To summarise what I've said so far:
1. Much of the violence of the Old Testament is the result of human decisions and actions. The fact that such violence is not always condemned outright by the writers of the Old Testament does not necessarily mean that they are condoning it. (Part 1).
2. What causes the most difficulty for readers of the Old Testament, and arouses the greatest vitriol from its critics, is the fact that in some places God himself is the one commanding or carrying out the violence. How can a God who is described as loving and kind to all that he has made (by the Old Testament writers as well as the New) be involved in acts of violence and destruction?
3. Ignoring this problem is not a solution, nor is explaining it away by assuming that the Old Testament writers got it wrong or put words into God's mouth. (Part 2). However, it is true that the writers sometimes used militaristic metaphors for God's activity which we don't always find helpful.
4. God, as the uncreated creator, owner and sustainer of the world, does not have the same limitations that human beings have and his actions cannot be subjected to the same analysis or restrictions that we would apply to another human being. This is not the same as saying 'might is right'. A teacher who keeps a child from going out to play because of unfinished work is using their authority and wisdom to discipline the child. A child who stands at the door to prevent another child from going out to play is a bully.
5. Violence is generally perceived negatively. However it can be used positively in two situations - in creative (and re-creative) processes and in applying justice. (part 3)
Joshua and the Battle of Jericho
