The Anti-Slavery Examiner
Chapter 21 : Alas! for the honor of Deity, if commentators had not manned the forlorn hope, and rush

Alas! for the honor of Deity, if commentators had not manned the forlorn hope, and rushed to the rescue of the Divine character at the very crisis of its fate, and, by a timely movement, covered its retreat from the perilous position in which inspiration had carelessly left it! Here a question arises of sufficient importance for a separate dissertation; but must for the present be disposed of in a few paragraphs. WERE THE CANAANITES SENTENCED BY G.o.d TO INDIVIDUAL AND UNCONDITIONAL EXTERMINATION? That the views generally prevalent on this subject, are wrong, we have no doubt; but as the limits of this Inquiry forbid our going into the merits of the question, so as to give all the grounds of dissent from the commonly received opinions, the suggestions made, will be thrown out merely as QUERIES, and not as a formal laying down of _doctrines_.

The leading directions as to the disposal of the Canaanites, are mainly in the following pa.s.sages, Exod. xxiii. 23-33, and 33-51, and 34, 11--Deut. vii. 16-25, and ix. 3, and x.x.xi. 3, 1, 2. In these verses, the Israelites are commanded to "destroy the Canaanites"--to "drive out,"--"consume,"--"utterly overthrow,"--"put out,"--"dispossess them,"

&c. Quest. Did these commands enjoin the unconditional and universal destruction of the _individuals,_ or merely of the _body politic?_ Ans.

The Hebrew word _Haram,_ to destroy, signifies _national,_ as well as individual destruction; _political_ existence, equally with _personal;_ the destruction of governmental organization, equally with the lives of the subjects. Besides, if we interpret the words destroy, consume, overthrow, &c., to mean _personal_ destruction, what meaning shall we give to the expressions, "drive out before thee;" "cast out before thee;" "expel," "put out," "dispossess," &c., which are used in the same pa.s.sages?

For a clue to the sense in which the word _"destroy"_ is used, see Exodus xxiii. 27. "I will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all thine enemies _turn their backs unto thee_."

Here "_all their enemies_" were to _turn their backs_, and "_all the people_" to be "_destroyed_". Does this mean that G.o.d would let all their _enemies_ escape, but kill all their _friends_, or that he would _first_ kill "all the people" and THEN make them turn their backs in flight, an army of runaway corpses?

The word rendered _backs_, is in the original, _necks_, and the pa.s.sage _may_ mean, I will make all your enemies turn their necks unto you; that is, be _subject to you as tributaries_, become _denationalized_, their civil polity, state organization, political existence, _destroyed_--their idolatrous temples, altars, images, groves, and all heathen rites _destroyed_; in a word, their whole system, national, political, civil, and religious, subverted, and the whole people _put under tribute_. Again; if these commands required the unconditional destruction of all the _individuals_ of the Canaanites, the Mosaic law was at war with itself, for the directions relative to the treatment of native residents and sojourners, form a large part of it. "The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself." "If thy brother be waxen poor, thou shalt relieve him, yea, though he be a _stranger or a sojourner_, that he may live with thee." "Thou shalt not oppress a _stranger_." "Thou shalt not vex a _stranger_." "Judge righteously between every, man and his brother, and the _stranger_ that is with him." "Ye shall not respect persons in judgement." "Ye shall have one manner of law as well for the _stranger_, as for him of your own country." We find, also, that provision was made for them in the cities of refuge. Num. x.x.xv. 15--the gleanings of the harvest and vintage were a.s.signed to them, Lev. xix. 9, 10, and xxiii. 22, and 25, 6;--the blessings of the Sabbath, theirs, Ex.

xx. 10;--the privilege of offering sacrifices secured, Lev. 22. 18; and stated religious instruction provided for them. Deut. x.x.xi. 9, 12. Now, does this _same law_ authorize and appoint the _individual extermination_ of those very persons, whose lives and general interests it so solicitously protects? These laws were given to the Israelites, long _before_ they entered Canaan; and they must of necessity have inferred from them, that a mult.i.tude of the inhabitants of the land would _continue in it_, under their government.

3. _We argue that these commands did not require the_ INDIVIDUAL _destruction of the Canaanites unconditionally, from the fact that the most pious Israelites never seem to have so regarded them._ Joshua was selected as the leader of Israel to execute G.o.d's threatenings upon Canaan. He had no _discretionary_ power. G.o.d's commands were his _official instructions._ Going _beyond_ them would have been usurpation; refusing _to carry them out,_ rebellion and treason. For not obeying, in _every particular,_ and in a _single_ instance, G.o.d's command respecting the Amalekites, Saul was rejected from being king.

Now, if G.o.d commanded the individual destruction of all the Canaanitish nations, Joshua _disobeyed him in every instance._ For at his death, the Israelites still _"dwelt among them,"_ and each nation is mentioned by name. See Judges i. 5, and yet we are told that "Joshua was full of the spirit of the Lord and of WISDOM," Deut. x.x.xiv. 9. (of course, he could not have been ignorant of the meaning of those commands,)--that "the Lord was with him," Josh. vi. 27; and that he "left nothing undone of all that the Lord commanded Moses;" and further, that he "took all that land." Joshua xi, 15-23. Also, that "the Lord gave unto Israel all the land which he swore to give unto their fathers, and they possessed it and dwelt therein, and there _stood not a man_ of _all_ their enemies before them." "The Lord delivered _all their_ enemies into their hand,"

&c.

How can this testimony be reconciled with itself, if we suppose that the command to _destroy_ enjoined _individual_ extermination, and the command to _drive out_, enjoined the unconditional expulsion of individuals from the country, rather than their expulsion from the _possession_ or _owners.h.i.+p_ of it, as the lords of the soil? It is true, mult.i.tudes of the Canaanites were slain, but in every case it was in consequence of their refusing to surrender their land to the possession of the Israelites. Not a solitary case can be found in which a Canaanite was either killed or driven out of the country, who acquiesced in the transfer of the territory of Canaan, and its sovereignty, from the inhabitants of the land to the Israelites. Witness the case of Rahab and all her kindred, and the inhabitants of Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kirjathjearim[A]. The Canaanites knew of the miracles in Egypt, at the Red Sea, in the wilderness, and at the pa.s.sage of Jordan. They knew that their land had been transferred to the Israelites, as a judgment upon them for their sins.--See Joshua ii. 9-11, and ix. 9, 10, 24. Many of them were awed by these wonders, and made no resistance to the confiscation of their territory. Others fiercely resisted, defied the G.o.d of the armies of Israel, and came out to battle. These occupied the _fortified cities_, were the most _inveterate_ heathen--the _aristocracy_ of idolatry, the _kings_, the _n.o.bility_ and _gentry_, the _priests_, with their crowds of satellites, and retainers that aided in the performance of idolatrous rites, the _military forces_, with the chief profligates and l.u.s.t-panders of both s.e.xes. Every Bible student will recall many facts corroborating this supposition. Such as the mult.i.tudes of _tributaries_ in the midst of Israel, and that too, when the Israelites had "waxed strong," and the uttermost nations quaked at the terror of their name. The large numbers of the Canaanites, as well as the Philistines and others, who became proselytes, and joined themselves to the Hebrews--as the Nethenims, Uriah the Hitt.i.te, one of David's memorable "thirty seven"--Rahab, who married one of the princes of Judah--Ittai--The six hundred Git.i.tes--David's bodyguard, "faithful among the faithless."--2 Sam. xv. 18, 21. Obededom the Gitt.i.te, who was adopted into the tribe of Levi.--Compare 2 Sam. vi. 10, 11, with 1 Chron. xv. 18, and 1 Chron xxvi. 45. The cases of Jaziz, and Obil,--1 Chron. xxvi. 30, 31, 33. Jephunneh, the father of Caleb--the Kenite, registered in the genealogies of the tribe of Judah, and the one hundred and fifty thousand Canaanites, employed by Solomon in the building of the Temple[B]. Add to these, the fact that the most memorable miracle on record, was wrought for the salvation of a portion of those very Canaanites, and for the destruction of those who would exterminate them.--Joshua x. 12-14. Further--the terms used in the directions of G.o.d 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 ill.u.s.tration 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, G.o.d 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 G.o.d. We answer, if it had been, we might expect some such intimation.

If G.o.d 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 G.o.d have permitted such an act to pa.s.s without severe rebuke? Would he have established such a precedent when Israel had hardly pa.s.sed the threshhold of Canaan, and was then striking the first blow of a half century war? What if they _had_ pa.s.sed their word to Rahab and the Gibeonites? Was that more binding upon them than G.o.d's command? So Saul seems to have pa.s.sed _his_ word to Agag; yet Samuel hewed him in pieces, because in saving his life, Saul had violated G.o.d'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." G.o.d sent upon Israel a three years' famine for it. In a.s.signing the reason, he says, "It is for Saul and his b.l.o.o.d.y house, because he slew the Gibeonites." When David inquired of them what atonement he should make, they say, "The man that consumed us, and that devised against us, that we should the destroyed from _remaining in any of the coasts of Israel_ let seven of his sons be delivered," &c. 2 Samuel xxii. 1-6.]

[Footnote B: If the Canaanites were devoted by G.o.d to individual and unconditional extermination, to have employed them in the erection of the temple,--what was it but the climax of impiety? As well might they pollute its altars with swine's flesh, or make their sons pa.s.s through the fire to Moloch.]

In 1 Sam. 30th chapter, we find the Amalekites at war again, marching an army into Israel, and sweeping every thing before them--and all this in hardly more than twenty years after they had _all been_ UTTERLY DESTROYED!

Deut. xx. 16, 17, will probably be quoted against the preceding view.

"_But of the cities of these people which the Lord thy G.o.d doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: but thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hitt.i.tes, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perrizites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, as the Lord thy G.o.d hath commanded thee_." We argue that this command to exterminate, did not include all the individuals of the Canaanitish nations, but only the inhabitants of the _cities_, (and even those conditionally,) for the following reasons.

I. Only the inhabitants of _cities_ are specified,--"of the _cities_ of these people thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth." The reasons for this wise discrimination were, no doubt, (1.) Cities then, as now, were pest-houses of vice--they reeked with abominations little practiced in the country. On this account, their influence would be far more perilous to the Israelites than that of the country. (2.) These cities were the centres of idolatry--the residences of the priests, with their retinues of the baser sort. There were their temples and altars, and idols, without number. Even their buildings, streets, and public walks were so many visibilities of idolatry. The reason a.s.signed in the 18th verse for exterminating them, strengthens the idea,--"_that they teach you not to do after all the abominations which they have done unto their G.o.ds_." This would be a reason for exterminating _all_ the nations and individuals _around_ them, as all were idolaters; but G.o.d permitted, and even commanded them, in certain cases, to spare the inhabitants. Contact with _any_ of them would be perilous--with the inhabitants of the _cities_ peculiarly, and of the _Canaanitish_ cities preeminently so.

It will be seen from the 10th and 11th verses, that those cities which accepted the offer of peace were to be spared. "_When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be_ TRIBUTARIES _unto thee, and they shall_ SERVE thee."--Deuteronomy xx.

10, 11. These verses contain the general rule prescribing the method in which cities were to be summoned to surrender.

1. The offer of peace--if it was accepted, the inhabitants became _tributaries_--if it was rejected, and they came out against Israel in battle, the _men_ were to be killed, and the women and little ones saved alive. See Deuteronomy xx. 12, 13, 14. The 15th verse restricts their lenient treatment in saving the wives and little ones of those who fought them, to the inhabitants of the cities _afar off_. The 16th verse gives directions for the disposal of the inhabitants of Canaanitish cities, after they had taken them. Instead of sparing the women and children, they were to save alive nothing that breathed. The common mistake has been, in taking it for granted, that the command in the 15th verse, "Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities," &c. refers to the _whole system of directions preceding_, commencing with the 10th verse, whereas it manifestly refers only to the _inflictions_ specified in the verses immediately preceding, viz. the 12th, 13th, and 14th, and thus make a distinction between those _Canaanitish_ cities that _fought_, and the cities _afar off_ that fought--in one case destroying the males and females, and in the other, the _males_ only. The offer of peace, and the _conditional preservation_, were as really guarantied to _Canaanitish_ cities as to others. Their inhabitants were not to be exterminated _unless they came out against Israel in battle_. But let us settle this question by the "_law and the testimony_." Joshua xix. 19, 20.--"_There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel save, the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon; all others they took in battle. For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should_ COME OUT AGAINST ISRAEL IN BATTLE, _that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favor, but that he might destroy them, as the Lord commanded Moses_." That is, if they had _not_ come out against Israel in battle, they would have had "favor" shown them, and would not have been "_destroyed utterly_"

The great design of G.o.d seems to have been to _transfer the territory_ of the Canaanites to the Israelites, and along with it, _absolute sovereignty in every respect_; to annihilate their political organizations, civil polity, jurisprudence, and their system of religion, with all its rights and appendages; and to subst.i.tute therefor, a pure theocracy, administered by Jehovah, with the Israelites as His representatives and agents. Those who resisted the execution of Jehovah's purpose were to be killed, while those who quietly submitted to it were to be spared. All had the choice of these alternatives, either free egress out of the land[A]; or acquiescence in the decree, with life and residence as tributaries, under the protection of the government; or resistance to the execution of the decree, with death.

"_And it shall come to pa.s.s, if they will diligently learn the ways of my people, to swear by my name, the Lord liveth, as they taught my people to swear by Baal;_ THEN SHALL THEY BE BUILT IN THE MIDST OF MY PEOPLE."

[Footnote A: Suppose all the Canaanitish nations had abandoned their territory at the tidings of Israel's approach, did G.o.d's command require the Israelites to chase them to the ends of the earth, and hunt them down, until every Canaanite was destroyed? It is too preposterous for belief, and yet it follows legitimately from that construction, which interprets the terms "consume," "destroy," "destroy utterly," &c. to mean unconditional individual extermination.]

[The preceding Inquiry is merely an _outline_. Whoever _reads_ it, needs no such information. Its original design embraced a much wider range of general topics, and subordinate heads, besides an Inquiry into the teachings of the New Testament on the same subject. To have filled up the outline, in conformity with the plan upon which it was sketched, would have swelled it to a volume. Much of the foregoing has therefore been thrown into the form of a mere skeleton of heads, or rather a series of _indices_, to trains of thought and cla.s.ses of proof, which, however limited or imperfect, may perhaps, afford some facilities to those who have little leisure for minute and protracted investigation.]

No. 4.

THE

ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.

THE

BIBLE AGAINST SLAVERY.

AN INQUIRY INTO THE

PATRIARCHAL AND MOSAIC SYSTEMS

ON THE SUBJECT OF

HUMAN RIGHTS.

Third Edition--Revised.

NEW YORK:

PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, NO. 143 Na.s.sAU STREET.

1838.

This periodical contains 5 sheets.--Postage under 100 miles, 7 1-2 cts; over 100 miles, 12 1-2 cts.

_Please read and circulate._