---

The apparent cruelty of the Israelites in the conquest of Canaan arouses moral and religious questions of great interest, especially those which are suggested by the conduct of Joshua, the relation of God to the slaughter of the Canaanites, and the contrast between the earlier and the later religious dispensations.

I. THE CONDUCT OF JOSHUA. This appears cruel and murderous. But note:

(1) It was in accordance with the customs of the times. Christian lenity was unknown. A man must be judged in the light of his age. It is wrong to "follow a multitude to do evil" (Exodus 23:2), when we know it is doing evil, because the number of guilty persons does not mitigate the guilt of each individual. But our own judgment of what is right and wrong is largely determined by the prevalent ideas and unblamed conduct of our contemporaries; and if, when we have used the best light at our command, "our hearts condemn us not" (1 John 3:21), we cannot be accounted guilty.

(2) It was in obedience to the understood command of God. A supposed command from heaven is no justification for an act which a man sincerely believes to be wrong, because in no case is he justified in violating conscience, and because he has more reason for doubting the Divine origin of the voice without than that of the voice within. But when the certainty of the Divine command is so strong that it carries conviction to the conscience, it becomes right for a man to obey.

(2) It was in execution of what was believed to be a Divine decree of judgment. Joshua did not consider that he was destroying the Canaanites simply to make way for the Israelites. He believed that he was a "scourge of God," sent to bring doom to the guilty, to rid the land of men who lived only to dishonour it, and to introduce a better race in their stead.

II. THE RELATION OF GOD TO THE SLAUGHTER OF THE CANAANITES. Did God really command it? and if so, how can we reconcile this with His character of goodness?

(1) If God commanded this slaughter, He was ordering no more than He does directly in natural events - in tempests, earthquakes, famines, plagues, and visitations of death generally.

(2) If men deserve destruction for their sins, it is really no more harsh for this to be sent by human agency than for it to come from physical causes, as with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

(3) If the punishment of sin generally is reconcilable with the goodness of God, this particular instance may be so.

(4) The extermination of the Canaanites was a blessing to the world.

(5) It was no real evil to the Canaanites. If men are living in sin and will not repent, the judgment which shortens their lives and prevents further evil is rather a blessing than a curse; for any loss or suffering is better for us than that we should be permitted to live on in sin (Luke 17:1, 2). It is better for us that we should be punished for sin than that we should continue in sin unpunished.

III. THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE EARLIER AND THE LATER DISPENSATIONS.

(1) Joshua brought punishment and destruction to sinners. Christ brings forgiveness and life.

(2) Joshua could only find room for his people after exterminating their predecessors. Christ has room for all who will come to His kingdom (Luke 14:22).

(3) Joshua proved himself fit for the inheritance of his nation by the exercise of destructive warfare. Christians arc made meet for their inheritance by the practice of Christlike deeds of charity (Matthew 25:34-36). - W.F.A.

---

---

KJV: So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.

WEB: So Joshua struck all the land, the hill country, and the South, and the lowland, and the slopes, and all their kings. He left none remaining, but he utterly destroyed all that breathed, as Yahweh, the God of Israel, commanded.