Joshua…
2009 February 23
I thought Neil’s talk last night was very important in asking the question: how do we reconcile the images of violence portrayed in the book of Joshua as being God ordained? I don’t think there are any easy answers, ever since I heard that we were reading Joshua at Aardvark I have been struggling with the violent imagery and actions that are apparently sanctioned by God. The image of Jesus, the Prince of Peace and the God that is instructing Joshua’s actions seem almost irreconcilable.
What do you think? How do you deal with the violent imagery of Joshua and other Old Testament books, seemingly sanctioned by God? I’d be interested to know what people thought.
I also was and have been very challenged by that aspect of Joshua.
I also like the fact that wordpress seem to think this post is possibly related to one titled “Harry Potter”.
Back on topic, I think one idea that has helped me was kind of mentioned by Neil on Sunday which is that The revelation of who God is and what he is like has been a process for humanity generally, as it is for us as individuals, and so the old testament authors had an incomplete understanding of God’s character.
I guess practically this means that When it says in Joshua “God told them to go and slaughter every living thing in sight” (not quite a direct quote), actually it wasn’t necessarily God’s will for everyone to be slaughtered that is simply how they interpreted God’s instruction based on their understanding. This obviously throws up loads of problems: Can we trust anything they “heard” from God if they got this wrong?; why did God’s big mission involve taking land owned by others at all?; and many more besides. Certainly things like the story of the couple in Acts who God kills on the spot for what appears to me a mildly selfish act causes some problems with the “they didn’t know better in the Old Testament” view. Perhaps that is entirely a different matter.
I wonder whether there is a modern equivalent of us not fully understanding God and so misinterpreting what he commands without even realising. I can certainly think of some things which I take for granted when understanding what God is trying to say to me that are probably more a product of my cultural heritage than my spiritual wisdom. Actually, having said that I can’t really think of a non-contrived example off the top of my head and yet I am convinced that I don’t hear God perfectly.
Perhaps another side to this which always creeps into my mind is, what if God really does have the right to kill people and it actually isn’t our places to judge whether that makes him good or bad? That argument obviously grates with most people’s understanding of scripture considerably but that doesn’t make it wrong. I think it still raises issues such as why has God’s attitude changed? Has it changed? Would I want to worship a God like that? Is it my right to question whether I should worship my creator despite what i think of his character?
I don’t think I have drawn many conclusions here – this is literally me thinking in comment form so please let me know what, if any of that you think is potentially right.
I wasn’t there on Sunday, but I have thought about this issue quite a bit.
There are a number of different slants on this. The ‘unfolding revelation’ one that Banks mentions seems to be something that makes sense in a general way – we are always somewhat blind to who God really is; if we could know Him completely then we would be God! Our culture, and the culture of the Israelites in the Old Testament was something that God worked in and through AND yet also changed – but it takes a loooong time for change to get through to us – think of it as a supertanker turning around which takes miles.
The difficulty I have with ‘unfolding revelation’ is not in the idea itself; but in using it to argue that parts of the bible are wrong. The language used in Joshua is not particularly ambiguous – God specifically commands them a number of times to kill lots of people. How are we to say that this was them having a false (or incomplete) understanding of God, and then not apply that same logic to say the passage about God being love in 1 John 4? Probably we do that because we feel uncomfortable with the first example, but comfortable with the second. Why not question 1 John 4 in the light of Joshua – after all Joshua was written first!
The problem is that we start from the position of liking or not liking particular passages, and then attempting to work out how the ones we don’t like could be more like the ones we do (if that makes sense!)
Walter Bruggemann suggests that as we read the bible, one of the pictures we get of God is of a ‘recovering practitioner of violence’. That is obviously quite provocative – but what it does do is admit the reality that (if you take the stories at face value) God was more violent in the Old Testament, and is less so in the New.
I think I prefer that suggestion – not because it makes me comfortable, but because it seems like more of a reflection of the reality. Of course it doesn’t ’solve’ anything, but it also doesn’t try to explain away difficult passages. I think I’ve about run out of steam, so I’ll stop there for now…
I am reading the Confessions of st. Augustine at the moment. this morning I came across a pertinent passage. If you can wade through the rather flowery language I think it’s quite a n interesting point.
“I did not know that true inward justice wehich judges not by custom but by the most righteous law of almight God. By this law, the moral customs of different regions and periods were adapted to their places and times, while that law itself remins unaltered everywhere and always. It is not one thing at one place or time, another thing at another. Accordingly Abraham and Issac and Jacob and Moses and David, and all those praised by the mouth of God were righteous. When untrained minds judge them wicked they judge ‘by man’s day’ (1Corinthians 4:3) and assess the customs of the entire race by the criterion of their own moral code. It is as if a man, ignorant of which piece of armour is designed for which piece of the body, should want to cover the ehad with a greave or put on his leg a helmet, and then complain that it is not a good fit. [...] Oras if in a house one sees something being touched with the hands by a particular slave, which the waiter who serves the wine cups is not allowed to do [...] and a man is indignant on the ground that, though it is one house and one family, the same liberties are not given to all memebers to do what they please anywhere they like.
This is the style of those who are irate when they hear that something was allowed to the just in that age which is not granted to the just now, and that God gave one command to the former and another to the latter for reasons of a change in historical circumstances, though both ancient and modern people are bound to submit to the same justice. Yet in one and the same person on a single day and in the same house they may see one action fitting for one memeber to perform, another action fitting for another. [...] An act allowed or commanded in one corner is forbidden and subject to punishment if done in an adjacent corner. Does that mean that justice is ‘liable to variation and change’? No. he times that it rules over are not identical, for the simple reason that they are times. But the grasp of human beings, ‘whose life on earth is short’ (Wisdom 15:9), is not competent to harmonise cause and effect valid in earlier ages and among other nations of which they have no experience, in relation to the times and peoples of whom they have direct knowledge.’
[From St. Augustine Confessions; Book Three; vii (13)]
So I think he’s making the same point maybe about not being able to judge past times because wre don’t have a grasp on them. That we are still under the same law of justice but we shouldn’t assume that means the same actions apply. Or something like that. But more elegantly put.
I’m with Augustine
Thanks for all the comments so far, I guess this is a discussion that could last a life time, and no doubt our thoughts and understanding of the book of Joshua will change over time, mine certainly have in the short time I’ve given to thinking seriously about the book.
One question that keeps nagging away at me is how historically accurate are the stories in Joshua? And what, if anything does this matter for our understanding of them?
[My own reading has led me to believe that they haven't got much credibility as historic events, many think Jericho wasn't even inhabited at the time...but I'm open to persuasion]
Sorry to come to this discussion rather late.
Pete: //Why not question 1 John 4 in the light of Joshua – after all Joshua was written first!//
One good reason is that Jesus said ‘You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies…’ Unfolding revelation works forwards not backwards.
//The difficulty I have with ‘unfolding revelation’ is not in the idea itself; but in using it to argue that parts of the bible are wrong. The language used in Joshua is not particularly ambiguous – God specifically commands them a number of times to kill lots of people. //
If that is how you take the Bible. Or should we read that kind of passage as being the record that the people made for themselves, for their own cultural/historical purposes, of their understanding of their history and God’s dealings with them? They may have accurately recorded their wrong understanding of events.
But how much of the bible do we apply that logic to? Only the bits that trouble us, or all of it? Who is to say that the gospels have not also ‘accurately recorded their wrong understanding of events’? Of course it may not matter for things that seem incidental (what someone was wearing or how many people were at an event), but what gives us clarity about, for example the things that Jesus said?
If we decide that what the Israelites did in killing many people while entering Canaan can’t really have been God because that doesn’t fit with our understanding, then why should a recording of Jesus’ life and words be any more accurate?
To be honest, I’m sure there are many parts of the bible that are not ‘factually accurate’ – take different gospel accounts on the same event for instance. I find it hard to know where to draw the line – what is incidental and doesn’t matter, and what really does matter if it isn’t true/something different happened? I just wonder whether we are happy to accept things unless they make us feel uncomfortable or don’t fit with our understanding – in which case we try to work out what they ‘really meant’. We often seem to start from our feelings about something, rather than being a bit more objective.