Deuteronomy

This week in the Come Follow Me curriculum we focused on the book of Deuteronomy.  I don't know if this is anyone's favorite book in the Old Testament.  It contains a lot of detail about specific aspects of the Mosaic Law.  It is surprising, therefore, to realize that it is often quoted by Jesus in the New Testament. One website I saw found 34 references. There were two things I want to discuss this week that I think are important for the study of Deuteronomy. 

The first was best addressed in the podcast Talking Scripture with Mike Day and Bryce Dunford.  They talk about the theory that Deuteronomy was the "Book of the Law" discovered during Josiah's reign, just before the Babylonian captivity.  Josiah embraced the then ancient practices it described, and made a major religious reformation.  Mike and Bryce quote scholars that argue that as part of the reformation some principles that are now part of Mormon theology were removed.  They claim that the doctrines Lehi was professing were contrary to the reformation, and that is why he was threatened and driven from the city.  Some of the changes were a belief in a single God, instead of God the Father and Jesus Christ. Another was a denial of a corporial God.  Earlier stories talk of Moses seeing God face to face, but in Deuteronomy is says noone can see God.  Deuteronomy also focuses religious practice exclusively on the Tabernacle (and later the Temple by association).  But earlier accounts of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob show them setting up memorials, pillars or wells, wherever they had a spiritual manifestation. They take the fact that Lehi set up an altar in the wilderness as evidence that he opposed the Deuteronomistic reforms of Josiah.  They acknowledged that Josiah was generally a better king than many of the past kings of Israel because he was a least trying to worship the Lord, but that he didn't get everything right.

The second question I want to address is whether the Lord ever commanded his people to commit genocide. Repeatedly throughout Deuteronomy, the Lord tells Israel to "Utterly Destroy" the people of the land (e.g. Deuteronomy 13:15-16).  This will happen again in Joshua as the Israelites cross the river Jordan and start conquering one city after another.  It seems like there are two possible answers to this question, both of which have complicated implications. I will investigate them here and give my opinions on their strengths and weakness.

1. The Lord did command his people to destroy the other cities.  

Strengths: That is what the text says. If you are a literalist, then you are compelled to believe that the Lord did command the people to kill thousands of prior residents of the land.  People who believe it justify it in a couple of ways.  They say that it is not as big of deal to the Lord for people to die, because the Lord knows they are just being moved from one kind of living to another.  So it isn't as bad as it sounds.  Other people say that is was so important to wipe out pegan worship, the Lord was willing to let some people die to save the souls of his chosen people. 

Issues: I personally have serious issues with both of these arguments.  Even if it isn't a big deal to the Lord to move someone from this life to the next, what affect does it have on the person doing the slaying?  When you violently kill someone, it damages your soul.  If you are commanded to kill women and children, it damages your soul even more.  If it was important to clear the land of wicked people the Lord could have sent a plague or flood of pestilence and done the job without making his chosen people do the dirty work.  Also, this is a dangerous kind of argument, that was probably employed by all those who have in more recent history committed atrocities in the name of God. Mike and Bryce also pointed out that this kind of warfare goes against the doctrine of divinely sanctioned warfare as described in the Book of Mormon, e.g. that you should not wage war for gain but only to defend your rights and your families. 

2. The Lord didn't command his people to destroy the cities.

Strengths: This better fits with a New Testament view of God.  Jesus taught that if a man strike you on the right cheek, you should turn to him the left. He reached out with compassion to the sinners he met. It better matches the Book of Mormon account of God's views on war.  Mike and Bryce also point out that this matches the historical/archeological evidence.  Archaeology doesn't support the idea that whole civilizations were destroyed during the time period and replaced with Israelites.  There is evidence that Israelites started influencing preexisting groups, but not replacing them. 

Weakness: If the Lord didn't command them, why does the Bible say that he did.  Do we too often adopt the "merciful" view of the Lord and forget his "just" side.  If we are willing to bend the text to our view in this respect, is it a slippery slope to make all scriptures just mean what we want them to mean. 

What is my opinion?  I don't know.  I tend to lean toward the second option.  I think that Israel came into the land as conquerors and then later claimed that the Lord made them do it.  Or, perhaps, they didn't do much conquering at all, but later, during the Babylonian captivity, claimed that they did to boost cultural confidence and morale. But if, some day, I receive a strong spiritual confirmation that the Lord really did command the Israelites to commit genocide, I will accept it on faith that the Lord knew best.