If so please EMail us with your question to jonpartin@tiscali.co.uk and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer. EMailus.

Some Frequently Asked Questions In The Old Testament.

1. Where Did Cain Get His Wife?

2. Why did God cause David to Number Israel and then Punish Him For It? Why Did He Send Quails and The Punish Them For Eating Them?

3. Why Does the Bible Approve of Jael's Treachery?

4. Where Do Archaeological Findings Fit Into The Creation Account?

5. How Can We Explain the Apparent Contradictions Between the Differing Dates Given in Relation to the Lives of the Different Kings of Israel and Judah?

6. Was The Birth of Ishmael Against God's Purposes?

1) Where Did Cain Get His Wife? (Genesis 4)

Answer: We must first remember that the ancients were not burdened down with scientific problems, and rules of biographical writing like we are. With rare exceptions they took the world as they found it and described it as it appeared. They did not even ask scientific questions. They were interested in simple truths. We do the same when we talk about the sun rising. We are describing simply what people see. Does anyone today really think that the sun rises every morning? Of course not, we know that it is the world which is turning round. But when we say the sun is rising it is simply describing things as we see them. For a pleasant change we are not trying to be scientific. We should not be surprised that the ancients did the same.

So the early writers wrote simply without trying to amplify things. There were a few basic facts they wanted to get over and they did it as simply as possible without introducing unnecessary complications. To them background was not important. They concentrated on the essentials of the story.

If we moderns had been writing the first few chapters of Genesis we would have started out with a preface, and then with an introduction. We would have put in maps, described the weather and the climate, set out the population situation, defined relationships - and lost the essentials in the details, and bored our readers into the bargain..

They were wiser. They had no scholars looking over their shoulders ready to criticise (or at least they didn't suspect it would happen) and they knew that their readers wanted simple facts without embellishment. So that was what they gave them.

Let us briefly rewrite Genesis 1 - 5 in part.

Adam and Eve produced a number of sons and daughters. (This is stressed in Genesis 5.4). They grew up to manhood and womanhood, and because later problems did not affect them in their primitive state they were able to intermarry quite happily and produce many children.

The two oldest members of the family were Cain and Abel. As they grew to manhood and beyond and established their position in the family, which by now was growing quite large, they developed sheep farming and agriculture.

Because Abel worked hard and worshipped God genuinely, his flocks prospered. But Cain was a little lazy, and the work was hard, so he slacked off a bit and the result was that his fields were not very fruitful. He regularly gave gifts to God, in the hope that God would step in and do a miracle for him, but it did not make up for his failure to work hard. When he asked God what was wrong, God showed him that he had to put his life right if he wanted to prosper (‘sin crouches at the door’). He also had to start working a bit harder. But this was asking too much. Instead he allowed anger to fester. If he couldn't prosper, why should Abel? So he took the weak man's way out and killed his brother.

He knew immediately what a fool he had been. Now the family would have to claim vengeance on him for what he had done to his brother. Wherever he turned members of the family would see it as their duty to slay him. In fact God pointed out to him that he would now have to go into the 'land of wandering (nod)', shunning society and living in the desert. He would certainly not be able to produce fruitfully there! That was his punishment.

However, God was merciful and He marked Cain in such a way that the rest of the by now large family knew that they must not gain revenge on him but must leave the revenge to God. But he was no longer welcome in society and had to pay for his deed for the rest of his life in the ‘land of wandering’ where he established a community.

(That is a folksy narrative and it puts over the same lesson as Genesis 4, but not so vividly and pungently. There is too much detail. We have written as twentieth century authors with a twentieth century viewpoint. They were not interested in writing a history which fitted into background. They were pointing a lesson to people who wouldn't try to raise difficulties, and stuck to the bare bones of the matter.)

Up to now we have avoided getting into technicalities, but now here goes. It is always possible that Cain and Abel were not directly the children of Adam and Eve. That probably shocks you. Surely it says so, you say, doesn't it? Again we have to face the reality that people then thought differently from us today. The Bible happily says, 'So and so begat so and so' when everyone knew that, although there was some relationship, often by adoption, they were not actually father and son. They looked at the end result and not at the process. We are not necessarily saying that it was so in this case, but an ancient writer would have found no contradiction in saying, "she conceived and bare Cain" even if Cain had been some distance down the family tree. After all, that is what would have happened. The result of the conception was Cain, whether he was son or great, great grandson. Learn that lesson and a lot of Bible 'problems' will disappear.

2) Why Did God Cause David To Number Israel and Then Punish Him For It (2 Samuel 24.1) and Why Did God Send Quails to the Children of Israel and then Punish Them for Eating Them? (Numbers 11.31-34)

Answer: When looking at the Bible we need to recognise that it was written by a number of writers from different viewpoints, who saw and defined God from their own viewpoint. That is why the Bible speaks to all people of all races. This is not to say that they contradict each other, for God kept each from error in expressing his position under God. What it does mean is that when we interpret it we must not just look on it as a huge 'book of divine truth' all to be interpreted in the same way, but as a conglomeration of divine truth which we must think about as we study it. How could one man possibly even begin to comprehend every facet of God's nature and character? How could one method of expression reveal the whole truth? Let me give you an example.

In 2 Samuel 24.1 we read that God was angry with Israel and 'moved' David to 'number Israel'. This 'numbering' may have been with the purpose of raising an army, or of raising taxes, or it may just have been due to his overweening pride as a great king. Whatever the purpose it was displeasing to God and, as verse 10 clearly shows, David was fully aware of this.

You may therefore well ask, 'if God made David number Israel, how could He punish him for it?'. The answer is found in 1 Chronicles 21.1-28. There we learn that it was Satan who provoked David to number Israel. Who is right?

The answer is that both were right from their own way of looking at things. The writer in Chronicles sees the direct cause of David's sin, the work of Satan. But the writer in Samuel sees God as sovereign in all things, and therefore rightly considers that what happened was with God's cognisance and in that sense was God's will. Chronicles is placing its emphasis on man's freedom and the power of evil to influence that freedom, the writer in Samuel is stressing the sovereignty of God apart from Whom nothing can happen. He is so enthusiastic in this that he refers to it as a direct act of God.

We can compare how today we may look at some dreadful accident and comfort ourselves that it was within God's will even though we cannot understand it. If we are wise, however, we will not necessarily look on these things as a direct and deliberate act of God (compare Luke 13.1-5).

The writer in Numbers takes the same viewpoint as the writer in Samuel. Everything that happens is within God's cognisance and is therefore an 'act of God'. Indeed in British law accidents are often termed 'acts of God', although no one believes that this means that God deliberately stepped in and caused it.

So in Numbers 11.31-34, which we should note follows the giving of a spirit of wisdom to the leaders of the people, a wind brings a multitude of quails who fall and die near the camp. The wind is 'from the Lord', not because He deliberately raised the wind for this purpose, but because all winds are from the Lord. The writer is saying in effect, 'Do not doubt that God was in control, even in this'.

The people went out and gathered the dead quails in huge numbers. They were getting tired of their restricted diet and here was 'easy meat'. But if they had consulted their spirit-inspired leaders, or even their hunters, they would have been warned not to eat meat which had died from natural causes. The quails were diseased, and the eaters suffered the consequences. To the writer this is a sign of God's anger. In their greed they have failed to take spirit-guided advice and they suffer the consequences.

But Jesus looks at things another way in Luke 13.1-5. He too would have agreed that all things happen within God's cognisance, and in that sense are 'God's will', but He stresses that it is not to be seen as a direct action of God.

So the writer in Numbers has a simple faith in the overall sovereignty of God in all things, especially when reflected in the story of his own people. He sees everything as God's acts. But the writer of Chronicles, and Jesus, would have written it differently because they looked not only at the Prime Cause but at secondary causes. The writer in Numbers was not 'wrong', rather he gave one slant on the truth. Jesus and Chronicles gave another.

We are not therefore to see Number as teaching that God rather perversely put temptation in Israel's way and then punished them for it, rather we are to see that even when such things happen, He is in control. He did not mollycoddle the people, but at the same time he did provide them with a means of wisdom if they were willing to use it. The fault lay not with God but with the people who refused God's provision. If today we are careless with fresh meat we may well suffer salmonella poisoning or e coli, even if we say grace. That will not be God’s fault either.

3) Why Does The Bible Approve of Jael’s Treachery (Judges 4.18-23)

Answer: The same approach must be taken in the story of Jael as in the last question. Here we are not told that Jael was obeying God's instructions. We are simply told what she did. Now you and I are not likely to go to a visitors room and drive a nail through their heads. But we have not seen a people subjugated by a powerful and evil enemy, and heard of him terrorising and torturing those whom we saw as God's people, and humiliating them beyond bearing, and recognised that we alone had the chance to ensure that such things ceased to happen.

If Siserah had lived he would have again raised armies against and terrorised Israel. Jael lived in a more savage era, and she is mentioned because she acted because of her belief in God and did what she thought was right, and in so doing benefitted God’s people. What she did was against the laws of hospitality, but she felt that this was overridden by the importance of ensuring the death of this tyrant, for the sake of God's people.

She is praised because she acted for the right motive, even though her method might meet with disapproval by many. The song of Deborah and Barak is celebrating God's triumph, not Jael's method. The overall result was for the good of God's people. We too surely sometimes praise what someone does because their motive was right, even though we do not approve thoroughly of their method. We recognise that people are not perfect.

Compare how the Jews in this century might have felt about someone who murdered Hitler before he carried out most of his crimes. They would not have approved of murder, and yet how could they have failed, given hindsight, to approve of that particular murder?

So the lesson from this is that we must read God's word with care and thoughtfulness, and not just assume that because something is mentioned it was fully approved of. The Bible tells us the truth. It does not always, when speaking of history, fully approve of what was done although it recognises that God worked through such things to accomplish His purposes.

This is made clear in the life of David. The fact that he was a man after God's heart (1 Samuel 16.7) does not mean God approved of many of the things he did. Indeed God would not allow him to build the Temple because he was a man ‘with blood on his hands’ (1 Chronicles 28.3). (Solomon also fought wars, but not with the personal bloodiness of David). So we must learn to differentiate between the detail of what happened, and what God achieved through what happened.

4) If The Bible Account Of Creation Is Correct Where Do Archaeological Finds Fit In?

Answer: There are various views held by Christians to explain these facts. We consider the most likely to be that the Old Testament must be read as portraying ideas without overpressing the pictures given. For example in the story of Adam and Eve we are being told the story of the first true man and woman. The creation account speaks of a divine process leading up to this and this could include everything that is discovered to exist before true man (i.e. man as having a spiritual existence - the 'image' of God). The seemingly simple words are conveying profound truths, but do not specifically say how God did things. Man was made from the dust of the ground but the process is not described. Man later returns to the dust of the ground. How accurate the Bible is.

We do not know how long before Abraham Adam lived because numbers in their early use were symbolic rather than literal (see our articles on the Use of Numbers on http://www.oocities.org/Athens/Delphi/4027), and the lists of Patriarchs are representative not necessarily complete. It may have been millions of years. The first 11 chapters of Genesis are a brief synopsis leading up to the call of Abraham. They do not profess to deal with all that happened before then. They are concerned with the points at which God stepped in. At what point did man become 'Man' (Hebrew - 'Adam') i.e. a spiritual being as well as physical? We will never know. It is beyond the realms of science by definition.

Thus whether neanderthal and cro-magnon and homo erectus etc were true men we will only discover when we know more about them. Were they moral? Did they worship? These are the vital questions. (At present their connection with modern man is vague and hypothetical. I know of men who look like neanderthals).

There are however Christians who would argue that the vast majority of scientists are reading the material incorrectly and that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Science depends for its validity on the hypothesis that things go on as they always have, that we can hypothesise about the past from the present nature of things, and that everything has moved from simplicity to complexity. These things can neither be proved nor disproved. If we accept that physical science is based on principles that have never changed through time and that God would not create a world with fossils already imbedded in it then this view is unlikely. But we are then basing our position on something that cannot actually be proved, however likely it may seem.

There are variations of these views, of course, such as that there is a gap between Genesis 1.1 and 1.2, but in the end what matters is that man is a spiritual being answerable to God in a way that nature is not, that God created him for His purposes, and that God has ultimately revealed Himself to Abraham and through others as portrayed in the Bible (as well as in other ways). Science merely delves into how God did it, and on that there is room for disagreement.

5).Why Do We Find Contradictions Between Different Dates when Comparing Dates in the Lives of the Kings of Israel and Judah?

Answer: Firstly. The problem with dating in Bible days was that there was no concensus of opinion. Today we date things from a fixed point, 0 AD. But the ancients had no fixed point. They would date things from some momentous event. So we always have to ask what date they were dating from.

Secondly, the kings of Bible days often set up their sons (or grandsons) as co-rulers. Thus 'he began to reign' could refer either to the time when a man became co-ruler or when later he became sole ruler depending on standpoint (this explains a number of so-called contradictions). As the writers of Kings and Chronicles compiled their histories from ancient records they copied down the dates as given in the different sources without trying to reconcile them, but the differing sources had used different methods of reckoning. This incidentally confirms how accurately they copied sources without changing them.

Thirdly, some would call the opening year of the reign 'the first year' while others called it the 'opening year' and called the second year 'the first year' (i.e. first after the opening year. This is witnessed to in contemporary inscriptions. - Compare how in the UK we call the bottom floor of a house the ground floor, and the middle floor 'the first floor' rather than floor 2).

Thus it may well be, for example, that Asa began to be co-ruler with Rehoboam say twelve years or so before Rehoboam's death (Asa's father died quickly and may well have been sickly). The Chronicler, dating from this date says 'thirty six years after he began to reign i.e. became co-ruler' (2 Chronicles 16.1), while the Kingly writer dates back to the beginning of the sole reign (1 Kings 16.8).

However, when dealing with certain parts of the Old Testament we face certain other difficulties which we cannot ignore, however unfortunate they may be.

1) Corruption of the text. This especially occurs in respect of the use of numbers. At various times numbers were represented by single letters, and these may well have been misunderstood in later times. Furthermore, number words changed in meaning through the centuries. Thus the word for a 'thousand' originally meant 'a family, clan, captain'. In earlier days what we translate as 6,600 may have mean six captains and six hundred men. This is pobably true of numbers in the Book of Numbers. On top of this there certainly (but see 2) do appear to have been corruptions in the handing down of the text of Chronicles (in its use of numbers as well as in other places). The handing down of texts was a complicated and arduous procedure, with copying being a painstaking task and often with texts that might not be easily readable. There were no spaces between words which made it much easier, having glanced away to write, to 'pick up' the text in the wrong place and thus accidentally 'adjust' the text. These problems especially applied with regard to books like Chronicles which were part of the hagiographa ( the third section of the Hebrew Bible), the inspiration of which was accepted at a much later date than that of 'the prophets' (which included the Books of Kings). Thus not so much care would be taken in the copying.

2) Use of Numbers. Numbers were not always used literally by the ancients, but more symbolically and often with deliberate 'exaggeration' to bring out significance (compare how we might say 'I've told you a million times'). Furthermore, the meaning of number words changed over time. Thus the word for a thousand originally meant 'family, clan, captain', as mentioned above. We live in a mathematical age when we expect numbers to be correct, they used numbers to give an impression.

6. Was the Birth of Ishmael a Mistake?

Answer. There is no suggestion anywhere in the Bible that the birth of Ishmael was seen as any other than a normal act resulting from a normal relationship in terms of the days in which Abram lived. Furthermore God promised blessings to Ishmael (Genesis 16.10; 17.20) and gave him special protection (16.7-9), hardly the act (if one may say it reverently) of someone who would punish later generations because of him. Abram was concerned that his steward would be his heir (Gen.15.2). Someone had to take over leadership of the family tribe (which included 318 fighting men (Gen 14.14)) and act as protector to Sarai if Abram was killed. So when Sarai had seemingly passed the age of bearing she took the usual course per the custom of the age of giving her handmaid to Abram to bear her a child. The child would then be Abram's heir unless a natural son was born. This was standard practise and only modern 'men of faith' (more faith than Abraham?) would raise their eyebrows at it. To Abram it would seem the natural way of fulfilling God's promise, which he wholeheartedly believed (15.4-6).

It was not their fault that Hagar 'turned nasty' and took up a position of superiority to Sarai, deriding her and ruining her status before the other women ('was despised in her eyes' means more than just thoughts between the two) so that Sarai had to act to maintain her position. She clearly acted harshly, but it was a difficult position she was in. Note that the woman was not at this stage cast out, but chose to leave.

She was then accepted back into the tribal family when she returned, and her son reinstated. Had God been angry at the thought of the birth of Ishmael he could easily have left Hagar to die in the desert, but instead He arranges for her safe return. When God later promises that Abram and Sarai will have a son in the face of all the impossibilities both Abram and Sarai find it hard to believe (17.15-17; 18.12) and Abram pleads for God's recognition for Ishmael (17.18). Abram is clearly satisfied with the position. There is not a word of censure from God, and He indeed promises blessings for Ishmael (17.20) This promise of prosperity and abundant seed is one of blessing. This hardly ties in with the idea that God determines that they will be a thorn in Israel's side, and Ishmael was included in the ceremony of circumcision bringing him within the covenant of God (17.23).

So God goes out of His way to preserve Ishmael and to bless him, without any suggestion that He is perturbed at what has happened. When Isaac is born his positon is established as the main heir as the natural born child, and this was in accordance with practise elsewhere. Sadly Ishmael appears to have been jealous (which was natural- he had grown up believing that he would succeed to Abraham’s position - but without justification) and 'mocks' (21.9). As so often in Genesis a single word or phrase conveys a multitude of meaning. We are left to infer what threats and claims to supremacy he might have made, and what underhand intentions he might have had. Sarah sees the threat and acts to protect her son's interests, and God concurs in her act. But his promise to bless Ishmael because he is Abraham's child (21.13) does not tie in with the suggestion that God is displeased about Ishmael, indeed He is rather seeking to encourage Abraham, and when Ishmael is expelled from the tribe as a danger he is still under God's special protection.

Abraham has other sons by Keturah (25.1-4), including Medan and Midian who later combine with the sons of Ishmael so that they can be mentioned in the same breath and even identified with them (37.25-28 with v.36; - these are not indications of duplicate narratives but indications of the interchangeablity of the names, a phenomenon attested in ancient literature where similar interchangeability occurs as Kitchen has demonstrated, - compare also Judges 8.24 with its context of Midianites).

When Abraham dies Isaac is the main heir (25.5) a fact which would be recognised by all, but Ishmael and the others receive 'gifts' i.e. substantial inheritances. The fact that Isaac and Ishmael combine to bury Abraham (25.9) shows that there was a recognition of each other's position between them. Ishmael has now grown up and is aware of and submissive to custom.

The genealogy of Ishmael is recorded in 25.12-17 a recognition of his position in the family.

When Esau wishes to please his father Isaac by marrying 'within the family' he marries Ishmael's daughter (28.9), something he would hardly have done if he was aware of tension between the two. Thus every indication in Scripture is that God is not displeased with what Abraham has done, and that it fits neatly into the scheme of things. Indeed the descendants of Ishmael are no more a thorn in the flesh to Israel than other surrounding nations.

It is true that modern Arabs relate themselves back to Ishmael as a son of Abraham to justify their position, but had they not had Ishmael to look back to they would have chosen someone else. Their claim relates to the 'revelations' of Mohammed which he based on the Old Testament. Had there been no Ishmael to pin the claims on they would have been pinned on someone else.

It must be recognised that the Arabs are in the main no more directly descended from Ishmael than the Jews are from Isaac. In both cases the descent is mainly by 'adoption'. (Jews are descended from other members of Jacob's sons 'households' (Exodus 1.1) as well as Jacob, and from the 'mixed multitude' that left Egypt with the 'Israelites' (Exodus 12.38), as well as from tribes like Caleb's which joined with Israel (he was a Kenezite - Joshua 14.14). They were all adopted as 'children of Israel'). The problems the Jews have with the Arabs stem mainly from their own failure and rejection from the land by God.

The use of Isaac and Ishmael as an allegory by Paul (Galatians 4.22-31) compares old Israel with new Israel, and says nothing about the situation between Jews and Arabs. It appears to us therefore that God did not look on Abraham as having broken the covenant, or as having acted outside it, and that neither should we.

Click back button to return to previous page

IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?

If so please EMail us with your question and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer.EMailus. (But preferably not from aol.com, for some reason they do not deliver our messages).

FREE Scholarly verse by verse commentaries on the Bible.

THE PENTATEUCH --- GENESIS ---EXODUS--- LEVITICUS --- NUMBERS --- DEUTERONOMY --- THE BOOK OF JOSHUA --- THE BOOK OF JUDGES --- SAMUEL --- KINGS --- PSALMS 1-50--- ECCLESIASTES--- SONG OF SOLOMON --- ISAIAH --- JEREMIAH --- EZEKIEL --- DANIEL --- --- HOSEA --- --- JOEL ------ AMOS --- --- OBADIAH --- --- JONAH --- --- MICAH --- --- NAHUM --- --- HABAKKUK--- --- ZEPHANIAH --- --- HAGGAI --- ZECHARIAH --- --- MALACHI --- THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ---THE GOSPEL OF MARK--- THE GOSPEL OF LUKE --- THE GOSPEL OF JOHN --- THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES --- READINGS IN ROMANS --- 1 CORINTHIANS --- 2 CORINTHIANS ---GALATIANS --- EPHESIANS--- PHILIPPIANS --- COLOSSIANS --- 1 THESSALONIANS --- 2 THESSALONIANS --- 1 TIMOTHY --- 2 TIMOTHY --- TITUS --- HEBREWS --- JAMES --- 1 & 2 PETER --- JOHN'S LETTERS --- JUDE --- REVELATION --- THE GOSPELS & ACTS

---

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page

Cain,wife,Jael,quails,number,Israel,David,Kings,
Ishmael,faith,facts,repent,believe,forgive,forgiveness,
truth,love,atonement,baptism,Jesus,Christ,Holy,Spirit,
Creation,use,numbers,old,new,testament