What About the Violence in the Old Testament?

Foundations

The Objection

• Some Old Testament texts depict God commanding Israel to destroy Canaanite peoples.
• Critics call this divinely sanctioned genocide and a strong argument against the faith.
• It is one of the hardest moral objections to the Bible.
• We'll state it fairly, then survey the serious responses.

Honest note: This is a genuinely hard topic. A fair treatment states the objection at full strength before answering it.

Source: P. Copan, Is God a Moral Monster?; critics such as the “new atheists.”

Foundations

Key Terms

• Herem — the Hebrew term often translated “devote to destruction.”
• Conquest narratives — Joshua's accounts of taking the land.
• Hyperbole — exaggerated language common in ancient war reports.
• Accommodation — God working within a culture's forms to move it forward.

Source: standard Old Testament references.

The Texts

The Texts in Question

• Commands in Deuteronomy and accounts in Joshua use sweeping destruction language.
• The stated reason is judgment on entrenched Canaanite practices, not ethnicity.
• The texts also warn that Israel itself will face judgment for the same sins.
• Reading them well means attending to genre and context.

Source: Deuteronomy 7; 20; Joshua 6–11.

Responses

Judgment, Not Ethnic Cleansing

• The rationale given is moral judgment (e.g. child sacrifice), not race.
• Israel is warned it will be expelled too if it behaves the same way.
• Rahab the Canaanite and others are spared and welcomed in.
• This reframes the texts as judgment, though the moral difficulty remains.

Misconception: The texts frame this as judgment on practices, not ethnicity — Canaanites who turn (like Rahab) are spared. That eases, but doesn't erase, the difficulty.

Source: P. Copan, Is God a Moral Monster?

Responses

Hyperbole and Ancient War Language

• Ancient Near Eastern war reports routinely used total-destruction rhetoric.
• Joshua claims total conquest, yet later chapters show many survivors remaining.
• So “destroy all” may be conventional exaggeration, not literal extermination.
• This is a major line of recent scholarship.

Useful fact: Joshua says the land was wholly conquered, then Judges shows peoples still there — a clue the “utterly destroy” language is partly hyperbolic.

Source: K. Lawson Younger, Ancient Conquest Accounts; Copan & Flannagan, Did God Really Command Genocide?

Responses

Drive Out More Than Destroy

• Many commands emphasize driving out the inhabitants, not killing every person.
• The goal is removing a corrupting system, often by displacement.
• Combatant-focused readings fit the military and fortress targets named.
• Critics reply that some texts still sound comprehensive — a fair point.

Source: Copan & Flannagan, Did God Really Command Genocide?

Responses

Divine Prerogative and Judgment

• On a theistic view, God as the author of life has rights that we do not.
• The conquest is presented as a unique, bounded act of judgment, not a standing rule.
• It is never offered as a template for warfare today.
• This response helps some readers and troubles others.

Honest note: Even granting God's right to judge, many readers still feel the weight here — and Scripture never makes this a model to imitate.

Source: standard treatments of the conquest.

Responses

Read Through Jesus

• Some read these texts as an early stage, fulfilled and reframed by Jesus.
• Jesus rejects “holy war,” teaches love of enemies, and is the clearest picture of God.
• On this view earlier texts are read in light of the cross, not the reverse.
• Christians differ on how far to press this move.

Key idea: Christians read the whole Bible through Jesus — who loves enemies — which reshapes how the conquest texts function for faith today.

Source: e.g. G. Boyd, The Crucifixion of the Warrior God (one contested approach).

The Other Side

The Critic's Rejoinder

• Critics argue these responses soften but don't remove the problem.
• Some texts still read as commands to kill non-combatants.
• Hyperbole and accommodation can feel like special pleading.
• Honesty requires admitting the objection retains real force.

Fair note: These replies reduce the difficulty; they don't make it vanish. The objection keeps real force, and serious Christians feel it.

Source: critics such as W. Morriston; R. Dawkins (popular form).

How Christians Differ

A Range of Responses

• Responses run from “mostly hyperbole” to “real but bounded judgment” to “reframed by Christ.”
• Most readers combine several rather than relying on a single one.
• All of them deny that the texts license violence today.
• The diversity is honest disagreement about hard material.

Source: Copan; Flannagan; Boyd (differing views).

Honest Limits

What the Case Can and Can't Do

• No single answer fully dissolves the moral discomfort.
• The strongest case is cumulative: genre, context, judgment, and Christ together.
• The texts describe a unique era; they are not prescriptive for ours.
• Faithful readers hold the tension rather than pretending it away.

Key idea: The aim is an honest, reasonable reading — not a tidy proof that removes all the discomfort.

Source: Copan & Flannagan, Did God Really Command Genocide?

Conclusion

The Big Takeaway

• The conquest texts are a serious moral objection, and we've stated it fairly.
• Judgment (not ethnicity), hyperbole, displacement, and reading through Christ each carry weight.
• None erases the difficulty entirely; together they make a reasonable case.
• Christians read it through Jesus, who is the clearest picture of God.

In one line: A hard text handled honestly: judgment and ancient war-language, read in the light of Christ — with the difficulty owned.

Source: Copan; Copan & Flannagan; Younger; Boyd.