OLD TESTAMENT ISSUES debated - Genocide, Contradictions, Pharoah ...

Old Testament Issues:

The Canaanites: How Could a Just God Command His People to Destroy an Entire Nation?

THE CANAANITES- Introduction
Have you ever heard a skeptic point to the violence chronicled in Scripture and then try to discredit God and His Word? They point out the fact that God commands the Israelites, for example, to wipe out the Canaanites including women, children, and even cattle. If that doesn’t prove that God is unjust, what will?

THE CANAANITES- Degenerates
Some find it hard to understand why God would use Israel as his instrument to annihilate an entire race of people like the Canaanites. Why did he? The answer is simply this. The nations which Israel destroyed had degenerated dramatically. In fact, archaeologists have given us a glimpse of how evil the inhabitants of Palestine had actually become. They were involved in bestiality, incest, molestation, homosexuality, prostitution — and if that’s not enough, they even sacrificed their children to idols. In fact, the entire land had become so contaminated that God, who truly sees the big picture, decided for the good of mankind that they had to be destroyed.

THE CANAANITES- No Argument from Ignorance
And let’s not forget that the Canaanites and Amelikites couldn’t claim they didn’t know any better. They were fully aware that God had chosen Israel to be a tool in His hands in bringing judgement to the nations.

THE CANAANITES- God’s Justness in Perspective
It’s clear from history, God gave them ample time to repent, but they refused (Gen. 15:16; Deut. 7:22). And as a consequence, God used Israel to bring judgement upon them. And lest anyone accuse God of being unfair, there is ample Biblical evidence that if there were any righteous in the land, God would have spared them just like He spared Rahab when Jericho was destroyed (Josh. 6:25 df. Gen. 18:22f; Num. 31:35).

THE CANAANITES- Are All Killings Murder?
Now let me make one more point. While murder is a direct violation of the sixth commandment, not all forms of killing represent murder. To kill someone in self-defense or to execute someone for a capitol offense is justifiable. The fact is, justice demands that war criminals like the Nazis be put to death. As scholar Walter Kaiser puts it, war is “God’s ultimate, but reluctant, method of treating gross evil that resists every other patient and loving rebuke of God.” (Toward Old Testament Ethics, 1983:178).

THE CANAANITES- Conclusion
On the question of God’s justice in light of His command to wipe out the Canaanites (and the Amelekites), that’s the Christian Research Institure (CRI) Perspective. I’m Hank Hanegraaff.  (equip.org) or listen to bottradionetwork.com

 

How can Christians legitimize a God that orders the genocide of entire nations?

The very notion that God would command the obliteration of entire nations is abhorrent to skeptics and seekers alike. In context, however, God’s commands are perfectly consistent with his justice and mercy.

First, a text without a context is a pretext. God’s commands to destroy the nations inhabiting the promised land of Canaan must never be interpreted in isolation from their immediate contexts. The command to “destroy them totally” (Deuteronomy 7:2) is contextualized by the words: “Do not intermarry with them . . . for they will turn your sons and daughters away from following me to serve other gods. . . . This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire” (vv. 3–5). As such, the aim of God’s command was not the obliteration of the wicked but the obliteration of wickedness.

Furthermore, God’s martial instructions are qualified by his moral intentions to spare the repentant. As the author of Hebrews explains, “By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient” (11:31). Not only were Rahab and her family spared on account of her faith, she was allowed to live among the Israelites (Joshua 6:25) and came to hold a privileged position in the lineage of Jesus Christ (Matthew 1:5). God’s desire to spare the pagan city of Nineveh further illustrates the extent of his mercy for the repentant (see Jonah).

Finally, God unequivocally commanded Israel to treat the aliens living among them with respect and equality. Foreigners living among the Israelites were allowed to celebrate Passover (Numbers 9:14; cf. 15:15), benefited from an agrarian system of welfare (Leviticus 19:9), and enjoyed full legal protection (Deuteronomy 1:16–17). Even descendants of Israel’s enemies, the Edomites and the Egyptians, were allowed to enter the assembly of the Lord (Deuteronomy 23:7–8). In fact, God condemned oppression of aliens in the harshest possible language: “Cursed is the man who withholds justice from the alien, the fatherless, or the widow” (Deuteronomy 27:19). Such concern for foreigners clearly demonstrates that mercy was to be shown to those who by faith repented of their idolatry and were thereby grafted into true Israel (cf. Romans 11:11–24).

For further study, see Gary M. Burge, Whose Land? Whose Promise? (Cleveland, OH:The Pilgrim Press, 2003): 82–93.

JEREMIAH 7:5–7
“If you really change your ways and your actions
and deal with each other justly, if you do not oppress
the alien, the fatherless or the widow and
do not shed innocent blood in this place, and if you
do not follow other gods to your own harm,
then I will let you live in this place, in the land I
gave your forefathers for ever and ever.”

How could Pharoah be morally responsible if God hardened his heart?

The apostle Paul explicitly states that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart (Romans 9:17–18). That, of course, begs the question: If God determined to harden Pharaoh’s heart, then how is God just in holding Pharaoh morally responsible for his sins?

First, though God promised Moses that he would harden Pharaoh’s heart (Exodus 4:21; 7:3), the Exodus account underscores the fact that Pharaoh was responsible for hardening his own heart (Exodus 7:13, 22; 8:15, 19, 32; 9:7; cf. 9:34).

Furthermore, far from hardening Pharaoh’s heart in a direct or deterministic fashion, God presented Pharaoh with ample opportunity to either repent or continue in rebellion. Every time God showed Pharaoh mercy and removed a plague from Egypt, Pharaoh responded in stubborn disobedience. As such, God’s mercy was the occasion for the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart.

Finally, in dealing with this issue, the apostle Paul begins with the presupposition that God judges all men justly (Romans 3:5–8). He emphasizes the fact that people like Pharaoh are “prepared for destruction” because that is ultimately what they will. Every time God provides an opportunity to repent, like Pharaoh they harden their hearts in disobedience and unbelief.

For further study, see Paul Marston and Roger Forster, God’s Strategy in Human History,2nd ed. (Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2000).

EXODUS 9:34–35
“When Pharaoh saw that the rain and hail and
thunder had stopped, he sinned again: He and his
officials hardened their hearts. So Pharaoh’s heart was
hard and he would not let the Israelites go, just as
the LORD had said through Moses.” 

 

Does Isaiah 53:5 guarantee our healing today?

The mantra “by his stripes we are healed” is repeated endlessly in Christian circles. However, these words extracted from Isaiah 53:5 focus on spiritual rather than physical healing.

First, a quick look at the context makes it clear that Isaiah had spiritual rather than physical healing in mind: Christ “was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed” (Isaiah 53:5 nkjv, emphasis added). Peter builds on this understanding when he writes, “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed” (1 Peter 2:24, emphasis added).

Furthermore, while healing for the body is not referred to in Isaiah 53:5, it is referred to in the verse immediately preceding it. Here Isaiah writes, “Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted” (Isaiah 53:4)nkjv. Physical healing here is not only clear in context but affirmed by the Gospels where it is given an important qualification: “When evening came, many who were demonpossessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: ‘He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases’” (Matthew 8:16–17). Thus, the healing here was during the ministry of Christ and does not guarantee healing today.

Finally, I should note that in a real sense Christ’s atonement on the cross does extend to physical healing. One day, “there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away” (Revelation 21:4). However, as Paul points out, “We hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently” (Romans 8:25,emphasis added). In the meantime, we will all experience sickness and suffering. Indeed, those who live before Christ returns will all die of their last disease—the death rate is one per person and we’re all going to make it!

For further study, see Hank Hanegraaff, Christianity in Crisis (Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House Publishers, 1993).

 

Bible Contradictions: Does the Bible Contradict Itself?

Well, if you’re like most people, I’m sure you’ve heard someone say “The Bible is full of contradictions.” Well, is this true? Does the Bible contradict itself?

Does the Bible Contradict Itself- A definition
Speaking of contradictions, let me begin by saying that two statements are said to contradict if the truth of one of the statements negates the truth of the other. Take for example the statements, “I have read the Bible,” and “I have never read the Bible.” Obviously, if one statement is true the other statement would have to be false. Let’s apply this to the Bible. Only after you can demonstrate that the truth of one passage, rules out the truth of another passage, can you justify the claim that the Bible contradicts itself.

Does the Bible Contradict Itself- A Closer Look
You see, many passages which seem to be in conflict are easily resolved by simply reading the text more carefully. In addition, an understanding of Greek or Hebrew, as well as a knowledge of geography and customs would be extremely helpful. Take for example the account of Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus. In Acts 9:7 we read that during Paul’s encounter with Christ the men who were with him heard a voice. In Acts 22:9 we read that these men heard no voice. Well, what appears to be a hopeless contradiction is easily resolved by looking at the original Greek. Here we see a distinction between “hearing a sound as a noise” and “hearing a voice as a thought-conveying message.” Gleason Archer, an accomplished biblical scholar points out, that while Paul’s companions heard the Voice as a sound, Paul alone heard what was being said. (Kind of like the crowd who heard the sound of the Father talking to the Son in John 12:28, and thought they heard thunder.)

The point is that rather than taking a fearful attitude when faced with an alleged biblical contradiction, we should view these occasions as opportunities to search and explore the Scriptures. One thing I can guarantee is this: It will only serve to deepen your awe of the majesty of Scripture.

Does the Bible Contradict Itself- Conclusion
In fact, the more I personally read the Bible, the more I marvel at this awesome Book. How is it possible for forty different authors to write over a span of 1,600 years, on three continents, in three languages, on hundreds of subjects — yet, without contradiction — and with one central storyline, God’s redemption of mankind. Truly, it can be said without contradiction that the Bible must be divine, rather than human in origin. On alleged biblical contradictions, that’s the CRI Perspective. I’m Hank Hanegraaff.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
For a book dealing with alleged Bible contradictions we recommend When Critics Ask (Baker) by Norman Geisler (B137). This resource is available through CRI. To place a credit card order, call toll-free (888) 7000-CRI. For  S&H information, please refer to our Resource Listing. To receive a free copy of our Resource Listing, call, fax or write us with your request to: CRI  PO Box 8500 Charlotte NC 28271 (equip.org)

 

Can a Loving God Hate Someone? Example Esau & Jacob situation

 “God hates the sin, but loves the sinner.” This old saying often is used to resolve the tension between God being both just and loving toward fallen people. There are, however, instances in the Bible that appear to defy this principle. When David cries out, “The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul hates” (Ps. 11:5),¹ or when Malachi prophesies, “I have loved Jacob; but I have hated Esau” (Mal. 1:2b–3a), they appear to communicate that God hates certainpeople. A closer examination of these passages in their immediate context and in relation to the overarching message of Scripture reveals these to be ways of expressing God’s opposition toward corrupt souls bent on committing sinful actions.

The Lord Hates the One Who Does Violence. Psalm 11 is attributed to David. It reflects a time when the psalmist took refuge in the Lord on being warned that he had been targeted for death and needed to fly to the mountains like a bird (vv. 1–2). The psalmist’s world was in such upheaval that he cried, “If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (v. 3).

In the psalm’s second stanza, David envisaged the Lord in the heavenly temple reigning over and knowing all things (v. 4), and says, “The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul hates. Upon the wicked He will rain snares; fire and brimstone and burning wind will be the portion of their cup” (vv. 5–6).

The Hebrew word translated “hate” in Psalm 11 is Sänë´ (שֶׂנֵא). It “expresses an emotional attitude toward persons and things which are opposed, detested, despised and with which one wishes to have no contact or relationship.”² This is not hate out of ignorance or animosity; rather it is a righteous God’s opposition to wickedness. The same idea is communicated by Isaiah against unrepentant Israel, declaring, “I hate [Sänë´] your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts, they have become a burden to Me; I am weary of bearing them” (Isa. 1:14). Solomon, likewise, says, “There are six things which the LORD hates [Sänë´], yes seven which are an abomination to Him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that run rapidly to evil, a false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers” (Prov. 6:16–19).

A number of commentators believe the historical backdrop to Psalm 11 is the time when David had to flee from Saul, who sought to take him down like a man hunting partridges in the mountains (1 Sam. 18:8ff).³ Sin had so corrupted Saul that he not only tried to assassinate David on more than one occasion (1 Sam. 18:10ff), but also succeeded in murdering the priest, women, and children of Nob, who provided David sanctuary (1 Sam. 21–22). Saul was indeed in the place of receiving divine judgment, and the lyricist rightly captures the situation in poetic hyperbole with the words “the one who loves violence His soul hates” (Ps. 11:6).

Jacob I Loved, but Esau I Hated. Malachi prophesied to the Jewish people after the Babylonian exile around the middle of the fifth century BC. His oracle begins, “‘I have loved you,’ says the Lord. But you say, ‘How have You loved us?’ ‘Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?’ declares the Lord, ‘Yet I have loved Jacob; but I have hated Esau’” (Mal. 1:2–3a).

Historically, Esau and Jacob were the sons of Isaac and Rebekah. Prior to their birth, God revealed to Rebekah her sons would become two nations but “the older shall serve the younger” (Gen. 25:23). God’s word came to pass when Esau despised his birthright by selling it to his younger brother for some lentil stew, and Jacob with the aid of his mother tricked his father into giving him the elder brother’s blessing (Gen. 25:19–34; 27:1–40). Jacob ultimately fathered the nation of Israel and Esau the nation of Edom.

Malachi’s prophecy concerns the nations of Israel and Edom during the post-exilic period of Old Testament history. He puts God’s love for Jacob in antithesis to the divine hate toward Esau. The same Hebrew word for “hate” [Sänë´] is employed, signifying God’s righteous opposition to sinful Esau. The reason divine hate came was that “not only did the Edomites gloat over the ruin of their Israelite brothers, but also actively helped the Babylonian invaders by acting as informants and cutting off escape routes, (Ps. 137:7; Ezek. 25:12–14; 35:15; Obad. 8–16).”⁴

God’s opposition to Edom was further demonstrated in the nation’s expulsion from their homeland. What happed was that around the sixth century, prior to the days of Malachi, the Nabateans invaded Edomite territory. They left the Edomites’ cities in ruin and forced them to resettle in southern Palestine in an area later called Idumea. The prophet alludes to this invasion saying, “I have made [Edom’s] mountains a desolation and appointed his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness. Though Edom says, ‘We have been beaten down, but we will return and build up the ruins,’ thus says the Lord of host, ‘They may build, but I will tear down; and men will call them the wicked territory, and the people toward whom the LORD is indignant forever’” (Mal. 1:2b–3). Edom’s sins were hostile to the ways of a righteous God, so the prophet’s hyperbolic expression “Esau I hated” is befitting.

Romans 9 similarly references Jacob and Esau as part of a sophisticated argument demonstrating that the Jewish people rightly could be judged by God for rejecting Jesus Christ. Those who rejected the Lord identified themselves as descendants of Abraham, but Paul contends, “They are not all Israel who are descended from Israel” (v. 6). Before Esau and Jacob were born, God told Rebecca that “the older will serve the younger“ (v. 12). The nations of Israel and Edom both sinned and went into exile, yet God brought back Israel but not Edom; hence, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (v. 13). Paul’s point is that “God has the right to choose among the chosen line,” and “not all Abraham’s descendants received the promise.”⁵ Their salvation would not be found in a genealogical connection to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.⁶ The Jews who rejected Jesus as their long-awaited Messiah sinned greatly and put themselves in opposition to God.⁷

Using the Clear to Understand the Unclear. God’s opposition to wickedness depicted in Psalm 11 and Malachi 1 should be considered in light of other truths Scripture reveals about God’s dealings with sinners. Readers can use clear passages of the Bible to understand unclear ones.

First, the Bible teaches that God offers common grace to all. For example, He sustains the creation, sending sun and rain on the farms of both saints and sinners alike (Matt. 5:44–45).

Second, the Bible teaches that God loves sinners and works to resolve the problem of sin. Paul writes, “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8). John likewise writes, “In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10). In the same epistle, he writes that Christ “is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world” (1 John 2:2).

Finally, the most remarkable thing the Bible teaches is that sinful and corrupt people do not have to remain that way. They can repent and enter into a right relationship with God. Zacchaeus came down from the tree, received the transforming grace of God, and committed himself to making restitution to those he defrauded (Luke 19:1–10). Paul also witnessed the resurrected Lord on the road to Damascus, which converted him from a persecutor of the church to an apostle to the Gentiles (Acts 8–28).

The God of righteousness opposes unrighteousness. It is, therefore, befitting for the psalmist to say, “The one who loves violence His soul hates” (Ps. 11:1), and for Malachi to prophesy, “I have hated Esau” (Mal. 1:3), to demonstrate God’s vehement disapproval of those bent on doing unrighteousness things. However, the Good News is that sinners can be saved by God’s grace through faith on account of Jesus Christ. —Warren Nozaki

Warren Nozaki is a graduate of Talbot School of Theology and a researcher for the Christian Research Institute.  Article ID: JAP341 By: Warren Nozaki  -This article first appeared in the Practical Hermeneutics column of the Christian Research Journal, volume 34, number 01 (2011). For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org

---

NOTES Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard version.

1.        Gerard Van Groningen, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, vol. 2, ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Bruce K. Waltke (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), 880.

2.        Cf. Willem A. VanGemeren, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 5, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 130, and J. A. Motyer, New Bible Commentary: Twenty-First Century Edition, ed. G. J. Wenham, J. A. Motyer, D. A. Carson, R. T. France (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 494.

3.        Gordon P. Hugenberger, New Bible Commentary: Twenty-First Century Edition, ed. G. J. Wenham, J. A. Motyer, D. A. Carson, R. T. France (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 885.

4.        Ibid., 885.

5.        Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 432–33.

6.        Whether or not Romans 9:13 can be used to support a particular view of divine election, Calvinism, Arminianism, or another mediating position is an issue that Christians can debate but should not divide over. For further study, see James White and George Bryson, “Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility, Part One,” Christian Research Journal 23, 4 (2001): 32–41 (http://www.equip.org/articles/the-divine-sovereignty-human-responsibility-debate-partone-) and James White and George Bryson, “Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility, Part Two,” Christian Research Journal 24, 1 (2001): 23–25, 41–47 (http://www.equip.org/articles/the-divine-sovereignty-human-responsibility-debate).  

Can Man Live Without God?

Most of this is from chapter 16 of a book from Razi Zacharias  Can Man Live Without God? 1994

 Finally the cross sounds forth the message that God is not distant from pain and suffering; He has done something about it.  Not only has He done something about evil, he transformed that evil in the cross to counter it with good and to define the solution to evil.  James Stewart of Scotland states this so succinctly:
It is a glorious phrase--"He led captivity captive", The very triumphs of His foes, it means, He used for their defeat.  He compelled their dark achievements to subserve His ends, not theirs.  ...He did not conquer in spite of the dark mystery of evil.  He conquered through it."

 

Passion is in fashion and decency is “gone with the wind”.  The ramifications of living without God is terrifying.  Atheism when dominant inevitably leads to a creedless Chaos.  Mao in China and Hitler in Germany are just two examples of recent history not to mention Rwanda. 

Somewhere sometime, human enthrallment finds its limit, as does human capacity.  God alone is the perpetual novelty—providing wonder, truth, love, and security.  "Who am I?  … Whoever I am, thou knowest, O God, I am thine." (Dietrich Bonhoeffer “Who Am I”)

 

Recommended Read “The Pilgrim’s Progress” by John Bunyan 

 

I am absolutely convinced that meaninglessness does not come from being weary of pain; meaninglessness comes from being weary of pleasure.  And that is why we find ourselves emptied of meaning with our pantries still full.  The cross stands above all this, redefining life itself.  The cross stands as the central feature of the Christian explanation and as the answer to the problem of pain.  The cross smacks against everything we think of as life.  It may be time for us to re-examine with candor why this historic event has such defining power for life and death.  As I (Ravi) attempt to bring this all to a conclusion, let me state these words in summary.   When man lives apart from God, chaos is the norm.  When man lives with God, as revealed in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the hungers of the mind and heart find their fulfillment.  For in Christ we find coherence and consolation as he reveals to us, in the most verifiable terms of truth and experience, the nature of man, the nature of reality, the nature of history, the nature of our destiny, and the nature of suffering.  Obviously, there is much more that can be said, and much has been written on the subject. But I want to challenge you to weigh, with an honest mind, the evidence that is there. 
      I think it appropriate to present this thought-provoking quotation from G. K. Chesterton in closing.

Our civilization has decided, and very justly decided, that determining the guilt or innocence of men is a thing too important to be trusted to trained men.  If it wishes for light upon that awful matter, it asks men who know no more law than I know, but who can feel the things that I felt in the jury box.  When it wants a library catalogued, or the solar system discovered, or any trifle of that kind, it uses up its specialists.  But when it wishes anything done which is really serious, it collects twelve of the ordinary men standing round.  The same thing was done, if I remember right, by the Founder of Christianity.

You be the judge.  The jury has already recorded its conclusion in the pages of the Bible.