II.
A second alleged mistake in the Bible is
chre; but in the latter case he seems to have pur chased the sepulchre without buying thé whole piece of ground, which therefore Jacob himself bought at a later date. It is altogether likely that Abraham should have purchased a sepulchre in the spot in his later life, for it was a place dear to him by many memories (see Genesis 12:6, 7). So, after all, the mistake was not Stephen’s, but the mistake of the commentators, who were not careful to note exactly what Stephen said and what is said in the two passages in Genesis. Joshua in forms us that it was in this parcel of ground which Jacob bought (which presumably contained the sepulchre that Abraham had bought at an earlier date) where the bones of Joseph were buried (Josh. 24:32). Apparently, Stephen was a more careful student of the Old Testament Scripture than some of his critics. Even allowing for the moment that Stephen was mistaken in this case, it would prove nothing against the divine origin of the Bible or its absolute inerrancy, for Stephen is not one o f the authors of the Bible. He was not a prophet or an apostle. It is true he was a Spirit-filled man, but he is not the writer of a book in the Bible. The inspired author of the Acts of the Apostles records that Stephen said these words, and if these words that Stephen uttered had been mistaken, the record that he said them would still be correct. It would be God’s Word that Stephen spoke, but what Stephen said would not be God’s Word. The one who contends for the divine origin of the Bible and its absolute accuracy is under no obligation whatever to prove the accuracy of every statement that every speaker in the Bible, or even every Spirit-filled speaker is recorded as saying. III. Another alleged mistake in the Bible is found in Proverbs 31:6, 7 (RV ), “Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, And wine unto the bitter in soul : Let him drink, and forget his poverty, And remember his misery no more.” It is said that this advocates the use o f intoxicating liquor under certain conditions, and since the use of intoxicating liquor under any and all circum stances is wrong, this teaching of the Bible is a mistake. The difficulty disappears, as many another dif ficulty will disappear, if we do not rip the verses out of their context, but study them, as any pas sage in any book should be studied in the context. The whole section from verses 1 to 9 is a protest against kings (and by implication, persons in any place of responsibility) using wine or strong drink at all. It is plainly taught that any use o f wine has a tendency to make them forget the law and to pervert judgment. Verses 6 and 7 themselves go on to add that wine and strong drink should only be used in cases of extreme physical weakness and despondency, when the man is so far gone that he is “ ready to perish,” and is consequently in the is
the statement of Stephen in Acts 7:16, . . And were carried over into Sychem, and laid in a sepul chre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor, the father of Sychem. . . .” Genesis 23 :17, 18 states, “And the field of Ephron, which was in Machpelah, which was before Mamre, the field, and the cave which was therein . . . were made sure unto Abraham. . . . ” Stephen seems, then, to have been mistaken in his statement that Abraham bought it o f the sons of Emmor. Let me put the supposed mistake in the words o f a promi nent Doctor of Divinity. He says, “According to Luke’s report, Stephen says Abraham bought a sepulchre of the sons of Emmor, the father of Sychem (Acts 7:16). But Genesis 23:17, 18, says Abraham bought it of Ephron the Hittite, and Genesis 23:19 says that Jacob bought it o f the sons of Emmor . . . John Calvin says, ‘Stephen evidently made a mistake.’ Dr. Hackett admits that Stephen appears to have confounded the two transactions . . . but what do those say about it . . . who maintain the absolute inerrancy o f the Bible?” This seems like a puzzler until one notices exactly what is said in these three passages. Then the puzzle is solved. Genesis 23:17, 18, does not say what the ob jector says it does say; that is, it does not say that Abraham bought this sepulchre to which Stephen refers o f Ephron, the Hittite. It does state that Abraham bought a field o f Ephron, the Hit tite, in which there was a cave, and that Abraham buried his wife Sarah in this cave. But there is no good reason for supposing that this was the sepulchre in which Jacob and the patriarchs were buried. There is no reason for supposing that Abra ham in his long lifetime bought but one burial place. The writer o f this book has himself pur chased two, one where his brother is buried, in Chicago, and one where his daughter is buried, in Northfield, Massachusetts, and is interested in a third in Brooklyn, where his father and mother and other brother are buried. There is not the slightest hint in the Scriptures that these two sepulchres mentioned in' Genesis 23:17, 18, and in Acts 7 :16 are the same. As to the passage in Genesis 33:9, where, ac cording to the objector, it is said that Jacob and not Abraham (as Stephen puts it) bought the sepulchre, this passage does not say that Jacob bought the sepulchre. It says he bought “ the parcel o f a field at the hand of the children o f Hamor [the persons of whom Stephen says Abraham bought the sepulchre].” The presumption in the case is that Abraham had already purchased the sepulchre at an earlier date and Jacob in his day purchased the ground ( “ a parcel of land” ) in which the sepulchre was located. When Abraham pur chased a sepulchre to bury Sarah he took the pre caution o f buying the field as well as the sepul- JANUARY, 1969
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online