Category Archives: Difficult Bible Passages

Should We Execute Non-Christians?

During King Asa’s reformation in Judah, he convenes a covenant ceremony during the Feast of Pentecost where all of Judah is called to seek after the God of Israel, the one true God who rescued them from Egyptian slavery centuries before. During this ceremony, they are also reminded that “all who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman.”

Two questions immediately arise: Where did this command originate and does it apply to us today?

To answer the first question, we must go back to the Torah, or the first five books of the Old Testament. The book of Exodus teaches Israel to not worship other gods in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me.” Chapter 22 then spells out the punishment for worship of other gods: “Whoever sacrifices to any god, other than the LORD alone, shall be devoted to destruction.”

In the book of Leviticus, chapter 20 prescribes capital punishment for particular religious violations. Any person who gives their child to Molech, a pagan god, was to be executed. Likewise, any person who was a medium or spiritist was to be put to death.

Finally, the book of Deuteronomy reiterates the teachings of Exodus and Leviticus in chapters 13 and 17. False prophets were to be put to death and anyone in the community who was participating in or promoting worship of pagan gods was also to be executed. Therefore, there is clear precedent for the command in 2 Chron 15:13.

Does the command to execute anyone who is worshiping false gods still apply today? No. These commands were only applicable to ancient Israel who was in a unique covenant relationship with God. As Christians living today, we live under a different covenant with God.

The NT clearly states in several places that the Law (embodying the covenant with ancient Israel) was fulfilled by Jesus and no longer applies to Christians. Here are a few passages proving the point:

“By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one [the Law] obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.” (Heb 8:13)

“We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.” (Gal 2:15-16)

“Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed.  So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith.  Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian [the Law].” (Gal 3:23-25)

“But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code [the Law].” (Rom 7:6)

These verses and others clearly state that Christians are not under any obligation to follow the divine commands given to the Israelites as they left Egyptian slavery and journeyed toward the Promised Land. As my seminary professor used to tell us, the Old Testament was written for us, but not to us. It was written to ancient Israel.

Who Is Responsible for the Division of Israel?

In 1 Kings 12, Rehoboam foolishly decides to threaten the northern tribes rather than agree to lighten their tax burden. This leads to the division of united Israel into the northern kingdom, called Israel, and the southern kingdom, called Judah.

In verse 24, the prophet Shemaiah tells Rehoboam that the division of the kingdom is God’s doing, so don’t we have a contradiction here? Whose fault is the division? Rehoboam, who spoke foolish words, or God?

The truth is that both God and Rehoboam are responsible for the division.  There is absolutely nothing contradictory about an infinite God being in control of every little electron in the universe, but creating creatures in that same universe who have a special power of free will.  God can accomplish everything he wants to accomplish in human affairs through human free will.

While He commands volcanoes to erupt and water to flow as inanimate objects, He commands humans as free creatures.  He works in coordination with human freedom, not without it or against it.

Philosophers refer to this as primary and secondary causation.  God is the primary cause of all activity in the universe, but He uses the secondary cause of free will to accomplish his purposes with human beings.

Some say that this concept of human free will takes away from the glory of God, but claiming that God cannot create free creatures and still bring his plans to fruition is really the position that takes away from God’s glory.

How Do We Interpret the Proverbs?

Some readers of the Book of Proverbs have raised objections to its contents. First, some proverbs seem to command a certain behavior, but then others command a different, incompatible behavior. Second, some proverbs appear to make promises that other parts of the Bible seem to contradict. Third, some proverbs make what appear to be comprehensive statements that seem to be contradicted by the realities of life.

Edward Curtis, in the Apologetics Study Bible, offers the following guidance on how to read and interpret the Book of Proverbs in light of the objections above.

The types of sayings found in Proverbs reflect a way of thinking and teaching that has been largely abandoned in modern Western culture. Proverbs are general statements of truth rather than invariable promises or laws, and an individual proverb normally captures a tiny cross-section of truth rather than making a comprehensive statement about a topic.

For example, ‘A gentle answer turns away anger’ (15: 1) constitutes one component of the broader topics of using words wisely and dealing with angry people. This single principle is one small piece of a much larger mosaic, and the task of the student is not only to put together the broader mosaic piece by piece but also to learn to apply these principles skillfully to the complexities that one encounters in life.

The goal of the wisdom in Proverbs is to develop skill in living according to the order that is embedded in God’s creation. Most proverbs state a single general truth with little attempt to note exceptions and qualifications. Such an approach effectively emphasizes the principle taught by avoiding the distraction of qualifications.

The authors of proverbs also emphasized the points they wanted to make through the use of idealized examples and hyperbole. While the sluggard, for example, is a real character, he is described in exaggerated terms that set his basic characteristics in clear relief. One would probably never find someone who perfectly fits the descriptions of a sluggard, because the person whose picture emerges from putting together the various pieces of the sluggard mosaic in the book is a stereotypical character. The same is also true for the excellent woman in Proverbs 31 and for the wise man and for the fool described throughout the book.

When a pair of proverbs seems conflicting or even contradictory, the first proverb moves the reader in a certain direction, then the contrasting proverb provides a balancing principle to point the reader toward another dimension of the skill of living in a complex world.

For example, Proverbs 26: 4 says, ‘Don’t answer a fool according to his foolishness or you’ll be like him yourself,’ while the next verse says, ‘Answer a fool according to his foolishness, or he’ll become wise in his own eyes.’ The student of wisdom recognizes that encounters with a fool require responses appropriate to that particular situation. The student also recognizes that a variety of other approaches between those extremes may be the wise response, and the student’s goal is to become the kind of wisdom craftsman who can frame the appropriate response no matter the situation he faces.

Likewise, the ambiguity that often characterizes proverbs reflects the same pedagogy and goals. The student of wisdom is challenged by the ambiguity to explore the possibilities for understanding the proverb along with the variety of situations in which the principle appropriately applies. The ambiguity also promotes ongoing reflection as to the legitimate limits for applying the principle.

While the book addresses a wide variety of issues, it gives considerable attention to matters such as the contrast between the wise person and the fool, the importance of virtues such as diligence and self-control, the importance of using words wisely, warnings about sexual immorality, the responsible use of money, priorities, and advice about proper behavior in a variety of social settings. Most proverbs deal with the general and the typical, but their goal is to equip people with the skills to apply wisdom to the particular experiences of life.

#9 Post of 2015 – Why Did Moses Separate the Virgins and Non-Virgins of Midian?

In Numbers 31:18, Moses commands the officers of the army to kill all the women who have had sex and only keep alive the girls who are virgins. What is going here? Why would Moses give this command?

In order to understand this verse, we first have to understand the background. The Midianites, under the counsel of Balaam, devised a plan to cause Yahweh, the God of Israel, to turn against his people. The plan, which was executed in chapter 25 of Numbers, was to seduce Israelite men into fornication (single men) and adultery (married men), and then formal worship of the Midianite gods, especially Baal of Peor.

According to Glenn Miller (Christian Thinktank website), the number of Midianite women involved in this conspiracy would have been 6 to 12,000. Yes, you read that correctly. It would also appear that the Midianite kings and husbands of these women were complicit in the conspiracy. They were willing to send their women into the Israelite camp as prostitutes, essentially, to cause the downfall of Israel.

God does indeed turn against his people, given the sexual and religious crimes they have committed. A plague kills some 24,000 children of Israel. The only reason the plague ends is Phinehas’s quick action to put an end to the sordid affair.

With this background in place, God orders the Israelites to subjugate the Midianites, taking vengeance for their moral atrocities. The Israelites easily win the battle and the army returns with thousands of women captives. At this point, Moses commands the officers to “kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.”

It should be clear now that the females who the army has brought back are a mix of women who participated in the conspiracy and young girls who did not. Moses understandably considers the non-virgin women to be directly culpable for the deaths of thousands of Israelites. Setting this aside, they have shown already that they will turn the men of Israel away from Yahweh and toward Baal, causing further death and suffering in the future. These women simply cannot be allowed to survive.

Given Moses’ command, how could the Israelites tell the women apart? Glenn Miller explains that there were simple visual tests that could be applied:

“1) Was the female pre-pubescent? 2) Was the female wearing any attire, jewelry, or adornments required for/associated with virginity for that culture? 3) Was the female wearing any attire, jewelry, or adornments required for/associated with non-virginity for that culture (e.g., veil indicating married status)?”

He continues:

Because virginity was generally associated with legal proof for blood-inheritance issues in ancient cultures (e.g., land, property, kinship, relationships), virginity itself was often marked by some type of clothing (e.g., the robe of Tamar in 2 Sam 13) or by cosmetic means (cf. the Hindu ‘pre-marriage dot’); as was more typically non-virginal married status (e.g., veils, headwear, jewelry, or certain hairstyles).  Of course, non-virginal unmarried status (e.g., temple prostitutes and secular prostitutes) were also indicated by special markings or adornments (e.g. jewelry, dress—cf. Proverbs 7.10; Hos 2.4-5).

The young girls who were virgins would be taken in and cared for by Israelite families, partially to help replace the population of 24,000 who had died by the plague. The young girls would, like all other Israelite women, be married when they matured.

Why Is the Son of Saul’s Name Different in 2 Samuel Versus 1 Chronicles?

The astute Bible reader will notice that the son of Saul who ruled Israel after Saul was killed is called Ish-Bosheth in 2 Samuel, but in 1 Chronicles is called Esh-Baal. What is going on? Both of these accounts are referring to the same person, so why can’t they get his name straight?

Walter Kaiser Jr. and Duane Garrett, in the NIV Archaeological Study Bible, offer some interesting thoughts on why there are name differences:

Some changes in the Biblical text, including euphemistic expressions (intended, e.g., to express something less starkly), are not explicitly marked. One such example occurs with respect to the proper names that contain the element ‘Baal.’ The noun Baal, which originally meant simply ‘Lord,’ came later to signify almost exclusively the proper name of the Canaanite god. Later readers were apt to be offended by the appearance of this name in the Scripture, especially when associated with an Israelite.

Thus, names that included ‘Baal’ were sometimes changed in order to refrain from speaking even indirectly of false gods. For example, in 1 Chronicles the son of Jonathan is identified as Merib-Baal (1Ch 8: 34; 9: 40), whereas in 2 Samuel he is called Mephibosheth (2Sa 4: 4).

So what about Esh-Baal/Ish-Bosheth? They continue:

Similarly, a son of Saul is called Esh-Baal in 1 Chronicles 8: 33 and 9: 39 but Ish-Bosheth in 2 Samuel 2: 8. In both cases the name Baal has been substituted with ‘bosheth,’ the Hebrew noun for ‘shame.’ The change does not appear to reflect a negative judgment on the individual in question, but rather was a way of condemning the name of Baal.

The cumulative evidence of the Hebrew Bible shows that such emendations were not carried out systematically. It is also important to emphasize that most early scribal emendations are explicitly identified as such by marginal notations that preserve the text of the original reading. Viewed in this light, such changes provide insight into the religious sensibilities of various readers of the Bible rather than reflecting an attempt to alter the actual wording of the sacred text.

How Did Tiny David Defeat Giant Goliath? Part 2

As David faces Goliath, what is his plan? How will he defeat Goliath? Malcolm Gladwell, in his book David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants, argues that David had no plans to fight Goliath in hand-to-hand combat, as this wouldn’t play to his strength. David is a projectile warrior, not an infantryman. Gladwell writes:

He runs toward Goliath, because without armor he has speed and maneuverability. He puts a rock into his sling, and whips it around and around, faster and faster at six or seven revolutions per second, aiming his projectile at Goliath’s forehead— the giant’s only point of vulnerability.

Eitan Hirsch, a ballistics expert with the Israeli Defense Forces, recently did a series of calculations showing that a typical-size stone hurled by an expert slinger at a distance of thirty-five meters would have hit Goliath’s head with a velocity of thirty-four meters per second— more than enough to penetrate his skull and render him unconscious or dead.

In terms of stopping power, that is equivalent to a fair-size modern handgun. ‘We find,’ Hirsch writes, ‘that David could have slung and hit Goliath in little more than one second— a time so brief that Goliath would not have been able to protect himself and during which he would be stationary for all practical purposes.’ . . .

Twice David mentions Goliath’s sword and spear, as if to emphasize how profoundly different his intentions are. Then he reaches into his shepherd’s bag for a stone, and at that point no one watching from the ridges on either side of the valley would have considered David’s victory improbable. David was a slinger, and slingers beat infantry, hands down. ‘Goliath had as much chance against David,’ the historian Robert Dohrenwend writes, ‘as any Bronze Age warrior with a sword would have had against an [opponent] armed with a .45 automatic pistol.’

After taking a closer look at David’s victory, we can see that it isn’t far-fetched at all. The true puzzle is why nobody else in Israel’s army realized what David realized! The text indicates that David’s faith in God and his devotion to God’s commands are what gave him his courage and his willingness to face the giant, when the rest of the army cowered in fear.

How Did Tiny David Defeat Giant Goliath? Part 1

Some critics have questioned how 5 feet tall David could have defeated 7 (or 10) feet tall Goliath. Isn’t this story a little far-fetched? A stone from a sling killing a giant of a man in a single blow? How can this be true?

The text of 1 Samuel 17 indicates that God is with David, but it does not indicate that God supernaturally intervened to perform a “slingshot miracle” to kill Goliath. Although David credits God with his victory, God’s assistance seems more providential than miraculous. God places the right man with the right heart with the right skills at the right place and the right time to do his bidding.

If there is no indication of a miracle, then we are left with the puzzle of how David was able to kill Goliath so easily. Malcolm Gladwell, in his book David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants, takes a close look at this famous battle and discovers that David’s victory was not at all a fluke, but something that could have been predicted. Gladwell explains:

Ancient armies had three kinds of warriors. The first was cavalry— armed men on horseback or in chariots. The second was infantry— foot soldiers wearing armor and carrying swords and shields. The third were projectile warriors, or what today would be called artillery: archers and, most important, slingers.

Slingers had a leather pouch attached on two sides by a long strand of rope. They would put a rock or a lead ball into the pouch, swing it around in increasingly wider and faster circles, and then release one end of the rope, hurling the rock forward. Slinging took an extraordinary amount of skill and practice. But in experienced hands, the sling was a devastating weapon.

Paintings from medieval times show slingers hitting birds in midflight. Irish slingers were said to be able to hit a coin from as far away as they could see it, and in the Old Testament Book of Judges, slingers are described as being accurate within a ‘hair’s breadth.’ An experienced slinger could kill or seriously injure a target at a distance of up to two hundred yards.  The Romans even had a special set of tongs made just to remove stones that had been embedded in some poor soldier’s body by a sling. Imagine standing in front of a Major League Baseball pitcher as he aims a baseball at your head. That’s what facing a slinger was like— only what was being thrown was not a ball of cork and leather but a solid rock.

Gladwell continues:

The historian Baruch Halpern argues that the sling was of such importance in ancient warfare that the three kinds of warriors balanced one another, like each gesture in the game of rock, paper, scissors. With their long pikes and armor, infantry could stand up to cavalry. Cavalry could, in turn, defeat projectile warriors, because the horses moved too quickly for artillery to take proper aim. And projectile warriors were deadly against infantry, because a big lumbering soldier, weighed down with armor, was a sitting duck for a slinger who was launching projectiles from a hundred yards away. . . .

Goliath is heavy infantry. He thinks that he is going to be engaged in a duel with another heavy-infantryman . . .  When he says, ‘Come to me, that I may give your flesh to the birds of the heavens and the beasts of the field,’ the key phrase is ‘come to me.’ He means come right up to me so that we can fight at close quarters. When Saul tries to dress David in armor and give him a sword, he is operating under the same assumption. He assumes David is going to fight Goliath hand to hand.

In part 2, we’ll continue with Gladwell’s analysis of this famous Bible narrative.

Did Saul Kill All of the Amalekites?

In 1 Samuel 15:3, Samuel commands Saul, “Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.” As we read the rest of the chapter, Saul tells Samuel, after the battle, “I have carried out the LORD’s instructions” and “I completely destroyed the Amalekites.”

Samuel’s only disagreement with Saul is that Saul kept some of the livestock for himself, a clear violation of God’s command. Saul was not to have financial gain from this battle, which was intended to be an execution of divine justice against an exceedingly vicious group of people.  Samuel seems to agree that Saul totally destroyed everyone, “men and women, children and infants,” just as God commanded. But how should we understand this command to “put to death men and women, children and infants,” coupled with Saul’s claim that he did indeed kill every Amalekite?

Did Saul literally wipe out every living Amalekite or is this command hyperbolic in nature, referring to a decisive military victory? We know that other ancient near eastern cultures used the same kinds of descriptions of military victories, such as “totally destroying” the enemy, or killing “every man, woman, and child.” But these are figures of speech which literally mean “we won a decisive military victory against our enemy.” What about in this case?

The easiest way to decide whether Saul literally killed every living Amalekite is to see whether the Amalekites are ever mentioned in the biblical record again. When we do that, we see that the Amalekites lived on!

In 1 Sam 27:8, we see that David fights Amalekites, so at least some of them are alive and well. Paul Copan and Matt Flannagan write in Did God Really Command Genocide?: Coming to Terms with the Justice of God:

This text affirms not only that the Amalekites still existed, but the reference to Egypt and Shur states that they existed in the very same area where Saul ‘utterly destroyed’ every single one of them (15: 8, 20). What’s more, David took sheep and cattle as plunder. Clearly, in terms of what the narrative says, the Amalekites were not all destroyed— nor were all the animals finally destroyed in Gilgal in chapter 15. Instead, many people and livestock from the region had survived Saul’s attack.

In 1 Sam 30, the Amalekites show up again! This time they attack the Israelite settlement of Ziklag, burn it to the ground, and carry off everyone as prisoners. Copan and Flannagan write:

So even though Saul ‘utterly destroyed’ the Amalekites (15: 8, 20), the text makes clear that many Amalekites remained so that David would not only— once again!— fight against them so that ‘not a man of them escaped,’ but after this battle, four hundred Amalekites fled on camels (30: 17 NASB).

Amalekites continue to be mentioned in the Bible:

Even beyond this, the Amalekites continue to remain, and we come across another Amalekite in 2 Samuel 1: 8, a passage where one of them takes credit for killing Saul— presumably a tall task if Saul had ‘utterly destroyed all the people’ of Amalek. And in 1 Chronicles 4: 43, the nation of Amalek is still around during the reign of Hezekiah. And then in the book of Esther, we encounter a descendant of the Amalekite king, Agag— Haman ‘the Agagite’ (8: 3), also called ‘the son of Hammedatha the Agagite’ (3: 1)— who was determined to wipe out the Jewish people. Amalekites were around well after both Saul and David.

It seems clear that Saul did not totally destroy all of the Amalekites, men, women, and children. Yet Samuel, and presumably God, were satisfied that Saul obeyed God’s commands, except for keeping alive livestock and the king of Amalek. Therefore, it seems that we should take Saul’s claim that he “completely destroyed the Amalekites” as a hyperbolic statement that would literally mean, “I won the decisive military victory that God commanded me to win.”

Don’t Judges 1:8 and 1:21 Contradict Each Other?

Judges 1:8 says, “The men of Judah attacked Jerusalem also and took it. They put the city to the sword and set it on fire.” The surface implication is that the city of Jerusalem was completely destroyed and everyone inside of it killed.

Just a few verses later, Judges 1:21 says, “The Benjamites, however, failed to dislodge the Jebusites, who were living in Jerusalem; to this day the Jebusites live there with the Benjamites.” This verse clearly states that the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, were not removed and still live there! How can both of these verses be true?

Daniel Block, in Judges, Ruth: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (The New American Commentary) offers one explanation:

The most likely explanation recognizes that Jerusalem was a border city, located on the boundary between Judah and Benjamin. The city that was burned in v. 8 probably identifies the Jebusite fortress on the southern hill of the city, between the Kidron and Hinnom Valleys, and which David eventually captured and made his capital. Accordingly, the unsuccessful Benjamite effort in v. 21 must have been directed against the citadel farther north. The fact that David had to reconquer Jerusalem suggests the Judahite hold on the city was weak and short-lived. It seems that shortly after they had sacked it the Jebusites moved in from the north and took control, which they then held for several centuries.

Block’s explanation assumes that Jerusalem actually consisted of at least two separate citadels. But if there really was only one citadel named Jerusalem at that time, then how would we explain the apparent difficulty?

Paul Copan and Matt Flannagan argue in their book Did God Really Command Genocide?: Coming to Terms with the Justice of God that we have to be careful when interpreting phrases like “put the city to the sword.” This phrase may have been hyperbolic in its original context. In other words, the author and the original readers would have understood that the entire city was not destroyed and that all the people inside were not literally killed. Instead there was a military victory that left at least some of the city intact and some of the residents alive.

We use hyperbolic language all the time today. Think about sports. Sports fans frequently say things like, “My team destroyed yours” or “We annihilated them last night.” Are we really talking about destruction and annihilation? No, obviously not. We simply mean that one team defeated the other. We use the exact same kinds of phrases when we talk about military battles.

Other hyperbolic phrases found in the Old Testament are “utterly destroy,” “put to the edge of the sword,” “leave alive nothing that breathes,” “leaving no survivors,” and “man and woman, young and old.” These kinds of phrases were commonly used among the people living at this time in history. Many times in the historical books of the Bible we see reports of “complete annihilation” of a city or group of people, only to see this same city or people group alive and well later on, often in the same book (compare Joshua 10:39 to 11:31 and Joshua 11:21 to 15:13-14).

So, a second plausible explanation for the seeming contradiction of verses 8 and 21 is that verse 8 should be understood hyperbolically. Whether you are convinced by this explanation or by Daniel Block’s explanation, there is not actually a contradiction.

Did Joshua Kill Innocent Canaanite Adults During the Conquest? Part 3

Clay Jones, in this blog post, provides even more evidence that God, in the Old Testament, spares those who repent of their sin. Consider the story of Sodom and Gomorrah found in Genesis. Abraham asks God:

Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?

God offers to spare the cities if even ten righteous people can be found. We know how the story ends. Not even ten people could be found and both cities are destroyed. Jones writes:

The evil which seduced the people of Sodom and Gomorrah may have surprised Abraham and may surprise us, but it didn’t surprise God. Certainly we learn several things from this passage. One, Sodom and Gomorrah were completely depraved. Two, God knows hearts and therefore knows who will and who won’t repent. Three, God would allow entire cities to live if it meant that a handful of righteous wouldn’t die. Four, God was willing to give evidence of Sodom and Gomorrah’s wickedness so that He couldn’t be accused of killing the righteous with the wicked. And five, when God destroyed these cities, he only killed the wicked.

Jones then points us to the Book of Jeremiah.

The Lord warned Israel that if they let the Canaanites live that they would be seduced by their sin and then God would do the same thing to Israel. Well, we know that happened, and so the Lord sent prophets to warn them to repent—to no avail. Then the Lord said in Jeremiah 5:1-2: ‘Go up and down the streets of Jerusalem, look around and consider, search through her squares. If you can find but one person who deals honestly and seeks the truth, I will forgive this city. Although they say, “As surely as the Lord lives,” still they are swearing falsely.’

Then in verses 3-5 Jeremiah reports that he looked but that he couldn’t find anyone who would repent. So in v. 6 he concludes: ‘Therefore a lion from the forest will attack them, a wolf from the desert will ravage them, a leopard will lie in wait near their towns to tear to pieces any who venture out, for their rebellion is great and their backslidings many.’ Notice that, just as with Sodom and Gomorrah, the Lord made sure that the world would know that He knows when there are no good people in a city.

Finally, Jones points to the Book of Ezekiel.

Consider also this passage from Ezekiel 14:13-14, ‘Son of man, when a land sins against me by acting faithlessly, and I stretch out my hand against it and break its supply of bread and send famine upon it, and cut off from it man and beast, even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness, declares the Lord God.’ In the following verses the Lord says this is true when He kills with ‘wild beasts,’ or a ‘sword,’ or ‘pestilence.’

Then in v. 22 the Lord says, ‘But behold, some survivors will be left in it, sons and daughters who will be brought out; behold, when they come out to you, and you see their ways and their deeds, you will be consoled for the disaster that I have brought upon Jerusalem, for all that I have brought upon it.’ Why will the people who witnessed their destruction be consoled by seeing these survivors? In the next verse the Lord tells us: ‘They will console you, when you see their ways and their deeds, and you shall know that I have not done without cause all that I have done in it, declares the Lord God.’ Again, notice that the Lord cares that the people of that day realized that the people He had killed were depraved and deserved to die.

So what can we conclude? The Bible portrays the Canaanites as the most morally depraved individuals most of us could imagine. They are squatters on land that God has given Israel. God held Israel to the same standards as the Canaanites and He eventually pushed Israel out of the land when their sin reached a climax. Finally, we have very good reason to believe from several Bible passages that God would spare any individuals who repented of their sin and followed Him. Thus, no innocent Canaanites were killed by Joshua.