The Conquest of Canaan: Genocide or Just?
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 08. 2024
- In this video Gavin Ortlund addresses whether the conquest of Canaan in the book of Joshua falsifies Christianity.
Article on whether the Canaanites practiced child sacrifice: biblereadingarcheology.com/20...
Truth Unites (www.truthunites.org) exists to promote gospel assurance through theological depth.
Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) is President of Truth Unites and Theologian-in-Residence at Immanuel Nashville.
SUPPORT:
Tax Deductible Support: truthunites.org/donate/
Patreon: / truthunites
FOLLOW:
Website: truthunites.org/
Twitter: / gavinortlund
Facebook: / truthunitespage
MY ACADEMIC WORK:
truthunites.org/mypublications/
PODCAST:
anchor.fm/truth-unites
DISCORD SERVER ON PROTESTANTISM
Striving Side By Side: / discord
CREATIVE DIRECTION: Clau Gutiérrez (www clau.uk)
CHECK OUT SOME BOOKS:
www.amazon.com/Makes-Sense-Wo...
www.amazon.com/Theological-Re...
www.amazon.com/Finding-Right-...
www.amazon.com/Retrieving-Aug...
00:00 - Introduction
03:25 - The Importance of Context
05:12 - Table of Contents
05:52 - 1) Ancient Warfare Rhetoric
08:43 - Examples Outside the Bible
13:53 - Herem Warfare
15:57 - Deuteronomy 7 and Intermarriage
17:15 - Surviving Canaanites in Joshua and Judges
23:38 - I Samuel 15 and Saul
27:19 - The Babylonian Exile as Herem
29:17 - Annihilation or Expulsion?
31:33 - Cities or Military Garrisons?
35:43 - What About Rahab?
37:42 - Why This Isn't Genocide
41:38 - 2) Divine Judgment
44:20 - The Evil of the Canaanites
45:12 - Sexual Aberrations
46:15 - Infant Burnings
49:05 - Demons and Spiritual Warfare
50:15 - Understanding How God Removes Evil
53:38 - God's Right to Judge
58:42 - The Conquest of Canaan Was Unique
1:00:26 - Historical Judgments Vs Final Judgment
1:01:48 - Joshua is Consistent with Jesus
1:03:48 - The Cross and God's Mercy - Zábava
Orthodox priest here, and this is one of my favorite explanations of this Old Testament problem. Thank you!
Keep searching for excuses dear priest to explain annihilation of nation living in their land in peace even as israelites entered Canaan they could live with others and this is what they did most of time and they were cursed for it. Canaanittes were not accepted nor invited to God, even Amalecites are children of Abraham I have no idea how you accept those obvious lies and human edits to Bible.
I hope you have seen Kipp Davis' response to Ortlund's explanation.
To fellow pilgrims who struggle with the validity of God's judgement on sin, especially with the concepts of atonement and human depravity; deep historical analysis gives incredible context.
However, I must say that I do not recommend this historical research. When I looked into this I was a pregnant mother of toddlers doing research for the theodicy I was developing, and this plus a mountian of similar information legitimatly changed me. Sleepless nights, disbelief and horror. I will never unlearn what I have learned and I am objectively mentally worse off for knowing it, even if it gave strength to my academic argument. I am glad that Gavin chose to only say what he did on Canaanite child sacrifice, and not more. Truly truly, if you are a sensitive soul, steel yourself or turn back before you tread further on this ground.
To put it very lightly, what I discovered was that the history of the world coalesces into an overwhelming chorus of violence, abuse and horrific crimes against children. This is in fact humanity's norm, not the expecption. Blessedly, our modern society is somewhat of an exception to the degree that even well educated people tend to reject this information as too cruel to be commonplace.
I can assure you that Gavin is right about the Canaanites in their depravity, and further, that human depravity is a common thread that runs deeply in us all and is manifest in similar ways in all civilizations.
As a person who used to take issue with God needing a sacrifice to forgive sin ("brush it off, we're only human!"), I have come to believe that a truly good God is required to respond, someone has to answer the the blood of the innumerable innocent, crying out from the ground for justice. He cannot brush that off. Good must necessarally drive out evil.
Someone had to answer for the horrors that have been done, and he did. God himself. God incarnate. Blessedly, our God took the burden of the wrath of God against sin, which his righteousness compelled. And I know enough about the common bend of the human heart, painted across the walls of history, to presume I am not in need of it as well.
I recommend the site Catholic Answers. Pax
This sounds very interesting the way you put this. Did you write an article on this? If so, is there a link? As well what are some resources that you would recommend in regards to the sheer human depravity throughout our human history?
@@someoneforhim this was for a book, still in development. I've been discerning talking more about the new angle I've been working on with respect to theodicy (response to problem of evil in defense of God) on CZcams and I'm hoping to do that soon (the general theory of the theodicy, not details of human suffering). If I recall, the Christian CZcams channel InspiringPhilosophy has a good intro on his channel, I think the video is something about if humans are really sinful or if we are intrinsically good. Digging further than that is something I can't in good faith recommend indiscriminately so I'll refrain from pointing out detailed sources.
I haven’t done the research. But I would echo what you said about how we don’t realize that the gruesome history is the norm, not the exception. Verses about sin are addressing that kind of a culture and context, and not the types of “sins” so many Christians pick at each other about (trick or treating, listening to secular music, etc).
“I see Satan fall like lightning” by Rene Girard is a seminal work on this. The fundamental issue in the hearts of the Canaanite’s is in us all.
Rarely do I share something with others as a “must watch” - this is one of those occasions
I hope you have seen Kipp Davis' response to Ortlund's explanation.
thank you, gavin. i may never meet you in this life but you will surely be one of the first people i look for in heaven. this past year has been the most challenging year for me in regards to my faith in Christ as i’ve dealt with a multitude of doubts. the Lord has greatly used your ministry to deal with many of those doubts and only continues to do so. you’re doing a great work brother.
Something that's true doesn't require so much effort to believe.
@@BeccaYoley is that also true for calculus and quantum mechanics? Why should truth always be easy to believe?
@@BeccaYoley most true things, and even more so things of value, require more effort to understand than anything else.
I understand and concur. Don't chastise yourself, cling to God. Those who don't know doubt, should praise God and not forget, that they too, are not worthy, and know infinitely little, and all we can boast, is Christ. God bless you 🙏🙏❤️❤️
And that's for Becca as well ❤️❤️🙏🙏
And just like that, all my anxiety about this issue is gone. This may be your most important video
Time to move to Isaiah and defend why god sent 2 she bears to maul to death 42 kids for making fun of a bald "prophet"...
There is really no shortage of terror inducing nonsense in these books...
With all due respect, he didn’t address the command to kill children.. the heart of the difficulty. Saying it’s hyperbole, just means they didn’t kill ALL the children, but what is his explanation for Gods edict to destroy the children that were killed? He simply didn’t address this, and the core difficulty unresolved.
@@toughbiblepassages9082 Watched it a few days ago but if I recall well he did address it. If he's right that this described Israel's combat in battle situations with the opposing side's army, that tells us who the killed individuals were and the answer is not children. Try to watch the vid again. I'm not trying to convince you of anything right now, I just want to ensure we both understand what Gavin's arguments were
@@Christian-ut2sp I understand, I am a protestant Christian by conviction and I approach this topic as a believer. I just don’t think it sufficiently addressed how the Bible really does see children of enemy nations as legitimate targets of military attacks, as is shown graphically by Psalm 137 and others.
(consider my warfare and violence playlist on my channel if you want to research this topic more)
@@toughbiblepassages9082 We'll have to agree to disagree. I think he addressed it head on for the reasons I stated. God bless
This video will be a blessing to many. The book of Joshua stopped me dead in my tracks on my journey to faith, but through learning the historical context and customs of the near east of that day it ultimately led me to a deeper appreciation of God's justice. The question is no longer; "Why does God command such barbarism against the Canaanite people?", but "How could God tolerate the Canaanite customs for as long as he did?". Joshua also reminded me that God's will is sovereign, and that the leap of faith we make as Christians is to accept his will for our life to the point that even if we meet a horrible tragic end, that it would serve a purpose in His greater plan. Its ultimately the revelation of Christ and his life, death, and resurrection that give us this assurance.
So why doesn't God do anything about all the other terrible things in our world? That's pretty inconsistent.
Dear Gavin,
words can barely describe how much this video helps me in my struggle to find peace with the conquest narrative. You shared some thoughts that are immensely important to know regarding this topic. Craig's discussion with Alex had me disappointed in Craig for the first time in my life since I didn't find his defense convincing at all. Thank you for your valuable contribution to this discussion and to many others, for standing up for the Protestant faith. I really hope you read this and that God would grant me the joy of being able to thank you in person one day.
Blessings and greetings from Berlin!
I hope you have seen Kipp Davis' response to Ortlund's explanation.
I was praying for an answer to this question this week and actually was searching this CZcams channel trying to find this topic this past weekend. Thank you for addressing this, it was so helpful
I hope you have seen Kipp Davis' response to Ortlund's explanation.
I haven't but I will now!
Fantastic. Thanks Gavin! I wish this video had been out in my freshmen year of college. We had to debate the question of whether or not God condoned Genocide, and many of my classmates began to deconstruct their faith afterwards. I cannot commend you enough for your scholarship, succinct analysis, and pastoral heart.
I hope you have seen Kipp Davis' response to Ortlund's explanation.
You've been such a strong part of the development of my faith, and lately it seems like you post an hour long video on something I've been struggling with that week. Wonderful video as always!
Wheewww
This is going to be interesting.
Alright, pen paper ready - and so is my heart, mind and ears.
Thank you Dr Gavin...again...for this. May the Lord keep you and your family.
I can't wait to share this video with my fellow brothers and sisters.
Love, from Kenya
Before watching this, I find it strange that whenever people attack the Old Testament, it’s always framed as an attack on Christianity, but never Judaism. Is it just the circles I find myself getting into, or is there a reason that skeptics choose to focus on Christianity and not Judaism?
Maybe I’m missing something.
Maybe because Judaism doesn’t try to proselytize as hard
I've never seen a Jewish person make a you tube video arguing that slavery wasn't so bad or defending the slaughter of innocent people. I see Christian apologists do it all the time.
@@RachelDee Maybe, it could be an element of it.
My point is that if that was the real issue, why not just say that? If you wish to criticise the Old Testament because you want to criticise the God of the Old Testament, then you would have to criticise Judaism also based on that standard.
Having an issue with ones God is different from wishing that someone wouldn’t try to force their faith on everyone. Different arguments.
@@RachelDeeyes, and also because Judaism is a tiny religion compared to Christianity. If there were 100 million religious Jews, I'm sure they would have to take more criticism.
You have it correct. We are held to a different standard. It's ok to criticize Christianity, but never point your finger at Judaism. One religion is protected while the other is bashed on a consistent basis.
The world we live in today is pretty barbaric too. We kill 73 million babies a year through abortion...when will the people of God be as disgusted about abortion as they are the evils of previous generations.
Thank you for this video Gavin. It was incredible.
I think we- the people of God are disgusted! But we know God will judge this too!
God does seem very selective with his wrath. It is claimed He sent the army against these particular evil groups but didn't care about other equally repugnant civilisations.
@@Wertbag99Then the Creator should have destroyed Adam and Eve and start all over.
@@Yj-Fj well only 8 humans survived the Flood, that was the reset, but that didn't work either....😉
Where do the souls of those 73 million fetuses end up?
Looking forward for his Gavin. Appreciate you researching well and approaching this topic with sensitivity.
The one thing emphasized in my Old Testament class at University is that there really isn't any evidence that Israel was a uniquely barbaric or war driven people. Great job Gavin!
The problem is not the historical reality, it's the message sent by a particular image of the divine.
Saying they were just as bad as everyone else around them, when they supposedly following the orders id God isn't a good look though...
Today, we look back at the patron deities of the tribes which clashed against Israel (the Moabites, Amorites, Amonites, Ebionites, etc) and regard these gods as false, contrived, and never worthy of anyone’s praise or faith in the first place. Today, the Yahwistic cult is the only Levantine tradition that survived the hegemony of Greece, Rome and Islam. This is the single marker by which its religious adherents conclude that it must be true. If it’s the only one that survived, then it must be true, right? Nevermind how God was seen and portrayed back then, it’s just a consequence of the Israelites’ historical context. God wasn’t really like that, even though we recognize his nature as transcendent, omnipotent and omnipresent.
@@gustavusadolphus4344 The Bible does show God telling the Israelites that they were the means He was going to carry out His judgement against the Canaanites, and that they weren't to believe that they were any more righteous than those ppl. God has never been above using evil ppl to mete out His justice or correct a sinning group of ppl, whether we perceive it to be a "good look" or not.
@@gustavusadolphus4344 I'm using it more as a way to validate Ortlund's argument not Craig's. I didn't they were somehow just as bad I'm just saying they didn't stand out as some barbaric genocidal people as atheists may try to contend
2 weeks in row, Mr. Ortland! Loving these videos!
Brother Gavin. I have rarely clicked on a video quicker! Bless you for truly blessing the Church with these answers. I love you brother!
This is really helpful, thank you for getting it out there!
Thank you, Gavin! Your ministry with Truth Unites is such an incredible resource for local churches. Praise God for the body of Christ and the diversity of gifts in His church!
My favorite video of yours! Excellent job researching. Thank you!
Very relevant and important topic. Greatly addressed as always with your unique perspective. Thanks for this, it has achieved the goal to produce gospel assurance through theological depth in my life.
THANK YOU for making this video! I watched the video Alex made and have been thinking about it ever since.
Excellent breakdown with lots of examples and evidences provided to clarify and bring comprehension to what seems difficult if not impossible to understand and explain from a shallow or surface reading. Great job and thank you for taking the time to share your studies and revelations to help bring understanding.
Superb detailed yet accessible coverage of an important topic, often used by skeptics
From a grateful UK student
This is so very helpful! Thank you; I hope this episode is one of your most watched.
I hope you have seen Kipp Davis' response to Ortlund's explanation.
Fantastic video! Maybe the best I've ever seen on the topic.
Very well done. Clear presentation, anticipates questions and answers them, and made in the perfect tone of humility and reasonableness. Thank you.
I really appreciate your knowledge and perspective on these subjects
I really appreciate you putting these ideas in their cultural context! Im a near eastern archaeologist, so I admittedly have a bit of a bias, but I think so many issues arise when we fail to meet the text on its own terms in its original context. Not that that resolves everything, but anchoring these ideas in their time and place is such an important starting point. Well done!
So, is there continuity in cultural artefacts in the area of the judah kingdom and Israel kingdom? I'm talking about thefore the fundation of the kingdoms.
There is definitely cultural continuity from the Late Bronze Age into the Iron Age but also significant changes. For example the iron age ceramic tradition is related to that of the bronze age but is a limited repertoire (limited decorated forms, some new forms are very popular and some bronze age forms disappear entirely, imports are gone, etc). Cumulatively the archaeology suggests continuity of Bronze Age populations alongside peoples who have a different culture/identification. How these groups formed and interact is a matter of ongoing research and discussion. These new groups of the early iron age developed into polities in the later iron age (Israel, Judah, Ammon, Moan, etc). Theres obviously a lot more to it but in general what we may call "Israel" or "Judah" emerge archaeologically in the early Iron Age but what that process looked like isnt entirely clear. The relationship between the text and the archaeology isnt straightforward in this case.@@magnobraga4619
Gavin, this is by far and away the best handling of the issue I have ever seen. Well done, I have peace in my heart about the issue and feel confident to defend the events if asked about them. Thanks be to God for you and your teaching❤
Thank you, Gavin. Great video and very helpful
First slavery now conquest, Gavin is really going for the “annoy Josh Bowen” speedrun, haha
Lol Gavin is so annoying.
I love it bc Josh himself is quite disingenuous from what I’ve seen.
@justchilling704 then you basically haven't watched any of his material.
@@justchilling704disingenuous is not the right word. Frustrating, maybe, but well within his right to criticize biblical texts in the ways that he does. I will say though, he does a bad job at strawmanning his opposition.
god condones slavery in the bible. pretty sick imho. he even explains where to get them ( from surrounding nations ect ) crazy how you guys defend such atrocities.
Having watched just 3 minutes of this video, I made the following comment earlier... 'I have yet to hear anything persuasive from any Christian apologist in the past, so I hope I am proved wrong....' Having now watched the whoIe video I can now say I am indeed proved wrong. While I don't expect too many 'anti-Christians' to be convinced it is compulsory viewing for any Christian with a concern about this narrative (which I hope is all of us :)
Brother, you are inspiring. Thanks for the video!
Thank you, Gavin. This was clear and very helpful.
Regarding context, I heard someone explain it like this: removing limbs from a person's body. Dahmer does it, and everybody is horrified - rightly so. But a surgeon does it to save a life - people are grateful. WHY matters more than WHAT.
You've added so much depth to my methodology of biblical interpretation.
Thank you so much for this Gavin! It was very edifying
Very well done. Thank you for the video.
Thank you for your video. It demonstrates a depth of research that most of us do not have the time to do. This allows those of us who pay attention to learn and have more depth of resources to share with others.
Great video, and very helpful!
Thank you for a perfect resource on this topic going forward.
This is excellent. I am glad you took the time to do the research and can answer this on several fronts at once rather than answer it in piecemeal fashion. This is a nice one-stop response to the question.
This isn’t much of an issue for a non literalist. Great and thorough work Dr. Ortlund. Thank You
Thank you brother your work
Thank you for explaining a hard topic such as this, keep it up Gavin!
This must be the most awesome video ever made on this topic! Thanks Gavin and God bless you! ❤✝️
I hope you have seen Kipp Davis' response to Ortlund's explanation.
@@Nai61a nope! Is it good? I guess I will have to look it up. 😃
@@peterbengtsson I strongly recommend it. It's on his Yt channel. I'm on part 1 at the moment.
This was very helpful. Thanks!
Excellent breakdown of this topic
This one has been a pebble in my shoe for a while now. This video helped a lot, thanks
thank you gavin for this wonderful video 🙏
Dr Ortlund, thank you for this thoughtful and insightful video! Likening the Canaanites to the antagonists of Mad Max was a very helpful pop culture reference that I will be using in the future explaining this topic.
Thank you for this excellent video. One point I am struggling to reconcile: if we are to equate the cities with garrisons / military forts, how do we square that with Deut. 20:10-18? There, the cities referred to seem to encompass not only males but also women and little ones. And there is a contrast in those verses with the cities that are outside of the promised land, in which the little ones and women are to be spared, and the cities within the promised land, in which the Israelites are to “save alive nothing that breathes.”
Big fan of Gavin and this video, which I find very helpful, this is just an earnest question about how to handle an objection from Deut. 20 in response to the claim that not all peoples were killed.
God bless you Gavin, may the Lord continue to keep you in all that you do
Really great! Thanks Dr Ortlund
Great content!
Every Christian needs to see this. What a great presentation! I wish I had this in college and seminary. It would have been very helpful in my ministry. Thanks, Gavin.
I hope you have seen Kipp Davis' response to Ortlund's explanation.
@@Nai61a I did. I found it snarky and unscholarly.
@@TheCruiseDog It was neither. If you think Dr Davis is mistaken in his scholarship, by all means let him know.
@@Nai61a Please watch the conversation between him and Gavin in the next followup video where Gavin faces his accusers. Thanks.
@@TheCruiseDog I haven't got there yet. I'm a couple of weeks behind with my subscriptions.
Wow, great video. Thank you!
What a great, and important video!
This is epic work Sir. I 100% agree this is the most challenging topic in scripture. We need to understand it and defend the goodness of God.
Thank you so much Gavin.
This is very comprehensive, good job dealing with the Biblical data and philosophical Objections
Great job Dr. Ortlund! 38 years ago I learned about these things at seminary (GCTS), about how wicked the Canaanites were and about charam. Thank you for using this format to bring it to the attention of the public.
Great video!
What a great video, Gavin. Thank you so much. This issue is so important and so poorly tackled by Christians apologists, I feel. Yes, I know we can say that without God there's no morality to condemn the conquest of Canaan, I know we can appeal to His sovereign will and justice, and I know a Christian can understand and accept these things by faith, even if reluctant, but we need a better way to talk about this with unbelievers and help them see what God is showing us through this passage, and I think your video is a great step in that direction. God bless you and your ministry.
Truly recommend caution listeners, after 45:00 it gets really dark. Content warning! This evil and depravity needed removed. I just wasn't quite ready/could've stood not hearing these details today. Thank you once again for a well thought out video Dr. Ortlund.
Well said thank you sir. This is a stronger and better articulated position than Craig's divine command theory. Alex was right to obliterate divine command theory by showing how it undermines the moral argument for God's existence. Your approach here is built on solid research and it protects our intuitive view of God's character as revealed in the rest of Scripture and especially at the cross.
As you concluded, even as judgment is a reality to be accepted, God's mercy is the deeper truth, the "deeper magic", as Lewis' Aslan might say. I often point people to this statement of Jesus who did not pull punches regarding judgment, yet he shows in one breath that wrath is only derivative of love for his children. Love is central, but it demands justice over evil.
Matthew 18:6-7 NIV
[6] “If anyone causes one of these little ones-those who believe in me-to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. [7] Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!
you have such courage to just face these difficult topics head on, and do a good job of it! I'd like to see a video on the problem of animal suffering.
Gavin, this is one of the best treatments of this subject I've ever seen, and possibly/probably the best, and one I think is actually better than WLC's.
- Gavin, you have the gifts of a teacher :as to a very pointed focused explanatory application
And today the Palestinian Arabs are claiming to be Canaanites to bolster their false claim to the Land of Israel. That Muslims would identify with the archetypal opponents of monotheism is.... curious.
There are a lot of curiosities related to this conflict.
They are Rafaim (Raphaim?). Moabites. Rebels against God.
Land has always belonged to whichever people group was more capable of usurping it. What once belonged to the Canaanites then belonged to the Egyptians, and then Canaanites again, and then the Israelites, and then the Assyrians, and then the Babylonians, and then the Persians who gave it back to the Israelites again, and then the Seleucids, and then the Jews, and then the Romans, and then the Byzantines, and then the Islamic caliphates, and then for a brief stint the Crusaders, and then the Muslims again, and now a two-state solution that everyone knows is bound to fail. Who will prevail next? I’m no fortune teller, I just hope my tax dollars stop being a part of it.
The irony is, Palestinian Arabs have 50-60% semitic DNA. In contrast, modern Jews have 20-30% semitic DNA. Ironically, Palestinians are more closely related to the Israelites than postmodern Israelis! 😂 They’ll say the silliest things if it means they’ll gain more leverage.
I agree that them claiming to be cannanites without speaking any Cannanite language, not knowing which Cannanite nation they are , not knowing the culture, food or religion of the land is laughable.
But just for the record , it is true that Palestinian Arabs do carry “Cannanite dna” in their blood . Ironically enough, they share about 30% of their dna with Jews who are a Cannanite group (genetically not religiously ofc) lol
Thank you, Dr. Ortlund. That is perhaps all I think I can say. You have no idea how much it means to me to see you addressing such a pivotal source of doubt. My name is Joshua so your portraying the book of Joshua means a lot to me even personally. "The God of Joshua and the God of Jesus are one and the same": simply chilling to me. It is telling that the Hebrew for Joshua - Yeshua - is the very Hebrew name of Christ itself. The cross and the sword are both devices of confusion and sufffering but, as the Biblical message shows, they are both presented by the Hand of the same good God.
If I lived near this pastors' church, I would be a member. I've never had any reason to disagree with any of his teachings.
Very interesting and well made video! Appreciate the reference to The Road. I read the book in college. One of the fascinating parts is where the father tells the son they have the light inside their hearts because they refused to engage in cannibalism (unlike others in that apocalyptic hellscape). The ending of the book is strangely hopefuly in spite of a brutally grim tone throughout as a religiously influenced figure steps into the journey on the Road to the promised land to provide hope.
Thanks Gavin -- this video gave me a new love and appreciation for the God I serve, and His anger/hatred of evil.
Re the figurative use of language that suggests annihilation or total devastation - we even see this used colloquially today in news and apologetics. Pick your modern tribe, and anytime someone prominent in it issues a statement that finds fault with someone in the "other" tribe, articles, videos, and memes ensue saying that such and such obliterated so and so, or destroyed, or annihilated, etc. It's not a large leap to see this hyperbole being used in a military context.
Thank you for the video, Dr. Ortlund!
I used to get a bunch of dumb videos titled "Ben Shapiro DESTROYS college leftists" or whatever in my recommended a few years back, it's a phrase right wing channels use a lot with him.
Funny to imagine future historians thinking he was some sort of warlord, going from campus to campus and killing hundreds of men and women
Studying this subject on my own and didn’t take long to realize the Athiest has no clue to read the text. You did great👍
This is so good! Thank you Gavin, this was one of the thorns in my faith and it is now completely gone 😊
Nice! This is a good talk
God Bless You!
Well done Gavin
The more I learn about this subject the more it becomes clear we should be praising God for putting a stop to such horrific evil when he did.
Good teaching bro'! Appreciate the time you took to do this! GOD is NEVER WRONG in HIS judgements! SELAH.
atheist: why does God allow evil!
also atheist: God is so mean for punishing evil!
I wish Gavin will go Mike winger on these topics . Put out 4 hour videos
Ugh, I hope not. One thing I greatly appreciate about Gavin is his ability to be concise. The relatively shorter videos are about as packed with good info as they can be. I worry longer formats would sound like something from Reason and Theology - too drawn out and repetitive.
@@ottovonbaden6353 Mike Winger’s videos are great though, even the ones that are 2,000 hours long 😂
Man how come you can read books for a seemingly short period of time and then make a video about it? Id love to just do that! God bless you Dr.!
Thank you for this excellent video Gavin. Ultimately this issue has still led me, as a Christian, to no longer hold to strict biblical inerrancy. I have a couple of objections to your approach in this video, well argued though it was!
Issue 1. The other examples of ANE rulers boasting is not an example of genre, it is simply an example of propaganda and straight out lying. Rulers then, just like dictators today, lied and intended (or hoped) that their propaganda would be believed so that their status/glory would be enhanced. The example from the battle of Hatti and Ramses is a perfect example, he couldn’t admit to a draw/defeat so just lied outright. Imagine if someone hundreds of years from now took the statements of Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong-Un as evidence for a ‘genre’ of speech involving hyperbole. That would be to mistake dishonesty for a mere rhetorical style.
In the same way to my mind the most natural explanation of this language, both in the Bible and ANE rulers, is that this is propogandist dishonesty. And just like today, chronic liars often find that different lies conflict and are in tension. If the biblical compilers are faithfully reproducing information from different ancient sources, it would make sense that what is pronounced true in one hyperbolic text, is in tension with the reality as reported in another source, leading to the tension or seeming contradictions that we see.
In order to say that this is not just dishonesty, but stylistic hyperbole, you would need to show that the original author & audience alike neither intended nor understood these statements as literal. That seems a very tough task.
With all that said, if you adopt a view of scripture that allows for human errors/imperfections I think this explanation is actually very useful and makes a lot of sense. We would just say that the biblical authors are relaying ancient dishonest/false exaggerations that originally served progandistic purposes. Exaggerations still contain a core of truth of course so this is very far from destroying the usefulness of biblical texts as true sources of information/history.
But I imagine Gavin and many others would not be willing to countenance abandoning biblical inerrancy, so for them specifically I do not think this approach is too helpful.
Issue 2: In addition, even if we grant this interpretation of these texts as a genre of hyperbolic rhetoric still this creates an issue re how scripture is meant to serve as an infallible light & guide given that at the very least it appears to an intelligent casual reader that these texts commands genocide/slaughter/slavery etc. If we reinterpret the passages to this extent, then to my mind there remains little functional difference between saying "the descriptions of God's actions/commands contain errors" and "the real meaning is so different from the apparent meaning that an intelligent casual reader cannot safely use this text as a basis for any conclusions". Another way of putting this is, if God had intended to convey a literal, complete massacre what language should he have used? It seems any language he uses could be plausibly interpreted as hyperbolic. Whereas if God, through the scripture, took the trouble to not use hyperbolic language and instead used more nuanced descriptions there would not be ambiguity at all, either to the original readers nor subsequent generations. If God still providentially guided a text to be easily and thoroughly misleading then there is no longer any advantage over the view that he allowed some human errors, the net result is the same in terms of our lack confidence in using the text to draw conclusions.
One more thing to consider:
The Israelites, per Deuteronomy 20, were commanded to sue for peace for every city they came across. Many do not read it that way and read it that they were to only sue for peace for cities far away (outside of the land of promise) from them. But that is not the case, not just from the grammatical construction of the commandment which introduces the two sections of distinction for cities within the land of promise and those beyond it, but also by proof within Joshua’s story itself since in the very summary statement of all of Joshua’s conquests it is said in Joshua 11:
“19 There was not a city that made peace with the people of Israel except the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon. They took them all in battle.
19לֹֽא־הָיְתָה עִיר אֲשֶׁר הִשְׁלִימָה אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּלְתִּי הַחִוִּי יֹשְׁבֵי גִבְעֹון אֶת־הַכֹּל לָקְחוּ בַמִּלְחָמָֽה׃
20 For it was the LORD’s doing to harden their hearts that they should come against Israel in battle, in order that they should be devoted to destruction and should receive no mercy but be destroyed, just as the LORD commanded Moses.
20 כִּ֣י מֵאֵ֣ת יְהוָ֣ה ׀ הָיְתָ֡ה לְחַזֵּ֣ק אֶת־לִבָּם֩ לִקְרַ֨את הַמִּלְחָמָ֤ה אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ לְמַ֣עַן הַֽחֲרִימָ֔ם לְבִלְתִּ֥י הֱיוֹת־לָהֶ֖ם תְּחִנָּ֑ה כִּ֚י לְמַ֣עַן הַשְׁמִידָ֔ם כַּאֲשֶׁ֛ר צִוָּ֥ה יְהוָ֖ה אֶת־מֹשֶֽׁה׃ ס
Was it the judgement of God? Yes, explicitly so. It was just that in this one instance per the unique commandment and the unique circumstances that God Himself caused and enforced, the Israelites freed from slavery and taught to obey God in the wilderness were God’s chosen instrument to punish these unrighteous people.
I really don’t know why most apologists miss this crucial detail.
Because Deuteronomy 7:2 says not to make any treaties with Canaanites
@@tomasrocha6139
Yes. That is not the same as what the commandment says for warfare. The premise is that when God grants victory over them aka “When Yahweh your God hands them over to you and you defeat them,” meaning that the battle has already happened.
So your point isn’t taken in context of the stages of war. When put into context, it is clearly after the battle has happened and speaks nothing of standard operating procedures or offers of peace before the battle, which per Deuteronomy 20 they were required to do.
Proof of this is the Gibeonites who tricked them. Note that the Israelites did not see the trickery from them having to kill the Gibeonites anyways, but only that the Gibeonites deceived them. When the Gibeonites submitted they then followed through with what Deuteronomy 20 said about those who surrendered: they imposed “slave labor” on them, which was only to provide water and wood for the Tabernacle at Shiloh…a very menial and low stakes labor for any people to do.
This should be one of the top comments
Deut. 20: 15-28: "Thus you shall do to all the cities that are very far from you, which are not cities of the nations here. But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the LORD your God has commanded, that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the LORD your God."
I'm curious how you would deal with this specification in the same passage you cited. You mentioned grammatical construction, but I looked at the Hebrew grammar and it seemed pretty in line with the English translation from the ESV presented above. I'd like to hear your line of reasoning on it, if you have time.
@@ealdor9839
For one, you started after the section that I am discussing. So there is that problem.
You will note that Deuteronomy 20 begins with the procedures for warfare, starting with the gathering of an army after consultation for war has been decided upon battle instead of outright diplomacy. It addresses how military commanders are to be selected as well as what sorts of soldiers ought to be in the fighting force.
The part about suing for peace is a generic and universal code given in verses 10-11. We are even told in verse 11 what was to be done if the city surrendered.
Then, we are told what to do if the city instead makes war. This is a separate conditional (obviously) from peaceful s surrender since peaceful surrenders don’t result in conflict.
The next commandments deal with the conditions of warfare. Verses 13-14 show that if the city resists, then all its warfighting age and above males are to be executed but the children and women spared. Verse 15 begins with an incomplete idea by having a referent in the beginning with the word “thusly.” So we can infer by grammar that this speaks to the state of a city at war, since Ancient Israel would only put the warfighting and above aged males to death if the city did not surrender.
Then we are told that is the condition if the city is far away (as in outside of the promised territory, since this whole section speaks of the land of promise as if it already belongs to Israel).
Note that this “thusly” verse cannot refer backwards to verses 10-11 since such people would not have been put to death. Nor can it simply refer to suing for peace in a city since the separation of conditions of verse 14 introduces a new condition for if the city fights back.
Verses 16-18 then refer to cities belonging to peoples within the promised land and they are to be wiped out. But the problem is: how are they to be warred against? Does it mean that men who aren’t married more than a year have to fight? Does it mean that men who are cowardly now have to fight? When do the generic commands begin and end?
Logically, since Deuteronomy works on progressive commands and then gives stipulations at each stage on what to do if a matter goes this way or that (see Deuteronomy 21 for yet another example of this progressive law pattern where the prior set of conditions then set up for the latter conditions to be carried out), then it means that, yes, the Israelites, per the generic and universal command of siege warfare, had to sue for peace first among those cities within the land of promise- just as those beyond it. And if they fought back, then they were wiped out.
Even more, the universal commands then resume in verses 19-20 concerning how to besiege both of these kinds of cities, proving the matter to be progressive laws with progressive
This also lines up with the narrative. Joshua would not have mentioned the lack of peacemaking if there were no Israelite offer of peace for those cities to begin with.
As a previous agnostic and now as a Christian, I did not then and do not now pass over the threshold of the door that leads into the room where people stand to judge the actions of God, his intent, or accuse him of injustice. That accusation is brother to outright rejecting him. Vorsicht!
"You don't tug on Superman's cape
You don't spit into the wind
You don't pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger
And you don't mess around with God"
I agree that sometimes we question God too much. As He said - His ways are not our way and His thoughts are not our thoughts. We need to be more humble. K
Excellent, thanks!
I think it's such a good point to make that we cannot disconnect the old and new testaments. Also to reiterate and reinforce the sheer evil of what the Canaanite civilizations were doing that led God to judge them. I'm not sure if I'm fully comfortable with the points about the destruction not being directed against civilians primarily but it is thought provoking. Thank you for this video.
I’ve never seen this as an issue. Traditionally Christianity has said that all are sinners and deserve God’s just wrath for our rebellion against Him. God could wipe out the entire human race and be just in his acts. Luckily,
Romans 3:21-26
[21] But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it-[22] the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: [23] for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, [24] and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, [25] whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. [26] It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
God has mercy on whom He has mercy.
Yes I see a tendency to change meaning of the texts to fit too culture. Mankind is more cruel than ever, but a god who judges isn’t acceptable
I’m wandering when someone concludes that the offering wasn’t really killing animals, just some vegan stuff
If they don’t like the conquest of Canaan, they probably hate Noah’s flood. And really won’t like the second coming of the Lord…
Thanks!
Thank you for this Dr. Ortlund! I admire your perspicacious rhetoric and logic in elaborating upon the precise meanings of these seemingly questionable bible verses. Though I ultimately think that this is just one part of a definitive resolution of this particular so called blunder to biblical Christianity, this is a significant step in the right direction towards fully addressing it.
I don't think I've found anyone as detailed on this topic, although I am sure there are people out there, but this was incredible. I have a question; I want to start reading more on topics that I am intersted in, like this one for example. Where do you find your resources/books for specific topics?
Dr. Ortlund, regarding your first point, how do you square that with Deuteronomy 20:13-16 where God makes a distinction between sparing women and children in one case, but killing everyone in the next case:
And when the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword, but the women and the little ones...you shall take as plunder for yourselves...Thus you shall do to all the cities that are very far from you...But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes...
I'm genuinely curious and I don't recall you addressing this in your video. If you did, I apologize. Thanks!
Dr Ortlund said he’ll address the verses about supposed sexual violence against women in another video , I’m sure this example will be addressed in that video :)
@@sjappiyah4071 I wasn't asking about sexual violence. I was asking about how if he says that "killing everyone small to great" is just a figure of speech then why did God make a distinction between sparing women and children in one case but not in another. It doesn't seem to jive with his argument that it's just a figure of speech.
Acute observation! I just posted my take on these verses in Deuteronomy. Can you find my comment? Otherwise I will copy it to here.
@@frogpaste I don’t think you understood my comment. The verse about distinguishing women from men is considered by many a verse about sexual violence.
Therefore when Gavin makes a video about sexual violence he’ll address the point and explain why there is distinguishing between men & women in general which will address the question
@@sjappiyah4071 I don't see what this has to do with sex.
Deuteronomy 20:13-14
...you shall put all its males to the sword, but the women and the little ones...you shall take as plunder for yourselves...
Unless you're insinuating that Israelites were copulating with 'little ones'? God orders men put to the sword, but not women and little ones. However, later, He says to 'save alive nothing'. Again, that has nothing to do with sex.
Dr. Ortlund says it's just a figure of speech, but that doesn't seem consistent with God making a distinction in two separate cases where He says to spare the women and little ones in one case, don't spare them in the other case.
Glad you're talking about this subject. A lot of church going Christians just brush it off with something on the lines of "they deserved it", which doesn't really help.
But isn't that Gavin's argument just with less fluff? I don't see how that same logic doesn't factor in. Gavin just tries to make it seem not as bad.
Are you a femboy Vtuber?
We all deserve to be sent to hell by God! We all deserve to be judged by Him.
Only because Christ came to save sinners are any of us saved from God’s final judgement which is damnation. When Christ returns He will destroy all mankind -
that includes women, children and men. That is going to be a terrible time for everyone. But God is within His rights to do so. So whether He uses one nation against another nation in this world to bring judgement because they have filled up their cup of evil - or whether He does it Himself at the end there is not a lot of difference.
God used the Babylonians to bring judgement on Israel when it became apostate- God used Israel to meat out judgement on the Canaanite’s. And so on. K
@@WaterCat5 That’s not his argument whatsoever.
Gavin’s argument is that it wasn’t a massacre that targeted non combatants as the text clearly demonstrates when it says Israel successfully wiped everything living person…they are still alive later on.
What he’s saying however is that them being *conquered, not genocided , is “what they deserved” as God in his divine judgment is overthrowing their control of the land so they can no longer abuse the animals , land and people anymore
I would absolutely love to see Gavin have a conversation with Randall Rauser on this topic
Doctor Ortlund, I feel like this video has international relevancy. In the sense that I'd want to ask, as a stand in for people who live in countries where english is not their native language, if you'd authorize reproduction/translation of this video in written form(of course, while linking back to the original video).
I feel like as a teacher in my local church, where most of my brothers and sisters don't engage with the english language, this type of well contructed response would be a worderful resource, much like your other videos.
If you have a specific language in mind (that you also speak), you could offer to translate Dr Ortlund's monologue into such language (let's use German, just as an example). And if he agrees to your suggestion, he would be able to create Closed Captions using your [German] translation, and add them to this very video. All the German speaker would have to do is press the cog, go to the CC options, and enable the German translation that has been added and timed.
**edit**
On top of that, I noticed that CZcams has an "auto-translate" feature with some of the most common languages in the Caption settings. Now, whether these would be 100% accurate is unlikely, but all translations lose something of the original.
“Genocide” as a term does not describe this Biblical account. In the Biblical context (which, to an atheist arguing in good faith, should matter), the conquest of Canaan is better described as a *holy war* waged by Yahweh against the lesser, wicked deities of the land and their unrepentant, wicked idolaters and worshippers.
A “holy war” of this kind is also probably unacceptable to modern tastes, but is harder to argue against, if you accept that the text makes the case that Yahweh, in doing this, is promoting goodness according to His own righteous decree. Put simply, if Yahweh is “God Most High,” in the ancient near-eastern view of godhood and gods, then this “holy war” is by definition justified and, well, “Holy.”
Taking Scripture for what it says is something some of the smarter atheists try to do when arguing against it, and most of the CZcams atheists refuse to give this text such a thorough and good faith treatment.
If Yahweh was purging the land of wicked gods and wicked peoples, according to His own goodness and righteousness as the God who made those people, you have to accept that this is the Scriptural account, and (if so deemed) argue against *that*. Arguing against the goodness of God as posited by the Text is, in my personal view, philosophically bankrupt, as the text is making a theological argument, not foremost, but *only*.
IN OTHER WORDS, “genocide” is an incorrect framing for the Biblical narrative of what happened in Joshua’s conquest of Canaan in context.
So, it’s not genocide, when god does it? Got it.
Or, it is genocide but genocide is okay as long as god commanded it? Got it.
@@michaelestrada2772 So are you opposed to all war then? What if Hitler wasn't stopped? Do you oppose war against people's that are murdering their own people?
Like islam?