Questions On Bible Passages (2)

Question 6. What does being baptized for the dead mean?

Answer In this chapter, Paul is making an argument for the resurrection. In verses 12 through14, he shows that if Christ was not raised, then Christianity is vain or worthless. We are baptized in hope of a resurrection. We are baptized into Christ that we may live in him, die in him and finally be justified and saved in him.

If there is no resurrection, why be baptized in order for our well being after death? If we are not to be raised from the dead, why be baptized to fit us for the resurrection? The meaning is what is to become of those who on being baptized do so knowing it may cost them their physical life if the dead rise not. It would make no sense at all for them to take a chance on losing their physical life by being baptized . Yet many of them did lose their life. This would be absurd if there is no resurrection.  Contact Larry

Question 7. The dead have already risen acoarding to the book of Matt.  Willl they rise again.

Answer This was not a resurrection of all mankind, but of "many bodies of the saints". The graves were opened when Christ died on the cross, but they were not resurrected until after Christ was resurrected. The Bible doesn't say what happened to these saints, but it is assumed they died again as did Lazarus (John 11) and others that had been resurrected, and will rise again at the "second resurrection".  Contact Danny

Question 8. What does it mean when it talks about the lion sleeping with the lamb and there will be no more pain or suffering?

Answer I think this is the passage to which you refer:

Isa 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

Let's look at the context -- Isa 11:1-16

1   And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: 2   And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD; 3   And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears: 4   But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked. 5   And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins. 6   The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. 7   And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8   And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. 9   They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea. 10  And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious. 11  And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. 12  And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. 13  The envy also of Ephraim shall depart, and the adversaries of Judah shall be cut off: Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim. 14  But they shall fly upon the shoulders of the Philistines toward the west; they shall spoil them of the east together: they shall lay their hand upon Edom and Moab; and the children of Ammon shall obey them. 15  And the LORD shall utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea; and with his mighty wind shall he shake his hand over the river, and shall smite it in the seven streams, and make men go over dryshod. 16  And there shall be an highway for the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria; like as it was to Israel in the day that he came up out of the land of Egypt. (KJV)

A similar passage is:

Isa 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust [shall be] the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.

These passages are symbolic.  Much of the Bible is symbolic, but not all of it.   Do not be intimidated by that. 

You can figure it out with your common sense.  If it looks like symbols, it probably is symbolic.  If it looks like regular narrative, it probably is. And don't try to force an interpretation on each and every detail of the symbol.

Another basic rule of Bible study is to consider the Bible as a whole.  Figure out the difficult passages based on what you know about the simple ones.  Do not try to explain away a simple passage based on some far fetched interpretation of a difficult passage.

Who is the rod out of the stem of Jesse?  Jesus Christ.  See Rev 5:5

5   And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. (KJV)

       And also Rev 22:16 16  I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. (KJV)

And who is Jesse?  See Acts 13:22-23

22  And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will. 23  Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus: (KJV)

There are other verses too that deal with Jesse and the root or rod or stem.

Note that Isa. 11:2-5 speak about Jesus' earthly ministry.

This we have seen so far seems to be talking about the same thing as seen in Isa 2:1-4

1   The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. 2   And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. 3   And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 4   And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. (KJV)

Look especially at verse 4 -- another reference to a time of great peace.

What is this peace?  Put yourself in the place of the Israelites to whom Isaiah was prophesying.

Back up a little ways.  God chose a certain family as His chosen people, the family of Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel.  The Israelites. 

And what did God tell them to do?  Keep separate from the gentiles, the rest of the world.  Why?  To keep them religiously pure, and separate from the sinful nations.  Throughout the history of the nation of the people of Israel, whenever they messed around with the other gentile nations, they got into trouble.

So the Israelites, later called Jews, came to despise the gentiles as dogs. We can see that in the life of Christ.

Another illustration of the intensity of this hatred between Jews and gentiles is the accound in Acts 10, where God had to go to extreme lengths to get Peter (a Jew) to understand that under the new covenant, gentiles are to be accepted with God just the same as Jews.

God did two miracles to get it through Peter's thick skull.  First, the vision of the sheets of wild animals, where God said "Rise Peter, kill and eat.", and Peter refused, because some of the animals were "unclean."  The second miracle was when Cornelius, a gentile, spoke in tongues, a sign which Peter understood was from God.

But don't blame Peter, he just really understood God's requirement under the former covenant, the Law of Moses, to keep separate from the gentiles.  He was so intense in his "hatred" of the gentiles (and the rest of the Jews were too) that it took extreme measures on God's part to change their outlook.

Remember Jesus' commission, just before He left this earth, to His apostles?

       Matt 28:18-20 18  And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (KJV)

       Mark 16:15-16 15  And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (KJV)

       Luke 24:45-48 45  Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, 46  And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47  And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48  And ye are witnesses of these things. (KJV)

Note the emphasis here on "all nations" or "all the world."   Jesus commanded His apostles to teach not just only the Jews, but the gentiles also.

The point of all this discussion is that the peace of which Isaiah spoke, is the end of the enmity between the Jews and the gentiles. 

Paul explains this new peace between the Jews and the gentiles, in Eph 2:11-22

11  Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12  That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13  But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. 14  For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15  Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; 16  And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: 17  And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. 18  For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. 19  Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20  And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21  In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22  In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. (KJV)

Isaiah is referring to the time of the church, the kingdom of God, a time of total peace, but not a physical peace, a spiritual peace.

There are many many other passages which point to this same consistent conclusion.   So that is what Isaiah meant by no more pain or suffering.  Contact David

Question 9.  In Genesis 6:2 (and after) it talks about "the sons of God" taking the daughter of men as wives. One translation even says "heavenly beings" took mortal women to be their wives and that thru that union "giants" and "Mighty men" were birthed. I have trouble believing that angels or demons had sex with human women. I think that that the sons of God refer to the godly line of Seth while the daughters of men refer to the ungodly line of Cain. I don't find any other scriptural support for unions between man and angels. I've got a friend who says it's still happening today, most specifically with women and demons.

Answer  I think I agree with your position on the verse. See below the studies of some commentaries:

Genesis 6:1-2

Depravity of the world

For the glory of God's justice, and for warning to a wicked world, before the history of the ruin of the old world, we have a full account of its degeneracy, its apostasy from God and rebellion against him. The destroying of it was an act, not of an absolute sovereignty, but of necessary justice, for the maintaining of the honour of God's government. Now here we have an account of two things which occasioned the wickedness of the old world:--

1. The increase of mankind: Men began to multiply upon the face of the earth. This was the effect of the blessing <Gen 1:28>, and yet man's corruption so abused and perverted this blessing that it was turned into a curse. Thus sin takes occasion by the mercies of God to be the more exceedingly sinful. <Prov. 29:16>, when the wicked are multiplied, transgression increaseth. The more sinners the more sin; and the multitude of offenders emboldens men. Infectious diseases are most destructive in populous cities; and sin is a spreading leprosy. Thus in the New-Testament church, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring <Acts 6:1>, and we read of a nation that was multiplied, not to the increase of their joy, <Isa. 9:3>. Numerous families need to be well-governed, lest they become wicked families.

2. Mixed marriages (v. 2): The sons of God (that is, the professors of religion, who were called by the name of the Lord, and called upon that name), married the daughters of men, that is, those that were profane, and strangers to God and godliness. The posterity of Seth did not keep by themselves, as they ought to have done, both for the preservation of their own purity and in detestation of the apostasy. They intermingled themselves with the excommunicated race of Cain: They took them wives of all that they chose. But what was amiss in these marriages?

(1.) they chose only by the eye: They saw that they were fair, which was all they looked at.

(2.) they followed the choice which their own corrupt affections made: they took all that they chose, without advice and consideration. But,

(3.) That which proved of such bad consequence to them was that they married strange wives, were unequally yoked with unbelievers, <2 Cor. 6:14>. This was forbidden to Israel, <Deut. 7:3-4>. It was the unhappy occasion of Solomon's apostasy <1 Kin. 11:1-4>, and was of bad consequence to the Jews after their return out of Babylon, <Ezra 9:1-2>. Note, Professors of religion, in marrying both themselves and their children, should make conscience of keeping within the bounds of profession. The bad will sooner debauch the good than the good reform the bad. Those that profess themselves the children of God must not marry without his consent, which they have not if they join in affinity with his enemies.

(from Matthew Henry's Commentary)

-

Genesis 6:2

That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

[The sons of God saw the daughters of men.] This is a difficult passage, and various modes of interpreting it have been proposed:

(1) An opinion extensively adopted is, that the "sons of God" denote angels, "daughters of men," women generally; and that the transaction referred to was, that the angels who had been appointed to guard Eden and perambulate the world, becoming enamoured with women, mingled familiarly in their society, and cohabited with them. This view is of great antiquity, having been entertained, according to Josephus, in the later ages of the Jewish Church, and eagerly adopted by Justin, Athenagoras, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, and Lactantius, whose semi-pagan imaginations were dazzled by the rhapsodical legends of the Apocryphal book of Enoch. Being strenuously opposed at a subsequent period by Chrysostom, Augustine, and others, it was long exploded in the Christian Church as a wild and revolting fiction, until it was revived in modern times, and supported on various grounds by Rosenmuller, Gesenius, Kurtz, Tuch, Knobel, and Delitzsch, in Germany; and by Govett (`Isaiah Unfulfilled'), Maitland (`False Worship'), and others (Birks' `Difficulties') in England, not to speak of Milton, Byron, and Moore, all of whom enlisted it in the service of poetry. The alleged application of the name "sons of God" to angels in the poetical book of Job (<Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7>; and perhaps <Dan. 3:25>), which is thought to have been written by Moses; the Septuagint version [which has hoi (grk 3588), angeloi (grk 32) tou (grk 5120) Theou (grk 2316), the anqels of God]; the supposed testimonies of Peter <1 Pet 3:19-20; 2 Pet. 2:4> and Jude <Jude 1:6-7> in favour of this view, referring, as some imagine, to a class of fallen angels who, unlike Satan and his followers, are, because the enormity of their crimes, reserved in chains until the judgment-day; and the assumption that an extraordinary outrage must have been perpetrated before a judgment so awful as the flood would have been inflicted, are the grounds on which this opinion is rested by its supporters. But Keil, Faber, and others, have successfully shown that angels are not designated "the sons of God" in any part of the Pentateuch; that there is no reference to angels in this passage; still less in Peter, where, by `the disobedient spirits in prison, ' and the angels that kept not their first habitation, as also in Jude, where by the allusion to Sodom and Gomorrah, Balaam and Korah <Jude 1:7-11>, it is proved that the apostles had in view only erring, sinful men.

Moveover, not to dwell on the impossibility <Matt. 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:36> of angels having such a carnal intercourse as is alluded to, and on the likelihood that Divine Providence would have immediately interposed rather than have deferred the judicial punishment of so enormous a violation of natural order for 120 years, the entire context of this passage refers to men as having corrupted their ways, and being, by the withdrawal of God's Spirit, doomed to punishment. For these and other reasons, this opinion as to the connection of angels with women is generally opposed by orthodox divines as contrary to all sound notions both of philosophy and religion.

(2) another interpretation of the passage, which has been suggested in our own day, proceeds on the hypothesis that there were other varieties of mankind in existence beside the descendants of Adam; and, in accordance with this view, the following translation is proposed:-- `And it came to pass, when the Adamites (literally, the Adam) began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, ' `the sons of 'Elohiym (heb 430) '-- the sons of the gods-- the other races, saw the daughters of the Adamites that they were goodly, and they took them wives of all which they chose (`Genesis of the Earth and of Man'). That 'Aadaam (heb 121), with the Hebrew article, is used as the name of an individual, see the note at <Gen. 6:1-2>. The term is, indeed, frequently used generically for mankind, but never to denote a distinct race of human beings; and accordingly it is not found in the plural, which it would have been if applied to a race. It might naturally have been expected, that in some ancient version this interpretation, if right, would have been found, but not one has been discovered to give the smallest countenance to such a view; and therefore, until some stronger evidence shall be adduced than what the world has yet seen, to prove that mankind are not all descended from one pair, the theory respecting the existence of a race called the Adamites, as separate from other human creatures, must be rejected.

(3) the most correct, and now the most prevalent, view of this passage-- the view supported by Chrysostom and Augustine in ancient, and by Luther, Calvin, Hengstenberg, Keil, Faber, etc., in modern times-- is that by "the sons of God," are meant the Sethites principally, but including also those other descendants of Adam who professed the same religious views and feelings:

`That sober race of men, whose lives Religious titled them the sons of God. '

And by "the daughters of men," women of Cainite descent, including such as might have joined their degenerate society from other branches of the Adamic family. Pious people, professors of the true religion, who truly reflected the divine image, were "the sons of God ('Elohiym (heb 430))," and were called by that name long before the theocracy had brought the Israelites into the special relationship of the Lord's (Yahweh's) children <Exo. 4:22-23; Deut. 14:1; 32:5; Ps. 73:15; 82:6; Isa. 63:16; Hos. 1:10>, or the idea attached to the name had received its full development in the Christian Church <John 1:12; Rom. 8:14,19; 1 John 3:1-2>.

Moveover, that the Hebrew word 'Aadaam (heb 121), with or without the article, is often used to denote a particular class, in contradistinction to men in general-- men of worldly, irreligious character-- will appear from the following passages <Judg. 16:7; 18:28; Ps. 73:5; 1 Cor. 3:4>. The meaning of the clause under notice, then, is that the professedly religions class of the antediluvians, consisting principally of Sethites, with some others-- a class who, by their principles and practice, had long kept themselves separate from the world-- began gradually to relax their strictness, and to abandon their isolated position, by cultivating acquaintance, and then forming alliances, with "the daughters of men" in general, the Cainite and other women of similar character. This is what is referred to by Jude, when he says <Jude 1:6> that they kept not [teen (grk 3588) heautoon (grk 1438) archeen (grk 746)] their primitive dignity as sons of God, and the original excellence in which they were created, but left [to idion oiketeerion] their own proper situation (Bloomfield). The interpretation of the phrase, "sons of God" now given connects the present passage with <Gen. 4:26>, from which it is divided by the insertion of <Gen. 5>, which seems a distinct document; and the two verses thus viewed throw light upon each other, as well as upon the course of the following narrative.

[They took wives of all which they chose.] The Hebrew verb, laaqach (heb 3947), to take, with 'ishaah (heb 802) <Gen. 19:14; 1 Sam. 25:43>, and sometimes without it <Gen. 34:9,16; Deut. 20:7; 1 Chr. 22:22>, signifies to take in marriage. From this usual import of the term, therefore, the marriages which the Sethites formed with the Cainite women were legitimate connections; and as female beauty has always exercised a powerful influence over the minds of men in the choice of their wives, there was no impropriety in allowing that element of attraction to have weight in forming the matrimonial relation then, any more than now. But the Sethites seem, in their admiration of external charms, to have paid no regard to the will of God respecting religious principle and character; and as intermarriages with unbelievers and profane women have in all ages been productive of numerous evils <Gen. 27:46; 28:1; Exo. 34:16; 2 Cor. 6:14>, it must be concluded that the sacred historian had such consequences in view when he took such a prominent notice of the manners which formed a characteristic feature of the latest antediluvian age.

Mixed marriages between parties of opposite principles and practice must necessarily be sources of extensive corruption. The women, irreligious themselves, would, as wives and mothers, exert an influence fatal to the existence of religion in their household, and consequently the later antediluvians sank to the lowest depravity. But the phrase "took them wives of all which they chose evidently implies something very different from the simple exercise of a free choice; and it seems a conclusion perfectly warranted by the terms of this passage, that the practice of polygamy had widely spread. until it became the chief cause of that universal corruption and violence which ensued. In connection with this, it may be added that the Hebrew 'Elohiym (heb 430) sometimes signifies `the great, the mighty' <Ps. 29:1; 82:1,7; John 10:34>, and the Hebrew 'aadaam (heb 120), as distinguished from 'iysh (heb 376), denotes the poor, humble, and common people <Ps. 49:1-2; Isa. 2:8-9>; so that we may consider the passage still further as implying that the princes, or sons of the chief men, broke through the restraints of social and domestic order, by taking, in profligate and violent licentiousness, numbers of beautiful women from among the humbler classes to fill their harems.

(from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary)

Genesis 6:1-4. There are two stages of evil set forth in <Gen. 6:1-4>-- the one contained in the present four verses, and the other in the following. The former refers to the apostasy of the descendants of Sheth, and the cause and consequences of it. When man began to multiply, the separate families of Cain and Sheth would come into contact. The daughters of the stirring Cainites, distinguished by the graces of nature, the embellishments of art, and the charms of music and song, even though destitute of the loftier qualities of likemindedness with God, would attract attention and prompt to unholy alliances. The phrase "sons of God," means an order of intelligent beings who "retain the purity of moral character" originally communicated, or subsequently restored, by their Creator. They are called the sons of God, because they have his spirit or disposition. The sons of God mentioned in <Job 38:7>, are an order of rational beings existing before the creation of man, and joining in the symphony of the universe, when the earth and all things were called into being. Then all were holy, for all are styled the sons of God. Such, however, are not meant in the present passage. For they were not created as a race, have no distinction of sex, and therefore no sexual desire; they "neither marry nor are given in marriage" <Mat. 22:30>. It is contrary to the law of nature for different species even on earth to cohabit in a carnal way; much more for those in the body, and those who have not a body of flesh. Moreover, we are here in the region of humanity, and not in the sphere of superhuman spirits; and the historian has not given the slightest intimation of the existence of spiritual beings different from man.

The sons of God, therefore, are those who are on the Lord's side, who approach him with duly significant offerings, who call upon him by his proper name, and who walk with God in their daily conversation. The figurative use of the word "son" to denote a variety of relations incidental, and moral as well as natural, was not unfamiliar to the early speaker. Thus, Noah is called "the son of five hundred years" <Gen. 5:32>. Abraham calls Eliezer [ben] (heb 1121) [beeytiy] (heb 1004), "son of my house" <Gen. 15:3>. The dying Rachel names her son Ben-oni, "son of my sorrow," while his father called him Benjamin, "son of thy right hand" <Gen. 35:18>. An obvious parallel to the moral application is presented in the phrases "the seed of the woman" and "the seed of the serpent." The word "generations" [towlªdot (heb 8435), <Gen. 5:1>) exhibits a similar freedom and elasticity of meaning, being applied to the whole doings of a rational being, and even to the physical changes of the material world <Gen. 2:4>]. The occasion for the present designation is furnished in the remark of Eve on the birth of Sheth. God hath given me another seed instead of Habel. Her son Sheth she therefore regarded as the son of God. Accordingly, about the birth of his son Enosh, was begun the custom calling upon the name of the Lord, no doubt in the family circle of Adam, with whom Sheth continued to dwell. And Enok, the seventh from Adam in the same line, exhibited the first striking example of a true believer walking with God in all the intercourse of life. These descendants of Sheth, among whom were also Lamek who spoke of the Lord, and Noah who walked with God, are therefore by a natural transition called the sons of God, the godlike in a moral sense, being born of the Spirit, and walking not after the flesh, but after the Spirit <Ps. 82:6; Hos. 2:1>.

Some take "the daughters of man" to be the daughters of the Cainites only. But it is sufficient to understand by this phrase, the daughters of man in general, without any distinction of a moral or spiritual kind, and therefore including both Cainite and Shethite females. "And they took them wives of all whom they chose." The evil here described is that of promiscuous intermarriage, without regard to spiritual character. The godly took them wives of all; that is, of the ungodly as well as the godly families, without any discrimination. "Whom they chose," not for the godliness of their lives, but for the goodliness of their looks. Ungodly mothers will not train up children in the way they should go; and husbands who have taken the wrong step of marrying ungodly wives cannot prove to be very exemplary or authoritative fathers. Up to this time they may have been consistent as the sons of God in their outward conduct. But a laxity of choice proves a corresponding laxity of principle. The first inlet of sin prepares the way for the flood-gates of iniquity. It is easy to see that now the degeneracy of the whole race will go on at a rapid pace.

(from Barnes' Notes)   Contact David

Ask A Bible Question

Answers To Your Bible Questions

"Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®,
© Copyright The Lockman Foundation 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971,
  1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995. Used by permission."
(www.Lockman.org)

Top