Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Numbers

[Zack Whack]

Are these verses about cannibalism?

New American Bible Revised Edition Saint Joseph Edition

"8 If the Lord is pleased with us, he will bring us in to this land and give it to us, a land which flows with milk and honey. 9 Only do not rebel against the Lord! You need not be afraid of the people of the land, for they are but food for us!* Their protection has left them, but the Lord is with us. Do not fear them."

*Footnote: They are but food for us: lit., "for they are our bread." "Bread" (Heb. lechem) is here used in the sense of "prey, spoils" to be consumed by an invader. This is the answer to the pessimistic report that this land "consumes its inhabitants" (13:32).

KJV

"8 If the Lord delight in us, then he will bring us into this land, and give it us; a land which floweth with milk and honey. 9 Only rebel not yet against the Lord, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us: their defence is departed from them, and the Lord is with us: fear them not.*"

*Footnote: defence: Heb. shadow

NIV

"8 If the Lord is pleased with us, he will lead us into that land, a land flowing with milk and honey, and will give it to us. 9 Only do not rebel against the Lord. And do not be afraid of the people of the land, because we will devour them. Their protection is gone, but the Lord is with us. Do not be afraid of them."

[jimwalton]

No, this verse is not about cannibalism. It's figurative language conveying the idea that the people of the land are like sitting ducks, like prey to the hunter. The Hebrew word that is used here is לַחְמֵנוּ (lachmehnu), a word for bread or grain, not meat. So we can't say that Joshua is suggesting or approving cannibalism, or he would have used the word for meat. His whole point is that victory is secure, and the people don't need to be afraid to enter the land for conquest.

And since 13.32 mentions that the land "consumes its inhabitants," that also leads us to believe that this is figurative language. "The land" there is personified; it is not literally eating people.

[Shim Shimeniy]

Actually while it's true that in modern Hebrew it refers specifically to bread, the ancient Israelites seem to have used it much more broadly. Consider Isaiah 65:25, for example.
​
The lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be serpent's לחם.

The rhetorical point is that a serpent's diet will change. Serpents are predators, they certainly don't eat bread, so meat is the better translation here.

Also Numbers 28:24 is another example, speaking about the offerings which are pleasing aromas for YHWH. There too, the לחם אשה ריח ניחח is most definitely not referring to the grain offerings but to the animal sacrifices of Passover.

There are many more examples, but this should get the point across.

[jimwalton]

Thank you for those additions. I agree with you that word can be used to connote meat. I think the context, as I wrote, leans us in the direction of figurative language rather than cannibalism.

Also, our knowledge of ancient Israel suggests nothing that would make us think Joshua was suggesting they eat the people they conquered. When the spies report the goodness of the land, they don't say "And there are lots of people we can eat!" Instead, it's a land of fruit (13.23, 26), milk and honey (13.27). In passages like Isa. 9.19-20, Ezk. 5.10, Jer. 19.9, Lam. 2.20, ands Micah 3.4, cannibalism is portrayed as a horror.

I don't really find warrant to view Num. 14.9 as being about cannibalism.