One of the common arguments I see against God is some examples found in the Old Testament. Basically many will point out that God commanded His people to exterminate other peoples and that He seemed to favor the Hebrews above all other peoples. That this is very unlike the living God as portrayed in the New Testament and that this stark contrast proves that God is unjust.
Let me proceed with a story. Imagine there was a man, let’s call him Joe, who lived in a rural area and he had a neighbor who had some extra unused land. Now these neighbors were friends to one another, and the neighbor had a lot of respect for Joe. Joe needed to use the neighbors land, so he went to him with a proposal to purchase it. The neighbor tells him, of course you can use it feel free, to which Joe replies, “We have been friends for a great many years, and I appreciate the offer, but I desire to purchase the land for a price and draft up a contract so that our children may continue to use it in peace.” And so it goes that the agreement is made.
Then Joe’s son, let’s call him George continues to use that land and also gets along with the neighbor and his children. George has two sons who are very competitive with one another. Let’s name the older son Pete and the younger Tony. Now imagine that Pete gets himself into some trouble and decides to sell the land rights to Tony to which they write up an agreement. Now imagine that George ends up giving a valuable gift to Tony instead of Pete and Pete thinks it’s an injustice because Tony had not been entirely honest in how he had received it. Pete has not been honest either, but he feels that if Tony gets the rights to the land then he out to have received this other gift from their father, and now Tony has gotten both. The two brothers have a fight and Tony decides to leave for a time.
While Tony is gone, Pete tells the neighbors lies about Tony, and Pete gives the neighbors permission to build homes on Tony’s land.
Eventually Tony returns and has acquired a family and tries to make things right with his brother. Now imagine his shock to find out the neighbors have moved in on his land. However he realizes it’s a result of how he had treated his brother earlier and decides not to evict the neighbors. But he does let them know that he intends to use the land. But understand the neighbors are still influenced by the lies that Pete told them, and tensions exist between the neighbors and Tony as a result. The relationship is already such that the neighbors are expecting to be taken advantage of.
Now imagine that the neighbors have some business dealings with Tony’s sons and even though the transactions were fair the neighbors feel that they aren’t getting enough and that they are being treated as outsiders.
But the story gets another twist. Imagine that one of the neighbors has taken a liking to one of Tony’s daughters. So one day this man gets some of his brothers and decides to push the matter and tells her how he feels. But she does not feel the same about him. In anger and frustration, and acting on an idea that it’s because he’s not being treated fairly, he proceeds to rape her, and his brothers aid in the act prevent her escape. Absolutely shocking and unthinkable.
Soon everyone knows about it. Now Tony decides in an effort to keep peace with the neighbors, not to pursue legal action and even makes some compromises to the neighbors. Also imagine that the squatters don’t feel that what happened was wrong. Now the sons however are furious about the matter and don’t feel that justice is being done. So without their fathers permission they take it upon themselves to drive out the squatters, and they burn down the houses, and forcibly evict the neighbors from the land. They also beat the ones involved in their sisters rape.
The result is a full fledged feud. The neighbors tell their other neighbors how they’ve been wronged and more of the neighbors become involved, and the matter finally ends up in the courts. The judge reviews all the information and decides that even though wrongs were made in both sides, that the land does belong to Tony, that the neighbors had no rights to be there. The matter of the rape is never prosecuted.
The matter seems resolved, but the hard feelings and animosity remain. A while later hard times come and Pete and his family decide to move their business and families. They don’t sell their land however, they hope to come back one day. More time passes and circumstances prevented them from returning. But the next generation decides to return with deed in hand only to find that the children of their former neighbors have moved into their homes and built on their land and refuse to leave.
While I have changed the names and circumstances, in a nutshell this is the story of the Israelites and their struggles with their neighbors the Canaanites (Philistines, Amorites, Edomites, Hittites, etc). I’m not justifying wrongs on either side. But to those who thing that these wars weren’t justified, look at the circumstances.
The Israelites may not be perfect but from their standpoint it was their land by rightful agreement. They wanted to live on their land and raise their families and worship as they pleased. The Canaanites were squatters, they knew it, and they wanted to gain rights to the land by taking what was not rightfully theirs. And while one could argue they were just practicing their religion, the two cultures are not very compatible. The Hebrew religion demands strict morality, honesty, chastity, and commands that men deal justly with one another (not saying the people always did so, but the religion itself demands it). By contrast, the Canaanite religion promoted promiscuity, dishonesty, open love, and largely adopted a might makes right attitude. Canaanite practices included: baptism in blood, sexual activity with children, canibalism, sacrificing human beings, marriage by rape, partner swapping, abortion, the killing of unwanted children, etc. The moral superiority of one culture over the other is obvious, and the obvious causes for a culture clash are evident.
While one could argue that if that’s the only culture that they knew then how can they be judged for living what they were taught? The answer is simple. They knew it was wrong but they did it because they knew they could get away with it. Or so they thought. It’s basic human knowledge to understand that you don’t treat other people in a way that you don’t want to be treated. Yet the Canaanite culture empowered the wickedness in their society. People inherently understand that certain basic rights exist, and even if they are taught otherwise you will find that people inherently know that stealing is wrong, that killing is wrong, that violating another’s rights is wrong, that lying is wrong, etc. the Canaanite cultures however did it anyway because they knew that gain could be had by doing so.
In light of this is it any small wonder why God would instruct the Israelites to exterminate entire villages? How else to you get rid of a culture so thoroughly corrupted? One may say what about the innocent women and children? Well, let’s be honest. If you had a city in our times of wicked men and you left the women and children, would they not teach their children those same ways and perpetuate that culture?
Let me lay out some examples. If I raise my family in the culture of Las Vegas (as opposed to living there but protecting my family from its influence) should it be a wonder if my children do all the same things that many citizens of that city do? Should it come as a surprise if my daughter grow up to be prostitutes or showgirls? Should it come as a surprise if my sons become gamblers? They will know that these things are wrong, so they are not innocent, but they will have this engrained into their behavior. I would never be able to use the argument that they didn’t know better. In fact they have probably witnessed firsthand the harm that such things cause. But they would engage in it because they have also been taught by that same society that they can get what they want by doing so.
Myself I don’t condone warfare, but I can easily understand how it can be necessary to put an end to a culture that is so degraded and evil. The Lord must have felt that such measures were necessary. I am not calling for such actions today. What I am saying is that those who claim that God condoned warfare, and that He was not a God of love and peace, and that He commanded a select group of people to wipe out another less favored group are ignoring the facts.
