The Amorites are an important case study for these articles. They represent one of the most serious dilemmas in scripture. A God ordained genocide of a people group through the means of war. What makes this more difficult to reconcile is that they seem to have found their redemptive gift which I believe was their contribution to law. My initial thinking around the Amorites was, ‘that they got law right but religion wrong’. This conclusion is based on a dichotomy that did not exist among the ancients and in reality does not exist at present. Religion and law are always connected, either, by religions absence or its presence. The sin of the Amorite is expressed religiously when it centers its religious expression around man and not on God.
They were a so called advanced people group. The lesson that may be drawn from their history is that modernization and technologically does not equal favor with God. It also does not mean that God has a bias against modernization. The development of cities and their redemptive purpose will be considered later in these articles. We first learn of the Amorites in the book of Genesis through a prophecy made to Abraham. Within the prophecy three nations are spoken about, Israel to whom the promise is made, Egypt the nation that would enslaved them, and the Amorites who would mature their sin to the point that the Lord would call for their death through war with His people.
"Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years. But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. You, however, will go to your fathers in peace and be buried at a good old age. In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure." (Genesis 15:13-16)
The Amorites like all people groups were called to a place, and a time. I am further postulating that their time and place is a sacred trust granted them by God in which they could “reach out and find him because he is not far from” any one of the them, for in Him they live and breath and have their being. (Acts 17:26) Calvin’s commentaries are very supportive of this position. He reinforces the idea that lands are held in ‘perpetuity’ that the land is granted as a ‘dominion’ that the lord preserves for ‘quiet people’ and they are only ‘rightfully expelled’ because of ‘sin’.
“The iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full. The reason here given is deemed absurd, as seeming to imply that the sons of Abram could not otherwise be saved, than by the destruction of others. I answer, that we must with modesty and humility yield to the secret counsel of God. Since he had given that land to the Amorites, to be inhabited by them in perpetuity, he intimates, that he will not, without just cause, transfer the possession of it to others; as if he would say, ‘I grant the dominion of this land to thy seed without injury to any one. The land, at present, is occupied by its lawful possessors, to whom I delivered it. Until, therefore, they shall have deserved, by their sins, to be rightfully expelled, the dominion of it will not come to thy posterity.’ Thus God teaches him that the land must be evacuated, in order that it may lie open to new inhabitants. And this passage is remarkable, as showing, that the abodes of men are so distributed in the world, that the Lord will preserve quiet people, each in their several stations, till they cast themselves out by their own wickedness. For by polluting the place of their habitation, they in a certain sense tear away the boundaries fixed by the hand of God, which would otherwise have remained immovable. Moreover, the Lord here commends his own longsuffering. Even then the Amorites had become unworthy to occupy the land, yet the Lord not only bore with them for a short time, but granted them four centuries for repentance. And hence it appears that he does not, without reason, so frequently declare how slow he is to anger. But the more graciously he waits for men, if, at length, instead of repenting they remain obstinate, the more severely does he avenge such great ingratitude.”
“God takes no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked.”(Ezekiel 33:11) The scriptures tell us these things were written to us as examples and as warnings. (1Corithinas 10:11) We know little of the Amorite religion. I would argue that this is due in part to its lack of redemptive value. God preserves that which is most beneficial to man. Democracy has prevailed because of its redemptive nature. Nazism, Totalitarianism, Russian Communism had short lives in the 20th century because of their destructive nature. What was preserved from the Amorites was their law. It is humanistic in it construct but its preservation means it still has redemptive value for the family of man. The sin of the Amorites is witnessed in the below quote that speaks of the monarch having ‘divine origin’. This is the sin of Eden, in embracing the tempting call of Satan that taunts men to believe “you shall be like God” (Genesis 3:5). The quote also demonstrates redemptive value of the community in its development of central authority or proper state administration and the development of a law code.
“The Amorites are called the Old Babylonians and the period of their ascendancy over the region, which lasted from 1900-1600 BC, ….The Sumerian monarchy underwent significant changes; in order to justify the enormous power the monarch enjoyed, the Old Babylonians believed that the monarch was a god and had a divine origin. This powerful new monarchy invented new ways to administer the state and its resources: taxation and involuntary military service. Above all, the greatest innovation was centralization”
The prolog of the code is full of redemptive language. It speaks of a Lord of Heaven and Earth, and everlasting kingdom, Prince Hammurabi who feared God and sought to establish a rule of righteousness in the land, who destroyed evil doers and made laws ‘so the strong would not harm the weak’ and desired to further the “well being of mankind”.
Scholar’s debate the influence of that the law of the Amorites, known as the Code of Hammurabi had on the Law of Moses. There are four positions in the debate. The first is Independence. “This theory sees the two law systems as having a common general Semitic heritage but not consciously borrowing from one another. Their similarities are due to their geographic proximity.” The second is dependence, “this view sets forth the hypothesis that the Hebrew laws are dependent on the Hammurabi code for its writing”. The third theory is called Intermediate Transmission and is based on the idea of Canaanite culture influence. The final theory is Cognateness, it purports that both codes had been influenced form a common Semitic background during the era of Abraham and Hammurabi. …the Hebrew laws are divinely given, but they were not given in a vacuum. It is certainly evident that Abraham had contact with the Sumerian law codes in Ur and that the people of Israel had intimate contact with the Canaanites. God's revelation was given in time and space not apart from the understanding of the Hebrew people. But God's Word clearly declares Israel's laws to be unique and based on a special covenant relationship with God.” This position is in keeping with the idea of the inspiration that all scripture is God breathed but it breath is given within the context of generation and geographies, and genealogical backgrounds that people would understand it. It should be read and understood in these contexts as well.
It is important to talk about the debate because it can clarify some distinctions in language I am using. When I use the term redemptive I am talking about man’s responsibility to respond to God’s structure. For example if God sets a structure, “be fruitful and fill the earth”(Genesis 1:28). As man follows the structure he learns the redemptive value of honoring the individual, building families, hard work, and the implementation of just and righteous forms of government. All these things are structural. In the process if you domestic elephants, horses, camels, or oxen, the Lord does not care, in fact he has called us to be innovative and free in these choices. If a culture determines that a thief is to make restitution of 10% 20 % or if they are to lose a hand, the question for God is not the penalty man chooses but that the choice is just. The Lord does not care if men are governed by families, by counsels, by kings, poets, or prophets. He cares that they are governed justly. What went wrong with the Amorites? It is clear that at some point that they tried to implement just laws. We have them and can read them. They were posted publically. They had a shelf life of more than 1500 years, enduring until the time of the Greeks.
The judgment by God of the Amorites may be based on the light that they found. God was actively involved in shining light upon this geographic region during this time period. It was not just a Prince named Hammurabi that had influence during this period but a King from Salem named, Melchizedek, in the Hebrew his name means ‘righteousness is my king’. Melchizedek predates Hammurabi. All scholars agree that Hammurabi was a compiler of law as much as a writer of law. Charles Horn commentator on the Code of Hammurabi says it this way; “we find ourselves dealing with the end of things rather than the beginnings. Hammurabi's code was not really the earliest. The preceding sets of laws have disappeared, but we have found several traces of them, and Hammurabi's own code clearly implies their existence. He is but reorganizing a legal system long established.”
It is not conjecture to make the connection between Melchizedek and Hammurabi. What I am doing is in fact asking the same question the scholars are asking about the Hammurabi Code’s influence on Hebrew Law. Is the Hammurabi Code influenced by the righteous, and historic king named Melchizedek? I don’t know. What I do know from scripture is that Melchizedek’s influence was pervasive. Matthew Henry states that “The most commonly received opinion is that Melchizedek was a Canaanite prince, that reigned in Salem, and kept up the true religion there;” In addition to being called the King of Righteousness he is also know as the King of Peace. Might this name be given him for the very task he is completing when we first meet him in the Scriptures? A war has just been completed. Abraham has rescued his nephew lot and the Kings that fought against Sodom and Gomorrah.
“After Abram returned from defeating Kedorlaomer and the kings allied with him, the king of Sodom came out to meet him in the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley).” “Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, and he blessed Abram, saying, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth.” (Genesis14:17-18)
I would like to assert the following things based on the above scripture. The meeting in the Valley of Shaveh was a type of peace conference or end of war negotiation. Melchizedek serving of bread and wine indicates that he was the host of the meeting. That he was the most powerful among the kings in the region and his influence was recognized by the King of Sodom and the people who were present. I would further argue that his strength and influence were based on his righteousness because he worshiped the God who made heaven and earth, additionally, Melchizedek’s knowledge and understanding was not a unique revelation but was common to all present and therefore all were accountable. A final thought before I make the connection back to the Code of Hammurabi. Melchizedek becomes the prototype for all people groups to find a relationship with God in their own time and place through creation. In the word, when the scriptures say Melchizedek is, “Without father or mother, without genealogy,” (Hebrew 7:3) it indicates that there is “There is hope for every man,” It is stating to the Sodomites, the San, the Inuit and the Fuegian there is “A solid place where we can stand, …There is hope for every man,.. There is Love that never dies…” It is saying this through creation as Melchizedek pointed out and through conscience as Paul pointed out. It therefore can be lived out in law that is informed by cultural memory. My point is that part of the law and the cultural memory of the Amorite people should be credited to Melchizedek the King of Righteousness and Peace and Jeru-Salem. Their digression into sin over the next 430 years becomes more profane if the root I am connecting them to is accurate.
The clearest biblical implications of their fall or demise are pointed out by John Piper when he quotes 1 Kings 21:26 noting that the sin of the Amorites was idolatry. When the topic of idolatry and Abraham victory over this sin is discussed in this work it will address the religious, patriotic, and materialist nature of idolatry. Each form of idolatry brings about a dehumanization of people in the groups that practice it. This dehumanization process can be incorporated into every institution of a society if left unchecked. The Amorite digression must have been profound and pervasive. There are two premises that we must always apply to the judgments of the Lord. God is always good and God is always just. 430 years is a long time to bear with the sins of a people that were called to walk in great light. The Amorites had an external light through the influence of Melchizedek and internal light through Hammurabi and a code of law that called for justice. They rejected the lights that shined in their generation therefore came under judgment. “God takes no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked.”(Ezekiel 33:11) The scriptures tell us these things were written to us as examples and as warnings. (1Corithinas 10:11)
“Calvin’s Commentaries”, Genesis 15: 1-21 Christian Classics, Ethereal Library http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom01.xxi.i.html
Hooker, Richard, “Mesopotamia, The Amorites 1880-1530 BC,Old Babylonian Period, copyright Richard Hooker, 1996. Washington State University http://wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/AMORITES.HTM
Hooker, Richard, “Mesopotamia, The Amorites 1880-1530 BC,Old Babylonian Period, copyright Richard Hooker, 1996. Washington State University http://wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/AMORITES.HTM
Hooker, Richard, “Mesopotamia, The Code of Hammurabi copyright Richard Hooker, 1996. Washington State University
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM
Graves, David, The Code of Hammurabi. Crandall University copyright 1995 http://www.abu.nb.ca/ecm/topics/arch2.htm
Hooker, Richard, “Mesopotamia, The Code of Hammurabi copyright Richard Hooker, 1996. Washington State University
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM
Halsall, Paul, “Ancient History Sourcebook 1780 BCE. Horne, Charles. 1915. Paul Halsall, March, 1998. Fordham University
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/hamcode.html
“Matthew Henry Complete Commentaries”, Genesis 24 Christian Classics, Ethereal Library. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc1.i_2.xv.html
Smith, Chuck, “Genesis 13-14” http://www.blueletterbible.org/commentaries/comm_view.cfm?AuthorID=1&contentID=4727&commInfo=25&topic=Genesis
Casting Crowns, “Everyman” Album Title. The Altar and the Door, Big Machine Records August 28, 2007 http://www.lyricstime.com/casting-crowns-every-man-lyrics.html
Piper, John. What does the Slaughter of the Amorite Mean? www.desiringgod.org/.../what-does-the-slaughter-of-the-amorites-mean
No comments:
Post a Comment