Bible Question: God defeated by "chariots of iron"

Great Debates
21

As others have pointed out, none of that explains why the text says “because” they have iron chariots or why God would be “with” losers.

This reminds me of the fig tree problem, where the text of Mark has Jesus getting all flumoxed at a figless fig tree and cursing it to death. Yet the text of Mark clearly says that it was not the season for figs. Apologists have launched truly breathtaking attempts to explain why the particular species of fig tree and the climate and so forth explain why the fig season would have come earlier that year than normal and so on. But at the end of it, when they finish breathlessly about 2000 years of biology and climate change… you’re left standing there going “er, but the text says: it wasn’t the time for figs. Why should the tree have had figs?” It’s certainly not a major issue, but it shows the limits of even the best apology.

22

Well, that’s why you want to make a rush to Monarchy, so you can get your earnings and production up and convert some of the neighboring cities via cultural revolution to create a buffer zone. You can catch up on weapons production later.

23

If you read the entire chapter in the context of the entire book, it’s quite clear what’s happening and why Mark shows us this scene.

First of all, it’s important to clarify that Mark does not represent Jesus as “all flumoxed” at a fig tree not growing figs when it’s not in season. He just doesn’t. No such language is there.

Now, on with the show.

Keep in mind that the context is the return to Jerusalem. And note the heavy theme of pre-ordination of events and Jesus’ ability to foresee them. He tells the disciples that they’ll find a colt at a certain place and that if people try to stop them from taking it all they’ll have to do is say “The Lord needs it” and they’ll just let them take the animal. Pretty incredible stuff. But that’s exactly what happens.

We don’t see this as particularly astounding because it’s now a cliche to us, but it’s quite an amazing tale. What would you and your neighbors do if a few strangers tried to take a car off your block and only offered as an excuse, “The Lord needs it”?

Then Jesus does something completely inexplicable while returning to Jerusalem from Bethany. The disciples who were there (and those hearing the story retold of Jesus cursing a fig tree which provides him no food when he would have no reason to believe that it should) would naturally have wondered, as you do, “What’s up with that?”

And it’s important that we have to wait for the answer.

After returning to Jerusalem and turning the moneychangers out of the Temple, they leave the city, and the following morning they pass by the fig tree again. And Peter says, “Hey, there’s that tree you cursed. It’s all shriveled up.”

It was a set-up. The point is that Jesus had a reason for doing what he did the day before, which at the time seemed totally without reason. He knew that, at this particular moment, he would have a point to drive home to the disciples, who are shortly to be thrust out into the world, left to their own devices without Jesus to lean on. And this was a point that had to be made in concrete terms, so there would be no doubt.

He tells them, in effect, “If you have faith in God, you will work miracles, too.”

The author of Mark is not a hack. The tale is perfectly placed. The effect on the disciples (and the audience) is meaningful. The point is to represent Jesus as one who is in control, and whose ways will be revealed to be right and purposeful, as well as to give strength to believers that they can share in that power and that righteousness.

Amen.

24

There’s also the symbolism of the fig tree as representative of the old Israel being a tree bearing no fruit, and soon to be fulfilled by the New Israel, the Church, which is the Body of Christ.

25

Of course Jesus is portrayed as angry: he curses the tree for not having any figs! Even though the text outright says that it isn’t the season for figs. The story is an obvious parable (the tree is Israel), but as a literal story, it’s simply bizarre.

Of course, when the same story is retold in a later Gospel, the tree shriveling up after a time is apparently not impressive enough so the tree much more impressively takes sick right away.

26

Thanks for the link, DirkGntly. According to the folks at AboutBibleProphecy.com there could be other reasons why the men of Judah were unable to win in the coastal plains. One reason might be that the “Jews did not yet have a large enough population to occupy and maintain the whole land.” Or it might be that “the men of Judah allowed their fear to overcome their faith in the Lord.” Or possibly “the Israelites were not supposed to fear their opposing armies, but to have faith in the Lord instead.”

All very compelling possibilities.

Unless, of course you actually read the verse. Here it is again, this time from King James:

Now let’s look very closely at that last part. Like this:
“because they had chariots of iron”

Now, even with the strongest magnifying glass I have I don’t see anything there about populations or fear over faith. I see one very clear and unambiguous reason why the Israelis lost. The other guys had better technology.

That could very well be the case. Indeed, as I read the Bible I am struck by how differently from us the ancient people viewed God. Even if the people in the time of Judges did not see an omnipotent God, people today sure do, and theirs is the argument that gets eroded.

Actually I suppose that is what the debate is. For anyone who claims that God is omnipotent explain Judges 1:19 for me.

27

This is getting a bit wearisome, but I think the effort is worth it.

bnorton, you still have not shown why you believe that God, not Judah, was defeated by the sea peoples and their chariots. Using large fonts will not clear that up. Trust me, I can read the text.

I’m not arguing that the Bible is internally consistent, or even that individual books always are. For example, the first 2 chapters of Genesis are completely irreconcilable.

But here, you assume (for reasons you haven’t yet explained) either that God promised this battle to Judah, or that the God of Abraham consistently intervenes at this level in human affairs.

For that reason, this passage does not even erode a contemporary belief in God’s omnipotence. God fulfills the promises he makes here.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not taking the view that the God of Abraham is omnipotent, or even real. Just that you’re making unfounded assumptions about how the Biblical God fulfills his word.

Apos does the same thing in his reading of Mark. He assumes anger on the part of Jesus. Mark does not say Jesus becomes angry. He writes (RSV translation): “When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. And he said to it, ‘May no one ever eat fruit from you again.’ And his disciples heard it.”

That’s all. He does not even write “Therefore he said to it…” To say, “Of course Jesus is portrayed as angry” is inaccurate. Apos, you infer this. You also infer the reason for his cursing the tree: “for not having figs”. The author of Mark does not tell you why Jesus does this. It is indeed a very strange thing for him to do.

Other authors may use this story in a different way, but the author of Mark uses it to great effect here, for his own purposes.

There’s a reason that, not only these stories, but these versions of these stories, have endured through the millenia and have become known all over the world. The author of Mark knew what he was doing. He’s not some kid straight out of J-school.

So, bnorton, it is incumbent upon you to explain why Judah’s military defeat is somehow a military defeat of God, when God has not promised a victory in this battle. If you can show that there’s reason to believe God intended victory in this specific instance and that his will was thwarted, well, you’ve got something.

Personally, I think there are other passages that would serve you better. There is a city which God promises, which is not defeated, but it’s not here.

The thing is, if we’re going to get anything from reading the Bible, we have to approach it on its own terms. If we read it with the purpose of finding flaws in the assumptions we bring to it (ours, or those of others), we will certainly succeed.

However, if we read it with the purpose of trying to understand what its authors are trying to show us, we have an infinitely more difficult task, but on those rare occasions when we succeed, we receive infinitely greater rewards.

28

Can you provide some cite to support your assumption that God intended to control the outcome of each and every battle?

One very important caution: Punctuation was added later. It is just as valid to punctuate the passage like this: “And the Lord was with Judah and he took possession of the hill country. But he could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain because they had chariots of iron.”

Compare to Judges 1:20-21 (RSV): “And Hebron was given to Caleb, as Moses had said; and he drove out from it the three sons of Anak. But the people of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites who dwelt in Jerusalem…”

In other words, associating the phrase “And the Lord was with Judah” with the later phrase “But he could not…” is tenuous.

Why was the Lord not with Judah, so that they could be defeated on strictly military/technological grounds, in their attempts to drive out the sea peoples? The text is silent at this point. But there is a long list of failures following these passages. Then, in chapter 2, an angel of the Lord arrives at Bochim and reveals that not everything has been exactly kosher during this conquest.

Come to find out, they haven’t been removing the altars to other gods. In light of that, the string of failures isn’t so surprising.

So as it turns out, Judges does indeed tell us that sins were committed, that the Israelites were not fulfilling their end of the covenant.

29

Can you? You seem to be stuck on the “who” part of the passage - was it God, Judah, or the people of Judah who were defeated? I don’t really care. It’s not important to the thread. What I am focusing on is the “why” part. Why were the “good guy(s)” defeated. They were defeated because of better technology - iron chariots - even though God was on their side.

I understand that you don’t see the Bible as infallible or God as omnipotent, but a lot of people do. That’s why in my last post I clarified what the debate is:

I suppose I could have made it even more specific by saying “For anyone who claims that God is omnipotent and the Bible infallible explain Judges 1:19 for me.”

I don’t claim to be a Biblical scholar, I just happen to be reading the Bible from start to finish and I’ve gotten to 1 Samuel. Every now and then as I’m reading along I’ll get one of those WTF moments and I’ll post it on these boards. There may be better examples, but this one just caught my eye.

30

Well, I don’t believe in the existence of God. But let me try to explain my take on this more clearly. First, lets remove God from the equation entirely. So, the sentence reads like this:

“And the tribe of Judah drove out the inhabitants of the mountain, but couldn’t drive out the people of the coast. because they had chariots of iron.”

Now, this sentence, to me, at least, makes sense. The coastal people have better weapons than the tribe of Judah, so Judah can’t beat them.

Now assume you’re the author of this, and you’re of that mindset that says that your God helps you beat your enemies if he likes you. So, you throw in the “The Lord was with Judah” part. And remember, you’re writing for your contemporaries. You’re not writing it down for people in another culture 3000 years later who are looking for contradictions about the divine nature, and you’re not writing it down to be put in a big book with all sorts of other random writings. You’re just writing a history.

So, of course you put, “And the Lord was with Judah”.

31

On the contrary, it’s absolutely essential to the thread. You must demonstrate conclusively that God intends for the “good guys” to be victorious at every turn in order for your claim to be valid that the defeat of Judah by superior technology represents a defeat of the will of God.

OK, here’s why, using only Biblical references (Judges 1-2), which seems to be your criteria: They violated the covenant with YHWH by not removing the altars to other gods.

Judges 1:1-18: Victories at Bezek, Jerusalem, hill country, Negeb, lowlands, Hebron, Debir, the springs, Zephath, Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron.

Judges 1:19-26: Victory in the hills, but loss in the plain; partial victory in Jerusalem (strange, no?); victory at Bethel.

Judges 1:27-36: Failure to drive out the locals at Bethshean, Taanach, Dor, Ibleam, Megiddo, Gezer, Kitron, Hahalol, Acco, Sidon, Ahlab, Achzib, Helbah, Aphik, Rehob, Bethshemesh, Bethanath, Harheres, Aijalon, and Shalbim.

Judges 2:1-2: Angel of the Lord arrives at Bochim and says, on behalf of YHWH, “I said, ‘I will never break my covenant with you, and you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall break down their altars.’ But you have not obeyed my command. What is this you have done?”

It was not God who broke the covenant. It was Israel. They nullified the covenant, so God is no longer obliged to abide by it. After their initial victories, they did not keep their word, so God began withdrawing his protection, until the conquest turned into a string of defeats.

Now, having said that, demonstrating that the Bible is not consistent, or uniformly literal, or infallible is like shooting fish in a barrel – you’ve simply chosen the wrong passage for your purpose, my friend.

Why slog all the way into Judges, anyway? You can even demonstrate the fallibility of El/YHWH himself much earlier than this.

Btw, Jerusalem isn’t the city I refered to earlier as being promised but not delivered.

Thus endeth the reading.

32

Many, many times Israel or Judea was defeated for being bad. This doesn’t seem to be one of them. God also promised all of Canaan to Israel, so that is why God should be on their side.

But there is a problem - that later Judges, and the story of Saul and David, only make sense if the Jews did not occupy all of Canaan. David conquers Jerusalem, not reconquers it. So the writers were left with the problem that the promise made to Moses did not occur. The altars are a clear reference to the altars in Judah outside of Jerusalem which the king wanted destroyed at the time the Bible was written. Perhaps the chariot reference is a fragment of a longer story, and perhaps it is a left over from the time when God was seen as one of a set of weaker deities. doesn’t iron defeat magic?

I feel for the editors, who tried to make some sort of sense out of a mishmash of legends that everyone knew, history, and political directives. You can hardly blame them for messing up every so often.

33

:confused: :confused: :confused: