# God's Command to Exterminate the Canaanites



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

In light of September 11th, 2001, and the subsequent bombings in London, Christians have been quick to contrast the violent tactics of Islamic Jihad with the gentler tendencies of Christian evangelism. For example, in an article entitled, “Christian or Muslim: What’s the difference?” Lutheran scholar Alvin Schmidt has argued,
Jihad is totally contrary to what Christ taught when he told Peter to put away his sword, or when he told individuals to turn the other cheek. Unlike Muslims, Christians have no command to advance their religion by killing unbelievers. Quite the opposite (2005:10).​The problem with Dr. Schmidt’s article is the same problem that characterizes the arguments of many Christian apologists. It’s not what they say; it’s what they often fail to say. They’re quick to point out many NT passages that portray the gentleness of Christian evangelism. But they rarely acknowledge several OT passages in which God commands the Israelites to use violence against entire populations of people in an effort to get control of the land of Canaan. Allow me to cite just a few examples:
NKJ Deu 7:1 "When the LORD your God brings you into the land which you go to possess, and has cast out many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than you, 2 "and when the LORD your God delivers them over to you, you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them nor show mercy to them. 

NKJ Deu 20:16 "But of the cities of these peoples which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, 17 "but you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite, just as the LORD your God has commanded you, 

NKJ 1Sa 15:1 Samuel also said to Saul, "The LORD sent me to anoint you king over His people, over Israel. Now therefore, heed the voice of the words of the LORD. 2 "Thus says the LORD of hosts: 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt. 3 'Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' " ​Other important passages include Exodus 23:32-33, Exodus 34:12-16, and Numbers 31:7-18. In light of such biblical injunctions, how may we contrast the biblical religion with Islam? Even if we limit the divine injunctions to an earlier stage of redemptive history, we must still justify their presence in an inspired Bible, which is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16). How can the Christian theologically and ethically justify God’s command to exterminate the Canaanites? I've formulated some initial answers to these questions. But I'd like to hear how some of you might "apologize" for the OT practice of Holy War. 

Your servant,


----------



## Theognome

Simple- God gave that specific land to His people, and commanded them to clear it out and occupy it. Has our God (not their works-based allah) told them to occupy North America?

Theognome


----------



## MW

A thought provoking question. The book of Joshua is not only history, but theology also; read correctly, it is evident that the Israelites were not engaging in holy war, slaying or subduing infidels by the power of the sword. Joshua is eminently concerned with land-title. Who owns the earth, God or man? The Canaanite tribes were uprooted because of the fulness of their wickedness in the same way that the United Nations might uproot a a ruler bent on genocide. The Book of Joshua carefully outlines the conditions on which the people of Israel may take up residence in their God-given land in the same way that a new regime might be appointed by the United Nations. In other words,, there is nothing untoward in the actions God took, but something which is perfectly acceptable to those who understand the workings of international administration.


----------



## a mere housewife

(my first ever use of the popcorn smiley. I'm letting Machen share this popcorn with me.)


----------



## Dearly Bought

armourbearer said:


> A thought provoking question. The book of Joshua is not only history, but theology also; read correctly, it is evident that the Israelites were not engaging in holy war, slaying or subduing infidels by the power of the sword. Joshua is eminently concerned with land-title. Who owns the earth, God or man? The Canaanite tribes were uprooted because of the fulness of their wickedness in the same way that the United Nations might uproot a a ruler bent on genocide. The Book of Joshua carefully outlines the conditions on which the people of Israel may take up residence in their God-given land in the same way that a new regime might be appointed by the United Nations. In other words,, there is nothing untoward in the actions God took, but something which is perfectly acceptable to those who understand the workings of international administration.



Rev. Winzer,
What about the manner of warfare? Doesn't the command to "kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey" necessitate a sense of holy war? Or is this permissible in a contemporary just war?


----------



## TimV

In fairness I must say that I think most Jihad activity against the West and Israel (not in the rest of the world) is mainly the result of bad behavior by Westerners and Israelis.

And to the question, the Canaanite genocide, it is one of those cases where something is good just because God says it is good. God can say in one place that Abraham can marry his half sister, and in another place that someone can't marry their half sister.

Christian doctrine is that no one is allowed to punish the sins of the father on the son. So under Biblical law, the Canaanite genocide was sin, as babies were killed. But it was a case of God telling someone to do something He normally forbids people to do.



> 1Ki 20:35 And a certain man of the sons of the prophets said to his fellow at the command of the LORD, "Strike me, please." But the man refused to strike him.
> 1Ki 20:36 Then he said to him, "Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, behold, as soon as you have gone from me, a lion shall strike you down." And as soon as he had departed from him, a lion met him and struck him down.



It is against God's law to strike a man who has done nothing to you, but in this case the Law was trumped by God setting it aside, as by definition something is good simply because God says it's good, not that there is anything inherently good about an action.

So, the answer is that genocide is forbidden in Biblical law. And that's the truth, even though God once commanded genocide.



> In light of September 11th, 2001, and the subsequent bombings in London, Christians have been quick to contrast the violent tactics of Islamic Jihad with the gentler tendencies of Christian evangelism.



They would be contrasting apples and oranges. Muslim evangelism isn't always violent. Jihad isn't equivalent to Muslim evangelism any more that the Crusades were typical examples of Christian evangelism.


----------



## MW

Dearly Bought said:


> What about the manner of warfare? Doesn't the command to "kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey" necessitate a sense of holy war? Or is this permissible in a contemporary just war?



Perhaps we could liken that to the situation where it is not only the men, but women and children also, taking up arms against their invaders, in which it becomes necessary to uproot them all. I know the analogy isn't going to work in every detail for the simple reason that God isn't bound to the Geneva convention or to the UN statement of human rights; nevertheless, the actions are similar enough that they show international administration in sovereign states requires the violent removal of transgressors of international treaty.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Brothers,

Thanks for the quick input. Many good answers. As Bill points out, what the Israel's did was ultimately right because God commanded it. Interestingly, Matthew seems to interpret the Israelites' actions as indicative of abiding principles that might justify similar kind of aggression today when warranted under international treaty. 

To narrow the focus, let's clarify the seeming ethical problem. First of all, note that the relevant texts do not merely describe what Israel did (or failed to do), but they record what God prescribed for Israel to do. Thus, one may not assign the “problem” to vengeful Israelites, as some have done (wrongfully) with imprecatory prayers. Secondly, God did not merely prescribe the execution of adult males but also of women, children, and (in some cases) animals. Consequently, God’s command applies not only to those who might pose a military threat to Israel, but also to those who would seem to be relatively innocent and harmless. 

At face value, God’s command seems to encourage unwarranted aggression and violence, which are violations of the sixth commandment (Exo 20:13; Deut 5:17), as well as the theft of property, which is a violation of the eighth commandment (Exod 20:15; Deut 5:19). Furthermore, God’s command to exterminate every man, woman, and child seems to be at variance with the Old and New Testament teaching that we should love our enemies (Exo 23:4, 5; Lev 19:17, 18, 33, 34; Prov 24:16-18; Mat 5:43-48; Lk 6:27-36) and the stipulation that every soul shall be judged for his own sin, not for the sins of others (Deut 24:16; Ezek 18:20). 

Of course, I don't believe God's command to exterminate the Canaanites violates his moral law. But in light of modern Jihad, I think its helpful for us to think through this issue and to have an apologetic.


----------



## KMK

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> How can the Christian theologically and ethically justify God’s command to exterminate the Canaanites?



Shouldn't we also include the question, "How can the Christian theologically and ethically justify God's command (to the Assyrians) to exterminate Israel?"

Wouldn't the answer be the same to both? When a nation's wickedness reaches its apex, God sends another nation to destroy it. If God is just in sending rain for forty days and forty nights, then He is just for sending foreign power to exact a penalty from a wicked nation.


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Interestingly, Matthew seems to interpret the Israelites' actions as indicative of abiding principles that might justify similar kind of aggression today when warranted under international treaty.



That was only an analogy; the only all-conquering army to invade this world at God's command is a spiritual entity which does not wrestle with flesh and blood.


----------



## kalawine

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> How can the Christian theologically and ethically justify God’s command to exterminate the Canaanites? I've formulated some initial answers to these questions. But I'd like to hear how some of you might "apologize" for the OT practice of Holy War. Your servant,



I don't want to over simplify this (as if it could be ) but... 



12 As the sun was setting, Abram fell into a deep sleep, and a thick and dreadful darkness came over him. 13 Then the LORD said to him, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years. 14 But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. 15 You, however, will go to your fathers in peace and be buried at a good old age. 16 *In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure." *

I believe this (from Romans 9) may apply...


"22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25As he says in Hosea: 
"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people; 
and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one,"_ 26and, 
"It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them, 
'You are not my people,' 
they will be called 'sons of the living God.' "[j]_


----------



## TimV

> Consequently, God’s command applies not only to those who might pose a military threat to Israel, but also to those who would seem to be relatively innocent and harmless.



That would be a logical consequence of claiming that God's law, or Christian theology allowed the genocide.

But if God's law doesn't allow for the Genocide, then it can't be repeated. As a practical application, if God's law forbids punishing a father for the sins of his son, the current Israeli practise of destroying the house of the father of a suicide bomber would be sin. But if the Canaanite genocide can be approved of in Christian theology on grounds of anything other than God changing His law for a specific incident (like the Prophet ordering someone to strike him) then you can justify anything to any one you want.


----------



## Craig

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Brothers,
> 
> Thanks for the quick input. Many good answers. As Bill points out, what the Israel's did was ultimately right because God commanded it. Interestingly, Matthew seems to interpret the Israelites' actions as indicative of abiding principles that might justify similar kind of aggression today when warranted under international treaty.



Where in Matthew does it imply this? I can't think of it off hand.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> To narrow the focus, let's clarify the seeming ethical problem. First of all, note that the relevant texts do not merely describe what Israel did (or failed to do), but they record what God prescribed for Israel to do. Thus, one may not assign the “problem” to vengeful Israelites, as some have done (wrongfully) with imprecatory prayers. Secondly, God did not merely prescribe the execution of adult males but also of women, children, and (in some cases) animals. Consequently, God’s command applies not only to those who might pose a military threat to Israel, but also to those who would seem to be relatively innocent and harmless.
> 
> At face value, God’s command seems to encourage unwarranted aggression and violence, which are violations of the sixth commandment (Exo 20:13; Deut 5:17), as well as the theft of property, which is a violation of the eighth commandment (Exod 20:15; Deut 5:19). Furthermore, God’s command to exterminate every man, woman, and child seems to be at variance with the Old and New Testament teaching that we should love our enemies (Exo 23:4, 5; Lev 19:17, 18, 33, 34; Prov 24:16-18; Mat 5:43-48; Lk 6:27-36) and the stipulation that every soul shall be judged for his own sin, not for the sins of others (Deut 24:16; Ezek 18:20).



I don't see how it appears to be at variance with Old and New Testament Law. I may be daft, but everytime this comes up with unbelievers, I have to ask them how commands from God to exterminate wicked nations is somehow the same thing as God proscribing murder. It rests on an equivocation that doesn't acknowledge God is God, and man is not.

The best argument is the one that points out God says men may be killed only for their own sin...this, however, refers to civil infractions. God's calling for the extermination of nations is a result of peoples violating covenant, and is not an operation of civil law but Covenantal, theocratic law that God has every right to deal with. This is where federalism comes into play, and if it is true that man cannot be dealt with as a covenant breaker(ie. fathers, mothers, sons and daughters being executed), neither can man be dealt with as a covenant keeper by way of representation by Christ.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Of course, I don't believe God's command to exterminate the Canaanites violates his moral law. But in light of modern Jihad, I think its helpful for us to think through this issue and to have an apologetic.



You're definitely right.


----------



## Iconoclast

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> In light of September 11th, 2001, and the subsequent bombings in London, Christians have been quick to contrast the violent tactics of Islamic Jihad with the gentler tendencies of Christian evangelism. For example, in an article entitled, “Christian or Muslim: What’s the difference?” Lutheran scholar Alvin Schmidt has argued,
> Jihad is totally contrary to what Christ taught when he told Peter to put away his sword, or when he told individuals to turn the other cheek. Unlike Muslims, Christians have no command to advance their religion by killing unbelievers. Quite the opposite (2005:10).​The problem with Dr. Schmidt’s article is the same problem that characterizes the arguments of many Christian apologists. It’s not what they say; it’s what they often fail to say. They’re quick to point out many NT passages that portray the gentleness of Christian evangelism. But they rarely acknowledge several OT passages in which God commands the Israelites to use violence against entire populations of people in an effort to get control of the land of Canaan. Allow me to cite just a few examples:
> NKJ Deu 7:1 "When the LORD your God brings you into the land which you go to possess, and has cast out many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than you, 2 "and when the LORD your God delivers them over to you, you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them nor show mercy to them.
> 
> NKJ Deu 20:16 "But of the cities of these peoples which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, 17 "but you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite, just as the LORD your God has commanded you,
> 
> NKJ 1Sa 15:1 Samuel also said to Saul, "The LORD sent me to anoint you king over His people, over Israel. Now therefore, heed the voice of the words of the LORD. 2 "Thus says the LORD of hosts: 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt. 3 'Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' " ​Other important passages include Exodus 23:32-33, Exodus 34:12-16, and Numbers 31:7-18. In light of such biblical injunctions, how may we contrast the biblical religion with Islam? Even if we limit the divine injunctions to an earlier stage of redemptive history, we must still justify their presence in an inspired Bible, which is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16). How can the Christian theologically and ethically justify God’s command to exterminate the Canaanites? I've formulated some initial answers to these questions. But I'd like to hear how some of you might "apologize" for the OT practice of Holy War.
> 
> Your servant,



In Leviticus 18 God explained in part the reason the canaanites were cut off:


> 24Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
> 
> 25And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.
> 
> 26Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:
> 
> 27(For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled
> 
> 28That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.
> 
> 29For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.
> 
> 30Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.


 Israel was warned however in verse 28 that they would also be cut-off if they defiled the land in the same fashion. The nation was disciplined many times because of their disobedience. It was only God's mercy that he preserved a remnant.
The gospel has gone from national to worldwide now. Again it is only the long suffering of God * to usward* as God is bringing in all the sheep, that prevents the worldwide destruction of the last day.


> 7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
> 
> 8But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
> 
> 9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.



In Ezk 9 believers were marked in the forehead that when judgment came they would be spared


> 4And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.
> 
> 5And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity:
> 
> 6Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.
> 
> 7And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city.
> 
> 8And it came to pass, while they were slaying them, and I was left, that I fell upon my face, and cried, and said, Ah Lord GOD! wilt thou destroy all the residue of Israel in thy pouring out of thy fury upon Jerusalem?
> 
> 9Then said he unto me, The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah is exceeding great, and the land is full of blood, and the city full of perverseness: for they say, The LORD hath forsaken the earth, and the LORD seeth not.
> 
> 10And as for me also, mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity, but I will recompense their way upon their head.
> 
> 11And, behold, the man clothed with linen, which had the inkhorn by his side, reported the matter, saying, I have done as thou hast commanded me.


 The same instruction is given in Rev14.


> 1And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.
> 
> 2And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:
> 
> 3And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.
> 
> 4These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.
> 
> 5And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.
> 
> 6And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
> 
> 7Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
> 
> 8And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.
> 
> 9And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
> 
> 10The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
> 
> 11And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
> 
> 12Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
> 
> 13And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.
> 
> 14And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.
> 
> 15And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.
> 
> 16And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped.
> 
> 17And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle.
> 
> 18And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe.
> 
> 19And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God.
> 
> 20And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.


 I believe this has reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70ad, and quite possibly pre-figures the judgment of the last day.
The principle is the same.
An eternal seperation between that which is holy and that which is profane is the inevitable outcome in any case.
That is why we are told that the gospel is;


> 14Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.
> 
> 15For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
> 
> 16To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?
> 
> 17For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.


----------



## Zenas

*Question* before answering: Islamic jihad, where does it find its source and in what manner? Does the Qu'ran dictate specifically the slaughter of all non-believers indescriminately and, if so, is this the source from which jihad is derived? 

If so, then the incongruencies between this and the Caananite slaughter are obvious. If not, then it shouldn't be to hard to pick apart.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Many great responses. But it's late, and I'll have to come back tomorrow to reflect more carefully on them. Seems we're all basically barking up the same tree. 

Much thanks,


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

*Inadequate Solutions Examined*

Marcion, a second century Gnostic, argued that God of Israel who commanded holy war could not be the God of Christians! His solution was to reject the OT as divine revelation. Obviously, this option is not open to the Christian who views the OT has divine revelation and the God of the OT as the God and Father of Jesus Christ. 

Modern theologians have generally offered one of the three following solutions: Some scholars have suggested that Israel falsely attributed their actions to God’s command in order to justify their aggression. One OT scholar from Princeton writes, “Underneath Israel’s highly elaborate theology of election and promise, there was hidden the concrete and urgent fact that the people needed land and elbowroom—and they need it fast." That would be roughly equivalent, according to this OT scholar, to European settlers coming to America, destroying an entire Indian tribe, and taking their land under the pretense that God had commanded them to destroy the infidels. 

Another similar solution is to attribute the OT Holy Wars to ideological propaganda that was promoted by later kings in Judah. It’s popular among OT scholars today to date the writing of the OT as after the time of David and Solomon. And many of these scholars believe the book of Deuteronomy and other portions of the OT that contain teaching similar to Deuteronomy were written during the time of King Josiah in Judah. According to them, Josiah and the priests “staged” the “discovery” of the Book of the Law in the temple. What really happened is that they created the Book of the Law, or more precisely, the Deuteronomic legislation of which the commands to exterminate the Canaanites are part. And by introducing the concept of “Holy War,” Josiah could justify re-conquering territories previously lost to Israel and consolidate all political power under his domain.

Obviously, these first two so-called solutions are unacceptable for the Bible-believing Christian. The Bible does not present the divine commands to engage in Holy War as either pious fiction or political propaganda. There are some scholars who argue that the Holy Wars of the OT simply reflect the reality that God must work in a sinful world with sinful people. In the words of Peter Craigie, a professed evangelical scholar, “War is never less than unmitigated evil and its frequent mention in the Old Testament does not elevate its character. It is … a form of evil human activity through which God in his sovereignty may work out his purposes of judgment and redemption.” ​Thus, according to Craigie’s view, God’s involvement in Israel’s Holy Wars against the Canaanites was related to His will of purpose or providence; it was not related to His revealed will of precept. The “Holy Wars” were in fact “Unholy Wars.” They were evil and unjustified. Nevertheless, God is able to accomplish His purposes even though the evil actions of men. 

At first glance, Craigie’s view may appear to rescue God from the horns of the ethical dilemma. But the biggest problem with his view is the undeniable fact that, as we pointed out earlier, the OT Holy Wars are not merely a record of what Israel did (or failed to do) to the Canaanite populations. More precisely, they are portrayed as God’s preceptive will—God Himself commanded the Israelites to obey Him by slaughtering entire populations of human beings. 

Your servant,


----------



## Knoxienne

a mere housewife said:


> (my first ever use of the popcorn smiley. I'm letting Machen share this popcorn with me.)



 - I've actually been thinking about all the smileys here and all the creative ways I can use them in my posts.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Joshua said:


> I don't really need to apologize on behalf of God concerning His O.T. commands to His People to do what they did (and some times failed to completely carry out!).
> 
> Since God is good, whatever He commands is good also. Since He is holy, just, perfect, etc. then He _cannot_, nor _will_ He command His People to sin. Since He is not tainted by sin, He can command the _killing_ of "innocent" people without it being _murder_. Life is his to give and to take, by whatever means He uses.



Precisely, Josh. Of course, your explanation is a very important part of "the apology." Apology, not in the sense of asking Bible skeptics or people from other religions to "pardon" God. But apology in the sense of defending the faith.


----------



## a mere housewife

I have a question about how this relates to what is going on with Israel typologically? We know that the church does not conquer in this way; yet before Christ came and ushered in the new world there was so much violence in the temple worship as well with the animals being slaughtered. I understand that God owns the earth and that He can abolish nations as King. But does this also have to do with His people and the world being on opposite 'sides' in the whole of redemptive history, and have typological significance in that old system involved in so much more violence until Christ came in and turned death on its head -- to the war the church is to be waging on the gates of hell? (I do hope this isn't one of those questions the answer of which is obvious to everyone but me . . . Sorry if it is.)


----------



## Scott1

A huge topic and lots of pre-suppositions and assumptions are made in these kinds of discussions. Also, not having formal theological training, my response is more limited.

First of all, in reality, anything the God of Heaven, our Creator, sustainer and governor of His universe does is not up to the subjective character evaluation of His creatures. He isn't to be compared with false religions imagined by some of His rebellious, fallen creatures. If we don't start with that, the discussion cannot be congruent.

If man's intellect is the center of all things, such an evaluation cannot be congruent. 

The starting point really is the sovereignty of God (versus the sovereignty of man).

If man's mind is at the center, God will be judged "unfair" by lesser evaluation of man's ego. (This is why the "five points" or "doctrines of grace" are a wise point to draw out, explain, debate, and discuss with both believers and nonbelievers alike. God really likes it when we "get it" that we are not really the center and measure of all things. That's where Christian growth really begins).

The sixth commandment, "do not kill" is in words that are more carefully understood as "thou shalt not murder." Nations engaging in war are obviously not in view here (otherwise God would not have commanded Israel into battle so many times).

Self defense is a biblical concept that we could draw out here. In no sense (despite the wicked imaginations of the killers, liars, God mockers who planned 9/11) was their attack self defense. A good case can be made it was not even in accord with their own religion.

In the end, there is something that we, as fallen, self-centered human beings do not want to accept. It is very understandable in light of what God has revealed to us about our nature, through Scripture. We do not believe has a right to do with us, as His created beings as He sees fit. That bothers us...

Whether it is God Almighty's right to reserve a sabbath day unto himself for us to worship,

Reserve a portion of our material income to give back to Him as offerings,

Or His right to give or take life as He alone pleases.


----------



## a mere housewife

(Just wanted to add that what I think what I am groping at is whether on top of having no divine mandate for their jihads, the way in which the 'holy wars' of the Muslims are waged ignore the fact that Christ has come into the world and ushered in something new?)


----------



## A5pointer

I am with Josh on this. We need not apologize for the historic actions of God or synthesize them with current thought or other religions. Simply put YHVH commanded the Israelites to purge the special land that was His. His land He would inhabit with His people. The land needed total cleansing of it's pagan inhabitants and even their possessions. Destruction of even the possessions of the inhabitants was a holy sacrifice to YHVH. I think the word that captures this is idea is korban.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

I think there is an issue regarding God's purpose for Israel to be a "holy" nation. A light to other nations, yes, but a nation "set apart". If God had let the women and children live in the land, it would have been like leaven in the loaf.

It is almost like God was eliminating any future excuses for Israel's subsequent idolatry and failures. They could not say, as Adam in the garden, "It was those people _you left here_ that led us astray."


----------



## a mere housewife

Knoxienne said:


> a mere housewife said:
> 
> 
> 
> (my first ever use of the popcorn smiley. I'm letting Machen share this popcorn with me.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - I've actually been thinking about all the smileys here and all the creative ways I can use them in my posts.
Click to expand...


Another fun thing you can do with smileys is this.



You make Berkhof cry.

(it would be nice to have a weeping Calvin actually, to convince the more superstitious gainsayers: the icon! It weeps! etc. 

[back on topic]


----------



## BJClark

Dr. Bob Gonzales;



> How can the Christian theologically and ethically justify God’s command to exterminate the Canaanites? I've formulated some initial answers to these questions. But I'd like to hear how some of you might "apologize" for the OT practice of Holy War.



I have no need to justify God's commands, nor could I ever attempt to.

nor do I have any need to apologize for what happened during that time in History..

I honestly do not believe God need's me to defend Him..


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

*An "Apology" for God's Command to Exterminate the Canaanites*

Thanks for the many good responses. A number of them coincide with the way in which I would attempt to address the issue. Of course, as Josh suggested, some skeptics and unbelievers will never be satisfied with any response we might offer however logical and biblical. Nevertheless, it's good, I think, to provide something of an apologetic for ethical issues like this. If it accomplishes nothing else, it can often serve to strengthen the faith of believers. 

*A Biblical Apology Offered*
How shall we defend the OT commands to “Holy War,” which in some ways seem to resemble the Islamic calls to Jihad? To begin with, we must insure that our underlying interpretive framework is biblical. As one writer has observed, “The life situation and presuppositions of the reader profoundly affect the way in which the text is interpreted.” Therefore, I want to begin by reminding you of the context of God’s commands. Then we’ll examine more closely the nature of these commands. Finally, we offer several arguments to justify these commands. 

*The Context of God’s calls to Holy War*
The context of the command is a sinful world under God’s curse (Gen 3:8ff). If we remember this fact, then the real question is not, “Why would God exterminate the Canaanites?” but rather “Why has God withheld judgment from so many other sinful nations?” Furthermore, God’s promise to redeem the world necessitates the destruction and removal of evil (Gen 3:15; Matt. 6:10; 2 Pet 3:13). Thus, as one scholar points out, “Holy war and the description of God as warrior need to be evaluated in the context of God’s redemptive efforts on behalf of a fallen world.”
*
The Nature of God’s Calls to Holy War*
As to its nature, God’s command to exterminate the Canaanites may be viewed, first of all, as divinely authorized capital punishment on a societal scale. Just as God authorized the state to execute capital punishment upon evil doers (Gen 9:6; Rom 13:1-4), so too in a similar but more unique sense, He authorized the nation Israel to carry out His punitive sentence upon the Canaanite nations of Palestine (Gen 15:16; Lev 18:24, 25; 20:23; Deut 9:4, 5). Secondly, holy war may be viewed as the means by which God would fulfill his promise of land to Abraham and his descendants (Gen 12:1; 13:14, 15; 15:16; Exo 13:11; 32:13). If the “seed of the woman” are to experience God’s blessing, then the “seed of the serpent” must be crushed. Finally, God’s command may be viewed as a divinely sanctioned religious duty calling for Israel’s faith and obedience. The passages calling for holy war commonly employ the Hebrew term _herem_, a word with religious significance (Deut. 7:2; 20:17; Josh 6:17; 1Sam 15:3). As Walter Kaiser notes, 
The root idea of this term was “separation”; however, this situation was not the positive concept of sanctification in which someone or something was set aside for service and the glory of God. This was the opposite side of the same coin: to set aside or separate for destruction.​For this reason, when God commanded the Israelites to exterminate the Canaanites, He was calling upon them to engage in a religious activity. This leads one OT scholar to note that “battle is portrayed as an act of worship in the Hebrew Bible.”

*The Justification of God’s Call to Holy War*
In light of the context and nature of holy war, God’s command to exterminate the Canaanites may be justified under the following biblical principles. First of all, the Canaanites had known about Yahweh’s redemptive acts on behalf of Israel for many years (Josh 2:10, 11); yet, with the exception of Rahab (Josh 2:12, 13), they did not repent. Therefore, the Canaanites stood under the just condemnation of God (Rom 1:18-2:16). Secondly, the Bible teaches (as does the light of nature) the principle of corporate solidarity, whereby the actions of an individual may affect the larger community for good or evil (Josh 7; Rom 5:12-21). Thirdly, God’s love for his people and desire to maintain their purity required the preventative excision of that which would inevitably corrupt their devotion to the true religion (Deut 20:16-18). As one theologian points out, “divine love is a two-edged sword." Like a surgeon, God removed the cancerous growth of Canaanite depravity in order to promote the longevity of his people. Finally, we must remember that Israel’s holy war against Canaan is a redemptive-historical type of spiritual and eschatological warfare (cf. Eph 6:10-18; Heb 4:1-11; Rev 19:11-21). Eschatological judgment intruded into human history in a unique way, which only finds its equal at Calvary (Rom. 3:25; Gal. 3:13) and at the Second Coming (Rev. 6:16; 14:10). Meanwhile, at this stage in redemptive history, the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but spiritual (Isa. 42:2-3; Matt. 12:19-20; John 18:36; 2 Cor. 10:3-5; Eph. 6:10ff.). In the words of the hymnwriter,
_Lead on, O King eternal, till sin's fierce war shall cease,_
_And holiness shall whisper the sweet amen of peace;_
_For not with swords loud clashing, nor roll of stirring drums,_
_But deeds of love and mercy, the heav'nly kingdom comes._​*Conclusion*
When placed under the light of the overall Biblical teaching and worldview, the theological and ethical “problem” of holy war evaporates. In the end, those who have serious problems with the OT Holy Wars probably have serious problems with God Himself. But there are also several practical applications we can draw from the reality of the OT Holy Wars. To begin with, God’s commands to Holy War remind us to be preeminently concerned with God’s honor and rights above mere human honor and rights. Secondly, God’s commands to Holy War remind us of the serious with which God views human sin. Thirdly, God’s commands to Holy War remind us of that the consequences of sin often extend beyond the individual to the family, the church, and the society. Fourthly, God’s commands to Holy War remind us of the dangerous influences of an anti-Christian society around us. Fifthly, God’s commands to Holy War remind us how zealous God is to protect the purity of His worship and His worshipers. Sixthly, God’s commands to Holy War remind us of the serous commitment to His word that God expects from His people. And finally, God’s commands to Holy War provide us with a picture of our spiritual battle against remaining sin, the world, and the devil, as well as a foretaste of that ultimate battle between good and evil yet to come. 

For those who'd like to do more reading on the subject, here are some helpful resources: Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (1982), 142-43, 157-59; William Brenton Greene, “The Ethics of the Old Testament,” Princeton Theological Review 28 (1929), 313-66; Stanley Gundry, ed. Show Them No Mercy: Four Views on God and Canaanite Genocide (2003); John W. Haley, Discrepancies of the Bible (n.d.), 266-70; Everett F. Harrison, “Have We a God of Destruction?” Bibliotheca Sacra 91 (January 54), 25-34; Jeph Holloway, “The Ethical Dilemma of Holy War,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 41 (Fall 1998), 44-69; Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Hard Sayings of the Old Testament (1988), 106-09; Toward Old Testament Ethics (1983), 74-75, 266-69; F. Derek Kidner, “Old Testament Perspectives on War,” Evangelical Quarterly 57 (April 1985), 99-113; M. G. Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority (1972) 154-64; Tremper Longman III and Daniel G. Reid, God is a Warrior (1995), 13-47; J. P. U. Lilley, “The Judgment of God: The Problem of the Canaanites,” Themelios 22 (January 1997), 3-12; “Understanding the Herem,” Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1993), 169-77; Gustav F. Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament (1883), 81-83; Johannes G. Vos, “The Ethical Problem of the Imprecatory Psalms,” Westminster Theological Journal 4 (May 1942): 123-138.


----------



## Scott1

> Dr. Bob Gonzales
> 
> In the end, those who have serious problems with the OT Holy Wars probably have serious problems with God Himself.



Yes.

And this is something, by faith, we can engage both believers and non-believers in.

One other thought about the context of Israel as God's covenant community of people. You may have mentioned this, please forgive me if it was missed. Israel was, at times, amongst the smallest and weakest of all nations (speaking in terms of numbers and military). Literally, their survival as a nation was at stake over-and-over again. If the context is understood, we would not presume that God commanded battle because Israel should presume to rule over other nations. Rather, it was as an absolute necessity in order that they, as a nation survive. It also secured that God's inter-generational promises would be kept. This applied to Israel, but in His grander scheme, to the whole of creation- Jews and Gentiles.

So, rather than showing the imagined illogic or injustice of our Creator, it shows the exact opposite- a God who is faithful to keep His promises to every generation.


----------



## Hippo

I have always understood the canaanite extermination as a typology of the final judgment.

The horror of the canaanite extermination is what all outside the Church will face on the judgment day and it really is horrific from the viewpoint of fallen man. More to the point it is what we all deserve and shows how serious sin is.

What is sad is that when people consider the canaanite extermination their reaction is that it is unfair, not that this shows how serious sin actually is.

Thank goodness for imputed rightiousness.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Scott1 said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales
> 
> In the end, those who have serious problems with the OT Holy Wars probably have serious problems with God Himself.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> And this is something, by faith, we can engage both believers and non-believers in.
> 
> One other thought about the context of Israel as God's covenant community of people. You may have mentioned this, please forgive me if it was missed. Israel was, at times, amongst the smallest and weakest of all nations (speaking in terms of numbers and military). Literally, their survival as a nation was at stake over-and-over again. If the context is understood, we would not presume that God commanded battle because Israel should presume to rule over other nations. Rather, it was as an absolute necessity in order that they, as a nation survive. It also secured that God's inter-generational promises would be kept. This applied to Israel, but in His grander scheme, to the whole of creation- Jews and Gentiles.
> 
> So, rather than showing the imagined illogic or injustice of our Creator, it shows the exact opposite- a God who is faithful to keep His promises to every generation.
Click to expand...


Scott, I wanted to "thank you," but I apparently ran out of "thanks" buttons. Anyway, good point. God's faithfulness to his covenant promise that traces back to Abraham and even to the protoevangel (Gen. 3:16) is certainly one of the factors in understanding the securing of Canaan as "sacred space" that pointed backward to Eden and forward to the New Earth.

-----Added 2/19/2009 at 02:37:45 EST-----



Hippo said:


> I have always understood the canaanite extermination as a typology of the final judgment.
> 
> The horror of the canaanite extermination is what all outside the Church will face on the judgment day and it really is horrific from the viewpoint of fallen man. More to the point it is what we all deserve and shows how serious sin is.
> 
> What is sad is that when people consider the canaanite extermination their reaction is that it is unfair, not that this shows how serious sin actually is.
> 
> Thank goodness for imputed rightiousness.



Amen! Mike. Thanks for the helpful remarks. 

Your servant,


----------



## Archlute

Bob, 

Have you had opportunity to read Meredith Kline's _Structure of Biblical Authority_? I believe that he addresses this very issue in that work, and it was extremely helpful to me in thinking through the theological significance of the OT holy wars. 

The problem with Islam is that, being a perverse and truncated religion, it interprets the OT for today apart from the illumination given by the first advent of Christ. Whereas we can see those OT purgings as typological actions pointing to the coming final judgment of all mankind with the final inbreaking of God's kingdom presence, Islam has no proper interpretive grid, and therefore tries to make direct application of those examples as befits their Quranic grid.

I skimmed the thread, and noticed his work in your bibliographical listing, but thought that I would point out the work to you again, in case you hadn't had the time to take a good read of it the first go around.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

Typological or not, they "were what they were" in history and must be interpreted as such.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

KMK said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can the Christian theologically and ethically justify God’s command to exterminate the Canaanites?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't we also include the question, "How can the Christian theologically and ethically justify God's command (to the Assyrians) to exterminate Israel?"
> 
> Wouldn't the answer be the same to both? When a nation's wickedness reaches its apex, God sends another nation to destroy it. If God is just in sending rain for forty days and forty nights, then He is just for sending foreign power to exact a penalty from a wicked nation.
Click to expand...


I think Pastor Klein's comments (along with others) really nails the issue. God used the Israelites to execute His justice on the Canaanites the same way He used the Assyrians to execute His justice on the Israelites. As it says in Romans 2, we often "despise" the forbearance and longsuffering of God. It is perfectly just for God to physically smite us after any sin; that He does not simply demonstrates His mercy and kindness. So it is perfectly just for God to order the destruction of men, women, and children due to their sin.

I also agree with Scott - God made a covenant with His people and part of fulfilling that convenant entailed destroying all the wicked people in the land. So His faithfulness to His people and His justice were closely linked in the Conquest of Canaan.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Archlute said:


> Bob,
> 
> Have you had opportunity to read Meredith Kline's _Structure of Biblical Authority_? I believe that he addresses this very issue in that work, and it was extremely helpful to me in thinking through the theological significance of the OT holy wars.
> 
> The problem with Islam is that, being a perverse and truncated religion, it interprets the OT for today apart from the illumination given by the first advent of Christ. Whereas we can see those OT purgings as typological actions pointing to the coming final judgment of all mankind with the final inbreaking of God's kingdom presence, Islam has no proper interpretive grid, and therefore tries to make direct application of those examples as befits their Quranic grid.
> 
> I skimmed the thread, and noticed his work in your bibliographical listing, but thought that I would point out the work to you again, in case you hadn't had the time to take a good read of it the first go around.



Hey Adam,

Thanks for highlighting Kline's work. Yes, I found his insights helpful. His "intrusion" theology is reflected in my statement above that reads, "Eschatological judgment intruded into human history in a unique way, which only finds its equal at Calvary (Rom. 3:25; Gal. 3:13) and at the Second Coming (Rev. 6:16; 14:10)." 

I also agree with you about Islam. In many ways, it's another of the devil's counterfeits, borrowing bits and pieces from Judaism and Christianity but distorting the truth in the end. It's greatest failure is to have substituted Mohamed for the true Final Prophet.

Your servant,

-----Added 2/19/2009 at 05:42:59 EST-----



ColdSilverMoon said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can the Christian theologically and ethically justify God’s command to exterminate the Canaanites?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't we also include the question, "How can the Christian theologically and ethically justify God's command (to the Assyrians) to exterminate Israel?"
> 
> Wouldn't the answer be the same to both? When a nation's wickedness reaches its apex, God sends another nation to destroy it. If God is just in sending rain for forty days and forty nights, then He is just for sending foreign power to exact a penalty from a wicked nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think Pastor Klein's comments (along with others) really nails the issue. God used the Israelites to execute His justice on the Canaanites the same way He used the Assyrians to execute His justice on the Israelites.
Click to expand...


I do agree that there's a certain parallel between the Israelites' conquest of Canaan and the Assyrians' conquest of Palestine. In both cases, God used one people to judge another. There is, nevertheless, a certain dissimilarity between the two. In the former, God gave direct special revelation commanding the Israelites to exterminate every man, woman, and child and to possess the land as a royal grant since Israel was God's son. In the latter, God providentially moved the Assyrians to carry out his judgment against Israel. But we have no record that he gave the Assyrians special revelation to that affect. Here's where we need to beware of applying Israel's divinely given mandate to ourselves as a nation in the 21st century. Wasn't this the mistake made by the crusaders?


----------



## Archlute

Gomarus said:


> Typological or not, they "were what they were" in history and must be interpreted as such.



History is not self interpreting, however. You cannot know "what they were" apart from a Scriptural explanation of things. That is exactly why the Chronicles of Israel have been placed at the end of the Jewish order of the OT, because they are a theological explanation of the Israel's earlier history set forth in a manner that is not fully found in the Books of Samuel or the Kings of Israel. 

In the same manner, the Gospels and Epistles give interpretation to what came before, and as God's final word, also assist us in understanding what is, and what is to come (although as through a dark glass, as well knew the apostle Paul).

We should also be aware that questioning whether or not they were typological is to deny the significance of Christ's illuminating words on the road to Emmaus that the OT as a whole (which is what the Law, Prophets, and Psalms represent - the three divisions of the OT) speaks of Him in His coming, person, works, and reign.

-----Added 2/19/2009 at 05:52:56 EST-----



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> It's greatest failure is to have substituted Mohamed for the true Final Prophet.



Amen!


----------



## a mere housewife

Archlute said:


> Bob,
> 
> Have you had opportunity to read Meredith Kline's _Structure of Biblical Authority_? I believe that he addresses this very issue in that work, and it was extremely helpful to me in thinking through the theological significance of the OT holy wars.
> 
> The problem with Islam is that, being a perverse and truncated religion, it interprets the OT for today apart from the illumination given by the first advent of Christ. Whereas we can see those OT purgings as typological actions pointing to the coming final judgment of all mankind with the final inbreaking of God's kingdom presence, Islam has no proper interpretive grid, and therefore tries to make direct application of those examples as befits their Quranic grid.
> 
> I skimmed the thread, and noticed his work in your bibliographical listing, but thought that I would point out the work to you again, in case you hadn't had the time to take a good read of it the first go around.



This is what I was trying to ask about.


----------



## Archlute

a mere housewife said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bob,
> 
> Have you had opportunity to read Meredith Kline's _Structure of Biblical Authority_? I believe that he addresses this very issue in that work, and it was extremely helpful to me in thinking through the theological significance of the OT holy wars.
> 
> The problem with Islam is that, being a perverse and truncated religion, it interprets the OT for today apart from the illumination given by the first advent of Christ. Whereas we can see those OT purgings as typological actions pointing to the coming final judgment of all mankind with the final inbreaking of God's kingdom presence, Islam has no proper interpretive grid, and therefore tries to make direct application of those examples as befits their Quranic grid.
> 
> I skimmed the thread, and noticed his work in your bibliographical listing, but thought that I would point out the work to you again, in case you hadn't had the time to take a good read of it the first go around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I was trying to ask about.
Click to expand...


That's what happens when I skim threads....


----------



## MW

Well, it seems the thread has conceded to the holy war concept, even though it cannot be sustained exegetically from the Scripture.


----------



## Dearly Bought

armourbearer said:


> Well, it seems the thread has conceded to the holy war concept, even though it cannot be sustained exegetically from the Scripture.



I confess that I'm really not familiar with other arguments from a Reformed position. Would you mind pointing me towards a few resources from Reformed authors that take issue with the holy war concept?


----------



## a mere housewife

Dearly Bought said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it seems the thread has conceded to the holy war concept, even though it cannot be sustained exegetically from the Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I confess that I'm really not familiar with other arguments from a Reformed position. Would you mind pointing me towards a few resources from Reformed authors that take issue with the holy war concept?
Click to expand...


I was wondering also how to learn more about this: Rev Winzer would you then believe that the wars aren't part of the typology of the land, and that they aren't involved with the way the world was before Christ?


----------



## MW

Dearly Bought said:


> I confess that I'm really not familiar with other arguments from a Reformed position. Would you mind pointing me towards a few resources from Reformed authors that take issue with the holy war concept?



It's not a distinctively reformed position, but a well accepted fact with interpreters as a whole, that Israel was not fighting to convert people to her faith, but God was fighting to claim rightful possession of His land and to uproot those who wrongfully occupied it. Victory did not depend on the use of the sword, but on the mighty acts of the Warrior-Leader.


----------



## MW

a mere housewife said:


> I was wondering also how to learn more about this: Rev Winzer would you then believe that the wars aren't part of the typology of the land, and that they aren't involved with the way the world was before Christ?



They certainly are a part of the typology of the land as a land of promise "given" to Israel, but really have nothing to do with the status quo of the world before Christ. There was no imitation of other nations, as liberal scholars aver, who point out that all warfare was religious by nature. If anything, the Israelites show an averseness to serve in the Lord's military campaign, and must be encouraged at every step to follow Him by faith into the battle. And when the conquest is mostly accomplished, they are more than willing to retire before the day is done.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Well, it seems the thread has conceded to the holy war concept, even though it cannot be sustained exegetically from the Scripture.



Matthew,

What do you have in view when you speak of "the holy war concept"? Obviously, Israel's conquest of Canaan involved "war." Moreover, it was sanctioned not by general moral principles that one might use to justify a "just war" (i.e., protection against aggression; punitive action for a broken treaty, etc.) but my a direct and specific word from God identifying the peoples to be destroyed and the geographical territory to be obtained. Furthermore, God demanded complete genocide of peoples within the sacred space. The Hebrew _herem_ has religious significance and is the flipside of the idea of sanctification. The land of Canaan and its inhabitants were "devoted to destruction" (cf. Deut. 7:2; 20:17; Josh 6:17; 1Sam 15:3). For this reason, when God commanded the Israelites to exterminate the Canaanites, He was calling upon them to engage in a religious activity. This leads Tremper Longman, an Reformed OT scholar, to remark, "Battle is portrayed as an act of worship in the Hebrew Bible.” In the context, he was referring to Israel's battles that were divine sanctioned. 

Is there somethihg else you have in mind by "holy war" that dissuades you from adopting the concept?


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Is there somethihg else you have in mind by "holy war" that dissuades you from adopting the concept?



The Psalms present the conquest in its true light, as God's conquest, not man's, Ps. 44; the Israelites were not fighting for God, but God was fighting for them. There is no sense in which the faith of Israel was being propagated by means of the sword, which is the essential idea of the holy war. The conquest was a manifest token of God's continued loyalty to the purpose which He has for His creation, Ps. 136.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> There was no imitation of other nations, as liberal scholars aver, who point out that all warfare was religious by nature. If anything, the Israelites show an averseness to serve in the Lord's military campaign, and must be encouraged at every step to follow Him by faith into the battle. And when the conquest is mostly accomplished, they are more than willing to retire before the day is done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, it seems that you want to distance Israel's conquest from Canaan from pagan military operations which claimed divine sanction. You're correct that nearly all nations in the ancient world claimed some kind of sanction from their deity (or deities) for aggression. This is what Islam does today. That kind of "holy war" is in fact "pseudo holy war." The Israelites, on the other hand, did have a word from God and their conquest of Canaan was extremely religious in significance.
> 
> I also agree with you that Israel's own part in the conquest greatly lacked in devotion, courage, and obedience (though there certainly were exceptions). Victories won were God's doing and often despite Israel's lack of faith. Moreover, the people of Israel never completely carried out the divine mandate, allowed the peoples of the land to co-exist with them, eventually adopted their idolatrous ways, and, in the end, were themselves expelled from the land by God. That's why a Greater Son of Yahweh was needed to secure lasting rest for the true Israel of God whose kingdom is not of this world and whose weapons are not carnal but spiritual.
> 
> Nevertheless, I believe God's sanctioned war against the Canaanites and securing of Canaan as sacred space carries important typological significance. In that regard, I would recommend the book _God is a Warrior_ (1995) by Tremper Longman III and Daniel G. Reid.
> 
> -----Added 2/19/2009 at 07:33:18 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no sense in which the faith of Israel was being propagated by means of the sword, which is the essential idea of the holy war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The phrase "holy war" apparently means different things to different people. To Islamic Jihadists and European Crusaders it probably carried the meaning you have in view and which you reject. In my "apology" for the extermination of the Canaanites above (post 29), I didn't give the propagation of Israel's faith as one of the components of the _herem_ or divinely sanctioned conquest of Canaan. My idea of a real "holy war" is one that is _genuinely sanctioned by God_, which makes the conquest of Canaan somewhat unique in history though the Flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah may also be viewed as divine instrusions of judgment.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Nevertheless, I believe God's sanctioned war against the Canaanites and securing of Canaan as sacred space carries important typological significance. In that regard, I would recommend the book _God is a Warrior_ (1995) by Tremper Longman III and Daniel G. Reid.



Yes, that is a good work to recommend, but it must be understood that the authors take over the "holy war" language as a part of accepted terminology fixed in the vocabulary of scholarly works treating the subject. The chapter on God as an enemy suffices to show how the Lord was not ipso facto on the side of Israel, and repudiates any idea that Israel was fighting God's battles for Him.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, I believe God's sanctioned war against the Canaanites and securing of Canaan as sacred space carries important typological significance. In that regard, I would recommend the book _God is a Warrior_ (1995) by Tremper Longman III and Daniel G. Reid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is a good work to recommend, but it must be understood that the authors take over the "holy war" language as a part of accepted terminology fixed in the vocabulary of scholarly works treating the subject. The chapter on God as an enemy suffices to show how the Lord was not ipso facto on the side of Israel, and repudiates any idea that Israel was fighting God's battles for Him.
Click to expand...


Thanks, Matthew. Your qualifications are helpful and important. 

Your servant,


----------



## MW

Thanks for raising the thought provoking question, Bob; it is good to see again just how radically different is the biblical picture of religion from the natural man's concept of it.


----------



## Hippo

armourbearer said:


> Thanks for raising the thought provoking question, Bob; it is good to see again just how radically different is the biblical picture of religion from the natural man's concept of it.



It is also interesting that only a Calvinist framework of a Sovereign God combined with mans utter depravity can happily comport with the canaanite extermination.


----------



## KMK

To what degree can it be said that Israel actually 'fought' the war? 



> Deut 1:8 Behold, I have set the land before you: go in and possess the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give unto them and to their seed after them.



Repeatedly God tells Israel that He has already gone before them and all they had to do was _possess_ it. It seems to me that Israel of the OT, unlike Islam, took possession of a land that had already been conquered on their behalf. Can this really be called a war at all?


----------



## MW

That's the difficulty I have as well in calling it a holy war; I suppose if the language is retained it can only be with a complete overhaul of the concept.



KMK said:


> To what degree can it be said that Israel actually 'fought' the war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deut 1:8 Behold, I have set the land before you: go in and possess the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give unto them and to their seed after them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeatedly God tells Israel that He has already gone before them and all they had to do was _possess_ it. It seems to me that Israel of the OT, unlike Islam, took possession of a land that had already been conquered on their behalf. Can this really be called a war at all?
Click to expand...


----------



## Thomas2007

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> How can the Christian theologically and ethically justify God’s command to exterminate the Canaanites?



In my view Israel was a duly constituted government and God sovereignly judged the various nations that he ordered justice to be executed against. I see no problem with this, the civil magistrate has the power of the sword to execute justice and engage in lawful warfare.




Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> At face value, God’s command seems to encourage unwarranted aggression and violence, which are violations of the sixth commandment (Exo 20:13; Deut 5:17), as well as the theft of property, which is a violation of the eighth commandment (Exod 20:15; Deut 5:19). Furthermore, God’s command to exterminate every man, woman, and child seems to be at variance with the Old and New Testament teaching that we should love our enemies (Exo 23:4, 5; Lev 19:17, 18, 33, 34; Prov 24:16-18; Mat 5:43-48; Lk 6:27-36) and the stipulation that every soul shall be judged for his own sin, not for the sins of others (Deut 24:16; Ezek 18:20).



I don't understand how you arrive at this. If the State of Indiana executes a murderer I don't argue that, "at face value this activity violates the sixth commandment."

It seems to be consistent with God's election to me and sovereign execution of His Justice.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Thomas2007 said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can the Christian theologically and ethically justify God’s command to exterminate the Canaanites?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my view Israel was a duly constituted government and God sovereignly judged the various nations that he ordered justice to be executed against. I see no problem with this, the civil magistrate has the power of the sword to execute justice and engage in lawful warfare.
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> At face value, God’s command seems to encourage unwarranted aggression and violence, which are violations of the sixth commandment (Exo 20:13; Deut 5:17), as well as the theft of property, which is a violation of the eighth commandment (Exod 20:15; Deut 5:19). Furthermore, God’s command to exterminate every man, woman, and child seems to be at variance with the Old and New Testament teaching that we should love our enemies (Exo 23:4, 5; Lev 19:17, 18, 33, 34; Prov 24:16-18; Mat 5:43-48; Lk 6:27-36) and the stipulation that every soul shall be judged for his own sin, not for the sins of others (Deut 24:16; Ezek 18:20).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't understand how you arrive at this. If the State of Indiana executes a murderer I don't argue that, "at face value this activity violates the sixth commandment."
> 
> It seems to be consistent with God's election to me and sovereign execution of His Justice.
Click to expand...


Thomas,

Did you get to read post #29? If you read that post, you'll realize that my questions, which you cite above, were but rhetorical devices to set the stage for an answer. Note carefully the phrase "at face value" and the word "seems." In sum, I do believe a Christian can justify (biblically and ethically) God's command to exterminate the Canaanites. If I really believed God contradicted himself, I doubt I'd be allowed on this discussion board. 

Your servant,

-----Added 2/21/2009 at 02:10:55 EST-----



armourbearer said:


> That's the difficulty I have as well in calling it a holy war; I suppose if the language is retained it can only be with a complete overhaul of the concept.
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> To what degree can it be said that Israel actually 'fought' the war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deut 1:8 Behold, I have set the land before you: go in and possess the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give unto them and to their seed after them.
> 
> 
> 
> Repeatedly God tells Israel that He has already gone before them and all they had to do was _possess_ it. It seems to me that Israel of the OT, unlike Islam, took possession of a land that had already been conquered on their behalf. Can this really be called a war at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Men,

I affirm that God gets the ultimate credit for any victories the Israelites won in or outside of Canaan. After all, the battle is the Lord's (). Nevertheless, we need to beware of trying to be more biblical than the Scripture writers themselves. 

First, Israel's conquest of Canaan (as well as their conquest of peoples on the way to Canaan) did involve real "wars" in which the Israelites used real weapons. In a few cases, God supernaturally intervened. But in many cases, God did not deliver them the victory while the Israelites sat back passively and observed. 

Second, as I pointed out in a post above (#45), Israel's wars against the inhabitants of Canaan were divinely sanctioned in a more direct and specific way than any "just war" might find sanction today. God specifically told them to exterminate a particular people, men, women, boys, and girls. Such specific revelatory sanction and exhaustive scope is, I think, somewhat unique in history. 

Third, the Hebrew term _herem_, used in the context of these wars, has religious significance and is the flipside of the idea of sanctification. The land of Canaan and its inhabitants were "devoted to destruction" (cf. Deut. 7:2; 20:17; Josh 6:17; 1Sam 15:3). For this reason, when God commanded the Israelites to exterminate the Canaanites, He was calling upon them to engage in a religious activity. The land of Canaan was to become "sacred space," pointing back to Eden and forward to the New Earth. Accordingly, I agree with Tremper Longman when he writes, "Battle is portrayed as an act of worship in the Hebrew Bible.”

Fourth, did they every attribute any victories to Israel? Consider the following texts:
ESV Joshua 12:1 Now these are the kings of the land whom the people of *Israel defeated and took possession* of their land beyond the Jordan toward the sunrise, from the Valley of the Arnon to Mount Hermon, with all the Arabah eastward:

ESV Joshua 12:6 *Moses*, the servant of the LORD, and *the people of Israel defeated them* [inhabitants of Bashan]. 

ESV Joshua 12:7 And these are the kings of the land *whom Joshua and the people of Israel defeated *on the west side of the Jordan​I could multiply examples from Judges, Samuel, and Kings. Yes, I affirm that "the battle is the Lord's" (1 Sam. 17:47). I doubt any Bible-believing Christian who would apply the term "Holy War" to Israel's conquest of Canaan would deny that. Nonetheless, Israel did eventually, through the leadership of David and Solomon, subdue the land, and in most cases they obtained their victories not as passive bystanders but as active warriors. 

In sum, when Israel engaged in warfare in faithful obedience to God's command, they engaged in what might, in my opinion, be properly termed "holy war." Similarly, the Christian is called to engage in spiritual warfare (Eph. 6:10ff.) not as a passive bystander but as one who "works out his salvation with fear and trembling" in the confidence that "it is God who is at work in him both to will and to do in accordance with God's good pleasure" (Phil. 2:12-13). 

Your servant,


----------



## KMK

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Thomas2007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can the Christian theologically and ethically justify God’s command to exterminate the Canaanites?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my view Israel was a duly constituted government and God sovereignly judged the various nations that he ordered justice to be executed against. I see no problem with this, the civil magistrate has the power of the sword to execute justice and engage in lawful warfare.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand how you arrive at this. If the State of Indiana executes a murderer I don't argue that, "at face value this activity violates the sixth commandment."
> 
> It seems to be consistent with God's election to me and sovereign execution of His Justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thomas,
> 
> Did you get to read post #29? If you read that post, you'll realize that my questions, which you cite above, were but rhetorical devices to set the stage for an answer. Note carefully the phrase "at face value" and the word "seems." In sum, I do believe a Christian can justify (biblically and ethically) God's command to exterminate the Canaanites. If I really believed God contradicted himself, I doubt I'd be allowed on this discussion board.
> 
> Your servant,
> 
> -----Added 2/21/2009 at 02:10:55 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the difficulty I have as well in calling it a holy war; I suppose if the language is retained it can only be with a complete overhaul of the concept.
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> To what degree can it be said that Israel actually 'fought' the war?
> 
> Repeatedly God tells Israel that He has already gone before them and all they had to do was _possess_ it. It seems to me that Israel of the OT, unlike Islam, took possession of a land that had already been conquered on their behalf. Can this really be called a war at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Men,
> 
> I affirm that God gets the ultimate credit for any victories the Israelites won in or outside of Canaan. After all, the battle is the Lord's (). Nevertheless, we need to beware of trying to be more biblical than the Scripture writers themselves.
> 
> First, Israel's conquest of Canaan (as well as their conquest of peoples on the way to Canaan) did involve real "wars" in which the Israelites used real weapons. In a few cases, God supernaturally intervened. But in many cases, God did not deliver them the victory while the Israelites sat back passively and observed.
> 
> Second, as I pointed out in a post above (#45), Israel's wars against the inhabitants of Canaan were divinely sanctioned in a more direct and specific way than any "just war" might find sanction today. God specifically told them to exterminate a particular people, men, women, boys, and girls. Such specific revelatory sanction and exhaustive scope is, I think, somewhat unique in history.
> 
> Third, the Hebrew term _herem_, used in the context of these wars, has religious significance and is the flipside of the idea of sanctification. The land of Canaan and its inhabitants were "devoted to destruction" (cf. Deut. 7:2; 20:17; Josh 6:17; 1Sam 15:3). For this reason, when God commanded the Israelites to exterminate the Canaanites, He was calling upon them to engage in a religious activity. The land of Canaan was to become "sacred space," pointing back to Eden and forward to the New Earth. Accordingly, I agree with Tremper Longman when he writes, "Battle is portrayed as an act of worship in the Hebrew Bible.”
> 
> Fourth, did they every attribute any victories to Israel? Consider the following texts:
> ESV Joshua 12:1 Now these are the kings of the land whom the people of *Israel defeated and took possession* of their land beyond the Jordan toward the sunrise, from the Valley of the Arnon to Mount Hermon, with all the Arabah eastward:
> 
> ESV Joshua 12:6 *Moses*, the servant of the LORD, and *the people of Israel defeated them* [inhabitants of Bashan].
> 
> ESV Joshua 12:7 And these are the kings of the land *whom Joshua and the people of Israel defeated *on the west side of the Jordan​I could multiply examples from Judges, Samuel, and Kings. Yes, I affirm that "the battle is the Lord's" (1 Sam. 17:47). I doubt any Bible-believing Christian who would apply the term "Holy War" to Israel's conquest of Canaan would deny that. Nonetheless, Israel did eventually, through the leadership of David and Solomon, subdue the land, and in most cases they obtained their victories not as passive bystanders but as active warriors.
> 
> In sum, when Israel engaged in warfare in faithful obedience to God's command, they engaged in what might, in my opinion, be properly termed "holy war." Similarly, the Christian is called to engage in spiritual warfare (Eph. 6:10ff.) not as a passive bystander but as one who "works out his salvation with fear and trembling" in the confidence that "it is God who is at work in him both to will and to do in accordance with God's good pleasure" (Phil. 2:12-13).
> 
> Your servant,
Click to expand...


I concede your point as long as it is understood that their are limits to how far we can draw a parallel between Israel's conquest of Canaan and the conquests of Pagan nations. After all, _if_ Israel had been obedient, as at Jericho, she would have suffered no casualties. It is hard to call such a conquest a 'war' in the exact same sense as other wars.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

KMK said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas2007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my view Israel was a duly constituted government and God sovereignly judged the various nations that he ordered justice to be executed against. I see no problem with this, the civil magistrate has the power of the sword to execute justice and engage in lawful warfare.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand how you arrive at this. If the State of Indiana executes a murderer I don't argue that, "at face value this activity violates the sixth commandment."
> 
> It seems to be consistent with God's election to me and sovereign execution of His Justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas,
> 
> Did you get to read post #29? If you read that post, you'll realize that my questions, which you cite above, were but rhetorical devices to set the stage for an answer. Note carefully the phrase "at face value" and the word "seems." In sum, I do believe a Christian can justify (biblically and ethically) God's command to exterminate the Canaanites. If I really believed God contradicted himself, I doubt I'd be allowed on this discussion board.
> 
> Your servant,
> 
> -----Added 2/21/2009 at 02:10:55 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the difficulty I have as well in calling it a holy war; I suppose if the language is retained it can only be with a complete overhaul of the concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Men,
> 
> I affirm that God gets the ultimate credit for any victories the Israelites won in or outside of Canaan. After all, the battle is the Lord's (). Nevertheless, we need to beware of trying to be more biblical than the Scripture writers themselves.
> 
> First, Israel's conquest of Canaan (as well as their conquest of peoples on the way to Canaan) did involve real "wars" in which the Israelites used real weapons. In a few cases, God supernaturally intervened. But in many cases, God did not deliver them the victory while the Israelites sat back passively and observed.
> 
> Second, as I pointed out in a post above (#45), Israel's wars against the inhabitants of Canaan were divinely sanctioned in a more direct and specific way than any "just war" might find sanction today. God specifically told them to exterminate a particular people, men, women, boys, and girls. Such specific revelatory sanction and exhaustive scope is, I think, somewhat unique in history.
> 
> Third, the Hebrew term _herem_, used in the context of these wars, has religious significance and is the flipside of the idea of sanctification. The land of Canaan and its inhabitants were "devoted to destruction" (cf. Deut. 7:2; 20:17; Josh 6:17; 1Sam 15:3). For this reason, when God commanded the Israelites to exterminate the Canaanites, He was calling upon them to engage in a religious activity. The land of Canaan was to become "sacred space," pointing back to Eden and forward to the New Earth. Accordingly, I agree with Tremper Longman when he writes, "Battle is portrayed as an act of worship in the Hebrew Bible.”
> 
> Fourth, did they every attribute any victories to Israel? Consider the following texts:ESV Joshua 12:1 Now these are the kings of the land whom the people of *Israel defeated and took possession* of their land beyond the Jordan toward the sunrise, from the Valley of the Arnon to Mount Hermon, with all the Arabah eastward:
> 
> ESV Joshua 12:6 *Moses*, the servant of the LORD, and *the people of Israel defeated them* [inhabitants of Bashan].
> 
> ESV Joshua 12:7 And these are the kings of the land *whom Joshua and the people of Israel defeated *on the west side of the Jordan​I could multiply examples from Judges, Samuel, and Kings. Yes, I affirm that "the battle is the Lord's" (1 Sam. 17:47). I doubt any Bible-believing Christian who would apply the term "Holy War" to Israel's conquest of Canaan would deny that. Nonetheless, Israel did eventually, through the leadership of David and Solomon, subdue the land, and in most cases they obtained their victories not as passive bystanders but as active warriors.
> 
> In sum, when Israel engaged in warfare in faithful obedience to God's command, they engaged in what might, in my opinion, be properly termed "holy war." Similarly, the Christian is called to engage in spiritual warfare (Eph. 6:10ff.) not as a passive bystander but as one who "works out his salvation with fear and trembling" in the confidence that "it is God who is at work in him both to will and to do in accordance with God's good pleasure" (Phil. 2:12-13).
> 
> Your servant,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I concede your point as long as it is understood that their are limits to how far we can draw a parallel between Israel's conquest of Canaan and the conquests of Pagan nations. After all, _if_ Israel had been obedient, as at Jericho, she would have suffered no casualties. It is hard to call such a conquest a 'war' in the exact same sense as other wars.
Click to expand...


Ken, thanks for the concession. I agree with you and others that there are definite discontinuities between Israel's war against the Canaanites and those fought by one pagan nation against another. The latter I referred to as "pseudo holy wars" because they did not really have divine sanction, as is the case with modern Jihad.

When you refer to Israel's lack of complete obedience and resultant failure to completely exterminate every Canaanite in the land, you say, "It is hard to call such a conquest a 'war' in the exact same sense as other wars." Did you mean to say, "It's hard to call such a war a conquest"? The term "war" simply refers to an armed conflict between nations or parties within a nation. The outcome of such a conflict is not necessarily part of the definition of "war." "Conquest," on the other hand, does denote the winning of a war. The passages I cited above do indicate that Israel won some of her battles. In fact, we're told in Joshua 18:1 that Israel had gained what might be termed a provisional victory:
ESV Joshua 18:1 Then the whole congregation of the people of Israel assembled at Shiloh and set up the tent of meeting there. The land lay subdued before them.​ The subsequent verses seem to indicate that there was still unclaimed territory. Nonetheless, at the time of Joshua's death, God had given Israel dominion over the land so that the inspired writer could say
And the LORD gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their fathers. Not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the LORD had given all their enemies into their hands. Not one word of all the good promises that the LORD had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass. (Joshua 21:44-45; cf. 23:15). ​And though Israel suffered many set-backs during the period of the judges, God eventually raised up a man after his own heart who subdued the land of Canaan more completely (1 Kings 5:3). 

So I think it's appropriate to say (1) Israel fought a war, (2) the war was sanctioned via direct revelation, (3) the purpose or aim was religious, viz., that God might give Israel Canaan as an inheritance (typical of our heavenly inheritance) in keeping with his promise to the fathers, and (4) that the land was, at least, provisionally conquered by Israel through the grace and power of Yahweh. The fact that Israel's conquest was only provisional and not ultimate might hinder us from calling it a "Holy _Conquest_" in the ultimate sense of the term. But I see no reason why, when properly qualified, we may not refer to Israel's divine mandate to conquer Canaan for Yahweh as "Holy War." 

Your servant,


----------



## KMK

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas,
> 
> Did you get to read post #29? If you read that post, you'll realize that my questions, which you cite above, were but rhetorical devices to set the stage for an answer. Note carefully the phrase "at face value" and the word "seems." In sum, I do believe a Christian can justify (biblically and ethically) God's command to exterminate the Canaanites. If I really believed God contradicted himself, I doubt I'd be allowed on this discussion board.
> 
> Your servant,
> 
> -----Added 2/21/2009 at 02:10:55 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Men,
> 
> I affirm that God gets the ultimate credit for any victories the Israelites won in or outside of Canaan. After all, the battle is the Lord's (). Nevertheless, we need to beware of trying to be more biblical than the Scripture writers themselves.
> 
> First, Israel's conquest of Canaan (as well as their conquest of peoples on the way to Canaan) did involve real "wars" in which the Israelites used real weapons. In a few cases, God supernaturally intervened. But in many cases, God did not deliver them the victory while the Israelites sat back passively and observed.
> 
> Second, as I pointed out in a post above (#45), Israel's wars against the inhabitants of Canaan were divinely sanctioned in a more direct and specific way than any "just war" might find sanction today. God specifically told them to exterminate a particular people, men, women, boys, and girls. Such specific revelatory sanction and exhaustive scope is, I think, somewhat unique in history.
> 
> Third, the Hebrew term _herem_, used in the context of these wars, has religious significance and is the flipside of the idea of sanctification. The land of Canaan and its inhabitants were "devoted to destruction" (cf. Deut. 7:2; 20:17; Josh 6:17; 1Sam 15:3). For this reason, when God commanded the Israelites to exterminate the Canaanites, He was calling upon them to engage in a religious activity. The land of Canaan was to become "sacred space," pointing back to Eden and forward to the New Earth. Accordingly, I agree with Tremper Longman when he writes, "Battle is portrayed as an act of worship in the Hebrew Bible.”
> 
> Fourth, did they every attribute any victories to Israel? Consider the following texts:ESV Joshua 12:1 Now these are the kings of the land whom the people of *Israel defeated and took possession* of their land beyond the Jordan toward the sunrise, from the Valley of the Arnon to Mount Hermon, with all the Arabah eastward:
> 
> ESV Joshua 12:6 *Moses*, the servant of the LORD, and *the people of Israel defeated them* [inhabitants of Bashan].
> 
> ESV Joshua 12:7 And these are the kings of the land *whom Joshua and the people of Israel defeated *on the west side of the Jordan​I could multiply examples from Judges, Samuel, and Kings. Yes, I affirm that "the battle is the Lord's" (1 Sam. 17:47). I doubt any Bible-believing Christian who would apply the term "Holy War" to Israel's conquest of Canaan would deny that. Nonetheless, Israel did eventually, through the leadership of David and Solomon, subdue the land, and in most cases they obtained their victories not as passive bystanders but as active warriors.
> 
> In sum, when Israel engaged in warfare in faithful obedience to God's command, they engaged in what might, in my opinion, be properly termed "holy war." Similarly, the Christian is called to engage in spiritual warfare (Eph. 6:10ff.) not as a passive bystander but as one who "works out his salvation with fear and trembling" in the confidence that "it is God who is at work in him both to will and to do in accordance with God's good pleasure" (Phil. 2:12-13).
> 
> Your servant,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I concede your point as long as it is understood that their are limits to how far we can draw a parallel between Israel's conquest of Canaan and the conquests of Pagan nations. After all, _if_ Israel had been obedient, as at Jericho, she would have suffered no casualties. It is hard to call such a conquest a 'war' in the exact same sense as other wars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ken, thanks for the concession. I agree with you and others that there are definite discontinuities between Israel's war against the Canaanites and those fought by one pagan nation against another. The latter I referred to as "pseudo holy wars" because they did not really have divine sanction, as is the case with modern Jihad.
> 
> When you refer to Israel's lack of complete obedience and resultant failure to completely exterminate every Canaanite in the land, you say, "It is hard to call such a conquest a 'war' in the exact same sense as other wars." Did you mean to say, "It's hard to call such a war a conquest"? The term "war" simply refers to an armed conflict between nations or parties within a nation. The outcome of such a conflict is not necessarily part of the definition of "war." "Conquest," on the other hand, does denote the winning of a war. The passages I cited above do indicate that Israel won some of her battles. In fact, we're told in Joshua 18:1 that Israel had gained what might be termed a provisional victory:
> ESV Joshua 18:1 Then the whole congregation of the people of Israel assembled at Shiloh and set up the tent of meeting there. The land lay subdued before them.​ The subsequent verses seem to indicate that there was still unclaimed territory. Nonetheless, at the time of Joshua's death, God had given Israel dominion over the land so that the inspired writer could say
> And the LORD gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their fathers. Not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the LORD had given all their enemies into their hands. Not one word of all the good promises that the LORD had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass. (Joshua 21:44-45; cf. 23:15). ​And though Israel suffered many set-backs during the period of the judges, God eventually raised up a man after his own heart who subdued the land of Canaan more completely (1 Kings 5:3).
> 
> So I think it's appropriate to say (1) Israel fought a war, (2) the war was sanctioned via direct revelation, (3) the purpose or aim was religious, viz., that God might give Israel Canaan as an inheritance (typical of our heavenly inheritance) in keeping with his promise to the fathers, and (4) that the land was, at least, provisionally conquered by Israel through the grace and power of Yahweh. The fact that Israel's conquest was only provisional and not ultimate might hinder us from calling it a "Holy _Conquest_" in the ultimate sense of the term. But I see no reason why, when properly qualified, we may not refer to Israel's divine mandate to conquer Canaan for Yahweh as "Holy War."
> 
> Your servant,
Click to expand...


The minor point I was trying to make is this: If Israel had been obedient, it appears from the battles at Jericho and Ai, they would not have suffered any casualties in their conquest because the Lord was on their side. This would be a 'unique' war.


----------



## Wannabee

Good thread!

I was thinking, "The wages of sin is death." How come it's not coming up? But it did. Thanks for the thought provoking, and in some way grounding, discussion. Any discussion that attempts to "apologize" for God's actions must take in the reality of depravity and the amazing aspect of God's graciousness toward all men, in that they are not immediately exterminated. The real question each man should ask is, "How can a holy, righteous, all knowing, all powerful and perfectly just God not destroy me this very instant?" Now, that's a question that could bear some apologia... 



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> *The Context of God’s calls to Holy War*
> The context of the command is a sinful world under God’s curse (Gen 3:8ff). If we remember this fact, then the real question is not, “Why would God exterminate the Canaanites?” but rather “Why has God withheld judgment from so many other sinful nations?” Furthermore, God’s promise to redeem the world necessitates the destruction and removal of evil (Gen 3:15; Matt. 6:10; 2 Pet 3:13). Thus, as one scholar points out, “Holy war and the description of God as warrior need to be evaluated in the context of God’s redemptive efforts on behalf of a fallen world.”


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

KMK said:


> The minor point I was trying to make is this: If Israel had been obedient, it appears from the battles at Jericho and Ai, they would not have suffered any casualties in their conquest because the Lord was on their side. This would be a 'unique' war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point, Ken. I agree!
Click to expand...


----------

