The primary reason that we feel uncomfortable with what we're reading - that Israel is commanded to conquer the land and totally destroy its inhabitants - is that it is totally at odds with the New Testament. In the New Testament we have the instruction to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us - Jesus forgives those involved in his execution. So how do we match the New Testament God of love, with the God of Joshua who commands that men, women and children be wiped out because of their ethnicity?
It's interesting to think that Jesus' original audience would not have had this internal struggle. They would have thought that Joshua had totally the right idea, and in fact they were waiting for the Messiah who would come and do just this sort of thing again - only this time it would be the Romans getting it in the neck.
The sort of mental shift needed for us to accept the killing in Joshua is exactly the sort of mental shift needed by Jesus' hearers to start accepting that they were to love their enemies. No wonder so many people failed to get it.
So, even though we're never going to find a totally satisfactory answer, how can we better understand all this violence and death.
Part of the answer is to remember that God is a God who will bring judgement - which in itself is an uncomfortable truth that we often downplay in favour of God's love and forgiveness. Certainly the conquest of Canaan is portrayed as God's judgement on a morally corrupt society - e.g. Leviticus 18:24-28. We should also note from this passage the warning that Israel will not escape a similar fate if she adopts the practises of those who currently live in the land. This is not a judgement on ethnicity but on a way of life that is lived in rebellion to God.
But surely not everyone was guilty and why was there no opportunity to repent?
Rahab and the Gibeonites are two examples (chapter 2 and 9) of those who escaped death because of their response to God's people. These appear to be the exception. In Joshua 9:1-2 we read of those who had heard what God had done and their response was to make war not peace.
We must remember that there is a huge cultural gap between when these accounts were written and us - and therefore we need to allow for the possibility of hyperbole and exaggeration - as a perfectly legitimate literary technique of the time in historical writing. And so when it talks about a whole city being totally destroyed we need to allow for the possibility that many had already fled ahead of Israel's arrival.
This still leaves us with questions about displaced people and refugees - which in today's climate is only slightly more acceptable than accusations of genocide!
It is also interesting to note that the Old Testament does not glory in this violence but often refers to driving the people out rather than wiping them out. These events are presented as a one off, as unique - not as something that is going to repeated again and again throughout Israel's history.
Although they still make uncomfortable reading some of these points will help us to start making some sense of all this violence.
If you want to follow this up more then you might find this article a good place to start - Old Testament Mass Killings by Paul Coulter on UCCF's bethinking website.
