International Bible Teaching Ministries
Specific Old Testament Verses Explained
Question 1: Would you explain Proverbs 16:4?
ANSWER: The idea is that God has made everything suitable to His own purpose, even an "evil day" suitable to the divinely appointed end of the wicked who disobey Him!
Question 2: Would you explain Proverbs 31:6-7?
ANSWER: Solomon is not here authorizing strong drink generally. He has reference only to strong drink used to mercifully dull the senses of criminals who were being tortured or put to death. This type of drink was offered to Christ while on the cross (Matthew 27:34). It is significant that He refused to drink of it!
Question 3: In Genesis 10:31, it was written "after their tongues" (more than one tongue), but in Genesis 11:1 it was written that the "whole earth was of one tongue." Is this a contradiction from the compiler/translator? Or from whom?
ANSWER: There is no contradiction! The genealogy listed in Genesis 10:21-31 encompasses a period of time both before and after the "division" of Chapter eleven. Note in Genesis 10:25 that one of the two sons born to Eber was Peleg (a name which means division), "for in his days was the earth divided." The genealogy of Chapter ten begins with Shem and goes through Peleg (who lived during the "division") and then transfers to his brother Joktan and his sons. The genealogy beginning in Genesis 11:10 also begins with Shem and goes through Peleg, and then continues on through his son Reu, showing the ancestral path leading up to Abraham. Clearly, Shem lived before the "division," Peleg lived during the "division" and Peleg's son and posterity through Abraham lived after the "division." As surely as Peleg's son (Chapter 11) lived after the "division," Joktans son's (Chapter 10) also lived after the "division," as shown in Verse 31! Hence, just as the genealogy of Chapter eleven, covers a period of time before and after the "division," so it is with the genealogy of Chapter ten. There is, therefore, no contradiction between Genesis 10:31 and Genesis 11:1.
Question 4: Who are the sons of God in Genesis 6:2? Are they angels? Would you please explain Verses 1 through 4?
ANSWER: Some have, in error, suggested that the phrase “sons of God” in Genesis Six refers to angels, but this is not the case! The common meaning of this phrase in those days meant “worshipers or beneficiaries of God.” The phrase then is applied to both men and angels, depending upon the context of the passage under consideration. Without question angels as worshipers and beneficiaries of God are referred to in the Book of Job. However, such is not the case in Genesis Six. The phrase "sons of God" in this passage refers to those men who "walked with God;" those who worshiped Him and conducted themselves as His children, thereby being recipients of His blessings. The same is said of Christians today (I John 3:1). The "daughters of men" refers to those women not counted among His children. The passage in question states simply that men who previously followed God took wives of women who did not follow God.
The suggestion that Genesis Six refers to angels cannot be valid for the additional following reasons:
1) The inspired writers of the Bible nowhere promote the idea that angels could or would enter into a marriage with a human being. In fact, at least by implication, the very notion is rendered foolish in Matthew 22:30 which states that heavenly beings are not given in marriage!
2) Angels are spiritual beings and as such cannot be subject to physical passions as would be found in physical man having been aroused sexually by an attractive female. The very idea is preposterous!
3) The penalty for this sin was not imposed upon angels, but was imposed upon man. If the sinners were angels, then it is the case that they would have been recipients of the punishment. Since the penalty was placed upon men, it becomes clear that men (not angels) were the sinners.
4) It is a biblical truth the every seed brings forth after its own kind (Genesis 1:11). That which was produced by the union of Genesis 6:2 were men. Therefore, the seed that produced men must necessarily have come from men, not angels.
5) Some would suggest that it took angels to produce the “giants” spoken of in Genesis 6:4. However, a word study of the word “giant” in this context soon dispels the thought. The original Hebrew word is “nephalim” from Nephal, which means, “he fell.” The translators of the Septuagint translated the Hebrew “nephalim” as “gigantes” in the Greek which simply meant “earth-born.” The English translators then translated “gigantes” as “giants.” However, the original idea is not that these men were of huge size and stature, but rather that they were of the earth and had fallen away from God; that they were “men of renown” (heroes) because they were known for their wicked and ungodly deeds. They were not heroes in the sense that they performed courageous acts on the side of good and right! They had a reputation, but that reputation was of their evil activities! Without doubt, men of this same character exist even today!
The meaning of “contend” or “strive” as found in Verse three is from a Hebrew word, which means, “to judge.” God’s Spirit was clearly striving with man at this time by operating through His Word to instruct, reprove, and to judge. In this verse, He is simply saying that a time will come when that will no longer be the case. In fact, the verse is teaching that God, not willing that any should perish (II Peter 3:9), would delay this judgment for one hundred and twenty more years. It was during this time that the Ark was built and during which Christ preached through the person of Noah to the disobedient of that day (Hebrews 11:7; I Peter 3:19-20). At the end of that period with their rejection of God’s Word, the flood came and destroyed all flesh from off the earth, with the exception of Noah and his family (Genesis 7:21-24).
Question 5: What does Psalm 37:25 mean?
ANSWER: The passage reads: "I have been young and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread." This scripture is beautifully explained in Matthew 6:24-33. Verse thirty-three is the summarizing passage: "But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness; and all these things (food, drink, and clothing) shall be added unto you." The teaching is not that these things will miraculously appear in front of us, but God will providentially aid the faithful in procuring the necessities to sustain life!
Question 6: To whom does Psalms 119:19 refer?
ANSWER: Most scholars agree that David was the inspired author of this psalm. In Verse nineteen he confesses that he is a stranger to this world and prays that his eyes would be opened to God's Word so that he might behold the wondrous things of the world to come. This is what the Hebrews writer discusses in Chapter 11:13-14 as he writes about the faith of certain men and women who lived under the Old testament: "These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a better country."
Question 7: Could you shed more light on II Samuel 24:1 versus I Chronicles 21:1?
ANSWER: I reckon that the question is, “Who moved David to number the people, God or Satan?” The answer is Satan! The implication of the verses is that God permitted Satan to provoke David to number the people.
Question 8: Could you shed more light on Genesis 6:3 versus Genesis 9:29?
ANSWER: In Genesis 6:3, God is saying that man had one hundred twenty years left on the earth before He would destroy it by water. Genesis 9:29 says that Noah (not being destroyed in the flood) lived nine hundred fifty years.
Question 9: Would you explain Genesis 3:22?
ANSWER: The meaning of Genesis 3:22 is better expressed as “Behold, what has become of man who was as one of us” or literally, “Behold the man was as one of us.” The tense of the Hebrew does not permit the verb “is come.” The sense then is, ‘he was like Us in purity and holiness, but because of sin he has fallen.’
Question 10: What is the difference between II Kings 8:26 and II Chronicles 22:2?
ANSWER: There are different thoughts and suggestions about what appears to be a discrepancy between these two verses. Some believe that since numbers in Hebrew appear very much alike that in translating from translations going back as far as the original document (which is not now available) that a translator or a copyist simply made an error. We must remember that we are reading from a translation (not the original). Some scholars, however, believe that a copyist’s error does not exist, that Ahaziah was admitted to co-regency at twenty-two and continued in that office for twenty years, after which he became the sole monarch at forty-two, reigning in that capacity in Jerusalem for one year.
Question 11: What is the difference between I Chronicles 21:5 and II Samuel 24:9?
ANSWER: The difference of the three hundred thousand men of Israel is accounted for by those already enlisted in the royal service (I Chronicles 27). The difference of the thirty thousand men of Judah is accounted for by that number stationed on the Philistine frontier (II Samuel 6:1).
Question 12: What is the difference between II Kings 24:8 and II Chronicles 36:9?
ANSWER: Jehoiachin was taken into partnership with his father at age eight and began to reign on his own at age eighteen. Being trained by his father, he followed in the evil ways that he had taught.
Question 13: In II Samuel 24:13 and I Chronicles 21:11-12 we have differing numbers. Which is correct?
ANSWER: There is clearly a copyist’s error involved. In I Chronicles 21:12, the number is three, not seven, as we find in II Samuel 24:13. The Septuagint records three, the same as in Chronicles, so this is no doubt the true reading, the Hebrew letter zayin (z) SEVEN, being mistaken for the Hebrew letter gimel (g), THREE. A mistake of this kind might be easily made from the similarity of the letters.
Question 14: In II Chronicles 36:9 and II Kings 24:8 we have differing numbers. Which is correct?
ANSWER: In II Kings 24:8 it says that Jehoiachin was eighteen years of age. In II Chronicle 36:9, he is said to be only eight years of age, but this must be a copyist’s mistake; for we find that, having reigned only three months, he was carried captive to Babylon, and there he had wives; and it is very improbable that a child between eight and nine years of age could have wives; and of such a tender age, it can scarcely be said that, as a king, he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord. The place in Chronicles must be corrupted by either translators or copyists.
Question 15: In II Samuel 10:18 and I Chronicles 19:18 we have differing numbers. Which is correct?
ANSWER: In II Samuel 10:18, we have the figure of seven hundred chariots, but in the parallel place, II Chronicles 19:18, it is said, David slew of the Syrians SEVEN THOUSAND men, which fought in chariots. It is difficult to ascertain the right number in this and similar places. It is very probable that, in former times, the Jews expressed, as they often do now, their numbers, not by words at full length, but by numeral letters; and, as many of the letters bear a great similarity to each other, mistakes might easily creep in when the numeral letters came to be expressed by words at full length. This alone will account for the many mistakes that we find in the numbers in these books, and renders a mistake here very probable. The Hebrew letter zayin (z), with a dot above, stands for seven thousand, the Hebrew letter nun (n) for seven hundred: the great similarity of these letters might easily cause the one to be mistaken for the other, and so produce an error in this place.
Question 16: In I Kings 7:26 and II Chronicles 4:5 we have differing numbers. Which is correct?
ANSWER: In II Chronicles 4:5, we have the figure of three thousand baths, while in 1 Kings 7:26, we read two thousand baths. Since this book was written after the Babylonian captivity, it is very possible that reference is here made to the Babylonian bath, which might have been less than the Jewish. We have already seen that the cubit of Moses, or of the ancient Hebrews, was longer than the Babylonian by one palm. It might be the same with the measures of capacity; so that two thousand of the ancient Jewish baths might have been equal to three thousand of those used after the captivity. The Targum, a Hebrew translation, solves the problem by saying "It received three thousand baths of dry measure, and held two thousand of liquid measure."
Question 17: In II Chronicles 9:25 and I Kings 4:26 we have differing numbers. Which is correct?
ANSWER: In I Kings 4:26, we read the number of forty thousand stalls, while in II Chronicles 9:25, instead of forty thousand stalls, we read four thousand; and even this number might be quite sufficient to hold horses for twelve thousand horsemen; for stalls and stables may be here mean the same thing. In I Kings 10:26 it is said he had one thousand four hundred chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; and this is the reading in II Chronicles 1:14. In II Chronicles 9:25, already quoted, instead of forty thousand stalls for horses, the Septuagint has “tessares chiliades theleiai hippoi,” four thousand mares; and in this place the whole verse is omitted both by the Syriac and Arabic translations. In the Targum of Rabbi Joseph, a Jewish translation on this book, we have “arba meah,” four hundred, instead of the four thousand in Chronicles, and the forty thousand in the text. From a comparison of parallel places we may be satisfied that there is a corruption in the numbers somewhere; and as a sort of medium, we may take for the correct answer to be four thousand stalls, one thousand four hundred chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
Question 18: How many people went down into Egypt (Genesis 46:27; Deuteronomy 10:22; Acts 7:14)?
ANSWER: Genesis 46:27 says that the number of souls was sixty-six, besides Jacob’s sons’ wives. Verse twenty-seven says all that came into Egypt were seventy, while Acts 7:14 says that there were seventy-five. There is a remarkable addition here in the Septuagint (Greek), which must be noticed: "These were the sons of Manasseh whom his Syrian concubine bore unto him: Machir, and Machir begat Galaad. The sons of Ephraim, Manasseh's brother, were Sutalaam and Taam; and the sons of Sutalaam, Edem." These add five persons (Machir, Galaad, Sutalaam, Taam, and Edem) to the list, and make out the number given by Stephen, Acts 7:14, which it seems he had taken from the text of the Septuagint. The addition in the Septuagint is not found in either the Hebrew or the Samaritan at present; and some suppose that it was taken either from Numbers 26:29,35, or I Chronicles 7:14-20, but in none of these places does the addition appear as it stands in the Septuagint, though some of the names are found interspersed.
If to the sixty-six children of Genesis 46:27, and grandchildren, and great grandchildren, we add Jacob himself, Joseph and his two sons, the amount is seventy, the whole amount of Jacob's family which settled in Egypt.
In this statement of sixty-six, the wives of Jacob's sons, who formed part of the household, are omitted; but they amounted to nine, for of the twelve wives of the twelve sons of Jacob, Judah's wife was dead, Genesis 38:12, and Simeon's also, as we may collect from his youngest son Shaul by a Canaanitess, Genesis 46:10, and Joseph's wife was already in Egypt. These nine wives, therefore, added to the sixty-six, give seventy-five souls the whole amount of Jacob's household that went down with him to Egypt, critically corresponding with the statement in the New Testament, that ‘Joseph sent for his father Jacob and all his kindred, amounting to seventy-five souls.’
Question 19: Can the Medium or the Spiritist bring back the spirit of the dead (I Samuel 28:3-17)? Was a demon only impersonating Samuel?
ANSWER: No! So called Mediums and Spiritists are fakers and have no such powers. The woman in I Samuel 28 apparently had gone through her fake and phony ritual, but notice carefully that even she did not expect Samuel to appear, because she knew that she did not have that kind of power. Samuel, however, actually appeared as is attested to by what he said to Saul in Verses 15-19 by way of prophecy that came to pass. Samuel’s appearance was a miracle performed by God on this occasion. It was neither of the woman, nor of any other power!
Question 20: In Deuteronomy, Chapter 34, how did God bury Moses?
ANSWER: There has been much speculation about the burial of Moses. Some would suggest that Moses was translated into heaven as was Elijah, but there is no scriptural evidence for this notion. Deuteronomy 34:6 states that “He (God) buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Beth-peor.” The fact is clear as to who buried him and where he was buried. This is all we can really know. The method He used is only speculation, but since God’s messengers (angels) were often employed to carry out God’s will upon the earth (Genesis 16:7; Genesis 22:11; Exodus 23:20-23; Numbers 22:22; Judges 6:11; II Samuel 16-17; I Kings 19:5, et al), it would seem likely that they would, as well, be employed to carry out the will of God in the burial of Moses’ body!
Question 21: In the account of God’s creation (Genesis 1:21-25) the phrase, “according to their kinds” is used. What does this phrase mean?
ANSWER: This phrase indicates that like always produces like and, therefore, that the "kinds" or “species” are firmly set and fixed. There is, according to this biblical phrase, no overlapping between the species. This God-inspired phrase clearly refutes the evolutionary theory that one species is being developed (or has been developed) through a series of sub-species that are often referred to as “missing links,” of which the fossil record is deadly silent!
Question 22: Is the word “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14 a proper translation?
ANSWER: Yes, it is! The Hebrew word “almah” refers to a young woman of marriageable age and may be properly translated as “maid,” “damsel,” or “virgin,” as in, both, Isaiah 7:14 and Genesis 24:43. Not only is such proper and possible, the use of the word “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14 is insisted upon by God in Matthew 1:23, as the apostle sets forth the fulfillment of the prophecy, i.e., a “virgin shall be with child.” One who argues for the translation “young woman” in Isaiah 7:14 argues with the Holy Spirit in the meaning and context of Matthew 1 & Luke 1! The Holy Spirit did not use the Hebrew word “bethulah,” which is restricted to the definition of “virgin” because of the need to refer to one of marriageable age in the present context, as well as to one in the future context in whom (Mary) the yet to be virgin-born Christ would be borne.