Genesis 22 - The Akedah

[In Judaism, Genesis 22 traditionally is titled, "The Akedah," "The Binding (of Isaac)"; it is a particularly important text in Judaism and Islam, as well as in Christianity. (In the Quran, as you know, the binding is not of Isaac, but of Ishmael.) Because it is of such great importance, Genesis 22 will be the sole focus of our forum discussions this week.]

Rite of Initiation

Arnold refers to the argument that views Gen 22 in light of an ancient rite of initiation, which involves the symbolic killing of a child (Arnold, pg. 209). This is a very profound way of looking through cultural lenses into the Akedah. As Arnold notes, this is a very convincing viewpoint. It does, however, hold its limitations, which will not be discussed here. However, two thoughts came to my mind in reading this section:

First, students of leadership will be acquainted with the phrase that goes something like, “in leadership, it gets lonely at the top.” Perhaps this is the grass roots inspiration for the phrase. The binding and offering of Isaac was just as much for Abraham as it was for Isaac. Both needed this experience in order to grow and fulfill the plans God had for them. It was a means for them both to become the leaders God had intended. In this way, the two leaders, having satisfied the requirements of the initiation (so to speak), needed to part ways in order to each prosper. Their positions of leadership had changed dramatically. For Abraham, “his future rests only with the ‘voice’ he must follow” and not in his promised son (pg. 209). For Isaac, he now embarks on his own journey toward becoming a patriarch in his own right and “ancestral promises of his own (26:1-5)” (pg. 209).

Second, some of Arnold’s treatment of the Akedah dealt with the foreshadowing of Christ. From the wood on Isaac’s back, to the walk up the mountain, to his binding, and his being Abraham’s “only son,” there are certainly many connections that we can make today. My thinking in this same vein turns to Jesus’ words in Mark 10:29-30 (see also Matthew 19:29), “I tell you the truth," Jesus replied, "no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields--and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life.” This verse reminds me of Abraham. God commanded him to “Go” in Gen 12:1, so he left his homeland. In 22:2, God (and the writer) uses the same word to go offer his son. In verse 19, we read that Abraham and Isaac part ways. After parting, God confirms the promise of Abraham that he will indeed be a father or many nations; that his offspring will be as numerous as the stars and sand. Abraham is surely blessed for his obedience.

Three Insights from Genesis 12:1, 15:1, and 17:1

12:1 – “The Lord said to Abram” marks the beginning of divine speech.  This is God’s word to Abram that is designed to grasp a hold of our attention and take notes. This should be true of anytime God speaks, but this certainly held a special bookmark for writer’s audience. God’s command to Abram is to “Go.” He is to leave three things (collectively understood to mean ‘homeland’), and to go to one thing: “The land that I will show you.”

As Arnold notes, this is the “first of several lexical links between Gen 12 and 22, the first and last times Yahweh speaks to Abaram” (pg. 130). These “bookend” chapters serve to tell the story of Abraham to show the importance of “divine command followed by radical obedience” (pg. 130). The life and legacy of Abraham reveal the faithfulness of God. God’s plan is to create a new “family,” a new “household.” The obedience and dependence of Abram to “go” makes possible the fulfilling of God’s promise.

15:1 – “The word of the Lord came to Abram….” Arnold notes how this phrase is used in prophetic literature and is only found here in all the Pentateuch. He then describes the intent to show Abram as a prophet. I have never thought about Abram/Abraham as a prophet, but Arnold draws some very interesting (and convincing) connections. Again, Arnold notes that God’s words to Abram are prophetic because they are not only just for him, but for his promised children, and the whole nation of Israel.

Prophecy is understood in a dual sense of both saving and judging. I think the vision given to Abram includes both elements. I would suggest:

God says to him, “Do not be afraid, Abram, I am your shield, your very great reward.” The shield is a defensive weapon and is understood metaphorically for protection (saving?). God says he is a “very great reward.” The reward for Abram’s faithfulness and obedience is the fulfilling of the promises of God.

A reward is given to those who faithfully and obediently fulfill some type of expectation. The converse of reward is punishment…or judgment. Therefore, I don’t think it is too far of a stretch to see the prophetic within this verse. In fact, looking at the verse this way gives more strength to Arnold, who has little to say in regard to “reward.”

17:1 – The opening verse of chapter 17 is an extremely important verse. It reveals much about the nature and character of God as well as His expectations for those who would follow after Him. As Arnold notes, the writer opens this chapter by referring to God as “Yahweh.” This makes the point that the same God who revealed Himself to Moses and the Israelites at the giving of the covenant is the same covenant-making God with Abram. God is revealing Himself to Abraham as He similarly was revealed to Moses. Arnold says that God is “pulling back the curtain on himself as it were, allowing himself – even presenting himself – in theophanic certainty. How does God reveal himself to Abram? As El Shadday, “God Almighty.” Here, we see the connection between Yahweh and El Shadday is the same God of the Israelites, the covenants, and all of Israel’s ancestors. “God Almighty” was a special revelatory name understood by Israel’s early ancestors and Yahweh is God’s revealing name about Himself to the Israelites. The writer connects them here, signifying God’s nature and identity.

Putting the writer’s and God’s words together to make Yahweh, God Almighty, is helpful in communicating and understanding the majesty and transcendence of God. (This is only a helpful insight; nothing more.) It gives Abram assurance of God’s promises and covenant. Thus, how God reveals himself to Abram is almost as important as the mandate (imperative) that is given to him.  God says, “walk before me, and be blameless” (v. 1). What else should we expect from such a Holy God? That God would say ‘walk blamelessly before me’ (pg. 169) seems a minimal expectation for Yahweh, God Almighty. Yet, El Shadday demands that we live our lives characterized by “unobjectionable acceptability” (pg. 169). In this way, we constantly live for God by gratefully (and graciously) accepting His will while maintaining the highest integrity with how we conduct ourselves. I believe this establishes a precedent in scripture. I don’t believe this was imperative meant just for Abram/Abraham, but for all of Abraham’s descendents and all who would become believers.

Genesis 11:8-9

Gen. 11:8-9

I wonder if it may be beneficial to note a few similarities between God splitting up humanity and the animals after the flood (Gen. 9:2) and the dispersing of humanity at the tower of Babel. Ultimately, in both situations, God had the best in mind for all parties. It is out of His grace that He causes division.

In causing “fear and dread” among the animal kingdom, God separates Noah from the animals he and his family have been taking care of for the past year. In my speculation, this may be a protection against complacency and dependence of the animals upon the humans (as in domestication). So God causes a division among them so that both may be able to fulfill their original blessings in Gen. 1.

The scattering at the tower of Babel sneaks of some similarities, I think. Here, God confounds/confuses the language of the builders, which causes division among them. This is out of grace that God does this. For sure, without such a gracious action humanity would again find itself in a Gen. 6:1-2 scenario. With such pride (hubris), nothing would stop humanity. Therefore, God confounds their language and scatters them. Dr. Coleson notes the repeating of the adverb “there” twice in verse 9, “because there Yahweh confused the speech of all the earth, and from there Yahweh dispersed them across the face of all the earth” (Coleson, pg. 294). Similarly, as God caused a protective separation of humanity and animals, here God is protectively separating humanity from itself. In fact, by doing this God is further enabling humanity to fulfill His blessings to Noah and his sons instructed at the departure of the Ark.

Coleson also notes that “the place that generation had refused to leave became the place to which most of them never again returned” (Coleson, pg. 294). Perhaps we can take into consideration that the speculation of God dividing humanity and animals after the flood was to protect the animal kingdom from complacency. Perhaps, then, we may be able to draw a line here to show that similarly God is protecting humanity from such a similar complacency within itself. Perhaps humanity would become too proud and contented with its own existence that it would once again push God out into the margins.

Genesis 2:7 - 'enzer kenegdo

“The adam first needed to learn what could not be ‘ezer kenegdo in relation to him…” (Coleson, 103). I am finally justified before my wife regarding why I need to find every other solution to a problem other than her suggestion! Apparently, it is a design issue with how men are created! All kidding aside – and to the best of my knowledge I have never actually experienced the aforementioned scenario – it is very interesting to consider the reasoning behind God’s actions. I do have difficulty in deciding whether or not to take into consideration all my beliefs, biases, and science behind the study of male thinking, processing, etc. I’m not sure whether to think if that has any validity prior to the fall or not…or whether it matters at all. Developmental theories and social sciences have had a lot of good to say about why and how people act the way they do. On the other hand, they are not God.

 In Genesis 2, we see God bringing all the animals before the lone adam, yet nothing suitable was found. Dr. Coleson points out that adam needed to first experience aloneness and all the things that were not ‘ezer kenegdo, before he could fully appreciate who it was. In order to fully appreciate the presence of another, it was necessary for the lone human to experience solitude (Coleson, 102). In order to fully appreciate the one who was a perfect match, adam needed to experience all the things that were not a match.

Leaving the sciences behind and dealing with the text itself, it is apparent that God had a plan, a method, and a purpose for doing those things He did. That should brings us a great deal of comfort and confidence. From this story we see an extension of the grand creation picture that God can take something where there is a void, fill it, bless it, and call it good.

---

What is the premise? God knew all along who would be adam’s created equal.  God knew because God had it all planned out. Adam needed to fully experience God’s plan. To me, verse 20 stands out from among the surrounding verses. Before I read the commentary, this verse sparked my interest and I was glad that it confirmed my suspicions about the reading of verse 20 of adam as the better subject. Surrounding this verse, there is a picture of God’s activity surrounding adam. In verse 18, in fact, God tells us that He will make the ‘ezer kenedgo. Whether or not adam knew is a different story, but we see later that it is not likely that adam knew. Again, though, in verse 19, God is credited with the creation of ‘forming’ and takes the initiative to bring the creation to adam. In verse 20, however, the subject changes and adam is credited with as the subject of activity. I get the sense from 20b that adam was actively looking for the satisfaction of his aloneness with each animal. That none was his equal is significant in the plan of God. Then, verse 21 picks up immediately with the activity of God to report His planned solution to this dilemma.

From these short verses, we can clearly see that God’s plan was to create an equal of, for, and with adam. Again, we see that the plan of God has a process and organization. We know that this plan is going to be for adam’s benefit and blessing (being prefaced by six “good’s” and one “very good”). What started out as being incomplete would soon be made complete.

This should serve as a reminder that God can and should be trusted when we don’t understand the process. I’m not suggesting adam doubted, especially since I don’t think that is evidenced in the text. What is in the text is that we are surrounded by the activity of God – God who is not distant; rather, intimately connected to and concerned about every aspect of our lives.

1.) Is it significant that the narrator also used the verb yatsar ("form/fashion/sculpt") in v 19, as well as here in v 7?

It is certainly significant. This parallelism shows us several things to consider. First, and most obvious, it shows our connectedness to sharing the ground with the animals as part of the earth of God’s creating. It is a tri-symbiotic relationship of sorts – earth, animals, humanity. There must be a delicate balance maintained between these. By using yatsar, the writer is helping to show we are co-created from God, from the earth.

The word yatsar also connotes the formation of clay on a potter’s wheel. We know from before (Gen. 1:26-7) that humanity was created in the image and likeness of God. In this way, we have been specially and specifically sculptured. Though we may share the potter’s wheel, no other creation was “formed” in God’s likeness nor given His breath. In this way, yatsar shows both commonality and distinctiveness, but I think it is more so to show our distinctiveness. Arnold notes that “Yahweh God” is designated as forming. In one way this speaks against Near Eastern theology, but on the other hand it is to display the importance of humanity as the climax of God’s creation story; which as he says is  “more powerfully and philosophically stated than any others” (Arnold, 57). So, yatsar should give us pause to consider that we are “remarkably and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14).

Another parallel is where the forming comes from. We are formed from the ground –the clay. What is more important to note than just the clay in common is the connotation of how God formed us from the clay. Arnold speaks in regard to the careful creativity of humanity. He says that being formed as a living being means that we are “far from a divine afterthought” (Arnold, 58). We have been created with divine purpose.

Additionally, in verse 7, we read where God “formed” the adam (singular). In verse 19 we read the past perfect tense where God previously “had formed” animal life. Pages 103-4 of the commentary bring a salient point to light where this parallelism helps move us forward to God’s yet-to-be fulfilled conclusion. The result is to cause us to look forward to the “I will make…” of the ‘ezer kenegdo where we see God’s plan being fulfilled.

Therefore, it would seem that the use of yatsar is multi-purpose. It shows our connectedness with animals by being co-created from the ground. It shows our mutual connectedness to God, but even more it shows our distinct relationship with Him. It also shows that humanity is, ultimately, made for each other. God’s plan is for the adam and the ‘ezer kenegdo to delight in each other, in His creation, and in special relationship with Him. That’s a lot from one word!

Genesis 2:7

V7 – I really enjoy the literary devices already found throughout the beginning of Genesis. Here in verse 7, we see that Yahweh Elohim, who formed hā ʾādām from ādāmā, is forming/sculpting them from out of the earth/ground (ʾădāmā). What is more, God “breathes” His “breath” into humanity. As both readings pointed out, the play on words here is intentional.

This verse gives us a picture of the One, True Creator God who creates (almost) infinitely from the finite. From the primeval waters, God speaks and makes come forth the foundations of the heavens and the earth. From light, He creates the lights in their many kinds. From the water, He creates the marine world in all their various kinds. The same is true for the land. From the land comes the plant and animal kingdoms in all their various kinds. However, the crowning jewel of His creation, ʾādām (humanity), we now know that He also created from ʾădāmā (the earth/ground). It is from these finite entities (resources) of creation that God creates an almost infinite sustainability of life (they would be infinite until the world ends, I suppose, at His command).

In this verse, we see the writer weaving a theme through the creation narrative. The God who created all things in their various kinds, also created the ground from which humanity was created. However, from out of the ground only humanity was molded and crafted into His image and likeness – unlike any other creature or creation. Furthermore, what is especially distinct about this creation is the breath that God breathed into them.

The sense I get from what the writer is trying to convey in this verse is that we are intensely valuable. It is humankind that stands between the earth and the heavens (God). Our vocation is to enjoy our work on the earth; our calling is to delight in our Creator. While we are living (filled with the breath of life), we work as stewards of the earth. When we die (our finiteness ends), our bodies return to the earth, but our “breath” (soul) proceeds to infinity. There is a lot that is probably being drawn from to read into this verse (more than probably necessary), but it is certainly a crucial verse in the whole creation narrative.

God's Silence - Intro to Chaplaincy

[Assignment] "We face this as caregivers. In our pastoral role we seek to support others for whom God seems silent, or distant, or even fully absent. But I'm asking us to be more vulnerable with each other in this discussion. Have you experienced the silence/distance/absence of God in your spiritual journey? How have you managed that? What has helped you?"

We know that God never leaves us nor forsakes (abandons) us. So what is he doing? Why is he silent?

What has helped us:

1. Press into God. When God seems silent and distant - pursue Him relentlessly. Pray, fast, read scripture, and do whatever it takes to change your daily lifestyle and routine to build more God-time into your day. Build quiet time into your day as well. I spent about a week in complete silence while driving in my car (which I drive often). I used this time to think, pray, listen, and dedicate to God. I combined a fast Easter weekend with my desire to hear from God. I woke up earlier (most days) to spend more time with God and took more opportunities throughout the day to pray. I was open with some trustworthy people to pray for us as well. Sometimes when we press into God and pursue Him, it still feels like He is moving away from us. This means we must be persistent in our intent and activity. However, we cannot think we will manipulate God by our faith-works, so our earnestness must be sincere. We must bear in mind the humble words of Jesus in Gethsemane, “not as I will, but as You will” (Mt. 26). We must be faithful in taking opportunities and making the most of our time with God, but we must also yield and consecrate our future to Him. We must trust that God’s ways are higher than ours and His thoughts are not ours (Is. 55). This gives us hope that God’s perspective is the ‘big picture’ and we only have a glimpse.

2. “Do what’s next.” This was the best, most simple piece of advice we recently received. When those times come that God seems distant, it is often that our world seems more chaotic and problematic. In those times we must seek the counsel of God (as said above) and trust that God will enable us to make the right decisions. Then, when we are faced with making decisions and moving forward, we look at what we can do (what we have the capability of doing) and go about doing it. We must be as discerning as possible and there is no excuse for carelessness. However, I have recently discovered that these are times when God wants faithful and obedient action from us.

3. Resist the Devil. I don’t know that I would say it that way when counseling someone, but we must resist those human urges to be angry, scared, frustrated, anxious, etc. Actually, we must keep those emotions within their proper perspective by taking our emotions and talking them over with God and a trusted partner (spouse, mentor, family member, friend, etc.). The negative aspect of emotion is easy to slip into and stay stuck in so we must develop healthy and appropriate ways of managing those emotions. In this way, we are resisting the Devil that would want us to stay faithless, hopeless, and frustrated (remember - steal, kill, destroy - Jn. 10).

4. There is power in praise. This could be combined with #3, but it deserves its own number. A book I read years ago transformed my thinking (“Prison to Praise” and/or “Power in Praise” by Merlin Carothers). When things get tough, the more things we can find to thank God for (give Him praise) – the better we are. Praise helps us be optimistic. It takes the focus off of our problems and puts the glory on God. It’s been said that ‘you get what you focus on’ and we don’t want our problems to get the glory.

This, of course, is not "Mike's Four Easy Steps to Hearing God" but a combination of all these (some more, some less) has been some of what my wife and I have learned over the years. By the grace of God we are not consumed!

Word Study from Joshua - Charam/Cherem/Herem

"Charam"

There are 52 occurrences of the word charam. It is most commonly translated “accursed.” However, according to Strong’s Concordance, other uses of the word suggest it to mean to consecrate, utterly destroy, devote, forfeit, and utterly slay. In Hebrew the word suggests "separating" or "devoting to God." We may understand it to be a term for setting apart or secluding, “specifically (by a ban) to devote to religious uses (especially destruction)” (Strong’s Concordance #2763). The word “charam” would be similar to the concept of consecration in this way. Just as qadhosh, means "holy" or "consecrated to the service" of God, it is not liable to be used for ordinary or secular purposes. So, the root of cherem means "devoting" to God anything which would, if it were spared, would corrupt or contaminate the religious life of Israel. As a result, the idea of destroying or exterminating is the surest way of avoiding such contamination. As the secondary definition implies, the word may also mean “to slit” (one’s nose, lip, ear, etc.) in such a way as to disfigure or mutilate (especially their face). Again, the term implies a separation. Matthew Henry’s commentary notes that:

“The great severity Joshua used towards those he conquered. He gave no quarter to man, woman, nor child, put to the sword all the souls (v. 28, 30, 32, 35, etc.), utterly destroyed all that breathed (v. 40), and left none remaining. Nothing could justify this military execution but that herein they did as the Lord God of Israel commanded (v. 40), which was sufficient not only to bear them out, and save them for the imputation of cruelty, but to sanctify what they did, and make it an acceptable piece of service to his justice.” (Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, Joshua Ch. 10)

Englishman’s Concordance notes that the most often use of the term is the dedication to destruction of the cities of the Canaanites and other neighboring cities. In this way, Israel was “exterminating” the inhabitants, and destroying (or appropriating as spoils) their possessions. From the NASB translation, we can see that the most common interpretation tends to imply complete (“utter”) destruction. The reason for this thinking is that everything that might affect the unique character of Israel was banned. Those things from pagan cultures might cause syncretization among the community. Therefore, all idols, idolatrous cities, and idolatrous persons must not be allowed to influence the community.

The NASB notes the various usages of the word throughout the Old Testament:
annihilate (1), covet (1), destroy them utterly (1), destroy utterly (1), destroyed them utterly (1), destroying (1), destroying them completely (2), destruction (2), devote (2), forfeited (1), set apart (1), sets apart (1), utterly destroy (11), utterly destroyed (22), utterly destroying (3).

In terms of quantity and clusters of usage, there are six instances for the word he·ḥĕ·rîm:

Joshua 8:26 “…until he had utterly destroyed all….”

Joshua 10:28 “…of the sword; he utterly destroyed it and every….”

Joshua 10:35 “…of the sword; and he utterly destroyed that day….”

Joshua 10:40 “…survivor, but he utterly destroyed all….”

Joshua 11:12 “…of the sword, [and] utterly destroyed them….”

1 Samuel 15:8 “…alive, and utterly destroyed all….”

There are five instances for the word ha·ḥă·rêm:

Deuteronomy 3:6 “We utterly destroyed them, as we did….”

Deuteronomy 7:2 “…you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy….”

Deuteronomy 13:15 “…of the sword, utterly destroying it and all….”

Deuteronomy 20:17 “But you shall utterly destroy….”

Joshua 11:11 “…of the sword, utterly destroying [them]; there was no….”

However, is it possible that the common interpretation has been wrong? It is interesting, then, that Dr. Coleson makes such a convincing argument against a common mis-interpretation of the word charam as it relates to Joshua’s conquest of the Promised Land. As he states, “Joshua does not claim Israel conquered all the land of Canaan easily and at once, does not claim Israel annihilated all the Canaanites--or even most of them--and does not claim Israel settled the land in its entirety early on” (Coleson, Joshua Introduction). Within the narrative of the conquests of the Israelites, there is interpretive room for the submission of, capture, and/or deportation of those people who were conquered. There is no real evidence that God commanded or that Joshua committed the extermination of complete cities or people. As Coleson points out, “Indeed, upon careful reading with the benefit of knowledge of this very real ancient Near Eastern genre of military reporting, we will see that Joshua reports neither God’s ‘literal’ commanding of, nor Joshua’s ‘literal’ carrying out of, genocide upon the people of Canaan.  That charge finally may be laid to rest; not even all the people of Jericho perished at its fall (see Younger 1990; Hoffmeier 1996:41-42)” (Coleson, Joshua Introduction).

What has been widely interpreted as “genocide,” “extermination,” “annihilation,” etc. is very likely mis-interpreted. As Coleson says, “God did not command, nor did Moses and Joshua commit, genocide upon the Canaanites or upon any group of them” (Coleson, Joshua 10, pg. 2). The command to “utterly destroy” is an example of hyperbole. For instance, when kings went to war, they were to achieve total victory. This victory, though reported as annihilation, was actually the complete surrender of the will of the enemy. Annihilation was a hyperbolic term for victory over the enemy. In this way, those who were conquered were annihilated in their ability to further resist the invaders. Thus, for the Israelites, they did not commit genocide; rather, their victories in the Promised Land prevented their enemies from further resistance. None of the Canaanite peoples were able to prevent Israel from inhabiting their country. It is not likely (or probable) that the Israelites literally killed every enemy soldier along with all the civilians in the cities.

Where does that leave the reader? It may be helpful to bridge both understandings. With the perspective that God did not command genocide and how unlikely it is to kill every living person in the army and city, one can adopt the view of charam as hyperbole in (at least most of) these verses. We may also combine, however, the interpretive views of charam by many as “ban,” “devoted,” and “separated.” As Israel conquered pagan cultures, there would have been an end (a “ban”) on continued use of idol worship. As a testament to the power of God and his faithfulness to his people, these conquered people in the region would have been “devoted” to God as glorifying to him by their subjection. Finally, as a precaution against inter-mingling and corruption, I would speculate that there would be separation between Israel and their captives.

[Appended: Response Posts]

"'The basic meaning [of herem] is the exclusion of an object from the use or abuse of man and its irrevocable surrender to God' (Harris 1999, 324-325)."

This is a great definition. There is the element of surrender, which I believe is important in the study of this word as it relates to the total surrender of the people's wills to Israel. It also includes the element of destruction, which communicates the reality of being conquered. I also appreciated the "exclusion...from the use or abuse or man." I feel this speaks to the "ban" definition of the word. Idolatry is certainly a mis-use (intentionally misspelled) and an abuse of faith not directed toward God. These idols, and the subsequent worship thereof, must be surrendered to God.

I think it is appropriate to translate this word to not necessarily imply genocide or extermination. It would seem that in order to institute new worship and religious practices (in place of deeply entrenched, idolatrous ones), there must be a breaking (surrender) of the wills. In this way, I think we can view the conquest of the Canaanite region as God's gracious activity to bring pagan cultures under the tutelage of God's chosen vehicle of redemption - Israel.

One of the things that I noticed from our studies from the last two weeks is that the Gibeonites were the only ones who acted out of some kind of faith toward God. Albeit their tactics were not pure, but I don't think we can fault non-believers too much for that reason. They are operating from whatever amount of faith they have. I would take this as being a condition upon which they would be "worthy to remain." We can contrast this to the remainder of those conquered cities who did not act if faith, but rather fear. They were utterly conquered and their will to fight or resist was destroyed.

One of the things we can note from the Gibeonites was their willingness to give up their lifestyles in order to preserve their lives. They knew Israel's God and the promise given to Moses. As such, they were motivated by faith (even if by holy fear) to protect their lives. The other cities sought to protect and preserve their idolatrous cultures and were thoroughly defeated.

God is a jealous God and will not allow or tolerate the presence or worship of other gods and idols among His people. He will not allow His holiness (nor the objects of his holiness) to be contaminated by the sins of idolatry. In this way, he will also not allow his people (as objects - or even representatives - of his holiness) to be contaminated by idol worship.

The people of the Cannanite region were known for their idolatry and worship of other gods. The complete conquering of these people (and the destruction of their idols) sends the message that Israel's God is the Almighty, Most Holy One. Charam, from what I studied, not only included the complete conquering of the armies and cities, but also the surrender of the wills of the people. This leads me to believe that the surrender of the will would precipitate an acceptance of Israel's God.

When viewed in this way, not in terms of massive genocide or extermination, the breaking of the will of the Canaanite region people would be a tool for God's grace and adoption. By instituting Israelite law, then, there would be a ban on any idol worship and a way to teach/show these conquered people worship of the One, True God.

These defeated cities were a testament to the power of God. In a way, they were 'devoted' to God in the sense that the victories Israel accomplished were designated to glorify God. Their destruction was not only the defeat of their armies, but also in their inability to continue resistance. Their wills were crushed and their idolatrous ways stripped. A new Law was in town.

Some questions worth pondering: Can, or should, our theology allow for God instituting the death and destruction of those vehemently opposed to Him (through paganism and/or idolatry)? How does the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah participate with our understanding? Knowing how Israel would struggle against sycretizing with idolatrous people, could these “exterminations” not be God’s gracious act toward His people to protect their culture, their character, and the integrity of their faith? How do we reconcile the love, patience, and mercy of God with His holiness, character, and justice? Do passages such as Ezekiel 33:11 and 2 Peter 2:4-10 belong in our discussion?