Replies

Hope you do not mind my going on to give my fallible judgment on this interpretation here. May the reader discern any errors.

After all, doesn't Deuteronomy 20:16-17 plainly state this? 'Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. But you shall utterly destroy themÃ¢â‚¬Â¦as the Lord your God has commanded you.'"1 No matter how strongly the believer makes the case for the God-morality connection, this good argument can become overshadowed by the Canaanite question.

Thus the interpretation that follows seems driven by the need to make God palatable, to justify God before the superior judgment of finite modern man, yet God is perfectly just in slaying every infant on the planet, since He is the author of life. Murder is wrong because it takes away life which God gave, and the opportunities God provides and are not to be unjustly by man for man.

But God is not unjust in punishing culpable sinners, nor does He punish those who are not culpable of sin, though He slay them. To punish such presupposes God does something ultimately negative, but besides never ordering torture of such, God can take all to Himself, and spare them from further suffering, and in the case of the terminally wicked Canaanites, whose destructive perpetuated influential iniquity God had put up with for generations, God spared the innocent from becoming like their degenerate fathers and suffering their just fate.

Indeed, God could do so for all, but God is just as well as merciful in giving souls the ability to choose, and (ultimately) opposite entities to choose btwn, (1Ki. 18:21) and allowing souls to affect others by their choices, for good or for bad, and to suffer the consequences of the evil they are culpable for (and according to the degree that they are: Ezek. 18:20), and redeeming the elect on God/Christ expense and credit, (Rm. 3:25; 1Jn. 4:10,14) yet rewarding them for the good that they did in faith, even though it is only by God's grace in enabling and motivating, that they could and did believe in the Lord Jesus, (Jn. 6:44; 12:32; 16:8-11; Acts 11:18; 16:14; Eph. 2:8,9) and choose to obey Him afterwards. (Phil. 2:13) To God be the glory.

In all things only God is omniscient, and both knows who is guilty and of what, and only He is omnipotent, and can and does make all things work out for the good of those who love God, and thus love Good. (Rm. 8:28) Therefore God cannot be charged with genocide nor with infanticide, unless the one making the charges is himself omniscient and superior in morality. (But as every morally cognizant soul worships either the True God or a created one, so angry atheists who impugn the character of God effectively presume to be as God, as the ultimate judges of what is good or evil.)

As for the language describing the conquests at issue being hyperbolic boasting (and or exaggerated to justify genocide), as Glenn Miller at Christian Think Tank (a far better resource than CRI on this) notes,

The OT record is literally filled with their evil, esp. of the elites and religious authorities! And, they never seem to have a problem describing how frequently they get defeated in battle, for the text is filled with those events too. And the biblical writers don't have the slightest problem describing situations in which they doubted God, accused God of various un-god-like actions (e.g. Habakkuk on how God could use the evil Assyrians; the Psalmist on how God could avoid rescuing the innocent; how God could let evil exploiters prosper so long), and even of leaving bad-looking-things completely unexplained (e.g. the numbering of David's census, the breach against Uzzah). On the basis of the surface features of the text, we have NO warrant for believing that the text 'sugar coated' the story, or functioned as propaganda or justification (in comparison to other ANE documents of the time, especially). - http://christianthinktank.com/rbutcher1.html

the sweeping language of these warfare texts such as Joshua (as well as Numbers 31 and 1 Samuel 15) occurs in highly figurative, hyperbolic accounts--quite common in the ancient Near East. This kind of "utterly destroyed" bravado was common in ancient Near Eastern war texts. Biblical scholars and archaeologists (e.g., K. Lawson Younger, Kenneth Kitchen) ...

...are apparently rather liberal. Rather than hyperbole, the texts are literal, but limited. For instance,

And the LORD hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities: and he called the name of the place Hormah. (Num 21:3)

As Keil & Delitzsch stated in the 19th century, ''And they called the place Hormah,'' i.e., banning, ban-place. ''The place'' can only mean the spot where the Canaanites were defeated by the Israelites. If the town of Zephath, or the capital of Arad, had been specially intended, it would no doubt have been also mentioned, as in Jdg_1:17. As it was not the intention of Moses to press into Canaan from the south, across the steep and difficult mountains, for the purpose of effecting its conquest, the Israelites could very well content themselves for the present with the defeat inflicted upon the Canaanites, and defer the complete execution of their vow until the time when they had gained a firm footing in Canaan

They cite Num. 31, but which also is not inclusive of all the Canaanites:

And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the LORD of Midian. (Num 31:3)

Nor did this include every one of that nomadic tribe. See further on.

Likewise, they cite 1Sa. 15:

And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. (1Sa 15:8)

Keil & Delitzsch here understand,

''All,'' i.e., all that fell into the hands of the Israelites. For it follows from the very nature of the case that many escaped, and consequently there is nothing striking in the fact that Amalekites are mentioned again at a later period (1Sa_27:8; 1Sa_30:1; 2Sa_8:12). The last remnant was destroyed by the Simeonites upon the mountains of Seir in the reign of Hezekiah (1Ch_4:43). Only, king Agag did Saul and the people

Likewise other texts such as Dt. 3:6; Josh. 6:21 were not referring to universal destruction, but what was realized on a regional basis.

there were swarms of Canaanites remaining. Even within Joshua we read, "There were no Anakim left in the land" (11:22); they were "utterly destroyed" in the hill country (11:21)...Joshua's military campaign in Canaan simply wasn't a territorial conquest, but a series of disabling raids.

Rather, it was what these authors neglect that creates the discrepancy

And at that time came Joshua, and cut off the Anakims from the mountains, from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab, and from all the mountains of Judah, and from all the mountains of Israel: Joshua destroyed them utterly with their cities. There was none of the Anakims left in the land of the children of Israel: only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod, there remained. (Jos 11:21-22)

The authors only cite part of v. 22, but which adds that some remained in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod, neighboring cities of Philistia, which clarifies v. 21, while the word for "utterly" is not in the Hebrew, and "destroyed" (chaÃŒâ€šram) is alone used and basically means to seclude, to "cut off" (even as translated "flat nose" in Lv. 21:18, or "devoted" or "accursed"). Compare with "utterly destroy" (chaÃŒâ€šram 'eÃŒâ€šth [even]) cities in Num. 21:2;Josh. 6:21; 8:26; 10:29. Since chaÃŒâ€šram is used with "all' it can mean completely, and is sometimes used to describe slaying with the sword, but whether it was used to always means they inclusively killed them all wherever they existed depends upon the context and corresponding texts which can clarify it as referring to those they found in a region, versus hunting down and exterminating every single one.

. Yet later in Joshua, Caleb asked permission to drive out the Anakites from the hill country (14:12-15; cf. 15:13-19)

As Barnes notes, Thence, they had, as must be inferred from the text here, returned and reoccupied Hebron, probably when Joshua and the main force of the Israelites had marched northward to deal with Jabin and his confederates. Caleb finally drove out this formidable race and occupied Hebron and its dependent towns and district permanently. See Jos_15:13 following.

Why is this explanation so unreasonable that liberals must resort to making historical accounts into hyperbole, overall conquests into mere raids?
In Numbers 31 (after Midianite women had intentionally seduced the men of Israel), we're told, "[Israel] fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man" (NIV, emphasis added). If literally true, why do we see Midianite multitudes in Judges 6:5? They were "like swarms of locusts. It was impossible to count them or their camels" (6:5 NIV). Also, the language is exaggerated in that every Midianite man was killed without a single Israelite fatality (Num. 31:50).

Num. 31:50 does not say that at all, while the conquests in Num. 31 is easily understood as referring to cities the Midianites had conquered with their 5 kings , and not that these numerous nomadic people all lived there.

The expression ''towns in their dwellings'' leads to the conclusion that the towns were not the property of the Midianites themselves, who were a nomad people, but that they originally belonged in all probability to the Moabites, and had been taken possession of by the Amorites under Sihon. This is confirmed by Jos_13:21, according to which these five Midianitish vassals of Sihon dwelt in the land, i.e., in the kingdom of Sihon

The Jewish Encyclopedia states,

The narrative shows that each of the five Midianite tribes was governed by its own king, but that all acted together against a common enemy; that while a part of each tribe dwelt in cities and fortresses in the vicinity of Moab, another part led a nomadic life, living in tents and apparently remote from the seat of the war. For, after the Midianites had been "exterminated" by the army of Phinehas, they reappear some hundreds of years later, in the time of Gideon.

The allied army of Midianites and Amalekites encamped in the valley of Jezreel (ib. vi. 33) after having crossed the Jordan. Gideon with his army encamped by the fountain of Harod, the Midianite army being to the north of him. With 300 men Gideon succeeded in surprising and routing them, and they fled homeward across the Jordan in confusion

A point worth noting is that here only two Midianite kings, Zebah and Zalmuna, and two princes, Oreb and Zeeb, are mentioned (ib. vii. 25; viii. 3, 5, 10, 12, 18, 21). This would show that only two tribes bore the name "Midianites," while the remaining three probably were merged with other Arabic tribes, their kinsmen, and perhaps partly with the Israelites also. - http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10804-midian-and-midianites

And from WP:

Some scholars have suggested that 'Midian' does not refer to a geographical area or a specific tribe, but to a confederation or 'league' of tribes brought together as a collective worship purposes. Paul Haupt first made this suggestion in 1909,[18] describing Midian as a 'cultic collective' (Kultgenossenschaft) or an 'amphictyony', meaning 'an association (Bund) of different tribes in the vicinity of a sanctuary'... George Mendenhall suggested that the Midianites were a non-Semitic confederate group,[19] and William Dumbrell maintained the same case: "We believe that Haupt's proposal is to be adopted, and that Midian, rather than depicting a land, is a general term for an amorphous league of the Late Bronze Age, of wide geographical range, who, after a series of reverses, the most prominent of which are recorded in Judges 6-7, largely disappeared from the historical scene...'[20] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midian#A_Land_or_a_League.3F

Note that even Abraham and Lot separated into different lands, due to the need for more land, and thus it is easily conceivable that while the wicked Midianites (save for virgin women) in one region were cut off in Num. 31, their numerous dispersed nomadic relatives coalesced and came to battle against Israel later on. And even then as a group some even remained until they were subdued under Gideon, "so that they lifted up their heads no more" (Judges 8:28) which likely refer to them as a people, not every single individual.

Exaggerated language is abundant. For instance, Saul's army was numbered at 210,000--far larger than any army of antiquity.

Or so they say. The Assyrian army of the 8th century B.C. was comprised of at least 150-200 thousand men and was the largest standing military force that the Middle East had witnessed to this time....Even the Assyrian army, as great as its size was, was easily dwarfed by the Persian armies that appeared 300 years later. Darius' army in the Scythian campaign numbered 200,000, and the force deployed by Xerxes against the Greeks comprised 300,000 men and 60,000 horsemen. General Percy-Sykes' analysis of Xerxes' army suggests that the total force, including support troops, numbered a million men! Even at the end of the empire the Persians could deploy very large forces. In 331 B.C., just before Alexander destroyed the Persian empire at the Battle of Arbela. Darius III fielded a force of 300,000 men, 40,000 cavalry, 250 chariots, and 50 elephants. - http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/gabrmetz/gabr0009.htm (Authors: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/gabrmetz/gabr0039.htm)

In 1 Samuel 27:8-9, the same sweeping language of Chapter 15 is used: all Amalekites were wiped out--again! We're told David invaded a territory full of Amalekites--the same territory covered by Saul. (Shur is near Egypt and Havilah is in Saudi Arabia--an area far too wide for Saul's army to cover.) So, 1 Samuel 15 and 27 cannot both be literally true.

-A little research by the authors would have informed them that,

The Amalekites were the remnant of this old hereditary foe of the Israelites, who had taken to flight on Saul's war of extermination, and had now assembled again (see at 1Sa_15:8-9). ''For they inhabit the land, where you go from of old to Shur, even to the land of Egypt.'' The Ã—Â¢Ã–Â²Ã—Â©Ã–Â¶Ã—ÂÃ—Â¨ before Ã—Å¾Ã–ÂµÃ—Â¢Ã–Â¹Ã—â€¢Ã—Å“Ã–Â¸Ã—Â may be explained from the fact that Ã—â€˜Ã–Â¹Ã–Â¼Ã—â€¢Ã—ÂÃ–Â²Ã—Å¡Ã–Â° is not adverbial here, but is construed according to its form as an infinitive: literally, ''where from of old thy coming is to Shur.''.. Moreover, the Alexandrian text is decidedly faulty here, and Ã—Â¢Ã–Â¹Ã—â€¢Ã—Å“Ã–Â¸Ã—Â is confounded with Ã—Â¢Ã–ÂµÃ—Å“Ã–Â¸Ã—Â, ÃŽÂ±ÃŒâ€œÃâ‚¬ÃŽÂ¿ÃŒâ‚¬ ÃŽâ€œÃŽÂµÃŽÂ»ÃŽÂ±ÃŒÂÃŽÂ¼. - Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

That "Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah until thou comest to Shur, that is over against Egypt" (1Sa 15:7) refers, as written, to the area in btwn the two in which battles took place, not that of inclusively smiting all the dispersed Amalekites within that area. We are dealing with tribe with a "nomadic lifestyle [which] led to widespread distribution, mostly along the fringe of southern Canaan's agricultural zone (Num. 13:29, Judg. 12:15, 1 Sam. 15:7; 30:1-2)." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalek#Amalekite_territory)

Compare "from Havilah until thou comest to Shur" (1Sam. 15:7) with "And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins." (Mar 1:5) This can be considered a form of hyperbole, but means "Then went out unto him (exeporeueto pros auton). Imperfect indicative describing the steady stream of people who kept coming to the baptism (ebaptizonto, imperfect passive indicative, a wonderful sight)." - Robertson's WORD PICTURES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

In 1 Samuel 15, Saul was commanded to "utterly destroy" the Amalekites. Stereotypical sweeping language was used: "Put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey" (15:3). On a literal reading, Saul carried this out--except for King Agag, who would meet his doom through the prophet Samuel (vv.7-9, 33). Yet this didn't literally happen; the Amalekites were far from destroyed.

Indeed, and a careful reading of the text does not make utterly destroying all the Amalekites to be exaggeration as if they existed as a nation concentrated together, and were all utterly destroyed, along with all livestock (excepting what Saul wrongly spared), but as referring to the main body of Amalekites set before them and which they found, as with those with Agag the king of the Amalekites. (1Sa 15:8)

Miller finds,

The biblical texts never even estimate the number of Amalekites, but they do point out that they don't actually "have lands" that they\ Israelites traveled ("trespassed") through. The Amalekites were not PART of Canaan (which would have had a million plus folks)--they were a nomadic tribe of marauding bands, living in the southern Negev (desert region). The archeological data we have of sites in the Negev around the time of this event indicates a very sporadic population--although mostly in the mid-central Negev-- although widely spread out. We have evidence of about 50 'fortresses' at this time, ranging in diameter from 25-70 meters. Isolated houses were scattered between the settlements, but we would be hard pressed to get a total population above 10,000 people. The large numbers of troops Saul mustered would have been due to (1) political needs to have all the tribes represented (a theme that pops up in other places in the OT); and (2) needs to cover the wide geographical area described, even though sparsely populated. The 'city of Amalek' was likely a cult center, not a population center per se. David had combat with them with only 600 men later. - http://christianthinktank.com/rbutcher1.html

However, multitudes could live in tent and structures which leave no archaeological evidence, and would allow for a greater number than is estimated if simply based on remaining archaeological evidence of housing.

What's more, in 1 Samuel 30, a large Amalekite army attacked Ziklag (v. 1), and David pursued this army and fought a long battle with them, with four hundred Amalekites fleeing (1 Sam. 30:7-17). That's not all: the Amalekites were even around during the reign of Hezekiah (1 Chron. 4:43).

Actually, the small number of Amalekites is consistent with the utter destruction of main body of the of the Amalekites, leaving a dispersed relative remnant to later needing to be dealt with. 1 Chron. 4:43 itself states that these Amalekites were those which had escaped. Thus it is not hyperbole being used, but (unless otherwise qualified) destruction of those found in the area in view. But which left some which Scripture records, who later came together to fight again until finally subdued, or as in the case of some Canaanites, to be thorns in the sides of Israel in judgment for not cutting them off (akin to not continually crucifying our flesh). Thus rather than hyperbole, the accounts are accurate in what they are describing.

So here's the question: Why is it that virtually every time a narration of "genocide" occurs, it is followed by an account that presupposes it did not happen? Scripture took shape, and the Old Testament canon was formed. The final compiler or editor--who was certainly not mindless--saw no problem with side-by-side affirmations of "total destruction" and many surviving hostiles. He didn't assume both to be literally true.

Wrong, as instead of redacting such as the more liberal commentators allege, or understanding these as mere hyperbole (and where do you stop with that in historical narratives?), they feared God enough not to edit His word, but were copyists who reverently penned it as passed on, and could understood these accounts such as explained above, and were not to be taken in isolation from themselves, but were complementary, ot contradictory.

And note that the Bible does reveal the use of hyperbole, like John 12:19

The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him. (John 12:19)

This "world" refers to their frame of reference, the known local sphere they had current knowledge of, not all the world that could be known, but even then "all" was easily understood as hyperbole, using exaggeration for effect, as in "everyone will be there," referring to everyone they know, yet not necessarily every single person. Such use is in order to get a point across as to how great something is, but which is not the same thing as charging the OT writers with not making literal statements as concerning the scope of commands and their execution, but using exaggeration for effect.

Fourth, the dominant language of "driving out" and "thrusting out" the Canaanites indicates further that "extermination" passages are hyperbolic (cf. Exod. 23:28; Lev. 18:24; Num. 33:52: Deut. 6:19; 7:1; 9:4; 18:12; Josh. 10:28, 30, 32, 35, 37, 39; 11:11, 14). Israel was to "dispossess" the Canaanites of their land (Num. 21:32; Deut. 9:1; 11:23; 18:14; 19:1). Just as Adam and Eve were "driven out" of the garden (Gen. 3:24), or Cain into the wilderness (4:14), or David from Israel by Saul (1 Sam. 26:19), so the Israelites were to "dispos- sess" the Canaanites. "Driving out" or "dispossessing" is different from "wiping out" or "destroying." Clearly, utter annihilation was not intended; you can't both drive out and destroy.

If so, that is not hyperbole, but defines what the words can mean which are alleged to be hyperbole.

Fifth, the biblical language of the Canaanite "destruction" is identical to that of Judah's destruction in the Babylonian exile--clearly not utter annihilation or even genocide.

Likewise as above, but sometimes destruction can mean the people rise up no more, or no more remaining in a certain context.

Sixth, "Joshua obeyed all that Moses commanded" (Josh. 9:24; 11:12), and yet Joshua left many survivors. It only follows, then, that in Deuteronomy 20 Moses did not literally intend for no survivors to be left.

Moses did not literally intend for no survivors to be left, for Deuteronomy 20:13 refer to smiting every male thereof with the edge of the sword of the Canaanite cities God delivers into their hand, and means only grown men, versus "little ones" who were to be spared. The Amalekites were in a different class. Moreover, destroying a people can be said to be done as regards doing so in an area of main concentration which they could see, while leaving those without or who escaped, resulting in further battles to achieve the ultimate goal.

Josh. 9:24 refers to the command of Dt. 20:13 but does not say they obeyed it fully, which even there in its context Scripture honestly tells us they did not. no hyperbole here. Josh. 11:12 refers to the general conquest of the land as a whole, "So Joshua took all that land" as "There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon: all other they took in battle. For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favour, but that he might destroy them, as the LORD commanded Moses. (Jos 11:19-20)

Besides the absence of the word for "utterly," this refers to the conquest of the land as a whole, of their cities, and not of every Canaanite wherever they were, as if Joshua has a "Schindler's List" of every Canaanite or dispersed band of them, which could yet, like a ISIS, take some local control.

And,

Their children that were left after them in the land, whom the children of Israel also were not able utterly to destroy, upon those did Solomon levy a tribute of bondservice unto this day. (1Ki 9:21)

Moreover, in complete truth it was confessed that "not one thing hath failed of all the good things which the LORD your God spake concerning you; all are come to pass unto you, and not one thing hath failed thereof," (Jos 23:14) as the promises were contingent upon obedience, and which was incomplete, thus, "Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you." (Judges 2:3)

Likewise,

Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all good things are come upon you, which the LORD your God promised you; so shall the LORD bring upon you all evil things, until he have destroyed you from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you. (Jos 23:15)

Yet in the Lord;'s mercy, while Israel as a nation was destroyed from off the good land which the LORD their God gave them, yet in His mercy He left a contrite remnant which humbly looked for redemption, and such were those who found it in the risen Lord Jesus, being bought with a price, not their merits but the sinless shed blood. To God be the glory.