I’m not following. Are you conflating all judgment with violence? I feel like you have left the topic of “understanding the text about the Canaanite genocide in light of the revealed character of God” and are talking about something else. All I was saying is that Joshua and Judges should be interpreted in light of the revealed character of God elsewhere, where he isn’t a genocidal murderer of babies, but kind of the opposite. If your point is that other texts talk about God’s judgment, well, fine, I was never arguing that the revealed God of the Bible never judges anyone.
This neatly aligns to the double allusion of Jesus as the Lion and the Lamb in Revelation
1 Like
That isn’t my main question when interpreting the text though, and it’s only a relevant question if you think the text records literal history. Plenty of scholarship has gone into investigating the factuality of the conquest account and it there’s a lot of evidence it isn’t a strictly factual account. There’s also other evidence IN THE BIBLE that the Canaanites weren’t that bad, or at least, weren’t so much worse than Israel.
2 Likes
As your literal and inerrant view of the New Testament presents us with a Jesus who contradicts himself, undermines his own teachings on Divine Love and Forgiveness, and slashes through the compassionate parables of the Synoptics by overwriting them with the paranoid, violent, symbolic prophecies of Revelation, I begin to wonder who you think Jesus really is.
There is not a drop of Divine Love and Forgiveness to be found in Revelation. It’s definitely packed with the ancient narrative tropes of godly justice and mercy and chosen people and glorious visions which may or may not stem from an author suffering from psychosis. But there is nothing of the core message of the Synoptics in Revelation.
The claims made about Jesus and God in Revelation are completely different from the claims made in the Synoptics. Yet you want us to accept, based on your personal belief that Jesus is okay with the awful things that happen in Revelation, that the Jesus who humbly comes down from the mount to heal an epileptic child (in a remarkably realistic pericope) is the same Jesus who goes on a glory-saturated, supernatural, unrealistic judgment spree in Revelation.
You’re welcome to believe whatever you like, but I think it’s fair and objective to say that there’s no way to reconcile the Synoptic teachings about love, healing, and forgiveness with anti-love, anti-healing, anti-forgiveness visions of Revelation.
I’m sticking with the Synoptics, where we’re allowed to look at the pigs as a metaphor.
I think Vinnie’s point it that there isn’t this sharp divide between “The God of the OT” and the “God of the NT” where the former is violent and the latter is peace and love. There is a violent God in the NT too. He was saying he was fine shrugging Revelation off because it wasn’t written by Jesus. Vinnie is no inerrantist.
3 Likes
As someone who believes in religious freedom due to the fact that reasonable people can disagree over the authority of the Bible, I particularly like how Tremper Longman, who fundamentally disagrees with your view, also states quite emphatically in this stage of redemptive history, God’s people are strictly forbidden from engaging in holy war.
1 Like
I appreciate this feedback, Christy. I see inerrantism when I read all the above comments about Jesus when taken as a whole. Some of the comments about Jesus are pretty unambiguous: “The same violence and judgment can be seen in Him or he accepts it as reality.”
From my own perspective, there’s more than one portrayal of God in the OT (and I know I’m not alone in thinking this). There’s also more than one portrayal of God and Jesus in the NT. So if the point is that things are messy, not black and white, I definitely agree.
1 Like
Yep. Isn’t it great?
1 Like
Jesus is making a point about judgement. And a worldwide flood never happened.
Plenty of problems with taking this story too literally. (btw, I believe that it’s a story of being healed from a mental disorder. The details were added post-production)
Think about it: Jesus has a nice chit-chat with demons, he then caters to their request and sends them into pigs. They fly off a cliff and land many miles away in the sea. Flying pigs! They then foul a body of water.
The Bible doesn’t say that. Having infants murdered isn’t providing for them or get them into heaven. Guess they forgot about baby Moses being saved by an Egyptian. Heck, the Comanches terrorized white folks and Native Americans alike, brutally torturing and killing them in their massacres. But they would adopt some captive children into the tribe. e.g. Cynthia Ann Parker.
I look forward to when Jesus returns, and I do appreciate good theology that properly understands the authority due to the Church and State
Fortunately, Brittanica has sound historical evidence here…
Modern knowledge of Canaan’s history and culture is derived from both archeological excavations and from literary sources. Excavations, mainly in the 20th century, have unearthed the remains of many important Canaanite cities, including Bet Sheʾan, Gezer, Hazor, Jericho, Jerusalem, Lachish, Megiddo, and Shechem. The most important literary sources for the region’s history are the Old Testament; the Ras Shamra texts discovered at the site of ancient Ugarit, on the north coast of Syria; and the Amarna Letters, a set of dispatches sent in the 14th century BCE by governors of Palestinian cities and Syrian cities to their Egyptian overlords.
It’s what is being implied.
When non-combatants are accidentally killed in war it’s called “collateral damage.” Sometimes soldiers are killed by soldiers on the same side. It’s called “friendly fire.” But the Bible is describing the deliberate killing of civilians.
Not clear at all. btw, at most it was only a small band that made its way into Canaan, bringing knowledge of the one true God. There was no violent conquest. And native populations did move into the highlands. Not a new ethnicity.
So killing your drinking buddies and blowing up bars would be a good way to save you from your drinking.
1 Like
It also blows my mind Calvin could write Chapter 7 of the Institutes and we would have several hundred centuries of religious authoritarianism and violence postdate it by those who would count themselves among his followers
2 Likes
All valid points. I think my main question has been trying to discern whether or not God could have ordered such a thing as the destruction of the Canaanites.
My point was Jesus seemingly has no issues with what some people are calling God: “a genocidal murderer of babies.” I think most Christians have believed in things like the 10th plague, a flood of some kind etc. It is a very uncharitable way of putting the issue.
Correct on all points. But even mores than just the NT I am lasering in on the views of Jesus where I see him seemingly accepting God is very violent at times. I just want more “what did Jesus say on the issue?” in this discussion. No one seems to want to dig into the details. But I’m a follower of Christ first. Not a gospel literalist but if Jesus said it I’m paying serious attention.
You are way out in left field. First you are confusing inerrancy and a literal view with me just accepting what my Lord and Savior says. As far as I can see, in Mark 11-13, Jesus unequivocally says God is casting judgment on the Temple. In fact, if you read chapters 11-13 you will see it’s all about the temple. The incident in the temple is sandwiched in between the fig tree (Markan literary device), which is the key to its meaning. It was destroyed from its roots (not one stone upon the other). What is implicit is made explicit by the parable of the Tenants. "Now when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” 41 They said to him, “He will put those wretches to a miserable death and lease the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the produce at the harvest time.” Luke connects the dots further in copying Mark’s narrative: "They will crush you to the ground, you and your children within you, and they will not leave within you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation from God.” The destruction of the temple is punishment from God due to their sin and rejection of Jesus.
If you look up history of the Roman-Jewish war and Jewish infighting you will see just how brutal it was (forced starvation; torture, murder, crucifixions by the thousands, hundreds of thousands of Jews taken as slaves etc).
Now you can argue Mark made all this up after the fact. We can have that conversation.
But if you think the sayings in Mark 11-13 represent the voice of Jesus then I have to ask you: Do you call Jesus Lord and Savior? Do you think he was God’s incarnate? Well, why doesn’t he have the same trouble with God casting brutal judgment on a group of people like this?
There is no contradiction. God is loving and merciful. But he also is just and punishes sin. Jesus was loving, compassionate and merciful to the downtrodden and repentant. He was brutal to those who were not (“woe to you”). You are imagining contradictions where none exist. Have you read the parable of the ten minas lately which ends with: “27 But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to rule over them—bring them here and slaughter them in my presence.’:” How about the faithful and unfaithful slave? it ends with " 1 He will cut him in pieces[k] and put him with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Or the parable of the talents: 30 As for this worthless slave, throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ Or what about Jesus and the judgment of nations: “41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You who are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels, 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’”
You can find violent judgment in the synoptics. Look closer. Not as bad as Revelation but it is there. Revelation was probably written in response to strong persecution but it is in our canon so most Christians cannot just throw it in the trash.
No. I only mentioned Revelation because Richard claimed the God of the OT and NT are different on this front. Clearly the most violent book in the entire Bible is in the NT. This is incorrect. There is far more continuity than discontinuity.
I quoted a heck of a lot of verses. I am a Christ-ian. I follow Jesus. Explain to me how we know Jesus never said that or those obvious instances of violent judgment are misinterpretations. I have to conform to Jesus. Not ignore the things he says that I don’t like and pretend they are not in the Gospels. If you know a way around this, I’m all eyes.
Of course. There are at a minimum, four portrayals of Jesus in the NT. Four Gospels, not one.
He is making a point about vigilance but says God will wipe away those like he did in the flood.
he never says my fluffy bunny Father would never drown anyone–he’ll just pass out hugs and forgiveness. And a worldwide flood didn’t happen? So what. That says nothing about a localized one or the potential historicity of Noah or some family God warmed to build a boat long ago during a flood. If Jesus thought that was real, why shouldn’t his followers?
I don’t dispute that. It’s filled with Jewish chauvinism as well.
You are over-pressing potential geography issues in Mark. That is not what might render the story non-historical.
So you are into sola scripture now? And you oddly also disagree that there is a canonical dimension to biblical interpretation? You don’t believe in heaven? That is a very weak response.
I said that is where they go. In the story their parents were sinful. God wanted them all gone. I can sleep comfortably knowing that if God did do this, they are in a better place because, apparently, unlike you, I believe in heaven. I am not an atheist. Death is not the end in Christianity.
That is all one big red herring. It has nothing to do with God ordering or not ordering the destruction of the canaanites. God doesn’t solve every problem the same way. When you become God you can do things your way.
1 Like
I reject the idealistic realism of Plato. Ideas, abstractions and universals only exist in the minds of intelligent beings. Therefore your question doesn’t make much sense to me… for no there is/was no intelligent being prior to God. I don’t believe in any absolute time external to God either so I don’t think the idea is even coherent.
I also don’t accept the argument you are suggesting that because God is the first intelligent being then the moral code He created/accepted therefore means there can never be any morality external to God by which a person may judge him. The point is that we are responsible for our own decisions and thus we must make moral judgements with regards to anything we believe in and thus we must judge any God (or ideas of God as RichardG would say) we believe in and just saying God says so does not absolve us of this responsibility.
I disagree. Mythological stories can pose ethical and philosophical questions and just saying that they didn’t happen does not make the questions go away. And in fact this is why I am not enthusiastic with the attempts to dismiss the stories as fictional because people do use that as a way to make the questions go away and that defeats the purpose of the Bible altogether.
I agree that the factual status of stories don’t make philosophical questions go away, but “were the Canaanites really that bad?” isn’t a philosophical question, it’s a factual question. (That’s the question I said wasn’t relevant.) The fact that the account may not be factual doesn’t “handle” other questions like “why is it in the Bible?” “Why did God’s people define themselves in relationship to a genocidal God?” or even “why do evil people go unpunished?”
1 Like
No. See below.
The allies deliberately targeted German (and Japanese) cities to force them to use much needed resources to defend those cities. (Dresden? Tokyo?) Resources which then could not be used on the front. But yes, there is still a difference.
My point is that in both cases the behaviour of one group elicited a response of another group, who used an (at that time) accepted form of warfare. The response is the war. And that war was then conducted as any other war was in that time.
(I am saying “at that time”, because nowadays strategic bombing campaigns are in general not accepted anymore by the international community. Just think about a current conflict I shall not name. But that doesn’t mean we can judge the allies for what they did. In their time it was not a thing that should not be done. Same with the Israelites.)
Sources? Dr. Israel Finkelstein (who does not believe in an Exodus and Conquest) demonstrated three points in his The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement (1988):
-
The earliest Israelite settlement occurred in areas where Canaanites did not dwell.
-
Canaanite cities continued to flourish in regions alongside the area of Israelite settlement.
-
The material culture of the earliest Israelites indicates a pastoral background.
He concludes that the Israelites were shepherds from the Transjordan.
Nonetheless, I do not think that archaeology can “prove” the Conquest. It can only make it more or less probable. Archaeology can’t prove Hannibal crossed the alps. A massive amount of horse poop has been found on a mountain passage. Yet without the historical record of the crossing, archaeologists would have no way of knowing what exactly happened.
So as you say by “not clear at all”, the archaeological evidence has to be interpreted. And how you interpret that, is influenced by how credible you believe certain historical records to be.
We should also not forget that the current situation in Israel has a big influence on how certain scholars interpret the evidence. Political prejudice is a thing, even among historians and archaeologists.
That is not my point. My illustration tried to make clear the Israelites are indeed to blame for what they did.
Different situations require different solutions. And if Yahweh concluded that at that time and place the best option to create a nation where eventually the Messiah would come from was to eliminate all negative influence through herem warfare, I am fine with that.
(Although I do not think that removing negative influence was the one and only reason to select herem warfare.)
2 Likes
Yes but this is not the question I posted, which was “are people ever that bad?”
And… I am not so confident that historical studies can really answer the factual questions accurately. People so often write (and even remember) things as they want to believe and not as they are… or what people later want remembered or said according to their political agendas. That goes as much for the documents studied by historians as it does for the human writers of the Bible and probably more so.
It is a real geographical problem that Raymond Brown pointed out. Not over pressing it at all.
The story does have a kernel of historicity to it. It’s a story of healing.
Still, as Sportin’ Life says,
The t’ings dat yo’ li’ble
To read in de Bible
They ain’t necessarily so
I merely mention the Bible and you think that means I believe in sola scriptura? And you think I don’t believe in heaven, etc.? Swing and a miss. What is going on with you?
Again, I do believe in “the life of the world to come.” But you know, an ancient Israelite hearing this story wouldn’t interpret it as children taken into Christian heaven with the deity that ordered their slaughter.
But you know what is somehow better? Babies growing up and living a long life on earth before dying.