Race, God, and Moral Justification: An Addendum

This addendum examines the theological concept of arbitrary divine grace and challenges the biblical justifications for the Israelite displacement of the Canaanites. The post explores how those in power consistently create moral frameworks that position themselves as divinely favored while justifying horrific treatment of others, connecting ancient religious narratives to contemporary geopolitical conflicts.

Posted: 2025-Aug-04

December 3, 2017

This is a brief addendum to yesterday's discussion on race, God, and the origin of races. I want to clarify two key points that either slipped my mind or weren't clearly articulated in the previous discussion.

The Arbitrary Nature of Divine Grace

First, I need to correct a word I was struggling to recall yesterday. The word I was searching for was "arbitrary." This relates to the Lectures on Faith and the crucial theological point that if God has no respect for persons, then His grace, mercy, and atonement cannot be applied arbitrarily. If they were arbitrary, we could have no confidence in our ability to qualify for or obtain salvation.

The counterpoint is equally important: if you believe that God's grace is arbitrary—that He does prefer some groups over others—then you must construct a framework in which you are part of the preferred group. This is essentially what white Christians have done throughout history. They've created theological justifications that place themselves as God's favored people, which then serves as moral cover for their treatment of others.

The Canaanite Question: Mercy or Genocide?

The longer point I wanted to address concerns the biblical account of the Israelites displacing the Canaanites and the theological justifications offered for what can only be described as genocide. This connects to a broader pattern of how divine command has been used to justify horrific acts.

Let me start with a framework from the Book of Mormon. In 2 Nephi 26 and 29, Nephi tells us that God does nothing except for the benefit of humanity—everything is motivated by His love, compassion, and desire to benefit His children. I've connected this principle to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Years ago, while in law school, I read an essay by a rabbi discussing what happened to Lot's wife when she turned into a pillar of salt after looking back at the destruction. The rabbi suggested this was actually an act of mercy. Lot's wife had adult children who had married into Sodom and Gomorrah and remained behind. When she looked back and witnessed their destruction, God mercifully took her from mortality rather than let her suffer the remainder of her days knowing what had happened to her children.

This interpretation suggests that even the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah could be viewed as merciful. If the inhabitants had reached a point of such wickedness that their existence was endless turmoil and horror—much like the Nephites before their final destruction in the Book of Mormon—then extending their mortality would only increase suffering. They had made their choice between God and Satan, rejected all calls to repentance, and were living in misery rather than happiness.

If we apply this same rationale to the Canaanites, we might argue that they had reached a similar point of spiritual degradation. The biblical account suggests this: Abraham was told the land would be given to his posterity, but only after 400 years, because "the iniquity of the Canaanites was not yet full." The implication is that by the time of the Israelite conquest, the Canaanites had finally rejected every opportunity for repentance.

In the Book of Mormon, Nephi explicitly states that if the Canaanites had been righteous, the Israelites would never have been justified or commanded to displace them.

Problems with This Justification

However, I see two significant problems with this theological justification:

First, from what I understand of the archaeological record, the Canaanites lived during the Bronze Age and had quite an extensive civilization. While there was a civilization collapse around that time affecting the Levant, this appears to have been climate-related rather than due to moral degradation or endless warfare. There's no clear archaeological evidence supporting the notion that Canaanite society was particularly egregious in ways that would justify genocide as an act of mercy.

Second, and more importantly, the Israelites themselves failed to completely exterminate the Canaanites as commanded. Those who remained behind not only survived but, according to the biblical record, many proved to be among the most faithful people in the Old Testament.

Consider Obed-Edom, a Canaanite who cared for the Ark of the Covenant when David, in frustration, left it at his threshing floor. Obed-Edom and his family were later rewarded for their faithfulness by being allowed to serve in the temple in Jerusalem.

Or consider that when Elijah fled from Ahab, the Hebrew word translated as "ravens" in the King James Version could also mean "dark" or "dusky" people—possibly indicating that Elijah was cared for by Canaanites rather than miraculously fed by birds.

The widow who shared her last meal with Elijah (or Elisha) and whose son was later raised from the dead—she was a Canaanite woman. In the New Testament, the woman who petitioned Jesus for spiritual nourishment, saying that even dogs are fed scraps from the table, was also a Canaanite.

The Reality of Canaanite Religion

Yes, the Canaanites worshiped Baal, a fertility cult that included sexual rites and child sacrifice. This could indicate moral depravity. But I'd make several counterpoints:

Human sacrifice, whether among the Canaanites, Aztecs, or other cultures, represents a perversion of the plan of salvation—a twisted reflection of God offering His only begotten Son as sacrifice for humanity's sins.

More significantly, the Israelites themselves fell into the same practices, worshiping Baal and offering child sacrifice. If both groups engaged in the same behaviors, why would one be commanded to exterminate the other?

Finally, we must ask: which is worse—allowing a society to exist where some children might be sacrificed in religious rituals, or exterminating the entire population, denying all children any opportunity for mortality? It's difficult to argue that complete genocide is more merciful than allowing life to continue despite its imperfections.

Contemporary Relevance

This theological justification for genocide sounds remarkably similar to moral justifications used throughout history and continuing today. As I mentioned yesterday, the United States consistently justifies its international actions by claiming moral superiority and presenting its interventions as bringing enlightenment to the unenlightened.

Right now, there's a bombing campaign in Yemen, supported and enabled by the US, that constitutes genocide. Yet it's justified through the same logic—we are morally superior, therefore our actions are justified.

The pattern is consistent: those in power create theological or moral frameworks that position themselves as favored by God or history, then use these frameworks to justify horrific treatment of others.

Conclusion

The historical and scriptural record doesn't support the moral justification for the Israelite displacement of the Canaanites. Instead, it appears to be another example of how divine command narratives are constructed to justify the horrendous exploitation of one group by another.

This pattern continues today, as those in power consistently frame their actions in moral terms while perpetrating acts that can only be called atrocities. The theological justification changes, but the underlying dynamic remains the same.