I will agree that we should ask the question: “Was God morally right in what He did concerning the Canaanites in the book of Joshua?” That is a valid question and I hope to answer that. However, my claim about the loaded question fallacy was not in asking THAT question above, but in asking about my thoughts and/or feelings on the matter. The loaded question fallacy attempts to set up the person being questioned so as to either implicate them or invalidate them(1) (fallacies generally rely on attempting to discredit the person making the argument rather than the argument itself). Not all loaded questions are fallacies if both parties agree upon the presuppositions involved. But this was not the case; The Atheist whom I spoke with in person was trying to work me into a no win situation: either I am for the wonton slaughter of people or I think God is a moral monster. But that conversation and this one here is not about my thoughts or feelings on the matter, it is about whether or not God was objectively moral in His dealings with Canaanites in the book of Joshua.
The irony in all of this is that the blog author does agree with me: experience is not a measure of validity nor can it serve as evidence. Just because I feel a certain way about a topic does not make it right or wrong. So yes, it was a loaded question and it was a fallacy.
The Bible is not evidence? For whom, might I ask, is it not evidence? Is it because you do not agree with the Bible? I’m not asking you to agree with the Bible, but that doesn’t mean I cannot use it as evidence. For every scholar out there who dismisses the Scriptures as irrelevant myths, there are plenty of scholars who maintain the legitimacy of the Scriptures as reliable. Whether from the abundance of manuscripts, historical and textual criticism, or archeological discoveries, the Bible has shown to be a reliable source of information(2,3,4). Now, notice I said “reliable” and not “true”. These things mentioned cannot prove the Bible is divinely inspired, but they do show the Bible to be a reliable source for understanding the events in question. And since the information we do have shows the Bible to be reliable, there is no reason to assume the Bible is not a reliable source for knowing who God is.
Now, was God objectively right in what He did?
To say that something is right or wrong, what we are really saying is there is an objective measure to judge the difference between right and wrong. To say that God is right or wrong on a matter is to say that objectively we can know right and wrong. Without the existence of God, what is the objective standard? Because of how involved this question becomes, that will be another blog post. For now, we are starting with God exists, there are objective moral standards, and God is the objective standard of good.
So was God justified in how He dealt with the Canaanites as we read in the book of Joshua? There are a few things that need to be understood before we can continue: Christians recognize that God is the creator of everything (Genesis 1:1-3, John 1:1-4). We know that God is eternal, existing before the universe. We know that God is powerful and creative based on the size and scope of the observable (and growing) universe (Romans 1:20). Lastly, we see that God is personal because He is actively holding the universe together. In Genesis 3, we see sin enter the world and with it comes corruption and suffering. This led to violence among the people and grieved God (Genesis 6:5-6); it is important to note that violence is the product of sin and not what God intended. But why death? Because sin is direct rebellion of God, the Author of life, and the only fitting punishment is death (Romans 6:23).
I would like to pause for a moment and reiterate the point I made in my previous post: My agreement or disagreement with the punishment in no way changes whether or not this is objectively right or wrong. I can disagree with that and think that God is wrong, but this would only be my opinion. Whether or not God is indeed right or wrong is not contingent on my feelings about the matter.
So continuing on; if God is the creator of everything and the author of life and if He is the objective standard of good and if God is righteous, then it stands to reason that God is fit to judge what is good and righteous and to punish those who are evil. Paul sums it up nicely in Romans 3:3-6 that whether we believe in God or not, we are subject to His righteousness and His punishment. So God’s dealing with the Canaanites in the book of Joshua is completely justified based on who He is alone, according to the Word of God. Whether or not the Canaanites in Jericho believed in God changed nothing of how God chose to deal with them. But, they did know. Let’s look at the story a little bit further.
In Joshua 2, two Israelite spies met with Rahab, the prostitute living in Jericho who took them in and saved them from the guards. In verse 9b she makes an announcement to the spies: “I know that the Lord has given you the land, and that the fear of you has fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land melt away before you. For we have heard how the Lord dried up the water of the Red Sea before you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan, to Sihon and Og, whom you devoted to destruction. And as soon as we heard it, our hearts melted, and there was no spirit left in any man because of you, for the Lord your God, he is God in the heavens above and on the earth beneath.” (Joshua 2:9b-11)
Notice specifically Rahab’s confession; she acknowledges fully who God is and she states that the whole of Jericho knows this and they tremble. This passage alone shows us that Jericho had no excuse, they knew who God is and they knew what He is capable of. But is this account reliable? We can confidently say that the text is reliable for two reasons. First, historically the testimony of a woman was not considered as strongly as a man’s, and Rahab was among the lowest class being a prostitute. This means that if you were trying to propagate a lie or a myth and you wanted it to come off as true, you would not be using a female prostitute in your story. Secondly, Joshua 6:1 tells us that Jericho was not only strongly fortified but also closed its gates so that no one could enter or leave. During peacetime, a fortress or castle’s gates are open for commerce to take place, but during war the gates are closed for security. With no other war or skirmish going on, it is safe to say that Jericho was indeed afraid of the Israelites for them to close up their gates and prepare for battle.
But long before the parting of the Red Sea and the destruction Amorite kings, God had predicted this event over 430 years prior when He made His covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15:13-16. So in reality, Jericho had over 430 years to get their act together and worship God.
Were the Canaanites evil? Yep. Historically, Canaanites practiced human sacrifice for their idols(5,6) as well as sexual rituals. Why is this bad? Well, whether you are a Christian or atheist, any form of murder (sacrifice or otherwise) is universally seen as a not good thing. Worse yet, certain groups of Canaanites were known to practice child sacrifice by killing their first-born. According to the Christian faith, people bear the image of God. As image bearers, anything done to each other is representative of our feelings towards God (1 John 4:20). Murder and human sacrifice are despicable to the Lord (Leviticus 20:2, Deuteronomy 18:10).
So although the Canaanites knew God, they rejected Him and chose the things abhorrent to Him. After 430 years, their time had come. Before we continue some things need to be made clear: First, God was not calling for the killing of all Canaanites, but specifically those at Jericho (and later Ai). This was not a xenophobic move to destroy a people group; this was punishment for generations refusing to obey God. Upon Rahab’s confession, she was spared and she and her family joined the Israelites. Second, Jericho was a fortress, a strong hold, not a center for families. The reality is that Israel was going to fight soldiers stationed at a Fortress, not kill helpless families. Were there some families present? We know of at least one, Rahab and her family; but this does not automatically confirm there were other families present.
What we see is God bringing about His judgment on a people for their sins and refusal to obey Him despite all of the evidence and opportunity He gave them. We also see a God that commanded the Israelites to attack a fortress, not a civilian town. We also see God immediately pardoning those who confessed their obedience to Him. The more we examine this, the less we see a morally corrupt God and the more we see a God who is rightly passing judgment. To quote Paul Copan, “Unlike Rahab and her family, her fellow Jerichoites (and most of the canaanites) refused to acknowledge the one true God. The example of Rahab and her family (and to some extent Gibeon) reveals that consecration to the ban (herem) wasn’t absolute and irreversible. God was, as we’ve seen, more concerned about the destruction of Canaanite religion and idols than Canaanite peoples. God repeatedly expresses a willingness to relent from punishment and preserve those who acknowledge His evident rule over the nations (cf. Jeremiah 18:8).”(7)
Is God a moral monster? Despite our feelings on the matter, truth is truth. We affirm that God is good, and not because we experience His goodness but because we have evidence for it. As I’ve stated at the beginning, because we know the Bible is reliable, we can know the character and nature of God. Are there difficult texts in Scriptures that are often hard to deal with? Yes. But that doesn’t mean we just throw up our hands and assume the worst. We have to dissect the passage in question and look at it in context of the event and of who God is. To end this post, I will share a quote from Dr. John Frame that I used in an earlier post:
“The difference between unregenerate and regenerate knowledge of God may be described as ethical. The unregenerate represses his knowledge of God by disobeying God. This disobedience may lead in some cases to psychological repression, or explicit atheism, but it does not always. The apologist should recognize, therefore, that the unbeliever’s problem is primarily ethical, not intellectual. He rejects truth because he disobey’s God’s ethical standards, not the other way around.”
Soli Deo Gloria,
Brian Ceely
1 http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Loaded_question.html
2 Geisler, Norman; “Has the Bible Been Accurately Copied Down Through the Centuries?” (Originally excerpted from the Apologetics Study Bible, B&H Publishers) http://kelvinho-kh.blogspot.com/2012/01/has-bible-been-accurately-copied-down.html
3 Montgomery, John Warwick; “Could the Gospel Writers Withstand the Scrutiny of a Lawyer?” (Originally excerpted from the Apologetics Study Bible, B&H Publishers) http://kelvinho-kh.blogspot.com/2012/01/could-gospel-writers-withstand-scrutiny.html
4 McDowell, Josh; “The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict”, pp. 91-98
5 http://science.discovery.com/life-earth-science/10-cultures-that-practiced-human-sacrifice.htm
6 http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/275881/human-sacrifice
7 Copan, Paul; “Is God a Moral Monster?” 2011, pp. 177-178
-------
Brian Ceely
is a researcher for Wycliffe Bible Translators, a College Age/Young Adult Minister at River Run Christian Church, and a very talented musician (specifically drums and guitar). He enjoys reading, writing, researching, philosophy, apologetics, playing drums like a crazy man and sharing the person and work of Jesus with young adults. Brian is also a regular at Starbucks and uses his many talents to bring glory to his God and Savior Jesus Christ.
No comments:
Post a Comment