The literary context of the conquest of Canaan explained?
Evaluating some of Gavin Ortlund’s arguments
In a recent video, Gavin Ortlund presents a six-minute case for an apologetic understanding the conquest of Canaan. You can watch Gavin’s video here:
In this post, I am going to offer quick responses to the five points that Gavin makes about the literary context of the conquest narratives. The discussion of the historical context can be done by someone more knowledgeable than I.
Preliminary remarks
As far as is possible, in this post I am going to assume that the world presented by the biblical texts is real and truthful. From that perspective, I am going to argue that, within the logic of the Bible’s literary world, Gavin’s reading of the texts is inadequate.
I think that the biblical texts present God as really commanding the total annihilation of certain Canaanite peoples, making no distinction between combatant and non-combatant, innocent and guilty. The failure of the Israelites to fulfill this command perfectly is what causes trouble for them in the later history of their people. Of course, this is all very morally objectionable, to say the least. It involves God’s commanding genocide and indiscriminate killing.
Gavin’s approach is to argue that God was not really commanding the total annihilation of certain Canaanite peoples. That would be a misinterpretation of the texts. What God was commanding is still harsh but not as clearly morally objectionable. It was sooner something like a just war against gravely evil cultures as an act of divine judgment. The difference between combatants and non-combatants was respected or at least intended by God to be respected.
Gavin’s arguments
Gavin presents five points in favor of his reading. I will go over them in order. In the end I don’t think he succeeds in making his case.
Ancient warfare rhetoric common in the ancient world
Gavin asserts that the biblical texts make use of “ancient warfare rhetoric.” The point of this rhetoric is not to describe genocide or the wanton destruction of noncombatants. Its purpose is rather to describe a decisive military victory. The evidence for this assertion is that this kind of language was often used by kings and rulers in the ancient world to describe the “total annihilation” of rival or enemy people-groups that were still in existence long after the battles in question took place. The purpose of this form of language is thus at most to express decisive military victory in a kind of overinflated way.
By way of response:
Gavin’s interpretation here is unnatural. Suppose that the victors of battles did not always totally annihilate their enemies, despite the way they would talk about things after the fact. This fact by itself does not mean (1) that the victors were not intending to annihilate their enemies totally, or (2) that they would not have done so if they had been able, or (3) that they did not in fact kill many innocent persons in the process.
To the contrary, the fact that they brag about having annihilated their enemies so is evidence enough of their fundamentally violent intentions and outlook, whatever the nature of their actual success in battle. A man who understood himself to be engaging in a just war, one that respects the difference between combatant and non-combatant, rather than in an attempted annihilation, would not brag about totally annihilating his opponents indiscriminately.
So also, when God is presented as commanding the total annihilation of various Canaanite peoples, the fact that the Canaanite peoples in question were not all totally annihilated does not mean (1) that total annihilation was not the intention of the command, or (2) that the Israelites would not have annihilated them entirely if they had been able, or (3) that the Israelites did not in fact kill many innocent persons in the process. The fact that the Bible uses the extreme language it does is evidence enough of its fundamentally violent intentions and outlook, whatever the nature of the Israelites’ actual success in battle. If the Israelites understood themselves to be engaging in a just war, one that respects the difference between combatant and non-combatant, rather than an attempted annihilation, they would not have spoken about indiscriminately annihilating their enemies.
“Total destruction” and the Babylonian exile
Gavin argues that the language of “total destruction” is used in the Bible to describe the conquest of Israel by the Babylonians (Jer. 25:9; 2 Chr. 36:17). But obviously this did not involve the “total annihilation” of the people of Israel down to the last man. Thus, the language of “total destruction” doesn’t imply that everyone was really killed.
By way of response:
The question about whether “total destruction” means that every last person was killed is beside the point. The language of “total destruction” does imply indifferent slaughter and ruthless violence.
It is obvious that the conquest of Israel by the Babylonians did involve the ruthless killing of combatants and non-combatants alike. The description of the conditions of the conquest in the Book of Lamentations is gruesome enough. People were starving to death and eating their own children.
Imposing such horrific conditions upon the Jerusalemites was part of the “total destruction” to which the Babylonians had put them. The purpose of the conquest was clearly to kill as many of the Israelites as would have been expedient or impressive, making no distinction between combatant and non-combatant. This is what makes the conquest as an exercise in “total destruction” a moral abomination rather than a just war.
Something similar can thus also be said about the conquest of Canaan to which God commands the Israelites. Whatever the actual results in battle, the intention was clearly indiscriminate destruction and merciless violence. That’s what the language of “utter destruction” implies.
The Command Against Intermarriage
Gavin also presents the following argument. The Israelites are presented in the biblical narrative as being forbidden from intermarrying with the very same Canaanite peoples that they were commanded to destroy mercilessly in the verse before (Deut. 7:1–6). But this command not to intermarry would make no sense if the total annihilation of the Canaanites were what God had intended in his command. Therefore, it must be that God is not really commanding total annihilation.
By way of response:
The command against intermarrying actually makes a lot of sense in context. It is supposed to strengthen the command to annihilate. The command against intermarrying cuts off an avenue of escape from the earlier command to annihilate.
But why should the command to annihilate need strengthening? Gavin seems to assume that the Israelites would have just done whatever God commanded as soon as they understood his command. If they had to be told not to intermarry with people, that must be because they would not have understood God as commanding total genocide in the sentence just before (Deut. 7:2–3). But this inference is obviously not true to the biblical narrative itself. The Israelites are always disobeying God and refusing to do what he tells them. By commanding against intermarriage, God is speaking to their inclination to disobey and trying to prevent them from finding an escape.
As another example of this phenomenon, consider this passage from earlier in Deuteronomy. After giving a long list of commands, Moses tells the people: “You must therefore be careful to do as the Lord your God has commanded you; you shall not turn to the right or to the left” (Deut. 5:32). The fact that the Israelites are told not to turn to the right or to the left does not mean that the earlier injunction to be careful in doing what the Lord God had commanded them was consistent with their turning to the right or to the left. Rather, the command not to turn to the right or to the left is just a way of reinforcing the immediately preceding instruction that they be careful to do as the Lord had commanded them.
Why then the command against intermarriage? Some of the Israelites might have thought that the men among their Canaanite enemies should certainly be killed, but perhaps the woman could be preserved as war-brides for the Israelites. Or some of them may have thought that perhaps establishing bonds and treaties with the Canaanites through intermarriage would be preferable to warfare. Why would they have thought this? The same text that forbids intermarriage also notes how much more numerous the other peoples are in comparison to Israel: “It was not because you were more numerous than any other people that the Lord set his heart on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples… You shall devour all the peoples that the Lord your God is giving over to you, showing them no pity… If you say to yourself, ‘These nations are more numerous than I; how can I dispossess them?’, do not be afraid of them…” (Deut. 7:7–26). Thus, it could be that the recourse to intermarriage was envisioned as a temptation for the people who may have been intimidated by the prospect of total warfare.
The explanation of the commandment against intermarriage is therefore quite clear in context. God forbids intermarriage with the Canaanite peoples precisely so that the Israelites would have no other option but to annihilate everyone without distinction—which is what God had already commanded them to do: “you must utterly destroy them. Make no covenant with them and show them no mercy” (Deut. 7:2). The command against intermarriage does not qualify the command to annihilate but rather strengthens and supports it.
Conflicting Reports in the Old Testament
Gavin argues that the Old Testament texts do not give uniform reports about the fate of some of the Canaanite peoples. Some texts say that a certain people group was utterly destroyed (e.g. Debir in Josh 10:38–39), whereas others say that the people group remained for generations afterwards (e.g. Debir in Judg 1:11). Gavin resolves this tension by appeal to his chastened interpretation of ancient warfare rhetoric. “Utterly destroy” did not mean “totally annihilate.”
By way of response:
Strictly speaking, as far as I can tell, critical scholars think most or even all of these battles did not really happen, at least not as reported in the Old Testament texts. This could be a very simple reason why the texts conflict: because they are not historically accurate reports of what actually took place in time. They rather constitute alternative false histories. Joshua and Judges both happen to be included in the canon, but they are not consistent with each other and do not have to be consistent with each other merely for that reason.
Gavin’s alternative reading of the “ancient warfare rhetoric” seems to be the reading one must give of these texts in order to avoid the contradiction, if one is to insist on the historical reliability of these texts. But that reading is already questionable on independent, literary grounds. The texts do not support the notion that “utterly destroy” meant something less than “utterly destroy,” at least as far as the intention behind God’s commands is concerned.
Cities as Military Garrisons
Gavin argues that the “cities” being destroyed in the conquest of Canaan are not really cities or metropoleis so much as military garrisons. They would have had little if any civilian populations living there. The “complete annihilation” of these peoples described in the text is sooner about the the neutralization of their military power and not the total destruction of every person.
By way of response:
Regardless of the historical truth about the civilian population in the cities mentioned in the Bible, the commands of God as expressed in the biblical texts can be appreciated as being directed at the annihilation of total populations. The commands plainly foresee the presence of families and non-combatants in the populations to be annihilated.
That’s why God commands the Israelites not to intermarry with them immediately after telling the Israelites to annihilate them completely: “You must utterly destroy them. Make no covenant with them and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons” (Deut. 7:1–3). The Israelites would not have been tempted to arrange intermarriages with the Canaanites unless they were going to come into contact with complete family units in the course of the conquest, with patriarchs with sons and daughters who could make arrangements for marriage. But at the same time that they are forbidden from intermarrying with the Canaanites, they are told to destroy them annihilating. All this very plainly suggests that God’s commands envision the total annihilation of the people-groups, including noncombatants, in the cities in which they lived.
The fact that Rahab is depicted as living in Jericho together with her extended family—father and mother, brothers and sisters, and all their spouses and children and slaves—also speaks in favor of this interpretation (Josh 2).
Once again, the actual historical facts don’t matter for the purposes of this argument. The point is not whether there actually were many people living in those cities, but whether the texts present things in that way. The question at hand is whether the texts present God in a morally objectionable light. The texts can present God as morally monstrous even while describing things inaccurately from the historical point of view. It’s just that the text now has historical troubles in addition to its moral and theological troubles.
Concluding Remarks
I think Gavin’s interpretation of the literary context of the conquest of Canaan is not accurate. The texts plainly depict God as commanding the Israelites to annihilate certain Canaanite peoples entirely.
Strictly speaking, it doesn’t matter from a literary point of view that none of this ever happened in history. What matters is the way that the text presents God. That’s what’s at stake in this discussion. The historical stuff is beside the point from the point of view of the theological and ethical evaluation of the biblical texts.
I think the best interpretation of the biblical texts on the texts’ own terms is that God intended for the Israelites to annihilate these people-groups entirely, but they failed to do so and suffered in their later history on account of this failure. In other words, the conquest of Canaan was a failure and trouble for the Israelites precisely because God’s commandment to annihilate the Canaanites was not perfectly fulfilled.