The Canaanite Question: Judgment Or Genocide?
Admittedly, one of the most challenging Old Testament ethical issues is Israel's invasion of Canaan.
To us sophisticated religiously and morally pluralistic westerners, God's command to Israel seems unconscionably intolerant.
What had the Canaanites done to deserve such treatment? Weren't they just minding their own business? Furthermore, what's up with the total annihilation language? Moses exhorts Yahweh's people, "When the Lord your God gives [the Canaanites] over to you, and you defeat them, then you must devote them to complete destruction" (Deut 7:2).
To many today, these words sound like an incitement to genocide.
But would a good God command the killing of defenseless women and children? We might understand some unintended collateral civilian casualties, but an actual direct order to snuff out all noncombatants is shocking.
First of all, we need to understand the meaning of genocide.
Genocide presupposes a disdain for a particular race of humans such that their inherent nature is perceived as sufficiently deficient to justify their extinction.
Certainly, this was not the case in the Old Testament narrative under consideration.
God makes this very clear to his flock in Deut 9:6: "Know, therefore, that the Lord your God is not giving you this good land to possess because of your righteousness, for you are a stubborn people.
" Yahweh further clarifies through Moses that "it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is driving them out before you.
" Hence, it is about judgment, not genocide, and Israel has no reason to understand this operation as an exercise in improving their self-esteem.
Secondly, we need to understand that judgment upon the Canaanite nations was warranted.
Heb 11:31 informs us that those who perished in the land had been disobedient.
They knew what they were doing was wrong, but they did it anyway.
But just what were they guilty of? The biblical and historical records present us with a staggering list: idolatry, incest, adultery, child sacrifice, perversions like homosexuality and bestiality, and cult prostitution just to mention a few.
These were not just fringe behaviors, but had become ingrained into the very fabric of Canaanite culture.
Israel herself would be later expelled from the land for incorporating these practices into her own society.
And if we are not all that shocked by them and wonder what the buzz is about, perhaps we are becoming as desensitized to our own corruption as the Canaanites had become to theirs.
When we judge the biblical record from afar and shake our heads in disbelief that a God of love would commandeer such an event, we greatly underestimate his holiness, that he is a God who is "angry with the wicked every day" (Ps 7:11 KJV).
In addition, God had given the Canaanites ample opportunity to repent.
God waited over 400 years because their iniquity was "not yet complete" (Gen 15:16).
During the years after the Exodus, certainly they had heard of Israel's great victories leading up to their crossing the Jordan.
Rahab herself reported to the Israeli spies that "the fear of you has fallen upon us and that all the inhabitants of the land melt away before you" (Joshua 2:9).
She was smart enough to repent, why not all the others? God even gave them seven more days after Israel had encamped in preparation for the siege (Joshua 6:1-15).
Instead, they elected to try to preserve their chosen lifestyle.
So committed were they to the debauchery detailed in their day planners that they chose to hunker down and simply let the land vomit them out rather than consider a higher vision for their lives.
But what about the noncombatants? Were the Israelites really commanded by God to impale pregnant women and to behead newborn babies? In Deut 2:34, Moses summarizes Israel's conquest of King Sihon by asserting that they had "captured all his cities at that time and devoted every city, men, women, and children.
We left no survivors.
" Is this language to be taken literally? Christian philosopher and theologian Paul Copan argues that this language needs to be considered alongside the language that clearly communicates the expectation that the Canaanites would not be altogether extinguished.
For example, Deut 7:2 indicates that Israel is to devote their defeated enemy to "complete destruction," but immediately thereafter, Moses instructs them not to intermarry or make covenants with the Canaanites.
Would this extra instruction have been necessary if the people had understood "complete destruction" to mean actual obliteration? This and other such seemingly paradoxical instructions related to warfare in the Old Testament have led a number of reputable conservative Christian scholars like Copan to interpret commands for the complete destruction of a population, including noncombatants, as standard hyperbolic "military bravado in [Ancient Near Eastern] warfare" conveying similar meaning that we might intend when we say that one football team "totally slaughtered" another.
In addition, Israel is more commonly commanded to "drive out" their enemies before them than to annihilate them entirely.
Copan points out that this terminology is employed three times more frequently than that employing the exaggerated Ancient Near Eastern "military bravado" language of total destruction.
Driving out a population falls far short of exterminating it.
As a result, an increasing number of scholars argue that cities such as Jericho and Ai were not population centers, but citadels occupied mainly by combatants, not civilians.
Whatever few civilians may have resided in these compounds would likely have fled with the approach of the enemy, Rahab and her family, as the keepers of Jericho's tavern and hostel, having been an exception.
This notion has been supported by archaeological evidence uncovered at the sites of such fortresses that reveal little by way of a civilian population having lived within their walls.
All this suggests that the language of annihilation related to the Yahweh wars that appears in the Old Testament may be stereotypical and not literal and that those who fell before Israel were combatants, not intentionally targeted noncombatants.
Even though there is good reason to consider this point of view, if further research should cause us to abandon it as a live option, God's reputation is not in jeopardy.
His actions are always just and unassailably righteous, and his plan has always been to save a remnant from every nation, even those that fell before Israel at God's command.
It is not his desire that anyone should perish but that all should repent and be saved.
To us sophisticated religiously and morally pluralistic westerners, God's command to Israel seems unconscionably intolerant.
What had the Canaanites done to deserve such treatment? Weren't they just minding their own business? Furthermore, what's up with the total annihilation language? Moses exhorts Yahweh's people, "When the Lord your God gives [the Canaanites] over to you, and you defeat them, then you must devote them to complete destruction" (Deut 7:2).
To many today, these words sound like an incitement to genocide.
But would a good God command the killing of defenseless women and children? We might understand some unintended collateral civilian casualties, but an actual direct order to snuff out all noncombatants is shocking.
First of all, we need to understand the meaning of genocide.
Genocide presupposes a disdain for a particular race of humans such that their inherent nature is perceived as sufficiently deficient to justify their extinction.
Certainly, this was not the case in the Old Testament narrative under consideration.
God makes this very clear to his flock in Deut 9:6: "Know, therefore, that the Lord your God is not giving you this good land to possess because of your righteousness, for you are a stubborn people.
" Yahweh further clarifies through Moses that "it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is driving them out before you.
" Hence, it is about judgment, not genocide, and Israel has no reason to understand this operation as an exercise in improving their self-esteem.
Secondly, we need to understand that judgment upon the Canaanite nations was warranted.
Heb 11:31 informs us that those who perished in the land had been disobedient.
They knew what they were doing was wrong, but they did it anyway.
But just what were they guilty of? The biblical and historical records present us with a staggering list: idolatry, incest, adultery, child sacrifice, perversions like homosexuality and bestiality, and cult prostitution just to mention a few.
These were not just fringe behaviors, but had become ingrained into the very fabric of Canaanite culture.
Israel herself would be later expelled from the land for incorporating these practices into her own society.
And if we are not all that shocked by them and wonder what the buzz is about, perhaps we are becoming as desensitized to our own corruption as the Canaanites had become to theirs.
When we judge the biblical record from afar and shake our heads in disbelief that a God of love would commandeer such an event, we greatly underestimate his holiness, that he is a God who is "angry with the wicked every day" (Ps 7:11 KJV).
In addition, God had given the Canaanites ample opportunity to repent.
God waited over 400 years because their iniquity was "not yet complete" (Gen 15:16).
During the years after the Exodus, certainly they had heard of Israel's great victories leading up to their crossing the Jordan.
Rahab herself reported to the Israeli spies that "the fear of you has fallen upon us and that all the inhabitants of the land melt away before you" (Joshua 2:9).
She was smart enough to repent, why not all the others? God even gave them seven more days after Israel had encamped in preparation for the siege (Joshua 6:1-15).
Instead, they elected to try to preserve their chosen lifestyle.
So committed were they to the debauchery detailed in their day planners that they chose to hunker down and simply let the land vomit them out rather than consider a higher vision for their lives.
But what about the noncombatants? Were the Israelites really commanded by God to impale pregnant women and to behead newborn babies? In Deut 2:34, Moses summarizes Israel's conquest of King Sihon by asserting that they had "captured all his cities at that time and devoted every city, men, women, and children.
We left no survivors.
" Is this language to be taken literally? Christian philosopher and theologian Paul Copan argues that this language needs to be considered alongside the language that clearly communicates the expectation that the Canaanites would not be altogether extinguished.
For example, Deut 7:2 indicates that Israel is to devote their defeated enemy to "complete destruction," but immediately thereafter, Moses instructs them not to intermarry or make covenants with the Canaanites.
Would this extra instruction have been necessary if the people had understood "complete destruction" to mean actual obliteration? This and other such seemingly paradoxical instructions related to warfare in the Old Testament have led a number of reputable conservative Christian scholars like Copan to interpret commands for the complete destruction of a population, including noncombatants, as standard hyperbolic "military bravado in [Ancient Near Eastern] warfare" conveying similar meaning that we might intend when we say that one football team "totally slaughtered" another.
In addition, Israel is more commonly commanded to "drive out" their enemies before them than to annihilate them entirely.
Copan points out that this terminology is employed three times more frequently than that employing the exaggerated Ancient Near Eastern "military bravado" language of total destruction.
Driving out a population falls far short of exterminating it.
As a result, an increasing number of scholars argue that cities such as Jericho and Ai were not population centers, but citadels occupied mainly by combatants, not civilians.
Whatever few civilians may have resided in these compounds would likely have fled with the approach of the enemy, Rahab and her family, as the keepers of Jericho's tavern and hostel, having been an exception.
This notion has been supported by archaeological evidence uncovered at the sites of such fortresses that reveal little by way of a civilian population having lived within their walls.
All this suggests that the language of annihilation related to the Yahweh wars that appears in the Old Testament may be stereotypical and not literal and that those who fell before Israel were combatants, not intentionally targeted noncombatants.
Even though there is good reason to consider this point of view, if further research should cause us to abandon it as a live option, God's reputation is not in jeopardy.
His actions are always just and unassailably righteous, and his plan has always been to save a remnant from every nation, even those that fell before Israel at God's command.
It is not his desire that anyone should perish but that all should repent and be saved.