A Book Review

Show Them NO MERCY – 4 Views on God and Canaanite Genocide

If you falter in times of trouble,

how small is your strength!

Rescue those being led away to death;

Hold back those staggering toward slaughter.

If you say, "But we knew nothing about this,"

Does not He who weighs the heart perceive it?

Does not He who guards your life know it?

Will He not repay each person according to what He has done?

Proverbs 24:10-12 (NIV)

Introduction

Studying the phenomena of genocide in the Bible is of crucial importance. Before any Christian can speak substantively on the issue of Genocide within a contemporary context, they must eventually be able to give meaning to its existence and the mandate of its practice by Yahweh from within the Old Testament. The issues related to this discussion can be enormous, particularly within an ideological climate that is highly suspicious and critical of all encompassing metanarratives, immersed in supercessionism, such as Christianity.

Stanley Gundry's edited work: Show Them No Mercy – 4 Views of God and Canaanite Genocide, attempts to address this very difficult issue through three essays presented by C.S. Cowles – Professor of Bible and Theology at Point Loma Nazarene University, Eugene H. Merrill – Professor of Old Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, Daniel L. Gard – Dean of Graduate Studies and Associate Professor of Exegetical Theology at Concordia Theological Seminary and Tremper Longman III – Professor of Old Testament in Westmont College. Each contributor was commissioned to provide, from their theological tradition and perspective, a meaningful explanation of how to understand the Genocidal accounts described in the Exodus narrative, during the Conquest of the Promised Land. In short, how do we make Christian sense of the "herem," particularly as outlined in Deuteronomy 20:1-20, often referred to interestingly enough as the "Manual of War (Merrill 70)."

In general it would appear that there are three primary levels upon which the discussion of Genocide in the Bible must take place. The first level, more narrowly and most often discussed, would be the selection and annihilation (by divine fiat) the Canaanites during the period of the conquest of the Promised Land by Joshua and the Israelites. In general this will be the primary focus of this paper as related to the book: Show Them No Mercy
– 4 Views of God and Canaanite Genocide.

The second level (no less important) and in very much a related sense, would be the Genocide instigated and perpetuated by Yahweh Himself – depending on the context, often referred to as the Yahweh War, discussed at length by Merrill (pgs 63-101). There are three particular expressions of this:

a. Yahweh leading the battles and wars Himself and guaranteeing their success (with the Israelites) against the Canaanites,

b. Large scale Genocidal events such as the The Noahic Flood and Sodom and Gomorrah (independent of the Israelites) in the OT

c. The promise in the New Testament of Christ's final judgment and destruction of ALL those who are disobedient to Him. Notably three of the four authors (i.e. Merrill, Gard and Longman), as support for their Arguments, refer or allude to The Final Judgment as a kind of Genocide from the book of Revelation e.g. Revelation 19:11-21.

The third level of this discussion on Genocide in the Biblical text is comprised, in a related sense, of the following two elements:

The True Character and Nature of God

How does one reconcile what might appear to be radical differences in God's character and nature, particularly as compared between Jesus in the New Testament and Yahweh within the Old Testament. Ostensibly, is the God in the New Testament the same as the God in the Old Testament? By way of example, how does the Christian explain to a Post-Modern unbeliever what he believes to be apparent incongruities between the nature of Yahweh in the Old Testament and the nature of Jesus in the New Testament? To put it in the brutal terms of a nonChristian, post-modern critic: "Was Jesus complicit and present at Canaanite cities of Jericho and Ai as the Israelites in horrific bloody fashion, stabbed, hacked and chopped down the Canaanite non-military personnel such as mothers, girls and boys, young children and infants in arms?" And, less importantly, this is to say nothing of the often practiced complete (to many senseless) destruction of their entire culture and all of their resources i.e. animals, food and buildings etc.

Moral and Ethical Consistency Between the Old and New Testaments

One significant, final and inescapable issue has to do with our view of scripture, particularly, as it is related to infallibility and inerrancy – with and between both the Old and New Testaments; and the resulting hermeneutical and interpretive approach that one takes regarding the texts referring to Genocide. How does Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, with its uncompromising mandate on limitless forgiveness, unconditionally loving your enemies and helping the oppressed square with the command to implement Yahweh's devastating herem (i.e. "show them no mercy") in the Old Testament? If the Sermon on the Mount is true morally and ethically, how can, (in particular) the indiscriminate slaughter of helpless (innocent?) women and children be equally true as well? If both texts are equally authoritative, then for many, at least on the surface it would appear that there is an insurmountable conundrum in trying to make sense between these two testaments.

Again, as a conclusion to the Introduction, in a world that has become increasingly more knowledgeable and sensitive about the Church's historical broad connectedness to Genocide, we must understand that to a certain degree, we are increasingly, more and more: "on report;" and as a result we must be able to:

1. Provide thoughtful and substantive discussion on what is in essence a difficult apologetic issue for many Christian and non-Christians to accept, articulate and comprehend, in the light of the Biblical claims of a loving and gracious God.
   
2. Be able to speak with a kind of "prophetic voice" with a very clear and poignant "thus saith the Lord" when it comes to resisting, speaking out against, and stopping contemporary expressions of Genocide in our world today. Again, by way of example: If Israel in the Old Testament can claim that by divine fiat the justification for their genocidal activity, then why can't other religious groups and traditions in our world today claim the very same privilege for themselves? What is the difference? Indeed those declaring Jihad already have!
   
3. Finally, for many in the world, there is simply too much of a close connection between the Genocide in the Old Testament and the historical Church's involvement in Genocidal activity, regardless of it is role as 'Bystander' or out right "complicity." Even if the Genocide in the Old Testament was justified, we need to be better able to clearly distance from it, the Church's connectionto Genocide within the history of the Church itself; and until we are better able to accomplish this, then much of the moral high ground that we wish tooccupy in this issue may be untenable (Cowles 37).
   

Summary of Conclusions and Response:

To be honest I found the book Show Them No Mercy to be helpful and frustrating at the same time. The wide diversity of theological traditions represented allowed for a fair amount of in depth and creative hermeneutics related to the Israelite Genocide perpetuated against the Canaanites. There is a clear and significant break, on the view of scripture, between Cowles and the other three authors Merrill (who is Dispensational), Gard and Longman (both whom are "Reformed" in their theology - as I am, sorta more "Dutch Reformed").¹ They nestled their arguments a highly forensic matrix, with Longman leaving the unfortunate impression of being myopic and irritatingly arrogant; as well as moribund for the reader. The attribute of God's justice must be appeased – clearly; but Canaanites or not, these were human beings, with lives, hearts and meaningful relationships; who felt pain as well as joy; and just like the rest of us were made in Imago Dei. Longman definitely gave the impression, from a hyper-reformed point of view: (that I interpret and articulate in admittedly a non-scholarly fashion as) "Hey! It really sucks to be the non-elect!"

Cowles (Neo-Orthodox?), on the other hand, pleads convincingly for grace and love in regard to the Canaanites and the devastating herem that was unleashed upon them. He is unconvinced that the same God that we all know as Jesus Christ could have in any way been a part in facilitating the Genocide against the Canaanites. While Merrill, Gard and Longman stimulated the mind in their hermeneutic, Cowles ignited the heart in his radical use and interpretation of scripture related to the Canaanite Genocide. While Cowles proposition is inspiring in many respects, he too unfortunately sees in monocular fashion. Jesus Christ is not only Savior – He is likewise Lord as well. And as Lord, does those things that Lord's must do, such as when we read in Matthew 25:15-28 in the ominous Parable of the Talents. In short, the parallel here is the Christ is both Redeemer and Judge, not just Redeemer.

Metaphorically, I find that Merrill (less so), Gard and Longman, stand behind Calvin, Luther and Zwingli, coolly pontificating their positive intellectualized theology from the German lecture hall, while Cowles sits at a French Café table with William Wilberforce, William Booth and Brian McClaren – pounding on the table and beseeching all of us to be more circumspect and thoughtful in our interpretation of scripture and the resulting view of our fellow man.

So what might be a truncated overview of each of Cowles, Merrill, Gard and Longman's arguments?

Radical Discontinuity

C.S. Cowles

Radical Discontinuity for Cowles simply means that ALL of scripture must be interpreted in solely in the light of the revelation of Christ - who He is, what He did and what He taught. ANYPLACE where scripture speaks in such a way that is not consistent with Christ, then it must be discounted or explained in another manner – time and space prevent me from illustrating how forcefully he argues this. For Cowles the alleged mandate from Yahweh to annihilate the Canaanites must be explained as Judeo-cultural phenomena and not as a mandate from Yahweh. In other words, Cowles would argue that, Yahweh is invoked by the Israelites to justify their actions against the Canaanites – a people whose land they took over and who ethnically and culturally were different from them. Cowles is so adamant about this principle that he really does appear to embrace a kind of Marcionism (something that the other author's collectively accuse him of as well); but to be fair not without his appealing to the superiority of Christ over and throughout all Scripture. Importantly, he notes in his response to Longman's essay on Spiritual Continuity: "There is a scarlet threat that runs through the Old and New Testaments, that ties together the beginning and the end, and that discloses God's fundamental character. It is not the herem but the cross (Cowles 195)."

While I am highly sympathetic to Cowles use of Christ in his argument, I find that I am not ready to part with my traditional views of Scripture. Marcionism is a dangerous heresy. Cutting and pasting the Old Testament in Jeffersonian fashion can really disrupt the authoritative nature of all of Scripture. It is an irresistible and pernicious slippery slope. However, I am not yet ready to surrender this highly visceral subject matter to dispassionate forensic neophytes as well. Genocide under any circumstances is tragic and heart wrenching, and Cowles more than any of the other contributors captured this spirit in his discussion.

Moderate Discontinuity

Eugene H. Merrill

Merrill describes his Moderate Discontinuity largely through a Dispensational lens. What he means by this is, that the best way to give meaning to the Genocidal events in the Old Testament is to understand: "the moral and ethical dilemma of Yahweh war must also remain without satisfying rational explanation [This is the discontinuity part]… all that can be said is that if God is all the Bible says he is, all that he does must be good – and that includes his authorization of genocide (Merrill 94)." Merrill, in essence, leaves us with a kind of Kantian "leap of faith" over this particular matter.

My strongest concern regarding Merrill's position overall is that his explanation of the herem as a "Yahweh War" being comprehensively prosecuted personally by Yahweh as the Divine Warrior, leaves me with the uncomfortable and prickly image of the God of the Old and New Testaments, personally involved in the regular, easy and bloody slaughter of women, children and infants. For a person caught between Longman's Spiritual Continuity and Cowles Radical Discontinuity, it would seem to me that Merrill's position appears to be the most tenable. The idea of a good transcendent over arching purpose that remains mysterious, appeals to me more than a Neo-Marcionism on one hand and cold, detached annihilationalism by God on the other.

Eschatological Continuity

Daniel Gard

Very simply, Gard argues in his position on Eschatological Continuity that the Old Testament herem can only be properly understood in the light of the Yahweh War in which he extends to the end times. In essence, the Canaanite Genocide in the Old Testament have meaning because the function as "types" for inevitable future events. Therefore: "To Gard, the only factor that can, in the final analysis, lead to a proper understanding of the Old Testament genocide is its persistent future orientation (Merrill 151)." Working off of his discussion related to the final judgment, he notes: "The question is truly not one about God's love but about his justice, once acted out in history as it will be on the last day. He preserved then and will always preserve his people (Gard 140)." To which I can only respond with "Yikes!"

Gard and Longman theologically are not very different from each other. I find both of them to be narrowly and overtly forensic (almost clinical) in their discussion and understanding of the Canaanite Genocides. For them, there appears to be little or no compassion - nor even the need for mystery associated with God's ultimate purpose and reason for the Canaanites complete destruction. They were destroyed because of their sin, their non-elect status and simply because Yahweh willed it. I think Cowles is correct, in his almost shrill responses that call Merrill and especially Gard and Longman, to having the kind of compassion for the Canaanites that Christ had for His enemies; and that He commanded us to have as well.

Spiritual Continuity

Tremper Longman III

Longman also recognizes the eschatological continuity argument that Gard purports, but arrives at it through a different hermeneutic. In short, Longman sees the Canaanite genocide as Yahweh's judgment for their sin and their non-people-of-God status. In view of the totality of scripture and the purpose of God, their fate parallels and is consistent with the fate of those who live throughout all of history. God is Sovereign and will do as He purposes simply because He is Sovereign; and this cannot be questioned. The spiritual nature and providence of God determines a people's course and consequences. Again, even more than Gard, he embraces an almost off-the-charts forensic model in his view of how God interacts with mankind. He notes in his conclusion: "The period of God's extraordinary grace, often called common grace, is a special circumstance. In this light, we should not be amazed that God ordered the death of the Canaanites, but rather we should stand in amazement that he lets anyone live (Longman 185)."

Surely, Longman's comment above cannot be that narrow in terms of how God chooses to interact with us. God's relationship with us clearly means more than just His law and Holiness. His relationship with us also and necessarily involves His love and grace which are no less true of His nature than law and holiness. It's worth noting that this is basically Cowles argument as well. There must be more balance in the use of God's divine and moral attributes and the implications associated with them in relationship to mankind. I find that Gard and Longman unrelenting constricted and telescopic in their use of forensic Justification.

In conclusion, Show Them NO MERCY was stimulating, but not really satisfying – it left me hungrier, with more questions, than contented and full with helpful from helpful ones. In some respects, I learned (and was alarmed) with how freely some scholars are willing to trade away a balanced approach to difficult issues in order to be slavishly consistent to with one's own [narrow] ideological and theological paradigms. If I am forced to choose with whom I agreed with most in spirit, I would say that I love Cowles emphasis on Christ and the demand that we model His life of love and grace to all people. I found Merrill's ultimate position that of mystery in knowing God's ultimate purpose (despite his Dispensational approach) broader and more intellectually honest, even if it doesn't provide the kind of specifics that give the kind of illumination that we all so desperately want on this very difficult issue. Unfortunately, while I agree very much with the doctrine of Justification, I found Gard and Longman in their foundational use of justification to explain OT genocide, to be amazingly narrow, woodenly prescriptive and coldly exclusive.

1.These latter three were strongly presuppositionlist in their view of scripture, clearly emphasizing both Old and New Testaments as equally authoritative and canonical; and as the inherent and infallible Word of God - which automatically militated the ultimate (albeit general) conclusion, universally arrived at by all three: That Yahweh was directly responsible for the Canaanite genocide. In addition, and tellingly, all three of these contributors worked out their interpretive work through an almost exclusive "justification" atonement theory lens.
I find it troubling when Christians myopically operate only out of one particular atonement theory. Implicitly and explicitly the Bible appears to harbor a number of atonement theories that, in my mind, work in concert together. For example, it seems clear to me that Christ's work begins with justification, employs redemption as a means for reconciliation, in order that we and the Created Order might experience complete restoration into the image and place that God originally intended. In the end, it's all about "at-one-ment," and this is impossible to achieve through any one particular approach.

Bibliography

Gundry, Stanley N., ed. Show Them No Mercy – 4 Views on God and Canaanite Genocide. Grand Rapids: Zondervant Publishing House, 2003