The Problem of Conquest: Reconciling Divine Judgment and the Character of God

The Book of Joshua presents one of the most significant ethical and theological challenges in the biblical canon. While the earlier chapters focus on the themes of consecration and God’s faithfulness, the transition to the conquest of Canaan introduces a narrative of severe violence. The central difficulty lies in the command for the total destruction of various people groups, a directive that has led critics to characterize the God of the Old Testament as a moral monster. To understand these passages, one must move beyond surface-level readings and engage with the historical context, the nuances of the Hebrew language, and the broader biblical theology of judgment and grace.

The Concept of Herem and the Command to Destroy

At the heart of the controversy is the Hebrew word herem, which appears approximately fifty times in the Old Testament. Often translated as “utterly destroy,” the term carries a complex range of meanings, including to annihilate, to place under a ban, or to devote something entirely to God. In the context of the conquest, this command is applied with sobering finality to the inhabitants of cities like Jericho.

Joshua 6:21 (NASB)

They utterly destroyed everything in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword.

This language of total destruction is repeated throughout the conquest narratives, suggesting a policy where no survivors were left. For many modern readers, this seems fundamentally at odds with the character of Jesus, who commanded his followers to love their enemies. Reconciling these two depictions of the Divine requires an investigation into why such a severe judgment was issued.

The Moral Condition of Canaan

The biblical text provides a specific rationale for the displacement and destruction of the Canaanites: the extreme moral corruption and spiritual toxicity of their culture. The inhabitants of the land were not innocent bystanders but were practitioners of behaviors that the biblical authors describe as abominations. Primary among these were extreme sexual deviance and the practice of child sacrifice.

Leviticus 18:27 (NASB)

(for the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled);

God warned the Israelites against adopting the statutes of the people in Canaan, detailing a list of prohibited sexual acts including incest, adultery, homosexuality, and bestiality. Furthermore, the Canaanite religious system centered on gods like Molech, who were appeased through the horrific practice of burning infants alive in sacrificial fires. The biblical record suggests that God waited four hundred years for the “iniquity of the Amorites” to reach its full measure, showing divine patience before executing judgment.

Genesis 15:16 (NASB)

‘Then in the fourth generation they will return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete.’

Theological Frameworks for Interpretation

Theological scholarship generally offers three primary ways to interpret these difficult passages. The first, often termed radical discontinuity, suggests that the God of the Old Testament is a different, more primitive deity than the God revealed in Jesus. This view, however, falls outside historical Christian orthodoxy as it rejects the unity of the Bible and the inerrancy of Scripture. It ignores the fact that the New Testament also speaks of divine wrath and that Jesus himself is depicted as a conquering judge in the final consummation of history.

John 3:36 (NASB)

‘He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.’

The second framework is the traditional view, which maintains that God, as the holy and sovereign Creator, has the absolute right to judge sin. In this perspective, the command for total destruction was a unique, divinely authorized act of judgment intended to protect Israel from the spiritual contagion of Canaanite idolatry. This view emphasizes that while God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, his holiness requires the eradication of evil to preserve a people through whom the Savior of the world would eventually come.

Numbers 33:51-53 (NASB)

’Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ’When you cross over the Jordan into the land of Canaan, then you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their figured stones, and destroy all their molten images and demolish all their high places; and you shall take possession of the land and live in it, for I have given the land to you to possess it.

The third framework is a modified traditional view, which suggests that the language of the conquest accounts utilizes Ancient Near Eastern military hyperbole. This interpretation notes a linguistic tension in the text: Israel is commanded to “utterly destroy” the nations, yet is simultaneously warned not to intermarry with them. If total annihilation were the literal result, intermarriage would be impossible. This suggests that the primary goal was the “driving out” or eviction of the people and the destruction of their religious infrastructure, rather than the literal slaughter of every individual.

Deuteronomy 7:2-3 (NASB)

and when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them. ’Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons.

The Sovereignty and Justice of God

Ultimately, the conquest of Canaan forces a confrontation with the nature of divine justice. Modern sensibilities often struggle with the idea of a God who judges, yet the Bible asserts that God is the righteous Judge who must right every wrong. The pushback against these narratives often stems from a human-centric view that places the individual in the seat of judgment over the Creator. However, the biblical perspective maintains that the potter has authority over the clay.

Romans 9:20-21 (NASB)

On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, ‘Why did you make me like this,’ will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

God’s ways are frequently described as being beyond human comprehension. The judgment in Joshua was not based on ethnicity or a desire for land, but on a holy response to human depravity. The gravity of the judgment reflects the gravity of the sin. It serves as a historical precursor to the final judgment, where all evil will eventually be addressed by a holy God.

Isaiah 55:8-9 (NASB)

‘For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,’ declares the LORD. ’For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.

Conclusion: Judgment and the Gospel

The difficult narratives of Joshua 6 find their ultimate resolution in the cross of Christ. The same God who commanded the destruction of the Canaanites is the God who took the weight of divine wrath upon Himself. In His justice, God cannot leave sin unpunished; in His mercy, He provided a substitute. The judgment that the world deserves was placed upon Jesus, allowing for the salvation of any who, like Rahab the Canaanite, seek refuge in Him.

2 Corinthians 5:21 (NASB)

He made Him who knew no sin [to be] sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

The conquest of Canaan stands as a sobering reminder of the holiness of God and the destructiveness of sin. It demonstrates that God is patient, but that His patience has an end. However, for those who trust in the provision of Christ, the final judgment is not a source of terror but of hope, as the conquering King returns to put an end to all evil and establish a kingdom of eternal peace.