Conquest of Canaan

[Dave_B]

I have been reading some of the book of Joshua and not for the first time, am taken aback by the violence and cruelty in the old testament. For example genocide and burning cities, and hamstringing horses.

How do we reconcile this with a belief in a God of love? Do we just say that this book is not the word of God, or that it is not to be taken too literally? How does the Catholic Church explain such things? Thanks & God bless

 

[FCEGM]

I have been reading some of the book of Joshua and not for the first time, am taken aback by the violence and cruelty in the old testament. For example genocide and burning cities, and hamstringing horses.

How do we reconcile this with a belief in a God of love? Do we just say that this book is not the word of God, or that it is not to be taken too literally? How does the Catholic Church explain such things? Thanks & God bless

Dave, this earlier thread discusses the concerns you have - hope you find it helpful:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=130837&highlight=Amelekites

 

[Garyjohn2]

Death may be the worst possible thing for a person that believes in one world and many gods. But not for those who believe in 2 worlds and 1 God.

These people weren’t killed out of cruelty…they were just called home earlier than they thought.

 

[noobio]

I have been reading some of the book of Joshua and not for the first time, am taken aback by the violence and cruelty in the old testament. For example genocide and burning cities, and hamstringing horses.

How do we reconcile this with a belief in a God of love? Do we just say that this book is not the word of God, or that it is not to be taken too literally? How does the Catholic Church explain such things? Thanks & God bless

The God of the bible is a God of love and a God of justice. The reason God punishes people with death is because of sin. God said in Gen 15:16 "In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.” So, God is giving the land to the descendants to the Isrealites and taking it away from the people who already live there. Also, in Deuteronomy 9:4 “Do not say in your heart when the LORD your God has driven them out before you, ‘Because of my righteousness the LORD has brought me in to possess this land,’ but it is (B)because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is dispossessing them before you”. So it was because of sin that God took the people out of the land.

The bible says “For the wages of sin is death” ( Romans 6:23). So, it makes sense that peopel would be killed for there sins.

1 Peter 4:6
The bible suggest that the Gospel was preached to those who died before Christ “For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.”

 

[Dave_B]

Dave, this earlier thread discusses the concerns you have - hope you find it helpful: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=130837&highlight=Amelekites

Thanks. Yes that was helpful.

Does anyone know what the Catechism says on the old testament violence?

 

[Dave_B]

The bible says “For the wages of sin is death” ( Romans 6:23). So, it makes sense that people would be killed for there sins.

But I dont think it is fair or just to kill women and children and commit genocide as described in Joshua. For example:

Joshua 11:6 "Then the LORD said to Joshua, “Do not be afraid because of them, for tomorrow at this time I will deliver all of them slain before Israel; you shall hamstring their horses and burn their chariots with fire.”

This is obvious an appaling representation of God. Dont you think?

I guess the OT was written a specific culture and time, but how can we call this the word of God? Or do we just dismiss it, as superceded by the new covenant? Thanks

 

[NotWorthy]

But I dont think it is fair or just to kill women and children and commit genocide as described in Joshua. For example:

Joshua 11:6 "Then the LORD said to Joshua, “Do not be afraid because of them, for tomorrow at this time I will deliver all of them slain before Israel; you shall hamstring their horses and burn their chariots with fire.”

This is obvious an appaling representation of God. Dont you think?

I guess the OT was written a specific culture and time, but how can we call this the word of God? Or do we just dismiss it, as superceded by the new covenant? Thanks

Look at it allegorically, is the way that I get through it.

Why does God tell Joshua to do this to the Canaanites? If you read through the book, you’ll find that God does this because if the Israelites mix and mingle with the Canaanites, they tend to fall into the Canaanites pagan ways. This is the way it is with sin. If we allow small sins to invade our lives, they often turn into larger sins. A drink here often turns into 10-15 drinks there (ok, maybe I’m projecting myself, but each person has their own vice or two that can be inserted here).

And if they keep the horses, they will trust in their own abilities in warfare (using the horses for chariots), rather than trusting in God. When Israel trusts in God, they kick some tail!!! Not unlike today, eh?

 

[patrick457]

I have been reading some of the book of Joshua and not for the first time, am taken aback by the violence and cruelty in the old testament. For example genocide and burning cities, and hamstringing horses.

How do we reconcile this with a belief in a God of love? Do we just say that this book is not the word of God, or that it is not to be taken too literally? How does the Catholic Church explain such things? Thanks & God bless

There are a few pages that might answer this for you (not exactly a Catholic page, but still a good one). Let me know what you think.

 

[Dave_B]

Let me know what you think.

Hi Patrick, interesting links. However I still think there is a problem there. I dont think the account given in the conquest of the Canaanites is indicative of a loving God. And I think its incorrect to blame the Canaanites, by saying they deserved destruction for committing idol worship and other sins.

Having looked into it, I think the account in Joshua is of dubious historicity. And the numbers involved highly exaggerated and events maybe even possibly fictious.

I realise this is blasphemy for some. But I am concluding that it is a mistake to view the Bible as being the perfect word of God, but rather as being inspired words about God. After all isnt our faith about Jesus. Who wrote nothing down but preached the word to his disciples, some of which got collated by three of the disciples.

 

[Epistemes]

I realise this is blasphemy for some. But I am concluding that it is a mistake to view the Bible as being the perfect word of God, but rather as being inspired words about God. After all isnt our faith about Jesus. Who wrote nothing down but preached the word to his disciples, some of which got collated by three of the disciples.

Now you’re in for it! Get your shield and scabbard ready.

Onslaught!

 

[noobio]

But I dont think it is fair or just to kill women and children and commit genocide as described in Joshua. For example:

Joshua 11:6 "Then the LORD said to Joshua, “Do not be afraid because of them, for tomorrow at this time I will deliver all of them slain before Israel; you shall hamstring their horses and burn their chariots with fire.”

This is obvious an appaling representation of God. Dont you think?

I guess the OT was written a specific culture and time, but how can we call this the word of God? Or do we just dismiss it, as superceded by the new covenant? Thanks

God is just so he must punish sin. He punished his own people too when they sinned. God took the people who lived in Canaan out because there wickedness and so that God could complete his oath with Abraham ( Deuteronomy 9:4-6). These people sacrificed there Children to other false God’s.

God did have children killed. But, these children would of opposed God as they get older. If that happened then they chidren would of gone to hell after they got older and died. So god did them a favour because I believe they went to heaven.

 

[patrick457]

Hi Patrick, interesting links. However I still think there is a problem there. I dont think the account given in the conquest of the Canaanites is indicative of a loving God. And I think its incorrect to blame the Canaanites, by saying they deserved destruction for committing idol worship and other sins.

Well, just what do you mean when you speak of a ‘loving’ God?

Having looked into it, I think the account in Joshua is of dubious historicity. And the numbers involved highly exaggerated and events maybe even possibly fictious.

I think I’ve heard something like this a while back. Can you please elaborate?

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Hi Patrick, interesting links. However I still think there is a problem there. I dont think the account given in the conquest of the Canaanites is indicative of a loving God. And I think its incorrect to blame the Canaanites, by saying they deserved destruction for committing idol worship and other sins.

Having looked into it, I think the account in Joshua is of dubious historicity. And the numbers involved highly exaggerated and events maybe even possibly fictious.

I realise this is blasphemy for some. But I am concluding that it is a mistake to view the Bible as being the perfect word of God, but rather as being inspired words about God. After all isnt our faith about Jesus. Who wrote nothing down but preached the word to his disciples, some of which got collated by three of the disciples.

I don’t know if it is licit for Catholics (I note you are Anglican) to interpret these accounts as ahistorical. I seem to recall my Catholic Study Bible taking up the position that the early books of the Old Testament were not modern books of history and so reflect ancient genres that did not concern themselves with absolute historical facts or accuracy. I seem to recall the idea of etiology thrown about.

Please note that I am not endorsing this view, nor condemning it (unless the Church does).

As I understand inerrancy, the Scriptures are inerrant in all that they teach to be true. If the ancient authors of the Old Testament did not intend to teach their history in the manner of modern, scientific historical study, then the lack of complete historicity of these accounts are not errors.

I think I’ve heard something like this a while back. Can you please elaborate?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Joshua#Etiological_narratives

Perhaps not the most reliable source but maybe a decent overview.

 

[Dave_B]

…As I understand inerrancy, the Scriptures are inerrant in all that they teach to be true. If the ancient authors of the Old Testament did not intend to teach their history in the manner of modern, scientific historical study, then the lack of complete historicity of these accounts are not errors.

I guess this could be called limited inerrency. In that you’re saying that scriptures are true in terms of teaching the faith and morals, but not in terms of history or science.

However I still personally cant believe the account of the conquests in Canaan can be called moral. They show quite an appauling morality, in terms of violence (killing everything that breaths) and cruelty (hamstringing horses, hanging kings, etc).

I guess my outlook on Biblical inerrency will be keep me as an apostate but I guess I’ll have to live with the consequences.

 

[NotWorthy]

I guess this could be called limited inerrency. In that you’re saying that scriptures are true in terms of teaching the faith and morals, but not in terms of history or science.

However I still personally cant believe the account of the conquests in Canaan can be called moral. They show quite an appauling morality, in terms of violence (killing everything that breaths) and cruelty (hamstringing horses, hanging kings, etc).

I guess my outlook on Biblical inerrency will be keep me as an apostate but I guess I’ll have to live with the consequences.

Well, you’re not an apostate until you go and teach others that the bible is wrong in its account of Joshua. Believe what you want (that’s between you and God), just don’t say that the Church is wrong in teaching as She does.

 

[NotWorthy]

Dave B,

It seems like you believe that physical death is worse than sinning against God. Is that true?

 

[Epistemes]

Dave B,

It seems like you believe that physical death is worse than sinning against God. Is that true?

It seems like you believe that capital punishment and war is better than grace, assimilation and peace. That *is *the nature of your question.

 

[Dave_B]

Dave B,It seems like you believe that physical death is worse than sinning against God. Is that true?

I guess you can see justice in God punishing idolaters in Canaan. But “killing everything that breathes” does not seem either fair or just. And seems to contradict the peaceful and forgiving nature of God presented in the gospel message in the sermon on the mount.

 

[Dave_B]

It seems like you believe that capital punishment and war is better than grace, assimilation and peace. That *is *the nature of your question.

Muslims interpret the conquest of Canaan, as a jihad - a holy war to kill idolaters. Yet jihad has a bad name in the West, quite rightly so, except it seems by some in defending the Old Testament.

 

[Windfish]

I guess you can see justice in God punishing idolaters in Canaan. But “killing everything that breathes” does not seem either fair or just. And seems to contradict the peaceful and forgiving nature of God presented in the gospel message in the sermon on the mount.

Don’t be too hasty. Trust me, that is the worst thing you can do. First things first, study up on what Anglicanism teaches about Scripture. Catholicism has very dense and rich material for its teaching, so you may want to read the equivalent. This is fundamental stuff,

Second, you want to make sure that you version of the Bible is a good translation. Don’t forget about this.

Third, you have to make sure you understand the context. A lot of the clarifying points are unsaid, and that is something many Protestants miss because they don’t have tradition but just the service level text. A book that helps is this one:

amazon.com/God-Moral-Monster-Making-Testament/dp/0801072751/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1305209475&sr=8-1

It is actually very good and may be right up your alley if you are a Protestant. Catholics would a few bones to pick with this view of God which is decidedly Protestant, but it is HUGELY helpful, and I recommend it to establish some context. A lot of typical Hebrew hyperbole is being used in the writing, for example. And there are a lot of other mitigating examples.

A second resource that you can start using right now is this one:

christianthinktank.com/

Also Protestant. A Catholic would have to change a lot of things, but it’s still hugely helpful.