The Canaanite Objection: Clay Jones on the Destruction of the Canaanites

One of the Bible stories that I learned as a child was about the Battle of Jericho. The Battle of Jericho, as told to us then, was tidied up considerably from the way it actually appears in the Bible. The book of Joshua, which reports the events of Jericho, describes things more violently than the cheery tune we sung about Joshua fighting the battle of Jericho. The Joshua account reads (emphasis mine): 

^"On the seventh day they rose early, at the dawn of day, and marched around the city in the same manner seven times. It was only on that day that they marched around the city seven times. ¹⁶ And at the seventh time, when the priests had blown the trumpets, Joshua said to the people, “Shout, for the Lord has given you the city. ¹⁷ And the city and all that is within it shall be devoted to the Lord for destruction. Only Rahab the prostitute and all who are with her in her house shall live, because she hid the messengers whom we sent. ¹⁸ But you, keep yourselves from the things devoted to destruction, lest when you have devoted them you take any of the devoted things and make the camp of Israel a thing for destruction and bring trouble upon it. ¹⁹ But all silver and gold, and every vessel of bronze and iron, are holy to the Lord; they shall go into the treasury of the Lord.” ²⁰ So the people shouted, and the trumpets were blown. As soon as the people heard the sound of the trumpet, the people shouted a great shout, and the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they captured the city. ²¹ Then they devoted all in the city to destruction, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys, with the edge of the sword" (Joshua 6:15–21).

This was the beginning of the conquest of Canaan. The book of Joshua continues to report the Israelites’ military conquest of the land of Canaan, a conquest commanded by earlier by God during Israel’s desert wanderings

“When the Lord your God brings you into the land that you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and mightier than you, ² and when the Lord your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them, then you must devote them to complete destruction. You shall make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them. ³ You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, ⁴ for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly. ⁵ But thus shall you deal with them: you shall break down their altars and dash in pieces their pillars and chop down their Asherim and burn their carved images with fire” (Deuteronomy 7:1–5).

And God commanded later, when due to Israel’s disobedience in conquering the land they were submerged in Canaanite idolatry and sin, in 1 Samuel 15 (emphasis mine):

² Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. ³ Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey'" (1 Samuel 15:2–3) 

Clearly this aspect of the account wasn’t stressed in children’s Sunday school. Both non-Christians and Christians struggle to make sense of these passages. Why did God command the destruction of the Canaanite nations? Fervent atheists like Richard Dawkins have seized on these passages and said that the God of the Bible that Christians worship is a fictive, genocidal lunatic. How are Christians to make sense of, and explain, God’s directive to destroy the Canaanites?

Clay Jones, professor of apologetics at Biola University in California, addresses this question in his article “We Don’t Hate Sin So We Don’t Understand What Happened to the Canaanites.” Jones’ argues that (a) we do not hate sin in the same way that God does and so we struggle to understand his directive to destroy the Canaanites (p. 53) and (b) that the destruction of the Canaanites was not an instance of racially-motivated ethnic cleansing but was an act of corporate capital punishment in response to deeply-rooted evil (p. 68).

Jones makes his case by demonstrating from Ancient Near Eastern sources and secondary scholarship that Canaan was polytheistic (or, idolatrous) and that this polytheism was “theologically conducive to (if not motivational for) the formation of Canaanite practices, including the practices of incest, adultery, incest, child sacrifice, homosexuality, and bestiality, such that these practices are not incoherent with Canaanite idolatry” (p. 57). Polytheism in Canaan allowed for all sorts of evil practices that God detested.

After suggesting this connection Jones illustrates the nature of the aforementioned practices in Canaanite life. This is the largest portion of the article as Jones sketches out in vivid detail the morally reprehensible practices of Canaan prior to the Israelite conquest.

Jones also argues that the underlying motivation behind the destruction of the Canaanites was not ethnic cleansing.  God treated Israel, his chosen people, with great severity as well when they turned to Canaanite gods and committed similarly evil acts.

Finally, Jones provides numerous illustrations from contemporary Western culture that illustrate the evil in our own culture is eerily similar to Canaan’s sins. Websites and television promote adultery. Groups lobby for the legitimacy of pedophilia. Children are sacrificed for comfort, cost, and convenience. Pornographic websites featuring bestiality get thousands of hits per day. Our culture, blinded by sin, does not want to recognize the justness of God’s judgment against Canaan because to do so would also be an act of self-condemnation.

Jones sums up his article by writing:

“We do not appreciate the depths of our own depravity, the horror of sin, and the righteousness of God. Consequently, it is no surprise that when we see God’s judgment upon those who committed the sins we commit, that complaint and protest arises within our hearts: “This is divine barbarism!” or “This is divine genocide!” But studying these things over the years has led me to wonder if the Canaanites might not stand up at the Judgment and condemn this generation” (pp. 71-72)

Jones’ article is worth reading, not only because it answers a common obstacle to biblical faith, but also because it calls to our attention a similarity that existed between the people of God in the Old Testament and today. Similar threats to capitulate to the surrounding culture have faced the Church throughout the ages. The Church must resist these, stand firm in the faith, glory in holiness, and be sanctified through the Word so that through its witness many might be transferred out of spiritual darkness and into the light of Christ. Let us pray that the God will protect the Church, strengthen the Church, and use the Church to call the world to repentance through Christ while making the pleasures of serving him known.  

For those who desire a condensed version of Jones’ argument you should consult Greg Koukl’s article on it here (follow the link and download the pdf).

Stand to Reason: An Apologetics Ministry

Stand to Reason is an apologetics ministry that is worthy of your attention. Stand to Reason offers this description of their ministry: 

"Stand to Reason trains Christians to think more clearly about their faith and to make an even-handed, incisive, yet gracious defense for classical Christianity and classical Christian values in the public square."

Stand to Reason publishes many helpful blog posts and articles on issues related to Christianity, contemporary issues, ethics, and apologetics. My wife and I have also profited greatly from Stand to Reason's weekly broadcast hosted by Greg Koukl. Koukl, an adjunct professor in Christian apologetics at Biola University, offers articulate and winsome commentary on issues of faith and philosophy. He also fields a wide range of questions from callers. The following list shows the questions Koukl answers on the August 6, 2013 edition of the Stand to Reason podcast. 

1. Is postmodernism dead?
2. What if God didn't choose me?
3. Can we determine the Biblical authors' intent?
4. "Having It All" Means No Baby?
5. How would you respond to a family member who is homosexual and getting married?
6. Black Hebrew Israelites theology is deceptive.
7. Unitarians Have No Heresy
8. Redefining marriage
9. Can we say "God is good" objectively or only subjectively?
10. Will God save sincere believers if they aren't predestined?
11. Is there a justification to end a pregnancy?

It's an impressive day's work to intelligently address such a wide range of important issues. I trust you will also benefit from this fantastic ministry as I have. 

Greg Koukl, host of the Stand to Reason's weekly broadcast

The Intolerance of Tolerance

Intolerance is one of those words so widely used, but thought about so little by so many. What makes a person intolerant? What makes a person tolerant? When does disagreement become intolerance? That is why Don Carson’s book The Intolerance of Tolerance is a welcome addition to the bookshelf of any thoughtful observer of culture.

Carson’s book argues that in contemporary Western Culture there are two definitions of tolerance in operation. Previously, tolerance was the acceptance that different views exist (from here on referred to as the “old tolerance”); however, a shift took place so that tolerance came to mean the acceptance of other beliefs. This shift, though subtle, is of great importance. Carson writes:

“To accept that a different or opposing position exists and deserves the right to exist is one thing; to accept the position itself means that one is no longer opposing it. The new tolerance suggests that actually accepting another’s position means believing that position to be true, or at least as true as your own. We move from allowing the free expression of contrary opinions to the acceptance of all opinions; we leap from permitting the articulation of beliefs and claims with which we do not agree to asserting that all beliefs and claims are equally valid. Thus we slide from the old tolerance to the new” (3-4).

The central thesis of Carson’s book is that the new tolerance has become part of the plausibility structure (that is the idea systems that are widely accepted by the culture) of Western culture. The new definition of tolerance has come to dominate social discourse and Carson illustrates many times over how the new tolerance has affected decisions in the realms of politics, education, media, religion, and morality (see chapter two, What is Going On?).   

Chapter three, The History of Tolerance, is Carson’s survey of tolerance in Western intellectual thought. Carson provides historical snapshots that are meant to support his thesis. A change has taken place. It was once the case that the old tolerance was located within the cultural matrix (and dependent upon it); however, the new tolerance became understood independent of culture so that it was raised above culture to be the supreme virtue (75-77). Yet ultimately, when tolerance is detached from the cultural matrix, it becomes a tool for accumulating and exercising control over the populace.

Chapter five examines how the old/new tolerance distinction shapes Christianity. Chapters six and seven explore in greater depth how the new tolerance affects moral and political discourse.

There is a short epilogue (Way Ahead: Ten Words) where Carson attempts to offer counsel for a future where the new tolerance is in full operation. The brevity of this section (one wishes that Carson would have spent more time here) becomes an invitation to readers to think beyond the pages of the book and consider how to navigate the waters ahead.   

Many have applauded Carson’s contribution already. For those interested, you can find more on the book here:

Albert Mohler interviews Carson on his Thinking in Public program. The interview is available in both audio and transcript form.

Tim Challies adds his thoughts here.

Kevin DeYoung listed The Intolerance of Tolerance as one of his top ten books of 2012. 

For those interested you can download Dr. Carson's lectures on the topic online. Go to the linked page and search for 'intolerance of tolerance'.

Is It Arrogant to Say Homosexuality Is Morally Wrong?

The New York Times has an interesting editorial by Frank Bruni that is worthy of comment. In “Reading God’s Mind”, Bruni challenges Christians who maintain that homosexuality is, in accordance with biblical teaching, certainly sinful.  

The article is built around the story of a middle-age gay man (Jeff) whose Southern Baptist parents chose not to attend his same-sex wedding ceremony because they believed him to be in a sinful relationship. Both Jeff and his parents made choices that the other party found difficult to accept—Jeff engaging in a same-sex relationship and his parents’ refusing to attend the ceremony. Yet, in Bruni’s mind, there is a difference of posture when it comes to the decision that each party made. In his article Bruni describes Jeff as humble, “He doesn’t claim… to have definitive answers. He hasn’t determined beyond any doubt that his life and love are in concert with God’s wishes, because he thinks it arrogant to insist, as the zealots who condemn gay people do, that God’s will is so easily known. And in light of that, he thinks it wrong for anyone to try and consign gays to the shame that so many of them have endured.” Jeff’s parents, however, make the claim that it Jeff’s homosexual relationship is sinful, an act of defiance against God’s will for human beings.

Isn’t that arrogant?

How can any human being claim to know for certain what God’s will is? How could any parent claim to know God’s will so confidently, especially when it causes so much pain within their family?

Christians would respond that we can know that things are right or wrong based upon the teaching of the Bible, God’s authoritative self-disclosure—both in terms of his being, his plan of redemption, and his instructions for lives of holiness and obedience. This answer shouldn’t be a surprise to Bruni or Jeff. Orthodox Christians have claimed nothing different for two millennia.

“Reading God’s Mind” contains two arguments that attempt to disarm Christians of this appeal. The first argument is one of principles for biblical interpretation. It can be parsed out as follows:

P¹ : If the Bible is to be taken literally, then all of Scripture must be taken literally. 

P² : However, not all of Bible is to be taken literally.

C¹ : Therefore, the Bible is not to be taken literally. 

Then, specific to the issue of homosexuality, the following can be added:

P³ : If the Bible is not to be taken literally, then the passages prohibiting homosexuality are not to be taken literally.

C²: Since the Bible is not to be taken literally (based upon C¹), then the passages prohibiting homosexuality are not to be taking literally (and by implication, they are not morally binding). 

There are a number of problems with this argument. First off, Bruni’s first premise is one that is overly simplified and does not in fact represent what a thoughtful Christian would say. The entire Bible is not to be taken literally (nb: this does not deny that the whole Bible is true). The Bible is a large book containing a variety of literary genre. It contains legal codes, narrative material, proverbs, and poetry. This is significant because poetry is not something that is read literally. It contains figurative language, metaphors, and similes.

Psalm 18:4–5 is one such instance where a literal interpretation would be a dreadful display of hermeneutics, “The cords of death encompassed me; the torrents of destruction assailed me; the cords of Sheol [the grave] entangled me; the snares of death confronted me.” This passage isn’t saying that rope-like cords literally came up from the grave and wrapped themselves around the writer. Bruni ignores the multiplicity of genres in the Bible—a fact that is significant in arguments (such as his) of interpretation. 

Bruni’s argument would be more relevant if he questioned the normativity of the Bible, instead of its literal nature. Normativity refers to teaching or content that asserts a standard of practice or morality that is as equally binding today as it was in the biblical era. However, even this shift from literal to normative, although more accurately framing the issue in question, proves itself problematic. Christians do not argue—either functionally or formally—that the whole Bible is normative. This can be demonstrated by pointing to the Passover feast that is prescribed in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, the Passover feast is no longer a ceremony that the Christian community observes because, the Church teaches, Jesus Christ fulfilled the Passover law by serving as the true lamb that atones for Sin. This is a basic understanding of redemptive history. So while at one point the Passover feast was a binding command from God, within God’s historical plan of redemption that practice is no longer binding today because it is specifically fulfilled in the life and death of Jesus Christ. Even if the first premise is adjusted from literal to normative, Bruni’s argument still (a) puts words into the mouths of Christians that do not really belong there and (b) applies a standard of interpretation (if any part is to be normative, then all must be normative) that is pure ludicrousness. 

One further critique might be made of this New York Times op-ed piece. Bruni assumes that Jeff’s position is the intellectually modest, neutral position. Bruni applauds Jeff for not claiming that he knows what God’s position is on homosexuality. Yet, the fact remains that Jeff has made a choice to engage in a same-sex relationship and as a result he has decided that either (a) God approves, or at least permits, same-sex relationships or (b) that even if God isn’t okay with it, he’ll deal with those consequences later. If he makes his choice to enter into a same-sex relationship based on (a), then he is no different than his parents in asserting what God thinks. If he makes his decision based on (b), that isn’t humility—it’s hubris! (Could you imagine if you said something similar about your parents when you were younger, “Mom and Dad might not like this, but I’m not going to think about that now. I’ll deal with them later.”) Bruni attempts to place Jeff on moral high ground by suggesting that Jeff is more humble and modest in his position. One ought not concede this ground.   

In “Reading God’s Mind”, Frank Bruni makes two arguments. The first argument tries to lay the ground for dismissing a literal interpretation of biblical passages that speak to homosexuality’s sinfulness. This argument, as was demonstrated above, fails because it does not take into account basic interpretive principles that recognize genre and authorial intent (principles that one would consider whether they were reading Dumas or Deuteronomy). The second move Bruni makes is to imply that Jeff, the man featured in the article, is more humble than his Southern Baptist parents. This move assumes that as a married gay man, Jeff can still hold a position that is more humble than his parents’ position because he claims he isn’t certain he is right. The assumption of Jeff’s has also been deplumed. What Jeff says formally is not how Jeff acts functionally. 

In the end, Frank Bruni’s article represents a rather feeble move in the battle of public perception concerning the morality of homosexuality; however, despite Bruni’s weak argumentation, such arguments for the moral acceptance of homosexuality are worth noting and exposing as they increasingly reflect the assumptions of mainstream thinking both outside—and, dreadfully, inside—the Church.            

Christian Rap: Mortification, word.

When I was in high school, the music I listened to went something like this:

I'm a gangsta, but y'all knew that
Da Big Bo$$ Dogg, yeah I had to do that
I keep a blue flag hanging out my backside
But only on the left side, yeah that's the Crip side
Ain't no other way to play the game the way I play
I cut so much you thought I was a DJ

Translation: I think I'm really tough. You should know that (in case you didn't, I'm telling you). I'm going to show how cool I am by putting the clothe equivalent of a tissue in my pants pocket to tell you that I'm associating with criminals. Also, I think it's pertinent that you know I have a lot of sexual intercourse.

Clearly, there was something lacking. Unfortunately for teenage-me, "In Da Club", as they were saying back then, was "dope" and I was okay with that. I mean, I just liked the music and didn't listen to the words, right?

Then, in university my friend, Dustin, introduced me to a different rapper. This guy had just released an album called Rebel. After listening several times to this CD (it was on loop for months), I realized, "I really like this music." That artist's name was Lecrae.

There was something different about it. There was an edge and an urgency that I never picked up listening to Snoop or 50. The rap music I listened to in high school was written to sell. The lyrics Lecrae was spitting were written to preach. These words were written about the Word, Jesus Christ, the Word became flesh.

Slowly, my friend, Kris, and I were drawn in by Dustin into this world of Christian rap. We discovered there were more artists that shared the passion for the gospel. Lecrae was joined on our playlists by Flame, Tedashii, Trip Lee, and Sho Baraka. In more recent days, artists like KB, Andy Mineo, and This'l have also produced great content with the sole purpose of preaching Christ and the salvation found in him. 

The lyrics that test the limits of my 1991 Nissan Axxess's sound system (aka the Swagger Wagon) are much different than those that would've been playing in my disc man in high school. I think there is something far more satisfying and lasting in the words that have replaced Eminem and Jay-Z:

It aint no lie!
We created for Him,
Outta of the dust he made us for Him,
Elects us and he saves us for Him,
Jesus comes and he raises for Him,
Magnify the Father, why bother with something lesser?
He made us so we could bless Him, (Bless Him)
To the world we confess Him,
Resurrects Him,
So I know I got life,
Matter fact better man I know I got Christ,
If you don't see His ways in my days and my nights,
You can hit my breaks you can stop my lights,
Man I lost my rights, lost my life,
Forget the money, cars and toss that ice,
The cost is Christ,
And they can never offer me anything on the planet that'll cost that price
 

 

Translation: "And do not seek what you are to eat and what you are to drink, nor be worried. For all the nations of the world seek after these things, and your Father knows that you need them. Instead, seek his kingdom, and these things will be added to you" (Luke 12:29-31).

Somehow, I think that's a huge improvement over Snoop. 

Note: The idea for this blog was, in part, taken from a blog post by Tim Challies. You can access his post on The Strange Phenomenon of White Middle-aged Pastors Listening to Rap Music here (the videos-- both the Swagger Wagon and the Lecrae video-- were lifted off Tim Challies' blog).

The Swagger Wagon

I have a strange feeling I know what I'll be calling my Nissan Axxess from now on... 

Have a great weekend!