www.jbu.edu/academics/journal
Bible
41
Genocide in the Old
Testament
Chenoa Barker
Chemistry Major
Today, many Christians and non-Christians struggle with the violent and gruesome passages of death and destruction carried out at the
command of God in the Old Testament. Specifically when compared with the modern day definition of genocide, these passages can lead to
confusion about and doubt of God’s character. In an effort to rightfully interpret these difficult Scriptures, various scholarly interpretations
of passages found in 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, and Joshua are examined in order to understand their context and implications to better
understand God’s holy, terrible, and merciful nature.
With the rise of modern concern and awareness about genocide since the Rwandan genocide in
1994, it is imperative for Christians to confront controversial passages in Scripture to understand the
history of genocide in the Bible, its modern counterpart, and how we as Christians can answer in
love and justice to world-wide affairs. After working with a human rights agency, I realized that the
word “genocide” could be appropriately applied to the evil actions of mass murder that occurred
in the Old Testament. Unfortunately, genocide has not faded away to the pages of history; we live
in an increasingly violent world where genocide, massacre, and warfare frequently make headlines.
For many people, genocide and such tragedies cause them to doubt the very existence of God. In
light of this real and important struggle with the text of the Bible and the events of our modern
world, it is important to rightly understand the troublesome passages that are in the Old Testament
in order to see God correctly. Instead of lightly justifying this issue of utter importance, we should
press into these passages to learn how to understand God’s mercy and His judgment, His grace, and
His wrath. Through a thoughtful analysis of the violent accounts that are written in the books of
Joshua, 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings, we should better understand God’s thoughts and feelings toward violence and ethnic cleansing and how Christ’s message of mercy and forgiveness is not
42
separate from but related to the Old Testament. In the coming
pages genocide will be defined according to the United Nations and compared with the description of the acts of God
carried out by the nation of Israel. Then, the various scholarly
interpretations of war in the Old Testament will be analyzed
as each one attempts to reconcile the actions of God in the
Old Testament and the New Testament. Each interpretation
seeks to cohesively understanding of God’s character in light
of the sometimes troubling accounts in the Old Testament.
As an accurate understanding of God’s character is crucial
to a right personal relationship with God, the importance of
understanding the purpose of God’s actions is paramount.
Finally, in light of the presented interpretations of the Old
Testament, I will express my own beliefs about the passages
of warfare and genocide to reveal a deeper understanding of
the Great God and King of Israel in a way that is helpful to
others and glorifying to God.
Certainly human cruelty and warfare have always
been part of history of every nation, not just the nation of
Israel. White, black, Asian, or Arabic, all peoples have committed murder against other people groups. The Encyclopedia
of Human Rights writes in its entry entitled “Genocide” that
“throughout recorded human history, war has been the predominant cause or pretext for massacres of national, ethnic,
racial, or religious groups.”1 Lawson, the editor of the Encyclopedia of Human Rights notes that in times of “religious
wars during Middle Ages as well as in places of the Old Testament, some genocide was sanctioned by Holy Writ.”2 It should
not come as a surprise to Christians that God has been intolerant, vengeful, and even merciless in regard to nations that
had the potential to infect and distract Israel from its worship
of the true God. Defined according to the United Nations
which was created as an international watch-dog to prevent,
assess, and convict crimes against humanity, the international
coalition expressed genocide to be
acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethical, racial, or religious group as such: (a) killing members of the group (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group (c) deliberately inflicting on the group condi
tions of life calculated to bring about its physical
destruction in whole or in part…3
Looking to a few, specific passages of the Old Testament in
the books of Samuel and Kings, the book A Harmony of
Broaden Journal of Undergraduate Reseach
Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, was used to highlight parallel
texts of Samuel and Kings. Under the heading of “The Commission to Destroy Amalek,” 1 Samuel 15:3 reveals the Lord’s
command to Saul to “go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy
all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and
woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”4 To
understand the context of this command, verse 2 says, “Thus
says the Lord of hosts, ‘I will punish Amalek for what he did
to Israel, how he set himself against him on the while he was
coming up from Egypt.’”5 According to the Expositor’s Bible
Commentary for 1 Samuel 15: 2, Amalek referred to a Bedouin people descended from Esau, “the traditional southern
marauders rather than a smaller Amalekite enclave occupying
area in the hills of western Samaria.”6 By the destruction of
Amalek, a specific ethnic and religious group, the Lord’s calling for an episode of genocide is exposed. Another example
of genocide in the Old Testament occurs in Joshua. Following the command of the Lord to take the land the Lord had
promised the nation of Israel, Joshua is instructed to remove
all of the current inhabitants, the Canaanites, of that land
who worship foreign and pagan gods. Joshua 10 states that
Israel took possession of Southern Palestine. Joshua 10:40
summarizes Israel’s battle over the Canaanites: “Thus Joshua
struck all the land and hill country and the Negev and the
lowland and the slopes and all their kings. He left no survivor,
but he utterly destroyed all who breathed, just as the Lord, the
God of Israel, had commanded.”7 Instead of merely removing the Canaanites from the land, the nation of Israel waged
a genocidal attack against the people at the command of the
Lord. A final example of the Lord of Hosts exerting merciless
attacks on foreign nations is found in 2 Samuel 8:1b-2 where
David defeated the Philistines and “took control of the chief
city from the hand of the Philistines. He [David] defeated
Moab and measured them with the line, making them lie down
on the ground, and he measured two lines to put to death and
one full line to keep alive.” While David did not kill all of the
Philistines, he destroyed “in part, a national, ethnical, racial
or religious group.”8 According to the definition of genocide
given by the United Nations, destruction in part amounts to
genocide.
While there are many more examples of genocide
in the Old Testament the above examples were provided to
give context for the ensuing discussion. The main issue, while
related to genocide, is how we can interpret these passages
www.jbu.edu/academics/journal
and reconcile these historical and Biblical accounts with God’s
character. At first look, it may be confusing to the reader how
a God, who in the New Testament professes to be a God of
peace, mercy, and love toward enemies, is also portrayed as a
God who has no mercy for other nations and commands horrible violence. With the belief that each person is made in the
image of God, regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion, how
then can God command his or her annihilation? There are
various approaches this complex problem of seeming contradictions in the character of God in the Old and New Testaments. Some methods deny the continuity of the testaments,
while others uphold it. Others absolve these problems by
negating Scripture’s divine inspiration and historical accuracy.
Since an exhaustive examination of each of these interpretations is beyond the scope of this paper, a few interpretations
representative of the varied spectrum will be discussed.
Before a discussion of the various interpretations can
begin, it is important to address the issue of how and why the
Lord conducted war. Peter C. Craigie, Professor of Religious
Studies at the University of Calgary, comments on God’s
interactions with humans through war. War is an unfortunate,
evil result of man’s sinful behavior. Since “God is King, the
ultimate sovereign of human history, it is to be expected that
he will stand in some kind of relationship to war.”9 According
to Craigie, this relationship is not necessarily one of approval,
but rather one of utilitarianism; God participates actively
in war “for the purpose of both redemption and judgment;
in this participation God is the Warrior.”10 For those who
struggle with the image of a God who sanctions war for the
sake of His judgment of some and mercy on others, Craigie’s
opinion seems objective and cold. However, after considering
that God reveals Himself, not only through war, but through
His comforting and glorifying presence, through His wisdom
and creation, it is clear that God interacts in time and space to
reveal to us His character, which includes both judgment and
mercy. Strangely enough, God spoke through messengers such
as Moses and Joshua, appointed Kings to rule over His chosen
nation such as David and Saul, and sent His Son in human
form as His way of communicating Himself to the world. As
God works through human ways, war is one of the ways that
he has protected His people and judged pagan nations. Thus,
God has waged war to protect the purity of His people and to
keep His frail and easily distracted nation from worshipping
pagan gods and falling away from His light and life. While
43
this explains God’s reasoning to engage in warfare, it does not
make the slaughter of women and children in war any less
heart-wrenching or disturbing. Through the following interpretations, we grapple with these acts of God.
Since the very beginning of God’s interactions with
Israel, laws for daily life were communicated to His people. In
addition to those laws for the preparation of food and cleanliness, God set laws regarding warfare found in Deuteronomy
20. In Deuteronomy 20:1, it says, “When you go out to battle
against your enemies and see horses and chariots and peoples
more numerous than you, do not be afraid of them; for the
Lord your God of Egypt who brought you up from the land
of Egypt is with you.” Clearly in agreement with Craigie’s
point, God works through war to achieve His purposes. The
following verses in Deuteronomy 20 goes on to describe the
ritual of warfare where the priest comes out before the army
of men to consecrate the battle and asks that any men standing in the army who are unclean or have unfinished business
leave before the battle begins. In verses 14 and 16 the Lord
defines two types of battles: those of inheritance and those
that occur when a nation refuses to accept the peace offerings of Israel. For the battles of inheritance, “in the cities of
the peoples the Lord your God is giving as an inheritance,
you shall not leave alive anything that breathes” (Deut 20:16).
However, for cities that revoke the peace offering, “you shall
strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. Only the
women and the children and the animals and all that is in the
city, all its spoil shall you take as booty…” (Deut 20:13-14).
Thus, according to the practices laid out in the Old Testament,
war is not merely a political endeavor, but it is an act of worship and sacrifice with guidelines laid out in Scripture for its
accomplishment. Interestingly, each time victory is mentioned
in relation to Israel, it is not by the power of the army that
they were victorious, rather victory is “given by the hand of
the Lord” to Israel (Deut 20:13). This phrase is frequently repeated throughout the Old Testament in reference to Israel’s
victory. Given this repeated reference, it is very clear that the
Lord is interacting with His people and with other nations
directly through warfare.
Loosely understanding the role of God in war and the
reasons God conducts war, it is important to recognize that
there are many interpretations of Scripture theologians have
employed to deal with the problem of violence and God’s
character in the Old Testament. Professor of Old Testament
44
at Messiah College and author Eric A. Seibert offers a comprehensive analysis of troublesome passages in his book
Divine Disturbing Behavior. Seibert highlighted some interesting, however erroneous methods of interpreting the Old
Testament used by other scholars before presenting his argument. To represent the most radical view of Old Testament
interpretation, I have combined three perspectives on the Old
Testament beginning with an ancient perspective and ending
with a modern argument of similar vein.
The ancient theologian Marcion, who was deemed a
heretic in the 1st century, wrestled with the issue of the seeming contrast between the Old and New Testaments. Desiring
that Christianity be separated completely from its Jewish roots,
Marion rejected the Old Testament altogether deeming it “a
scandal to the faithful and a stumbling block to the intellectual
gentiles by its crudity and cruelty.”11 According to Seibert, “as
Marcion saw it, Christianity was a “brand-new religion with
absolutely no relation to the Jewish faith” and believed that
“the Creator God of the Old Testament was not the same
God of the New Testament.”12 While different in approach
but similar in effect, the church father Origen considered the
validity of the Old Testament but only as allegory. Instead of
believing the events recorded in the Old Testament to have
actually happened, Origen sought a deeper, spiritual meaning and read symbolically the troublesome passages and read
literally the passages that, to him, were morally upright. For
example, Lot committed incest with his daughters. Origen
wrote “ ‘If it teaches something useful in an elevated sense,
God knows, as does that person who has received the gift of
grace to expound these matters. As for the usefulness of the
story itself, it would take quite a search to find it! Indeed, what
profit can I find from the story of Lot and his daughters?’”13
For passages of Scripture such as these, where the literal
meaning is offensive, Origen took an allegorical meaning form
the text. In this case, “Lot represented the Old Testament
law; Lot’s wife, the Israelites who rebelled in the wilderness;
and Lot’s daughters, Jerusalem and Samaria.”14 While Origen
stated that the entire text of the Old Testament was useful, he
effectively discounted the authority of Scripture and failed to
see the beauty in a God who works through humans in spite
of their sinfulness to achieve His purpose.
Even today this figurative approach to the Old Testament exists. In Show Them No Mercy, four authors present
their own opinions regarding their interpretation of the Old
Broaden Journal of Undergraduate Reseach
Testament. After each work is presented, the other authors
give a rebuttal of the highlighted opinion. Through this text,
four crucial and representative approaches to the problem of
violence in the Old Testament are discussed. Each interpretation raises, not only the subtleties of the various arguments,
but also their implications for the right worship and understanding of God’s character. The first interpretation of the
Old Testament is very similar to that of Marcion and Origen.
C.S. Cowles, Professor of Religious Studies at Point Loma
University takes a very emotional approach to the issue and
writes of the macabre reality of genocide in the Old Testament, referencing the Canaanite genocide. Cowles hangs his
argument primarily upon the belief that commandments
from God given to Joshua or Moses were most likely misinterpreted. Discussing God’s revelation to His people Israel,
Cowles writes that “the problem of partial and even distorted
concepts of God in the Old Testament has never been on
God’s side but on the side of the human mediators of that
revelation.”15 Likening God’s divine revelation to the Hubble
Spacecraft that produced blurry photos, Cowles illustrates
that it was not the “revelatory light that has filled the heavens
and the earth with the glory of God from the beginning” that
commanded such evils.16 Rather it was “fallen humankind’s
light-gathering capacity” that misinterpreted the will of God
for earth.17 The second major point of Cowles’ argument
concerns the New Testament. Since Jesus is God revealed in
human form who came to renew the old covenant, “our final
authority, not only in matters of faith and salvation but in
determining the true nature and character of God, is Jesus.”18
According to Cowles, Jesus is nothing like the God of the
Old Testament. Christ is the “kind of generative agape love
that is the total antithesis of genocidal violence” seen in the
Old Testament.19 Thus, Cowles discounts much of the Old
Testament, crossing out what does not align with his view of
Jesus Christ and allegorically interpreting much of the remaining text. Synthesizing both Marcion’s and Origen’s interpretations of the Old Testament, Cowles effectively rejects the Old
Testament as the authoritative word of God. This belief does
not faithfully honor the Word of God or His character by
implying that Scripture is so easily alterable. Thus, it provides
an insufficient analysis of the text by simply stating it to be
incorrect.
Analyzing this approach as a whole, it is far too radical. While it does, on some level seem likely that the human
www.jbu.edu/academics/journal
representatives of God’s word could have misinterpreted
God’s command, it negates the work of the Holy Spirit in
the lives of the prophets and leaders of Israel. Rejecting a
metaphorical interpretation, we move to a literal interpretation that does present a very harsh reality of a God who did
call the commanders of his army to carry out the genocidal
massacring of defenseless women and children. However,
the horrors of war do not change the nature of God into
something inconsistent with Himself as a Triune being and
also a man represented in Christ. While God is infinitely
compassionate, more than we will ever know, God is abrasively holy. Daniel L. Gard, Professor of Exegetical Theology
at Concorida Seminary, responds to Cowles in Show Them
No Mercy that God’s “holiness is far beyond that of human
comprehension, involving not only ethnical purity but also
his supreme majesty and absolute transcendence. Before him
nothing sinful may stand.”20 As difficult as it is for us to grasp,
God is completely justified in His actions against foreign nations that could threaten the purity of Israel. God is devoutly
jealous of His people and desires that they are not distracted
or held captive by anything else. While we cannot negate the
fact that God did create the peoples of the foreign nations
and loved them as well, they were also unclean and unfit to
stand before the Lord. Seibert in Divine Disturbing Behavior defines this approach to the Old Testament as the “Just
Cause Approach” and states that it is the “most popular way
of defending God’s behavior in the Old Testament.”21 While
in opposition to this position, Seibert accurately writes that
“God has the right—some would even say the responsibility—to kill those who commit such sins since God is the judge
of all creation and the only one with authority to take human
life.”22 Seibert’s rebuttal to this opinion stems from his view of
humanity. Saying that “it is hard to imagine how anyone could
persuasively argue that babies have committed sins worthy of
death,” Seibert does not believe in the initial, total depravity
of humanity.23 Since according to Seibert, humans are not innately sinful, they do not deserve death and God acts unjustly.
Seibert has failed however, to take into account Romans 3:23
which says, “For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory
of God.” From Scripture, it is not unjust of God to demand
payment for sins and it is not unjust for that punishment to be
death (Romans 6:23).
In contrast, Daniel L. Gard and Tremper Longman III, argue for the eschatological continuity and spiritual
45
continuity between the Old and New Testaments. Since both
of these arguments are similar, they will be presented together
and then discussed to reveal what we can be learned about
God’s character through a continuous interpretation. In the
case of Eschatological continuity, Gard argues that the writer
of Chronicles “foresaw a new David coming (though that
would take more than four centuries). In the person of Jesus
of Nazareth, the new and final David did come to Israel.”24
Not denying the actual occurrence of the events recorded in
the Old Testament or negating the validity of the commands
given by God, Gard reasons that in addition to the literal
interpretation of the Scriptures, there is an eschatological
significance represented in the events surrounding the political nation of Israel that is carried over to the time of Christ.
As God was actively fighting on behalf of the nation of
Israel, to fight against Israel, the Canaanites “stood in opposition not only to the nation but also to the God who had
given the land to Israel.”25 This imagery of God as Warrior is
continued in the New Testament with the “picture of Jesus as
conqueror” as Christ’s Second Coming is foretold in the New
Testament.26 Referring to the nations that will be judged upon
Christ’s Second Coming, Gard writes that “those who attack
the church attack her Lord and, in the end, will meet the same
fate as the ancient enemies of Israel.”27 Gard points out the
continuity of God’s character in the Old and New Testament
as both contain aspects of God’s mercy, judgment, and justice
seen through His defense and protection of his church. It
is important to note that Gard emphasizes the fact that the
time to actually wage war as Christians against foreign, pagan
nations has ceased. Since “no political, geography-bound
nation on earth today can claim to be the people of God as
ancient Israel once claimed” genocide as a means of achieving
God’s Holy purpose is unfounded and unacceptable.28 Since
the grafting in of the Gentiles into the stem of Israel, the
church is comprised of many nations and ethnicities. Thus, no
one can claim to fight on behalf of the Lord against another
people.
Similar in thought and approach to Daniel L. Gard,
Temper Longman III argues for the spiritual continuity
between the Old and New Testaments and supports God’s
consistent character. Like Gard, Longman writes that the
“war against the Canaanites was simply an earlier phase of the
battle that comes to its climax on the cross and its completion at the final judgment.”29 God has, since the beginning of
46
time fought against “the Canaanites, who are the object of
God’s wrath for their sin.”30 From the New Testament to today, the fight concerns “the spiritual powers and principalities”
and ends in “the utter destruction of all evil, human and spiritual.”31 Longman shows God’s consistent war against sin seen
through various opponents. Even still, it is troubling though
that the Canaanites are the object of God’s wrath during the
time of the Old Testament. Why the Canaanites are targeted
is unclear. However, we can know that God was completely
just in fighting against them as they were sinful people who refused to follow God. From his spiritually continuous analysis,
Longman calls for the modern church to “join in the struggle
against the spiritual enemies of God.”32 Emphasizing that the
“weapons employed are spiritual, not physical,” we are called
to defeat Satan and his demons through prayer and discipline
as we seek to spread the Kingdom of God on earth.33
With a spectrum of interpretations regarding the
relationship between the Old and New Testament, there are
several important points to be made. First, it is critical to
understand that all Scripture is the inspired word of God
that is profitable for teaching. To simply dismiss troublesome
passages in the Old Testament as historically inaccurate or
misinterpreted inspiration denies the power of God to present
Himself through the Bible as He saw fit. The Bible represents God’s interactions with a sinful human race. Because
God works through people, humanity at its best and worst is
exposed. Lot’s incest, for example, does not display God condoning unrighteous and sexual immorality. Rather, it shows
that God is greater than sin and still uses sinful humans to
work out His purpose. In the case of warfare, God does not
desire that any of his creation be annihilated; but, at the same
time, God understands that in the fallen world Satan reigns
and in order to protect his people and make way for Christ,
destruction of the enemy is necessary. Secondly, it is important to understand that while there seem to be an overwhelming number of accounts that reveal God’s wrath in the Old
Testament, there are also accounts of God’s grace where He,
without reason, has spared nations. From Abraham’s intercession for the City of Sodom, we know that God does not
delight in slaying the righteous with the wicked. In Genesis
18:24, Abraham says “Suppose there are fifty righteous within
the city; will You indeed sweep it away and not spare the place
for the sake of the fifty righteous who are in it?” Mercifully,
God answers in verse 26, “So the Lord said, ‘If I find in So-
Broaden Journal of Undergraduate Reseach
dom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare the whole
place on their account.’” Clearly, God is merciful and finds no
pleasure in the destruction of His creation. It must be noted
that God’s mercy is continually shown toward the nation of
Israel, who no less sinful than other nations, is spared wrath
and complete destruction. Thus, it is crucial to see the connection between the Testaments as a rightful understanding of
the character of God is sought.
Since Christ took our punishment, have been absolved of sin and no longer deserve complete destruction. In
regard to the purpose of warfare, there is no need for physical battle; Christ fought and conquered the ultimate battle
that began with God’s crusade against pagan nations and was
completed on the cross. As part of the body of Christ, the
understanding of God’s character as rightfully wrathful and
absurdly merciful has great implications for our interactions
with the world. Since we know God to be judging and wrathful, our fervor to spread the gospel should be increased as we
desire to reach lost individuals and nations. Given that we understand the fierce power and wrath of God, we should seek
to save others from that wrath by displaying to them God’s
seemingly paradoxical mercy and grace. By Christ’s grace, our
punishment for sin has been absolved and grace is available to
all. It was God’s plan for Christ to come so that the destruction of unclean nations would become obsolete; instead of
God judging the nations, God looks to Christ and regards His
perfection for our imperfection. With this in mind we should
run with joy and humility to those who have not yet heard the
good news. A right understanding of God leads, not only to
the right understanding, appreciation, and dissemination of
the gospel, but also to right worship. Often we become too
comfortable in the presence of God. While we can approach
the throne of grace boldly, we must also approach humbly,
with awe and fear because our God is a great, jealous, and
holy. By fully embracing both the difficult and the accessible
messages of God revealed in the Old and New Testament,
our marvel of God should increase as we realize that God, the
most pure being, provided a way for the most unclean humans
to enter into fellowship with Him. While many accounts in the
Bible can be difficult to understand, we would do well to consider all the arguments, discuss this issue with our loved ones,
and then take up our cross and serve the rest of the world
with the power of the Holy Spirit.
www.jbu.edu/academics/journal
EndNotes
1 Encyclopedia of Human Rights, 2nd ed., s.v.
“Genocide.”
2 Ibid.
3 Encyclopedia of Human Rights, 2nd ed., s.v.
“Genocide.”
4 William Day Crockett, A Harmony of Samuel,
Kings, and Chronicles (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1985), 79
5 Ibid.
6 Ronald F. Youngblood, Deuteronomy, Joshua,
Judges, Ruth, 1&2 Samuel, vol. 3 of The Expositor’s Bible
Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 672-673.
7 (New American Standard: Zondervan), 2000. This
text is used for all the following Biblical passages.
8 Encyclopedia of Human Rights, 2nd ed., s.v.
“Genocide.”
9 Peter C. Craigie, The Problem of War in the Old
Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 43.
10 Ibid.
11 New Advent: Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. “Marcionites.”
12 Eric A Seibert, Divine Distrubing Behavior (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009), 58.
13 Ibid, 68.
14 Ibid, 62.
15 C.S. Cowles and others, No Mercy: 4 Views on
God and Canaanite Genocide (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
2003), 38.
16 Ibid, 39.
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid, 40.
19 C.S. Cowles and others, No Mercy: 4 Views on
God and Canaanite Genocide (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
2003), 42.
20 Daniel L. Gard and others, No Mercy: 4 Views
on God and Canaanite Genocide (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
2003), 139.
21 Eric A Seibert, Divine Disturbing Behavior (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009), 74.
22 Ibid, 79.
23 Ibid, 75.
24 Daniel L Gard, No Mercy: 4 Views on God and
Canaanite Genocide(Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 2003)132,133.
47
25 Ibid, 136.
26 Ibid, 136.
27 Ibid, 136.
28 Daniel L Gard, No Mercy: 4 Views on God and
Canaanite Genocide (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 138.
29 Tremper Longman, No Mercy: 4 Views on God
and Canaanite Genocide (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003),
185.
30 Ibid.
31 Ibid.
32 Ibid, 186.
33 Tremper Longman, No Mercy: 4 Views on God
and Canaanite Genocide (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003),
186.