Wrestling with Herem Warfare in the Old Testament

Updated November 2023

Divine violence in the Bible is a huge challenge.

Here’s the problem in a nutshell. Christ—the perfect revelation of God—taught and practiced nonviolence, even to the point of allowing himself to be mocked, beaten, and killed. We don’t have a single example of Christ causing physical harm to another human being. And yet the Bible includes many instances of divine violence or violence instigated at God’s command.

So, how can Christ be reconciled with divine violence in Scripture? If Christ perfectly reveals God, what are these other episodes revealing?

Instead of attempting to address every biblical instance of divine violence, I will focus on what is perhaps the most difficult aspect of this topic: the apparent genocidal commands that God gave to Israel. For example, consider the following passages. (Unless otherwise noted, all quotations come from the NIV; emphasis mine).

• Moses said, “When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you—and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.” (Dt 7:1-2)
• Moses said, “However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.” (Dt 20:16-18)
• Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” (1 Sam 15:1-3)

Defining Herem Warfare

Each of the previous examples refers to total destruction. The Hebrew word behind this concept is herem. In herem warfare everything and everyone in a specific area was set apart for destruction. That means Israel’s soldiers were not permitted to enrich themselves with the spoils of victory. On the surface these commands require everything, including women and children, to be offered to God by complete destruction. (Side note: The Mesha Stele indicates that Israel’s neighbor, Moab, also engaged in herem warfare so this practice or at least language appears to have been a part of ancient Near Eastern culture.)

Why was this total-kill command given?

According to Deuteronomy, the primary reason was the temptation to worship false gods:

you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. (Dt 7:2-5)

Note the emphasis on destroying objects of idol worship: altars, sacred stones, Asherah poles, idols. Worshiping Canaanite gods, such as El, Asherah, Baal, and Molek involved sexual immorality and even child sacrifice (e.g., Lev 18:24-25; 20:22-24; Dt 12:29-31). Religious purity was paramount. Total destruction or herem warfare was a way of putting an end to these practices so that the true God alone would be worshiped in the land. Hence, at its root herem warfare is spiritual warfare.

Problems with Herem Warfare

Reflecting on herem warfare has disturbed many ancient and modern Bible readers. Did the God of Israel really command Israel to show no mercy to the people in the land of Canaan? Did Yahweh command Israel to kill Amalekite women and children? Modern warfare distinguishes combatants from noncombatants. Did God command Israel to target noncombatants? Think of the babies and children involved. Also, close contact killing can lead to psychological and moral deterioration so how did this violence effect Israel? Most importantly, how can we possibly mesh this bloodshed with the teaching and example of Christ, who is the image of the invisible God?

Traditional Explanations

In response, literalists often justify the harshness in several ways.

• God gave the Canaanites plenty of time to change their ways, but they continued to practice evil so judgment had to be carried out.
• Herem was not unfair because God warned the people of Israel that they would experience the same consequences if they acted wickedly (Lev 18:28; Dt 28:15-68). For example, “Do not bring a detestable thing into your house or you, like it, will be set apart for destruction” (Dt 7:26). And, in fact, in Joshua 7 Israel became herem (devoted to destruction): “What they stole was supposed to be destroyed, and now Israel itself must be destroyed” (7:12 CEV). This is known as reverse herem with  Israel becoming the target of destruction.
• The conquest of Canaan must be kept in context. It was limited in scope and time. Herem warfare was not a universal and timeless command.

These are important points to consider, but do they solve the problem of women and children being killed? This is a dark topic. Can we find any light in this darkness? Before getting started I should warn you that some don’t think a solution is possible. Christopher Wright says, “I have wrestled with this problem for many years as a teacher of the Old Testament, and I am coming to the view that no such ‘solution’ will be forthcoming” (86).

Five Alternative Explanations

In what follows, I will summarize five alternative approaches along with how proponents would answer the question, “Did God really command herem warfare?”

1. Hyperbolic

In their book, Did God Really Command Genocide?, Paul Copan and Matt Flannagan argue that much of the Old Testament warfare language as ancient warfare rhetoric, meaning it should not be interpreted literally. Think of a basketball player telling his opponents, “We’re going to wipe you off the court today.” Or “we’re going to destroy you guys.” No one takes those comments literally.

They support their argument with conflicting biblical data in regard to warfare outcomes. For example:

So Joshua took the entire land, just as the LORD had directed Moses, and he gave it as an inheritance to Israel according to their tribal divisions. Then the land had rest from war. (Josh 11:23)

And yet, “When Joshua had grown old, the LORD said to him, ‘You are now very old, and there are still very large areas of land to be taken over‘” (Josh 13:1). Additionally, Judges 1 opens with Israel still needing to conquer the Canaanites.

Also,

Then Joshua and all Israel with him went up from Eglon to Hebron and attacked it. They took the city and put it to the sword, together with its king, its villages and everyone in it. They left no survivors. Just as at Eglon, they totally destroyed it and everyone in it. Then Joshua and all Israel with him turned around and attacked Debir. They took the city, its king and its villages, and put them to the sword. Everyone in it they totally destroyed. They left no survivors. They did to Debir and its king as they had done to Libnah and its king and to Hebron. So Joshua subdued the whole region, including the hill country, the Negev, the western foothills and the mountain slopes, together with all their kings. He left no survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the Lord, the God of Israel, had commanded. (Josh 10:36-40)

And yet most of these places that were “totally destroyed” still need to be conquered in the book of Judges.

After that, Judah went down to fight against the Canaanites living in the hill country, the Negev and the western foothills. They advanced against the Canaanites living in Hebron (formerly called Kiriath Arba) and defeated Sheshai, Ahiman and Talmai. From there they advanced against the people living in Debir (formerly called Kiriath Sepher). (Judg 1:9-11)

We also see this contrast within the same passage: “They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys” (Josh 6:21). But four verses later we learn that Rahab and her family survived (v. 25).

Even within the same verse we read: “Joshua and the Israelites defeated them completely,” which sounds like total victory, then the verse continues, “but a few survivors managed to reach their fortified cities” (10:20).

In addition, Copan and Flannagan refer to the frequent use of “driving out” language in the conquest accounts. While destruction language is used, driving out language is far more common, occurring at a rate of three to one (80). And from a reading of the narrative as a whole and archaeological evidence, driving out not destruction corresponds more closely with what actually occurred.

Although not unique to the hyperbolic approach, Copan and Flannagan also highlight God’s promise to use the hornet to assist Israel:

I will send my terror ahead of you and throw into confusion every nation you encounter. I will make all your enemies turn their backs and run. I will send the hornet ahead of you to drive the Hivites, Canaanites and Hittites out of your way. But I will not drive them out in a single year, because the land would become desolate and the wild animals too numerous for you. Little by little I will drive them out before you, until you have increased enough to take possession of the land. (Ex 23:27-31; cf. Dt 7:17-23)

Since “my terror” is parallel with “the hornet,” they argue that the hornet is “probably a metaphor for terror and confusion” (77). Terror or dread corresponds with what Rahab claimed the people in Jericho were experiencing:

I know that the LORD has given you this land and that a great fear of you has fallen on us, so that all who live in this country are melting in fear because of you. We have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red Sea for you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to Sihon and Og, the two kings of the Amorites east of the Jordan, whom you completely destroyed. When we heard of it, our hearts melted in fear and everyone’s courage failed because of you, for the LORD your God is God in heaven above and on the earth below. (Josh 2:9-11)

This hornet, or perhaps terror, was God’s way of driving out the people of the land “little by little.”

Finally, drawing on archaeology and the work of Richard Hess, Copan and Flannagan suggest that the “cities” raided by the Israelites were “small, strategic military settlement[s] or citadel[s],” led by a commander or king:  “Jericho probably held a hundred or fewer men. This is why all of Israel could circle it seven times and then do battle against it on the same day!” (100). If you are wondering about the numbers of several thousand in Joshua, the authors mention a complication with the Hebrew word eleph, which is translated as “thousand.” “It may also mean ‘unit,’ ‘troop,’ or ‘squad,’ without specifying the exact number” (101).

While incorporating the hyperbolic approach, William Webb and Gordon Oeste highlight redemptive movement in their book Bloody, Brutal, and Barbaric?: Wrestling with Troubling War Texts. This approach compares Israel with other ancient Near Eastern cultures showing that Israel’s warfare practices were more humane than their neighbors. Israel, for example, was not allowed to carry out atrocities, such as:

• battlefield rape
• using war captives as temple-slave prostitutes
• stripping captives naked and parading them with shaved genitals
• mutilating captives
• blinding prisoners
• impaling live victims
• flaying alive (Kindle, 5938)

Hence, while Israel’s violence may seem immoral to us, it was actually an improvement from the standard practices of the time. God stepped into the ancient brutal world and nudged it forward then continued doing so, culminating in his perfect revelation in the nonviolent Messiah.

Webb and Oeste also show that the God of Israel is a reluctant or uneasy war God. For example, God did not want Israel to have a king like all the other nations because the king would draft people into his army and declare war (1 Sam 8:4-22). God did not allow David to build his temple because David “shed much blood on the earth in my sight” (1 Chron 22:8; 28:3). And the prophets attest to a God who weeps over the destruction that warfare brings. In the words of Richard Hess, the Old Testament presents a “God of reluctant violence.” Although reluctant, God still uses violence for his good purpose. The authors “include within divine reluctance some (unspecified) amount of violence as a legitimate part of the outworking of God’s loving actions” (5201).

In terms of hyperbole, Webb and Oeste agree with Copan and Flannagan that “driving out” is closer to what actually occurred than the literal extermination of the Canaanites. They also highlight the emphasis on foreign kings in the conquest accounts because “To kill the king is to destroy the people/nation” (3233). For instance,

So Joshua took this entire land: the hill country, all the Negev, the whole region of Goshen, the western foothills, the Arabah and the mountains of Israel with their foothills, from Mount Halak, which rises toward Seir, to Baal Gad in the Valley of Lebanon below Mount Hermon. He captured all their kings and put them to death. Joshua waged war against all these kings for a long time. (Josh 11:16-18)

Similarly, regarding the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15, they explain:

Saul is vilified not because he left one last Amalekite alive . . . but because of whom he left alive—the king, the living embodiment of the Amalekite threat. Joshua, on the other hand, is not condemned even though Canaanites are left alive, because in each case he kills the king and thereby neutralizes the threat posed by that city (Josh 8:1-2, 29; 9:10; 10:26, 28, 30, 33, 37, 39, 40, 42; 11:10, 12, 17-18; 12:1-24). (3552)

Additionally, while Samuel’s words to Saul sound genocidal— “Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys” (1 Sam 15:3) and Saul’s attack sounds almost genocidal— “He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword” (v. 8)—the Amalekites make a surprising appearance later in the same book (see 1 Sam 27:8; 30:1-2, 18; 2 Sam 1:1). This leads Webb and Oeste to conclude, “Saul’s attack was likely against one Amalekite group encamped in the southern regions of Judahite territory, rather than the entire ethnic group or nation” (3552).

Did God really command herem warfare?

Yes, God really gave herem warfare commands, but these commands should not be interpreted literally or at face value. God did not want Israel to kill every single Canaanite, but he did want Israel to drive out the Canaanites and if needed kill Canaanites who resisted Israel’s conquest. Additionally, God gave Israel instructions to make ancient warfare more humane. We also have biblical data showing that God distances himself from human violence and even grieves over human violence. This means that God only gets involved in human violence with reluctance.

2. Religious Propaganda

Others claim that the conquest accounts along with the herem warfare commands are merely religious propaganda. In other words, these accounts are not historically accurate. Who was spreading this propaganda? Ancient authors who wanted to justify Israel’s right to the land of Canaan. A variety of arguments are used to support this view.

A. The Life of Christ

Eric Seibert believes that the Bible doesn’t always depict God accurately. Therefore, we must distinguish the textual God from the actual God. How do we know what the actual God is like? The New Testament claims that Jesus is the perfect representation of God (e.g., Jn 12:45; Col 1:15; Heb 1:3) so we know what God is like from Jesus. What was Jesus like? Nonviolent. Any representation of God in the Bible that does not mesh with the reality of the nonviolent Christ is inaccurate.

So what should we do with the biblical accounts of divine violence? Should we cut them out of our Bibles? Seibert asserts that these texts still have value because (1) they show us how the ancient Israelites thought of God and (2) they teach us to fight against inaccurate pictures of God. In other words, they have positive sociological value and negative theological value. Seibert says, “The Old Testament’s depiction of God as a warrior should always be contextualized. It represents a culturally conditioned understanding of Israel’s views about God’s role in war” (Kindle, 2805).

In Cross Vision, Greg Boyd essentially agrees with Seibert—the violent OT depictions of God are inaccurate because Christ shows us the perfect picture of God. Boyd, however, goes one step further by finding positive theological value in the violent depictions of God. He proposes that just as God allowed his Son to look like a common criminal on a cross, God allowed himself to look like a warrior deity. Boyd calls this a “literary crucifix” because God was permitting the writers to make him look bad. God descended to this level in order to reach us in our sinfulness.

How did God originally plan to remove the people in the land and settle Israel? Boyd points to the hornet in Exodus 23:28-30, which he interprets literally. He also mentions references to the land vomiting out its inhabitants (Lev 18:24-25). He then adds,

It thus seems that the Lord decided he would allow the defilement of the Canaanites to render the land temporarily unfruitful so they would naturally migrate to greener pastures. No babies would need to be bludgeoned in the process.

Now, you may be wondering why God’s land-vomiting relocation strategy in this passage is different from the previous pesky-insect strategy. Frankly, I have no idea. Perhaps God was considering several possible nonviolent strategies around the same time. But who cares? Both strategies look a whole lot more Christlike than the massacre-them-all strategy! (114).

This shows another difference between Seibert and Boyd. Whereas Seibert says God is completely nonviolent, Boyd is open to God using a non-human means of violence.

B. Archaeology

In his book, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?, William Dever states,

There is little that we can salvage from Joshua’s stories of rapid, wholesale destruction of Canaanite cities and the annihilation of the local population. It simply did not happen; the archeological evidence is indisputable. (Cited in Flood, 110)

Peter Enns concurs,

Biblical archaeologists are about as certain as you can be about these things that the conquest of Canaan as the Bible describes did not happen: no mass invasion from the outside by an Israelite army, and no extermination as God commanded. (Kindle, 842)

Enns acknowledges that archaeologists are not always right, but they are also not merely kids playing on a playground.

In Biblical Archaeology: A Very Short Introduction, Eric Cline writes:

Many of the sites mentioned in the biblical account and specifically noted as being destroyed by the invading Israelites have now been excavated by biblical archaeologists, with an interesting conundrum resulting. On the one hand, most of the sites described as being destroyed do not show any archaeological evidence of destruction—and some, such as Jericho, were not even occupied at the time. On the other hand, there are sites in the region that were definitely destroyed at that time, but none of these sites is mentioned in the biblical account. (Kindle, 1112)

On the other hand, Kenneth Kitchen argues for the general reliability of Joshua’s conquest accounts when interpreted properly. For an overview of the archaeological research on Joshua see chapter 19 of this book.

C. Conscience or Innate Morality

In Jesus Loves Canaanites, Randal Rauser argues that we must pay attention to our moral intuitions in biblical interpretation. As Paul said, “the requirements of the law” are written on our hearts (Rom 2:15). This “basic grasp of good and evil, right and wrong, is innate: we are hard-wired to have such knowledge” (64). Rauser then writes,

for me it most certainly is the case that my conscience forbids consideration of the notion that God commanded the historic genocidal eradication of entire societies. From this it follows that whatever the biblical texts may mean to teach us, they cannot intend to teach us that. And insofar as your conscience likewise forbids the idea that God commanded such apparent moral atrocities, you ought not to believe it. (75)

To bolster this argument, Rauser and others appeal to the gruesome details of war so that readers get up close and personal with what is actually being described in the biblical text. In other words, they attempt to help readers see things from the perspective of the Canaanites, who are said to be attacked, killed, and driven from their homes. How does that make you feel? What does your conscience tell you about those actions?

Why justify something that we know is blatantly evil? Kenton Sparks writes, “The Canaanite conquest would strike us as flagrant evil were it not a story from the Bible” (Sparks, Kindle, 505).

D. The Psychological Impact of War

After referencing On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Rauser comments,

properly functioning human beings will do almost anything to avoid killing others, particularly when that killing requires intimate, close contact violent actions. And when people do end up engaging in acts of close-contact killing it is almost always because they are forced to. Not surprisingly, the immediate and long-term psychological impact on those who cross the threshold is predictably devastating. (111)

The experience of driving people out of their homes, attacking and killing them, would have left a disturbing psychological impact on the people of Israel. Would God really have done that to his people?

E. A Bad Example 

In Disarming Scripture, Derek Flood lists examples of people using Old Testament violence as justification for war, such as Oliver Cromwell calling Irish Catholics modern-day Canaanites, the European settlers labeling Native Americans as Canaanites and Amalekites, and a pastor in Rwanda comparing the Tutsis to Amalekites then encouraging his congregation to participate in their massacre (16).

What’s the point? Peter Enns says, “It’s hard to appeal to the God of the Bible to condemn genocide today when the God of the Bible commanded genocide yesterday” (Kindle, 472). I know some object to the term genocide because the biblical command was based on idolatry and immorality not ethnicity, but total-kill language always sounds like genocide. I also don’t find it worthwhile to argue about the appropriate label. Enns could have used “total-kill” in place of “genocide” and it wouldn’t have made a practical difference.

Did God really command herem warfare?

Absolutely not. Ancient people projected their distorted and violent perspectives onto God.

3. Hybrid Giants

The hybrid giant view asserts that the targets of Israel’s warfare were not fully human. In Numbers 13 the Israelite spies who explored the land of Canaan returned with this report:

“We can’t attack those people; they are stronger than we are.” And they spread among the Israelites a bad report about the land they had explored. They said, “The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size. We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.” (vv. 31-33)

Later, Joshua’s conquest is summarized this way:

At that time Joshua went and destroyed the Anakites from the hill country: from Hebron, Debir and Anab, from all the hill country of Judah, and from all the hill country of Israel. Joshua totally destroyed them and their towns. No Anakites were left in Israelite territory; only in Gaza, Gath and Ashdod did any survive. (Josh 11:21-22)

Notice the references to the Anakites or the descendants of Anak in both passages. And especially note that the Anakites were “of great size” and “come from the Nephilim.” Who were the Nephilim? In Genesis 6 we read:

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. (v. 4)

Ancient Jewish interpreters believed the “sons of God” were angelic beings. Hence, these fallen angels had sex with human females. What was the result? The Nephilim—hybrid, angel-human creatures, who were recognized for their great stature.

While expressing uncertainty about the hybrid sexual component, Michael Heiser has defended the supernatural nature of the Nephilim and linked it with the conquest of Canaan. He supports his position with the following points:

• Ridding the land of its gigantic occupants begins before Moses and Joshua (Deut 2-3).
• The conquest warfare under Moses and Joshua begins with giants inhabiting the land (Rephaim, Amorites; Num 21, Amos 2:9-10).
• The original conquest effort of Canaan under Moses fails because of Israel’s fear of the giant Anakim (Num 13).
• When the conquest is renewed under Joshua, the places where the spies had seen Anakim earlier (hill country) are the places where the herem is mentioned in specific engagements.
• Joshua defines victory as ridding the land of the Anakim.

²¹ At that time Joshua went and destroyed the Anakites from the hill country: from Hebron, Debir and Anab, from all the hill country of Judah, and from all the hill country of Israel. Joshua totally destroyed them and their towns. ²² No Anakites were left in Israelite territory; only in Gaza, Gath and Ashdod did any survive. (Josh 11:21-22)

Heiser writes, “The goal was to ensure the elimination of the Nephilim bloodlines. To the Israelites, the giant clan bloodlines were demonic, having been produced by rebellious fallen divine beings. They could not coexist with a demonic heritage” (Unseen Realm, Kindle, 990).

This view mitigates the harshness of herem warfare because the Israelites were primarily attacking hybrid creatures, who were the offspring of fallen angels. This does not mean Israel only killed the hybrid creatures. Those who sided with the giants in their idolatrous practices and those who tried to kill Israelites were also placed under the ban of herem warfare.

While essentially agreeing with Heiser regarding the existence of the hybrid Nephilim, Stephen De Young goes beyond the hybrid-genetic explanation by asserting that membership in ancient social units was defined ritually not genetically. For example, males who were circumcised, observed the Passover, and worshipped the God of Israel were Jewish. He continues:

Likewise, membership in one of these giant clans was determined not by DNA or ethnic features but by ritual. Such ceremonies involved not only the sexual immorality described above but also human sacrifice, reflected in the depiction of the giants in Israelite and Second Temple sources as consumers of human flesh (e.g., 1 Enoch 7:4-6). When Yahweh identifies and judges these clans within the Old Testament history, it is critically important that this factor of identity be taken into account. God does not render judgment based on the identity of one’s father, or great-grandfather, or the clan’s founder. The members of the clan were active participants in this ritual life, which constituted the clan as a social unit.

If a clan member repudiated these practices, he or she would need to leave the tribe and be integrated ritually, through the rites of initiation, into another. . .

The command to let no Amalekite live can be fulfilled either by the death of an Amalekite person or by that person continuing to live, but not as an Amalekite. (God is a Man of War, 82-3)

Did God really command herem warfare?

Yes, but the focus of this warfare was evil hybrid giants and those who followed their practices.

4. Allegorical (or Spiritual)

Some reject a literal historical interpretation of herem warfare in favor of an allegorical interpretation. If the divine warfare commands should be interpreted “spiritually,” what do they mean for people today? Many have viewed the Canaanites as representatives of sin, which must be put to death. As Paul said, “Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry” (Col 3:5). Perhaps, then, the point is “put to death the sin within.”

However, it’s important to add that using an allegorical approach does not require a rejection of the historical meaning.

While it is true that various Fathers and writers of the early Church spoke to the allegorical meanings of many Old Testament passages, it must be noted that none of them did so to deny or minimize the historical veracity of any biblical text. (17)

In particular, regarding Origen’s (c. 185-253) allegorical approach, Stephen De Young writes,

It is not as though he considered the book (Joshua) abhorrent, salvageable only by putting a certain allegorical or moral ‘spin’ on it. Rather, for him, even if a surface reading of the text may prove challenging or problematic at certain points, the Book of Joshua is really about spiritual warfare. It is talking about spiritual warfare when interpreted correctly. (70)

Did God really command herem warfare?

Yes, but we must recognize that these commands are primarily expressions of spiritual warfare, which extends to us today.

5. Canonical Narrative

In The Violence of the Biblical God, L. Daniel Hawk analyzes God’s connection to violence throughout Genesis–2 Kings and Luke–Acts. Hawk calls his view ‘canonical narrative’ because he focuses on the storyline of Scripture. His treatment is helpful because he considers all examples of divine violence in the narrative portions of the Bible while taking a strong stance on sticking with Scripture itself not historical reconstructions.

The biblical text, in all its complexity—as opposed to putative narratives about what authors and redactors were thinking when they wrote it—should stand at the center of Christian conversation about divine violence. Dismissing difficult or offensive portraits of God by arguing that they are human contrivances, or perhaps are even mistaken, is too simply a way of addressing the problem. (194)

This approach undermines the religious propaganda interpretation, which is based on historical reconstruction not the text itself.

So how does Hawk reconcile the slaughter of the Canaanites with God’s self-giving love on the cross?

First, he agrees that hyperbole is incorporated in the warfare language of Deuteronomy and Joshua. But he goes further by claiming that Joshua humanizes the Canaanites through the stories of Rahab and the Gibeonites—people of the land who were spared by Israel. And yet Achan, who was an Israelite, along with his family is devoted to destruction (herem). This shows that the conquest commands against the Canaanites were not meant to be taken at face value. As we saw earlier, people were defined ritually not genetically.

The trio of anecdotes make a single point: indigenous people who confess Yahweh may be incorporated into the covenant community, while Israelites who step outside the boundaries that define the community must be eliminated. . . The anecdotes push back at a literal interpretation of the Deuteronomic commandment that the peoples of Canaan be slaughtered for the simple fact that they are Canaanites. Rather, the narrative tryptic reinforces our sense that Yahweh’s purpose in the Deuteronomic commandment and its execution is not to unleash indiscriminate slaughter upon Canaanites but rather to eliminate Canaanite difference in the land. (164)

In other words, these stories in Joshua break the bad Canaanite versus good Israelite paradigm. We can add that the entire Old Testament breaks the good Israelite paradigm. By the end of 2 Kings both kingdoms of Israel are destroyed, the temple is demolished, and the people are carried away into exile.

Hawk recognizes the uniqueness of the first section of Joshua (chapters 1-12), calling it “schematic in form and unusually stylized” (153) with a special emphasis on the defeat of Canaanite kings:

after the battles in Canaan are summarized by a list of defeated kings (Josh 12:1-24), there is no report that Yahweh directed Israel to wipe out any of the remnant populations, nor any report that Israel did so. Instead, removing rather than wiping out signifies what Yahweh will do what Israel does (or fails to do) with reference to the peoples of the land (13:1; 14:12; 15:63; 17:12, 13, 18). (157)

As we have observed, “removing” or “driving out” corresponds with the emphasis in the herem warfare command in Deuteronomy 7: destruction of altars, sacred stones, poles and idols. It also corresponds with the incongruity in the command itself:

then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods. (Deut 7:2-4)

If total destruction was meant literally, why mention “make no treaty with them” and “do not intermarry with them”? The point had always been the destruction of false worship not the literal extermination of the Canaanites.

Second, Hawk notes that in the Old Testament Yahweh was working within the man-made systems of power. When God decided to identify with Abraham and Abraham’s descendants he was making a choice to enter into a brutal world. God was promising to protect and provide for his covenant partner, which included a certain amount of unavoidable violence. In Hawk’s words, “As a whole, the narrative portrays God’s participation in violence as a consequence of God’s decision to enter a violence-saturated world and to work with human partners within it” (195). Then in 1 Samuel 8 Yahweh was reluctant to give Israel a king because he knew the abuses of power that would occur, but he conceded to Israel’s demand. This divine concession meant that God had to accommodate his plans by working through Israel’s monarchy.

In the New Testament, however, Yahweh moved to the outside of religious and political power. God moved to the margins, to a man from Nazareth, far from the courts of power in Jerusalem or Rome. This shift has vital ramifications for God’s relation to violence.

For me, the distinction between God working inside versus outside the human systems of power is a key insight into this challenge. And this aligns with Jesus’ statement in John 18 when he told Pilate: “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place” (v. 36). Jesus makes it clear that the extraordinary nature of his kingdom is the reason why his followers were nonviolent.

Third, Hawk draws attention to divine violence in the New Testament: (1) Jesus’ prediction of Jerusalem’s destruction as divine punishment (Lk 19:43-44: 20:9-16; 21:20-24), Saul and Elymas’s blindess (Acts 9, 13), and the deaths of Ananias, Sapphira, and King Herod Agrippa (Acts 5, 12). More examples could be added to this list (ex. 1 Cor 11:29-31; 2 Thess 2:8; Rev 2:22), but again, Hawk’s book is limited to Luke-Acts in the New Testament. This biblical data shows that God was still using violence as a means of punishment after the arrival of Christ, which serves as a counterweight to those who only see nonviolence in the New Testament.

After the close of the New Testament, other historical events could be added, such as the battles of Joan of Arc (1419-1421), who claimed that she received divine messages telling her to defend France from England’s invasion and occupation. If she was right—and the Catholic Church believes she was right, canonizing her in 1920—then God was still using force for righteous purposes six centuries ago.

Did God really command herem warfare?

(This one is hard to summarize.)

Yes, God really gave herem warfare commands, but he did not intend for these commands to be interpreted literally. God did not want Israel to kill every single Canaanite, but he did want Israel to drive out Canaanites, kill Canaanite kings, and if needed kill Canaanites who resisted Israel’s conquest. The focus of herem was on removing Canaanite idolatry from the land. When Israelites became Canaanite-like, they were removed. Additionally, for God to work within the normal structures of society at the time and show his covenant faithfulness to Abraham, divine violence was required. Finally, we must take a closer look at Jesus’ life and teachings as well as God’s relation to violence in the New Testament.

The Light of Christ

Allow me to add the following points before reaching a complex “solution.”

The New Testament establishes the supremacy of Christ and encourages faith in him. He is greater than Abraham, Moses, David, and all the prophets. He is greater than the temple, the Sabbath, and the religious festivals. Those who have missed the supremacy of Christ have missed the most basic point in the New Testament.

What does this mean for the problem of herem warfare?

Although it is easy to view everything in the Bible as equally important because it is all considered to be God’s Word, we must remember that Jesus is superior to every other authority. We should not place the words and example of Moses side-by-side with the words and example of Jesus. According to the New Testament, there is no comparison: “The law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (Jn 1:17). Here is how the book of Hebrews opens:

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. (1:1-3)

Hence, a Christian view on this topic, and every other topic, for that matter, must be filtered through Christ, the “exact representation of [God’s] being.” So what light is shed from Christ’s life and teachings?

First, in Matthew 15, Jesus actually meets a Canaanite woman in the region of Tyre and Sidon in modern-day Lebanon. The woman cries out for mercy because her daughter is suffering terribly from demon possession. Initially, Jesus refuses her request, but then he commends her faith and heals her daughter (Matt 15:21-28).

Second, did Jesus ever act violently toward another human being? The closest we get to violence is when Jesus clears the temple courts. It says, “he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables” (Jn 2:15). But it does not say that he struck anyone. In fact, Jesus is world-famous for his nonviolent behavior even when being mocked, beaten, and crucified.

Third, was Jesus violent toward anything else? If there is one entity Jesus was violent toward it was demons. Matthew, Mark, and Luke convey repeated accounts of Jesus’ power to drive out evil spirits, leading Graham Twelftree to say: “Indeed, we know of no historical or literary figure in antiquity who is said to have conducted so many exorcisms.” Consider one account:

³³ In the synagogue there was a man possessed by a demon, an impure spirit. He cried out at the top of his voice, ³⁴ “Go away! What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”

³⁵ “Be quiet!” Jesus said sternly. “Come out of him!” Then the demon threw the man down before them all and came out without injuring him.

³⁶ All the people were amazed and said to each other, “What words these are! With authority and power he gives orders to impure spirits and they come out!” ³⁷ And the news about him spread throughout the surrounding area. (Lk 4:33-37)

Jesus even uses aggressive language to describe his power over Satan and demons:

²¹ “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe. ²² But when someone stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted and divides up his plunder. (Lk 11:21-22)

According to Jesus, then, his exorcisms show that he is the strong man who is attacking and overpowering Satan. Intriguingly, ancient Jews believed that evil spirits were the spirits of dead Nephilim. If that is correct, Israel and Jesus were carrying warfare against the same entities.

The Book of Revelation 

What about the violence in the Bible’s final book?

There is a lot to say about Revelation. First, on a literal level it is highly violent and bloody. Second, it is filled with visions and imagery so much of it should not be interpreted literally. Third, we must interpret the imagery carefully. In Revelation 19 John says:

I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. (vv. 11-16)

Notice that the rider’s clothing is covered in blood before the war begins so some argue that he has already been slain. This corresponds with one of the most frequent titles used for Jesus throughout the book of Revelation— “the Lamb.” Thus, he is primarily depicted as peaceful and nonviolent even in the Bible’s highly symbolic and bloody final book. Further, Revelation 19 shows that Jesus is not walking around with a literal sword, stabbing people. He only strikes with his word. This corresponds with what he says in John: “the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day” (12:48). As we all know, the truth sometimes hurts, and in the end, perhaps it will even kill. But the point is that Jesus doesn’t have a literal sword coming out of his mouth nor is he swinging a physical weapon. There’s much more to be said about Revelation, but the point is this: read symbolism carefully.

With that said, it’s impossible to argue for a completely nonviolent interpretation of Revelation. It’s true that the Lamb is portrayed as a slain victim in Revelation 5, but in the next chapter the same Lamb opens the seven seals of the scroll unleashing warfare, famine, plagues, and natural catastrophes on earth.

The Whole Bible

Ultimately, for those who want to take the entire Bible seriously as the revelation of the one true God, the challenge is putting together all the biblical data while holding on to the supremacy of Christ. Webb and Oeste helpfully summarize the biblical data this way:

• “Old Testament: Yahweh as a past warrior
• Gospels and Paul: Jesus and the Spirit as leading/indwelling a peaceful, nonviolent movement
• Revelation: Jesus as a future apocalyptic warrior” (5473)

Here’s my expansion:

• Old Testament: Yahweh, the creator and sustainer of all things, who after human rebellion becomes a reluctant warrior, grieving over human sin, death and destruction
• Gospels and Paul: Jesus and the Spirit sent from the Father, leading a peaceful, nonviolent movement while carrying out violence against Satan’s kingdom and also empowering God’s people to wrestle against spiritual powers and authorities
• Revelation: Jesus, a peaceful and suffering Lamb, who judges the forces of evil with his word and establishes a peaceful eternal kingdom

Conclusion

This problem requires a combination of solutions.

1. Highlight the beginning, middle, and end of Scripture.
   • In the beginning God did not intend for humans to engage in violence against each other. Human cruelty entered the world in Genesis 4 with Cain killing Abel, an act that God clearly condemned. And yet God did not respond to Cain’s violence with reciprocal violence. Instead, God put a mark on Cain to protect him. As the story continues, the world plunged itself into violence, causing God deep pain and grief, even to the point of regretting the creation of humans (Gen 6:6, 11, 13). These early chapters of Genesis show that God opposes violence and it grieves him deeply. Violence and destruction is not what God wants for his creation.
   • In the middle we have the nonviolent teachings and example of Christ (Matt 5:38-48), who is the “exact representation of his [God’s] being.” Christ suffered intensely, but he didn’t respond with violence nor did he call for his followers to become violent. Yet Christ did attack Satan’s kingdom, driving out demons throughout his ministry.
   • In the end we arrive at God’s eternal kingdom of peace (Rev 21:4).
   • When we consider the whole Bible, we see that God condemned bloodshed in the beginning, violence will have no place in his everlasting kingdom, and in the middle of human history God revealed his nonviolent nature through his Son. He suffered violence to put an end to violence. Hence, warfare and violence does not and cannot reveal the true heart of God. It is not what he really wants. And that leads to this conclusion: in God’s very essence, at his very core, God is deeply nonviolent. All of this, however, does not necessarily mean God would not have sufficient reasons for getting involved in human violence. Remember the divine mission is nothing less than the salvation of a violent world. “A world filled with violence needs correction, and its correction is a violent one” (147). If God gets involved, though, he does so reluctantly and always remains set apart (holy) to some degree from what we are doing. Human brutality, then, is a temporary aberration to God’s ideal plan—an aberration that he allows, grieves over, and uses for his ultimate purpose of peace.
2. Read these commands with special attention to the wider contexts of Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Samuel, which shows that literal extermination is not what was meant nor what actually occurred. Herem commands use exaggeration or hyperbole. And there is a special emphasis on the capture or killing of Canaanite kings. Further, the stories in Joshua humanize Canaanites and “Canaanize” the Israelite Achan, arguing against a strictly literal good-Israelite-bad-Canaanite view.
3. Recognize that the people in the land were condemned for their rituals or practices not their race.
4. Incorporate the references to giants, Anakim, Nephilim, etc. to show that something else was going on than merely one group of humans attacking another group of humans. The evidence for Nephilim as part supernatural beings is compelling.
5. Note that nonviolent means were used in Israel’s conquest—the “hornet” and vomiting land. If the text is accurate, God went ahead of Israel and motivated Canaanites to move out.
6. Recognize the brutality of the ancient world and the humane progress in Israel’s warfare methods. There were no rules in ancient warfare, but God gave Israel standards to follow.
7. Realize that in the Old Testament God was working within non-ideal human societal structures, but in Christ God moved to the margins of human society. And Christ remained on the outside because he did not attempt to establish a physical kingdom.

Out of these seven points, I believe the first item is most important. We must use the whole Bible to address this issue, paying special attention to three things: (1) the opening chapters of Genesis, (2) Christ, and (3) the final chapters of Revelation. God’s true nature is best seen at the start of creation, in his peaceful everlasting kingdom, and especially in Christ and his cross.

(If you are wondering about the question of hell and what it means for the issue of divine violence, see my book here. )

My Favorite Books on this Topic:

God is a Man of War: The Problem of Violence in the Old Testament by Stephen De Young

The Violence of the Biblical God: Canonical Narrative and Christian Faith by L. Daniel Hawk

Les Bridgeman

After graduating from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, I served as a high school Bible teacher in Asia. I enjoy traveling, writing, and playing the drums. My latest book focuses on Paul’s work as a tentmaker and what it means for today.