Bible Difficulties (33 page)

In the case of the Decalogue, it was only to be expected that the wording of Exodus 20

should be very closely followed by Deuteronomy 5, since this was originally a text directly composed by God Himself. However, it should be remembered that Moses was free to follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit as he omitted or inserted a clause or two in the Deuteronomic restatement. While it is true that Moses quoted the Decalogue as being the very words of God ("He said" [Deut. 5:5]), this committed him only to insertions that quoted from God's own revealed word, whether in Exodus 20 or elsewhere in the book.

Thus, in connection with the Sabbath commandment (v.14), he omits mention of the Creation in six days as a basis for the sanction (contained in Exod. 20:11), but adds at the end of this commandment (Deut. 5:15) the words of Exodus 13:3: "Remember this day in which you went out from Egypt, from the house of slavery; for by a powerful hand the LORD brought you out from this place." Those words also had been spoken by divine inspiration and authority, and they furnished Moses' people with an additional ground for showing kindness and consideration for the servile class in their society. The Lord had shown them great love and kindness when they had been a nation of slaves down in Egypt. It may not be quite clear as to the reason for omitting the Creation days basis for the Sabbath sanction; but the failure to include it constitutes no actual discrepancy--any more than pertains to quotations we may discuss, taken from the text appearing in some other book, but streamlined by the use of a succession of dots when we are leaving out a few of the words in the original passage.

As for the variation in word order occurring in the tenth commandment ("house" is mentioned before "wife" in Exod. 20:17, but "wife" before "house" in Deut. 5:21), the words and the meaning are both the same, despite the slight difference in sequence. There is also a different Hebrew word for "covet" used before "house" in Deuteronomy 5:21

(
tit'awweh
instead of
tahmod
), but the meaning is virtually identical as between the two verbs; and the variation may simply have furnished a variant for the sake of a more 143

agreeable style than that employed by Exodus 20:17 (
lo' tahmod
). That would certainly conform to the specifically homiletical purpose underlying the last book of the Pentateuch.

Just where did Aaron die? Deuteronomy 10:6 says that it was at Moserah, but
Numbers 20:28; 33:38 say it was at the top of Mount Hor.

Deuteronomy 10:6 contains a parenthetical statement in the midst of Moses'

reminiscences about events near Mount Sinai, which goes as follows: "Now the sons of Israel set out from Beeroth Bene-jaakan to Moserah. There Aaron died and there he was buried and Eleazar his son ministered as priest in his place" (NASB). But Numbers 20:28

relates how Moses and Eleazar accompanied Aaron to the summit of Mount Hor, where he passed away. This is confirmed by Numbers 33:38: "Then Aaron the priest went up to Mount Hor at the command of the LORD, and died there, in the fortieth year after the sons of Israel had come from the land of Egypt" (NASB).

In all probability Moserah was the name of the district in which Mount Hor was located (so P.A. Verhoef in Tenney,
Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia,
4:279), just as Horeb was the name of the mountain complex in which the mountain known as Sinai was situated. There has been no archaeological investigation in the vicinity of Jebel Madurah that might give us additional information concerning the limits of the Moserah district; but it is fair to assume that the one ancient source that does mention it (namely, the Pentateuch) was well aware of its location, and that it placed it in the vicinity of Mount Hor.

Mount Nebo was alleged by Josephus (
Antiquities
4.4.7) to be the same as Jebel Neby Harun, a mountain forty-eight hundred feet high, overlooking Petra. But since it was located in the middle of Edom rather than at its border, and since it is somewhat too rugged to ascend without special equipment, and too lofty for its summit to be easily observed from below, it is rather unlikely that this traditional identification is the correct one.

Stephen Barabas (in Tenney,
Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia
, 3:201) suggests Jebel Madurah as a more likely site for Aaron's death, for it lies northeast of Kadesh on the northwest border of Edom; and its summit can be observed by watchers standing at its base, as Numbers 20:27 specifies. But whether or not this is the correct identification, it is quite unwarrantable to assume that the Pentateuch erred in placing Hor in the district of Moserah.

What is the Old Testament teaching on the use of intoxicating liquor? Deuteronomy
14:26 seems to permit the purchase and use of wine and strong drink; libations of
wine were even poured on the altar (Exod. 29:40). Yet Leviticus 10:8-9 contains a
stern warning against wine so far as priests were concerned; and Proverbs seems to
reject the use of wine on the part of all believers (Prov. 20:1; 23:29-35), except
perhaps for those who are sickly and near death (31:4-7).

144

The Old Testament abounds with warning examples of the misuse of wine and the very grave dangers it holds in store for those who drink it. When Noah first discovered the intoxicating effects of grape juice (Gen. 9:20-21), he made a fool of himself and met with derision on the part of his son Ham. The daughters of Lot plied him with wine until he became so befuddled that he committed incest with them unawares during nighttime.

Immoderate use of wine became a national evil in the northern kingdom and led to its moral depravity and loss of spiritual understanding. Isaiah graphically described the revolting excesses and degrading addiction of those who drank to excess (Isa. 28:1-8).

Proverbs 20 and 23 describe most vividly the depraving bestiality and folly of those who give themselves over to liquor for the purpose of intoxication. In a figurative sense also, Psalms 60:3; 75:8; Jeremiah 13:12-14; 25:15-18 speak of wine as a bitter and terrible potion for experiencing the wrath of God, visiting judgment on the wicked and ungodly.

Quite in the spirit of these Old Testament passages, we read in Revelation 14:10, "He also [i.e., the worshiper of the beast] will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is unmixed in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone"

(NASB mg.).

As pointed out in the question, according to Leviticus 10:8-11, no priest was allowed to enter into the tabernacle or temple to perform divine service if he had partaken of wine.

(It was probably because Aaron's two older sons, Nadab and Abihu, had been drinking that they brought unhallowed fire to light the incense of the golden altar and therefore lost their lives.) It is thus made clear that priests who drank were thereby prevented from carrying out their ministry of teaching the people the distinction between what was holy and what was profane.

This has implications for the New Testament priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9) and suggests that they may be seriously handicapped in carrying on the work of soulwinning if they personally indulge in the use of alcohol. By doing so, they may cause millions of fellow citizens to stumble who have become enslaved to this degrading practice and are looking for some way out of their bondage. These are scarcely apt to take seriously the Christian witness of one who has not rid himself of "everything that hinders" (Heb. 12:1), especially when he starts speaking about the victorious life of faith.

It is clear that in the days of Christ and the apostles, wine was served as a table beverage at meals and used in communion services. At that time distilled liquor was as yet unknown, and there was no organized liquor industry dedicated to making every man, woman, and child addicted to their profit-making vice (as is true today), with attendant increase in crime and highway fatalities resulting from drunken driving. It is also very clear that the New Testament itself lays down a principle that makes it very difficult for a conscientious believer to carry on the use of liquor even on a temperate scale. That principle is found in Romans 14:21: "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing where by thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak." Verse 22

goes on to say, "Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in the thing which he alloweth."

145

In other words, the basic issue at stake is the law of love toward the weaker brother, and whether we as ambassadors of Christ are so concerned about souls that we are willing to forgo personal "rights" in order to win alcoholics and near-alcoholics to Christ. If we really care about the souls of men, and if we are really in business for Christ rather than for ourselves, then there seems (to this writer, at least) to be no alternative to total abstinence--not as a matter of legalism, but rather as a matter of love.

How can Deuteronomy 15:4-- "There shall be no poor among you"--be reconciled
with Deuteronomy 15:11-- "For the poor will never cease to be in the land"?

Taken out of context, the promise "There shall be no poor among you" is indeed contradicted by vv. 11-12 and by the subsequent experience of Israel. With Deuteronomy 15:11 in mind ("The poor will never cease to be in the land," NASB), our Lord Jesus Christ affirmed, in connection with the generosity of Mary in anointing His feet with costly perfume, "For the poor you have with you always; but you do not always have Me" (Matt. 26:11, NASB). But as we take the passage in context, it turns out to be a merely theoretical possibility conditioned on full and consistent obedience to God's law.

The KJV translates vv. 4-5 thus: "Save when there shall be no poor among you; for the Lord shall greatly bless thee in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee....only if thou carefully hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all these commandments." The ASV amends this slightly to read: "Howbeit there shall be no poor with thee; (for Jehovah will surely bless thee in the land)....if only thou diligently hearken unto the voice of Jehovah thy God, to observe to do all this commandment." The KJV's

"Save when" and the ASV's "Howbeit" are different ways of handling the Hebrew
'epes
ki
, with which v.4 begins. The lexicons tend to favor "howbeit" or "notwithstanding"

(Koehler-Baumgartner,
Lexicon
, p. 78); Brown-Driver-Briggs (
Lexicon
, p. 87) defines this phrase as
save that howbeit
(qualifying a preceding statement). Gesenius-Buhl (
Hebraisches und aramaisches Handworterbuch
, p. 60) give "
nur, dass, aber, jedoch
"

(i.e., "only that," "but," "nevertheless"); Zorell (F. Zorell and L. Semkowski, edd.,
Lexicon Hebraicum et Aramaicum Veteris Testamenti
[Rome, 1940], ad loc.) gives

"tantum (est adnotandum) quod, = ceterum, utique, sed" (which means "yet [it is to be noted] that; = moreover, in any case, but"). Perhaps the best choice among these near-synonyms is "However," which is the equivalent appearing both in the NASB and the NIV, both of which begin v.5 with "if only you listen obediently."

The foregoing analysis makes it quite clear that the Lord is not predicting that there will be no poor among Israel, regardless of how the Israelites may break their promises of obedience to His laws and the obligations of brotherly kindness under their covenant with Yahweh. What v.4 is saying is that perfect and consistent obedience to the holy standards laid down by God will make possible a society free from poverty. Verse 5 is quite emphatic in the expression of the condition of total and sincere obedience that must be met. It begins with
raq 'im
, "only if." The particle
raq
means "only," "altogether,"

"surely." At the beginning of a sentence (observes Brown-Driver-Briggs,
Lexicon
, p.

956b), it adds a limitation on something previously expressed. In this particular passage it means "provided only."

146

In v.11 we find a true prediction: "For the poor will never cease to be in the land; therefore...you shall freely open your hand to your brother, to your needy and poor in your land" (NASB). In other words, there is no real expectation that the Israelites will long or consistently maintain biblical standards of holiness, fairness, consideration, and love among themselves; and the poverty-free state envisioned in v.4 is merely a theoretical possibility.

Are there not a number of contradictions between the laws of Deuteronomy and the
earlier legal material found in Exodus? Compare Exodus 21:26 with Deuteronomy
15:12-18 and Exodus 23:10-11 with Deuteronomy 15:1-11.

The two sets of passages contain no contradiction whatever, so far as this writer can see (on the basis of his own legal training). In Exodus 21:26 it is laid down as a ruling that any slaveowner who strikes a male or female servant in such a way as to blind an eye must free that slave by way of compensation. In Deuteronomy 15:12-18 it is provided that after six years of service a Hebrew slave must be set free, and in addition he must be well provided with enough equipment to become self-supporting. These are two different grounds for manumission, but they do not in the slightest contradict each other.

Exodus 23:10-11 relates to the requirement that, after six continuous years of cultivation, plowed acreage is to be left fallow during the seventh or sabbatical year, and that which grows on it without cultivation is to be left to the poor or else to wild animals.

Deuteronomy 15:1-11 has nothing to do with the cultivation of land but relates to the remission of debts (
semittah
) at the end of seven years. It also contains a promise that there will be no poor in the land of Israel after the conquest and settlement by the Hebrews--provided only they will keep the Lord's commandments (both concerning the sabbatical year and concerning the other main guidelines for stewardship of the land as provided in the Mosaic Law). There is therefore no contradiction at all between these provisions.