Massacre/annihilation of the Canaanites?

[Garland-Green]

How could a God of Love order the massacre/annihilation of the Canaanites?

[Updated Jan 2013 with a link to sources on Deut 21]
On those very rare occasions when God displays His judgment within human history, it is very sobering and one which we find genuinely disturbing--it reminds us that "ethics" is not just another branch of philosophy!
And even though each recorded case--regardless of scale--SHOULD 'trouble us', the case of God's alleged ordering the Israelites to annihilate the Canaanites has always been particularly disturbing to our 'status quo' of sensibilities. So, I frequently get a letter like this:

The entire concept of a God of justice and mercy ordering the slaughter of thousands of people (many patently innocent) on many occasions I find abhorrent.

This is an issue I have always had profound trouble with and one I suspended judgment on when I began to believe. Lately, though, it has started haunting me again, and I have been searching and praying for an answer or insight. The responses to this problem I have seen so far (God did them a favor, they were like cancer, or God's justice is beyond ours) seem to me to be lame or inappropriate.

Or, in a less conciliatory tone--

The Old Testament paints a picture of a God who is extremely bellicose, giving repeated instructions to "his people" to exterminate other nations, (because he is giving them their "promised land"), and giving them practical assistance on the battlefield.

It is easy to believe that such writings could be the attempted self-justification of a territorially minded people, who excuse their aggression and genocide against other nations as "divine instructions". It is almost impossible to believe that such writings are an accurate description of a God who has infinite love for people of all races.

And finally, a more pointed accusation:

"Is the God of the OT merely sanctioning genocide (nay commanding it)?... isn't this "god" merely an invention for the Jews' own political land-gaining ends?

............................................................................................
So, let's look at the passages involved:

When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations -- the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you -- 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. 5 This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. (Deut 7.1-5)
However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them -- the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites -- as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God. (Deut 20.16ff)

These are the kings of the land that Joshua and the Israelites conquered on the west side of the Jordan, from Baal Gad in the Valley of Lebanon to Mount Halak, which rises toward Seir (their lands Joshua gave as an inheritance to the tribes of Israel according to their tribal divisions -- 8 the hill country, the western foothills, the Arabah, the mountain slopes, the desert and the Negev -- the lands of the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites):

9 the king of Jericho one the king of Ai (near Bethel) one
10 the king of Jerusalem one the king of Hebron one
11 the king of Jarmuth one the king of Lachish one
12 the king of Eglon one the king of Gezer one
13 the king of Debir one the king of Geder one
14 the king of Hormah one the king of Arad one
15 the king of Libnah one the king of Adullam one
16 the king of Makkedah one the king of Bethel one
17 the king of Tappuah one the king of Hepher one
18 the king of Aphek one the king of Lasharon one
19 the king of Madon one the king of Hazor one
20 the king of Shimron Meron one the king of Acshaph one
21 the king of Taanach one the king of Megiddo one
22 the king of Kedesh one the king of Jokneam in Carmel one
23 the king of Dor (in Naphoth Dor) one the king of Goyim in Gilgal one
24 the king of Tirzah one thirty-one kings in all. (Joshua 12.7-24)
At first blush, it looks like YHWH is taking the initiative in the matter, and ordering Israel to wipe out 7-10 nations--without pity and without compromise--and that He intends to give these nations' lands to Israel for their possession. At the end of Joshua's military campaigns, a list of 31 conquered kings is given. (The Israelites fail to obey the directive, however, and God faults them for this--and, as He predicted, the Canaanites DO 'entice' Israel into practicing their religion.)


Obviously, there are a couple of GOOD questions hiding in here:

Did God actually command Israel to do this, or did they just invent this divine sanction to justify territorial greed or genocidal tendencies?
Why would God use a nation as questionable as the post-Exodus Israelites to deliver His "judgment" on the Canaanites? (Why not just use natural disasters, such as earthquakes [Num 16], volcanic-type phenomena [Gen 19], or plague [2 Kgs 19.35]?)
What about all the innocent people killed in this "holy war"--families, "good" Canaanites, etc.? Even if it is 'okay' for God to execute judgment on nations within history, why didn't He only kill the evil-doers?
Doesn't wholesale slaughter of nations seem a little incompatible with a God of Love and Mercy?




These are NOT simple or light questions (if your heart is in right!), and so we must be VERY thorough in our analysis of the situation. We will need to approach this issue from a number of different sides, to make sure we have seen it clearly and from a large-enough perspective.
We will use the following question-set in analyzing the issue:

Do we have any precedents, paradigm cases, or similar incidents of such orders/actions to annihilate?
Who exactly WERE these people that God wanted Israel to 'exterminate'?
Were there any limits placed upon Israel in this venture, and what was the EXACT content of the orders?
What general principles of God's governance might shed some light on the situation?


Then, I will try to focus any insights we get onto the opening questions.
....................................................................................

Do we have any precedents, paradigm cases, or similar incidents of such orders/actions to annihilate?




There are a few situations in the OT in which something like this either (1) occurs or (2) is ordered: Sodom/Gomorrah, the Flood, and the Amalekites. And we will look at one "anti-Example" that might function as 'control data'--Ninevah.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah seems similar with the main exceptions that the cities were destroyed WITHOUT human agency, and that the vegetation was destroyed. God used some type of natural disaster to accomplish the destruction.

There are several known facts about this situation which might prove relevant. S&G lived in a good land (Gen 13.10-12). Abraham saved their cities once, in a masterful military maneuver (Gen 14), after which Abraham 'witnessed' to them. They were exposed to/had access to the pure message of God through Melchizedek--the priest-king of Salem--(who probably led Abraham to the true knowledge of God!). Nonetheless, they were extremely evil people (and who were proud of it--Is 3.9: The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it.), and their crimes were both against God (Gen 13.13) and against people (Gen 18.20). Some twenty-five years after Abraham/Melky encounter, and several years after Lot had apparently been trying to 'moralize' the people (cf. Gen 19:9), the outcry to God is so great that He sends two angels to destroy the city and its environs (Gen 19.24ff). God had announced His intentions to Abraham in Gen 18, and agreed to spare the city if a few righteous could be found. Apparently, only Lot and his family (less than the required ten!) fit the description adequately, so the entire culture was judged and destroyed by God. The encounter involving Lot, the angels, and the men of the city is a vivid description of the evil of the city (Gen 19), and the NT refers to it as an example of judgment-future (2 Pet 2.6) with a special emphasis on sexual perversion (Jude 7). The fact that 'all the men of the city' were involved in the intended assault on Lot, indicates that the 'outcry' must have come from surrounding areas--hence, the 'international' scope of their evil. The destruction was immediate and total, including the surrounding cities and the vegetation (Gen 19.25), and is even used as an example by our Lord in Luke 17.29.

It is important to note that (1) they had plenty of access to 'truth' (at LEAST 25 years); (2) their crimes were perverse, public, and the cause of international protest/outcry to God(!); (3) the annihilation was a judgment; (4) God was willing to spare the innocent people--if any could be found; (5) children living in the households of their evil parents apparently died swiftly in the one-day event (instead of being killed--as homeless orphans--by a combination of starvation, wild beasts, exposure, and disease; or instead of being captured and sold as slaves by neighboring tribes, for the older ones perhaps?); (6) the one innocent man and woman are delivered (along with their children of the household).



The Flood of Noah

This was the largest annihilation/judgment to date (although it is very difficult to estimate with confidence the population at this time, especially given that 'violence' was at an extreme high and correspondingly would have made homicide rates horrendously high), and involved people, animals, and much vegetation (Gen 6-8.). In a very incisive view of God's heart, we see the 'emotions' surrounding this apparent judgment:

5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth -- men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air -- for I am grieved that I have made them." (Gen 6.5ff)
We also see the rather violent nature of the crimes in Gen 6.13:
So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them.
The story is familiar: (1) God decides to 'spare the innocent' again and warns Noah to build a boat for him and his household (apparently NOT so innocent); (2) the evil/violence of the people were both against God and against humanity (Gen 6.12) and was VERY EXTENSIVE ("filled"); (3) some of the evil was probably sexual violence or violation (Gen 6.1-2); (4) Noah apparently "preached righteousness" to these people for AT LEAST a hundred years! (cf. 2 Pet 2.5); (5) this long period of preaching was an act of patience on God's part (I Pet 3.20);(6) in spite of the warnings, there were apparently no 'changed minds'.
Let's note again that (1) they had plenty of access to 'truth' (at LEAST 100 years) and at least a year of specific 'flood warnings'; (2) their crimes were violent and pervasive to God(!); (3) the annihilation was a judgment; (4) God was willing to spare the innocent people--if any could be found; (5) children living in the households of their evil parents would have undoubtedly died swiftly [the Flood was more of a sudden-event a la tidal waves, than a gradual rising water--cf. Gen 7.11: In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month -- on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.]; (6) the one innocent man and woman are delivered (along with their children of the household).



The Amalekite initiative looks like an ordered annihilation.
This is what the LORD Almighty says: `I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'" (I Sam 15.2f)
The situation is thus:

The Amalekites are a predatory, raiding, and nomadic group; and are descendants of Esau (and hence, distant cousins to Israel).
They would have been aware of the promise of the Land TO Israel, from the early promises to Esau's twin Jacob.
They did NOT live in Canaan (but in the lower, desert part of the Negev--a region south of where Judah will eventually settle), and would NOT have been threatened by Israel--had they believed the promises of God.
As soon as Israel escapes Egypt--before they can even 'catch their breath'--the Amalekites make a long journey south(!) and attack Israel.
Their first targets were the helpless:
Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt. 18 When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and cut off all who were lagging behind; they had no fear of God. 19 When the LORD your God gives you rest from all the enemies around you in the land he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget! (Deut 25.17-19).
Before the attack on Amalek is initiated by Israel, the innocent are told to 'move away' from them: Saul went to the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the ravine. 6 Then he said to the Kenites, "Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do not destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt." So the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites. (I Sam 15.5f). This action would have also served to give the people of Amalek plenty of notice (i.e., time to 'move away' themselves), and the impending attack by Saul--especially with the troop counts reported!--would hardly have been a surprise. Some of them would likely have fled--we KNOW all of them were not killed, since they 'lived to fight/raid again' in David's time (I Sam 27,30) and even in Hezekiah's time (200-300 years later!, 1 Chr 4.43).

Kaiser notes in EBC: Exodus 17.8:
Amalek's assault on Israel drew the anger of God on two counts: (1) they failed to recognize the hand and plan of God in Israel's life and destiny (even the farther-removed Canaanites of Jericho had been given plenty to think about when they heard about the Exodus--Josh 2.10); and (2) the first targets of their warfare were the sick, aged, and tired of Israel who lagged behind the line of march (Deut 25:17-19).
But Amalek continues to repeatedly oppress, terrorize, and vandalize Israel for between 200 and 400 more years! And yet, Amalekites were freely accepted as immigrants to Israel during this period.
Let's note again that (1) they had plenty of access to 'truth' (at LEAST 400 years since Jacob and Land-promise), plus enough information about the miraculous Exodus to know where/when to attack Israel; (2) even their war conduct was cruel by current standards(!); (3) the semi-annihilation was a judgment; (4) God was willing to spare the innocent people--and specifically gave them the opportunity to move away; (5) children living in the households of stubbornly-hostile parents (who refused to flee or join Israel earlier) died swiftly in the one-day event (instead of being killed--as homeless orphans--by a combination of starvation, wild beasts, exposure, disease, and other raiders; or instead of being captured and sold as foreign slaves by neighboring tribes, for the older ones perhaps?)--they are victims of their fathers' terrorist and oppressive habits toward Israel; (6) the innocent members of the community (Kenites) and any change-of-heart Amalekites who fled are delivered (along with their children of the household).

[This brief summary above was objected to by a passionate writer, who asked Shouldn't the butchering of Amalekite children be considered war crimes? (Feb 19/2000, Part one:159k), and centers mostly on the emotionally difficult problem of the killing of the children (of Amalekites, but it would extend generally to the Canaanites and others as well).]



In each of these cases the peoples did NOT 'change behavior'--let's look at one people that DID: the "anti-Example" of Ninevah.




In the book of Jonah, we have an 'averted annihilation'.

The wickedness of the city is great; prompts God to intervene (1.1-2).
The word of the LORD came to Jonah son of Amittai: 2 "Go to the great city of Nineveh and preach against it, because its wickedness has come up before me."
God sends Jonah to pronounce what LOOKS LIKE an 'unconditional prophecy' (3.3f)--
Jonah obeyed the word of the LORD and went to Nineveh. Now Nineveh was a very important city -- a visit required three days. 4 On the first day, Jonah started into the city. He proclaimed: "Forty more days and Nineveh will be overturned."
Instead of turning a deaf ear (or even a scornful tongue) to Jonah, the people 'change direction' (3.5-9):
The Ninevites believed God. They declared a fast, and all of them, from the greatest to the least, put on sackcloth. 6 When the news reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, took off his royal robes, covered himself with sackcloth and sat down in the dust. 7 Then he issued a proclamation in Nineveh:
"By the decree of the king and his nobles: Do not let any man or beast, herd or flock, taste anything; do not let them eat or drink. 8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth. Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. 9 Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish."
[Notice that the 'questionable behavior' included "violence"--vs. 8.]

God responds to this "attitude adjustment" in grace (3.10):
When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened.
(Notice that all during this judgment-time, God was still 'concerned' for Ninevah (4.10): But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that great city?")

So, in this "anti-Example" you have a people, confronted with truth/warning, who respond and avert the annihilation.

There is an obvious pattern here:
The annihilations are judgments.
These judgments are for publicly-recognized (indeed, international and cross-cultural in scope!) cruelty and violence of an EXTREME and WIDESPREAD nature.
These judgments are preceded by LONG PERIODS of warning/exposure to truth (and therefore, opportunity to "change outcomes").
Innocent adults are given a 'way out'
Household members share in the fortunes of the parents (for good or ill).
Somebody ALWAYS escapes (Lot, Noah, Kenites)
These are exceptional cases--there are VERY, VERY few of these.

Now, an obvious question comes up here. Do we have ANY EVIDENCE that the annihilation of the Canaanites falls into the above pattern? Do we have any reason to believe it was an exceptional case, a judgment for exceptional violence and evil?
Very definitely.

The biblical text gives us several indications that this campaign is such a judgment:

Then the LORD said to him, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years. 14 But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. 15 You, however, will go to your fathers in peace and be buried at a good old age. 16 In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure." (Gen 15.13f)




Notice that Abraham cannot have the land until the 'sin of the Amorites' reaches some 'maximum threshold'. This certainly LOOKS LIKE a judgment by God on the peoples of the Land. Also, notice that the evil treatment by Egypt of the Israelites (enslavement and mistreatment) are NOT 'evil enough' to warrant annihilation--only "punishment". We might therefore expect the 'sin of the Amorites' to be more extreme than that of Egypt.

After the LORD your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, "The LORD has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness." No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is going to drive them out before you. (Deut 9.4)

Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you. (Deut 18.12)

"`Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. (Lev 18.24-25)


So this annihilation was a judgment...but what was so 'bad' about the Canaanites (and Amorites)? Which brings us to the next point...


Who exactly WERE these people that God wanted Israel to 'exterminate'?

What do we know about the Amorites, and the Canaanites (often used interchangeably)? What data do we have from the sources (archeology, classical writers, ANE literary remains, biblical passages)?

Prior to Abraham, the land of Syria-Palestine enjoyed a very high culture, dominated by the kingdom of Ebla.
"By the latter part of the Early Bronze Age Ebla (Tell Mardikh) in northwestern Syria had become a city-state of 260,000 people, with lesser "vassal" cities forming a far-reaching empire. It was the center of a vast commercial network, and records of its enterprises contain the earliest mention of such biblical cities as Salim, Megiddo, Gaza, Hazor, Lachish, and Joppa. An indication of the city's sophisticated planning is the audience court of the royal palace, which both architecturally and functionally mediates the space between the quarters with private residences and those with administrative offices." (ISBE, s.v. "City", p.707)
But something happened...something disrupted this advanced civilization...something destroyed the cities...something violently did international damage, driving nations from their homes, reducing this area to 'village life' again:
"Sudden and violent destruction occurred throughout much of the ancient world ca. 2300-2100 B.C. Palestinian civilization returned to the village level, with many E.B. sites abandoned and others left unfortified, a situation that continued through the early stages of the Middle Bronze period (until ca. 1950 B.C.). While many factors may have been involved, especially significant were Egyptian raids and mass population movements, at the center of which were the Amorites."(A.C. Myers, ISBE, op. Cit.)
And again, K.N. Schoville (POTW:164):
"The urbanization of Canaan in the Early Bronze Age II (ca. 2900-2700), illustrated by sites such as Arad and Ai, declined during the Early Bronze Age III, which ended about 2300. Walled cities were destroyed or abandoned, and urban culture gave way to a pastoral, village way of life over the next two centuries, Early Bronze Age IV (about 2300-2000). The reasons for such drastic changes are unclear, but three possible causes may be suggested: (1) Egyptian military action, (2) changing environmental factors including overpopulation, or (3) an invading horde of Amorites. The Amorites would have destroyed the urban centers and established the variant lifestyle characteristic of the period until urbanization flowered in the subsequent Middle Bronze Age II."
[There were probably two invasions by Amorite peoples--the one we are discussing here is the earlier, non-urbanized Amurru--cf. ISBE:s.v. "Canaan", p. 588]

The Amorites were a distinctly war-culture, as well. They show up--by the name of Amorites-- in conquest texts as early as 2200 B.C. (EBLA3:90), and by their other names in many, many places.
"The Semitic Amorites are the best known: in Mesopotamian sources they are the mar-tu (Sumerian) and amurru (Akkadian), both of which words mean "west," and they are referred to as desert people who "know not grain." In the third millennium B.C. the conquests of Sargon of Akkad (2371-2316) extended to "the upper sea," meaning that he must have marched west to the Mediterranean. In the second millennium the Amorites established their First Dynasty in Babylon in which Hammurabi (1792-1750) was the most famous king; contemporary with that dynasty there were Amorite kings in Mari on the Middle Euphrates. At Jericho and other sites in Canaan cultural changes toward the end of the third millennium suggest the influx of new nomadic tribal people, probably Amorites. According to Ezekiel 16:3 Jerusalem was founded by a combination of Amorites and Hittites. Under Moses the Israelites found the Amorites in the hill country around Kadesh-barnea (Deut. 1:19-20), then conquered two Amorite kings, Sihon and Og, in Transjordan (Deut. 4:46-47). Joshua in turn overcame the Amorite kings of the five cities of Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon (Josh. 10:5). In time Amorites and Canaanites were no doubt so mingled as to be indistinguishable, and the name Amorite was used as a general term for the inhabitants of the land, which could equally well be called the land of the Amorites (Josh. 24:15) or the land of the Canaanites." (Finegan, MM:121-122)
[The Canaanite peoples were brilliant engineers, and put their skills to use building war-culture cities. Their sites include very heavily fortified cities, and advanced design war-chariot ramps and gates. (ISBE: s.v. "Canaan", p.588; POTW:176f; ECIAT:95)]

Not only did these peoples do destruction on an international scale, but they also were constantly fighting internally [MM:129; ECIAT:193-194]

Not only did the Amorites do wholesale destruction to the cities and the peoples, but they somehow also debased the 'better' polytheism of the pre-Amorite-invasion Canaanites. The pantheon of Ebla was prior to (by a thousand years) and yet essentially the same as, that of Canaan (EBLA2:79-89). Eblaite religion was your 'normal' polytheism of the ANE, but with some advanced traits. Pettinato points to one (EBLA0:178-179):
"The second innovation is represented by the Eblaite conception of the divine. In spite of widespread polytheism, it seemed to be coupled with henotheism and an abstract idea of God. Above all, the principal god, Dagan, was raised to a role of superiority that touched upon uniqueness."
Their religious praxis was likewise somewhat refined--relative to the other ANE nations--but somehow got 'changed' into the rather debased practices which we will below see were done in the Canaan of Israelite times. What influenced this cultural shift in praxis?
"Nevertheless, the vicissitudes in political fortunes, after the collapse of the Early Bronze Age civilization in Canaan, were accompanied by the settlement of new peoples (Amorites, Hurrians, and others). These new settlers brought about innovations and changes to the culture of Canaan." (EBLA2:89)
So, they were apparently into 'international violence', but what about these religious practices that YHWH seemed to be referring to in Deut 12.31: You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshipping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates..




Notice that the problem is NOT SO MUCH the 'other gods', but the religious RITUALS that are so bad.

So, what data do we have about their practices. Let's start with the biblical data, and check it against any archeological and extra-biblical literary data.

The Biblical Data...
The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: `I am the LORD your God. 3 You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. 4 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God. 5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD.
6 "`No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.
7 "`Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.
8 "`Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father.
9 "`Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.
10 "`Do not have sexual relations with your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter; that would dishonor you.
11 "`Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father's wife, born to your father; she is your sister.
12 "`Do not have sexual relations with your father's sister; she is your father's close relative.
13 "`Do not have sexual relations with your mother's sister, because she is your mother's close relative.
14 "`Do not dishonor your father's brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.
15 "`Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son's wife; do not have relations with her.
16 "`Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would dishonor your brother.
17 "`Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.
18 "`Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.
19 "`Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.
20 "`Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor's wife and defile yourself with her.
21 "`Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.
22 "`Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
23 "`Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.
24 "`Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you. 29 "`Everyone who does any of these detestable things -- such persons must be cut off from their people. 30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the LORD your God.'" (Lev 18, repeated in Lev 20)
The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Say to the Israelites: `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. 3 I will set my face against that man and I will cut him off from his people; for by giving his children to Molech, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. 4 If the people of the community close their eyes when that man gives one of his children to Molech and they fail to put him to death, 5 I will set my face against that man and his family and will cut off from their people both him and all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molech. (Lev 20.1ff)

You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshipping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods. (Deut 12.31)

10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, (Deut 18.10)

They shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was desecrated by their blood. (Ps 106.38--about Israel!)

There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites. (I Kgs 14.24, cf. also Deut 23.17--No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute.)


So, the list of Canaanite "religious" practices included:
Child sacrifice (with at least some of it in fire)
Incest
Bestiality
Homosexual practices
Cultic prostitution--both male and female.

Let's see if the extra-biblical data supports the biblical material.

Child sacrifice (with at least some of it in fire)

Sadly, Yes.

Let's look at some of the scholarly descriptions of the data:

"Its origin (human sacrifice) must be sought, evidently, in Canaanite culture (in the broad sense). Punic and Neo-Punic inscriptions contain the expressions mlk 'mr (transcribed mokhomor in Latin) and mlk 'dm. Very probably, these phrases mean respectively 'offerings of lamb' and 'offering of man', and refer to the sacrifice of an infant, or of a lamb as substitute. This interpretation is supported by a find in the sanctuary of Tanit at Carthage, where archaeologists have discovered urns containing burnt bones of lambs and goats, and, more often, of children. There is, too, a famous text of Diodorus Siculus (Biblioth. Hist. XX 14): in 310 B.C., when a disaster was threatening Carthage, the inhabitants of the town decided it was due to the anger of Kronos, to whom they had formerly sacrificed their finest children: instead, they had begun to offer sickly children, or children they had bought. Thereupon, they sacrificed two hundred children from the noblest families. There was a bronze statue of Kronos with outstretched arms, and the child was placed on its hands and rolled into the furnace. Whether the details be true or false, the story is evidence of a custom to which other classical authors also allude.
"These inscriptions and texts are of late date, but the molk offering is mentioned in two steles from Malta belonging to the seventh or the sixth century B.C. The sacrificial term has not so far been found in inscriptions from Phoenicia proper, but child-sacrifice was practised there: a fragment of Philo of Byblos cited in Eusebius (Praep. Evang. I 10) says that the Phoenicians had an ancient custom--'they offered their dearest children in a way full of mystery' when danger threatened the nation. Porphyry (De abstin. II 56) says that the Phoenician History written by Sanchuniaton and translated by Philo of Byblos was full of stories about child-sacrifices offered to Kronos in times of calamity. These texts furnish the connecting-link with the story told by Diodorus Siculus, and we may mention also the reference to the king of Moab's offering his son as a holocaust when his capital was under siege (2 K 3 : 27).

"The sacrifice of children, then, by burning them to death probably made its way into Israel from Phoenicia (note: the main transmitter of Canaanite culture) during a period of religious syncretism. The Bible mentions only two specific instances, and they are motivated by the same exceptional circumstances as the Phoenician sacrifices: Achaz 'made his son pass through the fire' (2 K I6: 3) during the Syro-Ephraimite War, and Manasseh did the same (2 K 2I: 6) when confronted with some Assyrian threat which is not mentioned in the Books of Kings but which may be alluded to in 2 Ch 33:11f. Yet the custom must have been fairly wide- spread to have deserved the condemnations uttered by Deuteronomy, Leviticus and the Prophets. Though Phoenician texts properly so called do not mention the word, it is possible (we say no more) that the sacrifice was called molk in Phoenicia, as in Carthage, and that it came into Israel under this name." (AI:445-446).

Archeological evidence is firm and growing. Child sacrifice burial grounds are called tophet in the literature, and they occur throughout Palestine and the Phoenician empire. Ahlstrom mentions sites "at 'Atlit, Tell el-Far'a (S) and Tell el 'Ajjul in Palestine" (HAP:688, n.2). He gives a description of one monument depicting child sacrifice (HAP surprised p. cit.):
"The archaeological excavations at Punic Pozo Moro in Spain show a monument with a ritual scene with a god (with an animal head) on a throne and a table in front of him. He holds with one hand a pig lying on its back and in the other hand he has a bowl with the head and the feet of a little child (?) sticking up. He holds this bowl in front of his mouth. To the right there is another bowl, and a god with an animal head (horse?) holding a knife in his right hand above the bowl ready to slaughter the child. The scene (in a neo-Hittite style) shows both animal and child sacrifices as food for the gods."
New sites recently found include Gezer, Tyre, and numerous 'high places' (POTW:171, Is 57.5-7).
These child sacrifices were practiced not only during religious ceremonies (as most of the above were), but also during times of crisis (esp. warfare) and as dedication offerings at the building of cities/houses (i.e. "foundation sacrifices"; cf. AI:442). So Stern (ZPEB, s.v. "war, warfare" p. 895):

"Further, to secure God's aid, the troops would make sacrifices prior to battle--sometimes even human sacrifices...This custom seems also to have been taken from earlier Canaanite traditions, for in many Egyp. reliefs from the late kingdom, depicting the capture of towns in Pal., the besieged are shown throwing their children from the walls in seeking the gods' favor."
Notice that unlike so many other aberrant practices (e.g. sorcery) of the Canaanites, THIS WAS NOT widely shared by the other ANE cultures--it was a rarity. This evil was specifically Canaanite/Amorite. [Pushback:""But, hey, what about Abraham?!--Didn't God order HIM to sacrifice his kid? Isn't this a little inconsistent, pal?!"]


Incest.

Incest was likewise NOT an acceptable ANE practice. For example, the famous Laws of Hammurabi contain several sections on this issue (Para 154-158; LCMAM:110-111) as do the Hittite law codes (laws 189-191; LCMAM:236).

The only external data about Canaanite practice we have here (you can imagine how difficult it would be to leave archeological traces of this around!) comes from the religious myths and 'role models' of their gods. [It must be remembered that the religious rituals of ancient cultures were generally 'reenactments' of divine activities. For example, when a religious myth would have one god impregnating another--producing "spring"--the humans would "re-enact" this with the cultic prostitutes.]

For example, in the Ugaritic corpus (Canaanite), there is the story of an incestuous El:

"The second myth is often called 'The Birth of the Good and Gracious God.' It opens with a banquet at which wine flows freely. The text is divided into sections, the tenth being the last and most crucial. El is about to create two women who will become either his wives or daughters, depending on his ability to impregnate them. He creates these females and seduces them, and they both become pregnant. One bears a child called Dawn (Shahar), and the other a child called Dusk (Shalim). Later, El makes love to these same women and they produce seven sons between them. These sons are 'the good and gracious gods.' They are destined to be gods of fertility, and are first suckled at the breasts of 'the Lady' (Asherah, wife of El?)." (NIEBF: 130).
With such deities to emulate, there is little wonder that God described this Canaanite practice as being very, very real.  

[Garland-Green]

Bestiality.

Here we have the same situation as above--it is forbidden in other ANE codes (e.g. Hittite laws 187-188; LCMAM:236), but shows up in the Canaanite mythology, with Baal as the role model this time.

Baal is generally pictured in human form, and is often accompanied by a bull or rides upon a bull. (He is sometimes pictured as a bull as well, but this is in drawings, not in literary texts.) In one Ugaritic text, Baal, on his way to the underworld, has sexual relations with a young heifer (NIEBF:129; ANET:p139):

Puissant Baal complies.
He desires a calf-cow in Dubr;
A heifer in Shihlmemat-field;
Lies with her times seventy-seven,
[...]...times eighty-eight.
[See also the summary statement in ISBE: s.v. "Crimes", where it is linked to "certain pagan rites and mythology"]


Homosexual practices

This appears to be an issue unique to Israel. Homosexual practice was generally not outlawed in the ANE, and certainly tolerated in the ANE in private life (MWR:190-192). It was also part of cultic practice (which we will treat below).

But Israel's God condemned this behavior in EVERY culture in which it was mentioned (!): ANE (i.e. Sodom), Canaanite and Egyptian (i.e. Lev 18:3), Israelite (Lev 18, 20), Roman (Rom 1), Hellenistic (I Tim 1.9), and Greek (I Cor 6.9). [I have always found the claim that Judeo-Christianity's lack of acceptance of homosexuality as a morally legitimate sexual expression was merely a cultural stance--not 'timeless' or 'transcultural'--to be a bit weak, in light of the above list of cultures. The range of times/cultures included in the list above--many of which ACCEPTED it as 'okay'--would certainly count as very strong evidence for a moral 'universal/transcultural' conviction against the practice.]

What IS interesting about this though, is that of all the practices we have in the list above, this is the ONE practice that is NOT represented in the religious literature. So Bottero, in MWR:92: "in mythology and theology we have not the slightest certain example of homosexual relations between gods."



Cultic prostitution--both male and female.

The use of male and female prostitutes is also attested and sanctioned (to some extent) throughout the ANE (MWR:189-190), and clearly so in Canaanite sanctuaries (AI:384). So, NIEBF:130:

" The Bible and the Canaanite texts at Ugarit use the words qadesh and qedesha which mean 'holy one'--the first masculine, the second feminine. At Ugarit these 'holy ones' were homosexual priests and priestesses who acted as prostitutes.
"We find strong Hebrew reaction against this 'cultic prostitution' in passages such as Leviticus 19:29, 'Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore,' and Deuteronomy 23:17, 'There shall be no whore(qedesha) of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite (qadesh) of the sons of Israel.' One of Josiah's reforms was 'to break down the houses of the sodomites' (2 Kings 23:7)."

What is important for us to note here is that this sacred prostitution was NOT unquestioned by the surrounding cultures. Remember that in the paradigm cases of annihilation we looked at, the culture was UNIFORM--ALL the people (save a handful) were proponents and transmitters of the "values" of that culture. There were no rebels, or dissidents, or minority voices.
However, in THIS situation we have the Canaanite culture TOTALLY SOLD OUT to religious prostitution, but NOT SO the entire ANE! Von Soden, cited above, points out in footnote 36 that there was major dissent about such practices:

"Inscriptions of the kings Merodachbaladan II and Nabonidus of Babylonia, as well as the Erra myth..., contain references to a type of revolution in Uruk around 765, during the reign of the king Eriba-marduk. This revolution was not caused by social conditions alone, but rather was directed against the cultic practices of the temple of Eanna and the cult prostitutes there; it had only temporary success."
There was no such recorded "protest" in Canaanite--but rather, an 'evangelistic' posture in favor of it that reached (successfully) deep into Israel!

Conclusion:
"By 1400 B.C. the Canaanite civilization and religion had become one of the weakest, most decadent, and most immoral cultures of the civilized world. Many of its repulsive practices were prohibited to Israel in Leviticus 18. In view of the sexual perversions listed, it is more than likely that venereal diseases ravaged a large part of the population. Hence stern measures were required to prevent decimation of the Israelites by the spread of these and other diseases such as malaria and smallpox. Contagion would be possible by sudden fraternization before immunity could develop. (ZPEB: s.v. "Joshua", p. 707).
So, we have international and extreme violence and unusually decadent (and destructive/dangerous) religious practices. What other data do we have about them (or the other nations in the list)?








We have a few more pieces of data--most of it bad--about these city-nations.

The Canaanites have a 'bad' reputation already around the time of Abraham.








In surveying the historical mentions for the name "Canaan", Schoville points out that the 2nd mention of the name occurs in a derogatory context (POTW:158.):

"An eighteenth-century letter from Mari provides the next evidence for the name in a phrase that connects 'thieves and Canaanites'"
Although some understand this pejorative reference being to 'rebellious soldiers' (HAP:58.), others note that "commonly in Hebrew the root means 'to be abased, put down, subdued,' etc." (ECIAT:168n192). Latter meanings of the root and close-derivatives center around "merchant" (e.g. Job 41.6; Prov 31.24; Is 23.8.) [ISBE: s.v. "Canaan", p.585]. In collocation with 'thieves', it MIGHT connote "cheat"--a meaning that would fit well with their deceptive practices in Joshua 9!
A textual piece of data to support this "cheat" understanding, might be the actions of the Hittite group in Genesis 23. (Remember, the scattered Hittite groups in Palestine at this time were subsumed under the term 'Canaanite' as is evident from comparing Gen 27.46 with 28.1.) In Gen 23, Abraham's wife Sarah has died, and he needs to buy a burial field. Ephron the Hittite takes advantage of Abraham's grief and need to secure burial property quickly, and charges him an incredibly exorbitant 400 shekels of silver for a field (cf. Jer 32.9), AND saddles him with the 'property taxes and dues' that went with "whole-lot" land ownership. (Abraham had only wanted to buy a 'cave'--not the whole field.) If this was the typical 'merchant ethic' of the Canaanites, then no wonder they were grouped in with 'theives'!

At the time of Jacob, the Hivites had some interaction with the Hebrews--one of the Hivite leaders raped Dinah, a daughter of Jacob in Gen 34, and tried a subterfuge to accumulate all of Jacob's possessions!
At the time of Moses, Israel is trying to march through Transjordan--on the 'neutral' Kings Highway. They peacefully approach the king of the Amorites with a standard 'passage through' request, but is met with abject hostility. The encounter is narrated in Numbers 21.21ff:
Israel sent messengers to say to Sihon king of the Amorites: 22 "Let us pass through your country. We will not turn aside into any field or vineyard, or drink water from any well. We will travel along the king's highway until we have passed through your territory." 23 But Sihon would not let Israel pass through his territory. He mustered his entire army and marched out into the desert against Israel. When he reached Jahaz, he fought with Israel. 24 Israel, however, put him to the sword and took over his land from the Arnon to the Jabbok, but only as far as the Ammonites, because their border was fortified. 25 Israel captured all the cities of the Amorites and occupied them, including Heshbon and all its surrounding settlements.
This was simply an unprovoked attack (with his ENTIRE army?!) on Israel. Notice also that Sihon the Amorite had taken this territory from Moab by force already (Num 21.26)!
We have ANOTHER unprovoked attack in Numbers 21: When the Canaanite king of Arad, who lived in the Negev, heard that Israel was coming along the road to Atharim, he attacked the Israelites and captured some of them.
We also know that "Canaan" (between the times of Abraham and Joshua, roughly) was basically synonymous with Egypt's territory in Palestine! [Cf. ISBE: s.v. "Canaan", p.586: "Thus, the general picture that emerges from the scattered data is remarkably consistent Canaan is a general name for the Asian holdings of Egypt."; see also the detail in POTW:159ff]. As such, they would have known quickly about the Exodus victory (e.g. Josh 2.8-11) AND had an interest in subjugating/destroying Israel for the Pharaoh.










So, even the additional available data supports a very negative and abusive view of the Canaanites, Amorites, and Company...
But...they also had had a long exposure to truth and influences to 'moderation' (even though they obviously did not heed them at all!).
We have seen above that Canaan drew heavily from the purer stock of Eblaite theology and culture. This would have been a long-term influence to moderation.
The outstanding figure of Melchizedek ministered right in the middle of them, during the times of Abraham--and may have been an Amorite himself!




The story of Melky is given in Genesis 14. He is a king-priest of Salem (Jerusalem) and imparts additional theological knowledge to Abe! Awesome figure in biblical history. What is interesting is that he was right in the middle of the Amorite presence, and would have been quite a beacon to those peoples.

But also very intriguing is the notion that he could quite possibly have been an Amorite himself. In Ezek 16.3, the prophet rebukes the Jebusites of Jerusalem with these words: `This is what the Sovereign LORD says to Jerusalem: Your ancestry and birth were in the land of the Canaanites; your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite. (and again in 16.45). This would argue that Melky was either Amorite or Hittite.

Abraham also lived among these peoples, and had close relationships with both Amorites (e.g. Gen 14.7,13) and Hittites (e.g. Gen 23). Esau actually married Hittite wives (also called 'Canaanite'), but this was a bad experience for the family (Gen 26.34-35 with 27.46-28.1). So, there would have been numerous points of contact (in generally friendly settings--but cf. Israel's fight with Amorites in Gen 48.22) in which worldviews would have been 'discussed'.
Of special significance would be the words of Melky upon the victory by Abraham and his Amorite allies (Gen 14.18.): Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, 19 and he blessed Abram, saying, "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. 20 And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand.". This statement that God had fought for Abram--in such a victory of striking proportions!--would surely have registered with his Amorite companions (Gen 14.13), and been remembered in their legends.
The Canaanites/Amorites would have witnessed God's judgment on Sodom and the cities of the plain! Abraham had delivered those cities from a Mesopotamian king in Gen 14 (and perhaps the Amorite cities in v.7), only to see them destroyed in Gen 19. Abraham (and Lot) were witnesses to the theological understanding of a highly visible (and internationally applauded, no doubt!) action by God. The peoples of the Land should have taken notice and warning.
The above items are 400 years+ before the 'judgment' on them begins!
During the 400 years in Egypt, the Canaanites would have had much interaction with Egypt, much of which probably "went through" Goshen--the place of the Hebrews. They also were probably in constant contact with Joseph (and the tribes) during the early famine years. (It is likely that Egyptian influence into Palestine was expanded due to this commercial interaction.)
During the 400 years, the Canaanites would have still been surrounded by offspring of Abraham--through Ishmael and Esau, not to mention that of Lot. The nations of Moab, Ammon, Edom would have preserved early traditions about Elohim for 'exchange' with the nations.
Immediately after the Exodus, word 'got out' about the Hebrews, and made its way into Canaan. By the time Israel made it to Jericho, a common prostitute in the city could say (Josh 2.9ff: "I know that the LORD has given this land to you and that a great fear of you has fallen on us, so that all who live in this country are melting in fear because of you. 10 We have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red Sea for you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to Sihon and Og, the two kings of the Amorites east of the Jordan, whom you completely destroyed. 11 When we heard of it, our hearts melted and everyone's courage failed because of you, for the LORD your God is God in heaven above and on the earth below.).




Rahab had heard about the Exodus (some 40+ years earlier), the conquest of the Amorite Kings Sihon and Og (a few months earlier), and the land-grant promise by YHWH(!)--given 400 years earlier. News traveled fast back in those days, so they probably had at least 40 years notice of Israel's coming. [Remember that Amalek knew of the Exodus WITHIN DAYS and attacked Israel.]

Likewise, after the drying up of the Jordan and before the fall of Jericho, the whole land of Palestine knew and individuals could have begun migrating (as was common in those days). So Joshua 5.1f: Now when all the Amorite kings west of the Jordan and all the Canaanite kings along the coast heard how the LORD had dried up the Jordan before the Israelites until we had crossed over, their hearts melted and they no longer had the courage to face the Israelites..









There was an abundance of information for these people--perhaps even MORE THAN the other nations around them had!--but they did not respond appropriately. (The other nations in the ANE seemed to respond to 'available' truth with a degree of moderation and correspondingly did not develop the ruthless, cruel, and degenerate practices of their Canaanite neighbors.)

Summary: These nations show up in archeology and literature as a uniquely evil and destructive civilization, whose culpability is increased due to the abundance of truth and religious warnings which they were confronted with, and had access to. In contrast to the vast majority of surrounding nations, the Canaanite/Amorite cultures would not act responsibly and prudently, in matters of foreign relations and domestic practice. The result was a destructive and malignant force, in an already difficult ANE historical setting. If the nations of that day could have had a vote on who to 'destroy', they all would have voted for the Canaanite/Amorite culture.
...............................................................................................
Were there any limits placed upon Israel in this venture, and what was the EXACT content of the orders?







First, I want to look at the limits placed on the Israelites--the boundary-statements. What limits did God place on these marching orders? How exhaustive was the command-set? What implications might we draw from these?

Unlike the early Amorites, Israel was NOT supposed to destroy the cities and buildings (Deut 6.10ff). [The main exception was Hazor--the 'nerve center' of Canaanite culture and trade--cf. Joshua 11.10, ECIAT:94.]

Unlike the Egyptians (ANET:239ff, for the campaigns of Thutmose III), they were NOT supposed to destroy the vegetation and the trees (Deut 20.19).

They were restricted from attacking Esau's land--Deut 2.4ff:
Give the people these orders: `You are about to pass through the territory of your brothers the descendants of Esau, who live in Seir. They will be afraid of you, but be very careful. 5 Do not provoke them to war, for I will not give you any of their land, not even enough to put your foot on. I have given Esau the hill country of Seir as his own. 6 You are to pay them in silver for the food you eat and the water you drink.'"
[Notice that Esau 'got' that land the same way as Israel did--by conquest (Deut 2.12, 22; Josh 24.4).]

They were restricted from attacking Moab (Lot's descendants)--Deut 2.9:
Then the LORD said to me, "Do not harass the Moabites or provoke them to war, for I will not give you any part of their land. I have given Ar to the descendants of Lot as a possession."
They were restricted from attacking Ammon (Lot's descendants)--Deut 2.19:
When you come to the Ammonites, do not harass them or provoke them to war, for I will not give you possession of any land belonging to the Ammonites. I have given it as a possession to the descendants of Lot."
They were NEVER allowed to take the cultic objects--with the precious metals and stones--Deut 7.25f:
The images of their gods you are to burn in the fire. Do not covet the silver and gold on them, and do not take it for yourselves, or you will be ensnared by it, for it is detestable to the LORD your God. 26 Do not bring a detestable thing into your house or you, like it, will be set apart for destruction. Utterly abhor and detest it, for it is set apart for destruction.
They were REQUIRED to offer peace to nations at a distance--Deut 20.10-16:
10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
There were restrictions on how Israelite men treated female war captives (from distant nations)--Deut 12.10ff:
When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.
[Scholars have noted that this was an unparalleled benevolence toward women, in ANE warfare. See remarkable.html]

So, this obviously was NOT a war of unrestrained lust, greed for expensive goods, or even "empire-building"--God did NOT tolerate those attitudes. For example, in Joshua 7, an Israelite DID take some of the expense idol pieces, and God held the entire community responsible for this breach.


Second, I want to look at the EXACT CONTENT of the instructions. What EXACTLY was ordered? What were the possible responses available to the Canaanites & Co.?

The first thing to notice is the wide range of words used to describe what YHWH/Israel was supposed to do the these nations.
"wipe them out" (e.g. Ex 23.23)
"throw them into confusion" (e.g. Ex 23.27)
"make them turn their backs and run" (e.g. Ex 23.27)
"drive them out of your way" (e.g. Ex 23.28.)
"struck down" (e.g. Ps 135.10)
"dispossessed" (e.g. Num 21.32)
"drive out" (e.g. Num 33.52)
"thrust out" (e.g. Deut 6.19)
"destroy them" (e.g. Deut 9.3)
"subdue them before you" (e.g. Deut 9.3)
"annihilate" (e.g. Deut 9.3)
"delivered them over to you" (e.g. Deut 7.2)
"defeated them" (e.g. Deut 7.2)
"perish" (e.g. Deut 7.20)
"give kings into your hands" (e.g. Deut 7.24)
"wipe out their names from under heaven" (e.g. Deut 7.24)

Notice that there is a HUGE difference (at first blush) between "annihilate" and "drive them out"! These seem almost contradictory. This warrants a closer look.

These words group into two categories: dispossession vs destruction. "Dispossession" would include the 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 Land to migrate somewhere else. So, consider Deut 12.29: 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, 30 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.".

Let's look at a few examples of the "dispossession" words.
From the garasl group ("drive out"):
Ex 23:28-30: I will send the hornet ahead of you to drive the Hivites, Canaanites and Hittites out of your way... But I will not drive them out in a single year,... Little by little I will drive them out before you"
Ex 23.31-33: "I will hand over to you the people who live in the land and you will drive them out before you. 32 Do not make a covenant with them or with their gods. 33 Do not let them live in your land,"
Ex 33.2: "I will send an angel before you and drive out the Canaanites..."
Deut 33.27: " He will drive out your enemy before you, saying, `Destroy him!'"
[Notice that this word is used to describe the Pharoah 'driving out' the Israelites--obviously not annihilating them!--in Exodus 6.1: " "Now you will see what I will do to Pharaoh: Because of my mighty hand he will let them go; because of my mighty hand he will drive them out of his country." and by Balak trying to drive Israel away in Numbers 22:6,11.]

The yarasl group ("dispossess"):
Ex 24.34: " I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your territory,"
Num 33.52f: " drive out all the inhabitants of the land before you. Destroy all their carved images and their cast idols, and demolish all their high places. 53 Take possession of the land and settle in it,"
Deut 4.38: " to drive out before you nations greater and stronger than you and to bring you into their land to give it to you for your inheritance, as it is today."
Deut 9.3,4,5: " And you will drive them out and annihilate them quickly... After the LORD your God has driven them out before you... the LORD your God will drive them out before you"
Deut 11.23: " then the LORD will drive out all these nations before you, and you will dispossess nations larger and stronger than you."
Deut 18.12: " because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you."

The salah group ("send away")
Lev 18.24: " because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants."
Lev 20.23: " You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you."

This is striking--it looks more like God is planning on "moving" a nation, than on "destroying a people"...Let's see if the evidence continues to support this...

Notice in some of the above passages that 'destruction' images are mixed with 'dispossession' images. How can these be reconciled?!




The answer comes in recognizing the intent of the 'punishment'. God was destroying a culture and its carriers--not necessarily all the individuals in it. Roughly, it was the 'nations' that were destroyed, and it was the 'individuals' who were driven out. With the national and cultic centers destroyed (along with the staunchest, die-hard defenders of that culture inside those cities), the culture would simply dissipate and evaporate in the Land. As OTHER cultures absorbed individual Canaanite families and groups, the Canaanite cultural depravity would not have had the critical mass to perpetuate itself. [Remember, Canaanite was a 'bad word' in the ANE.] The culture would have simply "died from starvation".

And with Canaan, this might have been the only way to do this--cf. ECIAT:192-193:

"In Canaan, however, it was at once realized by the Egyptians that native political institutions could not be easily replaced, as they partook of a degree of sophistication (thanks to their origin among the Amorites of North Syria and Mesopotamia) comparable with that of Egypt itself."
The Canaanite culture was strong and proved to be powerful in working against Israel from WITHIN.

We have an interesting piece of data to support this approach, in the account of the "destruction" of the Amorite country of Og (Num 21.31ff):
After Moses had sent spies to Jazer, the Israelites captured its surrounding settlements and drove out the Amorites who were there. 33 Then they turned and went up along the road toward Bashan, and Og king of Bashan and his whole army marched out to meet them in battle at Edrei. 34 The LORD said to Moses, "Do not be afraid of him, for I have handed him over to you, with his whole army and his land. Do to him what you did to Sihon king of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon." 35 So they struck him down, together with his sons and his whole army, leaving them no survivors. And they took possession of his land.
Notice that the Amorites in the villages (i.e. surrounding settlements in v.32 were 'driven out'; but the royal bloodline and national army were destroyed in v.35).

That this punishment was more 'national' shows up in the frequent mention of the word "nation(s)" in the passages, and the displacement image in Ps 44.2 is explicit: With your hand you drove out the nations and planted our fathers...

Migration was a fact and a way of life, and not that big of a deal in that time period--scholars classify the peoples into the "mobile" terminological groups: pastoral nomadism, semi-nomadism, transhumance nomadism, etc. Migration and movement was a common way of life. With very little notice, whole tribes could migrate in days. [Remember how the Israelites in the wilderness would depart whenever the cloud above the tabernacle lifted? Movement was constant and quick.] In nearby Greece, during the Archaic period, entire cities migrated to avoid conquest [HI:URACG]. The Canaanites had DECADES of notice--authenticated by the miracles of the Exodus--and any sane ones probably DID leave before Israel got there. Abandoned city structures are common all over the ANE and Ancient Middle East from that period.

The amount of time God allowed to the residents to migrate was substantial--not only did they get the Exodus information quickly, they got the 40 years of wandering, and EVEN AFTER the Conquest begun, the penetration into the villages and smaller districts was done 'little by little' (e.g. Deut 7.22), allowing even more time for simple villagers (and hence, not serious carriers of the culture--mainly perpetuated by the urban 'elite' of the walled cities) to move north. Israel never was able to "sneak up on anyone"--information flow was simply too good (cf. Rahab--Josh 2.9ff; the kings of Joshua 5; the Gibeonites of Joshua 9; Balaam from Aram--Num 23.7 with 24.8.).

So Kaiser (EBC: in. loc. Ex 23.23-26): "All these nations God's Angel would 'wipe...out' (v.23), i.e., remove from their national, not necessarily personal, existence; for surely David had Hittites in his army (2 Sam 23:39) and was friendly with a Jebusite (2 Sam 24:18-24). It was the worship and practices of the gods of these nations that were strictly forbidden."


Also interesting along this line is the dynastic-centered judgment in Deut 7.24: He will give their kings into your hand, and you will wipe out their names from under heaven.. This is clearly a culture-focused judgment.

We can size the problem a little here as well. The average city size for walled cities in Palestine at the time was 1,000-3,000 folks, with many being less than 700 (ISBE: s.v. "City"). In Joshua 12, the victory list is given as 31 kings (generally petty kings of city-states) this would be around 70,000 people (assuming they all stayed around--a very dubious assumption in light of the international fear of Israel at the time).




But this 70,000 is against a base of close to 2 million people! (Israel was approximately 1.6 million at the time, and these nations are said to be 'more numerous' than Israel in a number of places--e.g. Deut 7.1,7.) This amounts to approximately 3.5% of the 'target population'. The Israelites were specifically told to execute those who remained in the cities (Deut 20.16) and those who hid in the Land--and therefore did NOT migrate out--Deut 7.20. Granted the Israelites were less than thorough in their warfare, but this small percentage is a bit ridiculous! This doesn't seem like serious genocide to me--what's going on here?

Let's put a few facts together:

Israel was told to 'drive' the Canaanites out of the Land.
Those Canaanites who refused to leave were to be executed.
The Israelites were NEVER told to hunt the Canaanites down 'throughout the uttermost reaches of the earth' and kill them.
If the Canaanites had migrated to a city in a foreign land, the Israelites could have made a treaty with them.
The main point was to keep the Canaanites from influencing Israel's religious culture, by removing them from the Land (e.g. Deut 20.18.).

What this would strongly suggest is that the punishment on the Amorites/Canaanites is NOT extermination but rather total expulsion from the Land!

This is an altogether DIFFERENT issue now--from 'genocide' to 'expulsion from the Land'. And THIS UNDERSTANDING makes perfect sense of a couple of other verses now:
"`Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you. 29 "`Everyone who does any of these detestable things -- such persons must be cut off from their people. (Lev 18.24-29; also Lev 20.22)
Notice in verses 28-29, God holds Israel to the same standard--both as a nation (vs.28.) and as individuals (vs.29)! He didn't intend to annihilate them (when they later 'went pagan'), but he warned them of 'expulsion from the Land' in the SAME WAY He did the Canaanites! For this comparison to work in the verse, the punishment ("vomit") MUST mean expulsion.
But WAS it the same way?

Absolutely!

Not only were the warnings that God gave Israel about covenant treachery the flip-side of what they were to enjoy in Canaan (e.g. houses and vineyards given to others -- Deut 28.30-33), but the actual experience of Judah before her "expulsion" to Babylonia was essentially the same.

When Judah had begun to practice the same cruel and destructive practices of the Canannites--including child sacrifice (Is 57:5; 2 Kgs 17.17), ritual prostitution (Jer 13.27), cultic homosexual prostitutes (I Kgs 15.12; 22.46; 2 Kgs 23.7), and widespread social violence (cf. Ezek 45.9; Is 59.6-10)--God judged them to be expelled from the Land. He sent the Babylonians to 'drive them out'. They were SUPPOSED to obey God and go into exile--the prophets told the people to surrender to 'dispossession' to AVOID BEING KILLED!

Then Jeremiah said to Zedekiah, "This is what the LORD God Almighty, the God of Israel, says: `If you surrender to the officers of the king of Babylon, your life will be spared and this city will not be burned down; you and your family will live. 18 But if you will not surrender to the officers of the king of Babylon, this city will be handed over to the Babylonians and they will burn it down; you yourself will not escape from their hands.'" (Jer 38.17ff)
"This is what the LORD says: `Whoever stays in this city will die by the sword, famine or plague, but whoever goes over to the Babylonians will live. He will escape with his life; he will live.' 3 And this is what the LORD says: `This city will certainly be handed over to the army of the king of Babylon, who will capture it.'" (Jer 38.2)

"Furthermore, tell the people, `This is what the LORD says: See, I am setting before you the way of life and the way of death. 9 Whoever stays in this city will die by the sword, famine or plague. But whoever goes out and surrenders to the Babylonians who are besieging you will live; he will escape with his life. 10 I have determined to do this city harm and not good, declares the LORD. It will be given into the hands of the king of Babylon, and he will destroy it with fire.' (Jer 21.8.)

If the residents of Judah had surrendered to the Babylonians, they would have simply been deported (read: "expelled from the Land"!) to Babylon--just like the Northern Kingdom had been 'migrated forcibly' to other lands. This is basically the same motif--'migrate or be executed'. The number of people actually killed in the attacks of Babylonia would have been small, but the number transplanted out of the Land would have been considerable.
It is interesting to note that the Assyrians 'drove out' Israel and USED the deportation/transplantation strategy to basically 'annihilate' a culture, without killing the mass of people--they knew that a dispossessed people would be assimilated into larger social groups, as basically happened with some of the northern ten tribes. The Assyrians did this routinely (HAP:601,63 cool , as did the Egyptians (ECIAT:168.), and the Babylonians practiced a modified version of it. Deportation as a military practice has been documented as early as the 3rd Dynasty of Ur, 2112-2004 BC (AM:367n33). So ZPEB: s.v. "exile":

"The deportation of communities was usually practiced in the ancient world for political reasons, frequently to destroy the power of a nation considered an enemy..."
and HAP:601:
"It has been seen how the growing power of Assyria...not only became a real threat to the nations of Syria and Palestine, but exterminated some and deported their peoples, thus breaking their power."
Notice that the above quote makes a similar distinction to my argument here--the nation is 'exterminated' but the people are 'deported'.
Interestingly, a dispossession of Canaanite population appears to be a more 'humane' way of reducing the international impact of an already internationally-despised culture, without having to kill the majority of the carriers of that culture.

The main differences between the expulsion of Israel and the expulsion of Canaan was in the (1) 'execution' of it; and (2) in the 'regulation' of it.

From an 'execution/implementation' standpoint, in the case of Canaan, the deportation must occur BEFORE Israel showed up for battle; in the case of Judah, the 'migration' (initiated by surrender) would occur before Babylon actually attacked the city. [Babylon and Assyria could afford to do this--they had adequate resources and structures to move huge populations around. Post-wandering Israel would have had no such option. God used 'early warning' messages to the Canaanites to get large portions of them (apparently) to migrate north, and even gave the less-urban community more time--the "little by little" aspect of the conquest (cf. Deut 7.22).]

From a 'regulation' standpoint, the Canaanite migration would have been much less regulated. The migrating peoples could essentially have had some choice over their destinations, be able to migrate without the harsh treatment of captors (not at all an insignificant benefit!), and generally settle closer to familiar lands/languages than occurred under captors. Although it would still be a 'forced' migration, there were many more 'humane' discretionary elements inherent in it.  

[Garland-Green]

Summary: The Israelites had been promised a specific area of land, since the time of Abraham. Most of the local indigenous peoples were either descendants of Abe or very familiar with the traditions of those people. When the "time had come," God judged the Canaanites and decreed for them to be expelled from the Land. Their tenure was up--they were evicted. New tenants were moving in. The Canaanites were given decades and decades of notice--in many ways and at different times. And they understood clearly--all the records we have of their understanding of their plight is TOTALLY in line with the Land-Grant of YHWH.
With the 'eviction notice' published, the Canaanites could decide to either vacate the premises peacefully or deal with military force. If they vacated peacefully, they could choose their locations, mode of travel, and not have to deal with unpleasant military overseers. If they choose to challenge Israel's God and His expressed intentions, then they did so with complete knowledge of His power--as displayed in Egypt.

Even though they were the 'scourge' of the earth at that time--by international consensus--God did not desire to annihilate the people. His expressed intentions were to move them away from His people. He gave them ample opportunity to leave peacefully before Israel arrived, and even allowed the bulk of the 'less institutionalized' to have a little longer. His people were not instructed to hunt them down in neighboring nations at all.

Israel was severely restricted in the Conquest. They were not allowed to be simple 'land grabbers' or 'wealth seekers' or 'self-righteous' or 'land scorchers' or 'international empire builders' or 'captive-abusive'. At the same time, they were to eliminate the threat of Canaanite destructive influence (both spiritual and physical) if called upon.

And God allowed no double standards. When Israel began to look like 'Canaanites', God judged them IN THE SAME WAY...and 'vomited' them from the Land as well. This expulsion was also accompanied by the harsh measures of warfare faced by the Canaanites.

The punishment of the Amorites/Canaanites was thus one of 'deportation'--NOT one of genocide.
.............................................................................................................

What other general principles of God's governance might shed some light on the situation?




Here I want to survey some of the other governance structures that are present in this issue.


In the earliest promise to Abraham in Genesis 12, we read:
The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you. 2 "I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you."
This promise of protection for Abe and his descendants can be seen all through biblical history--and therefore in the Conquest narratives.

The Hivites (one of the Canaanite peoples) perpetrated rape on Dinah, the daugher of Jacob (Gen 34).
During the travels of Israel, Amorite peoples attempted two unsolicited and unwarranted attacks on Israel--once by Arad, and once by Sihon (Num 21).
BUT THE BIG ONE was the persecution by Amorite/Canaanites WHILE IN EGYPT!




This seems a bit odd, of course, since Israel was being mistreated by the Egyptians during this period, but nonetheless was a present factor--through the influence of the Hyksos. "A dynasty of foreign rulers known as the Hyksos established themselves in control not only of Syria and Palestine but also of Egypt itself during approximately the years 1650-1542 b.c." (MM:128.).

Now, if you notice something, the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt during this time. I believe in the early date of the Exodus (around the 1400 BC mark), which would make the 400 year Sojourn in Egypt from 1800-1400 bc roughly. One can see then, that all of the Hyksos reign (the New Intermediate Kingdom) would fall into this period. I also understand Gen 15.13 (Then the LORD said to him, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years. ) to entail a 'mistreatment' period of several hundred years (as opposed to just the years right before the birth of Moses). According to Exodus, after Joseph died, a new king arose that began the mistreatment. This would make perfect sense if the 'new king' was an outsider--like a Hyksos. This would mean that the long-term mistreatment of Israel was initiated (or at least intensified significantly) by the Hyksos. But why would I bring the Hyksos up in THIS discussion?

"Their name (Hyksos) corresponds to the Egyptian 'rulers of foreign lands,' but was also understood to mean 'shepherd kings.' They were probably preponderantly Semitic Amorites/Canaanites." (MM:128; see also ECIAT:106-107)
So, soon after the Hebrews go into Egypt (as welcomed guests, important contributors, and leaders), the Amorites/Canaanites show up and start "enslaving and mistreating" them, even to the point of programmatic infanticide (Ex 1)!
It is probably around the end of the Sojourn that the 'sins of the Amorites reached a full measure'--international destruction, socially-destructive religious practices, cruel enslavement of an Israelite population that reached close to two million at the time(!), and systematic infanticide.

And the Abrahamic principle--"I will curse them that curse you"--probably started kicking in here...



The principle of "lex talionis"--"an eye for an eye"




This was a principle of law and justice that said that punishment must match/not exceed the crime--in kind (e.g. Deut 19.21). It was not unique to Israel; it shows up in the code of Hammurabi as well (P.197). It was strictly a legal motif for the legal system, and not necessarily to be the rule in personal matters or attitudes.

How would that show up in the Amorite/Canaanite judgment?

They drove out cultures before them, in the early Amurru invasions; so they were driven out.
They caused whole cities to be abandoned; they were forced to abandon their cities in flight.
They won their battles on military strength; they were defeated by a greater military strength--YHWH.
They destroyed urban centers; their urban centers were destroyed.
They were unreasonable and unwilling to negotiate (Num 21.21ff); God did not allow Israel to negotiate with them (except the Gibeonite deception in Joshua 9--against His will).




The old adage "you reap what you sow" was certainly true in this case...


God is not unfair, partial, and does not hold double standards of ethics.

We saw above that Israel was warned EXPLICITLY not to become like the Canaanites; they DID, and suffered the same fate--deportation.

Not only this, but at the very SECOND BATTLE in the land--that of AI in Joshua 7--an Israelite kept some of the forbidden sacred images and God judged him, his family, and the entire nation for this breach of covenant--just like He was judging the Canaanites...no double standard here/then, or later in the Northern and Southern kingdoms.


Individual actions ALWAYS affect the fortunes of others--for good or ill.




The nature of historical community and "cause/effect" is such that the actions of one member of a group ALWAYS affects the others. The decisions of a parent have consequences for a child--for good or ill. The decisions of a civic leader have consequences for the citizens--for good or ill. The decisions of an army commander have consequences for his soldiers--for good or ill. This 'system' was set up FOR GOOD--that we might bless the lives and fortunes of others--but anything good can be twisted into something destructive.

In the case of parents who had the good sense to migrate, the children benefited. In the case of those parents who chose to stay and fight, their children died too. In the case of city members who decided to act independently of what their 'civic leaders' recommended(!), sanity saved lives. In the case of those who simply 'followed the leaders' instead of the information about YHWH and the Israelites, lives were lost.

The case of Rahab the prostitute is instructive. She 'rebelled' against the civic authority and saved her life AND THE LIVES of those who came into her household (Josh 6.23). The decision of one worked for the good of others--how the system is supposed to work.

It is always difficult to deal with the complex relationships/dependencies within the human family, and although we rarely complain about how 'unfair' it is for a child to be benefited by the integrity and resources of a good parent, we often complain about how 'unfair' it is for a child to be disadvantaged by abuse or poverty of a parent. The two go together--for good or ill. You cannot even have a parent-child relationship without a significant level of REAL and MEANINGFUL (and therefore, potentially REALLY damaging) dependencies. It is simply inconceivable.

And, frankly, the alternative to 'dying swiftly with your parents' is NOT "obviously better"--its a close call. In this case, let's suppose the children under fighting age (around 12) were spared but all the adults and livestock killed, and the homes and foodstock taken. With an average age of six, homeless, without shelter, in shock, without food, without nurture, in grief, in terror, without protection from the wild animals, without protection from marauding bands of slave-traders, without protection from each other, without any adult guidance--how long could they last in the wild? The Israelites had no resources to care for them, or to route them to other nations around there. What kind of a slow-death would that be?

Of course, this 'alternative' scenario is only a theoretical exercise, and only meant to show that the issue is very, very complex as to 'what is best'. God chose a different path in most of history. The power of parents--for good or ill--is consistently maintained, and always displayed before the eyes of us who are parents. We must take this responsibility seriously--there are REAL consequences and no 'magic escapes' for those whose lives we touch--family, friends, followers.

............................................................................................................
Now, let's restate our opening questions and try to summarize the above material in response...

Did God actually command Israel to do this, or did they just invent this divine sanction to justify territorial greed or genocidal tendencies?

We really didn't go into this side of the question, but we have enough clues in the above data to take a stab at this:

Israel didn't really want to do this AT ALL, so why would they make it up?!

The post-Exodus Israel was a whining (e.g. Num 11.1; Ex 16.2-3), grumbling (e.g. Ex 15.24; 17.3), bunch of folks who wanted to go back to Egypt (Num 14.1-3)! They were constantly afraid of the inhabitants of the Land (e.g. Num 14; Deut 7.19). They never even finished the job (Judges 1.1-3.5). And besides...what good would a forged passage or two in their sacred literature be?! It wouldn't be useful to 'appeal to' in disputes over land. It couldn't have been written centuries later and 'inserted' into the text to give some kind of legitimacy to Israel, because the land descriptions and details are too ancient/obscure to have even be known/made up that later.

No, the data all indicates that IN SPITE OF ISRAEL, the land-grant orders were authentic and ancient.

Why would God use a nation as questionable as the post-Exodus Israelites to deliver His "judgment" on the Canaanites? (Why not just use natural disasters, such as earthquakes [Num 16], volcanic-type phenomena [Gen 19], or plague [2 Kgs 19.35]?)




Well, first of all, since the land was supposed to be a 'present' to the descendants of Abe, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to have it ravaged by large-scale, ubiquitous earthquakes, or totally scorched by volcanix, or covered in rotting, disease-infested corpses!

Second, we have seen that God intended for most people to simply leave...He didn't want to kill them all.

Finally, He didn't give it to them because they were righteous at all--He gave it to them because of His promise to Abe...Plus, He had plans to 'grow them' into righteousness once they got into the Land.

What about all the innocent people killed in this "holy war"--families, "good" Canaanites, etc.? Even if it is 'okay' for God to execute judgment on nations within history, why didn't He only kill the evil-doers?

There is a strong possibility that most of the 'innocent' people left the country before the actual battles began in each local turf. Those that stayed behind were the die-hards, the "carriers" of Canaanite culture, the ruling, decadent, exploitative elite. We also saw that only a very tiny minority of people were actually killed in this campaign, relative to most military conquests in the ANE.

Doesn't wholesale slaughter of nations seem a little incompatible with a God of Love and Mercy?




I think it should be clear by now that this was neither a (1) "slaughter"; nor (2) "wholesale"! It was a deportation, based upon a judgment that would have found consensus among world leaders of the day! There were elements of mercy THROUGHOUT the entire deal--from the 'early warnings' before the Sojourn in Egypt, to the 'heads up' warnings four decades before Entry, to the 'little by little' invasion tactic for the less-institutionalized, to the careful limits on Israelite behavior. The migration of much of the Canaanite peoples (and religious culture, unfortunately) into Phoenicia is testimony of the scale of this migration.

When we restate the pattern of our 'control data'--judgments that seem to be 'true annihilations'--and correlate that pattern with the Conquest data, we see similarities AND differences:
The annihilations are judgments [But the conquest judgment was a deportation, not an annihilation.]
These judgments are for publicly-recognized (indeed, international and cross-cultural in scope!) cruelty and violence of an EXTREME and WIDESPREAD nature. [This applies to the Canaanites, plus the additional 'load' of long-term "being a curse" to Israel.]
These judgments are preceded by LONG PERIODS of warning/exposure to truth (and therefore, opportunity to "change outcomes").[This applies to the Canaanites extensively.]
Innocent adults are given a 'way out' [This is very true here--in additional to the extensive warnings, plenty of time&space is given to allow migration before Israel arrived. We even have one example of a non-migration exception--Rahab--which suggests there might be others that were not recorded.]
Household members share in the fortunes of the parents (for good or ill). [This is true here as well--everyone in Rahab's house was spared--whether they were good or evil!]
Somebody ALWAYS escapes (Lot, Noah, Kenites). [In our case, the mass of people that migrated north to Phoenicia, Rahab+household, plus Gibeonites (although through deception).]
These are exceptional cases--there are VERY, VERY few of these. [We have two other cases structured after this deportation--that of Israel and Judah--after the same standards and structures.]
..........................................................................................

Pushback: You say that the people of Canaan and the others should have left because the land was promised to Israel. That's like someone coming to my house and telling me to get out because God told him that he could have it. And then blaming me because he had to kill me to "accomplish God's will." In short, it isn't realistic to expect that people will uproot and leave their home. Even the most peaceful folks will fight when home is what's at stake.

Fortunately, in the ancient world the situation was much more clear than the situation you describe at the doorstep!. Each nation/state/city had their main god that was supposed to protect that specific spot of land. The bigger the country, the bigger and more powerful the god had to be. If a foreign people came to you and said "our god wants to take over your land" the only real way to know whose god was bigger (and therefore which claim was 'legitimate') was to fight. If your god won, then obviously their statement about 'change of ownership' was bogus or irrelevant. If they won, of course, the opposite was true--and off you go (assuming they didn't kill you in the process).

But in some cases there was a short-cut to know whether their god would beat your god--by checking the "stats" and applying the "transitive law". If you knew, for example, that your god A (deity of a local Canaanite city-village), could be easily beaten by god B (the god of Egypt, the mightest nation on the planet), but that god B (Egypt) was recently beaten by a more powerful god C (God of the Hebrews), then you could easily make the A
In other words, the Israelite claims were not simple "one-off" prophetic declarations of "mine!"--but had a long history of circulation, and were substantiated (in their minds) by the awesome victory over the mightiest nation and pantheon on earth--that of Egypt. Under circumstances like this--given the way the ancients understood deity--it would be extremely realistic to expect them to uproot and move their home. There actually would be no better way to communicate the certainty of that future than by such an extraordinary event as the Exodus, if well-publicized (which it was). If God was trying to give them a 40-year 'early warning', this was the most effective way possible to help them see the reality of that future, and give them almost a generation to prepare and build a new life/home somewhere else (south or most likely, north).
........................................................................................................



Conclusion: Judgment is called God's "strange work" in the OT prophets. What for us humans is the problem of "why does God not do anything about evil and cruel people" is simply the other side of His patience with us. He hopes that we will accept a love of the truth and a commitment to value. In love, He deliberately "believes the best" (I Cor 13).

What started out as the "Unfair genocide of the Canaanites" ended up as the "Less-than-they-deserved punitive deportation from the land"--filled with patience and mercy and 'second chances'. It was nonetheless a judgment, and nonetheless involved death--as it later would be repeated to His people.

Far from being the "genocide of an innocent people for land-hungry Israelites", it was instead the "firm, yet just--and even a little merciful to the masses--removal of a people from a tract of land, mostly through migration."

glenn miller, 2/8/97, Oct 2000

Source:
http://christianthinktank.com/qamorite.html  

[real eyes realize]

That was wonderfully thorough. heart

It makes me wonder about the Ishmaelites though. They are descendants of Abraham who received a promise too (Genesis 17:20). What is YHWH doing with them today? He made them into a great nation for something. They always seem to be antagonistic to Israel (for example, buying Joseph as a slave, Genesis 37:27-28; Genesis 39:1). And if the Ishmaelites include modern-day Muslims, the animosity between them and the body of Israel does not surprise me. I get the feeling however that YHWH is using them for judgment, maybe blessing, especially with all this talk about Sharia law. The little that I've investigated, Sharia sounds like Old Testament law, except for the praying bit (the mantra/repetition is vain according to Jesus; we're not to pray like the pagans. Not only is it vain because he knows what we need before we ask and he hears us the first time [Matthew 6:7-8 ], but doing so only contributes to making YHWH's name profane/common; it fails to convey that he is set-apart/holy from the other things/gods/demons the other nations worship. Mantra is common in all religions but Judaism who don't use prayer beads. Not only that but the hand and feet washing for prayer is instructed no where in the Torah or anywhere else in the bible).

The Quran sounds like lies mixed with bits of truth: the surahs that actually speak about praying don't tell you to recite a specific script, use prayer beads nor pray five times a day; what is found in the Quran is more akin to the biblical verses that say pray without ceasing (1 Thessalonians 5:17) and in the Psalms about how we pray day and night (Psalm 22:2; 88:1). Surah 17:78 and 30:18 sound like that; but Surah 2:238 and 11:114 sound like obligatory prayer.

I'm so confused about them. I don't want to condemn the descendants of Ishmael. But their writings don't entirely agree with the divine revelation given to the Jews from whom salvation comes from.

The reason why I can't tell whether Sharia is judgment, blessing or both is because of Genesis 22:18.

Quote:

Genesis 22:15-18 (NIV)

15 The angel of the Lord called to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said, “I swear by myself, declares the Lord, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, 18 and through your offspring[a] all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.”

Footnotes:

Genesis 22:18 Or seed
Genesis 22:18 Or and all nations on earth will use the name of your offspring in blessings (see 48:20)

He was about to sacrifice Isaac (though Islam claims it's Ishmael; which they can't prove from the Quran, but the Hadiths). God promises Abraham that blessings would come through Abraham's descendants; wouldn't that include all of his sons (thus Ishmael too)? And God's law is a blessing: it provides justice for the poor, widows, orphans and foreigners among them; keeps inheritances and family life in order if heeded (Sharia sounds a lot like it). So in some respect, I don't think Sharia law coming upon the land would be bad in principle. In practice though... lol. Maybe where his law goes, it's suppose to make things worse, kind of like how Paul says when the law came that's when sin gets recognized as sin (Romans 7:7-25) and who delivers you from that sin? Jesus. You need Jesus to be delivered from the law of sin in your flesh though you agree with the law in your mind. (v. 24-25). I don't know if I'm articulating my thoughts fully, but I'm so confused about the Ishmaelites and their place in prophecy. By definition, they're also Gentiles (not Israelite).

Which makes me think back to Daniel and Revelation:

Quote:

Revelation 11:2 (NIV)

2 But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months.

Quote:

Daniel 8:13 (NIV)

Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to him, "How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled--the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, the surrender of the sanctuary and the trampling underfoot of the LORD's people?"

...and all these fights about who owns the land. Ahh gonk

To not detract from the article though: God clearly does give people ample warning; how they respond to his warnings/prophecies determines how they and their household fare, good or bad, deported or murdered, their choice; in some cases, it seems to be vengeance for something they started in the first place.

Something else I wonder about though: if end time is going to be like Noah's time, will there even be neighboring nations to find refuge in? The punishment is planetary. I guess this is where the harpazo/rapture figures in: caught up after the tribulation (after the persecution of the saints), but before God's wrath hits. We'll see how it goes.