MennoNet.com

ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Thu Aug 14, 2025 7:56 pm

MattY wrote: ↑Thu Aug 14, 2025 6:09 pm God is always good and has always been good. What God commanded and established in the Old Testament can never be evil; morality is based on His character and he cannot command evil. Morality cannot change. Justice is good; it is intrinsic to God's character. But so is mercy and grace. In Christ, justice and mercy meet. Christ satisfied God's justice, so that all who are in Him are forgiven of our sins, and we operate according to the grace and mercy He showed us. His kingdom is our priority, not the goals and priorities of kingdoms here in this era. We operate according to a different metaphysical reality; if we are citizens of His kingdom, we want to love others and make them citizens of Christ's kingdom as well. Dual ethics, which ChatGPT mentioned earlier in evaluating Boot's position, is essential to an Anabaptist position of nonresistance. Otherwise, if you have a single system of morality (applied to all situations including government) in which war is opposed on simply moral grounds, in which war and violence are always fundamentally morally wrong, then what you have is not nonresistance but pacifism.

But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee:

And for cities not close by:

When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.

I'm not so sure that the Old Testament ethical style of warfare is the kind of warfare we want to be promoting.

This does raise a good question: How do we think about the conquest of Canaan? I intend this to be not so much about warfare and the sword in general in the OT, but more specifically about the hard passages where the Israelites were commanded to devote the Canaanites and other peoples to "complete destruction" and to "show no mercy." I recall the CLP study on nonresistance warning against reducing God to a kindly grandfather who looked the other way, or to a humanitarian in a predicament. How then do we read these passages while maintaining God's immutability and goodness and the inerrancy of all of Scripture (remember: Jesus was in the OT too, as the Angel of the Lord, and the OT Scriptures were the ones He read and had a high regard for.)

I think this short video has the right idea:

I wasn't sure if he was going to cover my answer but he did at the end. He raises some interesting points about the language of anhiliation.

The ideas presented in the video seem mostly like "we'll pick out a few verses that match our hypothesis, wave away others as a difference in language, and ignore the remainder of what doesn't match."
In particular, the idea that the purpose of the conquest of Canaan was primarily for the judgment of evil seems odd. It seems to ignore that more than 400 years prior, God had promised the land to Abraham and his descendants. Time and again, God reiterated that promise - that he would fulfil his oath to Abraham. Now we're supposed to believe that the primary motivating factor was to judge the Canaanites for their wickedness? I don't buy that.

I suppose we're also supposed to believe that the text doesn't actually mean what it says when it says that foreign cities should be put to tribute but nearby cities should be destroyed. Mr. Video argues that the reason for severity was based on how wicked they were - the text in fact seems to clearly indicate the disparate treatment should be based on whether a city was nearby or far away.

In arguing that the "cities" were merely forts - is he trying to convince us that Jericho was merely a fort?

I agree to a point about the use of figures of speech and figurative language, but is he trying to say that the detailed prescribed process in Deuteronomy 21 related to marrying a captive woman is also just figurative language?

The text makes clear that Israel's failure to obey God was the reason why they had to fight to claim their inheritance. God said if they had obeyed him, he would have driven the Canaanites out with hornets. This of course begs the question - is that how God judges evil? By making the evildoers flee to another part of the earth where they can continue their evil deeds? Are we to conclude that God chose to mete out a different, harsher judgment on the Canaanite warriors because of Israel's disobedience? How does that square with the idea that the conquest was primarily about judgment?

God repeatedly warned Israel against forgetting Him once they were settled in cities that they hadn't built, eating out of vineyards that they hadn't planted. Is this also simply hyperbolic rhetoric? These "cities" that they settled in were simply forts that hadn't housed any non-combatants?

It has to do with rooting out Nephilim bloodlines.

Swiss Brah wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 7:58 am It has to do with rooting out Nephilim bloodlines.

I haven’t heard that. Is there a Scriptural basis?

Some have argued that beings they didn't see God in the flesh, Jesus, they misunderstood God.

ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 10:11 pm The ideas presented in the video seem mostly like "we'll pick out a few verses that match our hypothesis, wave away others as a difference in language, and ignore the remainder of what doesn't match."
In particular, the idea that the purpose of the conquest of Canaan was primarily for the judgment of evil seems odd. It seems to ignore that more than 400 years prior, God had promised the land to Abraham and his descendants. Time and again, God reiterated that promise - that he would fulfil his oath to Abraham. Now we're supposed to believe that the primary motivating factor was to judge the Canaanites for their wickedness? I don't buy that.

Perhaps we ought to factor Gen. 15:16 into our thinking, since we don't want to leave verses out. "And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.”

In other words, back when God gave the promise to Abraham, he was already thinking ahead and planning the judgment of Canaanite evil. God being God, he knows everything all at once and planning the future is as easy as counting to 3 for Him; he can hold everything in His mind and have multiple reasons for doing things, all of which are integrated. Do you seriously think He would tell Israel to wipe out any old nation that hadn't done anything wrong just because He had promised the land to Israel? The judgement on the Canaanites' evil and the promise to Abraham were integrated into His plans together from the beginning.

Another purpose, which the video doesn't get into, was the elimination of the Nephilim, as Swiss Brah mentioned. Michael Heiser talks a lot about this but sometimes overemphasizes it as if it was the only or main purpose. All of these purposes come together in God's plan.

I suppose we're also supposed to believe that the text doesn't actually mean what it says when it says that foreign cities should be put to tribute but nearby cities should be destroyed. Mr. Video argues that the reason for severity was based on how wicked they were - the text in fact seems to clearly indicate the disparate treatment should be based on whether a city was nearby or far away.

I think you've misunderstood. In both the description of the near cities and the distant cities, the contention is that the total destruction language is ancient battle rhetoric and would have been understood in that way by those hearing it at the time. The main difference between the two is whether peace was offered first. The language of "driving out" and dispossession occurs for near cities as well along with the total destruction language.

In arguing that the "cities" were merely forts - is he trying to convince us that Jericho was merely a fort?

This question has long been discussed in biblical archaeology, for archaeology shows that Jericho was not a large urban center. The walls of Jericho compassed only 6 acres, and the overall upper city and fortification system was about 50% larger, or 9 acres.

By contrast, my town of Hartville covers 1,728 acres, and we call ourselves a small town. Hartville Hardware, the store itself, is about 7 acres under one roof. So yes, to us Jericho would appear to be basically a military fortification.

This is maybe a time to remember that the Bible was written for us, not to us.

https://sharedveracity.net/2016/11/18/w ... ification/

I agree to a point about the use of figures of speech and figurative language, but is he trying to say that the detailed prescribed process in Deuteronomy 21 related to marrying a captive woman is also just figurative language?

How does that process relate to ancient battle rhetoric? Answer: it doesn't. Therefore, it wasn't.

The text makes clear that Israel's failure to obey God was the reason why they had to fight to claim their inheritance. God said if they had obeyed him, he would have driven the Canaanites out with hornets. This of course begs the question - is that how God judges evil? By making the evildoers flee to another part of the earth where they can continue their evil deeds? Are we to conclude that God chose to mete out a different, harsher judgment on the Canaanite warriors because of Israel's disobedience? How does that square with the idea that the conquest was primarily about judgment?

Again, the conquest was about multiple things: destruction of the Nephilim bloodlines, judgement on the Canaanites wickedness, and the fulfillment of promises to Abraham.

Also, destruction of your home and removal to a whole new area is a pretty huge deal. Imagine telling the Indians on the Trail of Tears, hey this is nothing, at least you're still alive. It's a significant judgement. And He showed through Rahab that He was still open to repentance if any would repent.

God repeatedly warned Israel against forgetting Him once they were settled in cities that they hadn't built, eating out of vineyards that they hadn't planted. Is this also simply hyperbolic rhetoric? These "cities" that they settled in were simply forts that hadn't housed any non-combatants?

Most people at this time and place would have lived in rural areas; only a small percentage would have been in urban centers. I don't think that's a problem. They would have taken over the fortified towns, of course, but most people wouldn't have lived there. And the argument in the video isn't that there were literally no women and children there, but that they weren't targeted or indiscriminately killed.

This isn't a perfect answer to the problem and he's not claiming it answers all questions, but it's the basic framework for understanding it, and I think it works better than other ideas.

Soloist wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 8:08 am

Swiss Brah wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 7:58 am It has to do with rooting out Nephilim bloodlines.

I haven’t heard that. Is there a Scriptural basis?

https://drmsh.com/the-giant-clans-and-the-conquest/

I think he gets too laser-focused on this answer as the solution to everything, but it's part of the reason.

MattY wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 10:26 am

Soloist wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 8:08 am

Swiss Brah wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 7:58 am It has to do with rooting out Nephilim bloodlines.

I haven’t heard that. Is there a Scriptural basis?

https://drmsh.com/the-giant-clans-and-the-conquest/

I think he gets too laser-focused on this answer as the solution to everything, but it's part of the reason.

Beat me to it. Read Unseen Realm, get your mind blown, then read the Bible again, for the first time.

Swiss Brah wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 12:14 pm

MattY wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 10:26 am

Soloist wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 8:08 am

I haven’t heard that. Is there a Scriptural basis?

https://drmsh.com/the-giant-clans-and-the-conquest/

I think he gets too laser-focused on this answer as the solution to everything, but it's part of the reason.

Beat me to it. Read Unseen Realm, get your mind blown, then read the Bible again, for the first time.

I tend to be very leery of trying to read an idea into the Scripture and prefer it to speak for itself.