We often find Skeptics inventing difficulties with the Scriptures in order to justify conclusions that they could not otherwise support. They do this by taking verses out of context to create a misinterpretation, which they then showcase as proof of some alleged problem with the Bible. We see an example of this in Stephen Van Eck's attempt to show that the author of the Pentateuch could not be Moses (TSR, September/October 1999, pp. 2-3,16).
To support his conclusion, Van Eck cited Genesis 36:31, "And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel." Van Eck cited this verse as part of his argument that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch. He wants people to believe that the nation of Israel could not have had a king until after Moses had died. He reasons, therefore, that this verse can only refer to one of the kings of Israel beginning with Saul and following. This, then, allows him to conclude that the Pentateuch must have been written at least 200 to 600 years after Moses.
Proper Biblical exegesis and common sense both require that we consider the context in which a verse appears if we want to understand it. Thus, we must consider the unique language and style of the human author of the Scriptures, the audience for the Scriptures, and the manner in which both author and audience would have understood the Scriptures. These are the basic ingredients of any competent investigation of the Scriptures.
This methodology does not apply to prophetic Scriptures where objects familiar to the audience can be used in a symbolic manner. However, Genesis 36 is purely historical with nothing in the context suggesting that it has anything to do with prophecy. Consequently, we only need to conduct a straightforward investigation of the verse to understand it in its proper context. On the other hand, if one has an agenda to pursue, as Van Eck does, then he would want to slant his investigation to achieve the conclusion he seeks.
Within the Pentateuch, we find clear, consistent statements to the effect that Moses is the author of the Pentateuch. We see this in the following verses.
Exodus 24:4-7: And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.... And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.
Exodus 34:27: And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.
Numbers 33:2: And Moses wrote their goings out according to their journeys by the commandment of the LORD: and these are their journeys according to their goings out.
Outside the Pentateuch, references in the Old Testament consistently refer to the existence of the Pentateuch and identify Moses as its author.
Joshua 1:8: This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.
Joshua 8:34: And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessings and cursings, according to all that is written in the book of the law.
Joshua 23:6: Be ye therefore very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses....
1 Kings 2:3: And keep the charge of the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses....
Because Moses is the author of the Pentateuch, our understanding of Genesis 36 must maintain the integrity and context of the language that Moses used in writing the Pentateuch, and it must be consistent with that language. Even if we cannot agree that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch, we should still seek to maintain the integrity of the language and the context in which it is found. Van Eck, of course, does not do this because he wants a certain outcome, and proper Biblical exegesis is not a method that would allow him to get the results he wants. He, therefore, as is common among skeptics, invents an argument that skeptics will blindly accept.
To understand the meaning of Genesis 36, we first note that Moses is a historian and the Pentateuch is primarily a history of the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt. In the book of Genesis, Moses reviews the early history of man with an emphasis on the prehistory of the nation of Israel. The structure of Genesis shows that Moses included substantial information from other documents and provided his own editorial comments to clarify information for his audience and to make the text flow smoothly.
When we read the Pentateuch, we can read it as one would any historical book. To understand it, we simply take the same perspective as Moses would in writing it. In this case, Genesis 36 is historical, so we know that Moses was recording past historical events that had nothing to do with future Israeli kings. Genesis 36:31 is a time marker. The kings of Edom all reigned before the time when a king reigned over the children of Israel.
Who was the king to whom Moses referred? To find out, we simply read what Moses wrote in the Pentateuch and apply that context:
Genesis 41:46: And Joseph was thirty years old when he stood before Pharaoh king of Egypt.
Exodus 1:8: Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph.
Exodus 6:11: Go in, speak unto Pharaoh king of Egypt....
In these verses, one can see clearly that the only king, or line of kings, of whom Moses would have any knowledge and of whom he might characterize as ruling over Israel, would be the Pharaohs of Egypt. Did Moses believe that Pharaoh actually ruled over the children of Israel? The following verses tell us that he did.
Exodus 6:11: Go in, speak unto Pharaoh king of Egypt, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land.
Exodus 6:13: And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, and gave them a charge unto the children of Israel, and unto Pharaoh king of Egypt, to bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt.
Exodus 6:2: These are they which spake to Pharaoh king of Egypt, to bring out the children of Israel from Egypt: these are that Moses and Aaron.
In the above verses, we see that Moses uses the same terminology that we find in Genesis 36. Moses knows of only one line of kings who ruled over the children of Israel. They were the Pharaohs of Egypt. These are the only kings with which the Israelites would have identified if Moses were to refer, in any written documents, to a king that ruled over them. Van Eck's argument that Genesis 36 must refer to the later kings of Israel is without support, but he advances it so that he can justify his prearranged conclusion.
As Moses constructs the early history of Israel, he provides information about the children of Esau, who is Edom. He lists the kings of Edom. He then says that these kings of Edom reigned before there was a king over the children of Israel. Moses understood what he was saying. Joshua, Caleb, and all the children of Israel who were enslaved by the kings of Egypt understood what he was saying. The kings of Edom reigned during a period that coincided with the time when Jacob moved down to Egypt and before a king arose in Egypt who enslaved the children of Israel. Israel enjoyed a privileged status with Joseph in a position of power. When Joseph died and that privileged position had ended, Israel was subjected to slavery and Pharaoh, king of Egypt, ruled over them. Van Eck is not a historian; at least we do not find him using the rational methodology of historians to develop his case. Instead, he uses the distorted logic of the skeptic to prove the creation of his very active imagination.
(Roger Hutchinson, 11904 Lafayette Drive, Silver Spring, MD
20902; e-mail, RHutchin@AOL.com)
