by Ben Thomas, March 2022
Our approach
In this project, we approach the stories of the Bible by giving them credit for what they purport to be, starting with the assumption that historical accounts describe historical events (albeit shaped by authorial/editorial intent), and remaining willing to say, “I don’t know.” In them, we find intentional, complex organization in the form of narrative threads, recurring themes, repeated word groups, and other literary devices that communicate information and cumulatively develop it, interpreting itself as we read forward and backward across patterns. As a result, we view Exodus 23, God’s direction to Israel to occupy Canaan, drive out its inhabitants, and destroy the monuments of the gods in the land, as part of a pattern that begins in Genesis 1.
Breaking down Exodus 23
In Exodus 23, God tells Israel:
-I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries.
-My angel will go before you and bring you in to the land of the Amorites…and I will completely destroy them.
-You shall not worship their gods…but you shall utterly overthrow them and break their sacred pillars in pieces.
-I will send My terror ahead of you, and throw into confusion all the people among whom you come, and I will make all your enemies turn their backs to you.
-I will send hornets ahead of you so that they will drive out the Hivites…
-I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you will drive them out before you. -They shall not live in your land…
Many commentators have noted the tendency of ancient battle accounts to use hyperbole, claiming total destruction of a people they later fought against or made treaties with. Some biblical warfare accounts appear to do this as well, so hyperbole may take the razor edge off the harshness of God’s Exodus 23 statements. It remains inescapable though, that here and in following passages, God tells the Israelites to invade Canaan and kill or drive out its people.
Scholarly views
Charlie Trimm‘s excellent book Destruction of the Canaanites considers scholarly approaches to this moral problem and the difficulties that accompany them. Our own interpretive stance sets aside those that assume the biblical accounts to be ahistorical or God to be dishonest, fickle, or ignorant. Within these constraints, the remaining scholarly claims Trimm cites tend to undermine the severity of the destruction by suggesting only adults were killed, only military strongholds were attacked, or even that physical fighting did not actually occur.
A judgment pattern
Exodus 23 begins what is arguably the 7th major judgment recorded in the biblical narrative. Using Genesis 1 as a template, there is a pattern evident in these judgment narratives beginning in Genesis 3. In it, God:
-hears cries of, sees oppressed people
-comes down
-assesses thorough corruption
-explains his actions
-is tangibly present in judgment
-imposes exile and/or death
-preserves a remnant
-gives the remnant new responsibilities (credit for this item to Charlie Trimm, shared in a private conversation)
Not every item is obvious in every iteration, yet there is consistency in God’s response across the stories of the Fall, Cain’s murder of Abel, the Flood, Babel, Sodom, and the plagues on Egypt. Exodus 23 continues this pattern, though to see the Conquest’s elements clearly, we may need to draw on Genesis 15 and future Torah/Hexateuch passages. One instance might be explained away, but consistent action across generations suggests we are observing the character of God, one who sees and intervenes to overthrow oppressors and restore his people in a life-giving land.
In contrast to scholarly approaches Trimm cites, this pattern undermines the idea that God’s orders regarding the Israelite occupation of Canaan are limited in scope or only affect military targets. There were no such restrictions in the Flood, the exile of Babel, Sodom’s destruction, or the plagues on Egypt.
In examples of judgment prior to God’s command to the Israelites to drive out the people of Canaan, God sees corruption and/or hears the cries of the oppressed.
When God sees and hears, he moves to investigate.
When God comes down, he assesses the state of things, whether there is sin that requires a response.
After God assesses, when he determines judgment is necessary, he tells us what he is going to do and why.
God does not merely pronounce judgment; he is present in the midst of it. Even when he sends a proxy, the biblical language blurs the distinction between God and the proxy.
In Genesis 1, God’s plan for humans is that they be fruitful and multiply, fill the land and subdue it. In contrast, God’s judgment takes the form of death and/or exile. Rather than new life and filling the land, judgment means expulsion and death.
Despite the terrible, often pervasive nature of God’s judgment, he ensures that a remnant survives, eventually to return to the land and continue in relationship with him.
In a private conversation with Charlie Trimm, he related that he sees God giving the remnant new responsibilities as an element in the pattern and that the responsibilities tend to correspond to the failures that led to judgment. The text thoroughly supports his argument. In later passages, the new responsibility is a covenant with God’s chosen people.
What can we learn from the pattern?
In the garden, God’s desire is to be in relationship with man. His commands are that man be fruitful, multiply, and fill the land and freely eat of all the trees except the one that brings death. Yet, when man chooses differently, God’s desire too is denied. Though God desired humans’ life and fruitfulness in the land, he assesses exile and death because he will not tolerate their continued access to the tree of life once they have eaten of the knowledge of good and evil.
As we follow God’s reasoning through each of these judgment accounts, there is little evidence of bloodthirsty vengeance. As people act corruptly, God deals with the resulting consequences. He does not impose his ideal – to give people life and relationship with him in a fruitful land – but the pattern suggests that thorough corruption that threatens his relationship with humans will move him to action.
Where do Christians fit?
Christians are under Jesus’ new covenant, which recalls the old pattern in that Jesus’ blood was poured out (Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20), so that those who receive him could be the remnant brought into the new land he intends for us (John 14:1-6).
Jesus made statements interpreted by many as advocating a form of pacifism (Matthew 5), yet in his conversations with Roman soldiers (Matthew 8:5-13, Luke 3:14, 7:2-10), who served as both military and law enforcement in Jesus’ world, he gives them advice and compliments them but never admonishes them to leave their roles.
In Acts 10, God simultaneously communicates with the apostle Peter and Cornelius, a centurion, so that the first Gentile Peter tells about Jesus is a Roman soldier. Once again, God compliments Cornelius and never tells him to leave his profession.
Paul admonishes the Roman church to pay taxes and recognize that the government legitimately carries the sword (Romans 13:1-7).
In the words and actions of Jesus, Peter, and Paul, we find strong support for peacemaking and loving our enemies but also positive recognition of soldiers and the function they perform.
Practical reality
In the modern world, nearly every nation has both internal police forces and defense forces against external threats. In democratic countries, there are legal processes for determining when the government should use its power to arrest criminals or to wage war that involve investigation of claims of illegitimate action, presentation of an evidence-based case, adjudication, and, if the case is found to be valid, an official response backed by police or military force.
At the time of this writing, we are watching as Vladimir Putin’s army systematically destroys the country of Ukraine and the people of Ukraine cry for help. The aggressor is not dissuaded by words or economic sanction. If other countries militarily intervene, they might save Ukrainians but would kill Russians and potentially escalate the conflict. If they don’t, more Ukrainians will die. Every apparent option involves destruction of humans made in the image of God. There is no ’good’ choice.
Dilemma
When we hear the cries of the people of Ukraine under brutal, sustained assault, what should we do? In the biblical accounts of judgment, we observe God with a similar dilemma. He does not always intervene, sometimes delaying for generations. God does not reflexively resort to violence, neither does he shy away from it once he assesses its necessity. Although we may not see it concisely expressed in Exodus 23, the pattern beginning early in Genesis shows God to be slow to anger, responsive to the cries of the oppressed, willing to assess and communicate his assessment, present and irresistible in authority and judgment, and committed to preserving a remnant in relationship with him.