Show Them No Mercy: Four Views on God and Canaanite Genocide

Counterpoints

by Stanley N. Gundry (Editor), C.S. Cowles

Did God condone genocide in the Old Testament? How do Christians harmonize the warrior God of Israel with the God of love incarnate in Jesus?

Christians are often shocked to read that Yahweh, the God of the Israelites, commanded the total destruction--all men, women, and children--of the ethnic group known as the Canaanites.

This seems to contradict Jesus' command in the New Testament to love your enemies and do good to all people. How can Yahweh be the same God as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ? What does genocide in the Bible have to do with the politics of the 21st century?

Show Them No Mercy explores the Old Testament command of God to exterminate the Canaanite population and what that implies about continuity between the Old and New Testaments. The four views presented are:

Strong Discontinuity – emphasizes the strong tension, regarding violence, between the two main texts of the Bible (C.S. Cowles)
Moderate Discontinuity – provides a justification of God’s actions in the Old Testament with strong emphasis on exegesis (Eugene H. Merrill)
Eschatological Continuity – a reading of the warfare narratives that ties them contextually to the book of Revelation and the Second Coming (Daniel L. Gard)
Spiritual Continuity – incorporates the genocidal account into the full picture of the Old and New Testaments (Tremper Longman III)
The Counterpoints series presents a comparison and critique of scholarly views on topics important to Christians that are both fair-minded and respectful of the biblical text. Each volume is a one-stop reference that allows readers to evaluate the different positions on a specific issue and form their own, educated opinion.

Genres: Theology, Christian, Biblical Studies, Old Testament, Christianity, Religion, Nonfiction

224 pages, Paperback

First published April 1, 2003

Reviews

[Andy · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was helpful to me because it helped me think and pray better.

The back cover claims all four writers’ views were within the evangelical tradition, but I question whether this is true of C.S. Cowles' position.

I enjoyed Cowles because he refused to use “Christianese” or allegory to gloss over the horror of the conquest. On the other hand his responses to the other writers seemed sledgehammer like and angry – almost disdainful.

Merrill, as a good historical/grammatical interpreter does a masterful job summarizing key “Yahweh War” texts.

The other two writers (Gard, Longman III) lost me in their attempts to spiritualize and/or identify grand themes of Yahweh War – though they never questioned the historicity of the conquest and they seemed to appreciate Merrill even though they came from differing doctrinal starting points.

Merrill, Gard and Longman III all identified Christ’s second coming as continuity between the OT Yahweh War and the NT. This was helpful.

I was tempted to give the book only 2 stars because it failed to meet my expectations when it came to archeology, history, culture etc. I gave it three because my expectations are often misinformed.

Along with "Show Them No Mercy" I’ve read through Genesis – Chronicles 3 times in the last 4 years and the entire bible twice. Not a great pace by any means but I’ve made these observations regarding the Canaanite genocide carried out by Israel at God’s command:

1.God could have rightly executed every living soul during the time of the Israelite conquest of Palestine , or at any time in human history.

2.The Israelites were not battle seasoned warriors. They were the sons and daughters of freedmen, more accustomed to a shepherd’s staff or a shovel than a spear or sword. The Transjordan battles under Moses helped prepare them for war but nothing could make up for the fact that they were not trained warriors.

3.The Israelites at times outnumbered their enemies in a particular battle or campaign, but strategically they lacked the equipment and sufficient soldiers. And they often attacked fortified positions – something that required significant superiority in numbers and weapons.

4.The Canaanites had well equipped, trained soldiers and at least some walled cities as defensive positions.

5.Israel, when true to the covenant, consistently defeated large armies and coalitions. God Himself was fighting for and alongside Israel.

6.Word had gone out among the Canaanites about the God of Israel, His powerful deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt and their (Israelites) crossing of the Jordan on dry ground.

7.The propitiation of the Lord Jesus covered the Canaanites. The simple faith of Abraham was sufficient for righteousness to be credited to any believing Canaanite.

8.Rahab was a pattern for all Canaanites, though not all believing Canaanites would necessarily have been spared, especially if they believed while their city was being sacked.

9. In the same way that Israel’s disobedience resulted in blessing for the gentiles after Christ’s death and resurrection, so Israel’s disobedience resulted in blessing for the gentiles of Canaan before Christ’s death. Israel failed to destroy all the peoples under the ban. As a result, many Canaanite lives were spared and there are many instances of them embracing Yahweh – Uriah the Hittite and Ruth the Moabite being notable examples. God knew it would turn out this way.

10. Nothing can be said or done to remove the fact that God ordered Israel to destroy men women and children of the 7 Canaanite nations and in fact many people from these nations were destroyed. This should cause us to realize that the God who is, is not always the God we wish Him to be. It should cause us to have a healthy fear of Him and a deep, abiding love for Him in providing a way for all people to be restored to a right relationship with Him.

[Autumn Kotsiuba · Rating 2 out of 5]

Here's my problem...this isn't a "let's deal with the obvious elephant in the room (Canaanites)" book; it's a "how do the OT and NT views of God line up" book with a shaky focus on military strategies/pacifism.

I usually love the Counterpoints series, it makes you think for yourself from a variety of views, but I found myself sighing at something from at least every essay. I'm just not satisfied with these answers. I thought this would be a great companion piece to my own studies, and certainly it may to of great use to others (the theologians are, please understand, respectable people) but it's not what I was hoping for.

If you want a clear-cut (and raw) opinion on the "uncomfortable spots" in the OT, check out anything by Peter Enns.

[Jonathan Roberts · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book! While I don’t always love these counterpoint books this one was very well done. I think their may have been a fifth view that would have worked in this too, but overall it was a good opportunity to think deeply about God’s Word

Recommended

[Gareth Clark · Rating 2 out of 5]

This review in one sentence: This book is not really focused on the ethics/moral implication of mass violence in the Old testament, but the theme of violence in the entire cannon of scripture.

This book is well written by four very intelligent knowable theologians. What's the issue then? Why two starts? It is not really a book about reconciling the issue of divinely sanctioned genocide in the Old Testament. It is more accurately a book comparing theories of the role of violence in the entire cannon of scripture.
If the book had been labeled and marked as such I would have rated it far higher.


Despite the fact that this book really does not tackle the ethical issues of the OT mass violence well it does provide, more or less, two view to compare. The first is a progressive revelation, Christocentric hermeneutical view, in which C.S. Cowles pretty much stands on the claim that OT text are not fully the words of God like Jesus is the Word. The other three all hold to the OT as the word of God and to be taken on face value. All three, with slight various, take the stance of: God is just, God has a right to judge, there are other elements to consider, but ultimately this is Just because it is an act of God. While I think this is a perfectly fine position to include when considering how to understand the OT violence, most of these author's work is spent analyzing the violence in regard to the cannon, not exploring the ethical dilemma.

All that being said, there is a lot of really interesting cultural, textual, and theological points made that give the book value to read, but not as a go to for exploring the ethics of the OT.

[Wesley Morgan · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book has two views on the Israelite conquest:

1. C.S. Cowles argues against Biblical inerrancy. For him, Jesus Christ is the center of the gospel, and anything in the Old Testament that doesn't line up with his teachings should be discarded.

I wish there had been more discussion of historicity. I like John Walton's explanation that "herem" can mean destroying a people's identity, not just killing all of them. Archaeological evidence shows that the conquest described in the Bible was greatly exaggerated, so it's disappointing that no scholars took this into account. Perhaps having Jewish authors, like other books in the series, might help.

2. The other three writers show that holy war took place throughout the Bible, even in the book of Revelation, so it's consistent with God. They also point out that this command does not exist today.

While I appreciate Tremper Longman and others showing that "holy war" has many characteristics, I don't like their justification for it: that God could/should kill all of us, so we should be grateful he doesn't.

This book spoke to the turn of the millennium, when Christian terrorism in the US and Islamic terrorism from the Middle East was at the forefront of our minds. Today, no one needs a scriptural case for why those are wrong. But these three scholars fail to justify why what is described in the Bible is morally excusable.

[Michel · Rating 4 out of 5]

This extremely difficult question, in this book, turns out to be a matter of hermeneutics: what is the place and the value of the Old Testament in the canon of the Christian Bible?

I mostly appreciated the contributions of Cowles and Longman as two opposite viewpoints. None of the essays, though, gives a fully satisfactory answer to the critical, postmodern mind, about how a God who reveals himself in the NT as the personification of love can play the part that he does in the wars of Israel. Ultimately, it comes down to the point of whether one would accept this paradox as a mystery or not.

As such, I didn’t find this book very successful as an apologetic resource, which the book actually doesn’t claim to be.

[Todd Miles · Rating 3 out of 5]

What follows is a generic critique of all of the multiple views books.

The essays are uneven. Some are better than others. The fatal flaw is not having each author respond to responses.

Particular to this volume: One waits in vain for C.S. Cowles to address the primary criticism leveled against him - that he does not believe the OT to be inspired and inerrant. (This is a criticism that he cannot avoid when he argues that the OT conception of God makes him more diabolical than Satan.) So it seems that we have four authors, some of whom share common presuppositions about the Bible and some who do not. It was also difficult to differentiate the other three views from each other. Most differences seemed to arise from different theological system precommitments rather than in the substance of their proposals. This book, through no fault of its own, is a bit dated now. More work with other proposals has been done since.

[Zach Brandt · Rating 3 out of 5]

There are essential 2 distinct views in this book, one of which has three contributors who differ in the details.

I think Cowles raises important concerns and his rhetoric is certainly the most compelling. However, I don’t know that he ever adequately addressed the concern that he is highlight one aspect of NT christology and excluding others. Is it possible to maintain the theological conclusions of the other three, but with the sensitivity and moral conscientiousness that Cowles displays?

[Felicity Chen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pretty straightforward- I enjoyed reading each authors critique of the other points; it helped me think through the og argument! None of the arguments stood out as being “the one” that answered everything, but they were each helpful to think through. Decently easy read. Not *too* much unnecessary technical language.

[Jackie · Rating 5 out of 5]

After reading this, I now know what I don't know. 5 stars because I think that's the best I can hope for regarding such a complicated topic.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

ANOTHER USEFUL VOLUME IN THE "COUNTERPOINTS" SERIES

The Introduction to this 2003 book states, "Anyone who reads the Old Testament... will encounter roadblocks to understanding its abiding message... [A] potential pitfall arises when readers encounter God's revealed law on war against the Canaanite nations (e.g., Deut 20) and then how these rules were played out in, for example, Jericho (see Josh. 6:17-21). How could the God of the Bible command such an indiscriminate slaughter of an entire people... The authors of the various essays in this book seek to assist us in bringing this second issue to a resolution in our minds. As with many controversial issues in biblical interpretation... they do not see eye to eye on how best to resolve the issue. All four of them, however, start from the basis of acknowledging the authority and inspiration of the Scriptures." (Pg. 7)

One essayist critiques another essayist: "After all, when the topic is God and violence, the apocalyptic texts are obviously relevant. [He] never addresses Revelation head-on, nor does he explain to us why he does not address such a relevant and large part of the New Testament... However, it seems obvious from what he has written that he would find these passages, at least as traditionally interpreted, to be just as unacceptable to his view of God as the Old Testament holy-war passages... the New Testament, when taken as a whole, is just as violent and bloody as---actually, probably more than---the Old Testament." (Pg. 59-60)

Another essayist says, "The issue, then, cannot be whether or not genocide is intrinsically good or evil---its sanction by a holy God settles that question. Rather, the issue has to do with the purpose of genocide. We argued here that biblical genocide was part of a Yahweh-war policy enacted for a unique situation, directed against a certain people, and in line with the character of God himself, a policy whose design is beyond human comprehension but one that is not, for that reason, unjust or immoral. Those very limitations preclude any possible justification for modern genocide for any reason." (Pg. 93)

He adds, "the genocide sanctioned by Scripture was unique to its time, place, and circumstances. It is not to be carried over to the age of the church. Indeed, it must remain an unused took in the armory of a sovereign God until he comes in power and glory to establish his everlasting kingdom." (Pg. 94)

Another suggests, "the important question is not so much why certain nations were destroyed but rather why all nations, including Israel, were not. By Yahweh's standard of holiness, not even the most righteous of humanity could remain alive." (Pg. 103)

Later, he adds, "A more pertinent question than why God commanded such brutal practices as the extermination of the Canaanites is why he did not command the destruction of the entire human race in time and history. He once did so at the time of Noah, but even then he preserved a remnant in the ark. He used human armies against his own people in 'reverse holy war' but always preserved a remnant. 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." (Pg. 140)

Another author says, "Of course, we are left with disturbing questions. Why the Canaanites? Why not some other people? Are the Canaanites really extraordinarily evil? While perhaps the case can be made from their own texts that the Canaanites were evil, I do not think it can be shown that they were more evil then the Assyrians or the Israelites themselves. Here, like Job, we are left unanswered as to why suffering comes to one and not another." (Pg. 185-186)

Like all the other volumes in the "Counterpoints" series by Zondervan, this volume will stimulate thought and further research, and it is highly recommended!

[Matthew Richey · Rating 2 out of 5]

As is almost always the case with this series, the contributions were uneven. I'll quickly summarize and evaluate each.

Cowles argues for radical discontinuity between the Canaanite Genocide (I don't agree with using the word in this case, but none of the authors in this volume object) and the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament. In making his case, however, he descends into Marcionism and rejects the authority and goodness of the Old Testament as well as its status as divine revelation (he doesn't say this explicitly, but I think this is a fair conclusion. Fair enough but he doesn't offer a comprehensive or cohesive vision for Jesus' view of the Old Testament and completely ignores Revelation or any New Testament texts that would prove difficult to his view. 1/5 stars, not because I disagree but because he really does not engage the issues.

Merrill presents a dispensational perspective that argues for the uniqueness of the conquest of the Canaanites because of Israel's unique place in the plan of God. My complaint is that although he does present a rather straightforward dispensational view of how the conquest of Canaan fits in salvation history he doesn't sufficiently deal with the difficulties of presenting a cohesive ethic (maybe his dispensationalism makes this unnecessary?). He is also unreasonably narrow (in my opinion) in defining what constitutes "YHWH warfare" and comes out poorly in his interaction with Gard and Longman. I think he presents his views well for the most part but I was unsatisfied with the scope of his answers. 2.5/5 stars

Gard is rather like Merrill except that he comes from a Covenant perspective. I think he offers some helpful insights and observations into the continuity between Old Testament warfare and God's eschatological judgment. In terms of ethical difficulty, he doesn't really see one. All are deserving of God's judgment and it's only by God's grace that any are spared. He does seem to be overly aggressive with making the texts of the Old and New Testament fit his system (which he basically admits to doing) and I think he also avoids some of the difficulties. 2.5/5 stars

Longman offers a helpful summary and biblical theology of Old Testament warfare and how it fits into the metanarrative of Scripture and how to read these texts in light of the New Testament. He sees both continuous and discontinuous elements and is less forceful in making the text fit his agenda that Gard I found his insights helpful and I will refer back to them. I would have liked to have seen more time spent on ethical considerations, but helpful nonetheless and easily the best of the four. 4/5 stars

Overall I was disappointed. The authors mostly avoided the difficulties of the issues and pushed their theological systems instead. Not a strong volume. I would recommend Longman's contribution but I'd skip the other three. 2.5 stars overall, but I'm rounding down because a counterpoints volume in which 3/4 are relatively weak is not a book I'd recommend.

[Jeremy Manuel · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a book I remember having read in school and not really enjoying it, but somehow it had stayed in my collection. So I decided to give it another read and see if I was mistaken or had changed my mind at all. The result was that I was not mistaken about how I had felt about the book and my thoughts really hadn't changed.

The idea behind the book is worthy enough. To take a look at some of the violent passages in the Old Testament that are considered to be God endorsing and even commanding genocide of the Canaanites. This is an issue that should make people wonder and to look into how that fits into faith and particularly how that fits with Christ and how he tended to very much steer away from the violence of the Old Testament conquest narratives.

However the book itself kind of falls short in a number of different ways. First, the book uses the backdrop of jihad and the 9/11 attacks to explore this topic, which just kind of falls flat in my mind. This is an issue that kind of supersedes that in my opinion and feels very much like a marketing gimmick of sorts.

Second, the book takes a bit too much of a academic tone and I think would miss a rather wide audience appeal. Which in that approach they tend to look more broadly at violence in the Bible in general and not just tackling the conquest narratives which is what you would more expect in a book like this.

Third, the views are so similar to each other, except for the first one, that it makes a lot of the views seem very redundant. There may be a slight difference in approach or nuance, but the general thrust lands them in a very similar position at the end. To top it all off none of the approaches really satisfied.

Lastly, the idea of having the writers respond to each other is a good one, but doesn't really work the greatest. The one author who had a differing view tended to be a bit too dismissive of the other writers, even if I could understand why he would be that way. The other ones were so close to each other that their responses were pretty lackluster and felt like they had nitpicks more than substantial counter-points.

Overall, the book just really falls kind of flat. It didn't really feel like they addressed the issue very well at all. There were just too many flaws in approach and execution that really set this book back. There may be some who get something useful or helpful from this book, but I wasn't really one of them.

[Gary Peterson · Rating 2 out of 5]

A Cape for Cowles

Worth reading for C.S. Cowles' opening salvo and his blunt responses to the other three theologians. Cowles speaks directly to the issue and pulls no punches. He states it plainly: the genocidal maniac "god" of the Old Testament is irreconcilable with the God of the New Testament. So how to press forward without being branded a neo-Marcionite like Andy Stanley in Irresistible: Reclaiming the New that Jesus Unleashed for the World, a much-maligned book that I greatly appreciated and which I consider a redpill for thinking Christians. (The book under discussion predates Stanley's book, so his call to "unhitch" the OT is not part of the conversation.)

Cowles presents a number of compelling options and possible explanations. To be included in the book, Cowles had to stay within the guardrails of mainstream orthodox Christianity, but he pushes up against them at times and with good reason.

The other three contributors blurred together in my mind because they each larded their chapters and responses with academese and endless citations that served more to duck and cloud the questions than to address them. Endless descriptions of scriptural accounts and litanies of what qualities comprise biblical herem (holy war or "Yahweh war" as one writer quirkily preferred) failed utterly to address how Christians can reconcile these two starkly contrasted portraits of God. As Cowles noted, these scholars wrote about the genocide passages so clinically that they didn't see the victims as real people made in the image of God.

The most unsatisfying solution was to argue that God is good all the time and thus whatever he does is good. That way lieth madness. We perhaps have to question whether the narrator is reliable. Moses sure heard a lot of disturbing things from God. Can we trust his accounts? To question the veracity of Moses is taboo, of course, but it could be a start. Ignoring these "terror texts" or twisting them into allegorical or metaphorical pretzels isn't a sustainable option.

I'm glad I read this book; however, I can only enthusiastically recommend the Cowles portions. The rest is useful for insights into academic thinking on the subject, but that ultimately proved unsatisfying and frustrating.

[Benjamin · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a worthy offering in the tradition of "4/5 views on...". The topic is, as the title states, the genocides commanded in the OT, or more generally the concept of holy war. The 4 views presented can be summarized by the denominational affiliation of their respective authors: Nazarene/Anabaptist, Dispensational Baptist, Lutheran, Reformed. Anyone familiar with the theology of these schools will not be surprised that the latter 3 (and especially latter 2) find much more common ground with one another on the question of violence in the OT than with the first.

The Anabaptist position on violence requires quite a bit of difficult maneuvering with the relevant OT passages. While not all in this camp would approve of Cowles's suggestion, his is certainly consistent and "easier" hermeneutically: the OT passages should be more or less disregarded as the flawed product of humans. Thus, one may easily discount their contents from a picture of God. Of course, most evangelical believers would not accept this view of Scripture.

The last three have much in common: all acknowledge the infallibility of the OT and NT, all see a level of continuity between the holy wars in the OT and the final judgement at Christ's second coming (though they differ in the eschatological details as per their theological traditions), and all give reasons (many overlapping) why genocide is never acceptable practice in the current, post-theocratic-Israel era.

However, these latter three spend more time on details of definition (what constitutes holy war) and eschatology, which leaves them focusing less time on what is obvious the biggest question: how does one reconcile the OT events with God's love? Of course, in reality, as they see the OT genocides in continuity with final judgment, the question is really the broader one of reconciling a God of love with a God who judges (whatever the exact form of that judgment).

The replies to each position from the other authors sometimes seem to misconstrue the arguments given and focus instead on the minutia of their own theological tradition. This is, however, perhaps only due to the fact that the latter 3 agree with one another in the main points and still need to write about something.

Overall, a decent overview of a few different positions on this difficult topic (with only 2 vastly divergent positions presented).

[Phillip Hardy · Rating 2 out of 5]

Radical Discontinuity
I appreciate the need to read the OT through Jesus, but when we say the laws or commands ostensibly given verbatim by God were falsehoods, I'm not sure. Is there really no way to read these more charitably? It seems like we're taking the meanest interpretation possible and then saying God couldn't have said that.

Moderate Discontinuity
This essay was bogged down in defining what holy war was. The provocative statement was made that God was the active agent in genocide and if the people involved thought about changing their ways, God made sure they couldn't do that so he could justify killing them. To make such a forceful statement, you need a very powerful defense of God. I don't think it was there. "Moderate Discontinuity" is such a minor point in the essay as to be a relative given. Cowles destroyed Merrill in his response.

Eschatological Continuity
I struggled to understand how this was different from the essay that came before. Again his actual point of view wasn't really revealed until the end. Cowles again destroyed in his response.

Spiritual Continuity
Clear opener. Didn't get so bogged down in description as the two before. I think what was lacking in this essay is the why for why God initially met out justice on flesh and blood but later transitioned to spiritual warfare. While reading Cowles' response, I thought maybe he should read some Jewish literature on this topic. Jews don't seem to think their God is all that bad and for good reason. Cowles had a good critique on Longman's literal interpretation of Revelation.

I went into this book thinking it would be about how we can or can't justify the OT genocides. Instead it was mostly about why those aren't sanctioned by God today. The elephant in the room being how was it right to sanction them in the first place. Only the first essay addressed this robustly (by arguing these commands were fabrications). The other essays spent an astounding amount of time describing the genocides and very little time reconciling those with a God we can worship as Love.

[Jonathan Ammon · Rating 2 out of 5]

Less helpful than it should of been, I can't help but think this four views book is a product of its time, with Longman, Gard, and Merrill largely in agreement but also largely glossing over the most challenging moral issues to give lengthy dives into biblical theology. The debate over these issues has progressed, thanks largely to the contributions of philosophical theologians and apologists like Boyd, Flannagan, Copan, Wolterstorff, Rauser, and others. While Cowles is the recipient of the fiercest criticism both within the book and in the reviews, his view at least grapples with the hardest questions. His answers are pretty direct--the OT contains theological error that is inspired when placed within the Canon and fulfilled in Christ. He does not claim to hold to inerrancy.
The rest of the views are similar to one another, different variations of the same answer: God is just and the extermination of the Canaanites is as well, they also each suggest that the moral issues can be resolved if one understands the proper biblical and/or systematic theology. It is my humble opinion that they all fail to answer the hard questions, some worse than others, but it does seem like they do not take the moral questions seriously enough and certainly none of them spend as much time as I believe they should directly addressing the issue of soldiers close-combat killing an entire race of people including infants, the unborn, women, children, the handicapped, disabled, and elderly. One can point back to the flood and forward to the Apocalypse, but these events are not the same. What's more, what about the variety of views that do not argue that the extermination of a race of human beings is morally justifiable and also hold to a more robust view of inspiration? I know that Longman has subsequently developed his views on this subject. This book needs a new edition with more varied contributors.

[Rowan Aldridge · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not great. There was some good discussion about the continuity/discontinuity between the OT and NT, but three of the contributors mostly agreed with each other with minor differences between them, so it felt more like two views than four. Cowles' sections were just not very good in my opinion. It felt as if he relied heavily on his (not inconsiderable) rhetorical ability, but ended up saying very little of substance, so that his sections read more like indignant screeds than good theological discussions. The other three contributors were better, but as I mentioned they were largely in agreement with one another, so it felt like a bit of a wasted opportunity to have these three instead of three authors who would have disagreed with each other in more substantial ways.

I have given three stars instead of one or two because the content wasn't actually bad for the most part. It's useful as a general study on this subject, but due to the nature of a four views book, none of the perspectives get the fullest treatment they could get, so I would probably recommend just seeking out whole books written from each of the perspectives rather than reading this.

[Mike Bright · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book gives a range of views on how to interpret the Old Testament commands to wipe out the Canaanites as Israel was entering the promised land under Joshua's leadership. The commands from God on how to conduct the battles are chilling and foreign to our modern understanding of a loving God.

Caveat - these authors are well versed in theology, the Bible, and this topic. I am a layman, so all my opinions should be considered in that light.

I found myself in complete disagreement with the first view and mostly in agreement with the second. The third had some flawed argument (my opinion), and the fourth was OK but somewhat weak. After each view, the other three authors had a chance to respond to that view. I found the responses very helpful.

I learned some from this book, but thought Paul Copan's book (the one I finished just before this) had a lot more useful perspective and reasoning. To be fair, the Copan argument was book length, so he had more space to develop his views.

[Amy Johnson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Worthwhile if a bit clunky. 3/4 authors agreed that destruction of any/all humans is the right of God, and that the non-violence of Jesus and the persecuted church is just a break between the Old Testament and eschatological times. Cowles posits that Jesus is out clearest revelation of God, and that some of the Old Testament writers claimed to hear orders from God that were inconsistent with Jesus' character and perhaps instead came from Satan. This is potentially supported by the conflicting reports of who incited David to take a census of Israel towards the end of his reign.

The rebuttals/comments from every author at the end of each essay were quite helpful but potentially underutilised. Better editing could have made the book more cohesive and ensured the alternative views on each major text/passage were addressed (although admittedly cohesion is not the goal of the series).

[Rachel · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was disappointed with this book.

There was one essay with a very different view, but between the other three the points of difference in their views weren't clearly delineated either within the essays or in the responses. It felt like "three general essays" rather than "three distinctive views".

Also, at least two accidentally wrote their essay about "warfare in the Bible" rather than sticking to the Canaanite genocide.

Finally, any addressing of the obvious (apparent) ethical/apologetics problem of a God who commands genocide was grossly inadequate, swept aside with comments to the effect of "add it to your list of questions to ask God when you get to heaven".

Overall I have given a 3 mainly because I love the idea of the counterpoints format so much, but unfortunately I don't feel live learnt much from this book.

[Parker · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall, these essays are helpful for anyone attempting (as we all should) to wade through some more difficult texts of Scripture. Cowles' contribution reeks of neo-Marcionism, and should be offensive to any who believe in the inspiration of all Scripture (or who value arguments free of logical fallacies). The remaining three scholars (Merrill, Gard, and Longman) all make valuable contributions that are worth careful consideration. I favor Longman's approach, though I admit that the disagreements between these last three are subtle. It's certainly possible, I think, to glean the best ideas from each without resulting in a self-contradictory solution.

[Zachary Lawson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Closer to 2 1/2 Views than 4

As with many of these “4 views” books, the content is dependent on the quality of the contributors. In this case, there was not much daylight between the last 3 views (Gard, Merrill, and Longman). I was most disappointed with Cowles’s essay and responses; while rhetorically pointed, he did not engage with the text but merely resorted to driving a wedge between Jesus and the OT. There are stronger advocates of the “Old Testament as imperfect revelation of God”. The most ironic part was when Cowles quoted from Exodus to make his point! Quite muddled.

[Jenny-Flore Boston · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was an informative and engaging read. Those interested in biblical theology must ponder the genocidal texts of the Old Testament and reconcile them with the incarnate God of the Old Testament. This daunting topic was addressed with clarity by four different authors and views. Although Longman was the most compelling for me, other readers may come to a different conclusion after reading the different views and responses. At the very least, this source provides a base understanding of terms, definitions, and context regarding the warfare passages of the Bible and allows the space for addressing questions that arise.

[Marc Sims · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a helpful introduction of how a Christian ought to interpret Old Testament “herem” (genocide) passages. The book doesn’t deal directly with ethical applications, but makes some passing comments about it. One of the four contributors (Cowles) is entirely unhelpful, making only emotional arguments that don’t actually deal with the text. I found Longman’s position (spiritual continuity) to be the most convincing. If you are looking for resources in how to understand genocide in the Old Testament, this book will help, but won’t answer many of your questions.

[Jerome · Rating 4 out of 5]

The most helpful aspect of this book is to see scholars engage with each other. An excellent introduction to ancient warfare in the Hebrew Bible.

[David Blankenship · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the better entries into this series, each of the writers gives a insight into different ways to look at genocide and holy war in Scripture.

[Filip Sekkelsten · Rating 4 out of 5]

Et særdeles viktig emne.

1. Radikal diskontinuitet: NT representerer et radikalt brudd med GT og folkemordet var ikke et bud fra Gud. Dette åpner for at mye av GT ikke er Guds ord, men heller menneskers misforståelse av Guds ord.
2. Moderat diskontinuitet: NT representerer et moderat brudd med GT. Folkemordet var Guds bud, men det var unikt til den tiden.
De to siste synene representerer kontinuitet, altså fortsettelse og enhet, mellom GT og NT, enten eskatologisk (med hensyn til endetiden), eller åndelig. Disse vektlegger hvordan Gud i GT valgte seg ut Israel som sitt folk, og brukte disse som et instrument til å dømme andre folk. De ble også selv dømt av andre nasjoner (f. eks. Babylon og Assyria ved eksilene).
I NT er Guds folk ikke lenger en fysisk nasjon, men alle som tror på Kristus og hører Gud til. Vi må dog ikke glemme at straffen ikke er ute av bildet. Johannes' Åpenbaring gjør dette klart for oss, f.eks. 19:11-21. Dette er beskrivelser av hvordan Gud kommer til å dømme verden – alle som ikke tror på ham.
To andre gode tanker i dette henseende er:
1. Jeg tror vi glemmer, i alt vårt fokus på Guds kjærlighet, at han også er rettferdig, og skal komme tilbake for å dømme levende og døde.
2. Da Adam og Eva syndet i Edens hage fortjente de å dø. Romerne 6,23 forteller oss at syndens lønn er døden, og Romerne 3,23 sier klart at alle har vi syndet. Vi fortjener altså alle å dø, og vi burde derfor være i undring over at Gud lar alle leve som han gjør. Dette kan kanskje kalles Guds "generelle nåde" til alle mennesker. Men den vil ta slutt en dag – på dommens dag.
Til syvende og sist vet vi ikke hvorfor akkurat Kanaanittene måtte dø, eller hvorfor én blir frelst og ikke en annen – alle stiller jo likt. Men Gud er kjærlighet og rettferdighet i alle tilfeller.

Jeg er helt klart i den siste kampen. Jeg tror IKKE Gud er annerledes i GT og NT, det ville jo underbygge hele troen. Jeg ble også minnet av Tony Thomasson på at straffen som kommer kommer til å bli fæl – Herrens dag er en stor og skremmende dag for de som ikke tror. Jesaja sier flere ganger: "De urettferdige har ingen fred" 48,22.

[Joshua Reitano · Rating 4 out of 5]

I had the rather unpleasant task of reading hundreds of pages about the Canaanite genocide over the last few days. Show Them No Mercy was, hands down, the most helpful resource. As is the case with all books in the Counterpoints series, 4 different perspectives were given. Each of the four scholars had about 40 pages to explain and make their case. Then the other three offered reflections on critiques to the initial essay. This is a very useful approach, enabling each of the writers to make their own case, and interact with each other.

C.S. Cowles (Point Loma Nazarene) argues for Radical Discontinuity. I read his approach as essentially Marcionite: some parts of Scripture could, and should, be done away with. He argues that Jesus is the final hermenuetic, and thus the measure of that which is truly the authoritative Word of God. The problem, of course, is that Jesus seems to have received the whole of the Old Testament as Scripture.

Eugene Merrill (Dallas Theological Seminary) offers a nuanced dispensational view. He maintains the continuity of the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament, and offers an apologetic for the notion of a Warrior God of Israel. He sees certain of acts of God in history as specific to certain times and places.

Daniel Gard (Concordia Theological Seminary) has much in common with Merrill, but sees more direct continuity between herem war in the Old Testament and the apocalyptic texts of the New Testament. In other words, there is great eschatological continuity between the judgment on Canaan and the final judgment.

Tremper Longman (Westmont College) agrees with much of Merrill and Gard's positions, but argues also for a spiritual continuity (in addition to an eschatological one). He sees the triumph of the death and resurrection of Christ in military language and the spiritual warfare of the church has having continuity with the battles of Israel. He also helpfully lays out what he calls "5 phases of Holy War" in the Bible: 1.) God fights the flesh-and-blood enemies of Israel; 2.) God fights/judges Israel; 3.) God will come in the future as a warrior; 4.) Jesus Christ fights the spiritual powers and authorities; 5.) The final battle.

It should be said that all 4 of the scholars agree that attempts to theologically justify a religious war for Christians fail biblically. But they argue this for very different reasons. Personally, I found myself agreeing almost completely with Tremper Longman, while appreciating much of Merrill's arguments. I generally agreed with Gard's conclusions, but found his essay confusing. Cowles did a nice job setting the stage for the whole book's discussion, but I agreed with very little of his theological propositions, though I'm sure his view has a wide audience among Christians who don't give much thought to the Old Testament.

[Janelle Zeeb · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a very interesting but also challenging book, which examines four views of how to understand God's command to Israel to wipe out the Canaanites. It was a quick read. Each author does a decent job at explaining their viewpoint, although three of the four views overlap significantly. But I think the overlap is the interesting part, as multiple aspects of these authors' views can be combined to give a more holistic view of this difficult issue. Overall, I think this book was fascinating, especially if you're interested in theodicy, as it shows that God can be righteous and fully good even when using what would appear to us as "evil", and provides a lot of insight into the ancient Israelite culture and the meaning of holy war.

I liked Eugene H. Merrill's point which examines the issue from a dispensational perspective, and he gives many good reasons that I can accept for why a good and loving God would have commanded Israel to wage war on the Canaanites. Daniel L. Gard makes a good point that if we have a problem with God destroying a culture for it's evil ways, then we will also have problems with God destroying the finally unrepentant at the final judgement, and so he sees the destruction of the Canaanites as a foreshadowing of God's righteous destruction of evil at the last judgement. I also enjoyed Tremper Longman III's perspective and his analysis of how Israel was supposed to carry out this warfare which shows it was an act of worship, and his point that God occasionally used holy war against Israel when Israel became unfaithful.

The only author I didn't enjoy as much was C. S Cowles, because as is pointed out in the responses to his chapter, he doesn't take the Old Testament as fully authoritative and seems to conclude that God as represented by Jesus would never command such a thing, and so the Israelites must have just imagined that God wanted them to wipe out the Canaanites. While his emphasis on God as revealed by Jesus is good, I agree that he is ignoring the parts of the New Testament that say Jesus will come again as a warrior and will pour out his wrath on sin and evil.

While there are still a few minor problems with Merrill, Gard, and Longman's views (such as why God commanded killing the Canaanite children, why God allowed forced marriage of captive women, and why God only really seemed to care about exterminating the Canaanites but not other evil, idolatrous cultures surrounding Israel), overall this book is helpful to give an introduction to the ancient Israelite culture and how war was understood and carried out and some ways that we can start to understand some positive reasons for wiping out the Canaanites, even if there is still room for improvement in their arguments.