(More Bible Studies Available @ www.marktabata.com)
To Receive These (And Other) Free Bible Studies And Updates Via Email, Contact Mark Tabata @ 606-216-1757 (Text Message) Or hazardhomecoc@gmail.com (Email)
Hebrews 11:31-By faith the harlot Rahab did not perish with those who did not believe, when she had received the spies with peace.
In our last study, we began looking at the command of God to the Jewish people to “utterly destroy” the Canaanites. We saw that God commanded the Hebrews to carry out this order, and then the Bible says that they did so! However, we then realized that the Canaanites were still said (by the same Bible writers) to be in the land after they were “utterly destroyed!” This led us to the conclusion that the phrase “utterly destroy” did not mean “annihilate” or “commit genocide”
What did the command from God to “utterly destroy” the Canaanites actually mean?
Let’s dig deeper.
Each culture has quirks about its’ language that can “muddy the waters” in regard to interpretation and translation. Think about our own English language as an example. One website has compiled some interesting examples of the oddities of the English language:
“You think English is easy?? 1) The bandage was wound around his leg to cover his wound. 2) The wind was too strong to wind the sail. 3) The dump was full, and had to refuse further refuse. 4) We must polish the Polish furniture. 5) He could lead if he would get the lead out. 6) The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert. 7) “No time like the present,” he said. “It’s time to present her the present.” 8) A large-mouthed bass was painted on the head of the bass drum. 9) Startled, the dove dove into the bushes. 10) I did not object to the object. 11) The insurance on the invalid was invalid. 12) There was a row among the oarsmen about who could row the best. 13) We were too close to the door to close it. 14) When does are near, a buck does funny things. 15) Not watching their steps, a seamstress and a sewer fell into a sewer. 16) On her farm, a woman worked to produce produce. 17) She wanted to sow, but her sow ate the grain; so she chose to sew. 18) Next, she hitched her cow to a plough to make a trough. 19) Then she decided to combine her combines. 20) That evening, she told her beau to go slow. 21) But she shed a tear when she saw the tear in her dress. 22) I had to subject the subject to a test. 23) How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend? 24) It might be wise to bow to a man with a bow. 25) John had to write to the right people to keep his rights during his rites. 26) The ewe with the flu knew who was due to get you through to the gnu with the number-two shoe, too!” (https://sites.arizona.edu/aclassen/english-language-crazy-inconsistencies/)
Now consider that each culture has similar issues with their own language. Words, phrases, grammar, all reflect elements of that particular people which may be unfamiliar to others. This can often make translation from one language to another very challenging.
Sometimes the “literal” meaning of a phrase is not being used in a “literal” sense. In America, if we are depressed we may say that we “have the blues.” Literally, “blue” is a shade of color. But metaphorically, it has come to mean to our people that a person who “has the blues” is depressed.
As another example, the French say J’ai le cafard, which literally means “I have the cockroach.” This means the same thing to the French as “I have the blues” does to us in America. But if a person who did not understand that English and French background heard that a person “had the blues” or was going around saying he “has a cockroach,” it would appear pretty strange!
This is why the study of context is so important in how a word is both understood and translated.
When we approach our study of the Bible, we need to do so with appropriate recognition of this principle. The Bible was originally written to non-English speaking people, thousands of years before our time, in a completely different part of the world. It was written in three languages, with the specific meaning of its words reflecting events and situations of that timeframe and culture. We have to consider these things in our interpretation and translation of the Bible.
“These are the kinds of difficulties we encounter when reading a work written in our own language and produced within the general Western culture of which we are a part. When we approach the Bible, however, we see a book written neither in English nor in a modern language closely related to English. Moreover, we are faced with a text that is far removed from us in place and in time. It would indeed be astonishing if the Bible did not appear puzzling at times. We find, then, that with regard to both language and history, the interpretation of the Bible poses a challenge for us.” (Walter C. Kaiser & Moises Silva, Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning, 20-21 (Kindle Edition): Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan)
Applying these facts into our study of the Hebrew word haram (usually translated in English as “utterly destroy”), we learn that this word did not really mean “commit genocide.”
Far from it!
Copan has documented:
“As a follow-up from our last chapter on hyperbole, this and the next chapters take a closer look at the term perhaps most commonly associated with the charge of “genocide”: haram/herem (verb: “utterly destroy”; noun: “utter destruction”). For those who might think this suggests “annihilation,”1 the biblical text gives evidence that something else is going on here. John Walton and Harvey Walton assert that the word herem is “commonly mistranslated”—for example, “utter destruction.”2 So let’s explore what a more accurate translation looks like….According to Firth, routine hyperbole in such narratives was a “standard element.”5 He concludes that “totally destroy” and such renderings of haram don’t really fit well within the war-text genre of Joshua. He suggests that “defeat comprehensively” more precisely captures its meaning.….In Leviticus 27:21–28, a servant, an animal, or a field is “set apart” (haram). But they are not destroyed. Parallel terms indicate that they are “consecrated” (qadash) and are “most holy” (qodesh qodeshim) to the Lord. That is, they are “set apart” for priestly use and cannot be released from this new status. So, a servant may be haram—set apart to serve in the sanctuary—but not killed. We could add that in Joshua 6:17 the entire city of Jericho was “under the ban [herem],” but articles of gold, silver, bronze, and iron were not destroyed but put into the treasury of the Lord’s house (6:24). John Goldingay points out that the verb “devote” (haram) involves “giving something over to God” without having to involve death at all: “So the word doesn’t simply mean slaughtering people.”8 Walter Moberly states that in Deuteronomy specifically, herem is used as “a metaphor for unqualified allegiance to [Yahweh].”9 In addition, after Achan had disobeyed divine orders by taking spoils from Jericho, the Israelites attacked Ai. But because of this compromised situation, the Israelite soldiers were called herem at Ai: “They have become accursed [herem]. I will not be with you anymore unless you destroy [shamad] the things under the ban [herem] from your midst” (Josh. 7:12). But just before this, only thirty-six Israelite soldiers were killed in battle (Josh. 7:5). As Firth notes, it doesn’t appear that the Israelite soldiers were targeted for death. All that is meant here is that they wouldn’t succeed at Ai and that some of them might lose their lives if they attempted to fight without correcting the Achan situation.10 Haram as Exile Like the nations that the LORD makes to perish before you, so shall you perish, because you would not obey the voice of the LORD your God. —Deuteronomy 8:20 ESV Sometimes the term haram refers to being in exile. In Jeremiah, God declared that he would bring the Babylonians “against this land [of Judah] and against its inhabitants,” and “I will utterly destroy [haram] them and make them a horror and a hissing, and an everlasting desolation” (Jer. 25:9 ESV). How long would this “everlasting desolation” last? Oh, about “seventy years” (v. 11). And then God would go ahead and make Babylon “an everlasting desolation” (v. 12). Notice that the Southern Kingdom of Judah was not at all exterminated. But the Babylonians disabled its social, religious, economic, military, and political structures. Certainly, Judahites were killed. But the nation survived. This “haram as exile” language was actually anticipated in Deuteronomy 8:20.11 There, God threatened that Israel would “perish” (abad) just “like the nations” of Canaan. Notice this: Israel’s “destruction” of the Canaanites parallels the predicted exile under Babylon (sixth century BC). Just as the Canaanites were “spewed out” of the land (without genocide) so God’s people would be spewed out (without genocide) (Lev. 18:24–28). What is indisputable is that Israel’s (Judah’s) exile was certainly not genocide. On top of all this, Deuteronomy 32:25, which anticipates the same eventual exile, suggests something similar: “Outside the sword will bereave, and inside terror—both young man and virgin, the nursling with the man of gray hair.” And to take hyperbolic language one step further, God would even “remove the memory” of Israel from history (v. 26). What we have here is sweeping language—namely, the merisms of young man / virgin and nursling / man of gray hair—that makes the future exile look like total destruction. But the reality is that this is just military defeat. Yes, the defeat and exile of Judah affected everyone—young and old, male and female. The Chronicler used this very language when speaking of God’s judgment on Judah: “God gave them all into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar” (2 Chron. 36:17; cf. Jer. 6:11; 44:7; Lam. 2:21; Ezek. 9:6). To call this “genocide” is utter mislabeling….Walton and Walton, who say that “utter destruction” is a mistranslation, suggest that herem means “removal of identity or removal from use.”12…We see, then, that the term haram as “utterly destroy” needs to be revisited. It can convey “decisive defeat,” “consecration/ removal from ordinary use,” “exile,” or “identity removal.” In the next chapter, we build on this haram theme, looking at how the book of Deuteronomy appropriates and dramatically intensifies this rhetorical language.” (Paul Copan, Is God a Vindictive Bully?: Reconciling Portrayals of God in the Old and New Testaments, 207-210 (Kindle Edition): Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic)
As Copan points out, often the phrase “utterly destroy” meant to drive from the land.
“The destroy language, then, cannot in context refer to every single man, woman, and child in Canaan. The language of “destruction” stands right alongside language of “driving out” and “dispossessing” these seven nations. Large numbers are driven out of the land before Israel arrives, and many survive and remain in hiding after Israel has “totally destroyed them.” Moreover, the Canaanite nations will remain to be “driven out” little by little over time. Deuteronomy 9 states that Israel will cross the Jordan and “ dispossess nations greater and stronger” than they (v. 1). The text goes on to state twice that it is “on account of the wickedness of these nations that the L ORD is going to drive them out before you” (vv. 4–5). In chapter 11, God says that he will “ drive out all these nations before you, and you will dispossess nations larger and stronger than you” (v. 23). Several chapters later, Moses lists a series of occultic practices, reminding Israel that “because of these same detestable practices the L ORD your God will drive out those nations before you” (18:12). He repeats the point two verses later: “The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination” (18:14). In the next chapter, Moses declares: “When the L ORD your God has destroyed the nations whose land he is giving you, and when you have driven them out and settled in their towns and houses . . .” (19:1). Here, destroying the nations is understood in terms of driving them out and settling in their towns and houses. The text therefore continually and repeatedly states that the Canaanites will not be exterminated in the sense that the Israelites are to kill every single man, woman, and child in Canaan. Rather, it states they are to be driven out. As we have noted, the language of “destroy” or “annihilate” is typically in a context of gradually driving out the nations—or of nations fleeing before the battle is joined. “Driving out” or “dispossessing” is different from “wiping out” or “destroying.” If you state that you had driven an intruder from your house, no one would assume the intruder was dead in your living room. Similarly, if you say you had killed an intruder, one would not normally think this meant the intruder had been “driven out.” The Hebrew text confirms this; the same language of “driving out” and “casting out” is used elsewhere to refer to Adam and Eve being driven from Eden (Gen. 3:24), Cain being “ driven” into the wilderness (Gen. 4:14 NASB), and David being “ driven out” by Saul (1 Sam. 26:19). In fact, the same language of “drive out” is used of Israel being driven out of Egypt by Pharaoh. 2 In all of these cases, the meaning precludes literal extermination. How is this to be explained? Here we quote a summary of the data: These words group into two categories: dispossession versus destruction. “Dispossession” would include words like drive out , dispossess , take over possession of , thrust out , send away (33 occurrences). “Destruction” words would include annihilate , destroy , perish , and eliminate (11 occurrences). The Dispossession words would indicate that the population “ran away”—migrated out of the Land prior to any encounter with the Israelites; Destruction words would indicate the consequences for those who stayed behind. What then is the mix of these two sets of words? The “Dispossession” words outnumber the “Destruction” words by 3-to-1! This would indicate that the dominant “intended effect” was for the peoples in the [Promised] Land to migrate somewhere else . So, consider Deut. 12.29[–30]: “The LORD your God will cut off before you the nations you are about to invade and dispossess. But when you have driven them out and settled in their land , and after they have been destroyed before you, be careful not to be ensnared by inquiring about their gods, saying, “How do these nations serve their gods? We will do the same.” (Paul Copan & Matthew Flanagan, Did God Really Command Genocide? Coming To Terms With The Justice Of God, 79-81 (Kindle Edition); Grand Rapids, Michigan; Baker Books)
In our next study, we will look still deeper into this subject. For now, let’s reflect on the fact that interpreting the Bible may at times be difficult, but not impossible. Indeed, as we will see, the situation of the Hebrews and the Canaanites serves as an example in many ways of God’s amazing mercy.
Father, thank You for the depths of Your Word that encourage and challenge us. Build our faith as we dive deeper into Scripture. Amen.