Thursday: The Iniquity of the Amorite
In Deuteronomy 2 and 3, Moses continues to recount Israelite history and how, with God’s blessing, they routed their enemies; when they were faithful, God gave them the victory, even over “giants” (Deuteronomy 2:11, Deuteronomy 2:20; Deuteronomy 3:13).
Image © Bible Adventure Collection at Goodsalt.com
Of course, this brings up the difficult topic, which we must at least touch on, regarding the destruction of these people. Though the children of Israel would often speak peace first to a nation ( Deuteronomy 20.10-11), yet if the people didn’t accept that offer, sometimes the Israelites would go in and destroy them, including women and children. “And the LORD our God delivered him over to us; so we defeated him, his sons, and all his people. We took all his cities at that time, and we utterly destroyed the men, women, and little ones of every city; we left none remaining” ( Deuteronomy 2.33-34, NKJV).
Some try to get around this simply by saying that these stories are not true. However, because we believe that “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16), that’s not a viable option for Seventh-day Adventists. Thus, we are left with the difficult question regarding these incidents.
Read Genesis 15:1-16. What did God say to Abram in Genesis 15:16, and how does it shed some light on this difficult topic?
There’s no question that many of these pagan nations were exceedingly brutal and cruel people who justifiably could have faced the wrath and punishment of God long before then. That’s true, and even if God waited patiently for them to change their ways, and they didn’t change — this still doesn’t alter the hard reality about the killing of everyone, including children. (Of course, probably many more children were killed in the Flood than were killed by the Israelites.)
The fact is that, for now, given the limited information we have about the full context of the events, we just need to accept this hard reality and trust in the goodness of God, which has been revealed in so many other ways. Faith isn’t just about loving God on a beautiful day in a pretty forest full of wonderful sights and sounds. It’s also about trusting in Him despite what we don’t fully understand.
| Read 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 and John 14:9. How do these verses, and many others like them, help us learn to trust in the love, justice, and goodness of God, even when we see things that seem hard to square with this understanding of God? |
(29)
Today's lesson is a hard one. I don't know the explanation. Am I allowed to say that? The fact is that most of the answers I turn over in my own mind are conjecture and most of the answers I hear from others sound similar to mine. I can live with unanswered questions sometimes.
Perhaps it might have been easier if we read that God caused a deep sleep to come upon them and then we don't hear about the Ammorites or any other nation that came up against Israel. However, this would have eradicated two important things. The first is our appreciation that God always gives us a choice and the second is context/ cultural circumstances.
Choice becomes important in our decision to obey God or obey man e.g to enter into the ark or not. Context and culture also help us to appreciate that war (similar to warfare in our Christian journey) was a real part of their existence as it is for some other countries today. We also know that Israel could have prayed that they didn't have to go to war against the other countries who disobeyed God (which they sometimes did) Was it right to kill NO....NEVER.... but what we are sure about is that disobedience to God has a host of consequence. ...perhaps the thought that they were given chances the turn around may soften the realities....
In these difficult moments when I am trying to understand
the 'WHYs': I often asks another why- why was this story included in the Bible, what symbolic lesson does God what me to apply to my Christan life? This is a difficult one to accept but I'm excited to see how this quarter unfolds
Dear Maurice - I so very much appreciate your humble remark that you can 'live with unanswered questions sometimes'. You touched on a very important limitation everyone encounters in their life - to acknowledge that one does not have 'all the answers'; though the Holy Spirit helps to provide certainty.
Assuming that this blog's participants try their best to answer lesson questions based on their best, personal understanding, some of our contributions are, as you pointed out, 'conjectures of our own mind'. I find this especially true when assessing and giving one's 'evaluation of person's minds and motives' as it relates to Scripture accounts; this also includes God and His Son, our Savior Christ Jesus. I think the only thing we can be absolutely, 100% sure of is that God loves, and therefore lovingly nurtures His Creation.
I want to thank you again for exemplifying the exercise of caution when assessing biblical accounts. We want to prevent conjectures of our own mind to 'judge' things related to 'why' something was done. It is a good thing to not lean on our own understanding - Prov.3:5-6.
Indeed, Maurice, if we knew all the answers we would have no need of God. We can look forward to asking Him all our unanswered questions when Jesus returns for His people.
As for the destruction of even the seemingly innocent women and children, I believe they also would have firmly believed the false teachings of their culture, just as the men did. (I'm thinking of Rachel taking the household gods when she left, as one example.) Even very young children will act according to how they see those around them doing. If they were allowed to assimilate into the Israelite culture, they would be an undesirable influence away from truth. I expect there are other reasons we don't know, as well. This is one of those examples where we must trust that God knows best.
What Present Truth have I discovered from today's lesson?
What enemies do we face these days? I believe it is the wiles of the devil:
Eph 6:12 MKJV For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the world's rulers, of the darkness of this age, against spiritual wickedness in spiritual realms.
To combat the darkness of this age we need to put on the whole armour of the LORD and stand firm while He fights our battle for us for He has already won the war.
Eph 6:13-18
Regarding this lesson, I have some serious hangups and questions.Just do not like the quarter so far.
I must say however:
1. The author to me is going overboard. Seemingly he is relying up into the face of God in the way he structures the lesson.
2. The Israelites disobeyed the commands of God.
3. The authenticity of the Bible is revealed through this story. It records not only the good but the very worst happenings as well.
Today's lesson is correct in saying that instances such as the one that the lesson raises regarding the 'fate' of the Amorites do seem to pose difficult questions. And the lesson is also correct at its conclusion when it notes that faith is involved. At the same time, God does want us to progressively understand 'His Ways' (Jeremiah 9:24). This accords with Ellen White proposing that greater and greater light will be revealed across time and that such will not stop (See Counsels to Writers and Editors pg 35.1 here).
I believe we can begin to understand instances such as the one referred to in today's lesson. But it is complex and involves consideration of multiple facets that exist in conjunction with each other. There is no way I am going to adequately address this within the scope of a single comment here, but I can start the ball rolling as a conversation starter - hopefully a constructive one.
WARNING: By reading further, you might experience 'cognitive dissonance'. This is a discomfort we experience when introduced to an idea that seems to - or does - contradict what we have believed to date. And our brain's default reaction to such is to dismiss the new info in favour of the comfort of the old. Please be aware of your brain's default tendency to do this and take it into account if you decide to read further. Cognitive dissonance can be lessened by being ok about "meditating" (as per Psalm 77:12) on something for a while and not feeling under pressure to have to respond to it straight away.
Some initial facets to consider:
1) Sin/lawlessness (1 John 3:4 - anomia) inherently precludes life (Romans 8:2; Galatians 6:7,8). Thus God's forewarning in Genesis 2:16,17 should have resulted in humanity becoming extinct back at Genesis 3:6.
2) However, if humanity had become extinct, the promised offer of salvation (Genesis 3:15) could not have been realised. Therefore God had to intervene by temporarily restraining (as per 2 Thessalonians 2:6-8; Revelation 7:1 principle). The second sentence of 2 Peter 3:10 is literally (not metaphorically) what things look like where full restraint is eventually released.
3) As a consequence of this restraint, unfortunately evil is temporarily reprieved from suffering its inherent consequences and can unfortunately 'thrive' (as per the trajectory from Genesis 3:6 to Genesis 6:5).
4) This is the complexity within which God now needs to navigate both the challenges to His nature, character and Ways posed by the Great Controversy (polemos Revelation 12:7) and the provision of salvation/redemption/restoration. This includes needing to give Satan and evil space to manifest its nature, character and inherent outcomes.
5) Satan is also at work also within this context to exploit every available opportunity to ongoingly misportrays God's nature, character and actions - especially as arbitrary. According to the widest conceptualisation of arbitrary is an action or outcome is non-arbitrary only when (a) it comes about inherently via cause and effect, and (b) there is no other alternative that is equally or more viable.
6) If God does not intervene to restrain of the inherent impacts of anomia (lawlessness), life on this earth ceases. But if God does intervene, evil artificially flourishes. Therefore God is constantly needing to adjust the degree of restraint being used. We see this across the landscape of scripture between Genesis 3 and Revelation 21.
7) At the same time, God is also trying to redeem and restore humanity who fell (and continues to re-fall) deeply in moral quality from Genesis 3 onwards. Ty Gibson refers to this as God needing to apply the principle termed Adaptation or Accommodation where God is limited to what He options are available at a particular point in time due to intersection of all of the above points.
In light of all of the above (and perhaps more I haven't listed), things are very messy at times and appear to reflect very badly upon God and His Ways For example, in Revelation 6:10 we have valid concern expressed regarding God's ways that seem to be going on too long to be just and fair. What is God's response to these valid concerns? Rather than providing immediate alleviation, God announces that further time and revelation are unfortunately necessary. While the eventual outcome is first-hand observation and awareness that God's ways ultimately do work out optimally because they are all, without exception, "just and true" (Revelation 15:3), it can be understandably difficult to see this along the way.
With regard to the Amorites:
1) They were living brutally but were only able to do so because God was exercising restraint against the inherent consequences of living that way which otherwise would have seen them self-destruct (note Leviticus 18:25 description). This is a vital reference point to keep in mind.
2) Even God's people were used to this brutal way of living. They didn't seem to 'flinch' when released to go forward into 'genocide'. Some readers on ssnet will live in closer proximity to such dynamics even today in parts of the world.
3) Within the context of the Great Controversy resolution, sin/lawlessness/anomia (the way advanced by Satan and characteristic of the Kingdom of Darkness) needs to become blatantly self-evident as the cause of nothing but destruction. Situations such as the Amorites demise, seen within the wider above context, is evidence of the inherent results of sin when restraint is released - even partially. Therefore, the price of eventual eternal security after everyone has seen objectively from earth's history that God's ways are 'just and true' is the mess that happens in the course of both resolution to the Great Controversy and salvation of those who are willing on this planet.
What do you think?
This is a mouthful! Like Maurice, I can live with unanswered questions sometimes. I accept, by faith, that God knows best.
I like how the lesson took us back to Genesis 15. The Amorites were there in Abrams day. Genesis 15:16 gives us a clear picture of Gods character and wisdom. It’s similar to the story of Jonah and the Ninevites, only the entire city of Nineveh repented of their evils. When the Israelites came, the Amorites had been given every opportunity to repent, and they did not. All those surrounding countries knew about the God of Israel. When the two spies went into Jericho they found Rahab to be an allies. Joshua 2 gives us a clear picture that all the nations, even 40 years later, feared Israel because of the miracles God did for them. They all had the opportunity to know the God of Israel.
When I read about the destruction of every inhabitant being killed, I have to remember two things. 1. God knows each mans heart, I don’t. 2. God knows the future, I don’t. A line through which our Savior would be born, had to be preserved, and only God knew what had to be done to keep that open. This may sound simplistic, but that is how I am able to be okay with God doing what He needs to do. Scripture, with the Holy Spirit leading, will give me all I need to know and trust God.
I would add this thought to your comment Karen: Rev 5:11-13; 15:3 are sung by those who know God best and have seen His works among the nations and the outcomes that have resulted. They know far more than we know at this time.
Either we trust our Creator/Redeemer or we don't.
The destruction of human life by the tribes of Israel on account of the direction of God to 'possess' the land is, in my opinion, one of the greatest obstacles for the non-believer when facing to accept God and allow Him Authority in their lives.
I ask: Why do we feel uncomfortable accepting death by God's decree in the Old Testament, but are ready to 'happily' embrace death of the 'unrepentant sinner' in the New Testament? There is a reckoning taking place in the lives of mankind, but only God has the Authority to judge when and how.
I hold that Trust in God is not possible outside of deeply believing that He is an eminently gracious, loving, life-sustaining Creator God. Problems start to arise when we lean on our own understanding. As Maurice pointed out, sometimes it is best not to answer if all we can do is 'speculate' with 'our' reasonings about the Mind and Will of God.
When Christ Jesus walked the path of Faith, it was to show us the Father - John14:9. We can prepare to give a reason for our Faith - 1Peter 3:15 -, but I do not think that we have the capacity to be an apologist for the Creator's mind's reasoning - the 'why and how', unless we look at the overarching aspect of Redemption.
I can only think of one safe response to someone questioning God's fairness: 'I believe that loving Him with all my heart and soul, and loving and accepting others as fellow travelers to reach the Promised Land is what my heavenly Father expects me to maintain.'
I find Cliff's discourse about this subject matter very helpful and conclude my thoughts with his noted reference of Jer.9:24ESV - "but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. FOR IN THESE THINGS I DELIGHT, declares the LORD."
I find it helpful that the author refers us back to the great Flood which destroyed every living being except the ones saved in the ark and those for whom water was their natural habitat. This was an act of the Great Physician saving the patient (the human race) from an untimely death by performing radical surgery to remove the metastasized tumor of evil - with thoughts of inhabitants being only evil continually. (If their thoughts were only evil, we can be sure their actions were no better.)
The Amorites had reached a similar stage. God had given them opportunity to understand that He is the true God and Creator of all. Yet, in view of all the evidence, they refused to acknowledge Him and live a life of evil and violence. The time had come for surgery by the divine Surgeon.
It is also good to remember that, at the time, the death of the Amorites was only the brief interlude of sleep until the resurrection. If any of them would be happy in heaven, I'm confident that they will be there, because the Lord seeks to save as many as He can, not to destroy.
As you mentioned on a previous day, the earthly death experienced by the flood doesn't mean that none of the ones who drowned will be saved (e.g., innocent babies).
I would also note that God mercifully allows some to go to sleep out of mercy (Isaiah 57:1 NLT).
Lu Ann commented above
I assume this conclusion is based on the common version of the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." However, the correct translation would, "Thou shalt not murder," as many translations put it. There's a difference. Clearly God not only permitted but explicitly required execution of persons committing certain crimes. In each instance, it was a matter of surgery to excise an evil so the whole nation would not be corrupted.
But there's also another aspect to the war activity we see in the Old Testament. God had promised the Israelites that, if they obeyed, He would personally drive out the inhabitants before them so they could possess the Promised Land. He didn't really want them to engage in wars and killing, because of what that does to the human heart. But they chose to do it their way - not God's way. So God allowed them to experience the horrors of war and the discipline that wars can provide.
The bottom line is that God works with us where He finds us. He speaks to us in our language, though His ways are much higher than ours. (That's also why we sometimes experience communication difficulties. I believe it is 100% true that God is not the "causative agent" of destruction. Destruction is the result of sin. Yet God enters human history in ways that destruction can be traced to Him, and He clearly takes responsibility. Even if He "releases" natural agencies that destroy, it is, after all, His decision to "release" the destructive forces. Yet, God always acts in love - not only towards those loyal to Him but also the disloyal. He knows that extending their lives would only extend their misery and bring harm to His people. Thus we see God intervening to save His people from destruction by destroying those hostile to His ways.)
Is it a question of genocide or God’s knowing?
The flood brings genocide into base relief with only 8 survivors. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah’s (and surrounding cities) by fire is another example of genocide after Abram saves Lot and his family and God informs him of His plans to destroy those cities. Egypt is destroyed by God, then, the firstborn children are killed as Israel plunders the precious metals of the capitol city. Korah, Dathan, and Abiram with there families (and children) are swallowed up by a viscoelastic earth that takes “them alive down to Sheol.” Multiple examples exist of God striking down Israel in varying numbers for transgressions and these and others above with which we seem to be satisfied.
If God will rescue Israel from Egypt, the Philistines from Captor, and the Syrians from Kir (Amos 9:7), has He not been fair in dealing with others? Could the 40 years in the wilderness for Israel have been a reprieve (opportunity to repent) for Sihon and Og? Could the hardened hearts of the Amorites have been impacted by the failed first assault 40 years earlier by Israel? Could the giants of these countries that scared Israel 40 years earlier, if conquered initially, demonstrate to Israel God’s preservation / protection of this new generation of Abraham’s heirs? Why can’t a sovereign God say enough is enough? Is His justice not mixed with mercy?
Some great thoughts and questions Alfred. And I learned a new word: viscoelastic.
May I run something past you?
What if we are inadvertently viewing things from a flawed premise - the premise that life is the inherent default state regardless of how one lives? If this premise were in fact truth, then every a person has a valid right to life regardless of how they operate. And any intervention that removes this life would then fundamentally constitute violation of that person's freedom - no matter how justified. The one who terminates that person's life would also be responsible for such and would be acting in an arbitrary manner because they would be instituting an action that otherwise would not inherently occur.
What if an alternative premise is the case instead? What if life is only viable when a person lives in accordance with the inherent (ie non-arbitrary) preconditions essential for such? If this were the case, then those who exercise their freewill choice to violate these inherent preconditions do so at their own peril with the outcome that they would immediately "perish"* (Deuteronomy 30:17-18; John 3:16; 2 Peter 3:9). But what if they don't immediately perish because God intervenes to temporarily restrain those inherent outcomes in order to give a grace-based probationary space in the hope that people might 'come to their senses' and instead "choose life" (Deuteronomy 30:19)?
If this latter premise is the case, then in a manner of speaking, God is actually temporarily 'restricting' their freedom while He technically 'imposes' life upon them via His restraint of the inherent consequences of their moment-by-moment living in violation of what is essential for life? Therefore, when God ceases to do so and actually releases a 'life-violator' to their inherent state via cessation of the restraint that has been enacted to this point, is God then perhaps actually granting them their freedom? Is God then taking away life - or is He in fact instead actually releasing the person so they can pursue their inherent trajectory to death?
Your thoughts?
---------------
* The word "perish" is an interesting word to look into. In the Deuteronomy reference, the Hebrew word is tobedun which is only used 4 times in the Old Testament and only exclusively in Deuteronomy. Tobedun is a derivative of abad which Strongs well defines as "properly: to wander away, ie, lose oneself". Thus tobedun/abad would appear to align with the notion of someone cutting themselves off from the source of life (as per what happens in Genesis 3:6,7). However, as the Hebrew and Greek words for perish can technically encompass resultant destruction from either an internal or external causative agent/agency (although the Hebrew predominantly leans towards the former), it is up to examination of the contextual phenomena to confirm which meaning was the intent of the author. This is why explicit consideration of the above-proposed underpinning premise is a vitally important one.
The day Thursday is a perfect illustration of "the letter and the spirit of the word(scripture). If we read it as the letter reads we will remain with unanswered questions. But if we read it as the spirit reads then we will understand. Just like in Ecclesiastes 3:3; a time to kill and a time to heal. Far from the letter of the words, God has something that the spirit speaks in those words and it is only the spirit that can help us grasp the meaning.
Amen, Asuma - thank you for sharing your observation that this lesson can be looked at as an example for us to seek the deeper meaning embedded in God's Word - 'the letter and the spirit of the word'.
I very much appreciate your highlighting that "God has something that the spirit speaks in those words and it is only the spirit that can help us grasp the meaning."
Dear Phil, I am delighted to give you my thoughts and you must understand that they have inherent limitations!
If I understand you correctly, in your first paragraph (hypothesis A), the one who takes a life is considered to have limited the freedom of the deceased individual. How would you classify the loss of freedom of someone that dies an accidental death? Or how would the responsibility of such an individual who caused that death be applied? This seems to be the reason for the cities of refuge. However, if your second paragraph (hypothesis B) is carried to one possible conclusion, the present cultural Israelites may be living on “borrowed time.” While you quote Deuteronomy, John, and Romans, could not the “paradidomi” of Romans 1:24, 26, and 28 or “nathan” or “magan” of Hosea 11:8 (for covenant people?) be an equally compelling sense of releasing a “life-violator” to a self-selected end? “Tobedun/abad,” by your comments, have similar meanings.
While hypothesis B focuses on those that are to die, hypothesis A seems directed at the one that terminated life. Rather than an “either” / “or” issue, could a “Third Party” be rightfully involved? Hypothesis C may insinuate a loving God who balances His justice and mercy such as AW Tozer suggests in “Knowledge of the Holy.” I would also hypothesize that grace fills a much-needed void in this hypothesis as well. How and why this is manifested in our lives is difficult for my mind to imagine (Deut. 29:29).
My purpose in the original comment was only to allow God the full space that He inhabits to act rather than to focus only on the outcome of humans, in this case genocide, as we call it, while we may learn (later) it was much needed judgement! I agree that grace must be the intervening principle applied in hypothesis B that allows one to live giving opportunity to repent! I know that I need it for me!
Thanks again for your thoughts Alfred - and yes, I do understand re inherent limitations. Hence the invitation to further conversation.
Yes, I agree regarding Romans 1:24,26,28 and Hosea 11:8.
With regard to hypothesis C, that would depend upon the nature of justice and mercy. Are they each something that is at odds and therefore needing balancing or are they actually synonymous in God's realm? Another intersecting issue is whether God/God's Ways are arbitrary or non-arbitrary in nature.
I would invite you to keep sharing your thoughts as you are able - they are beneficial.