top of page

Addressing Controversial Verses in the Bible

Updated: Aug 26

Did God really meant people will not live beyond 120 years old?

 

Genesis 6:1-3 King James Version

1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

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

3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

 

It cannot mean that the average man would live 120 years at this time, for the average life span in these days before the flood is closer to 800 years.



The word “strive” in the Hebrew is “dun,” explained by Gesenius to mean “my spirit shall not always rule in man.” There is little indication, however, that God’s spirit ever “ruled” in any man until after Pentecost, and sad to say, there are very few born-again Christians today who follow the “rule and reign” instructions for the Spirit in Romans 6. A further suggestion by Gesenius, which he dismisses with “What can any one make of this theology?” (Lexicon, p. 193), sheds more light than the theology to which Gesenius ascribed. His reading from the Hebrew would be, “My divine nature shall not be always humbled in men because they are flesh also.” This would mean that the nature which God imparted to angels at their creation was part of His own nature (Heb. 1:7, 14), and He will draw the line on how long this nature is going to be abased in integration and “race mixing” with man’s nature (Psa. 78:39; Ecc. 3:20; Lev. 17:13).

 

Putting all of this together, one is left with the impression that:

 

1. The angels have become fleshy creatures through women (1 Cor. 11:10).

2. Man also is flesh.

3. God cannot continue to have fellowship with such a situation (Gen. 6:5).

4. He is going to give them 120 years notice of a change in weather and then a forecast of “100 percent possibility of precipitation.”

 

Whether or not this fully explains the verse will have to be left to that great Bible expositor and teacher who can fully explain every verse in the Bible—the Holy Spirit (John 16:13, 14:26).

 

Why did God allowed incest?

 

Genesis 20:11-12 King James Version

11 And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake.

12 And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.

 

Adam and Eve were genetically perfect and the closer the generations are to Adam and Eve the better their genetic makeup are and it would take several generations of inbreeding to start to taint that perfection to the point of mutations.

 

God told them to be fruitful and multiply. The consequence of incest due to genetic mutations was not an issue until several generations into the future which was also hasten because of the genetic bottleneck that occurred post-Noah's Flood where the entire population was reduced to just eight people


Biblical Lifespan & Genetic Bottleneck - Genesis Apologetics


 

Then God gave the Law through Moses in Leviticus 18:6-18 which forbids the incestuous relationship from continuing.

 

Leviticus 18:6-18 King James Version

6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.

7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.

9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.

10 The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.

11 The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.

13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.

14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.

15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness.

17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.

18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.


This also answers who was Cain's wife in Genesis 4:17, it's none other than his own sister born from Adam and Eve when they are populating the world.


Why did God commanded Abraham to kill his son Isaac?

 

Genesis 22:10-12 King James Version

10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.

11 And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.

12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.”


No “friend of God” has been really “tried” until he has been tried on the things that he loves. Men are what they love—and fear; profession or training have very little to do with it, as any “twenty-year man” in the army knows. “Show me what a man loves and what scares him, and I’ve got the man’s number.” The Devil looks at it the same way. Affections determine decisions and decisions determine destinations (see Demas, Ruth, Peter, Paul, and anyone else, in or out of the Bible).


If a man has never been tested on the point of what he loves most, he has never been tested at all. (See First Commandment as it is given in Deut. 6:5.) By such a standard, the average liberal has never had his “hat in the ring” when it comes to Bible Christianity, for Jesus said that if a man loved Him, he would “keep His words” (John 15:7, 14:23).


1. Test of Abraham's Love towards GOD


Matthew 22:37 KJV: "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind."


Abraham's Love towards GOD must be greater than his Love towards his son Isaac


2. Test of Abraham's Trust towards GOD's promise


Proverbs 3:5 KJV: "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding."


Abraham must Trust GOD that He will fulfill His promise in Genesis 15:5 despite what he understand what he will do to his son is contradicting that promise.


3. Test of Abraham's Faith towards GOD despite the ordeal


Hebrews 11:17-19 KJV: 17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: 19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.


Abraham by Faith knew that GOD will be able to raise Isaac from the dead without prior knowledge of the Resurrection.



Why did God suddenly sought to kill Moses?

 

Exodus 4:20-26 King James Version

20 And Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon an ass, and he returned to the land of Egypt: and Moses took the rod of God in his hand.

21 And the Lord said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

23 And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.

24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him.

25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.

26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

 

The passage is one of the most difficult in the book of Exodus. Most of the commentators seem to think that God suddenly met Moses and would have killed him (Moses) if Zipporah had not circumcised her child. But there were TWO, remember?! (Gershom and Eliezer)

 

Moses and Zipporah and his two sons go to the inn. They step through the door, and the Lord suddenly shows up. Before all four of them, He hauls out a sword (Num. 22:23) to kill Moses— after just telling him: “all the men are dead which sought thy life” (vs. 19). Then Zipporah, by instinct, sees the necessary steps to take; instead of screaming, praying, stepping in front of Moses, running out the back door, or assuming a karate stance before the Lord, she picks up a flint knife (cf. Josh. 5:2) and cuts off the foreskin of ONE child.

 

Driver has a much better explanation, which matches Deuteronomy 1:3; Exodus 5:1–3; Psalm 80:2, 7; and Genesis 17:10, 23. The Lord has showed up to kill one of the boys who has not yet been circumcised. Moses has evidently refused to circumcise his “firstborn” on the grounds that he is no longer a “Hebrew.” Upon leaving Egypt in chapter 2, Moses renounced his nationality and refused to circumcise Gershom (see the remarks under 3:1, 11). Still, it is hard to explain how Eliezer got circumcised later; if both boys were uncircumcised, both of them would have been in danger according to Genesis 17:14.

 

Genesis 17:11-14 King James Version

11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

 

However, the “tie-in” between verses 23 and 24 indicates clearly that it is the firstborn of Moses who is in danger. Gershom is the one who is not circumcised; at this time, he could not have been much under 38 years old and would have had no more need to ride an ass, Zipporah seems to know exactly what to do without anyone telling her (vs. 25). The correct scene, then, must be projected on the screen as follows:

 

Aaron meets Moses, Gershom, Zipporah, and Eliezer at the inn.

 

The last thing Moses was told before leaving for the inn was: “Tell Pharaoh that if he doesn’t let my firstborn go, I’ll kill his.”

 

About midnight, Gershom is moaning and tossing on his pallet. Mamma goes to see what is wrong. Gershom is running a temperature of 105, and he is bathed in perspiration.

 

Zipporah ransacks her first aid kit (and her brains) and can find nothing to stop the fever. Then Zipporah remembers! In forty years of living with Moses, she has heard Genesis chapter 17 so many times she could repeat it by memory. Now with Moses’ official commission to be the leader of Abraham’s physical descendants, he will have to conform to Genesis chapter 17 to the letter. She gets the knife, performs the painful operation, and then goes back into the bedroom, wakes up the mighty Moses, and slaps the foreskin down at his feet—he is sleeping on the floor—and says, “You’re some husband! If I hadn’t done the job you should have done, we would have had to bury Gershom in the morning! You nearly caused the death of your own firstborn with your carelessness.

 

Did God promoted slavery?

 

Biblical Indentured Service

 

A mistake critics make is associating servanthood in the Old Testament with antebellum (prewar) slavery in the South—like the kind of scenario Douglass described. By contrast, Hebrew (debt) servanthood could be compared to similar conditions in colonial America. Paying fares for passage to America was too costly for many individuals to afford. So they’d contract themselves out, working in the households—often in apprentice-like positions—until they paid back their debts. One-half to two-thirds of white immigrants to Britain’s colonies were indentured servants.

 

Likewise, an Israelite strapped for shekels might become an indentured servant to pay off his debt to a “boss” or “employer” (’adon). Calling him a “master” is often way too strong a term, just as the term ‘ebed (“servant, employee”) typically shouldn’t be translated “slave.” John Goldingay comments that “there is nothing inherently lowly or undignified about being an ‘ebed.” Indeed, it is an honorable, dignified term. Even when the terms buy, sell, or acquire are used of servants/employees, they don’t mean the person in question is “just property.” Think of a sports player today who gets “traded” to another team, to which he “belongs.” Yes, teams have “owners,” but we’re hardly talking about slavery here! Rather, these are formal contractual agreements, which is what we find in Old Testament servanthood/employee arrangements. One example of this contracted employer/employee relationship was Jacob’s working for Laban for seven years so that he might marry his daughter Rachel. In Israel, becoming a voluntary servant was commonly a starvation-prevention measure; a person had no collateral other than himself, which meant either service or death. While most people worked in the family business, servants would contribute to it as domestic workers. Contrary to the critics, this servanthood wasn’t much different experientially from paid employment in a cash economy like ours.

 

Now, debt tended to come to families, not just individuals. Whether because of failed crops  or serious indebtedness, a father could voluntarily enter into a contractual agreement (“sell” himself) to work in the household of another: “one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself” (Lev. 25:47). Perhaps his wife or children might “be sold” to help sustain the family through economically unbearable times. If his kinfolk didn’t “redeem” him (pay off his debt), then he would work as a debt-servant until he was released after six years.7 Family land would have to be mortgaged until the year of Jubilee every fifty years (see Leviticus 25, which actually spells out successive stages of destitution in Israel in vv. 25–54).8 In other words, this servanthood wasn’t imposed by an outsider, as it was by slave traders and plantation owners in the antebellum South.9 What’s more, this indentured service wasn’t unusual in other parts of the ancient Near East either (though conditions were often worse). And later on, when inhabitants of Judah took back Hebrew servants they had released, God condemned them for violating the law of Moses and for forgetting that they were once slaves in Egypt whom God had delivered. God told the Judahites that because of their actions they were going to be exiled in the land of their enemies (Jer. 34:12–22).

 

Once a servant was released, he was free to pursue his own livelihood without any further obligations within that household. He returned to being a full participant in Israelite society. Becoming an indentured servant meant a slight step down the social ladder, but a person could step back up as a full citizen once the debt was paid or he was released in the seventh year (or in the fiftieth year). Nevertheless, the law was concerned that indentured servants were to be treated as a man “hired from year to year” and were not to be “rule[d] over . . . ruthlessly” (Lev. 25:53–54). In fact, servants in Israel weren’t cut off from society during their servitude but were thoroughly embedded within it. As I mentioned earlier, Israel’s forgiveness of debts every seven years was fixed and thus intended to be far more consistent than that of Israel’s ancient Near Eastern counterparts, for whom debt-release (if it occurred) was typically much more sporadic.

 

So unavoidable lifelong servanthood was prohibited, unless someone loved the head of the household and wanted to attach himself to him (Exod. 21:5). Servants—even if they hadn’t paid off their debts—were granted release every seventh year with all debts forgiven (Deut. 15). As we’ll see, their legal status was unique and a dramatic improvement over law codes in the ancient Near East. One scholar writes that “Hebrew has no vocabulary of slavery, only of servanthood.”

 

An Israelite servant’s guaranteed release within seven years was a control or regulation to prevent the abuse and institutionalizing of such positions. The release year reminded the Israelites that poverty-induced servanthood wasn’t an ideal social arrangement. On the other hand, servanthood existed in Israel precisely because poverty existed: no poverty, no servants in Israel. And if servants lived in Israel, it was a voluntary (poverty-induced) arrangement and not forced.

 

Means to Help the Poor

 

In the ancient world (and beyond), chattel (or property) slavery had three characteristics:

 

1. A slave was property.

2. The slave owner’s rights over the slave’s person and work were total and absolute.

3. The slave was stripped of his identity—racial, familial, social, marital.11

 

From what we’ve seen, this doesn’t describe the Hebrew servant at all, nor does it (as we’ll see in the next chapter) fit the non-Israelite “slave” in Israel.

 

Israel’s servant laws were concerned about controlling or regulating—not idealizing—an inferior work arrangement. Israelite servitude was induced by poverty, was entered into voluntarily, and was far from optimal. The intent of these laws was to combat potential abuses, not to institutionalize servitude.

 

When we compare Israel’s servant system with the ancient Near East in general, what we have is a fairly tame and, in many ways, very attractive arrangement for impoverished Israelites. The servant laws aimed to benefit and protect the poor—that is, those most likely to enter indentured service. Servanthood was voluntary: a person who (for whatever reason) doesn’t have any land “sells himself” (Lev. 25:39, 47; compare Deut. 15:12). Someone might also sell a family member as an indentured servant in another’s household to work until a debt is paid off. Once a person was freed from his servant obligations, he had the “status of full and unencumbered citizenship.”

 

Old Testament legislation sought to prevent voluntary debt-servitude. A good deal of Mosaic legislation was given to protect the poor from even temporary indentured service. The poor were given opportunities to glean the edges of fields or pick lingering fruit on trees after their fellow Israelites harvested the land (Lev. 19:9–10; 23:22; Deut. 24:20–21). Also, fellow Israelites were commanded to lend freely to the poor (Deut. 15:7–8), who weren’t to be charged interest (Exod. 22:25; Lev. 25:36–37). And if the poor couldn’t afford high-end sacrificial animals, they could sacrifice smaller, less-expensive ones (Lev. 5:7, 11). Also, debts were to be automatically canceled every seven years. In fact, when debt-servants were released, they were to be generously provided for without a “grudging heart” (Deut. 15:10). The bottom line: God didn’t want there to be any poverty in Israel (Deut. 15:4). Therefore, servant laws existed to help the poor, not harm them or keep them down.

 

Why did God wants certain nations in the Old Testament completely destroyed including its women and children?

 

Deuteronomy 7:1-4 King James Version

1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;

2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:

3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.

4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.

5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.


Is GOD Immoral for killing the Caananites? Apologetics by Dr. Frank Turek


 

According to the biblical text, Yahweh was willing to wait about 430 years because “the sin of the Amorite [a Canaanite people group] has not yet reached its limit” (Gen. 15:16). In other words, in Abraham’s day, the time wasn’t ripe for judgment on the Canaanites; the moment wasn’t right for them to be driven out and for the land to “vomit them out” (Lev. 18:25). Sodom and Gomorrah, on the other hand, were ready; not even ten righteous people could be found there (Gen. 18–19). Even earlier, at the time of Noah, humans had similarly hit moral rock bottom (Gen. 6:11–13). Despite 120 years of Noah’s preaching (Gen. 6:3; cf. 5:32; 7:6; 2 Peter 2:5), no one outside his family listened; his contemporaries were also ripe for judgment. But it was only after Israel’s lengthy enslavement in Egypt that the time was finally ripe for the Israelites to enter Canaan—“because of the wickedness of these nations” (Deut. 9:4–5). Sometimes God simply gives up on nations, cities, or individuals when they’ve gone past a point of no return. Judgment—whether directly or indirectly—is the last resort.

 

What kind of wickedness are we talking about? We’re familiar with the line, “The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.” In the case of the Canaanites, the Canaanites’ moral apples didn’t fall far from the tree of their pantheon of immoral gods and goddesses. As we’ve seen, adultery (temple sex), bestiality, homosexual acts (also temple sex), and child sacrifice were also permitted (cf. Lev. 18:20–30).

 

Humans are “imaging” beings, designed to reflect the likeness and glory of their Creator. If we worship the creaturely rather than the Creator, we’ll come to resemble or image the idols of our own devising and that in which we place our security.3 The sexual acts of the gods and goddesses were imitated by the Canaanites as a kind of magical act: the more sex on the Canaanite high places, the more this would stimulate the fertility god Baal to have sex with his consort, Anath, which meant more semen (rain) produced to water the earth.

 

Let’s add to this the bloodlust and violence of the Canaanite deities. Anath, the patroness of both sex and war, reminds us of the bloodthirsty goddess Kali of Hinduism, who drank her victims’ blood and sat surrounded by corpses; she is commonly depicted with a garland of skulls around her neck. The late archaeologist William Albright describes the Canaanite deity  Anath’s massacre in the following gory scene:

 

The blood was so deep that she waded in it up to her knees—nay, up to her neck. Under her feet were human heads, above her human hands flew like locusts. In her sensuous delight she decorated herself with suspended heads while she attached hands to her girdle. Her joy at the butchery is described in even more sadistic language: “Her liver swelled with laughter, her heart was full of joy, the liver of Anath (was full of) exultation (?).” Afterwards Anath “was satisfied” and washed her hands in human gore before proceeding to other occupations.4

 

Canaanite idolatry wasn’t simply an abstract theology or personal interest carried out in the privacy of one’s home. It was a worldview that profoundly influenced Canaanite society. Given this setting, it’s no wonder God didn’t want the Israelites to associate with the Canaanites and be led astray from obedience to the one true God. He wanted to have Israel morally and theologically separate from the peoples around them.

 

In other words, the land of Canaan was no paradise before the Israelites got there. Israel had no inherent right to inhabit the land (as an undeserved gift from God), and neither did the Canaanites have a right to remain in it. In fact, both the Canaanites and the Israelites would experience (partial) removal from the land because of their wickedness.

 

I’m not arguing that the Canaanites were the worst specimens of humanity that ever existed, nor am I arguing that the Canaanites won the immorality contest for worst-behaved peoples in all the ancient Near East. That said, the evidence for profound moral corruption was abundant. God considered them ripe for divine judgment, which would be carried out in keeping with God’s saving purposes in history.

 

Some argue that God is intolerant, commanding people to have “no other gods before Me” (Exod. 20:3). They state that Israel’s laws illustrate the denial of religious freedom at the heart of Israelite religion. And didn’t other ancient Near Eastern religions value religious diversity? Couldn’t non-Israelites worship whatever god they wanted? Israel had committed itself to be faithful to Yahweh; as in any good marriage, spouses shouldn’t play the field in the name of marital freedom. As for the Canaanites, God judged them not only because they happened to worship idols but also because of the corrupting moral practices and influences bound up with this idolatry. Notice that God judges the nations listed in Amos 1–2 not because they don’t worship Yahweh but because of outrageous moral acts. I’ve already addressed the topic of divine jealousy, but I’ll come back to some of these themes later.

 

So was God just picking on the Canaanites but not other peoples? No, Yahweh frequently threatened many nations with judgment when they crossed a certain moral threshold. For example, in Amos 1–2, God promised to “send fire” on nations surrounding Israel for their treacheries and barbarities. And he promised the same to Israel and Judah. Later, Jesus himself pronounced final judgment on nationalistic Israel, which would face its doom in AD 70 at the hands of the Romans (Matt. 24).

 

What’s more, we moderns shouldn’t think that severe divine judgment was only for biblical times, as though God no longer judges nations today. Despite many gains over the centuries in the areas of human rights and religious liberty, due to the positive influence of biblical ideals in America and other Western nations, Westerners have their own share of decadence, and we may resemble the Canaanites more than we realize. We should proceed cautiously about what counts for direct divine judgment, as we may not be able to determine this precisely.5 These sorts of acts serve as illustrations of a cosmic final judgment yet to come. Ultimately, God’s judgment will come to all who refuse to submit to God’s kingdom agenda and instead seek to set up their own little fiefdoms. God grants humans freedom to separate themselves from God. In the end, humans can have their final divorce from God both as a just judgment as well as the natural fruit borne out of a life lived without God. As a last resort, God says to them, “Thy will be done.”

 

Earlier in Deuteronomy 7:2–5, we find a similar tension. On the one hand, God tells Israel that they should “defeat” and “utterly destroy [haram]” the Canaanites (v. 2)—a holy consecration to destruction. On the other hand, he immediately goes on to say in the very next verses:

 

Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons. For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you. But thus you shall do to them: you shall tear down their altars, and smash their sacred pillars, and hew down their Asherim [figures of Asherah, who was the Canaanite goddess of sexuality/sensuality], and burn their graven images with fire. (vv. 3–5)

 

If the Canaanites were to be completely obliterated, why this discussion about intermarriage or treaties? The final verse emphasizes that the ultimate issue was religious: Israel was to destroy altars, images, and sacred pillars. In other words, destroying Canaanite religion was more important than destroying Canaanite people.6 This point was made earlier in Exodus 34:12–13: “Watch yourself that you make no covenant with the inhabitants of the land into which you are going, or it will become a snare in your midst. But rather, you are to tear down their altars and smash their sacred pillars and cut down their Asherim.” In Deuteronomy 12:2–3, we read the same emphasis on destroying Canaanite religion:

 

You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations whom you shall dispossess serve their gods, on the high mountains and on the hills and under every green tree. You shall tear down their altars and smash their sacred pillars and burn their Asherim with fire, and you shall cut down the engraved images of their gods and obliterate their name from that place.

 

As Gary Millar writes, the concern of this destruction (herem) was “to see Israel established in a land purged of Canaanite idolatry as painlessly as possible.” The goal was to “remove what is subject to [herem] laws (the idols).” The root of the dilemma Israel faced wasn’t “the people themselves, but their idolatrous way of life.” Failure to remove the idolatry would put Israel in the position of the Canaanites and their idols before God. Israel would risk being consecrated to destruction.

 

Even so, the Israelites didn’t do an effective job removing the snare of idolatry from the land (Ps. 106:34–43).

 

Psalm 106:34-43 King James Version

34 They did not destroy the nations, concerning whom the Lord commanded them:

35 But were mingled among the heathen, and learned their works.

36 And they served their idols: which were a snare unto them.

37 Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils,

38 And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood.

39 Thus were they defiled with their own works, and went a whoring with their own inventions.

40 Therefore was the wrath of the Lord kindled against his people, insomuch that he abhorred his own inheritance.

41 And he gave them into the hand of the heathen; and they that hated them ruled over them.

42 Their enemies also oppressed them, and they were brought into subjection under their hand.

43 Many times did he deliver them; but they provoked him with their counsel, and were brought low for their iniquity.


Baby sacrificed to the idol god Moloch with fire kindled underneath while playing drums and trumpets so the parents will not hear the cries of their baby as it slowly cook in the searing hot hands of the idol.


1 Samuel 15:1-2 King James Version

1 Samuel also said unto Saul, The Lord sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the Lord.

2 Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.

3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

 

We’ve given abundant evidence for claiming that approved Yahweh wars in the Old Testament were limited to a certain window of time in Israel’s history, to a certain smallish geographical location, and to a specific grouping of people. (Indeed, these specific divinely given parameters and controls were in marked contrast to other ancient Near Eastern nations, which had no such limits.) This act of judgment was a corporate capital punishment that could be carried out only with the guidance of special, divine revelation.

 

Some people might argue that this scenario is a stretch. It may require too many qualifications. For example, what if Canaanite and Amalekite women, children, and the elderly really were targeted? What if the “all” doesn’t apply only to combatants in Canaanite fortresses (cities) but is much more sweeping than this? Don’t too many contingencies have to be just right to arrive at a palatable moral conclusion regarding the Canaanite question? If this were the case, then we could imagine how critics might exclaim, “I can’t trust that God’s character is the standard of goodness if he commands the killing of innocent children!” or “If that’s the kind of God you worship, I want nothing to do with him!”

 

For anyone who takes the Bible seriously, these Yahweh-war texts will certainly prove troubling. This issue is certainly the most weighty of all Old Testament ethical considerations. We shouldn’t glibly dismiss or ignore such questions. On the other hand, we hope that critics won’t do a surface reading of these Old Testament texts.

 

If our scenario doesn’t cover all the bases, it still goes a long way in providing perspective on what happened and didn’t happen in Canaan. Simply put, the damage to and death of noncombatants would have been far less serious and extensive than what critics and believers alike have maintained based on a traditional surface reading of the text. Just review the previous chapter for a summary of all the qualifications and exceptions (e.g., exaggerated ancient Near Eastern language, the meaning of “driving out,” destruction of idolatry over people, and so on).

 

Second, let’s assume that women weren’t combatants, like Joan of Arc against the English (1412–31) or Budicca (d. AD 60) against the Romans. Even so, Canaanite women would have participated in immoral, degrading activities (which we’ve reviewed). Deviant morality wasn’t just the domain of men. We’ve seen how temple prostitution was religiously justified adultery, and how Canaanite gods themselves modeled adultery, bestiality, incest, and a host of other activities that their devotees practiced. Even before we get to Canaan, notice how readily the Midianite women sought to seduce Israelite men (Num. 25). Women may not have been combatants, but they were hardly innocent. And we could add that elderly Canaanites clearly shared blame in the moral corruption of their culture.

 

Third, if the evidence doesn’t offer a complete answer, the lingering crucial question is, Why kill Canaanite infants and children? Surely they were innocent. From a theological side, we can say a couple of things.

1.      God is the author of life and has a rightful claim on it as Creator. Therefore, humans can make no demands on how long a person ought to live on earth (Job 1:21). If God is God and we aren’t, then our rights will necessarily be limited to some degree.

2.      If any infants and children were killed, they would have entered the presence of God. Though deprived of earthly life, these young ones wouldn’t have been deprived of the greatest good—enjoying everlasting friendship with God.

 

Again, the 1 Samuel 15 story appears to be a clear-cut case of complete obliteration. No Amalekites remaining, right? Wrong! In 1 Samuel 27:8, “David and his men went up and raided the Geshurites and the Girzites”—and the “utterly destroyed” Amalekites! But was that the end of them? No, they appear again in 1 Samuel 30: the Amalekites made one of their infamous raids (v. 1); David pursued them to get back the Israelites and the booty the Amalekites had taken (v. 18); and four hundred of them escaped (v. 17). So contrary to the common impression, Saul didn’t wipe out all the Amalekites, something 1 Samuel itself makes clear. And even David didn’t complete the job. The Amalekites were still around during King Hezekiah’s time 250 years later (1 Chron. 4:43).

 

Then we get to the time of Esther, when the Jews were under the rule of the Persian king Ahasuerus/Xerxes (486–465 BC). Here we encounter “Haman . . . the Agagite” (Esther 3:1). Remember King Agag the Amalekite from 1 Samuel 15:8? Yes, Haman was an Amalekite who continued the Amalekite tradition of aggression against God’s people. An “enemy of the Jews” (Esther 3:10), Haman mounted a campaign to destroy the Jews as a people (3:13).


Related Video: Story of Esther

 

Knowing that callous Amalekite hostility would continue for nearly a millennium of Israel’s history, God reminded his people not to let up in their opposition to the Amalekites (Deut. 25:15–17). Otherwise, the hardened Amalekites would seek to destroy Israel. If the Amalekites had their way, Israel would have been wiped off the map (if God will not intervene on Israel's behalf).


Did God condone rape?


Deuteronomy 22:28-29 New International Version

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,

29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.


The answer is NO. This is the fault of the Modern Translations. In the King James Version it has a different context.


Deuteronomy 22:28-29 King James Version

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.


Betrothed from 1828 Webster's Dictionary means:

1. To contract to any one, in order to a future marriage; to promise or pledge one to be the future spouse of another; to affiance; used of either sex. 'The father betroths his daughter.'

2. To contract with one for a future spouse; to espouse; as, a man betroths a lady.


The difference between the 2 Bible Versions is that in King James Version it's implied that the virgin consented while in the New International Version doesn't.


If a man lie with a virgin that was not betrothed to that man but consented in doing the sexual act, then that man is fined by the daughter's father of about fifty shekels of silver as dowry and is forced to marry her. God forbids rape, the consequence of this sin is death in the Old Testament as stated in Deuteronomy 22:25.


Why did Prophet Elisha cursed the children of Bethel?


2 Kings 2:22-24 King James Version

22 So the waters were healed unto this day, according to the saying of Elisha which he spake.

23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

 

Here is a curse upon the children of Bethel, which was effectual to destroy them; for it was not a curse causeless. At Bethel there was another school of prophets. Thither Elisha went next, in this his primary visitation, and the scholars there no doubt welcomed him with all possible respect, but the townsmen were abusive to him. One of Jeroboam's calves was at Bethel; this they were proud of, and fond of, and hated those that reproved them. The law did not empower them to suppress this pious academy, but we may suppose it was their usual practice to jeer the prophets as they went along the streets, to call them by some nickname or other, that they might expose them to contempt, prejudice their youth against them, and, if possible, drive them out of their town. Had the abuse done to Elisha been the first offence of that kind, it is probable that it would not have been so severely punished. But mocking the messengers of the Lord, and misusing the prophets, was one of the crying sins of Israel (refer to Psalms 105:15), as we find, 2 Chron. 36:16. Now here we have,


1. An instance of that sin. The little children of Bethel, the boys and girls that were playing in the streets (notice, it is likely, having come to the town of his approach), went out to meet him, not with their hosannas, as they ought to have done, but with their scoffs; they gathered about him and mocked him, as if he had been a fool, or one fit to make sport with. Among other things that they used to jeer the prophets with, they had this particular taunt for him, Go up, thou bald head, go up, thou bald head. It is a wicked thing to reproach persons for their natural infirmities or deformities; it is adding affliction to the afflicted; and, if they are as God made them, the reproach reflects upon him. But this was such a thing as scarcely deserved to be called a blemish, and would never have been turned to his reproach if they had had any thing else to reproach him with. It was his character as a prophet that they designed to abuse. The honour God had crowned him with should have been sufficient to cover his bald head and protect him from their scoffs. They bade him go up, perhaps reflecting on the assumption of Elijah: "Thy master," they say, "has gone up; why dost not thou go up after him? Where is the fiery chariot? When shall we be rid of thee too?" These children said as they were taught; they had learned of their idolatrous parents to call foul names and give bad language, especially to prophets. These young cocks, as we say, crowed after the old ones. Perhaps their parents did at this time send them out and set them on, that, if possible, they might keep the prophet out of their town.

 

2. A specimen of that ruin which came down upon Israel at last, for misusing God's prophets, and of which this was intended to give them fair warning. Elisha heard their taunts, a good while, with patience; but at length the fire of holy zeal for God was kindled in his breast by the continued provocation, and he turned and looked upon them, to try if a grave and severe look would put them out of countenance and oblige them to retire, to see if he could discern in their faces any marks of ingenuousness; but they were not ashamed, neither could they blush; and therefore he cursed them in the name of the Lord, both imprecated and denounced the following judgment, not in personal revenge for the indignity done to himself, but as the mouth of divine justice to punish the dishonour done to God. His summons was immediately obeyed. Two she-bears (bears perhaps robbed of their whelps) came out of an adjacent wood, and presently killed forty-two children, v. 24. Now in this, (1.) The prophet must be justified, for he did it by divine impulse. Had the curse come from any bad principle God would not have said Amen to it. We may think it would have been better to have called for two rods for the correction of these children than two bears for the destruction of them. But Elisha knew, by the Spirit, the bad character of these children. He knew what a generation of vipers those were, and what mischievous enemies they would be to God's prophets if they should live to be men, who began so early to be abusive to them. He intended hereby to punish the parents and to make them afraid of God's judgments. (2.) God must be glorified as a righteous God, that hates sin, and will reckon for it, even in little children. Let the wicked wretched brood make our flesh tremble for fear of God. Let little children be afraid of speaking wicked words, for God notices what they say. Let them not mock any for their defects in mind or body, but pity them rather; especially let them know that it is at their peril if they jeer God's people or ministers, and scoff at any for well-doing. Let parents, that would have comfort in their children, train them up well, and do their utmost betimes to drive out the foolishness that is bound up in their hearts; for, as bishop Hall says, "In vain do we look for good from those children whose education we have neglected; and in vain do we grieve for those miscarriages which our care might have prevented." Elisha comes to Bethel and fears not the revenges of the bereaved parents; God, who bade him do what he did, he knew would bear him out. Thence he goes to Mount Carmel (v. 25), where it is probable there was a religious house fit for retirement and contemplation. Thence he returned to Samaria, where, being a public place, this father of the prophets might be most serviceable. Bishop Hall observes here, "That he can never be a profitable seer who is either always or never alone."


Did God really meant to beat up your own children?


Proverbs 23:13-14 King James Version

13 Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.

14 Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.


A parent correcting his child. A tender parent can scarcely find in his heart to do this; it goes much against the grain. But he finds it is necessary; it is his duty, and therefore he dares not withhold correction when there is occasion for it (spare the rod and spoil the child); he beats him with the rod, gives him a gentle correction, the stripes of the sons of men, not such as we give to beasts. Beat him with the rod and he shall not die. The rod will not kill him; nay, it will prevent him from killing himself by those vicious courses which the rod will be necessary to restrain him from. For the present it is not joyous, but grievous, both to the parent and to the child; but when it is given with wisdom, designed for good, accompanied with prayer, and blessed of God, it may prove a happy means of preventing his utter destruction and delivering his soul from hell. Our great care must be about our children's souls; we must not see them in danger of hell without using all possible means, with the utmost care and concern, to snatch them as brands out of everlasting burnings. Let the body smart, so that the spirit be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.


 

If people say God is all good then why did He create evil?

 

Isaiah 45:5-7 King James Version

5 I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else.

7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

 

God here asserts his sole and sovereign dominion, as that which he designed to prove and manifest to the world in all the great things he did for Cyrus and by him. Observe, How this doctrine is here laid down concerning the sovereignty of the great Jehovah, in two things:

 

1. That he is God alone, and there is no God besides him. This is here inculcated as a fundamental truth, which, if it were firmly believed, would abolish idolatry out of the world. With what an awful, commanding, air of majesty and authority, bidding defiance, as it were, to all pretenders, does the great God here proclaim it to the world: I am the Lord, I the Lord, Jehovah, and there is none else, there is no God besides me, no other self-existent, self-sufficient, being, none infinite and eternal. And again (v. 6), There is none besides me; all that are set up in competition with me are counterfeits; they are all vanity and a lie, for I am the Lord, and there is none else. This is here said to Cyrus, not only to cure him of the sin of his ancestors, which was the worshipping of idols, but to prevent his falling into the sin of some of his predecessors in victory and universal monarchy, which was the setting up of themselves for gods and being idolized, to which some attribute much of the origin of idolatry. Let Cyrus, when he becomes thus rich and great, remember that still he is but a man, and there is no God but one.

 

2. That he is Lord of all, and there is nothing done without him (v. 7): I form the light, which is grateful and pleasing, and I create darkness, which is grievous and unpleasing. I make peace (put here for all good) and I create evil, not the evil of sin (God is not the author of that), but the evil of punishment. I the Lord order, and direct, and do all these things. Observe, (1.) The very different events that befal the children of men. Light and darkness are opposite to each other, and yet, in the course of providence, they are sometimes intermixed, like the morning and evening twilights, neither day nor night, Zech. 14:6. There is a mixture of joys and sorrows in the same cup, allays to each other. Sometimes they are counterchanged, as noonday light and midnight darkness. In the revolution of every day each takes its turn, and there are short transitions from the one to the other, witness Job's case. (2.) The self-same cause of both, and that is he that is the first Cause of all: I the Lord, the fountain of all being, am the fountain of all power. He who formed the natural light (Gen. 1:3) still forms the providential light. He who at first made peace among the jarring seeds and principles of nature makes peace in the affairs of men. He who allowed the natural darkness, which was a mere privation, creates the providential darkness; for concerning troubles and afflictions he gives positive orders. Note, The wise God has the ordering and disposing of all our comforts, and all our crosses, in this world.


Isaiah 45:7 commentary by Bob Militello



Did Jesus Christ admits He’s a sinner?

 

Mark 10:17-18 King James Version

17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?

18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

 

Now this fellow who comes to Jesus asking what to do to “inherit eternal life” is known as the “rich, young ruler.” He is called that because you are told in Luke 18:23 that he was “very rich,” Matthew 19:20 calls him a “young man,” and Luke 18:18 says he was “a certain ruler.” In politeness and respect to Christ, this young man calls Him, “Good Master” (vs. 17). Notice that he doesn’t acknowledge Jesus as God but only a wise teacher, a fellow “man”.

 

But Christ turns the compliment right back on the fellow: “Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God” (vs. 18). Jesus uses the word “good” in the Pauline doctrinal sense (Rom. 3:12). It’s good in the sense of being sinless. According to the Son of God, there hasn’t been one human being since Adam, outside of Jesus Christ, who has been “good.” People don’t like that Book because it has nothing good to say about human nature.

 

The application of Christ’s words to Himself should be obvious. If He were not God, then He was not good. People, if Jesus Christ were just a “good teacher,” then He was no better than Moses, Zoroaster, Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius, the Dalai Lama, the Pope, Spinoza, Kant, Marx, Nietzsche, or any professor at any State College or “Ivy League” University; i.e., He was a sinner just like everyone else. If Jesus Christ were not God, then He was not a “good teacher.” He would be a blaspheming liar or a deranged, deluded lunatic, but a “good teacher” He would not be. But if He were who He said He was, then He was more than merely a “good teacher”; He was God Almighty “in the flesh” (1 Tim. 3:16; John 1:14). That is where all the evidence points

 

Did Jesus Christ admits He is not God?

 

John 14:23-28 King James Version

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.

26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

 

So in the book of Hebrews, up pops the statement that shows WHY “the Father is greater” than His Son.

 

Hebrews 2:7-9 King James Version

7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.

9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

 

It all has to do with His EARTHLY life as a man. The Father does not get tired; His Son did. The Father never gets thirsty; His Son did.

 

Should we worship Mary because Jesus proclaims Mary as their “Mother” to His disciples?

 

John 19:25-27 King James Version

25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

 

Jesus refuses to call Mary His “mother.” He calls her what He called the adulteress in John 4:21—“woman.” He never refers to her in the New Testament as His “mother.” (See John 2:4; Luke 11:27–28; Luke 11:27–28; Matt. 13:47–49). The Catholic “Mary” is a fictitious non-biblical spook invented by “tradition.”

 

By turning Mary over to John, it would appear that she is a widow now; her other six children (see Mark 6:3) are “grown” (over twenty), or at least four of them are. Six children coming three years apart would only come to eighteen years; thirty-three years have passed since the birth of the “firstborn” (Matt. 1). Four of them would be adults over twenty (see Num. 1–2), and the other two would have been eighteen and fifteen.


Hope this may be a blessing to the readers.


References:


How to go to Heaven? Find out in the short video below.


GOD's Simple Plan of Salvation


If you were to die today for any reason, are you 100% sure you will go to heaven?


This video explains the SIMPLE TRUTH according to the Scriptures. The only way to go to heaven is by:

(1) Admitting that you are a sinner

(2) Believing on the Lord Jesus Christ as your own personal Savior and Lord

(3) Repenting (meaning you are willing to turn away from your sins) of your sins then confessing your sins to God


Jesus Christ willingly sacrificed Himself and shed His precious blood on the cross as a substitute for you, so that you don't have to burn in hell for all eternity because of your sins, and have eternal life in heaven instead.


Watch the video to learn what Scripture says of God's great plan of salvation for you and how to receive His free gift. This is wonderful news. We pray you surrender to Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and to know 100% for sure you will go to heaven when you die!


If you want to attend our local Church please see our address, phone numbers and social media below


Bible Believers Baptist Church International

2F Lakeview Manors Arcade, 11 Bagong Calzada St., Taguig City, 1634 Metro Manila

Globe: 09171926870 / Smart: 09201205400


“And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.” (Luke 4:4)

54 views0 comments

Kommentare

bottom of page