Show Them No Mercy: 4 Views on God and Canaanite Genocide does not quite deliver what it proposes. The introduction by Stan Gundry indicates that all four authors have the same view of the inspiration and authority of Scripture. Furthermore, the title indicates that four different views are offered. After having read this book, I conclude that the book fails at both these counts.

First, it becomes evident very quickly that the authors are not working from the same foundation of biblical inspiration. Cowles minimizes the testimony of the Old Testament and discounts its accuracy by denying that God commanded or commended the Canaanite conquest. How his view lines up with the doctrine of biblical inspiration or inerrancy is beyond me.

Secondly, there are not four views represented here, but only two. It is Cowles over against the other three contributors. The disagreements between the other three scholars are quite minor, so that the latter chapters differ more in emphasis than in the actual proposals set forth. Merrill, Gard, and Longman can, in many ways, be considered in the same camp, even if there are subtle distinctions between their views.

In reflecting on this book, I will point out some points of appreciation and criticism for each of the chapters.

C.S. Cowles

Cowles’ contribution is notably passionate. I enjoyed the spirited rhetoric which he employed to make his case. In the responses to the other authors, Cowles comes across as feisty and passionate, ready to drive home the implications of the authors even if they intend to pull back.

The problem with Cowles’ view is that he fails to take into account the loving and compassionate God revealed in the Old Testament and the angry and wrathful God revealed in the New. He conveniently avoids the Old Testament depictions of God as gracious and merciful just as he avoids the New Testament emphasis on judgment (not least in the words of Jesus himself).

Cowles never once explains why, if his view is correct, the New Testament authors do not seem to be particularly perplexed or embarrassed by the warfare accounts in the Old Testament. If Cowles is right that the New Testament, in effect, abolishes the inferior picture of God established in the Old Testament, why do we not see the warfare passages dismissed by the early Christians?

A second problem with Cowles’ contribution is his view of biblical inspiration. It becomes clear that Cowles sees the Old Testament as a collection of mainly human writings that record the experience of Israel. Therefore, the Israelites were sadly mistaken in their understanding of the will of God. Even though the Scriptures indicate that the conquest actually accomplished the will of God, Cowles insists that their view was faulty.

So is the Old Testament wrong?

In what sense is the Old Testament inspired if these accounts of God’s will are mistaken?

Yet there is a more serious accusation to be made against Cowles’ view, and this accusation concerns his understanding of salvation. Cowles departs from the traditional understanding of Christianity and advocates a view that more closely resembles the heretic Marcion than the early church fathers.

For Cowles, our problem is not our rebellion against God and our need to escape his just and divine wrath. Instead, our problem is our inability to comprehend the love of God. Jesus Christ came to show that God is actually loveable (39). This understanding of the work of Christ is in direct opposition to the evangelical view of sin and salvation.

Eugene Merrill

As I am in substantial agreement with the other three authors, I will offer just a few points of disagreement. Merrill goes too far when he claims that genocide cannot be seen as objectively right or wrong, saying that its divine sanction clears up that question.

Would Merrill say that we cannot see divorce as right or wrong? Or polygamy? Merrill leaves no room for a distinction between the perfect will of God and his permissive will.

The Bible shows that God sometimes makes concessions in this fallen world. At times, he accommodates the wicked world without expressly condoning these accommodations as his perfect will or preference. It is too much of a stretch to see the Canaanite conquest as God’s ideal.

Instead, we should recognize that God did command the Israelites to perform this task of judgment, but that this commandment represents a concession to the fallen state of our world, not a commendation of this action as a good in and of itself.

Daniel Gard

Daniel Gard’s chapter puts forth the view that is closest to my own. I appreciate his emphasis on the future-oriented nature of the Canaan conquest. He is right to see an eschatological continuity between the Old and New Testaments.

Gard also helpfully points out that the conquests of herem are not indicative of all the wars in the Old Testament. We are mistaken if we reduce the God of the Old Testament to a divine being who is always on the warpath.

Gard’s overall thesis is sound, but there is one place where his exegesis is flawed. He believes that the world will be utterly destroyed, based upon an incorrect reading of 2 Peter 3. The proper translation of the passage indicates that the fire that comes upon the earth in the Last Day is a purging, cleansing fire, not merely a destructive one.

Tremper Longman III

Longman’s chapter is beneficial in its attempt to establish a spiritual continuity between the Testaments. But it seems, at times, that Longman over-spiritualizes some of the principles from this type of warfare. He clearly believes in the historicity of the events, but he too quickly moves to the spiritual lessons that we can take from the conquests. I doubt that the Old Testament authors would have understood these events in this way.

All of the authors would have done well to emphasize more substantially that genocide in the Old Testament never takes place on ethnic grounds. The Bible does not condone a sense of ethnic superiority among the Israelites. In fact, God acts against Israel at times because of her own wickedness.

The view of the Old Testament is that God uses nations as the agents of his wrath toward wickedness, even the sin of his own people. Only within the context of God’s sovereign judgment can we make proper sense of the herem ban. Once we turn the picture around, Gard and Longman are correct to point out that the real question should be: Why does God allow any rebellious person to survive?

Conclusion

Reflecting upon the whole of this book, I cannot help but wonder if perhaps we are trying to answer questions that the early Christians did not ask.

Is it possible that we are seeking to fit the Old Testament stories into a different metanarrative, a Western framework of human rights and earthly progress?

Perhaps we can make better sense of the Canaanite conquest if we recall the storyline of the Scriptures. God chose Israel in order that he might bless the world. Yet even in the overarching Story of that blessing, there are cases in which God comes in judgment upon wickedness.

The Bible holds these two truths together: God judges the wicked now, even as his ultimate purpose is to bless all the nations in the end.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2009 Kingdom People blog