The Conquest of Canaan

[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?

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.

Well there are some significant variations around "how then should we live."

I would lean toward the Kingdom of God came on earth and Jesus came as a King. In essence I guess, a postmillennial leaning, and I would employ very similar language to the Reformed folks who are in that camp, with the big difference being, that I think the lever is suffering love and the way of the cross, that is how Jesus conquers, and not the means of the state.

[Neto]

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.

Well there are some significant variations around "how then should we live."

I would lean toward the Kingdom of God came on earth and Jesus came as a King. In essence I guess, a postmillennial leaning, and I would employ very similar language to the Reformed folks who are in that camp, with the big difference being, that I think the lever is suffering love and the way of the cross, that is how Jesus conquers, and not the means of the state.

Understood. Thanks.

[Nomad]

I think its also important to read the warfare rules set forth by the Law God gave Israel for their conquest of Canaan. It wasn't like they killed willy-nilly and God just let them go unscathed. There was a cleansing period of 7 days that followed (Nu 31:19-24) as requirement before reintegration into the Israelite society post combat. If they did not perform these requirements then they were unclean and cut off from the people and fellowship with God. There were also laws for the spoils of war and those who were fearful...which shows that Gods intent wasn't for a free-for-all pillage and slaughter.

Fast-forward to the NT and we see that, according to Paul, the Law was for the sinners (1Tim 1:9)...we who are of the New Covenant are not required to go through the cleansing rituals fo the Old Law as a way to approach God in fellowship and worship...we can approach via the ultimate offering: Jesus Christ. We are not "Lawbreakers" and thus not held to the the prior economy in the OT.

[ken_sylvania]

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.

I'm not saying that judgement on the Canaanites' evil wasn't involved - I'm objecting to the claim that it was primarily about judgement and not about wanting land.

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.

God very clearly says that if the Israelites would have obeyed him they wouldn't have had to fight for the land. That being the case, how can we be so sure that God intended to use the Israelites to eliminate the Nephilim?

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.

Assuming en arguendo that the "total destruction" language is in fact figurative, I'm referring to the claim that the Israelite conquest of Canaan was not a land grab, but rather a divinely appointed mission to punish the Canaanites for their sins with the resulting available land as merely a side benefit. That's apparently not the case - the determining factor whether a city could escape punishment by making peace was purely geographical, not how wicked they were.

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.

Mr. Video's claim is that these "cities" were merely forts with few or no civilian personnel inside them. I think that's a bit far-fetched. I'm not disagreeing that by acreage the cities of that time were what what Americans would consider small.

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.

He implies that the Israelite army didn't war against the civilians. The fact that the law actually spells out the procedure for taking a captive as a wife is a fairly strong indication that this was an accepted practice. The descriptions about taking women and children as captives aren't just figurative - that was part and parcel of warfare at the time.

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.

I'm not saying a hornet invasion wouldn't be a big deal - I'm saying relocation isn't death and eradication.

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.

An argument for which there is simply no evidence. But again - if the Israelites were living in houses they didn't build, eating out of vineyards they didn't plant - what happened to the original inhabitants?

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.

I don't think it does. I think it proposes multiple incompatible theories. If the primary purpose here was eradication of wicked Canaanites and elimination of the Nephilim, that's not going to be accomplished by a grand military victory where civilians aren't targeted and indiscriminately killed. If the goal is that the heathen won't be around to introduce idol worship, letting the civilian population live doesn't do it. Like I said earlier, I don't disagree that the total annihilation language is somewhat figurative, but I don't see any reason to pretend that it was some sort of gentleman's war.

[MattY]

God very clearly says that if the Israelites would have obeyed him they wouldn't have had to fight for the land. That being the case, how can we be so sure that God intended to use the Israelites to eliminate the Nephilim?

You said something similar earlier:

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.

Are you referring to Ex. 23:28? I think the text makes it clear that God DID send His "hornet" (Josh 24:12 says He did) and that the Israelites also fought. Their victories weren't due to their efforts but to God - but they did fight. And it doesn't mention a swarm of hornets, but a single hornet - it seems to be metaphorical. The people who God sent His hornet against are the same ones who the Israelites fought against and defeated by God's hand in Josh. 11 and elsewhere (including Sihon and Og, the two Amorite kings). Just like the Christian life, it takes work and effort, but it is God's Spirit working through us - the fact that we fight the devil doesn't mean we overcome him by our own strength.

And I would also note that God's promise was to drive out the Canaanites and other inhabitants of the land before them - not to make them fall dead before them. This again supports the idea that the purpose and meaning of herem warfare - the Hebrew word used for utter destruction, devote to destruction, etc. - was not literally the death and slaughter of everyone, but driving out and expelling from the land. The problem was, the Israelites didn't follow through with the expulsion and tended to settle down among them after fighting battles to take over some of their fortified cities and towns. See Judges 1, for instance, which repeatedly refers to the Israelites failing to drive people out. (i.e., "The Asherites lived among the Canaanite inhabitants of the land because they did not drive them out", vs. 32).

I'm not saying that judgement on the Canaanites' evil wasn't involved - I'm objecting to the claim that it was primarily about judgement and not about wanting land.
...
Assuming en arguendo that the "total destruction" language is in fact figurative, I'm referring to the claim that the Israelite conquest of Canaan was not a land grab, but rather a divinely appointed mission to punish the Canaanites for their sins with the resulting available land as merely a side benefit. That's apparently not the case - the determining factor whether a city could escape punishment by making peace was purely geographical, not how wicked they were.

Consider Deut. 9:3-5:

Therefore understand today that the LORD your God is He who goes over before you as a consuming fire. He will destroy them and bring them down before you; so you shall drive them out and destroy them quickly, as the LORD has said to you. “Do not think in your heart, after the LORD your God has cast them out before you, saying, ‘Because of my righteousness the LORD has brought me in to possess this land’; but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is driving them out from before you. It is not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart that you go in to possess their land, but because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD your God drives them out from before you, and that He may fulfill the word which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Note that God gives them two reasons for the conquest that is about to happen, and the punishment of Canaan doesn't seem like a side benefit; actually, the Israelite possession of the land is listed second. But I'm not saying that the Israelites possession of the land is a side benefit. Rather, the reason that the Canaanites are getting punished/driven out is due to their wickedness, and the reason the Israelites get to possess the land is because of the promises to their forefathers. The primary reason for what is happening depends on which side you look at it from.

Also, regarding the fact that the judgment was geographical - the farther away you were from the Israelites, the better off you were. You might get away with making peace if you were on the outskirts of their land, or if you were far enough away, you faced no judgment at all. Of course, part of the reason is God's purpose for Israel at this time and place and the good that He wanted to bring through Israel. But we should also keep in mind that historical judgments (before the perfect Final Judgment of God) are always limited to that time and place. Unless we want to limit God from interfering anywhere and avoid judging anything during history, we are left with a little "messiness" where some people are judged in that time and place and other people, who are farther away or on the other side of the world or whatever, who deserve the same judgment, don't receive it. Unless you want to say God should have told Israel to go throughout the entire world and judge all of the wicked cities that needed judgment, there would always be some places that seemed to escape judgment because of geographical location.

[ohio jones]

God very clearly says that if the Israelites would have obeyed him they wouldn't have had to fight for the land. That being the case, how can we be so sure that God intended to use the Israelites to eliminate the Nephilim?

You said something similar earlier:

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.

Are you referring to Ex. 23:28? I think the text makes it clear that God DID send His "hornet" (Josh 24:12 says He did) and that the Israelites also fought. Their victories weren't due to their efforts but to God - but they did fight. And it doesn't mention a swarm of hornets, but a single hornet - it seems to be metaphorical.

I mean, who wouldn't flee when they saw one of these headed their way?