Joshua to Jesus - Day 2

Good evening everyone. It's nice to see so many familiar faces here this evening, as well as some new people from different ages and places. You're all very welcome. I'll share my screen with you and we'll carry on where we left off last night. This is the first time I have taught this particular workshop in this kind of depth. In previous workshops, I've joined the dots and read live through the Divine Principle, particularly about Jesus and the Israelites. Normally, when I talk about Old Testament history, I don't usually have the opportunity to go into much depth because it's typically just for an hour, or if I'm lucky, two hours. So, I've been reading and studying a lot, trying to put it all together myself. Today, I'm very much aware that this is a work in progress.

Let's start off by picking up some of the things that were left over from yesterday. Some people who weren't here may ask about Noah's Code and those sorts of things, so I want to explain a little bit of the background behind that. One of the main concerns in the Bible, in the Torah and the biblical tradition, is about peace—how to establish peace and create a peaceful world. We look at the story of Noah in particular, where it says that God regretted making people and explains very clearly why it grieved His heart: because there was so much violence. The word 'violence' occurs three times in the early part about Noah, and you can see that what breaks God's heart more than anything else is when He sees what happens to His children. He sees His children getting murdered, beaten up, suffering acts of violence, being raped, sexually abused, and robbed. What God hates more than anything else is violence, and instead, He wants to create a world of peace.

This then becomes a question of how to bring about peace. In the biblical tradition, there is the idea of two covenants. A covenant is like a marriage, a relationship based upon vows, trust, and faithfulness. Following the flood, when everybody was drowned except for Noah's family, we see that from Noah's family came the three sons of Noah and their descendants. It says that each of these 70 descendants of Noah formed a nation of their own with a language of their own. The vision was that there would be 70 different languages and nations, and they should all live at peace with each other, respecting one another. However, then we have the story of the Tower of Babel, where they tried to form a common language and purpose. This is often what empires do; they try to make all the people of a country adopt the same language and culture.

The biblical vision is not like that; it's not about empire at all. Instead, it's about peace established through universal laws. It's not peace where everybody believes the same thing, observes the same laws, or speaks the same language. It's not peace established through a single currency or uniformity. Instead, it's based upon universal laws, the very first of which is to not worship a false deity, which is against idolatry. Idolatry is not just about worshipping idols; it also includes worshipping a human being, an emperor, or a pharaoh as if they were God, leading to a very hierarchical and immoral society. The first priority is always to smash idols, starting with Abraham, who smashed the idols. It's not that everyone should become Jews or adopt the Jewish religion, but that everyone should stop worshipping idols and worship God in their own way.

Another way in which people try to establish peace is through a uniformity of religion, as happened in Europe where everyone was supposed to worship God in the same way, believe the same things, and follow the same liturgy. That's not what's going on here. If people worship God, they can do so in their own way, as long as they do not worship idols. Other universal laws include not blaspheming against God, not murdering or injuring others, not having forbidden sexual relations, and establishing laws and courts to ensure justice. These are universal laws for all of humanity, but within that framework, every nation can develop its own laws, language, customs, and traditions. This is the idea of the universal and the particular. For the Jewish people at Mount Sinai, God made the Mosaic Covenant and gave them a particular set of 613 laws. However, the idea is not that everyone is supposed to observe these laws; they were given to the people of Israel for a specific purpose—to be a holy nation, a kingdom of priests.

When we look at the invasion of Canaan, we must consider how to judge the past. Some may think that the Israelites were a nasty bunch for invading another country and killing its inhabitants. However, we must remember that God is the owner of the world and has the authority to decide who lives where. God made a promise to Abraham that his descendants would live in the land of Canaan. It was clear that God said to the people, 'You can live here, but you cannot own the land; the land is mine.' They were allowed to live there, but they had to live a certain moral way of life. When we judge the past, we should consider the standards available at that time. Noah was described as a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time. This means that compared to others, he was exceptional, but in a different time, he might not have been seen as such.

When we look at the invasion of Canaan, we see that while they invaded, the context of that time was different. Other nations were creating empires, but Moses told the Israelites that they could not expand beyond their boundaries. They were not invading like ordinary people; they were taking up the land that God promised them. In contrast, when we look at events like the Holocaust, we can judge them by the best standards available in the 20th century and recognise them as unspeakable evil. There are many examples throughout history where people have behaved in ways that are beyond imagination, and it wasn't until the full horror was revealed that people realised what was happening.

How are we to judge these things? Are we to judge them by the best standards of today? I would say yes. When you look at something like slavery, it's much more complicated. Obviously, today we regard slavery as a terrible evil, and despite the fact that there is still a lot of slavery going on in the world today, often referred to as modern slavery, it is connected to prostitution and similar issues. The fact is, throughout the whole of human history, there has always been slavery. Because it was an institution that has always existed, most people thought it was just natural. It was often defended as a natural institution because it had always existed; therefore, it was considered normal. How could one possibly question it?

It's very interesting to read a book by Mark Twain, an American author, titled 'The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.' It discusses a boy growing up in the slave states of America, where slavery was completely natural because that was just the way it was, and everyone accepted it. It was justified as being normal. In the story, Huck encounters a runaway slave, who is black, and befriends him. They embark on many adventures together. However, Huck eventually feels guilty and is stricken by his conscience, believing he should write a letter to the slave owner to inform them of the runaway's whereabouts so they can reclaim their property. He struggles with this decision and ultimately tears up the letter, deciding that even if it means going to hell for going against his conscience, that is acceptable. This illustrates a profound awakening of conscience, where Huck realises that the standards he had been taught were wrong.

A lot of similar discussions are happening in the world today. For example, Edward Colston, who lived in Bristol in the 17th and early 18th centuries, was a slave trader who made money through slavery. However, he gave away all his money and became a philanthropist, establishing schools and various buildings in Bristol. Recently, some individuals deemed it a scandalous outrage to have a statue of Edward Colston in Bristol and pulled it down. This sparked a significant debate about how we should judge someone like Colston. Should we judge him according to our standards today, where we view slavery as wrong, or by the standards of his time, when the abolition of slavery had not yet begun?

When Colston was alive and trading slaves, the idea that the slave trade was wrong was inconceivable. It was about 80 years later that the beginnings of the abolition movement started to develop. Colston was a philanthropist, and the statue was erected not because he was a slave trader, but because he was a philanthropist. If he were alive today, he would have recognised slavery as a terrible evil and would not have engaged in it, yet he would still be remembered for his philanthropic efforts. This raises important questions about how we judge historical figures and events, similar to the invasion of Canaan.

We discussed this yesterday, focusing on ideological and political conflict. When the Israelites invaded Canaan, God instructed them that when they approached a town to attack it, they should offer terms of peace. The overall vision was to create a peaceful society, and part of that involved accepting the laws of Noah and abandoning idolatry. However, many people resisted this, as idolatry was good for business. This was evident in the time of Muhammad, who faced significant opposition when he sought to eliminate idols in Mecca because idol worship was central to trade and the economy.

The situation in Canaan can be likened to the destruction of Nazi Germany. The Allies realised they could not negotiate with Hitler; there had to be a total and unconditional surrender. Following that, there was a process of denazification. The war against the Canaanites was not a war against a race or a people, but rather a war against a noxious moral system that refused to embrace even the most elementary expressions of humane conduct and civilised behaviour. God provided a list of prohibitions regarding sexual morality and good relationships between people, emphasising the importance of observing sexual purity and avoiding abuse.

God warned the Israelites not to assimilate with the inhabitants of Canaan. They were instructed to make peace but also to be cautious about forming treaties. The concern was that if they settled there and made treaties, they would be drawn into idolatry and sexual immorality, which were intertwined. Instead of forming a relationship with God, they would give that relationship to someone else. This was a significant worry, as the goal was to create a holy nation and a kingdom of priests based on the Mosaic Law. At the very least, all the people living there had to observe the laws of Noah. God warned that if they did not drive out the inhabitants of the land, those who remained would become a source of trouble for them.

Joshua defeated the armies and kings of Canaan, but not all the Canaanites were driven out. Peace was an option, and Joshua made a treaty of peace with the Gibeonites, which was ratified by the leaders of the assembly. However, the Israelites later discovered that the Gibeonites had deceived them about their origins. Despite this deception, the leaders decided not to break the treaty because they had sworn an oath by the God of Israel. This illustrates the importance of honouring commitments, even when one has been tricked. The king of Jerusalem, alarmed by the alliance between Gibeon and Israel, sought to attack Gibeon, leading to further conflict.

The Gibeonites appealed to Joshua for help, and despite the fact that they were not Israelites and had deceived him, Joshua honoured the peace treaty and marched to their aid. God assured Joshua that he would defeat the opposing kings. This led to a series of battles where many armies were defeated, and part of this was about regime change—breaking down the oppressive sovereignty of the Canaanite kings and establishing a new moral framework. The Israelites were instructed to offer the people of a city an offer of peace, and if they accepted, they would be subject to forced labour. This raises the question of what to do with defeated peoples, a complex issue throughout history.

Throughout history, various societies have dealt with the consequences of conflict in brutal ways. For instance, the Romans expelled the Jews from Palestine, selling many into slavery after the destruction of their communities. This practice of selling defeated populations into slavery or forcing them into labour has been a common theme across cultures. When African tribes clashed, the victors often faced the dilemma of what to do with the defeated. Killing them was one option, but selling them into slavery was often seen as a more convenient solution. This slave trade persisted for thousands of years, not just in Africa but globally, with instances of entire villages in England being raided by North African pirates until the 17th century.

The occupation of countries has also led to forced labour, as seen during Nazi Germany's control over various European nations. Many individuals were taken from their homes and forced to work in factories under harsh conditions. Another approach to dealing with conquered peoples has been cultural assimilation, where the victors attempt to impose their language and customs on the defeated. After the World Wars, particularly the Second World War, Europe underwent significant rebuilding, with the aim of establishing new political and economic structures to prevent the recurrence of past atrocities. This long-term vision required substantial resources, which were largely provided by the United States through the Marshall Plan.

When peace is not achieved, the consequences can be dire. In biblical terms, if a city refuses to surrender, the men would be killed, while women and children were spared to be taken as plunder. This reflects a harsh reality of warfare throughout history. A modern example can be found in Shakespeare's play 'Henry V', where King Henry offers the besieged town of Harfleur a choice: surrender or face destruction. His threats illustrate the brutal tactics employed during sieges, where the fate of the defeated often involved violence and violation. Despite being a Christian king, Henry's proposed actions were far more severe than those outlined in biblical texts regarding warfare.

The 20th century also witnessed horrific acts during conflicts, such as the German occupation of France from 1939 to 1945. The principle of retribution led to the execution of innocent civilians in response to the actions of resistance fighters. For example, in the village of Oradour-sur-Glane, German forces killed 190 men and burned down the church with 247 children inside. Such atrocities highlight the brutal realities of war and the often overlooked history of violence that has occurred across Europe. The legacy of these events serves as a reminder that the actions taken in the name of conquest and retribution have left deep scars on societies.

Historically, the victor's seizure of the vanquished's property was widely accepted as a norm, justified by the costs of warfare. This practice was not seen as theft but rather a right of conquest. The shifting borders of Europe illustrate this reality, as nations have expanded and contracted throughout history. For instance, the map of Europe has changed significantly since the 19th century, with countries like Germany and Austria shrinking in size. After the Second World War, millions were displaced as borders were redrawn, and people were resettled. This movement was accepted as a consequence of conflict, with little expectation of returning to previous territories.

The concept of the right of conquest is exemplified by figures like William the Conqueror, who invaded England and redistributed land among his followers. While these castles may appear romantic to tourists, they represent a history of conquest and dispossession. The complexities of ancestry further complicate discussions about land ownership and historical injustices. As time passes, tracing rightful ownership becomes increasingly difficult, as seen in the case of land granted to nobles by William the Conqueror. The question of compensation for historical wrongs raises challenges, especially when the original owners or their descendants cannot be identified.

We have to show that continuing loss or harm resulted from past injury. This is often impossible where harms are caused by ancient or distant wrongs. Those who descend from those once enslaved or colonised are still being harmed by those ancient misdeeds, whether they occurred a thousand years ago or even 200 years ago. Can we offer a clear enough account of the causation of current harms to determine where compensation is owed? This is a real issue and has become a significant conversation regarding compensation for slavery. How far back do we go? Do we consider the people in Africa who sold other Africans into slavery, or the slaves taken from other countries by Arab slave traders? It becomes very difficult to keep turning the clock back like this. David Hume said possession is nine-tenths of the law, and the reality is that if someone has settled there, you must acknowledge that they own it. I remember when Nigeria became independent from Britain in the mid-1960s, some Nigerian politicians asked a British ambassador when they would receive compensation for all that had been done during British rule. The ambassador replied that they would receive compensation when the Romans compensated them for the terrible things they did. Eventually, one must draw a line under it and move on.

It's interesting to look at the biblical laws of war, which are quite advanced compared to the way things have been in most countries until today. Moses instructed the officers to ask the army if anyone had built a new house and not yet begun to live in it. If so, they could go home, or they might die in battle and someone else would live in it. Similarly, if anyone had planted a vineyard or pledged to a woman but had not yet married her, they could go home. The officers were also to ask if anyone was afraid or faint-hearted, allowing them to return home so that their fellow soldiers would not become disheartened. This is quite different from modern armies, where conscription often disregards personal circumstances. My grandfather's brother fought in the First World War and married during the war, but he had to return to fight and was killed just before the war ended. If they had followed the Mosaic law, he would have been excused from service to be with his wife and establish a family.

The Mosaic understanding of who should fight in an army is actually very liberal and modern in that sense. It also has ecological concerns; God instructed that when laying siege to a city, one should not destroy fruit trees because they provide sustenance. However, non-fruit trees could be cut down for siege works. The idea of laying waste to the land is non-biblical. You are not allowed to damage the ecology or nature; you fight to win the war without destroying the land. When a city is defeated, the men are put to the sword, but the women and children are not killed or treated as property. Instead, if a soldier finds a beautiful woman among the captives, he may take her as his wife, allowing her to mourn for her family before marrying her. This is very different from the horrendous acts that occurred in Europe during the 20th century, where armies committed atrocities. The Mosaic law forbids such actions and upholds a high standard of morality regarding how soldiers treat others.

In the story of Joshua, we see that the people of Jericho had an opportunity to surrender but chose not to. They were given six days to do so, and when they did not, the walls fell down, which can be seen as God's direct intervention. However, as the Israelites fought against the Canaanites, God's overt intervention declined, matching an increase in the people's active participation in securing their own victory. God wanted them to feel a sense of ownership and accomplishment, allowing them to take an active part in shaping their destiny. Good leadership involves this gradual withdrawal of divine intervention, not indicating that God is absent but rather that He is guiding events while allowing people to grow and mature spiritually.

Despite their supposed success in conquering Canaan, the subsequent book of Judges reveals that many tribes did not drive out the Canaanites. For instance, Manasseh did not drive out the inhabitants of certain cities, and Ephraim did not drive out the Canaanites living in Gaza. The Canaanites remained, and the Israelites settled among them. God warned that if they did not drive out the Canaanites, they would become a snare to them and lead to corruption. After Joshua's death, there was no appointed national leader, and the tribes were expected to cooperate with each other. However, after a generation passed, another generation grew up who did not know the Lord or what He had done for Israel. This lack of knowledge led them to serve Baal and engage in intermarriage and idol worship, resulting in their loss of God's protection and blessing.

When the Israelites began to live among the Canaanites, they adopted their practices and were attacked by raiders. In their distress, they cried out to God, who raised up judges to save them. These judges were not elected or hereditary leaders; their authority came from their charisma and the belief that God was speaking through them. They were ordinary people from various backgrounds, and when they spoke, the people felt compelled to follow them. This charismatic authority allowed them to lead without formal titles or positions. Among these judges was Deborah, a woman who commanded respect and led the Israelites against the Canaanites. She instructed Barak to form an army, but he hesitated without her presence. Deborah agreed to accompany him but declared that the glory of the victory would belong to a woman, highlighting the importance of taking responsibility in leadership. This story illustrates the unique role of women in leadership during this period and the dynamics of authority and responsibility in the context of biblical narratives.

Bogged down in their chariots, Cicero ran away. He was a general and came to the tent of someone called Jael. Exhausted and worn out, he asked Jael if he could rest in her tent. She agreed and gave him some milk. While he was asleep, she hammered a tent pin through his temple, killing him. As Deborah said, he was killed by a woman. This illustrates the kind of charismatic authority Deborah had, supported by several tribes.

Next, we have a judge called Gideon, who had an interesting story. One night, God told him in a dream to raise an army to fight against the Midianites, the tribe that was attacking them. Initially, Gideon thought it might have been something he ate, but he decided to check if it was indeed God speaking to him. He took a sheepskin and put it outside, asking God to make the ground soaking wet with rain while keeping the sheepskin bone dry. The next morning, he found the ground soaked and the sheepskin dry, but he wondered if it was just a coincidence. So, he asked God for the opposite sign: the sheepskin soaking wet and the ground dry. When he woke up to find it so, he felt compelled to act.

Gideon raised an army and fought against the Midianites, defeating them with a small group of people. Afterward, the people came to Gideon, wanting to make him their king. However, Gideon refused, stating that he would not rule over them, nor would his son; instead, the Lord would rule over them. This reflects their vision of creating a God-centered society where God was the king, revealing the law and guiding them. Unlike many politicians today, Gideon displayed a quality of leadership that was rare at that time.

Another famous judge was Samson, who also exemplified moral degradation. He was a powerful man who fought against the Philistines and killed thousands of them. However, he became infatuated with a beautiful Philistine woman named Delilah. Samson set a riddle for the Philistines, which they could not solve. They persuaded Delilah to reveal the answer under threat of death to her family. When Samson returned, they confronted him with the answer to his riddle, which was about a lion he had killed and the honey he found inside it. This led to a series of events where Samson killed many Philistines, but ultimately, he was captured, blinded, and taken hostage.

The story of a Levite and his concubine in Gibeah further illustrates the moral decline. The Levite was one of the twelve tribes and was travelling with his concubine, who had run away from him. They stopped in Gibeah, where she was raped and murdered by the Benjamites. When the Levite discovered her dead, he was outraged and cut her into twelve pieces, sending them to the other tribes to show the severity of the crime. The tribes were horrified and gathered an army to confront the tribe of Benjamin, demanding the culprits be handed over. However, the Benjamites refused, leading to a civil war that nearly annihilated their tribe.

This situation exemplifies a Hobbesian state of nature, where there was a war of everyone against everybody. The last judge was Samuel, who followed Eli. An Israelite woman, unable to have children, prayed at the tabernacle, and Eli, thinking she was drunk, eventually realised her true situation and prayed for her. She bore a son, Samuel, whom she dedicated to God. As Samuel grew, he heard God's voice calling him, and he became the last judge of Israel. The Israelites struggled with unity among the tribes, which had worsened over the years, leading to a lack of order and justice. This decline was evident from Deborah's time, where only four tribes supported her, to Gideon's time, where he had even less support, culminating in the moral degradation seen in the stories of Samson and the Levite.

The repeated failures of the judges highlighted the absence of a king in Israel, leading to a state where everyone did what was right in their own eyes. This descent into relativism and moral chaos illustrates the critique of polytheism, where the lack of a singular authority resulted in a fragmented society, unable to uphold justice or maintain order.

God would have His own moral values or His own moral standards. The idea of monotheism is that there is not only one God but also one standard of what is right and wrong. This forms the basis of the universal laws, specifically the seven laws of Noah. This concept descended through history, and in a little-known passage in the Book of Judges, there is a figure named Jonathan, who is the great-grandson of Moses. One of the tribes, having fallen into idolatry, seeks a priest to conduct worship services around their idol and discovers Jonathan. Shockingly, the great-grandson of Moses becomes a priest for idol worshippers, illustrating the extent of moral decline.

As I mentioned, this anarchy led them to attempt to create a society without government or a king, relying solely on God as their king to guide them through their conscience and live according to the law. However, the judges' period saw a decline into disunity and idolatry, influenced by the Canaanites they had failed to drive out. Child sacrifice began to reappear, alongside acts of rape and murder, culminating in the near destruction of the tribe of Benjamin. This state of anarchy resembled the Hobbesian state of nature, where there was no king and every man did what was right in his own eyes. Without a state, there was nothing to prevent the descent into depravity, corruption, and civil war. They realised they needed a king; managing a voluntary society is not easy, and persuading people to cooperate is challenging.

They attempted to sustain a democratic society based on voluntary principles for 400 years, but no society or nation in the world has managed to maintain such a system for that long. The closest example is Switzerland, while other countries have struggled. America tried to implement this, but its state has been growing larger and larger. Eventually, they expressed a desire for a king, which leads to an important reflection on freedom. Coming out of a terrifying bondage, people may believe that what they want above all else is freedom from slavery. This rallying cry for freedom is often an illusion.

True freedom, where a man stands on his own feet and responds through his own actions with nothing but the open sky between himself and God, can be experienced as something terrifying and dreadful. It is frightening to be free and to feel completely responsible for all the decisions and choices one makes, along with their outcomes and consequences. This is why many people often do not want freedom; it entails responsibility. What a newly liberated people want more than anything else is to have someone above them again, someone who can bear the responsibility for them so they do not have to shoulder this terror and dread themselves.

This pattern can be observed in country after country; when faced with difficulties, they often descend into dictatorship, seeking a strong man to take over and tell them what to do. This phenomenon is evident in Europe today, where living in a democratic society and taking responsibility is challenging. It is much easier to desire a strong man who will dictate how people should live. This presents a significant challenge, and I will stop here and continue on Thursday as we explore the emergence of monarchy and how it came about.