonplace replica of the truth.

2:20 “And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.”

The reptile (or amphibious) class of animal has been omitted in the listing of animals. It is also found missing in the representative “cherubim” of Revelation 4 and Ezekiel 1. In Genesis 6:7 and 7:8, “creeping things” are mentioned, which might include reptiles or amphibians; but “locusts, grasshoppers, etc.,” come under the same heading in Leviticus 11:20, and these are not reptiles or amphibians. We are left with the conclusion that there is something sinister or even baleful about the reptile class. (I realize this sounds like superstitious twiddle-twaddle to twentieth-century ears, but ears aren’t made any different now than they were in 3000 B.C.) Let it be observed again that although man and animals are from the same genesis, dirt, none of the animals are able to provide a helpmeet for man. “But for Adam...” is inserted vigorously and purposely at the end of “and to every beast of the field.” No amount of juggling and talking about “super history” (urgeschichte) can eradicate the glaring fact that Darwin’s theory was a subjective, personal mechanism of the man himself trying to throw off Biblical conviction and the unsavory truth that he himself (Darwin) was a fallen descendant of a fallen man who was created upright to begin with (Ecc. 7:29). Evolution is not a scientific fact; to be truthful, it is not even a scientific theory. It is the irrational excursus of the unregenerate mind of fallen man attempting to overule and override the revelation of God which teaches degeneration. All evolutionists assume man is going upward; the Bible reveals he is going downward.

2:21 “And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.”

This beautiful picture is so beautiful that it is described as “poetic” or “illustrative” by NeoOrthodox infidels who do not believe it is the truth to start with. We assume the account to be scientifically correct and historically accurate until it has been demonstrated conclusively that it is not. (To borrow Einstein’s quaint definition of “meaning”—a thing has no meaning until it can be demonstrated. That is, to Einstein such things as truth, righteousness, holiness, and honor were nonsense. He only recognized isolated instances of certain types of these things appearing in a relative situation. How quaint compared with another descendant of his race who said, “Thy word is truth,” and “I am THE way, THE truth, and THE life”!) God performed an operation. In the New Testament, this operation is a spiritual one, made “without hands” (Col. 2:10–12); this one is physical. Sir James Simpson, the British physician, read this passage and after praying about it and contemplating it, he produced the first real anesthetic— chloroform. (In similar fashion, the Standard Oil Company made a killing on oil deposits in Egypt on a reading in Exod. 2, and Moshe Dayan, the Israelitish general, mopped up his enemies in June 1967 by following the battle plans found in Joshua, Judges, and 1 Samuel.) It would appear that “demonstrating” the truth of a passage is a matter of time and that Einstein’s definition of “meaning” is only the confession of an agnostic who hopes that three-fourths of what the Bible says will not “pan out.” “A deep sleep.” Henceforth, “sleep” is a picture of death in the case of a saved man (notice John 11:11; 1 Thess. 4:14; Matt. 27:52; 1 Cor. 15:51, etc.). The intimation is that if Adam does not actually die temporarily (see Paul in Acts 14:19), he is at least completely unconscious. (The chances are ten to one that he died, for only by death can a bride be produced to match the New Testament Church, which is plainly the anti-type of Eve: see Eph. 5:20–25.) “And he took one of his ribs.” There is not much doubt about the location of the rib. It would be the fifth rib below the heart on the left side. This may be adduced by the following Scriptures: 2 Samuel 2:23, 4:6, 20:10; John 13:23; Revelation 4:1,2; and Ephesians 5. To “Scripture babies” like Delitzsch, Bauer, Tubingen, Gesenius, Rashi, Maiominides, Keil, Starke, Kennicott, De Rossi, and Leupold, this assortment of Scripture may not seem to be very hom*ogenous, but certain facts are clear. 1. Five is the number of death (see notes on Gen. 5:5). 2. Eve is the cause of Adam’s death, and she is a rib. 3. The only rib mentioned by number in the Bible is the fifth rib. 4. Christ has a spear placed in his side, as Adam’s side was opened. 5. John is a type of the church (see commentary on Revelation, Rev. 4:1–2) and leans on this side at the last supper. 6. The same relationship exists between Christ’s body and Himself as between Eve and Adam (see 1 Cor. 15:22, 45; Eph. 5). That is, Scripture with Scripture, in the English, produces the “nuggets” which no Hebrew or Greek scholar can find, even if he had access to the original manuscripts. “Made he a woman.” The word here is Ishah (woman) in distinction from Ish (man). Literally, the man is a he-man and the woman is a she-man; compare male with “fe-male.” The King’s English preserves this peculiar formation with “woman”; that is, “womb” plus “man.” The word woman is nothing but “womb-man” contracted. This close similarity, along with the close similarity of man’s anatomy with the animal kingdom, produces two peculiar deviations in the nineteenth and twentieth century. It produces the incredible theory of evolution which assumes that because the physical structure of animals is similar to the physical structure of man that there is blood kinship. It also produces the blase attitude of modern America toward hom*osexuality which no longer

looks askance at men wearing earrings, makeup, beads, and carrying purses and women wearing pants, smoking, cussing, and living with each other. (The Scripture comment written 1,800 years ahead of time on this type of thing is found in Rom. 1.) Although the woman is enough male to be called “man” in the collective term (Rom. 2:16, 12:18; Col. 1:28; 1 John 3:1–3; John 1:12, etc.), and although she will be male in the first resurrection (see commentary on Matthew, Matt. 22:30), she is still female enough to be given problems which no male ever had (1 Pet. 3:7; 1 Tim. 2:14; 1 Thess. 5:3) and privileges which no male ever had (Gen. 3:20; Luke 1:35). She is taken out lower than Adam’s head so she will not be “heady and high-minded,” trying to run things (see 1 Cor. 11; 1 Tim. 3:4; Esther 1:22), but she is not taken out from his feet or legs lest she should be stepped on or ignored, at least that is what the devotional commentators say! She was taken from his side, by his heart, to indicate that they should be together and that Adam should love her. Side-by-side is still the common posture at the marriage altar, and there are not a dozen tribes in the world who perform a ceremony any other way.

2:23 “And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”

Strangely enough, Adam omits “blood of my blood.” This omission is only accidental in the eyes of those commentators who think their own comments are more authoritative than the Bible text. However, the intentional omission of “blood” in Luke 24:39 and the intentional omission of “bones” in 1 Corinthians 15:50 show that we should read the Bible more reverentially and concentrate on how best to ignore the commentators. “Flesh and blood” is not “flesh and bones” (see Eph. 5:30), and the issue at stake in the selection of words concerns the doctrines that deal with the blood of Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ has no blood when He rises from the dead! And this is the one who is called “the last Adam” (1 Cor. 15:45). It is common practice to quote Genesis 9:6 in regards to the creation of man, and this would certainly prove that “blood” had something to do with the reference in Genesis 2:7. But Adam’s refusal to mention this points out a tremendous implication. Either Adam had no blood and therefore did not mention it, or his bride was “snow white” with no blood in her and was only a “flesh and bones” wife. Genesis 9:6 will not do for Eve, for the quotation is from Genesis 1:27. Notice that “in the image of God created he...HIM.” After that, the Holy Spirit has added “male and female created he...THEM.” We are left in the dark, so to speak, as to the doctrinal significance of the passage, but if Eve had blood in her, it was not mentioned. It is only stated that she is bone (a rib) and flesh (“and closed up the flesh,” Gen. 2:21). The chances are ten to one that the original bride of man was bloodless and got her corrupt blood orally! (But more about that later; Freudian psychology will have to wait five more verses!) Verse 24 seems oddly at variance with the context, for no one there present has a mother or father to leave! (Or as a wit once said, “At least when Adam told a joke, he didn’t have to worry about

anyone saying, ‘I’ve heard that one before!’”) The statement looks like an insertion by the writer, commenting on verse 23. However, when Jesus quotes the verse in Matthew 19:4, 5, He speaks as though God were the author of the “for this cause..., etc.” Still, it can be God speaking through Moses. If the Creator is doing the speaking directly to Adam and Eve, then it is clearly a prophetic proclamation. “And shall cleave unto his wife.” The “cleaving” is plainly the result of flesh joining flesh, and the figure is so strong that it is used of the old dead spirit of the unsaved man stuck to the body of flesh, which he inhabits and to which he is stuck till “death do him part” (study Rom. 7:1–4, 8:9; 1 Cor. 6:15–19; Col. 2:13). This explains why “fornication” is proper grounds for divorce and explains why a real marriage is “body joining body,” not a ceremony, and a real “divorce” is “body leaving body,” not a circuit court judgment. (See notes on Matthew commentary, Chapter 19:l–12.) “And they shall be one flesh.” The “one flesh” is plainly the male’s flesh. Nowhere is this more strongly put across than in Genesis 5:2 where we are told that Eve’s real name was “Adam.” God did not call her “Eve” (no matter how the popular songs and movies run!). God called her “Mrs. Adam.” For since a woman comes from man and is a “she-man,” she has no name but a man’s name. Every woman in America bears a man’s name. If it is not her husband’s name, then it is her father’s name; but a man’s name it is, for “they shall be one flesh.” (You will not beat the word of God out whether you populate outer space or “blow yourself to kingdom come” before you can populate the moon.) The second chapter of the first book of the Bible ends with this nostalgic note: “And they were both naked...and were not ashamed.” The answer of unregenerate man to this great truth is laid out in format as follows: 1. We are going up, not down. 2. Therefore shame and nakedness are remnants of superstition and ignorance. 3. Therefore nakedness is all right; we are just not used to it. 4. We have to “outgrow” this shame in our naked flesh. 5. This must be done by education. 6. The goal of education is to get you to take your clothes off. Exactly how the hippies and yippies and Berkeley professors (and Columbia too!) missed the obvious terminus of this type of thinking is a little mystifying. Nakedness is the characteristic of the most backward and uncivilized people in the world. Someone has begun their logic on a false premise. Bushmen run around naked and unashamed; do they then not have an intelligence far in advance of Lovell, Anders, and Borman? Someone is nuts. If “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”—as the good biologists testify—how is it that unashamed nakedness is characteristic of infants before they have been taught anything? Were they taught wrong when they were taught to cover their nakedness? Then do not African and Australian Bushmen have a better system of teaching than Europe and America? Someone is nuts. No one is really “nuts,” but it is apparent that premise number one is wrong. You cannot educate any race to nudity without the results of nudity following. The results of baring the flesh, exposing the flesh, promoting the flesh, and sowing to the flesh are disease, corruption, perversion, moral degeneracy, national weakness, and eventual extinction. That is, the “fruit” by which the nudist movement is known in any civilization in which it has appeared or is appearing or shall appear. (Romans 1 will fill in the gaps where Rome, Greece, Babylon, France, and the United States failed to find any material.) The fact that modern man is trying to return to the condition of Genesis 2:25 shows that it existed,

but he interprets it as a natural thing which can be regrasped by simply evolving gracefully back— floating languidly over the gradually evolving years—until he obtains the original innocence. That is, he, as his father Darwin, simply ignores the next chapter in the Bible. For the next chapter, Chapter 3, shows that any imitation of Genesis 2:25 is the forced mental state of a self-deceived sinner trying to create a situation which cannot exist again until God Himself is present on earth in fellowship with man (see Gen 3:10). The trick in modern science (education, transportation, medicine, nuclear physics, and communications included) is to restore to fallen man a paradise of lush vegetation, harmless animals, perfect climate, and naked innocence without fear of war or disease. The “trick” lies in the fact that it must be done with the humus of fallen human nature, without God’s blessing, without giving glory to God, without believing the revelation which God has given, and without trusting the only Man who can restore the conditions. Quite a trick if you can do it!

CHAPTER 3 3:1 “Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?”

The opening words of Genesis 3 sound the death knell for mankind. It would not be overstating it to say that Genesis 3 is the most hated portion of the Bible among twentieth century intelligentsia (exactly as it was amongst such gentry as Porphry, Celsus, and company in the second and third centuries). The limits to which theologians, philosophers, scientists, and educators have gone in order to rid themselves of the implications of the passage surpass the bounds of the universe. And this opposition is not without good incentive, for Genesis 3—if it says what it means and means what it says—postulates five of the most unsavory and objectionable truths ever to tear up a college campus. 1. The root source of all questioning and doubting the Bible is Satanic. 2. Sin on this planet begins with subtracting from and adding to the word of God. 3. Man’s present desire to be “godlike” or like god in knowledge is Satanic. 4. Satan is a real force to be reckoned with in the intellectual realm. 5. Man, in his present condition, is a fallen, deluded, deceived, self-righteous “buck passer” who is hiding from God and using his “religion” as an excuse to disobey the word. “Now the serpent was more subtil.” “Subtil” (subtle in modern English) is the word for it. The temptation, as it comes through, is entirely positive, and everything about it is beneficial to the inquirer. Note: “good for food...pleasant to the eyes...to make one wise.” Well, what could be wrong with that? Thus, at the offset, the Bible believer is walloped with the fact that his adversary is at least ten times more subtle than anyone would give him credit for. The unsaved say, “What’s wrong with smoking? drinking? dancing?” Well, I’ll go you one better. What is wrong with loving your mother? Plenty; look at Luke 12:50–53! At the offset, we must adjust ourselves to the Bible’s way of looking at things. The Bible says “the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field.” What follows, if analyzed closely, will reveal that his subtlety is so potent that there is not the least chance that Bible critics such as Freud, Menninger, Nietzsche, Jung, Pavlov, Leibnitz, or Spinoza, et al., would ever get to first base in the game of reason and logic with him. As a matter of fact, they would never get to bat. “Serpent...beast of the field.” Going again to the Scriptures for the interpretation of the Hebrew “Nahash,” we find that this serpent does not look like a serpent when he appears. To the contrary, he appears as “an angel of light” (2 Cor. 11:12–14). Since every angel in the Bible is a 33-year-old male (see commentary on Matthew, Matt. 22:30, and Gen. 6:1–6), what Eve deals with is a nice, shining gentleman—halo (nimbus) and all! This serpent is not a “snake,” and when his animal counterpart is cursed to appear as a snake, it is cursed above all “cattle” (see 3:14). Why “cattle”? To be as brief as possible, the Bible summary—Scripture with Scripture—is this: 1. Satan was a cherub, and a cherub is defined as a calf or ox (Ezek. 1, 10). 2. This cherub was the fifth cherub, representing the reptile class (Rev. 4; Ezek. 28). 3. As a split-foot beast (see Rev. 4:7; Ezek. 1:7) with two horns, he is represented in Egypt by a golden calf with the sun disk between his horns (Exod. 32) and, hence, is classified with “cattle.” 4. Thus Baal worshippers recognize the ox and serpent as sacred (Hosea 13:2; 1 Kings 17–19).

(For a detailed description, notice the notes on Rev. 2:20 and the work The Mark of the Beast.) The “beast” of Genesis 3:1 is a reference to Revelation 4:7. Moses, writing, calls him a “serpent,” which is the correct nomenclature according to Revelation 12:9. Undoubtedly, when he appears to “Mother Eve,” he appears as a shining “light bearer” (Lux-fero! Lucifer). “And he said unto the woman.” The woman is approached for a number of reasons, primarily because she heard the commandment of 2:16–17 only indirectly; she had no responsibility placed on her as was placed on the man. Again, she was not a direct creation. Woman, unique creature that she is, was the only being not made from the ground. “Yea, hath God said...?” The revelation is remarkable. No “Urgeschichte” writer could possibly have guessed the eternal significance of such a simple question. We know the passage is inspired because of how the next 6,000 years turn out! How could an average writer (or a brilliant writer) grasp the essential truths of the spiritual realm enough to pen this masterpiece? Note! 1. The first “yes” in the Bible is by one who is devoted to the destruction of the truth. (How is it that the writer discerns that a positive approach to man and history is the wrong approach? No major writer today assumes that approach!) 2. Wherever “the serpent” speaks thereafter, he always begins by questioning (see Job 1; Matt. 4; Luke 4). (How does the writer [or writers] of Genesis grasp by intuition that everyone writing after him for the next 1,000 years will adopt his method, when neither he nor they have the complete revelation on “the serpent”?) 3. How is it that for the next 6,000 years no man, woman, or child in any country on this globe, in any year, had any assurance for certain about life after death when they counted on “religion” to save them and rejected what God said? (The first attack, here in verse 1, is “Yea, HATH GOD SAID...?” A pretty universal statement about a universal problem that is perennial in any age, among any people, of any race, at any time. Nice guesswork, don’t you think, with which to start a religious book? Confucius and Buddha weren’t that good at guessing games.) “Yea, hath God said...?” This marks the founding of the Y.H.G.S. Society which still operates today under the guise of “scientific investigations,” “reaching maturity,” “psychological research,” and kindred $50.00 words for those who are willing to pay for an alibi to run from the truth. Active in this society will be found 90 percent of the writers, artists, musicians, poets, scientists, educators, and philosophers of any given age or time since “not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called” (1 Cor. 1:26). The “academy award” winners in the Y.H.G.S. Society are Satan, Eve, Cain, Nimrod, Ahab, Pharaoh, Jonah, Simon Peter, Moses, Belshazzar, Jezebel, Saul, Samson, Zedekiah, and Coniah. Congressional Medals were awarded posthumously to Josephus, Pliny, Philo, Origen, Celsus, Porphyry, Augustine, Pope Innocent, Pope Gregory, Pope Leo, Thomas Aquinas, Abelard, Anselm, Calvin, Bloody Mary, Arminius, Voltaire, Rousseau, Tom Paine, Clarence Darrow, Emerson, Hobbes, Hume, Huxley, Darwin, Einstein, Gibbon, Dewey, Russell, Barth, Brunner, Tillich, Neibhur, and Papa Johnny the second XXIII ( the original John XXIII was already a pope in 1410!!). “Yea, hath God said?” Did He really say Philippians 4:13? Did He really mean Philippians 4:19? Can you really count on Romans 8:28? Is it really a thousand years just because God said it six times in Revelation 20:1–7? “Yea, hath God said?” Wasn’t it obscure, apocalyptic, symbolical, figurative? “Yea, hath God said?” Are not the Puranas, Shastas, Bhagavad Gita, and the Analects just as inspired? Did God really say Matthew 23? “Yea, hath God said?” Is not the revelation of God in nature enough without Him saying anything? Didn’t Moses say Genesis 3? Wasn’t it the “Jehovistic writer” and the “Elohistic writer”? “Yea, hath God said?”

Satan is not interested in what God said or did not say; what he is interested in is getting you to doubt that He said what He said. One of Satan’s children in John 18:38 says, “What is truth?” He does not ask “what is truth?” He says “What is truth?” and then turns on his heel and walks out without waiting for the answer. He, as the Supreme Court of the United States, believed that all truth was relative and that political expediency was the determining factor in a case of justice. (If all truth is relative, then every man is his own judge and his own God, or man will have to submit to an ecclesiastical machine that will play God for him—see Rev. 13, 17.) Satan is not interested in “What is truth” anymore than Pilate was or anymore than the faculty at Columbia or Harvard. What they are searching for is “successful ways and means of bringing human beings into happy adjustment and ways to use the benefits of science and research for all men to end man’s inhumanity to man.” “Truth” is completely out of the question (Isa. 59:14). “Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” Note the insinuation which will appeal to the feminine instincts. “Did God say you couldn’t have any of them?” (The updated insinuation is, “My, my, what a mean, old, nasty Satrap! Won’t let you eat a cotton pickin’ thing around here! Terrible! Terrible!”) And Eve bites at the conversation long before she bites at the grape—and it was a grape (see Gen. 2:6–9).

3:2 “And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.”

Enter the first sin committed on this earth. It is not “adultery” as taught by the medieval theologians, and it is not “adding to the word” as found in the standard, conservative, premillennial work; it is plainly subtracting from the word. Eve omits the word “freely” in citing Genesis 2:16. The words (not the thoughts), the words (not the teachings or doctrines), “the words of the Lord are pure words...tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times” (Psa. 12:6). To the average American, European, Asiatic, or African this late in the end time, Eve’s conversation with the serpent is a nullity or, at the most, an inane “talking fable.” The “modern mind” (or the pagan mind) is conditioned to refuse any material which might destroy its self-centered position. Yet in Eve’s brief conversation, the working of the “unhappy” or “dissatisfied inquirer” is pictured so clearly that no modern textbook on psychology has ever improved on it. “We may eat....” Misquote, sister! The original manuscript said, “Thou mayest FREELY eat.” What is the difference? Well, the difference is so great that the last invitation for salvation in the Bible says— 1,200 pages later—“whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. ” This is called the gift of God (see comments on Gen. 2:15–17). Among those free trees is to be found the Tree of Life (see Gen. 2:9, 16). Adam and Eve “had it made” as the modern idiom states. Both of them by freely eating could have lived forever in a sinless, innocent condition in fellowship with their Creator and all of His creation! A man says, “Do you mean to tell me that some fruit could produce eternal life?” Of course, why not? Are not the trees of Ezekiel 47:12 and Revelation 22 for “medicine” and “healing”? Have not the American Medical Association and the college laboratories and nuclear physicists all over the world

spent hours and days in trying to produce life or substances that can sustain life? Why would anyone think that man, having lost eternal life and perfect health, would not spend at least one-fourth of his time trying to get them back? What is so original about anything science and medicine have done in the last 500 years when they had to follow this line of investigation by reason of their own background? Genesis 3 gives the background. These are plainly “supernatural trees” with powers not to be found in a modern fruit tree, but what does that have to do with the price of eggs? There are powers in LSD not found in ham and grits. What is the point? “But of the fruit of the tree....” This is the tree of knowledge, sought after so earnestly by parents in America for their children. “Readers are leaders.” “Knowledge is power.” “An enlightened people cannot be an enslaved people,” etc. A wiser and far more accurate comment was once made by Dr. Bob Jones Sr. (evangelist and educator), who said, “Education without salvation is damnation.” Since education is the third major idol worshipped by idolators in America—the first two being money and sex—it is not surprising that educators would be very anxious to get rid of such texts as this one and 1 Corinthians 1; Isaiah 28:9, 29:11–16; Luke 10:21–22, and James 3:13–16. 1. Knowledge is what you cram away in your brain (1 Cor. 8:1). 2. Wisdom is what you do with it after you’ve stuffed it in your brain (2 Chron. 1:10; Job 28:28). 3. Understanding is knowing the relationship of 1 and 2 to God (Prov. 9:10; Dan. 1:20). In the modern educational system, the Tree of Knowledge is the only “tree” in which anyone is interested; this explains why many of the richest and most successful people in the world (from a worldly standpoint) have only a high school education or less. They have little knowledge, but many have tons of worldly wisdom. Under the pretense of “the truth shall make you free,” the Caucasian educational system has eliminated all absolute truth on morals and prophesy and has limited the verse (John 8:32) to the isolated findings of the physical and psychological “sciences.” When a modern educator says, “Ye shall know the truth...etc.,” he means, “If you will shut out convictions (which are really prejudices) and come to us with an open mind, we will dump enough garbage into your system so that you can live with your sins the rest of your life without it bugging you too much.” (That may be a crude way to put it, but this is a Bible believer’s commentary, not a “best-seller”!) The tree that is now mentioned—“of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst”—is obviously a vine tree. Every few years the AP and UP and INS come out with an eye-catcher to the effect that “it was not an apple that Eve ate” or that “it was an Oriental apricot” etc. The source of this silly nonsense is writers holding doctorates from accredited institutions. In Genesis 3 we find something entirely different (see comments on Gen. 2:8–10). The trees present by name are olive, fig, vine, and later thorns and thistles. These match those in Judges 9. They have counterparts in the gospels. 1. The olive: Gethsamane, the olive press, and the Tree of Life (Rom. 11). 2. The fig: cursed in the Gospels, a type of self-righteousness (Jer. 24). 3. The vine: forbidden fruit in Numbers 6 and its anti-type, blood, forbidden throughout the Bible (Gen. 9; Lev. 17; Acts 25). 4. Thorns: On Christ’s head to symbolize atonement for the creation and creature. (See Isa. 11 and Rom. 8 for particulars on the final restoration of both.) By such a layout the olive is clearly “the Tree of Life,” and the vine is clearly the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil” (see Ezek. 15). Hence, fermented liquor from time immemorial is the initiatory “cup” for “lovers of wisdom”—the Bacchus-bred philosophers of any age who reject the revelation of God. Babylon holds this cup in Revelation 17, and she is pictured as holding it on Babylonian coins 500 years before Jesus Christ sat down at the “last supper.” “Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.”

Having subtracted from the word (a violation under the law, Deut. 4:2, and under grace, Rev. 22:19), Eve goes blithely on and, in true Amplified Version fashion, expands the sentence until it no longer means what it says. “Neither shall ye touch it.” God said nothing of the kind. It is exactly like the pope insisting that Mary was a perpetual virgin and ascended to heaven before the first resurrection; that is, it is a complete disregard for what God said, with no intention of finding out what He said, and quoting Him as saying something He never said and never will say. Eve adds to the words and while maintaining the thought of “thou shalt SURELY die,” she consults her Hebrew lexicon and faculty advisor and comes out with “LEST ye die.” Eve is the perfect modern “conservative.” She believes the “fundamentals” without believing the words that teach them! “Lest ye die” is putting it mildly. “Thou shalt surely die” is putting it “over the plate waist high.” The difference, if you want to be downright crude about it, is the difference between what God said and what you want Him to say; “surely die” is a dogmatic, absolute, infallible, inerrant truth. “Lest ye die” could grace the cap and gown of any Ph.D. getting the sheep skin laid on him; it radiates the “laws of chance” and “statistical probability.” When Eve speaks, she speaks for every intellectual agnostic that ever lived. “Lest ye die.” There is no “lest” to it, woman; you are going to drop dead in your tracks!

3:4 “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”

Note: the serpent quotes God directly! “Ye shall not surely die.” It is true that he inserts the negative “not,” making a liar out of God, but at least he gets the “surely” right, which Eve missed. Satan knows the Scripture and believes it more than the most ardent Fundamentalist in America today! Notice the denial of absolute truth: “Ye shall not SURELY die”; that is, the serpent agrees with Eve that there is a possibility that you will not. One can almost hear a college professor answering Romans 6:23 with, “Well, that all depends on how you look at it!” You will look at it through the eyes of a sinner earning his wages; for no matter how, when, where, or why you look at it, “The wages of sin is death.” And those are the wages that have not been affected by inflation and the price spiral. Notice the progressive calamity. First the will of God is resisted; then the word of God is denied; then the way of God is deserted. Exactly as men are lost by believing a lie (John 8:44–47), so men are saved by believing the truth (John 5:24). Satan’s method is as old as the first marriage; it is questioning God’s word first (vs. 1), then denying His severity (vs. 4), then slandering His goodness (vs. 5). In spite of the lying going on in the passage, would the reader carefully note the four elements of truth in the lie. Every effective lie is at least four-fifths true. You cannot sell a bushel of bad apples without good ones on the top! 1. “God doth know”—absolutely true. 2. “Your eyes shall be opened”—absolutely true (see vs. 7). 3. “Ye shall be as gods”—absolutely true (see vs. 22). 4. “Knowing good and evil”—absolutely true (see vs. 22 again).

What Lucifer carefully omits is: 1. God knows more than He talks to Eve about (1 Chron. 28:9–10). 2. “Opened eyes” are not always too good (Hab. 1:13). 3. Being as “gods” doesn’t solve anything. The “gods” in some cases are fallen angels (Psa. 82; 2 Cor. 4:3–4; see comments on Gen. 6:1–6). 4. “Knowing good and evil” is what condemns the sinner (Deut. 1:39; Rom. 4:15, 5:13)! But who is sufficient for these things? And if the greatest minds of nineteen centuries have failed to detect the subtlety of the temptation—after the incident was recorded in a book—how would Eve have ever seen through it? She didn’t. She was “deceived” (1 Tim. 2:13–14). A politician once said (while running for office), “As far as food goes, I like Alabama better than Ohio.” Later, he was quoted by his opposition as saying, “I like Alabama better than Ohio.” Half truth. A man got on a witness stand and was asked, “Did you write this letter?” He answered, “No!” (He didn’t write it —he dictated it!) Half truth. Did you ever stop to scrutinize the confounded traps and pitfalls there are in the human heart even when it is speaking the simplest sentence? Witness: “I did not SAY that he stole that dog!” “I did not say that HE stole that dog!” “I did not say that he stole THAT dog!” “I did not say that he stole that DOG!” (My, what unspoken implications follow these simple declarations, Jer. 17:9!)

3:6 “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.”

Eve is ready to take the trotline. She has betrayed her hidden dissatisfaction by adding “neither shall ye touch it” to an otherwise reasonable prohibition; and she has revealed to Satan a “hidden gripe,” as it were, which, according to Romans 1:21, is the beginning of all sin, even where words are left unspoken. The overt sin was subtracting from the words, but even before that, we see a complaining spirit written all over our first mother which manifests itself in making God seem like a harsh disciplinarian (cf. the servant of Matt. 25:24). (Bob Jones Sr. spoke once to a young lady who, rebelling against a campus rule to wear dresses of knee-length at least, paraded down the mall with a skirt that touched her ankles. As she went by Dr. Jones, he said quietly, “Good morning, Eve!”) Now, the temptation arises. In the doctrine of peccability, the place where sin enters is always between the illumination over the desired object and the debate as to whether or not to act. Presentation is not sin, for Christ was presented with the whole word in His temptation, yet He was without sin (Matt. 4:8; Heb. 4:15). Illumination about the object is not sin, for there is no way to act, good or bad, until you know the consequences of the action and its moral implications. But in the next step, which theologians refer to as debate, there begins in the sinner’s mind the contest between conscience and flesh, or God and self, as the tempted one considers the pros and cons and possible outcomes of the line of action. This is the beginning of sin, for as a man “thinketh in his heart, so is he!” (see Prov. 23:7; Matt. 15:19). The decision to act is next, and the action is last; but sin, as such, began before the decision; it began with debate. Eve has already been through presentation and illumination, and instead of giving her seducer a “Thus saith the Lord,” she begins to debate in verse 6. It is all over but the burying. The temptation is the classic threefold form which occurs throughout the Bible. It begins with a

“look” (“saw that the tree was good”), exactly as Abimelech (Gen. 20:9), Lot (Gen. 13:10), and David (2 Sam. 11:2) experienced it; and exactly as every American experiences it plastered before his eyes, morning, noon, and night, as “advertising.” Comparing Luke 4, John 2:16, and Genesis 3, we find the following correspondence: 1. “Lust of the flesh,” “good for food,” “command that these stones be made bread.” 2. “Lust of the eyes,” “pleasant to the eyes,” “all the kingdoms of the world.” 3. “Pride of life,” “Desired to make one wise,” “Cast thyself down,” etc. The outstanding thing about Eve’s temptation, which marks it as a piece of inspired and genuine work, is that every element in it is positive and for a good cause. Technically, there is not one thing wrong with what Eve was about to do—except it was forbidden. The first “positive thinker” had applied the “power of positive thinking” and the result was 6,000 years of hospital beds and graves and souls stepping out into eternity unprepared to meet their Maker. Quite a price to pay for “looking at the bright side of things.” I assume that Satan demonstrated the impotency of the vine tree by munching on its fruit directly in front of Eve. As a matter of fact, the famous “serpent with the apple in his mouth” is so intertwined with the tree—even on the medical corps insignia in the armed services in 1970—that one might take a wild shot and assume Satan had a connection with the tree in a bodily sense! (Study Ezek. 31, and if you have the opportunity, spend some time with Hislop’s definitive work The Two Babylons. Not everything about a Christmas tree, totem pole, stick for water witching, Ouija board, table tapping, and “knocking on wood” comes under the heading of folklore.) Here the Holy Spirit allows the shroud of mystery to fall over the transaction for: 1. Eve was a virgin (2 Cor. 11:1–4). 2. She was beguiled (or seduced; 2 Cor 11:1–4). 3. Her first child has a supernatural father (see comments on Gen. 4:1; 1 John 3:12). 4. But she takes the forbidden fruit orally (Gen. 3:6). 5. It is a grape with seeds and typifies blood and becomes blood in her (see Gen. 2:23). The ladies have worn RED LIPSTICK ever since! (I believe Revlon advertised “liquid lipstick.”) “She took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” We must read some between the lines in order to match the verses with 1 Timothy 2. (And there is never a contradiction between verses; where there appears to be, then we have not read enough— or have read too much—into the text.) First Timothy 2:14 states that Adam was not deceived. This can only mean two things in relation to what we have just read: 1. He was not present at the time Eve was beguiled. 2. He saw the results of her disobedience the moment she offered him the fruit and took it knowingly, being aware of its effect (see Eph. 5:28–29). Adam loves Eve enough to die for her, and so he does. Again, we are impressed with the peculiar universality of the story. The types are too perfect for amateurs like Confucius, Mohammed, Zoroaster, Buddha, or Lao-tze. After all, are not love and murder the chief themes of Hollywood, T.V., radio, newspapers, and magazines? The Japanese who visited America for two months and returned gave a vivid report about television in the “great democracy” when he said they had two kinds of pictures: “Smack, smack” and “Bang, bang.” Doesn’t every woman dream of having a man who loves her enough to die for her? And the universal truths do not run out yet in our text. Notice

“and he did eat.” Isn’t it rather strange that in a religious book which is supposed to be concerned with great spiritual truths, that the third chapter has the word “eat” in it at verses 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 (twice!), 11, 12, 13, 14, 17 (three times), 18, 19, and 22? Why so much emphasis on the mouth? Did Moses anticipate Freud by 2,000 years? If “all the labor of a man is for his mouth” (Ecc. 6:7), how do you suppose it is that other religious books don’t start right in with this basic, fundamental, practical subject? “And he did eat.” Adam discerns that “snow white” is no longer “snow-white”; she is pink or reddish brown like himself. Something has gone wrong. The blush on Eve’s face is no longer the bloom of heavenly grace, but the kindling of the fires of the second death, and Adam eats to die with her.

3:7 “And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.”

They got the knowledge, but oh, what a price! They traded a paradise with God for one sin, and I am certain that they were not the last couple to do it. In exchange for naked innocence, fellowship with God, perfect weather conditions, an outdoor life, and without fear of death, taxes, disease, poverty, war, or crime; they inherited “civilization” and the tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and tidal waves of a creation now “set on fire of hell” (James 3:6; Rom. 8:21; Luke 21:10–11, 25). That is, they went in just the opposite direction from that which is presented to grade school children in America. Somewhere as Darwin, Lyell, Huxley, and Russell were coming out of their planaria and amoeba stages headed for the moon, Adam and Eve passed them going the other way headed for a hole in the ground and hell. (Like the professor said, “It all depends on how you look at it, doesn’t it?”) “And the eyes of them both were opened.” The expression is defined in the AV without the benefit of Greek or Hebrew (Luke 24:31 and 2 Kings 6:17). They not only obtained a grasp of their wrong doing and their sin against God, but they discerned what the drugged junkie on LSD cannot discern—they discerned that something was radically wrong with their clothing. All the animals and birds around them grew their own clothes, but they had no covering!! They were naked. Again we are struck with the force of the account, for to this day everything a modern man wears comes from the ground or from another animal. Four thousand years of “science” hasn’t altered one basic fact of the Genesis account. Job’s statement (Job 1:21) was as timely when it was made in 1400 B.C. as it was when Paul used it again in 1 Timothy 6:7–8. Science has never, and will never, add anything to it. Every scientist who ever died faced God as “naked as a jaybird.” The only “covering” the Bible speaks of which a man can make for himself is a covering of “filthy rags” (Isa. 64:6). “And they sewed fig leaves together.” Here enters the “fig leaf” factor which appears today in the following diversified forms: Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Mohammedanism, Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism, Rosicrucianism, Seventh-day Adventism, Communism, Atheism, or any other set of ideals which are used to cover man’s lack of holiness and righteousness. The fig tree is the only one Jesus ever cursed (Matt 21:19), and it typifies “religion.” A tree that bears leaves with no fruit is the picture of a professing religionist (as Cain) who is operating under the assumption that he himself can earn the righteousness he lacks. (See Rom. 10:1–10 and Rom. 4:1–10 for a detailed discussion.) “Covering up” from henceforth becomes the chief occupation of man, second only to “passing the

buck” (Gen. 3:12–13) and “hiding from God” (Gen. 3:8). The greatest religious systems and philosophical systems erected by mankind have been erected to give the sinner a way to keep his own righteousness (fig leaves!) and avoid God’s righteousness, which can only be bestowed on those who trust God’s work of blood atonement (see Gen. 3:21) instead of their own (cf. Rom. 5:1–8; Acts 20:28; Col. 1:14). A note must be made on Adam’s spiritual condition at this time. In the archives of false teaching will be found the famous Russellite formula (preached today by Garner Ted Armstrong) that the only “death” in Genesis 2 and 3 is “physical death.” This fanciful private interpretation comes from observing that although Adam did not drop dead physically when he partook of the fruit, that the expression “in the day that thou eatest thereof” (Gen. 2:17) refers to a thousand year period— which it sometimes does!—and since Adam lived to be 930 years old, the reference to death is to his physical death 900 years after he ate the fruit. There are about thirty-five things wrong with this private interpretation, but we will point out only four or five outstanding things. 1. In Adam all men die (1 Cor. 15:22). Did you die physically in 4000 B.C.? 2. All men are dead till they are born again (Eph. 2:1–8). If they were dead,what part of them was dead? Their body? (See notes on Gen. 1:27–28.) 3. When did Eve die? She also ate. 4. What did Christ mean when He said, “Let the dead bury their dead?” (Luke 9:60)? How do physically dead people bury physically dead people? 5 . Adam could have lived forever physically after he ate the fruit! (Ellen G. White, C. T. Russell, and H. W. Armstrong forgot to read verse 22 in the same chapter!) It is perfectly apparent to a sixth-grade reader that Adam’s spirit died. This is reinforced by the great truth of John 3:6–7, “That which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.” The only person who could misinterpret the plain statement of these verses would be a man or woman who had never been born again! Three things happen when Adam pops that fruit into his mouth. 1. He gets blood poisoning—if he had blood to start with. (If he had no blood then he gets it at this time, from the wrong source because for the next 6,000 years all his descendants die.) 2. His spirit dies within him; all his future descendants are born “dead in sins.” 3. His “soul” becomes “stuck to” the body of flesh making him a bond servant to a naked body and henceforth a “prisoner” in the grip of sin (John 8:34; Rom. 7:17–24). Nine hundred years (897 to be exact) later, Adam’s heart stops, his lungs collapse, and his body follows his spirit into death (see Rom. 5:12–21). But of far more importance than the three changes listed above is the fourth thing that happens to Adam, a calamity of such consequence that it is not remedied until the Ascension of Christ, and then only partially. Adam loses the image of his Maker. The image was Christ Himself (see 2 Cor. 4:3–4; Heb. 1:2–3; and Col. 3:9–10), and consequently, no man—lost or saved—from Adam to Pentecost is made in the image of God. All are made in the image of Adam (see Gen. 5:3). Thus, the Bible again rudely assaults two favorite positions held by contemporary man. 1. All men are made in God’s image. 2. All men come up from apes in the image of animals. Neither statement is true, and both alike are vestiges of Dark Age, “old wives” fables passed down from one university campfire to another. To be “made in the image of God” now, a man must receive the image (John 1:12). Since no religion, church, sacrament, ideal, philosophy, government,

teaching, practice, belief, reform, or drug can reproduce the image, modern man (as all uncivilized pagans) is “alone in the world without hope and without God,” “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1–6; 2:12). He must be born again.

3:8 “And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.”

Sin brings guilt, guilt brings shame, and shame compels the sinner to run and hide. The modern solution for this string of events is to “adjust.” Under modern therapy, the sinner, in his birthday suit, would walk right up in front of God (like someone in the Fonda family) and say, “Well what of it? We all make mistakes. None of us are perfect. Why get upset about it? A guilt complex will just make it harder to adjust.” (Adam and Eve had more sense and more knowledge of “good and evil.” They hid.) Again, we are impressed with the tremendous universal themes being expounded. Babies are born naked, they are told “mustn’t touch,” and when they do they invariably try to get the object in their mouths. When they are caught “in the act,” they will tend to run or hide or both. How is it that the Bible knows every move a man is going to make in any age, and it begins its story with an outline of every man for the next 6,000 years? Coincidence? So the man and his wife hide. Modern man hides behind indifference, innocence, ignorance, and indulgence. He says, “You’ve got your religion and I’ve got mine.” (Yes, and the devil has his!) “Well, I don’t exactly accept Christ, and I don’t exactly reject Him.” (Not to accept is to reject—Luke 11:23.) “This is not the proper time and place, and I believe in each thing in its proper place!” (You mean you show up in some church on Easter and Christmas and spend the rest of your time living like you jolly well please.) Modern man says, “What about the heathen that don’t know?” (Well, you’re a heathen and you know! Who ever told you that the word “heathen” meant “uncivilized people”? There are two kinds of heathen: civilized and uncivilized. “Where do the heathen go?” They go to Walgreens and Sears and Roebuck; that’s where they go!) Do you know what characteristics mark the heathen? Missionaries who have been in Africa ten to fifty years say that heathen people are easy to spot. 1. They are all very religious. 2. They like to take off their clothes. 3. They like to dance. 4. They like to paint their bodies. 5. They like to trade wives. 6. They like to smoke weeds. 7. They fight continually. Is that a description of French Equatorial Africa or sorority row at the University of California? Men say, “Well, God, I’ll come to church one night this week, but the USO and the Campfire Girls, the PTA and the Boy Scouts, the United Drive and the Cerebral Palsy fund...I just don’t have time.” Men say, “Well, that’s just your interpretation. I think when you’re dead, you’re dead like a dog, etc.” Men hide. I knew a man that went to college ten years to master geology so he could use rock formations to prove the Genesis account was a lie so he could get around Genesis 3! “And they heard the voice of the Lord God.” It is not that men don’t hear the call. The Son of

Man came “to seek and to save that which was lost,” and the Holy Spirit is calling lost men today and drawing them (John 12:32; 16:7–10). He knocks on their heart’s door and rings the doorbell of their consciences with Scripture verses, powerful sermons, dramatic “narrow escapes,” disasters of sickness and bereavement, hymns of entreaty, and prayers of loved ones—they heard (Rom. 10:18; Col. 1:23). “The voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day.” This would indicate that the Lord God has a regular time of fellowship with Adam, and it was either early in the morning or late in the afternoon. (The voice is listed by the orthodox Jews [in vs. 10] as “memra,” or a reference to the spoken word of God in the sense of John 1:1. The passages in the Pentateuch where this “memra” is located are Gen. 6:6, 8:21, 9:12, 15:1, 17:1–2, 21:20, 22:16, 24:3, 26:2–3, 28:13– 15, 31:49, 35:3, 39:2; Exod. 3:12, 4:11–12, 10:10, 14:31; Lev. 20:23–24; Num. 3:16, 4:37; and Deut. 1:10; 2:7, 3:22.) 3:9 “And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? 10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.” The verse presents the Creator seeking His creature, and this is a necessity, for “there is none that seeketh after God” (Rom. 3:11), in spite of the nonsense put out in the theological textbooks about the Bible being the history of man’s “search for God.” Men only search for a religion that will suit their individual habits and idiosyncrasies. If God doesn’t seek out His fallen creature, his fallen creature keeps right on falling (Ezek. 34:11, 16). The Good Shepherd of Luke 15:4–6 goes out after the sheep, and when he comes home, he would have had a strange lamb indeed who piped up and said, “After many hours of patiently searching and crying and agonizing in prayer I finally found the Shepherd, and by holding on to him tightly unto the end and living a good life, I was finally able to....” Yes, one of the surest proofs of Adam’s fall is the capital “I” that turns up in a lot of “testimonies.” “Where art thou?” God’s question. Every man is somewhere, and as the old colored preacher said, “Some of you folks is whea you shouldn’t outta be, and you folks dat is whea you shouldn’t outta be is gowin to wind up whea you wisht you wuzn’t!” The question is: “Where are you in the sight of God.” Not in the sight of your neighbors, your family, your business associates, your priest, or your own mirror; but where are you in God’s sight? If you don’t know, why have you never read God’s description of you in Romans 1–3? “I was afraid...I was naked...I hid myself.” At least this much of Adam’s confession was honest. What follows (vs. 12) is not so honest, but the first confession is “straight.” Since Darwin and Freud and kindred spirits were never honest enough to make this confession, we will let their granddaddy Adam speak for them. The truth of the matter is that the average college professor is simply an egotistical upstart that got blistered when he was a young man with a verse of Scripture or a “hell fire and damnation sermon” somewhere down the line. So he devoted his subsequent life to reading and study which would lead to the erasing of the original conviction. What the average professor calls “maturity” is the overcoming of what he considers to be an irrational fear of some kind; nine times out of ten in his own life, this fear was the fear of judgment and hell. “I was afraid…I hid.” An analysis of Genesis 3 gives an excruciating insight into the mental processes of the nineteenth- and twentieth-century critics of the Bible. Under the guise of “liberating the consciences” of their classrooms (Jude 19; 2 Pet. 2:14–21) from “hangovers” of their former animal

natures, the professors insist that Biblical Christianity is one in a series of “helpful religions” which weak people—who do not understand what the professor does!—may find helpful in sustaining them through the “unknown.” The truth of the matter is modern psychology is a pillowcase behind which weak people hide to rid themselves of the fear of judgment and hell after they have seared their conscience (1 Tim. 4:1–5). The solution does not lie in running to Marx, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Huxley, the radio, Faulkner, the TV set, Hemingway, a good movie, or Einstein for a “poultice”; the solution lies in running to the Lord of life (Mark 10:17) and hiding in the Rock of Ages (Psa. 17:8, 27:5).

3:11 “And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? 12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.”

The question is a bloodcurdler if one is able to place himself in Adam’s “frame” at this point. Unwittingly, Adam has given himself away by confessing “nakedness.” Why confess it if there was nothing wrong with it? “Who told thee...?” Undoubtedly, there is a blank space between the two questions which the Lord God asks our first parent. Then more ominously, “Hast thou eaten?” And the man passes the buck. At verse 12 the old Army game starts—Colonel to Lt. Colonel, Lt. Colonel to Major, Major to Captain, Captain to 1st Looey, 1st Looey to Shavetail, Shavetail to Staff, Staff to Buck Sgt., Buck to Corporal, Corporal to 1st Class, 1st Class to Buck Private (rear rank in the old eight-man squad), and the Buck private goes out and empties the garbage can. “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me.” Notice how gracious Adam has become! He not only puts the blame on the woman, he now blames his Creator for giving him the woman in the first place! “Love at first sight” and all that, but the honeymoon is over. Now, instead of “Oh God, please forgive me and have mercy upon me according to thy loving kindness and tender mercy...blot out my transgressions,” etc., it is, “She did it, and you are responsible for her!” Something has certainly taken the “ginger” out of Adam! He passes the buck. We are face to face, for the fifth time, with the universal concepts. What family of brothers and sisters does not make a regular habit of passing the buck? Warned not to do a thing, they do it; they run and hide, they get caught, and then they alibi. That is, all children everywhere follow the pattern of the first three chapters of the Bible. Why is it that the universal symbols and types—the mouth, the eating, the nakedness, the vine accompanying nakedness (see Hab. 2:15; Lam. 4:21), the hiding, the lying, and the self-righteousness —are all so well covered in the first three chapters of a book that will later deal with the population of outer space, the successive world empires, the preservation of one nation for 4,000 years, a world dictator over the United Nations, and the plan of salvation? There are well over 4,000 religious books in the world; why only one that defines from the start everything about man on which the rest will have to imitate or elaborate? The Bible begins with absolute definitions of human nature and follows with demonstrations of these definitions, and they are as reliable now as they were when they took place. Men not only blame their fellowman for their troubles; they blame God (Rom. 9:19–21). (Russia carried it so far they decided to outlaw God, and Altizer [in the steps of his idol Nietzsche] declared God had had a heart attack and died somewhere. Nietzsche once wrote boldly on a wall “‘God is

dead,’ Nietzsche.” In less than a year they buried Nietzsche, and some jolly soul scratched his writing out and inscribed “‘Nietzsche is dead!’ God.”)

3:13 “And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.”

Eve has picked up the disease too; she passes the buck. She blames it on the serpent. Notice the question is, “What is this that THOU hast done?” The question was clear. “What did you do?” The proper answer to this is, “I disobeyed God.” But neither Adam nor his wife give the proper answer. Eve starts whining about the reason why she disobeyed, not her disobedience. The whole scene foreshadows a terrible day in the future (Rev. 20; 2 Pet. 3), when the hordes of earth’s millions stand before their Maker and give account for the deeds done in the body (Ecc. 12:13–14; Rom. 2:13) and seek to justify themselves before God. Not once in the conversation of Genesis 3 do you hear anyone say, “I [have] sinned, and done this evil in thy sight!” (see Psa. 51:1–12).

3:14 “And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: 15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”

God does not ask the serpent “why?”. He evidently has had dealings with the gentleman before (see Gen. 6:1–6). (A man has said that if the serpent could have blamed anyone else he would have blamed him!) For the reference to “cattle,” see the remarks on Gen. 3:1. “Upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat....” This prophecy is repeated in Isaiah 65:25, even in the Millennium, and we are faced with the problem of how to reconcile the “Angel of Light” with a crawling snake. Only two alternatives are possible. Either Satan spoke to Eve through the person of a literal snake—which is highly improbable—or the snake is a type of the being who addressed Eve. The latter alternative is far more probable, although it leaves the problem of verse 14 unsolved if the words apply to the Angel of Light himself. Satan goes about as a “roaring lion” (1 Pet. 5), not as a snake, and his sphere of activity is not limited to “dirt eating” on this planet, for he still has access to the Throne (see Rev. 12:4–10). One can spiritualize the passage and say that the “dust” of verse 14 represents “men,” for man returns to dust in verse 19 and is called “dust” (“dust thou art”) and that “upon thy belly shalt thou go” refers only to a degrading and despicable state. The serpent cannot be a literal snake of today, for what follows in verse 15 shows that it is a being capable of hurting a virgin born Son of God and bearing its own son—a counterfeit messiah. “Enmity” is to make an enemy. God will make the serpent an enemy of the woman and vice versa. (Jean Dixon and like ladies excepted, of course!) But the verse suddenly stretches out far beyond the personalities of Eve and her antagonist.

Genesis 3:15 becomes the first in a series of verses known as “Messianic prophecies” (i.e., prophecies about the coming Messiah). To be entirely accurate, it must be remembered that Genesis 1:20 (“life” on the fifth day) is the first real Messianic passage, for it dates the First Advent and shows that death (see Gen. 5:5) is connected with this Advent. But this is a little clouded in the minds of people who resent really “deep studies” in the Scripture; so in the main, commentators have limited themselves to Genesis 3:15 as the first Messianic passage. The elements in the verse are as follows: 1. The woman and the serpent will not get along. 2. The woman will have a seed, designated “it” (neuter). 3. The serpent will have a seed which will be at enmity with the woman’s seed. 4. The serpent will bruise the heel of the woman’s seed. 5. The woman’s seed will bruise the serpent’s head. Seizing the opportunity to make a liar out of God as quickly as possible (after the Devil did it in vs. 4), the Catholic Church has changed the neuter “it” to “she” in many of its translations, thus making Mary the “St. George” of the Bible! Mary did nothing to the serpent’s head at all. The serpent, with the power of death (Heb. 2:14), took Mary to the grave at the appointed time, and she did not come up—regardless of the opinion of the College of Cardinals about the matter. Recent Catholic translations have returned to the AV 1611 reading, thereby admitting their error in attempting to change the living word “of the living God” (Jer. 23:36). 1. Women and serpents—at least the snake variety—do not get along. Not one woman out of a thousand has any use for any animal that crawls, slithers, or slides, and the sight of a garter snake or a grass snake will give the normal woman a “shake up” equivalent to a male hunter bumping into a rattler or a copperhead. Some women have been known to keep pet snakes, and one or two oddballs have been known to commune with snakes and receive visions from them; one in particular professes to sleep with a very charming boa constrictor which “looks lovingly at her with eyes full of kindness and wisdom.” But going to bed with an upset stomach can produce a lot of things. I heard of a man who dreamed that he was eating pancakes without syrup, and when he woke up he found the bed sheets were gone! 2. Here Jesus Christ is called “it,” exactly as He is called a “thing” in Luke 1:35. (This answers the objections which conservatives have to the translation of “it” for the Holy Ghost in Rom. 8:16, 26.) It is perfectly proper to refer to the Spirit by the neuter—pneuma is a neuter word—when discussing the work of the Holy “Spirit.” In discussing his person, of course, the “he” is proper (see John 14:26; 16:7–8). The shocking thing about the text is not that the Messiah is referred to as an “it” (He is called “Shiloh” in Gen. 49, which is also a neuter designation!), but rather that it should even be suggested that a woman could have a seed! No woman who ever lived carried the male seeds of reproduction within her unless they were placed there from another source; that is, not even artificial insemination can produce a “virgin birth” in the Bible sense, for in the Bible, Christ is the “seed of the woman.” This should put an end to another one of the great modern misnomers derived from “swelling words”—“The Divine Conception.” This term has been substituted by Neo-Orthodox infidels for the more objectionable “Virgin Birth.” However, “Divine Conception” can include a concurrence of God’s act with Joseph’s seed, thus leaving a “loophole” for people to deny the miracle involved in Christ’s birth. (This is typical of the “high sounding” nonsense put out all over America by the more “cultured” brand of educated Christians.) To stop this “ear itching” type of theology, the Holy Spirit has preserved for us in the AV 1611—“her seed.” (The woman’s seed!) No man is involved, and the

Holy Ghost has no “seed” other than the word itself (1 Pet. 1:23). “Offspring of the Virgin’s womb” (a line in “Hark the Herald Angels Sing”) is the correct terminology. Mary was the only woman whose feet touched the dirt of this planet—the odds being one out of 400,000,000,000—who gave birth to a child without the normal process of conception taking place! This does not make Mary “Queen of Heaven,” “The Tabernacle of the Holy Ghost,” “The awful dwelling place of the gods,” “The Mother of God,” or any of the other blasphemous and obscene titles attributed to her by pagan idolaters; but it does mean that the promise given to Eve around 4000 B.C. stretches through forty centuries before it is literally fulfilled—and part of the promise is yet to be fulfilled! 3. “The serpent’s seed” causes more confusion in the ranks of the commentators than “the woman’s seed.” The primary objection to the literalness of the passage is that the Devil cannot produce life or procreate. This dogmatic erratum comes from believing that Exodus 8:18 would prevent the Devil from producing any kind of life, although the passage is dealing with his servant’s inability to create life out of dust: the original creation! Again, it is assumed that in Revelation 13:14 there is a hoax of some kind involved and the image does not actually “come alive”; commentators seem to have forgotten Revelation 16:14 and Matthew 7:22 and that Judas Iscariot was sent out to “heal the sick [and] raise the dead” (see Matt. 10:1–5). Now, a “divine conception” is possible, at least in the case of Satan, for we read of Judas Iscariot that though he was “the son of Simon” (John 6:71), he was also “a devil.” Cain is said to be “of that wicked one” (1 John 3:12), and the leading religious leaders of Christ’s day were denominated by Him as “serpents, children of hell, children of the Devil, vipers,” etc. and similar “Christian” terms! (That is, if a man has the “sweet spirit of Christ” and is a real “Christian,” he will certainly follow Christ’s example, will he not? He won’t?) The above passages have been spiritualized for eighteen centuries according to the rules of interpretation laid down at Alexandria by the granddaddy of all critical exegetes—Origen (A.D. 185). One cannot say outright that the passages are to be taken literally; that is, Cain and the Pharisees were conceived by Satan having relationships with women—“Rosemary’s Baby,” you know! However, when the “Man of Sin” finally makes his appearance (see commentary on Revelation, Rev. 13), he is said to be as much the seed of the serpent as Jesus Christ was the seed of the woman. That is quite a thought, but it is the thought of our text—Genesis 3:15, “thy seed...her seed.” It is as impossible for Satan to give birth to a human being as it is for a woman to do it without a man being involved, but Mary did have a child without a man being involved! The assumption, therefore, that Satan cannot produce life and give birth to “a seed” is a false assumption, an erroneous doctrine, and a faulty conclusion. 4. The serpent will bruise the heel of the woman’s seed. The only possible reference to this would be at Calvary. The Devil’s power is curtailed somewhat after Calvary (see John 14:30, 16:11; Col. 2:14–15), and at the Advent it is obliterated for a thousand years; nor does he ever regain it fully even at the end of the Millennium (see commentary on Rev. 20). “Bruising the heel” must stand figuratively as meaning the least damage that one man could do to another; at least by comparison with “it shalt bruise thy head.” But our problems are not over, for the “bruise on the head” is anything but figurative, and it is in no way connected with Christ’s dying at Calvary. This brings us to point no. 5. 5. “It shall bruise thy head.” The reference is commonly misappropriated and applied to the spiritual victory at Calvary. This is done by deliberately ignoring the clear statement of Paul in Romans—written years after Calvary—that God will bruise Satan in the future (Rom. 16:20). Nor could any man accept the spiritual theory if he had any regard for the plain meaning of the English in

the Old Testament. (While delving around in the “Greek nuggets,” 90 percent of the fundamental and conservative commentators have failed to notice the gold mine of the AV text.) The following verses prove beyond any shadow of turning that “bruising the head” is a reference to Armageddon at the Second Advent, where Satan, incarnate as the “beast” (Rev. 19), is crushed (Dan. 2) by a blow coming down directly on his head (Judg. 5:26, 9:53; 1 Sam. 17:51; Psa. 7:16, 68:21, 110:6, 140:9; Hab. 3:13). Never waste your time prospecting for “nuggets” when you have the whole gold mine lying in your lap. This explains another universal mystery. The so-called “prehistoric” religions seem to major in the veneration of skulls. The oldest city in the world (Jericho) was filled with painted skulls buried underneath the houses. The Indians scalp the victim, the headhunters shrink the heads, and to cap the pyramid, Jesus is crucified “in the place of a Skull!” These seemingly irrelevant and incongruous practices concerning inscrutable religious rites from sixty centuries, on seven continents, are nicely and finely woven together into a tapestry of truth in the Holy Bible—and nowhere else. What cannot be explained by all the greatest brains who ever lived and thought can be worked out satisfactorily in a few hours with an Authorized Version, 1611. (Achilles will have to be weak in the “heel.” Is not this where Jacob seized Esau? Or do you know what it is like to be “run down at the heels” or suffer “defeat” (defeet??). If a man is “well-heeled,” he will not have to worry about the bruise! Stick with your Bible. Let science and education catch up later.)

3:16 “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

In dealing with Adam and Eve, the first rebuke or instruction is given to Eve. This pattern is followed under grace (see Eph. 5:22, 25; 1 Pet. 3:1–5; and 1 Tim. 2:14). The Lord seems to adopt the philosophy of the man who was asked by a female, “Where would you men be if it weren’t for us women?” To which he responded, “Back in the garden of Eden having fellowship with God.” This “anti-female” streak is found throughout all Oriental books, and since the Bible is an Oriental, not an Occidental book, it rebukes the woman first. But we must never allow the leaven of scholarship to muddle our thinking. Even though the Bible is an “Oriental book” and bears the stamp of Eastern thinking, it is plainly not a human or natural production of the Orient. Oddly enough the nations who read, study, and teach the Bible treat their females better than the nations who do not! Before a distraught female (like Madelaine Murray) gets all upset about the “male supremacy” of Paul’s writings, she should be careful to note that in countries where the Bible is not venerated, appreciated, taught, preached, and practiced, women like herself are little more than beasts of burden. “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow.” And to this womankind in general must answer, “Amen.” “And thy conception.” The pill takers of the 1960s admit the doctrinal truth of the prophecy even where they flatly reject the Bible in their personal lives. “In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children.” To which the hospitals and nurses in 1970 say, “Amen.” “And thy desire shall be to thy husband.” (We shall comment on this later.) “And he shall rule over thee.” To which 80 percent of the married women in the world must respond, “Amen Lord, ‘thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth forever.’” You see, you forgot the millions of

Asiatic and African housewives!) And the remaining 20 percent have ruined homes. If the man cannot rule it, he will ruin it; that is the long and short of it, and both ends and the middle. If a man cannot “rule the roost,” he will “fly the coop.” A sad and dismal affirmation is all that 6,000 years of “science” can give to those words of Scripture penned 1400 B.C. They deal with divine fiats passed on the human race 5,800 years before Einstein had the syrup taken out of his baby formula. Isn’t science wonderful? The pain of childbirth (the after birth pains in case hypnosis is used!), the discomfort and problems of carrying children before birth, the misery of unwanted children, the frustration of undesired pregnancy, the fear of becoming pregnant and “losing her looks,” the worry of raising children and caring for them, and the fabulous “battle of the sexes” in the home identifies the twentieth-century American woman as the “Eve” of Genesis 3. When God says something He means it, and it is infallible and will come to pass no matter what anyone thinks about it, no matter what anyone says about it, no matter how anyone “interprets” it, and no matter what anyone does about it (Num. 23:19; Rom. 3:4). Science may “seek out many inventions,” but the laws of nature will continue to function according to a 1611 AV Bible, in Genesis 3. If you are willing to pay the price for violating those laws, you may; but you will not alter them, and neither will that colossal clown of the twentieth-century “science.” “Thy desire shall be to thy husband.” The statement allows three possible interpretations, although only one of these will be the doctrinal truth. (All Scriptures have three applications: doctrinal, spiritual, and historical.) 1. You will desire to rule your husband but will not be able to do it. 2. You will desire for your husband to rule over you. 3. You will desire to choose your own husband, not have him picked out for you. (On these three possibilities hinges the interpretation of the passage in Daniel—wrongly taught to refer to Christ’s birth [Dan. 11:37].) Frankly, I do not profess to know which application is the doctrinal one. It is certain that, historically, God did say these words to Eve at this time, in this situation. It is also certain that, spiritually, statements number 2 and 3 will apply to nearly any woman. The average woman desires to be controlled by a man, and one of the great complaints which modern women have—which they are largely responsible for themselves in insisting on “equal rights”—is that their husbands are passive, vacillating, cowardly, and unwilling to “take the bull by the horns” (!) or the “reins of the family in their hands.” However, only 1 and 2 fit the context of the verse (Gen. 3:16). By the laws of logic, No. 2 would be the proper one, but long ago, those of us who obeyed Proverbs 3:5 quit trusting in such flimsy devices as “logic.”

3:17 “And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.”

This is about the seventh time in the book of Genesis we have come face to face with great

universal truths that neither time, fortune, nor chance can alter. Neo-Orthodox and liberal theologians (plus many Catholics) would have us believe that the record of events in Genesis 2 and 3 is almost the truth, but things have been touched up a little. (I talked with a psychology major at Xavier University [Cincinnati] who was working for his Ph.D. He earnestly believed in the Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity of Mary—without a word in the Bible to prove either belief — yet was strangely obsessed with the idea that the ages of the men listed in the Bible [Gen. 5] were errors and exaggerations!) In John 5:46–47, Jesus had something to say to this brand of “Christian.” How do we account for the fact that the first three chapters in the Bible cover a field of scientific facts which have never had to be altered in 6,000 years? Many of the “scientific facts” of 1400 were obsolete by 1960, and in the Louvre, in Paris, there are five and one-half miles of “scientific” books stacked cover to cover that are now all “obsolete”! It would seem to an honest man that the writer of Genesis had more brains than the combined academies of Europe and the United States, for none of his figures or statements had to be altered once in 6,000 years. What is contained in Genesis 3:17–19 is the pre-written history of every atheist, agnostic, and non-Bible believer who ever lived. Along these lines the Bible appears to be the rudest book in the world, and it pays no courtesies whatsoever to anyone’s opinion about its prophecies. It just states how it will be and that is just the way it turns out (Isa. 40:21, 43:9–12, 44:6–8, 45:20–23). For the benefit of college graduates who do not know the future of the human race, we shall state the matter as simply as possible. 1. There is something wrong with the ground that fertilizer will never fix. 2. Everything you eat will come from the ground—cattle graze off the ground! 3. The ground will grow things that are useless to eat. 4. You will eat vegetables instead of “fruit only.” 5. You will sweat for a living—or disobey the verse and die of poisoning your system! 6. You will be buried in the ground, or if you get cremated—to make a liar out of God—your ashes will be placed in a container that was made from the ground or minerals in the ground. Is all of that sufficiently clear? You see, when the whole plot is unraveled and man’s achievements and endeavors in the fields of science and education are shoved into the glare of a real light (Psa. 119:105, 130), they appear for what they are—man’s attempts to overthrow the word of God while professing to make the world “a better place in which to live.” Witness! a. You will have pain in childbirth—answer: Hypnotism—no pain. b. You will multiply conception—answer: Birth control pills, abortions. c. You will have dominion over the earth—answer: We will ascend above the stars (Isa. 14). d. The descendants of Ham will be servants—answer: Civil rights (and even discrimination against other races) will put them in the driver’s seat! e. Shem will be the author of religious truth—answer: Rome is the pillar and ground of truth. f. You will sweat for a living—answer: Air-conditioned car, home, office, and stores. g. Men will rule their wives—answer: Sexes are equal, woman suffrage. h. Men will be buried in dirt—answer: We will blow them up so you cannot bury them, and we will land them on planets that have a different kind of dirt. i. The ground is cursed—answer: We will control temperature and weather and make it blessed again. j. The Jews are God’s chosen people—answer: God is through with Israel. k. Wars and rumors of wars—answer: The United Nations will bring in peace on earth.

To put it quite bluntly, mankind in general, and scientists and educators in particular, are unconsciously controlled and guided by the Prince of the Powers of Darkness (Eph. 2, 6), and at their best state they are “altogether vanity” (Psa. 39:5). That is, the best human endeavors, with the most honorable intentions—as they are related to material progress (communications, transportations, and living conditions)—are nothing but the vain and egotistical strivings of fallen man trying to undo what his Creator placed on him for disobeying the word! The word has always been the issue and always will be, and nothing science is going to do in the next fifty years will be anything but an attempt to overide Psalm 115:16 as it is found printed in an AV 1611. Going back over the ground: a. You may hypnotize women or give them anesthesia, but there will be “after birth” pains, and the word “sorrow” (Gen. 3:16) can include a great deal more than “pain.” b. You may exercise birth control with the following hazards: infecting the organs of reproduction, developing unnatural sex habits which will affect the emotional relationship of husband and wife, not enjoying the marital relationship properly, and in extreme cases (LSD), reproducing deformed children or monsters when conception finally takes place. No birth control gimmick is as reliable as “self control.” Science has never improved on that and never will. (Oh yes, one more hazard—extinction of your “way of life” and civilization. Even the Pope recognizes that universal birth control would lower the number of members on the church roll!) c. You may get to the moon (I made that statement in a message on “Rocket to the Moon” preached in 1956), and you may get back, but you will not populate the planets with the present race. God has better sense than to allow interplanetary war to take the place of continental wars, even if the astronauts don’t (see commentary on Revelation, Rev. 21). d. You may pass a thousand bills and use the FBI and CIA anyway you like, but the only question about the colored race is who gets to run them? When they run themselves, they wind up starving (Africa 1968) and eventually eating each other (Africa 1000 B.C.–A.D. 1968). They will serve no matter who says what. e. All religions come from Shem, and there is nothing true (or right) in the Roman Communion that did not come from a Shemitic Book written by Shemites, the Bible. Whatever in the communion may have come from North Africa (Ham)—Latin, baptismal regeneration, adoration of Mary, and the saints, etc., is just so much irreligious claptrap. f. You will sweat or you will die. And you can avoid sweating twenty years if you like, but you will then be told by your doctor to “take a trip to Arkansas” and sit around awhile in 140 degrees until that greenish-black stuff comes oozing out of your pores! You won’t bamboozle the Almighty with some muddled midget like “science.” g. Go on and get “blown up” or “cremated,” or for that matter die on the moon! What goes into the atmosphere from a bomb comes to earth eventually; the vase your ashes will go in was made from clay or minerals out of the earth, and the moon has the same chemical elements on it that are found on its mother planet. You can’t beat Genesis 3 with a beatin’ machine! h. Go on and fertilize the ground, silly! The bugs will get it. Go on, poison the bugs, the insecticide will ruin the food. Manufacture the rain; it will flood out the rows. Stop the rain; the ground will crack, and you won’t make a stand. Get a good stand—the Johnson grass will get it. “Cursed is the ground, cursed is the ground, cursed is the ground!” You won’t beat Genesis 3 with Burbank, FDR, and airplanes dumping ice pellets! i. The Jews went back in 1918; they established a national state in 1948, and they will rule the earth shortly after the year 2001 (if our calendar is right). You say “. . . !!” Exactly. What you say

won’t interfere with anything. j. Get a League of Nations, a United Nations, United Drive, funds, states, brotherhood, etc. Do anything you like. There will be “wars and rumours of wars” till He comes, with the two biggest wars yet future! “In case of rain, the war will be held in the auditorium” (old Prussian saying). Everywhere man turns he is confounded by the Book. It would seem that some diabolical force had premeditatedly condemned his best efforts from the start and “misread” his motives and intentions in the worst possible light. As someone has so neatly put it, “The reason why you are against the Bible is because it is against you.” Further, “The reason why you don’t like the Bible is because it knows all about you and tells it.” The Author of this negative, critical “exposé” is not diabolical; the Author is the Lord of Hosts, the Alpha and Omega, the Almighty God—and His word will stand forever. Prof. Pinkevitch, head of the USSR’s educational setup, back in the 1950s, said, “This world is getting too small for that Book; either that Book will have to go, or this world will have to go.” Since the top education man in the USSR (as any top man in education anywhere) didn’t know the resolution of that enigma, we will give it for him: “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matt. 24:35). The world will have to go. Too bad. “Cursed is the ground for thy sake.” That is, because of what Adam did. “In sorrow shalt thou eat of it.” Without the italics the text reads, “eat it.” “Eat dirt” is the common expression (which is a literal reading if one happens to be under artillery bombardment!). “Eat of it” pictures clearly a change of estate in eating habits. In Genesis 1:29, it was herb bearing seed “upon the FACE of all the earth”—corn, wheat, oats, barley, beans, peas, etc. But now man has to go into the ground for his meal—potatoes, peanuts, onions, etc. Again, our children betray their true parentage, for in growing up, they do not repeat the cycle of preferring green vegetables first and then fruit. Oh no, they like the apples, oranges, peaches, pears, grapes, bananas, and tangerines—then the green stuff. The Bible account by Moses is far more accurate in explaining man’s attitudes and customs than Darwin’s account of the super-monkey. The first stroke of the hoe breaks God’s rest (Gen. 2:2), and there is no rest again for the individual till the last Adam cries, “It is finished!” There is no rest for the brute creation until the Creator reigns on earth (Isa. 11), and there is no rest for the universe until He who wrote the Bible account creates “new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness” (2 Pet. 3:10– 13). The garden of Eden becomes the garden of “weedin” at verse 18, and since then weeds are never found on ground where man has not plowed; moss, vines, and grass take over uncultivated vegetation. (Another universal truth neatly disguised in an account which the Interpreter’s Bible calls “fable.”)

3:20 “And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living. 21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.”

It is to be observed that Adam calls the woman “Eve” (Hebrew, Chavah: Heth, Vau, He), “life” or “life giving.” The passage is a Sphinx. Eve causes Adam’s death, and all her children are born “dead in trespasses and sins.” Her first son is a murderer, and she dies herself. The name is illchosen if it has a spiritual meaning. If it refers to physical life only, it would be a name which Adam gave her after Genesis 4:1, unless she had had other children in the garden before Genesis 3. The latter supposition will lead the reader into a complex quandry, for if Eve had other children, they did

not take of the fruit and are therefore still present somewhere . Ah, that’s a thought worthy of Atlantis or the empty place under the North Pole! And if she had other children, they certainly reproduced, for Adam’s sons and daughters had families (Gen. 5:4). The statement is probably made after Genesis 4:1. “Life” magazine borrows the title and is no more “life giving” than Eve herself. “Did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.” From the human standpoint, this is the greatest statement in the Bible up to Genesis 3:20. If the record is true (and I say it with no doubt in my own mind), mankind is now in the condition described in Genesis 3:6–24—not the condition of Genesis 2. This means that the primary need of man is not to explore the bottom of the ocean nor to scale the solar system (see Rom. 10:6–8), nor is it to “bring in peace on earth” nor to better living condition, nor to bring in the perfect society or the “kingdom.” The primary need for man is to get back to God in a condition where He will accept him. Knowing the details of creation, the universe, and human nature does not solve anything. Therefore, the most important verse in the Bible in the first three chapters, from the standpoint of fallen man, is that God did something to remedy his condition. It is true that Genesis 3:15 is a great verse, but where it stands historically, it is a reference to a future event, which at that time does Adam and his wife no good at all. The great thing in Chapter 3 is that in spite of disobedience, running, hiding, passing the buck, and trying to justify sin, God still has mercy on His creatures and makes provision for the restitution—“coats of skins.” There is not much doubt about from where the “skin” came. (The Targums say that it was the serpent’s skin. But that would make the Devil a scapegoat and sin-bearer, in type, exactly as Ellen G. White pictured him.) “Coats of skins” are undoubtedly “lamb skins” (see Gen. 4:4, 22:8; Exod. 12). Hence, every college graduate in America—when he has obtained a knowledge of good and evil via the serpent—is said to receive a “sheepskin.” (They bury one with the Masons, and women have liked “fur” coats from animals ever since. Ah, the riches of the AV 1611 text! How unsearchable are its judgments and its ways past finding out!) The scene presented is something to behold. A lamb steps out of the forest (John 1:29). It is without spot or blemish (Exod. 12). It walks up obediently to the Angel of the Lord without bleating (Isa. 53:1–8). It meekly bows its head (John 19:30), and the drawn sword of Numbers 22:23 does the job. Adam and Eve gaze for the first time at the substance which flows through their own veins—blood. The grass turns dark under the incarnadine flow, and God allows Adam and Eve to see what He warned them about—death—for the first time! The first death on this planet was not the death of an ichthyosaurus or a pterodactyl or some other fugitive monster from Disneyland. The first blood that flowed on this bloody planet (Isa. 34:7) was not the blood of some cave woman getting her brains clubbed out by a passionate suiter, nor was it the blood of a “dawn horse” or a duck-billed platypus. It was the blood of a lamb. Again, the marvelous design and matchless intricacy of the Bible reveals itself, for the Bible ends with the Lamb “that sitteth on the throne” (Rev. 6), “slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13), and “worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing” (Rev. 5:12). Why so much emphasis on a lamb? No other religious book in the world puts the emphasis here, and most of them do not even mention a lamb in connection with eternal truths. Abel, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Jesse, and David were shepherds tending sheep. Why the emphasis? A man says, “Well, they were a nomadic people.” Really? How quaint! John Zebedee says more about the Lamb than any writer in the Bible. (John was a commercial fisherman!) Why a lamb? Egyptians sacrifice bulls and oxen. This typified lamb is prophesied (Gen. 22:8), applied (Exod. 12:13), personified (Isa. 53), identified (John 1:29), crucified (Rev. 5:6), and glorified (Rev. 5:12). Isn’t that putting it on a little thick for a nomadic people? The Arabs are nomads, but where in the Koran will

you find anything like this? Why, the greatest shepherd in the Old Testament never even associated the lamb with His Lord. He called His Lord “the Shepherd” and himself the lamb (Psa. 23). (Somebody has his wires crossed in rejecting the account in Gen. 3:21, and it’s not the telephone company.) “Did the Lord God make...clothed.” Did you notice the active verbs and the subject? Adam and Eve killed nothing and put on nothing. God dressed them after He killed the substitute. Did you follow that (Eph. 2:8–9)? For a hassock of dead fig leaves, He clothed them with the skin of one of His living creatures, and it was not the wool which could have been fleeced without death. It was the skin of an animal who had to die. The type is too beautiful for the reader to grasp unless he himself has experienced the new birth by the grace of God, for in type, God has stripped Adam of the filthy garments of self-righteousness (see Zech. 3:4) and has hung the right suit on him (see Isa. 61:10). “Not by works of righteousness which we have done,” cries the Apostle Paul, “but according to his mercy he saved us!” No descendant of Adam, however blinded by civilization, can quite escape the lingering reality that apart from someone else’s covering, he is naked, for man is the only animal who cannot grow his own clothes.

3:22 “And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.”

Out they go—“paradise lost.” The woman goes out with her natural functions out of harmony with nature—lower animals breed at the time of their period since they did not sin. Woman, losing control, responds at the wrong time. The man goes out with a future ahead of him of hard manual labor and the ultimate glory—a 6’ x 3’ hole in the back end of the farm yard. Hospital beds and graves become the inheritance of the two aspiring students of knowledge who thought that “being like the gods” was man’s highest occupation in life. As they leave the eastern gate, a high wind begins to whine. The shades of night lower in a thickening cloud bank, and the landscape before them takes on a distorted appearance as though between their eyes and the topography a million invisible beings conspired to twist their vision. The man was driven out (vs. 23), “sent forth” with nothing but conscience to guide him and a life of toil and sweat ahead of him. Saved? Yes, but “so as by fire.” The first married couple on this planet lost the greatest estate and highest privilege any couple ever had. Darwin was greatly in error. He was only one in a series of several billion couples heading down the long, broad w ay “that leadeth to destruction” (Prov. 14:12). Darwin never would accept the blood of the Lamb. He majored in making his own clothes. “Lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.” This is the same tree found in Revelation 2:7, 22:14. In either passage its beneficiaries deserve to eat of it on the basis of works, not grace. It may stand as a symbol for the Cross of Calvary, but the two are hardly the same, except in the ancient mystery religions of Greece and Rome and in the Babylonian religious abortions inherited by the Roman popes. “Life” from a wooden tree is recognized immediately to be another one of those eternal attempts of man to get back into the garden without

going through the third chapter of Genesis. There is no wood under God’s heaven now that could give you anything but splinters and sawdust, and there is no tree on earth that can give you anything more eternal than a few good meals. But in Genesis 3:22, the supernatural “tree” existed. It was offered to Adam “freely” in the second chapter, and we can only assume that Adam would have eventually “worn out” if he had never partaken of it, although he would have never died spiritually. The tree is for eternal physical life in every passage where it occurs. The reason for the prohibition (Gen. 3:22) to Adam now is apparent. If he had partaken of the tree at this time—having lost God’s image and having destroyed his spirit—Adam would have lived on through the ages, forever a bond slave to his flesh. Today, he would be a living monstrosity, a man over 5,000 years old with a dead spirit and a soul stuck to the rotting body of the flesh. He would be a walking demon. In mercy, the Lord shuts him out from growing into a second Satan, and Adam dies physically.

3:24 “So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.”

Adam and Eve go West to East, and this, of course, in the Bible becomes the standard direction for a tragic or false move. (If Hitler and Napoleon had believed the word, neither would have undertaken his campaign.) The only major successful invasion West to East was the conquest of Asia Minor, Persia, and India by Alexander the Great. And he did not make it home. He died in a drunken fit at thirty-three and one-half years of age. Cain is driven out West to East (Gen. 4:16). Jacob serves Laban while he is in a backslidden state, and he goes West to East to get to Laban (Gen. 28). The Jews go into captivity West to East (2 Kings 25), and the Holy Spirit forbids the gospel to move in this direction (see Acts 16). Conversely, Abraham is called out East to West. The Jews enter the Promised Land East to West. The entrance into the Tabernacle is East to West. Christ returns to Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives when He comes again East to West, and the Jews return from captivity East to West. The rule is not infallible 100 percent of the time, but “the exception proves the rule.” (The only military operations West to East that work are where the invader is North of the other country, but there is not time to go into all that here.) “Cherubims.” This is the first mention by name. They are located in Ezekiel 1 and 10 and in Revelation 4 and 5. They appear somewhat similar to the famous Assyrian “Winged Bull” on the palace of Sargon. They are not “angels,” for angels have no wings (see notes on Gen. 6), and they change appearances and positions as they move or remain stationary. They are plainly supernatural beings. (The Bible distinguishes angels, archangel, cherubim, and seraphim [see Isa. 6]. The commentaries are filled with exhaustive “guesses” as to what these beings represent, but no set of commentaries has anything to contribute not already found in the AV 1611 print.) The Hebrew yields nothing on them. Kerub means “one held fast,” or in the plural Kerubim, “those grasped” or “held fast.” (See notes on Gen. 3:1.) “And a flaming sword.” I take the writer to mean what he says. This is a whirling flame that prevents Adam or his descendants from going back into the garden. Evidently they can approach it and remain at the “gate” (Gen. 4:3, 4:16), but no entrance. It is impossible now for the man or his wife to live forever physically. Having died spiritually when they partook of the fruit, they now tread

the way of all flesh and wait for physical death to cut them down in their tracks. And on this dismal note the third chapter of Genesis concludes.

CHAPTER 4 4:1 “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. 2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.”

Although the text seems to state the events chronologically, something is wrong in relation to Cain which does not appear at this exact place in the narrative. The statement is that Adam has relations with his wife, then she conceived for the first time, and then she gave birth for the first time. But there is a dark and mysterious aura surrounding the verse. In the first place, Eve mistakes her first son for the fulfillment of the promise in Genesis 3:15, and Cain is anything but “the seed of the woman.” In the second place, Cain is “of that wicked one” (1 John 3:12), and every characteristic of his life and nature matches the end-time “man of sin” (2 Thess. 2) and “the beast” (Rev. 13). 1. Cain and the Antichrist are both “seeds” of the serpent (“son of perdition,” 2 Thess. 2). 2. Cain and the Antichrist both have marks by which they are identified (Rev. 13:13–18). 3. Cain and the Antichrist are both murderers and liars (John 8:44). 4. Cain and the Antichrist both have a curse in connection with them (Psa. 119:21). (Further details are in the publication The Mark of the Beast.) One cannot dismiss the thought that the “conception” of Genesis 4:1 is a double conception. (Fraternal twins can be conceived as much as a month apart according to medical authorities.) Be that as it may, Cain is certainly the twin of Abel. Note, “And she again bare his brother.” There is no conception mentioned between the births of the two boys. Cain and Abel introduce a long series of “pairs” which the Holy Spirit has placed in the Bible to demonstrate, by contrast, the differences between good and evil. “Discrimination” is absolutely necessary in spiritual matters. So God has, for our edification, segregated pairs of characters setting one over against the other: Ishmael vs. Isaac, Cain vs. Abel, Esau vs. Jacob, Peter vs. Paul, Saul vs. David, Aaron vs. Moses, etc. Occasionally, there is no appreciable difference between the pair morally and spiritually, but even here (as in the case of Elijah and Elisha, Judah and Joseph, Japheth and Shem), the characteristics of each man are displayed better by immediate contrast with someone next to him. This “pairing off” follows the universal laws established in Genesis 2–3. Human beings work best with a “match” or “mate.” Even in the bad “pairings” (Esau and Jacob), God works to make the wrath of men to praise Him (Psa. 76:10), and the “rod” is as much a comfort to the sheep as the “staff” (Job 9:34; Isa. 10:5). The word “Cain,” traced to its Hebrew roots, is connected with “a spear,” “acquisition,” “a mournful song or lamentation,” and “to forge iron.” The Hebrew language is peculiar in two respects: 1. Technically speaking, it has no true “tenses” for the verb since in eternity there is no passage of time. (Note Isa. 53—“was wounded...was bruised,” in the past tense, when the whole narration is about a future event.) 2. Hebrew roots have a variety of meanings when developed into verbs, adjectives, nouns, prepositions, and adverbs. Within these meanings will be found words which link up verses of Scripture that have no apparent connection. For example, the “Leviathan” of Job 41 is not only a “crooked or piercing serpent” (Isa. 27:1) and a dragon (Rev. 12), but within the Hebrew

roots of the words will be found “twisted,” “coiled,” “smoke,” “to cleave,” “to borrow,” “to wind,” “to hiss,” “to whisper,” “to practice enchantment or sorcery,” “copper,” “brass,” “to shine,” “a bond of brass,” etc. Without going into any detail, the information listed reveals that the “serpent of brass” (Num. 21) is Christ taking Satan’s place, Eve is hypnotized during the transactions of Genesis 3:1–6, a confidence man (“con man”) lowers his voice in approaching a victim, etc. Cain is an “iron spear.” Notice that this object is carried by Goliath (1 Sam. 17:7), and “iron” carries an ill omen with it that the reader of the Bible cannot fail to miss. (cf. 1 Sam. 23:7; Deut. 3:11, 4:20; Gen. 4:22; Num. 35:16; Jer. 15:12; and Dan. 2:33–43). This minute “checking out” of references means nothing to the average Conservative or Fundamentalist today. In their haste to build monuments and “great works” for the “glory of God,” the Bible believers themselves have lost that glorious sense of the majesty and authority of the word of God, and they have come to regard it as a text book for promoting “the Lord’s work.” But, “Every word of God is pure,” and “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (also see Psa. 119:40). Nothing is superfluous in the Book. Cain is an “iron spear,” and this first mention fixes forever the entourage of the word. Whether the iron spear belongs to Goliath or the Roman soldier who pierced the Saviour’s side, God fixes dualistic absolutes at the start. There is nothing good about “an iron spear.” The iron spear may be evolved to a 220 grain “bullet,” and the “iron” of the bullet may be changed to silver or lead to convince the gullible, but anyone knows what an “iron spear” is for. Whether it may be tilted on end and called a rocket or guided missile, or whether it is the iron men of the Ruhr lore (the name of Schmidt—“Iron-Smith”!) for works of “blood and iron,” or whether it appears only in the “Encyclopedia on Witchcraft and Demonology” as suggestive of Satan’s reproductive powers, it is still defined, limited, and pinpointed in the AV 1611 Bible. At the outset of the word, God begins to define types and set up standards by which everything that follows is to be judged. Notice that the negative truths always take precedent over positive truths in the Old Testament. 1. The iron spear, Cain, before the good shepherd, Abel. 2. The hairy, “red,” Roman Esau (boy, there is one!) before the “Prince in Israel,” Jacob. 3. The bond man of the earth, Ishmael, before the “chosen seed,” Isaac. 4. Reuben, the unstable, before Judah, the “lion of the tribe.” The fantastic theory that the New Testament does away with this negative element altogether because “grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (John 1:17) puts the modern commentator and expositor in the position of a Zen Buddhist-Unitarian-Pantheistic-Evolutionist. He goes through the Bible deleting all the negative passages (such as Matt. 23; John 8; Acts 20; 2 Pet. 2; Jude; 2 Thess. 2; Rev. 13, 20, etc.) and comes up with a little “do-gooder,” “be sweetie-weetie” Bible that couldn’t save an elephant from drowning in a mud puddle. There is no such thing as a positive without a negative, regardless of Suzuki’s massive discourses on Zen, or despite the prevailing teachings of Nirvana, Samahdi, etc., in the Orient. The physical bodies of the gurus and cheldas operate on a negative and positive cycle. A battery that has no negative pole operating is a dead battery. The structure of the smallest electron in the universe carries a plus and minus charge (or is attracted to a plus or minus charge), and to ignore this basic, fundamental, primitive, essential, absolute concept is to open one’s self to warped philosophy, ineffective religion, false values, nonscientific science, and race suicide. Cain is clearly set forth as a perfect type of the wrong man. His counterpart, Abel, is clearly set forth as a type of the right one.

Abel was “a keeper of the sheep.” The law of first mention compels us to run the references on shepherds through the word, and with the exception of “the idol shepherd” (Zech. 11:16–17) and his “buddies” (Zech. 11:8; Rev. 17:6–13), the word has good associations. The Hebrew for Abel (Hebel) is a reference to a “keeper” or “feeder.” It can also be traced to the roots for “transitory” or “passing,” “vapor,” “mist,” or “breathing.” Thus, Abel’s life is a “vapour, that appeareth for a little time” (James 4:14). And of course, he is the keeper of his Father’s flock (Ezek. 34) and the feeder of the sheep (John 10:1–4). Jesus Christ vouches for the historicity of Abel in Luke 11:51 and Matthew 23:35, yet if Barth and Brunner are right, we are supposed to believe that Jesus merely accommodated “the fable” for “purposes of spiritual uplift.” (It is amazing how much like Barth and Brunner Jesus was in his thinking, according to Barth and Brunner!) “But Cain was a tiller of the ground.” Then things are off to a bad start, for Cain is working with an earth that is cursed, and this explains why the Lord God would not take his offering from it in verse 5. Abel is working with the life which God created, and this explains why God accepts his sacrifice in verse 4.

4:3 “And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. 4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering: 5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.”

If one could sort out the important verses from the less important in the Bible, or the least from the greatest, which is just about impossible, one would have to put these three verses somewhere near John 3:16; Romans 6:23; Romans 10:9,10; Revelation 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5; Genesis 3:15; Psalm 23; Isaiah 53; Psalm 22; etc., for at this juncture the Lord collapses the Sutras, Vedas, Shastas, Puranas, Tripitaka, Analects, Catechisms, Sacraments, Eightfold Paths, church memberships, Golden Rules, Commandments, laws, scriptures, baptisms, 32nd Degrees, prayer wheels, tithes and offerings, Shehadas, and test tubes into one bushel basket and then sets them out on the back porch for the junk man to pick up. In this passage, the words “religion” and “salvation” are defined in terms of absolute dualities. All studies in “comparative religions” end in Genesis 4:3–5, and further occupation with them only beclouds the issue and destroys the investigator. When an investigator or researcher’s motive is to run from the truth, what he discovers subsequently is of no interest to his Maker (Ezek. 9; 2 Thess. 2). Up comes Cain—first! (He is more religious than Abel.) He knows where to come (vs. 3), he knows when to come (vs. 3), and he knows what to bring (Gen. 3:21, 4:4). He is a perfect intellectual agnostic pleading innocence on the grounds that some heathen somewhere doesn’t know anything about something or other. He comes needing a sacrifice himself (1 John 3:12), and he comes his own way “according to the dictates of his conscience” (Jude 11—“the way of Cain”). He comes with an armload of works over which he has labored and sweated, giving them of his own free and gracious will as a thanks offering to God. What could be more beautiful? It is almost like an Episcopalian vestryman putting $1000.00

in the plate in a large cathedral Sunday morning! Isn’t Cain a wonderful character? (Well, outside of being a liar and a murderer, yes [John 8:44]!) But isn’t the scenery of Genesis 4 very instructive? After all, what is religion but a system of beliefs, varying somewhat according to century, climate, content, and clientele by which man seeks to gain God’s favor? Do not all religions reduce to this definition eventually? When Life magazine prints a series of articles on the “World’s Great Religions” and makes Roman Catholicism the only one founded on Jesus Christ, we do not have to guess what religion is followed by Mr. and Mrs. Clare Booth Luce! CAIN’S. No Catholic priest, bishop, archbishop, cardinal, or pope that ever lived rested solely on the finished work of another to save him and justify him! Everyone of them approached God as Cain, quoting James 2:24, 26, and not a one of them realized that Cain had faith and works, and still God cursed him. Cain was rejected before he killed Abel. The murder had nothing to do with his rejection (see vs. 5). No Buddhist, Taoist, Confucianist, Hindu, Mohammedan, Protestant, or Jew that ever lived, if he followed the major tenents which those bodies profess to believe, ever came to God any other way than “the way of Cain.” “The way of Cain” is—work to get it and hope for the best. This divides “the men from the boys,” so to speak, for every religion in the world operates in this fashion. All religions have one thing in common; their adherents all include sel f as a factor in earning righteousness. In this respect, there is no more difference between Catholicism and Communism than between Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee. (Popes Hadrian, Leo, Pius, etc., were just as self-righteous as Lenin, Trotsky, and Marx; probably more so. You don’t find many Bolshevists addressing each other as “Holy Father.”) Romans 10:1–10 sums this whole thing up and leaves nothing for twentieth-century man to find out. It is a past conclusion that needs no further investigating. Religion is what a man does to justify himself; salvation is what God gives a sinner who knows he cannot justify himself. We are in a New Testament context in Genesis from Chapter 3 to Chapter 12, and whatever is accomplished here is accomplished by GRACE (Gen. 6:8). Adam and Eve accept a free gift from God to clothe their nakedness, and Cain must do the same. But he does not. Cain believes in God (like the devils do!), but he did not believe God. So he brings the “meat offering” before the burnt offering (Lev. 23:10–12; Exod. 20–24). And although he polishes the apples bright and piles the turnips, potatoes, collard greens, cabbages, pears, peaches, bananas, beans, peas, and radishes on high, “you can’t get blood out of a turnip.” And you cannot get blood out of a glass of fermented liquor no matter how much North African (Latin) black magic you conjure up to change it. How is it that the entire membership of the Roman communion failed to notice Cain’s offering: “the FRUIT” (vs. 3). These are the words of Jesus Christ at the Last Supper, “the fruit of the vine.” The fruit! The fruit! The vine tree! That is what killed Adam and Eve. God will not accept the fruit of the vine as a payment for sin! He turned Cain down flat, and He will turn you down flat and everyone like you (Deut. 32:32–33; Psa.16:4). “Religion” is not merely the “opiate of the people” (Karl Marx); it is the shortest distance between two points: a straight line from the cradle to hell. Religion will damn you; salvation will save you. Religion is a neuter thing; salvation is a Person (Matt. 1:21). Religion is man’s doings; salvation is God’s doings (Titus 3:5). From an eternal standpoint, the only thing worse than war and drunkenness and murder is religion. (Cain had plenty of it. So have some of you!) “And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock.” Notice the plural “firstlings.” This is very important as it shows that there is ample supply on hand to take care of Cain’s needs—if he asks (Rom. 10:13). “And of the fat thereof.” That is “the best of the herd” as the word “fat” is used in Genesis 45:18 and Genesis 49:20. (The AV is self interpreting; no need for a New Scofield Reference

Bible.) “And the Lord had respect....” Now we must conjure up the scene. Here are two stone altars erected with a pile of natural stones, untouched by engraving tool or art of man’s device (Exod. 20:25). Two young men are kneeling in front of these altars just outside the Eastern Gate of the garden. Both are praying. Both are waiting for something to happen to give them assurance (Ah! 1 John 5:13!) that God has been pleased with their work. But there are two notable differences in the two worship services which we must be careful to observe. 1. Cain has his face uplifted to heaven with hands spread properly (Psa. 28:2; 1 Tim. 2:8; Psa. 63:4), and where he places palm on palm, he places them “just so.” 2. Abel, late in bringing his offering (notice Cain offers first; vss. 3–4), seems to be kneeling “afar off” and is not so much as lifting up his eyes to heaven but seems to be talking to himself! (Fortunately, the Lord picked up this prayer for us on an ultrasensitive stereo Sony machine and plays it back for us in Luke 18:13. It comes out, “God be merciful to me a sinner.”) Aside from the two different postures (or attitudes), one would also notice that the “offerings” on this Sunday morning were slightly discordant. Cain, at his fruit stand, is praying over a pile of vegetables, fruits, flowers, herbs, and shrubs somewhat as follows: “Now, Lord, I am worshipping according to the dictates of my conscience, and it is true that mommy and daddy told me that their sins were paid for by the blood of a lamb, but Lord, look at these beautiful grapes! I grew them myself, pruned the vine, kept the foxes out, sprayed the bugs, etc. The juice in them is blood red, and it looks just like real blood. I know that you are a God of love and have no pleasure in vengeance or bloodletting. Lord, wouldest thou in thine infinite compassion turn these here grapes into blood and enable m e to live a better life?” A silence follows this pious supplication, and for about five minutes it is as quiet as a turkey farm on Thanksgiving afternoon. Abel, kneeling by his altar (which displays a sheep with its throat cut!), is praying, “Now Lord, I hope you’ll take this in my place. I should love you enough to die for you, considering how good you’ve been to me, but I’m yellow. I’m afraid to die. I should honor you like no one on earth, including myself, since you are Lord of heaven and earth..., but I don’t. I put myself first most of the time. So here, Lord, is one of your creatures. You sustained it and nourished it, and I have only tended what was already yours. Mommy and Daddy said you killed one of these back in the garden for them. I hope you will accept this one for me. Take its blood instead of mine. I deserve to die for my sins, but wilt thou please accept this bloody substitute?” Crash! Down comes the answer (Lev. 9:24; 2 Chron. 7:1; Matt. 27:54)! There is no doubt about Abel’s salvation. The excellent sacrifice which he offered (Heb. 11:4) received a “testimony” on the spot. And although “the blood of Abel” (Heb. 11:4) was not the one effectual, permanent, and final atonement for sin, it clearly indicates for generations to come that the only sacrifice from man that God wants is a lamb without spot or blemish (1 Pet. 1:18–19). The blood, which so embarrasses the twentieth-century “modern man,” is what he himself sheds to wear his belt, shoes, and watch and to carry his billfold, key chain, or wallet. It is what he looks for on the highway after an accident, it is what he looks for on the eyes of the boxers he stares at on TV, and it is what he will need in the day of reckoning. “When I see the blood, I will pass over you” (Exod. 12:13). “What can wash away my sins?” Nothing but...nothing but what? “The life of all flesh” is the blood (Lev. 17:14). God couldn’t care less what “religion” you pick to follow; they all wind up in hell. If you want salvation and assurance, you kneel at Abel’s altar. All other ground is sinking sand.

Back to Brother Cain! He hears the roar of thunder, the clap of the lightning bolt, and jerking his head around in amazement, he sees a sheet of flame ascending from Abel’s altar (Judg. 13:20). The fire has consumed the sacrifice (1 Kings 18:38), and until God Himself becomes the Lamb (Gen. 22:8), Abel has the answer. 1. He offered the right thing. 2. He was accepted immediately (note Gen. 4:7). 3. He knew he was accepted on the spot (2 Tim. 1:12). 4. He had absolute assurance on the spot (Rom. 8:38–39). That is, in the first four chapters in the Bible (in less than ten pages!), we find that the greatest issue in any century, on any continent, has nothing to do with newscasts, wars, governments, higher education, social conditions, taxes, “freedoms,” poverty, racial equality, disease, or amusem*nts. Once and for all and forever, the Holy Spirit reveals to the human race the difference between doing it your way and God’s way. Your way is religion. God’s way is Salvation. What follows in the rest of the Bible deals with any number of issues—the Messiah, the Antichrist, the nation of Israel, history of geopolitics, and world empires, etc. But before God has finished eight pages of His Book—and why would He not have a book? Even from Darwin’s point of view, is not the distinguishing mark between man and animals that NO ANIMAL CAN READ OR WRITE?—He crushes man’s fondest hopes of “being good.” Man, according to Jesus, is “evil” (Matt. 7:11, 12:34), and this is why men prefer religion, or religions, to salvation. They want to feel a sense of “goodness” or “keep faith in themselves” or “find goodness in everyone.” (Will Rogers: “I never met a man I didn’t like!”) In plainer words, the Bible is an insult to the average man. It says to all of Cain’s kinfolk, “Work, sweat, slave, do good—work at it, and when you are all through I won’t pay any more attention to it than if you’d stayed in bed all day, 365 days a year.” The greatest proclamations in the Bible to the world and the world system are negative (1 John 2:15–16; Luke 16:15), and that is why the members of the United Nations and the Ecumenical Council do not dare to become Bible believers. They stand faithfully and patiently at their “fruit stand” and sympathize with Cain while Abel gets the blessing. “And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.” The AV 1611 is very graphic. The “fallen countenance” appears to the reader: eyebrows lower, corners of the mouth drop, and Cain’s heart probably sinks down to his boots and associates with his brains. (He knew what to bring!) “Wroth” is archaic English for “wrath,” and as is true in several cases—not enough to affect anything—the archaic English expressions can be listed in the margin of any Bible without mutilating the text. (The overemphasis laid on the “obscurity of the AV” has at last brainwashed a bunch of gullible conservatives into thinking that there is some issue. There is none. A complete listing of “archaic words” could be put in the index of any AV 1611, and it wouldn’t run ten pages. Why mess up the word just because you’re too lazy to turn pages?)

4:6 “And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.”

“If thou doest well....” The rules of the game aren’t complicated. If Cain had done the right thing, he would have received a testimony as his brother Abel (1 John 3:24; 5:9). But Cain is trusting his

religion to save him—i.e., his self-righteous works. God never has and never will give assurance of salvation to anyone who is trusting his own life to save him. The proof is in the pudding, and if anyone in this century wants to know what Abel knew, he must forsake forever—as a means of earning merit or favor—his entire body of religious works (Rom 4:5) and put his wholehearted and complete trust in the blood atonement of “that great shepherd of the sheep” who, like Abel, was both offerer and offering. Something is horribly wrong with a “religion” that cannot give its adherents absolute and certain knowledge of life after death. Why call it a “religion” to start with? Science makes no profession about life after death. Why not call it “The Roman Science Church” or the “First Baptist Science”? Peter, James, and John knew where they were going when they died (2 Pet. 2; 1 John 5:13; James 5:8, 20). Paul knew where he was going (2 Cor. 5:8). Moody, Sunday, Wesley, Luther, Whitefield, Torrey, Finney, Carey, Goforth, Livingstone, Studd, Taylor, and Judson knew where they were going. Why don’t you? What kind of a God are you serving that doesn’t know the future or at least cannot reveal it to you? Do you know why Abel-people know where they’re going when they die? Because they know they are sinners needing an atonement, and they have put their faith in the shed blood of God’s Lamb to save them. That is, they have done what God told them to do (Rom. 5:1–8, 10:9–10). Do you know why religious people go around saying, “No one can know for sure”? It’s because they are trying to sell God a mess of fruit that He is not interested in buying. “If thou doest well.” If you have really obeyed the Scriptures, how is it that “acceptance” is not a past event? We are “accepted in the beloved,” “chosen in Him,” “seated with Him in heavenly places” “complete in him” (Eph. 1:4, 1:6, 2:6; Col. 2:10)! How is it that you don’t know anything about all this? “If thou doest well...?” Is God some unrighteous Judge Jeffries to let you live in fear and doubt when you have done the right thing? Will He not accept you as He has accepted millions of sinners every year? “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?” Evidently not, according to the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, for it teaches that no man can know for certain where he is going till he is dead. Abel knew. Paul knew. Jesus knew. And “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?” Evidently not. Here we find something basic about Cain’s attitude that reminds us of his mother. There is present a hidden “undercurrent” of feeling which suggests that God is not only unjust but is also a liar (see 1 John 5:10–13). The thought is, “The reason why my best is not enough to bring assurance of eternal life is because God simply is not interested in letting me know.” The truth is, the reason why you don’t know is because you are still going Cain’s way, and God will not give you assurance while you are on that way! You have not done well, and that is why God has turned you and your church down flat! You say, “Prove it.” I don’t have to; you’ve already given your testimony when you said you didn’t know. God is not a liar (Num. 23:19). If you have not been accepted, the fault is not His, for when you do what He told you to do (Acts 16:31), you will be accepted. “And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.” Ah so! The terrible three letter word appears for the first time in print. It is the last word that God ever said to Pontius Pilate, the great inquiring relativist (John 18:38, 19:11). Cain has real trouble; he has sin trouble. The Bible says, “all unrighteousness is sin,” “sin is the transgression of the law,” “whatsoever is not of faith is sin,” “an high look, and a proud heart, and the plowing of the wicked, is sin,” “the thought of foolishness is sin,” and then several dozen other things (1 John 5:17, 3:4; Rom. 14:23; Prov. 21:4, 24:9; James 4:17). The substitutions for the word “sin” picked up in college are designed to “smooth out the word

for ears, politely and snuggly keep damnation out of sight.” “Sin is dualism”—Greek philosophers. That is, belief in heaven and hell, good and evil, is a sin. That is, the Author of the Bible is a sinner! “Sin is privation”—Leibnitz. “Sin is an illusion”—Spinoza. (It killed him!) “Sin is the want of God consciousness”—Schleirmacher. “Sin is the opposition to the Kingdom of God”—Ritschl. “Sin is that which is against the self-determination of the finite spirit”—Dewey and Russell. That is, sin is anything that prevents me from having my way! Hello, Cain! The “sin” (singular) which is called to remembrance by the Holy Spirit in the world today is clearly the unbelief of sinners (John 16:9). Whether or not this is the sin of Cain, it is some sin that lies at the door of his tent and desires to run him (cf. Rom. 6:14). “At the door” is strangely reminiscent of Genesis 18:1, Exodus 38:8, Numbers 11:10, and similar verses which suggest the human body is a tabernacle or tent and the “door” is the opening into the inner sanctum of a man’s true self. Where the heart is not open to the truth, it is said to be an “uncircumcised heart” (Jer. 9:26). Cain has sin trouble and heart trouble; they usually come together (Ezek. 11:19, 28:6, 36:26). Evidently, Cain is not even as good as his profession—and his profession is not accepted! (This is often the case with his followers. Those who continually quote, “Faith without works is dead” and “By works a man is justified, and not by faith only,” seem to be obsessed with the idea that there is nothing wrong with movies, TV, dancing, drinking, Bingo, smoking, “little white lies,” bull fights on Sunday, miniskirts, Bible-rejecting Sunday School literature, and the contemporary world in which they live.) The saintliest of all ages have had very deep convictions about their own unworthiness and about many other things which the world system regards as harmless or even desirable. The divine account records that in addition to Cain’s rejection of blood atonement in favor of “fruit,” “his own works were evil” (1 John 3:12). The reader will be careful to note that the evil works were not killing Abel; he killed Abel because of his (Cain’s) evil works. That is, the “works” on which Cain (and his 4,000,000,000 followers) placed so much emphasis are no better than his faith or his offering. The works simply were not manifest to everyone. Thus, where there is a great outward display of “will worship,” abstinence, penance, contrition, self-abuse, asceticism, holiness, piety, self-denial, and humility, we may guess the cause for it—rotten heart and life (John 3:18–21). Cain has some dormant plans, if not some overt actions, which prevent him from offering the required sacrifice. “If thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door” is a reverse. Here God blames man for his lack of assurance in regards to salvation. It is not God’s fault; it is yours. Now, Cain’s position is precarious, but not hopeless. 1. He knows what to offer because he has seen Abel’s offering accepted. 2. Abel has a whole flock from which to get the sacrifice; there is no shortage. 3. All Cain has to do is ask Abel for a lamb from the flock. “Ask, and ye shall receive.” Cain reasons, “He wouldn’t give it to me if I asked.” God reads His mind and says, “You fool, the boy is so happy out there in the pasture right now he’d give you the whole flock if you asked him!” (True, though not in the text! 2 Sam. 6:14–15.) But this doesn’t help. Cain would die before he would ask Abel for anything. He was stuck on himself, and that is the root of most Cain-religions. God can save a murderer (Exod. 2:12) or a drunkard (Gen. 9:21) or an adulterer (2 Sam. 11:4) or a thief (Luke 23:43) or even a liar (Mark 14:71), but there is not a trace in sixty-six books of Holy Writ of God ever saving a proud man. Until God saves you from your religion and yourself, you are just as good

as in hell with the gates locked and the key thrown away. Job knew where the trouble was, and in Job 1:5 that old saint made provision for the trouble that Cain was having. “And thou shalt rule over him.” The Lord kicks the last prop from under Cain and his kin by saying in effect, “Sin will want to run you, but don’t you let him do it. Even though you are born in Adam’s image and have an old nature, you can run sin. It doesn’t have to run you.” On this passage, Cain, Calvin, and the College of Cardinals retreat to something elementary like philosophy, theology, science, or theosophy. 1. Cain knew what to do and how to do it. 2. He could have done it and was encouraged by God to do it. 3. He was told quietly and kindly what the trouble was and what the remedy was for it. 4. He got up and left as quick as Pilate (John 18:38), murdered his brother like Pilate (John 19:16), and then pleaded innocence exactly as Pilate (Matt. 27:24). In Cain’s character, then, is seen shockingly clear the hallmarks of the twentieth-century, educated, religious man. For such a character to avoid killing 100,000 men a year is an impossibility. The lusts within a man that produce the killing (James 4:1–4) are free to work out without interruption where the individual man has rejected the word of God. And although the modern man may not handle the instrument that dashes his “brother’s” brains on the ground, he will certainly follow in the footsteps of the first man that was born, and the first man who was born was a killer. When Cain’s descendants cease from this earth, you will have an end to war, and not one minute before (Rev. 20:11–13).

4:8 “And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.”

The corrupt LXX (forgeries of Scripture by Origen, Symmachus, and Theodotian 150–200 years after the birth of Christ) inserts, “Let us go into the field” into verse 8. This corruption is preserved in the RSV, 1952. (The RSV omits LXX additions at times [see Gen. 11:12] depending upon the whim of the translator.) The AV 1611 told you they were “in the field” anyway in the middle of verse 8. “And Cain talked with Abel his brother.” The conversation is not recorded, but no one familiar with believers in blood atonement (Abel) and fruit stand church members (Cain) could fail to read between the lines and so contrive or fabricate a masterpiece. Cain is out in the field, and here comes Abel early in the morning with his flock of sheep. You can hear him 100 yards off over the “back 40” singing, “I’ve got the joy, joy, joy, joy down in my heart! Down in my heart! Down in my heart!” Cain: “What’s got ahold of you, smart mouth? Get a raise?” Abel (cheerfully): “No, man, better than that! I got saved!” Cain: “Aw, you’re gettin’ religion.” Abel: “What d’ya mean by that?” Cain: “Aw, rats, man, like going around singing those silly songs all the time, puttin’ on a show. You’re getting to be a blankety-blank religious fanatic!” Abel: “I’m not a fanatic. I’m just happy God saved me; that’s all!” Cain: “Nuts! Nobody can know they’re saved till they’re dead.” Abel: “Well I know, bless God! Here, let me give you a tract!”

Cain: “I don’t read that junk. I was born Catholic and I’m gonna’ die Catholic.” Abel: “But it tells you how to get saved, Cain. God can save a Catholic just as quickly as a Jew or a Protestant!” Cain: “Beat it...you bug me.” Abel (softly): “You under conviction, brother?” Cain (turning crimson): “Listen, you punk. You wouldn’t know nothing about salvation if it hadn’t been for me and my church. I’ve taken all the gaff from you I’m gonna’ take. Weigh anchor, bud! You got your religion, and I got mine!” (His fists turn white on the hoe handle.) Abel (quietly but firmly): “Yes, and I noticed God didn’t accept yours. But he did mine.” Cain: “Why you blankety blank...!” Up goes that hoe. Abel raises his staff, but the blow is too strong, and Abel is knocked to the ground. He gets up and gropes for his staff. Down comes the hoe on his head, on his shoulders, arms, back, face.... And in five minutes, the first human corpse that ever graced the face of this earth is lying there in a pool of blood. The first living thing to die on this planet was a sheep, but the first man to die was a shepherd (Heb. 13:20). “Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.” You cannot steal a real believer’s religion from him because it is inside. You have to kill him (Rev. 17:1–6) to get rid of his witness because the beads, candles, buildings, books, literature, clothes, houses, belongings, and even his physical life are not his indwelling Saviour. If you can steal a man’s religion or burn it, that man’s religion is just one more Cainite wreck. The Bible believer has hid the word in his heart, memorized the hymns, and received the treasure into an earthen vessel! You cannot get rid of Bible-believing Christianity unless you follow “the way of Cain” and walk “in his steps.”

4:9 “And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper?”

For some reason, this passage is a favorite of socialists and liberal preachers. (I wonder what it could be?) As most Scriptures quoted by the Devil will have a question mark connected with them (see Gen. 3:1), it is not surprising to find Genesis 4:9 and Malachi 2:10 neatly lifted out of their contexts and used to prove that “men are brothers” and God is everyone’s Father and that we should be “our brother’s keeper.” (Unfortunately, 80 percent of this crowd are evolutionists, and to make a true statement of their own case they also would have to say, “I am my keeper’s brother!”) “Where is Abel thy brother?” One cannot help but make a mental jump over into Genesis 37:4, Matthew 28:10, and John 1:11 where the anti-type of Abel appears and is rejected by his brethren and murdered (Acts 7:52). “And he said, I know not.” The perfect agnostic. He knew exactly where the corpse was. There has never lived on this earth a murderer who could not lead the police to the corpse (or the place where the corpse was destroyed or dumped) if he had murdered only one man and murdered him in cold blood during an argument. Cain is lying. He knows perfectly well where his brother is. “Am I my brother’s keeper?” My, what self-righteous indignation! He did not consider it his duty to keep his brother, but he considered it his duty to murder him! Now, why would a member of the NAACP get hung up on this verse? The verse is quoted by a liar and a murderer! The answer Cain gives is not a doctrinal statement on Christian truth; it is a question that a murderer asks God to

keep from telling Him the truth. By conjoining this verse with Matthew 25, James 2, and 1 John 2:9; 3:17, the religious leaders of the NCCC have erected a monstrous superstructure of Christian teaching which would lead people to believe that CARE, the Red Cross, the United Nations, CORE, the United Fund, and the Peace Corps are Christian activities. Carrying it one step further, the superstructure finally looms so large that Babel builders think if a man does not go along with their activities, he could not be a “Christian!” All verses mentioned are wrested from the context, and Paul, in defining Christian doctrines, is very careful never to give the impression that financial assistance to a Christ-rejecting world has anything to do with the true “born-again” child of God. We are only “our brother’s keeper” in the sense that we are to love other Christians (1 John 5:1–4), have a burden for our lost kinsmen (Rom. 9:1–3), and witness to them and pray for them (Acts 20:24–26; 1 Tim. 2:1–2, 6–8). Financial enterprises involving unsaved people promoted by socialists and Catholics do not come under the heading of Christian conduct in the Bible. “Aid to the poor”—not poor saints—from a professing Christian is mentioned once in the New Testament, but it is in John 12, and if my memory serves me correctly, I believe the sponsor of the program was the bag holder, Judas Iscariot.

4:10 “And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground. 11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand;”

“What hast thou done?” This is a repetition of 3:13. The Lord does not answer Cain’s question any more than those questions put to Him later by Herod (Luke 23:9). A dishonest skeptic is wasting his time looking for answers in the Biblical and moral realm. “The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth....” The expression is literal from God’s standpoint but figurative from Cain’s standpoint. The blood “speaks” (Heb. 12:24), and it speaks after a man is dead (Heb. 11:4). It calls for vengeance (Rev. 6:10), and it cannot be cleansed from the ground except by the blood of him that shed it (Num. 35:33; Matt. 27:25; Acts 5:28). This is the absolute infallible teaching by which all other opinions are to be judged (Gen. 9:6), and the theorizing on it done by writers, philosophers, poets, playwrights, judges, juries, politicians, dictators, theologians, and teachers for fifty centuries doesn’t mean anything. Many a history (as the history of Israel) is the history of blood required for blood. Israel is not cleansed from blood guilt till Deuteronomy 21 and Jeremiah 33:8. “And now art thou cursed from the earth....” This is the first human being to receive a curse. Only the ground “to be tilled” is cursed in Genesis 3:17, but now the “tiller of the ground” (Gen. 4:2) is cursed. In the strange passage that follows, we hear the overtones of a discrimination which modern man cannot accept, and though it is God-given, it is repulsive to him. The “curse,” or anathema, was thrown around at the Council of Trent (1546) until one would have thought that God had cursed every man and woman alive on the earth but a Papist. The “ex cathedra” doctrinal statements at Trent end with, “If any man doesn’t believe this (or says so-and-so or does so-and-so), let him be anathema.” This potent and supposedly invincible declaration reminds one of the bishop and the physician who were arguing about relative power. The bishop was pointing out that he had the power of “anathematizing” his antagonists. The medical man replied and

said, “But there is this difference: When you pronounce a man is accursed, it is a matter of conjecture; when I pronounce that a man is dead—he’s dead.” “The curse causeless shall not come” (Prov. 26:2). And any curse which God does not pronounce isn’t worthwhile worrying about. However, the ancient word is the choice of the Holy Spirit in a score of cases in both Testaments (Num. 5; Deut. 29; Lev. 24; Jer. 44; Gal. 3:10, 13; Deut. 27; 2 Pet. 2:14; Matt. 25:41), and the last word in the Old Testament collection of 39 (3 x 13) books is “curse.” Modern scientists and educators look upon the word with a wry smile and consider it a challenge to demonstrate their benevolence on behalf of their fellow man by explaining to him in great length how the word arose and how it was wrongly applied and misused and how it finally passed out of existence. In the meantime, the scientist and educator who misses the new birth arrives at his appointed destination, “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire” (Matt. 25:41), because he rejected the provision for the curse (Gal. 3:13), the Lord Jesus Christ who became a curse for us “that we might be made the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21). The word “curse” is not to be taken lightly where it occurs in Scripture (Prov. 20:20; Gen. 9:25, 27:29; Psa. 119:21; Mal. 2:2, 3:9; Jer. 24:9). Where it occurs in Roman Catholic folklore, it may be taken with several tablespoons of salt. “Now art thou cursed.” We cannot fail to notice the corollary in Genesis 9:25. Here are two human beings who are cursed. (Notice that in this commentary we are not primarily interested in word analysis which throws up a smoke cloud over the revelation of truth. We are interested in comparing Scripture with Scripture to find what God wants us to know. A history of the Hebrew and Greek meanings of the word “cursed “ does nothing for the reader but convince him that he knows the history of the way people used ancient words.) Regardless of twentieth-century prejudices against the text, i.e., “All men are created equal,” “God does not respect persons” (That’s a beauty if you want to prove a lie!), “The verse cannot be literal,” etc., the fact remains that the Lord God Almighty lowers a ban or curse on two men. And as if to reinforce the God-breathed words of Divine Authority, history conspires against the Bible rejector and works out the destiny of two races of people so that one can tell at a glance that something is basically, fundamentally, naturally, radically, and inherently wrong with their connections with the Creator. I am not saying that two races are so cursed by God that they cannot be saved or blessed. When it comes to spiritual salvation, there is “no respect of persons with God” (see Eph. 6:9; Col. 3:25; Rom. 2:11; 1 Pet. 1:17), but when it comes to judgment on sin in families, nations, and races (Exod. 20:5; Num. 14:22–24; Jer. 44:26–30; Zeph. 3:8; Jer. 30:11), the Bible takes an attitude that would turn “a modern mind” inside out with rage and self-righteous indignation. Instead of closing our eyes at the text and then gazing in fascination at the superficial guesswork of the Harvard five-foot shelf of “classics,” let us open our eyes (or ask God to open them! Psa. 119:18) and face the text. “Now art thou cursed.” 1. Cain has a mark (Gen. 4:15). The Antichrist has a mark (Rev. 13:1–18). The mark is that of a leopard (Jer. 13:23). 2. Cain is marked so a man can know him on sight (Gen. 4:14–15). 3. Cain is a fugitive and a vagabond (Gen. 4:14) and can’t make a living farming (Gen. 4:12). 4. Cain is a city man (Gen. 4:17), and God protects him (Gen. 4:15), even though he is a chronic complainer (Gen. 4:13). Could you locate Cain in the downtown traffic at the loop in Chicago? We are not going to waste five minutes trying to limit the word of God to the “grammatico-

historical” past in which it is spoken (as the Reformers). If we are dealing with the infallible word of the living God who throws out a dozen universal truths before His Book runs eight pages, we are going to treat His words as though they were worth $1000.00 per letter (Psa. 119:72, 127). Tell me, can you find a man who has the mark or spot of a leopard, who is protected in times of war and has fewer casualties during a World War than other men have in a single major engagement? Can you find a man whom you can recognize at 100 yards as having something to do with the “darker side of life”? Can you find a man who, no matter how he tries, brags, fights, preaches, works, finagles, and flatters, seems to be unable to improve his station in life? You can’t? (Well then, go back to reading the funny paper; the Bible has nothing for you anyway.) Let us gird up the loins of our “broad-mindedness” and face the passage another way. 1. Cain kills Abel (Gen. 4:8). Abel is a type of Christ (John 15:25). Abel is killed by his brother (1 John 3:12). 2. Cain was a farmer (Gen. 4:12) before he killed Abel. After that, he is a city man (Gen. 4:17). 3. Cain is “a fugitive and a vagabond” (Gen. 4:14), not a “pilgrim and a stranger” (1 Pet. 2:11). 4. Cain has divine protection and vengeance is promised on those who molest him (Gen. 4:15). 5. His brother’s blood called for vengeance (Heb. 11:4; Gen. 4:10; Matt. 27:25). Can you find a man with a characteristic mark, whose people used to be farmers and shepherds and are now city merchants, who killed one of his own kind without cause, who since became “a fugitive and a vagabond,” who is protected by God though lost, and who is paying for a past murder? You can’t? Well, obviously you and the Bible are not tuned in on the same frequency. (There is a great deal of difference between a “fundamentalist” and a Bible-believing Christian, and the gap between a modern “Christian” and a Bible believer is so great that neither Black militants or the Anti-Defamation League can bridge the gap.)

4:12 “When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth. 13 And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear. 14 Behold, 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.” “When thou tillest the ground.” Cain, as his twentieth-century shadows, can never be a success as a farmer. As a landowner or lessor, yes. As a sharecropper or “servant of servants,” yes; but the ground will not yield to the man who does the plowing, harrowing, disking, and tilling. “Yield unto thee her strength.” Notice the feminine for earth, as in “mother nature.” (The Germanic designation “fatherland” is unique. Recently African and Asiatic and Latin people have borrowed the expression, but from 4000 B.C. to A.D. 1918, ground or land is denominated as “her” or “she” when using the pronouns.) “A fugitive and a vagabond” is set as an inversion over against “stranger and pilgrim.” A man can be a stranger or an alien in a land without being a criminal or “fugitive from the law.” Cain is a fugitive. A pilgrim is not an irresolute wanderer but someone “on his way somewhere” with a goal in mind. Conversely, the vagabond is wandering for the sake of wandering—he is going nowhere. This is the proper word for Cain.

“My punishment is greater than I can bear.” How this contrasts with the sentiments of the man who has reached a happy solution regarding his relationship to God! “Thou hast punished us less than our iniquities deserve” (Ezra 9:13). What passes today for the “cry of the downtrodden masses” or the “free minds” who liberated man from “bondage and tyranny” or the great thoughts of those “burdened for the enslaved masses and oppressed classes” or “the class struggle of the oppressed minorities” is little more than the piteous groans of frustrated lost men who resent the lot that God has given them. The great men of this world, who try to bring about race mixing at the cost of morals, sex equalizing at the cost of the home, freedom of worry at the cost of convictions, and high standards of living at the cost of spiritual values, are in the large dissatisfied with God, maladjusted to their fellow man, and they gripe and complain about the Scriptures. Their nauseating self-pity reflects itself in their “crusades for a better world to live in.” (I am not speaking of the erection of hospitals and libraries; I am speaking of men like Lenin, John Brown, Marx, Trotsky, Martin Luther King Jr., Rap Brown, William Faulkner, Ernest Hemingway, Langston Hughes, Hank Williams, and Voltaire.) Under the guise of “representing the common man” or the “ghetto populations,” many a sickly, frustrated flop of an egotist has vented his wrath on “the establishment” or “the ruling class” or the “white imperialists” or the “WASPS” or some other symbol of authority which God allowed to be set up (Rom. 13:1). Cain’s lament is the complaint of a whining, self-righteous griper, “My punishment is greater than I can bear!” The implication is that God is unrighteous and is wrong for punishing him in that fashion. When a man gets to where he can correct his Creator, he is a pretty big man (Isa. 40:23). (That seems to be the ambition of Life, Look, Time, and Newsweek these days.) The dying thief had more sense and more decency. He said, “We receive the due reward of our deeds” (Luke 23:41). “And from thy face shall I be hid.” One cannot help but notice the amazing undesigned coincidence between this passage and those in Matthew 13:44, Psalm 13:1, 135:4, and Isaiah 57:17. You still cannot identify Cain in 1980, not even when five different authors, 2,000 years apart, unwittingly point right at him? “Every one that findeth me shall slay me.” The text presents a real problem. It certainly intimates that there are a large number of people around, or if not people, “sons of God” (see notes on Gen. 6). The “every one” can be the “gods” of Psalm 82, mentioned in Genesis 3:5 and 3:22, or they can be children which Eve had before the fall (see remarks on Gen. 3:20), or they can be Adam’s sons and daughters (Gen. 5:4). The latter suggestion is perhaps the best, although to adopt it one must confess that the second clause in Genesis 5:4 is not given chronologically. Adam is at least 130 years old at the time Seth is born (Gen. 5:3), and without disease, war, or manslaughter to wipe out his offspring, he could have had 100 descendants or more by the time Seth was born; that is, supposing that other children not named in the text were born. If the murder of Abel took place late in Adam’s life (around 120–125 years old), there would have been many other people around. The real problem comes when Cain goes out to build “a city” (Gen. 4:17).

4:15 “And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.”

“Vengeance...seven fold,” shows that even when we have properly identified Cain’s posterity, we should not go hop, skip, and jump to the conclusions reached by the Ku Klux Klan or Gerald Winrod. Notice carefully Romans 11:28–30, and be doubly careful of Deuteronomy 23:7, 24:17, 24:21, and 26:12. That is, the Bible clearly tells you the whole horrible truth, but then it also gives you the remedy. Marxism, Catholicism, integration, and ecumenicism do not dare tell you the truth; and consequently, they have no effective answer to the problems of man. (The history of the western world is largely the history of Bible belief or unbelief. The destiny of Western nations has been determined and carried out depending on their attitude toward the Bible, and in conjunction with this, their treatment of the human authors of the Bible—Jews. “Sevenfold.” Don’t forget it.) “And the Lord set a mark upon Cain.” To hide the truth as quickly as possible and to avoid its implications, one will find the commentators (and translators of the ASV and RSV) running like rats leaving a sinking ship to their lexicons, textbooks, and Talmuds; and they come up with “A SIGN.” (The Hebrew word “Oth” is also kin to “a military ensign,” “a token, proof, or argument,” “jackal,” “to howl or whine,” “a sign of something future,” “to lust after sexually,” “to give consent,” “an iron plowshare or mattock,” and “self” or “itself.”) For purposes of clarity we shall see what the word means in the Scripture. In Ezekiel 9:4, God marks His men with a mark and kills the rest. This mark is black ink on the forehead. Those chosen of God in Revelation 14:1 are marked in their foreheads. The Antichrist has and gives a mark in the forehead (Rev. 13:1, 16–17). To avoid this future catastrophe, the Jew was told “not to print any marks” on himself (Lev. 19:28)—and this mark, incidentally, was a cross mark , “X” (see work on The Mark of the Beast). That is, it was the shape which the priest uses in “baptizing” babies in the Roman and Anglican Communions. The “mark of the beast” is mentioned eight times in the last book in the Bible, and the beast (like Cain) is a murderer and a liar. Like Cain, he is protected by God (compare Saul’s case, 1 Sam. 24:6, with Ezek. 28:14), and like Cain, he has a mark. His “sign” (if we are going to waste the time to take scholarship seriously) is a kiss (see work on Mark of the Beast). Now, what mark would you put on a murderer? It must be a mark that a man can recognize at a distance. And the mark must be on the man: “And the Lord set a mark UPON Cain.” Conjecture will have to write out the rest of the paragraph.

4:16 “And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. 17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. 18 And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.”

A remarkable correspondence of names is found between the list given here and the one given in Chapter 5 of Genesis—the sons of Seth. Lamech, Irad (Jared), and Enoch all pop up in Seth’s line; and all are named after the naming takes place in Cain’s line. We are left to figure the thing out, but common sense would tell us that there is in the world at this time a great admiration for Cainites, who were obviously busy in making the world “a better place in which to live.” See them going at it in Genesis 4:20,21, and 22! (When you are only a vagabond and a fugitive as Cain was, I don’t suppose there is much more to life than just getting as comfortable as possible here. You certainly don’t have

any future worth talking about!) “Went out from the presence of the Lord” indicates a centralized place of worship still on earth in 3900 B.C., at the East Gate of the garden of Eden. “And dwelt in the land of Nod.” The land is impossible to locate on a map. If it was a short distance from Eden (which itself is a land mass as large as Spain), then it was near Pakistan (or Persia). If it were a great distance, it would have put Cain right down in India (preferably the Himalayas!). “And Cain knew his wife....” In all the modern minds the verse has been misread to read, “And Cain found a wife,” thus bringing up the perennial question, “Where did Cain get his wife?” Aside from the fact that it must have been from his father-in-law, one should notice that it is permissible (at this stage in history) for a man to marry a sister or first cousin, for the original pair—Adam and Eve —are brother and sister! Brothers and sisters have the same father. To pound this truth through the wall of objections, the Holy Spirit produces “sister” for “wife” in the AV 1611; the Bible again interprets itself (Song of Sol. 4:9–10, 12; 1 Cor. 9:5). This revelation of the AV 1611 has been covered up in the newer versions for the obvious reason that it points out all too clearly another pious fraud still traveling with us; i.e., calling an unmarried “vestal virgin” a “sister.” A “sister” is a wife, where she is not the blood relative of a brother born of the same father. Whose wife is a nun? Christ’s? Christ only has ONE WIFE, and if He had more than one, He would be a bigamist (note 2 Cor. 11:1–4; Song of Sol. 6:10; 1 Cor. 12:12, 14, 20). Note further that our text (vs. 17) does not say when Cain found the woman or when he married her. The time element is completely missing. If Cain was born when Adam was 110 years old and Adam had been out of the garden at that time for seventy-seven years—producing children—by the time Cain was forty years old (an extremely young man—see Gen. 5:5), Adam would have been 150 years old with well over 200 descendants. Cain got his wife where you got yours: “courtin’.” “And he builded a city, and called the name of the city....” A city for 100 people or even 200 is rather odd. Certainly all of Adam’s children did not leave with Cain when he went. Perhaps, since the time element is missing again, we may suppose the city was built after Cain had been in Nod 200 years. This would make Adam 350 years old, with well over 40,000 descendants. To avoid this type of figuring some harebrained theologies have been developed. Not the least of these is Mohammed Ali’s psychic vision which tells him that Adam and Eve were black, originally. Also to be reckoned with is the ape-man theory that there were Piltdown people and Heidelberg hoodlums running all over the place outside the garden all the time Adam and Eve were in it. And last but not least is the shocking thought that there were thousands of “gods” (sons of God) present who came down the Balkans from Germany (the Elbe and the Oder rivers). (Iron men of music, bringing their beer and Indo-European language with them!) But here we develop what my old professor used to refer to as “an highly imaginative exegesis.” There are only six generations in Cain’s line from here to the flood, so we can safely assume that Cain had no wife for four generations, that is, for a minimum of 260 years (note that the sons of Seth do not “begat” until they are at least sixty-five years old—Gen. 5:6, 9, 12, 15, etc.). The names of the first five descendants of Cain have Hebrew names which mean “teacher,” “city” (or “rapid”), “God is combatting” (or “struck by God”), “man of God,” “why thus with thee?”, and “wild man.” A “highly imaginative exegesis” would read, “God is combatting the teacher in the city, and if the man of God is not a wild man, why was he thus struck by God?” (The prophecies of Nostradamus have often been worked out of Scripture in this fashion.)

4:19 “And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. 20 And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle. 21 And his brother’s name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.”

The first polygamist (by name) in history is a great-great-great grandson of Cain. With this fungus on the family tree some commendable ancestors are Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal-cain—at least as judged by the world’s standards (Luke 16:15). There is no doubt that polygamy is a wrong practice, for according to the Creator, speaking to a contemporary audience, “He...at the beginning made them male and female...a man...shall cleave to his wife...they twain shall be one flesh” (Matt. 19:4–5). And as far as more than one wife goes, “from the beginning it was not so” (Matt. 19:8). Lamech shows up after “the beginning”; therefore, he, like his Hollywood traveling companions, is in step with the times and out of step with the word. Since Lamech lives in the days preceding the flood, and those days are referred to as “the days of Noe” (Matt. 24:37–38), we should expect the divorce rate to double in the next twenty years and “harems” to be in vogue again; “cooled,” of course, with a sprinkling of “sensitivity research” and “group contact therapy”; you know—the whole God-forsaken, hypocritical mess. “Adah, and...Zillah.” The words mean “to pass by” or “to adorn” or “pleasure” and “shadiness” or “protection” or “shadow.” “And Adah bare Jabal.” Jabal produces milk and steaks to avoid tilling the ground. He majors in husbandry and black angus cattle in particular. (There is no charge for that last comment; it comes free with the volume.) The word Jabal means “moving” and is related to “a river or stream,” “to run as a sore,” “to lead or to bring,” to “rejoice,” or “to carry.” The Holy Spirit says nothing about “sheep” or shepherds in mentioning Jabal’s “cattle,” so we are to presume that he is a “cowboy,” not a sheepherder. The sacred cow (Bul-rain god), golden calf, or bull (or Baal), is a leading subject of the Old Testament revelation (see Psa. 22:12; Exod. 32:19; Hos. 13:2; 2 Chron. 13:8; Acts 7:41, 14:13; and the notes on Gen. 3:1, 14). “And his brother’s name was Jubal....” The Jubal (notice “jubilee”) of Genesis 4 fosters a long line of earthly musicians whose background can be traced to “morning stars who sang” at the dawn of creation (Job 38:3–7) when the infant earth was wrapped in swaddling clothes of light and all “the sons of God shouted for joy” (Job 38). Since every bad thing on this earth is basically a good thing twisted, we should not be surprised to find that the first function of sharps, flats, quarter notes, and bass and treble clefts, was to glorify the Lord God Almighty (Psa. 95:1; Isa. 42:10; Jer. 20:13). The deceptive choir leader of the original chorale of glory was an anointed cherub who carried with him built-in musical instruments and all (Ezek. 28:13—“pipes and tabrets!”). From his position over the throne (Ezek. 28:14), with feet burnished in the seraphic coals of fire (Isa. 6:3, 6; Ezek. 28:14), Lucifer’s first calling was to conduct the thundering praises of ten thousand angels as they lifted their voices in thanksgiving to their Creator (compare Rev. 5:12–13). Jubal, in the steps of his “father” (!), turns the harp and the organ loose in the service of the

Cainites of his day, whose boys and girls cannot resist the proms, “frolics,” cotillions, and “hops.” They kick their feet and wriggle their bodies to the music God gave them for purposes of worshipping Him (Job 21:12). What began as “praising God in the dance” (Psa. 150:4) degenerates into the Foxtrot, Grizzly Bear, Bunny Hug, Charleston, Buck-wing, Big Apple, Tango, Jitterbug, Rhumba, the Waltz, Lambeth Walk, Samba, Mambo, Lindy Hop, the Twist, the Animal, the Dog, and the Frug; and with it go the “stringed instruments” (piano, guitar, and violin) and the “organ” (wind instruments— Psa. 150:4). While continually talking about the “need for a sense of rhythm,” “the social advantages of bodily contact,” and “the poise and grace being developed,” the ante-diluvian civilization of Noah’s day goes to hell like a bomb plummets to earth and cries in one accord, “What is the Almighty?” “Depart from us; for we desire not the knowledge of thy ways” (Job 21:14–15). All glory to Jubal, who aided and abetted the world’s greatest socially acceptable sin: the modern dance. Time and space will not allow a detailed exposition of the four movements of Jubal’s hellish symphony: Classicism, Romanticism, Modernism, and Naturalism; but for the sake of brevity, the following is noted: 1. After the flood, music does not show up again until Exodus 15. Here it is restored to its proper function, with God being praised “in the dance” (cf. Jer. 31:13 in the Millennium). 2. It degenerates quickly into a Jubal approved institution in Exodus 32–33, where the dancers strip and the band is composed of musicians who have cards in the African union; the jazz terminology is “cat” (see book on The Mark of the Beast—Exod. 12:38). 3. There is a revival of heavenly music under David, the sweet psalmist of Israel, and dancing accompanies the praises of God (2 Sam. 6:14; 1 Chron. 15:16). 4. Degeneration is in the closing days of the kingdom (Amos 6:5) as the downward spiral of history, recrossing itself, moves on. (There is no time to explain that last one!) 5. The acme of the musical function (from man’s point of view) is reached in the six instrument band playing for the man who “set up” (six times) the sixty by six by six image on the plains of Dura (Dan. 3). Here, music is restored to its religious function, with a novel twist—the receiver of the praises is a king who is a type of the Antichrist in thirteen particulars! (See commentary on Revelation, Rev. 13.) 6. With the exception of the mournful harps on the “willows of Babylon,” music drops out of the Bible until the hymn—sung in the upper room, the night before our Saviour was crucified (Matt. 26:30). (The word “singing” is not found in the account of the angel’s proclamation to the shepherds, in Luke 2.) The ensuing history of music is well known. In the Bible, Paul sings in jail and later tells the Christians that they can buy three kinds of records for their phonographs. hymns, psalms, and spiritual songs (Col. 3:16). The Bible ends with the heavenly “harpers harping with their harps” and drowning out the Catholic-United Nations dominion in a roar of praise that shakes the stars out of their sockets (Rev. 19:1–6, 6:13, 14:2). In the interim (A.D. 70—A.D. 1200), the Roman church scuttles the Old Ship Zion, and by teaching that a Christian can lose salvation, successfully squelches such outbursts of praise as, “I’ve got the joy, joy, joy, joy down in my heart,” and substitutes such ponderous themes as, “A Dominus, fe fi fo fum, E Pluribus Unum,” etc. Out of the cold stone hallways of monasteries, amidst monks, the deadly drone of Roman religion seeps along through the Dark Ages like black strap molasses out of a busted jug. It is not until after Palestrina that Bach is able to get Christian music back up in the third heaven where it belongs. 1. Classical period: Bach, Gounod, Haydn, Mozart—music for the spirit.

2. Romantic period: Beethoven, Schumann, Schubert, Wagner—music for the soul. 3. Modern period: Brahms (an overlap!), Tchaikovsky, Strauss, Debussy, Korsakov, Copeland, Stravinsky—music for the body. 4. Natural period: Whiteman, Gershwin, Goodman, Shaw, Kenton, Miller, Dorsey, Presley, the Beatles, the Animals—music for the animal functions of the body. 5. Future? Back to Jubal.

4:22 “And Zillah, she also bare Tubal-cain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.”

For Zillah, see notes on Genesis 4:19. “Tubal-cain” in Hebrew is connected with “whetter of iron tools,” “metal smith,” “smith for the whole earth,” and “profane smith” (see notes on “Schmidt” and iron, Gen. 4:1). Naamah means “pleasantness” or “to be lovely.” The “brass and iron” in the Bible are connected with: 1. Judgment at an altar (Exod. 27:3–5). 2. Consummation of a sin offering under the wrath of God (Lev. 9:24). 3. The Empire of Alexander the Great (Dan. 2). 4. The Roman Empire (plus the material in the comments on Gen. 3:1). If there is any doubt about these continual negative comments and negative interpretation of passages, let the devout student note that neither brass nor iron were allowed in the construction of Noah’s Ark (Gen. 6:14–17). Where is the Bible student who does not know what “the Ark” symbolizes? You see, the Bible is the only scientific dictionary on “types” in print; and where it defines a man, an animal, a piece of material, a rock, a vegetable, or an act of nature, the definition opens vistas of knowledge that are completely closed to the Bible-rejecting college graduate. Tubalcain (as his brothers, Jabal and Jubal) is a progressive, creative, constructive devotee for “world betterment.” And “that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God” (Luke 16:15). (At least that is how Jesus Christ looked at it. How do you look at it?) Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal-cain picture civilization. Music and the fine arts are present, and the manufacturing and agricultural skills are being applied, and the “Iron Age” referred to in the geology and anthropology books is well on the way (3000 B.C.), despite the heretical blunder taught by many scholars and scientists from 1800 to 1900 that the “Stone Age” extended down into this period of time.

4:23 “And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. 24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.”

According to Hebrew scholars, this is the first “song” in the Bible. (This is arrived at by a study of the meter involved; but a study of synthetic, integral, parabolic, antithetic, synonymous distiches in Hebrew will yield very little light on the text. Such a study makes a pyrotechnic display of

intellectual gyrations, but what we are after here is what God intended for us to get.) This form of poetry is common in the Bible, repeating a truth in a different form. (Compare Zech. 9:9 where Jesus is riding on one animal, not two; Psa. 33:12 where it is one nation, not two; Psa. 34:22 in which the “them” of the second clause are the “servants” of the first clause.) Lamech has killed one young man in self-defense. He claims seven times the protection God gave Cain because Cain murdered in cold-blood, with malice aforethought. “Hear my voice” indicated that Lamech is not going to make the mistake Adam made in “hearkening to his wife” (Gen. 3:17). She —or more properly they—are going to hearken to him! The “rule” of the man has begun, and with rare exceptions, such as Sarah instructing Abraham (Gen. 21:12), the woman is to “learn in silence with all subjection” (1 Tim. 2:11–14). As one character put it, “The Greek is very strong here (1 Tim. 2); the literal rendering is shut up!” Lamech’s “song” was probably orchestrated for dance band by Jumping Jubal and his Bouncing Beach Bunnies and became quite a hit. (The naive scholarship, which supposes that the setting of Gen. 4 is archaic, is due to a lack of contact with contemporary trends. Songs of murder and self defense have always been popular on the hillbilly hit parade, and double marriages or triple affairs are a commonplace theme of “popular music.” “Miller’s Cave,” “Folsom Prison,” “Mack the Knife,” “Bury Me Not on the Lone Prairie,” etc., are proof that Lamech and Jubal didn’t die out with the Sumerian civilization.) Lamech’s dogmatic pronouncement that God will give him seven times the blessing he gave Cain is about as Scripturally authentic as a papal encyclical; it belongs to that peculiar class of religious declarations which assume, “because I say it, therefore....” Jepthah’s vow is in this class, as is the statement by Micah in Judges 17:13. There is no intimation in either Testament that seven-fold protection is promised to the killer in the case of manslaughter. There are the “cities of refuge” in Numbers and Joshua, but even here the fugitive is in danger of losing his head if he pokes it outside the city limits (see Num. 35:25–28). Not all the statements which appear in Scripture are doctrines of truth delivered by the Holy Spirit for application; many are the suggestions, fancies, exclamations, bad guesswork and, occasionally, outright lies of sinners. (Note Job 12:6 and Malachi 3:15, for example.)

4:25 “And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. 26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.”

We have discussed the matter of Adam’s sons and daughters under Genesis 4:17. (It may be added that if Cain and Abel were born the year after Adam left the garden, then they were around 100 years old when Cain murdered Abel; this would give each of them grandsons and possibly great-grandsons if either had a sister to marry by the time they were thirty.) “Seth,” in Hebrew, means “appointed” or “put”; it is kin to “compensation” or “sprout.” “Instead of Abel...” would indicate that Seth is born within a year after the death of Abel, although this cannot be proved from the chronology. Bullinger’s note is interesting. “If Abel died in 125, and Abel and Cain had children before that year, even supposing they had no descendants till they reached

the age of sixty-five, Adam could have had 130 children.” Bullinger goes on to show that if each of these had a child at sixty-five years of age, there would have been 1,219 people living by the year 139 (after the fall). “Enos,” in Hebrew, would mean “frail, weak, sickly,” or “incurable.” The word is used for mankind in general in Job 7:17, Daniel 2:43, Psalm 9:20, and other places. “Then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.” The verse is puzzling, but it will yield three interpretations. The first and obvious would be that men began to pray, for this is how the expression is used throughout Scripture (Rom. 10:13; Acts 2:21; 1 Chron. 4:10). The problem is that there is no sudden reason for a burden to pray popping up two generations after Adam; there is no flood and no danger of a flood until at least six generations after Adam. “Call upon the name of the Lord”—for what? The LXX (This is the common misnomer used in scholarly works for a fictitious Greek Old Testament supposedly written in 250 B.C. In actuality, it usually refers to the Roman Catholic Vatican manuscript copied from the 5th Column of Origen’s Hexapla around A.D. 370) postulates the second interpretation with “epikaleisthai to onoma kuriou tou Theou”: i.e., “Men began to be called by the name of the Lord God.” This obviously is a North African (Alexandrian) guess, and a bad one, as the names which follow do not bear the prefix or suffix “Je” or “Jah” for “Jehovah.” (This is the word “LORD” in Genesis 4:26, and it is unpronounceable in the Hebrew and impossible to transliterate into English. It is pronounced “Adonai” when read in the synagogues.) The third interpretation is provided by the Targum of Onkelos (and Kimchi, Rashi, and other Jewish exegetes). They state that men quit praying to God and used His name for their idols and attached His name to their “gods.” Maimonides, in his commentary on the Mishna, A.D. 1168, suggests the same interpretation. We are left in the dark, for if it comes to a toss-up between Kimchi, Rashi, and Maimonides against the AV 1611 text as it stands, there is not much doubt about who is wrong, for “by their fruits ye shall know them.” The Jewish theory has one strong point in its favor, however; Enoch (Gen. 5:21) is prophesying against an ungodly generation of sensual apostates (Jude 14). Where do these “wandering stars,” “spots,” “withered fruit,” “rootless trees,” “brute beasts,” “filthy dreamers” (see Jude 7–13) come from? They must come between Enos (third generation) and Enoch (seventh generation: Jude 14). We may surmise that the “gods” are certainly present by the time of Enoch (see notes on Gen. 6:1–6), but Enos is a little early. The best way out of the exegetical blind alley is to assume that Genesis 4:26 means to call on the name of the Lord irreverently; that is, “to profane the name of the Lord.” This will match the demands of solution number three, without straining the text. The manner of “profanation” could cover everything from swearing and cursing to addressing the Christopher statue as “Holy Christopher” (note 1 Cor. 8:4). On this dubious note, the fourth chapter of the Book of Genesis ends. The Holy Spirit now digresses into another genealogical account, the bloodline of Adam through Seth. And the devout observer cannot fail to notice that there are as many verses in Chapter Five dealing with this human history as there are in the account on the creation of the universe. Chapter 1 has 31 verses; Chapter 5 has 32 verses. The lesson is obvious. The man who comes to the Bible looking for detailed information on the physical sciences, before he has faced the crucial matter of his own personal accountability to his Creator, is in for a disappointment. The “cosmology” of the universe, which so interests the modern “scientist,” God flippantly dismisses with about ten pages of Holy Writ (Gen. 1; Job 26, 38; Exod. 36–39, Oh Yes!), but the sins of scientists, their thoughts, motives, aims, purposes, background, family tree, future, and present condition, occupy more than 500 pages! Truly, His thoughts are not our thoughts, nor His ways our ways (Isa. 55).

CHAPTER 5 5:1 “This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.”

By an amazing undesigned coincidence (with twenty-four writers agreeing on the plan without getting together at any time!), the expression “This is the book of the generations” only occurs twice in the Bible. This correlation is more than fantastic when one considers that there are over twenty chapters dealing with genealogies, and ten times in the book of Genesis alone the sentence appears minus “the book” (see Gen. 2:4, 6:9, 10:1, 11:10, 27, 25:12, 19, 36:1, 9, and 37:2). When the words “the book” are included, the sentence occurs only once in the Old Testament for Adam and only once in the New Testament for Jesus Christ. In the New Testament, the Gospel writer who uses the expression (Matt. 1:1) does not trace Christ’s genealogy back to Adam—as Luke does! —but only to Abraham. Without having access to the statement that Christ was the “last Adam” (see 1 Cor. 15), Matthew places the sentence in the only context which would match Paul’s statement, without intending to write a Gospel anywhere near the sentiments and viewpoint of Paul. As a matter of fact, the Pauline Epistles are just about as far from Matthew’s theology as you can get in the New Testament, and this explains why liberal theologians love “the Sermon on the Mount” and Catholics adore “the Lord’s Prayer.” Neither passage tells a sinner how to get saved or how to know it when he is. The problem that an unbelieving critic will have at the White Throne Judgment (among several thousand) will be to explain how Moses and Matthew conspired to erect a theology without the “missing link” to join the two accounts. Paul has the link in 1 Corinthians 15:45–49, but fortunately (!), he has “the book of the generations” placed for him in the only two genealogical tables in the Bible where he could link them. The chance of such a thing happening in the history of book writing and publication is one out of 4,000,000. As a matter of fact, it is a phenomenon that has never been produced in any publication before or after the Bible. “The book of the generations,” therefore, indicates—without anybody interpreting anything— that the human race has only two sources: Adam and Jesus Christ. One was made in the image (see Gen. 1:27), and the other is the image (2 Cor. 4:3–4; Heb. 1:2–3). One was vanquished in a garden, and the other conquered Satan in a garden (Matt. 26:41–46). One denied the word and surrendered to temptation, and the other was true to the word and overcame the tempter (Luke 4). One was earthly and one was heavenly (1 Cor. 15). The fallen man became the “father” of that great “brotherhood of man” seeking “peace on earth good will to men,” and the risen man became the brother of all sinners who are born again by the “God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 1:3). You are “in Adam” or you are “in Christ” (Rom. 5), and there is not a king, mayor, governor, pope, priest, bishop, electrician, president, soldier, plumber, sailor, student, carpenter, Marine, Viet Cong, African, European, American, or Asiatic on the face of this earth who can return to God by the means of any religion ever devised. The problem is how to be born over again rightly instead of wrongly, to be born in God’s image instead of Adam’s, and the problem is insurmountable outside of a divine revelation superior to science or religion. Science and religion have no answer to the question, and all answers posed by “religions” and “religious leaders” turn out to be a revival of

Cain’s fruit stand religion (see Gen. 4:2–5). “In the likeness of God made he him.” How forcibly this presents the past tense. No man is made in God’s image; every man was made (note verse 3 in the same chapter). “Created” (past tense), “made he him” (past tense), “blessed them” (past tense), “called their name” (past tense); how alien all of this sounds to the devotee of Darwin’s “Puddle to Paradise Bedtime Stories.” Darwin, recreating God in his own image—the image of four-footed beasts and creeping things (Rom. 1:23)—presents to the teenager of the twentieth century the fantastic picture of an animal maturing with the help of “mother nature” from an amoeba to a “god” by the simple process of “survival of the fittest” and “shedding useless appendages.” The first appendage Darwin “shed” and the one he desired every man, woman, and child on the face of the earth to “shed” was the Holy Bible. For here in Genesis 5:2–3 and continuing throughout the Old Testament, the infallible record pictures man as a dethroned king, an impeached president, an unsuccessful farmer, a defeated soldier, a degenerate priest, a deluded scholar, and a blind leader of the blind. He loses the image. “And called their name Adam.” Note that “Eve” is Adam’s opinion of his wife, not God’s name for her. Since “the woman is the glory of the man” (1 Cor. 11:7), it is dangerous for any man or civilization to make an “idol” of the female. The glory of God is one thing, and the glory of man is another. All life does not come from the female of the species (Job 14:1, 15:14), for as we have remarked before, the major problem of the human race is wrong birth—i.e., birth from a woman (Psa. 51:5; Job 25:4). When Adam calls his wife “Eve” (because “she was the mother of all living”), he manifests the first attitude of fallen man toward life: the tendency to believe that all life is physical. From Adam’s pronouncement in Genesis 3:20 to the physical priest of 1970 dipping his physical fingers into physical water to put it on the physical baby’s head, the depraved nature of man is disclosed. Physical water cannot produce a spiritual being. Eve’s name—as any woman’s—is a man’s name. She is “Mrs. Adam” (see notes on Gen. 2:22–24).

5:3 “And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: 4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: 5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. 6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos: 7 And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters: 8 And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.”

“That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:3, 6), so (as it has been remarked before) the comment on verse 3 is simply that no religion can do anything permanently for anyone. Man needs to have an image restored to him which he lost, and the modern use of “social image” and our “image” (the USA) overseas, etc., is only a testimony to man’s rejection of the right image and his resolution to accept the wrong one (Rev. 13:16–18) when it shows up. Following the AV 1611 text as printed, we find Seth born when Adam was 130 years old, and

Enos born when Seth was 105 years old. By what follows, Adam is a contemporary of Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahaleleel, Jared, Enoch, and Methusaleh. He actually overlaps Lamech (Gen. 5:28) by about fifty-five years. This would come as a surprise even to a real Bible-believer who had never figured out the years involved, for it means that Noah and Adam were only separated by twenty-eight years, and Noah was a contemporary of Abraham’s father! The problem of “oral tradition” now becomes extremely simplified (if we believe the text as it is, inspired and preserved), for the Genesis account of creation can proceed by word of mouth from the first man to Moses through only six generations: Adam, Lamech, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Kohath, Amram. That is, the possibility of “distortion” in the account, if it were handed down orally (which it was not!), would be the amount that a firsthand witness would lose in his testimony regarding a soul-shattering, life-transforming event from 1850 to 1960. Modern scholarship, in typical naivete, assumes that during the thirty years that the first man walked in fellowship with God that God told him nothing about creation. One cannot help but note the ominous “and he died” placed at verse 5. This is the first natural death on earth. (The sheep was slaughtered and Abel was murdered.) The first natural death occurs in Genesis 5:5, and since it is the first man who died to get a wife (from the fifth rib—see Gen. 2:22), and she caused him to die spiritually, the number 5 is hereafter associated with death at least 90 percent of the time—which presents higher odds than a bookie would care to take. (Bookies, cardsharps, pool sharks, dice-gaffers, and con-men have a much better sense of “truth and error” than the translators of the R S V o r ASV, when it comes to the mathematical laws of “statistical probability.”) 1. The Devil, five letters, has the power of death (which also has five letters). 2. Benjamin receives five times the normal amount of food and clothing as his brothers, since his mother dies in childbirth (Gen. 43:34, 45:22, 35:18–19). 3. Christ has five wounds in His body and five pieces of garment to be distributed (John 19:23). (This has led every commentator from Doddridge and Campbell to Larkin and Bullinger to say that “5” in the Scripture signifies “grace.” It certainly does not, and the singular occurence of the number with grace one time in 6,000 years—in the case of Christ’s death—solves nothing, for even here, death is the subject.) 4. David’s five stones are not requisitioned from the brook for a dispensation of grace; they are picked up to clobber Goliath and four other Hamites (2 Sam. 21:22). 5. In Acts 5:5, a liar drops dead. 6. In Romans 5, the death of Adam and Christ are expounded on at length. 7. In Revelation 5, the Lamb appears “as though slain.” 8. Five emerods and five mice pay for the plague which killed thousands (1 Sam. 6:4). 9. The first man born is a murderer with a word meaning “spear” (five letters) or “smith” (five letters). 10. The fifth rib is the “floater” according to 2 Samuel 2:23, 3:27, 4:6, 20:10. (What? Four “coincidences” in a row?) 11. But the capstone of “coincidence” is the brazen altar. For on this deadly object there were slain and offered more than 1,000 animal carcases a year for 500 years, and the altar was 5 by 5 (Exod. 27:1). And as if to chime in (joyfully!) with more evidence contrary to the guesswork of the “Scholars’ Union,” the twentieth-century airplane pilot who is headed for trouble cries, “Mayday, Mayday,” over the radio, obviously unaware of the scientific fact that May is the fifth month in the year. Nor does the United States Navy help the matter out when they announce that the No. 5 breakdown is the

correct designation for a ship sinking or going dead in the water. (I do not suppose that the accidental choice of 500 kilocycles as the international distress frequency for SOS signals would help matters either. It will be a wonderful day when science finally catches up with the Mosaic account in Genesis!) “And he died.” Again, one is struck with the marvelous design of the word of God, for in the comparative passage in Matthew 1—both passages beginning with “the book of the generations”— no one is mentioned as having died! Of course, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob died; but is it not of amazing significance that after putting Genesis 5 and Matthew 1 together in 1 Corinthians 15 (Christ identified as the “last Adam”), the Holy Spirit leads Matthew to omit “and he died,” although it occurs in Adam’s genealogy? The lesson is obvious. It is found stated clearly in John 11:26. In Adam —death: “and he died.” In Christ—life: “shall never die.” “Believest thou this?” (John 11:26). “And all the days...nine hundred and thirty years.” The text is a little too much for modern scholarship to swallow. It was also too much for the Samaritan Pentateuch, (London Polyglot), so the ages of the patriarchs were changed to make the chapter socially acceptable in scholastic circles. (Exactly how Isa. 65:20 will be dolled up so it can join Phi Beta is a little foggy.) It has been assumed by some brilliant minds that the Hebrew word for “hundreds” is a misnomer and really represents “tens.” Thus, we are to believe that Adam lived ninety years instead of 900 and that his age at death was ninety and three years, instead of 900 and 30 years. Such a method of reckoning produces some truly original (and “highly imaginative”!) exegesis. For example, Seth lived ten and five years “and begat Enos” (vs. 6; or more properly 10.5 years if the decimal system of tens is to be followed as suggested above). It is not every day that a ten or fifteen year old boy becomes a proud father, but it certainly happens more often than in Mahalaleel’s case, who must have bounced his baby on his knee when he was a 6.5 year old daddy! Ditto Enoch (vs. 21). In the long run, doubting the account is like scientific research—it always creates more problems and questions than it answers.

5:9 “And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan: 10 And Enos lived after he begat Cainan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters: 11 And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.”

The word “Cainan” will mean “acquisition” and is kin to Cain. (What a way to put it! One is reminded of the Bible teacher who, after several unsuccessful attempts to locate Job’s home on the map, asked, “The question is, is it Uz or is it Ur?”) Archbishop Ussher used the list we are here enumerating in constructing his chronology, which has been the target of much abuse ever since it appeared. The archbishop (a Bible believer) took the texts of the AV 1611 to heart, and figuring back from Solomon (1000 B.C.), he added the figures given in 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel and the Book of Judges, with the additional helps in Acts 7, 13 and Galatians 3. Then he added the forty years of wilderness wanderings to the forty years on the “backside of the desert,” plus the forty years of Moses in Egypt, etc., until he arrived at Joseph. Figuring back from here, by the data in Genesis, he arrived at Genesis 5 and took these figures literally. The resultant chronology is “Ussher’s Chronology,” which is as reliable as any of them. A far more detailed chronology is found in

Bullinger’s Appendices to The Companion Bible and in the intricate labyrinth of Sidney Wilburs, entitled The Chronology of the Holy Bible, 1886, Buffalo, N.Y. Thiele, Rimmer. Others have suggested other systems, but none do any more justice to the AV text than any other one. The birth of Enos is around 3769 B.C. and that of Cainan around 3679 B.C. “And all the days...nine hundred and five years.” The lengthy lives of the Patriarchs are due to three factors. 1. A different atmosphere than the one in which we now live (see Gen. 2:1, 5–6). 2. No sickness or disease is prevalent (or even present, if we are to believe Exod. 15:26, where they are mentioned for the first time in connection with Egypt and Israel after the flood. The infirmities of old age are present, but no diseases). 3. The apparent world unity under the “sons of God” (see notes on Gen. 6) in which wars are impossible. We read of no “wars,” in the sense of armed groups of men engaging in combat, until after Genesis 12.

5:12 “And Cainan lived seventy years, and begat Mahalaleel: 13 And Cainan lived after he begat Mahalaleel eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters: 14 And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died. 15 And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared: 16 And Mahalaleel lived after he begat Jared eight hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters: 17 And all the days of Mahalaleel were eight hundred ninety and five years: and he died.”

Cainan (“he is a possession” or “acquisition”) dies around 2764 B.C. Mahalaleel (“praise of God”—“God,” Elohim, not “Lord,” Jehovah as Gen. 4:26 would suggest, if men are naming themselves “after the Lord” as the LXX says) is born about 3609 B.C. Jared, “descent” or “descender” (see notes on Irad, Gen. 4:18), is born about 3544 B.C.

5:18 “And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch: 19 And Jared lived after he begat Enoch eight hundred years, and begat sons and daughters: 20 And all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two years: and he died.”

The continual repetition of “and he died” should now begin to drum on the reader’s eyes and ears with enough force to convince him that when Adam fell, he fell. “And he died” (vs. 5), “and he died” (vs. 8), “and he died” (vs. 11), “and he died” (vs.14), “and he died” (vs. 17), “and he died” (vs. 20); and you will too. The only thing more sure than “death and taxes” is judgment. Again, one must not go hop, skip, and jump over the passage without considering the effects of lives which are lived 800–900 years at a sitting. When the “sons of God” showed up from outer space (see notes on Gen. 6:1–6), it is highly possible that the space travel techniques of 3500 B.C. were well developed and may have been considerably beyond the Apollo-Astronaut-Moon stage.

Again, our naive scientists assume that all the “advancements” have been in the last fifty years because of a long drag from 2000 B.C. to the present. However, this ignores the intervening deluge (a continual subject of ignorance!) and the drowning out of civilizations which may have been as advanced as any today, or more so. The myths about Shangri-la, Atlantis, the gardens under the North Pole, etc. are not based on such a flimsy foundation as The Origin of the Species. Tell me, how much would a normal man today know who had spent fifty years as a carpenter, fifty years as a bricklayer, fifty years as a plumber, fifty years as an electrician, fifty years as a stonemason, fifty years as a tile setter, fifty years as a mechanic, and fifty years as a gardener and had studied under a father who had lived twice that long! How much would a genius know after the same period? And what would lead any sane man to believe that “geniuses” are a product of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries A.D.?

5:21 “And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah: 22 And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters: 23 And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years: 24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.”

Enoch, who gets his name from Cain’s son (Gen. 4:17), is one of the most remarkable characters in the Bible. Probably, he is the most remarkable human being who ever lived between Adam and Christ, for he had the unique distinction of being the only person in 6,000 years of history who never died and never will die—a distinction that not even Mary, the virgin, shared (although she is given that honor falsely by modern pagans). This privilege is so rare that even the commentators of the Pulpit Commentary stumble at it and make the ludicrous comment, on 2 Kings 2:11 that Elijah, with Enoch and CHRIST, did not die! But not even our Saviour was given this privilege. Jesus Christ was the only man sent into this world without sin, but even though sinless, he was a “man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief” and “by the grace of God” tasted “death for every man” (Isa. 53; Heb. 2:9). Enoch not only cheats the undertaker, but he never returns to this earth to die again (as Moses and Elijah will; see commentary on Revelation, Rev. 11:4–10). He is, therefore, a type of the twentieth-century believer who is alive at the Rapture of the Church (John 11:26), and he fits no other anti-type in the Bible. He is the sole exception to “it is appointed unto men once to die” (Heb. 9:27). Enoch gaily puts off his appointment forever and is “translated that he should not see death” (Heb. 11:5). In an age of eating, drinking, marriage, building, buying, planting, selling, etc. (Luke 17:27–28), Enoch somehow “pleases God” (Heb. 11:5) and walks by faith (Heb. 11:5). The simple statement of Scripture in regards to his trip into outer space—4,000 years before Christopher Columbus—is “and he was not; for God took him” (Gen. 5:24). The only other detail given about Enoch’s short and happy life—a brief 365 years!—is that when he suddenly disappeared his family, friends, and relatives searched extensively for him and could no more find him than the school of prophets could find Elijah (Heb. 11:5; 2 Kings 2:16–18). They reached the conclusion that he had hijacked a plane to Cuba, defected to Russia, escaped to Sweden, or was the victim of a perfect crime. “And was not found.” We may refer to the passage as the Holy Spirit injecting a new note in the narrative, but this is

putting it mildly and tritely. The incident is unheard of before or after, and it calls to our minds again that man’s final solution to his problems lies in the miraculous, supernatural intervention of God into human affairs: “progressive creation,” “Theistic Evolution,” and “gradual evolvement” will do as temporary expedients between wars; but the final answer will have to involve God Himself “showing up on the scene.” Up goes Enoch! Before Methuselah was born, Enoch was submerged in the genealogical table as one more minnow in the Gulf Stream. He does not “walk with God” until after the birth of his first child. This should cause one to analyze the name “Methuselah,” for he turns out to be the oldest man in the Bible (vs. 27): 969 years old at his death. The name “Methuselah” explodes in our faces in its Hebrew form, for it means: “When he is dead it shall be sent!” Nor does the Holy Spirit leave any doubt in our minds as to what the “it” is in this case; for the year that Methuselah is buried with Adam, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared and Lamech—Lamech dies five years before Methuselah—“the windows of heaven” open, and it rains “cats and dogs, pitchforks and....” (The NAACP will not allow the quotation to be finished.) No wonder Enoch “walks with God” after the boy is born! The Lord tells Enoch what to name the baby exactly as He named many a baby before it was born (Isaac, Mahershalalhashbaz, Lo Ammi, Josiah, Jesus Christ, et al.). When Enoch finishes naming that boy he has to go back to his prayer closet for more information. There he is given a revelation on the Second Coming of Christ, 4,000 years in advance (see Jude 14), clearly telling his posterity to come that “the days of Noah” are pictures of A.D. 1900–2000. In keeping with the best unregenerate scholastic traditions, a Book of Enoch has been fabricated to meet the demands of Jude 14, and it is to this “book” that the Dead Sea scholars allude when they try to prove that God forgot some books when He wrote His Bible. However, the AV 1611 preserves the inspired “Enoch...prophesied” (not “wrote”), and the true researcher for truth need not waste five minutes with the spurious Book of Enoch.

5:25 “And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech: 26 And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters: 27 And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died. 28 And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son: 29 And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord hath cursed.”

Methuselah, born 3317 B.C., dies about 2347 B.C. Lamech (“powerful”), born 3130 B.C., dies about 2353 B.C. Lamech’s son, “Noah,” needs no introduction nor credentials. People have been “missing the boat” ever since his day, and people still wonder why he took the flies and mosquitoes into the ark to survive the deluge. His name means “rest” or “comfort and consolation,” and he is born about 2948 B.C. The deluge was a necessity according to the census statistics of any generation, taken anywhere in the last 2,000 years, for the law of increase (“population explosion” etc.) proves that no human life could have been earlier than 4000 B.C. without a catastrophe wiping it out. Under the normal rate of population increase, there would now be living upon this earth—with wars, pestilence, famines, and

natural disasters included—60,000,000,000 people (about fifty times its present population), if the account of Genesis 6–8 is not true! Those who teach a “local flood” forget entirely this truth of reality which is a matter of mathematical fact. If the families of 10,000–2000 B.C.—a Darwinian bracket— had only four children per family and two of them died, the present population of the earth (without a universal flood) would be around 800,000,000,000 people. With living conditions better than they are now—a Bible truth—and sickness and disease unknown, how in “the ever loving blue-eyed world” could the flood of Genesis 6–8 have been a local flood killing only a handful of people, like say, 400,000? If the Bible account of Genesis 1–5 is correct (and I say it with no doubt in my own mind whatsoever), the present population of the earth (without a universal flood intervening) would be near 160,000,000,000 people. The theory of a local flood for Genesis 6–8 is “for the birds,” and Noah’s dove wouldn’t land on it even if his raven would. The Abbydos Tablets in the British Museum speak of Noah as the twentieth Pharaoh of Egypt! His son, who settled in Egypt, is called Cham (Chufu, Khem). Adam was supposed to have been Seti I, the first Pharaoh, and his sons are listed as Mena and Sheshison, “the prepared one” and “the guilty one.” The naming of the baby “Noah” is very indicative of the attitude which his parents had for the science, religion, and progress of their day. They saw it all in a negative light. “Our work...and toil...the Lord hath cursed.” Noah’s parents are sensitive to the true condition of things and are not carried away by the pulp magazines and slick magazines of their day into thinking that money and education would solve all their problems or that there was an “easy” way out of their troubles. As a man said: “A pessimist is a man who sees things as they are”; or more in jest: “An optimist sees a candle in the dark that isn’t there, and a pessimist comes along and blows it out.” These truisms, applied to the twentieth century, come out this way: 1. The man who is optimistic in MAN, i.e., “he,” believes that he is a realist who successfully blows out the light of the Bible, which is, in reality, a “fantasy” or pipe dream. Such a man is only skeptical about the negative statements the Bible makes about HIM. 2. The Bible believer who is pessimistic about man (2 Tim. 3:1–13) but has the utmost confidence and joy in the promises of God and anticipates with the wildest optimism the fulfillment of every verse in the book. Noah’s parents feel the effect of “the curse” and acknowledge it. (The twentieth-century “dude” would have certainly encouraged them by reading If, by Kipling, and exhorting them to “grin and buckle right in and tackle the job that couldn’t be done and do it!” He also would have accused them of self-pity, lack of initiative, being old fashioned, being set in their ways [Jer 6:16!], being reactionary, hindering progress, and being “kill joys.” Then the Lord God might let the “dude” spend a few months’ vacation in Vietnam or the Near East and get him to revise his opinions or reject still more light.) Lamech is a realist. The “sons of God,” then present (see comments on 6:1–6) do not buffalo him. The rapid advancements in animal husbandry, musical instruments, and metallurgy do not take his eyes off the Lord, and the p*rnographic literature, nude movies, and promotion of hom*osexuality in his day (see Gen. 6:5–6) do not deceive him for a minute into thinking that man is evolving. Lamech sees the problem through the eyes of an honest, straightforward, objective analyst. If he could have written Scripture, his writing would have been the carbon copy of Paul’s in 1 Timothy 4:1–5 and 2 Timothy 3:1–13 or Isaiah’s in Isaiah 13, 19, 21 or Matthew’s in Matthew 23 or Joel’s in Joel 2 or John’s in Revelation 6 or Jeremiah’s in Jeremiah 23. As though he had been reading Genesis 3:15 to his wife the night the baby was born, Lamech pins his hopes on “the seed of the woman” to bring comfort to a world that had been without a written Bible for 1,500 years. This is

the world of Genesis 6:5–6, which, if it had been allowed to flourish, would now number into 160,000,000,000 God-defying, truth-rejecting, self-righteous, depraved “space travelers” consorting with fallen angels! The deluge was one of the greatest blessings that ever befell the human race.

5:30 “And Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety and five years, and begat sons and daughters: 31 And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died. 32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.”

“Seven hundred seventy and seven” marks the end of God’s dealing with men, exactly as seven winds up anything with which God deals (see Lev. 23, 25; Rev. 1, 22; Acts 7; Rom. 7; Rev. 7; Matt. 7). There are only seven colors in the spectrum, seven notes on any piano, and seven openings in the human head; and every person (male or female) has seven members to their body. The last name in the chapter is that of Japheth. This man (Hebrew—“Let him spread out,” “fair,” “to persuade,” “to cause to lie open”) is the progenitor of the Caucasian race—the hated and envied “WASP” of contemporary propaganda. He is commented on further in Genesis 6:10 and 10:2. The other sons are Ham (“burnt” or “heat”; the word is related to “growing together” [!] and “father-inlaw”—where Cain got his wife!?) and Shem (“a name,” “fame,” “memory,” or the “name of God itself”). Japheth is referred to as the “elder” (Gen. 10:21), and Ham is referred to as “the younger” (Gen. 9:24). Since the word “youngest” is not used we can only surmise that the order is Japheth, Shem, and Ham, as far as birth is concerned. Gesenius takes “younger” (Hebrew—“qaton”) to mean “younger than Ham,” and on the grounds of this typical scholarly blunder, his order is Ham, then Shem and Japheth (see Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, Eerdmans, pp. 359 and 833). This makes Japheth and Shem both the second sons of Noah, emerging from the womb at the same time without precedence. (For further details, see your nearest hospital!) This is quite typical of the “gold mining” type of scholarship which rejects the English texts and delves into the “originals” for truth. You miss the woods looking at the trees. What was a simple problem in English becomes a hopeless botch in the hands of a man who had no trouble mastering Coptic, Arabic, German, French, Spanish, Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, and Chaldean; unfortunately, when he rejected the AV 1611, the Lord “drew the line on him.” Not even the birth of twins makes both children “first” or “second” (note Gen. 38:29; 25:23, 25–26). A simultaneous birth that leaves no time element whatsoever between twins, so that thereafter both are referred to as the “second child,” is something that only a Hebrew scholar who has rejected the AV could devise. They are born Japheth, Shem, Ham, or Japheth, Ham, Shem; but they certainly are not born Ham, Shempheth, or Ham, Japshem.

CHAPTER 6 6:1 “And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.” Now the Book is getting underway. Up till here—with the exception of the conditions noted in Genesis 4:20–22—the Holy Spirit has confined Himself to analysis of the individual man and the listing of his offspring. Genesis 1 is largely “pre-history,” at least from man’s point of view, and Genesis 2, 3, 4, and 5 deal in the main with the divine analysis of human nature and God’s responses to it. We now step out of the scientific realm (Gen. 1), the psychological realm (Gen. 2–4), and the statistical realm (Gen. 5) and into the mass history of the human race. The date on Genesis 6:1 is not given; however, it must antedate considerably the preceding verses on the birth of Noah, for men are multiplying with “sons and daughters” as far back as Enos and Cainan (3700, 3600 B.C.), and by even a normal rate of reproduction there would have been 4,000,000 people on this earth before Noah showed up in 2945; 700 years can produce quite a population. As a matter of fact, every African and European in America (over 10,000,000 of them) popped up in a period of less than 500 years. It may be objected that thousands of them migrated over, but nothing will stop the logic—all 10,000,000 were born after 1469. Depending upon the interpretation of Genesis 6:3, the sons of God (Gen. 6:2) were cohabitating with the daughters of men anywhere from 100 to 800 years before Noah shows up. “That the sons of God saw the daughters of men.” The verse introduces one of the greatest disputes among fundamentalists which exists today. Reams of paper have been published on it with “sure proofs” quoted on every side and tempers running just as high on the Scofield board as on the Larkin panel. The reaction to such a contention, today, is, “Oh well, forget it,” “Nothing could be worth that much trouble among Christians,” or “Well, what is so important about it; they think they’re right and you think...etc.” This goes to show that the modern day Christian is not only stupid and lazy but insincere and indecisive. Any battle ground of Scripture that has seen the shot and shell, which Genesis 6:2 has, must have something awfully important in it that Satan doesn’t want known. “Yea, hath God said?” Before laying the text bare (with its accompanying Scriptures), allow me to say that the old Scofield Reference Bible—not the new one—was as fine a reference Bible as God ever allowed to be published. Its editors were godly men, and they produced a Bible which has kept American conservative Christianity premillennial for half a century. No one can go wrong on any one of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity with an old Scofield Reference Bible. (The “new” one is something else; here the believer is taught to believe that water baptism is a “sacrament”!! See footnote on Acts 8:36​–38. I didn’t know that E. Schyuler English was a Roman Catholic!!) But—there is that horrible disjunctive conjunction—with all due respect for the devout scholarship of the Scofield Board of Editors, there are about nine things they overlooked (as their brother Augustine, A.D. 430, did!) when they wrote the footnote for Genesis 6:2. 1. They forgot that Adam fell. To call any man, in any “line” of men, in the Old Testament a “son of God” would be ridiculous. The “Son of God” was God’s image, and John 1:12 is for those who

become “sons of God” by receiving the image. One would think that this would be sufficiently clear after reading Genesis 5:1–3. 2. They forgot that the designation “sons and daughters” (Isa. 43:6) is not the equivalent of “sons of God” because the words are spelled differently in the English. (This is a tongue-in-cheek remark. But how else can a sober man take it when an editor running references on “sons of God” or “son of God” insists on defining it with expressions that don’t mention either designation?) The “sons and daughters” of Isaiah 43 are all Israelites, not pre-deluge sons of Seth! Seth had plenty of descendants who were not Israelites (see Gen. 11:22,26). 3. The contrasting expressions “sons of God...daughters of men” (Gen. 6:4) would never allow such a careless and loose interpretation as, “The sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain” regardless of what the “uniform Hebrew and Christian interpretation” has been. Why would a man insist the text says what it does not say and try to make it say something it was never intended to say to prove his point? “Yea, hath God said?” 4. If it were the “sons of Seth with the daughters of Cain,” how is it that the whole operation takes place again “after that” (Gen. 6:4—after the days of the flood) when all the daughters of Cain were drowned out? 5. If it were the “daughters of Cain with the sons of Seth,” how did they then produce giants? The giants were “WHEN the sons of God came in...” etc., not anytime. Do saved people beget giants when they marry lost people? Will you not have to change the word “giant” also before you get through and imagine that it is “giants in adventure”? 6. How can it be that the “godly line of Seth” intermarried when the term “godly line” is an illusory fabrication of the most non-Christian character and is not even hinted at in sixty-six books of Holy Writ? There is a “Messianic line” through which the Messiah comes, but this line is just about as “ungodly” as you could make it (note: Judah, a fornicator [Gen. 38]; Phares, an illegitimate child; Rahab, a harlot; Bathsheba, an adulteress [Matt. 1:1–6]; David, an adulterer; but why go on?) The “godly line,” like “apostolic succession,” is a figment of the imagination. There exists no such thing in Scripture or out of Scripture, so the first three basic premises of the Scofield note are one hundred percent wrong. Anyone’s opinion to the contrary is welcomed in a democracy, but it certainly has no place in the body of revealed truth. 7. “Sons of God,” in the Old Testament, are defined in a book written shortly after the flood (Job 1, 2, 38), and they are present in time before Adam is created (Job 38:7). They are mentioned in a connection between Satan (Job 1–2) and the creation (Job 38). “The sons of the mighty” (Psa. 89:6) are undoubtedly the “gods” of Psalm 82:1—note the flood in the context! And the reason why there is such a dispute over the passage is because if those “sons of God” are the angels of 2 Peter 2 and Jude 6–7, then they are thirty-three-year-old males, without wings, and can cohabit with women and reproduce, contingent upon their obtaining blood; and they will return to this planet in the near future and reproduce the original scenery of Genesis 6, as “gods...come down in the likeness of men” from Jupiter, not the moon (Acts 14, 19; Matt. 24; Luke 21; Rev. 12:7). (And at this point, we have ceased to comment and have commenced to prophesy, so we shall return to the text.) 8. The teaching that angels “cannot reproduce” is arrived at by changing the reading in Matthew 22:30 to omit the words “in heaven” and then by further aborting the truth by teaching that angels are “sexless”! 9. There is not an angel in the Bible who is sexless, looks sexless, acts sexless, or talks sexless. Every angel in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation is a male, without wings (Rev. 21:17; Gal. 4:14;

Acts 1:10; Judg. 13:3–21; Gen. 19:10–15). A “sexless” angel is just about as genuine as an Immaculate Conception or a Perpetual Virgin or a Christmas Tree or an Easter Bunny. “Wings” are the property of female demons (Zech. 5:9), and they are drawn or painted on angels because of the cherubs—who are not angels—and because of the passage in Revelation 14:6. If an angel landed on this earth, he could fool 70 percent of the saved people and 100 percent of the lost people. Between the Catholic dime store picture conception of angels and Scofield’s erroneous note, Satan’s angels a r e protected a nd undetected. No unregenerate scientist on earth today could identify one if he showed up, and they will show up!

6:3 “And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.”

This verse is really much more difficult than verse 2, in spite of the befogged minds of the commentators when trying to “desupernaturalize” verse 2 and their comparative lucidity in expounding verse 3. Standard interpretations are: 1. “My Spirit will not strive for the cause (or for the sake) of man.” The spurious “LXX” reads “eis ton aiona”—i.e., “forever.” 2. “My Spirit will not always convict men of sin, but someday I will quit dealing with them.” (This makes excellent preaching, as does the passage in Prov. 1, but it is not very good doctrine, for the word is “man” [mankind], not “a” man or an individual.) 3. “I will strive with men through the preaching of Noah (2 Pet. 2:5; 1 Pet. 3:18–20) for the time it takes Noah to build the Ark—120 years—and then the Flood will come.” 4. Bullinger takes the view that the “man” is Adam and that the remark is aimed at him, on the grounds that Adam too (“also”) had “corrupted his way” (vs. 5). That is, Bullinger reads the word “flesh” in verse 3 to mean “Adam had corrupted his own flesh like everyone else” (Gen. 6:12). The reading is a little stretched, as the word “flesh” is obviously an antonym of “spirit” (as in John 3:5,6). Bullinger concludes that at 810 years of age, Adam receives this “reminder” from God that “he also is flesh” (like the rest of the ungodly) and will die, and the spirit will leave him at death. Before prayerfully choosing the alternatives, one should notice that Bullinger’s trouble with the verse lies in his inability to locate “also.” He cannot conceive of a subject to which “also” refers unless it is to Adam. This, however, shows a lack of common sense—not uncommon among great scholars—for the “also” is obviously a reference to the fact that not only have the “sons of God” become “flesh” (Gen. 6:2; Jude 6–7)—strange flesh to say the least!—but man “also” is flesh, so he will get the same judgment they are going to get. If there is any doubt about this logical connection of words, note the words addressed to the ruling “gods” of this day: “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall DIE LIKE MEN, and fall like one of the princes” (Psa. 82:6–7). Though Bullinger (and Larkin) is able to make the hurdle at verse 2 which the Scofield Board of Editors shrank from making, Bullinger stumbles at verse 3 and seems unwilling to face the implications of the verse. The “implications” are quite clear in Daniel 2:43. But who will go along with the Bible all the way? After all, if supermen from outer space show up looking for women, how could they reproduce without blood? And from where will they get their blood? But who is sufficient

for these things, besides the Devil (science fiction and the Twilight Zone, etc.) and the AV 1611 Bible? “My spirit shall not always strive with man” yields one more interpretation in the hands of the dead Orthodox Reformers: it comes out as a general statement of a general truth—“Since I am Spirit I cannot always go along with men because they are flesh.” This is nicely put and would offend no real evolutionist or agnostic, so we shall let it stand—like a cold cat in the snow. “Yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.” Bullinger makes this a warning given to Adam in 3194 B.C. Since Adam lived 308 years as a contemporary of Enoch—who was translated fifty-seven years after Adam’s death—we are to assume that Adam heard Enoch’s preaching and ignored his warnings, along with the society of his day and age. This will make good preaching also, but the fact that Genesis 6 begins with a discussion of the race, not Adam, is going to jam the receiver. The context of Genesis 6 has nothing to do with any individual until verse 8. (“Men” in vs. 1, “daughters” in vs. 1, “them” in vs. 1, “sons of God” in vs. 2, “daughters of men” in vs.2, “wives” in vs. 2.) Then we are to assume that Adam suddenly gets a note from God, and then the narrative goes right on in the plural (“giants,” vs. 4; “children,” vs. 4; “men of renown” vs. 4). If it be objected that “man is man” and “men is men,” let it be remembered that the common usage of the word in the Bible, as well as in speech, is as Genesis 9:6, 1:26, 6:7, 8:21, 9:5, etc. In all these references the Hebrew word is “adam.” Still, we have not fathomed the verse. It is not chronological; that is, it does not follow the birth of Noah, necessarily, for the business of Genesis 6:1–2 has been going on for a considerable time— say, 700 years at a minimum. It might refer to post-Deluge days, for Abraham is an old man at 175, and Joseph (129) and Moses are the only two men for the next 2,000 years to top 110. The “days of our years” are seventy, and on rare occasion eighty, according to Psalm 90. It cannot mean that the average man would live 120 years at this time, for the average life span in these days before the flood is closer to 800 years. The word “strive” in the Hebrew is “dun,” explained by Gesenius to mean “my spirit shall not always rule in man.” There is little indication, however, that God’s spirit ever “ruled” in any man until after Pentecost, and sad to say, there are very few born-again Christians today who follow the “rule and reign” instructions for the Spirit in Romans 6. A further suggestion by Gesenius, which he dismisses with “What can any one make of this theology?” (Lexicon, p. 193), sheds more light than the theology to which Gesenius ascribed. His reading from the Hebrew would be, “My divine nature shall not be always humbled in men because they are flesh also.” This would mean that the nature which God imparted to angels at their creation was part of His own nature (Heb. 1:7, 14), and He will draw the line on how long this nature is going to be abased in integration and “race mixing” with man’s nature (Psa. 78:39; Ecc. 3:20; Lev. 17:13). Putting all of this together, one is left with the impression that: 1. The angels have become fleshy creatures through women (1 Cor. 11:10). 2. Man also is flesh. 3. God cannot continue to have fellowship with such a situation (Gen. 6:5). 4. He is going to give them 120 years notice of a change in weather and then a forecast of “100 percent possibility of precipitation.” Whether or not this fully explains the verse will have to be left to that great Bible expositor and teacher who can fully explain every verse in the Bible—the Holy Spirit (John 16:13, 14:26).

6:4 “There were giants 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 became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”

After stubbing theological toes and bumping exegetical noses on verses 2 and 3, Genesis 6:4 rises up to bark the shins of nearly every commentator who tried to walk by it. The twentieth-century materialist—this includes commentators—seems loath to admit that anything ever happened in the Bible any differently than it happens today when it comes to rational phenomena. (When it comes to human nature and morals, he reverses field and runs off like a wild jackrabbit, insisting that people today are entirely different than those found in the Book. Strange interlude!) Any man gullible enough to believe in diplodocus, tyrannosaurus rex, and brontosaurus surely wouldn’t have any trouble in assuming that if there were men around they were not midgets! To avoid this problem, modern anthropologists follow the erratic and faltering footsteps of Darwin and Lyell. (Lyell’s error on his “scientific research” on Niagra Falls amounts to an error of 85 percent in judging periods of time! See Donald Patton’s work on the Ice Age Epoch.) Lyell and Darwin simply separated the big animals from man by periods of 10,000 to 500,000 years—give or take a few hundred thousand; it is not important!—and when they got near the “Age of Man,” they conveniently whittled all the animals down to a reasonable size. This makes good reading in Grimm’s Fairy Tales, but it has nothing to do with the problem. From his twentieth-century point of view—blind as a bat to anything except the contemporary findings of the physical sciences where they affect transportation and communications—the modern man (Christian or non-Christian) just cannot believe what he reads in verse 4. “There were GIANTS in the earth in those days; and also after that.” To clear the ground of twentieth-century rubbish, let it be noted that there certainly were “giants” (who were “giants”) after that, for they appear in the historical accounts of the Old Testament, and sometimes are even named (Deut. 3:11; 1 Chron. 20:4; Josh. 17:15; 2 Sam. 21:16–17; Num. 13:33, etc.). (As I type these words, one of my brothers in Christ is going up and down the country as an evangelist. He is a good friend of my brother pastor, Gerald Fleming, in Dayton, Ohio; and this particular evangelist is well over seven feet tall. He is not a Watusi.) Pliny, who can be taken with a grain of salt—he was Roman you know! —insists that in a monument on Crete they found the skeleton of a man sixty feet high. Whether or not this is true—and if it were, the Smithsonian Institute would take it apart and reconstruct it to be a “Saurus” sixty feet long—the giant heads on Easter Island, the giant statues of the Pharaohs (Ramses II at Luqsor; Karnak), the Statue of Liberty, the Lincoln Memorial, and Revelation 13:15–17 show that something has happened on this earth which will happen again. “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that....” “Those days” and “after that” can be located easily. There are two warnings for “days” in Luke 17: one is “the days of Noe” (this is our text) and the other is “the days of Lot” (Luke 17:26, 28). To confirm this with three witnesses, Simon Peter warns of the days of Lot and Noah (2 Pet. 2:5, 7), and Jude says “amen” to Lot (Jude 6–7). The reader will not fail to note that the context of every passage quoted is “fallen angels”! These are the “iron” men of Daniel 2:43–44 who are given as ten in number—at least the reigning hierarchy will be that number (Rev. 17:12–14). These are the “king pins” of the bowling alley (ten in number, if my memory serves me correctly), and it will take a black ball to knock them down. (See work on The Mark of the Beast.)

“And they bare children to them.” We are to take it to mean exactly what it says, and if every Christian leader, teacher, expositor, preacher, and theologian on the earth agreed that it meant something else, it still would mean what it says. (See notes on Satan’s procreation, Gen. 3:15.) “Mighty men...men of renown” does not negate or nullify “giant.” “Mighty men of renown” is plainly not an interpretation of the word “giant” but rather a description of the reputation gained by the giants. This reputation, distorted by time and science (!), comes down through the centuries to us in the forms described in Hislop’s Two Babylons: Ulysses, Apollos, Venus, Aphrodite, Tammuz, Semiramis, Bacchus, Mary, Ashtoreth, Baal, Diana, Jove, Wotan, Jupiter, Thor, Zeus, Marduk, the Minataur, Thesius, Atlas, Mercury, Medusa, the Lorelei, etc. One must never forget that it was the Greek philosophers who laid the foundation for “modern science.” The granddaddy of them was Socrates, who, having taken poison, sacrificed a rooster to a snake god! Science is just as accurate today as it was in 400 B.C. The exploits of the “gods” are legendary in any civilization, and they are as strong in Indo-European folklore as anywhere in the world. The “Superman” of modern comic strips with his retinue, Batman, Cat Man, Fat Man, Rat Man, Aquaman, Spiderman, Green Lantern, Hawkman, Captain Marvel, Paul Bunyan, Captain Video, Gulliver, Captain America, The Jolly Green Giant, the Ray Man, King Kong, Bay Man, Hey Man, etc., is the modern way of preserving a tradition that can only be based on fact. The facts are preserved without error in an AV 1611 dime store Bible. Fallen angels have been here and have produced children. They “left their own habitation” (Jude), and having obtained blood from somewhere (Eve, as Dracula, took it orally!), they “came in unto the daughters of men.” In so doing they lost their ability to “commute” in outer space, and when the Flood came they drowned like rats (pardon me —“men,” Psa. 82). Their spirits are now in prison awaiting the White Throne Judgment (1 Pet. 3:19– 20; 2 Pet. 2:4). Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, and Noah lived with these giants, saw them, and undoubtedly used their standards of “weights” and “measurements” when they built the Ark. You see, what you cannot get from the “original languages” you can get from sixth-grade English. If Noah used the standard “cubit” of his day, his “Ark” was four times the length of a football field. The Queen Mary had plenty of competition before people in England could read. We may conclude our comments on Genesis 6:1–4 by saying: 1. Fallen angels have visited this earth as 33-year-old males, without wings. 2. They will come again the same way as “visitors” from other planets. (See The Mark of the Beast.) 3. They will come seeking a means of reproduction for the purpose of populating outer space with a race of God-defying, Bible-rejecting, Satanicly inspired humanoids; this host is to fulfill the will of the first recorded “I will” in history (Isa. 14). 4. They will be associated with iron and iron oxide (and derivatives) and will operate on a hydrogen cycle or something connected with electricity. (See work on The Sure Word of Prophecy.) 5. They will obtain blood from men (and perhaps animals), and in their worship services, those who believe the word and hold to “the testimony of Jesus Christ” will be decapitated at an altar, and their blood will be drunk in communion cups as a Eucharist and offered to the “god of this world,” who will sit on the mercy seat in the temple at Jerusalem (2 Thess. 2; Rev. 1, 6, 20; Psa. 16; Deut. 32). (But lest we should “offend the brethren,” we shall return to “the sincere milk of the word.”)

6:5 “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.”

At this stage in history—1,500 years with no Bible—sin is intense, it is inward, it has become habitual, and it holds absolute sway, as it will in the next ten years according to 2 Peter 2:14. With the improvements in communications in the twentieth century comes the rapid spread of false political reports, biased battle reports, dirty music, stepped up race mixing, p*rnographic pictures and literature, attacks on the Bible and supernaturalism, and the Madison Avenue promotion of “science and religion”—the two big “late late shows” of the twentieth century. “Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart...evil continually.” The picture does not match Darwin’s photograph. The negative of this photo is in Romans 1, 2, and 3. “Every imagination...evil continually.” Since the Lord reads thoughts and imaginations like an IBM computer reads files (1 Chron. 28:9 ; Jer. 11:19–20, 17:10), it is of the utmost importance that “modern man” push God as far out of his thoughts as possible (Rom. 1:18–32). Thus, the whole trend in modern education is to eliminate by science (note 1 Cor. 1:21, anticipating the thoughts of Einstein, Darwin, Huxley, etc.) the idea that anything which goes on has any connection with a living, personal God. The whole trick is to explain everything in “natural” terms so that the sinner can retire to the private sanctuary of his inner life and there revel, unmolested, i n “evil, continually.” This negative analysis will meet with disapproval by the peculiar class of “optimists” which we have mentioned before. These persons seem to connect “thoughts of his heart” with the body of literature produced by man from 800 B.C.–A.D. 2000. “The thoughts of his heart...only evil continually” is a reference to that inner life which every fallen son of Adam has; it is not what man thinks about when he is making an effort to write or think. “Thoughts of his heart” are those thoughts which occur in “daydreaming,” wishful thinking, plotting and planning to gain something for self, magnifying self by imaginary situations (see The Secret Life of Walter Mitty ), conjuring up tragic situations in which self is the victim, in short, all the phenomena that psychiatrists profess to study with which they themselves are ensnared! (See the “divine comment,” 2 Pet. 2:1–3, 14–15, 18–20, and especially Rom. 2:13.) God is more concerned with what went on in Bormann’s mind while he was looking at Life magazine than the data he reported to the space center when he got back. Is that clear? (Gal. 5:19; Prov. 23:7; Job 31:1, 35:2; Psa. 50:21; Matt. 15:18–20.) God cares nothing about your “space data.” He has already determined how much He will let you find out and how much He will keep from you! In Daniel 12:4, the Lord told the twentieth-century man what he would do, and in 2 Timothy 3:7, He told him what he would not do. Twentieth-century man will jolly well obey, whether he feels like it or not, and his rebellious thoughts about such a commanding Book will not be able to affect his past, present, or future. When the Book says it, that’s it. Einstein’s “heart exercises” between 11 P.M. and midnight will weigh far more in the day of judgment (Rev. 20) than any flimsy “theory of relativity.” (What does God want with your brains anyway? You couldn’t tell him anything He didn’t know before your great-grandmother was born!) “Thoughts of his heart,” not the mental gymnastics of the mind, the “total concept in thinking,” “the rethinking of the reevaluation of the realization of the re....” It is man’s inner life that determines

his outer life. Sow a thought—reap an action, sow an action—reap a habit, sow a habit—reap a character, sow a character—reap a destiny. “Out of the heart are the issues of life” (Prov. 4:23). When modern scientists abandon their belief in the laws of cause and effect (as they have already done in some circles), they open the door to chaos, not liberty. The “wickedness of man” that was “great in the earth” (Gen. 6:5) is directly connected with and is the result of “every imagination of the thoughts of his heart” being “only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5). You think about it long enough, and you’ll do it (Rom. 7:7–8). The thinking of the intelligentsia (the head thinking) at this time was undoubtedly printed in religious periodicals which read as follows: 1. There is nothing wrong with the flesh; Adam and Eve were not ashamed of being naked. 2. Social mores and customs inhibit or frustrate natural instincts, which are basically good. 3. It is a preacher’s duty to fight sin and social evils. 4. Since social rules and regulations frustrate the flesh, they are an evil responsible for suicides, broken homes, neurosis, class hatred, social struggles, etc. 5. Therefore, it is every preacher’s duty, as a “Christian,” to fight against any set of rules or regulations which might curb the free expression of the natural man! Enter, the lesbians, sex deviates, hippies, “free thinkers,” yippies, zoot suiters, fairies, French dancing masters, LSD peddlers and pushers, the germs, “the new morality,” hustlers, pimps, winos, junkies, college professors, “male” magazines, “adult” movies, “civil rights” marches, etc., etc. What modern man calls “liberty,” God calls “licentiousness” (Gal. 5:13), and what a modern professor calls “academic freedom,” the Bible calls “the poison of asps” (Rom. 3:13). From 3000 B.C. to 2350 B.C. (or longer) the world of Noah’s “days” resembled a million Berkleys, New Yorks, Hollywoods, Skid Rows, Manilas, Cairos, key clubs, Playboys, science fiction magazines, and co*cktail bars rolled into one ghastly, sensual menagerie which would be called “heaven” by the youth of the twentieth century. Over all ruled “the sons of God,” breeding with “the daughters of men” and convincing the human race that the only way to conquer outer space and populate it was by this method. “And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.” God “repenting” is defined in all places as God changing His mind on an issue which was never inflexible to start with. In cases such as Numbers 23:19 things are fixed, but in cases such as Exodus 32:14, where no proclamation has been committed to writing, there is a flexibility in the divine decrees. John Calvin never grasped this, and consequently much of the Bible was a closed book to him—especially Matthew, Acts, Hebrews, and Revelation; one fourth of the New Testament! “It grieved him at his heart” is what theologians call “an anthropomorphic expression,” which simply means that the Bible was written for men so they can understand it. No reader of this paragraph is ignorant of the meaning of “grieving in the heart.” To be “brought to grief” by the loss of a loved one or by a financial disaster or by the unkind words of someone you worshipped is a common human experience. We do not have to waste time with Altizer’s archaic “god,” who wore out his usefulness to modern man and had to “kick the bucket.” If the “god” of Emory University had to kick the bucket, we’ll help bury him; our God liveth forever, and He has not been sick for ages (Isa. 40:28–30).

6:7 “And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth;

both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.”

In the best scholastic tradition, most of the modern commentators squeeze Noah’s world and civilization down to an area about the size of Oklahoma and take such monumental declarations as the above to mean, “I will let the rivers Tigris and Euphrates rise to flood level, and this year I will let them get ‘way up,’ until most of the people who inhabit the valley will be drowned—or at least get soaking wet!” This effeminate “divinity” who never does anything but oversee some local crop disaster in the name of “Yaweh” or some other tribal god is an invention of degenerate scholarship. The invention is a necessity to anyone who accepts the Darwinian theory of evolution or Lyell’s theory of geology. According to these past presidents of the Y.H.G.S. society (see notes on Gen. 3:1), a universal flood would be impossible because: 1. It would not match their theory of evolution. 2. It would not match their theory of geology. This is not an “oversimplification” of the problem, for the briefest study of the two inept theories (try Shadduck’s pamphlets, J. R. Straton’s article in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, the works of Harry Rimmer, Wilbur Smith, G. M. Price, etc.) reveals that neither Darwin nor Lyell had any rational explanations for orogenesis, lack of fossil evidence, the polar caps, the frozen mastodons, the magnetic pole, the inclination of the earth on its axis, the origination of the porpoise and whale, the origination of the sexes in animals, or any other thirty things anyone would care to discuss. The theory of a “local flood” is based on the belief that Darwin and Lyell were rational scientists. One must accept this belief in the two men and their writings by faith. They certainly present no evidence that either one had any more idea of what he was talking about than a pope on birth control. “I will destroy man....” This is not a reference to Adam. Note what follows: “The end of all flesh is come before me” (6:13). “I, do bring a flood...to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life...and every thing that is in the earth shall die” (6:17). “Every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth” (7:4). “And all flesh died...and every man...All in whose nostrils was the breath of life...And every living substance...Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him” (7:21–23). According to Bernard Ramm and the “New Evangelicalism,” we are to believe that those verses mean, “As far as I could tell,” (Noah speaking), “when I looked out the window of the ark, I couldn’t see a cotton-pickin’ thing left, so I presumed that God wiped out everybody. Of course, with my limited world view and lack of knowledge of total concepts, one cannot blame me for misrepresenting the report on the damage the flood did; you have to be patient with us third millennium B.C. people. We just didn’t have the benefits of the inductive scientific method like you all do!” But the verses cited above are what God said, not Noah! “Yea, hath God said?” How “limited a world view” do you suppose the Creator of the heaven and earth has? Is it not possible that He could have given Moses an accurate account, without the benefit of the “inductive scientific method?” “Yea, hath God said?” “It repenteth me that I have made them.” I don’t blame Him a bit. When something that was

produced in a labor of love becomes “corrupt” and “corrupted his way” (Gen. 6:12) and is “filled with violence” (Gen. 6:11) and is “evil continually” (Gen. 6:5), I am certain that you would be sorry that you created it. (If I saw Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Ruth turn out like Rap Brown, Pope Paul, Adolf Hitler, and Sophia Loren, I believe it would “repent me” too.) “But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.” The first occurrence should be underlined. This is “grace” making her appearance for the first time in the Bible, and she is manifest, now plainly, now cryptically, now openly, now incognito until the last verse in the Book (Rev. 22:21). This is not like “by grace are ye saved” which is an active operation of a doctrine in the dispensation of grace (see Gen. 3:2), but it certainly is God recognizing a degree of righteousness in this age and honoring it; note, “and Noah walked with God” (Gen. 6:9) exactly as his great grandfather Enoch. “The eyes of the Lord” is another anthropomorphism, such as those found in Jeremiah 5:3, Isaiah 1:15, Psalm 34:15, and 2 Chronicles 16:9.

6:9 “These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. 10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. 11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. 13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.”

The word “generations” appears to have more than a “family tree” connotation. Although the next verse gives three of Noah’s offspring, verse 9 says “Noah...perfect in his generations.” He does not beget three perfect boys, which is apparent by what follows in Chapter 9; however, the “generations” seems to be the equivalent of an “account” of Noah, or the “account of the heavens and the earth” (see Gen. 2:4). It is more a “family history” than a bare genealogical table. “A just man and perfect in his generations.” The word “perfect” (Hebrew—“tamim” means “without blemish”) is related to the “perfect” of Job 1:1,8. In the Old Testament, as in the New, the word never means “sinless perfection” or “without sin”; not even in the verse which describes God the Father as “perfect” (Matt. 5:48). In every case, the meaning of the word refers to the righteousness of the person (or thing) in relation to the immediate subject under discussion. Matthew 5 is discussing impartiality. Luke 13:32 is discussing the close of a ministry—not the Lord gradually becoming sinless! Ephesians 4:12 is speaking of maturity in practice and doctrine. First Corinthians 2:6 is talking about saints who know the truth. It is said by a man who confessed he was not yet “perfect” (Phil. 3:12). The “Holiness” groups in America have been largely responsible for the destructive teaching that a Christian can be perfect—attain sinlessness—in this life. John has something to say about this in 1 John 1:7–10, and the greatest follower of Christ confessed that sin was still with him years after his conversion (Rom. 7). He closes his testimony with the statement that he was “chief of sinners” (1 Tim. 1:15—written within two years of his death). When the Scripture states that Noah was a “perfect” man (as Job), it is a reference to his refusal

to partake in the bingo parties, clambakes, weenie roasts, key parties, Irish wakes, office raffles, football punchboards, sleeping parties, beach outings, sleepins, layoffs, layouts, Mardis Gras, sitdown strikes, and binges of his day. Bullinger states, “He and his family alone had preserved their pedigree and kept it pure, in spite of the prevailing corruption brought about by the fallen angels” (Companion Bible, Ap. 26, p. 28). “And Noah walked with God.” “Shem, Ham, and Japheth.” Again, we meet the fraternal trio. When listed together, as in Genesis 5:32, 6:10, and 10:1, they are always listed in this order (for order of birth, see notes under Gen. 5:32). From the problems which arise after the Flood, it is apparent that Ham has a colored wife or that Noah has a colored wife. (This will be commented on further under Gen. 9:25.) For the time being, let it be observed that no amount of scientific investigation has ever disproved the Bible fact that mankind comes in three major “sizes”—Caucasian, Negroid, and Mongoloid. The overlapping area (the original Eden: the Near East) is the real “melting pot,” and yet it will preserve its lines of racial demarcation better than the United States will in the end (see The Mark of the Beast). “All flesh had corrupted his way...filled with violence through them.” We have commented on these two verses at length under Genesis 6:5–6. Note that the word “also” has been inserted in verse 11, as though something else was corrupt. Bullinger misses this “also” and makes no comment. Evidently “heaven” is not exactly “without spot or blemish” (Job 25:5; Isa. 24:21). “Violence through them” seems to point to man in general, referred to here as “flesh.” (Again, notice how the “flesh” of Genesis 6:3 is to be interpreted in a racial sense instead of an individual sense.) “The end of ALL flesh” (“All flesh is grass,” Isa. 40:1–6) would include the giants and the fallen angels who have left the “first estate” of God’s nature and donned robes of dust in the image of Adam. We have refused to make a great deal of comment on the giants (Nephilim) because of the plainness of the AV 1611 which arrests any need for digging in the lexicons. The word in Hebrew means “fallen ones.” If the Scofield Board of Editors is right, this means that only the sons of Cainites and Sethites fell! And the fallen ones are called Emims, Zamzummims, Horims, Avims, and Anakims in the Scriptures (Deut. 2:10–12, 20–23). After the Flood, they appear primarily in the land which Satan knows will be the capitol of the universe in eternity. Israel is told to destroy them, which she does partially; hence, Goliath shows up nearly 380 years after the battles of Joshua. In Genesis 14:5, those giants are already known as “Rephaims” and “Emims.” The Rephaims are even named as Hamite descendants in the list in Genesis 15:18–21. There is some remote and weird connection between the sons of Ham and the giants, but the Watusi tribe is merely a piece of inner tube lying by the side of the busy freeway to remind the Volvos, Volkswagens, Ramblers, Nissons, and Austins that big wheels once rolled that way. Humanoids thirteen to sixty feet high would solve some problems in pyramid construction that cannot be explained any other way. “Through them” is probably a reference to the “men of renown” of verse 4, and they are called men since all angels were male to start with anyway (see notes on Gen. 6:2). “Behold, I will destroy them with the earth.” This is the “handwriting on the wall,” and Noah (2 Pet. 2:5) is as faithful in proclaiming it as Daniel was in proclaiming his. The “preacher of righteousness,” as Paul, reasoned of “judgment to come” (Acts 24:25), but the judgments of God are not only long predicted and absolutely certain, they are also commonly rejected. Noah, with his great granddaddy’s sermon notes in hand, preaches a negative message of wrath and doom to his contemporaries, exactly as Jeremiah and Jesus did. He gets less results than Jesus and more than Jeremiah; he gets seven people in his own family, whereas Jeremiah got none. (Jesus was able to convince around 500. See 1 Cor.

15:1–8.) Noah’s first point was “Look out!” His second point was “Get ready!” and his third point was “Here she comes!” Dummelow, a modern commentator (1943), says of the context of Genesis 6 (citing Bishop Ryle), “It is an exaggeration of a poetical description...an ancient legend, describing a prehistoric event.” That scholarly comment would be a perfect representative opinion in Noah’s audience. That is exactly how they felt about it, until they saw their mothers, fathers, and children drowning in a deluge of water, screaming for help.

6:14 “Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. 15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. 16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.”

We accept the narrative to be the inspired words of the Holy Spirit speaking through the author of the book—Moses, the prophet. “An ark of gopher wood.” The “ark” is a floating building with rooms, not a “ship” or “boat” in the true sense of the word; nor is there any reason to build a “boat,” for Noah is not preparing to sail anywhere—he is preparing to float. The word “gopher” is a transliteration of the Hebrew word itself and refers to cedar o r cypress. In Northwest Florida, a “gopher” is not a Kansas prairie “groundhog” but a turtle. Words vary in meaning according to location. “Pitch it within and without with pitch.” There is some dispute as to whether the pitch is “resin” or “bitumen” (asphalt). The point is of little importance; the main point to notice is that there is no mention of iron, copper, brass, or tin in the construction. The ark is made of living organisms (trees) which must die to protect Noah and his family (Dan. 9:26). “Three hundred...fifty...thirty.” The measurements of the ark have been the subject of much discussion, all discussion rotating around the idea that it simply could not have held everything that had to go in it. (I was once dealing with a Ph.D. who responded to the subject of the ark in the exact manner described by James Bennett in his Case Against the Bible, which is an account of when he was counsel for the defense of Harry Rimmer. This poor idiot of a Ph.D. insisted stoutly that the ark could not hold the animals for two reasons: 1. It was too small. 2. There were too many animals. Upon pressing him on the issue, he admitted [with crimson countenance] he did not know the exact number of animals or the exact size of the ark. He got his Ph.D. from Peabody! What subject he picked for his Doctor’s dissertation, I do not know, but it must have been a gem!) If the cubit was 22.5 inches long (Petrie), the ark was 562.5 feet long, 93.7 feet wide and 56.25 feet deep. The dimensions of “The Great Eastern” (1901) are close to this size. With a cubit of 17.8 inches (or 18), the size would have been considerably smaller. As remarked under Genesis 6:4, the standard of weights and measurements for this day would naturally be determined by the “mighty

men...of renown.” Their cubit—a measurement from elbow to the tip of the index finger—could not have been less than thirty inches and may have been forty! If the cubit were thirty inches, Noah’s luxury liner would have been 200 yards long and 125 feet broad, and it would stand seventy-five feet high on dry ground. This is a fair size ship, and it assumes a thirty inch cubit in an age when the height of the ruling class in the government may have averaged twenty-six feet. Origen, the granddaddy of Westcott and Hort, Weiss, Robertson, Nestle, and the RSV, gave the modest figures for a boat that was twenty-five miles long and three-fourths of a mile wide! (Contra. Celsus, 4:41. He really was worried about gettin’ them animals in!) “A window shalt thou make to the ark.” The window is to be “finished” in a cubit; that is, it will be like a “louvre” around the Ark, under the eaves of the roof, and it will be only eighteen to thirty-nine inches high (depending upon the standard cubit of that day). This window can be opened (Gen. 8:6), and it is the only “window” mentioned in the ark. We must therefore assume that the “window” was a sliding panel which ran anywhere from ten to thirty feet down the side of the ark under the roof. “Air ports” are not mentioned, but undoubtedly are made in the sides of the ark for the cargo that it is about to carry. (The reader will notice that when “assumptions” are made in a Bible believer’s commentary, they are made so as to maintain the integrity of the Lord and justify the account. There are as many assumptions in the Pulpit Commentary [in one volume] as there are in this entire set of commentaries. Scholars who laugh at the “assumptions” [or “biases”] of the believer outdo him three to one in their expositions, for they begin with the assumption that the Bible has errors in it.) The total space is around 1,518,750 cubic feet, supposing the cubit to be eighteen inches. At twenty-two and one-half inches, the cubic feet of space is around 2,966,309, and with a cubit of thirty inches, there would be 7,031,250 cubic feet of breathing space. “And the door of the ark...lower, second, and third stories.” The ark reminds one of the construction of Ezekiel’s temple in Ezekiel 42:5–6 and recalls to our minds the three divisions of the tabernacle, the three divisions of Palestine (Galilee, Jordan, the Dead Sea), the “three heavens” of Pauline revelation (2 Cor. 12:1–4), and the three divisions of the universe (firmament with water above and below; see Gen. 1:2–4). Readers who have put their trust in the shed blood of Jesus Christ will not have much trouble locating the spiritual significance of the “door...in the side” (Matt. 27:51; Heb. 10:19–20). Like the children of Ham sing, “It’s so wide you can’t get ‘round it; so low you can’t get under it; so high you can’t clim’ over it—you mus’ come in at de doah!” Shem, Ham, and Japheth go to work with their daddy, and in a valley somewhere in the Near East, there is the hurry and scurry of workers and the erecting of ladders and scaffolds, and the news goes up and down the valley that old man Noah is building a boat (Gen. 6:22). (The first time Noah told his family about it they were all enthusiastic and figured it would be a small fishing boat which they could load on their trailer and let the camel drag it down to the lake, but when he quietly told them it would be three times as long as a football field, they figured either the giants had ordered a tailor-made canoe or the old man had gone daft. Nevertheless, they obeyed (Gen. 7:1), for Noah was one of those rare gentlemen (Gen. 18:19) who raised his sons to say, “Which way and how far?” when he said “Jump!” He must have been some kin to “Jonadab the son of Rechab” (Jer 35:16). What they built was seen by an aviator named Vladimar Roskivisky while he was flying over Mt. Ararat in 1942—if we are to believe his eyewitness report. Roskivisky describes the sight as a large, flat boat, built like a Great Lakes “whaleback” ore carrier. It was lodged in ice and snow at an elevation of near 14,000 feet. Marco Polo (1269) professes to have seen it near Armenia, and

Gemelli (1649) states that thirty miles from Ararat is the oldest city in the world; it is called “Nachivan” (Nak: “ship,” Chivan: “staying”). And according to an article in the Chicago Tribune by an English scientist (1883), the ark was located at 17,230 feet, with a village at the foot of the mountain named “the village of the descent.” The present area is owned by Russia and will be the scene of the next war (Turkey).

6:17 “And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. 18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons’ wives with thee. 19 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.”

We have commented on verse 17 in relation to the “local flood” theory. “But with thee will I establish my covenant.” First mentions are always important in the Book of books. Although God has made two agreements before this (Edenic, in the garden, Gen. 2:16–17; and Adamic, at the fall, Gen. 3:14–19), the word “covenant” is not used specifically. The sign of the Edenic Covenant was a tree; the sign of the Adamic Covenant was a sheep skin. “Thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons’ wives with thee.” These people constitute the “few” of 1 Peter 3:20, and we accept the account as correct. Every Caucasian came from a pair (Japheth), every Negroid came from a pair (Ham), and every Mongoloid came from a pair (Shem); do not all come from one pair to start with (Acts 17:26)? However, somebody in the crowd has to be black. As surely as “two of a kind” included doves (Gen. 8:9), it included ravens (Gen. 8:7). The Holy Spirit’s purpose in deliberately choosing a white bird and a black bird is just too “discriminatory” for words! There is a black bird in the ark, and as surely as all of Ham’s boys are Africans, there has to be some “black power” in that wooden boat. “There must be a --- in the woodpile somewhere!” (Or as they say in Washington, D.C., circa, 1970, “There must be a Negro in the lumber yard.”) “And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort.” The word “sort” is supplied from Genesis 7:14, and properly so, but the precise and definitive term is “after his kind,” which tells us that Darwin hasn’t been able to get his monkey paw in yet between Genesis 1, “after his kind,” and Genesis 6.

6:20 “Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive. 21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.”

“After their kind” solves the insolvable, where it deals with the number of animals that went into Noah’s ark, for “kind” clearly tells the reader that Noah is dealing with families of animals, not

species. The Bible rejector must insist that no ship could hold two species of every animal on the earth. (This only magnifies his ignorance in the sight of a believer, for Noah not only got two of every unclean kind, but fourteen of every clean kind! Gen. 7:2.) Zoology divides its menagerie as follows: 1. Kingdom: Animal, in distinction from vegetable and mineral. 2. Phylum: Vertebrate, in distinction from non-vertebrate. 3. Class: Mammal, in distinction from fish, which would stay in the water during the flood. 4. Order: Carnivor, “meat eaters,” for an example of further breakdown. 5. Family: Canine, in distinction from feline and others. 6. Genus: Dog, in distinction from wolf, coyote, fox, etc. 7. Species: Collie, in distinction from setter, Dachshund, French poodle, German shepherd. What Noah is commanded to do is to carry on board one male and one female of every Family if it is an unclean animal; and seven males and seven females of every Family if it is a clean animal. But Noah’s family itself is a perfect example of the proper breakdown—that is, Noah’s own family has within it every variation of every species inherent in the couples. Ham and wife: Tunisians, Algerians, Bushmen, Hottentots, Egyptians, Arabians, Veddahs, etc. Shem and wife: Chinese, Japanese, Samoans, Aztecs, Incas, Mohican, Sioux, Seminole, Eskimos, etc. Japheth and wife: Celts, Vandals, Slavs, Gauls, Saxons, Lombards, Normans, Angles, etc. (See further notes on crossbreeding, under Gen. 10.) This would mean that when the animals came to Noah (Gen. 7:9, he certainly didn’t round them up with a lasso, silly!), the canine comes in the person of a male and female coyote, a male and female wolf, and a male and female Irish setter (or something like that). Between these six species the entire Family can develop by cross-breeding. The felines would come as a male and female Persian cat, male and female lion, and male and female cheetah (or an order like that). Noah’s family itself is the key to the cargo. And since 60 percent of all the animals in the world are insects and of the remaining 40 percent more than 30 percent are fish, Noah has plenty of room for his animals on two decks with a third deck for food storage and his own family. Refrigeration is not a problem, for one must not forget that the atmosphere of Noah’s day was that of Adam’s. Grapes left on the shelf one year in an open container would not ferment. You read of no “drunkenness” on this earth until after the flood (Gen. 9:21).

6:22 “Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.”

He did not join the Y.H.G.S. society; he simply believed and obeyed (cf. Heb. 11:7). In so doing he condemned the world in which he lived, and they condemned him and damned him heartily, we can be sure (Prov. 29:27). Back in Noah’s day the big sport was “arking.” Nobody went hunting or fishing; they just went “arking.” Every day they all gathered in a big circle around the construction site and ribbed Shem, Ham, and Japheth till they were ready to give their daddy two-weeks notice. Mrs. Shem, Mrs. Ham, and Mrs. Japheth were snubbed by the G.A.R. and lost their social image in the Garden Club, the Country Club, and the Women’s Auxiliary; and Mrs. Ham got blackballed out of “Morning Glory of the Eastern Star Society for the Promotion of Better Possum Gravy Recipes.” Old man Noah would mount the bow of the ark every evening before quitting time and deliver a

thirty minute thunderclap of a sermon that would wither the grass for forty feet in a circle from his pulpit. His face would turn red, and he would thump Enoch’s sermon notes—that’s all he had—and he would holler, “Repent, repent, the world is coming to an end!” And all the “arkers” would punch one another and giggle and guffaw. The university professors would laugh heartily, and the beatniks would say, “Aw, that crazy old coot, they oughta run him home to the funny farm. He’s like too much, man—way out!” Several of Noah’s uncles and aunts consulted the most eminent head shrinkers of their day and tried to get Noah committed, but someone was charging $1.00 an hour down at the construction site for spectators to sit and watch, and the nut doctor was getting a cut of the gate receipts, so.... Rev. Noah would roar, “It’s going to rain pitchforks and...babies! God is going to dump down water out of the sky and drown this scene out! Repent! Get some tools and start building you and your family an ark; the deluge is coming!” The geology professors would snicker, and the scientists would laugh and say, “Rain! What in the world is ‘rain’? Why, that old Ice-age relic, who does he think he is?” And, “What a pity! Such a lack of book learning. What language! Water out of the sky! Whoever heard of water out of the sky? Doesn’t that poor hillbilly know that water only goes up from the ground? What a disgrace, allowing a man like that to preach! Can’t the ministerial association defrock him or take his ordination papers back?” So they did, but it didn’t stop Noah from preaching. “According to all that God commanded him, so did he.”

CHAPTER 7 7:1 “And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. 2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. 3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.”

“Come thou and all thy house.” The first invitation in the Bible, “Come thou” is an invitation to salvation; so is the last one in Revelation 22:17. (In Rev. 22:20, we have man’s invitation for God to return to a cursed earth, but this invitation can only be extended by the sinner who has accepted the first one, “Come thou and all thy house.”) In Acts 16:31, the same invitation is given in New Testament style, and in both places the word “house” is given for a man’s family (see Heb.11:7). Noah is certainly not worried about his four-bedroom, two-bathroom, split-level “house.” (Besides, the State confiscated his house and all his property while he was in the ark waiting for it to rain [Gen. 7:10]! They converted it into a “Mental Health Clinic.”) “For thee have I seen righteous before me.” Not only does the Lord Jesus Christ vouch for the historicity of the character Noah (Matt. 24), but God Himself, in speaking to Ezekiel (over 1,500 years later), holds up Noah (with Daniel and Job) as an example of a righteous man. Peter calls Noah “a preacher of righteousness” in 2 Peter 2. “Of every clean beast...and of beasts that are not clean....” We have commented on this at length under Genesis 6:19–21. The clean beasts are for sacrifice as well as propagation; hence, seven times as many. The unclean animals are listed in Leviticus 11. They go in by families: seven pairs of male and female per family (or in the words of the eight-year-old who was asked to name the animals belonging to the cat family, “Father Cat, Momma Cat, and two kittens”).

7:4 “For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. 5 And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him. 6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.”

Notice the repeated record of Noah’s obedience to God (Gen. 7:5 and 6:22). It reminds us of the numerous statements like it in regard to Moses (Lev. 8:4, 9:21, 16:34; Num. 1:19, 3:42, etc.). “I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights.” In order to cover the top of Mt. Everest (!), forty days of rain would have to spout down at a rate of 725 feet per day. This would be about thirty feet per hour or six inches of rain per minute; a fairly heavy precipitation! It does rain forty days and nights (vs. 12), and every mountain and hill under “the whole heaven” was covered, but more about that later. (It is interesting to compute the weight of the earth after adding to it the weight of a universal ocean whose waves were all 29,028 feet above “sea level.” The added weight

would be 3,856,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons!) “And every living substance that I have made will I destroy....” It is plainly a universal flood, by all the laws of English grammar. There are ways to dodge the truth, but when these ways get so complicated and intricate—like the Knights of Columbus trying to explain “Mother church’s” teachings—we suspect a “pig in the poke.” (When a man has to resort to a system of interpretation as complicated as an Income Tax form, you know the Devil is in it.) “And Noah was six hundred years old.” This puts the flood around 2347 or 2344; certainly the two dates are within a year or two of it either way. This is the year that Methuselah died—probably 2347, and Lamech is already dead. Cain’s descendants vanish from sight as they flee to the mountains, race up the hills, and climb the trees in an effort to prove that God would not do what He said He would do.

7:7 “And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons’ wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood. 8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, 9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah. 10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.”

“And Noah went in.” The lessons for us are: We must remember that it is God’s ark, not ours. We must labor to bring the family in. We must believe in the danger to come and must believe in the remedy enough to enter (John 10:1–15). The statement is amazing when one reads between the lines. Do you realize that Noah stepped into that ark with three daughters-in-law and his wife and sons, without knowing when he would get out of that box? Can you imagine what it would be like to live 370 days in a box with all of your relatives, plus over 4,000 animals who might get seasick? Furthermore, God had not let out even a hint as to how long Noah was going to be shut up in the ark. The Lord said, “Get on in,” and in he went (vs. 7). Noah literally “gave up the world” and got it back (Mark 8:35–38). “There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark....” What a testimony for a God-defying, hell-bound generation! They sat on the hillside “arkin,” and they saw animals coming over the hills and down into that valley that some of them had never seen in their lives—walking in cadence, paired off! Without fighting! My, what a testimony! Up on the hill some young skeptic began to weaken, and he said, “Doggone, if that ain’t that animal my great granddaddy told me about! Why, them things live more than 800 miles from here! How the @*!#! did it know to come to Noah?” Then the M.A.’s and Ph.D.’s would chime in and drag out their LXX’s and Darwin’s Zoonomia and Chambers’ Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation and Lyell’s Principles of Geology and Tom Paine’s Age of Reason and Goldie Locks and the Three Bears and Rumpelstiltskin, etc., and do what they could to damn the young man. Pretty soon he attributed the phenomenon of the animal parade to his own understanding of the situation rather than to a miracle of God. The geology professor was still lecturing to the spectators (seats had gone up to $5.00 an hour), and those of his students who were

not already half stoned were rocked to sleep. As animals acted peculiar before the San Francisco earthquake (1865), the eruptions of Vesuvius (1906) and Krakatowa (1883), and before the earthquake at Kwanto, Japan (Sept. 1, 1923), so in the spring and summer of 2348 B.C., animals of every sort and kind went “by instinct” (!) to one spot on this globe which covered an area the size of a modern shopping center. Noah was up on the forward hatch “peeling the bark” and “shelling the corn,” as usual. (By this time, his family thought he had lost his marbles for certain, and after five days holed up in the ark with the animals and a crowd of 50,000 people laughing and jeering at them, they had about come to the conclusion to which the State Nut Doctor had come: Old Man Noah had flipped his lid.) The Lord locked the door from the outside (Gen. 7:16). Inside, the animals were getting restless. Shem, Ham, and Japheth were running around like a Chinese fire drill trying to feed and care for the horses, cows, sheep, roosters, lions, bears, elephants, and dogs; and everyone had had about enough of things. Noah is up on deck preaching: “I want to tell you, you bunch of godless, depraved, hell-bound reprobates, the Judgment is coming! God has taken all of your foolishness He is going to take, and when He draws the line, brother, it’s drawn! Hear the word of the Lord! ‘Cursed is the man who trusts in man whose heart departs from the Lord!’ ‘Cursed is the man that makes his arm the arm of flesh and leans on his philosophy and tradition’.” And then some dumb-thump from the Thermonuclear Society would yell up: “Aw, what do you know about it, you crackpot! You’ve never studied biology. You know nothing about botany or zoology. You don’t even know how to run a computer! You’ve missed half your life, old man!” And Noah would roar back, “Well bud, if you ain’t learnt how to outswim a porpoise, you missed all your life, cause you’re gonna drown like a rat!” And the crowd would boo and roar and throw beer cans and popcorn boxes at the ark and enjoy themselves in general.

7:11 “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.”

The seventeenth day of the second month is the starting point for figuring pre-dawn chronology. The years are obviously lunar years, since the interval between the seventeenth day of the second month and the seventeenth day of the seventh month (Gen. 8:4) is an even 150 days (Gen. 8:3). This makes twelve months of thirty days each, falling short of the solar year by five days; this would allow a difference of around thirteen years every 1,000 years. The Jubilee of Leviticus 25 is based on a lunar-solar cycle. Twelve lunar months fall short of a lunar year by eleven days. There are forty-nine solar years in 606 Lunar months, with an error of only thirty-two hours every fifty years. (Meton— Babylonian Captivity, 586 B.C.—discovered a system of nineteen-cycle years which would only fall short of 235 complete months by two hours. This cycle determines the date of Easter. There are 840,057 days in 2,300 solar years or 28,447 lunar months [30,487 anomalistic months]. This is the period for the moon to travel from perigee to perigee; it is the most perfect lunar-solar cycle known and restores both sun and moon to their proper relationships.) “The fountains of the great deep” have been mistaken for water coming up from under the earth or the result of earthquakes and volcanoes disrupting the surface. This is interesting conjecture, and it

may be true that volcanic and seismic disturbances rent the earth’s surface. However, “the great deep” is hardly to be connected with the Pacific or Atlantic or some other small puddle (see notes on Gen. 1:2). “The great deep” is plainly the same body of water whose top is “frozen,” according to Job 38:30, and the mass of water it contains would drown out the solar system in forty days if the proper “windows” were opened. (As an eternal example to the Y.H.G.S. society, the Lord has inserted into the historical narrative of 2 Kings 7 a remarkable story. A man thought that the possibility of getting a cheap meal had the same odds against it that there would be in believing that there were “windows” in Heaven. He lived to see people rushing out to buy their cheap dinner in a day when they were willing to pay $50.00 for half a loaf of bread, but he didn’t get to the table himself. He got “crushed in the gate” for doubting what God had said. Read the account. It is “very interesting”—to use the standard scholastic cliche.) The “deep” is not a deep place on the earth; it is the deep place about which Paul prays that God will give the Christian an understanding. (See Eph. 3:18, which is universally misquoted as “the length, breadth and depth of the love of Christ.” The verse does not say that. Don’t make it say what it doesn’t say just because you can’t believe it.) The water in Noah’s day has no trouble whatsoever coming down at the rate of six inches per minute. In one hour the beatniks, beach bunnies, junkies, “it girls,” hippies, hustlers, “sweater girls,” dopers, germs, lesbians, pimps, sad*sts, zoot suiters, fairies, fruits, college professors, and giants are in thirty feet of water. In three hours the mightiest “man of renown” that ever lived was “dog paddling” for air. In nine hours, the water level from Singapore to Paris and from Fairbanks to Cape Horn was 270 feet above sea level, and at the rate of thirty feet per hour the only thing surviving after ten days of rain were men and animals dwelling above 7,200 feet. The main problem of geology (uniformitarian or catastrophic) is what could have produced so much water? The answer is simple. It came from outer space. Ice canopies or not, there is a body of water above the solar system, and when science finally finds it out, they will have a fair start towards understanding the galaxies. “And it came to pass...that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.” There is no doubt about the event at all. It is found in the Assyrian writings with a date 2316 B.C. It is found dated in ancient Greece at 2300 B.C. The Phoenicians say it took place in 2700 B.C. The Egyptians locate it at 2600 and the Mexicans at 2297. Few events in the history of the earth have received a more universal testimony. In addition to “The Gilgamesh Epic” is to be found the Chinese account found in the book of Li-Ki and the Polynesian account in the Bishop Museum (Hawaii). The flood is found in the Druids’ records in England, and the Malayans and East Africans know the story. The Rig Veda in India has an account, and versions are found in Alaska and Iceland. To continue in ignorance, as the modern “scientist,” and to say, “All things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation” (2 Pet. 3:4), is to reject a mass of evidence as weighty as anything that ever showed up in the Nuremberg trials (1945–56). In addition to rejecting the eyewitness account (Noah) written by inspiration through Moses and the mass of folklore which still supports the truth, the modern Bible denier must reject geological phenomena which only a universal flood can explain. 1. The theory of orogenesis—the formation of mountains. The land may have been flat in Noah’s day and the mountains may have only come up during o r after the flood. Again, the phenomenon could have occurred due to a shift in the earth’s axis at this time. (The best discussion of the subject is Donald Patton’s book entitled The Biblical Flood and the Ice Age Epoch, Pacific Meridian Publishing Company, 1967.) 2. The location of erratic boulders brought from opposite directions. Here are boulders the size

of cars and houses moved from north to south (supposedly by a glacier), while others have moved 100–500 miles south to north in the same locality! Louis Agassiz supposedly solved this problem with a “glacial theory,” but Louis’ “glacier” had to begin at sea level, whereas glaciers never originate at altitudes lower than 6,000 feet. His glacier would have had to climb uphill, over mountains 3,000 feet high, and leave fossils and shells under it uninjured. It would have also had to accompany 1,500,000 square miles of ice sheet, which would have been produced so gradually that it froze mammoths before they could move! (You see what an average Liberal Arts education is? It is high priced buffoonery.) The maximum speed of a glacier going downhill is seventy feet a day. 3. Ossiferous fissures: crevices at high altitudes in northwest Nebraska, containing bones of animals and men intermixed, with species present that are normally afraid of each other—camels, bears, and rhinoceroses (Camels in Nebraska? Oh, yes. There is plenty they don’t teach you when they have “academic freedom”!) 4. Oil deposits: from fish who are packed together with extended spines and fins, which are extended only in case of danger and fright. 5. The polar caps. 6. The Grand Canyon. 7. Any six dozen other things you might care to bring up. The definitive work on the flood is the book by Rehwinkel (Concordia, 1951), and between this Lutheran Bible believer, Donald Patton, Immanuel Velikovsky, and G. M. Price, there is not much left for a college professor to teach on evolution or the ice age or creation or “the cooling of the earth’s crust.” Loess deposits, marine deposits on mountain tops, inclination of the earth on its axis, and change in climate and length of days all point to a worldwide, world-shaking catastrophe in the past that did not happen gradually, but happened in forty days or less and wiped out 99.9999 percent of the people on this earth. If it did not, as has been mentioned before, the present population of the earth would be well over 8,000,000,000. The rains came. Donald Patton has perhaps the most unique explanation for the flood that has been presented in a long time. Although it might seem highly incredible to a modern scientist, it must be always kept in mind that everything which strengthens the truth of Scripture is highly incredible to a “modern” scientist. According to Patton, the deluge and its accompanying phenomena were due to two near misses as a frosty visitor from outer space made a sideswipe at the earth. Ice was transported from the planet (which was four times as big as the moon, and passed by ten times as close) through the Van Allen belts to the polar regions. The accompanying heat from the “near miss” could cause all the evaporation necessary to produce the rain which followed, and the gravitational pull of the speeding planet was sufficient to tear up two ranges of mountains (one slightly before the other) through the comparatively thin and flexible crust of the outer shell of the earth. Regardless of one’s attitude towards the work by Patton, it represents a mass of original research and thinking which puts Darwin’s theory of evolution and geologic ages out of style. Any scientist today who would make a statement on the Biblical flood without having read Patton’s work would betray his profession and calling. It would be impossible to call any scientist today an “educated” man if he had not examined the work carefully at least four times. The evidence presented in it is far more plausible, far better outlined, and far more convincing than the best works written by Spencer (1820–1903), Rousseau (1712–1778), Haeckel (1834–1919), Huxley (1825–1895), Lamarck (1744– 1829), Paley (1734–1802), and our modern monkey-men: De Vries (1900), G. G. Simpson (1964), Medawar (1965), Rhodes (1962), Schindewolf (1950), and Bridgman (1955).

7:13 “In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah’s wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark; 14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort. 15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life. 16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the Lord shut him in.”

This is a “recap” of verses 7–10, upon which we have already commented. I have supposed that Noah’s family is in the ark seven days awaiting the rain because of the statement in verse 4 and verse 10. You will notice that Noah goes into the ark in verse 7. However, this may be reading something into the text that is not there. (As in the case of the colored preacher who managed to get a large offering by announcing at the same time that thieves don’t give to the Lord and that someone in the congregation had stolen some of Brother Jones’ “fryers.” After the money had been carried to the back room, the pastor announced that the story was not a true incident but was “merely a parable dat ah tole’ fo’ pu’poses ob finance”!) “In the selfsame day” would indicate that they did not actually walk into the floating box until the day the rains started; in which case, the statements of Genesis 7:4–10 are not to be taken chronologically. There are actually four “enterings” mentioned: Genesis 6:18–22, where Noah does all that God commands him—he goes in; Genesis 7:1–5, where the flood follows immediately in verse 6; Genesis 7:7–10, where it is strongly stated that “Noah went in”; and finally, Genesis 7:11– 16, where they all go in “in the selfsame day.” This has encouraged the devotees of the nebulous “Graf-Wellhausen Theory” (with modifications by Hupfeld, Kuenen, Dewette, and Astruc) to believe that anywhere from two to five different men wrote Genesis. (The theory was backed off the boards as far back as 1895 by the work on The Unity of the Book of Genesis, by William H. Green of Princeton.) In the first account (Gen. 6:18–20), the obedience of Noah (vs. 22) is in respect to the building of the ark (vs. 14–16). In the second account (Gen. 7:1–5), I take the “obedience” (vs. 5) to refer to his entry (vs. 1). In the third account (Gen. 7:7–10), I take the entrance of the animals (vs. 9) to be the “obedience” of the same verse. In Genesis 7:11–16, “the obedience of Noah” (vs. 16) cannot cover anything not already covered, for the entrance (vs. 1) of wife and children (vs. 7), the children’s families (vs. 7), and all the animals (vs. 9) has already been mentioned. Therefore Genesis 7:11–16 must be a general review of the preceding verses. A careful reader will notice that the “selfsame day” has no antecedent. What has been listed above the verse is the entire length of the rainfall—forty days, not one. “And the Lord shut him in.” The statement has deep spiritual significance, for it means that man cannot finish his redemption, he cannot protect himself against the wrath of sin’s just punishment, and the “shut in” of modern Christianity is bedridden by divine appointment. Noah’s eternal security does not lie in hanging by his nails to the side of the ark, “holding out faithful” to the end; it lies in “resting with his house” (see Exod. 12) on the promises of God, and while all hell is breaking loose outside,

quietly meditating on prayer and the word. As to how “the Lord shut him in” literally, no one knows. I suppose that the angel of the Lord came down for a nocturnal visit (as he did to retrieve the body of Moses) and banged the door shut.

7:17 “And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. 18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.”

“And the waters increased, and bare up the ark...the waters prevailed...increased greatly...prevailed exceedingly.” The description is not that of a local flood. The rain drummed on the roof like the hammers of hell, and the elements, lashing in fury, clapped their hands over a drowning world. Tidal waves went around the world twice a day at 100 miles an hour (waves produced by earthquakes have been clocked at 430 mph) running six miles high at the equator (that is higher than Mt. Everest). And combined with the tidal upheaval (it had to be a universal flood, for a local flood would have landed Noah’s “ark” in the Indian Ocean—not on top of Mt. Ararat!), volcanoes “blew their top” (literally) and masses of land twenty to thirty miles square were sailing thirty miles in the atmosphere. (The unbelief in this description will have to abide with that peculiar class of ignoramuses called “scholars,” for volcanoes have already erupted, since 1800, which blew masses 36.4 square miles in size up into the air and blew rocks thirty-four miles high. Consult any scientific account on the explosion of Tambora [Indonesia] in 1815 or the explosion of Krakatoa [between Sumatra and Java] on August 27, 1883.) We are not dealing with “mythological legends” in Genesis 7; we are dealing with scientific fact as accurate as anything any “scientist” discovered before or after. Dummelow, speaking for the “Yea Hath God Said Society,” describes the flood in glowing terms: “The primitive account has been modified...According to the priestly narrative...According to the primitive document...in the primitive narrative...We need not hesitate, therefore, to accept the opinion now generally held that the flood was only local in its extent” (Commentary, MacMillan, 1943, pp. 14–15). Since we have no idea about what Dummelow is talking, and he doesn’t either, we shall let his comments lie. (I think the last word in that sentence is correct, is it not?) Down comes the rain. The tops of the mountains disappear like the backs of sea monsters beneath the waves. If there were any giant animals around with the giant men, then they were drowned. The weight of diplodocus and tyrannosaurus would never keep them up, nor could brontosaurus or triceratops stay afloat, if such animals ever lived. Down comes the rain. Amidst the howling maelstrom of volcanic ash, white hot rocks, boiling steam, claps of thunder and streaks of lightning, Noah’s family is “saved by water” (1 Pet. 3:20–21). The Earth convulses. Crevices open in it 50– 200 miles long and a mile deep, and it rocks and swings outward on its orbit (Oh yes! Isa. 13:13; 24:18,20; Psa. 82:5), and you ain’t seen nothing yet! (Read Rev. 6!) An hour after the rain starts, men, women, and children have drowned by the million. In the early hours of the seventeenth day of

the second month, in 2347 B.C., thunder was heard for the first time on the planet earth. By six o’clock in the morning, the skies were black with thunderheads, and those who arose expecting to sing, “Oh what a beautiful morning...everything’s going MY way,” get up with their skin crawling on the back of their necks and their ears tingling with horror. What was that? As a high wind began to whistle over the mountains and plains, several thousand people ran down to the construction site of the ark. It stood there like a huge grey coffin: a testimony to Adam’s inheritance (Rom. 6:23). Then it was, “Noah! Noah! Noah, something has gone wrong! Are you there, Noah?!” Seventy-five to one hundred feet above them the crowd could see the “window.” Eight moving objects looked out of it, discerned only dimly in the early morning light. Up there on the third deck, all of Noah’s family had at last settled their doubts. Far below them, on two decks, were thousands of animals resting quietly—lions with lambs, bears with dogs, dogs with cats, leopards with kids, and birds with mice—all obeying their Creator (man is the only animal who doesn’t obey!) so that Noah and his “house” would not be “tempted above that they were able” (1 Cor. 10:13). By seven o’clock in the morning, a crowd of 50,000 people had filled the valley; crowbars and battering rams were banging and hacking at the door. Then it was, “Noah! Noah! Noah, for God’s sake let us in! Something has gone wrong! Open, Open! Open the door!” But when the door is shut (Matt. 25:10), the door is shut. Noah’s generation learned Proverbs 1:22–30 the hard way. The fanciful illusion of an all-merciful God who will be merciful forever, regardless of a man’s conduct, is as insane a religious doctrine as a mad man ever concocted. At Hiroshima, there was no mercy shown to man, woman, child, or baby. At Nagasaki, there was no mercy shown to man, woman, child, or baby. At Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:24), there was no mercy shown to man, woman, child, or baby. And to teach that God will forgive anything, forever, is not only contrary to the clear statements of Jesus Christ (Mark 3:29), but is contrary to common sense and past experience. Custer’s men received no mercy at the Little Big Horn; 6,000,000 Jews received no mercy at Treblinka, Auschwitz, and Buchenwald; and age and sex had nothing to do with it. The modernist’s attitude toward these realities is the ostrich attitude of a man who can only blame bad things on man’s ignorance and good things on God, thus denying God’s hand in the punishment of sin. The modern liberal preacher would have drowned in Noah’s day, and with his bubbling breath, he would have blamed the lack of scientific research and educational achievements for being unable to control the weather! Crash! Down came water from the skies! Contrary to the opinions of the best brains of the day and all the findings of “science,” the impossible happened (as it will again in 2 Pet. 3). Noah’s preaching was confirmed with the greatest mass baptismal service the world has ever seen (1 Pet. 3:20–21), sprinkling and immersion simultaneously, satisfying the most exacting theologians! And then, oh my, what a scene! Mothers clutching babies, running up the stairs in their homes as the water comes up six inches per minute to the porch, living room, staircase, second floor! Families on the housetops screaming and praying, or cursing and grinding their teeth. No mercy! Men and boys climbing trees like apes (Darwin in the lead!). People fleeing to high ground as the waters press relentlessly upward—ever upward. Dogs, cats, snakes, mice, sheep, cows, horses, lions, and tigers plunging madly about (check the “mad dogs” of New Orleans at the inundation in Sept. 1967). The geology professor with his rock specimens goes struggling to climb the hillside and realizes he has spent too much time indoors; he is exhausted after climbing 200 feet, but presses on, gasping for air as the waters come up higher and higher. There goes the biology professor (with his pinned butterflies) floating by the Chamber of Commerce building on top of a beer barrel. With drops of rain the size of marbles falling, the children are pelted in the eyes and mouth, screaming, “Mamma! Daddy! Help me! Help me!” No mercy. Let the Bible rejector take heed. The mothers, fathers, and children of 2347

B.C. were basically the same human beings who read the Sunday morning strips in 1970. Down came the rain. “And the ark went upon the face of the waters.” “And the mountains were covered.” I have approached the text (see comments on Gen. 7:4–6) with the attitude that the present ranges of mountains (Himalayas, Sierra Madres, Appalachians, the Andes, Pyrenees, Alps, Sierra Nevadas, Rockies, Caucasus, etc.) were fully developed at the time of Genesis 6–7. This may be in error. If it is in error, then the mountains that were “covered” could have been little more than hills, 100–1,000 feet high. This would simplify the problem immensely concerning the amount of water necessary to “drown the scene out”; but as it has been pointed out before, the source of “water supply,” in this case, goes beyond that contained in the clouds. Either way, marine fossils and deposits are found today high in the mountain ranges. Colonel Davies has said (in the “Journal of Transactions of the Victoria Institute of London,” 1930, Vol. 10, p. 95), “If the sea beds can rise and the continents sink, there is no difficulty whatever in finding enough water, even for a Universal Flood.” How Dummelow and those “who generally accept a local flood” could have missed this homely and obvious truth is rather mysterious. If the ranges were there, then the height of water was fifteen cubits above Mt. Everest, which would be twenty to thirty-eight feet above 29,028 feet. The geologists raised on the uniformitarianism of Darwin and Lyell would dismiss the suggestion without a thought; therefore, following the Golden Rule, we shall dismiss their suggestions on the same basis. The problem is not “how could it be?” The only problem is “how was it?” The water could have risen to a height of 40,000 feet without any problem at all—until it came time for it to evaporate!

7:21 “And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. 23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. 24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.”

We have commented in detail on verses 21–23, and further comment is superfluous. The plain sense of the Scriptures, within the context (interpreted by Jesus Christ in Luke 17:27 and Simon Peter in 2 Pet. 2:5), is that the Flood obliterated every human being on earth but eight people in an ark. Unbelief in the plain account is not based on scientific research, “new evidence,” geological discoveries, a desire to find the facts, a neutral attitude toward the event, or the “brilliant insights” of modern man; it is rather due to an instinctive and chronic fear which sinners have of judgment on sin by a personal Creator. This is manifested in scientific journals as a maniacal obsession to separate human calamities from any connection with a Holy God who punishes sin. As one has so wisely said, “The modern rejection of a literal hell where men burn forever is not based on any new light from the Greek Testament or any scientific facts discovered since the Greek New Testament was written; it is based on the fact that no man would appreciate anyone describing his home in the terms in which hell is described in the Greek New Testament.” The subjective biases of “modern man” have nothing to do with “newly discovered truths,” “new light,” “better readings,” etc. They are the common 3000

B.C. biases of any self-righteous, God-defying humanist. “And the waters prevailed upon the earth....” After two weeks of rain (by the calculations of Gen. 7:4–6), every moving thing from sea level to 10,180 feet was dead. (If Patton’s and Davies’ calculations are correct, everything would have been under water in a matter of hours or even minutes. After the forty-day holocaust, Noah and his family opened the window occasionally and looked out on a drowned planet. Sixty days after the downpour had stopped, they sat around on the top deck and fished for several weeks. The animals all got plenty of meat as well as oats, barley, wheat, corn, etc. Once in awhile, a whale or porpoise would blow by, and as the days wore on, Noah and his family saw the mountain peaks emerging once again here and there. The ark moved with the tides around the area of Asia Minor, and after 120 days, mountains in the Caucasian range were clearly visible. There was plenty of work to do with the animals, and at this time Noah and his family may have (I said, “may have”) passed through a very trying and shocking experience. You see, the atmosphere had changed. If there had been an “ice canopy” over the earth (as many fundamental expositors believe), it was no longer there. Skin pigment would be strongly affected by any change in “ray bombardment” from sunlight. Whereas four reddish brown (see notes on “Adam”) men may have entered the Ark, four reddish brown men may not have left the ark! We can assume that Ham took a wife from the daughters of Cain, or we can assume that Noah’s wife was “marked” (see notes on Gen. 4:15). But if we cannot stomach this interpretation, we must adopt one that will meet the demands of Genesis 10. Genesis 10 demands that the descendants of Ham be “African” (note Psa. 105:23, Jer. 46:9, and Gen. 10:6–15). But to all appearances Shem, Ham, and Japheth are identical in color; again, “appearances” can be deceptive. If they are all the same color (and their wives are all the same color), then there is no way to account for the three branches of the human race, other than the effect which the post-deluge atmosphere would have had on skin pigment. Integrationists, working for “one world” under the Antichrist (see Rev. 13), will accept no explanation for the variation. They attribute it to man’s unwillingness to interbreed with other races, indiscriminately. They will not accept a sudden change in climate as the deciding factor, or they would allow the races to maintain their identities. They will not accept Genesis as the deciding factor, as their future plans are to overrule Deuteronomy 32:7,8; and they will not accept Genesis 4 and Genesis 9 as the deciding factors, for this would be an admission that any pro-African movement is a step down in the evolutionary scale. The modern integrationist simply ignores the differences between races, except where they affect his income. The waters begin to return “from off the earth” at the end of the forty days (see Gen. 8:2–3). Noah floats on a sinking ocean several months, for “the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.”

CHAPTER 8 8:1 “And God remembered Noah, and every liv-ing thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged; 2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained; 3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.”

“And God remembered Noah.” The word is used in the positive sense, as in Genesis 19:29, Genesis 30:22, and Ecclesiastes 12:1. It is not the statement that God forgot what was going on for 150 days, but that He began again to move positively in regard to Noah and his family, after forty days of letting “things ride.” (They were “ridin’ high,” I believe is the expression.) “And God made a wind...and the waters asswaged.” The word for “wind” here is the “ruach” (Hebrew) of Genesis 1:2, and the believer cannot fail to notice that whereas, here, the wind is passing over “the earth,” the divine wind of Genesis 1:2 is passing over “the face of the deep.” (The two are not the same.) As a good windy day will dry wet clothes quicker than a calm day, and as hot air blowers have been installed in airport restrooms to replace paper towels, so the “wind” of Genesis 8:1 dries off the earth. The catastrophe of Genesis 1:1–2 must have been similar to that of Genesis 7 and 8 with the exception that the “heavens” were also involved in Genesis 1. Simon Peter, an unlettered commercial fisherman, has a comment on this first catastrophe in 2 Peter 3:5–6 (see also notes on Gen. 1:2–3). Thus we see that on at least two occasions in the past, the whole system which controls cosmic rays, bombardment of atoms, deterioration of mass, breakdown of chemicals, and “escape” of molecules has been radically altered. This nullifies the modern method of “dating” with both the Libby Carbon 14 apparatus and all other methods like it. These systems were archaic before they were devised. By inserting two radical changes in the earth’s physical conditions, the Lord God successfully confounded all future “scientific research” where it deals with age and origin of the earth; and consequently, any future research, based on the evolutionary theory, will be just as barren and futile as those of the last 1,500 years. “The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped.” This verse is chronologically before verse 1. Verse 1 and verse 3 take place after verse 2. Notice that “rain from heaven” is a separate item from “the fountains...of the deep” (see comments on Gen. 7:11). “And the waters returned from off the earth CONTINUALLY.” I have spoken of clouds in the comments on Genesis 7:17–19, yet to be perfectly Scriptural about the matter, no “clouds” are mentioned in Scripture until Genesis 9:13. It is evidently the evaporation of the water which forms clouds, and this brings up another question. Was there any body of water the size of the Pacific or Atlantic before the flood? There were certainly “seas” (Gen. 1:10), but there is no mention of the accompanying rain, and Solomon was not ignorant of the processes of evaporation and wind currents more than 400 years before Socrates sacrificed roosters (in the interest of higher academic standards, of course!). Solomon described the process of evaporation, distillation, and condensation (Ecc.1:4– 9). If as much water has been dumped on the globe as I have indicated

(3,856,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons), there was not only enough water to form clouds large enough to blot out the continents when photos are made from capsules in space (see photos by Bormann, Anders, and Lovell), but there was enough left over to form seven oceans bigger than the Caspian Sea, and enough left over to account for 17,000,000 square miles of ice at both of the poles. “And after...the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.” The deluge comes down for forty days and then ceases. The wind picks up the operation for ninety days, and at the end of ninety days, Noah’s ark has floated from 29,000 feet down to 17,000 feet.

8:4 “And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. 5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.”

“The mountains,” here, are the range in which Ararat is found, which is apparent by verse 4. The tenth month (Esther 2:16) is called “Tebeth” and is January, approximately. (The interval of 150 days was from the second month “Zif,” about May, to “Tisri,” the seventh month, about October.) Noah, then, is dry docked (“left high and dry,” I believe is the expression) for about seventy-eight days. The water has now been evaporating and sinking down to its new ocean beds for 220 days. “Upon the mountains of Ararat.” (See comments on the ark, Gen. 6:14–17.) The strongest proof that the flood was universal—aside from the fact that it is attested to universally—is the fact that a local flood would have floated the ark down river to the ocean. What in blazes would a wooden box the size of the Queen Mary be doing on top of a 16,000-foot mountain after a local flood? Do you realize that a local flood which could accomplish such a feat would inundate Mt. Blanc (15,781 feet), Pike’s Peak (14,108 feet), Mt. Whitney (14,502 feet), and the Matterhorn (14,780 feet)? That is quite some “local” flood you have there, gentlemen! That “local” flood would make the Johnstown flood of 1889 look like a leaky faucet. The word “Ararat” means “creation” or “holy land.” It is kin to “behold” (Gen 9:22), “to be inflamed,” and “to pluck grapes” (Gen. 9:21).

8:6 “And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made: 7 And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth. 8 Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground; 9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.”

The timetable is now stretching and nerves are undoubtedly stretching with it. Noah and his in-

laws have been having “close fellowship” in company with animal noises, odors, and breeding (!) for 300 days (or 307; see notes on Gen. 7:13). That is nearly a year of listening to your son’s wives complaining and having your sons running to momma, and of course, there was the momma, thinking her boys were being mistreated, etc. Oh yes! There is nothing new about human nature! “He sent forth a raven.” There is obviously a black bird aboard. (If the birds integrated, Noah would have produced a marvelous mutation, for imagine a Pigeon-Pecker who could knock on your door before he delivered the message!) The raven is black. He is not “negroid” or “brown”; he is black. Furthermore, he is a “vagabond,” for he does not return to the ark but goes “to and fro, until the waters were dried up....” Unlike the domestic raven of E.A. Poe, who found a home on the pallid bust of Pallas “just above the chamber door,” this Bible raven deserts the ark cawing, “Nevermore!” “Also he sent forth a dove.” The first mention of both birds fixes their meanings thereafter. To this day, when a political cartoonist desires to depict “peace,” he uses the only infallible text book available on types—the AV 1611 Bible. He draws a dove with an olive branch in its mouth (Gen. 8:11). The dove turns out to be a type of the Holy Spirit (see Matt. 3:16; John 1:32) and the Bride of Christ (Song of Sol. 5:2, 6:9). We can only surmise that the ravens (Lev.11:15), as the fowls of the air, are pictures of unclean spirits (see Matt. 13:4; Rev. 18:1–3; Dan. 4:12). The English word for “raven” and “ravenous” is kin to the black bird, and it means to “tear at food hungrily.” A “ravine” is the gaping jaw of a mouth reproduced in stone or hillside. “But the dove found no rest.” It is forty days after the first day of the tenth month, which is seventy-three days after the ark has landed. Undoubtedly, there was a place for the dove to land if she desired to do so. The mountain sides have been in sunlight for over 200 days, and the decrease in water from 29,000 feet to 14,000 feet in 150 days would indicate that in seventy-three days the level has gone down to 7,000 feet or lower. But the dove returns.

8:10 “And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark; 11 And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth. 12 And he stayed yet other seven days; and sent forth the dove; which returned not again unto him any more.”

After eighty days on dry ground, Noah sends out the dove for the second trip. By the standard rate of decrease (which by now would pick up considerably), the water level is down around 5,000 feet, and probably closer to 4,000. “In her mouth was an olive leaf.” The newspaper cartoonists, guided by the “spirit” of the age (Eph. 2:1–4), obediently converts the olive leaf (see “Tree of Life” and comments on Gen. 2:9) into the Roman Caesar’s “laurel wreath” and makes it a branch (see Hislop’s Two Babylons). At the end of eighty-seven days, the dove leaves, never to return.

8:13 “And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of

the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry. 14 And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.”

Noah and family have now had “sweet communion” for 313 days. This date matches that given in Genesis 8:6 and shows that the events of Genesis 8:6 took place when the covering of the ark was removed in verse 13. Even yet, the ground is not habitable, and after another wait of fifty-seven days (allowing the water to recede clear to the bottom and then soak in for ten days), Noah is ready to debark. This makes the total time for confinement 370 days, ten days over a lunar year. “The covering of the ark.” (Hebrew—“mikseh” as in Exod. 36:19, 34; Num. 4:8, 10–12, etc.) The covering is some type of skin or canvas roof which overlaid some open portion of the upper deck exactly as a tarpaulin covers an open hatch. It is not removed until all possibility of another rainstorm has ceased.

8:15 “And God spake unto Noah, saying, 16 Go forth of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons’ wives with thee. 17 Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee, of all flesh, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth. 18 And Noah went forth, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons’ wives with him: 19 Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark.”

The epic journey is over. Noah has proved he is the greatest broker that ever lived (having floated his stock for 370 days), and now he and his family step out on an empty planet. The morning of the twenty-seventh of Zif, one rooster has the supreme honor of being the only rooster in history that crowed loudly enough for every man, woman, and child on the globe to hear him. Having given up the earth for the Lord’s sake, Noah received it back one hundred fold, to put it mildly (Matt. 19:29). “Be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth” recalls the commission given to another sole possessor of the planet (Gen. 1:28) and marks Noah as a type of Adam! (See comments on the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.) Down the sides of Mt. Ararat streams the living cargo. They descend from about 12,000 to the 10,000 foot level, the 5,000 foot level, and in a few months are wandering off through the Urals and Asia Minor. (They have 2,000 years to get over to America before Plato and Aristotle are born, which means that when Columbus shows up in A.D. 1492, they have had 3,492 years in which to move around. At the rate of a mile a day, they could have walked around the earth at the equator thirty-two times before John the Baptist cut his baby teeth! There is no problem in the Bible; the only problem is in the faculty smoking lounge.) At the terrific speed of one mile per month, any animal there could have walked from Ararat to Los Angeles before Julius Caesar could say, “Et tu, Brute?” Counting natural migrations, animals transported by man himself, and forced migratory movements of

animals, there is no problem at all in the Bible account; there is only the ancient problem of Adam’s children—unbelief. It must have been quite a sight on that beautiful May day when Noah and his family touched “terra firma” again. From the top of the mountain they could see Lake Sevan, clearly visible, lying to the northeast. Lake Urmia shone in the sun, far distant over the southeast range, and to the southwest lay Lake Van, near the headwaters of the Euphrates. The Araxes River flowed by the foot of the mountain, running southeast before it turned northeastward into the Caspian Sea. Noah and his family gazed out on a world sparkling with diamond points of reflected sunlight. They saw snow for the first time. In the clear, cold air of the mountain, colors took on those gorgeous hues which one sees in the Bavarian Alps. Winged creatures flapped and fluttered over their heads chirping, cheeping, crowing, twittering, and whistling the anthem of the free as they sailed down into the valleys, headed for home. Over the vast panorama of lakes, valleys, hills, ravines, mountains, and plains hung a celestial arch, a pulsating spectrum of glory like a bridge reaching down from God to man, displaying the colors of nature, light, gold, blood, royalty, and heaven itself. From elevations below came the animal speech of wild beasts beckoning one another onward—homeward. Lions and elephants, bears and camels, apes and peaco*cks, ostriches and wild donkeys, braying, clucking, roaring, snorting, bellowing, growling, and screeching signals (and directions) on their “assigned frequencies,” all making their way back to earth again. All day long the parade proceeded double-time down Ararat, and the next day when Noah and his family started down the mountain side with their chickens, sheep, goats, horses, and oxen, there wasn’t a wild animal to be seen anywhere. Taking enough wood from the ark with them to use for cooking and keeping warm, they went down Ararat, traveling by day and sleeping by night. They had not reached the 5,000 foot level when they saw the first dead man. A skeleton lay face down on the rocks; its leg bones were fractured. It was the first reminder they had had since the rains came that death was a part of their deliverance.

8:20 “And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21 And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.”

The test is plainly a repetition of Abel’s offering, plus the “clean fowls” (see Lev. 11). The altar is rough stone, unhewed and untouched by anyone but God (Exod. 20:25). Here, for the first time, the word “altar” occurs in the Bible. “And the Lord smelled a sweet savour.” Again, the anthropomorphism is apparent, nor should it cause anyone to stumble except a scientist who wants a God so mathematically frigid and so metaphysically distant that He cannot interfere with things like love, sex, jobs, religion, income, sin, pleasure, family, books, art, music, or politics. The “savour” of the Christian is likened to Noah’s offering in 2 Corinthians 2:15–16, and it is to be observed that what smells sweetly to the Creator, stinks to His creation (Luke 16:16; Prov. 29:27). The new “safe Christianity,” promoted by Christian educational institutions—“day schools” in the lead—adopts the curious position that the truly consecrated Christian is such a nice person that he has a “lovely testimony” with everyone. This Norman Vincent Peale type of claptrap may fool “modern man,” but it doesn’t fool the Holy Spirit a

bit. If you are not creating a good healthy “stink” in the community in which you live, you don’t have any testimony. Paul, Jeremiah, Noah, Peter, James, John, and Jesus were always careful to make it a point to kindle a mighty stench in the vicinity of their ministries; and one of the outstanding things about their genuine Christian witness was that the world thought it stunk to high heaven. Someone should organize a new church called the First Baptist Stench of....” Ian Paisley’s (1969) testimony, adorned with rotten eggs and tomatoes, perfumes the mansions of New Jerusalem with a fragrance that pine air freshener could not touch. Eugene Carson Blake’s “testimony,” dressed up in press releases and degrees of honor, would smell so bad on “Martyr’s Row” in Glory that the angels would have to wear gas masks (see Heb. 11:33–39 for details). “And the Lord said in his heart.” That is, Moses wrote it down the way God told him to write it down, and that is the way he wrote it down: “The Lord said in his heart.” “I will not again curse...neither will I again smite.” The promise is that God will not repeat the episode described in Genesis 7 and 8, nor will He repeat the incident of Genesis 3:17. The curse of Genesis 3:17 still holds—as do all covenants from Genesis 1–12—until the Millennium, but there is to be no repetition, for “I will not AGAIN curse.’’ “For the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” This piece of hate literature deserves a place alongside Matthew 23, John 8, and Joel 2. It is a statement which Freud could make if he could simply change the word “EVIL” to “maladjusted” or “disturbed” or “mixed up” or “sexually oriented,” etc. But “evil” is a little too strong for the squeamish psychologists and scientists of the last 100 years. They hope to absolve themselves of guilt and “do penance for their sins” by relieving other people of their sense of personal accountability to God. Set on the task of “liberating the mind” from “tyrannies of religious tradition,” the modern psychiatrist spends his life compensating for his own guilts and fears by “liberating” his clients—at $75.00 an hour, of course. The word “evil,” as the word “sin,” is a naughty word in modern psychotherapy, and at present, there is a conspiracy of Bible-rejecting sinners to take these words out of the pulpit vocabulary—by force if necessary. Targets of such a program would be: 1. The Lord Jesus Christ, who said, “If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children” (Matt. 7:11). 2. The Apostle Paul, who said, “There is none that doeth good, no, not one...For all have sinned... There is none righteous, no, not one” (Rom. 3). 3. John the Baptist, who said, “O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” (Luke 3:7). 4. Simon Peter, who said, “Cursed children...speak evil of the things that they understand not...eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin” (2 Pet. 2). 5. Isaiah, who cried, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil” (Isa. 5:20). 6. Jeremiah, who preached, “They are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge” (Jer. 4:22). Other candidates for “corrective therapy” would be David Livingstone, Billy Sunday, John Wesley, George Whitefield, Billy Graham, Charles Fuller, Frank Norris, Bob Jones Sr., Torrey, Chapman, Calvin, Luther, and the founders of the universities who now pay professors to sneer at the good and godly of all ages. The word “evil” occurs in the AV text over 300 times, and the reader of the Bible will not get through ten verses in the second chapter before he finds the notorious “Tree of the Knowledge of

Good and Evil” (see comments on Gen. 2:9). In Genesis 6:5, this knowledge blossoms in the human race, and David (a thousand years later) recognizes it as a characteristic of human nature at birth (Psa. 51:5). Fathers are told to train a child “in the way he should go” (Prov. 22:6), for the simple and obvious reason that no child needs to be trained in the way that he should not go! All children have an instinctive affinity for foolishness and sin, as any child (by nature) is aimed wrong at birth (see Prov. 22:15, 23:13). This reality, which was universally accepted by all European and Asiatic people, was discarded by Americans around 1900 as being a prudish fancy. John Dewey (1859– 1952) and Bertrand Russell (1872) were largely responsible for this and will have to receive their “due rewards” at the judgment for the results they obtained from such a teaching. They considered it to be a false approach to the “proper training of the child.” The modern system of education, which is based on the pragmatic philosophy of John Dewey and the behavioristic psychology of Russell, is the product of fallen man denying the great, fundamental, essential truth about himself: “the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” Man is born wrong. The present higher education dilemma in America (1968–1970) is due to the uprooting of this fundamental truth. When the checks, reins, curbs, and discipline are taken off the child, the end result of the educatory process is a seething mass of “college students” who do not know where they are going or how to get there. Beyond “campus demonstrations” and “athletic exhibitions,” they can see no further than a draft board. The majority of college graduates in any country have no more idea about where they are going at death than a Negrito on the back side of Australia. What our colleges are turning out are educated apes. According to the Bible, there is something basically wrong with man which science, religion, and education cannot correct (see notes on Gen. 4:1–8). This is exactly what unregenerate men resent. Their educational, religious, and scientific systems have been erected to hide or obliterate this basic truth. If a man admits his “evil imagination,” he attributes it to a lack of knowledge and tells himself that there is no Supreme Being who will hold him accountable. Where a man does not admit the “evil imagination,” he accords to God a certain amount of recognition and trusts that his inner life is passable, at least by the standards of the age and society in which he lives. This is the modern definition of “goodness.” “Goodness,” in modern psychiatry and psychology, has nothing to do with right or wrong actions, moral or immoral conduct, good or bad ethics, or even proper conduct. “Goodness,” to a college educated ape, is “behaving in such a way so as to adapt yourself to the society in which you move so as to preserve the best interests of the whole.” Two World Wars haven’t killed the optimism in this class of idiots a bit. They still think that by getting all differing societies together and forcing them to live together (see enforced integration against the rights of the individuals, practiced by the District Courts in 1969), the “whole can be preserved.” But this is exactly what every Fascist and Communist in the world believes—the sacrifice of the individual for the “whole.” Six thousand years of history proves the problem cannot be solved by forms of government and social integration. Something is wrong with mankind which is connected to his inner, individual thinking. In the Bible, something is wrong with man’s: 1. Imagination (Gen. 6:5). 2. Eyes (Rom. 3:18). 3. Mouth (Rom. 3:14). 4. Tongue (Rom. 3:13). 5. Heart (Jer. 16:12). 6. Thoughts (Isa. 55:7–8; Prov. 24:9).

7. Ears (Acts 28:27; 2 Tim. 4:3). 8. Hands (Acts 2:23; Isa. 59:3). 9. Feet (Rom. 3:15). 10. Ways (Isa. 55:7–8; Rom. 3:16). Erasmus Darwin and Charles Darwin heard these verses preached, and they could locate them in a King James Bible. Their “evolutionary system” (adopted by American educators) was nothing more that the psychotic defense mechanism of a hellbound sinner trying to duck the subpoena. As it has been said before (see notes on Gen. 3–4), there is something wrong with mankind at birth which neither time, taxes, tides, books, babies, barrooms, beaches, bayonets, beer halls, bull sessions, religions, rites, researches, sacraments, sadism, science, or seances can fix. “Ye must be born again.”

8:22 “While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.”

This is the first mention of “seasons,” for which the sun and moon stood (Gen. 1:14). We are to assume that up until here “cold and heat” and “summer and winter” are unknown. Noah, coming down from an ark that was stranded 14,000 feet above sea level, became acquainted with “cold” eighty-three days before he left the ark. He walked through snow on the way down! “Seedtime and harvest” would indicate “spring and fall,” to complete the cycle of “summer, fall, winter, spring”; but the reader should observe that there are six seasons in Palestine. 1. Seedtime (October and November). 2. Winter (December and January). 3. Cold (February and March). 4. Harvest (April and May). 5. Summer (June and July). 6. Hot (August and September). In October and November, the first frosts come, yet plowing and sowing go on with the late grapes and olives in Galilee coming out. The trees begin to lose foliage, and the snow begins (with hail) in November; however, corn is still sown. In December and January, grass and herbs spring up, the almond tree blossoms, and sometimes barley is sown. In February and March, the oranges and lemons ripen, and the weather turns chilly one more time. Winter figs are present and with them the “latter rain.” In April and May, wheat in the ear shows up, and barley harvest comes. The rivers swell and clouds without rain pass over, with excessive drought conditions in many parts. In June and July, there is a heavy dew early in the mornings, wheat and rice are harvested, and the early figs ripen. (Grapes and olives ripen the last part of July.) In August and September, the heat increases as the pomegranates ripen. The grapes are harvested, and just before the “early rain,” it is very hot and dry.

CHAPTER 9 9:1 “And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. 3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.”

“And God blessed Noah and his sons.” This explains why Noah’s curse falls on Ham’s seed instead of Ham himself (Gen. 9:25), and thus it prevents the race mixer from understanding the passage. (See comments on Gen. 9:25). “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish....” This is the original commission given to Adam (see Gen. 1:28). Noah is a type of Adam in that: 1. They both were sole possessors of the earth. 2. They both had a direct commission from God. 3. They both replaced races which God did not want controlling the earth. 4. They both had three sons by name. 5. One of their sons was a type of Christ. 6. One was a type of Antichrist. 7. Shem and Abel are connected with Christ. 8. Cain and Canaan are both cursed. 9. Adam is naked when he sins, exactly as Noah. 10. Adam and Noah partake of “forbidden fruit.” 11. Adam’s prohibition is a vine, and Noah’s prohibition is blood (see Gen. 9:4 and comments on the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil). “And the fear of you and the dread of you.” Something “new” has been added. In a world where animals have lost their docility (see Isa. 11:1–11), man is given “the reach” in the fight. An instinctive fear of man is placed in the animals, which is apparent to this day, and not without good reason. Any animal in his right mind—not “rabid”—gives man a wide berth when he approaches. There are animals such as army ants or piranha (a South American fish) who will devour a man, if he is helpless, but these animals cannot tell the body (or corpse) of man from that of a cow or a dog. Any animal who knows what man is will stay out of his way. Killer whales, grey sharks, tiger sharks, and mayo sharks will occasionally attack man, but one must remember that this only takes place where man invades the animal’s domain. No barracuda or manta ray will take the trouble to go swimming into the city water system to bite a man washing his hands in the basin! (Man, on the other hand, will pick up mask, fins, footgear, aqualung, and spearguns to go out and hunt these animals in their homes.) In India, a cobra may attack a man, but this is only because the cobra has been regarded as a sacred animal (and has been left unmolested) for so long that he knows he can “get away with it.” If you turned a bunch of Georgia or Mississippi farm boys loose in India for about ten years with stovepipe leggins and hoes, the cobras would be hiding in the bushes all day and praying to St. Christopher before they stuck their heads out at night.

German shepherds would appear to cancel the decree of Genesis 9:2, but one must remember that this breed of dog (as the Doberman pinscher) was bred for police work and war work. Where man has projected his authority over the processes of nature, some “men killers” can be bred. However, not even a lone German shepherd on a street at night (without his master) will cross the street to attack a stranger. Brown bears (and Kodiaks), who have attacked men (as water buffalo and leopards have also done), normally do not hunt men for food. They will not fight or attack unless cornered, and they will usually exhaust every resource in “getting away” before they will stand at bay and face a man with a loaded rifle. “Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you.” This explains the previous statement, for at Genesis 9, man becomes a “meat eater” (cf. Gen. 3:17). Nimrod (Gen. 10:9) is the first outstanding representative of this class of men who begin “bringing home the bacon” in Genesis 9:3. The animals of the earth learn quickly enough that man’s menu was changed after the flood. The whistle of arrows and darts, the sailing shaft of the spear, the thud of flying rocks, and the grunts, bellows, screeches, and roars of their companions tell the animals that “the Kingdom must be coming” and that “every day in every way things are getting better and better,” etc. (I say this facetiously, of course; undoubtedly animals have better sense about these things than men do.)

9:4 “But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. 5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man. 6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. 7 And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.”

The eating (or drinking) of raw blood is forbidden by this taboo. The same warning occurs in Leviticus 17, under the law, and again in Acts 15, under grace. This is one of the great “do not cross” warnings placed in the word. Using the words of Jesus (taken out of the context of John 6), the papist “crosses the deadline” for the “glory of God and Holy Mother Church,” etc., and offers the “drink offerings of blood” (Psa. 16:4), which Paul calls “the cup of devils” (1 Cor. 10:21). This “massacre” (misnamed after “to dismiss”) is called a “sacrifice” in Roman Catholic literature and professes to be not merely a “continuation” of the sacrifice at Calvary, but also a “repetition” (see any publication by the Knights of Columbus). Since this pagan heresy is rebuked in no uncertain terms in Hebrews 10:8–14, and since the act itself would be a violation of three testaments—before, during, and after the Law—the Bible believer takes the same attitude toward a “Pontifical Mass” as he would take toward a rattlesnake; he avoids it. “At the hand of every man’s brother.” Here, capital punishment is instituted, and to match its companion pronouncement on blood, the decree of capital punishment is found before (here), during (Num. 35), and after (Acts 25:11; Rom. 13:1–4) the law. Capital punishment is not a subject of debate among real Bible believers, anymore than “the mass” is. The true believer accepts the infallible statements of the word on both subjects to be scientifically accurate, morally correct, infallibly inspired, perfectly presented, and absolutely unimpeachable. If the greatest Christians who

ever lived—Peter, James, John, and Paul—turned thumbs down on the pagan practice of the partaking of literal blood (Acts 15:20, 21:25), then the modern Christian has no business even thinking that the literal blood of Jesus Christ is present in the intoxicating liquor used by the priests of Baal. If the greatest follower of Christ—to whom one-third of the New Testament was given—submitted cheerfully to capital punishment without comment, then the Bible believer already has his standards to follow. What Socialists, Communists, judges, civil rights workers, college professors, psychiatrists, lawyers, and popes “think” about these issues is immaterial. When a man “thinks” something contradictory to the revelation of three dispensations 2,000 years apart, given by the Supreme Judge of the universe, well, really...! The statement is that both man and animals will incur “blood guilt” from murdering a man (see comments on Gen. 4:10–11). (The rules for cleansing the guilt of innocent blood are found in Deut. 21. Manslaughter is distinguished from murder in Num. 35, and armed combat is distinguished from murder in 1 Kings 2:5.) What is complex, obscure, difficult, intricate, complicated, or “knotty” in the law courts; and the books on higher education is shockingly simple and clear in the AV 1611, which is available to any sixth-grade reader, anytime he might care to pick it up. “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” Isaiah 26:21 is the final reaping of man for a series of actions which began with Genesis 4 and will not end until Revelation 19. Note the peculiar emphasis on blood in the Holy Bible that is missing from the other great “scriptures” of the world. 1. The first blood shed is the blood of a lamb (see notes on Gen. 3). 2. The second blood shed is that of a “shepherd” (Gen. 4:5–8). 3. The Good Shepherd of John 10 sheds blood (Col. 1:14). 4. The Christian has peace through this blood (Col. 1:20), is justified by this blood (Rom. 5:9), is cleansed by this blood (1 John 1:7), is redeemed by this blood (Eph. 1:7), is purged by this blood (Heb. 9:14), and is saved by this blood (Eph. 2:13). 5. Judas goes to “the field of blood” (Acts 1:19). 6. Pilate tries to get innocent blood off his hands (Matt. 27:24). 7. Mystery Babylon is guilty of the blood of saints and martyrs (Rev. 17:5,6). 8. Her followers drink blood (Rev. 16:6). 9. Blood is forbidden in both Testaments (see text). 10. Christ’s garment at the Second Advent is dipped in blood (Isa. 63; Rev. 19:13). 11. Both Testaments are instituted with blood (Heb. 9:8–22). 12. “Innocent blood” is always avenged (Matt. 23:35; 2 Kings 9:26). 13. The Christian will dip his feet in blood at the Second Advent! (Psa. 58:10, 68:23). In more than 350 verses the word appears: blood, blood, blood, blood. The Bible is a bloody book, and it capstones the bloody account of man’s bloody history with the statement that the blood shed on Calvary was more than a man’s; it was God’s blood (Acts 20:28). (Now watch all the new translations rush to change that verse!) The doctrine of retribution for “shed blood” needs no confirmation from scholars in any century. The history of this earth is the history of Adam’s noble line, now killing to “bring in the peace,” now killing to “maintain the peace,” now killing because it is the only way to “survive” (Darwin’s interpretation), now killing to keep others from multiplying (Darwin again), now killing at the commandment of God (1 Sam. 15), now killing voluntarily for sport (2 Sam. 2:14–16), and occasionally killing “to bring in the Kingdom” (Crusades, Revolution of 1776, Civil War, etc.). Killer Cain is the first man born, and all his kin folk practice his profession. If man could stop killing

for 100 years, the past ledger of indebtedness might eventually be canceled out, and the books “closed” on the account; but since this has never happened, is not happening, and will not happen, the bloody horror goes on: Nishar, Herat, Ostend, Austerlitz, Fontenoy, Chalons, Verdun, Crecy, Chatigny, Mont Blanc, Torgau, Bliethen, Blenheim, Chateau Thierry, Bellau Words, Concord, Lexington, New Orleans, Metz, St. Vith, Chates, Bastogne, Thermopylae, Agincourt, Casablanca, El Alamein, Midway, Wake, Guam, Omaha Beach, Peleliu, Pusan, Taegu, Osan, Cold Harbor, Bull Run, Chickamauga, Argonne Forest, the Marne, Soissons, Tobruk, New Georgia, Saipan, Okinawa, Trawa, Leyte Gulf, St. Lo, Stalingrad, Anzio, Salerno, Mannaseh, Antietam, the Reichswald, Hamburg, Polesti, Nagasaki, Vicksburg, Heartbreak Ridge, Pork Chop Hill, Seoul, Chosem, Saigon, etc., etc. Through all this ghastly bloodletting, science and religion deceive men into thinking that a bloodless religion can redeem them! Fermented liquor is not blood! Neither are the findings of a computer. As the war in Vietnam retaliates for the Viet Cong, who were retaliating against the French, who were retaliating against England, who was retaliating against the Normans, who were retaliating against...! So twentieth-century man is caught up in an infernal ferris wheel of retribution that has been spinning five and one-half millennia, and it cannot stop spinning until the “blue blood” shows up (Rev. 19; Joel 2; Matt. 24; Mark 13; Isa. 11). From maddened mountaineers, sniping at their vengeful neighbors with buckshot, to the slaughter of Flanders Field (500,000 British casualties in a single engagement), man gives a clearcut testimony to his basic nature. Where a nation rests between wars and speaks cheerfully and optimistically of “peace,” four to six other nations keep things going so the economy doesn’t fall apart. With man’s rapid “progress” in education and his “tremendous strides” in the field of science (see your state college catalog), we have now made such progress that we have only had nineteen wars in the last fifty years. These wars were the Manchurian war, the Spanish Revolution, World War I, World War II, the Chinese-Japanese War, the Mexican Revolt, the Cuban Revolt, the Invasion of Hungary, the Invasion of Czechoslovakia, the war on the Gaza Strip, the Israeli-Egyptian War, the Korean War, the French Vietnam War, the Israel-Arab War, the Nicaraguan revolt, plus two uprisings in Pakistan and Morocco. We may call many of these slaughter pens “battles” or “skirmishes” because the term “war” has now come to mean an engagement in which a dozen nations are involved. The “war” in Vietnam is still (1968) quaintly referred to by some optimists as “the struggle for peace.” Isn’t that just splendid? Nineteen “struggles” in fifty years is real headway! Why just think, that’s only one war every two and one-half years. Bravo Darwin! For comment on verse 7, see notes under Genesis 9:1.

9:8 “And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, 9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; 10 And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.”

This is the Noahic Covenant. Its sign is a rainbow (see vs. 13), called simply “bow,” as only the 180 degree arch is visible. The covenant is made with animals as well as men, and it means that animals will suffer capital punishment (vs. 5–6) for killing men exactly as government executioners

will kill men for the same thing (see Exod. 21:28–32). The covenant is longer than the one given to Adam, and all subsequent covenants make additions. Notice the lengthy one given to Abraham (first part in Gen. 12:1–4, and the second part in Gen. 15:13–21), and then the still more lengthy one given to Moses (Exod. 20–28). All covenants from Genesis 1–12 are binding until the Millennium, which is apparent in the most artless study of history (see comments on Gen. 3:16–19). Since the law was given to a Nation—not a man such as Adam, Noah, or Abraham—it is temporarily displaced by the dispensation of grace after the nation of Israel rejects their Messiah (see Eph. 2; Gal. 2–3; Rom. 7, 13:10).

9:11 “And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. 12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: 13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.”

This very verse slaps the last seal of authenticity on the universal flood, which modern conservative scholars deny. God, here, forces the Bible-rejecting “Christian” into the position where he has to make a liar out of God in the text. By so doing, he also makes a liar out of his Saviour (see John 5:46–47). In addition to the universal testimony which all nations give to the flood, and in addition to the fact that a local flood would have launched the ark into an ocean instead of on top of a 16,000 foot mountain, it is the final and shattering statement that God will not ever repeat again what He did in Genesis 7–8! If the flood of Genesis 7, 8 was a local flood, then God lied to Noah, or Moses lied when he wrote the account, or the man who rejects the account is a liar himself (Rom. 3:3–4). There have been thousands of floods since Genesis 7, 8. One hundred thousand people drowned in a flood at Friesland (1228); 10,000,000 were left homeless, starved, or drowned in floods in North China (1929); floods in Eastern and Southern China left 1,000,000 homeless or killed (1950); and 445 people were killed in 1963 in flash floods Northwest of Barcelona; not to mention the Johnstown flood (1889) here in America where 2,000 died. You see, the attacks on the word of God are conducted in such “scholarly atmospheres” with such deep “intellectual approaches” and dynamic “rethinking of values” that it never occurs to anyone that the men partaking in them are God-defying, Bible-rejecting liars. Under the guise of “rethinking” (sin is always “cloaked”—see John 15:22), the seminary faculties of orthodox schools discuss “The Flood Problem” or “Evaluating the Deluge” or “The Flood Story in the Light of Modern Science,” and not one of the God-forsaken rascals discussing the problem will call anyone’s attention to the plain English of the AV 1611 text (Gen. 9:11), which states that if the flood was not a universal flood, then God was a liar. “All flesh be cut off ANY MORE...neither shall there ANY MORE....” Did you notice the “any more’s”? It was done. You cannot back out by saying, “Well, He is saying that a universal flood will never take place, but local floods will.” That is not the sense, meaning, construction, wording, phrasing, or spelling of the sentence. It is “any more,” “any more.” You don’t say, “I won’t hit you any more,” when you never hit a lick to start with (except in Bible commentaries!). “This is the token of the covenant.” The covenant is “Berith” (Hebrew), which means “to cut a

covenant.” The “cutting” is apparent in the Abrahamic Covenants (see Gen. 15–17), but not so apparent here. The primitive idea is the cutting of the head off the sheep (Gen. 4:3–4), and among primitive tribes, it is preserved as the cutting of the wrist of two men and mingling their blood by incisions to leave a permanent scar; thus the two men become “blood brothers.” (You may have noticed that “creeping things” are omitted from the covenant here [vs. 10]; whereas they entered the ark in Genesis 7:14.) “I do set my bow in the cloud.” This is the first mention of both natural objects. The bow is a full “rainbow” in Revelation 4, and one can see this “full circle” of the spectrum when flying at high altitudes; it will appear as a circle around the shadow of the airplane on the cloud bank below it. The moral lesson is obvious. The higher we go the clearer we can see, and we’ll “understand it better bye and bye,” because we only see half the bow down here.

9:14 “And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: 15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. 17 And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.”

“And I will remember....” (See notes on Gen. 9:1.) The sign is a pledge to man that the deluge will not return and a reminder to God that when He is tempted to repeat the catastrophe (see Exod. 32:9–10), He will abide by His promise. Again, in verse 15, the reader is reminded that the flood of Genesis 7–8 will not happen again. If it were a local flood then God lied, for local floods have happened scores of times since then. The verse can only refer to a universal flood, unless you spend your time reading nonsense like Christianity Today. “That I may remember the everlasting covenant.” This covenant goes to the end of the Millennium, and if it is taken strictly in context—referring to a destruction by water—it is never abrogated. However, Simon Peter, the “unlearned and ignorant” fisherman (Acts 4:13), reminds us that all flesh will be destroyed again; but this time, “so as by fire” (2 Pet. 3:1–12). It is possible that Noah is the speaker in verse 16; however, this would be unusual in view of the fact that up until here Noah has not said a word—at least as far as the Scriptural record is concerned. The reference to God in the third person would indicate Noah is the speaker, but then the Lord often refers to Himself in the third person (John 6:62; 3:16; 5:20, 25; 11:4). We have already commented on verse 17 in relation to verses 9 and 12.

9:18 “And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. 19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.”

We have commented on the three boys somewhat under Genesis 5:32 and 6:10. Two new developments crop up, however. 1. “Ham is the father of Canaan”; Ham is singled out immediately from the other two boys. 2. “Of them was the whole earth overspread” shows conclusively that every man, woman, and child in the United States today came from Shem, Ham, or Japheth or a combination of Shem, Ham, and Japheth. This is the line of hom*o Sapiens (Latin: “the same saps!”). No amount of ethnological juggling will improve on the AV 1611 account. Anticipating the location of the sons, grandsons, and great grandsons named in Genesis 10, we note that Japheth is the father of the Caucasian race. Among his descendants are found the Celts, Picts, Angles, Caledonians, Saxons, Waldons, Gauls, Frisians, Franks, Aryans, and Norsem*n of Northern Europe; the Circassians, Croatians, Dorians. Bulgars, Bolls, Moravians, Parsees, Scythians, Phrygians, Huns, Pisidians, Goths, Slavs, and Thracians from Russia, the Balkans, and North Persia; and the Lombards, Catalans, Etruscans, Basques, and Visigoths of North Spain and Italy. Shem is obviously the progenitor of the “people of the East” (see Gen. 10:30). His descendants include the Almogics (Mayas, Aztecs, Comanchees, Shoshonees, Cherokees, Crows, Creeks, Mohawks, Apaches, Navajos, Seminoles, Sioux, Mohican, Chipewa, Pawnees, Blackfeet, Algonquins, and the Incas in the Americas), the Marshall Islanders, Maoria, Samoans, Hawaiians, Sumatrans, Siamese, Chinese, Koreans, Kalmuks, Japanese, Sumerians, Manchurians, Eskimos, Persians, Kurds, Turks, Mongols, and Jews. Father Ham begets Egyptians, Canaanites, Tunisians, Algerians, Cameroons, Charis, East Sudanese, Bushmen, Hottentots, Fuzzy-Wuzzies, Zulus, Kaffir, Veddahs, Fijians, Negritoes, Tasmanians, Sengalese, Bantus, Philistines, and Berbers. There is overlapping, of course, but since the science of ethnology decreases as the science of transportation and communications increase, the subject of “breeding” and “half-breeding” now bears the curious nomenclature of “racism” or “racists.” This is one of the Associated Press words (see book on The Mark of the Beast), which is part of an overall Madison Avenue, “soap selling” gimmick to promote a mongrel race of brainwashed passivists who will be ruled by the Son of Perdition at Rome (see The Mark of the Beast). The results of human breeding and cross breeding are more predictable and more stable than those of animals. The fact that Hitler misused such data or the fact that the NAACP does not wish such data to be known does not change the facts or the truths regarding it. You do not get thoroughbreds by taking the fence down and turning the animals loose on the street; you get them by isolation, where the fences keep mongrels out. Your opinion or the opinion of the Supreme Court (who are subject to the laws of life and nature) has no bearing on the law. This law operates regardless of anyone’s opinion about it. It would be very interesting to see Life and Look run a series of stories on races, where they had been clinically tested and exact data had been procured. Is it not very strange that in an age gone mad on searching for man’s “origins” that no scientific journal dares print any findings on man’s progress where it concerns his three major groups? What kind of scientific objectivity is that? Here is a nation of science-mad, education-crazy, nuclear nuts blowing gas and steam around the world about “man’s progress,” “directed evolution,” “controlled evolution,” etc.; and none of them from the least to the greatest can even deliver publicly a scientific report on their own species! This is God’s big “twentieth-century” circus—a mass of people who have to ignore obvious differences among themselves in order to bring in “the kingdom” and, by so doing, renounce their sanity, the facts of

history, the investigations of science, and their own future moral progress. While doing this, the deluded idiots talk about “inhabiting outer space.” What makes you think there is any difference between Jupiter, Saturn, and Venus; do they not all have equal rights? Just because they differ in size, weight, speed, wavelength, distance, color, and atmosphere, what makes you think they are not the same? Are they not all planets? “Have we not all one Father” (Mal. 2:10)? Just mix them up indiscriminately so none of them will feel like they are being discriminated against! That is what Picasso did with lines. That is what Miro did with figures. That is what the gays do in Greenwich Village. That is what Copeland did with notes. That is what the government did to the public schools. Do you finally see clearly what “science” is in this age? It is a political hypocrite. Where Ham’s descendants in South Asia overlap with Shem’s, one finds the Malay, the Moros, the Filipinos, and the inhabitants of South India, Arabia, and Ceylon. Where Shem overlaps with Japheth in North Asia and Asia Minor, one will find the Greek, Ottoman and Seljuk Turk, the Jew, the Persian, the Mongol, the Tartar, and the Russian. Where Ham and Japheth overlap you will find the Carthaginians, Moroccans, Catalan, the Old Aragonese, and the Mozarabics. (Note the differences in the gutturals found in the Castilian, Leonese, Galicon, and Basque dialects in Spain from the Andalusian and Mozarabic dialects.) Science is always very careful to avoid giving detailed reports on anything regarding races. For example, Darwin’s history of man has no “meaning” when applied to “races” unless some races are ahead of others. Just let some fanatic like Fritz Kuhn, Adolph Hitler, Rockwell, Gerald Winrod, or Horst Wessel accuse someone of having “nigg*r blood” or “Jew blood” and then watch the fur fly. Just imply that Latins, for example, are intermixed in the remote past with Ham instead of Shem, and then you’ll see how objective “modern man” is! The inbred characteristics of the three divisions of men coupled with their histories and achievements is part of man’s bloodstream, and he can no more deny them than deny his existence. However, in order to get all nations together under the Man of Sin, the three divisions with their histories, characteristics, and achievements will have to be rejected. That is, in order to attain religious unity, man will have to deny his sanity and common sense. (See book on Segregation or Integration.) The descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japheth have 3,000 years to get to America before Christopher Columbus’ great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather had his diapers changed, so there is no problem in race distribution except the problems presented by halfmad race mixers who cannot tell the difference between their mouth and a hole in the ground. At the tremendous migratory rate of 100 yards a day, the Almogics (American Indians) traveled 61,307 miles before the First Crusade (A.D. 1000). This means that the Patagonians in South America had been buying, building, selling, and planting 400 years before Columbus left Spain. (This does not include Shemites going via “Kontiki” to South America at a speed of 5,000 yards a day!) Crocodiles have swum 558 miles at sea, polar bears have made it for nineteen miles, and reindeer for twelve and one-half miles. Toads, frogs, and salamanders can’t go through saltwater, but any of them can make it on sailboats, dugouts, outriggers, or canoes! Tigers have been known to make it ten miles through water. Seeds from spider chutes have blown 5,000 feet at forty miles an hour and have been found 10,000 feet high. Why would any man under heaven think that Darwin was more accurate than Moses? Now the problem presents itself, how do we account for the color differences? The most obvious answer is that before the change in atmosphere (see notes on Gen. 6:10 and 2:6), the rays from the sun (which now penetrate the atmosphere) were blocked or distorted. The 360-day year of pre-Deluge days is the standard year of the ancient chronologists of Africa, Asia, and Europe until after the time of Solomon. This means that something very definitely happened to the earth’s orbital journey around

the sun and the moon’s orbital journey around the earth at the time of Noah, and there were subsequent disturbances in the atmosphere which accompanied these changes. There is a possibility that Shem’s red-brown skin begins to turn brown, during the 190-day stay on Mt. Ararat. At the same time the reddish-brown skin of Brother Japheth begins to turn to a light brown, and Ham turns a darkish brown. (The theory is unnecessary if one presumes that Noah had a colored wife or that Ham had one. For in this case, all three variations would be found in the offspring. But in that case, the “color line” would have to be drawn before the flood (see comments on Gen. 4:9–15). The Darwinian theory that “climate” determined skin color is of course—like other Darwinian hallucinations—about as “scientific” as Einstein’s theory of “meaning.” Ham’s descendants gravitate to the equator, but they remain black in Sweden or in New York, except where they are interbred sexually with white people. (Excuse me, I forgot to use the socially acceptable terminology—“integrated.”) Livingstone, Moffat, and their countrymen (German and English “Imperialists” of South Africa) did not produce black children in 100 years, nor even dark brown children. We are to assume from Darwin’s theory that this would have happened in say 10,000 years (give or take a few thousand), but we have already covered this ground before (see comments on Gen. 7:11, 19 and Gen. 1:12, 16).

9:20 “And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.”

We now approach the most universally hated and rejected passage of Scripture in the Bible since Genesis 3 (see comments on Gen. 3:1). We have already identified Noah as a type of Adam (see Gen. 9:1–3), and the word “husbandman” (in the AV 1611 only!) makes the connections even closer. (The obscure comments of Keil, Lange, Murphy, Wordsworth, Kalisch, Kuyper, and Delitzsch on the passage gives no light whatsoever. It is very typical of commentators to borrow from each other and to consider linguists as great seers and interpreters of truth. However, “Hermes” will usually “stumble at the word, being disobedient” whereunto he also was appointed! [1 Pet. 2:8]. And the Hebrew scholars who major in the etymological arts very rarely do anything with a text but cover it with a fog of verbiage that a searchlight couldn’t shine through.) The word “husband,” heretofore and hereafter, by the standards of definitions set up by the Bible itself in the English text, would mean “one who tended a vine.” The “fruitful wife” of Psalm 128:3, with her “plants about the table,” needs a caretaker or “husbandman” (see Matt. 21:33–41). Note: “husband-man,” not “husband-woman.” The Hebrew here in Genesis 9:20, “man of the ground,” sheds no light whatsoever on the passage in the hands of the great linguists of the centuries. As a matter of fact, their comments on the original language not only are fruitless, they even obscure the cross-references and destroy the unity of types and events. One must never mistake “linguistic ability” for consecration, dedication, common sense, intelligence, ability to interpret, ability to expound, ability to preach, or spiritual insight. “And he planted a vineyard.” See comments on the “vine tree” under Genesis 3:6 and 2:17 and remind yourself again that the AV 1611 reveals more absolute truth within itself, by comparing Scripture with Scripture, than the last thirty sets of commentaries written by Hebrew and Greek scholars who resented the truth.

“And he drank of the wine.” The wine is “yayin” in the Hebrew and is used of intoxicating liquor (Isa. 5:11–12, 22) in more than 100 instances in the Old Testament. In its first occurrence, it is associated with nakedness (vs. 21) as it was in Eden and in Uz (Lam. 4:21) and in Judah (Hab. 2:15). The modern teenager understands the association very well, even if Delitzsch, Keil, Starke, Lange, Murphy, and Bleek failed to notice it. (“Sound scholarship” is defined in the scholar’s union as a “discourse or exposition that presents all the facts, without application or reference to anybody contemporary or anything going on now or in the future. See the Lord’s comment on this type of scholarship in Ezek. 14:5–9.) “And was drunken; and he was uncovered....” If Adam is a type of Noah, and vice versa, the text has tremendous implications, even though any novice in interpretation knows that types cannot be pressed 100 percent into the service of interpretation (Joseph is a type of Christ in 152 particulars— see comments on Gen. 37—but Jesus Christ certainly did not lie about a silver cup, nor was He put in a coffin in Egypt at His death). Noah, following the advice of the faculty of Columbia, Harvard, and Yale universities, gets rid of his inhibitions by discarding his “false social morals” and “artificial moral standards,” “expressing his true self” and “abandoning false modesty.” (And incidentally, he gets stoned and passes out and lies in a drunken stupor as naked as a jaybird. Do you see the difference between “sound scholarship” and honesty?) Since “wine” is written here for the first time, we should carefully note its associations so that we will not “indiscriminately” misjudge future wine drinkers when they appear (Ben-hadad, Pope Leo, Lot, Pope John, Belshazzar, Pope Paul, Nabal, Mystery Babylon, and Cardinal Newman). The context of Genesis 9:21 is immorality, sodomy, a curse, nakedness, drunkenness, and bondage (vss. 21–22, 24–25). What Carl Sandburg thought about Billy Sunday’s “Booze Sermon” (see his poem on the “Contemporary Bunkshooter”) and what the Catholic priests think about the Lord’s Supper is at variance with man’s 5,000 year march through history. The wine of Genesis 9 is not the “fruit of the vine” (Matt. 26:29), which “is found in the cluster” (Isa. 65:8) and called “pure blood” in Deuteronomy 32. The wine of Genesis 9 is the same old “poison of dragons, and...asps” (Deut. 32:32–33) which ruined Noah, ruined Ben-hadad, ruined Nabal, ruined Lot, destroyed the Roman Empire, made Italy a fifth rate power for 1,000 years, bankrupted France and England, and killed more Americans on the highways in the last sixty years than bullets have in two World Wars. Sam Morris (San Antonio, Texas) has in his files more truth on Genesis 9:21 than can be found in the combined commentaries of every Biblical expositor who ever tackled the text. Drunkenness and nakedness are twin sisters on every college campus in the United States, and they both belong to the same sorority—Tau, Beta, Pi—the Bottomless Pit (see Prov. 5:5). (If the liquor ads were taken out of Playboy and Life magazines, both magazines would fold up in six months.) “And Ham...saw the nakedness of his father.” Again, the AV 1611 text interprets the words without recourse to the Hebrew, the LXX, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Targums, or the help of any scholar of any distinction. The word “saw” is interpreted as “done” in verse 24. The expression “uncover” is defined in Leviticus 18, 20 as an intimate relationship involving sex. (Note Deut. 27:20 and Lev. 18:18, where “uncovering” is the equivalent of the act of fornication.) There is no doubt about the meaning of verse 22 in the English text. Ham’s boys have a “sex problem,” which is documented by the Congressional Investigations of the Public School System in Washington, D.C. (1960–1964), and this is a commonly shared truth, known and confessed by all nations and races except “integrationists.” Ham’s children settled Sodom (see Gen. 10:19). The police records of any station in America, in 1975, contain records of “sodomy.” There is not the slightest doubt whatsoever

about the meaning of Genesis 9:22. The same act is attempted in Genesis 19:1–13, and the crime is listed in Romans 1. (For further particulars contact the officials of the city and county jails in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, anytime in the next ten years. A Bible commentary should never confine its comments to the historical past where the text clearly states universal truths applicable to the future. Whereas investigation into the Hebrew and Greek often lead the reader to an historical deadend in the past, as the contemporaries of the event describe it, real Bible exposition, which compares Scripture with Scripture, produces an understanding of life itself, as it is manifest in every age before and since the event.) Ham clearly violates Leviticus 18:6, and the fact that the passage had not yet been written doesn’t amount to anything in the light of Romans 1:12–21.

9:23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it 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. 24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.”

If the three major races come from Shem, Ham, and Japheth, then we are already getting into trouble with the NAACP, the Supreme Court, the United Nations, and the popes; for Shem and Japheth come out “clean” in this shakedown, and Ham comes out guilty. The modern solution is to teach that we should judge every man as an individual, on his individual merit, regardless of “race, color, or creed.” In practice, the modern solution means the mass mixing of racial masses without consent of the individuals within them. There is no time to judge “individuals” on an “individual basis” where a socialistic government is erecting a “one world” situation. They are never judged on an individual basis. Socialism deals with masses, exactly as Fascism or Communism deals with them. And the originator of “masses” is Catholicism! The word “Catholic” itself is a platonic word used by Ignatius (A.D. 150) to represent a “mass” of Christians—not individuals. According to Darwin, the characteristics of animals are “acquired.” How this can be true and man be exempt from the “acquired characteristics” of his race is one of the eight Wonders of the World. If it works for animals, and man is a higher type animal, why then does it not work for men? Ham has a sex problem. The rebuttal is: Well, that was his problem, not his descendants. But history will make a liar out of such an argument every time (see notes on Gen. 9:25). Verse 23 is self-explanatory. They obey Leviticus 20 and replace the sheepskin robe (see Gen. 3:21) where God originally put it. If any of the advocates of the “new morality” (i.e., the old adultery) had been present, they would have “demonstrated” with such signs as “Down with Shem and Japheth,” “Long live free love,” “Sodomy with consent is Americanism,” “Down with false modesty,” “Help stamp out violence,” and “Help the mentally sick or I’ll kill you!” “And Noah awoke from his wine.” Then what follows—distasteful though it may be to race mixers and socialists—is pronounced by “a preacher of righteousness” (2 Pet. 2:9) who is “cold sober.” You will notice that he awoke “from his wine,” not “from his sleep!” “And knew what his younger son had done unto him.” Noah is sober and he is fully aware. He does not need Shem or Japheth to tell him what happened. God reveals it to him, and he knows exactly what took place while he was “out like a light.”

9:25 “And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.”

“Cursed be Canaan.” Here we go again! More “hate literature.” For thin-skinned “modern man,” the passage has nothing in it but prejudice, “negativism,” prophesies of gloom, “racism,” and superstitious legend. Still he must abide by it and he will. The racial prophecies of Noah are binding to the Millennium, as are all covenants from Genesis 1 to Genesis 12. “Cursed be Canaan.” Canaan, Ham’s boy, is cursed because Ham has already been blessed (Gen. 9:1). Canaan is cursed because he is Ham’s seed, and Ham’s sin was connected with his “seed” (Gen. 9:22, 24). Modern race-mixers grasp at “Canaan” like a dying man gasps for air in an oxygen tent and come out with the ludicrous interpretation that the Noahic prophecies only apply to one-fourth of Ham’s posterity. In view of the fact that all of Ham’s posterity are Africans (see comments on Gen. 10:6–20), it is amazing that the modern race mixer (conservatives among them) has failed to observe that Ham’s two brothers begat Europeans and Asiatics! Remarkable oversight, eh what? The squeamish and frightened conservatives and fundamentalists of 1960–1980, in prospect of vacations in mental institutions and health clinics if they oppose the integration movement, do not dare to believe what they read. Instead, we are to believe that the Bible gives prophecies on Caucasians and Mongoloids but discriminates against them by refusing to prophesy on Negroids. Where does a Negro get the “civil rights” to duck out of three racial prophecies, which in their contexts apply to races, not individuals? Simple. You simply eliminate all the negative passages in the Bible—of which Genesis 9:25 is one—and retain the positive passages—of which Genesis 9:26–27 are two! That is, you become a liberal, while professing to be a conservative. “A servant of servants shall he be.” And so it is. Whether Yankees run Hamites or Southerners run them or Black militants run them or the NAACP runs them or they run themselves (see conditions in Africa in 1968!), they will serve. They are happy when they serve, and they are not happy when they begin to holler for “equality.” (I realize that this is not in harmony with Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, the statement in the Declaration of Independence, the principles of the French Revolution, the philosophy of Marx and Trotsky, and similar Laodicean documents, but what we are interested in, here, is the truth—not political expedience.) Where Ham serves, he excels, and where he rules, he “kings” himself (Martin Luther “King,” “King Cassius,” Nat “King” Cole, etc.) and rides off at a gallop before he has learned how to trot. (See Chapters 4–5 in Segregation or Integration? 1962.) But what saith the Scriptures? The “servant” is not to be mistreated (1 Pet 2:18–19; Deut. 24:14–18). The runaway servant is to be returned (Philemon). The saved servant is a spiritual “brother” to the saved master (1 Tim. 6; 1 Cor. 7:20–24; Gal. 3:27–28), but “race mixing” is something else. Abraham’s Hamitic relationship ends with a loss of thirteen years of fellowship with God (Gen. 16:1–4, 15–16, 17:1–8). Lot’s Hamitic relationship ends in tragedy (Gen. 12:5–10, 13:10, 19:26), as does Moses’ (Num. 12:1, 20:1–5), as does David’s (2 Sam. 11:3) and Samson’s (Judg. 14–15). These are the actual facts about

race-mixing, recorded and preserved by the Holy Spirit in the Holy Bible, and they are as much a part of the “instruction in righteousness” and “sound doctrine” for the believer as the Virgin Birth, the Bodily Resurrection, and the pre-millennial coming of Jesus Christ. They are ignored or denied on the part of modern Christians because modern Christians have settled down in the world system and have become so much “part and parcel of it” that they desire its approval, support, security, and good will (1 John 2:15–17). The present world system is preparing for a one world government, with one language, one religion, and—if possible—one race. This is the gist of every speech made by every major political candidate in America since World War II, and it is the meat of every papal “address” since 1776. In view of this coming consolidation and integration of conflicting elements, the modern Christian does not dare believe that only one race is destined to “serve.” The reasons for rejecting Genesis 9, again, lie not in a proper understanding of the text, in the light of its corollaries (Deut. 32:7–8; Acts 17:26–27), but in the Christian’s desire to escape the opposition and persecution which comes from taking a stand with the Bible against the traditions and philosophy of the age in which he lives (Col. 2:8). In the Bible, God segregates animals (Lev. 11), nations (Gen. 11), Israelites (Exod. 3:10), Christians (2 Cor. 6:14–17), plants and vegetables (Deut. 22:9), and human beings of every age (Rev. 20:13–15). In the Bible, women have privileges which men do not—bearing children! Men have privileges which women do not—being apostles and bishops. Jews have privileges Gentiles do not— writing the Bible. Gentiles have privileges Jews do not—believing the New Testament (see Rom. 11:7–30). As a matter of truth, the entire Bible, from “generation to resolution,” is one endless blast and tirade of dualism and absolutes: hot or cold, heaven or hell, saved or lost, just or unjust, back or forth, in or out, Jew or Gentile, servant or master, holy or unholy, Catholic or Christian, godly or ungodly, clean or unclean, old or new, RIGHT OR WRONG! This old hellbound, Christ-rejecting generation of educators and scientists are sick and tired of the Book! They are sick and tired of the “conflicts of opposites” and the dogma of absolutes. What they long for is a synthetic, synthesized, pliable, plastic, relativistic teaching for a nondescript, integrated, passive population of indifferent, disinterested, non-opinionated automatons. This is the twentieth-century “solution” for wars, and the only thing that stands in its way is the AV 1611 Bible. In the Book, the descendants of Ham are to be “servant of servants”; if any saved descendant of Ham is a Bible believer, he will accept this lot cheerfully, thankfully, and optimistically and will make the most of it. Hamites who let Caucasians direct their affairs—Joe Louis, Bubba Smith, Jackie Robinson, G. W. Carver, B. T. Washington, Lena Horne, Paul Robeson, Sammy Davis, et al.— usually come out fairly well financially. Hamites who follow Representative Powell do not make out quite so well, and those who followed Father Divine came out bankrupt. The followers of Michael (alias “Martin”) Luther King Jr. built quite an estate for him and kept him in Cadillacs and $200.00 suits most of his life—but not half a dozen that obeyed his orders made a living wage. The worst oppressor of the Negro is the Negro, and this is not the prejudiced statement of a “white supremist.” It is the reason why the Negroes in America will never return to Africa—not even if they are paid to do it. The “ghettos” (another Associated Press word for purposes of distorting truth) of Harlem and Philadelphia are never quite as bad as living conditions in the Congo and French Equatorial Africa; in Ham’s original homeland there was neither social security, welfare, nor government pensions, and certainly not free TV time for airing grievances! A successful Hamite is the one who receives the Lord Jesus as Saviour (Acts 8) and serves in the capacity where God placed him (Acts 8). The last statement is not a racist’s definition. It is the

opinion of the Holy Spirit recorded in Acts 8:39. Disgruntled, frustrated, and bitter Hamites who have devoted a lifetime to overthrowing Genesis 9:25 in the interests of “their fellow sufferers,” etc., may rage and grind their teeth against the ordinances of heaven, but they will remain inflexible and unmoveable. The same ordinances dictate that the Jews (another race!) will be restored to Palestine and will rule the world for 1,000 years (Jer. 31, 33). Singing “we shall overcome” does not impress the born-again child of God who has already overcome (1 John 4:4, 5:4), without the aid of Congress, demonstrations, or publicity. John Knox, chained to the galley, was “the Lord’s freeman” (1 Cor. 7:22) while John Brown (1800–1859) and Abe Lincoln were “the servants of sin” even while “emancipating” the “servant of servants” (see John 8:34–36). (Neither John nor Abe made any profession of the new birth, and finding a clear cut Christian testimony in their speeches and biographies is like looking for a whisper in a whirlwind.) What passes for “emancipation” and “civil rights” and “integration,” in the final analysis, is little more than the operations of political groups and opportunists using Ham for their own ends. No man on earth was ever any freer than G. W. Carver, who openly testified to his saving faith in the blood of Jesus Christ, and no man sold on the block was any more a slave than Jack Johnson, who spent his lifetime consorting with white women and beating up white men in the ring. Johnson was a slave of sin till he stumbled on the lid of his coffin and toppled into the grave. If God called you to be “a servant of servants,” you will be happier in that calling than an emperor whom God called to be a prime minister. “Blessed be the Lord God of Shem.” More discrimination! Why did He not say Japheth or Ham? What right does God have to pick out people when He is “no respecter of persons”? These are the objections of the twentieth-century man, and his method of answering them is to throw the Bible out the window and pretend that Genesis 9:25–27 was Noah’s opinion. Still, history corroborates what a modern man thinks is just an “opinion.” “Blessed be the Lord God of Shem.” The “of” signifies subject or object, thus reading: “Shem is going to bless the true God (Psa. 103:20–22) who is the Lord God,” or it is “the Lord God of Shem”—not Japheth and Ham—who is “God blessed forever” (see Rom. 9:5). To avoid these two Scriptural interpretations, the RSV (1952) has invented, “Blessed by the Lord my God be Shem.” This attempt to preserve racial equality at the expense of truth still fails, as it is apparent that God still did not give this blessing to Ham and Japheth. Shem plainly receives something spiritual in Noah’s prophecy in contrast to the physical blessings of Japheth. Although Shem lives in India, Japheth (Sir Hillary) has to climb his mountains. Although Shem lives in Japan, he must pattern his railways, planes, motorcycles, and ships after Japheth. Although Shem lives in China, he cannot develop his resources until Japheth (Russia) fires the primer for the “Reds.” It is Japheth, not Shem, who discovers both poles, the passage to India, the way to the moon, electricity, the steam engine, the wireless telegraph, the telephone, the radio, the airplane, the tank, and the submarine. Shem plainly does not major in geographical conquests, scientific inventions, and “higher standards of living.” But when it comes to spiritual perception, you can’t beat Shem! As a matter of fact, Shem is the author of every religion on earth (basically two of them—see Gen. 4:4–8). Students of comparative religions have no trouble at all in tracing Rosicrucianism, Theosophy, Unity, Christian Science, and Unitarianism back to India—Shem. Zen Buddhism did not begin in Germany. Shintoism is not the state religion of Spain. Confucianism was not invented in France, and the Vatican State had nothing to do with Brahmanism or Hinduism. Shem is the author of these religions. Shem is an introvert; he is a “meditator” and a fatalist—he is a thinker. Every author in the Bible can trace his descent to Shem;

the Saviour of the world confessed He was “of the Jews” (not “Hebrews”—see John 4:22), and every branch of Orthodox Christianity can trace its descent to Romans 11, where the “Gentiles” were grafted into the good olive tree—Shem again. The California yogas and gurus of today are imitations of the “holy men of India” and the Himalayas—Shem again. And everything found in the Catholic Church, whether it be stolen from Bible Christianity (the Nicene Creed) or extorted from Israel (the literal promises of the Old Testament) or borrowed from Babylon (Easter bunnies, Xmass, Mary) or adopted from pagan Roman and Greek mysteries (sprinkling babies, sacraments, holy water, etc.) can be traced to the Jewish Old Testament (Shem!), the Jewish New Testament (Shem, again!), or ancient Babylon (Shem and Ham). “Blessed be the Lord God of Shem.” The Saviour is of the “seed of David,” according to the flesh (Rom. 1:2–6); his mother and foster-father are Shemites. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are Shemites; Moses and David are Shemites, Paul and Peter are Shemites. Whether a man is a Bullingerite (Paul) or a Papist (Peter), he owes everything he knows to Shem when it comes to spiritual things. “Blessed be the Lord God of Shem.” When Japheth invents a religion (Seventh-day Adventists, Jehovah Witnesses, “Church of Christ,” “Christian Science,” “Mormons”) or when Ham invents a religion (Voodoo, “Pentecostal, Wildfire, Apostolic Holiness of the...Church,” Black Muslim, etc.), it will have a certain air of spuriousness about it that is easy to spot. It is the “Lord God of Shem” who is the Author of spiritual truth and spiritual revelation, and eventually all religions will have to acknowledge Shem as the master writer of books. “And Canaan shall be his servant.” So said and so done. Nimrod was the first and last descendant of Ham ever to control Shem’s territory. Hannibal was the first and last Hamite ever to control Japheth’s territory. Racial discrimination in America is a small thing compared to racial discrimination in India, China, and Japan—Shem’s territory. Shem doesn’t give Ham any consideration. There has never been a Negro in a government position in China or Japan since Adam tried on a suit of double-breasted fig leaves. Shem is not as dumb as he looks. “God shall enlarge Japheth....” This ends all doubt as to the nature of Noah’s prophetic utterances. They have to be racial or they are nonsense. God is not going to put fifty pounds of fat on Japheth! He is going to “spread his descendants out” across the earth. To confirm the prophecy, Japheth marches out from Ararat and crosses the Danube, swims the English Channel, sails the Atlantic, sails the Pacific, flies over the Arctic and Antarctic, and then shoots off to the moon. And if that were not enough evidence to prove that the despisers of the AV 1611 have brickbats for brains, Japheth plumbs the depths in a bathysphere and clambers up Mt. McKinley, Mt. Whitney, and Mt. Everest like he thought mountain climbing was going out of style! Then he sets up military installations and diplomatic stations in so many places in Asia and Africa that in the twentieth-century Japheth is called “an imperialist.” “God shall enlarge Japheth.” There is no problem here in trying to find out what God meant when He said it through Noah. We are now gazing back at a record which has been completely fulfilled. There is no question in Genesis 9:25–27 about “proper interpretation” in 1968. The Holy Spirit has saved you the trouble. All the verses came to pass literally, as they appeared in the 1611 text. “And he shall dwell in the tents of Shem.” The verse is spiritualized by most commentators to refer to the “sharing of the redemptive revelations of the Hebrew nation,” etc., but such doggerel is unbecoming a man who professes to take God at His word. “Tents,” here, refers to tents. The “tents” are Shem’s tents, and a blind man would bump into them traveling across America in 1500, if

he couldn’t have seen them two feet away. Shem crosses the Bering Straits and sets up “tents” from British Columbia to Cape Horn. Japheth crosses the Atlantic and takes them from him—more discrimination!—and the ground you are sitting on right now is not yours at all. You are no American; you are European or African (unless, of course, you are a full-blooded American Indian!). The ground your “tent” is on was Shem’s hunting ground where he pitched his tents from 1000 B.C. to A.D. 1800. “And he shall dwell in the tents of Shem.” Noah’s racial prophecies are to be believed literally as they stand. They are total prophecies, involving the three major branches of mankind. History confirms them, common sense confirms them, and the Bible confirms them. Japheth has the tents, a plain case of discrimination. Shem has the Saviour and the Bible, another plain case of discrimination. Ham serves, a really plain case of discrimination. And all subsequent “exceptions” prove the rule.

9:28 “And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years. 29 And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died.”

After Noah’s “wine-bibbing,” the Holy Spirit closes the record of his “walk with God.” He finishes the allotment of years granted to pre-deluge patriarchs 950 years—and dies only two years before the birth of Abraham. Undoubtedly, he lives to see the divine segregation of the races at the Tower of Babel (see comments on Gen. 11; Deut. 32:7–8) and was probably pleased to see God honor his word which he had spoken to Ham, for the founder of Babel was Nimrod, the grandson of Ham, who tried to “bring in the Kingdom” with a United Nations and universal language (Gen. 11:1). Since Ham’s descendants were plainly “out of bounds” (Acts 17:26–27) in the Babel Cooperative Program, they were dispersed and driven back to “the land of Ham” (Psa. 105:23); those who refused to return settled in Palestine until they were slaughtered (Deut. 7:1–6). “Let my people go,” in the original version (Exod. 3–10), was not the Communist national anthem of Black supremists trying to take over Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia; it was Shemites crying for deliverance from black power and eventually getting it by divine discrimination and shed blood (see Exod. 12–15).

CHAPTER 10 10:1 “Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood. 2 The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras. 3 And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah. 4 And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.”

The day when Noah and his family started down through the snowdrifts on Ararat, old man Noah said, “There she is boys, help yourselves! Get you a grubstake any place you can find it. Ham, there’s a tiny little stretch of land down south there, about 4,000,000 acres, give or take a few million. Stake her out and get you some mineral rights and a clear title deed! Japheth, that’s yours up to the north and northwest. The whole Ponderosa is yours, son. Fence in “the spread” and divide it up with our grandchildren; each one can take about 300,000 acres, give or take a few thousand. Shem, all that out there east and southeast is yours. Cut you out a little homestead, a few thousand acres; the lot runs 7,000 miles by 3,000 miles. Take about 400 acres for the house, 20,000 acres for the backyard, 50,000 acres for the pasture, 100,000 acres for growing a garden, and then split the other 7,000,000 acres up between your chillun.” Those three boys inherited three continents, and by divine appointment the ark landed at the apex of a triangle which outlined “Eden” (see notes on Gen. 2:10–14). A line drawn down the left side of the triangle downward would block off Africa; a line drawn down the right side would divide Africa from Asia; a line drawn up the right side would divide Europe from Asia, and in the center of the triangle would be the land grant given to Abraham in Genesis 15! Ah, how marvelous is the King’s English (1611) and its revelations past finding out! “The sons of Japheth....” We now find the detailed list of the Caucasian people as they begin a pilgrimage from the northwest slopes of Ararat to the dark side of the moon. 1. “Gomer”: The Kimmerians of Herodotus’ writings. “Cimmerians” of Homer (Odyss. xi. 13– 19). The “Cymbri” of north Germany and the “Cymri” of Wales come from Gomer. In their early migrations, they are found south of the Black Sea. From thence they move up through Bulgaria and Romania, into Hungary and Czechoslovakia. They are the Saxons, Frisians, Celts, Picts, Jutes, Angles, Gauls, and Franks of medieval Europe. (Gomer: Hebrew—“completion.” See Ezek. 38:6; Gen. 10:3.) 2. “Magog”: Probably Scythian mountaineers who re-main in the Black Sea area after Gomer’s family leaves. The word comes from a Hebrew root meaning “to dread or to fear,” but no Hebrew root can be found for the “Gog” part of the word. The Turks who fought against the Crusaders come from this group, partially, although many of Magog’s descendants moved further north and settled in the Ukraine. 3. “Madai: The Kurdish tribes east of Assyria come from Madai, and they settled the southwest shore of the Caspian Sea and migrated to new frontiers on the Don and Volga River. The word means “middle.” 4 . “Javan: This man is undoubtedly the progenitor of the Ionians (early Greeks), and his descendants gravitate west from Ararat and settle western Turkey, Thrace, and Macedonia. The word

“Javan” in Hebrew means “bubbling up” or “fermenting.” Notice further, the “sons of Javan” (Gen. 10:4). a. “Elishah: In Egyptian “Alisia,” the Sicilian coast, kin to the Greek Ionians. b. “Tarshish: The “Tyrseni” of western Italy and those of “Tartessus” in Spain. These are the Aragonese, Catalans, Castillians, Basques, Leonese, Andalusians, and Portuguese of the Dark Ages. (Hebrew—“hard.”) c. “Kittim”: Plainly the inhabitants of Cyprus (Chittim) who establish colonies on the east coast of Italy and the west coast of Greece (see Num. 24:24). (Hebrew—“to hide away,” “to soil or to stain.”) d. “Dodanim”: The word is supposedly a slip of the pen in the AV 1611, and this is loudly called to our attention with the braying of trumpets, the blasting of dynamite, and the screaming of sirens. The verse which “proves” it is in error is 1 Chronicles 1:7. However, the AV 1611 says, “Dodanim,” in 1 Chronicles 1:7, so one must run to the Hebrew to produce “Rodanim” for Rhodes. This teaches the humble believer a great lesson: where the Hebrew has contradictions, the 1611 AV straightens them out! To a Hebrew scholar, this is heresy, but one must never forget that Hebrew scholars, as Greek scholars, make their reputations and their living out of proving to Christians that they are the final authority in matters of interpreting the Bible. What a low blow it would be to suggest that the English is more accurate than the original languages! I not only “suggest it,” I state it. (See Nestle’s Critical Apparatus on 1 Cor. 13:3 where the highly accurate 1611 AV corrects Sinaiticus [fourth century], Vaticanus [fourth century], and other “authoritative” manuscripts.) Dodanim is not Rodanim (as found in the Samaritan Pentateuch and the infamous LXX—written A.D. 350 to correct the Bible), but rather the “Dardanians” or Trojans of Greece and the “Daunians” of south Italy. The word in Hebrew is kin to “love” or “beloved.” 5 . “Tubal”: Identified by the Scofield Board of Editors in 1901 as having a connection with Tobolsk. One cannot help but admire the prophetic insight on the part of the editors in their note on p. 883 of the old—not new—Scofield Reference Bible. When this note was inserted, Israel was not in the land, and Russia was a monarchy. (Where C.I. Scofield believed the English Text of the AV 1611, God gave him remarkable insight!) The word means “profane” or “profanation” and is kin to “the habitable globe.” “Tubal” is identified by Josephus, Knobel, and Lange as the inhabitants of Armenia—Tibarenes and Iberians, who settled in modern Turkey and migrated up through the Caucasus as did the sons of Madai and Magog. 6. “Meshech”: (See Scofield note on Moscow, p. 883, Scofield Reference Bible: the old one— not the “new one.”) His sons and grandsons are the “Moschi” of northern Armenia and Asia Minor. (Hebrew: “oil” or “mixture.”) 7. “Tiras”: The inhabitants of Thracia come from Tiras, according to Josephus, and they migrate to the Taurus mountains. The word is kin to “severe” or “austere.” “And the sons of Gomer” (Gen. 10:3). a . “Ashkenaz”: Modern Germany, according to Jewish commentators and exegetes. Other writers locate his descendants much further southwest near Bithynia and Phrygia in Asia Minor—now Turkey. b. “Riphath”: These are the Slavs, Bulgars, Lombards, and Croatians of the Middle Ages who leave the west slope of Ararat in 2300 B.C., migrate through northern Turkey in 2200, and go up and over the Carpathian Mountains into the Balkans around 2000 B.C. They are all over Eastern Europe

before Nebuchadnezzar knows a hanging garden from a potted plant (606 B.C.). c. “Togarmah”: Presumed to be the progenitor of a race of people in northern Armenia near the “Moschi” by the Caspian Sea. The Crimea is their main abode, and migrations to the east mingle their blood with that of Shem’s descendants.

10:5 “By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.”

Gentile, then, properly speaking, is a term depicting Caucasians, although the term is used in the New Testament to include anyone “outside of Christ” who is not a Jew (see 1 Cor. 10:32). “The isles” is plainly a reference to Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily, Majorca, Crete, Cyprus, Rhodes, and the offshore islands of the Greek Archipelago; eventually the term includes England and Ireland. “Divided in their lands” indicates that the chronological account in Chapter 10 is written some time after the events of Genesis 11:1–8 (see comments on Gen. 11:9). This is certain because of the addition “every one after his tongue....” Fourteen sons and grandsons are listed in all. From these men come the modern Spaniard, Greek, Italian, German, Frenchman, Russian, Hungarian, Swede, Dane, Norwegian, Finn, Romanian, Englishman, Scotchman, and Irishman. They go by the name of “foreign devil” in China and Japan. They are envied and feared by African tribes. They are called “paleface” by real Americans, and they fight among themselves continually. They are a warring people and are sharply divided (or have been until the rejection of the AV 1611 Bible) into WASPS (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) and BLICS (Black Latin Italian Catholics). They refer to each other (behind their backs) with such endearing terms as “Frog,” “Frenchy,” “Limey,” “Kraut,” “Boche,” “Square head,” “Red-neck,” “Damn Yankee,” “Cracker,” “Oakie,” “Hunky,” “Polack,” “Hoosier,” “Spic,” and “Wop”; and to their Shemite brothers as “Kikes,” “Chinks,” “Gooks,” “Slant Eyes,” and “Charlies”; and to their Hamitic brothers as “Jungle Bunnies,” “Sambos,” and “nigg*rs.” They are noted for “spreading out,” and their individual fighting ability ranks Irishmen first in a private brawl, Germans first in an infantry or artillery attack, Scotchmen first in a hand-to-hand attack, Englishmen first for holding a position, and Russians first for dying en masse. Each family has its own tongue, characteristics, thought patterns, habits of food and dress, family customs and traditions, and family expressions and humor. You can mix them only where they have lost their national identity. The present world movement is to mix them up with Shem and Ham till no one has any national identity; this is the modern “solution” for war (see comment on Gen. 8:21). To confound this solution and make sure that wars continue until the Second Advent, the Lord plans on doing a repeat command performance of Genesis 11:1–8 by popular request (See Rev. 19 and Joel 2). “In case of rain, the war will be held in the auditorium.” (At least that is what Noah told Japheth. You can’t “spread out” without stepping on somebody’s toes!) The Frog says of the Kraut, “The Hun is either standing on your neck or licking your boots.” The Kraut says of the Frog, “There are three classes of people: men, women, and Frenchmen.” The Pole says of the Kraut, “Here come the pigs again.” The Kraut says, “What is dumber than a dumb Irishman? A smart Swede.” When Ivan can’t understand it, he says, “It’s Chinese to me.” When the Frog can’t read it, “It’s Hebrew to me.” When it goes over the Hunky’s head, he says, “That’s a ‘Turkish sermon’.” And when the Boche doesn’t dig it, “That’s Spanish to me.” To a Czech, a Hungarian is a “Pimple,” and a “louse” is called a

“Spaniard” in France. To the Limey belongs the dubious distinction of having his name put on outhouses in Italy: a privy is “an Englishman.” In Spain, “to work for a Limey” is to work for nothing. If a Hollander is drunk, his wife says he “drinks like a Polack,” but if the Czech gets tight he “drinks like a Dutchman.” These national and racial attitudes finish off Norman Vincent Peale’s “positive world of positive thinking people” by affectionately calling a co*ckroach a Swabian (in Austria), a Frenchman (in Germany), and a Prussian (in Poland). Americans reserve “greaser” and “wetback” for their southern neighbors, who hate the word “Mexican” like a Negro hates “nigg*r” and prefer to be known as “Latin Americans.” The reason why Scotch bagpipers always walk is because it is hard to hit a moving target (German joke). A German carpenter can work four years to make a baby carriage, and it will turn out a machine gun every time (English joke). Polacks are so dumb that it took a Polish team three plays to make a touchdown after the opposing team left the field, and then they missed the extra point (American joke). America has two TV programs: smack, smack and bang, bang (Japanese joke). The men in the White House who support integration wouldn’t think of letting any of their children into the public schools in Washington, D.C. When Japheth “beats the drum” and “carries the torch” for Shem and Ham, he is always after their vote or their money. Shem is aware of this, but Ham can’t see it! So it is sauerkraut, sausage, and beer for the Boche. It is wine and rich foods for the Frog. It is spaghetti, lasagna, and pizza for the Wop; kosher rye and pickles for Abe; tea, bacon, and eggs for the Limey; tacos, nachoes, tortillas, and enchiladas for the wetback; hominy and grits for the Cracker; redeye gravy and biscuits for Arky; rice and fish for Charlie and Chinks; and hot dogs and hamburgers for the Yankee. And there is as much difference in the musical tastes of the groups as between black (music) and white (music). World unity will demand one style of music, according to Daniel 3. This is apparent, as music is known as the “universal language,” and it speaks without words. The only music that can ever unite the nations is sex music, which appeals to the sex instinct in all men. But in order to unite the impassive Prussian, the fatalistic Russian, the analytical German, the stolid Englishman, the emotional Frenchman, the inscrutable Chinaman, and the natural Negro around sex music, one must change their racial characteristics. The Oriental, Shem, will not take integration, even when the Jew will. Not one Prussian (or German) in a thousand will fool with it, and only by over-running Germany with colored troops and foreign workers (after World War II) was any real “progress” (that is what the NCCC and NAACP call interbreeding) made. The plans of the Vatican state in conjunction with the United Nations along these lines is quite simple. 1. Produce a mongrel race with no national characteristics. 2. Give this race one religion which is broad enough to cover all creeds and “faiths.” 3. By forced integration and transplanting of homes, families, and businesses, intermingle all races into a melting pot where the children can interbreed before they are aware of racial differences. 4. An international police force will work this out. 5. The Western religion that will meet these demands is the religion that puts a ban on birth control to get and keep its membership record. 6. The music that will match this layout is African sex music. (For further details, see The Mark of the Beast, 1960.) God’s counterplan is very simple: “wars and rumours of wars,” with the Shemites continually opposing Western religion and Western domination. While Catholicism and Communism—both fascists systems basically—play off the tie, the Christian in America is free to witness, read his Bible, pass out tracts, and pray “even so, come,

Lord Jesus.” So much for Japheth.

10:6 “And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan. 7 And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabtechah: and the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan.”

“Ham” (Hebrew—“burnt,” “heat”) begets Cush. The word “Cush” is the modern Hebrew word for Ethiopia and is so used throughout the Bible (Isa. 11:11, 18:1; Psa. 68:31). The word means “black,” as in Black power, Black Muslims, black magic, black ball, etc. 1. “Cush”: The man only aggravates the color situation discussed under Genesis 9:18 and 6:10. In spite of all the etymological gymnastics and lexicographer’s “outside loops” in Genesis 9:25 to make Ham a white man or half white or a quadroon (or at least a mulatto), we are faced with the bald and staring fact that the first boy listed in his line (Gen. 10:6) is a pure-blooded, thoroughbred Black man, just as black as a patent leather shoe! (We can say that the only Jim Crow on the ark was the raven, but once we have adopted this line, we will have to deny a dozen other verses that bear on the subject. Ham’s boy is black!) He inhabits Ethiopia and Arabia, and undoubtedly in his migrations down Ararat, many of his descendants lingered in Syria, and some trickled down into India, which is apparent from Genesis 10:9–10. Haile Selaisse joins the “king” tribe with “king of kings” as a title (and he obviously is not referring to a whopping cigarette). The Ethiopian eunuch takes the gospel to Ethiopia (about A.D. 40), and today that country is still sympathetic to Bibles and Bible-believing missionaries. 2 . “Mizraim”: Nor is there any doubt about Ham’s second boy on the list. The word is the modern word for “Egypt” and is so used in the Old Testament. The Hebrew root indicates “distresses” (see Isa. 20:1–4, 30:1–5). The modern Egyptian is most certainly an African. Why anyone should think that he is a European is rather mystifying. Egypt in the Bible is a type of the world (Exod. 18:9–10), a type of the flesh (Gen. 16:1–3, 21:9, 25:12), a type of Satan (Ezek. 29:1– 3), and an “iron furnace”—a type of hell (Deut. 4:20). From Egypt comes Cleopatra and the asp, the cat man (Catholic, cataclysm, catastrophe, etc.), the Sphinx, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts of the ASV (1901) and RSV (1952), the Latin church which went to Rome, and the great bamboozle of all time, the LXX, which has no real existence anywhere except in a letter which Philo forged and called “The Letter to Aristeas.” What the Greek faculty at Moody, Dallas, and Bob Jones calls the “LXX” is the Roman Catholic manuscript “B,” Vaticanus, or its twin sisters, all written in A.D. 350–400, 160 years after the New Testament was written. Is it not amazing how everything that Ham touches—exclusive of “Canaan”—also turns to devilment? For a major race, composing one-fifth of the Western population (Europe, Africa, and the Americas), Ham sure got off to a rough start in view of the fact that the curse of Genesis 9:25 was just placed on one of his boys! Amen? (By now you should see the absurdity of such a position.) It is Ishmael (the Arabian; see Gal. 4) who opposes Isaac (Israel) all the way down the line (see Gen. 15:13), and Ishmael’s mother is an Egyptian. The modern Christian (conservative and liberal) would have us to deduce nothing from the passage and blithely ignore the evidence that has accumulated in sixty-six books until it mounts to the heavens. The day of Ostrich-Orthodoxy has at last come, and beyond agreeing with a Catholic on the Nicene Creed, the twentieth-century Christian would just as

soon forget Genesis 9–10 as a bad dream. 3. “Phut”: More problems. Phut is identified by every writer in every age—Gesenius, Josephus, and Kalisch included—as Phet or “Phaiat,” the Libyans west of Egypt. That is, three out of three of Ham’s boys are African. (A man said there is no color statement in the Bible. A man said there are no prophecies on Ham in the Bible. A man said.... I know a man who said that a possum wouldn’t eat light bulbs! What is the point? Three out of three of Ham’s children are Africans.) Phut means “bow”—as in Revelation 6:1–2. Phut is black. 4 . “Canaan”: This gentleman needs no introduction, and he needs no identification. He is mentioned more than 150 times by name (as a race or a land), and his descendants are the Sodomites, the Amorites, and the Jebusites. This makes Ham’s batting average two black boys and two dark brown boys. That is not the batting average of a Caucasian or a Mongoloid. Africa is called the land of Ham—not Shem or “Japheth,” and yet the Bible believer is expected to adopt the naive and puerile interpretation of the liberal on Genesis 9:25; i.e., that God forgot to give the history of the Negroid people. “And the sons of Cush.” a. “Seba”: Identifies Nubia on the north of Ethiopia (Josephus) in Africa. Seba is a black man, making Ham’s batting average about 600. Out of five sons and grandsons, four are African and one settles within 100 miles of Africa. The word Seba means “sucking up” or “absorbing.” b. “Havilah”: According to Keil, Lange, and Murphy, this is an African tribe, “the Avalitae,” who cross the Red Sea and beget descendants in Arabia. “Havilah” is Shem’s territory, according to Genesis 10:29–30, so we face the same situation mentioned earlier: Ham out of bounds. This clearly indicates that Ham has no business being east of the Sinaitic Peninsula or north of Cairo. To confirm this “bigoted, dogmatic, WASP opinion,” etc., the Lord will run Ham (the Arabian) out of Palestine altogether. (See the last verse in Zech. 14.) This operation will be blamed on “Zionism,” “the international bankers,” “the world plot,” “Israel’s aggressive designs,” and other spooks resurrected at appropriate times to steal the glory from God. c. “Sabtah: “The Ethiopians of Arabia,” according to Josephus, Gesenius, et al. Ham has done pretty well for a man who had nothing in the Bible said about him. He got his daddy Noah to make a dogmatic prophesy for Asiatics and Europeans and plumb forgot seven Africans, of whom four are black and three are dark brown. d. “Raamah: The word means “trembling” and, according to all commentators, refers to a tribe of dark-skinned Arabians on the southeast end of Arabia by the Persian Gulf. (So also Rosenmuller, Knobel, Lange, Keil, et al.) Note that Ham’s descendants always gravitate to the Equator. If they are in the Northern Hemisphere, they will settle in the southern portion of it; if in the Southern Hemisphere, toward the northern part of it. e . “Sabtechah”: Father of a race of Negroes who settle on the east coast of Arabia near the Raamahites. “And the sons of Raamah.” a. “Sheba”: The name for the principle city of Arabia, and it occurs many times in the Bible (2 Chron. 9; Isa. 60; Jer. 6; Ezek. 27; Psa. 72). The famous Queen of Sheba (Sheba: “an oath” or “seven”), a type of the Bride of Christ (and an even better type of saved Gentiles in the Millennium), comes from here. Hence, one of Solomon’s loves is “BLACK, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem.” b. “Dedan”: Dedan is on the Persian Gulf (Isa. 21:13; Ezek. 25:13, etc.).

10:8 “And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. 9 He was a mighty hunter before the Lord: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord. 10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. 11 Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah, 12 And Resen between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city.”

“And Cush begat Nimrod.” Here appears a break in the normal family listings. The Holy Spirit thinks it appropriate to suddenly stop the listing, which has run for seven verses, and insert a few remarks (cf. Gen. 4:23, 5:24). The word “Nimrod” means “rebel” or “panther” (BLACK leopard). He is the thirteenth from Adam, so we would expect to find the number thirteen written out for the first time in connection with rebellion (see Gen. 14:4). The thirteen stars and stripes of the thirteen states with E Pluribus Unum (thirteen letters) and the dismembered snake “Don’t tread on me” (thirteen letters) bear witness to the thirteen arrows on the dollar bill eagle (who carries the thirteen leaves under his thirteen stars of David) that a War of Rebellion (American History books: “Revolution,” 1776) is on the way. Whether it be a War of Rebellion (1776) or a Civil War (1861; Yankee history books: “War of Rebellion”), the thirteen stars with the bars has to be there (see Bible Babel). The definitive work on Nimrod is The Two Babylons, by Hislop. (The works of Price, Sayce, Wellhausen, Skinner, Driver, Delitzsch, Haupt, Hilprecht, and others are interesting, but like all critics of the Bible texts, they can only assemble “facts”; they cannot interpret them when once assembled.) Hislop has the ability to coordinate and systematize an inextricable jungle of hanging inscriptions, swinging legends, and tangled “gods” and make them comprehensible. His sources are 300 writings dating from 1506–1860, and in them the character Nimrod stands out all too clearly for the NAACP and NCCC. (Hislop, Two Babylons, pp. 1–11, 21–40, 76–90, etc.) The root of the Hebrew word Nun, Mem, Resh (NMR) also means “spotted” or “covered with specks” (Jer. 13:23). (Syriac—“to have a speckled skin.”) The reader will not fail to notice that Nimrod’s leopard skin is the outstanding mark of the final pope and the head of the United Nations (Rev. 13:1–3, and also see book on The Mark of the Beast). Nimrod is represented in the heavens by the constellation Orion (called Kesil, “The Fool,” by the Arabians). He is the first Gentile ruler, and he is the grandson of a brown (or black? or white?) man and the son of an Ethiopian. He is integrated. He is the first imperialist, and the first kingdom on this earth is Genesis 10:10, clearly telling the reader that ten is the number of Gentile world power (opinions contrary are welcome but will receive little or no attention). 1. The tenth man from Adam is the father of the Gentiles. 2. The first Gentile kingdom is in Genesis 10:10 (Yes, we know! Stephanus invented the chapter and verse divisions. Ho hum.). 3. Acts 10 is the opening of the door of the Gospel to the Gentiles. 4. Romans 10 is the missionary call to the Gentiles. 5. In Luke 17, one of ten lepers comes back, and he is a Gentile!

6. John 10 speaks of the Gentile sheep “not of this fold.” 7. The last Gentile kingdom has 10 kings, represented by 10 toes. 8. Gentiles count by 10; God counts by sevens. 9. Exodus 10 is the termination of Moses dealing with Pharaoh. Nimrod is called “the Assyrian” in Isaiah 23:13, and he is the founder of the industry that produces Dianas, Christophers, Judes, Marys, Josephs, and blessed John the Baptists—at least according to Isaiah 10, verse 10. Assyria is next to “the land of Nimrod” in Micah 5:5–6, thus identifying Nimrod as King of Babylon, the first Gentile world power, which starts a long series of powers—Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, Spain, France, England, Russia, and the USA, terminating in Babylon the Great, mother of harlots (Rev. 17:1–6), and Nimrod back in the driver’s seat—leopard skin and all (Rev. 13)! “A mighty one in the earth...a mighty hunter.” The traditions on Nimrod indicate that the hunting trips were not all dove shoots and deer stands. Nimrod hunted men and established slavery and the compulsory drafting of men for organized combat. “Before the Lord” indicates “over against,” as well as “in the sight of,” and intimates that Nimrod had a great deal to do with the events of Chapter 11. “Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.” All the cities have been located and excavated, although Bible commentators vary on their exact location. (See surmises of Jerome, Eusebius, Cochart, Michaelis, Kalisch, Clericus, Knobel, Lange, Keil, et al.) They are all within 200 miles of Babylon, identifying the area as Shinar—the location of the first United Nations building for world peace (Gen. 11:1–4) and the location of the Tel-Star Jazz band which signaled the time for worship of the male sex symbol 60x6x6 (Dan. 3:1–8). (For further details, keep reading Life and Look magazines, published by the Babylonian Printing Press of Pergamos, Maryland.) “And out of that land went forth Asshur....” According to the ASV 1901 (recommended by all Greek faculties—Tennessee Temple and Springfield included), our AV 1611 has blundered again. The reading should be “he went forth,” meaning Nimrod, not Asshur. Typical of the great, “new,” “more accurate” Bibles is the ASV, which here invents a reading which is missing from every Hebrew manuscript extant. Kittel gives no variant for the reading, after listing more than 24,000 in his Biblia Hebraica, Lipsiae, 1913. The ASV reading here, as in Luke 2:33 and John 9:35, is just so much irreverent tomfoolery. The ASV, like the RSV, is typical “foolishness” (see The Bible Babel). The AV 1611 is correct, and the Christian may trust it implicitly. Asshur is a son of Shem (vs. 22), showing that when the Hamites come in to the main shopping district, the Shemites head for the suburbs. Asshur, coming from the one who was “blessed by the Lord God,” does not “buy” the scene put on in Chapter 11 by the Broadway theatrical company. He leaves and founds Nineveh, “Rehoboth, and Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city.” There is some disagreement among Layard, Kalisch, Knobel, Keil, Lange, Smith, and Murphy as to the exact location of Resen and Calah, but all are within eighty miles of Nineveh, which lies near the branching out of the Great Zab River from the Tigris. “The same is a great city” can refer to Nineveh or to Resen (if Resen was the modern Nimrod). The chances are Nineveh includes Calah and Resen. They are suburbs, and the great city is Nineveh. (For confirmation, see Jonah 3:3 and Nahum 1, 2, 3.)

10:13 “And Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim,

14 And Pathrusim, and Casluhim, (out of whom came Philistim,) and Caphtorim.”

“Ludim: He is African, as anyone would guess without the aid of Greek or Hebrew. His descendants are the “Lewatah tribe,” which settles near Mauritania, western Africa. Although “Lud” is given in verse 22 as a descendant of Shem, he is not the “Ludim” of the text. “Anamim”: “The rock men,” until now unlocated, but probably settling in north or northwest Egypt. (They are Africans.) “Lehabim”: The “Lubim” of north Africa, west of Egypt (2 Chron. 12:3; Nahum 3:9), according to Michaelis, Kalisch, and Murphy (see Pulpit Commentary, Vol. I, p. 160). “Naphtuhim”: The word means “flame colored” or “red.” The inhabitants of central Egypt— below Aswan. “Pathrusim”: Plainly “Pathros” in upper Egypt (Isa. 11:11; Jer. 44:1). “Casluhim”: Another group of Egyptians, out of whom came the Philistines—Goliath, Delilah, Achish, etc. To salvage what is left of Ham’s reputation, the linguists and anthropologists go on a rampage to prove that there is an error in the AV 1611, and they try to get at least one white man out of Ham’s offsprings. (One will notice that all the illustrations of the “Philistines” in the National Geographic magazine have them pictured as pinkish white Irishmen—while admitting they are “Shemitic.” “Science” suddenly loses all perspective when dealing with its own originators— people!) To save Delilah, Goliath, Achish, and the dolly worshipers (1 Sam. 5–6) from the reproach of colored hides, we are told (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. I, page 568) that the word “Caphtorim” should come before “out of whom came Philistim.” Having corrected the Holy Spirit, the next step is to insist that “Caphtor” is a reference to Crete and that the word “Cherethites” means “Cretians.” (If one were highly intellectual, might he not carry it one step further and say that the word Crete is a synonym for Greece, and since Turkey is occasionally in Greece, when in Greece we should do as the Turkeys do?) Abiding by the correct translation (AV 1611) , we learn that if Caphtor is Crete, the Cretians themselves were half-breeds who came out of Egypt. One would hardly expect the inhabitants to remain pure-blooded Negroes with the Greek mainland immediately nearby (Javan—Japheth) and with constant communication by merchant boats with the mainland of Asia Minor (Shem). Jeremiah 47:4 says that the Philistines are “the remnant of the country of Caphtor,” not the race of men called “Caphtorim.” Amos 9:7 states the same truth. There is no reference at all to Philistines being “Caphtorim.” The statement is that they were from Caphtor, as the Syrians were from Kir and the Israelites from Egypt; were the Israelites Egyptians? That is, the AV 1611 clears up the problems of higher scholarship which they erect themselves by inserting their private interpretations into the word. The confusion over Genesis 10:14 could not possibly arise without an archaeologist digging around and “surmising” that Caphtor is Crete and then publishing this finding in a brilliant blast of propaganda reading “Archaeology sheds new light on the Bible,” “Light from the ancient East,” “Passages rendered more intelligible after recent studies,” “Science lends a hand to correct Bible exegesis.” What the blithering idiot actually did was to confuse the passage so badly that the reader could not find its connection with the rest of the Bible! Any text which reads other than the AV (as does the ASV 1901) may be safely ignored. The ASV

(1901), to “beat the devil around the stump,” makes the clause “out of whom came” to read “whence went forth,” wholly and entirely ignoring the fact (which a child could see!) that the list in verses 13– 14 is not a list of countries, it is a list of persons. “Whence went forth” is a migratory description of an ethnic group, designed to match the theory that the AV 1611 is in error. “Out of whom came” is a designation of birth or generation. The AV 1611, therefore, is dead right by virtue of common sense, context, plain meaning, cross references, and divine approval; and the ASV is just as wrong as it can be. (I believe “corrupt” is the scholarly designation which is so often applied to the AV readings by the Pulpit commentators.) The PHILISTINES come from Casluhim racially, and after that they can sail from Crete, Creek, Crack, Creak, or Crock for all I care. They are still related to Casluhim and Caphtorim as brothers, and their father was Mizraim (vs. 13). That is, they are African. The last notation is the primary objection by “sound scholarship” which is so shallow that it does not recognize its own blind spots and prejudices. What the scholars are after here is to save a Bible reader from picturing in his mind (as he reads the word) Goliath and Delilah as Paul Robeson and Lena Horne, but that is exactly how the snow drifts.

10:15 “And Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn, and Heth, 16 And the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite, 17 And the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite, 18 And the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite: and afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad. 19 And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon, as thou comest to Gerar, unto Gaza; as thou goest, unto Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Admah, and Zeboim, even unto Lasha.”

“Sidon his firstborn, and Heth.” The city is named after the son (Josh.11:8; Ezek. 28) and is well known, being situated on the sea coast north of Caesarea and Tyre. The tribe of Dan settles near here and joins in the Baal worship of the Phoenicians at Zidon. Ahab marries a Zidonian princess (l Kings 16:31). The Phoenicians were great seamen, yet with all their Shemitic blood, Ham plainly has a share of the honors, for one will find on a rock in Southern Ireland these words inscribed: “We are Canaanites who fled from Joshua, the son of Nun, the Robber.” Sixteen verses of the national song of Ireland end with “I am Paddy the Canaanite.” (This explains better than reams of research papers why South Ireland still worships the Phoenician idols of Canaan: “Cursed be Canaan”—Gen. 9:25). Behind the “wearing o’ the green” lurks the black-robed priest, who bears no more resemblance to Patrick than Herman Goering does to Theodore Epp. “Heth”: The sons of Heth are mentioned in Genesis 23:3, 5, 7. The word means “terrible” in Hebrew, and Heth is related to the terror of the day—the Hittites (see 2 Kings 7:6; Gen. 23:10; Judg. 1:26; Ezek. 16:3). Contrary to the “latest archaeological discoveries,” etc., the Hittites are halfbreed, Hamitic-Shemitic people who are related to Canaan. The Egyptologists may identify the Hittites as the “Khota” of Syria all they like, but they cannot bluff by the AV 1611 with the implication that they (the Hittites) were not one quarter Negro. They were, or at least one-fifth. Note: Ham— Canaan—Heth—Hittite. “And the Jebusite....” Here follows the standard list, repeated with slight variations in Exodus

13, 33–34; Deuteronomy 7, 20; Joshua 3, 12, 24, etc. This is the chief ethnic subject of the Old Testament, as it is related to the Chosen People in the Promised Land. They do not need to be pinpointed in a land that is not 100 miles long. Their native boundaries are given in the next verse (vs. 19), and they are plainly “out of bounds” in the “land of the Philistines,” as their allotted portion was Africa. To reinforce this piece of “discriminatory” dogma, God gives Israel orders to annihilate them (see Deut. 7:1–7, 25–26; 11:25; 12:29–31; 20:10–18). “And the border of the Canaanites....” The Canaanites chose for a dwelling the land which God intended to be the capital of the universe (see commentary on Revelation, Rev. 22). They string out from Lebanon to Beersheba, from the coastline (Gaza and Gerar) to the River Jordan, and undoubtedly they were in Gilead, Bashan, and Moab before Lot’s children were born. The four cities that were gutted out by a rain of fire are listed (vs. 19 cf. Deut. 29:23). “Lasha” is probably Laish, in extreme North Palestine, near the headwaters of the Jordan. Laish is the city where the tribe of Dan installs a “priest” called “father,” and endorses images as “an aid to worship ” (Judg. 18:29, 31; 17:10). 10:20 “These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations.”

Ham has “two strikes against him” from the start. What the NAACP and “Black militants” refer to as “oppression,” “white supremacy,” “ghetto,” “slavery,” etc., appears in the Bible as a fixed routine which will be followed. We are not discussing individuals, anymore than individuals were discussed under the European exposition: see comments on Genesis 10:5. Strangely enough, the unhappy Hamite (with an education!) always takes the references personally and accuses the Bible believer of a blanket condemnation of individuals. This is not in the least true. The Ethiopian Eunuch, Simon the Cyrenian, Simeon “called Niger” and Ebedmelech (see Jeremiah) are outstanding examples of faithful men, performing duties cheerfully, with a right attitude toward the word of God. Sammy Morris, the slave preacher boy (nineteenth century) who won scores of white men to Christ, was happier in his position with a right relationship to God than Rap Brown is in his. Ham’s retort to this type of thinking is, “Yeah, we is good folks as long as we is workers and slaves, but how much use you got fo’ us when we’s runnin’ things?” And the answer to this is simply, “If you think you’re able to run them, help yo’self!” I have known scores of godly, consecrated Hamites since I became a Christian. I have heard some great Christ-exalting, Bible-honoring sermons from Hamites, and I have seen a cheerfulness and victory in the face of adversity from many of Ham’s children which I wish Japheth could emulate. However, neither I nor the Bible is impressed with “what Negro athletes have done for the American and National Football Leagues,” nor how many Negroes made it on the Board of Commissioners because the FBI and the CIA helped them out. Ham is just as distinctive a character as Japheth, and where he loses his sense of humor (like some readers lost theirs back at Gen. 10:5!), he has lost half the battle. The jokes on Ham concern two things in the main—laziness and stealing chickens. And while “Black militants” go into a sweat over Amos and Andy, the Ugly Duckling, and Little Black Sambo, the jokes go right on about the Jew gypping people out of money, about the Frenchman being effeminate, about the Englishman being stupid, about the Pole being clumsy, about the American bragging and lying, about the German fighting and boasting, about lawyers cheating their clients, about judges going to sleep and being prejudiced,

and about doctors charging too much and killing their patients. If a man cannot take a joke on himself or his race or his station in life, he is either a spoiled brat or a misinformed snob (Ecc. 7:21). Ham likes “possum gravy.” He likes pigs’ feet and pigs’ brains, chitlins, tripe, catfish, and crackers. His music is the low moan of the “blues” or the shrieking thump of the religious ecstasy— now in its Voodoo setting, now in a Bible setting, now in a sensual setting. He is primarily the knife fighter of the alley and the boxer of the ring, not the rifleman of the night patrol. His approach to life is, as a whole, “it will all come out right after a while.” He is noted for needing supervision on a job, and he appreciates America where the “government can carry him the from cradle to the grave,” if necessary. He is in no hurry to go anywhere, and when he worries he goes to sleep. The disposition of the Christian Hamite is sweet and rich, and he is given an insight into the workings of politics which saves him from such disgraceful and shameful exhibitions as the “Selma March” or the “Washington Camp.” (Ian Paisley’s demonstrations for the Bible in Ireland are described as “riots” led by “hooligans” endangering the government! Demonstrations by M. L. “King” and S. Carmichael are called “Christian conferences” led by Civil rights workers for better government! But when could the AP report anything straight?) The bond between Ham and Japheth is one of the strongest bonds on earth, where Ham obeys and Japheth accepts his responsibility to “be his brother’s keeper.” Southerners know of this bond, which has all but vanished since the “bus boycotts” of Montgomery and the enforced integration in Little Rock and Tuscaloosa—which led to the destruction of the public school system in the South—as prearranged by congressmen. Time and time again, individual Negroes have proved themselves to be brave, resourceful, patriotic, hard working, and inventive. But why promote one race? Frenchmen have been tough at times—remember Field Marshall Ney? Germans have been peace-loving in their day—remember Erich Marie Remarque? Englishmen have waxed brilliant at times—remember Sir Isaac Newton? And even Italians have been known to preach against Rome—remember Savonarola? The exceptions prove the rule. Every ethnologist should read “The Civil War in Song and Story” (Collier Publishers, 1889) and then pray several months before making up his mind about anything. Ham is a character— don’t ever doubt it. Mizraim, Phut, Ludim, etc., go down into Africa, out through the jungles, and inhabit modern Tanganyika, the Chad, the Sudan, Angola, North and South Rhodesia, Niger, Nigeria, Mali, and the Cameroon, eventually arriving at Ghana, Togo, Gabon, and the Ivory Coast. The descendants of Cush go out into modern Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, and the Canaanites fill the land of Palestine. “These are the sons of Ham.”

10:21 “Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder, even to him were children born. 22 The children of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram. 23 And the children of Aram; Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Mash. 24 And Arphaxad begat Salah; and Salah begat Eber. 25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan.”

“The children of Eber....” Eber (Hebrew “beyond the river” or “a shoot or sprout”) evidently denotes a whole class or race of people, for the children of Eber which follow are only two in number. Eber is a collective name indicating that all of Shem’s children were originally “beyond the river,” nor is there any doubt about which river is meant (see Josh 24:2). Shem is given a territory east of the Euphrates; this would include Mesopotamia, Babylon, Persia, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and on eastward. “The brother of Japheth the elder.” (See comments on Gen. 6:10.) “The children of Shem....” 1 “Elam: The word means “youth” and signifies the Persians who settled around modern Iraq and became intermingled with Cush*tes in that area. 2. “Asshur: (Hebrew—“level plain”) The ancestor of the Assyrians who dwell in the north parts of the rivers Tigris and Euphrates. 3. “Arphaxad: Settles near Asshur and dwells in the northern parts of Assyria near Armenia, intermingling with Tubal and Meshech. 4. “Lud: Inhabitants of eastern Asia Minor who became intermingled with Meshech and Riphath. 5. “Aram: (Hebrew “the high land”) Arameans and Aramaic are derivations. The reference is to the Syrians west of the Euphrates River, who became mixed with Canaanites and descendants of Heth. “And the children of Aram....” a. “Uz: The famous founder of “the land of Uz” (Job1:1) where Israel will take refuge in the Tribulation. (Note Lam. 4:21.) The word means “firmness.” Uz is the “Edom” of Biblical times, now called “Jordan.” b. “Hul: The Hebrew means “circle.” The man’s descendants are not located for sure; Armenia and Western Syria are locations given. c. “Gether: Unlocated. d. “Mash: Unlocated. e. “Salah: (A Son of Arphaxad) Unidentified. The Hebrew means “extension.” f. “Eber: (A Son of Salah) The father of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the “Hebrews.” g. “Peleg: (A Son of Eber) Hebrew—“division.” “For in his days was the earth divided.” The statement has led to considerable speculation as to the relative positions of the continents before the flood, or at least in the remote past. On a map, it is apparent that South America could fit into the West Coast of Africa; it is further apparent that the European coastline could fit into the eastern seaboard of America with a few adjustments. “Continental drift” is the theory supported by idolizers of Darwin, but they allow the operation about 400,000,000 years—give or take a few hundred million. “The days of Peleg” will hardly fit this schematic diagram, so much of the theory can be dispensed with. The chances are the reference is to Deuteronomy 32:7–9, which takes place at Genesis 11:7–8; if this is so, 2244–2006 B.C. would date the Tower of Babel within 200 years. Bullinger, however, subscribes to the continents and islands breaking up at this time, and this would solve all kinds of problems in regards to distribution of animals, at least in the eyes of those who cannot grasp the idea of deer and buffalo getting to Kansas via Siberia. If Bullinger is right, then we have an upheaval almost of the proportions of the Flood—only occurring 100 years after it—with no comment by the Holy Spirit other than Genesis 10:25 and l Chronicles 1:19. Two verses to describe the shift of four continents, plus islands, does not seem to be the tenor of Genesis 6–9, which

has just taken three chapters to describe a flood. “Joktan”: (Hebrew “little”) The first “Father of the Arabians” according to most commentators. He obviously becomes 50 pecent Hamite before Ishmael shows up. Cush is all over Arabia when Joktan is born.

10:26 “And Joktan begat Almodad, and Sheleph, and Hazarmaveth, and Jerah, 27 And Hadoram, and Uzal, and Diklah, 28 And Obal, and Abimael, and Sheba, 29 And Ophir, and Havilah, and Jobab: all these were the sons of Joktan.” There is general agreement that all the sons of Joktan are Arabians; they settle in Arabia proper and spill over into Ur (Chaldea) and thence to the west side of the Persian Gulf. They are the Yemens, Chaulan, Jobabitae, Adramitae, and Hadramauts of Arabia. Some of them go as far east as India. Ophir (l Kings 9:27–28; 2 Chron 9:10) is the famous place for gold, and it is probably in India, not Arabia, but scholars differ on locations. (Josephus, Vitringa, Gesenius, and Delitzsch favor India.)

10:30 “And their dwelling was from Mesha, as thou goest unto Sephar a mount of the east. 31 These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations. 32 These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.”

“Mesha...Sephar.” Mesha, supposedly, is the sea-port of “Muza” at the mouth of the Tigris River, with Mount Sephar being a reference to “Zafar” (Dhafari) on the coast of the Hadramut. This would locate the migrations into what is now modern Iran. “These are the sons of Shem.” The sons of Shem are plainly different from the sons of Ham and Japheth. Attempts to make men equal in all matters is nothing but forcing unnatural laws over the laws of nature. (“Controlled evolution” is the modern term, which has led to uncontrolled degeneration; see Genesis 3 with comments.) Shem is a thinker. He is a fatalist and considers death with honor better than life without honor. He is found laughing at American colonels (who laughed at him for flying Kamakazi divers). When the war was over, the clear thinking Shem (Japanese) said to the American flight colonels, “You Americans are so patriotic and always talking about loving your country enough to die for it; why are you surprised when you meet someone who does love his country enough to die for it?” (The answer to this is two hours of intellectual sophistry.) Shem will ride into a ring of Custer’s soldiers (1876) to plant a spear and will ride in and out without killing a man at the risk of his own neck. (No “paleface” can explain that last sentence unless he has lived in Japan or China for several years!) An enemy who has lost face can be tortured, lied to, or tricked in any way possible, but a man of honor, who keeps his word, is to be trusted without question. (“Palefaces” don’t understand that either!) In Zen and Hinduism, nature is not an antagonist against whom man must throw himself in a lifelong battle to “conquer.” Nature is one with man (Pantheism), and attainment of release from

Karma and rebirth is by meditation and grasping the “oneness” of all things. Shem likes music with an irregular beat—which Ham can’t stand! Shem calls Japheth’s music (symphonies included) “march music,” because it has a steady rhythm. Shem is a family man, where the male is ruler supreme with no questions asked. He has the lowest criminal record of any of the races, and with opium, hashish, and saki included, has fewer delinquents in jail per population than Ham or Japheth. The Shemite population of American jails is around 5 percent. Ham makes up 65 percent of it, and Japheth takes the remaining 30 percent. Jail populations are a taboo subject for science, education, politics, religion, psychology, and philosophy; so they need to be mentioned in a “Bible Believer’s Commentary,” or they will be left unmentioned. Shem is an introvert. He can take orders and he can follow. Where he respects his leaders, he will go to the death for them, and where he loses respect for his leaders, they are in danger of dying (suddenly) themselves! “Paris Peace Talks” are a joke to a real Shemite. He doesn’t think that way at all. He thinks simply and straight—right to the point. While Japheth jockeys for “position,” Shem sits back and laughs at him. Shem will respect an atom bomb, but not the smiles and handshakes of a “foreign devil” trying to use Catholics to run his country. Shem is about three times smarter than you give him credit for being, and to him nothing could be more ludicrous than “bargaining at a peace table.” His plans are already made 10 years ahead of time, and nothing short of an A-bomb would change them or stop them. You don’t mess with Shem. You whip him or you leave him alone. Rudyard Kipling’s “Ballad of the East and West” shows a clearer grasp of Shem’s thinking processes than any paper delivered (or speech made) by any Secretary of State (or Foreign Affairs Adviser) in the last thirty years. MacArthur knew Shem; General Stillwell knew Shem. But the Kennedy family wouldn’t know Shem if they had a set of X-rays, a cardiograph, a personal file, fingerprints, Rorschach tests, and a life history. A pure-blooded Shemite is tough to fight. He can run three days on a bowl of rice and put up with fighting conditions that would drive Japheth out of his mind. In America, it took the white man 200 years to whip him, when Shem was outarmed and outnumbered for half that length of time. If you kill him five to one in Asia, you will lose all your men, and he will still have 4,000,000 left when the slaughter is through. You don’t mess with Shem. You can talk “turkey” and get “squared away” sitting around a table with Dutchmen, Swedes, Irishmen, and Englishmen, but you won’t buffalo Shem. Shem reads you before you figure out about what to bargain with him. Shem honors his ancestors, reverences their spirits, and practices self-denial. In an environment of sudden death, tidal waves, earthquakes, fires, famines, and floods, he is prone to suicide and has the highest mortality rate of the three races. He is a hard worker and has a strong back. His staple diet is rice and fish, and he is an excellent cook of vegetables. If he respects you and honors you, you can trust him with your wallet and your car, and if he does not respect you, you are not safe turning your back on him. He can copy anything that a German invents—which an American will buy! He can make anything cheaper than a European can make it, and he lives frugally, no matter what his income is. To be quite impartial—exceptions prove the rule, just like they did with Ham and Japheth. “Salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22), and the Jews are from Shem. (See ethnological list under Gen. 5:32 and 6:10.) “These are the families of the sons of Noah.” Every man, woman, and child on this earth came from three couples. They retain the fallen image of Adam, their spiritually dead father, and they are segregated by divine fiat in Genesis 11:7–9 and spread out from Babylon. The “purebloods” of each type are found at the extremities of the “fanning out.” Consequently, Central and Southwest Africa

sport the patent-leather shoe—Black Hamite, Japan presents the fully developed Shemite, and Germany and Scandanavia reveal clearly “Japheth the elder.” Between those points, mixtures occur; blond Italians (Lombards) in North Italy, blond Frenchmen in Alsace Lorraine (Franks), blond Frenchmen in Northwest France (Normans), dark-eyed Germans in Southeast Germany, swarthy Italians and Spaniards, brown Egyptians and Algerians, black and brown Arabians, dark-featured Greeks and Slavs, thin-lipped Moros, wavy-haired Malayans, blue-eyed Jews, and dark-haired Irishmen testify to the fact that man’s greatest ambition is to “cross the bounds” (Acts 17:26–27; Deut. 32:7,8; Neh. 13:26, Hosea 5:10). In the great “melting pot” of America where Englishmen eat pizza, Irishmen eat chili, Spaniards eat hamburgers (Ham-berg? Berger?), Italians drive Volkswagons, Filipinos drink beer, and Swedes eat Chicken Chow Mein; the strifes and national rivalries cease, as long as the money holds out. America’s success is mistakenly attributed to “equality of races” and everybody “being American” instead of Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Norwegian, Negro, Republican, Mason, German, French, or Mexican. However, this is a blind optimism which reminds one of Darwin’s attributing the superiority of man (over animals) to man’s “innate ability to adapt himself.” The reason why America is not in a state of civil war and anarchy is because the money is still here and will remain until Washington sells out to Rome; then watch the fireworks! As long as America honors the AV 1611 text of the Reformation—an anti-popery text—she will have enough money, but when she abandons that...look out! The melting pot will become a boiling pot and race-mixers will find out that “racism” is as basic an ingredient in human nature as the sex instinct or the religious instinct. (For further details, talk to any native European.) “These are...the sons of Noah.”

CHAPTER 11 11:1 “And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. 2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. 3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter. 4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.” The picture is shockingly familiar. One written language and one spoken language. Total integration. Notice the recurrence of the “us” (USA)—“Let us,” “let us build us,” “Let us make us a name,” “Lest we....” If anybody in this United Nations movement had ever known God at any time, at this time they seemed to have stuffed Him back in the storage room with the garden tools. Where is God in the picture? The whole thing is a great big “US.” This is a great big capital “We uns,” with the accent on man, and God is not even recognized. “As they journeyed from the east.” All indications (Scripture with Scripture) would suggest that this is not a journey east to west; the journey merely originates in “the east” (i.e., the region of Armenia and headwaters of Tigris and Euphrates Rivers). Undoubtedly, Shem, Ham, and Japheth spoke the same language for years after they left the ark, and undoubtedly the three varieties of children which they begat were closely intermingled in the earliest stages. They went from a mountain (Ararat) to a plain (Shinar) and traveled north to south, and west to east, down the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers (see notes on Gen. 3:24, 4:16). The Hamites, Shemites, and Japhethites that moved in this direction go as an integrated group. Those moving southwest of Ararat (to Palestine and Africa) and northwest of Ararat (to Russia and the Balkans) are not in the group. (Check any doctor’s dissertation on the origin of the Indo-European branch of languages.) What follows is the prototype of Ecclesiastes 10:7. The Chinese say, “Put a beggar on horseback, and he’ll ride off at a gallop.” The “servant of servants” steps into the stirrups in Genesis 11 (see notes on Gen. 10:8–10), and what follows (judgment) is inevitable. “And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.” That is, they had artificial materials. Stone is God-made; bricks are manmade. The slime is bitumen (Layard, “Nineveh and Babylon,” p. 499). To this day, “slime” is a word for “muddy” (slimey), and “mud” is the mason’s term for cement-mortar. The whole narrative breathes of an impending disaster. 1. The wrong kind of building materials (Gen. 11:3). 2. The wrong motive in building (Gen. 11:4). 3. The wrong place to build (Gen. 11:2). 4. The wrong attitude toward God (Gen. 11:4). “Let us build us a city and a tower.” The city is the commercial symbol, and the tower is the religious symbol. Again, the Holy Spirit takes up an attack on “positive thinkers,” for the first man to build a city—what is so terrible about a city? Is not Jerusalem a city? etc.—was Cain, a murderer. This is the first time the word “tower” occurs; but anyone familiar with the turreted goddesses of Babylon, the obelisks of Egypt, the totem poles of Alaska, the maypoles of Austria, the skyscrapers of New York, the Christmas trees of Rome, the headdresses of the cardinals and popes, the steeples of

Notre Dame, the rockets of Cape Kennedy, and the image of Nebuchadnezzar knows what a tower represents. It is man’s projected desire to go upward, pictured by a symbol of his own creative abilities in the physical realm as the author of life. And somebody in this group is worried about getting the judgment which was placed on Cain. Notice, “lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth” (cf. Gen. 4:14). If Cain does not have any kinfolk at Babel (he did if Ham’s wife was from Cain!), he at least had instilled something into the human race that it had not forgotten. Bullinger (and others) corrects the AV 1611 to read “and its top with the heavens” and then surmises that this means there was “inscribed on top of the tower” a picture of the signs of the zodiac, a kind of a horizontal “Big Ben.” The Scripture authority for this guess is, of course, zero. The surmise was arrived at by believing that since the temples at Denderah and Esneh in Egypt had the Zodiac pictures, that the tower of Babel must have had them also. The tower is described by Herodotus (440 B.C.) as being the tower of Jupiter Belus (see notes on Gen. 6:1–2). Source references would indicate that the tower was on a base 200 yards (600 feet) square, in eight levels, ascended by a spiral staircase (Pliny vi. 30; Layard’s “Nineveh and Babylon,” p. 496). The problem is how anyone would think that the top could reach to heaven. Bullinger (and others), to protect the text, changes it, which is no protection at all. For if you can change one word, you can change two, and if you can change two verses, you can change ten verses; the only difference between a fundamentalist, who uses the Phillips or the Amplified Version, and an atheist, who uses an RSV, is that they disagree on the number of verses to change! 1. In view of the fact that the “heavens” could have been closer to the earth than the moon before the Flood, the effort to reach it again would not be considered in vain. 2. In view of the fact that the heaven referred to here may be a reference to clouds, the effort would not in the least be vain. We, therefore, leave the text as it stands. Note, “whose top may reach unto heaven.” The AV 1611 has unwittingly, but judiciously, inserted a note which is a sermon in itself. Man-made religions never have assurance about reaching heaven; they only hope that they “may reach unto heaven”!

11:5 “And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. 6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. 7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. 8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.” “And the Lord came down.” Undoubtedly, the “Angel of the Lord,” as when He came down and appeared to Moses (Exod. 3), Jacob (Gen. 32), Manoah and his wife (Judg. 13), etc. “To see” is more than a passing notice or casual observance; this is an “inspection,” firsthand. The Angel of the Lord gets Himself a union card and an American Federation of Labor button and lines up at the window for pay, or He goes down the assembly line at the noon break and talks with the men. “What you got goin’ here?”

“Oh, man, don’t you know? Ain’t you never heard of Nimrod? Why man he am de king of kings; ain’t you never seed dat wife ob his? She ain’t no high-yaller! She am white as snow!” “Well, what’s the purpose of this here building?” “Like man, we is gonna go up an take a look at de back side of de moon! We sending up Jupiter, Thor, Atlas, and Apollos. We can’t get up to dem stars, so we drag dem stars down here, and we names our rockets after dem.” “Well, what you gonna do when you get UP there on Jupiter, Venus, and the others?” “Why, set up ‘outposts,’ man! You doan suppose we is gwine to let dem Scythians get ahead of us in dis heah race, is you? Why, if dey gets up deah fust, dey puts up missile bases, and if we gets up deh fust, we does.” “Your name isn’t Cain by any chance, is it?” “Oh no suh! My name is Simpson, but de way dey wuks us roun’ heah, sometimes ah think dat maybe de boss man done spell it ‘Sampson’.” “I see. Well, see you in the funny papers.” “No suh, you can’t do dat, cause we gots ouah rights now, and dey can’t put us in de funny papers no moah! Freedom of de press, you know.” “Yeah, I know.” (Now, that exposition would never pass as a scholarly dissertation on the historicity of the Mosaic account [“altered by P, J, L, and R”], but it does a lot to help the reader understand what the passage is talking about.) “Behold, the people is one...” Total integration for that area (see comments on Gen. 11:1–2). “The people is one” implies that the human race reached the goal of modern educators, scientists, religious leaders, and Communists long before Caesar Augustus put on his laurel wreath. What modern science is working toward now—with the help of the Ecumenical Council and enforced integration—is a goal which was achieved without the help of any of the three named institutions long before twentiethth-century man thought of trying to get there. The goal is obviously a false goal, an unworthy goal, a useless goal, an unholy goal, a temporary goal, and a goal on which God will pass judgment. That is, the “Great Twentieth-Century Cause”—i.e., peace for all men everywhere, all men brothers, all men equal, etc.—is a relic of pagan depravity which God will only use for purposes of judgment (see Zeph. 3:8; Micah 4:12; Zech. 12:3; Isa. 9:11–12). “Oneness” and “togetherness” are never recommended in the Bible except where it is speaking of Bible-believing saints. Notice that the contexts of l Corinthians 12 and 13, John 10 and 17, and l Corinthians 1 are messages to born-again, Bible-believing people; races, tribes, tongues, nations, churches, schools, governments, and social and charitable institutions are not in the picture. These belong to national Socialism, religious Fascism, or Soviet Communism. The Bible recognizes the modern doctrine of “togetherness” and “oneness” for what it is—unregenerate man’s attempt to take the universe into his own hands (see comments on Gen. 3:17–19). “And this they begin to do...now nothing will be restrained from them....” This must be compared with Genesis 8:21, where it was noted that “man’s heart is evil from his youth.” Notice the word “imagination” in both passages and also with Genesis 6:5, “imaginations...evil continually,” “imagination of man’s heart is evil,” “nothing...which they have imagined to do.” The revelation is completely negative. God intervenes and stops “outer space” exploration for the simple reason that He knows His creature (Psa. 139:1–4; Job 42:2; Psa. 94:11). He needs not that any (psychologist or psychiatrist) testify of what is in man (John 2:25). No matter what man says about himself—and he has said plenty in the Harvard Five Foot Shelf of Classics—God’s opinion of

man is that men are dust and ashes (Psa. 103:14), dung spread on the ground (Job 20:7), withered grass (l Pet. 1:24), grasshoppers (Isa. 40:22), incurably wicked (Jer. 17:9), born wrong (John 3:3), and at their best state (Lincoln, Washington, Einstein, Roosevelt, Livingstone, Ben Franklin, Hudson Taylor, Napoleon, General Grant, Beethoven, Rembrandt, Paul, Peter, Moses, David, and John Wesley) “altogether vanity” (Psa. 39:5). To prevent man from his upward “thrust” into the solar system, with the possibility of future planet colonization and then interplanetary war, the Lord puts “the monkey wrench in the works.” There can not be any doubt about man’s intent in the passage. For God says, “Now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do,” clearly giving man the benefit of having all the brains he brags about having, and clearly recognizing that man is able to populate outer space (with Satan’s help) if the Creator doesn’t bust his kiddy car. So in the next two verses sprockets, spokes, wheels, tires, and axles go all over the driveway. “The Lord scattered them abroad from thence...and they left off to build the city.” At this point (Gen. 11:8), God becomes the Author of racial discrimination; and against the pressure of the press, radio, magazines, TV, and newspapers of Babel (2000 B.C.), He “segregates the races,” “divides the races,” and then “sets boundaries” between them. (See Acts 17:26,27 and Deuteronomy 32:7–8 for confirmation in both Testaments.) This makes the Bible (again!) the number one target of “One-Worlders,” and it makes God the number one target of race-mixers. To repeat an absolute truth, “Man is against the Bible because it is against him.” God’s “plan” for “peace on earth, good will to men” (not “men of good will” as in the corrupt RSV) is segregation (Deut. 32:7–8), separation (Isa. 5:8), division (Luke 12:51), and isolation (2 Cor. 5:14–17). Modern man’s geopolitical outlook on this plan is simply: 1. We tried isolation in the past (1918), and it did not work. 2. Therefore, the solution is “all get together” (1945), and it will work. The third point which modern man will not put down—so we will put it down for him—is: 3. “Associate yourselves, O ye people, and ye shall be broken in pieces...Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought” (Isa. 8:9,10). Either solution (1 or 2) is just as good a road to hell as any other road (Psa. 127:1). If you want an individualistic, capitalistic society of competition where big wars have to be fought every 20–25 years, try isolationism. If you want an integrated Communistic society with federal aid and centralized control, where little wars are fought every five years, try “getting together.” The price of the first society is that you will have to trust God and you will have to keep a big standing army. The price of the second society is you will lose individual liberties and convictions and eventually degenerate into a mongrel race. God’s solution is simple: 1. The return of the rightful Owner of the earth (Col.1). 2. His ascendancy to His rightful throne (Luke 1:29–33). 3. His absolute power put into operation over all nations (Rev. 20:1–6; see The Sure Word of Prophecy). This is why the Bible ends with a prayer that is not related to “peace on earth” (directly or indirectly), in the commonly understood sense of the term. The last prayer in the Bible is not for “wars to cease,” for “men to get together,” for “men to get better,” for the “kingdom to come,” for “all men to love each other,” or for “all men to become brothers.” The last prayer in the AV 1611 Bible is, “Even so, come, Lord Jesus” (Rev. 22:20). In Genesis 11, the nations tried “integration and oneness”; the result of the experiment was confusion and misunderstanding.

According to Bleek, Hebrew approaches most nearly the original Semitic tongue which was spoken by the Babel builders (deducted from Abraham’s Aramaic in Gen. 31:47). Bleek’s guess was confirmed by the Scripture many years before he finished grammar school (see Acts 26:14; Rev. 19:1–4). According to Philo, each builder put his name on a brick when it was inserted into the tower, so that the completed “United Nations” building would represent a kind of a glorified telephone book. But what follows is such a raging rumpus that today, the city Babel has become a synonym for confusion. A carpenter on the first tier yells up to a bricklayer on the second tier and says, “Arung mata asboc!” The mason above scratches his head and says to his mudslinger, “What did that bird say?” “Beats the tar outta me,” the helper says, “I thought he said ‘throw some bricks down here’.” The mason yells back down, “Berish*th Esa, dalaway tut wenig?” The carpenter turns crimson and says to a friend, “Did you hear what that...called me?” “Yeah,” says his buddy, “you gonna let him get away with it?” The carpenter cups his hands and screams back to his antagonist, “Ichs nee sang see!” The mason looks at his helper and says, “Well, that’s what he said. Throw em down!” Down come six bricks on the platform below; one goes into an open paint bucket and another busts the glass sights on the carpenter’s level. Two flights down, a paint-spattered electrician roars up to the carpenter, “Lay off that, buddy! We’re working down here.” But by the time the words have been altered by the Holy Spirit (Gen. 11:7), they come up as “Vouz parlez avec seswa?” But the carpenter hears, “You !@#$%!” The carpenter stomps across his platform, down the scaffold, and in 10 minutes hammers, fists, paint brushes, and pliers are flying. A Chinaman asks a Filipino for instructions on wiring up a 220-volt socket; a Frenchman learns how to put up sheetrock and celotex from a Fiji Islander; an Englishman puts in the plumbing fixtures according to what a Jew told him; and an Italian cheerfully mounts doors and hinges by the instructions of a Turk. In less than six hours the United Nations building is rocking, shaking, and tottering like a snake on rubber stilts. A man turns on a faucet and receives 110 volts in the hand; another man flips a light switch and the bathtub begins to fill up; another man crashes through a floor made out of light bulbs instead of timber; twelve men are injured slamming into mirrors that were mounted where open archways should have been; and three men break legs falling down stairs that are made with an angle of 120 degrees on the steps. Fist fights start all over every level as people misunderstand each other; then suddenly it begins to dawn on the Babel builders that everyone is crazy except them! With wild and astonished looks at each other, as though viewing a scorpion for the first time, they abandon tools, lumber, bricks, mortar, wires, and fixtures and head pell-mell for the four corners of the earth— Chinamen with Chinamen, Japs with Japs, Frogs with Frogs, Krauts with Krauts, Limeys with Limeys, etc. In two weeks all that is left of the UN building is a pile of unfinished carpentry and masonry standing bleak against the sky like a deserted grain elevator. Up in heaven there is great glee (Psa. 2:4), and Michael takes note again that “the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God” (l Cor. 3:19), and “He taketh the wise in their own craftiness” (l Cor. 3:19). When God wants to confound the scientists, educators, Bible scholars, and religious leaders of any day or century, He never has to “exert” Himself to accomplish His ends. Babel does not become bedlam through any such miraculous intervention as flying angels writing warning messages in letters of fire across the sky or tidal waves and hurricanes sweeping over the building site, or even an eclipse (which by modern scholars is considered to be a sign of some portent among ancient people. See the ridiculous translation of Luke 23:45, with footnote, in the Revised Standard Version, 1952).

When God wants to make a donkey out of smart man, He simply does something foolish (see l Cor. 1:25). Perhaps the greatest foolishness which the Almighty ever spread across man’s pathway was the time He allowed a woman to have a baby without a man being involved (Luke 1). Scholars have been slipping and stumbling on that pavement ever since the Lord laid it. At Babel, God simply confounds their languages so that what they say does not reach the hearer in the form in which the speaker intended. What was, “Please pass the hammer,” comes out “Get the H-- out of here!” What was spoken as, “Do you have any more tenpenny nails?” comes out as, “Do you know that fish roe is $4.00 a pound?” When one man greeted another at the start of the day with, “Good morning! Lovely morning isn’t it?”, it reached the other man as “Hello, Stupid. Do I have to work with you again on this shift?” It was almost as hilarious as a summit conference! “So the Lord scattered them abroad” (see Deut. 32:7–8). Out go the Shemites, heading eastward and northeast and southeast. Out goes Ham, headed southeast, southwest, and west. Out goes Japheth, headed west. northwest, and north, “every one after his tongue” (see Gen. 10:5 and comments).

11:9 “Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.” Babel means “confusion” and evidently is a late name of a city which originally was called “Babylon” (i.e., “The Gate to God”). It becomes “Babylon” in later history (see Jer. 40, 50–51 and Dan.1–3) and is the prototype for all subsequent systems of religious integration. (“Confusion” is the proper name of the institution, although it is often misnamed “ecumenicism.”) It is interesting to note that the Holy Spirit uses the same word for the relationship between a woman and a beast (Lev. 18:23) that He gives to religious integration. This is why the last one-world religious system is pictured by a woman and a beast! (see Rev. 17:1–3)! As John Knox so candidly remarked to Mary, Queen of Scotland, “Your church is a harlot.” The confusion of tongues is not remedied until Revelation 7:9, and then it is only properly united around the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, who made man’s tongue (see Luke 1:64; Mark 7:35; Exod. 4:10–11). There is an intermittent period where tongues are restored as a sign of a coming dispensation of grace (see Acts 2:1–6), but tongues prophesy only “in part” (1 Cor. 13:9–13), and in this dispensation most of them are only more babble. Linguists in this age are given credit for being “interpreters” because man’s sole aim, in this age, is to restore the city and “tower whose top may reach to heaven.” A great linguist is looked upon by college faculty members as the god “Hermes” come down in the flesh (Acts 14) to restore the United Nations of Genesis 11 to its former glory. This, and this only, can account for the fantastic thing which has happened since 1901 in the fundamental and conservative schools—the acceptance of the Westcott and Hort theory of the Vaticanus Manuscript (ASV and RSV), which is a theory based on a mathematical probability of one chance out of 8000 chances (see “The Christian’s Handbook on Manuscript Evidence ). No babble is worse than a “Bible Babel.” “And from thence did the Lord scatter them,” exactly what they did not want in verse 4. The Lord did the scattering. That is, it is the Lord Himself who is responsible for segregation and confusion. God is not the author of confusion (l Cor. 14:33), but He certainly will allow it to enter where men try to confuse the races (see note above).

The dynasties of Babylon continue after this time (Kish, Lagash, Erec, Accad, and Ur), and the religious history of Babylon continues right down through the ages to the first Roman bishops under Constantine (see commentary on Revelation, Rev. 2:12–13). The definitive work on this part of Babylon’s history is The Two Babylons by Hislop (Loizeaux Bros., 1916, N.Y.). The deification of Cush and Nimrod, along with Ashteroth (Semiramis) and her “virgin born son” (Tammuz), sets the pace for Egyptian, Chinese, Japanese, Hindu, Roman, and Greek religions. The information on these religions is titanic and cannot be gone into here. Suffice it to say that the final world power (1990) will be the ancient Babylonian system, resurrected and incarnated in the apostate Roman Catholic Church with her apostate Protestant consorts (see commentary on Revelation, Rev. 14:8).

11:10 “These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: 11 And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. 12 And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah: 13 And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters. 14 And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber: 15 And Salah lived after he begat Eber four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters.” The Holy Spirit now returns to the narrative of history, taking up Shem’s genealogy in such a way as to prepare the reader for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to follow. (We have noted the Hebrew meanings of the names under the comments on Gen. 10:22–26.) The reader cannot help but notice the difference in longevity of these Shemites as compared to the descendants of Adam, found in Genesis 5. Shem lives to be 600 years old. Arphaxad lives to be 438, and Salah lives only 433 years. In the list which follows, there is a continual decrease in length of life: Serug, 230 years; Nahor, 148 years. This is obviously due to some tremendous change which has taken place in the earth’s atmosphere. A change great enough to decrease length of human life from an average of around 900 years to less than 400, in 100 years, would certainly invalidate any “scientific” method for “time dating,” such as the incompetent “Libby 14” method. The Bible believer is not to be carried away for a minute by the modern “party line” (being given to him by Christians who wish to be noted for their intellectuality and culture). This type of Christian (Justin Martyr [A.D. 200] before his conversion) is scared to death that he will accidently contradict a “scientific fact” in his preaching and writing and thus leave himself open to ridicule. Ridicule is a major part of your Christian inheritance (Acts 2:13, 17:32; Luke 23:11, 36), and you cannot even preach the simple gospel (l Cor. 15:1–4) without being open to ridicule and mockery. Tell me something, you “cultured Christians,” what is “scientific” about a corpse coming up from a graveyard and sailing back to Alpha Draconis without any help from “scientists”? Where science crosses the Book, science is to be treated with the same contempt which it so lavishly bestows on the Book (l Tim. 6:20). The ages given here in the AV 1611 text (vss. 10–15), and those which follow (vss. 16–28), are the ages given in the Hebrew text of Jacob Ben Chayim (see introductory remarks). They have been altered in the Hesychian Manuscripts, written in A.D. 350 (not 250 B.C.) to read 535 instead of 438 (Arphaxad); 460 for 433 (Salah); and 404 for 464 (Eber). These manuscripts are what scholars refer

to when they say “the LXX.” Actually, there is no such thing as an “LXX”; this “Bible,” as the Westcott and Hort theory, is a subjective fabrication of Greek Biblical scholars. The “LXX” in its present form consists of manuscripts written 300 years after Paul was executed and consists largely of corrections of the Hebrew text. The Samaritan Pentateuch adds “and he died” to verses 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, etc., in an effort to match the genealogical tables in Chapter 5. “And he died” is an interpolation in this chapter. The Bible believer may rest confidently in the King James, 1611, AV text as the correct text, preserved without error. The so-called “LXX” has inserted the name “Cainan” in verse 12, although it is missing from the list in l Chronicles 1:18 in the Hebrew. This is a perfect example of the type of text manipulation done by Alexandrian scribes (150–300 B.C.); it is amazing that the majority of conservative scholars (1800–1970) have not yet caught on to what this “LXX” actually is in view of this demonstration (and scores of others) of text garbling. The conservative scholars should have noticed that the insertion of “Cainan” into the text is done by the pen of a scribe who read it in Luke 3:35–36. Whoever wrote the Septuagint had the complete New Testament on his writing table when he altered the word of God. This can be demonstrated by a score of Old Testament texts which have been altered to match New Testament texts. Modern scholarship detours these glaring texts by three stratagems: 1. Pretending that the early Christians used the “LXX,” which is proved by the fact that the Old Testament quotations found in it are those quoted in the New Testament. 2. Pretending that “Cainan” in Luke 3 is a spurious gloss which crept in from an original spurious gloss in a pre-Christian “LXX.” 3. Pretending that Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (Aleph, A.D. 350) were written 250 B.C. upon the order of Ptolemy Philadelphius. The Bible believer’s answer to all this make-believe “horseplay” is simple: 1. No Hebrew Christian in the first century would touch a Greek Old Testament with a ten foot pole, if it were in existence. 2. Since the gloss of Genesis 11:12 was written 320 years after the ascension of Christ, it is apparent that Luke 3:35–36 is a correct text which someone has tried to reinsert in the Old Testament account “to help God along,” etc. (see notes on Gen. 46:25–27). 3. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, quoted in commentaries as the “LXX ” (and sometimes Alexandrinus), were written three centuries after the events of Acts 1–10 and should be listed in commentaries for what they are—post-New Testament apocrypha—not “the LXX.” This means simply that any set of commentaries citing the “LXX,” without telling you that it is not “the LXX” of traditional history—250 B.C. in Egypt—is a corrupt commentary written by a man, or men, who purposely deceive their readers. This would include 95 percent of the published commentaries on the market today. Origen, Symmachus, Theodotian, Aquilla, and company (with the help of a forged letter by Philo of Alexandria) “helped God out” as much as they could by trying to match up New Testament passages with Old Testament passages; and like their progeny (the ASV and RSV translators), they figured they rendered “invaluable service” to “future generations of scholars” etc. What they did was pervert the word “of the living God” (see Jer. 23:36). “And Shem...begat sons and daughters” (vs. 11). These are not all listed by name any more than were Adam’s (see Gen. 5:4). They would include descendants who settled in India, China, Japan, and what is now Burma, Thailand, East Pakistan, Korea, and Siberia (see “Almogics” under Gen 10:26). For information on Eber, see comments under Genesis 10:25.

11:16 “And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg: 17 And Eber lived after he begat Peleg four hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters. 18 And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu: 19 And Peleg lived after he begat Reu two hundred and nine years, and begat sons and daughters. 20 And Reu lived two and thirty years, and begat Serug: 21 And Reu lived after he begat Serug two hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters. 22 And Serug lived thirty years, and begat Nahor:”

Longevity continues to decrease: Eber lives 464 years; Peleg lives 239 years; Reu lives 239 years; Serug lives 230 years; and Nahor lives 148 years. The average age of the parent, at the time of the birth of each child, has dropped from around 100 years old (Gen 5:1–20) to around thirty-five years old. Salah has a son at thirty years of age, Eber has one at thirty-four, Peleg has one at thirty, Reu at thirty-two, Serug at twenty, and Nahor has a son, who is the father of Abram, when he is twenty-nine years old.

11:23 “And Serug lived after he begat Nahor two hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. 24 And Nahor lived nine and twenty years, and begat Terah: 25 And Nahor lived after he begat Terah an hundred and nineteen years, and begat sons and daughters. 26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.”

Serug, in Hebrew, means “vine sheet”; Nahor means “panting” or “piercer”; and Terah means “turning or tarrying” (it is also kin to “migration”). There is a problem about Terah’s age. Abram is born when he is seventy; then Terah lives 135 more years, making a total of 205 years. Abram departs Haran at the age of seventy-five, which would be when his father Terah was 145 years old, and still had fifty years to live. Yet Terah is said to die in Haran before Abraham leaves (see Gen.11:32). To get around this difficulty, the Samaritan text shortens Terah’s life to 145 years, instead of 205. In line with “helping God write His book,” the corrupt “LXX” makes Terah drop dead at 135. (All this, of course, is an attempt to reconcile Acts 7:4 with the text! Whoever writes the “LXX” has the Textus Receptus copy of Acts 7 on his writing table, as I have said before!) The motive for the changes, of course, is a “good motive” (see Eve, Gen. 3:6), and it is done with the “best intentions” of “making the Scriptures clearer,” etc., but to be quite profane (and quite trite) about the matter, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions” (Prov. 14:12). In the face of a seemingly unsolvable problem, the Bible believer should resort (as he has many times before) to the simple facts of the English text. Terah is born in 2126 B.C. He lives 205 years,

dying in 1921 B.C. He is seventy years old (2056) when he begets Nahor, not Abram. (You see, there was no statement in the AV text on Abram’s birth any more than there was on the order of birth with Shem, Ham, and Japheth—see Gen. 5:32 and 6:10!) Abram is born in 1996 B.C. when Terah is 130 years old, making Abram seventy-five years old (1912 B.C.) when Terah dies at the age of 205. That is, the AV 1611 is infallibly accurate, and the Samaritan Pentateuch and the so-called “LXX” are no more reliable than Moffat, Weymouth, Goodspeed, Phillips, Montgomery, Lamsa, or Berkeley. What is an insuperable difficulty to “sound scholarship” is made plainer than building blocks by the Reformation text of the AV 1611. (The reader of this set of commentaries will re-learn that lesson many times in the remaining volumes.) “And begat Abram....” Now the Bible returns to individual histories. The great individuals up to Genesis 11:26 have been Adam, Abel, Enoch, and Noah. Now the granddaddy of the Patriarchs appears for the first time in Scripture (1996 B.C.). Abram is the tenth from Noah. He is called a “Hebrew” (Gen. 14:13), and as an uncircumcised Shemite (Rom. 4), he does not become a “Jew” until Genesis 17:9 (see comments on “Jew, Church, and Gentile” under Gen. 10:5). Abram means “high father” in Hebrew, and the name is not changed to Abraham, “Father of a Multitude,” until Genesis 17:5. Abram is the king of the “fathers” and is always given first in the Trinitarian formula, “The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (Exod. 3:16; Deut. 1:8, 30:20; Mark 12:26; Acts 3:13, etc.). The name “Abram” or “Abraham” occurs in the Bible more than 250 times. As Isaac pictures God the Son (Gal. 3,4), so Abraham pictures God the Father (see Gen. 22:1–10; Luke 16:19–24; John 8:37, 39, 41). This remarkable man is called “the Friend of God” (Isa. 41:8; James 2:23); his salvation (Gen. 15) is a type of the New Testament salvation revealed to Paul (Rom. 4); he leaves home by faith, forsakes Lot by faith, offers up his son by faith, and sojourns by faith in a land which he never received as a permanent inheritance—yet (see Heb. 11 and Isa. 66). “Father Abraham” is a legendary figure to the nation of Isreal, if everything which they wrote about him in the Babylonian Talmud is true. To the believer, Abraham is the epitome of the life of faith; he walked “in the spirit and not after the flesh” (Gal. 5:16, 17), even with all the frailties (Gen. 12:10, 16:4, 17:17, 20:2, 25:1). Abraham’s record of godliness is preserved for heaven and earth to marvel at, for “heaven and earth shall pass away,” but God’s word shall not. As an earthen vessel, subject to the same temptations as other vessels of dust and ashes, Abram refuses fellowship with the ungodly (Gen. 13:11), offers others the preeminent place (Gen. 13:9), has respect for his testimony before unbelievers (Gen. 13:8), worships God in spirit and truth (Gen.13:18), endangers his life for “the brethren” (Gen. 14:13–16), refuses to be bribed or rewarded by the heathen (Gen. 14:22–23), tithes his riches (Gen. 14:20), believes the impossible by faith (Gen. 15:16), sacrifices to the true God (Gen. 15:9–10), obeys orders from God without question (Gen. 17:26), prays and intercedes for the brethren (Gen. 22:5), and believes in the literal resurrection (Gen. 22:5) to the place where he would bet the life of his only son on the truth of the doctrine (Gen. 22:10)! Abraham is indeed a marvel of faith for the twentieth-century men to gape at in unbelief. Truly, he was “the Friend of God” (see James 2:23, 4:4)

11:27 “Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot. 28 And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.

29 And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram’s wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor’s wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah. 30 But Sarai was barren; she had no child.”

Now Lot appears for the first time in Scripture (see comments on pairs in Gen. 4:1–4). The word “Lot” in Hebrew is kin to “a low or obscure one” or “dark-colored one.” (By what follows —“Remember Lot’s wife”—it would appear that Lot has an affinity for Hamites—see Gen. 13:10.) We must take notice of the name, as the Lord Jesus Christ warns the New Testament believer to look out for “the days of Noah” and “the days of Lot” (see comments on “the days of Noah” under Gen. 4:20–24). Since these “days of Lot” will typify the world conditions immediately preceding the Second Advent, the believer should notice that the “days of Lot” include: 1. Total integration. 2. One universal language. 3. Babylonian worship. 4. Attempts to get up into outer space. 5. Artificial, manmade materials being used for God-made materials. 6. An emphasis on “cities” and “towers.” 7. The calling out of the Hebrews to Palestine. 8. The exaltation of a Hamite ruler—Nimrod. This is the material that is found in Chapter 11 of the Authorized text, and Lot appears for the first time in the Scripture at Chapter 11. Therefore, the handwriting is not only “on the wall,” it is on every dimestore counter in America. Anyone coming out of the UN building in New York in 2001 can pick up all eight points, written 3,000 years ahead of time and preserved in the contemporary universal language. “And Haran died before his father Terah...in Ur of the Chaldees.” This, then, was the family home, and the excavations by C. L. Wooley (1922–34) only confirm what any Bible believer already knew to be true before 1700. The “Ur Dynasty” and the “Babylon Dynasty” follow the “Accad Dynasty” in Babylon, and Hammurabi (founder of the “Code”) was a contemporary of Abraham. The “Chaldeans” at this time are still a mixed race. (Note Hamitic intermingling, according to Homer, Odyssey, 1.23, 24; Herodotus v. 54; Strabo xv. 3 No.2; and “The History of Armenia,” by Moses of Chorene, 1. 6.) Of all the nations who were dispersed at the Tower of Babel, Ham seems to have been the only one who loathed to go back to his own land (Psa. 105:23). He “hangs around” his former glory—Nimrod, the son of Cush—like an ex-football pro “hangs around” the Rose Bowl, and even when Ham migrates westward, he stops at Canaan and refuses to go down into “the land of Ham” (see Gen. 13:7 and comments). Ur (the modern Mugheir or Mugayyar) was once a seaport on the Persian Gulf at the mouth of the Euphrates River, twelve miles from the traditional site of the “garden of Eden.” It is located within fifty miles of the modern “Basra” of Iraq. “The name of Abram’s wife was Sarai.” This is the “contentious one” of Genesis 16:2, 6 who later was renamed “Sarah” (i.e., “princess”) by God (Gen. 17:15). She is presented as an example to follow for the Christian wife of the New Testament (l Pet. 3:2–6), and the New Testament only recognizes her by her title of “princess”— never “the contentious one.” (Exactly as the New Testament omits listing the sins of Joseph, Isaac, Noah, Enoch, Moses, Abraham, and David! See

Heb. 11.) Sarah is the half sister of Abram (Gen. 20:12), and she is still “a knockout” at seventy-five (Gen. 12:14—Sarah is ninety in Gen. 17:17). Like most beautiful women, she usually has her husband in hot water (Gen. 16:5, 20:3). She is plainly a type of Israel, in the prophetic layout of the word of God, and Rebekah (a type of the church) is not “brought...into...Sarah’s tent” (Gen. 24:67) until after Sarah is buried in a cave (Gen. 23). Sarah is the wife of a man who is a type of God the Father (see remarks under Gen. 11:26), and as such she pictures the “wife of Jehovah” spoken of so frequently in the Old Testament (Isa. 54:6; Jer. 3, 2:2; Hosea 2:19). “But Sarai was barren.” Sarai is the first in a series of seven barren women, who are either types of Israel (the wife of Jehovah) or the church (the Bride of Jesus Christ). They all point to, or prefigure, the need for a miraculous birth of some kind. All seven women have sons who are types of Christ, and whether the miraculous birth is the virgin birth of Christ (Luke 1:35), the birth of the Nation of Israel in the Tribulation (Isa. 66:7–8), or the new birth of the believer in the Church Age (John 3:3–5), the women are clearly presented: 1. Sarah: whose son is one of the greatest types of Christ in the Bible—Isaac. 2. Rebekah: who is barren, but after twenty years of prayer brings forth Jacob (Israel!). 3. Rachel: who is barren, but finally gives birth to Joseph, the greatest type of Christ in the Bible. 4. Hannah: who is barren, but gives birth to Samuel, a priest-prophet type of Christ. 5. Manoah’s wife: who is barren, but gives birth to a deliverer for Israel—Samson. 6. The Shunamite: who is barren, but has a child who dies and is resurrected! 7. Elizabeth: who is barren, but gives birth to a Nazarite—John the Baptist. All seven of these women are also types of Mary! 11:31 “And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son’s son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram’s wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there. 32 And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran.”

In the list given, it is apparent that Lot is still unmarried. (The marriages of Abram and Nahor are both given in vs. 29.) The omission of “Lot’s wife” is of great significance, in view of the warning given by the Lord Jesus in the New Testament: “Remember Lot’s wife” (Luke 17:32). “The Scholars’ Union,” which follows the “traditions of men” (Col. 2:8–9), would see nothing unusual about this, but it is very unusual when one remembers that: 1. The days of Lot are the days which preceded A.D. 2000. 2. Lot has no wife when he leaves Ur of the Chaldees. 3. He has a wife when he leaves Sodom (Gen. 19:15). 4. His wife turns white from head to foot (Gen 19:26). 5. The only place she could have been picked up would have been either Egypt (Gen. 13:1) or Sodom itself (Gen. 13:13). In either case, she is black (see notes on Gen. 10:13, 19). The commentaries refuse comment for the same reason that twentieth-century scientists refuse to publish facts and figures on the acquirements, learning abilities, criminality, suicide rate, V.D. rate, and working ability of the “races.” With all their talk about man coming from animals and being “naked apes,” etc., the fact remains that no scientist (or group of scientists) dares publish any factual data about racial realities. America lives in a dream world. “From Ur of the Chaldees.” It looks like all the outlaws and in-laws went along, and yet in the

original commission (see Gen. 12:1), which was given in Ur (see Acts 7:2–3) of the Chaldees, Abram was told to take a solo flight. The flight winds up solo in the end, for his daddy dies in Haran without completing the trip, and Lot is segregated from Abram in Genesis 13:11 by a providential “cattle war” which crops up between the herdsmen (Gen. 13:6–7). Abram’s first obedience, then (mentioned in Heb. 11:8), is a “partial obedience.” “He went out, not knowing whither he went” is true, but he went out with mommy, daddy, and his nephew; and by the reading of Genesis 24:15, it is apparent that he also took his brother with him and his brother’s wife, plus Iscah and Milcah! What began as a missionary calling winds up as a family vacation tour. “Went forth...from Ur of the Chaldees.” (We have located the general area under comments on Gen. 11:28.) There is not a great deal to say about the place. What fascinates the archaeologist is usually as dry as dust to the real Bible believer. Scripture with Scripture has already solved 100 problems on which archaeologists are still working. Typical is the article on “Ur” in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Vol. V, 3039B) where a question is put into the reader’s mind. “The striking resemblance between the ziggurat (at Ur) and the stepped pyramid temple of Chichen Itsa of the Maya civilization in Yucatan is curious and very puzzling.” (The writer means that it is a puzzle to people who reject the truth that all the world was populated by Shem, Ham, and Japheth and that the American Indians were Shemites [Almogic branch] who crossed the Bering Straits and entered Central and South America before Balboa cut his baby teeth.) Modern archaeology, as most “scientific pursuits,” consists primarily in: 1. Rejecting the plain truth of plain Scripture on the grounds that it is not scientific. 2. Seeking to find the answer from some place else other than the Bible. 3. If an answer is found which “jives” with the Bible, it is said to be “puzzling.” It may be puzzling to some Bible-rejecting egomaniac, but it is not in the least puzzling to anybody who accepts the Bible’s authority as superior to his own. Ur is a typical pagan town in a pagan country, inhabited by Sumerians, Babylonians, Chaldeans, Cush*tes (from Ham), and a sprinkling of Arabians. As any pagan town in any pagan country, it had its false gods and their sanctuaries, attended by their priests; as a matter of fact, with the exception of the size of the town, you could not have told the difference between Ur and Madrid, Rome, Barcelona, Salerno, Granada, or Mexico City if you had laid them side by side. The religious heritage of Ur was Baalism, astrology, sex cults, planet worship, Tammuz worship, and adoration of the “queen of heaven” (Astarte, Ishtar, Easter, Mary, Venus, Aphrodite, Diana, etc.). We find Nippur (Enlil or Ellil) identified as Bel (see “Bel and the Dragon” in the Roman Catholic Apocrypha) or “Baal” in Phoenicia. We find Anu (Ana—“Heaven”) with his wife “Anatu” (or Antu) and Ea, the “god of the house of wisdom” (or “house of the deeps”; see notes on Gen. 1:1– 3!), who was also married to a very charming lady named “Damkina.” Also present (almost as many as Jude, Christopher, James, Peter, John, Blessed Mary, Blessed Joseph, and Blessed John the Baptist!) were Marduk and Ishtar. Marduk was called “Belu” (matching Bel, Bull, Baal, Belial, Beelzebub, Babylon, bayonet, barbed wire, bomb, babe, bottle, Buick, and anything else contrary to sound doctrine!), and people sang hymns to him. Ishtar began as a goddess of love and “fertility” but wound up as a goddess of judgment and war (see Hislop’s Two Babylons). “Sin” (very appropriate!) was the moon god and patron saint of Ur, Abram’s hometown. Like most pagan gods, he had a happy home life with Ningal, “the Great Lady,” who was his wife. (Ur, by the way, means “light” in Hebrew.) Lesser lights were Shamash, Nabu, Nergal, Nebo, Ninib, Ramman, Tammuz, and Asshur. The Pantheon of the gods are thirteen in number.

“And Terah died in Haran.” Terah’s death, in expository preaching, pictures the saint who begins the pilgrim trek but does not finish it. Whether or not God intended him to finish it (in the light of the original commission—which was to Abram only) is highly doubtful. At any rate, he dies. When he dies, Abram and Lot (with Sarai) leave Haran and come down the Damascus trade routes, heading southwest into Canaan. Haran is near the modern city of Edessa (Urfa), which is in Turkey, just north of the Syrian border. The death of Terah is in 1921 B.C. Transposing this date forward to A.D., one will find that it missed the Balfour Declaration by only four years. The Balfour Declaration (A.D. 1917) also matches the decree of Cyrus (Ezra 1:1–2) and would indicate that England is connected (in prophecy) with Persia (Dan.8).

CHAPTER 12 12:1 “Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee: 2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: 3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.”

The text is stupendous. Among other things, it reaffirms the truth that God is selective, particular, discriminatory, and a segregationist (horrors!); and it shows that He is interested in human affairs, speaks directly to people on occasion, and deals with absolutes in the realm of moral truth. Not one of these truths revealed in the text is acceptable or even tolerable to the modern “tolerant man.” “Get thee out...from...unto.” That is a clear commandment for segregation, not desegregation. “Get thee out...from thy.” Out and out selectivity of some individual to the exclusion of others. “I will make of thee a great nation.” Discrimination if you ever saw it! “Bless them that bless thee...curse him that curseth thee.” There is no middle ground here; it is black or white, up or down, hot or cold, saved or lost, heaven or hell, cursing or blessing. The only way the modern mind can get around this blast of “hate literature” is to suppress the text, push it downward and backward in the mind, and pretend that it is some “mythological fragment of folklore, greatly embellished with the fancies of, etc.” If the text is true, “modern man” has split his britches. But to help him sew them back up, the RSV has rushed forward with the superlative translation, “By you, all the families of the earth will bless themselves!” Which, as anyone can plainly see, means absolutely nothing. “All the families of the earth” do not bless themselves “by Abraham,” and if they did they would sin against God (Phil. 2:7–11). (We wonder sometimes if Marduk, Bel, Nebo, and Nippur are not vast improvements over the “gods” of modern Bible translators.) What would possess any man to translate the passage in the above fashion? This goes even beyond the bounds of “interpretation,” for when one stares at the remarkable sentence “By you, all the families of the earth will bless themselves,” he realizes that it could not be applied anywhere, no matter how it was interpreted. To sell RSV’s and AV 1611’s on the same shelf, in view of such translating (and there are scores of similar examples), would be like displaying Edsels and Porsches in the same showroom. The quaint and singular translation of the RSV is from the archaic writings of Jarchi and Clericus of more than a century ago. The Hebrew of Genesis 12:3, “nibraku,” is a Niphal, perfect, third person plural, used with the Waw consecutive as a passive of Barak (Piel: “to bless”). The reflexive term (in the RSV) would require a Hithpael (as even the Pual of the verb would be a passive voice). To produce the grotesque and ludicrous reading of the RSV in Genesis 12:3, one would have to have “Hithbaraku.” Such a word does not appear in any coalition of manuscripts ever published or unpublished. Typical “better translating”! “Now the Lord had said.” What He had said, He had said “in person,” appearing to Abram as He often appeared to the American Indian and the “heathen” (and other sincere people who would accept such a revelation; see Acts 7:2, 10:3; Num. 12:6). “Country...kindred...father’s house.” Country would refer to Mesopotamia in the region of

Babylonia. Kindred would include Lot, and father’s house would include Terah and Nahor. Abram does not obey completely, but the New Testament (Heb. 11) gives him the credit just the same: imputed righteousness (Rom. 4:5)! “Unto a land that I will shew thee.” (Cf. God’s promises to Moses—Exod. and Deut.) The Lord does not name the land or even indicate its general locality when He first speaks to Abram. Abram goes out “not knowing whither he went” (Heb. 11:8). By doing this, he indicated that he sought “a country that was heavenly” in the sense that it would be “God’s country” (see Heb.11:14, 16). God prepares a city, instead of a country, in the passage in Hebrews 11:16, but Abram goes seeking a country, not a city, in Genesis 12:1–4. After he gets in the land, he looks for the “city” for 100 years without ever finding it! In the land of Canaan, Abram is a pilgrim and a sojourner (Heb. 11:9, 13; see comments on Gen. 4:14), and while pitching his tent and folding it up, he naturally begins to look for some “city” which will be a final resting place. He never finds it; nor does Isaac, Jacob, Moses, or David (see Heb. 11:39). These Old Testament saints will get their city some day, but it will be only when the Son of David and Abraham (Matt. 1:1–2) reigns at Jerusalem on the Throne of David (see Zech. 14:21; Matt. 25:30–31; Eze.48:35; Isa. 65:18–19). “And I will make of thee a great nation.” There is not much doubt about the intention of the words. Abraham becomes “a great nation,” to put it mildly. In the days of David, there were 800,000 fighting men in Israel (plus 500,000 fighting men in Judah—2 Sam. 24:9), and in his son’s day, they became, “as the sand which is by the sea in multitude” (1 Kings 4:20). “And I will bless thee.” Fulfilled to the letter in Genesis 24:1, 31, 35. “And make thy name great.” (See comments under Gen. 11:26.) “And thou shalt be a blessing.” Abraham will bless the people he contacts. This is the gist of the hymn which says, “Out in the highways and byways of life, many are weary and sad. Carry the sunshine where darkness is rife, making the sorrowing glad. Make me a blessing, make me a blessing, etc.” The meaning is not that Abraham’s name will be used in a Jewish rosary, instead of the name of God, but that he will be a blessing to others because God will work it out that way. He was a blessing to Lot when he rescued him (Gen. 14). He was a blessing to Lot when he prayed him out of Sodom (Gen. 19). He was a blessing to his son Isaac when the boy could grow up remembering a daddy who had been as strong in the faith as a lion of God (Gen. 22:10). He was a blessing to the whole Jewish nation, for without the unconditional promises which God gave to him while he was asleep (Gen. 15:12–21), the Jew could never return to the Promised Land and possess it. The Mosaic promises, under the Mosaic covenant, were promises which were conditioned on works (see Lev. 26). “And thou shalt be a blessing.” “I will bless them that bless thee...curse him that curseth thee.” This is a hard saying, and like all hard sayings in the Bible, it will have to be revised, twisted, changed, altered, denied, spiritualized, or misapplied by those Christians (or non-Christians) who resent its implications (see commentary on Revelation, Rev. 14:8). In view of the fact that the words are repeated to Jacob, Isaac’s son (Gen. 27:29), and are repeated again by Balaam (Num. 24:9) as applicable to the twelve tribes of Israel; we are left with only one conclusion, a conclusion which is highly objectionable and distasteful to “modern commentators,” if not downright repulsive. If the words mean what they say and say what they mean, in the context in which we have found them: l. God will curse any man (or nation) who curses the descendants of the twelve tribes of Israel. 2. God will bless any man (or nation) who blesses the descendants of the twelve tribes of Israel. The classes of Bible rejectors who will resent this deduction will be:

a. British Israelites (“The World Tomorrow,” etc.) who want the English speaking people to be able to claim the promise. b. Roman Catholics who wish to put an “anathema” on anyone who did not subscribe to the dogmas instituted at the Council of Trent, 1546. (This includes all Jews who reject the New Testament.) c. Reformed and Presbyterian “cultured Christians” who pervert Galatians 3:29 to mean that everything God promised Abraham is for the church. d. Arabs in the land of Palestine who think that the Jew is only one of several people who has a right to the land. e. Anti-Semitic writers who think that the “Protocols” are the product of “Khazars” in Russia who plan to take over the Gentile “World Bank.” f. Modern educators and scientists, who long ago put the word “curse” into the same section of their filing cabinet as “blood of Christ,” “virgin birth,” “bodily resurrection,” and “Holy Bible.” The passage, therefore, has considerable opposition lined up against it—not as much as Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 3:1, but nearly as much! The best way, of course, to handle the objections is simply t o “comfort the feebleminded” and follow the dictum, “If any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant” (1 Cor. 14:38). Objection “a” may be disqualified on the grounds that the curses and blessings are aimed at the same people (see Deut. 28) and “all Israel shall be saved” (Rom. 11:26). Since when did God promise that all of England and the USA would be converted to Christ? Objection “b” is taken care of in Proverbs 26:2, and besides that, what the Catholic popes “anathematized” at the Council of Trent included the doctrine of eternal security, salvation by grace through faith, the Textus Receptus Bible, and the canonical statements of Jesus Christ. (Pretty good company if you have to be “cursed”!) Objection “c” is a funnyism; no Reformed or Presbyterian theologian believes that a man should have three wives (Gen. 16:1, 25:1) or that you should circumcise girl babies (1 Cor. 7:14; Gen. 17:10)! When a Reformed or Presbyterian theologian tries to put “Covenant Theology” on a Christian and make him think that “heirs of Abraham” means “household salvation by covenant,” the Christian should never forget that the sign of the covenant which God made with Abram was for the male children only (see Gen. 17). Objection “d” is taken care of in less than a half a page in the Bible (Gal. 4:22–29; Gen. 21:9–12). Objection “e” is based on the theory that when Jesus said “Salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22), He meant to say “Salvation is of Judah and Benjamin, exclusive of Jews in Russia, Germany, the United States, and England.” Objection “f,” by virtue of its nature, should be placed in the Christian’s filing cabinet in the same section with “Progressive Creationism,” “Theistic Evolution,” “Pope Leo,” “Charlie Brown,” and the RSV. To settle the difficulties and objections, history again asserts itself and proves that when God spoke Genesis 12:3 to Abraham, He meant exactly what He said, in the way in which He said it (see commentary on Revelation, Rev. 12: 13). In a commentary of this size, time would not permit a detailed history of anti-Semitism and the tragic downfall of the nations who practiced it. Hitler and Goebels (Germany) are two of the best examples in history, but lesser known examples are just as illustrative. 1. England, renigging on the Balfour Declaration (1918), picked up some of Goering’s “love letters” (1939–1941). It was “blood, sweat, and tears” for John Bull, and after the war it was bankruptcy and cultural suicide. The sun has already set on the British Empire. 2. Spain, confiscating Jewish property by the Inquisition, 1400–1588, lost a fleet in the English Channel (1588), two continents in the New World, and was then reduced to a sixth rate power, before

1800. 3. The history of Italy is a long history of reducing Jews to third class citizens (yellow star and all), and as a consequence, it is a standing joke that the smallest volume in the world is, “Who’s Who in Italy.” Apart from the continual fiasco conducted in Vatican City (by popular request!), Italy has never risen above wine and pizza since the Renaissance. The modern attitude toward these facts is simply that they are the incidental happenings of similar events within a framework of “statistical probability” and that none of them can have any reference to what God said in Genesis 12:3. (The favorite method of the intellectual sinner is to disassociate effect from cause. See Hills’ masterful analysis in “Believing Bible Study,” 1967, pp 91–95.) The most able proponents of this type of thinking are the psychiatrists and M.D.’s who have learned by years of practice that “causes” are complex, varied, obscure, multiple, and many times undetectable. On these grounds—the grounds of physical sickness and mental problems —modern scientists assume that there are no simple explanations for the moral troubles which befall men and nations. To wipe out 500 years of research with such statements as, “Sin is your problem,” “Unbelief is your problem,” or “Anti-Semitism is your problem” is such an “oversimplification” of “cause” that to a modern medical doctor or psychiatrist, such statements are dangerous and even detrimental to the welfare of individuals and nations. In order to defend their own sins and unbelief (and rejection of the word), modern “scientists” take the view that nobody can analyze moral problems where they involve punishment and judgment, because if they could, they would know what is wrong with modern scientists! The Bible again passes a flat, dogmatic, didactic, inflexible decree on the problem of anti-Semitism. (Read Jer. 2:3, 50:7, 30:11, 46:28; Psa. 122:6.) According to liberal scholars, these promises and warnings are only part of the religious “tradition” of a nomadic people who worshipped a “Tribal Deity,” and their tribal “God” pronounced these curses and blessings to help them out. That is, the liberal believes that Genesis 12:3 and all statements like it are the work of Jewish scribes inventing a religion. The Pulpit Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 179), after 700 words of comment on the location of Ur, spends 65 words commenting on this passage (Gen. 12:3)! This is quite typical of commentaries and typical of commentators—i.e., They handle the passages that deal with the findings of the physical sciences with great care, but they avoid like a red-hot poker the passages which deal with discrimination or divine favoritism. In Genesis 12:3, God promises to bless people who are a blessing to Abraham’s descendants, and this is confirmed by Genesis 27:29 and Numbers 24:9. He will curse those who curse them. This is clear. It is too clear. It is so clear that something must be done about the text by those who resent its clarity. The Christian’s duty, in view of all this, is just as clear as the text. Romans 11:28–30 is to be practiced, no matter how many private interpretations are placed on Genesis 12:3. “In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” (We have already commented on the comical translation found in the RSV.) “All families” would include more than the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This would include “all” if we are to believe what we read. “All families” would include Arabians from Ishmael (Gen. 21:13) who spread the Old Testament all over Persia, Turkey, Arabia, North Africa, and Spain; consequently blessing millions who read it and believed it. It would include every family that ran out of food in Genesis 41:56–57. “All countries came into Egypt,” for when they came to Egypt they were fed literally by Joseph, the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham. “All families,” however, goes beyond supplying the physical needs of starving people, for through Abram’s promised Seed (Gal. 3:16), the tribes of Africa, South

America, and the South Seas, the nations of Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, and the peoples of North, South, and Central America were spiritually “blessed” (see Rom. 11:1–25). God, to fulfill Genesis 12:3, hitched Carey, Goforth, Patrick, Livingstone, Cuthbert, Brainerd, Elliot, Columba, Taylor, Studd, Judson, and a million others to the gospel plow and made them plow Abraham’s row! Germans, Swedes, Armenians, Turks, Chinese, Japanese, Americans, Englishmen, Hottentots, Ubangis, Aucas, Burmese, Australians, Filipinos, Spaniards, Italians, Indians, Negritoes, Hawaiians, and Mexicans were “blessed” through Abraham. “In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.”

12:4 “So Abram departed, as the Lord had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran. 5 And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother’s son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came.”

“So Abram departed” would be a reference to the delayed obedience; that is, when he left Haran, he headed toward the place he should have gone many years before he went. “And Lot went with him.” (See comments on Gen 4:1–2 on “pairs.”) Lot is a source of trouble until he leaves, and then he causes trouble after he leaves (Gen. 14:1–15). This could not have been otherwise, as the original commission to Abraham did not include Lot (see comments on Gen. 11:31). Sarah is ten years younger than Abram (see Gen. 17: 17), so she would be a glamorous sixty-five at the time of the exodus from Haran. “The souls that they had gotten in Haran” indicates men and maidservants (see Gen. 14:14 and 24:35). The word “soul” is used for the complete human being, exactly as it is used even for animals in the Old Testament (see Russellite passage in Num. 31:28). In the coming Tribulation (Rev. 16:3), Old Testament times reoccur (see commentary on Revelation, Rev. 12:17), and since the soul is joined to the body in the Old Testament (see comments on Gen. 3:7 and 2:7), “living souls” can refer to animals as well as men in Revelation 16:3.

12:6 “And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Sichem, unto the plain of Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in the land. 7 And the Lord appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the Lord, who appeared unto him. 8 And he removed from thence unto a mountain on the east of Beth-el, and pitched his tent, having Beth-el on the west, and Hai on the east: and there he builded an altar unto the Lord, and called upon the name of the Lord. 9 And Abram journeyed, going on still toward the south.”

“The place of Sichem.” From Haran to the land of Canaan is a distance of about 300 miles, and the Sichem of the text is plainly the Shechem of later mention (see Gen. 33:19, 35:4; Josh. 20:7,

21:21; Judg. 9:23, etc.). Shechem is north of Bethel and Shiloh, and it lies almost exactly in the middle of Palestine on the westward side of Jordan. It is perhaps about 5 miles south of a halfway line drawn between Galilee and the Dead Sea. The word itself means “shoulder.” The town is in Mt. Ephraim and is connected with the apostasy of Jeroboam in 1 Kings 12 and the subsequent judgments on the place prophesied by the Lord in Psalm 60 and Psalm 108:7. “Unto the plain of Moreh.” The word means “teach- er.” It is a plain near the foot of Mt. Gerizim. In keeping with the scholarly tradition of altering the AV 1611 text, most of the new Bibles have changed the sentence to read “oak of the teacher” or “the oak of Moreh” (meaning a man named “Moreh”). This confusion comes from trying to make the Hebrew word “Elon” mean “oak.” The word for “oak,” however, is not “Elon” but ’ul (or ’il). Wasting several paragraphs discussing the problem, the commentators come to the conclusion that “oak of Moreh” is proper even though the same word is “plain” in Genesis 14:13 and 13:18. Since it is apparent in the last two cases that Abraham certainly did not dwell “in the oak of Mamre” (!), the Bible believer may leave the Authorized text as it stands and leave “Scripture wresting” to the unstable souls who wish to destroy themselves with it (see 2 Pet. 3:16). “And the Canaanite was then in the land.” “The Canaanite” is a reference to the original “servant of servants” (see Gen. 9:25), and he is (as usual) “out of bounds” (see comments on Gen. 10:8–10). Moreover, Canaan has a purpose in being in Palestine. His associates are Anakims, Rephaims, Zuzims, Nephilim, and Emims (see Deut. 2:10–20 and Gen. 6:4), the remnant of the “giants”! It is almost as though Satan foresees a shot before it is called. He is entrenched in the “Land of Promise” before the man to whom it is promised ever gets there. This explains why the first two covenants made with Abram are unconditional; it is as though God recognizes the fact that “the dice are loaded” and the “deck is stacked” before man can even try to obey the commandments. With a conditional covenant (see Deut. 8–9), the incoming Shemites are told to destroy, kill, and possess. With an unconditional covenant (Gen. 15:18–20), the incoming Shemite sojourns peaceably. This points out a great truth in dispensationalism. When a dispensation of grace is ushered in (with spiritual blessings and eternal security), the believer loses the signs, miracles, and wonders which accompany a worksand-faith situation under law. The price of answered prayer for vengeance on enemies and material blessings in exchange for good works (see Psa. 94:2, 109:20; 2 Sam. 22:21) is a salvation which must be “held onto.” “And the Lord appeared unto Abram.” This is the second appearance, the first one being in Ur of the Chaldees (Acts 7:1–3). “Unto thy seed.” This is the first time Abram’s “seed” has been mentioned. Notice how careful the Holy Spirit has been to leave the word out of the Abramic blessing of Genesis 12:1–3. This is so that no “Reformed theologian” will think that Genesis 12:1–3 is a reference to Christ’s spiritual seed; otherwise, the Christian would steal verse 3 from the descendants of Abram, Isaac, and Jacob, and that is exactly what the Roman church and the Reformers did. Observe further that the “seed” here mentioned is not specified to be Isaac, as it is in Genesis 21:12. So far the only promises, as far as the doctrinal content of the text is concerned, have been material promises which deal with physical blessings. “And there builded he an altar unto the Lord.” We have had two “covenants” established already, and yet neither has borne the name “covenant.” The word “covenant” is attached to the unconditional promises of Genesis 15:18 and the conditional promises of Genesis 17:7, which means that we must rightly divide the truth at this point and make sure our application is not garbled or

distorted. Technically speaking, Genesis 12:1–3 and 15:5 are not “covenants.” They are unconditional promises, and the plural must be noted; for in Galatians, Paul goes from “heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:29—singular) to “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made” (Gal. 3:16—plural!). The “s” of the King James AV 1611 text determines whether or not a man is correct in his doctrines on the Second Coming of Christ! For if THE promise (i.e., the promise of the Holy Ghost coming by faith through Jesus Christ—Gal. 3:2, 16) is ever confused with the promises (i.e., the literal land of Palestine given to the twelve tribes and the cursings and blessings on the enemies and friends of Israel), the student will emerge from Bible study as a postmillennialist. A “postmillennialist” is a man who believes that all the Old Testament promises were fulfilled at the Ascension of Christ and that God is all through with Israel. An outstanding herald of these false tidings is the Amplified Version of the New Testament, recommended by Dr. Theodore Epp and Billy Graham (see 1 Thess. 2:16 in this disgraceful “translation”). The “seed” of Genesis 12:7 is not a reference to Jesus Christ, who owns the whole world, but it is a reference to “sand of the sea shore” (Gen. 22:17) mentioned in l Kings 4:20. “And he removed from thence unto a mountain...and there he builded an altar.” This is the first in a series of travels which the writer of Hebrews describes as “sojourning by faith” (Heb. 11). Bethel is about eighteen miles straight south of Shechem on the west side of Jordan. The word means “house of God.” Hai is the “Ai” of Joshua 7–8; Ezra 2:28, and Jeremiah 49:3. The word means “the heap” or “the heap of ruins.” It is east of Bethel about four miles. The Hebrew meanings are quite significant in view of our previous comments on Genesis 3:24 and 4:16. “And there he builded an altar.” This is the first mention since Noah (Gen. 8:20), and it is significant that Abram is on a high elevation (“unto a mountain,” Gen. 12:8) exactly as Noah was when he offered the “sweet smelling savor.” This, of course, sets the precedence for the “high places” spoken of so many times in later history (l Kings 3:2, 13:32, 14:23, 15:14, 22:43; 2 Kings 17:10, etc.). “Every bad thing on this earth is a good thing twisted” (see comments on Gen. 3:5). “And Abram journeyed, going on still toward the south.” Wrong direction. If he had only gone as far south as Ziklag, Beer-sheba, or Gaza, he might have stayed in fellowship with the Lord. But “the Lord” is not mentioned in the passage from verse 9 to verse 17. Up till here He has been mentioned at least once in every three verses! “Toward the south” indicates “towards Egypt.” Egypt (the iron furnace) is a type of the world system, out of which God called Israel, His Son Jesus Christ, and the New Testament believer (Matt. 2:15; Micah 6:4; Heb. 3:16; Hag. 2:5). The Pulpit Commentary misses the point in the passage entirely, and after a brief note by Eichhorn (on some noncontroversial historical data of no importance), proceeds to intimate that since Abram did not go back to Haran or Ur, that the trip into Egypt could be considered a step of “faith” (Vol. 1, p. 187). This is very typical of the trifling exposition which always accompanies an “ultra positive outlook” on man’s motives (see remarks on Gen. 5:29).

12:10 “And there was a famine in the land: and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there; for the famine was grievous in the land. 11 And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon:

12 Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say, This is his wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive. 13 Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee.”

It is true that Abram goes “to sojourn” in Egypt, not to “dwell”; it is also true that God (making the wrath of men to praise Him—Psa. 76:10) is using Abram to fulfill the three types of salvation (Israel has to go down and come out, Christ goes down and comes out, and the believer was already down and comes out—Eph. 2:12; Col. 2:20). One must not fail to notice that under similar conditions (Ruth 1:15) Elimelech does the same thing and winds up “continuing” (Ruth 1:2) in the wrong place until, like Terah, he dies there. The fruit of Elimelech’s “sojourn” was death, two sons marrying “outlandish women,” two boys buried, a widow returning home with a daughter-in-law, and no children or grandchildren. The fruit of Abram’s sojourn is a colored wife (see Gen. 13:1, 16:1, 16:4) for himself, a colored wife for Lot (see notes on Gen. 11:27, 31), the near loss of his own wife (Gen. 12:15), the disgrace of having to lie to a Hamite (Gen. 12:19), and sickness coming on other people as punishment for lying in the first place (Gen. 12:17). This can hardly be called “a step of faith” in view of the standard test of all steps: “by their fruits ye shall know them.” “The famine was grievous in the land,” exactly as the famine of Genesis 41:56 and 43:1. (There are thirteen famines in the Bible: Gen. 12, 26, 41:54; Ruth 1:1; 2 Sam. 21:1; 1 Kings 18:2; 2 Kings 6:25, 8:1, 25:3; Amos 8:11; Acts 11:28; Rev. 6:6–8, 18:8. Genesis 43:1, 47:13 and 47:20 are references to different parts of the Genesis 41 famine. It is to be observed that the last famine—Amos 8:11—is a prediction of a famine that is not recorded in the New Testament, for the “famine” of Amos’ prophecy is a famine of hearing the word of God!) There is not much argument about the pressure which a famine would put on any man; it would be a severe test of faith, one of the strongest. Nevertheless, when Abram yields to the temptation to put something in his mouth (see Eve, Gen. 3:4– 6), the “fruit” is about like the one swallowed by his first father, Adam. “Thou art a fair woman to look upon.” Men fall in love with what they see, and women fall in love with what they hear (Gen. 3:15). (Hence, the cosmetic and “beauty shop” business in America is third only to TV entertainment and the automobile industry.) “When the Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say....” Abram knows something about Ham without too much acquaintance. However, one must not forget that Ur of the Chaldees was a mixed population, even after the Tower of Babel (see note on Gen. 11:31). Hengstenberg’s Egypt and the Books of Moses (p. 200) has a naive assertion to the effect that “a fair complexion was deemed a high recommendation in the age of Pharaohs” since the Nubian and Egyptian were “of a browner tinge” than the Arabian and Syrian. Hengstenberg and others are trying to tell us something, but they seem to have mouths full of floss candy and bananas. What is it that they are trying to say? Here, the AV 1611 Bible needs to conduct a “scientific investigation” on the writings of the scholars, instead of vice versa. The desire of an Egyptian to get a light-colored woman is accredited to the Egyptians of that time being “notorious for licentiousness” (Smith’s, History of the World, Vol. 1, Chap. 6, p. 71). But what is it that our scholars are trying to say that they are too mealymouthed to say clearly? Abimelech the Philistine (from Ham: see Gen. 10:14) seems to be obsessed with the same “racial complex” that bothers Pharaoh (see Gen. 20:13), yet Abimelech is not an Egyptian (“notorious for licentiousness” etc.). Our scholars seem to suddenly lose all sense of objectivity, balance, common sense, and fact

when they have to deal with Ham’s descendants and their desire for light-skinned wives! The truth of the matter is that Ham has a sex problem (see comments on Gen. 9:22). His desire to eat red-brown clay (by the spoonful in North Alabama), to wear white stockings, to straighten out kinky hair, to choose leaders like Powell (who are half-breeds), and to want to use “white” restrooms, drinking fountains, and soda counters does not come from a desire to have equal “rights.” “Rights” are only a step in attaining something much deeper. Beauty may only be “skin deep,” but the colored lady who asked for “flesh colored stockings” (and got black ones) returned them and said, “I asked fo’ flesh color, not skin color!” There are thousands of Hamite males who are content with their color and do not try to “bleed it out” with the help of the Supreme Court and NAACP, but there are millions of Hamite males whose greatest ambition in life is to “have” a white woman. This is common knowledge which is universally known and held, and it is acquired from direct observation of firsthand evidence in the Army, on the ball fields, in the pool halls, on the dance floors, in the gyms, on the beaches, and in the barrooms. This knowledge is called “prejudice” by book writers and day dreamers whose concept of humanity is that which they received from reading the required curriculum of socialistic universities. The most natural thing in the world would be for an unsaved Pharaoh from Ham to desire to get his hands on a light-skinned Jewish woman. (Hengstenberg, Smith, Eichhorn, DeWitte, Murphy, Havernick, Bohlen, Gesenius, and Kalisch are wasting their time trying to exposit the text.) The text is self-evident to any normal person, and it is so self-evident to Abram that he takes precautionary measures before he and Sarah get into the land. “Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister.” This is a half-truth, as mentioned before (Gen. 20:12), but it is a sorry way to “do business.” Egyptians seem to have a habit of killing men and saving women alive—see Exodus 1—and Abram’s proposition is plainly dishonorable, for the implication is “if they think you are my sister, they’ll go ahead and take you, but they won’t kill me to do it”! “The Friend of God” and “the Father of the Faithful,” alas, is “flesh and grass,” just like the rest of us (Psa. 39:5)! A man sacrificing his wife’s purity to save his own neck is getting down pretty low, although nearly any G.I. who came through Berlin, Manila, or Paris (in 1944–45) understands the situation. (Much of the Bible that is obscure to Hebrew and Greek scholars is a cut and dried matter for anyone with any real experience in living.) “And my soul shall live because of thee.” The reader should not fail to note again the use of the word “soul” in the Old Testament as synonymous with physical life (see Lev.7:18, 20, 17:12, 15; Gen. 19:20, 46:26; Deut. 14:26) as well as the inner “emotional life” of the individual. (This is the cue for Rutherford and Russell to strike the bell for “all is well, there is no hell.”) This cracked “liberty” bell has been ringing out the “good news” to sinners for nearly 100 years that God will not let them reap sin eternally but will mercifully annihilate them at the last Judgment, according to Malachi 4:1–5—which is not a reference to the last Judgment! The no-heller exposition ignores the fact that the soul departs from the body at death (Gen. 35:18) many days before the body is buried (Gen. 49:33 with 50:3). Although spoken of in the same terms before the death of the individual, the body and soul are certainly completely disassociated after death (see commentary on Revelation, Rev.14:10–11 for full details).

12:14 “And it came to pass, that, when Abram was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair. 15 The princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and commended her before Pharaoh: and the

woman was taken into Pharaoh’s house. 16 And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels. 17 And the Lord plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram’s wife. 18 And Pharaoh called Abram, and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife? 19 Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife: now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way. 20 And Pharaoh commanded his men concerning him: and they sent him away, and his wife, and all that he had.”

The time here would be around 1912 B.C., with Abraham about eighty-four years old. (Again, notice that Abraham leaves Egypt to return to the Promised Land within four to six years of the Balfour Declaration in A.D. 1918.) The eleventh and twelfth Dynasties are reigning in Egypt at this time in what Egyptologists refer to as “the Middle Kingdom.” Where the Pulpit Commentary has not one single comment to make on the expression “and my soul shall live because of thee,” it wastes 350 words trying to locate the exact Pharaoh that was on the throne at this time. In the New Testament, this is called “straining at a gnat” and “swallowing a camel.” “The princes also of Pharaoh.” Pharaoh is the equivalent of “Caesar” for a Roman or “Czar” for a Russian. The Pharaohs from Genesis to Deuteronomy are not named; they are only indicated. When you get to l Kings 3:1 and after, they are named. This is one of the strongest evidences possible that the writer of Genesis 12 was someone who knew Egyptology better than the Bible scholars of 1700– 1800, for many of these “scholars” believed that the absence of names for Pharaohs (in the Pentateuch) was due to the fact that the writer, writing around 200 B.C., didn’t have access to their names. As usual, this theory proved to be a dud, and when all the archaeological evidence was obtained, it was discovered that until 1200 B.C. it was not the custom of the Egyptians themselves to list the Pharaohs by their names in secular writings, and the title “Pharaoh,” without the name, is found in the “Tale of the Two Brothers” ( Records of the Past, Vol. 2, p. 138)—a contemporary writing at the time of Ramses II—the time of Joseph in Egypt (Gen. 44–50). Since these facts were already known by Wesley and Whitefield (around 1700–1780) without the aid of the archaeological findings or Egyptologists, it would be safe to say that believing the AV 1611 text, as it stands, is a considerable improvement over going to dead orthodox scholarship for “light on the text.” Wesley and Whitefield (as Luther and Moody) simply believed what they read, where they found it. “And the woman was taken into Pharaoh’s house,” with a view to becoming one of a series of wives. Sarai is placed in a Hamite harem, and she undoubtedly becomes subject to preparatory rites similar to those described in Esther 2:8–9, 12–14. She has not become “one flesh” with Ham’s descendant, but the process is “on the way.” While it is “on the way,” “the Lord plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram’s wife.” The reason is very evident if one hearkens back to Genesis 3:15. But without a sane attitude towards race mixing, moral looseness, and the results of interbreeding, the text is impossible to understand. Why would God plague a man for taking a man’s wife by mistake? He did not plague Herod, who did it on purpose (Mark 6:18)! He did not plague David for doing the same thing (2 Sam.

3:14–16) in violation of Deuteronomy 24:3–4. It is assumed by Abimelech that the punishment for adultery is death (Gen. 20:14), and this is the penalty under law (Lev. 20:10), but Pharaoh (as Abimelech) is innocent—why then the plagues (l Chron. 16:20–25)? We must go back and review three scenes which came on the stage earlier. 1. Eve messes up her seed, and her first child born is a murderer (1 John 3:12). 2. The sons of God mess up the human seed by cohabiting with women (see notes on Gen. 6:1–6). 3. Ham messes up his seed in the sin of sodomy (see comments on Gen. 9:20–25). Someone is on a “sex kick.” (The Bible seems to get off to a flying start, placing before its auditors every inflammatory issue which concerns man: evolution, creationism, sex, eating, men from outer space, hypnotism, race-mixing, segregation, world unity, the Jew, the Catholic, the Negro, and absolutes all pop up in the first twelve chapters of a book that was supposed to have been written [according to the NCCC, Vatican State, and Edgar A. Guest] just to tell man how to live good lives or to do “God’s will,” etc.) Evidently, the “seed” mentioned for the first time in the Bible in Genesis 3:15 has a tremendous bearing on the history of the human race. Abram messes up his seed with Hagar; Isaac comes dangerously close to dying childless in spite of the promises (Gen. 22); one of his boys intermarries with the wrong crowd (Gen. 26:34–35), and the other nearly gets killed before he can bear seed (Gen. 27:41); then Jacob’s boys mess up! Reuben goes in unto his father’s wife; Judah gets tangled up with a Canaanite before he can bear children (Gen. 37:18) and nearly gets ruined after that narrow escape (Gen. 39:7–17). From the last verse cited, it would seem that Egyptian women are not exactly repulsed by fair-skinned young men! You see, the Bible is the hottest rock that ever dropped on a newsstand since Freud, Kinsey, and Spillane went out of business. Whoever wrote the Bible knows what man’s main problem is; that is more than you can say for the American educational system, accredited colleges included. The story of Sarai’s sojourn in a Hamite harem is more than an incidental in the word of God. Someone with more intelligence than the NAACP or the USSR or the USA or the RCC is after Abram and Sarai to stop the promise of Genesis 3:15! “And he entreated Abram well.” I guess he did. Sarah lives to be 127, which means that here, at seventy-four years of age, she is the equivalent of a thirty-seven-year-old woman of today (figuring a life span of seventy years). She has had no children, so she was still slim and beautiful and was undoubtedly one of those rare Marlene Dietrich, Joan Crawford types who is still able to pose for “cheesecake” pictures after they are fifty, for Abimelech is interested in Sarah when she is eighty-six to ninety years old (Gen. 20:1–6)! The “payment for the bride” is found also in Ruth 4:10; l Samuel 18:23, 25; Hosea 3:2; and Exodus 22:16–17. The greatest payment ever made for a bride is found registered in the Ephesian book of receipts (Eph. 5:23, 25). Counting what he had when he left Haran (Gen. 12:5), plus the “love offering” of Pharaoh (Gen. 12:16), Abram winds up “very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold” (Gen. 13:2). His Egyptian revenue must be classified with “Laban revenue” obtained by Jacob many years later (see Gen. 30:43 and 31:16). (Anti-Semitics make much of these texts but do not seem to think that Numbers 23:8 and 23:21 are connected with Semitism!) Verses 17–20 are self-explanatory. The plagues, un- doubtedly, included a “barren harem” (see Gen. 20:18)! Without divine protection, Abram would have received the classical “bum’s rush,” but as it is, he is escorted out hastily, like the children of Israel are in Exodus 12:33. Again, one cannot help but notice the patterns which are being woven by the Holy Spirit as he records the history. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are all in foreign countries, and they all return to Palestine loaded with the

wealth of those countries (Exod. 3:22; Isa. 33:1; Ezek. 32:12; Jer. 50:10, 30:16). Since “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be” (Ecc. 1:9), the Gentile nations from 1970–2000 can look for one financial crisis after another as Israel goes back to the place of blessing.

CHAPTER 13 13:1 “And Abram went up out of Egypt, he, and his wife, and all that he had, and Lot with him, into the south. 2 And Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold. 3 And he went on his journeys from the south even to Beth-el, unto the place where his tent had been at the beginning, between Beth-el and Hai; 4 Unto the place of the altar, which he had made there at the first: and there Abram called on the name of the LORD.”

“And Lot with him” is given without any mention yet of “Lot’s wife.” Yet still, Hagar is present (Gen. 16:1–3), and she is not mentioned in Genesis 13:1. Howbeit, Lot has to obtain a wife either at this time or after Genesis 13:13. The significant insertion of Genesis 13:10 would indicate that Lot’s wife was an Egyptian, for in no other way can her defection in flight (Gen. 19:26) be explained. Lot’s daughters were raised in Sodom and would have had as many sentimental attachments to “the old homestead” as anyone, but the “old homestead” was like “the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt” (Gen.13:10). Lot’s wife was probably a “landsleute” of Hagar. “Rich...in silver, and in gold.” This is the first mention of silver and gold together, although the “gold” appears in Genesis 2:11. “Silver and gold” in the earthly sense, then (1 Tim. 6:10), has a bad association; silver and gold (as “disease”) is mentioned for the first time in the Bible in connection with Egypt (see Exod. 15:26). The wiseacres of all ages have made comments on the text of 1 Timothy 6:10 which vary from “the lack of money is the root of all evil” to “money may not be everything, but it is way ahead of whatever is in first place.” “The love of money” is behind the sins of Achan, Gehazi, Judas, Pilate, the Pharisees, the craftsmen of Acts 19, Felix’s retention of Paul the prisoner, the bondage of Israel under Pharaoh (Exodus 1), Demas’ apostasy, the translations of the ASV and RSV, the tobacco and liquor advertising industries, the entire output of Hollywood, the aggressive war waged on Russia and the Balkans by Hitler, the conquests of Napoleon, Alexander, Charlemagne, and William the Conqueror, Lot’s choice of property (Gen. 13), Delilah’s betrayal of Samson, the United States foreign policy since the days of FDR, Solomon’s alliances with Egypt, Jeroboam’s two golden calves, and Ahab’s murder of Naboth the Jezreelite. The child of God is not redeemed with “silver and gold” (l Pet.1:18), nor is the Christian’s God made of gold or silver (Acts 17:29), although silver was a type of redemption (Matt. 27:5; Lev. 27). The word of God is too valuable to add to or take from for “silver or gold” (Num. 24:13). A king of Israel was not to multiply “silver and gold” (Deut. 17:17), and “gold, and silver” rank first in the list of those objects desired by the great Roman harlot of Revelation 18:12. “Gold and silver” stand for works which endure the fire at the Judgment Seat of Christ (1 Cor. 3), but the great apostle made it clear that he coveted no man’s literal “gold or silver” (Acts 20:33). “Gold and silver cannot pay for my soul’s redemp- tion; kindly words and noble deeds, I shall never mention. Precious blood alone can tell of God’s grace and power, and His Son who died for me, in his darkest hour. How His Son did die for me, in His darkest hour.” “Gold and silver cannot heal heartaches of a nation; schools and churches cannot help men who need salvation. Christ alone can bind the wounds when He comes with power. Coming back on earth to reign, in His glorious hour. Coming back as King of Kings, in His glorious hour.”

“And he went on his journeys from the south....” This is the southern part of the land of Canaan and would answer to that part of Palestine which became the portion of Simeon and Judah; it included the towns of Ziklag, Hebron, and Bethlehem. Abram does not stop at Ziklag but goes on up to the location of his second altar near Bethel and Hai (see Gen. 12:8). Going up, Abram is facing north with the “ruins” on his right and the “house of God” on his left; coming down, he was facing south with the two places reversed.

13:5 “And Lot also, which went with Abram, had flocks, and herds, and tents. 6 And the land was not able to bear them, that they might dwell together: for their substance was great, so that they could not dwell together. 7 And there was a strife between the herdmen of Abram’s cattle and the herdmen of Lot’s cattle: and the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelled then in the land. 8 And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we be brethren. 9 Is not the whole land before thee? separate thyself, I pray thee, from me: if thou wilt take 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.”

“The land was not able to bear them” implies that the herds did not have enough pasture (see Gen. 13:10). The cowboys begin to argue about who gets what piece of ground to graze on, and the shepherds leave an acre as bare as a skating rink when the sheep and goats get through with it. The men begin to switch branding irons, and fence lines begin to disappear and reappear in the wrong places. Between the lines we read the endlessly retold tale of Wyatt Earp, Billy the Kid, the Old Chisholm Trail, Sante Fe, Wagon Train, Bat Masterson, Abilene, Dodge City, and Wild Bill Hickock. “And there was a strife between the herdmen of Abram’s cattle and the herdmen of Lot’s cattle: and the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelled then in the land.” This is the second notation for the Canaanite, and both times it has been “then in the land” (see Gen. 12:6), clearly indicating that they either were not there before this time and came there, or that they left at a later date, or that they had no business being there. The first and third suppositions fit the rest of the Scriptures. The Perizzite is not listed in Genesis 10:16–18, but he is included many times in the Hamitic list of Israel’s enemies (see Gen. 15:20, 34:30; Exod. 3:8, 23:23, 33:2, 34:11, etc.). The Canaanite is said to be the “lowlander,” and the Perizzite the “highlander.” However, the word Perizzite means “belonging to a village,” and in Hebrew, it is kin to “leader or officer.” (We have discussed the word “Canaan” before.) The reason for saying the Perizzite is a mountain dweller is the references given in Joshua 11:3 and 17:15; however, the reader will observe that the lowlander (Canaanite) is also in the highlands in both passages. The designation, then, given by the commentators means nothing practically nor doctrinally. The meat of the passage lies in verse eight, as it is related to the Canaanites and Perizzites. Naturally the Pulpit Commentary misses it by a country mile and only surmises that Abram is worried about strife being a bad example to the herdmen working for them. To the contrary, the “brethren” of verse eight is a spiritual relationship (see Gen. 14:14), and Abram is concerned about the effects of a row at a church “business meeting” on the neighboring Protestants, Catholics, and Jews! (That is, this

is the twentieth century application of the text.) Protestants, Catholics, and Jews have a lot easier time agreeing and getting along together than Bible-believing Christians (see Rom. 13:13; 1 Cor. 3:3; Phil. 2:3; James 3:14; Phil. 1:15; Luke 22:24). Abram is concerned about the Canaanites and Perizzites. “Separate thyself, I pray thee, from me.” Here is segregation in practice. Lot leaves Abram and settles down in another part of the country at least twenty miles from the nearest point of Abram’s future sojourns (Hebron, forty miles from Sodom). Note that the magnanimous Abram gives Lot first choice, and Lot chooses with the same determinative factor in mind that Eve had when she reached for the fruit (see Gen. 13:10). “In honour preferring one another” (Rom. 12:10) is what Abram practices in the text. By so doing, he winds up with four times as much territory as Lot inherited, and he got Lot’s inheritance to boot! (See Gen. 13:14 and note “eastward”; Lot had just left, going east! —Gen. 13:11.)

13:10 “And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered every where, before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, even as the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt, as thou comest unto Zoar. 11 Then Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan; and Lot journeyed east: and they separated themselves the one from the other. 12 Abram dwelled in the land of Canaan, and Lot dwelled in the cities of the plain, and pitched his tent toward Sodom. 13 But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly.” “And Lot lifted up his eyes....” (See comments on Eve, in Gen. 3:6.) “All the plain of Jordan.” At this time Abram and Lot are in Southern Palestine, somewhere south of Bethel and Hai. From verse eleven we are to gather that Sodom and Gomorrah lay in the flat bottom land of Jordan, but Genesis 14:3 would clearly locate the cities further south than in the Jordan riverbed itself. “The plain of Jordan” evidently included more than the riverbed from Galilee to Gilgal. The plain proper must have included the area around the Dead Sea, called in Genesis 14:3, “the salt sea.” (The traditional site at the south end of the Dead Sea will meet the requirements of all texts involved.) “As the garden of the Lord.” (See comments on Gen. 2:10, 15.) “Like the land of Egypt.” (See comments on Gen.19:26.) “Zoar” (Hebrew—“little”). This is the town that was spared—one out of five—when the fire fell (see notes on Gen. 10:19; cf. Deut. 29:23). The word Sodom means “flaming or burning,” and it also means “place of lime.” Gomorrah means “people of fear” or “fissure” or “submersion.” “Then Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan; and Lot journeyed east.” Wrong choice; wrong direction (see comments under Gen. 3:24 and 4:16). Lot did some quick mental arithmetic in verse ten, and figured “Man, that is some real pasture, you could graze all year round on that thing. Let’s see, beef is $1.00 a pound...200 head of cattle...average weight...Mmmmmmm! A man sure could make a killin’ down there!” Lot beheld (vs. 10), chose (vs. 11), pitched toward (vs. 12), dwelt in (Gen 14:12), and finally sat down “in the gate” (Gen.19: 1) as a 32nd Degree Sodomite. When you “pitch” (vs.12) to the Devil, the ball usually comes back as a line drive into the pitcher’s box. “But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly.” This is a

report on the city which could never have been published by the Chamber of Commerce. To the Kiwanis and Jaycees’s, it was “our fair city,” “our thriving metropolis,” “the city of five flags,” “the queen city of the South,” etc. To God the Holy Spirit, it was just another hell hole on the map that needed to be plugged up or filled in. What is actually going on in Sodom on Saturday night does not meet the eyes in Genesis 13:13. 1. The Rephaim (giants) were there! (See Gen. 14:5 and 15:20). 2. The Rephaim left their first estate, as in Genesis 6, and were fooling with women again (see Jude 7)! 3. The inhabitants of Sodom had “given themselves over to fornication” (Jude 7)! That is, the whole town was addicted to it. It was a common form of recreation, tolerated, publicized, and promoted by the most fashionable circles in town!! (See notes on Gen. 6:5.) 4. Not only that, but most people in Sodom worked a twenty hour week, had a guaranteed income, and spent most of their time bragging about their high standard of living! Oh yes! (See Eze. 16:49 and read it for yourself!) Lot moves in the direction (west to east) of a “model city” of his day and winds up in sordid circ*mstances of so vile a nature that it is hard for anyone but a hippie or a junkie (twentieth century) to understand what is going on (see Gen. 19:8). But Lot had to go. God knew that Lot would mess up the seed if he stayed around; he brought back a colored wife from Egypt, and she brought her “fleshpots” with her (see comments on Gen. 12:15–18).

13:14 “And the Lord said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward: 15 For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever. 16 And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered. 17 Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee. 18 Then Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar unto the Lord.”

Abram is quite an altar builder; this is the fourth one he has erected! It must have been a pretty dull life out there under the stars, putting up altars and sacrificing sheep and having to miss all the “high living” down in Sodom! Lot has had the first chance to “lift up his eyes” (Gen. 13:10), so now the Lord tells Abram, “Lift up now thine eyes....” The emphasis is on the “thine.” Heaven always seems to pat a man on the back when he chooses the spiritual, for now the Lord God suddenly dumps the whole land of Palestine into Abram’s lap, including “the plain of Jordan.” We do not know where Abram is standing at this time, but it would be somewhere on the high ground west of the Dead Sea, probably near Maon or Carmel. Most commentators assume that Abram’s view is from Bethel or Hai, where he built his altar in Genesis 13:3,4. This would make Lot’s trip take him to the Jordanic passage: Gilgal to Mt. Nebo via the Jordan River. Such a trip would make the location of “the cities of the plain”

(Gen. 13:12) north of the Dead Sea. This interpretation overlooks the fact that there is a definite passage of time between Genesis 13:4 and 13:5–6, carefully marked in the AV 1611 by a paragraph mark; yes, I know, “added later, etc.” But no thoughtful reader would think that the events of Genesis 13:5–7 came up overnight. You don’t decide that a certain pasture cannot sustain your herds on the basis of one or two days grazing, and in the days of these shepherds, they are often found grazing forty-five miles from home! Notice that Joseph is sent out from Hebron to go to Shechem looking for his brothers (Gen. 37:14). This is the distance on a map of Palestine from the center of the Dead Sea, northward to the center of Jordan River. Abram is not in Bethel when he looks around on things. He is nearer Hebron or Bethlehem, or even further south near Carmel and Maon. From this vantage point the land which Abram sees is the portion given to Judah and Benjamin! It would include Bethlehem and Jerusalem as well as Hebron and Ziklag; that is, his eyes surveyed the grounds which will always be held in sacred memory by professing Christians—the birth places and death places of David and Jesus Christ. Abraham, as Noah, gives it all up and gets it all back (Matt. 16:25)! “For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it...for ever.” The “for ever” messes things up nicely for the amillennialist and the postmillennialist. He dodges the text by two stratagems: 1. By saying the word “for ever” doesn’t mean eternally in some instances. 2. By saying the “seed” is Christ, therefore the “land of promise” is to be spiritualized. The first statement is true, but it has no bearing on the text. The second statement is not true and therefore has no bearing on anything in or out of the text. 1. The Bible facts are presented in Genesis 15:18. “Unto thy seed have I given this land,” and what follows is a geographical description of a literal land with people in it. 2. Isaiah 66:22, “For as the new heavens and the new earth...shall remain...so shall your seed and your name remain.” The context is Levites from Israel who are not Gentiles (see Isa. 66:19). 3. Jeremiah 33:20–21, “If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night...then may also my covenant be broken with David...and with the Levites the priests, my ministers.” The context is “rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (see Jer. 33:26). 4. Amos 9:15, “They shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the Lord thy God.” The context is eating and drinking, plowing and planting, in Palestine by Israelites (see Amos 9:13–14). 5. Second Samuel 7:10, “I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more.” The context is God promising the king of the Jews that He will establish the Old Testament nation of Israel (see 2 Sam. 7:2, 6, 12). 6. Jeremiah 31:35–36, “Thus saith the Lord...if those ordinances [sun, moon, stars, day, night, in vs. 35] depart from before me...then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.” The context is the literal rebuilding of Jerusalem and its permanent security (Jer. 31:38–40). 7. Genesis 17:8, “For an everlasting possession.” The context is “land” given to a physical seed. If any of this is doubtful in the mind of the reader, let him prayerfully examine Isaiah 34:17; Jeremiah 7:7; 2 Chronicles 9:8; Psalm 105:8–11. Read that last one again! In eternity, the descendants of Abram, Isaac, and Jacob are “in the land”! “And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth,” fulfilled in Ishmael, just as the “stars of the heaven” (Gen. 15:5) are fulfilled in the church, and “the sand of the seashore” (Gen. 22:17) was fulfilled in the twelve tribes,

coming from Jacob (1 Kings 4:20). The land of Palestine is given to the Jew forever. The clear title deed (from the original owner) is given in Psalm 105:8–11, and the “Near East question” (Arab question) has already been analyzed, discussed, solved, concluded, and placed in a dead letter file. The land is for the descendants of Jacob (see Gen 21:10). What the United Nations does with this land (Dan. 11:39) is immaterial, as is any confederacy of nations against Israel, in the land (Zech. 12:2, 14:2). The history of Israel from 1970–2000 will work out exactly as it was recorded by Moses in 1400 B.C. and exactly as it was found in an AV 1611, written 300 years before the Jews returned after World War I. This is what every premillennial preacher has preached since the Apostle Paul, and Deuteronomy 18:18–22 proves conclusively that this system (premillennialism) is the only correct one for Bible prophecies, for it is the only one which history has to follow. Man cannot work out his future history any other way than by the premillennial system, and this is a past, proven fact, which has been proven before man’s face a dozen times. All Bible-believing preachers (who preached on prophecy) said that the Jews would go back (after the dispersion of A.D. 70), and they did. All Bible-believing preachers (who preached on prophecy) said that they would rebuild in Palestine (and they are). All Bible-believing preachers teach that this second return of the Jews to rebuild (Isa. 11:11) is permanent, and with the exception of three and one-half years of persecution by the “Man of Sin” (see Commentary on Revelation, Rev. 13:18), it will be an everlasting occupation under Jesus Christ, who will sit on the Throne of David (Luke 1:30–34). That is how it has worked out, that is how it is working out, that is how it will wind up, and neither science nor education will alter a jot or tittle of it. On page 200 (Vol. 1) of the Pulpit Commentary is found the standard “boo boo” committed by the best brains of 1,500 years of Bible scholarship. It states that Genesis 13:14 “does not guarantee to existing Jews a return to the earthly Paradise” (citing the Hebrew scholar Keil). This is postmillennial theology, which by the application of the inductive scientific method has been found to be false on more occasions than Darwin’s theory of evolution. It is still the leading theology of the NCCC and the RCC. “Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it.” So Abram sojourns in the land of Promise. “For I will give it unto thee” conflicts with Acts 7:5, but of course the simplest reader can see that Stephen is speaking of permanent ownership at the actual time of Abram’s sojourn, not the future fulfillment of the promise; this is apparent from Hebrews 11:8, “which he should after receive for an inheritance.” “The plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron.” The traditional way of aborting the text is to say that Mamre was the man in Genesis 14:13, 24 (an Amorite); with this change comes a change in the words “which is,” for the word “plain” was already altered back in Genesis 12:6. The novel reading which results is “the Terebinth (or oaks) of the Amorite Mamre.” Such an alteration would then require “which are,” for “oaks” is plural. “Abram dwelt...in the oaks of Mamre (the Amorite) which are in Hebron.” But of course, the reading is preposterous and merely demonstrates the length to which non-Christian scholarship will go to get rid of the Authorized text. Although Mamre is a man in two verses of Scripture, Mamre is plainly a city in Genesis 23:17, 19, 25:9, 35:27, 49:30, 50:13. The reader may stick with the Authorized text of 1611 and let the corrupters of the word (2 Cor. 2:17) stew in their own Terebinth juice. The word “Mamre” means “firmness” or “vigor,” and the word “Hebron” means “communion” or “fruitfulness.” Hebron has many sacred associations in the Scriptures. The city is also called by the name of Kirjath-arba (Josh 14:15) and was inhabited by giants (see Num. 13:21–22, 32–33). Caleb, the soldier of faith, conquers the place, and it is given to him for an inheritance (Judg. 1:20). David begins his forty-year reign in

Hebron (2 Sam. 2), and it is associated with the sojourning of all three Patriarchs—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (see Gen. 35:27). “Arbah,” “Mamre,” “Hebron,” and “Kirjath-arba” are the same city in Scripture. “Chi,” “Chicago,” and the “Windy City” are all references to the same city; and “Byzantine,” “Constantinople,” and “Istanbul” are all the same city. Why anyone would go to the trouble of assembling “the oaks of an Amorite” to explain multiple names of a city is a little too much. How do you know that Frisco and San Francisco are the same city? Are you sure that the translation of the second word should not have been “The Saint of Francis”? How do you know this? What makes you think the Terebinth translators know about what they’re talking?!

CHAPTER 14 14: 1 “And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of nations; 2 That these made war with Bera king of Sodom, and with Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, and Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela, which is Zoar. 3 All these were joined together in the vale of Siddim, which is the salt sea.”

“Amraphel”: “powerful people” or “sayer of darkness,” is the “Khammurabi” of the Assyrian Tablets (Ammurabi is “Amraphel” transliterated). This would be the Hammurabi of the much publicized “Hammurabi’s Code” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. II, p. 1326 sq), and the character has been accepted to be the Amraphel of Genesis 14 for some time. However, upon the republishing of R. D. Wilson’s work A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament, the editors have been careful to displace the theory by correcting Dr. Wilson. The footnotes of the new editions are very firm in suggesting that all fundamental Bible commentators (up to about 1940) simply didn’t have “the benefit of the latest archaeological etceteras.” Amraphel is king of Shinar, and the king of Shinar around 1900 B.C. was Hammurabi; he reigned forty-three years. “Arioch”: “lion like,” is the “Eri”-aku of the Tablets; his mother was the sister of Chedorlaomer. “Chedorlaomer”: “binding of the sheaves,” is the “Kudur-Lahgumal” of the Tablets. “Tidal”: “splendor or renown,” is the “Tudghula” of the Tablets. “Bera”: “In the Evil,” King of Sodom. “Birsha”: “In wickedness.” “Shinab”: “Change of father.” “Shemeber”: “The name that crossed over” or “splendor of heroism.” With the obvious connection between Hammurabi and Amraphel, it is surprising (or not so surprising!) to find that most commentators skip over Amraphel like he was sort of a city alderman. (It is almost as though the commentators had conspired to isolate Hebrew history from every outstanding event and character of real history. But “king of Shinar” at the time of Abraham was not a flunky whom one could dismiss.) A “king of Shinar” (Gen. 14:1) at this time would be a near kin to the founder of Babylon and might have been the straw boss on the United Nations Building. The flood was over in 2347 B.C. Cush begat Nimrod, which would move Nimrod up to 2247 or 2200 easily (in view of the length of lives listed in Gen. 11:10–25). If Nimrod was the tower builder, the date 2200 is still very early indeed. But Terah, Abram’s daddy, is born in 2126, only seventy-four years after this date. Conservatively speaking, the “king of Shinar” (Gen. 14:1) would only be removed from the “confusion of tongues” by 100 years, and it is possible that the Babel builders are not dispersed until 2000; at the very time in which God called Abram out of Ur of the Chaldees. Hammurabi is the logical identification of Amraphel for three reasons: 1. The name is a transliteration of the Chaldean word. 2. The man must rank with Chedorlaomer as a king (see Gen. 14:5), and these kings were capable of fighting against giants (see Gen. 14:5 and comments). 3. Shinar was subservient to Elam at this time (see International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. I, p. 366). The Assyrian Tablets show that Elam had conquered and overrun Babylonia, so Amraphel reigns

in North Shinar, Arioch in South Shinar. “Tidal,” according to the Tablets, “assembled the Ummanmanda,” which turns out to be the barbarian Kurdish tribes in the Armenian area between the Caspian and Black Sea. (Again note that Admah and Zeboim are included in “the cities of the plain” which were overthrown with Sodom and Gomorrah—Deut. 29:23.) The picture is four kings from the Northeast—Syria, Elam, and Shinar—attacking southwest, down into Palestine, to “the plain of Jordan” (see notes on Gen. 13:10), and joining battle with five kings who, though outnumbered and equipped, have in their ranks some of the Rephaim, Zuzims, and Emims of Genesis 6:1–6. “The vale of Siddim, which is the salt sea.” This is the “Dead Sea,” which is 1,300 feet below sea level. It is forty-six miles long and ten miles wide and is eight times as salty as the Atlantic Ocean. It contains 1,300,000,000 tons of potash worth $68,000,000,000; 835,000,000 tons of bromide worth $252,720,000,000; 81,000,000 tons of gypsum worth $116,640,000,000; and 22,000,000 tons of magnesium chloride worth $797,000,000,000. The text brings up a curious problem which might give considerable light on the exact location of Abram’s bird’s eye view of Palestine in Genesis 13:14, for it may have been that “the plain of Jordan,” before Genesis 19, was the whole area now occupied by the Dead Sea! This would mean that when Lot traveled “EAST,” he could have gone east from Bethel and Ai and wound up in the head city (Sodom) of five cities, which were built on what is now the floor of the Dead Sea (see 2 Pet. 2:6). The “Vale of Siddim” is the “Salt Sea,” in Genesis 14:3, but the writer, Moses, is writing 500 years after the events took place.

14:4 “Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer, and in the thirteenth year they rebelled.”

The unlucky “13” pops up here for the first time in Scripture, and it is connected with rebellion. It would be too lengthy a subject to discuss, but “Triskaidekaphobia” is as Scriptural a “phobia” as any you can phobey. (See detailed discussion in Chapter IV, The Bible Babel, 1964.) Among other things, the construction of the “White House” began on Friday the 13th, and Woodrow Wilson landed at Brest on December 13, with thirteen in his party, with the first draft of thirteen articles for the League of Nations (spelled B-A-B-E-L in Hebrew). Our first “election” was on Friday the 13th, and for those positive minded optimists who look eagerly forward to the “bringing in of the kingdom,” may it be added that thirteen congressmen railroaded the “Civil Rights” bill through, which marked the end of education in America (see notes on Gen. 10:8–9). 14:5 “And in the fourteenth year came Chedorlaomer, and the kings that were with him, and smote the Rephaims in Ashteroth Karnaim, and the Zuzims in Ham, and the Emims in Shaveh Kiriathaim, 6 And the Horites in their mount Seir, unto El-paran, which is by the wilderness. 7 And they returned, and came to En-mishpat, which is Kadesh, and smote all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites, that dwelt in Hazezon-tamar. 8 And there went out the king of Sodom, and the king of Gomorrah, and the king of Admah, and the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (the same is Zoar;) and they joined battle with

them in the vale of Siddim; 9 With Chedorlaomer the king of Elam, and with Tidal king of nations, and Amraphel king of Shinar, and Arioch king of Ellasar; four kings with five.”

“The Rephaims...and the Zuzims...and the Emims...And the Horites” (see Deut. 2:10, 12, 20, 23). This slaughter begins east of Jordan, near Galilee, and comes down through Bashan (see Deut. 3:11), across the brooks Arnon and Jabbok (east of Jordan), and clean down into Mt. Seir in Edom (Gen. 14:6). The attack plainly covers the eastern bank of the Dead Sea, if it was there, and the whole Dead Sea area, if it was grassland and slime pits at that time (Gen. 14:10). “El-paran” in the newer commentaries and revisions is called “the oak or terebinth of Paran.” (Modern scholarship is either trying to demonstrate how much archaic vocabulary they know, or else they have contracted the seven-year itch from poison oak!) There is simply no excuse for making everything into an “oak” or a “terebinth” every time you see it, any more than there is in making everything an “asherah” or a “wadi” every time you see it. El-paran is not the “oak of Paran,” but the “God of Paran,” and it is an indirect reference to the Second Advent (Hab. 3:3), which is typified throughout Genesis 14. The attack not only goes down into Edom (south of the Dead Sea), it crosses on westward into the territory of the Amalekites (southwest of the Dead Sea—Gen. 14:7). This engagement is said to be when “they returned” (Gen. 14:7), indicating that the armies from the northeast cut a swath down around the Dead Sea and then start back. This would run them right smack into Abram (in Hebron— Gen. 14:13, 13:18) if “the cities of the plain” were located the length of the area that is now the Dead Sea. Again, we are faced with the possibility that the five cities were in the south end of the area, and consequently, our conclusions on Genesis 13:14 are correct.

14:10 “And the vale of Siddim was full of slimepits; and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and fell there; and they that remained fled to the mountain. 11 And they took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their victuals, and went their way. 12 And they took Lot, Abram’s brother’s son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.”

We now find the reason for believing that Amraphel could not have been Hammurabi! (The horrible truth will come “out” sooner or later.) The trouble is that in the Bible record, Abram, with 318 men, goes after the armies of four kings and recovers the spoils of Sodom and Gomorrah and kills the king of Elam, who was Hammurabi’s superior! You see, the root of the matter has nothing to do with Hebrew and Greek roots, LXX roots, Targum or Samaritan Pentateuch roots, archaeological roots, or any other kind of roots. The root of sin is unbelief. And the reason why many of the authoritative “accredited” groups of scholars are not capable of giving an intelligible comment on Genesis 14:1 is because they don’t believe 318 men could whip the remnant of five armies any more than an army twice that size could be whipped by Gideon’s 300! (See Judg. 7:7, 8:10.) The original

host which Gideon tackled was 135,000 men. He also killed two princes—Oreb and Zeeb (Judg. 7:25) and two kings—Zebah and Zalmunna. Abram antedates Gideon by nearly 700 years, when the armies were smaller, and he tackles a retreating army after it has fought against giants for 30 days or longer. “And they took all the goods...all their victuals…Lot...and his goods.” The invading forces return northward heading up the Jordan valley to get back to the Damascus trade route on the way back to Elam, Syria, and Mesopotamia. The “slimepits” mentioned in verse 10 are still in Palestine (Inglis), and the stratum of bitumen is sometimes fifteen feet in depth. When Moses states that the kings “fled, and fell there,” it is a reference to defeat in battle. Not all of them were killed, because “the king of Sodom” (bless my soul, what a title!) is on hand to greet Abram when he returns (Gen. 14:17). The battle is a disaster, and we are left with the distinct impression (“prejudice” according to modern sociologists) that Shemitic blood is pretty hot when it gets stirred up and that Hamitic blood doesn’t make out too well in the contest. (Skeptics are referred to a morning newspaper in 1970–1980 on Arab-Israel relations, etc.) Although there are still a few Cush*tes (out of place) in Babylon (Shinar), and one or two floating around Elam, there are none in the divisions and regiments led by “Tidal king of nations”— his troops are Scythians and Kurdish Turks. The combined forces do not hesitate to sail into the Zuzims, Anakims, Emims, and their kinfolk with a gusto which Israel would have done well to emulate in Numbers 13–14. The “mixed multitude” of Hamites (!) among the Israelites (Exod. 12:38) would explain much more about Numbers 13 and 14 than an anthropologist or ethnologist could ever explain. We do not know the battle casualties for this extended campaign. But you can rest assured that the “Big Four” (Gen. 14:1) did not march back home like a dress parade. According to Numbers 14:42– 45, the five-king-confederacy of Abram’s day would not have been a pushover. Thirty per cent casualties would be a good estimate for these days. (Killing nowadays is harder and more expensive. The total number of Americans killed in World War II compared with the total number mobilized [in the American armies] was certainly less than 10 percent, but then again it cost $100,000 to kill each man. As man gets “better” (according to Darwin], the price of killing goes up to about $900,000 per man in the Vietnam war, with 2 percent casualties reported where the reality would be closer to 10 percent [i.e., our losses; their losses will be reported at 10 percent where they are 8 percent, but that’s newspaper reporting!].) What is left of the big parade that came down from the north returns (see Ezek. 38) and leaves five-sixths of its troops in the Promised Land (Ezek. 39:2) for the buzzards to eat (Ezek. 39:17–22). When Abram finally goes after them to get his brother’s son back, he probably does not take on more than 40,000 men, and 10,000 of these would be wounded or sick or both. Again, Abram is fresh and rested up and knows the terrain, he has God with him, and certainly, he does not fall on the main column when he attacks. He attacks the rear guard (see Napoleon’s campaign in Russia, 1812), which is carrying the prisoners and the booty.

14:13 “And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner: and these were confederate with Abram. 14 And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained

servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan. 15 And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus. 16 And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.”

We have commented before on “Mamre” (here a man) and the word “Hebrew” (see Gen. 10:24). The reader will note that Abram’s Regimental Combat Team includes more than 318 men; it also includes the families (and servants) of three other men. This boosts Abram’s roster to a possible 400 or even 700 men. (Scholars who wish to save Hammurabi from the disgrace of being chased by a Bible character should take heart here, for if Gideon with 300 could whip 135,000, surely it would be no disgrace for 40,000 men to be whipped by 700!) “Eshcol” is “cluster of grapes,” and “Aner” means “sprout” or “waterfall.” “By night, and smote them.” Exactly as Gideon did (Judg. 7:9, 19)! “And pursued them unto Dan.” The verse was used by Astruc, Wellhausen, and other Bible-rejecting “Christians” to prove that Moses could not have written Genesis, for at the time of the action (Gen. 14:14), Dan had not been born yet (let alone having produced a tribe which came out of Egypt, settled in Palestine, and named a city after their tribe!). The city of “Dan” was called “Laish” until Judges 18:29, which is more than 700 years after the events of Genesis 14 take place. The problem arises how could Moses, who died on Mount Pisgah (Deut. 34), have written “pursued them unto Dan,” when the city indicated has not yet been founded or named by the tribe of Dan? (It is apparent that this city “Dan” is that of the “Dan to Beer-sheba” formula, for Abram continues his pursuit beyond Dan, and “beyond Dan” in the text [Gen. 14:15] is Damascus.) There are two answers to this problem which solve it satisfactorily. The first is that God revealed the name to Moses exactly as He revealed the whole history of Adam and Eve and Noah. After all, who told Moses about the Europeans occupying the tents of American Indians (Gen. 9:26– 29)? Moses never met any Europeans or Indians, and he didn’t meet anybody in Alexandria who had ever heard of them! But since Deuteronomy 34:1 has the word “Dan” in it again, and this time it is apparent that the writer has to outlive Moses (see Deut. 34:5–7), the most reasonable explanation is that God told Joshua to put the word in to fit the account. Abram is the father of the children of Israel and the twelve tribes; their name for Laish was “Dan.” (Note the similar change of “Kirjath-arba” to “Hebron” to match the Israelish designation.) Joshua does have the authority which God gave to Moses (see Deut. 34:9, 31:23; Josh. 1:5, 9). Joshua is also given a copy of the Mosaic writings in Joshua 1:8, and Moses is told to repeat to Joshua the writings of this book (see Exod. 17:14). If there is any “J” writer (see any Graf-Wellhausen funny book: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. II, p. 749–760) in Genesis or Deuteronomy, it is Joshua! “And smote them, and pursued them.” Poor Hammurabi, the great “law giver” who thrilled unregenerate archaeologists and etymologists down through the years! Poor ole’ Ham (!)-Murabi, running like a whipped dog from “Father Abraham.” To save Hammurabi’s face (with all haste), the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia runs his reign back to 2100 B.C. so there will be no chance that Hammurabi could get caught running home in his underwear before the onslaught of

“trained servants” (Gen. 14:14)! But there is no record of Hammurabi’s death anywhere unless it is Genesis 14:17. It might seem superfluous to the reader to waste this much time on the text, but this exhibition of scholarly “subjectivism” (prejudice) is very typical of the work of modern scholarship, of any kind, where it deals with the text of the AV 1611. The attempts to lose Belshazzar, Gallio the Proconsul, the Tetrarch, “Rabshakeh,” and the Pharaoh of the Exodus “in the shuffle” are all indicative of a basic attitude towards the AV text. For example, if one were to eliminate the discoveries of the scholars which they used to change the AV text, the remainder of the discoveries found by scholars wouldn’t throw “light” on a single passage of Scripture. “Light on the text,” from archaeology and Hebrew and Greek lexicons, simply means using the findings of egotistical scholars to correct the word of God so as to do away with its authority and replace it with the authority of the scholars themselves. The outstanding Old Testament case of this sinful subterfuge is the problem which all scholars have in locating the “Artaxerxes” of Nehemiah and Esther. With one of the greatest decrees in history ever delivered (see Dan. 9:25; Neh. 2) staring them in the face, conservative scholarship (as well as liberal) has the most difficult time locating the king who decreed it! It is astonishing how many nephews, aunts, uncles, nieces, cousins, in-laws, and sons these scholars can locate on Cuneiform inscriptions, Obelisks, Steles, Rosetta Stones, and Behistun Rocks; and yet they can’t find anyone mentioned in the Bible! Amazing, is it not? To read the genealogies of the Egyptian dynasties and Assyrian kings (in a textbook on history), you would think that modern scholarship could locate a whisper in a whirlwind, but when it comes to understanding the Bible, it is like Belshazzar trying to read Mene, Mene, Tekel Upharsin (MMTU= Machiavellian Mentality Totally Unfruitful). P.S.—Anyone interested in locating “Artaxerxes” will find an exhaustive treatment of the subject from the believer’s point of view in Appendix 57, pages 80–81 of Bullinger’s Companion Bible, Samuel Bagster, London, reprint, 1964. Anyone interested in locating Hammurabi will find him lying face down in a plowed field near Damascus (Gen. 14:17) or hiding behind his code (a Diorite Stone) somewhere near an old loading platform they used for stacking Babel bricks (see Gen.11:3, 14:14). “Pursued them unto Hobah...Damascus.” The har- assing action goes up beyond Galilee (and on northeast) to Damascus. It stops at a point about five to ten miles west of Damascus (or closer, according to Keil—a quarter of a mile north of Damascus). This pursuit is about 150 miles (125 as the crow flies) and would constitute a running firefight of about three weeks. (Seven miles a day is going like Jehu when it is combat patrols all the way.) “And he brought back all the goods....” The moral is that Abram had power to help because he was separated. Lot had “influence” as Obadiah (1 Kings 18:13), but no power like Elijah (1 Kings 18:15).

14:17 “And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king’s dale. 18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. 19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: 20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And

he gave him tithes of all.”

The companion passage to this strange scene is Hebrews 5:6, 6:20 and 7:1–21. Since great mystery shrouds Melchizedek to this day, he is a favorite figure for heretics to claim as a founder (or devotee) of their religion. To a Mormon, he is the pioneer of a series of “elders” after the “order of Melchizedek”; to a Mason, he is something like the grand, omnipotent, all supreme, majestic, etc., Master; to the Catholic, he is offering a “sacrifice” instead of a memorial; and he is something else to various other irrational groups who base their basic beliefs on verses in Matthew, Acts, and Hebrews. But who is he? 1. He is not Jesus Christ, for he was like Jesus Christ (Heb. 7:3). 2. He was a double king, connected with righteousness first and peace second (Heb. 7:2). 3. He either had no human mother and father or had none listed by genealogy (Heb. 7:3). 4. He was not a descendant of Abram, Isaac, and Jacob (Heb. 7:4–6). 5. He is a Shemite or a Hamite (Heb 7:1). 6. He speaks and acts like a Shemite (Heb. 7:1–2, 7:5–12). 7. He anticipates the Lord’s Supper (Gen.14:18). 8. He had the power to “bless” (Gen. 14:19). 9. The term he uses for God (El Elyon—The Most High) appears in the New Testament for the first time in Luke 1:76. It occurs in Daniel fourteen times in the AV 1611. “The king’s dale” (see 2 Sam. 18:18) implies that Melchizedek is a king (see Heb. 7:1–2), and evidently a well-known king. Exactly how he missed the war (which had been going on all around him) is hard to say, unless, as we have said before, the cities of “the plain of Jordan” were at the south end of the Dead Sea. To return to Melchizedek, he is a greater man than Abram (Heb.7:4, 6–7), and Abram has already been showed a favoritism from heaven which would be hard to equal (Gen. 12:1–3). But Abram is only a prophet and priest (see Gen. 12:8; 20:7); he is not a king. Melchizedek (as David and Jesus Christ) is a prophet, priest, and king. Furthermore, the interpretation of his name reveals that the premillennial system is the only correct way of interpreting the Bible. 1. Jesus Christ was “King of Righteousness” at His first coming (Rom. 10:1–6). 2. Jesus Christ will be “King of Peace” at His second coming (Rev. 20:1–7). No peace without righteousness first (see James 3:17—purity first!). No peace till Christ returns (Matt. 24:6,7). No peace on earth, good will to men, till God gets “glory in the highest” (Luke 2:14). Weather forecast (until He returns): “Bigger and better wars, increases in killing and death, bigger and better weapons, more confusion and misunderstanding—in case of rain, the war will be held in the auditorium!” (See notes on Gen. 5:29.) As the Old Testament Jew confounds the advents by rejecting the first one, the New Testament Gentile confounds them by rejecting the second one; the Jew works to earn righteousness without Christ’s first coming, and the Gentile works to bring in peace without the second coming (Rom. 11:25–33). Melchizedek is king of “Tsedeq” (Hebrew for “RIGHTEOUSNESS”) before he is king of “Salem” (Hebrew for “PEACE”). This order is preserved in the AV 1611 text for the purpose of teaching what postmillennial preachers can never learn. Melchizedek’s name in Hebrew is Melek (king), Tsedeq (righteousness), Shalem (peace). No peace without righteousness (see exact order in

Zech. 8:16). Truth first, peace next. This great, divine truth, revealed supernaturally by the Holy Spirit, seals the doom of “modern man”; for all “modern man” talks about from sunup to sundown, from janitor to president, from scrub woman to pope, from spring to fall, from ambassador to mechanic, from Rome to Washington, from generals to high school freshmen, is “peace” (see 1 Thes. 5:1–5). The “world view” is so clearly contrary to truth that one would not have to guess what the outcome will be. In the word of God: 1. Truth precedes peace (Zech. 8:16). 2. Purity precedes peace (James 3:17). 3. Righteousness precedes peace (l Thes. 5:1–6). Since not one of the three items listed above has any priority in any nation on earth—and never has and never will—it is an axiom as inflexible as “death and taxes” that the biggest and best wars are yet in the future (see Rev. 6:3–6, 20:7–10). If the word of God is truth (and Jesus says that it is [John 17:17]), then no nation can qualify for “peace,” and no nation will get “peace”; for no nation dares to openly promote, publicize, preach, practice, or propagate the Holy Bible (see comments on Gen. 1:1). Again, the proof is in the pudding. While false prophets in every century are characterized by “Here comes peace!” (2 Kings 9:22; 2 Chron. 18:27; Isa. 48:22; Jer. 4:10, 6:14, 8:11, 14:19, 28:9), the brutal facts of history are that “peace” never has come and never will—till the Prince of Peace comes back! It always has been popular to promote peace and always will be, and anyone can do it from Judas Iscariot (Luke 10:5. He was one of the twelve!) to the Antichrist (Dan. 8:25). “Make me an instrument of thy peace” is superb worldly sentiment; it should sell fine (Luke 16:15). Unfortunately, God wouldn’t think of using any instrument that treated His truth (John 17:17) like it was Aesop’s fables. Melchizedek is quite a character. He cannot be Christ in the flesh, nor can he be a man who is still living (Heb. 7:3). Who is he? If he is “the Angel of the Lord,” he is a peculiar angel in that he receives tithes. An Angel of God will not even receive homage, let alone “tithes“! (See Judg. 13:16.) Who is Melchizedek? The only solution that will meet 90 percent of the demands of the text (we will have to stretch 10 percent of the demands, but that is the blessing of being a Bible believer: you know when you’re stretching it yourself, so you don’t have much trouble spotting a habitual “stretcher” like Lange, Dummelow, Jamieson, Fausset, Brown, Phillips, Clarke, or Henry!) will be found in the person of Shem, Noah’s son. Someone has forgotten that at the time these events take place (Gen. 14), Shem is still around, and he is at the ripe old age of 540! (Shem dies in 1846 B.C. long after Isaac is born. He is a contemporary of Isaac, Ishmael, and Abraham.) 1. “PRIEST of the most high God.” (This is plainly intimated in the blessing of Gen. 9:26.) 2. “Priest of THE MOST HIGH GOD.” (The title is a universal title which has to do with God’s dealings with nations, as the Head of Creation. Elyon [or Elion] is found thirty-six times in the Scripture and has to do with a priest-king—see Zech. 6:13, 14:9.) 3. “Greater” than Abram (Heb. 7:4). But what human being could be greater than a man who was given the land of Palestine, whom God blessed through successive generations, who was divinely protected from all enemies, who would bless all nations on earth, and who was given an eternal possession on earth? Shem. “Blessed be the Lord God of Shem.” 4. “Without father, without mother, without descent.” Now we are in trouble. If Melchizedek is a human being, he has a father and a mother and a descent, and Shem’s father is listed (Noah), and his descent is listed (Gen. 5:1–29). But there is a “stretching point” (see above) in the context, for Melchizedek “abideth a priest continually.” That is, the statements in Hebrews 7:3 may refer to the

fact that there is no genealogy in the priesthood. This is not at all farfetched in view of what follows: “But he whose descent is not counted from them....” (LEVI) (Heb. 7:5–6). 5. As a matter of fact, if you are going to make Melchizedek a human being, the interpretation above (section 4) is the only one that will meet the demands of the English text. “Bread and wine.” (See Bible Believer’s Commentary on Matthew: Matt. 26:26–29.) “Blessed be Abram...blessed be...God.” It sounds exactly like “Blessed be the Lord God of Shem.” (It is too much like it to resist drawing the implications above.) “And he gave him tithes of all.” That is “he” (Abram) gave “him” (Melchizedek) tithes of all the booty and spoil (Gen.14:16, 21). This is the first mention of the tithe, and so it should be noted carefully. It is given to an individual. It is given to an individual who is a type of Christ. It is given willingly, without compulsion (2 Cor. 8:9, 9:7–8). It is given under grace, before the law (Heb. 7:9– 11). There is no explanation for the sudden appearance of “one out of ten,” but it survives for centuries after its occurrence here, and there is evidence that the custom was in vogue 300 years before Abram was born (Ginsburg, in Kitto’s “Cyclopedia,” Article on Tithes). One out of ten lepers returns to give thanks (Luke 17:17), and ten virgins represent the Tribulation saints (see Bible Believer’s Commentary on Matthew, Matt. 25:1–6). We can be certain that ten is a Gentile number (see comments on Gen. 10:10), and that “one out of ten” of the Ten Commandments is ceremonial, not moral (see comments on the Seventh-day Adventist fiasco, Gen. 2:1–2), but where the “one out of ten” is owed to God, we are dealing with a practice that has not yet been located in the Scripture. A tenth of the Jews will return to Palestine (Isa. 6:13) and will be eaten at an altar (but good grief, we can’t get into that now! See Bible Believer’s Commentary on Revelation, Rev. 6:9). 1. In the Old Testament, under law, the place of tithing was the storehouse (Mal. 3:10). 2. In the New Testament, under grace, the place was “laid by in store” (1 Cor. 16:2). 3. In the Old Testament, animals and vegetables were tithed (Lev. 27:30, 32; Matt. 23:23). 4. In the New Testament, it appears to be money (Acts 11:29; Rom. 15:26; 1 Cor. 16:1–3). 5. In the Old Testament, the tithe supported the Levites and priests (Neh. 10:37–38; Num. 18:24). 6. In the New Testament, it supports ministers and poor saints (Rom. 15:25; 1 Cor. 9:9–14). 7. In the Old Testament, it is brought once every three years (Deut. 26:12). 8. In the New Testament, it is brought on the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:1,2). 9. In the Old Testament, it is the tithe plus an offering (Mal. 3:10). 10. In the New Testament, it is “according as a man purposes in his heart, both cheerfully and bountifully” (2 Cor. 9:6–9). There are three different tithes in the Old Testament, under law. A. Leviticus 27:29–31, as in 2 Chronicles 31:5 and Numbers 18:21–24. B. Deuteronomy 14:22, given three times a year. C. Deuteronomy 14:28, as Leviticus 25:20 and Nehemiah 10:37.

14:21 “And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself. 22 And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the Lord, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth, 23 That I will not take from a thread even to a shoe​latchet, and that I will not take any thing

that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich: 24 Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.”

“Bera king of Sodom” offers Abram the spoils (which he regained) as a payment for fighting the battle, but Abram (as David—l Sam. 30:22–25) refuses the payment (cf. with Gehazi, 2 Kings 5:20– 25). Abram does speak up for his enlisted men, however (as David—2 Sam. 24:17), and sees to it that they get some provision for their effort. “I have lift up mine hand.” This is the first occurrence of the expression, and first occurrences should always be noted carefully. Revelation 10:5; Job 31:21; and Deuteronomy 32:40 all indicate that the action is symbolic of a solemn oath taken before God. As a consequence, what now passes for a military salute was originally a sworn vow before God. This explains why Quakers and Jehovah’s Witnesses are leery about saluting flags. Ezekiel 20:28, 42 and Psalm 10:12 indicate that the original act is ascribed to God when He is about to do something. The gesture, then, becomes associated with prayer (man asking God to do something) and is so found throughout the Bible (1 Tim. 2:8; Luke 24:50; Lam. 3:41). The gesture can be arm straight out at sixty degrees with fingers joined and palm down (Nazi salute); arm at eighty degrees outstretched in same manner (Fascist salute); arm co*cked with palm forward over the forehead (French salute); arm co*cked with palm forward even with the shoulder (oath in court); hand over heart (American salute); or two fingers raised (sign of the Antichrist: at present the salute given by the Swiss Guard to the Vatican Flag!). “The possessor of heaven and earth” is connected with the context, the idea being, “Since my father owns the cattle on a thousand hills, and everything in the world is His (1 Cor. 10:26), He will supply my need without your help.” This testimony is somewhat stronger than the one Abram gave to the last Hamite, for the last Hamite, Pharaoh, did load Abram up with gifts, and Abram took them without a peep! (See Gen. 12:16, 20.) The spiritual lessons for the Christian in these two comparisons are so clear; they are downright embarrassing. You have a hard time bragging about God when a patrolman pulls you over for speeding, but it is easy to be bold when you are right. “Conscience makes cowards of us all,” but “the righteous are bold as a lion” (Prov. 28:1). “A thread even to a shoelatchet” is very vivid. “I will not take a pair of shoestrings for a reward, and as far as that goes, not even a piece of thread.” “Lest thou shouldest say....” This is the trap into which many a school builder and church builder falls: he obligates himself to the unsaved or to carnal Christians or to dead Orthodox Christians for financial support, and then he must take orders from them. If he rebels, he loses his shirt, and if he obeys and makes “a go of it,” then the denominational machine or the carnal treasurer or the board of trustees or the unsaved business manager (“Bera” has a lot of applications!) announces: “Well, he finally made it, with our help!” God gets no glory out of this kind of thing (cf. Gideon’s 300—Judg. 7:2).

CHAPTER 15 15:1 “After these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward. 2 And Abram said, Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus? 3 And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir. 4 And, behold, the word of the Lord came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. 5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. 6 And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.”

The passage ranks in importance with Genesis 3:1–6 and Genesis 12:1–3, for this midnight conversation on the plains of Mamre, between God and a Syrian shepherd, turns out to be a type of the New Testament believer’s salvation: “by grace without works” (Rom. 4:5). As a matter of fact, Paul devotes nearly a whole chapter in Romans to the setting of Genesis 15:1–6. 1 It is “the word of the Lord” which comes to the believer (Gen. 15:4). 2. An impossible promise which is contrary to the laws of nature and science is made (Rom. 4:19). 3. The eyes of the sinner are directed heavenward (Gen. 15:5). 4. The sinner is justified by believing, without works (Gen. 15:6). The believer should carefully note that James 2 is not dealing with Genesis 15:6 where Abram was saved in the New Testament sense. James 2:21 is dealing with Genesis 22 many years after Genesis 15:6. The unwary Catholics and Campbellites, who are ensnared in James 2:24, 26 are destroyed by their priests and elders, for both groups refuse to interpret James in the light of Paul. (All heresies begin with obscure verses about which there is a question. See comments on Gen. 3:1.) The difference between salvation and damnation in this age is the difference between a heart attitude which will accept Romans 3 and Romans 10 before it will try to figure out Matthew 16, Acts 2, and Hebrews 10, and a heart that uses Matthew, Acts, and Hebrews to justify itself! (Cf. 1 Cor. 3:19–20, 1:23.) Abram, before the law, is in a grace situation, and although nothing happens to him when he gets saved (no spiritual circumcision, no indwelling Christ, no new birth, and no severance of soul from body), he is saved by believing, without working (Rom. 10:9–10). All attempts to make belief a “work” or to run to Matthew, Acts, James, and Hebrews in order to put a price tag on the gift of God (Eph. 2:8–9) are called “wresting the Scriptures” by Simon Peter. If anyone on earth should heed Simon Peter’s warning (2 Pet. 3:16), it should be the very people who profess to accept his authority over Paul’s! But they don’t. They accept the authority of a deluded Italian prince over Peter or Paul. All deluded Italian princes believe that James 2:21, 24, and 26 are references to the salvation of the New Testament Christian. The basic trouble is that Abram has imputed right- eousness without anything taking place within him. The Christian goes through four spiritual operations the moment he accepts the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ.

1. His soul is cut loose from his body inside (Rom. 7:1–4; Col. 2:10–13). 2. His dead spirit is born again (John 3:5–7; Eph. 2:1–7). 3. His soul is saved permanently (Rom. 5:9; Mark 8:36). 4. The Holy Spirit joins him to Jesus Christ by baptizing him into Christ’s body (1 Cor. 6:17, 12:13). None of these things happened to Abram. Hence, there is a gap between his salvation (Gen. 15) and his justification (Gen. 22), which “perfected his faith.” Our faith is perfected the moment the Holy Spirit enters our bodies, and if we died one second after salvation with no works to show for it, the effect (as far as heaven or hell goes) would be the same as with a man who trusted Jesus when he was ten years old and served Him faithfully for seventy years. What popes, cardinals, Greek scholars, and Hebrew scholars cannot unravel can be unraveled with a dime store AV 1611 in thirty minutes. Not even Martin Luther, great saint that he was, ever got James 2 straightened out. Abram is treated “as a righteous person” (Gen. 15) because of “imputation,” but only with a foreview to real justification later (Gen. 22:1–10). The Christian is treated as a righteous person because of Christ’s imputed righteousness (Rom. 4:1–6), but the blood has already been shed for the Christian and his justification lies behind him, at Calvary (Rom. 5:9). Ah, the unsearchable riches of the Reformation English text; how unsearchable are its judgments and its plain English past finding out (to anyone who thinks he is smart enough to correct it!). “Came unto Abram in a vision...Fear not...thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.” The vision is similar to the one of Genesis 20:3 where the sleeper and God partake of a sensible dialogue (not like the one of Gen. 15:12 where the sleeper is passive to the vision). “Fear not” reminds one of the words of Jesus Christ to His disciples on many occasions (see Acts 27:24; John 12: 15; Luke 12:7, etc.). “Thy shield...thy...great reward” is another “pat on the back” (like Gen. 13:14). God never seems to overlook a spiritual choice that is made by faith, instead of sight. Abram has just taken such a step (Gen. 14:22–24), and the Heavenly Father, who remembers that our frames are “ashes and dust” (Psa. 103:14), is quick to encourage Abram to take a few more steps like it (see Psa. 37:23, 44:18; Job 31:4). “Exceeding great reward” is a reminder that “the half has not been told,” and even the “treasure in the earthen vessel” (2 Cor. 4:7) and the foretaste of heavenly gifts (Gen. 24:53) are not worthy to be compared with the coming glory (l Cor. 2:9; 2 Cor. 4:17). “And Abram said, Lord God, what wilt thou give me?” An honest question if you ever heard one! We can almost see Simon Peter leaning over Abram’s shoulder and asking: “What shall we have therefore?” (Matt. 19:27). Jesus’ answer to Simon Peter is a perfect picture of an “exceeding great reward” (Note: “an hundredfold”—Matt. 19:29). Abram, like all of us, has pangs of self pity on occasions. He had seen God already as a “rewarder,” for he had brought back all the booty and spoils of battle (Gen. 14:16). He had also experienced first hand God’s ability at being a “shield,” for there is no record of Abram suffering one casualty in the attack on the Syrians (cf. Num. 31:49). But still, when God blesses us—no matter how great He blesses us—is it not true that in a matter of hours (or even seconds) we can itemize several prayers which He forgot to answer? “What wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless?” “After all, Lord, what are houses, riches, land, protections, blessings, and You Yourself when I have no children and may die with no heirs?” Haven’t some of you said it yourself? Oh, yes, you have! “Eliezer of Damascus” is the servant of Genesis 24:1–6 who, until the birth of Isaac (see Gal.

4:1–7), was over all of Abram’s goods. The word means “my God is helper” and clearly prefigures that Great Comforter and Helper, the Holy Spirit. (Note the typology of Gen. 24:1–30 in this respect.) “The steward of my house,” in Hebrew, is the “servant who runs” (Ben Meshek: “son of running”) and matches the “runner through the dust” (Deacon) of the New Testament (see Greek for 1 Tim. 3:10 and Acts 6:1–4). “To me thou hast given no seed.” True, but my, what a demonstration of “trust.” Did not God promise him a seed in Genesis 12:7 and 13:15? “He that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.” The word “bowels,” here, is used in the proper sense, unlike the improper way in which it is used medically today. The naming of a set of organs or a bodily function with the name is typical of the peculiar class of modern substitutions which make “dirty words” out of Bible words. (Note: John, Peter, bishoprick, ass, “to do his business” [Gen. 39:11], etc.) The grins and chuckles in an audience when the word “bowels” is read (as in 2 Cor. 6:12 or 1 John 3:17) from the pulpit is quite indicative of the present moral tone of the Christians as well as the unconverted. “Bowels” (as bowl) is the hollowed out center of a thing. It can refer to the earth, to a cave, to the human body, or to the depths of anything. In the AV 1611, it refers to the upper viscera, as well as the lower viscera, and as such it refers to feelings of the heart, psychosomatic reactions of the liver and kidneys, emotional effects on the stomach and bladder, and functions of the respiratory system and the glands. In relation to childbearing, the children are spoken of as coming from within a man (Heb. 7:9–10; Isa. 49:1; Gen. 25:23), as here. “And tell the stars.” The word “tell” (as the modern “teller”) is plainly a “counter.” Note that the “computer” of 1970, as the “imputer” of Romans 4:1–6, is to “count” something on somebody’s “account” (Rom. 4:3— “counted for righteousness”). Words like this which appear to be “archaic” are actually quite modern, and where they are not modern, the AV 1611 interprets them within the body of Scripture. (The alibi that “newer and clearer” translations are needed because of the “archaic, Elizabethan English,” of course, is just a lot of hogwash. There are one hundred words in the AV 1611 which could be listed in a dictionary in the back; that is, 100 out of 810,677 words. Under this pretext (one difficulty in 8000!), the revisers of the ASV and RSV undertook to write Bibles which would attack Jesus Christ wherever possible. For a starter, try these in an RSV or an ASV— Jude 5; Rev. 1:11; 5:14, 20:9; Mark 10:21, 11:10; Matt. 8:29; Heb. 1:3; Luke 24:51; John 1:14, 3:13, 6:69, 16:16; Rom. 5:2; 1 Cor. 10:28; Gal. 6:15 (and if you want any more let me know!). A “teller” counts money—at least they do in the twentieth century. Abram is told to “tell” the stars, and there is no doubt about the meaning at all to anyone with enough sense to lick postage stamps. “So shall thy seed be.” This “chosen seed,” the “promised seed,” is Isaac in history and Jesus Christ in fulfillment (Gal. 3). In Romans 9:7–8, Isaac is also a picture of the believing remnant of Israel, so the section (Gen. 15:1–4) is a tremendous passage of Scripture; it bears directly on more than one hundred other verses and can be indirectly associated with 400 or 500. (The Pulpit Commentary devotes one page to commenting on the six verses.) The eventual product of this chosen seed will include the members of the Body of Christ (Gal 3:24–28), making it truly as “the stars of heaven.” One Hamite said to his gal: “Ain’t de stars numerous tonight?” To which she replied: “Yeah, and dey sho’ is a lot of ’em.” The believer should be careful to notice the distinctions in the numerous covenants made with Abram. Notice that the seed of Genesis 15:5 (Gal. 3) has nothing to do with “inheriting the literal land of Palestine,” nor is it connected with physical circumcision. It is true that Isaac gets these promises, but notice how carefully the Holy Spirit is to separate types so that you will never think that Genesis 17 (covenant theology—household salvation, etc.) has anything to do with Jesus Christ as He

is presented in Galatians 3. In both contexts (Rom. 4 and Gal. 3), Paul sticks to the “seed” as it is presented in Genesis 15:1–6, not the seed of Genesis 12:1–4, not the seed of Genesis 15:13–21, and not the seed of Genesis 17:8–15. That is, the AV 1611 preserves, without error, the infallible key for interpreting the Scriptures doctrinally. What Catholics or Reformers do with the passage is immaterial; it interprets itself without asking for their advice. “And he believed in the Lord.” To confirm what I have just said above (to the place where any deviation from the interpretation would be classified as a lie), note that Paul quotes the verses in Galatians 3:6 (the context is Christians being “Abram’s seed”) and again in Romans 4:3 (the context being free justification by faith). A text without a context is a pretext, so by citing Genesis 15:6, Paul erases forever from the tablets of truth the teaching of Calvin’s “Covenant Theology” and the “works plus faith” system of the Roman communion. Neither of these systems is related to the truth of the passage; both are private interpretations. Abram’s “seed” matches the seeds of Noah and Adam: 1. Ishmael, Ham, and Cain (the dust of the earth). 2. Isaac, Shem, and Abel (the stars of heaven). 3. The tribes, Japheth, and Seth (the sand of the seashore).

15:7 “And he said unto him, I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it. 8 And he said, Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it? 9 And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon. 10 And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not. 11 And when the fowls came down upon the carcases, Abram drove them away. 12 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.”

“That brought thee out of Ur...to inherit it” (“this land”). Abraham gives a rather weak confirmation of this to Abimelech when he is caught in a situation like Genesis 12:17. (See Gen. 20:13—“When God caused me to wander...!” Sounds almost like Adam again, Gen. 3:12.) The inheritance never comes through as a permanent possession (this is explained thoroughly in Heb. 11), and this is mistaken by postmillennialists to mean that there will never be a literal restoration of Abram’s literal seed to the literal land of Palestine. For comments on this theological nonsense, see Genesis 17:5. “Whereby shall I know...?” (Abram wants assurance like the father of John 4:48.) This brings on a picture of the first real covenant made with Abram. The covenants up to this time are unconditional promises (Gen. 12:1–4, 12:7, 13:14, 15:1–6), but none of these promises (note plural in Gal. 3:16) have the sign of a covenant attached to them. (The Adamic covenant had a sheepskin to mark it, and the Noahic covenant had a rainbow to mark it.) A sacrifice was also connected with the Adamic covenant and the Noahic covenant. Here, then, for the first time in Abram’s life, a sign (Gen. 15:17) and a sacrifice (Gen. 15:10) are connected with a promise. The

believer will not fail to observe that what follows (vs. 8–21) is a promise that a physical piece of property (which can be located on a map) is promised to the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gen. 15:18). “Heifer...she goat...ram...turtledove...pigeon.” There are three animals totaling three years each. They match the prescribed sacrifices of Leviticus 1:14, Exodus 29:15, Numbers 15:27, and Deuteronomy 21:3. The Lamb (Exod. 12; Gen. 3) is missing, although the ram can be a type of Christ, as it plainly is in Genesis 22:13. The birds are not divided, but only beheaded (see Lev. 1:15–17). Note again the idea of “cutting” contained in the Hebrew word for “making a covenant.” (See remarks on Gen. 9:9. Cf. Jer. 34:18–20.) Abram drives the fowls away (types of demons; see Gen. 8:7) and protects the sacrifice; consequently, it protects him (Gen. 15:17)! “A deep sleep fell upon Abram.” The covenant then is unconditional and predates the Mosaic covenant, which is conditional. This means that no matter what Israel does in the future or has done in the past, including the rejection of the Lord God Messiah, eventually they have to be restored to the land. And that is what will happen in spite of anything the NCCC, RCC, or United Nations can do.

15:13 “And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; 14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. 15 And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age. 16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full. 17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces. 18 In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: 19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, 20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, 21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgash*tes, and the Jebusites.”

“Thy seed shall be a stranger...and shall serve them...four hundred years.” The text has long been a jawbreaker. If all the words written about it and spoken about it could be published in one volume, it would run 1,500 pages with 500 words to the page. The bone of contention is the term “four hundred years,” for Moses states in Exodus 12:40 that the sojourning was 430 years, and Paul says that the law (of Exod. 20) was given 430 years after the covenant which God made with Abram in Genesis 15:13. With a date of 1491 B.C. on the Exodus (Bullinger) and 1606 B.C. (Larkin) and 1520 B.C. (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Conder) and 1220 B.C. (liberal view), there is about as much unanimity on the subject as a Vietnam peace talk. If 1491 is right, then the Israelites have to go down into Egypt in 1921—which is at the time that Abram left Haran, before Isaac and Jacob were born (let alone Joseph!). If the 1606 date is right, the Jews entered Egypt 2036 B.C., which would have been thirty years before Abram was born. If the 1520 date is right, then Israel goes down into Egypt in 1950, which would have been four years

before God appeared to Abram in “Ur of the Chaldees.” If the 1220 date is right, one must cram 300 years (see Judg. 11:26) between the Exodus and Solomon (plus forty years for Num. 14:34), making the dedication of the Temple (1 Kings 6:1) in 880 B.C.; yet, 1 Kings 6:1 says there are 480 years between the Exodus and Solomon’s temple. This would make the Temple dedication in 740 B.C.! (By such a system, John the Baptist would be one of the principal speakers at the Council of Nicaea, A.D. 325!) Larkin solves the problem by making Abram’s birth in 2111 B.C., then time runs 505 years to the Exodus (1606 B.C.). Four hundred and thirty years of this period of 505 years is dated from Genesis 12:4 (the promise—Gal. 3:17) to the Exodus; this would make the children of Israel in the land of Egypt only for a period of 215 years. The interpretation is arrived at by noting carefully that the verse in Exodus 12:40 does not say that “the children of Israel SOJOURNED IN EGYPT 430 years,” but rather “Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, WHO DWELT IN EGYPT, was four hundred and thirty years.” (The sojourning begins with Gen.12:1, according to Larkin; it runs 215 years to Gen. 48–49, and then 215 years to Exod. 12:40.) This system reconciles Judges 11:26 with 1 Kings 6:1 making 591 years from the Exodus (1606 B.C.) to the Temple (1005 B.C.—the dedication). The date of l Kings 6:1 is reconciled to Exodus 12:40 by assuming that 111 years of servitude (in the Book of Judges) are not included in the statement in 1 Kings 6:1. (For an alternative view see page 43 of The “Errors” in the King James Bible.) Bullinger dates the 430 years of Exodus 12:40 back to the promise of Genesis 15, thus making Genesis 15:13–21, 1921 B.C.; but this conflicts with his chronological tables, for he has already given 1921 as the date of Abram’s departure from Haran. According to his own system (App. 50, p. 51), the events of Genesis 15 are taking place in 1911 B.C. If 430 years are to be added to this (which he says they are: Margin, p. 22), the date of the Exodus would have been 1437 B.C., but this is off the date in the Appendices by more than 50 years! Bullinger dates the 400 years from Isaac’s birth (Acts 7:6) and presumes that the “evil entreating” began with Ishmael making fun of Isaac (see Gal. 4:29). But Bullinger has Isaac born in 1896 B.C. Four hundred years added to this would be 1496, yet the date Bullinger gives for the Exodus is not 1496 but 1491 B.C. To remedy this error, Brother Bullinger has altered his note (p. 22) on page 53 of Appendix 50 and stated that the 430 years should be aimed back to Genesis 12:1—not Genesis 15:13! This would make Genesis 12:1 be 1921 B.C., but alas, in Bullinger’s chronology, the first call which came to Abram in Ur of the Chaldees (Acts 7:1–4; Gen. 12:1–4) is given in Appendix 50, p.51, as 1946 B.C., not 1921 B.C. (“How pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron’s beard,” Psa. 133:1–2.) Larkin seems to have the best of the argument. Thiele, Smith, Rimmer, and others may disagree; but the only juggling that Larkin has to do is the 111 years in the book of Judges. (See Dispensational Truth, Larkin, p. 71–73.) At any rate, it is clear that the 400 years (mentioned in Gal. 3:17 and Gen. 15:13) does not date from Exodus 1 or Genesis 48 and 49; it has to date from Isaac’s birth or from Genesis 12:1–3. If we accept Bullinger’s chronology up to Genesis 15, the starting point for Genesis 12:1–2 would be 1946; adding Larkin’s 505 years to this would give a date for the Exodus of 1441. This date is as safe as any; however, it pushes the Temple dedication up to 961 B.C. (Bullinger could have no possible objection to this theory, however, for his temple doesn’t get dedicated until 910 B.C.!) The compromise cut would be 1946 for Genesis 12, plus 430 to Exodus 12 (1516 B.C.), plus 480 to the Temple (l Kings 6:1), making the dedication 1035 B. C. This leaves all the figures of the AV 1611

intact, without any alteration. Verse 14 of Genesis 15 is fulfilled literally in Exodus 12. “Shall serve them...that nation...will I judge” is a reference to the descendants of Ham (see comments on Gen. 10:6). The spotlight of the word puts some Negro spirituals in a rather peculiar light. “Let my people go” (from “Go down Moses”), in its proper setting and context, is a reference to God judging Negroes for trying to “lord it over” Shemites. (A unique situation to say the least!) The divine segregation is enforced by bloodshed (Exod. 12) as God makes it clear that the “servant of servants” has no business giving orders to Shemites. (The end of Hamitic dominion [from Cush] on a worldwide scale is the fall of Babylon under Darius and Cyrus. Scipio [the Roman general] defeats Hannibal [Ham] at Zama [202 B.C.] when there is a temporary revival of Hamitic power; but this is the final blow, and not even through Attila [who would be 60 percent Japheth and 30 percent Shem] does Ham ever regain any kind of world dominion [375–455]. France and Germany run it [A.D. 500– 1000]. Mongols come and go [A.D. 1200–1300], and the Turks come and go [A.D. 1200–1500]. The Frenchmen and Englishmen fight it out [A.D. 1490–1800], and the Germans take it from there, but Ham is through.) “We shall overcome” is the testimony of a lost man, for the Christian has already overcome (l John 4:4, 5:4), and “Let my people go” is as poor a caricature of Bible truth as the “Battle Hymn of the Republic.” “In the fourth generation...the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.” This would be four generations through 215 years. (For an alternative view see page 43 of The “Errors” in the King James Bible.) In actuality, Jacob goes down, Levi goes down, and Amram comes from Kohath, who is Levi’s son Amram is Moses’ daddy: thus Levi—Kohath—Amram—Moses, an even four generations. This would make a “generation” in Moses’ day 53.7 years. (It is forty-seven years according to the period Abraham to Christ given in Matthew 1:1–7.) “The iniquity of the Amorites” like “the fulness of the Gentiles” (Rom. 11:25) seems to indicate that nations have an hourglass which measures their length of power, and when the bottom is filled with sand (“high time” in Rom. 13:11), the nation is “overturned” (Eze. 21:27; Jer. 20:16). The same figure is used of Israel upon their rejection of the Lord Jesus Christ (l Thes. 2:16). (The Amplified reading here is very corrupt and not to be taken seriously by anyone.) The sign of this covenant is “a BURNING LAMP” and “a SMOKING FURNACE.” The furnace (Gen. 15:17) is Egypt in type (Deut. 4:20), and the “burning lamp” (Gen. 15:17; l Kings 11:36) is probably connected with Isaiah 62:1. The furnace is heat without light, and the lamp is light without heat (see John 5:35). “Unto thy seed have I given this land....” The measurements which follow indicate an area of 300,000 square miles, more than two and one half times the British Isles. (See notes on Gen. 2:8.) “The river of Egypt” would be the Nile. The reader will notice the “Rephaims” again (giants) popping up in verse twenty and the “Hittites” who, although not listed in the group in Genesis 10:15– 18, seem to be kin to Ham. Notice the change in tense: it is no longer “I will” as in Genesis 13:15, but “I have.” This is an official covenant.

CHAPTER 16 16:1 “Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. 2 And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. 3 And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.”

Race rears its ugly head again, for here comes a descendant of Ham whom Sarai picked up as a handmaid back in Genesis 12:15–16 (see Esther 2:9). (The word “Hagar” means “flight.”) Sarai, at this time, is nearly seventy-five and has come to the conclusion that she will never have children. As a last resort, she pleads Hammurabi’s Code, section 146. Abram is certainly wrong in “hearkening to her” at this point, but one cannot help but smile at the mistake, for it indicates Abram’s patrimony so clearly. Look at Genesis 3:17—“Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife.” The evidence that shows most clearly the error in this “child by proxy” arrangement is the fact that up until here the Lord has been speaking to Abram regularly and revealing Himself in a number of ways, but suddenly, the words “the Lord” drop out of our text, and although His Angel speaks to Hagar (Gen. 16:7), the Lord does not speak to Abram till thirteen years after the birth of Ishmael (cf. Gen. 16:6 and 17:1). One can hardly blame Sarai, for a woman of seventy-five doesn’t have much hope of mothering a brood as sprawling as the “stars of heaven,” and too, until this time, Sarai had no revelation that she was to be the mother of Abram’s “seed.” If she desired to see the promise of Genesis 15:5 (and Abram must have told her about it), then Hagar seemed like a logical expedient. The reader will observe that Hagar is given to Abram “to be his wife” (Gen. 16:3). This is done without a ceremony of any kind, without a license being given, without an exchange of rings or vows, and in the absence of a justice of the peace, a “best man,” and a father “to give away” the bride (see Bible Believer’s Commentary on Matthew, Matt. 19:3–9).

16:4 “And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes. 5 And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the Lord judge between me and thee. 6 But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai had dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face.”

“And when she saw that she had conceived,” it became apparent where the fault had been in the marriage of Mr. and Mrs. Abram. It is proved by this that Sarai is the sterile party, not Abram. (Until

now the matter is unproven, for Abram, as Job, only had one wife, and no “experiments” were made to see if he was the sterile one or not!) Consequently, the Hamite girl feels she has reason to gloat about the matter. She does not fail to give her mistress superior smiles, and she renders a mock humility when obeying orders. “I can have children; you can’t!” (This is undoubtedly what lies behind vs. 4, and it is plainly illustrated in 1 Sam. 1:2, 4–6, 8.) “My wrong be upon thee...the Lord judge between me and thee.” The idea is “My maid has done me wrong, and it is your fault; she is sneering at me because of her relationship with you.” “The Lord judge between me and thee” sounds good, but it is very much like Rachel’s holy oaths in Genesis 30:6; it doesn’t amount to much. “And when Sarai had dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face.” The New Testament case is Philemon, where the runaway slave, Onesimus, gets converted. Onesimus is advised by the greatest Christian who ever lived to return to his master and serve according to the New Testament regulations found in 1 Timothy 6:1–6 and Colossians 3:22–25. (These two New Testament passages, written to the believer under grace, constitute two of the most objectionable teachings in the entire Bible for the NAACP.) Neither text has ever been expounded by any fundamental, conservative, or liberal preacher in the last sixty years; and the exclusion of the two grace passages from grace epistles (by the Apostle of the Dispensation of the Grace of God [Eph. 3:1–10]) proves once again that the Bible is, has been, and always will be the hottest piece of revolutionary material on the market. Here is a book that is so powerful that those who believe it do not dare preach it! Sarai, as Simon Legree, is not a considerate and loving “master” (mistress). We do not know what actions made up the “hard dealings,” but they could have been anything from curtailment of food and clothing to unbearable living conditions or insults and slaps in the face. At any rate, Hagar cannot get any help from the Supreme Court, and when she goes to Bull Conner, he just laughs at her; so she packs her goods (like Eliza) and crosses the Ohio River and moves into a ghetto and spends the rest of her life “marching” and stealing TV sets out of busted store windows. (Well, that is not exactly the way it was, but it could have been that way!)

16:7 “And the angel of the Lord found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur. 8 And he said, Hagar, Sarai’s maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai. 9 And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands. 10 And the angel of the Lord said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.”

This is the first mention of the famous “angel of the Lord,” who appears many times later in the Scriptures. He is found as “Jehovah” in the burning bush (cf. Exod. 3 and Acts 7:30, 32); and He wrestles with Jacob (Gen. 32), leads the children of Israel out of Egypt (Exod. 23), rebukes the nation in apostasy (Judg. 6), appears to Manoah and his wife (Judg. 13), and ministers to Elijah (1 Kings 19), Jesus (Luke 22:43), and Paul (Acts 27). He is mentioned more than 200 times in the Scriptures and is sometimes “An Angel of the Lord” and sometimes “The Angel of the Lord.” To help God out

and eliminate His confused way of writing, the New Scofield Reference Bible has carefully gone through the New Testament references and made the “THE’s” into “A’s” or “AN’s” (exactly as Origen’s LXX tried to help out the Old Testament Hebrew so it would match the New Testament quotations). Unfortunately, there is no article for the Angel of the Lord in Acts 27:23 (see Greek text), and still Paul claims that he belongs to this Angel and serves Him. If this is not THE Angel of the Lord (i.e., Jesus Christ), Paul is plainly an apostate idolator “puffed up in his fleshy mind with worshipping angels” (Col. 2:18). Again, the Angel of Galatians 4:14 (which is plainly Jesus Christ in the context) has no article and would be “an Angel of God” (Greek: “angelon Theou”). The Board of Editors of the New Scofield Reference Bible (not a Scofield Bible but a revision of the Scofield Bible), as Origen, Eusebius, Symmachus, Jerome, Augustine, Calvin, and the mythological LXX, have God’s best interests at heart and sincerely desire to be of help to the Holy Spirit in straightening out His mistakes in an AV 1611. (This is legal, as all assume the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with the AV 1611.) But a tree always gives itself away if it is a fruit tree, for pretty soon out comes the fruit, off it drops, and behold, it is either good or rotten. The thing that stultified the NSRB editors was the reading of Matthew 1:20 and 2:19. They could not figure how in the world Jesus Christ could be THE Angel of the Lord in the passage if he were in Mary’s womb (or traveling on a donkey to Egypt) at the same time THE Angel of the Lord showed up. (Notice, in the AV 1611 [Luke 2:9] that at the birth of Jesus it is THE Angel of the Lord who serenades the shepherds .) There must be some mistake! Quick, help God out! What does the Greek say? (The Greek says that Monday noon plate lunches for businessmen are $ 1.25 with a drink.) All the frantic slamming and banging around in the lexicons and versions (since 1611) produces nothing but an intolerable morass of garbled nonsense. (See Origen’s “reasoning” on Matt. 19:17–19.) The entire Board of Editors on the NSRB seems to have gone blind as a bat while translating, for they entirely overlooked the fact that the Lord Jesus can appear “on the Throne” as God the Father while He is at the right hand of the Throne as the Son (Heb. 12:1–2), and still be in front of the Throne as a seven horned Lamb (Rev. 5:1, 6–7) while He is controlling the universe (Heb. 1:3). Therefore, to undertake to “help God out” in straightening out the AV 1611 text in regard to “an” and “the” is simply ridiculous. All such “helps” stem from a dead Orthodox scholarship that has fallen into a passive state of “Library Christianity”; these men are not on the “front line” of battle and mistake for “problems and difficulties” things that the AV 1611 text straightened out years before they were born. Men who spend their time in offices and school rooms arguing about the “clarity” of passages often fall into this error, and nowhere is their true spiritual condition more manifest than in their handling of the word of God and their comments on church history. Such men always classify “spiritual giants” in this fashion: Peter, Paul, Augustine, Jerome, Melancthon, Calvin, Kuyper, Machen, et al. (That is a conservative classification.) The Liberal classification runs: Peter, Paul, Augustine, Jerome, Aquinas, Abelard, Anselm, Calvin, Strauss, Tillich, Barth, Brunner, et al. Either classification overlooks a prime Biblical fact: Peter and Paul were street preachers, and neither of them, in a lifetime of writing, ever said anything like “a clearer translation should be,” “unfortunately this is rendered,” “a better rendering would be,” “the force of the original is lost here,” or “with the discovery of more ancient manuscripts, we have...etc.” The believer may go by the articles or indefinite articles (THE Angel of the Lord or AN Angel of the Lord) in the AV 1611 with the utmost confidence that its text is highly superior to the next best translation put out by anyone, anywhere. (Did you notice how the ASV, NASV, RV, RSV , and NSRB all failed to translate any of the articles which appeared before the name of Jesus? See Greek texts on Luke 8:40, 46, 50; Mark 8:27, 9:2, 6:30, 3:7, 2:15, 2:19, 1:14; Matt. 3:13, 16, 4:1, 8:4, 8:18, 8:22, 9:9, 19, and several dozen others.)

“The angel of the Lord,” who appears to Hagar, is given divine titles (Exod. 3), divine authority (Acts 27), divine power (Judg. 13), and divine commissions (Judg. 2, 6), and is said to be Paul’s master, to whom “he belongs” (Acts 27). The Angel of the Lord clearly, then, is the Lord Jesus Christ in an “extra-bodily appearance.” This is called a “theophany” by theologians, and whether the article appears or not, the context will show whether or not it is AN Angel, like Revelation 14:6 (one of a number), or THE angel (Rev. 10:1–3) the Lord Jesus Christ. (See remarks in Bible Believer’s Commentary on Revelation, Rev. 1:20.) “By a fountain of water.” The typology is beautiful, for the first appearance of Jesus’ Angel is to a miserable sinner, a Hamite (see Acts 8:30–38!!), a lonely, persecuted woman (Rom 7:1–3), a wanderer on the way to Egypt, who has come near to the “well of water springing up into everlasting life!” (John 4:14—a woman!) In their zeal to replace the AV 1611 text with scholarly opinions, Keil, Lange, Havernick, Nitzsch, Bush, Ebrard, Steir, Kalisch, Ainsworth, Wordsworth, Candlish, Dummelow, Hengstenberg, Origen, Augustine, Hoffman, and Baumgarten all overlook the main point in the passage and are satisfied to argue about “the” (or “an”) Angel of the Lord. I would rather know Him than argue about Him. Hagar is going in the wrong direction: back to Egypt. Shur “is before Egypt, as thou goest toward Assyria” (Gen. 25:18). God stops her before she has time to get there; He deems it better for Ham to serve Shem (Gen. 9:26–28) in the Promised Land than for Ham to rule Shem in the land of the Pharaohs (Exod. 1–12). (More racial discrimination. My, my, isn’t the Bible a nasty, old book!) “Return...submit” (see 1 Cor. 7:20–24; Eph. 6:5–9). The only thing difficult about the “present state of the text” (a cliché used by scholars who resent the AV 1611) is the present state of the world, which has rejected the present state of the text. “I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.” The prophecy comes to pass in the following: 16:11 “And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction. 12 And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren. 13 And she called the name of the Lord that spake unto her, Thou God seest me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth me? 14 Wherefore the well was called Beer-lahai-roi; behold, it is between Kadesh and Bered.”

The passage is a beautiful critique of the Graf-Well-hausen theory, so aptly presented by Life magazine in its feature article on “The Bible.” The average preacher does not need a detailed exposition of the Graf-Wellhausen theory, but he may have wondered when he read some commentaries why the author (or authors) kept inserting statements like “The passage is ascribed to ‘J’ by so and so,” or “Elohists think that the passage was written by so and so,” or “the J writer has inserted, etc.” This alphabet soup (real Graf-Wellhausen advocates include “R,” “D,” “P,” and “L”), which passes off in seminaries as “scholarship,” is based on the theory that anywhere from two to five different men put Genesis together, beginning about 800 B.C. and finishing about 200 B.C. The theory was in vogue in 1890 and is still taught in apostate seminaries in various places. The advocates of

this school of criticism all reject the “proof text” method used by fundamental Christians, and yet all of them swear by the authenticity of Exodus 6:2–3 because it is necessary in constructing their critical theory. According to “E” (who wrote Exod. 6), the name “Jehovah” was first revealed to Moses, but since “J” did not know about this (because he wrote before “E”), he ignorantly used the word “Jehovah” before Moses’ time. “E” corrected him later and inserted “Elohim” in Genesis where it should have been to start with. The theory, of course, is just about as foolproof as a linen gun barrel. “Elohim” is used by the Devil in a “J” passage (see Gen. 3:1–5), and “Elohim” is used by Jacob in a “J” passage (Gen. 32:28–29). But Jehovah shows up in an “E” passage in Genesis 22:11 and 22:14, and another Jehovah shows up in an “E” passage in Genesis 28:17–22. Further discussions of this higgledypiggledy theology is unnecessary. (As the writer of “Deutero-Dumpty” said: “It is apparent that ‘all the king’s horses’ is a later addition by a redactor, as in the time of Humpty Dumpty the tribes were ruled by satraps, not ‘kings.’ The ‘wall’ upon which Humpty Dumpty sat should be translated ‘kitchen table’ according to the latest inscriptions found on the Dumpty Cuneiform Tablets, discovered by Clark Gable. Dumpty is obviously a pseudonym, invented by a scribe who wished to emphasize the weight of the egg when it fell, and the spurious addition ‘put him together again’ is a fragment borrowed from Bel and the Dragon. According to the scientific Westcott and Hort text, the original would read: ‘Humpty [Gr.— Thumpty] Dumpty [heavy weight] sat [or reclined] on a kitchen table. Humpty [Gr.—Thumpty] Dumpty [heavy weight] had a great fall [that is, the temperatures were normal with moderate rains and good harvest]. All the [king’s] horses and all the [king’s] men couldn’t put [the verb here is from a Chaldean root meaning “could put”] Humpty [Thumpty] together [see margin, Tischendorf] again.’”) We do not know who the Deutero (the second writer) Dumptyist was, but whoever he was he certainly wouldn’t be worth knowing. He would be an outstanding exception to Will Rogers’ rule that he “never met a man he didn’t like.” Deutero-Dumpty is scientific exegesis compared to the GrafWellhausen theory. (Cf. Exod. 14:4, 6:7; Gen. 30:23–24, 21:1–2; Exod. 20:2–5; Gen. 28:13, 37:2–8, and Deut. 5:6, 9 in the Hebrew text of Kittel’s.) In our text (Gen. 16:7–13), the heavenly rescuer is called “LORD” (Jehovah) in verse 7 and “GOD” (El for Elohim) in verse 13. How did the “J” writer (writing first) get his narrative down to verse 13 and then skip to verse 14 and tell you why the well was named the way it was, when the reason for its name was in verse 13? Did the “E” writer go back and insert verse 13? Then why did he not change verse 7 and verse 9 and verse 10 to match it, for they contain the word “JEHOVAH,” which “E” didn’t think was proper for Genesis? (Deutero-Dumpty is scientific exegesis compared to the Graf-Wellhausen theory.) Verse thirteen has the word “JEHOVAH” in it: “the name of the Lord,” and the word “El” in it: “Thou God seest me.” Did “J” start the sentence and stop at the comma? Did he write and then wait 100 to 400 years for “E” to tell you what Hagar said? The lesson which the Bible believer must learn again (as he has learned it many times before) is that the AV 1611 text is secure as it stands. “Higher scholarship,” “higher criticism,” and “scientific exegesis” mean nothing when facing the AV text. If it indicates anything at all, it indicates an inborn, subjective, biased hatred for the authority of the Reformation text. “And shalt call his name Ishmael....” (Hebrew “Whom God hears” or “God will hear”). This is the first instance of the naming of a child before birth. (Isaac is next.) Ishmael is plainly the Bedouin (Bedawin) or Arabian (Gal. 4; Gen. 37:28; Judg. 8:22, 24; Gen. 25:18). “And he will be a wild man...he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren” (cf. Gen.

25:18). This puts the Arabian side by side with the Jew (see A.D. 1970–1990) and begins a “holy war” which runs better than 3,000 years, and it is still running strong. The racial prophecy (in spite of anyone’s opinion about the matter; see Gen. 9:25) holds true, and the “wild man” (Hebrew—“wild ass,” Job 39:5–8) becomes a type of the unregenerated sinner born “after the flesh” (see Job 11:12; Exod. 13:13; Gal 4:29; see also Bible Believer’s Commentary on Matthew, Matt 21:2,5). Mohammed (A.D. 612) was supposed to have been the seventieth descendant of Ishmael; and the Masonic garbs, emblems, and symbols are from this group of people (cf. Malcom X, Mohammed Ali, Black Muslims, etc.). Kalisch remarks, “The Bedouins are the outlaws among the nations. Plunder is legitimate gain, and daring robbery is praised as valor.” Ishmael, as a true Shemitic Hamite, inherits the characteristics of both races (see comments on Gen. 10:20, 31), and no amount of modern “equality of races claptrap” will alter 3,000 years of past history. The Bedouins have a boundless love of freedom, riding on the desert, spear in hand, avoiding cities, constantly fighting, stealing, and living in frugal and often filthy conditions. They are fierce in battle. (See the Saracens [A.D. 1171– 1193] or ask Richard “the Lion-Hearted” how it was when you get to heaven, if he’s in heaven! ) Goat’s milk, palm trees, dates, figs, and roast beef sustain Ishmael and his twelve tribes (Gen. 25:12– 18); and since he begat twelve tribes who can claim Abram for a father, he considers Palestine to be just as much his as it is the Jews (see comments on Gen. 13:15). Jordan and Saudi Arabia are Ishmael’s modern borders. “And she called the name of the Lord...Thou God seest me.” She called the Angel “El” (Elohim: God), and then the writer says that the Angel was “JEHOVAH” (LORD), exactly as Stephen identifies the Angel of the Lord with the Almighty Creator (“I AM”) of Exodus 3:14 (see Acts 7:30, 32). The modern American phraseology of the verse is “Have I been able to see the One who has been looking out after me all this time?” or “Since when did I ever know that anyone was watching over me, until here?” Hagar recognizes that she has been unaware of any divine protection (exactly as Jacob was in Gen. 28:12, 16–17), and she names the well to remind herself that God is living and does “see her” (cf. Prov. 5:21). The English text is much clearer than the surmisings of Onkelos, Keil, Gesenius, Kalisch, Rosenmuller, and Inglis. The Hebrew (“the well of living after seeing”) will not allow an interpretation like Judges 13:22–23, for the Hebrew scholars have again missed the wording of the sixth-grade English. Not one time in Genesis 16 does it ever say that Hagar saw anything. To say that she was glad to be alive “after seeing the Angel” is to write a Bible passage that has no existence anywhere. The Angel “spake unto her” (vss. 8–9, 13), but at no time appeared unto her. The interpretation, therefore, placed on the Hebrew reading (see Bullinger’s error also) is a private interpretation that is not related to truthful exposition of the passage. That is, where the original Hebrew is obscure, “Beer-lahai-roi,” the English will correct it and straighten it out! Hagar is not commenting on her physical life being preserved after seeing an angel; she is commenting on the fact that the Living One who saw her preserved her life from dying in Egypt with a fatherless child. Instead, El (or Jehovah, depending upon the alphabet soup) gave her water, a child, a seed, and a multitude of descendants numbering twelve tribes.

16:15 “And Hagar bare Abram a son: and Abram called his son’s name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael. 16 And Abram was fourscore and six years old, when Hagar bare Ishmael to Abram.”

Abram is said to be eighty-six, which would make Sarai seventy-six. (This would be about 1910 B.C.)

CHAPTER 17 17:1 “And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. 2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. 3 And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, 4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. 5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.”

The reader will notice that when God “appears” to anyone, He appears (see Gen. 17:1 and 12:7). This confirms the correct interpretation of the Hebrew name for the well (“Beer-lahai-roi”); in the preceding chapter, Hagar saw nothing. Now the Lord appears to Abram after thirteen years of broken fellowship. His first words are indicative of the paternal humor with which God treats His children. Note “walk before me, and be thou perfect” (see notes on Gen. 6:9). This is a gentle reminder that having children by Hamites does not fall under the heading of a “perfect walk” (Gal. 5:16). In this passage, the Graf-Wellhausen theory (see above, on Gen. 16:7) falls down so hard that “all the king’s horses and all the king’s men...etc.” Behold, now three words are used for Abram’s God, and all three occur within three verses of each other. Note: 1. “The Lord” (vs. 1). This is the Jehovah of Exodus 3 and 6. 2. “Almighty God” (vs. 1). This is El Shaddai (six times in Genesis and thirty-one times in Job). 3 . “God” (vs. 3). This is the Elohim of Genesis, occurring 2,700 times in the Hebrew Old Testament. If we were addicts of modern scholarship, we would have to assume here that J (writing first) got halfway through verse one and then had to wait till somebody else got a new name for God (El Shaddai) to stick it into the sentence. Without this “new writer” the original manuscript would have read, “The Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him...walk before me, and be thou perfect.” Then several years later (give or take two or three hundred), someone added “I am the Almighty God.” After this help, “E” would show up and insert GOD (vs. 3, Elohim) to complete the narrative, and thus we would have three different men constructing the same account of the same conversation with each man knowing when to insert his word ! This theory is more remarkable than plenary inspiration! If I believed it, I would think the Bible to be more supernatural than it already is! What faith it must take to be an infidel! “Almighty God.” The word pictures God as a sustainer and nourisher of life. It is from a Hebrew root which refers to the breasts. Appearing where it does (Gen. 17:1) for the first time, it prefaces a passage where God is mighty enough and sufficient enough to give a child to a man who is ninety-nine years old. “My covenant...my covenant.” This is the covenant of circumcision which follows (see Gen. 17:8–14). The sign of this covenant is circumcision itself. The covenant includes Ishmael as well as Isaac and, therefore, has no reference whatsoever to the New Testament covenant to the believer (see Gen. 17:26). The covenant includes literal nations and literal land (Gen. 17:4, 8) and, therefore, has

no relationship to the new birth of the believer (remarks of Calvin and Kuyper notwithstanding). “But thy name shall be Abraham” (Hebrew “father of a multitude”). The fifth letter of the Hebrew alphabet “He” inserted into Abram’s name (see Hebrew characters at the headings of Psalm 119 in an AV 1611 Bible) signifies no fruit until death (John 12:24) and fruit only from a dead body (Rom. 4:19). Bullinger is quite incorrect in associating this fifth letter with “grace”; it is connected with grace one time in 6000 years of history, where it stands for the death of one man. For the other 140,000,000,000 men who have died on this earth, five stands for death (see comments on Gen. 5:5).

17:6 “And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. 7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. 8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.”

This is the fifth time in five chapters that God has promised to give the geophysical land of Palestine to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It is true that Ishmael could “get into the act” up until here, for he is included in the “seed” up to Genesis 17:25; however, the later statements (Gen. 21:10–12), written before there were any twelve tribes, and Galatians 4, written after the twelve tribes were dislocated, indicate clearly that the land of Palestine, proper (the tract promised to Abram in Gen. 15), is on the record books at the county court house in the name of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. “Between me and thee and thy seed after thee...to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed.” The Pulpit Commentary, here, picks up the ancient refrain of Origen, Jerome, Cyprian, Eusebius, Calvin, Augustine and the popes, by insisting that the covenant is dealing with a spiritual promise of salvation, that Abram’s spiritual seed will have “spiritual Canaan” (Vol. 1, p. 233) for “a possession of eternity.” This is a nice private interpretation, and like all private interpretations, it completely ignores the context, in and out, around, over, and under the covenant. To absolve themselves from this awkward “wresting of the Scriptures,” the commentators say that “so long as the arrangement then instituted should continue, provided always they complied with the conditions of the covenant,” the physical land would be theirs. This absurd fatuity comes from refusing to read Genesis 12:7, 13:14, 15:7, and 15:18—the promises are all unconditional. The “conditions” of Genesis 17 would still not allow the aborted exposition given by the postmillennial commentators, for the “conditions” of Genesis 17 are circumcision (Gen. 17:14); and it is perfectly apparent to the most simple-minded that all of the scribes and Pharisees were circumcised (John 7:22), and yet they were thrown out of the land (Matt 21:43, 45)! Again, it is apparent that the circumcised children of the covenant, on numerous occasions, were children of the Devil (see 1 Sam 2:12, 8:3; 2 Sam. 18:18; John 8:40–46). The postmillennial commentators, obviously, have one of two troubles—or both. 1. They are anxious to set up a sacramental system of salvation whereby spiritual salvation is guaranteed by performing a physical “rite” (see Africa, cannibalism, black magic, etc.). 2. They have deliberately stolen promises given to the physical seed of Abram and applied them to the church, thus classifying themselves in the sight of God the Holy Spirit as “ignorant” and “wise

in their own conceits” (see Rom. 11:24–28). Both faults are probably true. This type of private interpretation is accepted (or has been for several hundred years) by Catholics and Reformers; it is based on a simple format which joins “unlikes” into an integrated synthesis that would rejoice the heart of ecumenical, “one world” advocates. 1. The promise of Galatians 3:29 is claimed for the Christian. 2. The promise of Romans 2:29 is claimed for the Christian. 3. First Thessalonians 2:15–16 is applied to literal Israel (and now the Amplified Version changes the words “to the uttermost” to mean “completely and forever”). 4. Hebrews 8:8 is applied to the Church Age instead of the Tribulation and Millennium. 5. Thus, the Church becomes the true Israel, replacing Israel, and the Christian becomes Abraham’s seed, replacing his literal descendants. This format is called “theology” in seminaries. In heaven it is called “stealing” (Jer. 50:18–20, 31:35–36; Heb. 8:8, 10, 12). The careful student of true Christian Theology will observe that Hebrews 8:11 will not fit the Church Age by the wildest distortion. Furthermore, no matter how many promises the Catholic and Reformer may steal from Abraham and Isaac, they will have a time at the judgment trying to push their Gentile sacramental systems over “the house of Israel and...the house of Judah,” for these are political distinctions delineating a political nation (see Heb. 8:8, 10). The Catholic and Reformed theologians simply replaced Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, and Israel with “infant sprinkling,” which puts Gentiles into a “spiritual covenant.” Thus they have destroyed threefourths of the Bible without even trying! Three-fourths of the Bible deals with the Nation of Israel. (See The Sure Word of Prophecy.)

17:9 “And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. 13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.”

This practice is said by the Catholics and Reformers to “foreshadow the Christian rite of Baptism” (Pulpit Commentary, Vol. I, p. 233). The reasoning behind this is connected with the remarks found under Genesis 17:6–8. 1. If circumcision can put someone into a covenant relationship with Jehovah (Gen. 17:9–10), 2. And this covenant guarantees spiritual salvation (Gen. 17:8, privately interpreted!),

3. Then there must be something in the New Testament that can guarantee the salvation of a man’s seed (l Cor. 7:14)! 4. Therefore, “baby sprinkling” is New Testament “baptism” and guarantees the salvation of a man’s children (Acts 16:31). This mad exegesis is considered to be “the faith once delivered to the saints” by the German and Dutch Reformed Churches and by the Presbyterians and Roman Catholics (although Catholics have inserted a few more original innovations themselves). The flaws in such a pagan system are apparent at once to a careful reader of the Bible. 1. Household salvation is a flop in many cases (David, Samuel, Eli) even where the conditions of the covenant are met. 2. Romans 4 says that circumcision was only a “sign” of the righteousness Abram obtained by faith BEFORE he got the sign (Rom. 4:9–12)! Therefore, the SIGN does nothing to the individual (note 1 Cor. 7:19). 3. Circumcised, baptized people can be demon-possessed sinners in the process of perishing (see Saul and Simon—Acts 8:19–23). 4. No woman could “get into” any covenant if circumcision and baptism match, for no girl baby could be circumcised. 5. No one in the New Testament is ever baptized before they are saved, any more than Abram was circumcised (Gen. 17) before he was saved (Gen. 15). 6. If the laws of the covenant are as exact in the New Testament as they are in the Old (assuming circumcision and baptism are the same type of rite, which they are not), then no “covenant child” of the Dutch and German Reformed congregations or Catholic congregations was ever saved or even “born again.” For if water baptism is the “new birth” (“Amen” say all the pamphlets published by the Knights of Columbus), its operations would have to be as exact as circumcision. Circumcision must be on the eighth day, to males only. It must be on one part of the body that constitutes less than l/20th of the body. By the same token, baptism, in the New Testament, must come to a sinner who has already believed (Mark 16:16; Acts 16:30–34), and it must be by immersion, as a type of burial (Rom. 6:1–5; Col. 2:9–12). To be quite blunt about it (and quite Scriptural), not one baby sprinkled between Tertullian (160–220) and Bishop Pike got anything but wet. Substituting “sprinkling” for “baptism” would be the same thing as substituting baby powder for circumcision. You cannot disobey God’s orders even when you have your interpretation right, let alone when you have it as fouled up as a Chinese fire drill. 7. Baby sprinkling—which is not baptism—could not take the place of circumcision if it was baptism; and further, if it did and was, it could have no effect on a baby at all, for baptism in the New Testament follows an active belief and response to the Gospel. (See Acts 2, Acts 10, Acts 16, or anywhere else.) “Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition...and many such like things do ye” (Mark 7:7, 9–10, 13). This brings up the question: were the Reformers and Catholics all wrong? (Well, at least they weren’t all wet!) We are not saying that everyone who can’t read the Bible is going to hell, nor are we saying that Reformers and Catholics who trusted the blood atonement are in hell now. We are saying—as the Scriptures say—that if you are counting on water baptism to guarantee your spiritual salvation, you have been deceived by the Devil with the help of preachers and priests. Judas Iscariot was both baptized and circumcised. He was a twofold child of two “covenants.” Therefore where Catholic and Reformed theology touches “baptism,” they are as far off base as the pitcher’s mound.

The confusion arises from three sources. First of all, the desire of man to resort to a visible means of propagating truth: Catholic and Reformed parents wanted to increase their membership and political security by “predestinating” their children to the same faith. Secondly, an egotism and pride which resents the wealth of the Jew and desires to get rid of him. Thirdly, an absolute refusal to believe what God said, as He said it, in the context in which He placed it. Returning to Genesis 17, observe the marvelous riches of the AV 1611 as they unfold the doctrine of circumcision before the eyes of the believer who “compares spiritual things with things spiritual.” 1. The foreskin was a covering or “veil” over the means of reproduction. Hence in Song of Solomon 5:7, a woman’s face is veiled (cf. Gen. 24:65 and 20:16). She is revealed to her husband. 2. God reproduced a seed in the birth of Christ, and thus reveals Himself (1 John 5:1–20; John 1:1–3). In doing so, he had to tear the veil from the Holy of Holies (see Heb. 10:20; Matt. 27:50– 54). But the “covering” was made of skin (Exod. 26:7, 14)! 3. The Creator will not give a final revelation of Himself as Creator until Hebrews 1:10–12, when the “clothing of the universe” will be torn back, giving a clear revelation. “Circumcision,” then, pictures God revealing Himself as “Creator” or Reproducer. This is apparent for ten reasons. 1. Abram “now dead” (see Rom. 4) is about to reproduce. 2. Sarah “now dead” is about to reproduce. 3. There can be no birth without blood on the part of the woman, so the man joins her. 4. The new birth must have blood shed. 5. It must be a man’s blood that is shed, not a woman’s (see Gen. 3:15). 6. Since man’s seed is “corruptible,” a new birth is required; thus “circumcision” points dangerously near to what Paul uncouthly describes as “cutting off” (see Gal. 5:12)! 7. It is therefore a picture of the new birth (Col. 2:8–14). 8. The new birth is a real spiritual cutting which God could not perform in the days of Abram (see notes on Gen. 15:6). 9. The seed, the blood, the birth, and the revelation are, therefore, inseparably connected. 10. Christ is the Seed, it is His blood, He gives the birth (John 1:12–13), and He is the revelation of the one True God and eternal life (1 John 5:1–2)! Therefore, to confound this rite with water baptism or to confound water baptism with the new birth (as all Roman Catholics do) is to mangle and adulterate the word of God to the place where the Lord God would not be interested in what a man professed to believe. If any private interpretation could be placed on the passage, it would run like this: “Now Abram, get a knife and cut yourself.” “Where, Lord?” “You know where. Adam messed up his seed; Ham messed up his seed. Lot is going to mess up his, and Pharaoh just about got yours (Gen. 12:17). You know where.” “But that will hurt!” “When was birth ever painless, Abram? When Eve disobeyed, she messed up her reproductive powers.” “But I’m a man, Lord. I don’t give birth.” “But Abram, you are a type of ME, and I’m going to give birth!! Haven’t you ever read Psalm 22:30–31?!!” “No, Lord.” “Well, how come you and Nicodemus both missed that verse?”

“Well, I reckon because it hasn’t been written yet?” “Well, you can get out on that, but Nicodemus couldn’t, and he was a master in Israel and knew “not these things.” Now, run on and get a knife.” (We realize that this type of exposition can never find a place on the bookshelves with the great “scholarly researches” of the “giants in exegesis,” but since the majority of them got off to a bad start in life by having someone throw water in their faces when they were babies, we shall forgive them and overlook the matter.) “The circumcision made without hands” (Col. 2:11–12) by “the operation of God” is the antitype of Abram’s physical circumcision (Gal. 6:15). Where there is no new birth, there is no real baptism; where there is no “new creature,” there is no spiritual circumcision; and where only circumcision and baptism prevail, there is only death, darkness, destruction, and damnation (see Eph. 2:11–12; John 3:36; Gal. 5:4; Eph. 2:8–10). “Every man child” (see The Bible Believer’s Commentary on Revelation, Rev. 12:5; cf. Lev. 12:2). “Eight days old...born in the house...bought with money.” The circumcision, therefore, is Jewish and Gentile. Abram is a Gentile when he receives it (see Rom. 4, and comments in Gen. 10:5). Circumcision is practiced by the Moslems and Arabians today, as Ishmael is included in the covenant. The “Covenant Theologian,” for the sake of the salvation of his own soul, should observe that it is possible to be a “covenant child” of the covenant, circumcised with the sign and seal of the covenant, and still be born only once. That is, he can lack the new birth and be headed for hell. This is the flat statement of the New Testament—Galatians 4:29—“born after the flesh.” That is, a child of the covenant who receives the sign of the covenant relationship is lost and condemned by the same book (Galatians) which was used by the covenant theologian (Gal. 3:26–29) to prove that baptism “put him into the covenant.” Notice that Galatians 6:15 states that a new creature is not someone like Ishmael who has received the rite of covenant relationship!! Ishmael is the type of the unsaved man, “dead in trespasses and sins,” born once, outside the Kingdom of God, who persecutes the born-again believer and throws up to his face the fact that he (the lost sinner) has received the rite that put him into the covenant” (see Gal 6:12)! “Eight days old.” The number eight (in Rev. 17:11; 2 Pet. 2:5; and Acts 9:33) usually stands for the fresh beginning of something different or new. (See comments on the “day” system in Gen. 1:20.) “That soul shall be cut off from his people” can refer to physical death, as in Exodus 4:24 and Numbers 15:30, or merely excommunication (Num. 12:15, 19:13; Lev. 7:20–21). The passage applied by John Calvin, Berkhof, et al., means that “unbaptized children” are heathen who are “cut off from the Christian community” (see Berkhof, Systematic Theology, on Baptism). Thus, one will find in Holland, Michigan, the peculiar atmosphere of a town where the Reformers look upon saved Baptists as “heathen” because the Baptists will not “sprinkle their babies” into the “covenant”! What has Congress done about this?! Romans 2:26 did something about it. It states that uncircumcision is counted circumcision in some cases! Note the exceptions under grace. In Joshua 5:2–7, it would appear that for forty years the Lord did not hold Israel to the covenant. The only possible explanation of this is that the covenant of circumcision was given under grace, not under the law (see Gal. 3:10–24). In Joshua, this uncircumcised state is called “the reproach of Egypt,” which would indicate very strongly that the Egyptians did not practice circumcision (see Jer. 9:25–26). The Lord Jesus follows the covenant steps, being circumcised in the Temple the eighth day (see Luke 2:21).

17:15 “And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be. 16 And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her. 17 Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear? 18 And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee! 19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. 20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. 21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year. 22 And he left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham.”

The change of Sarai (contentious) to Sarah (princess) is by the changing of the “Yod” (jot) to “He” (the fifth letter of the Hebrew alphabet). Bullinger, again misreading the typology, supposes that it is a reference to “grace.” Five never means grace, except in one death out of 140,000,000,000. The other 139,999,999,999 times it means death (see Gen. 5:5). “She shall be a mother of nations.” This is a little too much for “the Friend of God.” Whereas he “was strong in faith...giving glory to God” (Rom. 4:20–21), this was only in relation to Genesis 15:4–5. At Genesis 17:17, his faith breaks down completely. After all, it is one thing to believe a promise on a starry night, where no specific details are itemized, and it is quite another thing to believe that your own wife (age ninety) is going to have great grandchildren running around the house when as yet she has no child. In a desperate effort to “help God out”—in reconciling Romans 4 with Genesis 17:18—(see the“God helpers” of Gen.11:23–26), Chrysostom, Calvin, Jerome, Augustine, Murphy, Keil, Kalisch, Delitzsch, and Onkelos (all reading each other instead of the Scriptures!) state that Abram’s laughter was not the laugh of a man reacting to a preposterous proposal. All insist it was a laugh of “rejoicing” or “marveling.” (It is somewhat like Adam Clarke [an eminent commentator] trying to make Rahab an “innkeeper,” instead of a “harlot” [good motive!], because she appears in the Messianic line in Matthew 1. Unfortunately, the New Testament word for harlot [Greek prone— James 2] will not allow two interpretations, as the harlot of Joshua 2:1 [Hebrew “Zanah”] will. That is, what is obscure in the Hebrew or Greek is quite clear in the AV 1611 English.) The questions which Abram asks in the same verse (Gen. 17:17) would hardly allow a “rejoicing attitude.” Abraham is plainly skeptical—“Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old?” To which Calvin, Augustine, Jerome, etc., reply, “He could not have been doubting, otherwise what could Genesis 15:1–4 mean?” This naive and credulous approach to the subterfuges of human nature is remarkable when one considers the reputation which Calvin, Jerome, and Augustine have for

being Bible expositors. The naivete is astonishing, and it can only come from a syrupy “positiveness” which tends to overlook sin. This “overlooking” shows something else about the spirituality of Calvin, Augustine, and Jerome, for the only one who can “overlook” sin (see Rom. 4:1–6) is God Himself. Notice that the Holy Spirit, in recording Hebrews 11:11–12, attributed not only great faith to Abraham, but also to Sarah! That is hardly the truth in view of Genesis 18:13–15!! All commentators will admit that Sarah bogs down in unbelief, even with Hebrews 11:11–12 staring them in the face; why they do not give her husband the same credit is difficult to see, unless it is due to masculine pride or an inner desire to usurp the place of the Holy Spirit in “overlooking” the failures of Abraham. “O that Ishmael might live before thee” is not the cry of a man who is glad that Sarah is going to have a baby! Hagar was Ishmael’s mother (see Gen. 16:1–5). Notice that unless one believes that Abraham is doubting the promise (vs. 17), the entire conversation which follows (vss.18–21) becomes unintelligible. This reinforces what we have said (and will say many times to come) in this Commentary—an exact and perfect knowledge of the “original languages” is one of the greatest hindrances to correct interpretation there is—if the heart attitude of the scholar is not one of full belief in the AV 1611 text. Keil, Delitzsch, Kalisch, and Gesenius, with the help of fifty years research in writing lexicons, cannot get a sane conversation out of Genesis 17:17–21. “O that Ishmael might live before thee.” In the language of Galatians 4:29, this is, “Oh that I might have some recognition! Oh that I might do it, so that I might get credit for it. Oh that I might improve myself, so that I might ‘find myself’ and develop myself to ‘self-realization’ so that I might be promoted and thanked for my great....” “All flesh is grass.” “Thou shalt call his name Isaac.” The naming of the boy is “too much” when one considers the context. Abraham is flat on his face, and although his doubts are “said in his heart” (vs. 17), He who “searches the hearts” has no trouble with the cardiogram. The old man is tickled to death and is laughing like the neighbors laughed later (Gen. 21:6), and right in the middle of it he hears the voice of his “Friend” droning on, implacably, “Yes, that’s right. Sarah is going to be the mother of a bouncing baby boy, 7 pounds 4 ounces, and what shall we call him? Oh yes, here’s a good name! Let’s call that boy ‘LAUGHTER,’ shall we, Abe? Don’t you think that’s a good name— LAUGHTER?” And on his face, Abraham gets the worst attack of soberness a man ever had in his life. “Isaac” means “laughter.” “Twelve princes shall he beget” (this is fulfilled in Gen. 25:16). “But my covenant will I establish with Isaac.” That is clear. It is very clear. It couldn’t be any clearer (see Gen. 21:10–12). When God said “thy seed” in Genesis 12:7, 13:15, 15:18, and here (17:8), the context is ownership of the land of Palestine. That is not the teaching of the AntiDefamation League or the seventy Elders of Zion or the Zionites or the Protocols or the International Banker or the Khazars; that is the infallible word of the living God, in the context in which it is found.

17:23 “And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham’s house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him. 24 And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. 25 And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his

foreskin. 26 In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son. 27 And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him.”

The verses have already been commented on at length, in the previous passage. Ishmael is thirteen, and to this day the Jews have traditional rites and practices for their young men when they reach this age—these traditions (as the Babylonian traditions of the rabbis) come under the heading of Mark 7:13. Abraham is ninety-nine—quite some age for circumcision!—and Sarah, at this time, is near ninety. The fifth letter added to their names (“He”) indicates that in relation to the natural processes of nature they are “dead,” and since “he that is dead is freed from sin” (Rom. 6:5–9), the seed which follows typifies the sinless Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.

CHAPTER 18 18:1 “And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; 2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, 3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant: 4 Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree: 5 And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said. 6 And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth. 7 And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetcht a calf tender and good, and gave it unto a young man; and he hasted to dress it. 8 And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.”

One cannot help but wonder how this scene would contrast with Lot’s exciting life down in the big city! (If he ate as well as Abraham did, he was in good shape.) While Lot was feeling sorry for poor, old Uncle Abe out there “in the sticks,” old Uncle Abe was eating homemade bread, fresh milk, and barbecued sirloin steak! (An unsavory diet according to the mixed multitude of Num. 21:5.) The three men are obviously angels of the Lord (cf. Gen. 18:22, 19:1, 5, 8, 10, 12, and 15). One of these angels is the Angel of the Lord (see remarks on Gen. 16:7), and it is this one who speaks to Abraham in Genesis 18:1, 13, 17, 22. Song of Solomon 1:7 indicates that “the heat of the day” is the time for a noon dinner and rest and is coupled with “hospitality,” as it is in Latin American countries and the South. In view of “the heat of the day,” it is remarkable (and a testimony to Abraham’s hospitality) that Abraham “runs” to meet them, “runs” to get the calf, and then tells Sarah to “make ready quickly.” (If she called him “lord” on this occasion [see 1 Pet. 3:6], she certainly “had religion,” as the Methodists used to say. The modern housewife will notice that Abraham, for some reason or another, forgets to say “honey,” “darling,” or even “would you, please?” or “if you don’t mind.” His words are “make ready quickly....” To appreciate the feminine reaction, one would have to be an Army or Navy wife. As an ex-SS Officer said once to his sick wife, who had been confined to a bed for three weeks with the flu, “Apple or orange?!”) “So do, as thou hast said” implies that before Abraham served dinner, he washed the angels’ feet (Gen. 18:4)! The reader will notice that Lot takes the same attitude toward strangers that Abraham does (Gen.19:1–2), and we can believe, without it being mentioned, that the “baked cakes” of Genesis 18:6 were unleavened bread, exactly as those served by Lot (Gen. 19:3). “Three men stood by him” emphasizes again that angels appear as “men.” They are never sexless, and they never have wings (see notes on Gen. 6:1–6). “For therefore are ye come to your

servant” implies that God sent them and Abraham recognizes the truth of “For this thing is done of me” (2 Chron. 11:4) as it applies to the most insignificant things in life (Heb. 13:1–5). “A morsel of bread” (Gen. 18:5) turns out to be a pretty good morsel—barbecued steak. “Fetched a calf” is an archaic English expression, but not any “older” than 1930—remember “Step-n-fetch-it”? This word, like many of the so called “archaic words,” is not in the least “archaic.” There are words like “yonder”and “white bread,” etc., that have slipped out into the common tongue of the English people without the Greek and Hebrew scholars finding out about it. Consequently, what many of the scholars consider to be “archaic” is modern slang. (See Deut. 24:5; Num. 7:3; Exod. 15:16; Gal 5:21; Isa 52:8; Psa. 45:8; Neh. 13:26; l Cor. 1:11; Josh. 14:15, 15:14; Jer. 50:23; Ecc. 10:1; Amos 6:10; l Sam. 24:14; John 12:6; Psa. 43:3; Gen. 19:10; Job 15:9, 15:8; Ecc. 10:20; Jer. 13:10, and several hundred more.) “Scholars” very often lose contact with the vocabulary of the man on the street. “Butter, and milk.” All the commentators insist that it is not “butter, and milk,” but “milk and milk,” the first “milk” being curdled milk. (Anything but believe it!) Aside from the fact that the AV 1611 already defined the term as applying to buttermilk (see Judg. 4:19 and 5:25), we would be very stupid indeed if we were to take anyone’s word for it that the “butter” of Proverbs 30:33 stopped just short of butter in the churning and was content to come out of the churn as yogurt. Churning sour milk does not “clabber it”; it makes butter come out of it. “And he stood by them.” That is, as a “deacon,” a “runner through the dust,” waiting on tables (see Acts 6:1–4 and Gen. 14:18). The author of Romans says, “let us wait on our ministering” (Rom.12:7). The picture is a picture which is repeated in the upper room in Luke 24 and which will be repeated again in the Millennium (Luke 12:36–37). In both cases, supernatural beings are eating with natural beings. The Tribulation will have the same phenomenon in it, but it (as Gen. 6:1–6) will be a counterfeit of the heavenly feast. “Humanoids with humans” is archaic to a King James 1611 AV.

18:9 “And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent. 10 And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him. 11 Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women. 12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also? 13 And the Lord said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old? 14 Is any thing too hard for the LORD? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son. 15 Then Sarah denied, saying, I laughed not; for she was afraid. And he said, Nay; but thou didst laugh.”

The main speaker switches from the 3rd person plural (vs. 9) to the 3rd person singular (vs. 10) and from here on the Lord (the 3rd person singular) only speaks to Abraham (vs. 13, 17, 26). “According to the time of life” would be the nine months allotted to women for bringing forth

life. The promise is not that she will conceive “according to the time of life,” but that she will “have a son” (vs. 10) “according to the time of life.” “The tent door” would be the front flap (see Num. 16:19 for the Tabernacle) of the tent. Sarah is inside getting the biscuits ready and overhears (accidently?) the conversation. Her laughter was silent, exactly like that of her husband’s (Gen. 17:17), and she never dreamed that there were supersonic electronic “bugs” all over the tent. “My lord being old also.” This is the reference which Simon Peter quotes in l Peter 3:6 about Sarah calling him “lord.” Although the New Testament wife is told to “be not afraid with any amazement” (l Pet. 3:6), in verse 15 of our text, Sarah’s lips were probably as blue as a gobbler’s on Thanksgiving morning. Again, we have an insight into the Lord’s way of dealing with his people; notice, the good natured “ribbing” in Abraham’s case (Gen.17:19, see comments) and the direct rebuke in Sarah’s case: “Why, I didn’t laugh, Lord!” “You did so!” “Is any thing too hard for the Lord?” Obviously not (Jer. 33:3). The Christian’s problem, however, is not doubting God’s ability; no real Christian doubts His ability to do anything. The question is, “Is He going to do it?” When the believer prays, he never doubts God’s ability; however, many times He does doubt God’s designs. Especially is this true where some terrible, crushing bereavement or some extreme form of persecution or privation comes to pass. The print in Romans 8:28 is very clear on paper when one is reading it on a hillside, but in the furnace of affliction, it often is blurred and hardly legible. Sophists’ propositions like, “Could God make a rock so big He couldn’t move it?” etc., are not to be given serious thought. It is plain that God cannot do anything which is contrary to His nature or His word. It is “too hard” for a born-again member of the Body of Christ to be consigned to hell, and it is too hard for God to save a sinner against his will (never mind Calvin!), but the statement, “Is any thing too hard for the Lord?” is to be answered, “No, nothing that He said He would do!” Sarah’s laugh has a familiar sound. It seems to me I have heard it many times before echoing through the halls of state universities, over revision committee tables, and in the press. Me thinks I have also heard it in the classrooms of fundamental, Bible-believing schools. If it doesn’t sound so familiar to you, I will demonstrate it. It goes something like this: “Some people think that the King James Bible parachuted down from heaven” (ho ho hah hah). “It was good enough for Paul; it’s good enough for me” (hee hee ho ho). “Unfortunately the King James Bible has wrongly translated this word to mean....”(hah hah). When these brilliant intellectuals stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ to “give account for the deeds done in the body” (2 Cor. 5:8–11), then it will be, “No, Lord, I didn’t laugh at your word!” “Nay; but thou didst laugh!” And at the White Throne Judgment will stand the gay-gigglers who get so much enjoyment out of changing the Red Sea to the “Sea of Reeds,” the brass to “copper,” the manna to “honey,” the pillar of cloudto “a dust cloud,” the burning bush to “a heat wave mirage,” and Jesus Christ into a Communist; and as the “books are opened” (Rev. 20), they will be saying, “We didn’t laugh, not us!” And out of the light that “no man can approach unto” (l Tim. 6:16) will come the voice like many waters: “You did too, you liar.” And then (Psa. 2:4), “He who laughs last, will laugh best.”

18:16 “And the men rose up from thence, and looked toward Sodom: and Abraham went with them to bring them on the way. 17 And the Lord said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do; 18 Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? 19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him. 20 And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; 21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know. 22 And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the Lord.”

When the Lord says, “Shall I hide from Abraham....” He seems to be conversing with the other two men. They do not answer in verse 19, but when the Lord says, “I will go down” (vs. 21), He doesn’t go! Instead the two men turn and leave (vs. 22). This means that God can have perfect knowledge without “going down” (see Gen. 11:4–6). When he says, “They have done altogether according to the cry of it,” He is referring to going down bodily (as a theophany) into the city and experimentally finding out the nature of Jude 6, or close to it! (We have commented before on the population and sin of Sodom under Genesis 10:19 and 13:13.) The mythological LXX (written several hundred years after the Resurrection) has gone back into the Hebrew text and inserted “tou paidos mou” (“my Child”) after “Shall I hide from Abraham”(vs. 17). The reading is obviously a spurious gloss and quite typical of the Alexandrian scholarship. (Origen, A.D. 185, not Aristeas, 250 B.C.) For comments on vs. 18, see Genesis 12:1–3. “For I know him....” Here, foreknowledge clearly precedes any predestination, and this is the correct order in either Testament (Rom. 8:29), in spite of the voluminous and nebulous theology of Calvin and Kuyper. Pharaoh is “foreknown” before anyone hardens his heart (Exod. 3:19); Judas is “foreknown” before he makes a move (John 6:64); and the constant attempts of Calvinists to make the word “foreknowledge” identical to “foreordination” or “predestination” show that the word is a thorn in their side. All Calvinistic literature repeats the same error, endlessly. Although Bible election is conditioned on foreknowledge (1 Pet.1:1–3), Calvinistic election is arbitrary. Although Bible predestination is based on foreknowledge (Rom. 8:29), Calvinistic predestination is based on nothing. To reconcile this clanging inconsistency with Scripture, the entire group of Calvinists have made the Greek word for “foreknowledge” (Greek prognosis) the same as “predestination” (Greek prooridzo) which it is not. The only other kind of people who major in this type of “scientific exegesis” are the “Watchtower people” who insist that hell ( hades) is the grave (mnameion), which it is not. The word “know” in our text (Gen. 18:19—Hebrew “yada”) means “know,” like “know,” as in “know,” used more than 550 times in the Old Testament. The Calvinists make it “chosen,” but you can know plenty without choosing it. You can choose something without knowing it, and the day

that “know” means “choose” is the day that “Christian” will mean “Catholic.” Things that are different are not equal. “But Abraham stood yet before the Lord.” So the two angels leave and head for Sodom and the Lord tarries, and Abraham tarries with Him. What follows is a great study in intercessory prayer and the exercise of faith in obtaining the promises.

18:23 “And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked? 24 Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein? 25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? 26 And the Lord said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.”

Abraham is playing games. What he wants to ask is, “Lord, will you please have mercy on Lot and not destroy him?” But instead, we get involved in this long dialogue which is a semi-accusation of the Almighty’s integrity (see vs. 23). Why would there be any question about it (1 Cor. 3:8; Gal 6:7; Lam. 3:33, 35)? Did God destroy righteous Noah when he destroyed the wicked (Job 22:16)? Yet Job, in the heat of bitterness and sorrow, says, “He destroyeth the perfect and the wicked” (Job 9:22). It is characteristic of the realist, the skeptic, and the pessimist to assume (or attempt to assume) the thesis that God doesn’t notice how bad people act (Ecc. 8:14, 9:2). History itself would almost prove the thesis, for Paul and Jesus don’t get any better treatment in this world (see Heb. 11) than Herod and Pilate, and not even as good treatment (2 Tim. 3:12). Huss burning at the stake, Paul kneeling at the chopping block, Jesus hanging on the cross, John Noble slaving in Siberia, Richard Wurmbrand tortured in the prison, and Nate Saint pierced by an Indian spear show that God destroys good folks as well as bad folks; so Abraham has a cause to worry. Lot is “a just and righteous man” (2 Pet. 2), yet Abraham is scared to death that the judgment on Sodom will be a blanket judgment without respect of persons or deeds. Still, his prayer is not honest. The one who “searcheth the hearts [and] knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit” (Rom. 8:27) grants Abraham’s request indirectly, but not the request for which Abraham asks. Sodom (vs. 26) is not spared (2 Pet. 2:5–6). Abraham’s question (vss. 23–24) lies at the root of the perennial question—“What about the heathen that never heard? Will God send them to hell?” Romans 1 and 2 show that God will certainly send no man to hell who didn’t deserve it and earn it and work for it. But this is scant hope for the civilized pagan who is inwardly exulting and saying, “Good! I don’t deserve it, and I have not worked at it, so I’m safe.” Romans 3 answers that psychological device. (See comments on Gen. 4:3– 6 “fruit stand religion.”) Abraham begins at 50 and auctions down to 10 (vs. 32). If he had read Jeremiah 5:1, he would never have stopped at 10, or even 2! “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” Yes, He will and did. He “delivered just Lot”

and consigned the “ignorant heathen who didn’t know, etc., to everlasting fire” (Jude 7).

18:27 “And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes: 28 Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it. 29 And he spake unto him yet again, and said, Peradventure there shall be forty found there. And he said, I will not do it for forty’s sake. 30 And he said unto him, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Peradventure there shall thirty be found there. And he said, I will not do it, if I find thirty there. 31 And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord: Peradventure there shall be twenty found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for twenty’s sake. 32 And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten’s sake. 33 And the Lord went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place.”

Observe how Abraham refers to the Lord in the third person (vs. 27) and how the Lord even refers to Himself in the third person (vs.14). This is common in the Scripture and explains the passage in John 3:16–21, where Jesus is still the speaker. Abraham’s abasem*nt is apparent in the passage, “Which am but dust and ashes...Peradventure...Oh let not the Lord be angry...I will speak yet but this once....”Abraham is working at it. He senses the danger in “tempting the Lord” (Exod. 17:2, 7) etc., and asking for too much; however, he could have saved a lot of time if he had just asked the Lord, “Lord, would you please spare Lot if you have to judge that place?” But Abraham is not too sure whether or not Lot is a “just and righteous man,” so he beats around the bush! 50–45– 40–30–20–10? By the time he gets down to ten, Abraham figures that surely in twenty years Lot must have had enough converts to meet the quota. He figures, 1. Lot; 2. Lot’s wife; 3. Lot’s single daughter; 4. Lot’s other single daughter; 5. Lot’s married daughter; 6. Her husband; 7. Lot’s other married daughter; 8. And her husband (see Gen. 19:8, 12, and 14). With eight saved (as Noah—l Pet. 3:20), Abraham figures that surely Lot could have contacted at least two people outside of his family! But in twenty years, Lot (as 90 percent of the Christians in America) had not led one soul to saving faith in the Lord God. Abraham was not safe in stopping at ten; as a matter of fact, five of the eight people in Lot’s own family rejected the word of God (Gen. 19:12–14, and 26). Lot had influence, but no power. He had personal contacts, but no heavenly testimony. He had commercial wealth without spirituality, status without separation, and for security a piece of land that would be burnt to a cinder in 24 hours. Lot is aptly described in 1 Corinthians 3:15. The Pulpit Commentary (Vol. I, pp. 250–251) again adopts a super-pious “positive outlook” toward the prayer and misses at least 85 percent of the meaning in the passage. After two pages of bragging about what an excellent prayer it was, it closes the comment with no analysis of Lot or Sodom or Abraham’s relation to either one. “Which am but dust and ashes” defines man pretty well. He comes from dust (Gen. 2) and goes to ashes (Job 2:8; Jer. 31:40).

Abraham stops asking before God stops giving (Gen. 18:33), and I am afraid this is often the case with our prayers. Again, the Lord answers the prayer but in an entirely different way than Abraham imagined. Instead of sparing Sodom, God spares Lot and Zoar (Gen. 19:21).

CHAPTER 19 19:1 “And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; 2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant’s house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. 3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.”

Lot’s mannerisms and his “table spread” indicate that he is a spiritual brother to Abraham. He bows himself to the ground, as Abraham (Gen.18:2); he invites strangers in to wash their feet, as Abraham does (Gen.18:4); and he makes them a feast, as Abraham does (Gen. 18:8). The Holy Spirit is plainly trying to impress on our minds that Lot, in spite of his carnal choice and his spiritual failure, is still an Old Testament saint, “vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked” (2 Pet. 2:7). “And Lot sat in the gate of Sodom....” Lot is plainly a city alderman or councilman or perhaps even a probate judge (Prov. 31:23; Ruth 4:1, 10; Esther 2:19–20; Deut. 25:7). This explains the vicious retort of the Sodomite in verse 9. Lot, as Jonah, was never quite accepted by the unsaved. The spiritual fornicator lives between two worlds and two loves, two affections and two loyalties (see Matt. 6:24; Luke 16:13; 2 Kings 18:21). He never gets the full approval of the Lord or the Devil, and consequently, Lot is only accepted by the Sodomites as a kind of necessary evil; in a showdown, they would kill him (Gen.19:9). Lot represents about 20,000 Christian businessmen in America who are members of large downtown Baptist, Presbyterian, and Methodist churches. With their combined influence and wealth, they could spark the greatest revival America has ever seen. But long before they could do anything spiritual for God, the world flattered them, fed them, and slaughtered them. “But they that will be rich fall into...many foolish and hurtful lusts,” warns the Apostle Paul (1 Tim. 6:9), and in the mad race after mammon, many Christian businessmen who could have been a power for God in their communities, wound up pounding the gavel for a bunch of drunks in Shriners’ caps. With “status”and the “social image”came the Cotillion, the Garden Club, the Kiwanis, the Boy Scouts, the United Fund, the Yacht Club, the United Drive, the Fiesta of the Five Flags, the Mardi Gras, the Junior-Senior Proms, Homecoming for Old Grads, the Key Club, the New Mental Health Center, ground breaking for St. Jude’s Hospital, the Country Club, the collections for the Spastic Clinic, the Spring Prom, the Elks, the Mooses, the Lions, Bats, Buzzards, and Leeches, and all the assorted activities which John lumped into two verses when he said, “For all that is in the world...is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof...” (l John 2:16–17). Demas, Lot, John Mark, Jonathan, and Obadiah (each for a different reason) “pitched a tent toward Sodom.” Demas was fascinated by Roman art, music, literature, and religion. Lot longed to make a killing in the stock market (livestock, that is!). John Mark couldn’t stand the privation of a missionary life. Jonathan loved his daddy more than David, and Obadiah stayed in the ecumenical council to “have a greater outreach” and to help the persecuted prophets. Not a man in the list could

touch the heel of his contemporary. It was Demas versus Paul, Lot versus Abram, Mark versus Barnabbas, Jonathan versus David, and Obadiah versus Elijah. When Lot got back from captivity (Gen. 14:15–16), all his old acquaintances swarmed around him with, “Tell us how it happened, Lot. Did you see anybody get shot? Is that a real bayonet? Did you ever kill anybody with it?”And for several years he was a town hero, and they gave him the Royal Order of Captive Sodomites, the Barracks Bag Cluster, and several other outstanding awards. For his daughters, it was, “Oh my dear, we are so glad to have you back! We were afraid for a moment that you would wind up out there in the desert with that crazy, old uncle of yours; you know, that white-horse preacher, what’s his name? Oh, yeah, Abram!” And “Oh darling, there are ten eligible bachelors this year, and at your coming-out party we are going to blah, blah, blah....” Lot told the story of the war several dozen times and added a little bit here or there each time, and the only story he told the same way every time was the bit about Abraham giving a tenth to Melchisedek, which he never could understand. But his audience would always sympathize with him; they could not understand it either. Why would anybody but a kook give away money to a preacher? And that’s how it went. So they made Lot city councilman and put him on four committees and voted him the outstanding Sodomite of the year, and after ten years of that kind of treatment, Lot wasn’t worth the powder and shot it would take to blow him to hell, as far as a Christian testimony was concerned. He carried an RSV to the First Hamite Church of Sodom and had his library stuffed full of books by A. J. Cronin, Norman Vincent Peale, Edgar Cayce, Fulton Oursler, Kalil Gibran, Harry Emerson Fosdick, and Earle Stanley Jones. (Earl Stanley Gardner was on the bottom shelf under a pile of National Geographics!) Both his daughters got married a month after a big “sleep-out”on the beach (by the Dead Sea), but since both of their husbands were Sigma Nu’s, nobody said much about it. His other two girls chewed bubble gum, read the funnies, bought records by the Animals and the Beatles, and knew about as much Bible as a Chinese chihuahua. When Lot’s two visitors show up, Lot still has the outward trappings of an Old Testament saint—the hospitality, reverence, honor, and diet. But in the scene that follows, it is apparent that Lot’s inner spiritual life was in about the same condition as the bottom side of a wet rock on a July afternoon.

19:4 “But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. 6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, 7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. 8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.”

Nothing in the text needs a great deal of expositing or commenting. It is all grimly clear. He “pressed” them in verse 3, which simply means “he put pressure on them to stay” (see Luke 24:29), and they stayed. Before they can lie down after dinner, up come the men of the city. It is more than a

gathering; it is a mob—“all the people from every quarter ” (vs. 4). The intention is plain: one, violate the men and thereby humiliate them, putting them into submission to “us Sodomites”; two, trust that this abuse will be contagious and that the disgusting habit will “rub off” on the strangers as it has apparently “rubbed off”on three quarters of the population. That is, this is the thinking of the modern-day Sodomite, lesbian, or hom*osexual. The sin is punishable by death under the Mosaic law (Lev. 20:13), and the nations who practiced this sin knew what the proper retribution was (Rom. 1:27, 32) but continued in it anyway. The Bible treats it as a sin, not as a “sickness,” “failure,” “misconduct,” “sexual deviation,” “sexual irregularity,” or any other lexicographer’s blanket stitched together by “modern man” to cover his God-defying depravity (see notes on Gen. 9:22–24). “And Lot went out...and shut the door after him.” He doesn’t think any more of his townspeople’s testimony than they do his! He is ashamed to have his guests meet them. “I pray you, brethren.” This is the wrong address. Notice how Jehoshaphat got his sails trimmed for using this expression as the NCCC uses it (2 Chron. 19:2; 18:3). Lot, as any leader in the NCCC (or RCC), assumes that God is “everybody’s Father ”; therefore all people—Sodomites, lesbians, hippies, dopers, and assassins included—are “brethren”(see comments on Gen. 4:9). What business does an Old Testament saint have calling Sodomites “brethren”? Did you ever find one verse in any Bible in the world where Jesus ever addressed Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees as “brethren” (see 2 Cor. 6:1–16)? “Behold now, I have two daughters...do ye to them as is good in your eyes.” That is to say, “If you want to abuse them till they’re dead, here they are!” If any positive daydreamer doubts this construction placed on Lot’s words, let him read Judges 19:25–28. The suggestion is so shocking to the ears of twentieth-century westerners that they can hardly find a reason for it, other than Lot must have just plumb lost his mind. The reason lies deeper than that, however. In the first place, many a twentieth-century mother or daddy turns their virgin daughter over to society, commerce, and education to “do...as is good in your eyes.” And in the second place (at this time), Lot can at least find a good excuse with a good motive for his sin. That is more than many a twentieth-century man can find right this minute. Lot is at least protecting someone else (vs. 2) and selecting the lesser of two evils, and he might have gotten off scot-free since people with such perverted lusts as the Sodomites would usually not enjoy “the natural use of the woman ”(see Commentary of the Holy Spirit in Rom. 1:27). “For therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.” The figure of speech is called “metalepsis” and means that the “shadow of the roof” was Lot’s protection and hospitality.

19:9 “And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. 10 But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. 11 And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.”

“This one fellow” is a contemptuous reference to Lot, and it is the same name given to Jesus Christ by His enemies (John 9:29) and to David (l Sam. 29:4). “He will needs be a judge” is the equivalent of, “Look at this bum. He came drifting through here looking for a handout, and now he wants to run the Circuit Court! Who the --- does he think he is, anyway?”(This is the “original Hebrew” which Gesenius and Delitzsch never found!) And Lot would have “had it” (as the expression goes) if it had not been for the two men inside the house. The two “men” are angels (see notes on Gen. 6:1–6). And to break up the riot outside, they do the simplest thing possible (cf. Acts 13:11 with 2 Kings 6:18). The Lord never has to exert Himself to mess men up if He has a mind to do it (cf. also Rom. 11:25 with Eph. 4:18). One angel opens the front window, reaches out his hand, snaps his fingers, and “flip”! Out go the lights! There are 500–4,000 people left pushing, jostling, and bumping into one another, stepping on each others’ toes, banging elbows into each others’ faces, slipping on the steps, and knocking each other down trying to get out of the melee. In the confusion, the other angel opens the door, collars Lot, and hauls him back inside and slams the door shut (vs.10). (“Shut to” is the English expression still used by several thousand people in Georgia, Tennessee, and North and South Carolina. The word is “archaic” to bookworms who never had a door that “shut to” something.)

19:12 “And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place: 13 For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the Lord; and the Lord hath sent us to destroy it. 14 And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the Lord will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.”

The next scene is a wild one. Mrs. Lot is jamming clothes and linens into boxes and suitcases. One girl is trying to start the car in the garage, and the battery is dead. Lot tears down the street, heading for Pig Alley. He stops outside a door that is vibrating to the sound of sitars, bongo drums, stereo hi-fis, and electric guitars. He raps; a shutter opens in the middle of the door and a drunken son-in-law says, “Who the ---- is that comin’ round here at this hour of the night? Oh it’s you, daddyo. Well, what the ---- do you want?” “Listen,” pants Lot, “this place is going to burn to a fare-theewell, huff! Some angels are down at my house, puff, and they said, huff, that God is going to burn Sodom tonight, puff!” “Oh He is, is He? God’s gonna burn Sodom tonight, izzee?” “Yes, we’ve got to go! Quickly. For God’s sake bring Phyllis! And where’s Jeanne?” “Listen ole’ man! We’re havin’ a key club here and don’t give me any of that mid-Victorian baloney about God burning up things! God is love, daddy-o! Love’s the kick these days, old man! You just need to get turned on. Now run along before you get some sense and join us!” “Listen, listen, I’m serious. God is going to burn this place. We’ve got to go, quickly!” “Yeah!Godsgonnaburnthishplace! Godsgonnaburnthishplace! Lissen, you ole’ hypocrite. Don’t you go quotin’ that Bible to us! I live with yer daughter see? I know what kinda....” Lot shouts through the panel and jerks at the door knob. “Jeanne! Phyllis! It’s Daddy!”

A leering drunken face pokes over the son-in-law’s shoulder, and Lot’s girl says, “Hi Daddy! hic!” She giggles, “Com’on in and join the fun!” Bam! goes the shutter in the opening. “But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.” Back goes Lot up the street, his heart pounding faster than his legs, sweat popping out of his forehead. He slams through the back door in time to bump into one of the girls trying to close a suitcase; the strap on it busts. Mrs. Lot is running around like a chicken with her head cut off moaning, “Oh, I knew it, I knew it! We never should have left Egypt! Oh, why didn’t we stay in Egypt in that beautiful split-level, four bedroom, three....” “And the men said....” Angels are men without wings (cf. Rev. 21:17 with Judg. 13:1–16). “For we will destroy....” These are angels who are more than “messengers” (see comments, Bible Believer’s Commentary on Revelation, Rev. 1:20); they are destroyers (see Rev. 9). “The cry of them is waxen great.” The “them” indicates that it is not the cry of the Sodomites for help or their cries of confession, but the cry of innocent victims asking for vengeance (see comments on Gen. 4:10,11).

19:15 “And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city. 16 And while he lingered, the men laid hold upon his hand, and upon the hand of his wife, and upon the hand of his two daughters; the Lord being merciful unto him: and they brought him forth, and set him without the city.”

The pace quickens. “The morning arose” before the sun arose (see Gen.19:15, 23). That is, the scene of verses 15 and 16 is taking place around 4:30 to 5:30 in the morning. Mrs. Lot has finished packing, but they can’t load the station wagon as the battery is dead. While they are arguing about what they should take and how much they can carry without dropping it, one angel grabs Lot and his wife in both hands, and the other grabs both daughters in his hands (vs.16), and they are hauled out of the house. There is no time to pick up anything but a wallet, purse, and four small bundles of jewelry, rings, watches, and some bank account records, and out they go! “Arise...lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city” points right straight to the middle of the Tribulation, as given in Revelation 18:1–6. Rahab is only saved from the same fate by the scarlet thread (Josh. 2:18–19); and Sodom, Jericho, and Babylon are thus classified as “sister cities”—“birds of a feather” (see notes on “birds”—Gen. 8:7). Jericho is called (by Garstang) “the oldest city in the world”; the architecture of Jericho (in the last century) was Roman. Babylon typifies a city built on seven hills (see comments on Rev. 13, 14), which is Rome. Sodom is a city that believed in racial integration of human beings (without noting differences), racial integration of human beings and angels (without noting differences), and sexual integration of men with men (without noting differences). All three cities were cursed in the Bible, all three were destroyed by divine judgment, and all three picture twentieth-century man’s idea of “the Kingdom of God”on this earth. The highest ideal any unsaved religious leader (or educator or scientist) can have is to eliminate all differences by uniting all “unlikes.” “And set him without the city.” This is the only safe place to be (Heb. 13:11–14), at least for

the “saint.” The reader will notice that Lot is separated (Associated Press—“segregated”) from his community, kinfolks, job, business associates, church members, social acquaintances, and every form of “togetherness” and “brotherhood.”And this segregation is the only thing that saves his neck. To the true believer, every city on this earth (in this dispensation) is Sodom, including Jerusalem (see Rev. 11:8), and the believers’ negative outlook is the thing that characterizes the true Biblical “faith delivered to the saints” (see comments on Noah—Gen. 5:29). The Christian who believes the Book is outside the social camp, the religious camp, the political camp, and the ecumenical camp. He is a pilgrim and a sojourner who left the “City of Destruction” through the “wicket gate” (see John Bunyan), and 300 years of so-called “scientific progress,” since Bunyan, hasn’t altered the nature of this world system a whit. C. I. Scofield once noted that the world system is “imposing and powerful with armies and fleets; is often outwardly religious, scientific, cultured, and elegant; but seething with national and commercial rivalries and ambitions, it is upheld in any real crisis only by armed force and is dominated by Satanic principles” (old reference Bible, 1901, p. 1342). “Without the city” is the true Christian position, and “within the city” (be it Jerusalem, Babylon, Sodom, Rome, or Jericho) are the religious compromisers, carnal professors of Christianity, the worldly plenipotentiaries of the National Council of “Christian” Churches, the papal nuncios and other subversive agents of the Vatican, the worshipers of education, the ambitious humanitarians and Marxists, the scientific idolators, the fanatical commercialists, and Vanity Fair, filled with fruit stand religions (see comments on Gen. 4:3–6). 19:17 “And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that he said, Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed. 18 And Lot said unto them, Oh, not so, my Lord: 19 Behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight, and thou hast magnified thy mercy, which thou hast shewed unto me in saving my life; and I cannot escape to the mountain, lest some evil take me, and I die: 20 Behold now, this city is near to flee unto, and it is a little one: Oh, let me escape thither, (is it not a little one?) and my soul shall live. 21 And he said unto him, See, I have accepted thee concerning this thing also, that I will not overthrow this city, for the which thou hast spoken. 22 Haste thee, escape thither; for I cannot do any thing till thou be come thither. Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.”

The only music that could accompany this scene would be the William Tell Overture. Lot and what is left of his family are half dragged across the plains of Sodom, and they run with their feet hitting the ground about every other stride. The sun is now rising, and although it has not yet “risen upon the earth” (vs. 23), it is peeking over the hills of Moab in the east, and Lot knows that the countdown has started. Three miles to the East is the high ground, “the mountain.” He cannot possibly make it in less than thirty minutes, and with the girls it is probable that he couldn’t make it in less than an hour. The ground is beginning to feel peculiar. There is a distant rumbling like a thunderhead is approaching, but the skies are clear; they are a clear red. Lot feels like he is standing

on top of a giant popcorn shaker. Ahead of him, less than a mile away, is Zoar, the fifth of the five “cities of the plain” (see Deut. 29:23; Gen 10:19). Lot begs for permission to halt short of the mountain (“purgatory” is better than hell, and not as hard to reach as heaven!) and gets it. The two “men” disappear (vs. 17), and from now on Lot has to hotfoot it without help. He is running and stumbling, calling, “Hurry, children, hurry children!” Something like a whining siren is heard somewhere over his head, and as he staggers onward to the gates of Zoar, his daughters and his wife trot somewhere behind him. It is not till he pounds on the gates of Zoar and is admitted by the elders that he realizes his wife is missing. He had obeyed the Lord and had not “looked back” (see vs. 17) and so had failed to notice that Mrs. Lot had stopped on the plains for one last longing look at the old homestead. “Escape for thy life; look not behind thee...escape to the mountain.” The warning is to be heeded and followed in the Tribulation (Matt. 24:16), and since these are “the days of Lot”(Luke 17:29), the Jewish saint in Palestine is not to take time to pick up anything when he leaves the house (Luke 17:31). Spiritually, the passage is quite clear: you cannot get to Jesus Christ too quickly (Isa. 28:16). Your soul is at stake (cf. how the word “soul” here is physical life in the Old Testament— Gen. 2:7, 12:13), and one look back at the old companions or the old life or the old religion or anything connected with the “old man” may prevent you from reaching the “mountain” (2 Cor. 5:17). “Oh, not so, my Lord” (sounds like Simon Peter, doesn’t it? Acts 10:14). That is, He is the Lord, but not the kind of a Lord that you have to treat as a Lord. But when the Lord says, “Escape to the mountain” or “Rise, Peter; kill, and eat,” you’d better stuff the food in your mouth at a dead run (Mal. 1:6–8)! Lot’s logic is that God is anxious to pour out His wrath on as many sinners as possible, but there are so few people in Zoar (a possible population of 500–1100) that it wouldn’t hurt God’s justice much to “overlook” the place. Lot’s reasoning is wrong, but at this time, he has the benefit of some mutual support of which he was unaware—Abraham’s prayer for a city where ten righteous men were (see Gen. 18:32)! Zoar had ten righteous men, and if it had not had at least this many, it would have gone up in smoke even if Lot had prayed all night. (Zoar means “little.”) “I cannot do any thing till thou be come thither.” Again, we see the force of Abraham’s prayer. The Lord seems to have bound Himself with an obligation to Abraham to save Lot, even though Abraham never did come right out and ask for Lot’s salvation! Moses’ own power with God in prayer (Exod. 32:10) is illustrated the same way; Moses has God at the point where He is saying “let me alone....” And God is asking Moses for the liberty to wipe out the Israelites! (How is that for “importunity”? “Let me alone Moses, I can’t do a thing, even though there is nothing too hard for the Lord, etc., as long as you keep interceding and claiming the promises!”) The Lord says to Lot, “I cannot do any thing till thou be come thither.” So he doesn’t. Running the 440 in 1 minute flat, Lot falls against the city gates of Bela (Zoar). The elders open immediately as the whole town is up and in consternation over the “signs in heaven.” The skies are flaming red, and there is a hissing sound like a boiling pot or cauldron about to explode. The sun suddenly turns a grayish purple, and as Lot falls into the arms of the men of Zoar (his daughters following), the key club down in Sodom gets their first lesson in taking the Bible literally.

19:23 “The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar. 24 Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord

out of heaven; 25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground. 26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.”

Down it comes, and just as the population in the “days of Noah” thought water could go up but couldn’t come down, so the population in the “days of Lot” thought that fire could go up but couldn’t come down. Dummelow (a commentator), writing on behalf of the last Sodomites of Lot’s day says, “Probably a convulsion of the earth released some springs of naphtha which flowed through the cities and ignited” (Commentary, 1936, Macmillan, N.Y. p. 28). Since that is exactly what did not happen, we may put Dummelow’s “One Volume Commentary”alongside all non-Christian commentaries. “Then the Lord rained...brimstone and fire...out of heaven.” Williams (Commentary, Kregel, 1949) is fair enough in allowing that the fire came down instead of going up, but Williams corrects the AV text so many times in Job and Psalms that it is hardly worth reading. The brimstone is “pitch” or “bitumen” and is mentioned in Isaiah 30:33, 34:9 and Job 18:15. In the New Testament, the word is kin to “sulphur” (Greek, “Theion”) and is connected with eternal punishment in hell (see Rev. 9:18, 14:10, 20:10, 21:8). “Hell fire and brimstone”or “hell fire and damnation” is the modern designation for the preaching of the Lord Jesus Christ (Matt. 5:22), while those who use the terms against fundamental Bible-believing preachers are so stupid that they do not even realize that the word “hell fire” was first coined in the Sermon on the Mount—the chief text of the NCCC. The fire which drops on Sodom is “eternal fire” (see Jude), and “the cities...suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (Jude 7) after they cease to be literal cities on a map. In Matthew 10:15, 11:23, and 11:24, we are told that the inhabitants of Sodom have more spiritual discernment than the religious leaders of Israel! Their city, however, is turned into ashes (2 Pet. 2:6), and they are such an outstanding example of God’s attitude towards integration and moral looseness that their overthrow is mentioned by Moses (Deut. 32:32), Isaiah (Isa. 1:10, 13:19), Jeremiah (Jer. 49:18), Ezekiel (Ezek. 16:49), Amos (Amos 4:11), Zephaniah (Zeph. 2:9), Matthew (Matt. 11:23–24), Mark (Mark 6:11), Luke (Luke 10:12), and Paul (Rom. 9:29). Since the entire earth will get exactly what Sodom got (see 2 Pet. 3:7–12), Sodom is the best photograph of this earth that has ever been developed. Nothing Anders, Bormann, or Lovell photographed would come anywhere near it. Whereas “modern man” busies himself to recreate a naked paradise of sinners living in harmony beneath “cloudless skies,” God is preparing the water bomb (water!—not cobalt or hydrogen) so that “the elements shall melt with fervent heat” and burn to ashes a planet that is to be a demonstration to the universe of the corruption and depravity of fallen man. (See notes on Gen. 2:25.) The sins of Sodom are the sins of the planet. Pride, idleness, sexual perversion, selfishness, hatred for the word, hatred for a Christian testimony, blindness, no fear of God, and a passion for killing are all listed in Genesis 19:5, 8–9 and Ezekiel 16:49–50. I am sure there was a church on every street corner in Sodom. The most religious queen Israel ever had (she had 450 prophets) was a Baalite idolator (see l Kings 16, 18). Lot collapses at the door. The elders sustain him. Women rush forward with wet cloths to mop the foreheads of his exhausted daughters. At the same time, there is a crash of lightning and a roar of thunder; then a dozen crashes are heard like 250mm shells going overhead. Lot, staring wildly, gets to

his feet and yells, “Honey??! Honey, where are you?!” There she is! A quarter of a mile down the road with her back turned to Zoar. “My wife, my wife!”screams Lot, and tries to get free of the arms supporting him. They hold him fast. “Take it easy. There is nothing you can do now. Hold him there! Look out! Somebody close the gates!!” Lot strains forward, eyes bulging. One of his daughters has fainted. The other is being dragged off, hysterical. Suddenly, all the Zoarites’ faces are illuminated like they had faced an atomic explosion, and just before the sound of the blast reaches their ears, they hear a long, high-pitched scream. Lot’s wife was thinking about her bed spreads, pillow cases, French provincial furniture, Chung Dynasty china, and sterling silver when the whole town exploded before her eyes. “Oh my beautiful home! Oh my Persian rugs! Oh there goes all my Tupperware and our entertainment center! Oh…oh...!” And then as the atomic fallout covered her, she crystallized as salt and became clean for the first time in her life! (Lev. 13:13; Rom. 6:7!) No TV news camera ever picked up downtown Sodom and Gomorrah the morning the fire fell. If it had put the scene on the tube, men and women who believed that “God is love,” “God is merciful,” “We are all brothers,” “God wouldn’t send anyone to hell,” etc., would have apostatized from their beliefs in a matter of seconds; or else they would have snapped the channel off and picked up Cardinal Spellman lecturing on “Total Commitment to Spiritual Realities in the Atomic Age.”(That is a lot easier to look at than babies burning and screaming for their mothers, skin turning black and peeling off the faces of men in their seventies, skin turning purple and dripping fat and water as men and women, boys and girls, old and young, short and tall, healthy and sick, are roasted alive in payment for the unchecked lusts that “burned in their bosoms” (Rom. 1:27; Job 31:11–12; Prov. 6:27– 28). The Bible is not a book for positive thinkers. It is a book for realists. There was no mercy in Noah’s day for the wicked (see comments on Gen. 7:17–20), and there will be none in the Tribulation (see commentary on Revelation, Rev. 14, 19). “But his wife looked back from behind him.” She did not merely “look back”; she “looked back from behind him.” That is, she tarried and lingered in the plain where she had no business staying (Gen. 19:17). Her motive for the last look is undoubtedly connected with the comments made on Genesis 13:10. She turns into a pillar of salt. Many writers believe that the Nile once reached up around Zoar and that the Dead Sea was at one time a fresh water lake. Others agree with the last statement but attribute the fresh water to the normal flow from Galilee down Jordan. There is one thing that is certain—any swimmer paddling in the Dead Sea today is going to come out with a thick crust of salt on him. This is an unnoticed testimony to a past transaction. As the literal fire rained on Sodom (and then became eternal fire beneath the Dead Sea), so in the Tribulation, the literal lake of fire will be on this earth in the same location (Edom), but it will later become the eternal lake of Revelation 20:14. (This truth is so far in advance of Bullinger and Larkin that there is neither time nor space here to study it.)

19:27 “And Abraham gat up early in the morning to the place where he stood before the Lord: 28 And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.”

“The place where he stood before the Lord,” in the last mention, was near Mamre (see Gen. 18:1, 22), and Mamre is near Hebron (Gen. 23:19). This would place Abraham on the high ground west of the Dead Sea, about thirty to thirty-five miles from the disaster area. From this distance, it was not hard to see the billowing, boiling clouds of smoke arising from the conflagration. Four cities were going up in smoke in an area of about twenty-five square miles. The reader will not fail to notice that the types—Jericho, Egypt, Babylon, and Sodom— never lose their relationship to hell. The “smoke of a furnace” matches not only the “iron furnace of Egypt” (see Gen. 12:9–10 and comments), but also the furnace, in which Jesus said, “there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 13:42). If God did not speak to Abraham directly at this time (Gen.19:28), his heart probably sunk down to his sandals, for the promise he had received was, “I will not destroy it if I can find ten righteous men in it.” Evidently Sodom had a shortage of righteous men, for it was now going up in smoke like a furnace. It is six in the morning, and the sun has risen. This is the end of the fourth watch of the night, and it matches the dispensational “day and hour”of the Second Advent of “the Sun of righteousness” (see Mal 4:2; Matt. 13:40, 14:25; 1 Thes. 5:1–6; 2 Pet. 1:19, and Exod. 19:12, 16). The believer in this age is given two clear pictures of the Advent, with the signs accompanying either Advent. Genesis 4–6 precedes the Rapture (see Enoch, Gen. 5:21–24), and Genesis 11–18 precede the Advent. In the days of Noah, those who are “taken” are saved, and those who are “left” are lost. In the days of Lot, those who are “taken” are lost, and Lot (who is “left”) is saved. See Luke 17:26–37, and note that Armageddon follows “the days of Lot”(Luke 17:28, 37) “in the day when the Son of man is REVEALED” (Luke 17:30). The King James 1611 Authorized Version thus presented the infallible truths of the past, present, and future; without the help, assistance, advice, or patronage of Greek and Hebrew scholars of any degree or persuasion.

19:29 “And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in the which Lot dwelt.”

The four cities must have been within an area of five square miles (see note above) or possibly even four square miles, for Lot is said to dwell in “the cities,” plural. One would expect the narrative to read, “God remembered Lot,” but in this case, God remembers the praying man with the power, not the carnal man with the compromise. Lot is saved for Abraham’s sake, exactly like Mephibosheth was saved for Jonathan’s sake (2 Sam. 9). Many “middle of the road” Christians today are thanking God for temporal blessings and “results in the ministry,” when if the truth were known, it is only because God is going to give the reward for their work to some Elijah hiding by a brook or a John the Baptist languishing in jail. We are left with the distinct impression that if it had not been for the intercession of Abraham, Lot would have been barbecued. His successful escape with his life is similar to that of the Israelites in Exodus 32:9–14.

19:30 “And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with

him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters. 31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: 32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. 33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. 34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. 35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.”

The aftermath of the destruction of Sodom is more sordid than its beginning. Here the Holy Spirit gives the reader an insight into the effects of disobeying the commandment to “train up a child in the way that he should go” (Prov. 22:6). It is not enough for Lot to lose his testimony, character, reputation, home, house, land, cattle, wife, and his fellowship with God. He reaps a crop of ghastly proportion long after the last dying ember of Sodom has turned to a cinder, for the only two children he has left bring him to the grave as a drunkard, with bastard grandchildren. Lot’s “fellowship with the ungodly” and his broad-minded tolerance of “other religions and other faiths” finishes him off; his moral standards (see Gen. 19:8) rub off on his daughters, and in view of what follows (Gen. 19:31–32), we could almost justify Lot in the suggestion he made to the mob on the eve of Sodom’s holocaust (Gen 19:8). “For he feared to dwell in Zoar.” For two reasons: 1. The inhabitants looked at him like you would look at a waiter who brought something you hadn’t ordered—they considered him to be a “bird of ill omen” whose nesting might precede a municipal bonfire. 2. Without a doubt, a city as near to Sodom and Gomorrah as Zoar was, had “inherited some acquired characteristics”(to put it as Charlie Darwin). Lot hadn’t been in town four weeks when he saw two men necking on the street just like Burt Lancaster and a friend had done it for a Hollywood camera. Lot came back to the hotel room with his knees knocking like a used motor in a dragster and began to pray, “Lord, are you going to burn this city too? Are you?” “Well, now I don’t know, Lot; what makes you ask that?” “Well, Lord, I was coming home from work today and I saw...I saw...I....” “You saw what, Lot?” “Well, I saw two men doing...well, you know, doing what they did over in Sodom before you burnt it!” “Yes?” “Well, ah, I got to thinking; if the same thing is going on here...you...ah, you might a....” “Yes, Lot, you are absolutely right. One of these days I might wipe Zoar clean off the map.” “And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain.” He would rather take his chances with robbers and wild beasts than with Sodomites. But alas, alas, as surely as the Adamic nature walks in the same steps of the “new creature” till the day he dies (see Rom. 7), Lot takes a little bit of Sodom with him when he goes, for he cannot abandon his two daughters. In the final analysis, Lot’s

only hope of coming out “clean” would have been to obey Matthew 19:29 to the letter, but he couldn’t make it. He died dirty. “And the firstborn said unto the younger.” Thus it ever has been and ever shall be. There isn’t a young lady or young man in the world who (if they were led astray at all) has not been instructed in the finer points of sin, shame, and damnation by an older “friend”(see 2 Sam. 13:3). Every dirty joke, dirty trick, and dirty deed a boy ever learns comes first from an older boy (see Prov.13:20). Occasionally, one may find a male “lone wolf” who hits the skids to hell and goes on his own hook, traveling unaccompanied—but a female? Never. A young woman is so constructed that even after the fall of Genesis 3, she cannot sleep with a clear conscience at night unless she has dragged someone down in shame with her. Incestuous females never go to hell alone; they go in pairs. “Let us make our father drink wine.” Note how this matches Adam and Noah. (See comments on Gen. 9:21, 24.) Nakedness and drunkenness go together (Hab. 2:15). “And we will lie with him.” What is the rush? Isn’t it amazing how Sarah cannot wait to have children (Gen. 16:1), Rachel can’t wait (Gen. 30:1), and Lot’s teenagers can’t wait? Sarah and Rachel have something to be said in their favor, but it is “SEX o’clock” with Lot’s family every time you look at him (Gen. 19:5, 8, 32). (Sex, money, and liquor are the hardest habits to break outside of drugs. And once the mind is infested with thoughts of exposed flesh, obscene postures and positions, sensuous movements, erotic climaxes, and illicit embraces, the victim of such thoughts is bound hand and foot, body and soul.) The “new morality”of “sexual freedom” is a double-barrel bear trap, with 30,000 pound pressure steel jaws. (See the Spirit’s comment in Prov. 5:22–23.) The clientele of Playboy and Esquire (and the Key Clubs of Washington and the nude parties of Berkeley) are not “free people” who have “cast off the shackles of medieval morality.” They are servants and slaves of sin (John 8:34–37). And as they sow the corruptible seed to the corruptible flesh, they rot in bodies of corruption whose resting place is a bed of worms in the ashes (Gal. 6:8; Job 17:14, 21:26). Lot’s daughters are not merely “infected,” they are infested. The town of Zoar is not five miles from the mountain, and the exaggeration “there is not a man in the earth” is putting it on pretty strong. What she meant was “It may be months before Daddy will take us back to the city, so why wait?” (See Ruth 1:11–13.) “He perceived not when she lay down.” The corrupt LXX (again trying to “help God out”) makes an effort to absolve Lot of the guilt in the matter, by changing “she” to “he.” This Alexandrian invention (quite typical of the ASV, 1901, and the RSV, 1952) reads, “And he perceived not when he lay down, nor when he arose.” But the reading is preposterous. A man this drunk is not capable of participating in what follows, and the writers of the LXX (the “best Greek scholars of the day” etc.) should have known this, since it is the common knowledge of any bunch of high school drunks in the country! It is evidently easy to get Lot drunk, for it happens twice in forty-eight hours (vs. 35). Again, the circ*mstances are those on which the average commentator would be unable to comment, even with the Library of Congress as “source material.” Rosenmuller, Calvin, Poole, Kalisch, Wordsworth, Lange, Willet, Ainsworth, Bush, De Wette, Cajetan, and others wouldn’t be of much use in guessing why Lot drank so easily. Pappy Reveal (a great Greek scholar of the Evansville Rescue Mission), Jimmie Stroud (a great Hebrew scholar at the Memphis Rescue Mission), and Mel Trotter (a noted geologist at the Pacific Garden Missions) could handle the text very easily. Lot has lost his shirt. He is bankrupt. He has lost more in a month than the average broker in New York lost in 1929, and spiritually speaking, he is a “castaway”(see 1 Cor. 9:27). He has gone from riches to rags, from

cabana to cave, from royalty to rats, and from White House to outhouse, in less than a month; and to these kind of men the power of positive thinking is a joke. Aside from salvation, prayer, and a double portion of grace, the only way out is the bottle (Prov. 31:6–7). The history of Lot, as the history of Noah, ends with the mention of the “bottle.” The reader will remember that after three chapters on the exploits of Noah, his life history closes on Genesis 9:29. Lot checks out at 19:36, and we hear nothing more about his life (or death) after that point. His death is not even recorded. The sin he becomes involved in is punishable (under the law) by death (Lev. 18:6).

19:36 “Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father” 37 And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day. 38 And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Ben-ammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.”

These two boys, as the other sons of Canaan, have quite a future ahead of them. The word Moab means “from a father” or “out of water”; the word Ammon is “Son of Ammi”(the god “Am”) or “son of my people.” The text of the LXX is corrupt here, inserting “legousa ex tou patros mou.”(The theory of textual criticism that the “shorter reading is to be considered more authoritative”— Griesbach, Lachmann—seems only to apply to verses which correct the AV, but the LXX is exempt! Counting the Apocrypha and the additions to the inspired text in Proverbs, the “LXX,” written many years after the death of Paul, is much more lengthy than the Receptus.) The Moabites settled east of the Dead Sea, between the Jabbok and the Arnon rivers. There is one bright name in their inglorious history: Ruth, the ancestor of Mary (Ruth 4). The rest of the family tree looks like a blasted oak on a red clay bank. 1. Moabite women cause Solomon to sin (Neh. 13:26, 1 Kings 11:1). 2. The King of Moab hires Balaam to curse Israel (Num. 22–23). 3. Eglon oppresses Israel (Judg. 3). 4. Intermarriage with the Moabites costs Israel 24,000 casualties (Num.25:1–9). 5. They are Israel’s perennial enemies for 500 years (see 1 Sam. 12, 14; 2 Sam. 8:12; 2 Kings 1, 3). 6. Their country and their people are the objects of God’s wrath at the Second Advent (Isa. 16; Jer. 48). Some folks seem to be born with a lead spoon in their mouth. The present country of Moab is “Jordan”! Its population, according to the word of God, consists of Ishmaelites (see notes on Gen. 16:11–12), Hamites (see Gen. 10:7–8), and Moabites and Ammonites. The Ammonites follow the history of Moab like oceans follow the coastline: 1. They inhabit the area northeast of Moab right next to Moab. 2. They are prohibited from entering the congregation of Israel until ten generations have passed since the first “ecumenically approved”mixed marriage (Deut. 23:3). 3. They oppress Israel in the Book of Judges and refuse to return land which belonged to Israel (Judg. 10–12). 4. They are Israel’s enemies for 500 years (1 Sam. 12:12; 2 Sam. 10:10; 2 Kings 24:2).

5. They are listed with Moab as a target of judgment in the Second Advent (Zeph. 2:8–9; Jer. 49; Ezek. 25). In “real life,” it would appear that there is no chain reaction of “cause and effect” in the moral realm, and this has given “modern man” the notion that ideas about punishment of sin are “guilt complexes” within the mind and that “sin” is only a relative concept in the conscience of the unenlightened. The Bible revelation, superseding and surpassing all subsequent “scientific discoveries,” shows that God, “who knoweth the hearts,” pays the sinner back, double, triple, good measure, pressed down, heaped up, and running over into his bosom (2 Cor. 9:6; Gal. 6:7; Matt. 7:2– 3). As modern man tries to “outsmart” God by pushing Him (and His Book and His truth and His standards) backward and out of the mind—a kind of self-inflicted brainwashing—the Lord just loads the divorce courts up, and the insane asylums and the jails and concentration camps, and then He throws in a few wars every five years as a gentle reminder that “God is not mocked” (Gal. 6:7). Adam pays for his sin for 6,000 years. Noah pays for his sin (through Ham) for 5,000 years, and Lot pays for his sin (through his daughters) for 3,000 years. “The wages of sin is death,” and those are wages that inflation will never change. A man who rejects God’s payment for sin (Rom. 5:1–21) can only wind up with a payment that would make 6,000 years look like 1 /6,000 of a second.

CHAPTER 20 20:1 “And Abraham journeyed from thence toward the south country, and dwelled between Kadesh and Shur, and sojourned in Gerar. 2 And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, She is my sister: and Abimelech king of Gerar sent, and took Sarah. 3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man’s wife. 4 But Abimelech had not come near her: and he said, Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation? 5 Said he not unto me, She is my sister? and she, even she herself said, He is my brother: in the integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands have I done this. 6 And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her. 7 Now therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou, and all that are thine.”

Abraham meanders on down the west side of Canaan, going south again (see Gen. 12:9–10), and surely as Philistines follow Mizraim, he faces the same sex problem that popped up before with Pharaoh. This time it is a Philistine (see Gen. 10:14), King Abimelech. Journeying south from Mamre (in Hebron), Abraham heads southwest to Kadesh and then goes up northwest and winds up in Gerar. Gerar is about twelve miles inland from the Mediterranean and about thirty-five miles west of the Dead Sea. It is near the “Via Maris,” which goes down into Egypt. Kalisch, the commentator, goes into great length to explain why Abraham had such a lapse of faith after his close fellowship with God (Gen.15), the marvelous promises given him by God (Gen.15), the answer to prayer on Lot’s behalf (Gen.19), and the promise of the chosen seed (Gen.18). This leads one to wonder if Kalisch (or any of the nineteenth century commentators) knew anything about the “new birth” or anything about the two natures of the believer. One is confounded by the incredible lack of insight and common sense regarding human nature by Bible commentators who have taken it upon themselves to comment on the infallible record of human nature. Kalisch finally winds up his analysis of Abraham’s lying with a lame, “though in reality a tempting of God, the partriarch’s repetition of his early venture may have had a secret connection with his deeply grounded faith in the Divine promises.” Nice whipped cream, but whipped cream doesn’t go on onions. Let’s just face it—Abe messed up again. The motive behind Abraham’s repeated lying is given in the text of the AV 1611, where Kalisch or anyone else could read it if he had near 20–20 vision. Abraham was scared (vs. 11), exactly like he was scared in Genesis 12:12. Fear is the greatest cause of lying. That can be proved anytime, anywhere, with anybody under the practical conditions of everyday living. (See Sarah in Gen.18:15, David in l Sam. 21:12, and the Gibeonites in Josh. 9:24.) It is simply appalling when one thinks about it; the greatest religious minds ever assembled who have been responsible for the preservation of Bible truth (as it is taught in Christian schools today)

are usually unable to read fourth grade English or recognize human frailties which are so common that farmers and mechanics would spot them instantly. Abraham lies because he is scared. Kalisch, as a dozen other commentators picked at random, simply could not believe that a saint scared twice in a row would try to lie out of it twice in a row. But what man, who is honest with himself, has not caught himself at times doing a wrong thing repeatedly? How far can a commentator be trusted (when dealing with the sinfulness of human nature) who is not honest with himself? “Abimelech” (my father is king) is evidently a title common to Philistine kings, such as Khan, Czar, Sultan, Caesar, Fuhrer, etc. (See Gen. 21:22, 26:1.) “And Abimelech...sent, and took Sarah.” The student will not fail to note that this, as Genesis 12:15, 13:5, 16:4, and 17:18, is the visible operation of an unseen power attempting to overthrow the promise of Genesis 3:15. “Sex rears its ugly head” was the old expression; and the Bible, being a realistic book, never hesitates to discuss race mixing, interbreeding, cross-breeding, half-breeds, mutations, sex perversion, sex attraction and repulsion (2 Sam. 13:14–15), “love triangles,” and anything else which “modern man” confines to paperback books. Sarah is put into Abimelech’s harem, exactly as she was put into Pharaoh’s harem (Gen.12:14–16). If Abraham was afraid, at least Sarah was not “Harem-Scarem” (!). “But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night.” What follows is a study of the problem (and a solution of the problem): “What about the heathen who have never heard?” Since “modern man” always asks this question with the quizzical, guileless look of an innocent criminal trying to prevent a judge from passing sentence, it is rather strange that he can’t read Genesis 20. Genesis 20 answers the problem. 1. The heathen are not as innocent as you think they are (Rom. 1). 2. They know right and wrong many times where you do not (see Gen. 20:4). 3. They can receive extra-biblical revelations which you cannot receive (Gen. 20:3). 4. God Himself often prevents them from sinning (Gen. 20:6). 5. And if they obey the word, they live; if they don’t, they die (Gen.20:3). The corollaries to this study are found in Romans 2; Jeremiah 40:2; Deuteronomy 20:17, 1:39; Daniel 4:5, 7:1–28; and Acts 10. Getting it all together, we find that God has answered the “Where do the heathen go?” question long before modern man ever showed up, and “as surely as God made little green apples,” modern man will give account in the day of judgment for every word that God ever spoke (Deut. 18:18–22). 1. Heathen are obligated to follow their conscience. 2. They are born, and they live, with enough light to know right from wrong. 3. Where they are feeble-minded or insane, they are not held accountable. 4. Where they die before attaining the position of Adam in Genesis 3:6, they are innocent. 5. Where they follow their consciences, God gets the gospel to them. 6. Where they do not, they are judged for violating their conscience. 7. They are just as lost as some American bishops and priests, except possibly not quite as damned (see Jesus’ authoritative statement on this last remark in Matt. 23:13–14). 8. Any heathen who follows his conscience will wind up at Calvary; be he Taoist, Buddhist, Mohammedan, Confucianist, Shintoist, Hindu, Catholic, Jew, Brahmanist, or Protestant (see Cain and Abel—Gen.4:1–6). Nebuchadnezzar’s captain of the guard, a “heathen” (without the Bible or the Holy Spirit), had a greater grasp of the Scriptures than the orthodox Bible revisers of the nation which Nebuchadnezzar wiped out (see Jer. 36:23–25, 40:2–4).

Where do the heathen go? They go to Walgreens, Sears, Holiday Inn, and the First National Bank. “Wilt thou slay also a righteous nation?” Now Abimelech sounds just like Abraham (Gen.18:23)! Undoubtedly, Abimelech and his people saw the smoke from the pentapolis (that is the scholarly way to put it!) bonfire of Genesis 19:24–25, and the “also” in Abimelech’s defense refers to Sodom and Gomorrah. “In the integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands” is not the talk of a “heathen who doesn’t know any better” (like American college graduates!). It is the talk of a man who knows that adultery deserves a death penalty (Lev. 20:10)! If Abimelech was as “heathen” as Americans think Africans and Asiatics are, then why in the world did Abimelech not say in verse 4, “So what? Everybody else does it. We always have done it. What’s wrong with a little fun? Her old man won’t find out about it.” That is how people talk who have no knowledge of good and evil, because they have seared their conscience “with a hot iron” (l Tim. 4:1–3). Alongside some of the faculty members of Columbia, Princeton, Harvard, and Yale universities, old Abimelech is in pretty good shape. “For I also withheld thee from sinning.” This time there has been divine intervention, and the reason is not hard to see when one goes back to Genesis 18:14. (Cf. comments on Gen. 3:1–4.) “Therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.” The AV 1611 uses the word “touch” to refer to both “touch” in the sense of feeling with the fingers (Matt. 8:15, 9:20) and also in the sense of carnal relationships (see 1 Cor. 7:1), as here. Notice that, basically, “sin” is a violation or trespass against God: “sinning against me” (vs. 6). David recognizes this (Psa. 51:4); the Prodigal recognizes it (Luke 15:18, 21); and even Pharaoh (Exod.10:16) and Balaam (Num. 22:34) recognize this. Moses knows the truth of the matter (Num. 32:23), and Job’s companions—before any Bible was written anywhere—threw it in Job’s face (Job 8:4). The modern attitude toward the doctrine is that man has “outgrown” this “religious concept” and that the previous 5,000 years of written history “don’t count.” One cannot accept the truth of the doctrine and still hold to Darwin’s pipe dream. For if man is getting “better,” then his lack of convictions are to be interpreted as “enlightenment” and his absence of “God-oriented thought” (Rom. 1:28) is to be interpreted as “God is dead”: i.e., God is now no longer “useful.” (See William James, Dewey, Russell, and the pragmatists who have molded this god after their own emotional makeups and subjective theories.) Sin is against God. “All unrighteousness is sin” (1 John 5:12), and the Bible never jokes about sin or paints it in the colors of the Hollywood Art Gallery. God is perfect (Job 37:16, 36:4); God is Holy (Luke 4:34; 1 Pet. 1:15). There is no unrighteousness in Him (Rom. 9:14), and basically sin (or transgression) is man’s exercise of free will against his Creator, throwing his defiance in God’s face. This has been the Bible view and the standard Christian view since either came into existence. Departure from this view comes from the same source as all sin: rejection of the revelation of God and attempting to cover the sin with the fig leaves of the imagination (see notes on Gen.3:3–6). “For he is a prophet.” Well, to Abimelech he is nothing but a barefaced liar. You will notice how differently God and men look at things (see Num. 23:21; Isa. 55:5–10)! This is the first appearance of the word “prophet.” We knew from Jude 14 that Enoch was a “prophet,” and it is apparent that Noah was a prophet (cf. Rev. 19:10). But the word occurs for the first time in the writing of the Bible at this point (Moses writing, 1450–1400 B.C., about events in 1897 B.C.). Now, everybody likes to be a prophet. Dead orthodox scholars, desiring to classify themselves with Job (James 5:10) and Elijah, find it hard to slip into the shoes. At least 850 “prophets” tried it

in l Kings 18:19 and 22:6. Four hundred and fifty of them were decapitated, and the remaining 400 (under the leadership of Rev. Zedekiah D.D.) fled for their lives into bomb-proof shelters when the Syrians sacked Jezreel (l Kings 22:11, 25). The “prophets” were the Rangers, Green Berets, Sea Bees, paratroops, SS troops, demolition experts, and Marines of the Old Testament theocracy. Most enlisted men like to wear epaulets and collar insignia which look like those on an officer’s uniform. Most “stateside” troops (in World War Two) liked the “combat boot,” and in the Korean Conflict, the regular infantry preferred the Paratroop boot. The combat jacket and carbine (for officers) quickly passed down into the troops and superseded the field jacket and Ml (between 1944 and 1945), and thus has it ever been. There is a glamor and glory connected with hardship and suffering that men cannot resist, especially when they can imitate it without going through the hardship! But the prophets have “suffering afflictions” (James 5) and on occasion are asked to dig fox holes (Ezek. 8:8; 12:5), run around naked (Isa. 20:2), marry prostitutes (Hosea 1:2–3), sit on ash heaps (Job 2:8), lose their wives (Ezek. 24:18), stay single (Jer.16:2), get slapped in the face (l Kings 22:24), thrown in jail (Jer.38), run for their lives (l Kings 19), get mixed up with whale vomit (Jonah 2:10), get stoned (Matt. 23:37), get crucified (Matt. 27; Mark 15; Luke 23), be made fun of by little children (2 Kings 2:23), and get their heads cut off (John the Baptist). To classify themselves with this illustrious company (Heb. 11:36–37!!), the liberals and dead orthodox scholars have contrived two devices of remarkable expediency. 1. The dead orthodox scholars (Trench, Alford, Robertson, Weiss, Calvin, Augustine, Jerome, Dabney, Strong, Hodge, Machen, et al.,) have taken the ministry of the Old Testament prophets and confounded it with their message. By that I mean, the word “prophet” in the New Testament is said to be “one who forth tells,” not one who “foretells” (Yea, Hath God Said?). By this dexterous “twist of the wrist,” the armchair theologian is able to thrust himself into the ranks of the shock troops without going through basic training. It is true that prophets deliver messages which God gives them, and it is also true that sometimes the burden of the message is not “coming events,” but it is 90 percent of the time. Find one prophet in the Bible who did not predict or grasp the future. The lives of Abraham and Moses, excluding their spoken pronouncements, reveal men who were living in the future, not the present (see Heb. 11). And what dead orthodox theologians mistake for “social messages” in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel turn out to be “Bible prophecies on the Second Coming,” within the premillennial system; but how many dead orthodox linguists are premillennial? 2. The liberal approaches it from this last angle. Without wasting time to change the plain English “PRO—before, preceding” “PHET—speak forth” to “forth telling,” he simply picks out the social content of the Old Testament prophets where they deal with the “social sins of society” and thus converts Amos, Joel, Obadiah, Hosea, Micah, Nahum, et al., into religious socialists. Having done this, he sets them in a row and staggers them (every other one) with Fosdick, Marx, Peale, Trotsky, Kagawa, Blake, Lenin, Weatherhead, Rap Brown, Schweitzer, Carmichael, and Bertrand Russell. (With such a menagerie, who couldn’t be “a prophet”?) “Is Saul also among the prophets?” (1 Sam. 19:24). The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia goes into great length to prove that the “Nabhi” (Hebrew) is the seer (Hebrew “ro’eh”) in 1 Samuel 9:9, but when it comes to finishing I Samuel 9:9, the writer of the Encyclopedia withers, faints, and barrel rolls off to the left somewhere in search of some verse that will admit him to the school of the prophets. The seer of 1 Samuel 9 (be he prophet or seer) is Samuel, and if anyone will read 1 Samuel 9, 1 Samuel 12, and 1 Samuel 15, he will find that

two-thirds of anything Samuel said was a reference to the future. Prophets who cannot prophesy are not “prophets” (Deut. 18). The infallible standard of prophecy is never “forth telling,” according to the prophet “like unto Moses”; it is foretelling (Deut. 18—the whole chapter). As a matter of fact, this is the criteria by which God challenges the world to judge the infallibility of the word (see Isa. 40:21, 41:22, 26, 42:9, 44:7, 45:11). The reason why liberals believe that a prophet is a “social reformer” instead of a “forecaster” is because they cannot forecast. They do not have the testimony of Jesus Christ; the testimony of Jesus Christ “is the spirit of prophecy” (see Rev 19:10)! No modernist could preach on hell or the Second Coming, for those prophecies were written or spoken by men “as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Pet. 1:21). No Holy Ghost—no Spirit of prophecy; no Spirit of prophecy—no Testimony of Jesus Christ. There isn’t any such thing as a “Spirit-filled Christian” who doesn’t know the future (see John 16:13)! The private interpretation which makes the word “foretell” mean “forth tell” is the twisted product of a sick mind, no matter what “the Greek and Hebrew lexicons” say. It is the pitiful attempt of the “rear guard in the regimental bivouac” to have their names written down on the roster of David’s mighty men (1 Chron. 12). What concord hath Tillich and Niebhur with Paul and Martin Luther? What fellowship is there between Barth and Brunner and Wesley and Whitefield? Or what agreement hath Westcott and Hort with Livingstone and Goforth? God’s prophets aren’t sugar sticks; they are “the salt of the earth”! And lest an infidel should try to run some socialistic crusader into the sheep fold, let it be remembered that the Old Testament prophets: 1. Considered the sinful heart to be the source of the woes of the world. 2. They were never “utopian” (see Darwin) and held out hope for only a remnant. 3. They emphasized God’s judgment on nations. 4. Their messages were always based on the infallible word of God. 5. They gave as the only hope Messiah, who matched the prophecies of the Pentateuch. 6. They relentlessly opposed all forms of integration and race mixing. How does that list check out with the National Council of “Christian” Churches? How does it check out with your pastor? The modern “prophet” of the new morality, church unity, and “togetherness” preaches: 1. Science as the reliable source of information. 2. “Peace” as the highest ideal. 3. People who do not conform to the world are abnormal. 4. It is all right to criticize the Bible, but it is a sin to criticize anyone’s “faith.” 5. Capital punishment is unjust. 6. Feelings of guilt constitute a “mental problem.” 7. No one can know for certain where he is going when he dies. That doesn’t sound much like Elijah and John the Baptist, does it? So Abraham “is a prophet.” (Isaac, Jacob, and Moses are prophets—Amos 2:11; Acts 3:25; Hosea 12:13.) Prophets are mentioned more than 400 times in the Bible, and the book of Jeremiah has more information on prophets in it than any book in the Bible, the word “prophet” occurring in Jeremiah nearly one hundred times. The “false prophet” and “false prophets” consume more space in the Bible than the teachings on church membership, water baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and tithing combined! (See Deut. 13,18; 1 Kings 13, 18, 22; 2 Chron. 18; Isa. 9; Jer.8, 13, 14, 23, 26, 27; Hosea 4, 9; Micah 3; Matt. 24; 2 Pet 2; Rev. 13.) Two prophets will herald the Second Advent (see commentary on Revelation, Rev. 11:1–4), and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself was a “prophet...like unto Moses.”

Abraham “is a prophet.” Forty-nine prophets are named in the Scriptures, and the word occurs first in connection with prayer (vs. 7). Abraham is in noble company, and comfortable Christianity knows it. Hence the passion for “forth telling” instead of “foretelling.” (I believe some of the brethren are afraid that if they speak up, people will think they are Mr. Jean Dixon or Mrs. Judge Rutherford or something like that!) “Forth tellers” would include George Truett, Buttrick, Adolph Hitler, Peale, Weatherhead, Lippman, Lyndon Johnson, Harkness, Ho Chi Minh, Van Deusen, Ritschl, Captain Kangaroo, Dahlberg, Altizer, Cardinal Spellman, Wendell Wilkie, Fulton Sheen, Walt Disney, and Eugene Carson Blake. You see, you have to broaden your thinking till you have such “broad classifications” that anyone on the “broad way” can squeeze into the traffic. But in the last dress parade, when “front and center” is called by the “Captain of Salvation” (Heb. 2:10) and the time has come for rewarding “his servants the prophets” (Rev. 11:18), no one can step out of ranks but those who bear the bruises, wounds, and scars of “a good fight” (2 Tim. 4:7) well fought. Ecumenical politicians and seminary professors (if they are in the ranks!) might occasionally qualify for a “Purple Heart” (or a chicken liver?), but the Silver Stars and Congressional Medals go to prophets who stuck by the word, preached it, practiced it, fought for it, fought with it, and held their ground, faithful unto death (2 Sam. 23:10). What appeared to a Philistine king as a coward and a liar was a prophet. (See comparison— Ezek. 33:33.) “Thou shalt surely die.” The quotation is transferred directly from Genesis 2:17. The wages of sin is death, whether a man be a king (Gen.20:2) or a gardener (Gen.2:14–17).

20:8 “Therefore Abimelech rose early in the morning, and called all his servants, and told all these things in their ears: and the men were sore afraid. 9 Then Abimelech called Abraham, and said unto him, What hast thou done unto us? and what have I offended thee, that thou hast brought on me and on my kingdom a great sin? thou hast done deeds unto me that ought not to be done. 10 And Abimelech said unto Abraham, What sawest thou, that thou hast done this thing? 11 And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife’s sake. 12 And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife. 13 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 shew unto me; at every place whither we shall come, say of me, He is my brother.”

Verse 8 needs little comment. (Compare Gen.20:18.) “What have I offended thee?” is the proper New Testament approach (see Matt. 5:23, 18:15), and notice that the Mosaic Law prescribed the same solution (Lev. 19:18). “A great sin.” Abimelech evidently has a sense of moral values and a consciousness of right and wrong far in advance of the average American today. He not only acknowledges that adultery is a sin punishable by death (vs. 3–4) but now acknowledges that a man who would put another man in a

position where he would be tempted to commit adultery has sinned! (See 1 Thess. 5:22, which, by the way, has been changed in all the new translations; the translators wishing to accommodate the Bible to their sins. This is in line with the remarks you will find in this commentary from time to time. Where the English condemns the sins of the translator or commentator, he goes to “the original language” to get out of the mess. In psychology this is called “compensation, rationalization, repression, or substitution.” Some other good words the psychologists overlooked were “frustration, agitation, hallucination, and damnation”—in that order.) “What sawest thou?” Abimelech again displays a remarkable insight into human nature that seems to be totally lacking in the universities of America. “The light of the body is the eye” (see Gen.13:10, 3:6), so it will stand to reason that the “TV generation” is going to bring forth fruit in abundance. What is wrongly ascribed to the National Rifle Association, the Minute Men, the police state, the fundamentalists, the Ian Paisley fanatics, the imperialists, the lack of better schools, the failure to integrate, the neglect of the ghetto, etc., is clearly the result of sitting for hours at a time submerged in a dream world concocted by Hollywood, Madison Avenue, and news salesmen. (All news media people invent and promote and dramatize specific controversial items to get a listener or buyer.) This great pro-integration, pro-science, pro-Catholic, pro-immorality, pro-socialism, proreligion, anti-bible, anti- preaching, anti-morality, anti-purity, anti-truth, one-eyed monster squats in the living room like a rectangular frog and creates for the looker a world that has no existence anywhere except in the vain imagination of fallen man (see Gen.6:5). That is the positive side of it. Negatively, as the frog croaks, the body becomes “full of darkness” (Matt. 6:23), and the impulse to sin becomes irresistible (see Rom. 7:7). TV is the crown-king climax of the “covetingobtaining” cycle which lies within man. It presents any and all objects, desirable or undesirable, to meet anyone’s lust on any occasion. Sin is perfumed, glossed, draped, painted, decorated, sanctified, and set to music; and in living video-stereo-cinema-photocolor, the sinner gazes again at the forbidden fruit. Abimelech, as Moses (Num. 33:52), knew that sin begins with the eyes; and if this is true (and there is no doubt about it), the greatest stimulant to race riots, strikes, frustrated ambitions, persecution complexes, feelings of self pity, false ideas of success and good fortune, assassinations, drunkenness, adultery, sex perversion, false goals in life, wrecked marriages, and false economy is the “idiot box.” (The answer to this is simply, “Well, it all depends on how you look at it.” A nd the answer to that is, “Read your morning newspaper.”) “Because I thought” (vs. 11), but you thought wrong. “The fear of God” was in that place, and there was more “fear of God” in Gerar, in the palace of a Philistine king, than there is in Washington, D.C., this night. Sarah is the daughter of Terah (see Gen.11), but not the daughter of Abram’s mother. Such marriages are evidently sanctioned until Leviticus 18:11 (see Gen.4:17). “When God caused me to wander.” This is part of “old man Adam” showing through. God did not cause Abraham to do anything, and when Abraham left he didn’t go on a pointless “wander.” He was told to “walk through the land” (Gen.13:17). A “wanderer” is not going anywhere. Abraham was not a “wanderer”; he was a pilgrim and a sojourner (see comments on Gen.4:14).

20:14 “And Abimelech took sheep, and oxen, and menservants, and womenservants, and gave them unto Abraham, and restored him Sarah his wife.

15 And Abimelech said, Behold, my land is before thee: dwell where it pleaseth thee. 16 And unto Sarah he said, Behold, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver: behold, he is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: thus she was reproved. 17 So Abraham prayed unto God: and God healed Abimelech, and his wife, and his maidservants; and they bare children. 18 For the Lord had fast closed up all the wombs of the house of Abimelech, because of Sarah Abraham’s wife.”

“And Abimelech took sheep, and oxen, and menser-vants.” This only adds to the swarm Abraham already has (see Gen.12:16 and 13:2). The corrupt LXX, again trying to assist the Holy Ghost in getting the proper sense, has added “a thousand didrachmas” after “Abimelech took.” This was done by Origen, Marcion, Eusebius, and company to match verse 16. It is quite typical of Alexandrian scholarship which was extravagant and sloppy. “I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver...he is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee, and with all other.” The sentence allows two meanings. First of all, Sarah needs a veil (like any married woman) to indicate that she belongs to a man (Gen. 24:65). The harlot of Genesis 38:18–19 is not “covered” to indicate she is a harlot but is “undetected” by Judah because she was “covered.” The veil is a “covering” (see 1 Cor. 11:5, 10, 15). Secondly, Abimelech is paying for his “sin,” according to the requirements of Deuteronomy 22:19, 28. Although Abimelech is not guilty, he covers up Abraham’s sin by acting as though he were, for this transaction is done publicly so that all the witnesses will be led to think that the error was Abimelech’s. Abimelech doesn’t forget one last “dig” at Sarah: “I have given thy brother.” This is tongue in cheek if you ever heard it. Since Sarah was in on the deception (see Gen. 20:13), she is reproved by having this said before an audience—“Thy brother!” Verses 17 and 18 need no comment.

CHAPTER 21 21:1 “And the Lord visited Sarah as he had said, and the Lord did unto Sarah as he had spoken. 2 For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him. 3 And Abraham called the name of his son that was born unto him, whom Sarah bare to him, Isaac. 4 And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac being eight days old, as God had commanded him. 5 And Abraham was an hundred years old, when his son Isaac was born unto him. 6 And Sarah said, God hath made me to laugh, so that all that hear will laugh with me. 7 And she said, Who would have said unto Abraham, that Sarah should have given children suck? for I have born him a son in his old age. 8 And the child grew, and was weaned: and Abraham made a great feast the same day that Isaac was weaned.”

The word “visited” (vs.1) is in the good sense, as Acts 15:14, not in the bad sense, as in Exodus 32:34. The word “Isaac” means “laughter” (see comments on Gen. 17:17). “As God had commanded him” shows that God’s foreknowledge of Abraham was very accurate (see Gen.18:19). Sarah said, “God hath made me to laugh,” and this time it is not the laugh of skepticism (Gen. 18:12) but the laugh of joy (Psa.126:2). Isaac’s birthplace is a little doubtful, for even though the last place mentioned was Gerar (Gen. 20:2), Abimelech had told Abraham to “move on” in polite terms (Gen. 20:15), and no doubt he did. The chances are that the place was Beer-sheba, “The Well of the Oath,” which would mean that Abraham journeyed southeast of Gerar, about ten miles. “For I have born him a son in his old age.” The LXX, again undertaking to produce an ASV, has altered “his old age” to “my old age.” To correct this error “in the original, etc.,” the King James English has supplied the same expression in Genesis 37:3 when speaking of Joseph. Joseph and Isaac are the two greatest types of Christ in the book of Genesis, and Christ is the son of “the Ancient of days” (Dan. 7:9, 13, 22). The reading, therefore, according to the exact, scientific, infallible English (with the English), is “I have born HIM a son in his old age,” and any other reading is erroneous interpolation. “And the child grew,” fulfilling another type of Christ, for the same words are given about Jesus in Luke 2:40. The “weaning” is fulfilled after two to three years, according to the Talmud and Josephus. In the larger sense (see l Sam. 1:22–24), it refers to more than the end of breast feeding, marking the end of “infancy” and the beginning of “childhood.”

21:9 “And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking. 10 Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.

11 And the thing was very grievous in Abraham’s sight because of his son. 12 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called. 13 And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed. 14 And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-sheba.”

The “mocking” is referred to in Galatians 4:29, and many commentators date the 430 years of Exodus 12:40 from this date, which would be about 1891 B.C. depending upon the chronological system adopted by the commentator. (See Gen. 15:13, and remarks.) Bullinger has Ishmael nineteen years old at the time of the “casting out.” If Isaac is “weaned” at two and one-half years old, Ishmael would be between fourteen and fifteen, which is more probable. (See Gen. 21:5.) “Cast out this bondwoman.” To overthrow any teaching smelling of racial discrimination, or to get rid of any noxious inferences which the Bible may make, the Pulpit Commentary rushes to Ham’s aid and says, “Bondwoman…a term ill befitting Sarah, who had given Hagar to her husband as a wife.” But since God uses the term “bondwoman” (Gen. 21:12) in both Testaments (Gal. 4:30), the commentators are wasting their breath. She is a bondwoman, not an employee (see 1 Tim. 6:1–5). “Cast out this bondwoman” implies something like a divorce (see Lev. 21:7, 14). Sarah is jealous of Ishmael and Hagar and can’t stand the thought of sharing her posterity with a mulatto. Abraham is upset about it. Ishmael has been the only boy he has had for nearly fourteen years, and he is grieved that Sarah should say “her son” and overlook the fact that Ishmael was also “his son.” But remarriages (or double marriages) have a habit of working out this way; it is “your kids and my kids are fighting against our kids.” Or as one eight-year-old Hollywood refugee said, “My dad will beat up your dad”; and the other divorce court prodigy said, “You crazy you! My dad IS your dad!” “And God said...in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice.” That is some order to give a man after just turning your back on him thirteen years for listening to his wife (see Gen. 16:1, 16)! How can a man tell the difference? When are you supposed to hearken, and when are you not supposed to hearken? Adam hearkened when he should not have hearkened, and Pilate didn’t hearken when he should have hearkened (Matt. 27:19). This is cause enough for every male to plead James 1:5 every time a female opens her mouth. A young man was asked by a friend what his father’s last words were. “He had none,” said the young man, “Mother was with him right to the end.” The only solution to the text is to recognize the difference between a carnal choice based on lack of faith (Gen.16:1–2) and a spiritual choice based on faith (Gen.17:19), but with the ladies (bless their hearts!), this is not always too easy to discern. “For in Isaac shall thy seed be called.” (See comments under Gen.13:15 and 17:19.) “The son of the bondwoman...he is thy seed.” (See comments under Gen. 17:20.) “Abraham rose up early in the morning.” He was always doing this! Every time you turned around, Old Man Abraham was up before the sun (Gen. 19:27, 22:3). “And sent her away.” The water bottle is put on her shoulder, not Ishmael who at this time is around fifteen years old (nineteen according to Bullinger). Hagar heads down southwest again, hoping to get to Egypt (cf. Gen.16:7–8).

21:15 “And the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs. 16 And she went, and sat her down over against him a good way off, as it were a bowshot: for she said, Let me not see the death of the child. And she sat over against him, and lift up her voice, and wept. 17 And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is. 18 Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation. 19 And 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. 20 And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer. 21 And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran: and his mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt.”

Hagar wanders along through the arid “Negeb” (that is the scholarly way to put it!). After two days travel at fifteen miles a day, Hagar and Ishmael get lost somewhere east of Egypt and south of Palestine. The Lord guides them so they avoid wild beasts and robbers, but a greater danger then comes. Nursing the bottle for two days under a desert sun, it runs out after forty-eight hours, and Hagar is half pulling her boy and half leaning on him. Weak with fatigue, exposure, and dehydration, Hagar lays Ishmael down behind a shrub, crawls off 100 yards, and then probably lies down and cries her heart out. (To help the faculty members out who cannot understand English, the AV 1611 has defined “cast the child” as “lay them down” in Matt. 15:30. Other uses of the word [Old English is always more complete and inclusive than modern] would tell anyone that it does not always mean to throw something [see Lam. 3:53, Exod. 25:12, and Gen. 39:7]. Where Hebrew and Greek fail to give light, the English text is often quite helpful.) “And lift up her voice” has been changed in the “LXX” (no such animal. The LXX quoted in all commentaries is the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts, written 300 years after the resurrection) to read, “and the child lifted up his voice and wept.” This reading, as 90 percent of the false readings in the apostate Alexandrian manuscripts, is the work of a scribe who, like the ASV and RSV translators, is trying to “clear up the difficulties of the obscure text.” The scribe in this case (probably Marcion, Eusebius, or Valentinus) read verse 17 and figured the Holy Spirit had neglected to mention “the voice of the lad,” so he helped God out by changing Hagar’s weeping to the weeping “of the lad.” The AV 1611 text is correct as usual, and the Greek text for the ASV and RSV is corrupt as usual. “Over against” means “opposite” him (see Neh. 12:38; Deut. 1:1; Num. 8:2; Luke 8:26). “Fear not.” Hagar’s message of comfort is the same as that given in Luke 24, Daniel 9, and Revelation 1. “Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand.” Ready to grasp at any reason for an excuse to change the AV 1611 text, scholars have played much on the words, as though we were to get the picture of Hagar picking up Ishmael in her hand and balancing him on her palm. But common sense would tell anyone that you can “hold” an apple in your hand, or a rake or a snake or a mortgage, by

simply taking hold of it. Hagar goes back and takes a hold of Ishmael and lifts him up by the hand (Isa. 42:6). Furthermore, she does not even do this until she gets him a drink of water (see vs. 19). Verse 18 has been commented on under Genesis 17:20. One will observe that both Sarah and Hagar are given promises about their children before they have them, and then these same promises are repeated AFTER the boys are born. This is the second time that Hagar has been “kicked out of house and home,” but she was given the promise of Genesis 21:18 way back in Genesis 17:20. “And God opened her eyes...she saw a well of water.” This is God’s provision compared to man’s. A bottle of water (see the Samaritan woman’s pitcher—John 4:28) is not much beside “everlasting fountains of living waters” (John 4:14). But it takes a revelation from God to see the water of life; hence, “God opened her eyes” (see Luke 24:31, 45). The water was right next to her, and she was about to perish within 100 yards of enough water in which to bathe and drink and refill the bottle (cf. Rom. 10:6–8)! So 400,000 Americans perish every year within inches of eternal life. They choke to death in the hot, dusty, barren wastelands of religion, science, and education, while “a well of water springing up into everlasting life” bubbles only a stone’s throw away! Jesus said, “Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life” (John 5:40). What would you think of Hagar if she had said (with her boy dying of thirst!), “My water is just as good as yours; it all depends on how you look at it. Besides that well is just your interpretation. I was born a bottle drinker, and I’ll be a bottle drinker till I die. To----with your well!” But those are the sentiments of more than 4,000,000 human beings while you read this print. (You see, the Health, Education, and Welfare Department cannot possibly lock up all the crazy people!) “And gave the lad drink.” They filled the bottle, emptied it in their stomachs, refilled it, dumped it over their heads and bodies, refilled it and took another shower, refilled it, and started onward. Heading into the wilderness of Paran (forty miles south of Beer-sheba), they met with friendly descendants of Sabtah and Havilah (see Gen.10:7) and recognizing (by skin color) that they were “soul brothers” etc., Hagar and Ishmael were received as distant relatives, and Ishmael married back into his mother’s original race (see Gen. 21:21). “And became an archer.” (See the Bible Believer's Commentary on Revelation, Rev. 6:1, and also remarks on Nimrod—Gen. 10:9, “sign of the bowman,” etc.)

21:22 “And it came to pass at that time, that Abimelech and Phichol the chief captain of his host spake unto Abraham, saying, God is with thee in all that thou doest: 23 Now therefore swear unto me here by God that thou wilt not deal falsely with me, nor with my son, nor with my son’s son: but according to the kindness that I have done unto thee, thou shalt do unto me, and to the land wherein thou hast sojourned. 24 And Abraham said, I will swear. 25 And Abraham reproved Abimelech because of a well of water, which Abimelech’s servants had violently taken away. 26 And Abimelech said, I wot not who hath done this thing: neither didst thou tell me, neither yet heard I of it, but to day. 27 And Abraham took sheep and oxen, and gave them unto Abimelech; and both of them made a covenant. 28 And Abraham set seven ewe lambs of the flock by themselves. 29 And Abimelech said unto Abraham, What mean these seven ewe lambs which thou hast

set by themselves? 30 And he said, For these seven ewe lambs shalt thou take of my hand, that they may be a witness unto me, that I have digged this well. 31 Wherefore he called that place Beer-sheba; because there they sware both of them. 32 Thus they made a covenant at Beer-sheba: then Abimelech rose up, and Phichol the chief captain of his host, and they returned into the land of the Philistines.”

The word “Phichol” means “mouth of all” or “distinguished.” “God is with thee in all that thou doest” is plainly apparent by the Old Testament way of judging things, for a man’s relationship to God was directly proportional to his riches. Notice how Job runs afoul of this way of looking at things when his testing comes (Job 4:7, 8:6, 11:14–20, 22:1– 7, 22:23–30). The disciples are still looking at things in this light before Calvary (see Luke 18:25– 26). It is the most natural thing in the world for the flesh to presume that since all is “rosy,” the bills are paid, the body is healthy, money is in the bank, and no one is mad at you, then “God is surely blessing,” etc. By the same token, it is the most natural thing in the world to suppose that when one is sick, lonely, depressed, bankrupt, or persecuted, that God is against him. The New Testament dispensation of grace, however, ushers in an entirely different way of looking at things. Notice that the church which thought it was rich was poor (Rev. 3:17–18), while the church that thought it was poor was rich (Rev 2:9)! This philosophy goes hard with Americans. They are inclined always to think, “Who did sin, this man, or his parents...?” (John 9:2) when there are material reverses, and “Soul...eat, drink, and be merry” when the barns get bigger (Luke 12:19). Abimelech and Phichol would do as well as vestrymen or deacons in the average downtown church in America. The “kindness” which Abimelech mentions is the kindness of allowing Abraham to settle anywhere in the land he wishes to go (see Gen. 20:15). Abimelech and Phichol see that it would pay to have Abraham as an ally, not a foe. The agreement will help Abraham out as well, for now with Abimelech for a confederate, plus Aner, Eschol, and Mamre (see Gen. 14:13), Abraham’s position is quite secure. Abraham swears according to the oath laid on him (Gen. 21:24) and this constitutes the first real “covenant” between “the Jew and the Gentile” (Gen. 21:27). (See prohibitions in Joshua 9:6 and the effects of the Antichrist’s covenant in Daniel 9.) The argument over the “water hole” (Gen. 21:25) is typical of the modern western plot on TV (cf. Gen. 13:6–7), and in the Near East, a man’s well or source of water is so valuable a possession that it is likened to his wife (see Prov. 5:15–20). Abimelech pleads ignorance as a defence (Gen. 21:26) and rebukes Abraham for not letting him know about it sooner, or at least for jumping on him without seeing if he had had time to hear about it. (See Deut.17:4—“Told thee, heard of it...inquired diligently...it be true...and be certain.”) “And Abraham set seven ewe lambs of the flock by themselves.” The seven (as in Num. 23:1) symbolizes something which God has bound (cf. notes on “swearing” and sevens—Gen. 2:1–2). Abraham now returns some of the livestock he picked up from Abimelech back in Genesis 20:14. He gives him seven sheep as a witness (binder in a contract) that the well is his (Abraham’s) and not Abimelech’s. “Beer-sheba” is the name of this well, and of course, this becomes the name of the city and the “wilderness” near it (Gen. 21:14). Moses, writing around 1450 B.C., is writing backwards and giving an historical account of how the place got its name to start with. We are not to suppose that “J” wrote Genesis 21:31, while “E” wrote 21:14 and named the place before it got its name. This is

more “Deutero-Dumpty” business (see comments on Gen. 16:11–12). After the transaction is closed, they part and go their separate ways (vs.32). 21:33 “And Abraham planted a grove in Beer-sheba, and called there on the name of the Lord, the everlasting God. 34 And Abraham sojourned in the Philistines’ land many days.” “And Abraham planted a grove.” Abraham thus becomes the author of one practice, at least, which apostate Israel later uses as an alibi to reject the Temple worship. Noah was the originator of the “high places,” whose example Abraham followed (see Gen. 12:8), and now Abraham plants a grove. Both of these practices were proper in the days of Noah and Abraham, but “every bad thing on earth is a good thing twisted,” so the high places and the groves become the chief headaches of the believing remnant when Israel finally goes into apostasy (see 2 Kings 13:6, 18:4, 23:4, 7, 14, 19; 1 Kings 3:2, 11:7, 12:31, 13:2, 14:23). There is an apparent contradiction between verse 32 and verse 34, in that if Abimelech returned to the land of the Philistines, Abraham must have stayed out of it, but this, of course, is just “more of the same.” Beer-sheba is south of the land of the Philistines, and at the time of verse 32, Abraham stays in Beer-sheba while the Philistines return—many days later he pastures back up into the same part of the country. This “contradiction,” as several hundred others, is produced by a lack of common sense and alertness on the part of the reader.

CHAPTER 22 22:1 “And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. 2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. 3 And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him. 4 Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off. 5 And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you. 6 And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together.”

“God did tempt Abraham.” Leaving the Greek and Hebrew scholars to wrestle with the apparent discrepancy between this statement and that of James 1:13, we observe that the AV 1611 interprets the word “tempt” to mean “tried” in Hebrews 11:17. These are the “temptations” of James 1:2, not the temptations of James 1:14. “Thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest.” No “friend of God” has been really “tried” until he has been tried on the things that he loves. Men are what they love—and fear; profession or training have very little to do with it, as any “twenty-year man” in the army knows. “Show me what a man loves and what scares him, and I’ve got the man’s number.” The Devil looks at it the same way. Affections determine decisions and decisions determine destinations (see Demas, Ruth, Peter, Paul, and anyone else, in or out of the Bible). If a man has never been tested on the point of what he loves most, he has never been tested at all. (See First Commandment as it is given in Deut. 6:5.) By such a standard, the average liberal has never had his “hat in the ring” when it comes to Bible Christianity, for Jesus said that if a man loved Him, he would “keep His words” (John 15:7, 14:23). Those professing Christians, who back off from the Bible under charges of being “old-fashioned,” “fanatical,” “radical,” “insane,” “troublemakers,” “apostles of discord,” etc., are Christians who have “no root.” They are choked with “the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things.” (See the infallible comment in Mark 4:19.) Notice that this class of people are offended when “affliction or persecution ariseth for the word’s sake” (Mark 4:17). Their true loves are clearly revealed when the testing comes, for if you love a thing (or a person) you will stand by it, take abuse for it, suffer with it, defend it, and die for it if necessary. Scholars, preachers, teachers, and commentators who flinched when the first fiery darts of scorn, ridicule, opposition, loss of income, loss of prestige, or loss of publicity came their way (and defected to the ranks of higher criticism, German rationalism, Westcott and Hort theorizing, Roman tradition, and mockery of the AV text) are no more the “friends of God” than Judas Iscariot or Ignatius Loyola. The martyrs were tested on this point and came through with flying colors—flaming

red and orange! “Thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest.” (See John 3:16.) Satan’s theory is that every man loves his own skin enough to give up anything for it (see Job 2:4), and poor, old Job is tested to the place where everything a man could love on this earth is stripped from him: wife, children, house, lands, property, cattle, and at last, health itself. It is pretty hard to keep the First Commandment under those conditions; therefore, Job would certainly be a much more trustworthy commentator on religion and reality than such superficial exegetes as Plato, Aristotle, Sophocles, Socrates, Epicurus, and Zeno. “No man is any better than the picture at which he likes to look.” “No man is any better than the book he loves to read.” “No man is any better than his highest affection.” If his highest affection is a church, a sacrament, a religion, a teaching, an ideology, a philosophy, a human being, a job, a sport, or an act of gratification, he is an idolator (see Exod. 20:3). “Get thee into the land of Moriah.” The word means “God is my instructor,” and the area is plainly the temple area of 2 Chronicles 3:1, where David appeased the wrath of the Lord against Israel with a burnt offering (see 2 Sam. 24:18–25). As to which of the mountains in the area is the one where Isaac was offered, we are not told, but the chances are a thousand to one that it was CalvaryGolgotha. The typology of what follows is all too plain for the liberal theologian. Isaac is walking in the steps of Jesus Christ 1896 years before He, “bearing his cross went forth” (John 19:17). “Offer him there for a burnt offering.” The command is shocking in view of God’s plain statements about human sacrifices given in Jeremiah 19:5, 32:35. It is so shocking that the majority of conservative commentators run clean off the tracks when they get to Jephthah’s oblation (Judg. 11:31, 39) and insist that Jephthah did not actually “burn his daughter,” but that he kept her in a “virgin condition” so she never got married. (How this ties in with his vow of verse 31, I shall never know. What would Jephthah have done if the first thing that trotted out of his front gate had been a dog or a rooster? Would he have burned it, or kept it from getting married? The “perpetual virginity of Mary” is one thing, but the “perpetual virginity of a rooster” is something else!) Abraham is told to kill the boy. This astounding injunction cannot be justified by the feeble explanation that “since all the Shemites and Phoenicians did this kind of thing, it did not take Abraham by surprise” (see Micah 6:7). The text says that God put him up to it. At the same time it must be remembered that on such occasions God and the Devil are working so closely together that the most spiritual of men have a hard time discerning who is doing what. For example, study carefully 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1. The narratives of Job 1 and 1 Kings 22 reveal that operations in the spirit world are a good bit more complex than the average Bible commentator would have you to believe. What happens in Abraham’s case is comparatively simple, but not simple enough so that Dummelow, Lange, Clarke, and others could find it. The fifth cherub approaches the throne. “Howdy.” (He always was audacious and without fear—see Job 41.) “Good afternoon, and where have you been?” “Oh, going to and fro in the earth, up and down in it.” “Hast thou considered my friend Abraham, how there is none like him in the earth? A just and upright man. One that fears God and eschews evil?” “Well, I don’t know about that! You call him ‘your friend.’ But he might not be so close a friend as you think he is.” “Oh, you’re quite mistaken. Abraham’s my friend. I can count on him.”

“Really?” “Yes, really.” “Listen, Lord God Jehovah! I’ve got 20,000,000 people down there that love me more than Abraham loves you! They’ll drown their children in the Ganges for me; they’ll let the jackals eat their twin babies for me; they’ll let their juggernauts roll over their mothers and fathers for me; they’ll whip their backs raw doing penance for me; and they’ll burn their babies down in Gehenna for me. For me, you understand? You don’t have any friends like that!” “Abraham’s my friend.” “You wanta bet?” “You’re faded. Shoot.” Now that is an “American translation.” Goodspeed, Moffatt, Weymouth, and Phillips couldn’t come near it, and I do not recommend that they should try, but that is what took place in plain English. Abraham is tested in regard to his love for God. The faithful man not only will be tested (vs.1), but will be tested on the thing he loves (vs. 2). His response will be to go where God tells him to go (vs. 3). The reader will observe the son (vs. 3), the wood (vs. 3), the instrument for piercing the side (vs. 6), and the fire (vs. 6), which roasted the Lamb of Exodus 12:8 and John 19:28. Isaac is plainly a type of Jesus Christ. Off goes Abraham with the “only begotten”—the “son of his old age.” The true meaning of the passage is not apparent until one recalls that the old man has to lie down and sleep two nights on the way to his terrible destination. All the commentators fail to grasp the reality of the text. What is involved is walking and riding, side by side, for two and a half days, making camp at night, cooking the meals, lying down to sleep, breaking camp in the morning, etc. The old man lies down at night, and he can’t sleep a wink. In the flicker of the campfire he sees the sleeping form of his son, oblivious to the purpose of the entire trip. Satan works Abraham over. “Look, there he is! Your son, the one whom you bounced on your knee, the one whom you taught how to walk and speak. Remember how he looked on his second birthday? Remember the day he shot his first bird and brought it to you? Listen, you can’t kill that boy! Why, if you kill him, then where are you going to get all those descendants? Why, man, that’s the only ‘coal’ you’ve got left! Your fire is going out!” And the old man would toss and turn and fight the good fight of Ephesians 6:10–14. An hour later, Isaac would suddenly wake up and roll over and see his daddy’s face on the other side of the fire—wet with tears. “Is there anything wrong, Daddy?” “No, son. Go back to bed.” “But Daddy, you’re crying...are you sick? Is everything all right?” “Yes, son, it’s all right. Go back to bed; we have a long way to travel tomorrow.” And to cover his streaming face from further detection, the Friend of God would get up and shuffle around in the sticks and logs and stir up the dying embers for another piece of fresh wood. Second night out. The old man tosses and turns. Twice he rolls on his face, grinds his chin and beard into the sand, clutches the earth in his fists and tries to pray. “Lord? Are you there, Lord? Lord, I remember there was a dry spell like this between you and me back in Genesis 16:16, but I wasn’t right then. I’m as right as I know how to be, Lord! I’ve confessed and judged all the sins in my life I can think of. Lord? Are you there? Well, if it is going to be like that, I guess I’ll just have to go blindly on by faith. You said, ‘The just shall live by faith,’ but it sure gets hard sometimes, Lord!” And the fifth cherub whispered, “Quit! Quit! You can’t make it. You can’t ever go through with

this thing! It’ll tear your heart out. Quit. Go back. What kind of a God is it who would take your only son from you after all those promises? Yea, hath God said? Quit while you’re winning. Tomorrow it’ll be too late. Go back! Go back!” On the plains and hills of Judea, Abraham fights out a battle that very few generals know anything about (see Heb. 12:1–4). The spiritual combat of the “good soldier of Jesus Christ” (2 Tim. 2:3) is apparent in every fiber of Abraham’s character. In Genesis 22, he is “blooded,” as the expression goes, and joins that illustrious regimental combat team of which we spoke earlier (see comments under Gen. 20:7). Job and Abraham are authorities on life and reality who would make the greatest psychiatrists and philosophers sound like babies trying to discourse on quadratic equations. “I and the lad...and come again to you” is a clear statement on the Resurrection similar to the statement by Job in Job 19:25–26. (The student will observe how the RSV has altered the text of Job 19:26 to read, “from my flesh,” and the ASV has gone a step further in perverting the truth by mistranslating, “without my flesh.” Williams, joining the ranks of “Christian” infidels, has translated, “whom I shall see on my side.” And Moffatt, scared to death that people will not classify him with these theological “big shots,” wrests the text to the place where it comes out, “My life shall have sight of God: my heart is pining, as I yearn to see him on my side.... !” That is, anything except believe the text.) Job and Abraham—in spite of Williams, Moffatt, Lamsa, and the ASV and RSV translating committees—had faith to believe in a physical resurrection. Jesus Christ Himself gives Abraham credit for this in John 8:56. Abraham tells the young men that he and Isaac are “coming back,” and yet it is perfectly apparent that he intends to kill the boy, according to orders. Further, this can be the only explanation for Abraham’s consistency and resoluteness. He has witnessed “life from the dead” in his own case and Sarah’s, and if he doesn’t believe that God is going to raise the boy literally after the sacrifice, he never would have started on the trip! Knobel, Rashi, Lyra, Junius, Kalisch, Murphy, and Keil all miss the point and attribute the faith of verse 5 to an unconscious prophecy or a lie, and this construction on Abraham’s words is made in the light of Hebrews 11:19!

22:7 “And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? 8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together. 9 And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. 10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. 11 And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. 12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.”

They start up the hill. By now the boy’s curiosity is aroused to the breaking point. As a good Jewish boy, he has kept his mouth shut and “honored his father and mother” for nearly three whole days (vs. 4). But now only he and his father are going up the long slope, having encamped three miles from it (see Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, p. 251), and it is apparent that somebody is going to kill

something and burn it. “Behold the fire.” Exactly—Deuteronomy 32:22; 2 Kings 1:10; Isaiah 33:14, 66:16; Jeremiah 5:14; Ezekiel 15:6, 20:47; Hebrews l2:29; Jude 7; 2 Peter 3:7; Revelation 14:10, 20:15. “Behold...the wood.” Wood stands for people—see Jeremiah 5:14–15; Song of Solomon 2:3; Ezekiel 24:10; Isaiah 10:19; Jeremiah 17:8; Ezekiel 17:24, 20:28, 47, 31:5, 8–9, 14. “But where is the lamb?” “Where is the lamb!” “Where is the lamb!!?” That is the greatest question anyone ever asked on this earth. And whether it is disguised as “Where is he that is born King of the Jews?” or “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” or “How then can man be justified with God?” or “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?” or “What shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” or “What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ?”, the question stands head and shoulders above the greatest questions the greatest minds have ever asked about “the ultimate good” or the “ultimate reality.” “Where is the lamb?” Mary had Him in her arms and didn’t know it! (See her alternate sacrifice in Luke 2:22–24, cf. Lev. 12.) The astronauts could pick Him up before they leave, and do not know it (see Rom. 10:4–8). “Where is the lamb?” Isaac, like Abel, would have offered it if he could have found it. Abraham’s answer to Isaac’s question is one of the truly great revelations in the word of God. “God will provide himself a lamb....” This is the meaning of the “Jehovah-jireh,” of verse 14; i.e., “God will provide.” He provides in life; He provides at death; He provides at the judgment. Man will be just as dependent upon supernatural aid at the last judgment as he is this minute, breathing God’s air (see Rom. 11:35–36; Dan. 5:23). This is the third time we have come upon the lamb in the Bible. He appeared first as the original covering for two naked sinners (Gen. 3:21), and then the lamb appeared again as a blood atonement for sin (Gen. 4:4). He now appears as “God’s lamb” (see John 1:29), and the wording of the English text unintentionally reveals that the lamb will be God Himself! (Moffatt does what he can to obliterate the revelation by translating, “God will provide himself with a sheep,” but Genesis 22:8 is one of those verses [like John 20:28] where any distortion still leaves 90 percent of the truth staring you in the face. Moffatt still tells the truth, although he did try his best!) “Burnt offering” shows that even before the lamb was used for a feast (Exod. 12), it was connected in Genesis with atonement for sin (see notes on Gen. 4:4). Now things get “uptight,” as the expression goes. Abraham and the boy reach the crest of Golgotha (note—“land of Moriah” vs. 2, not “Mt. Moriah”), and Abraham builds the altar. He then takes out several feet of leather thongs and begins to tie Isaac’s feet and hands. “Daddy, what are you doing?” “Never mind, Son, just hold still; I’ll show you in a while.” “But Daddy, you’re tying me just like...just like...Why Daddy! You’re not going to offer me for a sacrifice, are you?” The old man rises from his knees where he has been tying the boy’s ankles. With tears pouring down his face, he croaks, “Listen, son. Listen to me! I’ve got to do this. God told me to. I don’t know why He told me to, and I can’t explain it, but I’ve got to do this; and boy, listen! You aren’t going to stay dead! Why God told me you were going to have as many children as the stars of heaven. God wouldn’t lie, Son.” “But Daddy, the knife...you’re going to...?” “Son, listen. It’s all right. I can’t explain it. You’ll just have to believe me. I know that’s hard, but it always works out when you trust God, Son. We’ve got to go through with it.”

And the son says, “Well, Daddy, you may be crazy, but I know how you and God get along. I could get out of these things and head outta’ here, but...well Daddy, if you really believe God is going to raise me up, I’m game. I’ve never known you to make a mistake yet, doing what God told you to do. Let ‘em alone. I’ll lie down without all the ropes.” And Isaac obeyed his father (Heb. 10:5–7). “And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife.” The old man still acts on faith. This is walking by “faith without sight,” and it is multiplying the “chance element” in faith to the place where the man is living seconds by faith instead of days or years. It thereby demonstrates a faith in God which perhaps not even Paul or Job had. “Faithful Abraham” (Rom. 4:12, 16) is not an idle remark. Abraham acts on God’s word regardless of appearances, lack of evidence, circ*mstances, objections, feelings, social pressures, habit, custom, or blood relationships. To find such a man in the twentieth century would be just about impossible (Jer. 5:1–2). Abraham pulls the knife out its sheath, raises it over his head, and closes his eyes (2 Cor. 4:18!); the 6-inch blade flashes in the sunlight. Down it plunges! Then Abraham feels something like a baseball bat arresting the downward stroke of the arm; his fingers fly open, and the blade hurtles to the ground. “And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven” (vs. 11). “The Perils of Pauline” never put on a better show. Isaac misses death by about one half of a second, and as surely as all TV dramatic shows can be reduced to the thirty-three basic plots of the AV 1611 Bible, Isaac would have been a dead young man if the Angel of the Lord had not intervened. Abraham was in the act of obeying the word of God, and only God Himself could have ever stopped him; the world, the flesh, and the Devil had failed. (See Paul, Acts 20:22–24.) Throughout verses 11 and 12, Abraham is kneeling by the altar (undoubtedly having collapsed through mental strain and emotional exhaustion). He is weeping copiously with his face buried in his hands; and Isaac is looking wildly up in the air and murmuring, “Thank God! Thank God! Thank God for deliverance!” And the Angel of the Lord bends over the altar and says, “Yes, and you can thank God for having a Daddy like that!” “Yes! Thank you, Lord! Thank you for Daddy!!” And somewhere in the “twilight zone of the outer limits,” etc., a shadowy gentleman puffs into the throne room and is about to leave again when the Alpha and Omega says, “Something on your mind ?” “No,” says the gentleman with the platinum exhaust pipes, “nothing in particular.” “Looks like you lost that last hand, down there, doesn’t it?” “Well, you can’t win ’em all.” And in an ominous “puff,” the veteran of ancient wars departs to see if Job has thrown in the towel yet (1 Pet. 5:8–9).

22:13 “And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. 14 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen. 15 And the angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, 16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:

17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; 18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. 19 So Abraham returned unto his young men, and they rose up and went together to Beersheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beer-sheba.”

“A ram caught in a thicket by his horns.” The substitute is now made for the substitute. The ram is undoubtedly caught in a thicket of thorns (cf. Gen. 3:18), and it now becomes a type of Christ to supplant Isaac. “Offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son” (vs. 13). Thus it is emphasized that God Himself has to provide for the sinner in the end. What follows in verse 14 —“Jehovah-jireh”—establishes some great truths concerning sacrifices: 1. Until God becomes the sacrifice Himself, the atonement is incomplete (Heb. 10:4). 2. Until God voluntarily offers Himself, He (God) cannot accept the sacrifice (Heb. 10:5–7; Lev. 1:3). 3. All sacrifices between Genesis 3 and Matthew 27 are temporary expedients which do not fully solve the problem of atonement (Heb. 10:11). 4. God provides a “priest class” for the nation of Israel to offer sacrifices (1 Chron. 15:14–16; Exod. 28:40–43; Lev. 9). 5. But there is no priest class before Numbers 1–13 or after Acts 2 (see Matt. 27:51; Heb. 8:1, 9:24; 1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 7:7!!). 6. Melchizedek does not offer a literal sacrifice of blood, but only a “memorial” (Gen 14:18; 1 Cor.10:16–17, 11:25). 7. The entire body of born-again believers are “priests” in the New Testament, and they never offer literal sacrifices of blood. (See comments on Gen. 2:9 and 1 Pet. 2:5; Heb. 13:15–16; l Cor.10:16–17.) 8. God’s provision will be accepted by the faithful man (Rom. 10:4). 9. Therefore, the faithful man, after Acts 2, will trust God’s provision at Calvary, done once and for ever (Heb. 10:8–12, 9:24–26). 10. The faithful man, between Exodus 20 and Matthew 27, will be trusting the provision which God made at the Temple in Jerusalem. 1 1 . The unfaithful man will make provision for himself by inventing and installing a priesthood, AFTER MATTHEW 27, thereby actually rejecting God’s provision (Gal. 5:4; Rom. 10:1–3, 3:8). A man said to John R. Rice one time, “I hear you keep talking about ‘believing on Jesus to be saved.’ I want to ‘believe on Jesus,’ but I just can’t understand it. What do you mean when you say ‘believe on Jesus’? I believe on Him, I think, and I’m not saved. What do you mean when you preachers say that? Explain it!” Brother Rice sent up a Nehemiah prayer (see Neh. 2:4) and answered, “Well, I’ll tell you. It’s like this. God provides the Saviour; you provide the sinner.” (And that is about as plain as you can make it.) There is no shortage on Jesus Christ’s part. “He is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him.” The only “shortage” seems to be a shortage of sinners. They are scarce as

hen’s teeth these days. It would seem (in dealing with over 10,000 people a year) that “sinners” have suddenly become extinct. We seem to have a surplus of Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Communists, Republicans, Democrats, hippies, Black Power advocates, and church members; but “sinners” have either all died off, or they have become so respectable through science, religion, and education (the Big Three!) that one can no longer recognize them. “Jehovah-jireh...In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen.” As we have said before, this can be Mt. Zion or Mt. Calvary, and is probably the latter. “Jireh” (Hebrew “To fear or reverence” or “to be provided for” or “to be cared for”) is a Niphal passive of Raah, “to see,” and is best translated by the context of the AV 1611, which makes the provision apparent by verse 8 and verse 13. “The mount of the Lord” is usually the Temple area of Zion, and from this most commentators gather that the closing statement “it shall be seen” is a reference to the fact that the worshipers at the Temple will be seen “going up to the Mt. Zion” to worship. This interpretation, however, smacks of Graf-Wellhausenism. “As it is said to this day” is a statement by a writer who heard the proverb spoken. This would mean that if the allusion is to Temple worship (not established until Solomon’s time—1 Kings 4–7), the writer of Genesis is writing after 1000 B.C. Thus the majority of commentators (orthodox and liberal alike) stumble unwittingly over the text and pay homage to Jean Astruc, whose favorite jukebox hit was “the Pentateuch was written in the time of Josiah. ” The “it” of verse 14 (in the context in which it appears) can refer to either THE RAM or THE ALTAR or “THAT PLACE.” (Notice how the English text clears up obscurities in the LXX, which reads, “In the mount of the Lord shall appear”; the Vulgate, “In the Mount of the Lord will see”; and the fatuities of Gesenius, Rosenmuller, Keil, and Dathe, “In the mount of the Lord it shall be provided.”) The ram is dead and gone at the time that Moses (or Joshua—see Gen. 14:14) writes Genesis. The altar could still have been there, although stone altars in B.C. Palestine were a dime a dozen, and there might have been forty of them on the same mount. Or the “it” of verse 14 could be the place which Abraham called “Jehovah-jireh.” This is by far the most logical explanation. It meets all the demands of the theorizing done by the scholars and at the same time preserves the AV 1611 text intact, and as we have remarked before, this is a Bible Believer’s Commentary, not a paper and ink demonstration of man’s ability to correct the Holy Spirit. Things have picked up somewhat since Abraham dropped his knife. The boy and his daddy are kneeling by a burnt offering. The ram is paying the price till the Lamb of God shows up, and while the smoke rises to heaven (Gen. 8:20–21), the Angel of the Lord makes another covenant with Abraham. Notice the repetition of Genesis 12:1–2 and 15:5 in the promise, and the addition of “The sand which is upon the sea shore,” and “thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies” (vs.17). Abraham withheld nothing, so God gave him everything. Revelation follows substitution. The “sand” represents Israel as a nation in the land (see 1 Kings 4:20), and the remark about the “gate of his enemies” is clearly a political promise which is related to physical, earthly battles for material possessions (Gen. 27:29). At this point Garner Ted Armstrong (and Herbert W.) and the British Israelites step in and say, “The meaning of the passage is this....” (So you can scratch it right there. A man that tries to tell you what a passage means before he shows you what the rest of the Scriptures say about it is after your money.) “The meaning is, the ‘gates’ are the Suez and Panama Canals, the Straits of Gibraltar, and Singapore, and the British People (Britain, from ‘Berith’, i.e., covenant) are the true Israel,

therefore....” (Therefore, the British people lost their shirt and went bankrupt and backslid to the Beatles, or something like that!) For comment on verse 18, see Genesis 12:1–3. “So Abraham returned unto his young men...and Abraham dwelt at Beer-sheba.” The return of Abraham and Isaac is hard to imagine. Did they tell anyone through what they had been? Would anyone believe them if they had? Certainly Sarah got the whole story, and if Sarah got it, then everybody got it from Dan to Beer-sheba. Genesis 23:6 indicates that everyone for miles around had a high estimation of Abraham, so we can assume that the story got out right away. Abraham settles down now for the declining years of his life and limits his sojourning to Mamre, Hebron, and Beer-lahai-roi (see Gen. 24:62, 23:2, 19). Isaac was “offered” about 1863 B.C., and Abraham dies in 1821 B.C., about forty years after the event. Since Abraham lives to be 175 years old, by Genesis 22 over three quarters of his life is gone; it would be the equivalent of a man today being about fifty-four years old.

22:20 “And it came to pass after these things, that it was told Abraham, saying, Behold, Milcah, she hath also born children unto thy brother Nahor; 21 Huz his firstborn, and Buz his brother, and Kemuel the father of Aram, 22 And Chesed, and Hazo, and Pildash, and Jidlaph, and Bethuel. 23 And Bethuel begat Rebekah: these eight Milcah did bear to Nahor, Abraham’s brother. 24 And his concubine, whose name was Reumah, she bare also Tebah, and Gaham, and Thahash, and Maachah.”

“These eight” (vs. 23) are to be included in a total of TWELVE which Nahor had, thus making Nahor, Ishmael (Gen. 25:13–16), and Jacob patriarchs of “twelve tribes.” The rumor which gets to Abraham (vs. 20) comes from Haran, in Mesopotamia. Huz can have some connection with the “Uz” of Job 1, as it is apparent that “Buz” and Aram (Gen. 22:21) are closely connected with Elihu “the Buzite” (Job 32:2), who is said to be of “the kindred of Ram” (Hebrew—“Ram” can stand for “Aram” or “Abraham,” as far as descendants go). “Chesed” is the father of the Chasdim or Chaldees according to Jerome, but this is probably an error. Hazo (“vision or seer”), Pildash (“flame of fire”), Jidlaph (“melting away”), and Bethuel are unidentified sons, except for Bethuel who plays a leading part in Chapter 24 of Genesis. The word Bethuel means “man of God” according to Gesenius, but is more probably “dweller in God.” Bethuel is the father of Rebekah (Hebrew—“captivating” or “ensnaring”), who would be the child of Isaac’s cousin. Reumah (vs. 24) means “raised” or “elevated.” Tebah (“thick or strong”), Gaham (“blackness”), Thahash (“reddish”), and Maachah (“depression”) are the other children. The “Maachathites” of Deuteronomy 3:14 and Joshua 13:11, 13 are probably from the Maachah mentioned here. The information given here, with that given in Genesis 25:15 (Tema: Temanites), would indicate that the Book of Job was written by Elihu the Buzite almost 400 years before Moses wrote Genesis. Job 4:1 mentions Eliphaz the Temanite, and Bildad the Shuhite is mentioned in Job 18:1 and 25:1. The “Shuhite” (shortest man in the Bible!) can easily come from any “Shuah” of Genesis 38:2; 25:2, or 1 Chronicles 7:32. Furthermore, the setting of the Book of Job is plainly a “pre-Mosaic” setting. There is no discussion of the Sabbath or circumcision anywhere in the book which would be

inconceivable for a book which portrays the drama of “why the righteous suffer.” Uz is plainly an area south of the Dead Sea (see Lam. 4:21), and this would not be eighty miles from Beer-sheba (see text—Gen. 22:19). If this is true, it would mean that the basic problems of righteousness, wickedness, suffering, retaliation, false accusation, death, disease, bereavement, sorrow, integrity, comfort, revelation, and reward were all presented, explained, analyzed, put to the test, and answered more than 1400 years before the Greek philosophers inserted their inane comments into the history of the human race. Job is probably the first book ever written on this earth, and the “Book of the Dead” (supposedly compiled around 4250 B.C.) could hardly be classified with it. Notations by pictographic and ideographic symbols describing business transactions, biographies, and collections of “maxims of conduct” do not come near the fringes of the drama of Job. The Book of the Dead was actually a collection of small pieces of paper deposited in caskets and coffins with instructions to the corpse on how to navigate the great Deeps, after he left the body. To compare such scribbling with a book about which Carlyle said, “Nothing has ever been written of equal literary merit,” and about which Victor Hugo said, “This book is perhaps the greatest masterpiece of the human mind,” and about which Philip Schaff said, “Without predecessor or rival,” is just a little too much for one day. It would not be stretching the Scriptures (or geochronology) to say that the Book of Job was written as early as 1800 B.C. Job and his friends are contemporaries of Isaac and Ishmael, and Job may have been the son of Melchisedek! Shem didn’t die until Abraham married Keturah at the age of 150! (See notes on Gen 14:18.) Devotees and addicts of “wisdom” may safely trust in the material found in Job and rest assured that here they have access to a wisdom which exceeds that of Russell, Dewey, Marx, Einstein, Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche, Hegel, Spinoza, Kant, Liebnitz, and Aquinas as far as Mt. Everest exceeds a mole hill.

CHAPTER 23 23:1 “And Sarah was an hundred and seven and twenty years old: these were the years of the life of Sarah. 2 And Sarah died in Kirjath-arba; the same is Hebron in the land of Canaan: and Abraham came to mourn for Sarah, and to weep for her.”

As Rebekah’s star “rises” (Gen. 22:23), Sarah’s star “sets.” She dies at 127, around the year 1859 B.C. Sarah is the only woman in the Bible whose age is mentioned! It would seem that the Lord is as discreet about this matter as women are themselves. Women have five stages of growth: babies, children, young ladies, young ladies, and young ladies. “Kirjath-arba” is here identified as Hebron again (see notes on Gen. 13:18).

23:3 “And Abraham stood up from before his dead, and spake unto the sons of Heth, saying, 4 I am a stranger and a sojourner with you: give me a possession of a buryingplace with you, that I may bury my dead out of my sight. 5 And the children of Heth answered Abraham, saying unto him, 6 Hear us, my lord: thou art a mighty prince among us: in the choice of our sepulchres bury thy dead; none of us shall withhold from thee his sepulchre, but that thou mayest bury thy dead. 7 And Abraham stood up, and bowed himself to the people of the land, even to the children of Heth. 8 And he communed with them, saying, If it be your mind that I should bury my dead out of my sight; hear me, and intreat for me to Ephron the son of Zohar, 9 That he may give me the cave of Machpelah, which he hath, which is in the end of his field; for as much money as it is worth he shall give it me for a possession of a buryingplace amongst you. 10 And Ephron dwelt among the children of Heth: and Ephron the Hittite answered Abraham in the audience of the children of Heth, even of all that went in at the gate of his city, saying, 11 Nay, my lord, hear me: the field give I thee, and the cave that is therein, I give it thee; in the presence of the sons of my people give I it thee: bury thy dead. 12 And Abraham bowed down himself before the people of the land. 13 And he spake unto Ephron in the audience of the people of the land, saying, But if thou wilt give it, I pray thee, hear me: I will give thee money for the field; take it of me, and I will bury my dead there. 14 And Ephron answered Abraham, saying unto him, 15 My lord, hearken unto me: the land is worth four hundred shekels of silver; what is that betwixt me and thee? bury therefore thy dead. 16 And Abraham hearkened unto Ephron; and Abraham weighed to Ephron the silver, which he had named in the audience of the sons of Heth, four hundred shekels of silver, current money with the merchant.”

The transaction that now takes place between Abraham and “the sons of Heth” is according to Section 7 of the Law of Hammurabi (see comments on Gen. 14:1). The purchase here is not the one described in Acts 7:16 and Genesis 33:19 (compare carefully). There is no contradiction in the passages, except in the mind of the habitual faultfinder who generally takes a bright and positive view of the world and mankind but looks at the AV 1611 text like it was a jellyfish that washed up on the beach. The “mourning and weeping” of verse 2 is very vivid among Oriental peoples, especially the Jews (note 2 Sam. 3:31; Job 1:20, 2:12, 16:15; Luke 8:52). Abraham sits or kneels by the casket (or corpse), and after a season of praying and weeping, he “stood up” (Gen. 23:3). “The sons of Heth” are connected with the Hittites and the “daughters of Canaan” (see Gen. 27:46 and 28:1). The conversation and the transaction need very little comment. It should be noticed that Abraham will no more take a gift from the “sons of Heth” than he would from the King of Sodom (cf. Gen. 23:9, 13). Like David, he pays for his “board” as he goes (see 2 Sam. 24:24). Dummelow (One Volume Commentary —citing Kalisch) says, “Coined money was not known to the Hebrews before the Captivity, when first Persian and then Greek or Syriac currency was employed....” That is, the word “money” should not be in the AV 1611 text (vs.16)! Granted that the word “money” is in italics (proving the AV 1611 is the only honest translation on the market—the rest of them add without indicating where the additions are), Kalisch and Dummelow would both do well to observe the “pieces of silver” in Joshua 24:32. The “pieces of money” mentioned in Genesis 33:19 were involved in a transaction within 150 years of Abraham’s transaction. (According to Kalisch, “coins” were unknown to Jews until 140 B.C.) Kalisch insists that “pieces of silver” are not to be considered “money” by the fact that they are not “coins.” This is a beautiful demonstration of the modern approach to the Scripture. An outstanding commentator (Dummelow) and an “accredited authority” on Hebrew history and language (Kalisch) cannot understand fourth-grade terminology or the definition of one and two syllable English words. Rather than accept the text of the AV 1611 to be correct, they are willing to go to any extreme to get rid of the text. The “extremes” here consist of: 1. Making the word “coin” mean “money.” 2. Then proving that coins were unknown in 1849 B.C. 3. Thus proving that “money” couldn’t have been used! 4. And limiting the word “money” so that it cannot mean “pieces of silver” (Josh. 24:32). This is the type of scholarship that is represented in every commentary in print, except the one you are reading. It is no more “scholarship” than a crap game. In their spite and contempt for the AV 1611 Bible, both men forgot to look up the word “money” in a dictionary to see what it meant! (Look it up. You might get a surprise too!) In the text (Gen. 23:16), the word was “shekels” (Hebrew —shakal—“to weigh”) and clearly indicates a piece of metal of a definite weight. To say that this is not “money” or even that it is not a “coin” is ridiculous. In an English translation, what else would you call it? Did you notice how Kalisch and Dummelow had to carry “currency” in their pockets (A.D. 1800–1960) because the AV 1611 called it “current money”? Who is finding fault with whom? Abraham first addresses his requests to “the children of Heth,” but he acknowledges that the rightful owner of this title deed belongs to “Ephron the son of Zohar,” who “dwells with them” (vss. 4, 8). Ephron shows up (vs.10) or is already there (in which case Abraham is following the accepted form of courtesy in a formal appeal through “intermediaries.” See Thompson, The Land and

the Book, p. 579). The transaction, as most important business transactions, was held “at the gate of his city” (see comments on Gen. 19:1). “The sons of Heth” have offered their burial places free of charge (vs. 6), but Abraham wants a special place for some reason, and it looks dangerously like another “racial” reason; we had better leave it alone. (To those skeptical of this last statement, please observe the next chapter—Gen. 24:3!!) Ephron is as gracious as “the sons of Heth” (vs.11), but still Abraham insists on paying for his own. The dialogue between Ephron and Abraham is a sphinx. Either Ephron is giving him a bargain, which he is glad to get, or else he has exaggerated the price, knowing that at such an hour a gentleman is not going to quibble about expenses. It would seem that Ephron was the original founder of the Board of Funeral Directors! (Not to be trusted—they always “let you down!”) At verse 16, Thompson (The Land and the Book, p. 578) comes forward with some food for Kalisch and Dummelow to chew on. “Even this is still common; for although COINS have no definite name...yet every merchant carries a small apparatus by which he weighs each COIN to see that it has not been tampered with.” We may accept the AV text as inspired and the commentators as insipid.

23:17 “And the field of Ephron, which was in Machpelah, which was before Mamre, the field, and the cave which was therein, and all the trees that were in the field, that were in all the borders round about, were made sure 18 Unto Abraham for a possession in the presence of the children of Heth, before all that went in at the gate of his city. 19 And after this, Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah before Mamre; the same is Hebron in the land of Canaan. 20 And the field, and the cave that is therein, were made sure unto Abraham for a possession of a buryingplace by the sons of Heth.”

Verse 17 describes the whole piece of real estate, exactly as it is done today in the county courthouse, plot, section, etc. Isaac, Rebekah, Abraham, Jacob, and Leah are all buried here. Rachel is the only one who misses this family burial plot (see Gen. 35:19–20). Bede, Clark, Lange, Kalisch, and others solve the matter of the “contradiction” between Acts 7:15–16 and this passage (with Josh. 24:32) by assuming that Stephen, while filled with the Holy Ghost (Acts 7:55), has made a mistake. (Commentators are nice charitable people, aren’t they?) Since Stephen did not make a mistake, nor did Moses, nor did the Holy Spirit, nor did the AV translators, we conclude that Bede, Clark, Lange, and Kalisch (and others) should have stuck to teaching dead, orthodox theology and left the Bible alone. 1. One field with a cave (Machpelah) is bought by Abraham. 2. The other is “a parcel of a field” which Jacob bought from “the sons of Hamor.” 3. Abraham, Sarah, Jacob, Leah, and Rebekah were buried in the first one, and Joseph and the “12 patriarchs” (Acts 7:16) were buried in the second one. Abraham has bought two burial places, and only one of them is recorded in Genesis 23, as the purpose of Genesis 23 is to record the “putting away of Sarah” (Israel) before the “calling out of Rebekah” (the Church). Jacob has to rebuy “a parcel” of this land, as over 100 years elapse between Genesis 23 and Genesis 33:19. The reader will observe that the second burial ground costs only 100

“pieces” (see Gen. 33:19), while “the field, and cave” of Genesis 23:16–17, cost 400 pieces. So Abraham puts Sarah away “out of his sight.” It is a tragic but natural end for one of the greatest love stories ever told. Sarah and Abraham celebrated twelve wedding anniversaries after their golden anniversary, and there is no record in the Bible that either of them ever loved anyone else or that either of them desired to be free from the other. Like a Hollywood romance that lasts forever, Sarah and Abraham walk through life with a pace that this generation cannot follow. How many nights they prayed together under the stars only God knows. How many nights they enjoyed barbecued sirloin and homemade bread together only God knows. Sarah is set forth in 1 Peter 3 as the ideal Christian wife; even with her faults (Rom. 3:23), she appears as a paragon of virtue, beauty, and wisdom alongside the jaded “sex images” of Life and Look magazines. How brutal the picture is in Genesis 23:4 when a man who has loved one beautiful woman all his life has to stand up and say, “Get her out of here. I can’t look at her any more.” But the most ravishing model who ever bared her beauty before the photographer’s camera would look (and smell) so bad after lying dead two weeks, that you couldn’t stand to be in the same house with her body. “The wages of sin is death.” And not once (well, once—Enoch!) since God drew the line on man did He ever let man forget that disobedience brings death; no one gets around it. Jean Harlow, Jeannette MacDonald, Paulette Goddard, Marlene Dietrich, Joan Crawford, Hedy Lamar, Jane Russell, Marilyn Monroe, Claudette Colbert, Betty Grable, Mary Pickford, Zsa Zsa Gabor, Janet Gaynor, Bette Davis, Vivian Leigh, Loretta Young, Sophia Loren—ashes to ashes, dust to dust! “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Do you believe that yet? Sarah, as Israel, is “hid in a field” (cf. Gen. 23:17–19 and Matt. 13:44; also Deut. 31:17; Isa. 54:8; Psa.13:1; and Exod. 19:5), and with her “setting aside,” awaiting resurrection (see Ezek. 37:1– 144), Eliezer, a type of the Holy Spirit, goes out to get a “bride” for Isaac—who is clearly a type of the Lord Jesus Christ (Eph. 5).

CHAPTER 24 24:1 “Abraham was old, and well stricken in age: and the Lord had blessed Abraham in all things. 2 And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house, that ruled over all that he had, Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh: 3 And I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell: 4 But thou shalt go unto my country, and to my kindred, and take a wife unto my son Isaac. 5 And the servant said unto him, Peradventure the woman will not be willing to follow me unto this land: must I needs bring thy son again unto the land from whence thou camest? 6 And Abraham said unto him, Beware thou that thou bring not my son thither again.”

In this next chapter, the typology makes about 90 percent of the story. Isaac is a type of the Lord Jesus; Eliezer (“My God is helper”—see Rom. 8:26) is plainly a type of the Holy Ghost; and Rebekah is a picture of the Virgin Bride, “espoused...to one husband.” (Cf. 2 Cor. 11:1–3 with Gen. 24:16.) The historical details of the passage only cloud its beauty and its revelation, so at the start let us list the great truths of the courtship of Isaac (“a blind marriage,” if you can imagine it!). 1. God is selective and particular (vs. 3) and discriminates against planets and galaxies when He seeks a bride for His Son. 2. There are no “second chances” for salvation. “He ain’t comin’ heah to die no moah!” is what the sons of Ham sing, and “it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.” (Note vs. 6.) 3. God wants a clean woman for His Son—“without spot or blemish” (see vs. 16)! 4. The Bride of Christ will have “room for Him” even if there is “no room at the inn” (vs. 25). 5. The King’s business is more important than eating (cf. John 4:4–24 with Gen. 24:33). 6. The Bride gets an “earnest” of her inheritance before she ever sees the Groom (vs. 53)! GLORY! 7. The Bride goes HIS way, not HERS (vs. 61). 8. And as the evening shadows of this dispensation lengthen (vs. 63) and Christ prepares to come down into the atmosphere of this planet (vs. 63), the true Bride of Christ covers her nakedness and separates herself from the world; that means the ecumenical movement and everything connected with it (vs. 65)! While the whor* of Revelation 17 flirts with the “kings of this earth” and commits spiritual fornication with them, the true Body of Christ is “veiling herself”! The chapter, then, is a rich revelation concerning the true “Body of Christ,” the Virgin Bride of 2 Corinthians 11:1–3. Bullinger and O’Hair are greatly in error in assuming that because the Church was not revealed (Eph. 3:1–4) to the Apostles until 1 Corinthians 12 (Paul’s revelation and epistles), that this means the Church was not in existence before Acts 9 (Paul’s conversion). Also greatly mistaken are the postmillennial commentators—Matthew Henry foremost—who assume that the Bride of Christ is found everywhere in the Old Testament, and consequently, all the promises to Israel are to be transferred to the Church. Rebekah is clearly a type of the Bride, as Eve was.

1. Rebekah is a Gentile. (See comments on Gen. 10:5.) 2. She marries “the seed” which stands for Jesus Christ in the New Testament (see Gal. 3:4–17). 3. She is “called out” to leave her country and kinfolk (2 Tim. 1:9; Acts 15:14). 4. She inherits Sarah’s blessings. (Sarah is a type of Israel. See Rom. 11:1–23.) 5. She has faith to believe, without sight, that she is going to marry the right man (cf. 1 Pet. 1:8– 9)! 6. She accepts an offer made by another (see John 16:14). And she goes of her own voluntary “free will” (Gen. 24:58). 7. The items given to her while she is still engaged match the “fruits of the Holy Spirit,” as they will be manifest at the Judgment Seat of Christ. (Cf. Gen. 24:53 with 1 Cor. 3:8–12! No wood, hay, or stubble!) “Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh.” According to the Midrash and ancient Jewish expositors, this would represent the organs of regeneration. However, since it is quite apparent in reading the Midrash and the Talmud (especially the Kaballa) that the unregenerate writers have placed an undue emphasis on “sex,” this interpretation is to be rejected. According to Iben Ezra (and old Indian customs), the practice was considered to be a token of subjection. But “under the thigh” (not “between the thighs”) is not suggestive of “generation.” It is suggestive of power, and hence the Indian custom of interpreting the gesture as the homage of a subject. All commentators have failed to notice that when strong men lift elephants (and they do!), it is done by bending over, under a platform, placing the hands on cement blocks and then arching and raising the back. Six thousand pounds can be lifted in this fashion (see Paul Anderson of Toccoa, Georgia). The weight of the three tons is supported mainly on the back and legs. Under such pressure, the arms are capable of no leverage; they are merely props or “rests.” The Lord, who made the human body, recognizes this truth and comments on it in Psalm 147:10 and applies it to Jesus Christ in Song of Solomon 5:15. Abraham is making Eliezer “swear by his strength.” In this sense only is “reproduction” indicated, according to Genesis 49:3. The “strength” of the Lord God is His Son (see Psa. 20:6, 71:16, 18:1). When the Angel cripples Jacob, however, he does not cripple his seed; nonetheless, he ruins Jacob’s “strength” (Gen. 32:32). The Scriptural meaning, therefore, is clear and further comment is criticism of the Scripture. Eliezer’s gesture is taking an oath by Abraham’s strength, where his strength lies, which God has given him. “The daughters of the Canaanites.” Abraham had learned by two bitter experiences that racial nondiscrimination works only on paper. Hagar and Lot’s wife had left Abraham’s kinfolk with Arabians who would fight the descendants of Israel for 3,000 years and with other tribes (Ammon and Moab) who would make alliances with them (see Gen. 19:37–38). Verses 5 and 6 are self-explanatory.

24:7 “The Lord God of heaven, which took me from my father’s house, and from the land of my kindred, and which spake unto me, and that sware unto me, saying, Unto thy seed will I give this land; he shall send his angel before thee, and thou shalt take a wife unto my son from thence. 8 And if the woman will not be willing to follow thee, then thou shalt be clear from this my oath: only bring not my son thither again. 9 And the servant put his hand under the thigh of Abraham his master, and sware to him concerning that matter.

10 And the servant took ten camels of the camels of his master, and departed; for all the goods of his master were in his hand: and he arose, and went to Mesopotamia, unto the city of Nahor. 11 And he made his camels to kneel down without the city by a well of water at the time of the evening, even the time that women go out to draw water. 12 And he said, O Lord God of my master Abraham, I pray thee, send me good speed this day, and shew kindness unto my master Abraham. 13 Behold, I stand here by the well of water; and the daughters of the men of the city come out to draw water: 14 And let it come to pass, that the damsel to whom I shall say, Let down thy pitcher, I pray thee, that I may drink; and she shall say, Drink, and I will give thy camels drink also: let the same be she that thou hast appointed for thy servant Isaac; and thereby shall I know that thou hast shewed kindness unto my master.”

The LXX (still trying to help God out) adds, “and God of the earth” to verse 7, hoping that this will “dress up the text” and make it match verse 3. The idea in the mind of the Alexandrian scribe was that the Holy Spirit forgot to repeat the formula of verse 3 in verse 7, so with the help of “critical exegesis,” “higher grammatical-historical analysis,” “scientific methods of...etc.,” the scribe changed the text. This is not the exception to the rule; in the ASV (1901), the RSV (1952), and the next 3,000 “bibles,” it is the standing rule. To get “scientifically exegetical” about the matter, it was not “the Lord God of the earth” who took Abraham from his father’s house; it was “the God of glory” (see Acts 7:2)! Notice how the AV 1611 English bears witness to its own text, with an accuracy which is nothing short of supernatural. The greatest Greek scholars of the second and third centuries (A.D. not B.C.) who invented the “LXX” were not able to find the connections between the verses which are apparent to a sixth grader. The prospective bride is put under no compulsion to come (vs. 8), and Eliezer’s question was inserted by the Holy Spirit to confuse the thinking of men like John Calvin. The Holy Spirit enlightens (vss. 34–35) and tells the story (vss. 36–49) and offers the invitation (vs. 53), but He never makes the decision (vs. 58). The “ten camels of his master” identify the subject of the “calling out” as being a Gentile operation (see comments on Gen. 10:10). The angel who “goes before” is similar to the one in Exodus 33:15. Eliezer departs (from either Hebron or Beer-sheba) and heads up northward and then northeast. A “road map” of the trip would begin at Hebron (west of the Dead Sea) and go north through Bethel, Shechem, Jezreel, Madon, and Hazor. Arriving at Hazor (ten miles north of Galilee), Eliezer would take a northeast course which would take him through Damascus, Tadmor, Hamath, across the Euphrates, and thence to Haran, “the city of Nahor” (vs. 10). The camels—not “donkeys” as some commentators (see Canon Cheyne)—kneel down by the well, and again the believer sees the connection (John 4:2–7; Gen. 21:19). A woman in need is about to come to the well, and the inferences are absolutely certain, where they regard salvation. The avid student will not fail to note that it is “evening” both at the time of the “drawing of water” and at the time of the Bride’s homecoming—verses 11, 63. (See comments on the 7 days of Genesis 1, and the “evenings and mornings”—Gen. 2:1–3.) Eliezer stops and prays a silent prayer (vs. 45), and before he is through with the prayer, it is

answered (Isa. 65:24). He is standing (vs. 13) according to the Old Testament manner of prayer. (See comments on Gen. 14:22.)

24:15 “And it came to pass, before he had done speaking, that, behold, Rebekah came out, who was born to Bethuel, son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham’s brother, with her pitcher upon her shoulder. 16 And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up. 17 And the servant ran to meet her, and said, Let me, I pray thee, drink a little water of thy pitcher. 18 And she said, Drink, my lord: and she hasted, and let down her pitcher upon her hand, and gave him drink. 19 And when she had done giving him drink, she said, I will draw water for thy camels also, until they have done drinking. 20 And she hasted, and emptied her pitcher into the trough, and ran again unto the well to draw water, and drew for all his camels. 21 And the man wondering at her held his peace, to wit whether the Lord had made his journey prosperous or not. 22 And it came to pass, as the camels had done drinking, that the man took a golden earring of half a shekel weight, and two bracelets for her hands of ten shekels weight of gold; 23 And said, Whose daughter art thou? tell me, I pray thee: is there room in thy father’s house for us to lodge in? 24 And she said unto him, I am the daughter of Bethuel the son of Milcah, which she bare unto Nahor. 25 She said moreover unto him, We have both straw and provender enough, and room to lodge in. 26 And the man bowed down his head, and worshipped the Lord. 27 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of my master Abraham, who hath not left destitute my master of his mercy and his truth: I being in the way, the Lord led me to the house of my master’s brethren. 28 And the damsel ran, and told them of her mother’s house these things.”

Again, the LXX rushes forward to save God from a disaster and adds “in his heart” (Greek—“en ta dianoia autou”) to an otherwise perfect verse. This is obviously an interpolation from verse 45, which was done to save the Bible from “contradicting.” (Note the New Scofield Reference Bible carrying on the same kind of helpful confusion in Dan. 3:25, “one of the sons of the gods,” “like unto a son of the gods,” etc. Anything except believe the text!) If it were not for Greek “scholars,” what on earth would God do!? The Holy Spirit uses the word “Bethulah” (Hebrew root “bathal”), which normally means “virgin.” But since it allows also the interpretation of “a married woman” (see RSV perversion of Isa. 7:14), the Holy Spirit has added “neither had any man known her” (vs.16). This is the “clincher” which Mary uses in talking to the angel, in Luke 1:34, to prove that she is a virgin, in the sense of

“virgin” (Greek “Parthenos”), who is a true virgin, in the virgin sense of the word. The new “bibles” slip and slide and sprawl all over the text trying their best to slander Mary’s purity by translating, “seeing I have not a husband” (Luke 1:34). But the most gullible adult (lost or saved, believer or infidel) knows that “not having a husband” is no proof of “virginity.” The translators of the RSV thus expect their readers either to be as stupid as they are, or at least to condescend to the intellectual level of an adult moron. The word “virgin,” where it refers to a young lady in the Bible, means a woman who has never had a carnal relationship with a man. That is what Mary is until after the Birth of Jesus Christ, and that is what Rebekah is before her marriage to Isaac, and that is what the Body of Christ is—having been “cut loose from the flesh” and married to another (See Rom. 7:1–4)! Other “interpretations” are permissible in countries where there is “freedom of speech and the press.” They will not be recognized nor considered at the Judgment Bar of the Author of Scripture. God wants a clean bride for His Son, not a “dog.” Moffatt, in keeping with the best goofers of the day, wrongly translates “unmarried” in verse 16. There is no such text in existence. Rebekah’s brother is Laban, and they are both children of Nahor and Milcah. (Nahor was Abraham’s brother —see Gen. 11:27.) At this time, Rebekah would be about thirty years old, and Isaac would be about forty, depending upon the system of chronology used. Isaac would be thirty-five according to Bullinger’s System (Companion Bible, Append. 50, p. 51). We may speculate here and suppose (without doing violence to any passage in the word) that Isaac is thirty-three and one half years old. (See comments on Gen. 2:7, 2:22.) The “well” is in a hollow, and Rebekah goes down into it, fills her pitcher and returns (vs.16). Eliezer makes his request, as Jesus made His (John 4:7), and gets better results. Everywhere in the text, the reader’s attention is called to the fact that Rebekah is an energetic worker. Notice, “she hasted” (vs. 18), “and she hasted” (vs. 20), “and ran again” (vs. 20), “and the damsel ran” (vs. 28). There is nothing sophisticated about Rebekah! She is more like a German house frau than a French fashion model. “Ban,” “Lifebuoy,” and “Right Guard” don’t seem to figure in her shopping list. (Delitzsch, Kaschil, Calvin, Bleek, Gesenius, and company all miss this obvious characterization of Rebekah.) It is not every day that a man can find a woman who will run to get him a drink and then pour out enough water in a trough to refuel ten “ships of the desert.” “And the man wondering at her.” I’ll bet he did! In verse 21, we see the fickleness of human nature, or rather the persistence of logic over faith. Eliezer saw his prayer answered right before his eyes, and yet some questions still linger. 1. Is this girl single? 2. Is she from Abraham’s (Gen. 24:4) kindred or not? 3. Even if she meets these first two requirements, would she be willing to travel to Canaan for a “blind marriage”? Rebekah is not only a hard worker, she is “fair to look upon” (cf. Sarah, Gen. 12:14). This is the description of the Bride of Christ in the Song of Solomon 6:10. “As the camels had done drinking” (vs. 22) reminds us that Rebekah said she would draw water “until they have done drinking” (vs. 19). Rebekah is not only a good-looking, hard working, pure young lady, she is also a woman of her word. In short, she is the answer to a young man’s prayer for a partner, if that young man still goes by the old time ethics of the Bible instead of the “new morality” of Look magazine. “The man took a golden earring of half a shekel weight.” The word for “half a shekel” is “Bekah” (see Exod. 38:26); it is the modern equivalent of “two bits” (i.e., twenty-five cents). The

“earring” starts another uproar from the baby bleachers—the Scholar’s Union. It is insisted by nearly all that the “earring” was a “nose-ring,” like the daughters of Ham wear in Africa. The “scholarship” supporting this theory is in agreement that the Hebrew “Nezem” is a “nose jewel,” not an “earring.” (Anything but the text!!) Because the “earring” of verse 47 is placed “upon her face,” the commentators eliminate “pendants for the ears” and “jewels for the forehead.” Dummelow states quite dogmatically that the “nose-ring” was hooked into the “left nostril” (p. 31, Commentary). It looks like a real case, doesn’t it? What a pity the poor, old King James Bible, 1611, is so mistaken in its choice of words! (Now watch the Holy Spirit, in the AV 1611 text, correct the Hebrew text, the LXX text, the ASV text, and the RSV text!) Exodus 32:2 “Break off the golden earrings” (Nezem) “WHICH ARE IN THE EARS OF YOUR WIVES.” Exodus 32:3 “And all the people brake off the golden earrings” (Nezem) “WHICH WERE IN THEIR EARS.” Isaiah 3:20, 21 “The earrings” (Nezem), “The rings, AND NOSE JEWELS.” That is, where Hebrew scholars appeal to the Hebrew to correct the AV 1611 text , they are wrong 100 percent of the time. Where the Hebrew says one thing, “according to the best scholarship,” and the AV 1611 says something else, throw the Hebrew out! The fact that the “earring” here (Gen. 24:22) could mean “nose jewel” is of no consequence, for the word can mean “nose jewel” or “earring,” and in three places in the Bible, “earring” means—guess what!?—earring. (Did you notice that the bracelets of verse 22 were for her “hands”? Why not her “wrists”?) Verse 25 is beautiful in typology. Not only does Christ’s Bride maintain her purity for Him, but she makes “room” for Him in her heart (Col. 3:16 and Eph. 3:17). There was “no room at the inn” for Jesus at the Feast of Tabernacles when He was born, and there is “no more room” for Him today at Christ’s “mass” than there was 1930 years ago. In a great pagan university up in the northeast (similar to Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and Princeton), a “response test” was given by a professor in the Department of Psychology. Around 20–25 words were shot out at the students for “response.” Among them was the word “Christmas.” When the forty-odd papers were gathered up at the end of the class and examined, they revealed the following list: White Christmas, Jingle Bells, Rudolph, presents, Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, toys, ‘comes but once a year,’ Santa Claus, St. Nick, Christmas tree, etc. Not one time on forty-odd sheets of paper, written by high school graduates, did the name “Jesus Christ” appear. “Christmas” is the time for filling up the inn with revelers and fun makers, and for putting Jesus out in the stable. (Not the Roman Catholic “grotto” [cave] of Papias’ fancy.) “Room to lodge in” is the response of the sincere sinner who knows that his house is barren and empty and is in need of the Lord of life. (See John 14:23 and Rev. 3:20!) Eliezer thanks God for the results of his witnessing and continues in prayer while Rebekah runs back to the house to tell her family about the encounter. (See the Samaritan woman in John 4:28–30.)

24:29 “And Rebekah had a brother, and his name was Laban: and Laban ran out unto the man, unto the well. 30 And it came to pass, when he saw the earring and bracelets upon his sister’s hands, and when he heard the words of Rebekah his sister, saying, Thus spake the man unto me; that he

came unto the man; and, behold, he stood by the camels at the well. 31 And he said, Come in, thou blessed of the Lord; wherefore standest thou without? for I have prepared the house, and room for the camels.”

Laban (Hebrew “white”) hears the rumor first (vs. 30) and then goes out (vs. 29) and leads Eliezer to his home (vs. 31). (The order is not chronological, but in the Bible this is a common way of narrating.) To protect Laban from slander, and at the same time help the race mixers out, the commentators have arrived at the curious conclusion that “white” (Laban) is a reference to Laban’s moral character! This preposterous private interpretation is quite similar to the International Sunday School Lessons’ treatment of Moses’ father-in-law (Exod. 18). In both cases the writers approach “the nature of man” with the positive approach of Norman Vincent Peale: that is, they put the best possible construction on everything that men do, not willing to criticize them on any point. This “conspiracy” against “the mind of Christ” and the clear teaching of the Bible on man’s nature (Rom. 1–3) is quite typical of the modern approach to the Bible—eliminate what is objectionable, keep what flatters you or your fellow man. Laban is as far from being “white” in character as Hermann Goering or Lyndon Johnson. (See his history as given in Genesis 29:21, 30:27, 31:2, 31:29, 31:31—look at that last one! What are the commentators doing saying that an idolator who carried Christopher statues around with him was “white” in character?) In God’s sight the man who “justifies the wicked” (Prov. 17:15) is just as guilty as the man who “condemns the just.” They both alike are “an abomination unto the Lord.” Kalisch, being a Hebrew scholar, evidently cannot read his own scriptures, in his own language! “When he saw the earring and bracelets” (vs. 30) clearly shows what kind of man Laban is; he is a twin brother of Jacob, spiritually! (Note Gen. 45:27—“when he saw the wagons!”) Hence, Jacob and Laban offer one of the great comic reliefs in the Book of Genesis. They are like two Jewish merchants in the same city block. Neither one walks by faith, both walk by sight, both have their own interests at heart, and either one would sell the other one down the river for two percent interest. “Come in, thou blessed of the Lord!” roars Laban, trying to out shout Saul (1 Sam. 15:13), who says the same thing, substantially. “Wherefore standest thou without?” “We need members in our church like you! You’re a ‘good prospect’ if I ever laid eyes on one!” (It is amazing how “spiritual” new members are when they have “earrings and bracelets” [see James 2:1–4].) Back in “the old days” denominations and churches were divided up according to their “persuasions,” or what they “believed.” Things have changed considerably. Now denominations are divided off according to income. When a saint died and got to glory, Michael asked him what kind of a car he drove on earth. The newcomer replied, “A Cadillac.” Michael said, “Go over and sit down with the Episcopalians.” The next arrival was asked the same question. He replied, “A Pontiac.” “Go over and sit down with the Presbyterians,” Michael ordered. The third man came up. “And what kind of a car did you drive?” “A Chevrolet.” “All right,” said Michael, “go over and sit down with the Baptists.” The fourth pilgrim entered the gate and Michael asked, “And what kind of a car did you drive on earth?” The saved sinner said, “A Ford.” “Well,” said Michael, “you go over and sit down with the Christian Scientists. You just thought you had a car!” All preachers are familiar with the story about the beggar who came forward one Sunday morning to join the First Baptist Church. A deacon told him to go home “and pray about it.” After three years of prayer, still attending but unable to “join,” a deacon asked the beggar what the Lord had told him in prayer. The beggar said, “Well, He told me that if I could join it to go ahead; He had been trying to

join for thirty years and hadn’t been able to make it yet!” Laban is interested in having guests in the home, provided they bring “earrings and bracelets.” It reminds us of the bashful Southerner who idolized a dark beauty for ten years without daring to ask her for a date. After ten years, he phoned her and blurted out, “Ah, Mandy, ah’s got a house, an a deep freeze, an a TV, an a Cadillac, an lotsa’ money in de bank. An what ah wants to know is, will you all marry me?” The “high yaller” lady answered, “Well ob course I will, honey chile, but who all is dis speakin? ”

24:32 “And the man came into the house: and he ungirded his camels, and gave straw and provender for the camels, and water to wash his feet