While the Bible often used hyperbolic language to describe a plethora a different events, where "all" could mean "all the earth" or refer to the totality of the victory in a rhetorical sense, not in a literal way. The claim of "totally destroying" the enemy, was concerning a victory in battle. Still, the scripture has to be interpreted to mean God gave the Israelites the right to all the land and made it available to them. Yet, their actual, physical occupation of every single part was a separate matter contingent on their obedience to the Word of the Law. This must be understood, or no future lessons could be drawn from the story The Israelites had conquered the main centers of power, and the remaining Canaanites were subjugated and forced to pay taxes to Israel,
Judges 1:1-2. The complete dispossession of the remaining inhabitants could have been achieved with continued assistance from God, but the Israelites failed to obey what God wanted them to do. Hyperbole? Yes, but no one accepts that as an explanation alone. Bible fact must accompany the rhetorical style within the text. Therefore when interpreting scriptures, we have to keep in mind the historical and rhetorical context of the Bible truth. This is crucial for accurate interpretation, rather than applying just a rhetorical or historical alone.
Threaded Mode
