God of Genocide?
August 26th, 2011 by jonknewtonCategory: Uncategorized
One of the most frequent comments heard from non-Christians against the God of the Bible relates to the instruction to Joshua and the Israelites to wipe out the Canaanites as they occupied their land.
For example, in Deuteronomy 20:16-17, we read, “But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall devote them to complete destruction….” And Deut.7:2 says, “….you must devote them to complete destruction. You shall make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them.” See also Deut.7:1-5; Josh.6:17; Exodus 23:23-33
This seems objectionable because:
- it amounts to an order to commit genocide, wiping out whole peoples.
- it violates the rules of war by including innocent women and children in those to be killed.
- it countenances dispossessing indigenous peoples of their land and property.
- it provides a biblical precedent for holy war and genocide.
- it implies an objectionable notion of God favouring one people over another. The idea of election thus boils down here to racism.
- it contradicts Jesus’ teaching about non-resistance and “turning the other cheek.”
Surely a God who would give such an order is ethically evil if he exists at all. Surely this text was produced simply by Israel to rationalize and defend their indefensible actions in invading Canaan.
What kind of response can Christians give to this? Here are a few thoughts.
1. We need to remember this was a “one off” situation. God did not authorise Israel, or anyone else, to make a habit of dispossessing others of their land and lives. In fact the context in Deut.20 gives clear “rules of war” for normal cases, including limits on who could be killed (v.13-14)
2. This unique action was justified not by the choice of Israel as God’s people but by the extreme immorality and violence in the target groups. In Deut.20, the order is explained as follws: “that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods” (v.18), including such practices as child sacrifice. In Genesis 15:16, we see that the descendants of Abraham could not take the land for 4 generations, “for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete”; in other words, the situation in Canaan was not yet so bad as to justify dispossessing and destroying them. In other words, the invasion under Joshua was a “police action.”
3. While God had clearly chosen Israel as His people, and this is reflected in the passages above (especially Deut.7:6-10), this did not mean that they were racially superior or that God applied different standards to them. When they turned aside to idolatry, immorality, injustice and violence, He sent other nations to punish them and eventually sent them into exile, just as he had dispossessed the Canaanites. Indeed such consequences are warned about in Deuteronomy 28-30, 32.
4. God’s ethical revelation and dealings in the Old Testament are to some degree relative or situational. It was too early to expect the level of ethical purity we see in the Sermon on the Mount. God tolerated, but restricted, such evils as war, polygamy and slavery until Jesus came.
Maybe you as a reader may have other comments on this question.
1a. A one off situation. So then you agree that god isn’t a moral creature and doesn’t make moral decisions or commandments all the time.
1b. The bible also gives clear rules for the treatment of slaves. Is it ok to own people as long as we do it the way ancient jews did?
2. Immoral actions are justified as long as your targets have performed Immoral actions? Good thing the Canaanites didn’t survive to use the same “Morallity” as the Israelites
3. I’ve never heard anyone offer up supposed racial superiority as an argument for genocide in the Bible. You must move in darker circles than I do.
4. So god is only Moral when it’s convenient? It’s funny how gods morality changes with the times and people almost as if god doesn’t exist and is just a reflection of the times and prejudices of its believers.
House on September 9th, 2011 at 9:17 amHi House.
Sorry I’ve taken so long to respond to your comments. I’ve been having computer/internet trouble, etc.
To pick up on your thoughtful comments:
1a. My point was that this was a special case that called for strong “police action.” I suppose the war with Hitler is the nearest modern equivalent. The Canaanites were themselves committing vile acts and had had time to repent, but had failed to do so. God as Judge has the right to pronounce sentence.
1b. Slavery in the OT is an existing practice that God’s laws sought to regulate and bring justice to until the coming of Christ, when people were capable of better things through the Spirit. Jesus made a similar observation about divorce in Matt.19: it was permitted only because of “your hardness of heart.” You also need to remember that OT slavery was nothing like that in the Greco-Roman world or the black slave trade in more recent times. It was more a case of labour to pay off debts.
2. My comments in 1a probably cover this. By the way, large numbers of Canaanites did survive and cause trouble for Israel.
3. Not sure what I said to cause this reaction. I specifically denied that racial superiority was a grounds for Joshua having to kill the Canaanites. God was impartial and evicted the Israelites several times because of their injustice and idolatry.
4. Your comment sounds like spin. I think my comment on 1b may answer this point too. The Bible is a narrative of redemption: it portrays humanity as going very badly wrong and being restored step by step. Hence the OT Israelites weren’t capable of changing 100% from their own “pagan” past, so God restrained their wicked urges until they were ready for the “new covenant.”
Anyway if I have misunderstood any of your points, feel free to clarify them for me
jonknewton on September 21st, 2011 at 6:07 pm1. Your answer to special pleading is still more special pleading? God is moral except for this part here when he was really really provoked?
New Christian Synonym #5734 Genocide is a Police Action.
Your claim of WW2 being a modern equivalent only works if you mean the Israelites and the Nazis are performing the same god given “work”. Both peoples proclaimed they were doing the will of god. Only the Allies stopped the Nazis from continuing with Genocide. Please note after victory we didn’t depopulate the country of Germany and put the everyone to death for their crimes.
The Canaanite babies & women and children must have truly been horrific little monsters. Do you have any examples of these terrible terrible crimes so deserving of death apart from the circular reasoning of a book that asserts it was ok to kill them anyway because they must have been evil and god wouldn’t do evil things?
“1b. Slavery in the OT is an existing practice that God’s laws sought to regulate and bring justice to until the coming of Christ, when people were capable of better things through the Spirit.”
You might have a point if New Testament actually backed up what you said. It’s funny that nowhere in there did anyone, Jesus included, ever speak out against slavery. There’s plenty of words praising slavery as an example of some hierarchical ideal.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm
“It was more a case of labour to pay off debts.”
So then you DO AGREE it’s OK to own slaves as long as you do it the same way ancient jews did.
2. I guess we can let Hitler & the Nazi’s off the hook too because they didn’t kill All the Jews.
3. “3. Not sure what I said to cause this reaction” Seriously?
You mentioned racial superiority as a invalid argument for defending genocide. I said I’ve never heard of anyone seriously offering up racial superiority as a defense for genocide. You must move move in darker circles than I do to have heard such a defense and need to offer an argument against it.
4. Or a more likely answer: The bible is a mish-mash of legendary and mythical events passed down through at first oral history and written and re written to justify the actions of various religious believers and leaders throughout its history.
House on September 23rd, 2011 at 8:25 amThanks House.
A few general points:
1. I agree this is a real issue and we don’t have all the answers.
2. If God is God, then ultimately He is the Judge, not you or I.
3. Where do you get your moral views from? e.g. on what basis do you (House) say that slavery is wrong?
A few specific comments:
jonknewton on September 27th, 2011 at 12:46 pm1. It’s not true that the NT is silent or neutral on slavery. Paul’s commands to slave-owners radically shifts the whole dynamic of slave-owner relationships, e.g. Col.4:1; Eph.6:9; Philemon. Paul approved of slaves gaining freedom (1 Cor.7:21-22). He condemned slave-trading (1 Tim.1:10 ESV). But he had to work in a context where everyone approved of slavery and abolitionism was not an option; moreover, blanket manumission generally left ex-slaves worse off in that world. I’m sure you know that one of the main causes of abolition was pressure from evangelical Christians like Wilberforce who saw that the Bible clearly was pointing in that direction.
2. I would have thought that racial superiority was the main defence of genocide, e.g. Nazis.
3. If the Bible was “re written to justify the actions of various religious believers and leaders throughout its history”, all I can say is they didn’t do a very good job. e.g. Israel’s most famous and venerated king commits adultery, murder, abuse of power, etc.; the so-called first pope (Peter) regularly “puts his foot in his mouth”, is rebuked as Satan by Jesus, denies him 3 times, is rebuked strongly by Paul.