Vindicating God Ministries

Like us on Facebook:

Subscribe to us on Minds.com:

Become a Contact with me on MeWe:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXn0mUpckKTDhLiRiR5PIJg

Subscribe to our YouTube channel:

Thursday, May 19, 2022

Because the Lord Would Slay Them (Part 1)

Because the Lord Would Slay Them

(Part 1)

Troy J. Edwards

A printable .pdf of this teaching is available by clicking here

Hophni and Phinehas, Eli’s sons who were supposed to help him with the Levitical ministry, were sleeping with the ladies and stealing God’s sacrifices. They refused to listen to their father, despite Eli’s half-hearted attempts to reprimand them. The King James Version and a number of other versions suggest that this was because of God’s purpose to destroy them.

As usual, God’s enemies have latched on to these words as evidence that the God of the Bible is an arrogant, vindictive tyrant bent on the destruction of others. Then there are God’s “defenders” who use the words to make a case for the false idea that God predestines all events and controls all things, including our sin. No further evidence of the latter needs to be sought than the writings of John Calvin:

So, when it is related of the sons of Eli, that they listened not to his salutary admonitions, “because the Lord would slay them,” (i) it is not denied that their obstinacy proceeded from their own wickedness, but it is plainly implied that though the Lord was able to soften their hearts, yet they were left in their obstinacy, because his immutable decree had predestinated them to destruction.[1]

We agree with Calvin’s statement that God left Hophni and Phinehas, but not for the reasons that Calvin claims. Calvin believed that these men “were left in their obstinacy” because God “had predestinated them to destruction.” Yet, this goes directly against 2 Peter 3:9, “He doesn’t want anyone to be destroyed. Instead, he wants all people to turn away from their sins” (New International Reader’s Version). God also told the prophet Ezekiel:

Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live? (Ezekiel 18:23)

Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? (Ezekiel 33:11)

Despite these facts, theologians throughout the centuries have accepted Calvin’s interpretation of 1 Samuel 2:25. It also appears that the belief is supported by the rendering of the passage found in most English translations of Scripture. The question is, however, is it an accurate translation? Some theologians believe that 1 Samuel 2:25 is an example of some of the “imperfections” in our translations:

Imperfections in our translations have given rise to many things hard to be explained. The English translation now in use, is probably the best ever made; yet there are imperfections in it, where the true sense of the original has not been conveyed, or conveyed only in part .... 1 Sam. ïi. 25, “Because the Lord would slay them.” The Hebrew is: “Therefore the Lord would slay them.”[2]

Hence, we are shown that one word, translated properly, is quite significant to a correct understanding of a Biblical text. In his advice to preachers on studying the meaning of words in Scripture, another author explained:

The accepted signification of a word must be retained, unless sufficient reasons can be assigned for its rejection. Thus, we shall be justified in rejecting the received meaning of a word in the following two instances, viz.[3]

The author demonstrates why a term in Scripture has to be modified using 1 Samuel 2:25 as an example. This is especially true when the present word conflicts with God’s whole revelation as given in Scripture:

If a meaning is inimical to any doctrine revealed in Scripture: For instance, according to our English version, Eli's rebukes of his wicked sons served only to lull them into security, because the Lord would slay them (1 Sam. ii. 25), which rendering goes to show that their wicked conduct was the result of Jehovah’s determination to destroy them; and so apparently teach the horrid idea, that God wills His creatures to commit crimes, because He will display His justice in their destruction. It is true that the ordinarily received meaning of the Hebrew word here used is, because; but in this place it ought to be rendered therefore, or though, which makes the obstinate disobedience of Eli’s sons the cause of their destruction, and this is in harmony with the whole tenor of the Scriptures. The proper rendering, then, of this passage is, Notwithstanding, they hearkened not unto the voice of their Father. Therefore, the Lord would slay them.[4]

According to one author, altering the word “because” to “therefore” (or “though”) eliminates the awful idea that God ensures that people will remain in sin because He has already irresistibly decreed their destruction for no other reason than He is sovereign. Another academic has expressed a similar opinion:

In 1 Sam. ii, 25, we read: “Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the Lord would slay them.” This rendering makes God the author of the wickedness done, and Eli’s sons the passive medium through which God violates his own law, while they are at the same time the recipients of the divine wrath on account of the breaking of the law. It is true that kı̂y does frequently mean because,” yet when we consider the wide range of signification which the Hebrew particles have, we can readily see that the passage will bear a much more consistent and God-honoring interpretation. Had it been rendered “by,” “though,” “so,” or “therefore,” no violence would have been done to the language, and the verse would have been consistent with the rest of the history, thus: “Notwithstanding they hearkened not to the voice of their father, therefore the Lord would slay them.”[5]

Again, a simple substitution of “because” to “therefore” or “so” eliminates God as the source of Hophni and Phinehas’ wrongdoing. God is no longer viewed as the author of evil for “divine” reasons. A number of other scholars affirm the validity of this word change:

“Because the Lord would slay them;” rather, as the Hebrew may be rendered, “therefore the Lord would slay them;” God determined to destroy them because of their wickedness.[6]

Because the Lord would slay them] The Hebrew particle, kı̂y, rendered because in this text, should be rendered therefore, in the sense of for that reason, for this is. its meaning here, and so it is used in other places. I be believed, and [9] therefore have I spoken. See also Isa. liv, 14; Jer. xviii, 12.[7]

“Because the Lord would slay them.” The Hebrew particle כִּי (ki) is ordinarily rendered “because;” but in this instance it ought to be rendered “therefore.” The proper reading of the passage is—“Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father. Therefore the Lord would slay them” (Horne).[8]

The particle כי ki, which we translate because, and thus make their continuance in sin the effect of God’s determination to destroy them, should be translated therefore, as it means in many parts of the sacred writings.[9]

Furthermore, we have discovered at least two of the many English translations out there that have sought to render the passage by using another English translation of the Hebrew word kı̂y:

If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him; but if a man sin against the LORD, who shall intreat for him? Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, therefore the LORD purposed to destroy them. (The Holy Bible with Emendations by J.T. Conquest)

If one man sin against another, intercession can be made for him to the Lord; but if he sin against the Lord, who can intercede for him? But they hearkened not to the voice of their father, wherefore the Lord determined to destroy them. (Charles Thomson Bible)

This translation of the Hebrew verb is considerably more in line with James 1:13, “for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.” God could not be a Holy God and declare that those men stay in their sin in order for God, who ensured that they would sin in this way, to have enough justification to slay them. Such a notion transforms God into the world’s worst tyrant.

On the other hand, when people choose to persist in sin and ignore all of God’s warnings, then God will decide, as John Calvin wrote, that such people are to be “left in their obstinacy.” Nevertheless, contrary to Calvin’s idea that God intended this to happen, Scripture teaches that God only “gives them up” to such hard-heartedness after numerous attempts to sway them into the right path (Romans 1:24-28; Psalm 81:11-13).

God sent a prophet to warn them of the danger that they were in (1 Sam. 2:27-36). Sadly, men can choose to harden their hearts when they hear God’s voice (Hebrews 3:15; 4:7). As Aaron Williams rightly noted:

The Lord would slay them, or ‘it pleased the Lord to slay them, and, therefore, he gave them up to their own heart’s lusts, to work all iniquity with greediness.’ Even their own father could not ‘entreat for them” in his priestly character; and for such wickedness there was no atonement. Their cup was full.[10]

It is clear that destroying Hophni and Phinehas was not God’s initial intention or desire. God had no choice because of their relentless actions. The next thing we need to figure out is how God destroyed them. Is it possible that God directly orchestrated their demise? Is it possible that God used His divine power to create circumstances that would ensure their demise? Is God, in other words, a vengeful slayer of men? Part 2 will provide answers to these questions.

[1] Calvin, John Institutes of the Christian Religion, Volume 2 (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1843), p. 193

[2] Dobie, David A Key to the Bible: Being an Exposition of the History, Axioms, and General Laws of Sacred Interpretation (New York: C. Scribner, 1856), pp. 252, 253

[3] Bate, John “The Meaning of Words and Phrases” in The Local Preacher’s Treasury (London: T. Woolmer, 1885), p. 185

[4] Ibid, p. 186

[5] Turton, J. J. “The Unauthorized Calvinism of the English Bible” in The Methodist Quarterly Review, Volume 46 (New York: Carlton and Porter, 1864), p. 392

[6] Holden, George The Christian Expositor; or, Practical Guide to the Study of the Old Testament (London: J. G. and F. Rivington, 1834), p. 249

[7] Sunderland, La Roy Biblical Institutes; or, A Scriptural Illustration of the Doctrines, Morals, and Precepts of the Bible (New York: B. Waugh and T. Mason), p. 162

[8] Thomas, Robert Owen A key to the Books of Samuel, and the Corresponding Parts of Chronicles (London: Thomas Murby, 1881), p. 52

[9] Clarke, Adam The Holy Bible: Containing the Old and New Testaments (New York: T. Mason & G. Lane, 1837), p. 213

[10] Williams, Aaron Women in the Bible: Being a Collection of all the Passages in the Scriptures which Relate to Women (Philadelphia: Alfred Martien, 1872), pp. 146, 147

===================================================

Visit our web page:

Like us on Facebook:

Subscribe to us on Minds.com:

Become a Contact with me on MeWe:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXn0mUpckKTDhLiRiR5PIJg

Subscribe to our YouTube channel:

Saturday, May 14, 2022

Does God Elect Only a Few for Salvation? (Part 2)

Calvinist Proof-Texts Answered

“According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.” (Eph. 1:4)

Does God Elect Only a Few for Salvation? (Part 2)

Commentary: The “in Him” in Eph. 1:4 is a reference to corporate election, just as Israel as a corporate entity was chosen by God. Sadly, Calvinists have redefined the word “chosen” to include an irresistible connotation. In his comments on Eph. 1:4, Herschel H. Hobbs describes this choosing or election as simply God "taking the initiative." Hobbs writes, "But initiative does not mean fatalism." (Studies in Ephesians: New Men in Christ, p. 15).

In Scripture God declares Israel as His chosen people (Deut. 7:6-8; 14:2; 1 Chron. 16:13; Ps. 33:12; 105:6, 43; 132:13; 135:4; Isa. 41:8, 9; 43:10, 20; 44:1, 2). But this does not mean that those whom God has chosen do not have the capacity to choose God for themselves (Josh. 24:15, 22; 1 Kings 18:21) or that they could not reject the Lord (Isa. 66:3-4; 1 Sam. 8:7; 10:19).

This is important because Peter uses the same language from the Old Testament concerning Israel to describe God’s choosing of those “in Christ” (1 Peter 2:4, 9). Since God’s election works in the same manner as with Israel, anyone can become a part of the chosen if they will simply believe and accept the redemptive work of Christ. Similarly, any of the chosen can reject Christ.

===================================================

Visit our web page:

Like us on Facebook:

Subscribe to us on Minds.com:

Become a Contact with me on MeWe:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXn0mUpckKTDhLiRiR5PIJg

Subscribe to our YouTube channel:

Thursday, May 12, 2022

“It Was of the LORD:” Samson Marrying a Pagan?

“It Was of the LORD”

(Did God Want Samson to Marry a Pagan?)

Troy J. Edwards

A printable .pdf of this article is available here

But his father and his mother knew not that it was of the LORD, that he sought an occasion against the Philistines: for at that time the Philistines had dominion over Israel. (Judges 14:4)

Recently, I was asked to explain this passage of Scripture. In the context, Samson demands to marry a Philistine woman against the protests of his parents. This was a direct violation of God’s commands to His people against marrying pagan women:

And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods. (Exodus 34:16)

Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. (Deuteronomy 7:3-4)

If we read Judges 14:4 literally, it appears as if God is the direct cause of someone violating His commandments, thus making His own character appear questionable. It implies that Samson’s sexual lust and willingness to marry pagans was the result of God’s doing.

A number of commentaries on Judges 14:4 claim that even though this was a clear violation of God’s divine statute, God had a “secret purpose” in bringing this about, which was the destruction of Israel’s enemies. However, if an all-wise God must move people to sin in order to fulfill His purposes—secret or otherwise, then He can be neither wise nor holy. Paul writes:

But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man) God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world? For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? (Romans 3:5-7)

James also wrote, “For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God” (James 1:20). In simple terms, God does not need our sin to bring about His purposes. Furthermore, God would never subject man to temptation for any reason. Again, James said, “God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man” (James 1:13b).

So how do we reconcile Judges 14:4 with the truth that God does not want or need sin to accomplish His plans? It helps us if we take the time to learn Hebrew background, expressions and phraseology from which Scripture is derived. Certain expressions in Scripture, when rendered “word for word” in English, need to be understood from a Hebraic perspective. For example, the phrase “It was of the Lord” does not necessarily mean that God is the “divine manipulator” of the event:

It is a solemn, but not unusual expression in the Hebrew tongue, to say of a thing beyond measure great, that it is of the Lord; not always meaning hereby, that God himself is the immediate cause of it, but signifying it to be such, that naturally no account is easy to be given of it.[1]

Hence the statement “It was of the Lord” is an expression unique to the culture in which the Bible was written. It is what language experts refer to as an idiom. The Bible has many idioms that were pretty much transliterated into the English language. One of those idioms is one in which God is said to do that which He merely permitted. This is otherwise referred to as the “Hebrew idiom of permission.”

While explaining the authority to remit sins that our Lord delegated to His apostles, Thomas Jackson writes:

…. and this authority our Saviour expresses according to a well-known idiom of the Jews’ language. It is no wonder, then, that God is said to do that which He permitted men to do, when they had by their sins provoked Him to withdraw from them the restraints of His providence and grace. Inattention to Scripture forms of expression is one of the most fruitful sources of theological error.[2] (Emphasis added)

Jackson noted that our neglect of Hebrew idioms is the primary source of error. No doubt, that this inattention of this truth has led many to read in Scriptures such as Judges 14:4 the false idea that God moved Samson to sin.

Jackson goes on to explain how Judges 14:4 is to be understood through the lens of this the Hebrew idiom of permission:

Samson’s marriage with a heathen woman, belonging to the original inhabitants of Canaan, was a direct violation of the law of God. He had said to His people, “Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.” (Deut. vii. 3.) When Samson set his heart upon such an alliance, his parents attempted to dissuade him from the enterprise, and urged him to turn his attention to some daughter of Israel, as his future wife; but in this it is said, “His father and his mother knew not that it was of the Lord, that He sought an occasion against the Philistines: for at that time the Philistines had dominion over Israel.” (Judges xiv. 4.) The meaning, we apprehend, is, not that it was “of the Lord” that Samson should break His law; but that as Samson was bent upon this unholy connexion, and would not be satisfied without it, God would not interpose His power to prevent it, but would overrule it for good, as He often does the evil actions of bad men. To Samson and his family the consequences of this marriage were most disastrous, as might be expected; but it led to beneficial results so far as the people of Israel were concerned. At this time they suffered greatly under the oppressive dominion of the heathen, who still dwelt in the land. By means of this marriage Samson was brought into direct intercourse with these oppressors; he destroyed their power, and liberated his own people, though he brought upon himself great dishonour, and even lost his life. Samson sinned, and endured the bitter penalty of his waywardness and folly; but “it was of the Lord” to bring good out of the evil, by making it a means of relief to His suffering people.[3]

As Jackson explained, it was Samson who was determined to violate God’s clear commands. God, being an omni-resourceful God, would find a way through Samson’s rebellion to accomplish His purpose for Israel. Nevertheless, this does not infer that God authored the event. That is why we must read Judges 14:4 as idiomatic rather than literal:

Ch. xiv.v.4 Of the Lord, in the Scripture idiom, does not necessarily imply that the event to which it may refer originated with God, but merely that he, to whom all things are known, had determined to make it subservient to accomplish his purposes. Samson grievously erred if the female was an idolator.[4]

Old Testament scholar Walter C. Kaiser also saw how reading Judges 14:4 with the idea that God literally brought about Samson’s rebellious behavior demonstrates a flawed understanding of the text. Kaiser explains that it must be examined in light of the Scripture idiom of permission:

The sin of Samson must not be attributed to the Lord, but the deliverance of the Israelites by Samson was from the Lord. Remember, scriptural language frequently attributes directly to God what he merely permits.[5] (Emphasis added)

Kaiser, as others, agree that Scriptures appearing to make God the author of sin must be read in a permissive sense. While God permitted Samson to sin and had the ability to work around his sin to accomplish His goal, as Kaiser further explains, this does not mean that God wanted or needed the sin itself:

My conclusion is that Samson was neither directed nor tempted by God to do what God had specifically prohibited in His Word. God wanted the defeat of the Philistines, but that did not give Samson carte blanche. Moreover, God’s blessing on one or more aspects of a person’s life is no indication that everything that person does is approved. Samson was plain bullheaded about this decision, and he refused to listen to his parents or to God. But neither Samson’s foolishness nor his stubbornness would prevent the design of God from being fulfilled.[6]

As Kaiser noted, when we examine Samson’s behavior, we cannot necessarily see any influence on God’s part. As another scholar noted, Samson, being an only child, may have possibly been engaging in “bratty” behavior:

This chapter opens with the courtship and marriage, which was properly reproved by his parents as contrary to the Mosaic law. Samson, as if often the case with only and darling sons, was wayward; he had not been subjected to control, and would not now submit to it. The matter, however, was “of the Lord:” not by his direction or approbation, but by the permission of his providence; and it formed an essential link in that chain of events which led to the liberation of Israel from the Philistines.[7] (Emphasis added)

It is possible that Samson was raised in a way that would ingrain in him a selfish attitude though the Bible appears to be silent on whether or not this is true. The most important thing for our purposes here is to understand that God did not influence it. Therefore, the statement, “it was of the Lord” must be understood as permissive rather than causative on God’s part.

Other scholars believe that Samson’s persistence to marry the Philistine woman was due to a desire to infiltrate their country and bring Israel’s deliverance:

Many Philistines were living in the villages of Dan across the border from their own land. They were not of the seven nations devoted by Moses to destruction, but still, it was contrary to the law of Moses that the Israelites should marry them. This law Samson was either ignorant of, or disregarded it. The expression, “She pleaseth me well,” is translated by some, “She answereth my purpose well:” and is coupled with the words, “It was of the Lord,” to show that Samson planned this in order to have a quarrel with the Philistines from their oppression. “It was of the Lord” in the sense that the Lord permitted it, that Samson might push forward, and in his individual capacity, forced to become God’s agent in the punishment of the Philistines.[8] (Emphasis added)

While this appears to be a different perspective from the previous quote, what is most important for our study is that both scholars understand God’s role in a permissive sense. God simply is not in favor of His people marrying those who could influence their hearts away from the true God:

Samson’s parents viewed his plan to marry the woman as unwise, but it was “of the Lord.” This means that God permitted it, though it was not a marriage that He preferred. It did not violate the Mosaic Law, and it was a situation God would use to punish the Philistines (Jdg_14:4; cf. Jdg_14:19). This fact did not mitigate Samson's guilt, but it shows how God providentially overrules human folly and brings His will to pass in spite of it (cf. Psa_76:10; Rom_8:28).[9] (Emphasis added)

Such marriages are not God’s preference and He could not have endorsed Samson’s behavior regardless of the outcome. However, He did not restrain Samson but allowed him to go forward with this unadvised act. Perhaps a better rendering of Judges 14:4, based on the exegetical evidence is as follows: “But his father and his mother knew not that the LORD would overrule this to bring about His original intentions to deliver Israel.”

Nonetheless, it is wise for the reader to keep in mind that any Scripture which seemingly makes God appear to be the author of sin, sickness and catastrophe must be interpreted through the Hebrew idiom. We have a number of books on this subject with more soon to be published. Check out our bookstore to see our latest books by click here. Keep checking back as we will be adding new books soon. Finally, visit and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more video teaching related to this and many other topics.

[1] Shuckford, Samuel The Sacred and Profane History of the World. Connected from the Creation of the World to the Dissolution of the Assyrian Empire (London: W. Baynes, 1808), pp. 39, 40

[2] Jackson, Thomas The Providence of God, Viewed in the Light of Holy Scripture (London: John Mason, 1862), pp. 300, 301

[3] Ibid, pp. 301, 302

[4] Davidson, David The Comprehensive Pocket Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments with Explanatory Notes by David Davidson (Edinburgh: James Brydone, 1848), p. 181

[5] Kaiser Jr., Walter C. Hard Sayings of the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1996), pp. 196, 197

[6] Ibid, p. 197

[7] Patton, William (Editor) The Cottage Bible and Family Expositor: Genesis-Song of Solomon (Hartford: Case, Tiffany, & Burnham, 1842), p. 383

[8] Towner, D. B. “Daily Scripture Readings” in Record of Christian Work, Volume 13 (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1894), p. 336

[9] “Judges 14:4” in Constable, Thomas L. Expository Notes of Dr. Constable, E-Sword edition

===================================================

Visit our web page:

Like us on Facebook:

Subscribe to us on Minds.com:

Become a Contact with me on MeWe: