??? No, in fact, much of the Promised Land was never taken by the Israelites. They ended up only occupying about a third of the land God had said was theirs. This is still the case today. And those enemies of Israel that were said in one place in the OT to have been destroyed utterly appear only a few chapters later, giving Israel more grief. I would urge you to read Paul Copan's book "Is God a Moral Monster?" He goes into the matter of "war language" in the Bible that was common to the time of the writing of the OT where extreme hyperbole was the norm in describing the defeat of the enemy - like happens in modern sports commentary where one team, or athlete, "annihilated," or "crushed," or "destroyed" the competition.
Consider, for example, the Anakim that Joshua claimed to have eradicated from the Promised Land (
Joshua 11:21-22). He "cut off" the Anakim, "utterly destroyed" their cities, and left none of them remaining in Israel. In
Joshua 14:12-15, however, we read that Caleb asked permission to drive the Anakites from the hill country (see also:
Joshua 15:13-14) in which he had chosen to settle. Was Joshua's claim a lie? No, just the typical hyperbolic "war language" of the time.
The Amalekites are another example of a pagan nation in the land of Canaan giving problems to Israel for centuries. From Paul Copan's book:
"
The Amalekites were relentless in their aim to destroy Israel, and they continued to be a thorn in Israel's side for generations (Judges 3:13, 6:3-5, 7:12, 10:22, etc.)
...the 1 Samuel 15 story appears to be a clear-cut case of complete obliteration. No Amalekites remaining, right? Wrong! In 1 Samuel 27:8, "David and his men went up and raided the Geshurites and Girzites" - and the "utterly destroyed" Amalekites!...they appear again in 1 Samuel 30...the Amalekites were still around during King Hezekiah's time 250 years later (1 Chronicles 4:43)." [pg. 174]
The word "agape" is a
Greek word for "love," not a Hebrew one. It is no surprise, then, that in the
Hebrew OT, the word "love" is never rendered "agape."
Leviticus 19:33-34
33 “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong.
34 You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
There is simply nothing in this verse, or in the use of
aheb generally in the OT, that permits the separation you're asserting here between the word for godly "love" in Greek and the word for "love" in Hebrew. Making such a separation might be convenient for your view, but it ignores the linguistic distinctives of the two languages in regards to the term "love." Consider the following verse:
Deuteronomy 7:12-13
12 “And because you listen to these rules and keep and do them, the LORD your God will keep with you the covenant and the steadfast love that he swore to your fathers.
13 He will love [aheb]
you, bless you, and multiply you...
Here,
aheb is used in reference to
God's love. (See also:
Isaiah 61:8; 43:3-4; Jeremiah 31:3; Hosea 14:4, etc.) In light of the fact that
aheb does refer to God's love in the OT, your convenient distinction between
agape and
aheb collapses.
But this brings me back to the point I made that the Israelites were commanded by God to love the stranger in their midst, contrary to what you've asserted.
Of course, believers are to love their own. But this doesn't mean that they must hate the non-believer. See above.
Some weak, spiritually-juvenile, ignorant believer might read this and descend into an entirely false belief about their salvation and into the fear and legalism that results from it. Beware: You will give an accounting to God for why you promoted such a false teaching!