compiled by John Favalessa

Richard Dawkins (an avowed militant atheist) shares this genial observation: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

No matter how you reconcile this most difficult question, we should acknowledge that in the late Bronze Age, Israel made certain assumptions about the nature of God, assumptions that now have to be abandoned in the light of Christ. It is abundantly clear from the Gospels that Jesus has closed the door on genocide, just like he has closed the book on vengeance. Once we realize that Jesus is the perfect icon of the living God, we are forever prohibited from using the Old Testament to justify the use of violence. Using Scripture as a divine license for the implementation of violence is a dangerous practice that must be abandoned as we who walk in the light of Christ.

Below are a few ideas from pastors, theologians, and around, in no particular order:

  1. The Canaanites were enemies of God who deserved to be punished.
    Be afraid as the destruction of the Canaanites is a picture of the final judgment.
  2. The invasion of Canaan does not meet the definition of genocide.
    The claim of genocide is designed to prejudice the discussion, to put believers in God’s Word on the defensive. Merriam-Webster defines genocide as “the deliberate killing of people who belong to a particular racial, political, or cultural group.” What is the reason that the Canaanites would be punished by the Israelites? It was the sinful practices of the peoples who lived in Canaan, not their race or ethnic background. In fact, the Canaanites would lose the land not only on account of God’s direct judgment but because the peoples had become so wicked that even the land itself rejected them. Also, casualties in war are excluded from the definition of genocide. Therefore, God’s actions were not an example of ethnic cleansing.
  3. The Israelites carried out mass killings but were mistaken in believing that God had commanded it – These stories in the Old Testament are a human account of the evolution of their religion rather than a divine revelation of God’s actions in history. What God says by way of appropriating the biblical text as his Word is not the same as what the human author of the text says. It follows that humans may have instigated policies such as genocide over the objections of God or in contradiction to how he really felt. Origen of Alexandria, (an early church scholar), maintain that these passages do not record historical events but offer allegorical spiritual truths. For instance, when the psalmist says, “Blessed the one who seizes your children and smashes them against the rock” (Psalm 137:9), he’s encouraging God’s followers to destroy our childish, sinful tendencies that cry out for satisfaction. We cannot soothe or mollify sin. We must destroy it. This view also necessitates an understanding of Scripture as the opinion of human beings rather than the true word of God or even an accurate record of historical events.
  4. The mass killings never actually happened, hyperbolic text – Hagiographic hyperbole is a term used by philosopher Nicholas Wolterstorff to describe the kind of historical writing you see in the book of Joshua. The basic idea is that the accounts of Israel’s early battles in Canaan are narrated in a particular style, which is not intended to be literal in all of its details and contains a lot of hyperbole, formulaic language and literary expressions for rhetorical effect. The “utterly destroy” or “leave alive nothing that breathes” language is hyperbolic in Scripture’s war texts as in other ancient Near Eastern war texts. It typically stands alongside mention of many survivors—like when sports teams use the language of “totally slaughtering” their opponents. They also say: “The evidence for genocide in antiquity is circumstantial, inferential, and ambiguous, and it comes to us exclusively from the perpetrators.
  5. The judgement was intended to be expulsion from the land rather than genocide – There is a range of verbs used in the commands to Israel concerning how they should treat the Canaanites. Some of these clearly speak of extermination, but others speak of driving them out (see Deuteronomy 7). Deuteronomy 9:3 brings these two ideas together succinctly: “you will drive them out and annihilate them quickly, as the LORD has promised you”.
  6. What About the Innocent Canaanites? God’s Love wins.
    Even if we accept that God was judging the Canaanites through the Israelites, the objection may be raised that some of the Canaanites were innocent victims since they were not involved in the detestable practices of the Canaanite religions. In particular, the thought of young children being killed is troubling. One thing we must remember is that death is not the end. In fact, the judgement faced after death (Hebrews 9:27) is much more serious than any judgement resulting in physical death because it determines the eternal destiny of the person. We can trust God to deal fairly with the innocent children who died in the invasion of Canaan, who could not be held responsible for the sin of their culture or religion.
  7. Marcionism – Old Testament God vs. a New Testament God
    As the early Christian Church began to distinguish itself from Judaism, the “Old Testament” and a portrayal of God in it as violent and unforgiving were sometimes contrasted rhetorically with certain teachings of Jesus to portray an image of God as more loving and forgiving, which was framed as a new image. Marcion of Sinope, in the early second century, developed a Christian dualist belief system that understood the god of the Old Testament was an altogether different being than the God about whom Jesus spoke. Marcion considered Jesus’ universal God of compassion and love, who looks upon humanity with benevolence and mercy, incompatible with Old Testament depictions of divinely ordained violence. Accordingly, he did not regard the Hebrew scriptures as part of his scriptural canon. Marcion was ultimately excommunicated by the Church.
  8. Faith and Trust in God’s Goodness – For me, John, there is definitely hyperbole in Josusha, but this doesn’t help me with the issue. If you believe that God literally commanded the killing of innocence, (no matter what the biblically justifiable reason is, such as to protect Israel from falling into idol worship, etc.), then you have to deal with this disturbing fact. For me, I trust that God, our Father, His Son and the Holy Spirit, is love and good. I can only begin to reconcile this preserved conflict with God, (His character of love and His command to kill innocence), by recognizing that I have a finite human perspective and not the perspective of our eternal God. I trust that God’s love will provide a way, for all, to have the choice, in the end to be in His eternal Kingdom. I also leave open the possibility that the text in question is totally of human origin.
  9. Contextual to all 66 books – At that time in history, war/conquest was brutal. Killing everyone in a village was common place. If the justification for God commanding genocide was to protect the Israelites from evil idol worshiping cultures, then it was an absolute failure. God knew this in advance. Jesus is one with the Father. Jesus is God. God does not change. Based on Jesus life and teaching can you even imaging him commanding genocide? These books were written and redacted hundreds of years after the fact on the rivers of Babylon by men attempting to justify what happened. God/Jesus did not command genocide.