In the previous post about Bloody, Brutal, and Barbaric?we looked at the total-kill texts as hyperbole, but not all are convinced by explaining (away!) such texts and instead oppose the hyperbole interpretation of war texts in the Old Testament.

Webb and Oeste look at three counter arguments:

ISRAEL WAS DISOBEDIENT IN NOT KILLING(LITERALLY) ALL THE CANAANITES

This contention appeals to Judges 2:2-3:

For your part, do not make a covenant with the inhabitants of this land; tear down their altars.’ But you have not obeyed my command. See what you have done! So now I say, I will not drive them out before you; but they shall become adversaries to you, and their gods shall be a snare to you.”

Webb-Oeste argue appeal to this text, by the likes of Greg Beale, oversimplifies disobedience and incorrectly understands the text. Making peace treaties with the Canaanites entailed, wrongly, permission to continue with their idolatries, and idolatry is #1 sin in these texts. Furthermore, God is with some of the kings is a very positive way (e.g, David) and they are in direct relationship with some of these pagans. After all, God filled the temple with Canaanites still living in the land. The nuance is clear: the issue is idolatry, not simply their presence in the land.

They point out that Beale misreads the texts, seemingly equating “exterminating” with “driving out.” Joshua is not condemned in Judges or Joshua for not killing everyone.

Image: Cover Photo

THE FOUR CONQUEST-SUMMARY STATEMENTS ARE LITERAL (NOT HYPERBOLE)

The summary statements are found in Joshua 10:40-43, 11:16-18, 23 and 21:43-35. Here they examine the claims of Greg Beale and to explain this means getting into some deep weeds. I will avoid that, but state their view that literal reading of these texts does not hold up to scrutiny of those texts in their contexts.

YOUNG/OLD, MAN/WOMAN PAIRING LANGUAGEIS LITERAL (NOT HYPERBOLE)

These are called merisms and they, too, are shown to be hyperbolic.

DRIVE THEM OUT BY ANNIHILATING THEM

Beale equates, or prioritizes, total-kill over drive out so that the latter is the former. Again, they show in chp 12 that this language, too, is hyperbolic.

A good example of all this is 1 Sam 15.

Samuel said to Saul, “The LORD sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the LORD. Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (vv. 2-3)

Saul defeated the Amalekites, from Havilah as far as Shur, which is east of Egypt. He took King Agag of the Amalekites alive, but utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep and of the cattle and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was valuable, and would not utterly destroy them; all that was despised and worthless they utterly destroyed (vv. 7-9).

There is hyperbole in this chp in places (e.g., 15:4 says 210,000 soldiers, which is bigger than any known army then; animals; etc.).

A better reading of the chp suggests it was the motives of Saul to legitimate himself (instead of relying on YHWH) and the person he left standing that are at work in this chp.