[Courtesy of FreeBibleImages.org]
Do you try to justify a complex story or explain it away? Or do you find a way to understand it critically?
How can you read Joshua's conquest narrative with the story of liberation (Exodus)?
God liberated oppressed Israelites from slavery in Egypt. That is an Exodus story of liberation. But soon, they became oppressors of Canaanites because God told them to take the land by destroying everything. Is this a good story? Whose story is this? Who is happy? Can you shut your eyes to the cries of many innocent people in Canaan?
Robert Allen Warrior, an American Indian scholar, laments the popular reading of Joshua's conquest narrative because there is no justice for those who are oppressed. He says European settlers came to America to seek freedom from oppression or persecution from their countries. At the same time, they thought God gave them America as a promise and turned into oppressors, expelling many American Indians. You might find his article: "Canaanites, Cowboys, and Indians: Deliverance, Conquest, and Liberation Theology Today."
How can "freedom-seeking people" become oppressors of other people? Do you think God is such a callous deity to the deaths of innocent people? Is the God of Jews a tribal god?
Some people read the story of promise and conquest together to support the covenantal theology manifest in Abraham's story. But that cannot justify the innocent deaths in Canaan. Others may read the whole narrative to undergird Jewish political power or independence. Still, others read it spiritually, as some Christians do these days. But that does not mean that "others" can be sacrificed in the name of God. No one is predestined for damnation. Aside from this, we must note that there are no historical records evincing Joshua's conquest narrative. Often, the story is composed to communicate a message to the audience. Then, all "objective" readers are to be mindful of the story that is told from one side only.
God is beyond the Bible, cannot be stuck in frames of the story, and is above human thoughts. With this in mind, biblical stories need critical evaluation rather than uncritical acceptance. Perhaps, if not the best, we can appreciate God's care for his covenanted people.
How about Matthew 15:21-28?
In this story, does Jesus test the Canaanite woman's faith? I would say "no." What is harsh is harsh. Jesus said derogatory things. He was mean to the woman and said he was not for the Gentiles. Earlier, in 10:5-6, he limited his mission to the Jews only.
But she challenges Jesus kindly and humorously and stays with him until she gets what she needs. Her faith is that God loves her and her daughter. She also deserves food and care. Her faith is "really" a challenging faith.
Finally, Jesus gives in to her and allows for her daughter's healing. We don't know whether Jesus changed his mind.
We need to consider two different contexts to understand this story. One is about Jesus's own time and his work. The other is about the Matthean community's time and issues. You might read him as the one who struggles to open the good news of God to the Gentiles because he is a Jew like others who believe that God is for them first. Reading him in such a context does not mean we must accept his attitude toward the Gentiles and a woman. Others think this story of Jesus's encounter with a woman reflects Matthew's context. In fact, Matthew edited Mark 7:24-30 (a Syrophoenician woman) and added details about the Jewish exclusivist position through the mouth of Jesus and that of the disciples. The pressing issue for the community was the boundary of the community. So, Jesus here in this text represents the community's struggle with whether they must open the door for the Gentiles. If they have to do it, what might be the condition? Even with this context, the harsh treatment of a woman or Jewish exclusivist thinking is problematic.