The Bible Translated

The Bible Translated

TO CHRISTIANS THE Bible is a divine revelation, written by holy men of old, who wrote as they were moved by the Spirit of God. (II Pet. 1:21) However, it was not originally given in the convenient form in which it is now possessed by millions throughout all parts of the earth. Neither were the original copies of the Bible written in the English language.
The ancient Hebrew language, in which the Old Testament portion of the Bible was written, is now the official language of Israel, while the language used in Greece today somewhat compares with that which was used in the original writings of the New Testament.
All modern versions of the Bible are translations. Today, it seems, a new translation of the Bible appears every few years. Ever since the Revised Version, published in 1884, appeared with corrected errors of the authorized King James Version, which is so widely used in the Christian world, many new versions came upon the scene. About the same time, (1872 — 1st edition; 1902 — 3rd edition) Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible was published. Ferrar Fenton’s, “The Holy Bible in Modern English,” issued in 1903, was republished with slight modifications several times into the 1940’s.
In 1939, The Complete Bible, an American translation by Goodspeed and Smith also known as The Goodspeed Bible became available. The original Revised Version was revised in 1901, and became known as the American Standard Version. The copyright to this 1901 ASV Bible was procured by the National Council of Churches of Christ in the 1920’s, and they began a revision to the ASV in 1946, publishing the Revised Standard Version in 1952. This work, conducted by a committee of many scholars, received wide publicity because it was sponsored by the Federal Council of Churches of the USA.

New translations of the Bible did not end there. A list of the more notable ones follows:
- New Testament in Modern English, (1958), J.B. Phillips
- Berkley Version, (1959)
- Amplified Bible, (1965), by the Lockman Foundation
- Jerusalem Bible, (1966), Roman Catholic translation in French at the Ecole Biblique et Archeologique in Jerusalem
- New Testament: A New Translation, (1968), William Barclay
- New English Bible, (1970). Scholars from England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, in cooperation with Cambridge and Oxford Universities
- New American Bible, (1970), by Catholic scholars and the first departure from the Latin Vulgate
- New American Standard, (1971), by the Lockman Foundation
- Living Bible, (1974), K.N. Taylor<197>paraphrase of the ASV
- Today’s English Version, (1976), also known as the Good News Bible, sponsored by the American Bible Society
- New International Version, (1978), sponsored by the New York Bible Society using worldwide scholars, each book of the Bible assigned to a team of scholars
- New King James Version, (1982), sponsored by the International Trust for Bible Studies and Thomas Nelson Bible Publishers using 119 scholars
- Revised English Bible, (1989). Updating and revising of New English Bible
- New Revised Standard Version, (1994), Revision of Revised Standard Version

With so many translations of the Bible becoming available, many people wonder what they should do with their old Bible, which in most cases is the authorized King James Version, and whether or not the new translations are of great importance to them.
When the highly publicized Revised Standard Version was published in 1952, many Protestant and other Fundamentalists were opposed to it. The opposition on the part of some was very bitter, manifesting itself in public burnings of the new translation. In many quarters it was condemned as a work of the Devil. Such opposition continues to many of the succeeding translations that have appeared.
It is well to realize that no translation of the Bible is perfect. Our own observation to date is that where vital doctrines of the divine plan are not involved, these new translations frequently state the thought more clearly than does the King James Version. However, the new translations are not always entirely trustworthy. This can be ascertained by consulting reliable Greek and Hebrew concordances of the Bible.

CHANGED MEANING OF WORDS

When the Revised Standard Version of the Bible was issued, the publishers called special attention to the changed meaning of many English words since the King James Version was first published. This is true, and the use of modern English in the new version helps to clarify some texts. For example, the King James Version translates Psalm 119:147: “I prevented the dawning of the morning, and cried: I hoped in thy Word.” The Revised Standard Version of this text reads, “I rise before dawn and cry for help; I hope in thy words.” Obviously, this is more correct, for David could not very well `prevent’ the `dawning of the morning’. In Old English the word prevent meant `to precede’, so it was a correct translation when first used.
Another English word which has greatly changed in meaning is hell. Originally it meant `to cover’, or `conceal’. In Scotland burying potatoes in the ground for the winter was referred to as `helling’ the potatoes. Putting a thatched roof on a cottage was `helling’ the cottage. Now, through misuse, hell usually suggests fire and torment. In the new translation, this word is not used to translate sheol of the Old Testament and hades of the New Testament. Instead, these words are usually left untranslated. This is a step in the right direction, but the student of the Bible would have been much better informed on the state of the dead had sheol and hades in every instance been properly and uniformly translated.
In Matthew 16:18, the King James Version translates hades by the English word hell, in the expression “the gates of hell.” Here the Revised Standard Version translates hades by the word “death” the expression reading, “the powers of death.” This is better than the word `hell’, with its modern meaning, but it still leaves the student to determine what `death’ might be. Probably the best translation of sheol and hades would have been “oblivion.” This, indeed, is the Bible’s own definition of sheol, as given in Ecclesiastes 9:10.
In the King James Version, Matthew 6:34 reads, “Take therefore no thought for the morrow.” The Revised Standard Version gives a more correct thought. It reads, “Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow.”
In some texts which deal with God’s great plan of redemption and restoration, the Revised Standard Version is not as accurate as the King James Version. Acts 3:21 is an example. Here the King James Version uses the word `restitution’, which is an equivalent of the Greek word which it translates. The text is part of the Apostle Peter’s sermon in which he explains that following the second coming of Christ there would be “times of restitution of all things.”
The Revised Standard Version uses the word `establishing’ instead of `restitution’, omitting the prefix `re’, which is definitely contained in the Greek text. By this omission the reader is not made to realize that what is to be established as a result of Christ’s return had previously existed, particularly life and man’s lost dominion over the earth. Matt. 25:34

HOW WE GOT OUR BIBLE

The story of how the Bible reached us in its present form is a very interesting one. The first copies were handwritten, and in manuscript form — not in book form at all. These manuscript copies of the Bible were exceedingly scarce in the days of the Early Church. Not all the individual members of those early congregations possessed them. It was not until the year A.D. 120 that the books of the New Testament, as we know them, were complete and available for use, but even then they were very scarce.
Seemingly larger congregations of Early Christians possessed manuscript copies of at least parts of the Bible. There were some manuscripts of the Old Testament in the Hebrew language, and some which had been translated from the Hebrew into the Greek language. This Greek translation of the Old Testament was known as the Septuagint Version.
Besides, there were copies of the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the various apostolic epistles, and the Book of Revelation<197>all in manuscript form. These have reached us by a long and complex chain of circumstances, including the hand copying of manuscripts and translating, both of which were often done under most trying conditions.
The early translators were usually persecuted — sometimes even unto death — not by the worldly, but by their contemporary religionists, who often took the viewpoint, as one of the early translators expressed it — that “ignorance is holiness.” The bitter opposition manifested by some against the Revised Standard Version of the Bible indicates that human nature has not changed much since those early days.
One of the first English versions of the Bible was translated by John Wycliffe about the year 1367, although no part of it was printed before the year 1731. Concerning the death of Wycliffe, one of the church writers at the time said:
“On the feast of the passion of St. Thomas of Canterbury, John Wycliffe, the organ of the devil, the enemy of the church, the idol of hypocrites, the restorer of schisms, the storehouse of lies, the sink of flattery, being struck by the horrible judgment of God, was seized with palsy throughout his whole body.”
Wycliffe was referred to by another writer as “that pestilent wretch, the son of the old serpent, the forerunner of Antichrist.” He was evidently himself keenly aware of the opposition that would be aroused by his translation of the Bible, and in the preface had the following inscribed:
“God grant us, to ken and to kepe well Holie Writ, and to suffer joiefulli some paine for it at the laste.”
The first book to be printed was the Bible. It was published by Mr. Gutenberg, the inventor of moveable type for the printing press. This was in 1455 or 1456. It was in Latin, and bound in two volumes.
Then in 1526 came Tyndale’s English Version of the Bible — the first English translation to be printed. The language of Tyndale’s translation was essentially the same as that in our Common, or King James Version. Tyndale, even as former translators of the Bible, was persecuted by the orthodox church of his day.
In order to complete his task he was forced to leave England, and he became an exile in Germany. But it was this, in the providence of God, that put him in touch with the printing press. This resulted later in large quantities of his printed Bible being smuggled into England contrary to the decree of the church, and distributed among the people. It was in the year 1524 that Tyndale left his native land, never to see it again, and as the historian states:
“At Hamburg, in poverty and distress, and amid constant danger, the brave-hearted exile worked on his translation, and so diligently that the following year we find him at Cologne with sheets of his quarto New Testament already in the printer’s hands.”
It was difficult enough to stop the circulation of the Wycliffe Bible, when it required months to finish a single copy. But what could be done about Tyndale’s translation? These books were pouring into the country in great numbers because they were coming off the printing press at the rate of a hundred a day, and at a price within the reach of many.
The Bishop of London hit upon what he thought was an excellent plan to put a stop to this plague. He contacted a man by the name of Augustine Pakington, a merchant trading between England and Antwerp, and asked what he thought of the possibility of buying up all of Tyndale’s copies of the Bible, bringing them to England, and burning them. Pakington was a friend of Tyndale’s and sympathetic with what he was doing, so he quickly agreed with the bishop, saying:
“My lord, if it be your pleasure, I could do in this matter probably more than any merchant in England, so if it be your lordship’s pleasure to pay for them — for I must disburse money for them — I will insure you to have every book that remains unsold.” The bishop agreed to this, thinking, as one humorous writer of the time said, “that he hadde God by the toe, whenne in truthe he hadde, as after he thought, the devyl by the fiste.”
What happened is this: Tyndale accepted the offer, charged a good price for the Bibles he had on hand, and with the money paid his debts and then published a much larger and better edition. Hence the bishop’s plan acted as a boomerang, and Tyndale’s Bible continued to pour into England.
Poverty, distress, and misrepresentations were Tyndale’s constant lot. Prison and death were ever staring him in the face. Finally, in October 1536 he was strangled at the stake and then burned to ashes, fervently praying with his last words, “LORD, open the King of England’s eyes.”
After this, various translations appear such as the Coverdale Bible, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, and others. There was also published in 1568 the Bishops’ Bible. And then, in January 1604, at a conference of bishops and clergymen held in the drawing rooms of Hampton Court Palace, the first suggestions were made which led to the revision of versions then in use. This, in turn, led to our authorized King James Version, in 1611.
To prepare this translation, forty-seven learned men from Oxford, Cambridge, and London were selected as impartially as possible from high churchmen and Puritans, as well as from those who represented scholarship totally unconnected with any party. King James I authorized that the cooperation of every Bible scholar of note in the entire kingdom should be secured. Excellent rules were adopted to govern the work of translating. Never before had such labor and care been expended upon translating the English Bible. The language of the King James Version follows closely the pattern of that used by Tyndale in his translation. Revised and improved by a committee of such excellent scholars, it has stood the test of more than three hundred years of popular use.
Since the publishing of the King James Version of the Bible, many other translations have appeared for the use of students. In addition to the first official revision of the King James Version starting in 1881 in both England and the USA, we have seen such translations<197>in addition to those mentioned earlier<197>as Weymouth, Moffatt, Wilson’s Emphatic Diaglott, as well as study Bibles such as Scofield’s, and the Thompson Chain Reference Bible. All of these have their merits, but none of them is any more than a translation. All translations thus far made have one thing in common, which is that they reflect more or less the theological viewpoints of their translators.

MANUSCRIPTS

Probably the greatest weakness of the King James Version is the fact that when it was translated only eight manuscripts were available from which the work could be done — the oldest one dating back only to the tenth century. Since then, many hundreds of manuscripts have come to light, some of them dating back as early as the fourth century, and a few even back to the second century.
This fact has been given a great deal of publicity in connection with the new Protestant translation of the Bible. Some have the idea that these newer manuscripts have only been recently discovered; but this is not true. Many students of the Bible have known of the older manuscripts, and for years have been taking advantage of the more accurate presentation of God’s Word which they afford.
The original writings of the Bible are all lost, therefore manuscripts now available are merely copies, usually copies of copies, many times removed. The value of a manuscript for critical textual examination depends largely upon its age. The oldest manuscripts, and therefore tending to be the most valuable, are written in printed-style (pre-uncial) letters, in the style of the original writings of the Bible. They contain no punctuation, and they show no division between words.
The Old Testament was divided into chapters, as they now stand, by Cardinal Hugo, in the middle of the thirteenth century. These chapters were divided into verses, as we now have them, by Rabbi Nathan and adopted by Robert Stevens, an English printer, in his edition of the Vulgate, in 1555. The chapter and verse divisions in the New Testament, likewise were done in 1551, long centuries after the original manuscripts were written.
Punctuation was not used in the original writings of the Bible, nor does it appear in the oldest of the manuscripts, as punctuation was not generally used until the end of the fifteenth century. It is important to keep this fact in mind when we study any English translation of the Bible, and to remember that the punctuation is not a part of the inspired record.
Generally speaking, the punctuation of all the English versions of the Bible is very good, but at times it has helped to confuse the meaning of the text. The accompanying lines in Greek are the words of Jesus to the thief on the cross (Luke 23:43), as they appeared from the pen of the original recorder:
When punctuation was introduced into this statement — which in the King James Version says: “Verily I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with me in paradise,” the misplacement of the comma makes it appear that Jesus expected to be in Paradise with the thief on the very day he died. But, by placing the comma where it should be, in harmony with what the Master really meant, Jesus’ words simply emphasized that the promise he was making to the thief was made on a day when, from the human standpoint, it seemed impossible that it could be fulfilled: “Verily I say unto thee this day, with me shalt thou be in Paradise.” — Luke 23:43, Rotherham Translation
It is well also to remember that all the manuscript copies of the Bible were written by hand, and that each additional copy of these copies, when needed, also had to be written by hand, letter by letter, at a great expense of time and trouble. And very often, also at some expense of the original correctness. Careful though the scribe might be, it was well nigh impossible to keep from making mistakes. One letter could be mistaken for another. If the manuscript were read to the scribe he might confound two words of similar sound. Remarks and explanations written in the margin might, sometimes, in transcribing, be inserted into the text.
In these, and various other ways, errors might creep into the copy of the manuscript. Naturally these errors would be repeated by the copyist. To these, at times, would be added other errors of his own. It is evident, as copies increased, that errors would also be liable to increase. Therefore, as a general rule, the earlier the manuscript the more nearly correct it is likely to be.
Even in the case of the printed Bible, errors are liable to occur, as all acquainted with the publishing business are painfully aware. And this despite every precaution and care in the preparation of copy by proofreaders and editors with years of training and experience. For example, in an edition of the Bible published in 1653, I Corinthians 6:9 reads: “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God?” In an old version known as the Printer’s Bible, Psalm 119:161 reads, “Printers have persecuted me without a cause.”

THREE OLDEST MANUSCRIPTS

The three oldest known nearly-complete (major) manuscripts of the New Testament available for use today are those designated the Sinaitic, the Vatican 1209 (3rd century), and the Alexandrian (5th century). The Sinaitic and the Vatican 1209, were written about the same time. The Sinaitic, however, is complete. The Vatican has a number of omissions, including the entire Book of Revelation. The Sinaitic manuscript is so named from the place it was found in a convent at the foot of Mt. Sinai. It was discovered by the great German scholar, Dr. Tischendorf, in 1859.
The Alexandrian manuscript is the latest of the three, has a good text from Acts to Revelation but is also incomplete. The original of this manuscript can be seen at the British Museum, but copies which exactly represent it are kept in many of the principal public libraries. The Arabic inscription on the first sheet states that it was written by the hand of “Thekla the Martyr.” Much of the New Testament is also covered by ancient papyrus manuscripts from a century or more earlier. These generally support Sinaitic and Vatican 1209.
Dr. Tischendorf, who naturally was interested in making a careful comparison of the Sinaitic manuscript with the King James Version, has made available a long list of additions and alterations appearing in the King James Standard Version translation which do not appear in this old manuscript. Careful students of the Bible will wish to be on guard against the unscriptural teachings fostered by these obviously uninspired additions to the sacred text.
On an accompanying page we present an abbreviated list of interpolations. Many have found it helpful to strike out these interpolations in their own Bibles, so that when they read the sacred Word they will not be reading thoughts that have been injected into it by man.
To take proper notice of these spurious passages which were added through the centuries is not in the category of `higher criticism’. It is merely using sanctified common sense, with the aid of concordances and old manuscripts now available, to discover as nearly as possible the purity of God’s inspired Word. Higher criticism, on the contrary, is a deliberate decision on the part of the worldly-wise that the historical records of the Bible, its prophecies and its miracles, are but legendary, and at best allegorical tales by which lessons in morality and righteousness are taught.

INTERPOLATIONS, AND WHY

From the list of spurious passages, sentences, and words compiled by Dr. Tischendorf, based on his careful and analytical study of the Sinaitic manuscript, we have selected for comment what seem to be the most important from the standpoint of the effect they have upon the teachings of the Bible as a whole. In each case we have offered a brief suggestion as to how the interpolation changes the meaning of the text. In some cases we have suggested a possible reason why the copyist who made the addition may have thought it desirable.
These selections follow, and the spurious text, or portion of text, is shown in bold-face type at the beginning of the paragraph, followed immediately by our own observations. To save space, we have not quoted the entire passage in which these interpolations appear. We strongly recommend, however, that the reader look up these passages in his own Bible, which will most likely be the King James Version, and study it in connection with the observations suggested.

Matthew 6:13 — “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.” These words which were added to our Lord’s Prayer make it contradictory. It would be useless to pray for God’s kingdom to come if the divine rule is already fully operative in the earth. At the time these uninspired words were added to the Lord’s Prayer, it was the general belief that Christ’s kingdom was ruling through the church-state systems of Europe, hence this effort to make the Bible support the claim.

Matthew 16:2 — “When it is evening, ye say, it will be fair weather: for the sky is red.” This is merely a tradition, having no foundation in fact. The use of such a statement in the inspired Word tends to discount the authority of the whole Book in the minds of reasoning people.

Matthew 16:3 — “And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?” This entire verse is spurious. Note suggestion immediately foregoing.

Matthew 17:21 — “and fasting.” That this is spurious is evident from the fact that Jesus cast out the devil to which reference is made without being prepared by a season of fasting.

Matthew 25:6 — “cometh.” To announce that the Bridegroom is coming is contrary to the prophecies which show that none would know in advance the time of his arrival. With the spurious word `cometh’ out of the text, the statement reads, “Behold the Bridegroom,” which indicates a recognition that Christ has already returned and is present.

Mark 4:37 — “so that it [the ship] was now full.” This is obviously an enthusiastic exaggeration of a copyist, for no ship could be `full’ of water without being awash, which evidently was not the case.

Mark 7:14 — “unto me every one of you,” This was evidently added by a copyist who had the erroneous idea that Jesus did all he could to convert everyone, which is not in keeping with the Master’s teachings. Jesus did not expect everyone to understand at that time. Indeed, he often spoke in parables so they could not understand. The time for the general enlightenment of the world is yet future.

Mark 10:30 — “houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions;” Verses 29 and 30, without these added words, contain a wonderful promise to Christians, assuring them of abundant compensating blessings of a spiritual kind in this life for every sacrifice they make, and in the world to come, eternal life. But no Christian has ever received a hundred houses in return for a house he may have sacrificed in the LORD’s service. Material blessings are not promised to the Christian, and such statements as this tend to discredit the reasonableness of the Bible.

Mark 16:9-20 — All these verses are spurious. Christians are not promised protection from harm resulting from snake bites and drinking poison, as in the 18th verse that says: “They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them.” This, like many other interpolations, tends to make the Bible seem unreasonable.

Luke 16:16 — “and every man presseth into it.” It is not true that `every man presseth into’ the kingdom. On the contrary, the privileges of the kingdom are available only to “a little flock” (Luke 12:32) during this Gospel Age. The addition to the inspired text was evidently made by a copyist who held the view that the divine plan for this age is the conversion of the entire world.

Luke 22:68 — “me, nor let me go.” These added words give the thought that Jesus was attempting to put up a defense that would result in acquittal, but this was not the case. Jesus knew that he was to die as man’s Redeemer, and that his hour for the supreme sacrifice had come, so he was not asking to be set free.

Luke 23:34 — “Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” Some copyist added these words with the evident thought of revealing the Master’s benevolence toward his enemies, but actually they are not in harmony with the known facts. Whatever Jesus requested of the Heavenly Father would be granted. But those who crucified him were not forgiven. It was a national sin for which they have suffered severely.

John 3:13 — “which is in heaven.” Jesus, the Son of Man, was not in heaven at the time of his dialogue with Nicodemus. Whoever added these spurious words may have believed that Jesus was God himself, and in some mysterious way could be on earth and in heaven at the same time.

John 4:9 — “for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.<170> These words are historically incorrect, as is indicated by Luke 9:52.

John 5:3,4 — From the word “waiting” in the third verse, through verse four. These words reflect superstitions which played such an important role in the religious lives of professed Christians during the Dark Ages.
John 5:25 — “and now is,” Soon after the apostles fell asleep in death the church began to lose sight of the real hope of the resurrection. The heathen doctrine of immediate survival after death — which, in professed Christian circles became the doctrine of inherent immortality — made void the necessity of a resurrection of the dead. The addition of the words “and now is” to this text is intended to convey the thought that Jesus’ promise of the resurrection is fulfilled in some mysterious way when one hears the call of truth and becomes a Christian. Thus not only is the real meaning of this promise voided, but the text is made to contradict itself, because the resurrection could not be `coming’ and `now is’ at the same time.

John 8:1-11 — All these verses are spurious. A very interesting story, but evidently merely legendary.

John 21:25 — This entire verse is also spurious. Obviously no one could say enough in three and one-half years — the length of Jesus’ ministry — to fill so many books that the world would not hold them. Passages like this help to discredit the Bible, regardless of what its friends had in mind when adding them.

Acts 15:32 — “and confirmed them.” These words, descriptive of a traditional ordinance, may have been added in an attempt to justify a practice not otherwise authorized in the Bible.

Romans 8:26 — “for us” These two little words may seem like a harmless addition to this text, but when we analyze the passage we find that by their use the Holy Spirit, or power of God, is made to appear as a person who intercedes at the throne of grace on behalf of Christians, with groanings which cannot be uttered. By omitting these added words, we get the real meaning of the text. It is the Christian’s own spirit, which oftentimes, for the lack of adequate words to express himself, approaches God in the attitude of prayer.

I Corinthians 6:20 — “and in your spirit, which are God’s.” An evident attempt to bolster the erroneous theory which was introduced into the church during the Dark Ages that the `spirit’ is an entity separate and distinct from the body.

Ephesians 5:30 — “of his flesh, and of his bones.” The body of Christ glorified, of which Christians are prospective members, is not a fleshly body, as these words tend to indicate.

I Timothy 3:16 — “God” The addition of the word `God’ in this text represents another effort to prove that Jesus and God are one and the same person. The personality discussed in this text is Christ Jesus, who is introduced in verse 13. According to the Greek text, the word “who” should be used instead of `God’.
I Peter 2:5 — the second usage of the word “spiritual.” The sacrifices offered by Christians are their earthly rights and privileges. They are promised a spiritual reward, but are not asked to sacrifice spiritual things.

I John 3:16 — “of God” These words were supplied by the translators and are not in any Greek text. This is another effort to have the Bible prove that God and Jesus are the same. God did not lay down his life for us, but the Son of God did.

I John 5:7 — “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” These words were added in an effort to prove the Trinitarian doctrine. It is the only expression in the King James Version of the Bible that in any way suggests a triune God, but it is spurious, so should not be accepted as part of the inspired Word.

I John 5:8 — “And there are three that bear witness in earth.” Having added the above noted words in verse 7, the copyist evidently felt it necessary to add these words to verse 8 to make the entire passage seem more complete and reasonable.

Revelation 20:5 — “But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.” These words were added at a time when the church claimed to be fulfilling scriptural promises concerning the thousand-year reign of Christ. The dead were not being raised during this pseudo-millennium, so it was convenient to make the inspired record teach that the resurrection should not be expected until the close of the thousand years.

Revelation 21:24 — “of them which are saved.” The copyist who added these words had evidently lost sight of the divine promises to bless all the nations of the earth. While the Scriptures do not teach the universal salvation of all individuals, yet all the families of the earth are to have an opportunity to be blessed during the kingdom reign of Christ, which fact these added words tend to annul.

THE OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES

There is not much that need be said analytically concerning the Old Testament manuscripts. It is rather surprising to realize that the earliest Hebrew manuscripts in existence, of most of the Old Testament, do not date back earlier than about the 9th century A.D. Within recent years, however, manuscripts of the Book of Isaiah and parts of others have been discovered which date back to the first and second centuries before Christ. This general lack of early Hebrew manuscripts is less important than it might seem.
As far as can be learned, there appears to have been a gradual, though a not too critical revision of the Palestine manuscripts going on almost continually from the days of Ezra. History indicates that from the Dispersion, this process of Hebrew manuscript revision ceased. At that early date, the Hebrew Old Testament was made as nearly correct as the best scholarship of the Jewish academies could make it. After this, the older manuscripts gradually disappeared. The manuscript of the Book of Isaiah, recently discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls, is nearly identical with those from which our English versions of the Bible have been translated.
While it is true that the existing Hebrew Masoretic manuscripts are not very old, yet much dependence can be placed upon them, owing to the great reverence the Jewish scribes held for the Word of God, and their consequent carefulness in transcribing. It is said that these scribes were so scrupulous that even if a manifest error appeared in the copy from which they were transcribing they would not change the text, but would write an explanatory note in the margin, giving the proper thought.
It is claimed, also, that even if one letter were larger than another, or a word running beyond the line, or other irregularity, they would copy it exactly as found. Another important factor which enters into the accuracy of the Old Testament is that in the recensions more than one person was occupied in making the copies. One scribe copied the consonants; another inserted the vowels, points, and accents, in fainter ink; a third revised the copy; and a fourth wrote in the Masorah.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

This, briefly, is the story of the Bible as it has come to us from earliest times, all the way to the King James Translation — and now to the most modern translations. All the details have not been presented, as the story would have been too long. But our hope is that the question, how our Bible has reached us, has been answered comprehensively enough to increase our enthusiasm for its use, and to cause its influence to be more effectual in our lives.
Equally important to the purity of the Bible, in obtaining the most exact and best translation and separating from it the interpolations of men and mistranslations, is an understanding of the message of the divine plan which it presents. Of great assistance to this end are the availability today of Hebrew and Greek concordances listing every word in the Bible, together with the meaning of the Hebrew or Greek term from which it is translated.
Likewise, we believe that it is due time for God’s Word to be better understood. Therefore, there have been other valuable helps provided by God. Most important among these is the book, “The Divine Plan of the Ages.” It is the first volume of a series of six entitled, “Studies in the Scriptures.” Thousands have been helped to a better understanding of the harmony of the Bible through the use of these wonderful volumes, and we commend them to every thoughtful person interested in the study of God’s precious and inspired Word.

INTERPOLATIONS

The following list of interpolations is taken from notes by Professor C. Tischendorf, based on theSinaitic Manuscript which he discovered at the foot of Mount Sinai. There are many others, but those contained in this list seem to be the only ones which materially change the meaning of the texts in which they appear. Although some have contested the exclusion of these, individuals have deemed it wise to delete these from their Bible:

Matthew 5:22 — without a cause
Matthew 6:13 — For thine is the Kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
Matthew 6:25 — or what ye shall drink
Matthew 16:2 — When it is evening, ye say, it will be fair weather: for the sky is red.
Matthew 16:3 — This entire verse.
Matthew 17:21 — and fasting
Matthew 18:12 — into the mountains
Matthew 20:7 — and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive
Matthew 22:13 — and take him away
Matthew 23:35 — son of Barachias
Matthew 24:10 — and shall hate one another
Matthew 24:31 — sound of a
Matthew 24:41 — women shall be
Matthew 25:6 – cometh
Matthew 27:52 — and the graves were opened
Matthew 27:53 — and went
Matthew 28:19 — therefore
Mark 4:37 — so that it was now full
Mark 6:51 — beyond measure, and wondered
Mark 7:8 — For . . . as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do
Mark 7:14 — unto me every one of you
Mark 9:24 — with tears
Mark 9:29 — and fasting
Mark 9:44 — This entire verse.
Mark 9:45 — into the fire that never shall be quenched
Mark 9:46 — This entire verse.
Mark 9:47 — fire
Mark 9:49 — and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt
Mark 10:24 — for them that trust in riches
Mark 10:30 — houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions
Mark 14:30 — twice
Mark 14:68 — and the cock crew
Mark 14:72 — the second time, twice
Mark 16:9-20 — All these verses.
Luke 2:40 — in spirit
Luke 8:45 — and sayest thou, Who touched me?
Luke 16:16 — and every man presseth into it
Luke 17:12 — which stood afar off
Luke 17:35 — women
Luke 18:11 — with himself
Luke 22:43 — This entire verse
Luke 22:44 — This entire verse.
Luke 22:68 — me, nor let me go
Luke 23:5 — teaching
Luke 23:34 — Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do
Luke 24:42 — and of an honeycomb
John 1:25 — asked him, and
John 3:13 — which is in heaven
John 4:9 — for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans
John 5:3 — waiting for the moving of the water
John 5:4 — This entire verse.
John 5:25 — and now is
John 8:1-11 — All these verses.
John 8:59 — going through the midst of them, and so passed by
John 16:16 — because I go to the Father
John 19:23 — and also his coat
John 21:25 — This entire verse.
Acts 6:3 — Holy Ghost and should read: spirit of
Acts 6:8 — faith should read: grace
Acts 8:37 — This entire verse.
Acts 9:31 — churches should read: church
Acts 15:32 — and confirmed them
Acts 18:5 — pressed in the spirit should read: earnestly occupied with the Word
Acts 18:21 — I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but
Romans 3:22 — and upon all
Romans 6:12 — it in
Romans 7:6 — that being dead should read: being dead to that
Romans 8:26 — for us
Romans 11:6 — But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work
Romans 14:6 — and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it
I Corinthians 2:1 — testimony should read: mystery
I Corinthians 6:20 — and in your spirit, which are God’s
I Corinthians 7:5 — fasting and
I Corinthians 10:28 — for the earth is the LORD’s, and the fulness thereof
I Corinthians 15:24 — cometh
Galatians 3:1 — that ye should not obey the truth
Galatians 3:17 — in Christ
Galatians 5:19 — adultery
Galatians 5:21 — murders
Ephesians 5:9 — Spirit should read: light
Ephesians 5:30 — of his flesh, and of his bones
II Thessalonians 2:9 — Even him
I Timothy 3:16 — God should read: who
I Timothy 4:12 — in spirit
I Timothy 6:5 — from such withdraw thyself
II Timothy 3:3 — without natural affection
Hebrews 12:18 — mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire
should read: fire that might be touched and burned
Hebrews 12:20– or thrust through with a dart
I Peter 2:5 — spiritual (before the word sacrifices)
I Peter 3:8 — courteous should read: humble
II Peter 1:1 — God and should read: our Lord and>
I John 3:16 — of God
I John 5:7 — in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one
I John 5:8 — And there are three that bear witness in earth
I John 5:13 — and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God
Revelation 1:17 — unto me, Fear not
Revelation 2:22 — their should read: her
Revelation 5:3 — neither under the earth
Revelation 6:2 — to conquer should read: he conquered
Revelation 9:4 — neither any green thing
Revelation 9:13 — the four horns of
Revelation 10:6 — and the sea, and the things which are therein
Revelation 11:17 — and art to come
Revelation 12:12 — inhabiters of (before the sea)
Revelation 14:5 — before the throne of God
Revelation 14:12 — here are they
Revelation 16:5 — and shalt be should read: the holy
Revelation 16:7 — another out of
Revelation 16:11 — and their sores of their deeds
Revelation16:17 — from the throne
Revelation 18:22 — whatsoever craft he be and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee
Revelation 20:5 — But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished
Revelation 21:24 — of them which are saved and honor
Revelation 21:26 — and honor
Revelation 22:3 — more

Michal. King Davids wife.

This very interesting account of the life of Michal written from the pure Jewish historical perspective.

This week we began to look at Michal, the daughter of Shaul. This woman was both the daughter of King Shaul and the wife of King David, and so she was a key figure in both monarchies.

Today we went through the events in Tanach which involved Michal, with a straightforward reading of sections from Shemuel I and Shemuel II.

Michal’s First Mention
Michal is first mentioned, along with her older sister Merav, in Shemuel I 14. This mention occurs immediately after Shaul conquered certain local enemies, strengthening his position and that of the Jewish people in the region. The verses there enumerate Shaul’s children, and Merav and Michal are included. This, itself, is interesting - the Torah and Prophets rarely enumerate daughters, opting instead to mentions the [predominantly male] names of households. However, Merav and Michal played significant historical roles, and this may be why they are mentioned in Shemuel I 14.

Michal’s Marriage to David
In Shemuel I 15, Shaul was ordered by Shemuel to wage war against Amalek, and to wipe them out. Shaul failed to do so, leaving King Agag alive. [Agag was then able to impregnate a woman before Shemuel killed him, and that woman's child was the ancestor of Haman, who tried to destroy the Jewish people in the Purim story.]
Shemuel rebuked Shaul for this misstep, and ultimately stripped his monarchy from him. HaShem sent Shemuel to annoint David, although David wouldn’t officially take the throne for some time. Shaul fell into a deep depression, and his servants recommended that David be brought to play for him and gladden him.
David became famous when he defeated Goliath in war, and this fame led Shaul to become jealous of David. Shaul offered his elder daughter, Merav, to David. Shaul also wanted to make David into a general, and Tanach informs us that Shaul hoped that the Philistines would kill David in war. [As Phyllis pointed out, King David himself would use this strategy later, to have a rival killed.]

When Shaul offered Merav, David demurred; he said he was unfit to be a king’s son-in-law. Merav married someone else, but Michal fell in love with David. Shaul then attempted to marry her to David, only to meet with the same refusal. King Shaul told David that there would be no need for payment from David; he would only have to prove his valor by battling the Philistines. Specifically, David was told to bring 100 foreskins of Philistines to Shaul. David and his men returned with 200 foreskins, and David married Michal.

David Flees
As David’s fame grew, so did Shaul’s enmity. Finally, Shaul ordered a squadron of men to come to David’s house in the morning, and kill him. Michal learned of the plot, and lowered David out the window. She set up a dummy in his bed, to stall for time. Finally, when Shaul’s men tried to take “David” from his bed, they discovered that they had been tricked. David got away, and went on the run.

King Shaul gave Michal to another man, Palti ben Layish, as a wife. We will have to look at the legal state of her marriage to David next week, to ascertain what happened here. It is clear within Midrash that Palti did not actually live with her as a spouse, though.

Michal is Reunited with King David
King Shaul died in battle with the Plishtim. After his death, a group followed his son, Ishboshes. This group included one of Shaul’s generals, a man named Avner. Avner ultimately had a falling-out with Ishboshes (Shemuel II 3), and sent a message to King David that he would serve King David. King David agreed to a truce, on condition that Avner would turn over Michal. King David then sent a message to Ishboshes, officially requesting that Michal be returned to him; Ishboshes did so.

Michal’s Rebuke
Further along (Shemuel II 5), King David battled the Philistines and was victorious. After this, he sought to bring the Ark, which contained the Two Tablets from Sinai, back to the heart of the Jewish people. Fifty years earlier, the Philistines had taken the Ark from the Jews in war. They had returned it shortly thereafter, to the people of Kiryat Yearim, where it had remained until now. King David wanted to bring it to Yerushalayim.

On bringing the Ark back, King David brought offerings and danced wildly before the Ark (Shemuel II 6), wearing a skirt-like tunic. Michal saw this, and was ashamed of him. When King David returned to their home, she said sarcastically, “How honored is the king of Israel today! He was revealed before the maids of slaves today, like some vagrant!” King David responded, “I danced before Gd, Who chose me over your father and over your father’s whole household, making me the leader of all of the Jews!” King David continued to tell her that this was appropriate behavior, for the occasion.

Tanach tells us that Michal would not have children from that day on, until her death.

Clearly, there is a lot to learn about here.

Michal: Personal Information
We began by mentioning a few personal facts regarding Michal.

The name, “Michal,” appears once in Tanach as a noun (Shemuel II 17:20). In that verse, it refers to a stream of water. Michal also had another name, “Eglah,” which refers to a female calf. The sages have given a few reasons for this name. One reason (Rashi Shemuel II 3:5) is that this actually referred to her status as King David’s most beloved wife; “Eglah” was an expression of affection. Later we’ll see some more reasons given for this name.

The Gemara in Megillah (15a) mentions that Michal was extraordinarily beautiful; even looking at her face would make a man want to leave his own wife, for her.

Michal in the Middle
Our introduction to the relationship between the future King David and Michal also introduces the problematic involvement of King Saul. We are told (Shemuel I 18:28-29), “And Saul saw, and he knew that Gd was with David, and Michal, his daughter, loved David. Saul’s fear of David increased, etc.” Literally, this is a reference to Saul perceiving David’s military success, and becoming concerned over that success. The Midrash and the commentators noted, though, that the verse added an apparently unnecessary reference to Michal’s love in the same verse.

Radak explains that Saul grew afraid because he knew that his daughter would learn of any plot he were to plan against David, and attempt to block it (as she actually did, in the end). Ralbag adds that Saul didn’t want to harm his daughter’s beloved. Ralbag also notes that King Saul took Michal’s love as an omen; if David’s charm could turn Saul’s own family against him, then what chance did Saul have?

The Midrash (Vayikra Rabbah 37:4) actually perceives an element of punishment for King Saul in his daughter’s love for David. King Saul vowed (Shemuel I 17:25) that he would give his daughter in marriage to the warrior who would defeat Goliath. The Midrash says that this was an improper vow - and Gd fixed Saul for it, by having King Saul’s hated rival, David, be the one to defeat Goliath.

Marriage to Merav
Last week, we mentioned that Michal had an older sister, Merav. As we learned then, King Saul offered Merav to David, but David said he was not fit to marry her. As Radak (Shemuel I 18:22) points out, though, there are many commentators who believe that David actually did marry Merav.

This presents us with two problems:
1. How could David then marry Michal, who was Merav’s sister?
2. Merav is listed as marrying a man named Edriel, and having kids by him!

The Midrash (Sanhedrin 19b, Tosefta Sotah 11:17-19) presents two possible answers:
A. King David married Merav, and then King Saul illegally gave Merav to another man, Edriel. King David only married Michal after Merav died.
B. The marriage to Merav was actually “Kiddushei Taus,” marriage based on an error. The error is an interesting one:
In order to create marriage, a man must present a woman with an item of unambiguous value, such as the wedding ring we traditionally use. A man may not loan a woman money or an item, and call that “marriage.”
King Saul made a promise (Shemuel I 17:25) that he would give great wealth to the warrior who would defeat Goliath. As such, King Saul and his family owed David great wealth. In that case, whatever he could do for Merav would be irrelevant, compared to the great debt owed to him by her and her father. It was considered Kiddushei Taus, marriage based on an error.
The Gemara notes that this - that David was not actually married to Merav - may be seen later (Shemuel II 3:14) when David specifies that Michal is the wife he has married, as if to say, “She is my wife - not Merav.”

Michal saves David from King Saul
We then turned to the story of Michal saving David from King Saul’s planned ambush. As we mentioned last week, she learned of the plot and lowered David from the window, and then filled his bed with a mannequin in order to pretend he was there. She stalled the soldiers with a ruse that David was ill, and by the time they found out he wasn’t there, he was long gone.

The Midrash notes that Tehillim 59 was written for this occasion, commemorating Michal’s act. The Midrash (Midrash Tehillim 59:3) also mentions that the famous verse, “Matza Ishah Matza Tov (Mishlei 18:22),” “One who finds a woman has found goodness,” is a reference to Michal’s valor.

The Midrash (Midrash Shemuel 22:4) records that when King Saul discovered Michal’s deed, he asked her how she could betray him thus. She responded by trembling and saying that David had threatened her life, so that her father would not suspect her true loyalties. The Midrash suggests that this is one possible meaning of Michal’s “Eglah” pseudonym, as she trembled like a calf before Saul. Alternatively, another Midrash (Midrah Tehillim 59:4) says she was compared to a (wild) calf because she wouldn’t accept her father’s yoke.

As we have seen before, Ralbag presents practical lessons we can learn from each story recorded in Navi (the Prophets). There are two lessons of special note which he mentions here:

1. We see that Michal went above and beyond what she had to do. Not only did she lower David from the window, but she also carried out a complicated trick to stall for time, with the mannequin in the bed. We learn that a person should not be satisfied with the minimum; he should always strive to do everything possible toward a goal.
2. We see that Gd protects those who trust Him. King Saul planned to have David die in battle, and so he married David to Michal and made him a front-line general. The result, though, was that the marriage to Michal saved David’s life.

Michal’s Marriage to Palti ben Layish
We are told, in Shemuel I (25:44), that King Shaul married off his daughter to Palti ben Layish. Later (Shemuel II 3), after King Shaul’s death, King David sent a message to Shaul’s son, Ishboshes, asking that Michal be sent back to him. She came back to him, and they lived together as husband and wife.

This presents two problems:

1. How could King Shaul marry off his daughter to Palti, if she was already married to David?

Indeed, the Midrash (Bereishis Rabbah 32:1) points out the seriousness of the problem, saying that Doeg, King Shaul’s trusted advisor, permitted adultery by telling Shaul it was okay to marry her off to Palti. The Midrash says that Doeg told Shaul that since David was a rebel against the king, he was liable for the death penalty. Therefore, it was as though David were dead. [This argument is, of course, Halachically untenable even if David had been a true "rebel against the king."]

2. Under Jewish law, if a man’s wife lives with another man willingly, she and her husband are now prohibited to each other. In that case, how did King David and Michal get back together?

Our sages attempted to deal with these problems in five ways. The multiplicity of approaches tells us that each view has a flaw; were it not so, there would be no need for five approaches.

A. David and Michal were not married at the time when she was given to Palti ben Layish.

According to this explanation, David and Michal were never married, although Tanach tells us that Michal loved David and that there had been some sort of betrothal.
The Radak mentions this potential answer, and seeks to buttress it from a verse listing King David’s wives (Shemuel I 25:43). The verse mentions two women, and says, “The two of them were his wives.” The implication is that no other women were David’s wives.

There are two major flaws in this approach:
1. In the story we mentioned last week, about King Shaul’s attempted ambush to kill David, it seems as though Michal and David were alone together in the house. At that time there was no prohibition against a man being alone with a single woman, but the arrangement seems to have been a marriage arrangement.
2. In Shemuel I 19:11, Michal is referred to as “Michal Ishto,” which usually would translate as “Michal, his wife.” It takes an extreme stretch to translate these words as anything else.

B. Michal and Palti ben Layish weren’t truly married

According to this approach, which is advocated in the Midrash (Vayikra Rabbah 23:10) and Gemara (Sanhedrin 19b), Palti and Michal never lived together as husband and wife.
The Midrash bolsters this by pointing to the fact that Palti was named “Paltiel” when he returned Michal to David. The addition of the name, “El,” which is sometimes a reference to Gd, indicated that Gd had helped Palti keep from sinning with Michal.
The Gemara (Sanhedrin 19b) says that when Palti cried on returning Michal, it was actually over having lost the chance to have the Mitzvah of bearing children with Michal.

Radak (Shemuel I 25:43) rejects this idea, saying that it calls for a non-literal reading of the text.

C. David did marry Michal, but the marriage was not valid.

This goes back to an idea we mentioned last week, regarding Michal’s sister, Merav. I’ll quote the idea here, from last week’s email:

In order to create marriage, a man must present a woman with an item of unambiguous value, such as the wedding ring we traditionally use. A man may not loan a woman money or an item, and call that “marriage.”
King Saul made a promise (Shemuel I 17:25) that he would give great wealth to the warrior who would defeat Goliath.

As such, King Saul and his family owed David great wealth. In that case, whatever David could do for Michal would be irrelevant, compared to the great debt owed to him by her and her father. It was considered Kiddushei Taus, marriage based on an error.

Radak (Shemuel I 25:43) rejects this idea, too, saying that it is not in the text.

D. Michal married Palti ben Layish illegally.

While this may appear the most obvious answer by William of Ockham’s standards, the Radak (Shemuel I 25:43) points out that it leaves a major question unanswered - how could King David have returned to Michal?

E. David gave an invalid Get to Michal.

Radak (Shemuel I 25:43) suggests this very interesting answer. There was a fair span of time between David’s escape from the ambush, and Michal’s marriage to Palti. Radak suggests that King Shaul forced David to give Michal a Get, a bill of divorce.

Of course, a “Get Me’useh,” a forced Get, is invalid. As such, David and Michal remained married to each other. Michal, though, was unaware that the Get was forced. She married Palti in good faith. When David disclosed that the Get had been invalid, she returned to him. There was no penalty for her time with Palti, as she had not known she was still married to David.

Michal’s Rebuke of King David
This brings us to the next major story in Michal’s life, her rebuke of King David.

Some time after Michal and King David were reunited, King David bought property in Yerushalayim from the Yevusi nation. He then sought to bring the Aron, the Ark containing the Tablets from Sinai, to Yerushalayim. When the Ark was brought, there were offerings and there was dancing. As mentioned two weeks ago, King David danced with great fervor, to the point were his tunic lifted from the ground in an immodest fashion. Michal witnessed this from the window.

When King David returned to their home, Michal said sarcastically, “How honored is the king of Israel today! He was revealed before the maids of slaves today, like some vagrant!” King David responded, “I danced before Gd, Who chose me over your father and over your father’s whole household, making me the leader of all of the Jews!” King David continued to tell her that this was appropriate behavior, for the occasion. “Were I shamed more than this, and I were low in my eyes, with the maids you mentioned I would be honored!”

The Midrash (Bamidbar Rabbah 4:20) points out, explaining King David’s biting response, that Michal actually came out and rebuked David in public. We see this in the verse - she actually came out and delivered her rebuke before the nation.

The Gemara (Jerusalem Talmud Succah 5:4 and Sanhedrin 6:7) suggests that there was something more here than a personal disagreement.

The house of King Shaul was known for its Tznius, its modesty. Tznius reflects more than a desire to keep a low profile; Tznius is an element of dignity and honor. A person who takes himself/herself seriously, and is upholding a standard of behavior, does not act in an undignified manner. We are told that the house of King Shaul took this to an extreme; they never raised their feet high in walking, lest an ankle be visible.

As a matter of fact, the Gemara there tells us that King David knew that King Shaul’s Tznius was his hallmark. At one point during King Shaul’s pursuit of David, Shaul went to use the bathroom in a cave, not knowing that David was hiding there. David cut off a piece of King Shaul’s cloak, as if to say, “I could have killed you, had I wanted to.” More, though, the Gemara says that David opted not to kill King Shaul when he observed the dignity and Tznius with which King Shaul behaved at the toilet.

Michal was rebuking King David by telling him that her father’s household had been dignified and proper; his sort of dancing was improper.

King David’s reply is to be taken in the same light. King David’s response is that the house of King Shaul was concerned for their own honor, but that his own house is, indeed, not as concerned for its own honor. HaShem chose the house of King David for their humility, and their concern for the honor of Heaven. This was what led him to dance this way.

1. Did Michal have children?
2. Michal and the Mitzvah of Tefillin

Did Michal have children?
As we saw last week, Michal received a punishment for having publicly shamed her husband, King David. We are taught (Shemuel II 6:23), “And Michal, the daughter of Shaul, did not have a child until the day she died.” This would seem to indicate that she bore no children, but there are a couple of dissident views within our tradition:

A. Michal had children before this story involving the rebuke of David

The Gemara (Sanhedrin 21a) indicates that Michal may have had children earlier in life.

This idea is boosted by a problematic passage in Shemuel II (3:2-5). In this passage, the wives of King David are listed. We know that King David had 6 wives, and 12 concubines. This passage lists 6 wives, but it does not count Michal among them! Where is Michal?
As we have mentioned before, the Midrashim suggest that the 6th wife, named Eglah, was actually Michal. Eglah is listed as having borne a son to King David - and so it appears that Michal did have a child, after all.
Radak amplifies this possibility by suggesting that this is why Eglah has the words, “Eishes Dovid,” “Wife of David,” appended to her name - Michal was the “special” wife of King David, in that she was his first wife and she was beloved to him.

B. Michal died in childbirth

This view, expressed in Sanhedrin 21a and other sources in Midrash and in Jerusalem Talmud, picks up on the words, “Ad Yom Mosah,” “Until the day she died.” They suggest that she died in giving birth.

Michal and the children of Merav
There is one other interesting point related to Michal and children. Shemuel II 21:8 lists, “And the five sons who Michal, the daughter of Shaul, birthed to Edriel, the son of Barzilai, the Mecholati.”

The mention of five sons of Michal is interesting enough; what makes it more interesting is the father’s name! Edriel was none other than the husband of Merav, Michal’s older sister (Shemuel I 18:19)!

Sanhedrin 19b resolves this by suggesting that Michal raised the children after Merav died young. Ralbag (Shemuel I 25:44) augments this by pointing out that if Michal actually was childless, she might have been given the children to raise in the absence of any children of her own.

Michal and Tefillin
The Gemara (Eruvin 96a) mentions, in the course of a discussion about the nature of the Mitzvah of Tefillin, that Michal, the daughter of Shaul, wore Tefillin. The Gemara does not trace this to a verse; it appears to be a verbally-transmitted tradition.

It seems clear to the commentators that when we say Michal wore Tefillin, we mean that she wore Tefillin and recited a blessing on them - including the words, “Asher Kidishanu beMitzvosav veTzivanu…” “Who sanctified us with his Mitzvos, and commanded us…” However, it is equally clear that women are not included in the Mitzvah to wear Tefillin, as it is an action-based, time-bound commandment!

Tosafot (Eruvin 96a, Rosh haShanah 33a) conclude that women who wish to perform Mitzvos from which they are exempt may do so, and may even recite the associated blessing. Rashba, in a responsum (1:123), came to the same conclusion. This decision is widely followed among Ashkenazim. The fact that we say, “Who commanded us,” in the blessing, is not considered an issue because there is a general commandment for the Mitzvah, even if it doesn’t apply to the specific person performing the Mitzvah.

All of this is based on the edition of this Midrash which is recorded in Eruvin 96a - that the sages did not protest. The Midrash, however (see Pesikta Rabsi 23, Jerusalem Talmud Berachos 2:4 and Eruvin 10:1), has an alternate edition in which a view states that the sages did protest. Why would they have protested?

There are two rationales which may explain why the sages would have protested:

1. Rashi (Eruvin 96a) mentions that performing a Mitzvah in which one is not commanded is akin to adding on to the Torah. (cf. Rashi’s comments to Sanhedrin 76b on “Lo Yoveh HaShem Seloach Lo”)

2. Tefillin may have special status. Tefillin require a clean body and a clean mind. The issue of a clean body refers to making sure that no fluids discharged from inside the body are on the skin. As Tosafot explains (Eruvin 96a), women have greater difficulty with continual discharges than men do. (This is not a reference to menstrual blood, in particular; it is a problem with general discharge.) As such, even an opinion permitting the practice of “voluntary Mitzvos” might protest against Tefillin, specifically.

http://members.tripod.com/~ohave/chumash/michal.htm

Predestination or Free Will

There are few subjects that manage to affect the majority of mankind more than the issue of Predestination. Major Eastern religions have based their whole theology on predestination and reincarnation. Now more and more, the issue is coming to the fore with sections of the Christian community. I present the following work of which I was a very minor contributor in the 70’s for thoughtful reflection.

My colleague L. Ray Smith on his web www.bible-truths.com holds the conviction that man does not have a free will in the sense of the word. He presented the premise that God is the sole creator of evil from the outset and is the sole director of every single step action and thought of man. Prior to presenting the main article, I have a small treatise dealing with my (and others) findings regarding the creation of evil.

I wish to state at the outset, that the differences presented between researchers work, is one of the results of human interpretation and understanding. Bible research is fraught with underlying problems, not least, translation issues. Using connections between scriptures is risky without viewing the whole picture. That said, The Divine God will make the truth known as he see fit and correct us in his time. For the mistakes made, we humbly ask his forgiveness.

The name JEHOVAH is used throughout the main text to singularly differentiate GOD from general terms such as God or Lord which may or not apply to others.

Did God create Evil?

 

Predestination asserts that the Creator did and quotes JOHN 8:44 “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies”

 

I will come to the contextual use of this shortly.

 

EZEKIEL 28:12

 

“Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: “‘You were the model of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. 13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: ruby, topaz and emerald, chrysolite, onyx and jasper, sapphire, turquoise and beryl. Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared. 14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones. 15 You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you. 16 Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned. So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I expelled you, O guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones. 17 Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings. 18 By your many sins and dishonest trade you have desecrated your sanctuaries . . .” (NIV)

 

True, Satan is never mentioned by name in this passage. There are some clues in Ezekiel 28 that identify the entities being spoken of here. The chapter starts with God’s proclamation against the “Prince of Tyre” (v. 2). This prince is proud and says, “I am a god, I sit in the seat of gods” (v. 2). These words appear to mirror what Paul says about the “Man of Sin” (2 The. 2:4).

Ezekiel 28:11, this one addressed by God to the “King of Tyre.” However, because of the things said about this king, it is seems clear that God is not speaking to a mere man. This king is the one who will give his authority to the Prince of Tyre at the end of the age (Rev. 13:2). This king would appear to be paralleled with the ancient dragon, Satan. ( I accept that the King of Tyre may be a composite of all the rulers who disobeyed God, yet the link seems too strong to ignore.)

What I get from this commentary, is that Satan was resident in the Garden BEFORE Adam and Eve and was in good standing until the defiant episode with Eve.

This verse: “14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones. 15 You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you.” Indicates to me that Satan was created as a beautiful creature who became enamored with himself. “17 Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor.”

As to the reasons why Satan fell?

 

I looked at GENESIS 1:26 Then God ['elohim] said, “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God ['elohim] created man in His own image; in the image of God ['elohim] He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God ['elohim] blessed them, and God ['elohim] said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (NKJV)

 

Well I TIMOTHY 3:6 Not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. (NKJV) in talking about appointing church elders and deacons makes this curious unbacked up statement. Pride? condemned as the devil?

 

A little research would show this interesting fact.

 

PSALM 8:4 What is man that You are mindful of him, and the son of man that You visit him? 5 For You have made him a little lower than the angels, and You have crowned him with glory and honor. 6 You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet, 7 all sheep and oxen — even the beasts of the field, 8 the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea that pass through the paths of the seas. (NKJV)

 

So here was man, lower than the angels, yet had COMPLETE dominion over all the earth. The beautiful angel might have felt slighted, after all, man was lower than him!

Ezekiel 28:16 tells us that Satan was filled with violence and sinned through his “widespread trade.” The Hebrew word rendered “trade” in Ezekiel 28:16 is rekullatekha; it is a form of the noun rekulla, which means “merchandise” or “traffic.” However, rekulla is derived from the root word rakal, which means “to go about.” A closely-related derivative, rakil, means “slanderer.” In the New Testament, Satan is often called the “devil,” or diabolos in Greek. Not coincidentally, the literal meaning of diabolos and its variations is also “slanderer.”

The account of Satan in Ezekiel 28 probably involves aspects of both “merchandising” and “slander.” The Scriptures imply that Satan, likely through peddling his slander, turned one-third of the angelic host against God (Rev. 12:3-4). It’s not hard to imagine that Satan went around to the angels, seeking to build support for his contention that they were far better qualified to run the earth than mankind was. It was through this slanderous “merchandising” that Satan became filled with violence against humanity.

Now here is supposition on my part. If the postulations above are in keeping with the scriptures, Satan developed a plan to take over his “rightful place” as ruler of the earth and seduced Eve with his words.

 

Contextually GENESIS 3:1 Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?” 2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat 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 has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ” 4 Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. (NKJV)

 

Satan did not outright LIE to Eve, he twisted words and meaning. He placed doubt.

 

Satans tactics did not lead him to gain the advantage he desired, and put right the “mistake” God made.. God was less than pleased.

 

He got cursed and from that day on has been the adversary of mankind

 

JOHN 8:44 “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. (NASU)

“The beginning” spoken of by God appears to refer to the beginning of God’s plan, when mankind was in the Garden of Eden before the fall (Gen. 2). “The beginning” here is not referring to Satan’s creation, because it appears God originally made him perfect within the context of earthly understanding of perfection. (Eze. 28:15; Gen. 1:31).

Predestination

Foreknowledge means knowledge of a thing before it happens or exists; also called prescience. In the Bible it relates primarily, though not exclusively, to Jehovah God the Creator and his purposes. Foreordination means the ordaining, decreeing, or determining of something beforehand; or the quality or state of being foreordained.

Original-Language Words. The words generally translated as “foreknow,” “foreknowledge,” and “foreordain” are found in the Christian Greek Scriptures, although the same basic ideas are expressed in the Hebrew Scriptures.

“Foreknowledge” translates the Greek pro´gno·sis (from pro, before, and gno´sis, knowledge). (Ac 2:23; 1Pe 1:2) The related verb pro·gi·no´sko is used in two cases with regard to humans: in Paul’s statement that certain Jews were “previously acquainted” with him (knew him beforehand), and in Peter’s reference to the “advance knowledge” had by those addressed in his second letter. (Ac 26:4, 5; 2Pe 3:17) In this latter case it is obvious that such foreknowledge was not infinite; that is, it did not mean that those Christians knew all the details of time, place, and circumstance about the future events and conditions Peter had discussed. But they did have a general outline of what to expect, received as a result of God’s inspiration of Peter and of other contributors to the Bible.

“Foreordain” translates the Greek pro·o·ri´zo (from pro, before, and ho·ri´zo, mark out or set the bounds). (The English word “horizon” transliterates the Greek word ho·ri´zon, meaning the “bounding” or “limiting.”) Illustrating the sense of the Greek verb ho·ri´zo is Jesus Christ’s statement that, as “the Son of man,” he was “going his way according to what [was] marked out [ho·ri·sme´non].” Paul said that God had “decreed [marked out, ho·ri´sas] the appointed times and the set limits of the dwelling of men.” (Lu 22:22; Ac 17:26) The same verb is used of human determination, as when the disciples “determined [ho´ri·san]” to send relief to their needy brothers. (Ac 11:29) However, specific references to foreordaining in the Christian Greek Scriptures are applied only to God.

Factors to Recognize. To understand the matter of foreknowledge and foreordination as relating to God, certain factors necessarily must be recognized.

First, God’s ability to foreknow and foreordain is clearly stated in the Bible. Jehovah himself sets forth as proof of his Godship this ability to foreknow and foreordain events of salvation and deliverance, as well as acts of judgment and punishment, and then to bring such events to fulfillment. His chosen people are witnesses of these facts. (Isa 44:6-9; 48:3- Such divine foreknowledge and foreordination form the basis for all true prophecy. (Isa 42:9; Jer 50:45; Am 3:7,8 ) God challenges the nations opposing his people to furnish proof of the godship they claim for their mighty ones and their idol-gods, calling on them to do so by foretelling similar acts of salvation or judgment and then bringing them to pass. Their impotence in this respect demonstrates their idols to be ‘mere wind and unreality.’—Isa 41:1-10, 21-29; 43:9-15; 45:20, 21.)

A second factor to be considered is the free moral agency of God’s intelligent creatures. The Scriptures show that God extends to such creatures the privilege and responsibility of free choice, of exercising free moral agency (De 30:19, 20; Jos 24:15), thereby making them accountable for their acts. (Ge 2:16, 17; 3:11-19; Ro 14:10-12; Heb 4:13) They are thus not mere automatons, or robots. Man could not truly have been created in “God’s image” if he were not a free moral agent. (Ge 1:26, 27 Logically, there should be no conflict between God’s foreknowledge (as well as his foreordaining) and the free moral agency of his intelligent creatures.

A third factor that must be considered, one sometimes overlooked, is that of God’s moral standards and qualities, including his justice, honesty, impartiality, love, mercy, and kindness. Any understanding of God’s use of the powers of foreknowledge and foreordination must therefore harmonize with not only some of these factors but with all of them. Clearly, whatever God foreknows must inevitably come to pass, so that God is able to call “things that are not as though they were.”—Ro 4:17.

Does God know in advance everything that people will do?

The question then arises: Is his exercise of foreknowledge infinite, without limit? Does he foresee and foreknow all future actions of all his creatures, spirit and human? And does he foreordain such actions or even predestinate what shall be the final destiny of all his creatures, even doing so before they have come into existence?

Or, is God’s exercise of foreknowledge selective and discretionary, so that whatever he chooses to foresee and foreknow, he does, but what he does not choose to foresee or foreknow, he does not? And, instead of preceding their existence, does God’s determination of his creatures’ eternal destiny await his judgment of their course of life and of their proved attitude under test? The answers to these questions must necessarily come from the Scriptures themselves and the information they provide concerning God’s actions and dealings with his creatures, including what has been revealed through his Son, Christ Jesus.—1Co 2:16.

Predestinarian view. The view that God’s exercise of his foreknowledge is infinite and that he does foreordain the course and destiny of all individuals is known as predestinarianism. Its advocates reason that God’s divinity and perfection require that he be omniscient (all-knowing), not only respecting the past and present but also regarding the future. According to this concept, for him not to foreknow all matters in their minutest detail would evidence imperfection. Examples such as the case of Isaac’s twin sons, Esau and Jacob, are presented as evidence of God’s foreordaining creatures before their birth (Ro 9:10-13); and texts such as Ephesians 1:4, 5 are cited as evidence that God foreknew and foreordained the future of all his creatures even before the start of creation.

To be correct, this view would, of course, have to harmonize with all the factors previously mentioned, including the Scriptural presentation of God’s qualities, standards, and purposes, as well as his righteous ways in dealing with his creatures. (Re 15:3, 4) We may properly consider, then, the implications of such a predestinarian view.

This concept would mean that, prior to creating angels or earthling man, God exercised his powers of foreknowledge and foresaw and foreknew all that would result from such creation, including the rebellion of one of his spirit sons, the subsequent rebellion of the first human pair in Eden (Ge 3:1-6; Joh 8:44), and all the bad consequences of such rebellion down to and beyond this present day. This would necessarily mean that all the wickedness that history has recorded (the crime and immorality, oppression and resultant suffering, lying and hypocrisy, false worship and idolatry) once existed, before creation’s beginning, only in the mind of God, in the form of his foreknowledge of the future in all of its minutest details.

If the Creator of mankind had indeed exercised his power to foreknow all that history has seen since man’s creation, then the full weight of all the wickedness thereafter resulting was deliberately set in motion by God when he spoke the words: “Let us make man.” (Ge 1:26) These facts bring into question the reasonableness and consistency of the predestinarian concept; particularly so, since the disciple James shows that disorder and other vile things do not originate from God’s heavenly presence but are “earthly, animal, demonic” in source.—Jas 3:14-18.

Infinite exercise of foreknowledge? The argument that God’s not foreknowing all future events and circumstances in full detail would evidence imperfection on his part is, in reality, an arbitrary view of perfection. Perfection, correctly defined, does not demand such an absolute, all-embracing extension, inasmuch as the perfection of anything actually depends upon its measuring up completely to the standards of excellence set by one qualified to judge its merits. Ultimately, God’s own will and good pleasure, not human opinions or concepts, are the deciding factors as to whether anything is perfect.—De 32:4; 2Sa 22:31; Isa 46:10.

To illustrate this, God’s almightiness is undeniably perfect and is infinite in capacity. (1Ch 29:11, 12; Job 36:22; 37:23) Yet his perfection in strength does not require him to use his power to the full extent of his omnipotence in any or in all cases. Clearly he has not done so; if he had, not merely certain ancient cities and some nations would have been destroyed, but the earth and all in it would have been obliterated long ago by God’s executions of judgment, accompanied by mighty expressions of disapproval and wrath, as at the Flood and on other occasions. (Ge 6:5-8; 19:23-25, 29; compare Ex 9:13-16; Jer 30:23, 24.) God’s exercise of his might is therefore not simply an unleashing of limitless power but is constantly governed by his purpose and, where merited, tempered by his mercy.—Ne 9:31; Ps 78:38, 39; Jer 30:11; La 3:22; Eze 20:17.

Similarly, if, in certain respects, God chooses to exercise his infinite ability of foreknowledge in a selective way and to the degree that pleases him, then assuredly no human or angel can rightly say: “What are you doing?” (Job 9:12; Isa 45:9; Da 4:35) It is therefore not a question of ability, what God can foresee, foreknow, and foreordain, for “with God all things are possible.” (Mt 19:26) The question is what God sees fit to foresee, foreknow, and foreordain, for “everything that he delighted to do he has done.”—Ps 115:3.

Selective exercise of foreknowledge. The alternative to predestinarianism, the selective or discretionary exercise of God’s powers of foreknowledge, would have to harmonize with God’s own righteous standards and be consistent with what he reveals of himself in his Word. In contrast with the theory of predestinarianism, a number of texts point to an examination by God of a situation then current and a decision made on the basis of such examination.

Thus, at Genesis 11:5-8 God is described as directing his attention earthward, surveying the situation at Babel, and, at that time, determining the action to be taken to break up the unrighteous project there. After wickedness developed at Sodom and Gomorrah, Jehovah advised Abraham of his decision to investigate (by means of his angels) to “see whether they act altogether according to the outcry over it that has come to me, and, if not, I can get to know it.” (Ge 18:20-22; 19:1) God spoke of ‘becoming acquainted with Abraham,’ and after Abraham went to the point of attempting to sacrifice Isaac, Jehovah said, “For now I do know that you are God-fearing in that you have not withheld your son, your only one, from me.”—Ge 18:19; 22:11, 12; compare Ne 9:7, 8; Ga 4:9.

Selective foreknowledge means that God could choose not to foreknow indiscriminately all the future acts of his creatures. This would mean that, rather than all history from creation onward being a mere rerun of what had already been foreseen and foreordained, God could with all sincerity set before the first human pair the prospect of everlasting life in an earth free from wickedness. His instructions to his first human son and daughter to act as his perfect and sinless agents in filling the earth with their offspring and making it a paradise, as well as exercising control over the animal creation, could thus be expressed as the grant of a truly loving privilege and as his genuine desire toward them—not merely as the giving of a commission that, on their part, was foredoomed to failure. God’s arranging for a test by means of “the tree of the knowledge of good and bad” and his creation of “the tree of life” in the garden of Eden also would not be meaningless or cynical acts, made so by his foreknowing that the human pair would sin and never be able to eat of “the tree of life.”—Ge 1:28; 2:7-9, 15-17; 3:22-24.

To offer something very desirable to another person on conditions known beforehand to be unreachable is recognized as both hypocritical and cruel. The prospect of everlasting life is presented in God’s Word as a goal for all persons, one possible to attain. After urging his listeners to ‘keep on asking and seeking’ good things from God, Jesus pointed out that a father does not give a stone or a serpent to his child that asks for bread or a fish. Showing his Father’s view of disappointing the legitimate hopes of a person, Jesus then said: “Therefore, if you, although being wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more so will your Father who is in the heavens give good things to those asking him?”—Mt 7:7-11.

Thus, the invitations and opportunities to receive benefits and everlasting blessings set before all men by God are bona fide. (Mt 21:22; Jas 1:5, 6) He can in all sincerity urge men to ‘turn back from transgression and keep living,’ as he did with the people of Israel. (Eze 18:23, 30-32; compare Jer 29:11, 12.) Logically, he could not do this if he foreknew that they were individually destined to die in wickedness. (Compare Ac 17:30, 31; 1Ti 2:3, 4.) As Jehovah told Israel: “Nor said I to the seed of Jacob, ‘Seek me simply for nothing, you people.’ I am Jehovah, speaking what is righteous, telling what is upright. . . . Turn to me and be saved, all you at the ends of the earth.”—Isa 45:19-22.

In a similar vein, the apostle Peter writes: “Jehovah is not slow respecting his promise [of the coming day of reckoning], as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance.” (2Pe 3:9) If God already foreknew and foreordained millenniums in advance precisely which individuals would receive eternal salvation and which individuals would receive eternal destruction, it may well be asked how meaningful such ‘patience’ of God could be and how genuine his desire could be that ‘all attain to repentance.’ The inspired apostle John wrote that “God is love,” and the apostle Paul states that love “hopes all things.” (1Jo 4:8; 1Co 13:4, 7) It is in harmony with this outstanding, divine quality that God should exercise a genuinely open, kindly attitude toward all persons, he being desirous of their gaining salvation, until they prove themselves unworthy, beyond hope. (Compare 2Pe 3:9; Heb 6:4-12.) Thus, the apostle Paul speaks of “the kindly quality of God [that] is trying to lead you to repentance.”—Ro 2:4-6.

Finally if, by God’s foreknowledge, the opportunity to receive the benefits of Christ Jesus’ ransom sacrifice were already irrevocably sealed off from some, perhaps for millions of individuals, even before their birth, so that such ones could never prove worthy, it could not truly be said that the ransom was made available to all men. (2Co 5:14, 15; 1Ti 2:5, 6; Heb 2:9) The impartiality of God is clearly no mere figure of speech. “In every nation the man that fears [God] and works righteousness is acceptable to him.” (Ac 10:34, 35; De 10:17; Ro 2:11) The option is actually and genuinely open to all men “to seek God, if they might grope for him and really find him, although, in fact, he is not far off from each one of us.” (Ac 17:26, 27) There is no empty hope or hollow promise set forth, therefore, in the divine exhortation at the end of the book of Revelation inviting: “Let anyone hearing say: ‘Come!’ And let anyone thirsting come; let anyone that wishes take life’s water free.”—Re 22:17.

The Things Foreknown and Foreordained. Throughout the Bible record, God’s exercise of foreknowledge and foreordination is consistently tied in with his own purposes and will. “To purpose” means to set something before oneself as an aim or an object to be attained. (The Greek word pro´the·sis, translated “purpose,” means, literally, “something placed or set forth before.”) Since God’s purposes are certain of accomplishment, he can foreknow the results, the ultimate realization of his purposes, and can foreordain them as well as the steps he may see fit to take to accomplish them. (Isa 14:24-27) Thus, Jehovah is spoken of as ‘forming’ or ‘fashioning’ (from the Hebrew ya·tsar´, related to the word for “potter” [Jer 18:4]) his purpose concerning future events or actions. (2Ki 19:25; Isa 46:11; compare Isa 45:9-13, 18.) As the Great Potter, God “operates all things according to the way his will counsels,” in harmony with his purpose (Eph 1:11), and “makes all his works cooperate together” for the good of those loving him. (Ro 8:2 It is, therefore, specifically in connection with his own foreordained purposes that God tells “from the beginning the finale, and from long ago the things that have not been done.”—Isa 46:9-13.

When God created the first human pair they were perfect, and God could look upon the result of all his creative work and find it “very good.” (Ge 1:26, 31; De 32:4) Instead of distrustfully concerning himself with what the human pair’s future actions would be, the record says that he “proceeded to rest.” (Ge 2:2) He could do so since, by virtue of his almightiness and his supreme wisdom, no future action, circumstance, or contingency could possibly present an insurmountable obstacle or an irremediable problem to block the realization of his sovereign purpose. (2Ch 20:6; Isa 14:27; Da 4:35) There is, therefore, no Scriptural basis for the argument of predestinarianism that for God to refrain from exercising his powers of foreknowledge in this way would jeopardize God’s purposes, making them “always liable to be broken through want of foresight, and [that] he must be continually putting his system to rights, as it gets out of order, through the contingence of the actions of moral agents.” Nor would this selective exercise of foresight give his creatures the power to “break [God’s] measures, make him continually to change his mind, subject him to vexation, and bring him into confusion,” as predestinarians claim. (M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia, 1894, Vol. VIII, p. 556) If even God’s earthly servants have no real need to be “anxious about the next day,” it follows that their Creator, to whom mighty nations are as “a drop from a bucket,” neither had nor has such anxiety.—Mt 6:34; Isa 40:15.

Concerning classes of persons. Cases are also presented in which God did foreknow the course that certain groups, nations, or the majority of mankind would take, and thus he foretold the basic course of their future actions and foreordained what corresponding action he would take regarding them. However, such foreknowledge or foreordination does not deprive the individuals within such collective groups or divisions of mankind of exercising free choice as to the particular course they will follow. This can be seen from the following examples:

Prior to the Flood of Noah’s day, Jehovah announced his purpose to bring about this act of destruction, resulting in loss of human as well as animal life. The Biblical account shows, however, that such divine determination was made after the conditions developed that called for such action, including violence and other badness. Additionally, God, who is able to “know the heart of the sons of mankind,” made examination and found that “every inclination of the thoughts of [mankind’s] heart was only bad all the time.” (2Ch 6:30; Ge 6:5) Yet individuals, Noah and his family, gained God’s favor and escaped destruction.—Ge 6:7, 8; 7:1.

Similarly, although God gave the nation of Israel the opportunity to become “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” by keeping his covenant, yet some 40 years later, when the nation was at the borders of the Promised Land, Jehovah foretold that they would break his covenant and, as a nation, would be forsaken by him. This foreknowledge was not without prior basis, however, as national insubordination and rebellion already had been revealed. Hence, God said: “For I well know their inclination that they are developing today before I bring them into the land about which I have sworn.” (Ex 19:6; De 31:16-18, 21; Ps 81:10-13) The results to which such manifest inclination would now lead in the way of increased wickedness could be foreknown by God without its making him responsible for such conditions, even as one’s foreknowing that a certain structure built of inferior materials and with shoddy workmanship will deteriorate does not make that one responsible for such deterioration. The divine rule governs that ‘what is sown is what will be reaped.’ (Ga 6:7-9; compare Ho 10:12, 13.) Certain prophets delivered prophetic warnings of God’s foreordained expressions of judgment, all of which had basis in already existing conditions and heart attitudes. (Ps 7:8, 9; Pr 11:19; Jer 11:20) Here again, however, individuals could and did respond to God’s counsel, reproof, and warnings and so merited his favor.—Jer 21:8, 9; Eze 33:1-20.