Joshua and Genocide: a Catholic Dilemma?

[iserve]

The Church allows for “just war” for this reason, there are times when killing is necessary. If Joshua had been a bloodthirsty murderer, looking for spoils, this story would not have qualified, but often, this is the kind of people on the other side, who leave no other choice than to destroy or be destroyed. No one, least of all soldiers who do this work, would like to believe that what they are doing is morally wrong, “murder”, but rather, that they have put themselves on the line to defend what is right, even unto death. At the will of the Father, Jesus was put to death in a cruel, violent and unjust way. It was done for us- that we might be saved. God allowed it for our sakes, and I’m sure that the same was true regarding the Canaanites. The story makes no judgement on the ultimate mercy of God with regard to the individuals in that community, but rather, puts forward what was necessary for the Israelites to reach the promised Land, never an easy journey. Nor was one promised.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Neithan:

Thoughts? Can anyone answer this?

Why must we suppose that Joshua - or the author of the book - lived by Christian moral standards ?​

FWIW: our Christian ancestors saw no tension between professing faith in Christ and treating Christian criminals with extreme severity. Many Christians today see no problem in electrocuting criminals (if that is not both a “cruel and unusual punishment”, what is it ?), just as in the past Christian traitors were disembowelled while alive & conscious, Christian heretics were burned alive, Christians were branded on the tongue, had their ears cropped, their noses cut off, their tongues ripped out, theie eyes gouged out, were stretched on the rack, boiled alive for poisoning, and so on. Executing the young strikes me as monstrous; yet it is not unknown. One thought it had gone out in the 18th century - but no. At least one country which does that, also connives at torture - though it gets the CIA to handle its dirty work.

Why must Bronze Age Semites be held to a higher standard than Christians ? It is passages of just that kind which have encouraged a good deal of Christian barbarity. ##

 

[NotWorthy]

Neithan:

Yes… but the Canaanites lived before Christ and no one was able to enter heaven at that time. I would leave their particular judgment to when Christ descended to the dead after His death. Did He not minister to the deceased, or is that just superstition?

Maybe a better term would have been “other-worldly reward” rather than “heavenly reward”? Abraham’s Bosom, maybe? I’m not speaking with authority, here, but I would believe that a just and merciful God would reward those who serve His purpose.

NotWorthy

P.S. I’m sorry, I really have no clue what you are saying on the other quote about Rationalizing. When I said rationalizing, I meant we, the posters on this thread, not we the Catholic Church.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Steve Andersen:

So are you folks suggesting that God is somehow held to a lower moral standard than human beings? Or to none at all since there is no one He is accountable to?

Shudder

Would God want our worship if we thought He was less merciful than many of His own creatures ? I don’t know. If God is no better than we, He not worthy of our prayers. ​

I think the solution may be as follows:

1. The Biblical texts show a long process of education, from Abram’s “god of the fathers” to the ethical monotheism of Second Isaiah, and from the tribal thinking of the traditions in Exodus to the re-interpreted Messianism of Jesus.
2. ISTM that this process starts with ideas about God that treat Him as just another tribal deity, like Chemosh or Baal-Hadad, whose interests are identical with that of the people who have taken Him as their God.

That is what man does - what God does, and what also appears in the Bible, is that God takes Israel as His own. And this adoption and creation of Israel by its God, is perceived by those adopted, as a justification for their deeds done in His Name: IOW, what they do, is given theological justification as a Divine command. It’s not implied that the text is a straightforward theology-free construction, like a newspaper report.

And this account read in Joshua, though it reveals God, does so indirectly, by means of an account about God - it’s not a direct manifestation of Him, but a witness to Him, and therefore, also a witness to what Israel thought he was when this passage was composed. And what they thought, is a stage in their education in Who God is; an education which never ends on earth. And the supreme Interpretation of God, is Jesus Himself: He is the teacher, His chosen are His disciples (= learners).

The books were written by human beings “of the same passions as we are” - why should they not have have been written under the influence of ideas shaped by such passions ? If vengefulness can be expressed in a Psalm - why cannot vengefulness shape an author’s ideas about God ?

I don’t see that we are in any way obliged to suppose that the picture of God in Joshua is as definitive as the Picture of Him we are given in Christ. (See Hebrews 1.) The OT was a preparation for Him; it is not the definitive revelation of God - Jesus is the definitive Revelation of God. He is the plumbline against which all other ideas about God are to be tested.To see how God acts, we cannot do better than see how Jesus acts. ##

 

[Neithan]

Gottle of Geer:

That is what man does - what God does, and what also appears in the Bible, is that God takes Israel as His own. And this adoption and creation of Israel by its God, is perceived by those adopted, as a justification for their deeds done in His Name: IOW, what they do, is given theological justification as a Divine command. It’s not implied that the text is a straightforward theology-free construction, like a newspaper report.

I think I see what you’re saying (and it is well said), and I’m inclined to agree–there is a distinction between the inspiration of Scripture and the gradual revelation which it contains? Can we safely argue this without infringing on proposition 1 and 2 above (I think so)?

porthos11:

Put that way, yes. Genocide or murder is intrinsically evil and God cannot do that. Therefore his order to wipe out (herem) the Canaanites had to be founded on something else. That that something else was for the implantation of his people, and to eliminate the danger to them. He did not have as his motive to exterminate them due to racial concerns. Many of the Canaanites accepted Yahweh and assimilated into Israelite society.

The problem with these non-Christian writers is that they think all killing is bad. It isn’t. The ancient herem warfare was an act of justice according to the moral standards of the time.

I agree 100%–excellent post! :clapping: That pretty succinctly sums up the whole argument, and more coherently, too. Thanks

So we agree that proposition 8 is incorrect? That should generally clear up Anthony Flood’s ‘dilemma.’ Of course, just like all the other hardened freethinkers, I imagine he would invent another ingenius way to preserve his skepticism. The more the merrier–they only help us further clarify the truth.

 

[Neithan]

NotWorthy:

Maybe a better term would have been “other-worldly reward” rather than “heavenly reward”? Abraham’s Bosom, maybe? I’m not speaking with authority, here, but I would believe that a just and merciful God would reward those who serve His purpose.

You do make an interesting point! I would take issue with the thought that any of the Canaanites were innocent–these people were not only morally dissolute pagans, but we mustn’t forget that they lived before Christ in an unredeemed, fallen world. All were sinners, and all went to hell, right?
With regard to Abraham’s Bosom–I would like to think that many Canaanites were spared eternal damnation by virtue of their punishment… but I’m not sure if that is possible, considering how corrupt they were. I imagine that those who only had Original Sin–infants, toddlers and most children, were probably spared damnation…
It’s interesting to note the dynamic of God’s dealing with the world from today–the time of Redemption, post-Christ, where all the living are offered forgiveness of sins–and pre-Christ, where living sinners were freely, and righteously condemned to death, but the dead were offered (during Christ’s descent) forgiveness. This echoes our creed and foreshadows the future, when Christ will ‘return to Judge the living and the dead.’ So Christ’s first coming opened the particular judgement, and His second coming will open the general judgement.
None of this contradicts God’s immutable perfect Love (revealed more in the New Testament) or His perfect Justice (revealed more in the Old Testament), which were both perfectly exemplified by Christ’s passion.
If God were only loving and merciful, why demand a divine sacrifice for the sins of mankind? If God were only just and righteous, why sacrifice His only Son?

Now I’m really starting to ramble… these forums are really addicting!

 

[Sacramentalist]

Since the invasion of the Canaanites was carried out by human beings, Natural Law would apply to them, yes/no?

There is nothing unnatural about carrying out a killing, even of an innocent person, by divine command.

All were sinners, and all went to hell, right?

We’ve no way of knowing that. It is certain, however, that anyone killed who had not attained the use of reason did not go to Hell, but to “Paradise” or “Abraham’s Bosom.”

To kill an innocent person at God’s command is not murder. God is free to take any life he wishes out of this world, and to do it even by the means he sees fit.

This really is the end of the argument. Any other attempt to rationalize this simply will not withstand intellectual scrutiny.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Steve Andersen:

So are you folks suggesting that God is somehow held to a lower moral standard than human beings? Or to none at all since there is no one He is accountable to?

Shudder

Ahh, Steve? God IS the standard.

What moral standard can exist separate and distinct from God?

 

[Lazerlike42]

vern humphrey:

Ahh, Steve? God IS the standard.

What moral standard can exist separate and distinct from God?

That’s exactly the point. Every moral standard is the standard only because God prescribed it as such.

 

[Sacramentalist]

Lazerlike42:

That’s exactly the point. Every moral standard is the standard only because God prescribed it as such.

Not so much because God prescribed it as such, but because God Is such.

God does not posess goodness as a quality; God is Goodness. Something is good only insofar as it corresponds to God’s eternal nature, which is Good.

But this distinction really does not apply here. The prohibition against murder, by its very nature, applies only to men. It does not apply to God, who is not by any means acting unjustly when he chooses to take a man out of this world and bring him into the next. It *would be * unjust to put a man out of this world and into a condition of eternal misery for no fault of his own, but not merely to take his life.

 

[Magicsilence]

Neithan:

So we agree that proposition 8 is incorrect? That should generally clear up Anthony Flood’s ‘dilemma.’ Of course, just like all the other hardened freethinkers, I imagine he would invent another ingenius way to preserve his skepticism. The more the merrier–they only help us further clarify the truth.

To add a different perspective, which would not only disprove proposition 8 but fight against it is thus:

At that time the moral law was “An eye for an eye”, an action warrants an equal and opposite action. Those killed had gravely sinned against God, who is infinite, and thus, cannot be equalled. However, one could say that eternal suffering would be atonement for sinning against an infinte God. In fact, killing them was not enough as they worshipped idols, as forbidden in the ten commandments. An ancient mortal sin, if you like.

To kill them was not a barbaric act, but merely defense of the Lord Our God and His Holy Status, after all they could have refused to commit the killings, no?

Id say though that it is too hard to speculate on the theology behind the action, too much talking and not enough practicing what you preach, eh?

Andre