Bible Difficulties (28 page)

Norman Geisler has a good summary of the biblical position on this question:

"There is ample evidence, even within the Old Testament, that polygamy was not God's ideal for man. That monogamy was His ideal for man is obvious from several perspectives. (1) God made only one wife for Adam, thus setting the ideal precedent for the race. (2) Polygamy is first mentioned as part of the wicked Cainite civilization (Gen.

4:23). (3) God clearly forbade the kings of Israel (leaders were the persons who became polygamists) saying, Ànd he shall not multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away again' (Deut. 17:17). (4) The saints who became polygamists paid for their sins. 1

119

Kings 11:1, 3 says, `Now King Solomon loved many foreign women...and his wives turned away his heart.'...(6) Polygamy is usually situated in the context of sin in the O.T.

Abraham's marriage of Hagar was clearly a carnal act of unbelief (Gen. 16:1 f). David was not at a spiritual peak when he added Abigail and Ahinoam as his wives (1 Sam.

25:42-43), nor was Jacob when he married Leah and Rachel (Gen. 29:23, 28). (7) The polygamous relation was less than ideal. It was one of jealousy among the wives. Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah (Gen. 29:31). Elkanah's one wife was considered àrival' or adversary by the other, who ùsed to provoke her sorely, to irritate her...' (1 Sam. 1:6). (8) When polygamy is referred to, the conditional, not the imperative, is used. `
If
he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights'

(Exod. 21:10). Polygamy is not the moral ideal, but the polygamist must be moral"

(
Ethics: Alternatives and Issues
[Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971], pp. 204-5).

What is the explanation of Exodus 24:9-11--the revelation of God enthroned to the
elders of Israel who accompanied Moses to Mount Sinai?

According to Exodus 24:1, the Lord invited the seventy appointed elders of the Twelve Tribes to accompany Moses, Aaron, and his two sons, and to ascend the holy mountain for a certain distance up its slope, following at a suitable distance behind Moses. The purpose of this audience before the King of the Universe was to consecrate them for their holy task of assisting in the government of God's people.

It should be borne in mind that according to the earlier proclamation in Exodus 19:12-13, neither man nor beast was permitted even to touch or set foot on the holy mountain, under the penalty of death. Yet for this solemn occasion the seventy elders, along with Aaron and his sons, were permitted to gaze on the glory of God seated in blazing splendor on a sapphire throne. Normally they would have been struck dead for climbing even the lower reaches of Sinai, but in this case they were granted special permission to do so. Normally also it was impossible for mortal man to look on the glorious presence of God directly, with out being smitten with instant death: "For there shall no man see me, and live" (Exod. 33:20). And so it is stated in Exodus 24:11 that "upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did not eat and drink."

That is to say, they all were permitted to partake of the sacred meal in view of God's throne on Mount Sinai; and they survived the exposure to His holy presence without any damage to themselves or loss of life.

It should perhaps be added that what was seen in this theophany was a glorious representation of God in His regal splendor, not the essence of God Himself; for that has never been vouchsafed to human eyes (John 1:18).

How can we reconcile Exodus 33:20, where the Lord tells Moses, "You cannot see
My face, for no man can see Me and live!" and Exodus 33:11, which states, "Thus
the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend"?

The Bible draws a clear distinction between gazing on God in His unveiled glory and beholding a representation or reflection of God in a personal interview or encounter with 120

Him. John 1:18 declares, "No man has seen God at any time [that is, his full glory as Creator and Sovereign of all the universe]; the only begotten God [that is, Jesus Christ], who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him" (NASB). The apostle Paul adds that God the Father "has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ" (2 Cor. 4:6, NASB).

We behold the face of God by faith as we look to Christ, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father" (John 14:9, NASB). God therefore showed His face and declared His glory through his Son, who was God Incarnate. But back in Old Testament times, God showed His face through an angel (as at the interview with Moses at the burning bush [Exod. 3:2-6]), or else through His glory cloud, which led His people through the wilderness after the Exodus.

At the dedication of the tabernacle (Exod. 40:34-35), this glory cloud (
Kabod
) came to rest over the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant. Each week twelve loaves of sacred bread were offered to Yahweh on the table of "showbread," which was called in Hebrew
sulhan welehem panim
("the table with the bread of the Presence") because it was presented in front of the inner curtain (
paro-ke-t
) that shielded the ark of the covenant from public view. The Presence (of God) remained over the mercy seat (
kapporet
), which surmounted the ark.

We are therefore to understand that Yahweh met with Moses and talked to him in some glorious representation that fell short of a full unveiling of His face. In that sense He talked with Moses face to face--somewhat as a speaker on television speaks face to face with his viewing public.

But what Moses was asking for in Exodus 33:18 went beyond this veiled appearance; to obtain full assurance of God's renewed grace to him and to the Israelite nation, Moses asked to see the very face of God. God warned that at such a vision Moses would instantly die (see 1 Tim. 6:16, which states that God dwells "in unapproachable light").

Yet, as a special confirmation of His personal favor and presence, Yahweh promised that He would reveal His back to Moses (Exod. 33:23), without showing His face. This Yahweh did when He passed by "in front of him" and set forth His gracious and glorious name (Exod. 34:6-7).

121

Leviticus

Does the rabbit really chew its cud?

Leviticus 11:5 refers to the
sapan
(or
Hyrax syriacus
) as an unclean animal (e.g., unfit for sacrifice or human consumption) because "though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof" (NASB). Clean animals had to do both to be eligible for food. The question at issue is the chewing of the cud. Did (or does) the
sapan
(translated "coney" in KJV and "rock badger" in NASB) really "chew the cud" (Heb.
maàleh gerah
, lit., "raising up what has been swallowed")? Similarly in Leviticus 11:6 the same statement is made about the

'arnebet
("rabbit," "hare"). Does the hare ruminate? The answer to both statements must be in the negative so far as the acutal digestive process is concerned. True ruminants normally have four stomachs, and that which has been worked over in these stomachs is regurgitated into the mouth when it is ready to be chewed again.

In this technical sense neither the hyrax nor the hare can be called ruminants, but they do give the appearance of chewing their cud in the same way ruminants do. So convincing is this appearance that even Linnaeus at first classed them as ruminants, even though the four-stomach apparatus was lacking. But we need to remember that this list of forbidden animals was intended to be a practical guide for the ordinary Israelite as he was out in the wilds looking for food. He might well conclude from the sideways movement of the jaws that these animals ruminated like the larger cattle; and since they fed on the same kind of grass and herbs, they might well be eligible for human consumption. Thus it was necessary to point out that they did not have hooves at all and therefore could not meet the requirements for clean food.

G.S. Cansdale gives this interesting information concerning the habits of the
'arnebet
:

"Hares, like rabbits, are now known to practicèrefection': at certain times of day, when the hare is resting, it passes droppings of different texture, which it at once eats. Thus the hare appears to be chewing without taking fresh greens into its mouth. On its first passage through the gut, indigestible vegetable matter is acted on by bacteria and can be better assimilated the second time through. Almost the same principle is involved as in chewing the cud" ("Hare," in Tenney,
Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia
, 3:33).

How could leprosy affect clothing (Lev. 13:47-59) or house walls (Lev. 14:33-57)?

What is commonly known today as "leprosy" is usually equated with Hansen's disease.

But the Hebrew term
saraàt
is a far more general term for any kind of noticeable or disfiguring skin disease. Many of the types described in Leviticus 13:2-42 show symptoms unknown to Hansen's disease, such as patches of white skin and areas of infection on the scalp. Verse 6 refers to a type of skin disease that is known, in some cases at least, to show spontaneous improvement within a week (which is never true of Hansen's disease). Verses 7-8 seem to refer to a phagedenic ulcer; v.24 to an infection in 122

a burned area of the skin. Verse 30 refers to a scaly skin or scalp, strongly suggestive of psoriasis.

From the above data we may legitimately conclude that
saraàt
does not refer to any single type of skin disease (although Naaman's illness was quite certainly akin to Hansen's disease [2 Kings 5], likewise the affliction Uzziah was stricken with in the temple [2 Kings 15:5; 2 Chron. 26:19-20]); rather, it is a broadly descriptive term covering all kinds of disfiguring diseases of the skin or scalp.

As for Leviticus 13:47, 59, these verses speak of
saraàt
on a garment or any piece of clothing. Obviously this cannot be the same as a skin disease afflicting the human skin.

But a fungus or mold that attacks a fabric of cloth or leather or fur bears a surface resemblance to that which afflicts the skin. Because of its tendency to spread on contact and because of its highly disfiguring effects, this kind of
saraàt
had to be sequestered, to see whether it was something that could be washed away completely and permanently by a thorough scrubbing or laundering process. If these measures proved unavailing, the fabric in question was to be destroyed by fire.

As for Leviticus 14:33-57, the type of
saraàt
that afflicts the wall of a home seems to have been a kind of fungus, bacteria, or mold that occasionally appears on adobe walls, or even on wood, when the humidity is abnormally high and long sustained at temperatures that promote the spread of mold. Since the fungus could spread quite rapidly, mar the appearance of the entire room, and was possibly promotive of other kinds of pollution and disease, it was necessary to deal with it as soon as it was detected. The afflicted areas of the wall were to be thoroughly scrubbed, scraped, and scoured, to see whether the mold could be eliminated and killed by these measures. Where mold had penetrated an individual brick or a particular patch in the wall, it was to be pried out and discarded completely, to keep the adjacent bricks from contamination. But if these drastic methods proved to be unavailing, then the entire house was to be destroyed.

There was always a suitable waiting period before a house was destroyed, generally of a week or two, at the end of which a confirmatory inspection was to be made by a priest.

The same was true of "leprosy" on clothing or on the human skin. Inspections were to be made at the end of the first week or two in order to see whether the infection had been halted or whether it was continuing to spread. In all three cases or types of leprosy (
saraàt
), a ceremony or rite of purification was required, which is described in some detail in Leviticus 13-14.

Who is the scapegoat of Leviticus 16? Or what does it represent?

Leviticus 16 sets forth the procedure to be followed on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), the tenth day of Tishri (usually late in September) each year. There were to be two goats set aside for this ceremony, one for a sin offering (
hattat-h
) and the other for a burnt offering (
òlah
). The former of the two was to be sacrificed on the alter, according to the usual requirement for sin offerings. But the latter was chosen by lot to be a live sacrifice, called
àza'zel
, a term that perhaps should be vocalized as
èz 'azel
("a goat of 123

departure"). (It should be understood that the Old Testament was originally written with consonants only; vowel points were not added until about A.D. 800. In the case of proper names or obsolete technical terms, there was always a chance for a bit of confusion in the oral tradition concerning the vowels.) The Septuagint follows this latter reading, translating the Hebrew into the Greek as
chimaros apopompaios
("the goat to be sent away").

The high priest was to lay his hands on the head of this goat, confess over him the sins of the nation Israel, and then send him away into the wilderness, symbolically carrying away all the guilt of Israel with him (Lev. 16:21). The tradition that the scapegoat was a name for a desert demon was of much later origin and quite out of keeping with the redemptive principles taught in the Torah. It is therefore altogether mistaken to suppose that the scapegoat represented Satan himself, for neither Satan nor his demons are ever suggested in Scripture as carrying out any atoning functions on behalf of mankind--as such an interpretation would imply.

On the contrary, each sacrificial animal referred to in the Mosaic Law symbolized some aspect of Christ's atoning work. The goat of the sin offering represented the substitution of Christ's blameless life for the guilty life of the condemned sinner. In the case of the scapegoat, the removal of sin from the presence of God is set forth. As the Father laid the sins of believers on the Son on the cross (Isa. 53:6) so that they might be removed far away, so the
èz' azel
, on whom all the iniquities of Israel were symbolically laid by Aaron, carried them away into the wilderness to be remembered against them no more.