- Discussion:
-James Bishop created a series of posts explaining what he thinks is problematic with traditional defenses of God commanding the Israelites to kill the Canaanites. The second installment of this series continues on the work of the first by answering other objections to this narrative. Excerpts from the author are cited in bold and followed with critical commentary:
"...If we swapped “Canaanites” with “Jews” in the Old Testament, and Joshua with Hitler, we would have Archer defending Hitler on the basis that the Jews cancerous, including their infants and children. If we swapped “Canaanites” with “Jews” in the Old Testament, and Joshua with Hitler, we would have Archer defending Hitler on the basis that the Jews cancerous, including their infants and children."
This is a false analogy. Israel was a theocracy, not a dictatorship. Classes of people were not being eliminated at whim. The context of these battles in the Old Testament relates to purity of worship, not racial hatred. Note that the Old Testament does not paint these battles in a positive light, and rightfully so. It only records the details of these events, no matter how gruesome. The biblical texts present a complex picture, including both military conflict and peaceful coexistence. Further, no military, no matter how lofty its moral principles, ever acts consistently all the time.
No other nation in history besides Israel had been led directly by God. He commanded His people to wage this war. Consequently, this cannot simply be applied to justify any genocide committed throughout history. A man actually commanded by God to do something should be distinguished from one who is delusional in the belief that He is calling upon him. It is not our duty as Christians to kill others so that they do not sin later. The incident was a specific judgment by God against a particular group of people. The Jews were not predisposed with racial hatred as were the Germans during the Nazi era, further distinguishing both contexts.
This truly is a paradoxical situation. How can God be one essence in three persons? How can His sovereignty be reconciled with our free will? How can God remain just while making just the unjust? These types of questions are raised here to illustrate the point that there are many aspects of God's nature that confound human rationality and sensibilities, especially that of nonbelievers. It is almost amusing how some people think that can fully grasp the divine with their limited understanding. Perhaps they should focus on comprehending basic human concepts first.
"God’s plan, however, is to not only kill all the Canaanite parents but their children and infants too. In other words, God is judging the Canaanites for practicing child sacrifice by killing their children."
The potential for future conflict between the Israelites and the Canaanite children they were raised by cannot be ignored. If left alive, these children would likely have grown up to resent their conquerors, potentially leading to insurrections or a desire for revenge. Given the historical context, the Israelites were in a precarious position as they entered a new land. Unlike empires such as Rome, which had sophisticated methods of governance and control, the Israelites were a relatively nascent nation with limited resources and military capacity to manage hostility from surrounding populations. This makes it reasonable to consider that the eradication of the Canaanite children could be seen as a pragmatic step by God to prevent future rebellion that could endanger the Israelite community.
From another perspective, God's actions in removing the Canaanite children could be viewed as an act of mercy rather than cruelty. By terminating their lives, God could be seen as preserving their innocence and ensuring they would not suffer the same fate as their parents. In many theological frameworks, children, particularly infants, are considered innocent and incapable of moral culpability. Therefore, it is possible that removing them from a morally compromised society might prevent their eventual condemnation for the sins of their forefathers.
The problem of evil is also a relevant aspect of this narrative. The existence of suffering and death, especially concerning innocent lives, poses a significant challenge to many belief systems. However, various theodicies address this complexity, proposing that suffering serves a larger divine purpose or ultimately leads to a greater good. In the context of the Canaanite conquest, God's actions could be interpreted as a necessary step towards the establishment of a society that could facilitate justice, mercy, and the worship of God. This perspective highlights a broader theme of divine justice that prioritizes the fulfillment of His larger plan for humanity.
The potential for future conflict between the Israelites and the Canaanite children they were raised by cannot be ignored. If left alive, these children would likely have grown up to resent their conquerors, potentially leading to insurrections or a desire for revenge. Given the historical context, the Israelites were in a precarious position as they entered a new land. Unlike empires such as Rome, which had sophisticated methods of governance and control, the Israelites were a relatively nascent nation with limited resources and military capacity to manage hostility from surrounding populations. This makes it reasonable to consider that the eradication of the Canaanite children could be seen as a pragmatic step by God to prevent future rebellion that could endanger the Israelite community.
From another perspective, God's actions in removing the Canaanite children could be viewed as an act of mercy rather than cruelty. By terminating their lives, God could be seen as preserving their innocence and ensuring they would not suffer the same fate as their parents. In many theological frameworks, children, particularly infants, are considered innocent and incapable of moral culpability. Therefore, it is possible that removing them from a morally compromised society might prevent their eventual condemnation for the sins of their forefathers.
The problem of evil is also a relevant aspect of this narrative. The existence of suffering and death, especially concerning innocent lives, poses a significant challenge to many belief systems. However, various theodicies address this complexity, proposing that suffering serves a larger divine purpose or ultimately leads to a greater good. In the context of the Canaanite conquest, God's actions could be interpreted as a necessary step towards the establishment of a society that could facilitate justice, mercy, and the worship of God. This perspective highlights a broader theme of divine justice that prioritizes the fulfillment of His larger plan for humanity.
"Going on what the biblical authors tell us, God wanted to eradicate the Canaanite religion and identity because they were a major threat to Israel. But here God, given his want to eradicate the Canaanites, we learn that they were not fully wiped out (Judg. 3:1–4)."
The narrative remains consistent with Israel’s incomplete conquest of the Canaanites, which is attributed to their disobedience and failure to follow God's commands completely. In Judges 2:1-3, God rebukes Israel for not breaking covenants with the Canaanites and for not tearing down their altars. This illustrates human frailty and the consequences of disobedience, rather than a contradiction in the biblical account.
Another interpretive possibility is that God’s commands regarding the Canaanites were intended to be fulfilled gradually. In Exodus 23:29-30, God says He will drive out the inhabitants little by little to prevent the land from becoming desolate and to allow Israel to grow in strength. This gradual approach aligns with the overall biblical narrative and demonstrates God’s wisdom in managing both immediate and long-term consequences.
God extended mercy to nations that repented during the Old Testament (Jeremiah 18:7-8; Jonah 3:10). He is merciful enough to spare even the smallest remnant of righteous people in the midst of a wicked city (Genesis 18:24). The Canaanites had enough time and understanding of what God required of them in order to be spared from divine judgment, but they persisted in their ways. Further, He has the authority to use anything in His created order as an instrument to punish the unrighteous. He is sovereign over life (Deuteronomy 32:39). He gave it to us. Life belongs to Him. God can also take it back from us. He is not a moral agent acting on the same moral field as human beings. Why is it wrong for God to take a life? Who does He owe life to?
The narrative remains consistent with Israel’s incomplete conquest of the Canaanites, which is attributed to their disobedience and failure to follow God's commands completely. In Judges 2:1-3, God rebukes Israel for not breaking covenants with the Canaanites and for not tearing down their altars. This illustrates human frailty and the consequences of disobedience, rather than a contradiction in the biblical account.
Another interpretive possibility is that God’s commands regarding the Canaanites were intended to be fulfilled gradually. In Exodus 23:29-30, God says He will drive out the inhabitants little by little to prevent the land from becoming desolate and to allow Israel to grow in strength. This gradual approach aligns with the overall biblical narrative and demonstrates God’s wisdom in managing both immediate and long-term consequences.
God extended mercy to nations that repented during the Old Testament (Jeremiah 18:7-8; Jonah 3:10). He is merciful enough to spare even the smallest remnant of righteous people in the midst of a wicked city (Genesis 18:24). The Canaanites had enough time and understanding of what God required of them in order to be spared from divine judgment, but they persisted in their ways. Further, He has the authority to use anything in His created order as an instrument to punish the unrighteous. He is sovereign over life (Deuteronomy 32:39). He gave it to us. Life belongs to Him. God can also take it back from us. He is not a moral agent acting on the same moral field as human beings. Why is it wrong for God to take a life? Who does He owe life to?
As pointed out on the previous article: The Rational Bible: Deuteronomy, by Dennis Prager, has the following regarding Deut. 7:2:
ReplyDeleteRichard Elliott Friedman states: "Many people have been troubled by the idea of commanding the annihilation of the Canaanite residents of the land. The archaeological evidence is that such a destruction never took place." Dennis Prager states: "Even Moses may not have meant the literal annihilation of the seven nations: In the very next verse, he forbade intermarriage with the Canaanites. One cannot marry the dead."