Joshua - and exterminations... a little help

[IshChayil]

OK guys and gals,
I'm reading through Joshua this week and have come across one of the classic difficulties in the bible.
In several cities they were to make a Cherem, in Hebrew which means a complete destruction/devotion to the L-rd. Men, women and "tap" toddler.

Now I believe the bible is completely true and completely inspired in the original languages.
I've thought about some of these problem verses from time to time and I'm curious if anyone here has a good answer for critics regarding these situations.
The best answer I have so far is from a Syrian Christian friend but I'll hold that back because I don't want to stifle any good answers.

Here is one example verse:
וַֽיַּחֲרִ֙ימוּ֙ אֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר בָּעִ֔יר מֵאִישׁ֙ וְעַד־אִשָּׁ֔ה מִנַּ֖עַר וְעַד־זָקֵ֑ן וְעַ֨ד שׁ֥וֹר וָשֶׂ֛ה וַחֲמ֖וֹר לְפִי־חָֽרֶב׃
Joshua 6:21 "And they totally wiped out (as a devotion) everyone who was in the city [Jericho] from man to woman from young to old until even cattle, sheep, and donkey by the sword's blade (lit. mouth)"
Of course we get this later with other rulers as well; Shaul looses his dynasty for sparing livestock and a wicked king.

The difficulty for me is of course, the children.

Thanks in advance for any wisdom you have to share!

 

[cubanito]

Today that would be called genocide and is no longer allowed. Today we don't have to sacrifice our first born either for an offering like Abraham almost had to in his total obedience.
At that time our father had some strong points to make to teach us in later days that He is in charge and does what He sees best. Remember the guy who got killed for picking up sticks on the sabbath? That was harsh too. All those things were to teach us things.
Now we are to extend mercy and patience. Does that help any?
Glad we enjoy the new mercy based spitual covenant. No more death rituals.

 

[FollowingHim]

The best explanation I know of relates to the fact that there were giants in the land. This indicates a re-emergence of the nephilim. Before the flood, fallen angels slept with human women and had offspring who were extremely powerful and likely giants, the nephilim. These were present before the flood "and also afterwards", whenever this occurred. It appears to have also occurred in Canaan.

God used the descendents of Abraham to exterminate this second wave of nephilim. In Deuteronomy 2 we read that the Moabites and Ammonites, the descendents of Lot, had exterminated the Emim and Rephaim / Zamzummim, who were giants, and settled in their land. The Edomites had destroyed the Horites and lived in their place. Israel was to leave the Moabites, Ammonites and Edomites alone. Israel, for their part, was given the task of exterminating the Canaanites, which included giants also.

Israel was only instructed to exterminate very specific people groups, those in Canaan. Other nations that they fought with they were allowed to leave the women and children alive, and even had laws around how they could take their women as wives. It was only the Canaanites who were to be exterminated. This suggests there was something very different about the people of Canaan. The frequent references to giants in the reports by the spies and in the specific wars fought by Israel against these people also serves to reinforce this.

Killing the children makes sense in that setting because the issue was their genetics, not their personal behaviour.

So yes, it was genocide. God instructed them to commit genocide, against a very specific people group, to wipe out these contaminated people, just as He Himself had previously wiped out the same type of contaminated people in the flood. This is an incredibly difficult thing for us to comprehend emotionally, but when considered from this angle it does at least make consistent, logical sense.

 

[cubanito]

The best explanation I know of relates to the fact that there were giants in the land. This indicates a re-emergence of the nephilim. Before the flood, fallen angels slept with human women and had offspring who were extremely powerful and likely giants, the nephilim. These were present before the flood "and also afterwards", whenever this occurred. It appears to have also occurred in Canaan.

God used the descendents of Abraham to exterminate this second wave of nephilim. In Deuteronomy 2 we read that the Moabites and Ammonites, the descendents of Lot, had exterminated the Emim and Rephaim / Zamzummim, who were giants, and settled in their land. The Edomites had destroyed the Horites and lived in their place. Israel was to leave the Moabites, Ammonites and Edomites alone. Israel, for their part, was given the task of exterminating the Canaanites, which included giants also.

Israel was only instructed to exterminate very specific people groups, those in Canaan. Other nations that they fought with they were allowed to leave the women and children alive, and even had laws around how they could take their women as wives. It was only the Canaanites who were to be exterminated. This suggests there was something very different about the people of Canaan. The frequent references to giants in the reports by the spies and in the specific wars fought by Israel against these people also serves to reinforce this.

Killing the children makes sense in that setting because the issue was their genetics, not their personal behaviour.

So yes, it was genocide. God instructed them to commit genocide, against a very specific people group, to wipe out these contaminated people, just as He Himself had previously wiped out the same type of contaminated people in the flood. This is an incredibly difficult thing for us to comprehend emotionally, but when considered from this angle it does at least make consistent, logical sense.

Nipping the Nephilim does make sense. I read is also the reason women wear facial coverings in middle east cultures. It starded with that according to some oral traditions.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I have also heard & read that those particular inhabitants were participants in gross sexual conduct. Beastiality as well which is why the animals couldn't be spared. Not sure why the children couldn't be except as Samuel mentioned.

 

[cubanito]

Ultimately God makes the rules and we do our best to understand. How did angels get access to this realm is my curiosity..
Maybe the adversary just wanted to muddy genetics to sabotage God's salvation plan. Curiosities..
Did he think God would not see that?
Remember the passage where He says Noah was perfect in his generations? It might have some similar overtones.
Christ had to have a specific genealogy I think.
Also read fallen angels / aliens need us to breed, sometimes go for animals too when they want. Strange things..

 

[FollowingHim]

Maybe the adversary just wanted to muddy genetics to sabotage God's salvation plan.

Quite likely. We read that Noah was "perfect in his generations". This is generally interpreted as something like "among all the other people living around him, he was more perfect than them". But it can more directly be understood as "perfect in his ancestry, not contaminated". He was chosen in part because he had a pure, uncontaminated bloodline, and could continue humankind purely after the flood.

 

[IshChayil]

The best explanation I know of relates to the fact that there were giants in the land. This indicates a re-emergence of the nephilim. Before the flood, fallen angels slept with human women and had offspring who were extremely powerful and likely giants, the nephilim. These were present before the flood "and also afterwards", whenever this occurred. It appears to have also occurred in Canaan.

God used the descendents of Abraham to exterminate this second wave of nephilim. In Deuteronomy 2 we read that the Moabites and Ammonites, the descendents of Lot, had exterminated the Emim and Rephaim / Zamzummim, who were giants, and settled in their land. The Edomites had destroyed the Horites and lived in their place. Israel was to leave the Moabites, Ammonites and Edomites alone. Israel, for their part, was given the task of exterminating the Canaanites, which included giants also.

Israel was only instructed to exterminate very specific people groups, those in Canaan. Other nations that they fought with they were allowed to leave the women and children alive, and even had laws around how they could take their women as wives. It was only the Canaanites who were to be exterminated. This suggests there was something very different about the people of Canaan. The frequent references to giants in the reports by the spies and in the specific wars fought by Israel against these people also serves to reinforce this.

Killing the children makes sense in that setting because the issue was their genetics, not their personal behaviour.

So yes, it was genocide. God instructed them to commit genocide, against a very specific people group, to wipe out these contaminated people, just as He Himself had previously wiped out the same type of contaminated people in the flood. This is an incredibly difficult thing for us to comprehend emotionally, but when considered from this angle it does at least make consistent, logical sense.

I like this answer; it's also a traditional Jewish perspective (at least what I learned).
One story is that Og held on to the ark when the mabul "great flood" destroyed everything so 1 giant survived. There's some silly gematria that shows his name is like 1 number off from Ark or something. (not saying your explanation is silly, I like yours).
One thing that makes me unsure if these giants post flood are "nephalim" is that there is a different word for them in the Hebrew.
The giants who were descendants of daughters-of-man and sons-of-G-d (i.e. angels, in this verse literally in Hebrew says sons of G-d but it's an idiom for angels) were as you said the Nephalim נפלים meaning "fallen ones" in Hebrew.
For giants in Joshua's time, however, we use a different word ענקים anakiym, "giants".
I really like your answer; just wondering if you guys think these other giant designations were also from the nephalim.
One reason for the flood was to exterminate the Nephalim so I'm wondering how it's that G-d messed up and didn't succeed. Of course the bad angels could have just done it again.

Another off topic spin off idea as you mentioned the Rephaiym. It's interesting that this title shows up later in the bible as well but it means "dead spirits" רפאים.
I wonder if it's actually just the "dead spirits" of the Rephaiym.

Another question as we probe this answer is what about Shaul (Saul) when he had to exterminate as well?
Would that mean it was still a giant issue?

Thanks for the thoughtful response; I'm glad you included Rephaim as that made me think about those "dead spirits"

 

[IshChayil]

Quite likely. We read that Noah was "perfect in his generations". This is generally interpreted as something like "among all the other people living around him, he was more perfect than them". But it can more directly be understood as "perfect in his ancestry, not contaminated". He was chosen in part because he had a pure, uncontaminated bloodline, and could continue humankind purely after the flood.

I think you probably know judging by your answer, in Jewish tradition Noah is seen as a weak prophet.
The world was sooooo bad and full of Hamas (violence) like terrorism today... that in that batch of miscreants Noah was at least so-so.
The question is why did Moses need to clarify "in that generation".

 

[IshChayil]

I have also heard & read that those particular inhabitants were participants in gross sexual conduct. Beastiality as well which is why the animals couldn't be spared. Not sure why the children couldn't be except as Samuel mentioned.

This was the answer that my Syrian Christian friend had offered.
I like it very much; the idea being that even the poor babies had been molested, and such unspeakable spiritual wickedness was already imprinted on them that they all just had to be destroyed. This also explains why the animals also had to be exterminated since the torah says if there is some nasty thing between a person and an animal both get executed.
Excellent answer. Maybe some combination; maybe the giants were super perverts and so both leading answers are correct! Big 'ol pituitary glands

 

[FollowingHim]

One reason for the flood was to exterminate the Nephalim so I'm wondering how it's that G-d messed up and didn't succeed. Of course the bad angels could have just done it again.

I think the answer is in Genesis 6:4

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

I take this to mean that "sons of God" did this at that time (pre-flood) and also afterwards (post-flood). I am aware the Hebrew is different, but the similarities between the nephilim and these other groups seem strong enough to consider them as the same thing, or at least similar. Maybe nephilim refers to first-generation hybrids, while the others were tribal groups descended from nephilim but having more diluted genetics? For instance the giants in 2 Samuel 21:18-22, who "were born to the giant in Gath", ie at least second generation.

 

[IshChayil]

I think the answer is in Genesis 6:4

I take this to mean that "sons of God" did this at that time (pre-flood) and also afterwards (post-flood). I am aware the Hebrew is different, but the similarities between the nephilim and these other groups seem strong enough to consider them as the same thing, or at least similar. Maybe nephilim refers to first-generation hybrids, while the others were tribal groups descended from nephilim but having more diluted genetics? For instance the giants in 2 Samuel 21:18-22, who "were born to the giant in Gath", ie at least second generation.

I guess the part I don't get is how did they survive the flood? I don't buy the midrash that says Og held onto the ark.
Maybe these were lesser giants? BTW it's interesting the other group you mentioned eimot means "the terrors" for sure an 8foot tall guy with a club would be a terror.
Imagine if he had a scary star on it ta boot!

 

[FollowingHim]

What I take it to mean is that the fallen angels did it again. No nephilim survived the flood, but more were produced independently later, and these then had descendants.

 

[IshChayil]

What I take it to mean is that the fallen angels did it again. No nephilim survived the flood, but more were produced independently later, and these then had descendants.

Certainly can be.

I think my thinking has been influenced by a church tradition that those angels were sent to hell so they couldn't do it any more.
Of course no scriptural support just a church tradition I picked up.
Your idea is surely plausible as I remove that tradition from my mind.

If we explore this further, what kept them from doing it again later? Like in Roman times

 

[FollowingHim]

The angels that produced the pre-flood nephilim were sent to tartarus (often mistranslated "hell", 2 Peter 2:4), and this appears to be a reference to the book of Enoch. However we know very little about angels or what may cause them to rebel. I assume some more chose to rebel later, since the original ones were bound in chains, but can't cite scripture to prove it.

This is also a possible reason for the attempted rape of the angels in Sodom. It doesn't say specifically that the men wished to have homosexual sex with them. Possibly they recognised they were angels and wished to force them to impregnate their women, to breed strong warriors. They are condemned later for "going after strange flesh", with "strange" being the Greek "hetero", the language does not suggest homosexuality. This would suggest they were familiar with the concept of sex with angels.

 

[rustywest4]

I'm absolutely loving all the Enochian talk here homies! ... Honestly it's a huge problem in modern Christianity that these things are not understood! Genesis chapter 6 and "the days of Noah" is practically ignored by preachers and teachers in the church today... That's a bummer when you consider the fact that Messiah tells us it'll be like those days again when He returns.

Gen6 Productions has done an amazing job with their new documentary series called "True Legends" hitting hard on this stuff... Sortof like the Christian version of Ancient Aliens! I strongly recommend it... or anything from Steve Quayle, Tom Horn, or Timothy Albariño!

My boys are ready to fight those nasty six fingered with me! ... Perhaps chop off a Goliath head and pack it around for a while! Boom baby!

 

[IshChayil]

The angels that produced the pre-flood nephilim were sent to tartarus (often mistranslated "hell", 2 Peter 2:4), and this appears to be a reference to the book of Enoch. However we know very little about angels or what may cause them to rebel. I assume some more chose to rebel later, since the original ones were bound in chains, but can't cite scripture to prove it.

This is also a possible reason for the attempted rape of the angels in Sodom. It doesn't say specifically that the men wished to have homosexual sex with them. Possibly they recognised they were angels and wished to force them to impregnate their women, to breed strong warriors. They are condemned later for "going after strange flesh", with "strange" being the Greek "hetero", the language does not suggest homosexuality. This would suggest they were familiar with the concept of sex with angels.

Interesting about Tartarus. I wonder if this is New Testament writers/translators into Greek referring to the Rabbinical Gihennom? In other places they use “Hades” for hell surely not meaning the Greek’s concept of Hades which is even a god’s name. So often Greek was inadequate to express ideas well defined in Hebrew/Aramaic writings.

I think the alternative Genesis idea you suggest doesn’t seem plausible though.
The Hebrew clearly states “ונדעה אתם…” so we can “know” them; context makes it clear it’s about sex since Lot responds with his “take my daughters instead-I’m best dad of the year” response. Also the syntax implies this.
I checked in [HALOT], perhaps the most respected scholarly lexicon for Biblical Hebrew/Aramaic and it even makes reference to this verse.
Here's the entry:
"—6. to know sexually, have intercourse with, copulate )...[cognate information removed, Ugaritic etc.] feminae notitiam habere, cognoscere, THAT 1:689, 691) Gn 41 1K 14, paederastic Gn 19:5, of the woman (cf. Akk. !) 198 Nu 3117.

I can't think of a Hebrew verse that uses this word where a person is the object and it isn't traditionally rendered as "copulate with".
I didn't search though, so it's totally possible.
It’s true that Hebrew word 'to know' can mean many, many things so I checked the septuagint rendering in Greek ((I'm not treating LXX as authoritative of course, just as a sanity check):
“...συγγενώμεθα αὐτοῖς.” [Liddel-Scott] defines συγγίνομαι simply as “to have sexual intercourse” and the -μεθα ending on that verb indicates “we” in the middle voice (further suggesting 'we ourselves').
The mood is subjunctive so the immediate purpose “that we may have sex” is contigent on ἐξάγαγε αὐτοὺς πρὸς ἡμᾶς “send them out to us”.

I guess if we break down the verb συγ+γίνομαι (sug+ginomai) we get individual parts “be together with” which seems to have other possible meanings if it was used according to it’s component parts. This is solvable if we say the men of the city were lying, but I don’t see why not just say “so we can buy them a beer” instead of saying “so we can have sex with them”.

I peeked at the Targum Onkelos Aramaic and it doesn’t add anything (same as Hebrew).