William Lane Craig Says God May Command Us to "Drive Out Canaanites" in Our Day. I Respond.

[@EatHoneyBeeHappy]

I'm not very good at math, but how does a three-year-old kid have centuries of opportunities to repent for their alleged crimes against Yahweh?

[@jackdispennett744]

Interesting how WLC elides the slaughter of the innocents that's entailed in the literalist/historical reading of that particular narrative. I don't peruse WLC's work much anymore, but I've been wondering if he hasn't just jumped the shark, at least in certain areas. I like his stuff on the Kalaam Cosmological argument, the moral argument, he work on Christian particularism and the Molinist solution to that problem, and his fantastic apologetic for the Resurrection of Christ based on elements agreed on by the consensus of NT scholars, but when he starts opining on OT stories I feel like he's just out of his league. He would really serve Christianity better if he would just stay in his lane (pun not originally intended, but I'll own it :p).

[@amu7379]

He's a world class analytic philosopher but his engagement with ethics in the field is far less respected from what I've heard.

[@jackdispennett744]

I'm a Roman Catholic and we have a problem with genocide apologetics in our tradition, too. IIRC, even Trent Horn, who by no means a fundamentalist, holds open the possibility that God commanded these slaughters. Trent's approach, as I remember it, was to suggest both that maybe this was not a literal historical account, and then also to suggest that maybe God really did order it and that it ipso facto would not be immoral if ordered by God. As if the function of an apologist were just to give as many possible arguments as he/she can, without considering their implications. I think just from a historical perspective, it's unlikely that these events occurred literally. As solid of a Catholic source as the New Jerome Biblical Commentary notes that there are some events in the Joshua narrative that could not have happened as literal historical events within that given time period, at least given the extant archaeological evidence. To me, the most troubling thing about genocide apologetics is precisely that there IS no guarantee that it couldn't happen again. Even during the Church age, misguided folks have used torture (which was condemned by Vatican II and thus is no longer a live option for Catholics to believe), painful forms of execution, etc., so we can't just dismiss atrocities as something that couldn't possibly be perpetrated by Christians who have studied and believed the New Testament texts.

[@jackdispennett744]

@@computationaltheist7267 There's no evidence that Jesus was speaking anything other than hyperbolically. Show me any instance in the first 300 years of the Church of capital punishment being used against false teachers in the Church.

[@jackdispennett744]

@@computationaltheist7267 You're making assumptions about my own views that are simply not the case. My own belief is that the account of the Canaanite massacre should not be taken literally.

[@Arven8]

@@computationaltheist7267 Interesting points about Jesus and the NT also being violent. I have read a little (eg, The Bad Jesus by Avalos and Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn't Taught, by Madison), but I would like to investigate further. You names several authors who touch on this topic. Is there one or two books in particular that you would recommend?

[@Arven8]

@@computationaltheist7267 Thank you. I appreciate the suggestions. I'll check them out.

[@Arven8]

@@computationaltheist7267 Thank you. I'll add that to the list. Appreciate it.

[@storba3860]

3:51 Semitic Paganism commanded human sacrifice. Destroying it was a good thing.

[@ChristianCatboy]

If the Israelites really were devoting entire cities as holocaust offerings to YHWH, that's also a form of human sacrifice. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[@storba3860]

@ChristianCatboy Why are you shit talking Yahweh? You worship the guy's son.

[@ChristianCatboy]

Well... I don't believe that the Father of Christ really did command such atrocities. The Gospel shows us how to interpret the Torah.

[@storba3860]

@@ChristianCatboy If you reinterpret all of Yahweh's questionable actions you lose about half the Old Testament.

[@ChristianCatboy]

It's not "lost". It's part of the glorious history of Progressive Revelation. 😇

[@WePlugGOODMusic]

You offer critiques but I can’t find where you state your position on these matters, can you direct me?

[@Randal_Rauser]

www.amazon.com/Jesus-Loves-Canaanites-Biblical-Intuition-ebook/dp/B092TPRXPB/ref=sr_1_1?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.2o2JxTq0S9H6_WMsa2c1pFUbFvOk5zJ7RvpbR4oYYc5PBT2LxIsWRjcsdUJ4l4Bf9nm4Wul1hMMvAZRxzi0_pg5I6cFR1YqRGiGbyGwZa3HXL0O_NNEHAQfWQRmauQfAKzS5lkY4xTST1IKsqU2S1GC-hJnBaCLbY72esjOmbJGgL-hRL8Biwd7VHOFSv_zELWMFS5vSnYmWNQboV5HwOA.6D9e9uXOURm78DHYFha-Pp7P4-bgANENgVw-jgwoFEo&dib_tag=se&qid=1718924424&refinements=p_27%3ARandal+Rauser&s=digital-text&sr=1-1

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

Hello Randal. I recently finished reading your book Jesus Loves Canaanites. Unless I missed it, you didn't address Gordon Oeste and William Webb's work on this subject. I'm curious if you have any thoughts on their approach?

[@Randal_Rauser]

I haven't read either author on that subject though I've read other works by Webb and I'm familiar with the gist of the redemptive-movement hermeneutic which would work well with what I say. Feel free to summarize their approach if you like and I can respond to that.

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

@@Randal_Rauser I did notice that you cited Webb's work on corporal punishment. They coauthored a book titled Bloody, Brutal, and Barbaric?. Webb essentially applies his redemptive-movement hermeneutic to the war texts in Scripture. I suppose I'd classify their approach as being a middle way between Paul Copan and Greg Boyd. They argue that the war texts employ extreme hyperbole but also that they reflect divine accommodation. They suggest that we should understand the descriptions of killing everyone even the young and old as part of the hyperbole. Moreover, they argue that even this was not God's ideal. Perhaps that summary is overly brief?

[@Randal_Rauser]

@@faithbecauseofreason8381 If they still end up saying that the Israelites did kill some women, children, infants, and other noncombatants and that this was approved by God, I see little benefit in qualifying that the account is hyperbolic. By comparison, if Smith says God told him to rape all the women in New York, qualifying that this is hyperbole does nothing to address our incredulity: rape is evil and God would never command it, period. If they say that God accommodated to the erroneous notions of the Israelites, in the book in response to Chris Wright, I point out that there are limits to what accommodation can do: e.g. I don't think God would accommodate to errant notions of the rape and cannibalization of defeated foes, so why their massacre?

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

@@Randal_Rauser if I remember correctly, they don't believe that women and infants were killed except for insofar as any noncombatants are normally casualties in warfare. They deny that God commanded the death of noncombatants at any rate.

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

@@computationaltheist7267 I have it on my wishlist. I'm not a fan of Thomism so I haven't prioritized it. But I'll get around to reading it one of these days.

[@noway8662]

This just goes back to the fundamental argument of these people that since God is source of all morality, ANYTHING God does or commands is moral. No matter what it is, no matter if it's hypocritical or that the deeds and commands conflict each other. God is Good, because God itself is source and reference for that Good. God is all, therefore, God is always right. And of course, any believers who think God is speaking to them, they can also do anything God commands them to do, even breaking what seem to be absolutely fundamental parts of their doctrine, because God is never wrong. "Might makes Right" is ultimately what these people subscribe to.

[@dan6481]

I don't mean to be disrespectful but this is not a rebuttal. You didn't give a reason why God commanding people to invade evil people is wrong. You basically just restated scripture that I don't think Craig disagrees with and then shifted to politics somehow. You really think Craig is defending the view that you can kill your countrymen unjustifiably? Bruh. Am not an American but am pretty sure the survey is talking about defending the country. If that little amount of people are for fighting to save the country I guess that is the tragedy. I just have too many questions, do you think it was okay to invade Germany? And if so why? Holocaust? What is your view of invading for child sacrifice?Do you think it is okay to stop civilians(not soldiers) from committing mass murder. Is there ever a reason to attack somewhere and how do you justify that? All in all this video doesn't do anything close to justice to this topic. I understand you are more on the progressive side but a little bit more justification of your claims and less moralizing will be helpful.

[@johnelliott5859]

is killing every living thing justified? The god of the bible is not worthy of worship.

[@User28870]

You obviously didn't watch the video.

[@Switchback21]

Would love to see a discussion with you and Richard S. Hess or John Walton on this topic.

[@tann_man]

I completely agree up until the closing bit about the survey. It all depends on how the question is interpreted (unless of course you’re a complete pacifist). The statement “True patriots must resort to violence to save the country” is completely different and would more accurately fit your analysis. But that’s not what was asked. “True patriots may have to resort to violence to save the country” Important is the qualifier “may”. Considering the political climate, why would a circumstance which necessitates self preservation not be possible?

[@VincentSapone]

@@computationaltheist7267 Maybe don't read Revelation with a wooden literalism? Or Jesus' hyperbolic statement about a millstone. Jesus warns people that God will punish sin. I don't think Rauser disagrees with that. Killing civilians, the old, the young, pregnant and nursing mothers, etc. is not punishing sin. It is justifying genocide in God's name.

[@VincentSapone]

@@computationaltheist7267 What book by Crossan are you referring to? I'd like to peruse it. I never said we cannot find Hebrew Scripture themes in the Christian Testament. But that doesn't mean Jesus endorsed all of them or that the CT has one consistent message or theological consistency. Nor does it mean the gospels present a theologically consistent Jesus. They do not. Unless you subscribe to ludicrous notions like inerrancy, none of this is in the Christian scriptures. Jesus did not advocate hatred of one's enemies. Genocide and ethnic cleansing does advocate that. Jesus most certainly did believe that God would punish a person's sins and wickedness. Not many Christians have any issues with that. Furthermore, I did not say God would not punish sin. Everyone will be accountable for their actions. The difficulty is with demonizing people and using that to justify genocide and land grabbing. God punishing each according to what they deserve is different than unilaterally slaughtering everyone. The difficulty is with God using a cleaver when he should be using a scalpel. Rauser is also a universalist like most of the early church IIRC. It is good apocalyptic language. But yes, your question is valid because there is a darker side to Jesus we can glean in the gospels. I think the historical Jesus must be mined from the Gospels, however. When we see Jesus going at it with the Pharisees there is a lot of the early church fighting with the Pharisees and redaction happening. But a future eschatological judgment where everyone is judged according to their own deeds and life setting is not the same as the Canaanite genocide.

[@BigIdeaSeeker]

Not the first time Craig has referred to the Israelites as “Israelis” either.

[@ChristianCatboy]

Yeah, that really bugged me.

[@Eric-en9hk]

These arguments seem more emotional than biblical or logical. And the slaughter of the Canaanites had nothing to do with their ethnicity, it was because of their vile behavior (e.g., child sacrifice and beastiality). There is a lot more to this that needs to be explored.

[@calebp6114]

If you wish to see his views explored more thoroughly, read Jesus Loves Canaanites.

[@Essex626]

If the Israelites slaughtered the children of the Canaanites at God's command that is effectively child sacrifice.

[@Eric-en9hk]

@@Essex626 Really? How?

[@Essex626]

@@Eric-en9hk if they executed children to please God that is the same as sacrificing those children to God. If that doesn't make sense to you I don't know what to tell you.

[@Eric-en9hk]

@@Essex626 Pagans burned their children to death to please their gods. God commanded the Israelites to annihilate all the Canaanites, and this included the children simply because there was nothing else to do with them. These are two completely different things with no overlap except that children died in both situations. Seeing these as identical cannot be considered a serious thought.

[@jimmygray3452]

I'd argue that you're missing some important components of Jesus' character that, if taken into consideration, might re-shape your view of violence in the biblical data. What do you make of the description of Jesus in 2 Thessalonians 1:8, where it is said that Jesus will be revealed, "in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus." Will that be tantamount to cultural genocide, by your assessment? Is God bound by human conventions? It seems that because you find certain things in the biblical texts objectionable from the perspective of the modern convention (which I empathize with and want to reason about as well), you almost pit certain traits of Jesus expressed in some biblical texts against some other parts that seem more difficult to harmonize with. To me, it seems better to reason that Jesus took both an originalist perspective on certain kernels of truth expressed in the Hebrew scriptures, while also placing much more of an emphasis on spreading reconciliation, healing, and love, rather than on worldly violence and geopolitics. I guess what I'm looking for is a more tempered approach here. We can't ignore other attributes of Jesus, and only see Him through the lens of His earthly ministry. We have to look at the full picture of how He is portrayed both in His pre-incarnate role, and in how He is portrayed in theophanies and visions, and how He is portrayed upon His resurrection and glorified state now and in the future. However, Jesus clearly did teach us what *we* ought to do, and that is to love one another and pray for our enemies and so forth, as you rightly and often point out. I just think we need to be careful to not ignore other aspects of Jesus which are corrective, disciplinary, and violent in some sense toward those who stand in opposition toward Him when He returns to judge the world. Also, it seems like a non sequitur to claim that Dr. Craig's view justifying a divine command to slaughter certain Canaanites is dangerous in light of a poll showing that a minority of Republicans feel that violence may be justified in order to effect political ends. You may not like Craig's theology and see how it might be abused to support ungodly atrocities, but that has no bearing on whether or not it is right or wrong theology. I guess I just don't see how you've substantiated any meaningful association between Craig's treatment of the events of the book of Joshua with a modern minority American sentiment about politics. Craig's statements are arrived at by theological and historical scholarship of the ancient near eastern world, whereas the minority American sentiment regarding politics is primarily formed in response to *current* culture and *current* politics; and I emphasize *current* because a survey found that only twenty five percent of Americans even know how many amendments are in the Constitution, and another survey found that ten percent of Americans haven't even read a bible at all. Therefore, I have serious doubts that modern American political sentiment is at risk of being dangerously galvanized by Craig's theology.

[@User28870]

Did you actually listen to what Randal said?

[@ubergenie6041]

So the subject matter of WLC’s video is a future command by God. Craig uses the Nazi’s as a commonly excepted extreme example of cultural evil. Your response is to chide Craig and more importantly God with recitations of the Geneva Conventions? Is God somehow subject to these conventions? In, “Some Suggestions for Divine Command Theorists”, William Alston (1990) wrote the following: “no moral obligations attach to God, assuming, as we are here, that God is essentially perfectly good. Thus divine commands can be constitutive of moral obligations for those beings who have them without it being the case that God’s goodness consists in His obeying His own commands, or, indeed, consists in any relation whatsoever of God to His commands (p. 315). This is certainly Craig’s view as taught in his “Defenders” class. It seems that dealing with Allston’s claim (which seems to be consistent with the teaching of the church since at least Anselm), should be the focus rather than examining Craig’s analogy (which I grant is a poor one for reasons you don’t address here). So the argument would go: God’s commands are a function of his reflection on his own good nature. While humans are not able to fully comprehend the good due to their lack of knowledge about, past, present and future sins, God is in no way limited in this knowledge or his knowledge of what is good. Therefore, God by way of his own all-good nature will know and choose the good but is not subject to his divine commands to humans (given because of the limits to their nature both innate goodness and knowledge of same). The subject is extreme and do you really believe that if WLC were to be asked does he think Christians took take a lead in violating the international conventions on humane war he would opine in the affirmative? That is an emotional appeal and I will ignore the fact that someone who teaches logic would make such fallacious appeals. At 11:50 you conflate “Christians” with the “Crusaders,” I’ve certainly heard the “New Atheists” do that but was surprised that you would argue this way. You seem to read the texted about God commanding the Canaanites out (or genicide of same) as if some editors came back after the fact and said, “Let’s change the facts and claim God commanded us to commit geneticist.” Very surprising indeed. Didn’t God wipe out all but a handful of humans in the flood and for similar reasons? Isn’t one of the scholarly inferences about Moses, Joshua’s and later Davids conquests of people settled the Northern kingdom due to their relationship to the hybrid giant clans? And continuing the destruction started with the flood? I am however deeply in your debt for your methods of conversing with atheists. Sorry for not doing my homework. I just read your paper from 2009 in Philosophia Christi “Let Nothing that Breathes Remain Alive.” I see you do believe that the Biblical account is a false narrative.

[@danaharper9708]

It does look like Craig took the video down, I could not find it on Reasonable Faith,

[@Randal_Rauser]

It was posted to Twitter: twitter.com/RFupdates/status/1469441877048971271

[@danaharper9708]

@@Randal_Rauser Vielen Dank

[@danaharper9708]

Oh, and your book _Jesus Loves Canaanites_ just arrived via Amazon, I'll start reading after Christmas.

[@johnelliott5859]

The fundamentalist will claim that god is the source of absolute morals and that humanistic relative morals are "evil" . (since we arrive at them in our fallen nature). Of course to maintain this absolutely good morality, they have to come to the conclusion that genocide can be a good thing since god does it. Do moral values get any more relative or arbitrary than that?

[@adedaporh]

The claim that Canaanites are abominable people has to be one of the worst side effects of apologetics. Nevermind the fact that the Israelites did everything that they claim the Canaanites did.

[@willhaynes3505]

If God was going to order the slaughter of wicked people, as in a nation...WLC might want to go on vacation.

[@Arven8]

Good video, thank you. I found your channel recently, after seeing a couple of your appearances on Capturing Christianity and Unbelievable. I am struggling to know whether I can call myself a Christian in the broad sense, and your videos help. I know I don't fit in the traditional conservative wing, but it's possible that some of the "progressive" views leave the door open for me a crack. I appreciate your exposition of those issues. It is helping me to grapple with my faith, which feels like a bit of a hodgepodge. You are kind of hard on Trump supporters, though. Please recognize that most of them are good people who just see things differently than you. Next book: "Jesus Loves Republicans, Too." :)

[@tomfrombrunswick7571]

Articulate as ever