# info

name: detailed_info
value:
When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties, Norman L. Geisler &amp; Thomas Howe, 1960


# commentaries

text:
How can the universe have a “beginning” when modern science says energy is eternal?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, “Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.” If this is so, then the universe must be eternal, since it is made of indestructible energy. However, the Bible indicates that the universe had a “beginning” and did not exist before God “created” it (<a href='B:10 1:1'>Gen 1:1</a>). Is this not a contradiction between the Bible and science?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There is a conflict of opinion here, but no real factual contradiction. The factual evidence indicates that the universe is not eternal, but that it did have a beginning just as the Bible says. Several observations are relevant here.<p/>Second, another well-established scientific law is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It states that “the amount of usable energy in the universe is decreasing.” According to this Law, the universe is running down. Its energy is being transformed into unusable heat. If this is so, then the universe is not eternal, since it would have run out of usable energy a long time ago. Or, to put it another way, if the universe is unwinding, then it was wound up. If it had an infinite amount of energy it would never run down. Therefore, the universe had a beginning, just as <a href='B:10 1:1'>Gen 1:1</a> says it did.<p/><b><a href='B:10 1:1'>Gen 1:1</a> —</b> How could the author of Genesis know what happened at creation before he was even created?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Traditional Christian scholarship has maintained that the first five books of the Bible were written by Moses. The first two chapters of the Book of Genesis read as an eyewitness account of the events of creation. However, how could Moses, or any man for that matter, write these chapters as if he were an eyewitness since he would not have existed at the time?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Of course, there was an eyewitness of creation—God, the Creator. These chapters are obviously a record of creation which God specifically reported to Moses by way of special revelation. The tendency to ask questions like, “How did the chronicler know that minerals preceded plants and plants preceded animals?” betrays an antisupernatural bias and a refusal to consider alternative explanations other than those proposed by naturalistic science. 


text:
How could there be light before the sun was made?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The sun was not created until the fourth day, yet there was light on the first day (<a href='B:10 1:3'>1:3</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The sun is not the only source of light in the universe. Further, the sun may have existed from the first day, but only appeared or became visible (as the mist cleared) on the fourth day. We see light on a cloudy day, even when we can’t see the sun. 


text:
Why does the Bible use the plural “us” when God refers to Himself?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Orthodox Christian and Jewish scholars maintain that God is one. In fact, the historic confession of the faith of Israel is taken from <a href='B:50 6:4'>Deu 6:4</a> which says, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is One!” However, if God is one, why does this verse in Genesis use the word “Us”?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There have been several explanations offered throughout history. Some commentators have claimed that this is merely a case where God is addressing the angels. But this is unlikely since in verse 26 God says, “Let Us make man in Our image” while verse 27 makes it clear that “God created man in His own image; in the image of God ” and not in the image of the angels.<p/>Others have claimed that the plural pronoun refers to the Trinity. It is clear from the NT (e.g., <a href='B:500 1:1'>John 1:1</a>) that the Son was involved in the creation of the heavens and the earth. Also, <a href='B:10 1:2'>Gen 1:2</a> indicates that the Holy Spirit was equally involved in the creation process. However, students of Hebrew grammar point out that the plural pronoun “us” is simply required by the plural Hebrew noun elohim which is translated “God” (“Then God [elohim, plural] said, `Let Us [plural] make man in Our [plural] image’”). Consequently, they claim that this statement should not be used to prove the doctrine of the Trinity. Indeed, the Quran, which denies more than one person in God, uses “us” of God, demonstrating that the Near Eastern usage of “us” does not necessarily mean more than one person.<p/>Still others have asserted that the plural is used as a figure of speech called a majestic plural. In this use, God is speaking to Himself in such a manner as to indicate that all of His majestic power and wisdom were involved in the creation of man. As has been noted, the plural pronoun “Us” corresponds to the plural Hebrew word elohim which is translated God. The fact that the name “God” is plural in Hebrew does not indicate that there is more than one God, or that this is actually a reference to God being a group of extraterrestrial astronauts. There are a great number of passages in the NT that refer to God with the singular Greek noun theos, which is also translated “God” (<a href='B:480 13:19'>Mark 13:19</a>; <a href='B:500 1:1'>John 1:1</a>; <a href='B:560 3:9'>Eph 3:9</a>; etc.). The plural nature of the Hebrew word is designed to give a fuller, more majestic sense to God’s name. It should be noted, however, that the NT clearly teaches that God is a Trinity (<a href='B:470 3:16-17'>Matt 3:16-17</a>; <a href='B:540 13:14'>2Cor 13:14</a>; <a href='B:670 1:2'>1Pet 1:2</a>) and, although the doctrine of the Trinity is not fully developed in the OT, it is foreshadowed by many passages (cf. <a href='B:230 110:1'>Ps 110:1</a>; <a href='B:290 63:7'>Isa 63:7</a>; <a href='B:290 63:9'>9–10</a>; <a href='B:240 30:4'>Prov 30:4</a>). 


text:
Were Adam and Eve real people or just myths?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Many modern scholars consider the first chapters of Genesis to be myth, not history. But the Bible seems to present Adam and Eve as literal people, who had real children from whom the rest of the human race came (cf. <a href='B:10 5:1'>Gen 5:1</a>ff).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There is good evidence to believe that Adam and Eve were real persons. First, Genesis 1–2 presents them as actual persons and even narrates the important events in their lives (=history). Second, they gave birth to literal children who did the same (<a href='B:10 4:1'>Gen 4:1</a>; <a href='B:10 4:25'>25</a>; <a href='B:10 5:1'>5:1</a>ff). Third, the same phrase (“this is the history of”), used to record later history in Genesis (<a href='B:10 6:9'>6:9</a>; <a href='B:10 9:12'>9:12</a>; <a href='B:10 10:1,32'>10:1,32</a>; <a href='B:10 11:10,27'>11:10,27</a>; <a href='B:10 17:7,9'>17:7,9</a>), is used of Adam and Eve (<a href='B:10 5:1'>Gen 5:1</a>). Fourth, later OT chronologies place Adam at the top of the list (<a href='B:130 1:1'>1Chron 1:1</a>). Fifth, the NT places Adam at the beginning of Jesus’ literal ancestors (<a href='B:490 3:38'>Luke 3:38</a>). Sixth, Jesus referred to Adam and Eve as the first literal “male and female,” making their physical union the basis of marriage (<a href='B:470 19:4'>Matt 19:4</a>). Seventh, Romans declares that literal death was brought into the world by a literal “Adam” (<a href='B:520 5:14'>Rom 5:14</a>). Eighth, the comparison of Adam (the “first Adam”) with Christ (the “last Adam”) in <a href='B:530 15:45'>1Cor 15:45</a> manifests that Adam was understood as a literal, historical person. Ninth, Paul’s declaration that “Adam was formed first, then Eve” (<a href='B:610 2:13–14'>1Tim 2:13–14</a>) reveals that he speaks of a real person. Tenth, logically there had to be a first real set of human beings, male and female, or else the race would have had no way to begin. The Bible calls this literal couple “Adam and Eve,” and there is no reason to doubt their real existence.<p/><b><a href='B:290 40:25'>ISAIAH 40:25</a> —</b> If nothing is like God, then how can humans be in the image of God?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Isaiah wrote: “ `To whom will you liken Me, or to whom shall I be equal?’ says the Holy One.” Yet the Bible says “God created man in His own image” (<a href='B:10 1:27'>Gen 1:27</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Isaiah is not denying all similarity between God and His creatures. In fact, the Bible affirms elsewhere, “He who planted the ear shall He not hear? He who formed the eye, shall He not see?” (<a href='B:230 94:9'>Ps 94:9</a>) Indeed, God is reflected in the mirror of His creation (cf. <a href='B:230 19:1'>Ps 19:1</a>; <a href='B:520 1:19-20'>Rom 1:19-20</a>). Isaiah is simply affirming that the transcendent God is more than His creation, even though He is not totally unlike it. 


text:
How could the world be created in six days?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The Bible says that God created the world in six days (<a href='B:20 20:11'>Ex 20:11</a>). But modern science declares that it took billions of years. Both cannot be true.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are basically two ways to reconcile this difficulty.<p/>1. The days of Genesis each have “evening and the morning,” (cf. <a href='B:10 1:5'>Gen 1:5</a>; <a href='B:10 1:8'>8</a>; <a href='B:10 1:13'>13</a>; <a href='B:10 1:19'>19</a>; <a href='B:10 1:23'>23</a>; <a href='B:10 1:31'>31</a>), something unique to 24-hour days in the Bible.<p/>2. The days were numbered (first, second, third, etc.), a feature found only with 24- hour days in the Bible.<p/>3.<a href='B:20 20:11'> Exodus 20:11</a> compares the six days of creation with the six days of a literal work week of 144 hours.<p/>4. There is scientific evidence to support a young age (of thousands of years) for the earth.<p/>Other Bible scholars claim that the universe could be billions of years old without sacrificing a literal understanding of <a href='B:10 1'>Gen 1</a> and<p/>2. They argue that:<p/>1. The days of <a href='B:10 1'>Gen 1</a> could have a time lapse before the days began (before <a href='B:10 1:3'>Gen 1:3</a>), or a time gap between the days. There are gaps elsewhere in the Bible (cf. <a href='B:470 1:8'>Matt 1:8</a>, where threegenerations are omitted, with <a href='B:130 3:11-14'>1Chron 3:11-14</a>).<p/>2. The same Hebrew word “day” (yom) is used in Genesis 1–2 as a period of time longer than 24 hours. For example, <a href='B:10 2:4'>Gen 2:4</a> uses it of the whole six day period of creation.<p/>3. Sometimes the Bible uses the word “day” for long periods of time: “One day is as a thousand years” (<a href='B:680 3:8'>2Peter 3:8</a>; cf. <a href='B:230 90:4'>Ps 90:4</a>).<p/>4. There are some indications in Genesis 1–2 that days could be longer than 24 hours:<p/>c) The Bible says God “rested” on the seventh day (<a href='B:10 2:2'>2:2</a>), and that He is still in His rest from creation (<a href='B:650 4:4'>Heb 4:4</a>). Thus, the seventh day is thousands of years long already. If so, then other days could be thousands of years too. 5.<a href='B:20 20:11'> Exodus 20:11</a> could be making a unit-for-unit comparison between the days of Genesis and a work week (of 144 hours), not a minute-by-minute comparison.<p/>Conclusion: There is no demonstrated contradiction of fact between <a href='B:10 1'>Gen 1</a> and science. There is only a conflict of interpretation. Either, most modern scientists are wrong in insisting the world is billions of years old, or else some Bible interpreters are wrong in insisting on only 144 hours of creation some several thousand years before Christ with no gaps allowing millions of years. But, in either case it is not a question of inspiration of Scripture, but of the interpretation of Scripture (and of the scientific data). 


text:
Why does this chapter use the term “Lord God” rather than “God” as in chapter one?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Many critics insist that <a href='B:10 2'>Gen 2</a> must have been written by someone different from the one who wrote Genesis 1, since <a href='B:10 2'>Gen 2</a> uses a different name for God. However, conservative scholars have always insisted that Moses composed Genesis, as indeed both Jewish and Christian scholars have down through the centuries. Indeed, the first five books of the OT are called “the Books of Moses” (<a href='B:140 25:4'>2Chron 25:4</a>) or “Law of Moses” (<a href='B:490 24:44'>Luke 24:44</a>) by both OT and NT writers.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Moses did write the first five books of the OT (see comments on <a href='B:20 24:4'>Ex 24:4</a>). The use of a different term for God in the second chapter of Genesis does not prove there was a different author; it simply shows that the same author had a different purpose (see comments on <a href='B:10 2:19'>Gen 2:19</a>). In chapter 1, God is the Creator, whereas in chapter 2 He is the Communicator. First, man is seen in his relation to the Creator (hence, the use of “God” or elohim, the mighty one). Next, God is seen as the Covenant-maker, thus, the use of “Lord God,” the One who makes covenants with man. Different names are used of God since they designate a different aspect of His dealings with man (see <a href='B:10 15:1'>Gen 15:1</a>; <a href='B:20 6:3'>Ex 6:3</a>). 


text:
Was the Garden of Eden a real place or just a myth?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The Bible declares that God “planted a garden eastward in Eden” (<a href='B:10 2:8'>Gen 2:8</a>), but there is no archaeological evidence that any such place existed. Is this just a myth?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First of all, we would not expect any archaeological evidence, since there is no indication that Adam and Eve made pottery or built durable buildings. Second, there is geographical evidence of Eden, since two of the rivers mentioned still exist today—the Tigris (Hiddekel) and the Euphrates (<a href='B:10 2:14'>Gen 2:14</a>). Further, the Bible even locates them in “Assyria” (v. 14), which is present day Iraq. Finally, whatever evidence there may have been for the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2–3) was probably destroyed by God at the time of the Flood (Gen. 6–9). 


text:
Why didn’t Adam die the day he ate the forbidden fruit, as God said he would?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> God said to Adam, “in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (<a href='B:10 2:17'>Gen 2:17</a>). But Adam lived to be 930 years old after he sinned (<a href='B:10 5:5'>Gen 5:5</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The word “day” (yom) does not always mean a 24-hour day. For “one day (yom) is as a thousand years” (<a href='B:230 90:4'>Ps 90:4</a>; cf. <a href='B:680 3:8'>2Peter 3:8</a>). Adam did die within a “day” in this sense. Further, Adam began to die physically the very moment he sinned (<a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a>), and he also died spiritually the exact instant he sinned (<a href='B:560 2:1'>Eph 2:1</a>). So Adam died in several ways, any one of which would fulfill the pronouncement of God (in <a href='B:10 2:17'>Gen 2:17</a>). 


text:
<a href='B:10 2:19'>Gen 2:19</a> —How can we explain the difference in the order of creation events between <a href='B:10 1'>Gen 1</a> and 2?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:10 1'>Gen 1</a> declares that animals were created before humans, but <a href='B:10 2:19'>Gen 2:19</a> seems to reverse this, saying, “the Lord God formed every beast of the field … and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them,” implying Adam was created before they were.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> <a href='B:10 1'>Gen 1</a> gives the order of events; <a href='B:10 2'>Gen 2</a> provides more content about them. <a href='B:10 2'>Gen 2</a> does not contradict chapter 1, since it does not affirm exactly when God created the animals. He simply says He brought the animals (which He had previously created) to Adam so that he might name them. The focus in chapter 2 is on the naming of the animals, not on creating them. <a href='B:10 1'>Gen 1</a> provides the outline of events, and chapter 2 gives details. Taken together, the two chapters provide a harmonious and more complete picture of the creation events. The differences, then, can be summarized as follows:<p/><a href='B:10 1'>Gen 1</a> <a href='B:10 2'>Gen 2</a> 


text:
Is man made like God or does he become like God?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:10 1:27'>Gen 1:27</a> says “God created man in His own image.” But in <a href='B:10 3:22'>Gen 3:22</a> God said, “the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil.” The former seems to affirm that humans are made like God, and the latter appears to assert that he becomes like God.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The two passages are speaking of two different things. <a href='B:10 1'>Gen 1</a> is speaking about a human virtue by creation, while <a href='B:10 3'>Gen 3</a> is referring to what he had by acquisition. The first passage refers to Adam and Eve before the Fall, and the last is referring to them after the Fall. The former refers to their nature and the latter to their state. By creation Adam did not know good and evil. Once he sinned, he knew good and evil. Once these differences are understood, there is no conflict. 


text:
How could Adam and Eve go from God’s presence if God is everywhere?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The Bible says that God is everywhere present at the same time, that is, He is omnipresent (<a href='B:230 139:7-10'>Ps 139:7-10</a>; <a href='B:300 23:23'>Jer 23:23</a>). But, if God is everywhere, then how could Adam and Eve be sent out “from the presence of the Lord”?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This verse is not speaking of God’s omnipresence, but of a visible manifestation of God (cf. v. 24). God is everywhere in His omnipresence, but from time to time He manifested Himself in certain places through certain things, such as a burning bush (<a href='B:20 3'>Ex 3</a>), the pillar of fire (<a href='B:20 13:21'>Ex 13:21</a>), smoke in the temple (<a href='B:290 6'>Isa 6</a>), and so forth. It is in this latter localized sense that one can go “from the presence of the Lord.” 


text:
Does God show respect to certain persons?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> God is represented in the Scriptures as someone who “is no respect[er] of persons” (<a href='B:520 2:11'>Rom 2:11</a>, KJV), and one who “shows no partiality” (<a href='B:50 10:17'>Deut 10:17</a>). Yet, this verse tells us that God “did not respect Cain and his offering,” which seems contradictory to the other verses.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First of all, in the fundamental sense of the word, God respects every person for who he or she is, a creature made in His image and likeness (<a href='B:10 1:27'>Gen 1:27</a>). If He didn’t, He would not be respecting Himself. But, when the Bible says God is no respecter of persons, it means that He does not show partiality in meeting out His justice. As <a href='B:50 10'>Deu 10</a> puts it, He “shows no partiality nor takes a bribe” (v. 17). In other words, God is completely fair and even-handed in His dealings.<p/>However, there is a sense in which it can be said that God does not respect some persons because of their evil deeds. God “did not respect Cain and his offering ” (<a href='B:10 4:5'>Gen 4:5</a>) because it was not offered in faith (<a href='B:650 11:4'>Heb 11:4</a>). Thus, the Bible also speaks of God hating Esau (<a href='B:460 1:3'>Mal 1:3</a>) and the Nicolaitans (<a href='B:730 2:6'>Rev 2:6</a>), not because of their person, but because of their practice. As John told the believers at Ephesus, they should “hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans” (<a href='B:730 2:6'>Rev 2:6</a>). God loves the sinner, but hates the sin. 


text:
Why wasn’t Cain given capital punishment for the murder he committed?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In the OT, murderers were given capital punishment for their crime (<a href='B:10 9:6'>Gen 9:6</a>; <a href='B:20 21:12'>Ex 21:12</a>). Yet Cain was not only set free after murdering his brother, but he was protected from any avenger (<a href='B:10 4:15'>Gen 4:15</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are several reasons why Cain was not executed for his capital crime. First, God had not yet established capital punishment as an instrument of human government (cf. <a href='B:520 13:1-4'>Rom 13:1-4</a>). Only after violence filled the earth in the days before the flood did God say, “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man” (<a href='B:10 9:6'>Gen 9:6</a>).<p/>Further, who would have killed Cain? Cain had just killed Abel. At this early stage only Adam and Eve were left. Surely, God would not have called upon the parents to kill their only remaining son. In view of this, God, who alone is sovereign over life and death (<a href='B:50 32:39'>Deut 32:39</a>), personally commuted Cain’s death penalty. However, in so doing, God implied the gravity of Cain’s sin and implied he was worthy of death by declaring that “the voice of your brother’s blood cries out to Me [for vengeance] from the ground” (v. 10). Nonetheless, even Cain seemed to recognize that he was worthy of death, and he asked God for protection (v. 14). Finally, God’s promise to protect Cain from vengeance implies capital punishment would be taken on any who took Cain’s life (cf. v. 15). So, Cain’s case is the exception that proves the rule, and by no means does it argue against capital punishment as established by God (see comments on <a href='B:500 8:3-11'>John 8:3-11</a>). 


text:
Where did Cain get his wife?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> There were no women for Cain to marry. There was only Adam, Eve (<a href='B:10 4:1'>4:1</a>), and his dead brother Abel (<a href='B:10 4:8'>4:8</a>). Yet the Bible says Cain married and had children.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Cain married his sister (or possibly a niece). The Bible says Adam “begot sons and daughters’ ’ (<a href='B:10 5:4'>Gen 5:4</a>). In fact, since Adam lived 930 years (<a href='B:10 5:5'>Gen 5:5</a>), he had plenty of time for plenty of children! Cain could have married one of his many sisters, or even a niece, if he married after his brothers or sisters had grown daughters. In that case, of course, one of his brothers would have married a sister.<p/><b><a href='B:10 4:17'>Gen 4:17</a> —</b> How could Cain marry a relative without committing incest?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> If Cain married his sister, this is incest, which the Bible condemns (<a href='B:30 18:6'>Lev 18:6</a>). Furthermore, incestuous marriages often produce genetically defective children.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, there were no genetic imperfections at the beginning of the human race. God created a genetically perfect Adam (<a href='B:10 1:27'>Gen 1:27</a>). Genetic defects resulted from the Fall and only occurred gradually over long periods of time. Further, there was no command in Cain’s day not to marry a close relative. This command (<a href='B:30 18'>Lev 18</a>) came thousands of years later in Moses’ day (c. 1500 B.C.). Finally, since the human race began with a single pair (Adam and Eve), Cain had no one else to marry except a close female relative (sister or niece). 


text:
Did worship of God begin here or earlier?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to this verse, people did not begin “to call on the name of the Lord” until the days of Enosh, the third son of Adam and Eve. Yet their first son, Abel, brought an acceptable sacrifice to the Lord before this time (<a href='B:10 4:3-4'>Gen 4:3-4</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The meaning of “call upon the name of the Lord” (in <a href='B:10 4:26'>Gen 4:26</a>) is not clear. And what is not clear cannot be taken to contradict what is clear, namely, that Abel worshiped God before Enosh did. It is possible that calling on the Lord implied a regular, more solemn, and/or public worship of the Lord, or prayer (cf. <a href='B:520 10:13'>Rom 10:13</a>) that was not practiced earlier. At any rate, there is no contradiction here, since it does not say that Abel or anyone else “called on the Lord” before this time— whatever it may mean. 


text:
<b>ff—</b> How can we reconcile this chronology (which adds up to c. 4,000 years B.C.) when anthropology has shown humankind is much older?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> If the ages are added in <a href='B:10 5'>Gen 5</a> and 10 with the rest of the OT dates, it comes out to 4,000 plus years B.C. But, archaeologists and anthropologists date modern man many thousands of years before that (at least 10,000 years ago).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There is good evidence to support the belief that humankind is more than 6,000 years old. But there are also good reasons to believe there are some gaps in the Genesis genealogies. First, we know there is a gap in the genealogy in the Book of Matthew. Matthew’s genealogy says “Joram begot Uzziah” (<a href='B:470 1:8'>Matt 1:8</a>). But when compared to <a href='B:130 3:11-14'>1Chr 3:11-14</a>, we see that Matthew leaves out three generations—Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah as follows:<p/>Second, there is at least one generation missing in the Genesis genealogy. <a href='B:490 3:36'>Luke 3:36</a> lists “Cainan” between Arphaxad and Shelah, but the name Cainan does not appear in the Genesis record at this point (see <a href='B:10 10:22-24'>Gen 10:22-24</a>). It is better to view <a href='B:10 5'>Gen 5</a> and 10 as adequategenealogies, not as complete chronologies.<p/>Finally, since there are known gaps in the genealogies, we cannot accurately determine the age of the human race by simply adding the numbers in <a href='B:10 5'>Gen 5</a> and<p/>10. 


text:
How could people live over 900 years?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Adam “lived nine hundred and thirty years” (<a href='B:10 5:5'>Gen 5:5</a>), Methuselah lived “nine hundred and sixty-nine years” (<a href='B:10 5:27'>Gen 5:27</a>), and the average age of those who lived out their normal life span was over 900 years of age. Yet even the Bible recognizes that most people live only 70 or 80 years before natural death occurs (<a href='B:230 90:10'>Ps 90:10</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First of all, the reference in <a href='B:230 90'>Psalm 90</a> is to Moses’ time (1400s B.C.) and later, when longevity had decreased to 70 or 80 years for most, though Moses himself lived 120 years (<a href='B:50 34:7'>Deut 34:7</a>).<p/>Some have suggested that these “years” are really only months, which would reduce 900 years to the normal life span of 80 years. However, this is implausible for two reasons. First, there is no precedent in the Hebrew OT for taking the word “year” to mean “month.” Second, since Mahalalel had children when he was only 65 (<a href='B:10 5:15'>Gen 5:15</a>), and Cainan had children when he was 70 (<a href='B:10 5:12'>Gen 5:12</a>), this would mean they were less than six years old—which is not biologically possible.<p/>Consequently, it seems best to take these as years (though they were lunar years of 12x30=360 days) for several reasons: (1) First of all, life was later shortened to 120 years as a punishment from God (<a href='B:10 6:3'>Gen 6:3</a>). (2) Life span decreased gradually after the flood from the 900s (<a href='B:10 5'>Gen 5</a>) to the 600s (Shem 11:10–11), to the 400s (Salah 11:14–15), to the 200s (Rue 11:20–21). (3) Biologically, there is no reason humans could not live hundreds of years. Scientists are more baffled by aging and death than by longevity. (4) The Bible is not alone in speaking of hundreds of years life spans among ancients. There are also records from ancient Greek and Egyptian times that speak of humans living hundreds of years. 


text:
Were the “Sons of God” angels who married women?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The phrase “sons of God” is used exclusively in the OT to refer to angels (<a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a>; <a href='B:220 2:1'>2:1</a>; <a href='B:220 38:7'>38:7</a>). However, the NT informs us that angels “neither marry nor are given in marriage” (<a href='B:470 22:30'>Matt 22:30</a>). Furthermore, if angels married, their children would be half human and half angel. But, angels cannot be redeemed (<a href='B:650 2:14-16'>Heb 2:14-16</a>; <a href='B:680 2:4'>2Pet 2:4</a>; <a href='B:720 1:6'>Jude 6</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are several possible interpretations other than insisting that angels cohabited with humans.<p/>Some Bible scholars believe “sons of God” refers to the godly line of Seth (from whom the redeemer was to come— <a href='B:10 4:26'>Gen 4:26</a>), who intermingled with the godless line of Cain. They point out that (a) this fits the immediate context, (b) it avoids the problems with the angels view, and (c) it accords with the fact that humans are also referred to in the OT as God’s “sons” (<a href='B:290 43:6'>Isa 43:6</a>).<p/>Still others combine these views and speculate that the “sons of God” were angels who “did not keep their proper domain” (<a href='B:720 1:6'>Jude 6</a>) and possessed real human beings, moving them to interbreed with “the daughters of men,” thus producing a superior breed whose offspring were the “giants” and “men of renown.” This view seems to explain all the data without the insuperable problems of angels, who are bodiless (<a href='B:650 1:14'>Heb 1:14</a>) and sexless spirits (<a href='B:470 22:30'>Matt 22:30</a>), cohabiting with humans. 


text:
Does this contradict what Moses said in <a href='B:230 90'>Psalm 90</a> about human longevity?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> This text seems to indicate that human longevity after the flood will not exceed “one hundred and twenty years.” Yet in <a href='B:230 90'>Psalm 90</a> Moses took it to be as 70 or 80 years at best (v. 10).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First of all, it is not certain that <a href='B:10 6:3'>Gen 6:3</a> is referring to human longevity. It may be speaking about how many years remained before the flood would come.<p/>Second, even if it does envision how long humans would live, it does not contradict the later reference to 70 or 80 years for two reasons: for one, it refers to an earlier period when people still lived longer (Moses himself lived to 120, <a href='B:50 34:7'>Deut 34:7</a>); further, the 70 or 80 was probably not intended as an absolute upper limit, but merely as an average for people who died of old age. 


text:
Why was God unsatisfied with what He made?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In <a href='B:10 1:31'>Gen 1:31</a>, God was satisfied with what He made, declaring it “very good.” But here in <a href='B:10 6:6'>Gen 6:6</a>, God declares that He is “sorry that He had made man on the earth.” How can both be true?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> These verses speak of humankind at different times and under different conditions. The first deals with humans in the original state of creation. The second refers to the race after the Fall and just before the flood. God is pleased with what He made, but is not happy with what sin has done to His perfect creation. 


text:
<b>ff—</b> How could Noah’s ark hold hundreds of thousands of species?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The Bible says Noah’s ark was only 45 feet high, 75 feet wide, and 450 feet long (<a href='B:10 6:15'>Gen 6:15</a>, NIV). Noah was told to take two of every kind of unclean animal and seven of every kind of clean animal (6:19; 7:2). But scientists inform us that there are between one half a billion to over a billion species of animals.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, the modern concept of “species” is not the same as a “kind” in the Bible. There are probably only several hundred different “kinds” of land animals that would have to be taken into the ark. The sea animals stayed in the sea, and many species could have survived in egg form. Second, the ark was not small; it was a huge structure—the size of a modern ocean liner. Furthermore, it had three stories (6:16) which tripled its space to a total of over 1.5 million cubic feet!<p/><b><a href='B:10 6:14'>Gen 6:14</a> ff—</b> How could a wooden ark survive such a violent flood?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The ark was only made of wood and carried a heavy load of cargo. But, a world-wide flood produces violent waters that would have broken it in pieces (cf. <a href='B:10 7:4'>Gen 7:4</a>; <a href='B:10 7:11'>11</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, the ark was made of a strong and flexible material (gopherwood) that “gives” without breaking. Second, the heavy load was an advantage that gave the ark stability. Third, naval architects inform us that a long box-shaped, floating box-car, such as the ark was, is a very stable craft in turbulent waters. Indeed, modern ocean liners follow the same basic dimensions or proportions of Noah’s ark. 


text:
Did the flood rains last forty days or one hundred fifty days?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:10 7:24'>Gen 7:24</a> (and <a href='B:10 8:3'>8:3</a>) speak of the flood waters lasting for 150 days. But, other verses say it was only 40 days (<a href='B:10 7:4'>Gen 7:4</a>; <a href='B:10 7:12'>12</a>; <a href='B:10 7:17'>17</a>). Which is correct?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> These numbers refer to different things. Forty days refers to how long “the rain fell” (7:12, NIV), and 150 days speaks of how long the flood “waters prevailed” (cf. 7:24). 


text:
Did God temporarily forget Noah?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The fact that the text says that “God remembered Noah” seems to imply that He temporarily forgot him. Yet the Bible declares that God knows all things (<a href='B:230 139:2-4'>Ps 139:2-4</a>; <a href='B:300 17:10'>Jer 17:10</a>; <a href='B:650 4:13'>Heb 4:13</a>) and that He never forgets His saints (<a href='B:290 49:15'>Isa 49:15</a>). How then could He temporarily forget Noah?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> In His omniscience, God was always aware of Noah being in the ark. However, after Noah was left in the ark for over a year, as if he were forgotten, God gave a token of His remembrance and brought Noah and his family out of it. But, God had never forgotten Noah, since it was He that warned Noah in the very beginning in order to save him and the human race (cf. <a href='B:10 6:8-13'>Gen 6:8-13</a>). We often use a similar expression when we “remember” someone on their birthday, even though we had never forgotten they existed. 


text:
Did God change His mind about never destroying the world again?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to this verse, after the flood, God promised, “Nor will I again destroy every living thing.” Yet Peter foretells the day in which “the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up” (<a href='B:680 3:10'>2Peter 3:10</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> After the flood, God only promised never again to destroy the world in the same way “as I have done” (<a href='B:10 8:21'>Gen 8:21</a>), namely by water. The rainbow is a perpetual symbol of this promise. The second time God destroys the world it will be by fire, not by water. It will “be burned up” (<a href='B:680 3:10'>2Peter 3:10</a>). Even so, God will not then destroy all living things. Humans will be saved in their resurrected and imperishable physical bodies (<a href='B:530 15:42'>1Cor 15:42</a>). 


text:
If seedtime and harvest were never to be interrupted, then why were there famines?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> God promised Noah: “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest … shall not cease.” However, there are many famines recorded, even in Bible times, when there has been no harvest (cf. <a href='B:10 26:1'>Gen 26:1</a>; <a href='B:10 41:54'>41:54</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> “Cease” (shabath) means to come to an end, to be eliminated, to desist completely. This passage only promises that the seasons will not cease, not the crops. It refers to “seedtime” and harvesttime, not necessarily to the actual planting and harvesting of a crop. And the seasons have never stopped completely since this promise was made to Noah. Further, this general promise was not intended as a guarantee that there would be no temporary interruptions. It was only a statement about thepermanent cycles of the year until the end of time. 


text:
Did God ordain the eating of meat or only plants?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> When God created Adam, He commanded him to eat only “every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth … to you it shall be for food” (<a href='B:10 1:29'>Gen 1:29</a>). But meat was not given by God to eat. However, when Noah came out of the Ark, he was told, “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs” (<a href='B:10 9:3'>Gen 9:3</a>). But this seems to contradict God’s earlier command not to eat meat.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This is a good example of progressive revelation where earlier commands are superseded by later ones. In matters that do not involve the change of any intrinsic moral standard (based on the nature of God), God is free to change the commands to His creatures to serve His overall purposes in the progress of redemption. For example, parents at one time will allow small children to eat with their fingers, only to instruct them a little later to eat their potatoes with a spoon. Then, a few years later, the same parent reprimands her older child, “Don’t eat your potatoes with your spoon; use your fork!” There is no contradiction here at all. It is a simple matter of progressive revelation adapted to the circumstances and all geared to the ultimate goal. God works in a similar way. 


text:
<b>(cf. 20, 31)—</b> Why does this verse indicate that humankind had many languages when <a href='B:10 11:1'>Gen 11:1</a> says there was only one?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:10 10:5'>Gen 10:5</a>; <a href='B:10 10:20'>20</a>; <a href='B:10 10:31'>31</a> seem to suggest many dialects, which is an apparent conflict with <a href='B:10 11:1'>Gen 11:1</a> that clearly states, “the whole earth had one language and one speech.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> These texts speak of two different times. Earlier, while maintaining their tribal distinctions, the descendants of Ham, Shem, and Japheth all spoke the same language. Later, at the tower of Babel (<a href='B:10 11'>Gen 11</a>), God punished their rebellious attempt by confusing their speech. As a result, tribes could no longer understand one another, though possibly the subtribes and clans were allowed a mutually understandable language so they could still understand one another. 


text:
How can God “come down” from heaven when He is already here (and everywhere)?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> God is omnipresent, that is, everywhere at the same time (<a href='B:230 139:7-10'>Ps 139:7-10</a>). But this text declares that God “came down” to see the city that men had built. But if He is already here, then how can He “come down” here?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> God “came down” as a theophany, which is a special localized manifestation of the presence of God. These theophanies often appeared in the OT. Once God appeared to Abraham as a man (<a href='B:10 18:2'>Gen 18:2</a>). God also came down to speak to Moses (<a href='B:20 3'>Ex 3</a>), Joshua (<a href='B:60 5:13-15'>Josh 5:13-15</a>), and Gideon (<a href='B:70 6'>Judge 6</a>) in a similar manner. 


text:
How could Abraham’s family be from Ur of the Chaldees when elsewhere it says his ancestors came from Haran?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> There is an apparent conflict as to where Abraham is really from. <a href='B:10 11:28'>Gen 11:28</a> says Abraham came from Ur of the Chaldees (in southern Iraq), but <a href='B:10 29:4'>Gen 29:4</a> claims he is from Haran (in northern Iraq).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This conflict is easily resolved. Abraham’s family originated in Ur, but later migrated to Haran when God called him (<a href='B:10 11:31'>Gen 11:31–12:1</a>). It is not unusual that Abraham would look back to Haran, where he had lived until he was 75 years old, as his homeland. Also, he quite naturally refers to the children of his two older brothers as part of his family. 


text:
Was Abraham 75 years old when he left Haran, or was he 135 years old?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:10 11:26'>Gen 11:26</a> states, “Now Terah lived seventy years, and begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran.” In <a href='B:510 7:4'>Acts 7:4</a> Stephen states that Abraham did not leave Haran until after Terah, his father, died. <a href='B:10 11:32'>Gen 11:32</a> says that Terah died at 205 years of age. If Abraham was born when Terah was 70, and did not leave for Canaan until Terah died at 205, that would make Abraham 135 years old when he left Haran to travel to Canaan. However, <a href='B:10 12:4'>Gen 12:4</a> states, “And Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran.” How old was Abraham when he left Haran? Was he 75 or was he 135?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Abraham was 75 years old when he left Haran. Although it was customary to list the names of sons from the oldest to the youngest, this practice was not always followed. <a href='B:10 11:26'>Gen 11:26</a> does not say that Terah was 70 years old when Abraham was born. Rather it states that Terah lived for 70 years before he had any sons, then he had three sons, Abraham, Nahor, and Haran. Haran was probably the oldest son of Terah, indicated by the fact that he was the first to die (<a href='B:10 11:28'>Gen 11:28</a>). Nahor was probably the middle son, and Abraham was the youngest. Abraham was listed first because he was the most prominent of Terah’s sons. Since Abraham was 75 when he left Haran, this would mean that he was born when Terah was 130 years old. 


text:
Why did God let Abraham prosper by lying?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> We are told in the Bible not to lie (<a href='B:20 20:16'>Ex 20:16</a>), but, when Abraham lied about Sarah, his wealth was increased.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, Abraham’s increase in wealth should not be viewed as a divine reward for his lie. Pharaoh’s gifts to him were understandable. Pharaoh may have felt obligated to pay amends for the wicked constraint that his corrupt society put on strangers who visited his land.<p/>Finally, although some people are portrayed as men of God, they are still fallible and responsible for their own sin (e.g., David and Bathsheba, <a href='B:100 12'>2Sam 12</a>). God blessed them in spite of, not because of, their sins. 


text:
Is the account of Abraham’s defeat of the Mesopotamian kings historically reliable?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Genesis presents this battle as factually true. But, according to the Documentary Hypothesis of biblical criticism, this story is a later addition and totally fictitious.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> We possess very little information about this period apart from Genesis itself. As a result, while we do not have direct archaeological confirmation, there is no good reason to doubt the event. Such doubt usually stems from an anti-biblical bias. 


text:
Who was Melchizedek?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> There is some debate over the nature of Melchizedek. Was he a historical person, a super-normal being, or just a mythical figure?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Based on Hebrews 7, some have interpreted Melchizedek as being an angel or even an appearance of Christ. This is not likely since the author of Hebrews was using Melchizedek to be a type of Christ. In Genesis, Melchizedek is presented in an ordinary, historical manner. He meets and speaks with Abraham in an ordinary manner. There is no reason, archaeological or otherwise, to question the historical character of Melchizedek. 


text:
Did the Exodus occur in the fourth generation or in the sixth?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Here the Bible speaks of the Exodus as being in the “fourth generation” from the time of Jacob’s descent to Egypt. However, according to the genealogical tables in <a href='B:130 2:1-9'>1Chr 2:1-9</a> (and <a href='B:470 1:3-4'>Matt 1:3-4</a>) it was really the sixth generation (2:1–11), namely, Judah, Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, and Nashon.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The word “generation” in <a href='B:10 15:16'>Gen 15:16</a> is defined in that very passage as 100 years, since “the fourth generation” (v. 16) is used to refer to “four hundred years” (v. 13). So <a href='B:10 15'>Gen 15</a> is referring to the amount of time and 1 Chronicles is speaking of the number of people involved in the same period of time. 


text:
<b><a href='B:10 15:17'>Gen 15:17</a>; cf. 19:23 —</b> Why does the Bible use unscientific terms such as “the sun going down”?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Evangelical Christians claim that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God. However, if the Bible is inerrant in all that it affirms, including historical and scientific facts, why do we find such unscientific terms as “the sun going down” or “the rising of the sun”?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The Bible is not claiming that the sun actually sets or rises. Rather, it is simply employing the same kind of observational language that we employ even today. It is a regular part of any weather forecast to announce the time of “sunrise” and “sunset.” To claim that the Bible is “unscientific,” or that there are scientific errors because of the use of such phrases, is a feeble argument. Such a charge would have to be equally leveled against virtually everyone today, including modern scientists who employ this type of language in normal conversation (see comments on <a href='B:60 10:12-14'>Josh 10:12-14</a>). 


text:
Was the sin of Sodom homosexuality or inhospitality?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Some have argued that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was inhospitality, not homosexuality. They base this claim on the Canaanite custom that guarantees protection for those coming under one’s roof. Lot is alleged to have referred to it when he said, “don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof ” (<a href='B:10 19:8'>Gen 19:8</a>, NIV). So Lot offered his daughters to satisfy the angry crowd in order to protect the lives of the visitors who had come under his roof. Some also claim that the request of the men of the city to “know” (<a href='B:10 19:5'>Gen 19:5</a>) simply means “to get acquainted,” since the Hebrew word “know” (yada) generally has no sexual connotations whatsoever (cf. <a href='B:230 139:1'>Ps 139:1</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> While it is true that the Hebrew word “know” (yada) does not necessarily mean “to have sex with,” nonetheless, in the context of the passage on Sodom and Gomorrah, it clearly has this meaning. This is evident for several reasons.<p/>First of all, 10 of the 12 times this word is used in Genesis it refers to sexual intercourse (cf. <a href='B:10 4:1'>Gen 4:1</a>; <a href='B:10 4:25'>25</a>).<p/>Sixth, God had already determined to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, as <a href='B:10 18:16-33'>Gen 18:16-33</a> indicates, even before the incident in 19:8. Consequently, it is much more reasonable to hold that God had pronounced judgment upon these cities for the sins they had already committed, namely homosexuality, than for a sin they had not yet committed, that is inhospitality. 


text:
<b><a href='B:10 15:17'>Gen 15:17</a>; cf. 19:23 —</b> Why does the Bible use unscientific terms such as “the sun going down”?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Evangelical Christians claim that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God. However, if the Bible is inerrant in all that it affirms, including historical and scientific facts, why do we find such unscientific terms as “the sun going down” or “the rising of the sun”?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The Bible is not claiming that the sun actually sets or rises. Rather, it is simply employing the same kind of observational language that we employ even today. It is a regular part of any weather forecast to announce the time of “sunrise” and “sunset.” To claim that the Bible is “unscientific,” or that there are scientific errors because of the use of such phrases, is a feeble argument. Such a charge would have to be equally leveled against virtually everyone today, including modern scientists who employ this type of language in normal conversation (see comments on <a href='B:60 10:12-14'>Josh 10:12-14</a>).


text:
Does the Bible condone incest?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Incest is denounced in emphatic terms in many biblical passages (cf. <a href='B:30 18:6'>Lev 18:6</a>; <a href='B:30 20:17'>20:17</a>). In fact, the Lord declared, “Cursed is the one who lies with his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother” (<a href='B:50 27:22'>Deut 27:22</a>). Yet Lot committed incest with his two daughters here, from which came the nations of Moab and Ammon.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There is no question that Lot sinned here in several ways, to say nothing of the violation of incest laws that Moses later gave as commands to Israel. Noah was drunk, and he committed adultery with his daughters. Lot’s righteous soul was vexed with many sins due to his long association with the people of Sodom. But none of these sins are approved of in this passage. Indeed, the whole colorless tone of the narrative, without any positive comment by the narrator, indicates that there was no attempt to conceal the horror of his sins. Here is a good example of the principle that not everything recorded by the Bible is approved by the Bible (see Introduction). 


text:
<b><a href='B:10 21:32'>Gen 21:32</a>; <a href='B:10 21:34'>34</a> —</b> Did the Bible mistakenly place the Philistines in Palestine at the time of Abraham?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The earliest allusion to Philistines by Palestinian or Egyptian sources is the twelfth century B.C., yet these verses place them in the area some 800 years earlier.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This is not the first time critics have come to false conclusions based on the general lack of historical knowledge concerning this period. Sodom and Gomorrah are examples of cities the Bible mentioned that were supposedly not historical. When the Ebla tablets were discovered, the charge of myth was refuted. These tablets contained references to both cities. It may just be a matter of time before similar evidence turns up to confirm the biblical testimony here regarding the Philistines. Until then, we can rest assured that the biblical record is accurate in this case, having confidence in the Scriptures based on its past record of trustworthiness. Furthermore, the critics’ argument is the traditional fallacious argument from ignorance. Simply because we lack evidence from extrabiblical sources of the earlier date for the Philistines does not mean they didn’t exist then. It simply means we lack the information. 


text:
Why did God tell Abraham to sacrifice his son when God condemned human sacrifice in <a href='B:30 18'>Lev 18</a> and <a href='B:30 20'>20</a>?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In both <a href='B:30 18:21'>Lev 18:21</a> and 20:2, God specifically denounced human sacrifice when He commanded Israel, “Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech” (<a href='B:30 18:21'>Lev 18:21</a>,NIV), and “Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel, who gives any of his children to Molech, must be put to death; the people of the community are to stone him” (<a href='B:30 20:2'>Lev 20:2</a>, NIV). Yet, in <a href='B:10 22:2'>Gen 22:2</a>, God commanded Abraham to “Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.” This appears to contradict His command not to offer human sacrifices.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, God was not interested, nor did He plan, that Abraham should actually kill his son. The fact that the angel of the Lord prevented Abraham from killing Isaac (22:12) demonstrates this. God’s purpose was to test Abraham’s faith by asking him to completely surrender his only son to God. The angel of the Lord declared that it was Abraham’s willingness to surrender his son, not the actual killing of him, that satisfied God’s expectations for Abraham. God said explicitly, “Do not stretch out your hand against the lad … for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me” (<a href='B:10 22:12'>Gen 22:12</a>, NASB).<p/>Second, the prohibitions in both <a href='B:30 18:21'>Lev 18:21</a> and 20:2 were specifically against the offering of one’s offspring to the pagan god Molech. So it is not strictly a contradiction for God to prohibit offering one’s offspring to Molech and yet asking Abraham to offer Isaac to Him, the only true God. After all, offering Isaac to the Lord is not offering one’s offspring to Molech, since the Lord is not Molech. God alone is sovereign over life (<a href='B:50 32:39'>Deut 32:39</a>; <a href='B:220 1:21'>Job 1:21</a>), and therefore He alone has the right to demand when it should be taken. Indeed, He has appointed the day of everyone’s death (<a href='B:230 90:10'>Ps 90:10</a>; <a href='B:650 9:27'>Heb 9:27</a>).<p/>Third, Abraham so trusted in God’s love and power that he willingly obeyed because he believed God would raise Isaac from the dead (<a href='B:650 11:17-19'>Heb 11:17-19</a>). This is implied in the fact that, though Abraham intended to kill Isaac, he told his servants, “I and the lad will go yonder; and we will worship and we will return to you” (<a href='B:10 22:5'>Gen 22:5</a>, NASB).<p/>Finally, it is not morally wrong for God to order the sacrifice of our sons. He offered His own Son on Calvary (<a href='B:500 3:16'>John 3:16</a>). Indeed, even our governments sometimes call upon us to sacrifice our sons for our country. Certainly God has an even greater right to do so.<p/><b><a href='B:10 22:2'>Gen 22:2</a> —</b> How could Isaac be Abraham’s “only son” when he already had Ishmael?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Abraham was told here, “Take now your son, your only son Isaac.” However, Abraham had Ishmael many years before (<a href='B:10 16'>Gen 16</a>) and he also had other “sons” (<a href='B:10 25:6'>Gen 25:6</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The other sons of <a href='B:10 25'>Gen 25</a> were probably born later, being mentioned three chapters after Isaac is called his “only son.” Furthermore, they were sons by “the concubines which Abraham had” (<a href='B:10 25:6'>Gen 25:6</a>) and were not counted as heirs of God’s promise. Likewise, Ishmael was conceived in unbelief by a concubine and not counted as heir to the promised inheritance. In addition, the phrase “only son” may be equivalent to “beloved son” (cf. <a href='B:500 1:18'>John 1:18</a>; <a href='B:500 3:16'>3:16</a>), that is, a special son. God said clearly to Abraham, “in Isaac your seed shall be called” (<a href='B:10 21:12'>Gen 21:12</a>). 


text:
Was God ignorant of how Abraham would respond?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> This verse implies that God did not know how Abraham would respond to His command, since it was only after Abraham obeyed that God said, “now I know that you fear God.” However, the Bible declares elsewhere that God in “His understanding is infinite” (<a href='B:230 147:5'>Ps 147:5</a>), that He knows “the end from the beginning” (<a href='B:290 46:10'>Isa 46:10</a>), and has foreknown and predestinated us from the foundation of the world (<a href='B:520 8:29-30'>Rom 8:29-30</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> In His omniscience God knew exactly what Abraham would do, since He knows all things (cf. <a href='B:230 139:2-4'>Ps 139:2-4</a>; <a href='B:300 17:10'>Jer 17:10</a>; <a href='B:510 1:24'>Acts 1:24</a>; <a href='B:650 4:13'>Heb 4:13</a>). However, what God knows by cognition, and what is known by demonstration are different. After Abraham had obeyed God’s command, he demonstrated what God always knew, namely, that he feared God.<p/>Here again the Bible, addressed as it is to human beings, speaks from the human perspective. In like manner, a math teacher might say, “Let’s see if we can find the square root of 49, ” and then, after demonstrating it, declare, “Now we know that it <a href='B:290 9'>is 9</a>, ” even though she knew from the beginning what the answer was. 


text:
<b><a href='B:10 23'>Gen 23</a> —</b> How could the sons of Heth have been in Hebron in 2050 B.C. when their kingdom was in what is now modern Turkey?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Heth was the progenitor of the Hittites, whose kingdom was located in what is now modern Turkey. But, according to some archaeological evidence, the Hittites did not become a prominent force in the Middle East until the reign of Mursilis I, which began about 1620 B.C., and who captured the city of Babylon in 1600 B.C.<p/>However, several times in <a href='B:10 23'>Gen 23</a> reference is made to Abraham’s encounter with the sons of Heth, who controlled Hebron about 2050 B.C. How could the Bible claim the presence of Hittites in control of Hebron so many years before they became a significant force in the area?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> More recent archaeological evidence from cuneiform tablets describes conflicts in Anatolia (modern Turkey), among the various Hittite principalities from about 1950 to 1850 B.C. Even before this conflict, however, there was a race of non- Indo-Europeans called Hattians. These people were subdued by invaders about 2300 to 2000 B.C. These Indo-European invaders adopted the name Hatti. In Semitic languages, like Hebrew, Hatti and Hitti would be written with the same letters, because only the consonants were written, not the vowels. 


text:
Why does <a href='B:10 25:1'>Gen 25:1</a> call Keturah Abraham’s wife, while <a href='B:130 1:32'>1Chr 1:32</a> calls her his concubine?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:10 25:1'>Gen 25:1</a> says, “Abraham again took a wife, and her name was Keturah.” However, <a href='B:130 1:32'>1Chr 1:32</a> states, “Now the sons of Keturah, Abraham’s concubine.” Was Keturah Abraham’s wife, or was she merely one of his concubines?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The contradiction is only apparent, and the problem can be easily solved by closer consideration.<p/>First, although in <a href='B:10 25:1'>Gen 25:1</a> the normal Hebrew word for wife (ishshah) is used, it is also the normal word for woman. It is not necessary to take the word in this case to mean wife, especially in light of verse 6 and the statement in <a href='B:130 1:32'>1Chr 1:32</a> that Keturah was his concubine. <a href='B:10 25:1'>Gen 25:1</a> can be read simply as, “And Abraham took another woman” as his concubine.<p/>Second, although 1 Chronicles employs the Hebrew word for concubine (pilegesh) in reference to Keturah, <a href='B:10 25:6'>Gen 25:6</a> uses the same word when referring to the mothers of all his other sons apart from Isaac. This would obviously include Keturah as one of his concubines. Additionally, <a href='B:10 25:1'>Gen 25:1</a> begins with a Hebrew word (vayoseph) which can be translated, “And adding” or “And in addition to. ” Since <a href='B:10 24:67'>Gen 24:67</a> clearly states that Sarah, Abraham’s wife, had died, verse 1 of chapter 25 could not mean that Abraham was adding to his number of wives. It is more reasonable to take this word as indicating that Abraham was adding to his number of concubines by taking another woman (ishshah).<p/><b><a href='B:10 25:1-2'>Gen 25:1-2</a> —</b> How could Abraham have children naturally here when years before he needed a miracle to have Isaac?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> As early as Genesis 17, Abraham “laughed” when God told him he would have a son (Isaac) by Sarah, since he was “a hundred years old” (v. 17). But here in Genesis 25, many years later, he has children by Keturah, the wife he took after Sarah died (vv. 1–2).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are two possibilities here, either one of which would explain this difficulty.<p/>First, the <a href='B:10 17'>Gen 17</a> text does not say Abraham laughed because he knew he was too old to have children, but because Sarah was past childbearing age (cf. 17:17; 18:12). There was no sure way for a man in ancient times to know he was no longer fertile, as there was for a woman when her periods ceased. Since Abraham was only 100 here, and he lived to be 175, it is reasonable to assume that he was still fertile. By comparison, men who live till 80 today are still fertile in their 60s.<p/><b><a href='B:130 1:32'>1Chr 1:32</a>—</b> Why does <a href='B:130 1:32'>1Chr 1:32</a> call Keturah Abraham’s concubine, while <a href='B:10 25:1'>Gen 25:1</a> calls her his wife? (See comments under <a href='B:10 25:1'>Gen 25:1</a>) <a href='B:130 2:18'>1Chr 2:18</a>—Was Caleb’s father Hezron, Hur, or Jephunneh?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to this verse, Caleb’s father was Hezron. But verse 50 says it was Hur, and <a href='B:60 14:6'>Joshua 14:6</a> lists it as Jephunneh.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Several solutions are possible. Some scholars believe there may have been two or three Calebs. Others note that the word “son” may mean grandson of even great-grandson. Hence, these men could refer to Caleb’s father, grandfather, and great-grandfather. Also, some think that <a href='B:130 2:50'>1Chr 2:50</a> may not affirm that Caleb is the son of Hur. By placing a period after Caleb (see NASB), the phrase “these are the descendants of Caleb” refers to the preceding verse. If so, Hur would not be the father of Caleb. 


text:
How could Abraham have children naturally here when years before he needed a miracle to have Isaac?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> As early as Genesis 17, Abraham “laughed” when God told him he would have a son (Isaac) by Sarah, since he was “a hundred years old” (v. 17). But here in Genesis 25, many years later, he has children by Keturah, the wife he took after Sarah died (vv. 1–2).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are two possibilities here, either one of which would explain this difficulty.<p/>First, the <a href='B:10 17'>Gen 17</a> text does not say Abraham laughed because he knew he was too old to have children, but because Sarah was past childbearing age (cf. 17:17; 18:12). There was no sure way for a man in ancient times to know he was no longer fertile, as there was for a woman when her periods ceased. Since Abraham was only 100 here, and he lived to be 175, it is reasonable to assume that he was still fertile. By comparison, men who live till 80 today are still fertile in their 60s. 


text:
Did the Hebrews have a concept of life after death at such an early point in their history?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Critical scholars assert that the early Hebrews had a very rudimentary religion that over the centuries would undergo great evolutionary development before ultimately arriving at a concept of life after death. However, this phrase implies that the Hebrews had a concept of immortality at a very early stage in the development of the nation.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First of all, this criticism is based on the highly problematic premise that there is an evolutionary development of religion, with highly developed monotheism being very late. Recent archaeological findings at Ebla, however, contradict such speculation showing that monotheism was a very early belief (even before 2000 B.C.). Furthermore, the expression “gathered to his people” certainly seems to indicate more than merely being buried close to his kinsmen. In fact, since Abraham had left his homeland in Ur of the Chaldees to go to the land which God promised him, it would be contrary to Abraham’s life to have his body returned to the land of his father’s house for burial. The idea that the soul continued to live after the death of the body was a belief held by many peoples in the time of Abraham, including the Sumerians, the Babylonians, the Egyptians, and others.<p/>In addition, this is not the only early reference to the concept of life after death. The Book of Job is probably the oldest book of the OT, with the events of the book dating back to the time of Abraham and the patriarchs of Israel. Yet, as early as Job, we find not only the concept of life after death, but also the concept of a bodily resurrection. In <a href='B:220 19:25-26'>Job 19:25-26</a> we find Job expressing his confidence that, though he may not see his personal vindication in this life, he knew that God would ultimately make things right. This confidence moved him to express his conviction that he would indeed stand before God even after his physical demise; “For I know that my Redeemer lives, and He shall stand at last on the earth; And after my skin is destroyed, this I know, that in my flesh I shall see God.” This verse shows that the concept of life after death was a very early conviction, and that the people of God also believed in the resurrection of the body. 


text:
Did Jacob purchase the birthright or get it by deception?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> This text says Esau was asked by Jacob to “sell” him the birthright. But <a href='B:10 29:1'>Gen 29:1</a>ff tells how he got it by deception.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Jacob purchased the “birthright,” but he got the “blessing” by deception. These are distinct things. So there is no real discrepancy. 


text:
Was Beersheba named by Abraham or later by Isaac?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In <a href='B:10 21:31'>Gen 21:31</a> Abraham named this city Beersheba (“Well of the Oath”). But later (in <a href='B:10 26:33'>Gen 26:33</a>), Isaac gave it the same name. But it is highly unlikely that two different people at two different times would call the same place by the same name.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This is not unlikely at all for two reasons. First, the second person was the son of the first person and may have been familiar with his father’s experience there. Second, Isaac’s similar experience may have occasioned the memory of the name his father gave to this same place. So it is not at all uncommon that Isaac would have later renewed the name his father had earlier given to this important place in their lives. 


text:
How many wives did Esau have?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:10 26:34'>Gen 26:34</a> states that Esau married Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Basemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite. However, <a href='B:10 36:2-3'>Gen 36:2-3</a> states that Esau’s wives were Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite, Aholibamah the daughter of Anah, and Basemath, Ishmael’s daughter. Did Esau marry Elon’s daughter Basemath or his daughter Adah? Did Esau have two, three, or four wives?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The wives of Esau were four—Judith, the daughter of Beeri; Basemath, who was also named Adah, the daughter of Elon; Aholibamah the daughter of Anah; and Basemath the daughter of Ishmael. The reason Judith is not mentioned in <a href='B:10 36:2-3'>Gen 36:2-3</a> is because she bore him no children, and <a href='B:10 36'>Gen 36</a> is a statement of “the records of the generations of Esau” (<a href='B:10 36:1'>Gen 36:1</a>, NASB). Also, it was a common practice for men and women to be known by more than one name. Apparently, Basemath, the daughter of Elon, was also named Adah and is so identified in <a href='B:10 36:2'>Gen 36:2</a> in order to distinguish her from Basemath the daughter of Ishmael. So Esau had four wives. 


text:
Did Jacob return to Haran to flee Esau or to get a wife?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Here Rebekah told Jacob, “Flee to my brother Laban in Haran. And stay with him a few days, until your brother’s fury turns away.” But, in <a href='B:10 28:2'>Gen 28:2</a> the reason given is to “take yourself a wife from there of the daughters of Laban your mother’s brother.” Which was it?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Jacob returned for both reasons. Two or more reasons for the same thing are not uncommon in the Bible. Compare the following:<p/>(1) Moses’ exclusion from the Promised Land was for unbelief (<a href='B:40 20:12'>Num 20:12</a>), for rebellion (<a href='B:40 27:14'>Num 27:14</a>), for trespass (<a href='B:50 32:51'>Deut 32:51</a>), and for rash words (<a href='B:230 106:33'>Ps 106:33</a>).<p/>(2) Moses’ condemnation for numbering the people was for taxation (<a href='B:20 38:26'>Ex 38:26</a>) and for a military enrollment (<a href='B:40 1:2-3'>Num 1:2-3</a>; <a href='B:40 2:32'>2:32</a>).<p/>(3) Saul was rejected by God for an unlawful sacrifice (<a href='B:90 13:12-13'>1Sam 13:12-13</a>), for disobedience (<a href='B:90 28:18'>1Sam 28:18</a>), and for consulting the witch of Endor (<a href='B:130 10:13'>1Chron 10:13</a>). 


text:
When was Rachel given to be Jacob’s wife?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In <a href='B:10 29:27'>Gen 29:27</a> Laban tells Jacob to complete the bridal week of feasting with Leah, and then Rachel would be given to him. However, the verse also says that the contract between Laban and Jacob stipulated that in return for another seven years of service Rachel would be given to Jacob. When was Rachel given to Jacob, at the end of Leah’s bridal week, or at the end of the seven years service?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The passage indicates that Rachel was given to Jacob after the seven days which comprised the bridal week of Leah. The marriage feast generally lasted seven days (cf. <a href='B:70 14:12'>Judge 14:12</a>). Laban contracted with Jacob that Rachel would become his wife at the end of this seven day bridal feast, and, in return, Jacob would serve Laban for an additional seven years. Ironically, Jacob, who had taken Esau’s birthright by deception, had himself been deceived by Laban. 


text:
How could God bless Rachel when she stole Laban’s idols and then lied to him about it?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:10 31:32'>Gen 31:32</a> makes the statement that Jacob did not know that “Rachel had stolen” Laban’s idols. However, it seems that God blessed Rachel because she lied to Laban.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> God did not bless Rachel either for stealing the idols or for lying about her deed. Simply because Laban did not discover that Rachel was the thief does not mean that God blessed her. On the contrary, it is more reasonable to assume that God did not expose Rachel’s theft in order to protect Jacob. Also, <a href='B:10 35:16-19'>Gen 35:16-19</a> reports that Rachel died in delivering her second son, Benjamin. In the intervening chapters between 31:32 and 35:19 very little is said about Rachel. The biblical record reveals that in fact God did not bless Rachel for what she did, but allowed her to fall into the background of importance until her painful death. 


text:
Can God’s face be seen?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> God declared to Moses, “No man shall see Me, and live” (<a href='B:20 33:20'>Ex 33:20</a>, see comments on <a href='B:500 1:18'>John 1:18</a>). Moses was allowed only to see God’s “back” (<a href='B:20 33:23'>Ex 33:23</a>). Yet the Bible informs us that Moses spoke with God “face to face” (<a href='B:50 5:4'>Deut 5:4</a>). How could he speak to God face to face without seeing His face?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> It is possible for a blind person to speak face to face with someone without seeing their face. The phrase “face to face” means personally, directly, or intimately. Moses had this kind of unmediated relationship with God. But he, like all other mortals, never saw the “face” (essence) of God directly. 


text:
Did God bring Jacob out of Egypt or did he die there?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In this verse, God promised Jacob, “I will go down with you to Egypt, and I will also surely bring you up again.” However, Jacob died in Egypt (<a href='B:10 49:33'>Gen 49:33</a>) and never returned to the Land of Promise.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This promise was fulfilled to Jacob in several ways, any one of which would explain the difficulty. First, it was a promise to Jacob’s posterity who were brought back out of Egypt. This is indicated by the statement, “I will make of you a great nation” (v. 3). Second, Jacob was probably brought back from Egypt along with Joseph, though not alive (<a href='B:10 50:25'>Gen 50:25</a>; <a href='B:20 13:19'>Ex 13:19</a>). Finally, after the resurrection Jacob will return to the Land alive (cf. <a href='B:470 8:11'>Matt 8:11</a>). 


text:
Why does the Bible speak about the twelve tribes of Israel when actually there were fourteen?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The Bible often states that there were twelve tribes of Israel. Yet, in three different passages, the lists are different. In fact, there are 14 different tribes listed as one of the 12 tribes.<p/><a href='B:10 46'>Gen 46</a> <a href='B:40 26'>Numbers 26</a> <a href='B:730 7'>Revelation 7</a><p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> In response, it must be noted that Jacob had only twelve sons. Their descendants comprised the original twelve tribes. However, for various reasons these same descendants are rearranged at different times into somewhat different groups of twelve. For example, in <a href='B:10 48:22'>Gen 48:22</a>, Jacob grants to Joseph a double portion of the inheritance. In the list in Numbers, Manasseh and Ephraim, the sons of Joseph, are substituted for the tribe of Joseph. Also, Levi was not given a portion of the land as an inheritance because the Levites functioned as priests. Scattered among all the tribes in 48 Levitical cities, they taught the tribes the statutes of the Lord (<a href='B:50 33:10'>Deut 33:10</a>). Consequently, Joseph’s double portion is divided between Manasseh and Ephraim, his two sons in order to fill the space left by Levi.<p/>In the Revelation passage, Joseph and Manasseh are counted separately, possibly indicating that Joseph and Ephraim (Joseph’s son) are counted as one tribe. Dan is omitted from that list, possibly because the Danites took their own allotment by force in an area north of Asher, effectively separating themselves from their original inheritance in the south. Further, the Danites were the first tribe to go into idolatry. Levi is listed here as a separate tribe, possibly because, after the cross, the Levites no longer function in the priestly office for all the tribes and, thus, could be given a specific land inheritance of their own. In each case, the biblical author is careful to preserve the original number 12, with its spiritual significance indicating heavenly perfection (cf. the gates and foundations of the heavenly City, <a href='B:730 21'>Rev 21</a>). 


text:
<b>(cf. <a href='B:10 47:31'>GEN 47:31</a>)—</b> Is there a discrepancy regarding the death of Jacob?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Hebrews mentions that Jacob died worshiping, “leaning on the top of his staff” (11:21). Yet <a href='B:10 47:31'>Gen 47:31</a> mentions Jacob “bowed himself on the head of the bed.” How do we reconcile this apparent contradiction?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The Hebrew words for “staff” and “bed” are spelled the same in their consonants. Since the vowels were not written in the original text, but were added around A.D. 700, words like the two above would look identical, since they had the same consonants. The Septuagint renders the passage in Genesis “staff” while later Jewish Masoretes translated the word “bed” instead of “staff.” In light of this, “top of his staff” would be the likely rendition of the verses (<a href='B:650 11:21'>Heb 11:21</a>) and the rendering “bed” (in <a href='B:10 47:31'>Gen 47:31</a>) would be a vowel-pointing mistake.


text:
How can Jacob pronounce a curse upon Levi here and yet Moses blessed Levi in <a href='B:50 33:8-11'>Deu 33:8-11</a>?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In <a href='B:10 49:5-7'>Gen 49:5-7</a>, Jacob pronounces a curse upon Levi: “Cursed be their [Simeon’s and Levi’s] anger, for it is fierce; And their wrath, for it is cruel! I will divide them in Jacob and scatter them in Israel” (v. 7). However, in <a href='B:50 33:8-11'>Deu 33:8-11</a>, Moses blessed Levi: “They [the Levites] shall teach Jacob Your judgments, and Israel Your Law… Bless his substance, Lord, and accept the work of his hands” (<a href='B:50 33:10-11'>Deut 33:10-11</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Jacob pronounces this curse upon Levi and Simeon because of the cruel manner in which they took revenge upon the inhabitants of Shechem (<a href='B:10 34:1-31'>Gen 34:1-31</a>). As a punishment for their crime, they would be scattered among the other tribes of Israel so that they would not obtain a land possession of their own. However, the curse upon Levi was turned into a blessing for all the tribes of Israel. For it was God’s plan to scatter the descendants of Levi throughout Israel so that “They shall teach Jacob Your judgments, and Israel Your law” (<a href='B:50 33:10'>Deut 33:10</a>).<p/>There is no contradiction between these two proclamations. Levi’s descendants were scattered, as Jacob prophesied, but they were used by God to function as the priestly tribe throughout all Israel, as Moses had proclaimed. Levi was not given an inheritance of land among the other tribes because, in <a href='B:40 18:20'>Numbers 18:20</a>, God had said, “You shall have no inheritance in their land, nor shall you have any portion among them; I am your portion and your inheritance among the children of Israel.” 


text:
Who or what is “Shiloh” in this verse?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The word “Shiloh” is often understood to be a reference to Jesus Christ as the coming Messiah. The word appears in a phrase which is part of the prophetic pronouncements of Jacob upon his son Judah. It is through the tribe of Judah that the Messiah will come (cf. <a href='B:100 7'>2Sam 7</a>; <a href='B:400 5:2'>Mic 5:2</a>), so it seems appropriate to understand this verse as a reference to the Messiah, Jesus Christ. However, the NT does not make any reference to this prophecy as being fulfilled in Christ, nor to the name Shiloh.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The solution to this problem involves the vowel pointing of the Masoretic Text (MT) of the OT (see Appendix 1). The New King James Version translates this portion of verse 10 as follows: “Until Shiloh comes.” This version follows the vowel pointing of the MT and translates the Hebrew word shylh as the proper name “Shiloh.” Shiloh was the name of a town situated approximately ten miles northeast of Bethel. Although some interpreters take the statement in <a href='B:10 49:10'>Gen 49:10</a> as a reference to this town, others have taken it to be a proper name for Messiah.<p/>However, the majority of scholars propose a different vowel pointing and understand the word to mean “to whom it belongs.” This proposal has the support of ancient translations, such as the Greek and Syriac versions of the OT, and others. These ancient versions, being much older than the MT, also render the phrase, “he to whom they belong.” This reading is also supported by <a href='B:330 21:27'>Ezekiel 21:27</a> which states, “Until He comes whose right it is.” When this part of verse 10 is taken this way, the passage reads, “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor a lawgiver’s staff from between his feet, Until He comes to whom it belongs, And to Him shall be the obedience of the people.” In light of this, the Messianic significance of the verse is much clearer. For it is fulfilled in the NT Messiah (Christ), as indicated by such passages as <a href='B:470 2:6'>Mat 2:6</a>; <a href='B:420 1:30-33'>Luke 1:30-33</a>; <a href='B:730 5:5'>Revelation 5:5</a>, and 19:11–16.<p/><b><a href='B:10 49:10'>Gen 49:10</a> b—</b> If Judah was to reign until the Messiah, why was Israel’s first king from the tribe of Benjamin?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:10 49:10'>Gen 49:10</a> indicates that “the scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor a lawgiver from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes.” But history records that the first king of Israel (Saul) was from “the tribe of Benjamin” (<a href='B:510 13:21'>Acts 13:21</a>; cf. <a href='B:90 9:1-2'>1Sam 9:1-2</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This problem is predicated on the assumption that “Shiloh” is a reference to the Messiah. Some scholars take it to refer to the city in Ephraim where the Tabernacle of Moses was erected. On this interpretation, Judah was to be the leader of the 12 tribes all during the wilderness, until they came into the Promised Land.<p/>Even if “Shiloh” is a reference to the Messiah, there is no real problem here, since the Messiah came from the tribe of Judah (cf. <a href='B:470 1:1-3'>Matt 1:1-3</a>; <a href='B:470 1:16'>16</a>; <a href='B:730 5:5'>Rev 5:5</a>). In God’s eyes David (from the tribe of Judah), not Saul, was His choice for the first king of Israel (cf. 1 Sam. 15–16). So, the tribe of Judah was always the ruling line from which the Messiah was to come. 


text:
Why did Jacob predict slavery for Issachar here, but in <a href='B:50 33:18-19'>Deu 33:18-19</a> Moses predicted blessing?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In <a href='B:10 49:14-15'>Gen 49:14-15</a> Jacob prophesies that Issachar would become “a band of slaves” (<a href='B:10 49:15'>Gen 49:15</a>). However, in <a href='B:50 33:19'>Deu 33:19</a> Moses predicts that Issachar will “partake of the abundance of the seas and of treasures hidden in the sand.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The history of the tribe of Issachar indicates that Jacob was looking forward to a time when, for the sake of their earthly possessions, Issachar would bow to foreign invaders under Tiglath-pileser rather than fight for their liberty. Moses, however, was looking forward to a time before this invasion when the tribe would prosper in the fertile plain which lay between the mountains of Gilboa and Tabor. The prosperity which they gained led to a relative life of ease, a characteristic alluded to in the figure of a lazy donkey unwilling to move its burden (<a href='B:10 49:14'>Gen 49:14</a>). This prosperity in a land which was often threatened by foreign invaders, and their unwillingness to forfeit their possessions for liberty, created the eventual servitude predicted by Jacob. 


text:
Why does this text say “seventy-five people” when <a href='B:20 1:5'>Exo 1:5</a> says there were “seventy persons”?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to <a href='B:20 1:5'>Exo 1:5</a> there were only 70 descendants who went down into Egypt with Jacob. But, when Stephen relates this same incident in <a href='B:510 7:14'>Acts 7:14</a>, he gives the number as<p/>75. This appears to be a flat contradiction. SOLUTIONS: There are several possible ways to explain the difference between these accounts. First, some scholars suggest that <a href='B:510 7:14'>Acts 7:14</a> is incorrect in stating<p/>75. They note that both the Greek translation of the OT (Septuagint) and a Hebrew manuscript found in the Dead Sea area use the number 75 just as Stephen said.<p/>Others suggest that while Luke accurately records Stephen’s sermon, that Stephen nevertheless made a mistake. Thus Acts is an inerrant record of the speech in which Stephen made this error. The parallel account in <a href='B:10 46:27'>Gen 46:27</a> also gives the number as<p/>70. The main objection to this view is the fact that Luke’s inclusion of this speech carries with it the implication that what he said is correct. Further, the text states that Stephen was “full of the Holy Spirit” when he gave the addresses (7:55).<p/>Another explanation points out that the discrepancies can be explained by the fact that Stephen was probably quoting from the Septuagint (the Greek version of the OT) which states, “And all the souls from Jacob were seventy-five” (<a href='B:20 1:5'>Ex 1:5</a>), rather than the Hebrew, which states “And all the persons who came from the loins of Jacob were seventy in number, but Joseph was already in Egypt” (<a href='B:20 1:5'>Ex 1:5</a>, NASB). The difference arises from the difference in the way the totals are calculated. 


text:
How could an all-loving God command the Hebrews to plunder the Egyptians of their riches?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:20 3:22'>Exo 3:22</a> states, “So you shall plunder the Egyptians.” The Bible presents God as all-loving. However, it does not seem to be a loving thing for God to command the Hebrews to plunder the Egyptians.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, it is a misunderstanding of the text to claim that God commanded the Hebrews to plunder the Egyptians. Actually, God commanded the Hebrews to “ask” the Egyptians for various costly items, and God would give them favor in the eyes of the Egyptians. By asking the Egyptians for these items they would not plunder them. Plundering, or spoiling, in this instance would be the taking of the possessions of another people by means of force. But by their asking, and the willful giving by the Egyptians, the effect would be the same as if they had plundered them. 


text:
If God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, how can Pharaoh be held responsible?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The Bible quotes God as saying, “I will harden his [Pharaoh’s] heart, so that he will not let the people go.” But if God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, then Pharaoh cannot be held morally responsible for his actions, since he did not do it of his own free will, but out of constraint (cf. <a href='B:540 9:7'>2Cor 9:7</a>; <a href='B:670 5:2'>1Pet 5:2</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> God did not harden Pharaoh’s heart contrary to Pharaoh’s own free choice. The Scripture makes it very clear that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. It declares that Pharaoh’s heart “grew hard” (<a href='B:20 7:13'>Ex 7:13</a>), that Pharaoh “hardened his heart” (<a href='B:20 8:15'>Ex 8:15</a>), and that “Pharaoh’s heart grew hard” the more God worked on it (<a href='B:20 8:19'>Ex 8:19</a>). Again, when God sent the plague of the flies, “Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also” (<a href='B:20 8:32'>Ex 8:32</a>). This same or like phrase is repeated over and over (cf. <a href='B:20 9:7'>Ex 9:7</a>; <a href='B:20 9:34–35'>34–35</a>). In fact, with the exception of God’s prediction of what would happen (<a href='B:20 4:21'>Ex 4:21</a>), the fact is that Pharaoh hardened his own heart first (<a href='B:20 7:13'>Ex 7:13</a>; <a href='B:20 8:15'>8:15</a>; <a href='B:20 8:32'>8:32</a>, etc.), and then God hardened it later (cf. <a href='B:20 9:12'>Ex 9:12</a>; <a href='B:20 10:1'>10:1</a>; <a href='B:20 10:20'>20</a>; <a href='B:20 10:27'>27</a>).<p/>Furthermore, the sense in which God hardened his heart is similar to the way the sun hardens clay and also melts wax. If Pharaoh had been receptive to God’s warnings, his heart would not have been hardened by God. But when God gave Pharaoh a reprieve from the plagues, he took advantage of the situation. “But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and did not heed them [Moses and Aaron], as the Lord had said” (<a href='B:20 8:15'>Ex 8:15</a>).<p/>As to their cause As to their effect (See also discussion under <a href='B:520 9:17'>Rom 9:17</a>) 


text:
Whom did the Lord meet at the encampment, and why did He seek to kill him?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:20 4:24'>Exo 4:24</a> states, “And it came to pass on the way, at the encampment, that the Lord met him and sought to kill him.” The verse does not explicitly say whom the Lord met in the encampment, but the context indicates that it was Moses. If so, why did God seek to kill him, since He had called him to lead Israel out of Egypt?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, it is clear that Moses had been selected by the Lord to be His instrument to deliver the people of Israel from Egyptian bondage and from the power of Pharaoh. But, as one of God’s covenant people, Moses was obligated to circumcise his sons on the eighth day. For one reason or another, Moses had not performed the rite of circumcision on his son as one of the covenant people of the Lord. It was not possible for the Lord to permit His chosen deliverer to represent Him to the people of Israel when he had not complied with the dictates of the covenant relationship himself. Apparently, God took this drastic measure to prompt Moses to obey Him, knowing that Moses would not willingly go against the wishes of his wife Zipporah. Zipporah performed the circumcision, perhaps because Moses was incapacitated from an affliction which the Lord had brought upon him. As soon as the circumcision was performed, the Lord ceased from seeking to kill Moses. 


text:
Who was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The predominant view of modern scholars is that the Pharaoh of the Exodus was Ramsees II. If this is right, that would mean that the Exodus took place about 1270 to 1260 B.C. However, from several references in the Bible (<a href='B:70 11:26'>Judge 11:26</a>; <a href='B:110 6:1'>1Ki 6:1</a>; <a href='B:510 13:19-20'>Acts 13:19-20</a>), the Exodus is dated from ca. 1447 B.C. If this is true, then given the commonly accepted dating system, the Pharaoh of the Exodus was Amenhotep II. Who was the Pharaoh of the Exodus, and when did the Exodus take place?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Although much of modern scholarship has proposed a late date for the Exodus, about 1270–1260 B.C., there is sufficient evidence to say that it is not necessary to accept this date, and alternative explanations provide a better accounting of all the historical data, and place the Exodus at about 1447 B.C.<p/>First, the biblical dates for the Exodus place it in the 1400’s B.C., since <a href='B:110 6:1'>1Ki 6:1</a> declares that it was 480 years before the fourth year of Solomon’s reign (which was about 967 B.C.). This would place the Exodus around 1447 B.C. This fits also with <a href='B:70 11:26'>Judges 11:26</a> which affirms that Israel spent 300 years in the land up to the time of Jepthah (which was about 1000 B.C.). Likewise, <a href='B:510 13:20'>Acts 13:20</a> speaks of there being 450 years of judges from Moses to Samuel who lived around 1000 B.C. The same is true of the 430 years mentioned in <a href='B:550 3:17'>Galatians 3:17</a> (see comments) spanning from around 1800 to 1450 B.C. (from Jacob to Moses). The same figure is used in <a href='B:20 12:40'>Exo 12:40</a>. All of these passages provide a 1400 B.C. date, not 1200 B.C. as the critics claim.<p/>Second, John Bimson and David Livingston have proposed a revision of the traditional dating of the end of the Middle Bronze Age and the beginning of the Late Bronze Age from 1550 to shortly before 1400 B.C. The Middle Bronze Age was characterized by large fortified cities, a description which fits well with the account which the spies brought back to Moses (<a href='B:50 1:28'>Deut 1:28</a>). This would mean that the conquest of Canaan took place about 1400 B.C. Since the Scriptures state that Israel wandered in the wilderness for 40 years, that would put the Exodus at about 1440 B.C., in complete accord with biblical chronology. If we accept the traditional account of the reigns of the Pharaohs, this would mean that the Pharaoh of the Exodus was Amenhotep II who reigned from about 1450 to 1425 B.C.<p/>Third, another possible solution, known as the Velikovsky-Courville revision, proposes a redating of the traditional chronology of the reigns of the Pharaohs. Velikovsky and Courville assert that there are an extra 600 years in the chronology of the kings of Egypt. Archaeological evidence can be mustered to substantiate this proposal which again places the date of the Exodus in the 1440s B.C. According to this view, the Pharaoh at this time was King Thom. This fits the statement in <a href='B:20 1:11'>Exo 1:11</a> that the Israelites were enslavedto build the city called Pithom, (“the abode of Thom”). When the biblical chronology is taken as the pattern, all of the historical and archaeological evidence fits together in a unified picture. (See Geisler and Brooks, When Skeptics Ask,Victor Books, 1990, chap. 9.) 


text:
Was God known by His name “Lord” (Jehovah or Yahweh) before Moses’ time?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to this text God told Moses, “I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, LORD [Jehovah, Yahweh], I was not known to them.” However, the word “LORD” [Jehovah, Yahweh] occurs in Genesis in many places, both in combination with the term “God,” as “LORD God” (<a href='B:10 2:4'>Gen 2:4</a>; <a href='B:10 2:5'>5</a>; <a href='B:10 2:7'>7</a>; <a href='B:10 2:8'>8</a>; <a href='B:10 2:9'>9</a>; <a href='B:10 2:15'>15</a>, etc.) and alone as LORD (<a href='B:10 4:1'>Gen 4:1</a>; <a href='B:10 4:3'>3</a>; <a href='B:10 4:4'>4</a>; <a href='B:10 4:6'>6</a>; <a href='B:10 4:9'>9</a>, etc.).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This difficulty can be explained in several ways. Some believe it was introduced into Genesis by way of anticipation. Others hold that the full meaning of the name was not known previously, even though it was in use. Or, perhaps some special character of the covenant-keeping God as was indicated by the sacred name “LORD” (Jehovah, Yahweh) was not revealed until Moses’ time. Still others think Moses (or a later editor) placed the name in the text of Genesis retrospectively, after it had come into use. This would be like a biographer of the famous boxer referring to the childhood of Muhammad Ali, even though his name was really Cassius Clay at the time. In favor of this is the fact that the common suffix “-ah” (which stands for “Jehovah”) attached to names (such as, Mic-ah, Jon-ah, Jeremi-ah) is not generally found in names before Moses’ time. 


text:
Did the children of Israel listen to Moses or disregard his words?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Here the text claims that “they would not heed Moses.” But earlier (in <a href='B:20 4:31'>Ex 4:31</a>) it says “the people believed [Moses],” and even “bowed their heads and worshiped [God].”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Apparently they readily received Moses at first, but when they did not experience immediate deliverance, they became discouraged and impatient and would no longer listen to him. 


text:
Was Moses called by God in Egypt or in Midian?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In <a href='B:20 3:10'>Exo 3:10</a>, God revealed Himself to Moses and commissioned him to lead Israel out of Egypt (cf. 4:19). However, <a href='B:20 6:10-11'>Exo 6:10-11</a> declares that Moses was in the Desert of Midian when God told him to go to Pharaoh and ask for Israel’s release.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Moses was commissioned in Exodus 3–4, but because of Pharaoh’s rejection (in chap. 5), combined with Moses’ initial reluctance to God (cf. 4:1, 10), it was necessary for God to encourage Moses and reconfirm his call in Exodus<p/>6. 


text:
How could the people of Israel have been in Egypt for 430 years when there were only three generations between Levi and Moses?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:20 6:16-20'>Exo 6:16-20</a> indicates that there were only three generations between Levi, the son of Jacob, and Moses. However, <a href='B:550 3:17'>Galatians 3:17</a> indicates that Israel was in Egypt for 430 years. How could there be only three generations between Levi, who went down into Egypt at the beginning of the 430-year period, and Moses, who delivered Israel from Egypt at the end of the 430-year period?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, it was a common practice in the Ancient Near East to record genealogies according to tribe, or family clan. In this type of genealogical record, several generations would be omitted from the record due to the fact that some persons were perhaps of lesser significance in the family tree. The Hebrew language did not have a word corresponding to our terms “grandfather” or “great grandfather,” or “grandson” or “great grandson.” Consequently, when Abraham is referred to as “our father,” the only Hebrew term capable of indicating such ancestry was the normal Hebrew term for “father.” The same goes for the term “son.” For example, <a href='B:20 6:16'>Exo 6:16</a> states, “The sons of Levi … Gershon, Kohath, and Merari.” Traditionally these are held to be the original sons of Levi. However, when <a href='B:20 6:18'>Exo 6:18</a> states, “And the sons of Kohath were Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel,” Kohath is given as the head of that branch of the tribe of Levi known as the Kohathites. Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel were probably not the immediate sons of Kohath, but were descendants of Kohath. The Hebrew language used the term “son” to signify a descendant.<p/>Second, according to <a href='B:40 3:28'>Numbers 3:28</a>, the census of the family of the Kohathites numbered 8,600 persons from one month old and above. If there were only three generations between Levi and Moses, this would mean that the “sons of Kohath,” Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel, would have had over 2,000 children each. Obviously, either the Amram listed in verse 18 as a son of Kohath was not the immediate father of Moses, and not the same Amram listed in verse 20, or there were in fact additional descendants of Kohath which are simply not listed in these verses because that information is not essential to the context. Either way, it is clear that there were more than three generations between Levi and Moses. 


text:
Didn’t someone besides Moses write these verses?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The references to Moses and Aaron in verses 26 and 27 are written in the third person: “These are the same Aaron and Moses” and “These are the ones.” How could Moses be the author of this passage and not speak of himself in the first person?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This passage, which begins in verse 14 of chapter 6, is an objective, historical account of the genealogies of the ancestors of Moses and Aaron. In this type of writing, it is customary for an author, if he makes reference to himself, to do so in the third person. Many ancient writings follow this manner of reporting historical facts, such as the Gallic Wars and the Civil Warswritten by Julius Caesar. In fact, it would have been quite awkward if, in the midst of this objective historical report, Moses had written, “It was Aaron and I to whom the Lord said …” or “Aaron and I were the ones who spoke to Pharaoh.” For future generations of Hebrew readers, Moses wanted his genealogical record to be quite clearly reported, so that no mistake be made as to the identity and the pedigree of the one whom God had chosen to bring Israel out of the bondage of Egypt. 


text:
How could the wise men and sorcerers of Pharaoh perform the same feats of power that God told Moses to perform?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Several passages in Exodus (7:11, 22; 8:7) state that the wise men, sorcerers, and magicians of Pharaoh did the same works with their enchantments which God commanded Moses and Aaron to perform. However, Moses and Aaron claimed to have been sent from the Lord God. How could these men perform the same feats of power as Moses and Aaron did by the power of God?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The Bible indicates that one of Satan’s tactics in his effort to deceive humankind is to employ counterfeit miracles (see <a href='B:730 16:14'>Rev 16:14</a>). <a href='B:20 7:11'>Exo 7:11</a> states, “But Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers; so the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments.” Each of the other verses makes a similar claim. The passage states that the feats of Pharaoh’s magicians were performed “by their [magical] enchantments.”<p/>Some commentators assert that the feats of the magicians were merely tricks. Perhaps the magicians had enchanted snakes so that they became stiff and appeared to be rods. When cast down upon the floor, they came out of their trance and began to move as snakes. Some say these were acts of Satan, who actually turned the rods of the magicians into snakes. This, however, is not plausible in view of the fact that only God can create life, as even the magicians later recognized (<a href='B:20 8:18-19'>Ex 8:18-19</a>). Whatever explanation one might take regarding these feats, one common point holds for every account and is found in the text itself. It is clear that by whatever power they performed these feats, they were not accomplished by the power of God. Rather, they were performed “by their enchantments.” The purpose of these acts was to convince Pharaoh that his magicians possessed as much power as Moses and Aaron, and it was not necessary for Pharaoh to yield to their request to let Israel go. It worked, at least for the first three encounters (Aaron’s rod, the plague of blood, and the plague of frogs). However, when Moses and Aaron, by the power of God, brought forth lice from the sand, the magicians were not able to counterfeit this miracle. They could only exclaim, “This is the finger of God” (<a href='B:20 8:19'>Ex 8:19</a>). Connected with error Associated with evil 


text:
How could Israel escape this judgment if it came upon all the land of Egypt?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Several times in the account of the plagues the Scripture states that the judgments would be upon “all the land of Egypt” (7:19; 8:16, 24; [“throughout,” 9:22]). However, other passages assert that God protected Israel from the effects of the different plagues (8:22). Isn’t it a contradiction for some passages to say that the plagues would affect all the land of Egypt while others indicate that Israel was not affected by these plagues?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> In the Hebrew language the normal word for all is not necessarily absolute. The context must dictate whether the term is to be taken as absolute or not. God told Moses to make sure that Pharaoh knew that Israel was not being affected by the plagues which were being brought upon Egypt. “Then say to him … `And in that day I will set apart the land of Goshen, in which My people dwell, that no swarms of flies shall be there, in order that you may know that I am the Lord in the midst of the land’ ” (<a href='B:20 8:20'>Ex 8:20</a>; <a href='B:20 8:22'>22</a>). 


text:
How could Moses have turned all the water to blood if the magicians had some left to do the same thing?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:20 7:20'>Exo 7:20</a> asserts that “all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood” by Moses. But only two verses later it says the magicians of Egypt performed the same feat (v. 22), which would have been impossible if Moses had really turned all the water to blood.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, it should be noted that “all” need not be taken in an absolute sense, but in the popular sense of “the vast majority.” Further, it does not say that Moses turned all water to blood, but only all the water “in the river” (<a href='B:20 7:20'>Ex 7:20</a>). There was still water from wells that were unaffected. Then too, some of the water may have been filtered out through the sand on the river bank. This may explain why it says the Egyptians “dug all around the river for water to drink” (v. 24), since it would act as a natural filter for the river water. 


text:
If all the cattle died, then how did some survive?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:20 9:6'>Exo 9:6</a> asserts that “all the livestock of Egypt died” in the fifth plague. Yet only a few verses later it instructs them to “gather your livestock and all that you have in the field” into their houses (v. 19). But if all livestock died, then how could there be any left?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First of all, the term “all” is often used in a general sense to mean “the vast majority.” Further, the plague was apparently limited to the cattle “in the field” (v. 3). The animals in stalls would not have been affected. Finally, the word “cattle” does not generally denote horses, donkeys, and camels which could have been part of the “livestock” that were spared. 


text:
How could Moses have written these words of self-praise? (See comments on <a href='B:40 12:3'>Num 12:3</a>) 


text:
How could 2 million people cross the Red Sea in such a short time?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to the account of the crossing of the Red Sea, the massive group of fleeing Israelites must have had no more than 24 hours to cross through the portion of the Red Sea which God had prepared. However, according to the numbers given, there were some 2 million of them (see <a href='B:40 1:45-46'>Num 1:45-46</a>). But, for a multitude of this size, a 24-hour period is just not enough time to make such a crossing.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, although the passage may give the idea that the time that the nation of Israel had to make the crossing was short, this is not a necessary conclusion. The text states that God brought forth an East wind which drove back the waters “all that night” (<a href='B:20 14:21'>Ex 14:21</a>). Verse 22 seems to indicate that it was the very next morning when the multitude of Israelites began their journey across the sea bed. Verse 24 then states, “Now it came to pass, in the morning watch, that the Lord looked down upon the army of the Egyptians.” Finally, according to verse 26, God told Moses to “stretch out your hand over the sea, that the waters may come back upon the Egyptians.” There is no time reference to this command, however, and it is not necessary to conclude that Israel had completed their crossing that very morning.<p/>In <a href='B:20 13:18'>Exo 13:18</a>, the sea is called the Red Sea. The Hebrew isyam suph, which should be translated, “Sea of Reeds.” This was probably a reference to a body of water farther north than what is identified today as the Gulf of Suez. This seems to be the case for several reasons. First, the Gulf of Suez was not known for having reeds. Second, the Gulf of Suez is much farther south than Pi-hahiroth and Migdol where Israel camped by the sea according to 14:2. Third, for Israel to reach the northern most tip of the Gulf of Suez, they would have had to cross a large expanse of desert, and this type of trip is not indicated in the text. 


text:
Why did God command His people not to make carved images when He directed them to carve two cherubs for the Ark of the Covenant? (See comments on <a href='B:20 25:18'>Ex 25:18</a>) 


text:
<b>a—</b> Does God get jealous?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The Bible not only says here that God is a “jealous God,” but it also declares His very “name is Jealous” (<a href='B:20 34:14'>Ex 34:14</a>). On the other hand, jealousy is a sin. But, if God is absolutely holy, then how can He be jealous?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> God is jealous in the good sense of the word, namely, He is jealous for the love and devotion of His people (cf. <a href='B:20 20:5'>Ex 20:5</a>). Paul spoke of a “godly jealousy” (<a href='B:540 11:2'>2Cor 11:2</a>). The verses on God’s jealousy are all in the context of idolatry. Like any true lover, God is jealous when anyone or anything else steals the devotion of His beloved.<p/><b><a href='B:20 20:5'>Exo 20:5</a> b—</b> Does God ever punish one person for another’s sins? (See comments on <a href='B:330 18:20'>Ezek 18:20</a>) 


text:
Why do Christians worship on Sunday when the commandment sets apart Saturday as the day of worship?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> This commandment states that the seventh day of the week, Saturday, is the day which the Lord selected as the day of rest and worship. However, in the NT the Christian church began to worship and rest on the first day of the week, Sunday. Aren’t Christians violating the Sabbath commandment by worshiping on the first day of the week rather than the seventh day?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, the basis for the command to observe the Sabbath, as stated in <a href='B:20 20:11'>Exo 20:11</a>, is that God rested on the seventh day after six days of work, and that God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it. The Sabbath day was instituted as a day of rest and worship. The people of God were to follow God’s example in His pattern of work and rest. However, as Jesus said in correcting the distorted view of the Pharisees, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath” (<a href='B:480 2:27'>Mark 2:27</a>). The point which Jesus made is that the Sabbath was not instituted to enslave people, but to benefit them. The spirit of Sabbath observance is continued in the NT observance of rest and worship on the first day of the week.<p/>Second, it must be remembered that, according to <a href='B:580 2:17'>Colossians 2:17</a>, the Sabbath was “a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.” The Sabbath observance was associated with redemption in <a href='B:50 5:15'>Deu 5:15</a> where Moses stated, “Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord your God brought you out from there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.” The Sabbath was a shadow of the redemption which would be provided in Christ. It symbolized the rest from our works and an entrance into the rest of God provided by His finished work.<p/>Finally, although the moral principles expressed in the commandments are reaffirmed in the NT, the command to set Saturday apart as a day of rest and worship is the only commandment not repeated. There are very good reasons for this. New Testament believers are not under the OT Law (<a href='B:520 6:14'>Rom 6:14</a>; <a href='B:550 3:24-25'>Gal 3:24-25</a>). By His resurrection on the first day of the week (<a href='B:470 28:1'>Matt 28:1</a>), His continued appearances on succeeding Sundays (<a href='B:500 20:26'>John 20:26</a>), and the descent of the Holy Spirit on Sunday (<a href='B:510 2:1'>Acts 2:1</a>), the early church was given the pattern of Sunday worship. This they did regularly (<a href='B:510 20:7'>Acts 20:7</a>; <a href='B:530 16:2'>1Cor 16:2</a>). Sunday worship was further hallowed by our Lord who appeared to John in that last great vision on “the Lord’s Day” (<a href='B:730 1:10'>Rev 1:10</a>). It is for these reasons that Christians worship on Sunday, rather than on the Jewish Sabbath. 


text:
How could God command people not to kill, and then, in <a href='B:20 21:12'>Exo 21:12</a>, command that murderers be put to death?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In the Ten Commandments, God prohibits killing when He says, “Thou shalt not kill” (KJV). However, in <a href='B:20 21:12'>Exo 21:12</a> God commands that the man who strikes another man so that he dies should be put to death. Isn’t it a contradiction for God to command that we not kill and then command that we do kill?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> A great amount of confusion has arisen because of the misleading translation of the sixth commandment. The Hebrew word used in the prohibition of this commandment is not the normal word for killing (harag). Rather it is the specific term for murder (ratsach). A more proper translation of the command is provided by the NKJV and NIV : “You shall not murder.” <a href='B:20 21:12'>Exo 21:12</a> is not a command to murder, but a command to carry out capital punishment for capital crime. There is no contradiction between the command for men not to commit murder, and the command that the proper authorities should execute capital punishment for capital crimes. 


text:
Was the altar made of earth or of wood?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Here the altar is constructed of earth, but in <a href='B:20 27:1'>Exo 27:1</a> it was constructed of “acacia wood.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The altar itself was only a hollow case made of acacia wood and covered with bronze (<a href='B:20 27:2'>Ex 27:2</a>). But when it was used it was filled with earth or stones so as to form a bed for the coals. 


text:
Does this passage show that unborn children are of less value than adults?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to some translations of the Bible, this text teaches that when fighting men cause a woman to have a “miscarriage” they “shall be fined” (v. 22, RSV). But, if the fighting men caused the death of the woman, the penalty was capital punishment (v. 23). Doesn’t this prove that the unborn was not considered a human being, as the mother was?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First of all, this is a mistranslation of the verse. The great Hebrew scholar, Umberto Cassuto, translated the verse correctly as follows:<p/>Fourth, the word used for the mother’s offspring here is yeled which means “child.” It is the same word used of babies and young children in the Bible (<a href='B:10 21:8'>Gen 21:8</a>; <a href='B:20 2:3'>Ex 2:3</a>). Hence, the unborn is considered just as much a human as a young child is.<p/>Sixth, other OT passages teach the full humanity of an unborn child (see comments on <a href='B:230 51:5'>Ps 51:5</a> and 139:13ff). The NT affirms the same view (cf. <a href='B:470 1:20'>Matt 1:20</a>; <a href='B:490 1:41'>Luke 1:41</a>; <a href='B:420 1:44'>44</a>). 


text:
Why was capital punishment commuted in the case of some murders?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:40 35:31'>Numbers 35:31</a> commands that “you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death.” However, <a href='B:20 21'>Exo 21</a> says if the guilty one has “imposed on him a sum of money, then he shall pay to redeem his life, whatever is imposed on him” (v. 30). But these are contrary instructions about punishing murderers.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The reason for the difference is clearly stated in the text—one was willful murder, and the other was just negligent homicide. In the first case there was malice, but in the second case there was no evil intent. In fact, in the latter instance the guilty had not actually taken the other person’s life. Rather, he had simply been negligent about confining an ox that was known to gore people (<a href='B:20 21:28-29'>Ex 21:28-29</a>). In such a case a fine could be levied rather than capital punishment. 


text:
Why is boiling a kid in its mother’s milk prohibited?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> This verse commands: “You shall not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk.” What does this mean and why were the Israelites commanded not to do this?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are two distinct questions here, and they should be separated. First of all, what does this passage mean? Second, why was God opposed to their doing this? The answer to the first question is easy. Every word in the sentence is clear. The Israelites knew exactly what to do. They were not supposed to cook a baby goat in its mother’s milk. So there was absolutely no problem in their knowing what God did not want them to do. 


text:
How could Moses have written this when modern scholars say several different authors (JEPD) are responsible for it?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Modern critical scholars following Julius Wellhausen (19th century) claim that the first five books of the OT were written by various persons known as J (Jehovist), E (Elohimist), P (priestly), and D (deuteronomist), depending on which sections reflect the literary characteristics of these supposed authors. However, this verse declares that “Moses wrote all the words of the Lord.” Indeed, many other verses in the Bible attribute this book to Moses (see points 6–9 below).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Here is another example where negative criticism of the Bible is wrong. There is very strong evidence that Moses wrote Exodus. First of all, no other person from that period had the time, interest, and ability to compose such a record.<p/>Fourth, the author reflects a detailed knowledge of the geography of the wilderness (cf. <a href='B:20 14'>Ex 14</a>). This is highly unlikely for anyone, unlike Moses, who did not have many years of experience living in this area. The same is true of the author’s knowledge of the customs and practices of the people described in Exodus.<p/>Fifth, the book explicitly claims that “Moses wrote all the words” (<a href='B:20 24:4'>Ex 24:4</a>). If he did not, then it is a forgery which cannot be trusted, nor could it be the Word of God.<p/>Sixth, Moses’ successor Joshua claimed that Moses wrote the Law. In fact, when Joshua assumed leadership after Moses, he exhorted the people of Israel that “This Book of the Law” should not depart out of their mouths (<a href='B:60 1:8'>Josh 1:8</a>) and that they should “observe to do according to all the law which Moses … commanded” (<a href='B:60 1:7'>Josh 1:7</a>).<p/>Seventh, a long chain of OT figures after Moses attributed this book to him, including Joshua (1:7–8), Josiah (<a href='B:140 34:14'>2Chron 34:14</a>), Ezra (6:18), Daniel (9:11), and Malachi (4:4).<p/>Eighth, Jesus quoted from <a href='B:20 20:12'>Exo 20:12</a>, using the introduction “for Moses said” (<a href='B:480 7:10'>Mark 7:10</a>; cf. <a href='B:490 20:37'>Luke 20:37</a>). So either Christ is right or the critics are. Since there is strong evidence that He is the Son of God, the choice is clear (see Geisler and Brooks, When Skeptics Ask,Victor Books, 1990, chap. 6).<p/>Ninth, the Apostle Paul declared “Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law” (<a href='B:520 10:5'>Rom 10:5</a>, citing <a href='B:330 20:11'>Ezek 20:11</a>). So we have it on apostolic authority, as well as on the authority of Christ, that Moses wrote Exodus. 


text:
How could these people see God when God said in <a href='B:20 33:20'>Exo 33:20</a>, “no man shall see me and live”?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:20 24:9-11'>Exo 24:9-11</a> records that Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel ascended the mountain of God and “saw the God of Israel.” However, <a href='B:20 19:12-13'>Exo 19:12-13</a> says that the people could not even touch the base of the mountain without being put to death. And in <a href='B:20 33:20'>Exo 33:20</a> God says that no one can see Him and live. How could these people go up the mountain and see God and yet live?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, it should be noted that God invited them to see Him. In <a href='B:20 19:12-13'>Exo 19:12-13</a> God told Moses to set the boundaries around the mountain so that no one should even touch its base without the punishment of death. However, God specifically invited these people to ascend the mountain in order to consecrate them for the service to which they had been appointed, and to seal the covenant which had been established between God and the nation of Israel.<p/>Second, it is clear from the description and from other passages of Scripture (<a href='B:20 33:19-20'>Ex 33:19-20</a>; <a href='B:40 12:8'>Num 12:8</a>; <a href='B:500 1:18'>John 1:18</a>), that what these people saw was not the essence of God, but rather a visual representation of the glory of God. Even when Moses asked to see God’s glory (<a href='B:20 33:18-23'>Ex 33:18-23</a>), it was only a likeness of God which Moses saw (cf. <a href='B:40 12:8'>Num 12:8</a> where the Hebrew word temunah —“form,” “likeness”—is used), and not the very essence of God. 


text:
<b>ff—</b> If it is wrong to make graven images, why did God command Moses to make one?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> God clearly commanded in <a href='B:20 20:4'>Exo 20:4</a> : “You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath.” Yet here Moses is instructed by God to “make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work” (v. 18). If making images of any heavenly object is wrong, then why did God command Moses to make some on the ark of the covenant?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The prohibition against making graven images was distinctly set in the context of worshiping idols. There are, then, several reasons why making the cherubim does not conflict with this command not to bow down to graven images. First, there was no chance that the people of Israel would fall down before the cherubim in the most holy place, since they wereforbidden to go in the holy place at any time. Even the high priest went only once a year on the Day of Atonement (<a href='B:30 16'>Lev 16</a>).<p/>Finally, the prohibition in <a href='B:20 20'>Exo 20</a> is not against religious art as such, which includes things in heaven (angels) and on earth (humans or animals). Rather, it was against using any image as an idol. That idolatry envisioned is evident from the fact they were instructed not to “bow down to them nor serve them” (<a href='B:20 20:5'>Ex 20:5</a>). The distinction between non-religious use of images and a religious use is important:<p/>Even language about God in the Bible contains images. God is both a shepherd and a father. But each of these is appropriately qualified. God is not just any father. He is our Heavenly Father. Likewise, Jesus is not just any shepherd, but the Good Shepherd who gave His life for His sheep (<a href='B:500 10:11'>John 10:11</a>). No finite image can be appropriately applied to the infinite God without qualification. To do so is idolatry. And idols are idols whether they are mental or metal. 


text:
Does God have fingers?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> This verse says that the Ten Commandments were “written with the finger of God.” But, elsewhere the Bible insists that “God is spirit” (<a href='B:500 4:24'>John 4:24</a>) and that spirits do not have “flesh and bones” (<a href='B:490 24:39'>Luke 24:39</a>). How, then, can God have fingers?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> God does not literally have fingers. The phrase “finger of God” is a figure of speech indicating God’s direct involvement in producing the Ten Commandments. It is called an anthropomorphism (speaking of God in human terms).<p/>The Bible uses many figures of speech when referring to God, including “arm” (<a href='B:50 7:19'>Deut 7:19</a>), “wings” (<a href='B:230 91:4'>Ps 91:4</a>), and “eyes” (<a href='B:650 4:13'>Heb 4:13</a>). None of these should be taken literally, though all of them depict something that is literally true of God. For example, although God does not have literal arms, nonetheless, it is literally true that God can and does extend His strength to do great things that, were humans to do, it would require strong arms. 


text:
Does God change His mind?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> While Moses was upon the mountain receiving the Law from God, the people were at the foot of the mountain worshiping the golden calf which they had constructed (32:4–6). When God instructed Moses to go down to them, He told Moses that He would “consume them” and make a great nation from Moses (32:10). When Moses heard this, he pleaded with God to turn from His anger. Verse 14 states, “So the Lord relented from the harm which He said He would do to His people.” This implies that God changed His mind. However, in <a href='B:90 15:29'>1Sam 15:29</a> God says that “He is not a man, that He should relent,” and in <a href='B:460 3:6'>Mal 3:6</a> God says, “For I am the Lord, I do not change.” Also, in Hebrews, God demonstrated the “immutability of His counsel” (<a href='B:650 6:17'>Heb 6:17</a>) by swearing an oath. Does God change His mind or doesn’t He?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> It must be emphatically maintained that God does not change (cf. <a href='B:460 3:6'>Mal 3:6</a>; <a href='B:660 1:17'>Jam 1:17</a>). He neither changes His mind, His will, nor His nature. There are several arguments that demonstrate the immutability of God. We will consider three.<p/>First, anything that changes does so in some chronological order. There must be a point before the change and a point after the change. Anything that experiences a before and an after exists in time, because the essence of time is seen in the chronological progress from before to after. However, God is eternal and outside time (<a href='B:500 17:5'>John 17:5</a>; <a href='B:620 1:9'>2Tim 1:9</a>). Therefore, there cannot be in God a series of before’s and after’s. But, if God cannot be in a series of before’s and after’s, then God cannot change, because change necessarily involves before and after.<p/>Third, if anyone were to change his mind, it must be because new information has come to light that was not previously known, or the circumstances have changed that require a different kind of attitude or action. Now, if God changed His mind, it cannot be because He has learned some bit of information that He did not previously know, for God is omniscient—He knows all (<a href='B:230 147:5'>Ps 147:5</a>). Therefore, it must be because the circumstances have changed that require a different attitude or action. But, if the circumstances have changed, it is not necessarily the case that God has changed His mind. It may simply be the case that, since the circumstances have changed, God’s relationship to the new circumstances are different because they have changed, not God. 


text:
Did God change His mind about going with the Israelites into the Land of Promise?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Here God declares “I will not go up in your midst.” Yet later God did go with them in a mighty and victorious way, leading them to victory under Joshua (see Josh. 1–11).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> These passages speak of different times. The first addresses the first generation of rebellious Israelites, and the second speaks about the second generation who believed God and followed Joshua into the land. Not all of God’s threats (or promises) are unconditional. This one was conditional. God would go with them if and when they trusted Him (which the second generation did), but He would not go with them if and when they did not (which the first generation did). God’s irreversible purpose to bring them into the land allowed for some temporarily reversible conditions in attaining this end. 


text:
Were unclean animals to be redeemed with money or killed?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:40 18:15-16'>Numbers 18:15-16</a> instructs that unclean beasts should be redeemed with money. But Exodus had commanded that they be killed. How can this discrepancy be reconciled?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> God apparently instructed Moses to modify the earlier law in favor of revenues for the sanctuary. Money would be more useable than so many animals. Thus, the essence of the first law was being implemented in another way, due to the circumstances. Actually, their obedience to the first law may have occasioned the need for the second. There may have simply been too many animals given to the service of the tabernacle, when other things that money could buy were in greater demand. 


text:
Was the blood poured on the altar or sprinkled on it?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In <a href='B:30 3:2'>Lev 3:2</a>, the priest was commanded to “sprinkle the blood all around on the altar.” But, in <a href='B:50 12:27'>Deu 12:27</a>, the blood was to be “poured” on the altar.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The great Jewish scholar Maimonides said that part of the blood was sprinkled on the altar and the rest was poured at the bottom of it. Others believe that the word “pour” could mean sprinkle. Just as today when rain is coming down strongly in sprinkles, we say it is pouring. In any event, there is no contradiction between the two passages. 


text:
Was the sacrifice to be brought to the priest or to the Lord?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:30 5:15'>Lev 5:15</a> instructs that one “bring to the Lord an offering.” But a few verses later it says to “bring it to the priest” (v. 18).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> It was brought to the priest to be offered to the Lord. In Israel, the priests were the representatives of the people to God, as prophets were God’s representatives to the people. 


text:
How can the Bible say that the hyrax and the rabbit chew the cud when science now knows that they do not?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In <a href='B:30 11:5-6'>Lev 11:5-6</a>, two animals, the rock hyrax and the rabbit, were designated as unclean by Leviticus because, although they chew the cud, they do not divide the hoof. But, science has discovered that these two animals do not chew the cud. Isn’t it an error when the Bible says they chew the cud when in fact they do not?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Although they did not chew the cud in the modern technical sense, they did engage in a chewing action that looked the same to an observer. Thus, they are listed with other animals that chew the cud so that the common person could make the distinction from his or her everyday observations.<p/>The list of clean and unclean animals was intended as a practical guide for the Israelite in selecting food. The average Israelite would not have been aware of the technical aspects of cud chewing, and may have otherwise considered the hyrax and rabbit as clean animals because of the appearance of cud chewing. Consequently, it was necessary to point out that, although it may appear that these were clean animals because of their chewing movement, they were not clean because they did not divide the hoof. We often follow a similar practice when talking to those who are not familiar with more technical aspects of some point. For example, we use observational language to talk about the sun rising and setting when we talk to little children. To a small child the daily cycle of the sun has the appearance of rising and setting (see comments on <a href='B:60 10:12-14'>Josh 10:12-14</a>). The description is not technically correct, but it is functionally useful for the level of understanding of the child. This is analogous to the use here in Leviticus. Technically, although the hyrax and the rabbit do not chew the cud, this description was functional at the time in order to make the point that these animals were considered unclean. 


text:
 If motherhood was so blessed by God, why did mothers have to bring a sacrifice to God to expiate for having children?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The Bible exalts the position of motherhood saying, “Your wife shall be like a fruitful vine … your children like olive plants” (<a href='B:230 128:3'>Ps 128:3</a>). Nevertheless, mothers were commanded to bring a sacrifice to the altar for “purification” and “atonement” after the birth of a child (<a href='B:30 12:5-7'>Lev 12:5-7</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Some take this sacrifice as merely symbolic, but even then it must symbolize something that is literally true. It seems best to make a distinction between the office of motherhood as such and motherhood in a fallen world. God did create a wife for Adam and command them to have children (<a href='B:10 1:27-28'>Gen 1:27-28</a>). In this original and pristine sense, motherhood is pure and unstained.<p/>Unfortunately, since the Fall of Eve (with Adam) motherhood is not without the taint of sin. David confessed, “in sin my mother conceived me” (<a href='B:230 51:5'>Ps 51:5</a>). Since motherhood, like everything else in this fallen world, is subject to sin, it too needed purification. After all, “the plowing of the wicked are sin” (<a href='B:240 21:4'>Prov 21:4</a>) in a fallen world. As a result of the Fall, every woman bears children in pain (<a href='B:10 3:16'>Gen 3:16</a>). It is appropriate, then, that mothers be reminded of God’s gracious provision for them and through them by the offering of a sacrifice on the birth of a child. 


text:
How can the Bible say that leprosy infected clothing?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:30 13'>Lev 13</a> gives the laws concerning leprosy. In verses 47–59 there are laws concerning leprosy in garments. However, leprosy is an infectious disease caused by a bacterium and does not affect inanimate objects like garments. Was not the Bible wrong to talk about leprous garments?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> It is simply a matter of the confusing of names. The disease which has been identified in modern times as leprosy, commonly known as Hansen’s Disease, is not the same type of infection that is described in the OT and is translated by the English word “leprosy.” The disease which is identified today as leprosy is caused by a bacterium and does not produce the kinds of symptoms which are described in various OT passages. The Hebrew term tsaraath, translated “leprosy,” is a more general term for any serious skin disease or sign of infection or defilement on the surface of inanimate objects. The defilement on garments, or walls as in <a href='B:30 14:33-57'>Lev 14:33-57</a>, was probably some type of fungus or mold which attacks these types of material. Garments found to be infected were burned (<a href='B:30 13:52'>Lev 13:52</a>). Infected houses were cleansed. If the infection could not be eradicated, the houses were demolished and the ruins were taken outside the city (<a href='B:30 14:45'>Lev 14:45</a>). 


text:
Why did God set up the procedure of the scapegoat, and what does it represent?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:30 16'>Lev 16</a> sets up the procedure for the Day of Atonement of killing one goat as a sin offering to make atonement for the Holy Place, and then confessing the sins of Israel upon the head of another goat and sending it away into the wilderness. However, this does not present a unified picture, for there is only one sacrifice for our sins, not two (<a href='B:650 10:14'>Heb 10:14</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The procedure relating to the scapegoat does not present a confused or disunited picture of redemption. Each animal referred to in the description of the procedures to be taken on the Day of Atonement represents some aspect of the work of Christ in making a once for all atonement for our sins. The first goat was killed and his blood was shed (<a href='B:30 16:15'>Lev 16:15</a>), representing the substitutionary death of Christ and the shedding of His blood for our sins. The High Priest was then to take the scapegoat, to confess the sins of Israel upon the head of the goat, and to send it out into the wilderness. This represented the carrying away of Israel’s sins and symbolizes the work of Christ in bearing away our sins. As <a href='B:290 53:6'>Isaiah 53:6</a> prophesied, “And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.” The various aspects of the work of Christ in redemption are symbolized by the different parts which the different animals played on the Day of Atonement. 


text:
Have the laws against homosexuality been abolished along with laws against eating pork?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The law against homosexuality is found in the levitical law (<a href='B:30 18:22'>Lev 18:22</a>) along with laws against eating pork and shrimp (<a href='B:30 11:2-3'>Lev 11:2-3</a>; <a href='B:30 11:10'>10</a>). But these ceremonial laws have been done away with (<a href='B:510 10:15'>Acts 10:15</a>). This being the case, some insist that the laws prohibiting homosexual activity are no longer binding either.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The laws against homosexual practices are not merely ceremonial. Simply because the Mosaic prohibition against homosexuality is mentioned in Leviticus does not mean that it was part of the ceremonial law that has passed away.<p/>First of all, if laws against homosexuality were merely ceremonial (and therefore abolished), then rape, incest, and beastiality would not be morally wrong either, since they are condemned in the same chapter with homosexual sins (<a href='B:30 18:6-14'>Lev 18:6-14</a>; <a href='B:30 18:18-22'>22–23</a>).<p/>Second, homosexual sins among Gentiles were also condemned by God (<a href='B:520 1:26'>Rom 1:26</a>), and they did not have the ceremonial law (<a href='B:520 2:12-15'>Rom 2:12-15</a>). It was for this very reason that God brought judgment on the Canaanites (<a href='B:10 18:1-3'>Gen 18:1-3</a>; <a href='B:10 18:25'>25</a>).<p/>Third, even in the Jewish levitical law there was a difference in punishment for violating the ceremonial law of eating pork or shrimp (which was a few days isolation) and that for homosexuality which was capital punishment (<a href='B:30 18:29'>Lev 18:29</a>).<p/>Fourth, Jesus changed the dietary laws of the OT (<a href='B:480 7:18'>Mark 7:18</a>; <a href='B:510 10:15'>Acts 10:15</a>), but the moral prohibitions against homosexuality are still enjoined on believers in the NT (<a href='B:520 1:26-27'>Rom 1:26-27</a>; <a href='B:530 6:9'>1Cor 6:9</a>; <a href='B:610 1:10'>1Tim 1:10</a>; <a href='B:720 1:7'>Jude 7</a>).<p/><b><a href='B:30 18:22-24'>Lev 18:22-24</a> —</b> Is the curse of barrenness the reason God condemned homosexuality?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to Jewish belief, barrenness was a curse (<a href='B:10 16:1'>Gen 16:1</a>; <a href='B:90 1:3-7'>1Sam 1:3-7</a>). Children were considered a blessing from the Lord (<a href='B:230 127:3'>Ps 127:3</a>). The blessing of God in the land was dependent on having children (<a href='B:10 15:5'>Gen 15:5</a>). In view of the stress laid on having children, some have argued that it is not surprising that the OT Law would frown on homosexual activity from which no children come. Thus, they conclude that the Bible is not condemning homosexual activity as such, but only the refusal to have children.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There is no indication in Scripture that homosexuality was considered sinful because no children resulted from it. First of all, at no place in the Bible is any such connection stated.<p/>Third, the prohibition against homosexuality was not only for Jews, but for Gentiles (<a href='B:30 18:24'>Lev 18:24</a>). But Gentile blessings were not dependent on having heirs to inherit the land of Israel.<p/>Finally, if barrenness was a divine curse, then singleness would be sinful. But both our Lord (<a href='B:470 19:11-12'>Matt 19:11-12</a>) and the Apostle Paul (<a href='B:530 7:8'>1Cor 7:8</a>) sanctioned singlehood by both precept and practice. 


text:
Is the curse of barrenness the reason God condemned homosexuality?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to Jewish belief, barrenness was a curse (<a href='B:10 16:1'>Gen 16:1</a>; <a href='B:90 1:3-7'>1Sam 1:3-7</a>). Children were considered a blessing from the Lord (<a href='B:230 127:3'>Ps 127:3</a>). The blessing of God in the land was dependent on having children (<a href='B:10 15:5'>Gen 15:5</a>). In view of the stress laid on having children, some have argued that it is not surprising that the OT Law would frown on homosexual activity from which no children come. Thus, they conclude that the Bible is not condemning homosexual activity as such, but only the refusal to have children.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There is no indication in Scripture that homosexuality was considered sinful because no children resulted from it. First of all, at no place in the Bible is any such connection stated.<p/>Third, the prohibition against homosexuality was not only for Jews, but for Gentiles (<a href='B:30 18:24'>Lev 18:24</a>). But Gentile blessings were not dependent on having heirs to inherit the land of Israel.<p/>Finally, if barrenness was a divine curse, then singleness would be sinful. But both our Lord (<a href='B:470 19:11-12'>Matt 19:11-12</a>) and the Apostle Paul (<a href='B:530 7:8'>1Cor 7:8</a>) sanctioned singlehood by both precept and practice. 


text:
Was the feast observed on the ninth day or on the tenth day?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to this verse the fast associated with the Day of Atonement was to begin on the “ninth day of the month.” But earlier in <a href='B:30 16:29'>Lev 16:29</a> they were to begin fasting on the “tenth day of the month.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This fast began on the ninth day and extended over to the tenth day (cf. <a href='B:30 23:27'>Lev 23:27</a>). Hence, it was appropriate to speak of it as being either day. There are several other problems of a similar nature. For example, in like manner the feast was both seven days (<a href='B:20 12:15'>Ex 12:15</a>) or six days (<a href='B:50 16:8'>Deut 16:8</a>). God ended His work of creation on the seventh day (<a href='B:10 2:2'>Gen 2:2</a>) and yet did it in six days (<a href='B:20 20:11'>Ex 20:11</a>). Also, “after eight days” means the next Sunday (<a href='B:500 20:26'>John 20:26</a>; cf. 20:19). 


text:
Did Israel dwell in booths or in tents?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Here the people of Israel are told to “dwell in booths.” But earlier in <a href='B:20 16:16'>Exo 16:16</a>, it speaks of everyone being “in his tent.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Since the people moved throughout the wilderness for 40 years, their homes were tents. However, the Leviticus passage does not speak of their homes in the wilderness, but about later instructions for celebrating the Feast of Tabernacles (Booths) in Jerusalem. Since it was only for a week, they were instructed to make temporary booths in which to live while at the feasts. There was, after all, no Holiday Inn in Jerusalem at the time. 


text:
Did God abhor Israel?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Time and time again God reminded Israel that they were the “apple of His eye” (<a href='B:450 2:8'>Zech 2:8</a>), the object of His special blessing (<a href='B:10 12:1-3'>Gen 12:1-3</a>). Yet here God says, “My soul shall abhor you.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Only a few verses later (v. 44), God says, “I will not cast them away, nor shall I abhor them.” The difference is due to the fact that He is speaking of two different times in which Israel is in two different conditions. When they are faithful to Him, God will not abhor them. But, when they worship other gods, He promises to “cast your carcasses on the lifeless forms of your idols” (v. 30). God hates the practice of idolatry, whether by His people or by pagans. 


text:
How could Moses have written Numbers when critics claim it was written centuries after his death?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Many modern critics claim that Moses did not write the first five books of the Bible traditionally attributed to him (see comments on <a href='B:20 24:4'>Ex 24:4</a>). But the Bible declares here that “the Lord spoke to Moses” (1:1) and that “Moses wrote down” the events of this book (33:2).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The critics have no real evidence for their claim, either historical or literary. The fact that Moses used different names for God (Elohim, Jehovah [Yahweh]) is no proof. Each name of God informs us of another characteristic of God that fits the narrative in which it is used (see comments on <a href='B:10 2:4'>Gen 2:4</a>).<p/>Furthermore, there is strong evidence that Moses wrote the Book of Numbers. First, there is all the evidence mentioned earlier (in comments on <a href='B:20 24:4'>Ex 24:4</a>) that the book reflects a detailed, first-hand knowledge of the time, places, and customs of the period it describes — all of which Moses possessed.<p/>Third, there are a number of NT citations from the Book of Numbers which are associated with Moses (<a href='B:510 7'>Acts 7</a>; <a href='B:510 13'>13</a>; <a href='B:530 10:2-8'>1Cor 10:2-8</a>; <a href='B:650 3:7-16'>Heb 3:7-16</a>). If Moses did not write Numbers, then these inspired NT books would be in error too.<p/>Fourth, our Lord quoted from Numbers and verified that it was indeed Moses who lifted up the serpent in the wilderness (<a href='B:500 3:14'>John 3:14</a>; cf. <a href='B:40 21:9'>Num 21:9</a>). This places the stamp of Christ’s authority on the authenticity of the question.<p/><b><a href='B:40 1:1'>NUMBERS 1:1–4:49</a> —</b> How accurate is this census of the tribes of Israel?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to the census taken in chapters 1–4 of Numbers, the newly formed nation of Israel must have numbered about 2 million people. According to <a href='B:40 1:1'>Numbers 1:1</a>, this census was taken while the people were in the wilderness of Sinai at the beginning of their 40 years of wandering. However, the dry and desolate conditions of the Sinai desert would have made it impossible for such a large group to survive. So, is the census inaccurate?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The naturalistic presupposition of this criticism is contrary to the historic facts. Although there has been some controversy over the meaning of the Hebrew word which is translated “thousand,” the evidence is clear that this is the proper understanding of this word in this context. For example, <a href='B:40 1:21'>Numbers 1:21</a> does not say, as some have claimed, that the children of Reuben numbered 46familie s and<p/>500. The verse clearly states that the number of individual men from twenty years old and up was 46 thousand and<p/>500. According to the census in these chapters, the total number of male Israelites from 20 years old and up was 603,550. This number is confirmed by the passage in <a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a> which states that 600,000 males, along with women and children, departed from Egypt.<p/>The fact that the arid and barren desert would not be able to sustain such a large group of people is a valid observation. However, the problem which modern scholarship has with the size of the multitude and the possibility of their survival in the wilderness rests upon an unwillingness to consider the supernatural element. Modern scholarship is decidedly anti-supernatural. Since the Book of Exodus records the divine judgments upon Egypt, and the miraculous deliverance of Israel from bondage, the daily provision for the people by the mighty hand of God is sufficient to explain the survival of the people of God in that destitute land. Indeed, many passages record the miraculous provisions which God made for His people, from the daily supply of manna (<a href='B:20 16'>Ex 16</a>), which was provided for the whole nation until the new generation ate the food of the Promised Land (<a href='B:60 5:12'>Josh 5:12</a>), to the miraculous provision of water from that supernatural rock which followed them (<a href='B:530 10:4'>1Cor 10:4</a>; <a href='B:20 17:6'>Ex 17:6</a>), to the miraculous provision of meat in <a href='B:40 11:31'>Numbers 11:31</a>, to the fact that neither their clothes nor their sandals wore out in all their wanderings (<a href='B:50 29:5'>Deut 29:5</a>). God was able to meet all their needs. Although the desert was not able to sustain, the Lord God of Israel certainly was (see also discussion on <a href='B:50 32:13-14'>Deut 32:13-14</a>). 


text:
How accurate is this census of the tribes of Israel?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to the census taken in chapters 1–4 of Numbers, the newly formed nation of Israel must have numbered about 2 million people. According to <a href='B:40 1:1'>Numbers 1:1</a>, this census was taken while the people were in the wilderness of Sinai at the beginning of their 40 years of wandering. However, the dry and desolate conditions of the Sinai desert would have made it impossible for such a large group to survive. So, is the census inaccurate?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The naturalistic presupposition of this criticism is contrary to the historic facts. Although there has been some controversy over the meaning of the Hebrew word which is translated “thousand,” the evidence is clear that this is the proper understanding of this word in this context. For example, <a href='B:40 1:21'>Numbers 1:21</a> does not say, as some have claimed, that the children of Reuben numbered 46familie s and<p/>500. The verse clearly states that the number of individual men from twenty years old and up was 46 thousand and<p/>500. According to the census in these chapters, the total number of male Israelites from 20 years old and up was 603,550. This number is confirmed by the passage in <a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a> which states that 600,000 males, along with women and children, departed from Egypt.<p/>The fact that the arid and barren desert would not be able to sustain such a large group of people is a valid observation. However, the problem which modern scholarship has with the size of the multitude and the possibility of their survival in the wilderness rests upon an unwillingness to consider the supernatural element. Modern scholarship is decidedly anti-supernatural. Since the Book of Exodus records the divine judgments upon Egypt, and the miraculous deliverance of Israel from bondage, the daily provision for the people by the mighty hand of God is sufficient to explain the survival of the people of God in that destitute land. Indeed, many passages record the miraculous provisions which God made for His people, from the daily supply of manna (<a href='B:20 16'>Ex 16</a>), which was provided for the whole nation until the new generation ate the food of the Promised Land (<a href='B:60 5:12'>Josh 5:12</a>), to the miraculous provision of water from that supernatural rock which followed them (<a href='B:530 10:4'>1Cor 10:4</a>; <a href='B:20 17:6'>Ex 17:6</a>), to the miraculous provision of meat in <a href='B:40 11:31'>Numbers 11:31</a>, to the fact that neither their clothes nor their sandals wore out in all their wanderings (<a href='B:50 29:5'>Deut 29:5</a>). God was able to meet all their needs. Although the desert was not able to sustain, the Lord God of Israel certainly was (see also discussion on <a href='B:50 32:13-14'>Deut 32:13-14</a>). 


text:
Was this census made here or earlier?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to <a href='B:20 40:2'>Exo 40:2</a>, Moses took the census of the people of Israel the “first day of the first month.” But in Numbers, the same census, yielding the same number of 603,550, was taken on “the first day of the second month” (<a href='B:40 1:1'>Num 1:1</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> These are apparently two different censuses for two different purposes. The first one (<a href='B:20 38'>Ex 38</a>) was for religious purposes and the second for military purposes. The first one was connected with the “inventory of the tabernacle” (<a href='B:20 38:21'>Ex 38:21</a>), that is, a collection of the offering used for the tabernacle. The later one had to do with how many men were “able to go to war in Israel” (<a href='B:40 1:3'>Num 1:3</a>). Both yield the same result since they were taken so close together. 


text:
If God commanded that firstborn sons from all the tribes be given Him, why was the tribe of Levi given instead?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> God had commanded Moses that “all the firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem” (<a href='B:20 13:13'>Ex 13:13</a>; cf. 22:29). However, this was never done. Instead, one whole tribe was set apart to God for the work of the priesthood (<a href='B:40 3:12'>Num 3:12</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The reason for the substitution is given in <a href='B:40 3:12'>Numbers 3:12</a>. The Lord declared: “I Myself have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of every firstborn who opens the womb among the children of Israel.” Since they belonged to Him, God had the right to make the substitution. 


text:
How can the age for Levitical service be 30, when <a href='B:40 8:24'>Numbers 8:24</a> says 25, and <a href='B:150 3:8'>Ezra 3:8</a> says 20?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to <a href='B:40 4:3'>Numbers 4:3</a>, at 30 years of age a Levite would “enter the service to do the work in the tabernacle of meeting.” However, <a href='B:40 8:24'>Numbers 8:24</a> states, “this is what pertains to the Levites: From twenty-five years old and above one may enter to perform service in the work of the tabernacle of meeting,” and <a href='B:150 3:8'>Ezra 3:8</a> says that Levites “from twenty years old and above” were appointed to oversee the work of rebuilding the house of the Lord. Is there a contradiction between these passages?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, there is a distinction made in the text between the type of service which is rendered in each case. In <a href='B:40 4:3'>Numbers 4:3</a> the passage talks about anyone entering into the service to perform the business (melakah, business or occupation) of the tabernacle. <a href='B:40 8:24'>Numbers 8:24</a> is referring to those who come “to perform service in the work (baabodath, meaning work or labor) of the tabernacle.” The difference indicates that the younger men, referred to in <a href='B:40 8:24'>Numbers 8:24</a>, were probably apprentices who engaged in the manual labor while in training. Later they were admitted to the official service of the tabernacle business at age 30 according to <a href='B:40 4:3'>Numbers 4:3</a>.<p/>Second, <a href='B:150 3:8'>Ezra 3:8</a> specifically states that these Levites were appointed “to oversee the work of the house of the Lord.” This was not the official service of the tabernacle. Rather, this was the work of overseeing the rebuilding of the temple. Also, due to the fact that the number of Levites who had returned from the captivity was, according to <a href='B:150 2:40'>Ezra 2:40</a> and <a href='B:160 7:43'>Nehemiah 7:43</a>, only 74, it was necessary to employ them at a younger age to have a sufficient number to oversee the work. Also, David employed the Levites from age twenty, and he did so because, “They [the Levites] shall no longer carry the tabernacle, or any of the articles for its service” (<a href='B:130 23:26'>1Chron 23:26</a>). Apparently the work of transporting the tabernacle from place to place in the wilderness journeys required a more mature and stronger person. This practice, apparently begun by David, was followed down to Ezra’s time. 


text:
Were the staves to remain in the Ark or to be removed?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to <a href='B:20 25:15'>Exo 25:15</a>, “The poles shall be in the rings of the ark: they shall not be taken from it.” But, in the Numbers passage it says that when the ark was moved by the Levites “they shall insert its poles.” This seems to be conflicting instructions.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The Hebrew word for “insert” (sum or sim) has a wide range of meanings, including, leave, put, place, set, and turn. Hence, it may mean no more than the priests were to fasten or adjust the poles when they moved the ark so that it did not slip when being moved. This would make sense in view of the command not to remove the poles from the ark. 


text:
Doesn’t the Bible condone a superstition here?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Paul condemns “old wives’ fables” (<a href='B:610 4:7'>1Tim 4:7</a>). But, Moses here commands the practice of a superstition that has no basis in science. The accused wife was found guilty after drinking bitter water only if her stomach swelled. But, both the innocent and guilty wives drank the same bitter water, thus showing that there was no chemical or biological basis for one swelling and the other not.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The text does not say that the difference in the guilty woman’s condition had a chemical orphysical cause. In fact, it indicates that the cause was spiritual and psychological. “Guilt” is not a physical cause. The reason the belly of a guilty woman might swell can be easily explained by what is known scientifically about psychosomatic (mind over matter) conditions. Many women have experienced “false pregnancies” where their stomachs and breasts enlarge without being pregnant. Some people have even experienced blindness from psychological causes. Experiments with placebo pills (sugar pills) indicate that many people with terminal illnesses get the same relief from them as from morphine. So, it is a scientific fact that the mind can have a great effect on bodily processes. 


text:
Does the vow of the Nazarite contradict Paul’s prohibition against long hair?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Paul affirmed that it is against “nature” for men to have long hair (<a href='B:530 11:14'>1Cor 11:14</a>). But the vow of the Nazarite demanded that one not cut his hair.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The general rule was for men not to dress like women (see comments on <a href='B:50 22:5'>Deut 22:5</a>), nor to wear long hair like women (see comments on <a href='B:530 11:14'>1Cor 11:14</a>). Any exception was born out of either perversity (e.g., homosexuality), necessity (health, safety), or special sanctity. The vow of the Nazarite falls into the latter category and is an exception that helps establish the rule. God wished to distinguish the sexes for purposes of social and moral propriety. However, a special vow of dedication to God involving long hair but not wearing women’s clothes would scarcely tend to violate the spirit of the divine design of keeping the sexes distinguishable. No one with evil intentions of confusing the sexes for perverse reasons would be making such a self- sacrificing spiritual vow. 


text:
If God lead Israel by a cloud then why was Hobab needed as a guide?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:20 13:21-22'>Exo 13:21-22</a> affirms that God supernaturally lead Israel through the wilderness by a cloud that was illuminated by night. However, Moses asked his father-in-law, Hobab, to come with them “inasmuch as you know how we are to camp in the wilderness, and you can be our eyes” (<a href='B:40 10:31'>Num 10:31</a>). But why did they need a human guide when they had divine guidance?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> In response, several things should be observed. One is that Moses saw no contradiction between these and even mentions both the usefulness of Hobab (<a href='B:40 10:31'>Num 10:31</a>) and the leadership of the pillar of cloud (<a href='B:40 10:34'>Num 10:34</a>) only three verses later! Furthermore, there is an important difference between the general route to take (and how long to stay) provided by the cloud and specific arrangements for the camp supplied by human wisdom. An experienced person in the way of this wilderness could be invaluable for finding the most advantageous places for pasture, shelter, and other needed supplies. The critic shows a lack of understanding of the principle that God does not do for us what we can do for ourselves. 


text:
Was the Ark placed in the middle of the camp or in front of it?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In this text, we read that “the ark of the covenant of the Lord went before them.” Yet, earlier the tabernacle (with its ark) are said to be “in the middle of the camps” (<a href='B:40 2:17'>Num 2:17</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Some scholars claim there were two arks, one made by Moses which was carried in front of the camp and which the Philistines later captured. The other was made by Bezaleel, containing the tables of the law, which stayed in the middle of the camp.<p/>Other scholars believe that the ark was generally in the middle of the camp but that on certain occasions, as the three day journey (<a href='B:40 10:33'>Num 10:33</a>), it was taken out in front of the camp.<p/>Still others believe that the phrase “went before them” (<a href='B:40 10:33'>Num 10:33</a>) does not imply locality but leadership. Just as a general “went before” his army (that is, led them) and yet was surrounded by troops protecting them, even so the ark lead Israel, even though it was in the middle of them.<p/>Finally, it is possible that the ark was only in the middle of the people while they were camped (<a href='B:40 2'>Num 2</a>). But that as they broke camp, the ark then went out before them to lead them to their next destination. Any one of these suggestions would resolve the difficulty. 


text:
Did the manna taste like a honey wafer or like fresh oil?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Here the manna’s “taste was like the taste of pastry prepared with oil.” But in <a href='B:20 16:31'>Exo 16:31</a> asserts that the “taste of it was like wafers made with honey.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The latter description may have been what the manna tasted like in its natural state; the former, after it was cooked. Notice that in the same verse it speaks of the people who “ground it on millstones” and “cooked it in pans.” But even granting the two passages are speaking about the manna in the same condition, they are not mutually exclusive. 


text:
Was the tabernacle outside the camp of Israel or inside it?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:40 2'>Numbers 2</a> places the tabernacle inside the camp, but here in <a href='B:40 11:24'>Numbers 11:24</a> (cf. 12:4) it is said to be outside the camp.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> It was both. The twelve tribes were camped around the tabernacle (<a href='B:40 2:3'>Num 2:3</a>; <a href='B:40 2:10'>10</a>; <a href='B:40 2:18'>18</a>; <a href='B:40 2:25'>25</a>), with a space between them and the tabernacle in the center (<a href='B:40 2:2'>Num 2:2</a>). Hence, to get to the tabernacle they would have to go “outside” their camping area. And yet the tabernacle was literally “in the middle” of them. 


text:
How could God bring judgment on the people for eating the quail that He provided?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> God miraculously provided quail for the people to eat. However, the wrath of the Lord was aroused against them, and He struck them with a great plague so that many of them died (v. 33). How could the wrath of God be aroused against the people for eating the very meat that He had miraculously provided?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> It is necessary to see the judgment of God in light of events which led up to it. In <a href='B:40 11:1-3'>Numbers 11:1-3</a>, we find that the people of God began to complain. In fact, the text indicates that they were acting like people who had suffered some misfortune. <a href='B:40 11:1'>Numbers 11:1</a> says, “Now when the people complained, it displeased the Lord.” This was a direct rejection of God’s provisions for them. They had apparently forgotten the bondage from which they had been rescued. This attitude displeased God, and He brought judgment upon them as a disciplinary act.<p/>In verse 4, the people began to complain again because they wanted meat to eat instead of the manna which God was providing for them. They had apparently not learned the lesson, and their attitude displeased God again. In fact, verse 10 says, “Moses also was displeased.” God brought disciplinary judgment upon them again, this time by giving them exactly what they asked for. In response to their disobedient and ungrateful attitude, God told Moses to tell the people, “Therefore the Lord will give you meat, and you shall eat … until it comes out of your nostrils and becomes loathsome to you, because you have despised the Lord who is among you, and have wept before Him, saying, `Why did we ever come up out of Egypt?’ ” (<a href='B:40 11:18-20'>Num 11:18-20</a>) 


text:
How can this statement have been written by Moses?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:40 12:3'>Numbers 12:3</a> says, “Now the man Moses was very humble, more than all men who were on the face of the earth.” The conservative view of the Pentateuch is that Moses was the author of these five books. But, how could Moses make such a statement about himself if he were really humble?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Of course, no one would claim that Jesus was being boastful or prideful by saying “I am meek and lowly in heart” (<a href='B:470 11:29'>Matt 11:29</a>, KJV). Jesus was simply stating the facts. Likewise, Moses is not boasting or being prideful about his humility. Rather, he was simply stating a fact which was crucial for understanding the significance of the events he was reporting.<p/>Earlier in chapter 11, after the Spirit of the Lord came upon Eldad and Medad so that they began to prophesy, Joshua approached Moses and said, “Moses my lord, forbid them!” (<a href='B:40 11:28'>Num 11:28</a>) Moses’ response is a perfect illustration of the humility that 12:3 describes: “Are you zealous for my sake? Oh, that all the Lord’s people were prophets and that the Lord would put His Spirit upon them!” (<a href='B:40 11:29'>Num 11:29</a>) Moses exhibited the character of a humble man who was not interested in his own glory, but only in the glory of the Lord. 


text:
How can this passage say that Moses called Hoshea by the name Joshua since he was called Joshua in <a href='B:20 17:9'>Exo 17:9</a>?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:40 13:16'>Numbers 13:16</a> says that Moses called Hoshea the son of Nun, Joshua. But, as early as <a href='B:20 17:9'>Exo 17:9</a> Joshua is referred to by that name. How can this passage say that Moses was the one to give Hoshea the name Joshua?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, it must be remembered that Moses probably wrote this toward the end of the 40 years of wandering in the wilderness. Although Joshua may not have been given this name until the time referred to in <a href='B:40 13:16'>Numbers 13:16</a>, it would have been natural for Moses to refer to Hoshea as Joshua while composing the final drafts of the books of the Pentateuch. Also, the point at which Moses notes the fact that he referred to Hoshea as Joshua is quite appropriate. In recording the names of the spies whom he sent into the land, Moses endeavored to make it clear that Hoshea was the very same person to whom he had frequently made reference in other parts of the Pentateuch by the name Joshua. 


text:
How could the ten spies report that the land devoured its inhabitants?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In <a href='B:40 13:32'>Numbers 13:32</a>, ten of the spies who had been sent by Moses reported that the land was “a land that devours its inhabitants.” However, in addition to the fact that Joshua and Caleb had reported that the land flowed with milk and honey (<a href='B:40 13:27'>Num 13:27</a>), the spies had come back with evidence of the abundance of the land (<a href='B:40 13:26'>Num 13:26</a>). How could the ten spies claim that the land was “a land that devours its inhabitants”?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> It would be a misunderstanding of the text to assume that this epithet indicated that the land was actually a desolate place. The testimony of all the spies agreed upon the richness of the land in its capacity to produce food and sustain life. Rather, it was precisely because the land was so rich that the ten spies could give their pessimistic report. The fertility of the land caused many different peoples to desire to dwell in the land, which caused much blood shed between inhabitants and invaders. There is no contradiction in this statement. The land was so rich, and desired by so many different peoples, it facilitated many conflicts resulting in the inhabitants being devoured in the midst of the conflicts to own the land. 


text:
Did the Amalekites live in the mountain or in the valley?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> This verse says the Amalekites and Canaanites “dwell in the valley.” But verse 45 says the opposite, namely, they “dwelt in that mountain.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are two possibilities. One is that these two verses may be referring to different groups. Some of them may have lived in the mountain and some in the valley. Or, it may have reference to the same people who lived in a valley or plateau which was also a mountain relative to the lower area around it from which they “came down” to fight (v. 45). 


text:
If nearly all the men from twenty years up died in the wilderness, why have none of their graves been discovered?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to <a href='B:40 14:29'>Numbers 14:29</a>, the corpses of all the men older than 20 years would fall in the wilderness. The total was over 600,000. But, if so many died in the wilderness, why do their grave sites not litter the landscape?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Because the people were condemned to wander in the wilderness, the conditions were such that they were not able to construct graves that could withstand the weather conditions or even the ravages of wild beasts. The graves were probably shallow burial places just beneath the sand or gravel. Consequently, neither the grave sites nor the skeletons of those who were buried could be preserved for any length of time. 


text:
Are there two kinds of sin offerings, or only one?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Leviticus states that for unintentional sins of the whole congregation, when the sin is made known, “the assembly shall offer a young bull for the sin” (<a href='B:30 4:14'>Lev 4:14</a>). However, here <a href='B:40 15'>Numbers 15</a> speaks of offering two different sacrifices for the same sin — “one young bull as a burnt offering … and one kid of the goats as a sin offering” (v. 24).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Some Bible scholars think the difference here may be due to the fact that the Leviticus passage refers to sins of commission, and the Numbers text to sins of omission. Others believe that in Numbers the sacrifices for the rulers and the people are listed separately, but in Leviticus, for brevity, the sacrifices for the rulers and for the congregation are listed together. In any event, the fact that one passage specifies two and the other specifies one, does not mean that the second passage contradicts the first passage, but that one merely supplements the other. 


text:
Was Korah swallowed by the earth or burned?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In verses 31–32 it says the earth opened and swallowed Korah and his 250 rebellious associates. Yet verse 35 asserts that fire came from God and consumed Korah and his associates.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Some scholars have suggested that Korah was burned along with the 250 other rebels. However, no verse actually affirms this and other verses seem to deny it (noted below).<p/>It seems better to understand it as follows: Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (v. 27) were swallowed by the earth, while at the same time (cf. 26:10) a fire from God consumed the 250 other rebels who offered incense in the tabernacle (cf. <a href='B:230 106:17-18'>Ps 106:17-18</a>). 


text:
Were all Korah’s family killed with him or only some?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> This verse states that “the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their households and all the men with Korah.” However, <a href='B:40 26:11'>Numbers 26:11</a> speaks about Korah’s descendants who did not perish in the judgment.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Those who perished with Korah were all hisfollowers, but not all his family. <a href='B:40 26:11'>Numbers 26:11</a> states clearly: “Nevertheless the children of Korah did not die.” Indeed, the prophet Samuel was a descendant of Korah (<a href='B:130 6:22-28'>1Chron 6:22-28</a>). 


text:
Was Kadesh in the wilderness of Zin or in Paran?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In this text Kadesh is said to be in the “Wilderness of Zin.” But in <a href='B:40 13:26'>Numbers 13:26</a> it is said to be in the “Wilderness of Paran.” Which was it?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are several possible explanations, any one of which resolves the problem. First, some believe there were two places named Kadesh, one in each wilderness. Second, the name Kadesh could have been applied to both a city and a region in which the city lay. Third, that the same city was positioned between two wildernesses so as to be appropriately associated with either. 


text:
How could this verse say that Israel went around Edom when <a href='B:50 2:4'>Deu 2:4</a> says they passed through it?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> God would not allow Israel to do battle with the Edomites because He had given the land of Edom to Esau as an everlasting possession. <a href='B:40 20:21'>Numbers 20:21</a> states that “Israel turned away from him.” However, when Moses reviews these events in <a href='B:50 2:4'>Deu 2:4</a>, he states that the Lord said, “You are about to pass through the territory of your brethren, the descendants of Esau.” Likewise, <a href='B:50 2:8'>Deu 2:8</a> says Israel “passed beyond our brethren the descendants of Esau.” Did they pass through Edom or did they go around it?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> In one sense it can be said that Israel passed through Edom when they entered it in order to make the request to continue their journey along the King’s highway that ran through their land. However, the text never actually says that they did, or that they would pass through the land. Actually, the same Hebrew word (abar) is used in each case. It can be used to mean pass through or pass by. The historical record clearly describes their journey as passing along the eastern border of Edom (<a href='B:50 2:8'>Deut 2:8</a>). God had warned Israel that as they would pass along the eastern border, they should not provoke the Edomites to war (<a href='B:50 2:5'>Deut 2:5</a>). 


text:
Wasn’t making this bronze serpent a form of idolatry?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> God commanded Moses not to make “any carved image” (<a href='B:20 20:4'>Ex 20:4</a>), lest it be used as an idol. Yet here Moses was commanded to “make a bronze serpent, and put it on a pole.” Later, the people worshiped this very image (<a href='B:120 18:4'>2Ki 18:4</a>). Does not God command Moses to violate the very command He gave him against idolatry?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First of all, the command against making “carved images” was a command against making idols. God did not command Moses to make an idol for the people to worship but a symbol to which they could look in faith and be healed. Later, the people made this symbol into an idol. But this does not make the symbol wrong. After all, people have worshiped the Bible. This does not mean that the Bible was intended by God as an idol.<p/>Further, not all “images” are idols. Religious art contains images but is not thereby idolatrous. God also instructed Moses to make cherubim (angels) for the ark, but they were not idols. There is a difference between a God-appointed representation of symbol (e.g., the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper) and a man-made idol (see comments on <a href='B:20 20:4'>Ex 20:4</a>). 


text:
Why did the angel of the Lord try to kill Balaam, since God had given him permission to go to the plains of Moab?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In <a href='B:40 22:20'>Numbers 22:20</a> God had told Balaam to go with the men to the plains of Moab. However, verse 22 says, “Then God’s anger aroused because he went, and the Angel of the Lord took His stand in the way as an adversary against him.” Also, in verse 33 the angel of the Lord says, “If she [the donkey] had not turned aside from Me, I would also have killed you by now, and let her live.” Why did the angel of the Lord try to kill Balaam when God had already given him permission to go with the men from Moab?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The account of Balaam’s activities demonstrates that Balaam was torn between obeying the command of God, and the greed in his heart for the riches that Balak had promised. Although God had flatly told Balaam not to go with the men to Balak (<a href='B:40 22:12'>Num 22:12</a>), Balak’s offer of riches (v. 17) tempted Balaam, and he went to God a second time to seek permission to go to Balak. It was because of Balaam’s evil heart of greed that the Lord sent His angel to stand in the way as Balaam’s adversary. The intent was not to kill Balaam, evidenced by the fact that the angel of the Lord allowed Balaam’s donkey to see him and, by turning aside, to prevent Balaam’s death. Rather, the angel’s purpose was to present a forceful reminder that Balaam was to speak only what the Lord would tell him.<p/>Balaam’s greed is clearly demonstrated in the fact that, although he would not curse Israel because the Lord would only allow him to bless His people, Balaam counseled Balak to corrupt Israel by allowing his women to marry the men of Israel and to lead them into idolatry (<a href='B:680 2:15'>2Peter 2:15</a>; <a href='B:730 2:14'>Rev 2:14</a>). Balaam’s greed had devised a way to help Israel’s enemies while not directly disobeying the Lord’s command to speak only the words that He would give to him (<a href='B:40 31:16'>Num 31:16</a>). 


text:
How could this oracle refer to Agag when he lived much later, in the time of Saul?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The oracle of Balaam makes reference to the exaltation of Israel over Agag and his kingdom. However, Agag was an Amalekite king during the time of Saul who was king of Israel in the 11th century, almost 400 years later. How could this oracle refer to Agag when he lived later in the time of Saul?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, the name Agag was probably a royal title which the Amalekite kings took for themselves — comparable to the title Pharaoh. The Amalekite king whom Saul would later defeat would have taken this title also.<p/>Third, since the oracle of Balaam was given to him by the Spirit of God, it is possible that this is a prophetic announcement of the dominance which Israel would have over those people who were the first to attack them upon their departure from Egypt (<a href='B:20 17:8'>Ex 17:8</a>ff). In any case, this reference is not anachronistic.<p/>Other examples of so-called “premature mention” can be explained in similar ways. For example, the Amalekites may be mentioned by historic anticipation (in <a href='B:10 14:7'>Gen 14:7</a>), even though they flourished much later (cf. <a href='B:40 13:29'>Num 13:29</a>; <a href='B:40 14:25'>14:25</a>; <a href='B:70 6:3'>Judge 6:3</a>). Likewise, “the land of the Hebrews” (<a href='B:10 40:15'>Gen 40:15</a>) could have been so named by anticipation of later fulfillment of God’s promise (in <a href='B:10 12:1-3'>Gen 12:1-3</a>; <a href='B:10 15:4'>15:4–7</a>) or by the fact that Abraham and his descendants had already lived there for centuries. Hebron (<a href='B:10 13:18'>Gen 13:18</a>) may have been its original name, later called Kirjath-Arba, and then replaced again by Hebron (<a href='B:60 14:15'>Josh 14:15</a>). Or, a later editor of the OT manuscript may have simply updated the name, so that the people of his day would understand the place to which it referred. For example, one of the present authors was born in a city then called Baseline, Michigan but was no part of Warren, Michigan. When asked by people today about the city of his birth, he generally says “Warren,” even though that was not its name at the time. Also, the Levite’s land (<a href='B:30 25:32-34'>Lev 25:32-34</a>; <a href='B:40 35:2-8'>Num 35:2-8</a>) was probably mentioned by way of anticipation. And the “mountain” where the “sanctuary” of the Lord was (<a href='B:20 15:13-17'>Ex 15:13-17</a>) was simply speaking about the way it would be when they got into the Land of Promise. 


text:
Why does this verse say that 24,000 died when <a href='B:530 10:8'>1Cor 10:8</a> offers a different number?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The incident at Baal-Peor resulted in God’s judgment upon Israel, and, according to <a href='B:40 25:9,24'>Numbers 25:9,24</a>,<a href='B:40 25'>000</a> died in the plague of judgment. However, according to <a href='B:530 10:8'>1Cor 10:8</a>, only 23,000 died. Which is the correct number?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are two possible explanations here. First, some have suggested that the difference is due to the fact that <a href='B:530 10:8'>1Cor 10:8</a> is speaking only about those who died “in one day” (23,000), whereas <a href='B:40 25:9'>Numbers 25:9</a> is referring to the complete number (24,000) that died in the plague.<p/>Others believe two different events are in view here. They note that <a href='B:530 10:7'>1Cor 10:7</a> is a quote of <a href='B:20 32:6'>Exo 32:6</a> and indicates that the 1 Corinthians passage is actually referring to the judgment of God after the idolatrous worship of the golden calf (<a href='B:20 32'>Ex 32</a>). The Exodus passage does not state the number of people that died as a result of the judgment of God, and the actual number is not revealed until <a href='B:530 10:8'>1Cor 10:8</a>. According to <a href='B:530 10:8'>1Cor 10:8</a>; <a href='B:530 10:23'>23</a>,<a href='B:530 10'>000</a> died as a result of the judgment of God for their worship of the golden calf. According to <a href='B:40 25:9,24'>Numbers 25:9,24</a>,<a href='B:40 25'>000</a> died as a result of the judgment of God for Israel’s worship of Baal at Baal-Peor. 


text:
<b><a href='B:40 31'>NUMBERS 31</a> —</b> How can it be morally right for the Israelites to totally destroy the Midianites?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to the record of events in Numbers 31, Moses commanded the Israelites to utterly destroy the Midianites. Verse 7 states that they killed every Midianite male. Verse 9 records that they took all the women and children as captives, and verse 10 states that the Israelites burned all the cities and camps of the Midianites. Again, in verse 17, Moses commanded the people to kill every male child of the Midianites and every Midianite woman who had intercourse with a man, leaving only the female children and young virgins. How can such a total destruction be morally justified?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First of all, it must be remembered that it was the Midianites who corrupted God’s people by leading them into idolatry at Baal-Peor so that 24,000 Israelites died in the plague (<a href='B:40 25:9'>Num 25:9</a>). It was necessary to totally eliminate this evil influence from Israel.<p/>Further, it was not on the authority of Moses that Israel performed this destruction. Rather, it was at the direct command of God. Verse 2 records God’s command to Moses to carry out the Lord’s vengeance upon the Midianites. The abominable nature of the influence which the Midianites had upon Israel in leading them into idolatry merited the destructive judgment of God. God dealt severely and decisively with this cancer. The moral justification for this action is found in the fact that God has the right to give and take life. Since the wages of sin is death, and the Midianites engaged in a terrible sin, they justly reaped the consequences of God’s vengeance (see comments on <a href='B:60 6:21'>Joshua 6:21</a>). 


text:
Why did God permit avenging blood and yet forbid murder?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> God forbade murder (<a href='B:20 20:13'>Ex 20:13</a>). Yet here He says, “The avenger of blood himself shall put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall put him to death.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First of all, this was not an act of murder, but an act of capital punishment which God had ordained before the law (<a href='B:10 9:6'>Gen 9:6</a>), and Moses had reaffirmed it under the Law (<a href='B:20 21:12'>Ex 21:12</a>). Further, notice that it was only to be done to a “murderer,” not simply to anyone. Also, the avenger had to be the nearest male relative of the one who was murdered, not just anyone who wished to take justice in his own hands. In short, what is forbidden in <a href='B:20 20'>Exo 20</a> is the recognized crime of murder, and what is permitted in <a href='B:40 35'>Numbers 35</a> is the recognized responsibility of capital punishment. These are not in conflict. 


text:
Does the need for two witnesses mean that it is wrong to condemn someone on other evidence?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to <a href='B:40 35:30'>Numbers 35:30</a>, a man accused of murder could be convicted and condemned on the testimony of two witnesses, but not on the testimony of only one witness. However, the great majority of crimes are not committed in the open for people to witness. Does this make it wrong to convict and condemn someone on the basis of other evidence when there have been no eyewitnesses?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> It would be wrong to assume that the Hebrew word translated “witness” (ed), is exactly equivalent to the English usage. <a href='B:30 5:1'>Lev 5:1</a> gives a good example of the wider range of use of this Hebrew word: “If a person sins in hearing the utterance of an oath, and is a witness, whether he has seen or known of the matter — if he does not tell it, he bears guilt.” In this verse, the same Hebrew word translated “witness” refers to someone who has either seen or known of a matter. According to the Mosaic Law, then, there were two types of witnesses who could offer testimony to the guilt of an individual. One was an eyewitness, the other was one who, though not an eyewitness, could provide testimony to the identity of the offender. This verse does not make it wrong to convict a person on evidence that is other than direct eyewitness evidence. Further, the OT writer did not have in view, nor intend to exclude, such modern things as fingerprints and audio and video tapes. 


text:
How could Moses have written this when biblical criticism claims it was written many centuries later?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to this verse, “these are the words which Moses spoke.” However, many biblical critics claim that Deuteronomy was written in the third century B.C., many centuries after Moses’ time.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are many arguments that support the claim that Moses wrote the Book of Deuteronomy.<p/>Second, Joshua, Moses’ immediate successor, attributed the Book of Deuteronomy to Moses, exhorting the people of Israel to “observe to do … all the law which Moses … commanded” (<a href='B:60 1:7'>Josh 1:7</a>).<p/>Three, the remainder of the OT attributes Deuteronomy to Moses (cf. <a href='B:70 3:4'>Judge 3:4</a>; <a href='B:110 2:3'>1Ki 2:3</a>; <a href='B:120 14:6'>2Ki 14:6</a>; <a href='B:150 3:2'>Ezra 3:2</a>; <a href='B:160 1:7'>Neh 1:7</a>; <a href='B:230 103:7'>Ps 103:7</a>; <a href='B:340 9:11'>Dan 9:11</a>; <a href='B:460 4:4'>Mal 4:4</a>).<p/>Fourth, Deuteronomy is the book of the Law most quoted in the NT, often with words like “Moses truly said” (<a href='B:510 3:22'>Acts 3:22</a>), “Moses says” (<a href='B:520 10:19'>Rom 10:19</a>), or “it is written in the law of Moses” (<a href='B:530 9:9'>1Cor 9:9</a>).<p/>Fifth, our Lord quoted the Book of Deuteronomy (6:13, 16) as the authoritative Word of God when He resisted the devil (<a href='B:470 4:7'>Matt 4:7</a>; <a href='B:470 4:10'>10</a>), and He also directly attributed it to the hand of Moses, saying, “Moses said” (<a href='B:480 7:10'>Mark 7:10</a>) or “Moses wrote” (<a href='B:490 20:28'>Luke 20:28</a>).<p/>In addition to all of this, the apparent references within the book to a later period are easily explained (see comments on <a href='B:50 2:10-12'>Deut 2:10-12</a>). Of course, the last chapter of Deuteronomy, being about Moses’ death (chap. 34) was probably written by his successor Joshua, in accordance with the custom of the day. 


text:
<b>ff—</b> How could any from the former generation be present when they all died in the wilderness?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to <a href='B:40 26:64-65'>Numbers 26:64-65</a>, all the unbelieving generation of Israelites died in the wilderness, with “not a man of those who were numbered by Moses” remaining to go into the Promised Land. However, when Moses spoke to the people at the end of the wanderings he referred repeatedly to their being witnesses to what happened before the wanderings (cf. <a href='B:50 1:6'>Deut 1:6</a>; <a href='B:50 1:9'>9</a>; <a href='B:50 1:14'>14</a>; <a href='B:50 5:2'>5:2</a>; <a href='B:50 5:5'>5</a>; <a href='B:50 11:2'>11:2</a>; <a href='B:50 11:7'>7</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First of all, in Deuteronomy, Moses is addressing the nation as a nation and, therefore, may not be making a distinction between individuals in the earlier period as opposed to those in the later period. Second, there were a large number of women present who had personally remembered the things to which Moses referred. Third, both the Levites and those who were under 20 years of age before the 40 years were exempt from the general pronouncement that none of the men would enter the Promised Land (<a href='B:40 26:64'>Num 26:64</a>). So also were Joshua and Caleb, who had been faithful spies (<a href='B:40 32:12'>Num 32:12</a>). So there were plenty of people present who could witness to what Moses was saying, even though a whole generation of men (above the age of 20) had perished in the wilderness, as God had said. 


text:
Did Moses appoint the judges or did the people?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:20 18:25'>Exo 18:25</a> declares that “Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people.” However, here Moses told the people to choose their own judges (<a href='B:50 1:13'>Deut 1:13</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Both are correct, as is indicated only two verses later, where it says Moses “took the heads of your tribes … and made them heads [judges] over you.” The people had chosen their leaders and Moses appointed these as their judges. So it is proper to speak of either Moses or the people as choosing the judges. 


text:
Were Israel’s conditions in the wilderness comfortable or destitute?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Many passages speak of Israel’s privations in the wilderness (cf. <a href='B:20 16:2'>Ex 16:2</a>; <a href='B:20 16:3'>3</a>; <a href='B:40 11:4-6'>Num 11:4-6</a>). Yet here Moses declared that they “lacked nothing.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The passages are easily reconciled if it is kept in mind that their general state was relatively comfortable. They had ample food and clothes at all times. However, their murmuring and complaining brought acts of judgment from God which could be described as occasions of destitution. So, while the wandering Israelites “lacked nothing” in daily necessities, they certainly did not lack in plagues and punishment from the hand of God. 


text:
How could this have been written by Moses when it refers to the land of promise which he never entered?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Moses died before he could enter the Promised Land and was buried outside of it on the east side of the Jordan river (<a href='B:50 34'>Deut 34</a>). But, this passage refers to the “land of their possession” as something that Israel possessed at the time it was written. Therefore, it would appear that Deuteronomy could not have been written by Moses, as it is traditionally claimed.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Some scholars claim that these verses are parenthetical and may have been added by a later editor. This view is supported by noting the brevity of the verses, the fact that they are in parentheses, and that Moses was already buried before the children of Israel entered the Land (<a href='B:50 34:4-6'>Deut 34:4-6</a>), a fact that was obvious to all readers. However, there is no need to conclude that Moses did not write these sections, since “the land of their possession” can easily refer to the Tribes who had already taken their possession on the east side of Jordan before Moses died (<a href='B:50 3:12-17'>Deut 3:12-17</a>).<p/>While most evangelical scholars recognize that there are small editorial and explanatory changes, like updating names, they oppose the critical belief that Moses did not write all of the first five books of the OT (except <a href='B:50 34'>Deut 34</a>). These verses here seem to be more than minor explanatory insertions for later readers. Theological changesTampering with truth Changing the message<p/>1. It is contrary to the repeated warning God gave not to “add to the word which I [God] command you” (<a href='B:50 4:2'>Deut 4:2</a>; cf. <a href='B:240 30:6'>Prov 30:6</a>; <a href='B:730 22:18-19'>Rev 22:18-19</a>).<p/>3. The “inspired redactor” theory is contrary to the biblical use of the word “inspired” (<a href='B:620 3:16'>2Tim 3:16</a>). The Bible does not speak of inspired writers, but only of inspired writings. Furthermore, inspired (theopneustos) does not mean to “breathe into” the writers, but to “breath out” the writings. 


text:
Was the land of Ammon given to Israel or not?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Here God told Moses, “I will not give you any of the land of the people of Ammon.” But elsewhere it asserts that Joshua gave Israel “half the land of the Ammonites” as a possession from God (<a href='B:60 13:25'>Josh 13:25</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> These passages speak of two different tracts of land. The land that the Ammonites possessed in Moses’ time (<a href='B:50 2'>Deut 2</a>) was not given to nor occupied by the Israelites. However, the Amorites had previously overpowered the Ammonites and taken a tract of land which Israel later occupied (<a href='B:60 13'>Joshua 13</a>). 


text:
Was the law given at Horeb or at Mt. Sinai?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:20 19:11'>Exo 19:11</a> affirms that Moses received the Law at “Mt. Sinai” (cf. v. 18). But here in <a href='B:50 4:10'>Deu 4:10</a> it claims that Moses got it “in Horeb.” Which was it?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are several possible explanations of this discrepancy. Some scholars believe Sinai may be the older and Horeb the later name for the same place. Others hold that Horeb may be the general name of the mountain range and Sinai the particular peak. Still others believe Sinai is the name of the entire group of mountains, while Horeb refers to one specific mountain. Or, the two names could be interchangeable. 


text:
How could Moses alter the wording of the Ten Commandments from that which God spoke to him?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In <a href='B:50 5:6-21'>Deu 5:6-21</a> Moses repeats the Ten Commandments to Israel. In reviewing the covenant which God made with Israel, Moses reviews the commandments which God gave to Israel at Sinai. However, Moses’ wording of the commandments in this passage is not exactly the same as the wording of God in <a href='B:20 20:2-17'>Exo 20:2-17</a>. How could Moses alter the wording of the Ten Commandments from wording which God gave to him?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, it must be remembered that Moses’ purpose in reviewing the Law is not to provide an exact word-for-word recitation of the statements in Exodus. Moses is not only reviewing the Law, but he is expounding and explaining the Law and its implications and applications for entrance into and life in the Promised Land. 


text:
Didn’t God know what Israel would do?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> This passage says that God led Israel into the wilderness in order “to know” what they would do. But if God knows everything already (<a href='B:230 139:7-10'>Ps 139:7-10</a>; <a href='B:300 17:10'>Jer 17:10</a>), then why did He need to do this to know whether they would obey Him?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> God in His omniscience was already aware of what they would do. He led them into the wilderness in order to prove them. The parallel expression in this very verse is to “test you, to know what was in your heart.” (See also discussion under <a href='B:10 22:12'>Gen 22:12</a>) 


text:
Were the Canaanites destroyed quickly or slowly?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> This verse claims the Canaanites were destroyed “quickly” (maher), but an earlier passages (<a href='B:50 7:22'>Deut 7:22</a>) said it would not be quickly, but “little by little.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are two different ways to understand this. First, it may be an example where the same term is applied to the same thing in different senses. It was quick, relative to the magnitude of the work, but slow with regard to the rate of their occupation. 


text:
When was the Ark made?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to many other verses, the ark was made before the 40 years wandering (<a href='B:20 25:10'>Ex 25:10</a>; <a href='B:20 35:12'>35:12</a>; <a href='B:20 37:1'>37:1</a>). But according to this passage Moses made the ark of the covenant after the 40 years wandering.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Some believe the first ark may have been a temporary one and the later one more permanent (cf. <a href='B:20 33:8'>Ex 33:8</a>). Some Jewish commentators believe there were two arks, one to go to war and the other to stay in the tabernacle. Other scholars believe Moses may have ordered the construction of the ark before he went up into Mt. Sinai by way of Bezaleel. Still others believe Moses may be combining here (in <a href='B:50 10:1-3'>Deut 10:1-3</a>) things that were closely related in concept but separated in time. Thus, the phrase “make yourself an ark of [acacia] wood” would refer to the command given earlier (<a href='B:20 25:10'>Ex 25:10</a>) and the command to hew two new tables of stone after Moses had seen the glory of God (<a href='B:20 33'>Ex 33</a>). 


text:
Did Aaron die at Moserah, or did he die at the top of Mount Hor?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to <a href='B:50 10:6'>Deu 10:6</a>, Aaron died in Moserah and was buried there. However, according to <a href='B:40 20:27-28'>Numbers 20:27-28</a> and 33:38, Aaron died at the top of Mount Hor and was buried there. Where did Aaron die, in Moserah or on the top of Mount Hor?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Both statements are true. Moserah was a location in which Israel camped during their journey from Egypt to the Promised Land. Moserah was probably an area near the border of Edom. It is reasonable to assume that Mount Hor was located within the boundaries of this area. Similarly, Horeb was the name of a group of mountains in which Mount Sinai was located. Consequently, it is not a contradiction to claim that Aaron died and was buried both in Moserah and on the top of Mount Hor. Moserah was the district, and Mount Hor the specific location. 


text:
Are priests distinguished from Levites or not?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In this passage priests and Levites are not distinguished from each other, but in other places they are (cf. <a href='B:30 1:5'>Lev 1:5</a>; <a href='B:30 1:8'>8</a>; <a href='B:30 1:11'>11</a>; <a href='B:40 6:23'>Num 6:23</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> When several things are kept in mind, the problem disappears. First of all, the priests were also Levites, all being sons of Aaron. Second, in Deuteronomy, Moses is speaking in general terms to the whole nation and thus avoids the finer distinctions. 


text:
Isn’t this a false prophecy?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Moses told the children of Israel that “No man shall be able to stand against you; the Lord your God will put the dread of you and the fear of you upon all the land where you tread, just as He has said to you.” But this seems clearly false both in the short view and in the long run. Even under Joshua, Israel lost some battles (<a href='B:60 7:4'>Josh 7:4</a>). And in the long run, they were overrun by the Assyrians (<a href='B:120 16:9'>2Ki 16:9</a>) and the Babylonians (<a href='B:120 25:22'>2Ki 25:22</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This was not afalse prophecy—it was a conditional promise. Notice it is prefaced by the condition “if you diligently obey My commandments which I command you” (v. 13), and “if you carefully keep all these commandments” (v. 22). In short, these were not categorical predictions, but conditional projections. When the people of Israel obeyed God, they were invincible against the most formidable foe (cf. <a href='B:60 6'>Josh 6</a>). But when they did not obey Him, they fled in the face of the tiniest adversary (cf. <a href='B:60 7'>Josh 7</a>). 


text:
Was the blood poured out as water or covered with dust?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to this verse, the priest was to take the blood of the sacrifice and “pour it on the earth like water.” But, earlier in <a href='B:30 17:13'>Lev 17:13</a> they were instructed to “cover it with dust.” How can these be reconciled?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The fact that some critics raise this kind of problem shows how desperate they are to find something wrong with the Bible. The full passage in Leviticus provides the answer: “he shall pour out its blood and cover it with dust” (<a href='B:30 17:13'>Lev 17:13</a>). So there is absolutely no problem whatsoever. 


text:
<b>ff—</b> Doesn’t this contradict Moses’ other command not to redeem animals with money?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In <a href='B:40 18:17'>Numbers 18:17</a>, the law commands, “The firstborn of a cow, the firstborn of a sheep, or the firstborn of a goat you shall not redeem; they are holy.” However, in <a href='B:50 14:25'>Deu 14:25</a> they were instructed to “exchange it for money” if they desired. This is in direct conflict with the other instructions.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Contrary to what some infer, the Deuteronomy passage does not actually allow them to buy a firstborn sheep or goat for their consumption, rather than give it to the Lord. On the contrary, it simply allows them to “exchange it for money,” which would be more convenient for traveling, so they could “go to the place which the Lord your God chooses” (<a href='B:50 14:25'>Deut 14:25</a>). In short, it was simply a divinely appointed accommodation to make it easier for the offerer. The money they received for it had to be taken to the divinely prescribed place and spent for the prescribed purpose. 


text:
How can this passage permit the use of strong drink when other passages condemn its consumption?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to <a href='B:50 14:26'>Deu 14:26</a>, God permitted the purchase of wine or strong drink for conducting a feast before the Lord. However, <a href='B:30 10:8-9'>Lev 10:8-9</a> forbids the use of strong drink by the priests, and passages like <a href='B:240 20:1'>Prov 20:1</a>; <a href='B:240 23:29–35'>23:29–35</a>, and <a href='B:240 31:4–5'>31:4–5</a> seem to forbid the use of strong drink by all. How can this passage permit the use of strong drink when these other passages clearly condemn its use?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> It is clear that the Scriptures condemn the use of strong drink. For example, <a href='B:30 10:8-9'>Lev 10:8-9</a> forbids the priest from drinking wine or strong drink when he is supposed to minister in the tent of meeting. Also, Proverbs forbids the use of wine or strong drink by kings or rulers, lest they pervert justice. Further, many passages warn of the deceitfulness of strong drink (<a href='B:240 20:1'>Prov 20:1</a>) and condemn the use of it in general.<p/>The word translated “eat” in <a href='B:50 14:26'>Deut 14:26</a> is a general term for consuming and may include the idea of drinking as well as eating solid food. However, the passage does not grant permission to drink strong drink or to drink to excess. Such action is specifically condemned in the NT as well as the OT. It was a common practice to dilute the strong drink (i.e., normally fermented grape juice) with about three parts water to one part wine. In this weaker form, imbibed with meals in moderation, there was no fear of excess. It is only in this sense that “wine” was permitted in the Scriptures and then only in a culture that was not alcoholic. While moderate drinking of this diluted wine may be permissible, in a culture shot through with alcoholism (such as ours), it is not profitable. Paul warns us in <a href='B:530 6:12'>1Cor 6:12</a> that “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful.” Paul declared that “It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall” (<a href='B:520 14:21'>Rom 14:21</a>, NIV). God desires that our lives be influenced by the Spirit, not by the spirits.<p/>The Bible is opposed to both strong drink and drunkenness (<a href='B:530 6:9-10'>1Cor 6:9-10</a>; <a href='B:560 5:18'>Eph 5:18</a>). It pronounces woes on those who drink either strong drink or who drink in excess (<a href='B:290 5:11'>Isa 5:11</a>; <a href='B:370 6:1'>Amos 6:1</a>; <a href='B:370 6:6'>6</a>; <a href='B:400 2:11'>Micah 2:11</a>). Christian leaders are urged to be temperate (<a href='B:610 3:3'>1Tim 3:3</a>; <a href='B:610 3:8'>8</a>). All are warned that too much alcohol is abhored by God (<a href='B:370 6:1-8'>Amos 6:1-8</a>). And although moderate amounts were recommended for medicinal purposes (<a href='B:610 5:23'>1Tim 5:23</a>), nowhere does the Bible commend strong drink as a beverage. The only reference to taking “strong drink” is as a pain killer in extreme circumstances: “Give strong drink to him who is perishing” (<a href='B:240 31:6'>Prov 31:6</a>).<p/><a href='B:50 14:26'>Deu 14:26</a> should not be taken as an excuse to imbibe strong drink for several reasons. First, the stated command was not to drink it, but simply to buy it. There were other legitimate uses for owning alcohol, namely for cooking, healing (cf. <a href='B:490 10:34'>Luke 10:34</a>), and pain-killing. Second, the very next verse speaks only of “eating” food, not of drinking strong drink. Third, even if drinking is implied along with eating (v. 26), the Jews always diluted it with about three parts water to one part wine before they drank it in moderation with their meals. Done in this light form in such moderate amounts with food guaranteed them against the excesses known in today’s alcoholic cultures. Fourth, it is still always wrong to use an unclear passage (such as <a href='B:50 14:26'>Deu 14:26</a>) to contradict all the clear ones (cited above) against strong drink.<p/>In view of all these factors, it is best to conclude with the Apostle Paul, “It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak” (<a href='B:520 14:21'>Rom 14:21</a>). 


text:
How can this passage say there would be no poor among them when 15:11 says the poor will always be in the land?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to <a href='B:50 15:4'>Deu 15:4</a>, God promises that there will not be any poor among the people. However, 15:11 clearly states, “For the poor will never cease from the land.” How can one passage say there would be no poor among the people while another says that the poor will never cease from the land?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Careful consideration of the context shows that there is no contradiction here. The promise of verse 4 is conditioned upon the people “carefully obey[ing] the voice of the Lord your God, to observe with care all these commandments which I command you today” (<a href='B:50 15:5'>Deut 15:5</a>). One of the commandments was that if there was a poor man in Israel, the people were not to harden their hearts. Rather, they were to open their hands and lend him money and goods sufficient for his needs—“whatever he needs” (<a href='B:50 15:8'>Deut 15:8</a>). Obviously, if this commandment were to be fulfilled by the people, then, for every poor person there would be one who was not poor. Conversely, if they did not obey God’s command to supply for all the needs of every poor person in the land, then the poor would never cease to be in the land. There is no contradiction here. God promised that if the people would obey His command to supply for the poor, then there would be no poor among them. Each time the circumstances overcame someone, so that they lost everything and were left in poverty, the people of the land would come to their aid and supply their needs. 


text:
Was the passover lamb to be slain at home or at the sanctuary?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:20 12:7'>Exo 12:7</a> instructs that the passover lamb be killed in one’s place of residence, but Deuteronomy declares that it should not be slain “within any of your gates.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This is an example of a change in revelation (see Introduction “Mistake 17”) because of a change in conditions. When the Passover instruction was first given (<a href='B:20 12'>Ex 12</a>), they had no common sanctuary. Later in Deuteronomy, they did and were instructed to kill the passover lamb there “in the place where the Lord chooses to put His name” (<a href='B:50 16:2'>Deut 16:2</a>). 


text:
How can the command for wholesale slaughter of innocent lives be justified? (See comments on <a href='B:60 6:21'>Josh 6:21</a>) <a href='B:50 20:16-18'>Deu 20:16-18</a> —Were the captives to be spared or killed?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In <a href='B:50 20:11'>Deu 20:11</a>; <a href='B:50 20:15'>15</a>, Moses commanded the Israelites to spare the lives of their captives and make them servants. But only a few verses later he instructs them to “let nothing that breathes remain alive” (v. 16).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The general rule was to make captives of the people conquered. Only in the specific case of the “seven nations” of Canaan were they to exterminate them (see comments on <a href='B:60 6:21'>Josh 6:21</a>). This was because of their “abominations” which were so obnoxious to God that the land “vomits out its inhabitants” (<a href='B:30 18:25'>Lev 18:25</a>). 


text:
Why did God call it an abomination for men to dress like women and vice versa?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> What is wrong with wearing the clothes of the opposite sex? Isn’t this just a matter of cultural preference, with nothing intrinsically immoral about it?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> God’s design here was apparently to make it possible to distinguish one sex from the other. Without distinctive clothes and length of hair (see comments on <a href='B:530 11:14'>1Cor 11:14</a>), the sexes could be more easily confused and the bounds of social and moral impropriety would have been more easily transgressed. Of course, which clothes are masculine and which are feminine will be determined in large part by the culture. But whatever the case, transvestites were hereby excluded. 


text:
Why is the method of testing chastity different here than in <a href='B:40 5'>Numbers 5</a>?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The Numbers text instructed that chastity be tested by drinking bitter water and seeing if the woman’s stomach would swell (see comments on <a href='B:40 5:13-22'>Numbers 5:13-22</a>). But, <a href='B:50 22'>Deu 22</a> provides the blood stained sheet from the wedding night as evidence of virginity (cf. vv. 14–17).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The two situations are different. The Numbers passage is a test for alleged unchastity after marriage. And the Deuteronomy text deals with alleged unfaithfulness before marriage. 


text:
Was homosexuality condemned because it was connected with idolatry?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Some argue that the biblical condemnations used against homosexuality were because of the temple cult-prostitutes who were associated with these idolatrous practices (<a href='B:50 23:17'>Deut 23:17</a>). They insist that homosexuality as such is not thereby condemned, but only homosexual acts that are associated with idolatry, such as, the shrine prostitute (cf. <a href='B:110 14:24'>1Ki 14:24</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Homosexual practices are not condemned in the Bible simply because they were connected with idolatry. This is made evident by several things. First, the condemnations on homosexual practices are often given apart from any explicit idolatrous practice (<a href='B:30 18:22'>Lev 18:22</a>; <a href='B:520 1:26-27'>Rom 1:26-27</a>).<p/>Third, sexual unfaithfulness is often used as an illustration of idolatry (e.g., <a href='B:350 3:1'>Hosea 3:1</a>; <a href='B:350 4:12'>4:12</a>), but it has no necessary connection with it. Idolatry is a spiritual form of immorality. But immorality is wrong not only if it is done in connection with idol worship.<p/>Fourth, idolatry may lead to immorality (cf. <a href='B:520 1:22-27'>Rom 1:22-27</a>), but they are different sins.<p/>Fifth, even the Ten Commandments distinguishes between idolatry (First Table of the Law, <a href='B:20 20:3-4'>Ex 20:3-4</a>) and sexual sins (Second Table, <a href='B:20 20:14'>Ex 20:14</a>; <a href='B:20 20:17'>17</a>). 


text:
Why was usury (interest) forbidden only on some but not on all Jews?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In <a href='B:20 22:25'>Exo 22:25</a>, lending money with interest was only forbidden with the poor. But, here in <a href='B:50 23:19'>Deu 23:19</a> it is forbidden with any other Jew. This raises two problems. First, why the change? Second, why the partiality?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, the change from Exodus to Deuteronomy was necessary because of the change in circumstances. Perhaps it was because it became difficult, in the process of time, to determine who was to be considered poor. Hence, it was deemed necessary to extend the prohibition to all Hebrews. Otherwise, no poor person would ever have gotten a loan, since loans would only have been made to those who could pay interest on it. 


text:
Is Moses’ teaching on divorce contrary to the teaching of Jesus and Paul?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to <a href='B:50 24:1-4'>Deu 24:1-4</a>, a man was allowed to divorce his wife if he had found her to be unfaithful. However, according to the teaching of Jesus in <a href='B:480 10:1-12'>Mark 10:1-12</a>, and the teaching of Paul in <a href='B:530 7:10-16'>1Cor 7:10-16</a>, it seems that a man is not permitted to divorce his wife and remarry. Is the teaching in Deuteronomy contrary to the teaching of Jesus and Paul?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> It would be a mistake to assume that the statements of Moses here gave divine sanction to divorce. The passage presents a hypothetical situation which was likely to happen among the people. It simply says that if a man divorces his wife because of some uncleanness in her, and if she remarries, and if her new husband dies or divorces her, it is unlawful for the first husband to take her back. This is not a sanction of divorce. Rather, it is an acknowledgement of the fact of divorce and the implementation of regulation concerning remarriage.<p/>As Jesus said in <a href='B:480 10:5'>Mark 10:5</a>, Moses allowed divorce and gave the people this precept because of the hardness of their hearts, but this is not God’s ideal. God’s ideal for marriage was that there be a lifetime commitment between husband and wife. There is no contradiction here between Moses’ teaching and the teaching of Jesus and Paul. Moses simply recognizes the fact of divorce, while Jesus and Paul present God’s ideal for marriage, as it was from the beginning. 


text:
How can this passage state that children will not be killed for the sins of their parents when there are examples of this in other passages?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:50 24:16'>Deu 24:16</a> clearly states that the children shall not be put to death for the sins of their fathers. However, in <a href='B:100 12:15-18'>2Sam 12:15-18</a>, the child of David and Bathsheba died as a result of David’s sins. How can this passage say that the children will not be put to death for the sins of their fathers if this is what happened to David’s child?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, the passage in Deuteronomy is a precept laid down by which the legal system of Israel would function once they were established in the land. It was not the right of the human courts to exact capital punishment from the children of guilty parents if the children were not personally guilty of the crime. However, that which restricts the power of human courts does not restrict the right or authority of God.<p/>Second, the Scripture does not indicate that David’s child was being punished for David’s sin. Rather, the Bible indicates that the death of the child was David’s punishment (<a href='B:100 12:14'>2Sam 12:14</a>). If it is thought that allowing the child to die was an unjust way to punish David, it must be remembered that David trusted in the righteousness of God when he said in faith, “I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me” (<a href='B:100 12:23'>2Sam 12:23</a>). David trusted that God had taken his child to heaven and that he would be with the child when he died. God always acts according to His righteousness, and the restrictions of such precepts as this are designed to prevent men from perverting justice. 


text:
Does God circumcise the heart or was Israel to circumcise their own hearts?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to this verse, “the Lord your God will circumcise your heart.” However, earlier in the same book Moses called on Israel to “circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longer” (<a href='B:50 10:16'>Deut 10:16</a>). But how can we have it both ways?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The truth is that there is both an active and passive role for humans in salvation. We are active in receiving the gift, but we were not active in the giving of the gift. We actively submit our hearts to God, but we are not active in saving our own hearts. In short, while we are active in receiving or accepting salvation, we had absolutely nothing to do with providing or accomplishing salvation. Even though the one rescued is active in receiving the lifeline, nonetheless, he is passive in being rescued by the rescuer who pulls in the rope. Likewise, we actively submit to the life- saving operation, but we are passive in receiving the physician’s skillful surgery that saves our life. The situation can be summarized as follows: Being saved Accomplishing salvation


text:
How could there be sufficient pasture for the herds of 2 million people in a desert?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The Bible informs us that the children of Israel wandered in the “desert” for 40 years (cf. <a href='B:20 19:2'>Ex 19:2</a>; <a href='B:20 23:31'>23:31</a>). They numbered over 600,000 adult men (<a href='B:20 12:37'>Ex 12:37</a>; <a href='B:40 1:1'>Num 1:1–4:49</a>), which would be a total population of some 2 million. But, <a href='B:50 32:13-14'>Deu 32:13-14</a> speaks of there being plenty of produce for them and their flocks, which seems highly improbable for this many people and flocks in a “desert.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Several things should be kept in mind. First of all, the Hebrew word “desert” does not imply the total desolation that it may connote today. It can be translated “wilderness.” There were rivers and pastures in this wilderness.<p/>1. God provided them ample food (manna) for the entire 40 years (<a href='B:20 16:35'>Ex 16:35</a>).<p/>2. He also gave water “abundantly” for them and their flocks (<a href='B:40 20:11'>Num 20:11</a>).<p/>3. Since they came with “a great deal of livestock” (<a href='B:20 12:38'>Ex 12:38</a>), they would naturally have plenty of milk to drink.<p/>5. By commerce with the surrounding nations (Midianites, Edomites, and Ishmaelites), they could obtain other needed things with the large amount of silver and gold they took from Egypt (cf. <a href='B:20 12:35-36'>Ex 12:35-36</a>). 


text:
Is this a prediction of the Prophet Mohammed?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Many Islamic scholars believe this verse predicts three separate visitations of God—one on “Sinai” to Moses, another to “Seir” through Jesus, and a third in “Paran” (Arabia) through Mohammed who came to Mecca with an army of “ten thousand.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First of all, this contention can be easily answered by looking at a Bible map. Paran and Seir are near Egypt in the Sinai peninsula (cf. <a href='B:10 14:6'>Gen 14:6</a>; <a href='B:40 10:12'>Num 10:12</a>; <a href='B:40 12:16'>12:16–13:3</a>; <a href='B:50 1:1'>Deut 1:1</a>), not in Palestine where Jesus ministered. Nor was Paran near Mecca, but hundreds of miles away near southern Palestine in the north eastern Sinai. 


text:
<b>ff—</b> How could Moses have written this chapter which records his own death?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:50 34'>Deu 34</a> is a record of the death of Moses in the valley of Moab. However, the Book of Deuteronomy has traditionally been held to be the work of Moses. How could Moses have written this chapter that records his own death and burial?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, it is not necessary to conclude that Moses could not have written his own obituary. It is entirely within the power of God to reveal the future in minute detail (cf. <a href='B:340 2'>Dan 2</a>; <a href='B:340 7'>7</a>; <a href='B:340 9'>9</a>; <a href='B:340 12'>12</a>). It is not unreasonable to believe that the Spirit of God, through Moses, penned this final chapter. Whether we take this chapter as from the pen of Moses or from the pen of Joshua or some other author, it does not at all imply that Moses was not the author of the text of Deuteronomy or the other four books of the Pentateuch. 


text:
Was Moses unparalleled among prophets or were others equal to him?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> This text claims that “since then there has not arisen in Israel a prophet like Moses.” However, there were others, like Elijah and Eli- sha, who got revelations from God and performed miracles like Moses did (cf. <a href='B:110 17:22'>1Ki 17:22</a>; <a href='B:120 1:10'>2Ki 1:10</a>; <a href='B:120 2:14'>2:14</a>; <a href='B:120 4:34'>4:34</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First of all, this claim is qualified by the phrase “since then,” which refers to the time these words were written, possibly by Joshua, his immediate successor (see comments on <a href='B:50 34:1'>Deu 34:1</a>ff). Further, even if one extends the time to a much later period, there is still another qualification that makes Moses unique. It adds “whom the Lord knew face to face” (v. 10). This has not been true of any mere human prophet since Moses’ day. Moses was the great lawgiver, whom God spoke to directly and intimately, in a manner not repeated since Moses’ day until the coming of Jesus, who was face to face with God (<a href='B:500 1:1'>John 1:1</a>).<p/><b><a href='B:50 34:10'>Deu 34:10</a> —</b> Does this verse support the Muslim claim that Jesus could not be the predicted prophet (of <a href='B:50 18:18'>Deut 18:18</a>)?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> This verse claims that “there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses.” (KJV) Muslims argue that this proves that the predicted prophet could not be an Israelite, but was Mohammed instead.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> In response, several things should be noted. First, the “since” means since Moses’ death to the time this last chapter was written, probably by Joshua (see comments on <a href='B:50 34:1'>Deut 34:1</a>ff). Even if Deuteronomy was written much later, as some critics believe, it still was composed many centuries before the time of Christ and, therefore, would not eliminate Him. Second, Jesus was the perfect fulfillment of this prediction of the prophet to come, not Mohammed (see comments on <a href='B:50 18:15-18'>Deut 18:15-18</a>). Third, this could not refer to Mohammed, since the prophet to come was like Moses who did “all the signs and wonders which the Lord sent” (<a href='B:50 34:11'>Deut 34:11</a>). Mohammed by his own confession did not perform signs and wonders like Moses and Jesus did (see Surah 17:90–93). Finally, the prophet to come was like Moses who spoke to God “face to face” (<a href='B:50 34:10'>Deut 34:10</a>). Mohammed never even claimed to speak to God directly, but got his revelations through angels (cf. Surah 2:97). Jesus, on the other hand, like Moses, was a direct mediator (<a href='B:610 2:5'>1Tim 2:5</a>; <a href='B:650 9:15'>Heb 9:15</a>) who communicated directly with God (cf. <a href='B:500 1:18'>John 1:18</a>; <a href='B:500 12:49'>12:49</a>). 


text:
How could God bless Rahab for lying?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> When the spies came to Jericho, they sought refuge in the house of Rahab. When the king of Jericho commanded Rahab to bring out the men, she lied saying that the men had already gone and that she did not know where they went. However, when Israel finally destroyed Jericho, Rahab and all her family were saved alive. How could God bless Rahab for lying?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Some argue that it is not clear that God blessed Rahab for lying. God certainly saved Rahab and blessed her for protecting the spies and assisting in the overthrow of Jericho. However, nowhere does the Bible explicitly say that God blessed Rahab for lying. God could have blessed her in spite of her lie, not because of it. Actually, Rahab’s act of protecting the spies was a demonstration of great faith in the God of Israel. She firmly believed that God would destroy Jericho, and she exhibited that belief by siding with Israel against the people of Jericho when she protected the spies from being discovered.<p/>Others insist that Rahab was faced with a real moral conflict. It may have been impossible for her to both save the spies and tell the truth to the soldiers of the king. If so, God would not hold Rahab responsible for this unavoidable moral conflict. Certainly a person cannot be held responsible for not keeping a lesser law in order to keep a higher obligation. The Bible commands obedience to the government (<a href='B:520 13:1'>Rom 13:1</a>; <a href='B:630 3:1'>Titus 3:1</a>; <a href='B:670 2:13'>1Pet 2:13</a>), but there are many examples of justified civil disobedience when the government attempts to compel unrighteousness (<a href='B:20 5'>Ex 5</a>; Dan. 3, <a href='B:340 3:6'>6</a>; <a href='B:730 13'>Rev 13</a>). The case of the Hebrew midwives lying to save the lives of the male children is perhaps the clearest example (see comments on <a href='B:20 1:15-21'>Ex 1:15-21</a>). 


text:
Did Israel cross the Jordan here or not?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to <a href='B:60 3:17'>Joshua 3:17</a>, the people crossed over the Jordan on dry ground. However, 4:5, 10–11 indicate that they had not yet crossed the river. How can these verses be reconciled?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> In 3:17, Joshua records that the priests who were carrying the ark of the covenant stood in the middle of the river while the people crossed over on dry ground. Chapter 4 begins with the statement, “And it came to pass, when all the people had completely crossed over the Jordan, that the Lord spoke to Joshua.” The passage then goes on to describe how Joshua, according to the command of the Lord, directed twelve men, one from each tribe, to go back to the spot where the priests were still standing with the ark in order to dig up twelve stones from the midst of the river bed. Verses 10 and 11 describe how the priests, who were carrying the ark of the covenant, finally left their spot in the middle of the river bed after everything had been completed which the Lord had commanded Joshua. 


text:
<b>ff—</b> Hasn’t archaeology shown that the account of the conquest of Jericho is inaccurate?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:60 6'>Joshua 6</a> records the conquest and destruction of the city of Jericho. If this account is accurate, it would seem that modern archaeological excavations would have turned up evidence of this monumental event. However, haven’t these investigations proven that the account in Joshua is inaccurate?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> For many years the prevailing view of critical scholars has been that there was no city of Jericho at the time Joshua was supposed to have entered Canaan. Although earlier investigations by the notable British archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon confirmed the existence of the ancient city of Jericho, and its sudden destruction, her findings led her to conclude that the city could have existed no later than ca. 1550 B.C. This date is much too early for Joshua and the children of Israel to have been party to its demise.<p/>1. That the city which once existed on this site was strongly fortified, corresponding to the biblical record in <a href='B:60 2:5'>Joshua 2:5</a>; <a href='B:60 2:7'>7</a>; <a href='B:60 2:15'>15</a>; <a href='B:60 6:5'>6:5</a>; <a href='B:60 6:20'>20</a>.<p/>2. That the ruins give evidence that the city was attacked after harvesttime in the spring, corresponding to <a href='B:60 2:6'>Joshua 2:6</a>; <a href='B:60 3:15'>3:15</a>; <a href='B:60 5:10'>5:10</a>.<p/>3. That the inhabitants did not have the opportunity to flee with their foodstuffs from the invading army, as reported in <a href='B:60 6:1'>Joshua 6:1</a>.<p/>4. That the siege was short, not allowing the inhabitants to consume the food which was stored in the city, as <a href='B:60 6:15'>Joshua 6:15</a> indicates.<p/>5. That the walls were leveled in such a way to provide access into the city for the invaders, as <a href='B:60 6:20'>Joshua 6:20</a> records.<p/>6. That the city was not plundered by the invaders, according to God’s instructions in <a href='B:60 6:17-18'>Joshua 6:17-18</a>.<p/>7. That the city was burned after the walls had been destroyed, just as <a href='B:60 6:24'>Joshua 6:24</a> says. 


text:
How can the total destruction of Jericho be morally justified?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> This passage states that the Israelites “utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword.” But how can such a ruthless destruction of innocent life and property be justified?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, the Canaanites were far from “innocent.” The description of their sins in <a href='B:30 18'>Lev 18</a> is vivid: “The land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants” (v. 25). They were cancerously immoral, “defiled” with every kind of “abomination,” including child sacrifice (vv. 21, 24, 26).<p/>Second, it must be remembered that God had given the people of Palestine over 400 years to repent of their wickedness. The people of that land had every opportunity to turn from their wickedness. According to <a href='B:10 15:16'>Gen 15:16</a>, God told Abraham that in 400 years the descendants of Abraham would return to inherit this land, but that the iniquity of the people was not yet full. This prophetic statement indicated that God would not destroy the people of the land, including those who dwelt in Jericho, until their sins were such that their guilt merited their complete destruction in judgment.<p/>Third, as for the killing of the little children, several things should be noted. (1) Given the cancerous state of the society into which they were born, they had no chance to avoid its fatal pollution. (2) Children who die before the age of accountability go to heaven (see comments on <a href='B:100 12:23'>2Sam 12:23</a>). This was an act of God’s mercy to their souls to take them into His holy presence from such an unholy environment. (3) God is sovereign over life (<a href='B:50 32:39'>Deut 32:39</a>; <a href='B:220 1:21'>Job 1:21</a>) and can order its end according to His will and in view of the creature’s ultimate good. 


text:
Was God just in punishing Achan’s family along with him?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> When Achan committed a capital crime against God, the Bible says the children were stoned along with their parents, and then “they burned them with fire after they had stoned them with stones” (v. 25). Yet the Scriptures insist that God does not punish the children for the sins of their parent (<a href='B:330 18:20'>Ezek 18:20</a>), nor destroy the righteous with the wicked (<a href='B:10 18:23'>Gen 18:23</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are two responses to this problem.<p/>Third, stoning Achan’s family for his crime would be a clear violation of the OT law which says emphatically that “the son shall not bear the guilt of the father” (<a href='B:330 18:20'>Ezek 18:20</a>).<p/>Third, God had the right to take life, since it is He who gave it (<a href='B:50 32:39'>Deut 32:39</a>). Job rightly declared: “The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; Blessed be the name of the Lord” (<a href='B:220 1:21'>Job 1:21</a>).<p/>Fourth, there is no reference to small children in the family, but even if there were, God has the sovereign right to take them and sometimes does in sickness without implying their guilt. Further, if the parents were killed, then there would be no parents to care for them. It would be more merciful for God to take them into His direct care. This is so because children who die before the age of accountability are saved (see comments on <a href='B:100 12:23'>2Sam 12:23</a>); there is no problem about their eternal destiny. 


text:
How can Joshua’s altar on Mount Ebal be justified when the Bible clearly condemns the building of “high places”?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:60 8:30'>Joshua 8:30</a> records that Joshua built an altar to the Lord on Mt. Ebal and offered burnt offerings to the Lord and sacrificed peace offerings upon that altar. However, many passages indicate that the construction of high places was condemned by God (<a href='B:110 12:31'>1Ki 12:31</a>; <a href='B:110 15:14'>15:14</a>; etc.). How can Joshua’s altar be justified in light of God’s condemnation of high places?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The high places which were later to be condemned by God were not altars built to the Lord or built according to the requirements laid down in <a href='B:50 27:5-6'>Deu 27:5-6</a>. Those high places were usually elevated sites that were employed in the worship of false gods. By contrast, <a href='B:60 8'>Joshua 8</a> states that the altar was built “as Moses the servant of the Lord had commanded the children of Israel” (<a href='B:60 8:31'>Josh 8:31</a>). In fact, <a href='B:50 27:2-8'>Deut 27:2-8</a> records that Moses commanded that the people of Israel build an altar at Mt. Ebal as a sign of their commitment to the covenant and to the commandments of the Lord. Joshua’s construction of this altar was not only in keeping with the dictates of how an altar should be built, but was in fact done in obedience to the command of Moses.


text:
Why did Israel honor their contract with the Gibeonites once they discovered they had been deceived?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:60 9'>Joshua 9</a> records how the Gibeonites deceived Israel into thinking that they were not actually people from the land which God had commanded Israel to destroy, but were from a far country. Thus, Joshua and all Israel entered into a contract not to destroy them. However, when they discovered that the Gibeonites had deceived them and were actually people whom God had commanded Israel to destroy, why did Israel not ignore this contract and exterminate the Gibeonites as God had originally commanded?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Perhaps under different circumstances the contract which Joshua and Israel had made would have been nullified by the discovery of fraud. However, this contract had been entered into on the basis of a solemn oath sworn in the name of the Lord God of Israel (v. 18). This unfortunate situation befell Israel because “they did not ask counsel of the Lord” (v. 14). Because they had bound themselves by their oath in the name of the Lord, they could not break the covenant they had made with the Gibeonites. Although the Gibeonites did become the servants of the people of Israel, they were also a constant source of trouble throughout Israel’s history. 


text:
How is it possible for the sun to stand still for a whole day?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> During the battle with the kings of the land, God gave Israel the power to overcome their enemies. As the armies of the people of the land fled from before Israel, Joshua sought the Lord to cause the sun to stand still so that they might have sufficient daylight to complete the destruction of their enemies. But how could the sun stand still in the midst of the heaven for a whole day?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, it is not necessary to conclude that the earth’s rotation was totally halted. Verse 13 states that the sun “did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.” This could indicate that the earth’s rotation was not completely halted, but that it was retarded to such a degree that the sun did not set for about a whole day. Or, it is possible that God caused the light of the sun to refract through some cosmic “mirror” so that it could be seen a day longer. 


text:
Was Canaan conquered quickly or only gradually?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> This verse declares that “Joshua made war a long time with all those kings.” But earlier (in <a href='B:60 10:42'>Joshua 10:42</a>) it affirms that “all these kings and their land Joshua took at one time.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> These two texts refer to different kings at different times. The first passage speaks of the southern campaigns which went rapidly. But the other verse has reference to the northern battles which took much longer. 


text:
Were these kings defeated here or not until later?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The text declares that “these are the kings of the land whom the children of Israel defeated.” However, many of these cities were not captured until later (cf. <a href='B:60 15:63'>Josh 15:63</a>; <a href='B:60 17:12'>17:12</a>; <a href='B:720 1:22,29'>Judge 1:22,29</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There is a difference between defeating a king’s army on the field of battle and later destroying his capital city. Once defeated in battle, the king and his remaining troops would retreat to their stronghold where it was much more difficult to root them out. Sudden victory andpermanent vanquishing are two different things. So understood, there is absolutely no contradiction between these texts. 


text:
What was the correct eastern boundary of the Promised Land?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> God promised Abraham, “To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great … River Euphrates” (<a href='B:10 15:18'>Gen 15:18</a>; cf. <a href='B:50 11:24'>Deut 11:24</a>). However, when Joshua divided the land Israel inherited, the boundaries listed do not mention the Euphrates, but cities to the west of it (<a href='B:60 13:9-12'>Josh 13:9-12</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Joshua is simply dividing up the land that was taken by the Israelites, not everything that wasgiven to them. Even though Joshua’s forces conquered the land as a whole (cf. <a href='B:60 11:23'>Josh 11:23</a>), they obviously did not occupy all the land inparticular (cf. Jud. 1:27–36). Much later in David’s day they were still extending their border toward the Euphrates (<a href='B:100 8:3'>2Sam 8:3</a>). This reveals that they understood the repeated promise (cf. <a href='B:10 15:18'>Gen 15:18</a>; <a href='B:50 1:7'>Deut 1:7</a>; <a href='B:50 11:24'>11:24</a>) to include land up to the Euphrates as their eastern border. Indeed, even Joshua mentions this same border when he repeats the pomise to Israel (<a href='B:60 1:4'>Josh 1:4</a>). 


text:
Was Jerusalem in the territory of Benjamin or in Judah?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:60 15:8'>Joshua 15:8</a> lists Jerusalem in Judah, but <a href='B:60 18:28'>Joshua 18:28</a> says it is in Benjamin.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Both are true. Some scholars also point to a Jewish tradition that held the altars and sanctuary were in Benjamin, while the courts of the temple were in Judah. Be that as it may, the city was actually within the limits of Benjamin’s territory, but it was also on the border of Judah’s land. So it may properly be described as being part of both. 


text:
Were these cities in the territory of Judah or of Simeon?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Here they are listed in the land of Simeon, but in <a href='B:60 15:26-32'>Joshua 15:26-32</a> they are in Judah.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The inheritance of Simeon fell within the boundaries of Judah (<a href='B:60 19:1'>Josh 19:1</a>; <a href='B:60 19:9'>9</a>). So it was proper to speak of them as in either place. 


text:
Was God’s promise of the land to Israel conditional or unconditional?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> When God gave the Promised Land to Abraham (Gen. 12–15), Isaac (<a href='B:10 26'>Gen 26</a>), and Jacob (<a href='B:10 46'>Gen 46</a>), there were no conditions. It was an unconditional covenant (“I will bless you”) with no conditions (“If you do such and such”) in which God swore by His own unchangeable nature (cf. <a href='B:650 6:13-18'>Heb 6:13-18</a>). However, later both Moses (<a href='B:50 31:16-17'>Deut 31:16-17</a>) and Joshua (23:16) speak of God expelling Israel from the land if they sinned against God.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are two ways Bible scholars attempt to respond to this criticism: spiritually and literally.<p/>Spiritual Fulfillment in the Church. Some claim this promise does not find any fulfillment in literal Israel, but in spiritual Israel, the church. They appeal to the verse which calls believers the “Israel of God” (<a href='B:550 6:16'>Gal 6:16</a>) and the spiritual “seed” of Abraham (<a href='B:550 3:29'>Gal 3:29</a>). They point to <a href='B:520 11'>Rom 11</a> which says that Israel was “broken off” because of their rejection of their Messiah (v. 17). Thus, while literal Israel sinned, God nevertheless will keep the Abrahamic covenant with NT believers who were unconditionally elected in Christ (<a href='B:560 1:4'>Eph 1:4</a>).<p/>Literal Future Fulfillment in Israel. Other Bible scholars take the eternal land promises to Abraham’s descendants literally, pointing to a future fulfillment of these when Christ returns to earth to reign (cf. <a href='B:470 19:28'>Matt 19:28</a>; Rev. 19–20). In support of their position they note the following points.<p/>First, the promises of possessing the land of Palestine “forever” (see <a href='B:10 13:15'>Gen 13:15</a>) have never been fulfilled.<p/>Second, unlike the Mosaic covenant (<a href='B:20 19:1-8'>Ex 19:1-8</a>), this was an unconditional covenant based on God’s unchangeable character (cf. <a href='B:550 3:18'>Gal 3:18</a>; <a href='B:650 6:17-18'>Heb 6:17-18</a>). Thus God must literally fulfill it to the very people to whom He promised it, or else God would have reneged on an unconditional promise—in which case, He is not God.<p/>Third, the NT church does not fulfill the literal land promises to Israel, but only the promises to receive the spiritual blessings of salvation through the seed of Abraham, who is Christ (cf. <a href='B:550 3:16'>Gal 3:16</a>; <a href='B:550 3:29'>29</a>).<p/>Fourth, the NT could not be the fulfillment of these unconditional promises to Abraham’s descendants because they speak of them as yet future. Paul not only spoke of the nation Israel being cut off, but of their being “grafted in again” and being “saved” (<a href='B:520 11:23'>Rom 11:23</a>; <a href='B:520 11:26'>26</a>). Indeed, the Book of Revelation speaks of “one hundred and forty-four thousand of all the tribes of … Israel” being reinstated in the end times (<a href='B:730 7:4'>Rev 7:4</a>). Those who advocate this position also note that the word “tribe” is never used in a spiritual sense in Scripture.<p/>Finally, Scripture makes a clear distinction between covenants that are unconditional (e.g., the Abrahamic) and those that are conditional (e.g., the Mosaic law). Paul told the Galatians clearly that “if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise” (<a href='B:550 3:18'>Gal 3:18</a>). In view of this literal interpretation, all threats of non-fulfillment of a covenant refer either to the conditional covenant made with Moses (<a href='B:20 19'>Ex 19</a>) or else they are merely exhortations about relating to temporary delays in fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant (<a href='B:60 23:16'>Josh 23:16</a>). 


text:
Was the sanctuary originally at Shechem or at Shiloh?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to <a href='B:60 24:25-26'>Joshua 24:25-26</a> (cf. v. 1), the sanctuary was at Shechem. But earlier (<a href='B:90 3:21'>1Sam 3:21</a>; <a href='B:90 4:3'>4:3</a>), it was said to be in Shiloh.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The term “sanctuary” (miqdash) here simply means “holy place” or “sacred spot.” It need not refer to the “tabernacle” (mishkan) where the ark of the covenant rested, but simply to a sacred location, such as one consecrated by Abraham (cf. <a href='B:10 12:6-7'>Gen 12:6-7</a>) and Jacob (<a href='B:10 33:19-20'>Gen 33:19-20</a>; <a href='B:10 35:2'>35:2–3</a>). The tabernacle was at Shiloh, as Joshua himself acknowledged earlier in this same book (<a href='B:60 18:1'>Josh 18:1</a>). 


text:
Did Caleb kill the sons of Anak or just expel them?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In <a href='B:70 1:10'>Judges 1:10</a>, the three sons of Anak were “killed” by Judah. But, in verse 20 it says they were merely “expelled” from the land, which is what <a href='B:60 15:14'>Joshua 15:14</a> says as well. Which was it?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are two basic views in response to this problem. One view assumes that these two passages refer to the same event, while the other view maintains that they refer to different events.<p/>Different Events. According to this view, the first chapter of Judges does not follow in chronological order, being almost verbatim from <a href='B:60 15:13-19'>Joshua 15:13-19</a>. If so, the events would be as follows: when Joshua conquered the land, the sons of Anak were simply “expelled,” only to return when Joshua turned elsewhere. Later, after the initial campaigns, Judah settled the land and Caleb and his men actually “killed” them. Either position would resolve the difficulty. 


text:
<b>ff—</b> Were the Canaanites destroyed or merely subjugated?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:60 10:40'>Joshua 10:40</a> declares that “Joshua conquered all the land … he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel had commanded.” But only a short time later, when the people occupied the land they had conquered, <a href='B:70 1:28'>Judges 1:28</a> says Israel “did not completely drive them out,” but “put the Canaanites under tribute.” But if they had been utterly destroyed, then how could they still be there a few years later?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> It seems evident that Joshua at first only conquered the land as a whole, but did not literally destroy every part of it. He first swept through and gained the major victories, leaving the minor battles for the later settlers to fight. So, “utterly destroying all that breathed” is either a figure of speech for his general victory or a hyperbole for his complete success. However, even if it is understood more literally, it is qualified by the phrase “left none remaining” (<a href='B:60 10:40'>Josh 10:40</a>). This says nothing about those who fled only to return after Joshua’s armies turned northward to fight other battles. No doubt, in this interim, many of the Canaanites returned to occupy their homes and to be a continual thorn in Israel’s flesh. 


text:
Does the Bible approve of assassinations?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The Bible says “the Lord raised up a deliverer” (<a href='B:70 3:15'>Judge 3:15</a>) for Israel over their oppressor, King Eglon of Moab. Then it records how Ehud “took the dagger from his right thigh, and thrust it into his [Eglon’s] belly” (v. 21). How can the God who forbids murder (<a href='B:20 20:13'>Ex 20:13</a>) condone a brutal assassination like this?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This incident, and others like it (cf. <a href='B:70 4:21'>Judge 4:21</a>), are a good example of the principle that “Not everything recorded in the Bible is approved by the Bible” (see Introduction). First of all, the text does not say that God approved of this evil act. It simply states that it occurred.<p/>Second, the fact that God had “raised up” Ehud does not justify everything he did. God “raised up” Pharaoh too (cf. <a href='B:520 9:17'>Rom 9:17</a>), but God nevertheless judged Pharaoh for his sins (cf. <a href='B:20 12'>Ex 12</a>).<p/>Third, there are many sins contained in the Bible which are not condoned by it. These include Abraham’s lie (<a href='B:10 20'>Gen 20</a>), David’s sin with Bathsheba (<a href='B:100 11'>2Sam 11</a>), and Solomon’s polygamy (<a href='B:110 11'>1Ki 11</a>).<p/>Fourth, while assassinations as such are wrong, God reserves the right to life (<a href='B:50 32:39'>Deut 32:39</a>; <a href='B:220 1:21'>Job 1:21</a>). Should He desire to take a life He gives, He has the right to do so through any instrument He may desire, natural or artificial (see comments on <a href='B:60 6:21'>Josh 6:21</a>). 


text:
Does God condone assassinations? (See comments on <a href='B:70 3:20-21'>Judge 3:20-21</a>.)<p/><b><a href='B:70 4:21'>JUDGES 4:21</a> —</b> Was Sisera lying down when Jael killed him, or was he upright as <a href='B:70 5:27'>Judges 5:27</a> seems to indicate?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to <a href='B:70 4:21'>Judges 4:21</a>, Sisera was lying down fast asleep when Jael approached him softly and drove the tent peg through his temple and into the ground. However, <a href='B:70 5:27'>Judges 5:27</a> seems to indicate that Sisera fell down after Jael pierced his head with the tent peg. Was Sisera lying down or was he upright when Jael killed him?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The poetic description of <a href='B:70 5:27'>Judges 5:27</a> can be understood to describe possible convulsions which Sisera’s body exhibited after the blow to the head. Also, the term “fell” is frequently used in a figurative sense to indicate someone’s demise. This would be especially likely in the poetic structure of chapter<p/>5. The poem is not describing a literal falling down to the ground, as if Sisera was upright. Rather, it is poetically picturing Sisera’s demise. At the hand of this maiden, the mighty Sisera, captain of the army of the Canaanite king, has fallen. There is no contradiction here, merely the difference between historical narrative accurately reporting the events in a literal manner, and poetic expression accurately reporting the events in a poetic figure. 


text:
<b>ff—</b> How can Jael be commended for such a cruel act of murder?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The story of the death of Sisera at the hands of Jael depicts a violent and cruel murder (<a href='B:70 4:21'>Judge 4:21</a>). However, the song of Deborah recorded in <a href='B:70 5'>Judges 5</a> commends Jael for killing Sisera. How can Jael be praised for committing such a violent murder?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, it should be remembered that Sisera was a mighty warrior. When he came to Jael’s tent, Jael was hardly in a position to refuse him entrance. Although it was Jael who went out to meet Sisera to encourage him to find refuge in her tent, it is clear from 4:17 that he was already planning to go to Jael’s tent. 


text:
How could God allow Jephthah to offer his daughter up as a burnt offering?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Just before Jephthah went into battle against the people of Ammon, he made a vow to the Lord. The vow he made was that if God would grant him victory over his enemies, then “whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace … I will offer it up as a burnt offering” (<a href='B:70 11:31'>Judges 11:31</a>). When Jephthah returned, the first one to come out to meet him was his daughter. Jephthah refused to go back on the vow he had made. But, the Bible clearly states that human sacrifice is an abomination to the Lord (<a href='B:30 18:21'>Lev 18:21</a>; <a href='B:30 20:2'>20:2–5</a>; <a href='B:50 12:31'>Deut 12:31</a>; <a href='B:50 18:10'>18:10</a>). How could God allow Jephthah to offer up his daughter, and then list Jephthah among the champions of faith in <a href='B:650 11:32'>Heb 11:32</a>?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Many have taken this to mean that Jepthah offered his daughter’s life to the Lord, claiming the inviolable nature of an oath made to the Lord (cf. <a href='B:250 5:2-6'>Ecc 5:2-6</a>). In addition, they note that a “burnt offering” involves a sacrifice of the life. They justify it on the grounds that a vow to God takes precedence over all else, even human life (cf. <a href='B:10 22'>Gen 22</a>). God is sovereign over life and takes it if He wishes (<a href='B:50 32:39'>Deut 32:39</a>), as He does eventually (<a href='B:650 9:27'>Heb 9:27</a>).<p/>Secondly, the text does not actually say he killed his daughter in a sacrificial offering. This is simply inferred by some from the fact that he promised that whatever came out of his house first “shall surely be the Lord’s, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering” (11:31). As Paul indicated, human beings are to be offered to God “as a living sacrifice” (<a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a>), not as dead ones. Jephthah could have offered his daughter to the Lord as a living sacrifice. For the remainder of her life, she would serve the Lord in the temple and remain a virgin. 


text:
How could Samson capture 300 foxes?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to <a href='B:70 15:4'>Judges 15:4</a>, Samson captured 300 foxes, tied torches between the tails of two foxes, lit the torches, and released the foxes into the fields of the Timnite farmers. But, how could Samson have captured this many foxes?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> It must be remembered that Samson was endowed with supernatural strength. Although the passage does not describe how Samson was able to capture so many foxes, it is not difficult to see that a man who could use the jawbone of an ass to kill “a thousand” warriors (<a href='B:70 15:15'>Judge 15:15</a>) would have little problem capturing 300 foxes. <a href='B:70 16:26-27'>JUDGES 16:26-27</a> —If suicide is wrong, why did God bless Samson for doing it?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Suicide is murder, and God said, “You shall not murder” (<a href='B:20 20:13'>Ex 20:13</a>). There were many suicides in the Bible (see comments on <a href='B:90 31:4'>1Sam 31:4</a>), and none of them received divine approval. Yet Samson committed suicide here with God’s apparent blessing.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Samson never took his life; he sacrificed it for his people. There is a big difference. Jonah prayed, “Lord, please take my life from me, for it is better for me to die than to live!” (<a href='B:390 4:3'>Jonah 4:3</a>) But he never took his own life. Suicide is acting “for one’s self. ” What Samson did was to lay his life on the linefor others —his people. Samson’s act was no more suicide than Christ’s, when He said, “I lay down my life,” for “the good shepherd gives His life for the sheep” (<a href='B:500 10:11'>John 10:11</a>; <a href='B:500 10:17'>17</a>). In fact, “greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends” (<a href='B:500 15:13'>John 15:13</a>).<p/>Of course, not every apparent death “for others” is really an act of love. Paul made this plain in his great love chapter: “though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing” (<a href='B:530 13:3'>1Cor 13:3</a>). Even a martyr may not be dying out of love, but in an obstinate commitment to his own self-centered cause. Saul took self-death “lest these uncircumcised men come and thrust me through and abuse me” (<a href='B:90 31:4'>1Sam 31:4</a>). Abimelek sought death for himself “lest men say of me, `A woman killed him’ ” (<a href='B:70 9:54'>Judge 9:54</a>). Samson by contrast asked God for permission to die, praying, “Let me die with the Philistines” (<a href='B:70 16:30'>Judge 16:30</a>). God granted his request, “so the dead that he killed at his death were more than he had killed in his life” (v. 30). Paul also was willing to be “accursed from Christ for my brethren” (<a href='B:520 9:3'>Rom 9:3</a>). The soldier who falls on a hand grenade to save his buddies is not taking his life by suicide; he is giving his life for others. Likewise, Christ did not commit suicide when He came to “give His life a ransom for many” (<a href='B:480 10:45'>Mark 10:45</a>). 


text:
How could this book have been written in the time or shortly after the time of the judges?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The events of the Book of Judges cover a period from circa 1380 to 1050 B.C. <a href='B:70 18:30'>Judges 18:30</a> makes reference to the fact that the sons of Jonathan were priests in Dan “until the … captivity of the land.” However, the captivity of the land took place in 722 B.C. How could this book have been composed during the time or shortly after the time of the Judges?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The phrase “until the day of the captivity of the land” does not necessarily refer to the captivity of the nation of Israel in 722 B.C. The context of the passage indicates that the term “land” in verse 30 is not a reference to the entire nation of Israel, but the land of Dan. Consequently, the captivity of the land would refer to an overwhelming defeat of the people of Dan by some foreign invader about 1000 B.C., not to the captivity of 722 B.C.<p/>Second, the description of the sudden destruction of the people of Laish by the Danites (v. 27) indicates that this same type of destruction came upon the Danites because they “set up for themselves the carved image” (v. 30). The people had been warned on several occasions that if they turned back from following after the Lord, that He would bring upon them all the trouble that He had brought upon the inhabitants whom Israel had driven out of the land (<a href='B:50 4:25'>Deut 4:25</a>ff, <a href='B:50 31:1–29'>31:1–29</a>; <a href='B:60 23–24'>Josh 23–24</a>). Although the Scripture does not specifically record this type of event in Dan, the context clearly indicates that this reference is to a devastating defeat and captivity of the people in the land of Dan. 


text:
Doesn’t this verse imply that Ruth had intercourse with Boaz after he was drunk in order to obligate him to redeem her?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> After Boaz had eaten and drunk, he went to lie down. After he lay down, Ruth came up softly, uncovered Boaz’s feet, and lay with him. Doesn’t this imply that Ruth had intercourse with Boaz to obligate him to redeem her?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> No! There is nothing in the text of Ruth that indicates any moral impropriety on the part of either Boaz or Ruth. First, Ruth did not come at night to hide an immoral relationship with Boaz. Rather, she came in the night so that Boaz would not feel the pressure of public scrutiny. Boaz would have the opportunity to decline the proposal to redeem Naomi and marry Ruth without facing any public embarrassment.<p/>Fourth, it was also a symbolic act for Boaz to spread the corner of his garment over Ruth. This refers to the practice of a man spreading a covering over his wife as well as himself. Ruth reminds Boaz of his responsibility according to the law of levirate marriage (<a href='B:50 25:5-10'>Deut 25:5-10</a>). The word translated “wing” in the NKJV recalls the earlier blessing which Boaz pronounced upon Ruth at their first encounter (2:12). Ruth had sought refuge under the wings of the God of Israel, now she seeks refuge under the wing of Boaz. 


text:
Isn’t the arrangement between Boaz and Ruth contrary to the law of the Levirate marriage?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:50 25:5-10'>Deu 25:5-10</a> delineates what is known as the law of the levirate marriage. If a man dies and leaves his wife childless, the man’s brother was morally obligated to take his brother’s wife and raise up children in the name of his deceased brother. This practice insured that the brother’s name would not die out. However, Boaz was not the brother of Ruth’s dead husband. Wasn’t this marriage arrangement contrary to the law of the levirate marriage?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Although it was a more complicated incident, the arrangement between Boaz, Naomi, and Ruth was certainly not contrary to the law of the levirate marriage. The primary concern of the levirate marriage was to perpetuate the family line of the deceased. Certain factors indicate that by the time of Boaz and Ruth, some additional provisions had become customary. First, if there was no surviving brother in the immediate family, then the obligation of the levirate marriage became the responsibility of the nearest surviving male relative. In this case, there was one individual who was nearer to Naomi’s family than Boaz. However, when he declined the invitation, Boaz became the nearest male relative and the next in line to legally fulfill this moral obligation.<p/>Second, along with the responsibility to raise up children in the name of the deceased, there came the responsibility to redeem any property that belonged to the deceased and that had been sold or forfeited (<a href='B:30 25:25'>Lev 25:25</a>). Because the nearest kinsman was not financially able to assume this responsibility (<a href='B:80 4:6'>Ruth 4:6</a>), he relinquished his right and responsibility to redeem Naomi and marry Ruth and passed that obligation on to Boaz. There is nothing in the account of the redemption of Naomi and the marriage of Boaz and Ruth that is contrary to the law of levirate marriage. 


text:
Was Elkanah, the father of Samuel, an Ephraimite or was he a Levite as indicated in <a href='B:130 6:16-30'>1Chr 6:16-30</a>?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In the short genealogical note in <a href='B:90 1:1'>1Sam 1:1</a>, Elkanah is said to be from the mountains of Ephraim. However, in <a href='B:130 6:16-23'>1Chr 6:16-23</a>, the longer genealogical record indicates that Elkanah was a Levite. Which is correct?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Both are correct. The fact that Eli took Samuel into the temple service as an apprentice, and that Samuel later carried out the functions of the priesthood, substantiate the genealogical report that Samuel, and his father Elkanah, were of the tribe of Levi. The statement in <a href='B:90 1:1'>1Sam 1:1</a> simply points out that Elkanah lived in the mountains of Ephraim. All the Levites were assigned to dwell in certain cities that were scattered throughout the tribes of Israel (<a href='B:40 35:6'>Num 35:6</a>). It is quite probable that Ramathaim Zophim, the city where Elkanah lived, was one of these appointed cities. Elkanah was a Levite by tribal descent and an Ephraimite by geographical location. 


text:
Did Eli correct his sons or not?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> This text informs us that Eli’s sons “made themselves vile, and he did not restrain them.” However, in the previous chapter, Eli rebuked his sons for their evil deeds (2:23–24).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Eli may have reproved his sons too leniently or not soon enough. At any rate, they became so hardened that his attempt here was futile. Whatever efforts he made at discipline here were not effective. 


text:
How could Beth Shemesh have a population of over 50,000 men?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> After the people of the town of Beth Shemesh had received the ark of the covenant, some of the citizens ignored the sacredness of the ark and looked inside it. This passage states that the Lord “struck fifty thousand and seventy men of the people.” However, a population of over 50,000 seems to be much too large for such a community.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, this is most probably a scribal or transcription error. The numerical designation in Hebrew usually follows a certain pattern in which the larger number is written first, then the smaller number. The normal manner to write such a number would be “fifty thousand men and seventy men.” However, in this instance, the numbers appear backward. The text actually reads “seventy men fifty thousand men.” In addition, numerical designations are almost always connected by the conjunction “and” so that the statement would read, “fifty thousand men and seventy men.” Again this passage departs from the normal practice by omitting the “and.” These factors have lead many to suspect that the text was inadvertently corrupted in transmission.<p/><b><a href='B:90 6:19'>1Sam 6:19</a> —</b> Why did God strike the people of Beth Shemesh with such a severe judgment for looking into the Ark?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> When the Philistines returned the ark of the Lord to Israel, they placed it on an ox cart and sent it down the road without a driver. When the oxen had pulled the cart into the borders of Beth Shemesh, the people of Beth Shemesh took the ark off of the cart and placed it on a large stone. However, some of the men of Beth Shemesh looked into the ark, and the Lord “struck the people with a great slaughter” (v. 19). But why did God strike the people with such a severe judgment simply because they looked into the ark?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The Lord struck the people with judgment because they committed a terrible sacrilege against God. The ark of the covenant was a symbol of the very presence of God among His people. Regulations concerning the ark and how it was to be treated were of the strictest nature because of the holiness of God and the sinfulness of man (<a href='B:20 25:10-22'>Ex 25:10-22</a>; <a href='B:20 26:32'>26:32–34</a>; <a href='B:20 37:1'>37:1–9</a>). Such an impious act of disregard for God’s holiness certainly merited the sudden and terrible judgment of God. 


text:
Were the Philistines expelled once and for all, or only temporarily?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> This verse says that “the Philistines were subdued, and they did not come anymore into the territory of Israel.” However, only a few chapters later (9:16; cf. 10:5; 13:5, 17) they were repeatedly fighting the Philistines.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are two ways to explain this difficulty. One is that it may simply be a strong idiom, not to be taken as excluding all future incursions on their land by the Philistines. In other words, “they came no more”for some time. Or, it could simply mean that “they came no more” at that time. A third possibility is that “they came no more” to occupy and dwell in the territory of Israel, which would not exclude them coming back to fight again and again. 


text:
Did Samuel judge Israel all his days, or only until Saul was anointed king?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In this verse, we are informed that “Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life.” However, Samuel lived after Saul was anointed king (<a href='B:90 8:5'>1Sam 8:5</a>; <a href='B:90 12:1'>12:1</a>; <a href='B:90 25:1'>25:1</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Samuel only gave up his civil authority to Saul, not his spiritual authority. Under Israel’s monarch there was a separation of power. Kings were forbidden to perform spiritual functions (cf. <a href='B:140 26:16-23'>2Chron 26:16-23</a>), and the prophets no longer had political authority. Even so, the prophets, with their direct revelations from God, were a continual moral check on those in political power. 


text:
How could God condemn Israel’s request for a king when the rules for selecting a king were given by God in <a href='B:50 17'>Deu 17</a>?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The Scriptures testify to the fact that God had planned for Israel to have a king. <a href='B:50 17:14-20'>Deu 17:14-20</a> specifically lays down the rules for selecting a king in Israel. However, when the people of Israel requested that Samuel appoint a king, the Lord told Samuel that the people “have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them” (<a href='B:90 8:7'>1Sam 8:7</a>). How could God condemn Israel’s request for a king when He had already given them the guidelines for selecting a king?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The context of <a href='B:90 8'>1Sam 8</a> indicates that the people had the wrong motive and employed the wrong method in seeking a king for themselves. First of all, the people had the wrong motive for seeking a king. In the first verse of chapter 8 we read that Samuel was old when he appointed his sons to be judges in Israel. However, Samuel’s sons did not do right in the eyes of God. When the people came to Samuel they requested that he appoint a king, not because they wanted to have God’s man to rule over them. Rather, they wanted to have a man rule over them. The people had mistaken God’s administration through Samuel for Samuel’s acts. At Saul’s inauguration, Samuel reminded the people that it was “your God, who Himself saved you out of all your adversities and your tribulations” (<a href='B:90 10:19'>1Sam 10:19</a>). They completely ignored the fact that it was God who protected them and led them, not Samuel or any human king whom Samuel would appoint. Consequently, it was not Samuel whom they were rejecting. Rather it was God whom they were rejecting.<p/>Second, theyfailed to seek the Lord concerning a king to rule over them. They did not bother to ask for God’s guidance. They simply requested that Samuel appoint a king. When the elders of Israel came to Samuel, they said, “Now make for us a king to judge us like all the nations” (8:5). However, in <a href='B:50 17:15'>Deu 17:15</a> God specifically stated that the people would set a king over them “whom the Lord your God chooses.” The request of the people in 1 Samuel betrays their lack of consideration for God’s part in the process. They had truly rejected God from ruling over them. The Lord was displeased with the people because they did not seek God’s man, and they did not employ God’s method. 


text:
Does the Scripture give contradictory accounts of the anointing of Saul?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to <a href='B:90 10:1'>1Sam 10:1</a>, Samuel anointed Saul at the outskirts of Ramah in the territory of Zuph (cf. 9:5). However, <a href='B:90 10:17-24'>1Sam 10:17-24</a> asserts that Saul was appointed king of Israel at Mizpah. Are these accounts contradictory?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> No. The only passage that describes the anointing of Saul is found in <a href='B:90 10:1'>1Sam 10:1</a>. In <a href='B:90 10:17-24'>1Sam 10:17-24</a> we read of the public appointment of Saul in the presence of the whole nation. There is no statement of anointing him at this time. Also, in <a href='B:90 12'>1Sam 12</a> we find the confirmation ceremony of Saul’s appointment as king of Israel and Samuel’s farewell address to the nation. Nowhere in this section is there any reference to an anointing. According to the biblical record, Saul was anointed only once, and there is no contradiction among these accounts. 


text:
Was Saul chosen by God, by the people, or by casting a lot?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The Bible says Saul was chosen by the people (<a href='B:90 8:19'>1Sam 8:19</a>), by the Lord (<a href='B:90 9:17'>1Sam 9:17</a>; <a href='B:90 10:24'>10:24</a>), and by casting a lot (<a href='B:90 10:20-21'>1Sam 10:20-21</a>). Which was it?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> All three are true. Since the people demanded of God a king, He granted their request and guided their choice of Saul by means of casting a lot. <a href='B:240 16:33'>Prov 16:33</a> declares that “the lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord” (cf. <a href='B:510 1:26'>Acts 1:26</a>). 


text:
What is the correct number in this verse?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Among the several translations of the OT, <a href='B:90 13:1'>1Sam 13:1</a> is rendered as “one year” in the NKJV, by “forty” in the NASB, by “thirty” for the first number and “[forty-]two” for the second number in the ___. Which of these is the right number or numbers for this verse?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The problem arises from the fact that the number is missing in the manuscripts of the Masoretic text. The verse simply reads, “Saul was the son of … years when he became king, and he reigned two years over Israel.” The verse does not include the word “reigned” in the first part. It literally says that “Saul was the son of … years.” Consequently, the renderings of the various translations are simply the attempts of translators to fill in the missing information based on other data. 


text:
How could the Philistines have an army of 30,000 chariots?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to this passage, the Philistines gathered together 30,000 chariots and 6,000 horsemen. However, an army of 30,000 chariots has never been recorded in all of ancient history, even among the most powerful empires. How could the Philistines have amassed such a large group of chariots?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> It is probably an error that has crept into the manuscripts during transmission. It is very unlikely that there would be such a ratio of chariots to horsemen. It is much more likely that the original manuscripts recorded the number of chariots at 3,000. This would give a better ratio of chariots to horsemen. Because the Hebrew numbers are very similar, it is quite probable that some copyist simply miscopied the 3,000 as 30,000. The accurate recording of numerical designations is very difficult, leading to this kind of problem. 


text:
Was Saul rejected by God for offering an unlawful sacrifice (<a href='B:90 13:12-13'>1Sam 13:12-13</a>), for disobedience (<a href='B:90 28:18'>1Sam 28:18</a>), or for consulting the Witch of Endor (<a href='B:130 10:13'>1Chron 10:13</a>)? All of the above. (See comments on <a href='B:10 27:42-44'>Gen 27:42-44</a>.)<p/><b><a href='B:90 13:13'>1Sam 13:13</a> —</b> How could God have promised Saul a perpetual dynasty over Israel when that had already been prophesied of David?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> After Saul profaned the sacrifice, Samuel rebuked him and told him that, had he not sinned, God would have established him on the throne of Israel forever. However, in <a href='B:10 49:10'>Gen 49:10</a> we find the promise that the throne would be given to the tribe of Judah forever. How could God promise Saul an eternal kingdom when this was already promised to Judah?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The statement of Samuel did not amount to a promise. Rather, Samuel is telling Saul what he had forfeited by his act of impiety. God knew from the beginning that Saul would show himself to be unworthy of sitting on the throne of Israel. However, as a free moral agent, Saul had to actually commit the acts of impiety which God had foreknown. The statement that God would have established Saul upon the throne was sincere and legitimate, although hypothetical. For God also knew that Saul would disqualify himself, so God prophesied that ultimately the throne would fall to the tribe of Judah, and David’s line would be established in Israel forever. 


text:
Why did God destroy the Amalekites?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> God is depicted in the Bible as a God of mercy and compassion, freely forgiving those who turn to Him (<a href='B:230 94:18-19'>Ps 94:18-19</a>; <a href='B:310 3:22'>Lam 3:22</a>; <a href='B:660 5:11'>Jam 5:11</a>; <a href='B:680 3:9'>2Pet 3:9</a>). By vivid contrast, this text informs us that God commanded the seemingly merciless slaughter of innocent Amalekites—men, women, and children. Why?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The Amalekites were far from innocent. In fact, they were utterly depraved. What is more, they desired to destroy Israel (v. 2), God’s chosen people, the channel of His redemptive plans for all humankind (<a href='B:10 12:1-3'>Gen 12:1-3</a>). The act of their total destruction was necessitated by the gravity of their sin. Otherwise, some hard core remnant might rise to resume their hateful act toward God’s people and plan.<p/>As to the question about the innocent children, several observations are relevant. First, we are all born in sin (<a href='B:230 51:5'>Ps 51:5</a>) and deserve death (<a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a>). Everyone will eventually be taken by God in death — it is only a matter of when (<a href='B:650 9:27'>Heb 9:27</a>). Second, God is sovereign over life and reserves the right to take it when He will (<a href='B:50 32:39'>Deut 32:39</a>; <a href='B:220 1:21'>Job 1:21</a>). Third, all children who die before the age of accountability are saved (see comments on <a href='B:100 12:23'>2Sam 12:23</a>). Hence, the act by which God took the children is far from merciless (see also comments on <a href='B:60 6:21'>Josh 6:21</a>). 


text:
How can God say that He regretted setting up Saul to be king in Israel?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> After Saul had failed to carry out God’s command to utterly destroy the Amalekites, God said to Samuel, “I greatly regret that I have set up Saul as king” (<a href='B:90 15:11'>1Sam 15:11</a>). However, in <a href='B:90 15:29'>1Sam 15:29</a>, Samuel states that God is not a man that He should repent. How can God say that He regretted setting up Saul as king when other passages assert that God does not repent or change His mind?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The statement which God made to Samuel does not mean that God relented or changed His mind, but that God was expressing deep emotional sorrow over Saul’s failure and the trouble that it would bring upon Israel. God selected Saul to be king in Israel to accomplish certain tasks for which Saul was well suited. To regret some course of action which had to be taken is an experience we have all had. God does not actually change His mind (see comments under <a href='B:20 32:14'>Ex 32:14</a>), but He does experience deep emotional sorrow over the things which people do. 


text:
<b>ff—</b> Did God encourage Samuel to lie?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Abraham was judged by God for telling the half-truth that Sarah was his sister (she was his half sister) when she was really his wife (see comments under <a href='B:10 12:10-20'>Gen 12:10-20</a>). However, in this passage God actually encourages Samuel to tell only half of the truth, namely, that he had come to offer a sacrifice, when he had also come to anoint David king as well. Two problems emerge from this. First, did not God encourage deception here? Second, why did God condemn Abraham for the same thing that He commanded Samuel to do?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The first thing to note in response to this problem is that the two situations are not the same. In Abraham’s case his so-called “half-truth” was a whole lie, for the question he was asked was, “Is Sarah your wife?” And his answer in effect was really “No. She is my sister.” By this answer to this question Abraham intentionally misrepresented the facts of the situation, which is a lie.<p/>Samuel’s case was different. The question he was asked is “Why have you come to Bethlehem?” His answer was “I have come to sacrifice to the Lord” (<a href='B:90 16:2'>1Sam 16:2</a>). This was truthful in that it corresponded with the facts, namely, it is why he came and it is what he did. The fact that he also had another purpose for coming is not directly related to the question he was asked and the answer he gave, as it was in Abraham’s case. Of course, had Samuel been asked “Do you have any other purpose for coming?” then he would have had to come clean. To say “No” would have been a deception.<p/>Secondly, concealment and deception are not the same. Samuel certainly concealed one of the purposes of his mission so as to save his life (<a href='B:90 16:2'>1Sam 16:2</a>). It is not always necessary (even possible) to tell all the truth. The fact that God told Samuel to conceal one of the purposes of his visit to avoid possible death does not necessarily mean he was guilty of lying. Not telling part of the truth and telling a falsehood are not necessarily the same. Secrecy and concealment are not the same as duplicity and falsehood. 


text:
What is the correct spelling of the name of David’s brother?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to <a href='B:90 16:9'>1Sam 16:9</a>, the name of David’s brother is “Shammah.” However, in <a href='B:130 2:13'>1Chr 2:13</a> his name is “Shimea.” Which is the correct spelling?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> It is not uncommon for proper names to be spelled differently due to regional patterns of pronunciation. The name in <a href='B:90 16:9'>1Sam 16:9</a> has a double “m.” This may indicate that the region of Judah tended not to pronounce the guttural letter “ayin” which appears in the spelling of the name in 1 Chronicles, and that this was compensated for by the doubling of the “m.” Perhaps this points to the 1 Chronicles spelling as the correct spelling and the 1 Samuel spelling as a reproduction of the pronunciation pattern of the region. (See Appendix 2.) 


text:
Did Jesse have eight sons as indicated in this verse, or only seven as indicated in <a href='B:130 2:13-15'>1Chr 2:13-15</a>?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Although <a href='B:90 16'>1Sam 16</a> only names the three oldest brothers of David, verse 10 states that Jesse made seven of his sons pass before Samuel before he brought David out. However, <a href='B:130 2:13-15'>1Chr 2:13-15</a> indicates that David was the seventh son of Jesse. How many sons did Jesse have?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The passage in 1 Chronicles records the names of seven sons of Jesse, perhaps because one of David’s brothers died, and his name was not preserved as late as the composing of 1 Chronicles. It is not an uncommon practice for the surviving children to speak of their family in terms of the remaining number, so that any member of a family which would have been composed of eight sons, identifies himself as one of a group of seven brothers. This would very likely be the case in David’s family if the brother had died before marriage, leaving no posterity, and had made no significant contribution during the rise and reign of David. There would have been no reason to retain his name among the genealogical records of the sons of Jesse. 


text:
Why does this verse say David killed Goliath when <a href='B:100 21:19'>2Sam 21:19</a> says Elhanan killed Goliath?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In <a href='B:90 17:50-51'>1Sam 17:50-51</a>, David is said to have cut off the head of Goliath after striking him with the stone from his sling. However, according to <a href='B:100 21:19'>2Sam 21:19</a>, it was Elhanan the son of Jaare-Oregim that killed Goliath. Why does one passage claim that David killed Goliath when the other claims that Elhanan did?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The passage in <a href='B:100 21:19'>2Sam 21:19</a> which reads, “Elhanan the son of Jaare- Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam” (the italicized words “the brother of” are not in the Hebrew text), is obviously a copyist error. This is substantiated by the fact that there is a parallel passage in <a href='B:130 20:5'>1Chr 20:5</a> that reads, “and Elhanan the son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.” The corruption of the passage in <a href='B:100 21:19'>2Sam 21:19</a> is traceable to the confusion by a copyist of several letters and words which, when combined in a certain way, could yield the reading found in the 2 Samuel passage.<p/><b><a href='B:100 21:19'>2Sam 21:19</a> —</b> This verse says “Elhanan … killed Goliath” but <a href='B:90 17'>1Sam 17</a> declares that David did.<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> First Samuel 17 records the dramatic story of how David the son of Jesse killed the giant Goliath. However, <a href='B:100 21:19'>2Sam 21:19</a> says clearly: “Elhanan … killed Goliath the Gittite.” But both texts cannot be right.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The 2 Samuel text is probably a scribal error in copying the manuscript and should read “Elhanan … slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite.” This conclusion is supported by a parallel report of the story in <a href='B:130 20:5'>1Chr 20:5</a> which has the missing highlighted phrase “Lahmi the brother of,” thus showing it was the brother of Goliath that Elhanan killed and not Goliath, whom David slew just as <a href='B:90 17'>1Sam 17</a> reports. 


text:
How could Goliath’s head be carried to Jerusalem when it was held then by the Jebusites.<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> When David killed Goliath and cut his head off, the city of Jerusalem was still in the hands of the Jebusites. David did not conquer the city until much later (<a href='B:100 5:6-9'>2Sam 5:6-9</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> It does not say that Goliath’s head was taken immediately to Jerusalem. But David took his trophy there eventually when he made Jerusalem the place of his throne. 


text:
Why did Saul not recognize his harp player David as the one who killed Goliath?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In 1 Samuel 16, Saul hired David to play the harp for him, and yet, in chapter 17, after David killed Goliath the giant, Saul did not seem to recognize who he was.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are two possibilities here. First, it would not be unusual that a busy preoccupied king had not taken enough notice of this humble hired musician so as to recognize him as the same person who killed Goliath. However, once David performed the notable feat of killing the giant, the king could not help but take note of him and ask who he was. 


text:
Were David and Jonathan homosexuals?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> This Scripture records the intense love David and Jonathan had for each other. Some see this as an indication that they were homosexual. They infer this from the fact that Jonathan “loved” David (18:3); that Jonathan stripped in David’s presence (18:4); that they “kissed” each other with great emotion (<a href='B:90 20:41'>1Sam 20:41</a>). They point also to David’s lack of successful relations with women as an indication of his homosexual tendencies. Is this a valid conclusion to draw from these texts?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There is no indication in Scripture that David and Jonathan were homosexual. On the contrary, there is strong evidence that they were not. First of all, David’s attraction to Bathsheba (<a href='B:100 11'>2Sam 11</a>) reveals that his sexual orientation was heterosexual, not homosexual. In fact, judging by the number of wives he had, David seemed to have too much heterosexuality.<p/>Third, Jonathan did not strip himself of all his clothes in David’s presence. He only stripped himself of his armor and royal robe (<a href='B:90 18:4'>1Sam 18:4</a>) as a symbol of his deep respect for David and commitment to him.<p/>Fourth, the “kiss” was a common cultural greeting for men in that day. Furthermore, it did not occur until two and a half chapters after Jonathan gave David his clothes (<a href='B:90 20:41'>1Sam 20:41</a>).<p/>Finally, the emotion they expressed was weeping, not orgasm. The text says, “they kissed each other and wept together — but David wept the most” (<a href='B:90 20:41'>1Sam 20:41</a>, NIV). 


text:
How could a good God send an evil spirit to Saul?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to this passage, the evil (“distressing,” NKJV) spirit came upon Saul so that he prophesied in his house, and then tried to kill David with a spear. However, the verse clearly states that the evil spirit was from God. How could a good God send an evil spirit to bring distress to Saul?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Because God is absolutely sovereign, the actions of any evil spirit would be subject to the authority of God. Therefore, it was according to God’s permission that the spirit was allowed to come upon Saul to bring him distress. Saul had already rejected God, and God had rejected him from being king. God had a special reason for allowing this spirit to incite Saul to action against David. Saul’s attempt to kill David only made Saul realize that God was with David. By sending David away and making him captain over a thousand, Saul inadvertently increased David’s popularity with the people and hastened his own demise. The sending of the evil spirit upon Saul is similar to God’s allowing Satan to afflict Job. God allows evil, but always uses it to accomplish His own good purposes (see comments on <a href='B:110 22:22'>1Ki 22:22</a>). 


text:
How could it be said that the Spirit of God was upon Saul when God had already rejected him?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> When Saul came to Naioth in Ramah to try to capture David, he sent soldiers up to bring David back in chains. When his soldiers came back empty- handed, Saul decided to go up himself. However, when he came near to Naioth, the Spirit of the Lord was upon him and he danced and prophesied before Samuel. How could it be said that the Spirit of God was upon Saul when God had already rejected him?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The Spirit of the Lord was not upon Saul at this time in the same way that the Spirit of the Lord was upon him before his rejection. Originally, the Spirit came upon Saul to minister through him. On this occasion the Spirit came upon him to resist his evil intentions. In this incident, Saul’s intent was to capture and ultimately kill David, but Saul was unwilling to chance a face-to-face encounter with the prophet Samuel. Twice Saul sent messengers to capture David and bring him back in chains, but each time the Spirit of the Lord overcame them so that they were unable to accomplish their task. Finally, Saul went up himself. However, when he came near to Naioth, the Spirit of the Lord overcame him so that he could not control himself. He danced and prophesied until he fell exhausted on the ground. The Spirit of the Lord overcame Saul and thwarted his efforts to capture David.<p/><b><a href='B:90 19:24'>1Sam 19:24</a> —</b> Why did Saul strip off his clothes as he danced and prophesied before Samuel?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Samuel was conducting a service in which the group of prophets were prophesying. When Saul’s men came to capture David, they were overcome by the Spirit of the Lord and they also prophesied. However, when Saul came, he prophesied, danced, and stripped off his clothes. Why does Saul do this when apparently none of the others did?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Some commentators say that this was apparently an act of judgment upon Saul in that Saul was humiliated in the presence of Samuel and the prophets. Saul was a man who was characterized by drastic mood changes (cf. <a href='B:90 16:14-23'>1Sam 16:14-23</a>; <a href='B:90 18:10–11'>18:10–11</a>; <a href='B:90 19:9'>19:9</a>). Saul was so carried away by his enthusiasm that he stripped off his clothes and danced until he fell to the ground totally exhausted and remained there over night. 


text:
Was Goliath’s armor kept in David’s tent or in Nob?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In this text the sword of Goliath was located in Nob (cf. v. 1). However, in <a href='B:90 17:54'>1Sam 17:54</a> it says David “put his [Goliath’s] armor in his tent.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> At first it was placed in his tent, but later it was taken to Nob. The two verses speak of different times.


verse_number_to:
How could God allow the Witch of Endor to raise Samuel from the dead when God condemned witchcraft?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The Bible severely condemns witchcraft and communication with the dead (<a href='B:20 22:18'>Ex 22:18</a>; <a href='B:30 20:6'>Lev 20:6</a>; <a href='B:30 20:27'>27</a>; <a href='B:50 18:9-12'>Deut 18:9-12</a>; <a href='B:290 8:19'>Isa 8:19</a>). In the OT those who practiced it were to receive capital punishment. King Saul knew this and even put all witches out of the land (<a href='B:90 28:3'>1Sam 28:3</a>). Nevertheless, in disobedience to God, he went to the witch of Endor for her to contact the dead prophet Samuel (<a href='B:90 28:8'>1Sam 28:8</a>ff). The problem here is that she appears to be successful in contacting Samuel, which lends validity to the powers of witchcraft which the Bible so severely condemns.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Several possible solutions have been offered to this episode at Endor. Three will be summarized here.<p/>First, some believe that the witch worked a miracle by demonic powers and actually brought Samuel back from the dead. In support of this they cite passages which indicate that demons have the power to perform miracles (<a href='B:470 7:22'>Matt 7:22</a>; <a href='B:540 11:14'>2Cor 11:14</a>; <a href='B:600 2:9-10'>2Thes 2:9-10</a>; <a href='B:730 16:14'>Rev 16:14</a>). The objections to this view include the fact that death is final (<a href='B:650 9:27'>Heb 9:27</a>), the dead cannot return (<a href='B:100 12:23'>2Sam 12:23</a>) because there is a great gulf fixed by God (<a href='B:420 16:24-27'>Luke 16:24-27</a>), and demons cannot usurp God’s authority over life and death (<a href='B:220 1:10-12'>Job 1:10-12</a>).<p/>Second, others have suggested that the witch did not really bring up Samuel from the dead, but simply faked doing so. They support this by reference to demons who deceive people who try to contact the dead (<a href='B:30 19:31'>Lev 19:31</a>; <a href='B:50 18:11'>Deut 18:11</a>; <a href='B:130 10:13'>1Chron 10:13</a>) and by the contention that demons sometimes utter what is true (cf. <a href='B:510 16:17'>Acts 16:17</a>). The objections to this view include the fact that the passage seems to say Samuel did return from the dead, that he provided a prophecy from Samuel that actually came to pass, and that it is unlikely that demons would have uttered truth of God, since the devil is the father of lies (<a href='B:500 8:44'>John 8:44</a>).<p/>A third view is that the witch did not bring up Samuel from the dead, but God Himself intervened in the witch’s tent to rebuke Saul for his sin. In support of this view is the following: (a) Samuel seemed to actually return from the dead (v. 14), but (b) neither humans nor demons have the power to bring people back from the dead (<a href='B:420 16:24-27'>Luke 16:24-27</a>; <a href='B:650 9:27'>Heb 9:27</a>). (c) The witch herself seemed to be surprised by the appearance of Samuel from the dead (v. 12). (d) There is a direct condemnation of witchcraft in this passage (v. 9), and thus it is highly unlikely that it would give credence to witchcraft by claiming that witches can actually bring people back from the dead. (e) God sometimes speaks in unsuspecting places through unusual means (cf. Baalam’s donkey, <a href='B:40 22'>Num 22</a>). (f) The miracle was not performed through the witch, but in spite of her. (g) Samuel seems to really appear from the dead, rebukes Saul, and utters a true prophecy (v. 19). (h) God explicitly and repeatedly condemned contacting the dead (see above) and would not contradict this by giving credence to witchcraft. The major objections to this view are that the text does not explicitly say that God performed the miracle, and that a witch’s tent is a strange place to perform this miracle. 


text:
<b><a href='B:90 31'>1Sam 31</a> —</b> The report of Saul’s death in this passage contradicts that given in the next chapter (<a href='B:100 1'>2Sam 1</a>)<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> First Samuel 31 says that King Saul committed suicide by falling on his sword, but <a href='B:100 1'>2Sam 1</a> records that he was killed by an Amalekite as he was about to lean on his sword.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Some claim that both stories are true, taking the Amalekite’s story as supplementary. They claim that Saul attempted suicide, but was not dead when the Amalekite arrived and finished the job. They point to the fact that the Amalekite had Saul’s sword and bracelet as evidence that his account was true, as well as the fact that David punished him by death for killing the king. The objections to this view are that it contradicts the statements of 1 Samuel 31, that “Saul took a sword and fell on it” and that his armorbearer “saw that Saul was dead” (vv. 4–5), as well as the inspired record that says “so Saul … died” (v. 6).<p/>Others see the 1 Samuel story as the correct version and the one in <a href='B:100 1'>2Sam 1</a> as a true record of the fabrication of the Amalekite who came upon Saul after he died and thought he could gain favor with David by taking credit for the feat. They point to the fact that the story contradicts the record in 1 Samuel 31, that the Amalekite did not seem to know that Saul died by a sword, not a spear, and that <a href='B:130 10'>1Chr 10</a> repeats the story as recorded in 1 Samuel, but not the fabrication of the Amalekite. The main objections to this view are that 2 Samuel does not say his story is a lie, and that David killed him for his act. In response, he may have been killed on the basis of his self-confession (<a href='B:100 1:16'>2Sam 1:16</a>). And the fact that his story was in contradiction to that in 1 Samuel may have been taken as sufficient evidence that his story was a fabrication. 


text:
Was Saul’s suicide justifiable?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> King Saul was mortally wounded, and he asked his armorbearer to assist him in committing suicide. Was this justified?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Suicide is murder, and the Bible says, “You shall not murder” (<a href='B:20 20:13'>Ex 20:13</a>). It makes no difference that the life taken is one’s own. All life belongs to God, and He alone has the right to take it (<a href='B:50 32:39'>Deut 32:39</a>; <a href='B:220 1:21'>Job 1:21</a>).<p/>Even the most desperate believers in the Bible who desired death never considered suicide a morally viable alternative. Rather, recognizing the sovereign hand of God over human life, they prayed like Jonah: “Lord, please take my life from me, for it is better for me to die than to live” (<a href='B:390 4:3'>Jonah 4:3</a>). Though they wanted God to take it, they never considered it right to take it themselves.<p/>Furthermore, with the exception of Samson (see comments on Jud. 16:26–27), there are at least five cases of suicide recorded in Scripture, and none of them is approved by God—Abimelech (Jud. 9:50–56); Saul (<a href='B:90 31:1-6'>1Sam 31:1-6</a>); Zimri (<a href='B:110 16:18-19'>1Ki 16:18-19</a>); Ahithophel (<a href='B:100 17:23'>2Sam 17:23</a>); and Judas who betrayed Christ (<a href='B:470 27:3-10'>Matt 27:3-10</a>). Each met a tragic death, and none met with divine approval. Suicide is an attack on the image of God in man (<a href='B:10 1:27'>Gen 1:27</a>) and an attempt to usurp God’s sovereignty over human life. 


text:
How could Ishbosheth have reigned only two years when <a href='B:100 5:5'>2Sam 5:5</a> says David reigned for seven and one half years?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> After the death of Saul, his son Ishbosheth reigned over Israel. According to <a href='B:100 2:10'>2Sam 2:10</a>, Ishbosheth reigned for two years. While Ishbosheth reigned in Israel, Judah followed after David (<a href='B:100 2:10'>2Sam 2:10</a>). After Ishbosheth was killed, the people of Israel came to David to crown him king of all Israel. However, according to <a href='B:100 5:5'>2Sam 5:5</a>, David reigned in Hebron for seven and one-half years. How could David have reigned over Judah for seven and one-half years when Ishbosheth reigned over Israel for only two years?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Although Ishbosheth was eventually crowned king of Israel, this did not take place until five years after the death of Saul. The Philistines had been a major obstacle in uniting the ten tribes of Israel and establishing Israel under the reign of Ishbosheth. Once the armies of Israel under Abner’s direction had sufficiently driven back the Philistines, Abner set up Ishbosheth as king over Israel. During the entire period of Abner’s conflicts with the Philistines, and during the two years of Ishbosheth’s reign, David reigned as king of Judah. 


text:
Did David capture 1,700 horsemen or 7,000 as <a href='B:130 18:4'>1Chr 18:4</a> says?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> After David had defeated Hadadezer, he took prisoners from Hadadezer’s army. According to <a href='B:100 8:4'>2Sam 8:4</a>, David captured “one thousand, seven hundred horsemen” (the word “chariots” added by some translations is not in the Hebrew text). However, the passage in <a href='B:130 18:4'>1Chr 18:4</a> states that David captured 7,000 horsemen. Which number is correct?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This is undoubtedly a copyist error. Probably an early copyist inadvertently omitted the word “chariot” that we find supplied in some translations. This in turn created a problem for a later copyist who would have recognized that it was not proper Hebrew structure to write “one thousand seven thousand horsemen,” so he would have reduced the second “thousand” to “hundred”resulting in the reading we now have in <a href='B:100 8:4'>2Sam 8:4</a>. It is probably the 1 Chronicles passage that retains the correct number. 


text:
How could David’s sons be priests when they were not Levites?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to this verse, “David’s sons were chief ministers.” Yet <a href='B:40 3:10'>Numbers 3:10</a> forbids anyone except the sons of Aaron from being priests (cf. <a href='B:40 16:40'>Num 16:40</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Some scholars believe that the priesthood was extended to include David’s sons, granting them a kind of honorary priesthood. However, since there is no indication of this in the text, it does not seem likely. 


text:
How could a loving God take the life of David’s child because of the sin of David?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> As a result of David’s sin with Bathsheba, the life of the child that Bathsheba bore to David was taken. However, <a href='B:100 12:15'>2Sam 12:15</a> states that it was the Lord who struck the child with illness so that it died. How could a loving God commit such an act?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The taking of the life of the child was not a judgment upon the child, but upon David. The Word of God assures us that death is not the end. This passage in particular indicates that David’s child was taken to heaven upon its death (see comments on <a href='B:100 12:23'>2Sam 12:23</a>). Consequently, the child was probably spared a life of sorrow and trouble as the illegitimate offspring of the illicit relationship of David and Bathsheba. David’s faith in the all-loving God is clearly illustrated in verses 22–23. While the child was alive, David fasted and wept in hopes that God would graciously allow the child to live. However, when the child died, David trusted in the goodness of God to take the child to be with Him in heaven, and that one day David would be reunited with the child.<p/><b><a href='B:100 12:21-23'>2Sam 12:21-23</a> —</b> Should we pray for the dead?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Based on a verse in 2 Maccabees 12:46 (Douay), Roman Catholics believe it is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins. However, David refused to pray for his dead son. Does the Bible teach that we should pray for the dead?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There is nothing in inspired Scripture that supports the Roman Catholic doctrine of praying for the dead that they may be released from their sins. This conclusion is based on strong evidence from many passages. First, the only verse supporting prayers for the dead comes from the 2nd century B.C. apocryphal book of 2 Maccabees (see comments on <a href='B:530 3:13-15'>1Cor 3:13-15</a>) which the Roman Catholic Church added to the Bible in A.D. 1546 in response to the Reformation that condemned such practices.<p/>Second, the doctrine of prayers for the dead is connected with the unbiblical doctrine of purgatory. The prayers are for the purpose of releasing them from purgatory. But there is no basis for the belief in purgatory (see comments on <a href='B:530 3:13-15'>1Cor 3:13-15</a>).<p/>Third, nowhere in all of inspired Scripture is there a single example of any saint who prayed for the dead to be saved. Surely as passionately as many saints wished for their loved ones to be saved (cf. <a href='B:520 9:1-3'>Rom 9:1-3</a>), there would be at least one example of a divinely approved prayer on behalf of the dead.<p/>Fourth, the Bible makes it unmistakably clear that death is final and there is no hope beyond the grave. Hebrews declared, “it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment” (<a href='B:650 9:27'>Heb 9:27</a>). Jesus spoke of those who rejected Him as dying “in their sins” (<a href='B:500 8:21'>John 8:21</a>; <a href='B:500 8:24'>24</a>), which implies that there is no hope for sins beyond the grave.<p/>Fifth, Jesus set the example in <a href='B:500 11'>John 11</a> by weeping for the dead and praying for the living. Upon coming to His friend Lazarus’ grave, “Jesus wept” (v. 35). Then He prayed for “the people who are standing by … that they may believe” (v. 42).<p/>Sixth, the dead pray for the living (cf. <a href='B:730 6:10'>Rev 6:10</a>), but there are no instances in the inspired Word of God where the living pray for the dead. The martyred saints in glory were praying for vengeance on the wicked (<a href='B:730 6:9'>Rev 6:9</a>). And since there is rejoicing in heaven over one soul saved on earth (<a href='B:490 15:10'>Luke 15:10</a>), there is no doubt that there is prayer in heaven for the lost. But the Bible does not hold out even the slightest hope for anyone who dies in their sins (see comments on <a href='B:600 1:9'>2Thes 1:9</a>).<p/><b><a href='B:100 12:23'>2Sam 12:23</a> —</b> Do those who die in infancy go to heaven?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The Scriptures teach that we are born in sin (<a href='B:230 51:5'>Ps 51:5</a>) because we “all sinned [in Adam]” (<a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a>). Yet David implies here that his baby, who died, will be in heaven, saying, “I shall go to him” (v. 23).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are three views regarding children who die before the age of accountability, that is, before they are old enough to be morally responsible for their own actions.<p/>Only Elect Infants Go to Heaven. Some strong Calvinists believe that only those babies that are predestined go to heaven (<a href='B:560 1:4'>Eph 1:4</a>; <a href='B:520 8:29'>Rom 8:29</a>). Those who are not elect go to hell. They see no greater problem with infant predestination than with adult predestination, insisting that everyone is deserving of hell and that it is only by God’s mercy that any are saved (<a href='B:630 3:5-6'>Titus 3:5-6</a>).<p/>Only Infants Who Would Have Believed Go to Heaven. Others claim that God knows the end from the beginning (<a href='B:290 46:10'>Isa 46:10</a>) and the potential as well as the actual. Thus, God knows those infants and little children who would have believed in Christ had they lived long enough. Otherwise, they contend, there would be people in heaven who would not have believed in Christ, which is contrary to Scripture (<a href='B:500 3:36'>John 3:36</a>). All infants whom God knows would not have believed, had they lived long enough, will go to hell.<p/>All Infants Go to Heaven. Still others believe that all who die before the age of accountability will go to heaven. They base this on the following Scriptures. First, <a href='B:290 7:16'>Isaiah 7:16</a> speaks of an age before a child is morally accountable, namely, “before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good.” Second, David believed in life after death and the resurrection (<a href='B:230 16:10-11'>Ps 16:10-11</a>), so when he spoke of going to be with his son who died after birth (<a href='B:100 12:23'>2Sam 12:23</a>), he implied that those who die in infancy go to heaven. Third, <a href='B:230 139'>Psalm 139</a> speaks of an unborn baby as a creation of God whose name is written down in God’s “book” in heaven (vv. 14–16). Fourth, Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God” (<a href='B:480 10:14'>Mark 10:14</a>), thus indicating that even little children will be in heaven. Fifth, some see support in Jesus’ affirmation that even “little ones” (i.e., children) have a guardian angel “in heaven” who watches over them (<a href='B:470 18:10'>Matt 18:10</a>). Sixth, the fact that Christ’s death for all made little children savable, even before they believed (<a href='B:520 5:18-19'>Rom 5:18-19</a>). Finally, Jesus’ indication that those who did not know were not morally responsible (<a href='B:500 9:41'>John 9:41</a>) is used to support the belief that there is heaven for those who cannot yet believe, even though there is no heaven for those who are old enough and refuse to believe (<a href='B:500 3:36'>John 3:36</a>). 


text:
How can we justify David’s cruelty to his enemies?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> This passage implies that David tortured his enemies, since he “put them under saws, and under axes or iron, and made them pass through the brick-kiln” (KJV). But torture is wrong, and Jesus said “love your enemies” (<a href='B:490 6:35'>Luke 6:35</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Several things should be observed in response to this criticism. First, the KJV translation is open to this misinterpretation here. More recent translations clear up the difficulty. The NKJV correctly renders it, David “put them to work with saws and iron picks and iron axes, and made them cross over to the brick works.” Likewise, the NIV says, David “brought out the people who were there, consigning them to labor with saws and with iron picks and axes, and he made them work at brick-making.”<p/>Third, the punishment of forced labor given to these vicious enemies of God’s people is not extreme. Considering the cruelties they unleashed on the children of Israel (cf. <a href='B:90 11:2'>1Sam 11:2</a>; <a href='B:370 1:13'>Amos 1:13</a>), by comparison, their treatment was humane. 


text:
Why does this passage say Absalom had three sons when <a href='B:100 18:18'>2Sam 18:18</a> says he had none?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The passage in <a href='B:100 14:27'>2Sam 14:27</a> states that Absalom had three sons and one daughter. However, in <a href='B:100 18:18'>2Sam 18:18</a> Absalom set up a pillar for himself because, as he says, “I have no son to keep my name in remembrance.” Which is correct?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Both passages are correct. It is significant that 14:27 names Absalom’s daughter (Tamar), but does not give the names of Absalom’s three sons. Probably, these sons died in infancy, and their names were not recorded because they left no posterity. Consequently, Absalom set up a monument in a vain attempt to memorialize his name precisely because he had no male children who could carry on his family name. 


text:
Was the land of Ephraim west or east of Jordan?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to Joshua (17:15–18), the Ephraimites settled on the west side of Jordan. But in <a href='B:100 18:6'>2Sam 18:6</a> it speaks of the “woods of Ephraim” as being on the east side of Jordan.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Some believe this battle (<a href='B:100 18'>2Sam 18</a>) took place on the west side of Jordan in the territory of Ephraim. However, this is unlikely for several reasons. Both armies were on the east side before the battle, and there is no mention of their crossing Jordan. The army returned back to the west side after the battle (19:3). David had to cross the Jordan to get back home in Jerusalem (v. 15) on the west side.<p/>Other scholars believe that the “woods” of Ephraim were not within their territory, but on the east side of Jordan. They think the forest may have received its name from the earlier slaughter of Ephraimites in that area (cf. <a href='B:70 12:1-6'>Judge 12:1-6</a>), even though it did not belong to the tribe of Ephraim. It is not unheard of for a section of one province to bear the name of another. After all, Michigan City is just across the border in the state of Indiana! 


text:
Was Absalom buried in the forest of Ephraim or in the Kidron Valley?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> After Absalom was killed by Joab’s men, they took his body and threw it into a pit and covered him with a large stone. However, according to <a href='B:100 18:18'>2Sam 18:18</a>, Absalom had erected his own tomb in the Kidron Valley. Where was Absalom buried?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Absalom was buried in the pit as <a href='B:100 18:17'>2Sam 18:17</a> describes. The memorial Absalom built, which has come to be known as the Tomb of Absalom, was not necessarily erected to function as a burial place. Rather, it was a memorial of remembrance to Absalom’s name, and there is no claim in Scripture that he was buried there. 


text:
Was this a field of barley or lentils?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Here in 2 Samuel it is called a field of “lentils,” but in <a href='B:130 11:13'>1Chr 11:13</a> it is called “barley.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are two basic possibilities here. One, these could be different occasions when God gave Israel deliverance from the Philistines in the midst of a field. More likely, however, it may be a copyist mistake, since the Hebrew words for lentils and barley are similar enough to be mistaken, especially if there were some smudge or imperfection on the manuscript copy. Either possibility would take care of the difficulty. 


text:
How can this passage claim that God moved David to number Israel when <a href='B:130 21:1'>1Chr 21:1</a> claims that it was Satan?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> This passage reports the sin of David in numbering the people of Israel and Judah. Verse one affirms that God moved David to number the people. However, according to <a href='B:130 21:1'>1Chr 21:1</a>, it was Satan who moved David to number the people. Who was responsible for prompting David to act?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Both statements are true. Although it was Satan who immediately incited David, ultimately it was God who permitted Satan to carry out this provocation. Although it was Satan’s design to destroy David and the people of God, it was God’s purpose to humble David and the people and teach them a valuable spiritual lesson. This situation is quite similar to the first two chapters of Job in which both God and Satan are involved in the suffering of Job. Similarly, both God and Satan are involved in the crucifixion. Satan’s purpose was to destroy the Son of God (<a href='B:500 13:2'>John 13:2</a>; <a href='B:530 2:8'>1Cor 2:8</a>). God’s purpose was to redeem humankind by the death of His Son (<a href='B:510 2:14-39'>Acts 2:14-39</a>). 


text:
Why do the numbers of men recorded in <a href='B:100 24:9'>2Sam 24:9</a> and in <a href='B:130 21:5-6'>1Chr 21:5-6</a> disagree?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> When David was moved to number the people of Israel and Judah, he sent Joab to carry out the task. According to the report in <a href='B:100 24:9'>2Sam 24:9</a>, the number of the men of valor in Israel was 800,000, and the number of the men of valor in Judah was 500,000. However, according to <a href='B:130 21:5-6'>1Chr 21:5-6</a>, the number of the men who drew the sword in Israel was 1,100,000, and the number of the men who drew the sword in Judah was 470,000. Which of these calculations is correct?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This discrepancy involves the difference in who was included in each report. In the report in 2 Samuel, the number of men of valor who drew the sword was 800,000, but did not include the standing army of 288,000 described in <a href='B:130 27:1-15'>1Chr 27:1-15</a>, or the 12,000 specifically attached to Jerusalem described in <a href='B:140 1:14'>2Chr 1:14</a>. Including these figures gives the grand total of 1,100,000 men of valor who composed the entire army of the men of Israel. The figure of 470,000 in <a href='B:130 21'>1Chr 21</a> did not include the 30,000 men of the standing army of Judah mentioned in <a href='B:100 6:1'>2Sam 6:1</a>. This is evident from the fact that the Chronicler points out that Joab did not complete the counting of the men of Judah (<a href='B:130 21:6'>1Chron 21:6</a>). Both calculations are correct according to the groups which were included and excluded from each report. 


text:
Why are the numbers of the years of the famine different from those in <a href='B:130 21'>1Chr 21</a>?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> God spoke to Gad and instructed him to offer David three alternative punishments for his sin. According to <a href='B:100 24:13'>2Sam 24:13</a>, the famine was to be seven years. However, according to <a href='B:130 21:12'>1Chr 21:12</a>, the famine was to be three years. Which one of these is correct?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are two possible ways to reconcile these accounts. Some commentators propose that the prophet Gad actually confronted David on two occasions. This proposal is based on the difference in language used to present the alternatives to David. In the 2 Samuel passage, Gad presents the alternatives as a question, “Shall seven years of famine come to you in your land” (v. 13). In the 1 Chronicles passage the alternatives are presented more along the lines of a command, “Choose for yourself, either three years of famine, or three months to be defeated” (vv. 11–12). Those who offer this solution assume that perhaps the 2 Samuel passage records the first encounter of Gad and David in which the alternatives are presented for David’s consideration, and that after some fasting and prayer, Gad returned for David’s decision by which time God had reduced the duration of the famine from seven to three years in response to David’s supplication. 


text:
Is it fearful to fall into the hands of God?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> David here implies that it is not fearful to fall into the hands of the living God. In fact, he chooses it over all other options. At the same time, the writer of Hebrews declares that “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (<a href='B:650 10:31'>Heb 10:31</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The two passages are speaking of two different conditions. In David’s case, it was a matter of choosing his own punishment for his self-acknowledged sin. The Hebrews passage speaks of those who, far from being repentant, had sinned “willfully” after having “received the knowledge of the truth” (v. 26). In brief, whether it is fearful or not will depend on the condition of the person who falls into God’s hands. 


text:
Why does this passage say that David paid Araunah 50 shekels of silver when elsewhere it says he paid 600 shekels of gold?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> When David offered to buy the oxen and the threshing floor for a sacrifice and altar to the Lord, 2 Samuel states that he paid for them with 50 pieces of silver. However, according to <a href='B:130 21:25'>1Chr 21:25</a>, David gave Araunah 600 shekels of gold. Which is the correct record?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Both accounts are correct. The passage in <a href='B:100 24'>2Sam 24</a> records David’s purchase of the oxen and the threshing floor. The passage in <a href='B:130 21'>1Chr 21</a> states that David paid 600 shekels of gold “for the place” (v. 25). The Hebrew phrase that is translated “the place” includes more than just the oxen and the threshing floor. Araunah must have possessed a large portion of land on Mount Moriah which would prove valuable to David in the future. 


text:
How can this verse say Solomon had 40,000 stalls when <a href='B:140 9:25'>2Chr 9:25</a> says he had only 4,000 stalls?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In recording the prosperity of Solomon, this passage states that he had 40,000 stalls of horses for his chariots. However, <a href='B:130 9:25'>1Chr 9:25</a> affirms that Solomon had only 4,000 stalls for horses. Which one is right?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This is undoubtedly a copyist error. The ratio of 4,000 horses to 1,400 chariots, as found in the 2 Chronicles passage, is much more reasonable than a ratio of 40,000 to 1,400 found in the 1 Kings text. In the Hebrew language, the visual difference between the two numbers is very slight. The consonants for the number 40 are rbym,i while the consonants for the number 4 are rbh (the vowels were not written in the text). The manuscripts from which the scribe worked may have been smudged or damaged and have given the appearance of being forty thousand rather than four thousand. 


text:
How can this verse claim that Solomon did not make forced laborers of the Israelites when <a href='B:110 5:13'>1Ki 5:13</a> says he did?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to <a href='B:110 9:22'>1Ki 9:22</a>, Solomon did not make forced laborers of the children of Israel in his building campaigns. However, <a href='B:110 5:13'>1Ki 5:13</a> says Solomon raised up a labor force out of all Israel. Which one of these reports is correct?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Both reports are correct. The reconciliation of these statements is found in the fact that there are different Hebrew words used of two different types of laborers in the building projects of Solomon. According to <a href='B:110 5:13'>1Ki 5:13</a> (5:27 in the Hebrew text), Solomon raised up a “labor force” (mas or hammas) from all Israel. In this context, labor force was a group conscripted from the population to participate in the building project. It was apparently composed of both Israelites and non-Israelites. However, in <a href='B:110 9:21'>1Ki 9:21</a> the author delineates those people from whom Solomon drafted “slave labor.” The word used here is mas-obed which indicates forced slave labor. Then, in 9:22 the author points out that Solomon did not employ any Israelites as “slaves” (abed). There is no contradiction here, because, although Solomon did draft young men of Israel to labor in the construction of the temple, a practice which brought him great trouble later in his reign, he did not force any Israelite to become a slave laborer. 


text:
How can this be an accurate calculation if Ramses the Great was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The predominant view of modern scholarship is that the Pharaoh of the Exodus was Ramses II. If this is right, it would mean that the Exodus took place about 1270 to 1260 B.C. However, since the fourth year of Solomon’s reign was 967 B.C., adding 480 years to that date would put the Exodus at about 1447 B.C. which is in the reign of Amenhotep II. How can this calculation be correct if Ramses the Great was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?<p/>1. The “y” in the wordrbym is normally represented by the long “i” vowel. However, since the consonantyod was written to represent long vowels before the vowel points were added, it is inserted here as a transliteration of the letter which would have appeared in the unpointed text.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> If the present chronology of the kings of Egypt is accepted, the Pharaoh of the Exodus was not Ramses the Great, but Amenhotep II. If Egyptian chronology is revised, then Ramses lived 200 years earlier and could be the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Although modern scholarship has proposed a late date for the Exodus, ca. 1270–1260 B.C., there is no longer any reason to accept this date, and alternative explanations provide a better account of all the historical data and place the Exodus at about 1447 B.C. (See comments under <a href='B:20 5:2'>Ex 5:2</a>) 


text:
Doesn’t the calculation in this verse represent an inaccurate value of pi?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to <a href='B:110 7:23'>1Ki 7:23</a>, Hiram constructed a “Sea of cast bronze ten cubits from one brim to the other; it was completely round. Its height was five cubits, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference.” From this report we learn that the ratio of the circumference to the diameter is three to one. However, this is an inaccurate value of pi which is actually 3.14159.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This is not an error. The biblical record of the various measurements of the different parts of the temple are not necessarily designed to provide precise scientific or mathematical calculations. Rather, the Scripture simply provides a reasonable approximation. The rounding of numbers or the reporting of approximate values or measurements was a common practice in ancient times when exact scientific calculations were not used. 


text:
How could God allow Solomon to have so many wives when he condemns polygamy?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> First Kings 11:3 says Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. And yet the Scriptures repeatedly warn against having multiple wives (<a href='B:50 17:17'>Deut 17:17</a>) and violating the principle of monogamy—one man for one wife (cf. <a href='B:530 7:2'>1Cor 7:2</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Monogamy is God’s standard for the human race. This is clear from the following facts: (1) From the very beginning God set the pattern by creating a monogamous marriage relationship with one man and one woman, Adam and Eve (<a href='B:10 1:27'>Gen 1:27</a>; <a href='B:10 2:21'>2:21–25</a>). (2) Following from this God-established example of one woman for one man, this was the general practice of the human race (<a href='B:10 4:1'>Gen 4:1</a>) until interrupted by sin (<a href='B:10 4:23'>Gen 4:23</a>). (3) The Law of Moses clearly commands, “You shall not multiply wives” (<a href='B:50 17:17'>Deut 17:17</a>). (4) The warning against polygamy is repeated in the very passage where it numbers Solomon’s many wives (<a href='B:110 11:2'>1Ki 11:2</a>), warning “You shall not intermarry with them, nor they with you.” (5) Our Lord reaffirmed God’s original intention by citing this passage (<a href='B:470 19:4'>Matt 19:4</a>) and noting that God created one “male and [one] female” and joined them in marriage. (6) The NT stresses that “Each man [should] have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband” (<a href='B:530 7:2'>1Cor 7:2</a>). (7) Likewise, Paul insisted that a church leader should be “the husband of one wife” (<a href='B:610 3:2'>1Tim 3:2</a>; <a href='B:610 3:12'>12</a>). (8) Indeed, monogamous marriage is a prefiguration of the relation between Christ and His bride, the church (<a href='B:560 5:31-32'>Eph 5:31-32</a>).<p/>Polygamy was never established by God for any people under any circumstances. In fact, the Bible reveals that God severely punished those who practiced it, as is evidenced by the following: (1) Polygamy is first mentioned in the context of a sinful society in rebellion against God where the murderer “Lamech took for himself two wives” (<a href='B:10 4:19'>Gen 4:19</a>; <a href='B:10 4:23'>23</a>). (2) God repeatedly warned polygamists of the consequences of their actions “lest his heart turn away” from God (<a href='B:50 17:17'>Deut 17:17</a>; cf. <a href='B:110 11:2'>1Ki 11:2</a>). (3) God never commanded polygamy—like divorce, He only permitted it because of the hardness of their hearts (<a href='B:50 24:1'>Deut 24:1</a>; <a href='B:470 19:8'>Matt 19:8</a>). (4) Every polygamist in the Bible, including David and Solomon (<a href='B:130 14:3'>1Chron 14:3</a>), paid dearly for his sins. (5) God hates polygamy, as He hates divorce, since it destroys His ideal for the family (cf. <a href='B:460 2:16'>Mal 2:16</a>).<p/>In brief, monogamy is taught in the Bible in several ways: (1) byprecedent, since God gave the first man only one wife; (2) by proportion, since the amount of males and females God brings into the world are about equal; (3) byprecept, since both OT and NT command it (see verses above); (4) bypunishment, since God punished those who violated His standard (<a href='B:110 11:2'>1Ki 11:2</a>); and, (5) byprefiguration, since marriage is a typology of Christ and His bride, the church (<a href='B:560 5:31-32'>Eph 5:31-32</a>). Simply because the Bible records Solomon’s sin of polygamy does not mean that God approved of it. 


text:
In light of David’s sin with Bathsheba, how could this passage say his heart was loyal to the Lord?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> When Solomon was old, his wives turned his heart away from the Lord (<a href='B:110 11:4'>1Ki 11:4</a>). This verse contrasts Solomon and David by asserting that Solomon’s heart was not loyal to the Lord his God as David’s heart was. However, in light of David’s sin of adultery with Bathsheba, and his killing of her husband Uriah, how can this text say that David’s heart was loyal?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> It must always be remembered that a person’s acceptance with God is not based on his or her own works, but upon God’s grace. David was not a man after God’s own heart because of any acts of righteousness which he had done. Rather, David’s heart was loyal to the Lord his God because of his faith in God. The verse literally says, “and his [Solomon’s] heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God as the heart of David his father.” The contrast between Solomon and David is found in the fact that, while Solomon was enticed by his wives to worship other gods, David worshiped only the God of Israel. Although David had committed some very grievous sins, he never worshiped or served other gods. His heart was completely loyal to the Lord, and his faith was reckoned unto him as righteousness. 


text:
How could Solomon’s writings be part of the Scripture since <a href='B:110 11:6'>1Ki 11:6</a> said Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Solomon began his reign as a man who loved the Lord (<a href='B:110 3:3'>1Ki 3:3</a>). Later in his life he began to turn away from following the Lord and did that which was evil in God’s sight. How can the writings of an evil man become Scripture?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The reason any book is in the Bible is not based upon the life of the human author, but on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (<a href='B:620 3:16'>2Tim 3:16</a>, cf. <a href='B:680 1:20-21'>2Peter 1:20-21</a>). Every human author was a sinful human being. It is by the grace of God that humans were used to communicate God’s revelation. Solomon asked God for the capacity to judge Israel and to “discern between good and evil” (<a href='B:110 3:9'>1Ki 3:9</a>). Solomon’s writings are in the Bible because God supernaturally spoke to him (<a href='B:110 3:10-15'>1Ki 3:10-15</a>) and gave him wisdom to share with others. In short, he was a prophet or mouthpiece through whom God spoke, imperfect though he was. 


text:
Was Jeroboam’s residence in Shechem or at Tirzah?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In <a href='B:110 12:25'>1Ki 12:25</a> Jeroboam’s home is said to be in Shechem, but later it is listed as Tirzah (<a href='B:110 14:12-17'>1Ki 14:12-17</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> He may have moved later to a different location. Or, one place could have been a vacation or retreat home. It was not uncommon for kings to have more than one place of residence. 


text:
Is this the only sin David committed?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to this verse, David was without sin except on one occasion— the sin involving Bathsheba! It claims David “had not turned aside from anything that He [God] commanded him all the days of his life, except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.” But, this is both contrary to general statements about fallen human beings (cf. <a href='B:10 6:5'>Gen 6:5</a>; <a href='B:300 17:9'>Jer 17:9</a>; <a href='B:520 3:10-23'>Rom 3:10-23</a>) and specific condemnations of David on other occasions. David himself said, after God convicted him for numbering Israel (<a href='B:130 21:1'>1Chron 21:1</a>), “I have sinned greatly” (v. 8).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The statement in question is by no means a pronouncement of David’s virtual sinlessness for several reasons. First of all, it is a general and true characterization of David’s life. Just as Job was not sinless, but was called “blameless and upright” (<a href='B:220 1:1'>Job 1:1</a>), even so David’s life was without major fault. Second, this commendation of David is not absolute, but relative to all the sins Abijam had committed (cf. <a href='B:110 15:1'>1Ki 15:1</a>; <a href='B:110 15:3'>3</a>). David did, with one major exception, “that which was right in the eyes of the Lord” (v. 5). Third, even when he sinned, he did what was right, namely repented immediately when confronted by God (cf. <a href='B:100 12:1'>2Sam 12:1</a>ff and <a href='B:130 21:8'>1Chron 21:8</a>). Fourth, the exception clause (“except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite”) is not found in many manuscripts of the OT, including the Vatican Ms. Without it, the point that this was only a general commendation of David has even stronger force. Fifth, the phrase “had not turned aside” indicates that God is speaking of the generally steadfast direction of David’s life, not every specific sin in it. This would account for why David’s other sins are not mentioned, since they did not turn him from the generally forward direction of his life in serving the Lord to this point. 


text:
Did Asa destroy the high places or leave them standing?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Second Chronicles <a href='B:140 14:3'>14:3</a> asserts that “he [Asa] removed the altars of the foreign gods and the high places.” But here, 1 Kings says that, during the reign of king Asa, “the high places were not removed.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are several possible explanations. One is that these passages may refer to different times in Asa’s reign. In his early period, he may have been more active in putting idolatry down. Or, it may have been that Asa was unsuccessful in carrying through his reforms, so that the high places were not completely removed. Some have suggested that he may have only torn down the high places to other gods (as 2 Chronicles notes) but allowed the ones to the Lord to remain (which 1 Kings speaks about). Any one of these would take care of the difficulty. 


text:
Why was Elijah blessed for ridiculing the prophets of Baal when the Bible urges us to use kind words to our enemies?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The Bible says here that “Elijah mocked them” and suggested that their god was “meditating, or he is busy, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is sleeping and must be awakened.” However, the Scriptures teach in other places to “love your enemies” (<a href='B:470 5:44'>Matt 5:44</a>), “bless and do not curse” (<a href='B:520 12:14'>Rom 12:14</a>), and “let your speech always be with grace” (<a href='B:580 4:6'>Col 4:6</a>). Elijah’s conduct hardly seems exemplar of these truths.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, it should be pointed out that the text does not specifically commend every word Elijah uttered. It simply says that God answered his prayer to vindicate him by sending fire to consume the sacrifice and the prophets of Baal (v. 38). 


text:
Where did Elijah get all the water if there had been a drought for three years?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Even the brook had dried up because the drought was so severe (<a href='B:110 17:7'>1Ki 17:7</a>; cf. 18:2). Yet before Elijah prayed for fire from heaven he doused the sacrifice with water three times until it filled the trenches around the altar.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There was a severe drought, but there was still water to drink, both for man and beast, from the springs around the land (<a href='B:110 18:5'>1Ki 18:5</a>), and from the brook Kishon (v. 40). The drought was not so bad that the people were literally dying from thirst. The amount of water Elijah used was not astronomical, being only twelve “waterpots” full (18:33–34). Although waterpots varied in size from those small enough to be carried by one person, some were big enough to hold 20 gallons. However, the author of Kings notes that the trench was big enough to hold about two seahs of seed, equivalent to about one-fourth of a bushel. The fact that Elijah commanded his servants to fill the waterpots indicates that they were small enough for one person to carry. The total amount of water probably amounted to about 13 quarts. 


text:
How can this verse say that Jehoshaphat refused Ahaziah’s request when 2 Chronicles says they worked together?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to <a href='B:110 22:48'>1Ki 22:48</a>, Jehoshaphat built several merchant ships. When Ahaziah requested that Jehoshaphat take some of his servants, Jehoshaphat refused. However, according to <a href='B:140 20:35'>2Chr 20:35</a>, Jehoshaphat allied himself with Ahaziah to build these merchant ships. How can one passage state that Jehoshaphat refused to let Ahaziah’s servants sail on the ships when the other verse claims that they worked together on building these ships?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Although Jehoshaphat did join together with Ahaziah to build the merchant ships, Jehoshaphat changed his mind once Eliezer prophesied that God was displeased with Jehoshaphat’s alliance with Ahaziah. The passage in 1 Kings records the fact that Jehoshaphat refused an alliance with Ahaziah, while the passage in 2 Chronicles points out that although the alliance was the original arrangement, God used His prophet to change Jehoshaphat’s mind. 


text:
When did Jehoram son of Ahab begin his reign as king of Israel?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to <a href='B:120 1:17'>2Ki 1:17</a>, Jehoram son of Ahab became king of Israel in the second year of the reign of Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah. However, according to <a href='B:120 3:1'>2Ki 3:1</a>, Jehoram son of Ahab became king of Israel in the eighteenth year of the reign of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah. When did Jehoram son of Ahab become king in Israel?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Both statements are correct. Before Jehoshaphat joined Ahab in the military campaign against Ramoth-Gilead, Jehoshaphat appointed his son Jehoram as co-regent in Judah. When Jehoram son of Ahab became king in Israel, it was both the second year of the reign of Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat, and the eighteenth year of the reign of his father Jehoshaphat. 


text:
How could a man of God curse these 42 young men so that they were mauled by she-bears?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> As Elisha was going up to Bethel, he was confronted by some young people who mocked him saying, “Go up, you baldhead!” When Elisha heard this, he turned and pronounced a curse on them, and two she-bears came out of the wood and mauled 42 of the young men. How could a man of God curse these young men for such a minor offense?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First of all, this was no minor offense, for these young men held God’s prophet in contempt. Since the prophet was God’s mouthpiece to His people, God Himself was being most wickedly insulted in the person of His prophet. 


text:
Didn’t Israel violate the law of warfare by destroying fruit trees?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Moses had commanded the armies of Israel about their enemy’s land saying, “You shall not destroy its trees” (<a href='B:50 20:19'>Deut 20:19</a>). However, here in 2 Kings they were instructed to “cut down every good tree.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Some scholars believe that the Deuteronomy law applies only to using fruit trees for siege-works, since it says “do not cut them down to use in the siege” (<a href='B:50 20:19'>Deut 20:19</a>). This fits with the fact that Deuteronomy explicitly states that the reason for not destroying fruit trees was that “the tree of the field is man’s food” (<a href='B:50 20:19'>Deut 20:19</a>). 


text:
Didn’t Elisha lie to the Syrian troops who were coming to capture him?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> When Elisha went out to meet his enemies, he told them “this is not the way, nor is this the city. Follow me, and I will bring you to the man whom you seek” (<a href='B:120 6:19'>2Ki 6:19</a>). How could a man of God lie to these Syrian troops?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> What Elisha told them was not actually a lie. The Syrian troops were sent to Dothan to capture Elisha. The Lord blinded them, and Elisha came out of the city to meet them. What Elisha told them was “this is not the way, nor is this the city.” Once Elisha came out of the city he was no longer in Dothan. Consequently, entering Dothan was no longer the way to capture Elisha, neither was it the city. Elisha also instructed them, “follow me and I will bring you to the man whom you seek.” This was also true. Elisha went before them into Samaria, and when they arrived, the Lord opened their eyes and they saw Elisha, and that they were in Samaria. (As to whether lying is ever justified, see comments on <a href='B:20 1:15-21'>Ex 1:15-21</a>) 


text:
Did Ahaziah become king in the twelfth year of Jehoram or in the eleventh year of Jehoram?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to <a href='B:120 8:25'>2Ki 8:25</a>, Ahaziah son of Jehoram became king of Judah in the twelfth year of the reign of Jehoram son of Ahab, king of Israel. However, <a href='B:120 9:29'>2Ki 9:29</a> states that Ahaziah became king of Judah in the eleventh year of the reign of Jehoram over Israel. Which is right?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Both are correct. The difference stems from the manner in which the reign of a king was calculated in Israel and in Judah. At the time of the reign of Ahaziah in Judah, the system used to calculate the years of the reign of a king was the accession- year system. According to this system, the first official year of the reign of a king did not begin until the beginning of the new year after that king had taken the throne. The calculation system employed in Israel, however, was the nonaccession-year system in which the year that a king came to the throne was counted as his first official year. Consequently, what was the eleventh year according to the accession-year system was the twelfth year according to the nonaccession-year system. 


text:
Was Ahaziah 22 years old when he began to reign in Judah, or was he 42 years old?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to the statement in <a href='B:120 8:26'>2Ki 8:26</a>, Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began to reign in Judah. However, in <a href='B:140 22:2'>2Chr 22:2</a> (KJV) we find the claim that Ahaziah was age 42 when he took the throne in Judah. Which is correct?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This is clearly a copyist error, and there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began to reign in Judah. In <a href='B:120 8:17'>2Ki 8:17</a>, we find that Joram, father of Ahaziah and son of Ahab, was 32 years old when he became king. Joram died at age 40, eight years after becoming king. Consequently, his son Ahaziah could not have been 42 when he took the throne after his father’s death, otherwise he would have been older than his father. 


text:
How could God condemn Jehu for bloodshed when God had commanded him to exterminate the house of Ahab?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In <a href='B:120 9:6-10'>2Ki 9:6-10</a>, we find the commissioning of Jehu by the Lord to strike down the house of Ahab. According to <a href='B:120 10:30'>2Ki 10:30</a>, God commended Jehu for having destroyed the house of Ahab. However, Hoshea prophesied that God would “avenge the bloodshed of Jezreel on the house of Jehu” (<a href='B:350 1:4'>Hosea 1:4</a>). How could God condemn Jehu for shedding blood when it was God who had commanded him to do so?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> God praised Jehu for obeying Him in destroying the house of Ahab, but condemned Jehu for his sinful motive in shedding their blood. Although <a href='B:120 10:30'>2Ki 10:30</a> states that God told Jehu that he had done right in killing the relatives of Ahab, the previous verse observes that Jehu “did not turn away from the sins of Jeroboam … from the golden calves … ” and verse 31 states that Jehu “took no heed to walk in the law of the Lord God of Israel with all his heart.” Obviously, since Jehu worshiped other gods and did not walk in God’s Law, he did not destroy Ahab’s family out of any devotion to the Lord. 


text:
Were Ahaziah’s brothers slain or were they his brother’s sons? (See comments on <a href='B:140 22:8'>2Chron 22:8</a>) <a href='B:120 14:3'>2Ki 14:3</a>; <a href='B:120 14:7'>7</a> —Why is Amaziah commended for abhorring Edomites when God said not to do so?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The record says that Amaziah did “what was right in the sight of the Lord” (v. 3) and that “he killed ten thousand Edomites in the Valley of Salt” (v. 7). This is in spite of the fact that the law commanded, “You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother” (<a href='B:50 23:7'>Deut 23:7</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> It should be observed in response to this objection, first of all, that although Amaziah’s life was commended in general, the passage does not explicitly approve of this particular action. In fact, even his general commendation is not without stated reservation by God (cf. v. 3). 


text:
Are the dead asleep or conscious?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> As in this passage, the Bible often speaks of death as the time when one “sleeps with his fathers” (e.g., <a href='B:110 2:10'>1Ki 2:10</a>; <a href='B:110 11:21'>11:21</a>; <a href='B:110 11:43'>43</a>; <a href='B:110 14:20'>14:20</a>, KJV). Jesus said, “Lazarus sleeps” (<a href='B:500 11:11'>John 11:11</a>) when he was “dead” (<a href='B:500 11:14'>John 11:14</a>). Paul speaks of believers who have “fallen asleep” in the Lord (<a href='B:590 4:13'>1Thes 4:13</a>; cf. <a href='B:530 15:51'>1Cor 15:51</a>). Yet, in other places, the Bible speaks of persons being conscious in the presence of God after they die (cf. <a href='B:540 5:8'>2Cor 5:8</a>; <a href='B:570 1:23'>Phil 1:23</a>; <a href='B:730 6:9'>Rev 6:9</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The first set of verses refers to the body, and the second set to the soul. “Sleep” is an appropriate figure of speech for the death of the body since death is only temporary, awaiting the resurrection when the body will be awakened from its sleep. Further, both sleep and death have the same posture, lying down.<p/>The Bible is very clear about the fact that the believer’s soul (spirit) survives death (<a href='B:490 12:4'>Luke 12:4</a>), is consciously present with the Lord (<a href='B:540 5:8'>2Cor 5:8</a>) in a better place (<a href='B:570 1:23'>Phil 1:23</a>) where other souls are talking (<a href='B:470 17:3'>Matt 17:3</a>) and even praying (<a href='B:730 6:9-10'>Rev 6:9-10</a>). Likewise, the unbeliever’s soul is in a place of conscious torment (<a href='B:470 25:41'>Matt 25:41</a>; <a href='B:420 16:22-26'>Luke 16:22-26</a>; <a href='B:730 19:20'>Rev 19:20–20:15</a>). 


text:
How can this verse say Pekah ruled over Samaria for 20 years when he took Samaria 8 years before the end of his reign?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to <a href='B:120 15:27'>2Ki 15:27</a>, Pekah ruled over Israel in Samaria for 20 years. However, Hoshea the son of Elah killed Pekah only 8 years after Pekah had taken Samaria from Menahem. How could Pekah have reigned over Israel for 20 years when he only reigned from Samaria for 8 years?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Although Pekah did not have control over the city of Samaria, he was considered to be the only lawful king of Israel, and therefore his reign over Israel, and its capital city Samaria, was calculated from the time he claimed the throne after the death of Zechariah in 752 B.C. Pekah actually took up official residence in Samaria in 740 B.C., approximately two years after Menahem died. However, only eight years later, in 739 B.C., Hoshea led a conspiracy against Pekah and killed him. 


text:
How can this verse mention a king of Egypt named “So” when there are no records of such a king?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> When Shalmaneser king of Assyria came to do battle with Hoshea king of Israel, Shalmaneser discovered a conspiracy which Hoshea had begun when he “sent messengers to So, king of Egypt” (<a href='B:120 17:4'>2Ki 17:4</a>). However, besides this statement in the Bible, there are no records of a king of Egypt named So. Is this an error?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The name translated “So” can also be translated “Sais” which was the name of the capital city of Tefnakht the king of Egypt at the time Hoshea ruled in Israel. Thus the passage should read, “He [Hoshea] sent to Sais, to the king of Egypt.” The word “So” in the NKJV is not the name of the king of Egypt, but of the capital city of the kingdom of Egypt. There is no error here. 


text:
How could the nations fear the true God and serve false gods?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> This text says plainly that “these nations feared the Lord” (cf. v. 32). Yet this same passage claims that they “served their own gods” (v. 33). Isn’t this a flat contradiction?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Not all verbal contradictions are actual contradictions (see comments on <a href='B:230 53:5'>Ps 53:5</a>). This is a good example of using the same word (“fear”) in different senses (see also comments on <a href='B:690 4:18'>1John 4:18</a>). The contrasting senses in which they feared God is revealed in verse 41 : “So these nations feared the Lord, yet served their carved images.” In other words, they feared God ingeneral, but not on this pa rticular matter. They did not cease being monotheists, but they were idolatrous ones. 


text:
How can this verse say that Sennacherib invaded Judah in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:120 18:13'>2Ki 18:13</a> claims that “in the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and took them.” Since archaeological evidence has established Sennacherib’s invasion at 701 B.C., this would mean that Hezekiah became co-regent with his father Ahaz in 719 B.C., and sole ruler of Judah in 715 B.C. However, according to <a href='B:120 18:1'>2Ki 18:1</a>, Hezekiah became co-regent in 729 B.C., and he became sole ruler of Judah when his father died in 725 B.C. This is a discrepancy of ten years. Which account is correct?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The claim that Sennacherib invaded Judah in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah is clearly a copyist error. Sennacherib actually invaded Judah in the twenty- fourth year of the reign of Hezekiah of Judah. The error is easy to explain since the difference between the two numbers is a single Hebrew letter. The Hebrew consonants for “fourteen” are rb srh, while the Hebrew consonants for “twenty-four” are rb srm (the ancient manuscripts did not write the vowels, see Appendix 2). The final letters are the only difference in the written text. In fact, the words are the same, only the word “twenty” is simply the plural form of the word “ten.” We might express the way the Hebrew is written as “four ten,” or “four twenty.” It is simply a case where a copyist miscopied the form from “four twenty” to “four ten.” 


text:
How can these verses speak of the visitors from Berodach- Baladan as coming after the invasion of Sennacherib?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to the sequence of events as they are presented in <a href='B:120 20:12-15'>2Ki 20:12-15</a>, the delegation sent from Berodach-Baladan (spelled Merodach-Baladan in <a href='B:290 39:1'>Isa 39:1</a>) came to visit Hezekiah after the invasion of Sennacherib in 701 B.C. However, according to historical evidence, Berodach-Baladan had fled to Elan after having been expelled from Babylon by Sennacherib in 702 B.C. How can the chronology of these verses be reconciled?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The fact that the description of the invasion of Sennacherib in both 2 Kings and Isaiah comes before the description of the visit of the delegation from Berodach- Baladan does not mean that this is the actual order. In <a href='B:120 20:1'>2Ki 20:1</a> we find the introductory phrase “In those days.” However, this does not necessarily indicate that the following events took place in the same time period as the previous section. This phrase is sometimes used to introduce a new section and is similar in function to the phrase “And it came to pass.” We find this type of use in <a href='B:70 17:6'>Judges 17:6</a>; <a href='B:70 18:1'>18:1</a>; <a href='B:70 19:1'>19:1</a>, and <a href='B:190 1:2'>Esther 1:2</a>. It may also be pointed out that the Hebrew word hem that is translated here as “those” can also be rendered “these.” It is the context that determines its function. The beginning phrase could be translated, “In these days.”<p/>The visit recorded in <a href='B:120 20:12-15'>2Ki 20:12-15</a> actually took place before the invasion of Sennacherib recorded in 2 Kings 18–19. This is attested by the fact that Hezekiah died sometime between 698 and 696 B.C. Since God extended his life by 15 years, this would put the time of Hezekiah’s illness at about 713 B.C. This time frame would coincide well with a visit by a delegation from Berodach-Baladan who was expelled by Sennacherib in 702 B.C. 


text:
Did Josiah die at Megiddo or at Jerusalem?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> This verse says Josiah died in the city of Megiddo, but elsewhere it affirms he died in Jerusalem (<a href='B:140 35:24'>2Chron 35:24</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The Chronicles passage merely states that he died; the Kings text tells us specifically where he died. It says clearly, “Pharaoh Necho killed him at Megiddo when he confronted him. Then his servants moved his body in a chariot from Megiddo, brought him to Jerusalem, and buried him in his own tomb” (<a href='B:120 23:29-30'>2Ki 23:29-30</a>). 


text:
Did Jehoiakim die in Jerusalem, as this passage suggests, or did he die in Babylon, as <a href='B:140 36:6'>2Chr 36:6</a> implies?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The statement in <a href='B:120 24:6'>2Ki 24:6</a> indicates that Jehoiakim died a peaceful death at home. However, <a href='B:140 36:6'>2Chr 36:6</a> describes Jehoiakim’s capture and deportation to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, which indicates that Jehoiakim died a terrible death in a foreign land. Which is correct?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The fact is that neither passage actually identifies where Jehoiakim died. The deportation described in <a href='B:120 24:10-16'>2Ki 24:10-16</a> is not the same event as that described in <a href='B:140 36:5-8'>2Chr 36:5-8</a>. There is a difference in the severity of the action of Nebuchadnezzar. Whereas <a href='B:140 36:7'>2Chr 36:7</a> indicates that Nebuchadnezzar took only Jehoiakim andsome of the articles of the temple, <a href='B:120 24:13'>2Ki 24:13</a> points out that Nebuchadnezzar took all of the treasures of the house of the Lord, that he carried all of Jerusalem into captivity (v. 14), and that only the poorest were left in the land (v. 14). The two accounts clearly report two different events. Consequently, it is quite possible that after the first captivity—when Jehoiakim was taken to Babylon, according to the report in <a href='B:140 36'>2Chr 36</a> —Jehoiakim was allowed to return to Jerusalem at a later time and died there. However, it is also possible that Jehoiakim died in captivity. The Scriptures are simply silent on this point. 


text:
How old was Jehoiachin when he became king?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The record in <a href='B:120 24:8'>2Ki 24:8</a> states that Jehoiachin was 18 years old when he became king. However, in <a href='B:140 36:9'>2Chr 36:9</a> we find the claim that Jehoiachin was age 8 when he became king. Which is correct?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This is probably a copyist error. Most likely, Jehoiachin was 18 when he became king. The observation that he “did evil in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his father had done” (<a href='B:120 24:9'>2Ki 24:9</a>), is a description of an older man rather than a young boy. Additionally, the fact that the Chaldeans condemned him to prison in 597 B.C., indicates that they considered him to be a responsible adult. 


text:
Why does 1Chronicles 1:32 call Keturah Abraham’s concubine, while <a href='B:10 25:1'>Gen 25:1</a> calls her his wife? (See comments under <a href='B:10 25:1'>Gen 25:1</a>) <a href='B:130 2:18'>1Chr 2:18</a>—Was Caleb’s father Hezron, Hur, or Jephunneh?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to this verse, Caleb’s father was Hezron. But verse 50 says it was Hur, and <a href='B:60 14:6'>Joshua 14:6</a> lists it as Jephunneh.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Several solutions are possible. Some scholars believe there may have been two or three Calebs. Others note that the word “son” may mean grandson of even great-grandson. Hence, these men could refer to Caleb’s father, grandfather, and great-grandfather. Also, some think that <a href='B:130 2:50'>1Chr 2:50</a> may not affirm that Caleb is the son of Hur. By placing a period after Caleb (see NASB), the phrase “these are the descendants of Caleb” refers to the preceding verse. If so, Hur would not be the father of Caleb.<p/><b><a href='B:10 25:1'>Gen 25:1</a> —</b> Why does <a href='B:10 25:1'>Gen 25:1</a> call Keturah Abraham’s wife, while <a href='B:130 1:32'>1Chr 1:32</a> calls her his concubine?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:10 25:1'>Gen 25:1</a> says, “Abraham again took a wife, and her name was Keturah.” However, <a href='B:130 1:32'>1Chr 1:32</a> states, “Now the sons of Keturah, Abraham’s concubine.” Was Keturah Abraham’s wife, or was she merely one of his concubines?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The contradiction is only apparent, and the problem can be easily solved by closer consideration.<p/>First, although in <a href='B:10 25:1'>Gen 25:1</a> the normal Hebrew word for wife (ishshah) is used, it is also the normal word for woman. It is not necessary to take the word in this case to mean wife, especially in light of verse 6 and the statement in <a href='B:130 1:32'>1Chr 1:32</a> that Keturah was his concubine. <a href='B:10 25:1'>Gen 25:1</a> can be read simply as, “And Abraham took another woman” as his concubine.<p/>Second, although 1 Chronicles employs the Hebrew word for concubine (pilegesh) in reference to Keturah, <a href='B:10 25:6'>Gen 25:6</a> uses the same word when referring to the mothers of all his other sons apart from Isaac. This would obviously include Keturah as one of his concubines. Additionally, <a href='B:10 25:1'>Gen 25:1</a> begins with a Hebrew word (vayoseph) which can be translated, “And adding” or “And in addition to. ” Since <a href='B:10 24:67'>Gen 24:67</a> clearly states that Sarah, Abraham’s wife, had died, verse 1 of chapter 25 could not mean that Abraham was adding to his number of wives. It is more reasonable to take this word as indicating that Abraham was adding to his number of concubines by taking another woman (ishshah).<p/><b><a href='B:10 25:1-2'>Gen 25:1-2</a> —</b> How could Abraham have children naturally here when years before he needed a miracle to have Isaac?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> As early as Genesis 17, Abraham “laughed” when God told him he would have a son (Isaac) by Sarah, since he was “a hundred years old” (v. 17). But here in Genesis 25, many years later, he has children by Keturah, the wife he took after Sarah died (vv. 1–2).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are two possibilities here, either one of which would explain this difficulty.<p/>First, the <a href='B:10 17'>Gen 17</a> text does not say Abraham laughed because he knew he was too old to have children, but because Sarah was past childbearing age (cf. 17:17; 18:12). There was no sure way for a man in ancient times to know he was no longer fertile, as there was for a woman when her periods ceased. Since Abraham was only 100 here, and he lived to be 175, it is reasonable to assume that he was still fertile. By comparison, men who live till 80 today are still fertile in their 60s.<p/><b><a href='B:130 1:32'>1Chr 1:32</a>—</b> Why does <a href='B:130 1:32'>1Chr 1:32</a> call Keturah Abraham’s concubine, while <a href='B:10 25:1'>Gen 25:1</a> calls her his wife? (See comments under <a href='B:10 25:1'>Gen 25:1</a>) <a href='B:130 2:18'>1Chr 2:18</a>—Was Caleb’s father Hezron, Hur, or Jephunneh?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to this verse, Caleb’s father was Hezron. But verse 50 says it was Hur, and <a href='B:60 14:6'>Joshua 14:6</a> lists it as Jephunneh.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Several solutions are possible. Some scholars believe there may have been two or three Calebs. Others note that the word “son” may mean grandson of even great-grandson. Hence, these men could refer to Caleb’s father, grandfather, and great-grandfather. Also, some think that <a href='B:130 2:50'>1Chr 2:50</a> may not affirm that Caleb is the son of Hur. By placing a period after Caleb (see NASB), the phrase “these are the descendants of Caleb” refers to the preceding verse. If so, Hur would not be the father of Caleb. 


text:
What is the correct genealogical relationship of Pedaiah, Shealtiel, and Zerubbabel?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to the statement in <a href='B:130 3:19'>1Chr 3:19</a>, Zerubbabel was the son of Pedaiah. However, according to <a href='B:150 3:2'>Ezra 3:2</a>, Zerubbabel was the son of Shealtiel. What is the correct genealogical relationship?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> In <a href='B:130 3:16-19'>1Chr 3:16-19</a> we find the following genealogy. This record shows that Zerubbabel was the son of Pedaiah and the nephew of Shealtiel, Pedaiah’s older brother. Although the Bible does not record the death of Pedaiah, it is reasonable to assume that he died shortly after Shimei was born, and Shealtiel, the oldest of the sons of Jeconiah, adopted Zerubbabel as his own son. 


text:
How could the God of peace conduct war?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In <a href='B:130 5:18-22'>1Chr 5:18-22</a>, the war of the sons of Reuben, the Gadites and the half tribe of Manasseh, against the Hagrites is described. Verse 20 states that the children of Israel cried out to the Lord in the midst of the battle, and God helped them in their fight against the Hagrites. In fact, verse 22 states, “for many fell dead, because the war was God’s.” However, if God is good (<a href='B:230 100:5'>Ps 100:5</a>) and if God is the God of peace (<a href='B:520 15:33'>Rom 15:33</a>), how can He make war?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Waging war and being a God of goodness and peace are not necessarily incompatible. First, it is wrong to suppose that waging war is inconsistent with goodness. A surgeon takes drastic action against a cancer to bring about the ultimate good of the patient. Yet, spiritual evil is much more serious than physical evil. When God waged war in the OT, it was against the forces of spiritual evil. God took drastic action to rid the land of the evil influence of the inhabitants. 


text:
Was Elkanah, the father of Samuel, a Levite, or was he an Ephraimite as <a href='B:90 1:1'>1Sam 1:1</a> indicates?<p/>(See comments under <a href='B:90 1:1'>1Sam 1:1</a>) 


text:
Was Ner the father of Kish or the son of Abiel?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:90 14:51'>1Sam 14:51</a> refers to “Ner the father of Abner” who was Saul’s cousin. For Saul’s father, Kish, and Abner’s father, Ner, were brothers, having the same father, Abiel (<a href='B:90 14:51'>1Sam 14:51</a>, NIV). But in <a href='B:130 8:33'>1Chr 8:33</a> “Ner begot Kish, Kish begot Saul,” which would make Ner Saul’s grandfather. But if Ner was the father of Abner (as <a href='B:90 14:51'>1Sam 14:51</a> says), who was Saul’s cousin, then Ner would have been Saul’s uncle. Which was he?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There were probably two men named Ner, one Saul’s uncle and the other his great grandfather. The same names were not uncommon in family trees. The genealogy would look like this: Thus, Saul had both an uncle and a great grandfather by the same name, Ner. 


text:
What happened to the missing “Book of Kings”?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The Books of Chronicles often refer to other missing books on which the inspired record in Chronicles is based in part (cf. <a href='B:130 9:1'>1Chron 9:1</a>; <a href='B:130 27:24'>27:24</a>; <a href='B:130 29:29'>29:29</a>; <a href='B:140 9:29'>2Chron 9:29</a>; <a href='B:140 13:22'>13:22</a>; <a href='B:140 16:11'>16:11</a>; <a href='B:140 25:26'>25:26</a>; <a href='B:140 27:7'>27:7</a>; <a href='B:140 28:26'>28:26</a>; <a href='B:140 32:32'>32:32</a>; <a href='B:140 33:19'>33:19</a>; <a href='B:140 35:27'>35:27</a>; <a href='B:140 36:8'>36:8</a>). Some of these books were written by prophets (<a href='B:130 29:29'>1Chron 29:29</a>). How could books that were written by prophets of God, or were the basis of prophetic books, perish? Why did not God preserve His Word?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Prophets as a class were usually an educated group able to read and write. Samuel even led a “group of prophets” (<a href='B:90 19:20'>1Sam 19:20</a>, NIV). It was only natural that as moral educators in Israel they would keep a record of events in addition to whatever prophecies God may have given them. Thus, the records of Iddo the Seer may have been normal (uninspired) records which he kept (<a href='B:130 29:29'>1Chron 29:29</a>). It is noteworthy that they are not referred to as “visions” or “prophecies.”<p/>Further, it is not unusual for inspired books of the Bible to cite uninspired ones. The Apostle Paul even cited pagan poets (<a href='B:510 17:28'>Acts 17:28</a>; <a href='B:530 15:33'>1Cor 15:33</a>; <a href='B:630 1:12'>Titus 1:12</a>). This does not mean that they were inspired, but simply that they uttered a truth on that occasion which a prophet or apostle incorporated into his inspired book. 


text:
Did all of Saul’s family die with him or not?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Here we read, “Saul and his three sons died, and all his house died together.” But, in <a href='B:100 2:8'>2Sam 2:8</a>, Saul’s son Ishbosheth was not killed and was even later made king.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Ishbosheth was not encompassed by this statement, since he was not part of Saul’s house who had attended him or followed him to war. So he was not part of the group referred to as “all Saul’s men.” First Samuel 31:6 states that “Saul, his three sons, his armorbearer, and all his men died together [in battle] that same day.” Further, not all the grandchildren were killed, since Saul’s son Jonathan had a handicapped son named Mephibosheth who also survived (<a href='B:100 4:4'>2Sam 4:4</a>). It is understandable that someone in his condition was not part of Saul’s army and, therefore, did not die with Saul’s other men in battle. 


text:
Did Saul inquire of the Lord or not?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> First Samuel 28:6 says “when Saul inquired of the Lord, the Lord did not answer him.” However, this verse says just the opposite, namely, “he [Saul] did not inquire of the Lord; therefore He killed him.” But how can both be true?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> It should be noted first that two different words with different meanings are used here. Samuel uses the Hebrew word shaal, which usually means simply to ask, to consult, or to request. Chronicles, however, uses the word darash which often means to search for, or to seek after. In other words, Saul did not sincerely inquire of the Lord because He really wanted to know God’s will, but because he was hoping God would agree with his will. 


text:
How can this passage claim that God moved David to number Israel when <a href='B:130 21:1'>1Chr 21:1</a> claims that it was Satan?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> This passage reports the sin of David in numbering the people of Israel and Judah. Verse one affirms that God moved David to number the people. However, according to <a href='B:130 21:1'>1Chr 21:1</a>, it was Satan who moved David to number the people. Who was responsible for prompting David to act?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Both statements are true. Although it was Satan who immediately incited David, ultimately it was God who permitted Satan to carry out this provocation. Although it was Satan’s design to destroy David and the people of God, it was God’s purpose to humble David and the people and teach them a valuable spiritual lesson. This situation is quite similar to the first two chapters of Job in which both God and Satan are involved in the suffering of Job. Similarly, both God and Satan are involved in the crucifixion. Satan’s purpose was to destroy the Son of God (<a href='B:500 13:2'>John 13:2</a>; <a href='B:530 2:8'>1Cor 2:8</a>). God’s purpose was to redeem humankind by the death of His Son (<a href='B:510 2:14-39'>Acts 2:14-39</a>).<p/><b><a href='B:130 21:1'>1Chr 21:1</a>—</b> How can this passage claim that Satan moved David to number Israel when <a href='B:100 24:1'>2Sam 24:1</a> claims that God did?<p/>(See discussion under <a href='B:100 24:1'>2Sam 24:1</a>) 


text:
How could David have given 100,000 talents of gold when <a href='B:130 29:4'>1Chr 29:4</a> says he gave only 3,000 talents?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In preparation for the building of the temple, David states in <a href='B:130 22:14'>1Chr 22:14</a> that he had donated 100,000 talents of gold. However, <a href='B:130 29:4'>1Chr 29:4</a> affirms that David had given only 3,000. Which is correct?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Both amounts are correct. Each of these passages records a different donation given by David. The <a href='B:130 29'>1Chr 29</a> text clearly distinguishes the 3,000 talents of gold here recorded from the 100,000 talents given earlier. David points out in 29:3, that “because I have set my affection on the house of my God, I have given to the house of my God, over and above all that I have prepared for the holy house, my own special treasure of gold and silver. ” 


text:
Why did Solomon fail to keep the fast as the law commanded?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:30 16:30'>Lev 16:30</a> commanded that a fast should be kept in connection with the Day of Atonement. However, Solomon did not observe a fast in connection with the Day of Atonement celebration that he held here in <a href='B:140 7:8-10'>2Chr 7:8-10</a> (cf. also <a href='B:110 8:65-66'>1Ki 8:65-66</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First of all, it cannot be shown from the texts that Solomon failed to keep the fast as Leviticus had commanded. The text declares that Solomon celebrated for “fourteen days” (<a href='B:110 8:65'>1Ki 8:65</a>). It is quite possible that on the actual Day of Atonement, which was the tenth day of the seventh month, that Solomon did keep the fast.<p/>Furthermore, strictly speaking, the Leviticus passage does not use the word “fast.” It simply says they were to “afflict their souls” (<a href='B:30 16:29'>Lev 16:29</a>). This could mean to keep the celebration with appropriate solemnity, not necessitating that no food be eaten. It does forbid that no work be done (v. 29), but it does not really say that no food could be eaten, although this has been the general understanding of the phrase throughout Jewish history. 


text:
<b>ff—</b> Does God dwell in a chosen temple?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> God told Solomon, “I have heard your prayer, and have chosen this place for Myself as a house of sacrifice” (v. 12), that “My name may be there forever” (v. 16). Yet, even Solomon in his dedicatory prayer acknowledged that God could not dwell in His temple, saying, “Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You. How much less this temple which I have built!” (<a href='B:110 8:27'>1Ki 8:27</a>). Other Scriptures likewise affirm that God does not “dwell in temples made with hands (<a href='B:510 17:24'>Acts 17:24</a>; cf. <a href='B:290 66:1'>Isa 66:1</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> It should be noted, first of all, that God did not actually promise Solomon that He would “dwell” in this temple. He only said He chose it as a “house of sacrifice” (<a href='B:140 7:12'>2Chron 7:12</a>), to which He would attach His “name” (v. 16).<p/>Further, when the Bible speaks of God being “in” something, it does not mean that His infinite nature can be “contained” (<a href='B:110 8:27'>1Ki 8:27</a>) by it, but simply that He is there in a special sense to bless it or manifest Himself to His people. Usually, this took the form of a theophany (<a href='B:290 6:1'>Isa 6:1</a>), or shekinah cloud of glory (<a href='B:20 40:34'>Ex 40:34</a>). But, there is no way that the transcendent God of Scripture can be encompassed by the walls of any human building (cf. <a href='B:290 40:21-22'>Isa 40:21-22</a>). 


text:
Did Solomon’s ships get gold from Tarshish or from Ophir?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Here the Chronicler affirms that Solomon’s ships “went to Tarshish” and brought back gold. However, in <a href='B:110 9:28'>1Ki 9:28</a> it claims they “went to Ophir” and acquired gold.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Solomon had more than one fleet of ships and they went to more than one location. Every three years they went to Tarshish (Spain) and brought back “gold, silver, ivory, apes, and monkeys” (<a href='B:110 10:22'>1Ki 10:22</a>; cf. <a href='B:140 9:21'>2Chron 9:21</a>). This appears to be different from their mission to “Ophir” (Africa) which was for “gold” (<a href='B:110 9:28'>1Ki 9:28</a>); Ophir was renown for gold in ancient times (cf. <a href='B:220 28:16'>Job 28:16</a>; <a href='B:230 45:9'>Ps 45:9</a>; <a href='B:290 13:12'>Isa 13:12</a>). That Ophir is a different trip seems evident from the fact that it brought back different things. For “the ships of Hiram, which brought gold from Ophir, brought great quantities of almug wood and precious stones from Ophir” (<a href='B:110 10:11'>1Ki 10:11</a>), as opposed to “gold, silver, ivory, apes, and monkeys” mentioned in the trip to Tarshish (<a href='B:110 10:22'>1Ki 10:22</a>). 


text:
How can this verse say Solomon had 40,000 stalls when <a href='B:140 9:25'>2Chr 9:25</a> says he had only 4,000 stalls?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In recording the prosperity of Solomon, this passage states that he had 40,000 stalls of horses for his chariots. However, <a href='B:130 9:25'>1Chr 9:25</a> affirms that Solomon had only 4,000 stalls for horses. Which one is right?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This is undoubtedly a copyist error. The ratio of 4,000 horses to 1,400 chariots, as found in the 2 Chronicles passage, is much more reasonable than a ratio of 40,000 to 1,400 found in the 1 Kings text. In the Hebrew language, the visual difference between the two numbers is very slight. The consonants for the number 40 are rbym,i while the consonants for the number 4 are rbh (the vowels were not written in the text). The manuscripts from which the scribe worked may have been smudged or damaged and have given the appearance of being forty thousand rather than four thousand.<p/><b><a href='B:140 9:25'>2Chr 9:25</a> —</b> How can this verse say Solomon had 4,000 stalls when <a href='B:110 4:26'>1Ki 4:26</a> says he had 40,000 stalls?<p/>(See comments under <a href='B:110 4:26'>1Ki 4:26</a>) 


text:
Was Abijah a wicked or a righteous king?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to <a href='B:110 15:3'>1Ki 15:3</a>, Abijah was a wicked king who “walked in all the sins of his father.” However, here in 2 Chronicles he is represented as giving a speech against idolatry and in defense of God’s appointed priests and temple in Jerusalem.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Abijah is not the first, nor will he be the last, politician on record who could give an occasional pious speech when it served his purposes. The fact is, his deeds did not match his words. That is, in general, whatever occasional exceptions there may have been, he was an evil king, just as <a href='B:110 15:3'>1Ki 15:3</a> declares. 


text:
How can this verse make reference to Zerah the Ethiopian, when there are no historical records of such a person?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> When Asa was king in Judah, he was confronted by Zerah the Ethiopian who marshalled an army of 1 million men. However, there are no historical records of such a person. Is this an error?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This is not an error. It is true that until now no extra-biblical records of Zerah the Ethiopian have been found. However, simply because extra-biblical records of Zerah have not been discovered does not mean the biblical record is in error. To doubt the historical accuracy of the Bible on the basis of the silence of extra-biblical sources is to engage in faulty reasoning. Through the years, critics have doubted the existence of many historical figures of the Bible, only to be refuted by additional historical and archaeological discoveries (e.g., the existence of the Hittites and of Sodom and Gomorrah). 


text:
How can this verse say Baasha king of Israel built Ramah in the thirty-sixth year of the reign of Asa?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Asa began his reign in about 911 B.C. The thirty-sixth year of his reign would have been about 876 or 875 B.C. However, Baasha began his reign in 909 and reigned until 886 B.C. when Elah his son became king (<a href='B:110 16:8'>1Ki 16:8</a>). How could <a href='B:140 16:1'>2Chr 16:1</a> say Baasha built Ramah in the thirty-sixth year of Asa, 11 years after Baasha’s death?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The number “thirty-six” is undoubtedly a copyist error. The actual number was probably “sixteen.” This error is explained by the fact that the numbers were probably written in numerical notation. In this type of notation, the difference between the letter representing the number 10 xx and the letter representing the number 30 xx was only two small strokes at the top of the letter. It is quite possible that a copyist misread the original and wrote the wrong letter for the number, possibly as the result of a smudged or damaged manuscript at his disposal. 


text:
How could Elijah have sent a letter long after his departure into heaven?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> When Jehoram became king in Judah, “he made high places in the mountains of Judah, and caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit harlotry, and led Judah astray” (<a href='B:140 21:11'>2Chron 21:11</a>). In <a href='B:140 21:12'>2Chr 21:12</a>, we find that, in response to Jehoram’s sin, Elijah sent a letter to Jehoram. However, if Elijah was translated prior to the reign of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat, then how could he have sent a letter to Jehoram?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Elijah was not translated until some time during the reign of Jehoram son of Ahab. Jehoram son of Ahab reigned in Israel from about 852 to 841 B.C. Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat reigned in Judah from 848 to 841 B.C. Therefore, since Elijah was not translated until some time in the reign of Jehoram of Israel, it is perfectly reasonable that he could have sent this letter to Jehoram of Judah. 


text:
Were Jehoram’s sons taken captive or were they killed?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to <a href='B:140 21:16-17'>2Chr 21:16-17</a>, Jehoram’s sons were only taken captive by the Philistines and the Arabians. By contrast, this passage says they “killed all the older sons.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There is no contradiction here for two reasons. First, it was only the “older” sons who were killed, not all of them. The others could have been taken captive. Second, they could have first taken them captive and then afterward killed them. 


text:
Were Ahaziah’s brothers slain or were they his brother’s sons?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Here we are told that it was king Ahaziah’s brother’s “sons” who were killed. But <a href='B:120 10:13-14'>2Ki 10:13-14</a> says it was Ahaziah’s “brothers” that were slain.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The Hebrew term for “brother” can mean “near relative.” For example, Abraham’s nephew Lot was called his “brother” (<a href='B:10 14:12'>Gen 14:12</a>; <a href='B:10 14:16'>16</a>). Since Ahaziah, the youngest son, was born when his father was only 18, he could have had many nephews and cousins or “brethren.” Since the 2 Chronicles passage refers to his brother’s sons, the word “brother” can be taken in the strict sense here.<p/>It is also quite possible that both statements are literally true. Since Jehu was commanded by God to exterminate the house of Ahab, and since Ahaziah “walked in the way of the house of Ahab,” it is conceivable that Jehu took it upon himself to destroy the house of Ahaziah also, including his brothers and his brothers’ sons. In fact, in the 2 Kings passage, the report of the killing of Ahaziah’s brothers (<a href='B:120 10:13-14'>2Ki 10:13-14</a>) takes place after Jehu had killed Ahaziah (<a href='B:120 9:27'>2Ki 9:27</a>), while the 2 Chronicles passage reports the killing of the sons of Ahaziah’s brothers before the killing of Ahaziah (<a href='B:140 22:8-9'>2Chron 22:8-9</a>). 


text:
Did Ahaz encourage or oppose worship in the Jerusalem temple?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In <a href='B:120 16:15'>2Ki 16:15</a>, Ahaz encouraged the worship of the Lord in the temple. But, in <a href='B:140 28'>2Chr 28</a> he is said to have “shut up the doors of the house of the Lord, and made for himself altars in every corner of Jerusalem” (v. 24).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First of all, even in 2 Kings, during his earlier reign, Ahaz was said to be an evil king who “did not do what was right in the sight of the Lord his God” (16:2). He even “took the silver and gold that was found in the house of the Lord … and sent it as a present to the king of Assyria” (v. 8). During this period, he encouraged only a corrupt form of worship in the pilfered Jerusalem temple (v. 15). 


text:
Why is the repentance of Manasseh recorded here, but no mention is made of it in 2 Kings?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to this text, upon his return, Manasseh repented of his earlier sin and reinstituted the worship of the Lord in Judah. However, the record of the career of Manasseh as found in <a href='B:120 21'>2Ki 21</a> does not mention this glorious repentance. Why?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Apparently the author of 2 Kings did not record the repentance of Manasseh because of the lack of influence it had upon the steady decline of the nation. The Book of 2 Kings concentrates primarily upon the actions of the covenant people of God as a whole. The repentance and reforms of Manasseh did relatively little to turn the nation around from its path to judgment, while his sinful leadership early in his reign did much more damage to the nation. Even in the 2 Chronicles passage we find this statement: “Nevertheless the people still sacrificed on the high places, but only to the Lord their God” (<a href='B:140 33:17'>2Chron 33:17</a>). Even though the people dedicated their sacrifices to the Lord, they were still committing sin, because sacrifices were to be made at the temple, not upon high places which were originally altars to false gods. Despite the efforts of Manasseh, the people would not totally dedicate themselves to the Lord. 


text:
If Josiah demolished idolatry, then why does it say Manasseh did it earlier?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Here we are informed that Josiah destroyed the altars and idols, but earlier (in <a href='B:140 33:15'>2Chron 33:15</a>) Manasseh had destroyed them.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> No human king can root out the depraved human desire for idolatry. Therefore, Josiah had to redo the same work that his predecessor had done. A good human king can destroy idols, but not the love of idols. And, as long as this love exists, idolatry will live to rear its ugly head again and again. 


text:
Did Jehoiakim die in Jerusalem, as this passage suggests, or did he die in Babylon, as <a href='B:140 36:6'>2Chr 36:6</a> implies?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The statement in <a href='B:120 24:6'>2Ki 24:6</a> indicates that Jehoiakim died a peaceful death at home. However, <a href='B:140 36:6'>2Chr 36:6</a> describes Jehoiakim’s capture and deportation to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, which indicates that Jehoiakim died a terrible death in a foreign land. Which is correct?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The fact is that neither passage actually identifies where Jehoiakim died. The deportation described in <a href='B:120 24:10-16'>2Ki 24:10-16</a> is not the same event as that described in <a href='B:140 36:5-8'>2Chr 36:5-8</a>. There is a difference in the severity of the action of Nebuchadnezzar. Whereas <a href='B:140 36:7'>2Chr 36:7</a> indicates that Nebuchadnezzar took only Jehoiakim andsome of the articles of the temple, <a href='B:120 24:13'>2Ki 24:13</a> points out that Nebuchadnezzar took all of the treasures of the house of the Lord, that he carried all of Jerusalem into captivity (v. 14), and that only the poorest were left in the land (v. 14). The two accounts clearly report two different events. Consequently, it is quite possible that after the first captivity—when Jehoiakim was taken to Babylon, according to the report in <a href='B:140 36'>2Chr 36</a> —Jehoiakim was allowed to return to Jerusalem at a later time and died there. However, it is also possible that Jehoiakim died in captivity. The Scriptures are simply silent on this point.<p/><b><a href='B:140 36:6'>2Chr 36:6</a> —</b> Was Jehoiakim carried to Babylon or did he die in Jerusalem?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The Chronicler declares that Nebuchadnezzar “came up against him [Jehoiakim], and bound him in bronze fetters to carry him off to Babylon.” But elsewhere “Jehoiakim rested with his fathers” (<a href='B:120 24:6'>2Ki 24:6</a>) and was “buried with the burial of a donkey, dragged and cast out beyond the gates of Jerusalem” (<a href='B:300 22:19'>Jer 22:19</a>; cf. 36:30).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Apparently, Jehoiakim was bound and fettered with the intention “to carry him off to Babylon” (<a href='B:140 36:6'>2Chron 36:6</a>), but he was slain instead, and his body ignominiously treated “and cast out beyond the gates of Jerusalem” (<a href='B:300 22:19'>Jer 22:19</a>). The phrase “rested with his fathers” (<a href='B:120 24:6'>2Ki 24:6</a>) refers to death, not necessarily to a burial in the same place. Of all the kings of Judah, Jehoiakim is the only one whose official burial is not mentioned. 


text:
Who is Sheshbazzar?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> When Cyrus the king of Persia allowed the Israelites to return to Jerusalem, he gave back the articles of the house of the Lord which Nebuchadnezzar had taken. According to <a href='B:150 1:8'>Ezra 1:8</a>, Cyrus counted out into the hands of Sheshbazzar the prince of Judah the treasures that Nebuchadnezzar had taken. Who was this Sheshbazzar?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There have been two proposals as to the identity of Sheshbazzar. First, some commentators claim that Sheshbazzar was the court name of Zerubbabel. The giving of court names was quite common during the captivity of Israel in Babylon. Daniel’s court name was Belteshazzar (<a href='B:340 1:7'>Dan 1:7</a>). One weakness of this view is that it is not clear whether or not Sheshbazzar is a Babylonian name, and usually, an Israelite who had received a court name, had also been given a Hebrew name by his parents. Neither Sheshbazzar nor Zerubbabel are Hebrew names, and neither can be conclusively identified as Babylonian.<p/>Second, other commentators claim that Sheshbazzar is the court name of Shealtiel, Zerubbabel’s adopted father. This involves an explanation as to why Sheshbazzar is identified as “the prince of Judah” in <a href='B:150 1:8'>Ezra 1:8</a>. It is proposed that Shealtiel/Sheshbazzar was assigned to this position by the Babylonian governor, and that this position passed on to Zerubbabel after Shealtiel/Sheshbazzar’s death. <a href='B:150 5:16'>Ezra 5:16</a> states that it was Sheshbazzar who “laid the foundation of the house of God.” Since <a href='B:150 3'>Ezra 3</a> does not specifically name Sheshbazzar as participating in the laying of this foundation, it can be assumed that Shealtiel/Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel participated in the project together as a father/son team, and Sheshbazzar is just not mentioned. One weakness of this position is that there is no indication that there were two persons functioning as joint governors of Jerusalem. Also, there is the fact that the name Sheshbazzar is not mentioned in the long list recorded in <a href='B:150 2'>Ezra 2</a> of those who came back with Zerubbabel.<p/>The fact that Sheshbazzar’s name is not mentioned again after <a href='B:150 5:16'>Ezra 5:16</a> can be explained from the point of view of either proposal. If Sheshbazzar and Shealtiel are one person, then perhaps he died shortly after the laying of the foundation. If Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel are one person, then the court name was simply dropped, and the given name Zerubbabel was retained. Either explanation, however, provides a reasonable solution, and there is no real reason to assume an error or contradiction here. 


text:
<b>ff—</b> Why are many of the numbers in Ezra’s list of those who returned to Jerusalem different from those in <a href='B:160 7'>Nehemiah 7</a>?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In the record of those who returned to Jerusalem under the leadership of Zerubbabel as recorded in Ezra, there are 32 family units identified and numbered. In 18 of these instances, the numbers in Ezra are exactly the same as those found in Nehemiah<p/>7. However, in 14 instances, the numbers differ. The difference ranges from as little as one to as much as 1,100. Why are these numbers different?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, it is possible that each of these is a copyist error. One of the most problematic areas of transcription for the Jewish scribe was copying numbers. It is certainly conceivable that out of these rather large lists of names and numbers there would be a number of copyist errors (see Appendix 2). 


text:
How could the rebuilding have begun during the reign of Cyrus when <a href='B:150 4:24'>Ezra 4:24</a> says it was in the reign of Darius I?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to <a href='B:150 3:8-13'>Ezra 3:8-13</a>, the rebuilding of the temple began under the reign of Cyrus the Great (cf. <a href='B:150 5:16'>Ezra 5:16</a>), who reigned in Persia from about 559 to 530 B.C. However, <a href='B:150 4:24'>Ezra 4:24</a> says the rebuilding of the temple took place during the reign of Darius, King of Persia, about 520 B.C. Also, <a href='B:440 1:15'>Haggai 1:15</a> implies that the building of the temple did not begin until 520 B.C. How can these statements be reconciled?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The statements in <a href='B:150 3:10'>Ezra 3:10</a> and 5:16 are references to laying the foundation, while <a href='B:150 4:24'>Ezra 4:24</a> and <a href='B:440 1:15'>Haggai 1:15</a> concern the resuming the rebuilding project after a long period of delay. <a href='B:150 4:4'>Ezra 4:4</a> points out that as soon as the people of the land heard about the rebuilding project, they discouraged the people and frustrated their efforts throughout the reign of Cyrus. The project was abandoned for 16 years. At this point, God directed Haggai to prophesy to the people of Jerusalem to motivate them to begin the project again. This is referred to in <a href='B:150 4:24'>Ezra 4:24</a>. The rebuilding of the temple was resumed about 520 B.C. during the time of Darius and was completed in 516 B.C. 


text:
How could foreign influence have caused the work to cease when <a href='B:440 1:2'>Haggai 1:2</a> blames it on the indifference of the leaders?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:150 4:7-23'>Ezra 4:7-23</a> records that after the great beginning made by the people in laying the foundation of the temple, foreign enemies came up to force the people to stop the rebuilding project. However, <a href='B:440 1:2'>Haggai 1:2</a> implies that the people were indifferent toward the building project. What was the real reason for the delay in rebuilding the temple?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Both statements are true. Although the military force of the enemy caused the rebuilding to stop, it was the indifference of the people that was responsible for the fact that the project was not restarted. During the reign of Cyrus the Great, the climate was hostile toward the people, and the building project faced stiff opposition. Once Darius I had taken power in Persia in about 522 B.C., the opportunity to restart the building project was much more favorable. However, the leaders of the people had become so involved in their own affairs that they were not interested in undertaking such an enormous project. 


text:
Why did God command Israelite men to put away their unbelieving wives, but Paul said not to do so?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Ezra made all the returning Israelites put away their “pagan wives” because they were “adding to the guilt of Israel” (<a href='B:150 10:10'>Ezra 10:10</a>). However, when Paul was asked whether a believer should divorce an unbelieving spouse, he said, “If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her” (<a href='B:530 7:12'>1Cor 7:12</a>). Aren’t these contradictory instructions?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The different advice is given at different times, for different peoples, and for different reasons. First of all, Ezra’s command was given in OT times to the Jews, and Paul’s command was given in NT times to Christians. New Testament believers are not under OT laws to Israel (see comments on <a href='B:470 5:17-18'>Matt 5:17-18</a>).<p/>Furthermore, even assuming that the moral principle embodied in this OT command is still binding today, the situations are different for three reasons. First, the wives in the OT were not just “unbelievers” who were “willing” to be “sanctified” by the believing husband (<a href='B:530 7:14'>1Cor 7:14</a>). They were “pagans,” that is, they were probably Babylonian idol worshipers (cf. <a href='B:160 13:25-26'>Neh 13:25-26</a>), who were having a pagan influence on their husbands. God told Solomon that his pagan wives, “will turn away your hearts after their gods” (<a href='B:110 11:2'>1Ki 11:2</a>). Second, these were not just any pagans, for they included descendants of Moab and Ammon (<a href='B:150 10:30'>Ezra 10:30</a>; cf. <a href='B:160 13:23'>Neh 13:23</a>) and other surrounding nations of which God had told the Israelites explicitly that they should not marry them (cf. <a href='B:20 34:16'>Ex 34:16</a>; <a href='B:50 7:3'>Deut 7:3</a>). Third, they may even have been extra wives (cf. <a href='B:150 10:44'>Ezra 10:44</a>), and God forbid polygamy (see comments on <a href='B:110 11:1'>1Ki 11:1</a>). If so, they had violated the laws about polygamy (<a href='B:50 17:17'>Deut 17:17</a>) and idolatry (<a href='B:20 20:4-5'>Ex 20:4-5</a>). This is a different situation from Paul’s instruction to keep a non- idolatrous monogamous wife (cf. <a href='B:530 7:2'>1Cor 7:2</a>), if she wished to remain under the sanctifying influence of a believing husband. 


text:
Why is Nehemiah’s adversary named Geshem here and Gashmu in <a href='B:160 6:6'>Nehemiah 6:6</a>? (KJV)<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> As soon as Nehemiah set about to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, the surrounding enemy mounted an opposition. One of those who opposed the work was identified as Geshem the Arab. However, in <a href='B:160 6:6'>Nehemiah 6:6</a> this same person is identified as Gashmu. Which is the correct spelling?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Both spellings are correct. The difference lies in the way the Hebrew and Arab languages treat the spelling of proper names. The Arabic pronunciation is preserved in <a href='B:160 6:6'>Nehemiah 6:6</a> with the customary “u” ending. The Hebrew pronunciation is preserved in <a href='B:160 2:19'>Nehemiah 2:19</a> with the elimination of the “u” along with the appropriate short vowels to produce the name “Geshem.” <a href='B:160 7:1'>NEHEMIAH 7:1</a> ff—Why are many of the numbers in Nehemiah’s list of those who returned to Jerusalem different from those in <a href='B:150 2:1'>Ezra 2:1</a>ff? (See comments under <a href='B:150 2:1'>Ezra 2:1</a>ff.) 


text:
If Ai was destroyed earlier, why is it still inhabited here?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> After an earlier embarrassing defeat because of disobedience to God, Joshua’s forces completely destroyed the city of Ai (<a href='B:60 8:28'>Josh 8:28</a>). But it is still flourishing many years later (<a href='B:160 7:32'>Neh 7:32</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This is many centuries later, and the city was rebuilt by survivors or others. Phrases like “utterly destroyed” (<a href='B:60 8:26'>Josh 8:26</a>) refer to all who got caught. It does not say that some did not escape. Nor does it eliminate the possibility that others moved in later to occupy the site.<p/>This same explanation applies to the Amalekites who were completely destroyed (<a href='B:90 15:7-8'>1Sam 15:7-8</a>), yet survived to be overthrown at a later date (<a href='B:90 30:1'>1Sam 30:1</a>; <a href='B:90 30:17'>17</a>). Likewise, Bethel and Gezer were conquered by Joshua (<a href='B:60 12:12'>Josh 12:12</a>; <a href='B:60 12:16'>16</a>) and later under the judges (Jud. 1:22–29). However, <a href='B:10 32:3'>Gen 32:3</a> may refer to the settlement of Edom by anticipation (cf. <a href='B:10 36:6'>Gen 36:6</a>; <a href='B:10 36:8'>8</a>). 


text:
Was this feast not celebrated since Joshua’s time or was it celebrated later by Zerubbabel?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to this passage, the Feast of Tabernacles had not been celebrated by Israel “since the days of Joshua the son of Nun.” Yet, <a href='B:150 3:4'>Ezra 3:4</a> declares that Zerubbabel and the Israelites “kept the Feast of Tabernacles” after they returned from the Babylonian captivity.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The Nehemiah passage means there had been nothing like this celebration since Joshua’s day. It does not mean no one had ever celebrated this feast since Joshua’s day. Nehemiah’s celebration was unique in many ways. First, it was commemorated by “the whole congregation” (<a href='B:160 8:17'>Neh 8:17</a>). Second, it was celebrated with “great gladness” (v. 17). Third, it was celebrated with a Biblethon, that is, with continual Bible reading for one week. Fourth, they celebrated it exactly as Moses had commanded, with a restored priesthood and temple (8:18; cf. 12:1ff). Nothing like this had occurred since Joshua’s day. 


text:
How could Esther participate in a pagan beauty contest?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> It is evident that Esther was selected by God as His instrument to deliver Israel from evil at the appointed time (<a href='B:190 4:14'>Esther 4:14</a>). However, as a devout Jew, how could Esther take part in a pagan pageant and then become part of the harem of King Xerxes?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, it is not clear that Esther had a choice as far as being part of the display of beautiful women before the king. According to <a href='B:190 2:8'>Esther 2:8</a>, Esther was “taken to the king’s palace.” This seems to imply that Esther had no choice in the matter, but was drafted into the service of the king. 


text:
Didn’t Esther disobey human government which God had ordained?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:520 13:1'>Rom 13:1</a> informs us that even pagan governments are “appointed by God,” and Peter adds, “submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake” (<a href='B:670 2:13'>1Peter 2:13</a>; cf. <a href='B:630 3:1'>Titus 3:1</a>). But it says that what she did was “against the law” (4:16). So, didn’t Esther violate the God-ordained laws of Persia by going before the king?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Sometimes it is necessary to disobey human government, namely, when it compels us to sin. For example, if the government says we cannot pray to God (<a href='B:340 6'>Dan 6</a>) or we must worship idols (<a href='B:340 3'>Dan 3</a>) or we must kill innocent babies (see comments on <a href='B:20 1:15-21'>Ex 1:15-21</a>), then we must disobey. In Esther’s case, however, there was no law compelling her to sin. But neither did she disobey the law of the land, since the law allowed for someone to come before the king unannounced at their own risk (<a href='B:190 4:11'>Es 4:11</a>). Knowing of this provision of the law and accepting the risk of her life, Esther went before the king to save the lives of her people. In this case there was no need to disobey the law, since it was not compelling her to kill anyone or to commit any other act of sin. 1<p/>1 


text:
If all are sinners, then how can Job be perfect?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> God declared that Job was “blameless and upright, and one who feared God and shunned evil” (1:1). Yet the Bible insists that “there is none righteous, no, not one,” for “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (<a href='B:520 3:10'>Rom 3:10</a>; <a href='B:520 3:23'>23</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> God’s praise of Job was not absolute, as is clear from His later condemnation of him (in chap. 38) and from Job’s own confession, “I abhor myself, And repent in dust and ashes” (<a href='B:220 42:6'>Job 42:6</a>). Further, God only pronounced Job “blameless” before man, whereas Romans is speaking about no one, apart from Christ’s work, being blameless before God (cf. <a href='B:520 3:19'>Rom 3:19</a>).<p/><b><a href='B:220 1:1'>J</a>; <a href='B:220 1:1'>OB 1:1</a> —</b> Was Job a real historical person?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The first verse of the Book of Job introduces the main character as a historical figure who actually existed in the land of Uz. However, modern scholars have questioned the historicity of the man Job. Was Job a real historical person?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Job was a person in human history. First of all, verse one of the book plainly asserts that Job actually existed. There are no literary indications that this statement should be understood any other way than as a statement of historical fact. There is every reason to accept it with the same assurance one would accept the historicity of any such statement in the Bible.<p/>Second, the historicity of Job is attested by references in other parts of the Scripture. In <a href='B:330 14:14'>Ezekiel 14:14</a>; <a href='B:330 14:20'>20</a>, God names Job along with Daniel and Noah as examples of righteousness. To question the historicity of Job, one would have to question the historicity of Daniel and Noah. Additionally, this would call into question the veracity of God, for He makes reference to these men (through Ezekiel) as real historical figures.<p/>Finally, in <a href='B:660 5:11'>Jam 5:11</a> we find a reference to Job in which Job is held to be an example of patience in the midst of tribulation. James makes a matter-of-fact reference to Job that assumes the historicity of both the man and the events recorded in the book that bears his name. There would have been no real force to James’ appeal if Job were merely a fictional character. For in that case, what actual comfort would his life be to real people? 


text:
Why does Job offer a burnt offering for his sons if they had blessed God?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to <a href='B:220 1:5'>Job 1:5</a>, Job was such a pious man that he even offered burnt offerings for his sons just in case they had sinned and cursed God. However, the Hebrew word used here, and in 1:11 and 2:5, is not “cursed,” but “blessed.” Why do these passages use the word “blessed” instead of the word “cursed”?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Two solutions have been proposed. First, the Hebrew people had a sublime reverence for God’s name. In fact, they would not even pronounce God’s name lest they possibly commit blasphemy in the act. When the name Yahweh appeared in the text of the Scripture, the pious Hebrew would not say God’s name out loud, but would substitute the word “Adonai,” which means “Lord.” It has been proposed that perhaps the author of Job (or a later editor), recognizing this reverence, did not wish to write or speak the word “curse” with reference to God. Therefore, he substituted the word “bless” and allowed the context to supply the necessary idea.<p/>Second, others have suggested that the verb used here, barak, means “to say good-bye to.” Several passages are cited in support of this use, such as <a href='B:10 24:60'>Gen 24:60</a>; <a href='B:10 32:1'>32:1</a> and 47:10. The function of this word in this context is viewed as a antiphrastic euphemism. This is the use of a word or phrase that usually has one meaning in common speech, but is used to mean the opposite. We do this at times even today. For example, someone might sarcastically say “yes” when the obvious meaning is “no.” Job’s statement in 1:5, then, can be translated, “It may be that my sons have sinned and dismissed God in their hearts.” In each of these instances, the word gives the idea of dismissing or rejecting God. 


text:
How can Satan come before God when he was dismissed from heaven?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a> states that the sons of God came to present themselves to God, and “Satan also came among them.” However, this implies that Satan has access to the throne of God when elsewhere it is declared that he has been banished from God’s presence (<a href='B:730 12:7-12'>Rev 12:7-12</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Satan has been officially expelled from heaven, but he still actually has access there. Several places in Scripture present the idea that Satan has access to the presence of God in order to accuse the saints. In <a href='B:450 3:1'>Zech 3:1</a> we find a vision of Joshua standing before the angel of the Lord with Satan on his right hand accusing him. <a href='B:730 12:10'>Revelation 12:10</a> identifies Satan as the accuser of the brethren “who accused them before our God day and night.” Apparently, as the prince of the power of the air (<a href='B:560 2:2'>Eph 2:2</a>), Satan has had opportunity to appear before God for the purpose of accusing God’s people of sin. This is what he is doing against Job in both <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a> and 2:1.<p/><b><a href='B:220 1:6'>JOB 1:6</a> —</b> Who are the sons of God mentioned in this verse?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The introduction of Satan into the story of Job takes place before the throne of God. Satan comes before God among a group identified as “the sons of God.” But, who are these sons of God?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> These are angels. Several other passages in the Bible refer to angels as the sons of God, such as <a href='B:220 2:1'>Job 2:1</a> and <a href='B:220 38:7'>Job 38:7</a> (cf. <a href='B:230 29:1'>Pss 29:1</a> and 89:6 where the Hebrew uses the phrase “sons of God”). The angels are the “sons” of God in the sense that they are His creation. (Also see comments on <a href='B:10 6:2'>Gen 6:2</a>ff.) 


text:
Does this verse teach reincarnation?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The Bible speaks against the belief in reincarnation (<a href='B:650 9:27'>Heb 9:27</a>). But here Job speaks of a person returning again after he dies.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Job is not speaking about the “return” of the soul to another body to live again, but of the return of the body to the grave. God told Adam he would “return to the ground” for “dust you are and to dust you shall return” (<a href='B:10 3:19'>Gen 3:19</a>). And the Hebrew word for “womb” (beten) is used figuratively in Job’s poetic expression of the “earth.” The ideas of “earth” and “womb” are used in Psalm 139, saying, God formed us in our “mother’s womb” in “the lowest parts of the earth” (vv. 13, 15). Like the ancient Hebrew book of wisdom (Ecclesiasticus 40:1), Job believed that men labor “from the day they come forth from their mother’s womb, till the day they return to the Mother of all [i.e., the womb of the earth].” Likewise, Job used the poetic expression “return there [i.e., to my mother’s womb]” to refer to the earth from which we all come and to which we all return (cf. <a href='B:250 12:7'>Ecc 12:7</a>).<p/>Finally, Job did not believe in reincarnation into another mortal body; he believed in resurrection in an immortal body. He declared: “I know that my redeemer lives, And He shall stand at last on the earth; And after my skin is destroyed this I know, that in my flesh I shall see God” (<a href='B:220 19:25-26'>Job 19:25-26</a>). He realized that this corruptible flesh would put on incorruptible flesh (cf. <a href='B:530 15:42-44'>1Cor 15:42-44</a>). But reincarnation, by contrast, does not believe we will be raised once in an immortal physical body; it is the belief that the soul will be reincarnated many times into mortal bodies that will die again. So there is no basis for claiming Job believed in reincarnation. 


