Question 99: Whence came the Queen of Sheba?

Answer:

It is supposed by well-informed authorities that she came from Yemen, in Arabia Felix. In Matthew 12:42 she is referred to as the "Queen of the South," who came from "the uttermost parts of the earth," a term applied by the ancients to southern Arabia. Not improbably she was a lineal descendant of Abraham by Keturah whose grandson Sheba, peopled that part of the then known world. The Arabic account of this queen gives her the name of Bilkis or Yelkamah, a monarch of the Himyerites; but their account is probably more legendary than accurate as to detail.

Question 98: What was the width of the Red Sea at the point where Israel crossed?

Answer:

It is generally held by a majority of writers and travellers that the passage was made at Ras Atakah Point, about six miles south of Suez and opposite the southern end of Jebel Atakah. At Ras Atakah, the land runs out in the form of a promontory for fully a mile into the sea beyond the regular shore line. Beyond this, there is a shoal for nearly a mile more, over which the water at low tide is usually about fourteen feet deep. Beyond this and before the true channel or centre is reached, there are two other comparative shoals; the channel itself is somewhere about fifty feet deep and three-quarters of a mile wide. There is another succession of shoals on the eastern shore. The distance from shore to shore is about five and a half miles.

Question 97: What figure is conveyed by the words “Rachel weeping for her children”?

Answer:

The passage in Matthew 2:18 relates to the Babylonian captivity. Rachel, the wife of Jacob and mother of Joseph and Benjamin, is figuratively represented as rising from the tomb and lamenting over the loss of her children. Raman in Benjamin was a scene of pillage and massacre in Jeremiah's time (see Jeremiah 31:15) and hence is chosen by the prophet in his figurative scene of lamentation.

Frequently asked questions and answers

Question 96: Who wrote the Books of Proverbs and Psalms?

Answer:

Some ancient authorities, rabbis and others attribute the book to Solomon; others hold that it has a composite origin and is the work of a number of writers. The ablest modern critics hold the latter opinion. It is probable that Solomon was the author of the portion beginning with the first verse of the tenth chapter and ending with the sixteenth verse of the twenty-second chapter. As we learn from the first verse of the twenty-fifth chapter, the collection of proverbs extending to the end of the twenty-ninth chapter was also attributed to him, but was not compiled until 250 years after his death. The remainder of the book appears to be composed of six portions by different hands at different periods. One of these is the introduction, which occupies the first nine chapters. This was probably written by the man, who compiled the whole book, but whose name is unknown. The Book of Psalms (which is the Psalter of the Hebrews) has many authors, the principal one being David. Some are attributed to Hezekiah, Josiah and Zerubbabel, two (the 72d and 127th) to Solomon, several to the Levites and the Asaphites, one at least to Jeduthun, eleven to the sons of Korah, one to Ethan (Psalm 89), while many are of uncertain authorship. Moses is given by tradition as the author of Psalm 90, being the only contribution of which his authorship is reasonably certain. The Psalms cover a period of a thousand years. They were composed at different remote periods, by various poets; David, the most prolific contributor, being' indicated as the author of seventy-three Psalms in the Hebrew text and eleven in the Septuagint.

Question 95: Who were the Philistines?

Answer:

Their origin is nowhere expressly stated in the Bible; but since the prophets describe them as "the Philistines from Caphtor" (Amos 9:7) and "the remnant of the maritime district of Caphtor" (Jeremiah 47:4), it is probable that they were the "Caphtorim which came out of Caphtor" and who expelled the Avim from their lands and occupied them (Deuteronomy 2:23) and that they were the Caphtorim mentioned in the Mosaic genealogical table among the descendants of Mizraim. There is equal authority for believing Caphtor to have been the island of Cyprus, or a land somewhere between Egypt and Ethiopia or a part of Northern Egypt Some have claimed that Caphtor and the modern island of Crete are identical; but the best authorities do not agree with this conclusion.

Question 94: If YHVH “hardened” Pharaoh’s heart, was it possible for him to do otherwise than he did?

Answer:

The true interpretation is that the divine message of warning and the plagues which followed were the occasion of Pharaoh's heart being hardened. Thus, the expression which has been translated as "hardened" is in Hebrew, "strong," implying that the influence of the events had been to make the king's heart stubborn or rebellious. (See Exodus 7:13, 14, 8:19 and 9:35.) Elsewhere in the same narrative the Hebrew expression is capable of being translated "made heavy" (as in Exodus 7:14 and 8:15 and 32, also Exodus 9:34). The passage in Exodus 7:23, which may be rendered as in the Authorized Version and also as "he (Pharaoh) set his heart even to this," expresses the condition of Egypt's ruler, who had set his face like a flint against Jehovah and was alternately depressed and defiant, but not repentant.

Question 93: What is meant by “I will harden Pharaoh’s heart?

Answer:

This expression in Exodus 7:3 has been a stumbling-block to many. There is a point reached by those who have long persisted in wicked courses which is known as judicial blindness, a point at which - YHVH's restraining spirit being withdrawn - they become unable to distinguish right from wrong or good from evil. They grow hardened and morally incorrigible. (See Mark 3:5; Romans 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:14; Ephesians 4:18.) Under such circumstances, the offender turns even blessings into sin by abusing them and unless overtaken by some great adversity, continues in his course, blind to consequences. This was doubtless the case with Pharaoh. Egypt had sinned deeply and so long as its rulers were unchecked by some stronger power, they would continue to sin. Pharaoh, long accustomed to the abuse of power, steeled himself against all sense of justice arid mercy and this the "permissive act of providence" allowed, in order that the culminating punishment should be the more severe. In other words, Pharaoh was permitted to go on in his sin, in order that his fate might be made an awful example to the whole world.

Question 92: Was Pharaoh drowned in the Red Sea?

Answer:

All the evidence is against the theory that he was drowned in the Red Sea. Some very interesting information, furnishing striking confirmation of the Bible narrative, has recently been obtained, by deciphering the inscriptions on ancient Egyptian monuments. From these it appears that the Pharaoh who "refused to let the people go" was named Menephthah. He was the youngest son of the great Pharaoh Rameses II, the Pharaoh who oppressed the Hebrews and ordered the killing of the male infants and whose death is mentioned in Exodus 2:23. Menephthah was an old man, at least sixty when he came to the throne and was constitutionally timid and feeble. He joined with him in the government his brilliant son Seti, a young man resembling in person and character his grandfather, the great Rameses. Seti was virtually king though his father Menephthah, was king in name. The Bible alludes to Seti as "the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on the throne" (Exodus 12:29). This young man's tomb has been found and a record of his achievements, showing him to have been a great general and administrator. But his name does not appear in the list of the Pharaohs and the inscription on his tomb shows that he never became king, but died suddenly, while still only a prince. The Bible tells us how he died. It was on the night when the angel slew the firstborn. Menephthah, as we know by the Bible narrative, pursued the Hebrews. He had no son now to take command as on former occasions. He was then an old man eighty-two years of age. What more likely than that, when he saw the Israelites descend into the Red Sea, he should send on his army and stay behind himself, not caring at his age and at night, to undertake so perilous a journey. The Egyptian records state that once before, on the eve of battle, when he should have led his army, the old man had a convenient vision, ordering him not to enter the battle but to give the command to his son. He doubtless excused himself on this occasion and so saved his life. A parallel case of a father and son reigning simultaneously is found in Belshazzar who, though exercising kingly functions does not appear on the list of kings. He was associated in government with his father Nabonidus and, like Seti in Egypt, died before his father.

Frequently asked questions and answers:

Question 91: Were the patriarchs really as old as the Bible record states?

Answer:

Some of the "higher critics" claim that the ancient calendar of the antediluvians made the year really a month or lunar period. Others, with somewhat more reason, assert that a year was a season of growth equal to three of our months. Hensler and Hufeland, two German authorities, claim that the patriarchal year was three months until Abraham's time, eight months until Joseph's time and thereafter twelve months. One eminent Bible scholar has pointed out that if we accept the monthly year theory, Mahalalel’s sixty-five years before the birth of his son Jared would make him a parent at five years and three months of our reckoning; Enoch would be the same age when his son Methuselah was born and the ages of the other patriarchs at the birth of their children would be equally preposterous. Of course, such conclusions absolutely condemn the monthly year theory. Conditions among the antediluvians were totally different from those after the Flood. There had been no rain and the sun and planets were not visible; in the moist atmosphere, growth was greatly stimulated and all natural conditions tended to animal and vegetable longevity, precisely as the Bible indicates. Besides, as that period produced animal types of giant proportions, created for strength and endurance, the analogy of nature would seem to demand that man should bear some harmonious proportion to his surroundings. Genesis 6 clearly implies this. Age and stature, not only human but otherwise, became greatly diminished after the Flood.

"If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?"

Mt 10