DH1d
Although a close reading of the DtrH makes its teaching against “Canaanite” religion clear, its cinematic staging of a war on the Canaanites remains problematic for modern readers.
This is all well and good, but the nagging question remains: why would the DtrH choose these mechanisms to model Torah obedience? Why would he portray Yahweh as a commander of genocide?
The question we must keep at the forefront is, what does the Bible actually teach God’s people to believe and do? One of the principal modes of pedagogy employed in the Bible is to teach by embodied concepts, not by abstract concepts. The Psalms do not contrast righteousness and wickedness; they contrast the righteous and the wicked, as character profiles embodying those qualities. The book of Exodus does not teach the theological proposition that Yahweh is a God of liberation; it enacts and embodies Yahweh’s values in a narrative about Israel’s enslavement to Egypt. Similarly, while the DtrH teaches that God’s people should not go after other gods, the historian does not do so in the form of a kind of Sunday school lesson. He tells a cinematic story, filled with shock and awe, about stereotypical enemies of the remote past who embody the religion and culture that Yahweh rejects.
As torah/teaching, the DtrH is more interested in ongoing identity formation than in historical details. Israelite identity is established by waging a culture war on “Canaanite” religion, or to put it more precisely, any religious action or object that has associations with Canaanite worship. Though part of the Holiness Code, Leviticus 18:3 expresses this sentiment well (see §11.1.2).
According to the practices of the land of Egypt where you dwelt you shall not practice, and according to the practices of the land of Canaan where I am bringing you you shall not do. And in their statutes you shall not walk.
“Canaanite” became a code word or cipher for illegitimate practices. The Bible, however, nowhere justifies applying the -ites confederation stereotype to one’s contemporaries.
We should also recognize that the Deuteronomistic historian shared a different cultural perspective on war. Embedded in the DtrH are assumptions that war is unavoidable and actually has the virtue of teaching each generation to be tough.
The DtrH reflects a cultural perspective on war that sees value in “learning war,” but the Prophets envision a future when nations will no longer “learn war.”
The incidental comment in 2 Sam 11:1 speaks of war as an annual event in the ancient calendar (in a way similar to how we acknowledge spring as the time of the baseball season starts up). In a passage where we hear the voice of the Deuteronomistic narrator most clearly, he suggests that a generation that does not “know war” is somehow deficient and needs to “learn war” (Jdg 3:1–2)! In a later passage, after Gideon’s initial victory against the Midianites, Gideon summons help from the tribe of Ephraim. The Ephraimites responded by “contending vigorously” with him, “What is this you have done to us, not calling us when you went to do battle with Midian” (Jdg 8:1). Instead of thanking Gideon for sparing them from bloodshed, they rebuke him for not giving them the opportunity to participate in the earlier battle.
We must recall that the DtrH was composed for a generation now free and independent from the Assyrian empire. By staging Israel’s occupation of the land as a military conquest the book of Joshua galvanized Josiah’s kingdom with patriotic resolve.
But the views of the DtrH are not shared by all the voices in the OT. In particular, they are at odds with some the Prophets. Although the DtrH may fault a generation for not “learning war,” the vision shared by both Isaiah and Micah is that “nation will not raise a sword against nation, and they will not learn war anymore” (Isa 2:4; Mic 4:3). Hosea and Zechariah likewise envision a similar future. Yahweh promises, “the bow, the sword, and war I will break from the land, and I will make you lie down in safety” (Hos 2:18; cf. Zech 9:9–10).
The torah lessons of the DtrH are affirmed throughout the Scriptures as enduring, but its violent stage must be critiqued within the Bible’s progressive revelation about the people of God and who is welcome.
Finally, we must reckon that violence, identity formation, and inclusion/exclusion are part of larger issues treated throughout the biblical canon, as part of its progressive revelation. These issues are addressed in other modules.
● You shall love your neighbor,” but who is my neighbor? (Leviticus module, 11.1.4, Rabbi Jesus and OT Law)
● Jesus on clean and unclean foods (Leviticus module, 11.1.4, Rabbi Jesus and OT Law)
● Gentile inclusion? (Postexilic Prophecy: Isaiah 56–66, 19.1.3 under Redefining the people of God)
● Jesus: reading the exceptions (Luke 4:25–27; Matt 12:1–8).
The book of Joshua and its stories of the conquest of Canaan take up a sizable portion of the OT and have a prominent place in the biblical canon and in the memory of Israel’s story. But we must acknowledge that the DtrH is but one voice among the many within the Old and New Testaments. The book of Joshua presents a cinematic interpretation of Israel’s culture war on Canaanite religion. Its teaching, especially with its spotlight on characters like Rahab and Achan, is clear and finds echoes elsewhere in the biblical canon. But its staging comes under canonical critique, so modern readers should heed these signposts. Every group defines its identity, in part, by what it is not. But should that identity formation entail violence or disrespect of outsiders, then the insiders must curtail those tendencies.
Do the books of Deuteronomy and Joshua give the impression that the God of Israel commands herem as a form of ethnic genocide and massacre? Might modern readers construe Yahweh as a moral monster? “Yes,” seems to be unavoidable. But closer analysis of how the biblical traditions developed and were applied for their original audience, likely in Josiah’s generation, indicates they were never intended or understood to prescribe violence. The -ites confederation became stock enemies, emblematic of worshiping other gods, a practice banned under taboo.
Finally, we return to our opening question. Is it biblically appropriate to encourage one another by quoting Joshua 1:9? After observe how biblical torah actually operates, our answer should be “yes.” Although its context and stage include violence, Torah’s enduring spotlight falls on fidelity to the God who goes with us.