Bible Difficulties (20 page)

"servant," and
Lagamar
was a high goddess in the Elamite pantheon. Kitchen (
Ancient
Orient
, p. 44) generally prefers the vocalization Kutir instead of Kudur and gives the references for at least three Elamite royal names of this type. He equates
Tid'al
with a Hittite name, Tudkhaliya, attested from the nineteenth century B.C. As for Arioch, one king of Larsa ("Ellasar") from this era was
Eri-aku
("Servant of the Moon-God"), whose name in Akkadian was
Arad-Sin
(with the same meaning). The Mari Tablets refer to persons by the name of Ariyuk. The cuneiform original of Amraphel, formerly equated with Hammurabi of Babylon, is not demonstrable for the twentieth century (Hammurabi himself dates from the eighteenth century), but there may possibly be a connection with Amorite names like
Amud-pa-ila
, according to H.B. Huffmon (see Kitchen's footnote on p. 44 for documentation).

All the above information has come to light since the heyday of the Documentary Hypothesis, when learned scholars contemptuously dismissed this whole account as late and totally fictional. But even such notable experts as H. Gunkel and W. F. Albright in our own century have concluded that Genesis 14 rests on authentic backgrounds in the 83

history of the early second millennium B.C. In H. C. Alleman and E. E. Flack's
Old
Testament Commentary
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1954), p. 14, W. F. Albright remarked:

"In spite of our failure hitherto to fix the historical horizon of this chapter, we may be certain that its contents are very ancient. There are several words and expressions found nowhere else in the Bible and now known to belong to the second millennium. The names of the towns in Transjordania are also known to be very ancient." It should be added that according to G. Pettinato, the leading epigraphist of the Ebla documents dating from 2400-2250 B.C., mention is made in the Ebla tablets of Sodom (spelled
Si-da-mu
), Gomorrah (spelled in Sumerian cuneiform
I-ma-ar
), and Zoar (
Za-e-ar
). He feels that quite possibly these may be the same cities mentioned in the Abrahamic narrative (cf.

"BAR Interviews Pettinato," p. 48).

The authenticity of the background is established with a high degree of probability by the evidence just cited, even from the standpoint of objective scholarship--even apart from the absolute trustworthiness of Scripture, to which all true believers are committed as a matter of faith. But as to the credibility of the episode itself, it must be acknowledged that it was a most exceptional feat of daring on the part of a peaceful nomad like Abraham, to attempt to rout a large invading force of professional soldiers like those of the Mesopotamian invaders. After their brilliant victory over the allied forces of the Sodomite confederacy (14:8-10), the booty-laden conquerors should have made short work of Abraham's 318 henchmen and his meager force of Amorite allies, who could hardly have exceeded 1000 men in all.

In normal daylight conditions, it would have been suicidal for Abraham's forces to attack the Mesopotamian soldiers on any battlefield. But Abraham caught up to them by forced marches and fell on them by night, when they were totally unprepared for combat.

Dividing his forces up into several groups (Gen. 14:15), he apparently used a strategy somewhat similar to that of Gideon--who routed an even greater army of Midianites by the strategic use of only 300 men (Judg. 7:19-22). The secret of success, humanly speaking, was the inducement of panic among the heterogenous, polyglott forces of the invaders, who had no way of knowing how many attackers they had to face, and hardly knew which way to flee. But, of course, the real cause of victory was the miraculous power of God, who was pleased to give Abraham complete victory on this occasion--not only that he might rescue his nephew Lot, but also as a token of the ultimate triumph that Abraham's descendants would achieve under the leadership of Joshua 570 years later.

Was Melchizedek a historical person or a mythical figure?

The account in Genesis 14:18-20 sounds like a straightforward historical episode, just as truly as the rest of the chapter. It tells us that there was a priest-king of Salem (that is, Jerusalem, in all probability) named Melchizedek, who felt led to greet Abraham on his way back from the slaughter of the Mesopotamian invaders between Dan and Hobah (v.15) and to furnish him with provisions for his battle-weary fighting men. He also congratulated Abraham warmly for his heroic victory and bestowed a blessing on him in the name of "God Most High" (
'El Èlyon
)--a title never applied in Scripture to anyone else but Yahweh Himself. Obviously Melchizedek was a true believer, who had remained 84

faithful to the worship of the one true God (just like Job and his four advisors in North Arabia; Jethro, Moses' Midianite father-in-law; and Balaam, the prophet of Yahweh from Pethor in the Euphrates Valley). The testimony of Noah and his sons had evidently been maintained in other parts of the Middle East besides Ur and Haran.

There was, however, one striking feature about the way Melchizedek was brought into this narrative: his parents are not mentioned, and there is no statement about his birth or death. The reason for this lack of information is made clear in Hebrews 7:3: "Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he abides a priest perpetually" (NASB). The context makes it clear that Melchizedek was brought on to the scene as a type of the Messiah, the Lord Jesus. In order to bring out this typical character of Melchizedek, the biblical record purposely omits all mention of his birth, parentage, or ancestors. This is not to say that he
had
no father (for even the Antitype, Jesus of Nazareth, had the Holy Spirit as His Father-

-and certainly His mother, Mary, is mentioned in the Gospels) or that he had never been born (for even Jesus was in His human nature born on Christmas Eve). It was simply that his dramatic and sudden appearance was more clearly brought out by presenting him as God's spokesman to Abraham, serving as a type of the future Christ, bestowing the divine blessing on the people of God.

Melchizedek presented himself as a forerunner or type of the great High Priest, Jesus Christ, who would fulfill a priestly office far higher and more efficacious than that of Aaron and the Levites. This was taught back in David's time by Psalm 110:4, addressed to the future Deliverer of Israel: "The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind,

`Thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek'" (NASB). Hebrews 7:1-2 points out the significant features in Melchizedek as a type of Christ: 1.
Melchi-sedeq
actually means "King of Righteousness."

2. He was king of
salem
, which comes from the same root as
salom
, "peace."

3. He is presented without mention of birth, parentage, or genealogy, as befitted a type of the Son of God, the eternal God, without beginning and without end, who became incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth.

4. As a Priest forever after the "order of Melchizedek" (Ps. 110:4), Christ would carry on a priesthood that would completely supersede the priesthood of Aaron, established under the law of Moses, and which would endure forever because of the imperishable life of the High Priest Himself (Heb. 7:22-24).

Despite the fanciful traditions maintained by some of the rabbis (appearing even as early as the Qumran sect--cf. the Melchizedek Fragment from Cave 11) to the effect that Melchizedek was some kind of angel or supernatural being, the data of Scripture itself points clearly to the historicity of this man as a king of Jerusalem back in the days of Abraham. The description of Melchizedek in Hebrews 7:3 as
apator, ametor,
agenealogetos
("without father, without mother, without genealogy") cannot be intended 85

to mean that Melchizedek never had any parents or any ancestral line, for Melchizedek was a type of Jesus Christ, of whom none of the three adjectives was literally true.

Rather, this verse simply means that none of those items of information was included in the Genesis 14 account and that they were purposely omitted in order to lay the stress on the divine nature and imperishability of the Messiah, the Antitype.

Why does the Bible use unscientific terms like "the going down of the sun" and "the
four corners of the earth"?

Evidences of prescientific inaccuracy have been found by some critics of biblical authority in such expressions as Genesis 15:17: "When the sun went down," and Genesis 19:23: "The sun was risen upon the earth." If that charge is just, then it equally applies to our century, for we still--even the scientists among us--employ the words "sunrise" and

"sunset" in our daily speech, even though we are well aware that it is really the earth that rotates rather than the sun that revolves. This is a perfectly acceptable type of phenomenal terminology, employed by all languages at all periods of their history. In fact the word for "east" and "west" in most of the Semitic languages are literally "place of rising" and "place of setting." This type of argument is really quite puerile and betrays an amazing naivete on the part of the critic who raises it.

The same is true of the modern myth that the Bible teaches that the earth is a rectangle rather than a globe because it employs the expression "four corners of the earth" (e.g., Isa.

11:12). The word for "corners" is
kenapot
, which means "wings," i.e., wing-tips, such as one uses on compasses (even today!) to indicate the four directions: north, south, east, west. But as for the shape of the earth, Job 22:14, Proverbs 8:27, and Isaiah 40:22 all speak of the earth as a
hug
("circle," "disk," or possibly even "sphere"). No one yet has come up with literal corners on a circle, not an ancient Hebrew--or a modern scientist!

Why did God command circumcision in Genesis 17?

Genesis 17 does not furnish any clear rationale for the establishment of this rite as mandatory for the family and descendants of Abraham. God simply says, "You shall be circumcised...and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you" (Gen 17:11).

Any of Abraham's people who refuse or willfully neglect circumcision are to be cut off from the covenant of grace altogether (Gen 17:14). Consequently circumcision mattered a great deal to Yahweh, so far as the Hebrew nation was concerned. Romans 4:9-10

explains that salvation was not dependent on circumcision but rather on the grace of God mediated to the guilty sinner through his acceptance and faith in the promises of God.

God's righteousness was reckoned to Abraham
before
he was circumcised (cf. Gen. 15:6; 17:23-24). But then the apostle goes on to explain the purposes of circumcision in Romans 4:11: "He received the
sign
of circumcision, a
seal
of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be reckoned to them" (NASB).

The rite of circumcision (i.e., the surgical removal of the prepuce) was intended as a sign and a seal of the covenant relationship between God and the believer. Even as a 86

wedding ring is a sign and a seal of the total and exclusive commitment of the bride and the groom to each other so long as they both shall live, so the sacramental removal of this portion of the male organ was a blood-sealed testimonial that the believer had turned his life over to the Lord, with the commitment to live for Him and in dependence on His grace for the rest of his earthly life. As a seal the act of circumcision amounted to a stamp of ownership on the Old Testament; it testified that he belonged not to the world, Satan, or self, but to the Lord Yahweh who provided for his redemption.

Further explanation of the function of circumcision is found in Colossians 2:11-13:

"And in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions" (NASB). Three important insights concerning circumcision are included in these verses.

1. Circumcision involved the symbolic removal of "the body of the flesh" as an instrument of unholiness; apart from circumcision, the body of the sinner remained in a state of "uncircumcision of his flesh."

2. Circumcision entailed a commitment to holiness. Moses urged his congregation in Deuteronomy 10:16 (NIV): "Circumcise your hearts, therefore, and do not be stiff-necked any longer." This indicates that circumcision involved a commitment of heart to be holy unto the Lord and obedient to His word. (The opposite idea was stiffneckedness or stubborn willfulness on the part of the professing believer.) Leviticus 26:41 speaks of a future generation of Israelites taken off into captivity and promises them forgiveness and restoration to their land "if their uncircumcised heart becomes humbled so that they then make amends for their iniquity" (NASB). Shortly before the Babylonian captivity, the prophet Jeremiah (Jer 4:4) exhorted his countrymen--all of whom had doubtless been circumcised physically as infants-- "Circumcise yourselves to the LORD and remove the foreskins of your heart, men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, lest my wrath go out like fire...because of the evil of your deeds. (NASB). Circumcision, then, involved a commitment to a holy life, a life of faith in God and of obedience to His commands.

3. Circumcision represented to the Old Testament believer what baptism represents to the New Testament believer: an acceptance or adoption into the family of the redeemed.

The benefits of Christ's future atonement on Calvary were by God's grace imparted to the circumcised believer prior to the Cross, even as the merit of Christ's atonement and the saving benefits of His resurrection victory are applied to the New Testament believer. In both dispensations the sacramental sign and seal was imposed on the believer (and also on the infant children of believers for whom the covenant promises were claimed by faith). The same God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ commanded circumcision for the Old Testament believer and water baptism for the believer under the new covenant--