petra1000

Problem: As early as Genesis 17, Abraham “laughed” when God told him he would have a son (Isaac) by Sarah, since he was “a hundred years old” (v.17). But here in Genesis 25, many years later, he has children by Keturah, the wife he took after Sarah died (vv. 1–2).

Solution: There are two possibilities here, either one of which would explain this difficulty. First, the Genesis 17 text does not say Abraham laughed because he knew he was too old to have children, but because Sarah was past childbearing age (cf. 17:17; 18:12). There was no sure way for a man in ancient times to know he was no longer fertile, as there was for a woman when her periods ceased. Since Abraham was only 100 here, and he lived to be 175, it is reasonable to assume that he was still fertile. By comparison, men who live till 80 today are still fertile in their 60s.

Second, even if it took a miracle on Abraham (as well as on Sarah) to restore fertility, there is no reason that his fertile state could not have lasted for many years into the future. Once animated, his virile powers could have lasted for decades. After all, he lived 75 more years. In any event, the imagined contradiction here is simply not established.

Problem: Genesis 25:1 says, “Abraham again took a wife, and her name was Keturah.” However, 1 Chronicles 1:32 states, “Now the sons of Keturah, Abraham’s concubine.” Was Keturah Abraham’s wife, or was she merely one of his concubines?

Solution: The contradiction is only apparent, and the problem can be easily solved by closer consideration. First, although in Genesis 25:1 the normal Hebrew word for wife (ishshah) is used, it is also the normal word for woman. It is not necessary to take the word in this case to mean wife, especially in light of verse 6 and the statement in 1 Chronicles 1:32 that Keturah was his concubine. Genesis 25:1 can be read simply as, “And Abraham took another woman” as his concubine.

Second, although 1 Chronicles employs the Hebrew word for concubine (pilegesh) in reference to Keturah, Genesis 25:6 uses the same word when referring to the mothers of all his other sons apart from Isaac. This would obviously include Keturah as one of his concubines. Additionally, Genesis 25:1 begins with a Hebrew word (vayoseph) which can be translated, “And adding” or “And in addition to.” Since Genesis 24:67 clearly states that Sarah, Abraham’s wife, had died, verse 1 of chapter 25 could not mean that Abraham was adding to his number of wives. It is more reasonable to take this word as indicating that Abraham was adding to his number of concubines by taking another woman (ishshah).

Problem: Heth was the progenitor of the Hittites, whose kingdom was located in what is now modern Turkey. But, according to some archaeological evidence, the Hittites did not become a prominent force in the Middle East until the reign of Mursilis I, which began about 1620 b.c., and who captured the city of Babylon in 1600 b.c.

However, several times in Genesis 23 reference is made to Abraham’s encounter with the sons of Heth, who controlled Hebron about 2050 b.c. How could the Bible claim the presence of Hittites in control of Hebron so many years before they became a significant force in the area?

Solution: More recent archaeological evidence from cuneiform tablets describes conflicts in Anatolia (modern Turkey), among the various Hittite principalities from about 1950 to 1850 b.c. Even before this conflict, however, there was a race of non-Indo-Europeans called Hattians. These people were subdued by invaders about 2300 to 2000 b.c. These Indo-European invaders adopted the name Hatti. In Semitic languages, like Hebrew, Hatti and Hitti would be written with the same letters, because only the consonants were written, not the vowels.

In the days of Ramses II of Egypt, the military strength of the Hittites was sufficient to precipitate a non-aggression pact between Egypt and the Hittite empire which set a boundary between them. At this time, the Hittite empire reached as far south as Kadesh on the Orontes river (modern Asi). However, additional evidence indicates that the Hittites actually penetrated further south into Syria and Palestine. Although the Hittite kingdom did not reach its zenith until the second half of the 14th century, there is sufficient evidence to substantiate a Hittite presence in Hebron at the time of Abraham, which was significant enough to control the area.

Problem: This verse implies that God did not know how Abraham would respond to His command, since it was only after Abraham obeyed that God said, “now I know that you fear God.” However, the Bible declares elsewhere that God in “His understanding is infinite” (Ps. 147:5), that He knows “the end from the beginning” (Isa. 46:10), and has foreknown and predestinated us from the foundation of the world (Rom. 8:29–30).

Solution: In His omniscience God knew exactly what Abraham would do, since He knows all things (cf. Ps. 139:2–4; Jer. 17:10; Acts 1:24; Heb. 4:13). However, what God knows by cognition, and what is known by demonstration are different. After Abraham had obeyed God’s command, he demonstrated what God always knew, namely, that he feared God.

Here again the Bible, addressed as it is to human beings, speaks from the human perspective. In like manner, a math teacher might say, “Let’s see if we can find the square root of 49, ” and then, after demonstrating it, declare, “Now we know that it is 7, ” even though she knew from the beginning what the answer was.

Problem: Abraham was told here, “Take now your son, your only son Isaac.” However, Abraham had Ishmael many years before (Gen. 16) and he also had other “sons” (Gen. 25:6).

Solution: The other sons of Genesis 25 were probably born later, being mentioned three chapters after Isaac is called his “only son.” Furthermore, they were sons by “the concubines which Abraham had” (Gen. 25:6) and were not counted as heirs of God’s promise. Likewise, Ishmael was conceived in unbelief by a concubine and not counted as heir to the promised inheritance. In addition, the phrase “only son” may be equivalent to “beloved son” (cf. John 1:18; 3:16), that is, a special son. God said clearly to Abraham, “in Isaac your seed shall be called” (Gen. 21:12).

Problem: In both Leviticus 18:21 and 20:2, God specifically denounced human sacrifice when He commanded Israel, “Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech” (Lev. 18:21, niv), and “Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel, who gives any of his children to Molech, must be put to death; the people of the community are to stone him” (Lev. 20:2, niv). Yet, in Genesis 22:2, God commanded Abraham to “Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.” This appears to contradict His command not to offer human sacrifices.

Solution: First, God was not interested, nor did He plan, that Abraham should actually kill his son. The fact that the angel of the Lord prevented Abraham from killing Isaac (22:12) demonstrates this. God’s purpose was to test Abraham’s faith by asking him to completely surrender his only son to God. The angel of the Lord declared that it was Abraham’s willingness to surrender his son, not the actual killing of him, that satisfied God’s expectations for Abraham. God said explicitly, “Do not stretch out your hand against the lad … for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me” (Gen. 22:12, nasb).

Second, the prohibitions in both Leviticus 18:21 and 20:2 were specifically against the offering of one’s offspring to the pagan god Molech. So it is not strictly a contradiction for God to prohibit offering one’s offspring to Molech and yet asking Abraham to offer Isaac to Him, the only true God. After all, offering Isaac to the Lord is not offering one’s offspring to Molech, since the Lord is not Molech. God alone is sovereign over life (Deut. 32:39; Job 1:21), and therefore He alone has the right to demand when it should be taken. Indeed, He has appointed the day of everyone’s death (Ps. 90:10; Heb. 9:27).

Third, Abraham so trusted in God’s love and power that he willingly obeyed because he believed God would raise Isaac from the dead (Heb. 11:17–19). This is implied in the fact that, though Abraham intended to kill Isaac, he told his servants, “I and the lad will go yonder; and we will worship and we will return to you” (Gen. 22:5, nasb).

Finally, it is not morally wrong for God to order the sacrifice of our sons. He offered His own Son on Calvary (John 3:16). Indeed, even our governments sometimes call upon us to sacrifice our sons for our country. Certainly God has an even greater right to do so.

Problem: The earliest allusion to Philistines by Palestinian or Egyptian sources is the twelfth century b.c., yet these verses place them in the area some 800 years earlier.

Solution: This is not the first time critics have come to false conclusions based on the general lack of historical knowledge concerning this period. Sodom and Gomorrah are examples of cities the Bible mentioned that were supposedly not historical. When the Ebla tablets were discovered, the charge of myth was refuted. These tablets contained references to both cities. It may just be a matter of time before similar evidence turns up to confirm the biblical testimony here regarding the Philistines. Until then, we can rest assured that the biblical record is accurate in this case, having confidence in the Scriptures based on its past record of trustworthiness. Furthermore, the critics’ argument is the traditional fallacious argument from ignorance. Simply because we lack evidence from extrabiblical sources of the earlier date for the Philistines does not mean they didn’t exist then. It simply means we lack the information.