Daylight Atheism > Little-Known Bible Verses VII: Iron Chariots

Little-Known Bible Verses VII: Iron Chariots

One of the core beliefs of Judaism and Christianity is that God is omnipotent, able to do anything that is logically possible. But surprisingly, the Bible does not consistently support this idea. I've already written about the Tower of Babel, in which the Old Testament God appears to worry that humans will overmatch him if they complete the tower. And then, there's the following little-known Bible verse:

"And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."

—Judges 1:19

Although obscure among believers, this verse is famous among critics of scripture; it has even spawned a counter-apologetics wiki, fittingly titled Iron Chariots (and then there's this amusing modern retelling).

Why God should have a problem overcoming iron chariots is not clear. In the context of the Bible it is utterly bizarre, almost as if it was inserted from a completely different religious tradition - it brings to mind the Celtic folklore about how cold iron was an effective repellent for faeries, ghosts, witches and other supernatural creatures.

On the other hand, it may just be that this verse was written when Yahweh was regarded as a local deity, supernaturally powerful but not invincible. In this respect, the biblical authors might have conceived of him as similar to the ancient Greek gods, who according to the Iliad could be wounded by humans. Iron chariots, in the world of the the Ancient Near East, were the most technologically advanced weapon of war in existence. They seem to have played a decisive role in conflicts like the Battle of Qarqar in 850 BCE, when an alliance of smaller kingdoms (including King Ahab of Israel, whom the Bible's authors reviled) fended off an invasion by the regional superpower of Assyria.

It's possible that the Bible's original authors imagined God as not powerful enough to overcome this technology, and that the dogma of his total omnipotence was a later innovation. (By Judges chapter 4, God seems to have acquired the ability to defeat chariots.) If so, this verse might be a fossil of that earlier belief, preserved in the text like a prehistoric insect in amber. As a part of modern Judeo-Christian theology it's like a puzzle piece that doesn't fit, but if we take a more rational view of the Bible as a collection of human-written and human-compiled documents, verses like this may provide valuable clues about its origin and evolution.

Of course, the usual apologists have swooped in to try to explain away this verse within the framework of their own assumptions. The standard explanation for this verse is that the Israelites failed to drive out the Canaanites' iron chariots because they were not obedient to God's desires. However, the text itself does not support this guess: it mentions no such sin, and indeed, it says "the Lord was with Judah", which one would not expect if Judah had been sinful or disobedient. Instead, it specifically identifies the presence of the iron chariots as the reason why the driving out of the Canaanites failed.

Other posts in this series:

Little-Known Bible Verses

35 Comments

Hi Ebon,

It is important to note that more modern translations indicate that it was Judah, not God that was unable to drive out the people group equipped with the iron rimmed chariots. Here are some examples:

New English Translation:

The Lord was with the men of Judah. They conquered the hill country, but they could not conquer the people living in the coastal plain, because they had chariots with iron-rimmed wheels.

New International version:

The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had iron chariots.

New King James Version:

So the LORD was with Judah. And they drove out the mountaineers, but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the lowland, because they had chariots of iron.

New American Standard Version:

Now the LORD was with Judah, and they took possession of the hill country; but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had (A)iron chariots.

From this perspective, it changes the tone a little bit from the author describing what God did or was able to do to what Judah did or was able to do. It certainly leaves the theological question hanging, but it makes the text a little easier to relate to.

Matt

Comment by: Matt R | November 4, 2007, 1:38 pm

Hi Matt,

I don't think those translations change the basic point at all. If God was with Judah, why couldn't Judah drive out the charioteers? Why didn't God's assistance suffice to overcome them?

Comment by: Ebonmuse | November 4, 2007, 1:50 pm

Why should anyone need a newer version of the Bible to argue a point, when an earlier version disagrees? The mere existence of different versions of the Bible is odd by itself, since I believe a later section of the Bible specifically warns against modifying its wording.

Comment by: Andrew A | November 4, 2007, 1:58 pm

It's my assumption that other religious texts have changed as much as the Bible. Is that correct? I assume that they've all changed a little as we've grown and changed as a culture. Does anyone have a feel for how much religious texts in general have been altered over time?

Comment by: Angie | November 4, 2007, 3:52 pm

Andrew, newer versions use vastly improved translation techniques, which sometimes changes what older versions said somewhat. Also, some versions are translations of the latin of the old church and others are translations of the original texts. The different versions are typically results of varying "tastes" on how literal a translation should be. Most biblical scholars recommend using multiple translations as well as the original text and deciding for yourself.

Also, what you're referencing is Revelations and that's tied specifically to the book itself since there was no "new testament" when it was written. Besides, it wasn't written in English, so you don't have a choice but to modify the wording.

Angie, no. The commentaries, notes, and the translating methods have changed over time, but the Bible is one of the few documents that remains extremely unchanged. That's not to say that things haven't been slipped in or altered at all (There's an argument over whether Paul ever wrote the thing in 1 Corinthians about women being silent in church), but rather that great care has been taken in preserving it. There are several thousand copies of various parts of the texts from different times and current translations utilized the original material (or what can be determined to be the closest to original).

Comment by: Jeremy | November 4, 2007, 6:10 pm

Oh and as to the original point, it's pretty difficult to understand what happens here, but I think saying it's a failing of the God is a bit simplistic. From the context of the story, one could argue that the losses weren't failure at all but rather the set up of a test that Judah would fail miserably. The Israelites were under clear orders from God not to sign any covenants with the people of the land.

However, in the face of military superiority, they suffered setbacks, not defeat by any stretch of the imagination. However, the text goes on to say that "When Israel became strong, they pressed the Canaanites into forced laor but never drove the m out completely. This is clear disobedience in signing peace agreements with those peoples rather than continuing the fight. Rather than granting them victory, God withdrew his blessing and decreed that the Israelites would have to live with the consequences.

Omnipotence in the Jewish sense does not imply that life will be easy with God on your side. It only implies that God himself wouldn't have failed, and never does it imply that following God would be easy or without setbacks. The God of Israel wasn't in the habit of making life a cake walk.

Comment by: Jeremy | November 4, 2007, 6:27 pm

Ebon,

Agreed, as I said, it still leaves the question hanging. However, it helps see how the text was written and gives better insight into what the author was trying to communicate.

Matt

Comment by: Matt R | November 4, 2007, 9:01 pm

I checked out the apologetics link. I find it funny that he cites a verse in Judges chapter 2, which speaks in the future tense, to clear up a contradiction that happens in judges chapter 1.

Comment by: AttemptingReason | November 4, 2007, 11:44 pm

Angie,

I just watched a lecture by Bart Ehrman on YouTube. In it, he discusses all of the errors that scribes have made over the years copying bibles, also the significant additions and alterations they made. You can watch all 9 parts with the playlist on the right side of the page.

Jeremy,

Ahh, the old "God Works in Mysterious Ways" defense. Where would Christianity be without it?

Comment by: Alan | November 5, 2007, 8:08 am

Give the credit for victories to god, blame the failures on man...ho hum, same old tired line.

Again, Adam has hit on a verse that used to cause me some consternation. The implication of god being unable to help his people overcome iron chariots is obvious to anyone who takes the text seriously. Like any good xian I attributed it to that tribe's lack of faith, sin, idolatry, etc. all without the slightest bit of textual support. When the Israelites made a deal - the Gibeonites (Joshua 9) - the text says so and mentions that they failed to check their actions with the LORD.
It's not just Judah, other tribes failed also. They "pressed" the other peoples because they weren't strong enough to drive them out. People will fight harder for their lives than their freedom; Just because you can oppress your enemy doesn't mean you're capable of exterminating him or pushing him out completely.

Comment by: Polly | November 5, 2007, 10:48 am

SSDD from the theists. Now, what is the "best" translation? One that agrees with them?

No matter if it is Judah backed by Jehovah or just Jehova, they both failed. We see that Gideon didn't have any trouble with the Midianites with God on his side. And now Judah does? Oh the excuses. And of course, Gideon gets ignored because of that little problem with him daring to test God and getting away with it.

Comment by: andrea | November 5, 2007, 2:24 pm

...and then there's this amusing modern retelling

Yep, that's a classic. I think I've also seen a longer novel somewhere on the same theme as that post. Does anyone recall something like that, and where it might be found?

Comment by: windy | November 5, 2007, 6:43 pm

From the context of the story, one could argue that the losses weren't failure at all but rather the set up of a test that Judah would fail miserably.

Ah, yes, the old "set people up to fail and then punish them" ploy that God enjoys so much...

Comment by: The Ridger | November 5, 2007, 8:47 pm

The God of Israel wasn't in the habit of making life a cake walk.

I think what you actually mean is that God visits horrors on the various peoples of the Bible that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.

There is also a part in Exodus where Moses has a wizard contest with the Pharoh's magicians. Moses throws down his staff and it turns into a snake and he's all like "Who has the big god now?" and the magicians are all like "Whatever!" and they turn their staves into snakes. Why not give Moses better magic? Because he works in mysterious ways! Ways that involve wizard contests.

Comment by: Entomologista | November 5, 2007, 10:43 pm

I never quite understood that whole 'god works in mysterious ways/don't test god' line of thought. By "test" here, I'm sure people ment "Make god do what he said he would do". If I told someone I could fly, they'd like to see me fly before they believed it I'm sure; but if I then turned around and said "You have to take it on faith because I'm not about to be tested" they'd be a bit skeptical, and rightly so. Why that doesn't apply to god and religion I don't quite understand.
According to all major sports teams who thank god for their wins, god is undefeated; it seems the same goes for militaries. If they lose, it means god wasn't with them, or it was a test, or they did something wrong, or whatever, but in a classic case of lets count the hits and not the misses, when they win god must have done it.

Comment by: Mrnaglfar | November 6, 2007, 7:34 am

Actually, god TELLS people to test him several times in the Bible. I don't remember all the specific references. Once, in Malachi 3:10-

"Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it. "

Another time, he tells a Judge (or king) to ask for a sign to know that god will help him. The sign involves sheepskin and dew. Another sign is the shadow on the steps moving backwards.

When Moses asks god what he should tell the people and how pharaoh should be convinced, god shows him the snake-trick with the staff.

Jesus himself said his miracles were to serve as proof of his status. John 10:38-
"But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

The idea that people should not test god is a counter-biblical idea not found anywhere except, probably, a misreading of one passage in the OT where the Israelites were complaining about having no water in the desert. But, the sense of the text could just as easily be that they were testing god's patience by being stubbornly untrusting - after having seen tons of miracles.

People use that "don't test" line because god won't perform nowadays.

Comment by: Polly | November 6, 2007, 11:05 am

Nothing mysterious about it, really. I'll back away from the "testing" comment because I'm not particularly sure. However, it would stand that Israel succeeded everywhere but in a couple of places and THEN, when they were in a position to win, they didn't follow through as commanded. Divine setup? Probably not.

As for the snakes thing, Andrea: Nothing mysterious there either. Again, if you read the bible as if it weren't ancient literature (which admittedly many Christians seem bent on doing), it'll seem strange. However, if you study Egyptian culture at the time, you see that everything that occurred was a direct response to some aspect of the Egyptian religion of that time. It wasn't a mere "wizarding contest", but an assertion of God's domination over every aspect of the Egyptian gods.

Entomologista: That's one of the harder things, of course. It's hard to understand why such horrible things happened. Though, one could argue that any society so corrupt that they offered up their children in live burning sacrifices and sacrificed pregnant women by tying their legs together when they were in labor deserved a vicious and devastating response from any God that claimed to love humanity. The religious practices of the region were reprehensible to put it mildly. By today's standards, any act of genocide is inconceivable, but again, this wasn't written today but rather three or four thousand years ago when the human concept of justice was radically different.

Comment by: Jeremy | November 6, 2007, 12:15 pm

Andrea,

A careful examination of the work of linguistic experts will yield the most likely intent of any translated author. It is not a matter of personal preference but a matter of rationally applying linguistic principles to the question of translating a work from an ancient language to a modern one.

Matt

Comment by: Matt R | November 6, 2007, 6:42 pm

Jeremy:

Though, one could argue that any society so corrupt that they offered up their children in live burning sacrifices... deserved a vicious and devastating response from any God that claimed to love humanity.

Yes, and according to the Bible, God's response was... to order the Israelites to slaughter every member of that society, including the children. Do you think there's something about that that doesn't add up?

Comment by: Ebonmuse | November 6, 2007, 6:59 pm

"By today's standards, any act of genocide is inconceivable, but again, this wasn't written today but rather three or four thousand years ago when the human concept of justice was radically different."
Sorry , Jeremy, the question is not about the human concept of justice, but about the divine concept of justice. If God approved of genocide then, he approves of it now. We no longer do. The amazing thing about reading the Bible is realizing again and again that we are more moral than God.

Comment by: Brock | November 7, 2007, 11:02 am

"By today's standards, any act of genocide is inconceivable, but again, this wasn't written today but rather three or four thousand years ago when the human concept of justice was radically different."

Or to put it another way, if we find genocide "inconcievable", why should we profess to follow a scripture that has a "radically different concept of justice"?

Comment by: Damien | November 7, 2007, 8:51 pm

Though, one could argue that any society so corrupt that they offered up their children in live burning sacrifices...deserved a vicious and devastating response from any God that claimed to love humanity."

Are other sacrifices any better? I mean god does ask Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (stopping him at the last minute as he is going through with it), there's another story about how one man sacrificed his own daughter because god let him win in battle, and finally Jesus is nothing more than god doing what you claim god hates.

Comment by: OMGF | November 7, 2007, 8:55 pm

Though, one could argue that any society so corrupt that they offered up their children in live burning sacrifices...deserved a vicious and devastating response from any God that claimed to love humanity."

And what was it the sole survivors of the horrible slaughter of the town Sodom did to avoid the angels falling into the hands of the townspeople?

Comment by: Mikael | November 8, 2007, 4:10 am

I like this verse as the meaning is clear.

Superior firepower defeats god.

Comment by: tenebrous | November 12, 2007, 6:47 pm

Rock, paper scissors, Iron Chariots, God

Comment by: Mrnaglfar | November 12, 2007, 8:03 pm

Got a slogan for ya;

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from the power of God."

Comment by: WizardJim | November 13, 2007, 2:15 pm

Are you suggesting that we should worship the iron chariots?

Or that God is a piece of alien technology?

Comment by: tenebrous | November 13, 2007, 5:20 pm

you guys completely took the verse out of context. the belief that God is with someone, for a Christian, is merely saying that the person had a relationship with God. If the tribe of Judah had a relationship with God, it does not mean that they have the open right and power to go destroy anything they wish.

example:
The Lord was with the United States. They were able to drive out the Iraqis in the mountains but were not able to drive out the tanks in the valleys.

Its common sense. Same God yesterday, today and forever.

Dont judge ppl based on one verse. thats silly

Comment by: john | September 12, 2008, 11:07 am

So, John, you admit that your god is pretty impotent?

Comment by: OMGF | September 13, 2008, 8:06 am

you guys completely took the verse out of context.

Nobody did anything of the kind! That's the natural reading of the verse; indeed, the inevitable reading to anyone not trying to make excuses for it.

example:
The Lord was with the United States. They were able to drive out the Iraqis in the mountains but were not able to drive out the tanks in the valleys.

You've misrepresented the problem. It would be more like this:

The Lord was with the United States. They were able to drive out the Shiites in the mountains but were not able to drive the Sunnis out of the valleys, because the Sunnis had tanks.

Comment by: mikespeir | September 13, 2008, 9:07 am

you guys completely took the verse out of context. the belief that God is with someone, for a Christian, is merely saying that the person had a relationship with God.

What I find to be far more "out of context" is your unquestioning assumption that 19th-century Christian evangelical theology can be read back into verses from the earliest books of the Old Testament.

If the tribe of Judah had a relationship with God, it does not mean that they have the open right and power to go destroy anything they wish.

Except that God commands them to do just that - to slaughter the Canaanites and conquer the land - and they were engaged in that mission at the time.

Comment by: Ebonmuse | September 13, 2008, 11:10 am

Well, I guess the inhabitants of the valley were either lucky because God didn't have the the Red Sea handy or the Egyptians were drowned (Exodus 14:28) due to a lack of iron. Hmm, maybe Judah should have called on Superman.

Comment by: antaresrichard | September 18, 2008, 7:13 am

Hi!
Actually, even in the KJV, that verse is still not contrary. Judges 1:19 is the quick short version of what happened in Joshua 17:15-18. Joshua tells the people that they are way too big to fit in the little bit of land they are in. They counter by whining about how the people in the valley have iron chariots. Joshua told them that they could do it, however, out of their fear, they made the choice not to (as you can tell by Judges 1:19).
When God works, a lot of times He choses to work through people. However, when the people chose to not have the faith that God could actually do it and when the people let their own fear get the better of them, God let them have their way. God was with them, but they ignored that fact and did things their own way instead. That's why they didn't take the valley.

Comment by: Leah H | September 25, 2008, 4:00 pm

Nowhere in Joshua does it say that they were unable to win against iron chariots when they attempted to take the land. They were worried about the iron chariots, but Joshua convinces them that they are strong and will win (presumably because god is with them). Apparently, they didn't win.

However, when the people chose to not have the faith that God could actually do it and when the people let their own fear get the better of them, God let them have their way.

Nice to know that god gave us these natural instincts, such as fear, and then refuses to help us when those instincts take over. Of course, we could also view your passage as saying that when things work out, god was helping, and when they don't, god was not helping. How very convenient.

Comment by: OMGF | September 26, 2008, 7:32 am

I dont believe in Santa Claus any more either. When everyone around you is saying the same thing, it would be understandable to believe it. However, when one analyzes the facts and uses reason to come to a conclusion, one realizes how ridiculous these stories are. The fact is that these stories are supposed to be God's word and yet there is still countless contradictions. God is omnipotent and the perfect being, so that fact that his work is imperfect suggests that either he isnt or he didnt write it. Which we be a lose-lose situation for theists!

Comment by: Big Jess | September 26, 2008, 6:25 pm