The Canaanite Genocide

  • Thread starter Thread starter Frankk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Frankk

Guest
How do we interpret God’s command to the Israelites to kill all the Canaanites including women and children, in terms of a loving God?

I have read a few explanations:

a) God does not operate within human moral limits [and can do what he likes]
b) The Canaanites were an ‘evil’ race living in sin. OK for the men [and women] but what about the children?
c) The children were born into an evil society so killing them was their salvation. [This hardly seems just or a good reason]
d) Assuming the above three examples are justified why use Israelite soldiers to kill mothers and children?. This must have been dehumanising for them [as soldiers who have witnessed dead innocent civilians in wars around the world would, I think, attest]

If a) to c) are justifiable why didn’t God just ‘get rid’ of them by a Word? After all he brought everything into existence with a Word?

Thanks for any thought you may have or any information on books/texts which address the issue
 
God could have got rid of them with a Word, but what lesson on the evils of sin would the Israelites and Christian readers get. This incident brings the same lesson as Jesus’ words on the Sermon on the Mount - “If your hand causes you to sin, cut if off”.
 
Frankk said:
How do we interpret God’s command to the Israelites to kill all the Canaanites including women and children, in terms of a loving God?

I have read a few explanations:

a) God does not operate within human moral limits [and can do what he likes]
b) The Canaanites were an ‘evil’ race living in sin. OK for the men [and women] but what about the children?
c) The children were born into an evil society so killing them was their salvation. [This hardly seems just or a good reason]
d) Assuming the above three examples are justified why use Israelite soldiers to kill mothers and children?. This must have been dehumanising for them [as soldiers who have witnessed dead innocent civilians in wars around the world would, I think, attest]
Click to expand...
It might help to picture the reality. The Canaanites were not going to leave willingly, so there was going to be a war/battle until the land was conquered. Keep in mind, this is an ongoing war - not just a single overnight battle. The Jews had no homeland yet - no cities with any kind of infrastructure or place to hold prisoners. They are just a nomadic tribe at this point. Food supplies would also be an issue.

I’m a woman and have never been in battle, and God willing will never have to be. My guess is that the Caananite women probably fought against any enemies that entered their homes, particularly if they had children.

In regards to the children, consider the options available to an army. Presuming the Jewish women were not close to the battle areas, who would be in charge of small orphaned babies and children; feed/nurse/house them etc.
If a) to c) are justifiable why didn’t God just ‘get rid’ of them by a Word? After all he brought everything into existence with a Word?
Click to expand...
My thoughts:
It was just as important for the Jews in the OT as for Christians in the NT to realize that God is not going to do everything while we sit back and do nothing. Human presumption and laziness are not acceptable to God. If evil is to be overcome, God requires us to work also (in cooperation with the grace and other aids He gives).

Nita
 
Nita said:
I’m a woman and have never been in battle, and God willing will never have to be. My guess is that the Caananite women probably fought against any enemies that entered their homes, particularly if they had children.
Click to expand...
Nita and Notworthy,
Thanks for your thoughts.

Nita, no doubt many women ‘probably’ fought to protect their children - but God didn’t say kill those who resist and spare the others.
Nita said:
In regards to the children, consider the options available to an army. Presuming the Jewish women were not close to the battle areas, who would be in charge of small orphaned babies and children; feed/nurse/house them etc.
Click to expand...
I understand this difficulty but is it enough justification for God to order them to be killed?
Nita said:
My thoughts:
It was just as important for the Jews in the OT as for Christians in the NT to realize that God is not going to do everything while we sit back and do nothing. Human presumption and laziness are not acceptable to God. If evil is to be overcome, God requires us to work also (in cooperation with the grace and other aids He gives).
Nita
Click to expand...
I fully agree with this but, again, was it justification for murdering innocent children?

Sorry, my head’s hurting. Must lie down in a dark room for a while! 🙂
 
Frankk said:
I fully agree with this but, again, was it justification for murdering innocent children?

Sorry, my head’s hurting. Must lie down in a dark room for a while! 🙂
Click to expand...
Of course, if anyone knows that these innocent kids are going to grow up to be idol-worshiping thorns in the side of Israel, it would be God, eh?

But besides, if God allows the death of innocents in order to further His plan, don’t you think that He has a reward for those innocents in the next life?

I think our problem is we’re looking at earthly things, while God is looking at heavenly things.
 
Frankk said:
Nita and Notworthy,

Sorry, my head’s hurting. Must lie down in a dark room for a while! 🙂
Click to expand...
Hi Frank,

Hate to make your head hurt more 🙂 , but when you have the time, imagine being God - with all His qualities (love, mercy, justice, goodness,…).
Keep in mind the whole picture - whole in the sense of place and time; everyone who would ever live on the earth and time that includes eternity - especially eternity.
Keep in mind God’s goal: the redemption of man (all men, including the Canaanites) from sin and eternal death.

How would you have handled the situation?

For any tough passages in Scripture, my practice is to start out with one basic premise: I KNOW God is all-knowing, all-loving, all just…(all qualities present at the same time!!) I accept absolutely that whatever God commands conforms to those qualities.

Then I make the effort to study the issue, always trying to understand (eg. why would killing the children be a more loving act than letting them live? …) I do this questioning in conversation with God, asking His help in understanding. And I do often try to see things from God’s perspective.

Some answers can come in a flash; others can take years - a little bit here, a little bit next year. And some things I don’t even expect to understand until heaven.

Nita
 
One of the most profitable things to do in ancient times was war. War yielded slaves, land, gold, etc. By God instructing us to completely destroy an enemy, He ensures that we did not profit from the battle. All is destroyed in His name. All belongs to Him.
 
Valke2 said:
One of the most profitable things to do in ancient times was war. War yielded slaves, land, gold, etc. By God instructing us to completely destroy an enemy, He ensures that we did not profit from the battle. All is destroyed in His name. All belongs to Him.
Click to expand...
Thanks Valke2. You’ve given me my “little bit” for this year on this question.

Nita
 
Valke2 said:
One of the most profitable things to do in ancient times was war. War yielded slaves, land, gold, etc. By God instructing us to completely destroy an enemy, He ensures that we did not profit from the battle. All is destroyed in His name. All belongs to Him.
Click to expand...
Valke

Thanks. This is an interesting take. But what of the ‘fate’ of the Canaanites? They, too, were God’s creation. Did He create them just so that Israel could learn some sort of moral lesson?
Were the races who were not ‘Chosen’ by God in some way less valuable to Him - just necessary sacrifices in the unfolding of God’s plan to Israel? Do even ‘evil’ people deserve to meet with suffering and pain?

Many human’s, I guess, would say definitely, yes, to the last question. But an all-loving God surely loves all his creatures?
 
Frankk said:
Valke

Thanks. This is an interesting take. But what of the ‘fate’ of the Canaanites? They, too, were God’s creation. Did He create them just so that Israel could learn some sort of moral lesson?
Were the races who were not ‘Chosen’ by God in some way less valuable to Him - just necessary sacrifices in the unfolding of God’s plan to Israel? Do even ‘evil’ people deserve to meet with suffering and pain?

Many human’s, I guess, would say definitely, yes, to the last question. But an all-loving God surely loves all his creatures?
Click to expand...
I agree that this does seem somehow “ungodly” in the way I was taught to think of God. The idea that this type of death is okay also raises a lot of questions about current wars and even abortion (better not to be born - maybe that’s God’s choice). 🤷
 
The problem of the"Joshua" Conquest mode is that 'Judges ‘contradicts it.Conquest has great battles, genocidal warfare and a unity of the twelve tribes. Judges is more complex and probable older then ‘Joshua’(Song of Deborah’ being one of the oldest parts of the Bible)and tells a different story. There were battles with the inhabitants but also treaties, alliances - the tribes were seen as more of a guerilla force instead of an organized army-that fought with each other frequently. If they destroyed the Canaanites ,Hittites etc where did Goliath and all his tribe come from?It would take a a while to rebuild your population if the Gentiles were ‘completely destroyed’ all those problems that the Israelites had with their own people indulging in pagan practices(that seem to be rampant) through the rest of the Bible must have come from somewhere. The native population apparently wasn’t wiped out or else the annoying habits Israelites picked up that got them into so MUCH trouble with God, wouldn’t have been a problem.Both samuels and Kings don’t have a conquest like scenario prior to the monarchy .So what’s the solution?It might be a case of"shoulda,coulda,woulda" retrospective-'why didn’t we get rid of these people when we had a chance?Assyrians wouldn’t have destroyed Israel and the Babylonians wouldn’t have captured Judah and destroyed the Temple". Or part hero worship of Joshua- who succeeds as a minor second Moses- who knows:confused:
 
Another great post Julia. People should see the Bible as a contining Revelation, not as a literal history book.
While I do believe on Joseph conquest. I thing it was creatly exagerated in Exodus.
The beaten Israelis of the needed to create a fearsome heroic past. And the Idea of YHWH in the Bible does change. The idea of GOD in the later books of the OT and the deuterocanon and of course the NT is not the same than in the first books of the OT.
The time of Jesus was coming up.
 
juliamajor said:
The problem of the"Joshua" Conquest mode is that 'Judges 'contradicts it.Conquest has great battles, genocidal warfare and a unity of the twelve tribes. Judges is more complex and probable older then ‘Joshua’

Or part hero worship of Joshua- who succeeds as a minor second Moses- who knows:confused:
Click to expand...
Julia

Thank you for a very thought provoking reply! 👍 I’m glad I’m not the only one who’s confused! And, as Alice in Wonderland says, ‘It becomes curiouser and curiouser’.

The examples you quote lead to the question of inerrancy. Providentissumus Deus, Divino Afflante Spiritu and Dei Verbum are quite definite on Biblican inerrancy but I don’t know how to square their statements with the sort of examples you quote. And, of course, the Bible has quite a number of them.
 
The Cananaanites were a very dangerous fertility cult. They practiced Baal worship, which included ritual human sacrifice. They had a sociopathic disposition. Incidental to this was their worship of the sun and moon…early freemasonry. (Verify this in the writings of Albert Pike, Grand Master, 33rd degree,Scottish Rite Freemasonry, Southern Jurisdiction, USA. Specifically, Morals and Dogma.)…God had his reasons for purging the Canaanites; especially since the Tribe of Dan, followed by others, fell into idolatry due to comingling with them. It was’nt genocide. It was Divine Providence.
 
allmhuran said:
The Cananaanites were a very dangerous fertility cult. They practiced Baal worship, which included ritual human sacrifice. They had a sociopathic disposition. Incidental to this was their worship of the sun and moon…early freemasonry. (Verify this in the writings of Albert Pike, Grand Master, 33rd degree,Scottish Rite Freemasonry, Southern Jurisdiction, USA. Specifically, Morals and Dogma.)…God had his reasons for purging the Canaanites; especially since the Tribe of Dan, followed by others, fell into idolatry due to comingling with them. It was’nt genocide. It was Divine Providence.
Click to expand...
Let’s go step by step- the Canaanites(the native peoples )were NOT completely destroyed- along with Hittites,Amalakites,Jebusites, Ammorites etc.couldn’t have been destroyed-or their negative effect would not have been a continuing plague.Canaanites as a fertility cult , were no more dangerousthen any other fertility cults. That included most of the Ancients-Cybele who’s male followers castrated themselves while in a frenzy, to Dionysian cults who tore folks up whilst in the intoxicated state, to Ishtar and Innanna-all participated in rituals that we would find repulsive.Baal-(LORD) was no more wicked then a lot of deities (baal is another word for husband in hebrew)and some of the titles associated with Yahweh were first attached to Canaanite deities. Human sacrifice? a practice that many ancients horribly subscribed to-Canaanites were no exception.the Phoenicians(they emerged out of the Canaanites)in Carthage were actually more well know for the enormous cache of children’s skeletons found out side a Temple there.As for sociopathic - nonsense-
They weren’t being deliberately mean -they were ,according to about 90% of the world ,doing just fine. Many archaeologists and anthropologists (Finklestein)believe that Canaanites and Israelites are actually the same people- the Hebrews being the oppressed underclass(anawim)of sheepherders whose tenuous hold on life was only made tolerable by the love of Yahweh.As for Freemasonry total and complete bosh(mason are also supposed to be related to the masons who made the Temple of Solomon!)Stuff and nonsense:eek:
 
juliamajor said:
Let’s go step by step- the Canaanites(the native peoples )were NOT completely destroyed- along with Hittites,Amalakites,Jebusites, Ammorites etc.couldn’t have been destroyed-or their negative effect would not have been a continuing plague.Canaanites as a fertility cult , were no more dangerousthen any other fertility cults. That included most of the Ancients-Cybele who’s male followers castrated themselves while in a frenzy, to Dionysian cults who tore folks up whilst in the intoxicated state, to Ishtar and Innanna-all participated in rituals that we would find repulsive.Baal-(LORD) was no more wicked then a lot of deities (baal is another word for husband in hebrew)and some of the titles associated with Yahweh were first attached to Canaanite deities. Human sacrifice? a practice that many ancients horribly subscribed to-Canaanites were no exception.the Phoenicians(they emerged out of the Canaanites)in Carthage were actually more well know for the enormous cache of children’s skeletons found out side a Temple there.
Click to expand...
The only problem with all of these comparisons is that only one of these tribes inhabited the Promised Land. The Canaanites. If they would have simply left and resettled in any other region, they would have been fine. But they were in the land reserved for Israel.

Yes, Baal was a word for husband. But it had a different context than the normal hebrew word for husband. It was master. I think Abraham was a husband to Sarah but a baal to what’s-her-name (Ishmael’s mother).
 
NotWorthy said:
The only problem with all of these comparisons is that only one of these tribes inhabited the Promised Land. The Canaanites. If they would have simply left and resettled in any other region, they would have been fine. But they were in the land reserved for Israel.

Yes, Baal was a word for husband. But it had a different context than the normal hebrew word for husband. It was master. I think Abraham was a husband to Sarah but a baal to what’s-her-name (Ishmael’s mother).
Click to expand...
See Deut.7:1-8 .Baal means Lord. The trouble is that “Joshua” & “Judges” don’t gel.
 
juliamajor said:
See Deut.7:1-8 .Baal means Lord.
Click to expand...
Wait a minute, didn’t you just tell me
(baal is another word for husband in hebrew)
Click to expand...
… and now you’re correcting me?

Actually, baal is a word for husband, but not in a traditional marriage, again like Abraham’s and Sarah’s. But in a marriage where one is master (who would also be called “Lord”) and one is slave, like Abraham’s and Hagar’s (That’s her name!).

If you look at John’s Gospel with the Samaritan woman at the well, the term used by Jesus for husband is baal - "The truth is, you’ve had five husbands (baals) and the one with you right now is not your husband (baal).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top