Today's Reading:
Answers
Genesis
Genesis 14:10 compared with verse 17 - Didn't the king of Sodom fall in battle?
No, if you read the NLT in verse 10 it tells you that, "10 As it happened, the valley of the Dead Sea was filled with tar pits. And as the army of the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, some fell into the tar pits, while the rest escaped into the mountains." Some of the king's army fell and others escaped. We can assume the king was one of the ones who escaped and did not fall.
Genesis 11:27-32 - Was Haran a place as well as a person?
Yes, they are both, and in English, the spelling is the same. However, in Hebrew, the name of Terah's son was Haran, but the name of the city was Charan.
Genesis 18:20 and 21 - Why did the Lord have to see if what He heard were true - didn't He already know?
This is a personification of God, the act of giving God human characteristics and expressions. God, being omniscient, doesn't need to head into a town and do an investigation to see if certain things are true, because He already knows. However, by applying human characteristics and expressions to God here, it implies that He gave specific attention to the situation at Sodom and Gomorrah, and that all of the evidence was being properly evaluated. This is a specific encouragement to the people who were crying out to God about the wickedness in the cities (18:20), reminding them that He hears them and takes their pains and cry's seriously, as well as a challenge to the people doing the evil, that God will bring judgment when sin continues.
Genesis 11:31, 12:1 - Was Terah already intending to go to Canaan before Abram received the call from God?
This answer can be found in Acts 7:2-4, as Stephen begins his speech before being stoned to death. He says:
The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran, 3 and said to him, 'Go out from your land and from your kindred and go into the land that I will show you.' 4 Then he went out from the land of the Chaldeans and lived in Haran. And after his father died, God removed him from there into this land in which you are now living. - Acts 7:2-4
So the time line is, God's call comes for Abraham before he lived in Haran, then he leaves Ur headed towards Haran, with Terah. So, to answer the question directly, was Terah intending on going to Canaan before the call of Abraham? We don't know. Did he start heading toward Canaan before Abraham's call? No, he left after Abraham had been called.
Genesis 9:22-25 - Why was Canaan cursed when Ham was the one who sinned against Noah?
As you read the history of the Canaanites, what you find is a group of evil, disgusting, perverted sinners (specifically Lev. 18:3, 6-19 which describe all of the sexual immorality that they were practicing). Many believe that Noah's curse was a result of seeing the very real perverted leanings of Canaan, which had come as a result of a dad, Ham, who made bad choices in the same area.
It is important for us to also remember that the consequences of our sin don't just affect us, but have a very real and lasting impact on those around us.
Genesis 4 - How could Cain "rule over" (resist) sin?
The point of God's challenge to Cain as that he had a decision to make. He could either simply continue on in the way he was behaving, getting angry at God and hating his brother, or he could change his actions, giving him the ability to overcome the sin. The point here is that in order to resist sin, there first has to be a desire and then a decision to do so.
Genesis 4 - Why was Cain's offering not accepted by God? Wasn't he bringing the best that he had from his labor to God? Was God's acceptance dependent on Cain's behavior?(v.7)
The offering was not accepted not as a result of what Cain brought, but the attitude and heart with which he brought it. Later in Leviticus, we will see grain offerings as being an acceptable offering. Hebrews 11:4 says that because of Abel's faith, his offering was accepted. God was pleased with a pure heart, which Cain did not demonstrate.
Genesis 19 & 38 - I need help with understanding this and explaining to younger family members -same with Genesis 19 30-38. Yes I am brave enough to seriously ask -I am sure I can't be the only one with questions on these.
As you read the story, you see that Lot's daughters act not out of lust, but out of desperation, a fear that they will not be married and would die without children. Remember, in the society at the time, being childless is akin to being dead. Instead of behaving well, and trusting that God could and would take care of them, they come up with an unthinkable plan, a plan that looks an awful lot like one a citizen of Sodom would come up with, that changes history forever.
The children that were the result of this plan are the fathers of the Moabite and the Ammonite nations, two of Israel's greatest enemies.
A few applications that can be made:
We are most likely to sin when w we are desperate for what we feel we must have.
When we take "control" of our lives, we will always mess it up.
The consequences of our sin are long lasting.
God has not forgotten us, and never will.
Genesis 48:12-22: This is just one example that makes me ask this question, how did men like Israel know that God was going to bless the younger son and make him greater than the older son? I know God revealed himself differently in the OT than in the NT but could this be explained a bit?
These types of speech in the OT constitute what is known as "prophetic oracles."
How did they know what would happen?
1) Often the speaker is describing character traits of the individual based on personal knowledge and experience. They are extending into the future their expectation of what they have know the person to be in the past. (But that still doesn't explain how they could know future details so accurately!)
2) Obviously, these speeches are the result of divine revelation from the only One who truly knows the future. Whether the revelation came as the person was speaking, or was delivered to them at some point previous to the speech - the point remains that what they knew, they learned from God.
You are exactly right that in our day, we know longer need these direct revelations since God has spoken definitively to us in the written and living Word (Heb 1:1-3)
Genesis 11:5-7 - In the NIV, it seems God is pretty much confusing the languages to constrict man from achieving too much. I know He has the right to do so but it seems somewhat against his nature. I am trying to understand what exactly man was trying to do and why God stopped it.
God believed that the people were engaged in an evil act against Him. While building a tower may not seem wrong, the people were seeking to free themselves from dependence on God. God commanded mankind to fill the earth (1:28), and the people wanted to avoid being "dispersed over the face of the whole earth." (11:4). The tower likely represented man's attempt to live for themselves, against God. When God says, "nothing . . . will now be impossible for them," He is referring to their propensity toward evil. It's not that they were achieving too much; it's that there would be no limit to their expressions of evil. So, God put a stop to it - rather effectively!
In Genesis 27:33 why couldn't Isaac change the recipient of the blessing after the deception was found? What exactly happened that it couldn't be undone? Was there some sort of physical nature to the blessing where it was done and couldn't be reversed?
In the days of the Patriarchs (e.g., Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph), society viewed verbal pledges about birth-rights and blessings as irrevocable, regardless of the circumstances under which they were given. In fact, in the city of Nuzi, in ancient Iraq, clay tablets contemporaneous with the time of the Patriarchs speak of similar situations. In one case, we find the parallel to Esau selling his birthright for a trivial payment: a man in Nuzi named Tupkitilla sold his birthright (land with a grove of trees) to his brother, Kurpazah, for just three sheep. In another case, a tablet tells us of a death-bed promise in which a man named Huya allowed his son, Tarmiya, to marry a young woman whom his other sons found unacceptable. Tarmiya's older brothers took him to court to block the marriage, yet lost when it was made clear that the Tarmiya had his father's spoken blessing-however incompetent the blessing might have seemed to everyone else.
In the those days, a man's word was legally binding. Imagine that!
Ok, so what is up with all the repetition???
This one made me laugh, for a number of reasons, but mainly because, well, you ain't seen nothing yet! If you think we are into the repetitive portion now, wait until Exodus - Deuteronomy!
If you see something repeated, keep in mind the historical nature of these books, keep in mind the context of the repetition, and ask yourself if this is being emphasized for a specific reason. If God repeated it, it's not a mistake.
In Genesis 18:23-32 why is it that Abraham was so intent on going against God's plan to destroy Sodom? Didn't he know that The Lord would look on the inside, and He would've known who were and weren't living their lives according to His word?
Abraham's response to the news of the destruction of these people is the response that I would hope we would all have. He was interceding for a group of people who, just 4 chapters earlier, he rescued. Did they deserve his concern for them? Certainly not! It is a picture of Abraham begging for God's mercy on those who don't deserve that mercy.
I am confused about these verses 6:1-4: "the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive" and "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them".
I could fill an entire website with answers to this one. There has been much debate over who the sons of God are in these verses, and who the Nephalim are. Let me point out something that can't be missed first: the point of the verse is not their identification, it is the continued reminder of the wickedness of man. Things were certainly not getting better with time!
Perhaps the best way to answer the sons of God and daughters of men identities is to offer a quote out of the notes in the ESV Study Bible.
The identity of both groups is uncertain, and various solutions have been advocated, although none has gained universal support. Various scholars have proposed that the "sons of God" are (1) fallen angels (cf. Job 1:6; some, however, suggest that this contradicts Mark 12:25, though the reference in Mark is to angels in heaven; see also 2 Pet. 2:4-5; Jude 5-6); or (2) tyrannical human judges or kings (in the ungodly line of Lamech, possibly demon-possessed); or (3) followers of God among the male descendants of Seth (i.e., the godly line of Seth, but who married the ungodly daughters of Cain). Though it would be difficult to determine which of these three views may be correct, it is clear that the kind of relationship described here involved some form of grievous sexual perversion, wherein the "sons of God" saw and with impunity took any women ("daughters of man") that they wanted. The sequence here in Gen. 6:2 ("saw . . . attractive [good] . . . took") parallels the sequence of the fall in 3:6 ("saw . . . good . . . took"). In both cases, something good in God's creation is used in disobedience and sinful rebellion against God, with tragic consequences. Only Noah stands apart from this sin.
As for the Nephilim, they were "men of renown," or heroic men. It is possible that their popular or even heroic type aura was part of what contributed to the wickedness on the earth.
In Genesis 12:13-20: I'm wondering why Abram lied to Pharoah about Sarai being his sister and then he aquired all these possessions, Pharoah gets punished and Abram gets to keep everything he acquired?
The gifts that Abram received were a sort of payment for his "sister" by Pharaoh. I think we imagine the scene as Abram feeling victorious over the deceit working, and all of the possessions he gained as a result. However, Abram almost lost his wife to the Pharaoh, had it not been for God's intervention.
Did Abram gain more wealth as a result of his lie? Yes. However, he also gained trouble, stress, and nearly lost his wife (not to mention the fact, as many commentators believe, that this is where Hagar came from), when, if he would have simply trusted that God would fulfill His promise, he could have avoided all of that.
Genesis 1:2 says the earth was formless. Does this imply there was another earth before Gen1:9?
No, there is really no implication here. If you look at the verse literally, including the preceding verse, what you find is that God created the earth, and it had no logical or orderly form. During the second and third days of creation, He gave form to the universe, separating the earth from the heavens, and the dry ground from the oceans. Did it "become" formless? Yes, when God created it.
The discussion about verse 2 is a result of the "gap theory" of creation being made popular by the Schofield reference Bible. Unfortunately, the gap theory has many gaps in it. I won't spend time here going into it, but instead would encourage you, if you have questions about it, to ask one of our OT professors or Creation Fellowship members about the gap theory.
In Genesis 10:8 what does it mean that the son of Cush ie. Nimrod was the "first on earth to be a mighty man"?
Not exactly sure, but based on the language, and the context, it appears that Nimrod was the first popular athlete in history. He is called a mighty man, a heroic warrior, the greatest hunter, and his name become an adjective for being a man's man. (Funny how a name can change so drastically, isn't it? I don't think my boys would like me referring to them as a "Nimrod.") We don't know what led to this distinction, but we do know that he was a driven man, who continued to build and expand his territory. In fact, many think he founded the Babylonian Empire.
In Genesis 10:20 God says that the sons of Ham have different languages, lands and nations. Yet in Genesis 11:7, He comes down to confuse their language. Is this just a matter of things not happening in the order they are written or is there another answer?
The genealogies often act like time-outs in the middle of a passage. (Ok, not really time-outs, but you know what I mean!) In chapter 10, the author, Moses, lists out the descendents of the 3 sons of Noah. This list of the descendants looks ahead, and, as can be seen best in verse 4, talks about who these people, these descendants, eventually become. It would be like me giving you background into my family tree, listing it all out, and finishing by saying, "they have become known by their fancy haircuts," then telling the story of how my great-grandmother got her first fancy do, thus starting the family tradition.
Genesis 5:29: Why did God include this verse in His Word?
To be honest, for the same reason He included 5:28. While I don't know specifically, the genealogies often hold interesting pieces of information that will help us understand situations later in Scripture. This is a good instance of there being more to a name in the Old Testament than there is in our culture today. Parents often used surrounding situations as names for their kids, like Seth (granted, given) and Isaac (laughter). Here, Lamech names his son "relief" or "comfort." Could this be a foreshadowing of things to come for Noah? Or could it be a picture of how tired Lamech was as a 182 year old father? I would guess the former, but again, I don't know specifically.
This may sound like a stupid question, but as I was reading through today's readings about Noah I came across a question. I was always told as a child that Noah tried to warn his neighbors and friends of the flood. Is that true or was it just made up? I didn't see anything in the text about Noah warning them.
Not a stupid question at all! The idea that Noah was busy trying to warn those around him is taken out of 2 Peter 2:5 ("if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;") The word for herald is the word that means a proclaimer of God's message as God's official human messenger, a preacher, or even a town crier. You'll notice that the warning, or the preaching, wasn't about the flood, but about righteousness. Perhaps Noah was preaching before God called him to build the ark?
Why do Genesis 1 & 2 seem to be two different accounts of creation?
Great question. Genesis 1 is the man version, and 2 is the woman version. I know, that sounds ridiculous, and is an over-generalization, but it's the way I keep them straight in my head. Imagine a husband coming home from work and talking about his day. Usually, it's just the facts. Then he asks his wife about her day, and some extra, colorful details come into play.
In a somewhat similar way, Genesis 1 is a general overview of creation, while chapter 2 is a more specific look at some of the details that were left out of chapter 1. If you look at the 2 chapters with that in mind, you will notice the way chapter 2 fills in some of the color that is missing in chapter 1.
Genesis 6:9 - If Noah was the only blameless person among the people of his time, then who taught him about God? His great-grandfather, Enoch, was taken by God before Noah was born. His grandfather, Metheuselah, died the year of the flood and his father died 5 years before the flood. Are we to assume that they didn't walk with God?
Perhaps this is a good illustration of what it means to have a real understanding of who God is, and to just know the facts about who God is. When you know the facts, you could pass a test, but you don't have a real relationship with Him. It is likely that that was an accurate evaluation of what was happening. Sin was running rampant, there were people who were God-fearers in name only, but then there was Noah. Noah really knew God, and it affected his obedience, his life, his actions and reactions. God took note of that, and rewarded him with a boat.
Exodus
Exodus 3:1 - How was it that Jethro was a priest before God had even established the Levitical order of priesthood?
Jethro, a.k.a. Reuel, was a priest of Midian and not of the Levitical priesthood of Israel. He probably served God in that capacity (he takes part in true worship in 18:12-23), but we cannot be sure of that.
In Exodus 4:24 why did God want to kill Moses?
The lack of detail makes it impossible to be dogmatic about what's happening in this story, but here is the traditional interpretation:
Moses had been reluctant to follow God's command and circumcise his son, whether for his son's sake or for the mother's sake (or both). God, for His part, didn't take this reluctance lightly and began to carry out the associated punishment He had promised in Genesis 17:14: death. While resting along their journey to Egypt, Moses became gravely ill. Zipporah seemed to understand that the reason Moses was dying was because their son had never been circumcised. The task now fell upon the boy's mother, as Moses, by this time, was too sick to do it himself. She ceremoniously-though apparently resentfully-placed the bloodied skin at Moses' feet in hopes that God would avert His wrath. God does, and Moses recovers. Zipporah, however, distraught at the toll this marriage was taking on herself and on her children, casts their marriage in tragic terms by calling Moses "a bridegroom of blood." Zipporah's emotional response seems to indicate that Moses had put off obedience out of deference to his wife. For Moses, obeying God was hard. But he found out that disobeying God was even worse. The story reminds Israel-and us-that God is serious about His commands: none of us, including Moses himself, is above God's law.
At the same time, this surprising incident contains an encouraging reminder of God's grace. God never ceases to remind us that His people-including our leaders-are human beings who struggle. All of the leaders in Genesis struggled with fear or foolishness, and yet that didn't stop God from using them. Even spiritual success stories of epic proportions-like those of Abraham, Moses, David, and Peter-are deeply rooted in God's redemptive grace that chooses jars of clay to accomplish His purposes.
Exodus 23:20 - In verse 20 God tells Moses that He will NOT go with them but will send an angel with Moses. Then as they build the ark and the tent etc, it seems that God does go with them as the cloud raises and lowers they move. What did I miss?
I think the confusion here is that it doesn't say God will NOT go with them. It does say that He will send an angel to go with them. The identification of that angel is probably a manifestation of God, in some way. Some believe that the angel reveals himself to Joshua in Joshua 5, and nearly all commentators take that angel to be an appearance of the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ.
Exodus 24:9 - In this verse Moses takes 70 elders to see God, yet when Moses wanted to see God, God said you can only see God. Also, I thought only very few ever saw God. Please explain.
John 1:18 states clearly that "No one has ever seen God . . ." What John is saying is that no one has ever seen God's essential nature, seen Him in all His glory, power, and majesty. Even when Moses was with God on the mountain, God shielded him from seeing that essence, so that he would not be destroyed by the glory of it(Exodus 33:18-23). The only absolute revelation of God to man was in the person on the Lord Jesus Christ, as John points out in the second half of the verse referenced above.
But now, what about Moses, the seventy elders, Isaiah, and others in the Old Testament who said they "saw God"? These evidently saw a manifestation of God's power and holiness, but not His true essence. The people of Israel saw thunder and lightening on Sinai; they saw a pillar of cloud by day and fire by night. These were manifestations of God, but not His true essence. It must have been the same for the seventy elders. They saw a manifestation of God that impressed them with the power and holiness of the God of Israel. That was evidently what God wanted to accomplish with them.
He then invited Moses up higher on the mointain for a private, more intimate conversation. Moses, in his position as God's representative to the nation, was singled out for this privilege. God gave him the law, by which Israel was to be governed, but their conversation certainly went far beyond that. God was preparing Moses for the task before him. Yet take note, that even for Moses, God protected His servant from seeing Him in all His glory and majesty.
To conclude, John's point in John 1 is that the eternal God is manifested in an absolutely unique way in Jesus Christ. Moses' experience on the mountain was breathtaking, but not to be compared with the opportunity to see and know the Lord Jesus Christ. One day we will see Him with our eyes. Today we have the awesome privilege to spend time in communion with Him. Let's not lose the thrill of that awesome privilege!
In Exodus 9, during the plague on the livestock, it states in verse 5 that all the livestock in Egypt died. Then, in verses 13-26 (the plague of the hail), the Egyptians were warned to bring in their livestock so they would not die. This does not make sense to me, if all their livestock had died in a previous plague.
In verse 3, the Lord says He will bring a terrible plague on the livestock "in the field," so, apparently, the plague only affected the livestock in the field. The plague of hail, later in the chapter, also killed livestock in the field, because many refused to heed Moses' warning and bring the livestock inside. In verse 20, we do see that some Egyptians believed the word of the Lord and brought their livestock inside before the plague of hail began. Though the text doesn't say it specifically, it's reasonable to believe that there were some Egyptians who did the same thing before the earlier plague that specifically targeted the livestock in the field.
Exodus 21:20-21
1) Why were the Israelites allowed to beat their slaves (because, as it says, the slaves were their "property")? That just seems horribly wrong to me. Also, why were male and female slaves treated differently (w/ the advantage going to the male slaves)?
2) I'm having trouble with God's apparent condoning of slavery (including mistreating slaves here) within the law being given to Moses. We have been taught to agree with God's decree of capital punishment in the chapter, but we detest slavery for obvious reasons. What am I missing?
People are sometimes shocked to learn that the Bible does not explicitly condemn slavery (the NT book of Philemon is a good example), and even provides laws to regulate its practice. This is interpreted by some to mean that God condones the institution.
Avoiding wrong conclusions about slavery requires some context:
1) The slavery spoken about in Exodus is not racial or ethnic as was the Atlantic slave trade in pre-Civil War days. It was normally an issue of finance - and people would sometimes willingly sell themselves into slavery to take care of debt (sounds familiar to Americans who have a pocket full of credit cards!) Though the Bible was used by both sides of the Civil War slavery debate, there simply is no biblical warrant for what happened to African Americans in our nation's history.
2) By the time Exodus was written, slavery was unfortunately established as an unhappy social institution. There are half a dozen other legal codes that existed around this time, and all of them address the issue. In this cruel ancient world broken by sin, slaves and women were basically in the same boat, and it was not a happy existence for either. God is speaking into this horrible historical situation in words of grace and hope - though it may not seem like that to modern readers with Western sensitivities.
These Exodus texts do something which none of the other ancient law codes did - they afforded human dignity, social standing, and protection to the slaves. The verse does not command a master to beat a slave, but assumes that he will at some point (this is a broken, sinful world God is speaking to) and then describes what is to happen if he does. Notice that the slave is the one being protected.
If the slave dies, the master must be punished (not stipulated specifically how).
If the slave does not die, the master need not be punished, because he already punished himself! The reference to the slave being his money means that he is going to lose income from the slave's lack of work due to the injury. The master actually hurt himself.
Remember that God is working over millennia, we typically are concerned about minutes. In Exodus God is beginning, slowly and wisely, to address the horrible brokenness of the human condition which will only ultimately be remedied in the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Exodus 23:19 - This verse has me puzzled. The second part of the verse about not boiling a goat in its mother's milk seems completely out of context with the discussion of the feasts in the previous verses, not to mention completely disjointed from the first part of the verse.
Well, you would certainly not be the only one. In fact the study notes of the ESV Study Bible start by saying this: "The reason for this rule is not made explicit here or in the other places where it is repeated (see 34:26; Deut. 14:21)." So keeping that in mind,
The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge says this:
"The true sense of this passage seems to be that assigned by Dr. Cudworth, from a MS. comment of a Kara�te Jew. "It was a custom with the ancient heathens, when they had gathered in all their fruits, to take a kid, and boil it in the dam's milk; and then in a magical way, to go about and sprinkle all their trees, and fields, and gardens, and orchards with it, thinking by these means, that they should make them fruitful, and bring forth more abundantly in the following year. Wherefore, God forbad his people, at the time of their in-gathering, to use any such superstitious or idolatrous rite."
It seems God's restriction is to keep His people from attributing the blessings of the harvest to anyone or anything other than the true source, God Himself.
Leviticus
Leviticus 5:6 - What is the meaning of the word compensation in this context?
A sin offering was necessary for any and all who violated God's commands carelessly, unintentionally, or even in ignorance as a result of human weaknesses. This offering purified them, by the sprinkling of the blood of their sacrifice.
In verse 6, the word "compensation" is probably best understood as penalty, or simply, the offering. The same word is used in 1 Samuel 6:3 and following, and in the ESV is translated as "guilt offering."
How does this Leviticus 5:1 apply today?
Specific application can be made anywhere: work, home school, with neighbors, siblings, friends. We mustn't be busy about everyone else's business, but in our negligence or carelessness, we can actually hinder justice from being carried out. To hold justice back from someone, whether in the positive or the negative sense, is wrong.
In Leviticus 23:42,43 what is a "booth" and why in a "booth"?
Booths are shelters, tents, lean-to's.
The people are called to do this as a simple reminder of how God delivered from the hands of the Egyptians.
Leviticus 21:16-21 - Understanding that God never changes, how do we understand that the imperfect human in these times could not approach God when now He allows all of us imperfect humans to approach Him? I understand that the rules changed with the cross, but don't quite understand this one.
The reason imperfect humans were not allowed to approach God is because God is holy, so "more stringent regulations of holiness are required of the priests because they work directly with the holy objects of the sanctuary." The imperfections in man were pictures of their inadequacies, and thus eliminated them from being allowed in His presence. (Similar to the reason God demanded that the sacrificial lamb be spotless and without blemish.)
That being said, God did not change in allowing imperfect humans to approach Him. Instead, Jesus Christ is the One who has approached God on our behalf; we being the sinful imperfect beings, and He being the spotless, righteous, propitiation making intercession for us.
So, to answer your question, the rules actually didn't change with the coming of the cross. The Priest and the sacrifice did.
Is Chapter 26 just an "if -- then" promise, or is it prophetic in application to either the Babylonian exile and/or Jerusalem in AD70 until 1948?
Yes, it is an "if-then" promise. God is very clear that if they obey, He will take care of peace in their land. Just as clear was the truth that if they did not obey, there would be calamity. The consequences of their disobedience would be undeniable.
To call this a prophetic application is difficult, as the verbiage and genre of Leviticus is not prophetic, but rather "promise" type literature. We see the "then" aspect of the promise fleshed out in 2 Kings 17 and 25, as the Israelites are taken into captivity.
Numbers
Numbers 21:3 - The unusual statement that the Lord obeyed Israel, gives me pause. Is that the only time we see this and please comment on the wording?
While the Hebrew word used in verse 3 can be translated "obey", it is most often translated as "hear" or "listen to" (in fact, the same word is used in verse 1, when the king of Arad heard that the Israelites were coming). To be honest, I can't find an English version that translates the word in this context as "obey," which is good, because I would have serious reservations about any translation that would make that type of word choice when speaking about God.
What we see happening in verse 3 is God answering the prayer of the Israelites. He hears/listens to their request, and answers it for them. It is a great picture of the reality of prayer, and the truth that it does in fact "work." That the almighty, infinite, majestic, holy God would hear our prayers, and those prayers would be answered is a powerful, overwhelming thought, one that we should never get over.
Numbers 22 - Why did God scold/punish Balaam for his eager attitude? It seems that God told him to go and he did -it seems like obedience.
There is obviously something else going on that isn't spelled out for us in this story. Yes, God gave him permission to go, yet in verses 21- 35, God is angry that Balaam would go. We can find a bit more about this passage in 2 Peter 2:15 where we are given some insight into Balaam's heart, when it says that he loved the wages of wickedness. Evidently, Balaam was more concerned about the money and riches he would receive from Balak then he was the results of his obedience to God. Some have suggested that after Balaam asked God the first time and was told no, God became angry that he would come and ask a second time. Balaam's eager attitude is nice, but it seems he was more eager about what he would get out of this than he was eager about obeying and pleasing God.
Numbers 21:14 (NIV) - What is the Book of Wars?
Though the exact translation is uncertain, some believe that it is some narration of wars relating to Israel. It's not a book of the Bible, but Moses references it to provide a description. Moses talks about the borders of the Amorites and Moab, but geographically we don't really know where that is. Moses references this book, inferring it is a solid source.
Similarly, in Luke 1:1, Luke mentions many narratives about the life of Christ. Though we don't have access to all of them, it doesn't mean they weren't accurate depictions of the life of Jesus. So it would seem that the Book of Wars, though we don't have it, was viewed as a reliable historical source that Moses draws on for a more vivid description of the land around Arnon.
Deuteronomy
Deuteronomy 1-4 - Moses' message is such a great reminder for the Israelites, but why does he give the messasge as if the people he's speaking to committed the sins that were committed by their forefathers?
There are a number of reasons this could be. One is simply that except for the youngest of Israelites, most of these people about to enter the promised land had seen firsthand all of the sinful choices made by their parents. Remember, any people between the ages of 40-60 were actually born in Egypt, and had been a part of the Exodus the entire time, and were ready to enter the land. Anyone less than 40 years old was born in the wilderness, but were certainly aware of the sins of the people and the victories of God.
Deuteronomy 1:39 - What is the reference to the knowledge of good and evil all about? The last time we heard about the knowledge of good and evil was in the garden.
In this passage, it is not referring to the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which we find in Genesis 2 and 3. Instead, Moses is saying that the children do not recognize right from wrong; they don't acknowledge or discern between good and evil.
Deuteronomy 5:2-4 - The covenant the Lord made at Horeb was with the original generation. Now at the end of the wilderness trail Moses speaks again that the Lord made this covenant with us who are all alive today, after the original generation had died off. How can this be interpreted?
First, all of the people age 40 and above would have been at Sinai for the original covenant.
Probably a bit more in line with your question, the phrasing of the covenant, and the reminder of the covenant here, is emphasizing the responsibilities of the people who are living and are bound by the covenant. It is/was not a covenant just for the previous generation which was now dead, but was a covenant for the living, for the children of Israel entering the promised land now.
Judges
Judges 8:30 - What's with all the wives? Is polygamy condoned in the Old Testament? It sure seems that way so far. For example in Judges 8:30 it talks about Gideon having a "lot of wives", and the following verse states that he also had a concubine. There are numerous examples of this (so far) in the Old Testament.
As you read the OT, you'll see polygamy a number of times. It wasn't condoned by God, but it also wasn't given a negative commentary, either. (The one exception I can find to that statement is God says in Deut. 17:17 that polygamy would lead to the husband turning away from God.)
That being said, as you see polygamy happen, it is always with bad consequences. You see family discord, jealousy, murder, hate, spiritual compromise to name a few. (The notes in the ESV Study Bible for Gen. 16:3 say it is "fraught with complications and difficulties.") The reason: it violates God's intention for marriage, between one man and one woman (Gen. 2:24, Matt. 19:5-6, 1 Tim. 3:2, 12). In fact, even here in Judges 8:30, we are introduced to Abimelech, who ends up being a menace in Judges 9.
Judges 20-21 - The story of the tribe of Benjamin has no apparent redeeming value. Is there one or more? Specifically in 21 v15, did the Lord really make a breach in the tribe of Israel? If so is there a lesson there for Israel or for us?
I guess it depends on your definition of redeeming value. It is a very dark time in Israel's history, and it really does point out the desperate need of someone to redeem them. You certainly don't come to the end of the story with encouragement, that's for sure!
What the story does is continue the story of the death of "the Levite's concubine," which is also a terrible picture of the state of the children of Israel at this time. The people who had killed her were of the tribe of Benjamin. When the justice was to be taken out on those people (though it was somewhat perverted justice instigated by the Israelite's themselves), the tribe of Benjamin decided they were going to be more loyal to their tribe than to justice. So the battle rages, and a tribe of Israel is nearly wiped out. You see how their philosophy of doing what was right in their own eyes was no longer just affecting their relationship with God, but it was affecting their relationship with each other.
In 21:15, the people actually go so far as to blame God (He made the breach), so they try to create their own way to overcome the problem of no wives for those remaining in the tribe of Benjamin.
To be sure, the closing verse of Judges says it all. "In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes." - Judges 21:25
Judges 11 - The story of Jephthah tells of two wrongs. The first wrong is in making a brash vow to the Lord and the second wrong is in the offering of Jephthah's daughter as a burnt offering. How can two wrongs make a right since Jephthah continued to Judge Israel apparently with the Lord's blessing?
Did Jephthah really offer up his daughter as a burnt sacrifice? How on earth could God allow this? It seems completely barbaric.
Did Jephthah literally sacrifice his daughter as a burnt offering or did he set her apart as a Nazarite as described in Numbers 6?
The focus of the story is a focus on the barbaric nature of Jephthah's choice. The foolishness that is seen in him even making a vow to God (basically trying to manipulate God to help him win a battle) is complicated further by the shocking sight of his daughter coming out to greet him and congratulate him on his victory. (That portion of the story has always stood out to me. It is an ironic and subtle, yet poignant, communication from God to Jephthah.) This isn't a two-wrongs making a right story, it is a picture of God pointing out how the ways of the pagans had infiltrated even the heroes of the Israelites.
There is much discussion as to if Jephthah fulfilled his vow to sacrifice his daughter. Many commentators look to the 2 month period of time that his daughter mourned her "loss of child bearing" as a sign that Jephthah committed her to lifelong virginity (I'm guessing that's the reference to the Nazarite?) and thus did not carry on his family line. If that was true, it would have been traumatic for both his daughter and himself. However, it is difficult at best to allow the language to mean anything other than he sacrificed his daughter.
The most difficult question to answer is, How could God allow this? We don't know. There are a number of guesses we could make, but none of them would ever come close to knowing the mind of God. Was He pleased with it? I am certain I could say He wasn't pleased with the vow in the first place, as it smacked of lack of faith and trust. I would hazard the guess that the same could be said for the sacrifice of his daughter. We must remember that the focus of this story is on Jephthah, and not on God. It is a reminder of the dark period of time in the history of Israel; it is a reminder of the sinful condition of the hearts of man; it is a reminder of how far sin can take someone.
