Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Painful Realities

The reality of the world is that much of its history is composed of war stories. The 20th century alone was marked with dozens, if not hundreds of conflicts, including two world wars. The 21st century has started out no different and as we hurtle through its third decade, there appears to be no end in sight. So, why are we surprised by the fact that the ancient world has its own history marked by war.

But when God himself goes to war, there seems to be a problem.

Bowen writes,

“…[The] divine commands of violence and genocide have caused not a few problems for Christians throughout the ages, and the challenge of defending Yahweh against these charges has been taken up today by evangelicals. In order to deal with the violent actions commanded by Yahweh, two primary apologetics have been developed: God was completely justified due to the victims’ extreme wickedness, and/or the language of violence was often simply hyperbolic. [45]

Here again we see the either/or fallacy at play. Why can’t they be both? After all there is a distinction between that and how that needs to be maintained in regard to the narration of events.

While Bowen claims that these texts have been misused, he’s presented no example of this alleged misuse only a “constant battle to reconcile Yahweh’s seemingly immoral commands with the moral perfection he is thought to possess”.[46]

Here again though, lies the question: is violence itself immoral? This accompanies the question asked earlier if one is justified to use violence against someone attacking their family or trespassing on their property. Notice that I imply “violence” in the term of mechanism. It’s like asking if a claw hammer is the proper tool for driving a nail. 

This again, takes us back to the question of portrayal, and how God is portrayed in terms of analogy. The question is, when one considers the analogy that is being presented, is God’s behavior commensurate with the ideal it assumes?

The reason that it’s necessary to ask such a question is in regard to something that Bowen seems unwilling to extend: the benefit of the doubt. This is especially evident in how he critiques Daniel Block’s discussion of divine violence, which he equates to someone defending an abusive spouse.[47] Such a ridiculous take should be patently evident because Block’s point is that every action should be viewed within its context.[48]

See also: Christianity and the Battered Wife

Suppose someone walked into Bowen’s residence and saw him spanking one of his children and proclaimed him child abuser without knowing the context. Now I doubt that Bowen would use corporal punishment simply because he seems like someone who wouldn’t understand how to use it judiciously, but if he did use it and someone saw him spanking his child would he simply cower at the accusation or would he point to the fact that the child had done some act worthy of the punishment, say pushing a sibling down the stairs. 

If the retort is “Well, I wouldn’t”, it is irrelevant to what Bowen would think is appropriate or necessary to convey the severity of the offense. Moreover, would the original cultural context perceive it that way?

This question might seem like an appeal to relativism, but rather it’s a question about the standards being used and the conscious framework that is being used to make the judgement. I ask such a question because I am a Christian and being in such a position I am required to judge things fairly (Deuteronomy 25:13). The question is can Bowen do this?

He writes,

Evangelicals have been raised to believe Yahweh’s violent responses in the OT were perfectly appropriate—and even absolutely necessary—given the evil being perpetrated. But were these violent responses actually appropriate? If one lived in a house where it was considered appropriate to punch someone in the nose if they interrupted in a conversation, one would come to believe that, if someone interrupted someone else, they deserved to be punched in the nose. But why would they deserve it?[49] 

The question of “appropriateness” is itself contextually defined. One might say that it’s not appropriate to punish or chastise your child in front of others, another might see no problem with it as any admonishment might serve as a future corrective for other who might themselves dare to engage in certain behaviors.

For many years, public executions in the United States were not only the norm but also the expected procedure. The last public execution, due to a number of faults in its…uh…execution, prompted the withdrawal of the act from the public eye. How does this nest with Bowen’s example?

Imagine in the context of this “nose punching” that there were rules. For instance if the interruption was preceded by an “Excuse me”, then a blow wouldn’t be appropriate, or if the blow was too hard, resulting in a bloody nose then it would be met with sanction. In every circumstance there are often unspoken rules, unspoken agreements that are expected for participation in the culture. The problem with Bowen’s example is that it doesn’t fit the context.

Here, again, we find ourselves faced with the question, By what standard?

One of These Things Is Not Like The Others

We need to back up slightly because there’s an important point that might be overlooked when we do read the conquest narratives, and it’s a point that John Walton picks up in The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest when he writes,

In the case of destruction as a punishment, we would expect to see a formal statement of the crimes of the accused by the document’s narrator, or in the form of an oracle if the genre is prophecy. For example, in the case of the flood, the narrator tells us, “The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time” (Gen 6:5), and then also that “the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence.”[50]

He goes on to note that there are several other indictments, such as against Sodom, the house of Jeroboam and several others.[51] Yet he notes that there is a strange silence about the Canaanites in terms of prophetic exposition, yet there are certain narrative accusations made that are never substantiated directly.[52] Moreover the language used to describe the intention behind the “destruction” of the Canaanites doesn’t use the same vocabulary that other punishment narratives employ, evidenced by the fact that Rahab isn’t portrayed as participating in any ritual cleansing.[53]

So, what is going on?

Here, I think some New Testament insight might be in order:

The God who made the world and everything in it—he is Lord of heaven and earth—…From one man he has made every nationality to live over the whole earth and has determined their appointed times and the boundaries of where they live.

Acts 17:24-26, Christian Standard Bible, emphasis added

Notice here that there are two distinct boundaries highlighted: “their appointed times” and “the boundaries of where they live”. The extent of duration and the limits of geographical control are both determined and imposed by God. This is something that was well understood and accepted by the ancient world.[54] Walton ties this sort of recognized and expected expiration date to Genesis 15’s description of Abraham’s inheritance of the land of Canaan, noting, “By delaying the displacement of the Amorites until sometime in the distant future, Yahweh assures Abram that his children will not negatively affect the people to whom he has some attachment (whether sentimental, obligatory, or simply pragmatic…).”[55]

This fact of dates and boundaries appears to be ignored by critics such as Bowen. As Daniel Block notes, 

…the Israelite policy regarding the Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites ([Deuteronomy]2:1–23), the Israelites seem to have had no interest either in engaging them in battle or in claiming their territory. Because they stood between them and their actual destination on the other side of the Jordan, Moses had sent ambassadors to Sihon in Heshbon with overtures of peace, simply requesting permission to pass through their territory and promising not to threaten either the people or their claims to the land.[56]

It’s this fact that Israel exerts no claim that provides justification for how Israel responds to the attack from Sihon and Og in an attempt to block their advance.[57]

If anything can be taken from these facts it’s not that there’s a need to, “reconcile Yahweh’s seemingly immoral commands with the moral perfection he is thought to possess,”[58] it’s that we need to pay closer attention to the text and to the justification that Yahweh provides for himself, namely:

By my great strength and outstretched arm, I made the earth, and the people, and animals on the face of the earth. I give it to anyone I please.

Jeremiah 27:5, Christian Standard Bible, emphasis added

What does this imply in relation to Bowen’s contentions? We shall see as this series continues.

Notes

  1. Bowen, p.194
  2. Ibid.
  3. Ibid, p.194-5
  4. Daniel I. Block. “How Can We Bless YHWH? Wrestling with Divine Violence in Deuteronomy”. Wrestling with the Violence of God: Soundings in the Od Testament, ed. M.D. Carroll Rodas and J.B. Wilgus. Eisenbrauns. 2015. p.50
  5. Bowen, p. 195, emphasis original
  6. Walton (2017), p.39
  7. Ibid.
  8. Ibid, p.40-1
  9. Ibid, p.41-4
  10. Ibid, p.53
  11. Ibid, p.56
  12. Block, p.34
  13. Ibid.
  14. Bowen, p.194