God’s Character Cleared In His Appointment Of Genocide For The Canaanites

Concerning Israel preforming genocide on the inhabitants of Canaan per God’s explicit instructions we would note that the total destruction of the inhabitants of the land is criminal only if the Deity who calls for such a measure is not worthy of all honor. If God’s worth is not so great that those who reject him have committed a crime that cries out for thorough and infinite justice, then the zero-tolerance policy against the people of the land is nothing but a brutal, unjust, and egomaniacal atrocity.

But God’s majestic character is not like the character of mere men whose character could never warrant the wholesale righteous slaughter of their opponents. The ban on the wicked Canaanites heralds the infinite majesty of the justice of God, whose holiness demands perfect loyalty of all creation, and whose worth is such that anything but absolute allegiance is worthy of immediate temporal and eternal death. The conquest of Canaan enacts the Glory of God’s justice against those who look to vain and worthless things to be for them what only God can be for them, and who in the looking to vain and worthless things attempt to de-throne God and enthrone themselves as God. The conquest and genocide of Canaan also displays God’s mercy inasmuch as God allowed them many generations of life despite their rebellion against His majesty. Also, the conquest revealed God’s mercy because in cleansing the land He was rescuing His people from the deleterious effects that the Canaanite putridness would have had on Israel.

And “no,” that supposedly evil God of the Old Testament Canaanite slaughter did not become a user friendly God in the New Testament. In point of fact the New Testament reveals God’s wrath with far more intensity than the Old Testament does. In the Old Testament God never poured His wrath out on the innocent and the righteous as He does in the New Testament.

What does the Canaanite genocide teach us then?

1.) It teaches us that those who sin against God deserve the greatest punishment because the greater the majesty against whom crime is committed the greater the punishment is exacted for the crime. God, having the greatest majesty and glory visits sustained rebellion and conspiracy against His majesty with exacting punishment.

2.) The genocide of the Canaanites is a picture of God’s intent to eternally destroy all His enemies who refuse to turn from their rebellion. The Canaanites did not Kiss the Son, so they perished in the way.

3.) The genocide of the Canaanites teaches us to repent for if God dealt with men of old who did not have the light of revelation we have, how much greater will His dealings be with a generation who has had the revelation of His light for hundreds of years.

However, there is good news in all this. God is patient and long-suffering. Just as he provided time for the Canaanites to fill their cup of wickedness so He provides time for man today to repent. Further, God has provided an ark from His just wrath and He commands all men everywhere to repent and so enter the Ark who is the Lord Christ & His Church to find not only safety but God’s good pleasure.

Biblical Theology Snippets

Genesis 3:15

When Israel was in Egypt the crowns of the Pharaohs had a serpent prominently displayed. So, as the representative of the seed of the serpent he battled with Israel, the seed of the woman. Via the individual seed of the woman (Moses) God crushes the head of the Egyptian serpent and drowns the seed of the Serpent in the Red Sea, just as the seed of the serpent intended to drown the seed of the women in the Nile when he gave instructions to the Hebrew Midwives. This drowning of the seed of the serpent is a recapitulation of God previously drowning the seed of the serpent in the flood.

Once delivered from Egypt Israel complained against God about many things including the lack of water, and so God provides water for them at Massah and Meribah (Ex. 17:1-7). God tells Moses,

“Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb, and you shall strike the rock,and water shall come out of it, and the people will drink.” (vs. 6).

The Psalmist, later singing this event (Ps. 78:15-20), may be inspired to understand that the struck Rock was God Himself.

“They remembered that God was their Rock (78:35).

Paul may well see the Lord Christ as a Christophanic Rock that was struck so that all might drink,

“And did all drink the same spiritual drink for they drank of the spiritual Rock that followed them: and the Rock was Christ.”

It is not a stretch to find a picture here of God standing before the rock, Moses striking the Rock, and God / Christ being identified with the Rock out of whom / which flowed streams of living water so that God’s people might drink and live. God is struck, at His own instruction, by the rod so that His people might live.

Such a understanding provides light for later passages in the Gospels where the Lord Christ calls people to Himself in order that He might provide waters of living water wherein they will be satisfied (John 4:10-14, 7:37-39).

Finally, when being struck the Lord Christ’s side flows with blood unto His enemies and water unto His people. The water and blood throughout the Scripture being both judgment and life to both the righteous and the wicked.

Genesis should be read as a record of the ongoing battle of the two seeds.

In the covenantal structure that Genesis gives its readers, people are either the seed of the serpent, on the side of the Covenant head snake in the garden, or seed of the woman, on the side of the Covenant keeping God and trusting in His promises.

In this structure one finds the Snake’s people opposing God’s people,

Cain vs. Abel
Ishmael vs. Isaac
Esau vs. Jacob
Son’s of Israel vs. Joseph

In this structure one finds also a battle being done between collective entities. The covenant people of the Serpent vs. the covenant people of God.

Pharaoh and Egypt vs. Abraham and Sarah
Kings of the World (Sodom) vs. Abraham & his household, Lot, Melchizedek
Abimelech & Philistines vs. Abraham & his people
Abimelech & Philistines vs. Isaac & his people
The men of Schechem vs. Simeon, Levi, & Israel (Dinah)
Sons of Israel vs. Joseph

The Heidelberg Catechism & The Duration Of Christ’s Suffering

Recently a ministerial colleague expressed his disagreement with the Heidelberg catechism at a particular point at Lord’s Day 15. Lord’s Day 15, Q, 37 states,

Q. 37. What dost thou understand by the words, “He suffered”?

A. That he, all the time that he lived on earth, but especially at the end of his life, sustained in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sins of all mankind: (a)

that so by his passion, as the only propitiatory sacrifice, (b)

he might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, (c)

and obtain for us the favour of God, righteousness and eternal life. (d)

The point of disagreement of my colleague was that he did not believe that Christ, during the time he lived on earth, sustained the wrath of God against the sins of all mankind. My minister friend quite agreed that Christ sustained God’s wrath while on the cross but he did not agree that Christ sustained God’s wrath while living.

The text that the catechism cites for this is Isaiah 53:4

Surely, he hath born our infirmities, and carried [f]our sorrows, yet we did judge him as [g]plagued and smitten of God, and humbled.

Obviously Urisunus and Olevanius interpreted this Isaiah passage to mean that he (Christ) bore our infirmities and carried our sorrow while living as well as dying. (They present other texts [I Peter 2:24, 3:18, I Timothy 2:6] to support Christ sustaining the wrath of the Father on the cross.) However the Isaiah text doesn’t explicitly say that and so I can understand why my friend might interpret the Isaiah passage as a prophecy of Christ’s burden bearing on the Cross.

However, I am of the persuasion that Isaiah is rightly interpreted as pointing to the wrath bearing of Christ during his sojourn on earth.

We must keep in mind the Christ was a public person. All orthodox Reformed people agree that in and of Himself the Lord Christ was perfect and without sin so that in and of Himself the Father could only be pleased with Him. We must keep in mind though our Reformed Federal Theology, and its attendant legal-judicial categories. Christ was a public person who was standing in as a representative for Adam and his descendants. As a public person, and the Representative of God’s elect, the Father’s disposition towards the public person and representative was the same as his disposition towards those who the Representative public person was representing. Christ represented the elect of Adam’s fallen race and as God’s wrath was upon Adam’s fallen race, the Father’s wrath was upon the Son during his whole time on earth, just as the Catechism teaches. The Lord Christ suffered during His whole time on earth and bore God’s wrath even when not on the cross because He was, before God, judicially speaking, the sinners for which He was a public person. This is basic Federal Theology.

Another issue that should be dealt with here is the phrase, (that Christ) “sustained in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sins of all mankind.”

First off we should note that this can not be teaching either a Hypothetical Universalism nor a blanket Universalism. We know this because of what the Catechism explicitly says elsewhere earlier in the document where we find Limited atonement as implicit in the Heidelberg text. Keep in view that the pronouns are always pointing to a particular people.

Q.) 20. Are all men then saved by Christ as they perished in Adam?

A.) No, only those who by true faith are ingrafted into Him and receive all His benefits.1

1 John 1:12,13. I Corinthians 15:22. Psalm 2:12. Romans 11:20. Hebrews 4:2,3. Hebrews 10:39
And in 29 and 30 and 31:

Q.) 29. Why is the Son of God called JESUS, that is, Savior?1

A.) Because He saves us from our sins,1 and because salvation is not to be sought or found in any other.2

1Matthew 1:21. Hebrews 7:25 / 2 Acts 4:12. * Luke 2:10,11.

Q.) 30. Do those also believe in the only Savior Jesus, who seek their salvation and welfare of saints, of themselves, or anywhere else?

No, although they make their boast of Him, yet in deeds they deny the only Savior Jesus,1 for either Jesus is not a complete Savior, or they who by true faith receive this Savior, must have in Him all that is necessary to their salvation.2

1 I Corinthians 1:13. I Corinthians 1:30,31. Galatians 5:4
2 Isaiah 9:7. Colossians 1:20. Colossians 2:10. John 1:16. * Matthew 23.28.

Q.) 31. Why is He called Christ, that is Anointed?

A.) Because He is ordained of God the Father and anointed with the Holy Spirit 1 to be our chief Prophet and Teacher,2 who has fully revealed to us the secret counsel and will of God concerning our redemption;3 and our only High Priest,4 who by the one sacrifice of His body, has redeemed us, and ever lives to make intercession for us with the Father;5 and our eternal King, who governs us by His Word and Spirit and defends and preserves us in the redemption obtained for us.6

1 Hebrews 1:9 / 2 Deuteronomy 18:15. Acts 3:22. /3 John 1:18. John 15:15 / 4 Psalm 110:4 Hebrews 7:21 /
5 Romans 5:9,10 / 6 Psalm 2:6. Luke 1:33. Matthew 28:18. * Isaiah 61:1,2. * I Peter 2:24. * Revelation 19:16.

The Catechism should be read in such a way so that what precedes earlier in the Catechism informs what comes later in the Catechism. Given the presence of all this implicit limited atonement type language earlier in the Catechism it would not make sense that suddenly in question 37 Ursinus and Olevanius suddenly start speaking as if they are Arminians on the doctrine of the atonement.

Secondly, on this score, one can reference Ursinus’ commentary on question & answer 37 and read,

“Obj. 4. If Christ made satisfaction for all, then all ought to be saved. But all are not saved. Therefore, he did not make a perfect satisfaction.

Ans. Christ satisfied for all, as it respects the sufficiency of the satisfaction which he made, but not as it respects the application thereof . . .”

The Commentary of Dr. Zacharius Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism,– p. 215

Here it is clear that the Heidelberg is not holding to a Arminian Hypothetical Universalism where in Christ’s death makes salvation only possible for each and every individual. Ursinus is articulating the idea that Christ’s death was sufficient for mankind but efficient for only the elect since only the elect would have the benefits of Christ applied to them.

The Murder Of God … The Death Of Man

As the West continues to attempt to murder God thus scrubbing Him from its thinking, the consequence is that it likewise murders anything and everything that would stand in as a Representational figure of God. As such the murder of God in the West is the death of all authority which would be suggestive of God. This observation is as old as the French Revolution. In a 1819 Caricature by English caricaturist George Cruikshank. Titled “The Radical’s Arms”, we find depicted the infamous French Revolution guillotine with the phrase in the Republican Banner, “No God! No Religion! No King! No Constitution!”. You see the elimination of God is the elimination of all that approximates a Fatherly authoritative figure in the social order that is attempting to negate God.

So, when a culture attempts to delete the God of the Bible from its thinking it will inevitably turn to integration downward into the void as all horizontal social order structures that mime the reality of God are given the same heave ho as God is given. The result of this attempted escape from divine patrimony is an escape from all authority bearing structures in favor of man’s sovereign autonomous self as shaped by his uncontrolled lusts.

A further consequence of the West insisting that they will not have God rule over them is the loss of a ruling standard. With no transcendent reference point by which to adjudicate the value of all things human the only thing left is to do, by those still suffering with the residual effects of a long spent Christianity — a Christianity which still recalls some quaint notion that all things must be “fair,” — is to insist that all things human are of equal value. As such the absence of a God transcendent is to make all things transcendent, which is to make no thing transcendent. All must be equal in value. Because of this we find the obnoxious idea that all cultures are equally valuable and equally good. Because of this absenting of God transcendent there are no disabilities, no perversions, and nothing or anybody superior to anything or anybody else. Behold the egalitarian cult wherein because all are equal, and a elimination of all things unequal, becomes the Holy grail to be pursued by all “right-minded people.”

A third consequence of the of God whacked is the necessity to find another transcendent point to take his place. Since God lies bleeding the only candidate left is man. Man said loudly becomes God and this loudly spoken man is most often the God-State. Man can not live without a point of transcendence that can be used for a canon of standardization for social order norms and ethics. Whether one desires to consider the Pharaoh gods of the ancient Egyptians or the modern Hegelian divine Spirit-Mind that incarnates itself into the State men who refuse to have the God of the Bible rule over them will always hoist a immanent god into the vacated place of transcendence.

Now, this has an implication that needs to be teased out. As the God of the Bible is always one and is a unity, what happens when man makes a immanent to be transcendent is that man insists that his immanent transcendent God be one. A god who does not have the attribute of oneness is no god at all. This means that the immanent transcendent God-State must now work to make sure that, as God walking on the earth, all those who have given it life, must be one since the immanent transcendent godhead is a projection of one people. What this means is that the God State will demand conformity to its image. This means that diversity must be eliminated and all must become Borg unto the God-State. Cultures that overthrow God in their thinking become cultures of the anthill and the beehive.

Yet another implication for men who seek to eliminate God from their thinking will be the continued need for a sense of and attraction for “that which is Other.” Rudolf Otto was the author of a book titled “Knowledge of the Holy,” and in it he argues that man is drawn to this numinous sense of the Other. For Western man, God has been He who is wholly Other. This desire for Transcendent otherness if it is not to be found in the God of the Bible will have to be found some place else. The argument could be made then that the West’s current preoccupation with third world and alien cultures is how it is satisfying the lost sense of “Otherness” that was eclipsed when the West abandoned the God of the Bible. As such, those things that are most strange, most different, and most unfamiliar are now those numinous things which the West is pursuing, precisely because the West has overthrown He who alone can answer to man’s need for “Otherness.” This may answer the West’s growing ethnocidal embrace of the macabre body modification cult, third world immigration policy, and sodomite marriage. Having thrown off God as “Other,” only sinful “Otherness” remains and it is pursued with all the zeal of new found love. When you combine this observation with the one from the previous paragraph it is easy to envision that the Oneness that we will finally come to is the Oneness of the Other teased out in this paragraph. This represents a complete integration downward into the void.

Of course the flip side of this observation that because we have committed deicide, thus eliminating the numinous Other, and as a consequence have embraced an immanent other, the results have meant the hatred of the familiar, the known, and the normative. This is seen in the West by the knee-jerk hate impulse against all things Christian and as seen in the destruction of the family. That which is “other” is glorified and pursued, while that is kith and kin to us is abominated. Naturally this means that eventually with the killing of God we will kill ourselves as we worship as “other” that which is most contrary to who the West has historically been.

Finally, for our purpose here, when God is rolled off His throne the Creator Creature distinction evaporates. The meaning of this is that man, no longer having an ontological distinction between God and Man, pursues with rabid fervency, the egalitarian impulse mentioned earlier. When the Creator Creature (God – Man) distinction fails then all other distinctions have no anchor by which to be kept in place. The creeping disintegration and even erasure of horizontal distinctions such as between Male vs. Female, such as between the different races, such as between cultures, such as between Employer vs. Employee can all be attributed to the erasure of the Creator Creature distinction. The scrubbing of the Creator Creature distinction that comes with the scrubbing of God from the consciousness of man means the simultaneous scrubbing of all temporal and horizontal distinctions in favor of a social order reality where distinctions are seen as a social construct to be eliminated in favor of the god uniformity mentioned earlier.

All of these consequences of eliminating God, as recited in this essay, serve to reinforce one another. The consequences are distinct yet complimentary. When man reaches out to strike and eliminate God the result is always that man loses his own mannishness.

Goodwin & McAtee — Adam & Christ … Fall & Redemption

“Adam’s fall, you know, was in the garden; Satan there encountered him, and overcame him, led him and all mankind into captivity to sin and death. God now singleth out the place where the great redeemer of the world, the second Adam, should first encounter with His Father’s wrath, to be in a garden, and that there he should be be bound and led away captive as Adam was… Because by a temptation let in at the ear man was condemned, therefore by hearing of the word men shall be saved. “Thou shalt eat thy bread in the sweat of thy brows” that was part of Adam’s curse; Christ he sweat drops of blood for this, it was the force of that curse that caused it. ‘The ground shall bring forth thorns to thee;’ Christ he was crucified with a crown of thorns. Adam his disobedience was acted in a garden; and Christ both his active and passive obedience also, much of it was garden; and at the last, as the first beginning of his humiliation was in a garden, so the last step was too; he was buried, though not in this, yet in another garden. Thus the type and the thing typified answer one another.”

Thomas Goodwin
Christ Set Forth (Works vol. 5, pg. 198

The cheap knock off version.

There in the Temple Garden, filled with the Presence of God, Adam fell to Satan’s fiat law word, and so brought upon all of his generations a captivity to sin and to death. In a recapitulation of the that first Temptation in the Garden — a garden that was characterized by the Father’s presence — the Lord Christ is tempted in a waste land Wilderness. But whereas the first Adam fell despite being supported by the Sanctuary Garden, the second Adam resisted the devil, despite a barren wilderness that announced God’s absence. The Greater Adam quoted God’s fiat word against the fiat word of the devil as he counterfeited God’s voice and so resisted the Devil. Also, it is of interest to note that as Adam fell to the Serpent’s wrath in the Garden so the Son first encountered the Father’s Wrath there in the Olive Press garden of Gethsemane. In each case both Adam’s are bound and led away as outlaws to the Father’s favor.

We find other parallels between the Fall and the Restoration. As Adam fell by the temptation of the false Word so man is restored by the hearing of the true Word. Whereas in the Sanctuary Garden Adam was cursed with the promise that “Thou shalt eat thy bread in the sweat of thy brow,” now in the Garden of Gethsemane, Christ, who is the bread from Heaven, bears Adam’s sweaty curse by sweating drops of blood. Note also that the consequential curse for Adam was the certain promise that ‘The ground shall bring forth thorns to thee’ while Christ bears on his brow a Crown of Thorns thus providing a poignant reminder that Christ is bearing Adam’s thorny curse come to full growth.

As Adam’s death barred him from the Tree of life because of his sin, so the tribe of Christ is restored by eating Christ whose tree of death has become to us a tree of life.

The Garden theme comes to play again as Christ’s humiliation reaches its apex as He is buried in the garden tomb. This humiliation apex though is answered by the beginning exaltation of the Lord Christ where He is vindicated there in the Garden by resurrection.