The Old Testament can be tricky part of the Bible to read at times. It’s full of ancient references, obsolete laws, contentious statements, and confusing sayings—to name just a few. To a new Bible reader, it can often feel overwhelming and perplexing.
And perhaps one of the most controversial passages in the Old Testament occurs in the book of Joshua where the nation of Israel begins moving into the Promised Land, the land of Canaan. However, what’s so controversial about it is not because they move peacefully into an uninhabited, luscious land that’s free for the taking. Rather, it’s controversial precisely because they take the land by force, conquering and destroying people groups who inhabited the land previously.
What’s even more difficult to grasp is that this episode is not merely descriptive in the narrative sense (i.e., simply describing what happened); it was actually prescriptive in the moral sense (i.e., God actually commanding the Israelites to do it).
To say that this passage of the Bible is uncomfortable would be understatement, and an offensive one at that. So, what do you do with passages like this in the Bible? On an initial read, this would seem like a very clear example of a God-ordained campaign of imperialism and genocide, right?
Atheist and scholar, Richard Dawkins, writes that stories like this in the Bible prove that,
“The God of the Old Testament is a petty, unjust, and unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”[1]
That’s a pretty harsh critique. If anything, it shows he clearly knows his vocabulary. But what’s his reasoning? Is he right?
What do you do with the stories in the book of Joshua that seem to be God-ordered instances of genocide and imperialism? What do you do with stories of Israel apparently conquering other nations? How is that reconcilable with the notion that Christianity upholds a view of a ‘loving and forgiving’ God for all people, one based on grace through faith? How is this ‘harsher’ picture of God in the Old Testament reconcilable with the allegedly ‘nicer’ version of God in the New Testament? Or is it?
How does this passage possibly square with Scripture’s clear calls for love, justice, grace, kindness, self-control, and peace—and against things like violence, aggression, tribalism, or imperialism? Like verses such as the following:
- ‘Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you’ (Mt. 5:44)
- ‘Let love be genuine. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.’ (Rm. 12:9-18)
- ‘So you, too, must show love to foreigners, for you yourselves were once foreigners in the land of Egypt.’ (Deut. 10:19)
And there are many other verses like this, which emphasize salvation, love, hospitality towards all people. And significantly, these verses spread throughout the entire metanarrative of Scripture—from Genesis to Revelation. They’re not simply coupled in one small area, nor are they grouped in only one testament.
Nevertheless, any logical and honest look at Scripture would suggest that God is clearly declaring war against the Canaanite people. So, what’s going on here? Well, there are five main moral categories we need to consider first; and these five frameworks will help contextualize and clarify what appears to be genocide or imperialism.
1. Authority
Firstly, it’s important to note that whenever any moral issue arises, it is immediately measured upon its relative sense of authority, which standardizes what is considered ‘right or wrong.’ The authority or standard in place determines whether the moral issue is deemed ‘right’ or ‘wrong,’ ‘good’ or ‘bad,’ ‘righteous’ or ‘unrighteous, ‘just’ or ‘unjust.’ It begins and ends on the authority that the issue finds its place. For example…
- If you are a coach, you possess the ability to deem a certain play call for your team ‘right or wrong’ in any given situation because you’re the authoritative voice your team.
- Or, if you’re a referee, you retain the power to deem a play a ‘catch’ or a ‘drop’ or a ‘foul’ because you’re the representative of the authoritative standard—the official rule book for that sport.
- Or, if you are a Founder and CEO of your own company, you possess the authority to deem a PR report to be ‘right or wrong’ for your company because you established the standard of what is in the ‘best interests’ of the company.
Similarly, God—and only God—retains the authority to deem something morally right or wrong because he himself is the author of morality. In fact, he himself is the standard, as he existentially embodies everything that is right, good, pure, and true.
If you’re the author of something, you retain the authority over it (hence, the root word). Therefore, questions of moral right and wrong are decidedly ‘right or wrong’ strictly by the author (or the authority) of morality, which is God.
So, if God ordered the killing of Canaanite people groups—and if he exists as the essence of all goodness and holiness, and cannot sin—then it would not be morally ‘wrong’ for him to annihilate these people. Strictly upon the very basis of his authority, his decisions and actions would be considered morally ‘right’ since he is the moral author. This is simply a logical deduction.
You might be thinking, “So, you’re saying that if God simply ordered the murder of a person or a nation, then God would be justified and righteous to do so, simply because he is the author of morality?” Yes, that’s correct.
Now, I realize that reading that one point is harsh up front; but logically speaking, it is consistent and coherent. However, that’s not the whole story, and this one factor is held in tension with several more that are equally important. That brings us to the next point, which will soften the logical sharpness of the first point.
2. Judgment
Another important question we must consider in addition to ‘What is the moral authority?’ is ‘What is the moral purpose?’ Scripture makes clear throughout the book of Joshua (and in other places of the Bible) that God’s warfare against the Canaanites was not an arbitrary assault of horrific, genocide; rather, it was ultimately a specific, targeted display of righteous, outright judgment.
History, archeology, and Scripture collectively suggest that the Canaanite people groups during this time were some of the most vile and oppressive societies to ever exist in human history.
These sources explain that they were incredibly perverted sexually (Lev. 18). They practiced incest and bestiality; there was hardly anything that they were not engaging in sexually.[2] And perhaps worst of all, they offered up their children as live sacrifices on the flaming coal altars of their god, Molech, for spiritual blessing and material prosperity (Deut. 12).
In other words, these were very, very depraved people—and this had continued for several hundred years.[3] Let me ask you this: Would your attitude about God’s judgment upon these Canaanite people groups change if I told you that they were similar to Nazi Germany or Al Qaida? Of course, it would. The Canaanite conquest was not about genocide or imperialism; it was about God’s righteous judgment being displayed on earth towards a wicked, unjust people.
3. Race
Still, you might object, and ask, “Well, doesn’t it look odd that God is only vouching for the people of Israel, and yet killing the other nations who simply don’t repent? Seems like this God is terribly racist or irreversibly partial to one tribe of people more than another.”
This objection is understandable; however, this line of thinking usually stems from narrowly reading this passage of Scripture, as opposed to reading it within the context of the entire Bible. How so?
This is because the Bible holistically provides us a view of a God who is primarily motivated by goodness, justice, equality, and flourishing for all people—not simply the Israelites. In fact, (and I don’t think this is a coincidence) the book of Judges, which is the book right after the book of Joshua, reinforces this view of God powerfully and profoundly. Thus, in doing so, it reinforces this assurance of God’s character right before he wages war with Canaan.
See, the book of Judges displays a picture of a God—perhaps more vividly than any other book in the Bible—who is more devoted to upholding righteousness, goodness, and justice for all people than simply pandering to Israel.
All throughout the book of Judges, God essentially gives Israel the following ultimatum: “Listen, if you rebel against my good authority, and sin against Me and sin against one another—you too will be judged like these other nations.” And as the book of Judges unfolds, we read of story after story, and cycle after cycle, for eras and eras on end, of God judging the Israelites (don’t miss this!) by the Canaanites for their failure to uphold their covenant with God.
God is not partial to Israel or Canaan. He is impartial to goodness and righteousness for all people.
Moreover, all throughout the Canaanite conquest, Scripture features additional examples along the way that serve to further reinforce God’s impartiality towards justice and race. One example is Rahab, the Canaanite prostitute, who repents and trusts in the God of Israel… and she is saved from Canaan’s judgment. Another example is the entire nation of Gibeon, who turns and repents, and they too are saved from judgment (Jos. 9). Thus, the implication is clear: all people—Israelites, Canaanites, male, female, rich, poor, moral, or immoral—who repent of their own authority and submit to God’s righteous authority will be saved.
In other words, God is not playing favorites. His ultimatum to Canaan is the same as his ultimatum to Israel, and it’s the same ultimatum he gives to everyone else. God’s actions against Canaan here are not racist or imperialist; rather, they are expressions of his justice, righteousness, and goodness in particular that overflow from his loving, impartial heart towards all people in general.
4. Scope
We’ve considered ‘What is the moral authority?’ and ‘What is the moral purpose?’ But another equally important question we need to consider as well is, ‘What is the moral scope?’ In other words, was God’s command to kill the Canaanites given to Israel to apply indiscriminately upon all nations and at all times? Or was it limited in its scope only to specific nations at specific times? Or can we even know? What’s the context?
In the book of Deuteronomy, God clarifies that this conquest in the land of Canaan would only be targeted against certain nations and only for a specific time in history. Military aggression would be limited only to specific people groups living in the land of Canaan, who were especially corrupt. Namely, “the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jubusites…” (Deut. 20:18).
And outside of those six people groups in that region, God commanded Israel to live at peace with all other nations (Deut. 20:10-15).
Ultimately, this was about God enacting justice, God taking action with judgment, and God restoring peace to every surrounding people group. This was not the Israelites’ idea or even their own mission.
5. Pattern
And finally, another important question we need to consider is, ‘What is the moral pattern?’ Are we able to see a contextual commonality with all such situations where God declares war and punishes a people group?
Yes, there is a pattern. And it communicates something powerful. Time and time again, there’s usually one person who’s always doing the mass judgment. So, who is it? It’s not Israel. It’s God.
Consider the following cases in Scripture:
- How did God judge the Egyptians? It was God who sent the angel of death over the Egyptians. And it was God who killed their armies by closing the Red Sea upon them. Israel didn’t kill any of them.
- How did God judge the Midianites through Gideon? It was God who threw the Midianites into confusion and caused them fight against one another. Israel didn’t kill one person. They approached the battle with a piece of pottery and a torch.
- How did God judge the Assyrians for their violent imperialism? God caused a rumor to be spread about their general to their king, which misdirected their mission—and then an Angel of the Lord wiped out their entire army in one night (Is. 36-37). Israel didn’t kill one person. In fact, they were hiding in a fortress in Jerusalem, preparing to die a brutal death.
- How did God judge the Canaanites at Jericho? It was God who made the walls fall down and the city’s infrastructure crumble to pieces. Israel didn’t kill. They approached the battle with a trumpet.
To be sure, no one approaches warfare with fine china, candlesticks, tubas, or in the fetal position. So why did God specifically command the Israelite armies to show up to battle looking under qualified and ill-equipped? It’s because in each of these accounts of battle, God didn’t want Israel to be seen as the nation who’s ultimately responsible and accountable for others’ blood—because they’re not the judge. God is.
That’s why when other nations feared Israel, it wasn’t because of their size as a nation or their strength as an army (Deut. 7:7). It was because of their God. In fact, the text says over and over again in the book of Joshua, “They feared the God of Israel, and their hearts melted” (Jos. 5:1). Notice, the text doesn’t say the nations feared Israel, but Israel’s God.
* * * * *
These five frameworks for understanding this text also helps us see precisely why the Crusades—undoubtedly the ugliest era of the Christian church’s past—cannot be considered a valid expression or theological appropriation of Christianity. Why?
Because the military aggression we see in the book of Joshua was given by God for a specific time in history for a specific people in history—and then it was closed. And since then, God has not given any authoritative word for his people to utilize military aggression as the conduit of releasing his justice on earth—neither from the prophets of the Old Testament, nor from Jesus or the apostles in the New Testament. And we will not anymore, because the canon of Scripture has been closed.
Ultimately, this passage does not portray God like Richard Dawkins does. Given adequate context, we can see that God is not imperialistic, genocidal, racist, or violent. His aggression against the Canaanites was an expression in a unique moment in history to display justice on the earth by eradicating evil from the earth.
A Good, Loving Judge
To be sure, any good, loving judge would do everything in his power to uphold justice—protecting the innocent, punishing the unrighteous, restoring moral order to society, and therefore, enhancing the security and freedom of all people.
Likewise, God is our perfect judge over heaven and earth who employs everything in his power to uphold justice in the universe for people. In the book of Joshua and in the conquest of Canaan, we actually get a glimpse of the true General of the War—and it’s not Joshua. It is Commander of the armies of the Lord, whose name is Jesus (Jos. 5:13-15). He stands in righteousness and power over all armies and over all nations and over all peoples. Jesus is God’s way of showing that he cares deeply about righteousness and justice for all people.
In fact, God has already done everything in his power to uphold and restore justice for all people eternally. He sent Jesus Christ to live the life we should have lived and to pay the debt that we owed, dying the death were condemned to die—so that our penalty of sin could be paid for and so that our position of righteousness and forgiveness could be attained. Romans 5 describes this God as, ‘The Justifier Who Became Our Justice.’
I’ve heard it said once that, “When God first comes to earth in Jesus Christ, he doesn’t do so with a scepter and a gavel to judge; rather, he first comes with nails and a cross to be judged in our place.”[4]
He’s accomplished our justice eternally by paying for our injustice with nails in his hands and a crown of thorns. Yet, one day, he will come back with a scepter to abolish all other injustice forever from our earth with a scepter and a throne.
God in Old Testament & New Testament
So—I think it’s important to ask this famous question here. “Does the God of the Old Testament act differently from the God of the New Testament?”
In essence, no. But ultimately, yes.
Except in the exact opposite way we would naturally think. What do I mean? We tend to look at the Old Testament and initially see a ‘God of wrath and justice;’ and then we tend to look at the New Testament and initially see a ‘God of love and grace.’
“We see so much wrath and anger and battle over sin in the Old Testament! The New Testament is so much nicer! Right?”
Wrong. We see the same God in both testaments. Except, ironically, the wrath we see displayed towards sin in the Old Testament is actually far softer and far less intense from the wrath we see displayed in the New Testament.
How so? Because in the Old Testament, God’s wrath was poured out partially during certain eras of time, only upon sacrificial atonements and on certain peoples for their sin. But in the New Testament, God’s wrath was poured out wholly in full and for all of time—in intensity and in measure—upon the person of Jesus Christ on the cross.
Jesus cares so much about justice for all people that he himself bore our penalty of sin so that we wouldn’t have to. He reaches out to us all, with nail-scarred hands, full of justice and full of grace. And just as his ultimatum of justice extends to everyone, so also does his ultimatum of salvation.
Let’s stop putting God on the docket and accusing him of injustice. Maybe, perhaps, we’re just not seeing things in the scope that he sees them; and we’re unwilling to let go of our own authority and our distorted, limited views of right and wrong.
Skeptics often bring up the ‘problem of evil’ and why God is absent. Well, here in the book of Joshua, in the conquest of Canaan, we have a clear, vivid picture of how God does stop evil from continuing any further.
And in the gospel, we have an even brighter picture of how God cares so much about evil, injustice, and suffering in our world that he embraced it himself—such that in destroying evil, he would be destroyed instead of us in the process.
He took the valley of death, so that we would only have to walk through the valley of the shadow of death (Ps. 23). He took the substance of injustice, so only here on earth, we will only have to walk through its shadows–until he comes back again to eradicate every shadow such that any darkness will be no more.
God is a God of war because God is God of justice. And his justice is a function of his ultimate goodness. Because before he made war against us for our sin, he made war on himself instead in Jesus. That’s a God of perfect justice, perfect strength, and perfect love. That’s a God of war.
And that’s a God of war we can worship.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion, 31.
[2] Bowman, Robert M, Jr. Joshua’s Conquest: Was It Justified? 30, March. 2016. https://www.namb.net/apologetics-blog/joshua-s-conquest-was-it-justified/.
[3] In Genesis 15:16, God explains that he will enact judgment on these Canaanites only until their wickedness is ‘complete;’ i.e., and during this period, the Israelites were enslaved by Egypt for 400 years.
[4] I think I read this from Tim Keller.
Leasure, Ryan. Cross Examined, “Did God Command Genocide In The Old Testament?” June 9, 2019. https://crossexamined.org/did-god-command-genocide-in-the-old-testament/.
Greear, JD. "Joshua: The God Who Fights For Us." April 17, 2017. https://old.summitrdu.com/message/joshua-the-god-who-fights-for-us/.
Copan, Paul. Is God A Moral Monster?
