"Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child unto the day of her
death."--Second Samuel, vi, 23. "But the king took the five sons of
Michal, _whom she brought up for Adriel_, the son of Barzillai, the
Meholathite."--Second Samuel, xxi, 8. Dear friend, if you will notice
the last quotation closely you will find that the words which I have
italicised clearly indicate the true solution of the difficulty, which
has no real historic existence. Those sons _were not the natural sons_
of Michal, but adopted sons, which she brought up for Adriel, whose wife
was _Moreb_, the natural mother of those children. But, somehow, it
comes to pass that you refer me in both cases to the first book of
Samuel instead of the second. How is this?
_Second case._ "And it came to pass after these things that God did
tempt Abraham." The contrary does not happen to be a contradiction. Here
it is, "Let no man say when he is _tempted_ I _am tempted_ of God; for
God can not be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man with
evil."--James i, 13. Any grammarian can see at once that there is no
contradiction here. God did (try) tempt Abraham. When was this and what
was it for? Well, it was thousands of years before James's _present
tense_ language was written. Suppose I give a parallel. Here it is: Let
no Jew say when he offers a lamb he offers it to obey the Lord, for the
Lord accepteth not lambs, neither does he require them of any man. The
contradiction is found in the fact that some thousands of years in the
past, the Lord did, for wise and benevolent purposes, require Jews to
offer lambs. Now, can any man fail to see that there is no
contradiction here. God did tempt Abraham. What was it for? Answer. He
simply designed to teach Abraham, in a way that would impress the lesson
upon the mind for all time to come, that the human beings were not to be
offered in burnt sacrifices as the heathen were wont to do. His angel
said to Abraham, "Stay thy hand." See! there is an offering fast by the
horns in the bushes. _Don't kill your son!_ Yes, God did try or tempt
Abraham. It was a grand trial of his loyalty to God. And it was God's
most effectual way of teaching Abraham and his posterity that they must
not offer their sons and daughters in the fire as the heathen did. There
is not only no contradiction here, but a grand lesson also, which
represents God in just the reverse of the infidel interpretation of the
case.
_Third case._ "And the man which journeyed with him stood speechless,
_hearing a voice_, but seeing _no man_."--Acts iv, 7. This voice heard
by those persons was in the _Hebrew tongue_, and as such was _not
understood_ by those who were with Saul. So we have it upon record in
the 22d chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, that "they saw _the light_
and were afraid, but they heard not," that is, _understood not_, the
voice. That the voice was in the Hebrew is asserted in the twenty-sixth
chapter and the fourteenth verse. We often hear a man's voice, and fail
at the same time--say we did not hear because we did not understand the
words uttered. Such is the latitude of the original term translated by
the word _hear_. So there is no contradiction here. The term _hear_ in
one passage is used with reference simply to the noise; in the other it
is used with reference to the _words spoken_, which they _understood
not_. So it is said, they heard them not. Can you hear a man speaking in
a dead language? You can hear the voice in the sense of hearing the
noise, but you can't hear the voice in the sense of _hearing the
language_. No man can hear a language unless he understands it in the
sense of the original term.
_Your fourth case is in the following quotations_: "And Jacob called the
name of the place Peniel; for I have seen God face to face, and my life
is preserved."--Gen. xxxii, 30. It somehow happens that my good querist
in giving this quotation refers me to the 31st chapter, which is wrong
again. He says he has taken advice, and has read the contexts. Well,
perhaps he has. But this is the second mistake _any way_. The first is
reference to the wrong book. The second is reference to the wrong
chapter. How is this?
Our querist's contrary is, however, in these words, "No man hath seen
God at any time."--John's Record i, 18. Our friend, proposing these
contradictions for my consideration, says he has "given himself the
trouble to investigate;" has "read the context in connection with each
quotation, and still they are not clear," yet for the last quotation he
refers me to 1 John iv, 12. Well, well; how shall we understand this?
And how shall we harmonize the quotations? Well, "No man hath seen _God_
at any time"--this is true, for he is "the King Eternal, immortal,
_invisible_, whom no man hath seen" with the literal eye, "_nor can
see_." This teaching is positive and pointed, but in ancient times even
"those to whom the word of God was sent were called gods." So said
Jesus. The one Jacob saw was called a man. And again, there was a
messenger--an angel, if you please--that bore Jehovah's name upon him.
(See Exodus xxiii, 21, _and context_.) This was the angel of God's
presence. "The angel of his presence saved them."--Isaiah lxiii, 9.
God's great messenger bore his name. Men saw him, the angel, and seeing
him saw God, for this angel was God with them--God's representative
bearing his name. This angel God, or angel having God's name in him,
talked with Moses. Moses saw him, and it is truthfully said that Moses
saw God, that is, saw this angel whose name was that of God. "And when
forty years were transpired there appeared to him, Moses, in the
wilderness of Mount Sinai, an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a
bush. When Moses saw it he wondered at the sight, and as he drew near to
behold it, the voice of the Lord came unto him." * * * * * This (Moses)
is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which
spoke to him in the Mount Sinai and with our fathers, etc. Moses went
up into Sinai and saw God, but it was simply the angel that bore his
name--the angel of his presence. That is all there is of it. I once sat
in a church-house in Logansport when there were present representatives
from different states in our Union, and a gentleman made a little
address and introduced them to the audience, saying, Ohio is here, Iowa
is here, Kentucky is here, Illinois is here, California is here. How was
this? Well, those men were messengers from those states, and their
presence was the presence of those several states. Just so the angel of
God's presence was with Moses; and Stephen said, _with our fathers_. The
presence of this angel was the presence of God, and they who saw him saw
God, for this angel's name was _God_, or, in other words, "God's name
was in him." But the God whose name this angel bore, and whose name even
men bore who were called Gods, because to them the word of God was sent,
and they, having God's word, were his representatives, _has not been
seen at any time, neither indeed can be with literal eyes_.
N.B.--Friends who wish to engage our attention and space must remember
the important rule among editors, and send their name along with their
requests and articles.