Ver. 19, 20. (For the tree of the field is man's life) to employ them in the siege— The plain meaning of the passage, as appears from the context, is, that in case of a long siege, where they might want wood for raising batteries, they were to spare the fruit-trees as much as possible, and make use of others which were as fit for those purposes, and bare not fruit; and that too, not merely for waste and desolation, but for necessary occasions. In this view, perhaps, our translation is as justifiable as any other. But as there is nothing for life in the original, it would be equally as expressive, and nearer the Hebrew, if we read, for the tree of the field is for man.
REFLECTIONS.—As they would be engaged in other wars beside those with the seven devoted nations, 1. God commands them to give their enemies fair notice, and, before they declared war, to offer peace on condition of their renunciation of idolatry, and paying tribute. Note; (1.) God deals thus with sinners. The Gospel offers peace and reconciliation: if hereupon we accept the favour, and submit ourselves to God, all is well; if not, then justice unsheathes the sword, and we are treated as determined enemies. (2.) In our disputes, recourse should never be had to violent methods, till we have in vain tried every mode of peaceable accommodation. 2. In case the terms were rejected, then the war proceeded; God engaged to support them in their righteous quarrels, and give them victory: and all the men, at least all found in arms, are to be put to death, while the rest of the land and inhabitants are given them for spoil. Note; (1.) Those who will not hear the calls of Divine mercy must perish under the rod of vengeance. (2.) God will bless those who follow him. 3. The seven devoted nations must have neither offers of peace, nor any quarter. They are to suffer for their sins; and their utter extirpation is necessary, that Israel may not be ensnared by their idolatry. It is dangerous living among bad neighbours; we are more likely to learn their ill customs, than they of us to repent and forsake them. 4. In case of long sieges, they are forbidden to use fruit-trees for their bulwarks, because, as they were sure of taking the city, the loss would afterwards fall upon themselves. Note; God in his prohibitions consults our interest and happiness. All his restraints are only—Do thyself no harm.
Reflections on the destruction of the seven nations of Canaan.
The destruction of the seven nations of Canaan is a question of great difficulty and importance. To set which in its true light, we shall consider, first, The case of this destruction; and, secondly, the nature of the cherem, which does not always imply destruction.
I. It is granted, that the seven nations were to be destroyed, and their polity utterly abolished: but this does not imply a total destruction, or putting to death of every man, woman, and child among them. The nations were to be destroyed as nations, i.e. their polity and government were to be extinguished; but there was not any such massacre as some have imagined. It is plain, that neither Joshua, nor any of the judges, nor Samuel, nor David, nor Solomon, nor others after him, ever understood these words of the law in such a sense, as to imagine that they were obliged to cut off every soul of these nations whenever they became subject to them. Nay, those nations, or at least several of them, continued quite down to Solomon's time, and long after. For, as the sacred writer observes, 1 Kings 9:20-21. Upon all the people that were left of the Amorites, &c. which were not of the children of Israel, and whom they were not able utterly to destroy, did Solomon levy a tribute of bond-service. If therefore Solomon, when he had these nations subject to him, levied only a tribute of bond-service upon them, he could not apprehend himself obliged by the law of Moses to massacre them, or put them to death. Suppose the children of Israel were not able to destroy these people before the days of Solomon, yet, when this king had them in subjection, he might have done it, instead of making them either tributaries of money, or of service: and, supposing him to have been antecedently obliged by the law of Moses to put them to death, I do not see how he could have changed the command of death into a mere tribute of service, or money, or both. The case of Uriah the Hittite, 2 Samuel 11:12 is well known. David's crime, in causing him to be slain, was severely censured, condemned, and punished by God himself. Though Uriah was of those nations which were devoted to destruction, yet had David no right to murder him; nor did the law, that commanded not to spare any one that breathed of the seven nations, justify or excuse the sinister contrivance to take him away. One part of the law in question itself very manifestly supposes, that all, universally, were not to be destroyed. It is said, thou shalt not make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give to his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take to thy son. See chap. Deuteronomy 7:3. Now, what occasion for this injunction, if it be supposed that nothing that breathed was to be spared alive, but all were to be utterly destroyed? Or, what end could it serve to forbid intermarriages with a people supposed not at all to be? If the known reason and end of the law could be obtained without this absolute destruction of the people, then it might fairly be concluded, that such deletion was not absolutely required, unless it were impossible to attain the end otherwise. A certain end is proposed and declared, and this end may be obtained by various means. It cannot be argued, therefore, that these people are to be destroyed in order to such end, because, consistent with their not being destroyed, that end may be secured. It could not indeed be obtained without the destruction of them as a polity, or as nations, but might very well be secured consistent with their lives. The reason given for their destruction was, they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods. Deuteronomy 7:4. If, then, these nations were to forsake their idolatry, and become converts to the religion of the Jews, they would, in that case, be what God required them to be, penitents, and proper objects of forgiveness, not of punishment. This is a rule laid down in Scripture, and founded in equity:—At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy; if that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them, Jeremiah 18:7-8. But in case these nations did not repent, but continued the objects of displeasure, the command was, utterly to destroy their cities, Deuteronomy 20:16-17 and to smite those nations, and to destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire, Deuteronomy 7:2. Whilst they continued bodies politic, with power and influence, they might, by intermarriages or leagues, keep up idolatry; and even when the nations, as such, were destroyed, their altars, images, groves, and pictures, might tempt men to false worship: and therefore it was not proper to spare even such things. But when the nations were subdued, the surviving captives, made so by right of war, might reject the worship of false gods; the occasions of seducing the Jews might be removed; and those very people might be brought to the acknowledgment of the one true God, and thus be saved alive, and the reason of the severity be at the same time observed.
That this was in fact the case, may further be urged, from the instances of persons all along spared from this great destruction. Rahab, her father, mother, brethren, and all her kindred, were preserved alive: not only she herself, but all her kindred and family were saved from destruction. Now, if the law was to be interpreted as implying an unlimited command, in no case or circumstances to save alive any thing that breathed of these seven nations, then neither could the spies have promised to deal kindly and truly with her, nor could Joshua, without a manifest breach of the law, have performed the promise which they had made. Joshua 2:14; Joshua 6:22. So again we find it particularly remarked in Joshua 16:10. The children of Ephraim drave not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer; but the Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites unto this day, and serve under tribute: and, in like manner, Joshua 1:25 it is observed concerning the city of Bethel, when the house of Joseph took it, that they let a man and his family, who shewed them the way into the city, go free; and again, ver. 28. It came to pass when Israel was strong, that they put the Canaanites to tribute, and did not utterly drive them out. As Ephraim did not drive out the Canaanites in Gezer, so neither did Asher drive them out in many other places; and as to Zebulun, Naphtali, and the house of Joseph, they made the Canaanites and Amorites become tributaries to them, ver. 27-35.
Since therefore, as has been remarked, neither David with all his power, nor Solomon, did destroy these people; since they subsisted in the country, from the days of Moses, for upwards of four hundred and fourscore years; since they were so far subdued as to become tributaries of service, as well as of money; and since they might therefore have been absolutely destroyed, because conquered, and yet were kept alive; it follows, that these people were not to be absolutely and entirely cut off, men, women, and children, without mercy, but only were to be destroyed as nations; and that if they submitted, and became subject to the Jews, and relinquished their idolatry, they were not to be deprived of life. For can it be supposed, that none of the Jews in all this time understood the command? Did none of their generals or successful warriors understand that their business was to destroy all these people? Had they no opportunity, no power? not even when they made them tributaries? And was Joshua, was Samuel, was David such strangers to the law?
But what then is the meaning of those words—Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth, but shalt utterly destroy them? It may be answered, the seven nations were that people whose land the Jews were to possess, and in whose place they were to dwell. They were to be expelled, to make way for these new inhabitants; consequently, they, as nations, were to be destroyed: all power was to be taken from them, and they were so far to be conquered and reduced, as not to have it in their power to teach the Israelites to do after all their abominations, which they had done to their gods, so as to make them sin against the Lord. No alliance was to be made with them; no treaties of peace were to be concerted; no peace to be proclaimed unto them: but they were to be pursued and smitten without mercy, that the Israelites might have the inheritance which had been all along promised to them. The Hivites were certainly one of the seven nations with whom no league was to have been made; yet, by their art, Joshua made peace with them on the condition of servitude, which they themselves offered; Joshua 9:11-15. In the event of things, we read there was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites:—For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no FAVOUR, but that he might destroy them, as the Lord commanded Moses. Joshua 11:20. The conclusion from which seems very natural, that, as they chose to oppose themselves, and try their success in battle, and would not surrender nor accept any terms of submission, they were cut off: but, had they submitted, they might have had favour, though they were not to have been received as allies and friends, whereby to have had the power of making Israel sin against God: For, if thou serve their gods, it will surely be a snare unto thee. See Exodus 23:32-33.Deuteronomy 7:4. The law in Leviticus 27:29 which says, None devoted—shall be redeemed, but shall surely be put to death, and which has been quoted as an objection against the present exposition of the injunction to destroy the Canaanites, certainly does not relate to the putting to death any devoted person; nor is there an instance of any person devoted to the Lord, who was ever, in virtue of being devoted, put to death. See the note on the place.
To prove this, it will be proper to consider, as we proposed,
II. The exact nature and meaning of the word cherem, and to what it is applied in the Old Testament, Le Clerc observes, that the verb charan in the Arabic signifies to forbid, to be unlawful; and the substantive from it, a thing prohibited: and this he takes to be the original meaning of the word. Agreeable to which derivation, it signifies in the books of the law, first, a thing absolutely prohibited, as an idol, or the gold of an idol; see Deuteronomy 7:26. Secondly, As nothing unlawful was to be kept, or used, it came to signify generally to destroy. Thirdly, To destroy without mercy, as in the above passage of Deuteronomy 7:26. Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be CHEREM; i.e. a thing to be destroyed, like that: and Exodus 22:20. He that sacrificeth to any God, save unto the Lord only, shall be utterly destroyed: icherim; i.e. shall be certainly put to death without favour or mercy. Fourthly, Because what was given to the Lord was declared unlawful to be used, and what was given in perpetuity could not be redeemed; hence, whatever was in this manner devoted to the Lord, had the name of cherem; as Leviticus 27:21. The field, when it goeth out in the jubilee, shall be holy unto the Lord, as a field devoted: the possession thereof shall be the priest's; i.e. it could never be redeemed by the proprietor, but was to continue in the possession of the priests for ever. Here devoted means absolutely given in perpetuity to the Lord. And hence, fifthly, It signifies what was appointed to destruction by God, as, Isaiah 11:15. The Lord shall utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea; and so Isaiah 2:5 in which places it is applied as an act of God himself, to destroy things, as well as persons. Sixthly, Whatever was forfeited, or addicted to the sacred treasury, by way of punishment, was called cherem; as in Ezra 10:7-8 where we find a proclamation was made, that whosoever would not come within three days,—all his substance should be forfeited. Seventhly, From the general signification to destroy, instruments of destruction to fish and beasts, as nets, were called by the name of cherem; see Ecclesiastes 7:26. I find more bitter than death, a woman whose heart is snares and [cheremim] nets. Eighthly and lastly, Inasmuch as people who merited destruction were justly liable to contumely and reproach, though they were not destroyed; they are therefore called cherem, as in Isaiah 43:28 where cherem doth not seem to signify a total destruction, but such abuse and contempt as is consistent with their being not destroyed. From all these passages, there appears not the least reason to imagine, that persons given, or devoted by cherem, were ever slain, or made sacrifices. See Dr. Sykes's Connection of Natural and Revealed Religion.
The extirpation of the Canaanites appears to have been predetermined in the counsels of heaven; Genesis 9:25-27 yet was their national wickedness the only cause of their national ruin: for notwithstanding the assurance given to Abraham, that his posterity should be settled in the room of the Canaanites, it is expressly declared, that this event should not take place for several generations, till the iniquity of the nations should be full; (Genesis 15:16.) till their incorrigible wickedness had baffled all the gentler means of Providence, which, during the course of some hundred years, had been employed for their reformation: for it is agreeable to the procedure of a benevolent Deity, in similar instances, first to use the milder means of mercy and forbearance towards a people, to see if they can be reformed upon the principles of filial love, gratitude, and generous remorse; but if, instead of being reformed thereby, they only become hardened, presumptuous, and insensible to every motive of honour or generosity, then the sword of justice awakes to strike the long-suspended blow. That this was the unhappy case of the Canaanites before they were given up to utter destruction, that they were sunk into the deepest degeneracy, we have various testimonies, particularly in Leviticus 18 whence it appears, that the period destined for their extirpation was arrived; that their iniquities were full, and that they brought down destruction upon themselves. The extirpation of this people, thus sunk into idolatry and wickedness, was also a most awful and instructive example to the Jews, whose proneness to idolatry in that age of the world was such, that nothing seemed effectual for the restraining them from it, but impressing them with the most horrid idea of that crime, as rendering men accursed in the sight of God and man.
The extraordinary commission given to the children of Israel for extirpating the Canaanites can justify none in the imitation of their example, but such as shall be in like circumstances with the Jews. It is impious and absurd even to suppose, as some have done, that Christians are capable of receiving any such commission as that in question; which is, indeed, repugnant to the very genius and essential principles of Christianity. The Christian religion inspires nothing but love, and peace, and universal benevolence: the weapons which it authorises its adherents to employ are not fire, and sword, and desolation, but argument and persuasion; the soft, the inviting motives of forbearance, condescension, and instruction in meekness: it allows us to hold no man, or nation of men, unclean and accursed; but, on the contrary, teaches that in Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Greek; that in every nation, he who feareth God, and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him. Our Lord sufficiently intimates, how opposite to the spirit of Christianity is the fury of bigotry, and the rage of persecution, by his reply to those disciples who would have called down vengeance on the Samaritans, for rejecting him and his doctrines: Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of; the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And after he has foretold the persecutions which should arise in the times of Christianity, when bigots should blindly imagine they did God good service, by putting their fellow-creatures to death on account of difference in religion, he adds, these things will they do, because they have not known me, nor my Father. If ever, therefore, any professed Christian should pretend a commission from God to propagate religion by violence and persecution, a holy war, or a crusade; should he even vouch miracles and prophecies fulfilled in attestation of such commission, he would deserve as little regard as a Jewish prophet or wonder-worker, who sought to seduce the Israelites from their allegiance to the true God; Deuteronomy 13:1 for "idol-worship is not more opposite to the Jewish religion, than persecution is to the spirit of Christianity." See Jameson's Dissert.