Why does 2 Kings 8:26 say Ahaziah began to reign at 22 but 2 Chronicles 22:2 says he was 42?

Why does 2 Kings 8:26" TARGET="_blank">2 Kings 8:26 say Ahaziah began to reign at 22 but 2 Chronicles 22:2" TARGET="_blank">2 Chronicles 22:2 says he was 42?

Commentators attempt to explain this in at least half a dozen ways (see John Gill’s "Expositor"). Here are two of the better suggestions.

1. The 42 years are an ironic connection with the house of Ahab. Omri, Ahab’s father, began his dynasty in Israel about 42 years before Ahaziah was 22 (1 Kings 16:23; 15:10; 22:42;" TARGET="_blank">1 Kings 16:23; 15:10; 22:42; 2 Kings 8:17)." TARGET="_blank">2 Kings 8:17). The four sentences that follow the statement that Ahaziah was 42 (literally, "a son of 42 years") all link Judah’s King Ahaziah with Israel’s wicked house of Ahab. "Also," used twice, shows Ahaziah’s similarity to Ahab’s wickedness (2 Chronicles 22:2-5)." TARGET="_blank">2 Chronicles 22:2-5). The 42 years then make a powerful statement that the character of Ahaziah embodied the wickedness of those 42 years in Israel. However, the expression, "a son of 42 years," is nowhere else used in this way.

2. 42 is a copyist’s error and should be 22. Commentators, while upholding the inerrancy of Scripture, generally support this view. The difference between the two numbers is a difference between two similar Hebrew characters. 22 appears in some very old manuscripts of the Septuagint, Arabic, and Syraic Scriptures. In fairness, these postdate the Hebrew manuscripts and the absence of 22 in predated Hebrew manuscripts provides no evidence of an error by the scribes renowned for accuracy in copying the Scriptures. This explanation relies on an unsupported supposition.

If forced to choose, I prefer the first.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

At the Judgment of the Nations, do the condemned go directly to the Lake of Fire?

Will those who are judged in Matthew 25:41-46" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 25:41-46 appear again at the Great White Throne of Revelation 20:11" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 20:11?

Matthew 25:41-46" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 25:41-46 describes the Judgment of the Nations, which is to be distinguished from the Judgment of the Great White Throne. The Judgment of the Great White Throne takes place in eternity, after the Millennium. The wicked dead will be judged and consigned to the Lake of Fire (Revelation 20:11-15)." TARGET="_blank">Revelation 20:11-15).
The Judgment of the Nations, or Gentiles (the Greek word can mean either), takes place on earth when Christ comes to reign, as verse 31 clearly states: “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him.” If we are right in identifying it with Joel 3," TARGET="_blank">Joel 3, the location is the Valley of Jehoshaphat, outside Jerusalem (Joel 3:2)." TARGET="_blank">Joel 3:2). The nations will be judged according to their treatment of Christ's Jewish brethren during the Tribulation (Joel 3:1-2," TARGET="_blank">Joel 3:1-2, Joel 3:12-14;" TARGET="_blank">Joel 3:12-14; Matthew 25:31-46)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 25:31-46).

Does this judgment teach salvation by works? The message of the Bible is that salvation is by faith and not by works (Ephesians 2:8-9)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 2:8-9). But the Bible is just as quick to say that true faith produces good works. If there are no good works, it is an indication that the person was never saved. So we must understand that the Gentiles are not saved by befriending the Jewish remnant, but that this kindness reflects their love for the Lord.

The Scriptures do not, so far as I am aware, give us any further information about them than what is contained in Matthew 25" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 25 itself. In Matthew 25:41" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 25:41 the command is, “Depart ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels”; and then in verse 46 it is stated, “These shall go away into everlasting punishment”; both of which expressions can scarcely be understood otherwise than of the Lake of Fire.

And if they are sent from this judgment to the Lake of Fire directly, it is difficult to see why they should be brought back from it to stand before the Great White Throne; especially as that appears to be entirely a judgment of the dead, whose bodies have been in the earth or sea, and whose souls have been in hell. According to Revelation 19:20," TARGET="_blank">Revelation 19:20, the beast and the false prophet will be cast alive into the Lake of Fire at the Lord’s appearing; and therefore there would be no difficulty in assuming that these of Matthew 25" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 25 may be similarly disposed of.

W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is Sunday the Sabbath Day?

THE SABBATH AND THE LORD’S DAY

Is there any Scripture for making the first day of the week or the Lord’s Day, a Sabbath, on the ground that the Sabbath has been changed from the seventh to the first day?

None whatever; the Sabbath never was changed from the seventh to the first day of theweek by any divine revelation in the Scriptures. The two days are quite distinct. The former was the Jews’ day, and we read in the Acts that the apostles would improve the occasion, by going to the Jewish synagogues on the Sabbath to get an opportunity for testimony (Acts 13:42;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 13:42; Acts 18:4)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 18:4), and then on the first day of the week, break bread with the disciples (Acts 20" TARGET="_blank">Acts 20: .). Their idea of the Sabbath was a well earned physical rest after six days of work, but true spiritual rest they never earned. The true rest, that of the Lord’s Day—the resurrection day—is rest in Him. We begin with this rest, and then work throughout the week. The two days ran concurrently in the Acts period, but there is not a line to show that the first day of the week was a physical rest-day. Probably the reason why the early disciples broke bread at night was that they were working all day. A certain legal sect gets a great advantage over denominational Christians owing to this common, mistaken notion. Its adherents point out that God never changed the seventh to the first day, and therefore, as they are legal to the core, they enforce on all literal obedience to what is to them the greatest commandment of all— Sabbath observance. Yet they themselves do not strictly keep it as the law enjoins, but are content with an approximate obedience, as long as you join the ranks of their denomination. It is perfectly true that “God rested on the seventh day from all His works,” as recorded in Genesis 2:2," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2:2, but though God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, there is no mention that it was instituted as a rest day for man till Millenniums later, nor have we a single case recorded in the history of the antediluvian patriarchs, nor of Abraham, Isaac or Jacob, of Sabbatical observance. What we read of Sabbatical resting in Gen. 2." TARGET="_blank">Gen. 2. 2 was no doubt coincidental with creation, but Genesis was only written by Moses, toward the end of the sojourn in Egypt. The Sabbath was not formally enjoined upon Israel till the giving of the law at Sinai in Exodus 20," TARGET="_blank">Exodus 20, though shortly before, when God gave the Manna, He arranged for a double quantity to be collected on the sixth day, “in view of the rest of the holy Sabbath,” so soon to be instituted. The collecting of the manna was to go on right through the desert wanderings, so that the question was settled at the start by anticipation, how manna was to be collected for the Sabbath’s consumption, preparatory to the institution of the day, in chap. 20. Later, in chap. 31. the true import of the Sabbath is explained (verses i 3, x 6: “Verily My Sabbaths ye shall keep, for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you. . . . It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel for ever”).

The death-penalty was attached to a failure to observe it in every particular, e.g., the man found gathering sticks on the Sabbath. Nor were Israelites allowed to light a fire on the seventh day. But the Sabbath with its stringent laws was never given to the Gentile nations and still less to the church. The question as to the advantages of one day’s rest in seven is not disputed here. There can be no doubt at all that in practice some such rest is called for. Doubtless governments have a perfect right to decree such cessation from work on the pattern of the Jewish Sabbath, but that is totally different from enforcing a sort of Sunday Sabbath as a religious obligation, which is one of the pillars of Christendom under the title of “Sabbath Observance” (see Colossians 2:16)." TARGET="_blank">Colossians 2:16). What then is the Lord’s day?

It is the first day of the week, the resurrection day, on which the early disciples came together to break bread (Acts zo), and on which they were enjoined to lay by them in store as God prospered them, to avoid special collections when the apostle arrived (1 Corinthians 16:2)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 16:2). But because the day is not the Jews’ day, it is not for that “my day,” any more than any other day is “my day.” This is negative, but is there no positive enforcement? The first day is what no other is said to be: “the Lord’s day,” and though there is not a line of Scripture, known to the writer, which enjoins a legal or Sabbatical observance of the day on anyone, if it is His day, it is peculiarly fitting to regard it as such, and to avoid anything which would unnecessarily make the day common. The way we spend the Lord’s day may well be the straw which shews how the wind blows. The man who deliberately flouts the Lord’s day, flouts the Lordship of Christ, and shews the direction in which his whole life is trending.
W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Had Satan any history previous to his appearing in the Garden Of Eden?

Had Satan any history previous to his appearing in the Garden Of Eden?

or does the expression in Ezekiel 28" TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 28 —”Eden the garden of God,” mean the Garden of Eden where Adam and Eve were?

Such a thought as that Satan fell in the earthly Eden is entirely foreign to the Genesis account, where Satan is presented to us at once as the seducer of man. His fall is always considered in the Scriptures as from heaven not on earth. To rest such a theory as that Satan fell in the Eden of Genesis 2," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2, on the words, “Thou wast in Eden,” (Ezekiel 28:13)," TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 28:13), is like balancing a pyramid on its apex. The word Eden is ‘edhen (from ‘adhan, to be delighted), and simply means a place of delight. It would be like saying that when Paul was caught up into Paradise, it must have been into the garden of Eden, for the same Greek word paradeisos is used there. As there is a heavenly and an earthly paradise, we may believe there is a heavenly as well as an earthly Eden. It is noticeable that “the garden of Eden” does not necessarily mean that the garden and Eden are the same, for in ver. 8 we read, “God planted a garden in Eden”, and in ver. io, “A river went out of Eden to water the garden”; thus the two are distinguished. This garden is never called “the Garden of God”, as in Ezekiel 28:13" TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 28:13 (“In Eden, the garden of God. . . thou wast.”) The Genesis “garden” is rather the garden of man. The description of Lucifer in Ezekiel 28:12-15" TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 28:12-15 (for it is surely he) must be taken as a whole, revealing his created glories (v. 12), and the place of delight, perfectly suitable to his nature prepared for him by God. Next his covering is described. The beauty of the place seems to have been rather mineral than vegetable. He was the anointed cherub that coyered (i.e., the throne of God?). “He was in the holy Mountain of God and he walked up and down (same word and mood employed of Enoch) in the midst of the stones of fire.” All this is perfectly foreign to the earthly paradise of Genesis 2." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2. The account goes on—”Thou wast perfect in all thy ways, from the day that thou wast created till iniquity was found in thee.” The earthly “garden of Eden” was prepared by• God for man at his creation, and we have no reason to believe he was long in Eden before he fell. Is it not a fantastic theory that all that we have read in Ezekiel, beginning with “Thou was in Eden . . . till iniquity was found in thee”, must be squeezed into man’s unfallen, sojourn in the garden! We do not make ourselves responsible for speculations attributed to those who believe Satan fell long previously! to man. We do not profess to be “wise above that which is written,” but we regard the theory of Satan’s fall in the Adamic garden of Eden’ as quite untenable and as subversive of all sane scriptural interpretation.
W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

How many cups should an assembly use at the Lord's Supper?

HOW MANY CUPS?
Is it not as much a departure from the scriptural practice to use two or so cups at the Lord’s table, as it would be to use fifty-two?

Though the unity of the cup is not insisted upon in the Scriptures in the same way as that of the loaf, which in 1 Corinthians 10" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10: represents the one indivisible Body of Christ, nevertheless it is always “the cup” that is spoken of—the unique receptacle of that which represents the blood of Christ. But even in the case of the loaf, as each member present partakes, the outward unity of the loaf is not preserved. Indeed, even before that, as the brother who gives thanks, breaks the loaf, and for convenience places the portions on different plates, the figure of the unity of the body is in no way affected, as it would be were the loaf originally cut up in in bits. No more would the unity of the cup be, even though it stood on the same ground as the loaf, by being poured into different glasses or cups, for convenience of distribution. It is still “the cup,” each being filled from the one original receptacle. But by the introduction of what is called “the individual cup” for each “communicant,” the receptacles are multiplied and the identity of the wine in them is completely lost and the thought of fellowship hindered. As we practise it, though there be two or more cups, for purposes of distribution, all are filled from the original receptacle and still constitute “the cup”—the communion of the blood of Christ.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Should I buy clients alcoholic drinks through a business expense account?

My business expects me to entertain clients for meals. At times they order alcoholic drinks. I feel as though I am paying for this although it comes out of an expense account. What should I do?

As a representative of your employer, you cannot dictate what a person may order from the menu in a restaurant unless your employer has made limitations. Your abstinence and your manner of conduct can often open an opportunity to explain why you do not take alcoholic beverages. Your paying - as a representative of your employer - is not an indication that you condone the practice. If, however, your work requires you to take clients out for the express purpose of visiting bars, clubs, or places of entertainment characterized by drinking or betting, you would be well advised to request to be relieved of this responsibility or to look for another job. You cannot maintain a clear testimony with this practice. "Let ours also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that I they be not unfruitful" (Titus 3:14)." TARGET="_blank">Titus 3:14).

W. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is the purpose of marriage only to bear children?

Did God establish different roles for man and woman merely for the purpose of their bearing children?

Forming Eve (Genesis 2:22)" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2:22) was God's climactic act in creation. This anticipates giving Christ His Bride (John 17:24;" TARGET="_blank">John 17:24; Ephesians 5:32)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:32). Nothing is dearer to the heart of the Son. No work of the Godhead will ever surpass this. Differing roles not only enable procreation, but also display the relation of Christ to His Church. Also, the headship of man over woman parallels the headship of Christ over man (1 Corinthians 11:3)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:3). Since this relates to the eventual subjection of all things to God (1 Corinthians 15:28)," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 15:28), the roles of man and woman express very precious truths. We do well to cherish and uphold these in an unbelieving world.

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

What do the phrases

What is the meaning of Isaiah 33:14" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 33:14?

Most Gospel preachers use it in warning the unsaved but some Bible students hold differently.

I have heard an attempt to interpret “the devouring fire,” and “everlasting burnings,” as God’s burning love, on the ground that the words in v. 15, “He that walketh righteously, etc.,” are an answer to the question of the hypocrites, but it is not an answer at all and the interpretation is purely fantastic. “He that walketh righteously,” etc., describes those who will not dwell “with everlasting burnings,” but “on high” as in v. x6. Why should the sinners in Zion be afraid or the hyprocrites surprised with fearfulness, if they are intended to understand that all that awaits them is the eternal enjoyment of the love of God? No, they get a glimpse of the terrors of a lost eternity and of what awaits them if they pursue their path. It is to call darkness light and light darkness to make V. 14 mean something good and pleasant. I should think only Bible students of the shallowest “Universalist” type could extract such a meaning from the passage. Certainly let evangelists continue to use it as a warning to the ungodly, for that is its legitimate use.

The word “‘akal”—here translated “devouring”—_means literally “to eat,” and is constantly used of devouring or consuming in judgment (Numbers 21: 28;" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 21: 28; Isaiah 24: 6;" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 24: 6; Isaiah 29:6)." TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 29:6). The word for “burnings” is from “yaqad”—and is used in Deuteronomy 32:22;" TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 32:22; “and shall burn to the lowest hell,” see also Isaiah 10:16" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 10:16 and Isaiah 65:5;" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 65:5; Jeremiah 15:4" TARGET="_blank">Jeremiah 15:4 and Jeremiah 17:4." TARGET="_blank">Jeremiah 17:4. It is also used of the burnings of the fire on the altar (Levticus 6:9, 12, 13).

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Does 1 Timothy suggest a paid pastor position?

Does 1 Timothy 5:17," TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 5:17, 18 suggest a paid pastorate?

A few obvious details in 1 Timothy make it clear that neither Timothy nor any Ephesian elder was the paid pastor. No New Testament passage supports such a practice, no matter how convenient or prevalent it may be.

All the overseers in Ephesus, where Timothy was, were to assist in teaching the saints (1 Timothy 3:2)." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:2). Paul had taught these men to labor with their hands in doing their work with the flock (Acts 20:34, 35)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:34, 35). In addition, in 1 Timothy 5:17," TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 5:17, Paul is not speaking about one man, but about "elders that rule well." These elders received honor for the responsibility entrusted to them. They were also to be honored in another way. The law taught that an ox was allowed to eat in order to satisfy the necessity (his hunger) caused by his work. Thus, elders that ruled well were to receive financial assistance in cases where their labors caused them to lack the necessities of life. This is quite different from a contractual arrangement where one man is paid to do the preaching.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

How can an assembly deal with damaging rumors about an assembly believer?

How can an assembly deal with damaging rumors about an assembly believer?

Apart from a personal confession, the Old Testament principle of "two or three witnesses" (Deuteronomy 17:6)" TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 17:6) applies in all assembly matters. An assembly can't act on rumors.

"Two or three witnesses" does not include two or three stories about similar incidents. Each incident must have "two or three witness" to receive consideration. In the case of drunkenness, for instance, elders would need to verify sufficient incidences of this kind before guiding the assembly to put away the individual.

In the case of serious but unsupported rumors, the assembly can take no action. The overseers would help the individual by visiting him and helping him to understand that he is responsible for the appearance of wrongdoing in his life (Romans 12:17" TARGET="_blank">Romans 12:17b). If anything he is doing contributes to these rumors, even though the rumors are not accurate, he would be wise, safe, and godly to make changes so that no one would even consider repeating such obvious lies.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu