Challenges of Canaanite Identity

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER 3 THE CANAANITE PROBLEM

Ban on the Canaanites

The word Canaanite is almost synonymous with evil in the Yahweh-Israelite covenant context. In many instances it is mentioned for confrontation or pollution of the „chosen race.‟ This chapter will focus on outlining the reasons why the Canaanites were viewed with such contempt.
Israel‟s deliverance from Egypt was not only from oppression, but was more of emancipation from the Egyptian deities. Israel was delivered to worship the God of their forefathers as seen in the speech of Moses and Aaron to Pharaoh, in which they say, „The God of the Hebrews has met with us. Please, let us go a three days journey in to the wilderness that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God, lest He fall upon us with pestilence or sword‟ (Ex 5:3). Israel was delivered to worship her God Yahweh. This was understood by Pharaoh‟s servants as well. Pharaoh‟s servants also said, „Let the men go that they serve the Lord their God. Do you realise that Egypt is destroyed‟ (Ex 10: 7b). This emancipation was with a view that Israel would worship Yahweh without interference and encumbrance in the land of Canaan. Would this dream be realized among the Canaanites whose worship practice was the antithesis of Yahwism?

The Promise of Land

When Yahweh called Israel‟s patriarch Abraham, He promised him and his descendants land as part of the Covenant. The promise says, „And the Lord appeared to Abraham and said, „To your descendants I will give this land.‟ So he built an altar there to the Lord who appeared to him (Gen 12:7). This land was inhabited by the Canaanites (Gen 12:6). Even when Israel is set free from the Egyptian bondage, they are to be brought into an already occupied land, „So I have come down to deliver them from the power of the Egyptians, and to bring them up from that land to a good and precious land, to the land flowing with milk and honey, to the place of the Canaanite and the Hittite, and the Amorite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite‟ (Ex 3: 8).
The phrase „land of milk and honey‟ means the land was naturally endowed with fertility. It had good fertile soil and a good supply of water, rain and rivers. The mention of milk and honey implies that the land could, and supported large flocks of livestock. This is seen in the measure of Abraham‟s wealth, „Now Abraham was very rich in livestock, in silver and gold‟ (Gen 13:2). Abraham refused to take loot or spoil after defeating the kings who had kidnapped his nephew Lot (Gen 14:21-24). Kaiser (1990, 2:316) describes the land saying, „It was a land flowing with milk and honey in that the sheep and the goats gave the milk, while the nectar of the vine and work of the bees added more delectables, and those in abundance.‟
The other implication of the phrase the „land of milk and honey‟ could be that the inhabitants had well cultivated the land in order to realize its full potential. They were experts in agriculture. This potential in agriculture was in turn dependent on the weather pattern especially rain. If any deity would receive the loyalty and adoration of the inhabitants of the land, it would be the deity who provided rain. The Canaanite economy was heavily dependent on a good supply of rain. They knew their god Baal as the storm-god. On the other hand Israel had been raised in Egypt, a land that is not dependent on rain. They had spent 40 years in the desert where their lives were not dependent on rain. The land of Canaan had an environment they had never seen before. It had an economy, the agricultural economy they were not familiar to. If anything, they would have to depend on the Canaanites for orientation and that would include the rain provider. Kaiser (1990, 2:316) says, „The mention of six nations lends credit to the fact the land was spacious. It also implies that there would be battle to possess the land. The six nations would indeed resist. Furthermore, Israel would not on their own take the land. Coming from the desert they would be ill prepared for battle. It would be the powerful hand of Yahweh that would bring them into the land as He took them out of Egypt (Ex 13:14).‟
One of the issues that come to the fore about Israel‟s occupation of the land is the question of the authority of scripture and justice. Was Israel justified to possess the land? The authority of scripture has come under question in view of the dispossession of the Canaanites of their land. Kaminsky (2003:397) questions saying, „How can one possibly maintain that the conquest tradition, which relates that God called the annihilation of every Canaanite man, woman and child is an authoritative part of scripture on par with other items such as the Ten Commandments or the story of the Exodus.‟
Such issues have been raised from many quarters and rightly so. Many in search of the answers have suspected that such texts are insertions of the redactionists. This casts a shadow of suspicion on the authority of the biblical record. However, if one takes a closer look at the social temperament of Israel, one discovers that history and the Bible do not portray Israel as a war machine like Assyria or Babylon. Of course other conquests portray Israel as the marauding Hapiru of the desert. From the military prowess point of view, Israel would not insert an unfounded claim of authorization on something they were not capable of achieving. Kaminsky (2003:400) is reasonable when he elaborates to say, „The most difficult problem raised by the concept of election in biblical literature is not the issue of why some are elect and others are not, how the elect and the anti– elect should interact with each other, but rather the notion that certain individuals, families, groups or nations constitute a category best labelled as “anti–elect.” The anti-elect include those who are viewed as so evil or dangerous that warfare against them may include a call to as well as either the destruction of their livestock and other possessions or the dedication of these to a deity.‟
It would be difficult to justify the dispossession outside the context of the Covenant and faith of Israel. Within the context of Covenant, one would say there is reasonable justification. Abraham was given the land while the Canaanites were there. He could not possess the land because his household was small bearing in mind that he was not given to rule the land but to occupy it as a home. The Covenant context suggests that Yahweh placed Israel in that land strategically so that the rest of creation may come to know Him and be blessed (Gen 12:3). Other nations would come to know Yahweh as they passed through the land of Canaan on their trading errands. Would the knowledge of Yahweh make society better? Would the other nations lead a better life if they accepted the God of Israel and the Covenant?
Perhaps the adoption of the Covenant and its terms would curb some of the vices prevalent in the non-covenant communities. The ethics of the Covenant code would foster respect of the human right to life, right to own property, and regulation of interpersonal relations (this is not to suggest that other societies did not have ethical values). Some of the commandments like, „You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not commit adultery (Ex 20:13-15) would without doubt bring balance of life to any society or nation.
Furthermore the issue of land is a complex one. What gives a society or a nation rights to a particular piece of land? Is it by being born there? Is it by conquest or by divine instruction? History testifies to the land occupation wars. Powerful nations have overrun and occupied the land of the weaker ones. The motivation varies. Some have taken land because of its natural resources like agricultural productivity, mineral wealth like gold, diamonds, oil et cetera et cetera. Others occupied new lands because they were fleeing from oppressive rule in their motherland like the Pilgrim Fathers who fled to America in 1620. The Huguenots and Afrikaners occupied South Africa under similar circumstances. It is only unfortunate that the „godly refugees‟ became oppressors of the „ungodly indigenous‟ who should have been blessed by their advent.
To the average mind, the notion that Yahweh would order the extermination of a particular people to make way for His chosen people is contrary to His nature or acclaimed nature. How would a loving God choose one group and destroy the other. This question has generated debate for which there is no conclusive answer. This is because the concept and the context of election may not be fully grasped by scholarship and the populace at large. There may be answers but frankly speaking the real answers may not be researchable. May I also mention that this is a controversial issue that deserves its own exhaustive treatise. I consider the overview given sufficient within the context of this study.
Attempts have been made to dissect and categorise the Ancient Near Eastern people. This is an effort to understand their ethnic origin, social orientation and religious practice. Kaminsky (2003:398) suggests that, „The idea of election presupposes three categories rather than two -: the elect, the anti–elect and the non-elect. The elect are God‟s chosen people Israel. The anti–elect are those few groups who are deemed to be enemies of God who Israel is commanded exterminate.‟ There is not much challenge with the elect because it places them in particular favour with Yahweh even though it brings obligation which is punishable if compromised. The non-elect also stand in a position of privilege. If they choose to enjoin themselves to the chosen people, they may share a hopeful future with Yahweh. The non-elect were referred to as strangers. There was special instruction with regard to strangers, „You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt‟ (Ex 22:21). The debate rages around the anti–elect who are to be exterminated to make way for the chosen race Israel. The answer to this irreconcilable difference may lie in one‟s concept of Yahweh. If taken as one of the deities, there is no prospect of harmonization. If Yahweh is understood as the creator God, then the rationale in the Bible may be sufficient. This chapter will attempt to outline, within the biblical context some of the reasons for the extermination of the Canaanites.
My observation is that in a number of instances the overriding factor has been divine instruction. There are many stories, both indigenous and otherwise, about claims of divine instruction to occupy some piece of land. The issue of Israel‟s occupation of Canaan can be addressed from more than one perspective. From the faith perspective the Jewish historians can justify it within the Covenant context. From the imperialistic perspective, it is „political evolution‟ the survival of the fittest. There is cognisance that the issues involved are much deeper than the above attempt to address the matter.
The promise of land as a gift of inheritance from Yahweh is mentioned to Abraham, Jacob and Isaac. These are the patriarchs of God‟s people. The land is notably mentioned in the context of possession by dispossession. Israel is to possess the land through conquest. They have to conquer the Canaanites and dispossess them of the land in order to posses it. The land is promised as a gift while it is possessed by the Canaanites, the Hittites and the Moabites.
The giving of possessed land to Israel is a statement that all land belongs to Yahweh and He can give it to whoever He pleases. It also means that the legitimacy of land ownership lies not in unilateral prowess but in bestowal and sanction by Yahweh.
Israel was instructed to conquer the present occupants of the land. This they would achieve because Yahweh would fight for them. But would they also win the battle of faith? Would their religion influence and conquer the religions of the Canaanites? Did the Canaanites discover that, where as they would succumb to the armies of Israel, Israel would through moral compromise lose their protection and blessings if they polluted them with their debased religious practices? Did they know that Yahweh would withdraw from a disloyal and adulterous Israel?

Why the Ban on the Canaanites

Abraham came to inhabit the land as a blessing to the families of the earth (Gen 12:3), not only him but his descendants would be a blessing as well. Does this include the Canaanites? Why does Israel start by exterminating the inhabitants of the land before becoming a blessing? Abraham is not given the land that he and his descendants may co-exist with the Canaanites. His descendants would have to exterminate the Canaanites. Abraham‟s act of erecting an altar to worship Yahweh serves as a land mark of claim and ownership of the land of Canaan (Gen 12:7). The reason given for the extermination of the Canaanites is because of their wickedness, „It is not for your righteousness or for the uprightness of your heart that you are going to possess their land but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord your God is driving them out before you, in order to confirm that oath the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob‟ (Deut 9: 5).
Christensen (1991, 6:184) states that, „In short the action of God is the fulfilment of an ancient promise to Abraham which incidentally also made reference to the iniquity of the Amorites (Genesis 15:16). The gift of God‟s land was an act of judgement on the Canaanites (v.4) as well as an act of faithfulness to the Covenant promise in times past.‟ Hence the possession of the land is based on the initiative and act of Yahweh. The method and consequences of possession would be Yahweh‟s responsibility. They were to feel no remorse or self praise for the conquest. The dispossessing process would have far reaching impact on the dispossessed but that would be for Yahweh to account for. This was the Deuteronomic understanding and interpretation of Israel since the land was a gift and an inheritance. Yahweh the giver would justify their actions as it was a blessing on their part while it was a curse on the other.
When Israel settled in Egypt there was no instruction not to intermarry with the Egyptians, even in the absence of prohibition the Bible only mentions Joseph as having married an Egyptian (Gen 41:50). According to the Dictionary of Theology (2000: 226) on Patriarchal prohibition of intermarriage it says,
We might conclude that it grew out of the hostility toward the Canaanite fertility cult arguing the wife, standing in special need of blessing bestowed by the deities responsible for a multitude of offspring, was much more vulnerable than her husband to the danger of slipping into worship of these Canaanite gods. The Canaanite fertility concept was hinged on a strong belief that the fertility of the land, the livestock and people was a direct blessing of the gods. Human procreation was venerated by the Ancient Near Eastern peoples as a „mystical mystery of life.
The increase in population was owed to the Canaanite gods. In contrast to the Egyptian settlement, Yahweh prohibited Israel from association and integration with the inhabitants of the land of Canaan, particularly the Canaanites. This would not be accomplished by the erection of walls between Israel and the Canaanites. The Canaanites were to be driven out of the land.
The inheritance of the land of milk and honey seems to follow a process of prohibition, protection and eviction. Israel is prohibited from going after the gods of the other nations. She is protected from the gods of the nation by driving out the nations. When Israel goes after other gods and fails to drive out the other nations, she is evicted into exile. The Old Testament is a battle ground for the gods. The wars between nations are actually battles of the gods. Prohibition and protection seems to be Yahweh‟s strategy to avoid the pollution of the Covenant community.

The Prohibition against Foreign Gods

When the patriarch Jacob returns to the land of his fore fathers, Yahweh meets him at Bethel, „Then God said to Jacob, “Arise go up to Bethel, and live there; and make an altar there to God who appeared to you when you fled from your brother Esau” (Gen 35:1). The instruction to make an altar there is a command to worship Yahweh since an altar is sacred structure of worship. The action performed by Jacob in obeying the instruction shows that Yahweh can not be served with other gods. Jacob knows they cannot come to the altar with foreign gods. He gives this instruction, „Put away the foreign gods which are among you, and purify yourselves, and change your garments; and let us go to Bethel; and I will make an altar there to God, who appeared to me in the day of my distress and has been with me wherever I have gone‟ (Gen 35: 2,3). Jacob is at this time introducing his household to the one God who has been with him. He is shifting their allegiance from the gods of Mesopotamia to Yahweh. The act of putting away foreign gods that Jacob had not been strictly worshipping Yahweh the God of his forefathers Abraham and Isaac. At this juncture in life Jacob and his family were making a transition from the old life of many gods to the worship of Yahweh only (Sailhamer 1990, 1:217). However his wives did not share his monotheistic views. The purification process was a preparation to meet this one God. One of the major elements in the purification process was the forsaking of foreign gods because their worship was considered an impurity. It should also be noted that Jacob did not grind the idols into powder as Moses did to the golden calf in the wilderness. Jacob just buried the gods. The significance of burying is not known but it could mean the death of polytheism (Hamilton 1995, 2: 317). Wenham (1994, 2:323) states that, „Worship of other gods was always incompatible with serving the God who said, „Thou shalt have no gods before me‟ (Exodus 20:3). Commenting on the earrings it says, „It could be that burying earrings with the foreign gods expressed complete determination to dispose of idols and any material that could be used to replace them‟ (Wenham 1994,2:323).
This is the beginning of the emergence of monotheism. The patriarch Jacob and his descendants shall not worship any other god except the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Ex 3:6). Israel is prohibited from mixing with other people because of their gods. It is not necessarily the people but their worship practices. Hence the word gods appears at almost every warning. Throughout the Pentateuch, there is a strong prohibition against the worship of other deities other than Yahweh. In the process of deliverance from Egypt, Yahweh executes prohibitive judgements against the gods of Egypt (Ex 12:12). The execution of judgements on the gods of Egypt is a prohibition against their worship. Gispen (1982:119) comments to say, „In the case of some of the plagues this religious significance can readily be seen; the entire background of the plagues was the battle between the Lord God of Israel and the gods of the Egyptians who had to be exposed in their non existence and impotence.‟
After the crossing of the sea, in the song of Miriam, Israel sings praises exalting Yahweh while diminishing the gods of the Egyptians (Ex 15:11). The Biblical account of the slavery of Israel in Egypt does not show that there was any religious oppression. It is common knowledge that what are recorded are the forced labour and the Egyptian attempt to exterminate Hebrew male children. This was intended to eventually eliminate the Hebrew people. They were to be thrown into the river Nile. It is not clear whether they were being sacrificed, since the Nile River is one of the Egyptian gods or it was just an act of clearing away. Kaiser (1990, 2: 372) comments to say, „Indeed “all the gods of Egypt” would be judged by this final plague of God. Obviously those deities whose representatives were linked with beasts were dealt direct blows – the bulls, cows, jackals, goats, baboons, lions, rams etc. With the sudden death of representatives there would be little doubt that it would be interpreted as a direct blow to the gods of Egypt themselves.‟
The existence of Israel was hinged on the worship of one God Yahweh. The worship of other gods would be a reversal of the nation building process initiated through Abraham by a covenant. The process included a 400 year detour into Egypt. There is no explicit mention of Israel adopting Egyptian gods except the foods (Ex 16:3). The threat of worshipping other gods did not lie in the land of slavery; it lay in the land of milk and honey, the Promised Land. In slavery as seen in the Egyptian experience, Israel kept her distinct identity. Worship usually becomes a point of resistance for the enslaved. It becomes as it were the only solace. But in the land of freedom there is laxity. If Israel was polluted in Egypt Yahweh would still move them out of danger by relocating them. He could, as He did, purify them through a process of wandering like the desert experience. However, the pollution in the Promised Land where they were to be permanent dwellers could be permanent as well. It was therefore imperative that there should be no contaminating contact between Israel and the Canaanites. Yahweh did not caution on the dangers of association with the Canaanites, He banned and prohibited it. The Canaanite Baal fertility cult would disorient Israel from trusting Yahweh as the provider of rain, harvest, increase of livestock and children. They would emulate the Canaanites who had all these things but were not Covenant people and did not practice covenant obedience.

SUMMARY
CHAPTER 1 Introduction
1. The Covenant as the Reason for Deliverance
1.1 Monotheism as Context for the Covenant
1.2 The Slide into Pluralistic Idolatry
1.3 Idolatrous Attachment
1.4 Problem Statement
1.5 Aim of Study
1.6 Hypothesis
1.7 Delimitation
1.8 Methodology
1.9 Overview of Selected Authors Comments on the Subject
CHAPTER 2 THE CANAANITES
2. Introduction
2.1 Challenges of Canaanite Identity
2.2 The Identity of the Canaanites
2.3 Canaanite Ethnicity
2.4 Canaanite Ethnicity in the Hebrew Bible
2.5 The Philistines
CHAPTER 3 THE CANAANITE PROBLEM
3. Ban on the Canaanites
3.1 The Promised Land
3.2 Why the Ban on the Canaanites
3.3 Protection by Extermination
CHAPTER 4 ONLY ONE GOD?
4. Monotheism
4.1 Definition of Monotheism
4.2 The Origin of Monotheism
4.3 Origin of Hebrew Monotheism
CHAPTER 5 THE COVENANT
5. The Covenant Motif
5.1 The Importance of the Covenant
5.2 Etymology of Berit
5.3 The Sinai Covenant
5.4 The Ethical Demands of the Sinai Covenant
CHAPTER 6 BAAL THE CONTENDER
6. Baal
6.1 Etymology of Baal
6.2 Titles of Baal
6.3 Conflict Motif in the Baal Tradition
6.4 Similarities between Yahweh and Baal
CHAPTER 7 THE FERTILITY CULT
7. The Fertility Cult Motif
7.1 Baal and the Fertility Cult
7.2 The Cultic Practice
7.3 Divinization and Sacralisation of Sex in the Baal Fertility Cult
7.4 Cultic Sex Personnel
7.5 The Feminist Reaction to bias Against Women
7.6 The Fertility Cult and Sympathetic Magic
CHAPTER 8 THE IMPACT OF THE FERTILITY CULT ON THE COVENANT
8. Background to the Book of Numbers
8.1 The Generation of the Book of Numbers
8.2 The Encounter at Shittim
8.3 What Led to the Encounter at Shittim?
8.4 Some of the Notable Areas of Syncretism
CHAPTER 9 EXILED FOR BREAKING THE COVENANT
9. Exile as a Climatic Consequence of Baal Worship
9.1 Preamble: Developing into a People
9.2 The Cause of the Exile According to Jeremiah
9.3 Overview of the Challenges of the Book of Jeremiah
9.4 The Covenant in Jeremiah
9.5 Baal Worship and Covenant Violation in the Book of Jeremiah
9.6 Jeremiah’s Repent and Return Theology
10 Conclusion
10.1 Purpose of the Work
10.2 Methodology
10.4 Concluding Summary
10.5 Recommendation
Bibliography
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT