Deuteronômio 3

Deuteronômio 3

Wiersbe - Liberal critics of the Bible express concern at the way Israel destroyed entire nations, killed “innocent people,” and confiscated their cities and their lands. But how “innocent” were these people? The critics of Scripture (and God) may not realize that the nations Israel encountered east of the Jordan and in Canaan itself were indescribably wicked. They were brutal people who sacrificed their own children to the false gods that they worshiped. Male and female prostitutes served in their temples and sexual intercourse was an important part of the Canaanite religion. These people were not left without a witness from God in creation (Rom. 1:18ff) as well as through the lives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who had lived in Canaan. Furthermore, the news of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the plagues of Egypt, and Israel’s deliverance through the Red Sea (Josh. 2:8–11) came to the ears of these people and bore witness that Jehovah alone is the true God. God had been long-suffering with these wicked nations even in Abraham’s day, but now their time had run out and their judgment had come (Gen. 15:16). If these evil civilizations had not been exterminated, Israel would have been in constant danger of being tempted by pagan idolatry. In fact, that’s what did happen during the Period of the Judges, and God had to chasten His people to bring them back to the true God. Israel had important work to do on earth in producing the written Scriptures and bringing the Savior into the world, and imitating the pagan nations would have polluted Israel and threatened God’s great plan of salvation for mankind. (Be Equipped) Utterly destroyed (destroyed completely)(02763)(charam - see related word herem = devoted, utterly destroy, curse) to destroy, to doom, to devote, to ban. It designates a special act of consecration. Surrendering something irrevocably to God. It involves consecration of something or someone as a permanent and definitive offering for the sanctuary; or in war, the consecration of a city and its inhabitants to destruction and the carrying out of this destruction. The vb. denotes also the total annihilation of a population in war.This word is most commonly associated with the Israelites destroying the Canaanites upon their entry into the Promised Land (Deut. 7:2; Josh. 11:20). Walter Kaiser says the idea is that it is "something devoted to God; however, it is not a voluntary but an involuntary dedication. It is now set apart to be banned from the earth and will totally come back to God." In the Moabite Mesha inscription King Mesha uses the hi. of the vb., consecrate to destruction, to explain that he slaughtered all the inhabitants of Nebo because he made the city a devoted city to his god Chemosh. Deuteronomy 2:34 “So we captured all his (Sihon) cities at that time and utterly destroyed the men, women and children of every city. We left no survivor. Deuteronomy 7:2 and when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them. Deuteronomy 13:15 you shall surely strike the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying it and all that is in it and its cattle with the edge of the sword. Deuteronomy 20:17 But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the LORD your God has commanded you, QUESTION - Why did God condone such terrible violence in the Old Testament? ANSWER - The fact that God commanded the killing of entire nations in the Old Testament has been the subject of harsh criticism from opponents of Christianity for some time. That there was violence in the Old Testament is indisputable. The question is whether Old Testament violence is justifiable and condoned by God. In his bestselling book The God Delusion, atheist Richard Dawkins refers to the God of the Old Testament as “a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser.” Journalist Christopher Hitchens complains that the Old Testament contains a warrant for “indiscriminate massacre.” Other critics of Christianity have leveled similar charges, accusing Yahweh of “crimes against humanity.” But are these criticisms valid? Is the God of the Old Testament a “moral monster” who arbitrarily commands genocide against innocent men, women, and children? Was His reaction to the sins of the Canaanites and the Amalekites a vicious form of “ethnic cleansing”? Or is it possible that God could have had morally sufficient reasons for ordering the destruction of these nations? A basic knowledge of Canaanite culture reveals its inherent moral wickedness. The Canaanites were a brutal, aggressive people who engaged in bestiality, incest, and even child sacrifice. Deviant sexual acts were the norm. The Canaanites ’ sin was so repellent that God said, “The land vomited out its inhabitants” (Leviticus 18:25). Even so, the destruction was directed more at the Canaanite religion (Deuteronomy 7:3–5; 12:2–3) than at the Canaanite people per se. The judgment was not ethnically motivated. Individual Canaanites, like Rahab in Jericho, could still find that mercy follows repentance (Joshua 2). God’s desire is that the wicked turn from their sin rather than die (Ezekiel 18:31–32; 33:11). Besides dealing with national sins, God used the conquest of Canaan to create a religious/historical context in which He could eventually introduce the Messiah to the world. This Messiah would bring salvation not only to Israel, but also to Israel’s enemies, including Canaan (Psalm 87:4–6; Mark 7:25–30). It must be remembered that God gave the Canaanite people more than sufficient time to repent of their evil ways—over 400 years! The book of Hebrews tells us that the Canaanites were “disobedient,” which implies moral culpability on their part (Hebrews 11:31). The Canaanites were aware of God’s power (Joshua 2:10–11; 9:9) and could have sought repentance. Except in rare instances, they continued their rebellion against God until the bitter end. But didn’t God also command the Israelites to kill non-combatants? The biblical record is clear that He did. Here again, we must remember that, while it is true the Canaanite women did not fight, this in no way means they were innocent, as their seductive behavior in Numbers 25 indicates (Numbers 25:1–3). However, the question still remains: what about the children? This is not an easy question to answer, but we must keep several things in mind. First, no human person (including infants) is truly innocent. The Scripture teaches that we are all born in sin (Psalm 51:5; 58:3). This implies that all people are morally culpable for Adam’s sin in some way. Infants are just as condemned from sin as adults are. Second, God is sovereign over all of life and can take it whenever He sees fit. God and God alone can give life, and God alone has the right to take it whenever He so chooses. In fact, He ultimately takes every person’s life at death. It is not our life to begin with but God’s. While it is wrong for us to take a life, except in instances of capital punishment, war, and self-defense, this does not mean that it is wrong for God to do so. We intuitively recognize this when we accuse some person or authority who takes human life as “playing God.” God is under no obligation to extend anyone’s life for even another day. How and when we die is completely up to Him. Third, an argument could be made that it would have been cruel for God to take the lives of all the Canaanites except the infants and children. Without the protection and support of their parents, the infants and small children were likely to face death anyway due to starvation. The chances of survival for an orphan in the ancient Near East were not good. Finally, the children of Canaan would have likely grown up sympathetic to the evil religions their parents had practiced. It was time for the culture of idolatry and perversion to end in Canaan, and God wanted to use Israel to end it. Also, the orphaned children of Canaan would naturally have grown up resentful of the Israelites. Likely, some would have later sought to avenge the “unjust” treatment of their parents and return Canaan to paganism. It’s also worth considering the eternal state of those infants killed in Canaan. If God took them before the age of moral accountability, then they went straight to heaven (as we believe). Those children are in a far better place than if they had lived into adulthood as Canaanites . Surely, the issue of God commanding violence in the Old Testament is difficult. However, we must remember that God sees things from an eternal perspective, and His ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:8–9). The apostle Paul tells us that God is both kind and severe (Romans 11:22). While it is true that God’s holy character demands that sin be punished, His grace and mercy remain extended to those who are willing to repent and be saved. The Canaanite destruction provides us with a sober reminder that, while our God is gracious and merciful, He is also a God of holiness and wrath.GotQuestions.org Walter Kaiser - Completely Destroy Them! A chief objection to the view that the God of the Old Testament is a God of love and mercy is the divine command to exterminate all the men, women and children belonging to the seven or eight Canaanite nations. How could God approve of blanket destruction, of the genocide of an entire group of people? Attempts to tone down the command or to mitigate its stark reality fail from the start. God’s instructions are too clear, and too many texts speak of consigning whole populations to destruction: Exodus 23:32–33; 34:11–16; and Deuteronomy 7:1–5; 20:16–18. In most of these situations, a distinctive Old Testament concept known as herem is present. It means “curse,” “that which stood under the ban” or “that which was dedicated to destruction.” The root idea of this term was “separation”; however, this situation was not the positive concept of sanctification in which someone or something was set aside for the service and glory of God. This was the opposite side of the same coin: to set aside or separate for destruction. God dedicated these things or persons to destruction because they violently and steadfastly impeded or opposed his work over a long period of time. This “dedication to destruction” was not used frequently in the Old Testament. It was reserved for the spoils of southern Canaan (Num 21:2–3), Jericho (Josh 6:21), Ai (Josh 8:26), Makedah (Josh 10:28) and Hazor (Josh 11:11). In a most amazing prediction, Abraham was told that his descendants would be exiled and mistreated for four hundred years (in round numbers for 430 years) before God would lead them out of that country. The reason for so long a delay, Genesis 15:13–16 explains, was that “the sin of the Amorites [the Canaanites] has not yet reached its full measure.” Thus, God waited for centuries while the Amalekites and those other Canaanite groups slowly filled up their own cups of condemnation by their sinful behavior. God never acted precipitously against them; his grace and mercy waited to see if they would repent and turn from their headlong plummet into self-destruction. Not that the conquering Israelites were without sin. Deuteronomy 9:5 makes that clear to the Israelites: “It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations.” These nations were cut off to prevent the corruption of Israel and the rest of the world (Deut 20:16–18). When a nation starts burning children as a gift to the gods (Lev 18:21) and practices sodomy, bestiality and all sorts of loathsome vices (Lev 18:25, 27–30), the day of God’s grace and mercy has begun to run out. Just as surgeons do not hesitate to amputate a gangrenous limb, even if they cannot help cutting off some healthy flesh, so God must do the same. This is not doing evil that good may come; it is removing the cancer that could infect all of society and eventually destroy the remaining good. God could have used pestilence, hurricanes, famine, diseases or anything else he wanted. In this case he chose to use Israel to reveal his power, but the charge of cruelty against God is no more deserved in this case than it is in the general order of things in the world where all of these same calamities happen. In the providential acts of life, it is understood that individuals share in the life of their families and nations. As a result we as individuals participate both in our families’ and nations’ rewards and in their punishments. Naturally this will involve some so-called innocent people; however, even that argument involves us in a claim to omniscience which we do not possess. If the women and children had been spared in those profane Canaanite nations, how long would it have been before a fresh crop of adults would emerge just like their pagan predecessors? Why was God so opposed to the Amalekites? When the Israelites were struggling through the desert toward Canaan, the Amalekites picked off the weak, sick and elderly at the end of the line of marchers and brutally murdered these stragglers. Warned Moses, “Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt. 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” (Deut 25:17–18). Some commentators note that the Amalekites were not merely plundering or disputing who owned what territories; they were attacking God’s chosen people to discredit the living God. Some trace the Amalekites’ adamant hostility all through the Old Testament, including the most savage butchery of all in Haman’s proclamation that all Jews throughout the Persian Empire could be massacred on a certain day (Esther 3:8–11). Many make a case that Haman was an Amalekite. His actions then would ultimately reveal this nation’s deep hatred for God, manifested toward the people through whom God had chosen to bless the whole world. In Numbers 25:16–18 and 31:1–18 Israel was also told to conduct a war of extermination against all in Midian, with the exception of the prepubescent girls, because the Midianites had led them into idolatry and immorality. It was not contact with foreigners per se that was the problem, but the threat to Israel’s relationship with the Lord. The divine command, therefore, was to break Midian’s strength by killing all the male children and also the women who had slept with a man and who could still become mothers. The texts of Deuteronomy 2:34; 3:6; 7:1–2 and Psalm 106:34 are further examples of the principle of ḥerem, dedicating the residents of Canaan to total destruction as an involuntary offering to God. (Hard Sayings of the Bible) BAN (verb) (חָרַמ֒, H3049, devote, consecrate to God, exterminate). The ban was a primitive religious institution, found among the Israelites and their Sem. neighbors, by which persons (and their possessions) hostile to the deity were devoted to destruction. Among the Israelites the ban particularly concerned the Canaanites, who, because of their idolatry and shameful immorality, were to be utterly consumed (Exod 23:31, 32; 34:13; Deut 7:2; 20:16, 17). Thus Jericho suffered the ban (Josh 6:17, 21), as did also the household of Achan for violating its ban (Josh 7:25). The same fate was threatened against Israel if it turned aside from Jehovah (Deut 8:19, 20; Josh 23:15). Sometimes, however, the ban was less severe. On occasion only the inhabitants of a doomed city were destroyed (Deut 2:34ff.; Josh 11:14), or only the males were put to death (Deut 20:10ff.). Apparently the practice of the ban gradually ceased, and we read no more of it after David ordered two-thirds of some captured Moabites slain (2 Sam 8:2). The Eng. word “ban” is found only in Ezra 10:8, as a tr. of בָּדַל, H976, (KJV separate). In this passage Ezra ordered all returned exiles to assemble in Jerusalem within three days and threatened that all who refused to do so would have their property confiscated and they themselves would be banned from the congregation of Israel. Some form of excommunication is evidently involved in this ban, but its exact form is unknown. Bibliography J. Pedersen, Israel, Its Life and Culture III-IV (1947), 26-32; P. Heinisch, Theology of the Old Testament (1950), 198, 199; W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity (1957), 279-281; W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, I (1961), 139-141; D. W. Thomas (Ed.), Documents from Old Testament Times (1962), 195-198. Related Resources: Why did God command the Israelites to completely destroy the Midianites in Numbers 31:17? | GotQuestions.org (Speaks to rationale for total destruction). What does it mean that “the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure” (Genesis 15:16)? | GotQuestions.org Deuteronomy 3:7 "But all the animals and the spoil of the cities we took as our booty. De 2:35 Jos 8:27 11:11-14 Deuteronomy 3 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Related Passages: Deuteronomy 2:35+ “We took only the animals as our booty and the spoil of the cities which we had captured. But - Term of contrast. Qualifies the extent of the utter destruction. All the animals and the spoil of the cities we took as our booty - It does not seem that Israel utterly destroyed the cities, only the people. BOOTY boot’ i (בַּז, 0962). Booty occurs exclusively in the OT, usually tr. from baz, but also from malkoah, shalal, and meshissah. Booty was the proportionate share of spoils suitable for personal service to the captor, both soldier and civilian, after a proportion was reserved for the Levites and for “a tribute unto the Lord.” It comprised cattle, sheep, camels, asses, women, children, clothing, armor, jewelry, and money; but often silver, gold, and vessels of brass were placed in the house of the Lord. The earliest mention of booty is in Numbers 31 with reference to Moses’ instruction concerning “The booty remaining of the spoil” which the Israelite warriors took in victory over the Midianites. The precedent Moses set in equitable distribution (Num 31:27) was followed by Joshua in the conquest of Canaan (Deut 2:35; 3:7; Josh 8:2, 27; 11:14) and by David in the defeat of the Amalekite raiders (1 Sam 30:24). (Cf. Jer 49:32; Nah 3:1; Hab 2:7.) Deuteronomy 3:8 "Thus we took the land at that time from the hand of the two kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan, from the valley of Arnon to Mount Hermon the land: Nu 32:33-42 Jos 12:2-6 13:9-12 Deuteronomy 3 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Related Passages: Psalms 42:6 O my God, my soul is in despair within me; Therefore I remember You from the land of the Jordan And the peaks of Hermon, from Mount Mizar. Psalm 89:12 The north and the south, You have created them; Tabor and Hermon shout for joy at Your name. Psalm 133:3 It is like the dew of Hermon Coming down upon the mountains of Zion; For there the LORD commanded the blessing–life forever. Mount Hermon (Click to Enlarge) ISRAEL POSSESSED TRANSJORDAN FROM SOUTH TO NORTH Deuteronomy 3:8-10 summarized Israel's victories in the region of the Transjordan. Transjordan is a term frequently used in commentaries to describe the land east of the Jordan River which was conquered by Israel under Moses and then was given as a possession to the tribe of Reuben, Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh. Thus (so) - Sums up all described in Dt 3:1-8. We took the land at that time from the hand of the two kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan (east of the Jordan River), from the valley of Arnon to Mount Hermon (9,232 feet, see map) - In other words Israel took the full extent of Transjordan from south to north. God promised it, they took it, God receives the glory. The Valley of Arnon is the southern extent (see on map) and snow capped Mount Hermon is the northern extent (norther boundary of Bashan) (see on map), a distance of about 140 miles. Deuteronomy 3:9 (Sidonians call Hermon Sirion, and the Amorites call it Senir): Hermon: De 4:48,49 Ps 29:6 89:12 133:3 Song 4:8 Senir: 1Ch 5:23 Eze 27:5 Deuteronomy 3 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Sidonians call Hermon Sirion, and the Amorites call it Senir - In other words although now commonly refer to the mountain as Hermon, it was not commonly known by that name among the indigenous peoples. NET Note - Sidonians were Phoenician inhabitants of the city of Sidon (now in Lebanon), about 47 mi (75 km) north of Mount Carmel. NET Note on Senir. Probably this was actually one of the peaks of Hermon and not the main mountain (Song of Songs 4:8; 1 Chr 5:23). It is mentioned in a royal inscription of Shalmaneser III of Assyria (saniru; see Ancient Near East Texts 280). HERMON (see map) hûr’ mən (חֶרְמֹֽון, a consecrated place, a sanctuary). The S spur of the Anti-lebanon chain of mountains, which runs parallel to the Lebanon range and is separated from it by the valley of Beqaa. It is c. 9,200 ft. above sea level, and is the highest mountain in Syria. It can be seen from many places in Pal., even from as far away as the Dead Sea. Because snow covers it for much of the year, the Arabs call it the “gray-haired mountain,” or the “mountain of the snow.” The water from its melting snows flow into the rivers of N Hauran and provide the principal source for the Jordan River. No trees grow above the snow line, but below it the sides are covered with trees (pine, oak, and poplar) and with vineyards. Its forests contain wolves and leopards, and sometimes Syrian bears. It is not a high summit with a distinctly marked base, but a whole cluster of mountains. Its three summits are nearly equal in height and are the same distance from each other. It extends from sixteen to twenty m. from N to S. In Deuteronomy 3:9 it says that the Sidonians call it Sirion, while the Amorites call it Senir. Sirion occurs outside of Deuteronomy 3:9 only in Psalm 29:6. Senir occurs outside of Deuteronomy 3:9 in 1 Chronicles 5:23, the Song of Solomon 4:8, and Ezekiel 27:5. Deuteronomy 4:48 has “Sion” in the KJV and “Mount Sirion” in the RSV. First Chronicles differentiates between Senir, Hermon and Baal-hermon. The Song of Solomon 4:8 speaks of the “peak of Senir and Hermon.” “Hermonites” is the mistaken KJV tr. in Psalm 42:6, which is corrected in the ASV to “Hermons,” and “Hermon” in the RSV. It was the N boundary of the Amorite kingdom (Deut 3:8; 4:48), and thus is said to lie in the territory of Og (Josh 12:5; 13:11). It was the N limit of the conquests of Joshua (Josh 11:17; 12:1; 13:5), and the N limit of the territory of Manasseh. The Hittites dwelt at the foot of Hermon in the land of Mizpeh (Josh 11:3). It is mentioned in the Bible as the N boundary of the Promised Land (Deut 3:8). In ancient times it was regarded as a sacred mountain, as its Heb. name suggests. In Judges 3:3 it is called “Mount Baal-hermon,” showing that Baal was worshiped there. Remains of shrines are found on the highest summit. It is thought by some scholars that the Transfiguration took place on Hermon. Its modern name is Jebel esh-Sheikh, “the mountain of the chief,” or Jebel eth-Thalj, “mount of snow.” Deuteronomy 3:10 all the cities of the plateau and all Gilead and all Bashan, as far as Salecah and Edrei, cities of the kingdom of Og in Bashan. the cities: De 4:49 Edrei: Nu 21:33 Jos 12:4,5 13:11,12,31 Deuteronomy 3 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries all the cities of the plateau and all Gilead and all Bashan, as far as Salecah and Edrei, cities of the kingdom of Og in Bashan SALECAH sǎl’ ə kə (סַלְכָ֖ה; KJV SALCAH and SALCHAH). The site which defined the eastward extent of Bashan (Deut 3:10; Josh 12:5; 13:11). It was apparently assigned to the eastern part of Manasseh as part of Bashan (Josh 13:29-31), but was later inhabited by Gadites (1 Chron 5:11). A suitable site with a similar, though not etymologically equivalent, name is modern Salkhad (Nabatean צלחד); located on an extinct volcanic cone just S of Jebel ed-Druze (Jebel/Mt. Hauran). It controls the SE approach to the fertile Hauran Valley (Biblical Bashan), the southern approaches to Damascus, and the western end of the desert route to the Persian Gulf. The old E-W Rom. road is still visible. Its location and importance make it the proper eastern extremity of Bashan. The chief remains are those of the citadel, the present form of which is Ayyubid although some elements are Rom. Coins of Aretas, king of the Nabateans (9 b.c.-a.d. 40) also have been found there. Deuteronomy 3:11 (For only Og king of Bashan was left of the remnant of the Rephaim. Behold, his bedstead was an iron bedstead; it is in Rabbah of the sons of Ammon. Its length was nine cubits and its width four cubits by ordinary cubit.) Rephaim: Ge 14:5 Rabbath: 2Sa 12:26 Jer 49:2 Eze 21:20 Am 1:14, Rabbah nine cubits: 1Sa 17:4 Am 2:9 Deuteronomy 3 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries A BIG BED FOR A BIG MAN For only Og king of Bashan was left of the remnant of the Rephaim - Og was a "left over" giant but he was now obliterated. Remnant (03499)(yether from yathar = to remain over) means "remainder, the rest, abundance, excellence, a cord. The word refers to that which is left over. Behold, (hinneh = "Pay attention!") his bedstead was an iron bedstead; it is in Rabbah of the sons of Ammon. Its length was nine cubits and its width four cubits by ordinary cubit - NET - It is thirteen and a half feet long and six feet wide according to standard measure.) (Dt 3:11NET) Rabbah, capital of Ammon (2 Sa. 11:1; Amos 1:13-14), is modern-day Amman, Jordan The interpretation of this iron bedstead is thought by some to be a burial sarcophagus, but it is still an enigma to scholars, since this episode came at the beginning of the iron age when iron was uniquely valuable. Either way it gives clear evidence of a very intimidating people which helps one understand why the first generation spies became fearful of entering the promised land (cf Nu 13:33+). NET Note on bedstead - The Hebrew term fr,[, ('eres), traditionally translated "bed" (cf. NAB, NIV, NRSV, NLT) is likely a basaltic (volcanic) stone sarcophagus of suitable size to contain the coffin of the giant Rephaite king. Its iron-like color and texture caused it to be described as an iron container. See A. Millard, "King Og's Iron Bed: Fact or Fancy?" BR 6 (1990): 16-21, 44; cf. also NEB "his sarcophagus of basalt"; TEV, CEV "his coffin." Bedstead (bed) (06210)(eres) divan, couch, a bedstead, a place for resting, sleeping (Dt. 3:11); a place of comfort and refreshment (Job 7:13, Ps 132:3); a place of sorrow and weeping (Ps. 6:6). The Lord is with those who are sick on their beds (Ps. 41:3). It refers to a couch of prostitute to seduce the fool (Pr. 7:16); Positively, it is place of love and pleasure for bride and bridegroom (Song 1:16). Drawing on the use of an ʿeres as a site for rest and relaxation, the prophet Amos negatively described the idle luxury of the Samaritans as lazy, overindulgent people sitting on their couches (Amos 3:12). He further criticized the complacency of Israel (Amos 6:4). Eres - 9v - Deut. 3:11; Job 7:13; Ps. 6:6; Ps. 41:3; Ps. 132:3; Prov. 7:16; Cant. 1:16; Amos 3:12; Amos 6:4