Program / Course 17: Defending Scripture / Lesson 5.2
What you will learn
- Summarize what the books of Deuteronomy, Joshua and Judges say about the destruction of the peoples of Canaan.
- Explain the idea of the ban (herem) and the evidence that the language is partly stylized.
- Present at least five Christian responses to the conquest narratives and the objection each faces.
- State the moral objection in its strongest form and the strongest replies.
The big idea
Deuteronomy and Joshua describe God commanding Israel to devote the peoples of Canaan to destruction, and Joshua reports cities taken and their inhabitants killed. Many readers find these among the hardest texts in the Bible. Christians do not agree on how to read them. Some defend the commands as acts of divine judgment, some argue that the language is conventional ancient war rhetoric, some read them as figures of spiritual conflict, and some conclude that the authors understood God’s will imperfectly. Archaeology and the text itself complicate the picture, and no response is free from difficulty.
Key terms
- Herem
- A Hebrew word for the ban, meaning that something is set apart or devoted to God, often to destruction, as in Deuteronomy 20:17.
- Canaanites
- A general name for the peoples living in the land west of the Jordan before Israel’s settlement, including Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites and others.
- Holy war
- A term used for warfare understood as commanded and carried out under God’s direction.
- Hyperbole in war reports
- The ancient practice of describing victories in sweeping terms, such as utterly destroyed all, which need not mean literal totals.
- Mesha Stele
- An inscription of the ninth century before Christ by the king of Moab, which describes devoting a town to the god Chemosh in language like the biblical herem.
- Genocide
- The deliberate destruction of a people. Critics apply the word to the conquest accounts, and defenders dispute that it fits.
- Cruciform reading
- A way of reading Scripture that treats the cross of Christ as the key to understanding God’s character, including in the Old Testament.
Background
The commands are found in several places. Deuteronomy 7:1-2 tells Israel to smite the nations of the land and utterly destroy them, and Deuteronomy 20:16-18 says that in the cities of these peoples nothing that breathes should be left alive. Joshua reports that Jericho was taken and its people killed except Rahab and her family (Joshua 6), and that Joshua smote the whole country (Joshua 10:40). The reason given in Deuteronomy is partly the wickedness of the nations (Deuteronomy 9:4-5) and partly the danger that Israel would be led into idolatry (Deuteronomy 20:18).
At the same time, the Bible itself reports that the peoples were not destroyed. Judges 1 lists cities that Israel failed to drive out, and later books show Canaanites, Jebusites and others living in the land. The same Deuteronomy that says to destroy the nations forbids intermarriage with them (Deuteronomy 7:3), which would be unnecessary if they were all gone. These observations are part of why many scholars argue that the language is partly rhetorical.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: What the texts say and what the archaeology shows
Archaeology has not confirmed the picture of a quick conquest. Excavations at Jericho and Ai have been debated for decades, with disagreements about dating and about whether there was a walled city at the time proposed. Scholars differ about whether Israel entered by invasion, by gradual settlement or by a mix. Because of this, many recent writers separate two questions: what the texts command and report, and what actually happened on the ground. Evangelical and other scholars both take part in these debates, and conclusions vary.
The texts also show an internal pattern. Joshua 10:40 says that Joshua left none remaining, and yet Joshua 11 and later chapters show Canaanite cities and kings still active. Scholars such as K. Lawson Younger have compared this language with other ancient Near Eastern war reports, which use similar sweeping claims for victories that did not eliminate the enemy. This comparison suggests that the biblical authors used a recognized idiom, though it does not by itself explain the command to kill.
Step 2: Reasons offered for the commands
Defenders of the justice of the commands point to Genesis 15:16, where God tells Abraham that the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full, and to Leviticus 18:24-28, which says the land vomits out its inhabitants for practices including child sacrifice. On this view the conquest was a judgment, delayed for centuries, and Israel was warned that it would suffer the same if it acted likewise. Rahab’s case, and the case of the Gibeonites, show that those who turned to God were spared.
Critics respond that the evidence for child sacrifice in Canaan is limited and debated, that the text commands killing of children as well as soldiers, and that even if the Canaanites were wicked, killing the young cannot be justified. Defenders reply that the commands, read in their idiom, concern warfare against fortified centers and not the killing of noncombatants, and that where the text speaks of killing everyone it follows convention. Neither side convinces the other, and some thoughtful believers remain uneasy with both explanations.
Step 3: Other readings
A second reading stresses hyperbole and literary convention: the language of total destruction expresses the completeness of God’s victory and the call to avoid idolatry, and Israel’s actual wars were more limited. A third reading, from Origen onward, finds in Jericho and the Canaanites figures of sin and the powers that oppose the soul, so that the commands mean a call to spiritual warfare. This reading was common in the Fathers and remains in Orthodox use, but critics say it avoids the historical sense.
A fourth reading says that the authors understood God’s will in the categories of their time, and that the texts show that understanding rather than the actual mind of God. Writers in this camp include Anabaptist authors and others who read the Old Testament through the life and death of Jesus. A fifth view accepts that God commanded it and holds that this cannot be softened, while insisting that the command was unique and ended. Each reading has costs: the fourth makes parts of Scripture a record of human error, the fifth is hard to square with the character of Christ for some, and the first and second leave the difficulty of the text as it stands.
Step 4: How the Bible itself uses the story
The later Old Testament does not treat the conquest as a model for continued violence. The prophets accuse Israel of the same sins as the nations and warn of the same judgment. The book of Hosea speaks of God’s judgment on Jehu for the blood shed at Jezreel (Hosea 1:4), which shows that a violent act done under an earlier command could be judged later. The New Testament treats Joshua as a figure of rest and as a type of Jesus (Hebrews 4:8), and uses the language of battle in a spiritual sense (Ephesians 6:12).
In the history of the church, the conquest was sometimes used wrongly to justify violence against peoples, such as in the seizure of lands in the colonial period. Most Christian traditions have rejected this use, saying that the commands were given to a particular people at a particular time and have no application to later wars. Honest study of the texts includes honest study of how they were misused.
- What do you notice about the way Joshua and Judges differ on whether the Canaanites were destroyed?
- How does knowing that ancient war reports often used sweeping language affect your reading?
- What do you make of the reasons given in Genesis 15:16 and Leviticus 18?
- Which of the five responses seems to you most faithful to the text, and which most faithful to the character of Christ?
- How should Christians answer someone who says these texts show that the Bible justifies genocide?
- How should they answer someone who says that any criticism of these texts shows a lack of faith?
Examples
Rahab
In Joshua 2 and 6, Rahab hides the spies and is spared with her family when Jericho falls. The New Testament praises her faith (Hebrews 11:31). Her story shows that the text allows for people outside Israel to be received. Critics note that she is the exception.
The Gibeonites
In Joshua 9, the people of Gibeon deceive Israel into a treaty. Israel keeps the oath, though they were tricked, and the Gibeonites live among them. The story suggests that the total ban was not applied mechanically, which is relevant to how the earlier commands are read.
The Mesha Stele
King Mesha of Moab, in an inscription, says he devoted Israelites of the town of Nebo to destruction for his god Ashtar-Chemosh. The parallel shows that the idea of the ban was shared in the ancient world. It does not make the Israelite command acceptable to a critic, but it shows the setting.
Different perspectives
Catholic
Catholic teaching holds that the Old Testament is true and contains imperfect and provisional elements. Catholic scholars generally read the conquest accounts with attention to genre and the literary forms of ancient war reports, and Catholic tradition also uses the spiritual senses. The church has rejected any use of these texts to justify violence in the present.
Orthodox
Orthodox tradition draws on Origen and other Fathers in reading Joshua as a figure of Jesus, who has the same name in Greek, and the conquest as a figure of Christ’s victory over sin and death. Orthodox worship uses Joshua’s story in this way. Orthodox theologians also insist that the God of Joshua is the God of love.
Protestant (Reformed and evangelical)
Many hold that the conquest was a command of God, an act of judgment that was limited to that time and place, and that the language is partly hyperbolic. Authors such as Paul Copan and Richard Hess have defended this view in books, which critics have found unpersuasive. Others in the same tradition are more reserved.
Protestant (Anabaptist and cruciform)
Writers such as Gregory Boyd argue that the cross shows God’s character, and that the violence of the Old Testament reflects God stooping to bear Israel’s sin and violence. Critics say this reading makes the text say something other than what it appears to say.
Jewish and secular
Jewish tradition has often read the commands as limited by the sages, who taught that the Canaanite nations no longer exist and the commands cannot be applied. Secular critics, including some historians, regard the conquest as largely a literary creation, and they hold that the violence of the text is a feature of the ideology of its authors.
Why it matters
This is the passage most often cited by those who reject the Bible, and also the passage most often misused by those who would do harm. A student must be able to speak clearly about both. The topic also shows how the church has held together a high view of Scripture and an honest recognition of difficulty. It prepares you for the study of slavery, where the question of how to read ancient laws is again at stake.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: The Bible commands Christians to kill unbelievers.
Correction: No Christian tradition teaches that. The conquest commands were given to Israel in a particular setting, and the New Testament forbids Christians to repay evil for evil (Romans 12:17-21).
Misunderstanding: Archaeology has disproved the conquest.
Correction: Archaeology has not shown a simple military conquest, and scholars disagree about its meaning. It has also not disproved that Israel emerged in the land. Claims on both sides should be carefully qualified.
Misunderstanding: Calling the language hyperbole removes the problem.
Correction: It lessens one aspect, but the text still presents the destruction as commanded by God. Many scholars, including believers, say the moral question remains.
Misunderstanding: Allegorical readings were invented to dodge the text.
Correction: The Fathers read the text that way for theological reasons, as the New Testament reads other Old Testament material. Critics may disagree with them, but the reading is not new.
Knowledge check
What is the herem?
The herem is the ban, a Hebrew term for something devoted to God and so set apart from ordinary use, which in war often meant destruction of the population and goods of a city. It appears in Deuteronomy 7 and 20 and in Joshua. Similar language appears in the Mesha Stele of Moab, so it was part of a wider ancient practice.
What evidence suggests the conquest language is partly rhetorical?
The books report both total destruction and the survival of the peoples, as in Joshua 10 and 11 compared with Judges 1. Deuteronomy forbids intermarriage with nations it commands to destroy. Other ancient war reports use sweeping language for limited victories. These observations lead many scholars to read the language as hyperbole, though they do not remove the moral question.
State two Christian responses and one objection to each.
One response holds that the conquest was a just judgment on wicked peoples; the objection is that it commands killing of children and the evidence for the nations’ wickedness is limited. Another reads the text as a figure of spiritual conflict; the objection is that it appears to evade the historical sense. Other responses include hyperbole, and the view that the authors misunderstood God’s will.
How have Christians generally treated the use of the conquest to justify later violence?
Most traditions have rejected it, holding that the commands were given to a particular people at a particular time and do not apply to later wars. The New Testament forbids returning evil for evil. History includes cases where the texts were misused, and honest study acknowledges this.
Think it through
- Which response to the conquest seems to you to take the text most seriously? Which takes the moral objection most seriously?
- What do you do with a view that you find unsatisfying but cannot refute?
- How can the church speak about these texts without either excusing violence or dismissing the Bible?
Independent assignment
Read Joshua 6 to 11 with the questions
In your own notebook, read Joshua 6 and Joshua 10 and 11, and Judges 1:27 to 36. Write 400 to 500 words that state what the text says, note two features that complicate a simple reading, present two Christian responses fairly, and state which you find stronger and why, along with the objection that troubles you most. Do not send this to anyone or post it anywhere.
Further study
- Origen, On First Principles (De Principiis) Read selectively for Origen’s reading of difficult passages.
- Augustine of Hippo, The City of God Read selectively where Augustine speaks of war and justice.
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Problem of Evil Read for the broader argument about God and evil.
- Jewish Publication Society, The Hebrew Bible in English (JPS translation) Read Joshua and Judges in the Jewish translation to compare renderings.
- Deuteronomy 20:16 The command concerning the cities of the nations.
- Genesis 15:16 The iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.
- Joshua 10:40 The summary of Joshua’s victories.
- Hebrews 11:31 The faith of Rahab.