Saturday, April 15, 2017

Killing of the Canaanites: NOT Genocide or Ethnic Cleansing

I recently watched an interview that Bill Maher did with a member of the clergy.  Mr. Maher continuously kept bringing the interview back to two main topics that he thought discredited Christianity: The Genesis creation account and the Killing of the Canaanites. Bill Maher is very mistaken on both accounts. I have already written about the creation account in the following two blogs: http://natureandscripture.blogspot.com/2014/02/removing-barrier-genesis.html and http://natureandscripture.blogspot.com/2014/02/creation-or-evolution-false-dichotomy.html Maher’s second issue, the killing of the Canaanites, can be an ethical and moral barrier to Christianity. Obviously, it is difficult to understand how a “loving” God could command the killing of an entire people group, especially if it is considered genocide or an ethnic cleansing.  For this blog, I am using Paul Copan’s 2011 book, Is God a Moral Monster, for an outline.[1]

In Deuteronomy, God tells Israel that He will “drive out many nations before them” so that they can enter and take possession of the land that was promised to them.[2]  Included in God’s instructions is the command to “completely destroy” the Canaanites.  In other places, such as in the book of Joshua, the text reports that “he left no survivor” and “utterly destroyed all who breathed.”[3] These commands and reports are obviously concerning; but was this genocide or an ethnic cleansing of a certain people group?  A careful reading of the command as well as the entire Bible makes it clear that it is nothing of the sort.  The entire theme of the Bible is redemption for all peoples of the world; no exceptions are made.  Matthew’s gospel ends with the command to “make disciples of all nations.”  God tells Abraham that “all the families of the earth” would be blessed through his offspring.[4] God also commands Israel to treat foreigners with honor and respect, to love strangers and aliens as yourself and to give them the same rights as native-born peoples (this is remarkable and unique in the ancient Near East!).[5] God wanted (and still wants) to redeem every people group.

When God does give the command to drive the Canaanites out of the land, He is not trying to get rid of a people group, God is instead systematically getting rid of evil; judging sin and wickedness, not races or ethnicities. God makes it clear that Israel must totally destroy all the religious objects in Canaan and that He is using Israel to punish the Canaanites for their sin.  No favor is shown to any particular people group when it comes to punishing a nation for sinning; including Israel!  The book of Deuteronomy, where God initially gives the command to drive the Canaanites out of the land, also reminds Israel of the times they sinned and were punished accordingly.  In fact, most of the Old Testament is about Israel messing up and being repeatedly judged by God. God punishes evil; He removed a people group that sacrificed children.  God did not target a specific race or ethnicity.
The Canaanites were an extremely violent people involved in idolatry, incest, gang rape (including homosexual rape), adultery, bestiality, child sacrifice, and many other evil and grotesque practices. Many of these crimes are still punishable by incarceration today! It also wasn’t just limited to a few people in the culture – it was everyone! The Canaanite gods were bloodthirsty, sexually immoral beings, so the people that worshipped them were also.  The story of Sodom & Gomorrah in Genesis 18 makes it clear that evil was pervasive in the entire culture as “10 righteous men” could not be found.  Lot’s daughters we so ingrained in the culture that they thought nothing of having sex with their father![6] Molech was a Canaanite god that required child sacrifice to prove devotion to him.[7] Incomprehensible evil needs to be dealt with; if a nation today was regularly sacrificing children, most people today would want it to be stopped.  A common question asked of Christians is, “If God is loving, why doesn’t God intervene to stop evil?  He did with the Canaanites. Israel was used as a tool to get rid of an evil, immoral people.[8]  God later would use nations (like Babylon) to punish Israel for their sins.

Even though the language used in the text may imply that all the Canaanites are destroyed, the entirety of the Bible makes it clear that this was not the case.  Right along with the drive-them-out command, there are also instructions for Israel not to marry any Canaanites and not to make any treaties with them. Why would these additional instructions be necessary if all the Canaanites were going to be killed? Some of the Canaanite people actually end up participating in God’s redemptive plan in both the old and new testament; Rahab, a Canaanite women, is mentioned in the lineage of Jesus in Matthew.[9] This would obviously be impossible if all of them were destroyed.[10] God was not targeting nor calling for a complete destruction of a people group, he was instead demanding complete destruction of the Canaanite’s evil practices and religious objects.

Another reason that the killing of the Canaanites was not a massacre, a genocide, or an ethnic cleansing was the way in which wars commanded by God were actually fought.  Israel approached war in a totally different way than the other nations in the ancient Near East. God didn’t allow Israel to have a standing army; Israel’s wars were not done by professionals.  Soldiers that did fight in a “Yahweh war” were not paid and could not take personal plunder. If a “soldier” lacked courage or had other reasons for not wanting to fight, they were allowed to excuse themselves from battle.[11]  Kings, tribal leaders, and high priests in Israel were not authorized to call for a war; only prophets could call for a war through a divine revelation from Yahweh. It is interesting to note that God makes it clear to Israel that He will drive the people out of the land ahead of them.[12]  When the non-professional armies of Israel won a battle, it was supposed to be obvious that Yahweh was responsible for the victory, not the soldiers.[13] God also says that He will do this little by little, not in one great battle.[14]

Clearing out the Canaanites was not a massacre; the stereotypical model of an all-consuming Israelite army descending upon Canaan and destroying everything in its wake is not what happened. God didn’t require that every Canaanite be killed; the only requirement was that they be sufficiently driven out of the land so they wouldn’t undermine Israel’s spiritual and moral integrity.[15] As mentioned above, Israel’s warfare methods were way more tame than anything in the ancient Near East and many of the battles fought on the way to and within Canaan were defensive.  Israel also only attacked military outposts, not general populations.  According to Old Testament scholar Richard Hess, only political leaders and their armies were targeted by the Israelites, not the noncombatants. Some of the most destructive language is used in the book of Joshua when describing the conquest of Jericho and Ai.  The ancient Near Eastern language used here actually describes attacks on military forts or garrisons, not general populations that included women and children.  There is no archeological evidence of civilian populations at Jericho or Ai.[16] 

There is another nuance of language in the Old Testament that can help explain what actually happened during the conquest of Canaan.  The passages that talk about “not leaving anything alive that breathes” and “utterly destroying them” is just common warfare rhetoric and hyperbole of the ancient Near East; the Old Testament writers were speaking the language that everyone would have understood.  We still use this type of rhetorical language when we talk about the results of sporting events.  No one thinks that the Seahawks actually “killed” the Broncos in Super Bowl XLVIII.
“The language is typically exaggerated and full of bravado, depicting total devastation.  The knowing ancient Near Eastern reader recognized this as hyperbole; the accounts weren’t understood to be literally true.  Ancient Near Eastern accounts readily used “utterly/completely destroy” and other obliteration language even when the event didn’t literally happen that way.”[17]

The killing of the Canaanites, as well as the other God commanded wars in the Old Testament, were not genocide, massacres, or ethnic cleansing.  The driving out of the Canaanite people was a one-time event to rid the land promised to the Israelite people of religious objects and evil, immoral people.  Israel accomplished this with relatively civil warfare when compared to the rest of the ancient Near East. Israel was also not to model this behavior in the future, just as Christians are not supposed to either! The driving out of the Canaanites was one of the gradual steps required to bring Jesus to the promised land to accomplish the ultimate goal of effecting blessing and salvation to all nations and doing away with evil for good.



[1] Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster, Baker Books, 2011
[2] Deuteronomy 7:1-6
[3] Joshua 10
[4] Genesis 12:3
[5] Leviticus 19:33-34 & 24:22, Numbers 35:15
[6] Genesis 19:30-36
[7] Leviticus 18:21 & 20:5, 2 Kings 16:3, 21:6, & 23:10, 2 Chronicles 33:6
[8] Deuteronomy 9:4
[9] Matthew 1:5
[10] Matthew 15:22, Psalm 87:4-6, Isaiah 19:23-25
[11] Deuteronomy 20:5-8
[12] Deuteronomy 7:1, 7:22 & 9:4, Exodus 23:27-30
[13] 2 Chronicles 20
[14] Deuteronomy 7:22
[15] Deuteronomy 7:5, 7:25-26, Leviticus 18
[16] Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster?, Baker Books, 2011
[17] Ibid.

Thursday, April 6, 2017

The Moral Argument for God

Another classic argument for God is the Moral Argument.  For this blog I am using William Lane Craig’s section on the Moral Argument in his book Reasonable Faith as an outline.[1]

If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
You do not have to believe in God to be good and the Bible agrees.  Romans teaches that God’s moral law is written on the hearts of all men – not just believers.[2]  You can know what a book says and deny the author exists, but there would be no book without an author.[3] The premise is that if God doesn’t exist, then any moral laws are simply subjective, like a favorite flavor of ice cream.

If there isn’t a fixed standard for moral law, then it is not objective.
Just like you need a point of reference before you can do almost anything in science, you must have a point of reference before you can call something objectively wrong or evil.  When calculating displacement, a defined “zero-level” is necessary to know your exact location.  Objective standards of length, time, and mass are necessary to make meaningful measurements.  We understand that to be scientifically objective you must have a point of reference.  The same is true with morality.  You must have a standard of good and evil for moral laws to be objective; the right and wrong must refer to the moral action (the object), not someone’s thought, belief, or preference (the subject).

Michael Ruse, philosopher of science is correct when he states that any thought of morality being objective without God is an illusion.
The position of the modern evolutionist...is that humans have an awareness of morality...because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth.... Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” they think they are referring above and beyond themselves.... Nevertheless...such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction...and any deeper meaning is illusory….[4]

The objective nature of morality is inexplicable without an outside fixed reference point.  Without God as the standard, morals become simply personal preferences.  Without God, what does anyone mean by good and bad?  Without God, what grounds (other than personal survival) would anyone have to care about the environment?  Without God who says you should help the poor?  If God does not exist, morality is simply what you think it ought to be – a personal preference and nothing else.   

Furthermore, in a naturalistic world view, any moral laws that might objectively exist would be beyond our grasp, and we would have no objective or rational reason to obey them if they did exist. If atheism was true then nothing ultimately mattered in the end since meaning and purpose are merely subjective illusions conjured up in the minds of men in a universe that couldn’t care. Nothing mattered. This is Dennett’s ‘universal acid’ and Darwin’s ideas applied that acid to the human condition. If molecules led to cells, and cells to organs, and organs to bodies, then the ‘molecules-to-man’ hypothesis was true. We are really just wet computers responding to external stimuli in mechanical and unconscious ways. No soul, no consciousness.  Just machines.[5]

Naturalistic explanations for moral laws are subjective
On the naturalist view, if morality evolved as a means of survival, then there is no right or wrong!  Richard Dawkins agrees with this when he makes the point that, from his naturalistic world view, life has no purpose and there is no such thing as evil or good.[6]  This means that the only way to decide who is good and bad is with personal preference.  Hitler could be labeled good.  Mother Teresa could have been evil. If there is no God, and therefore no objective standard, the definition of good is whatever you personally want it to be, just like what flavors of ice cream you like or dislike.

A typical response to this claim is that we as a society decide good and evil; we do what is best for us as a group.  This actually makes the point that morals are subjective without God – we decide.  Was the Third Reich “good” because their policies helped the most numbers of people?  Did their policies then become “bad” when the rest of the world found out what they were doing? Can a single person like Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King decide for society that what the group thought was good is now bad?  It is pretty clear that we all know objectively that murder and oppression are always evil; like helping the poor and caring for the environment are always good.

Another response to this argument is that our sense of right and wrong has evolved along with us.  This again shows that morality is subjective without God.  If our moral beliefs have been naturally selected for survival, then we have no basis to believe that what was selected is actually true and objective. Is rape always wrong or do we only think it is wrong because it helps us survive? Is torturing children for fun always evil or do we only think that because it aids in our survival? There is no way you can say something is the truth if it was selected only for its survival value.


Explaining how we know objective right and wrong isn’t an explanation for the moral laws.
If one argues instead that morality didn’t change as we advanced, but “evolution” is how we came to know objective right and wrong, then they are making the logical error of the genetic fallacy.  Showing how we came to know something does not falsify the fact that it exists.  The existence of objective moral laws is ontological.  How we know what the laws are is epistemological.  Arguing against ontology by using epistemology doesn’t work. The same error is made when one argues that society taught us what the moral laws are.

“In short, on an atheistic, naturalistic world view, there seems to be no basis for affirming the existence of objective moral values and duties. Certainly we have a sense of morality, but on naturalism that sense is an illusion wrought by socio-biological conditioning.”[7]

Conclusion:  God Exists
Since objective moral laws actually do exist (murder is wrong, torturing babies for fun is evil, self-sacrifice is noble, helping the poor is good), then there must be a transcendent standard for such laws. It is therefore reasonable to claim that God exists.

Here is a 5-6 minute summary video from Reasonable Faith: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU





[1] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, Crossway Books, 2008
[2] Romans 2:14-15
[3] I heard Frank Turek say this, but can’t find the exact reference
[4] Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262, 268-9.
[5] Rossiter, W. 2015. Shadow of Oz: Theistic Evolution and the Absent God.
[6] Scheff, Liam. 2007. The Dawkins Delusion. Salvo, 2:94.
[7] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, Crossway Books, 2008