Many people take issue with the idea that God commanded the Jewish nation to initiate war against the Canaanites, ordering them to wipe them out and take their land for their own. Not only have some people rejected Christianity over this, but it has even spurred some Christians to leave the faith. Are the critics of the Old Testament and Christianity in general correct when they accuse God of genocide and of slaughtering those who don’t worship Him? How do we as apologists reconcile the God of love with an alleged religious bigot and racist ethnic cleanser?
In researching my book, Prophecy of the Heir, a literary apologetics novel that spans the entire Old Testament through angelic and demonic eyes, I discovered what I believe is a sound defense for God’s actions, which I hope will help those who struggle with this subject matter.
1. 400 Years to Repent
In Genesis 15:13 and 16, when God promises Abraham that He will give the land of Canaan to his descendants, He informs him that it will not take place for another 400 years because their sins “do not yet warrant their destruction.”
What sins was God referring to? History indicates that child sacrifice was rampant in Canaan. Years later, when the Israelites were in the land and began worshipping false gods, it was not until they started sacrificing their children that God sent the Babylonians to take them captive. When it comes to the murder of the innocents, God does not spare even His own people. Why should it come as a surprise then that He would punish the Canaanites for the same crime?
We don’t hear of complaints against God concerning the destruction of Nineveh, the people of whom were given only 3 days to repent, because they were spared due to “turn(ing) from their evil ways and stop(ping) all their violence (Jonah 3:7-10). Note that it doesn’t say they destroyed their idols, or converted to worship of Yahweh. It merely states they were spared judgment for halting their violence. They were never threatened punishment for worshiping false gods.
Why did God give the Canaanites so long to repent? Evidently, He had no desire to wipe them out, and hoped that future generations would stop the violent atrocities learned from their parents. And it should be noted that he warned Abraham that during those 400 years, He would allow His own people to be enslaved (subjected to maltreatment, labor death-camp conditions, and infanticide). It should be noted the similarities in the life of Christ, that God loved those “who were yet sinners” so much that He would allow His own Son to suffer in the hope that mankind would repent.
2. Prophet
Nineveh had the prophet Jonah to warn them, but whom did the Canaanites have? In the heart of Canaan was the city Salem, and its king was Melchizedek, a priest of God Most High (Gen 14:18). Though we know little of Melchizedek, many biblical historians have speculated that He was Noah’s son Shem. If this is the case, the Canaanites were contemporaries with one who had lived in the pre-flood world, who witness firsthand the atrocities of the Nephilim and God’s punishment against the violence that had saturated the world. But regardless of who he was, as king, it is inconceivable that He had little influence in the Canaanite cities surrounding his own, and as the first known priest of God, it is equally doubtful that he did not exhort the peoples around him to forsake violence and child-sacrifice, and to turn to God.
3. Sodom and Gomorrah
Whereas Nineveh was a city that was spared God’s judgment, Sodom and Gomorrah were not. As Sodom and Gomorrah were part of Canaan, why were they not given the same 400 years to repent as the rest of Canaan? In Genesis 18:20-21, God tells Abraham, “I have heard a great outcry from Sodom and Gomorrah, because their sin is so flagrant. I am going down to see if their actions are as wicked as I have heard. If not, I want to know.”
Many critics are quick to point out that this “flagrant sin” was homosexuality, and that this passage is proof of God’s homophobia. However, nowhere in the Bible does it say that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah due to homosexuality. In fact, Ezekiel 16:49-50 cites exactly why God destroyed these cities: “Sodom’s sins were pride, gluttony, and laziness, while the poor and needy suffered outside her door. She was proud and committed detestable sins, so I wiped her out, as you have seen.”
Though “detestable sins” is not specific (and other translations use the word abominations), the only mention of homosexual behavior in connection to Sodom was the attempted homosexual gang-rape of the two angels searching for enough righteous people in the cities to spare them from judgment. And once again, nowhere in the list of their sins was the worship of false gods.
So why were these cities not given the same 400 years to repent? Perhaps He feared their “flagrant sins” would hold more sway over the other Canaanite cities than Melchizedek’s influence. By eliminating them, He intervened in the course of human history and stacked the odds in the favor of Canaanite repenting.
4. Fire and Brimstone versus War
Would people take as much issue with God if he specifically mentioned He was punishing the Canaanites for child-sacrifice, and had “rained down fire and brimstone” on them rather than using war as his tool of judgment?
It is very possible they would not, and Moses even accosts the Israelites about just that in Deuteronomy 9:4-6: “After the LORD your God has done this for you (given you the land of Canaan), don’t say in your hearts, ‘The LORD has given us this land because we are such good people!’ No, it is because of the wickedness of the other nations that he is pushing them out of your way. It is not because you are so good or have such integrity that you are about to occupy their land. The LORD your God will drive these nations out ahead of you only because of their wickedness, and to fulfill the oath he swore to your ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. You must recognize that the LORD your God is not giving you this good land because you are good, for you are not—you are a stubborn people. Know, then, it is not because of your righteousness that the LORD your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stubborn people.”
5. Prisoners of War
As an aside, I would like to briefly mention God’s treatment of war when not as a course of punishment but as an inevitable action of mankind. In 2 Kings 6:22, an army that had repeatedly raided towns and villages of Israel, killing men, women, and children, sought to kill the prophet Elisha. When they were apprehended, the King of Israel asked Elisha if they should be executed. The prophet’s response? “Of course not!” Elisha replied. “Do we kill prisoners of war? Give them food and drink and send them home again to their master.”
In closing, I hope to have shown reasonable evidence that the destruction of the Canaanites had nothing to do with religious bigotry or ethnic cleansing, and that at every turn, God sought ways to spare them as He did with Nineveh, Sodom, and Gomorrah.
If God is just then these acts can NOT be of God…seems pretty cut and dry to me…if God is just and something depicts God as unjust then that depiction is wrong. I’m always horrified at the defenses I read by apologists concerning infanticide. They always ignore the method of death, a blade piercing the skin. That’s not quick or painless, no matter what you see in the movies, even a cut throat or a stab to the heart is not a quick death. Anyone that defends such a terrible thing should go to a nursery, pick up a baby, and imagine plunging a knife/sword into the child’s bare chest as it screams and wiggles in your arms…most likely it would be covered in it’s mother’s blood if you were in the OT times (you would have to kill the mother first, plus “god” said to kill her too). A horrific image isn’t it? Yes, it is, yet that is what is defended. I have yet to hear one good argument FOR this act. The only one I get is “It’s ok cause God said so” and what a flaccid argument that is. I believe in God, but I have no doubt the OT does not represent God. It represents bloodthirsty, vengeful men’s perversion of God, why doesn’t anyone else see the blatant contradictions?
Quote: “We don’t hear of complaints against God concerning the destruction of Nineveh, the people of whom were given only 3 days to repent, because they were spared due to “turn(ing) from their evil ways and stop(ping) all their violence (Jonah 3:7-10). Note that it doesn’t say they destroyed their idols, or converted to worship of Yahweh. It merely states they were spared judgment for halting their violence. They were never threatened punishment for worshiping false gods.”
I just reread the Book of Jonah in the NIV. God sent Jonah to preach against what He called “wickedness.” I see no distinction between violence, idolatry, etc. in God’s condemnation; only the term wickedness. The king of Nineveh makes a distinction between evil ways and violence, not God.
To double check, I reread the Book of Jonah in the KJV. God sent Jonah to preach against what He called “wickedness” and later called “evil way.” I see no distinction between violence, idolatry, etc. in God’s condemnation; only the terms wickedness or evil way. The king of Nineveh again makes a distinction, but not God.
Unless there is something the original language of Jonah (Hebrew?) the author’s argument doesn’t hold up.
JC, I agree with those who consider this one of the two or three theological “biggies:” those questions about the Bible and the character of God that must be wrestled with at some time in life. Although saying I’m comfortable with the concept of the loving God I see revealed in Jesus takes the lives of children is an overstatement, I have studied the subject for while now and have come to the conclusion that God took these lives in these specific cases not because “He is God and can do anything He wants,” but because in the long run it was for the greater good and necessary to achieve His plan of salvation.
Thanks for a great post.
Your acceptance of infanticide and genocide is so disturbing. When will you condemn the evil of infanticide or mass murder? We hear the same arguments from jihadists.
I guess we could say that the killing of the children in Sandy Hook were, in the long run, for the greater good?
A couple corollary thoughts (probably nothing new):
1. If God is the ultimate bestower of life and creation, as well as One who guides us through our loves and is our Final Judge, wouldn’t it make logical (though not necessarily emotional) sense to say that God has the right to give an take life as He sees fit?
2. We kill lesser creatures than us all the time, whether they be cacti, cockroaches, or cows. Our “elevated status” would seemingly allow us to be able to morally kill other animals. If God is infinitely greater than us, does the same logic not apply…in infinite proportions?
Obviously these do little to solve the emotional problems of the Biblical passages, but does it makes sense to say that they at least address logical issues?
Sorry excuses cannot vouchsafe that egregious argument! Special pleading helps no one.
Oh, theists beg the question and special plead for His being different as to what created or designed Him. The punch line fails.
“Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards,
principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has
a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate
justification for the exemption” (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html).
Notice the last part of the sentence “w/o providing adequate justification for the exemption.” I provided justification. If you don’t believe it is adequate, state why instead of just saying I commit special pleading.
LamberthG: “Oh, theists beg the question and special plead for His being different as to what created or designed Him.”
I’m not clear on what you are saying here. Please clarify.
Well, I’m aware of these philosophies that you mention, so I might as well discuss them with someone, though I am generally wary of “internet discussions.”
1.) If we ever truly create sapient/sentient Artificial Intelligence, do you believe that we will have the right to take such life back as we see fit? I do not. Do you think we would have the right to demand that these new lives worship us? I do not believe that that is even vaguely reasonable. I do not see how reason would allow someone to come to that conclusion.
2a.) We are just supposed to take on “faith” that God is that much greater than us? Just accept it, lay down and die (or whatever our fate may be)? I choose logic, gradual discovery, and a healthy helping of doubt. You’d think a truly loving God wouldn’t have a problem with that.
2b.) God is repeatedly called “Father” or “Husband of Israel.” These are sometimes analogies, but would we accept these analogies with lesser creatures? We are supposed to be God’s children (even in a literal sense) who may one day sit on the throne of God and inherit all that he has. Can we be simultaneously children “made in God’s image” and also be the same as farm animals to use however he wants at his whim? Those two paradigms just don’t fit together.
I quite simply expect much more from someone who calls himself my “Father.” Any father who does not talk to all of his children face to face is an extremely neglectful parent…and I’d like to stress that that is a pitiful understatement.
Of course, if God had simply “abandoned” us, I could live with that. We could just move on with our lives. But you can’t just leave your children unsure of whether you even exist and simultaneously demand that they follow a list of commands (including absolute worship and love for you). To suggest parents and creators have that right is extremely illogical.
JC, I share with you the conviction that our God is just, even in those situations where we can’t clearly demonstrate this fact.
I think that at the core of much of the condemnation of the God of the Bible is the belief that people aren’t truly accountable, that they are merely products of their nature and nurture.