Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All

$5.00

Deuteronomy 2:34 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

³⁴So we captured all his cities at that time and devoted to destruction every city, men, women, and children. We left no survivors.

Deuteronomy 3:6 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

⁶And we devoted them to destruction, as we did to Sihon the king of Heshbon, devoting to destruction every city, men, women, and children.

Joshua 6:21 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

²¹Then they devoted all in the city to destruction, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys, with the edge of the sword.

The accounts in Deuteronomy 2:34-35, 3:3-7, and Joshua 6:21, where God commands the complete eradication of the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, including their women, children, and livestock, pose challenging ethical questions for contemporary readers.

The Hebrew term (נַעַר naar) employed in Joshua 6:21 may refer to a child of any age from infancy to late adolescence (Exodus 2:6; 1 Samuel 1:24; 2 Kings 2:23). Meanwhile, the term (טַף taph) used in Deuteronomy denotes young children, particularly those too young to walk long distances effortlessly and whose moral cognition is still undeveloped (Deuteronomy 1:39). The historical accounts unequivocally portray the total obliteration of Canaanite cities, including their inhabitants of all ages (Numbers 21:1-3, 34, 35; Joshua 6:20-21; 8:21-27; 10:26-40; 11:10-14). This understandably evokes concerns about the perceived cruelty and indiscriminate violence seemingly endorsed by the Old Testament. The fundamental question that arises, however, pertains to whether God’s sovereignty and authority over His creation is accepted or challenged.

This subject is a contentious point of debate among biblical scholars and may not be wholly satisfactory to all. Critics who staunchly deny the existence of God or the feasibility of miracles and supernatural phenomena will invariably dismiss any arguments, regardless of their logical and rational grounding.

It is crucial to recognize that, as supported by archaeological and historical evidence, the Canaanite society was morally corrupt, notorious for its vile practices including child sacrifices (Leviticus 18:21, 24-26). God demonstrated remarkable patience with the Canaanites, providing them a grace period of 400 years to repent and reform, akin to the period of grace granted to the people of Nineveh in the time of Jonah. Despite repenting initially, the Ninevites relapsed into their sinful ways, leading to their eventual destruction.

God’s omniscience is revealed in His foretelling of the Canaanites’ fate 400 years prior, as recorded in Genesis. This suggests that the Canaanites failed to heed God’s warnings and amend their ways despite having ample opportunity to do so.

Scriptures affirm God’s unchanging nature (James 1:17; Malachi 3:6, UASV). However, God’s attitude towards His creations can change based on their actions and responses to His admonitions. For instance, in Ezekiel 33:13-15, God clearly articulates that regardless of an individual’s past, it is their standing at the time of divine judgment that ultimately matters. If wicked people repent and mend their ways, God, in His compassion and mercy, reconsiders the impending punishment.

Joshua and the Israelites were merely adhering to God’s commands in their treatment of the Canaanites. The destruction of the adults was necessary to prevent them from leading God’s people into idolatry, a fear validated by the Israelites’ deviation into false worship when they failed to eliminate all Canaanites. Thus, the ultimate accountability for these actions rests not with Joshua or the Israelites, but with the Creator, who had foreknowledge of the consequences.

Addressing the matter of the killing of young children necessitates an understanding of God’s foreknowledge, a capability that is beyond human comprehension. This foreknowledge allows God to discern the trajectory of these children’s lives as they mature. Let us recall the narrative of Sodom and Gomorrah, cities that also harbored young children, slated for destruction by God. Abraham challenged the angelic emissary, asserting the presence of righteous individuals within the city. He posited whether God would demolish the city, obliterating the righteous with the wicked. God responded that if fifty righteous individuals were present in the city, He would spare the entire place. This dialogue continues, reducing the count of righteous people needed to spare the city, showing God’s inclination to show mercy where righteousness is present (Genesis 18:24-32).

The existence of God’s foreknowledge does not predestine an event to happen or not to happen. Those who perceive foreknowledge as incompatible with free will are misinformed. It is crucial to comprehend that if young children were not to revert to their ancestors’ wicked practices, God would not foresee it, as it would not exist in the timeline. Furthermore, their future wickedness or lack thereof does not prejudice their free will due to God’s foreknowledge.

God’s perception of the timeline can be likened to a man in a helicopter observing a parade from above. Just as the aerial observer can anticipate the parade’s progress before it reaches the spectators, God can foresee events before they transpire. God’s foreknowledge was illustrated in Genesis 3:15 when He prophesied that Satan, symbolized by the serpent, would injure Jesus through the agency of Judas Iscariot.

God’s capacity to foresee the timeline does not influence the Canaanites’ future decisions. God, demonstrating His mercy, would have refrained from destroying even one righteous individual in Sodom and Gomorrah, including young children, if there had been any. The same principle would have applied to Canaan. Tragically, no righteousness was found in the adults or predicted in the children’s futures.

To underscore this point, consider an incident in 1884. A priest, standing by a river, rescued a four-year-old boy who had fallen into the water and was on the brink of drowning. Had the priest possessed God’s foreknowledge, he might have let the boy drown, as the child was Adolf Hitler. Few would argue that such foreknowledge would be a display of cruelty or gratuitous violence. Instead, it would have been a profound exercise of divine wisdom, foreseeing the horrific atrocities that this child would orchestrate in his adult life.

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).