Common objections to Christianity are often seen as obstacles to evangelism.
Even when asked with sincerity, they are considered distractions that should be neutralised as quickly as possible so we can focus on the gospel. Using the example of the destruction of the Canaanites, I want to show that hostile questions, rightly handled, need not be distractions but provide excellent entry points to the gospel.
God’s command
There is no question that we find more difficult than the morality of the direct command from God for Israel to destroy the Canaanites — all men, women, children and their animals (Deuteronomy 7.1-2, 20.16-17). It is a favourite of the ‘New Atheists’ and immediately puts us on the defensive. How is it possible to justify something that looks remarkably like genocide?
The difficulty of the question leads some to adopt wrong approaches.
* Divine accommodation. God didn’t really want to do this, but he was making a concession to how nations behaved in those days. But there is no hint in the repeated commands from God that this might not be the ideal. More seriously, is our world today very different? If not, then why should not similar action be justified today?
* A problem with the Old Testament. But the teaching in the New Testament on hell is more shocking than the destruction of the Canaanites.
* Not historical. The Canaanites were never destroyed, there was no conquest. But this approach would seem to make the moral problem worse. It means the Bible is no longer giving an explanation for real events, but inventing something morally difficult and attributing it to God.
* Minimise the problem. This is the approach most commonly adopted by evangelicals. For example, it is argued that what Israel did was not that bad by the standards of the time, only a few nations were involved, the language is exaggerated (it was not literally complete destruction), there is much else in Old Testament teaching that is more civilised than the other nations of the time, etc.
The problem is that none of these points (even if valid in themselves) address the fundamental moral objection. In fact, this approach implicitly concedes that there is a moral problem, only it is not as large as it might first appear.
Unembarrassed Bible
In contrast, the Bible is unembarrassed by the destruction of the Canaanites. It gives no hint that it might be a moral problem. Hence, if we are to find an answer it must be found within what the Bible itself teaches. In other words, the only consistent way of assessing the morality of the destruction of the Canaanites is in the light of everything else the Bible teaches. Consider this analogy: the morality of the ‘violence’ in Tom and Jerry cartoons needs to be assessed in the light of the way the characters recover unharmed from the ‘violence’ they endure. The framework in which the cartoons operate makes the violence different to that in real life.
So our first task in addressing the morality of the destruction of the Canaanites is to show that it is morally justified within the Bible’s own moral framework. If we cannot do this, then the Bible is deeply incoherent and we will have provided our critics with a reason to reject the Bible. If we can show that it is morally justifiable, then we have the further task of addressing the cogency of the Bible’s moral framework, something that will be tackled in the second part of this article.
What is the framework given by the Bible that provides a moral justification for the destruction of the Canaanites?
1. The depravity of the Canaanites
The Bible says the Canaanites were so sinful that the land vomited them out (Leviticus 18.24-28, 20.22-23). Though technologically advanced and prosperous, the Canaanites were involved in superstition and witchcraft. They indulged in all manner of sexual deviancy and exploitation. Their society was characterised by violence — inspired by the gory violence of the gods they worshipped, and, as is often noted, their religion involved child sacrifice. In short, it was a brutal, oppressive society and it persisted in this behaviour for hundreds of years (Genesis 15.16).
2. The revelation to the Canaanites
If we take seriously what the Bible says, it is clear that the Canaanites knew exactly who God was and the incredible miracles he had performed in bringing Israel to Canaan (Joshua 2.9-10). As a result, they were terrified. The Gibeonites were so convinced that they resorted to an elaborate deception to protect themselves (Joshua 9.9-10). The nations around were well aware of the miracles of the Exodus. In fact, they were still recalled hundreds of years later (1 Samuel 4.8, 6.6). God is explicit that what he had done for Israel was utterly unparalleled in history (Deuteronomy 4.32-39). In other words, there was no uncertainty as to who was the true God, yet the Canaanites refused to repent.
This morality of the destruction of the Canaanites has to be judged on the basis that the historical information the Bible gives is true. Christians who, unlike the Canaanites, are tempted to question the historicity of the miracles (e.g. for scientific or archaeological reasons) are unwittingly denying an essential element of the Bible’s own explanation, and are left with a greater apologetic problem on this moral issue.
3. Rahab and Achan
The argument above about the revelation the Canaanites received is not theoretical. At least one Canaanite, Rahab, did change sides in response to God’s revelation (Joshua 2). In contrast, an Israelite who had far more revelation, Achan, was killed (along with his family) for disobeying (Joshua 7). That helps to explain why it is wrong to call the Canaanite destruction genocide. The issue was not nationality, but idolatry.
In summary, the Canaanites were deeply sinful, they rejected God’s revelation and were punished for their sin by God, using Israel as his instrument. Those who turned to God were spared punishment.
Sounds like the gospel
Put like that, what happened to the Canaanites should not seem so strange. In fact, it sounds like a summary of the Bible’s message — the gospel. In answering the Canaanite problem, we are talking about the gospel!
It is helpful to compare what happened to the Canaanites with what Jesus said just days before his own crucifixion in Luke 19.41-44. He is announcing judgment on Jerusalem and is not embarrassed by this, as if such judgment would be a moral problem, yet at the same time he weeps over the city. Alluding to Psalm 137, Jesus says that the judgment will involve children too. (I will say more about this aspect in part 2.) What is the reason for judgment? It is because, like the Canaanites, the people of Israel did not respond to God’s clear revelation. For God, what is shocking is not the judgment, but the wilful unbelief of sinners.
The Bible provides a coherent framework in which the destruction of the Canaanites can be understood to be morally just. In this framework what happened to the Canaanites was not war or conquest as conventionally pursued. It was an act of justice: punishment for wrongdoing when the opportunity for repentance was rejected. Morally speaking, it is not like a murderer slaughtering a victim, but a state executioner killing a convicted murderer. The latter can look just as gory, but is not the same morally. As an executioner you could consistently weep over your victim yet still believe what you were doing was morally right.
Not ‘nice’
My argument addresses the moral issue. It does not make the destruction of the Canaanites something ‘nice’. Their destruction is something horrific, something to grieve over, but it is not something that requires an apology. It is not immoral.
The biblical rationale takes us to the heart of the gospel. It is about someone who died brutally as a judgment on sin. But, in Jesus’s case, it was not his sin, but ours. Jesus took that horror on himself precisely so that we could escape the just punishment our sin deserves.
All I have said so far assumes that the biblical framework is true. How we can make this argument plausible to an unbeliever is something for the second part of this article.
Dr. Stephen Lloyd is pastor of Hope Church, Gravesend, and also works part-time for Biblical Creation Ministries.
