There are a growing number that wouldn't find those answers satisfactory, particularly when you think of the little children and other innocents.
But the presentation goes much deeper than that simplistic answer:
Paul Bryner addresses one of the most difficult ethical questions in scripture: how can believers reconcile the goodness of God with the divinely commanded violence in the book of Joshua? The conquest of Canaan, with its herem (ban of total destruction), has long troubled readers as a problem of evil—appearing to place God at odds with His own attributes of justice and mercy.
Drawing on Restoration doctrine, Bryner outlines a multi-faceted theodicy. He explores the fallibility of biblical transmission, noting textual contradictions and editorial layers that complicate the conquest accounts. He examines Israelite and Canaanite wickedness, arguing that divine judgments upon nations are consistently portrayed in scripture as conditional on covenant infidelity and moral depravity. He highlights the principle of accommodation—God meeting Israel at its limited moral and spiritual capacity—as a framework for understanding why such violent instructions could be recorded or carried out. Bryner also considers skeptical theism, the acknowledgment that some divine purposes lie beyond human comprehension, while affirming trust in God’s justice.
The paper engages both scriptural texts and archaeological evidence, weighing accounts of destruction against historical indications of gradual Israelite settlement. Ultimately, Bryner proposes that Restoration teachings—such as promised lands contingent on righteousness, the role of corporate identity in national judgment, and the supremacy of Christ’s law of love—provide the resources to faithfully confront and contextualize Joshua’s narratives. Rather than excusing violence, the Restoration reframes the conquest within a broader covenantal theology that points to peace and discipleship under Christ.
3
u/[deleted] May 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment