The Conquest of Canaan

[Franklin]

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."

Thank you for pointing out how dishonest this video is.

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?

The point wasn't punishment. The point was to protect the Israelites from bad influences. Not only were the Canaanites killed, but everything they made was destroyed. Bad cultures make bad things, and bad things are a bad influence.

I am visiting Tokyo now. I visit Japan to escape from evil modern culture. Modern culture is worse than Canaanite culture. But modern culture has invaded Japan. I was here last year and Japan was good. Now Japan is succumbing to modern culture and is turning bad. Japan is the last decent nation in the world. The world is approaching the condition at the time of Noah. This is what happens when good cultures don't keep out bad cultures.

[barnhart]

I see several main points in that presentation I think have value.
1. God has the right to judge as he sees fit. It's not our place to judge his judgement.
2. The language of anhiliation used in the Bible has some internal conflicts when taken literally.

[ken_sylvania]

I see several main points in that presentation I think have value.
1. God has the right to judge as he sees fit. It's not our place to judge his judgement.
2. The language of anhiliation used in the Bible has some internal conflicts when taken literally.

I agree with this.

[joshuabgood]

I see several main points in that presentation I think have value.
1. God has the right to judge as he sees fit. It's not our place to judge his judgement.
2. The language of anhiliation used in the Bible has some internal conflicts when taken literally.

3. The life and witness of Jesus don't seem to cohere with the "dashing the heads of the little ones on the rocks."

[Nomad]

I think its important to understand while reading the Old Testament and the actions Israel committed while fighting the wars God commanded them to fight; that God is not restricted to any Moral Law. He puts forth Law and commandments for humanity to follow but He is not held to the same restriction...the Law is for us creatures who are under the Creator. Thus, if God does things above and beyond the Law, or He commands us to do such, then its not our role to question His actions. Moral codes are subservient to God not the other way around.

Also, Jesus Himself will come back in wrath and fulfill His role as conquering King. He's going to look entirely different from the "Suffering Servant", which He previously fulfilled. So, Jesus "not fighting" doesn't necessarily mean He never will. However, between His 2 comings He has commanded us to love our enemies and put away the sword...so we should probably listen and follow what He commanded and showed by example. That doesn't mean we backfill all the OT with the NT and treat older revelation from God like the Marcions or Gnostics who held to a belief that the OT was a "lesser god" in comparison to the "greater God" of the NT.

In the OT God was working with a nation (Israel) while in the NT He is working through the Church which began at Pentecost and is not a nation. This points to a change in God's program and also brought about new revelation from God along with it which we must follow.

[joshuabgood]

Thus, if God does things above and beyond the Law, or He commands us to do such, then its not our role to question His actions. Moral codes are subservient to God not the other way around.

I struggle with this line of reasoning.

[Nomad]

Jesus Himself pointed out this line of reasoning as it pertains to making allowances outside His holy Law:

Matthew 12:2-8 ESV
[2] But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” [3] He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: [4] how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? [5] Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? [6] I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. [7] And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. [8] For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”

I could also point out His command to Peter to kill and eat the unclean...

Here's an example in the OT as well:

2 Chronicles 30:17-20 ESV
[17] For there were many in the assembly who had not consecrated themselves. Therefore the Levites had to slaughter the Passover lamb for everyone who was not clean, to consecrate it to the Lord. [18] For a majority of the people, many of them from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun, had not cleansed themselves, yet they ate the Passover otherwise than as prescribed. For Hezekiah had prayed for them, saying, “May the good Lord pardon everyone [19] who sets his heart to seek God, the Lord, the God of his fathers, even though not according to the sanctuary’s rules of cleanness.” [20] And the Lord heard Hezekiah and healed the people.

I admit its hard to wrap our minds around. But it appears there were times God passed over "the Law" and made allowances. I'm not saying this answers everything as it pertains to the Israelite Canaan conquest...and there likely were times Israel went beyond His commands of war. But if we are trying to smooth out the war commands to make the Israel conquest more palatable because it doesn't fit our nonresistant Anabaptist worldview...then I'm not sure thats a correct approach either.

[Neto]

Nomad referred to the Isaiah passage Jesus read at the synagogue at Capernaum. As he (Nomad) alluded to, Jesus stopped in the middle of the passage as it was normally read. This did of course attract the attention of everyone there, who knew that he was supposed to read on. So then he dropped the bombshell: "Today you see this fulfilled." Between the two sections, the "Nice Messiah" and the "Judging Messiah", we have the current era, where we are living.

Paul states that Jesus "gave the good confession before Pilate". It is this, that he certainly is King, and that his kingdom is not now a part of this world. Just as he didn't read the second part of the Isaiah passage for the Jews, he didn't tell Pilate about that second half, either. That second half will possibly be very similar to the Old Testament stories that are troubling the sensibilities of some here.

We should not try to make the second half of that passage like the first half, and we should not now act like we are living in that second half, or, to be more clear, like we are living in the Old Testament period, as members of the Theocracy that was the people of Israel. God is unchanging, but He is both loving and merciful, as well as a righteous judge, One who cannot "look on evil".

[joshuabgood]

It is this, that he certainly is King, and that his kingdom is not now a part of this world.

So why all his teachings about the Kingdom of God being at hand?

[Neto]

It is this, that he certainly is King, and that his kingdom is not now a part of this world.

So why all his teachings about the Kingdom of God being at hand?

As I understand it, He was speaking of two separate elements of the Kingdom, just as the prophet Isaiah spoke of two separate elements of His actions as Messiah. But for those who do not believe there is a coming physical kingdom, I cannot expect the same understanding. (It should be made clear that I made that reference in the context of 'kingship' as Pilate understood it.)

We know what our instructions are for this time in which we live - I think there are no doubts regarding that.