Analysis Archives - Page 13 of 29

The Promised Land Does Not Include Transjordan

Yesterday I gave the arguments for the view that includes Transjordan within the Promised Land.

This was the position of the other two faculty when I was teaching in Israel. I held to the opposing view, namely that the Jordan River is the eastern border of the “Promised Land.” Biblical evidence in support of this position includes the following:

1. The land promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was “Canaan.” “The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you” (Gen 17:8; cf. Exod 6:4; Lev 14:34). Countless passages make it clear that the land aspect of the promise included only Canaan. The biblical or extrabiblical descriptions of Canaan never include territory east of the Jordan River.

2. In preparation for the conquest, God said that the eastern border of the land they were to inherit would run from “the Sea of Kinnereth…down along the Jordan and end at the Salt Sea” (Num 34:11-12).

The mountains of Gilead

3. Moses was forbidden from entering the promised land; consequently he stood on Mount Nebo (which had already been given to the tribe of Reuben) to “view Canaan, the land I am giving the Israelites as their own possession” (Deut. 32:49).

4. If the land of the Amorites in Transjordan was part of what God had originally determined to give
the Israelites, Moses would not have bothered sending a request for safe passage through the territory of Sihon the Amorite. In any dealings with the “promised land,” Moses and Joshua simply destroyed the population without making any requests of them (e.g., Jericho, Ai, Hazor). It was only because Sihon refused to allow Israel to pass (perhaps thinking that the Israelites would leave him alone as they had done previously with the Edomites, Moabites and Ammonites) that the Israelites destroyed his army and their cities. As a result, the land was available for settlement and the two and a half tribes came to Moses with this special request.

5. After the Conquest, the two and a half Transjordanian tribes reported back to Joshua in order to receive permission to return to their land. Joshua said that this was “the land that Moses gave you on the other side of the Jordan,” explaining that it was legitimate for them to live there, but that it was not part of the original land of promise (Josh 22:4). Joshua also said that this land was “acquired in accordance with the command of the Lord” (Josh. 22:8), also indicating that such a notice was necessary because this was not part of Canaan granted to Abraham.

6. The construction of an altar by the two and a half tribes nearly resulted in a civil war. The Cisjordanian tribes accused their brethren of rebelling by building the altar near the Jordan River.

Note their statement: “If the land you possess is defiled, come over to the LORD’s land, where the LORD’s tabernacle stands, and share the land with us” (Josh 22:18). “The land” here clearly means “the land of promise.” The Transjordanian tribes respond that they built it only to prevent a future division between the tribes: “We did it for fear that some day your descendants might say to ours, ‘What do you have to do with the LORD, the God of Israel? The LORD has made the Jordan a boundary between us and you—you Reubenites and Gadites! You have no share in the LORD.’ So your descendants might cause ours to stop fearing the LORD” (Josh 22:24-25). God indeed had made the Jordan a boundary, not only a natural one, but one that defined the borders of the promised land and one that potentially threatened the nation’s unity.

7. In a period still future (best understood as applying to the earthly millennial kingdom), God will divide the land among the twelve tribes (Ezek 47:13-23). It will be divided equally among the tribes, with Joseph receiving two portions. “This land will become your inheritance.” The border is clearly demarcated on the eastern side of the Jordan River. “On the east side the boundary will run…along the Jordan between Gilead and the land of Israel, to the eastern sea” (Ezek 47:18).

Concluding Thought:

The issue is not whether or not it was legitimate for the two and a half tribes to settle in Transjordan.

Clearly this was granted by God. The question is whether or not this land was considered part of the everlasting “promise.” If the Transjordanian territory falls within the definition of “inherited” but not “promised” land, it may best be understood as the temporary but not eternal possession of the Israelites.

Tagged Analysis

The Promised Land Includes Transjordan

When I taught in Israel, the faculty was split on the question of whether the Promised Land includes territory on the east side of the Jordan River or not. None of us questioned whether or not God had promised to give the land of Canaan on the west side of the Jordan River to Abraham and his descendants, but we could not agree on whether the land given to Reuben, Gad, and half of Manasseh should be considered to be in the Promised Land or not.

Today I will present the affirmative side of the debate. Those who believe in a literal fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies will recognize the potential ramifications of this issue.

1. The “land of the Amorites” was included in the original promise (Gen 15:21), and Sihon, king of the Amorites, lived in Transjordan (Josh 12:6).

2. There are specific statements by God that the land inhabited by the Amorite kings in Transjordan would be given to Israel (cf. also Deut 2:12, 24; 3:2, 18).

Deut 2:31. “The Lord said to me, ‘Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land over to you; begin to take possession, that you may occupy his land.’”
Psalm 136:19-22. “…who slew famous kings…Sihon…and Og…and gave their land as a heritage… to Israel His servant.”

3. By the command of God, cities of refuge and Levitical cities were established east of the Jordan (Num 35; Josh 20, 21). Ten of the forty-eight Levitical cites were in Transjordan. The Levitical cities are on both sides of the Jordan in accordance with divine proscription, impossible if Transjordan territory is not included in the inheritance of Israel.

4. Numbers 34, which designates the Jordan River as the eastern boundary, in context, must specifically refer to the land that yet remained unconquered in Cisjordan. Note especially Numbers 34:2, 13-15. In this passage Moses clearly states that Reuben, Gad and half of Manasseh already have their inheritance east of the Jordan. The remaining territory, the Land of Canaan, west of the Jordan, was yet to be divided up by lot to the other nine and a half tribes.

The Jordan River

5. Israel could expand the promise to the point that more cities could be added (Deut 19:8-10).

6. The land that Moses “gave” on the other side was “acquired in accordance with the command of the Lord” (Josh 22:4-5, 9).

7. Manasseh’s “inheritance” is east of the Jordan. This is the same term used for the other tribes (Josh 13:8ff; cf. Judg 11:23-24).

8. A prophecy of the end times speaks of Israel’s presence in Transjordan: The Israelites “will lay hands on Edom and Moab and the Ammonites will be subject to them” (Isa 11:14; cf. Ezek 25:4-14).

The eminent geographer Barry Beitzel is one who holds a view similar to that presented here (The New Moody Atlas of the Bible, 26-29). Tomorrow I will present the arguments for my view.

Tagged Analysis

Your Take: Dever on Israel’s Emergence

While I’m traveling, I thought I might provoke readers with a statement written by William G. Dever in his article “Archaeology, Syro-Palestinian and Biblical,” published in 1992 in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, page 366.

Thus the book of Joshua and the works of the Deuteronomistic historians (Joshua-Kings) portray the emergence of Israel in Canaan as the result of a sudden, unified military conquest of the Twelve-Tribe League under the leadership of Joshua—a miraculous gift of Yahweh. Archaeological evidence, however, shows beyond doubt that most Late Bronze Age Canaanite sites in Palestine were not destroyed ca. 1200 B.C., and that nearly all the identifiable early Israelite settlements were established peacefully on virgin soil (Finkelstein AIS). Therefore, from the point of the secular historian, the ascendancy of Israel was part of a gradual, exceedingly complex process of socioeconomic change on the Late Bronze–Iron I horizon, not a “miracle” at all.

How many problems do you see with this statement? How does bad Bible reading lead him to faulty conclusions? What parts of his statement are true?

Excavations at Bethel (Beitin), once believed to support the late date theory of the conquest
Source: The American Colony and Eric Matson Collection, volume 1

Tagged Analysis, Exodus-Conquest

Biblical Problems with Locating Sodom at Tall el-Hammam

(Guest post by Bill Schlegel at The Master’s College, Israel Bible Extension)

As Todd has noted previously, there are archaeological and chronological problems with identifying Tall el-Hammam with Sodom. Here are some scriptural/textual considerations. A main reason that a northern location is sought for Sodom is the belief that Gen. 13:10-12 places Sodom in the region of the “Plain (kikkar) of the Jordan” that is, north of the Dead Sea (Gen 13:10). However, I don’t think Gen. 13:10-12 restricts Sodom to the Kikkar of the Jordan. Yes, Lot chose the Kikkar of the Jordan and travelled east from the Hill Country. However, Genesis 13:11-12 implies passage of time during which Lot moved around. That Lot “pitched his tent as far as Sodom” suggests a geographical separation from the “Kikkar of the Jordan.” Also, the word kikkar does not exclusively refer only to the area of the Rift Valley just north of the Dead Sea. “Kikkar of the Jordan” can refer to the area as far north as Sukkoth (1 Kings 7:46). The word kikkar may be used to refer to other parts of the Rift Valley in general, especially when not accompanied by the appellation “of the Jordan” (Gen. 19:17, 28; 2 Sam. 18:23). In other words, Sodom could be in the kikkar, without being in the Kikkar of the Jordan.

In favor of a southern location, Scripture associates Sodom geographically with the “Valley of Siddim, which is the Salt Sea” an area distinct from the Kikkar of the Jordan (Gen. 14:3, 8, 10). The meaning of Siddim, “lime, whitewash” (LXX “salty”) and the pits in the region suggest a more southern location for Sodom. Also, locating Sodom and Gomorrah in the south fits better the post-destruction environment described by the prophets (Deut. 29:23, Isa. 13:19-20, Jer. 49:18, 50:40; Zeph. 2:9) and a later battle between Judah and Edom at the site of Zair (from the same Hebrew word as Zoar to which Lot fled, 2 Kings 8:21).

I believe we will always have problems trying to locate Sodom and Gomorrah. Besides significant geological/geographical changes to the region associated with the divine destruction (Gen. 13:10), the divine destruction probably didn’t leave much (any?) of the cities to be found. The Hebrew for these cities’ destruction is unique (a combination of shachet “destroy” and hafach, “turn upside down”). It is unlikely that any of these tells/ruins in the Rift (north or south) are Sodom or Gomorrah. More likely is that these ruins represent peripheral cities, perhaps one was Zoar, which were spared the divine judgment.

Tall el-Hamman is an interesting dig. There’s no question that this is the region where Israel camped before striking across the Jordan. Tall el-Hamman may be Abel-Shittim (Num. 33:49). But this could be a problem for the excavators—identifying the Iron Age remains at Tall el-Hamman with another Israelite town goes against identifying Tall el-Hamman with Sodom, because it is unlikely that what once was Sodom became the Israelites’ Abel-Shittim.

Plains of Moab and Tall el-Hammam from the west

Tagged Analysis, Dead Sea

Q&A: Where is the Hinnom Valley in Jeremiah?

While I’m traveling these weeks, I thought I might begin a new series of questions and answers. Over the last few months, I’ve written replies to inquiries from various friends and I will post one every few days.

Question: I have been working in Jeremiah and in 7:31 there is a reference the Valley of Ben Hinnom. Holladay suggests in his commentary (Jeremiah 1, 268) that the best identification of this valley is the Tyropoean Valley. The relevant paragraph is below. What do you think? –C.S.

The name of the valley is variously given as The Valley of Hinnom, The Valley of Ben- [= the Son of] Hinnom, or The Valley of Bene- [= the Sons of] Hinnom. Most authorities, following Gustaf Dalman, identify the valley with wādi ar-rabābi, the “Western Valley” which runs north-south, west of the Old City of Jerusalem, and then cuts east, meeting the Valley of Kidron. But other identifications have been proposed: Hugo Gressmann suggests wādi an-nār, the valley south of the junction between the Western Valley and the Valley of Kidron (and one notes that the Arabic name means “Valley of Hell”); and recently A. Douglas Tushingham has argued persuasively for the Tyropoean Valley, that is, the “Central Valley” running south from the southwest corner of the temple mount. Given the areas of occupation of Jerusalem in preexilic times, the Tyropoean Valley seems the best candidate.

The valleys of Jerusalem from the southwest

Answer: I don’t think I’ve run across this before, which by itself means that since this proposal was made in 1971 probably no one has accepted it (except apparently one commentator). Without reading Tushingham, but looking at Jeremiah 7:31, I can tell you that Tushingham’s motivation likely comes from his association with Kathleen Kenyon who believed, in 1971, in the “minimalist” view of Jerusalem—that the city never included the Western Hill before the Hasmonean period. So the Central Valley would fit the scenario described in Jeremiah 7 in that view.

But since we now know that the Central Valley was enclosed within the walls during the time of Jeremiah (and no one questions that anymore), the theory never gained any traction. Holladay published his commentary in 1986. By that time, there was unanimous agreement against the minimalist view. If Holladay had carried out research with more recent sources, he would have avoided this error.

Tagged Analysis, Jerusalem

The Promised Land Does Not Include Transjordan

The Promised Land Includes Transjordan

Your Take: Dever on Israel’s Emergence

Biblical Problems with Locating Sodom at Tall el-Hammam

Q&A: Where is the Hinnom Valley in Jeremiah?

More Top Stories of 2011