FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   272   273   274   275   276   277   278   279   280   281   282   283   284  
285   286   287   288   289   290   291   292   293   294   295   296   297   298   299   300   301   302   303   304   305   306   307   308   309   >>   >|  
14. Further--the terms used in the directions of God to the Israelites, regulating their disposal of the Canaanites, such as, "drive out," "put out," "cast out," "expel," "dispossess," &c. seem used interchangeably with "consume," "destroy," "overthrow," &c., and thus indicate the sense in which the latter words are used. As an illustration of the meaning generally attached to these and similar terms, when applied to the Canaanites in Scripture, we refer the reader to the history of the Amalekites. In Ex. xxvii. 14, God says, "I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven,"--In Deut. xxv. 19, "Thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it."--In 1 Sam. xv. 2, 3. "Smite Amalek and _utterly destroy_ all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep." In the seventh and eighth verses of the same chapter, we are told, "Saul smote the Amalekites, and took Agag the king of the Amalekites, alive, and UTTERLY DESTROYED ALL THE PEOPLE with the edge of the sword." In verse 20, Saul says, "I have obeyed the voice of the Lord, and have brought Agag, the king of Amalek, and have _utterly destroyed_ the Amalekites." [Footnote A: Perhaps it will be objected, that the preservation of the Gibeonites, and of Rahab and her kindred, was a violation of the command of God. We answer, if it had been, we might expect some such intimation. If God had straitly commanded them to _exterminate all the Canaanites,_ their pledge to save them alive, was neither a repeal of the statute, nor absolution for the breach of it. If _unconditional destruction_ was the import of the command, would God have permitted such an act to pass without severe rebuke? Would he have established such a precedent when Israel had hardly passed the threshhold of Canaan, and was then striking the first blow of a half century war? What if they _had_ passed their word to Rahab and the Gibeonites? Was that more binding upon them than God's command? So Saul seems to have passed _his_ word to Agag; yet Samuel hewed him in pieces, because in saving his life, Saul had violated God's command. This same Saul appears to have put the same construction on the command to destroy the inhabitants of Canaan, that is generally put upon it now. We are told that he sought to slay the Gibeonites "in his zeal for the children of Israel and Judah." God sent upon Israel a three years
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   272   273   274   275   276   277   278   279   280   281   282   283   284  
285   286   287   288   289   290   291   292   293   294   295   296   297   298   299   300   301   302   303   304   305   306   307   308   309   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

command

 

Amalek

 
Amalekites
 

utterly

 

destroy

 
Gibeonites
 
Canaanites
 
Israel
 

passed

 

remembrance


heaven
 

Canaan

 

generally

 
permitted
 
severe
 
regulating
 
threshhold
 

Israelites

 

disposal

 
established

precedent

 

rebuke

 

unconditional

 

straitly

 

commanded

 
exterminate
 

pledge

 

intimation

 

expect

 

breach


destruction

 

absolution

 
repeal
 

statute

 

import

 

appears

 

construction

 
violated
 

saving

 

inhabitants


children

 

sought

 

pieces

 

directions

 

century

 
binding
 
Samuel
 

Further

 

striking

 

answer