The Israelite Conquest of Joshua is an issue of growing debate amongst Christians in recent decades. Some people particularly struggle with the morality of God’s instructions and the consequent actions of the Israelites in comparison to modern ethics and culture.
Having recently studied and taught the book of Joshua, I decided to use the opportunity to study this issue a bit more in depth. Given our separation from the cultures surrounding the time of the conquest, the matter quickly proved itself to be a very multifaceted issue.
I have provided my findings for you within this article, however I want to preface, this article does not seek to provide a definitive answer to the debate. Rather, I aim to provide some important points of consideration for you as you work through the issue on your own.
————
Who were the Canaanites?
In the Pentateuch we are introduced to the Canaanites through their ancestor Canaan. Canaan was the grandson of Noah, and son of Ham whom saw the nakedness of Noah. As a result of this incident, Canaan was cursed to be the lowest of slaves to his brothers (Genesis 9:18-27). From the line of Canaan would come the Sidonians, Jebusites, Amorites, Girgashites, Hivites, Arkites, Sinites, Arvadites, Zemarites, and Hamathites (Genesis 10:15-20). These peoples, although often referred to separately, can be referred to as “The Canaanites”.
What was the “Promised Land”?
The Canaanites occupied the majority of the land west of the Jordan River, between the Sea of Galilee and the southernmost point of the Dead Sea. In Genesis 15 Abraham is promised this land, and a great deal more, as a possession for his descendants (Genesis 15:18-21). However, when it came to the claiming of this land, God promised that his descendants would not return to this land until they have been slaves in an unknown land for 400 years, as the “iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete” (Genesis 15:13-16). The promise of this land to Abraham’s descendants was later reiterated to Moses in Numbers 34:1-6.
The land of Canaan was one of great geographic and practical significance during the time of the conquest. Amongst its incredibly diverse landscape, the coastal plains and hill country of Canaan boasted bountiful lands as part of the fertile crescent, perfect for the predominantly agricultural society of the time. On top of that, the land of Canaan was the gateway of world travel at the time, connecting Africa, Asia and Asia Minor. Key trade routes ran through the land, control of which would become of frequent political importance. Many have speculated that these features would have been incredibly strategic for a people called to be a blessing to the nations (Genesis 12:2-3).
God’s Instructions for Conquest
Throughout the Pentateuch, the Israelites are given specific commands concerning their conduct when conquering the land, and what to do with the inhabitants. God warns that the ways of the other nations will be a snare to the Israelites and draw them away from him. He is also very clear that he is a jealous God, and his people are to be holy and set apart for him. Although some distant nations are to be offered the opportunity to make peace, and their idols destroyed, God also commands that some peoples are to be destroyed completely.
Here are some key passages to consider when tackling the Canaanite Conundrum:
Exodus 23:23-33
Exodus 34:11-16
Leviticus 18
Leviticus 20
Numbers 33:50-56
Deuteronomy 4:1-8
Deuteronomy 7
Deuteronomy 9:1-7
Deuteronomy 12:1-7
Deuteronomy 18:9-14
Deuteronomy 20:10-18
Deuteronomy 21:10-14
As one goes through these passages, they may also note that the only passages which instruct an utter destruction of the people are in Deuteronomy 7 & 20. Since this only appears twice, some have interpreted this to mean that God shows reluctance in ordering the destruction of others. Again, that is a matter of interpretation and opinion.
The Same Standard
It is important to remember that even in this judgement that God was calling to Israel to execute on the Canaanites, God was still holding the Israelites to the exact same standard should they decide to behave in the ways of the surrounding nations. Examples of this include the following;
“Whoever sacrifices to any god, other than the Lord alone, shall be devoted to destruction.”
Exodus 22:20
“ The Lord your God you shall fear; him you shall serve, and by his name alone you shall swear. Do not follow other gods, any of the gods of the peoples who are all around you, because the Lord your God, who is present with you, is a jealous God. The anger of the Lord your God would be kindled against you and he would destroy you from the face of the earth.”
Deuteronomy 6:13-15
Progressive Revelation
As Wilrens Hornstra points out in his Boyd Project, it is important to remember the role that Progressive Revelation plays in this matter. One might notice, that much like a parent’s expectations of their children evolve with age, God’s expectations similarly change for his people as they progress through history. It is important to note that although these commands were given to the Israelites of that time, these commands are not reiterated to later generations of Israelites, and such behaviour is discouraged but the time Christianity comes onto the scene.
During the time of the conquest, and even much later in history, all wars were considered to be divine wars. Victory or defeat in battle was considered to be a reflection of the supremacy of one’s god. God may have been meeting the Israelites at their present understanding of theology, and changing their perspective as they progress from that point.
Hyperbole
Another key point of consideration is the role that hyperbole played in the war of accounts of Joshua’s time. It was very normal for people at that time to over exaggerate the effectiveness of their campaigns or to omit details that would imply weakness. The Israelite account of the conquest uses language that is very similar to the war accounts of the surrounding nations of that time. This could mean that some portions of the account are not as literal as they may seem. This is most evident in the claim that Joshua “took the whole land, according to all that the Lord had spoken to Moses” (Joshua 11:23). When observing the account of Joshua and Judges, one can easily note that the whole land was not taken, in fact much of it still remained unconquered at the time of Joshua’s death.
Was it Genocide?
A common term that many will use when referring to the conquest today is “Genocide”. Genocide is a term created in the mid 20th Century to describe the targeted killing of a group of people for their ethnicity or religion. Although the conquest did target peoples of religions and ethnicities different from the Israelites, the objective of these attacks was the possession of the land, and do not line up with the “10 Stages of Genocide” as laid out by Dr. Gregory H. Stanton of Genocide Watch. The conquest is better classified as a Religious War or Invasion. Even then, the only attacks actually instigated by the Israelites were the attacks on Jericho and Ai, every other attack was instigated by other peoples.
What actually happened
There is often a great difference between the Israelite Conquest that people perceive, and the Israelite Conquest that actually took place. As previously noted, Joshua may boast to have taken all the land as Moses commanded (Joshua 11:23), but the reality is that there were large portions of the land that were not conquered, and they did not drive out the people of the land as they were supposed to. Rather, they settled into the Promised Land amongst the previous peoples, and would eventually be drawn towards many of their customs.
Although this is an important point to remember, we must also note that this reality can not be used as evidence to justify the commands of God concerning the conquest. One can not justify the morality of God's commands with the obedience of one to carry out those commands, a line that sometimes gets blurred in this debate.
————
I hope that these points of consideration proved helpful. It is important to remember that this is a difficult subject for some, and it is ok to wrestle with topic of the conquest. It is also ok to not have a definitive answer on the matter, that is much of why I structured the article in the way I did.
If you are interested in studying this topic further, there are a few sources that I can suggest.
Wilrens Hornstra has done an excellent job in covering this subject in his response to some of Greg Boyd’s work. His series called “The Boyd Project” presents a very academic approach to the matter and helped me greatly in my research. These lessons can be found on his website, wilrens.org .
I have also unpacked some of these Ideas a bit more in my teaching on the Canaanite Conundrum which you can listen to here.
As always, if you have any questions or concerns about this issue, you are more than welcome to let me know through my contact form.
Comments