Divinely Sanctioned Violence?

[michelle]

It's no wonder why people have such a difficult time with the OT. This is my first time reading through Joshua and it's horrifying. I'm through chapter 10 and it's really difficult to understand why God would ask the Isrealites to murder the citizens of all the cities they encounter. I know the Israelites are the "chosen people", but it's frustrating that they are just told to kill everyone else. I think the most challenging part is that we don't really see that God is sad to lose all of the non-Israelites. I understand they may not know Him, but it appears that it's like a snap of the fingers for Him even though they are still His creation.

[Josh]

Yes, the book of Joshua is the most challenging in this regard-- that is, on the topic of wiping out whole people groups.

I think that we should be shocked and horrified and attempts to downplay that reaction are ill-advised.

However, it has been helpful to me to explore the subject further and find out additional information that helps one make sense of some of what's going on in Joshua and how we might begin to make sense of it from our perspective as Christians.

The two best resources on this topic that I've seen are:

The Case for Faith, chapter 4: "God isn't worthy of worship if he kills innocent children"

and

Show Them No Mercy: 4 views on Canaanite Genocide

Both of these resources are in the ACF library and are available to check out.

Obviously, it's a hugely complex and volatile topic, which to do justice online would require a lot of investment in writing, so I hesitate to say more beyond this for now.

Are there certain passages that stood out as particulary hairy?

[Josh]

In reviewing the chapter in Case for Christ, I find it makes some good points but there are some that are unclear or a bit misleading (he mentions that the Law told the Israelites to make an offer of peaceful surrender before fighting an enemy, but doesn't mention that that rule was only for nations outside of Canaan)*.

The Four Views book is better, I think, because it presents different angles on the subject and is much more thorough.

I think I'll attempt to post some of the bare bones points that have helped me at least trust that God's actions can be trusted even in passages like these... as soon as I get some time.



*Also, later he argues that animals didn't die before Adam and Eve's sin, which I disagree with

[Josh]

Okay, here are some thoughts I’ve had on the subject, for what they’re worth. This is not a polished product, just an attempt to throw a tiny bit of light on a very dark room.

1. All humans deserve death for their sin. We should be shocked by God's grace more than His judgement.

2. The only significant difference between Biblical events like the Flood or Death of the Firstborn and the complete destruction of certain people groups in Canaan is that in the latter case God employed His chosen people to carry out his command instead of bringing the judgment through miracle, nature, or evil men. If we accept the judgment of God in the former matter, what reasons do we have to reject it when he chooses to use His own people as the instrument of judgment? There are a lot of powerful emotional reasons to wince at this, but not many logical reasons to say it isn’t within God’s right to do.

3. The inhabitants of Canaan were exceptionally depraved (cruelty, incest, bestiality, cultic prostitution, and most specifically sacrificing their children in the fire) and received an exceptional judgment

4. These same inhabitants were given 400 years to repent and the opportunity to flee (they were not pursued beyond the bounds of Canaan)

5. The Israelites were only told to completely wipe out certain tribes that were exceptionally depraved and occupying Canaan, not every tribe they would encounter. In fact, the Israelites were told to make offers of peaceful surrender to other enemies they would encounter.

6. Even those who God told the Israelites to wipe out were given the chance to flee or repent, as did Rahab, who was then adopted into the fold of the Israelites. Presumably anyone who wanted to accept the Law of Yahweh was able to.

7. Though God used this extreme injunction to His chosen people at one period of history, He has now decisively commanded His followers to “turn the other cheek” and “not return evil for evil” to the enemies of the faith. (setting aside the question for the moment about whether the State has the right in certain circumstances to wage war). This ‘change of policy’ is not inconsistency on God’s part, but is due to the maturation of His revelation to the people of God (from what is ‘right’, ‘just’, or ‘allowable’ to what is the ‘higher way of love’)

8. It’s important to be grieved by the fact that God had to resort to this extreme judgment. It’s important to realize that Scripture elsewhere tells us that God was grieved by it as well, though He commanded it:

Ezekiel 18:30 "Therefore, O house of Israel, I will judge you, each one according to his ways, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. 31 Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!”

2 Peter 3:9 “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”

Responses?

[Josh]

I just posted some thoughts that occurred to me in studying Malachi that I think are relevant to this discussion-- link:

Malachi 3 and 4

[rose]

These points definitely help to give clarity to the story - especially if God really did give the people of Canaan a huge amount of time to repent and flee. But how did he do that? How did God reveal himself and give these people the opportunity to change their ways and repent?

[michelle]

Your thoughts hold great merit, Josh. I'm still chewing on some questions and afterthoughts.

[Josh]

Sept 2, 2007 8:52:51 GMT -8 rose said:

These points definitely help to give clarity to the story - especially if God really did give the people of Canaan a huge amount of time to repent and flee. But how did he do that? How did God reveal himself and give these people the opportunity to change their ways and repent?

The implication in the text is that he warned them through the patriarchs during the time of Abraham. One could also conclude from the story of Melchizideck in Genesis that there were others beside the children of Abraham that knew the true God and served as a witness in "Canaan".

[steve]

Josh,
how would you present this particuliar argument to the new atheists who don't accept the premises of each point?

For myself, I can only say that I don't know why it had to be that way. I don't like it, and there had better be a good explanation, because it seems so contrary to the character of Jesus. Or said another way: If there's a God, He must be good. If Yahweh is that God, then we must not be getting the whole picture on this text. There must be some circumstances which, were we privy to, would lead us inexhorably to the conclusion that these genocides were right. We basically have to suspend our doubt.

It's quite easy to make a case for Jesus being a ligitimate expression of God until he endorses the old testament which contains some of the most confusing things.

[stevekimes]

A couple other points that don't help us process the original commands, but perhaps helps us remember the stand we are to take.

First of all, in Judges 2, God recinds his command to commit genocide on the Canaanites. He does it for the reason that the Israelites disobeyed him in the first place, but the command had ceased.

Second, Jesus accepts the faith of a Canaanite woman as acceptable for her salvation. This is the final turn around of the original command. Not only are they not to be killed, but the Canaanites, along with the rest of the world, have the opportunity for eternal life through faith.

[Josh]

Yeah, the points above are really only helpful to the believer who is struggling with the subject.

For the atheist, like you implied, one must start first with the evidence for and reasons for the authority of Jesus (his life, death, resurrection) and the evidence for the existence of a personal, good God before the "grayness" or uncertainty of this topic can be addressed in any way.

And like I said, I'm not advocating that anyone should feel comfortable with such passages given the information we have. I'm even willing to admit that such passage are probably better evidence for the atheist than for the Christian.

[steve]

As far a you know, is there any interpretive wiggleroom for the conquest story? Is the genre meant to be viewed as pure history?

[Josh]

An ever better resource (the best I've read yet) on this subject is Paul Copan's recent book entitled "Is God a Moral Monster?" Check it out! It's available in the Aletheia library.

In light of several recent threads on facebook I've been engaging in, it's timely. I am soberly reminded of how many modern Christians are ready to dismiss large sections of the Old Testament because of these issues.

[Josh]

Feb 24, 2011 21:34:39 GMT -8 steve said:

As far a you know, is there any interpretive wiggleroom for the conquest story? Is the genre meant to be viewed as pure history?

Steve, I somehow forgot to respond to you on this. In Paul Copan's book Is God a Moral Monster? he points out how the language used in Joshua about "complete destruction" of Israel's enemies shouldn't be taken too literally as it was the figurative common language of the time to describe successful military campaigns. And for all the hyperbole in Joshua we know from certain parts of Joshua and later in Judges, the Samuels, and the Kings that Israel never did fully wipe out the Canaanites. And this is what we find in archaeology from the period: some few but impressive destroyed fortifications but mostly a slow morphing of Canaanite society into Hebrew culture, all the while struggling, as Scripture relates clearly, with syncretism. I'd really recommend reading Copan's book as it addresses these and many related points.