"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?
No comments:
Post a Comment