Bible Difficulties (17 page)

In the Psalms, David and his successors offer many intimations of future life with God.

Even the assertion in Psalm 1:5 that ungodly men and sinners will "not stand in the congregation of the righteous" implies a final judgment either to condemnation or to acquittal and acceptance--terms that would be meaningless if moldering skeletons were all that remained after this earthly life is over. Psalm 16:10 mentions the hope of the bodily resurrection (clearly applied to the resurrection of Christ in Acts 2:27, 31), and is followed by a strong affirmation: "In thy presence is fullness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures forever" (Ps. 16:11). "Forever" here is
nesah
, a term that can hardly be shown elsewhere to mean simply `the rest of my earthly life' but that clearly suggests permanence beyond the grave. Again, Psalm 49:15 reads: "God will redeem me from the power of the grave, for He will receive me [
laqah
, or `take me away']." This sounds like an assurance that God will not simply keep the psalmist from dying prematurely but rather that he will ever live on with God--in contrast to the spiritually foolish and wicked, whose ultimate home will be Sheol (Ps. 49:10-14). A similar confidence is expressed in Psalm 73:24: "Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward [
'ahar
]
receive

[
laqah
] me to [or "with"] glory."

Turning to the Prophets, we find that Isaiah has a remarkable passage on this theme in Isa 25:8: "He will swallow up death in victory, and the LORD Yahweh will wipe tears away from all faces, and He will remove the reproach of His people from all the earth; for Yahweh has spoken." And again, Isaiah 26:19: "Your dead ones will live, My dead bodies will arise; those who dwell in the dust have awakened and they shout for joy...and the earth will give birth to the shades [of the deceased]." Compare this with Daniel 12:2:

"Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt" (NASB) (quoted by Jesus in Matt.

70

25:46, in a beyond-the-grave context). Daniel 12:13 contains this blessed promise to Daniel personally: "You will enter into rest and rise again for your allotted portion at the end of the age."

There can be no question, in the light of the above, that the Old Testament contained very definite teaching concerning the life of the believer beyond the grave in the care of--

even in the presence of--the Lord God Himself.

Therefore the New Testament is abundantly justified in Christ's affirmation that Abraham rejoiced to see the day of Christ's coming to earth (John 8:56), and that he looked for a heavenly city "whose builder and maker is God" (Heb. 11:10). But it should be added that apart from a few exceptions, like Enoch, Moses, and Elijah, it may well have been that the general congregation of redeemed believers were not exalted to the full glory of God's presence until the price of their redemption had been actually paid at Calvary (see. Matt 27:52; Eph. 4:8; Heb. 11:39-40). It was therefore appropriate for the more detailed and glowing descriptions of the saved rejoicing in heaven's glory to be reserved for the pages of the New Testament.

Does "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2 refer to angels?

Genesis 6:1-2 reads: "When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful,and they married any of them they chose: (NIV). The term "sons of God" (
bene

'elohim
) is used in the Old Testament of either angels or men who ware true believers, committed to the service of God. Passages that refer to angels as
bene 'elohim
include Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Psalms 29:1; 89:6 (89:7 MT). The Masoretic text (MT) does not contain this phrase in Deuteronomy 32:43, but a fragment of a Hebrew text found in Qumran Cave Four reads: "Shout joyously, O heavens, with Him, and worship Him, O sons of God [
bene 'elohim
], and ascribe to Him might, all you sons of the mighty [
bene 'elim
].

Shout joyously, O nations, concerning His people, and accord strength to Him, all you angels of God [
kol-mal'ake 'el
]." This is considerably more expanded than the received Hebrew text (MT) of this verse, but it may possibly be the original wording. It was probably the passage quoted in Hebrews 1:6--though Psalm 97:7 may also be the source of that verse.

But the occurrences of
bene 'elohim
referring to men standing in covenant relationship to God are fully as numerous in the Old Testament as those referring to angels (cf. Deut.

14:1; 32:5; Ps. 73:15; Hos. 1:10 [MT=2:1]--and, we believe, Gen. 6:2 as well). The reasons for understanding Genesis 6:2 as referring to members of the covenant family, descendants of the line of Seth, are quite compelling. Scripture clearly teaches that angels are
spirits
, "ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation" (Heb. 1:14

NIV). While they may on occasion appear in bodily form in the semblance of men, they have no physical bodies, and are therefore utterly incapable of carnal relations with women. The rabbinic speculation that angels are referred to in Genesis 6:2 is a curious intrusion of pagan superstition that has no basis at all in the rest of Scripture. The fact that some children of gigantic stature (
nepilim
, v.4) resulted from these marriages offers no 71

evidence whatever of angelic paternity. No one claims that the sons of Anak, Goliath, and his brothers had any angelic forbears because of their great stature; nor is there any reason to suppose that the antediluvian giants and supernatural forbears.

What Genesis 6:1-2, 4 records is the first occurrence of mixed marriage between believers and unbelievers, with the characteristic result of such unions: complete loss of testimony for the Lord and a total surrender of moral standards. In other words, the "sons of God" in this passage were descendants of the godly line of Seth. Instead of remaining true to God and loyal to their spiritual heritage, they allowed themselves to be enticed by the beauty of ungodly women who were "daughters of men"--that is, of the tradition and example of Cain. The natural result of such marriages was a debasement of nature on the part of the younger generations, until the entire antediluvian civilization sank to the lowest depths of depravity. "The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time" (Gen. 6:5, NIV). The inevitable result was judgment, the terrible destruction of the Great Flood.

Perhaps one last comment regarding angels would be in order here. If we were to concede that spirits could somehow enter into sexual relations with human beings--which they cannot--then they could not even so be fitted in with this passage here. If they were minions of Satan, that is, fallen angels, then they could not have been referred to as "sons of God." Demons of hell would never be so designated in Scripture. Nor could they have been angels of God, since God's angels always live in total obedience to Him and have no other yearning or desire but to do God's will and glorify His name. A sordid involvement with godless young women would therefore be completely out of character for angels as

"sons of God." the only viable explanation, therefore, is the one offered in the previous paragraph.

Genesis 6:7 records God as saying, "I will destroy...both man and beast, and the
creeping things, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made
them." This seems inconsistent with the generally accepted view of God, that He
would repent about anything--or need to--since He could see in advance what the
outcome of His creation would be. The word "them" seems to include the animals as
well as men; what could the animals possibly have done to merit God's disgust?

While it is perfectly true that God in His sovereign omniscience knows all things in advance, and that nothing that happens can ever come to Him as a surprise, yet it is a mistake to infer from this that He is incapable of emotion or reaction to the willful depravity of His creatures. The Scriptures never present Him as an impassive Being, incapable of sorrow or wrath, but quite the contrary. This is because He is a God who cares, a God who loves and has a deep concern even for those ungrateful children of Adam who have mocked His gracious promises and have trifled with His mercy.

The depth of corruption to which the human race had plunged by Noah's time was utterly revolting to the God of holiness and justice, and He responded to these disgusting excesses as His righteousness and purity demanded. He was sorry He had created such an 72

abominable generation of moral perverts as the antediluvian race had become. "And He repented" (Heb.
wayyinnahem
, the niphal of
naham
) is somewhat anthropomorphic (or anthropopathic) to be sure, for it serves to convey God's response to sin after a human analogy (just as the Bible speaks of God's having hands or eyes or a mouth, as if He had a body with physical parts and organs).

Of course the element of surprise by the unexpected or unlooked for is impossible for one who is omniscient, but His response to humanity was a necessary adjustment to the change in humanity's feeling about Him. Because they had stubbornly rejected and flouted Him, it was necessary for Him to reject them. The shift in their attitude required a corresponding shift in His attitude toward them, and it is this shift that is expressed by the Hebrew
niham
("repent," "be sorry about," "change one's mind about").

Similarly, in the time of Jonah, God is said to have repented (
niham
) of the judgment He had threatened to bring down on the city of Nineveh, because He observed the Ninevites'

sincere and earnest repentance after Jonah had preached to them. Their change in attitude toward God made appropriate a change in His attitude toward them. Therefore, much to Jonah's disgust, God allowed the forty days to elapse and withheld the blow of destruction He had threatened to bring on them. This shows that God may change His response from severity to leniency and mercy when people come to Him in repentance and with supplication.

Yet when it comes to His announced covenant purposes toward His covenant people.

God is indeed incapable of repentance--as Balaam points out in Numbers 23:19: "God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent; has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?" (NASB). The context here pertains to God's steadfast purpose to bless Israel, despite all the machinations of King Balak of Moab, who tried to bribe the prophet of Yahweh to bring down a curse on the Hebrew nation. In such a situation God is indeed incapable of repentance.

So far as the birds and the beasts were concerned, the context of Genesis 6:7 says nothing about their displeasing or angering God; so it is not really justified to interpret the purpose of judgment as directed at them equally with the depraved race of men. It was simply an inevitable consequence of the coming Flood, that it should destroy not only mankind but also all brute creation living in man's environment. The intended antecedent of "them" was really the preceding "man" (Heb.
ha'adam
)--in the sense of the human race--rather than the various orders of bird and beast that are listed with man.

Actually, God's solicitude for the survival of all these various species of animal and bird found expression in His command to Noah to preserve at least one pair of parents in order to propagate each species.

How can Genesis 6:19 be reconciled with Genesis 7:2?

Genesis 6:19 relates God's command to Noah: "You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you" (NIV). Genesis 7:2-3

records God's additional instruction: "Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, 73

a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth." Some have suggested that these diverse numbers, two and seven, involve some sort of contradiction and indicate conflicting traditions later combined by some redactor who didn't notice the difference between the two.

It seems strange that this point should ever have been raised, since the reason for having seven of the clean species is perfectly evident: they were to be used for sacrificial worship after the Flood had receded (as indeed they were, according to Gen. 8:20: "Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it"). Obviously if there had not been more than two of each of these clean species, they would have been rendered extinct by their being sacrificed on the altar. But in the case of the unclean animals and birds, a single pair would suffice, since they would not be needed for blood sacrifice.

Is a universal Flood consistent with geologic evidence?

The biblical record in Genesis 7-8 describes no local inundation confined to the Mesopotamian Valley (as some scholars have suggested) but a water level that surpassed the summits of the highest mountains. Genesis 7:19 states: "And the water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that
all
the high mountains
everywhere
under the heavens [lit., `which were under all heavens' or ùnder the whole sky'] were covered"

(NASB, italics mine). Verse 20 then indicates that the water level rose even fifteen cubits higher than that (fifteen cubits being about thirty feet).

Now the most elementary knowledge of physical law leads to the observation that water seeks its own level. A great tidal wave may temporarily reach a greater altitude than the general sea level, but the episode here described lasted for about a year; and there is therefore far more involved here than a temporary surge. If the water level rose thirty thousand feet so as to submerge the peak of Mount Everest, the world's tallest mountain, it must have reached that level everywhere else on earth. Even the overtopping of Mount Ararat, the resting place of Noah's ark, required a level well in excess of seventeen thousand feet. Water rising to such an altitude would certainly engulf the entire surface of the planet, except for the highest peaks of the Andes and Himalayas, plus a few in North America and Africa. Therefore we must conclude that the Flood was indeed universal, or else that the biblical record was grievously in error. While it is doubtless true that mountain uplift is still going on, in North America, at any rate, even the reduction of a few thousand feet in the altitude of ranges so lofty as the Andes and Himalayas would not have substantially changed the necessity of worldwide distribution of the Flood waters.