Moses, speaking for the LORD earlier in the great story, makes it seem as though the people may not have to fight or kill anyone:
If you carefully observe all these commands I am giving you to follow—to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him and to hold fast to him—then the Lord will drive out all these nations before you, and you will dispossess nations larger and stronger than you. (Deuteronomy 11:22-23)
But here Moses, speaking for the LORD, indicates the people will fight and kill their enemies:
When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. (Deuteronomy 20:10-13)
Which is it? It seems safe to say that both traditions are represented in the biblical text. One seems to hope for a nonviolent takeover, a dispossession of the land's inhabitants with no force of arms. The other anticipates resistance, warfare, and killing. The two traditions remain in tension for me, as I read.
No comments:
Post a Comment