If God destroyed Canaan, why not other Gentile nations?

[MysticMissMisty]

Salvete, omnes!

(First of all, I hope I posted this in the correct forum. Please feel free to move it, if not.)

It is believed, as I understand it, that one reason for God destroying Canaan was to punish the nation for its collective sins. However, many Gentile nations, it could be argued, sinned in similar, if not worse, ways. Why, then, did God not destroy these other Gentile nations?

Let us take Egypt, for instance. When Joseph was held captive, he actually helped the people avoid famine, as I recall, with God’s agency! So, here, we not only have God not destroying a Gentile (and apparently sinful) nation, but we seem to have Him helping out that nation to survive and,a rguably, even thrive. Why would He favor Egypt but not Canaan? I suppose one could argue that He only did good for Egypt to show His power in being able to preict the future and save it from its fate with no personal interest in protecting the nation. Does this sound like the proper understanding or could one argue that He actually desired actively to bless Egypt at this time, despite its sins? Would not God’s doing what He did merely to show His power to do so be, to some extent, insincere? I mean, God knew that the nation would not, as it were, convert to Judaism because He did what He did, though I suppose one could argue that, in doing what He did, He was giving them some chance to see this and the error of their ways and to convert. What do you think God’s true motives were in this situation?

Also, some Church Fathers seemed to argue that God even blessed Gentile Rome as far back as its founding. This nation obviously was plagued with much sin, politically, militarily and personally, so how could the Fathers argue this? Could these arguments be considered incorrect? Was God, rather, merely allowing good to come to them through natural means, but not actually having a positive assenting attitude toward the good that came to them? Or, rather, might God have had some other reason for blessing them such as making it easier in the future for the Christians to spread their message? If this were not a factor, might God have destroyed Rome as He destroyed Canaan for its sins? Or, would He have been just actively to look to its interests? Would he, indeed, have been unjust to do so had some other factor such as the one I just described not been at play?
All right, let us just say, for the moment, that the Christian factor was at play in the Roman case and that, for the sake of argument, God only sustained it to facilitate the spreading ofthe Christian message. Would it then still be just for Him actively to bless this nation, so long as He was not in any way directly contributing to any of its sin? Might this not be analogous to us doing good to sinners despite any sin in which they might be participating, so long as we don’t directly contribute to that sin? So, here, could we say that, while God would have preferred to punish Rome for its sin, He did not for the sake of the Christians, and, since he could not destroy it, He still was loving enough to bless it so long as He did not directly contribute to its sinful practices? Would such a solution be theologically correct? How theologically strong is such a position? Has there been anything at all written by the Church (and, if so, with what level of authority?) at all relating to this kind of issue?

I guess the primary questions throughout this entire post are: Can God justly punish one nation for its sin but bless another even though it also sins? If so, how can He justly do this? And, some questions related to the second primary subject ofthis post: If God would ideally have desired to punish a nation for its sin but refrained for some other reason, could He still justly actively bless that nation, because, technically, He still loves the people within it?

Final question: Can we simply not know the reasons behind why God would destroy one nation and preserve another, whether He is actively blessing it or whether He is simply letting natural processes take their course, whether or not He is positively assenting to the blessing that comes upon it?

Church teachings? Thoughts? Opinions? Arguments in any direction?

Gratias.

 

[hadulzo]

Canaan sacrificed children. God does not like that.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Canaan sacrificed children. God does not like that.

Surely other nations did the same. Why did He not destroy them as well? I mean, yes, ultimately, many of these nations were destroyed through various means, but, why did God not actively seek to destroy them as soon as possible? Also, so, as long as a nation did not practice child sacrifice, God did not wish to destroy it?

Was Canaan somehow a special case fro some other reason besides just its sin? If so, what would that have been?

 

[MysticMissMisty]

I guess one answer to whether God, even if He ultimately wished to destroy a nation but had other reasons for preserving it, still wishes to bless it since He will not destroy it could come in the verse that He makes it to rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous (if we take “rain” as a positive thing in the sense that it nourishes the crops). Obviously, whether it rains or not is considered to be a natural phenomenon unless God is said miraculously and directly to intervene, so one might assume that, even if “natural processes” “bless” a nation )or an individual), God does actively assent to this blessing? Whenever someone is blessed even in a “natural” way, God’s positive assent is there. Again, I ask whether this position is theological correct or at least sound and/or valid? Or, rather, does Christ’s statement about the rain only apply to individuals and not to nations? Even if it does apply also to nations, it apparently does not apply to all nations in all cases, such as Canaan. So, once again, we’re back to the first and fundamental question of this post: Why are some nations punished and not others?

Also, ifthsi is to apply to nations, would not God’s blessing of a sinful nation perhaps give the nation the wrong impression that they’re doing all the right things? So, then, could that not be considered an imprudent action on His part? I guess, though, that even God’s blessing people actively engaged in sin could also be misinterpreted that way, though, as I understand it, we believe that He does. Further, men within these nations likely already know that they are doing wrong in many of these cases just by the testimony of both their own consciences and their (proper) cultural norms, so, perhaps they wouldn’t make such an assumption even about their own “divinities” iftheir “divinities” were seen to enforce moral principles.

 

[Sonny89]

Peace and All Good!

Surely other nations did the same. Why did He not destroy them as well? I mean, yes, ultimately, many of these nations were destroyed through various means, but, why did God not actively seek to destroy them as soon as possible? Also, so, as long as a nation did not practice child sacrifice, God did not wish to destroy it?

Was Canaan somehow a special case fro some other reason besides just its sin? If so, what would that have been?

Perhaps it was to make an example of Canaan, to encourage other similar nations repent of the behaviour in their own societies which condemned Canaan & desire to save themselves.

Perhaps the sins in Canaan were on an even greater scale than in other nations, I’m not sure but it’s a possibility

 

[Tomdstone]

Salvete, omnes!

(First of all, I hope I posted this in the correct forum. Please feel free to move it, if not.)

It is believed, as I understand it, that one reason for God destroying Canaan was to punish the nation for its collective sins. However, many Gentile nations, it could be argued, sinned in similar, if not worse, ways. Why, then, did God not destroy these other Gentile nations?

Let us take Egypt, for instance. When Joseph was held captive, he actually helped the people avoid famine, as I recall, with God’s agency! So, here, we not only have God not destroying a Gentile (and apparently sinful) nation, but we seem to have Him helping out that nation to survive and,a rguably, even thrive. Why would He favor Egypt but not Canaan? I suppose one could argue that He only did good for Egypt to show His power in being able to preict the future and save it from its fate with no personal interest in protecting the nation. Does this sound like the proper understanding or could one argue that He actually desired actively to bless Egypt at this time, despite its sins? Would not God’s doing what He did merely to show His power to do so be, to some extent, insincere? I mean, God knew that the nation would not, as it were, convert to Judaism because He did what He did, though I suppose one could argue that, in doing what He did, He was giving them some chance to see this and the error of their ways and to convert. What do you think God’s true motives were in this situation?

Also, some Church Fathers seemed to argue that God even blessed Gentile Rome as far back as its founding. This nation obviously was plagued with much sin, politically, militarily and personally, so how could the Fathers argue this? Could these arguments be considered incorrect? Was God, rather, merely allowing good to come to them through natural means, but not actually having a positive assenting attitude toward the good that came to them? Or, rather, might God have had some other reason for blessing them such as making it easier in the future for the Christians to spread their message? If this were not a factor, might God have destroyed Rome as He destroyed Canaan for its sins? Or, would He have been just actively to look to its interests? Would he, indeed, have been unjust to do so had some other factor such as the one I just described not been at play?
All right, let us just say, for the moment, that the Christian factor was at play in the Roman case and that, for the sake of argument, God only sustained it to facilitate the spreading ofthe Christian message. Would it then still be just for Him actively to bless this nation, so long as He was not in any way directly contributing to any of its sin? Might this not be analogous to us doing good to sinners despite any sin in which they might be participating, so long as we don’t directly contribute to that sin? So, here, could we say that, while God would have preferred to punish Rome for its sin, He did not for the sake of the Christians, and, since he could not destroy it, He still was loving enough to bless it so long as He did not directly contribute to its sinful practices? Would such a solution be theologically correct? How theologically strong is such a position? Has there been anything at all written by the Church (and, if so, with what level of authority?) at all relating to this kind of issue?

I guess the primary questions throughout this entire post are: Can God justly punish one nation for its sin but bless another even though it also sins? If so, how can He justly do this? And, some questions related to the second primary subject ofthis post: If God would ideally have desired to punish a nation for its sin but refrained for some other reason, could He still justly actively bless that nation, because, technically, He still loves the people within it?

Final question: Can we simply not know the reasons behind why God would destroy one nation and preserve another, whether He is actively blessing it or whether He is simply letting natural processes take their course, whether or not He is positively assenting to the blessing that comes upon it?

Church teachings? Thoughts? Opinions? Arguments in any direction?

Gratias.

Is it known whether or not God had any plans for China or Japan?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Salvete, omnes!

(First of all, I hope I posted this in the correct forum. Please feel free to move it, if not.)

It is believed, as I understand it, that one reason for God destroying Canaan was to punish the nation for its collective sins. However, many Gentile nations, it could be argued, sinned in similar, if not worse, ways. Why, then, did God not destroy these other Gentile nations?

Let us take Egypt, for instance. When Joseph was held captive, he actually helped the people avoid famine, as I recall, with God’s agency! So, here, we not only have God not destroying a Gentile (and apparently sinful) nation, but we seem to have Him helping out that nation to survive and,a rguably, even thrive. Why would He favor Egypt but not Canaan? I suppose one could argue that He only did good for Egypt to show His power in being able to preict the future and save it from its fate with no personal interest in protecting the nation. Does this sound like the proper understanding or could one argue that He actually desired actively to bless Egypt at this time, despite its sins? Would not God’s doing what He did merely to show His power to do so be, to some extent, insincere? I mean, God knew that the nation would not, as it were, convert to Judaism because He did what He did, though I suppose one could argue that, in doing what He did, He was giving them some chance to see this and the error of their ways and to convert. What do you think God’s true motives were in this situation?

Also, some Church Fathers seemed to argue that God even blessed Gentile Rome as far back as its founding. This nation obviously was plagued with much sin, politically, militarily and personally, so how could the Fathers argue this? Could these arguments be considered incorrect? Was God, rather, merely allowing good to come to them through natural means, but not actually having a positive assenting attitude toward the good that came to them? Or, rather, might God have had some other reason for blessing them such as making it easier in the future for the Christians to spread their message? If this were not a factor, might God have destroyed Rome as He destroyed Canaan for its sins? Or, would He have been just actively to look to its interests? Would he, indeed, have been unjust to do so had some other factor such as the one I just described not been at play?
All right, let us just say, for the moment, that the Christian factor was at play in the Roman case and that, for the sake of argument, God only sustained it to facilitate the spreading ofthe Christian message. Would it then still be just for Him actively to bless this nation, so long as He was not in any way directly contributing to any of its sin? Might this not be analogous to us doing good to sinners despite any sin in which they might be participating, so long as we don’t directly contribute to that sin? So, here, could we say that, while God would have preferred to punish Rome for its sin, He did not for the sake of the Christians, and, since he could not destroy it, He still was loving enough to bless it so long as He did not directly contribute to its sinful practices? Would such a solution be theologically correct? How theologically strong is such a position? Has there been anything at all written by the Church (and, if so, with what level of authority?) at all relating to this kind of issue?

I guess the primary questions throughout this entire post are: Can God justly punish one nation for its sin but bless another even though it also sins? If so, how can He justly do this? And, some questions related to the second primary subject ofthis post: If God would ideally have desired to punish a nation for its sin but refrained for some other reason, could He still justly actively bless that nation, because, technically, He still loves the people within it?

Final question: Can we simply not know the reasons behind why God would destroy one nation and preserve another, whether He is actively blessing it or whether He is simply letting natural processes take their course, whether or not He is positively assenting to the blessing that comes upon it?

Church teachings? Thoughts? Opinions? Arguments in any direction?

Gratias.

You might need to revise your own assumptions to find the most satisfying answer to this.
I suggest:
(a) is justice simply relative? ie does justice mean being treated just as badly as everybody else? does mercy mean being treated as well as everybody else?
Or, as the Gospels put it, if I choose to pay the last workers the same as the first why is that unjust - cannot I gift as I please?

(b) God didn’t detroy Canaan, the Hebrews did. Just like most winners who write the history, they justified it by saying “God told me to do it.”

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Peace and All Good!

Perhaps it was to make an example of Canaan, to encourage other similar nations repent of the behaviour in their own societies which condemned Canaan & desire to save themselves.

So, then, it was a kind of warning to those nations that God was going to or at least wished to destroy them, too, if they didn’t repent?

 

[TaurusRex]

(b) God didn’t detroy Canaan, the Hebrews did. Just like most winners who write the history, they justified it by saying “God told me to do it.”

Salvete, omnes!

(First of all, I hope I posted this in the correct forum. Please feel free to move it, if not.)

It is believed, as I understand it, that one reason for God destroying Canaan was to punish the nation for its collective sins. However, many Gentile nations, it could be argued, sinned in similar, if not worse, ways. Why, then, did God not destroy these other Gentile nations?

---

Also, some Church Fathers seemed to argue that God even blessed Gentile Rome as far back as its founding. This nation obviously was plagued with much sin, politically, militarily and personally, so how could the Fathers argue this? Could these arguments be considered incorrect? Was God, rather, merely allowing good to come to them through natural means, but not actually having a positive assenting attitude toward the good that came to them? Or, rather, might God have had some other reason for blessing them such as making it easier in the future for the Christians to spread their message? If this were not a factor, might God have destroyed Rome as He destroyed Canaan for its sins? Or, would He have been just actively to look to its interests? Would he, indeed, have been unjust to do so had some other factor such as the one I just described not been at play?
All right, let us just say, for the moment, that the Christian factor was at play in the Roman case and that, for the sake of argument, God only sustained it to facilitate the spreading ofthe Christian message. Would it then still be just for Him actively to bless this nation, so long as He was not in any way directly contributing to any of its sin? Might this not be analogous to us doing good to sinners despite any sin in which they might be participating, so long as we don’t directly contribute to that sin? So, here, could we say that, while God would have preferred to punish Rome for its sin, He did not for the sake of the Christians, and, since he could not destroy it, He still was loving enough to bless it so long as He did not directly contribute to its sinful practices? Would such a solution be theologically correct? How theologically strong is such a position? Has there been anything at all written by the Church (and, if so, with what level of authority?) at all relating to this kind of issue?

I guess the primary questions throughout this entire post are: Can God justly punish one nation for its sin but bless another even though it also sins? If so, how can He justly do this? And, some questions related to the second primary subject ofthis post: If God would ideally have desired to punish a nation for its sin but refrained for some other reason, could He still justly actively bless that nation, because, technically, He still loves the people within it?

Final question: Can we simply not know the reasons behind why God would destroy one nation and preserve another, whether He is actively blessing it or whether He is simply letting natural processes take their course, whether or not He is positively assenting to the blessing that comes upon it?

Church teachings? Thoughts? Opinions? Arguments in any direction?

Gratias.

Please don’t think I expect anyone to agree with my opinion, but I’m still going to express it …
In my fifth grade history class ~60 years ago, our history text actually spoke of the Romans as sort of heroic saviors of western civilization
And to be perfectly honest, having had an Italian American grandfather on my father’s side with a Roman last name from Campania, I admittedly felt pride in my heritage …
my mother’s parents were from Naples.

The Catholic religious training of my siblings and myself was enforced by my parents
And I’ll just say that my father died before reaching 50 as did his father with my father having worked on two jobs for 29 years of his life most of which was during his married life …
He built our house and having had skills in electrical, plumbing and automotive repair had his weekends booked 6 weeks in advance doing maintenance for my mother’s family and in-laws …

hope it isn’t sacrilege to compare him to Joseph, but although he was a stern man, he was full of love and didn’t seem to know how to say: no to anyone.
My mother too although she lived to be 92 God bless her was early to bed and early to rise having worked every minute while awake keeping the house clean, 3 meals a day on the table and a daily change of clean, pressed clothing on our backs, not to mention also helping my brother in business later in life …
She even learned how to drive after my father died.

Anyway, take it or leave it, the Romans seemed to me to be getting slandered by historians …
yes they were conquerors and yes they took slaves and a few of their leaders (at least one questionably Roman) may have been perverted;
But the way I understand it, compared with their conquered, they were civilized
And imho they actually brought couth to the ancient world
And maybe God blessed them to bring bathed, clean shaven civilization with law and order to the world.

listverse.com/2008/05/05/top-10-myths-about-the-romans/

history.com/news/history-lists/10-innovations-that-built-ancient-rome

Interestingly, a synonym of couth is genteel
And doesn’t *genteel" remind one of gentile?
It seems the two words are related except I wonder why their meanings seem to be opposite:

the-difference-between.com/gentile/genteel

rex

 

[fisherman_carl]

Salvete, omnes!
…
I guess the primary questions throughout this entire post are: Can God justly punish one nation for its sin but bless another even though it also sins? If so, how can He justly do this? And, some questions related to the second primary subject ofthis post: If God would ideally have desired to punish a nation for its sin but refrained for some other reason, could He still justly actively bless that nation, because, technically, He still loves the people within it?

Final question: Can we simply not know the reasons behind why God would destroy one nation and preserve another, whether He is actively blessing it or whether He is simply letting natural processes take their course, whether or not He is positively assenting to the blessing that comes upon it?

Church teachings? Thoughts? Opinions? Arguments in any direction?

Gratias.

God has a plan of course! If we are going to talk about God destroying things you forgot to mention about the flood, or about Sodom and Gomorrah. All these were wiped out by God. Now, did you forget about the rainbow? God doesn’t destroy all of sinful humanity as promised by the rainbow. God does not want to destroy everyone, but to save them. If God destroyed everyone then how could he save them and then Christ would not needed to have come. But these things happened as a warning to others.

The Israelites were also punished by God. “Now these things happened to them as a warning, but they were written down for our instruction, upon whom the end of the ages has come.” (1 Cor 10:11)

God’s desire is to save everyone. It was God’s will to free Israel from Egypt and for them to come into the promised land, as was part of God’s promise to bless Abraham and his descendants, but also to bless all nations (through the offspring that would be Christ). This land was occupied by the Canaanites who were as Wisdom 12 states warned repeatedly to repent. But, they heeded no warning and continued in their abominations. Thus, they could not stay in the land that God had chosen for his people. That is why they were wiped out. They were being punished, yes, but also they were in the way of God’s people. They would be a potential stumbling block to them. And, ultimately were a stumbling block for the Israelites did not actually get rid of all of them. And, they intermarried with them and adopted their ways, their idols, even committing the same sins like offering their children into the fire for Molech. This is why God warned them to utterly destroy them, so that Israel would not be corrupted. Yet, they did not utterly destroy them, and as a result Israel became corrupted by them. Which ultimately resulted in Israel being deported and the Temple being destroyed as punishment.

It is this unique interaction between God’s chosen people, Israel, and the Canaanites that distinguishes the other nations that you mentioned. And, that the story is being written from the vantage point of the Jewish history. Rather than taking into account all the other nations that were not a part of it.

God had continually called his people to be separate from the nations around them. What changed when Christ came and with the advent of the Holy Spirit being poured out, is that no longer were God’s people called to remain separate, but to go out, empowered by the Spirit, to make disciples of all nations. God’s plan was ultimately to save all people, rather than to destroy them. As Wisdom 12 and Rom 2:4 states, his kindness means repentance. He is gentile with the nations so that they come to repentance.

“Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?” (Rom 2:4)

" But judging them little by little you gave them a chance to repent,
though you were not unaware that their origin was evil
and their wickedness inborn,
and that their way of thinking would never change." (Wisdom 12:10)