Bible Difficulties (24 page)

Benjamin

Genesis 49:27 refers briefly to the fierceness and courage of this small tribe: it is like a ravenous wolf who devours the prey and divided the spoil. (Perhaps this foretells the prowess of Benjamin in holding off the troops of the other eleven tribes during the Benjamite War [Judg. 20], until finally they themselves were ambushed near Gibeah and almost completely annihilated, except for the six hundred who escaped.) But in Deuteronomy 33:12 Moses offers a prayer on Benjamin's behalf that God may show His love to him by protecting him night and day. Yet it should be understood that there is a substantial difference between a prediction and a prayer. Moses prayed for Benjamin's security and protection; but that prayer provided no guarantee that God's loving concern and care would extend into the indefinite future, if Benjamin should ever forsake its covenant obligations toward the Lord and fall into gross sin.

As long as they were obedient and faithful, the Benjamites certainly did enjoy God's deliverance--as in the example of Ehud, the patriot who managed to kill Eglon, king of Moab, by resorting to a ruse. Ehud was enabled to escape the Moabite guards and flee to safety in the hill country of Ephraim, where he gathered about him an army of courageous patriots and smashed the Moabite troops to regain Israel's independence (Judg. 3:15-30). But in later years, when the infamous atrocity was committed in Gibeah and the rest of the tribe of Benjamin rallied to protect the degenerate sodomites who had raped the Levite's concubine to death, the protecting favor of God was necessarily withdrawn. The rest of the tribes of Israel finally succeeded in avenging the dastardly crime, even though it meant wiping out almost the entire tribe of Benjamin (Judg. 20), as mentioned above.

Yet favor of the Lord was restored to the Benjamites after their wickedness had been thoroughly dealt with. Their six hundred survivors returned to fellowship with Israel and 101

Israel's God; and they so increased in numbers that by Saul's time (the eleventh century B.C.) they were once again a force to be reckoned with. It was from this smallest, severely battered tribe that God chose out the first king of the United Monarchy of Israel: Saul the son of Kish (1 Sam. 9-10). Thus it was that the Lord answered Moses' prayer to the extent that He was able to do so without compromising His own integrity and holiness.

We conclude this comparative study with the observation that no real discrepancies or contradictions can be found between the prophecy of Jacob in Genesis 49 and the prayer of Moses in Deuteronomy 33.

Is Genesis 49:10 really a prediction of Christ? What is the real meaning of Shiloh?

Genesis 49:10 appears in a stanza of Jacob's prophecies concerning his twelve sons; Judah is dealt with in Gen. 49:8-12. That tribe is presented in a particularly warlike aspect, with such traits as "Your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies" (v.8, NASB) and "Judah is a lion's whelp....as a lion, who dares rouse him up?" (v.9, NASB). Verse 10

emphasizes the coming role of Judah as the royal leader over all the tribes of Israel, and possibly over foreign nations as well. It reads as follows: "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until Shiloh comes, and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples [
àmmim
]" (NASB). The greatest stress is laid on the military prowess and kingly status of this royal tribe, and there is a clear affirmation that this kingly status is to continue until the appearance of a key figure referred to as

"Shiloh." The scepter and lawgiver's (
mehoqeq
) staff will be wielded by this tribe until the arrival of Shiloh himself.

But the question arises, Who or what is Shiloh? The Aramaic Targum renders v.10 as follows: "Until the Messiah comes, to whom the kingdom belongs." This seems to identify Shiloh as a title of the Messiah, but it also points to an interpretation of this name that involves the phrase "who to him" or "to whom." The Septuagint, dating from the third century B.C., renders the clause "until there come the things laid up [
apokeimena
]

for him." This suggests that
siloh
was interpreted with a different vowel pointing, as
sello
("one to whom"). The second-century A.D. Greek translation of Aquila and Symmachus construe it more succinctly as "[the one] for whom it has been stored up," or: reserved, using the same Greek verb but in the form
apokeitai
. Jerome's Latin Vulgate derived it (incorrectly) from the verb
salah
("to send") and translated it as "the one who is to be sent" (
qui mittendus est
).

It is fair to say, however, that the preponderance of modern authorities, both conservative and nonconservative, tend to prefer the explanation "the one to whom [it belongs]" and make the coming ruler the antecedent, understanding the "scepter" as the object that belongs to him. In other words, they render the clause thus: "The scepter shall not depart from Judah...until He comes to whom it belongs; and to Him shall be the obedience of the peoples." But whether the word is understood to be a mystical name for the Messiah (somewhat like the name Jeshurun for the nation Israel [Deut. 32:15]), or whether it is a relative phrase "who to him" (
sello
), it clearly refers to the Messiah, and 102

possibly also to David, the ancestral type of Christ the King. (But to relate this promise to David raises the formidable difficulty that the scepter did not really depart from Judah when David came; on the contrary, it only
began
to be wielded by Judah when he assumed the throne and crown of the kingdom of Israel.)

We should not close this discussion without mentioning a most intriguing parallel passage in Ezekiel 21:27 (32 Heb.) that appears to be a reflection of Genesis 49:10: "A ruin, a ruin, a ruin, I shall make it [i.e., Jerusalem, about to be attacked by Nebuchadnessar in 588 B.C.]. This also will be no more [or elsèwill not happen' (
lo'

hayah
], until He comes whose right it is [lit., "who to him the judgment" (
'aser lo
hammispat
)]; and I shall give it
to Him
" (NASB). The similarity in wording can scarcely be an accident.
'aser lo
is the normal prose equivalent of
sello
("who to him"). In Ezekiel's statement we find
hammispat
("the right of judgment"), replacing the kindred concept of "scepter" (
sebet
) in Genesis 49:10. If, therefore, Ezekiel 21:27 is intended to build on the foundation of Genesis 49:10 and reveal its ultimate application to the Messiah--as it certainly seems to do in Ezekiel--who will be descended from the royal house of Judah, then we are on firm ground in understanding Genesis 49:10 as intended by God to refer to His divine Son, the messianic descendant of David.

103

Exodus

How could God bless Shiphrah and Puah for lying to Pharaoh?

Exodus 1:16 contains the instructions of the Egyptian king to the Hebrew midwives concerning the murder of Hebrew male babies at the time of delivery: "When you are helping the Hebrew women to give birth...if it is a son, then you shall put him to death; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live" (NASB). This, then, was a command for them to commit infanticide. The narrative goes on to say that in order to avoid perpetrating this heinous act, they resorted to a strategy of delay. That is to say, they managed to slow up their response to the call from a woman in labor to such an extent that the baby was already born and safely tucked away in its crib by the time they finally arrived at the house.

As the midwives explained to Pharaoh, "The Hebrew women...are vigorous, and they give birth before the midwife can get to them" (Exod. 1:19, NASB). From the standpoint of the midwives' arriving too late, this was probably true. They simply did not divulge the fact that their tardy arrival was deliberately planned. They might easily have been caught by the Egyptian police if they had been put under twenty-four-hour surveillance; so they ran a real risk of detection, trial, and execution. But when faced with the choice between penetrating systematic infanticide against their own people and misleading the king by a half-truth in order to avert this calamity, they rightly chose the lesser ill in order to avoid the greater. God did not honor and bless these two brave women for their withholding part of the truth; rather, he blessed them for their willingness to incur personal danger in order to save the lives of innocent babies.

In this connection the question is sometimes raised as to how just two midwives could have served a community of two million people during a period of high birthrate. Of course they could not have served so many Hebrew mothers without numerous assistants.

But it was normal Egyptian practice to set up a bureaucratic chain of command in connection with almost every government agency or activity. Each department had its own overseer, directly responsible to the head of government, whether on the national level or on the provincial level. In this case the king appointed two seasoned professionals in this field to operate a regular obstetrical service under government supervision. We cannot tell how many assistants Shiphrah and Puah had at their disposal, but they apparently instructed them carefully about the technique of late arrival in order to preserve life. Thus Pharaoh had only the clever overseers to deal with and to interrogate, and they turned out to be more than a match for him. Hence God gave them both the blessing of raising many children of their own, as a reward for their courage in risking their lives to save the babies of others.

How could a good and loving God instruct the Hebrews to plunder the Egyptians
(Exod. 3:22)? Was it not dishonorable for them to borrow jewels that they never
intended to return?

104

First of all, there is one important matter of translation to clear up. The KJV translates the first clause as follows: "But every woman shall borrow of her neighbour, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment." The verb translated "borrow" is
sa'al
, which is the common word for "ask, ask for, request, inquire of." (F. Brown, S.R. Driver, and C.A. Briggs,
Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old
Testament
[Oxford: Clarendon, 1968], p. 981, cite three instances for the meaning

"borrow": Exodus 22:14 [13 Heb.], 2 Kings 4:3, and 6:5. In these passages the context makes it clear that the items requested were intended for temporary use by the person who took them into custody, with the understanding that they were later to be returned to the owners.) In the case of Exodus 3:22; 11:2; 12:35 (where
sa'al
is also used), however, it is not at all clear that there was any pretext of mere temporary use. Therefore the normal meaning of "ask for" should be assigned to 3:22, as NASB renders it: "But every woman shall ask of her neighbor...articles of silver and articles of gold, etc." They simply requested these items as gifts as they prepared to depart from Egypt, never to return. The Egyptian inhabitants were well aware of this intention and would have been under no illusions about getting their jewelry back again.

But why were the Egyptians so willing to donate such treasures to their erstwhile slaves? In the context it is quite apparent that they were desperately afraid that the disaster of the tenth plague might be repeated once more, and that they might lose still more of their children and their livestock. As Exodus 12:33 tells us, "The Egyptians urged the people [i.e., the Hebrew people], to send them out of the land in haste, for they said, `We shall all be dead'" (NASB). The narrative then continues (vv. 35-36): "Now the sons of Israel had done according to the word of Moses, for they had requested from the Egyptians articles of silver and articles of gold, and clothing; and the LORD had given the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they let them have their request.

Thus they plundered the Egyptians" (NASB).

The verb for "plundered" in verse 36 is
wayyenasselu
, coming from
nasal
, which in the piel stem means "strip off, spoil, deliver someone from [danger]." It is not the usual term for plundering the enemy after he has been killed on the battlefield; that would be
salal
.

But
nissel
clearly is used here in a figurative sense, for the narrative plainly states that the Israelites simply made an oral request for a parting gift; and they received what they asked for. To be sure, there was a compelling factor of fear that moved the Egyptians to be so generous in parting with their treasures; so there was a certain sense in which they were despoiled by the departing Hebrews. They trembled with dread at the awesome power of Israel's God and the stroke of His destroying angel who had wrought such havoc on the night of the Passover.

As for the moral question whether such an act of spoliation (if we may describe a willing surrender of property by such a term) was ethically justifiable, or whether it was compatible with the goodness and love of God, we must bear in mind that for generations, even centuries, the Israelite population in Egypt had been subject to oppressive and brutal enslavement. Systematic infanticide was practiced toward their male offspring; they had been compelled to work for nothing in order to build Pharaoh's treasure cities and his other public works. There was a sense in which these jewels of 105

silver, gold, and gems were only their just due; and they furnished only a partial compensation for all the anguish and toil to which they had been subjected. From this standpoint there can be no legitimate moral question raised concerning this whole transaction.

In Exodus 4:24 whom did the Lord meet? Why did He seek to kill him? What is the
connection of the details of vv. 25-26 to the subject of v.24?

In Exodus 4:24 the antecedent of "him" is "Moses." Why did God inflict him with such a near-fatal illness? In all probability it was because of Moses' neglect of the covenant sign of circumcision in the case of his own son, Gershom. We are driven to this conclusion by the fact that Moses could not recover and escape the death that threatened him until Zipporah had performed this rite on their son ( v.25). Obviously she was strongly averse to this measure and did it only under compulsion, for she parted company with her husband after reproaching him as "a bridegroom of blood." It may have been that the Midianite practice was to reserve circumcision for lads who had just attained puberty rather than performing it on young and tender infants. But the Abrahamic tradition was to perform it when the child was eight days old (Gen. 17:12). Failure to receive circumcision meant that the boy would be "cut off from his people."