Bible Question: God defeated by "chariots of iron"

Great Debates
1

This is another in a series of questions that come to me as I read the Bible from start to finish.

In the book of Joshua the Israelis with God’s help slaughter every nation/city they take on, but in Judges 1:19 they “could not conquer the people living in the coastal plain, because they had chariots with iron-rimmed wheels.”

In other cases where bad things happen to the Israelis it’s because they are not following God’s commandments and laws closely enough, but here it’s just that the other guys had better equipment.

What I found so odd is that the Bible just sort of throws it out there and then moves on to more slaughtering. But isn’t it really saying that God was defeated by the technology of the day? This is God we’re talking about. He couldn’t overcome iron chariots drawn by horses? What’s up with that?

2

Moderator’s Note: “What does…GOD…need with a starship?”

I think it’s best if I just go ahead and move this puppy on over to Great Debates; I’m pretty sure it has no undebatably factual answer.

3

I think it is obvious that God, like the Fae, is uniquely vulnerable to “cold iron”. Ya see, that’s why there were a lot more miracles in the olden days - the proliferation iron and iron-alloys has diminshed his power to intervene directly in the modern world. 'Fact I’d surmise that all the gods were so afflicted, but El/Yahweh/al-Ilah resisted the effect better than most, hence his persistance over rivals like Zeus.

That’s my working hypothesis, anyway :p.

  • Tamerlane
4

It’s very instructive to compare Joshua and Judges side-by-side. The author(s) of Joshua did indeed relate a God-defeats-all story of the conquest. Judges does not. So while the Judges account may not sync up with Joshua, it’s not internally inconsistent in its theology.

Don’t forget, the book you’re reading, although it’s all bound in one cover, was not always together as a collection. Discussing what “The Bible” says as though there were some original connection among the various books is usually a mistake.

5

Chariots are pretty nasty weapons, especially if you’re not used to facing them. And, if you’re a Bronze Age culture, it’s not easy to beat people who have iron weapons.

6

The book of Judges is linked to the book of Joshua. Although the book begins with the words, “After the death of Joshua…” (Jg 1:1) there is evidence that some of the happenings are narrated before Joshua’s death. For example Judges 2:6 reads, “When Joshua sent the people away…” It would then appear that chapters 1 through 3 serve an introduction for the rest of the book; which serves as a chronilogical acount of the events of 12 Judges. (not including Deborah)

Previously you read that God required that the peoples that the Israelites conquered had to be driven from the land. Consistently there were warnings about adopting the false worship of the Canaanites and others.

Throughout the OT the Israelites go up against superior foes, but as long as the Israelites display faith, and follow divine direction, they consistently prevail.

For example, look at **Exodus 23:32, 33 ** , * "32 You are not to conclude a covenant with them or their gods. 33 They should not dwell in your land, that they may not cause you to sin against me. In case you should serve their gods, it would become a snare to you.” *

But what actually happened? Look at Jg 2:2,3 as a comparison, *"2 And for YOUR part, YOU must not conclude a covenant with the inhabitants of this land. Their altars YOU should pull down.’ But YOU have not listened to my voice. Why have YOU done this? 3 So I, in turn, have said, ‘I shall not drive them away from before YOU, and they must become snares to YOU, and their gods will serve as a lure to YOU.’” * (highlights mine)

It’s clear that the Israelites did not follow the direction they were given, and as result did not enjoy God’s support. Also look at Nu 33:55 which says, "55 “‘If, though, YOU will not drive the inhabitants of the land away from before YOU, then those whom YOU leave of them will certainly become as pricks in YOUR eyes and as thorns in YOUR sides, and they will indeed harass YOU on the land in which YOU will be dwelling. ** (Also see Exodus 34:11-17 and De 7:2-5)**

If you look at those cites in Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy the consistent message to the Israelites was to either wipe out, or drive out, the peoples they beat in battle. They were NOT to keep them around, inter-marry, conclude any agreements or fall prey to their religious influences.

Did they follow the program?

Look at Joshua 16:10,* “10 And they did not drive away the Ca´naan·ites who were dwelling in Ge´zer, and the Ca´naan·ites continue dwelling in among E´phra·im down to this day and came to be subject to slavish forced labor.”* or Joshua 17:12, 13, “12 And the sons of Ma·nas´seh did not prove able to take possession of these cities, but the Ca´naan·ites persisted in dwelling in this land. 13 And it turned out that when the sons of Israel had grown strong, they went putting the Ca´naan·ites at forced labor, and they did not dispossess them entirely.”

Did the Israelites have a basis to believe they could prevail, even when outnumbered? (iron scythes or not…) Look at De 20:1, "20 “In case you go out to the battle against your enemies and you actually see horses and war chariots, a people more numerous than you, you must not be afraid of them; for God is with you, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt. "

Yep.

But as shown, not just in this case, but throughout their history, the Israelites would fall prey to foreign and essentially turn their back on the direction they were given. Consistently the Israelites prevailed against superior foes. When they did not, it’s because they lost god’s favoe due to their disobedience and/or lack of faith. (see Jg 4:3 & Ps 106:34)

7

I think people are missing bnorton’s point (if i may presume :slight_smile: ) He’s not questioning the effectivness of iron chariots as a weapon, or whether it’s consistent with other books of the bible.

This is closer to his point (IMO) :

That’s exactly what happens in most cases in the bible. But Judges 1:19 specifically says “The Lord was with the men of Judah.” In other word in this particular case it wasn’t attributed to disobedience, but, specifically, technological superiority. Which is, in fact, weird, and inconsistent with the rest of the bible.

Sorry, bnorton having said that, I doen’t have a better answer than Tamerlan’s. Interesting question though.

8

Well, y’know what they say: God is on the side of the big rims.

9

I think its a case of bad editing… these compilation of myths books always end up confusing and out of order. I wouldn’t use it as a guide book…

Or having iron back then was “being gifted by God”… I suppose backward israelites were in awe of iron wielding people.

10

I assumed that the OP was drawing from other books the premise that defeat comes only from disobedience. Probably a wrong assumption on my part.

The thing is, God sometimes promises complete and total victory in specific cases, but such a promise can’t be gleaned from God’s pledge to give the land into the hand of Judah (Judges 1:2).

The question of whether God can be defeated by technology may seem frivolous on the surface, but it’s really not (if your aim is to understand the world-view of the authors and editors of the books of the Bible.)

I hope some Biblical scholars will chime in here, but it’s useful to keep in mind that the God of the Bible (El, then YHWH) wasn’t consistently viewed as the “all-being master of time, space, and dimension”. (I’m sure the arrow-heads out there will correct me if I’ve misquoted Mr. Martin.) At times, he’s seen as one god among many, albeit the most butt-kickin’ god on the block, to be sure.

Judges shows evidence of editing by Deuteronomistic historians, as well as evidence of Yahwistic source material. It’s been way too long since I’ve studied this book in any depth, so I can’t say how the compilers and the source writers would have viewed the omnipotence of the God of the Israelites.

So yeah, God made certain assurances, but God did not fight the battles for them. So it’s not consistent with the theology in Judges to say that God himself was defeated by the chariots of iron.

11

Yes it is, at least the way I’ve read it.

Up to this point the Israelis, with God’s help, have kicked everyone’s ass so long as they followed God’s laws.

But this time it’s different. Here is how it reads in the Net Bible

This is pretty straightforward. “The Lord was with the men of Judah.” Can this mean anything other than that God was pleased that the men of Judah were obeying his laws at the time? *“They conquered the hill country, but they could not conquer the people living in the coastal plain…” * Why? “…because they had chariots with iron-rimmed wheels,” that’s why. Nothing about disobedience.

Well, that’s pretty much right. I’ve only gotten to 1 Samuel, so maybe later God backs off the you-can-do-anything-with-my-blessing claim, but even so it does erode the argument that God is omnipotent.

12

The Lord was with the men of Judah=the men of Judah were successful. That’s the way it worked. If you were successful in battle, it was because your god favored you and he was stronger than the god of your opponent. If you were unsuccessful, either you must have done something to make your god upset with you, or the god against you was stronger. It’s a contract between the people and the god. The people obey the god’s commands, and the god gives the people prosperity and success over their enemies.

13

Does anyone know how these geezers on the coastal plain actually used their chariots with iron-rimmed wheels? In many ancient civilisations (e.g. the Greeks) chariots were just to ferry the combatants to the front line rather than as war machines in themselves.

14

No they weren’t. They whooped 'em in the hill country, but got their asses kicked on the coastal plains, all because of those danged iron chariots. Couldn’t God have made a giant magnet or something?

But that’s the whole point of this thread. God was happy with the Israelis. They were following the “contract” as you put it, and they still got their asses kicked. The only thing I can conclude is that the God of the coastal plains was more powerful than Jehova.

So who was this coastal plains god, anyway? Shouldn’t we be worshiping him?

15

Except you’re making the assumption that God was actually involved. It’s also impossible that the Israelites explained their victory over the hill tribes as being due to divine help, but explained their defeat on the coastal plains another way.

16

Err…that should be “It’s also possible”

17

Of course God was involved - at least as involved as he ever got. He never did the actual fighting, he just controled the outcome presumably with some sort of special powers.

Well, exactly! The defeat was blamed on iron chariots even though God was with them. I just don’t see any way out of it. God’s special powers - whatever they are - could not overcome the technology of the day.

18

It’s possible the “he” in the verse is actually referring to Judah the man, and not God. However, there is an interesting commentary here:
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/q16.htm
I’m not saying it’s the definitive answer, but rather I’m throwing it out there as part of the discussion.

19

this is what came to my mind when i tried to rationalize this. maybe some of it’s too nuanced and i’m reading into the text too much, but this seems plausible:

  1. the jews were afraid of the chariots (lack of faith in the power of god incurs his wrath)
  2. they didn’t want to fight them, they wanted iron-rimmed chariots and would rather trade, similar to how we’d hesitate to invade saudi arabia cause we like oil.
  3. the coastal people fled. they could defeat them because they didn’t fight. i know it’s a stretch, but all the jews did was flee from egypt and wasn’t that victory for them? (might also have a napoleon vs russia type scenario)
20

Where do you find a “total victory in all battles unless you offend me” sort of claim by YHWH in Judges? There are promises that the Israelites will occupy the land, and there are promises of victory in particular cases, but I don’t recall a global “you’ll never lose unless you piss me off” pledge.

If it’s there, lemme know.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but when you’re dealing with ancient texts, you have to keep in mind that they don’t always share our modern view that God is by definition omnipotent. So you can’t simply assume that there’s any such argument to “erode” here.

It gets even sketchier when you have ancient redactors compiling even more ancient materials, as is the case in Judges. Sure, it can be seen as in the redactor’s interest to include claims of “we lost because we offended YHWH, not because we couldn’t cut the mustard” as much as possible, but one need not infer from the predominance of these claims that this was the only reason one might lose a battle.

But even that can be dispensed with if we take the view that God fulfills his promises as he sees fit, and his ways are not always ours to know – a view which is entirely consistent with OT theology as well as modern Jewish and Christian theology. If he says you’ll get the land, you’ll get it, but you still have to pony up the manpower. That’s your part of the covenant. If you don’t, or if you don’t give it your all, then hey, don’t go blaming God if you lose.

More to the point, to claim that “God… couldn’t overcome iron chariots” presumes that God was fighting the iron chariots. Yet I don’t see any Biblical grounds for this interpretation. I don’t see that God had promised victory in that battle come-what-may.

Note also that in 1:21, Judges states that the tribe of Benjamin had to share Jerusalem with the Jebusites because they couldn’t drive them out. So the sea peoples aren’t the only ones who aren’t overcome for no stated reason other than military failure.

So my challenge to you is this: Before asserting that Judges takes the view that God can be defeated by technology, first substantiate the position that God in fact had either guaranteed total victory, or that the God of Judges is necessarily involved in human affairs at that level.