Part I of this series demonstrated that the genocidal God objection (GGO) is an emotional reaction to the biblical text, not a logical objection leveled at the God of the Bible. Part II demonstrated that God’s actions with regard to the GGO were in actuality full measures of grace and mercy on His part, as His actions always are. Part III demonstrated that the GGO, even if successful, only proves that the Christian doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible is false. To date, I’ve yet to encounter substantive rebuttal with respect to these assertions, much less a successful defeater of these claims. It’s just more of the same emotionalism: God’s a real meanie and if you believe what the Bible actually says you’re a liar, a lunatic, or something much more ghastly.

Part IV of this series will consider life and death, and God’s interaction thereto. Everyone agrees, if He exists, that the Christian God has the power to terminate life. The real questions are whether He has the right to take life, or, better perhaps, is He justified in so doing, and whether He’s justified in using whatever means at his disposal to terminate life.

We’re all basically acquainted with the standard arguments with regard to the first question: God is the creator and author of life and is justified with the giving and taking of life. Part I of this series finds Christianity internally coherent in relation to this question. Let’s take another look at the question from a unique perspective, however. What exactly is death?

According to Christian doctrine, which, I remind you is what we’re concerned with here, death is not death. It is a translation from one phase of life to another. Death is not the end; it’s not annihilation; it’s not final; it’s not even protracted. Death is a momentary nano-blip against the backdrop of eternity. To the Christian, death is as near an approximation to nothingness as we can possibly conceive. Is it any wonder the apostle Paul penned these words:

O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

So much for Christianity being a death cult. As always, Christianity is defined by life, and that more abundant and true. How rich are the treasures of God’s grace: death, that dreaded and feared wisp of non-entity, is life. The Canaanite children’s choir has been singing for quite some time now–a heavenly strain we could hardly imagine–about the riches of God’s grace and splendor. This heavenly chorus, as noted in Part II, praises God in the highest for His unspeakable grace in which God acted decisively to remove the Canaanite children from their horrid veil of tears, into a realm of ineffable glory and joy–which is another way of saying into His immediate presence. This choral response to God’s grace and presence, I’m positive, includes a verse proclaiming these children’s eager anticipation of the final stage of their translation from life to life:  their resurrection to fully mature, physically prime bodies in which they will enjoy life before God for eternity.

So, why does the skeptic resist God’s will in the matter of life to life translation? Make no mistake, Part II of this series demonstrated that regardless of an individual Canaanite’s destination in eternity, s/he was better off for having been translated from life to life without delay.  Perhaps because for the skeptic death is indeed the end? Because it’s the bane and evil of mankind, his ever-present sorrow in the midst of joy? If this life is all we have, it seems threatening that God might actually take it away before our allotted three score and ten. It’s not fair, they might be heard saying, that I’m not in charge over life and death–that perhaps there is something wiser with the capability of enforcing its will when it deems it necessary. But I think it’s more than this…

It may just be the double-edged sword of wish-fulfillment. So often, we hear the narcoleptic refrain that Christianity is just a crutch for those unable to cope with the ills of this life. I’ve got news for you: Jesus is not only a crutch; He’s an entire hospital. Secondly, though, unbelief is the crutch: the genuine wish-fulfillment. The idea that, just maybe, there may be an altogether Holy and Righteous Judge of the Universe who abhors sin and requires righteousness from His creatures. Just possibly, there might be a God who expects his will to be done and at times lays aside His longsuffering to come in judgment. That, perhaps, He sometimes sends sinners as instruments of justice to cultures of evil. What would this entail for me, a sinner? It’s an unsettling thought, a mysterium tremendum, some have called it, that is best avoided by concluding, emotionally, not logically, mind you, that God is a homicidal psychopath, not a righteous judge. The skeptic wishes God were not looking down from heaven, thus utilizing unbelief as a crutch, for then her life to life translation may not be as pleasant under the auspices of a Holy God who cares what transpires on this planet, and intends to right all wrongs and judge all evils.

After all, we would never firestorm Dresden to rid the world of a culture less evil than Canaan, or would we? Does this mean that we as Christians approve of genocide? Heaven forbid. The genocide of the Old Testament occurred under a specific dispensation with respect to His chosen people, a dispensation that will, according to Hebrews 1, never be repeated.

What I find most disturbing about the skeptic’s objection; however, is that skepticism by and large–overwhelmingly to a man and woman in my experience–not only condones, but heartily approves of the second American genocide: the wanton destruction of nearly 50 million children since the early seventies. Is this selective outrage with regard to genocide in some manner tied to wish-fulfillment?

Does God, then, have the right to take life? Of the sinner (and we’re all sinners), absolutely, but then, again, He’s not taking life, He’s translating it from one phase of life to another. Your, and my, concern should be not how we pass, but in what state we pass. And here the grace of God shines as a lighthouse through the fog, for God has made a way for you and me to avoid the jagged rocks of our sin and to join our voices with that heavenly Canaanite children’s choir who comprehend His grace for what it is: grace. I’ll let you in on a secret: I’m going to die and you’re going to die. But death is not really death…it’s a momentary change. It’s a portal to eternity. Why were we mad at God for taking us through the portal again? Instead, we should endeavor to make certain He’s not sitting in judgment of our sin when we go through the portal and stand before Him. There’s only one way to do this:

¹¹And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. ¹²He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

 ¹³I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

Part V to come on the second question: whether the means are justified and if God is justified in taking an innocent life.

Part I of this series demonstrated that the genocidal God objection (GGO) is an emotional reaction to the biblical text, not a logical objection leveled at the God of the Bible. Part II demonstrated that God’s actions with regard to the GGO were in actuality full measures of grace and mercy on His part, as His actions always are.

Part III intends to forward an idea relating to the GGO discovered at William Lane Craig’s Reasonable Faith site. WLC is one of the premier Christian philosophers alive today and Reasonable Faith is an easily accessible, excellent resource for Christians of all stripes. In fact, for you free willies out there, be sure to check out Molinism while you’re visiting. It just may be the best theological position for those of you of a semi-pelagian bent. Better yet, check out the Scriptures for the reformed view…

At any rate, the GGO, as it turns out, is not only not a logical objection, it’s not an objection aimed at the existence of God, the truth of Jesus Christ, or the resurrection. Stunningly, even if correct, the GGO succeeds only in refuting a certain Christian doctrine: the inerrancy of Scripture. If it were true, and in no sense do I grant that it is, the GGO would only demonstrate that Moses–or if the inerrancy of Scripture is false, perhaps several redacted sources–was incorrect in his assessment of the nature of God as it relates to the conquest of Canaan.

That’s it.

Nothing more is demonstrated by the GGO. It does not question the existence of God. It does not provide any rationale for believing the resurrection is not an historical fact. It does not question any major doctrine of Christianity, except biblical inerrancy. This is an outright startling conclusion…thanks, WLC. Lastly, and most importantly, because of this, even if true, the GGO in every real sense imaginable provides absolutely no support or rationale for rejecting Jesus Christ or the God of the Bible.

To be clear, the Bible is, in fact, inerrant in the best estimation of The Areopagus. GGO Part IV to come…

It seems that the internet accusations continue unabated: one must be irrational to believe that God could be justified in ordering the Israelite’s conquest of Canaan. Justified, rational, and warranted Christian believers must marvel at the lack of justification offered for this claim. Apparently, the accusers feel the allegations are self-evidently true, given that justification for the claim is rarely, if ever, attached.

Nevertheless, part I of this series demonstrated that, logically, God was not unjust for His role in the conquest of Canaan. Not only was God found true and every man a liar, but it appears to me that resting in the foregoing conclusion alone is itself misleading, and perhaps misrepresentative of the God of Scripture’s character, for God’s act of ordering the conquest of Canaan is in actuality a full measure of grace and lovingness on His part.

The God of the Bible is not a testamental Sybil. He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, which necessarily entails both testaments of Scripture. How, then, are we to think of this Old Testament God who orders the wholesale destruction of sinners? And make no mistake, it’s wholesale destruction. The Canaan episodes are but first-reader accounts of judgment when balanced against the worldwide flood of Noah. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.

Scita > Scienda’s continuing series is a virtual catalogue of God’s grace in light of the conquests and the historical background in which they occurred. It comes highly recommended with the certified Areopagus seal of approval, and no Christian or skeptic should maintain an opinion on the subject without studying it or something very similar.

To grace then. It’s sometimes omitted that god was longsuffering in His ultimate judgment of the Canaanites. Centuries prior to Israel’s conquest, the lord spoke to Abraham:

Then the Lord said to him, “Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years. But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. You, however, will go to your fathers in peace and be buried at a good old age. In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sins of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure. Gen 15:13-16

The text is clear that God postponed the destruction of the Canaanites for roughly four hundred years, until the sins of the Amorites reached its full measure. By any definition, that’s longsuffering.

Now, the Canaanites did in fact reach their full measure of sin. Theirs was a horridly depraved and sinful culture, even to the offering of their children in the fire. Incidentally, am I the only one who detects the irony of the skeptics’ concern for children here? At any rate, we would not criticize modern military action to prevent such atrocity, have engaged in it justifiably in the past, and probably could do so as we speak in places such as Darfur. Nonetheless, these types of actions are considered acts of mercy, no less on God’s part as ours—actually, infinitely more, given that He is altogether holy.

But that’s not the full measure of God’s grace in this matter. The full measure is theological. What is it exactly that happens to children when they die, according to Christianity? The church is split with regard to this question, but either way a genuine picture of God’s grace emerges. Clearly, if there is an age of accountability, Canaanite children under this age were translated directly to heaven upon death. Presumably, this would not be their fate had they lived. How are we to not recognize the grace of God in the lives of these Canaanite children? Moreover, the women who survived the bloodshed were ushered directly into God’s earthly kingdom. At times, grace is cloaked in trauma.

If the age of accountability is not a deliverance of Scripture, then the Canaanite children slaughtered would receive the same fate as their unregenerate parents. How are we to recognize grace in this outcome? The answer is sought and found in the doctrines of heaven and hell. Since I should develop properly Christian doctrines of heaven and hell here before discussing them deeply, let me just say this: hell is worse for some than it is for others as any punishment in hell is meted in exacting and precise commensuration with the sin debt owed: no more, no less. For the unregenerate Canaanite falling by the Israeli sword, the forfeiture of years of actual and accountable sin by virtue of this judgment is a direct act of God’s common grace whereby He limits the sin debt owed by those who perished. In the case of the children, supposing there’s no age of accountability, this measure of grace is astounding on the part of God.

Perhaps our humanistic culture has influenced us to think that this life is all there is, and any disruption of unfettered pleasure on this earth is an evil. Or, in the case of Christians, this life is somehow the truer, more important life that must be prolonged at all costs. Perhaps North American and European prosperity has blinded us to the true evils on this planet. In this, we value this life above all else and, in so doing, deny the very God that created us for an eternity with Him. How sin persuades us to exchange the substitute for the genuine article, the schlock novel for a Crime and Punishment, this fleeting realm of degradation and becoming for the realm of never-ending heavenly lights—and we do so all along cursing a holy God openly for acting justly. It’s as if we’re cursing the rehabilitation doctor that denies us our heroin. The church needs an Amos.

But the Bible screams that this life is not the sum total of existence: I consider that our present sufferings are not worthy with the glory that will be revealed in us. Rom 8:18. Does any Christian truly think those Canaanite children are presently accusing God of injustice? Or, rather, are they endlessly and eternally expressing their gratitude to Him for the Israelite conquest of Canaan, where God sovereignly chose to intrude into their lives and sever them from their life in bondage to sin? If you listen closely, you might hear them joining in with that celestial choir, worshipping Him in the glorious, great beyond for his inexplicably wonderful grace, singing:

Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord God Almighty…