That is not what she is saying. She says the Canaanites were punished by God for their behaviour (of which child sacrifice was a part). The punishment was conquest through war. (I am speaking from her point of view here. I myself am still thinking this through. At the moment I am still not sure to what extent the Conquest can be seen as punishment.) The kind of war that was waged against them was herem warfare, instead of the more common war for personal enrichment. As you see, “more common” indicates it was one legitimate way of conducting warfare during this time.
As a comparison, it would be inaccurate to describe the allied strategic bombing campaign over Germany and the demand of unconditional surrender as the killing of German children as punishment for the German killing of other children. Rather, German actions caused an allied response. Which resulted in several things, one of them being the death of many German civilians.
Even if the Conquest is ahistorical, there is still the much later story about the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15.
Joshua took all these royal cities and their kings and put them to the sword. He totally destroyed them, as Moses the servant of the Lord had commanded. Yet Israel did not burn any of the cities built on their mounds—except Hazor, which Joshua burned.
(Joshua 11:12-13, NIV)
Only Jericho, Ai and Hazor are said to have been burned.
Yes and no. With a late date exodus (around 1200) the Israelites would have appeared in the land during the transition from LBA (Late Bronze Age) to IA1 (Iron Age I). Regarding the pottery, there are continuities, yet also discontinuities: the proliferation of the collared rim jar and the absence of both decorated and imported pottery.
Add to that the spread of four-room houses and the absence of pig bones, and it is clear that a new ethnicity emerged in the highlands.
Yes. If I have e.g. a weak spot for alcohol, yet keep associating with drunkards, the blame is on me.
Good point. That is exactly what the Rahab-Achan story is about.
Amen. Gavin Ortlund gave a good example in a recent video. If you see Luke Skywalker blowing up the Death Star out of context, you could think he is a war criminal. But when you watch the whole movie, that would not come to your mind.
I can also imagine persons in 2300 AD complaining why people who ate animals from factory farms and who drove SUV’s could call themselves Christians. But then they should realise that if a church had started demanding vegetarianism and using public transport or bike from its members, it wouldn’t have been very successful. People are already struggling to keep the basics of Christianity. God knows how we will act, so he teaches us gradually. Add to that the fact that for certain things to improve, structural change has to occur.
I see your point. But to me the Conquest was a necessary step that had to be taken if the Messiah was ever to come. We wouldn’t be having this discussion if the Conquest had not happened. Without a land in which the Torah could be upheld, Christian morality would not have spread through the rest of the world eventually.
I can’t think of any other way of how this should have happened. And if the Canaanites wouldn’t have been conquered by the Israelites, the Philistines would have done it.
The Ten Words clearly prohibit murder. The other law codes explain the implications of this command. Deuteronomy 20 makes clear that the general approach to war should be to first offer the enemy terms of surrender. If denied, only the adult males can be killed. (In those times there was no difference between civilian and soldier.) The exception to this rule are the Canaanites and the Amalekites (Exodus 17:14). The destruction of these people was (and is) not a thing that should be done again.
Of course there is this weird passage:
When you lay siege to a city for a long time, fighting against it to capture it, do not destroy its trees by putting an ax to them, because you can eat their fruit. Do not cut them down. Are the trees people, that you should besiege them? However, you may cut down trees that you know are not fruit trees and use them to build siege works until the city at war with you falls.
(Deuteronomy 20:19-20, NIV)
But the footnote gives the more accurate translation of the Hebrew, in my opinion:
Do not cut them down to use in the siege, for the fruit trees are for the benefit of people.
Dr. Jacob Wright comments:
We may conclude by taking a step back and considering the general nature of the war laws in Deuteronomy 20. Each treats the most critical points of combat: before a city is attacked, when a city surrenders, when it resists, and so on. The same applies for vv. 19-20, which treats a scenario in which the besiegers cannot expect a city’s imminent capitulation. For a field commander, this situation consistently poses the most challenging dilemma. When in want of an effective stratagem or ruse, should one wait out the siege and run the risk of soldiers deserting in order to tend to their farms? Or should one resort to a tactic that, while promising to deliver instant results, would have long-term detrimental effects on one’s own or the enemy’s LSS [Life Support Systems]? …
This first step, however, may seem small. Instead of focusing on fruit trees, the law could have proscribed much more extreme cases of ecocide, not to mention practices of slaughtering children or raping women. But precisely in its seeming triviality resides its juridical potential. Rather than mentioning all the possible sce- narios, the law censures the less drastic practice in order to include everything more extreme in its purview. Now if it is forbidden to resort to a tactic that severely jeopardizes a region’s LSS in order to precipitate an enemy’s capitulation, then it is by all means unacceptable to resort to mass destruction for the same purpose. Verses 10–14 already define when it is permissible to take human life, drawing clear lines between adult males, on the one hand, and women and children, on the other. Having addressed the licit use of lethal force, the chapter then continues to spell out restrictions on Israelite armies in vv. 19–20. The reason for this final prohibition seems to be that humans need these trees to survive. … This explains why the law allows only non-fruit trees (or trees no longer bearing fruit) to be chopped down, although it places severe restrictions on even this action. In formulating these restrictions, v. 20 argues according to “necessity,” a principle central to Just War doctrine.
The framers of these laws not only recommend restraint but also recognize the need for written rules to guide military conduct in the heat of battle.
War and Wanton Destruction: A Case Against Anti-Assyrian Polemics in Deuteronomy, 456-458.
No other nation at the time had such laws of engagement. It was revolutionary.
So, again, herem warfare was only to be applied to two people groups. After that, it should never be done again. Catholics could argue that the Pope has the authority to call for such a war again. But for Protestants who hold to Sola Scriptura that can’t be the case. The New Testament is clear about that.
The God of the New Testament used the Romans to crush Judaea in the Jewish War. But he also warned them through Jesus. Christian Jews escaped to Pella.
The Canaanites could have converted (like Rahab) or moved away. They knew what had happened at the Red Sea and in the Transjordan. But instead they attacked the Israelites and their allies (Joshua 10:1-5, 11:1-5).
The Jewish War is different of course. Christians were (and are) not going to be God’s soldiers, so here God used the Romans to punish the Jews.
I think the Israelites were sometimes mistaken. Quite often, actually. But I do not think those mistakes are reflected in the Bible. I suppose that is where we differ.
For example, certain communists would argue that the laws against stealing or moving a boundary mark were just means to protect the bourgeoisie.
What I am trying to say is that when we start to question certain parts of the Biblical presentation of God, we go down a slippery slope. We end up being the arbiters of what is good and evil. And that is often determined by the values of our current age and culture.
Because it could also be the other way around. Marcion claimed that the God of the New Testament was the real God, and the god of the Old Testament was not. But why can’t it be the other way around? Perhaps the strong warrior God is the real one, and the Bible sometimes got that wrong and presents a weak god.
Perhaps the worldview of Nietzsche is correct, that to become an Übermensch is what really matters. The weak deserve to be conquered and destroyed. Power is the only thing that matters. À la Andrew Tate.
So my issue is, if we think we can decide which parts of the Bible are “real” and which are not, we can’t judge people who go into the other direction.